Side by Side Specs to the 4Runner

[New York Ralph]

Hey Gang
I have my LC ordered since October. I had the 4Runner for years and loved how it handled. I was checking the specs and it seems that the interior on the LC is smaller than on the 4Runner. Although the LC is longer and wider the interior seating, shoulder and leg room all are smaller in both 1st and 2nd rows. kind of surprised about that.

 

[Nuke]

Welcome to the forum Ralph! We also owned a 4Runner for many years and loved it. Was a 2005 Limited with the 4.7 V8 and X-RES. A very quiet vehicle, even compared to the present 4Runner. Our LC has also been ordered since it became known. However, now leaning a bit towards the LC sibling, a Lexus GX550, as the reviews have been shining. Additionally, whatever we purchase will be a "keeper", and not convinced that that would be so with a hybrid.

 

[LC-120]

The hybrid will be a keeper too. The savings on gas and insurance will pay for many batteries (coming with a very long warranty period). Luxury and off-road are not in the same league. Landcruiser is a very comfortable and efficient off-roader. The 4Runner does not match on-road. At all. Regarding the passenger and cargo space I would like to see the real figures.

 

[qberg]

Hey Gang
I have my LC ordered since October. I had the 4Runner for years and loved how it handled. I was checking the specs and it seems that the interior on the LC is smaller than on the 4Runner. Although the LC is longer and wider the interior seating, shoulder and leg room all are smaller in both 1st and 2nd rows. kind of surprised about that.

IMO, I'd wait to see one in person and not rely too much on specs. There are different ways to measure the same thing and Toyota isn't even very consistent across their own models. For example, the GR 86 supposedly has as much rear legroom as my GR Corolla. Both are listed at 29.9in. I owned both cars. It isn't even close. My family of 3 is very comfortable in my GR Corolla and the 3 of us could only fit in my FR-S when my, at the time, 6 year old daughter was sitting crosslegged.

 

[Nuke]

The hybrid will be a keeper too. The savings on gas and insurance will pay for many batteries (coming with a very long warranty period). Luxury and off-road are not in the same league. Landcruiser is a very comfortable and efficient off-roader. The 4Runner does not match on-road. At all. Regarding the passenger and cargo space I would like to see the real figures.

Regarding the savings on gas, I may be thinking wrong, but the hybrid probably will only best the non-hybrid by, say, 3 MPG. You mentioned savings on insurance. Would that be true? The hybrid will cost more, so in my thinking the comprehensive/theft insurance might be a tad higher? My real worry is the rapidly evolving battery chemistry/technology. Even Toyota has mentioned how they are developing far better batteries, and only about three years out as I recall. This said, I sure like the present NiMH battery chemistry over Li-Ion.

 

[Nuke]

The 4Runner does not match on-road.

Hopefully the new LC will be comfortable and handle well on-road, no tests as yet, but the 2005 4Runner Limited we owned, with the X-RES system, was not too shabby. The on/off tests for the GX are very positive, and presumably the LC will handle very similar. If I were a hard-core off-roader, the front and rear E-KDSS on the GX Overtrail trims would definitely swing me that direction.

 

[qberg]

The GX is 19mpg highway on premium while the Land Cruiser is 25mpg highway on (presumably) regular. Combined is 17mpg versus 23mpg. We’re talking over 30% improvement. That’s a massive difference. Fuel savings each year will be around $800-1000/yr depending on fuel costs in your area. That’s not nothing.

Plus, the great thing about hybrids is that the battery is still relatively small size and capacity. The manufacturers aren’t forced into a certain chemistry or energy density that might be compromised for longevity because they HAVE to get the battery under a certain weight or size to hit a range target or fit within the chassis. It’s literally like a 2 hr job to swap a hybrid battery. You are far more likely, IMO, to need a new starter or alternator on an ICE vehicle than the battery to be a problem on a hybrid. And both of those are worse repair jobs. Seriously, watch some YouTube videos of battery swaps in Prius and the like. They really aren’t bad at all.

 

[Nuke]

The GX is 19mpg highway on premium while the Land Cruiser is 25mpg highway on (presumably) regular. Combined is 17mpg versus 23mpg. We’re talking over 30% improvement. That’s a massive difference. Fuel savings each year will be around $800-1000/yr depending on fuel costs in your area. That’s not nothing.

Plus, the great thing about hybrids is that the battery is still relatively small size and capacity. The manufacturers aren’t forced into a certain chemistry or energy density that might be compromised for longevity because they HAVE to get the battery under a certain weight or size to hit a range target or fit within the chassis. It’s literally like a 2 hr job to swap a hybrid battery. You are far more likely, IMO, to need a new starter or alternator on an ICE vehicle than the battery to be a problem on a hybrid. And both of those are worse repair jobs. Seriously, watch some YouTube videos of battery swaps in Prius and the like. They really aren’t bad at all.

Could be mistaken, but as I recall on the Tundra the starter and controller module HAVE to be replaced at a programmed interval. My guess is the (backup) starter is light-duty, hence the required replacement.

For the MPG differential, wasn't thinking GX (terrible!), but how the hybrid LC will compare to the non-hybrid.

For sure, do like the fact of no alternator. They are not cheap nowadays.

Yes, have viewed some battery swaps on YouTube. Some relatively simple, some not. I would guess the LC will be easy.

The "real" hybrid system on our Highlander has no starter or alternator. No belts, period, as the A/C compressor is electric. Also, no transmission clutches or brakes, using a simple "power split" device, a planetary gear set with two electric motors. Of course not off-road capable, hence the quest for a LC or GX.

 

[qberg]

Ok, yea, non hybrid 4Runner will be a lot closer to Land Cruiser in MPG than GX is. It will come down to price and how it drives for me. I really like the effortless locomotion of the hybrids. If it drives that much better, I’ll pay the premium.

 

[Nuke]

Ok, yea, non hybrid 4Runner will be a lot closer to Land Cruiser in MPG than GX is. It will come down to price and how it drives for me. I really like the effortless locomotion of the hybrids. If it drives that much better, I’ll pay the premium.

Being a tech person, and knowing the drivetrain in detail, I do love our Highlander Hybrid. Hey, maybe a Rivian would be the way to go, well, if price was no object. It would be my luck to run out of "fuel" in the back-country. Convenient charging stations in the desert SW? Nope! In the queue for both a LC and GX, so will see which comes available first. I may have missed something, but have there been any actual LC road tests? There seems to be something amiss with that (in the LC,, future GX, and future Tacoma) hybrid drivetrain.

 

[Paint]

IMO, I'd wait to see one in person and not rely too much on specs. There are different ways to measure the same thing and Toyota isn't even very consistent across their own models. For example, the GR 86 supposedly has as much rear legroom as my GR Corolla. Both are listed at 29.9in. I owned both cars. It isn't even close. My family of 3 is very comfortable in my GR Corolla and the 3 of us could only fit in my FR-S when my, at the time, 6 year old daughter was sitting crosslegged.

Ain't that the truth.

Toyota puts the Tacoma and the 4Runner's rear seat leg room within .5 inches of each other on paper, but go get in them and you'll quickly see that those numbers are just...Made up from nothing LOL. A 6' tall person can sit comfortably behind a 6' tall person in the 4Runner. That is absolutely not happening in a Tacoma. Not even close.

One of the reviewers that went to the LC museum for the reveal is like 6' 5" tall and he seemed to fit fine behind himself. That's more than my family needs for sure LOL

 

[qberg]

Could be mistaken, but as I recall on the Tundra the starter and controller module HAVE to be replaced at a programmed interval. My guess is the (backup) starter is light-duty, hence the required replacement.

For the MPG differential, wasn't thinking GX (terrible!), but how the hybrid LC will compare to the non-hybrid.

For sure, do like the fact of no alternator. They are not cheap nowadays.

Yes, have viewed some battery swaps on YouTube. Some relatively simple, some not. I would guess the LC will be easy.

The "real" hybrid system on our Highlander has no starter or alternator. No belts, period, as the A/C compressor is electric. Also, no transmission clutches or brakes, using a simple "power split" device, a planetary gear set with two electric motors. Of course not off-road capable, hence the quest for a LC or GX.

Looks like some official things are dropping on the Land Cruiser as far as operation. The starter on the Land Cruiser is only for backup... basically there to help start in cold areas. I don't see anything about a required change interval, but I haven't dug deep into the maintenance schedule for LC. The Land Cruiser does have a pulley driven water pump -- rather than the electrical water pump used by your Highlander. No alternator, no pulley driven AC compressor.

The parallel hybrids used on the Highlander, Sienna, etc are super clever but I could see them being very compromised on a 4WD even with much more powerful motors. My neighbor has an F150 Lightning and it has independent rear suspension with a very exposed looking rear motor. I figure that's why we see the only electric motor on the hybrid trucks sandwiched between the engine and transmission. It keeps all the mechanical bits down near the ground pretty much the same as any Toyota 4WD. Keeps solid rear axles for good articulation.

 

[Bronconomore]

The GX is 19mpg highway on premium while the Land Cruiser is 25mpg highway on (presumably) regular. Combined is 17mpg versus 23mpg. We’re talking over 30% improvement. That’s a massive difference. Fuel savings each year will be around $800-1000/yr depending on fuel costs in your area. That’s not nothing.

Plus, the great thing about hybrids is that the battery is still relatively small size and capacity. The manufacturers aren’t forced into a certain chemistry or energy density that might be compromised for longevity because they HAVE to get the battery under a certain weight or size to hit a range target or fit within the chassis. It’s literally like a 2 hr job to swap a hybrid battery. You are far more likely, IMO, to need a new starter or alternator on an ICE vehicle than the battery to be a problem on a hybrid. And both of those are worse repair jobs. Seriously, watch some YouTube videos of battery swaps in Prius and the like. They really aren’t bad at all.

Sorry it is premium fuel for the LC.

 

[qberg]

Sorry it is premium fuel for the LC.

I know that now. When I made the post, the assumption was regular because Tacoma hybrid shows regular at this point.

 

[Nuke]

The key question might be, would using 87 octane be detrimental to the engine? Many modern engines can adjust for a lower octane, but with losing a bit of performance and MPG.