GX550 vs LX600 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter VLX
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
We got 9.5” on Tuesday! I told the kids to enjoy it, may never see that much down here again. Most since 1895.
How so? Care to elaborate? You must have interesting views having hands on experience with all of them.
The 200 (mine was a ‘21 LC, so granted this isn’t a Lexus to Lexus comparison), had touches of luxury but still felt utilitarian. The LX600 feels more luxury than utility. That’s not a bad thing, because we all know it is a fully capable LC, so you get the best of both worlds.
The interior/driving position encapsulates the driver and passenger with soft touch materials whereas the 200 “cockpit” felt more open. The LX600 is very nimble and drives less like a truck. This is a much more enjoyable vehicle to drive, but it is so refined it feels like it belongs on the pavement. Meanwhile, the GX550, although it’s a Lexus, has an interior that feels very utilitarian.
I only do light off-roading relative to most on this board and only a few times/yr as there isn’t much nearby. But simply put, our family uses the LX600 as our comfortable road trip vehicle and the GX for camping/4WD roads.
A few relative comparisons based solely on my opinion with the 4 vehicles…
Interior space: 200 > 600 > 250 > 150
Build quality: 200 > 600 > 250/150
MPG: 150 > 600 > 250 > 200
Responsiveness: 600 > 250 > 200/150
Creature Comforts/Tech: 250 > 600 > 200 > 150
This is very good. Thanks!
Overall Scores according to thatThis is very good. Thanks!
600 Series: (First place)
250 Series: (2nd place, tied)
200 Series: (2nd place, tied)
150 Series: (last place)
Humm... I do not know about that.
Different people, give different weight to these categories. I for one could not care less for tech nannies or MPG but would give extra weight to space and build quality. I went to the dealer last week to take my 200 for service and, while waiting, sat in a 250 1958. Honestly, I felt the build quality worse than my wife's 4Runner. Sitting position was great - very similar to the 200, even more than when I tested the LX, which seemed much more a "cockpit"/cramped feeling, but those hollow sounded doors were ridiculous. The grab handle, which I always use to climb my 200, in the 250 felt like a plasticky/flimsy little thingy that I doubt will last if you use it as intended. I once had a RAV4 loaner, and those doors and fit/finish were almost identical.
I do not think any of that changes when you move to a premium or FE category but let me know if I am wrong. Anyway, I would never tie that 250 with a 200 in terms of the things that matter to me. BTW dealer wanted $63k for that 1958, after all the add-on craps. I would not pay $50k on that car. Others might differ, but overall, a Land Cruiser, to me, needs to be the pinnacle of robustness and construction. The tank feeling sensation needs to be there and it was certainly not in the 250 - which is expected since it is a light duty Prado, but I do not want to open that Pandora box here.
The 200 Series is a High-end Luxury station wagon LC, the 70 Series is durable heavy duty LC, and the 250 LC sits right in the middle as the Practical Land Cruiser returning to its original role and mission in the center of the Land Cruiser Series. Next time you check one out try the premium trim, especially since you already own something in the Fancy high end-luxury category.Humm... I do not know about that.
Different people, give different weight to these categories. I for one could not care less for tech nannies or MPG but would give extra weight to space and build quality. I went to the dealer last week to take my 200 for service and, while waiting, sat in a 250 1958. Honestly, I felt the build quality worse than my wife's 4Runner. Sitting position was great - very similar to the 200, even more than when I tested the LX, which seemed much more a "cockpit"/cramped feeling, but those hollow sounded doors were ridiculous. The grab handle, which I always use to climb my 200, in the 250 felt like a plasticky/flimsy little thingy that I doubt will last if you use it as intended. I once had a RAV4 loaner, and those doors and fit/finish were almost identical.
I do not think any of that changes when you move to a premium or FE category but let me know if I am wrong. Anyway, I would never tie that 250 with a 200 in terms of the things that matter to me. BTW dealer wanted $63k for that 1958, after all the add-on craps. I would not pay $50k on that car. Others might differ, but overall, a Land Cruiser, to me, needs to be the pinnacle of robustness and construction. The tank feeling sensation needs to be there and it was certainly not in the 250 - which is expected since it is a light duty Prado, but I do not want to open that Pandora box here.
Last edited:
hoser
SILVER Star
The 200 was also available without all the luxury. And if you took away all that, it's a very robust frame and drivetrain. Frame is probably more rigid than the 70 series.
Pound for pound the 70 would handle Heavy duty things better. But let’s not get stuck in the "my Land Cruiser is better because of this and that" loop. Each model excels in its own way. Let's put aside the ego about our Land Cruisers and remember we’re all part of the same family, with each vehicle serving an important role. One for all and all for one.The 200 was also available without all the luxury. And if you took away all that, it's a very robust frame and drivetrain. Frame is probably more rigid than the 70 series.
Last edited:
This is all nice and beautiful and I am 100% supportive. What I dislike is Toyota NA using this cute graphics to justify up-charging $60k for a flimsy bare bone 1958 (or luxury-wagon prices for a Premium that, as you correctly say, is no luxury), just because it is the "new Land Cruiser". No wonder, we are seeing more and more dealers slashing MSRP on the 1958s and they are a dime a dozen available.
The FE and premium models are much higher end and worth the price increase imo. The 1958 is indeed a stripper model, and I’m surprised you’re trying to rag on it for feeling barebones… That’s the whole point of it. Of course it’s going to feel cheap.
The 1958 LC is better than the 4Runner simply for the full time 4WD transfer case.
The 1958 LC is better than the 4Runner simply for the full time 4WD transfer case.
hoser
SILVER Star
What is that.... A Land Cruiser DEI fairytale?
Why don't you let the 4Runner and Tacoma iForce Max into the story? They are more similar to the 250 than the 250 is to the 70. Why didn't they name them the Land Cruiser 4R and the LC Tacoma? One for all & all for one, right?Don't get me wrong. I think the 250 is a great vehicle. I'd even consider buying a GX550.
You missed my point. I said that, to me, I would not put the 250 at the same level of the 200 exactly because of the cheap feeling build and fit and finish. I am not complaining about it feeling bare bones, I am just not happy with the $60k price tag, which IMO is insulting. If Toyota charged $45k for the 1958, it would be more than adequate and a good option for some of us that were craving a bare bones option to the 200 luxury. Although, my feeling is that what most of us wanted was the bare bones version of the 300 and Toyota took advantage of that to upsell the 250.
Why on earth would Toyota price the 1958 equal to the lower trims of the outgoing 2024 4Runner? A bare bones 300 sold in the US would still be $70k+, so I'm missing your point too.
I'd wager that a stripper 300 Series here in the states would be doing about as well as the 250 "1958" trim right now. I can see all the posts now complaining about how there's no more V8, no more tailgate, cost cutting, cloth seats, yada yada. All for a whopping $70K if I were to guess.
Not to disparage the 300. If it were offered here (in Land Cruiser spec, not LX) I'd buy one in a heartbeat. I don't necessarily need or want all out luxury but would not want a stripper model either...the GR Sport trim really seems ideal.
This is because A.) Majority of American car buyers don't want a stripped down vehicle and B.) They definitely don't want one with a price tag north of $50k.
Because that is what the 1958 is. An evolution of the 5th gen 4Runner. Also, the lower trim of the 5thgen had an MSRP of $40k, not $45k. A 2024 TRD OR had a $45k MSRP and it came with softex and electric sits and probably a sunroof, just to name a few amenities that the 1958 is stripped from. Since the 1958 has the upgraded transfer case/all-time 4wheel drive, $45k would be a fair price without those amenities.
I was never inside a 300 series LC, but if it is anything like the LX600, I would no problem pay $70k for a stripped-down version. The GR would probably be north of $100k, like Lexus is doing with the 700OT, but I would wager a mid-trim version of the 300 would be close to the 200 MSRP of $87k to $89k. I would also gladly pay that for a 300.
So, yeah. You do miss my point.
Do you not see any value in the 250 being on a platform and technology suite that is 15 years more advanced? 1958 also has the hybrid powertrain, which is worth around $3,000. 2025 ORP hybrid is $52k, so you’re paying an extra $3k for the full-time 4WD transfer case with the 1958, which is fair. Perhaps your issue is that all the TNGA F vehicles are too expensive?Because that is what the 1958 is. An evolution of the 5th gen 4Runner. Also, the lower trim of the 5thgen had an MSRP of $40k, not $45k. A 2024 TRD OR had a $45k MSRP and it came with softex and electric sits and probably a sunroof, just to name a few amenities that the 1958 is stripped from. Since the 1958 has the upgraded transfer case/all-time 4wheel drive, $45k would be a fair price without those amenities.
I was never inside a 300 series LC, but if it is anything like the LX600, I would no problem pay $70k for a stripped-down version. The GR would probably be north of $100k, like Lexus is doing with the 700OT, but I would wager a mid-trim version of the 300 would be close to the 200 MSRP of $87k to $89k. I would also gladly pay that for a 300.
So, yeah. You do miss my point.
