This is probably going to be very unliked, but this is just like my opinion man. This is my issue with the LC250

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

Joined
May 24, 2016
Threads
95
Messages
3,575
Location
Oregon
This is just like my opinion. I really love Land cruisers and what not. Feel free to disagree or hate it.


Ok with the release of the new 4runner yesterday i finally figured out why i dislike the LC250 so much.

The LC250 and new 4runner are on the same chassis, running the same motor and drivetrain. There is nothing besides aesthetics that separate them from each other. On the GX550 you at least get the larger turbo v6.

say what you will about the motor choices on all of these new vehicles. It is what it is in this day and age. We are not going to ever get a diesel here, the days of v8s are over, and NA vehicles are all pretty much going the way of the do do. Nothing you can do about it. This isnt about the powerplant.

Honestly i even really like how the round headlight 250 looks. Kinda looks like a 60 series if you are drunk. I dig it.

What i dont understand is why toyota would release two suvs of the same dimensions, chassis, and motor... both made in japan... to compete against each other in the US. Of course the vast majority of people buying these things arent enthusiasts, they arent super into wheeling, or anything like that. Theyre just NPC car owners. Most women aged 20-30 i know drive a 4runner of some sort. They are good reliable vehicles and are a good choice for a suv for normal folks.

So, knowing that normal folks are the people buying the 4runner, why not release the new 4runner EXACTLY how they released it, same models trims and all. Have the offroady trims like the trd pro and trail hunter or whatever for people newer to 4wheeling, looking for a more comfortable daily driver style car to do car camping and what not, or even just to look like they offroad but just drive it to work and never go offroad. Even for folks to fully build up and wheel. Whatever, that is available for people. Then have the normal folks versions like the SR5 and limited. Great. That is perfect. This has worked for decades. The 4unner is top of its class in sales and all of that. Keep it going toyota.

The LC250 at this point is just kind of there. Its the same thing as the 4runner, but targeted to enthusiasts while offering nothing enthusiasts want. Sure the cloth seat model might be a little cheaper but theres no definitive land cruiser stuff about it besides stick on badging and headlights. The point always brought up is that enthusiasts are such a small segment of the market that they make no impact on overall sales. So why make the LC250 the exact same thing as the 4runner, then confuse the npc car buyers with 2 choices that are essentially the same?

This is all "woulda coulda shoulda" at this point but the real solution would have been this:

Keep the 250's styling based on the 60 series. Keep the body and interior EXACTLY the same. We were never getting a 70 series here. We are never getting diesels here. We were never getting LC with truck beds here. Thats just how it is. Americans seem to want wagons.

So, what they should have done is with the LC250, base the chassis off of the newly released medium wheelbase 70 series and keep the solid front axle. Put the same motor and drivetrain from the new 4runner in it. Keep the same body they designed. Only offer one trim. Cloth seats. Smaller screen. more spartan interior. You still get to have Toyota drive sense with lane departure, pre collision, ABS, all the airbags, VSC, Downhill assist, active traction control, buttons on the steering wheel, etc. But most importantly

Remove crawl control, MTS, Atrac, and any of the Independent front suspension bandaid stuff they add to try and replicate driving a locked live front axle. Fit front and rear lockers as standard, and most importantly put a lower low range transfer case gear in the LC250 compared to the GX550 and the new 4runner. Part time 4wd only. Something low enough to compete with the rubicon wrangler. like a 4:1. You can even make up a name for it for marketing like crawl box if marlin crawler doesnt sue you. Dont even offer it in a manual since theres no manual in the 4runner. If you are someone who really enjoys MTS/Atrac/Crawl control, or think a coil sprung solid front axle is not comfortable enough, boy do i have the car for you.... its called a 4runner. We just released a new one. Get it while its hot. Its bad ass.

Thats it. Solid axle, boxed frame, front and rear lockers, same body... Totally differentiates itself from everything toyota offers. Competes with the rubicon wrangler as a true offroad vehicle except this one doesnt suck. I dont understand why this isnt something that could have been done. Sure we arent going to ever get a 70 series here. But they could have made something completely new with stuff they already had and disrupted the entire market. If you have made it this far, thanks for listening to the ramblings of a millennial LC lover
 
Last edited:
My issue is more about price. 1958 model supposed to be cheaper but it lacks all the off road goodies.
A Ranger Raptor is exactly same price as 1958 base model but come equipped :
1. 405 HP engine
2. Long travel suspension with Fox live valve technology
3. Front and rear selectable locker.
4. Rear axle with watts link centering instead of panhard bar.

Don't want solid front axle.
Don't want a gas guzzler engine.
 
My issue is more about price. 1958 model supposed to be cheaper but it lacks all the off road goodies.
A Ranger Raptor is exactly same price as 1958 base model but come equipped :
1. 405 HP engine
2. Long travel suspension with Fox live valve technology
3. Front and rear selectable locker.
4. Rear axle with watts link centering instead of panhard bar.

Don't want solid front axle.
Don't want a gas guzzler engine.

Well i think a lot of the price stuff comes down to demand. Toyotas are in much higher demand than Fords. Thats totally cool you dont want a solid axle or gas guzzler. 4runner TRD pro would be perfect for you besides the price part. It will have an available hybrid turbo 4cyl and is IFS. The cost to entry on toyotas seems to be higher these days but they hold their value longer on the second hand market and are more reliable with better built components. Thats my point, your needs fit the 4runner not a solid axle LC250. My needs fit a solid axle LC250. That doesnt exist. Having both available to purchase gets them two sales instead of one
 
Just sending the 300 here in various trims from low spec to GR-S would have solved this. It wasn't hard. Instead we got the weird bait and switch, "guys, call it Landcruiser ok?" And now we have basically the same vehicle in a different skin in the 4Runner and a slightly higher spec Lexus version in the GX. I honestly don't understand it. I think what most of us wanted was a low spec 300 series.
 
Last edited:
i agree the LC is in a weird position now that it’s basically a badge engineered 4Runner. To be honest, they should have just given the US the 4Runner and been like “hey guys it’s a J250 with a different body”

The only real things that separates it, far as I can tell: 4R not available with full time 4WD AND rear locker and sway bar disconnect (though that’s not included on the 1958); and the bumper being segmented for easier replacement, and better fender/quarterpanel interface for aftermarket bumpers
 
i agree the LC is in a weird position now that it’s basically a badge engineered 4Runner. To be honest, they should have just given the US the 4Runner and been like “hey guys it’s a J250 with a different body”

The only real things that separates it, far as I can tell: 4R not available with full time 4WD AND rear locker and sway bar disconnect (though that’s not included on the 1958); and the bumper being segmented for easier replacement, and better fender/quarterpanel interface for aftermarket bumpers
Yeah honestly, just giving us the GX and the 4Runner would have led to less disappointment and let down I think.
 
Just sending the 300 here in various trims from low spec to GR-S would have solved this. It wasn't hard. Instead we got the weird bait and switch, "guys, call it Landcruiser ok?" And now we have basically the same vehicle in a different skin in the 4Runner and a slightly higher spec Lexus version in the GX. I honestly don't understand it. I think what most of us wanted was a low spec 300 series.

haha i just want a coil sprung solid axle wagon with 250-300 hp man. Thats it. You could call it the toyota "dbbowen is a douche canoe" and id be into it.

i agree the LC is in a weird position now that it’s basically a badge engineered 4Runner. To be honest, they should have just given the US the 4Runner and been like “hey guys it’s a J250 with a different body”

The only real things that separates it, far as I can tell: 4R not available with full time 4WD AND rear locker and sway bar disconnect (though that’s not included on the 1958); and the bumper being segmented for easier replacement, and better fender/quarterpanel interface for aftermarket bumpers

I think im in the super small minority of people who dont want or like full time 4wd. I prefer part time

Yeah honestly, just giving us the GX and the 4Runner would have led to less disappointment and let down I think.
Totally agree.
 
They seem to be going a "Chevy" and "GMC" route. Same platform and mechanicals, even more similar styling than the LC250 and 4Runner. It's an odd choice for sure, but larger corporations make odd choices all of the time :)
 
Just hypothesizing on price, based on 2024 Tacoma price:
SR5 2.4T…$44-45k
OR 2.4T…$46-47k
OR 2.4T-H…$50-51k
SPORT 2.4T…$46-47k
SPORT 2.4T-H…$50-51k
Limited 2.4T-H…$57k
Pro 2.4T-H…$63k

For reference:
LC 1958 2.4T-H…$56k
LC 2.4T-H … $62k
 
Just sending the 300 here in various trims from low spec to GR-S would have solved this. It wasn't hard. Instead we got the weird bait and switch, "guys, call it Landcruiser ok?" And now we have basically the same vehicle in a different skin in the 4Runner and a slightly higher spec Lexus version in the GX. I honestly don't understand it. I think what most of us wanted was a low spec 300 series.

Precisely. The LC didn't sell well here because it was only a small jump up in price to an LX (if you can afford a $70k car you can afford an $80k car with a LOT more goodies). Toyota could have offered the different trims of 300 LC here- something that already exists in other markets- that wouldn't have cannibalized 4R/Sequoia/GX sales.

I thought I understood Toyota's strategy before the 4R was released, now it just looks like there is heaps of overlap between the three 250 trim levels and it makes absolutely zero sense.
 
Last edited:
To me, the 250 came in with good intentions (which it was supposed to be planned with similar specs to the GX), then along the design path, Toyota got word that the EPA was having more and more ridiculous mandates to meet, and they were so far along in the design path, they just said screw it - Throw the light duty gear in to meet these new standards. We might as well try and recoup some of the R&D cost for the US market.

I see it as them burning the Land Cruiser nameplate and heritage to the ground. It deserves more respect than what we got with the 250…
 
I agree...

Holistically, the 250 series (GX/LC/4R) are essentially the same vehicle with mildly different appearance packages. The issue is that none of these vehicles really knock it our of the park, in terms of releasing an off-road adventure vehicle.

Personally, I am just not really interested in a midsize suv at the $70k price point. At $70k, I am looking at larger vehicles.

The 200 series was interesting, because despite being a touch smaller than what I preferred it made up for that by being incredibly overbuilt, having more cargo capacity than the 4runner, and having a large V8. Did it sell, no, they pegged it to lexus pricing rather than standard GCC toyota pricing.

The 250 LC that replaced it, was released with the smallest engine in class, light duty differential and a reduced cargo area for around $65K. Thats just not interesting me. The GX sort of address some of these issues at a 5k premium.

The 250 4R may have a lower price point, but how much of a savings are we talking about to swap land cruiser badge for a 4runner badge, but I just really don't want a light duty midsize suv unless really nails some component that I am looking for.

I am not a ford fan, but despite my bias, the bronco is interesting enough, that I would be will to roll the dice on a Wildtrack for the mid 50's, Toyotas midsize line up are the epitome of blah....

Case in point, Toyota is allready sacrificing cargo capacity in in the 4runner and Land cruiser, give one of those vehicles a removable top, AND pair it with the Tundra's i-force max and slap 65k on it to top it off at the sequoas starting point

I would buy a 450hp/580tq 4runner with reduce cargo capacity as it could directly compete with and undercut the bronco raptor.
 
In most trims, the 4Runner is part-time 4WD — I suspect only the Limited trim will be full time 4WD. In contrast, the 250 is full time 4WD in all trims (with the usual lockable, limited slip Torsen center diff).

For some that’s not an issue. Having owned a 200 for 7 years and a 4th gen 4Runner for 13 years before that, I greatly prefer full time 4WD.

There is certainly overlap between the two models, so pick the one you like. Without being able to sit in both, it’s hard for me to have a definitive opinion between the two.
 
Last edited:
I agree...

Holistically, the 250 series (GX/LC/4R) are essentially the same vehicle with mildly different appearance packages. The issue is that none of these vehicles really knock it our of the park, in terms of releasing an off-road adventure vehicle.

Personally, I am just not really interested in a midsize suv at the $70k price point. At $70k, I am looking at larger vehicles.

The 200 series was interesting, because despite being a touch smaller than what I preferred it made up for that by being incredibly overbuilt, having more cargo capacity than the 4runner, and having a large V8. Did it sell, no, they pegged it to lexus pricing rather than standard GCC toyota pricing.
Note that the 250 and the 6th Gen 4Runner are essentially the same size as the 200. The usey the exact same 112.2 in wheelbase and have similar width and length.

The 6th gen is no longer a midsize like the 5th gen, IMO.
 
Last edited:
Precisely. The LC didn't sell well here because it was only a small jump up in price to an LX (if you can afford a $70k car you can afford an $80k car with a LOT more goodies). Toyota could have offered different trims of 300 LC here that wouldn't have cannibalized 4R/Sequoia/GX sales.

I thought I understood Toyota's strategy before the 4R was released, now it just looks like there is heaps of overlap between the three 250 trim levels and it makes absolutely zero sense.

With so much overlap, I still don't see the value proposition of any of the three(GX/LC/4R).
 
Last edited:
Note that the 250 and the 6th Gen 4Runner are essentially the same size as the 200. The use the exact same 112.2 in wheelbase and have similar width and length.

The 6th gen is no longer a midsize like the 5th gen, IMO.

ehhhhhh.

You are correct the the 250 grew to the size of the 200, but the 200 was not really a full size vehicle, When you look at the 6th gen and compare it to say a Sequoia or Yukon or Armada, its tiny. its almost a foot shorter and roughly 6 inches less shoulder room.

It may be a larger midsize vehicle but its still a midsize vehicle.
 
As an alternative - why not make the 4Runner a 4Runner again? Sell it with a red hat that says "M4RGA" pronounced mergha. It'll confuse everyone.

The formula is pretty easy: 3rd gen 4Runner dimensions and layout.

Then offer the LC250 in the range of trims going on the new 4Runner and TRD OR and up get the hd running gear.

The Sequoia slots in where the LC300 would in other markets. No need IMO to duplicate that. Sequoia just needs an awd option without the hybrid.

That's it - the full lineup just like toyota already does with the Rav4, Highlander, GH. Now you have 3 models all clearly segmented with no need to artificially handicap models and trims to make it try to make sense. Something for everyone right in the heart of each category. Something for the enthusiasts and marketing. Everyone wins including sales volume and profit margins.

If Toyota wants to expand - build a short wheelbase FJ Cruiser with a removeable top.
 
I was kind of dreaming that the 6G 4R would be smaller than the 5G or the same size. Instead it somehow seems to have gotten bigger on the outside and smaller on the inside. From the videos you can kind of see/guess that the extra length went to the hatch area, maybe for the 3rd row that I don't want.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom