2017 4runner v 2017 Landcruiser

C

calicamper

Expedition Leader
I scanned the thread here is my input I owned a 92 4 runner and a 93 LC. Number 1 the LC is wider and is a dramatically more stable rig especially on the highway at speed. No comparison the LC is in a whole different league. Off road the LC is great. 4 runner is very good. Given 98.8% of my use was pavement the LC owned far more yrs than the 4runner and after the 4runner pretty much left me with zero interest in ever owning a 4runner again. My LC cost far less than my 4runner to purchase both were used. The LC lost zero value vs the 4runner wasnt worth spit after a few yrs. If your buying used just get the superior rig and never question your decision again.

4 runner is a nice rig but the LC rules no debate about it.
 
Highlander

Highlander

The Strong, Silent Type
toylandcruiser
Click to expand...

The 200 is less than an 1” wider, same wheelbase and 2” longer.
Click to expand...

Compare to a TLC80?

You might be right. I just don't know the dimensions.
However, a neighbor of my gf's parents has a TLC60 and Lexus (TLC200). It could be just me but that Lexus looks huge compare to the old tlc60.

btw TLC60 is the most beautiful SUV Toyota has ever built. IMHO It just had everything right. simple and sophisticated.
 
P

PaulyWalnuts

New member
Highlander said:
Compare to a TLC80?

You might be right. I just don't know the dimensions.
However, a neighbor of my gf's parents has a TLC60 and Lexus (TLC200). It could be just me but that Lexus looks huge compare to the old tlc60.

btw TLC60 is the most beautiful SUV Toyota has ever built. IMHO It just had everything right. simple and sophisticated.
Click to expand...

Comparing a two vehicles with 28 years in between designs (the 60 and 200) is kind of silly but here you go.

60:


Wheelbase 2,730 mm (107.5 in)
Length 4,675 mm (184.1 in)
Width 1,800 mm (70.9 in)
Height 1,750 mm (68.9 in)

80

Wheelbase 2,850 mm (112.2 in)
Length
4,780 mm (188.2 in) (1990–94)
4,820 mm (189.8 in) (1995–97)
Width
1,830 mm (72.0 in) (1990–91)
1,930 mm (76.0 in) (1992–97)
Height
1,785 mm (70.3 in) (1990–91)
1,860 mm (73.2 in) (1992–94)
1,870 mm (73.6 in) (1995–97)

100

Wheelbase 2,850 mm (112.2 in)
Length 4,890 mm (192.5 in)
Width 1,941 mm (76.4 in)
Height 1,849 mm (72.8 in)

200

Wheelbase 2,850 mm (112.2 in)
Length 4,950 mm (194.9 in)
Width 1,970 mm (77.6 in)
Height 1,880 mm (74.0 in)
 
skyfree

skyfree

Active member
Highlander said:
cons
5.7 V8 is not as good as Ford's 6.4 gas with respect mpg.
Click to expand...

There is no Ford 6.4 gas engine. The F250's have come with the 6.2L since 2011. I had a 2012 F350 and it averaged 14.5 empty if I babied it, so not sure why you think the 5.7 V8 is worse on MPG. That seems unlikely but I don't have any stats to back it up.

The biggest problem with an HD truck is that the ride is punishing unless you put a lot of weight in the bed. Anything less than 1,000 lbs and you might as well call it empty because you won't notice much of an improvement. This is in opposition to the goal of travelling light for off-road technical terrain.

Overlanders love the gas engined HD trucks for good reason, but I have to tell you that trying to sell one used is very difficult. 90% of HD buyers are looking for diesel. On the plus side as a buyer they are a lot cheaper and readily available.
 
islandthymetaco

islandthymetaco

Observer
skyfree said:
There is no Ford 6.4 gas engine. The F250's have come with the 6.2L since 2011. I had a 2012 F350 and it averaged 14.5 empty if I babied it, so not sure why you think the 5.7 V8 is worse on MPG. That seems unlikely but I don't have any stats to back it up.
Click to expand...

The 5.7 gets around 14.5, on a good day. It's not as good on gas as advertised on the window sheet.
 
P

PaulyWalnuts

New member
Comparing a heavy duty, leaf sprung, work truck to a coil sprung, utility, Luxoverlander is not a fair comparison.

Also, the 5.7 will get more than 14mpg, depending on how its built and where it's driven.
 
Upland80

Upland80

Adventurer
F-250 vs LC? Where has this thread gone? The new F-250 is one bad *** truck. Very stout components and 2 venerable drive trains. Interior is that of a luxury car...I might get one actually. For off-roading or overlanding or whatever we call it these days...a full size F-250 vs a LC is just dumb. The LC will dominate all day, every day, twice on Sunday...period! If you're just going camping or exploring wide open desert areas then a F-250 will be a great option. If you're actually going on "Jeep trails" a F-250 is a dumb option...
 
T

toylandcruiser

Expedition Leader
PaulyWalnuts said:
Comparing a heavy duty, leaf sprung, work truck to a coil sprung, utility, Luxoverlander is not a fair comparison.

Also, the 5.7 will get more than 14mpg, depending on how its built and where it's driven.
Click to expand...

They are not leaf spring in the front and haven’t been for a while.
 
C

calicamper

Expedition Leader
fatcircles said:
What mph on the highway? I drove a 200 series from Portland to the Bay Area and never saw close to 16 at 40psi in the tires. Being light-footed, I still haven't seen 14 around town.
Click to expand...

My 4.7 does 15 in town and ran between 14-16 SF to Yellowstone last June. 14mpg was with a head wind at 80mph. 15.5-16mpg was no head wind 75-80. 65mph we’ve had tank averages at 18mpg but thats a rare case. The shocking one was a week cruising Yellowstone returned a tank average of 21mpg but that was all 35-45mph for a full week.

The 5.7 seems to return very similar results only far better power and no TB service
 
D

Dalko43

Explorer
fatcircles said:
Maybe the brand new F250 superduty IS identical in terms of build quality, and longevity, but no one would actually know until the new models get 400,000 miles+ on them without any significant issues. Guess we'll just have to wait and see.
Click to expand...

The historical Achilles heel of the F250 has been the diesel engine options (the 6.0 Powerstroke and the 6.4, both designed by International). The newer 6.7L Powerstroke (actually designed and built in house by Ford) has still yet to prove its long term reputation. That aside, the F250/350 chassis and the gasoline engines are pretty well tested at this point, and are reliable so long as you do the proper maintenance.

I'm a Toyota guy. I love my 4runner. I'll likely pick up an older Landcruiser as a project vehicle in the near future. But I can still acknowledge that other companies make good vehicles too. That's the difference between a fanboy and an enthusiast: being able to appreciate other brands of vehicles.
 
islandthymetaco

islandthymetaco

Observer
Dalko43 said:
The historical Achilles heel of the F250 has been the diesel engine options (the 6.0 Powerstroke and the 6.4, both designed by International). The newer 6.7L Powerstroke (actually designed and built in house by Ford) has still yet to prove its long term reputation. That aside, the F250/350 chassis and the gasoline engines are pretty well tested at this point, and are reliable so long as you do the proper maintenance.

I'm a Toyota guy. I love my 4runner. I'll likely pick up an older Landcruiser as a project vehicle in the near future. But I can still acknowledge that other companies make good vehicles too. That's the difference between a fanboy and an enthusiast: being able to appreciate other brands of vehicles.
Click to expand...

No ones arguing with that. But the fact of the matter is that what makes Landcruisers so popular is that they were consistently built 10x better than their competitors. That's a fact, not a fanboy-ism.

Like I said earlier, I love American trucks. But there's a reason why those aren't the trucks you see in the Middle East, in Africa, or anywhere that someone needs a 25 year service life being driven hard off road every single day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
188,461
Messages
2,905,308
Members
230,428
Latest member
jacob_lashell

Members online

Total: 1,981 (members: 31, guests: 1,950)
Top