On CC and elsewhere, the paternity of the SUV has usually been attributed to the Jeep Wagoneer, and rightly so. Perhaps that makes the Range Rover the mad spinster aunt, who had a tryst with a wealthy Swiss benefactor (a.k.a Herr Monteverdi) to gain extra doors and fully become a proto-SUV. So what does that make the Series 50 Land Cruiser? The Mother of All SUVs? I’m not sure how I’ll be able to substantiate that, but stick with me here.
The Jeep Wagoneer came out in 1962. The Range Rover was launched (with two doors only) in 1970. For its part, Toyota’s FJ55 Land Cruiser hit the Japanese showrooms in the summer of 1967. Philosophically, these three proto-SUVs are pretty much identical, taking the existing 4×4 technology, enveloped in a stylish wagon body with a few car-like creature comforts within. Jeep introduced V8 engines, A/C, power accessories and automatic transmission to this new niche – something of a ‘60s revolution. The British and Japanese were a bit slower to adopt all these things on their cars in general, so the Range Rover and the FJ55 Land Cruiser started off as less plush than the Wagoneer, to say the least.
However, things improved with time: the Range Rover eventually became the Chelsea chariot we all know and, presumably, love. Toyota’s FJ55 had some of its rougher edges smoothed as well. It started life with a three-on-the-tree sans synchronized 1st gear, drum brakes all around and few optional extras, but it gradually gained a fully-synch’ed four-on-the-floor (and an optional autobox), front discs and factory air. But it’s fair to say, looking at this impressively original JDM car, that even late model FJ56s never departed from a rather utilitarian feel, more akin to a Corolla than a Crown.
JDM-spec early model FJ55
Engine-wise, Toyota used the 3.9 litre 6-cyl. Type F mill seen in the off-road Land Cruiser since the early ‘50s. This engine, which looks a lot like the Chevrolet Stovebolt Six, was first seen in 1948 on Toyota trucks; 20 years later, by the time it was fitted to the FJ55, its output was 125-130hp.
US brochure excerpt, 1978
In January 1975, the engine was updated to the 2F version. The Land Cruiser thus switched to the “FJ56” designation, but strangely that was on the JDM only, though the improved engine was put on export models as well. In Japan, the 2F produced 140hp from its 4230cc (but only 135hp in export models) and gained a reputation for being a superb fit for the Land Cruiser. It was rugged, easy to work on, with enough torque and good will to climb any mountain and ford any stream.
This new engine heralded a series of small changes on the Land Cruiser’s body. This started with the deletion of the front vent windows and bigger turn signals in late 1975, which are strangely absent from our feature car. In 1977 came new wing mirrors and new taillamps, which became vertical and placed much lower than before.
US-spec early model FJ55
Pity about that last change – the original taillamp design had a bit of a Studebaker feel to it, whereas those newer ones look more anonymous. The last visible change were the windshield wipers, which went all black in 1979. Since our feature car doesn’t have those, I make it a ’78.
Another plus point for the Toyota was that it offered two tailgates: one was a pickup-like bottom-hinged affair with an electric window and the other, as seen on the car I found, was a set of van-like double doors. Either design works, but the latter is better suited to carrying extra passengers in the rear, as some Land Cruisers were fitted with two sideways seats in the cargo space, much like the long wheelbase Land Rover wagons. The Toyota has a slightly smaller wheelbase than the LWB Landie (270cm vs. 277cm, respectively), but space utilization is far superior in the Japanese car than in the older British one.
Other than that front end, the only strange thing about this Series 50 Land Cruiser is that I found one at all. These things were mechanically bulletproof, but rusted pretty badly and survivors are not all that common. They were not really meant for the JDM: in Japan, the FJ55/56 was too big to have much impact on private sales, though a number of government operators (including many fire departments) found these to fit their needs. It was in the same displacement and size category as the Toyota Century, but with considerably less snob appeal. There was no Diesel option and fuel consumption was pretty high, which did not help matters.
Dutch brochure excerpt, 1979
These were clearly designed with the US market in mind, and that is where many of them went, along with a few others, such as Australia, the Middle-East and Africa. Toyota made decent enough business with them, I suppose. The last FJ56 was put together in July 1980. Not sure how many they sold, but it was enough to encourage them to design a new generation, the series 60, which became a worldwide hit.
Of course, esthetics are eminently subjective, but the FJ55/56 did not earn its “Iron Pig” nickname by accident. These are the looks only a mother could love – or sport. In the proto-SUV family, the Wagoneer was the big daddy, the Range Rover was the kooky auntie and our Land Cruiser was the matronly materfamilias. She was the one you could depend on, got you home no matter what and never went to pieces on you. She just was not very good at applying makeup or at wearing a cocktail dress.
Related posts:
Curbside Classic Capsule: 1970 Toyota FJ55 Land Cruiser – You Haven’t Aged One Bit!, by Richard Wayman
CC Outtake: A Toyota FJ55 Land Cruiser Has Come To Town, by PN
Count me as a fan! I cannot ever recall seeing one of these in the metal. I came across a nice FJ-60 at a show last year, though. It is nice that some of these older Japanese SUVs are starting to see some love in the hinterlands.
That front end is something that I could just sit and stare at for hours – there is a lot to contemplate there.
Range Rover is the true proto-SUV for me. Because it was specifically designed to drive like a car. Jeep and these Toyotas were still barely tamed trucks.
Great find, this brown/white seems to be the colour combo of 90% of the ones I used to see around Melbourne. Have caught one in a lovely green I’d never seen before.
The Wagoneer was refined enough to stay in production as the US manufactured vehicle with the highest customer demographics in the country for almost 30 years. The early Range Rover was an austere penalty box by comparison, and I’m saying that having actually driven a two-door RHD Range Rover. Later Range Rovers had less impoverished interiors and a few features not found in a 1970 VW Beetle, but the first ones were more like Postal Jeeps than Wagoneers.
Yes! Every single one that existed in Melb was indeed that brown and white.
Owners in those days were either a bit huntin’, fishin’ an’ shootin, with attendant surly offspring, or, conversely, a bit bearded-up and tie-dyed and save-the-fleas, with attendant indulged offspring.
Well, that was my mileage, anyway.
As for the Jeep, it might well have been proto-SUV in the US, but everywhere else thought them too large, too thirsty, and, with woody panels, gouache. The RR was so singular a design piece it got into the Louvre, (and still belongs there!). The interior was minimalist Scando-chic, with all the paraphernalia US cars (and Jeep) not yet part of even posh Euro cars (like, say, A/C, or even auto). And ofcourse, the drive itself is just short of 37 times nicer than the Cherokee – though I’d still go Jeep to actually guarantee arrival, which was never standard fitment in a Rangie.
Autocar, June 19, 1964:
Any cross-country vehicle with its four-wheel-drive and high ground clearance makes light work of mud and ruts, and can keep going where even trials special would come to a wheel-spinning halt. But to have a combination of these qualities with the comfort, spaciousness and effortless high cruising speedf of a big American estate car is exceptional. This is what makes the new Kaiser Jeep Wagoneer so interestingly different. It has the rare ability to play the role of mud-plugger one minute and then cruise along at 80 m.p.h. the nest.
They concluded the article saying:
Jeep Wagoneers have a specialized appeal and unique dual-purpose capabilities. We can think of many a farmer who would like such a spacious, cross-country work-horse one day, and a speedy and comfortable estate car the next. Both can be had in one for under £2,000.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/triggerscarstuff/4578100249/in/album-72157623866850481/
That’s what the British motoring press said of the Wagoneer when they didn’t have the Range Rover to protect. Kaiser got there at least six years sooner, too. You can’t invent what already exists, especially if you’re Land Rover. Reverse engineering is their best engineering. BTW, modern Range Rovers are a foot longer than early Wagoneers.
Fair enough point.
But that’s 1964 reporting, when England’s top-seller was a drum-braked leaf-sprung Cortina. And, it must be said, it’s Autocar, whose reporting across that time was not exactly searching. As Don said, it’s still a barely-tamed truck, whereas the Rover drove as well as a good road car (albeit one with broken anti-roll bars). The Jeep is a boofy 4wd, the Rover marks the crossing point to a car-like dual-purpose vehicle. And it remains that it was only America who bought the Cherokee as a posh purchase in this category; the rest of the world bought Rangies. (One can only speculate that, in a reversal of the usual cliché about US cars, stoic, monied Americans liked their ride real hard!)
As an aside, that site on flicker, Trigger’s Retro, is a magnificent resource. Just about every Autocar test of the ’60’s is up there, along with plenty of others.
If Americans were the only ones who bought Wagoneers as ‘posh’ purchases, it had everything to do with how cheap gasoline was in the US and nothing to do with how much more refined an SJ Wagoneer is on the road than a first-generation Range Rover. I don’t believe for a second that either of you have driven both types of vehicle in representative condition.
Jeep had the leg up of being a generation ahead of Land Rover from the start when it came to suspension design and experience. As recently as the first Grand Cherokee design, Jeep simply had an understanding of how to maintain traction without compromising ride quality that nobody else possessed. The funny thing is that as Jeep faded, it was Steyr that came forward. Range Rover/BMW/Ford/Tata has never had superiority in anything other than styling or marketing.
CJ, to be honest I can’t disagree with you. In fact I spent nearly 6000 words trying not to force my point too strongly about the RR because its a genuine YMMV thing.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-european/curbside-classic-1977-range-rover-success-at-face-value/
The Jeep was undeniably a key element in the continuum, as was the Toyota RAV4, but I still hold the personal opinion that the 1970 Range Rover was the real inflection point.
I don’t need to have driven either to have that opinion, nor does a modern SUV-type vehicle actually need any true off-road capability. Its proliferation today is far more to do with styling and marketing than it is to do with anything else.
You are as wrong as you are ill-mannered.
I have ridden extensively in a first-gen Rangie (a ’74 from, memory) and driven one (’85 or so, certainly pre-roll bars). And I have driven a Cherokee, approximately an ‘8, quite some distance. Across those experiences , perhaps all-up 3 years separated, one thing was clear – the Jeep had no ride quality at all. And it was crude in all aspects, except style. It was as nastily truck as the 60 series Landcruiser was, and almost certainly as capable a 4wd. The Rangies felt like a decent lower-level luxury sedans, wafty steering apart.
Your comment about the posh buying the Cherokee in America in relation to fuel costs is meaningless, as the well-off have never been much bothered by such. You yourself pointed out how consistently the beast was bought by the better-off over its life. That’s a reflection of status envy and marketing, not any reality. Wood paneling, insularity, and horses.
The rest of the (posh) world bought Range Rovers and their status, and understand, again, I am not for a moment suggesting the actual superiority of the product as a vehicle. The Rovers were (and sadly, are) notorious as elegant rubbish.
Jeep had no “understanding” of ride quality or interest in it, as they fitted the same truck suspension from beginning to end. They understood amortised-production profit on something obsolete and not sophisticated to begin with, and fair enough. An actual understanding of ride comfort doesn’t require much – absorbtion of bumps, and control of rebound, and that long-lived Cherokee never got there. It didn’t need to.
One other thing for your edification. I note your comment about the first Grand Cherokee; outside of the US, the brand is considered as much a pile of rubbish as LR.
Perhaps if you can tell me how many military forces use them, I might recant that.
Beautifully done, kept and/or restored example in a great color combo, thanks for this. While Japan has a good number of SUVs the LC of all generations seems a bit under-represented there compared to others, perhaps due to them being the domestic choice (based on my complete non-scientific random walking around).
So, T87, what IS the correct protocol for taking the pics there? For example with a single family house with the typical open fronted garage space it seems like a no-no to walk into the space and towards the back of the car. But if it’s a multii-family with shared parking spaces in front or under as this one seems to be, then it’s deemed OK or at least less problematic? (Hard to tell what this one is.) I usually tried to orient myself based on whether or not there were other personal belongings in the space, i.e. if it also contained a bike and some boxes then definitely no, if totally open except for the car then usually sort of OK especially if right on the street, but if set back then no. If any part of the vehicle is on the road surface then fair game. But if any person was visible then I’d keep going and not linger. And a gate or other barrier even if open is a clear delineator as well of course.
I broadly agree with your assessment – especially in Japan, where they are pretty defensive about these things. I can make the odd exception, such as the early 60s Corona, which was just too good to let go. In the present case, this FJ56 was in a multi-space car park under a building, so I felt ok going to town on it. Plus the street was deserted, which is always a big plus…
As soon as I saw the title, I was ready to scream “Typo! – that’s an FJ55”. But I read through and was surprised to learn of the JDM FJ56 designation, which is not unlike the 60/62 differentiation with its successor, though the latter was used here in the States. As a 4WD enthusiast on the US West Coast and former 80 series LC owner, these Iron Pigs are not that unusual, certainly more common here than their FJ45 predecessor. Nice find! By the way, there are a couple of outfits here that restore/rebuild them for a way more than new Range Rover price.
Trying to pin down the first SUV is a bit of a fool’s errand, as the term is subject to many interpretations. But I will nominate the Ford Marmon-Herrington woody station wagon, as it was very expensive and bought by some well-heeled sportsmen to take them hunting and such on remote properties and hunting preserves. It satisfies the key criteria perfectly: stylish, exclusive, 4WD, and relatively comfortable (for its time).
I have to agree Paul. I love those 4WD woodies.
Land Cruisers were and are really popular in Australia, it might be its single largest market. They’re often used by mining, construction and engineering companies out in the bush.
Survivors are rare they drank fuel and rusted rapidly but I do recall one a friend had with a P6 Perkins diesel in it better o fuel but the torque destroyed the gearbox his was anearly3speed model last seen he was awaiting a used 4 speed to be delivered rust was getting in so its likely gone by now, this also spawned the troop carrier model which I drove considerable distances 4.2 diesel powered loaded with work crew roof rack crammed with equipment and towing a tandem axle trailer it would bowl along weaving with the worn steering box they all have at a steady 3500 rpm about 60mph there was no Speedo on dirt roads in western NSW
Growing up in the ‘70’s a neighbor had a red & white Land Cruiser, I always thought it was a nice looking vehicle. I think those folks used it as a second vehicle for weekend camping/hunting trips or Wisconsin winters as it was never in their garage, but that could be because they only had a one car garage. Hard to believe people somehow managed to drive in winter for decades of w/o front or four wheel drive🙂
Nice Land Cruiser. I’m actually intrigued by the vintage Kawasaki in the background, it looks like a 1975 KX 250 (?).
I sometimes feel a bit sheepish – or perhaps, sheep-like – in how I have come to notice cars of my kidhood.
I didn’t like these at all as that kid, silly narrow things with that PG Wodehouse peevish face, the whole shebang like some cheap tin knock-off toy that a relative might think I’d mistake for a real copy of an actual car.
Also, I rode in one aged about 8, and even then it tried to break my poor little spine. and I’m sure there was a pea somewhere under my cushion….
I later drove a few 60 series, essentially the same chassis, and they were pretty nasty compared to any car.
However, quite recently, it seems folks are doing them up, and taking them seriously, and suddenly, I see what they see: they’re really rather cool, and certainly characterful.
Oh well, I never have been ahead of any curve in my life – well, except the ones that turn down cul-de-sacs.