Possible 2024 land cruiser performance figures.

I was just browsing different land cruiser/gx550 models from other markets around the world, and I discovered that China has Lexus GX550h that uses the same 2.4 Turbo Hybrid drivetrain as the new Land Cruiser. On their website, all the specs and performance figures are listed, one particular performance figure that I find it hard to believe is the 0 to 62 time, which is 8.5 seconds (that is 2 seconds slower than the 3.4 V6 turbo engine if I'm not mistaken).
Here is the link for anyone who is interested: LEXUS雷克萨斯官网

The non-hybrid Tacoma is already <8s 0-60, so the iFORCE-Max should be <7s I’d have thought.

8 seconds jives with the Google search I did on the 0 - 60 MT test figures some time ago. I suspect, based on what the search popped, it's taken from the 550GX numbers. We really need those drive impressions for sure.

With the horsepower and torque numbers of the LC, I'd be shocked if it's going to be that slow.

If torque management to protect the transmission isn't too aggressive, the LC should have a helluva hole shot LOL

We are like Sherlock Holmes..... more we study, more questions we get. The pioneer edition has 6 seats ! How ? Captain chairs and third row ?

Cargo volume for 5 seater is less than 1900 liters (67 cub feet) way less than Forester or Rogue. Hard to believe !

LC-120 said:

We are like Sherlock Holmes..... more we study, more questions we get. The pioneer edition has 6 seats ! How ? Captain chairs and third row ?

Cargo volume for 5 seater is less than 1900 liters (67 cub feet) way less than Forester or Rogue. Hard to believe !

Click to expand...

And less than the 4Runner...Which is a smaller vehicle in most dimensions.

All new models are like this on the forums. I love it, even if I don't wind up buying LOL

LC-120 said:

We are like Sherlock Holmes..... more we study, more questions we get. The pioneer edition has 6 seats ! How ? Captain chairs and third row ?

Cargo volume for 5 seater is less than 1900 liters (67 cub feet) way less than Forester or Rogue. Hard to believe !

Click to expand...

I agree. That and the acceleration are hard to believe to me too. If true, this LC iForce max is starting to have some serious drawbacks that may make my decision easier to not buy.

For comparisons sake, while the engine layout is different, the Grand Highlander Hybrid Max weighs 4936lbs and goes 0-60 in 5.6.. It has 362hp and 400lb ft.

Tacoma iForce Max and LC both have the 326hp and 465lb ft variant.

The 2.7L (330 hp/415 torque) Ford Bronco weighs 4800 lbs, and has a 0-60 of 6.6 seconds per Motortrend testing. I would think the Land Cruiser with similar specs to the Bronco can do around 7 seconds.

makes sense now that Land Cruiser takes premium gas, that powertrain supposed to go into the GX hybrid and we're basically buying a rebadged GX 550h

carpoor said:

makes sense now that Land Cruiser takes premium gas, that powertrain supposed to go into the GX hybrid and we're basically buying a rebadged GX 550h

Click to expand...

Yup, maybe Lexus using Toyota to de-risk any possible technical issues…,keeps their reliability numbers in top spot. If Lexus were clever about it they would offer both the V6 and IForce Max in future offerings.

fhb said:

Yup, maybe Lexus using Toyota to de-risk any possible technical issues…,keeps their reliability numbers in top spot. If Lexus were clever about it they would offer both the V6 and IForce Max in future offerings.

Click to expand...

Not holding my breath for the v6 but who knows, Toyota sometimes surprise us

Looking at the specs for the GX Overtrail V6 vs Land Cruiser Hybrid 4 weights:

GX - 5675
LC - 6725

That's an extra 1050 lbs. That battery and motor are heavy.

I've read that's the big part of the lower towing rates on the LC also.

BobSpace said:

Looking at the specs for the GX Overtrail V6 vs Land Cruiser Hybrid 4 weights:

GX - 5675
LC - 6725

That's an extra 1050 lbs. That battery and motor are heavy.

I've read that's the big part of the lower towing rates on the LC also.

Click to expand...

Your quoted figure for the LC looks like GVWR. Curb for the LC starts at around 5350 for the 1958.

APIOQM said:

Your quoted figure for the LC looks like GVWR. Curb for the LC starts at around 5350 for the 1958.

Click to expand...

You’re right. Looked at wrong row.

I found this while looking for some more info on specs for the 2024 LC. Quite surprising actually.

Hopefully no “cheating” on the 2.4 IForce max performance figures….

fhb said:

I found this while looking for some more info on specs for the 2024 LC. Quite surprising actually.

Hopefully no “cheating” on the 2.4 IForce max performance figures….

Toyota admits to cheating engine tests for HiLux, Prado, LandCruiser, shipments halted

Shipments of Toyotas with popular diesel engines have been paused overseas after "irregularities" were found in power certification tests.

www.drive.com.au

Click to expand...

There's a difference in overreporting numbers and validating numbers with the incorrect process. For example, a manufacturing plant might have 4 different sets of engine software when they performance or durability test their engines. This isn't the official certification of the engine; this is just what the manufacturing uses to confirm that their process is consistent. The manufacturing plant has to report that they are meeting the performance test numbers depending on where they are shipping the engine. European Union, for example, requires this to be reported out on a monthly basis. The range is pretty wide because, again, they are just confirming that the engines built in that month are statistically similar to what they've said they will deliver. If the manufacturing plant uses the wrong software -- one intended for durability testing or something like that -- they are technically in violation of the regulation. From what I've read about this case, it was an issue with the validation process not being correct versus overreporting performance numbers. Some articles I've read about it confirmed that the engines using the wrong software and the correct software in the confirmation show no deviation from expected performance when in the vehicle using the official shipped ECU software.

And, honestly, it isn't hard to make these mistakes. Someone saves the ECU calibration file in the wrong folder or accidentally overwrites a file so the next test uses the wrong file but the numbers look right... how was the test cell operator to know? That's why the response will likely be a more robust confirmation and auditing process.

I know this because I was responsible for engine test cells in a past life. Can't tell you how many times we would get some wonky performance test data and find out that someone had used the wrong software or set a parameter in the test cell ECU incorrectly or someone had grabbed the wrong vehicle part off the shelf in the test cell setup or someone was sending fuel from the wrong tank (and thus wrong fuel) to the test cell. Running test cells are much more of a flex job than the people building the engines on the floor. The guy putting widget A onto the engine will do that 400x per day, so the process is very much perfected to not make mistakes. The guy running the gasoline particulate filter version of engine type 6 may run that test once per 6 months. It's just more likely to be errors and really needs strong part and software management as well as job instructions to ensure no mistakes are made.

Wanting to confirm whether or not new Land Cruiser in Canada will need premium fuel?

2024 Land Cruiser require Premium Fuel?​

Read this thread for 8 pages of wonderment.

2chains said:

Wanting to confirm whether or not new Land Cruiser in Canada will need premium fuel?

Click to expand...

Please don’t ask that question here on this forum!!!! It has been highly debated and still not confirmed to everyone’s satisfaction.