Here are a few observations about touring-specific capacities of LC250, according to technical specifications for US models posted by OGBeno today (technical documentation in Technical Information Services).
My observations of capacities are relevant to my use case of remote touring / extended remote camping in places usually without fuel or fresh water. Payload capacity (for carrying food, water and people), efficiency and range (which relate to fuel capacity and payload), and cargo volume are all important.
I use previous series, beginning with the 80 series, to benchmark / contextualize the 250's capacities.
Payload
Payload is critical, and payload (gross vehicle weight - curb weight) listed in technical specifications is ~300 lbs less than specifications listed on Toyota's LC250 build website. This is an eyebrow-raising discrepancy. If for some reason the technical specifications are incorrect and website is correct, I may delete this post.
The table below shows curb, gross, and payload values (lbs) by model code and feature. For feature codes, see technical specifications.
Payload is significantly less than previous US series. It is at best marginal for two people remote touring and wholly inadequate for remote touring with more than two people. Insofar as payload capacity signals the weight carrying capacity of platform components, the 250's payload capacity indicates that it is engineered to be less robust than preceding US market Land Cruiser series. This theme continues some below.
Cargo capacity is acceptable. I do not pack to the ceiling, so the two dimensional footprint (which Toyota does not publish [sq vs. cubic ft]) is the more relevant metric. The two-dimensional footprint (noting the battery bulge that taxes volume) exceeds the 200 series' and is probably closer to that of the 100 series in terms of square feet.
MPG is decent and much improved over previous series, at 23 combined, and I'm optimistic that the hybrid system, with more torque at lower speeds, will see less efficiency degradation at dirt touring speeds than previous series ICE motors. The hybrid platform yields diesel-like efficiency (and torque and power) which is fantastic for remote touring and much improved over previous series.
Range is inadequate but less inadequate than past series. Toyota's choice of a 18 gallon fuel tank is to blame. To achieve 600 miles of range (for example) the 250 requires less auxiliary fuel than previous series.
An interesting metric of combined (range, payload, efficiency, fuel capacity) remote touring capacities is available payload after auxiliary fuel weight for 600 miles of range; here, the 250's small payload and fuel capacity conspire to fall short of past series' payload after aux fuel weight.
Toyota's choice of the 8.2" rear differential gives me pause. On one hand, I am confident that it (and other running gear) will be robust to intended capacity. On the other hand, that intended capacity, shown perhaps most acutely in payload, is not that of previous series, and marginal for my use case of remote touring.
All of this signals to me that Toyota has taken aim at the weekender segment (the Wrangler, Bronco, and 4runner market) with a capable, mid-sized Land Cruiser designed for lower capacities than the mid-sized Land Cruisers that preceded it.
While seeing improved efficiency and range, the 250 seems to continue a decades-long, series-by-series diminishment of touring-relevant capacities among US market Land Cruisers.
* Edited to clarify 8.2” rather than previously shorthanded 8” diff, as this was causing some confusion (apologies).
My observations of capacities are relevant to my use case of remote touring / extended remote camping in places usually without fuel or fresh water. Payload capacity (for carrying food, water and people), efficiency and range (which relate to fuel capacity and payload), and cargo volume are all important.
I use previous series, beginning with the 80 series, to benchmark / contextualize the 250's capacities.
Payload
Payload is critical, and payload (gross vehicle weight - curb weight) listed in technical specifications is ~300 lbs less than specifications listed on Toyota's LC250 build website. This is an eyebrow-raising discrepancy. If for some reason the technical specifications are incorrect and website is correct, I may delete this post.
The table below shows curb, gross, and payload values (lbs) by model code and feature. For feature codes, see technical specifications.
| Model Code | Features | Curb | Gross | Payload |
| TJH250L-GNZUZA | 5360 | 6725 | 1365 | |
| TJH250L-GNZAZA | 5,6 | 5450 | 6835 | 1385 |
| TJH250L-GNZAZA | 5,7 | 5535 | 6920 | 1385 |
| TJH250L-GNZAZA | 6 | 5400 | 6835 | 1435 |
| TJH250L-GNZAZA | 7 | 5490 | 6900 | 1410 |
| TJH250L-GNZAZA | 4,5,6 | 5490 | 6835 | 1345 |
| TJH250L-GNZAZA | 4,5,7 | 5575 | 6945 | 1370 |
| TJH250L-GNZAZA | 4,6 | 5445 | 6835 | 1390 |
| TJH250L-GNZAZA | 4,7 | 5535 | 6945 | 1410 |
Payload is significantly less than previous US series. It is at best marginal for two people remote touring and wholly inadequate for remote touring with more than two people. Insofar as payload capacity signals the weight carrying capacity of platform components, the 250's payload capacity indicates that it is engineered to be less robust than preceding US market Land Cruiser series. This theme continues some below.
| Aux fuel necessary to achieve 600 mile range | |||||||||||
| Series / Yr | Fuel Capacity | Est. Comb. MPG | Fuel Weight | Payload | Cargo Capacity (ft3) | Range | Miles/lb Fuel | $/mile ($5/gal) | Aux Fuel, Gallons | Aux Fuel, Lbs | Payload After Aux Fuel |
| 80 / 92 | 25.10 | 11.00 | 6.10 | 1,930.00 | 100 | 276.10 | 0.14 | $0.45 | 29.45 | 179.62 | 1,750.38 |
| 100 / 2002 | 25.40 | 13.00 | 6.10 | 1,745.00 | 91 | 330.20 | 0.19 | $0.38 | 20.75 | 126.60 | 1,618.40 |
| 200 / 2020 | 24.60 | 14.00 | 6.10 | 1,570.00 | 82 | 344.40 | 0.22 | $0.36 | 18.26 | 111.37 | 1,458.63 |
| 250 / 2024 | 18.00 | 23.00 | 6.10 | 1,380.00 | 82 | 414.00 | 0.30 | $0.22 | 8.09 | 49.33 | 1,330.67 |
Cargo capacity is acceptable. I do not pack to the ceiling, so the two dimensional footprint (which Toyota does not publish [sq vs. cubic ft]) is the more relevant metric. The two-dimensional footprint (noting the battery bulge that taxes volume) exceeds the 200 series' and is probably closer to that of the 100 series in terms of square feet.
MPG is decent and much improved over previous series, at 23 combined, and I'm optimistic that the hybrid system, with more torque at lower speeds, will see less efficiency degradation at dirt touring speeds than previous series ICE motors. The hybrid platform yields diesel-like efficiency (and torque and power) which is fantastic for remote touring and much improved over previous series.
Range is inadequate but less inadequate than past series. Toyota's choice of a 18 gallon fuel tank is to blame. To achieve 600 miles of range (for example) the 250 requires less auxiliary fuel than previous series.
An interesting metric of combined (range, payload, efficiency, fuel capacity) remote touring capacities is available payload after auxiliary fuel weight for 600 miles of range; here, the 250's small payload and fuel capacity conspire to fall short of past series' payload after aux fuel weight.
Toyota's choice of the 8.2" rear differential gives me pause. On one hand, I am confident that it (and other running gear) will be robust to intended capacity. On the other hand, that intended capacity, shown perhaps most acutely in payload, is not that of previous series, and marginal for my use case of remote touring.
All of this signals to me that Toyota has taken aim at the weekender segment (the Wrangler, Bronco, and 4runner market) with a capable, mid-sized Land Cruiser designed for lower capacities than the mid-sized Land Cruisers that preceded it.
While seeing improved efficiency and range, the 250 seems to continue a decades-long, series-by-series diminishment of touring-relevant capacities among US market Land Cruisers.
* Edited to clarify 8.2” rather than previously shorthanded 8” diff, as this was causing some confusion (apologies).
Last edited:
