First offroad, el. 13,124’ [Summit County, CO] - Compare/Contrast 5th Gen 4Runner

[b407driver]

Okay so if you guys wouldnt mind helping me here… im relatively inexperienced to these functions on toyotas; i have lots of experience with engine breaking on my previous F150 when towing a 28’ travel trailer and I used DAC a few times driving downhill trails in oregon (not towing of course).

Is there a reason we would use Engine breaking vs DAC on a slow downhill crawl?

I think comes down mostly to driver preference, especially what someone is used to. I rarely used the Crawl Control on the 4Runner due to the jerkiness and the noise, and thus am used to manually controlling the vehicle. For people who have always had these electronic systems and used them, they might be more likely to use them frequently. For others, keeping control via shifting manually might be better, especially in variable terrain where speeds don't need to be held constant.

Technically speaking, the DAC system is probably better than a human in controlling the brakes and limiting wheel drag (I'm sure some would argue this), but only on a pretty severe descent would anyone likely notice a significant difference. And admittedly, driver skill certainly works into it. Using DAC would free you from having to manage RPM so you can concentrate on steering, but as mentioned above could also limit your speed unnecessarily when the terrain might dictate you can go faster.

I mentioned Red Cone, a fairly technical descent here in CO where mis-using the brakes could certainly get you into trouble. Using DAC on robust descents like this could be very helpful, especially for less-experienced drivers.

 

[b407driver]

It definitely changes over time. I’m just under 4,000 miles and it has slowly used more and more hybrid and running for longer periods on battery, I had a few miles of light load driving on mostly flat at 45 MPH entirely on battery this weekend, was really surprised, and the MPG keeps improving. Got an estimated 25.5 MPG yesterday on a 50 mile trip ranging from state forest road, back roads, steep mountain climb and decent, hilly, and interstate between 65-75 MPH.

That's great to hear, I hope mine follows your experience. Yesterday was the very first drive where I averaged over 20, but that was descending I-70 from Summit County to the flatlands. Been around 15-16 so far, but still have just under 500 miles on the odometer, almost no freeway driving.

 

[Altitude]

Excellent post and it’s fun how over represented Colorado is on this board.

Mine won’t arrive until about Thanksgiving but I am keen to explore the engine braking (please, not “breaking” which means something entirely different) situation. My commute between our homes is Castle Rock to Avon, which means I go all the way up and all the way down big long grades four times each trip. I admit I’m a little obsessive about engine braking.

Convinced some of the differences people feel might owe to the number of gears versus whatever you drove before. I used to have a 2004 Explorer with a 5 speed, and my current Tahoe has a 6 speed. Making the significant assumption that the final drive gear is roughly the same across all of the vehicles, a single gear downshift would result in substantially more perceived engine resistance on the Explorer than the Tahoe, and more on the Tahoe than the LC. To wit, my wife’s GLC300 has a 9 speed transmission and I feel like I have to drop it three gears to feel much change in the driveline resistance. Similar my 991.1, which has the 7 speed PDK.

Obviously RPM doesn’t lie; we want to get these to an RPM level that yields the desired braking effect, whichever gear that happens to be.

I’m looking forward to seeing how the regenerative braking fits in to this.

(For you guys who live in places without mountains and have no idea what we’re on about - those “runaway truck” ramps you see on the highway on your way to the ski resort are mostly for semi drivers who use their brakes too much and their transmissions too little on these long descents. Their brakes get too hot to function and they have to bail.)

 

[rjmh]

Okay so if you guys wouldnt mind helping me here… im relatively inexperienced to these functions on toyotas; i have lots of experience with engine breaking on my previous F150 when towing a 28’ travel trailer and I used DAC a few times driving downhill trails in oregon (not towing of course).

Is there a reason we would use Engine breaking vs DAC on a slow downhill crawl?

We used the DAC a fair amount over the weekend. I found it effective and easy to adjust speed with the dash knob. I turned it off on a long steep downhill when I started to smell the brakes, and manually down shifted from 3 to 2 to 1. I don't have an opinion on how effective the engine braking is relative to other vehicles, but it is certainly present and it certainly let me brake and release. I would agree that engine braking alone was not sufficient to control the speed, and I did miss my sprinter's paddle shifters. So yeah the reason is to be able to release the brakes as opposed to having them continually on.

 

[DenisLM]

On the way up, I was watching the turbo and hybrid gauges, just to see how this new drive system would handle the high-altitude climb (more variables than a simple IC engine). I was quite surprised to note that below ~12,200’, the turbo and hybrid system rarely kicked in, only when needing to get up a short, very steep portion of the trail, and only very briefly. Considering the considerable elevation and temps (60-55°F), this surprised me. Also, about halfway up the hybrid battery was nearly at max SOC, ~7 bars; (started at 4 bars). At around 12,500’ the turbo started kicking in, and from then on did so pretty regularly, as needed. This seems odd to me, as there wasn’t a big change in terrain that should have warranted it. The hybrid only really kicked on for a second or two max, never for any extended period. This also surprised me. Fuel economy on the way up? 5 mpg.

I'm curious if you observed the transmission temperature after all this climbing.

 

[b407driver]

I'm curious if you observed the transmission temperature after all this climbing.

I did not. Instead of perseverating over a gauge that may or may not accurately reflect relatively small incremental changes, I instead drove it and hoped not to see the transmission temp error message. Fortunately, I did not.

 

[b407driver]

We used the DAC a fair amount over the weekend. I found it effective and easy to adjust speed with the dash knob. I turned it off on a long steep downhill when I started to smell the brakes, and manually down shifted from 3 to 2 to 1. I don't have an opinion on how effective the engine braking is relative to other vehicles, but it is certainly present and it certainly let me brake and release. I would agree that engine braking alone was not sufficient to control the speed, and I did miss my sprinter's paddle shifters. So yeah the reason is to be able to release the brakes as opposed to having them continually on.

That's a great take that I ignored in lieu of going into details beyond the advantages of not wasting brake pad. Thanks for posting!

 

[DenisLM]

I did not. Instead of perseverating over a gauge that may or may not accurately reflect relatively small incremental changes, I instead drove it and hoped not to see the transmission temp error message. Fortunately, I did not.

Looks like you kept 4LO on most/all the climb and if so the higher rpms in theory kept the temperatures more controlled.
At least this have been my experience.

 

[b407driver]

Looks like you kept 4LO on most/all the climb and if so the higher rpms in theory kept the temperatures more controlled.
At least this have been my experience.

Nope, 4High for the climb, 4Low for the descent. Didn't engage 4Low on the way up at all. I just edited that first 4High statement to make it more clear. Thanks!

 

[Colorado]

That photo of your skid plate makes me change my thinking. Now I've got to ditch my cheap plastic one and go with the FE's much more rugged version.

You're going to cost me money!

 

[b407driver]

That photo of your skid plate makes me change my thinking. Now I've got to ditch my cheap plastic one and go with the FE's much more rugged version.

You're going to cost me money!

Ain't me, it's this forum!

 

[gxsandiego]

Actually knowing and seeing that picture may have saved you money in the long run. Just saying

 

[jeffd]

That photo of your skid plate makes me change my thinking. Now I've got to ditch my cheap plastic one and go with the FE's much more rugged version.

You're going to cost me money!

Money well spent.

 

[Martinfj250]

After 2+ weeks of ownership, I finally had the opportunity on 9/20/24 to get my LCP offroad and generally compare the ride and offroad systems to the outgoing 4Runner, which I drove for 9 years. If I were a hyperbolic YouTuber I’d title this thread “First LandCruiser up Santa Fe Peak!”, give myself a little trophy, and include a ridiculous picture of me jumping in the air next to my ‘rig’… but alas, I digress. Only ‘mods’ are 285/70r18 “E” Toyo Open Country on ’24 Tacoma 18” TRD rims (+45 offset, 28.75lbs); added FE skidplates and FE rock rails. Was a gorgeous day, so I’ll include a couple pics of both the LC and the trail. Haven’t seen many in-depth on-trail performance/feature reports, so will go into some detail here.

View attachment 12366

The route up Santa Fe Peak starts right in the town of Montezuma, and pretty immediately starts switchbacking up 2700’ in 5 miles (23 or so switchbacks, if I counted right); took about an hour to get up. Santa Fe Peak isn’t particularly rigorous or technical (no big ledges, etc.), but you do need some decent ground clearance, like in a slightly lifted 4Runner, for example. Which I no longer have. The trail is a bit shelfy and off-camber, and a few of the switchbacks felt pretty sporty on the downhill run; only had to do three 3-point turns. It really feels like the LC has a tighter turning radius than the 4R, but it’s honestly probably related to the full-time 4WD system in the LC not binding in 4 Low. I did not mind the light steering feel. This is my first full-time 4WD vehicle, and so far, I am a fan.

View attachment 12353

On the way up, I was watching the turbo and hybrid gauges, just to see how this new drive system would handle the high-altitude climb (more variables than a simple IC engine). I was quite surprised to note that below ~12,200’, the turbo and hybrid system rarely kicked in, only when needing to get up a short, very steep portion of the trail, and only very briefly. Considering the considerable elevation and temps (60-55°F), this surprised me. Also, about halfway up the hybrid battery was nearly at max SOC, ~7 bars; (started at 4 bars). At around 12,500’ the turbo started kicking in, and from then on did so pretty regularly, as needed. This seems odd to me, as there wasn’t a big change in terrain that should have warranted it. The hybrid only really kicked on for a second or two max, never for any extended period. This also surprised me. Fuel economy on the way up? 5 mpg.

View attachment 12354

As far as the offroad systems go, I stayed in 4 High with the Center un-locked until around 11,000’, at which point the road surface loosened and I engaged the center locker (in no way did I ‘need’ to, yet). Further on as the surface got more irregular around treeline, I engaged MTS Auto, simply to prevent tire spin from chewing up the trail unnecessarily. [I did not air down (38psi), I did not use DAC/CC, I did not use the rear locker, nor did I disconnect the swaybar.] This LandCruiser simply climbs like a goat, there’s just no other way to put it. I assume it is due to having more articulation than the 4Runner, and the ride is much more comfortable because of it. No sharp jolts, the stock suspension really dampens the ride without making it feel ‘boaty’, and at least for crawling, it seems much better than the 6112/5160 TRD Pro suspension on my 2016 4Runner (perhaps I’m getting soft in my old age). The ride at 38 psi was at least as comfortable as the 4Runner aired down to 20 psi! I can’t wait to get to the desert to find out the other side of this coin, e.g. high-speed/washboard. What Toyota got 100% right with this new offroad platform that was previously lacking was designing a fenderwell that can accommodate 34” tires at full articulation. That was long overdue considering the competition.

View attachment 12355 View attachment 12361 View attachment 12362

The high point of the route is 13,124’ MSL, with gorgeous views down into Peru Creek on one side (with Grays and Torreys towering 1000’ above), and Webster Pass on the other, 1000’ below. Quick aside about the Trail Dust color, which was not my first choice, asI initially thought it looked quite yellow in pictures. The color is seriously growing on me and looks more gold to me, and in my brain the color is now ‘Fall Tundra’, after this trip.

View attachment 12356 View attachment 12357

For the ride down I immediately engaged 4Low, and as on the way up, the LandCruiser also descended like a goat. Tires stayed planted, and it never felt like a tire was quickly slipping down a rock and bashing into a low spot, which was not uncommon with the 4Runner. Clearance seemed to be more of an issue on the descent, I assume because the terrain is harder to see than going uphill. Tire placement became more important, and despite not dinging the FE skid plates on the way up, I definitely heard three contacts on the way down (only felt one). The LC could certainly have a bit more ground clearance out of the box, especially in the vicinity of the front crossmember. The trail cameras were a refreshing benefit of a modern vehicle, thus never had to worry much about tire placement in relation to the drop-off. Visibility out of the LandCruiser is excellent; the sloped hood makes a huge difference (my prehistoric 4Runner shows more hood out the front than terrain!), and the view out the side window/A pillar is also much better. I think it's a big deal that MTS can be used in 4 High, as the 4Runner's ATRAC system is limited to use in 4 Low; MTS makes virtually no noise compared to the incessant chattering of the 4Runner’s ATRAC system. The inclinometer is fun to scan, albeit occasionally alarming. One question: Why no altimeter, Toyota?

View attachment 12364 View attachment 12360 View attachment 12363 View attachment 12365

Now, the elephant in my room, anyway, and probably my primary beef with the new platform: Engine Braking. Or lack thereof. Nearly a complete lack thereof, compared to the 4Runner’s V6. I haven’t heard anyone talking about this! Even for on-road driving, manually downshifting provides little braking effect. We tow a mid-sized teardrop trailer, and I’m having a hard time envisioning how this will work (read: I’ll have to use much more brake pad). This is probably the most unfortunate part of this purchase for me, as we wanted to move to a vehicle that tows better (I’m sure the LC does so in regard to power/torque, despite TFL’s inane missteps with the tow/haul software). I can only hope that the lack of engine braking might have something to do with a designed break-in period which anecdotally might end at 1000 miles. Can the hybrid motor be used for engine braking? Total trip fuel economy at the bottom? 7.9 mpg, so maybe got 11 on the way down.

So, between the previous articulation/tire rub test I recently did and this first outing (no tire rub here, either), I am incredibly impressed by how much better the LC is compared to the outgoing generation of the 4Runner. I honestly did not expect this, I just assumed it would be a more modern take on an established platform. It is certainly that, and more. Yes, I know they are historically two different vehicles/markets, but now that four Toyota/Lexus vehicles are built on the TNGA-F platform, they’re all coming together with little more than design and creature features to set them apart. Yes, the new 4Runner should perform identically (albeit with predominantly part-time 4WD), so if nothing else, this sample of one should at least give those waiting for the 6th Gen 4Runner some info on what they are still waiting for. It will be a great vehicle, just no longer for me.

Cheers, Jeff

View attachment 12401

[EDIT: Not sure why that last image also shows up as thumbnail, doesn't show up in 'Edit' pane; also clarified 4High statment]

Great post. I'm so jelly! read everything on the engine breaking and DAC but I am curious if you ever encountered a spot where you used crawl on that trip or at any other time you were off-road.

 

[b407driver]

Great post. I'm so jelly! read everything on the engine breaking and DAC but I am curious if you ever encountered a spot where you used crawl on that trip or at any other time you were off-road.

Nope. Coming from a 4Runner I’m sort of just conditioned to live without it; I can deal with the noise, but not the herky-jerkiness of it. Mainly locked center, and used 4-Low for descent.

 

[brianz]

I agree on the engine braking. I come from manual landcruisers 40/75/105 and it was really useful. I also had a Toyota BZ4X and it had an Enhanced Regnerative Braking (similar to single pedal driving) and I used that all the time - it didn't work when battery % was high. I wish they would add that to the LC - i wonder if it could even be an OTA update (please Toyota read this!). Also, in Canada we got paddle shifters. Thanks for the great write-up.

PS: there's a rear diff skid plate out - hopefully compatible. I'm trying to get all my aftermarket stuff before I get the lift (probably Dobinsons) to get the weight right. The factory 4runner has more clearance!

 

[b407driver]

I agree on the engine braking. I come from manual landcruisers 40/75/105 and it was really useful. I also had a Toyota BZ4X and it had an Enhanced Regnerative Braking (similar to single pedal driving) and I used that all the time - it didn't work when battery % was high. I wish they would add that to the LC - i wonder if it could even be an OTA update (please Toyota read this!). Also, in Canada we got paddle shifters. Thanks for the great write-up.

PS: there's a rear diff skid plate out - hopefully compatible. I'm trying to get all my aftermarket stuff before I get the lift (probably Dobinsons) to get the weight right. The factory 4runner has more clearance!

I saw that rear diff plate, Toyota's pics look identical for the LC vs Tacoma version, not that that means anything.

I want to know how the '25 4Runner has more clearance, or if it even does. It seems some of the quoted ground clearance numbers may have inconsistencies, i.e. apples vs. oranges ('ground clearance', vs. 'running ground clearance', etc.). I have a hard time believing it will be any different for the base model 4Runners, since they are built on the same platform. Then again, the LC has front bumpstops and the new 4Runner apparently doesn't, so there certainly may be some design differences. I had a conversation with someone at Toyota who expressed... some waffling when asked about the source of the 'parts shortage' for the 6th Gen 4Runners. Leads me to believe that Toyota may be standing back for a design/part design issue to be resolved. Wish we knew what it was, hope it's not the transmission.