bamma
New member
Fully armored probably the same. Stock the LC will go about 300 miles in my experience. 4R will go 370.
4RUNNER 2017 Vs 2013 Land Cruiser
- Thread starter ChowChilla
- Start date
Fully armored probably the same. Stock the LC will go about 300 miles in my experience. 4R will go 370.
Do you mean that if both are fully armored the range is equal?
Edit: that 300 mile range on the LC really kills it for me. I'm curious why they don't put a bigger tank or offer an auxiliary tank like they do overseas.
Last edited:
bamma
New member
An aux tank is in the works on ih8mud. There is a charcoal canister on US models so the overseas version will not work without relocating the canister. But there are 3 options in the works (16 gal, 24 and 45 aux tanks) that will have a separate fill tube (both in factory location). Sounds like a 4R option may be available too.
https://forum.ih8mud.com/threads/auxiliary-fuel-tanks-for-200s.1013044/
(23 + 45) * 15mpg = 1,020 miles of range. That would be amazing.
bamma
New member
Yep. The 45 tank will obviously be for people running an external spare carrier. The 16 will work with the spare. The 24 will likely work with the spare. 45 gallons would add a lot of extra weight. Probably 300 lbs w the tank.
Coming from a 80, I would kill for a 300 mile range. :wacko:
You have a beautiful new pearl white Limited. The LC is a beast but it is 5 years old used and more expensive... If I was you I would save up and get this as a second car:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/1997-Lexus-LX-Base-Sport-Utility-4-Door/192380610970?hash=item2ccac7299a:g:~NkAAOSwyXNaA6hc
https://www.ebay.com/itm/1997-Lexus-LX-Base-Sport-Utility-4-Door/192380610970?hash=item2ccac7299a:g:~NkAAOSwyXNaA6hc
bamma
New member
The LC has a 24.6 gallon tank and is rated 13/18mpg. After nearly two years with the LC I can get 19 to 20 mpg @ or below 65 on the freeway or about 15-17 between 75-85 mph and 13 to 14 around town consistently. That is with 33s and RW wheels (adding about 3% back for the difference in miles traveled due to 3% larger than stock tires). I do not drive like a grandma, but I am not Speed Racer either.
Worst case I can go 320 until empty, although I usually fill up w 3 to 4 gallons in the tank, which is when the gas light turns on (around 280 miles in town driving).
I just drove across the country, and outside an abysmal day with horrible sidewinds (pushing semis off the road bad) where I averaged 12mpg that day, I averaged about 16.4 mpg and was over 70mph the entire way.
With our 4R, we only get 2 mpg better on average on the freeway or in town, but can eek about 22mpg at 60-65 mph on the freeway.
For the size and power difference, the loss in mpg between the two is impressive.
This discussion has been going on quite a while on Expo portal. Here are the hard numbers someone put together.
For me, with the ever growing size of autos these days, I went with the 5th gen as it is nearly the same size now as an 80 series LC (which I had prior). Interesting to me is that while the exterior dimensions of the 200 are larger, there is more room inside the 5th gen, along with the longer range.
All that being said, the main thing I notice when looking under the LCs is how much better of a job they did tucking everything in, creating a flatter belly. No cross member and exhaust crossover in the way. None the less, I love my mini-LC.
2017 4runner v 2017 Landcruiser - Expedition Portal
For me, with the ever growing size of autos these days, I went with the 5th gen as it is nearly the same size now as an 80 series LC (which I had prior). Interesting to me is that while the exterior dimensions of the 200 are larger, there is more room inside the 5th gen, along with the longer range.
All that being said, the main thing I notice when looking under the LCs is how much better of a job they did tucking everything in, creating a flatter belly. No cross member and exhaust crossover in the way. None the less, I love my mini-LC.
2017 4runner v 2017 Landcruiser - Expedition Portal
philsey
New member
I'm in this camp, mostly. Is an LC "better"? Well, probably, depending on your criteria. It costs double - but is it better by twofold? I don't think so. I don't know by any measurement where that could be so.
How many of us "need" a beast? Pretty-much, none.
"Longevity", you say. Pfft. Buy a new 4R, drive it 10/12/15 years, buy another, rinse/repeat, and you'll be ahead by any measure...... well, except your ego ... let's not forget ego.
Besides, maybe one percent of LC owners drive the damned thing to a longevity-based ROI ownership anyway.
Now, if you just WANT one, and can afford it, that's a different animal. And I say more power to you. I'm in that same boat with my 4R: "need"? no way. "want"? Damn right. Same thing, only different.
Toffees
Member
It's unfair to compare a car's reliability/durability to its owner's tastes or choice to replace it in 5 or fewer years... you're creating a false argument. Granted, the LC sells to higher-end buyers, and so both its features and its depreciation match the market segment. But it may be more reasonable would be to take a slightly used LC and 4R and make the comparison. (After 3-5 years, when the newness wears away). Comparing a 13 LC to a 13 4R and you're nearer a $10,000-$13,000 price difference. Now you get into features: size, engine, off road tech, convenience tech, and (gasp) durability. And by durability, we're talking about the useful life of houses (30 years) and not your typical car (15 years is fabulous). But if you don't want to keep it that long... sell the LC and you still have a depreciation advantage.
So for most uses, the LC is overkill... but I'm not sure it's fair to say it's pointless or a waste of money. For most users, the 4R does everything needed, but give them a fair comparison.
volpe30
New member
Could you elaborate? In what ways is it better off road?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
philsey
New member
Fair? Unfair? Hell, the whole premise of LC vs 4R isn't fair. It's just entertaining mental masturbation AFAIC. The point is moot, actually.
:yield:
bamma
New member
IMO, both have different attributes for different types of off-roading. The 4R is narrower, so can get through some places better. LC has a better seating position (makes driving technical off road much easier for me, though I still haven't taken it anywhere crazy. Looking to buy an FJ 40 for that... The LC also has slightly better approach/departure, and less to get struck underneath as things are tucked. Because of that design, the LC has a slight disadvantage in clearance compared to the 4R. LC has a lot more room for overlanding.
I've taken both off road on up to 6 rated trails and both have been capable. The extra power of the LC has come in handy on some steep climb ups, but on the local trails I ran both on, both made it everywhere with no damage other than my 4R getting a few scrapes on the bottom of the bumpers due on the front and rear bumper (have a limited and it doesn't have great angles.
The 4R trail and OR comes with a e-locker. The LC does not have that as a factory option, but an e-locker is available.
Jetboy
New member
That's an interesting question. I think it depends on what you mean off-road.
If the question is which one (in totally stock form) will go further on a difficult trail before getting stuck - there's really no question that the 4runner will. A Trail or TRD Pro will out perform the LC200 out of the box on almost every trail. It is smaller, lighter, and has more ground clearance and especially a lot better body clearance. It also has a locking rear differential.
If the question is whether one or the other would last longer putting 100 miles a day in rough terrain - then the answer is probably the LC200.
The LC200 also has more capability IMO to build a more hardcore offroad truck because of the drive train. Larger, stronger axles, more suspension travel built into the design, better KDSS system, and of course 400 ponies under the hood and a very stout 6 speed transmission. For that duty - I'd take the LC200 as a base vehicle over a 4runner. But you're going to want 35-37" tires to get serious about going into the harder trails where a 4runner with less mods would probably go. Mostly due to size and weight. Big heavy pigs need big tires. If you are going that route - might as well start with the right base truck.
Bumbo
New member
This thread is making me want a LC again...
Originally wanted one then got over it, considered a Benz G Wagon, and now I am on the Ford Raptor kick... which is probably the best choice for me considering my needs and being a desert guy, but the LC is calling my name again.
First world problems are the best types of problems.
Originally wanted one then got over it, considered a Benz G Wagon, and now I am on the Ford Raptor kick... which is probably the best choice for me considering my needs and being a desert guy, but the LC is calling my name again.
First world problems are the best types of problems.
Ron4RNevada
New member
I do a lot of off-roading - I have towed several broken 4x4s back to civilization - :
Towed 1 Land Cruiser with a broken rear diff with my Discovery.
Towed 1 Dodge Ram with failed starter with my Discovery.
Towed 1 Ford Explorer with broken front axle with my Discovery.
Towed 1 Ford Ranger with broken front axle with my Discovery.
NEVER towed any broken Discovery's or 4Runners EVER.
- - - Just sayin'
Towed 1 Land Cruiser with a broken rear diff with my Discovery.
Towed 1 Dodge Ram with failed starter with my Discovery.
Towed 1 Ford Explorer with broken front axle with my Discovery.
Towed 1 Ford Ranger with broken front axle with my Discovery.
NEVER towed any broken Discovery's or 4Runners EVER.
- - - Just sayin'
