Land Cruiser MY26 changes

The gas tank size does get a lot of hype but it honestly has never presented itself as a real world issue in my case. One of the simplest limitations to work around.
Exactly wtf are people complaining about I have 20,000 miles on my 2024 LCLC purchased last September.
Overall gas mileage is 21.5 mpg I
I fill it up and I see a 360 mile range and that’s low it should be 385.
I think the tank capacity is 17.9 gallons right?
 
I understand it is a big deal to you, even if it isn’t for me. It just doesn’t present itself as a real problem that isn’t simply solved.
It’s a big deal to me and many others. It’s a totally legitimate complaint and one not simply solved.
 
Last edited:
I'm not saying you're not right, but...the range of the current gen LC250 is greater than the range of the past generation of LC (200/100). From Toyota's point of view, the new LC is better in terms of range. I'd still like to see a bigger tank.
Prior and current gen’s have available sub tanks combined with superior diesel engines get 2X-3x range.
 
Last edited:
In North America, there's really nowhere you can drive that would give you range anxiety if you fill up BEFORE hitting the trail. I live out West where it's common to go 75-150 miles without civilization (very common actually). Driving all over Idaho, Nevada, Washington, Utah, California, Oregon, Arizona, etc. for work, the farthest I've been is 200-miles without an open fuel station on my route. Staying on the 'normal' highways and not going absolutely remote, this is never an issue.

I drove 40-miles off road in Moab last weekend in one day, my MPG was '18-mpg' in low-range all day. Left the trail at 3/4-tank after driving 45-minutes from my base camp to get to it. Again, this is the mecca of off-roading, you're never far from a gas station until you leave Moab. Now, if it was down to a half-tank or less, then maybe that would be a big problem.

After saying that, Toyota absolutely should have placed a larger tank in the LC250 but it's not the first time they've placed a small tank in a LC. Even the last 200-series had a 24.6-gallon tank, and I can assume most of those 200's are getting 15-mpg with 33's (interstate) with 5-gallons of fuel capacity in 'reserve' to increase fuel pump longevity. So, that 15 mpg x 20 gal is 300 miles. Is that really any different than a LC250 on 33's getting 20 mpg (interstate) x 15 gallons (which is closer to our point of 0-mile range fillups with a smaller reserve capacity), not really, they're both fueling at 300 miles range. Most people aren't driving beyond empty to get every last ounce of capacity from their rig.

So the entire basis of the issue is misplaced, as LC's have had a larger tank in the past but also with that, far worse fuel economy. It's sort of a wash.
This assumes that North American LC200 owners were happy with the 24 gallon tank versus the rest of the world got. I have two for friends with LC200s and they both asked me about the driving range and fuel capacity of my LC 250 when I got it. They were both disappointed that Toyota decided not to fix one of the biggest complaints they both had with their LC200’s.
 
Exactly wtf are people complaining about I have 20,000 miles on my 2024 LCLC purchased last September.
Overall gas mileage is 21.5 mpg I
I fill it up and I see a 360 mile range and that’s low it should be 385.
I think the tank capacity is 17.9 gallons right?
Sounds like a lot of highway miles…
 
In North America, there's really nowhere you can drive that would give you range anxiety if you fill up BEFORE hitting the trail. I live out West where it's common to go 75-150 miles without civilization (very common actually). Driving all over Idaho, Nevada, Washington, Utah, California, Oregon, Arizona, etc. for work, the farthest I've been is 200-miles without an open fuel station on my route. Staying on the 'normal' highways and not going absolutely remote, this is never an issue.

I drove 40-miles off road in Moab last weekend in one day, my MPG was '18-mpg' in low-range all day. Left the trail at 3/4-tank after driving 45-minutes from my base camp to get to it. Again, this is the mecca of off-roading, you're never far from a gas station until you leave Moab. Now, if it was down to a half-tank or less, then maybe that would be a big problem.

After saying that, Toyota absolutely should have placed a larger tank in the LC250 but it's not the first time they've placed a small tank in a LC. Even the last 200-series had a 24.6-gallon tank, and I can assume most of those 200's are getting 15-mpg with 33's (interstate) with 5-gallons of fuel capacity in 'reserve' to increase fuel pump longevity. So, that 15 mpg x 20 gal is 300 miles. Is that really any different than a LC250 on 33's getting 20 mpg (interstate) x 15 gallons (which is closer to our point of 0-mile range fillups with a smaller reserve capacity), not really, they're both fueling at 300 miles range. Most people aren't driving beyond empty to get every last ounce of capacity from their rig.

So the entire basis of the issue is misplaced, as LC's have had a larger tank in the past but also with that, far worse fuel economy. It's sort of a wash.
My last brief visit to Utah involved off-roading about half way through this stretch of I-70. There aren’t any gas stations out in the middle of the San Rafael Swell. My tank was empty by the time I got to the end of this 106 miles. But then I guess most people don’t wander that far from towns in the US. (They should, we spent an entire two week vacation once hiking the canyons out in the Swell!)

IMG_6837.jpeg
 
My last brief visit to Utah involved off-roading about half way through this stretch of I-70. There aren’t any gas stations out in the middle of the San Rafael Swell. My tank was empty by the time I got to the end of this 106 miles. But then I guess most people don’t wander that far from towns in the US. (They should, we spent an entire two week vacation once hiking the canyons out in the Swell!)

View attachment 46716
Agree.

But let’s cut through the nonsense — since when does pulling off at a trailhead a stone’s throw from the interstate count as “off-highway”?

Several members are dead set on redefining off highway use. Their bragging that their never more than a hundred miles from a gas station only proves they've never left major interstate corridors. They would probably be much happier with an X5.

What happens when you hit a real backcountry route in Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, Oregon, or Arizona where 160–200 miles without fuel is normal? Or when you’re on BLM and Forest Service roads with nothing for hundreds of miles — is your “hundred-mile rule” still worth anything then?

And Moab as an example of “remote”? Give me a break. A town of 5,000 people with 11 gas stations is practically a service hub. If that’s your definition of remote, your not describing off highway travel you’re just describing a weekend day trip.
 
Sounds like a lot of highway miles…
I’m seeing 22.3 mpg lately on mine. 30 mile commute everyday at 70-80 mph and some backroad driving as well in that commute.

I wish for a diesel drivetrain that we will never see lol.
 
Depending on wheel design yes, no, maybe. The Method 17” seem to give enough clearance, but I’d prefer 18” based on the 💩 happens factor.

I had 15” alloys and slightly oversized tires on my old Cherokee. After one fateful trip playing in mud I got a little bit stuck, to the point I ended up having to back out of some ruts (made by a much larger truck) after getting high centered. When all was said & done, my front disk brakes were jammed full of mud. The scraping noises were not happy sounds once that dried in there.

I went home after picking up the Mrs with mud sprayed 3/4 of the way to the roof and she was not impressed. It took quite a bit of effort getting the caked mud out of the rims and front brakes. A little more clearance would have been a good thing- ground clearance and clearance between the rims & brakes. I had no plans on getting stuck, but standing water in mud can be deceptive. If you have no plans for those kind of misfortunes, 17’s could be just fine.
Exactly why I stayed with 18" wheels.
 
This assumes that North American LC200 owners were happy with the 24 gallon tank versus the rest of the world got. I have two for friends with LC200s and they both asked me about the driving range and fuel capacity of my LC 250 when I got it. They were both disappointed that Toyota decided not to fix one of the biggest complaints they both had with their LC200’s.
It appears after receiving numerous customer complaints about inadequate fuel tank size on the J200 from 2008-2021, Toyota responded by installing a smaller fuel tank on the J250.
Maybe customers should try reverse psychology and complain that the tanks are way too large instead ;).
 
Last edited:
It appears after receiving numerous customer complaints about inadequate fuel tank size on the J200 from 2008-2021, Toyota responded by installing a smaller fuel tank on the J250.
Maybe customers should try reverse psychology and complain that the tanks are way too large instead ;).

Afraid you've got that backwards.

Toyota offered the J200 with a factory-fitted sub tank. 93 L (main) + 45 L (sub‑tank), delivering a total of 138 L, which equates to approximately 36.4 U.S. gallons. This configuration was offered as standard in many regions globally.

When paired with the 4.5L twin-turbo diesel V8, which typically returns about 18–20 mpg, this setup provided an effective range of roughly 650–725 miles.

Bottom line the J200 is capable of exceptional range by any standard.

Unfortunately over half that capability was lost when it was forced to to comply with local regulations in the United States.

It wasn’t Toyota’s preference to install a smaller tank or a thirsty gas engine the U.S. regulatory environment forced that on them.
 
I’m seeing 22.3 mpg lately on mine. 30 mile commute everyday at 70-80 mph and some backroad driving as well in that commute.

I wish for a diesel drivetrain that we will never see lol.
The i-Force Max setup is offered exclusively in North America and nowhere else. It’s the closest Toyota could get to delivering diesel-like performance in the U.S. market and still meet US emission requirements. By combining a 2.4L turbocharged gas engine with a hybrid electric motor, the system delivers strong low-end torque and improved efficiency characteristics that help it to almost match the diesel engines offered virtually everywhere else. They did the best they could.
 
The i-Force Max setup is offered exclusively in North America and nowhere else. It’s the closest Toyota could get to delivering diesel-like performance in the U.S. market and still meet US emission requirements. By combining a 2.4L turbocharged gas engine with a hybrid electric motor, the system delivers strong low-end torque and improved efficiency characteristics that help it to almost match the diesel engines offered virtually everywhere else. They did the best they could.
In my opinion they have succeeded, with the added benefit of top-end power (8s 0-60 compared to >11s for the diesel) and 2400W inverter.
 
24.6 gallons on the old LC which got like 15mpg highway.......at 75-80. What an owner told me years back. (rated 13/18) So 24.6x15=369 miles.......what's the big deal? LC250 is 23mpg (22/25) so 17.9 x 23=412 miles. Keeping it real by using the combined numbers
18x24=432
25x17.9 =447
This argument doesn't hold water unless the old one was even worse ........
 
The i-Force Max setup is offered exclusively in North America and nowhere else. It’s the closest Toyota could get to delivering diesel-like performance in the U.S. market and still meet US emission requirements. By combining a 2.4L turbocharged gas engine with a hybrid electric motor, the system delivers strong low-end torque and improved efficiency characteristics that help it to almost match the diesel engines offered virtually everywhere else. They did the best they could.
I don't have complaints about the drivetrain and performance of the current engine, just comparing it to my old Audi A6 C7 TDI. Lots of torque and I gassed up every two weeks. 35+ mpg on the highway and almost 685 miles from a tank and I never babied that car either. I just think this with a diesel, larger tank, and getting something like 550 miles from a tank would be the perfect combo.
 
I'm actually very curious when Toyota starts bringing the parallel hybrid setup to performance applications. If that pancake motor can add so much to a Land Cruiser, an IS for example would just LAUNCH
 
Supporting Vendors View all →
Air Down Gear
Back
Top Bottom