Kai from Tinker's Adventure thoughts on the new 250 series (1 Viewer)

[185]

So those not in the know, this Kai and his channel creates technical content on the alot of Toyota and Lexus offroading models/suvs and their inner workings.

Recently he did a dive on his thoughts on his evaluation criteria for most of the TNGA-F models and compared then to previous gen in the content of finding a new technical offroader (diff from an overlanding rig).



Some summary:

Tundra: too on-road focused, sacrificed off-road capabilities. Questionable engine reliability.
Tacoma: wheelbase is too long on most trims other than the most basic ones.
GX: front overhang too long due to E-KDSS packaging.
J250 LCP: too much weight reduction by using thinner parts. Questionable durability under heavy stress.

It really makes me wonder how well the new light-duty platform could achieve its intended durability target. The J250 is the same size as J200 but almost 500kg lighter and also 300kg lighter than the J300. Their chief engineer did say they try to save weight wherever possible without sacrificing durability, but we don't know how true it is.

 

[Rednexus]

I saw that yesterday as well. The reduction in tie rod thickness and rear axle/suspension bracket thickness is quite telling. Do we really gain that much MPG by shaving 5 pounds of material off the rig?? "Durability" could very well be a pavement/gravel focused test and not a hardcore off-roading test. The 1 mm steel may function very well for that but be quickly bent when it hits a rock. I'm sure these will be fixable in the aftermarket - beefier replacement tie rods and gussets/bracing for the weak frame brackets - but it seems to represent a big miss for an off-road focused rig.

All the more reasons to make me love my 17-year old GX470 even more and want to hold on to it forever. The 120-150, 80-100-200, and 1st and 2nd gen Tundras may well prove to be Peak Toyota for 4x4s. It appears the more modern rigs may just be too compromised by CAFE and crash test regulations plus strange Toyota design decisions.

 

[ryanjl]

Counterpoint: Dissent ran their 250 on the Rubicon without any issues.

They upgraded a few things before, but nothing out of this world.

 

[185]

Counterpoint: Dissent ran their 250 on the Rubicon without any issues.

They upgraded a few things before, but nothing out of this world.

they complain about the lower shock mounts as well.

 

[Rednexus]

Counterpoint: Dissent ran their 250 on the Rubicon without any issues.

They upgraded a few things before, but nothing out of this world.

Long term fatigue of thin steel as these things get older - especially when loaded well beyond stock with big tires - will be interesting to watch. Those are non-issues on the proven older platform rigs.

As an engineer it appears that Toyota chose an optimized approach - shaving grams on every part - which leaves less robustness when loaded outside of their design parameters. Or, maybe they used super high-strength steel....or both.

Sometimes engineers can operate in a detached-from-reality realm and spend $$$$ designing something that dosen't serve the end user any better than a simpler and more robust design would.

 

[185]

Its a delicate balance no doubt. I didnt see them measure the gx550 or Lx.

I want to believe that tmc did their due diligence based on these development vids. Ignore the other bodies on the frame, dev mules ran old gen bodies/j300 bodies on 250 platform frame

 

[ryanjl]

they complain about the lower shock mounts as well.

Just the position of them. Nothing about the actual construction.

 

[ryanjl]

Long term fatigue of thin steel as these things get older - especially when loaded well beyond stock with big tires - will be interesting to watch. Those are non-issues on the proven older platform rigs.

As an engineer it appears that Toyota chose an optimized approach - shaving grams on every part - which leaves less robustness when loaded outside of their design parameters. Or, maybe they used super high-strength steel....or both.

Sometimes engineers can operate in a detached-from-reality realm and spend $$$$ designing something that dosen't serve the end user any better than a simpler and more robust design would.

Time will tell. But generally, fatiguing of metals happens when metals flex over time. If those mounts are flexing at all, they are probably a bad design.

I suppose I like to assume the best, though, and assume that Toyota wouldn't see that as a place to save a few ounces of metal if it didn't think it would be fine over time. Again, though, I suppose time will tell.

Tie rods are an easy fix. Mounts? Maybe not as easy, but doable. Whether that's indicative of other questionable weight-saving changes throughout the vehicle is the bigger question.

Anyone with a 550 want to look at theirs and see what that bracket looks like?

 

[hoser]

Just the position of them. Nothing about the actual construction.

They compared the thickness of the steel.... but also acknowledged the type of steel could be different.

250
2mm control arm mount
3mm shock mount

150 Series
3mm control arm mount (50% thicker)
4.1mm shock mount (1mm thicker)

200 Series
4mm control arm mount (100% thicker)
6.3mm shock mount (100% thicker)

 

[hoser]

The jury is still out for me but I've been taking mental notes. The size of the 250 is certainly a positive aspect in my mind. But on the negative, there's a lot of minor details that makes me go, hmm.

As mentioned in the video, the rear shock mounts and control arm mounts are less robust.

Also mentioned is the steering arms are way less beefy than the 200. The steering rack is electric... which time will tell but the latest LC70 and LC300 still use hydraulic racks. Does the new 250 have a more robust steering rack than the flagship 300 or the industrial 70?

The CV's are quite small. The upgraded CV's for the 250 is from the Tacoma? Hmmm.

The 8.X" rear differential is smaller than the 200. The GX550 has a 9.5" differential but the rear axle is more "trussed" in a manner that reduces ground clearance. You can also see the 5 control arm mounts and compare them to the 200. Minor details but it "looks" less substantial. Look at the panhard and the LCA mounts, they are welded on all sides, not leaving one side open like on the 250. Does it matter? I dunno but it certainly is easier to overbuild than to engineer to the exact need. The LC250 front LCA strut mounts are single shear vs double shear on the 200. Do they really need to be double shear? Maybe not. Or maybe only needs it if the vehicle is 500 lbs heavier!

LC250

200

Some other things I've noticed: the 250 uses an electric cooling fan which is not as reliable. They work or they don't work. At least with clutch fans, they might diminished performance slowly and if they fail, there is a trail fix. The latest LC300 and LC70 still use hydraulic clutch fans.... sacrificing some fuel mileage.

Also, the 250/550 front radiator hangs down low... with little regard to ground clearance. Low is also more vulnerable. Perhaps there was no choice and the turbo motors needed all the cooling they could get.

 

[Rednexus]

I always wonder why these positions or moments are discussion points by forum engineers. There are **a lot ** of forum or internet/YouTube engineers. Soooooo many YouTube Engineers. It’s amazing how many engineers have spent time engaging with a Toyota Land Cruiser. It’s the newest thing people can gobble and engage.

It seems overwhelming how many professional engineers have driven a Toyota Land Cruiser and can say they know better than the 1000+ Toyota engineers whom developed this base platform.

There is literally nothing at all that is not known at this point in the construction of these vehicles. Every single aspect of a 250/550 can be gleaned by every specification that has been provided by Toyota/Lexus.

And yet, everyone wants to swing a dick.

Why? What is there to gain with arguing with the most massive automobile manufacturer on the planet. Like, the fũcking entire planet. Last time I checked, the planet is huge.

I am an engineer (BS, MS, 5 PEs), albeit not mechanical. Engineers get things wrong all the time. In my field of working on structures that often have high consequences of failure, everything goes through multiple layers of independent and external review with lengthy periods of comment response and resolution. Taking a safety-critical component - like a link bracket or TRE - and gram shaving it - would certainly elicit lots of comments and discussion .

Toyota may well have done this right, and it might be fine, but I'll still maintain that it's a head scratcher of a decision. Lots of engineering effort to save a few pounds. If it is high-strength steel, it probably costs more and complicates the manufacturing process as well. With how expensive these rigs are, it can also lead one to question if they will have the same long-term reliability and durability as the older ones.

EDIT: It's also appears to be a major change in design philosophy for the over-built older Toyotas. My 2UZ-FE certainly didn't need a iron block, or a clutch fan, but it got it. Most, if not all, of brackets on the frame are 1/8" steel (~3.2 mm), which must be over-built as well if the heavier LC250 is getting away with less. The old Toyota would go above and beyond the bare minimum - belts and suspenders - while the new LC250 certainly seems to have a design philosophy of designing down to the bare minimum.

 

[carboncycles]

N/M

 

[ClassyJalopy]

Didn't realize 250 was almost the same size as the 200!

 

[MRego]

Didn't realize 250 was almost the same size as the 200!

View attachment 3739508

I am not sure on the source for this info or the criteria they used, but I have heard this before (250 same size as 200). It is a real head scratcher when you visually see these two rigs side by side. I have seen them side by side now more than once and I can't for the life of me see the 250 the same size as the 200, let alone bigger. It looks narrower, shorter and smaller lengthwise. I do not know...maybe it is an optical illusion.

On a separate note, this comparison is also not appropriate. The PRADO 250 compares with the PRADO GX460. We should compare the 200 with the 300. It doesn't matter we don't get it here in the US.

 

[Jetboy]

The RCSB truck is a decent choice for what he's looking. The geometry is probably the best in the Toyota lineup especially when combined with the longer suspension travel in the Tundra IFS vs the LC200. However - I would definitely go for the 5.7 over the 4.7. You get a lot more robust powertrain with it by having the 10.5" rear end and the AB60F transmission and more gear range in the 6 speed transmission vs the A750F. And a lot more power. The transmission upgrade alone is worth the extra cost IMO. (assuming they sold a 5.7 rcsb 4x4).

I'm not sure the short wheelbase is really all that beneficial on a vehicle that's full width. I find it pretty rare that a short wheelbase is better whether it's in my FJ40 or my side by side at around 90 and 75 inches respectively. The narrowness of both vehicles is more important for being nimble on the trail than the width. I would even say my SXS would be improved by a longer wheel base by about 10 inches. I tend to think about 105" WB is my ideal target for all around trail weapon with a 35ish inch tire. If I'm going to 40" class tires - I'd target something like 110-115.

 

[Zill]

I am not sure on the source for this info or the criteria they used, but I have heard this before (250 same size as 200). It is a real head scratcher when you visually see these two rigs side by side. I have seen them side by side now more than once and I can't for the life of me see the 250 the same size as the 200, let alone bigger. It looks narrower, shorter and smaller lengthwise. I do not know...maybe it is an optical illusion.

On a separate note, this comparison is also not appropriate. The PRADO 250 compares with the PRADO GX460. We should compare the 200 with the 300. It doesn't matter we don't get it here in the US.

It’s the wide fender flares on the 250 which from a dimension perspective (let’s say you’re trying to fit it in a shipping container to ship) would have to be accounted for. The rest of the body was slimmed down from a width perspective though.

 

[Zill]

The RCSB truck is a decent choice for what he's looking. The geometry is probably the best in the Toyota lineup especially when combined with the longer suspension travel in the Tundra IFS vs the LC200. However - I would definitely go for the 5.7 over the 4.7. You get a lot more robust powertrain with it by having the 10.5" rear end and the AB60F transmission and more gear range in the 6 speed transmission vs the A750F. And a lot more power. The transmission upgrade alone is worth the extra cost IMO. (assuming they sold a 5.7 rcsb 4x4).

I'm not sure the short wheelbase is really all that beneficial on a vehicle that's full width. I find it pretty rare that a short wheelbase is better whether it's in my FJ40 or my side by side at around 90 and 75 inches respectively. The narrowness of both vehicles is more important for being nimble on the trail than the width. I would even say my SXS would be improved by a longer wheel base by about 10 inches. I tend to think about 105" WB is my ideal target for all around trail weapon with a 35ish inch tire. If I'm going to 40" class tires - I'd target something like 110-115.

Most of the 5.7 RCSB trucks were sold up in Canada and not the US. So most of older 07-13 models have been rotted out by Canadian salt

For me - if you’re concerned about wheelbase, just buy a Land Cruiser. A truck is much more useful with a long bed and some back seats as they do come in handy more often than you would think.

The 2nd gen double cab was the best for useable space (both in the back seats and long enough 6.5 foot bed), great turning radius, and not too long to be a PITA driving around town. (Unlike the 3rd gen double cab Tundra)

 

[Jetboy]

Most of the 5.7 RCSB trucks were sold up in Canada and not the US. So most of older 07-13 models have been rotted out by Canadian salt

For me - if you’re concerned about wheelbase, just buy a Land Cruiser. A truck is much more useful with a long bed and some back seats as they do come in handy more often than you would think.

The 2nd gen double cab was the best for useable space (both in the back seats and long enough 6.5 foot bed), great turning radius, and not too long to be a PITA driving around town.

FWIW - I just did a quick search and was able to find a few. I'm not sure how many they sold, but if you want one you can find them. Not many, but some. This one is asking $14k. It' a 5.7 4x4 with 197k miles. https://www.cargurus.com/Cars/inven...ryEnabled=true#listing=396961764/NONE/DEFAULT

I have a 2nd gen crewmax tundra as a daily driver. Works well for me. Not as big of bed as the CCLB F250 it replaced, but also not a pig to drive around. Would not recommend a 23 foot long truck as a daily driver. The double cab is nice to have the bed space, but it's just too small for taller people who have kids. I can't fit a backward facing car seat behind the driver's seat in a double cab and still fit my knees between the seat and dash. It's just physically impossible for me to have with car seats if I want to sit in one of the front seats. Same issue with a Tacoma and the new one is even worse. I could fit in my 5th gen 4Runner, but visually it looks like the LC250 may also have smaller rear seat space, so I'm not sure in the LC250. I think it would work, but haven't tried it personally.

For a pure trail weapon - I think the 1st gen 4Runner is probably the best base vehicle Toyota has ever produced for size. I like my FJ40 - but the 4Runner is better IMO with the longer wheelbase and more useful interior layout and better seating. Only change I'd make to the 1st gen is to move the rear axle rearward by about 4 inches. I've been watching for one. But I think at some point I'm going to go find a 5door Jimny and register as a UTV because there just aren't enough 1st gen 4Runners around and I could buy a clean lightly used Jimny for about the same price and has roughly similar dimensions. Still hearing a lot of rumors about a new FJ Cruiser, so maybe that'll fit the bill.

 

[04UZJ100]

So 250 < 120/150 < 300 < 200

 

[jay3253]

I am an engineer (BS, MS, 5 PEs), albeit not mechanical.

Not questioning other than 5 PEs? I have a PE in ME what do you mean when you say 5 PEs? Once you have one you have one that is it unless you have them in many types of engineering. In that case you just hate yourself and life.