Howdy to all reliable vehicle fans!

[karl webster]

Pe

Just been reading Parkers specs just for comparison purposes, not to necessarily believe all the figures. The MPG looks pretty similar for petrol 80s and diesel ones, is there any argument for having a petrol based on the fact it's a bit cheaper per litre?

Petrol 80s won't get anywhere near the derv.

Personally the 80 is the best option for me. I have a couple. I've had the autos and manuals and the late 24v manual is the best on fuel. I run bio and have ran veg in the past so the mpg doesn't matter too much.
To pull 3.5t like I do the 80 manual is great.

I've had 100 series and 90 series and still run 80s. Personally for myself I don't think anything else could stand it to the work I give them.

 

[AndycruiserguyLomas]

Just been reading Parkers specs just for comparison purposes, not to necessarily believe all the figures. The MPG looks pretty similar for petrol 80s and diesel ones, is there any argument for having a petrol based on the fact it's a bit cheaper per litre?

Believe me from experience a petrol 80 even with an LPG conversion is not as economical as a diesel especially on a run, I've had 2 and to run were too minty for me.
I've had a lot of Cruisers and the only one I didn't have to do remedial work on was the first 80 which was 2 years old .
On the question of economy a 100 diesel isnt quite as economical as a 24V manual 80 which will crack 30MPG in a run and a 24V auto might get 28, a good 100 might get 26 on a run but more like 20 around town)
The 100 you are looking at, is it a 4 or 5 speed auto? There is a world of difference in the models and this is reflected in the difference in price.

Depending on budget and size of flock a good condition Collie can be a good buy ( esp D4D) , Will get 30 on a run but 23/4 around town or spend half the D4D purchase price on a V6 and live with 19-24mpg and a ton of refinement.

If you are set on a Cruiser the best thing you can do is to take an experienced owner with you, one who knows their peculiarities, this can save you a ton of time and money rebuilding something you wish you were driving. Bear in mind these trucks in your ( and mine) price bracket are 13-25 years old and rust can be problematic at that age, as well as neglect.

If I was in the market for a "super" 80 I'd be giving this a view and see if its as good as the price suggests

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Landcruiser-Amazon-/201959278065?hash=item2f05b605f1:g:skgAAOSwiQ9ZR7pW

and see if it could be negotiated down to a sensible level.


These are just my opinions through 20 years of Landcruiser ownership. I always do all my own maintenance and always check MPG just as a matter of interest.

I hope this has been of help, you only learn by asking.

 

[Chris]

A Collie is a Colorado - the 95 series Cruiser. Solid rear axle IFS. It was the predecessor to the 120 series effectively. Last of the line got the D4D engine. All round a damn good 4x4 if you can find one. My neighbour recently sold a belter. No one here was remotely interested in it. Shame cos it was very good indeed and went for peanuts.

BEBs are the big end bearings. Search on here for the full story. But they're the caps that hold the pistons onto the crank. Long story, but if it's a UK vehicle and a 12v that hasn't had the factory shells swapped out then it could genuinely be a ticking time bomb. No warning at all just BANG. Swapping them is a morning's work and a little under £100 all told. This is not an old wife's tale trust me. The hard shoulder is littered with bits of 80 engine block from non-believers.

 

[AndycruiserguyLomas]

A Collie is a Colorado - the 95 series Cruiser. Solid rear axle IFS. It was the predecessor to the 120 series effectively. Last of the line got the D4D engine. All round a damn good 4x4 if you can find one. My neighbour recently sold a belter. No one here was remotely interested in it. Shame cos it was very good indeed and went for peanuts..

IIRC Chris, wasn't your neighbours a manual? If It was that might have been the sticking point. I remember seeing it and it was mint.

 

[Chris]

It was a manual and I think in that particular model, a benefit. Tonnes of torque and a decent 5 speed box. The autos of that era were nice to drive but nothing like the later 120 5 speed auto. OK when you're on the motorway in D it's all good, but the box didn't used to change up until around 55 mph which means when toodling around you weren't getting the economy. With the manual you can pop it into top at about 30. I guess it all depends on what driving you are planning. I liked my auto Collie but when doing my Scotland runs I used to be stuck behind tractors, army convoys etc for mile after mile at 40 odd. Really hammered the mpg

 

[Shayne]

I wasn't trying to be poetic or glib so sorry if it came across that way , i was thinking about your vehicle history .

No Cruiser is likely to suffer catastrophic failure if its had even an inkling of care and my 90 was in very good condition when i bought it , but its 19 years old and i have no doubt spent at least 3 times its resale value on it in my 5 years of ownership .

I hope this explains why the fuel consumption thing seems entirely redundant to me .

Good luck with your search .

 

[AndycruiserguyLomas]

It was a manual and I think in that particular model, a benefit. Tonnes of torque and a decent 5 speed box. The autos of that era were nice to drive but nothing like the later 120 5 speed auto. OK when you're on the motorway in D it's all good, but the box didn't used to change up until around 55 mph which means when toodling around you weren't getting the economy. With the manual you can pop it into top at about 30. I guess it all depends on what driving you are planning. I liked my auto Collie but when doing my Scotland runs I used to be stuck behind tractors, army convoys etc for mile after mile at 40 odd. Really hammered the mpg

Mmmmn I know what you mean Chris, the 5 speed auto is preferable of the 120 but I guess its down to what you end up paying for your Cruiser . What I paid for my D4D Collie I would have to have paid double+ to get the equivalent condition 120 so I can live with the 4 speeder for now. Funnily enough the V6 auto box drops into O/D at 40 MPH whereas like you say the D4D one is 50+.

 

[flint]

I did a round trip one day this week (sad day, brothers funeral) in my V6 auto 95. Mixed running, up the coast road to Aberystwyth and then over to near Lincoln and back, about 450 miles, not racing but not hanging about and got just under 25mpg. First petrol vehicle that I’ve had for ages, but I don’t do big mileages these days and the V6 does make for pleasant travel and bargains can be had. Local running with lots of hills and windy roads sees around 20mpg.

 

[joeyjune]

Thanks very much Dave. Yes I drove a 100 yesterday and whilst I haven't driven an 80 (not in too many years to remember it anyway) I would have no trouble believing you on the comfort score. And yes you're right, I don't plan on any serious offloading. Some shooting across farmland, towing a boat, steep gravel tracks occasionally to access fishing spots, that's about it. The rest is just a love of LCs and a desire to have a solid truck under my ar5e

 

[joeyjune]

Thanks Flint, that's really interesting. Sounds to me like zero difference in your case between a petrol and a diesel on MPG. If that's the case I can see an argument for a petrol (quieter, smoother, faster) without any cost in MPG, or in theory maybe even a saving with petrol costs lower (although presumably you would use higher RON petrol not the basic stuff). Having said that, perhaps even more argument to go for an LPG converted one like this? http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classif...Nearly New&onesearchad=New&make=TOYOTA&page=3

 

[joeyjune]

I don't know why, probably been influenced heavily by my friend who was so adamant about it, but I have had a feeling for a while that only the 80s and 100s are "proper" Land Cruisers, and the colorados and 120s are nothing like the vehicle of the previous models. I am trying to get rid of that possible prejudice, but I have to say it's hard to do when you look at prices. I can find lower mileage newer LCs for less money than higher mileage older ones, why is that? Because of a false prejudice like mine, or because it's true and they just aren't half the vehicle after 2009?!

 

[joeyjune]

I may go and see this one as it's not too far from me and I have never looked over the 120s....
http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classif...ion=at_cars&make=TOYOTA&price-to=11000&page=1

 

[flint]

Mines a 95 series Colorado and I would expect better consumption from a D4D, but the price difference (as already said) does buy a fair old bit of fuel. As for the 100 (a heavier vehicle) with the lpg, it does tend to be a buyer beware thing, I’ve read quite a few reports of head problems, valve recession etc., which can be expensive to put right. The petrol engines were designed to run on petrol and the diesels were designed to run on diesel, an obvious statement but using other fuels can be problematical. And as always, probably needless to say but, whatever model you go for, check for rust problems and general condition underneath… all that glitters is not gold and all that.

 

[joeyjune]

Well said and good advice thanks.

"all that glitters is not gold and all that." - Why didn't you tell me that before I met my wife?

 

[Gary820]

Did someone say petrol

Cheaper to buy, often lower miles. If you spend a couple of grand less it buys a lot of fuel.

Real world use... now mine isn't exactly standard and will consistently return 20mpg on a run. Lots of round town stuff can mean a tank is gone in 120 miles!! Yep it can be that bad.

Now bearing in mind it runs 35 inch mud tyres, lifted, has a bit of extra weight with armour, winch, drawers, wheel carrier etc.
I run the higher octane fuel, advanced ignition timing, a mapped piggy back ecu and uprated ignition leads, free flow cat converters etc the old girl is no slouch. Now add up those bits you've bought a good condition diesel 80

Is the petrol better then the diesel, hell yeah it is right upto the point you plan your trips around fuel stops

I personally wouldn't touch one with lpg, don't like the stuff never have, never will.

It sounds like an oil burner is where you want to be looking

 

[chapel gate]

[QUOTE="joeye, post: 1449813, member: 15806"IWell said and good advice thanks.

"all that glitters is not gold and all that." - Why didn't you tell me that before I met my wife? [/QUOTE]


Lol. Now your In trouble..

80s and 90s can be In much better condition rust wise than 100s and 120s. Even given there vintage.

 

[joeyjune]

hahaha, Thanks Gary, that was a fun read and sounds like you have one tricked up truck, nice!

"80s and 90s can be In much better condition rust wise than 100s and 120s. Even given there vintage." - Yes someone else (local friend) told me the same.

Does anyone have a view on why the 120s are so much cheaper than older 100s and 80s with comparable mileage? I mean, hugely cheaper. Are they lesser vehicles, or are there just more on the market so it brings demand/price down?

I have to say, the 100 is my favourite, but everything I read suggests the 120 3.0 D4D will definitely be slightly better on fuel, and I really do need to keep my fuel costs as low as possible so I "should" be looking at 120s but I just don't like em as much not that I have driven one yet, I have only driven the 100. I don't like the new manual looking auto stick, the poxy orrible touch screen control gimmick bollox, and the rounded smoother girlier hairdresser appearance of the entire body!

The 120s LOOK smaller (in photos) compared to 100s, but I think I am right in saying the size is pretty much the same, just shape changed?
Also I think I would prefer the lift up/drop down boot arrangement rather than the discovery style rear barn door of the 120s (which from my Disco days I fear dropped hinges, and must be hard to get into in a car park.

Hmmm lots to ponder, but this forum has been a great help. I have resisted the urge to include petrols in my hunt now, so I am making progress here thanks to you wonderful chaps. Diesel it is. I just have to decide whether i can afford the fairly scary 20mpg of the 100 4.2TD, or pussy out and get a more "rounded" modern (puke) 120 to get 30mpg more often (on reasonable long run) which would definitely add pleasure to my journeys and remove some fear of fuel pumps, but at the same time, I won't feel like I am in a "proper" land cruiser !!
Someone tell me if I am being silly with any of this thinking!

 

[fbnss]

80's and 100's are big, 90's and 120's are not as big, in old money it would be like comparing an escort with a sierra.
Thats how i've always looked at it (rightly or wrongly)

so you've got 60's then 80's then 100's then 200's

and 90's 120's and i think 150's

 

[joeyjune]

I am sure I looked up the specifications and couldn't see any difference in size, I must have read it wrong.

I only know of 80 100 and 120s, what's a 90? someone mentioned a 105 i think too, adding to my confusion, which isn't hard to do I must admit

 

[fbnss]

If you'll stick with me...
80 = sierra
100= mondeo
90 = escort
120= focus
Its all a bit confusing and i promise to shut up now
A 105 is a 100 with solid axles not ifs, rare over here.