looking for a good reliable 4wd, I need a good 4wd mostly for going on surf trips and road trips. I am thinking about the 1991 toyota land cruiser. show us /o/
No such thing.
Refer to sticky.
XJ or Full size Blazer/Jimmy if you want something relatively compact.
Moving up from there, there's Tahoe/Yukon, and then Suburban.
Explorers and Expeditions are trash, Excursions and Wranglers are overpriced.
Broncos aren't quite as reliable or as easy to work on as their GM counterparts, which is why they aren't mentioned.
>you don't need 4x4 for the beach
I live on the beach. SOME trucks don't need it once you're into the fresh sand. But you're not getting to the fresh sand without 4x4.
>one jackass in a Mustang tried to drive on the beach
>his rear tires didn't get off the pavement before he was stuck
>jackass in a lifted 2WD F150 made it about 10 ft
Who drives onto the sand? to surf?
I also live on the beach. Property line literally 40 feet to the surf.
Despite 70% of the vehicles here being body on frame part time 4x4 with rear lockers not uncommon, centers always lock when engaged on these shitboxes no one except foreigners or guys needing to deliver heavy equipment or material. The only ones who are guaranteed stuck are the foreigners ie. Americans and Brits.
The stereotypical surf mobile has been a VW van. They were cheap shit boxes with a good deal of space. Not off road monsters.
My father in law was a surf bro back in the day and he was one of those that traveled the worlds surf spota were "totally indo duuuuuuude." And he never bothered with anything larger than a motorbike until he got into construction.
Explorers and expeditions are juat are reliable as their compeitiors offering. A first gen explorer with a 5 spd is dead reliable. Second gen ones can be just fine it bought with the righr engine choice.
And dismissing the Bronco in a 4wd thead is retarded.
Op, any small 4wd vehicle offered by all the companies would probably suit you fine. The XJ is quite reliable as well as broncos and blazers. You are looking at cars that are 20+ years old, they are going to have problems.
We used to drive on the beach back in the 90's with the big old land boats. Only got stuck like twice I can remember. And it was nothing a shovel didn't fix. It's actually a lot like driving in mud. Slow and constant in a low gear will get you most places.
It's the people with a need to GUN IT BRO that wind up sunk to their frames, or the dudes who think they can take things up into the soft sand of the dunes.
>Explorers and expeditions are juat are reliable as their compeitiors offering
No, they're not. Explorers are complete garbage.
I did not always realize this, and actually considered buying one at one point. A friends had one that was garbage, but I assumed that to be because they had no idea what they were doing and bought a lemon. SO I got on CL and looked. Somewhere around 70% were not in derivable condition, I fuck you not. Blown engines and toasted transmissions are more common that working counterparts. And this is at 100-150k miles, it's not like they're just doing this at 350k even though the interiors looked like they had that much wear.
So I extended my search and found pretty much the same thing.
I already knew electrical issues to be common to Expeditions, but I looked anyway. Same ungodly interior wear per given mileage. While engine and transmission issues were not half as prevalent in the Explorers, they were still more prevalent than they were in the competition.
>you have to buy the manual
This is what EVERY fanboy of an unreliable vehicle says. It never fails, no matter how uncommon or unreliable the manuals are. I don't consider it dead reliable if the door locks stop working at 70k, the interior is trashed at 100k, and the engine dies at 130k even with regular maintenance.
>And dismissing the Bronco in a 4wd thead is retarded.
We're not talking about overall capability or potential for rock crawler builds here. We're talking about surfing trips and road trips. Stuff that other 4x4s will do just as well while also being a bit more reliable and easier to work on.
>engine dies at 130,000 even with regular maintenance
My vehicle at 70,000 miles is a total shed. That is because it is subject to daily offroading since 1993. When you average 20 km/h and that includes 50km/h on road for half of it you can imagine that even a million mile Cummins would been at the end of its life at 200,000 miles
Suspension and steering rebuilds at 20,000 miles and shit. That is if you hadn't bent the whole thing in half already.
>70% of explorers are beaten on off road every day
>but only 5% of Tahoes are
Stop making excuses. It's okay to admit you bought a vehicle that's shit. People aren't going to think less of you for it. They will on the other hand think less of you for defending a shit vehicle.
The first part of recovery is acceptance.
A subaru would probably do bro
I've never gotten stuck in my impreza
what wheels are those? 2000 OBS bro here.. these shits are tanks but i have gotten mine stuck twice already in the month I've owned it just from getting hung up on snow and my own retardation.
What wheels are those?
They're alloy wheels but I have no idea, they came with the car when I bought it, super light though for the longest time I thought they were stock but apparently not because a lot of people ask.
lel, my subaru has 220k miles, original head gaskets, outside of one timing belt change I haven't had to change anything but spark plugs, oil and fluids.
except for the faggot donut my car suits all those needs, also a forester or an outback.
here is the full image.
The first world sounds pretty shitty.
I can literally park wherever I want as long as it is not blocking both lanes and isn't on a specific "NO PARKING" zone which only exists in the city without paying a dime.
And since most people are sensible about how they park there is hardly any issue.
I really can't afford a truck I want (4x4 3/4 or 1 ton in good shape) should I just settle and buy a garbage can 1/2 ton and hope for the best?
The reason I don't like half tons is that I do a lot of crawling around in sand. I know the transmission can get pretty hot while doing that, potentially causing early failures, and that half ton transmissions are generally crap and used ones are generally abused. What do?
here we go again this is literal newfag/10.
every manufacturer makes a few good cars and a lot of total shit ones. gm is no exception, nor is toyota or anyone.
tahoes regularly achieve 300k miles with mostly just basic maintenance. if thats not reliable then im not sure what is.
See, this is exactly what I was talking about. You've allowed fanboyism into your head, justified the cost with the false assumption that you get what you paid for, and then against all logic convinced yourself that the most expensive option is the best deal.
They're not the best. There is no single "best."
Stop looking at badges, drop the assumptions. Assume everything is equal until proven otherwise. Once you start thinking like that, you'll start looking at real world examples good and bad of all vehicles. Over time, you'll develop a feel for which is on average the most reliable, and which on average is the least reliable.
If you just sit there and say hurr durr Toyota gud GM bad, you're never going to learn the pros or cons of either one. Base your decision on the evidence. Don't make up your mind and then look for supporting evidence.
You really don't need 4wd to drive on a beach.
I've never gotten stuck in any of my non-4wd vehicles. If you're worried, bring a bucket and a shovel.
Old land cruisers get terrible MPG, especially the ones with the straight six. Would not want to pay for gas on a long trip in one.
>You really don't need 4wd to drive on a beach
Not every beach is Daytona Beach. For a lot of beaches, you NEED 4x4 in anything short of a dedicated sand vehicle. (think dune buggy, or medium duty truck on 60" balloon tires, etc.)
Don't be the asshole that blocks the entrance for everyone because you got stuck 10 feet onto the beach in your crossover.
Don't recommend people be that asshole.
Stop telling people they don't need 4x4 for places you've never even been.
My 4Runner did fantastic in the sand at the NC Outer Banks 2 summers ago, the key thing is airing down for any vehicle, however. A nice little VIAIR unit with alligator clips that runs off the battery is about $75. 3rd gen 4Runners have oodles of ground clearance, fairly lightweight for what they are (3750lb curb weight), and most come from the factory with good sized tires (265/70R16, almost a 31"). Added bonus for a surfbro: the rear window rolls down, you can just stick surf boards in the back with the seats down.
Find a k2500 with a small block.
Costs half that of a toyota
Leave everything stock, just upgrade the tires.
Gets as good as mileage
Can carry more
Can sleep in it
Parts are cheep and plentiful if you need them.
Probably won't need them.
>Name a vehicle available in the USA that you can get parts for and is better than the Land Cruiser.
'Better' is an opinion. Before we can say 'better' we need to know what categories you are going to judge.
The minute you add price into the mix there's a lot of discussion to be had.
They want a lot of money for that 20 year old rig. For half the price, Nissan, Mitsubishi and GMC make worthy contenders.
The Toyota tax makes these competitors. The Landcruiser cachet is just silliness on top.
Hell, pick up a early 2k Sequoia or 4runner and you'll have something that has 90% of the landcruiser's offroad capabilities, cheaper, with more cargo space and load carrying.
The Sequoia is nowhere near as well built, tough, or capable as the Land Cruiser. 4Runner isn't, either, but it's much closer than the Sequoia. Mitsubishi does make a significantly better vehicle, but, at least in the USA, parts are hard to come by. So, if you want a very durable, reliable, and capable off road vehicle, you're stuck with the Land Cruiser. Or the 4Runner if you don't mind giving up luxury.
>Name a vehicle available in the USA that you can get parts for and is better than the Land Cruiser.
It's going to be easier to find Suburban parts in the US than Landcruiser. Depending on usage, body style, etc., you've got 70-100% of the capability with more power, more space, more comfort, and often less than half the price.
>It's going to be easier to find Suburban parts in the US than Landcruiser.
Sure, but it isn't better. And even 80 series parts are still available at your local Toyota dealership.
But it's not. Suburbans are garbage off road due to the long wheelbase and low ground clearance while also being not as durable. I own a GMT800 Silverado, it's not going to compete with a Land Cruiser off road just because someone closed in the bed.
OP said surf trips, not rock crawling. The slightly longer wheelbase isn't going to make a difference at all.
>low ground clearance
What exactly do you think is the lowest point on a Suburban and a Landcruiser, and how much of a difference do you think there is?
>while also being not as durable
There's that fanboyism again. You just can't seem to give it up.
>Suburbans are garbage off road
That's funny, I've seen hundreds on Pirate4x4.
>So, if you want a very durable, reliable, and capable off road vehicle, you're stuck with the Land Cruiser.
No. You have gone waaaay past what the OP asked for. Road trips. Surf trips. He's not even talking about overland, let along serious off-road.
On top of that, while Toyota makes a damn nice product, it's just not TWICE as good.
I run a stock K2500 GMT400 Suburban. Other than width, I had zero following an LC through the maze district. Hell, the best rig in our group was an original 1984 toyota hilux. I was just the SAG wagon.
Here's a pic of another GMT400 doing beach trips. I believe he carry's an air compressor so he can air down appropriately.
For camping and overland travel they are hard to beat. If they aren't your cup of tea, fine. But stay rational about it.
"that of a toyota" What toyota are you talking about? I get a consistent hand calculated 20 mpg in my V6 4Runner, I don't care if your uncle got 20 mpg once driving at 60 mph "that one time," A small block Chevy will NOT match that mileage.
No shit. Why is it that I see so many fucking Subarus with 100k-200k miles on craigslist with rebuilt engines or transmissions? They must be fucking chrysler tier
Late 70's-Mid 80's K5 or K10 Truck. Reliable and easily cuztomizable gas guzzlers is all I can say Stay away from 88-99's with the R44 shitransmission though. Have a 80' K10 SWB with 3/4 ton rears/tranny/springs and swapped the 305 out with a 71' 396. Still get roughly 10mpg.
I think my worst tank was about 15mpg, in the dead of last winter during the polar vortex. Even with aired down beach and low speed local driving, I got 18 mpg while down in Hatteras for a week. To be fair I'm a pretty laid back driver.
I agree, for simple beach cruising, literally any older, cheaper SUV with maybe some slightly up-sized tires, and a cheapo air compressor on board will do the trick. An 80 series land cruiser will look cool, sure but it is way overkill for what you need, and in general will be more expensive to find parts for than either a) a common domestic or b) a common import SUV, such as said 4Runner.
OP, consider a first gen Explorer, or else a newer 95-01 truck with a V8 (avoid Cologne SOHC at all costs). The first gen look pretty mean with some beefy tires and a mild lift.
Current truck is a '91 4runner
-Reman'd 3.0 5spd, Detroit locked rear and limited slip front with manual hubs, Old Man Emu 901 coils, pro comp ES3000 shocks and a Safari snorkel.
I'm in the process of fixing her up to sell and moving on to a diesel 60 series land cruiser. They're getting increasingly difficult to find in Canada and I want to build one for overlanding in south america.
Only reason I didn't want a 80 series cruiser is because of how electronic they are. Go for it, OP.
1st gen Explorers are not good cars, but they can be durable as shit
My understanding is that the automatic transmission is the only real worry on the 1st gens. The motor is a simple and sturdy OHV 4.0L Cologne V6, the front end is Ford's trusty Twin Traction beam that will take abuse for days.