I Drove The New Toyota 4Runner. Here’s How It Compares To The Land Cruiser

When the Toyota 4Runner debuted in April, many Toyota fans were confused. The brand had recently revealed a new Land Cruiser, which, unlike its predecessor (which was built on its own special platform) now shared the “TNGA-F” bones with its stablemates the Tacoma, Sequoia, and Tundra. So when this new 4Runner — which was similar in size, also TNGA-F-based, and powered by the same 2.4-liter engine hooked to an eight-speed transmission — showed up, many thought it seemed too similar to the Land Cruiser. Almost redundant. Well, I just had a chance to drive the 4Runner alongside the Land Cruiser; here’s what I found.

Right away, the answer is yes: There’s plenty of overlap between the two vehicles. Toyota, of course, wants to market the machines to different customers so as to cast as wide a net as possible in hopes of perhaps snagging a Bronco or Wrangler or even Cayenne customer. “4Runner is a North America-focused product for North American taste, so the driving dynamics and styling are very different,” a Toyota representative told me at the 4Runner’s first-drive media event. “One of [the chief engineer’s] top three goals was to make it fun to drive and sporty,” he continued. “Land cruiser is a global vehicle based on global heritage and tastes, from a driving dynamics standpoint.”

In short, the way Toyota wants the world to see the two vehicles is: 4Runner = aggressive, Land Cruiser = premium — and that means both from a styling/fit and finish standpoint as well as from a vehicle dynamics standpoint.

What Is It?

Toyota’s rep told me the 4Runner is a lot of things, and looking at the trim level breakdown, that’s quite true. Whereas the Land Cruiser comes in only two trims — 1958 and Land Cruiser — the 4Runner is available in nine variants, starting between $42,220 and $68,350:

• SR5 ($42,220 for 4×2, $44,220 for 4×4))
• TRD Sport ($48,700 for 4×2, $50,700 for 4×4)
• TRD Sport Premium ($54,060 for 4×2, $56,060 for 4×4)
• TRD Off-Road 4×4 ($50,640)
• TRD Off-Road Premium 4×4 ($56,420)
• Limited ($56,850 for 4×2, $58,850 for 4×4)
• Platinum 4×4 ($64,310)
• TRD Pro 4×4 ($68,350)
• Trailhunter 4×4 ($68,350)

The top three trims come solely with the 2.4-liter hybrid “i-Force Max” powertrain (shown above), which makes 326 horsepower and 465 lb-ft of torque. This is a familiar powertrain to anyone familiar with the Tacoma or Land Cruiser.

While the Limited, TRD Off-Road, and TRD Off-Road Premium all come standard with the regular 278 horsepower, 317 lb-ft 2.4-liter “i-Force” engine (shown below) that are the only available engines in the SR5 and TRD Sport, the three offer the hybrid for an extra $2,800.

Only the SR5 and non-hybrid Limited offer ($600) third-row seating, and that’s because the hybrid battery under the rear cargo area takes up a lot of space. You can see what I mean on this Trailhunter:

Here’s a three-row SR5, a trim that doesn’t come with the hybrid powertrain. (Note: The TRD Sport and TRD Off-Road non-hybrids would have space for a third row, but Toyota says historically it’s only offered the third row on Limited and SR5 — based on customer demand and dealer feedback. Personally, I’d like a third row in the TRD Off-Road). You can see how the rear cargo floor is much lower on the non-hybrid:

As for the actual bones of the 4Runner, it’s all familiar. Here’s the front suspension of the Tacoma: 

Here’s the Land Cruiser:

And here’s the new 4Runner’s front suspension:

You’ll notice differences in control arms (some of that varies based on trim level), and there are definitely plenty of geometry differences in the actual links themselves, but the suspension mounting points to the frame (which shares the same pitch/rail width across all vehicles) are the same, and so is the basic design — double-wishbone independent front suspension with coilovers. Ditto with the coil-sprung solid rear axle.

Here’s the Tacoma:

Here’s the Land Cruiser:

And here’s the 4Runner’s rear suspension:

As for dimensions, they’re quite similar between the 4Runner and Land Cruiser, which is 194 inches long, 84.2 inches wide, and 73.2 inches tall. The 4Runner is about an inch longer, about the same width, and the height of Limited/TRD Sport/Platinum 4Runner trims is roughly the same as the Land Cruiser. Even ground clearance is about the same between the Land Cruiser and those three 4Runner trims.

Towing capacity – 6,000 pounds — is shared between both vehicles, and combined fuel economy (23 MPG) is the same between hybrid 4Runners and the hybrid-only Land Cruiser. You can see that non-hybrid 4Runners give up one or two combined MPG:

Anyway, let’s talk about how the 4Runner drove, and then tie that into what the Land Cruiser was like.

What’s It Like To Drive?

The event started in downtown San Diego, where I hopped into a 4Runner TRD Pro and hit the highway. The interior is pretty much exactly the same as that of the Toyota Tacoma that I drove recently, with a 14-inch touchscreen slapped on the center stack and a 12.3-inch digital gauge cluster. It’s rather chunky, with blocky TOYOTA letters on the dash, a Tonka-Truck-like shift lever, a thick grip on the center tunnel for the passenger, and interior materials that are rather… uh, durable (i.e hard).

I noticed some less-than perfect trim on the preproduction TRD Pro I was sitting in; here’s some interesting interior fitment near the glovebox:

The journalist in the driver’s seat was throwing the truck around a bit to test its agility and speed; neither of us were particularly blown away by that, but the ride quality was decent, and it’s a big truck on 33-inch tires so less-than-tight handling is to be expected.

The big black non-functional hoodscoop shook around a bit at highway speeds just like it does on the Tacoma; I find that big chunk of plastic to be rather silly.

Speaking of the TRD Pro’s plastic, upon arrival Toyota did a little presentation in front of one, and I couldn’t help but notice how badly that piano black swirls. Just look at this:

As the owner of a BMW i3S that’s covered in Piano black, I can tell you that it’s annoying seeing those swirls all over your otherwise-nice car. This is not an appropriate material for any vehicle, let alone an off-road machine. For this to be on the top-spec TRD Pro is silly.

The Cheapest 4Runner Is Good

The first vehicle I drove was the base-model, bargain-basement 4Runner SR5 in two-wheel drive — asking price: about $43,000. I immediately liked it.

On-road, it was my favorite of the 4Runners I would drive later that day, in part because – at 4,455 pounds — the rear-drive SR5 weighs 1,000 pounds less than the TRD Pro. A thousand! At that point, its 278 horsepower, 317 lb-ft 2.4-liter non-hybrid turbo engine made the vehicle feel just as quick as the 326 horsepower, 465 lb-ft TRD Pro. Honestly, maybe a bit quicker. And overall, the car felt smaller, lower, nimbler and just more pleasant to drive.

The 2.4-liter turbochared inline-four is a little buzzy, and not particularly interesting in any way, but it’s powerful enough, and the eight-speed automatic snaps off shifts crisply and with no drama. It’s a decent powertrain and drivetrain, but unremarkable like that of many 4Runners that came before.

The inside of the SR5 makes do with an eight-inch screen, which was big enough, and if I’m honest felt a bit less “tacked on” than the 14-incher found in the higher trims. The light cloth seats both looked great and felt great.

Getting Into The Third Row

The optional third-row was interesting. I’d never experienced the “jump seats” of the outgoing 4Runner, but these are similar. Because the articulation of the solid rear axle requires a rather tall rear frame “kick” and thus rear floor, the seats stand only a few inches high, and “slip” down and backwards when folded.

Entry via the second row is a little challenging due to the rear wheel arch, but — with the second row folded by simply pulling a lever — it wasn’t too bad.

Here’s the third-row folded flat:

You can use either this handle….

… or this strap to release the seatback and raise it:

You’ll then see the seat cushion slotted down below:

You reach through this strange rubber-ish barrier to pull the seat up:

Then boom: You’ve got a jumpseat:

Lifting the headrest and having a seat, I found that, at five-foot eight-inches, my legroom was a bit tight. Not bad for a short trip, but definitely pushing it:

The biggest issue was the headroom, which was rough for an adult; my balding noggin hit the headliner. This rear seat would be totally usable for small children, but probably not teens.

The 4Runner Trailhunter Is Legitimate

From the base SR5 I jumped into a pair of Trailhunters. That’s the “overlanding” version of the 4Runner (the other top-dog off-road trim, the TRD Pro, is more “rally” oriented). At $68,350, the Trailhunter is expensive, but it is formidable off-road, offering lots of underbody protection, a sway bar disconnect for added front axle articulation, meaty 33-inch tires, a rear locker, and a snorkel. Plus, it’s pretty well decked out on the inside, too:

The off-road trail was absurdly easy for the Trailhunter. The sway bar disconnect didn’t yield impressive front axle articulation due to the nature of the independent front suspension, but that coil-sprung five-link rear axle flexed nicely, and crawling through uneven terrain was smooth and easy, especially thanks to that front-facing camera.

The hood, with its nice low-spot in the center, was pleasant to look over and made navigating the trail a breeze, and if I’d somehow still missed my line on one of the small rock gardens, I’d have been well protected by underbody skidplates on the front end, fuel tank, and transfer case:

With 10.1-inches of ground clearance, a rear locker, and a disconnecting front sway bar, the Toyota 4Runner Trailhunter may seem like a hard-core off-roader, but it’s got a big belly and a large arse — the resulting 24-degree breakover and departure angle aren’t amazing. They’re decent, but not anywhere near on the same level as, say, a Ford Bronco or Jeep Wrangler.

The TRD Pro “Rally” SUV Is Fun At High Speeds

I had a chance to drive the TRD Pro around a high-speed dirt track.

The truck, thanks in part to “3-way adjustable Fox 2.5-in internal bypass Q3S shocks with rear piggy-back remote reservoirs” floated over everything nicely.

Toyota even took the 4Runner TRD Pro on a jump. I gotta hand it to Toyota; this is no joke:

Still, I’m not a huge fan of the TRD Pro trim; the piano-black exterior cladding bothers me, and the big fake plastic bulge that shakes around is also annoying:

Plus, the underbody protection, shown below, isn’t quite as thorough as it is on the Trailhunter, a vehicle that, it’s worth noting, isn’t exactly terrible on higher-speed desert terrain (it has “Old Man Emu® 2.5-in forged shocks with rear piggyback remote reservoirs”).

But as much as I liked the Trailhunter and at least appreciated the TRD Pro, after driving most of the 4Runner variants I found myself reaching a conclusion that seemed rather familiar.

The Trailhunter is legitimately good off-road thanks to its locker, sway bar disconnect, big tires, decent geometry, and thorough skidplating. But it’s pricy and maybe a little on the gaudy side with that snorkel. The TRD Pro is similarly capable off-road, but tacky, not as well protected underneath, and also rather overpriced. The TRD Off-Road seems like the Goldilocks trim.

The TRD Off-Road Is The Goldilocks Trim

I reached this conclusion — the exact same one I reached after I drove all the Tacoma trims — after setting foot in a pair of TRD Off-Road models. It’s this trim — my favorite one — that I will compare with the Land Cruiser in a moment.

The TRD Off-Road model starts at $50,640, while the TRD Off-Road Premium costs $56,420. Compared with, say, a Ford Bronco four-door or a Jeep Wrangler four-door, that’s about $10 grand more. But 4Runners have always cost more than Jeeps and Broncos, and people still buy them. A lot of this has to do with brand reputation, some has to do with refinement — we don’t need to go into that now; what matters is that the TRD Off-Road seems like the best 4Runner there is per dollar.

I first hopped into the TRD Off-Road Premium hybrid you see above and below. That’s an over $60,870 machine. It’s got a nice faux-leather interior, the big screen, a front-facing camera, and a moonroof (in addition to the standard TRD Off-Road stuff like the 33-inch tires and rear locker).

I didn’t do any crazy off-roading with the 4Runner TRD Off-Road, but it was clear to me that it offers plenty of capability for even the avid off-road enthusiast. There’s great forward visibility, especially with the optional Camera (standard on the TRD Off-Road Premium); the 9.1 inches of ground clearance is plentiful; and those generic-looking matte-black fender flares? Nice and boring (i.e. functional), just how I like them:

There’s no sway bar disconnect in the 4Runner TRD Off-Road, but that’s fine given how little flex the front suspension has anyway, and though underbody protection leaves something to be desired (I’m fairly sure the front skidplate is composite, and there’s nothing protecting the transmission — the fuel tank and transfer case have a bit of sheet metal protection, though), that can be fixed in the aftermarket:

I then jumped into a completely optionless base-model, non-hybrid TRD Off-Road — the $50,640 vehicle, and immediately I knew I’d found my favorite of them all:

The optionless TRD Off-Road 4Runner is nothing special inside or out, really. It’s functional. It’s got nice cloth seats, a rear locker, some decent 33-inch tires, a little bit of underbody protection (as shown before), a gasoline 2.4-liter turbocharged motor hooked to an eight-speed automatic, and a low-range transfer case — it’s everything I need and not a bit more.

OK, I do wish it came with a front-facing camera (especially for off-roading, especially a modern car with a tall hood), and I would definitely ditch the running boards on the car I drove, but otherwise it seems like the best bang-for-your-buck 4Runner, and at 4,850 pounds it’s also over 600 pounds lighter than the Trailhunter or TRD Pro.

That helps make the power deficit from not having the hybrid motor less obvious; that weight, along with the added cargo space and the fact that the delta in fuel economy would take a decade to pay back, has me thinking that skipping the hybrid is the move. Of course, I’ll solidify that recommendation when I have a better idea of real-world fuel economy and reliability, but based on the info I have now, I’d skip the i-Force Max.

Toyota 4Runner TRD Off-Road Vs Toyota Land Cruiser

OK, so why would you buy a Land Cruiser?

Well, let’s take a look at pricing. The 4Runner I showed just above costs $50,640, which is nearly seven grand cheaper than the base $57,400 Land Cruiser. Yes, the base Land Cruiser gets the bigger infotainment screen, a hybrid powertrain, and a full-time four-wheel drive system with locking Torsen LSD for the center differential, whereas the 4Runner makes do with a smaller screen, a part-time four-wheel drive system, and a less powerful gasoline powertrain.

But the base “1958” Land Cruiser’s interior quality is really not much better than the 4Runner’s (you have to step up a trim level in the Land Cruiser before the door and dash plastics stop becoming hard), and like I said before: I don’t think the hybrid powertrain is worth the loss in interior volume or the price jump in the 4Runner.

As for interior styling, here’s the base Land Cruiser:

Here’s the base 4Runner TRD Off-Road:

Another angle of the Land Cruiser:

Again the 4Runner TRD Off-Road:

Land Cruiser 1958:

Base 4Runner TRD Off-Road:

I’d give the edge to the Land Cruiser on interior design elegance. What about the outside?

I’d probably give the edge to the Land Cruiser again. I think the roofline is more squared off and the nose looks less “squished” than the 4Runner.

What about off-road capability (see my Land Cruiser off-road test here)? Well, the two SUVs are quite evenly matched. They both come standard with a rear locker (the Land Cruiser has a locking center diff, which the 4Runner doesn’t need since the front and rear driveshafts are locked anytime it’s in four-wheel drive), they both have some basic underbody skidplating, and both come with Toyo all-terrain tires.

But the tires aren’t the same size; the Land Cruiser has 245/70R18 tires while the 4Runner ‘s 265/70R18 all-terrains are about an inch larger in diameter. This helps explain the 4Runner’s 9.1-inches of ground clearance compared to the Land Cruiser’s 8.7.

But off-road capability isn’t just about ground clearance; yes, the most important element in a vehicle’s off-road capability is geometry, but that also includes overhangs, and on that front, the Land Cruiser offers an approach angle of 30 degrees, a departure angle of 22 degrees, and a breakover angle of 25 degrees. The 4Runner TRD Off-Road’s approach angle is 19 degrees, the departure angle is 24 degrees, and the breakover angle is 24 degrees.

Normally, if a vehicle has an 11 degree advantage in approach angle (the most important of the three angles, since once can use momentum to overcome deficits in the other areas), it’s almost always the better off-roader, but in this case, that’s not necessarily true. First, the Land Cruiser’s 22-degree departure angle really limits that 11-degree approach angle advantage, anyway. And second: I don’t actually believe that the 4Runner TRD Off-Road vehicles that I drove had the 19-degree approach angle that Toyota claims. It just doesn’t make a lot of sense.

Have a look at this base-model SR5, which has smaller tires than the TRD Off-Road and a rather hideous chin spoiler:

The SR5’s approach angle is, per Toyota, 18 degrees. If you look at the image above, you’ll see that just removing that chin spoiler clearly adds more than a single degree to the approach angle. The TRD Off-Roads at the press event did not have that spoiler and they had larger tires, so how could they have 19-degree approach angles?

This is a bit strange, since Toyota’s TRD Off-Roads do have this spoiler on the online configurator:

It’s possible Toyota took the spoilers off the TRD Off-Road models; if that’s the case, I’d probably do the same, because that would probably jack the 4Runner TRD Off-Road’s approach angle up to around 30 degrees given that the Trailhunter/TRD Pro have 33-degree faces.

In any case, based on my experience driving the Land Cruiser 1958 and 4Runner TRD Off-Road, they really do feel similarly capable off-road. So that’s a bit of a wash, the styling goes in favor of the Land Cruiser (in my eyes), and pricing is clearly in favor of the 4Runner. But what about interior volume and driving dynamics?

Cargo-volume wise, the two hybrids are basically a match, with the 4Runner TRD Off-Road offering 82.6 cubic feet behind the front row and 42.6 cubic feet behind the second row. The Land Cruiser offers just 0.5 cubic feet less behind the front row at 82.1 and actually more space behind the second row at 46.2 cubic feet. The non-hybrid 4Runner blows them both out of the water with 90.2 cubic feet with the second row folded flat and 48.4 behind the second row.

As for on-road driving dynamics, I did get the impression that maybe the Land Cruiser rides a little softer/cushier, and the 4Runner was a bit firmer, but neither was a sports car in the curves, both had plenty of body roll and brake dive, and neither was quick. They were adequate on-road, decent off-road, and hopefully even better in the dealership service center because that’s a key reason why people pay the Toyota Tax. We’ll find that out in due time.

My Verdict

I think there’s a temptation to criticize Toyota for offering two models that are so similar architecturally and so alike in terms of capability. I get it — the old Land Cruiser was something truly special, and this Land Cruiser feels unremarkable — but if we’re being honest, that old Land Cruiser had become an overpriced luxo-yacht, and choice is a beautiful thing. We’ve now got a choice between two body-on-frame off-road Toyota mid-size SUVs — that’s awesome.

No, the 2.4-liter turbocharged inline-four isn’t going to blow you away; it’s OK just as it is in the Tacoma and just as many 4Runner/Tacoma engines were in the past — rather forgettable. The eight-speed automatic does a good job getting the most out of that mill, and hopefully real-world fuel economy and reliability will significantly exceed that of the outgoing models. The independent front suspension and solid axle are fairly typical and work well off-road and on, and the interiors are modernized but modest. This is all to say: The new Tacoma and 4Runner are worthy successors, and you can think of the Land Cruiser as a sort of 4Runner-alternative that fits right in the middle of the trim-lineup.

It’s not as hard-core off-road as the 4Runner TRD Pro or Trailhunter, and it’s significantly better off-road than the SR5 or the Limited/TRD Sport. It’s roughly as capable as the 4Runner TRD Off-Road, but it comes standard with the hybrid powertrain (which means it has significantly less cargo volume than the non-hybrid TRD Off-Road), it looks handsomer (in my opinion) both inside and out, and maybe it rides a tiny bit softer.

So if you don’t care about off-roading and you want something cheap and/with three rows, maybe a base 4Runner SR5 is the move. If you want something that can off-road reasonably well but doesn’t cost over about $51,000, buy the 4Runner TRD Off-Road. If you want a harder-core off-roader and money is no object, buy a 4Runner Trailhunter or TRD Pro. If you want the most luxurious reasonably capable off-roader from Toyota, buy the Land Cruiser. (If you need more luxury, get the Lexus GX). And if you just want something that’s decent off-road but you really care more about looks extremely cool, then in my opinion the answer is the base Land Cruiser.

If it were up to me between the two vehicles, my brain would choose the non-hybrid 4Runner TRD Off-Road over the Land Cruiser because I want the interior volume, I don’t care about the hybrid powertrain, I’m cool with the smaller screen, and I really want to save $7000. My heart, though? It might just take the non-base-model Land Cruiser to get a vehicle with decent off-road capability and a nicer-quality interior than any 4Runner. Because if you’re already dropping $50 big ones on an SUV, you want to sit somewhere nice, don’t you? Or maybe I’ve gone soft.