1958 Specs (1 Viewer)

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

Joined
Jan 9, 2011
Threads
47
Messages
1,320
Location
Flagstaff, AZ
The "download details" function for a 1958 build provides some new specs, per below and at the build link:

Payload: 1687 lbs (GVWR 6725 lbs - Curb Weight 5038 lbs)

Fuel capacity: 17.9 gallons (disappointing)

MPG: 23 combined (22/25/23) -- 22 city (and dirt road) is not too shabby.
 
Last edited:
Payload is great.

MPG is pretty good. Not quite the 27mpg predicted, but 25 is a big improvement over the current 4Runner at only 19.

17.9 gallons? That's pretty small. Even at 23 combined mpg. 18 gallon tank = roughly 14 useable gallons. That's just over 300 miles of range. Loaded up getting 18mpg - now we're down to 250 miles. Towing is going to be around 100 miles of useful range. Ugh. I guess fuel cans will be a popular aftermarket accessory. It's basically the same as the LC200 range.
 
Payload is great.

MPG is pretty good. Not quite the 27mpg predicted, but 25 is a big improvement over the current 4Runner at only 19.

17.9 gallons? That's pretty small. Even at 23 combined mpg. 18 gallon tank = roughly 14 useable gallons. That's just over 300 miles of range. Loaded up getting 18mpg - now we're down to 250 miles. Towing is going to be around 100 miles of useful range. Ugh. I guess fuel cans will be a popular aftermarket accessory. It's basically the same as the LC200 range.
I understood the tank to be 21.3gal. Unless it's reduced for the hybrid model?

I'm skeptical of some of the data coming out of the configurator being correct.

It also states the turning radius is 20in.
 
Last edited:
I too have seen some of the date in the configurator as being incorrect.

For instance..this isn't the real headroom:
1708547842339.png


However, the fuel tank being nerfed to the smallest TNGA-F capacity we've seen thus far is very on brand for Toyota:
1708547911221.png



How many days of grace should we give Toyota to get their released data straight?
 
However, the fuel tank being nerfed to the smallest TNGA-F capacity we've seen thus far is very on brand for Toyota:
View attachment 3563377


How many days of grace should we give Toyota to get their released data straight?

They blew it on the 17.9 gallon tank.

The one thing that will distinguish Land Cruiser 250 from both GX and 4runner is its touring capability. The hybrid coupled with the 21 gallon tank could have really set it apart. Instead, they knee-capped it.

Dumb.
 
And I guess that's where I get rubbed the wrong way. I think range will be one of many areas where Toyota is about to let us down. I hope not but I've been hopeful and then disappointed too many times.

Sure, the new vehicle is better in many ways than anything called Land Cruiser and sold here before. But when they say the "incredible capability gives owners the tools they need to get out and discover all the hidden wonders the world has to offer", I want to caveat it with a footnote that says "but only 250 off-road miles at a time."

And I don't want to hear some nonsense about how there are gas stations around ever corner. There are MANY places in the lower 48 (and more beyond) where you need more than that range. Land Cruiser is offered with crash-tested and Toyota-designed auxiliary fuel tanks for nearly every other market but ours. Is it the regulations? Is it Toyota's marketing and research? I dunno but it's damn frustrating.
 
Dude, put down the extra shot of espresso and red bull.

I wouldn't be surprised if they offered the auxiliary tank as an aftermarket add-on (see the list of add-ons you can get through Lexus...way longer than I expected with a lot of it not applicable to the demographic that Lexus has identified). For the average consumer who buys this vehicle, an auxiliary tanks is going to increase the base cost and also turn folks off when they start to complain about how much it costs to fill their cars up. Also, the extra fuel/tank eats into payload and the bitching goes full circle...

My Tundra has a factory extended fuel tank, which I think is 33 38 gallons. Every week when I fill that thing up, I mutter some very explicit words as the pump rolls past 100 dollars. Yes, it sucks but it's on me..it's a large truck with terrible MPG and aggressive tires. I complain, the wife tells me to eat it...I knew what I was getting into.

Way too long of a post to say, blame the average consumer the market/product teams interviewed?
 
Last edited:
I eagerly await the day Toyota offers factory-available auxiliary or extended-range fuel tanks for Land Cruisers in the US market.

Range matters.

The small tank imposes a pile of aftermarket burdens on the buyer. An aux tank will displace the spare tire, which in turn consumes cargo space or necessitates a heavy and expensive bumper -- the same bumper required to carry jerry cans should one go that route instead.

Instead of costing the buyer thousands of extra dollars and hundreds of pounds of payload, a more elegant solution would have been for Toyota to simply equip the 250 with the 21.3 gallon tank.

Toyota snatched defeat from the jaws of victory on this one.
 
Last edited:
I too have seen some of the date in the configurator as being incorrect.

For instance..this isn't the real headroom:
View attachment 3563375

However, the fuel tank being nerfed to the smallest TNGA-F capacity we've seen thus far is very on brand for Toyota:
View attachment 3563377


How many days of grace should we give Toyota to get their released data straight?
33" legroom for the front passengers? No way. I would be surprised if the fuel tank is only 17.9 gallons.
 
Tundra hybrid manual says that it may require up to 5.6 gallons in the tank for the truck to start. Not sure why.

Toyota initially released the 2nd gen Tundra with about 26 gallon tank and then increased to 38 gallons because so many people complained about it. They know. Not sure why they went with the small tank. The new Tacoma is only 18.2 gallons. And that's fine until you're doing truck things. Towing at 8mpg ends up at around 100 miles of useful range. 25 gallons would be more appropriate IMO. Both for the Taco and LC. I think we'll see aftermarket tanks come out quickly for anyone who wants to go longer range. Just another $1500 you gotta spend to make it trail ready.
 
What gave you the impression that it'd be 21.3 gal?
Thought I saw it here on the forum, and then assumed it'd share the GX's tank.

Hoping it's not the 17.9 shown.
 
Thought I saw it here on the forum, and then assumed it'd share the GX's tank.

Hoping it's not the 17.9 shown.
It's hard to tell from the undercarriage photos I've seen if there's a difference between the two (besides the skid plate only being half length on the LC) but I suppose it's a moot point because we've only seen prototypes or "pre-production" vehicles of either at this point.
 
With the 250 curb weight only being ~5k lbs.(and that’s including the weight of the battery), and the GX having a curb weight of 5,600-5,700 lbs. I wonder where they cut the weight between the two.

Also, only a 6k tow rating now instead of 6,500? While the GX gets a bump on the tow rating of 9k lbs?
 
Last edited:
It has some very big brake rotors too, I wonder how 18" wheels fit over the brake caliper....
1708617926463.png
 
With a little luck, the GX 550 or 300 Series main and sub tanks will swap in with minimal effort. The sub tank mounts forward of the rear axle axle, just like the main. Very small, though, only 8 or 9 gallons.
8C110A58-8FDB-43F7-B4EE-C33F477AE3DE.jpeg
 
With a little luck, the GX 550 or 300 Series main and sub tanks will swap in with minimal effort. The sub tank mounts forward of the rear axle axle, just like the main. Very small, though, only 8 or 9 gallons.View attachment 3564044

I think this is going to be a direct fit, Brian.

IMG_2070.jpeg


IMG_2069.jpeg
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom