I think the biggest reason they're so cheap is that high fuel prices and environmental issues are hitting SUV market, full-size ones in particular, very hard - tons on the market. Used car prices are market driven and there aren't as many soccer mom yuppies buying these any more.
Why used Land Cruisers so cheap
- Thread starter M1Accord
- Start date
- Status
The OP's original question: Why are used Land cruisers so cheap?
The answer: because the used car market never lies. They cost exactly what someone is willing to pay.
The answer: because the used car market never lies. They cost exactly what someone is willing to pay.
My mother has a 98 landcruiser.
Repairs are expensive from what I hear. It has lasted and been fairly reliable It seats 8 people, but gas is expensive for it. Fuel filler cap saids Premium fuel only!!
Repairs are expensive from what I hear. It has lasted and been fairly reliable It seats 8 people, but gas is expensive for it. Fuel filler cap saids Premium fuel only!!
Last edited:
One word: Gas.
And some more: Parts/maintenance cost.
And this is coming from the owner of a '97. To whoever said the last true 4WD capable Landcruiser came out in '83, you are incorrect. That would be '97- the last of the solid front axle, inline-6 Landcruisers.
And some more: Parts/maintenance cost.
And this is coming from the owner of a '97. To whoever said the last true 4WD capable Landcruiser came out in '83, you are incorrect. That would be '97- the last of the solid front axle, inline-6 Landcruisers.
Gas, I would expect. When I was looking a few years ago they were very expensive - for the early (2000?) V8 ones. I wanted the Lexus LX470, but they were even more - even with really high miles.
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Because the last truly great Toyota land cruiser was built in 1983. The "classic 40" series TLC was one of the most awesome 4x4s ever built, right up there with the original Land Rover, the Dodge Power Wagon, and open Jeeps of all vintages. It was true Kalahari-capable machinery. If you find a great example of one now, it WILL NOT be cheap.
The 80-series and later, while still solid Toyota vehicles (and yes, those of you who know me know I'm no Toyota fan, but these aren't junk- they're decent machines) are severely degraded in offroad ability. They're really just on a par with things like 4x4 Chevy Tahoes, Ford Explorers, etc. They're not really comparable to the ZJ and WJ vintage solid-axle Grand Cherokees or the XJ Cherokees when it comes to offroading.
So your answer to why they're cheap is: either you're looking at a great offroad but very OLD and rundown vehicle in a classic 40, or you're looking at a a luxo SUV that's not really offroad material and is probably becoming a maintenance headache to its owners.
Then there's the current FJ 40, which I like to call the "Fake Jeep 40." Truth be told, from the body shell downward, it *IS* a capable offroad vehicle, much more like the classic 40 than the luxo 80-200 series Land Cruisers. The bad news- the body shell is HORRIBLE. Visibility is so awful I'd never take one of those rock crawling. No intrinsic visibility, horrible mirror size and placement, and lots of plastic => totally undermines the good capabilities of the drivetrain, frame, and suspension.
This is counter to my experience...and yes, I have owned, modified and wheeled all types of Land Cruisers.
The 80 series has better wheel travel, better power to weight ratio ('93 and later) and has factory lockers available (starting also in '93).
The stock 40 series had [censored] for a crawl ratio and that, coupled with the relatively weak motors, made rock crawling miserable with a stocker. A stock 80 with lockers is much better. Use a little common sense and spotting to make up for the greater overhang and you will go where the 40 cannot.
Now, modify a 40 to add lockers, a 60:1 crawl ratio and better wheel travel and it will generally beat a stock 80.
But stock vs stock, I'll take a locked 80 any day. A lot more comfy to the trail, too!
As to the low prices for used 80 series, I believe it is the 15 mpg that kills the re-sale more than anything else. I picked up my 4th Land Cruiser (a locked '93 with 65k miles) for $3,800!
Maintenance is expensive if you have to pay someone...but most of us do our own bearing and birfield maintenance. Much of the cost is labor (as is often the case).
My $0.02
Tim
Because the last truly great Toyota land cruiser was built in 1983. The "classic 40" series TLC was one of the most awesome 4x4s ever built, right up there with the original Land Rover, the Dodge Power Wagon, and open Jeeps of all vintages. It was true Kalahari-capable machinery. If you find a great example of one now, it WILL NOT be cheap.
The 80-series and later, while still solid Toyota vehicles (and yes, those of you who know me know I'm no Toyota fan, but these aren't junk- they're decent machines) are severely degraded in offroad ability. They're really just on a par with things like 4x4 Chevy Tahoes, Ford Explorers, etc. They're not really comparable to the ZJ and WJ vintage solid-axle Grand Cherokees or the XJ Cherokees when it comes to offroading.
So your answer to why they're cheap is: either you're looking at a great offroad but very OLD and rundown vehicle in a classic 40, or you're looking at a a luxo SUV that's not really offroad material and is probably becoming a maintenance headache to its owners.
Then there's the current FJ 40, which I like to call the "Fake Jeep 40." Truth be told, from the body shell downward, it *IS* a capable offroad vehicle, much more like the classic 40 than the luxo 80-200 series Land Cruisers. The bad news- the body shell is HORRIBLE. Visibility is so awful I'd never take one of those rock crawling. No intrinsic visibility, horrible mirror size and placement, and lots of plastic => totally undermines the good capabilities of the drivetrain, frame, and suspension.
This is counter to my experience...and yes, I have owned, modified and wheeled all types of Land Cruisers.
The 80 series has better wheel travel, better power to weight ratio ('93 and later) and has factory lockers available (starting also in '93).
The stock 40 series had [censored] for a crawl ratio and that, coupled with the relatively weak motors, made rock crawling miserable with a stocker. A stock 80 with lockers is much better. Use a little common sense and spotting to make up for the greater overhang and you will go where the 40 cannot.
Now, modify a 40 to add lockers, a 60:1 crawl ratio and better wheel travel and it will generally beat a stock 80.
But stock vs stock, I'll take a locked 80 any day. A lot more comfy to the trail, too!
As to the low prices for used 80 series, I believe it is the 15 mpg that kills the re-sale more than anything else. I picked up my 4th Land Cruiser (a locked '93 with 65k miles) for $3,800!
Maintenance is expensive if you have to pay someone...but most of us do our own bearing and birfield maintenance. Much of the cost is labor (as is often the case).
My $0.02
Tim
I have to agree, I think I'd rather have an 80 than a 40. The 80s were both super comfortable and great off road rigs. If they had made a pickup version of the 80 I'd want one bad. The 80 is more capable than it appears to be at first glance too...they are Dakar grade SUVs. A lot of things are easier/cheaper to build into great trail rigs, but stock for stock Toyota did know what they were doing, and that's coming from a die hard Explorer fan (pre-current monstrosity Taurus Explorer).
- Status
Similar threads
