Thoughts on LC250 Remote Touring Capacities (1 Viewer)

[TheLCProject]

Here's the answer..and it means that we likely haven't been thinking about that "payload" sticker correctly. (i.e. Expedition Portal might be right). With that being said, there is info on Toyota's website that's wrong - but perhaps weight and GVWR aren't it. It also means that the GX550 is a frickin' payload BEAST.

Credit to @TWILLY for triggering me to actually look at the regs.

49 CFR 571.110(S4.3) has the payload label regulations:

Federal Register :: Request Access

www.ecfr.gov

That requirement introduces the term vehicle weight capacity for use on that label we like looking for for payload, but it defines that weight as follows: Vehicle capacity weight means the rated cargo and luggage load plus 68 kilograms times the vehicle's designated seating capacity.


So, those commenting that Toyota seemingly has been deducting passenger weight from payload, it appears that's true. 68 kg is 150 lb.

So, a full payload figure needs to have the number of seats times by 150 added back in.

For the black FE with the sticker we saw:
6,835 lbs (sticker) - 5,037 lbs (website) = 1,798 lbs
Then vehicle weight capacity is 1,100 lbs (sticker) + 5*150 lbs = 1,850 lbs


For the GX550 Overtrail:
7,165 lbs (sticker) - 5,466 lbs (website - bare overtrail) = 1,699 lbs
Vehicle weight capacity is 1,545 lbs (sticker) + 5*150 lbs = 2,295 lbs

So, note that the Overtrail/+ can get up to 5,666 lb curb weight per the GX Spec sheet, but I used the lowest weight to show that the GX has a big discrepancy between the GVWR - Curb and the Vehicle weigh capacity....it's interesting.

So @TWILLY , maybe payload is fine with this generation, assuming we are interpreting the regs right. Thoughts?

 

[Fort9378]

Here's the answer..and it means that we likely haven't been thinking about that "payload" sticker correctly. (i.e. Expedition Portal might be right). With that being said, there is info on Toyota's website that's wrong - but perhaps weight and GVWR aren't it. It also means that the GX550 is a frickin' payload BEAST.

Credit to @TWILLY for triggering me to actually look at the regs.

49 CFR 571.110(S4.3) has the payload label regulations:

Federal Register :: Request Access

www.ecfr.gov

That requirement introduces the term vehicle weight capacity for use on that label we like looking for for payload, but it defines that weight as follows: Vehicle capacity weight means the rated cargo and luggage load plus 68 kilograms times the vehicle's designated seating capacity.


So, those commenting that Toyota seemingly has been deducting passenger weight from payload, it appears that's true. 68 kg is 150 lb.

So, a full payload figure needs to have the number of seats times by 150 added back in.

For the black FE with the sticker we saw:
6,835 lbs (sticker) - 5,037 lbs (website) = 1,798 lbs
Then vehicle weight capacity is 1,100 lbs (sticker) + 5*150 lbs = 1,850 lbs


For the GX550 Overtrail:
7,165 lbs (sticker) - 5,466 lbs (website - bare overtrail) = 1,699 lbs
Vehicle weight capacity is 1,545 lbs (sticker) + 5*150 lbs = 2,295 lbs

So, note that the Overtrail/+ can get up to 5,666 lb curb weight per the GX Spec sheet, but I used the lowest weight to show that the GX has a big discrepancy between the GVWR - Curb and the Vehicle weigh capacity....it's interesting.

So @TWILLY , maybe payload is fine with this generation, assuming we are interpreting the regs right. Thoughts?

Big ups for doing the research. Interesting to see the actual calculation.

 

[LCQ]

Another LC 250 FE placard from what appears to be a production model (2/24 build date).

Youtube video here @ 18:30 mark -

 

[OSS]

Crikey!

Likely soon we’ll find out:

That a Hybrid engine’s horsepower doesn’t equate 1:1 to straight ICE horsepower. Surprise!

That the fuel capacity in these gas tanks isn’t really what the spec says because of “over provisioning“.

Surprise!

That the MPG spec isn’t anywhere near what’s claimed due to the convoluted way it is calculated in the testing lab.

Surprise!

That approach, break over, and departure angles aren’t anywhere close to the published spec when actually measuring them because the calculation requires an archaic formula using trigonometry and calculus.

Surprise!

That the “All Natural” bread we bought at the grocery store actually has preservatives in it.

Surprise!

 

[Jetboy]

Here's the answer..and it means that we likely haven't been thinking about that "payload" sticker correctly. (i.e. Expedition Portal might be right). With that being said, there is info on Toyota's website that's wrong - but perhaps weight and GVWR aren't it. It also means that the GX550 is a frickin' payload BEAST.

Credit to @TWILLY for triggering me to actually look at the regs.

49 CFR 571.110(S4.3) has the payload label regulations:

Federal Register :: Request Access

www.ecfr.gov

That requirement introduces the term vehicle weight capacity for use on that label we like looking for for payload, but it defines that weight as follows: Vehicle capacity weight means the rated cargo and luggage load plus 68 kilograms times the vehicle's designated seating capacity.


So, those commenting that Toyota seemingly has been deducting passenger weight from payload, it appears that's true. 68 kg is 150 lb.

So, a full payload figure needs to have the number of seats times by 150 added back in.

For the black FE with the sticker we saw:
6,835 lbs (sticker) - 5,037 lbs (website) = 1,798 lbs
Then vehicle weight capacity is 1,100 lbs (sticker) + 5*150 lbs = 1,850 lbs


For the GX550 Overtrail:
7,165 lbs (sticker) - 5,466 lbs (website - bare overtrail) = 1,699 lbs
Vehicle weight capacity is 1,545 lbs (sticker) + 5*150 lbs = 2,295 lbs

So, note that the Overtrail/+ can get up to 5,666 lb curb weight per the GX Spec sheet, but I used the lowest weight to show that the GX has a big discrepancy between the GVWR - Curb and the Vehicle weigh capacity....it's interesting.

So @TWILLY , maybe payload is fine with this generation, assuming we are interpreting the regs right. Thoughts?

That's interesting! Thanks for sharing!

It's weird then that it said "the weight of occupants and cargo should not exceed ____ lbs." But it does maybe explain the 4Runner vs LC difference since the 4Runner has the 3rd row.

Doesn't help me much with the Tundra vs Corolla problem.

 

[TheLCProject]

It's weird then that it said "the weight of occupants and cargo should not exceed ____ lbs."

Good point. The regs require that specific language..

But also as I reread it now, I understand the vehicle capacity weight to include the weight of the passengers. My theory is bunk I think.

 

[TWILLY]

Big ups for doing the research. Interesting to see the actual calculation.

Interesting hypothesis. Thanks @TheLCProject for digging around in the regs! (Now we’re in spec Zelda.)

As jetboy noted, the thing that doesn’t compute for me is that the placard states very clearly that the combined weight of passengers and cargo should never exceed 1100 lbs. Now, if there were 750 lbs somehow missing from that value, I might have to go Land Cruiser shopping… I’ll do some more digging too.

 

[TWILLY]

Here is the door placard for a production model 1958. As with the FE, it shows a 1100 lbs weight limit for passengers and cargo, with a modification (yellow) for reducing that limit by two pounds (rather than reducing it 157 lbs, as shown in the FE placard upstream in this thread).

 

[AndrewTK]

Edmunds posted a video testing an Overtrail Plus and a First edition, they weighed them and the FE came in about 60 pounds heavier overall.

They also did a brake test at the end of the video and the LC exhibited worse braking performance while having more street oriented tires which was interesting as well.
Video:

 

[Jeremy556]

Edmunds posted a video testing an Overtrail Plus and a First edition, they weighed them and the FE came in about 60 pounds heavier overall.


They also did a brake test at the end of the video and the LC exhibited worse braking performance while having more street oriented tires which was interesting as well.
Video:

And Toyota.com is still incorrectly listing the LC as 5037.5lbs
The GX also smoked the LC in 0-60

 

[TWILLY]

Edmunds posted a video testing an Overtrail Plus and a First edition, they weighed them and the FE came in about 60 pounds heavier overall.

View attachment 3633862
They also did a brake test at the end of the video and the LC exhibited worse braking performance while having more street oriented tires which was interesting as well.
Video:

Thanks.

That's 600 or so pounds more than the curb weight that Toyota specifies for the 250 on its website. Be they inept or purposefully misleading, it's really disappointing to see Toyota's ongoing failure to correct misinformation about the 250's specifications.

I wonder if and how the brake systems differ given differing brake performance.

I am seeing more and more information about V35A-FTS main bearing failures, which is ominous.

 

[TheLCProject]

Thanks.

That's 600 or so pounds more than the curb weight that Toyota specifies for the 250 on its website.

I wonder if and how the brake systems differ given differing brake performance.

I am seeing more and more information about V35A-FTS main bearing failures, which is ominous.

Remember when everyone said that "they are basically the same underneath because of the shared platform"? Seems to be less and less true the more we learn.

This whole thing is a sh!7show in my opinion. They should take the company and their commitment to reliability and longevity back to it's roots instead of just CALTY designs..

This world needs longer-lasting, more durable goods produced and not cheaper, margin-friendly, shareholder-benefiting garbage.

 

[ryanjl]

And Toyota.com is still incorrectly listing the LC as 5037.5lbs
The GX also smoked the LC in 0-60

Don't really want to join the "s*** on the LC 250" parade as I've got a deposit on one, but one thing I've noticed is that Toyota's website lists the same overall height for all three versions. The 1958, Land Cruiser, and First Editions are all stated as having an exterior height of 76.1".

I know in the scheme of things this is a pretty minor quibble, but there's no way that all three of these have the same overall height. For one, the 1958 doesn't have any sort of roof rails, whereas the LC Edition has the crossbars and the First Edition has a roof rack. And second, the 1958 has smaller diameter tires than the others.

I care about the overall height because I park in a parking garage at work with a 6'5" max height, so whatever I do to my LC250 will be confined by that limitation.

Just seems weird that Toyota can't be correct on that detail.

 

[Jeremy556]

Don't really want to join the "s*** on the LC 250" parade as I've got a deposit on one, but one thing I've noticed is that Toyota's website lists the same overall height for all three versions. The 1958, Land Cruiser, and First Editions are all stated as having an exterior height of 76.1".

I know in the scheme of things this is a pretty minor quibble, but there's no way that all three of these have the same overall height. For one, the 1958 doesn't have any sort of roof rails, whereas the LC Edition has the crossbars and the First Edition has a roof rack. And second, the 1958 has smaller diameter tires than the others.

I care about the overall height because I park in a parking garage at work with a 6'5" max height, so whatever I do to my LC250 will be confined by that limitation.

Just seems weird that Toyota can't be correct on that detail.

If you look closely at the specs, lots of them are very wrong. I looked over all of them months ago and found tons of errors. A few I remember, were things like a 20 inch turning circle, something like 6 inches less front leg room than the 4runner and much less head room than the 4runner.

 

[AndrewTK]

And Toyota.com is still incorrectly listing the LC as 5037.5lbs
The GX also smoked the LC in 0-60

From the Edmunds article:

“During our paved track testing, the Lexus proved to be much quicker — despite the two SUVs weighing similar amounts (5,568 pounds for the GX, 5,629 pounds for the Land Cruiser). The Lexus accelerated to 60 mph in 6.7 seconds, compared to 8.3 seconds in the Toyota. The Lexus had more power, sure, but it was also easier to access. The Land Cruiser simply wasn't as eager to sprint off the line.”

That is a very surprising difference in 0-60, I’m not expecting sports car performance here but the time they measured on the LC 250 is slower than a 5th gen 4Runner (7.5-8.0 depending on trim).

 

[TheLCProject]

ant to join the "s*** on the LC 250" parade as I've got a deposit on one, but one thing I've noticed is that Toyota's website lists the same overall height for all three versions. The 1958, Land Cruiser, and First Editions are all stated as having an exterior height of 76.1".

This is how much Toyota thinks of its customers, like you. You don't deserve to know even the most basic of specifications prior to purchase because you live in a world full of idiots that will eagerly fill your spot in line and don't care at all about the overall height.

Keep in mind that these idiots are the same people who end up posting garbage to tiktok, facebook, or whatever other waste of time app after they filled your spot and bought it that "TOYOTA did me WRONG! Brand new LAND CRUISER does not FIT IN GARAGE (and they won't TAKE IT BACK!)"

Everything feels so seriously broken sometimes - and today is one of those days.

 

[Zill]

From the Edmunds article:

“During our paved track testing, the Lexus proved to be much quicker — despite the two SUVs weighing similar amounts (5,568 pounds for the GX, 5,629 pounds for the Land Cruiser). The Lexus accelerated to 60 mph in 6.7 seconds, compared to 8.3 seconds in the Toyota. The Lexus had more power, sure, but it was also easier to access. The Land Cruiser simply wasn't as eager to sprint off the line.”

That is a very surprising difference in 0-60, I’m not expecting sports car performance here but the time they measured on the LC 250 is slower than a 5th gen 4Runner (7.5-8.0 depending on trim).

That 0-60 times seems slow. In person, the 250 is way faster than even the 200 series due to the instant torque off the line, and the full time 4WD system allows all of that power to transfer to the ground.

I bet they had the 250 in it’s “off” mode when testing the 0-60, and the increase in time was from the auto start system engaging.

They need to test it in tow haul mode without the engine shutting off to make it a fair comparison.

 

[TWILLY]

This is how much Toyota thinks of its customers, like you. You don't deserve to know even the most basic of specifications because you live in a world full of idiots that will eagerly fill your spot in line and don't care at all about the overall height.

Keep in mind that these idiots are the same people who end up posting garbage to tiktok, facebook, or whatever other waste of time app after they filled your spot and bought it that "TOYOTA did me WRONG! Brand new LAND CRUISER does not FIT IN GARAGE (and they won't TAKE IT BACK!)"

Everything feels so seriously broken sometimes - and today is one of those days.

Toyota's days of no-nonsense value and quality seem to have passed. It's now much murkier.

 

[Phillyd2]

And Toyota.com is still incorrectly listing the LC as 5037.5lbs
The GX also smoked the LC in 0-60

I'm Team GX everyday but I don't expect or even want this type of truck to smoke anything. 0-60 is maybe my very last consideration.

 

[Jeremy556]

I'm Team GX everyday but I don't expect or even want this type of truck to smoke anything. 0-60 is maybe my very last consideration.

I'm not usually too concerned with 0-60 either, but when I'm stuck behind that motor home going 9mph up the twisty mountain pass and get to the only 300ft long passing zone for 50 miles...

Hopefully, it's like Zill mentioned - engine start/stop, and the LC250 isn't really slower than the 5th gen 4runner.