Elegant and simple. It doesn’t even look cluttered, but it has more info than my car’s dash has. AND, it all appears to be designed to be seen through the steering wheel.
I wonder why the actual image says ‘defender’ in it. Someone has their able-bodied vehicles mixed up.
charly
on 13 May 09
nice, simple, driver friendly. My dad has such a car, great car.
D
on 13 May 09
The layout is beautiful. Nice and simple with the important stuff up top and center. If we’re nitpicking though…. I think they made a mistake by mounting the needles too deep. The tops of the letters are cutoff on the bottom gauges. I also think the AMP gauge could have been replaced with something else or committed altogether. I know darn well my wife has no clue what this gauge is for. :-)
Personally, I think tachometers are frills. I am a fan of the FJ, but much prefer the Jeep CJ series (when it was AMC, pre-Chrysler). The dash gauges and knobs of a 1984 CJ-8 (which is the same as every CJ from every year):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/geoffreydgraham/125355700/
Ian
on 13 May 09
I learnt to drive (and a few other activities) in a FJ40. You didn’t need a ‘tach’, you could hear the engine well enough.
my current FJ Cruiser is fun but not the same at all.
Erik Ordway
on 13 May 09
I had ‘72 as my first car. All other dashes seems to lack important things and have a lot of extra crap after the Toyota. As to the Tach you did not need one. You felt and heard the engine just fine and knew when it was happy or sad.
brad
on 13 May 09
As a study in contrasts, take a look at this dashboard of an early 1980s Citroen Visa:
http://www.firescribble.net/Visa.jpg
GC
on 13 May 09
My ‘76 soft-top FJ40 ‘beast’ was probably the car I enjoyed most out of all cars I have owned so far. It had its own idiosyncrasies, like it was a bit tricky to start with the manual choke, the soft-top roof leaked when it rained, the doors couldn’t be locked – then again, the soft-top was always open anyway – note: talking about sunny Sydney here :) Anyway, loved that car!!
I drive a FJ60 when I’m not biking to work. It’s a gas hog, but between the fact that a) I hardly drive it, and then only for short distances, and b) The manufacturing cost is a sunk cost for it, I feel somewhat justified. I don’t want to get rid of a car that’s perfectly capable of getting me where I need to go just to spend tens of thousands on something else.
I had no idea that there were so many Landcruiser owners that read this blog.
“Makes sense, though: everyone here is a big fan of simple, no-nonsense functionality.”
Why do you need a 4WD if you want no-nonsense ?
This discussion is closed.
About Jason Fried
Jason co-founded Basecamp back in 1999. He also co-authored REWORK, the New York Times bestselling book on running a "right-sized" business. Co-founded, co-authored... Can he do anything on his own?
Chad Garrett
on 13 May 09Elegant and simple. It doesn’t even look cluttered, but it has more info than my car’s dash has. AND, it all appears to be designed to be seen through the steering wheel.
Noah Stokes
on 13 May 09I’ve owned several FJ’s; a 60, 62 and now an 80. Never a 40, but I wish that I did. Great design, great ride.
LL
on 13 May 09Missing the tach, but otherwise nice. The missing tach is a big negative for me.
Evan
on 13 May 09Agreed, gotta have the tach. Interesting layout though – especially how the speedometer isn’t laid out along a constant-radius curve.
jamie
on 13 May 09Nice, 438 miles.
Wonder how many times it’s gone “over the top”...
Zachery Bir
on 13 May 09Nice. I was just looking at mine (‘76) on the way to and from lunch today. Simple, no-nonsense, informative.
Zachery Bir
on 13 May 09I wonder why the actual image says ‘defender’ in it. Someone has their able-bodied vehicles mixed up.
charly
on 13 May 09nice, simple, driver friendly. My dad has such a car, great car.
D
on 13 May 09The layout is beautiful. Nice and simple with the important stuff up top and center. If we’re nitpicking though…. I think they made a mistake by mounting the needles too deep. The tops of the letters are cutoff on the bottom gauges. I also think the AMP gauge could have been replaced with something else or committed altogether. I know darn well my wife has no clue what this gauge is for. :-)
Geoff
on 13 May 09Personally, I think tachometers are frills. I am a fan of the FJ, but much prefer the Jeep CJ series (when it was AMC, pre-Chrysler). The dash gauges and knobs of a 1984 CJ-8 (which is the same as every CJ from every year): http://www.flickr.com/photos/geoffreydgraham/125355700/
Ian
on 13 May 09I learnt to drive (and a few other activities) in a FJ40. You didn’t need a ‘tach’, you could hear the engine well enough.
rebecca
on 13 May 09had one for 11 years. i deeply regret selling it.
my current FJ Cruiser is fun but not the same at all.
Erik Ordway
on 13 May 09I had ‘72 as my first car. All other dashes seems to lack important things and have a lot of extra crap after the Toyota. As to the Tach you did not need one. You felt and heard the engine just fine and knew when it was happy or sad.
brad
on 13 May 09As a study in contrasts, take a look at this dashboard of an early 1980s Citroen Visa:
http://www.firescribble.net/Visa.jpg
GC
on 13 May 09My ‘76 soft-top FJ40 ‘beast’ was probably the car I enjoyed most out of all cars I have owned so far. It had its own idiosyncrasies, like it was a bit tricky to start with the manual choke, the soft-top roof leaked when it rained, the doors couldn’t be locked – then again, the soft-top was always open anyway – note: talking about sunny Sydney here :) Anyway, loved that car!!
rick
on 13 May 09I always liked the 70s Jeep CJ5 dash. Can’t find a good photo, but this is close:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3100/2653960610_4db8b5c22a.jpg?v=0
Rich
on 13 May 09http://www.firescribble.net/Visa.jpg
possibly the most hideous thing I have ever seen for a dashboard/steering wheel
nai
on 14 May 09http://jojati.com//cruiser/left.jpg (1976 FJ40)
Wish I stil had it.
Justin
on 14 May 09This picture was taken from this one which is for sale I think:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Toyota-Land-Cruiser-FJ40-78-Toyota-FJ40-Land-Cruiser-Complete-Nut-Bolt-Resto_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQ_trkparmsZ72Q3a1205Q7c66Q3a2Q7c65Q3a12Q7c39Q3a1Q7c240Q3a1308Q7c301Q3a1Q7c293Q3a1Q7c294Q3a50QQ_trksidZp3286Q2ec0Q2em14QQhashZitem29fe0bfa01QQitemZ180355856897QQptZUSQ5fCarsQ5fTrucks
It has the same photo.
Rich
on 14 May 09I drive a FJ60 when I’m not biking to work. It’s a gas hog, but between the fact that a) I hardly drive it, and then only for short distances, and b) The manufacturing cost is a sunk cost for it, I feel somewhat justified. I don’t want to get rid of a car that’s perfectly capable of getting me where I need to go just to spend tens of thousands on something else.
I had no idea that there were so many Landcruiser owners that read this blog.
Sherwood
on 14 May 09“I had no idea that there were so many Landcruiser owners that read this blog.”
Makes sense, though: everyone here is a big fan of simple, no-nonsense functionality.
Though I’m sure the Toyota engineers relied on a functional spec. {ducks for cover}
Don Schenck
on 14 May 09Functional Specifications for Landcruiser
1. Easy to use 2. Reliable 3. A mule off road
That’s probably about it! ;)
Mikael
on 15 May 09“Makes sense, though: everyone here is a big fan of simple, no-nonsense functionality.”
Why do you need a 4WD if you want no-nonsense ?
This discussion is closed.