4 Runner vs. LC
- Thread starter Howchar
- Start date
I had a very nice Forerunner company vehicle for a week a couple weeks back.
No comparison at any level to a LC. Not as comfortable, not as well thought out, not near as good looking, intended for a very young edgey kind of user owner. The Cruisers are much classier over all at any level, better designed.
If its hard core off road intention the 4Runner may be better equipped at the very top end. However if that is the case, a Tacoma at the top end would be an even better way to go.
No comparison at any level to a LC. Not as comfortable, not as well thought out, not near as good looking, intended for a very young edgey kind of user owner. The Cruisers are much classier over all at any level, better designed.
If its hard core off road intention the 4Runner may be better equipped at the very top end. However if that is the case, a Tacoma at the top end would be an even better way to go.
This is just a copy & paste from another thread. Also note that I traded the LC for a Sequoia and we are very happy with our decision but would keep in mind the use of the Sequoia is light off-road, north Idaho daily driving and road trip… The decision came from use and our lack of satisfaction in the LC… People would stop me and ask how I liked the LC and it got to a point where I responded “I really don’t.”
We have (had) the 25 Land Cruiser Premium and the 25 4Runner Sport Premium non-hybrid. I drive the LC and my wife drives the 4R, for us the overall styling and his/hers use works nicely.
Anyone shopping should look at both…
The 4Runner is nicer in many regards, styling, interior, and options but I’d label it better as more of a daily driver or roadtrip ride where as the LC I’d say shines for the off-road styling and features.
I wouldn’t necessarily knock either other than options/selection from the factory. Here’s some things I can think of offhand:
•We hate the large screen on the 4R. LC screen is just right.
•You can get a Premium packaged 4R without the moonroof (a big plus for us).
•4R has passenger lumbar support but the LC does not <- weird right? Edit: lumbar position on the 4R is also adjustable up and down so 4 way adjustment!
•LC lacks usable storage for the driver. They could have easily at least put some storage for sunglasses overhead /:
•The LC has soft bumpers on the sides for your knees, well I think that’s what they are supposed to be for - In the drivers seat when you have your left foot at rest where it’s supposed to be your knee will be past the soft bumper riding on the hard plastic. It might work if you are 5’ tall.
•LC has rear comfort controls. The Sport does not but I’m not sure about the other high end trims???
•The rear bumper parts and hitch diaper on the LC are an abomination - hoping for someone to step up aftermarket!
•The LC is roomier, I can see this as an issue for taller/larger people in the 4R (not us) but again not as nicely styled as the 4R.
•4R non-hybrid is almost layflat in the back. You need some kind of riser for the LC but once you level it you have about another foot to stretch out.
•Gotta love that power rear window on the 4R
•4R has kick to open.
Edit: After a few months of use we’ve noticed a quieter ride and better sound system in the 4R. As well as the seats being more comfortable than the LC (for us…).
We have (had) the 25 Land Cruiser Premium and the 25 4Runner Sport Premium non-hybrid. I drive the LC and my wife drives the 4R, for us the overall styling and his/hers use works nicely.
Anyone shopping should look at both…
The 4Runner is nicer in many regards, styling, interior, and options but I’d label it better as more of a daily driver or roadtrip ride where as the LC I’d say shines for the off-road styling and features.
I wouldn’t necessarily knock either other than options/selection from the factory. Here’s some things I can think of offhand:
•We hate the large screen on the 4R. LC screen is just right.
•You can get a Premium packaged 4R without the moonroof (a big plus for us).
•4R has passenger lumbar support but the LC does not <- weird right? Edit: lumbar position on the 4R is also adjustable up and down so 4 way adjustment!
•LC lacks usable storage for the driver. They could have easily at least put some storage for sunglasses overhead /:
•The LC has soft bumpers on the sides for your knees, well I think that’s what they are supposed to be for - In the drivers seat when you have your left foot at rest where it’s supposed to be your knee will be past the soft bumper riding on the hard plastic. It might work if you are 5’ tall.
•LC has rear comfort controls. The Sport does not but I’m not sure about the other high end trims???
•The rear bumper parts and hitch diaper on the LC are an abomination - hoping for someone to step up aftermarket!
•The LC is roomier, I can see this as an issue for taller/larger people in the 4R (not us) but again not as nicely styled as the 4R.
•4R non-hybrid is almost layflat in the back. You need some kind of riser for the LC but once you level it you have about another foot to stretch out.
•Gotta love that power rear window on the 4R
•4R has kick to open.
Edit: After a few months of use we’ve noticed a quieter ride and better sound system in the 4R. As well as the seats being more comfortable than the LC (for us…).
Last edited:
I have lumbar support that adjusts in my LC
I’ve had my LC for almost two years and very pleased with it. The only kinda complaint is small fuel tank. But, it works for what I do.
Ahhhhhhh after reading your post again you mentioned “passenger seat lumbar”…. No my LC does not have that. I The passenger’s comfort is not my concern
….. just kidding well sounds like you got the right vehicle for you. The only reason I was looking at this posting is I noticed some social media sites doing the comparison and was interested in the MAIN difference other than price… it seems if I want the same amenities as LC in a 4Runner I need top level trim levels which brings the price inline with an LC… so it’s all about preference in the buyer… I think they are both capable vehicles…
That being said, I have been eyeing the GX550 and Sequoia due to engine size only… but heard nasty news on that engine so I’ve stayed away… the LC is “peppy” but it seems… if I can find the right words…. Laggy and times like a barn sour horse! Turbo/electric lag!
I'm not the OP... but yeah, I came to the same conclusion... The 4Runner definitely starts cheaper and has more affordable options, but once comparably equipped, particularly if you want the hybrid powertrain, the prices are a lot more competitive.Ahhhhhhh after reading your post again you mentioned “passenger seat lumbar”…. No my LC does not have that. I The passenger’s comfort is not my concern
Heck, I opted for the 1958 edition, so I don't have lumbar for the driver!
But, I do still get 3 zone climate control, which I definitely like.
Same situation here. I was deadset on a 4Runner. Test drove both and after 5 mins in the 4Runner I decided the LC was the way to go. The visibility and seating position in the LC is superior and the 4Runner interior and exterior design seems less professional to me then the LC.
I had a 4Runner as a rental car last week on a business trip. It was an SR5 and my LC is a LCLC Premium, and that alone probably created a certain amount of the contrast. Thoughts:
The 4Runner worked well. It did feel more “trucky” than the LC, more so than I expected considering how much chassis and powertrain they share. I had it in 2WD the whole time. I didn’t see a 4WD Auto option, which a lot of people say should be avoided anyway. If I lived in a warm climate this would be a non-issue because I would want to drive around in 2WD unless I needed 4WD in some situation. But in Colorado I do value the ability of AWD in changing conditions. This would have been a substantial differentiator for the LC had I been cross-shopping.
The 4R was not the hybrid kind, just the turbo 4. It was agile enough for city driving but there is absolutely a power advantage with the hybrid. Noticeable. They sounded about the same, the 4R might even have had a bit less engine noise in the cabin.
The LC interior is much nicer. Some of this might have been SR5 vs Premium trim. The quality of plastics and look and feel of the trim were all a notable step downward in the 4R - but not unacceptable. Just workmanlike.
As Toyota advertises, controls in the 4R were chunkier than the same controls in the LC. It’s a branding thing and supposedly provides easier access when wearing gloves. But the LC looks more refined and grown up.
This 4R had the smaller screen display, which I assume is the one you get in the 1958. It was fine - probably about the same size as the screen in the 2016 Tahoe I had before the LC. The LC screen is nicer but you pay for it.
MMI software appeared to be the same.
4R had cloth seats, of typical good Toyota quality. Seemed like the cloth would take a good beating and clean up well.
I liked it, though if I were cross-shopping I’d probably want to look at some of the trim options to see how much of the materials gap disappears.
The 4Runner worked well. It did feel more “trucky” than the LC, more so than I expected considering how much chassis and powertrain they share. I had it in 2WD the whole time. I didn’t see a 4WD Auto option, which a lot of people say should be avoided anyway. If I lived in a warm climate this would be a non-issue because I would want to drive around in 2WD unless I needed 4WD in some situation. But in Colorado I do value the ability of AWD in changing conditions. This would have been a substantial differentiator for the LC had I been cross-shopping.
The 4R was not the hybrid kind, just the turbo 4. It was agile enough for city driving but there is absolutely a power advantage with the hybrid. Noticeable. They sounded about the same, the 4R might even have had a bit less engine noise in the cabin.
The LC interior is much nicer. Some of this might have been SR5 vs Premium trim. The quality of plastics and look and feel of the trim were all a notable step downward in the 4R - but not unacceptable. Just workmanlike.
As Toyota advertises, controls in the 4R were chunkier than the same controls in the LC. It’s a branding thing and supposedly provides easier access when wearing gloves. But the LC looks more refined and grown up.
This 4R had the smaller screen display, which I assume is the one you get in the 1958. It was fine - probably about the same size as the screen in the 2016 Tahoe I had before the LC. The LC screen is nicer but you pay for it.
MMI software appeared to be the same.
4R had cloth seats, of typical good Toyota quality. Seemed like the cloth would take a good beating and clean up well.
I liked it, though if I were cross-shopping I’d probably want to look at some of the trim options to see how much of the materials gap disappears.
Similar threads
