At what point does legendary reliability matter if the gas mileage is legendarily shitty
Posted by BullableGull@reddit | cars | View on Reddit | 400 comments
Land Cruiser, famous for having a robust V8 that is "barely" broken in at 200k miles, gets about 10-11MPG in the real world. Hitting 250k miles at that range averaging $3.00 per gallon (which is unbelievably conservative cause they require premium fuel), You're at over $68k in fuel alone with no other maintenance items! At what point does that reliability matter, versus driving a car that spontaneously dies at 200k but gets 28mpg, you just saved over $46k in fuel alone that can get you into a pretty nice car.
It's not lost on me that this is very consumerist and wasteful, but what are the real reasons to hang on to and daily something like that?
Atomik675@reddit
Nobody buys a land cruiser for its MPG. Certain Honda Civics, Volvo 240 with non turbo redblock engine, and Mercedes 124 diesels would be some examples of legendary reliability and decent MPG.
ProArmy04@reddit
Volvo 240 gets absolutely dog shit mpg especially if it is carb.
daijoubanai@reddit
true a carb automatic 240 wont get that great mpg, same with the turbo cars. But from experience I know at least the efi manual cars will get 25-27mpg
ProArmy04@reddit
Yeah that is kinda of bad the manual carb ones get like 20 roughly.
kirks2@reddit
the Land Cruiser no longer sports a V-8, or even a V-6. Instead, it receives a 2.4-liter turbocharged, four-cylinder, gas-electric hybrid driveline mated to an eight-speed automatic transmission. Rated at 326 horsepower and 465 pound-feet of torque, the EPA states the four-wheel-drive Land Cruiser returns 23 mpg in combined city/highway driving, albeit on premium unleaded fuel.
babsrambler@reddit
I feel you friend. My wife's old volvo is happy to get 15 and it can't do a lot of things your Cruiser can. Still, I have a longer bed than many pickups, a roof, and a motor that can go another few years. I justify keeping it around by not driving it all that much. Gas and emissions apply proportionally to miles driven. Also, your math confuses me; by the time your 200K sedan at 28 MPG dies, the $46K might not actually buy you a new car. Also, the Cruiser can do things....Cruiser things. It will nickle and dime you, but if you have (or are) a good mechanic keeping the old ones running can make sense (and you meet much cooler people in the parking lot with an old car vs a new shiny one)
Sure_Pepper@reddit
If the car is fun why care about mpg
zeronian@reddit
Someone looking to save money on fuel isn't in the market for a Land Cruiser
EZKTurbo@reddit
And the person looking for a Land Cruiser definitely does not need it to be their 1 and only car
wc1048@reddit
What’s the best second car? I see a lot of LC owners own Porsches. Wonder what else would be good.
banned_from_r_cars@reddit
FWIW my wife and I drove a GX460 as our only vehicle for over 2 years. We just needed 1 car that could get us out of the snow while neither of us had a commute. We only bought a 2nd car eventually because 2 kids need to be in different places fairly often.
isthatsuperman@reddit
Yup. LC’s are toys for taking off roading. Regardless of how reliable they are, they’re not for being a daily.
EZKTurbo@reddit
Unless you're trying to be that guy who's so much more man than everyone else that they daily their overland rig just in case they have to dig in and survive for a couple weeks until rush hour dies down.
WhatDidYouSayToMe@reddit
This is a key thing too. I'm looking at potentially getting a raptor next year, and the fuel mileage of the 6.2 isn't really a problem when I drive 80% of my miles a year with my focus, and 5% with motorcycles.
Killbot_Wants_Hug@reddit
Yeah, I kind of felt like once I crossed the 50k price for vehicles (back in the mid 2000's) I didn't really care what the cost of gas was since I was making enough that it was a fairly trivial expense. Sure when gas was around $5 a gallon filling my raptor up was like $150, but I only had to do it twice a month and it just wasn't that much money to me. If the fuel costs were a huge concern to me back then I also wouldn't have been in the market for a $65k truck.
Once I moved into the city I don't really care what my gas mileage is because I simply drive so little that the gas prices hardly affect me. Before I had a kid I filled my car up with gas like once every 2 or 3 months. I didn't have to drive a ton and when I did I often just took my motorcycle. I was driving like 2000 miles a year.
Now that I have a wife and kid and thus have to drive a ton more and don't have as much money I care about fuel costs a little more.
So really how much you care about fuel costs depends on your life style. And the people buying land rovers can likely spend the extra money for a more gas efficient car if they really care (which they also probably don't care about).
floppydo@reddit
This is untrue near me. People buy them as a family car that they’ll one day pass down to their teenager. It’s one of two dailies.
Next_Necessary_8794@reddit
Yeah but if it has 200,000 miles on it, obviously it's been driven almost exclusively by that owner.
emanonR@reddit
A brand new one maybe, not a 250k mile used one
vargemp@reddit
Maintenance cost of used LC is same if not higher than new LC.
mkbcity@reddit
but depreciation isnt. youre gonna spend more money on a new car than a used one.
Isaac_McCaslin@reddit
Not necessarily. Someone buying a 250k Land Cruiser (I say this as someone who was in that market but went a slightly different direction) is most likely buying it as a weekend rig. Not as their daily driver.
So for me, I wanted something that wasn't going to run more than 10k or so, but would also be pretty reliable, carry my stuff inside and seat 4, be very capable off-road, and be able to pull a trailer. On the other hand, since I'm not going to be putting a ton of yearly miles, mileage isn't a huge priority. Like, in 10 years I might put another 50k on it, but probably less. Oh, and be something i think is kinda cool. There are a few things that fit the bill, but an older Land Cruiser is definitely high on the list. (I went with a Jeep Cherokee XJ instead.)
I could also see someone who only has a budget for one vehicle, but wants it to do all those things. If they have a very short commute, an old Land Cruiser could still make sense.
testthrowawayzz@reddit
To paraphrase Alex on Auto's review on MB G class (though that one is at least double the MSRP), if you need to ask [about fuel economy], you can't afford it.
shadowofashadow@reddit
They probably aren't driving it to 200k either
Euler007@reddit
It's the "Look at me, I have stealth wealth" SUV.
The_Summary_Man_713@reddit
Same with us over at r/4Runner.
lavafish80@reddit
the lion does not concern himself with his 7A-FE's abysmal fuel economy
unmanipinfo@reddit
the lion does not concern himself with his 1994 Corolla lliftbacks struts failing and nearly decapitating his head (7A-FE so you know it's worth it)
Mjolnir12@reddit
Can you decapitate anything other than your head though? That seems a bit redundant.
unmanipinfo@reddit
The lion doesn't concern himself with redundant sentences or things that are redundant or being made redundant
lavafish80@reddit
💪 God bless 94 Corollas with 7As (mine wears a Chevy badge)
unmanipinfo@reddit
Nothing more imposing on the road (except a Geo Metro convertible, god forbid one of those rolls up)
CharacterMedium558@reddit
I mean Toyotas are overrated. Land cruiser is built very well, but I'd argue any older American truck that has not been rusted can do the same things or better. Especially when you toss some money at it. Land cruiser are expensive and they guzzle gas like crazy. The new V6 turbo is more efficient but still not great. I'd take an engine like the LS over the 5.7L from Toyota any day of the week. Believe it or not the 5.7l has some issues mainly to do with accessories and other stuff.
-SUBW00FER-@reddit
Exactly, there is a 2021 Silverado 2500HD with 1 million miles. But people would not believe you since its not a Honda or Toyota.
The Land Cruiser is overbuilt with heavy suspension and frame. But I guarantee you most of them never leave the pavement (true for most trucks tbh)
CharacterMedium558@reddit
That's my exact issue with such cars
TurboSalsa@reddit
I had a contractor working on my house and one day he called me to tell me his truck's engine blew up and that he'd be back the following day.
He didn't seem too bent out of shape about it and when I asked him how many miles it had, he said 640k lol. It was an old 7.3 F250.
No_Skirt_6002@reddit
I wish America wasn’t so diesel-phobic. Diesels are practically meant for trucks and SUVs like the Land Cruiser. GM’s diesel I6 Tahoes get nearly 30 mpg highway in a Land-Cruiser sized footprint. I so wish Toyota had sold the Land Cruiser here with the 4.5 biturbo diesel V8, and made it an option in the Tundra.
okielurker@reddit
Diesel is way more expensive than gas. The cost difference negates the fuel economy savings.
No_Skirt_6002@reddit
It really depends where you are. Here in the Northeast there's between a 20-25% upcharge on diesel, but if you go out west the prices almost equalize. There's only about a \~25 cents a gallon upcharge for diesel on average in Idaho. As for fuel economy savings, most diesels typically get between 20-30% higher fuel economy, and fuel economy when towing in a diesel vs a gas is not even comparable, so if you do a lot of highway driving and/or towing, you very likely will save at least some money.
Also, if you want to match the torque of diesel light-dutys (Ram 1500 Ecodiesel, F150 Powerstroke, SIlverado 1500 Duramax), you'll have to get the high-performance engine options, that are recommended to run 89 or 91 octane gasoline that costs more than diesel. And actually, if you're towing, using premium is very strongly suggested, which means that if you're towing, you might even make up for the premium of the diesel engine option in fuel savings.
okielurker@reddit
60 cent per gallon extra for diesel in Oklahoma versus regular gas. That's more than 30% extra. Our gas is very cheap.
DodgerBlueRobert1@reddit
Here in L.A., from my observation, diesel costs about 30 cents more per gallon than premium.
No_Skirt_6002@reddit
CA is not really comparable to any other state when it comes to fuel prices. You guys get a specially made gasoline blend for low-NOx that is only sold in CA, and you guys have insane taxes on fuel. Go to Oregon or Washington and the price difference isn't nearly as stark, and diesel is oftentimes cheaper than premium.
DodgerBlueRobert1@reddit
You said if yo go out west. So I was giving my example out west. I know gas is more expensive here than most other places, but tons of people live here and it's a valid point to bring up.
Rdub@reddit
Not where I live in Canada. Diesel is currently cheaper than regular gas here at the moment and while it does fluctuate over time, sometimes being higher sometimes being lower, it on average is basically the same price as regular unleaded, at least where I live. Really makes me appreciate owning a diesel vehicle that gets 35+ MPG.
mkbcity@reddit
not in the toronto area. diesel is often the same price as or higher than premium.
Mercaesar@reddit
Not really. It's cheaper than premium in the US, broadly speaking, and can easily get an extra 10 mpg over gas
Shmokesshweed@reddit
It's 10-20 cents more expensive than premium in Washington. Doesn't really pencil out for most.
Mercaesar@reddit
Even if it got only 10% better mileage (33 vs 30 mpg, say) that would equate to ~30 cents less per gallon in adjusted fuel cost, assuming $3 per gallon
Shmokesshweed@reddit
But then you also have to account for the upfront cost (usually more than a gas engine) and maintenance (I've heard lots of issues with emissions).
When a hybrid sedan gets you 50 mpg easily, I think diesel is a tough sell.
RandomGenName1234@reddit
Extremely overblown, entirely dependent on usage as well, you're extremely unlikely to have issues if you let it heat up and stay hot for a while, so they're not well suited for short drives to the store etc and nothing else, if you run them for say 30 min at load (highway speed etc) every now and then though they'll be pretty damn trouble free.
No_Skirt_6002@reddit
Emissions issues were big on some of the early EPA Tier 4 trucks circa 2007-2015 or so, when they were first figuring shit out. They still have their issues, but diesel emissions failures really only occur these days when you're driving exclusively short distances without giving the emissions system time to warm up and burn off soot trapped in the DPF with it's own heat (typically 15 minutes driving above 50ish mph). When the DPF doesn't run hot enough to burn off soot on it's own, it will quickly build up, either causing a regen (where the car will deliberately increase DPF temperatures either by running the engine hot or injecting fuel into the DPF, increasing exhaust temperatures to 1100 degrees farhenheit (!) (this is why you never park an idling diesel truck in a field with high grass), reducing fuel economy. Thus, generally you should avoid stop-and-go traffic and long idling with modern diesel engines.
And frankly, if you're not driving longish-distances or primarily highway and fast backroads with little stop-and-go, diesels won't really deliver that many more MPGs over a gas car.
Some diesel trucks and cars were equipped with the CP4 fuel pump starting in 2011 or so. They are extremely temperamental, with some of them lasting several hundred thousand miles with good maintenance, while others grenade themselves at \~100k miles or so. This is not really an emissions related problem, and most manufacturers have switched away from the CP4 to the HP4 ((17+ Duramax) or the back to the CP3 (07-18 and 23+ Cummins), and you can find aftermarket kits to convert your diesel to a more reliable CP3 if you want to bulletproof it. Ford still uses the CP4 on the 6.7 Powerstroke, take from that what you will.
Finally, clogged EGR valves and soot-blocked off intake ports can also become an issue on modern direct-injection diesels at higher mileage, but direct injection gas cars have the exact same issue, so it's null IMO.
Shmokesshweed@reddit
Thanks, learned quite a bit.
And there's the really important part. I'd get a diesel if I were towing regularly, driving long distances, etc. For everything else? Not so much.
Slideways@reddit
But the resale value of the diesel will be higher.
Mercaesar@reddit
There's merit to that. Europe is benefitted by having cheap lower spec diesels that were never sold in the US (C180 CDI, 316d, A1 TDI...). Fortunately I live in a state that doesnt require emissions testing so I deleted all that crap lol.
Shmokesshweed@reddit
More expensive upfront.
More expensive to fix. Not if it breaks, but once it breaks.
Diesel is more expensive.
What's not to love?
SirLoremIpsum@reddit
Better torque at lower rpm
better fuel economy, significantly
More reliable for many specific motors - throwing 'unreliable' out there is nuts. Toyota 1HZ / 1HD in an 80 series vs a 1FZ petrol?? Which would you pick? Which will be blowing smoke and worrying about a head gasket at 400,000kms?
takumidelconurbano@reddit
Current gasoline vehicles haver more than enough torque to lose traction in the tires in first or second gear and they have 8-10 speed transmissions. Why would you need more torque than that?
Not enough to compensate for the higher cost
We are talking about modern cars.
RandomGenName1234@reddit
Vast majority of Euro diesels are EXTREMELY reliable.
Take some Merc diesels for example, doing 1 mill km's as a taxi without major work done to the engine.
HeavyCanuck@reddit
Euro diesels also run way too dirty and don't meet North American emissions standards. It's easy to be reliable when your emissions equipment is only up to 2002 standards and doesn't break every other month.
RandomGenName1234@reddit
Nice lies homie!
At least you made it super obvious.
For the record, the EU is stricter on some things, US (California really) stricter with some.
Also Americans just drive trucks anyway because they've got way more relaxed regulations, something that's NOT the case in the EU, ergo the EU cleanly wins this one, pun very much intended.
Captain_Alaska@reddit
My guy even within Euro emission standards diesels are allowed to be dirtier than petrol, particually with NOx, and even then diesels are considerably dirtier in the real world.
ICCT
AAN
NCBI
Diesels don't work in the US specifically because NOx control is very difficult and getting them to pass EPA standards (which are both harder on NOx and don't give diesels and special pass) is not easy.
LordofSpheres@reddit
The EU only just became as strict as the US on NOx emissions (the primary problem for diesel emissions) with a recently updated standard. For almost forty years they were behind on emissions regulations and they were significantly far behind on diesel regulations since the US began doing them.
The EU doesn't win shit, historically, when it comes to emissions.
Parrelium@reddit
Diesel is easily 30% more expensive than gasoline, and those engines are loud, but not in a good way compared to gas engines too.
If you want an engine with soul, you drive gasoline. If you want an efficient vehicle, you might as well go EV these days. Diesels are for low end torque and heavy duty applications.
Can you imagine how shitty a diesel Porsche 911 would sound?
RandomGenName1234@reddit
Some diesels sound great, Volvo's 5 cylinder ones, BMW M57, OM606 etc
Example 1
Example 2
Example 3
Koil_ting@reddit
Clanky loud engine?
brisket_billy_@reddit
Counterpoint: Those sweet, sweet big turbo noises
Parrelium@reddit
Meh. The coolest turbo noises come from the EMD 16-645e3 prime mover, and nobody will ever change my mind about that.
MaimedTiger@reddit
American made diesels aren't comparable much to Japanese diesels, and we don't get any. Everything kind of fell apart after the diesel gate scandals, they just ruined the market and other manufacturers didn't want to get into it
SirLoremIpsum@reddit
I disagree that Dieselgate had anything to do with LandCruisers.
North American didnt get 60 / 80 / 100 / 200 diesel motors - all way before the 201x Dieselgate shenanigans came to light.
The 4Runner, Tacoma could have had diesel motors from their inception. The Tundra specifically was conceived and invented as a North American exclusive and had no diesel ever thought of.
North America was not getting Toyota diesels looooooong before Dieselgate soured the hatchback/sedan diesel market. And Toyota was never really in with diesels mostly... no diesel Corolla/Camry and the diesel RAV not that popular.
takumidelconurbano@reddit
The 90’s 4Runners and Hiluxes had incredibly underpowered diesels while in the US 4Runners and Tacomas had V6 gasoline engines. They wouldn’t have sold well in the US.
Captain_Alaska@reddit
The narrowbody Camry had diesels until 1998 and the Corolla only just dropped it for the current E210.
A good portion of Toyota's SUV/utes/vans are primarily diesel or diesel only down under so I'm not sure where your getting the idea they don't play with them. Out of the Aussie HiLux, Fortuner, all 3 LandCruisers (Prado, 70, 300) and the HiAce, only the HiLux offers a petrol and it's purely on the base model 2WD manuals.
Mercaesar@reddit
It's a tragedy. My 2011 BMW 335d gets ~40 mpg highway, 330k miles going strong. Some of the best daily drivers ever made were German diesel sedans
MaimedTiger@reddit
Very true, Mercedes and BMW both made some amazing diesels in the U.S and they're all still here. If your BMW ever dies, a 2016 Benz E250 with the diesel is a car I've researched that gets like 700 miles to a tank or more, it's a crazy value
No_Skirt_6002@reddit
Jason Cammisa did a great article where they did a fuel economy test of a contemporary Prius versus an E250 Bluetec. The E250 will do 50+ mpg on the highway if you keep it to 70 or below, it's ridiculous, especially for a mid-size sedan.
MaimedTiger@reddit
thanks! that was an interesting read. i always had this feeling that diesels were always more practical, if done right. i guess the price upfront for diesels and the higher maintenance costs still exist though
RandomGenName1234@reddit
Diesels were dominating for ages in Europe for that exact reason, they're excellent, even the small ones.
cmdr_pickles@reddit
Yet here in The Netherlands with a road tax system based on weight+emissions, the monthly road tax for a diesel is easily double the a gasoline equivalent.
I.e. my Santa Fe 2.7 gasser costs me €95/month in road tax, the 2.2 diesel would cost me €195/month.
BMW 318d wagon? €165/month. 318i gas? €74/month.
TheChickenScampi@reddit
Those CDI's/Bluetecs are awesome. The M57 is also a rad and awesome motor. Euro diesels are cool!
wtcnbrwndo4u@reddit
Tuned E320 makes about somewhere below the 300HP/500TQ range. Pretty rad.
Bigbadbrindledog@reddit
My mom had a diesel e350 that she loved, she was so annoyed they went to the 4 pot with the refresh
Rdub@reddit
My 2015 Q7 TDI gets 35+ MPG highway if I drive it like a regular person. It's honestly insane how laughable US fuel economy standards are. Americans think 20 MPG is "Good" fuel economy whilst the rest of the world thinks anything under 30 MPG is atrocious.
Captain_Alaska@reddit
Has got nothing to do with economy standards and everything to do with the amount of emissions your Q7 is putting into the atmosphere, which is far higher than US EPA standards.
The only reason diesel works in Europe is because they've carved out exemptions for it to be dirtier than petrol and even then real world emissions for Euro diesels are far higher than they're supposed to be.
No_Skirt_6002@reddit
Diesels= less greenhouse gases, less global warming, more smog and particulate emissions.
Gas= More greenhouse gases, more global warming, but less smog and less particulate emissions.
Your pick. The US has a heavier hand controlling particulate and NOx emissions, while the EU cares more about global warming generally.
Though, with modern diesel emissions controls, the particulate emissions of diesels have been reduced to almost nil, and the only thing that's really left is the higher NOx emissions that cause smog- but it's also worth noting that modern direct injection gas cars also have very high NOx emissions.
Captain_Alaska@reddit
NOx also has a greenhouse effect and is comparable to methane.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24234471/
No_Skirt_6002@reddit
NOx has substantially lower GHG potential to methane. (25-28 for Methane over a period of 100 years, 7-10 for NOx)
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Global-warming-potential-values-of-several-gases-43-45_tbl2_374176152
https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/2024-08/Global-Warming-Potential-Values%20%28August%202024%29.pdf
https://hero.epa.gov/hero/index.cfm/reference/details/reference_id/1686333
Still higher than CO2, but in any case NOx emissions make up an absolutely tiny proportion of diesel exhaust and an even smaller proportion of what causes the greenhouse effect.
https://kunakair.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Radiative_forcing_-_climate_change_-_global_warming_-_EPA_NOAA.svg.png
https://kunakair.com/greenhouse-gases/
It's not even called by name on this graph.
https://phys.org/news/2022-06-climate-scientist-global-emissionsend.html
For clarification, Nitrous Oxide (N2O) is NOT the same things as NOx (NO and NO2).
Captain_Alaska@reddit
But again, as I said before, real world emissions of euro diesels are far higher than they’re supposed to be, CO2 included, so it’s not even a tradeoff, they’re just straight dirtier.
ICCT
AAN
NCBI
No_Skirt_6002@reddit
Not all of them. When WVU did the testing that uncovered Dieselgate in 2015, a BMW X5 diesel was the only car that met all emissions standards in real world on-road testing.
https://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/24/us-usa-volkswagen-researchers-idUSKCN0RM2D720150924/
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-19/volkswagen-emissions-cheating-found-by-curious-clean-air-group
Captain_Alaska@reddit
Right. Everyone else was cheating because they can't meet the stricter US emission standards. None of those manufactures offer diesels in the US anymore anyway because they can't meet those standards, which is part of my point that they're stricter.
Regardless the point I was making is EU diesels are simultaneously emissions complaint and much dirtier than they're supposed to be, because the NEDC and WLTP emissions drive cycles aren't particually representative of how Europeans drive their cars, so the rated efficiencies and emissions aren't representative of how the cars actually perform.
caller-number-four@reddit
Adore my 2011 Golf TDI so much, I bought it twice!
Though it's only at 76k miles. Wonderful little car.
No_Skirt_6002@reddit
Diesels are the one thing that Euro brands did more reliably than basically anyone else.
Presidigo@reddit
jeez that's a gargantuan amount of miles!
MaimedTiger@reddit
yeah i was shocked when i looked it up, 21.1 gallon fuel tank getting 35 mpg is 735 miles. not many sedans can do that
peakdecline@reddit
The modern emissions systems scare a lot of people off. Likewise DEF is just another item people don't want to be bothered to deal with.
I owned a Gladiator EcoDiesel. I certainly enjoyed that I still get 25MPG even with a bed rack, roof top tent, winch, etc. all on it. But I was always fearful long term about what will happen when the emissions inevitably starts to have problems.
DEF use was also extremely dependent on use. Daily driver when at home? Very low, you could go ages without needing to fill it up. A weekend of off-roading? Tons of use. Its really not cool to get a warning message that you will enter limp mode in X miles because of low DEF when in the middle of absolute nowhere. I carried a 1 gallon jug of it with me at all times but that's yet another thing to bring.
Plus a lot of the savings are actually taken away because diesel can cost considerably more per gallon, DEF, and maintenance (oil changes) costing more.
kyonkun_denwa@reddit
I owned a 2010 TDI Golf Sportwagen, and absolutely everything related to diesel emissions on that car gave me trouble or just straight up broke. And my manager was not pleased when I would tell him I had to work remote because my car was in the shop again (this was in pre COVID times). Based on that experience I swore I would never own a diesel car again.
I resorted to borrowing my friend/landlord/roommate's 1998 Lexus LS430 to get to work a couple times. That car got spectacularly bad mileage on premium fuel, but you could count on it to start every damn time no matter what. I can see why someone living in, say, the Outback would want a Land Cruiser. The bad fuel mileage is the price of total and complete reliability.
Mustangfast85@reddit
What emissions equipment was on a 2010? Those were the years of Dieselgate
kyonkun_denwa@reddit
I had tons of issues with the DPF and the EGR valve (latter is not strictly "emissions" but it has a role to play in that regard and it was fucking annoying).
I'll admit the injectors and the HPFP were by far the bigger failures though. I'm sure the engine block on a TDI is reliable but all the shit attached to it was not.
No_Skirt_6002@reddit
Except the Land Cruisers (Prado, 70 Series, full fat 300) they sell in Australia are all diesels, lol. They don't even offer gas versions there. Those early emissions TDIs (09-11) weren't known for being durable, when compared to the older non-emissions models and the later models that they had figured out better.
Captain_Alaska@reddit
Australia’s emission standards are still Euro5, which came out in 2009.
No_Skirt_6002@reddit
Nevertheless they still have the same emissions equipment we have in the USA, and they do just fine reliability wise. It’s not like they’re designed specifically to hurt owners.
Captain_Alaska@reddit
No, most of them don’t, and the ones that do don’t run them as hard. Toyota is only just (as in last year) starting to roll put models that use AdBlue.
No_Skirt_6002@reddit
I apologize, I was not aware that Aussie Toyota Hiluxes had no DEF. I know they do in Europe and the new Prados do in AU.
peakdecline@reddit
To my knowledge the first LC to require DEF in Australia was the 300 in 2021. The others are only just now transitioning to this requirement. Australia's requirements for diesel emissions have been significantly different than the US. The system designs were basically lagging behind in their requirements. We'll see how this turns out in 10 years from now.
smashedsaturn@reddit
They suck. Its stupid to re-inject exhaust back into the intake and damage the engine. Its stupid to put a giant hot filter in the exhaust that requires a highway drive to recharge but doesn't tell you when you need to do it. By the way none of this is covered under your 'power train' warranty.
I say this loving my diesel.
bearded_dragon_34@reddit
Not to mention that because of those emissions systems, diesels really suffer when subjected to mostly short, around-town drive cycles.
No_Skirt_6002@reddit
So what I'm hearing is that a series-parallel hybrid system that keeps a smaller diesel engine's emissions system hot enough to keep the dpf clear, running at a single high-ish, efficient rpm, generating energy for the motors to push the car around at low speeds, and then a clutch from the engine to the wheels for more efficient travel at highway speeds, Honda Two-Mode Hybrid System style, would work well?
SuperConfused@reddit
That would be my assumption. I hate DPF. I don’t really mind DEF, but DPF is such a pain. Forced regens burn so much fuel. At least DEF raises the HP to offset parasitic losses
No_Skirt_6002@reddit
My hot take was always that diesels shouldn't go into limp mode for low DEF or clogged DPFs, as long as the engine isn't at risk of being harmed. If they need motivation to get it fixed, fail them on inspection for it the next time around. And frankly, if people weren't being dogged by limp mode, the lower fuel economy and power of the engine with a clogged DPF would probably motivate them into getting the DPF cleaned instead of frustrating the owner into cutting it straight off lol.
LordofSpheres@reddit
Only fourteen states have safety inspections, and only twenty-nine have regular emissions testing requirements (even then, several only require them for certain metro areas, and many just don't bother with diesels). Those that do require them annually or biennially at most - so spending 14,500 miles of the average 15,000 miles a year with an empty tank of DEF is basically removing any sort of requirement for it.
Also, the owners are already more than happy to cut them off despite those emissions inspections which mandate them - why would your solution not just inspire them to do it even sooner and not ever worry about clogging it in the first place?
SirLoremIpsum@reddit
That's the thing though - modern emissions don't scare Australian's off, and I don't buy the "doesn't want to be bothered by" either.
That's just marketing and consumer attitudes which can change.
Having to refuel with AdBlue is a collosal pain in the arse and shouldn't exist. But "oh american consumers cant work out a diesel particulate filter"... they could! I believe in them!
Next_Necessary_8794@reddit
That's not the issue. The issue is when the car gets older, all the emissions nanny equipment starts to break and exceeds the value of the car to replace.
peakdecline@reddit
I'm pretty sure there's a lot of Australians who prefer their pre-emissions Land Cruisers just like Americans love their pre-emissions diesels. And wasn't there just a whole bunch of stuff with the LC70 going from the V8 to the I4 recently? Which also brought in some fairly different emissions systems? I don't even think the LC70s required DEF until that change over in Australia.
wtcnbrwndo4u@reddit
That's correct, LC70s haven't required DEF until this new engine.
Mojave_Idiot@reddit
Damn. I’ve never remotely been concerned about DEF on anything but a complete cross country trip. Over a weekend is crazy to me.
That said a significant factor for why I went with the 6.7 in my truck is power. Everything is effortless. Modern diesels in HD trucks are putting out near class 8 levels of power these days.
I have concerns for longevity, but they’re mostly offset by my consistent use and that the Ford 6.7 has been around long enough that it’s absolutely a known quantity. I’ll probably do the S&S DCR hpfp in the next 40k miles or so. Upwards of 400k with proper maintenance seems doable based on what I’ve read.
Yeah, I’m absolutely paying more up front and in running costs. More powerful and more capable equipment has always been more expensive, especially in this area. Diesel tends to get left out of that conversation for whatever reason.
peakdecline@reddit
I believe the system is basically in a worst case scenario doing 10\~ hour driving days at almost entirely sub 20MPH speeds for a solid 3 days.
Mojave_Idiot@reddit
That’s fair. Usually on my trips in the desert I can sit at 45-50 on some of the bigger roads for awhile. Def burn is a non issue at that speed.
TurboSalsa@reddit
If Toyota were to put the EPA-required emissions equipment on that diesel V8, it would become more expensive, less reliable, and less fuel efficient.
No_Skirt_6002@reddit
Except the emissions equipment is already on it. It's not like emissions standards are a US-only thing. Australia, the primary market for the 4.5 diesel Land Cruiser, requires DPFs and DEF. So does Europe where it was also sold. And parts of Asia too, though generally Australasia has lower standards than Europe or the USA.
TurboSalsa@reddit
The 4.5 has been discontinued in Australia and Europe because it can't meet their new emissions standards.
https://www.drive.com.au/news/laaast-of-the-toyota-v8s-bent-eight-axed-from-landcruiser-70-series-range/
No_Skirt_6002@reddit
Mhm. And it's been replaced with a more powerful 2.8l turbodiesel I4 in the 70 series and a more powerful 3.3L turbodiesel V6 in the 300 series. V8 diesels are awesome but overkill in vehicles the size of a 70 and a 300, especially when Cummins can get along with an I6 in the Ram HD.
TurboSalsa@reddit
Ok, but you still have a vehicle that's more expensive to buy and maintain compared to its gasoline equivalent, and in the US, the fuel economy would have to be at least 20% better to offset the higher cost of diesel.
The economics just aren't great in most cases.
ExplosiveMachine@reddit
This is the weirdest thing to me. Toyota Land Cruisers are petrol pretty much only in the USA and maybe Saudi Arabia. The rest of the world, anything bigger than a VW Golf is diesel because petrol just doesn't make sense for lugging big stuff around.
Nowadays the midsize/full size passenger cars are getting more common in various hybrid guises, but any big SUV or truck is going to be deisel, period.
No_Skirt_6002@reddit
Diesels were never really huge for passenger cars outside Europe, but Europe basically made up for everyone else lmao. I remember that right before Dieselgate something like 51% of all automobiles in Europe were diesels, and it was still over 40% until 2020 or something like that. I went to Italy earlier this year and it seems that they still love their diesels over there, literally every little hatchback sounded like a mini semi truck.
Now it's fallen down to \~15-20% in Europe, but basically every truck or off-road SUV outside of the US is a diesel, and that's not really an exaggeration. Isuzu doesn't even offer a petrol D-Max pickup truck. Even in countries big on other alternative fuels (Brazil with E85, Australia with Propane) diesels are still the engines of choice for trucks, because they're the best possible engine. High torque, high durability, and low fuel consumption. Big, powerful gas pickup trucks are a USA/Canada-only phenomenon, with the Gulf States and occasionally Australia getting some of our market pickup trucks for enthusiasts (F-250, Ranger Raptor, etc. ).
qwazzy92@reddit
More expensive upfront.
More expensive to fix. Not if it breaks, but once it breaks.
Diesel is more expensive.
What's not to love?
TheChickenScampi@reddit
Even the European diesels are quite sweet! For the time in which they were during the 2010's, VW's TDIs were flying off the lots. Dieselgate shenanigans and controversy aside, 800+ miles on a full tank, driving relaxingly on long commutes/roadtrips, and that delicious reward of feeling happy that you don't need to visit the fuel-up stations for months on end is an unbeatable feeling. Heck, just days ago, I came across an F10 chassis BMW 535D (presumably in the 2014-2016 model years) in the wild, and it was nice to see them still around, even if they may not be immensely as popular as they once were.
SEND_ME_FAKE_NEWS@reddit
You have to compare like to like, not all cars serve the same purpose.
The vehicles that compete with the Land Cruiser mostly have shit fuel economy.
Pitiful-Mobile-3144@reddit
I like the comparison of 4Runners and Wranglers. Both are midsize body on frame off-roaders, both have garbage fuel economy, both have strong resale value, but only 1 has legendary reliability. For that comparison, the reliability is a huge factor
Potato_Farmer_Linus@reddit
Everything is relative, I suppose. My 4th Gen bronco got 11 mpg, and my 3rd gen 4runner gets 19 mpg
Beneficial-Focus3702@reddit
That’s so nuts in this day and age
420_autistic_regard@reddit
It's well outside the bell curve the vast majority of Bronco owners report, and with the potential for mods, etc. I would bet a similarly equipped 4runner would get similar mpg. Never mind the Bronco's 3.0tt would stop all over a 4runner.
Pitiful-Mobile-3144@reddit
So much of off-roader mpg comes down to tires and gearing. I’m getting around 24mpg on stock tire sizes and stock gearing, but my old build jeep was lucky to get 13mpg with 33’s, a lift, and a regear. It’s tough to have a true apples to apples comparison for sure
RFK_Cum_Regimen@reddit
The number of people that throw on a lift with off-road terrain tires only to drive around the suburbs is amusing to say the least.
Feeling-Visit1472@reddit
And it’s such a rough ride, too 🙄
ManufacturerBest2758@reddit
They need it to get to their air conditioned email job
gstringstrangler@reddit
Still gotta get home, homie
Potato_Farmer_Linus@reddit
My bronco and 4runner were/are on totally stock drive trains. The bronco had a paintjob, that's it, 4runner is bone stock.
captainnowalk@reddit
The fourth gen bronco was like 1987-91 right? If it was anything like my suburban from 1989, he’s right in the same area, but I got as low as 7 if I was exclusively driving around the city lol
gixxer710@reddit
lol you’re comparing a new bronco, he said a 4th gen bronco, so either a 298 straight 6, 302 or 351 windsor, low single digits sounds about right….
Potato_Farmer_Linus@reddit
4th gen bronco. 1989
Beneficial-Focus3702@reddit
It just boggles my mind that we haven’t been able to make a gas engine more capable with less fuel considering how long they have been around now.
RandomGenName1234@reddit
European cars are great, there's just zero incentive in the US to sell you actually economic cars.
My 2012 1-series for example comes with a 1.6 liter turbo engine and without much hassle I get it down to 5l pr 100km (47 US mpg) and that's not even that good for a car here.
A good small diesel can blow that out of the water, breaking 70MPG.
Background_Value519@reddit
Engines are significantly better in fuel economy on a L to L and displacement to power ratio. Vehicles are much heavier on a footprint basis than in the past.
420_autistic_regard@reddit
We can, it's just society (regulators) values other things more importantly, namely emissions at the expense of fuel economy.
Orionsbelt@reddit
We have... But we've also mandated fuel standards and emissions standards and safety standards all kinds of other things which take away from a raw most efficient engine, or add weight to a car.
su1ac0@reddit
Which only makes me scratch my head further at the dumping of V8's to pursue turbo 4 hybrids that do nothing better than the V8's, not even mpg.
Potato_Farmer_Linus@reddit
I'm not sure what people are missing here. 11 mpg was a 1989 5L v8, making 185 hp. That is terrible.
19 mpg is a 1997 3.4L v6, making 183 hp. That is also not good, although the reliability is legendary.
A new turbo 4 beats both on power and efficiency.
su1ac0@reddit
Sure, go back 35+ years and you can cherry pick your examples.
But modern v8's crush all those metrics. We replaced 400hp understressed V8's for hybrid turbo 4's that get the same mpg.
Potato_Farmer_Linus@reddit
I'm not cherry picking, those are the last two vehicles I purchased
penguinchem13@reddit
My 2nd gen 4Runner (3.slo, 5spd) got 22 mpg. My current Bronco (2.3L, 7spd) gets 21.5 mpg. My Bronco is much larger and has almost double the power.
RFK_Cum_Regimen@reddit
I've only driven 95,000 miles over the last 18 years. Not even sure what my MPG is. 16-24mpg, perhaps. Cost of fuel is hardly my top concern.
peakdecline@reddit
Edmunds has a Total Cost of Ownership tool you can use to compare the first 5 years of different models.
Funny enough say a 2021 Wrangler Rubicon 4XE versus a 2021 4Runner TRD Pro.... the Rubicon 4XE is $2K less on fuel but $2K more on repairs for basically a near dead even TCO. (These are all just projections based on data collected by Edmunds)
seamus_mc@reddit
I dont think the 4xE makes it to 5 years old though. Aren’t the latest updates bricking them?
peakdecline@reddit
Poor reporting. These were not truly bricked. You could self recover. And first year 4xes will reach 5 years in 2026.
seamus_mc@reddit
They are generally not well received. I know people that drive them or did before dumping them before the new debacle.
FMJoey325@reddit
Id rather spend more on fuel as an expected cost than deal with any reliability issues that impact use. Not sure what criteria they use, though.
peakdecline@reddit
Within the expected costs on these... for me its going to be much more about other factors specific to my use.
As a person whose often wrestled with the "do I just buy the Toyota?" demon the 'other factors' are what keep me away from one. My reasons, such as the cost to modify a Toyota to off-road capability levels other brands offer from factory and the potential impact that has on reliability and warranty coverage, likely do not apply to others.
But I do still find Edmunds' tool fun to use and a decent starting point for these comparisons on cost.
FMJoey325@reddit
Ah yeah I can totally see that as an additional hurdle. I tend to buy a lot of cars secondhand rather than new, so the bias usually tips toward more reliable cars purely based off of what survives.
StanknBeans@reddit
Yeah the cost of convenience between those two would be massively different.
dbcanuck@reddit
...which is also why they're BAD family SUVs, where the biggest offroad challenges they experience are snowbanks 3 times a year and perhaps jumping a curb at Costco on a Saturday.
4Runner and Highlanders are both 4x4s, both Toyota, but only one has good fuel economy.
spankyiloveyou@reddit
I think the unreliability of the Wrangler is overblown. I see tons of TJs and JK Wranglers still on the road, and their numbers rival the 3rd and 4th gen 4Runners.
If their reliability were really that bad, they'd all be in the junkyard by now.
The Jeep 4.0 and 3.6 Pentastar motors are both considered very reliable
Efficient_Gap4785@reddit
The first JKs with the 3.8 were underpowered and had oil issues, and I think that’s where the complaints began. The 4XE has definitely been a big part of the reputation hit to the Wrangler. I have no clue how good or bad the 2.0L turbo, the 3.0L EcoDiesel V6 or V8 are on the newer models. I agree though the 3.6 is solid and obviously the 4.0 was legendary.
squirrel8296@reddit
The 2.0L Turbo has actually proven to be the most reliable modern Jeep engine. There were some electrical gremlins on the early ones with the mild hybrid system, but since then I haven’t heard of any major issues. It’s also a relatively simple 4 cylinder DOHC so there isn’t a lot that can go wrong to being with, especially if the machine is done.
SSLByron@reddit
The 3.8 is way better than the early 3.6, but the JK was just a cheap mess in general. Tons of brake issues, fuel tank/filter housing mating issues (and sometimes unrelated evap issues), bad PCV valves, etc. Later JKs are better.
Even the TJs could nickel-and-dime you to death. Water pumps in the AMC engines, ignition switches. The 4-cylinder gearboxes weren't very robust either.
The 2.0T and 3.6L JL from about 2021 on seem to be pretty solid, at least.
bitesized314@reddit
Yesterday, I saw a Wrangler that was making loud noises while the guy was driving 5 miles an hour.
How many times have you seen a Toyota product act like that?
danny_ish@reddit
?? The 3.6 pentastar is the opposite of reliable. Anything pentastar branded was known to kill itself in 70k miles
Pitiful-Mobile-3144@reddit
Mine have all been bulletproof too, but Wranglers aren’t known for reliability overall and it definitely hurts their perception.
Ih8Hondas@reddit
4.0 Wranglers are legendarily reliable. AMC based I6es will run long after the sun burns out.
Pitiful-Mobile-3144@reddit
The 4.0s are great, I had one in my LJ. But I always hate when people bring them up because those are all in 20 year old cars with plenty of other age-related issues that severely impact the reliability
Ih8Hondas@reddit
I mean, as long as you keep up on maintenance, you're not likely to have any issues that impact your ability to drive it. So I would say they're legendarily reliable even now.
Pitiful-Mobile-3144@reddit
But that’s true for any car. A Ferrari is legendarily reliable if you do all required maintenance and replace all the parts that break, you can make any car last a lifetime if you keep putting time and money into it.
The reliability 2005 is simply not the same as that of a 2021 Camry in the eyes of 99% of people
Mustangfast85@reddit
Yet people in some forums will fight you that a 20 yo Camry is going to have problems because it’s old…
Ih8Hondas@reddit
Except there won't really be anything that breaks in a 4.0 powered Jeep. Just stick to the service schedule and you're golden.
DaggumTarHeels@reddit
Alternator, water pump, fuel pump, etc.
Had a 4.0L. Solid car, but hardly infallible.
Ih8Hondas@reddit
Water pumps are basically consumables on a lot of engines. Not a frequent replacement, but they are somewhat regular.
Alternators seem to fail on a lot of stuff too.
Those are just maintenance items to me.
Haven't ever had a fuel pump fail in a four wheeled vehicle though. Had one fail on a GSXR750 but that's it in my experience.
danny_ish@reddit
Idk man, im a gm fan. Ive replaced plenty of oil pumps, water pumps, and alternators.
I also have 2 hondas and a toyota with 500k+ on all original engine driven accessories. That is reliable, these other things are shit in comparison
Ih8Hondas@reddit
Quite the opposite here. I fucking hate GM. Lol. Oil pumps should never need replaced, so idkwtf you got going on there.
I don't care if it's a Toyota, I will never trust even a 150k mile water pump. That's just playing with fire.
Also just had my first upper coolant hose rupture last night on the Subaru 250k. Also something I should have replaced, but a new one for me nonetheless.
spekt50@reddit
The 6th gen 4runner is not nearly as bad with the hybrid drive train. I get about 25 highway, 18 city with mine. But my previous car was a 392 charger that averaged 12 mpg, so I feel that it's quite an improvement.
bearded_dragon_34@reddit
I’d say the 4Runner is also an order of magnitude more comfortable and easier to drive. The Wrangler’s solid front axle and recirculating ball steering make it pretty laborious to drive on the highway, not to mention that it’s that much less aerodynamic.
Both of them do have solid rear axles, though.
DudeWhereIsMyDuduk@reddit
I have a lot of seat time between Tacomas and Wranglers, and honestly, I can't feel much of a difference. Where you notice it is how it reacts to bumps, but it's nothing horrible.
I also learned to drive on a TTB-equipped '91 Ford, so my level of what's "bad" is probably different from someone who started out with a Civic.
bearded_dragon_34@reddit
Oh, the Tacoma (at least until the current model) has always been pretty uncomfortable. But the 4Runner was usually a nice blend between comfort and utility in a way that the Wrangler (and Tacoma) was not.
ahtoxa1183@reddit
Accurate. I’ve had both (in stock and modded form) and the 4Runner is quieter, tracks and steers better and is just more civil. I remember a road trip of 600 miles in the Wrangler was exhausting due to constant steering corrections needed.
bearded_dragon_34@reddit
I feel you. My partner has a 2022 JLU, and it just sucks on the highways. Plus, it’s RHD (he’s a rural mail carrier).
Pitiful-Mobile-3144@reddit
And the 22’s are SO much better than the JKs before them, and those JKs are SOOO much better than the TJs before them. I went from a 2006 to a 2020 and it’s like Mercedes S Class compared to my old jeep
bearded_dragon_34@reddit
Yes, to the Wrangler’s credit, it has improved monumentally each time it’s been redesigned. His spare is a 2011 or 2012 JKU, also in RHD, and however uncomfortable the JLU is, the JKU is quite a bit worse.
ahtoxa1183@reddit
My 4Runner is strictly a trail/rec rig and even here in the mountains the wrangler has a clear edge off-road only on the more difficult trails (when you compare the two with similar mods and tire size). Once you have a geared and locked wrangler on 40s, it’s like an easy button on obstacles, though.
bearded_dragon_34@reddit
Yeah, the Wrangler is definitely fit-for-purpose when it comes to off-roading. And it’s great for my partner’s rural route, which includes a ton of dirt and gravel roads, and ruts and sometimes light water fording.
But a 4Runner would have worked just as well, and I’m sure he’d have bought that instead if it had been available in RHD. Especially since Chrysler charges a steep $16K premium, or so, for ordering a RHD car, so the thing was about $56K…well into 4Runner territory at that point.
Significant_Play_713@reddit
The straight 6 wrangler (and XJ cherokee) was solid af. When they added all the electronics and switched to a v6 is where it went to shit.
Manginaz@reddit
The drivetrain was, they had lots of other issues though.
hi_im_bored13@reddit
Yeah the cost of time & disruption to schedule breaking down for many folks well outweighs any fuel savings
Same calculation you need to do when buying a few of the Hyundai models. Is a few grand in savings & 10yr warranty worth the chance of a few hours stranded on the side of the road, + weeks of dealing with the dealer?
Evidently by Hyundai sales hundreds of thousands would say yes. Evidently by Toyota sales hundreds of thousands will also say no
Gregorovich@reddit
With Hyundai/Kia there's a security question too. Are people going to figure out a super easy way to steal these in 4/5 years time? The fact that it keeps happening and then a bunch of the cars disappear, insurance goes way up (or companies refuse to insure them at all) is the reason I would never buy one of their products. It's a shame because on the surface I really don't dislike their stuff.
accountforrealppl@reddit
I believe that issue was pretty much only due to the lack of immobilizer, which is a super basic feature in cars. That was a massive miss by them, but to my knowledge they haven't had any other major security flaws.
All hyundai models produced after November 2021 are equipped with immobilizers as standard equipment.
hannahranga@reddit
And it was entirely down to them being cheap, outside of NA they came with immobilizers and didn't get stolen
bullyXLdisrespector@reddit
I don't think the majority of people driving 4Runners and Tacomas are high-strung hustler types who own a business or have some 996 finance/law job or whatever mythologized lifestyle you're alluding to.
hi_im_bored13@reddit
i'm not alluding to that at all, you don't have to be that type to value not breaking down w family & friends
bullyXLdisrespector@reddit
I don't have a high opinion of say a Ford Ranger but it's completely unreasonable to expect to get stranded by a new one. Or even to end up in a situation where it's in the shop but you don't have a loaner.
nottaroboto54@reddit
I mean maybe its different in europe, but in the US, maybe 5 land cruisers have ever been on dirt, and 3 of them were because they had a flat tire and pulled off the road to wait for a tow truck, so essentially, they do serve the same purpose. Dont get me wrong, i appreciate most 4 wheel vehicles, but in actuality, over 99% of any big passenger vehicles will never see a situation that a ford focus hatch can't reasonably handle. And even for fringe cases, you can rent a box truck for a day for like $40usd.
epihocic@reddit
That's not true at all, one of the biggest markets for LandCruiser is Australia, where we have other diesel utes (light trucks in the US I believe), we are starting to see these being hybridised with Toyota releasing a Hilux hybrid, Ford releasing a Ranger Hybrid, and BYD Shark.
They don't even sell the LC V8 anymore, it's a 4 cylinder turbo diesel these days.
trippinpotato@reddit
Can confirm the competition also is terrible on fuel. My parents have a G500 and it’s averaged 12.5mpg over the last 300k miles. 🤣
sawdeanz@reddit
Yeah OPs post makes no sense. There are plenty of fuel efficient sedans that have legendary reliability.
Defenseman7@reddit
Hey a fellow TTRS owner! There’s at least 2 of us!
SEND_ME_FAKE_NEWS@reddit
At least!
bstyledevi@reddit
What do you mean, you don't go get groceries in your Ferrari? Or go rock climbing in your Honda Accord?
SEND_ME_FAKE_NEWS@reddit
My wife and I use our TT for everything, you’d be surprised how big a Costco run can fit in the hatch.
bearded_dragon_34@reddit
I have a friend with a 2010 Jaguar XKR Coupe, and same. He does everything in that car. Liftback coupes are slept on as practical rides. 😂
bearded_dragon_34@reddit
My Range Rover (2020 Autobiography LWB) gets much better fuel economy than a Land Cruiser or LX 570. With a supercharged 5.0 V8 and 510 HP, it’ll do around 18 MPG in the city and I’ve had it as high as 23 MPG on the highway.
Of course, the Range Rover is rated for premium fuel, where the Land Cruiser is not. Oddly, the LX 570 is rated for premium, but both cars have the same engine with the same 10.2:1 compression ratio…so I’d err on the side of the LX 570 not needing premium, either. Beyond that, the Range Rover’s depreciation, maintenance and repair costs are ridiculous, so I imagine it’s much more expensive to own than either of the Toyota trucks. Especially if you bought it new.
A better comparison might be something like a prior Armada or QX80 with the 5.6-liter V8. Those are reliable enough, larger than the Toyotas, and have perfectly reasonable ownership/running costs. They also have more modern tech (for the 2021+ ones). And yet they transact for tens of thousands less, because they don’t have the same cachet.
TunakTun633@reddit
I'm not sure you do in this case.
If every consumer rationally assessed their needs, resulting in a list of 2-3 direct competitors, I would totally understand this way of thinking. But you can't expect rationality like that all the time.
People buy Jeeps and 4Runners for the vibe, when they could have bought a Highlander Hybrid with 2x the fuel economy. Or a Camry.
SwissMargiela@reddit
Honestly even if you’re comparing something like a $15k GX470 vs a newer $30k SUV that gets 30ish mpg, this is def something to think about if you’re gonna be holding onto it for a while.
Bicycle_Dude_555@reddit
Except the vast majority of cars aren't used for designed purposes. Porsche GT3's, Land Cruisers, lifted pickup trucks - they trundle around straight suburban roads. Are those Land Cruisers cruising around Africa at refugee camps? Driving in roadless areas all the time? They are status symbols, but where's the status in spending an extra $50,000 on fuel? And going to the gas station all the time?
sfbiker999@reddit
When you can pay $60K for an SUV, you might value reliability over fuel economy.
ChaosBerserker666@reddit
$60k is the price of a loaded RAV4 these days. I think the LR is a lot more expensive
sfbiker999@reddit
I just looked at the base model pricing online, I have no idea what a fully loaded model costs or which ones people drive. But no matter what, if you have the cash (or can afford the payment) on a $60K+ car, you probably don't care too much about the mpg.
At $4/gallon and 1000 miles/month, the difference between 15mpg and 20mpg is only $66. If you take out a 5 year loan on the car you're probably paying $800+/month on it.
Mjolnir12@reddit
The new land cruiser is smaller than the V8 ones OP is talking about; that was the last gen one which had a V8 and was bigger. The current US land cruiser is a 4 cylinder turbo hybrid. It also doesn’t get the epa rated fuel economy at all. You would be lucky to get 20 mpg combined.
ChaosBerserker666@reddit
Well yes and no. Some people do, some don’t. My car fully loaded with all taxes was $96k CAD and I paid it off in 18 months, but I sure as hell care about efficiency. The operating costs are super low. I am saving almost $400 a month in gas with how much we drive (bought an EV and traded in my M440i). I’m not fabulously wealthy but I’m glad I did this. Even people who can afford it don’t like to waste money if they don’t have to.
In the case of the Land Cruiser, people spend the extra in fuel because of what the vehicle can do. It’s way more capable than a CUV or sedan.
Rude-Manufacturer-86@reddit
I'd rather pay for gas than repairs.
_n00n@reddit
It matters when you are in Australia outback with vast distances between towns and you don't want to break down.
Captain_Alaska@reddit
Out LC’s are almost all diesels (the petrol V8 was briefly offered but wasn’t at all popular) you can’t get any of them (300, 70, Prado) with a petrol in Australia at the moment.
droiddayz@reddit
You can get a GX 550 with the petrol engine in Australia
hannahranga@reddit
The diesels have fairly decent fuel mileage, but also they also have huge tanks.
MaimedTiger@reddit
Or if you're a military recon team where gas prices aren't a concern - the missions success and most likely your entire life is dependent on the vehicle as well
vargemp@reddit
Then you use 2.8 NA diesel or whatever they still make.
MrH4nds0m3@reddit
Depends on your commute honestly. My Expedition has the boat anchor 4.6 V8, when I first bought it it would average about 13mpg. Currently I average 17 after doing some major maintenance. Not bad for a 3.5 ton brick with 230hp.
avaling89@reddit
It's trust, feel, and nostalgia for most people. A Land Cruiser is more than just a means of transportation, it's a never ending tank. Peace of mind, not MPG, is what you pay for.
Secret-Writer5687@reddit
Diesels are an enigma, I don't like the useless power delivery, smell, emissions, cost. To me the marginal increase in mpg is not worth the nasty trade off. Ev is preferred over a diesel.
thentheresthattoo@reddit
When your car breaks down.
Accomplished-Exit136@reddit
Just like to point out 3 bucks a gallon is absolutely nothing. Adjusted for inflation gas hasnt been cheaper for 50 years. Will it stay that way? Well, no.
AteYerCake4U@reddit
IMO it has more to do with peace of mind that their vehicle will run when they need it to every time without fail. That peace of mind to them is worth letting their wallet get eaten by the higher fuel consumption.
TornadoCondorV2@reddit
Or just get any other Toyota or Honda and they'll be as reliable with much better mpg
hannahranga@reddit
The only 4x4 Honda was a rebadged disco where you got the choice between a underpowered (but fuel efficient) 2.5l turbo diesel or rover V8 with both worse fuel consumption and reliability.
uha@reddit
100%
NobodyEsk@reddit
My truck is reliable but its got shit mpg. Thats why I have a hybrid sedan as a daily. I cant afford $400 just to drive around its as much as a car payment.
maybach320@reddit
Just wait till he sees the fuel economy numbers for the new Land Cruiser with its 4cyl.
THEREALCABEZAGRANDE@reddit
Because it can crawl all over God's green earth for 300k miles with that reliability while carrying 4 people, all their camping gear, and a couple canoes. Oh, and they'll be comfortable while its doing it too.
EADetails@reddit
Others already pointed out how comparing an economy car to a full time 4WD is not a good test. But I'd like to also point out that your numbers are off for real world MPG. It's not good, but the lifetime MPG for my 100 series LX470 is 15.24. that is 50% better than what you're going off of.
To be extra clear, you don't buy an LC for fuel economy. You buy it to have a spacious, comfortable, off road capable vehicle that you can maintain and keep on the road for a long time.
swagfarts12@reddit
OP is overexaggerating for sure, my LX470 with a 2.5 inch lift and 33" tires gets like 16-17 on the highway and 13-15 around town
spykid@reddit
My gx460 gets about 11mpg around town, 14-15 max. 3in lift, 33s, steel bumper, full skids, roof rack, awning
AwesomeBantha@reddit
I get 10-13 around town and 14-16 on the highway with 33s, front/rear bumpers, no roof rack. Friend with a 2 in lift and a roof rack gets higher city MPG but worse highway MPG than me, probably because I’m basically at the weight rating with full tanks/jerry cans.
banned_from_r_cars@reddit
Let's just say I have a nice GX460 know for it's reliability and it takes premium.
Our other car is a Model Y Performance. That gets probably like me 75% of our miles per year. The GX is simply expensive to drive. $80 to fill the tank and Lexus dealerships.charge like $200 for oil changes and 5000mi inspections.
The used Model Y Performance monthly payment+ insurance+ electricity is only like $100 a month more than what we paid on gasoline alone on the GX as a 1 car household for a while.
TB_Fixer@reddit
Right tool for the job. If you’re looking to own a Land Cruiser; then what are you driving back and forth to work or going around town in? Not a Land Cruiser that’s for sure.
A_Pointy_Rock@reddit
[Laughs in British fuel prices]
bootsechz@reddit
Yeah we pay almost £6 ($8) for a US gallon of fuel.
But my estate car does 40 miles per uk gallon. A UK gallon is approx 20% larger than a US gallon. So our mpg figures are also skewed.
Teledildonic@reddit
You also have a functional public transit system that can get you most places with little hassle.
I love cars, but their necessity in many parts of America is downright depressing.
WhatDoWeHave_Here@reddit
Ain't that the truth. We'd all be able to enjoy cars more and buy increasingly impractical fun toy cars if we didn't need to rely on them so much for daily life. If didn't NEED a car and took public transit to commute everyday, then for weekend fun I'd get a little Lotus Exige and rip around for shits and giggles.
marbleduck@reddit
Honestly as someone who loves cars, I’d also love it if I didn’t have to drive it everywhere. I liked living places where I could take the car out when the mood struck me rather than every single day out of necessity.
Torogthir@reddit
Wow, that's a lot of furlongs to the firkings on those gallons .
BewareOfLurkers@reddit
Pence per liter? Seriously?
Brits can’t use GPM or L/100km like the rest of the world? It’s like when they invented the word “soccer” and then stopped using it.
gumol@reddit
who uses GPM or L/100km for fuel prices?
1995LexusLS400@reddit
L/100km makes sense because you put in 5 litres, you know you'd be able to do 100km, assuming the car gets 5L/100km.
A_Pointy_Rock@reddit
How would the fuel station know your car's efficiency?
1995LexusLS400@reddit
…
They don’t. You do. You know how far you need to go, you put in enough fuel to get that distance.
A_Pointy_Rock@reddit
...which is the system we have. I am not sure what you are arguing for here.
1995LexusLS400@reddit
Not in the UK, which is what the comment chain is talking about.
In the UK, fuel is sold by litres and cars are advertised in miles per gallon.
gumol@reddit
Yeah, I lived in both MPG and l/100km countries.
But none of those are fuel prices.
ExplosiveMachine@reddit
Most European publications? at least that's how cars are talked about and advertised here in the Balkans.
gumol@reddit
I lived in Europe, I’ve never seen a gas station that had l/100km gas price. How would that even work?
ExplosiveMachine@reddit
oh yeah shit, thats on me, didn't read the "fuel price" part. it's the metric for fuel economy, yeah price is €/L, anything else doesn't make sense.
stakoverflo@reddit
That's how it's sold in Canada. Pennies per Liter.
A_Pointy_Rock@reddit
Pence per litre isn't weird, most countries use pence/cents/whatever per litre.
What is weird is that we use Miles per Gallon for efficiency but buy fuel in litres. Also, our gallons are different than American ones, because why not?
dumahim@reddit
The different gallon thing is something I feel so many people overlook when comparing fuel efficiency between the countries.
A_Pointy_Rock@reddit
Yes, but also - many vehicles here are much smaller and/or have much smaller engines.
dumahim@reddit
I'm talking about apples to apples situations. Same car, same engine.
KenEarlysHonda50@reddit
>Brits can’t use GPM or L/100km like the rest of the world?
I'm always ready to have a good go at The Brits and their Britisherness, but what even is this?
Stropi-wan@reddit
I believe ir would have value in the farming community, especially mountainous terrain. I saw stock standard Cruisers used as recovery vehicles at off road racing events & doing the job effortless.
ClaudeVS@reddit
I think it's more the diesel Land cruisers that get the good reputation. They're a lot better, about 22mpg when you convert it from L/100km.
0peRightBehindYa@reddit
I'm more concerned with "smiles per gallon" over "miles per gallon". My current car averages 19mpg on regular (closer to 13 on E85), but it's such fun to drive that those 250 miles between fillups are worth the cost.
cambat2@reddit
There ain't many smiles in a landcruiser day to day lol. It's a very boring car to drive on pavement
0peRightBehindYa@reddit
That's unfortunate. You should get something more fun.
cambat2@reddit
I used to daily a 66 Mustang that I restored myself. Put a 347 stroker in it, swapped the 3spd auto with a Toploader, added AC, added some nice speakers, all that. I still have it as a weekend car, but after daily driving that for years, I found a lot of value in being able to actually trust a car to start and get me where I need to go every single time. I'd rather put money into the tank than into the engine these days.
vampyrelestat@reddit
Happy medium is an old Corolla or Tercel
dakta@reddit
2003 Camry XLE with a head unit swap: - Extremely comfortable heated, electric, leather seats - Classic cruise control that just works - Heat and A/C with automatic climate control - CarPlay and a backup camera - Real-world 27mpg average on the 4cyl
kbunnell16@reddit
You do not buy a Land Cruiser or similar for good fuel economy.
bigev007@reddit
Nobody in the US cares about fuel costs, because it's almost always absurdly cheap. So never
fuzokuzo@reddit
Before I even opened this thread, I knew it was on the land cruiser.
dreesemonkey@reddit
At certain income levels, gas prices are irrelevant. You are going to drive a certain amount, so if it costs $300 or double that, it doesn’t really matter.
BoringBob84@reddit
TLDR: Subliminal advertising is effective at making us buy much more than we need.
Toyota stole the design of the Land Rover to make the original Land Cruiser. The Land Rover was a vehicle that was designed to explore rough terrain that did not have modern infrastructure. It had to be reliable, it had to be very tough, it had to be flexible and spacious, and it had to be able to travel very long distances before refueling. Thus, it had a small engine. It didn't need power and speed because it rarely could exceed 35 MPH on dirt paths.
In modern times, advertisers have captured that image of adventurous, independent, rugged explorers and sold it to car consumers in congested cities - people who are desperate for a connection to adventure and to nature. Advertisers sell an emotional fantasy, rather than a car.
And in that process, manufacturers have transformed SUVs into luxury vehicles that have a vague resemblance to the originals in appearance, but that would be absolutely terrible vehicles for exploration. Imagine carpeted floors and leather seats on a rutted, muddy road in a rain forest!
The modern Toyota Land Cruiser is no exception. The enormously-thirsty engine would leave you stranded without fuel in a truly rugged and remote terrain. But then, no one who buys that will actually take it there ... outside of their fantasies.
cloudguy-412@reddit
You don’t have to put premium in that
quiksi@reddit
V8 Land Cruisers use 87, not premium
AwesomeBantha@reddit
Mine has a “premium fuel required” sticker on the gas door. Been running 87 since I got it at 280k miles, and that was 3 years and 35k miles ago. No engine issues or knocking.
The only people I know with a 100 or 200 who use premium all have superchargers.
cambat2@reddit
Never put anything higher than 87 in my 100 series and it's been fine. My 2013 LX570 says premium recommended, and it does get a decent boost of power from it, but it has not a single issue with 87
quiksi@reddit
Allegedly the LX has a different tune that can benefit from 91/93 but I can’t imagine that being very noticeable.
AwesomeBantha@reddit
I’ve heard that too, but I feel like if there were a noticeable tune, people would be swapping ECUs, and as far as I know, nobody’s doing that for the 100.
TurboSalsa@reddit
The "legendary reliability" thing is a bit of a circlejerk, particularly in Land Cruiser circles, to rationalize paying $20k for 25 year old cars that aren't great daily drivers. They're very well-built cars, though I don't think the delta is as large as it was when the 100 Series was being sold.
Having suspension components that are 2x as thick as what's on other vehicles and may last 150k instead of 75k miles isn't a matter of life or death for 99.99% of motorists, let alone for people who buy them as second or third vehicles and probably won't take them much further off the beaten path than a fire road. As much as everyone loves the idea of things being overbuilt, there are penalties both in upfront cost and performance.
cambat2@reddit
I have 450k miles on my 2006 LX470 and the only thing I've had to replace was a radiator. My story is far from an uncommon one.
The only thing that worries me is the AHC going out, but the likelihood of that is mitigated a lot by replacing the fluid every 100k miles. Maintain the car, it will run forever.
There is a variant of the 1UZ-FE engine that is the only automotive engine certified for aircraft use because of it's reliability.
DudeWhereIsMyDuduk@reddit
I've been stuck behind enough Tacomas with blown Birfields that the circlejerk never rubbed off on me.
BigAnxiousSteve@reddit
Some people dont give a shit about gas mileage, they just dont want to deal with any mechanical failures.
cambat2@reddit
I have a 100 series and a 200 series LX that my wife and I daily drive.
My first car that I daily drove for years was a 66 Mustang that I worked over the years to restore.
At this point, I would rather put my money into the fuel tank rather than the engine. I put more value in trusting that my car will start and be able to drive across the country with no issues than I do the cost of the fuel. Knowing that my car will always be able to get me home is worth more than an extra 10mpg.
danny_ish@reddit
Wild we have such different experience, kinda cool. What i got going on there is that small block chevy’s are known to eat oil pumps. Those little push rods get bent. I’ve never had a water pump not make it 150k, even on my domestic cars. My 2003 6.0 suburban went 320k on its first, my 2015 5.0 Mustang went 270k.
Coolant hoses and belts every 6-7 years regardless of mileage has been my mantra. Seems to work for me. Around that time all the rubber is going bad anyway, so I often have to do window seals and door seals. Generally i get 2 sets of wiper blades in that mileage as well.
Fun times. I fucken hate this hobby lmao
Helpful_Umpire_9049@reddit
Guess what rich people don’t care about? They don’t care about the price of gas.
clingbat@reddit
Similarly, at what point is legendary reliability if I get bored with the car and sell it after 30k miles? That's what happened with my 2015 Lexus GS350.
I'm done prioritizing reliability over driveability and general driving enjoyment personally, life is too short. If it's not an LC500 (or LFA), Lexus is dead to me.
Ghost1k25@reddit
Oh no, what will I do without capacitive buttons on my steering wheel
clingbat@reddit
No android auto at all and a track pad...
Ghost1k25@reddit
$700 module and 2 hours of labor to have fully functioning CarPlay on a stock screen vs having fingerprints all over the screen and steering wheel every time you drive the car. Difficult choice.
clingbat@reddit
I don't have any fingerprints on my steering wheel, and the touchscreen prints are ubiquitous with newer screens. Personally I hate Android Auto without a touch screen.
AngryScottish@reddit
As a 2nd gen Tundra owner, I feel this pain.
Had considered LS1 swap, then thought, it's a $10k truck. Why invest $10k into a $10k truck to get 4-5mpg more, when it's an appliance.
But to your point, there's too much math involved for me to find that break even point.
WhateverItTakes117@reddit
Do it! Better fuel economy, but also more power, still bullet proof reliability, ease of service ability, huuuuge aftermarket support. Might make it fun enough to elevate out of the "appliance" category
spykid@reddit
Don't think an LS swap is gonna come close to the reliability of the million mile tundra motor
AngryScottish@reddit
I don't need a fast full size truck. I have zero interest in barreling down traffic in a 5800lb poor handling refrigerator.
I just need it to move stuff and not break.
There are far better options for fun and/or fast.
SlyBeanx@reddit
If it’s 4-5mpg more and gas is say $2.8 per gallon and you drive like an average American 15k miles per year.
Thats about $1k saved per year.
So 10 years.
AngryScottish@reddit
If I had to drive a Tundra (or any truck, really) 15k/yr, I'd probably shoot myself.
I'm thankfully only driving it to the hardware store occasionally, and towing to race tracks every three months or so. Maybe 3k/yr.
SlyBeanx@reddit
So you’d get your investment back like… never.
Only redeeming quality would be that you could take the LS out at any time and put it into another truck very easily.
AngryScottish@reddit
It's why I quickly thought ls-swapping it was a really dumb idea.
That $10k is better spent on more reasonable things, like sequential dogboxes and turbos for cone-dodging cars.
EZKTurbo@reddit
Why tf would you LS swap a pickup that already has a 5.7L V8?? Just buy a Silverado
Quatermain@reddit
your estimates of their gas mileage are quite low.
spykid@reddit
Disregarding the fact that there aren't any cars getting 28mpg that match the capability of a land cruiser, reliability matters a lot when you're worried about getting stranded in the middle of nowhere
Solid_Enthusiasm550@reddit
I've worked on cars on the side and as a Dealer tech and the "Reliability" labels are not true. Sure you can buy one of them that never have any issues, but you can also go to england and it not raining which everyone says it is.
Every Honda in my family/ owned by friends had more problems than my mother's Chrysler Cirrus. My sister's Toyota 4 runner was the biggest POS.
Areonaux@reddit
also definitions of reliability are different, I'm sure most cars are reliable if you spend $10k a year and have to replace a bunch of stuff at regular intervals. Lower tech stuff and older cars are probably less reliable but can be a lot easier to fix too.
Solid_Enthusiasm550@reddit
I consider reliable as, only needing normal maintenance.
The_Safe_For_Work@reddit
I have 2 Landcruisers...gas mileage was not a selling point.
bobjr94@reddit
There are many people who daily drive and commute in suvs and trucks that just like that and live with 12-15mpg. Maybe because they are easy to work on or reliable like yours. One guy on here said he leases a Bolt for daily driving and keeps is 3500 dually diesel for the weekends. The cost of the lease was less that what he spent on gas so it's basically a free car, plus the cost of tires and oil changes on a 3500 isn't cheap.
I use to spend over $400-450 a month on gas, I always had turbo subarus (around 25mpg, premium gas) and now have an Ioniq 5. It's actually so much nicer now driving on of those EVs everyone hates. The saving on gas take off over half of the car payment, don't have to do an oil change 3-4 times a year, don't have to check the oil or top off fluids between oil changes. Don't have to stop for gas twice a week is a huge bonus since there is never a good time to get gas.
autoeroticassfxation@reddit
I have an old Diesel Landcruiser. Gets about 8-9km per litre of diesel compared with my girlfriend's Corolla which gets 11-12km per litre. Plus diesel is cheaper. The biggest cost by far on running an old Landcruiser with 200,000miles on it is the cost of parts and repairs. It's heavy duty stuff. On the other hand, if I bought a newer Landcruiser or similar I might get slightly better diesel mileage but the depreciation would be huge. As it stands I bought the cruiser for ~$4k and it's currently valued at $12k. USD
I would never but a petrol SUV. The efficiency is way worse.
moebiusgrip@reddit
The secret is, to get a 1st Gen Toyota Sequoia, that has the same engine and heavy duty parts, but gets 19-20mpg on the highway. Still gonna get 12 in the city though. No getting around moving 6,000 lbs with a V8 from a dead stop over and over.
I always wanted a land cruiser, settled on a 1st Gen 2005 Sequoia. 287hp, 294lbft of torque, 19mpg. ( i stripped out all the seats and consoles and use it more or less as a pick up truck, so its about 2-300 lbs lighter, and i can get a consistent 20mpg on the highway minus that additional weight)
The Truck has 159K miles on it so far, and its engine oil comes out golden yellow, because i change it every 3500-4000 miles on full synthetic. Starts up everytime. As its 21 years old in a few months, the main things that have broekn down are some of the plastic parts. Mainly, the floor panels by the drivers door that gets kicked a lot.
Some of the door handles finally cracked ( internal handles), and some of the rubber is getting old and cracked. Truck starts on one crank, every time, no matter the weather, temprature, or fuel.
I'm pretty convinced the 2UZ-FE VVTI engine will run ANYTHING flammable through it. They were designed to be used all over the world where fuel quality can be varied and keep going.
The Sequoia Subreddits are filled with cared for examples pushing 500,000 - 800,000 miles. The frames rusting away far before the drive train gives out. I have a California kept copy, and its absolutely rust free. I will keep this truck running for as long as I possibly can find parts. I imagine another 20+ years minus any accidents that total it.
I bought it used at 131K miles for $7,000 cash. Been driving it for 3 years not, with about $400 in motor oil and one Secondary Air injection system failure, which was about $1000 repairs.
$1400 total in three years for maintenance on a 20 year old truck, is a hell of a lot less than a new car payment.
d0ugfirtree@reddit
If you're into trucks at some point you just have to make peace with the fact that you get dogshit fuel economy.
HeavyCanuck@reddit
Yep, worst thing I ever did was buy my old Fiesta.
It was a fantastic car in pretty much every way, except that it gave me a taste of what 7L/100km is like. Going from it back to my normal of 12-15L/100 was rough lol. I wish I had the third driveway space for a little fuel sipper or a cheapass Leaf.
GaRGa77@reddit
I don’t mine high gas mileage as long as its reliable
losteye_enthusiast@reddit
Because gas is many times cheaper than replacing a drivetrain or eating the cost of being stranded for x time in a location.
And who cares about the cost of gas over the life of the vehicle? Wait, those people can buy something like a Prius that’s legendary for both its reliability and gas mileage.
In general though - you don’t buy a more specialized vehicle line a Land Cruiser if you’re scared of the gas cost. You should really get an alternative at that point.
Seref15@reddit
My car gets like 14mpg in the city but I also don't care
SimpleOkie@reddit
I got 17mpg on my 570 with 34's. 75% highway mile, and drove 160K mi on it. I traded in for a GX to beat the hell out of because globe valves, and a few other issues were gonna be on horizon and i wasnt keen o doing 15K in parts and my own labor.
My Avalanche 2500s were reliable as all get out, and did 250K between the two of em. -40, 115 in Nevada, didnt matter, reliable.
I value reliability. Repairs = downtime. Now that Im not driving 30K+ miles a year and legit <3K mi a year, I'll switch to something like a new Scout.
SavagRavioli@reddit
If you want land cruiser reliability and fuel mileage, buy a yaris and don't go offroad.
AwesomeBantha@reddit
1) Non turbo/supercharged Land Cruisers don’t require premium fuel as pointed out elsewhere in the comments.
2) Anecdotally, very few original owners put 250k miles on their Land Cruiser. So that cost is spread out proportionally across multiple owners. The people who buy them new who hold onto them for 20+ years usually have other vehicles so the mileage is lower and appreciate having a vehicle they can leave sitting for a long time and just start right up. I know very few people who have put 100s of thousands of miles on ther Land Cruisers themselves and they all fall into one of two categories: it’s a “work vehicle” so they get some type of mileage/gas reimbursement, or they’re super rich and don’t care about the cost as long as it gives them fewer problems.
3) For a long time, the fuel economy was not that much worse than other vehicles in their class. You couldn’t get a body on frame 28 MPG 8 seater SUV. Maybe you could get something that got 18 MPG instead of 16 MPG but that difference was negligible to lots of consumers.
Lord_Ka1n@reddit
I always say if I cared about gas mileage, I wouldn’t have three V8s.
lawman9000@reddit
I can get pretty awful fuel economy in my truck (paid off) and still do better every month than what a car note for something more efficient would run me, unless I want to dump cash into yet another depreciating asset.
As others have said, fuel economy isn't on someone's mind if they wanted a Land Cruiser. It wasn't on mine when I bought my truck, and being paid off, it really doesn't hit me that hard whatsoever.
Briggs281707@reddit
The 28mpg car is not something you want to drive.
I would never give up my 14-18mpg land yacht
Significant_Play_713@reddit
I'd rather have a car that I will be putting in my will due to it being unkillable and sacrifice fuel economy. Over a car that is efficient but at average or lower reliability.
My 1995 ford ranger was that car. It got like 13 mpg but I sold it running at 633k miles.
V48runner@reddit
This gets brought up all the time when talking about the Tundra or any of the Landcruiser variants.
Should we also talk about hard touch points?
EloeOmoe@reddit
It’s not just a cost factor, reliability is also a time sync for having your car in the shop and also the concern of you being stranded on the side of the road
BZJGTO@reddit
Only the 100 and 200 series have V8s (in the U.S. anyways), and just about every cruiser enthusiast would rather have the turbo diesel they didn't sell here (which are 6 cylinders for the 60/80/100 series, but still V8s for the 200).
After driving a V8 cruiser for a decade, the only time I ever got mileage this bad was when it is entirely low speed city driving. Daily driving right now I get about 13, on the highway going 70-80 mph I get 14-15, but if I drop down to ~65 mph then I can get 16-17. Best I've gotten over a whole tank is about 18.
But yeah, it's not great. My friends '87 turbo diesel cruiser regularly gets 20-22 on the highway and I'm jealous.
That's definitely above average for me, past few years has been mid $2s, probably closer to $2.60 or $2.70 over the last year. Also doesn't require premium. Some say they do for some unknown reason, but at some point they removed that without changing the engine/power. Even my later model with VVTi doesn't require premium.
Given the average mileage is around 12,000 a year, that's over 20-21 years. Even at your costs, that's only about $3,500 a year, which isn't that crazy. Using the ~135,000 I've driven in the past decade, 14 mpg overall, and $2.60/gal for gas, it's down a grand to about $2,500 a year, or just over $200 a month. If you can handle some maintenance yourself the costs generally aren't that bad, and you're spending way less than what a new car note would be.
Cause it's gotten me through so much, from flooded roads during Hurricane Harvey to mountain tops in Colorado. I can sleep in the back while camping or pull/tow other cars with it (or even an LMTV cab once). I've never had to worry about whether or not I can make it when driving on private property. When your car has a couple hundred thousand miles and is a decade or two old, you're not worried about every little bush or branch touching your paint. The all terrain tires only make gas mileage worse, but I'm not worried about inch long mesquite thorns giving me a flat.
I've been rear ended in it twice, the first time there was nothing but minor cosmetic damage, didn't even care to bother insurance about it. Second one totaled the cruiser and the car that hit me, but while the guy who hit me rode off in an ambulance, I drove off perfectly fine and people couldn't even tell the cruiser had even been hit. It was 25 years old with 330k miles when it got totaled, and it rarely left me stranded. A friend talked about how we should all get AAA for free tows, it's only 70 a year, but I only had it towed once, so I'd actually lose money on that. Realistically, I could have kept the "totaled" cruiser, but insurance offered me what I originally paid for it a decade prior, so I used that to upgrade to a nicer, slightly newer one. Barring another accident, I might drive this thing til I die (which I suppose could be from an accident).
Shishamylov@reddit
If you drive 10k miles per year, 10mpg would cost you $3000 in fuel whereas 30mpg would be $1000. That gives you a $2000 budget for repairs annually to break even.
Pattern_Is_Movement@reddit
Getting reliably to work or not being without your car for a week with zero notice is also worth something...
izwald88@reddit
Also, virtually any modern car is capable of easily going beyond 200k miles. The overwhelming majority of auto owners will never own a car for that long.
AscendantArtichoke@reddit
This very question is exactly why I won’t bother buying a car solely for reliability percentages. We cross shopped a Camry XLE and a Kia K5 EX. Both had all the same options and honestly the Kia felt lighter/quicker on its feet, and the Kia was $10k less.
60k miles on the K5 now and it’s given us zero problems. Even if we did have a few minor things go wrong (as all cars inevitably do) we would still be under purchasing price of the Camry. The “reliability tax” makes zero sense to me. I even have a 2014 Ford Fusion with 160k miles on it now and I’ve only ever done maintenance.
Buying a Toyota/Mazda/Honda solely because of reliability might work for some people, but I’ll take my chances and buy a car that actually feels better to drive/own.
unnamed_elder_entity@reddit
As if Land Cruiser owners actually balance their accounts or make payments. They have staff for that.
Niyeaux@reddit
the good Land Cruisers are all turbo diesel. they get pretty good mileage.
Creative_Garbage_121@reddit
200k is legendary reliability only if your plan is to do no maintenance during this time, almost any modern engine is able to hit that mileage with much lower fuel consumption with proper maintenance
Ftpini@reddit
I average about 16 MPG. In literally no way does that reduce my enjoyment of my car. If you’re actually buying a new land cruiser, you almost certainly don’t care about fuel economy in a meaningful way.
palmoyas@reddit
Just got rid of my perfectly running V8 4Runner because of this (15-17 mpg). Now I have a Lexus ES300h (38-41ish mpg).
Dp04@reddit
Reliability isn’t just about cost to repair, it’s also about time the vehicle is out of service.
If it’s your only car, being broken is a HUGE issue.
luckandpreparation@reddit
Truck people are used to that level of mpg. That lifted pickup with mud tires flying by on the stroad? He's getting like 5 mpg.
Ya don't buy a LC if you're worried about the cost of gas.
wtcnbrwndo4u@reddit
I knew this thread would be about an LC. I daily my 80 Series. I do also get 11-13MPG, about 207K now on my 1FZ.
Bulletproof is also place dependent. I would prefer my LC not break down while taking 4x4 mountain passes. I'll take 11MPG over a breakdown any day.
AgonizingGasPains@reddit
Depends on how many miles you drive, why, and what your options are. For example, if you need that V8 to tow a trailer on weekends (say 30 miles x2 days= 60 miles), but not for the round-trip daily commute, (25miles x 2 x 5 days= 250 miles) over 10 years that's 52x60=31,200 miles in the Land Cruiser and 130k miles in commuting. Removing the Land Cruiser from commuting (130,000/11mpg=11,818 gallons, or $35,454. So if you bought a commuter car that in total (purchase, fuel, insurance and maintenance) was less than $35k it would be worth getting a second, more fuel-efficient car for that length of time.
There are definite advantages to owning multiple vehicles, and often it isn't as expensive as people think, particularly in situations where you need for example a truck for towing or hauling, and a commuter vehicle that gets good mileage and fits in a parking garage.
Mojave_Idiot@reddit
Realistically, by 175k or so you should be seriously looking into replacing basically everything rubber or suspension related. This list can go crazy.
You can expect starter, alternator, ps rack, ac, cooling system, belts, fuel pump, cv boots or the whole things, fan pulley clutch, and so on. Maybe they don’t fail by this point but you should seriously looking into replacing them.
With that work they do hold up. I bought one at 190k, did most of the above sold it to a friend years ago at 240k, and now we’re back in the same city and he still has the truck with 310k miles on it.
And the CV boots are leaking again.
It won’t strand you but every single little old wives tale of “it’s just getting broken in at 250k!” is pure bullshit.
And even with all of the above I’d still consider a 100 series easily one of the most reliable mass produced vehicles on the planet. That’s just what reality looks like.
AwesomeBantha@reddit
After buying a 100 with 280k miles and easily spending more than I paid for it just maintaining the damn thing for 3.5 years, “it’s just getting broken in” is true for the engine and transmission (minus starter, timing belt, water pump) but almost nothing else.
At 315k miles I feel like I’m running out of things to replace… hopefully.
Mojave_Idiot@reddit
Sure but when you get that strict in the definition it’s useless.
When you pull apart a CV at 175k after the boots shredded the CV itself is gonna look almost brand new underneath but you’re still replacing the boot and the grease along with crawling under that thing and beating the shit out of it with a hammer and a brass drift…
I’ll concede that it’s not a totally meritless statement. But still, just because the rotating assembly in the block is doing great doesn’t mean you don’t have your work cut out.
DetectiveNarrow@reddit
Depends on the purpose of the car. I bought my FX45 for fun, it’s been dead solid reliable. I don’t mind the fact it gets 15 mpg and takes premium.
slowdesza@reddit
Man, I haven’t missed the LC in so long till I read this 😭
Informal_Drawing@reddit
By the time you've paid for all that extra fuel you could have bought a vehicle that was twice as nice.
TurboSalsa@reddit
It has full-time 4WD.
Informal_Drawing@reddit
I don't think that makes it worth it tbh.
TurboSalsa@reddit
It isn't, and the people who buy them use them for carpool, so they're burning a whole lot of fuel for nothing.
I'm sure someone will chime in and tell me how much stronger the transfer case is without a 2HI option but most other trucks and SUVs have one and their transfer cases don't spontaneously explode in the carpool line.
Informal_Drawing@reddit
I think that's the worst fuel economy i've ever seen tbh.
ucancallmevicky@reddit
I have that engine in a lexus gx 460. 164k miles on it. It is also why I have a 2015 nissan leaf that Ive had for about 8 months and put about 3k miles on it. Since I bought the leaf the 460 only gets used for long trips
spankyiloveyou@reddit
Most people who own a Land Cruiser have a Tesla or something as a second car, so it balances out.
MattTheMechan1c@reddit
It depends on the environment. If someone requires to traverse the Australia outback or an Arabian desert the Land Cruiser is THE vehicle to do it in. They actually have dual fuel tanks so even if the fuel mileage is bad they still have the range. But for those that drive on paved roads only then it makes sense. I actually know people that traded in their 4Runners for economy cars for that reason alone.
arenajumper@reddit
1.9 ALH tdi and 2.0 CJAA tdi. 500k+ miles and 50mpg on the way.
k_dubious@reddit
Reliability isn’t just about minimizing your running costs, it’s also about minimizing the hassle of having to fix things on your car.
popsicle_of_meat@reddit
For a daily? It really depends how far you drive, what else you use it for, etc. My commute is 5 miles one way. The difference between a 10mpg car and a 20mpg car is $1500 a year for me. Just over $100 a month. So it depends how easy that is to cover. It makes more sense for me to have one car that does all I need with worse mileage than to buy a second car.
That "point" is something YOU have to figure out. Can you park/store a second car? Can you justify the cost of owing a second car (insurance, licensing, etc). You have to do a cost analysis. My "point" is different than yours. I have a legendarily reliable truck that gets 10mpg for when I need to haul and tow. But got at a great price. I also have a reliable daily for around town. I have a garage and property to safely park multiple vehicles.
Straight6er@reddit
The world mileage record for a road car is held by a Volvo P1800 which gets 25mpg, reliability isn't tied to poor fuel economy.
handen@reddit
That can't be true. My Toyota Echo got 55mpg from Vancouver to Calgary last fall.
HeavyCanuck@reddit
He's talking about the record for total miles driven, not the record for fuel economy.
dc2b18b@reddit
It’s almost as if cost isn’t the sole factor people use when deciding which car to buy. Crazy, I know.
amishbill@reddit
My 3/4 8.1l suburban gets about 10mpg.
A new max tow Sub can do the same work, but will incur something like a $800-$1200 monthly loan payment. Even assuming the new one gets 25mpg, that payment will cover a LOT of gas.
Using your 250k lifetime, fuel cost is about $30k. So, $38k additional over 17 years (250 / 15 a year average) is $2280 a year or $190 a month in extra fuel costs. At that rate, it will take you 26 years till your extra gas cost evens up with what you’d pay on a (minimum) $60k car loan, not counting interest or higher insurance.
MOTRHEAD4LIFE@reddit
Get a diesel
costafilh0@reddit
At what point does legendary milage matter if the reliability is legendarily shitty?
The answers is probably somewhere way closer to legendary reliability than legendary milage, that's for sure!
cakeba@reddit
If you have deep pockets and travel a lot, then it makes sense. Most rich people have a Toyota that they take to travel. To them, the time wasted waiting for a tow and repairs is a bigger loss than the money spent on fuel.
Vhozite@reddit
Reliability isn’t necessarily about saving money it’s about not ending up stranded or having to do tons of extra maintenance.
fairlady2000@reddit
My V8 4Runner got 13mpg. I now daily a second gen Sequoia that gets 14mpg. I dream of owning an FJ80.
For now, I overpay in gas mileage for reliability. I fully trust my vehicle for any situation I’ll encounter. I could save money, but I’m not willing to deal with major or frequent downtime.
BannytheBoss@reddit
There can be substantial costs associated with a car breaking depending on when and where it happens. A family trip ruined because of shitty alternator bearings is worse than a slight increase in fuel costs spread out over the life of a vehicle.
arcticrobot@reddit
Depends on how much you value your free time. You waste a lot of it dealing with unreliable vehicles and its the only thing you cant really buy back or extend. So I value it very high personally and LC mileage seems acceptable
The_Summary_Man_713@reddit
I have a 2023 4Runner with the legendary reliable motor in it that I can neglect for years and it will still keep running. I get it. I’m getting about an average of 16 miles per gallon. But I also got it because I moved away from the concrete jungle that is Houston , Texas and more to a place that having the 4runner was not a pain to own. Now I’m happily taking it though the mountains of Colorado and don’t feel any pain for the most part.
If I stilled in Houston, I’d be dying owning this vehicle. Now I just feel super happy (“smiles per gallon” we call it over at r/4Runner). So I think it all depends on its use case. I could never own my vehicle in Houston
PhilosophyMinimum549@reddit
Get a 1990's Redblock Volvo. You'll get semi-decent fuel economy. I would personally get 21 city and like 26-27 highway with my 1990 740.
That being said, it does serve an entirely different purpose than a land cruiser.
cristiand90@reddit
reliability is not about being cheap to own.
it's about being dependable.
if you want cheap to drive, buy a jazz.
Burner5647382910@reddit
It’s peace of mind knowing your car will start every morning and the only things that ever need maintenance are fluids and wear items.
People dispose of cars after 60-70k miles these days because they view a $3,500 maintenance bill as a catastrophic failure. That’s 3-4 cars to hit 200k miles - in most states, $14k total in sales tax alone.
1995LexusLS400@reddit
Now compare it to a V8 Land Rover, BMW SUV or Mercedes SUV. Similar mpg with reliability that's much worse.
There are equally as reliable cars as the Land Cruiser that get good mpg. It's not unknown for a Prius to be able to do well over 500K miles.
justin_memer@reddit
On the flip side there's tons of Japanese cars that have legendary reliability and gas mileage.
q0vneob@reddit
Its pretty simple really. Fuel costs are consistent and predictable and a lot easier to budget for than unexpected mechanical failures.
Simon676@reddit
The more fuel efficient car is not "consumerist and wasteful" when you're saving 20 tons of fuel along the way for a 2-ton car.
dumahim@reddit
Saw the headline, thinking: "Hmm, Land Cruiser"
Clicks
Yep, Land Cruiser.
SirLoremIpsum@reddit
Because they like driving it.
Because reliability matters more when you are doing long distance touring in remote areas vs when you're a 20 minute tow from a mechanic.
Because Landcruisers are probably more famous for having reliable diesel and turbo diesel motors that get reasonable fuel economy, and that a petrol V8 has only been on 2 LandCruiser series in its lifetime (3 if we count Lexus badges...) .
When you're 300km from a mechanic. And that mechanic is 1000km from an Authorised Jaguar Land Rover service center and that JLR service center is 3 weeks and $1800 for a high pressure fuel pump that you can't replace onto he side of the track
martin509984@reddit
People who buy a 4Runner for reliability and never use it to tow or haul anything are stupid.
People who do need to tow and haul (and don't need anything heavier than a 4Runner) are well served buying a 4Runner.
That's basically the long and short of it but people think in extremely binary terms and think reliability trumps everything even in this modern age of (generally) extremely reliable and long-lasting cars.
bgb111@reddit
If you’re penny pinching and worried about MPG, just don’t buy a Land Cruiser. That easy
vvsfemto@reddit
I own an ‘02 IS300, and this sums up the car perfectly lol.
MaimedTiger@reddit
buddy you get like 20 combined
vvsfemto@reddit
LMFAO i wish, i actually get like 14 mpg in the city and maybe 16 hwy. These things fucking suck on gas mileage. My friends with an LS430 and 460 get better gas mileage than i do lol
MaimedTiger@reddit
ha, that's crazy that is pretty bad. an LS460 is an incredible daily I'd love one. i guess at least your 300 drives great and lasts a long time
vvsfemto@reddit
Yeah haha i love the car 100%, it’s my second one. But i’d be lying if i said the platform didn’t have some drawbacks. Agreed on the 460 comment though, every time i get to ride in it i feel so baller.
yktoday@reddit
if you ask this question to anyone who owned a Lamd Rover/Range Rover will easily tell you the best answer. High mpg doesn't matter when you are stranded on the road waiting for the recovery truck. Again.
iforgotalltgedetails@reddit
You like the look, feel, and ride over the vehicle over the more fuel efficient one.
Smiles per gallon.
MaimedTiger@reddit
ever test driven a 2021 LC200 with the 5.7? greatest experience in my life and I've driven an AMG as well
TSLAog@reddit
Jesus, for $68,000 you could buy THREE used Tesla model-3s and have money leftover.
MaimedTiger@reddit
I'd rather burn my money
Round_Ad_6369@reddit
Or I could just spend it on something worth buying
OkSchool619@reddit
Cars are now being made without gas, hope this helps.
sbcpacker@reddit
The new Land Cruiser gets double that now thanks to the hybrid engine
POSVETT@reddit
I couldn't care any less about fuel economy or fuel consumption rate; 13 or 30 npg doesn't matter to me.
PaulClarkLoadletter@reddit
Choosing a vehicle is all about compromise. The Land Cruiser is not for the budget conscious shopper. Any savings relative to reliability will not offset fuel, maintenance, and price of entry when you compare it to something like a Camry. What it will get you is luxury without being garish and it will last as long as you wish to drive it without being saddled with an "old car" since it simply goes from new to classic.
That understated luxury combined with amazing reliability is what makes it so attractive.
deleted_by_reddit@reddit
[removed]
AutoModerator@reddit
No rage bait, memes, trolling, copypasta, or low-quality joke posts or comments.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
DjImagin@reddit
When the gas is too expensive to keep it running.
ManufacturerBest2758@reddit
If you can’t afford the fuel, you can’t afford the car, period. This isn’t complicated.
humdizzle@reddit
its all a calculation : depreciation, insurance, mpg and miles per year, fuel cost, reliability, etc
people usually aren't daily driving cars that get 10-11mpg. If they are then they are either very stupid, have FU money, or they dont drive very much and live 5 miles from work.
Jubsz91@reddit
Most cars are not unreliable in the sense that they're fine to 150k-200k miles and then suddenly have a catastrophic failure. Most major components are pretty reliable at this point but everything around them breaks and/or stuff needs maintenance. Residual value is also impacted. In this theoretical, that 250k mile Land Cruiser is worth $10-15k still if it's in great shape. The POS that died is worthless. It probably also had a lot more headaches along the way, downtime, and maybe failed road trips.
vantafanta@reddit
It’s matters for the used market and resale value
Negative_Acadia6554@reddit
Lifestyle signaling and/or nostalgia.
RipVanToot@reddit
They do not require premium fuel. I have two of them and don't care about fuel costs at all. My older one is 31 years old and has 300k miles and still runs and drives like new and the other is 23 years old and is the same way.
IF either ever dies, I would buy the nicest 200 Series i could afford and that would probably be the last car I will ever buy since I am already almost 50 years old.