Clive, when the 80 was being sold new, people buying them did not buy them because they were "rugged", they bought them because they were "high end" and the competition was a RR P38 with a 2.5 diesel or antiquated Buick V8.
I doubt many people over here buy a new high end vehicle with its "practical abilities off road" in mind, this may not be true down under however.
Lots of people look at 80's through rose tinted lenses I feel, Toyota didn't make a 100 series with IFS because it wasn't better than an 80. The front suspension is very strong indeed whilst giving a better ride than an 80 one would have to be doing something extreme to break it.
Apart from dedicated off roaders the solid front axle has become a relic of the past in my opinion.
It would be an interesting comparison between an 80 and a 200 series in a dedicated off road test.
I'm not denying anything in what you say above Andy, yet I don't necessarily agree with the IFS being better or stronger than an 80 bit, as I understand it they suffered a high rate of failure in the early days with wishbones cracking and all sorts. It's an unfair comparison in any event, IFS is for comfort and better asphalt handling and the solid axle is for strength and offroad ruggedness at the expense of that comfort. The whole concept of the vehicle changed between the 80 and the 100, otherwise why did they contemplate the 105? That (again IMO) was purely to appease the complaints from down under that Toyota had done the unthinkable to their beloved re-vamped 80's, with a 100 badge and poncy IFS! (these are carefully chosen Aussie type words not mine
)
What's interesting to me is the status of an 80 in today's market, given that they are all at the least 18 years old, the majority will have at least 150-300k miles on the clock and have likely suffered the rigours of farm life or hauling of one type or another in their later years. As said, the "bubble-wrap garaged 45k miles 80" is a rare thing.
In relation to this thread, Bund wants an 80 that's as pristine as possible, with a clear emphasis on a "tidy" interior.
Others will have different reasons for wanting an 80.
Chris, for example, in his earlier 80 days, did a lot of extreme offroad, trials and "play days" testing himself and his truck's abilities to the limit. A pristine 80 to Chris then would have been useless for that, or even sacrilege in some folks view (including mine).
My truck was battered when I bought it, but it suits me. After base-lining it and even a re-spray, I now have a tidy-ish truck that I'm not afraid to take offroad (damage-wise) simply because it's a long way from mint.
I love my truck for its ability, and the degree of comfort that comes with it. Series LR's are capable (to a lesser extent) but the thought of being bounced around in a tin-can (and fixing it every weekend) doesn't appeal much. Been there and never again!
80's are not high-end any more. Sad but true. But they are still "rugged" and easily demonstrate their "practical abilities off road", they are nostalgia, TLC, workhorses, and in Bund's view a lovely place to be whether going to work or going on a run (as is mine to a much lesser degree) whereas in my view, it's offroad abilities outweigh its comfort and "mint" appeal.
Horses for courses.
Us 80 owners are as different as our vehicles are IMO, same truck, different reasons for having them. But old they are and the likes of them will never come back on the market as a new vehicle, hence the nostalgia. It's part of the appeal.
Don't we just love 'em, for a whole rainbow of reasons. 'Scuse the rambling on.
