I have gotten EPA estimates or better and have seen several others post the same in this forum.
Terrible mileage for a Hybrid and Gas Tank is way too small
- Thread starter TJ Wheels
- Start date
I think they go hand-in-hand
Then the Honda Passport MPG numbers show that the bigger engine doesn't get better gas mileage.
Plus, I'm getting better MGP than the V6 in the '18 Jeep I had, so there's that too.
American car manufacturers brainwashed people into believing even their lawn mower needs a V8. Engine volume and cylinder configuration is not something a buyer should care about, unless engine acoustics are very important. I only care about power and torque. What other competitor has 325HP and 460lbft torque, and gets 21MPG?Then the Honda Passport MPG numbers show that the bigger engine doesn't get better gas mileage.
Last edited:
And what do you think a Toyota FE cost? I think the MSRP was $77K on mine. At least BMW haggled.
In today's high-gas-price world, this vehicle's engine tech is peculiar, at best. Hell, my V8 LR4 got 23MPG on the highway. Not sure what the purpose of slapping a "hybrid" in this thing to get better torque was. It drastically limits your options due to range. You can't tow anything with it without stopping to get gas every 2 hours.
I like the truck, but it has a big flaw.
The flaw is the gas tank not the hybrid. On Wednesday I towed my snowmobile trailer (~2500 lbs) about 300km (180 miles) and that was the max range, distance to empty was 3 km when I stopped for gas. It towed terrific, huge improvement over my 2010 4Runner, probably got better mpg than the 4R towing but stepping down from the 4R 24 gal to the LC 18 gal tank was the difference.
The FE isn't the only model. If you didn't understand the purpose of the hybrid, why did you purchase it?
Again, there are plenty of folks here on this site getting as good as or better than the 23 mpg. It's time for the V8 love affair to end.
Exactly! The love affair with "I have to have a V8" is crazy.
I'm a bit on the fence about this. I didn't buy the LC for its fuel economy (I'd have kept my EV for that except I need to drive a lot for work someone keeps cutting the cables at public charging stations) so I've never felt disappointed and have been happily surprised to get to the mid and upper mid 20's on the highway in good weather (above 60 degrees, no serious headwinds). I've also had some trips, particularly recently in cold weather, where the teens are the best we can do, but again, this isn't out of line with my expectations so I'm not irritated by this.
To argue the other side a little time travel via the Wayback Machine (web.archive.org) backs up that Toyota's initial promo materials (2025 Toyota Land Cruiser | Toyota.com) did initially purport up to 27mpg combined albeit with the caveat that these were not official EPA ratings. This number was published on August 2nd 2023 on Toyota's website and pulled on August 17th with subsequent official marketing making no specific mention of fuel economy thereafter. My guess - someone in the marketing department made a mistake and pulled a number off an internal dyno report that they shouldn't have. No doubt there were other early communiques and leaks feeding the internet rumor mill as well but nothing anyone should have put their hard earned money on. Regardless, many social media reviewers and car magazines did continued to run with the 27mpg for some time even after Toyota deleted this from their own advertising until the official EPA results were published in February 2024.
So TBF there's a subset of early adopters, those who paid deposits in August 2023, who have a reasonable gripe that they feel hoodwinked by Toyota, be it intentional or negligent, into purchasing the vehicle under false pretenses (though I believe that the official EPA numbers were out by the time of the first deliveries to NA, so there's that). After that early timeframe we get deeper and deeper into caveat emptor territory and if someone was relying solely on social media reviews and/or put their money down after 2/2024 and is really bent out of shape then unfortunately this may be a lesson in why one should take responsibility to do one's own due diligence.
Now I would distinguish this from the whole "Well I'm only getting 13 mpg's" vs" Well I'm getting 30 mpg's" argument. I'm not saying it isn't a cause some consternation amongst the community but we might as well be arguing religion at this point given one person's driving like a grandma is another persons driving like Furiosa. Some owners, clearly, are getting the official fuel economy, some are not. It's been beat to death that EPA testing does not always reflect real world conditions and that most of the things people do to make their truck reflect their persona add up to decreased mpg's. No dealer is going to tell you to go ahead and throw on a 2" lift, double your tire/wheel weight, load up your roof with gear and carry 500 lbs of cargo and promise you'll increase your mileage but there also not going to tell you not to do those things when you walk in with that money spending gleam in your eye. So if your rig is outfitted for survival in the Wasteland or you can't drive 55... well, if you know you know. Yeah, a large displacement V8 would probably show less impact but you're also starting from a place of shittier mpgs. Take a breath.
Because I bought it early. Probably wouldn't have if I'd read this thread prior to buying. As many have said, there was a lot of hoopla early about this thing getting 27mpg. My mistake. I mean, I wouldn't buy a Rivian if it only got 220 miles per charge.
This is well said, better organized than my thoughts - which are many and all over the place.
I had a choice between the GX Overtrail+ and the Land Cruiser. I weighed it all up and went with the LC - with that comes powertrain tradeoffs and MPG benefits - it is what it is.
I actually think where everyone agrees here is the fuel tank is bullshit - the more I think about it the more I believe that we got the smaller tank only so that the GX people wouldn’t feel short changed when they were hearing LC folks talk about 400-450 miles of range vs their 325. Which kinda blows as I think the Lexus brand is always going to have a following and in doing so Toyota screwed is out of one of the main benefits of this powertrain.
yep, I was averaging 13mpg with my 4Runner Trail Edition. I average 21._ mpg in my LC 250 FE. I have close to 12k on it now and I'm very satisfied with it overall.I should add that while these 4Runner numbers look good, I would get 14mpg in my “Un”Limited 5th Gen on a good day. 12mpg was more common. Smiles vs miles factor was
That makes sense; I wouldn't buy an LC if I was getting 220 miles per tank either, which I'm definitely getting more than that.
Indeed they did - and for that reason all curious design decisions must never be spoken about ever again.
No one said they were misinformed about the tank size - it’s just interesting that they put a smaller one in the Land Cruiser so the range would be the same as the GX - I think it’s a missed opportunity to differentiate a LC from a mall crawler.
I have zero issues with towing - far better than my 2022 Tacoma - it's just the lack of range & the other issue is the lack of available premium gas once you leave the well-beaten path so it means carrying gas cans in both cases - I wish Toyota had thought that part through a little better but it is what it is. I knew these issues when I bought it so I adjust accordingly.
How does it handle towing the tractor I will be doing the same soon. I have a Kubota 3300 with backhoe I will be moving.
Similar threads
Supporting Vendors
View all →
Latest Discussions
-
-
-
Chineasium Powered Running Board Install Guide Help
- Latest: DuckNuggets
-
