Has Anyone Cross-Shoped The Land Cruiser

[At Law]

Good Afternoon,

As I narrow down my search for a new Tahoe LT Signature Series with a second row bench, I started looking at new Toyota Land Cruisers.

The new Land Cruisers all come well-equipped. There are no packages. The only "option" is rear entertainment screens (which I would prefer to not have).

MSRP on new Land Cruisers is approx. $86,000.00. This time of year, they can be purchased for about $75,000.00 -- give or take a few dollars.

The Tahoe LT Signature Package that I am looking at has an MSRP of $66,500.00. I will be in the $58,000.00 range out the door.

The Land Cruisers are approx. $17,000 - $19,000 more than the Tahoe.

The Tahoes are 2019 models and the Land Cruisers are 2018 models.

I am very interested to hear from folks who have owned / driven / cross-shopped the two brands and what his or her thoughts are.

Thanks in advance.

Tom

 

[G00se]

T.G. -- I checked out the Land Cruiser online only (did not test drive) and stopped once I saw the price delta as you've pointed out. Toyota's reliability and resale value are great, probably better than Tahoe, but that wasn't worth the price delta to me. Additionally, the Land Cruiser's third row doesn't fold flat like the Tahoe/Yukon does and, subjectively, the Tahoe looks and tows better. I felt a better competitor to the Tahoe was the 2018+ Expedition.

 

[noob]

Landcruisers will be lacking in features when compared to a fully loaded tahoe. Things like lane assist etc are not available. BUT where it will make up for that is if you plan to keep it long term. Most cars are built to ~10 year service life. The land cruisers are built to a 30 year service life. That being said, if you plan to buy a car and keep it for a VERY long time, then the land cruiser may come out on top with less issues that may occur due to tougher built parts. Plus after the first 5 or so years, the depreciation will slow down, due to people that will look for a older car to take off roading thats reliable.

 

[At Law]

Thank you for your replies. Very informative.

I have been looking for a new Tahoe for quite some time. However, the Land Cruiser has always interested me.

I was visiting my folks a couple of weeks ago and noticed their neighbor had purchased a new black Land Cruiser. It was very sharp, elegant, and a bit understated.
They have had another Land Cruiser in their family for years (it is about 15 years old) and they gave this to their son who is a freshman at the University of Iowa. That old Land Cruiser is sharp as well.

I chatted with him a bit and he had nothing but good things to say about the trucks.

The Tahoe is a great looking and very reliable vehicle as well. I am just curious about the comparisons before I pull the proverbial trigger.

Thanks.

T.G.

 

[DWTahoe]

IMHO, if you have that kind of money you can't go wrong with a Land Cruiser, it is Toyota's "flagship". It gets all their technology, off road capability and longevity, it's proven around the globe. However, you do pay for it. Keep in mind with that longevity, I don't think you get cutting edge "new" technology compared to other companies in some cases.

 

[bgsntth]

Just remember that the LC has not been updated in quite awhile. Powertrain, cabin, and third-row seat configuration was acceptable a decade ago. I was lured into looking at the LC based on its 3-row configuration, reliability and off-road capability. However, the second and third row have really poor leg-room, and the third-row seats take up a lot of luggage space.

 

[Dooba]

tl;dr LT Tahoe isn’t in the price range of the LC, a Escalade, Denali or RST is. If you go into rough terrain a lot, get the LC hands down. If you want a pavement queen that can deal with occasional snow/slippery terrain, get a 4wd gm full size. They’re both reliable powertrains, but Toyota’s reliability has the upper hand.

The price delta is because the LC comes with a 4WD system that has all the bells and whistles you’d need to go anywhere. Sure you can get a gm full-size with 4WD, but it wouldn’t be nearly as capable (or reliable with more moving parts). Compare the LC’s 4WD with the likes of range rovers and g wagons, by then it would seem the LC is worth every cent (and it is).

Where I’m from LCs are plentiful and, as mentioned by others, they’re reliable and last a long time. We went with a Yukon since we don’t need 4WD and price for price, the Yukon is better equipped for less. At 75k, the LC is competing with the 6.2/10spd Denalis, RSTs and Escalades, not a normal 5.3/6spd Tahoe or Yukon.

All in all, test drive and see what you like best, but a 5.3 LT Tahoe and 5.7 LC are not in the same price range and shouldn’t be compared. We compared a 4.6 V8 LC to a 5.3 SLT Yukon, both within $1k of each other, and we went with a Yukon because of passive entry, cooled/heat seats, carplay (at the time, its available now iirc - AA still isn’t though), more power, better fuel economy, safety systems (e.g. lane keep), and so on.

I’ve ranted on, but its because we’ve actually compared the two. The only feature the LC does better is it has superior (compared to non-HID GM full sizes) exterior lighting stock for stock.

 

[Dooba]

Double post - my bad

 

[GTNator]

I seriously considered the LC as we also own a Toyota Sequoia (wife's), which has the same powertrain as LC but is much larger on the inside. One thing about Toyota that others have mentioned that I do not like, their technology is so far behind many other brands, including GM (and the new Ford Expedition).

The LC (and Sequoia, and 4Runner...) are all old. Their engines suck gas like its 1987. By contrast, GM has invested heavily in fuel efficiency in their large V8 engines. I still can't believe how awesome my 6.2l engine does on the highway.

Another example of low tech in Toyotas is with their safety features, ie auto braking, lane keep, adaptive cruise...just compare them and you'll see.

Then there is size and practicality of living with the vehicle. The Tahoe is way more practical on the inside, more storage compartments, more comfort for passengers in leg room, cargo room to carry all your things... And parts are super cheap if you ever need them.

BUT, if I were moving to Africa and I could only pick one vehicle to own for the rest of my life, I would pick the LC, knowing that I'd be giving up comfort, technology, roominess, and fuel efficiency ONLY because I needed vehicle to last me 30 years.

But honestly, who wants to keep a vehicle that long? I don't even want to keep my vehicle longer than 5 years because they're becoming like computers with all the technology. I bet in 5 years the GM SUVs will all have Super Cruise or something even better that which will give you the option of self driving when you get tired, or just want to relax for a bit and let the truck drive itself.

 

[swathdiver]

If one wants to tow any sort of load with their family, the Sequoia is inferior to the Tahoe and Suburban. They do not have the cargo or weight carrying capacity that the GM trucks do.

 

[cardude2000]

If one wants to tow any sort of load with their family, the Sequoia is inferior to the Tahoe and Suburban. They do not have the cargo or weight carrying capacity that the GM trucks do.

True but this thread is about ‘cross shopping the land cruiser’. ;-)