Thread: series 111 vs fj 55

the rover generally beats them in sand and in some technical terrain but in mud or high traction situations where power is the overall decider you're pooched.

the series is lighter than both but even in the stock 6 pot form is underpowered in comparison.

you do get better economy if you drive it nice tho.

i have a series 111 station wagon "74" mod and was interested in how they compared to nissan g60s and the toyota fj55 when it came to off road ability? thanks

The Nissan had a Low Low of 26:1 and with only 3 speeds the gearing was pretty lousy.
The Land Cruiser had the gearing and the power but had transfer case, stability and body cracking issues.
The Land Rover had it structurally and the gearing was good but the 6 wasnt a great engine. The 6 in good tune was good off road and the Land Rover had a better roll over angle than the Toyota.

All that said I personally liked the FJ55 they were not a bad bus I also had 3 G60 s and when setup properly were a very durable piece of kit.

Not many good G60 s or FJ55 s around that arent rusted beyond recognition quite a few Landies though

do you know if the rover would have the better wheel articulation

Originally Posted by wallie

i have a series 111 station wagon "74" mod and was interested in how they compared to nissan g60s and the toyota fj55 when it came to off road ability? thanks

'view all posts by wallie'
shows that you are a keen fisherman,
just need better bait.

The Nissan front springs were pretty well stuffed from the factory but with aftermarket springs they probably had slightly better articulation.
The Land Cruiser had lousy springs from the factory but the chassis had quite a bit of lateral flex so wasnt too bad.
With all the vehicles in standard form the Land Rover was the superior performer off road in my opinion.

my father had a fj55 which we went to fraser island and other varios trips in and thought it was a good thing till it split the transfer i have a rover 3 with a crossflow and was interested in how it compared against its rivals

In off road driving with my SIII 109, no ther vehicle would keep up off road.

I had a mate in an older Toyota FJ something, say that he was astounded that no matter how hard he drove, the closest he could get was to see the last wisps of my dust settle on the ground. He determined to come fo a drive in the SIII after our lunch stop.

He noted whilst in that the SIII we felt the bumps, in the FJ, the same bumps at an even slower speed would have sent him off his seat and hitting the roof.

He concluded that because the Land Rover had the spring shackles on the back of the spring, when the wheels hit an obstacle hard and the springs flexed, the shackled flexed back to "absorb" the impact, while on the Toymotor, the front mounted shackle caused the axle to move forward, "punching" into the obstacle and jarring the whole vehicle. He concluded that that was why some US companies offered kits to retrofit rear shackles on older Toymotors.

When I drove circa 1985 Troopies in the snowfields, I found that they handled like boats, sloppy and unpredictable, compared to the rail road like handling of the series Landy on gravel.

The older leafsprung Nissans had single rate springs (meaning all the leafs were the same length) which reportedly made for a very harsh ride, though I've never driven one of those.

The first dissappointing thing I ever noted when I jumped behind the wheel of an older Toymotor was that despite the cut out front, with lower guards etc, the drivers seat was too far back and too low to take advantage of this, so the potential for better over bonnet visibility was lost.

With a smaller engine, the Land Rover also needs to be driven within a rev range, which often means with a level of speed.

The Toymotor also had a really long gap between 2nd and 3rd gears.

I also found that the Toymotor would wind up their transmission really quickly, and coming off a snow covered track, I'd have to induce wheel spin and slide into 2WD. The built in "slop" on the front output shaft of the series transfercase prevented such binding transmission wind up.

I never really used a Toyota in low range where it was eally required, but I can say that the SIII low range is awesomely low.