I think they're close enough to be functionally the same. If I get a chance at some point I'll 3d scan the interior of both and overlay them. Anyone with an iPhone Pro could do it if you have both in the driveway. Should be able to easily calculate the volume that way too. At the end of the day - it doesn't matter which one is slightly bigger or smaller. The LC200 wasn't a value proposition that enough people wanted to keep selling. I don't think it has anything to do with promotion of the product or customer education. It just wasn't competitive at the asking price. I suspect the LC200 would have failed to thrive even without the 4Runner existing. But the 4R sure didn't help. A V8 4runner would probably have killed it before the 2016 refresh. But the destiny was the same either way.Well, I do not know how they measured but the dimensions I provided and the internal pictures and having sat in both are pretty clear. So you still insist the 4 Runner is the same size as the 200 including the important interior dimensions? Just the 200 being taller and the height of the seating surface from the ground makes a big difference. The 4 Runner is awkward low in my experience driving several AVIS rentals over the years.
Oh well, I guess another time I am happy to agree to disagree. Happy Tundra driving dude.
I will enjoy the tundra! It's about as boring as Toyota appliances get. But it takes me to the places most Land Cruiser's sleep in their suburban garage at night dream of going.
As far as the video about driving like a land cruiser - I think that's more of a comment on the GA-F architecture and electric power steering than it is about the LC250 vs 300. The feel of the driving is set by Toyota software. Steering feedback, pedal response, shifting, brake pressures, shock valving - those are all functions of choices of software and shock valving/spring rates. No amount of additional money would change it. It's not about being built to a budget. The feel is what Toyota wants it to feel like.
Last edited: