Good catch! I would say the 3-door version of the Prado as it has always existed in 3 doors but was not mention yet for the 250.
Do you have the link/timestamp of the video where you saw it?
2024 GX/Prado Release and Discussion (10 Viewers)
- Thread starter monrovia
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
- Status
Do you have the link/timestamp of the video where you saw it?
IIRC has more to do with weight and crash test stuff.
I love my rear hatch too, but jesus - time moves on and unfortunately we can't have everything. There are plenty of old Cruisers out there you can buy and refurb if living without a rear hatch is going to destroy your life. The damn 300 was released 2 years ago. How are we not past this?
The size isn't a concern for me, I actually tow a 21' bay boat so the extra grunt and wheelbase would be beneficial in that department.
Pricing is how I'm going to make my choice, especially since based on the videos I've seen I will probably be dropping $3K instantly to purchase new wheels and tires. The tires I've seen on the Land Cruiser trim are all very mild Michelin LTX, I need more aggressive tires to drive on the beach.
I'm not sure I'd see the LC300's on big tires playing in the rocks since we don't have the LC300 in the USA. I'm sure they could, but I haven't ever seen one. I also don't see LC200 owners here doing that. The interview I saw on the Tacoma said that it was a cost cutting measure. He said front lockers were common and cheaper to add for those who need more than MTS/ATRAC than the sway disconnect and they decided that the sway disconnect would be more useful for more people. TBH - that sounds like a bull**** excuse. The cost difference is maybe $100. BUT - I also don't think we know yet what front diff the Tacoma has. It may be a smaller front diff that isn't strong enough.
Yeah it makes sense
Cost cutting wise
I'm shocked the even offered it on the 300.
I am worried they might even drop it down the line.
Let's be real
They did it before they can do it again and most won't care.
TheRealDeal124
GOLD Star
From the reveal event some of you were at.
The size is an issue for me. I work in Cambridge MA and the parking garage at work is a bit tight. The larger turning circle of the Sequoia would be a pain. Also, I have gone off-road in CO a couple times and the extra length of the Sequoia would not help. My 200 is already bigger than I need.
For towing, though, I get how the longer wheelbase would be an advantage. Years back I saw an original small Bronco towing a small boat. The trailer started to sway on him at 55 mph and before you know it he was spun around by the trailer. He ended up in the breakdown lane facing the wrong way with the trailer at 90 degrees to him in the grass. Not sure how he didn’t roll the thing. He popped out of the drivers side and looked like he was about to heave a heart attack. Certainly a code brown moment.
Those look great. Although it doesn't look like any of them has ever seen a dirt road. Pretty common here as well.
Why are some folks so put off by smaller displacement, electric, and hybrid technology? I don't see why they cannot be just as reliable as their outgoing NA models. The power is there and if the fuel economy is improved (especially to the tune of 27mpg) that's a huge win IMO. For those talking about working on them in the middle of nowhere... even the more recent v8's aren't exactly simple to work on for any average joe. The local dealer I have been using for service only has two technicians who are qualified to work on Land Cruisers. I was told nobody else in the shop is allowed to even do an oil change on them.
So is it just a matter of preference or opinion? Are you not comfortable enough in your own skin to say "I drive a hybrid."?
So is it just a matter of preference or opinion? Are you not comfortable enough in your own skin to say "I drive a hybrid."?
That baby blue with the grey roof is a sharp combo.
TheRealDeal124
GOLD Star
I was worried about the white roof touch being too "FJ Cruiser" for my taste but it looks great so far.
I am waiting to see more photos of different trim level global 250 Prados
so far all we have seen is the retro Toyota letter logo ones.
I am sure not all of them will be like that.
I think some rest of the world version will have the normal Toyota logo instead and traditional Prado vertical slat grille.
Yes they will have the same body/rectangular lights but they will definitely have a version that is a bit more toned down.
Not everyone wants to drive around with something too eye catching.
I have a far bigger problem with the turbos than the hybrid part.
Looking at these the only thing comes to mind is FU Toyota USA
I'm all for the hybrid. And the turbo if done right. My core reason I don't want the hybrid as it is now is because battery is too small to be useful. It's only good for about 45 seconds of power. So, it's great for city driving. But it isn't enough energy to help with towing or hauling up mountain passes. And that's where it really needs the extra power. It needs more battery capacity to offset the extra 600lbs of weight and loss of storage. For my use, the slightly faster 0-60 just isn't worth the tradeoff. 27mpg sounds fantastic though if that's real. I'm skeptical because it's the same hybrid as the Tundra that only adds 1mpg and the GX550 supposedly only gets 17mpg. And according to Toyota the two engines should have roughly the same thermal efficiency - they should get about the same mpg at steady cruising speeds.
I love the inverter option. I camped near a powerboost F150 a few weeks ago. I'm all solar on my travel trailer. But it was really nice to not have to listen to a generator running. The F150 was quiet at idle and powered their trailer without a generator. I think the hybrid with the inverter should do the same.
If it were a PHEV version with a 10 or 20kwh battery - I'd be really excited about it. Not because I need more than the 325hp, but if I'm giving up the space and weight, I really want useful power - 325hp for the 5 or 8 minute duration up a mountain pass. And I'd like to have regen braking on the way down. I'd also like to have the ability to run EV only for water crossings. No snorkel would ever really be needed in that case. Just plug the intake and switch to EV drive. Lots of cool stuff could be done.
I've seen this a couple times on here now - where's that 45s number coming from?
The driving reviews of this new LC250 and the new 4th Gen Tacoma with the same powertrain are what I'm most looking forward to next...
We have a hybrid and love it. It's the turbo that I don't like. My 2UZ-FE is crazy easy to work on and has parts available everywhere.
By the time I want to buy one of these used I am sure they will be figured out and "simple" in comparison by then. I would prefer a N/A V6 and a hybrid over a turbo 4, as Toyota NA hybrids are very sorted and reliable. I prefer my 2UZ-FE over either of those for sheer simplicity/power in a backcountry rig. But again, that's me buying a used rig - no interest in a new one.
I'm with you on being a skeptic of that 27mpg comment someone threw out there. But it is a smaller engine and smaller vehicle than the known quantity that is the Tundra and Sequoia hybrid. (those both have a 6 cyl with battery) It seems Toyota's goal with these new engines is to use the electric part to help make power and low end torque, not much else. This is probably due to how their turbos have been programmed, no doubt compared to other forced induction engines these are low stress to help with reliability. GX got the standard TT6 which makes more power but has no hybrid option (yet) although one is coming (whether it is the 4 or 6 cyl is TBD)
Just my own best guess. It's 1.9 kwh battery. Assuming around 65% efficiency from battery to shaft power to get to 56hp, that would be 70kw of load. The 1.9kwh battery will most likely be limited to stay between about 20% and 80%. So, that means about 1.14kwh of useable energy. That translates to 59 seconds of output. 45 seconds was probably a bit on the low end. It looks like around 60 seconds is closer to what I'd expect.
In the most favorable possible calculation with 100% efficiency and 100% useable battery energy it would be about 160 seconds or 2.7 miles at 60mph.
Last edited:
- Status
