1 year opinion

[cvx5832LC]

So the factory 20" set-up should be an easy swap I presume?

That’s what I had, the 20s. Straight swap.

 

[Nostr0m0]

My 2024 LC 1958 just passed 14,000 miles. I bought it new in November 2024.

Here is my 13+ month review / opinion.

- Off-road capability: 5 stars. I haven't done much hard-core offroading except for familiar trails around Tucson and Sedona. The LC behaves as expected. I like the full-time 4WD and manual controls. (My past 5 vehicles have all been full-time 4WD or AWD - never going back to part-time 4WD or 2WD).

- Reliability: too early to assess. Haven't had any problems except for the noisy brakes and occasional (loud) noise coming from the brake booster or ABS pump. Hard to reproduce so I will wait until it fails to take it to the dealer for warranty repair. The engine bay arrangement is terrible, cable harnesses and hoses all over the place and access for repairs / maintenance is very bad for a vehicle of this size wih a tiny 4-cyl engine. Also, tons of plastic parts, looks like Toyota wants to copy BMW or Hyundai reliability.

- Usability: 3 stars. I don’t like the lack of storage space in the cabin and cargo compartment. My previous vehicle (2018 Highlander) was much better in that aspect with plenty of hidy-holes to keep stuff organized. Also, don’t like the high trunk floor (to be more precise, my dogs don't like it).

- Comfort: 3 stars. Ride and noise are reasonable for the type of vehicle. Front seats are atrocious. All Toyotas (and Lexus) front seats are uncomfortable. Bottom cushion is too narrow and short. (I'm 5'7, 150 lb so no, it's not that my butt is too big.) Seat back also suffers from Toyota malady, pushing on shoulders, forcing the spine to curve forward. Rear seats are cramped (my daughter's RAV4 has more legroom). I like the ample headroom and large windows.

- Performance: 4 stars. Power is adequate for type of vehicle. I like the low end torque and hybrid boost. Handling is acceptable.

- Fuel economy: 3 stars. I don't expect a brick to deliver 40 mpg like my wife's Lexus, but the LC's city fuel efficiency disappoints. Toyota should have done better with leveraging hybrid powertrain to deliver better city mpg. Just returned from a round trip Tucson to Denver and back. Average 22.5 mpg, mostly interstate, speed limit +5.

- Fit and finish: 4 stars. Interior is OK. Exterior is so-so. Some uneven gaps, trim pieces sticking out. Paint quality is typical Toyota, very thin. No rattles (so far).

- Features and "technology: 4 stars. I like that LC has a lot of physical buttons and one does not have to use the infotainment screen for basic controls such as climate control or towing. I am not interested in things such sunroof or power seats. The 1958 trim is almost exactly what I look for in an automobile. Screen size is fine - it does what it's supposed to do. Don't understand the obsession with giant screens - aren't we supposed to keep eyes on the road while driving? The thing that keeps me from giving it 5 stars in the climate control. Weak A/C and noisy when heater is on.

- Value: 2 stars. For the price I would expect Toyota to use high(er) quality parts, and materials, and put more attention to detail, kind of like they do in Lexus. I'm not referring to features and gimmicks. Just basic attention to detail like decent paint, seat materials or keeping cables under the hood organized. Instead, you get Corolla quality parts and barely average fit and finish. It's OK-ish, but does not match the price premium Toyota demands.

Final verdict: 3 stars. It's not great, but not bad enough to throw away. I'll keep it for a few years (probably while warranty lasts), and move on. Maybe an Ineos, maybe BMW.

That's an interesting observation because the rear seat legroom from my experience is much better than the RAV4 we traded for it. I am 6'1" and I used to have to scoot the seat up for my 4' child behind me so he had leg room. Now I keep my seat all the way back all the time and comfortable and he has plenty of room.

 

[Sugarloafer80]

I couldn't disagree more about the comfort. I find the seat profoundly comfortable. The extenders can add ~3 inches to seat length which at only 5 10, I find rarely needed. Quality of materials is not Nappa.....but seats, IMHO are more comfortable than both my RRS and full sized RR.

Ride comfort. I keep saying this and no one listens. EVERY MANUFACTURER MAXES OUT TIRE PRESSURES THESE DAYS TO THE TOLERABLE LIMIT OF RIDE TO EEEK OUT EVERY .1 MPG. I now use 33/33psi as the max cold pressures I allow. Ride improves drastically at 31/31 and I even notice it improved at 32/32. My wife commented on it as well with her limited track experience asking if LC had really broken in this nicely.....it is a bit of both. IMHO higher pressures just cause the tires to rebound faster than the shocks do at low speeds..which is where most people complain. Ride sucks at 35/35 with stock tires and rubber. Even the soft snows on 18's are less comfortable at higher pressures so I can only image the quality with XL, Load Es etc..Then again I have been on track with folks thinking higher pressures improve handling sharpness (inexperienced of course), and learn the hard way. Like all the uninformed that read the sidewall as the bible for the tires.....laughable.

Don't believe me, try it. If you are one of the folks complaining about low speed ride, try using 31/31 cold pressures......game changer esp on our badly frostheaved roads after this very prolonged cold winter.

 

[Nostr0m0]

I couldn't disagree more about the comfort. I find the seat profoundly comfortable. The extenders can add ~3 inches to seat length which at only 5 10, I find rarely needed. Quality of materials is not Nappa.....but seats, IMHO are more comfortable than both my RRS and full sized RR.

Ride comfort. I keep saying this and no one listens. EVERY MANUFACTURER MAXES OUT TIRE PRESSURES THESE DAYS TO THE TOLERABLE LIMIT OF RIDE TO EEEK OUT EVERY .1 MPG. I now use 33/33psi as the max cold pressures I allow. Ride improves drastically at 31/31 and I even notice it improved at 32/32. My wife commented on it as well with her limited track experience asking if LC had really broken in this nicely.....it is a bit of both. IMHO higher pressures just cause the tires to rebound faster than the shocks do at low speeds..which is where most people complain. Ride sucks at 35/35 with stock tires and rubber. Even the soft snows on 18's are less comfortable at higher pressures so I can only image the quality with XL, Load Es etc..Then again I have been on track with folks thinking higher pressures improve handling sharpness (inexperienced of course), and learn the hard way. Like all the uninformed that read the sidewall as the bible for the tires.....laughable.

Don't believe me, try it. If you are one of the folks complaining about low speed ride, try using 31/31 cold pressures......game changer esp on our badly frostheaved roads after this very prolonged cold winter.

My 1958 is the most comfortable vehicles my wife and I have ever owned (our past vehicles combined here: dodge Dakota x2, Durango, charger srt, beetle x2, fj cruiser, Highlander, RAV4, 3rd gen Tacoma, and lc250 x2) we knocked out 1,000+ miles in it in about 13 hours or so and we could've kept going, out of 4 of us no one had complained about the ride in that time. All our past vehicles I've made similar trips in, I'm hobbling afterwards .

 

[RideWithYanu]

I couldn't disagree more about the comfort. I find the seat profoundly comfortable. The extenders can add ~3 inches to seat length which at only 5 10, I find rarely needed. Quality of materials is not Nappa.....but seats, IMHO are more comfortable than both my RRS and full sized RR.

Ride comfort. I keep saying this and no one listens. EVERY MANUFACTURER MAXES OUT TIRE PRESSURES THESE DAYS TO THE TOLERABLE LIMIT OF RIDE TO EEEK OUT EVERY .1 MPG. I now use 33/33psi as the max cold pressures I allow. Ride improves drastically at 31/31 and I even notice it improved at 32/32. My wife commented on it as well with her limited track experience asking if LC had really broken in this nicely.....it is a bit of both. IMHO higher pressures just cause the tires to rebound faster than the shocks do at low speeds..which is where most people complain. Ride sucks at 35/35 with stock tires and rubber. Even the soft snows on 18's are less comfortable at higher pressures so I can only image the quality with XL, Load Es etc..Then again I have been on track with folks thinking higher pressures improve handling sharpness (inexperienced of course), and learn the hard way. Like all the uninformed that read the sidewall as the bible for the tires.....laughable.

Don't believe me, try it. If you are one of the folks complaining about low speed ride, try using 31/31 cold pressures......game changer esp on our badly frostheaved roads after this very prolonged cold winter.

I think your opinion that manufacturers over-pressurize tires for fuel efficiency and other reasons, and that the pressure should be reduced for comfort, are pretty commonly held. Not sure why you think anyone isn’t listening, but it’s a common viewpoint which I share.

 

[Sugarloafer80]

Realize how many people think the sidewall max pressure info is the way to pump up tires..........

 

[ultane]

I think your opinion that manufacturers over-pressurize tires for fuel efficiency and other reasons, and that the pressure should be reduced for comfort, are pretty commonly held. Not sure why you think anyone isn’t listening, but it’s a common viewpoint which I share.

I think they are air up to 50+ PSI for the trip across the ocean, to prevent flat spots from developing in the tires. All four of Miss Daisy’s tires were at +/- 55 PSI when I picked her up. Her ride got exponentially better when I lowered the PSI to 33.

 

[simple06]

I love my LC and find my only true complaint is the incredibly ( IMO ) plain interiors. Everything seems better to me. Plain, plain..

 

[ultane]

I love my LC and find my only true complaint is the incredibly ( IMO ) plain interiors. Everything seems better to me. Plain, plain..

Welcome to the asylum.

 

[wpage]

Interesting, took some time for you to realize some of the points you mentioned. Best practice when vehicle shopping is to research and test drive befor pulling the trigger. Fully unstanding many features and bennefits of both the LC and 1958 models takes time.

 

[Alpha Puppy]

I love my LC and find my only true complaint is the incredibly ( IMO ) plain interiors. Everything seems better to me. Plain, plain..

To each their own... But if you're part of, or in the vein of, the fast and furious crowd, I can see why the LC would be too "understated" for you.
As for me, I still love the classy understated, no nonsense, no flash, get the job done, on road or off road, yet comfortable that my LC FE effortlessly provides. I wouldn't change much looks wise.
What would you add? Disco interiors with flashy lights... Just wondering what is missing for you

 

[RideWithYanu]

To each their own... But if you're part of, or in the vein of, the fast and furious crowd, I can see why the LC would be too "understated" for you.
As for me, I still love the classy understated, no nonsense, no flash, get the job done, on road or off road, yet comfortable that my LC FE effortlessly provides. I wouldn't change much looks wise.
What would you add? Disco interiors with flashy lights... Just wondering what is missing for you

Yeah plain, functional, and comfortable interior is exactly what I’m after. Land Cruiser mostly nails it (I could do without the cool box - that part isn’t plain enough for my taste).

 

[Sugarloafer80]

I love my LC and find my only true complaint is the incredibly ( IMO ) plain interiors. Everything seems better to me. Plain, plain..

Plain, your wife named Jane? I would think clean and functional is a better term. Buttons where efficient, screen as needed.
What on earth would YOU do to the interior? Mirrors, glitter, Leopard print seating?