RE: Land Cruiser Heritage Edition launched in US

RE: Land Cruiser Heritage Edition launched in US

Wednesday 23rd January

Land Cruiser Heritage Edition launched in US

A limited run Land Cruiser with a V8 and bronze wheels? Oh how we envy you America



It's been 60 years since the Land Cruiser was first introduced to the US, so to mark the occasion Toyota is producing a limited run Heritage Edition that gains vintage details and a plusher interior.

Like the regular US-spec Land Cruiser, the 1,200-run Heritage Edition is offered in V8 form only, meaning it has 386hp and 4,01lb ft of torque to play with and drives all four wheels through an eight-speed automatic. But to set it apart from the rest of the range, it gains a set of 18-inch BBS wheels finished in bronze. Yum.

Additionally, the special variant ditches side steps and uses black rather than chrome surrounds, helping to de-clutter the exterior's design. Darkened headlight housings and fog lights with dark chrome surrounds add to the look, while a set of classically styled badges that look like they've been pinched straight off of a J40 are a nod to the model's six-decade past.


Inside, the Heritage Edition gets black leather upholstery as standard with bronze stitching, which matches the shade of the wheels outside, as well as the highest-specification 9.0-inch infotainment system. Only two rows of seats are available and there are weatherproof mats as standard, emphasising that the Heritage Edition would rather be treading along a rocking valley with a boot full of camping gear than carrying the kids to kindergarten.

To be honest, that's true of the regular car too - the Land Cruiser is a proper body-on-frame SUV with double-wishbone front and four-link coil-spring rear suspension, after all. Little wonder it has ranked as a favourite for those who live and work in hard to reach places ever since its inception as a military vehicle.

Still, we'd like ours with bronze wheels and vintage badges, but for those of us who live on the other side of the Atlantic, no heritage model is planned. That means we'll have to make do with the regular diesel Land Cruiser, although thankfully even this more humble model is one of the most capable off-road vehicles to have ever made production.



Author
Discussion

Hairymonster

Original Poster:

484 posts

51 months

Wednesday 23rd January
quotequote all
Whenever someone launches something with 'Heritage' in the name, I usually substitute this for "old models we've tarted up to try and get rid of"

llcoolmac

58 posts

46 months

Wednesday 23rd January
quotequote all
Hairymonster said:
Whenever someone launches something with 'Heritage' in the name, I usually substitute this for "old models we've tarted up to try and get rid of"
Maybe, but what are they supposed to do to improve it? I honestly feel messing with this car will only make it a worse vehicle for the people that drive these. Adding tonnes of unnecessary tech would ruin these. They are work vehicles.

Hairymonster

Original Poster:

484 posts

51 months

Wednesday 23rd January
quotequote all
llcoolmac said:
Hairymonster said:
Whenever someone launches something with 'Heritage' in the name, I usually substitute this for "old models we've tarted up to try and get rid of"
Maybe, but what are they supposed to do to improve it? I honestly feel messing with this car will only make it a worse vehicle for the people that drive these. Adding tonnes of unnecessary tech would ruin these. They are work vehicles.
Make it lighter, give it a more efficient engine, reduce the consumption, lower the co2 for starters.

petop

1,692 posts

112 months

Wednesday 23rd January
quotequote all
Hairymonster said:
llcoolmac said:
Hairymonster said:
Whenever someone launches something with 'Heritage' in the name, I usually substitute this for "old models we've tarted up to try and get rid of"
Maybe, but what are they supposed to do to improve it? I honestly feel messing with this car will only make it a worse vehicle for the people that drive these. Adding tonnes of unnecessary tech would ruin these. They are work vehicles.
Make it lighter, give it a more efficient engine, reduce the consumption, lower the co2 for starters.
And then what would 90% of the worlds armoured 4x4's be made of? For the reason its built like a tank before you even add ballistic protection is the reason why its so good in this role. And to be fair, they handle ok in and out of Kabul's finest yellow taxis!

llcoolmac

58 posts

46 months

Wednesday 23rd January
quotequote all
Hairymonster said:
llcoolmac said:
Hairymonster said:
Whenever someone launches something with 'Heritage' in the name, I usually substitute this for "old models we've tarted up to try and get rid of"
Maybe, but what are they supposed to do to improve it? I honestly feel messing with this car will only make it a worse vehicle for the people that drive these. Adding tonnes of unnecessary tech would ruin these. They are work vehicles.
Make it lighter, give it a more efficient engine, reduce the consumption, lower the co2 for starters.
Make it lighter...how? By reducing the service life of the parts? Remove mass and you make it weaker, if you want to make it lighter and retain the strength you will almost certainly be making it more expensive also.

They are designed with a 25 year service life. Any weight reduction will reduce that. Our one is about to tick over 480,000 very tough miles. It gets worked hard every day of the week. It's on all of its original suspension parts,I engine has full compression on all basic cylinders and it doesn't use a drop of oil. I'm fairly sure it is still on it's original clutch too. It does 24mpg regardless of whether we are towing a 3 tonne trailer or driving along. And we are perfectly happy with that economy. It's one of the most reliable engines ever built, if they go screwing with it because of stupid emissions regulations then I am certain they will make it less dependable. A downsized engine to achieve lower co2 would almost certainly be worse on fuel when being worked hard even if it's better when cruising. I still doubt it would crack 30mpg even on a motorway run. That's not a trade off I would be willing to take.

Edited by llcoolmac on Wednesday 23 January 23:31

st4

1,359 posts

79 months

Thursday 24th January
quotequote all
llcoolmac said:
Make it lighter...how? By reducing the service life of the parts? Remove mass and you make it weaker, if you want to make it lighter and retain the strength you will almost certainly be making it more expensive also.

They are designed with a 25 year service life. Any weight reduction will reduce that. Our one is about to tick over 480,000 very tough miles. It gets worked hard every day of the week. It's on all of its original suspension parts,I engine has full compression on all basic cylinders and it doesn't use a drop of oil. I'm fairly sure it is still on it's original clutch too. It does 24mpg regardless of whether we are towing a 3 tonne trailer or driving along. And we are perfectly happy with that economy. It's one of the most reliable engines ever built, if they go screwing with it because of stupid emissions regulations then I am certain they will make it less dependable. A downsized engine to achieve lower co2 would almost certainly be worse on fuel when being worked hard even if it's better when cruising. I still doubt it would crack 30mpg even on a motorway run. That's not a trade off I would be willing to take.

Edited by llcoolmac on Wednesday 23 January 23:31
Your car sounds ace.

I have a big soft spot for them.

cib24

801 posts

99 months

Thursday 24th January
quotequote all
Amazing truck. Old school for sure but so dependable. It really is an amazing feat of engineering even if it isn't extremely fancy.

Hitch

5,596 posts

140 months

Thursday 24th January
quotequote all
I'd like to buy one and run it forever. Wonderful machines.

steveb8189

239 posts

137 months

Thursday 24th January
quotequote all
Article said:
4,01lb ft of torque
I got very excited there for a second!

llcoolmac

58 posts

46 months

Thursday 24th January
quotequote all
st4 said:
llcoolmac said:
Make it lighter...how? By reducing the service life of the parts? Remove mass and you make it weaker, if you want to make it lighter and retain the strength you will almost certainly be making it more expensive also.

They are designed with a 25 year service life. Any weight reduction will reduce that. Our one is about to tick over 480,000 very tough miles. It gets worked hard every day of the week. It's on all of its original suspension parts,I engine has full compression on all basic cylinders and it doesn't use a drop of oil. I'm fairly sure it is still on it's original clutch too. It does 24mpg regardless of whether we are towing a 3 tonne trailer or driving along. And we are perfectly happy with that economy. It's one of the most reliable engines ever built, if they go screwing with it because of stupid emissions regulations then I am certain they will make it less dependable. A downsized engine to achieve lower co2 would almost certainly be worse on fuel when being worked hard even if it's better when cruising. I still doubt it would crack 30mpg even on a motorway run. That's not a trade off I would be willing to take.

Edited by llcoolmac on Wednesday 23 January 23:31
Your car sounds ace.

I have a big soft spot for them.
They are awesome and people just keep them forever. The most lovable and dependable machines on the road. You end up with a bond with them. There are 5 of them in the 2 mile radius of our farm ranging from 1996 to 2007. (I reckon it's the highest density of them in the country because they aren't common over here in Ireland). All are owned by their original purchasers and none of us have any intention of changing them. There's just nothing out there that is comparable.

gregd

1,191 posts

165 months

Thursday 24th January
quotequote all
I would buy this if they brought it to the UK, V8 and all at a reasonable price.. would need 7 seats for me though

The Moose

18,680 posts

155 months

Thursday 24th January
quotequote all
Sounds like a run-out model. Looking forward to the next one!

st4

1,359 posts

79 months

Thursday 24th January
quotequote all
gregd said:
I would buy this if they brought it to the UK, V8 and all at a reasonable price.. would need 7 seats for me though
They did - sadly most bought X5's. The 4.5 Twin Turbo diesel model.

They're really superb though, luxury inside and truly can go anywhere. No real issues reported with the gearbox that does service is most high end Lexus cars and the engine is strong. A friend of a friend had a 4.5 one and it was just super.

The newer one we get only has a 2.8 and is I suspect the light duty Colorado/Prado version - not this full fat heavy duty Amazon one.

In the states they do a Lexus verson - with a 5.7 V8. It's a bit Chintzy but as an alternative to a G / GL / Q7 a belting car.

The Moose

18,680 posts

155 months

Thursday 24th January
quotequote all
st4 said:
In the states they do a Lexus verson - with a 5.7 V8. It's a bit Chintzy but as an alternative to a G / GL / Q7 a belting car.
Yep - LX470/LX570. Great vehicle...if a little small!

Denorth

559 posts

117 months

Friday 25th January
quotequote all
st4 said:
They did - sadly most bought X5's. The 4.5 Twin Turbo diesel model.

They're really superb though, luxury inside and truly can go anywhere. No real issues reported with the gearbox that does service is most high end Lexus cars and the engine is strong. A friend of a friend had a 4.5 one and it was just super.

The newer one we get only has a 2.8 and is I suspect the light duty Colorado/Prado version - not this full fat heavy duty Amazon one.

In the states they do a Lexus verson - with a 5.7 V8. It's a bit Chintzy but as an alternative to a G / GL / Q7 a belting car.
YOu are correct - there is no Amazon (Land Cruiser J200) currently available on official Toyota GB website. It was dropped around 2015 I think.

Only Land Cruiser on ofeer is J150. Completely different beast with roots somewhere in J70

Hairymonster

Original Poster:

484 posts

51 months

Sunday 27th January
quotequote all
llcoolmac said:
Make it lighter...how? By reducing the service life of the parts? Remove mass and you make it weaker, if you want to make it lighter and retain the strength you will almost certainly be making it more expensive also.

They are designed with a 25 year service life. Any weight reduction will reduce that. Our one is about to tick over 480,000 very tough miles. It gets worked hard every day of the week. It's on all of its original suspension parts,I engine has full compression on all basic cylinders and it doesn't use a drop of oil. I'm fairly sure it is still on it's original clutch too. It does 24mpg regardless of whether we are towing a 3 tonne trailer or driving along. And we are perfectly happy with that economy. It's one of the most reliable engines ever built, if they go screwing with it because of stupid emissions regulations then I am certain they will make it less dependable. A downsized engine to achieve lower co2 would almost certainly be worse on fuel when being worked hard even if it's better when cruising. I still doubt it would crack 30mpg even on a motorway run. That's not a trade off I would be willing to take.

Edited by llcoolmac on Wednesday 23 January 23:31
Absolute rubbish.

Any car can be made more efficient and lighter without affecting reliability. Lightness equals better efficiency and MPG. There are always ways older engines can be brought up to date with turbos, cylinder cut-outs under light load, better ignition and more efficient injectors. Honda continue to evolve their VTEC engines which AFAIK and despite the complexity of the valve/camshaft arrangement, they have never had a warranty claim for, and routinely do comfortably into the 100's of thousands.of miles. Range Rover managed to lower the weight of their flagship by 400 Kgs by using aluminium instead of steel.

As for 'stupid emissions regulations', they're here for a purpose whether we like it or not, though of course there will always be dinosaurs justifying why they should be excluded from trying to lower their consumption, and look what happened to them!

llcoolmac

58 posts

46 months

Saturday 2nd February
quotequote all
Hairymonster said:
llcoolmac said:
Make it lighter...how? By reducing the service life of the parts? Remove mass and you make it weaker, if you want to make it lighter and retain the strength you will almost certainly be making it more expensive also.

They are designed with a 25 year service life. Any weight reduction will reduce that. Our one is about to tick over 480,000 very tough miles. It gets worked hard every day of the week. It's on all of its original suspension parts,I engine has full compression on all basic cylinders and it doesn't use a drop of oil. I'm fairly sure it is still on it's original clutch too. It does 24mpg regardless of whether we are towing a 3 tonne trailer or driving along. And we are perfectly happy with that economy. It's one of the most reliable engines ever built, if they go screwing with it because of stupid emissions regulations then I am certain they will make it less dependable. A downsized engine to achieve lower co2 would almost certainly be worse on fuel when being worked hard even if it's better when cruising. I still doubt it would crack 30mpg even on a motorway run. That's not a trade off I would be willing to take.

Edited by llcoolmac on Wednesday 23 January 23:31
Absolute rubbish.

Any car can be made more efficient and lighter without affecting reliability. Lightness equals better efficiency and MPG. There are always ways older engines can be brought up to date with turbos, cylinder cut-outs under light load, better ignition and more efficient injectors. Honda continue to evolve their VTEC engines which AFAIK and despite the complexity of the valve/camshaft arrangement, they have never had a warranty claim for, and routinely do comfortably into the 100's of thousands.of miles. Range Rover managed to lower the weight of their flagship by 400 Kgs by using aluminium instead of steel.

As for 'stupid emissions regulations', they're here for a purpose whether we like it or not, though of course there will always be dinosaurs justifying why they should be excluded from trying to lower their consumption, and look what happened to them!
I'm afraid it is you who is talking absolute rubbish. A modern (or any) Range Rover isn't fit to tie the shoe laces of a Landcruiser.

All the Range Rover had to do to achieve a 400kg weight reduction was sacrifice any pretence of being a work vehicle...what a wonderful trade off. I can't wait for my next Land Cruiser to be fit for use as a school run/posing vehicle only too. The Range Rover hasn't been suitable as a work vehicle since the 2001 model came out. Discoverys are now in the same category.

Your comparison of Hondas or any other car is pointless. They aren't work vehicles. People who don't drive work vehicles just don't understand the abuse they get compared to a normal car. My cousin has a 1993 John Deere tractor and a 2004 one. The 2014 has a downsized engine, ad blue etc and only 4 cylinders where it previously had 6. According to all of the efficiency tests that tractor is 30% more fuel efficient than the 1993 model. He says it will burns about 30% more fuel in reality when it is being worked. In my experience this is true of almost every "efficient" engine when they are being worked hard. Old engines were big and heavy for a reason.

Toyota have been quietly refining the injectors, turbos, etc of the LandCruiser. But there are limits on what you can do. People like you just believe the nonsense that is printed in the official documents.

RDMcG

13,682 posts

153 months

Saturday 2nd February
quotequote all
I believe that the Land Cruiser in the US is the vehicle kept the longest by the original purchaser. They last forever and are quite expensive used.

wisbech

1,132 posts

67 months

Saturday 2nd February
quotequote all
My FIL in Indonesia had a 1997 Amazon. He died last year and my 19 year old nephew inherited it...

Russ T Bolt

1,125 posts

229 months

Saturday 2nd February
quotequote all
Hairymonster said:
Honda continue to evolve their VTEC engines which AFAIK and despite the complexity of the valve/camshaft arrangement, they have never had a warranty claim for, and routinely do comfortably into the 100's of thousands.of miles.
Not sure that is entirely true.

I am looking for a new car and was interested in a new CRV, in particular the new petrol turbo, but have heard some worrying things about problems with the engine.