1992 Toyota Landcruiser Reviews - Page 2 of 2

1992 Toyota Landcruiser FJ80 4.0 3FE from North America

Model year1992
Year of manufacture1992
First year of ownership2006
Most recent year of ownership2008
Engine and transmission 4.0 3FE Automatic
Performance marks 10 / 10
Reliability marks 8 / 10
Comfort marks 6 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 2 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
6.5 / 10
Distance when acquired200000 miles
Most recent distance210000 miles
Previous carChevrolet Camaro

Summary:

Love it

Faults:

New T-stat

New seals in the axles

Replaced brake rotors, pads, lines and calipers

Replaced pinion seal

Replaced radiator

All over 200k miles.

General Comments:

This machine is a tank. I've always been a domestic Jeep lover for off roading, but the LC has changed my mind.

Mods that have been done:

Full 6 in suspension lift from slee off road

Custom rims with 36 inch tires

Custom built bull bar

The truck actually rides better off road due the the suspension and tires, but is still reasonable comfortable on the road. Recently drove it from California to North Carolina with out a hiccup.

Everything that has gone wrong with the truck is minor for something with that many miles. Engine just churns along as if brand new.

Upholstery needs to be redone, but that is my only complaint about it as of right now.

This is a very reliable rig that will go anywhere.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 9th March, 2008

1992 Toyota Landcruiser 4.0 Inline 6 from North America

Model year1992
Year of manufacture1992
First year of ownership2004
Most recent year of ownership2006
Engine and transmission 4.0 Inline 6 Automatic
Performance marks 8 / 10
Reliability marks 10 / 10
Comfort marks 8 / 10
Dealer Service marks 8 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 8 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.4 / 10
Distance when acquired155000 miles
Most recent distance160000 miles

Summary:

Very reliable, very sexy, and a whole lot of truck

Faults:

Alternator burnt out.

Water leak trouble.

General Comments:

This is my first car and I consider myself very lucky to have it.

I really love it's rugged good looks, and the car lives up to it on the trails.

Seats are pretty comfortable, but I can never feel as comfortable driving it as I do in my Mom's Suburban.

One thing I can say though, is while the Suburban is stuck in the driveway with mechanical problems, I'm cruising in my Cruiser.

The truck has been extremely reliable and I feel like I can always trust it.

The full-time 4WD is cool because I can drive very securely in harsh road conditions IE. heavy rain, unpaved roads, however it makes the truck pretty slow and it sucks down lots of gas. But if I cared about those things that much, I wouldn't be driving this amazing legend that is a Landcruiser.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 12th April, 2006

12th May 2007, 22:28

I wouldn't really count Heavy rain and unpaved roads as being the "harsh conditions" that the cruiser was designed for.

1992 Toyota Landcruiser GXL 4.0L 3F from Australia and New Zealand

Year of manufacture1992
First year of ownership1992
Most recent year of ownership2000
Engine and transmission 4.0L 3F Manual
Performance marks 8 / 10
Reliability marks 10 / 10
Comfort marks 10 / 10
Dealer Service marks 5 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 7 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.0 / 10
Distance when acquired0 kilometres
Most recent distance235000 kilometres
Previous carToyota Landcruiser

Summary:

A reliable, capable and comfortable vehicle

Faults:

Transmission rebuild at 160000kms (rear engine seal started leaking soon after).

Fuel pump seals failed at 220000kms causing a large oil leak (new pump).

Front diff rebuild at 230000kms.

When sold:

Brake cylinder was failing.

Clutch was slipping under heavy load (i.e. towing).

Transfer was heavily worn causing lots of play and 'clunking' between gear changes.

General Comments:

The reliability of this car was unbelievable.

The engine never had any work except oil changes, plugs, leads, fuel pump and tune up.

Gearbox was not reliable long term.

Constant 4WD was the cause of the transfer wear.

Travelled around Australia twice and never missed a beat.

Only stuck on the roadside once because of a very dirty load of fuel (not the cars fault!!!).

Currently live on a sand island off the coast of East Australia, therefore it got plenty of beach and sand work.

Body was in perfect condition, no rust e.t.c.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 2nd July, 2001

1992 Toyota Landcruiser DX 4.2 naturally aspirated diesel from Australia and New Zealand

Year of manufacture1992
First year of ownership1997
Most recent year of ownership2001
Engine and transmission 4.2 naturally aspirated diesel Manual
Performance marks 8 / 10
Reliability marks 10 / 10
Comfort marks 10 / 10
Dealer Service marks 10 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 10 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
9.6 / 10
Distance when acquired55000 kilometres
Most recent distance120000 kilometres
Previous carToyota Landcruiser

Summary:

Don't pay 50,000 for a new one, get an 80 series. I guarantee it will do the same job for half the $

Faults:

Spare wheel becomes hard to get out from underneath the car eventually.

Car has been recalled to have the brakes redone by Toyota.

First flat battery at 120,000km/h (that's the original!)

Back end bottomed out, ripped the back left hand plastic type bumper and mudguards off. Still like that at the moment, no need to replace them.

At 100000km/h a new exhaust line was required due to corrosion and 4x4ing.

General Comments:

Never misses a beat.

Starts first time every time.

Cheap to run.

Goes everywhere.

No leaks, breaks etc.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 15th May, 2001

5th Feb 2005, 14:41

Can it really be "cheap" to run a 4 litre engine, allbeit a diesel?

19th Nov 2007, 20:09

Terrible fuel economy. Sad because $210 for 800km is not going to cut the mustard and I have to sell. Tough truck, but unless I sit on 90km/h I get well over 15ltr per 100km. With diesel $150 a litre it's not worth it. Nissan X Trail here I come.

23rd Nov 2009, 23:42

I currently own both X-trail 2.5 petrol and LC80 diesel, and I can tell you, they are both two different cars, and for different uses.

The X-trail is economic but not cheap on petrol. I could say on a trip I could spend $75 on the X-trail, and $100 on the LC80, but mostly on long trips, I take LC80, the reason is simple: I need to take more people, and more baggage, sitting 4 people in a X-trail, on trails for 5 hours is a nightmare, but the LC80 can take 6 with ease, people arrive their destination, get off the truck, play, and back to home, happy.

But I won't take the LC80 for mall shopping.

Average review marks: 7.8 / 10, based on 7 reviews