Toyota Land Cruiser Megathread (300, 250, Prado, etc)

[MKIVCrybaby]

I've been letting the new Land Cruiser sink in and wondered, if I hadn't just purchased a new GX, which would I want: Land Cruiser or GX 550?

I am surprised to say I think I would rather have the Land Cruiser. I wouldn't buy either until post-refresh (so probably 4+ years), but there are a few key things I like more than the GX.

On the GX, I love the exterior design -- a lot. Land Cruiser, I like the exterior (though not as much as the GX) but definitely like the interior more than the GX. The 12.3" screen seems to fit the space better, I like the shapes of the dash and doors more, and the option of the Java interior seals the deal for me, especially the solid seats. I hate the bi-color GX seats.

I would want any engine except for the V35A-FTS, and I think the 1MPG improvement after 14 years is borderline unacceptable. So, Land Cruiser with 27 MPG combined (10 more than GX 550), hybrid, and 465lb-ft of torque is a sweeter deal for me.

"Land Cruiser" trim, Black exterior, Java interior. ✅

The power output for the turbo 4 is nearly identical. Lower peak torque. However, the turbo 4 tows much less. 99% of americans dont tow. V35A has its list of problems but we still dont know much from the turbo4.
Toyota took a really confusing position on this landcruiser.
Literally, positioned itself where the 4runner should be tbh. The 4runner will be roughly the same sized car, same engine as the landcruiser. Question is, why pay for a GX/Landcruiser when you can wait for the 4runner and save thousands?

 

[carguy420]

I think it shows just how good Toyota V8s are, and that they probably have further optimization to do on turbocharged motors, which I think is fair considering that the UR V8 is an evolution of the UZ V8, so they had a lot of time to perfect that formula. It is, however, disappointing for people looking at new product to have no V8s and mediocre V6s.

Everyone loves to rap on the 1UR-FE for being old, inefficient, outdated, etc. but two things:

First, for an engine that first debuted 17 years ago, Toyota's latest, greatest, Dynamic Force replacement with 4 more gears in the transmission can only eke out 1 more MPG? I'd be curious to see what the UR V8 could have done with an Atkinson cycle and a 10AT -- my sense is it would be more efficient than the V35A in similar applications.

And second, no V35A-FTS application can match the linear throttle tip-in and response of the UR V8. I give Lexus credit for refining the LS 500 transmission mapping year after year, but it just isn't there yet.

Also it doesn't seem like the newer Tundras are getting close to their advertised mileage. Most folks claimed the old one was 13-14MPG, and it seems most folks are reporting the new one around 15MPG. I've thought about this a lot - why can Ford get good MPG out of their EcoBoosts and Toyota, who builds some of the most efficient NA engines on the planet, can't seem to build efficient SUV/truck motors? Weight? Tuning? What's the problem?

I honestly wished Toyota updated the 4.0L 1GR-FE and 5.7L 3UR-FE and give them the FSE treament, instead of ditching them for these 2 downsized turbocharged engines, the 2.4L turbo T24A and the V35A that have been kinda not that spectacular both in terms of performance and fuel efficiency. Both the 1GR and 3UR in their current FE form should have a ton of room left for performance and efficiency improvements based on what we have seen from other Toyota FE engines that got updated FSE versions with D4-S, higher static compression ratio, wide-angle VVT-i intake cam sprocket that enables the switch between Atkinson and Otto cycle and more efficient cylinder head designs.

 

[Gecko]

Well said ^

 

[TexasFunRunner]

We’ll see some options, but I doubt Toyota will offer aftermarket front bumpers. Too much of a negative impact on front crash ratings. Rock sliders and roof racks, yes. Rear bumper and factory lift, maybe. I’m sure other companies are already working on front bumper designs. Personally, I’d love to see what CBI and ARB come up with.

I can confirm some of the aftermarket companies have already test driven the Land Cruiser. I would think this included the same aftermarket companies working with Toyota on the 2024 Tacoma. It seems safe to assume they are under NDA and have already received the 3D modeling files so they can design their aftermarket parts. I expect we will see announcements by the end of the year.

 

[F1 Silver Arrows]

Tuning?

This.

The reason why BMW has the stupidly efficient B58 is because they employ a lot of ECU and engine management trickery. A regular inline-six making those power figures has no business being this frugal on gas. So to me it looks like they may have went to some extremes in tuning this engine. Although it looks like the gamble paid off because these engines are reliable across the board even with the Jekyll and Hyde nature of the B58, from the insane power they make to it being extremely efficient.

It seems that Toyota/Lexus is slacking off with regard to innovative engine technology. They're just downsizing and adding huge electric motors which doesn't seem to do the job. For example, the T24A-FTS is barely more fuel efficient than the aging 2GR-FKS which everyone lamented how much it was drinking gas, even though when it came out, it was a legend in terms of engine efficiency and power.

I'm starting to see signs that the EV hype is beginning to wane from the manufacturer side and the consumer side, to me it's sensible to develop a new family of six and eight cylinder engines that are reliable, efficient, and powerful.

Toyota and Lexus need to go back to the drawing board.

 

[ssun30]

Downsizing was not about fuel consumption, but emissions. The 2UR lost 12PS to comply with Euro 6, but should lose a LOT more with Euro 7. Ford lost a whopping 110PS on their Ecoboost 3.0 for Euro 7.

 

[F1 Silver Arrows]

Downsizing was not about fuel consumption, but emissions. The 2UR lost 12PS to comply with Euro 6, but should lose a LOT more with Euro 7. Ford lost a whopping 110PS on their Ecoboost 3.0 for Euro 7.

I'm aware, in fact I remember that was exactly the reason why the Highlander went from a V6 to a turbocharged 4-cylinder. However the issue is that Toyota is languishing in every other department that isn't just tailpipe emissions, which wasn't even that bad in the first place.

 

[NomadDan]

I honestly wished Toyota updated the 4.0L 1GR-FE and 5.7L 3UR-FE and give them the FSE treament, instead of ditching them for these 2 downsized turbocharged engines, the 2.4L turbo T24A and the V35A that have been kinda not that spectacular both in terms of performance and fuel efficiency. Both the 1GR and 3UR in their current FE form should have a ton of room left for performance and efficiency improvements based on what we have seen from other Toyota FE engines that got updated FSE versions with D4-S, higher static compression ratio, wide-angle VVT-i intake cam sprocket that enables the switch between Atkinson and Otto cycle and more efficient cylinder head designs.

I would’ve liked to see Toyota switch to the 5.0 in the Tundra. The 5.7 is a great engine, but is also know for being thirsty. I think Toyota could’ve updated the 5.0 to have just as much torque as the 5.7, and combined with a 10 spd, would’ve had quite a bit better MPG.

I wish there were an updated version of the 4.0 as well. I do think the 2.4T is going to be a good engine, but it is barely in production and already is behind the competition in terms of hp. The new Chevy Travers has a 2.5T that puts out 315ish hp. The 2.7 in their BOF lineup makes a bit more…and these numbers are without electrification.

In hindsight, I wonder why Toyota didn’t make a family of I6 engines rather than the V35 and 8GR. They could’ve streamlined their production process by creating a family of 3,4, and 6 cylinder engines that share common components. The A25 could’ve gained two cylinders and become a 3.75 (call it a 3.8) NA I6 for use in Tacoma, 4Runner, 250/70 series Land Cruisers. The M20 could’ve gained two cylinders to become a 3.0 I6 to use in hybrid rear drive applications (LS, Crown, etc). The T24 could’ve gained two cylinders to become a 3.6 TT I6 to be used in the Tundra/Land Cruiser/LX/GX/LS. Maybe a TT version of the 3.0 for the IS/GR Tacoma/TX/Grand Highlander (assuming the GH/TX were moved to rear drive platforms).

All this makes me wonder if Toyota planned on ditching the V8 when the V35 was given the green light. If Toyota had known the V35 was going to replace the V8s and most transverse applications were going to lose the V6, then why not creat an I6 instead and share parts with the I4?

Things I wonder…lol.

 

[Levi]

I would’ve liked to see Toyota switch to the 5.0 in the Tundra. The 5.7 is a great engine, but is also know for being thirsty. I think Toyota could’ve updated the 5.0 to have just as much torque as the 5.7, and combined with a 10 spd, would’ve had quite a bit better MPG.

I wish there were an updated version of the 4.0 as well. I do think the 2.4T is going to be a good engine, but it is barely in production and already is behind the competition in terms of hp. The new Chevy Travers has a 2.5T that puts out 315ish hp. The 2.7 in their BOF lineup makes a bit more…and these numbers are without electrification.

In hindsight, I wonder why Toyota didn’t make a family of I6 engines rather than the V35 and 8GR. They could’ve streamlined their production process by creating a family of 3,4, and 6 cylinder engines that share common components. The A25 could’ve gained two cylinders and become a 3.75 (call it a 3.8) NA I6 for use in Tacoma, 4Runner, 250/70 series Land Cruisers. The M20 could’ve gained two cylinders to become a 3.0 I6 to use in hybrid rear drive applications (LS, Crown, etc). The T24 could’ve gained two cylinders to become a 3.6 TT I6 to be used in the Tundra/Land Cruiser/LX/GX/LS. Maybe a TT version of the 3.0 for the IS/GR Tacoma/TX/Grand Highlander (assuming the GH/TX were moved to rear drive platforms).

All this makes me wonder if Toyota planned on ditching the V8 when the V35 was given the green light. If Toyota had known the V35 was going to replace the V8s and most transverse applications were going to lose the V6, then why not creat an I6 instead and share parts with the I4?

Things I wonder…lol.

Definitely a possibility.

 

[qtb007]

For example, the T24A-FTS is barely more fuel efficient than the aging 2GR-FKS which everyone lamented how much it was drinking gas, even though when it came out, it was a legend in terms of engine efficiency and power.

Anecdote time: I've driven a hilly, 300mi round trip route in the Highlander with both the T24 and the 2GR-FKS. The T24 got 30mpg on the trip; the 2GR was 27mpg. The A25 hybrid on the same route is around 35mpg.

I don't love the NVH of the A25, but that's still what I'd choose especially when the 2GR dips down around 22mpg in city cycle and the A25 remains in the mid 30s. The T24 is a much torquier engine than the 2GR.

 

[TexasFunRunner]

Anecdote time: I've driven a hilly, 300mi round trip route in the Highlander with both the T24 and the 2GR-FKS. The T24 got 30mpg on the trip; the 2GR was 27mpg. The A25 hybrid on the same route is around 35mpg.

I don't love the NVH of the A25, but that's still what I'd choose especially when the 2GR dips down around 22mpg in city cycle and the A25 remains in the mid 30s. The T24 is a much torquier engine than the 2GR.

Why is the NVH worst on the A25, the extra weight of the batteries?

 

[qtb007]

Why is the NVH worst on the A25, the extra weight of the batteries?

Chassis NVH is the same. It's just the engine itself. The A24 revs to high RPM frequently and is somewhat coarse sounding. Driven normally, the turbo engine and the V6 basically never rev over 3500RPM. The A25 will regularly rev high in the band for pretty normal acceleration or pulling a hill. They hybrid transmission is considerably smoother than the 8 speed, though. The shift shock isn't bad in the 8 speed, but it doesn't seamlessly transition on a downshift like the hybrid does.

 

[LarryT]

This.

The reason why BMW has the stupidly efficient B58 is because they employ a lot of ECU and engine management trickery. A regular inline-six making those power figures has no business being this frugal on gas. So to me it looks like they may have went to some extremes in tuning this engine. Although it looks like the gamble paid off because these engines are reliable across the board even with the Jekyll and Hyde nature of the B58, from the insane power they make to it being extremely efficient.

It seems that Toyota/Lexus is slacking off with regard to innovative engine technology. They're just downsizing and adding huge electric motors which doesn't seem to do the job. For example, the T24A-FTS is barely more fuel efficient than the aging 2GR-FKS which everyone lamented how much it was drinking gas, even though when it came out, it was a legend in terms of engine efficiency and power.

I'm starting to see signs that the EV hype is beginning to wane from the manufacturer side and the consumer side, to me it's sensible to develop a new family of six and eight cylinder engines that are reliable, efficient, and powerful.

Toyota and Lexus need to go back to the drawing board.

Wishful thinking. The heyday of leading edge 6/8 cylinder powertrains at Toyota/Lexus are a thing of the past.

 

[ssun30]

The only reason any car maker still make V6s today is compactness. If they don't take advantage of that then it offers no benefit over I6 which is cheaper to make. The whole industry is moving towards I6 to reduce cost.

The original purpose of V35 was to make a very compact and light engine with great power density. It weighs about the same as most 3.0T engines but makes 15% more power and torque. Very good engine on paper.

So logically this compactness should make it fit easily in a wide variety of products, like a compact sedan, like a FMR light sports car, like a mid-size pickup truck or SUV. Things their competitors do to take advantage of their V6s. But instead, Toyota put the engine into two applications that care the least about packaging, a full size sedan and full-size truck.

 

[Gecko]

The only reason any car maker still make V6s today is compactness. If they don't take advantage of that then it offers no benefit over I6 which is cheaper to make. The whole industry is moving towards I6 to reduce cost.

The original purpose of V35 was to make a very compact and light engine with great power density. It weighs about the same as most 3.0T engines but makes 15% more power and torque. Very good engine on paper.

So logically this compactness should make it fit easily in a wide variety of products, like a compact sedan, like a FMR light sports car, like a mid-size pickup truck or SUV. Things their competitors do to take advantage of their V6s. But instead, Toyota put the engine into two applications that care the least about packaging, a full size sedan and full-size truck.

Well said and I think this is one of Toyota's greatest blunders in the last decade or so.

Toyota (Japan) expected the V35A-FTS to be a worthy V8 replacement and the T24A-FTS to be a strong V6 replacement, and those were very poor miscalculations. TMNA wanted stronger motors (especially V8s), but Japan won that argument and we know the Japanese are far more conservative. Worse is that the tunes of these engines don't seem particularly strong but also don't return class-leading MPG either.

Similar for Lexus with Mercedes, BMW and Audi, or Toyota with Ford, Dodge and Chevy, the market expectation for halo and flagship vehicles is 500 to 700hp with V8s or electricity or both. Toyota nor Lexus have anything to offer for any of those options.

Tundra, Sequoia, LS, LX, LC, GX, and RC all need new V8s to be competitive or capitalize on market trends just like Tacoma, 4Runner, Land Cruiser, Grand Highlander, ES, RC, IS, RX, TX all need TT V6.

Based on the engine chart that was provided with the TNGA rollout, it certainly looked like Toyota had plans for more 6 and 8 cylinder engines, but where are they? Japan cut them? Dealers from both brands could have been printing money for the last 3 years with new V8s and better V6s. So many of these product decisions seem misaligned...

 

[F1 Silver Arrows]

Well said and I think this is one of Toyota's greatest blunders in the last decade or so.

Toyota (Japan) expected the V35A-FTS to be a worthy V8 replacement and the T24A-FTS to be a strong V6 replacement, and those were very poor miscalculations. TMNA wanted stronger motors (especially V8s), but Japan won that argument and we know the Japanese are far more conservative. Worse is that the tunes of these engines don't seem particularly strong but also don't return class-leading MPG either.

Similar for Lexus with Mercedes, BMW and Audi, or Toyota with Ford, Dodge and Chevy, the market expectation for halo and flagship vehicles is 500 to 700hp with V8s or electricity or both. Toyota nor Lexus have anything to offer for any of those options.

Tundra, Sequoia, LS, LX, LC, GX, and RC all need new V8s to be competitive or capitalize on market trends just like Tacoma, 4Runner, Land Cruiser, Grand Highlander, ES, RC, IS, RX, TX all need TT V6.

Based on the engine chart that was provided with the TNGA rollout, it certainly looked like Toyota had plans for more 6 and 8 cylinder engines, but where are they? Japan cut them? Dealers from both brands could have been printing money for the last 3 years with new V8s and better V6s. So many of these product decisions seem misaligned...

Looks like Japan needs another slap in the face.

Last time around it worked when it came to good driving cars and building sports cars. Who's to say people and executives can't force that change again?

 

[F1 Silver Arrows]

Anecdote time: I've driven a hilly, 300mi round trip route in the Highlander with both the T24 and the 2GR-FKS. The T24 got 30mpg on the trip; the 2GR was 27mpg. The A25 hybrid on the same route is around 35mpg.

I don't love the NVH of the A25, but that's still what I'd choose especially when the 2GR dips down around 22mpg in city cycle and the A25 remains in the mid 30s. The T24 is a much torquier engine than the 2GR.

Interesting......

 

[ssun30]

To me the biggest blunder was developing the transverse 500h powertrain when it delivered on none of the promised advantages they claimed. Toyota simply had no experience with P2 hybrids and they gave up 16 years of evolution of the tried and true V6 PS hybrid system from the original RX400h. This is them trying to reinvent the wheel. Pure waste of engineering effort and budget with not much future growth potential (because they are hard limited by the torque capacity of the transmission unlike the BOF iForce Max version).

So now they have an overcomplicated expensive to make RX500h that is both slower and less efficient and less smooth than its 48V MHEV competitors. The MHEV X5 is just superior in every way.

And they were supposed to keep the V6 power split hybrid anyway for the TX and Century. So now they lose the economies of scale on that powertrain as well.

 

[Motor]

ランドクルーザー"250" デザインスケッチ | トヨタデザイン | トヨタブランド | モビリティ | トヨタ自動車株式会社 公式企業サイト

新型ランドクルーザー"250"のデザインスケッチをご紹介します。伝統とモダンを融合しながら、Reliability（信頼性）、Timeless（永く愛せる）、Professional（プロが使う洗練された機能美）をキーワードにデザインをしました。

global.toyota

 

[Levi]

I see in some sketches it has non-symmetric barn-doors as the old LC70, then LC80/100/200.

Looks good modified. Just needs three lockers, and V6 diesel.