Thoughts on LC250 Remote Touring Capacities

[M1911]

Most of that equipment can encroach on what our camper cost and causes the rig to get around the same MPG (I get around 11-13 mpg towing our camper). The difference is that our camper has AC, fridge, two beds, a bathroom, water and sewer hookups, allows for one to stand up and walk around, and the daily-driver functionality of the rig is maintained. We spend ~15-20 nights a year in our camper and would spend more other than the annoyance/distraction of full-time jobs.

When I was a kid my dad and I took lots of trips out west in S-10 trucks and just camped along the way. "Overlanding" before it was a thing.

Yup, you've got a real bathroom and when you are offroading your rig is lighter because you left all that stuff at the campground. And when you are commuting you aren't lugging all that stuff around either.

I'm sure there are some folks who do actually camp in the wilderness out of their rigs. But how many people really need the range for long-distance, off-road touring in the US?

On another forum, a fellow described his experience with a couple wannabe overlanding influencers. They were at a large campsite in Maine where they spend a couple weeks every summer. This is the sort of campsite which is suitable for pickups pulling longer trailers and RVs. One morning, a couple in a spotless Tacoma with a rooftop tent pulled in about 9 AM. The woman filmed as the man was setting up their campsite. They did multiple takes to get it right, partly because the fellow was having trouble figuring out how to raise his rooftop tent.

Then they built a fire. They cooked a breakfast on an off-screen camp stove and then moved the cast iron pan over the fire to pretend they had cooked breakfast over the fire. They filmed themselves "relaxing" at their campsite before packing up their spotless Tacoma and driving away.

 

[TWILLY]

What has for years set Land Cruiser apart was its combination of small size and high capacity. Like the 80 series; it can fit in places Jeeps do but carry nearly a ton. No other vehicle in the US market can do this. This is the perfect recipe for remote touring, and particularly for extended stay in hard to access places that lack drinking water or facilities otherwise, as still can be found in the US SW and NW MX. For example, the number of days I can stay fishing at a difficult to reach remote beach in Mexico or at remote camps in the Sonoran desert is a direct result of payload and the corresponding amount of drinking water and ice I can carry for number of people in my group. A similar case can be made for route selection, range, payload and, fuel capacity. This is precisely how my family has used Land Cruisers for more than three decades, and so it's disappointing to see capacities decline to the point that, as with the 250, they are, according to the tech specs earlier published, nearly or actually disqualifying for precisely the sort of travel that has for so long been Land Cruiser's unique domain.

 

[TheLCProject]

It doesn't really matter how many people want/need the range or who will actually use it.

There are those of us that actually use the vehicles well beyond "normal" usage..and being able to have 450 miles of total range (250 or so miles offroad) without bolting on aftermarket gas cans and carriers sure would be nice.

Same thing with payload. I don't want extra payload capacity to carry more gear. I want extra payload capacity so that there's extra margin between my usage and the vehicle's design.


Like TWILLY is saying, it's the difference between having to go out and back after just a couple days instead of being able to say out there for a week or longer and really explore different parts of a larger, remote area. You can mitigate water load with in-field water treatment in places that aren't the desert, but fuel and food can weigh a lot and can really shorten how long you can stay out.

 

[M1911]

It doesn't really matter how many people want/need the range or who will actually use it.

There are those of us that actually use the vehicles well beyond "normal" usage..and being able to have 450 miles of total range (250 or so miles offroad) without bolting on aftermarket gas cans and carriers sure would be nice.

Same thing with payload. I don't want extra payload to carry more gear. I want extra payload so that there's extra margin between my usage and the vehicle's design.

Payload doesn't come for free. It requires stiffer suspension (worse ride) and extra weight. That weight reduces fuel economy and in today's CAFE-driven environment, every MPG counts.

 

[TheLCProject]

Payload doesn't come for free. It requires stiffer suspension (worse ride) and extra weight. That weight reduces fuel economy and in today's CAFE-driven environment, every MPG counts.

Added "capacity" in a few places above to try and make my point more clearly since it appears it was misunderstood.

 

[Rednexus]

What has for years set Land Cruiser apart was its combination of small size and high capacity. Like the 80 series; it can fit in places Jeeps do but carry nearly a ton. This is the perfect recipe for remote touring, and particularly for extended stay in hard to access places that lack drinking water or facilities otherwise, as still can be found in the US SW and NW MX. For example, the number of days I can stay fishing at a difficult to reach remote beach in Mexico or at remote camps in the Sonoran desert is a direct result of payload and the corresponding amount of drinking water and ice I can carry for number of people in my group. A similar case can be made for route selection, range, payload and, fuel capacity. This is precisely how my family has used Land Cruisers for more than three decades, and so it's disappointing to see capacities decline to the point that, as with the 250, they are, according to the tech specs earlier published, nearly or actually disqualifying for precisely the sort of travel that has for so long been Land Cruiser's unique domain.

For that I would definitely prefer a over-designed, solid-axle rig. I'll personally never use my GX for that kind of touring. I have been outside of society for a week or two at a time before, but it's typically on backpacking trips. My trips are mostly pavement, some dirt, and sections of wheeling.

Someone on another thread mentioned this - but honestly the best-bet for that kind of touring may be a 2019+ Ford F-250 with 7.3 Godzilla gas V8. A proven, simple, and reliable rig. Big SFA up front, big Sterling rear axle, can be had for around $65K for a stripper base model. Way too big for any real wheeling east of the 100th meridian, but perhaps not too big for open country out West. Honestly I bet it would get similar MPG - or better - than an 80 series and have 2X the power.

 

[M1911]

Added "capacity" in a few places above to try and make my point more clearly since it appears it was misunderstood.

No, it wasn't misunderstood.

Again, I go back to this: how many people in the US actually want or need that capacity?

I argue that the number is low. And, as I said, capacity doesn't come for free. If you are going to take the existing rig and add payload capacity (increasing the max gross weight), then you need to beef up the frame, suspension, axles, brakes, etc., and now your ride is worse and your fuel economy is worse.

If you are going to keep the max gross weight the same and reduce equipment in order to have more payload, then you are leaving out a lot of features that people want. Look no further than right here in this forum where people are whining that it needs to have a 4-zone climate control system with vents coming out the ceiling -- that sort of system adds weight and cost. And if you reduce the empty weight but keep the current max gross weight, then the ride when you are driving around town will be worse.

Nothing comes for free and everything is a trade-off. It makes sense that Toyota is designing the US-spec LC for the bulk of the market, not for a small subset of enthusiasts.

 

[M1911]

It doesn't really matter how many people want/need the range or who will actually use it.

It absolutely does matter to Toyota. They are designing the truck for the US market to meet the needs of the largest group of buyers, not a small, outlier group of enthusiasts.

 

[TWILLY]

the best-bet for that kind of touring may be a 2019+ Ford F-250 with 7.3 Godzilla gas V8. A proven, simple, and reliable rig. Big SFA up front, big Sterling rear axle, can be had for around $65K for a stripper base model. Way too big for any real wheeling east of the 100th meridian, but perhaps not too big for open country out West. Honestly I bet it would get similar MPG - or better - than an 80 series and have 2X the power.

The best bet for this kind of touring is, or was, a Land Cruiser. (It's amazing that I need to even say that on this forum.)

I have spent years thinking about replacement. I had high hopes for the 250; I was ready to buy one. Everything, including single-cab trucks, come with major compromises. But, the topic of Land Cruiser replacement, given that it probably won't/can't be the new US market Land Cruiser, is fodder for a different thread.

 

[tacoshawn]

Toyota is a ‘build-to-stock’ company. They set their product design, their product mix and their factory and supply chain capacity to their plan. Then they execute per the plan. This gives them better quality and inventory control and allows them to be deliberate in allocating their design $$$ and factory capital. If there is a gap in the product family they will consider it for the next round. This is why there is no ‘ordering’ and the mix of GX550 variants is even known publicly.

When they do decide to do a niche product (Lexus LFA for instance) it is deliberately limited and done for a specific reason. Such as to show a flagship capability.

So, Toyota will sell everything they choose to build at the end of the day, regardless of what each of us many individually want. They will get close, maybe, on the timeline they choose. At the end of the day 99+% of their portfolio are mass produced vehicle for mass global consumption (the LC 500 is an exception as you can actually do a specific order).

They are a successful conservative company who will not change who they are or how they operate. They will happily let Ineos have the niche solid axle SUV portion, they happily leave the 3/4 Ton and higher segments to the GM/Ford/Ram.

So, for Toyota corporate the answer to both dealers and customers is - if what we have doesn’t meet your need keep what you have, buy used, buy something else or wait for someday.

 

[Rednexus]

The best bet for this kind of touring is, or was, a Land Cruiser. (It's amazing that I need to even say that on this forum.)

I have spent years thinking about replacement. I had high hopes for the 250; I was ready to buy one. Everything, including single-cab trucks, come with major compromises. But, the topic of Land Cruiser replacement, given that it probably won't/can't be the new US market Land Cruiser, is fodder for a different thread.

I should have caveated my response in that it's the best-bet in the absence of a actual SFA Land Cruiser, which we haven't had since the 80 stopped production in 1997 and are probably never going to get state-side .

Seriously - HD front and rear solid axles, pushrod V8 with port injection, big steel frame, good parts availability, locker available on every trim, available as a stripper model with cloth seats and vinyl floors. All of the things many of the folks who don't like the LC250 or even 100 or 200 are clamoring for. All at your local Ford dealer.

 

[Jetboy]

Where in the US is remote touring capabilities really needed?

I can certainly understand it in the Australian Outback or much of Africa. But where in the US are such capabilities really needed?

Most people in the US who are "into overlanding" it seems to me don't actually overland. Instead, they haul around a bunch of heavy and expensive equipment on their rig which they daily drive but hardly ever use.

Here:

Payload capacity has never been a factor I've considered or a holdup to anything I've ever wanted to do on an off-road adventure. In addition to the number being essentially meaningless in terms of relationship to actual carrying capability in real life, it's also never been a real issue that weight was a problem before volume. The volume is the limiting factor in every situation I've wanted for more stuff to take on a longer adventure. And for that - full size trucks carry a lot more volume. As a daily driver I like the SUV. But as a vehicle I'm going adventuring in for long distances or over long time periods - trucks are hard to beat.

I do think the fuel capacity is a bummer on the newer GA-F midsize SUV group. Mostly because it means you can't really tow very well or you'll need gas cans mounted on the tongue of the trailer. That's IMO a real problem that I'll actually experience and have had in my last 4Runner. Something I think Toyota could have and should have done better. Whatever it's rated to tow - it should be able to tow at least 200 miles on a tank of fuel. That at least gets you everywhere on the interstate highway network in the lower 48. Unloaded - it's probably fine. I just watched the TFL 110 mile test loop in Colorado and the new Tacoma got over 26mpg. That's incredible IMO for a non-hybrid. Similar real world MPG in a 4R or LC250 would get you around 400 miles between fuel stops. That's enough for me. An extra 10 gallons would extend that to 650 miles.

 

[TWILLY]

I should have caveated my response in that it's the best-bet in the absence of a actual SFA Land Cruiser, which we haven't had since the 80 stopped production in 1997 and are probably never going to get state-side .

Seriously - HD front and rear solid axles, pushrod V8 with port injection, big steel frame, good parts availability, locker available on every trim, available as a stripper model with cloth seats and vinyl floors. All of the things many of the folks who don't like the LC250 or even 100 or 200 are clamoring for. All at your local Ford dealer.

I hear you. Setting aside reliability, I’m quick to appreciate the elegance and utility of a base spec rear locked f-250. But full sized trucks leave a lot to be desired for remote touring. You’re ceding a wagon format altogether, and a shortish wheelbase is limited to two passengers. Less appreciated is the ride quality and lack of axle flex—the head toss of a day on dirt is, relative to a LC, exhausting.

LC 250 was so close. The payload still listed on the website of 1700 lbs would be workable, and, despite my wincing at the smaller diff, I could muster trust of Toyota to engineer to capacity. I know that payload as a metric is elusive, but at the end of the day it’s the least imperfect metric we have that enumerates the weight limits for which the truck was designed.

I hold out hope they’ll provide an up-capacity base spec trim in a year or two. I’ll now stop my breathy old-man-groaning into the wind, even though I know my fellow forum goers’ lives will be less rich for it.

 

[TheLCProject]

Another old man ready to spend his days shouting at the clouds. Welcome.

 

[TheLCProject]

@TWILLY

Are we missing something? What about all the stickers/TIS we've seen? Or are they being misled by the incorrect figures on Toyota's website?

Expedition Portal:
Overlanding requires payload and storage volume, with longer trips often necessitating days or weeks of water, food, and fuel. In addition, remote travel usually involves camping equipment, extensive recovery gear, tools, spares, and emergency supplies. All of this adds weight, so an overland wagon like the Land Cruiser needs to support a minimum of 1,500 pounds to meet our design criteria. Fortunately, the 250 is the good Land Cruiser it should be and comes specified with a curb weight of 5,037 pounds and a GVWR of 6,725; impressively, this results in a reported payload of 1,688 pounds—Go Toyota!

1,100lbs per the sticker of a press vehcile

@OGBeno Also, press event with non-production vehicles. Is this a new Toyota we've got here?

 

[TWILLY]

@TWILLY

Are we missing something? What about all the stickers/TIS we've seen? Or are they being misled by the incorrect figures on Toyota's website?

Expedition Portal:
Overlanding requires payload and storage volume, with longer trips often necessitating days or weeks of water, food, and fuel. In addition, remote travel usually involves camping equipment, extensive recovery gear, tools, spares, and emergency supplies. All of this adds weight, so an overland wagon like the Land Cruiser needs to support a minimum of 1,500 pounds to meet our design criteria. Fortunately, the 250 is the good Land Cruiser it should be and comes specified with a curb weight of 5,037 pounds and a GVWR of 6,725; impressively, this results in a reported payload of 1,688 pounds—Go Toyota!

1,100lbs per the sticker of a press vehcile

@OGBeno Also, press event with non-production vehicles. Is this a new Toyota we've got here?


View attachment 3608670

The plot thickens.

Website: 1688 lbs
Tech specs: 1360 lbs
Press truck: 1100 lbs

Next up: Door-listed spec on production trucks.

 

[TheLCProject]

The plot thickens.

Website: 1688 lbs
Tech specs: 1360 lbs
Press truck: 1100 lbs

Next up: Door-listed spec on production trucks.

Scott Brady seemingly confirming that the specs in their article are based on "the recently released spec sheet". While he's responding about ground clearance and off-road angles, this reply would apply to weight and GVWR..

At least the First Edition GVWR from the VIN sticker matches the website for the FE.

 

[TWILLY]

Scott Brady seemingly confirming that the specs in their article are based on "the recently released spec sheet". While he's responding about ground clearance and off-road angles, this reply would apply to weight and GVWR..


View attachment 3610877




At least the First Edition GVWR from the VIN sticker matches the website for the FE.
View attachment 3610880

Show me the data! Let’s see that spec sheet and production vin plates.

It’ll be interesting if turns out that Toyota misled this reviewer on payload.

 

[Rednexus]

I continue to be disappointed with stock Toyota/Lexus SUV ground clearance. An Outback or Forester beats them by almost an inch. These should be 9" from the factory under the front skid. I'm sitting in the 10-11" window lifted.

 

[Fort9378]

I continue to be disappointed with stock Toyota/Lexus SUV ground clearance. An Outback or Forester beats them by almost an inch. These should be 9" from the factory under the front skid. I'm sitting in the 10-11" window lifted.

Smaller components are easier to tuck in. They're also not BOF. Combine those two and it's very easy to shave off an inch or two. Subarus are very capable vehicles and adequately meet the needs of more offroaders than people like to admit, but its not necessarily apples to apples underneath.