It looks like broken rollers on the tripod side of the CV joint. This style joint doesn't like high angularity. I mentioned it earlier. The 250 has tripod style joint on one end and Rzeppa on the other end. GX has Rzeppa on both ends. Tinkerer talks about it in his video at 4:28.
Honest LC250 review that goes into more technical details & why Toyota missed the mark on LC250
- Thread starter LC_DFW
- Start date
The FE Land Cruisers were a money grab, let’s get that out there. His point that the LC is the most expensive vehicle in his comparison isn’t wrong but the underlying reasons are a little misleading. He could just as well be comparing a 1958 to his FJ.
If Toyota were to built a TRD Pro version of the LC, I bet it would have the same CV joints the Tacoma TRD Pro has.
I guess I’m a little surprised they did put them in the GX though, given that statistically none of its buyers will care.
- Oct 15, 2024
- 354
- Media
- 48
- 628
- Vehicles
- '24 J250 FE, '88 J62, '24 BMW R 1250 GS, '24 Ducati Streetfighter V4S, '21 BMW RnineT
I think it’s more funny that folks will argue with Toyota and claim something isn’t a real Land Cruiser that Toyota says is a Land Cruiser. Last I checked, Toyota makes Land Cruisers (all of them). Even the “real” Lexus GX and LC whatever land cruisers. I’m going to readily side with Toyota in this idiotic debate.
Yeah Rzeppa CVs take articulation better and they are smoother under load, but Rzeppa on both ends has its own downsides. Rzeppa CVs for instance do not take axial motion well. So if the vehicle body or engine is rolling from one side to the due to uneven surface, or if the wheel hits an obstacle at speed, causing axial motion, it can damage the CV (especially if neither end can take axial motion).
Plus, when a Rzeppa CV fails, it is not serviceable and almost always seizes and locks the wheel, while if a tripod CV fails, it is serviceable and the wheel generally remains or can be made free spinning. Even in the video above, they commented that they were able to finish the trail with 3-wheel drive. So when a Rzeppa CV fails, you are stranded, but failed tripod CV will generally still be drivable. So LCs design plays better with the motto "take you there and bring you back".
edit, here is a good overview of pros and cons of either type of CV.
Blog tripod vs. Rzeppa joint – KMP Drivetrain Solutions
n this blog, we would like to talk about the difference between the regular, ball-type CV-joints used in most passenger cars and the tripod joints that we use in our driveshafts.
www.kmpdrivetrain.com
We have been talking about this for 18 pages here but our friends argued lc is a better built off-roader than gx ot
It is though, it was able to finish the trail as 3-wheel drive. If you blow a CV on GX, it will lock the wheel and you will need to be rescued. Not a big issue on a mall parking lot, but it would have been a major issue where these guys were.
Absolutely. I broke a CV in mine, and was able to drive it home (including 30 miles back out of the wilderness). The Land Cruiser is truly the perfect backcountry adventure vehicle.
But they were doing simple stuff when it broke. Nothing I would consider risky in terms of breaking axles .
This is what tripod looks like, those pieces look to me like they are too big to be a part of the tripod portion.
It almost certainly is an outer roller. It looks big because LC has large tripod CVs.
Original post reads like they didn't fully lose the power on that wheel, which is one of the advantages of tripod CVs. If the broken piece is taken out, a tripod CV can work with the remaining 2 or even 1 roller, and one can generally remove the broken pieces on site by cutting the boot open and pulling the pieces out with simple tools. It obviously becomes weaker, but worse case the wheel will still remain free spinning.
Isn’t there grease to keep everything lubricated ? I would think that removing the boot would cause significant heat damage and catastrophic failure in short time
You are correct. However if it means walking for miles or super slow going for a self recovery....... I'll ride.
Obviously, you are just googling these terms and trying to argue with me. Have you ever even heard of the term "Rzeppa" before today? Have you ever rebuilt the Toyota CV in question? The inner and outer joints are not identical. The inner is a bit of a hybrid with 6 balls and has the same axial ability as the tripod style.... but is larger and allows more angularity. When the CV has Rzeppa on both ends, usually the outer fails first.Yeah Rzeppa CVs take articulation better and they are smoother under load, but Rzeppa on both ends has its own downsides. Rzeppa CVs for instance do not take axial motion well. So if the vehicle body or engine is rolling from one side to the due to uneven surface, or if the wheel hits an obstacle at speed, causing axial motion, it can damage the CV (especially if neither end can take axial motion).
Plus, when a Rzeppa CV fails, it is not serviceable and almost always seizes and locks the wheel, while if a tripod CV fails, it is serviceable and the wheel generally remains or can be made free spinning. Even in the video above, they commented that they were able to finish the trail with 3-wheel drive. So when a Rzeppa CV fails, you are stranded, but failed tripod CV will generally still be drivable. So LCs design plays better with the motto "take you there and bring you back".
edit, here is a good overview of pros and cons of either type of CV.
Blog tripod vs. Rzeppa joint – KMP Drivetrain Solutions
n this blog, we would like to talk about the difference between the regular, ball-type CV-joints used in most passenger cars and the tripod joints that we use in our driveshafts.www.kmpdrivetrain.com
You know, I imagine there's a way to make this point - who's validity from a mechanical perspective i have no expertise from which to argue otherwise - without belittling the OP like this is a 4chan alpha vs beta/who has the bigger d*ck thread.
Can anyone be a Google expert these days? I suppose so, sure, though why that's relevant here other than to use as an insult isn't clear.
On the other hand people who truly know their sh*t and are confident in their opinions don't usually need to inveigh their arguments with ad hominem attacks (the use of which usually reflects more upon the person making them than the person at whom they are being directed) to bolster their facts because the facts stand for themselves.
Can anyone be a Google expert these days? I suppose so, sure, though why that's relevant here other than to use as an insult isn't clear.
On the other hand people who truly know their sh*t and are confident in their opinions don't usually need to inveigh their arguments with ad hominem attacks (the use of which usually reflects more upon the person making them than the person at whom they are being directed) to bolster their facts because the facts stand for themselves.
One should never let facts get in the way of their side of an argument.............. I've never broken an axle when the tires are spinning, slinging crap every where, nope it's when they are spinning and abruptly stop that's when my axles have come from together. What I call hopping/skipping. It's only happened twice, once was a three wheel drive self recovery and the other was a two wheel drive "assisted" recovery.
Excellent point!Yeah Rzeppa CVs take articulation better and they are smoother under load, but Rzeppa on both ends has its own downsides. Rzeppa CVs for instance do not take axial motion well. So if the vehicle body or engine is rolling from one side to the due to uneven surface, or if the wheel hits an obstacle at speed, causing axial motion, it can damage the CV (especially if neither end can take axial motion).
Plus, when a Rzeppa CV fails, it is not serviceable and almost always seizes and locks the wheel, while if a tripod CV fails, it is serviceable and the wheel generally remains or can be made free spinning. Even in the video above, they commented that they were able to finish the trail with 3-wheel drive. So when a Rzeppa CV fails, you are stranded, but failed tripod CV will generally still be drivable. So LCs design plays better with the motto "take you there and bring you back".
edit, here is a good overview of pros and cons of either type of CV.
Blog tripod vs. Rzeppa joint – KMP Drivetrain Solutions
n this blog, we would like to talk about the difference between the regular, ball-type CV-joints used in most passenger cars and the tripod joints that we use in our driveshafts.www.kmpdrivetrain.com
This debate is growing a bit tiresome, but I'll continue to chime in.
Overall, the LC250 is a strategic reset. It is lighter, more efficient, and more accessible than its predecessor, offering advanced features without undermining the brand’s reputation for toughness and longevity. It shows Toyota’s intent to reassert the Land Cruiser as a purpose-built, global utility vehicle—not just another luxury SUV in a sea of others. That positioning is especially unique in today’s marketplace, which is increasingly dominated by crossovers and luxury-branded SUVs that prioritize comfort, design, and street performance at the expense of mechanical durability and off-road capability.
With each new generation, most competitors move further away from body-on-frame construction, true four-wheel-drive systems, and the kind of rugged engineering required for serious off high way use. Even Toyota itself drifted in that direction with the U.S.-spec Land Cruiser 200 Series, which became a full-size luxury SUV—heavy, expensive, and increasingly complex. While still mechanically capable, the LC200 in the U.S. emphasized prestige and comfort, ultimately pricing itself out of reach for many long-time Land Cruiser loyalists. It became more about status over utility.
The Lexus counterparts followed a similar trajectory. The LX570 (based on the LC200) and the current LX600 (based on the LC300 platform) pushed even further into the luxury realm, favoring technology and interior refinement over practical off-road considerations. The GX550 is a great compromise. However it is still not on balance superior to the LC 250. Superior in some way, inferior in others, on balance it really depends on the specific use case.
The Lexus Land Cruisers are often laden with features and body modifications that add complexity but do little to enhance performance in remote or punishing environments. Their off-road credentials, while still better than any crossover, are increasingly theoretical.
By contrast, the LC350 is a deliberate course correction, a vehicle engineered from the ground up to return the Land Cruiser name to its roots: durable, serviceable, and built for real-world utility use. It offers genuine off-road performance, simplified mechanical systems, and broad global applicability in a segment that has largely been abandoned by other manufactures as Toyota so completely dominates it. Rather than merely styling itself as rugged, the LC350 is rugged—both in form and function. In doing so, Toyota is preserving a rare and increasingly valuable niche: a modern SUV that still honors the Land Cruiser’s legacy of overland exploration, remote utility, and mechanical resilience—while resisting the prevailing trend toward luxury-first design that dominates today’s SUV market.
Overall, the LC250 is a strategic reset. It is lighter, more efficient, and more accessible than its predecessor, offering advanced features without undermining the brand’s reputation for toughness and longevity. It shows Toyota’s intent to reassert the Land Cruiser as a purpose-built, global utility vehicle—not just another luxury SUV in a sea of others. That positioning is especially unique in today’s marketplace, which is increasingly dominated by crossovers and luxury-branded SUVs that prioritize comfort, design, and street performance at the expense of mechanical durability and off-road capability.
With each new generation, most competitors move further away from body-on-frame construction, true four-wheel-drive systems, and the kind of rugged engineering required for serious off high way use. Even Toyota itself drifted in that direction with the U.S.-spec Land Cruiser 200 Series, which became a full-size luxury SUV—heavy, expensive, and increasingly complex. While still mechanically capable, the LC200 in the U.S. emphasized prestige and comfort, ultimately pricing itself out of reach for many long-time Land Cruiser loyalists. It became more about status over utility.
The Lexus counterparts followed a similar trajectory. The LX570 (based on the LC200) and the current LX600 (based on the LC300 platform) pushed even further into the luxury realm, favoring technology and interior refinement over practical off-road considerations. The GX550 is a great compromise. However it is still not on balance superior to the LC 250. Superior in some way, inferior in others, on balance it really depends on the specific use case.
The Lexus Land Cruisers are often laden with features and body modifications that add complexity but do little to enhance performance in remote or punishing environments. Their off-road credentials, while still better than any crossover, are increasingly theoretical.
By contrast, the LC350 is a deliberate course correction, a vehicle engineered from the ground up to return the Land Cruiser name to its roots: durable, serviceable, and built for real-world utility use. It offers genuine off-road performance, simplified mechanical systems, and broad global applicability in a segment that has largely been abandoned by other manufactures as Toyota so completely dominates it. Rather than merely styling itself as rugged, the LC350 is rugged—both in form and function. In doing so, Toyota is preserving a rare and increasingly valuable niche: a modern SUV that still honors the Land Cruiser’s legacy of overland exploration, remote utility, and mechanical resilience—while resisting the prevailing trend toward luxury-first design that dominates today’s SUV market.
Last edited:
250, not 350, but yes I fully agree with this position.
Are you talking about me? I only give facts and/or experience. Look at the pic, this is an inner tripod joint (ie LC250). On the right is the inner GX550 joint (type). Sometimes called a double offset. Has the same axial motion as the tripod but more angularity. One is obviously cheaper than the other.
Nope.......... obviously two different designs using two different bearing styles, both do a good job and IMO, both will fail if pushed beyond their design limits.
Similar threads
