Good grief man. You really have no clue and demonstrate it with these statements.
Don't let them have your 200 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Hendlerj
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
- Status
I’m guessing 75% of what people are finding underwhelming or disappointing in the 250 is common to almost all makes and models in the US and is not a Toyota thing.
A ratcheting up of safety standards that results in:
-intrusive safety features and warnings
-loss of privacy with connected features
-less interior room
-less storage
-less durable materials
-sometimes strange designs
A ratcheting up of CAFE standards that results in:
-forced induction small displacement engines
-weight reduction that leads to less durability, increased NVH, etc
Inflation that results in:
-decreased value; paying more for less
-quality reduced in an effort to limit price increases
I think the perception of build quality issues stems from increased NVH, thin or light materials, etc.
Maybe 25% from:
-Toyota’s somewhat misleading marketing effort in the US to hide the “Prado” and rebadge the line as the next generation Land Cruiser.
Also undeniable is there are some very real positives with the 250.
-upgraded tech
-looks
-capable
-easy & fun to drive
-sales numbers (bringing LC name to more consumers and adding shareholder value)
-incremental fuel efficiency
-repair/tech job security
-aftermarket ecosystem
I don’t really buy that the 250 is:
-smaller (than the 200)
-better off road (than the 200)
-offers more utility (than the 200)
-more durable (than the 200)
-more reliable (than the 200)
Obviously those last two will need time to tell.
I think the 250/GX is a cool truck and I’m happy for their owners if they are happy!
A ratcheting up of safety standards that results in:
-intrusive safety features and warnings
-loss of privacy with connected features
-less interior room
-less storage
-less durable materials
-sometimes strange designs
A ratcheting up of CAFE standards that results in:
-forced induction small displacement engines
-weight reduction that leads to less durability, increased NVH, etc
Inflation that results in:
-decreased value; paying more for less
-quality reduced in an effort to limit price increases
I think the perception of build quality issues stems from increased NVH, thin or light materials, etc.
Maybe 25% from:
-Toyota’s somewhat misleading marketing effort in the US to hide the “Prado” and rebadge the line as the next generation Land Cruiser.
Also undeniable is there are some very real positives with the 250.
-upgraded tech
-looks
-capable
-easy & fun to drive
-sales numbers (bringing LC name to more consumers and adding shareholder value)
-incremental fuel efficiency
-repair/tech job security
-aftermarket ecosystem
I don’t really buy that the 250 is:
-smaller (than the 200)
-better off road (than the 200)
-offers more utility (than the 200)
-more durable (than the 200)
-more reliable (than the 200)
Obviously those last two will need time to tell.
I think the 250/GX is a cool truck and I’m happy for their owners if they are happy!
And none of them Sequoias.
Again...you are ignoring all the other data. The build quality almost everywhere for the most part is better.
Intrusive safety features and warnings: I turned those off.
Loss of privacy with connected features: Also turned those off.
Less interior room: The driver’s seat is great, but the cargo area could use some improvement.
Less storage: The cargo area is definitely a downside.
Less durable materials: The LC250 is solid the materials are nice
Sometimes strange designs: Not sure what this refers to.
A ratcheting up of CAFE standards results in:
Forced induction small displacement engines: Plenty of power for my needs.
Weight reduction leading to less durability, increased NVH, etc.: Drives fine to me no rattles so far so good.
Decreased value; paying more for less: Not in my case. I’m happy with what I paid for it I feel its worth every penny.
Quality reduced to limit price increases: I keep hearing this, but everything in the LC250 feels top notch. Some people just don’t recognize quality or are just hating just to hate. Maybe it’s the replaceable plastic on the outside?? designed for potential trail damage? That’s likely contributing to the misconception.
Positives with the 250:
Upgraded tech: Yup.
Looks: Yup.
Capability: Yup.
Easy & fun to drive: Yup.
Sales numbers (increasing LC’s reach and shareholder value): Yup.
Incremental fuel efficiency: Yup.
Repair/tech job security: Sure, Yup
Aftermarket ecosystem: Yup.
Comparing the LC250 to the LC200:
Smaller (than the 200): Honestly, idk Someone needs to measure it if they care so much.
Better off-road (than the 200): Doesn’t matter to me. their both capable enough.
Offers more utility (than the 200): The 250 has the 2400w inverter, but overall they could be about equal. 200 has room and a tailgate. BTW I can't believe you didn't put a tailgate on this list. Listen, that F*&Kn tailgate has a s*** ton of utility. it's a crime they removed it on the 300. they should have added it to the entire LC line up instead! The one to blame for the removal needs to beheaded.
More durable (than the 200): Time will tell.
More reliable (than the 200): Again, time will tell.
Show me. I'm open to being convinced. But I've turned enough wrenches on enough of these to have a pretty good idea of what they are and what they do. Thicker plastic air cleaner boxes do not in any experience I've had lead to longer engine life. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but the only data I'm aware of doesn't support any meaningful difference between the Tundra and Sequoia 5.7 and the LC version. Or any longer service life between the LC 1GR and the Prado 1GR. They're built on the same assembly line in random order. The 1GR going into a LC200 was random chance vs going into a Prado 150 or a 4Runner.
What data?
I think we understand each other. I see no reason why you can’t be friends with this 200 retro-grouch.
So you're actually saying that all the components that go into both models are of the same quality?
He did the touchy touchy and looky looky in one of the vehicles, and came away with solid conclusions about both.
A buddy of mine has a Subaru Outback and also likes to tell me how nice and high-quality his interior is. I've been in it, and a 20 minute ride inside that thing made me recall rides in Soviet-era trolleybuses from my childhood. But hey, it works for him...
LMAO LMAO LMAOBecause it's a "Land Cruiser," not to be confused with a Land Cruiser.
Much like this general is a "woman":
what a great post!!!!!
Lol. It's hard tracking a lane in this thread. The conversation was regarding the 'imaginary' belief that the Sequoia had the same special sauce as the Cruiser.
oh the sequoia sauce is "Special" all right....
No. The Sequoia has a stronger rear axle for example. The TRD Pro Sequoia has better shocks than the LC300. There are certain differences between them. Is that better quality?
I am saying that I am not aware of any data that supports the Land Cruiser having a longer service life or being more durable or reliable than its stable mates in the current generation or comparable prior generation. Meaning - the LC200 doesn't last longer than the Gen2 Sequoia. Not in any metric or measurement I've seen. Thicker engine plastic parts are thicker. That doesn't mean they last longer. It might - but that's not a failure point I've ever heard of happening in real life. If you can point to even one single instance of a Tundra or Sequoia 5.7 engine plastic part failure, I'd like to know about it. Being thicker doesn't make a purely functional part better unless it actually makes it better.
There, I made it easy.
not easy enough for some people still
AND WHY IS THERE NO SEQUOIA.. THOSE ARE EVEN BETTER
Last edited:
I asked Grok to share a few thoughts on the J250 owners:
^ That wins the internet today. @grok unhinged.
- Status
