Enough better looking, more capable and durable second hand LC200's around with more reasonable GVWR of 7385 lbs and with rear seats removed around 7385 - 5750 = 1635 lbs of cargo/people/tow hook load capacity.
Thoughts on LC250 Remote Touring Capacities (2 Viewers)
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
This is from a 2008 200 series owners manual. Maybe the payload changed between 2008-2021, but 1235lb is only marginally more than the 1100 listed for some 250s so far.
Also interesting to note that most 250 dimensions are actually marginally larger across the board when compared to: https://forum.ih8mud.com/attachments/1714091785625-png.3616704/
Looks like only the 1958 trim is smaller in overall width by 1.2in.
Edit: 2021 owners manual lists 200 series payload at 1320lbs, but towing dropped to 8100lbs. All things to be considered if we’re comparing capacities between new and used market vehicles.
Last edited:
Edited - The weight (curb?) stated on the Land Cruiser 200 title I have is 5800 lbs. Internet search for the same states 5815 lbs. Without two rear seats this drops to around 5750 lbs. The difference between GVWR and 5750 lbs is the 1635 lbs I mentioned, which you then can use for passengers/cargo/roof rack etc.
What is stated for the LC250 for me remains a puzzle unless the hybrid electro motor and battery is a lot of weight.
What they mean in the LC200 manual at 1235 lbs is a mystery to me. In the 2021 manual that number is 1320 lbs. That seems more like 1635 lbs - 2 passengers.
Would be nice to go on a scale and check the empty weight + some fuel to unravel this aspect.
What is stated for the LC250 for me remains a puzzle unless the hybrid electro motor and battery is a lot of weight.
What they mean in the LC200 manual at 1235 lbs is a mystery to me. In the 2021 manual that number is 1320 lbs. That seems more like 1635 lbs - 2 passengers.
Would be nice to go on a scale and check the empty weight + some fuel to unravel this aspect.
Last edited:
That seems odd. Hybrid 4Runner gets the 9.5 rear axle i thought. It should have a higher payload than the LC both because it's lighter and has a larger axle.
An Inside Look into the 2025 Toyota 4Runner, Tacoma, and Land Cruiser
Toyota’s lineup of mid-size trucks all share the same platform. We tease out why you should choose one over the other.www.outsideonline.com
This article references a 6th gen T4R payload of 895lbs on the hybrid. Makes the LC's 1100 look even more likely to be legit across all trims.
And the 5th Gen 4Runner was 1500-1700. Dropping to 895 seems odd unless they've changed how they calculate it. 895lb trailer tongue weight seems more inline with what I would expect.
Or it's supposed to be 1895lbs and it was missing a digit. If gvwr is the same as the gx550 since it also has the 9.5 the payload will be about 2k lbs because of the lighter curb weight.
Hiluxforever
SILVER Star
I thought the new 8.2 axle was specifically for Non turbo or non hybrid 4 bangers
Fort9378
SILVER Star
A locked 5th Gen 4runner was mid 800s as well. Some lager ORPs show a high of 1165. Not sure where you're seeing 1500-1700
Also I'm fairly certain everything with the 2.4 hybrid is getting the 8.2. If you have a source to the contrary, I'd love to see it.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #188
Gibralter Stockholdings' very thorough spec data shows the 300, 76, and 78 with payloads ranging from 1700 - 2000 lbs respectively.
Authorised Specialised Distributors | TGS
TGS is Toyota official direct sales supplier to the UN, International Humanitarian Aid and Conservation Organisations worldwide.
www.toyota-gib.com
Fort9378
SILVER Star
Is it possible Toyota is understating the numbers on the stickers and being conservative? It seems there's a universal discrepancy between sticker payloads and GVWR-Curb.
It is indeed odd what Toyota is putting on the door stickers.
Payload should be GVWR - Curb Weight (= car + fuel). I have checked many sources and they all point to that.
Those calculations from available curb and GVWR weights do not equate to the occupants and cargo weight stated on the door sill stickers shown, for the 250 and other Toyota's mentioned (like for the 200 series or the 4Runner). This appears good news for the 250, yet it certainly is confusing.
What is going on? Almost seems they have added to curb weight two occupants already (driver + say front passenger) and then indicate the rest for rear occupants and cargo. I have tried to think whether individual axle capacities (GAWR's) and position of the occupants and cargo plays into this. Be nice to get inside information on this from Toyota. One way to support over landing payloads is to add airbags in the rear coil springs. It certainly allows leveling under heavier loads and helps out the factory coils to manage the same. As long as you do not go over total GVWR that should be fully legit as well.
Tires and inflation pressures may also be coming into play here.
Yes, their load rating and keeping them at say > 30 psi for highway driving is certainly recommended as well.
- Thread starter
- #193
It's unclear how the door jamb weight limits are calculated.
I defer to GVWR - curb weight to calculate payload, but Toyota's website and tech specs still conflict on those values.
Here's the example given from the a 200 series owners manual. This implies that the given 1235lb payload does not include passengers or cargo.
I would agree that how Toyota does the math between stated total load capacity, GVWR and GAWR is unclear. I'd guess that each axle is rated independently for instances of uneven weight distributions (snowplow/heavy trailer tongue weights), and GVWR is used as a total upper limit due to some other limitation (regulatory, or downstream mechanical).
Amazing the complex explanation that load capacity = occupants + cargo...
And that they are starting off with the incorrect load capacity of 1235 lbs for a 200 series to start off with.
200 series GVWR - Curb Weight ~ 1600 lbs, either for the V8 gasoline or diesels overseas.
Front (3595lbs) and rear (4300lbs) GAWR's (total 7895lbs) is above overall GVWR (7385lbs), so that cannot be a determining factor either.
As has been alluded to here before - we be thinking that Toyota’s load capacity recommendation is their recommendation, not simply GVWR minus Curb Weight.
I think it is us who are calculating Load Capacity incorrectly.
I think it is us who are calculating Load Capacity incorrectly.
I think I have found the only 10 people in the entire US who abide by these stickers.
in Australia they can legally increase the GVWR of the vehicle in several manners, one would be rerating the truck to combined axle ratings GAWR.
that would put the LC250 @ 7640lbs, or 805 lbs more. an indicator what matters the most for payload.
nonetheless, the drivetrain must also be counted for. case in point; in the F150 tremor, opting for the front Torsen diff. increases payload by 200lbs.
I for one go for Payload = GVWR on the door sticker - my actual rig weight. That 80% rule is good, less weight means more range too.
Back to that 'meh' 1100# figure, it seems like an arbitrary one size fits all thing (akin to the jeep wrangler's 'universal' 850lb sticker). am sure Toyota would've designed the diff's, brakes and other drivetrain components around the stated total GVWR (6835), and not the payload+curb weight (5037?+1100). which in turn means any potential and theoretical legal issues would be about surpassing the GVWR anyways. so i follow what Scot Brady is saying, given he gets the actual curb weight right of course.
that would put the LC250 @ 7640lbs, or 805 lbs more. an indicator what matters the most for payload.
nonetheless, the drivetrain must also be counted for. case in point; in the F150 tremor, opting for the front Torsen diff. increases payload by 200lbs.
I for one go for Payload = GVWR on the door sticker - my actual rig weight. That 80% rule is good, less weight means more range too.
Back to that 'meh' 1100# figure, it seems like an arbitrary one size fits all thing (akin to the jeep wrangler's 'universal' 850lb sticker). am sure Toyota would've designed the diff's, brakes and other drivetrain components around the stated total GVWR (6835), and not the payload+curb weight (5037?+1100). which in turn means any potential and theoretical legal issues would be about surpassing the GVWR anyways. so i follow what Scot Brady is saying, given he gets the actual curb weight right of course.
