We are talking about differential strength, not axle strength. And not all 9.5" Ring & Pinion gears are the same. The 100 series has a beefier R&P than 80 series. 9.5" is just one dimension. Semi-Float vs Full float... actually, the later semi-float axle have a higher axle weight rating than the earlier full floaters. Why? Because they are using larger axle shafts than the Full Floaters (32 spline vs 30). Obviously, the axle housing is different too.
Honest LC250 review that goes into more technical details & why Toyota missed the mark on LC250
- Thread starter LC_DFW
- Start date
Our friend seems to think E-KDSS is an advantage, but I'm with you, E-KDSS makes it more difficult and more expensive to modify the suspension for extreme offoad scenarios. I'm hesitant to use the word "serious" because I don't think using your LC to rock crawl up the Rubicon Trail makes you more serious about offroading than the guy who uses it to overland or go up the trails on the weekends. The whole point of the LC is to give you a great ride whether you are on pavement or dirt. Someone who takes their LC offroad to explore the world around us is just as serious about it as the person who modifies their LC to go up the Rubicon. (not that I think you were trying to demean anyone!)
I'm not suggesting going to 10.5" diff. Go with the appropriate for your size tires and type of usage. You typically put your tires over the large rocks not your differential. Going to a 1" larger differential (and losing 1/2" clearance) and also going to a 1" larger tire will be beneficial overall.
Don't give two sh!ts what you're talking about I pointed out a comparison that someone else made and shouldn't be made as they are nowhere near the same beast not even close to comparable as it was made to sound.
If you think the Diffs will explode before the axles, U-joints or CV axles by all means blow some dough and drop the GX axle into 250.
I'd rather replace a broken axle than a Third member and 32 spline vs 30 spline is not a monetarily feasible upgrade due to cost vs. strength increase. If it were coarse vs fine spline like on Toyota burfields then it that would be different story, one that I've done but I wouldn't upgrade those axle shafts to chromoly at the same time to make the third member the weakest link in the setup hoping the drive line gave before the third member. Most sane people don't want the weakest component to be the most expensive and difficult to replace and they desire it to be a trail fix. Is anything fixable on the trail sure, but at what cost?
Time to mark this thread as Ignore!
If you are going to point something out, at least be correct about it. There is not a single Land Cruiser full floating axle rated anywhere near 8k lbs.
When I said, "they" switched to 32 spline, they as in "Toyota" did.
Last edited:
Correct you are, Toyota rated them at 6500 lbs. but if you look at the internals they are built with, they are larger than a Dana 60 (6500 lbs.) and slightly smaller than a Dana 70 (10k), so the rating is very conservative on the Toyota FF axles rated at 6500 lbs. Those axles with simple external reinforcement can easily support 8k.
32 spline is exactly .07" larger in diameter vs 30 spline, is it better yes, is it worth the money no not IMO.
I don't know where your data is coming from but on an FZJ80, the full floating rear axle is only rated 3970 lbs. It's not even half of 8,000lbs. I believe the 80 series to be the strongest of the bunch (40/50/60).
The 32 spline axle shafts are only dimensionally larger than the 30 by a little bit but I believe it to be 20%+ torsionally stronger. I'm not trying to sell it and nobody here Is interested.
The 32 spline axle shafts are only dimensionally larger than the 30 by a little bit but I believe it to be 20%+ torsionally stronger. I'm not trying to sell it and nobody here Is interested.
Yes, and a HZJ80 is 5500 lbs. with the same axle. The GAWR rating has to do with the drive train, suspension configuration and tires spec'd. This is why in Australia you can do GVM increases when upgrading suspension, drive train and such through the govt. approved parts and installers.
Just because a lot of clickbait YouTube reviews claim that doesn’t make it so.
The LC250 is mechanically much closer to the LC300 than the 4Runner, especially when comparing base models with 4WD (not standard on 4Runner) The 4wd system distinctions are critically important when evaluating off-road capability. Both the LC250 and LC300 come standard with a full-time 4WD system paired with a locking center differential, offering constant torque distribution and superior control on mixed terrain. They also include a standard rear locking differential, advanced low-range gearing, and stanard traction systems like Crawl Control and Multi-Terrain Select. In contrast, the 4Runner—while riding on the same TNGA-F platform—retains a part-time 4WD system in most trims with no center differential, meaning it cannot safely be used in 4WD on high-traction surfaces and lacks the same level of torque management. Features like rear lockers, crawl control, or sway-bar disconnects are reserved for tippy top 4 runner trims that make up a tiny % of the fleet. These big differences in the components and design of the 4WD systems fundamentally separate the 4Runner from the Land Cruiser. When comparing off-road models, the 4WD system is the backbone of capability, and here, the LC250 clearly is much closer to the LC300, not the 4Runner.
It is not closer LC300. The vehicle most similar to LC250 is 4Runner, followed by GX550. LC250 and 4Runner share the same engine and transmission, and some trims of 4Runner come with the same 4WD system.
There are very few parts that are shared between the 250 and the 300. I can't think of any at the moment though. The high trim 4R with I-Forcemax is mechanically very close to the 250 (frame/suspension/drivetrain). Yes, the 4WD system is different but that doesn't define the vehicle, that's more of a preference. The 80/100 were available in 2-3 different 4wd systems.
The 4R is available with a 9.5" rear differential, had the option of better CV's. So, actually, the 4R is closer to the 300 than the 250.
I think Youtuber, Kirk Kreifels, is reading this thread.
The 4R is available with a 9.5" rear differential, had the option of better CV's. So, actually, the 4R is closer to the 300 than the 250.
I think Youtuber, Kirk Kreifels, is reading this thread.
There are very few parts that are shared between the 250 and the 300. I can't think of any at the moment though. The high trim 4R with I-Forcemax is mechanically very close to the 250 (frame/suspension/drivetrain). Yes, the 4WD system is different but that doesn't define the vehicle, that's more of a preference. The 80/100 were available in 2-3 different 4wd systems.
The 4R is available with a 9.5" rear differential, had the option of better CV's. So, actually, the 4R is closer to the 300 than the 250.
I think Youtuber, Kirk Kreifels, is reading this thread.
Because it is rear wheel drive.
There are very few parts that are shared between the 250 and the 300. I can't think of any at the moment though. The high trim 4R with I-Forcemax is mechanically very close to the 250 (frame/suspension/drivetrain). Yes, the 4WD system is different but that doesn't define the vehicle, that's more of a preference. The 80/100 were available in 2-3 different 4wd systems.
The 4R is available with a 9.5" rear differential, had the option of better CV's. So, actually, the 4R is closer to the 300 than the 250.
I think Youtuber, Kirk Kreifels, is reading this thread.
I think 99 percent of the complaints would have been resolved with the tundra v6 and 1 inch lift that comes on the gx
The soul of this thread is hilarious. A pretty well respected and smart toyota enthusiast who is "offroad" "big obstacle""hard core rockcrawl" points out the shortcomings for his use case (Currently a fraction of one percent of LC owners). The thread then becomes a 0-60 slugfest, comparing it to other SUVs. What?? That is like hating your bird dog because they cant race greyhounds. The absolute least relevant thing about the LC is its acceleration at any speed. If that is your jam, you are on the wrong side of the car buying planet. If you want a comfortable DD with beyond normal capabilities off road and peak reliability. Stay and play. If you want a pound the trails rock crawler, wait ten year and youll see this LC there as well (mind you heavily modified). If you want a brand new 70K smooth as butter DD, 0-60 in 4.0, heavy rock crawler, that gets 25 MPG and will last 300k miles..... well you my friend are delusional.
Only TRD Pro and Trailhunter.
Agreed.
An issue we have in the community is the rock crawlers try to speak as the sole source of authority for "Hard core" off roading. In reality, the greatest adversaries of multi-terrain vehicles are deep mud, soft sand, and slippery clay. Not steep incline boulder trails that are intentionally sought out or created for attention at Moab Hells Revenge.
Anybody who has had to inchworm their way along using a winch or dig themselves out from dirt up to the wheel wells as the sun is going down knows that excess weight is your enemy. Most rational people simply wish to safely, efficiently, and cost effectively get from point A to B. They use the off road capability to avoid difficult and damaging obstacles or to gain the flexibility to choose a better route. For that, the LC 250 is outstanding.
The dirty secret (pun intended) is that monster trucks make poor general purpose off roaders. Toyota light trucks have become dominant around the world by beating out muscle bound US and over engineered German manufacturers with a design approach that prioritizes practical capability.
To the off road industrial complex and extreme sports enthusiasts, I salute you. Your creativity and dedication inspire innovation, create more choices, and make the sport fun. But when you lose sight of the philosophy "as much as necessary but as little as possible" then you probably have gotten off track.
I'm kind of surprised to see this thread taking off again. I'll chime in though that since the last time I commented here, I've done a fair amount of off-roading in my Land Cruiser (up to 4/10 on the OnX rating scale), and I have to say for my purposes it's been better in just about every way compared to my 2014 TTUE MT FJ Cruiser. So much better as a road trip vehicle, and actually much easier to use off-road, especially when there's an unexpected difficult obstacle. The cameras, special modes, torque and smooth low speed handling make everything I've encountered so much easier. Larger gas tank and an inch or two more clearance are still the only things I'd change, but again it gets better range than the FJ and the clearance hasn't actually been an issue, I'm just paranoid. I still think it's a substantial upgrade over the FJ.
Wandering sandy and occasionally washed out trails around the San Rafael Swell last weekend:
Wandering sandy and occasionally washed out trails around the San Rafael Swell last weekend:
Last edited:
The argument that the LC250 is “most similar” to the 4Runner based on a shared engine and transmission falls apart when you consider global drivetrain strategy. Toyota uses modular platforms like TNGA-F across a range of vehicles with region-specific powertrains. The fact that the LC250 and 4Runner happen share an engine in the U.S. means little globally. The LC250 is offered with multiple powertrains (including diesel), depending on market. Powertrain overlap is common across Toyota’s global lineup and does not define core vehicle core design identity or capability.
What actually matters—especially when discussing off-road intent—is the underlying drivetrain philosophy and standard configuration. Both the LC250 and LC300 come standard with full-time 4WD, locking center diffs, rear lockers, advanced low-range gearing, and integrated off-road tech like Crawl Control and Multi-Terrain Select. These features are foundational to their design, not optional extras.
The 4Runner, by contrast is sold mostly as 2WD. If you do get a 4WD there is no center diff nor Rear lockers, Crawl Control, or KDSS-type articulation aids unless you get to the very very highest trims that have some of that, but not all. Those trims account for a single-digit percentage of U.S. 4Runner sales. Those attempting to use those very rare trims as a proxy for the entire 4Runner model is misleading. Your claim that some trims of 4Runner come with the same 4WD system not correct.
Just because the LC250 shares some components with the 4Runner doesn’t mean they’re equivalent. That logic ignores engineering intent and standard mechanical configuration. When you look at default off-road capability in base trim which is most of the fleet—not cherry-picked trims—the LC250 is clearly aligned capability wise more closely with the LC300 and not a bunch of 2WD 4Runners.
Last edited:
Amen to that. This past weekend, I took mine up some extremely steep, low-traction switchbacks—sandy, loose rock terrain that would’ve had my old 4Runner fishtailing and throwing rocks just trying to make forward progress. Not so in the LC250. It climbed steadily and confidently, like a surefooted mountain goat. The combination of full-time 4WD and advanced electronic aids is genuinely impressive. It’s not something you can capture in a spec sheet or measure with a caliper on a CV joint. Unless you’ve been out there and seen it in action, you won’t understand how capable the LC250 truly is. It’s not just one feature—it’s the way everything works together as a complete, integrated system. Toyota Engineers know what their doing.
Similar threads
- Poll
