300 series rumors??? (1 Viewer)

[mcgaskins]

'How much more Awesome can Awesome get?'

I just can't see how Toyota is going to make a better product than the 200. Cosmetically they can change it alot but other than improving seat comfort, I don't see a drastic area for improvement? The chassis will be close to same size, power delivery can't be increased by much, handling can't be improved by that much (KDSS did wonders).

My guess would be technology and economy. Clearly the 8 speed transmission they added for 16 did nothing to improve mileage, so the engine would be the next logical place for savings. I love a big V8, but most manufacturers are replacing them with smaller displacement turbos to boost economy and I can't blame them. I'd be ecstatic to see a nice diesel, but with the scandals of late we likely will never see Toyota put something like that in a niche vehicle. The tech even in the 16+ is still dated compared to peers, so I could see them upping the ante there to keep justifying an $80k price. My coworker has a new A4 with the tech pack and virtual cockpit and it feels about 10 years (maybe more) ahead of my 2014 in terms of the tech.

 

[White Stripe]

It's true their are other makes that have more tech. But those models have at least 3 times the issues over 50k miles than the 200. We get German cars traded in all the time that are very nice, but by 100k miles, they have way more issues than a 200 series with 100k miles. The tech stuff the 200 does have is solid.

 

[Narkhelek]

A turbo V6 would be entirely the wrong power plant for the Land Cruiser. An off-road vehicle should have low RPM torque which the V8 delivers. A turbo V6 is only useful for a sports car.

 

[mcgaskins]

A turbo V6 would be entirely the wrong power plant for the Land Cruiser. An off-road vehicle should have low RPM torque which the V8 delivers. A turbo V6 is only useful for a sports car.

Not to start an argument, but Ford replaced the V8 in the Raptor with a 3.5 twin turbo V6 making 450 hp and 510 lb-ft torque. The new Jeep Wrangler will likely be a turbo 4 cylinder. The vast majority of manufacturers are dumping V8s because of fuel economy and the fact they can get the same or better power with forced induction while increasing mpgs. I've had a couple of supercharged and turbocharged German cars in the last few years, and the power they put down is incredible. Sure a truck that's going to be idling along all day on a trail may be benefit from a V8 still, but CAFE and other fuel economy requirements are a real thing MFGs need to consider. The number of trucks and SUVs that are used for off road excursions is minuscule compared to the number used for commuting. Even those who do take their vehicles off road are probably only doing so for 1% or less of the miles driven annually.

 

[dukmon]

Winner Winner Chicken Dinner....... !!

 

[Markuson]

Not to start an argument, but Ford replaced the V8 in the Raptor with a 3.5 twin turbo V6 making 450 hp and 510 lb-ft torque. The new Jeep Wrangler will likely be a turbo 4 cylinder. The vast majority of manufacturers are dumping V8s because of fuel economy and the fact they can get the same or better power with forced induction while increasing mpgs. I've had a couple of supercharged and turbocharged German cars in the last few years, and the power they put down is incredible. Sure a truck that's going to be idling along all day on a trail may be benefit from a V8 still, but CAFE and other fuel economy requirements are a real thing MFGs need to consider. The number of trucks and SUVs that are used for off road excursions is minuscule compared to the number used for commuting. Even those who do take their vehicles off road are probably only doing so for 1% or less of the miles driven annually.

The Raptor is really marketed more as a desert SPEEDER, rather than an all around 4x4. Flying across dirt at high speed would utilize the turbo nicely, but in places like Ouray, & more technical trails, you spend most of your time in 4Lo, and 1st, 2nd & 3rd gear. Turbo in that realm would be useless. A supercharger? Maybe, because it's not dependent on high RPMs to kick in...

 

[40Man]

Not to start an argument, but Ford replaced the V8 in the Raptor with a 3.5 twin turbo V6 making 450 hp and 510 lb-ft torque. The new Jeep Wrangler will likely be a turbo 4 cylinder. The vast majority of manufacturers are dumping V8s because of fuel economy and the fact they can get the same or better power with forced induction while increasing mpgs. I've had a couple of supercharged and turbocharged German cars in the last few years, and the power they put down is incredible. Sure a truck that's going to be idling along all day on a trail may be benefit from a V8 still, but CAFE and other fuel economy requirements are a real thing MFGs need to consider. The number of trucks and SUVs that are used for off road excursions is minuscule compared to the number used for commuting. Even those who do take their vehicles off road are probably only doing so for 1% or less of the miles driven annually.

I don't disagree, and would be fine with a turbo in a Toyota truck, assuming Toyota fully tests and gets any wrinkles out. I'm sure a turbo engine will wear out faster though. Not what I want from a Toyota.

And FWIW, the Eco Boost F-150 sucks. Sure, the mileage is good, but the engine are prone to problems. Specifically the issue with the engine going into limp mode when the charged air cooler builds up humidity. The result is dangerous situations where the truck doesn't perform as it should. I was actually considering one (found a brand new 2016 lariat supercrew for only 39k), but after hearing of all the issues with the ecoboost and other common problems, I went with a six year old LC instead. I felt comfortable doing this as my family has had a ton of Toyotas with very high mileage. My FIL had an 85 FJ60 with 480k before the engine started knowing, and still has a 2003 Tacoma with 380k. Both only had regular maintenance. I just sold a 2003 4Runner V8 with about 170k miles that ran like it was brand new.

I tend to side with Toyota with their MO of releasing reliable power trains over new and cool but with problems. I know I can get more bells and whiles, gears, infotainment, etc. from other brands. I also know how much more those cars depreciate, and there is no question as to why. And to be honest, when I drive a 6000 lb. rig, I don't buy it for the gas mileage.

I'd love to somehow have Toyota start selling the 70 series here with a diesel. No bells and whistles, just a sweet reliable rig. I know it won't ever happen, but I'd buy one in a heartbeat.

 

[dnh1]

My guess would be technology and economy. Clearly the 8 speed transmission they added for 16 did nothing to improve mileage, so the engine would be the next logical place for savings. I love a big V8, but most manufacturers are replacing them with smaller displacement turbos to boost economy and I can't blame them. I'd be ecstatic to see a nice diesel, but with the scandals of late we likely will never see Toyota put something like that in a niche vehicle. The tech even in the 16+ is still dated compared to peers, so I could see them upping the ante there to keep justifying an $80k price. My coworker has a new A4 with the tech pack and virtual cockpit and it feels about 10 years (maybe more) ahead of my 2014 in terms of the tech.

That is not correct. A 2016 gets better mileage.

 

[Narkhelek]

Definitely not arguing that a turbo will produce some decent power on a small engine. My point is that a turbo does not produce low RPM torque nor does a V6. Put a turbo in a gas V8 or straight 6 engine or in a diesel and I'm all for that. The turbo itself will do little for off-roading but it will give you some nice street power. Low RPM torque is what you want on anything that is off-road oriented. The Raptor is just an off-road sports car.

 

[40Man]

Definitely not arguing that a turbo will produce some decent power on a small engine. My point is that a turbo does not produce low RPM torque nor does a V6. Put a turbo in a gas V8 or straight 6 engine or in a diesel and I'm all for that. The turbo itself will do little for off-roading but it will give you some nice street power. Low RPM torque is what you want on anything that is off-road oriented. The Raptor is just an off-road sports car.

With a weaker frame.

 

[dnh1]

I went from a 2009 LX to a 2015 Range Rover Supercharged. I immediately regretted it. My wife looked at it and said, "Your car is so little. its cute." That was the problem. I didn't even feel like I had a truck. I felt like I had a race car station wagon. Yes, the supercharged 5.0L V8 made 508 HP, and it was fast as could be, but the unibody construction and all of that took any feel of having a "truck" out of it. Not to mention, there were a variety of problems with the one zillion complicated suspension and other systems in the truck, and, frankly, the nav and tech completely sucked compared to Toyota.

I am back to a 2016 LC and absolutely love it. Learned my lesson. I hope that, whatever Toyota does for the 300, they don't change it too much from what has made the 200 a success.

 

[Markuson]

I went from a 2009 LX to a 2015 Range Rover Supercharged. I immediately regretted it. My wife looked at it and said, "Your car is so little. its cute." That was the problem. I didn't even feel like I had a truck. I felt like I had a race car station wagon. Yes, the supercharged 5.0L V8 made 508 HP, and it was fast as could be, but the unibody construction and all of that took any feel of having a "truck" out of it. Not to mention, there were a variety of problems with the one zillion complicated suspension and other systems in the truck, and, frankly, the nav and tech completely sucked compared to Toyota.

I am back to a 2016 LC and absolutely love it. Learned my lesson. I hope that, whatever Toyota does for the 300, they don't change it too much from what has made the 200 a success.

Wow. If the nav sucked compared to Toyota??? It must have been reeeeeeally bad!

 

[mcgaskins]

That is not correct. A 2016 gets better mileage.

Really?

 

[Andreas P]

I would like to see some weight savings which equals to better mileage and better performance.
Maybe a new V8 that is lighter and more efficient but definitely don't want a V6 or a Turbo.
Real life tests of turbos has proven that you won't really get better fuel economy.
Long live Naturally Aspirated engines

 

[dnh1]

Wow. If the nav sucked compared to Toyota??? It must have been reeeeeeally bad!

Yes. It really, really sucked. The bluetooth took forever to connect. Had a very long delay. People always thought I hung up on them. The buttons had a long pause between pushing them and anything happening. The cameras looked like when they used to make the holograms on the old Star Wars movies, etc.

 

[dnh1]

Really?

View attachment 1399433

I don't know what a 2015 LC got mileage wise.

REAL WORLD, I do know that I owned a 2008 LC, a 2009 LX, and a 2011 LX, and the 8 speed in the 2016 LC I have and the 2017 LX I have get better gas mileage real world than they did with the 6 speed. If you have owned more than the 5 200s that I have owned over the last 9 years and can dispute this, I stand corrected.

 

[Markuson]

I would like to see some weight savings which equals to better mileage and better performance.
Maybe a new V8 that is lighter and more efficient but definitely don't want a V6 or a Turbo.
Real life tests of turbos has proven that you won't really get better fuel economy.
Long live Naturally Aspirated engines

I wouldn't want to make the frame or components wimpier for weight, but they could certainly move to an aluminum body like the Ford F-series did... (OK aluMINIUM for out Aussie/Brit friends).

 

[Narkhelek]

I think the jury is still out on long term aluminum frame endurance especially on an off-road vehicle.

 

[Reckless]

My guess would be technology and economy. Clearly the 8 speed transmission they added for 16 did nothing to improve mileage, so the engine would be the next logical place for savings. I love a big V8, but most manufacturers are replacing them with smaller displacement turbos to boost economy and I can't blame them. I'd be ecstatic to see a nice diesel, but with the scandals of late we likely will never see Toyota put something like that in a niche vehicle. The tech even in the 16+ is still dated compared to peers, so I could see them upping the ante there to keep justifying an $80k price. My coworker has a new A4 with the tech pack and virtual cockpit and it feels about 10 years (maybe more) ahead of my 2014 in terms of the tech.

Awesome is a subjective term. For me technology is perfect in my 2009 (cell phone mic/speaker could be slightly better). Only missing piece of technology is Autonomous Driving Capability. Economy wise I don't think and I pray that Toyota does not try to do Forced Induction. Not that I don't believe they can't do it, but the whole Land Cruiser world is Naturally Aspirated and big V8s. These are trucks not soccer mom cars. I don't see room for improvement in MPG but I do want a much larger gas tank. The market may want something else but the die hard Land Cruiser loyalists will shoot Toyota if they move away from the big V8s. They can do forced induction in the sequoia.

 

[Narkhelek]

This article pretty much sums up my thoughts on going aluminum: Ford's Aluminum Body F150 Will Have Problems It may eventually prove to be a great advancement (or maybe not) but there is going to be a lot of painful lessons learned in the process.