Remember, that D130 measurement (211 inches) includes the spare tire mounted to the tailgate. Body to body it’s virtually identical to the LC100. They’re both parked in my garage.
Last edited:
From 100 to 250?
- Thread starter RND1
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
In the manual:
And online
There must be some nuance I don't understand. Maybe lost in translation between English and USA rating systems? I'm assuming it's not a lb/kg typo. My guess was that the 330lbs was something like a J2807 standard so that would be most equivalent to what Toyota would rate the LC tongue weight at.
Not sure what the number is for the GX550/LC on tongue weight. Tundra/Sequoia is 1,200lbs IIRC. I assume it'll be somewhere between the 850(?) of the LC200 and 1,200 on the Sequoia. I haven't seen a spec for the LC300 or LC250.
Even at the 771lb recommended rating on the Defender, you'd be around 6,500lb max tow rating with 12% tongue weight. In the Airstream range that would be a Bambi or maybe an earlier 23' model if you don't put anything in it. A current version of the Flying Cloud 23 is too heavy empty for the LR. Although - that's based on MFG specs. I don't always strictly hold to those rating if I think it's safe to go a little over. I'd maybe do it with a FC23, but not any bigger if I thought the hitch was designed robustly. I haven't really looked closely at the defender hitch.
Last edited:
771# is probably with a weight distribution hitch, which should be used towing any trailer over 3K with most SUVs (perhaps other than a Excursion/2500 Suburban). The WDH will take that 771# and spread it out between the front and rear axles of the tow rig.
I don't doubt that the Land Rover is an awesome rig, but for long-term ownership they would be problematic, especially with getting parts/service for folks like myself who live in a rural area (closest LR dealer is 90 miles away; there are very few of them running around so parts aren't stocked). Toyota parts availability isn't quite GM or Ford but is very good. But, not a concern if you aren't keeping the rig a long time.
I don't doubt that the Land Rover is an awesome rig, but for long-term ownership they would be problematic, especially with getting parts/service for folks like myself who live in a rural area (closest LR dealer is 90 miles away; there are very few of them running around so parts aren't stocked). Toyota parts availability isn't quite GM or Ford but is very good. But, not a concern if you aren't keeping the rig a long time.
771 lbs is the correct rating (without weight distribution). Weight distribution is actually “not recommended” by Land Rover because of the air suspension software. I’m sure most of us here in the U.S. still use it, but I don’t believe it’s popular in Europe. They have much stricter laws about towing speeds, weights, etc.
I'm not sure what those numbers mean. The 147lb max accessory weight doesn't give me a lot of confidence. I don't love the ratings for non-WDH being different for a few reasons. The main one being on rougher roads you usually don't want the WDH set very high because it not only transfer weight forward - it also transfers weight back to the trailer axles. In places you're worried about bending trailer axles on rough roads, you'll want to unload those WDH springs to reduce the loads on the trailer. If the hitch is limited, you're getting into questionable territory.
In England you can tow with as low as 4% tongue weight I think. Going short distances slowly changes the considerations a lot. That seems to then fit with 8200lbs and 330lb.
In England you can tow with as low as 4% tongue weight I think. Going short distances slowly changes the considerations a lot. That seems to then fit with 8200lbs and 330lb.
What is that based on? If that's the right rating - why would LR put 330lbs in the manual? Is there any JLR info on this anywhere?
Edit: Looking at the LR website it has some fine print that says:
"The maximum coupling point (nose weight) only applies to trailers with overrun brakes, without overrun breaks the maximum coupling point (nose weight) = 330 lbs. Furthermore, the coupling point (nose weight) must not exceed 10% of the gross caravan or trailer weight. For further information, please contact your preferred Land Rover Retailer."
The first part - unbraked trailer max is 330lbs vs braked trailer 771lbs. Okay. Makes sense... sort of. Why would the tongue weight be material to the braking? The trailer weight braked bs unbraked makes a ton of sense. Tongue weight? not sure how that matters. But it's not related to WDH apparently.
The second part raises more questions for me. Why would they limit tongue weight to 10%? That's less than what most travel trailers recommend and not really even within the range of what you could do in a typical travel trailer. (High polar moment => instability => higher necessary tongue weight to load). So for an Airstream Bambi that has a 3500lb empty weight and 525lb tongue weight - you'll then add 75lbs for a hitch and you're at 600lbs tongue weight. To meet LR spec you'd need to add enough weight to the back end of the trailer to cut that tongue weight in half. I think that would end up being legitimately dangerous to take on the road.
For me - JLR is telling me that they don't want people to tow. The only ways to stay within the MFG specs are nearly impossible in real world use and probably dangerous. There is almost no plausible scenario you'd ever safely tow an 8200lb trailer in the USA safely and within all of LR's specs.
Last edited:
130 was the only one that didn’t specify that - good catch.
There are definitely confusing nuances that I’m sure exist due to different laws and different applications in different countries. The number that matters here in the U.S. is 771 lbs, which is roughly 10% of the trailer tow rating (8200 lbs) as expected. A bit less than you’d find on a pickup truck…but not enough to matter.
Logically, if the tongue weight were actually only 330 lbs, there are plenty of men in the U.S. who wouldn’t be able to stand on the hitch without exceeding the vehicle structural rating.
The hitch accessory max is 147lbs. I think most American adults probably should not stand on it. Or at least not jump on it without exceeding the load rating. Is it made out of cardboard?
Toyota was pretty explicit that the LC250 represents the core land cruiser. It's the equal of the LC300 in rough terrain capability but less luxury. It is intended bridge between the LC70 and LC300 as more comfort oriented than the 70 and less street luxury than the 300. Seems to have hit that mid-point pretty well to me. Not sure we need a random internet commentator to tell us what Toyota said pretty clearly when it was introduced. It's the core market between the two end points.
Franky that's a bit of a red flag that they don't recommend weight distribution given the benefits in braking, handling, and safety. I can't imagine towing without it. Airbags may level the back in but do nothing to transfer weight evenly between the axles. Putting that 771# on the rear axle, even with the bags, will take a lot of load off the front tires and potentially result in understeer and other odd handling characteristics.
Agree that WDH is not the best for off-road towing (for a lot of reasons), but the on-road benefits are very significant. I don't tow my camper off-road and have no intentions of taking it down anything rougher than a gravel road - my WDH is dialed for handling and safety on paved roads, which around here can be very steep/curvy.
I agree that WDH is a big benefit - especially for travel trailers that are notoriously poorly balanced for highway dynamics. Instability is just inherent in having a big long box with the weight spread out. I typically use a WDH even on my relatively small 19(23) foot trailer that weights around 6k lbs loaded on most highways. But I also replaced an axle on my trailer last week that was bent. So I'm re-thinking the WDH a bit or maybe just swapping to lighter springs. I don't really go off-road in any sense other than unpaved campgrounds. My problem is that the highways here usually look a lot like this:
Well, that is a nice recap of the marketing koolaid.
But the selective dismissal of only certain random internet commentators is noted.
So, F***it with what Toyota says and we should all listen to internet commentators that have never driven or seen the vehicle in person?
Last edited:
It's just reality. The LC250 goes from sharing engines with the LC70 and austere interior all the way up to sharing near identical rolling chassis and powertrain with the LC300 GR Sport. If you were to design a single vehicle to cover the full range of LC uses - it would look a lot like the LC250.
Instead such silliness it may be more helpful to state what you disagree with what the offending Internet commentator said. 4Runner Plus seems to be the most accurate description yet.
Or, F***t it and only accept as respectable those who say what we already believe to be so and more faithfully parrot the company line.
Similar threads
