I’m assuming that the 4R third row option will only be available on NON-hybrid models. I’ve yet to see a pic of the third row on top of the battery pack.
5th gen 4 runner vs LC250 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter krice118
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
I don't hate any of Toyotas midsize line up(GX/LC/4R) at this point, but honestly, find none of the lineup interesting enough to warrant consideration.
first off, all this s*** is redundant, but configured in a manner that that causes, at least me to say, i think I am going to pass on them due to one or two non starters.
Personally I think if the LC or 4Runner came with the GX engine/diff or if the GX was offered with the TRD pro/fox suspension, I would be inclined to put in an order, but this extends to the Tundra and sequoia. Why can i get crawl control and a 3 inch TRD lift on a tundra SR5 configured for 60k. but not in a sequoia unless you commit to a limited at 72k. Just no, these are all platform builds so all of these vehicles are capable of being configured the same way. Same thing with the GX550, I need to commit to an over trail at 70k to get the same engine and off-road set up offered for 60k in the larger tundra. Why does Lexus offer the LX with the base tundra engine, but the sequioa is only offered with hybrid and reduced cargo area. I really need to spend an extra 20k for the LX to get a usable cargo area with crawl control.
Literally every model that they offer, I look, at and say, Damn, I really like this model, but really think it would make so much more sense for me, if it had a specific feature from this other vehicle.
No, go **** yourself.
For the prices that these vehicles are going for now, I really need them to be configurable.
At this point, I am really more interested in the new Y63 Armada, its supposed to have pro-4x/off road trim level and they seem to be the only retards in Japan that haven't sacrificed cargo capacity for battery that doesn't improve efficiency. I've also been throwing around the idea of importing a manual 80 or 100 series from the GCC.
Last edited:
I like the look of the new 4Runner better than the LC250. The LC250 looks more like a new Izusu Trooper than a Land Cruiser to me. I bet the LC250 won't make it 5 years in the US market.
Not a fan of the 6th gen T4R styling. The 5th gen looks drastically better. I'd say the only one of the bunch I really like is the GX550.
Either way, I see Toyota getting a bit complacent with their trucks and SUVs. None really excite me that much (again, except for the GX550). Maybe I'll think differently 10 years from now, but they just don't appeal to me that much over the 120/150 platform.
Either way, I see Toyota getting a bit complacent with their trucks and SUVs. None really excite me that much (again, except for the GX550). Maybe I'll think differently 10 years from now, but they just don't appeal to me that much over the 120/150 platform.
joseywales
Renaissance Redneck
First off, I can’t believe there are 2+ pages talking about rear end swaps in brand new $60,000 “offroad” rigs.
I still have a year left on my Tundra lease, and talked to my dealer about trading in early on a 5th Gen 4Runner for my wife. They gave me such a stupid number for value on my ‘19 Platinum ($13,000 less than residual) that the 4Runner was going to cost an extra $18,000 over a 60 month lease. I assured them I didn’t have the word “idiot” tattooed across my forehead, so thank you, but no. I told them they could have the Tundra a year earlier, with 20,000 less on the clock, for a reasonable price, or they can have it back in a year with 20,000 more of firewood cutting, hunting etc etc on it. 50% of my miles are hard forestry road use. The lease is from the dealers in-house, not Toyota, so this is their truck. The can choke on it in a year, and I’ll be taking my business elsewhere.
The reason for trading early, is my lack of enthusiasm for any of the new Toyota product (should any of them ever arrive here). So far we haven’t even seen a Taco, and the new Tundra/Sequoias have no excitement for me. I am on the wait list for a 1958, and would consider a new 4Runner, depending on what they look like and cost, but honestly, I’ve started looking at Broncos again. Since I’m leasing, I give zero schitz about resale or longterm reliability. Might be time to see how the other half live?
I still have a year left on my Tundra lease, and talked to my dealer about trading in early on a 5th Gen 4Runner for my wife. They gave me such a stupid number for value on my ‘19 Platinum ($13,000 less than residual) that the 4Runner was going to cost an extra $18,000 over a 60 month lease. I assured them I didn’t have the word “idiot” tattooed across my forehead, so thank you, but no. I told them they could have the Tundra a year earlier, with 20,000 less on the clock, for a reasonable price, or they can have it back in a year with 20,000 more of firewood cutting, hunting etc etc on it. 50% of my miles are hard forestry road use. The lease is from the dealers in-house, not Toyota, so this is their truck. The can choke on it in a year, and I’ll be taking my business elsewhere.
The reason for trading early, is my lack of enthusiasm for any of the new Toyota product (should any of them ever arrive here). So far we haven’t even seen a Taco, and the new Tundra/Sequoias have no excitement for me. I am on the wait list for a 1958, and would consider a new 4Runner, depending on what they look like and cost, but honestly, I’ve started looking at Broncos again. Since I’m leasing, I give zero schitz about resale or longterm reliability. Might be time to see how the other half live?
When was the last time Toyota sold a vehicle with a front locker in the US?
Styling is personal taste. I have never liked the 5th gen, particularly the front clip. I prefer the 6th gen styling.
I also like the LC 250. I think the GX 550 styling is OK — the front end is certainly an improvement over the horrific spindle grille on the GX 460.
Updated crawl control works so well now honestly surprised Toyota even offered a front locker on the 300.
1997 LC and LX.
I agree, with 4 vehicles that essentially occupy same space, I really dont get the engine options.
SUV 1, goes with engine A@409/470
SUV 2, goes with engine A @360/460
SUV 3 goes with engine B @330/465 with reduced cargo capacity
SUV 4A options engine B @330/465 with reduced cargo capacity
SUV 4B options engine C @230/330 with same cargo capacity as SUV 1 and 2
Options 1 and 2 make the most sense for my end use, but at $70k and $90k starting pricing, there are simply better value propositions elsewhere.
I think a nicely configured Tundra limited checks most of my boxes and comes in under options 1 and 2.
Agreed. Modern vehicle styling in general is way too busy. Adding feature after feature does not make things look better, it makes them look ugly and cluttered. Clean design seems to have last reined supreme in the 90s, stayed around a bit in the aughts, and died in the teens.
TheLCProject
SILVER Star
I'm glad someone else has chimed in to support how absurd that comment was.
Instead of being critical of Toyota's designs, they try to normalize the bad design and force the product work for them with seemingly unnecessary rear end swaps, aux fuel tank mods, and on and on. The modifications cost a lot of money and compromise the quality, dependability, and reliability that brings us to the platform/brand in the first place.
It's okay to dissent to Toyota's designs and choices! We might not understand the reasoning behind their choices but that doesn't mean that, for at least some in this community, the choices they made just don't make sense to us or fit our perceived needs.
Even better, have they ever sent an IFS vehicle with a front locker to the US?
I would suggest re-reading the thread.
Many of the axle/R&P/etc comments were in regards to backward-compatibility with existing Toyota components (for example, will the new T4R e-locker 8.2 3rd member swap into a 150 platform 8.2?), questions over why Toyota has something like 4-5 different rear axles in a very similar platform architecture (and what that will do to the ability to modify and get parts for these vehicles in a decade from now), why they aren't using the 9.5" everywhere, and trying to figure out what the heck a 9.7 rear end is. Most of us have been modding our decade-plus Toyotas for some time now and are well up-to-speed on the strengths and weaknesses of the existing platforms.
No one was suggesting they'd buy a new 250/T4R and swap the rear end around - that would indeed be absurd - folks who really want the 9.5" will just get the model that has it.
I personally think it's absurd that Toyota has so many similar models with minor mechanical differences. They should just use the beefier components everywhere and be done with it.
TheLCProject
SILVER Star
I wasn't referring to your comments or discussion at all. Someone actually did suggest something close to "buy a new 250/T4R and swap the rear end around" (or at least I interpreted it that way).
I can also see how my sentiment got caught up by replying to joseywales.
I can also see how my sentiment got caught up by replying to joseywales.
Last edited:
What if the cost savings with development of TNGA-F allowed them to do weird things like this.
Different diffs, front lockers only on the 300, e kdss only on the GX550 over trail and GR sport.
Lots of things that don't seem they fit within the TNGA-F on the surface but infact are all what TNGA is about.
Food for thought.
Different diffs, front lockers only on the 300, e kdss only on the GX550 over trail and GR sport.
Lots of things that don't seem they fit within the TNGA-F on the surface but infact are all what TNGA is about.
Food for thought.
It certainly could be, but is still a head-scratcher. I think they have some explaining to do to the enthusiast community at how they ended up at some of these combinations
.I've certainly moved from brand-to-brand over the years. I was a Subaru die-hard for a decade until I got frustrated with some of the long-term reliability issues and the design language/features/cost of the new cars (basically not a Subaru any longer - bloated and slow, terrible sounding engine, poor visibility, even more questionable reliability). Our family has now switched 100% to Toyota and love both of our rigs and will be keeping both for the foreseeable future. By that time, these new platforms will be "old" and sorted out, and we may move on to a different brand if Toyota is no longer suiting or needs.
This was the case with the J120 FJ Cruisers. If you wanted to go play very hard with it, even with stock tires - you had to swap the rear end. That is absurd. It was significantly under-spec'd on the rear axle.
Think the new 4Runner and LC250 may also be the same when they come in hybrid powertrains. I just can't see the 8.2" rear axle holding up to that amount of power. I'm absolutely open to be proven wrong and hope I am. But if I were going to build a relatively comparable LC250 to my last 4Runner with 35's and go play in the rocks - I'd be considering the cost of rear axle swap and assuming it'll need one. I sure hope it doesn't and I'm just up in the night. It's very robust and super strong for its size. But 465 ft lbs of torque, 5500 lbs, and 16:1 trans/transfer combined ratio - I've broken enough axles over the years my gut tells me it's just too small for 7,440 ft lbs of torque at the pinion.
To put some numbers behind my concern: The 5th gen max torque (to the pinion flange) is 2,532 ft lbs and the GX460 is 2,997 ft lbs. This would be the equivalent load on the rear axle of a GX460 with 816 ftlbs of torque. If Toyota dropped a 6.7L Powerstroke in the GX with the 8.2" rear end - i think we'd all be shaking our heads at how silly it is to think that rear axle could handle it. But with the LC250 the consensus is that it'll be fine?? I'm not so sure. If it is fine with that kind of torque - it's absolutely amazing material science improvements!
Agreed. This is why the GX550 or the 6th Gen 4runner Overland/TRD Pro are the only options right now. I really like the idea of the LC250 but don't remotely trust that rear end.
