2024 Toyota Land Cruiser vs Lexus GX550: Is the Lexus REALLY Better?

[JIMIPRO]

Another Black 1958 but compared to the Lexus GX550.

 

[Paint]

I'd really like to know why they insist on putting the batteries in the cargo/people space...Making the cargo space on the LC (and the Sequoia for that matter!) smaller than what a 4Runner is working with. There is plenty of room between the frame rails. Also, I am not an engineer and I'm assuming there's a better reason for it than laziness LOL

*edited because I typed it dumberer

 

[Mateo L]

I'd really like to know why they refuse to put batteries in the passenger compartment, making the cargo space on the LC (and the Sequoia for that matter!) smaller than what a 4Runner is working with. There is plenty of room between the frame rails. Also, I am not an engineer and I'm assuming there's a better reason for it than laziness LOL

I think there are three reasons.
1. It can differentiate the LC and GX
2. It can save some budget on Chair Modularization development for different car
3. Supply chain and Parts availability (GX, LC, 2025 4runner are likely to have the same second row structure for the next 15 years)

I think that Toyota is stick to the LEAN manufacturing thinking mode.

 

[Paint]

I wasn't talking about the seats. I could...They are dumb for a two-row, but I agree with you about why they are they way they are. FYI, the 4Runner has had two different rear seat designs for the last 15 years.

I was talking about the batteries. They're taking up interior space, raising the load floor, and compromising how the cargo/people space is configured negatively. The Sequoia's cargo setup, along with a non-removable third row made me 100% cross it off my list. And it's because of the battery placement (and them cheaping out with a solid axle while bumping the price another 25%, but that's yet another diatribe).

 

[LC-120]

And it's because of the battery placement (and them cheaping out with a solid axle while bumping the price another 25%, but that's yet another diatribe).

Do you mean the Landcrusier has a rear solid axle just to save cost ? Please remember this car is a durable and reliable off-roader designed to be very comfortable and efficient on the road.

 

[qberg]

Do you mean the Landcrusier has a rear solid axle just to save cost ? Please remember this car is a durable and reliable off-roader designed to be very comfortable and efficient on the road.

I think they were saying that the Sequoia was cheaped out.

I was talking about the batteries. They're taking up interior space, raising the load floor, and compromising how the cargo/people space is configured negatively. The Sequoia's cargo setup, along with a non-removable third row made me 100% cross it off my list. And it's because of the battery placement (and them cheaping out with a solid axle while bumping the price another 25%, but that's yet another diatribe).

The Sequoia is SRA on purpose, IMO. It differentiates it from the Tahoe and Wagoneer. Sure, not many people will off road a Sequoia, but it will tow better and selling that perception that someone could off road it is good marketing. FWIW, several people have removed the 3rd row of the Sequoia and it's absolutely massive back there with the 3rd row gone. It cleans up quite nicely, too. I wish the body were more tidy because it would then be a decent Land Cruiser 300 substitute. Too much plastic hanging down at this point.

Also, I think that the batteries inside the cabin are intentional. It's more protected from debris or off road hits that could cause quite the thermal event if the battery were punctured. I think there is less space between the frame rails than you'd expect. Engine, electric motor, transmission, transfer case, front and rear prop shafts, spare tire, and exhaust all consume space between the frame rails. It would need to be a very particular shape and would need significant armor if it were tucked in the frame rails.

 

[Paint]

I think they were saying that the Sequoia was cheaped out.


The Sequoia is SRA on purpose, IMO. It differentiates it from the Tahoe and Wagoneer. Sure, not many people will off road a Sequoia, but it will tow better and selling that perception that someone could off road it is good marketing. FWIW, several people have removed the 3rd row of the Sequoia and it's absolutely massive back there with the 3rd row gone. It cleans up quite nicely, too. I wish the body were more tidy because it would then be a decent Land Cruiser 300 substitute. Too much plastic hanging down at this point.

Also, I think that the batteries inside the cabin are intentional. It's more protected from debris or off road hits that could cause quite the thermal event if the battery were punctured. I think there is less space between the frame rails than you'd expect. Engine, electric motor, transmission, transfer case, front and rear prop shafts, spare tire, and exhaust all consume space between the frame rails. It would need to be a very particular shape and would need significant armor if it were tucked in the frame rails.

Thanks for that clarification to LC-120. Yeah I meant that the Sequoia went SRA.

I know it was on purpose, it had to be. They went out of their way to do it. The last gen had IRS LOL

I agree that that was likely their main reasoning behind the batteries in the cabin. I just feel like they could put a tank of a skid plate under them and slap them on either side of the driveshaft, inches above the bottom of the frame rails. Again...I'm not an engineer, so I'm sure they have many other (good) reasons to do it this way. I'm just mad about it. It legit keeps me a mile away from considering a Sequoia. LC looks to be a bit better packaging back there (seats are still dumb), certainly not to dealbreaker levels.

I think it bothers my pea brain on several levels that the smallest of the body on frame Toyota SUVs has the largest and most useful cargo area...And I like to complain on internet forums. I've been at that for over 25 years LOL