• If you currently own, previously owned or want to own an Avalanche, we welcome you to become a member today. Membership is FREE, register now!

STOCK 05 Z71 4X4 VS 94 TOY LANDCRUISER

L

LAURASDAD

Full Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2007
Messages
71
Ok, I need your help.  I have a friend with a 94 Toy Landcruiser 4x4.  He thinks the Landcruiser is the ultimate off road machine.

If we compare stock models; how does the 05 Avy compare?  It is the Z71 4x4 model with the 3.71 rear end.

I need specifics to throw at him.

thanks very much

Larry
 
Simple


TOP TEN REASONS THE AV IS BETTER THEN SOME TOYOTA

1(He will never have the 25,000 (+) instant family members as passionate about that thing as with the Avalanche.

2) Crystal River GTG

3) Southern Nights GTG

4) Music City Mayhem GTG

5) STI

6) STI-II

7) STI-III

:cool: STI-IV

9) STI-V

10) IT's an AVALANCHE
 
the av has a nearly 50/50 weight balance which helps quite a bit

that would be a 3.73 rear end  :)
 
he will hand you, your a$$ offroad

But if you challange him, both of you have to haul 10 sheets of 8' x4' sheet rock inside and none can break.......
 
Alaska_AV. said:
he will hand you, your a$$ offroad

But if you challange him, both of you have to haul 10 sheets of 8' x4' sheet rock inside and none can break.......
Click to expand...
(y) :laugh:
 
He will dominate you


especially if it is one with front and rear lockers from the factory


he is solid front and rear axle


where you have a very limited amount of travel with your front suspension


let alone he has a tighter backwoods turning raduis
 
The longer wheelbase of the Avalanche will help in areas with washouts.  I do not know if the Avalanche has a wider track, but the wider the track, the more it helps with these off-camber areas too.  It is fun going offroading with Jeeps in situations like this, because if they attempt to cross a washout, they are all over the place, wheels in the air, while something with a longer wheelbase has a much easier job of it.  And when straddling washouts, the Jeep is too narrow and falls in, whereas wider vehicles just keep the tires on either side.  (Unless you slide in and flip the vehicle on its side like I did -- whoops!)  Of course, that shorter wheelbase of the Toyota will make for tighter turns and its narrower girth will let it fit between trees where other vehicles cannot.  (I recall having to do a 15-point turn on a switchback where Jeeps just had to do a four- or five-point turn.)
 
Hope the challenge is not for pinks because you'll have a long walk home.

I don't know what's so hard to understand about IFS sucking offroad or weight being your enemy.  Approach angles are bad, clearance is bad, and there's very few instances where a long wheelbase has an advantage offroad.

In the spirit of a good old fashioned challenge, take him on.  Just be ready for the ridicule.
 
BUDMAN said:
I don't know what's so hard to understand about IFS sucking offroad or weight being your enemy.? Approach angles are bad, clearance is bad, and there's very few instances where a long wheelbase has an advantage offroad.
Click to expand...
While I would not place bets on the Avalanche beating the Landcruiser offroad, I think it is unfair to simply say that IFS sucks.  This is a debate that has raged for years and at the end of the day, both sides of the debate come across as being pretty thick-headed.  The pros and cons or each all come down to where one offroads, and with a majority of offroad groups being comprised of Jeeps, where do you expect the offroading to occur?  Even though all of my offroad experience has been with groups of Jeeps, I have had to strap onto Jeeps to keep them from rolling, had to pull them out of bogs, and pull them out of the bush more times than I have had to get pulled out.  And not just once or twice more, but on average I've had to help them out two or three times more than I've required it.  I can assure you that it is not my prowess offroad -- because there is none -- that results in this.  It simply comes down to the vehicles.

I did not offroad much when I owned my Wrangler, but enough to know that a solid axle does not always equate to an obvious benefit offroad.  The truth of the matter is -- and I'm not referring to you specifically, but others I have known -- is that a lot of anti-IFS sentiment comes from a lot of people who truly have no idea, and have never even tried to use IFS.  It is simply easier to hop on the bandwagon and just say, "Yeah, it sucks!"

So to say IFS sucks is pretty harsh, given the advantages it has.  Maybe not as numerous as a solid axle, but depending on how and where you offroad, both can be pretty well on par.  It just requires different offroading styles.
 
I know we won't see eye to eye on this, but let's give it a shot.  Yes, IFS does have some advantages if you're into offroad desert type racing, especially with long arms.  Rocky trails will lend it's hand to a smoother ride in an IFS.  When it comes to articulation and durability, there's not 1 IFS that can hang with a 4-linked SFA.  Taking the Wrangler and stretching the wb to 106" with a pair of 1-ton axles is pretty unstoppable.  A stock Jeep wouldn't even compare.  Also, aftermarket parts for IFS just don't have the same availability as that of a SFA.  I'm sure you've seen a comparison of a CV shaft to a solid axle with u-joints.  It's actually kind of scary considering the torque that's being doled out.  What about the durability of the pitman and idler arms, or should I say lack of, on the IFS?

This isn't a winnable battle, and I'm not looking to convert anyone.  The AV is best served with an IFS and the ride would suffer dramatically without it.  There's lots that could be improved with the design, but isn't that true of everything?  My 2500 HD is IFS, and that's just the way it is.  I don't plan on taking it on any hardcore offroad trails because that's not what it's made for, and that's why I have a jeep and 4-wheelers.  The AV was taken offroad on some pretty tough stuff in Colorado, and it was fun.  The breakage was not.  You can pamper almost anything and make it go offroad.  Down the road, you'll always end up with some sort of carnage.
 
BUDMAN said:
I know we won't see eye to eye on this, but let's give it a shot.? Yes, IFS does have some advantages if you're into offroad desert type racing, especially with long arms.? Rocky trails will lend it's hand to a smoother ride in an IFS.? When it comes to articulation and durability, there's not 1 IFS that can hang with a 4-linked SFA.? Taking the Wrangler and stretching the wb to 106" with a pair of 1-ton axles is pretty unstoppable.? A stock Jeep wouldn't even compare.? Also, aftermarket parts for IFS just don't have the same availability as that of a SFA.? I'm sure you've seen a comparison of a CV shaft to a solid axle with u-joints.? It's actually kind of scary considering the torque that's being doled out.? What about the durability of the pitman and idler arms, or should I say lack of, on the IFS?

This isn't a winnable battle, and I'm not looking to convert anyone.? The AV is best served with an IFS and the ride would suffer dramatically without it.? There's lots that could be improved with the design, but isn't that true of everything?? My 2500 HD is IFS, and that's just the way it is.? I don't plan on taking it on any hardcore offroad trails because that's not what it's made for, and that's why I have a jeep and 4-wheelers.? The AV was taken offroad on some pretty tough stuff in Colorado, and it was fun.? The breakage was not.? You can pamper almost anything and make it go offroad.? Down the road, you'll always end up with some sort of carnage.
Click to expand...
I am not aiming to convert anyone either.  Quite the contrary.  I simply like the facts to be laid out for both setups.  I hear far too much of, "do it this way" or, "do it that way" in the offroad forums, clubs, and meets I frequent, and it is frustrating to hear people toot their own horn for no other reason than because it is their horn.

To be honest, I have only seen a few situations where extreme articulation has been a benfit.  But then again, I do not do rock crawling or anything that extreme.  The groups that I offroad with tackle rugged terrain, but nothing that IFS has not had a problem with in terms of articulation.  Sure, a tire may leave the ground -- or two in two situations I was in, or four in one situation -- but most vehicles are still moderately happy in these situations.  The joints of an IFS system are certainly its weak spot, but through a lot of research performed by myself and others, including several anti-IFS people, we have found that while there is not the same amount of front-end components available to beef up the front end as a solid axle setup, there are still numerous ones.  Really, how many ways can you do the same thing with a part?  Whether one setup has five aftermarket options and another setup has 50 aftermarket options, it really doesn't matter so long as there is at least one really good option available out of those five or 50.  I have seen IFS setups with so much work performed on them that the torque they can deal with is unreal.  There might be a maintenance issue with IFS, as even an overkill setup would still be something I would want to regularly inspect, but I do not see the torque issue being as great as it used to be.

I suppose that at the end of the day, my point would be that an IFS system can be made to be just as strong as a solid axle setup.  Then again, most solid axle setups could have a lot more work put into them too.  On our last outing, two Jeeps were left 500 meters into the trip after severe front end damage leaving them undrivable.  The jury is still out on what the vehicle vs. what the driver had to do with this, and I still haven't heard what actually went on the front end, but my point is simply that I have seen solid axle setups grenade too.

Just my two cents. :)
 
SFA's will grenade, especially driven hard in the rocks.  It usually occurs on the long side and the yoke or u-joint give way.  It also usually happens when the wheel is locked and the tire bites and twists too far in.  Hubs can go too, but there's nothing easier to replace. 

The true differences occur in the rocks, and there's not one IFS vehicle I would ever consider taking over that terrain.  It will break.

Larry, what terrain is the other guy talking about?
 
BUDMAN said:
SFA's will grenade, especially driven hard in the rocks.? It usually occurs on the long side and the yoke or u-joint give way.? It also usually happens when the wheel is locked and the tire bites and twists too far in.? Hubs can go too, but there's nothing easier to replace.?

The true differences occur in the rocks, and there's not one IFS vehicle I would ever consider taking over that terrain.? It will break.

Larry, what terrain is the other guy talking about?
Click to expand...
The other thing that I have seen take out front ends -- SFA and IFS alike -- is getting too much air and just giving it more of the skinny pedal, and the moment the wheels hit the ground, it's game over.

As far as terrain, maybe Larry will be lucky and it will be muskeg with plenty of solid-ground runup to it. :)
 
If it was me I would be glad to go Wheelin.
Every one I knows :rolleyes: says they want to go. Till it is time to go.

Funny though Up at Rausch (150 miles from home)
One of those Jeeps on the Trail Garages just 3 blocks away from me.

So Why not Just Go Play together.  (y)

Also are you both stock? ???
 
I think it will depend alot on the driver also, remember this is the 1994 Landcruiser..I know all LC's are good offroad, but this is the suv style...I think the av will take it depending on the terrain..I know mine would...
 
I ran across this article from USA today.   Sometimes they do get it right! The link to the article is:

www. usatoday. com/money/autos/2004-03-02-trucks_x. htm

Consumer Reports rates 14 four-wheel-drive vehicles, of 34 tested, true off-roaders.   From the best down:
1.   Toyota Tacoma TRD
2.   Chevrolet Avalanche
3.   Toyota Tundra
4.   Toyota Land Cruiser
5.   Land Rover Discovery
6.   Toyota 4Runner
7.   Lexus GX470
8.   Dodge Ram
9.   Land Rover Freelander
10.   Jeep Grand Cherokee
11.   Kia Sorento
12.   Nissan Xterra
13.   VW Touareg
14.   Mitsubishi Montero

Worst

Weight, on-road design put Expedition at bottom:
Chevrolet TrailBlazer/GMC Envoy
Ford Explorer Sport Trac
Ford Explorer
Ford Expedition
 
I would have liked to know more about how they tested that.  Actual, real world tests, equal optioning, etc. 

For example, the Trailblazer.  Before I had the Av, I had a Trailblazer.  I'm not going to preach that it's the ultimate off-road vehicle, but it sure as heck proved it's capability on more than one occasion.  Wonder if that was an EXT or regular wheelbase. 

Also, wonder where the Silverado and F-150 are in this??

Interesting article, but I get weary of newspapers and mags when they act like they know cars.
 
The 94 - 96 aka FZJ80 TLC's are probably the best years that Toyota made TLC's. I have an 84 FJ60 and it kicks the crap out of almost all offroad vehicles out there. But mine is carb'ed and the FZJ80's have one of the best FI 6's out there. It was made bulletproof. We are not talking about the latest edition of TLC's that are too heavy and more road minded for the yuppies that will pay 80K plus for them. We are talking about years of making hard core off road vehicles that culminated in those years before they went soccer mom.

That TLC will out last the Av, have a lower cost of maintenance than the Av, kick the crap out of the Av off road, But. . . the Av will be more comfortable, get a bit better gas mileage, tow more weight, drive better on the road and like someone else said, be much more functional for every day life as a guy.

So, it is apples and oranges. . . But if you are talking about pure off roading. . . be prepared to eat crow.

OH. . . and they have a great website too. . . . www. ih8mud. com
 
Here's a quick run down on how it's going to go. He's going to engage his front and rear lockers and leave you sitting somewhere. If he REALLY wants to embarass you, he'll disconnect his sway bars.
 
It would be interesting to know how this little challenge went down...... Laurasdad??

I imagine the old "jeep style" Landcruiser will typically walk away from most any Av in most off road conditions..... exceptions being deep mud & hill climbs. I'd give the heavier, longer wheelbase Av the advantage.

In my own case, this thing is a tow rig for the toys that REALLY go off road. We have a pair of ATVs. Mine is an 05 Arctic Cat 650V2, lifted a bit, Mudlite tires on it & the thing goes & goes & goes. Deep mud, snow, hills, ruts, trails, trees, rocks, whatever. With a descent rider, it rarely gets turned around..... with me on it, yea, I use the winch occasionally. And if the ATVs ever break, we load it on to the trailer & tug it home for a warm, comfortable ride home in the Avalanche!
 
As said in an earlier post an LC with lockers sways unhooked will make you look silly.  They are fun to watch when rock climbing.
hollisterhills1207027.jpg


I've been looking at 80 series LC's like the '94, I'm going to buy one eventually, not to replace the AV, just to have one.

Front, rear & center locking diffs great quality and they last forever is why I want one.  I had a '78 blazer set up with ARB's this way and it would go anywhere - almost.

If I do get one then I can semi-retire the AV and use it for pulling only - the 2500 doesn't get the best fuel economy for daily driving - but neither does the LC.

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top