Lexus GX550 Overtrail vs. Grenadier or new Toyota Land Cruiser?

U

Umbrarian

Observer
Dougnuts said:
With that said, there's no reason, that I'm aware of, that Toyota couldn't program it a bit differently in the LC.
Click to expand...
Will be interesting to see where the ICE turn on point is. I did not think to ask if it would different.

Tacoma’s with 2.4T and I-FORCE Max should be coming out soon. That will be a good indication
 
Last edited:
U

Umbrarian

Observer
FWIW, I am not looking for an argument. I live near Toyota North American HQ and get invited to events there. I buy all my Toyota's at the dealership next door.

Just sharing what I hear officially from employees there at these events. Yes I know it conflicts with published stuff, hence why I am sharing it.

Two things they would not confirm were MPG and fuel tank size. And yes, I knew all about the 27mpg number, which is why I tried to confirm it.

It is clear some folks not just this thread, are misinformed how I-FORCE Max works. It does not work like Prius or Highlander or anything prior. Surprising since it has been available for what 2 years now...

.
 
Last edited:
nickw

nickw

Adventurer
T-Willy said:
To be clear, rear diff spec for the J250 hybrid in the US market have not been published.

We do know that
  • the non-hybrid Tacoma and J250 (non-hybrid, non-US market) will get 8.2;
  • the Tacoma Trailhunter Hybrid, J252 and J300 get 9.5;
  • Toyota upsized rear diffs on hybrid vs. gasser Tundras too.

But we don't yet know diff size the J250 hybrid (US market).

The hybrid, given its torque, may well be paired with a 9.5, like Tacoma hybrid, or possibly an 8.7. Or, perhaps torque distribution of Land Cruiser's AWD is sufficiently supported by an 8.2 (which has been bombproof in 4Runner). We'll see. No matter, I trust Toyota's engineering.

The rear diffs on the prototype LC250s that have been shown in the US
  • appear different than that used in LC300 and J252 (GX550);
  • are of unknown size;
  • are not the 8.2 used in 4Runner; and
  • may not reflect production.
Click to expand...
Which generally aligns to what I posted - that was an excerpt from somebody's post, not my data. Just bringing up that that a LC250 = GX550 = Tacoma = 4runner is not correct, same global platform but potentially very different sub-components. Obviously if they are upsizing the locking diff on the Trailhunter they see a need for it....in the same way the LC has always had the 9.5" rear diff relative to the 8.X on the similiarly sized 4Runner, for a reason. If the LC250 has the "8 inch" diff it's certainly blurs the line between it and a 4Runner unlike previous Landcruisers.
 
T-Willy

T-Willy

Well-known member
Umbrarian said:
Info came directly from Toyota North American HQ at a recent event. They disowned the number. Great if it really gets that.

I don’t follow numbers in Canada. If you get a higher mpg, great for you

Actual numbers for Tundra and Sequoia are lower than EPA numbers from owners I know. This is almost always the case in USA with EPA numbers
Click to expand...

Interesting hearsay.

Toyota has published and not retracted the LC250 hybrid mileage estimate on its Canadian website, per Canadian govt. methodology.

I too look forward to Toyota publishing LC250's EPA rating for the U.S.
 
T-Willy

T-Willy

Well-known member
nickw said:
Which generally aligns to what I posted - that was an excerpt from somebody's post, not my data. Just bringing up that that a LC250 = GX550 = Tacoma = 4runner is not correct, same global platform but potentially very different sub-components. Obviously if they are upsizing the locking diff on the Trailhunter they see a need for it....in the same way the LC has always had the 9.5" rear diff relative to the 8.X on the similiarly sized 4Runner, for a reason. If the LC250 has the "8 inch" diff it's certainly blurs the line between it and a 4Runner unlike previous Landcruisers.
Click to expand...

Yes, much more component interchangeability on the new platform. Beyond wheelbases, which I expect will differ, it will be interesting to see how Toyota distinguishes between 4Runner (more recreational, I expect) and Land Cruiser (more robust staid tourer, I expect).

That said, it bears mentioning that 4runner's payload and cargo capacity exceeded that of the last generation of 200 series; in some important ways, those lines were already blurred (despite differential sizes).
 
U

Umbrarian

Observer
plainjaneFJC said:
Makes you wonder why they put 27 up in the first place.
Click to expand...
All I could get out of them was it was unauthorized and retracted. Oddly would not tell me fuel tank size either. They did emphasize the vehicle on display was a prototype and subject to change.

Most likely it will not meet the number as opposed to it will exceed it.

The 2.4T on the Tacoma is coming in at low-20s without I-FORCE Max.
 
nickw

nickw

Adventurer
T-Willy said:
Yes, much more component interchangeability on the new platform. Beyond wheelbases, which I expect will differ, it will be interesting to see how Toyota distinguishes between 4Runner (more recreational, I expect) and Land Cruiser (more robust staid tourer, I expect).

That said, it bears mentioning that 4runner's payload and cargo capacity exceeded that of the last generation of 200 series; in some important ways, those lines were already blurred (despite differential sizes).
Click to expand...
Regardless of payload / capacities the design philosophy with the LC's were always use larger components than necessary which was always a nod to the design intent. It was always understood LC's were "underrated", may have same payload on paper as a 4Runner but build quality, components size and behind the doors design limits were a much higher standard. Mechanically we saw that with the large diffs, control arms, TRE's, frames, HD engines, trans, etc.

Re; 200 vs 4R, the Cruiser had a much higher curb weight and GVWR, payload was partially a function of them adding a bunch of crap to the LC that ate into payload....but max a 4R and 200 to GVWR and take a trip world trip and see which one handles it the best.
 
T-Willy

T-Willy

Well-known member
nickw said:
Regardless of payload / capacities the design philosophy with the LC's were always use larger components than necessary which was always a nod to the design intent. It was always understood LC's were "underrated", may have same payload on paper as a 4Runner but build quality, components size and behind the doors design limits were a much higher standard. Mechanically we saw that with the large diffs, control arms, TRE's, frames, HD engines, trans, etc.

Re; 200 vs 4R, the Cruiser had a much higher curb weight and GVWR, payload was partially a function of them adding a bunch of crap to the LC that ate into payload....but max a 4R and 200 to GVWR and take a trip world trip and see which one handles it the best.
Click to expand...

I have owned and driven Land Cruisers for more than three decades and know well their robustness. But that robustness was also paired, in the 100 and more so 200, with an increasing luxury bloat that badly taxed those trucks' capacities, utility, and value. Toyota force fed the US market needless luxury crap.

The 250 is a welcome course correction to Land Cruiser's original utility, but in modern form. I'm eager to see how much of that robustness it retains as US specs become available.
 
U

Umbrarian

Observer
T-Willy said:
Yes it was removed from the US website. They do not have an official US EPA mileage rating.
Click to expand...

LOL, what I have been saying all thread. It was walked back.

US uses a test track, so no rating till a production vehicle.

How did Canada get a rating without a vehicle to test?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
188,188
Messages
2,903,577
Members
229,665
Latest member
SANelson

Members online

Total: 1,026 (members: 43, guests: 983)
Top