Test drove the LC - wanting a bit more performance - future performance upgrades coming?
- Thread starter starfly
- Start date
Coming from a Rav4? and worry the LC is not fast enough? Head scratching emoji right here.
Why not try the Urus or DBX707 or Bentayga? They are probably all upgradable later.
Why not try the Urus or DBX707 or Bentayga? They are probably all upgradable later.
I quite like the Land Cruiser powertrain, but I could see how one might find it underwhelming. Right now, it only provides marginal gas mileage advantages over V6 turbo and V8 counterparts while delivering comparable or slightly less power. Especially for the Land Cruisers vehicle price.
Sure the rated hp & tq numbers look good, but pushing the powertrain into delivering it results in basically the same gas mileage numbers as a those bigger engines. I’ve also found sometimes the electric doesn’t kick on every time? And the 2.4 is barely adequate for highway cruising. The electric seems to be used less often than the turbo for maintaining highways speeds of 70-75 mph further reducing your highway mpgs. The electric motor also seems to be used inconsistently accelerating from a stop. And the power is definitely mediocre when under gas only.
To me, it feels like a stronger electric motor that was more active would solve a lot of the issues, but who knows how that would’ve balanced out. E.g. it would probably need a bigger battery etc. Alternatively, if the 2.4 was maybe upsized (maybe to something power wise comparable to the Chevy 2.7) it wouldn’t suffer on the highway mpgs as much?
There are obvious cost/feasability constraints as to why they didn’t do either of these things. Clearly Toyota also thought they’d be able to squeeze more out of the powertrain seeing as they originally claimed it’d have 27 combined?
Edit: to clarify, I think the 2.4 is perfectly adequate for the highway power wise, for all the pure gas Tacoma and 4Runner owners out there. I just think it struggles to return good mpg numbers having to dip into boost a lot to maintain 70-75mph.
Sure the rated hp & tq numbers look good, but pushing the powertrain into delivering it results in basically the same gas mileage numbers as a those bigger engines. I’ve also found sometimes the electric doesn’t kick on every time? And the 2.4 is barely adequate for highway cruising. The electric seems to be used less often than the turbo for maintaining highways speeds of 70-75 mph further reducing your highway mpgs. The electric motor also seems to be used inconsistently accelerating from a stop. And the power is definitely mediocre when under gas only.
To me, it feels like a stronger electric motor that was more active would solve a lot of the issues, but who knows how that would’ve balanced out. E.g. it would probably need a bigger battery etc. Alternatively, if the 2.4 was maybe upsized (maybe to something power wise comparable to the Chevy 2.7) it wouldn’t suffer on the highway mpgs as much?
There are obvious cost/feasability constraints as to why they didn’t do either of these things. Clearly Toyota also thought they’d be able to squeeze more out of the powertrain seeing as they originally claimed it’d have 27 combined?
Edit: to clarify, I think the 2.4 is perfectly adequate for the highway power wise, for all the pure gas Tacoma and 4Runner owners out there. I just think it struggles to return good mpg numbers having to dip into boost a lot to maintain 70-75mph.
My 2002 LC struggled to get 14mpg on the highway. And its power delivery - though very smooth - was weak compared to the that of the 2024 model. I always had to shift down to & hold second gear when accelerating up hills. And towing was a chore, whereas my 1958 effortlessly pulled a full enclosed trailer to NC and averaged 19mpg while doing so.
Compared to its predecessors, the new model yields greater power and higher mpg.
Compared to its predecessors, the new model yields greater power and higher mpg.
And about 45% less CO2 equivalent emissions than a naturally aspirated V8 making similar power. If my research is right.
I compiled tested results from the same source. Couple of notes:
1) LC and 4Runner models are the most off road ready of the available factory trims. This typically means more off road oriented tires, more armor (thus weight). The non heritage edition from '16, for example, tested a little better than the '20.
2) Some of the data was omitted by C&D. No observed fuel efficiency for the GX460, for example.
3) The LC hybrid really shines in day to day situations. Making a quick pass? Fastest of the group. That's the benefit of that instant torque of the electric motor. It also absolutely tromps everything in the everyday fuel efficiency.
4) Ultimate performance favors displacement and/or turbo. That said, if drag racing is your thing, I don't think that any BOF Toyota is going to be very good.
5) I didn't add the non turbo Tacoma to the table because it is very different, but it managed a 7.0sec to 60 and almost identical 30-50 and 50-70 numbers. It was also 900lbs lighter than the LC as tested and still only had 17mpg observed despite similar EPA number.
My overall conclusion is that the 2.4T hybrid is a pretty decent fit for the Land Cruiser and we're honestly spoiled for choice in this day and age. For whatever your preference is, you can find an iteration of the TNGA-F with a drivetrain that fits your needs between the 4Runner, 4Runner HV, Land Cruiser, Sequoia, GX550, LX600, and upcoming LX700h.
Source from Car and Driver:
www.caranddriver.com
1) LC and 4Runner models are the most off road ready of the available factory trims. This typically means more off road oriented tires, more armor (thus weight). The non heritage edition from '16, for example, tested a little better than the '20.
2) Some of the data was omitted by C&D. No observed fuel efficiency for the GX460, for example.
3) The LC hybrid really shines in day to day situations. Making a quick pass? Fastest of the group. That's the benefit of that instant torque of the electric motor. It also absolutely tromps everything in the everyday fuel efficiency.
4) Ultimate performance favors displacement and/or turbo. That said, if drag racing is your thing, I don't think that any BOF Toyota is going to be very good.
5) I didn't add the non turbo Tacoma to the table because it is very different, but it managed a 7.0sec to 60 and almost identical 30-50 and 50-70 numbers. It was also 900lbs lighter than the LC as tested and still only had 17mpg observed despite similar EPA number.
| Model | '20 LC Heritage Edition | '24 LC First Edition | '22 4Runner TRD Pro | '24 GX550 Premium | '22 GX460 Black Line |
| Drivetrain | 5.7L V8, 8AT | 2.4T L4, 8AT, HV | 4.0L V6, 5AT | 3.4TT V6, 10AT | 4.6L V8, 6AT |
| Power | 381@5600 | 326 | 270@5600 | 349@5200 | 301@550 |
| Torque | 401@3600 | 465 | 278@4400 | 479@2000 | 329@3500 |
| Weight | 5851 | 5639 | 4800 | 5517 | 5264 |
| Weight/Power | 15.35 | 17.29 | 17.77 | 15.81 | 17.49 |
| 0-60 | 7.0 | 7.7 | 7.7 | 6.2 | 7.2 |
| 5-60 | 7.1 | 8.1 | 8.1 | 6.8 | 7.6 |
| 30-50 | 4.1 | 3.4 | 4.2 | 3.6 | 3.7 |
| 50-70 | 5.5 | 4.7 | 5.6 | 4.9 | 5.1 |
| 1/4 mi | 15.4@90 | 16.2@86 | 16.0@86 | 14.7@95 | 15.7@89 |
| Observed fuel economy | 14 | 20 | 15 | 16 | ? |
| 75 mph loop | not done | 21 | 17 | 21 | 18 |
| EPA (co/ci/hw) | 14/13/17 | 23/22/25 | 17/16/19 | 17/15/21 | 16/15/19 |
My overall conclusion is that the 2.4T hybrid is a pretty decent fit for the Land Cruiser and we're honestly spoiled for choice in this day and age. For whatever your preference is, you can find an iteration of the TNGA-F with a drivetrain that fits your needs between the 4Runner, 4Runner HV, Land Cruiser, Sequoia, GX550, LX600, and upcoming LX700h.
Source from Car and Driver:
2024 Toyota Land Cruiser Tested: Is It the Real Deal?
The new 2024 Toyota Land Cruiser sets out on a different path. We venture into the wilds of Utah to find out if it's the right one.
www.caranddriver.com
Yes basically a bumped up Sequioa/Tundra HV power train.
I drove a bitchin GX470 for the last 12 years. That VVTI v8 was incredible! However, I was lucky to get 13 MPG on the hwy. Acceleration was okay for a 6,000 lb pig. Anything over 65 mph or a stiff head wind and I could literally watch the fuel needle move. Quite a bit of gear hunting on the highway.
The LC250 accelerates better than the GX and right now I'm almost doubling the MPGs. I've been impressed with the power going up the mountain passes. My only real complaint is the sound. It's a little buzzy when accelerating.
We'll see what happens with larger tires, but I'm optimistic that it will still be more economical and faster than that glorious 4.7L.
The LC250 accelerates better than the GX and right now I'm almost doubling the MPGs. I've been impressed with the power going up the mountain passes. My only real complaint is the sound. It's a little buzzy when accelerating.
We'll see what happens with larger tires, but I'm optimistic that it will still be more economical and faster than that glorious 4.7L.
I found that there is a spot on the accelerator a little more than half way floored that seems to spool the turbo and picks up better than stomping on it.
well.... the Hybrid Taco now has the OTT tune, so i suspect LC and new 4runner will be available soon.
how many people here would consider this? I'm not horribly opposed but would wait until i hear some user feedback on it before i pull the trigger
how many people here would consider this? I'm not horribly opposed but would wait until i hear some user feedback on it before i pull the trigger
Coming from my manual Rubicon, which I could hold off shifting for more power when accelerating, the LC (hybrid) is plenty zippy. It's much faster than our Buick to 60+. And it was noticeably quicker than the 4-runner we test drove...
At some point if you want faster 0-60 times, should you be looking at a sports car?
At some point if you want faster 0-60 times, should you be looking at a sports car?
Sure, and some folks are a bit unrealistic in expectations... I don't think any Land Cruiser has ever been known for being "quick"...but at the same time, I get it, especially with the move to a turbo 4-cylinder, I understand why folks want to be ensured that it's not sluggish.
I know my old 1st gen 4Runner, that had a 4-banger and only about 100 hp, was definitely sluggish, and that was the last truck I owned prior to the LC that had less than a V6. Yeah, it's a different time and engine tech has come a long way, but while I did love that 4Runner (it was my first vehicle) I wouldn't want to go back to that driving experience either.
I think the iFORCE MAX is a fantastic system. It delivers peak torque at very low RPMs (about 1,700) and has near instantaneous power delivery from the battery. Big displacement six or eight cylinder engines tend to have optimum torque at about double those RPMs and thus force down shifting. Compensating with turbos or superchargers adds even more lag delays. The result is the driver needs to actively manage RPM, gear selection, engine lag, and timing to get power when its needed.
The LC is a much simpler and pleasant experience for performance driving. I would also argue it is quieter as a whole. If you watch what you are doing you can seamlessly glide along at 17K RPMs with little use of low gears and have a big power boost available at any time. I used to think that was only relavent for 0-40 speeds but now use it at cruising speeds of bumping from 60-70 mph to change lanes on the highway.
Towing scenarios are probably the main exception. High RPMS are needed for max horsepower. But for just about everything else, the hybrid is the way to go
The LC is a much simpler and pleasant experience for performance driving. I would also argue it is quieter as a whole. If you watch what you are doing you can seamlessly glide along at 17K RPMs with little use of low gears and have a big power boost available at any time. I used to think that was only relavent for 0-40 speeds but now use it at cruising speeds of bumping from 60-70 mph to change lanes on the highway.
Towing scenarios are probably the main exception. High RPMS are needed for max horsepower. But for just about everything else, the hybrid is the way to go
I quickly watched the video. Seems that the benefit was more obvious for the non-hybrid Tacoma and it’s most likely achieved via an increase in allowed pressure (or boost) for the turbo.
There’s been a lot of discussion re Toyota’s substitution of a turbo 4 cylinder to replace the 8 and 6 cylinder engines in the SUVs & trucks - ie would the smaller, turbocharged engine have the needed durability?Many of us are betting that Toyota can achieve similar durability w the smaller engines. So, then why add an aftermarket tune that will increase pressure / stress on the engine? The Max system is providing the torque gain w/o the added stress of increasing turbo boost.
Lastly, the video host indicated that he couldn’t discern much of a difference - in real world driving - in torque between the max and non-max Tacoma turbo 4’s. Yet he provides no detail as to how he tried to discern a difference. I suspect he was mostly sensing HP differences. One should be able to discern a difference of ~ 180 ft lbs at say 200 rpm. But you might not notice the 48hp difference at peak hp.
