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

[Rednexus]

It's also totally conceivable that they ECU is programmed to reduce or more slowly apply engine torque in 4-LO situations that usually break the diffs. That would be super easy to do for the electric assist and turbo boost. GM used to do that on their HD trucks in the aughts - "torque management" - as a way for them to keep from blowing drivetrain components.

This past weekend our Hybrid Highlander really surprised it when it chirped the rear tires pulling away from a stoplight at full throttle (ended up not in the turn lane and had to drag race other traffic to be able to merge ). From having 25K on our "real" Toyota hybrid (integrated unit rather than a simple power-adder), the only time the electric assist really makes it's presence noticeable is in those full-throttle situations.

 

[Jetboy]

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…..

This is in a couple other threads. But the basic math suggests it can output the full 40hp for about 60 seconds. So - it works well to shave a few tenths off the 0-60 time, but doesn't do much for towing. Might be really useful for low rpm trail use and blasting around on sand dunes/mud. Seems like the general consensus is that it's probably better not to have the hybrid Tundra, but it may be a really nice power boost for daily driving in the 4cyl models.

 

[hoser]

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.

This is not true. The 70 frame was much different than the 60/62 frame. The 70 frame was fully boxed from front to back. The 60 frame is C-Channel behind the rear axle and also the front frame horns. The 60 only had one tubular crossmember that was welded through the boxed section of the frame. The 70 had four tubular crossmembers welded through the frame.

60 series frame:

70 Series Frame:

 

[softdrinkviking]

If anything, I think they should have made the cheapest version of the 250 available in more colors, and with a cheaper engine option that would allow for ~$45k choice. It's kind of annoying that you have to choose from the most boring colors possible to get a cheaper truck

I like the look of the 250 as it is definitely the closest they have got to the boxy look of old. IMHO it's way, way better looking than the FJ Cruiser ever was

Also, as long as we are comparing the 4Runner here, let's no forget that the 4R looks very different. It's now got a more Dodge Ram looking nose to it, and what is reminiscent of early 90s Pathfinders in the rear.

Yes, it's dumb they have the same engines, but that's not a totally new strategy. Subaru has been doing that for a long time and the form factors of the vehicles are enough to create market differentiation

I just don't believe that they were ever going to "hit it out of the park" for everyone, and I'm happy that we got what we got. I think it looks good, it has a neat utilitarian thing going on, and the engine is pretty good. It's not amazing by any means, but it's more than adequate

 

[Jetboy]

It's also totally conceivable that they ECU is programmed to reduce or more slowly apply engine torque in 4-LO situations that usually break the diffs. That would be super easy to do for the electric assist and turbo boost. GM used to do that on their HD trucks in the aughts - "torque management" - as a way for them to keep from blowing drivetrain components.

This past weekend our Hybrid Highlander really surprised it when it chirped the rear tires pulling away from a stoplight at full throttle (ended up not in the turn lane and had to drag race other traffic to be able to merge ). From having 25K on our "real" Toyota hybrid (integrated unit rather than a simple power-adder), the only time the electric assist really makes it's presence noticeable is in those full-throttle situations.

I think Toyota is either significantly overstating the power or it is restricting it a lot.

I was looking through some other comparisons. A Ranger Raptor on the same dyno as the Tundra TRD Pro hybrid put down more torque to the wheels than a hybrid tundra. 349/403 for the Ranger Raptor vs 365/372 for the TRD Pro Tundra. Tundra numbers are remarkably weak given the spec sheet numbers. Or maybe there's something in the software backing it off?? Ranger Raptor is in a different league from the TRD Pro tacoma. And it's locked front and back for around $55k.


Edit: Looking at other specs, the Tundra will run 0-60 about the same as the Ranger Raptor, that suggests that the Tundra that weighs about 1500lbs more is putting out more power. But that doesn't match up well to the dyno results. Not sure what's going on. I am pretty torn on where I'd put my own dollars. I'd put my money on a TRD Pro Tacoma winning a Baja 1000 over the Ranger Raptor, but I tend to think the Ranger would be more fun to drive most days.

 

[Rednexus]

I think Toyota is either significantly overstating the power or it is restricting it a lot.

I was looking through some other comparisons. A Ranger Raptor on the same dyno as the Tundra TRD Pro hybrid put down more torque to the wheels than a hybrid tundra. 349/403 for the Ranger Raptor vs 365/372 for the TRD Pro Tundra. Tundra numbers are remarkably weak given the spec sheet numbers. Ranger Raptor is in a different league from the TRD Pro tacoma. And it's locked front and back for around $55k.

I think the power ratings are based on a SAE standard. It's probalby not possible for a manufacuter to "cook" the numbers like they used to the 1960s muscle car wars.

However it seems totally plausible that the Tundra has high drivetrain losses (given the large TC and 10.5" diff) or has a power-limiting ECU tune that only gives you peak power under certain conditions that aren't able to be replicated on a chassis dyno.

Fords will always be cheaper than a Toyota, but it's a Ford. Compare a 2004 F150 to a 2004 Tundra. One has blown out spark plugs and looks like a POS, one has 250K on it and 250K more to go . Or a 1998 Explorer to a 1998 4Runner. Outside of a gas 7.3 Super Duty for towing a big camper, I personally find most Ford offerings disinteresting - even though they do have a lot of value for the money (at least on paper).

 

[Jetboy]

I think the power ratings are based on a SAE standard. It's probalby not possible for a manufacuter to "cook" the numbers like they used to the 1960s muscle car wars.

However it seems totally plausible that the Tundra has high drivetrain losses (given the large TC and 10.5" diff) or has a power-limiting ECU tune that only gives you peak power under certain conditions that aren't able to be replicated on a chassis dyno.

Fords will always be cheaper than a Toyota, but it's a Ford. Compare a 2004 F150 to a 2004 Tundra. One has blown out spark plugs and looks like a POS, one has 250K on it and 250K more to go . Or a 1998 Explorer to a 1998 4Runner. Outside of a gas 7.3 Super Duty for towing a big camper, I personally find most Ford offerings disinteresting - even though they do have a lot of value for the money (at least on paper).

A few years ago I bought an F250 PSD from an equipment auction. They were ex-haliburton trucks from an oil service area that was sold so they parked about 20 trucks with relatively low miles and left them in a service yard to auction. One of the vehicles in the fleet was a 2010 Ford Explorer. It had about 80k miles (these were hard oil-field miles though). The auction co called me and asked if I wanted 1 or 2 more F250s. They had 1 that they forgot to put in the auction and another that the buyer didn't pay for and decided to forfeit the deposit. They really wanted to get get rid of them so they could then sell the holding lot. Long story short was that the offer to me was to buy the other 2 F250s for $4k each (auction min bid) and they would just give me the Explorer for free if I'd come get it. It didn't even get a $500 reserve bid they had put on it. And I ended up saying no. These were 2006-2008 F250 crew cab 4x4 diesels with under 100k miles that they couldn't get someone to pay $4k for. Can you imagine having a 2008 Tundra crewmax 4x4 under 100k that you couldn't get $4k for? Or a 2010 4Runner with 80k miles that you couldn't even get $500 for? It does tell a lot about the difference in the long run.

In fairness - if I had a place read to store them, I would have bought them all. I didn't want 3 crew cab long bed F250's and an Exloder clogging up my driveway. And the market value for that era of powerstroke is low because they're probably the least reliable highest cost to fix trucks that have been sold in the last 20 years - possibly ever in the USA. So they are a bit of a unicorn in that sense of being uniquely terrible, even for Ford.

But - I can't deny that the Ranger Raptor would be a blast to own for the first part of its life even if the lifespan is short.

 

[Leelanau]

If you told me 5 years ago Toyota would sell a AWD Corolla with a 300hp turbo 3 cyl engine and a track specialty Yaris model built only 4 per day in a small production setting - I would have about the same response. Not a chance.

Do I think Toyota will build something in the Wrangler/Bronco realm? No way. Do I wish they would? Absolutely. The FJ40 is the closest I'll probably ever get. I'm looking to add a 1st gen 4Runner to the stable so I can have both. I don't think we'll ever see another. But there's no doubt a big demand for that category.

Also - FJ Cruisers did have remarkable occupant safety ejection systems for rollovers, so I don't really see the danger.

It is absolutely amazing that person walked away from that crash.

 

[JohnPW]

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.

A car company has room if they want it by buying emissions credits. Tesla’s entire profits come from selling emissions credits to other car companies, so that those companies can sell the gas guzzlers consumers want. Honda benefits from selling mileage credits as well. Toyota doesn’t buy mileage credits, they hit targets without doing so by selling lots of efficient cars including hybrids. But they do sell a lot of inefficient BOF SUV’s and trucks. They would rather sell more Tacoma’s and 4Runners with v6 and 4 cylinder engines, versus fewer stripped cheap Land Cruisers for the same hit to fleet mileage averages.

That is why the gas guzzling LC200 was only offered in high margin luxury trim, and why it was never marketed in the USA…they didn’t WANT to sell a lot of them, they would prefer to sell three Tacoma’s instead of two vinyl seat LC200’s for the same hit to fleet mileage averages. A 4Runner isn’t that different from a LC200 in terms of utility for the typical buyer, and a bare bones LC probably has a similar profit margin. But the hit to mileage averages between the two, when you are selling hundreds of thousands of units per year, is meaningful, even though a v6 4Runner isn’t particularly efficient.

Keep in mind, consumer cars and trucks represent @7% of global CO2 emissions. Cars and trucks in the USA represent around 2% of global CO2 emissions. So 98% of emissions are coming from somewhere else. And reducing our fuel use lowers its price globally, which encourages more fuel use elsewhere. It’s hard to come up with a less efficient way to reduce emissions than fleet mileage requirements. But here we are.

 

[Rednexus]

Yet, somehow buying a Tesla, powered by either coal or natural gas (or a flooded river valley, or agricultural/rural land converted to solar), with energy stored in Li Ion battery generated from lithium brine in one of the driest regions of the earth, and cobalt sourced from a country with known human rights abuses and corruption, is considered "good for the environment".

 

[uzj100]

Yet, somehow buying a Tesla, powered by either coal or natural gas (or a flooded river valley, or agricultural/rural land converted to solar), with energy stored in Li Ion battery generated from lithium brine in one of the driest regions of the earth, and cobalt sourced from a country with known human rights abuses and corruption, is considered "good for the environment".

Yes - that is complete BS. And peeps with that electric car attitude - so clueless. Head shaker for sure.

 

[TWILLY]

Yet, somehow buying a Tesla, powered by either coal or natural gas (or a flooded river valley, or agricultural/rural land converted to solar), with energy stored in Li Ion battery generated from lithium brine in one of the driest regions of the earth, and cobalt sourced from a country with known human rights abuses and corruption, is considered "good for the environment".

CO2 is a problem. It's time to diversity into other problems. There's no free lunch.

 

[Rednexus]

CO2 is a problem. It's time to diversity into other problems. There's no free lunch.

The problem is our first world lifestyle and high standard of living in the West, which are resource-intensive. Switching one problem for the other because it is "green" does not change that underlying problem
(which few even acknowledge,) it just changes who the winners and losers are.

 

[TWILLY]

The problem is our first world lifestyle and high standard of living in the West, which are resource-intensive. Switching one problem for the other because it is "green" does not change that underlying problem
(which few even acknowledge,) it just changes who the winners and losers are.

Not really. The winners and losers will largely stay the same. The nature of the particular harms will differ.

Far off topic, so, stepping out.

 

[JohnPW]

CO2 is a problem. It's time to diversity into other problems. There's no free lunch.

It is estimated that an electric car reduces emissions by @20% over the life of the vehicle compared to a gasoline car, including the CO2 impact of creating the batteries etc, depending on the source of electricity for charging. The most optimistic numbers I have seen is a 50% reduction in CO2. If you take the 50% reduction in CO2 at face value, this would mean that if EVERY SINGLE CONSUMER CAR & TRUCK ON EARTH were replaced with an EV, we would reduce manmade CO2 by @3.5%. Bt it is impossible to do that, the electric grid in the USA won’t support it, and certainly not the grid in other countries. And there isn’t enough minerals to make that many EV’s regardless. So it is CERTAIN, mathematically, that the reduction in CO2 from electric vehicles will be a rounding error in global emissions.

A consumer car spends 95% of its life sitting in a parking space or driveway. Versus a commercial vehicle, or a power plant, or a factory, or a home air conditioner, all of which may run close to continuously. It is an absurd place to focus limited resources if the goal is CO2 reduction. It’s a great place if the goal is virtue signaling around a(very real) problem.

 

[Banandalorian]

The problem is our first world lifestyle and high standard of living in the West, which are resource-intensive. Switching one problem for the other because it is "green" does not change that underlying problem
(which few even acknowledge,) it just changes who the winners and losers are.

The actual problem is that no matter how much the 1st world reduces its emissions and/or consumption, the rest of the world continues to increase theirs and does not care.
The US could reduces its emissions to 0 and it won't change anything because China and India will not. Reducing emissions, reducing pollution, and environmental care are all noble goals but most of the climate warriors, so to speak, aren't doing it because they care about any of that. They are doing it because they're miserable little socialists who think it would be neat if they were in charge of everyone so they could make everyone as miserable as they are instead of just going to therapy for their depression like an adult.

 

[OSS]

Think of it on the bright side:
When most vehicles are electric 100 years from now, there will be a hell of a lot less air pollution globally. That’s reason enough to change and something to work towards.
Gasoline is dead.

 

[JohnPW]

Think of it on the bright side:
When most vehicles are electric 100 years from now, there will be a hell of a lot less air pollution globally. That’s reason enough to change and something to work towards.
Gasoline is dead.

That remains to be seen. Toyota believes the replacement for gasoline will be hydrogen, which makes a lot of sense to me.

Circling back to the new Land Cruiser, there has been a lot of conversation around why Toyota has the 4Runner and LC250 competing with each other when they’re very similar mechanically. Perhaps fleet mileage standards play a role in the decision making. They will sell X number of midsize BOF trucks, but they don’t want the hit to fleet standards of full size LC300 sales. They’ll build both LC250 and 4Runner to provide variety and the appearance of choice on the same basic vehicle. Meanwhile they don’t seem to be advertising the (thirstier) Sequoia much.

This also might explain why Tacoma dominates midsize pickups but Tundra has tiny market share in full size trucks…perhaps Toyota wants it that way, in order to sell more units without having to cut prices on Corolla or Prius to hit the average mileage requirement.

 

[APIOQM]

People should want to adopt the electric car because the energy cost is much lower and they will be much more simple & reliable machines. Environment is secondary.

 

[stiffarm]

Think of it on the bright side:
When most vehicles are electric 100 years from now, there will be a hell of a lot less air pollution globally. That’s reason enough to change and something to work towards.
Gasoline is dead.

Bidenomics is a joke just like the EPA unconsitutional mandate of this week. The capital cost of compliance would likely only exacerbate our national debt, endanger our international conomic competitiveness and will bankrupt a number of industries and automotive companies---but hey, you can smugly enjoy your Tesla or Prius while speaking Chinese or Russian.