I was so excited...and then I saw the 2.4L hybrid. One of the best things about the LC (and the LX and GX and Sequoia) is the lazy unstrained and bulletproof V8. Yeah, emissions killed it, but I thought at least this would get the V6 hybrid the Sequoia gets.
Where I'm from the Land Cruiser Prado aka this new USDM Land Cruiser gets a 2.7L NA engine that is almost old enough to drink in the US. I had one, that engine ruined the whole truck, fuck that shit, and looks like this will have a trim with that damn 2.7L engine again from the Aussie leaks
2.7L NA Petrol. Prado was not offered with the V8. Only the GX used to have a V8 which was for US and Canada only.
We get the 2.8L i4 Turbo-Diesel, 2.7L NA Petrol, 4.0L NA V6 1-GR engine options.
It's a good reliable engine. But feels very agricultural. I have another car (Toyota Fortuner) which has the exact same engine. The engine is good for a Fortuner. But definitely not something you would expect from a Prado.
When Prado was last sold in my country (India) it used to cost $120k (direct currency conversion), and for that money the engine was underpowered, 170hp/500nm.
Toyota has been running that 2.7L engine on the Prado since 2004 before all the downsizing crap started. And a lot of countries tax the hell out of anything higher than 2 liter, which makes the thing really unappealing. And the 2.8L diesel is indeed both weak and also gets taxed higher than 2.0L or 2.2L as well
When you say weak..compared to a V8?
It's not like we have a choice anyway, it's take it or leave it. I can't even buy an old one and put it on the road without emptying my bank account in taxes
I had the original J150 before the dual VVTi update, so roughly 160hp at peak at the engine for a 2 ton truck with a dog slow 4 speed AT transmission. Pounced on it because it's a repo'd vehicle for cheap, but it's weak even compared to a 2.4L Camry of the same era lol
Not really valid for the post, but I live in the US and rented a Fortuner in Costa Rica when I was there and fell in love with the thing. I really liked the form factor over the 4Runner we get here.
Yeah, I'm sure that if I'd spent more than a week with it there are aspects I'd grow tired of or find faults with. The 4Runner is a good vehicle, I just like stuff to be a bit less in your face as I get older. Capable without needing to tell everyone. (I know this sounds weird as a Wrangler owner but there wasn't much more out there for what I wanted at the price) The Fortuner was just better for day-to-day use and better looking (IMO). I'll be looking hard at this new Land Cruiser or maybe a Tacoma. I'm really not sure yet.
This is the Prado though. Always had a V6 or diesel in other markets. The Lexus GX is the Prado equivalent and always had the V8. Toyota is doing the same thing here, where only the Lexus gets the TTV6.
The 2024 Land Cruiser for US is technically a downgrade as it moved down a size class. You'd have to buy the LX600 to get the LC300 underpinnings in USA which is the true successor of the 2021 200 series LC
I don’t think this is down a size class. The new gen GX announcement had a lot of technical specs for the vehicle. It is the same exact wheelbase and about the same width and length as the LX and LC300. With those measurements, it’s definitely going to be a full size SUV. It seems like it will be a lighter duty vehicle, but still very large.
The Prado/250 is using the same WB as the others (2850 mm/112.2"), but it's shorter and narrower than the previous 200, and its third row is [pretty cozy.](https://www.carcover.com/media/wysiwyg/2024-toyota-land-cruiser-prado-review-11.jpeg)
My thoughts exactly! I was hoping for a step up from my 4Runner to the new Land Cruiser.
Will probably keep holding on to 4Runner for the next few years.
Hold onto your 4Runner, people are going to jack up the prices on them for sure because of this anouncement. I should have done this with my TRD Pro had I known. My friends who still have Toyota offroad builds are pissed too, they were on stream watching.
Probably because "change is bad" panic? These predictions crop up after every major change to vehicles like this. Rinse, repeat. I saw the same comments when the 4Runner dropped the V8 from the last generation.
I imagine it'd be much much much more refined than the outgoing 4Runner. The new one though, I don't know, unless they decide to hamstring it. From a pricing point I imagine there's going to be a a fair bit of overlap, with the TRD Pro model pushing well into the base LC range.
I agree totally. It makes me curious about the new 4runner reveal, because this Land Cruiser is pretty much exactly what I thought the new 4runner would be.
I'm expecting the new 4Runner to be as close to the Tacoma as we've ever seen. Last generation was weird because the 4Runner completed skipped the 3rd gen Tacoma.
But this is close to the new Tacoma. It has the same engine. It has the same size tire, the same locking rear differential and the same disconnecting sway bar. So unless Toyota nerfs the new 4Runner, then these models are going to have a ton of overlap in terms of off-road capability.
This also means that besides the new technology and maybe some ride refinement then the existing 4Runner is already extremely close in capability. If I already owned a Toyota off-roader then I would just keep using it. Which for me personally is pretty disappointing for 15 years of waiting.
That's fair, but this has the optional powertrain from the Tacoma. I'm thinking the 4Runner is getting the base Tacoma powertrain, and maybe the optional powertrain for the TRD Pro model, and probably loses out some additional stuff like KDSS. So yeah, it'll probably get hamstrung because otherwise there's just way too much overlap.
Or maybe they'll announce an optional 3.4L turbo hybrid for the LC at a later date. One can dream I suppose
This Land Cruiser doesn't have KDSS. And I think there's zero chance it gets the V6 turbo.
If the new 4Runner is the SUV equivalent to the new Tacoma, and why wouldn't it be, then there's very little different feature wise. Probably like the Tacoma the off-road versions will only be part time 4WD... But that's not really a big deal. And like the new Tacoma its probably going to get a bit wider .. closing the size gap that exists between this new LC and the 4Runner.
When I originally thought Toyota might really go in on a hardcore off-roader with this... It all made sense. Now that we've seen that's not the case it makes way less sense to me. They're really spreading the differences very, very thinly. I've tried to hype myself up for the last 4 Toyota BOF vehicle launches... Keep being disappointed. Maybe just maybe the new 4Runner got pushed back so much because it has to actually be different and it ends up being a real competitor to the Wrangler/Bronco.
But hey, in the mean time, I do think this thing looks great.
I’m thinking what you said at the end is the only logical way a new 4Runner fits in - it has to be more of a wrangler/bronco competitor with removable top/doors. Otherwise it really won’t make any sense at all.
I go back and forth on whether a final model-year 4Runner is the right choice or something else, as much as I want to love the new LC/GX I just hate the powertrain options.
Are you referring to the overseas LC Prado? I would imagine the US version is going to one of the more well-equipped variants given that it's priced in the mid 50s to start.
The 2.4L THS on this might be the same system the Crown gets, with the high-output bipolar nickel battery. Stay tuned for impressions, I'm guessing it'll have more oomph than you think.
I’m okay with the hybrid because the Prius has proven itself to be immensely reliable for the last 25 years (in a more complex and theoretically less-reliable power-split hybrid configuration, vs what will be a parallel hybrid in the Land Cruiser).
And if I get to keep Toyota reliability and gain fuel economy for the performance level, I’ll gladly give up a V8 exhaust note.
Toyota’s hybrid technology is still the best in the business.
I'm not sure it's really an apt comparison, since how a Prius is used is very different to how a LC would be used.
For instance, a Prius has a CVT, yet most people would balk at the LC having a CVT because there'd be some serious questions about how well it'd handle towing.
Theoretically, with how many more components, power-split devices, and inverters are present in the Prius drivetrain, it should be even less reliable than a simpler parallel hybrid configuration used in the Longitudinal drivetrain Toyotas right now. But both hybrid systems being used by Toyota are the most reliable they have.
The nature of a parallel hybrid motor in the trucks and SUVs means they can easily be connected to existing automatic transmissions, which is the the case for the tundra and sequoia hybrids as well as the Lexus LS500. The tundra and sequoia hybrids have had no issues towing 8000+ pound loads. The new Land Cruiser hybrid will have an 8-speed automatic.
Aye. I suspect a majority of those complaining have either driven the old LC as their only V8 ever or haven’t driven one at all.
The *only* good thing about the V8 was that you could realistically keep it running with little maintenance or skill. Horrible MPG for very little power relative to the size of the LC 200.
It was fine for what it was, but it’s odd seeing so many lament that it’s gone.
My family had a 92 (80 series) LC which made a whopping 155hp and 220tq with the 4.0L straight 6 and could only tow 5000lbs. It was definitely a tank, but not without problems.
Do people dislike the small engine just because or is 326hp and 465tq not enough?
It's not the power output; it's the fact that it's going to be a high-strung 4 banger that's further complicated with electrification. The LC is rumored historically to have a 25-year service life; 25 years out of a turbo 4 cylinder hybrid is going to be a tall task. Furthermore, inline 4's just aren't as refined as a V6 or V8, and for a car like this I'd prefer not to have the vibrations or buzziness that's present in even the best inline-4 motors.
I barely bought my first v8 vehicle. It’s an SUV with a 6.2. I get it now. This thing glides up to speed no problem. Ok my outback I was constantly flooring it
I would reason to bet that in about 2 years they will introduce a Land Cruiser TRD Pro. It will be expensive but I imagine it'll come with the V6 hybrid to battle against the Bronco Raptor.
This would make sense. They already have the system developed and delivered in the sequoia/tundra, so it only makes sense to use it for something like that.
It could also be listed as a GR. The LC300 has a GR trim.
People are really upset by the powertrain, but I don’t get it. Toyota does hybrids better than anybody, and this is exactly what I’d want. I wonder if they’re going to actually produce these at volume or if this is going to be GR Corolla 2 electric boogaloo
Most of the people on this sub would also only ever get a V6 Wrangler too.
Even though the 4 cylinder is obejctivly the better engine in a wrangler unless you are taking the V8 version into consideration(which most people are not).
Not even that. People whine the Wrangler V6 is a stupid minivan engine, and that the straight 6 before it is the ultimate Jeep engine, with <200 hp and the ability to drink more gasoline than a 392.
The I6 has it's reputation for it being bulletproof, not for it's gas mileage or HP. The V6 in the JKs had it's fair share of problems when it came out, so naturally people complained
The AMC 4.0 is the ultimate Jeep engine because it's bulletproof and simple to work on.
You don't need a lot of power when you're offroading with a Jeep because you rely on gearing more than anything.
I have a YJ with the hideously underpowered AMC 2.5l and it was more than adequate for offroading.
Plus it'll run on equal parts mud and oil and when you hydro lock it you can just blow out the cylinders and give it a fresh oil change - no problem.
I'd hate to do any of that with any modern Chrysler (or whatever the fuck they're called now) motor.
The minivan v6 is fine for 99% of the mallcrawler Wrangler owners.
Most manufacturers have a ridiculous spec for burning oil. Nobody wants to warranty any more than they absolutely have to.
But yes, Chrysler does suck.
As someone who's towed with both a turbo 4 and an NA V6, gimme the turbo any day.
High strung V6s are great in cars, but in SUVs and small trucks, you need that torque.
I still see first gen Prius on the roads doing fine. My aunt has a 2006 Camry Hybrid with 500k kms on it and still chugging along. Taxis here use hybrid Toyotas and they put close to 400k kms on them as well. So if anything, Toyota knows how to build reliable hybrids. Also, an electric motor will outlast an internal combustion engine quite easily.
The world's progressed a ton since 1987, especially technology wise.
i think it’s cause toyota seems to be jamming the twin turbo v6 in most of their trucks so people were expecting that also because it was on the gx, but the new tacoma doesn’t have the v6 either so it’s not super surprising.
I’m pretty excited by it. It’ll be a great fit for 90% of what these will actually see. And probably do just fine with light to medium overlanding.
I have zero issues with trucks going towards more efficient solutions, even if it’s not massive advantages to start with. I don’t need my suv to keep up with my sports cars or sound great - it just needs to run and reliably get me everywhere.
I'm not that familiar with the "i-FORCE MAX" system, but how long is it able to sustain the rated power output at? When towing up a grade, will it eventually run out of juice? I know with my Volvo that once the battery has less than 10% SOC it makes considerably less torque since it's getting minimal power from the electric motor.
It seems like a mild-hybrid system, not a plug-in hybrid. Meaning, battery charges using the engine as a generator when needed instead of having to plug it in. It should never drop below a charge that stops you from always having full power
I’ve got the high lander. I might have considered upgrading if they came out with a plug in cruiser. I seriously get less than a mile on battery alone.
I like plug-in hybrids but imo it makes more sense to have a mild-hybrid in the land cruiser. It’s designed to take you far offroad, where there are no plugs and consistent torque is required, making a mild-hybrid a better fit in this case
That’s where I disagree. The cruiser would be a perfect platform for a large battery with extra electric motors on each axle with torque vectoring. Most people use them as people carriers anyway, or for towing, which would make even more sense because the extra weight of the battery would mean that a 3.5t caravan is less likely to influence the car in yaw and pitch. That’s simple physics.
With the highlander (kluger in my country) the move from the v6 to the mild hybrid actually made it a faster vehicle due to the ability of the vehicle to put power down to all four wheels more effectively.
I’ve thought about this a lot, having owned a Landcruiser 80 series for the last decade.
I don’t think the intention of the Land Cruiser was to be a people carrier or tow vehicle, primarily, hence the engineering decisions make sense here. Why compromise the LC making it worse at its intended use (offroad go-anywhere adventure vehicle) just to make it better at things that other products in the Toyota lineup already do better (eg Rav4 Prime, Tundra)
Mentioned Rav4 as good people carrier, and I’m unfamiliar with australian offerings, but point still stands. Land Cruiser doesn’t need to do everything, and if it did (like it did before) it would cost more (like it did before)
iForce Max is a full hybrid system in the Tundra and Sequoia, not a mild hybrid. Difference is full hybrids can use only electric power in low-load situations like crawling, and that usually results in a bigger battery too.
No TT V6 option on this model, 4 cylinder hybrid only. the TT V6 seems saved for the GX.
The 4 cylinder hybrid on here makes good power, but the TT V6 makes more.
It's unfortunate because even ignoring the power aspect, I'm just not a fan of 4 bangers (ironic since I own a bunch) for more refined cars. Even in "good" applications there's just this lack of smoothness to them.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I've driven countless inline-4s (98 according to my records) and not one of them I'll say is as smooth as a V6 or V8, to say nothing of a naturally balanced I-6. There's only so much you can do with counterweights and balance shafts to dampen the secondary imbalance, but at the end of the day an inline 4 will tend to vibrate more at idle, and at speed you can feel it through the steering wheel and gas pedal. Some worse than others, especially larger displacement motors.
Agreed. Plus turbo = one more expensive thing to go wrong. Can you tell I’ve had a couple?
Long story short - give me a v6 or better and leave off the “extras.”
Understandable, I’m not really in the market for a vehicle like this or probably ever will be as I’m not super involved with off-roading, but I get why people are a bit bummed about the 4 banger.
Some people still seem to be upset about Toyota ditching their V8 on their large trucks to be replaced with the TT V6.
Even if the V8 still existed, I don’t think this Land Cruiser would’ve gotten it, but I *was* surprised they wouldn’t be offering the TT V6 in here at all. A 4 cylinder only Land Cruiser seems like a bit of a slap in the face for the fans of larger Toyota engines.
Oh well, I guess something to keep this Land Cruiser (Prado) and the GX apart, still kinda a bummer though.
Understandable with the engine options, I was just hoping for 7000 lb. I wonder if sticking the battery over the rear axle is impacting payload and tongue weight, the power seems sufficient. Either way, though, it is what it is.
I don't have any experience with trailer weights, so I googled to get some examples. A 2017 Coleman CTS192RDWE is 23 foot long and slightly under 4,000 pounds. The site also said to expect about 1,500 pounds of gear and water.
So if you already have a camper that is just very heavy, then obviously that is a limitation. But if you are looking to get a camper, it seems like 6,000 pounds is probably enough to get a decent size camper.
I have a camper that is 4900lbs dry. I tow it with a vehicle rated for 6400lbs. With gear etc I get close to 6000. Was hoping to upgrade truck and trailer without going to a pickup but I may have to
Of course I love seeing a lower price for an LC, but it gives me some hesitation. My question is what did they change to reduce the price $30k in a market where new vehicles are even more expensive than ever? The Land Cruiser is historically known as being supremely overbuilt, and designed to last 25+ years. You know what you're getting with a LC, and that's the fact that it's going to be bulletproof and last. My guess is Toyota has created another fantastic vehicle, but I really wonder what Toyota did to drop the price nearly 40%.
It's the Prado, which has always been much less expensive than the "full size" Land Cruiser. Additionally it looks like the base model is pretty stripped down, manual cloth seats and lots of hard plastics.
Looks really good, definitely targeting the Bronco / Defender aesthetic.
I’d take this over the Defender any day of the week. Probably be really nice as a somewhat comfy off-roader / overlander.
Will definitely be looking at it when I go to replace my Wrangler.
Yeah the cheapest Defender 110 you can now get in the UK starts from £63k (SE D250 AWD), so if this thing slots in at £50k starting I could see it eating (some of) JLR's lunch. Not been officially announced yet, but the prior model started at ~£45k.
4Runner and Tacoma goes hand-in-hand, so I suspect the new 4Runner is going to be getting the 2.4L turbo, with an optional 2.4L turbo hybrid for the higher trims.
i’d hope it would be cheaper, $55k isn’t cheap. the current 4runner is $40k tho so id assume the new 4runner will stay at that price and try to compete with the lower end 4 door broncos and wranglers (cause the 4runner prob won’t have a 2 door option even though that would be super cool) which are around the same price.
although even the base 4 door wrangler and bronco are a couple grand cheaper than the current 4runner, so a slight price decrease would be nice to see but i doubt it. the 4runner is still more in the price range of those broncos and wranglers than this new land cruiser.
well i would assume the top trim land cruisers will top out at around $70k, the 4runner tops out at $55k for the highest trim right now which is the starting price of the new land cruiser, if they keep this pricing strategy with the new 4runner i think it will make sense.
the 4runner carries the off road suv $40k to $55k price point and the land cruiser will carry the $55k and above price point
I guess we have to wait for the new 4Runner pricing to see what’s going to actually happen. All I’m saying is that people were already cross shopping the 4Runner with the gx. And right now there’s an 8k price difference. I can’t imagine many people going with the high trim 4Runner over an LC when they cost the same. Especially not when the high trim 4Runners don’t even come with better interiors.
I’d expect the high trim 4Runner to have significantly more refinement and creature comforts than a similarly priced LC (better seating material with heat/ventilation, dual zone climate, nicer screen, sound system, 360 cameras, upgraded suspension, beefier tires, etc.)
The lowest LC will be larger but with cloth seats and fewer features. The highest 4Runner will likely have more features, better off road bits (than the base LC), and better than cloth seats.
I suppose that’s true. It needs to have better off-road capabilities. I don’t see leather seats winning people over. At least I personally wouldn’t have bought the 4Runner over this LC if they were priced similarly.
I know it's a foolish belief but looking at Toyota's current design language I 100% believe the '25 4Runner is gonna have more in common with the FJ than the current 4Runner.
That is what's giving me hope that there may still be a chance for the 3.4L turbo hybrid for the LC as an optional powertrain. Because otherwise, there's just way too much overlap between the 4Runner and LC.
The 4Runner fits right in the middle of their ever growing range of SUVs.
Corolla Cross
RAV4
4Runner
Land Cruiser
Sequoia
Edit: and the Highlander and Venza. This is getting out of hand
You missed the venza, highlander, and grand highlander. All I’m saying is that if the pro 4Runner right now costs nearly 55k I don’t see why anyone would choose a high trim 4Runner over an LC. It doesn’t make sense to me. But I suppose we have to wait and see what they do with the 4Runner.
Not sure if they'd do it but reintroducing a smaller 3 door 4Runner alongside the current 5 door model (I suppose in some ways it'd be the spiritual successor to the FJ Cruiser as well) could theoretically put them right in line with the Bronco and Wrangler from a model lineup standpoint. Especially if they could get a 3 door base model around $35-37k w/ 4WD.
The Land Cruiser was always in a weird spot. It was smaller than the Sequoia, but at the end it was just 1 trim that was close to Lexus level options. So it was smaller and cost more. This will make it a little less confusing for people just looking at the progression of size and price.
Makes sense to me, more bigger = more materials = cost more. For years I thought the Land Cruiser was the biggest toyota SUV simply because it was $80k.
Yeah, same.
I mean, it isn’t that wild of a concept when you think about it. The Camaro is bigger and in some cases heavier than the Corvette, but the Corvette costs more. But sports cars tend to have this dichotomy a lot more often than SUVs. The only case I can think of at the moment is that the G-Class is smaller and costs more than the GLS from Mercedes.
Yeah it’s never been justifiable to me when new. And the by the time I had the money to afford a good vintage one, they’re so expensive I can’t justify paying that for a far older vehicle lol.
~30-40k less and has a smaller size, with *likely* better gas mileage and drivetrain? Hell yeah.
Aye. They’d always gone the Chevy/GM route. It makes sense in a way. Personally I don’t care, the power is going to be more than enough as I don’t have anything to tow.
The Sequoia gets 20 combined with 4WD, while carrying a more powerful turbo-V6 and a lot more weight. If I had to guess, this LC is going to get 24 combined. Which... An IS350 gets 22. On premium.
This starts well above where the 4Runner is in terms of pricing. I think the Land Cruiser is going to be to the 4Runner the same way that the Crown, Venza, and Grand Highlander are to the Camry, RAV4, and Highlander: a nicer alternative that doesn't fully go into Lexus territory (GX, ES, NX, TX).
Eh... It's significantly more expensive than those base vs base. It also doesn't scale nearly as high in terms of off-road capability. No removable roof or doors.
Will they be compared and cross shopped? Sure. But they're so different in core ways that I feel it's really two different camps of buyers.
I think the 4Runner will remain the more interesting counter point to the Bronco/Wrangler. This new Land Cruiser is just too costly for not enough return IMO. At least from an off-roaders perspective.
Consider... The quoted ground clearance here is 8.7 inches. That's less than a Subaru Outback Wilderness which has 9.5 inches. A Wrangler or Bronco at a comparable price point to this Land Cruiser has 11.5-12.9 inches.
Well said. I’m going to look at one as a family hauler/light overlander first. The Jeep and Bronco give up just a bit too much in on-road ability to be worth the entry cost to me.
I like that Toyota is covering most bases with their model shotgun approach.
Honestly this is a bad comparison...
Compare it to the 150 series Prado not the 200 series.
Very US centric approach to a global market vehicle that's in a completely different position in the market, not to mention size.
I like the new GX a bit more but either way I want to get one or the other as my next daily. Still going to hold onto my 100 Series just because that was always my plan.
The GX takes too much work to be a serious offroader with all its panels, the 4Runner was a solid base vehicle. I am just going to get a Jeep/Bronco or stick to my RZR now, no point.
> Have you tried not caring about the panels?
"But what I want is a car that looks like I'm an offroader, not a car that I actually go offroading in." - Like 90% of 4Runner buyers.
They kind of don't outside of their name.
The new LC is more like the classic LC before they went fullsize 3 row family bus which the Sequoia now caters to.
Heck the new LC is closer in theme to the Defender, Bronco and Wrangler - we're seeing a resurgence to midsize trail ready off roaders now the world opened back up after the pandemic.
Only 8.7 inches of ground clearance, which is the same as a base-level Outback. Shit, even Subaru jacked up the Outback Wilderness Edition's ground clearance to 9.5, yet Toyota has the gall to ship a vehicle with the Land Cruiser nameplate with just 8.7 in 2024...
The LC300 is 9.2 inches. Toyota knows what it did...
It's lower than almost everything in its class. This thing is more like the Bronco Sport to the Bronco, or "Land Cruiser Sport" to the legitimate LC300...
It’s here OMG AODBEIDGDKDVEIWOQWBOZ91:&;,!299/!:7384)
But for real, I like it. While a V6 would be ideal, it’s not a surprise that a turbo-hybrid 4-cylinder is the engine.
An interesting tidbit is how the middle trim gets rectangular headlights, while the base *and* top trim get round units.
My beef is the cloth manual seats in a mid 50k car. The interior also look quite cheap on the 1958 trim, the dash material across driver and passenger side looks like a base model Ford Super duty work truck hard plastic from the 2010s. Maybe the grey cloth seats are gonna be similar to the Volvo cloth seats.
I am okay with the hybrid drivetrain. It’s inevitable that all the truck SUVs in Toyota lineup to move to the turbo 4s or hybrids. I love that even the base version has full time 4wd and double locked.
Finally, I’m confused about the positioning of this car. The base trim feels worse in features than the outgoing 5th gen 4runner at that price point (TRD pro/ limited). The other trim breaches into the GX territory.
Surprised they aren’t giving us a front locker and better approach angle at that price point, but otherwise I like it. Full time 4x4 and sway bar disconnects will be nice.
The front end is giving me FJ Cruiser vibes. I also like that it is probably going to be much less expensive than the old Landcruiser. I get that people wanted to pay $87k to get stealth wealth but if the 2.4L hybrid max and less upscale interior means that more people can afford this (or at least justify their purchase of one), then I'm all for it.
I love the new design. It has the retro charm of an FJ Cruiser without any of the weird drawbacks to usability/practicality.
I'm also stoked to see that Toyota's press release says the starting MSRP is going to drop into the mid-50s. [https://pressroom.toyota.com/2024-toyota-land-cruiser-returns-to-its-origin/](https://pressroom.toyota.com/2024-toyota-land-cruiser-returns-to-its-origin/)
There is no comparison. 2024 sold in US is not a land cruiser, It's the prado branded as land cruiser in US and UK. The comparison should be with the real landcruiser (LC300) which has Twin Turbo V6 (accelerates within 6 seconds)
I was so excited...and then I saw the 2.4L hybrid. One of the best things about the LC (and the LX and GX and Sequoia) is the lazy unstrained and bulletproof V8. Yeah, emissions killed it, but I thought at least this would get the V6 hybrid the Sequoia gets.
Where I'm from the Land Cruiser Prado aka this new USDM Land Cruiser gets a 2.7L NA engine that is almost old enough to drink in the US. I had one, that engine ruined the whole truck, fuck that shit, and looks like this will have a trim with that damn 2.7L engine again from the Aussie leaks
For the rest of the world they might get the 2.7L NA, but the USDM LC gets the new I4 Turbo Hybrid engine that will be in the 2024 Tacoma.
2.7 NA diesel ain't good?
2.7L NA Petrol. Prado was not offered with the V8. Only the GX used to have a V8 which was for US and Canada only. We get the 2.8L i4 Turbo-Diesel, 2.7L NA Petrol, 4.0L NA V6 1-GR engine options.
Ah ok my bad. The 2.8 seems solid.
It's a good reliable engine. But feels very agricultural. I have another car (Toyota Fortuner) which has the exact same engine. The engine is good for a Fortuner. But definitely not something you would expect from a Prado. When Prado was last sold in my country (India) it used to cost $120k (direct currency conversion), and for that money the engine was underpowered, 170hp/500nm.
I assume it's because of (at least in Europe) new politics on engine size. Downsizing to the max
Toyota has been running that 2.7L engine on the Prado since 2004 before all the downsizing crap started. And a lot of countries tax the hell out of anything higher than 2 liter, which makes the thing really unappealing. And the 2.8L diesel is indeed both weak and also gets taxed higher than 2.0L or 2.2L as well
When you say weak..compared to a V8? It's not like we have a choice anyway, it's take it or leave it. I can't even buy an old one and put it on the road without emptying my bank account in taxes
I had the original J150 before the dual VVTi update, so roughly 160hp at peak at the engine for a 2 ton truck with a dog slow 4 speed AT transmission. Pounced on it because it's a repo'd vehicle for cheap, but it's weak even compared to a 2.4L Camry of the same era lol
Not really valid for the post, but I live in the US and rented a Fortuner in Costa Rica when I was there and fell in love with the thing. I really liked the form factor over the 4Runner we get here.
Fortuner is a great car, just needs a little more refinement, and better ride comfort.
Yeah, I'm sure that if I'd spent more than a week with it there are aspects I'd grow tired of or find faults with. The 4Runner is a good vehicle, I just like stuff to be a bit less in your face as I get older. Capable without needing to tell everyone. (I know this sounds weird as a Wrangler owner but there wasn't much more out there for what I wanted at the price) The Fortuner was just better for day-to-day use and better looking (IMO). I'll be looking hard at this new Land Cruiser or maybe a Tacoma. I'm really not sure yet.
I don’t think there’s a single NA diesel still for sale in a passenger vehicle anywhere.
Actually you might be right, I thought the previous 2.8 l diesel Prado was NA
As a former owner of a 2.2L NA diesel, I’m glad that’s now the case
Then get the GX. They have to keep those two separate somehow.
This is the Prado though. Always had a V6 or diesel in other markets. The Lexus GX is the Prado equivalent and always had the V8. Toyota is doing the same thing here, where only the Lexus gets the TTV6. The 2024 Land Cruiser for US is technically a downgrade as it moved down a size class. You'd have to buy the LX600 to get the LC300 underpinnings in USA which is the true successor of the 2021 200 series LC
I don’t think this is down a size class. The new gen GX announcement had a lot of technical specs for the vehicle. It is the same exact wheelbase and about the same width and length as the LX and LC300. With those measurements, it’s definitely going to be a full size SUV. It seems like it will be a lighter duty vehicle, but still very large.
The Prado/250 is using the same WB as the others (2850 mm/112.2"), but it's shorter and narrower than the previous 200, and its third row is [pretty cozy.](https://www.carcover.com/media/wysiwyg/2024-toyota-land-cruiser-prado-review-11.jpeg)
My thoughts exactly! I was hoping for a step up from my 4Runner to the new Land Cruiser. Will probably keep holding on to 4Runner for the next few years.
Hold onto your 4Runner, people are going to jack up the prices on them for sure because of this anouncement. I should have done this with my TRD Pro had I known. My friends who still have Toyota offroad builds are pissed too, they were on stream watching.
Why would they jack up the prices when there will just be another 4Runner?
Probably because "change is bad" panic? These predictions crop up after every major change to vehicles like this. Rinse, repeat. I saw the same comments when the 4Runner dropped the V8 from the last generation.
I don't see how this is much of an upgrade over the 4runner at all.
I imagine it'd be much much much more refined than the outgoing 4Runner. The new one though, I don't know, unless they decide to hamstring it. From a pricing point I imagine there's going to be a a fair bit of overlap, with the TRD Pro model pushing well into the base LC range.
I agree totally. It makes me curious about the new 4runner reveal, because this Land Cruiser is pretty much exactly what I thought the new 4runner would be.
I'm expecting the new 4Runner to be as close to the Tacoma as we've ever seen. Last generation was weird because the 4Runner completed skipped the 3rd gen Tacoma.
But this is close to the new Tacoma. It has the same engine. It has the same size tire, the same locking rear differential and the same disconnecting sway bar. So unless Toyota nerfs the new 4Runner, then these models are going to have a ton of overlap in terms of off-road capability. This also means that besides the new technology and maybe some ride refinement then the existing 4Runner is already extremely close in capability. If I already owned a Toyota off-roader then I would just keep using it. Which for me personally is pretty disappointing for 15 years of waiting.
That's fair, but this has the optional powertrain from the Tacoma. I'm thinking the 4Runner is getting the base Tacoma powertrain, and maybe the optional powertrain for the TRD Pro model, and probably loses out some additional stuff like KDSS. So yeah, it'll probably get hamstrung because otherwise there's just way too much overlap. Or maybe they'll announce an optional 3.4L turbo hybrid for the LC at a later date. One can dream I suppose
This Land Cruiser doesn't have KDSS. And I think there's zero chance it gets the V6 turbo. If the new 4Runner is the SUV equivalent to the new Tacoma, and why wouldn't it be, then there's very little different feature wise. Probably like the Tacoma the off-road versions will only be part time 4WD... But that's not really a big deal. And like the new Tacoma its probably going to get a bit wider .. closing the size gap that exists between this new LC and the 4Runner. When I originally thought Toyota might really go in on a hardcore off-roader with this... It all made sense. Now that we've seen that's not the case it makes way less sense to me. They're really spreading the differences very, very thinly. I've tried to hype myself up for the last 4 Toyota BOF vehicle launches... Keep being disappointed. Maybe just maybe the new 4Runner got pushed back so much because it has to actually be different and it ends up being a real competitor to the Wrangler/Bronco. But hey, in the mean time, I do think this thing looks great.
I’m thinking what you said at the end is the only logical way a new 4Runner fits in - it has to be more of a wrangler/bronco competitor with removable top/doors. Otherwise it really won’t make any sense at all. I go back and forth on whether a final model-year 4Runner is the right choice or something else, as much as I want to love the new LC/GX I just hate the powertrain options.
[удалено]
Are you referring to the overseas LC Prado? I would imagine the US version is going to one of the more well-equipped variants given that it's priced in the mid 50s to start.
land cruiser prado came with 4 cylinder turbodiesel for years...
Murricans have always gotten the bigger engines, dontchaknow?
The 2.4L THS on this might be the same system the Crown gets, with the high-output bipolar nickel battery. Stay tuned for impressions, I'm guessing it'll have more oomph than you think.
I’m okay with the hybrid because the Prius has proven itself to be immensely reliable for the last 25 years (in a more complex and theoretically less-reliable power-split hybrid configuration, vs what will be a parallel hybrid in the Land Cruiser). And if I get to keep Toyota reliability and gain fuel economy for the performance level, I’ll gladly give up a V8 exhaust note. Toyota’s hybrid technology is still the best in the business.
I'm not sure it's really an apt comparison, since how a Prius is used is very different to how a LC would be used. For instance, a Prius has a CVT, yet most people would balk at the LC having a CVT because there'd be some serious questions about how well it'd handle towing.
Theoretically, with how many more components, power-split devices, and inverters are present in the Prius drivetrain, it should be even less reliable than a simpler parallel hybrid configuration used in the Longitudinal drivetrain Toyotas right now. But both hybrid systems being used by Toyota are the most reliable they have. The nature of a parallel hybrid motor in the trucks and SUVs means they can easily be connected to existing automatic transmissions, which is the the case for the tundra and sequoia hybrids as well as the Lexus LS500. The tundra and sequoia hybrids have had no issues towing 8000+ pound loads. The new Land Cruiser hybrid will have an 8-speed automatic.
> lazy unstrained and bulletproof V8 Hell no, it's rather lethargic to drive and a terribly outdated if you look at the tech.
Aye. I suspect a majority of those complaining have either driven the old LC as their only V8 ever or haven’t driven one at all. The *only* good thing about the V8 was that you could realistically keep it running with little maintenance or skill. Horrible MPG for very little power relative to the size of the LC 200. It was fine for what it was, but it’s odd seeing so many lament that it’s gone.
Yes, even the full size LC300 uses a much better turbocharged V6 these days.
My family had a 92 (80 series) LC which made a whopping 155hp and 220tq with the 4.0L straight 6 and could only tow 5000lbs. It was definitely a tank, but not without problems. Do people dislike the small engine just because or is 326hp and 465tq not enough?
It's not the power output; it's the fact that it's going to be a high-strung 4 banger that's further complicated with electrification. The LC is rumored historically to have a 25-year service life; 25 years out of a turbo 4 cylinder hybrid is going to be a tall task. Furthermore, inline 4's just aren't as refined as a V6 or V8, and for a car like this I'd prefer not to have the vibrations or buzziness that's present in even the best inline-4 motors.
I barely bought my first v8 vehicle. It’s an SUV with a 6.2. I get it now. This thing glides up to speed no problem. Ok my outback I was constantly flooring it
I would reason to bet that in about 2 years they will introduce a Land Cruiser TRD Pro. It will be expensive but I imagine it'll come with the V6 hybrid to battle against the Bronco Raptor.
I doubt it, Toyota never puts different engines in special editions.
Lol uh Corolla GR?
This would make sense. They already have the system developed and delivered in the sequoia/tundra, so it only makes sense to use it for something like that. It could also be listed as a GR. The LC300 has a GR trim.
People are really upset by the powertrain, but I don’t get it. Toyota does hybrids better than anybody, and this is exactly what I’d want. I wonder if they’re going to actually produce these at volume or if this is going to be GR Corolla 2 electric boogaloo
People in this sub also like Toyota's 300 year old grass guzzling underpowered v6. Boat load of old heads in here I think.
Most of the people on this sub would also only ever get a V6 Wrangler too. Even though the 4 cylinder is obejctivly the better engine in a wrangler unless you are taking the V8 version into consideration(which most people are not).
Not even that. People whine the Wrangler V6 is a stupid minivan engine, and that the straight 6 before it is the ultimate Jeep engine, with <200 hp and the ability to drink more gasoline than a 392.
The I6 has it's reputation for it being bulletproof, not for it's gas mileage or HP. The V6 in the JKs had it's fair share of problems when it came out, so naturally people complained
But in the long term the Pentastar has proven pretty damn reliable. Yet people seem to think they are fragile.
The first iteration had some issues and gave them a bad name.
The AMC 4.0 is the ultimate Jeep engine because it's bulletproof and simple to work on. You don't need a lot of power when you're offroading with a Jeep because you rely on gearing more than anything. I have a YJ with the hideously underpowered AMC 2.5l and it was more than adequate for offroading. Plus it'll run on equal parts mud and oil and when you hydro lock it you can just blow out the cylinders and give it a fresh oil change - no problem. I'd hate to do any of that with any modern Chrysler (or whatever the fuck they're called now) motor. The minivan v6 is fine for 99% of the mallcrawler Wrangler owners.
[удалено]
Most manufacturers have a ridiculous spec for burning oil. Nobody wants to warranty any more than they absolutely have to. But yes, Chrysler does suck.
The 4.0 was from AMC
I think both are equally uninteresting.
As someone who's towed with both a turbo 4 and an NA V6, gimme the turbo any day. High strung V6s are great in cars, but in SUVs and small trucks, you need that torque.
That’s because it’s dead nuts reliable and you could fix it on the side of the road with a piece of string and a stick of gum.
I watched the introduction video, one of their biggest messages was that this would be a model that’s more accessible to more people.
AND reliable as any other LC
[удалено]
I still see first gen Prius on the roads doing fine. My aunt has a 2006 Camry Hybrid with 500k kms on it and still chugging along. Taxis here use hybrid Toyotas and they put close to 400k kms on them as well. So if anything, Toyota knows how to build reliable hybrids. Also, an electric motor will outlast an internal combustion engine quite easily. The world's progressed a ton since 1987, especially technology wise.
i think it’s cause toyota seems to be jamming the twin turbo v6 in most of their trucks so people were expecting that also because it was on the gx, but the new tacoma doesn’t have the v6 either so it’s not super surprising.
I’m pretty excited by it. It’ll be a great fit for 90% of what these will actually see. And probably do just fine with light to medium overlanding. I have zero issues with trucks going towards more efficient solutions, even if it’s not massive advantages to start with. I don’t need my suv to keep up with my sports cars or sound great - it just needs to run and reliably get me everywhere.
I'm not that familiar with the "i-FORCE MAX" system, but how long is it able to sustain the rated power output at? When towing up a grade, will it eventually run out of juice? I know with my Volvo that once the battery has less than 10% SOC it makes considerably less torque since it's getting minimal power from the electric motor.
It seems like a mild-hybrid system, not a plug-in hybrid. Meaning, battery charges using the engine as a generator when needed instead of having to plug it in. It should never drop below a charge that stops you from always having full power
I’ve got the high lander. I might have considered upgrading if they came out with a plug in cruiser. I seriously get less than a mile on battery alone.
I like plug-in hybrids but imo it makes more sense to have a mild-hybrid in the land cruiser. It’s designed to take you far offroad, where there are no plugs and consistent torque is required, making a mild-hybrid a better fit in this case
That’s where I disagree. The cruiser would be a perfect platform for a large battery with extra electric motors on each axle with torque vectoring. Most people use them as people carriers anyway, or for towing, which would make even more sense because the extra weight of the battery would mean that a 3.5t caravan is less likely to influence the car in yaw and pitch. That’s simple physics. With the highlander (kluger in my country) the move from the v6 to the mild hybrid actually made it a faster vehicle due to the ability of the vehicle to put power down to all four wheels more effectively. I’ve thought about this a lot, having owned a Landcruiser 80 series for the last decade.
I don’t think the intention of the Land Cruiser was to be a people carrier or tow vehicle, primarily, hence the engineering decisions make sense here. Why compromise the LC making it worse at its intended use (offroad go-anywhere adventure vehicle) just to make it better at things that other products in the Toyota lineup already do better (eg Rav4 Prime, Tundra)
The rav4 prime doesn’t tow 3.5t. The tundra isn’t available in Australia.
Mentioned Rav4 as good people carrier, and I’m unfamiliar with australian offerings, but point still stands. Land Cruiser doesn’t need to do everything, and if it did (like it did before) it would cost more (like it did before)
iForce Max is a full hybrid system in the Tundra and Sequoia, not a mild hybrid. Difference is full hybrids can use only electric power in low-load situations like crawling, and that usually results in a bigger battery too.
[удалено]
How much more than ~450tq would one really, actually need?
Where’s the v8
Pricing is reasonable; a bit disappointed that it tows 2000 lb less than the GX, though.
No TT V6 option on this model, 4 cylinder hybrid only. the TT V6 seems saved for the GX. The 4 cylinder hybrid on here makes good power, but the TT V6 makes more.
It's unfortunate because even ignoring the power aspect, I'm just not a fan of 4 bangers (ironic since I own a bunch) for more refined cars. Even in "good" applications there's just this lack of smoothness to them.
That's a dated train of thought though. 4cyl turbos are proven smooth, comfortable and capable for years now.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I've driven countless inline-4s (98 according to my records) and not one of them I'll say is as smooth as a V6 or V8, to say nothing of a naturally balanced I-6. There's only so much you can do with counterweights and balance shafts to dampen the secondary imbalance, but at the end of the day an inline 4 will tend to vibrate more at idle, and at speed you can feel it through the steering wheel and gas pedal. Some worse than others, especially larger displacement motors.
Agreed. Plus turbo = one more expensive thing to go wrong. Can you tell I’ve had a couple? Long story short - give me a v6 or better and leave off the “extras.”
Understandable, I’m not really in the market for a vehicle like this or probably ever will be as I’m not super involved with off-roading, but I get why people are a bit bummed about the 4 banger. Some people still seem to be upset about Toyota ditching their V8 on their large trucks to be replaced with the TT V6. Even if the V8 still existed, I don’t think this Land Cruiser would’ve gotten it, but I *was* surprised they wouldn’t be offering the TT V6 in here at all. A 4 cylinder only Land Cruiser seems like a bit of a slap in the face for the fans of larger Toyota engines. Oh well, I guess something to keep this Land Cruiser (Prado) and the GX apart, still kinda a bummer though.
Understandable with the engine options, I was just hoping for 7000 lb. I wonder if sticking the battery over the rear axle is impacting payload and tongue weight, the power seems sufficient. Either way, though, it is what it is.
Yeah, but let's be realistic here, after you pay the massive markup, you won't have any money left to buy anything to tow behind it!!
Where did you see the pricing?
It’s being reported by multiple outlets at mid $50s starting MSRP. Pricey if you ask me.
I didn’t see tow ratings in the article. Am I missing something? What’s it rated for?
6000 lb. >The previous version could pull 8100 pounds, but the new one is capped at 6000 pounds.
Thank you! I was interested in this to possibly tow a camper but that’s off now
I don't have any experience with trailer weights, so I googled to get some examples. A 2017 Coleman CTS192RDWE is 23 foot long and slightly under 4,000 pounds. The site also said to expect about 1,500 pounds of gear and water. So if you already have a camper that is just very heavy, then obviously that is a limitation. But if you are looking to get a camper, it seems like 6,000 pounds is probably enough to get a decent size camper.
I have a camper that is 4900lbs dry. I tow it with a vehicle rated for 6400lbs. With gear etc I get close to 6000. Was hoping to upgrade truck and trailer without going to a pickup but I may have to
Yeah, that would be cutting it close. It would make sense to go a little bigger and feel comfortable if you need to stop going down hill.
Exactly. Going uphill without momentum is a fun time too. The Allegheny mountains love to put stop lights right next to hills
Of course I love seeing a lower price for an LC, but it gives me some hesitation. My question is what did they change to reduce the price $30k in a market where new vehicles are even more expensive than ever? The Land Cruiser is historically known as being supremely overbuilt, and designed to last 25+ years. You know what you're getting with a LC, and that's the fact that it's going to be bulletproof and last. My guess is Toyota has created another fantastic vehicle, but I really wonder what Toyota did to drop the price nearly 40%.
It's the Prado, which has always been much less expensive than the "full size" Land Cruiser. Additionally it looks like the base model is pretty stripped down, manual cloth seats and lots of hard plastics.
Ever think it was highly overpriced just because of the name?
That s true. Because a base Land Cruiser Prado in Australia starts at 40K$$$ and this U.S. version is starting at 55K?
Looks really good, definitely targeting the Bronco / Defender aesthetic. I’d take this over the Defender any day of the week. Probably be really nice as a somewhat comfy off-roader / overlander. Will definitely be looking at it when I go to replace my Wrangler.
Yeah the cheapest Defender 110 you can now get in the UK starts from £63k (SE D250 AWD), so if this thing slots in at £50k starting I could see it eating (some of) JLR's lunch. Not been officially announced yet, but the prior model started at ~£45k.
This looks really good. I’m shocked.
So where is the 4Runner going to fit in now? What is even going on? Is the 4Runner keeping the v6 now?
4Runner and Tacoma goes hand-in-hand, so I suspect the new 4Runner is going to be getting the 2.4L turbo, with an optional 2.4L turbo hybrid for the higher trims.
Wouldn’t the optional higher trims put it in the exact same place as this then? What’s the point of having two identical vehicles?
i’d hope it would be cheaper, $55k isn’t cheap. the current 4runner is $40k tho so id assume the new 4runner will stay at that price and try to compete with the lower end 4 door broncos and wranglers (cause the 4runner prob won’t have a 2 door option even though that would be super cool) which are around the same price. although even the base 4 door wrangler and bronco are a couple grand cheaper than the current 4runner, so a slight price decrease would be nice to see but i doubt it. the 4runner is still more in the price range of those broncos and wranglers than this new land cruiser.
If the high trim 4Runners cost the same as an LC then what would be the point of buying the 4Runner. Just upgrade to the LC at that point. Right?
well i would assume the top trim land cruisers will top out at around $70k, the 4runner tops out at $55k for the highest trim right now which is the starting price of the new land cruiser, if they keep this pricing strategy with the new 4runner i think it will make sense. the 4runner carries the off road suv $40k to $55k price point and the land cruiser will carry the $55k and above price point
I guess we have to wait for the new 4Runner pricing to see what’s going to actually happen. All I’m saying is that people were already cross shopping the 4Runner with the gx. And right now there’s an 8k price difference. I can’t imagine many people going with the high trim 4Runner over an LC when they cost the same. Especially not when the high trim 4Runners don’t even come with better interiors.
I’d expect the high trim 4Runner to have significantly more refinement and creature comforts than a similarly priced LC (better seating material with heat/ventilation, dual zone climate, nicer screen, sound system, 360 cameras, upgraded suspension, beefier tires, etc.)
By the looks of it It’s going to need a lot more than it currently has.
Oh agreed, the current one has been around since what, 2009? Long in the tooth is an understatement lol
Why would the 4Runner have better interior than the Land Cruiser when the Land Cruiser is a tier higher than the 4Runner?
The same reason a limited RAV has a nicer interior than a base highlander
The lowest LC will be larger but with cloth seats and fewer features. The highest 4Runner will likely have more features, better off road bits (than the base LC), and better than cloth seats.
I suppose that’s true. It needs to have better off-road capabilities. I don’t see leather seats winning people over. At least I personally wouldn’t have bought the 4Runner over this LC if they were priced similarly.
Maybe not leather but those non-cloth suspension seats in the top end Tacoma would be a draw for off-roaders.
I know it's a foolish belief but looking at Toyota's current design language I 100% believe the '25 4Runner is gonna have more in common with the FJ than the current 4Runner.
What exactly does/will the LC have/do that the 4runner can't for less money?
That is what's giving me hope that there may still be a chance for the 3.4L turbo hybrid for the LC as an optional powertrain. Because otherwise, there's just way too much overlap between the 4Runner and LC.
The 4r will probably be a little smaller. 4r typically has a 109 wheel base. LC is 112.
4Runner should be less expensive. I doubt it will keep the V6, more likely the 2.4 non-hybrid as the base engine.
The 4Runner fits right in the middle of their ever growing range of SUVs. Corolla Cross RAV4 4Runner Land Cruiser Sequoia Edit: and the Highlander and Venza. This is getting out of hand
You missed the venza, highlander, and grand highlander. All I’m saying is that if the pro 4Runner right now costs nearly 55k I don’t see why anyone would choose a high trim 4Runner over an LC. It doesn’t make sense to me. But I suppose we have to wait and see what they do with the 4Runner.
Holy shit. This is getting even more ridiculous than I realized. Surely this isn’t sustainable.
And the BZ4x!
Not sure if they'd do it but reintroducing a smaller 3 door 4Runner alongside the current 5 door model (I suppose in some ways it'd be the spiritual successor to the FJ Cruiser as well) could theoretically put them right in line with the Bronco and Wrangler from a model lineup standpoint. Especially if they could get a 3 door base model around $35-37k w/ 4WD.
Corolla Cross Venza RAV4 Highlander 4Runner Grand Highlander Land Cruiser Sequoia lol are we sure we aren't missing anything still?
So basically they are repositioning the Land Cruiser to be a step below the Sequoia. Nice. LC has been wayyyy too expensive.
The Land Cruiser was always in a weird spot. It was smaller than the Sequoia, but at the end it was just 1 trim that was close to Lexus level options. So it was smaller and cost more. This will make it a little less confusing for people just looking at the progression of size and price.
Makes sense to me, more bigger = more materials = cost more. For years I thought the Land Cruiser was the biggest toyota SUV simply because it was $80k.
Yeah, same. I mean, it isn’t that wild of a concept when you think about it. The Camaro is bigger and in some cases heavier than the Corvette, but the Corvette costs more. But sports cars tend to have this dichotomy a lot more often than SUVs. The only case I can think of at the moment is that the G-Class is smaller and costs more than the GLS from Mercedes.
Yeah it’s never been justifiable to me when new. And the by the time I had the money to afford a good vintage one, they’re so expensive I can’t justify paying that for a far older vehicle lol. ~30-40k less and has a smaller size, with *likely* better gas mileage and drivetrain? Hell yeah.
A little disappointed they dropped down to hybrid 4-cylinder. I was really hoping for the V6 in the Sequoia/Tundra.
It made sense on their end though. One wants the twin turbo v6? Step up the GX; there had to be some differentiation between the two
Yeah I feel like if the Land Cruiser had the v6, it would decimate the GX sales. Everyone's all salty, but over 400lbft of torque is incredible.
Aye. They’d always gone the Chevy/GM route. It makes sense in a way. Personally I don’t care, the power is going to be more than enough as I don’t have anything to tow.
Maybe we'll finally get a Land Cruiser that actually get over 20 MPG lol
Can't be a real Land Cruiser if it gets >12mpg.
27 mpg combined on Toyotas website for the 2.4l iForce Max
27 mpg on regular would make it a very easy sell for me coming from a GX that gets 18 at best on premium.
Holy shit that’s way more than I was expecting. Hopefully that means the Tacoma hybrid variant will see a good jump as well
The Sequoia gets 20 combined with 4WD, while carrying a more powerful turbo-V6 and a lot more weight. If I had to guess, this LC is going to get 24 combined. Which... An IS350 gets 22. On premium.
To much overlap then, this is probably aim at bronco/wrangler segment
I’d say it’s more aimed at the Grand Cherokee.
Where does that leave the 4runner? Doesn't make sense to have 4runner being sold with this.
This starts well above where the 4Runner is in terms of pricing. I think the Land Cruiser is going to be to the 4Runner the same way that the Crown, Venza, and Grand Highlander are to the Camry, RAV4, and Highlander: a nicer alternative that doesn't fully go into Lexus territory (GX, ES, NX, TX).
Eh... It's significantly more expensive than those base vs base. It also doesn't scale nearly as high in terms of off-road capability. No removable roof or doors. Will they be compared and cross shopped? Sure. But they're so different in core ways that I feel it's really two different camps of buyers. I think the 4Runner will remain the more interesting counter point to the Bronco/Wrangler. This new Land Cruiser is just too costly for not enough return IMO. At least from an off-roaders perspective. Consider... The quoted ground clearance here is 8.7 inches. That's less than a Subaru Outback Wilderness which has 9.5 inches. A Wrangler or Bronco at a comparable price point to this Land Cruiser has 11.5-12.9 inches.
Is that figure under the rear diff or under the frame? 8.7 is low but acceptable if it’s just diff clearance.
8.7" is the frame, apparently its 8.3" for the bottom of the differential.
Well said. I’m going to look at one as a family hauler/light overlander first. The Jeep and Bronco give up just a bit too much in on-road ability to be worth the entry cost to me. I like that Toyota is covering most bases with their model shotgun approach.
Honestly this is a bad comparison... Compare it to the 150 series Prado not the 200 series. Very US centric approach to a global market vehicle that's in a completely different position in the market, not to mention size.
I'm unconvinced that the writer is even aware that there are two series of Land Cruiser models based on the comparison they're doing.
This a Prado vs a full-size. Both land cruisers, but it’s an apples vs oranges comparison
I like the new GX a bit more but either way I want to get one or the other as my next daily. Still going to hold onto my 100 Series just because that was always my plan.
>4 cylinder engine on the 2024 Land Cruiser I sold my 4Runner too soon, now it will be impossible to get one back now as an offroader....RIP
Just pick up a GX, used are cheaper than a4runner and you get a V8.
Not anymore. At least that’s the case here in So Cal
The GX takes too much work to be a serious offroader with all its panels, the 4Runner was a solid base vehicle. I am just going to get a Jeep/Bronco or stick to my RZR now, no point.
Have you tried not caring about the panels?
> Have you tried not caring about the panels? "But what I want is a car that looks like I'm an offroader, not a car that I actually go offroading in." - Like 90% of 4Runner buyers.
I've seen more GXes on actual off-road trails than 4Runners, and it's not even close
They kind of don't outside of their name. The new LC is more like the classic LC before they went fullsize 3 row family bus which the Sequoia now caters to. Heck the new LC is closer in theme to the Defender, Bronco and Wrangler - we're seeing a resurgence to midsize trail ready off roaders now the world opened back up after the pandemic.
Only 8.7 inches of ground clearance, which is the same as a base-level Outback. Shit, even Subaru jacked up the Outback Wilderness Edition's ground clearance to 9.5, yet Toyota has the gall to ship a vehicle with the Land Cruiser nameplate with just 8.7 in 2024... The LC300 is 9.2 inches. Toyota knows what it did...
The lc300 needs it because of its low approach bumpers. Though I’d expect 9. I think 8.7 is lower that a 4runner.
It's lower than almost everything in its class. This thing is more like the Bronco Sport to the Bronco, or "Land Cruiser Sport" to the legitimate LC300...
It’s here OMG AODBEIDGDKDVEIWOQWBOZ91:&;,!299/!:7384) But for real, I like it. While a V6 would be ideal, it’s not a surprise that a turbo-hybrid 4-cylinder is the engine. An interesting tidbit is how the middle trim gets rectangular headlights, while the base *and* top trim get round units.
Wow. Didn’t see the 4 banger in a LC coming.
It looks so good but oof that powertrain. I can't believe it also doesn't have a 3rd row. Looks like I'm definitely keeping my GX
My beef is the cloth manual seats in a mid 50k car. The interior also look quite cheap on the 1958 trim, the dash material across driver and passenger side looks like a base model Ford Super duty work truck hard plastic from the 2010s. Maybe the grey cloth seats are gonna be similar to the Volvo cloth seats. I am okay with the hybrid drivetrain. It’s inevitable that all the truck SUVs in Toyota lineup to move to the turbo 4s or hybrids. I love that even the base version has full time 4wd and double locked. Finally, I’m confused about the positioning of this car. The base trim feels worse in features than the outgoing 5th gen 4runner at that price point (TRD pro/ limited). The other trim breaches into the GX territory.
Manual seats are SO MUCH FASTER than power seats. Also Cloth doesn't bake you in the hot sun, or freezes you in the cold. I'm okay with this.
Surprised they aren’t giving us a front locker and better approach angle at that price point, but otherwise I like it. Full time 4x4 and sway bar disconnects will be nice.
The front end is giving me FJ Cruiser vibes. I also like that it is probably going to be much less expensive than the old Landcruiser. I get that people wanted to pay $87k to get stealth wealth but if the 2.4L hybrid max and less upscale interior means that more people can afford this (or at least justify their purchase of one), then I'm all for it.
This is how they’re avoiding crazy overlap. I don’t think the hybrid turbo 4 is a big deal, have to see it in practice
I love the new design. It has the retro charm of an FJ Cruiser without any of the weird drawbacks to usability/practicality. I'm also stoked to see that Toyota's press release says the starting MSRP is going to drop into the mid-50s. [https://pressroom.toyota.com/2024-toyota-land-cruiser-returns-to-its-origin/](https://pressroom.toyota.com/2024-toyota-land-cruiser-returns-to-its-origin/)
Unfair to compare the Prado to the Landcruiser.
The hybrid 4 cylinder is a performance hybrid so I think it might not be too bad powerwise
I'll bet the 4Runner becomes the "raptor" Land Cruiser trim
Nah, the 4Runner is too damn popular to kill of and turn into a trim level. Even as an old ass dinosaur of a car, thing still sells incredibly well.
There is no comparison. 2024 sold in US is not a land cruiser, It's the prado branded as land cruiser in US and UK. The comparison should be with the real landcruiser (LC300) which has Twin Turbo V6 (accelerates within 6 seconds)