Ok so I am trying to decide between these two vehicles. Whatever I get will be my daily driver and I will want to modify it to handle some pretty good offroading. If I go with the Cherokee I can get a newer year and less miles. If I go with the Landcruiser I will probably have to find one that has at least 150K miles that I can afford right now. So please give me some opinions and first hand experience any of you might have. I just test drove a cherokee tonight and I was impressed. It had some rust on the frame so I think I am staying away. But it drove nice and is a vehicle I could be happy in every day. I have not driven a Landcruiser. I would also want a 91 to 97 landcruiser. Its the 80 series with the straight 6 and soild front axle. TIA.
Jeep Cherokee or Toyota Landcruiser?
- Thread starter mcrn
- Start date
- Status
Toyota all the way. I could list a bunch of reasons, but since I'm on this particular board right now the 4.7 Liter engine is one of the lowest wearing engines on the road. I had a Tundra with that engine and it was sweet!
Well, everything on the Cherokee will be much cheaper. Maintenence, modifications, everything... They are also more nimble on the trail.
As for reliability, I would call a toss up. I knew a guy who blew his Land Cruiser's transmission up before 130K, ironically enough, towing his Cherokee to trails. The Cherokee never really had serious problems.
One advantage to Land Cruisers is that it is not too hard to find ones that have been well cared for. Cherokees are less expensive SUVs for the masses, and as a result, many have been run into the ground and poorly maintained. That is not to say that every Land Cruiser was lovingly maintained by its owner, but the odds of finding one that was are better.
As for reliability, I would call a toss up. I knew a guy who blew his Land Cruiser's transmission up before 130K, ironically enough, towing his Cherokee to trails. The Cherokee never really had serious problems.
One advantage to Land Cruisers is that it is not too hard to find ones that have been well cared for. Cherokees are less expensive SUVs for the masses, and as a result, many have been run into the ground and poorly maintained. That is not to say that every Land Cruiser was lovingly maintained by its owner, but the odds of finding one that was are better.
A well serviced Landcrusher is much more heay-duty. They were designed to survive pretty hostile enviroments. If you have ever worked on both it is obvious by the size and weight of the drivetrain of the Crusher to see it was meant to take alot of harsh conditions. If the engines are serviced they will not die. Doing a spring-over and installing lockers is about all you need to make a serious off-road machine. Unlike the Cherokee the Crusher's stock diffs and axles are strong ehough for all but the harshest 4X4ing.
Now for the downsides of owning a Crusher.
1. It is seriously heavy- MPG and 1/4mile times are not stellar.
2. The front rotors and pads will wear quickly if you are a hard braker.(10-15K miles if you hit 'em hard alot)
3.SOME parts are costly if they are dealer items only.
If gas prices were not what they are I would have one in my garage. I used to work with a guy that had sold Crushers since the mid 70s. He said one of the ways they would show how well a Crusher could limp home in the desert was to remove all but one spark plug wire and fire it up. Unbelieveably,it would limp on one cylinder. The later models(1997-up U.S. market) are somewhat refined for those who wanted the status of owning a new 60K crusher but didn't want the ride of a real off-road machine.
I'm not saying the Cherokee is a bad vehicle. The older ones with the 4.0L mated to the AISIAN WARNER automatic were pretty reliable SUVs. The 4.0L provided good pep and the AW auto provided the customer with a much better auto tranny than the other units they used. Some were famous for "main bearing rumble". Not sure what years were afflicted. It is much better compared to a F
Now for the downsides of owning a Crusher.
1. It is seriously heavy- MPG and 1/4mile times are not stellar.
2. The front rotors and pads will wear quickly if you are a hard braker.(10-15K miles if you hit 'em hard alot)
3.SOME parts are costly if they are dealer items only.
If gas prices were not what they are I would have one in my garage. I used to work with a guy that had sold Crushers since the mid 70s. He said one of the ways they would show how well a Crusher could limp home in the desert was to remove all but one spark plug wire and fire it up. Unbelieveably,it would limp on one cylinder. The later models(1997-up U.S. market) are somewhat refined for those who wanted the status of owning a new 60K crusher but didn't want the ride of a real off-road machine.
I'm not saying the Cherokee is a bad vehicle. The older ones with the 4.0L mated to the AISIAN WARNER automatic were pretty reliable SUVs. The 4.0L provided good pep and the AW auto provided the customer with a much better auto tranny than the other units they used. Some were famous for "main bearing rumble". Not sure what years were afflicted. It is much better compared to a F
It did it again! Compared to a Ford Explorer or Chevy Blazer. I think I would take a Cherokee with the AW tranny over the Blazer and Exploder.
Good luck and if you need any info on the Crushers feel free to PM me.
Good luck and if you need any info on the Crushers feel free to PM me.
Land Cruiser:
full time AWD (3 diffs, all lockable as an option)
Solid Front Axle
Body-on-frame construction
I get 16.2 mpg, stock everything.
Cherokee:
2WD/4WD (2 diffs?)
Solid Front Axle?
Unibody construction?
Both have lots of aftermarket suspension goodies available.
Which would have better resale value?
full time AWD (3 diffs, all lockable as an option)
Solid Front Axle
Body-on-frame construction
I get 16.2 mpg, stock everything.
Cherokee:
2WD/4WD (2 diffs?)
Solid Front Axle?
Unibody construction?
Both have lots of aftermarket suspension goodies available.
Which would have better resale value?
I do not know about that. Cherokee's are great off road, but a 5-speed first generation Explorer is hard to beat. They have better axles right out of the box. There is a reason why a lot of Jeepers switch to Ford axles. Plus, Explorers and Blazers have frames, which is an advantage off road. Cherokees do flex a good bit. Blazer frames are really low though, and they always came with true IFS (compared to the TIB setup in first gen Explorers which works pretty well, though it is no replacement for true SFA).
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
I'd say for heavy to serious offroad use, I'd choose the Cherokee. If breakage occurs ...and it surely will -eventually ..parts are plentiful and relatively cheap.
Get the Cruiser if you need some notion of "traditionally robust" heritage. I would think it mainly an aesthetic thing after your wallet gets shaken out.
Get the Cruiser if you need some notion of "traditionally robust" heritage. I would think it mainly an aesthetic thing after your wallet gets shaken out.
I'll agree with Gary on the XJ. Depending on how "serious" you want to wheel, it's the better choice. Look for a later one with the 8.25" rear or swap in a Dana44 from a '87-'89. The front Dana30 can hold it's own and the 4.0L/AW4/NP231 drivetrain is very solid. Parts and upgrades are inexpensive and replacing body panels on the XJ will be much cheaper than any Toy.
A friend with a Land Cruiser got rid of it at about 100k miles as the dealer couldn't fix the bad mileage it started getting, but otherwise most seem to consider them reliable. It seems to have gotten better lately, but for awhile the most common newer vehicle I saw on the side of the road were the bigger fancy Jeeps.
What Gary said
Have you considered other options? Why not an older 4Runner? Depending on how difficult the wheeling is you plan to do, the aftermarket parts for many Toyota's is significantly cheaper than the equivalent Jeep parts.
Example: My Dual Ultimate double transfer case setup in my 89 4Runner would retail for about $1500 and gives me three sets of low range gears (2.28:1, 4.70:1 & 10.72:1). A similar t-case setup for a Jeep would likely be an Atlas II for $2,500 plus and it would only have two low range possibilities. Toyota axles are strong than Jeep axles stock. Check out www.marlincrawler.com for some excellent Toyota products and info. I'm blackdiamond on that forum as well.
Example: My Dual Ultimate double transfer case setup in my 89 4Runner would retail for about $1500 and gives me three sets of low range gears (2.28:1, 4.70:1 & 10.72:1). A similar t-case setup for a Jeep would likely be an Atlas II for $2,500 plus and it would only have two low range possibilities. Toyota axles are strong than Jeep axles stock. Check out www.marlincrawler.com for some excellent Toyota products and info. I'm blackdiamond on that forum as well.
I 2nd the older 4Runner recommendation. It's also a body on frame vehicle like the Land Cruiser. How much hard off road use will a unibody XJ stand before it becomes a rattle trap?
I doubt the Toyota engines will be any more reliable than a Jeep 4.0L, but I wouldn't expect them to be much worse provided you avoid a 3.0L 4Runner without the updated head gaskets.
The driveline is probably a tossup but the overall vehicle quality will be a lot higher with a Toyota. This became quite obvious to me when comparing my 2000 4runner to a 2001 Grand Cherokee my daughter had. My truck has been off the road plenty, hers never. Yet hers that was newer with less miles was always in need of repair for one thing or another while I did nothing but routine maintenance to my Toyota...
I doubt the Toyota engines will be any more reliable than a Jeep 4.0L, but I wouldn't expect them to be much worse provided you avoid a 3.0L 4Runner without the updated head gaskets.
The driveline is probably a tossup but the overall vehicle quality will be a lot higher with a Toyota. This became quite obvious to me when comparing my 2000 4runner to a 2001 Grand Cherokee my daughter had. My truck has been off the road plenty, hers never. Yet hers that was newer with less miles was always in need of repair for one thing or another while I did nothing but routine maintenance to my Toyota...
Yeah good point. A 4Runner is more similar in cost, size and 4WD drivetrain to a Cherokee than a Land Cruiser.
As wonderful as Toyotas
are I would get the jeep.For the above reasons.
I say Cherokee.
In 10 years, my 96 has never required anything but routine maintenence, though I invetn things to worry about (ask Gary).
Recently replaced the cat(on Chrysler's tab) and two oxygen sensors, as well as water pump. Not too bad for 134K, I gthink.
I always get 19 mpg unless I go on a highway trip, then it's 22-24.
In 10 years, my 96 has never required anything but routine maintenence, though I invetn things to worry about (ask Gary).
Recently replaced the cat(on Chrysler's tab) and two oxygen sensors, as well as water pump. Not too bad for 134K, I gthink.
I always get 19 mpg unless I go on a highway trip, then it's 22-24.
If it weren't for Jeep we would all be speaking Japanese right now
We would be speaking Japanese on the west coast and German on the east coast.
- Status
Similar threads
