The original topic was for overlanding, spending a majority of it's time hauling a family OFF road. Can the 250 do that? Sure. Was that what it was designed for? Not really. Historically, the Land Cruiser was designed for that. As of recent, both vehicles may be starting to blend together in that regard, but that really hasn't been the case up until recently.
The LC wasn't specifically designed for overlanding; it's a solid platform that
can serve as an overland rig. The same applies for other pickup's and SUV's. And believe it or not, there are many overlanders who prefer 3/4 ton's for their added utility, especially when it comes to carrying a bed camper or heavy payloads. You should take some time to step out of your Toyota bubble and go converse with some overlanders in the Domestic and Full-sized section; apparently none of them got the memo that their vehicles aren't well suited to overlanding.
If you have such a problem with the whole "10x" numbers I was casually throwing out earlier to explain a point, find me ANY American sold vehicle in the last 20 years that bas been as overbuilt, luxurious, and reliable as a Land Cruiser that would be able to be driven offroad for it's entire service life.
My problem with the 10x number is that you're claiming it's fact. How do you even begin to verify an opinionated statement like that? These are the types of shallow, mindless arguments that fanboys tend to make.
All of those other subjective judgments (in bold) will vary from one person to the next. The newer domestic pickup's are very well built and quite luxurious, by truck standards,
IMHO. They also are designed for much higher workloads than your average Toyota vehicle, because they are first and foremost
work vehicles. I'm stating my view on this, and there is no point in arguing over personal opinions. But I will say that Chrysler makes the only two 4x4 vehicles in North America with solid front and rear axles and locking differentials (Power Wagon and Wrangler); in my mind, that counts for a lot as an overland-oriented vehicle. Toyota's LC lineup is good, but it doesn't have those features from the factory, at least not in North America.
How many of those do you see with 2,3, or 400,000 miles that are still being purchased as of this year, and then immediately being driven hard or off-road like all the cruisers on MUD are. I really haven't seen any competitors mentioned so far, just a bunch of whining about Land Cruiser owners overhyping their vehicles despite decades of evidence of quality and performance. I mean, there is a difference between being a fanboy of a 350z vs. a GTR. These aren't Toyota Highlander owners claiming their vehicles are the ultimate glamper 4x4, they are Land Cruiser owners.
They at least have some real facts to back up their fanboyishness.
This just proves my point. You talk about how LC vehicles are better than their domestic counterparts, which is a subjective statement in and of itself, and your primary reference for that "fact" are the anecdotal experiences of members on a LC-focused forum. I'm not seeing any facts here. You really need to get out of your Toyota bubble and learn to appreciate that there are other vehicles when it comes to overlanding.
I don't think anyone here is whining about or deriding the LC; any derogatory tone that you can detect on my part is directed purely at
some of the LC owners who get a little full of themselves.
And by the way, if you want to give some facts, start with giving a link to a Toyota website or document that specifically states that LC's have a 25 year service life. I'm amazed by how much I've seen that "fact" regurgitated here and elsewhere, and yet for all of my google searching, I've never seen it in Toyota's own literature.
