The 4Runner - to me as a GX/Prado owner - looks totally different from all generations of the Prado/GX. yes I know that mechanically they are very similar and they share many other components, but the interior and exterior design language is very different and they have different target demographics as well.
Your Thoughts on the LC 250? (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter M4A3E8
- Start date
-
- Tags
- lc250 performance
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
I made that before the 6th gen 4Runner was released. Old pic. I did modify the C pillar. It's definitely the signature look for the 4Runner. I thought that would probably be the next 4Runner. The GX looked so close to a 5th gen that it seemed like that they'd unify the 4R and Prado in this generation. It would have made a lot more sense than have both to me.The picture of the GX you're using has been modified to take away some of it's non-4Runner look.
Not sure whether you did that or that's just the picture you found to use.
The difference is simple really.
Wide C-pillar = 4Runner
Wide D-pillar = Land Cruiser
Also, as I and others have said, for the last couple generations at least, the 4Runner has been the american-bro-version of the Prado. No one should be surprised they are similar.
The 4Runner looks similar to the GX/Prado, not the other way around.
But the profiles and overall styling are more similar between 4R and J250 than they are between J90/J150 and J250. The hood slope, squared styling, windshield angles, belt line, etc are all transferred pretty directly 5th gen 4R to J250. The Prado is interesting style wise. It's been a bit of everything at some point. First it was basically an LC70 lite. Then the J90 was very similar to a Rav4 - so close that aftermarket parts are shared. Snorkels for the J90 are the same fit for the Rav4. They've diverged a lot now, but they used to be very close style wise.
Performance advantages aside, it's gonna be tough to match the feeling of that oh-so-sweet, buttery smooth, 2UZ-FE
I'll be pretty surprised if the turbo 4/hybrid in the LC250 officers any tangible performance benefits over my personal 2UZ-FE....considering it has long-tube headers....an exhaust...a CAI...a tune...an upgraded valve body in the A750F behind it....and will soon have a set of 4.56 gears once ECGS gets done building the 3rd members....
But, I'll keep an open mind and maybe the 250 will surprise me.
If I were hopping out of a stock 1GR-powered 4Runner and into the 250, yeah than I can see the turbo 4 being a big upgrade
.
Last edited:
I think a big part is the transmission. The 8 speed is really nice on the low end. With 3.55 stock gears the LC250 ends up very close to 4.56 ratio in the GX. First gear net in the LC is 15.65 vs 16.05 in the GX with 4.56 diffs. On paper they look very similar. The turbo 4 has 317ft lbs at 1700 rpms. The 2UZ stock is really great at low rpm torque for a non-turbo engine and gets up to 290ish by 2,000 rpms.I'll be pretty surprised if the turbo 4/hybrid in the LC250 officers any tangible performance benefits over my personal 2UZ-FE....considering it has long-tube headers....an exhaust...a CAI...a tune...an upgraded valve body in the A750F behind it....and will soon have a set of 4.56 gears once ECGS gets done building the 3rd members....
But, I'll keep an open mind and maybe the 250 will surprise me.
If I were hoping out of a stock 1GR-powered 4Runner and into the 250, yeah than I can see the turbo 4 being a big upgrade
EDIT - looked it up. The 0-60 times hard to explain for the LC250. Using the same MT numbers, Gx470 is 8.5. GX460 is 7.5. 1GR 4R was 7.7. LC250 is 8.0. That's pretty disappointing for the LC250 - with the hybrid it should be significantly quicker. It should be mid to high 6's. For comparison an RX450h does a high 5's 0-60 with 308hp hybrid. The spec curb weight is less than 300lbs between the two. There's just no way the LC250 is actually applying full stated power in the lower gears.
Last edited:
It’s fast off the line, but instead of continuing to pull after the initial burst from the electric motor assist, it falls flat on its face and there’s really no additional pull effect like you would get with a naturally aspirated engine once you get in the higher rpm’s. It’s essentially always working at near 100% on a daily driving commute since all the power is low down in the power band. Revving the motor up really does nothing.
I didn’t notice it until after 1,000 miles since I didn’t want to abuse a new motor, but it was really underwhelming when I finally gave it the beans.
The 8.5-second 0-60 time is the pre-VVTI GX470. The 2007 VVTI GX470 - 270 hp and 320 ft/lbs - clocked in at a 15.7 sec 1/4 mile and 7.2 second 0-60 time, which makes sense with the 30 extra horsepower. The LC250 appears to be a 16.2/sec 1/4 mile time. Stock vs. stock, a VVTI GX470/4th gen V8 4Runner is not insignificantly faster and has a higher towing capacity to boot relative to the 250. Other reports on this forum indicate that the 250 has unimpressive towing MPG that my GX470 can equal or beat as well, which does make some sense considering the V8 just lumbers along and does not need to build any boost to tow.
So - again and on paper - I'm not seeing a lot of performance benefits for the LC250 over the older V8-powered GX470/GX460, outside of better unloaded fuel economy and a few tech options. Which is why I'm curious to drive a 250 to verify if my paper assessment is accurate or if I'm missing something intangible that the rig has that does not show up on spec sheets and online reviews.
If Toyota has only been able to increase unloaded MPG a bit in the Prado rigs since 2005, and performance and reliability are the same or worse, that's a pretty disappointing amount of progress in their SUVs over the past 20 years.
Last edited:
gray rider
SILVER Star
Among several dozen other vehicles I have owned in a previous life were a '67 Renault and a '72 Ford F250. In roughly the same 1/2 decade. But I'm not capable of comparing them to each another......
It is surprising how little Toyota has improve on the power/efficiency ratio on them. Particularly compared to the power deliver of their other hybrids and even their other vehicles sharing the same engines. The Grand Highlander nearly identical weight and only a bit larger physically. The base 4cyl turbo does 0-60 in 7.0 and the hybrid max is 5.6 seconds with a very similar hybrid design and the same engine. All I can figure is that Toyota is holding back power on the LC250 with the software. My guess is that it is based on the limits of the 8.2" axle, but hard to know. It should be perform better.
Edit - just for fun, the average realized hp of a 0-60 run in a 5k lb SUV in 5.6 seconds (GH Hybrid Max) is 195hp average over the 5.6 seconds. The same 5k lb SUV in the case of the LC250 going 0-60 in 8 seconds is averaging 136hp. That's a big difference - 30% less power is actually put to the ground by the LC250 at WOT vs the Grand Highlander Max with the same 4cyl and roughly similar hybrid design. Even the non-hybrid GH is 156hp to the ground averaged over the 0-60.
I don't care a ton about a super fast 0-60. But in this case the number is far enough out of the range of expectations based on published numbers and comparison with similar other vehicles it's worth noticing. I wonder if we'll see a tune that removes the torque limits and all of the sudden it'll drop 2 seconds off the 0-60 run.
Last edited:
I’m of the mind that their new trucks and SUV’s all drive better than the previous iterations but the lack of any notable improvements in fuel economy and range are a huge miss and almost inexcusable in 2025.
They (Toyota) are substituting power for long-term DR (durability/reliability) especially in the hybrid form.
That’s been their equation for the last 20 years.
They would rather have a vehicle that has less power/less fuel economy but goes for 200-500K vs the other options.
1FZ-FE/2UZ-FE/3UR-FE are perfect examples of this design philosophy.
My Prius is also a perfect example of this philosophy on the toaster end of things.
The achievement is meeting (or slightly exceeding) the fuel economy, performance, and reliability of the previous generation powertrains, and doing so with reduced emissions
I personally would have preferred more of a fuel economy increase, even if performance remained the same. Our Highlander toaster had no problem getting 36 mpg on a trip yesterday - loaded with the whole family plus the 4500# curb weight. The 2.5 NA 4 banger in that rig is fairly zippy to boot, and it's easy to feel the electric assist kick in when passing. It's not as quick as my GX but is more than adequate, and there is no turbo to worry about. The whole system is only 243 hp and it's a paltry 175 hp on gas-only.
It seems like the car/CUV hybrids can knock out legitimately impressive MPG numbers but the truck/SUV versions really don't.
Fuel economy being what it is why can’t they at least equip them with some larger tanks? I’m sure the jerry can manufactures don’t mind it tho.
Yeah the truck/SUV fuel economy improvements over previous generations are almost entirely due to the smaller displacement turbo engines. These hybrids do little to nothing for MPG. It's really just a performance add-on.
Tacoma: 278 hp; 317 lb.-ft. of torque; 19/23 mpg
Tacoma hybrid: 326 hp; 465 lb.-ft. of torque; 22/24 mpg
The HP and torque jump optioning the hybrid is huge. MPG not so much.
I wouldn’t be surprised if one of the reasons Toyota went with this hybrid design in their SUV / Trucks was to directly counter some of the negative sentiment regarding loss of performance with these new smaller engines. Because seeing these numbers is impressive. But I wonder if driving a new Tacoma back to back without hybrid and then with hybrid actually reflect what's seen on paper especially considering added weight to the vehicle when the system is equipped.
Last edited:
Interesting comments re: durability.
I could conjur an argument that hybrid assist during high demand situations could significantly reduce stress on the engine; with a corresponding improvement in longevity.
The durability of the new engines has yet to be proven. I would be surprised if they are as durable as the UZ/UR/GR engine series, but it will be years until we know for sure. They could turn out pretty well and a I-4 is a lot easier to work on than a V6 or V8 is, so maybe this is a non-issue.
What is interesting is that the TRD Pro Tacoma has a 7.1 second 0-60 time and 15.4 second 1/4 mile. Same powertrain as the LC250 and about 300 pounds lighter. So, why is the performance of the LC250 so much worse - at 8.0 seconds to 60 and 16.2 second 1/4 mile? I agree that it almost appears that Toyota has somehow sandbagged the tuning in the LC250 and it's not getting peak power to the wheels for some reason.
Catching Neutral
GOLD Star
Toyotas website has LC250 @5350/5445
The Tacoma @4375/4630
These are curb weights
Where do you get 300lbs ?
Low Delta 720lbs
High 1070lbs
The Tacoma @4375/4630
These are curb weights
Where do you get 300lbs ?
Low Delta 720lbs
High 1070lbs
Good point, the Land Rover Defender 110 P300 2.0 I-4 turbo direct injected makes better power (296-hp) and inferior torque (295-ft/lbs) though has superior fuel capacity (23.8-gal) and range (428-miles); allegedly LC 250 gets 412-miles range but we all know this is false.
2020 Land Rover Defender 110 P300
L663 Defender 110 P300 vs Land Cruiser 250
The point I am trying to make is the L663 Defender 110 P300, even from 2020 makes excellent, more than ample, usable power, has more range, and no hybrid system. I probably should compare the P400 3.0-liter I-6 MHEV Electronic SuperCharged/Turbo but I am not a fan. Maybe it's an argument of duty cycle (iForce Max) versus performance (Land Rover P300).
Strong point of the iForce Max is that it is both Port and Direct Injected; better for long term durability and less chance of having to media-blast the valves later down the line. Hate to admit I liked the way my old P300 delivered power better.
The TRD Pro Tacoma curb weight (5,332#) came from the linked Motor Trend reviews in my earlier posts, as did the LC250 curb weight (5,642#).
Which is another point - wow are these rigs heavy pigs. If the MT weights are accurate - guessing they are as they probably actually measured them - the LC250 weighs just as much as a 4x4 F150 crew-cab pickup. And it's <100 pounds lighter than a 2021 LC200 Heritage edition - despite the LC200 having the V8 and an 9.5 rear axle - and 500# more than a GX460 - which has a V8 but shares the 8.2 rear axle.
I hate to keep comparing things to my GX470 but it's around 5,100# wet per the scale at our local dump. And that's with Lexus luxury bloat, an iron-block 2UZ, a set of sliders, some recovery gear, and a bit of cooking gear in the rear drawers. Stock curb weight on a GX470 is "only" 4,900#. The LC250 is somehow a full 700# heavier and it lacks the iron-block V8. Toyota also reportedly gram-shaved things like suspension mounts and bolts on the 250 as well, and the battery pack can't weigh more than 200# or so. So, I'm confused as to where all of this extra weight came from.
EDIT: More information appears to confirm a curb weight of around 5,700# or so, based on the GVWR and the payload. It would be interesting to have someone who owns a 250 run it through a CAT scale to verify the actual curb weight.
It the ~5,600-5,700# weight turns out to be true, that is IMO too heavy for the rig relative to previous generations of Toyota SUVs and the drivetrain components the 250 has. It also may be at least partially to blame for the slow acceleration and underwhelming highway/towing MPG as well. This rig should really weigh around 5,000# given the smaller drivetrain components and aluminum 4-cylinder engine (which I bet weighs 300# less than my iron 2UZ and should more than make up for the battery pack).
Last edited:
