Tinker's latest brutal review of LC250 (12 Viewers)

[Specialeyes]

I thought my 200 was quiet coming from a 4Runner but go ride/drive something like an X5 or A6 and yea, the 200 in comparison is loud. All that wind has to move over and around the mass of the vehicle and it doesn't have quite the same level of insulation as the luxury makes do. I'd imagine the LX does better in this department.

 

[xcmountain]

Here we go again.

Land Cruiser in name only (LC-NO) sums up the 250.

It’s sad that it’s the only new option we get here in the States and does not come close to what the predecessors offered.

Nearly the same fuel cost as a 200 when you factor in the excess cost of premium fuel and factoring in the advertised mpg numbers are woefully misleading. 18-19 real world MPG is really all you’re getting out of the high strung 4 cylinder, and the inadequate fuel tank size just adds salt to the wound.

Like a skinny slightly attractive 6/10 coke addict (4cyl).

 

[Mingus Dew]

I thought my 200 was quiet coming from a 4Runner but go ride/drive something like an X5 or A6 and yea, the 200 in comparison is loud. All that wind has to move over and around the mass of the vehicle and it doesn't have quite the same level of insulation as the luxury makes do. I'd imagine the LX does better in this department.

My A6 wagon is so much quieter than the 200 it's not even close. It's way, way smoother too with air cushioning. But it's developed a few rattles and noises over ~25,000 miles. Nothing of the sort in my 200 (~31,000 miles).

The only comparison that really matters is against other large, body-on-frame trucks with go anywhere capability. I think the 200 is very quiet and composed for what it is. The last gen 4Runner is definitely much worse.

Have not driven a 250 so can't speak to that.

 

[MRego]

I thought my 200 was quiet coming from a 4Runner but go ride/drive something like an X5 or A6 and yea, the 200 in comparison is loud. All that wind has to move over and around the mass of the vehicle and it doesn't have quite the same level of insulation as the luxury makes do. I'd imagine the LX does better in this department.

Another advantage of rocking the OEM Yakima basket in the 200 is that there is no such thing as "no-wind-noise".

In all seriousness, there is no denial the Prado is not as insulated as the 200 and the 200 is not as insulated as the LX. So, wind noise will be as bad as the fewer insulation goes.

 

[Jetboy]

For someone looking for a more basic/functional offroad wagon, the 6th gen 4runner TRD off-road spec non-hybrid does everything the LC250 does, except the swaybar disconnect, which will likely be taken care of by the aftermarket in short order. Even without the hybrid, the 4cyl should be enough power for most, as long as you don't plan to tow.

I was in this same camp until I drove a 6th gen 4R. On paper - absolutely a replacement. TBH it's better in almost every way on paper. The problem is the outward visibility is terrible. It's roughly equivalent to a Mustang or Camaro. And it's so disappointing because everything else was so much better than the outgoing model. The steering feel, the power delivery and highway cruising comfort - generational upgrade. Even the busy and relatively cheap interior is okay although I'd much rather have a simple and easy to wipe down interior. But the visibility out is just really a buzzkill.

Edit - you can see it somewhat in this side by side. Also note how much more glass you see in the rear window on the older one. From the inside it's really stark how different they are. The LC250 got this right.

 

[W4632018]

I own a 200.
Just the other day I was driving it.
And heard …. Wait for it….. wait for it.
Wind noise.

No is
Wait for it
Wait for it
disputing that

 

[Rednexus]

I was in this same camp until I drove a 6th gen 4R. On paper - absolutely a replacement. TBH it's better in almost every way on paper. The problem is the outward visibility is terrible. It's roughly equivalent to a Mustang or Camaro. And it's so disappointing because everything else was so much better than the outgoing model. The steering feel, the power delivery and highway cruising comfort - generational upgrade. Even the busy and relatively cheap interior is okay although I'd much rather have a simple and easy to wipe down interior. But the visibility out is just really a buzzkill.

Another reason I love my GX470. It's like driving a greenhouse around! I thought they looked weird when they were new in the aughts - due to being so tall - but they have great visibility. My old 1st gen Subaru Forester was the same way - greenhouse cabin with a low belt line. My kids love(d) riding in both vehicles as they can see out the windows from the back seat (which isn't the case with nearly any modern crossover).

I really don't understand the high beltline concept in SUVs. It seems to make sense in passenger cars for side impact crash standards. But the SUVs are much higher and would seem to have better side impact resistance due to the placement of the door sills and frame rails. So it's confusing as to why beltlines keep getting higher and higher, and windows get smaller and smaller. IMO the high beltlines may be the worst design/styling feature of modern vehicles.

 

[Jetboy]

Another reason I love my GX470. It's like driving a greenhouse around! I thought they looked weird when they were new in the aughts - due to being so tall - but they have great visibility. My old 1st gen Subaru Forester was the same way - greenhouse cabin with a low belt line. My kids love(d) riding in both vehicles as they can see out the windows from the back seat (which isn't the case with nearly any modern crossover).

I really don't understand the high beltline concept in SUVs. It seems to make sense in passenger cars for side impact crash standards. But the SUVs are much higher and would seem to have better side impact resistance due to the placement of the door sills and frame rails. So it's confusing as to why beltlines keep getting higher and higher, and windows get smaller and smaller. IMO the high beltlines may be the worst design/styling feature of modern vehicles.

That and the long high hoods. It's crazy how long the hood is on the new 4Runner. I parked next to my Tundra and it's easily 6+ inches more hood on the 4Runner. The LC250 is much better. It has a proper greenhouse. The hood is too long by about a foot. But it also has a decent slope to it. The LC200 was really nice in how they basically hid the low center of the hood.

 

[hoser]

I really don't understand the high beltline concept in SUVs. It seems to make sense in passenger cars for side impact crash standards. But the SUVs are much higher and would seem to have better side impact resistance due to the placement of the door sills and frame rails. So it's confusing as to why beltlines keep getting higher and higher, and windows get smaller and smaller. IMO the high beltlines may be the worst design/styling feature of modern vehicles.

The side crash tests are not just vs other simulated vehicles but also poles/trees.

 

[Rednexus]

The side crash tests are not just vs other simulated vehicles but also poles/trees.

Good point, although one can't help but wonder if reduced vehicle visibility may cause more crashes and therefore injuries/fatalities compared to if we were all driving vehicles that are easier to see out of but less robust if they hit a pole on the side.

Anecdotally, the frequency that I inadvertently start change lanes into the path of a vehicle in my blind spot is a lot higher in our modern vehicles with poor visibility and blind spot monitoring than it seems to be in my GX that lacks both those safety features and significant blind spots. It almost never happened in my Forester or vehicles I owned before that, as they had virtually no sizeable blind spots. I always look in mirrors and over my shoulder, but sometimes miss the tiny indicator in the side mirror. I'd really like to have good visibility AND blind spot monitoring!

We must not forget that the road to hell is paved with good intentions .

 

[jdam]

Good point, although one can't help but wonder if reduced vehicle visibility may cause more crashes and therefore injuries/fatalities compared to vehicles that are easier to see out of. Anecdotally, the frequency that I inadvertently change lanes into the path of a vehicle in my blind spot is a lot higher in our modern vehicles with poor visibility and blind spot monitoring than it seems to be in my GX that lacks both those features and significant blind spots. It almost never happened in my Forester which had virtually no blind spots. I always look in mirrors and over my shoulder, but sometimes miss the tiny indicator in the side mirror. asdf

We must not forget that the road to hell is paved with good intentions .

It doesn't have to be that high either though - using our Subaru Forester as well (a 2019 - so the latest general bodystyle) - they get really great crash safety ratings and that thing has so much glass.

 

[hoser]

It doesn't have to be that high either though - using our Subaru Forester as well (a 2019 - so the latest general bodystyle) - they get really great crash safety ratings and that thing has so much glass.

The side impact pole test mimics a vehicle hitting immovable pole. So the Forester will only get slammed by ~4K lbs, versus ~5500+ for the suv. In other words, a Forester body on an SUV frame (w/ associated weight) would probably not perform as well.

 

[Jetboy]

Safety is always a complex issue with too many variables to ever get a complete model or picture of. I do like to look at the death statistics sometimes from IIHS. I think that's a pretty good real world metric on relative safety. Some of the data is pretty wild. Midsize luxury SUVs appear to be the safest category of vehicle to be in. The RX350 if you look at a long period like 10 or 20 years is probably the safest vehicle that's ever been produced in terms of occupant death per mile driven or months registered. It seems to have the near ideal combo of vehicle attributes along with the right demographic of drivers who probably drive safer. But a Camry hybrid is less than half as many deaths than a regular Camry, and an awd Model 3 is more than 3 times as many deaths per registered vehicle than the 2wd version - so obviously there's confounding factors.

Whatever you do - don't get in a Mitsubishi Mirage. Death trap. And watch out for Ram truck drivers - they kill more other motorists than any other vehicle.

 

[calokie]

The FJC is a pretty niche vehicle. I'm not sure I really follow comparing a top of the line First Edition LC250 against an FJC in the first place. I guess they look similar, especially in blue?

Most LC250 buyers if they drove an FJC would probably crash into something or someone on the way to the trails. On the road I treat FJCs the same as semi trucks, I specifically make it a point to avoid getting close and/or pass them as quickly as possible.

I’ve both the vehicles and several others, Tinker talks about in the video. Don’t really off-road, but gravel and b-roads occasionally as needed to get to MTB trailheads.

My FJ is built for myself, and my dog, and has a flat deck in place of the rear seats. My 250 is stock.

The 250, hasn’t been on very much gravel/b-roads as I’ve not traveled much to get to trailheads of late. But when I’ve taken it places, I certainly haven’t noticed all the complaints Tinker has. It’s not perfect, mileage is a bit disappointing, in town, highway is fine. It’s far more comfortable than my FJ that had a fox shock (Trd pro) fitted. It’s not even close.

I sat in and didn’t drive a gen 6 4Runner because, if I had to look at it in my driveway I’d throw up and all those buttons and base model Carolla interior, well, yeah, throw up. It may be better off road…. It was an off road premium, not sure why, but it was cramped, more so than my previous 4Runner with so much stuck to the dash, center console it was an instant no.

Glad he points out all his personal negatives. His opinion, of course. I appreciate all the folks that don’t own a 250 fully agree with Tinker. The 4 250s that I know of locally, love them and how they drive. I really like how mine rides, drives and feels.

If I was off-roading for real, I’d take my Power wagon not mess around modding my FJ to handle what my truck can do, okay turn radius sucks, without a single mod.

Any of you “LC-no the GX overtrail is the vehicle”, find that 77g unicorn and buy it and smile. I looked for a good long time and I don’t have 90+ to drop on a the 550.

I’ve driven, extensively the 460, it’s great but it’s dated in so many ways. Reliable, sure, but that mileage is so much worse real life.

To each their own. I find Tinker a bit boring and opinionated and I also don’t ever plan to thrash my vehicles the way he does.

Love my FJ, love my Power Wagon, love my 250, love the Trd Pro 4Runner but I choose to drive my 250, it’s just that much better to drive and be inside of, especially as a daily. And a light duty off roader.

View attachment 3908666

View attachment 3908669

View attachment 3908670

What are the top 4 aftermarket mods every serious "overlander" does to their yota?
Tires/Wheels
suspension lift (also crying about how they need to disable the KDSS)
fuel range extension
CV Axles: although the LC250 has center locking and rear locker from factory, so the lighter CV axles isn't much of an issue as a vehicle without CL and RLD

"Hey this new lc250 dosent steer the same as my outdated FJ???"

 

[calokie]

Current Overtrail inventory within 250 miles of my location (I’d be willing to bet it’s sold)
Despite its ugly looks and worse departure angles, I would go with the GX overtrail, however u cant find one to test drive. (I live in the Bay Area, probably the largest Lexus territory in the USA)

The LC250 looks f-ing rad AF square headlight of course.
I’m 4 weeks in waiting on my LC250 they aren’t easy to find unless you’re looking for the 1958.

Future Mods (prior to watching Tinks video):
Tires and wheels
Suspension (high low adjusters)
Extended range tank/Aux tank (even if it had a 26 gallon I would want more!)


Selling my beloved 80 series to make room for the 250. If only I had room to store both

 

[Rednexus]

nobody mentions Tink is comparing his highly modified FJ (with less fuel range ) that he's spent years refining, to an off the shelf LC250

What are the top 4 aftermarket mods every serious "overlander" does to their yota?
Tires/Wheels
suspension lift (also crying about how they need to disable the KDSS)
fuel range extension
CV Axles: although the LC250 has center locking and rear locker from factory, so the lighter CV axles isn't much of an issue as a vehicle without CL and RLD

"Hey this new lc250 dosent steer the same as my outdated FJ???"

He actually compared the LC250 to a bone-stock, super low-mileage FJ that a friend of his owned. Not his personal FJ. There may have been a few shots of his FJ in the video, but the clips of them wheeling and driving on the road was the stock FJ.

 

[calokie]

He actually compared the LC250 to a bone-stock, super low-mileage FJ that a friend of his owned. Not his personal FJ. There may have been a few shots of his FJ in the video, but the clips of them wheeling and driving on the road was the stock FJ.

ah yes true, i forgot they busted out the specimen from the archives, then i decided not to post that comment.... but didn't realize it was still in my reply at the top/wile on my phone.

 

[Jetboy]

What are the top 4 aftermarket mods every serious "overlander" does to their yota?
Tires/Wheels
suspension lift (also crying about how they need to disable the KDSS)
fuel range extension
CV Axles: although the LC250 has center locking and rear locker from factory, so the lighter CV axles isn't much of an issue as a vehicle without CL and RLD

"Hey this new lc250 dosent steer the same as my outdated FJ???"

I don't think fuel range extension or CVs are common on anything post 2005ish. My FJ40 would probably burn more than half a tank of gas on the 30ish miles of the Rubicon. My 4Runner used less than 1/4 tank. Probably around 3-4 gallons. The trail efficiency is much improved where I don't see much need for fuel cans on the trails. Only really for towing, but even then the last gen had 23 gallons which is functionally a lot more. Assuming 5 gallons roughly as a minimum in the tank (Tundra FSM says IIRC 5.6 gallons minimum in tank to operate normally - not sure what the LC250 requires) that means the LC250 has 13 useable gallons. The prior gen 4R had 18 useable gallons. About 40% more. Adjusting for EPA mpg the old one had about 15% more range, adjusting for Fuelly real world mpg the old one had about 30% more real world range.

- IMO the new engine is significantly better, this is just about fuel range. The LC250 needs more and should have more. I have a theory on why it has a stubby tank that is about 8 inches too small for the location; there's going to be a short wheelbase version and Toyota wanted to have a single tank. It would at least make sense on why it looks like it was designed for a shorter wheelbase model - possibly it was?

The OEM CVs on the 5th gen 4Runner, LC200, Gen2+ Tundra, and Gen 2+ tacomas are impressively strong. I've never seen one fail on the trail and in 8 years of pretty hard abuse I never broke one in my 5th gen 4R. Within a few months of buying it I bought 2 trail spares expecting it to be more like the older stuff. They're on par with an LC80.

What doesn't make sense to me is that they're all built on the same factory assembly line. There's literally two racks full of front axles at a point in the assembly line and Toyota made a decision on the spec sheet to have the assembly line person grab the cheap axle instead of the better ones. That's hard to explain. Especially when Toyota determined that the GXs without KDSS and the 4Runners without SDM, both having less articulation, needed the higher cost ones. I can only think of two reasons why that would be: either the front coilovers that come on the 4R and GX have more travel and require the better CVs or the baseline assumption is that they will be swapped for extended travel coilovers or lifts where the baseline assumption is that the LC250 will not.

It may be the case that the focus groups indicated that LC250 buyers don't do the same kind of offroad use as GX and 4Runner buyers. Hard to know. But it seems illogical on its face to me.

 

[Jetboy]

Just for a fun comparison to where Toyota is putting a lot more effort into the products - the new Rav4 PHEV has 839 miles of combined range. 839 miles!! And 320hp.

 

[Rednexus]

Just for a fun comparison to where Toyota is putting a lot more effort into the products - the new Rav4 PHEV has 839 miles of combined range. 839 miles!! And 320hp.

That would be amazing. Drive for 11+ hours without stopping.

In all honesty, my next vehicle purchase will probably be another small commuter car, and it will probably be a Civic Hybrid. 520 miles of range and 48 mpg combined, and a dead-simple N/A 2.0 engine. It's pretty hard to justify a EV or even a PHEV for a highway commuter like me when basic HEVs are so good - at least in cars and crossovers.