2021 Powertrain Upgrade and 200 Series Refresh (1 Viewer)

[Markuson]

This just occurred to me.. Toyota probably makes more money off the camrys/highlanders/etc that landcruiser/LX buyers purchase after being convinced of the toyota quality than they do the 200s themselves.

That’s true. A buddy of mine just bought a Highlander and literally attributed his switch to Toyota because of often riding in my 11 year old, still-rattle-free, reliable, LC that he knows takes regular beatings.

Flagships definitely trickle down in sales.

Kinda like the Viper helped bring back Dodge’s muscle car street cred.

 

[M1911]

The model works for Jeep. They have sissy trims of the Wrangler as well as 'hardcore' trims of the Wrangler. That's just another reason they should bring over the 70 series, however that subject has been beaten to death.

The difference, however, is that Jeep sold 240,000 Wranglers in 2018. So Jeep sold about 7 times as many Wranglers in a single month than Toyota sold Land Cruisers in the entire year.

When you are selling 240k vehicles per year, you can easily fund the development of special, hard-core editions. When you are only selling 3k per, the economics don’t work.

 

[TonyP]

I'd venture to guess that if they had different trim levels for the 200, it would sell significantly more units. Ditch the Sequoia, introduce the a couple of the other 200 trims (GX, GXL, VX and Sahara) to fill the Sequoia's market. But I'm the farthest from a marketing/sales/business expert, so who knows.

 

[40Man]

The difference, however, is that Jeep sold 240,000 Wranglers in 2018. So Jeep sold about 7 times as many Wranglers in a single month than Toyota sold Land Cruisers in the entire year.

When you are selling 240k vehicles per year, you can easily fund the development of special, hard-core editions. When you are only selling 3k per, the economics don’t work.

Toyota is partially missing the mark with U.S. offroad capable SUV sales. Toyota used to outsell the wrangler with the 4runner. Now the Wrangler has more than doubled 4Runner sales (even as reports show a continual decline in Jeep build quality). The early Sequoia sold well, the current model sold 12k units last year, which has been the current norm for that model. The 4Runner has seen a resurgence as people want a capable 4x4 (after sales dropped into the 40k range), partly due to the fall of other capable SUVs, economy, etc, but the Wrangler has left the 4runner in the dust.

The FJ Cruiser was largely a miss in my opinion. Good concept, but horrible rear visibility and poor back seat access. I wanted one til I test drove it.

The original Sequoia sold far better than the current offering. So while I agree there are not enough LC sales to have options, neither does the Sequoia. But that is Toyota's fault, not the consumers. There are only so many consumers wanting Sequoias and LCs (or have the funds) If Toyota designed a larger FJ40 "unlimited" type option, even if a bit bigger/wider to solve rollover concerns, I think people would buy it. Instead Toyota comes out with the FT-4X concept (doubt it is made) which misses the mark by a mile. There is room for another vehicle to complement the 4runner like Jeep has with the Cherokee and Wrangler.

Toyota has found a niche with the Highlander for soccer moms and so that is the type of vehicle they will likely continue to focus on.

 

[M1911]

I'd venture to guess that if they had different trim levels for the 200, it would sell significantly more units. Ditch the Sequoia, introduce the a couple of the other 200 trims (GX, GXL, VX and Sahara) to fill the Sequoia's market. But I'm the farthest from a marketing/sales/business expert, so who knows.

I disagree. First, the Sequoia is covering a different market. It competes against the Tahoekonburbanslade, and it has a truly usable third row (enabled by the independent rear suspension). Development cost for the Sequoia is relatively limited as it is closely related to the Tundra. The Sequoia sells something 4x the Land Cruiser in the US and it is still a low volume vehicle (partly because Toyota hasn’t kept it competitive).

Reducing the interior appointments in the Land Cruiser wouldn’t significantly reduce the cost. The engineering cost to federalize the Land Cruiser (emissions testing, fuel economy testing, crash testing) is enormous on a per vehicle basis. That’s where the cost lies. Selling a “stripper” version of the Land Cruiser for $70k isn’t going to boost sales a significant amount.

We enthusiasts who take our large, heavy, expensive Land Cruisers off-road are not representative of the average US Land Cruiser buyer. Catering to us wouldn’t boost sales enough to offset the engineering cost.

A “cheap” Land Cruiser wouldn’t cut into the Wrangler market because it would still be far larger and far more expensive than a Wrangler.

 

[M1911]

Toyota has found a niche with the Highlander for soccer moms and so that is the type of vehicle they will likely continue to focus on.

@$#!!!!

That is not a niche! Crossovers are the bulk of the market. Toyota sold 244,000 Highlanders in 2018. The top 3 best selling vehicles in 2018 were full-size pickups.

Fourth was the RAV4 (400,000+). Fifth was the Nissan Rogue. Sixth was the Honda CRV.

The Highlander was 15th.

 

[bloc]

Toyota is partially missing the mark with U.S. offroad capable SUV sales. Toyota used to outsell the wrangler with the 4runner. Now the Wrangler has more than doubled 4Runner sales (even as reports show a continual decline in Jeep build quality).

Back then there weren't any other non-pickup 4wd/awd options from toyota though. Now there are Rav4s, Highlanders, Sequoias.

 

[TeCKis300]

I'd venture to guess that if they had different trim levels for the 200, it would sell significantly more units. Ditch the Sequoia, introduce the a couple of the other 200 trims (GX, GXL, VX and Sahara) to fill the Sequoia's market. But I'm the farthest from a marketing/sales/business expert, so who knows.

To be fair, the LX570 is a trim level of the LC. At least from the perspective of investment and manufacturing. Making combined production numbers of the 200-series 7-10k annually. Still a pittance.

It's not unexpected for a top of the line model. If you look at many of the top of the line halo/niche/expensive/exclusive models of many manufacturers - Merc G, Porsche 911 (in all its variants), Audi A8/S8 (their Q7/Q8 in my mind are more mainstream SUVS), etc., these sales numbers are comparable.

I don't really care that Toyota/Lexus sell more. It's part of the draw for the 200-series. Niche and exclusive. Given the capabilities of the vehicle - overbuilt, overwrought, expensive, at the sacrifice of some traditional metrics for its extended capabilities, it isn't a mainstream design by any means. They could make it more mainstream, at which point it would start to resemble the Prado, Sequoia, or yuk Wrangler.

I'm glad it's not watered down to be more mainstream. That isn't the 200-series mission.

 

[JohnPW]

Interesting comments here. A couple of points: the LC 200 is not designed or intended to be competive in the USA. It is designed for Australia, the Mid East and Africa. A business plan around a gas guzzling $85K off road vehicle in the USA doesn’t make any sense. Toyota happens to keep sending a few thousand a year as a “halo” vehicle for die hards like us.

What most large SUV buyers want looks like the Tahoe or the new Expedition : lots of room for people and gear with good towing ability. The 200 is a compromise compared to the room and features of the competition. The Sequoia was targeted as competition for the Tahoe and Expedition, and grabbed market share when it was new & fresh. But Toyota has made no effort to keep the Sequoia competitive...the interior is a joke compared to Ford and GM. If Toyota updates the Sequoia interior, and if the new powertrain brings better MPG, it will grab market share again. But the 200 will remain a niche vehicle in the USA.

 

[White Stripe]

I think the current 200 series type of large land cruiser should be dropped. Instead just sell the sequoia in place of it. The rear suspension is pretty robust and would do almost if not as well as a stripped down version in Africa/Australia. Then redo the land cruiser as a smaller rig that's a true JL fighter. I just don't see the need of having a sequoia and 200 series even in foreign markets. The sequoia can be outfitted to be a large off road rig.

 

[JohnPW]

I believe the Sequoia is a USA only vehicle, built here for US market. The 200 is a great vehicle for wide open Australia & the mid east, and its solid rear axle and off road chops are key to it’s success in those markets. I really believe the LC 200 isn’t intended for USA which is why there’s only one version, no marketing etc. Toyota building both Sequoia and LC makes more sense if you think of LC as an overseas vehicle and Sequoia as USA only. What hasn’t made sense is how updates to the Tundra were not carried over to the Sequoia...it’s basically unchanged for a decade.

 

[Canyonero]

I think the current 200 series type of large land cruiser should be dropped. Instead just sell the sequoia in place of it. The rear suspension is pretty robust and would do almost if not as well as a stripped down version in Africa/Australia. Then redo the land cruiser as a smaller rig that's a true JL fighter. I just don't see the need of having a sequoia and 200 series even in foreign markets. The sequoia can be outfitted to be a large off road rig.

View attachment 1901503

Sorry but I disagree strongly. If you’ve ever seen the flex of a 200’s rear axle or experienced why such articulation is imperative off road, I don’t believe you’d have made that statement.

 

[TeCKis300]

I think the current 200 series type of large land cruiser should be dropped. Instead just sell the sequoia in place of it. The rear suspension is pretty robust and would do almost if not as well as a stripped down version in Africa/Australia. Then redo the land cruiser as a smaller rig that's a true JL fighter. I just don't see the need of having a sequoia and 200 series even in foreign markets. The sequoia can be outfitted to be a large off road rig.

I couldn't disagree more!

Some overland styling, bumpers, etc, is not what a Land Cruiser makes. The atrocity you posted there couldn't' be further from what I want from the LC.

Toyota really gets the niche that the LC fits in. It's why over 3x generations of the vehicle, that it's wheelbase has remained 112.3". It's a mountain goat workhorse with true HD capabilities built for badlands.

I tow too. The Sequoia without a doubt would be a better towing vehicle on account of its wheelbase and IRS. Yet that doesn't make me want the Sequoia.

There already exists a smaller Yota rig, several in fact. Those based on the 120-series platform.

 

[Canyonero]

I do want to add that no matter how cold and calculating and, frankly, cheap Toyota may seem at times, there is real emotion and a love of cars behind a lot of what they do.

FCA, GM and Ford all are scrapping their sedans and cars generally. Toyota (specifically the CEO Mr. Akio Toyoda) has a real passion for great cars. They’ve doubled down on producing a Supra, despite no apparent business case to do so. Same with the 86, and a 2nd generation of that car is coming too. Yes they shared R&D with BMW and Subaru, but that’s nothing new - and it makes the cars possible. The LFA leaned heavily on Yamaha, too.

Toyota doesn’t have to sell the 200 in the States, at all. They are printing money with the RAV4, Highlander, Corolla, Camry, C-HR and 4Runner. THe 4Runner alone gives Toyota street cred as the only reliable and capable BOF 4x4 you can buy.

I think Toyota sees their 200 as their 911 Turbo S. It represents what they are capable of, and it’s basically a “we are the only ones who can make this” statement.

As for the next power train, all we can be assured of is that it will be better than the 200’s. With history as our guide, that seems evident.

 

[40Man]

Back then there weren't any other non-pickup 4wd/awd options from toyota though. Now there are Rav4s, Highlanders, Sequoias.

All 3 existed during the periods I was referencing. Rav 4 since 96. The other 2 were 2001.

 

[Markuson]

I think the current 200 series type of large land cruiser should be dropped. Instead just sell the sequoia in place of it. The rear suspension is pretty robust and would do almost...

Replace the LC with Sequoia bc it’s...

“pretty robust...”?
“would do almost...”?

Oye...

We love the LC specifically BECAUSE it exceeds “pretty robust” and “almost.”

 

[Eric Sarjeant]

I’d put my money on this being wrong info. A few clues:

1. why would Toyota change the engine before a redesign?
2. 2020 has a “heritage” edition, remember in 2007, Lexus has a “limited” edition LX with minor aesthetic changes on the last year of the 100-series.
3. no way this info would be confirmed this early at any level from Toyota. 2020’s don’t even go into production till mid-October 2019 (let alone 2021). The Japanese council, isn’t even at a point to approve a final decision of this nature yet.

I would take this info with a grain of salt.

 

[T4Runner]

I think the current 200 series type of large land cruiser should be dropped. Instead just sell the sequoia in place of it. The rear suspension is pretty robust and would do almost if not as well as a stripped down version in Africa/Australia. Then redo the land cruiser as a smaller rig that's a true JL fighter. I just don't see the need of having a sequoia and 200 series even in foreign markets. The sequoia can be outfitted to be a large off road rig.

View attachment 1901503

I think that makes almost as much practical sense as this:

 

[mcgaskins]

I do want to add that no matter how cold and calculating and, frankly, cheap Toyota may seem at times, there is real emotion and a love of cars behind a lot of what they do.

FCA, GM and Ford all are scrapping their sedans and cars generally. Toyota (specifically the CEO Mr. Akio Toyoda) has a real passion for great cars. They’ve doubled down on producing a Supra, despite no apparent business case to do so. Same with the 86, and a 2nd generation of that car is coming too. Yes they shared R&D with BMW and Subaru, but that’s nothing new - and it makes the cars possible. The LFA leaned heavily on Yamaha, too.

Toyota doesn’t have to sell the 200 in the States, at all. They are printing money with the RAV4, Highlander, Corolla, Camry, C-HR and 4Runner. THe 4Runner alone gives Toyota street cred as the only reliable and capable BOF 4x4 you can buy.

I think Toyota sees their 200 as their 911 Turbo S. It represents what they are capable of, and it’s basically a “we are the only ones who can make this” statement.

As for the next power train, all we can be assured of is that it will be better than the 200’s. With history as our guide, that seems evident.

Sounds like someone is considering dipping his toes back in the 200 world (I hope you do too!) You're 100% right, and the funniest part about it is that the 200 platform was designed and tested about 15 years ago and remains one of the best vehicles on the planet even though it's barely changed since inception. Pretty amazing to think how well a basically ancient vehicle performs and feels current even though the auto industry is incredibly different than it was in the early to mid 2000s when the 200 was developed. The only other "modern" vehicle I can think of with that kind of staying power is the G Wagon which felt and looked as old as it's chassis was until the big update for this year, and I still think the 200 is more functional overall.

 

[Chocolate]

I think that makes almost as much practical sense as this:View attachment 1901928

Never seen a solid front axle Supra.