Toy Model General Info
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 11:51:37 -0800 (PST)
From: Jonathan Albrecht
Subject: Let me get this straight....
To: Toy4x4@tlca.org
On Sun, 23 Mar 1997, WartHog wrote:
> Let me get this straight...
>
> The FJ was a better machine than the Straight axle 4 wheel, ...
> Which was a better machine than the first generation IFS 4 wheel, ...
> which was a better machine than the present generation 4 wheel?
>
> And were they truly better machines, or did/do they serve Different
> purposes?
Well, a lot of this has to do with personal preferences, but here's my
opinion.
The FJ-40 was a *stronger* machine than the current mini's. There were a
handful of parts that were in the FJ that were also in the mini p/u (like
the birfields), and some parts are similar in strength or size. Since the
p/u is actually a lighter vehicle, in many ways it's just as strong. But
generally speaking, the fj-40 is comparable to a 3/4 ton truck, where-as
the mini is more like a half ton. And actually, in some ways it's barely
even that.
But the FJ is really a completely different machine. The mini's use a
high reving efficient motor. They are strong because they use high
quality parts, and light weight. The FJ on the other hand, is more like a
tractor. The engine (strait six btw) is *huge* (actually weighs more than
a sb Chevy 350--about the same as a big block, or so I've heard). It has
tons, and tons of low end grunt. I'm not sure how much, but the other day
I drove one, and believe, me, they've got a lot, really low. I was going
up hills in 4th at 30mph, that a mini would definitely be doing in 2nd.
The main thing that makes the mini better (to me), is that because of its
light weight, and efficient SOHC engine, they get much better mileage, and
are still pretty darn strong. They also require less maintenance.
I think the mini's got better in some ways over the years, but worse in
others. In 1984, they got the first extra cab's, and the 4Runner (I've
seen some pre '84 4Runners, but they looked more like custom jobs than
factory units...not sure what exactly was going on back then) In 1985,
they finally had EFI. Some don't like it, but I really prefer it. Instant
starts in any weather sure is nice!
In 1986, they switched to IFS. It may be weaker, and harder to modify,
but along with the IFS came better handling, better brakes, and a wider
track. For about 85% of us, it does everything you need it to, and will
take you just about anywhere you want to go.. In 1987, the trucks got the
turbo, which seemed like a pretty neat addition (haven't tried it out for
myself though), and in 1988, they got the V6. In 1989, they went to the
newer body style that if anything, at least doesn't rust out as easy, and
the X-cab is another 9" longer--finally giving you rear seatbelts, though
not much room for seats.. That year they also lengthened the rear springs
and made some minor changes to the bushings in the front end (or so I've
heard). The '89+ trucks do ride better than the earlier ones.
Around '94 they got some extra safety stuff, like the door beams, and the
3rd brake light (yuck), and 1995.5, they went to the Tacoma. I don't know
much about these other than they improved wheel travel, and the engines
are quite a bit more powerful. I'd suspect that they handle better, and
are quieter than previous generations, but I don't know. Oh yeah, they
also finally got a rear end locker (or at least the 4Runner does, not sure
about the p/u).
So anyway, the 'best' truck really depends upon what it's going to be used
for.
Jonathan Albrecht
albr9619@uidaho.edu
http://www.uidaho.edu/~albr9619/
------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 09:49:46 -0700
From: nickkrest@batnet.com (Nick Krest)
Subject: Questions about Toyota Trucks
To: Toy4x4@tlca.org
Matt Farr wrote:
"...I don't have any experience with Toyota trucks...
1. Are there certain years that are most desirable?"
Yes; it depends upon what you desire, though. I'm partial to the early
trucks, though it sure would be nice to have an extra-cab.
"2. Are there any years that I should avoid?"
This depends on what you want to avoid. '81 pickups came geared too tall;
'81-'83 five-speeds are prone to trans input bearing failures; '84-'88
trucks have less fenderwell clearance than the earlier trucks (by a couple
of inches) but have wider rear axles (also by a couple of inches); '86 and
later trucks have IFS (which I'm not too fond of, personally).
"3. Was the 22R engine in all Toyota trucks (4 cyl)?"
No; prior to '81 it was the 20R (2 litre); starting in '85 (?), the 22RE
(fuel injected) motor was an option; in '86, you could get a turbo; and
after that, the 3VZE (3 litre v-6) was available. But the 22R and 22RE were
available until 1995.
"4. Are they still using the 22R?"
Nope; a new, unrelated series of motors are in the Tacoma. The 22R was
originally sourced from a forklift - I had one in my old forklift.
"5. What came stock? (PS, PB, A/C)"
Nothing, if you didn't want it to.
"6. What was optional?"
Depends upon the year, but power steering, power brakes, and a/c were all
options on most years.
"7. What kind of gas mileage can I expect?"
Depends. A 22R with a five speed, 33" tires, and a 4.88 rear will return
about 17-20 in town, 20-22 on the road (if you drive like a human being).
"8. Does a 4 cyl. engine have enough muscle
to go wheelin'? (I'm not trying to be insulting
here -- I just thought I would ask the question...)"
IMHO, the 22R is the best off-road motor ever built. I think it's far more
capable than the 2F I had in my '74 40 - linear power with more top-end,
and anvil-like reliabiilty.
"9. How bad do these trucks rust, and where should I
look for the rust?"
Tailgate hinges; certain '84-'88 beds; some earlier trucks ('79-'80); I've
seen rotten whole trucks, but they didn't come from the Southwest.
0
"10. What does it mean when the ads say it's
a 4x2 truck, rather than a 4x4 truck?"
This means it's a two-wheel drive truck.
"11. I probably will want to get a cap for the
bed so I can lock stuff up, etc. How hard is it
to find a new cap for an older truck?"
No problem at all.
"12. If the ad says it has a rusty bed, is the
bed doomed? Should I avoid these trucks at all
costs?"
I don't know (haven't had the problem); but it seems to be a significant
problem for some owners.
"13. Should I avoid trucks with 80,000+ miles?
This may seem like a stupid question, but it
seems like there are a lot of high mileage
vehicles for sale out there."
Nah. Mine's got 375,000. I personally think they're just getting broken in
around 120,000.
"14. Final question: If I want a truck with 4x4,
A/C, PS, PB, what should I expect to pay?"
'79-80: $2-4k
'81-83: $2-5k
'84-85: $2-6k
'86-88: $4-8k
'89-95: $6-18k
It all depends upon condition, equipment, options, years, etc. It's just
like the 'Cruiser market - there might be two '78 40s, one for $1000, one
for $25,000. What do you want, and how much are you willing to spend?
Good luck,
- Nick
------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: 28 Apr 1997 16:09:57 -0700
From: "Jay Kopycinski"
Subject: Questions about Toyota Truc
To: "Toyota 4x4 List"
Subject: Time: 4:05 PM
OFFICE MEMO Questions about Toyota Trucks Date: 4/28/97
nickkrest@batnet.com (Nick Krest) wrote:
>'84-'88 trucks have less fenderwell clearance than the earlier trucks (by a
couple of inches) but have wider rear axles (also by a couple of inches);
Actually, only the IFS ('86 on) have the 3" wider rear axle.
>But the 22R and 22RE were available until 1995.
I believe '87 was the last year you could get the 22R (carbed) in a U.S. 4WD.
snipped lots of other good model info.............
_______________________________________
Jay Kopycinski '85 Toylet (ROKTOY)
Gilbert, AZ
ryna10@email.sps.mot.com
http://www.netzone.com/~jayk
Arizona Lo-Rangers 4WD Club TLCA #3243
_______________________________________
------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 18:22:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jonathan Albrecht
Subject: 22RE power ?'s
To: Toy4x4@tlca.org
> i gather the 22R's are a solid bunch of engines.
A bit of valve clatter, but otherwise..yeah, solid.
> what are the output stats for the 22RE used '89-94 (?)?
I've seen a few stats (most are conflicting), but the ones that stick in
my head are 116hp and 140lb-ft. Don't remember the rpm.
> how do current owners like the power and hp output of these engines?
I like mine because: It get's 18mpg driven medium/hard, 20 driven very
nicely, and maybe 13 or so driven absolutely as hard as possible. My
worst tank has been around 18mpg.
Power is okay, but could be better. They are easier to drive around
town than the 22r (carbed) because they seem to have more bottom end--I
guess. Anyway, I know I don't have to rev mine (22R-E) as hard as I did
my last one (22R) before I shift.
I still go up hills at like 50mph though, but otherwise, it seems
adequate.
Oh yeah, mine's in a '87 4runner. P/u's are a little bit better.
Parts availability is a plus, and they're easier to work on than the six
(or at least it sure looks that way).
> how do they perform coupled with 31x10.5 tires?
Fine. As long as you don't tow, they do fine with 33's even. Not
awesome, but fine.
> how about on highways in mountain areas?
Slow. If you can keep it in fourth, about 45-50mph. It's no fun if you
have to downshift into third, cause the engine rev's so high. In some
ways, bigger tires are nicer, cause you can go 45mph comfortably in 3rd.
> off road?
With low enough gearing, usually, they have all the power you need. I
use 4low a lot.
> thanks for yer time.
No prob. This is better than homework.
__
Jonathan Albrecht
albr9619@uidaho.edu
http://www.uidaho.edu/~albr9619/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 08 May 1997 21:39:37 -0500
From: Todd Hornsby
Subject: 22RE power ?'s
To: Toy4x4@tlca.org
>Well, it is my opinion that the 22RE engine is a fine one. BUT!!!!! I
>DO NOT feel that there is enough get up and go! I live in West Virginia,
> (A constant up and down hill battle) and it just does not have enough
For those downhill battles be sure and have good brakes ;)
>accleration power or up hill power.
Having lived in the Rockies for years with my '88 I agree with your point
about power going up hill. However considering the fact that it's a 4
cylinder, a 'vintage' design that's been around a while and pushes a pretty
darn heavy vehicle in the form of my 4Runner (often loaded down to boot) -
it does EXTREMELY well and gets awesome MPG to boot.
To expect a 4 cylinder to climb as convincingly as say a late model Tahoe
is probably asking too much.
Can anyone point to a NA 4 cylinder that could do a better job than the
22RE in similar circumstances? I personally cannot think of any...
As to climbing long (many miles) and steep grades I find the gear spacing a
little too wide. I could maintain a good speed for a long time but
eventually I would slow down for some left lane plodder and never get my
speed up again and be banished to the right lane for the duration. I often
run into one gear being too low and the next too high - often switching
back and forth for say an hour or so until I reached the summit.
Considering 1st seems about right and 4th is probably 1:1 the ideal
solution would be a 6 speed!
>Now for Offroading! I LOVE IT!!! Its great, it seems like there is
>plenty of low end tourqe, my truck does great off-roading. But the
>highway miles, IF I COULD HAVE AFFORDED IT, that little truck would
>have been the 3.0L V6
When test driving 4Runners I tried both 4 and 6 cyl engines up I70 back to
back - for those not familiar with Denver, this is truly a great equalizer
for testing any vehicles ability to climb continuously steep grades at high
altitude on a fast moving interstate. The difference between the V6 and the
4 was there but it definately wasn't night and day.
Saludos,
Todd
________________________________________________________________________
- -Todd Hornsby (San Antonio, TX) http://www.texas.net/~toddh
- -toddh@texas.net alt: thornsby@alumni.cs.colorado.edu
------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 09:59:53 -0400
From: "M. Traver"
Subject: Quality of New Vehicles
To: Toy4x4@tlca.org
>Chris & Nicki Yorke wrote:
>>
>> I have to agree 100%. If you look at the older cars and the ones today
>> the older ones seem to be of a much better quality. I dont know what do
>> you think Jim.>
>
>Well, the older ones seem to contain more parts made from actual
>metal...
Thought I'd just relay the information I found while researching used
trucks earlier this spring. I did the preliminary reading and confirmed
that Toyota had the best track record for quality in the small truck field,
so I limited my search to that. The next thing I did was start reading about
the 88-94 vehicles as opposed to the new Tacomas. Every used vehicle service
and independent review I could find (Kelley's Blue Book http://www.kbb.com
, Edmunds Used Car, http://www.edmunds.com , and Consumer Reports who ought
to have a web page, but don't) told me the same thing: the 88-94
trucks have exceptional quality records regardless of 2WD or 4WD and the
new Tacomas had a shocking drop in quality. Not only that, but the new
Tacomas suffered from (and I quote here) "horrifying crash test results".
The only positive note for the new Tacomas was the increase in power.
I decided that I'd forego power for safety and reliability, thank you very
much. As a result, I now own a 94 V6 4x4. And I was aware of the head gasket
problem with the V6, but was impressed by Toyota's extended warranty on it.
So for the record, suspicions of lower quality in the new vehicles has been
substantiated by independent reviewers.
- -Michael
**********************************************************************
Michael Traver, Graduate Student
West Virginia University Engine Research Center
Mailto:traver@wvnvms.wvnet.edu or http://wvnvms.wvnet.edu/~traver
**********************************************************************
------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 14:04:34 -0500 (EST)
From: "Dr. Karl Bellve"
Subject: Hi this is my first on this list
To: Toy4x4@tlca.org
On Thu, 30 Oct 1997, albert straatman wrote:
> I am in the market for a 85-91 Toyota pick up. I was wondering what I
> should look for when checking out possibilities. Ex. problems with
> cooling system, electrical, motor, etc? Is there anything important to
> look for? What kinda mpg can expert(I had a IH Scout anything is
> better than that)? Are parts for Toyotas expensive? Whats a good price
> for Toyota with 80,000 miles in the 85-91 models? Thanks for any info
> that anyone can supply.
>
Well, here are some basics.
Solid front axles only in 1985 (for your year range).
IFS for the rest of the years.
Solid front axle is considered to better than IFS for 4x4. Usually the
solid axle can be modified better, and cheaper than IFS. Some people
with IFS switch to solid axles.
3.0L V6 offered in 1988, has history of head gasket problems, check the
level of all the fluids and the color to check for coolant leaks.
2.4L 22RE is the 4cylinder model, great but underpowered engine.
Both engines are fuel injected. 22R, I believe is the carb version offered
in pickups and some 1984 4Runners (AFAIK).
Look for rust in the seam above the rear wheel wells in 4Runners. Look for
rust in the seem of a pickup bed.
I personally believe that the 1985 4Runner was the best 4Runner made with
a solid front axle and removable top.
As for finding a 1985 Toyota with 80,000 miles? Nope. You would be lucky
if it only had twice that much. Look at 1990+ toys for that kind of
mileage, if mileage is your main criteria.
Cheers,
Karl Bellve, Ph.D.
Biomedical Imaging Group
University of Massachusetts
WWW : http://molmed.ummed.edu/~kdb/
Email: kdb@molmed.ummed.edu
Phone: (508) 856-3785
Fax : (508) 856-1840
------------------------------
Back to the top of this thread
Back to the top of the General Info group
Back to the top of the Toy Thread Tree