Auto Motor und Sport tested the new Toyota Landcruiser 4.
5 V8. The testers praised its off-road capabilities and driving comfort. However, the rear seats were described as uncomfortable. The interior materials were good but the cockpit suffered from poor alignment and large panel gaps in certain parts. The interior ergonomics were described as confusing.
The engine was praised for refinement but the engine response was poor and the fuel consumption was rated as extremely poor. In normal driving conditions the Landcruiser needs 15.4 liters of diesel per 100 km. The testers said this does not fit into character with the green image Toyota wants to project. Such poor fuel economy is also frowned upon by consumers in the mainstream car market, where arguably the Landcruiser is still positioned.
Where the 2.8 ton Landcruiser performed extremely poorly was in the braking department. 10 braking tests were perfomed beginning with cold brakes and ending with fully warmed up brakes With cold brakes, the Landcruiser needed 44 meters to come to a halt from 100-0 km/h. When the brakes were warmed up the car needed an alarming 56 meters to come to a complete stop. In the past, many cars from Toyota and Lexus have performed poorly in the braking department in various Auto Motor und Sport tests. The Landcruiser joins the Jeep Wrangler & Commander, Mitsubishi L200, Hummer H2 and Cadillac Escalade as the worst braking SUV's tested so far. For comparison purposes, a Mercedes GL420 CDI will come to a full stop at 42 meters with warm brakes - an old G-Class at 43 meters!
In the end the Landcruiser is not recommended because of the extremely weak brakes and poor fuel economy. Furthermore the only other engine option is an uneconomical 4.7-l gasoline V8 with 288-horsepower for 79,900 Euros. The testers also felt the car is overpriced and has lost much of its appeal.
Good interior materials
Comfortable seats (front)
Refined diesel engine
Smooth automatic transmission
Good driving characteristics in straight line
Good safety features
Poor material alignment on certain aspects of the interior
Poor cockpit ergonomics
Extremely weak brakes
Poor fuel economy
Uncomfortable seats (rear)
Poor engine response
Rating: 2 / 5 stars
Source: Auto Motor und Sport, February