Toyota Quoting Only 23 MPG on 250 Series (1 Viewer)

[mappable]

"Land Cruiser has received an EPA-estimated 23 MPG combined rating which is a higher combined MPG rating than any previous iteration."

23 MPG seems poor for a 2.4 liter engine.

 

[shane0mack]

This was already known. It's a rolling brick. I think the mpg is pretty good. Much better than the 10mpg I'm getting now.

 

[UZJ100LC]

This was already known. It's a rolling brick. I think the mpg is pretty good. Much better than the 10mpg I'm getting now.

The sequoia trd pro is an even bigger rolling brick with more aggressive tires, heavier, lifted, and a bigger engine and it gets 19/22. Something is really off about these numbers.

 

[RND1]

My Hundy gets 13.

LC is full time 4WD, Sequoia is part time 4WD.

 

[Rednexus]

It's 22 mpg city and 25 mpg highway. That's a pretty drastic improvement over my GX470 that gets 13-14 mpg city and 16-18 mpg highway (64% increase in city mpg and 56% increase in highway mileage).

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a60013224/2024-toyota-land-cruiser-hybrid-fuel-economy/

 

[UZJ100LC]

My Hundy gets 13.

LC is full time 4WD, Sequoia is part time 4WD.

The full time awd really does not have any significance on fuel mileage.

4Runner sr5 mpg: 16/19
4Runner limited mpg (full time awd): 16/19

It certainly does not explain the mpg difference from a a very large boxy lifted v6 being nearly the same mpg as a 4cyl in a smaller, lighter vehicle

 

[Oakleyguy]

The full time awd really does not have any significance on fuel mileage.

4Runner sr5 mpg: 16/19
4Runner limited mpg (full time awd): 16/19

It certainly does not explain the mpg difference from a a very large boxy lifted v6 being nearly the same mpg as a 4cyl in a smaller, lighter vehicle

Full time 4WD absolutely has a negative impact on fuel economy.

 

[marcfj60]

Some other stats to ponder:

I own a 2002, 2005 and 2011 4Runner. So one of each of Gen 3, 4 and 5.

2002 - 3.4 V6 5VZ-FE, SR5, curb weight about 4,000 lbs
2005 - 4.0 V6 1GR-FE (single VVTi, SR5, curb weight about 4,200 lbs
2011 - 4.0 V6 1GR-FE (dual VVTi), Trails Edition, curb weight about 4,700 lbs

With each generation there was a pretty big increase in size/weight from the previous. They all have Automatic transmissions and they all are part-time 4WD systems. They all are running Michelin Defender LTX tires. They all get used in mixed driving conditions so these mileage numbers are a relative apples to apples comparison for my driving conditions.

2002 = 19 mpg
2005 = 20 mpg
2011 = 19 mpg

So if the new US Land Cruiser (which is a rebadged 250-series, more in the GX/Prado/4Runner size class) gets 23-25, I'm impressed.

 

[UZJ100LC]

Full time 4WD absolutely has a negative impact on fuel economy.

Proof?

 

[UZJ100LC]

Some other stats to ponder:

I own a 2002, 2005 and 2011 4Runner. So one of each of Gen 3, 4 and 5.

2002 - 3.4 V6 5VZ-FE, SR5, curb weight about 4,000 lbs
2005 - 4.0 V6 1GR-FE (single VVTi, SR5, curb weight about 4,200 lbs
2011 - 4.0 V6 1GR-FE (dual VVTi), Trails Edition, curb weight about 4,700 lbs

With each generation there was a pretty big increase in size/weight from the previous. They all have Automatic transmissions and they all are part-time 4WD systems. They all are running Michelin Defender LTX tires. They all get used in mixed driving conditions so these mileage numbers are a relative apples to apples comparison for my driving conditions.

2002 = 19 mpg
2005 = 20 mpg
2011 = 19 mpg

So if the new US Land Cruiser (which is a rebadged 250-series, more in the GX/Prado/4Runner size class) gets 23-25, I'm impressed.

That is nearly a 20 year old engine. With 2 more cylinders and no battery for a hybrid drivetrain and they are marginally worse.

Why are you impressed with a 4 cyl hybrid getting 3-4 more mpg than your 20 year old outdated larger engine?

 

[carboncycles]

*sigh* and here we go....again.

 

[M1911]

"Land Cruiser has received an EPA-estimated 23 MPG combined rating which is a higher combined MPG rating than any previous iteration."

23 MPG seems poor for a 2.4 liter engine.

I think it is pretty good. My 200 gets 14.5 overall. The GX 550 is rated at 17 mpg combined with a 3.4L engine.

 

[carboncycles]

Proof?

I think you have it wrong...you originally made the statement that AWD does NOT impact MPG.

The burden is on you to prove that statement.

 

[M1911]

Full time 4WD absolutely has a negative impact on fuel economy.

No, it doesn’t. Look at the fuel economy ratings of the 5th Gen 4Runner. Compare the ratings for the Limited trim, which has full time 4WD, versus the other trims, which have part-time 4WD. There is no difference in the ratings.

 

[carboncycles]

No, it doesn’t. Look at the fuel economy ratings of the 5th Gen 4Runner. Compare the ratings for the Limited trim, which has full time 4WD, versus the other trims, which have part-time 4WD. There is no difference in the ratings.

Also, make sure you capture the way the EPA requires MPG to be calculated...they change often enough that is is NOT a fair comparison.

 

[M1911]

So if the new US Land Cruiser (which is a rebadged 250-series, more in the GX/Prado/4Runner size class) gets 23-25, I'm impressed.

Once again, with feeling, the LC 250 is NOT GX 460 / 4Runner sized. It is essentially the same size as a 200 series.

 

[M1911]

Also, make sure you capture the way the EPA requires MPG to be calculated...they change often enough that is is NOT a fair comparison.

Oh for goodness sakes, I am comparing CURRENT PRODUCTION 4RUNNER TRIM LEVELS. BOTH ARE FROM THE SAME MODEL YEAR, RATED USING THE SAME EPA RATING METHODOLOGY. YES I AM SHOUTING.

Go here: 2024 Toyota 4Runner Features and Specs | Toyota.com - https://www.toyota.com/4runner/features/mpg_other_price/8642/8648/8674

2024 4Runner SR5, part-time 4WD: 16/19/17
2024 4Runner Limited, full-time 4WD: 16/19/17

This is absolutely a FAIR COMPARISON.

 

[carboncycles]

Now add in GVW into both trims...just stating the trims is not enough.

Your comparison doesn't make sense to me...both systems have either a transfer cases or Torsen system that adds weight, and they both add parasitic drag to the main drive line.

I think the difference you are quoting above deals with a Torsen system that is typically real-wheel biased (i.e., not really AWD) until it detects slip in the tires...basically it's acting as a rear-wheel drive most of the time. However, don't quote me on that because I never cared much to really delve into the 4Runner as it was never practical for my needs.

This argument over AWD/part-time is kind of nonsensical IMO...buy what you want, read the specs..ask questions. But coming into a forum to demand or rant...silly (and amusing) IMO.

 

[UZJ100LC]

I think you have it wrong...you originally made the statement that AWD does NOT impact MPG.

The burden is on you to prove that statement.

I did by comparing the limited 4 runner with full time 4wd and the sr5 4runner with part time and they have no significant difference in mpg.

 

[UZJ100LC]

Torsen system that is typically real-wheel biased (i.e., not really AWD) until it detects slip in the tires...basically it's acting as a rear-wheel drive most of the time. However, don't quote me on that because I never cared much to really delve into the 4Runner as it was never practical for my needs.

you do realize the new LC also has the same torsen diff system that all land cruisers have? and I do not believe any of them are rear wheel drive bias.

im not ranting. just discussing mpg in a mpg thread.