Fort9378
SILVER Star
Ah, my bad. I hadn't see that.
This is probably going to be very unliked, but this is just like my opinion man. This is my issue with the LC250
- Thread starter dbbowen
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
I'm a tall 225 lbs; five of me would exceed the 250's entire weight rating. One of us would have to amputate a limb, for safety. I expect LC250's low weight capacity owes in whole or part to its small diff.
If you know you'll need the larger diff, you're in luck, you can pay more and get a model with a larger diff (overtrail), or mod one in on a 1958 yourself.
If you don't, or you don't even know what a diff is and you just trust Toyota the platform is built sufficiently for your planned needs, you're in luck, you get to (presumably) save some money on a lower trim.
If you don't, or you don't even know what a diff is and you just trust Toyota the platform is built sufficiently for your planned needs, you're in luck, you get to (presumably) save some money on a lower trim.
There is no way you needed to do all that. After all, we’ve been told in this very thread that the 60 Series was “heavy duty”.
I thought I’d bring a little more reality check to the “old Landcruisers were heavy duty” meme.
The LC76 wagon Landcruiser is/was basically an FJ60 stuck in a time warp. The 76 is world renown as a “heavy duty Landcruiser”. Well guess what? For all intents & purposes- it was just a FJ60 (with a diesel in other countries).
On my so called “heavy duty” FJ60, I broke every single shock mount. Both upper mounts in the front and basically mangled the rear upper shock support too. They all broke from extensive baja driving.
Say what you will about “heavy duty” but the shock mounts on the FJ60 are definitely LIGHT DUTY.
I wouldn’t get too hung up on perceived heavy/light duty nomenclature. It’s all going to break if you use them too hard.
I just hope all the people who get the first edition go out to Baja and Rubicon and all the other places and make sure noting breaks. We will need detailed logs from every trip. Total weight of the rig when it leaves home, how many parts broke. This way we can decide if we should purchase a regular LC. Since the LC FE are built the best and strongest.
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2013
- Threads
- 52
- Messages
- 547
So true. I don’t believe they can even get their grid up to the task by then.
Here in the USA we have paved roads and AAA (roadside assistance).
We have some folks with cash. Each year though, just a few thousand of these folks bought a Land Cruiser. However, very, very, very few of these newly purchased units were ever used substantially in any sort of off road situation, let alone an off road trail. This type of usage didn't really occur until subsequent owners acquired them decade(s) and/or hundred(s) of thousands of miles later.
TheLCProject
SILVER Star
I think this argument needs more clarification if anyone wants to use it.
Like this instead:
"Each year though, just a few thousand of these folks bought a $90k+ Land Cruiser in full luxury trim."
Meanwhile, literally a quarter to a half a million, lower priced, less luxury-tastic 4Runners, Wranglers, and Broncos sold.
We need to stop thinking that it was anything besides the price and luxury of the later model Land Cruiser that made them not sell.
If Toyota had brought the Prado at a low to mid grade trim in previously and/or a GXL level trim of the 200 and then 300, they could have enjoyed some of that half million unit per year pie prior to 2024. Maybe then they wouldn't have handed the 100k-110k Bronco sales (and market share) over to Ford.
Last edited:
This is what I was attempting to say. I apprecaite that. Why would Toyota give all those sales away just to have a low selling luxo LC? They could have easily had both and given the American buyer choices.
I'll give Toyota the benefit of the doubt and assume that their newest BOF suv even in base trim is going to be more capable for an outdoor focused lifestlye than a Highlander.
Has anyone tested the "small" diff to a failure point? Under what conditions does it fail and is the target 250 base buyer likely to encounter those conditions? I'll give Toyota the benefit of the doubt here as well that they've built it sufficiently for their market researched buyers use cases.
Most buyers are going to be upgrading from base LC trim upwards for more luxury features, to the Lexus for the badge & the much improved powertrain, and because they have the money to burn, not as much so because they know they'll be wheeling and need the larger diff. But isn't it great that if you know you need that larger diff you can move up and get it?
Also, if people are only allowed to purchase vehicles and goods based on "needs" and not "wants" entire segments of the automobile industry and economy wouldn't exist.
Because the 200 and even the 300 are a bigger hit to fleet mileage requirements. The profit margin on a stripped, cheaper Land Cruiser 200 is probably pretty similar to the profit on a 4Runner. But the hit to fleet mileage is bigger. So they only brought the luxury LC200, and the LX570, where margins were higher, volumes were lower, and thus fewer low margin Corollas needed to be sold to compensate in fleet mileage targets.
Whenever you see a car company do something different in the US versus the rest of the world, assume US mileage standards, or the US tax code, are the reasons why. Occasionally the reason for the difference is customer preference or the price of gas or the long commutes…but usually it’s the EPA or the IRS determining what cars and trucks we get, in secret so the public doesn’t catch on.
Last edited:
I agree with what your saying, but the original statement doesnt need any clarification.
A "Land Cruiser" has meant the same thing here to the American buyer for the past 25 years. Literally defined by it's "price" and "luxury".
A 4Runner is not a Land Cruiser. Wrangler / Bronco, lol, not even close. No one, including your Toyota dealership salesman even knows what a Prado is.
Now with the 250 the Land Cruiser is being redefined a bit, still capable, but more accessible, attainable even, and as a result, "lesser". Again, this is a good thing. Because if it is what it was, well, it's not for you, and you can't have it.
TheLCProject
SILVER Star
But yet the other brands have figured out how to do it.
And they don't have the benefit of Toyota's long history of great-selling hybrids, now in pretty much every segment. I'd be surprised if Toyota doesn't lead each segment in sales with their hybrids.
I'm not going to pretend to understand the fleet requirements or spend the time to try to understand them, but I'd assume Toyota has room compared to the other brands.
I was being a bit facetious. 90% of BOF SUV buyers would be better served with a crossover. But I understand why they want the more robust vehicle.
Even if it does serve well for most buyers who never go offroad or tow heavy loads, it still needs to be able to do those things. The buyers who don't do truck things are buying for the image of doing truck things. And the only way that works is if it has the authenticity to do the truck things to support the image. Just selling the image without the underlying ability doesn't work.
No one even has the new 8.2" diff to test except a few tacomas. There's not much information on what is common to the old one other than that the housing is completely different. And the housing is certainly odd. It's the first Toyota rear axle housing I can think of that doesn't have a gear oil flow channel in the diff cover. Every prior solid axle I can recall has that designed into the diff cover. The new 9.5 still has the same profile. The new 8.2 has a spherical profile on the left hand side that is unique. I'm curious what that does for oiling and cooling and why they chose to change it. I'd also be curious to know if there's a baffle inside that channels oil flow and the stamping is that way to increase fluid volume.
- Anyway - no one knows. What we do know is that in general the 8.2 in prior products was very strong - you can search on here for my side by side photos from the last one I built that shows the differences in pinion size and bearings vs the old 8" diffs. No doubt it's a very dense little diff - but at the end of the day it's still really small for that kind of power. The lower gearing in the new transmission along with the hybrid is equivalent torque to the diff as having over 800 ft lbs fo torque from the 4.6L in the GX460. So - I don't think past experience with the 8.2 tells us a lot about how it will handle tripling of the torque.
One interesting data point is the dyno test results of the Tundra hybrid. The claimed 583 ft lbs only translated to 372 at the wheels. The base turbo with 479 ft lbs on paper puts out 352 to the tires on the dyno. The two are different tests not side by side, so take that for what it's worth. But if they're reasonably comparable, the real world hybrid torque output isn't much more than the base engine.
This topic from the above post by @Jetboy opens up a whole new can of worms: Torque and HP specs on the hybrid engine.
Exactly how are they measuring this? Or more importantly — for how long did the test run?
The relatively tiny NiMH battery pack used in the LC250 hybrid engine can’t put out many amps before experiencing a significant voltage drop. It’s basically there to get the car rolling from a slow/stopped speed until the 4 banger enters its torque curve - and eventually at 2000 rpm the turbo kicks in. At 50 mph, the battery ain’t doing anything.
It MAY be that the torque specs given for the hybrid engine are only peak values attainable for several seconds and can’t be compared side by side with a normal turbocharged non hybrid V6 engine (found in the GX).
At any rate - at this point it’s all conjecture, but it’s hard to see how a little 4 cylinder engine with a tiny hybrid battery pack - and the turbo, can put out the numbers that are being published for long.
Maybe the power specs for the hybrid engine require an asterisk *
(* power specs rated for 15 seconds)
We’ll see…..
Exactly how are they measuring this? Or more importantly — for how long did the test run?
The relatively tiny NiMH battery pack used in the LC250 hybrid engine can’t put out many amps before experiencing a significant voltage drop. It’s basically there to get the car rolling from a slow/stopped speed until the 4 banger enters its torque curve - and eventually at 2000 rpm the turbo kicks in. At 50 mph, the battery ain’t doing anything.
It MAY be that the torque specs given for the hybrid engine are only peak values attainable for several seconds and can’t be compared side by side with a normal turbocharged non hybrid V6 engine (found in the GX).
At any rate - at this point it’s all conjecture, but it’s hard to see how a little 4 cylinder engine with a tiny hybrid battery pack - and the turbo, can put out the numbers that are being published for long.
Maybe the power specs for the hybrid engine require an asterisk *
(* power specs rated for 15 seconds)
We’ll see…..
Last edited: