Best speculation of a 2023 6th generation I have seen

[fashorunner]

Would rather have a LC with the current drivetrain that doesn’t have poorer geometry, no-name suspension, manual cloth seats (lmao at everyone who’s buying the spartan/simplified marketing schtick), and overall lack of off-road hardware from the factory compared to the current TRD Pro 4Runner, no less its entire competitive segment.

 

[TexasFunRunner]

For everyone who says there will be no new 6th gen 4Runner, because Toyota has not spoken, you can finally have it.

Toyota: Room For Both Land Cruiser And 4Runner In Our Lineup

 

[AZ Craig]

For everyone who says there will be no new 6th gen 4Runner, because Toyota has not spoken, you can finally have it.

Toyota: Room For Both Land Cruiser And 4Runner In Our Lineup

I'm sure someone will post that this is blog drivel hearsay lies .

 

[thatoneguy]

I was suggesting the 1GR-FE (w/newer 6-speed) for the LC250 only for the relative simplicity and proven reliability/durability. To many, that is integral to the LC brand. I’m not saying the new turbo’d hybrid i4 will not be durable or reliable, but it certainly isn’t proven in the eyes of many old LC enthusiasts. The 2.4 iForce Max is clearly the winner when it comes to power, emissions, and fuel efficiency.

If the LC250 as-is starts at $55k, how sweet would it be if it had a 1GR-FE w/6-speed starting at $50k? Now that’s a winner! I don’t recall the price differential for the i4 vs v6, but it would be a similar situation to what Toyota did in 2009 by offering the 2.7L i4 in the first year of the 5th gen 4Runner.

Every engine was brand new and unproven at one point, including the 4.0L 1GR V6 in late 2002.

Slapping a 6-speed automatic (or manual) on the 4.0L wouldn't be much of an improvement over the 5-speed. A couple years ago, people kept hoping Toyota would "sort of modernize" the 5th gen by swapping out the 5-speed for an 8-speed, which never happened.

There's also economies of scale. The 4.0L was going in fewer and fewer vehicles as time went on. But the new 2.4L is going to have big economies of scale, sold in several vehicles worldwide.

The 4.0L V6 is a great and venerable engine, but an 8 or even 10 speed transmission can only go so far to mask the engine's inherent lack of torque and uneven powerband. This engine scoots well under 2000rpm around town, can really put some power down at redline when you need it, and then is entirely underwhelming in the RPM range in between.

I think Toyota will do the Tacoma thing to the 4Runner to help get the price that much lower: offer a non-hybrid version of the 2.4L turbo. That helps assuage some of the purists who at least want to skip hybrid complexity (even if Toyota is the king of reliable hybrids for 25 years and counting).

If the mpg was still pretty good in the non-hybrid 2.4L turbo, I'd be tempted to go that route. But the hybrid offers goodies too, like the 2400 watt inverter in the new LC250, which can presumably run at least a portion of that wattage off the hybrid battery with the gasoline engine not running. It would be nice to be able to use an electric griddle or coffeemaker in my 4Runner, lol. I have a 375W mini skillet I could hook up to the 5th gen, but idling a 4.0L engine to cook two eggs seems silly lol

 

[Quentin]

I was suggesting the 1GR-FE (w/newer 6-speed) for the LC250 only for the relative simplicity and proven reliability/durability. To many, that is integral to the LC brand. I’m not saying the new turbo’d hybrid i4 will not be durable or reliable, but it certainly isn’t proven in the eyes of many old LC enthusiasts. The 2.4 iForce Max is clearly the winner when it comes to power, emissions, and fuel efficiency.

If the LC250 as-is starts at $55k, how sweet would it be if it had a 1GR-FE w/6-speed starting at $50k? Now that’s a winner! I don’t recall the price differential for the i4 vs v6, but it would be a similar situation to what Toyota did in 2009 by offering the 2.7L i4 in the first year of the 5th gen 4Runner.

IMO, they would need an 8 speed to make a measurable improvement on the 5AT. The 5AT is really quite nice around town. Where it struggles is high speed interstates with grades. The vehicle has no trouble keeping up speed, but the spacing between 2-3 and 3-4 makes for very jarring downshifts to pull hills. Having a ratio between the current 2nd and 3rd and again between 3rd and 4th would massively improve the drivability in those situations. The Tacoma 6 speed is practically the same ratios as the 5AT with a taller 6th gear tossed on the end. That is of practically no benefit if the engine doesn't have enough torque to actually get into that ratio regularly.

It's really too bad we didn't get a D4-S version of the 1GR and 8AT back when 2GR got the same thing in 2016. They could have used that opportunity to shift the torque curve around a bit to get more low end torque. It would have made a massive improvement in fuel efficiency and drivability for the 8 years in between. I don't think that Toyota expected the 4Runner to be as popular as it was from 2016 to present, though. The spreadsheets probably said that they would never recoup the investment. Right now, it's basically too late for a 1GR update with the existence of the T24 and the hybrid drivetrain. Moving the 4Runner from 19 highway to 22 highway is about all one could expect with a 1GR update. Going 4cyl and hybrid gets more power, way more torques, AND apparently a bump to the mid 20s.

LOL, [MENTION=78007]thatoneguy[/MENTION] and I were apparently on the same wavelength.

 

[AZ Craig]

If the mpg was still pretty good in the non-hybrid 2.4L turbo, I'd be tempted to go that route. But the hybrid offers goodies too, like the 2400 watt inverter in the new LC250, which can presumably run at least a portion of that wattage off the hybrid battery with the gasoline engine not running. It would be nice to be able to use an electric griddle or coffeemaker in my 4Runner, lol. I have a 375W mini skillet I could hook up to the 5th gen, but idling a 4.0L engine to cook two eggs seems silly lol

My biggest concern with the 2.4L turbo hybrid in the 4Runner is going to be packaging in the rear. Toyota has already demonstrated with the Seqouia and the LC that they do not know how to deal with the batteries in a body on frame application. If the hybrid does end up only in the Pro and the Trail Hunter, they will likely not have a third row and have the hokey high load floor that is present in both of the other Toyota trucks.

Every time I see a Seqouia with it's trunk open I cringe.

 

[thatoneguy]

My biggest concern with the 2.4L turbo hybrid in the 4Runner is going to be packaging in the rear. Toyota has already demonstrated with the Seqouia and the LC that they do not know how to deal with the batteries in a body on frame application. If the hybrid does end up only in the Pro and the Trail Hunter, they will likely not have a third row and have the hokey high load floor that is present in both of the other Toyota trucks.

Every time I see a Seqouia with it's trunk open I cringe.

Maybe Toyota has had enough time to notice the new Sequoia's criticism on that front, and decided to make some changes. Maybe the 2.4L has smaller hybrid batteries than the 3.4L. I think the packaging will look like the Land Cruiser 250 on the hybrid version, and that they'll ditch the third row just like the LC250.

I do think they'll offer a non-hybrid 2.4L, just like the Tacoma. That really helps achieve a lower starting price point. If production moves to North America, I would expect the starting MSRP to be barely changed from current... or possibly even lower. Lower would be nice. If Toyota isn't selling enough high-mpg vehicles to offset the 4Runner, they're paying big EPA CAFE penalties on every 4Runner sold. I have also never been able to confirm if they have to pay a "chicken tax" to sell the current 4Runner, being a truck built outside N.A.

They'll possibly keep offering 2WD, too. Another cheapening option, and another differentiation from the LC250.

 

[Quentin]

Maybe Toyota has had enough time to notice the new Sequoia's criticism on that front, and decided to make some changes. Maybe the 2.4L has smaller hybrid batteries than the 3.4L. I think the packaging will look like the Land Cruiser 250 on the hybrid version, and that they'll ditch the third row just like the LC250.

I do think they'll offer a non-hybrid 2.4L, just like the Tacoma. That really helps achieve a lower starting price point. If production moves to North America, I would expect the starting MSRP to be barely changed from current... or possibly even lower. Lower would be nice. If Toyota isn't selling enough high-mpg vehicles to offset the 4Runner, they're paying big EPA CAFE penalties on every 4Runner sold. I have also never been able to confirm if they have to pay a "chicken tax" to sell the current 4Runner, being a truck built outside N.A.

They'll possibly keep offering 2WD, too. Another cheapening option, and another differentiation from the LC250.

Chicken tax wouldn't apply with the 4Runner because it isn't a truck.

I agree as far as 3rd row. We won't see a 4Runner Pro or Trailhunter with a 3rd row because of the battery requirements. Limited, though, is a different animal. I expect that those will be all hybrid and offer a 3rd row. Toyota has done different batteries in the same basic hybrid in the past. The Prius ECO had a LiIon battery while the rest of the models had the normal style. I could see them offering different batteries based on 3rd row and no 3rd row. But, how does that change emissions and fuel efficiency testing? Better to just suck it up with a Sequoia style 3rd row on models that are also hybrid?

It is really a shame that the removable 3rd row isn't really a thing anymore. I wouldn't mind 3rd row on my 4Runner when I needed it. I hate how much space it takes up when I don't need 7 seats, though, to the point that I'd rather not have 3rd row at all than deal with the high load floor when it is stowed.

Some people have removed the 3rd row on the Sequoia to free up a bunch of space. It doesn't appear to be a bad job, but it would be annoying to do 4-5 times a year.

 

[balong48]

Maybe Toyota has had enough time to notice the new Sequoia's criticism on that front, and decided to make some changes. Maybe the 2.4L has smaller hybrid batteries than the 3.4L. I think the packaging will look like the Land Cruiser 250 on the hybrid version, and that they'll ditch the third row just like the LC250.

I do think they'll offer a non-hybrid 2.4L, just like the Tacoma. That really helps achieve a lower starting price point. If production moves to North America, I would expect the starting MSRP to be barely changed from current... or possibly even lower. Lower would be nice. If Toyota isn't selling enough high-mpg vehicles to offset the 4Runner, they're paying big EPA CAFE penalties on every 4Runner sold. I have also never been able to confirm if they have to pay a "chicken tax" to sell the current 4Runner, being a truck built outside N.A.

They'll possibly keep offering 2WD, too. Another cheapening option, and another differentiation from the LC250.

Initially it appears to be staying in Japan, based on the lack of any announcement from Toyota. Historically Toyota has announced well in advance when a vehicle is going to move production facilities. I think eventually it'll make it's way down to Mexico, especially if it's going to be more similar to the Tacoma than ever before, but for now I think we will be seeing a 2025 and maybe even a 2026 MY 4Runner coming out of Japan. I'd imagine they'd be built in both plants for a bit too possibly.

 

[DC3TX]

My biggest concern with the 2.4L turbo hybrid in the 4Runner is going to be packaging in the rear. Toyota has already demonstrated with the Seqouia and the LC that they do not know how to deal with the batteries in a body on frame application

I'm not a fan of the battery/load floor situation in Toyota BOF vehicles either but I don't think it's because Toyota doesn't know how to deal with the situation. There is a design conflict between Toyota's TNGA-F architecture, current battery technology, the price consumers are willing to pay, reliability, and safety. The current design is the best compromise at the moment. I think Covid stalled the progression of batteries to be much smaller with higher capacity by this time. At some point I expect new battery technology to resolve this high load floor issue.

Personally, I'd like to see Toyota offer a non-hybrid variant of the TTV6 in the LC and 4Runner that can run on regular pump gas.

DC

 

[AZ Craig]

I'm not a fan of the battery/load floor situation in Toyota BOF vehicles either but I don't think it's because Toyota doesn't know how to deal with the situation. There is a design conflict between Toyota's TNGA-F architecture, current battery technology, the price consumers are willing to pay, reliability, and safety. The current design is the best compromise at the moment. I think Covid stalled the progression of batteries to be much smaller with higher capacity by this time. At some point I expect new battery technology to resolve this high load floor issue.

The way I described it may have been a bit harsh, but you basically echo my sentiments. I am kind of surprised they didn't go independent rear suspension on the Sequoia though as that probably could have managed things a bit better I imagine (but perhaps I am giving that approach too much credit). Could be a limitation of platform as you mention though.

Using the word "compromise" is a perfect description of the situation though. If you don't care that much about packaging of a vehicle (and God knows, a lot of consumers do not), it's not really that big a deal. Being someone who owns two giant breed dogs and often hauls a lot of crap on long multi-week road trips, I really want as close to a flat load floor as I can get without losing cargo volume to hokey design. The new LC definitely gives up cargo space based on the images out there and I think they are avoiding the third row knowing they'd have to package it like in the Sequoia.

Interestingly I took a look at a Defender 130 for the first time yesterday in person and the rear load floor situation of that is pretty odd right now with the third row down also (whole thing kind of inclines but doesn't have a big hump). I was kind of surprised since in the 110 the third row is actually pretty much hidden away and does not cut into space versus the 5 passenger version.

 

[AZ Craig]

In other interesting news, the Grand Highlander with the hybrid max setup just clocked a 5.6s 0 to 60 time in instrumented testing. I seem to remember Toyota quoting a 6.3 or 6.5s 0 to 60, so clearly they were conservative.

Tested: The Larger 2024 Toyota Grand Highlander Hits the Mark

The LC is definitely going to have some get up and go.

Amusingly the press is already writing articles about the lack of offroad chops given the bad angles and clearance though.

Why the 2024 Land Cruiser Is NOT the Best Off-Roader You Can Buy

 

[Jetboy]

In other interesting news, the Grand Highlander with the hybrid max setup just clocked a 5.6s 0 to 60 time in instrumented testing. I seem to remember Toyota quoting a 6.3 or 6.5s 0 to 60, so clearly they were conservative.

Tested: The Larger 2024 Toyota Grand Highlander Hits the Mark

The LC is definitely going to have some get up and go.

Amusingly the press is already writing articles about the lack of offroad chops given the bad angles and clearance though.

Why the 2024 Land Cruiser Is NOT the Best Off-Roader You Can Buy

I'm not sure how much the hybrid will help the LC. But it might be great. The hybrid in the Tundra doesn't help a ton. It's around 0.4-0.5 seconds quicker to 60 vs the nonhybrid. The GH is a second and a half quicker - but it's totally different hybrid system and configuration I think.

The lack of off road chops is a pretty fair critique. In totally stock form - It's pretty lame. At least on paper it is with only 8.5 inches of clearance, limited skid plates, plastic bumpers, and poor angles. The first generation rav4 had significantly better approach, departure, and breakover. With 35's and a 3" lift, I'm sure it'll be great. Out of the box - it's a low rider.

 

[TexasFunRunner]

In other interesting news, the Grand Highlander with the hybrid max setup just clocked a 5.6s 0 to 60 time in instrumented testing. I seem to remember Toyota quoting a 6.3 or 6.5s 0 to 60, so clearly they were conservative.

Tested: The Larger 2024 Toyota Grand Highlander Hits the Mark

The LC is definitely going to have some get up and go.

Amusingly the press is already writing articles about the lack of offroad chops given the bad angles and clearance though.

Why the 2024 Land Cruiser Is NOT the Best Off-Roader You Can Buy

Who paid for that review, Ford? :zoom:

 

[balong48]

The way I described it may have been a bit harsh, but you basically echo my sentiments. I am kind of surprised they didn't go independent rear suspension on the Sequoia though as that probably could have managed things a bit better I imagine (but perhaps I am giving that approach too much credit). Could be a limitation of platform as you mention though.

Using the word "compromise" is a perfect description of the situation though. If you don't care that much about packaging of a vehicle (and God knows, a lot of consumers do not), it's not really that big a deal. Being someone who owns two giant breed dogs and often hauls a lot of crap on long multi-week road trips, I really want as close to a flat load floor as I can get without losing cargo volume to hokey design. The new LC definitely gives up cargo space based on the images out there and I think they are avoiding the third row knowing they'd have to package it like in the Sequoia.

Interestingly I took a look at a Defender 130 for the first time yesterday in person and the rear load floor situation of that is pretty odd right now with the third row down also (whole thing kind of inclines but doesn't have a big hump). I was kind of surprised since in the 110 the third row is actually pretty much hidden away and does not cut into space versus the 5 passenger version.

If I had to guess, I think the Sequoia was on the chopping block more so than the 4Runner ever was. With Toyota Japan pretty much not liking the entire US SUV/Truck market and Toyota NA having to beg to keep them around, I feel like the squeaky wheel got the grease this generation. They said fine build it, and probably gave a very limited budget for it and time frame by the time it got approved. So this compromised Sequoia was the result. I think it was Carmaker1 (could be wrong, I’ve read so many forums the past few years waiting these redesigns) who said it was basically a last minute approval and they had to scramble to throw it together. I could be wrong though.

 

[hoppyjr]

If I had to guess, I think the Sequoia was on the chopping block more so than the 4Runner ever was. With Toyota Japan pretty much not liking the entire US SUV/Truck market and Toyota NA having to beg to keep them around, I feel like the squeaky wheel got the grease this generation. They said fine build it, and probably gave a very limited budget for it and time frame by the time it got approved. So this compromised Sequoia was the result. I think it was Carmaker1 (could be wrong, I’ve read so many forums the past few years waiting these redesigns) who said it was basically a last minute approval and they had to scramble to throw it together. I could be wrong though.

As long as Toyota keeps selling all the trucks & suvs they make, I doubt anything is on the chopping block.

 

[DC3TX]

LC Brochure? / Color Options?

Has anyone come across any type of brochure yet for the new LC? They released one fairly quickly for the GX after its reveal. Curious about the options for the various trim levels and would like to see all the exterior and interior colors.

DC

 

[TexasFunRunner]

Has anyone come across any type of brochure yet for the new LC? They released one fairly quickly for the GX after its reveal. Curious about the options for the various trim levels and would like to see all the exterior and interior colors.

DC

I found if you go to the Toyota Japan website, they had much more info for the reveal than the US.

Scroll down towards the bottom, on the right for the Landcruiser250 brochure, download it and then upload it to Google Translate.

Brochure link:
新型ランドクルーザー"250"を世界初公開 | トヨタ | グローバルニュースルーム | トヨタ自動車株式会社 公式企業サイト

Google Translate:
Google Translate

 

[Jetboy]

If I had to guess, I think the Sequoia was on the chopping block more so than the 4Runner ever was. With Toyota Japan pretty much not liking the entire US SUV/Truck market and Toyota NA having to beg to keep them around, I feel like the squeaky wheel got the grease this generation. They said fine build it, and probably gave a very limited budget for it and time frame by the time it got approved. So this compromised Sequoia was the result. I think it was Carmaker1 (could be wrong, I’ve read so many forums the past few years waiting these redesigns) who said it was basically a last minute approval and they had to scramble to throw it together. I could be wrong though.

The head of the Tundra engineering said that Toyota corporate was going to kill the Sequoia and the only way he could make a business case was to build it as a Tundra. Couldn't convince Toyota corporate to build a dedicated Sequoia variant of the chassis like the old one.

 

[mscot]

I found if you go to the Toyota Japan website, they had much more info for the reveal than the US.

Scroll down towards the bottom, on the right for the Landcruiser250 brochure, download it and then upload it to Google Translate.

The interior looks a bit less cheap here but honestly it's only a moderate step up from the current 4Runner. I'm sure some people love that. I don't. I certainly wouldn't spend over 60k for it.
I'm hoping they surprise us with the 4R and do something nicer.