I wish it had 2 more gallons… but my current tank range is around 350-375 miles which seems totally reasonable to me. I have rock sliders, roof rack, E load rated 285 width tires, skid plates. Would I prefer it consistently had 400 mile tank range? Yes, I would but Toyota also can’t account for and contemplate that people will modify their cars heavily and then have driving habits making the car get 15-17 MPGs putting the range in the toilet. I chose some MPGs reducing mods. You sort of can’t have it all ways… the same people saying “this isn’t a car you get for gas mileage, go drive a Prius” or “these MPG threads are stupid, it’s all about smiles per gallon” are usually the ones with driving habits getting them abysmal gas mileage and then they gripe about the limited range. If you’re saying “who cares, I have 35” mud terrains and a 3” lift and laugh at people who care about MPGs” then you probably shouldn’t complain about limited tank range since it’s a literal direct function of gas mileage. I’m not even saying all people should care about gas mileage… it’s your prerogative to drive your nice car as hard as you want. I get it, the LC scoots when you prod it hard. It’s fun. Please don’t change up your driving habits for me if that’s how you want to enjoy it. All I’m saying is then please don’t then complain about 200 mile tank range when there are many people getting 350-400 mile range in the same car because they actually do care about MPGs and the car is clearly capable of delivering.
Honest LC250 review that goes into more technical details & why Toyota missed the mark on LC250
- Thread starter LC_DFW
- Start date
Exactly. I just got back from a trip, all highway and averaged 26 mpg … so about 470 miles per tank full. Pretty darn good from my perspective.
Granted, serious off roading is going to result in a lot less fuel efficiency. But what type of user do you think is in the fat part of the bell curve that Toyota is really marketing this vehicle to?
Granted, serious off roading is going to result in a lot less fuel efficiency. But what type of user do you think is in the fat part of the bell curve that Toyota is really marketing this vehicle to?
6th gen 4Runner has 19 gallon tank.
Coming from a lifted 5th Gen 4Runner my range and gas mileage hasn’t gotten worse : )
Coming from a lifted 5th Gen 4Runner my range and gas mileage hasn’t gotten worse : )
Last edited:
I still suspect our US tank size has more to do with emissions and federal regulations than anything else, but I could be wrong.
As far as the LC250's off road capability, Toyota does this to make money. They've determined (correctly in my opinion) that there are two kinds of drivers for this broad category of vehicle:
The first group is eminently well served by the LC250 in its US form.
The second group has two options: buy a car "off the lot" that can do that, or modify a car to do that.
I suspect Toyota has determined that, as I said, the LC250 as is fits the first group in the US fine, and the second group is generally catered to by the various non-US spec LC250 options as well as the 70 and 100/200 series (outside the US) and by the aftermarket community in the US, since the US has probably the largest population with the income and desire to do so.
Toyota is simply going to sell more LC250s in the US the way they are because it's easier to retrofit them to hard core off-roading that it would be to retrofit an off-roader to a daily driver. If we want to blame anyone, I think it's probably the federal regulations that make it essentially impossible to have things like the Hilux or 70 here.
As far as why the 250 isn't marketed here as a Prado, I think the most likely explanation is that if there was a hiatus of the LC from the American market. Bringing it back with a nameplate that had never been sold here would have (possibly) caused confusion and low sales and (definitely) given marketing execs aneurysms.
As far as the LC250's off road capability, Toyota does this to make money. They've determined (correctly in my opinion) that there are two kinds of drivers for this broad category of vehicle:
- Ones that need some off-road capability but not at the cost of daily drivability (which is understandably subjective)
- Ones that need honest to goodness life depends on it off-road capability / survivability (which includes range) and are willing to prioritize that over everything else
The first group is eminently well served by the LC250 in its US form.
The second group has two options: buy a car "off the lot" that can do that, or modify a car to do that.
I suspect Toyota has determined that, as I said, the LC250 as is fits the first group in the US fine, and the second group is generally catered to by the various non-US spec LC250 options as well as the 70 and 100/200 series (outside the US) and by the aftermarket community in the US, since the US has probably the largest population with the income and desire to do so.
Toyota is simply going to sell more LC250s in the US the way they are because it's easier to retrofit them to hard core off-roading that it would be to retrofit an off-roader to a daily driver. If we want to blame anyone, I think it's probably the federal regulations that make it essentially impossible to have things like the Hilux or 70 here.
As far as why the 250 isn't marketed here as a Prado, I think the most likely explanation is that if there was a hiatus of the LC from the American market. Bringing it back with a nameplate that had never been sold here would have (possibly) caused confusion and low sales and (definitely) given marketing execs aneurysms.
What federal emissions rule regulates gas tank size?
None directly, but every ounce they can squeeze from vehicle weight means better MPG for the fleet average. A smaller tank means less gas onboard for that test whether they test at full or a percentage.
The difference for 2-3 more gallons of fuel would be less than a rounding error.
CAFE standards can indirectly affect fuel system design including gas tank size due to the requirement to manage emissions and possible escaping vapors. More fuel equals more vapors and infrastructure to contain them.
Also, although a few gallons seems trivial ( about 6 lbs per gallon) let's round up and call it about 20 extra pounds for gas, materials and parts. Then there is the cost.
You may laugh, but how much did the hood struts or cargo lights they cut cost and weigh?
Whatever the reasons, something is presssuring the entire industry. Most new light duty SUVs including the Honda Passport seem to have settled on targeted ranges between 300 to 400 miles.
Also, although a few gallons seems trivial ( about 6 lbs per gallon) let's round up and call it about 20 extra pounds for gas, materials and parts. Then there is the cost.
You may laugh, but how much did the hood struts or cargo lights they cut cost and weigh?
Whatever the reasons, something is presssuring the entire industry. Most new light duty SUVs including the Honda Passport seem to have settled on targeted ranges between 300 to 400 miles.
I mean a larger tank is available for 4Runner, which is a higher volume product. So if was a regulatory decision, Toyota would have implemented it on the 4Runner since the low volume of LC sales (compared to 4Runner or Tacoma) would barely make a difference at fleet level. Infrastructure to contain fumes doesn’t getter bigger with bigger tank, vapor pressure would not change with a larger tank.CAFE standards can indirectly affect fuel system design including gas tank size due to the requirement to manage emissions and possible escaping vapors. More fuel equals more vapors and infrastructure to contain them.
Also, although a few gallons seems trivial ( about 6 lbs per gallon) let's round up and call it about 20 extra pounds for gas, materials and parts. Then there is the cost.
You may laugh, but how much did the hood struts or cargo lights they cut cost and weigh?
Whatever the reasons, something is presssuring the entire industry. Most new light duty SUVs including the Honda Passport seem to have settled on targeted ranges between 300 to 400 miles.
What is pressuring the industry is demand. People would rather have a vehicle with MPG listed as 25 without hood struts as opposed to one with struts and mpg at 24. All manufacturers now that vast majority of potential buyers would not care what the range is while buying a vehicle. These kinds of products go through insane levels of market research, so things Toyota decide to omit were things that didn’t justify the cost. Or in other words, things they can remove without impacting sales.
Evaporative emissions rules under 40 CFR Part 1060 require fuel systems to meet strict vapor containment standards, and larger tanks require proportionally larger carbon canisters and more complex sealing systems to comply. This adds cost and engineering challenges, especially across high-volume models.
More significantly, federal fuel economy and greenhouse gas (GHG) standards—administered by NHTSA under the CAFE program and by the EPA under the Clean Air Act—set fleet-wide targets for each manufacturer. These targets are not applied to individual models but rather averaged across the total number of vehicles produced and sold in a given year by the manufacturer, with each model weighted by its production volume. For example, if Toyota is selling a large number of low-efficiency trucks and SUV's they must offset them by selling more high-efficiency hybrids or smaller vehicles to maintain compliance. Because CO₂ emissions are negatively affected by added vehicle weight, and larger fuel tanks add weight without improving test-cycle efficiency, manufacturers are incentivized to reduce tank sizes wherever possible across the fleet.
As a result, even though smaller tanks may reduce real-world driving range, automakers are forced to prioritize compliance with these USA federal standards over maximum range. The combined pressure of evaporative emission requirements and fleet-average fuel economy targets leads to a widespread trend of shrinking fuel tanks in the US, even as engine and drivetrain efficiency improves.
I can think of several LC's engine that make more torque.
1VD-FTV (twin turbo V8 Diesel) (i.e. 200 series)
F33A (Turbo Diesel 300 series)
V35A Gas/Hybrid (LX700H/LC300)
3UR-FE Supercharged Gas (Stock in M.E. Spec LX570)
Even the V35 non-hybrid in the GX550 makes more peak torque, albeit at a higher RPM. But it's 'real' power. The LC250 T24A Hybrid cannot continuously make that amount of torque. Plus, hybrid battery reserve reduced by airing down, sand, larger MT tires, etc.
A Turbo Diesel can chug along at 1500 RPM, while aired down on the sand, for hours while delivering max torque. That's is exactly a good use for low end torque when off road. You don't need gobs of torque in low range. You can easily make it up torque at the wheels with gearing. In fact, they had to change the throttle maps in the 250 so people didn't break stuff in low range.
Lol not a single one of those is sold in the US. Case and point
Which proves my point that it is not a decision to comply with regulatory requirements since LC will not be offsetting anything at fleet level. It has one of the lowest sales volume of any vehicle across Toyota’s lineup.
Attachments
Peak torque for GX would be useless for offroad purposes at peak RPM. At that point you will either be spinning tires or the transmission will be slipping, with close to zero precision or control. This particularly will be an issue for GX since due it it’s suspension design, it will have issues maintaining contact with the surface.
Last edited:
GX550 and LX600, LX700H are sold in the US. Let me guess, you are going to say they don't count because they don't carry the Sombrero on the grill.Lol not a single one of those is sold in the US. Case and point
You have no clue.
While I understand your point, it’s not quite accurate to say that the LC250’s fuel tank size isn’t influenced by regulatory requirements simply because of its lower sales volume. CAFE compliance is not calculated at the manufacturer level as a single average across all vehicles—it's segmented into passenger cars and light trucks, and manufacturers must meet standards within each segment independently. The LC250 is classified as a light-duty truck, and within that segment, even lower-volume models still count toward the fleet average.
It gets even more complicated. Further CAFE targets are footprint-based, meaning even among trucks, larger vehicles like the Tundra are held to more lenient standards than smaller-body SUVs like the LC250. Because of this, the LC250 faces a stricter mpg requirement relative to its size and category.
Also keep in mind Toyota buys CAFE credits from other manufactures.
So while the LC250 may not dramatically move Toyota’s overall average, it still has to stand on its own within the regulatory framework and packaging limitations of its segment.
Bottom line, it all matters.
I firmly concur with Takara LC.
Your chart is for a Tundra which will be tuned differently than a GX550, but makes our point. Peak torque at 4770 RPM. The LC250’s hybrid powertrain delivers significantly better low-end torque than the GX550, especially at very low RPM. Thanks to its electric motor, the LC250 produces nearly 465 lb-ft almost instantly, with peak torque arriving around 1,600 RPM. Contrast that with your chart. This gives the LC250 a big advantage in throttle response and control during low-speed off-road situations.
I’m interested in reading your position if you’d like to make it, instead of making ad hominem attacks.
RAV 4 Fuel Tank Capacity by Generation
1st Generation (1994–2000) Fuel tank: approximately 15.3 gal (57.9 L)
2nd Generation (2001–2005) Fuel tank: 14.8 gal (56.0 L)
3rd Generation (2006–2012) Fuel tank: 15.9 gal (60.2 L)
4th Generation (2013–2018)Gas models: 15.9 gal (60.2 L) Hybrid models (from 2016 on): 14.8 gal (56.0 L)
5th Generation (2019–2025) All models (gas, hybrid, and plug‑in hybrid): 14.5 gal
![First offroad, el. 13,124’ [Summit County, CO] - Compare/Contrast 5th Gen 4Runner](https://www.landcruiserforum.com/data/files/featured_images/47/featuredimages_27982020c576bec5.webp)
Similar threads
