Toyota Landcruiser V8 tested by Autobild
09-08-08, 05:10 AM
#1
Lexus Champion
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Stuttgart
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Toyota Landcruiser V8 tested by Autobild
Hi guys,
Every morning before heading off to work, I usually stop at a local cafe and read the newspaper, or, as happened that morning, a car magazine. I spotted an interesting review about the new Landcruiser V8 and thought I would share it with you. Thankfully, I had my digital with me and managed to photograph the article to the best of my abilities.
The magazine praises the Landcruiser for its standard features, great offroading characteristics and the refinement of the 4.7-l V8. However, the 2.7-ton Landcruiser isn't as agile as some rivals and the fuel consumption is outright atrocious and, I quote, "politically incorrect". On road, the Landcruiser is fairly comfortable but the handling isn't too good due to the suspension being a little too soft. Interior and trunk space are generous.
As mentioned, the fuel consumption is too high. Europeans are very picky about this. The Landcruiser averaged 16.8 liters per 100 km which is about 14 mpg. The other engine option is a V8 diesel, which is more fuel-efficient, yet still thirsty.
The biggest complains were the brakes. They are very weak and lack some serious stopping power.
Because of the price and engine characteristics, Autobild classifies the Range Rover V8 and Mercedes GL450 as rivals, despite Toyota not being very successful in the European premium market due to image reasons. The Landcruiser tested here cost a whooping € 79,900. So basically, Autobild says that those who can afford it won't complain. The problem is that most people who can afford it will most likely go for a premium badge.
Final grade for the Lancruiser was a 3+ which equals a C+. I thought that was very kind of them.
What I don't understand is this. The Landcruiser used to be an affordable, reliable and capable offroader all over the world. Recently though, Toyota has made them heavier, thirstier and more expensive while still retaining top build quality and offroad capability. My question is this: Why does Toyota insist on selling an inefficient V8 diesel- and V8 gasoline-powered Landcruiser in Europe with such a high price tag? This goes beyond the market the Landcruiser used to compete in, namely the upper mainstream market.
They should have offered the new Landcruiser with an economical 6-cylinder diesel and an acceptable 6-cylinder gasoline engine, I guess, and for a decent price. The money you pay for a Euro Landcruiser is simply outrageous. Toyota should have brought over the LX570 then if they want to compete in the European premium SUV market.
In my opinion, Toyota has just made a major blunder here.
Every morning before heading off to work, I usually stop at a local cafe and read the newspaper, or, as happened that morning, a car magazine. I spotted an interesting review about the new Landcruiser V8 and thought I would share it with you. Thankfully, I had my digital with me and managed to photograph the article to the best of my abilities.
The magazine praises the Landcruiser for its standard features, great offroading characteristics and the refinement of the 4.7-l V8. However, the 2.7-ton Landcruiser isn't as agile as some rivals and the fuel consumption is outright atrocious and, I quote, "politically incorrect". On road, the Landcruiser is fairly comfortable but the handling isn't too good due to the suspension being a little too soft. Interior and trunk space are generous.
As mentioned, the fuel consumption is too high. Europeans are very picky about this. The Landcruiser averaged 16.8 liters per 100 km which is about 14 mpg. The other engine option is a V8 diesel, which is more fuel-efficient, yet still thirsty.
The biggest complains were the brakes. They are very weak and lack some serious stopping power.
Because of the price and engine characteristics, Autobild classifies the Range Rover V8 and Mercedes GL450 as rivals, despite Toyota not being very successful in the European premium market due to image reasons. The Landcruiser tested here cost a whooping € 79,900. So basically, Autobild says that those who can afford it won't complain. The problem is that most people who can afford it will most likely go for a premium badge.
Final grade for the Lancruiser was a 3+ which equals a C+. I thought that was very kind of them.
What I don't understand is this. The Landcruiser used to be an affordable, reliable and capable offroader all over the world. Recently though, Toyota has made them heavier, thirstier and more expensive while still retaining top build quality and offroad capability. My question is this: Why does Toyota insist on selling an inefficient V8 diesel- and V8 gasoline-powered Landcruiser in Europe with such a high price tag? This goes beyond the market the Landcruiser used to compete in, namely the upper mainstream market.
They should have offered the new Landcruiser with an economical 6-cylinder diesel and an acceptable 6-cylinder gasoline engine, I guess, and for a decent price. The money you pay for a Euro Landcruiser is simply outrageous. Toyota should have brought over the LX570 then if they want to compete in the European premium SUV market.
In my opinion, Toyota has just made a major blunder here.
Last edited by DustinV; 09-08-08 at 05:13 AM.
09-08-08, 06:15 AM
#2
The thing about this is that IMO, with a 6cylinder the car would probably get even worse gas mileage than the V8. It would be working harder to move the same amount of weight, and thus probably eating more fuel.
Additionally, the 5.7L V8 is more fuel efficient than the 4.7L so I wonder why they didn't use that engine.
Additionally, the 5.7L V8 is more fuel efficient than the 4.7L so I wonder why they didn't use that engine.
09-08-08, 07:18 AM
#3
Lexus Champion
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Stuttgart
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you might be right with the gasoline V6, though, but then again, I am not an engineer.
09-08-08, 08:59 AM
#4
Lead Lap
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: MD
Posts: 4,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well if you look at the Tundra:
4 X 2 4.0L V6: 15/19 MPG, 5 speed auto
4 X 2 5.7L V8: 14/18 6 speed auto
I think a Landcruiser and sequoia with a more up to date (the 4.0L is old), direct injected V6 connected to a 6 speed could give some improvements.
4 X 2 4.0L V6: 15/19 MPG, 5 speed auto
4 X 2 5.7L V8: 14/18 6 speed auto
I think a Landcruiser and sequoia with a more up to date (the 4.0L is old), direct injected V6 connected to a 6 speed could give some improvements.
09-08-08, 09:58 AM
#5
Lexus Champion
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: MIchigan
Posts: 2,025
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why does Toyota insist on selling an inefficient V8 diesel- and V8 gasoline-powered Landcruiser in Europe with such a high price tag? This goes beyond the market the Landcruiser used to compete in, namely the upper mainstream market
Toyota should have brought over the LX570 then if they want to compete in the European premium SUV market
inefficient V8 diesel
Last edited by pagemaster; 09-08-08 at 10:04 AM.
09-08-08, 01:46 PM
#6
Hi guys,
Every morning before heading off to work, I usually stop at a local cafe and read the newspaper, or, as happened that morning, a car magazine. I spotted an interesting review about the new Landcruiser V8 and thought I would share it with you. Thankfully, I had my digital with me and managed to photograph the article to the best of my abilities.
The magazine praises the Landcruiser for its standard features, great offroading characteristics and the refinement of the 4.7-l V8. However, the 2.7-ton Landcruiser isn't as agile as some rivals and the fuel consumption is outright atrocious and, I quote, "politically incorrect". On road, the Landcruiser is fairly comfortable but the handling isn't too good due to the suspension being a little too soft. Interior and trunk space are generous.
As mentioned, the fuel consumption is too high. Europeans are very picky about this. The Landcruiser averaged 16.8 liters per 100 km which is about 14 mpg. The other engine option is a V8 diesel, which is more fuel-efficient, yet still thirsty.
The biggest complains were the brakes. They are very weak and lack some serious stopping power.
Because of the price and engine characteristics, Autobild classifies the Range Rover V8 and Mercedes GL450 as rivals, despite Toyota not being very successful in the European premium market due to image reasons. The Landcruiser tested here cost a whooping € 79,900. So basically, Autobild says that those who can afford it won't complain. The problem is that most people who can afford it will most likely go for a premium badge.
Final grade for the Lancruiser was a 3+ which equals a C+. I thought that was very kind of them.
What I don't understand is this. The Landcruiser used to be an affordable, reliable and capable offroader all over the world. Recently though, Toyota has made them heavier, thirstier and more expensive while still retaining top build quality and offroad capability. My question is this: Why does Toyota insist on selling an inefficient V8 diesel- and V8 gasoline-powered Landcruiser in Europe with such a high price tag? This goes beyond the market the Landcruiser used to compete in, namely the upper mainstream market.
They should have offered the new Landcruiser with an economical 6-cylinder diesel and an acceptable 6-cylinder gasoline engine, I guess, and for a decent price. The money you pay for a Euro Landcruiser is simply outrageous. Toyota should have brought over the LX570 then if they want to compete in the European premium SUV market.
In my opinion, Toyota has just made a major blunder here.
Every morning before heading off to work, I usually stop at a local cafe and read the newspaper, or, as happened that morning, a car magazine. I spotted an interesting review about the new Landcruiser V8 and thought I would share it with you. Thankfully, I had my digital with me and managed to photograph the article to the best of my abilities.
The magazine praises the Landcruiser for its standard features, great offroading characteristics and the refinement of the 4.7-l V8. However, the 2.7-ton Landcruiser isn't as agile as some rivals and the fuel consumption is outright atrocious and, I quote, "politically incorrect". On road, the Landcruiser is fairly comfortable but the handling isn't too good due to the suspension being a little too soft. Interior and trunk space are generous.
As mentioned, the fuel consumption is too high. Europeans are very picky about this. The Landcruiser averaged 16.8 liters per 100 km which is about 14 mpg. The other engine option is a V8 diesel, which is more fuel-efficient, yet still thirsty.
The biggest complains were the brakes. They are very weak and lack some serious stopping power.
Because of the price and engine characteristics, Autobild classifies the Range Rover V8 and Mercedes GL450 as rivals, despite Toyota not being very successful in the European premium market due to image reasons. The Landcruiser tested here cost a whooping € 79,900. So basically, Autobild says that those who can afford it won't complain. The problem is that most people who can afford it will most likely go for a premium badge.
Final grade for the Lancruiser was a 3+ which equals a C+. I thought that was very kind of them.
What I don't understand is this. The Landcruiser used to be an affordable, reliable and capable offroader all over the world. Recently though, Toyota has made them heavier, thirstier and more expensive while still retaining top build quality and offroad capability. My question is this: Why does Toyota insist on selling an inefficient V8 diesel- and V8 gasoline-powered Landcruiser in Europe with such a high price tag? This goes beyond the market the Landcruiser used to compete in, namely the upper mainstream market.
They should have offered the new Landcruiser with an economical 6-cylinder diesel and an acceptable 6-cylinder gasoline engine, I guess, and for a decent price. The money you pay for a Euro Landcruiser is simply outrageous. Toyota should have brought over the LX570 then if they want to compete in the European premium SUV market.
In my opinion, Toyota has just made a major blunder here.
- There is Land Cruiser Prado in Europe, which starts at 35k Euros for barebones version and has 171hp 4cly diesel engine. Old Land Cruiser 100 started at around the same price as new LC 200 and was in every way a lot worse car. If you need workhorse, LC Prado is what you get.
- V8 diesel is on the par to Audi and MB diesels when it comes to, well pretty much everything - Autobild did comparo of them - Q7, LC200, GL and Range Rover. All were rated well for their purpose. It is just that LC200 is made to be real 4x4 and has a lot more space than 4 competitors.
I have extensive drive time on both V8's - diesel and petrol engines. Actually, V8 petrol is currently spending night at my parking lot. Germans are smoking something heavy, neither car is anything close to soft - in fact, I would call them very hard cars that handle pretty darn good. If it was any harder, it would be very uncomfortable.
V8 petrol is plenty powerful, reason they offered 4.7l engine in Europe is to make it lesser priced than V8 diesel - in this case, there is 5k Euro difference between 2 versions. Diesel spends 50% less fuel, real time consumption is between 10l and 15l/100 km which is good if you consider how huge the car is.
Only blunder that Toyota made with LC200 is that there are still waiting lists and we cant get enough cars, 7 months after start of sales :-).
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
