Best speculation of a 2023 6th generation I have seen

[DC3TX]

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

Thanks. There was some good info there. Hopefully we'll get a proper U.S. brochure before long similar to the GX one.

While looking around the Japanese site, Google translate kicked in and started automatically translating the pages for me. I came across one page where they were discussing the LC and found this quote: "The name of the vehicle has also been changed from "Prado" to "Land Cruiser 250", . . ." That's interesting since quite a bit of speculation said it would continue to be marketed as a Prado in certain countries. Wonder if Toyota changed their mind or if the speculation was simply wrong? Doesn't really impact me. I'm just glad it's not going to be called the Prado here in the U.S.

DC

 

[AZ Craig]

Who paid for that review, Ford? :zoom:

Hah, maybe Stellantis and Ford teamed up.

 

[Bmnorm2]

Some technical details for T24A-FTS can be perused here: Toyota engines - T24A-FTS

 

[Buckfever]

A buddy of mine ordered a Tundra and said that the reason he didn't go hybrid was because of the battery replacement cost which he was told was steep.

What do we know of this. I tend to hold on to my vehicles for a long time as does he and it would certainly be necessary.

 

[4RunnerGurl!]

I am in the process of buying a 2023 4Runner, and I've been to a bunch of different dealerships recently. The dealerships that I've spoken with have not received any information on a 2024 6th Generation 4Runner. The assumption at the dealerships is that there will be a mid-2024 year release of the 6th Generation 4Runner as a 2025.

I wanted to make sure I bought the 5th Generation, because of the reliability factor. It seems like when vehicles are "upgraded," the reliability often goes down. For example, take a look at consumer reports regarding the Tundra.

 

[gomiami]

Hah, maybe Stellantis and Ford teamed up.

That's what the world needs, a French/Italian/American auto manufacturer...headquartered in the Netherlands, of course.

 

[Quentin]

A buddy of mine ordered a Tundra and said that the reason he didn't go hybrid was because of the battery replacement cost which he was told was steep.

What do we know of this. I tend to hold on to my vehicles for a long time as does he and it would certainly be necessary.

Googling 2010 Prius Battery brings up several refurbished ones for under $1000. I'm watching a YouTube video on replacing the battery on a 2010 Prius and it looks like an absolute cakewalk. Remove some interior covers, unbolt the battery chassis, bolt the new one in, reassemble. No coolant, no lubricants. It is all hand tools. Replacing individual cells, which some people do to save money, is more involved, but that's also a pretty clean process.

 

[Bmnorm2]

A buddy of mine ordered a Tundra and said that the reason he didn't go hybrid was because of the battery replacement cost which he was told was steep.

What do we know of this. I tend to hold on to my vehicles for a long time as does he and it would certainly be necessary.

Toyota Battery Warranty

10 years, 150k mile warranty on hybrid battery.

I believe the batteries in the iforce max hybrids are NiMH, not lithium ion. So, they are cheaper too.

It’s also less than 2 kWh (1.87 I think), so it’s pretty small. A PHEV is generally 15-30 kWh, and BEV anywhere from 50-100+kWh.

I’d wager the battery cost less and lasts longer than one of the two turbochargers on his tundra.

 

[AZ Craig]

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.

So I tried to read up a bit on this one to understand the differences.

The Tundra with the higher state of tune on the 3.4L V6 TT engine has 389 hp and 479 lb/ft of torque. Car and Driver puts the 0 to 60 time at 6.1s. The hybrid max meanwhile is rated at 437 hp (an ~11% increase) and 583 lb/ft of torque (an ~18% increase). I am not one hundred percent sure, but I believe the 48 hp electric motor that works in series with the engine is the same as that used in the Grand Highlander and Crown. 0 to 60 time was tested by Car and Driver at 5.7s for the hybrid Tundra, so not a drastic increase in acceleration in this application; about ~7%.

If we look at the Grand Highlander, the base 2.4T is 265 hp and 332 lb/ft of torque. Going to the hybrid max, Toyota rates it at 362 hp (an ~27% increase) and 400 lb/ft of torque (an ~17% increase). Here we saw the instrumented testing drop from a 7s 0 to 60 to a 5.6s 0 to 60 for the hybrid. Roughly a ~20% decrease.

In general, it seems like the hybrid max system has a much bigger impact in the overall performance numbers for the 2.4T versus the 3.4T, but the impact of the system being there is also incrementally more significant. One could probably dive into the power bands for these 4 setups for some more nuances to it, but that is something that would be quite complicated .

An interesting note on the hybrid max though which follows what has been reported on the Tundra (under performing EPA numbers). For the GH fuel economy testing, despite only being rated 21/28 mpg for the non-hybrid, Car and Driver reported a 29 mpg result on their 75 mph test; a nominal over performance. The hybrid max meanwhile under performed its EPA numbers of 26/27 with an observed value of 24 mpg.

For someone with a lead foot though, the hybrid max definitely seems like it will make more of a difference paired with the 2.4T (but don't count on it hitting EPA MPG numbers).

 

[Bmnorm2]

An interesting note on the hybrid max though which follows what has been reported on the Tundra (under performing EPA numbers). For the GH fuel economy testing, despite only being rated 21/28 mpg for the non-hybrid, Car and Driver reported a 29 mpg result on their 75 mph test; a nominal over performance. The hybrid max meanwhile under performed its EPA numbers of 26/27 with an observed value of 24 mpg.

For someone with a lead foot though, the hybrid max definitely seems like it will make more of a difference paired with the 2.4T (but don't count on it hitting EPA MPG numbers).

Thanks for sharing some of your numbers crunching. Something else to consider in this analysis is that in the case of the Grand Highlander the base 2.4t pairs with an 8 spd whereas the 2.4t hybrid uses a 6 spd.

 

[Blackwatch]

Starting to hear more chatter that there will be no 4Runner in 2024. They will skip a year and bring out the 2025 in 2 years.

Thought?

 

[thatoneguy]

Starting to hear more chatter that there will be no 4Runner in 2024. They will skip a year and bring out the 2025 in 2 years.

Thought?

I suppose its possible, but they sell like 150,000 a year of them here--why leave those sales on the table for a year? I mean, they could make model year 2023 an extra long one if they want. They could also just let 2024 be a no changes carryover model year.

If they don't reveal the next-gen 4Runner within the first half of calendar year 2024, something is up.

I suppose there could be logistical reasons why they may need the space at the Tahara plant, or time for big retooling, rather than letting it keep producing ancient 4Runners unchanged. But I think they'd really hesitate to just not bother producing 4Runner for anything more than a few calendar months.

 

[AZ Craig]

Thanks for sharing some of your numbers crunching. Something else to consider in this analysis is that in the case of the Grand Highlander the base 2.4t pairs with an 8 spd whereas the 2.4t hybrid uses a 6 spd.

Good point; the extra two ratios probably help the highway mileage number for the 2.4t base.

The 6 speed could actually help acceleration numbers though not having to go through more gears on the way to 60 mph.

I need to check if the Tundra uses the same transmission regardless of hybrid or not (I am not sure).

 

[AZ Craig]

I suppose its possible, but they sell like 150,000 a year of them here--why leave those sales on the table for a year? I mean, they could make model year 2023 an extra long one if they want. They could also just let 2024 be a no changes carryover model year.

If they don't reveal the next-gen 4Runner within the first half of calendar year 2024, something is up.

I suppose there could be logistical reasons why they may need the space at the Tahara plant, or time for big retooling, rather than letting it keep producing ancient 4Runners unchanged. But I think they'd really hesitate to just not bother producing 4Runner for anything more than a few calendar months.

I could see a situation where the 2023 cuts off for production later than usual with about a 3 to 6 month gap until the 2025 comes out earlier than typical. From what I remember in theory a 2025 could start already being produced in January of 2024.

 

[balong48]

I suppose its possible, but they sell like 150,000 a year of them here--why leave those sales on the table for a year? I mean, they could make model year 2023 an extra long one if they want. They could also just let 2024 be a no changes carryover model year.

If they don't reveal the next-gen 4Runner within the first half of calendar year 2024, something is up.

I suppose there could be logistical reasons why they may need the space at the Tahara plant, or time for big retooling, rather than letting it keep producing ancient 4Runners unchanged. But I think they'd really hesitate to just not bother producing 4Runner for anything more than a few calendar months.

2024 MY is carry over.

I could see a situation where the 2023 cuts off for production later than usual with about a 3 to 6 month gap until the 2025 comes out earlier than typical. From what I remember in theory a 2025 could start already being produced in January of 2024.

According to Toyota’s fleet site, 2024 MY orders will begin in September of this year.

 

[Jetboy]

So I tried to read up a bit on this one to understand the differences.

The Tundra with the higher state of tune on the 3.4L V6 TT engine has 389 hp and 479 lb/ft of torque. Car and Driver puts the 0 to 60 time at 6.1s. The hybrid max meanwhile is rated at 437 hp (an ~11% increase) and 583 lb/ft of torque (an ~18% increase). I am not one hundred percent sure, but I believe the 48 hp electric motor that works in series with the engine is the same as that used in the Grand Highlander and Crown. 0 to 60 time was tested by Car and Driver at 5.7s for the hybrid Tundra, so not a drastic increase in acceleration in this application; about ~7%.

If we look at the Grand Highlander, the base 2.4T is 265 hp and 332 lb/ft of torque. Going to the hybrid max, Toyota rates it at 362 hp (an ~27% increase) and 400 lb/ft of torque (an ~17% increase). Here we saw the instrumented testing drop from a 7s 0 to 60 to a 5.6s 0 to 60 for the hybrid. Roughly a ~20% decrease.

In general, it seems like the hybrid max system has a much bigger impact in the overall performance numbers for the 2.4T versus the 3.4T, but the impact of the system being there is also incrementally more significant. One could probably dive into the power bands for these 4 setups for some more nuances to it, but that is something that would be quite complicated .

An interesting note on the hybrid max though which follows what has been reported on the Tundra (under performing EPA numbers). For the GH fuel economy testing, despite only being rated 21/28 mpg for the non-hybrid, Car and Driver reported a 29 mpg result on their 75 mph test; a nominal over performance. The hybrid max meanwhile under performed its EPA numbers of 26/27 with an observed value of 24 mpg.

For someone with a lead foot though, the hybrid max definitely seems like it will make more of a difference paired with the 2.4T (but don't count on it hitting EPA MPG numbers).

I'm not sure how much they share. It seems like it's pretty similar, but the GH has a lot more power from the electric motor than the Tacoma/LC does. I'd love to see the hybrid in the Tacoma/LC putting out 365hp! Not sure that's in the cards.

The engines are also quite a bit different apparently. The truck version has about 30% different parts including at lot of the internals. The truck engines have a longer designed service life and more durable parts. The changes are also why it runs on 87 while the car version requires premium fuel and oddly the truck version also has slightly better performance even on the lower grade fuel.

I wish the GH had a higher tow capacity. I really like everything about it for a people mover. IMO it's better inside and out for packaging and styling vs the Sequoia. And it's about half the price. If it could tow 6500lbs or better yet 8k lbs - it would be a huge winner. Even as-is I think it'll be a big success.

 

[Bmnorm2]

Good point; the extra two ratios probably help the highway mileage number for the 2.4t base.

The 6 speed could actually help acceleration numbers though not having to go through more gears on the way to 60 mph.

I need to check if the Tundra uses the same transmission regardless of hybrid or not (I am not sure).

Agree. The 2 extra gears and ~400-500 lbs lighter (sans battery, inverter, motors) results in much better steady state 75 mph.

I expect the hybrid max would do significantly better in real world city testing in comparison to the base. Otherwise, it seems like the hybrid max really buys you much more performance with minimal loss of fuel economy. If you are prioritizing fuel economy, the regular hybrid is the right choice. I look forward to the real world test results of the regular hybrid.

 

[AZ Craig]

I wish the GH had a higher tow capacity. I really like everything about it for a people mover. IMO it's better inside and out for packaging and styling vs the Sequoia. And it's about half the price. If it could tow 6500lbs or better yet 8k lbs - it would be a huge winner. Even as-is I think it'll be a big success.

I have yet to see a GH in the wild, but from what I can tell, Toyota is selling every one that they can move with some dealers marking up significantly. My Toyota guy here in Phoenix told me he could get me on a list at MSRP, but I'm not buying a ~$60K car without test driving it first.

I'm EXTREMELY interested in the Lexus TX500h right now. Assuming it ends up pricing in at $70K or below, it could be a fantastic choice as long as the 5K tow rating isn't an issue for a consumer. My hope is that the ride and handle will be a bit better than the GH Hybrid Max with similar performance (no reason it shouldn't do that).

 

[mscot]

I'm EXTREMELY interested in the Lexus TX500h right now. Assuming it ends up pricing in at $70K or below, it could be a fantastic choice as long as the 5K tow rating isn't an issue for a consumer. My hope is that the ride and handle will be a bit better than the GH Hybrid Max with similar performance (no reason it shouldn't do that).

I would only get the 550H but who knows when it will come out. I'm seriously considering an X5 50e right now.

 

[Bmnorm2]

Toyota site says there will be a TX PHEV as well. A TX Prime, if you will.