I spent some time with a 1958 yesterday, and, having driven 80 series since 1991, these similarities and contrasts relating to the interior space stood out:
- Greenhouse: The greenhouse feels less similar to the 80 series than I expected given exterior proportions. The windshield and ceiling feel shorter, the dashboard higher, and forward view narrower and more oblique than the 80 series. My wife, who is the Supreme Leader but also short, immediately noticed and disliked the lack of close-range road view relative to the 80 series (therefore, I do too). The forward view falls between the 80 series and 4runner, where the 80 is tall and commanding, with excellent close-range road view, and the 4runner feels like a horizontal turret window. The driver and passenger windows are tall, and provide a very 80-series-like view, which is nice. Overall its a darker and more closed-off space, with less glass and narrower views of the world outside; smaller cargo windows, tapered back-seat windows, strong window tint, and the black interior add to this feel. That said, the greenhouse feels more spacious than the height-cramped 4runner.
- Cargo space, battery bump, rear hatch: We neglected to bring a measuring tape, but cargo space feels a bit narrower than the 80, especially at the aft of the truck, given bulky rear pillars. The battery bump, by iteslf, doesn't seem like a big deal; while the floor is a bit higher, the horizontal footprint is more relevant for usable space (who packs to the ceiling?). In fact, we both agreed that the higher floor would ease moving bulkier items in and out. But the battery bump, taken together with the lack of tailgate, leaves the rear truck lacking any flat, bench-like seating or working surface. It's a stairstep from the battery to the rear opening to the bumper; none of those steps is deep enough to sit on or be otherwise useful. We use the 80's tailgate as a lunch table and bench seat while touring, so, for our use case, this is a big miss; perhaps the aftermarket will provide for a slide-out or fold-down equivalent. To its credit, the floor-length rear hatch, when open, would provide better weather protection at the rear of the truck than the 80's.
- Cloth, surfaces, layout: The interior materials, layout, and controls are simple, functional, and intuitive; it feels like a modern rendition of the more austere early 80 series. Toyota nailed it. The cloth looks great, feels great, and seems very durable. The return to manual front seats is fantastic; two levers, adjustable in two seconds, no motors or gears to break and no groaning, plodding electronic adjustments. Perfect. The lack of an eventually-leaking sunroof avoids one of the design failures of the 80 series. The hard plastics are straightforward; clean, simple, and they seem like they'll be long-lasting and less prone to scratches or damage than softer materials. The layout of the cockpit felt instantly intuative; simple and functional as modern vehicles go, which is very refreshing.
- Comfort: While the real test of comfort will be days in the saddle on dirt roads, comfort feels excellent. It's a cozy, comfortable space to spend time in, and, overall, I like it. The seats are comfortable, the center console is an instantly-comfortable armrest. For dimensions, at 6'3", I was able to quickly adjust the seat to fit perfectly, as was my wife, who is a foot shorter. It's a reasonably quiet ride. The high AC vents provide fast, even heating and cooling in the cabin. The sound system is adequate. My main comfort concern would be head toss during long days on dirt roads, given IFS; that's where the 80's rigid axle shines, I didn't have a chance to test that with the 250.
Last edited:
