Having looked at the pics and specs, what's the problem with this thing besides the IFS and rear quarter windows? The fenders look a little restrictive for larger tires. It looks like it will make just a good a building platform as anything toyota has released in the US since the FJ80.

I am amused that it will be offered in a 2wd model though, that must be a first for the LandCruiser nameplate?

The pics on the site look a lot better than the video. Those were 2 different trucks though. If they use the one they took pics of, that would be pretty cool. But the one in the video diddnt look very good.

I don't know, you guys sure seem pessimistic or were expecting too much...like a rubicon killer. I mean, what's the difference between the FJ cruiser and a 86-95 4runner?

The 4runners have IFS, 31" tires, open diffs, weak engines, and carpet which can get dirty while the FJ has almost 33s, a rear locker, a bigger engine (which will probably get better mpg as the 3.0 and close to the 2.4) and a hose out rear compartment. Sounds pretty good compared to the older 4runners when they were new. Seems like if they price it in the low to mid 20s, it fills the void that the 4runner left, nicely.

Give it a couple years and you'll be seeing sas'd fjs on the trails, especially if they're priced right.

Its better. The FJ, that is. I think you have a point.

I was expecting more...

To me it's not even a matter of off-road capability, it's a matter of being honest to the roots of the vehicle. The FJ has a HUGE following here and around the world. This new cruiser offers nothing to the FJ loyalist. I admire the idea of it being inexpensive and "rugged" <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />, but I have little respect for Toyota's attempt to capatlize on an icon by using the FJ bezel and calling it a cruiser. Call it something else and I'd likely get behind the idea, at least more than i am now. But calling it an FJ - one of the worlds best built, most rugged vehicles and ONLY Jeep competitor... that's lame.

Oddly enough, I'm not even a huge FJ fan... But this just rubs me the wrong way.

The old 4Runners do not have Electronic Stability Control, Hill Descent Control, Hill Ascent Assist, an electronic transfer case, and all of the other electronic "assists". They are also many many inches narrower and (likely) considerably lighter - perfect for wheeling while still providing plenty enough space and wheelbase.

I am anxious to see how people SAS these and make them competent wheelers when you have all of those electronic "aids" interfering with everything. How do you defeat of all these systems when you delete the front ABS and put 37's on?

Power to weight is an issue to me. I prefer light weight and modest power (with great gearing), not high power and porkly pounds.

Toyota *used* to make extremely stout, lightweight rigs. They did well onroad and were perfect offroad.

I also agree with Brian Gallus on the more esoteric level - this is not a vehicle worthy of the FJ moniker (although in light of the 100 series, I guess it could be). This is like Chevy calling a Suzuki or whatever a Nova............

Hold on here people. Little bit of a rush there to gloat...

First of all, whoever made that video needs to fired immediately. I had watch through that crap, just to see the new FJ and that royally pissed me off.

OK, so the FJ isn't going to be a 10 foot tall rock crawler, but why fret just yet?

I've only briefly looked at the spec sheet, but what I see so far is very encouraging. Actually, pretty darn close to what I had hoped it would be.

Number one: It's built on the 4Runner platform, which is the best part of all. Waaaaay better than the Tacoma. Fully boxed frame, very tough. 8" diffs front and rear and probably stronger axles. You can change and add other parts, but you can't get around things like a weak frame very easily or cheaply, which is why we don't see as many super built Tacomas, either old or new. I don't know if you all realize just how "stout" the new 4Runner frame is.

Speaking of the old 4Runner, it was fairly stout, but used the original Tacoma front suspension and steering system which is a bit of a joke. And used the smaller Tacoma front diff. The new 4Runner and presumably the FJ, makes major strides over the old 4Runner in these areas.

It has at least a rear locker. That's good news too.

Tires aren't 33s, but at least they're slightly taller than 31s. That's not bad. Taller than the Rubicons, and only slightly shorter than the Powerwagons. You can always add a 4Runner lift and taller tires later.

A 6 speed manual! Just like the Tacoma, along with a 5 speed auto optional. That's good.

Do I like the interior and exterior? No, not really. I was disspointed that it followed the concept so closely. I was hoping they'd come to their senses and tone it down a bit.

Basicly, it sounds like what they did was combine the best of two platforms and combined it into a pretty good vehicle. The Engine, transmissions and locker of the Tacoma, combined with the fully boxed frame of the 4Runner, make it shorter and lighter and here you go.

When it come down to it in the end, the price will likely be far less than 30 grand. For equal the price of a Rubicon, you could buy one of these and add the stuff you'd want like a front locker and 33" tires and a lift.

But for me, I like it for it's designed for. A rig that is capable for moderate off roading, while at the same time will likely be comfortable to drive on long trips.

And the bottom line is, you don't have to worry about breaking down on the trail for a couple hundred thousand miles and I'm sure it would be far more comfortable to ride in and get better gas mileage than the two before mentioned German rigs.

Is it worthy of the FJ name? Well, I think the FJ name is stupid and makes no sense anyway. FJ is an engine designation and has nothing to do with this rig. They didn't call it a Land Cruiser, and that's probably more significant.

I agree. Maybe it is the "FJ" name that is upsetting everyone. Well duh it's not anything like an FJ. But as an alternative to the stout Tacoma, and one you seat 4 in and hose out the interior of at that, I think it will have a good spot in the toyota line.

I think it's a bit portly, but whatever. I'd take one over a new tacoma. And 32" tires stock isn't bad either. The new tacomas can pretty much clear 35s with 3" lift.


Now to wait another year... <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/sleeping.gif" alt="" />

My thoughts after seeing the reveal:
Hey, something's gotta compete with the Honda Element! <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/butwiggle.gif" alt="" />

Well, can't argue too much with that, overall it's not going to be as tough as a real FJ, considering the Iron Pig name the FJ40s have earned.

But, if Brian is right about it being built in japan and sent off to other parts of the world, it might not be bad.

I wonder if toyota had named it Treker (or something else), it would have been received differently around here.

As for all the electronic stuff, did they say it will have it? I'd suspect the abs, hill decent junk can be bypassed just like I did with my rear abs diff. I just disconnected the sensor. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />