Best speculation of a 2023 6th generation I have seen

[AZ Craig]

If the 27mpg number is correct - that's probably the biggest game changer. If it can run 35's and still get low 20's MPGs, I'll be interested - even if it is about $10k too expensive.

I have to agree with you, plus 35" would give you another inch plus of ground clearance over stock. I really do hate the abysmal gas mileage I get out of my 4Runner and that's only going to become a bigger liability over the next few years.

Full Land Cruiser trim with the premium package sounds like the way to go for me. Probably will end up costing somewhere in the $70K range I believe.

 

[thatoneguy]

Yes, but I'm sure a sawz-all was involved to fit 37" on a Seqouia.

One of the neat things about Wranglers was always how easy they could take larger tires. Especially once they went from the JK (which could pretty easily take 35" but defaulted to maxing out at 32") to the JL (which came with factory true 33").

Meh, wasn't always the case. I seem to recall non-Rubicon TJs not being able to fit tires as large as 3rd gen 4Runners could. My buddy had to lift a YJ just to clear 31.0" tires, my '87 4Runner certainly didn't have that problem.

All this arms race over the biggest factory tire sizes and here I am totally happy with "fake 32's". If the 6th gen comes with a "fake 33" (32.6"), I certainly won't go bigger.

 

[AZ Craig]

The lifted floor in the back where the battery goes is the biggest disappointment. That's a lot of non-usable space where you need it the most.
Considering how tripped down the 1958 is $55,000 is a lot of money for what you aren't getting.

Somewhat true, but considering the average transaction price for a vehicle in the US is now north of $49K, and I imagine that number would rise to well over $55K for comparable body on frame vehicles it's not that hard to swallow.

The bigger issue will be finding one of these without $10K+ markup for the first year at least.

 

[Trob20]

You’ll be able to get the iForce Max in the 4Runner, but it’s likely only available in the top trim(s) which will overlap or be very close to overlapping with the base price of the LC250 1958 trim. You’ll have the choice of a loaded 4Runner or a base model LC250 for about the same price.

I'm hopelessly optimistic the iForce Max will be available as an add-on option with every trim because I'd really like to get a hybrid SR5 premium with a third row. But considering how they positioned the hybrid as only available in up trim for the Tacoma I assume the 4runner will mirror that. Hopefully this is just a capacity issue, and the hybrid will available on most trims for the 4runner and Tacoma in future years.

 

[AZ Craig]

Meh, wasn't always the case. I seem to recall non-Rubicon TJs not being able to fit tires as large as 3rd gen 4Runners could. My buddy had to lift a YJ just to clear 31.0" tires, my '87 4Runner certainly didn't have that problem.

All this arms race over the biggest factory tire sizes and here I am totally happy with "fake 32's". If the 6th gen comes with a "fake 33" (32.6"), I certainly won't go bigger.

That's fair, but I was mainly talking about 2010 JK Wrangler onwards versus the 5th gen 4runner (my bad for not being more specific). Jeeps before that point were tiny cars and yes, tire size (and wheels) were not that large then.

The fact that you have to start cutting up plastic and potentially remove mud flaps just to fit a slightly higher off-set wheel with the factory 265/70R17 size is ridiculous to me on the 5th gen.

I ran 33" on my 2012 JK for a long time and agree that you don't really need bigger. But damn, it looks cool and it really is good with larger rocks and ledges and the such in wheeling situations.

 

[Jetboy]

I have to agree with you, plus 35" would give you another inch plus of ground clearance over stock. I really do hate the abysmal gas mileage I get out of my 4Runner and that's only going to become a bigger liability over the next few years.

Full Land Cruiser trim with the premium package sounds like the way to go for me. Probably will end up costing somewhere in the $70K range I believe.

For me - at $70k, I'd be buying a GX. Get rid of that battery in back, a lot more power, 10 speed, eKDSS. I think it's just a better value.

I don't really see how the GX is only 17mpg and the LC will be 27. Something feels a bit off there to me. I know the GX is heavier and non-hybrid, but I'm skeptical the hybrid and T4 adds 10mpg when the Tundra only gains 1 with the hybrid.

I think we'll see a new 4Runner that is the same size and has either a 3rd row or larger cargo area just like it is now for about $10k less than the LC. That would likely be my choice.

 

[Jetboy]

Meh, wasn't always the case. I seem to recall non-Rubicon TJs not being able to fit tires as large as 3rd gen 4Runners could. My buddy had to lift a YJ just to clear 31.0" tires, my '87 4Runner certainly didn't have that problem.

All this arms race over the biggest factory tire sizes and here I am totally happy with "fake 32's". If the 6th gen comes with a "fake 33" (32.6"), I certainly won't go bigger.

The problem IMO is that the vehicles have gotten so much bigger and especially heavier that bigger tires start to be necessary. A current 4Runner is almost twice as heavy as a 1st gen. A wrangler used to be a 3500lb vehicle. Now it's 5300lbs in some trims. The hybrid systems start to get even heavier. It just takes more tire to get down to reasonable ground pressure on these tanks.

 

[AZ Craig]

For me - at $70k, I'd be buying a GX. Get rid of that battery in back, a lot more power, 10 speed, eKDSS. I think it's just a better value.

I don't really see how the GX is only 17mpg and the LC will be 27. Something feels a bit off there to me. I know the GX is heavier and non-hybrid, but I'm skeptical the hybrid and T4 adds 10mpg when the Tundra only gains 1 with the hybrid.

I think we'll see a new 4Runner that is the same size and has either a 3rd row or larger cargo area just like it is now for about $10k less than the LC. That would likely be my choice.

You make a good point about the GX if $70K is your budget. Is the TTV6 currently rated by the EPA in any other applications non-hybrid? Everyone seems to agree that the initial MPG numbers provided by Toyota seem too bad to be true.

The hybrid max in the Grand Highlander (with a listed curb weight of 4920 pounds) is good for 26 city, 27 highway so the LC number of 25 to 27 seems very possible.

I have to agree with you on the 6th gen 4Runner also; I feel like a Trailhunter or TRD Pro (both of which will likely push about $60K at worst) will be a better buy than a well equipped LC.

 

[thatoneguy]

The problem IMO is that the vehicles have gotten so much bigger and especially heavier that bigger tires start to be necessary. A current 4Runner is almost twice as heavy as a 1st gen. A wrangler used to be a 3500lb vehicle. Now it's 5300lbs in some trims. The hybrid systems start to get even heavier. It just takes more tire to get down to reasonable ground pressure on these tanks.

According to The Internet, the max weight to max weight differential between a 1st gen and 5th gen is more like 4800 lbs vs 3800 lbs, a 26% difference, but I do see your point. Everything has certainly gotten larger. Safety equipment and crash structure that I value certainly has weight. When I drove my '87 4Runner, I always knew in the back of my mind how screwed I'd be getting t-boned in a vehicle that has no impact beams in the doors, just two little tiny sheets of sheet metal.

Hybrid stuff definitely weighs. But so do large and higher cylinder count engines.

 

[hoppyjr]

I’m generally not a fan of hybrids and the associated weight, cost, and complexity - but I’m glad Toyota aimed more toward performance than economy with the new Land Cruiser.

If I had an extra $60k sitting around I’d likely pick one of the new LC’s as a daily driver, but it’s just not compelling enough to let my nicely modded 22 4Runner go. I really love the old school aspects of the existing 4Runner, to include both reliability and durability.

 

[Buckfever]

I think it'll just come down to the value proposition between the 1958 and the 4Runner hybrid. And to a lessor degree the styling. The 1958 doesn't look as bad to me as it did initially. I think the GX premium looks a lot better, but probably not worth a 10K differential(for me) if that's what it winds up being. Time will tell.

AND if the 4runner is still built out of tahara.

I like the all wheel drive, I had on the V8 4Runner.

I'm just glad we got something coming out after all these years of waiting, that was torturous.

 

[TexasFunRunner]

I was curious about complete dimensions since Toyota only published the LC 250 dimensions for the length, width (with mirrors) and height. Previously I had calculated some of the missing dimensions for the GX 550 to get a complete picture. Below I've combined the known information and calculated the missing information. I'm pleasantly surprised to see it is the same length as the 4Runner. Please let me know if you see any errors in my calculations.

Note: The length dimension "w/ trl hitch" and "w/o trl hitch" refers to the ~3" trailer hitch rear bumper cover.

 

[qs933]

It’s been mentioned before, but having multiple vehicles that seemingly overlap isn’t new for Toyota.

The existence of RAV4, Venza, and Lexus NX in the North American market is a good example. There are feature, pricing, and powertrain overlaps across all three.

The overlaps in 4Runner, Land Cruiser, and Lexus GX will be different from their crossover cousins, but there’s probably a method to the madness.

 

[mscot]

This looks cheap and, surprisingly considering I like the GX, ugly.
The front end looks like something from 15 years ago. The interior looks like a low end truck from about the same period. It looks like a lifted Honda Element.
That and all the negatives people have said here...
I can't fathom how Toyota could F this up so phenomenally.

This isn't a Jeep or Bronco competitor.

 

[Blackwatch]

This looks cheap and, surprisingly considering I like the GX, ugly.
The front end looks like something from 15 years ago. The interior looks like a low end truck from about the same period. It looks like a lifted Honda Element.
That and all the negatives people have said here...
I can't fathom how Toyota could F this up so phenomenally.

This isn't a Jeep or Bronco competitor.

You're not wrong. I keep trying to like it but it's hard. The volume button is in the weirdest position, looks like an adaptor kit from the internet. The seats look like they robbed Archie Bunker's chair. No power seats! Raised cargo floor making it a PIA to do anything with. Cheap rims, hard plastic everywhere, a prop up hood, round headlights that look like they were ordered from Alibaba.
If it gets 27 mpg that's great but $55,000 for that? If it were a 70 series I would expect these issues but it doesn't fit that type of vehicle. When you compare it to the 4R TRD Pro at the same price and the Pro seems a hell of a lot better.

 

[DC3TX]

I'm pleasantly surprised to see it is the same length as the 4Runner.

One of the reviewers stated that the new LC was in between the 2023 4Runner and GX 550 in terms of length so I got curious.

Toyota's US website shows the 2023 4Runner length as follows:

SR5 190.2"
Limited 190.7"
TRD Pro 191.3"

DC

 

[Eryan36]

My unlikely prediction: the 6th gen 4R goes back to its 1st gen roots. Gets a removable roof/softtop. 2 and 4 door options.

 

[AZ Craig]

I was curious about complete dimensions since Toyota only published the LC 250 dimensions for the length, width (with mirrors) and height. Previously I had calculated some of the missing dimensions for the GX 550 to get a complete picture. Below I've combined the known information and calculated the missing information. I'm pleasantly surprised to see it is the same length as the 4Runner. Please let me know if you see any errors in my calculations.

Note: The length dimension "w/ trl hitch" and "w/o trl hitch" refers to the ~3" trailer hitch rear bumper cover.

Anyone figure out where the extra ~4 inches of length for the GX550 are versus the LC? Shorter overhangs for the LC (seems plausible given the better angles)?

 

[AZ Craig]

You're not wrong. I keep trying to like it but it's hard. The volume button is in the weirdest position, looks like an adaptor kit from the internet. The seats look like they robbed Archie Bunker's chair. No power seats! Raised cargo floor making it a PIA to do anything with. Cheap rims, hard plastic everywhere, a prop up hood, round headlights that look like they were ordered from Alibaba.
If it gets 27 mpg that's great but $55,000 for that? If it were a 70 series I would expect these issues but it doesn't fit that type of vehicle. When you compare it to the 4R TRD Pro at the same price and the Pro seems a hell of a lot better.

Yeah, the more I look at the pictures, the less I like it to be honest. I kind of dig the square headlights but would never buy the retro round ones. Interior looks pretty bad also for a vehicle that will likely end up costing well north of $60K. Toyota seems to really not have their crap together on interiors right now though to be completely honest.

The raised cargo floor also seems like a massive compromise to enable the hybrid architecture. I know they are fighting space constraints being body on frame with a rear solid axle, but this packaging seems like something out of a vehicle from 20 years ago to me.

I will say, having kicked the tires on all of Land Rover's vehicles, they know how to package third rows and hybrid systems... Unibody probably gives them an advantage though.

 

[Buckfever]

Well one thing for sure, it wouldn't be hard for Toyota to make the 4runner look better. But I wouldn't bet on it LOL

We made the 4Runner ugly as part of our marketing campaign to support the sales of the Landcruiser and the GX.