2017 4runner v 2017 Landcruiser
- Thread starter Ryanmb21
- Start date
@Ryanmb21 I am definitely surprised by that, especially the fuel range! Something to consider though, I believe the rear cargo room is being calculated after the 3rd row on the Cruiser instead of the second row on the Runner. If you were to take out the 3rd row on the Cruiser you would have a lot more cargo space. Also the MSRP is a bit misleading, because the 4Runner price is the base price, as it can go up to nearly $50,000 with options, while the Cruiser's base price is its loaded price. There's still a big difference, but not a $47,000 difference unless you get a base 4Runner.
Ryanmb21
Expedition Leader
The rear cargo room after the 3rd row seats on the landcruiser is about 16 cu ft. I think the rear cargo room of the landcruiser is showing as less because they come standard with the folding third row seats. These seats eat up a lot of the storage room. They could be removed, of course. I couldn't find the figure with them removed. Also, the price of the 4runner is the MSRP for the off-road version (with crawl control and rr locker, i beleive without kdss) . So it's MSRP to MSRP.
Toyota needs to find a way to trim the fat off the landcruiser, literally and figuratively. For all that weight and bulk, I'm surprised that the landcruiser's payload capability is only a marginal increase from that of the 4runner's. Fuel economy and cost seem to be the biggest hindrances to owning one; otherwise they seem to be very solid platforms, if a little-watered down from the landcruisers of old.
Arktikos
Explorer
Wow, difference in price is greater than 4Runner out the door price. It's not often that 4Runner comes out looking like a bargain in an SUV cost comparison.
Note that today's 4Runner is much bigger than the 4Runners of old, and even larger than yesterday's 60 or 80 series Land Cruiser. Not a good trend, IMO.
Note that today's 4Runner is much bigger than the 4Runners of old, and even larger than yesterday's 60 or 80 series Land Cruiser. Not a good trend, IMO.
I do agree with that. The 5th gen is pretty close to the size of the LC80, one of the reasons I chose it. But the 5th gen does manage to weigh substantially less.
I was most surprised to read today that a new F150 4x4 crew cab weighs less than a 4runner?! guess that aluminum body really helps.
Ryanmb21
Expedition Leader
Interesting about the weight of a f150, I had to look it up. From Ford.com the XLT 4wd 5.5ft bed is 4,729lbs and it look like ~1,650lbs of payload? I guess it depends on package... It's also 231 inches long.
I agree. I think the LC80 and 100 are better comparisons to the 5th gen 4runner than the current LC200. And not to knock the Landcruiser brand (because deep down, I'm a Toyota fan and I'd readily buy a LC200 if I had the money to spare), I view the 5th gen 4runner as the spiritual successor the LC80 and, to a lesser degree, the LC100. I think the 4runner's simplicity, robustness, and go-anywhere utility highlights a lot of the features that made the older landcruisers so widely respected and sought after.
And with the way Toyota has positioned the LC200, especially in terms of price, I do think they have been trying to market it as a competitor to other luxury SUV's (Cadillac Escalade, Range Rover, ect.) while positioning the 4runner as a more affordable Landcruiser (or Landcruiser "lite" as you put it).
Ryanmb21
Expedition Leader
The Land cruiser is so highly touted. I'm sure for good reason. So commonly i read about it's 25 year service life, it's described as heavy duty while the 120 and 150 prados and 4runners are described as light duty.
Before I did the comparison, my perception was that the LC200 would much bigger, more powerful, more heavy duty.
What the numbers sort of show is that:
-it's about 3% bigger
-it's 22% heavier
-it's equal in payload
-has about 15% better power to weight ratio
-it's about 17-20% less efficient
-can tow 3,000 lbs more
-it's much more expensive
Before I did the comparison, my perception was that the LC200 would much bigger, more powerful, more heavy duty.
What the numbers sort of show is that:
-it's about 3% bigger
-it's 22% heavier
-it's equal in payload
-has about 15% better power to weight ratio
-it's about 17-20% less efficient
-can tow 3,000 lbs more
-it's much more expensive
The payload surprised me; I had always assumed that the LC200 had a higher payload by a greater margin.
I'm also surprised by how the 2017 4runner's mpg had been downgraded to 20 highway. I think previous years had been rated at 21 or 22 mpg and I don't think there have been any real changes to the 4.0L engine. 20mpg is much closer to what i get on a regular basis, with 21-22mpg being achieved only under the most ideal of circumstances.
camodog
Adventurer
This right here. I went with the trail premium, however the old lady wanted all the creature comforts of a limited. If Toyota made a limited with the 4wd system of the trail premium we would have bought that instead. Like a LC Lite as you put it.
Clutch
<---Pass
Just out of curiosity, how do the numbers compare to the base model GX LC200 that they get in Australia?
Would you mind running the numbers? You're a much better math wiz than me.
http://www.toyota.com.au/landcruiser-200/specifications/gx-turbo-diesel-auto
