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.
