Would you give up off-road capability for better mpg?

[m1konrad]

I see what you mean, but for the U.S. - 90% of people want to look off-road ready but will never do it. Arcteryx jackets in a 4runner going to soccer games and malls exclusively. I'm not making fun here, I really think an AWD LC with 34MP would outsell the more capable version. Or at least that same setup in a 4runner would.

Yeah, I suppose there's a significant number of people in that category. On the other hand, I'm assuming Toyota has done significant focus group work to come to some kind of conclusion as to why they're not doing that? Do we know upper-middle class folks w/ the $700 REI outfit want this (a less-capable, mpg focused Land Cruiser)? I don't have an answer to that but I'm thinking Toyota has asked the question.

Personally, I'm surprised there's OEMs offering any of the off-road capability we're getting lately as I would also assume most folks here, seeing off-road capability as a priority, are a minority. If anything, it feels like these vehicles have become more capable and purpose-built for off-road over the past ~20 years. I can't answer why though, and it doesn't seem intuitive to me, but I'll certainly take it.

Not entirely related but I could see the uproar/crisis if Toyota did make a Land Cruiser that kept the appearance but prioritized mpgs and refinement. It would likely set social media ablaze and add to the fire from folks who are already telling us this upcoming 250 series Land Cruiser isn't a REAL Land Cruiser but instead an over-gadgeted, driving nanny-bloated, pleasure vehicle. There's probably reasons the lumber wagon-like riding Jeep Wranglers w/ front & rear solid axles have been faithfully selling for decades and Jeep hasn't pulled-back the capability for refinement/mpgs. I can't say what that reason is besides there's a significant market for them as they are - even if most of them are used as soft-roaders. They just keep selling, and now the Bronco's here and Ford certainly didn't take any short-cuts w/ capability while being somewhat of a pig regarding efficiency - though still "ok" mpgs considering the equipment at ~20 mpgs highway.

Could they all sell better if they did do what you suggest? I suppose, but I don't have the information Jeep, Toyota, and Ford has. There may be more people out there than we give credit for that will take the hit on mpg or even refinement to have a vehicle that can do what the Land Cruiser (and the others) can do in an emergency-type situation. May be a "better to have it and not need it vs need-not-have" kind of situation but I have no clue. If anyone can figure out making available a "having cake and eating it too" option, regarding capability w/ mpgs, I'll take a serious look at it.

 

[Skidaddl]

Would purchase a Sienna tomorrow, IF it were not for the frontal styling. Surely that way for aerodynamics. However, not sold on the bland front of the LC either. As mentioned elsewhere, styling-wise my preference is the 2024 Lexus GX.

I agree. I like the styling of the GX exterior in every way (prefer the LC interior - a bit more understated). For me though, it's mostly the LC back end that falls short. I like the front, but that rear looks like they started at the front, worked their way back, but ran into a design deadline.

 

[Skidaddl]

Yeah, I suppose there's a significant number of people in that category. On the other hand, I'm assuming Toyota has done significant focus group work to come to some kind of conclusion as to why they're not doing that? Do we know upper-middle class folks w/ the $700 REI outfit want this (a less-capable, mpg focused Land Cruiser)? I don't have an answer to that but I'm thinking Toyota has asked the question.

Personally, I'm surprised there's OEMs offering any of the off-road capability we're getting lately as I would also assume most folks here, seeing off-road capability as a priority, are a minority. If anything, it feels like these vehicles have become more capable and purpose-built for off-road over the past ~20 years. I can't answer why though, and it doesn't seem intuitive to me, but I'll certainly take it.

Not entirely related but I could see the uproar/crisis if Toyota did make a Land Cruiser that kept the appearance but prioritized mpgs and refinement. It would likely set social media ablaze and add to the fire from folks who are already telling us this upcoming 250 series Land Cruiser isn't a REAL Land Cruiser but instead an over-gadgeted, driving nanny-bloated, pleasure vehicle. There's probably reasons the lumber wagon-like riding Jeep Wranglers w/ front & rear solid axles have been faithfully selling for decades and Jeep hasn't pulled-back the capability for refinement/mpgs. I can't say what that reason is besides there's a significant market for them as they are - even if most of them are used as soft-roaders. They just keep selling, and now the Bronco's here and Ford certainly didn't take any short-cuts w/ capability while being somewhat of a pig regarding efficiency - though still "ok" mpgs considering the equipment at ~20 mpgs highway.

Could they all sell better if they did do what you suggest? I suppose, but I don't have the information Jeep, Toyota, and Ford has. There may be more people out there than we give credit for that will take the hit on mpg or even refinement to have a vehicle that can do what the Land Cruiser (and the others) can do in an emergency-type situation. May be a "better to have it and not need it vs need-not-have" kind of situation but I have no clue. If anyone can figure out making available a "having cake and eating it too" option, regarding capability w/ mpgs, I'll take a serious look at it.

This is an interesting discussion. I was looking for a used 4Runner a few years ago. I live within 30 minutes of the mountains. Trying to find a non-Limited version of the 4Runner was nearly impossible. It was very clear most people who own them never leave pavement - ever. But they still sell like hotcakes.

 

[m1konrad]

This is an interesting discussion. I was looking for a used 4Runner a few years ago. I live within 30 minutes of the mountains. Trying to find a non-Limited version of the 4Runner was nearly impossible. It was very clear most people who own them never leave pavement - ever. But they still sell like hotcakes.

That is odd. I would think it would be the direct opposite - Limited/premium trims gone w/ the base SR5s crowding the lots. Wranglers, for example, are certainly more refined with the current JLs compared to the JKs and earlier but they're still wagons with the two solid axles and the dealers can't keep them on the lots. I see them all over the place here in MN with 20s... naturally. It would seem there's more "reasonable" options for these people. Of course, Jeep (and all the others), could simply pull the body and slap it onto a fully-independent suspension, unibody configuration with a CVT for max refinement and mpgs but no one has tried that. Could be an interesting experiment I suppose. With my limited knowledge on the OEM reasoning why it isn't happening, I'm just assuming the OEMs don't see it as being worth the investment (and the guranteed PR blowback from folks who would see this as a money-grab; using legacy off-road nameplates for a passenger car, lower-cost platform).

 

[jnsplace]

I live in a rural area where most cars are trucks due to the oft time access of a muddy unpaved road and etc, plus the winter weather. That's likely the only off roading I will do, add the power, tow capability, and MPG. I am also in the bucket of great balance. Plus honestly, I love the look.

 

[FarooqMCSE]

Thank you for asking. As someone mentioned, there are several SUVs built by Toyota that are hybrid and are used for mainly grocery shopping Let's leave LC for what it is. Offroad fun and outoor fun, and so very reliable and sturdy. Nothing driven by me so far was as solid, as stable and as dependable as my year 2000 Land Cruiser. Please keep 250 /1958 that way. I would have kept my LC, but a drunk caused huge damage to it in an accident. I did not like the repairs done to it , so I sold it.

 

[mth1738]

I ran some quick calculations of 27mpg vs 35mpg - at about 12,000 miles per year I think it came out to 280$ in gas per year assuming $3 / gallon. So that's about $25 / month for that extra capability. Seems reasonable in that context. Or even $2800 over the life of the vehicle sounds ok.

 

[German88]

I ran some quick calculations of 27mpg vs 35mpg - at about 12,000 miles per year I think it came out to 280$ in gas per year assuming $3 / gallon. So that's about $25 / month for that extra capability. Seems reasonable in that context. Or even $2800 over the life of the vehicle sounds ok.

I’d take that trade off all day…

 

[JIMIPRO]

People could also wait for the Land Cruiser SE (EV). According to the engineers, suppose to be capable off road.

 

[Skidaddl]

That is odd. I would think it would be the direct opposite - Limited/premium trims gone w/ the base SR5s crowding the lots. Wranglers, for example, are certainly more refined with the current JLs compared to the JKs and earlier but they're still wagons with the two solid axles and the dealers can't keep them on the lots. I see them all over the place here in MN with 20s... naturally. It would seem there's more "reasonable" options for these people. Of course, Jeep (and all the others), could simply pull the body and slap it onto a fully-independent suspension, unibody configuration with a CVT for max refinement and mpgs but no one has tried that. Could be an interesting experiment I suppose. With my limited knowledge on the OEM reasoning why it isn't happening, I'm just assuming the OEMs don't see it as being worth the investment (and the guranteed PR blowback from folks who would see this as a money-grab; using legacy off-road nameplates for a passenger car, lower-cost platform).

I should clarify: I was searching the private used market. I'd say 70% of what was out there are Limited models. Could be that people who buy the more off-road capable models hang onto them longer since the competition is very limited as well. If you're driving to the mall or soccer practice, there are plenty of options out there.

 

[voxel]

No.

If you don't want an off-road vehicle with locking diffs there are TONS of other options with better mpg.

Separately, I wish Toyota didn't go with a turbo-4 rather than the tried and true NA engines in other hybridized vehicles like the RAV4 Prime and Prius.

The new Sequoia lost a ton of cargo space with the battery bump and solid rear axle. So many idiotic design decisions with that vehicle and happy to be rid of it. The new LC has the same design but doesn't seem to have the same compromises.

 

[LC-120]

I ran some quick calculations of 27mpg vs 35mpg - at about 12,000 miles per year I think it came out to 280$ in gas per year assuming $3 / gallon. So that's about $25 / month for that extra capability. Seems reasonable in that context. Or even $2800 over the life of the vehicle sounds ok.

35mpg vs 27 looks huge but when you calculate $25/mo ... this is nothing in the US .
There will probably be a long and hard time before a mass adoption of efficient cars and EVs since gas is so cheap.

 

[voxel]

35mpg vs 27 looks huge but when you calculate $25/mo ... this is nothing in the US .
There will probably be a long and hard time before a mass adoption of efficient cars and EVs since gas is so cheap.

Nah. The real reason folks will adopt EVs is the same reason we have automatic transmission. Ease and simplicity. Manual transmission is more gas efficient and they were more popular in Europe than North America.

I commute daily with an EV rather than a janky tractor... but off-roading? 100% janky tractor all the way. With Sodium-Ion batteries already in production (no nickel, cobalt, lithium) you will see some super cheap EVs replace your Fortes, Corollas, Traxs, Souls, etc for city driving.

With that said Toyota is making the LC hybrid NOT for efficiency reasons. If you've driven a new Sequoia the power is almost EV-like and smooth. Same with the RAV4 Prime... it's about as quick as a base Tesla 3 with fairly linear power delivery. I had a base Bronco with 2.3L I4 and it was brutal in stop and go traffic. The gearing made it constantly shift at low speeds and it was like driving a heavy tractor.

 

[IceColdNorth]

Nah. The real reason folks will adopt EVs is the same reason we have automatic transmission. Ease and simplicity. Manual transmission is more gas efficient and they were more popular in Europe than North America.

I commute daily with an EV rather than a janky tractor... but off-roading? 100% janky tractor all the way. With Sodium-Ion batteries already in production (no nickel, cobalt, lithium) you will see some super cheap EVs replace your Fortes, Corollas, Traxs, Souls, etc for city driving.

With that said Toyota is making the LC hybrid NOT for efficiency reasons. If you've driven a new Sequoia the power is almost EV-like and smooth. Same with the RAV4 Prime... it's about as quick as a base Tesla 3 with fairly linear power delivery. I had a base Bronco with 2.3L I4 and it was brutal in stop and go traffic. The gearing made it constantly shift at low speeds and it was like driving a heavy tractor.

Agree. The acceleration on the '23 Sequoia is phenomenal, and that's on a vehicle big enough to tow 10,000 pounds.

 

[LC-120]

Manual transmission is another good example. At $6 or $8/gallon it would be more popular.

The Off-road capability and durability is a must for many drivers but very few are considering the fuel efficiency as a main purpose when buying a new car.

This time is not only about the simplicity. Like it or not but some other measures will come in order to reduce the CO2 and NOx levels.

 

[bluemts]

Thanks for the replies. Call me a poser, but my wife’s hybrid Sienna gets 37-40mpg and I’d be willing to have that drive train just to get the beautiful looks of the LC.

I want the looks and the off road capabilities of the Land Cruiser. Should be exactly what I'm looking for. Can't wait!

 

[qberg]

Manual transmission is another good example. At $6 or $8/gallon it would be more popular.

The Off-road capability and durability is a must for many drivers but very few are considering the fuel efficiency as a main purpose when buying a new car.

This time is not only about the simplicity. Like it or not but some other measures will come in order to reduce the CO2 and NOx levels.

8AT or CVT will way outperform a 6MT. When I bought my 6MT Corolla hatchback, the best I could do was around 34mpg on a tank. CVT cars were pulling 38-40mpg. I live in a hilly area, so that exacerbated the difference, but I think we are beyond the time of manuals doing better than automatics when it comes to fuel efficiency.

At $6-8/gallon, we'd see the complete death of manuals in everything but sports cars, IMO. Everything would switch to HV, PHEV, and BEV overnight. Companies wouldn't even bother to design manuals.

As far as the original topic, I think a high efficiency LC isn't needed. Making a LC for everyone kinda waters down the brand. Prioritizing off road performance and durability is what a Land Cruiser should be. Toyota already has the space efficient, fuel efficient models. Get a Grand Highlander. Honestly, I'm driving a 4Runner right now, and I really want a Land Cruiser, but my practical side may finally convince my lizard brain that a Grand Highlander is a better vehicle for what I need right now 99% of the time. It's a great vehicle. Will I feel as cool in a GH? No. Am I cool anyway? Never was.

 

[ovʀʟxnᴅ]

I was under this impression as well. Not that there is anything wrong with the Hino plant. As long as it's made in Japan I'm happy.

The FJ Cruisers came out of Hino and there were no show-stopping problems with any of them. A handful of rear ring gears with bad heat treating was the worst of it. I think that was only the 07s.

 

[German88]

Nah. The real reason folks will adopt EVs is the same reason we have automatic transmission. Ease and simplicity. Manual transmission is more gas efficient and they were more popular in Europe than North America.

I commute daily with an EV rather than a janky tractor... but off-roading? 100% janky tractor all the way. With Sodium-Ion batteries already in production (no nickel, cobalt, lithium) you will see some super cheap EVs replace your Fortes, Corollas, Traxs, Souls, etc for city driving.

With that said Toyota is making the LC hybrid NOT for efficiency reasons. If you've driven a new Sequoia the power is almost EV-like and smooth. Same with the RAV4 Prime... it's about as quick as a base Tesla 3 with fairly linear power delivery. I had a base Bronco with 2.3L I4 and it was brutal in stop and go traffic. The gearing made it constantly shift at low speeds and it was like driving a heavy

Nah. The real reason folks will adopt EVs is the same reason we have automatic transmission. Ease and simplicity. Manual transmission is more gas efficient and they were more popular in Europe than North America.

I commute daily with an EV rather than a janky tractor... but off-roading? 100% janky tractor all the way. With Sodium-Ion batteries already in production (no nickel, cobalt, lithium) you will see some super cheap EVs replace your Fortes, Corollas, Traxs, Souls, etc for city driving.

With that said Toyota is making the LC hybrid NOT for efficiency reasons. If you've driven a new Sequoia the power is almost EV-like and smooth. Same with the RAV4 Prime... it's about as quick as a base Tesla 3 with fairly linear power delivery. I had a base Bronco with 2.3L I4 and it was brutal in stop and go traffic. The gearing made it constantly shift at low speeds and it was like driving a heavy tractor.

I own a Bronco 2.3 w/10 spd auto. Calling it brutal in stop n go is a bit of an overstatement. It’s drives and shifts smoothly just like any other modern SUV.

 

[LC-120]

It may shift smoothly but driving will be much better with the Landcruiser. As mentioned before LC is a durable off-roader designed to be very comfortable and efficient on-road !
Many people will still choose the Bronco, but the two cars are very much different,