The new GX is the same size as the J200 Land Cruiser/LX and almost the same as J300 Land Cruiser, but 10cm shorter than the J310 LX.
It's almost like Toyota is confused about the positioning of new LCP and LC platforms. Both have that "2850mm magical wheelbase", which is self-invented and doesn't make sense anyway (there is no one-size-fit-all wheelbase for offroading, SWB and LWB are good for different things). Some LCP/GX buyers want that 3rd row, so it has to grow in length; some LC/LX buyers want offroad maneuverability, so it can't grow in length. So we end up in a situation where the 'mid-size' BOF product has almost the same size as the 'full-size' BOF product and neither is optimized for their respective roles.
I feel this mess is the result of TMC wanting to bring in more types of customers while not offending its conventional customers. In an ideal world they would end up with a lineup like this:
A SWB (2750mm), 2-row (<4800mm), narrowbody (<1900mm), fully offroad optimized model (modern FJ).
A SWB (2750mm), 3-row (>4800mm), narrowbody (<1900mm), emerging market optimized model (like Fortuner).
A MWB (2850mm), 2 or 3-row (<5000mm), widebody (>2000mm), balanced model (like traditional LCP/GX).
A LWB (>3000mm), 3-row (>5000mm), widebody (>2000mm), comfort and space optimized model (like Sequoia or a LWB Range Rover).
A XWB (>3200mm), 3-row (>5300mm), widebody (>2000mm), IRS, North America optimized model (like Escalade).
But they can't, since some customers will always complain one product is too small and the other is too big and want the exact same thing they bought 15 years ago.
There is certainly some bad product planning going on with their BOF lineup, but at the same time it's inevitable because the Land Cruiser series has arguably the most diverse customer base of all automobile. It's truly amazing that Toyota has always had the most capable BOF chassis of all manufacturers, yet never had one product that does the best for its intended role because of this customer diversity.