2024 GX/Prado Release and Discussion

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
In the States, the typical buyer of a new Land Cruiser was already paying (and prepared to continue paying) >$80k for an LC200. With the 250 at $55k, or even $65k, these buyers likely won't balk at the price. And if they want something upmarket to spend money on, there's always the LX600.

Bigger pricing picture: In all fairness, $55k seems reasonable for a highly modernized Land Cruiser, even if it's not a "heavy duty" one. Consider this: "The average transaction price (ATP) for a new vehicle also dropped in March, down to a still-high $48,008. Compared to February, though, it's down 1.1 percent." (Source: Car & Driver). Down 1.1 percent, but still over $48k for the average new vehicle!

I'm not saying $55k isn't a ton of money, because it's still the price point of an expensive/luxury vehicle, but it's not outlandish the way the $90k LC200 was, and that notion is exacerbated in the face of inflation. No, it's not a 200 or 70 with some changes made for a modern market, but the 250 is a Land Cruiser at heart, or at least a true attempt to bring it back to its roots while tending to the markets at hand. Selling ~1700-3500 units/year like Toyota did with the 200 (Source) just isn't sustainable. This new pricing puts it in line with a moderately equipped Wrangler Unlimited, Bronco, and (presumably) the 6th gen 4Runner's higher trims. And, of course, the GX550. With the dealer markups, manufactured shortages, real supply chain-induced shortages, and fanfare that has occurred recently over enthusiast-minded vehicles with dedicated fanbases (See: Bronco; GR Corolla, Civic Type R, etc) I don't doubt that, pending it's a competent and capable vehicle that drives decently, the new Land Cruiser will sell quite well. As it rightfully should. And this is a good thing; don't we all want more Cruisers out there to be able to buy second, third, or even tenth-hand as our weekend wheelers?
 
Looking forward to seeing you take a 250 in the woods to beat on then.
I’ve taken my 200 up Imogene Pass and similar trails. Still have some rash on my rear bumper cover where I dragged it on my way down from Imogene.

So, yes, I do take expensive rigs off-road.
 
I’ve taken my 200 up Imogene Pass and similar trails. Still have some rash on my rear bumper cover where I dragged it on my way down from Imogene.

So, yes, I do take expensive rigs off-road.
It’s 4 inches narrower than a 200 and an inch shorter length wise. The width difference is pretty substancial.
 
Liking everything I am seeing on the new Land Cruiser. My only concern is towing. I have a Kimberley Karavan which says it needs a tow vehicle capable of >5500 lbs. I believe the capability here is 5000 lbs. One of the reasons I upgraded to a 200 series 8 years ago is my 100 series had a more difficult time going up steep mtn passes here in Colorado and the 200 series doesn't. So its GVWR towing capability and ability to maintain a decent speed going up Mtn passes are my open questions
 
Liking everything I am seeing on the new Land Cruiser. My only concern is towing. I have a Kimberley Karavan which says it needs a tow vehicle capable of >5500 lbs. I believe the capability here is 5000 lbs. One of the reasons I upgraded to a 200 series 8 years ago is my 100 series had a more difficult time going up steep mtn passes here in Colorado and the 200 series doesn't. So its GVWR towing capability and ability to maintain a decent speed going up Mtn passes are my open questions
Official capacity is 6000.
 
I read in some places towing capability is 6000 lbs so maybe not a deal breaker
 
Liking everything I am seeing on the new Land Cruiser. My only concern is towing. I have a Kimberley Karavan which says it needs a tow vehicle capable of >5500 lbs. I believe the capability here is 5000 lbs. One of the reasons I upgraded to a 200 series 8 years ago is my 100 series had a more difficult time going up steep mtn passes here in Colorado and the 200 series doesn't. So its GVWR towing capability and ability to maintain a decent speed going up Mtn passes are my open questions
Also the new lc has significantly more torque than a 200
 
It’s 4 inches narrower than a 200 and an inch shorter length wise. The width difference is pretty substancial.
What I’ve read is that the cabin is narrower but it has wider fender flares resulting in the same overall width. I hope that’s wrong, but time will tell.

One inch shorter is not enough to make any difference.
 
Also the new lc has significantly more torque than a 200
And being turbocharged will not lose power at altitude the way a naturally aspirated engine will.

That said, I would be leery of towing a 5,500 lb trailer with a rig rated for 6,000 lbs.
 
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."?
My fear, which may be unwarranted, comes from the battery lifespan. I want a vehicle that will last decades. This legend of Land Cruisers being engineered to last 25 years is frequently mentioned. I’m skeptical that a hybrid battery can come close to lasting 25 years, and I assume the replacement will not be inexpensive.
 
I’m interested to see how the hybrid parts impact the payload capacity. While the NiMH battery pack is a more proven (and reliable?) entity it also comes with a decent weight penalty over lithium packs.
 
I’m interested to see how the hybrid parts impact the payload capacity. While the NiMH battery pack is a more proven (and reliable?) entity it also comes with a decent weight penalty over lithium packs.
Well they already had to shed the third row for battery space, but maybe because it is a turbo 4 instead of a turbo 6, the impact may not be as big as expected? Idk.

Hopefully they engineered this battery pack to be extra durable vs normal hybrids
 
My guess is braking/harvesting from the IC engine
The hybrid vehicle electro motor can also work in reverse as a generator. So when you press the brake it actually slows you down with the electro motor in generator function and little with the brake pads. For that matter some hydrid have paddle on the steering wheel to increase the generator breaking load instead of lifting only the accelorator. In any case, this way you charge the battery and can re-use it to drive away. For city use a great system. For constant highway driving especially when towing pretty useless. Or at least the ICE will have to have enough power to keep things moving. Fine on flat roads without towing. A challenge when loaded up, 4 passenger and towing. Worst case on long mountain climbs.
 
Last edited:
Liking everything I am seeing on the new Land Cruiser. My only concern is towing. I have a Kimberley Karavan which says it needs a tow vehicle capable of >5500 lbs. I believe the capability here is 5000 lbs. One of the reasons I upgraded to a 200 series 8 years ago is my 100 series had a more difficult time going up steep mtn passes here in Colorado and the 200 series doesn't. So its GVWR towing capability and ability to maintain a decent speed going up Mtn passes are my open questions
Tundra time… you won’t even know it’s back there
 
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.
I get what you're saying, but wouldn't the 4cyl charge the battery while you're running up the hill? In theory, the battery will never run out of juice, even on the highway because the ICE will charge it up.
 
Very interesting video to watch with Google Lens on the other hand to translate everything x)
Thank you for the tip, here is the translated drawing.

Screenshot_20230802_194746_Google.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: flx
Anyone have any thoughts if 17" wheels will fit over the rotors/calipers on the GX? I was just looking at some videos and the rotors look HUGE compared to my 4Runner. I'm sure some of you have seen the GX in person.
That was my first thought, go straight to 17" wheels for taller sidewalls with better tire compliance. But like we saw on the GX and now confirmed by the LC press release, "all models feature 17-inch disc brakes front and rear". Stock wheel/tire size is 265/70R-18, 33-inch tires.

So it looks like we may be stuck with 18" wheels as the minimum, unless they fudged on the dimensions and perhaps 17" steel wheels would fit?

1691060415488.png
1691060442020.png
 
That was my first thought, go straight to 17" wheels for taller sidewalls with better tire compliance. But like we saw on the GX and now confirmed by the LC press release, "all models feature 17-inch disc brakes front and rear". Stock wheel/tire size is 265/70R-18, 33-inch tires.

So it looks like we may be stuck with 18" wheels as the minimum, unless they fudged on the dimensions and perhaps 17" steel wheels would fit?

View attachment 3391226View attachment 3391227
I noticed that in the press release too. Oh well, I’m sure we will get more tire options in the r18 range in the coming years. I’ll prob just go with FN BFD’s with 285/65r18.
 
That was my first thought, go straight to 17" wheels for taller sidewalls with better tire compliance. But like we saw on the GX and now confirmed by the LC press release, "all models feature 17-inch disc brakes front and rear". Stock wheel/tire size is 265/70R-18, 33-inch tires.

So it looks like we may be stuck with 18" wheels as the minimum, unless they fudged on the dimensions and perhaps 17" steel wheels would fit?

View attachment 3391226View attachment 3391227

Why do they feel the need to use these crappy Dunlop Grandtrak tires. They are horrible on road, in snow, in rain, off road and they wear quickly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom