4Runner Vs Land Cruiser Vs GX550 -- off-road ability?

[kzrman]

What do you think, in terms of off roadiness (I know, I just made the word up) does the competence level go up from 4Runner to LC to GX, or does one really not give much toughness up when looking at the different models? Is it truly just about adding a more comfortable cabin and more bells and whistles? Now that all of the trucks are going to be on the same frame it's gotten a little more confusing. Let me know your thoughts.

 

[Marine]

New 3.4TT engine has risk of potential main bearing issue

 

[kzrman]

Putting it another way, if you were in a tough off-road situation which truck would you want and why?

 

[kzrman]

New 3.4TT engine has risk of potential main bearing issue

Thank you for this.

 

[kzrman]

I think that you're right. Without sufficient ground clearance it really doesn't matter what else the truck has.

 

[AZTrail]

New 3.4TT engine has risk of potential main bearing issue

The 2025 4Runner does not use the 3.4TT V6 engine. It uses the 2.4TT inline 4 engine.

 

[stom_m3]

I question some of their original numbers either being completely wrong or measuring to different spots. Example is the LC spec'd weight of 5037lbs. Online reviews are weighing them around 5700 which is similar to the GX spec'd weight. The specs for the LC leg/head room same issue. Being that the GX, LC, and 4R look to use the exact same chassis and suspension setup, which would include trailing links, control arms, etc, I would imagine the items affecting clearance would be tires, springs, skid plates, and bumper fascia. With that said, I don't see many people who off-road stock vehicles at least not on the trails I do. So from an off-road perspective it's probably splitting hairs. The 4R should have a lower CG because it's shorter in height. Assuming the same lifts per the respective makes, there would be a slight nod to the 4R for the cutouts on the bumper, then the LC to the GX. The GX will have a slight edge on articulation as the eKDSS will open both front and rear sway bars vs just the front on the 4R and LC.

As for my choice, I'm only interested in the non-hybrid 4R TRD off-road and GX. I don't like where Toyota placed the hybrid battery. Oh and it will be interesting to see what the non-hybrid 4R weighs which could provide significant benefit off-road. But all should have similar performance if you mod them to same levels, i.e. lift, tires, armor, etc. My thought process is, who really leaves them stock.

 

[stom_m3]

There have been new Tacoma reviews on the base 4 banger which essentially is the same as the 4R from the B pillar forward. The reviews and mpg are pretty good. I don't know if I would be too concerned unless you run heavy wheel/tire combo or loaded heavy. That said, I feel the power should be sufficient as it's similar to the previous gen 4R. I usually run with a handful of 5th gens and power never seems to come up as an issue. The 4R is just so capable.

I do have one use case that I wonder how the hybrid would perform. In Death Valley, there are mining roads which have long steep continuous slightly technical climbs. In this situation, I would imagine the 1.8kWh battery would become fully depleted and no longer provide benefit. In this case, there's a possibility you would be carrying an extra 300lbs of useless weight and only the 2.4T to do the work. Again, not too overly concerned but I am curious what happens in this scenario.

I currently run a EcoFlow Delta 2 to handle my power needs but I understand the convenience of having on board power. Another thing to think about is that the 2.4T takes up very little engine bay without the hybrid. There's plenty of room to add a secondary battery along with an ARB dual compressor.

As for the suspension, TFL and Engineer, have interviews with the technical lead of the Tacoma and outline the differences between the Pro and TRD Off-Road shocks. They even show cutouts of the respective shocks. It's pretty cool. There are differences but the initial comments from the Tacoma side is that the TRD Off-Road shocks are decent. That said, a lot of people will replace with Kings, Icons, or Fox regardless. In the end, what is your use case and what are you trying to improve or insure against. A lot of personal modifications I consider insurance against part failure and sometimes it's just "good" enough to not bother with.

 

[stom_m3]

Completely understand your thought process. If you want to buy and run, it's best to get the Pro. It comes with a lot of cool badges and off-road stuff. That said, somethings to consider. The Tacoma has a $20k price difference between the OR and Pro. And that doesn't include any markup on the Pro and discount on the Off Road which is currently averaging $-3.5k per Kirk Kreifels latest vid.

The extra width on the Pro is all done via wheel offset and not suspension arms which is a huge disappointment. There's no difference in geo. So lifting or bigger tires on the Off Road is the same as the Pro.

As for the tires, the "specially designed" Toyo AT tires are still passenger rated tires. They are not LT rated tires. Toyota does this on all their trucks. It's annoying and disingenuous. It would be one of the first things I change to off road. No way I feel comfortable running a "P" rated tire off road. Can you do it? Sure. I wouldn't.

In the end, the Pro is cool but comes at a premium. Don't think you couldn't have a similar or better result with the OR.

 

[bd103dall]

If you order the TRD Offroad Hybrid, don’t you get the larger tires? I don’t think they give you the wider stance though.

 

[jnsplace]

Using Tacoma from Tacomaworld.com
"TRD Pro is 75 inches wide, but then you have to add 3 more inches due to flared out wheel wells."

From the builder for overall width

You can kind of see it in the front view of the site builder. I did a couple of screenshots. Top is TRD OF, bottom is TRD Pro.