Packard said:
I test drove a new land cruiser in the early 1980s. I liked everything about it except for accelerating. It didn’t accelerate, rather like a locomotive it “gathered speed”.
I judged it too slow for New York traffic (I lived on Long Island at the time), and in my opinion that lethargic acceleration was a safety hazard.
I don’t think the handling will compare favorably with a more modern vehicle though. At the time, it seemed quite acceptable.
It of course lacks many of the safety features we now take for granted like antilock brakes, air bags, energy absorbing structure, anti-intrusion structure in the doors and rollover protection.
Old cars were cheaper. But there was a lot less included in an old car. Modern care are safer and more efficient. I like old cars, but certainly not as a daily driver.
Also in the early to mid 1980s, I rented a Mitsubishi Montero a truly terrifying car to drive. Every time I changed lanes at highway speed, I would ask myself, “Is this the lane change that is going to flip this car on its side?” I brought it back to Avis and chose another car the same day I rented it.
Note: My spell checker really does not want me to write “Montero”.
Quiz: What standard vehicle available in the USA has included in its name all the vowels in the alphabet. (Not including “Y”).
Can't speak for the earlier 'Gen 1' Monteros, but I owned a Gen 2, a 1992, which was the first year here in the US for the new body style. We bought it in 2003, with 156,xxx miles on it, and literally drove it till the rust on the frame meant getting rid of it, or repairing it. At which point parts were really hard to come by for anything that wasn't plain nuts and bolts like brakes, tune up parts, etc. Still had its Original Engine, Automatic transmission, diffs , Transfer Box. It went almost anywhere our previous '94 Range Rover could go, but lacked the axle articulation of the Rover due to the different suspension that Mitsubishi went with. So you could get stuck easier with it compared to the Rangie. Or struggle to climb out of something since you lacked that front axle movement due to the Torsion Bar Spring Suspension compared to the Range Rovers's long travel coil springs.
But, it was better on the road ,and got better gas mileage as well.
More Cargo room than the short wheel based Range Rover, so long items just fit most of the time, versus me leaving the tailgate down on the Rover to haul something home.
Not as big as the Land Cruisers, but not as thirsty either. Probably saved my marriage over the Range Rover ownership of only a few years, since I was always working on the Range Rover, or it was always gobbling our bank account. The Rover never left us stranded though. Amazingly enough..... [big grin] [big grin]
The Montero went through 2 fuel pumps, which left me towed into work to replace them. [embarassed]
The HVAC system on the Montero was light years ahead of the Rover, super simple to even change the Evaporator out, which was a good thing, since it was a known leak issue on the Monteros of that era. [doh].
My Family still has a 2000 Land Cruiser, I actually got it for them years ago, it popped up as a trade in that I jumped on for them , with a California life previously, it was very clean.
Never have had it off road, but it's an easy drive on the highway, takes long trips in stride and you're not tired when you get to your destination either. I love the electric pop-out rear windows, they still work after all these years. Great feature for venting in hot summer days. [cool]
