Markuson
SILVER Star
Maybe leave the 300 the same, but with a larger tank...
...and 300 shares of Exxon stock.
...and 300 shares of Exxon stock.

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
Oh, and lose the back seat screens.
Based on the last few decades of trends, I'd guess:
No Diesel engine.
No solid front axle.
No front locker.
No Poverty Pack.
More safety features.
More tech features.
More expensive.
You are certainly right re diesel based on Toyota's past here in the US.
That being said, Land Rover added a Diesel engine option to the Range Rover for 2016. Much of the competition in the luxury market offers a diesel option. (LX competition).
I think ultimately there is a chance at a diesel option IF and only IF TMC gets the feedback that the potential LX buyers are demanding a diesel. In which case the LC would get the option also.
Not likely but sure would be nice.
I would trade my 08 LX in tomorrow if the 2018 LX had a diesel option...
The market may want something else but the die hard Land Cruiser loyalists will shoot Toyota if they move away from the big V8s.
X2!!! Well said! Wouldn't that be a 70 series?!?! Just saying.......
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.
I agree the 2007 100 series was the most classically handsome LC/LX. I do quite like the first refreshed LX570 (2013-2015) though.
I just began modding my 200 so I'm not ready to be tempted by a new 300 series
My friend said when the 300 comes out I'll buy yours but I think it may have to go to a fellow Mudder
He won't like the lift, sliders, A/T tires, and maybe next year bumpers haha
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.
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.
For rock crawling I agree that low rpm high torque motors are best. But for the majority of LC uses cases (which are not rock crawling) a twin turbo setup is as good or better. I suspect Toyota will do it to help meet CAFE standards, and I'd definitely take a TT V6 over no LC at all in the US due to the fuel consumption impact if it came to it.
There's no replacement for displacement, but modern twin turbo engines (with two different turbo sizes that kick in at different RPMs) are incredibly effective, even at low RPM. Frankly if FCA can get 80% of the engine torque out of a V6 Jeep Wrangler at idle I'm sure Toyota engineers can get as much torque out of a TT V6 than the current 10-year old V8.
I think the jury is still out on long term aluminum frame endurance especially on an off-road vehicle.
I haven't personally seen a gas V6 that is a good match for an off road vehicle. I am not saying it is impossible for a V6 to be shoe horned in to that role. Turbos may get you there but you'd be relying on them to compensate for an inherently bad design choice. Now if you must lose two cylinder then I'd go with an I6 which is an excellent match. The Jeep I6 was one of the best US motors ever made and it had torque right from idle.
Mind you I'm not knocking the V6 in general just the application of one for a heavy off-road vehicle. Having to rev one way up or rely on generating boot pressures just isn't a good fit for an application that needs torque at idle.
Have you driven the Ford F-150 Ecoboost offroad?
I haven't personally seen a gas V6 that is a good match for an off road vehicle. I am not saying it is impossible for a V6 to be shoe horned in to that role. Turbos may get you there but you'd be relying on them to compensate for an inherently bad design choice. Now if you must lose two cylinder then I'd go with an I6 which is an excellent match. The Jeep I6 was one of the best US motors ever made and it had torque right from idle.
Mind you I'm not knocking the V6 in general just the application of one for a heavy off-road vehicle. Having to rev one way up or rely on generating boot pressures just isn't a good fit for an application that needs torque at idle.
On diesel motors The "DEF" required additive is a big turnoff for me......