New LC Differentials (2 Viewers)

[TheLCProject]

I finally got around to watching the CCN video on the GX550. It has by far the best undercarriege shots as he has it up on the lift:


In summary, it's waaaay beefier than my 120 is. The front suspension (control arms, knuckles, etc), frame itself, rear suspension, and the differential mounts (totally different than the 120/150 and seems to remove the leverage on the front differential). I can see how this is rated to tow 9,000#.

Assuming the LC250 shares all parts (other than the 8.2" rear differential), IMO it's still a major upgrade over a 150 and (sans the 8.2, which is the same and not a downgrade) not a "light duty" LC at all. Regardless, after watching that video, it appears the GX550 (and likely the LX600) are both just as HD, if not more so than a 200 series.

My conclusions as well.

 

[Rednexus]

My conclusions as well.

Thanks. I do totally concur with the CCN's conclusion that it lacks the sophistications and "feel" of the 460 and 470. The interior looks too much like our 2023 Highlander - too corporate and bland. My 470 is a very nice place to spend time and feels "warm" and "special". I think the inside of the 550 is nice but is otherwise generic enough it would be easy to confuse with any other Asian vehicle.

 

[Zill]

I finally got around to watching the CCN video on the GX550. It has by far the best undercarriege shots as he has it up on the lift:


In summary, it's waaaay beefier than my 120 is. The front suspension (control arms, knuckles, etc), frame itself, rear suspension, and the differential mounts (totally different than the 120/150 and seems to remove the leverage on the front differential). I can see how this is rated to tow 9,000#. I mean just look at the huge difference in the body mounts, LCAs, and frame cross-section.

Assuming the LC250 shares all parts (other than the 8.2" rear differential), IMO it's still a major upgrade over a 150 and (sans the 8.2, which is the same as a 150 and not a downgrade). I don't think we can claim that this is truly a "light duty" LC at all over a single part. Maybe the 250 won't share everything else - but it seems odd they would not as it's basically the same platform and built on the same assembly line.

Regardless, after watching that video, it appears the GX550 (and likely the LX600) are both just as HD, if not more so than a 200 series.

The LX 600 is not as beefy as the 200 series. They shaved a ton of weight off the platform for fuel economy reasons.

 

[Rednexus]

The LX 600 is not as beefy as the 200 series. They shaved a ton of weight off the platform for fuel economy reasons.

Weight in the wrong places does not add beef - it adds weight with no or limited benefits. Can you elaborate on what specifically on the 300/LX600 is less robust than the 200 series?

 

[OSS]

The aluminum body panels. Ha

 

[lovetoski]

The aluminum body panels. Ha

I just googled LX600 curb weight, and it did drop 440 lbs from the LX570, in part due to the use of an aluminum roof. So you nailed it!

 

[Rednexus]

I just googled LX600 curb weight, and it did drop 440 lbs from the LX570, in part due to the use of an aluminum roof. So you nailed it!

Ah, cut weight on the roof using a more sophisticated material. That will definitely make the drivetrain less robust .

 

[Zill]

Weight in the wrong places does not add beef - it adds weight with no or limited benefits. Can you elaborate on what specifically on the 300/LX600 is less robust than the 200 series?

Just go look underneath both of them and it will be quite apparent where they cut the weight. For the LX 600 did they really need to only give you one recovery point on the front instead of two? They also removed the AHC accumulator guards on each side. Plastic underbelly pans instead of metal. It’s decisions like this that permeate through the design.

 

[Rednexus]

Just go look underneath both of them and it will be quite apparent where they cut the weight. For the LX 600 did they really need to only give you one recovery point on the front instead of two? They also removed the AHC accumulator guards on each side. Plastic underbelly pans instead of metal. It’s decisions like this that permeate through the design.

The video I showed was not a LX600. It was a GX550. The GX550 has metal skids and does not have AHC. I said "likely LX600". Either way, pretty much all OEM Toyota skids I've seen suck anyway (sheet metal) and should be replaced if you are doing anything more than soft-roading.

Are the 200 series hooks tie-downs or rated recovery hooks? If so, again something that's weak across the board.

Are there any frame/suspension weaknesses in the LX600/GX550 compared to a 200? If so what are they?

 

[Zill]

The video I showed was not a LX600. It was a GX550. The GX550 has metal skids and does not have AHC. I said "likely LX600". Either way, pretty much all OEM Toyota skids I've seen suck anyway (sheet metal) and should be replaced if you are doing anything more than soft-roading.

Are the 200 series hooks tie-downs or rated recovery hooks? If so, again something that's weak across the board.

Are there any frame/suspension weaknesses in the LX600/GX550 compared to a 200? If so what are they?

I was referencing your comment about the LX 600, not the GX 550.

The 200 series recovery points are to be used for recovery purposes, they are not just tie down points.

The jury is out on the weaknesses of the frame, but it’s not as heavy duty as the 200. Just look at them lol. Toyota can say it’s more rigid, but I felt a lot more flex in the 600 compared to the 200. That’s part of the reason why I love the 200 and the 600 has lost that special touch. It doesn’t feel as “tankish” due to the weight loss program. I’m sure the 600’s frame will be just fine, but meh, it turned the car into more of a domestic competitor rather than something unique.

 

[Diff Kraken]

I was hoping he would be there, unfortunately not. Ohada-son from his engineering team was there and was kind enough to spend a few minutes talking. He's recent to that engineering team. I wish I spoke Japanese to be able to have more technical discussions with him and other TMC folks.

FYI - I do speak and read Japanese if you or any other Mudders ever need an assist. DM me anytime. Willing to travel when needed.

 

[TWILLY]

I'm a little confused. Is the larger diff for long term wear or torque capacity?

The hybrid has more torque than the V6, so it seems that the bigger axle would naturally go first to the high torque application. And the highest torque will be expected in low range. I think all AWD models are locked in low range. So, the peak torque should be the same regardless of AWD or part time.

If those assumptions are true, then it seems to point to the bigger rear axle being needed for highway use. And that's not the high torque condition. That would be for cooling and wear when towing.

That all tracks for me until I get to the part where we also know the hybrid doesn't help much towing. Mathematically the battery is simply too small. So the hybrid isn't going to stress the rear axle more than the base 4cy when towing. Only on launch (which is lower torque than 4lo launch).

I can't see there being a material efficiency difference.

What am I missing?

Does Toyota look at the trailer acceleration as the highest load for the rear end? Maybe that's where I'm not understanding it. That hasn't been where I've broken axles. Even in my hd trucks. It's always been off-road. But Toyota has a lot more destructive testing experience and data than I do.

Yeah. The fact that the hybrid four produces so much torque—and more torque than the six—had me convinced that it would receive the bigger diff. Hence my surprise when the opposite was true. I still don’t understand this, and look forward to learning why.

 

[Jetboy]

Weight in the wrong places does not add beef - it adds weight with no or limited benefits. Can you elaborate on what specifically on the 300/LX600 is less robust than the 200 series?

They removed 25% of the engine!

 

[Jetboy]

Troll post, but also probably true:

The LX600 doesn't really need low range and probably less than 10% ever have it engaged. Could be a place for weight savings. In hybrid form I think it would still have more off-idle torque in high range than the LC200 did in low range. The GM BOF suvs don't come with it in most models anymore. Probably true for Limited trim 4Runners and Capstone Tundra/Sequoia as well. And that would probably make the smaller axles make sense too.

 

[TheLCProject]

They removed 25% of the engine!

Part of the weight came from savings of redundant metal in the frame using the new weld-in pieces.

I'm sure the lift hatch weighs much less than the old hatch/tailgate as well.

The Toyota AUS press release only has light information on where the weight savings came from though.

 

[Jetboy]

I was referencing your comment about the LX 600, not the GX 550.

The 200 series recovery points are to be used for recovery purposes, they are not just tie down points.

The jury is out on the weaknesses of the frame, but it’s not as heavy duty as the 200. Just look at them lol. Toyota can say it’s more rigid, but I felt a lot more flex in the 600 compared to the 200. That’s part of the reason why I love the 200 and the 600 has lost that special touch. It doesn’t feel as “tankish” due to the weight loss program. I’m sure the 600’s frame will be just fine, but meh, it turned the car into more of a domestic competitor rather than something unique.

What does it mean when you say you feel more frame flex? How do you tell?

 

[hoser]

Regardless, after watching that video, it appears the GX550 (and likely the LX600) are both just as HD, if not more so than a 200 series.

I watched the video and I'm genuinely curious what you saw that convinced you the GX550 was more HD than the 200?

Some things I noticed, the electric steering.... typically less robust than hydraulic steering and I'm guessing they did it just for it to be electronic steering controlled. Aluminum spindles, good for reduced unsprung weight but can crack and leave you stranded versus just veering to one side. The steering arms also look flimsier than the 100/200. Maybe they are made of a stronger material, I don't know.

He talked about the Ultra high strength front lower control arms but the 100/200 LCA have never been a problem. I suspect the upgrade is due to crash safety standards. The rear axle is heavily trussed, which may be stronger but reduces ground clearance on each side of the differential. I'd rather they use stronger tubing and less "truss." The GX550 truss is noticeably more intrusive than the 100/200 in pics.

The 250 frame is likely more rigid than the 200... for improved on road performance. But the "weaker" 100/200 frame have never been an issue off-road. Heck, perhaps even improved off-roadability. I do enjoy the CCN videos but he is not an off-roader. And I disagree with some of his content.

 

[Rednexus]

I watched the video and I'm genuinely curious what you saw that convinced you the GX550 was more HD than the 200?

Some things I noticed, the electric steering.... typically less robust than hydraulic steering and I'm guessing they did it just for it to be electronic steering controlled. Aluminum spindles, good for reduced unsprung weight but can crack and leave you stranded versus just veering to one side. The steering arms also look flimsier than the 100/200. Maybe they are made of a stronger material, I don't know.

He talked about the Ultra high strength front lower control arms but the 100/200 LCA have never been a problem. I suspect the upgrade is due to crash safety standards. The rear axle is heavily trussed, which may be stronger but reduces ground clearance on each side of the differential. I'd rather they use stronger tubing and less "truss." The GX550 truss is noticeably more intrusive than the 100/200 in pics.

The 250 frame is likely more rigid than the 200... for improved on road performance. But the "weaker" 100/200 frame have never been an issue off-road. Heck, perhaps even improved off-roadability. I do enjoy the CCN videos but he is not an off-roader. And I disagree with some of his content.

You are mis-reading my post even though you quoted it . I would say what appears to be more robust would be the fact that it's a 2024 design rather than a 2008 design. Engineering software, materials, design methods, manufacturing, etc. have advanced significantly within the past 16 years. Just because something looks weaker doesn't mean it is weaker, it can often mean the engineers were able to sharpen their pencils using various tools that either did not exist or were rudimentary in the mid-aughts when the 200 was being designed. This results in mass being removed where it's not needed, thereby saving weight (which kills MPG, braking, acceleration) while maintaining strength. Or, mass being added in targeted areas where it is actually needed.

Either way, it's all a bit of conjecture right now. I don't have direct knowledge of how they designed the 200 vs TNGAF platform rigs and am extrapolating from how far my own field of engineering has come since the aughts. The other conjecture is about what looks to be weaker, which is again hard to verify without reviewing Toyota's engineering calculations and subsequent testing or putting the rigs on the road and driving them for 15 years to anecdotally determine the weak points.

Either way, but it's my opinion that it appears to be much more of an HD frame/suspension than a 150 (despite everyone claiming it's "light duty" and "not a Land Cruiser") and much more similar to a 200 than what was the Prado.

 

[turbo8]

Weight in the wrong places does not add beef - it adds weight with no or limited benefits. Can you elaborate on what specifically on the 300/LX600 is less robust than the 200 series?

The rear lower control arms of the 300 are a pound lighter, but the same overall dimensions as the 200 series. I assume the weight loss was from reducing the wall thickness.

 

[TheLCProject]

The rear lower control arms of the 300 are a pound lighter, but the same overall dimensions as the 200 series. I assume the weight loss was from reducing the wall thickness.

I always wonder if the material yield strength is the same or not.