Honest LC250 review that goes into more technical details & why Toyota missed the mark on LC250

[Winchester44]

Negative ghost rider, different frames. The 200 was the last to be built on the jframe, this is built on the TNGA-F like their pick-ups & large SUVs, including the Prado. The Prado is geared towards intercity driving with shorter ranges & more luxuries. That is what makes the Prado a Prado.

With the 250 in The States, there is no option with stock A/Ts, no off-road package, it has a 16g tank, averages 16-17mpg, has a range less than 300mi. under normal driving conditions, & is built on the same frame as the Prado.

Sounds like a Prado, not a Land Cruiser.

I owned an fj100 and got well into 300+mi./tank as did my friend who owned the 200. He ended up doing a diesel swap, it turned out to be a sick rig, I think he sold it now though. I should give him a call...

My 2003 Xterra though, that did have the same range as the 250 Prado—I averaged around 250-260 miles with that based on my old logs.

I guess by your logic 70 series is not a “real” land cruiser either?


The criticism of the fuel capacity is fair, but must be taken in context. The LC250 is sold with much larger fuel capacity in most other markets. Unfortunately, local regulations in buying preferences dictated the US market having a smaller fuel capacity.. The 200 series was the exact same. You could buy it with larger main and sub tanks in most markets, but not US. That is not a legitimate criticism of the overall vehicle. The vast majority of the 200 series and the 250 series are sold with diesel engines and large fuel capacity that have a great range, you just can’t buy or even import them into the US. Same as true with other off-road packages and all terrain tires.

That’s not only Toyota’s fault. You need to take ownership of your local regulations and buyer preferences and that drive a large portion of that.

 

[Winchester44]

All global “Prados” are “Land Cruiser Prados”, that’s always been the designation for the lighter-duty LC line in markets where the more heavy duty wagon lineage is also sold.

And while yes, the LC 250 is a lighter-duty vehicle than the LC 300 (and is branded as the “Land Cruiser Prado” in some areas of the world), I don’t know that it’s fair to lump into the classification of “soccer mom” cars, as it’s still a very capable 4WD off-road vehicle in its own right. (And trust me, plenty of the 200 series sold in the US were being driven by wealthier soccer moms/dads as well).

IMO, it’s geared towards folks who want a mid-size BOF Toyota SUV with a more traditional, understated design than the current 4Runner…some of these folks will take these vehicles on numerous off-road adventures, others will commute to work and pick up their kids from soccer practice…but most want to be able to do a little bit of both

Not really correct. Prado is used in some markets and not used in others. I think colloquially you would be correct if the series was ever marketed as a Prado that probably lives on in people’s minds.

Here is a list of the Toyota Land Cruiser 250 Series (J250) model names in major global markets:

• United States:
  • Toyota Land Cruiser
• Canada:
  • Toyota Land Cruiser
• Japan:
  • Toyota Land Cruiser 250
• Australia:
  • Toyota LandCruiser Prado
• Europe:
  • Toyota Land Cruiser
• United Kingdom:
  • Toyota Land Cruiser
• Middle East:
  • Toyota Land Cruiser Prado
• China:
  • Toyota Land Cruiser Prado
• Africa:
  • Toyota Land Cruiser Prado
• Southeast Asia:
  • Toyota Land Cruiser Prado
• Latin America:
  • Toyota Land Cruiser Prado

 

[COSmurf]

The reference to the TNGA - F platform used by the LC 250 confuses me as it underpins the “REAL Land Cruiser” as well and the LX Lexus series in the USA so not sure why its use for the Prado branded variants abroad is supposed to bolster an argument that it’s less of a Land Cruiser. Isn’t it just as much a “REAL Land Cruiser” as it is a Tacoma, 4Runner, GX, or Tundra?

I find that a lot of the “it isn’t a REAL Land Cruiser” crowd is not typically comprised of the very few takers of the REAL Land Cruisers of the previous generation in the USA. Toyota had it on sale here and unfortunately, people voted with their feet and there were not many people who appreciated an ultra over built, super understated, dead reliable car that could be had for the same price you could buy some of the other luxury flagship SUVs from European brands. The few takers there were, are notoriously loyal and would accept no substitute. I believe Land Cruiser and Mercedes E-Class wagon buyers have historically been the most brand and model loyal in the entire auto industry (and also a notoriously well-heeled demographic). I personally only did not buy one because I never needed a third-row and it was a bit larger than I needed and wanted at the time I was making purchasing decisions. My thoughts and feelings about it being desirable (except for size and third row) were clearly in the minority since they did not sell in sufficient volume to be commercially viable in the USA. The “it isn’t a REAL Land Cruiser” crowd largely tends to be people who buy REAL Land Cruisers after their first, second, or third owner and convert them into End of Days, Doomsday mobiles for hard core rock crawling and extensive modifications to compete with 37” tire Jeep Wranglers with two solid axles or Ford Broncos. This very small niche of people are willing to make extraordinary tradeoffs and turn their comfortable and balanced trucks into Stadium Trucks to run over giant boulders and shout about defining what gets to be a REAL Land Cruiser without being the ones who tended to purchase them off the showroom floor. There was clearly a very big mismatch between what the REAL Land Cruiser evolved into (a very large, expensive and luxurious though still capable SUV) from its origins as a nimble, go-anywhere, utility biased truck and it could not find an audience. The latest fake 250 Land Cruiser goes a long ways toward rectifying that drift without railing too hard in the other direction.

 

[RideWithYanu]

Yepp you are totally correct, what you said is what a Prado is. Prado's do maintain the capabilities to an extent, range being a major sacrifice & limiting factor in its capabilities. haha agreed, I think the 200 was almost exclusively driven by that group.

It makes sense though, as much as I think it is idiotic, to them the 80L was not needed. Unfortunately, the version in The States is not spec'd to truly be taken off-road, it is built to be able to handle off-road conditions, I 100% agree with what your comments. And it does handle everything I throw at it like a champ.

Fuel capacity is an incredibly important aspect for off-roading, I think that goes without saying. MPG does not really exist off-raod so you need the capacity. I average ~11mpg often less than 10, that is not sustainable with a 16g tank.

This version is built on the same frame as the Prado, only has luxury packages, has a shortened range, & no off-road packages. The AU is labeled as a Land Cruiser Prado, as you mentioned, and The States version is an even lighter version of theirs—this sounds like a Prado.

It is fine to make that decision & reduce the fuel capacity, but do not advertise & sell this as if it were a Land Cruiser, it is not, it is first & foremost a Prado.

This is bad analysis.

 

[BlueCruiser]

All things equal, more range is better. But I will play the devil's advocate for a moment.

How many off road locations in the US are more than 100 miles away from a gas station? Here's a hint not many.

Here again, more is better but just because Toyota made a rational trade-off for the us market for a 300 mile rage doesn't mean the LC 250 deserves to be banished from the Land Cruiser brand.

 

[Winchester44]

Your points are fair, and I don’t disagree that Toyota had to make trade-offs for the U.S. market. But the fuel range issue on the LC250 is not just about hypothetical range anxiety it’s a practical limitation for anyone using the vehicle as intended: in remote, off-highway environments.


While it’s true that few U.S. highways are more than 100 miles from a gas station, the real concern is what happens once you’re off the highway. In low-range 4WD, in deep sand, steep grades, or technical rock terrain, fuel economy can easily drop to 7–10 mpg or worse. In those conditions, a 17.9-gallon tank offers operational range well under 150 miles, often less than 100 if you’re pushing the vehicle hard.


And while Toyota deserves some of the criticism for choosing a smaller tank, the full picture includes U.S. evaporative emissions regulations (like ORVR and EPA Tier 3 standards). These significantly restrict usable fuel volume and complicate the design of large-capacity plastic tanks, especially on ladder-frame vehicles where packaging is already constrained. That’s a major reason why global variants of the Prado or LC250 get 24+ gallon tanks, while US is stuck under 18.


So yes, it’s a rational compromise from Toyota’s perspective, and no, it doesn’t mean the LC250 is unworthy of the Land Cruiser badge. But for people who use these vehicles off highway , it’s a meaningful constraint—one that doesn’t exist on the 70 Series, 200, or 300 in other markets. That’s why it’s being flagged—not out of brand snobbery, but because it impacts real-world functionality for the intended use case.

 

[Altitude]

On the Porsche forum we debate the amount of sound deadening material Porsche left out of the 911 and how that makes them really loud rolling down the highway on summer tires at 75 MPH.

Of course the track guys are all there to stand behind the notion that Porsche developed the car according to the brief, and the deadening material was superfluous to the goal.

They are probably right. But all cars are engineering comprises across conflicting goals and very few 911 owners take their cars to the track at all, let alone exclusively. So the profound majority (statistically “all”) of the 911 owners wish the cars were quieter on the highway.

It’s the same conversation we have here. Those who see Land Cruisers as having been designed for off-roading with any deviation from that goal being a mistake and those who get off road here and there or not much at all.

Both companies want to sell cars and so they make certain accommodations that deviate from design purity relative to each vehicle’s respective brief. I think they both have done an outstanding job.

 

[Nor Cal Cruiser]

I can tell you, as a non owner yet, that there are exactly two things keeping me from buying. Fuel tank capacity and the hybrid battery deal. I want to roll down the road for 400 plus miles uninterrupted and I am very leery of the hybrid tech, especially how it impacts the interior space and I don’t like the expense of replacing the batteries down the road in 8-10 years. Hopefully Toyota realizes I am not alone in my reservations and provides some alternatives.

Toyota has been making reliable hybrids for 30+ years. This is nothing new, just different. I’m at 17,500 enjoyable and issue free miles. There is a slight reduction in interior space, but the other concerns are theoretical, not real. After 30 or so cars in the last 30 years, including many SUVs, this is my favorite vehicle to own. If you know you know. Good luck.

 

[Nor Cal Cruiser]

Toyota has been making reliable hybrids for 30+ years. This is nothing new, just different. I’m at 17,500 enjoyable and issue free miles. There is a slight reduction in interior space, but the other concerns are theoretical, not real. After 30 or so cars in the last 30 years, including many SUVs, this is my favorite vehicle to own. If you know you know. Good luck.

Sorry, my fault, but I do for sure agree about the tank. It is a piss poor choice. Way too small. I adjust to this limitation but would greatly prefer another 5 gallons of capacity.

 

[Winchester44]

I can tell you, as a non owner yet, that there are exactly two things keeping me from buying. Fuel tank capacity and the hybrid battery deal. I want to roll down the road for 400 plus miles uninterrupted and I am very leery of the hybrid tech, especially how it impacts the interior space and I don’t like the expense of replacing the batteries down the road in 8-10 years. Hopefully Toyota realizes I am not alone in my reservations and provides some alternatives.

As an owner for almost a year I was worried about the interior space but it’s really a non issue. You are talking about a handful of cubic feet lost. I honestly don’t even notice it anymore. The hybrid is awesome. Instant torque. The driving range stinks, but likely not Toyotas fault.

 

[Markarian421]

All things equal, more range is better. But I will play the devil's advocate for a moment.

How many off road locations in the US are more than 100 miles away from a gas station? Here's a hint not many.

View attachment 43512

Here again, more is better but just because Toyota made a rational trade-off for the us market for a 300 mile rage doesn't mean the LC 250 deserves to be banished from the Land Cruiser brand.

I somewhat agree but . . . you’re fine for range as long as you’re not in this area and live in town and never leave the pavement.

Unfortunately I grew up in that area (not in a town, far from pavement) and still do most of my off-roading in that area. Not running out of gas requires planning. That makes it no different from my FJs or past US spec Land Cruisers. But it would have been super easy for Toyota to use one of the gas tanks they use on other markets and improve this Land Cruiser’s range over previous ones. Unfortunately Toyota specs what they send to the US based on what urban minivan drivers want.

 

[Mtn40]

Fortunately Unfortunately I grew up in that area (not in a town, far from pavement) and still do most of my off-roading in that area. Not running out of gas requires planning…

Fixed it for you

I too spend most of my off-road time in those dark patches to the east and west of that line of stations down the middle of Utah.

 

[KarpleT]

Why is the gas tank size an issue for anyone off roading when it’s been made easier than ever to attach spare tanks of all kinds to your vehicle and carry plenty of spare fuel with you into remote places?

 

[Markarian421]

Why is the gas tank size an issue for anyone off roading when it’s been made easier than ever to attach spare tanks of all kinds to your vehicle and carry plenty of spare fuel with you into remote places?

How so???

 

[KarpleT]

 

[Nor Cal Cruiser]

And only part of the point. One should be able to get more range on the pavement. I get only 225 or so and have to think ahead on road trips so as to not get caught between stations. The tank and range in the 250 are unjustifiable and a major negative even if you only drive on pavement. I do both, and the tank issue only makes the off-road portion worse. I should never need a Jerry cam on the street nor ever need to think about needing one, but sadly it is a consideration (and ridiculous solution). Toyota should do way better here.

 

[KarpleT]

Sorry … gas cans

Look real close at the picture

 

[Markarian421]

View attachment 43635

That doesn’t look easier than a slightly larger gas tank. Looks expensive and inconvenient.

 

[Nor Cal Cruiser]

Sorry … gas cans

Look real close at the picture

Lego model?

 

[KarpleT]

Kinda looks like it’s 3D printed.