Thoughts on LC250 Remote Touring Capacities (2 Viewers)

[TWILLY]

Of the models out so far. For actual touring use, Tacoma or tundra are the clear winners in my opinion. I suspect the Tacoma trail hunter is the most capable midsize that Toyota will offer in North America followed by the 4Runner and then GX and Land Cruiser 4th or 5th depending on where you put the Tundra.

I need to learn more about Trailhunter capacities. But given 300 lb curb and payload discrepancies for LC250 between Toyota’s website vs. technical specs, I would like to find a way to independently verify whatever Trailhunter specs Toyota may claim on its website or has fed to the media. Tinkerer’s inquiry of GX engineers’ flex metrics also now comes back to mind.

 

[Jetboy]

I need to learn more about Trailhunter capacities. But given 300 lb curb and payload discrepancies for LC250 between Toyota’s website vs. technical specs, I would like to find a way to independently verify whatever Trailhunter specs Toyota may claim on its website or has fed to the media. Tinkerer’s inquiry of GX engineers’ flex metrics also now comes back to mind.

The rollout has been inconsistent. And about a year too long. I think we'll need to wait and see what shows up on the lots.

 

[OSS]

The FJ60 which arguably is THE classic land cruiser, only has a 23 gallon gas tank and it’s MPG at the very very best is 15 mpg. But averages more like 12.5 doing everything.
That combo barely get you 300 miles.

 

[TWILLY]

The FJ60 which arguably is THE classic land cruiser, only has a 23 gallon gas tank and it’s MPG at the very very best is 15 mpg. But averages more like 12.5 doing everything.
That combo barely get you 300 miles.

Poor efficiency and range has been a chronic problem of US market Land Cruisers for decades. Global markets enjoyed thrifty diesels, auxiliary tanks, and generous range. At least in the 250 Toyota finally addressed the efficiency problem; it’s too bad they didn’t leverage that efficiency with more fuel capacity for more range.

 

[TheLCProject]

We've already established that the hallmark feature of the US market Land Cruiser is abysmal range. I thought of another Hallmark of the Land Cruiser nameplate..a body on ladder frame!

Maybe one day we'll get the 4Runner Land Cruiser Edition and it can still be a land cruiser, but when we get the RAV4 Land Cruiser Edition we might need to redefine it all.

Back on point:
Here's how the 2024 Land Cruiser stacks up to some of its competitors as I see them (and acknowledging my comment earlier that Toyota has this segment so whipped that they basically have two vehicles to really make a point)!

Land Rover Defender (18 mpg combined and 23.8 gallons available) = 428.4 miles
Jeep Grand Cherokee 4xe (23 mpg combined and 19.0 gallons) = 437 miles
Jeep Wrangler (20 mpg combined and 17.2 gallons = 344 miles
Toyota 4Runner (17 mpg combined and 23 gallons) = 391 miles
2024 Toyota Land Cruiser (23 mpg combined and 18 gallons) = 414 miles

Is it just me or is that all really crappy?

 

[TWILLY]

We've already established that the hallmark feature of the US market Land Cruiser is abysmal range. I thought of another Hallmark of the Land Cruiser nameplate..a body on ladder frame!

Maybe one day we'll get the 4Runner Land Cruiser Edition and it can still be a land cruiser, but when we get the RAV4 Land Cruiser Edition we might need to redefine it all.

Back on point:
Here's how the 2024 Land Cruiser stacks up to some of its competitors as I see them (and acknowledging my comment earlier that Toyota has this segment so whipped that they basically have two vehicles to really make a point)!

Land Rover Defender (18 mpg combined and 23.8 gallons available) = 428.4 miles
Jeep Grand Cherokee 4xe (23 mpg combined and 19.0 gallons) = 437 miles
Jeep Wrangler (20 mpg combined and 17.2 gallons = 344 miles
Toyota 4Runner (17 mpg combined and 23 gallons) = 391 miles
2024 Toyota Land Cruiser (23 mpg combined and 18 gallons) = 414 miles

Is it just me or is that all really crappy?

How could I forget — yes, the hallmark feature.

Nice comparison; all pretty crummy. I recall the Tahoe and Wrangler diesels pulled good range, the former of around 600 miles.

Imagine if we could even have the little over-spare sub tank on the 250 — those 10 or 12 gallons would yield more than 200 miles of range.

 

[TheLCProject]

How could I forget — yes, the hallmark feature.

Nice comparison; all pretty crummy. I recall the Tahoe and Wrangler diesels pulled good range, the former of around 600 miles.

Imagine if we could even have the little over-spare sub tank on the 250 — those 10 or 12 gallons would yield more than 200 miles of range.

Even at 23mpg combined an extra 10-15L (2-4 gal approx) would make a difference, especially if fit and finish is OEM and mounted low and doesn't require an extra 100lbs of steel or aluminum bumper (and then fuel) behind the rear axle.

 

[MeWantLC]

We've already established that the hallmark feature of the US market Land Cruiser is abysmal range. I thought of another Hallmark of the Land Cruiser nameplate..a body on ladder frame!

Maybe one day we'll get the 4Runner Land Cruiser Edition and it can still be a land cruiser, but when we get the RAV4 Land Cruiser Edition we might need to redefine it all.

Back on point:
Here's how the 2024 Land Cruiser stacks up to some of its competitors as I see them (and acknowledging my comment earlier that Toyota has this segment so whipped that they basically have two vehicles to really make a point)!

Land Rover Defender (18 mpg combined and 23.8 gallons available) = 428.4 miles
Jeep Grand Cherokee 4xe (23 mpg combined and 19.0 gallons) = 437 miles
Jeep Wrangler (20 mpg combined and 17.2 gallons = 344 miles
Toyota 4Runner (17 mpg combined and 23 gallons) = 391 miles
2024 Toyota Land Cruiser (23 mpg combined and 18 gallons) = 414 miles

Is it just me or is that all really crappy?

I must confess: had been looking at Land Rovers.

 

[TWILLY]

I must confess: had been looking at Land Rovers.

Did looking at it cause a malfunction?

 

[Smitty512]

How could I forget — yes, the hallmark feature.

Nice comparison; all pretty crummy. I recall the Tahoe and Wrangler diesels pulled good range, the former of around 600 miles.

Imagine if we could even have the little over-spare sub tank on the 250 — those 10 or 12 gallons would yield more than 200 miles of range.

Our ecodiesel Grand Cherokee got about 700 miles on the highway per tank. It was insane.

 

[Jetboy]

The FJ60 which arguably is THE classic land cruiser, only has a 23 gallon gas tank and it’s MPG at the very very best is 15 mpg. But averages more like 12.5 doing everything.
That combo barely get you 300 miles.

I think the FJ40 would disagree with the 60 being the classic model.

In my 5th gen 4R with comparable range, I was fine with the stock fuel tank so long as I didn't tow anything and I was limited to the lower 48. There are very few places if any in the lower 48 you can't go out and back on single tank of fuel with 300 miles of range. The range on an FJ60 is pretty weak. But it was also built and spec'd for north america when the USA had a national maximum speed limit of 55mph. At 80mph, I'd bet the FJ60 would struggle to get 200 miles per tank. My FJ40 gets around 10mpg or less and has a 16 gallon tank. So, we're talking 100-150 miles max. At today's highway speeds, I'd be lucky to see 100 miles. Gas cans are required even when I trailer it to the trailhead.

When you hook up a trailer - that goes out the window. FJ60 wasn't intended for towing much or at all. It only had 3500lbs tow rating in 1990's tow ratings, that would be about 2000lb tow rating in today's standards. The LC250 is rated for 6500 lbs. IMO a vehicle rated to tow should include in the tow rating standard the ability to pull a typical load at least 150 miles on the factory fuel tank at highway speed under normal conditions. I'm not sure the LC250 can do that. If it's only getting 7-8mpg, the effective fuel range is about 14 gallons before the light starts flashing. So, we're talking about 98 miles of range until the low fuel light is on and 126 miles of range until you're empty. From Tonopah to Ely nevada (a segment I regularly traveled between Utah and Tahoe) it's 168 miles. The LC250 could not make it across with a trailer. And it's not really close. It's 40 miles short. The highway between Salina and Green River in Utah is 106 miles between fuel. You could probably make it if you don't have a head wind. If you do - you can't.

To me it's just a little perplexing that Toyota would decide not to put more fuel capacity in. The cost is nothing. It's just a choice the designers made when they were designing it. And I think it's the result of spec sheet driven choices made by people who may have never driven a Land Cruiser and have never used one like many of us want to. "Design goal says 300 miles, what's that calculate to? Okay, give it 14 gallons to empty."

I think it'll be fine for people who don't tow with it. It's not materially worse in stock form than the prior generations. It just would have been so damn easy to give it 22 gallons and all of the sudden it now has enough range to tow between fuel stations on the American highway system and go to the remote parts of the GSNM without worrying about fuel range. At the end of the day it'll be another issue to address aftermarket just like the jeeps who all carry extra fuel cans on the back.

We've already established that the hallmark feature of the US market Land Cruiser is abysmal range. I thought of another Hallmark of the Land Cruiser nameplate..a body on ladder frame!

Maybe one day we'll get the 4Runner Land Cruiser Edition and it can still be a land cruiser, but when we get the RAV4 Land Cruiser Edition we might need to redefine it all.

Back on point:
Here's how the 2024 Land Cruiser stacks up to some of its competitors as I see them (and acknowledging my comment earlier that Toyota has this segment so whipped that they basically have two vehicles to really make a point)!

Land Rover Defender (18 mpg combined and 23.8 gallons available) = 428.4 miles
Jeep Grand Cherokee 4xe (23 mpg combined and 19.0 gallons) = 437 miles
Jeep Wrangler (20 mpg combined and 17.2 gallons = 344 miles
Toyota 4Runner (17 mpg combined and 23 gallons) = 391 miles
2024 Toyota Land Cruiser (23 mpg combined and 18 gallons) = 414 miles

Is it just me or is that all really crappy?

The one thing I'd consider is that you normally don't run to empty. The Tundra says the Hybrid may not operate without a minimum of 5.6 gallons of gas in the tank. Not sure why. But I think it's fair to reduce the useful fuel range by about 3-5 gallons because most tanks can't actually use the entire fuel volume. If I apply a 4 gallon buffer to the range for a typical hold back amount - the numbers start to look very similar except the wrangler that has a pretty weak fuel range.

Land Rover Defender (18 mpg combined and 23.8 gallons available) = 428.4 miles (19.8 gallons = 356 miles)
Jeep Grand Cherokee 4xe (23 mpg combined and 19.0 gallons) = 437 miles (15 gallons = 345 miles)
Jeep Wrangler (20 mpg combined and 17.2 gallons = 344 miles (13.2 gallons = 264 miles)
Toyota 4Runner (17 mpg combined and 23 gallons) = 391 miles (19 gallons = 323 miles)
2024 Toyota Land Cruiser (23 mpg combined and 18 gallons) = 414 miles (14 gallons = 322 miles)

Tundra 5.7 (14mpg and 38 gallons) = 532 miles (34 gallons = 476 miles)
Tundra 3.4 (20 mpg and 32 gallons) = 640 miles (28 gallons = 560 miles)

That's a huge difference. One of many reasons I would (and did) opt for the Tundra for a touring vehicle in North America before I left for a few years in Alaska.

 

[TheLCProject]

Good point. Of all the specifications I perused to gather that data, only the Defender indicated the capacity as "available". I interpreted that to mean that there was unavailable fuel as well.

 

[TWILLY]

Good point. Of all the specifications I perused to gather that data, only the Defender indicated the capacity as "available". I interpreted that to mean that there was unavailable fuel as well.

To their credit, and setting aside random inoperability, Land Rover did do well with Defender’s payload too. I recall lower spec 110s crest 1900 lbs.

 

[W4632018]

To their credit, and setting aside random inoperability, Land Rover did do well with Defender’s payload too. I recall lower spec 110s crest 1900 lbs.

Are the new defenders unreliable? I’ve heard conflicting things, most being that they are actually quite stout. I remain skeptical.

 

[M1911]

Are the new defenders unreliable? I’ve heard conflicting things, most being that they are actually quite stout. I remain skeptical.

In the most recent Consumer Reports auto brand reliability rating, they had Land Rover rated 33 out of 34 — the 2nd worst brand for reliability.

 

[AndrewTK]

I just noticed the cargo capacity (volume) listed on Toyota’s website for the 250 - 37.5 cu ft. That is a full 10 cu ft smaller than the 5th gen 4Runner, I was expecting a slight reduction for the hybrid system but assumed it would be offset by the vehicle being slightly larger. Hopefully this is another case of bad/incomplete info on the Toyota site. We frequently haul our dogs in the back of the 4Runner (2 English mastiffs) and things might get a bit tight back there if it truly loses 10 cu ft of space.

 

[TWILLY]

I just noticed the cargo capacity (volume) listed on Toyota’s website for the 250 - 37.5 cu ft. That is a full 10 cu ft smaller than the 5th gen 4Runner, I was expecting a slight reduction for the hybrid system but assumed it would be offset by the vehicle being slightly larger. Hopefully this is another case of bad/incomplete info on the Toyota site. We frequently haul our dogs in the back of the 4Runner (2 English mastiffs) and things might get a bit tight back there if it truly loses 10 cu ft of space.

I expect it’ll have a larger footprint (ft sq) but less volume (ft cu) than the 5th gen owing to the battery bulge.

 

[Jetboy]

The new Sequoia has less cargo volume than 4Runner.... just sayin. Cargo seems to be volume is low on the design goal hierarchy.

 

[AndrewTK]

I expect it’ll have a larger footprint (ft sq) but less volume (ft cu) than the 5th gen owing to the battery bulge.

I think conceptually I was thinking the same thing but with a loss of ~22% of the volume I now wonder if the footprint is smaller in addition to the addition of the battery hump as compared to the 4runner

 

[jayp2]

I think conceptually I was thinking the same thing but with a loss of ~22% of the volume I now wonder if the footprint is smaller in addition to the addition of the battery hump as compared to the 4runner

I'm curious to see how the battery is protected from possible intrusion below.

Hopefully its more than body guage sheet metal.