“The Toyota 4Runner is the same as the Land Cruiser,” everyone is saying right now. “And it’s built on the same platform as the Tacoma, Tundra, Sequoia, and even Lexus GX!” It seems strange, which is why I chatted with the Tacoma’s chief engineer Sheldon Brown and asked all about this. What’s the deal with the TNGA-F platform underpinning vehicles that once had completely different platforms? Here’s what he told me.
I covered some of this in my thorough Toyota Land Cruiser review, but much of it’s new. And given how much folks are talking about how similar the Land Cruiser is to the 4Runner, it’s worth digging into why Toyota says it decided to build five machines — some of which were very different — on the same bones.
Take a look at the photos above and below, and you’ll see the machines I’m talking about — five vehicles from Toyota with the same general frame and suspension architecture, and three with the same engine and transmission. It’s remarkable, especially when you consider what the vehicles looked like just a few years ago.
The Tundra and Sequoia — built on the related XK50 and XK60 platforms — had a 5.7-liter V8 hooked to a six-speed automatic, with the former lasting from 2007 to 2021 and the latter starting in 2008 and getting its TNGA-F update in 2023.
The two old platforms had a similar independent front suspension, though the Sequoia ditched the Tundra’s leaf-sprung solid axle for coil-sprung independent suspension. Then there was the Land Cruiser, an $80,000 machine built on the “J200 “platform between 2008 and 2021:
The XK60 Sequoia and XK50 Tundra shared quite a few architectural bits, and while the Land Cruiser also shared powertrain and architectural elements with those two, it was also different in many ways. All three shared very little with the smaller Tacoma and 4Runner:
The 4Runner was around from 2010 until 2024 — an absurdly long run for that 1GR-FE 4.0-liter V6 mated to a five-speed auto. The second-gen Tacoma sat on a significantly different frame (though with similar suspension components), and shared the 4Runner’s powertrain before it got a refresh for the 2016 model year, when it got a new 3.5-liter V6 and some minor architecture changes.
The outgoing Tacoma was significantly different than the outgoing 4Runner, but now things have changed.
View this post on Instagram
Now we have a 4Runner, Tacoma, and Land Cruiser with the same engine/transmission, plus a Tundra and Sequoia that shares those vehicles’ frame and basic suspension architecture. Yes, whereas before there was quite a difference between the 4Runner, Sequoia, Tundra, Land Cruiser, and Tacoma, now they’re all built on the same bones, with three sharing a heart.
So what happened? How did Toyota blast out five all-new models so quickly and on the same platform? I asked Toyota to learn more:
The clip above, wherein I chat with the 4Runner and Tacoma’s marketing manager, doesn’t give a ton of technical insight into the extremely versatile TNGA-F platform, but it does discuss Toyota’s expected volumes.
The company believes there’s room in the mid-size space for both the 4Runner and Land Cruiser, which are about the same size. The Land Cruiser is expected to sell in lower volumes than the 4Runner, which is expected to sell in lower volumes than the king of midsize trucks, the Taco.
But let’s get to the main question people are asking: Why would you even buy a new Land Cruiser? “There is some brand loyalty,” Tacoma chief engineer Sheldon Brown told me, saying folks love the Land Cruiser brand. Plus, the mid-size segment is huge, with another Toyota rep saying there’s plenty of room for two offerings and that the company “[doesn’t] see cannibalization, per se.”
The Land Cruiser is meant to be more refined, offering unique styling to a different, perhaps older customer than the 4Runner. And that’s pretty much it: It’s the squared-off styling, it’s the Land Cruiser name, and it’s not a whole lot else that the Land Cruiser has over its sibling.
Check out all the underbody photos of the new Land Cruiser that I took and then see all the 4Runner underbody shots that I snapped, and you’ll see just how similar the two are.
Why Toyota Built One Platform To Rule Them All
I chatted with Tacoma Chief Engineer Sheldon Brown to figure out how and why Toyota build so many once-different vehicles onto a single platform, and he told me that, a few years ago, Toyota found itself facing a dilemma. The company was wondering if, in the face of increasingly stringent emissions standards, there was a place — long term — for body-on-frame vehicles.
It was, as Brown put it to me during an interview, “an existential crisis [for] the company” as pressure mounted to meet global Corporate Average Fuel Economy requirements (CAFE, as it’s called stateside). “We had to make sure we [developed our body-on-frame vehicles] in a way that was smart,” he told me, with a focus on minimizing total investment, which the company could need for electrification during these rather uncertain times where emissions policies are rapidly changing. “If we’re going to make this work, we need to make this as efficient as possible,” he told me about Toyota’s body-on-frame strategy.
“Every time we redid a platform, you really need to look at the life of that platform,” he said, noting how long the last-gen vehicles stuck around (the 4Runner, Tundra, and Sequoia were around for ~15 years, and the Taco was around since 2016 but those bones were fairly old). Those platform investments clearly paid off, but these days, it’s unclear what political or technical changes might necessitate a shift towards EVs, and so to mitigate risk, Toyota built One Platform To Rule Them All.
The result was the TNGA-F platform to underpin the five Toyotas you see above — the Sequoia, Tacoma, 4Runner, Tundra, and Land Cruiser, as well as the Lexus GX. This might have you thinking: How can you use one frame for vehicles that have such different requirements and that are so different in size?
How Toyota Built One Platform To Rule Them All
Well, one of Toyota’s answers to the first part of that question involves the uses of different frame thicknesses and metal strengths in different areas depending upon the vehicle load requirements (you can see different steel thicknesses in the image above).
Toyota calls the concept “islands of strength,” as I described in my Tacoma review:
“When we built that, we wanted to make sure the platform was adjustable,” Chief engineer Sheldon Brown told me. “The frame pitch as well as the frame silhouette stays for all intents and purposes the same,” he continued, referring to the width and side profile of the frame. But this didn’t mean the frame had to be overbuilt for smaller trucks that don’t need the same load-carrying capacity as bigger trucks.
“We can use an optimal gauge and material for areas where we don’t have quite as much requirement for strength,” he told me in reference to Toyota’s “Dejima” practice, named after an island off the coast of Nagasaki. The “islands,” in the context of the new Tacoma’s frame, are localized sections of high-strength or high-gauge (i.e. thickness) steel meant to bolster high-stress regions like where transmission/transfer case crossmember mounts or the rear of the frame near where a tow-hitch fastens.
In essence, the Tacoma’s frame is a patchwork quilt of various steels meant to optimize the frame for both strength and weight reduction. In reference to different gauges and materials such as 480 and 780 (that’s the tensile strength of the steel in Megapascals), Brown told me: “We laser-weld those together [in a flat piece], and then we form it, and then we bring those C-channels together to make this full box.” The result is weight savings and also anti-corrosion. Wait, anti-corrosion?
Brown showed me how the current frame adds stiffness to certain areas — there’s a gusset/overlapping panel that is arc-welded into place:
As you might imagine, the overlapping metals in the method above could compromise corrosion resistance, not just by allowing moisture to be trapped between the layers, but by reducing the effectiveness of the E-Coat anti-corrosion application process.
Anyway, I’m obviously not an expert on this, but you can read all about Toyota’s new TNGA-F frame in the presentation titled “Non-Linear Tailor Welded Blanks Application in Chassis Frame.” Here you can see how it compares to the old method of localized frame stiffening:
Here’s a look at parts of the frame that Toyota focuses on:
And this plot, if I have it right, actually shows typical stresses found on different parts of the frame. (Note, this presentation doesn’t apply specifically to the Toyota, and rather presents the general process):
The point is to allow a single frame to function for a multitude of use cases without adding too much unnecessary weight to vehicles that don’t have as high demands. As you might imagine, a 4Runner frame doesn’t have to be as strong as a Tundra frame, as the latter is designed to tow and haul significantly heavier loads.
So the frame pitches (i.e. width) stays the same across vehicles, but material thickness and strength can be adjusted, as can wheelbase. The wheelbase adjustment happens at the center of the frame, between the suspension “kick ups” at the front and rear, which are both optimized to handle the suspension loads that enter the frame in those areas. The front, especially, is optimized to handle crash loads, which is why Toyota is keen to keep these “kick up” regions common between vehicle types, adjusting just the center part of the rails:
So now that we’ve discussed adjusting both strength and length for different frame applications, what about width? While Brown and I didn’t dive deep into this topic, he did point out that that brackets meant to communicate side-loads (in the event of a side-impact) from the body into the frame have to be adjusted based on the distance from the rocker panel to the frame rail (which is larger for the mid-size trucks than it is for the full-sizers).
I snapped a photo of the brackets on the Tundra and Tacoma; here’s a look at the full-size truck:
And here’s the mid-sizer:
I’ll admit it’s a bit hard to tell the differences in the lengths of those brackets or the distance between the rail and the rockers, but apparently it’s significantly different between the vehicles.
What about compromises?
Well, chief engineer Sheldon Brown admitted that, even though Tailor Welded Blanking helps optimize the frame for different applications, using one platform for vastly different applications does come with some compromises. That’s just how engineering works — it’s basically a game of compromises.
An example of a compromise, he told me, is weight. The fact is that building a mid-size truck on a common frame with a full-size truck means the crossmembers are going to be longer than they need to be, and that adds weight.
“If we had to say what is the perfect size frame pitch, it would probably be narrower,” Shelded admitted about the new Tacoma.
He also mentioned that using a single frame design and modifying it via Trailor Welded Blanking is expensive, and not just as a result of using high-strength steel to bolster the vehicles that see higher loads — the process itself is more expensive.
In our discussion about compromises, Brown also mentioned the common knuckle design between all trucks, and alluded to the challenge of balancing the Tundra’s focus more on towing stability with the Tacoma’s focus on handling. He mentioned that the Tacoma had to have its sway bar moved back behind the chassis to avoid stackup of too many parts during a crash, though I wasn’t entirely clear on exactly which compromises were being made.
It’s admittedly a tough question to ask a chief engineer at a press drive: “Tell me how your vehicle is worse than it could be.” But hey, that’s how engineering works! Engineering is the art of compromise.
I Will Say: The Vehicles DO Look Good
It’s clear why Toyota decided to build so many vehicles on TNGA-F: To save money, especially during a politically uncertain time. And it’s clear how they did it: They adjusted the wheelbases at the center of the frame; they pushed the bodies out by bolstering them with brackets that tie side-loads into the frame in the case of a crash; and they adjusted the strength of the frame by welding in thicker and stronger metal in certain areas that see high loads in certain applications (like towing with the Tundra).
The compromises associated with platform sharing between these particular vehicles aren’t 100% clear to me, and perhaps they’ll become clearer as time marches on, but all the TNGA-F vehicles seem legitimately compelling. Some of them are so similar technically that it seems Toyota is trying to split a pie into too many pieces (the 4Runner and Land Cruiser come to mind), but will the average person really care that their car is basically the same as another under the skin? I’m not sure they will.
No, you tnga-fun.
I kid. Tnemos fun here.
Lexus Cimarron and Toyota Cavalier?
I am not in the market for anything TNGA-F, but I have immensely enjoyed the coverage here.
Is this really any different from VW’s approach? Seems like Toyota’s philosophy for TNGA-F is essentially the same as for the VAG MQB and MLB platforms.
When you look at it on paper, I think really the only significant overlap is going to be between the 4Runner and the Land Cruiser. The Tacoma and Tundra are a differnet size class, as is the Sequoia. The difference between the LC and the GX, well… you have that kind of “badge-engineering” differences across a lot of the luxury makes that share with the mainstream brand.
But with the 4Runner and LC, definitely seems like there would be significant overlap. But, I definitely think that there is room for both. While I enjoy the look of the LC and the retro touches on it, it’s just not for me. But, I really do like the new 4Runner. If the 4Runner wasn’t there, I’m not sure that I would consider the LC.
I agree; there seems to be room for both. My question surrounds the price difference. For a $15k difference in starting price, what do you get with the LC vs the 4Runner? They’re the same size, platform, and drive-train. Other than one having cartoonish styling, the differences seem minimal at best.
May have been mentioned already, but the 4Runner used the 1GR starting back in 2003, and the same 1GR-A750 combination starting in 2005, essentially 20 years with the same powertrain!
Maybe so, but I’m glad you asked and I’m glad he answered. The whole time I was reading about the benefits of what they’re doing, I was thinking “Okay, but what are the tradeoffs” and sure enough, you delivered the answer a few paragraphs later.
Peak David Tracy is the reason to throw absurd amounts of money at this site
Sort of related to this as it seems all these vehicles share the same issue – did anyone ask why they kept the NiMH batteries for all the hybrid systems? Seems a common complaint on the hybrid versions of all of these is the high load height/uneven floor, and I’m curious how much space they could have saved with a lithium battery setup.
Articles like the one about swapping a Li battery into old Prius make me think these would all be improved by a similar swap down the road.
NiMH are more cost effective, they’ve proven reliable in hybrid drivetrains for 20+ years, and they’re extremely safe. Modern Battery Management Systems have basically eliminated self-discharge and there’s little to no ‘memory’ effect. They NiMH isn’t ideal for full electric but it’s a very smart choice hybrids.
This forums are full of people already complaining about the price of vehicles so it’s not in Toyota’s interest to further increase price in a place where the gains are not obvious.
Interesting, I figured it was primarily a cost reason. I know Toyota has been using NiMH for a long time and likely have a lot of financial incentive to keep using that production capacity as long as they can.
They do use Li for some hybrid applications it seems (depending on trim the Rav4 hybrid uses Li or NiMH) but if these were already going to be costly trucks it may not have been worth it. I’d think you could justify it in a more premium product like the Land Cruiser or Lexus though.
Even the current gen Prius uses Li-Ion batteries and it’s a fraction of the price of some of these new shiny trucks
That’s a really good question. I wonder if the switch is to meet CAFE standards, especially since they cranked up the performance on the new Prius. It’s has to be more cost effective and yield better results to give the efficient Prius a Li-ion than to give a truck a Li-ion. At the end of the day, a truck is a brick and even the best batteries can’t overcome that problem.
This would be a fantastic issue for the Autopian to explore! The people want answers!
I will note, as I did on the original article, that the mileage numbers presented there should be taken with a Costco-sized grain of salt. Comparing an old tired battery to a brand new one of any chemistry and using a single tank of gas for comparison is nearly meaningless in terms of whether the lithium batteries provided any improvement over NiMH.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m sure lithium batteries provide some benefit. If nothing else, I believe they weigh about half as much, but the improvement from going lithium is almost certainly not as large as that article would suggest.
Oh for sure, I’m guessing those people would have seem some significant benefits replacing them with another NiMH battery as well. For these trucks I’m just thinking the greater energy density could have opened up some better packaging solutions.
Or maybe the benefits wouldn’t be worth it? It would be a good question to ask the chief engineer.
Not sure with modern Li batteries, but historically NiMH are generally more long-lived. Plenty of original Prii are still on their original batteries that work fine. Li are obviously higher performance and density but at the expense of longevity, though that’s improving quickly these days. Toyota being as conservative as they are no doubt want to keep using what’s tried and true. These are 20-year trucks after all.
That’s likely a big factor. Many of these nameplates have reputations for being bulletproof, so maybe tried and true was the right call.
Legitimate no-snark question: have the LiOn batts been used offroad someplace and held up? Have they held up to cold cycle after cycle? The answer to these may be the answer to yours.
Why? Because it saves them money… that’s why!
Same reason why Chrysler made so many derivatives of the K platform in the past.
And these Toyotas on this platform don’t look ‘vastly different’ to me… at least not from a size, purpose or capability perspective. They’re all mid-size to large trucks or SUVs.
The old Chrysler K platform (and it’s related platforms like the E) had a far greater variety of body styles and size.
This. Platform sharing is nothing new.
1) If you have to write this article, they aren’t “vastly different” and not a single person outside of auto journos ($$$$ to write) believe that
2) I didn’t read the article besides the pictures because of that. I am sure its tons of technical stuff that doesn’t matter to a driver once its all put together.
3) The vehicles outside of the LC do NOT look good.
I don’t understand. The Tundra and 4Runner are very different models, as are the Sequoia and Tacoma, especially historically. They’re now technically rather similar for the reasons outlined in the piece.
Yes, rather similar, but the title says “vastly different”. That’s my issue.
I’ve read like 5-6 articles (a few sites added in, not just here) in the last two weeks, telling me specifically how all these are different, no one is buying it. Not necessarily including the Tundra/Sequia.
The Tundra/Sequoia and 4runner sure are different. But Take the Tundra, then look at the tacoma, then the 4 runner and LC and they all just blend together. My point in the end being, for your average person, there isn’t much of a difference. They won’t care about all of the tiny little things the engineers want us to notice, and most won’t even notice when test driving them. I just don’t see the big difference here besides the Tundra/Sequoia, and that difference is just in size. The other ones are all the same car to me, one just has a bed.
I enjoy your breakdowns and your writing, even though I semi-often have hater comments. This new toyota direction just has me going crazy, I really am not happy with it. So that has to be adding to my bias as well. I think all these new cars are duds and should never have been produced. Upgraded transmissions in the older versions, maybe a new engine and everyone would have been happy happy.
Thinking of my response, yes they are different, the outsides are different and insides etc…I just don’t see room for all of these vehicles. Get rid of the sequoia, and the LC or the 4 runner (LC is better imo, despite a little better off road in the 4runner). And as others had said, why is the Tacoma so fucking big now? They keep adding capability but all they are doing is building a second fullsized truck. I just think Toyota lost themselves and its upsetting me to see.
I’ve owned a 1st gen Tacoma, 3rd Gen Tacoma, Last gen 4runner and currently a 21 Tundra. None of these new vehicles evoke the emotion, loyalty or excitement for me that the past toyotas have. They scream “yuppie mall crawler” to me, which is what the rav4 is supposed to be, not the real stuff.
I totally get the frustration!
Love the jeep logo shirt David has in the video clip, How I would dress for a Toyota event.
“I Will Say: The Vehicles DO Look Good” – David Tracy
I won’t say that. I think they’re a bit of an improvement in the looks department from the last generation, though. They are a little more old-school Cylon and a little less Predator, so it’s a steep in the right direction, but they have a ways to go to get to “Look Good” territory. Just my opinion. Yours might be different. But mine’s right. 🙂
Maybe I’m looking into it too much, but I feel it’s pretty damning for an engineer for a brand new product, on the official product launch media event to say ““If we had to say what is the perfect size frame pitch, it would probably be narrower”. That seems like a pretty passive-voice way of saying “The Tacoma is now way too wide and heavy, and we know it, but had no choice in the matter”.
The new Tacoma is within 1″ of a 2004 F-150 in width! It’s 12 INCHES WIDER than a 1st gen Tacoma!
It’s not damning at all. It’s an engineer keeping it real with another engineer.
I made it clear that I know there are compromises. That’s how engineering works, so let’s talk about them.
Is the frame OPTIMAL? No. But the end product is still damned good, and that’s what matters.
I suppose it depends on your criteria. I’m sure the new Tacoma is a very competent vehicle, and technically excellent …but is it a damn good “mid-sized” truck?
The Tacoma is now just 2″ narrower and the same height as a F-150. The new Tacoma is now taller, wider and longer than a first-gen Tundra, which already looks huge compared to a 1st gen Tacoma (we have both parked side by side).
I feel like these compromises are getting too big to ignore now. With the Ranger and Colorado/Canyon sales absolutely cratering, and Maverick sales taking off like crazy, I can’t help but think automakers have finally made mid-sized trucks too big.
Which brings me back to my initial point. If the Tacoma is for all intents and purposes a “full size” truck, and still gets abysmal full-size truck like fuel economy – what purpose does it have existing? How can it be a great small truck if it completely fails at the two defining characteristics of small trucks?
Or rather, why does the Tundra exist since it’s now so close the Tacoma in construction and size?
This seems to be an issue all TNGA-F vehicles have.
It’s reminds me a lot of GM.
“With the Ranger and Colorado/Canyon sales absolutely cratering”
But they’re not cratering. The Colorado/Canyon sales are up 2024 Q1 over 2023 Q1 by about 2,000 units. The Ranger sales fell of a cliff because they stopped production on the outgoing model and the new model is just hitting dealerships. Frontier sales are up significantly as well.
The Colorado/Canyon sales numbers are down significantly the last few years – and I’m not even talking about the recent “Stop Sales” of them. Ranger sales have been in the toilet for the last couple of years, barely pushing 4,000 units/month – well before production ended of the outgoing model year.
On the other hand, the Maverick is killing it. It has been consistently outselling all of the current mid-sized trucks. Ford sold more Mavericks in March then Canyon, Colorados, Rangers, Frontiers and Tacomas combined.
My partner and I really wanted a Tacoma, but it’s just such a bad comparison vs an alloy F150.
A ‘light’ duty Ford with the 2.7 is faster, more fuel efficient, better towing capacity, more comfortable, while being barely any larger or heavier.
Oh, and the body doesn’t rust. I’m sure these new Toyotas are improved in every way, but the recipe looks pretty similar, and the fuel economy -while much better- is still unfortunate, even the hybrids. Hopefully the ratings are pessimistic, and you can outperform them with a light foot.
Yeah the Ford has Ford problems, but every brand has its anecdotal issues, even the Toyotas.
You didn’t need to specify 2004 f150. If you didn’t know, all fullsize pickups and SUVs are 80″ flare to flare.
DT – which one should i buy?
If you’re ballin’, I’m hearing good things about the GX…
not so much, chasing that xj high
You and I both.
We’ll be chasing that until the day we die.
2024 4Runner it is then
just bought one last night. only issue is the mpg which doesn’t improve much in the new model anyway
The first hit is the best one.
Won’t be long until folks start mixing and matching parts in the aftermarket. Nissan employed the same strategy with a common-ish frame between the Pathfinder, Xterra, Frontier, and Titan + the Infinity equivalents. The larger diff and longer control arms from a Titan bolt right up to a Frontier.
Lets see TRD pro shocks from a Taco and Tundra control arms on a LC250 for the hell of it.
One review I saw said theoretically you could swap Tundra front control arms onto a Taco for a sort of long travel setup.
In theory and in practice are two different things. But the bit about a common front knuckle has me hopeful.
and I wonder if this isn’t just a tiny bit of the game. Mix and match the parts you want to get the rig you want. But the base LC is still too spendy to swing by the a la carte menu after you buy it
New Tacoma manual in the new 4Runner. It’s probably somehow already being done right now by someone.
Ohhhh. That’d be a cool swap. Already, no one cares about the new Ford Ranger.
One compromise I am unhappy with in this approach is the common frame pitch. Its fine when you have a Tundra, or Sequoia, but on the narrower trucks its super obvious they are doing everything they can to get the wheels under the body with the constraints of a wide frame and the result is really REALLY bad looking wheels with a lot of offset. The Land Cruiser J250 is by far the worst offender. Its not just looks of course, since the wider pitch means shorter A-arms in the front that could could have used as well as a larger “planing area” under the engine to hit stuff.
The main problem I see with the J250 Land Cruiser is that it doesn’t need to exist. Build the J300 and just trim it like you are trimming the J250. Then at least you have a reason to chose one over the other.
The seasoned Land Cruiser people know that the 2025 Land Cruiser* will always have an asterisk associated with it (people will either call it the “new land cruiser”, the Land Cruiser Prado, the J250 Land Cruiser or just 250 series) and while it will be an excellent vehicle, it will never really be a replacement for the 300 in their hearts (even though the 250 is a lot better looking). There are meaningful differences in the 300 still including optional front locker, slightly stronger rear axle, stronger steering components, etc.
Frankly, what Toyota should have done from the start was style the 300 like the 250 and sold it globally.
As a current 4Runner owner, seeing all these new Yota 4×4’s has renewed my interest in finding an 80 series LC. Nothing we get in the US will ever top that.
all the new stuff sucks! Toyoda has left the building and we have big three chasers in the office now and they have imo, and many on the forums, completely left the toyota loyalist behind to be trendy.
nope, but you raging with internet t-rex arms all over this thread is super funny to me
Glad for your entertainment! I will openly admit I am upset about all this more than is rational!!!
Yes, exactly. The new 4Runner and the J250 has way too much in common. Same drivetrain. And the 4R can also be spec’d with a full-time 4×4 and the hybrid system.
Other markets either have the 4R or the J250 Prado but not both.
And we also the new Lexus GX.
I just can’t understand why Toyota decided to federalize the expensive, low-volume seller Lexus LX600, but not the LC300 which would’ve been an obvious successor of the LC200.
Instead of the LC300, they developed the US/Canada-only Sequoia for a ton of money, that is slightly less capable off-road and only very slightly bigger inside.
But just as expensive as an entry-spec LC300 would’ve been.
Anyway, I dig the new J250 but I’m afraid the prices will be so inflated that we’ll end up with a midsize LC for the prices of the old fullsize platform.
You don’t like shallower dish low offset wheels? They are literally better from a suspension geometry point of view, mainly in scrub radius.
They don’t do well against rocks though.
Are these vehicles really all that different?
That radiator / intercooler / ac condenser stack looks like it would be as tall as my entire car if you stood it on the road.
I’m also wondering why Toyota doesn’t create another manufacturing facility for even more capacity. (sure because it’s that easy ????)
No, but really. When looking at the Yen USD Charts, it really makes sense. USD is trading at 1 USD to 154 JPY just like in the mid 1990s. The USD is incredibly strong.
Making more vehicles in Japan would yield more money for their economy and also providing a lot more vehicles for us, potentially reducing an opportunity for dealership price gouging.
That’s a win win imo.
Let’s bring back the late 1980s and 1990s over engineering that fostered cars like the Supra, MR2, and LC80. ????
Oh and of course, Miki Matsubara.
I believe the extra capacity with Mazda is going to get you a mini pickup and/or a mini LC…so you are on to something
I miss mini trucks.
This might be a segment where an EV truck with 250 miles of range and a 4′ bed like the Ford Maverick could work. It might weigh 4,500 lbs, but we can hope the interior build quality is good if MIJ (made in japan)
I think a major problem is that the United States can’t go towards the Kei truck style builds with minimalistic interiors. If I get a pickup truck, I really don’t care about Apple Carplay. I just want to be able to play music off my phone and take my calls via bluetooth.
Google maps on a handsfree holder.
A cash grab with useless technology is where we are in society, capitalism gone wrong.
As a guy who wants usable carrying capability, a lift gate and the ability to carry a full pallet of Quikrete from the distributor, a bunch of plants, pavers, etc to my home is what I really want.
A truck with:
“The second-gen Tacoma sat on a similar frame (though with leaf springs out back),”
Correction: The Tacoma and 4Runner/GX were very different frames. The Tacoma used the front 1/3rd of the J150 platform (more or less), but the back 2/3rds were uniquely Tacoma. Open C versus fully boxed, different suspension, different crossmembers, etc.
I’ll fix that. In any case, it strengthens my point: These vehicles used to be VERY different!
Completely. I mean the Sequoia didn’t even have the same suspension TYPE in the rear, with its bespoke IRS subframe.
Wow, I just realized they went from independent to solid axle. A rare step! (backwards, in some folks’ eyes)!
compromises. That being said, I don’t think its a step backwards for anything but 3rd row packaging. The 2nd gen Sequoia had the worst towing squat and for this class, you sorta need to have confident large stuff towing.
But that 3rd row packaging makes a huge difference if you actually intend to use that 3rd row. And it also had a negative impact on cargo capacity. And likely ride quality. Somehow the GM, Ford and Jeep full-size manage to incorporate an IRS that still tows well. The fact that the Sequoia made the switch took it off of my list.
Thats fair. It certainly did affect packaging.
With the recent LC styling and market position, it really brings GM’s decision to release that… thing they call a Blazer to a head. We got the Bronco, Land Cruiser, and Wrangler duking it out at the moment, and GM just has faceless blob 127 on dealer lots
Vastly? Really? It’s all trucks and SUVs.
Meanwhile, something like the MQB platform had everything like Audi TTs to VW Atlases, to VW Golfs to Arteons.
And the VW group MLB Evo underpins everything from an Audi A4/A5/A6/A7/A8 to the Bentley Bentaya, Lambo Urus, Porsche Cayenne and Macan, Audi Q5/7/8 etc. The modular architecture idea is pretty cool.
Yeah. “we make frame longer for long truck and shorter for short truck” doesn’t sound like such a stroke of genius next to MQB/MLB, but to be fair those are less platforms and more a basis of doing things, as I understand it. I think the windshield pitch and engine mounts are the only fixed points and pretty much everything else is fair game to grow or shrink in any dimension.
Another great DT article
Toyota is basing the new Taco, 4Runner, Land Cruiser, and GX on the TNGA-F platform and it looks like that’ll work well.
Ford based the Ranger and Bronco on the T-6 platform and that’s worked well.
Jeep based the Wrangler and Gladiator on the JL platform and that’s worked well (enough).
Can someone tell me why GM didn’t make a BOF SUV to release along with the third gen Colorado/Canyon? I’m sure there’s plenty of appetite for a Blazer/Jimmy, especially they came with beefy ZR2, Bison, AT4X etc. flavors.
Keep in mind the “T-6 Platform” and the “JL platform” are dedicated mid-sized truck/SUV platforms. TNGA-F is also utilized for full-sized vehicles.
Related to the Ford example is the Everest, a Ranger-based 3-row SUV much like the 4Runner. GM has been in that space with a different, Colorado-based TrailBlazer though I don’t think it’s gotten a new generation. But both were designed for/by Australia too, not just for emerging markets.
Perhaps it’s something that would be under greater consideration now that the 4Runner is much closer with the Tacoma again. But I also suspect the answer would have something to do with protecting retail sales and profits of their large SUVs and crossovers. Colorado/Canyon/Ranger didn’t really affect sales of their respective full-size trucks, but Toyota owns the midsize space anyway and doesn’t really have a big piece at all of the full-size pie.
This.
GM already has a Colorado-based Trailblazer but is too stupid to sell it here.
The Everest should be sold here as the Explorer.
Is the new 4Runner really vastly different from the new LC though? It’s almost like Ford achieved the same amount of difference with Bronco trim levels
Branding. Ford only had the Bronco name to pull from for rough and tumble BOF SUVs. Toyota can more precisely tailor the offerings, capabilities, and vibes through two established models. 4Runner for the yee-yee Zyn-heads and Land Cruiser for the stealth wealth doomsday preppers.
Well, yes, but I’m calling out the premise of this article that Toyota made them vastly different. I’m not pondering why
Or almost every truck and SUV manufacturer used to do. That’s what SUVs were for such a long time. Suburbans were built on short wheel base C10 frames. IH Travelalls were based on IH pick-up platforms.
Well, the Tundra and 4Runner, historically, are vastly different.
That’s sorta how I feel about it.
Thanks for the pictures and deep dive, Now I know where to look, on my upper midwest salted roads driven toyota owning friends trucks, for rust in and on the frames.
It’s articles like these that put this site a step above others. I don’t understand 1/4 of the technical aspects of it, but that’s fine since I’m not the target audience for this article or type of vehicle, but Toyota articles always drag me in and DT articles make me want to read to the end.