Would you give up off-road capability for better mpg?

[mth1738]

If the 2024 LC had the Hybrid system of the Highlander that would be 35mpg and the batteries under the seats to open up cargo area. That’d be at the expense of any overlanding etc…


I wish it were on one of the models. I keep thinking how many people i know with trucks and 4Runners who never use them for anything other than grocery and mall shopping.

 

[LC-120]

Welcome @mth1738 ! You're right, there are also millions of people who never towed anything with their big V8 trucks.

The Highlander and Grand Highlander 2.5 Hybrid are very comfortable and efficient SUVs.

LC will be close to Grand Highlander 2.4T Hybrid in terms of efficiency. Plus the off-road capability and durability.

 

[Paint]

My understanding about the hybrid setup for the LC is the same as the one on the Tundra...Not for mileage/efficiency at all. It's designed for power and towing. Added mpg is a nice by-product, but not the purpose of the design. That's what Toyota has said about it (on the Tundra, and this is the same design) anyway.

 

[Nuke]

My understanding about the hybrid setup for the LC is the same as the one on the Tundra...Not for mileage/efficiency at all. It's designed for power and towing. Added mpg is a nice by-product, but not the purpose of the design. That's what Toyota has said about it (on the Tundra, and this is the same design) anyway.

True, the electric motor in the LC, and Tundra, is a "boost" motor, and does not primarily power the vehicle, as with the dual electric motors in the Highlander. Also, one has the fact that the system in the Highlander has infinite "gear ratios", whereas the LC is an 8-speed automatic.

 

[Rocket]

I think almost everyone coming to this page will say no to that trade. There is a reason we are all on a Landcruiser page and not elsewhere. I don't get off road very often but I have chosen my vehicle because it possesses the ability to do such a thing when it is needed. Better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it. Same goes for parachutes and guns!

 

[bandit67]

NO, I would not give up off road capability for better mpg's. I personally am glad Toyota is going with the i-FORCE MAX system because I like power in my vehicles. If I can get the extra power with a little better fuel economy than a twin turbo V6 with V8 power and crappy fuel economy, then I'm all for it. Still not on board with the lower powered high-mpg hybrid setups, but again, I like power. Not sure how often we'll get the Land Cruiser off the beaten path, but it's a Land Cruiser, and it's heritage is all about getting off the beaten path, and playing in the dirt and mud is a ton of fun, because I'm still a kid at heart, I guess.

 

[m1konrad]

As @Paint and @Nuke mentioned, the LC (and Tundra, Sequoia, Tacoma, (and speculated new) 4Runner), has a hybrid designed for a different purpose - more of a power assist. It's a smaller motor sandwiched between the ICE engine and conventional transmission. The side-benefit is apparently fuel mileage but we have no numbers f/ Tacoma nor Land Cruiser for official EPA estimates. Upon reveal, I believe the Canadian(?) Toyota site had an estimated 27mpg for the Land Cruiser (snip below). I believe that was taken down though b'c it was apparently Toyota's estimate - not the gov't's confirmed numbers.

That would be a relatively huge boost in MPG at 27 combined when considering everything else in the mid-size off-roading class gets low-20s at best. I'd echo others here - I would not sacrifice capability for MPG. The Land Cruiser's (and 4Runner's) position is for that more-advanced capability in off-road or low/no-maintenance road travel. Land Cruiser, of course, is on the more refined-end of that category. We already have Rav4s, Highlanders, and Sequoias to fill the more on-road prioritized segment in Toyota - we don't need more in that category. Not a knock on those as with decent tires, the AWD function on the above is plenty capable for most. Where they hit a wall is when you start hanging wheels in the air and pushing the AWD (and transmission) hard. With that said, all models will continue w/ improved efficiency and we'll likely see EVs a bit more common but when comparing these segments, there is a cost with body-on-frame, solid axle(s), extra-built parts/components, and the driveline to handle the intended environment - the compromise, among other things like "refinement", will be mpg.

 

[Skidaddl]

I think almost everyone coming to this page will say no to that trade. There is a reason we are all on a Landcruiser page and not elsewhere. I don't get off road very often but I have chosen my vehicle because it possesses the ability to do such a thing when it is needed. Better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it. Same goes for parachutes and guns!

I agree. I'm not an "off-roader" per se, but I spend a ton of time on gravel roads, logging roads and double track trails searching out secluded fly-fishing spots in the mountains and foothills. I'd considered options like Subaru or even the new Mazda CX-50, but getting home is at least as important as getting there in the first place.

 

[Skidaddl]

The Land Cruiser's (and 4Runner's) position is for that more-advanced capability in off-road or low/no-maintenance road travel. Land Cruiser, of course, is on the more refined-end of that category. We already have Rav4s, Highlanders, and Sequoias to fill the more on-road prioritized segment in Toyota - we don't need more in that category.

Yep. Exactly.

 

[mth1738]

Thanks for the replies. Call me a poser, but my wife’s hybrid Sienna gets 37-40mpg and I’d be willing to have that drive train just to get the beautiful looks of the LC.

 

[Nuke]

Thanks for the replies. Call me a poser, but my wife’s hybrid Sienna gets 37-40mpg and I’d be willing to have that drive train just to get the beautiful looks of the LC.

Would purchase a Sienna tomorrow, IF it were not for the frontal styling. Surely that way for aerodynamics. However, not sold on the bland front of the LC either. As mentioned elsewhere, styling-wise my preference is the 2024 Lexus GX.

 

[m1konrad]

Thanks for the replies. Call me a poser, but my wife’s hybrid Sienna gets 37-40mpg and I’d be willing to have that drive train just to get the beautiful looks of the LC.

IMO, the LC does look good. I get we're discussing nice-to-haves but practically speaking, if the LC did have a max-mpg drivetrain, I suppose it would be fair to wonder if Toyota would've even gone this design path? I mean, the LC/GX550 is a shoebox and I think it would've been in a conflict of sorts with the purpose of the drivetrain.

A max-mpg version may have ended up being a pared-down iteration of the outgoing '21 200 series Land Cruiser... even worse, you may end up getting what Chevrolet now calls the "Blazer". Careful what you ask for.

 

[German88]

It’s an interesting proposition for sure. I’m more on the side of durability & capability over efficiency up to a point. I initially considered the GX550 but it was the est. 17 combined MPG that pushed me back to LC. Getting mid 20’s combined w/body on frame construction along with decent power & torque numbers, is the perfect balance IMO. The extra 10-15 mpg wouldn’t be worth the tradeoff. Toyota needs a few years of success with this new 2.4 iForce Max hybrid engine before confidence will develop in the marketplace. The new marketing launch played heavily on the idea that a Landcruiser will “always get you home”.

Here’s hoping all those Tahara plant workers are happy, healthy, well compensated and churning out new Landcruiser’s at a feaverish pace!

 

[Nuke]

Here’s hoping all those Tahara plant workers are happy, healthy, well compensated and churning out new Landcruiser’s at a feaverish pace!

The LC will be put together at both the Tahara and Hino facilities. Wish we knew which trim level at what plant. This is why I lean to the GX, only produced at Tahara. A big question, when will the GX hybrid be announced? We know it will be the turbocharged 2.4, as in the LC. A GX with the LC MPG, win/win I think.

 

[German88]

Thanks for the replies. Call me a poser, but my wife’s hybrid Sienna gets 37-40mpg and I’d be willing to have that drive train just to get the beautiful looks of the LC.

Nothing wrong with that IMO. Not likely to happen though considering its heritage and place in the lineup. Many, including mine will be used as a grocery getter 90% of the time so I get the idea…

 

[German88]

The LC will be put together at both the Tahara and Hino facilities. Wish we knew which trim level at what plant. This is why I lean to the GX, only produced at Tahara. A big question, when will the GX hybrid be announced? We know it will be the turbocharged 2.4, as in the LC. A GX with the LC MPG, win/win I think.

Pretty sure all US bound LC’s will come from the Tahara plant. I have a family member high up with Toyota. Won’t say 100 % though…

 

[APIOQM]

Pretty sure all US bound LC’s will come from the Tahara plant. I have a family member high up with Toyota. Won’t say 100 % though…

I was under this impression as well. Not that there is anything wrong with the Hino plant. As long as it's made in Japan I'm happy.

 

[German88]

I was under this impression as well. Not that there is anything wrong with the Hino plant. As long as it's made in Japan I'm happy.

Totally agree.

 

[mth1738]

Would purchase a Sienna tomorrow, IF it were not for the frontal styling.

Have you seen the Sienna XSE, the front looks very SUVish

 

[mth1738]

if the LC did have a max-mpg drivetrain, I suppose it would be fair to wonder if Toyota would've even gone this design path?

I see what you mean, but for the U.S. - 90% of people want to look off-road ready but will never do it. Arcteryx jackets in a 4runner going to soccer games and malls exclusively. I'm not making fun here, I really think an AWD LC with 34MP would outsell the more capable version. Or at least that same setup in a 4runner would.