Media LC 250 & GX550 Picture Thread (9 Viewers)

[Jetboy]

These vehicles will have a very long life cycle.
I would not put it past them to offer e kdss on more models in the future.

I find it very strange they developed e kdss to only offer it on one trim level of the Gx and one trim level lf the LC300.
They surely have to offer them on more versions in the future.

Then again they made that hot vee diesel and put it on the 300/310 only...

Same goes for AHC, I would bet it will be offered on higher spec LC300s in future versions because its currently only offered on the lx 600 and not even standard like it used to be.

Toyota does the oddest stuff sometimes. I agree on eKDSS. KDSS was spread across a bunch of models and trims. It's proven to be super durable with very few failures. And it's a fantastic system I'd happily pay the $1,800 option cost for. But now they tie it to probably a $25-30k trim increase (comparing a LC250 vs GX OT).

Along the same lines - it's never made sense to me why Toyota would put KDSS on the TRD OR/Trail version of the 4Runner, but not offer it on the Limited trim where it would be a better option than the Xreas that is pretty lame (and failure prone). In my view KDSS is really more of an on-road handling benefit than an off road feature. When I bought my last 4Runner I really liked the 4R better than the GX. What I wanted was a Limited with KDSS 4Runner and I could add the lockers aftermarket, but no dice.

The torque vectoring rear diff in the Rav4 has always been a head shaker to me as well. Why in any world does a pair of real complex torque vectoring differentials make sense in a Rav4 over simple brake driven ATRAC? If it had any place in Toyota's SUV lineup - it would be an ideal FRONT differential in a 4Runner or LC. I'm surprised we haven't ever seen front torque vectoring used in off-road models. It's the ideal spot for one IMO - front locker with no compromise on turning radius, possibly even improved turning if you overspeed the outside tire even more.

I also find it very odd that we never saw the tight turn assist make it into the Tundra and Tacoma where it would be most useful due to the long wheelbases.

 

[Jetboy]

Not quite sure about the reasoning. And how the 6th gen 4Runner going to follow Tacoma or LC250 design.

This is 2024 Tacoma front suspension. You can see the swaybar are behind front wheel. The swaybar disconnect are located below engine oil pan. Which might be better for approach angle perspective but definitely need skidplate to protect that.
View attachment 3423151

This is 300 series front suspension without E-KDSS. Very similar to 200 series too.
View attachment 3423149

This is Sequoia TRD Pro which looks very similar to 300 series.
View attachment 3423150

I guess silver lining for the tacoma - The LCAs are practically built for a secondary shock.

It's interesting that toyota went away from the sway bar mount to the spindle in favor of the LCA. The 4Runner had both designs depending on trim. Since the Tacoma and LC share the same platform and frame layout along with engine, it's super odd to re-locate that one component from front to rear unless they needed the space in front for some unusual reason. The Tacoma location is definitely better for more challenging offroad terrain (rocks). It's protected above the main body of the LCA. I know my KDSS mounts took a beating on the rocks on my 4Runner. The rear fixed link side also got bent a few times. So, maybe the Tacoma is designed around more technical offroad terrain vs the LC? That would help to explain the change. The LC/Sequoia design isn't optimized for protection and high clearance like the Tacoma is.

As i look more at it - the Tacoma really is a lot better LCA layout and design for rock crawling type use. The shock lower eye is protected by a heavy bracket and mounted in double shear and the sway bar and mount are relocated high and protected. On the LC version the lower shock eye is unprotected and just mounted to a single stud. It's exposed to trail damage and will need aftermarket skid plate protection if you wanted to go play very hard in the rocky trails without damaging it.

More edits:

Looks to me - although really hard to tell for sure - that the LC250 LCA is different from the Tacoma or GX550 in mounting location for the sway bar and shock. It appears to be a single shear stud for the coilover lower eye mount without the protection the Taco has, but I don't see the sway bar mount there on the front.

 

[subspd]

Great eye for detail. Will be interesting to see over time which way is best.

 

[Jstawgn]

More edits:

Looks to me - although really hard to tell for sure - that the LC250 LCA is different from the Tacoma or GX550 in mounting location for the sway bar and shock. It appears to be a single shear stud for the coilover lower eye mount without the protection the Taco has, but I don't see the sway bar mount there on the front.

View attachment 3423566

This is TJM 300 front suspension which confirm your observation

This is 200 front suspension that shows the lower strut are double shear mount.

This is 22 Tundra. The swaybar are outside of coilover. It looks much wider for some reason.

 

[Jetboy]

I'm probably overthinking this a lot. Protected isn't necessarily better unless it is functionally better in real world use.

I think that far outboard location on the strut mount of the LC300 is probably protected by the tire in most cases in the real world. The LC300 isn't built to be a rock crawler. It's a utility wagon. The coilover lower eye on the LC300 is pretty close to the tire and probably is not going to be damaged unless you're really punishing it in the rocks. Or you put some wheel spacers on and expose it to more damage. Same reason the rear lower shock mounts generally work pretty well to be tucked up really close to the inside of the rear wheel. It's only on the really rocky technical stuff where they get damaged.

My biggest fear on the LC300 design is that you do hit it hard enough on the eyelet area to knock the metal eye off of the rubber bushing. I have seen that happen on a rear shock of an FJ on the trail. It's a bit of a PITA to put back together in the field, and that's just a shock without being the coilover. On the LC300 it's at least possible in the most extreme abuse situation that you would have the bushing fail due to a rock impact and then lose your entire spring/shock support on that corner and have a tricky trail side repair to sort out. It's not something I'd loose sleep over or even plan around other than probably adding a lower eye skid protection maybe. But given the option - I think the Tacoma might be a little better setup.

The Tundra setup doesn't look very good to me for offroad use in that sort of trail. But I also wouldn't really use a Tundra for that. So maybe it doesn't matter on that vehicle. It's never going to be a rock crawler.

I've found that something as simple as this design (very close to what I weld up for my own junk) is all you need. All you need is a heavy gauge washer and a short piece of tube or pipe cut in half and it takes about 10 minutes to make these and bolt them on. Only difference is that I prefer to extend the tube out forward a bit to protect the bolt head so it's easy to remove later.

 

[Jstawgn]

It looks like the 300 motion ratio are not like other previous model. It's more like 2:3 ratio than most that are 1:2 motion ratio. They woud require less spring force but longer travel. Why the shock are mounted that low to gain the shock travel needed.

Along with mounting the rear shock absorber a far outside as possible and moving the rear spring out more, this should increase stability. Theoretically that is maybe why they think KDSS are not as important as before. On the other hand it might automaticall need variable rate rear spring to flex well off road.

 

[Brown98LC]

It looks like the 300 motion ratio are not like other previous model. It's more like 2:3 ratio than most that are 1:2 motion ratio. They woud require less spring force but longer travel. Why the shock are mounted that low to gain the shock travel needed.

Along with mounting the rear shock absorber a far outside as possible and moving the rear spring out more, this should increase stability. Theoretically that is maybe why they think KDSD are not as important as before. On the other hand it might automaticall need variable rate rear spring to flex well off road.

Well I know someone who owns a offroad shop that claims a non kdss 300 has more travel than a kdss 200...but I can't prove it to you obviously without actual evidence.

 

[Knowbuddy]

 

[Acrad]

Time will tell

Does eKDSS solve the lean issue because it's more an active electronic system vs passive hydraulic system that can become unbalanced?

 

[OGBeno]

View attachment 3423893

Someone is in the know.

 

[Jetboy]

For me at least kdss was never really about maximum articulation. It's really about the balance of street handling being so good with a heavy SUV. I drive mine 95% of it's miles on the road. I think the sway disconnect is probably okay.

What you lose with sway disconnect vs kdss is the body stability of sway bars when flexed. It's a big difference between kdss and disconnected bars in terms of body roll on off camber stuff, but also eliminating a lot of the hobbyhorse motion over stuff.

Downside was the overly harsh ride in the mid speed range. It looks like ekdss solved the biggest downside.

I'm really excited to drive the new stuff! I'd look pretty hard at an aftermarket rear sway disconnect to go with the front. But maybe it'll be really good without it.

 

[77CJ5]

Land Cruiser Heritage Museum shared these awesome pics on IG:

 

[Jstawgn]

That pastic prop rock goes everywhere together with it. Would it come as part of first edition?

For me at least kdss was never really about maximum articulation. It's really about the balance of street handling being so good with a heavy SUV. I drive mine 95% of it's miles on the road. I think the sway disconnect is probably okay.

What you lose with sway disconnect vs kdss is the body stability of sway bars when flexed. It's a big difference between kdss and disconnected bars in terms of body roll on off camber stuff, but also eliminating a lot of the hobbyhorse motion over stuff.

Downside was the overly harsh ride in the mid speed range. It looks like ekdss solved the biggest downside.

I'm really excited to drive the new stuff! I'd look pretty hard at an aftermarket rear sway disconnect to go with the front. But maybe it'll be really good without it.

My 470 came with the OG KDSS. It's even stiffer than what comes on GX460 / 4Runner and I love it. Front bar is 50 mm vs 41mm and rear is 33 mm vs 30 mm. It feels sportier on road for me although the head toss definitely a bit more.

Flex is not the goal of KDSS, it's balance between front and rear articulation that makes it feel a lot more level at max articulation.

On high speed dirt road KDSS makes handling very squirrelly. It transfer weight too much and end up loading outside wheel. Adding a bypass switch really makes a night and day difference. It actually makes it very good on gravel road.

I really loves KDSS and one of my biggest reservation on LC250.

 

[turbo8]

Close up of said rock...

Asked a few questions

17" wheels will fit, but nothing available from the factory at this time.

More like 21-22mpg combined

No plans for TRD Pro model

No plans for front diff lock

They were not sure if the front diff from the GR would fit this.

No plans for an Overtrail type model like the Lexus version, but other models will most likely come out. They would rather have dealers install aftermarket parts at the time of sale to make it more capable.

 

[Land Caesar]

21-22mpg

Tundra not looking to bad

 

[Knowbuddy]

Someone is in the know.

Not quite just volunteering for access

Close up of said rock...

Asked a few questions

17" wheels will fit, but nothing available from the factory at this time.

More like 21-22mpg combined

No plans for TRD Pro model

No plans for front diff lock

They were not sure if the front diff from the GR would fit this.

No plans for an Overtrail type model like the Lexus version, but other models will most likely come out. They would rather have dealers install aftermarket parts at the time of sale to make it more capable.

View attachment 3424813

Who would have told you any of those facts? The marketing group nor Toyota employees there would know that. Just curious.

 

[turbo8]

Not quite just volunteering for access

Who would have told you any of those facts? The marketing group nor Toyota employees there would know that. Just curious.

Toyota employee on site. Note sure their ranking.

 

[Land Caesar]

Toyota employee on site. Note sure their ranking.

Pretty cool insight.

So the new Tacoma will likely be similar in mpg

I’d suspect

 

[turbo8]

Pretty cool insight.

So the new Tacoma will likely be similar in mpg

I’d suspect

Yeah, they mentioned the Tacoma and Grand Highlander as references for the mpg claim.

 

[Land Caesar]

21-22

Not bad.

Makes me think the new 4runner with selectable 2/4wd may be able to actually get 23-24


Still a very Offroad capable suv and fuel efficient,

That would be cool