Recent content by T-Willy

Based on the information I've seen, I think the only real advantage of the 250 is the efficiency. I expect it also has a larger cargo area footprint (in sq. ft.) but Toyota only publishes volume (in cu. ft.), which in the case of the 250 is taxed by the battery bulge.

You'll be interested in the data and discussion here. I usually don't cross link forums, but I'm short on time.

US spec Land Cruiser 250 technical data published on IH8MUD a few days ago showed payload of around 1360 lbs, not 1687 shown on the website, and thus no longer benchmarking the 1686 of 300 GX. Those data also showed lighter duty running gear, like a 8.2" rear diff compared to 9.5" on the 300 and...

Toyota Canada website's estimate states that it is based on the Canadian government's official methods. So, it must be a difference between US EPA and Canada methods for estimating mileage. Also, the Canada website also said "up to" the metric equivalent of 27 mpg (highway alone, rather than...

For payload, my calcs (GVW - CW): GX550 (LC252): 1460lbs LC250: 1687lbs

Toyota's turbo 4 cylinder (as tested in new Tacoma) has been beating EPA estimates in tests I've thus far seen. It'll be interesting to see how close to estimate the hybrid is, or isn't.

Yes, we now have EPA's official estimate. (Still not yours.)

Yes, dimensionally and in overall design the 250 and 300 are very similar. We still await full specs on the US market LC250, so there's no way to compare its major components (diff sizes) and those of non-US LC250s and the LC300. The fact that Toyota put the 250 on Land Cruiser's classic...

Hopefully a simple swap with the GX tank is feasible. The aux tank is such a pain: displaces spare tire, which then consumes cargo space or necessitates a heavy bumper that further erodes payload, etc. A 21 gallon tank from the factory would have been so much more elegant. Toyota had to...

Stupid move, I agree.

Towing in 6000 lbs. I expect the payload will stick. I calculated it from GVW - CW.

I hear ya. It's the closest we'll ever see to a modernized 80 series, which is great. Problem is, my 80 series still work great. I imagine I'll pick one up in two or three years once the dust, hype, and prices settle -- a long-term replacement to one of our 80s.

I was able to download a spec sheet ("download details") yesterday from the Toyota website. They've since removed that function. But, for the 1958, it shows: Payload of 1687 lbs Fuel capacity of 17.9 gallons MPG 22/25/23 yields a range of around 375-450 miles (600 - 725 kms). Overall, not...

The question for me will be whether and how it is engineered for durability, reliability, and longevity, not similarity or dissimilarity to other vehicles. It could be that other models will be vastly more robust than their predecessors and less dissimilar to one another given the transition to...

Yes it was removed from the US website. They do not have an official US EPA mileage rating. It has not been removed from on the Canada website, where they do have an official govt. mileage rating.