Thoughts on LC250 Remote Touring Capacities (8 Viewers)

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

Fort9378 said:
Smaller components are easier to tuck in. They're also not BOF. Combine those two and it's very easy to shave off an inch or two. Subarus are very capable vehicles and adequately meet the needs of more offroaders than people like to admit, but its not necessarily apples to apples underneath.
Click to expand...
I owned Subarus for ~13 years prior to buying a GX (2000 Forester and 2014 Outback), and off-roaded them frequently. On my stock GX I drug lots of places I wouldn't have drug in the Outback (the Forester had kind of weak ground clearance), although of course the GX was vastly more capable stock due to better articulation, larger tires, low range, etc.

Minor changes in spring height/suspension geometry would certainly provide better ground clearance - Toyota already does this on their TRD models with different springs/shocks/UCAs - getting them to 9+ inches of ground clearance stock - and most of us do it when lifting our rigs.

8" ground clearance isn't really enough for anything beyond unmaintained dirt road - even a dirt road with some ruts/washouts will have the vehicle dragging quite a bit. Most of us experienced wheelers just drag and move on but it really acts as a barrier to anyone new to wheeling who buys one of these rigs and tries to use it as-intended.
 
Last edited:
Rednexus said:
I owned Subarus for ~13 years prior to buying a GX (2000 Forester and 2014 Outback), and off-roaded them frequently. On my stock GX I drug lots of places I wouldn't have drug in the Outback (the Forester had kind of weak ground clearance), although of course the GX was vastly more capable stock due to better articulation, larger tires, low range, etc.

Minor changes in spring height/suspension geometry would certainly provide better ground clearance - Toyota already does this on their TRD models with different springs/shocks/UCAs - getting them to 9+ inches of ground clearance stock - and most of us do it when lifting our rigs.

8" ground clearance isn't really enough for anything beyond unmaintained dirt road - even a dirt road with some ruts/washouts will have the vehicle dragging quite a bit. Most of us experienced wheelers just drag and move on but it really acts as a barrier to anyone new to wheeling who buys one of these rigs and tries to use it as-intended.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. Coming from Jeeps, toyota has always been frustratingly conservative with their suspensions. However if the ground clearance is coming off the rear diff (I'm not sure) the only way to make a difference is tires. Just a weak point of solid axles.
 
Fort9378 said:
Totally agree. Coming from Jeeps, toyota has always been frustratingly conservative with their suspensions. However if the ground clearance is coming off the rear diff (I'm not sure) the only way to make a difference is tires. Just a weak point of solid axles.
Click to expand...
For my GX (at least stock) the front skidplate was the problematic low spot. I think with sagged OEM front springs it was in the 7.5" range - pretty pathetic. It's a totally different rig off-road after the lift. Just checked it and I'm at 11" under everywhere on the front skids, 9.5" under the rear diff pumpkin, and 13" under the rear axle tubes (with worn 32" tires). I've never actually whacked the rear diff pumpkin - Subaru wheeling taught me to pick good lines :).
 
I had a bit of a debate with one of the engineers on the Tundra team a year or two ago. I don't think they did a very good job and I suggested some of the reasons why.

One part of that discussion was about the front suspension that is relevant to this front ground clearance issue. I get the reasoning for starting as close to level as possible on the control arms for stock suspension. That's where you'll get the best possible highway ride and driving dynamics. Okay. All good there. It is well setup for its intended task of highway driving. But I asked - Why does Toyota design the front geometry in a way that at stock ride height the starting point is with the caster on the low side of ideal with range built into the adjustment to go half way up or down from there in caster? Has anyone ever complained or given feedback that they had too much caster and couldn't get the alignment in spec? That just doesn't happen. The problem is universally too little adjustment to add caster. I suggested that a pretty high percentage of buyers lift them some in the front for more clearance and it would be a lot better to design the base suspension so that at stock height there is about 20% adjustment to the lower caster side and 80% adjustment range to the higher caster combination. That would eliminate the need for almost everyone to buy expensive aftermarket upper control arms and would have zero negative effect on stock ride or alignment needs. It's a simple engineering fix that can be done at the design phase to make it better with no additional cost.

I don't think my suggestion got very far - but I hope I at least planted a seed of the idea somewhere in the greater Toyota engineering group to fix this. It's a simple obvious solution that should be implemented. It's just one of those changes that would come from having people on the design team who are also real world buyers and users of the product. If the front suspension was designed my way - it would be much easier for dealers to add small lifts for customers who want them without needing upper control arms or sacrificing quality of feel on the road if they knew that there was adequate front alignment adjustment already engineered into the design.

Toyota does do a lot of things right. The rear shock mounts are right where they need to be. The use of steel rear driveline is great. I used mine as a rock slider a few times and was amazed it never bent or dented. It looks a bit like a candycane but no worse for the wear than some scratches. Newer aluminum drive shafts often crumple like a soda can. Those things make a big difference in the more challenging places. And the same is true up front. All the fragile bits are well protected and high up. It would just be nice to be able to lift the front without having to buy unnecessary parts that may or may not end up fixing the alignment.
 
Last edited:
1713988617875.png

Does someone want to break the bad news to Scott Brady and/or his editor? @cruiseroutfit Do you have a good enough relationship? I bring this up because I know ExPo is big on payload and also credibility and objectiveness.

expeditionportal.com

Does the New Land Cruiser 250 Have What it Takes to Overland? - Expedition Portal

Does the New Land Cruiser 250 have what it takes to Overland? With a 1,600 pound payload, lockers, and Toyota reliability, we say...
expeditionportal.com
"Overlanding requires payload and storage volume, with longer trips often necessitating days or weeks of water, food, and fuel. In addition, remote travel usually involves camping equipment, extensive recovery gear, tools, spares, and emergency supplies. All of this adds weight, so an overland wagon like the Land Cruiser needs to support a minimum of 1,500 pounds to meet our design criteria. Fortunately, the 250 is the good Land Cruiser it should be and comes specified with a curb weight of 5,037 pounds and a GVWR of 6,725; impressively, this results in a reported payload of 1,688 pounds—Go Toyota!"
 
Last edited:
These published weight ratings are MAXIMUMS on pavement.
If you load any of these vehicles to the max then take it off road - you’ll regret it (or break something).
 
Yep. I was the one that asked, and shall receive ! I pinged @TWILLY so he can up0date his table accordingly....

BEtter to know bad news that not know at all !

🫣

TheLCProject said:
View attachment 3615695
Does someone want to break the bad news to Scott Brady and/or his editor? @cruiseroutfit Do you have a good enough relationship? I bring this up because I know ExPo is big on payload and also credibility and objectiveness.

expeditionportal.com

Does the New Land Cruiser 250 Have What it Takes to Overland? - Expedition Portal

Does the New Land Cruiser 250 have what it takes to Overland? With a 1,600 pound payload, lockers, and Toyota reliability, we say...
expeditionportal.com
"Overlanding requires payload and storage volume, with longer trips often necessitating days or weeks of water, food, and fuel. In addition, remote travel usually involves camping equipment, extensive recovery gear, tools, spares, and emergency supplies. All of this adds weight, so an overland wagon like the Land Cruiser needs to support a minimum of 1,500 pounds to meet our design criteria. Fortunately, the 250 is the good Land Cruiser it should be and comes specified with a curb weight of 5,037 pounds and a GVWR of 6,725; impressively, this results in a reported payload of 1,688 pounds—Go Toyota!"
Click to expand...
 
TheLCProject said:
View attachment 3615695
Does someone want to break the bad news to Scott Brady and/or his editor? @cruiseroutfit Do you have a good enough relationship? I bring this up because I know ExPo is big on payload and also credibility and objectiveness.

expeditionportal.com

Does the New Land Cruiser 250 Have What it Takes to Overland? - Expedition Portal

Does the New Land Cruiser 250 have what it takes to Overland? With a 1,600 pound payload, lockers, and Toyota reliability, we say...
expeditionportal.com
"Overlanding requires payload and storage volume, with longer trips often necessitating days or weeks of water, food, and fuel. In addition, remote travel usually involves camping equipment, extensive recovery gear, tools, spares, and emergency supplies. All of this adds weight, so an overland wagon like the Land Cruiser needs to support a minimum of 1,500 pounds to meet our design criteria. Fortunately, the 250 is the good Land Cruiser it should be and comes specified with a curb weight of 5,037 pounds and a GVWR of 6,725; impressively, this results in a reported payload of 1,688 pounds—Go Toyota!"
Click to expand...
Here is the GX550 tag I photographed @ the Longo Lexus event.

The GX tag has 7,165lb GVWR, 330lb higher than the LC @ 6,835lb.

Interestingly, the LC tag shows the front Gross Axle Weight Rating (GAWR) @ 3,540lb which is 80lb higher than the GX’s 3,460lb.

And the rear axle GAWR is the same on both @ 4,100lb.

I’m unclear on what Toyota is up to here.

20240414_205428829_iOS.jpeg
 
TheLCProject said:
You might think that, but often accessories (I know they are probably factory added) like that get the yellow payload reduction sticker.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's what the GX has. You're probably right. A shame toyota has been smoking the good stuff while rolling out specs on the 250. Lexus seems to have it together there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OSS
Fort9378 said:
User is in SoCal I think. Definitely american
Click to expand...

Thanks. I think that 1100 lbs is less payload than my Subaru.

I'll update my spreadsheets at the start of this thread soon, ideally for each trim level. Thank you for tracking that down and posting it.
 
TheLCProject said:
Do I get credit for messaging the OP on reddit privately? :)

This is the Lord's work.
Click to expand...

Enjoy.

Purposefully or not, Toyota appears to have misrepresented and oversold LC250 to both industry journalists and the public.

Poor form to say the least.
 
Ok, I have a math head-ache...GVWR is 6835, curb weight is 5037, which means a payload of 1798. What am I missing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Your Thoughts on the LC 250?
20 21 22
Replies
429
Views
31K
Hiluxforever
Hiluxforever
Karbon
LC250 Configurator
Replies
0
Views
917
Karbon
Karbon
BigMF
Timeline for LC250 Editions?
Replies
11
Views
874
Corbet
Corbet
dbbowen
LC250 to FJ60 comparison
Replies
5
Views
754
stonepa
stonepa

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 9 (members: 1, guests: 8)

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom