300 series rumors???

[Markuson]

Maybe leave the 300 the same, but with a larger tank...

...and 300 shares of Exxon stock.

 

[hobbes]

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.

 

[MrCWineMan]

Oh, and lose the back seat screens.

You got that right!

 

[dnh1]

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.

 

[LX5708]

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...

 

[dnh1]

I would trade my 08 LX in tomorrow if the 2018 LX had a diesel option...

I would trade in my 2017 tomorrow.

Everyone on this board would love it if we had an LX or LX diesel option. I know nothing about diesel emissions in US v. Australia but would assume they can't be much different.

Would love to have that 4.5 diesel they have.

 

[hobbes]

Toyota has a long, proud tradition of no US diesels. Every interview they make where they topic comes up, they say absolutely not. The EPA is suing VW into oblivion, and they're starting in on FIAT. It's just not going to happen. Plus the 1VD is already ten years old.

But, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out they are putting the 1VD into LHD 200s and 70s and importing them to the ME now.
2017 TLC 7X Series Rumors - Middle East

Bunch of men standing around the TRD. TRD LandCruiser

 

[TeCKis300]

The market may want something else but the die hard Land Cruiser loyalists will shoot Toyota if they move away from the big V8s.

I'd like to think we're a bit more sophisticated than the full size pickup crowd. If they can handle it, I'm sure we'll do just fine.

Turbo's bring diesel like torque to gas motors. Oh, and diesels themselves are typically...turbo.

 

[Hothonda]

On diesel motors The "DEF" required additive is a big turnoff for me......

 

[bctlex]

I like to be able to buy the cheaper, less tech/entertainment version model. I and my passengers do not need to be able to watch DVD, stream youtube, get online etc. I think Toyota will be able to sell more LC and make more money in the US by selling the simpler SUV. There are more people that can afford 50K vs 80K SUV full of fluffs. Naturally aspirated big V8, full time 4WD with stout tranny, solid frame - in that order

I hate new cars because every single one of them have a crap load of stuffs that I do not need and want, and I can not buy one without these extra fluffs.

 

[bctlex]

X2!!! Well said! Wouldn't that be a 70 series?!?! Just saying.......

I would love to be able to buy a 70 series in the US - not the special imported version.

 

[White Stripe]

I personally would love to see a aluminum body. Less weight above the frame would be a huge improvement in handling and offroad capability. Landrover has had aluminum bodies on various models with little issue as far as I know. I hope they don't go rear ifs. That would doom the vehicle from more than light duty offroad. Light duty being snowy forest service roads.

 

[linuxgod]

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.

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.

 

[dnh1]

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

I agree the LX570 from 13-15 was awesome too. Sadly I have owned a 2009 and a 2011 and now own a 2017. I think the 13-15 looks best on the LX 570.

As for the LC, I really do like my 2016. But I put the Japan and Middle East rims on it. Not sure about the factory rims on the current US LCs. Loved the 2008-2011 ones. Kinda gone down hill since then on the 18" US specs IMO. Although the current 18" factory rims are growing on me. And looks good with KO2s.

 

[mcgaskins]

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.

@linuxgod stop using logic! Clearly a V8 is the only way to go

 

[Narkhelek]

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.

 

[M1911]

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

What manufacturer is building frames out of aluminum? Ford uses aluminum body panels, but the F150 frames are still steel.

 

[M1911]

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?

 

[40Man]

Have you driven the Ford F-150 Ecoboost offroad?

Haven't driven one, but I have been in one. Mind you, we didn't do any rock crawling, but drove up some really steep mountains. It did well.

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.

There are a lot of factors that go into whether a V6 is adequate or not. Weight of vehicle, size of tires, transmission and rear end ratios...

I rode in a Suzuki Samurai that had a 4.3L V6 swapped into it. That thing had a ton of power for the application, and it was great up hills and in rocks. I'd buy one for a fun, don't care if you damage it off-road toy.

 

[Skiime]

On diesel motors The "DEF" required additive is a big turnoff for me......

Why would this be a big issue? It literally takes 2 minutes and $15 to refill it once a year...at least on other diesel vehicles.