Newsgroups: rec.autos
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!spsgate!mogate!newsgate!NewsWatcher!user
From: RZAA80@email.sps.mot.com (Jim Chott)
Subject: Re: Toyota Land Cruiser worth it?
Message-ID: <RZAA80-220493111339@222.18.80.28>
Followup-To: rec.autos
Sender: usenet@newsgate.sps.mot.com
Nntp-Posting-Host: 222.18.80.28
Organization: Major semiconductor company
References: <2820016@iftccu.ca.boeing.com> <1r3sbbINN8e0@hp-col.col.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 18:15:00 GMT
Lines: 25

In article <1r3sbbINN8e0@hp-col.col.hp.com>, tvervaek@col.hp.com (Tom
Vervaeke) wrote:
> 
> My wife and I looked at, and drove one last fall. This was a 1992 model.
> It was WAYYYYYYYYY underpowered. I could not imagine driving it in the
> mountains here in Colorado at anything approaching highway speeds. I
> have read that the new 1993 models have a newer, improved hp engine. 
> 
> I'm quite serious that I laughed in the salesman face when he said "once
> it's broken in it will feel more powerful". I had been used to driving a
> Jeep 4.0L 190hp engine. I believe the 92's Land Cruisers (Land Yachts)
> were 3.0L, the sames as the 4Runner, which is also underpowered (in my

The 91 and 92 Cruisers run the 4.0L straight 6 which only has about 150hp 
and 220lb-ft of torque.  Plenty off-highway, marginal on the highway.
The 93 has a much improved 4.2L straight 6 with >200hp and 275ft-lb torque.

> They are big cars, very roomy, but nothing spectacular.

If you take them on rough trails, you'll see the difference.  The Cruiser
is an order of magnitude better in off-highway ability.

Jim Chott                            85 Toyota 4WD pickup
rzaa80@email.sps.mot.com             72 LeMans Sport Convertible
Tempe, Arizona
