Future Land Cruiser directions

[stonepa]

Where the next LC goes, I’m sure it will be more capable and more compfortsble, and more reliable than the 200. The same as every cruiser before it. Then whatever will be next will be said to “not be a real cruiser.” And after some years, it will be loved, and the 400 series will be criticized for “not being a Land Cruiser.”

I bought a new FJ60 in 1987. Wow - what a change from the FJ55 I had been driving (cousin's truck). Super modern, A/C, comfortable seats, 'smooth' ride, and I could even drive 60mph. Drove that as my daily until 1998. Wow! Look at that new 100! Have to have one of those! Leather, heated seats, cruise control, a radio/CD player I could hear, power windows and heated seats, much better ride, cruise all day at 80mph. No manual choke! Drove that as my daily till 2015. Now, I have my 200, which does most everything better than the 100. What they all did was improve with every model change, yet still have the underlying capability, reliability, and durability. Keep that up and Toyota has me for life.

 

[studawg]

A lot of factories and industrial zones still have massive high sulphur Diesel reserves. Knowing diesel owners, someone is bound to throw that sh!t in to their tank sooner or later.

Well its what was in my tank when it rolled off the assembly line. Sulfur = lubricity and my 250k mile factory injectors would probably appreciate it.

 

[studawg]

What they all did was improve with every model change, yet still have the underlying capability, reliability, and durability. Keep that up and Toyota has me for life.

Of course, yes, thats been established. The million dollar question is, HOW do you beat the 3UR-FE in terms of power, mileage (efficiency) and reliability?

There have been basically two technological advances in the history of the engine in the North American spec Toyota Land Cruiser in the 70 years its been sold here.

Fuel injection in 1988 and variable valve timing in 2006.

The fuel injection actually made it MORE reliable, AS WELL AS more power AND better fuel mileage. (Edit: I love the 2F just as much as the next guy, but thats the truth. It was the auto tranny that sucked on the 62.)

The VVT made more power, but actually LESS mileage than the early 2UZ and definitely LESS reliable because if the WP fails and/or TB breaks, valves meet pistons and your engine is toast. Thankfully that only lasted 2 years and then what did they do?

They put a timing CHAIN in the 3UR and with an incremental increase in development were able to make an engine with more power, more reliable and better mileage than the previous powerplant.

So, partly based on Toyota's history, and partly based on just common sense, it seems to me the logical next step is to REFINE the current powerplant, maintain the general configuration (normally aspirated gas V8) and with just fundamental design and engineering work, maybe increase HP/Liter, which allows you to make it smaller displacement, which in turn increases mileage/efficiency and would therefore presumably maintain the current level of reliability, if not increase it.

There are just no market demands on the engine that CAN'T be met by simple incremental advances in technology.

Thats the way I look at it anyway.

 

[M1911]

I used 4 diesel 200 series (and 3 70 series) overseas for a couple years. They are not as reliable as what is being discussed in this thread. I lost several turbos over that time and dealt with fuel issues.

I've read similar things, particularly about diesel turbos. It seems that many folks in Australia add additional fuel filters and catch cans.

I think the other thing to point out to folks mentioning the big power diesels can provide when tuned -- yes, they can be tuned to provide big power, but that process likely significantly increases emissions.

 

[bloc]

Dramatically increases emissions and reduces durability. The F650 Powerstroke engine is detuned from the F350 because of how it will be used. The greater horsepower/torque would cause problems when used for that duty cycle.

@89cruiserfj62 you are bringing up very good points, especially about power/mileage/reliability and toyota's priorities in that context. They've give up mileage numbers to other manufacturers for YEARS, but the tradeoff was you knew their engines were good to 400k if well maintained.. safe to say other builders aren't the same. Funny you mention the GM engines.. a large jump in efficiency occurred when they introduced displacement on demand, which is not reliable and I'm sure wouldn't meet toyota's standards. But the big power gains and further efficiency came along with direct injection.

Which is the direction I would go, if toyota cared what I thought. DI plus port injected variant of the 3UR. When GDI first came out audi dealt with lots of clogged intake manifolds and valves.. keeping port injection at certain times keeps the intake clean, but you still get the benefits of lean-burn under light load and knock avoidance of DI.

All of this can be done relatively easily, without the packaging and thermal issues of turbos. Hell, IF they do a TTV6 it'll almost certainly be Direct Injected anyway. That detail is critical to the operation of EcoBoost and basically all of the "replacement for displacement" turbo engines coming out lately.

But.. a DOHC VVT 5.7ish NA v8 would still keep the stresses on components close to what the 3UR had, and seems quite reliable for many miles. Could still run on 87 octane. Still has five main bearing journals, still has plenty of displacement to provide the power and water jacket to dissipate heat.

From a "bombproof engine" perspective I still really like inline 6 engines. 7 mains for 6 rods, each of which has its own journal.. harmonically balanced.. the big issue becomes such a long cylinder head made of a different material than the block expanding at different rates from heat (hello 1FZ-FE head gaskets). Plus, you just can't put an engine that long into a landcruiser anymore. That's limited to full-size pickups at this point.

But the 2UZ was clearly something of a standard-setter with regard to longevity, even if it wasn't the most powerful and terrible on fuel. So V8s can get the job done, IMO.

Everyone seems to hold up EcoBoost as the future of engines.. and yeah, they are great, but fundamentally I think when you stress an engine that much (not just power.. load matters, aka towing) you run afoul of the reliability standards toyota has long made a huge priority. I don't doubt toyota can build a more reliable TTV6.. I just don't think they can match the standard of the 2UZ or 3UR.

 

[Harper34]

Even if diesels were a good technical solution, I would find it hard to believe Toyota or Lexus would want what is now tainted technology to be a part of their image. I believe diesels time has come and gone, at least here in the states. They didn't make their rest of world diesels available in the best of times in the last few decades.

That "tainted technology" is literally what makes the world go round...everything from ships, transport, trains, generators, to most machinery and 4x4's rely on diesel. Best bang for your buck in terms of energy efficiency. And no, EV's aren't anywhere close to replacing diesel outside of short range delivery applications.

The technology is still seeing significant investment by many OEM's, including Toyota.

Anywhere else but America, people would look at you crazy for even suggesting that you buy a gasoline 4x4 or offroader.

At least in North America, 3/4 and 1 tons still sell lots of them. They're making an arrival of sorts in the 1/2 ton and midsized markets. Toyota may or may not get in on that trend.

And all the people who point out the flaws with the modern diesel emissions technology are conflating diesels from 10 years ago with the current crop of engines...there have been a lot of improvements since then. Toyota in fact does offer diesels with DEF, DPF and EGR...they work just fine.

 

[Harper34]

I've read similar things, particularly about diesel turbos. It seems that many folks in Australia add additional fuel filters and catch cans.

I think the other thing to point out to folks mentioning the big power diesels can provide when tuned -- yes, they can be tuned to provide big power, but that process likely significantly increases emissions.

No, they're very reliable...assuming you don't tune the crap out of them and you adhere to regular maintenance.

The horror stories that people like to tell are exaggerations of the abnormal or worst case scenarios. And BTW, you tune anything for performance beyond OEM specs and you're going to increase emissions.

 

[TeCKis300]

Of course, yes, thats been established. The million dollar question is, HOW do you beat the 3UR-FE in terms of power, mileage (efficiency) and reliability?

There have been basically two technological advances in the history of the engine in the North American spec Toyota Land Cruiser in the 70 years its been sold here.

Fuel injection in 1988 and variable valve timing in 2006.

The fuel injection actually made it MORE reliable, AS WELL AS more power AND better fuel mileage. (Edit: I love the 2F just as much as the next guy, but thats the truth. It was the auto tranny that sucked on the 62.)

The VVT made more power, but actually LESS mileage than the early 2UZ and definitely LESS reliable because if the WP fails and/or TB breaks, valves meet pistons and your engine is toast. Thankfully that only lasted 2 years and then what did they do?

They put a timing CHAIN in the 3UR and with an incremental increase in development were able to make an engine with more power, more reliable and better mileage than the previous powerplant.

So, partly based on Toyota's history, and partly based on just common sense, it seems to me the logical next step is to REFINE the current powerplant, maintain the general configuration (normally aspirated gas V8) and with just fundamental design and engineering work, maybe increase HP/Liter, which allows you to make it smaller displacement, which in turn increases mileage/efficiency and would therefore presumably maintain the current level of reliability, if not increase it.

There are just no market demands on the engine that CAN'T be met by simple incremental advances in technology.

Thats the way I look at it anyway.

Good questions and comments. I think a key to what we'll see in the new engines regardless of turbo/hybrid configurations, will include technologies we're seeing in some of Toyota's latest next generation models. The Camry's new 2.5L 4-cyl (non-hybrid), rated at 203hp and 41 mpg. Those are huge numbers for a standard motor.

Toyota has been investing in their Dynamic Force engine technologies. Chief among the technologies is to achieve huge thermal efficiences (>40%) by reducing friction, better exhaust flow, reduce pumping losses and flow in the intake, and more efficient cooling. They've reconfigured the intake valve angles, modified pistons, better cladded vlave seats, all to improve tumble and swirl, for more efficient combustion.

Some of the common enabling improvements dug up from wiki:

• High speed combustion technologies:
  • Long stroke (stroke/bore ≒ 1.2)
  • Wider angle between the intake and exhaust valve
  • High efficiency intake port with laser cladded valve seat
  • High compression ratio up to 14.0:1
  • High energy ignition coil
  • Updated D-4S system
  • Multi-hole direct injector
• Variable cooling system:
  • Motor driven water pump
  • Heated thermostat
• Continuous variable-capacity oil pump
• Low viscosity engine oil
• Water jacket spacer
• Piston with laser pit skirt
• Drilled passage between cylinder bores
• VVT-iE
• Small-concave-profile camshaft
• Compact HLA
• High strength connecting rod
• High response intake air control
• Fuel injection control (multi-injection)
• Cylinder heads with built-in EGR cooler function
• Updated catalyst
• Exhaust manifold layout change
• Piston oil jet control

I can't see Toyota/Lexus without a V8 in their portfolio. Even if V6 TTs get fitted to some of their trucks, I think there will be a V8 somewhere in there. There's enough rumors of a high peformance sports car within Lexus ranks. That V8 drivetrain would want to be amortized by more mainstream models.

The newest Lexus LS 500 is fitted with a 3.5 V6 TT. Note the "500" designation. We know Lexus registered LX 600 branding. It wouldn't fit to have a 3.5 V6 TT configuration under that 600 nomenclature. It should be a bigger motor. Perhaps a 4.0L V6 or V8 TT? I can dream right?

 

[TeCKis300]

That "tainted technology" is literally what makes the world go round...everything from ships, transport, trains, generators, to most machinery and 4x4's rely on diesel. Best bang for your buck in terms of energy efficiency. And no, EV's aren't anywhere close to replacing diesel outside of short range delivery applications.

The technology is still seeing significant investment by many OEM's, including Toyota.

Anywhere else but America, people would look at you crazy for even suggesting that you buy a gasoline 4x4 or offroader.

At least in North America, 3/4 and 1 tons still sell lots of them. They're making an arrival of sorts in the 1/2 ton and midsized markets. Toyota may or may not get in on that trend.

And all the people who point out the flaws with the modern diesel emissions technology are conflating diesels from 10 years ago with the current crop of engines...there have been a lot of improvements since then. Toyota in fact does offer diesels with DEF, DPF and EGR...they work just fine.

In the commercial space, diesel is absolutely the right technology. I wouldn't argue that for a second. You might be interested in knowing that I engineer modern diesel aircraft of all things.

The consumer space is different. I do more heavy lifting with my 200-series than most. Even then, I personally would not opt for a diesel as I value performance more than anything. Diesel is often and primarily an efficiency option rather than performance, outside of HD trucks. Yet even there with their pinnacle diesels, because of the huge weight penalties of those drivetrains, dynamic performance is again compromised.

If I wanted efficiency, I would completely sidestep diesel. EVs are leaps and bounds higher performance than gassers, and far more efficient than diesels. Infrastructure is already here is areas.

 

[UncleClaude]

The 3.0, especially the later 240hp variant, was very close to hitting emissions targets with the primary issue being NOx, from inadequate DEF usage volume. VWs likely reason for this was wanting to go a full oil change interval on one tank of DEF.

Post-fix my 13 guzzled the stuff.

Similar story for the 14 2.0. They had a small DEF tank to avoid cutting into trunk space, and at the time there was a rule that passenger cars had to go a full oil change (10k on these cars) on one tank.

Otherwise my understanding is the def-equipped emissions controls did their job.

Yes our Touareg got 30 miles per gallon while climbing up walls. It wasn't a clunker like the old diesels. It was performant beyond what most in here have experienced.

They weren't missing emissions by much. In fact I believe that diesel was "taken out" by the last administration because they were hell bent on electric cars. The turbo diesel was the one alternative that got incredible mileage and had all the power.

 

[UncleClaude]

That is because VW was cheating on the diesel emissions. You probably wouldn't have liked it as much if it had truly met the emissions standards. The emissions equipment reduces fuel economy and power.

Um no. They barely cheated while the engine warmed up. Nice try though

 

[mike552]

Diesels are quickly disappearing, and not just in the US. Europe is heavily discouraging the use of diesel cars, with many provinces oulawing them on city centers as they must meet “Euro 6” emission standards or higher.

 

[Harper34]

In the commercial space, diesel is absolutely the right technology. I wouldn't argue that for a second. You might be interested in knowing that I engineer modern diesel aircraft of all things.

The consumer space is different. I do more heavy lifting with my 200-series than most. Even then, I personally would not opt for a diesel as I value performance more than anything. Diesel is often and primarily an efficiency option rather than performance, outside of HD trucks. Yet even there with their pinnacle diesels, because of the huge weight penalties of those drivetrains, dynamic performance is again compromised.

If I wanted efficiency, I would completely sidestep diesel. EVs are leaps and bounds higher performance than gassers, and far more efficient than diesels. Infrastructure is already here is areas.

"Performance" is relative....a high-reving naturally aspirated gasoline v8 may provide the "performance" you seek, while a low-end torque-producing diesel inline 6 or v8 may provide the "performance" someone else seeks.

The new crop of diesels being put in midsized and 1/2 ton trucks (v6's and inline 4's) are more than adequate for the type of "work" that most owners will be doing with those trucks and they provide better efficiency while performing that work. The 4.5l v8 is certainly a workhorse and can do anything the 5.7l iForce v8 can do, albeit at a marginally slower pace. All of them get up to highway speeds just fine. So this notion that North Americans just won't be able to abide by the lack of "performance" associated with these diesels is a misguided one.

EV's are a marketing exercise until the range, recharge time and cold weather issues are worked out...they provide good efficiency, assuming they work and can actually get you from point A to point B in a reasonable amount of time.

 

[TeCKis300]

"Performance" is relative....a high-reving naturally aspirated gasoline v8 may provide the "performance" you seek, while a low-end torque-producing diesel inline 6 or v8 may provide the "performance" someone else seeks.

The new crop of diesels being put in midsized and 1/2 ton trucks (v6's and inline 4's) are more than adequate for the type of "work" that most owners will be doing with those trucks and they provide better efficiency while performing that work. The 4.5l v8 is certainly a workhorse and can do anything the 5.7l iForce v8 can do, albeit at a marginally slower pace. All of them get up to highway speeds just fine. So this notion that North Americans just won't be able to abide by the lack of "performance" associated with these diesels is a misguided one.

EV's are a marketing exercise until the range, recharge time and cold weather issues are worked out...they provide good efficiency, assuming they work and can actually get you from point A to point B in a reasonable amount of time.

Happy to discuss in more detail. In Austraila, there's both 5.7L and 4.5L TT drivetrains fitted to the LX, that coexist in the market. To your point, the diesel's an option there because of the demand. They introduced it after, because the people wanted it, probably for all the good reasons you state.

I stay with my point about performance and weight.

Performance - the diesel is upwards of 2 seconds slower 0-60, with publications putting it into the mid-high 8 second range. This is where diesel torque should shine because of the need to get off the line. Compared to mid 7 second range with the gasser. The diesel performance is solid for a 6000lb beast, but the gassers is steller. That's unladen. Laden would show increasing larger deltas. I don't drive day in day out flooring the car, but I do need perfomance when towing, on grade, and at elevation. On the open road at speed, passing power also matters, and where HP is the name of the game. The 5.7L having 125HP on the diesel is dramatic. It's the difference of passing confidently, to not passing at all. This would be frustrating, and efficiency be dammed, because I didn't spend bucko bucks to have the performance similar to that of an economy car. That might not be fair, but I'm not just looking for adequate work levels of performance. I want indulgent performance.

Weight - The LX450d had to be spec'd without the 3rd row, without sun-roof, with many other lower levels of options. They also removed the ability to spec an aux tank to keep within chassis GVM, resulting in range no better than the 5.7L gasser with aux tank fitted. Much of the diesel drivetrain weight is concentrated in the nose, which dampens cornering feel and ability.

Others
1) Australia has much more diesel availability and is much cheaper than gas. Cheaper with more efficiency makes great fiscal reason - for Australia. The US is much different with diesel often priced the same or higher than premium fuel. In the US, diesel is not as widely available whereas gas is everywhere (opposite of AUS). Where it is available is often a single token pump. Perhaps a line to said single pump, behind a 50 gallon HD work truck. When I tow, I actually like the ability to ingress and egress stations with flexibility, and the only way to have that is with the many more gasoline pumps. More remote places also turn over gasoline better, keeping that supply from being stale. Costco only sells gasoline (as far as I've seen). Diesel pump smells with dirty pump/pump handles. Nevermind filling DEF, with its forced limp mode if I run out (damn domestic regulations!).

2) NVH - diesel may be more tractable and relaxed in off the line acceleration. That shouldn't be mistaken for better NVH. It's the 5.7L that has more smoothness and quiet. Modern diesels are better in regard to clatter but that's what diesels do. A diesel under load at full stink, which it will be in more often with its lower outputs, is going to be more coarse and less refined than the 5.7L.

I think it's important to remember that diesel HP is no different than gasser, or even EV produced HP. It's an objective measurement of output. The other important thing is that it's really about wheel torque, for which there is gearing. HP cannot be geared up.
5.7L gasser - 383 HP, 403 TQ
4.5L TT diesel - 268, HP 480 TQ (without USDM emissions)
Difference -115HP, +77TQ


Different topic, but I'll say you're absolutely wrong about EVs. My wife is on her second one. It's steller in range, recharge time (always full starting day), superchargers work very well, and cold is not an issue. I often negotiate to take her EV on longer road business trips over my LX, much to her dismay. It's such a game changer that I'm seriously considering the Cybertruck to replace my LX. Torque monster. Performance.

Diesels time has come and gone.

 

[Harper34]

Performance - the diesel is upwards of 2 seconds slower 0-60, with publications putting it into the mid-high 9 second range. This is where diesel torque should shine because of the need to get off the line. Compared to mid 7 second range with the gasser. The diesel performance is solid for a 6000lb beast, but the gassers is steller. That's unladen. Laden would show increasing larger deltas. I don't drive day in day out flooring the car, but I do need perfomance when towing, on grade, and at elevation. On the open road at speed, passing power also matters, and where HP is the name of the game. The 5.7L having 125HP on the diesel is dramatic. It's the difference of passing confidently, to not passing at all. This would be frustrating, and efficiency be dammed, because I didn't spend bucko bucks to have the performance similar to that of a Prius. That might not be fair, but I'm not just looking for adequate work levels of performance. I want indulgent performance.

You're exaggerating the differences in terms of passing. That 4.5l diesel has more than ample passing power. As for the gasoline being 2 seconds quicker 0-60...fine, I agree. That delta might be important to you, maybe no so much to others. The newer diesels, especially the 2.8l inline 4 and 4.5l v8 Toyota's are more than capable of getting up to and maintaining North American highway speeds.

It's like saying a .44 magnum puts a lot more of a hole into a human attacker than a .357 would...while technically true, the discussion of "differences" is mostly irrelevant. Both will get the job done with some leeway to spare.

Weight - The LX450d had to be spec'd without the 3rd row, without sun-roof, with many other lower levels of options. They also removed the ability to spec an aux tank to keep within chassis GVM, resulting in range no better than the 5.7L gasser with aux tank fitted. Much of the diesel drivetrain weight is concentrated in the nose, which dampens cornering feel and ability.

We're talking about 720lbs (4.5l v8 diesel) vs 480lbs (5.7l iForce v8 gasoline)...is there a difference? yes. Will it make or break the LC 200's offroad or onroad performance? No. The LC 200 is heavy beast to begin with. As for range, the gasoline can add more range via aux tanks, but so can the diesel. The 4.5l v8 will always retain that advantage.

Others
1) Australia has much more diesel availability and is much cheaper than gas. Cheaper with more efficiency makes great fiscal reason - for Australia. The US is much different with diesel often priced the same or higher than premium fuel. In the US, diesel is not as widely available whereas gas is everywhere (opposite of AUS). Where it is available is often a single token pump. Perhaps a line to said single pump, behind a 50 gallon HD work truck. When I tow, I actually like the ability to ingress and egress stations with flexibility, and the only way to have that is with the many more gasoline pumps. More remote places also turn over gasoline better, keeping that supply from being stale. Costco only sells gasoline (as far as I've seen). Diesel pump smells with dirty pump/pump handles. Nevermind filling DEF, with its forced limp mode if I run out (damn domestic regulations!).

Literally every major fuel station in North America sells diesel...stop pretending like availability is really an issue in this region of the world, because its not. If you're within driving distance of a major roadway, you can find diesel. And even a lot of remote fuel stations will carry it because the farming, transport and natural resources industries relies upon diesel.

2) NVH - diesel may be more tractable and relaxed in off the line acceleration. That shouldn't be mistaken for better NVH. It's the 5.7L that has more smoothness and quiet. Modern diesels are better in regard to clatter but that's what diesels do. A diesel under load at full stink, which it will be in more often with its lower outputs, is going to be more coarse and less refined than the 5.7L.

The 5.7l is loud under full load/high RPM driving, which is where you need to be get usable hp for work. The 4.5l v8 and 2.8l inline 4 diesels are loud under full load/high RPM driving too, but the big difference is you really don't need to spend much time at that RPM range because of the insane low-end torque.

I've driven diesels and gasolines (to include Toyota's) on long trips, to include overland trips. The diesels, at least the modern ones, were far more tame and easy to live with because their NVH was much less intrusive compared to the gasolines which need to rev'd up when encountering similar driving scenarios.

I think it's important to remember that diesel HP is no different than gasser, or even EV produced HP. It's an objective measurement of output. The other important thing is that it's really about wheel torque, for which there is gearing. HP cannot be geared up.
5.7L gasser - 383 HP, 403 TQ
4.5L TT diesel - 268, HP 480 TQ (without USDM emissions)
Difference -115HP, +77TQ

Yes, but the important factor which you're leaving out of this discussion is where in the RPM range that HP is delivered for both engines. The 4.5l v8, despite its lower overall HP, gets far more low-end horsepower compared to the 5.7l v8 which needs to be rev'd up. Low-end horsepower translates into an easy/quieter experience when towing, offroading and doing general work.

Like I said, you really need to go overseas and try some of these Toyota and Nissan diesels out before you criticize them. When you bring up things like NVH, it indicates to me that you have very little experience with diesel outside of driving a few clattery ones from 10-15 years go.

Different topic, but I'll say you're absolutely wrong about EVs. My wife is on her second one. It's steller in range, recharge time (always full starting day), superchargers work very well, and cold is not an issue. I often negotiate to take her EV on longer road business trips over my LX, much to her dismay. It's such a game changer that I'm seriously considering the Cybertruck to replace my LX. Torque. Monster.

A) recharge times still take quite a bit of time...meaning on long road trips you need to stop and wait for more than 5 minutes to get usable range back into the battery. They're nowhere close to internal combustion engines yet, certainly not for overland/offroad purposes.

B) Range is still an issue, especially when the EV is under load/doing work.

C) The cold does in fact reduce battery life. This is widely documented for EV's and for any number of other devices (phones, tablets) which run off of lithium ion batteries.

Diesels time has come and gone.

And yet all of the major industries, most global 4x4/truck markets and even significant parts of the North American truck market buy diesels in droves. The logistical backbone of the world runs on diesel...to put it simply. If gasoline or EV's were preferred for such applications, we'd have seen a switch by now.

 

[TeCKis300]

You're exaggerating the differences in terms of passing. That 4.5l diesel has more than ample passing power. As for the gasoline being 2 seconds quicker 0-60...fine, I agree. That delta might be important to you, maybe no so much to others. The newer diesels, especially the 2.8l inline 4 and 4.5l v8 Toyota's are more than capable of getting up to and maintaining North American highway speeds.

It's like saying a .44 magnum puts a lot more of a hole into a human attacker than a .357 would...while technically true, the discussion of "differences" is mostly irrelevant. Both will get the job done with some leeway to spare.



We're talking about 720lbs (4.5l v8 diesel) vs 480lbs (5.7l iForce v8 gasoline)...is there a difference? yes. Will it make or break the LC 200's offroad or onroad performance? No. The LC 200 is heavy beast to begin with. As for range, the gasoline can add more range via aux tanks, but so can the diesel. The 4.5l v8 will always retain that advantage.



Literally every major fuel station in North America sells diesel...stop pretending like availability is really an issue in this region of the world, because its not. If you're within driving distance of a major roadway, you can find diesel. And even a lot of remote fuel stations will carry it because the farming, transport and natural resources industries relies upon diesel.




The 5.7l is loud under full load/high RPM driving, which is where you need to be get usable hp for work. The 4.5l v8 and 2.8l inline 4 diesels are loud under full load/high RPM driving too, but the big difference is you really don't need to spend much time at that RPM range because of the insane low-end torque.

I've driven a diesels and gasolines (to include Toyota's) on long trips, to include overland trips. The diesels, at least the modern ones, were far more tame and easy to live with because their NVH was much less intrusive compared to the gasolines which need to rev'd up when encountering similar driving scenarios.



Yes, but the important factor which you're leaving out of this discussion is where in the RPM range that HP is delivered for both engines. The 4.5l v8, despite its lower overall HP, gets far more low-end horsepower compared to the 5.7l v8 which needs to be rev'd up. Low-end horsepower translates into an easy/quieter experience when towing, offroading and doing general work.

Like I said, you really need to go overseas and try some of these Toyota and Nissan diesels out before you criticize them. When you bring up things like NVH, it indicates to me that you have very little experience with diesel outside of driving a few clattery ones from 10-15 years go.




A) recharge times still take quite a bit of time...meaning on long road trips you need to stop and wait for more than 5 minutes to get usable range back into the battery. They're nowhere close to internal combustion engines yet, certainly not for overland/offroad purposes.

B) Range is still an issue, especially when the EV is under load/doing work.

C) The cold does in fact reduce battery life. This is widely documented for EV's and for any number of other devices (phones, tablets) which run off of lithium ion batteries.




And yet all of the major industries, most global 4x4/truck markets and even significant parts of the North American truck market buy diesels in droves. The logistical backbone of the world runs on diesel...to put it simply. If gasoline or EV's were preferred for such applications, we'd have seen a switch by now.

I agree with you on the very low end torque advantage of the diesel.

In regards to more low end HP. Let's talk about that.

5.7L gasser - 383 HP @5600, 403 TQ @3600
4.5L TT diesel - 268 HP @3600 480 TQ @1600-2800 (without USDM emissions)

It would be nice to overlay dynos. Short of that, translating the 5.7L 403tq@3600 (403*3600/5252) = 276HP @ 3600. Even at 3600rpm, the 5.7L already makes more HP than the 4.5L diesel can ever muster. The 5.7L then runs away with additional rpm headroom to continue to pile on its 115hp advantage.

The 5.7L under 3600 is ultra smooth and ultra quiet. The 4.5L diesel is not as much, because of inherent diesel traits. Trade low rpm tractability for more NVH?



I'm teasing out the differences between the two. So are you and I agree with some of your points. Let's not be dismissive because minutia matters. In some of these things, like the staggering 115HP difference, it's not a small matter at all.

Diesel convenience is a thing. I'm on the towing boards and there's tons of threads that praise diesel models yes. There's also ones that talk about the inconvenience of diesel availability and fueling with the single pump on the end, during holidays for example.. Or waiting for contractors to fuel and get their refreshments, while one's trailer is sticking out of the road. One could use commercial truck fueling stations, yet that's not my idea of comfort and convenience to be mixing it up with that crowd. It's a minutia significant enough that there's people switching away from diesels and their other disadvantages, for modern gassers.

 

[stonepa]

Can we switch back to the Land Cruiser vs Land Rover debate? Atleast they’re both sold in the US.

 

[MikeVpdx503]

As to the availability of diesel fuel, every Costco fuel station I recall using between Seattle, Portland, LA, Vegas, Phoenix, St George, Salt Lake and Boise have multiple diesel pumps. Some have diesel at every pump. My experience is not countrywide, but a good sample of the West coast. I just wish I could fill my own in Oregon...

 

[coleAK]

You're exaggerating the differences in terms of passing. That 4.5l diesel has more than ample passing power. As for the gasoline being 2 seconds quicker 0-60...fine, I agree. That delta might be important to you, maybe no so much to others. The newer diesels, especially the 2.8l inline 4 and 4.5l v8 Toyota's are more than capable of getting up to and maintaining North American highway speeds.

It's like saying a .44 magnum puts a lot more of a hole into a human attacker than a .357 would...while technically true, the discussion of "differences" is mostly irrelevant. Both will get the job done with some leeway to spare.



We're talking about 720lbs (4.5l v8 diesel) vs 480lbs (5.7l iForce v8 gasoline)...is there a difference? yes. Will it make or break the LC 200's offroad or onroad performance? No. The LC 200 is heavy beast to begin with. As for range, the gasoline can add more range via aux tanks, but so can the diesel. The 4.5l v8 will always retain that advantage.



Literally every major fuel station in North America sells diesel...stop pretending like availability is really an issue in this region of the world, because its not. If you're within driving distance of a major roadway, you can find diesel. And even a lot of remote fuel stations will carry it because the farming, transport and natural resources industries relies upon diesel.




The 5.7l is loud under full load/high RPM driving, which is where you need to be get usable hp for work. The 4.5l v8 and 2.8l inline 4 diesels are loud under full load/high RPM driving too, but the big difference is you really don't need to spend much time at that RPM range because of the insane low-end torque.

I've driven diesels and gasolines (to include Toyota's) on long trips, to include overland trips. The diesels, at least the modern ones, were far more tame and easy to live with because their NVH was much less intrusive compared to the gasolines which need to rev'd up when encountering similar driving scenarios.



Yes, but the important factor which you're leaving out of this discussion is where in the RPM range that HP is delivered for both engines. The 4.5l v8, despite its lower overall HP, gets far more low-end horsepower compared to the 5.7l v8 which needs to be rev'd up. Low-end horsepower translates into an easy/quieter experience when towing, offroading and doing general work.

Like I said, you really need to go overseas and try some of these Toyota and Nissan diesels out before you criticize them. When you bring up things like NVH, it indicates to me that you have very little experience with diesel outside of driving a few clattery ones from 10-15 years go.




A) recharge times still take quite a bit of time...meaning on long road trips you need to stop and wait for more than 5 minutes to get usable range back into the battery. They're nowhere close to internal combustion engines yet, certainly not for overland/offroad purposes.

B) Range is still an issue, especially when the EV is under load/doing work.

C) The cold does in fact reduce battery life. This is widely documented for EV's and for any number of other devices (phones, tablets) which run off of lithium ion batteries.




And yet all of the major industries, most global 4x4/truck markets and even significant parts of the North American truck market buy diesels in droves. The logistical backbone of the world runs on diesel...to put it simply. If gasoline or EV's were preferred for such applications, we'd have seen a switch by now.

I’m in Alaska and my wife has been driving a Tesla for over 5 years (model s then 3). We have no superchargers (my closest supercharger is farther then Atlanta to San Diego) and limited 3rd party charging, mostly RV sites. In 5 years and about ~60k miles we’ve only ever NOT charged at home a hand full of times, most of those was with the S that only had ~200 miles usable range. Last fall 450 miles (10 hours driving) round trip to Homer in one day in our Model 3. 45 min stop for lunch plugged in to a 50a RV hook up. Then 4 hours plugged in to 50a during our time in Homer, and didn’t plug in at all the trip home. That was it, trip was no longer then if we took the LX. Went to fairbanks 2 weeks ago >425 miles each way. Warmest temp was 6F, lowest was -42F, most of the time was around -10F. Stopped for lunch for an hour in Talkeetna and charged on 30a then plugged in and charged to 100% overnight where we were staying, then on the way back stopped in Talkeetna again for an hour and a half (lunch and brewery). I’m also strongly considering a Cyber truck or Rivian S to replace my LX.
As for EC efficiency in my experience they are much more efficient at lower speeds, I would say the 500 mile Cyber truck could easily get 400-500+ miles of hard off roading in everything but high friction like mud and deep snow. Towing a largish (>20’ and >6k lbs) camper trailers will probably cut range by 40%.
Lastly the cold dosn’t effect the battery and efficiency, it’s running the resistance heater to heat the car that leads to reduced range in the cold for EVs. Running 55 mph if I turn off the heat for 10min Our model 3 is running close to “rated range” at 250-260 Wh/mi even at 0F.

 

[coleAK]

A) recharge times still take quite a bit of time...meaning on long road trips you need to stop and wait for more than 5 minutes to get usable range back into the battery. They're nowhere close to internal combustion engines yet, certainly not for overland/offroad purposes.

B) Range is still an issue, especially when the EV is under load/doing work.

C) The cold does in fact reduce battery life. This is widely documented for EV's and for any number of other devices (phones, tablets) which run off of lithium ion batteries.

these two guys drive a model 3 coast to coast across Canada in 3 days non stop. Recharging didn’t take them much time.