Toyota Land Cruiser FJ vs BYD SHARK 6 DMO

A proper head-to-head in South Africa — compare price, performance, fuel economy or electric range, safety and the details that shape long-term ownership.

Toyota Land Cruiser FJ in South Africa

Toyota Land Cruiser FJ

2.7 4x4 VX 6AT Petrol 6-Speed Automatic Current
ZAR 761,400 ex-showroom
⚡ 122 kW 🔧 245 Nm ⛽ 9.3 km/l
VS
BYD SHARK 6 DMO in South Africa

BYD SHARK 6 DMO

Performance DMO AWD Plug-in Hybrid e-CVT Current
ZAR 1,149,900 ex-showroom
⚡ 180 kW 🔧 380 Nm ⛽ 9.5 km/l
+ Add a 3rd car

Decision summary

Toyota Land Cruiser FJ vs BYD SHARK 6 DMO: the short answer

SHARK 6 DMO has a modest catalogue-index lead, while Land Cruiser FJ remains close.

Land Cruiser FJ starts ZAR 275,900 cheaper Land Cruiser FJ from ZAR 714,000 · SHARK 6 DMO from ZAR 989,900

Five key differences

Exact selected derivatives
Specification Land Cruiser FJ SHARK 6 DMO
Maximum Power Land Cruiser FJ122 kW @ 5200 rpm SHARK 6 DMO180 kW
Maximum Torque Land Cruiser FJ245 Nm @ 4000 rpm SHARK 6 DMO380 Nm
Engine Size Land Cruiser FJ2700 cc SHARK 6 DMONot Officially Disclosed
Combined Fuel Economy Land Cruiser FJ9.3 km/l SHARK 6 DMO9.5 km/l
Ground Clearance Land Cruiser FJ245 mm SHARK 6 DMO230 mm

Strongest published figure in that row; no road-test winner is implied.

Independent editorial assessment

Hagalu editorial ratings

When a variant is selected, its rating out of five applies only to that exact derivative; a model-range review is not inherited. Editorial ratings are separate from the Specification Evidence Index out of 100 and are not customer ratings.

Toyota Land Cruiser FJ

2.7 4x4 VX 6AT

Hagalu editorial rating Not yet rated

No complete editorial rating is published for this exact variant. This is not a zero score.

How Hagalu rates cars

BYD SHARK 6 DMO

Performance DMO AWD

Hagalu editorial rating
4.4/5

Desk research · Exact variant

Editorial assessment, not a customer rating. Not road-tested for this review.

Read the review and score breakdown

Not yet rated means a complete review is not published; it does not mean the vehicle scored zero. Read the rating methodology.

What Each Car Gets Right (and Wrong)

Land Cruiser FJ

Strengths
  • Nothing stands out clearly here.
Weak Spots
  • Less powerful engine setup
  • Lower fuel efficiency
  • Fewer listed safety features
  • Lower published practicality figures
Best suited to: General Use
Specification evidence leader

SHARK 6 DMO

Strengths
  • More powerful engine output
  • Better fuel efficiency
  • Stronger listed safety equipment
  • Stronger published practicality figures
Weak Spots
  • No obvious weak spots to flag.
Best suited to: Published Performance Published Efficiency Published Practicality

Which One's Right for You?

Land Cruiser FJ

  • Buyers who prefer this derivative's confirmed specification mix

SHARK 6 DMO

  • Buyers prioritising the stronger published powertrain figures
  • Buyers prioritising the lower published fuel or energy use
  • Buyers prioritising the more complete listed safety equipment
  • Buyers prioritising the stronger published space and capacity figures

Full Specs, Side by Side

Spec Land Cruiser FJ SHARK 6 DMO
Model Introduced Year 2026 2025
Generation First-generation compact Land Cruiser FJ introduced in South Africa in 2026 First South African SHARK 6 DMO generation
Facelift History New South African model line launched in 2026 No separately marketed South African facelift announced as at August 2026
Facelift Launched Since New South African model line launched in 2026 Original current-generation version
Facelift Version Ending Current South African 2026 specification Current
Body Style SUV Double-cab Pickup
Model Year 2026 2026
Production Status active Active
Segment SUV Double-cab Pickup
Tare Mass Kg 1970 kg -
Vehicle Type SUV Light commercial vehicle
Spec Land Cruiser FJ SHARK 6 DMO
Length 4610 mm 5457 mm
Width 1855 mm 1971 mm
Height 1890 mm 1925 mm
Wheelbase 2580 mm 3260 mm
Ground Clearance (Default) 245 mm 230 mm
Ground Clearance (With Full Seating Load) 125 mm Not Officially Disclosed
Fuel Tank Capacity 63 l 60 l
Boot/Cargo Space 488 l 1200 l
Kerb Weight 1970 kg 2775 kg
Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) 2500 kg 3500 kg
Payload Capacity 530 kg 725 kg
Towing Capacity 2500 kg 3500 kg
Seating Capacity 5 seats 5 seats
Number of Rows 2 rows 2 rows
Doors 5 doors 4 doors
Minimum Turning Radius 5.5 m 6.75 m
Front Headroom 994 mm 1025 mm
Rear Headroom 958 mm 990 mm
Front Legroom 1044 mm 1048 mm
Rear Legroom 900 mm 880.4 mm

In depth: how these cars differ

This Land Cruiser FJ and SHARK 6 DMO comparison uses the exact derivatives selected above for South Africa. The catalogue index covers performance, efficiency, safety equipment, practicality and ownership cover only where comparable source-backed fields are present.

Performance index: Land Cruiser FJ 60 vs SHARK 6 DMO 82.

Efficiency index: Land Cruiser FJ 38 vs SHARK 6 DMO 53.

Safety-equipment index: Land Cruiser FJ 94 vs SHARK 6 DMO 99.

Practicality index: Land Cruiser FJ 74 vs SHARK 6 DMO 87.

Ownership-cover index: Land Cruiser FJ not separately scored vs SHARK 6 DMO not separately scored.

These figures are Hagalu catalogue-comparison indicators, not customer ratings, crash-test scores, resale guarantees or a substitute for a road test. Each page shows its weighted source coverage beside the result.

Specification Evidence Index

A transparent comparison of published catalogue fields. This is not a road-test score, owner rating or editorial review rating, and it appears only when every vehicle clears the same comparable-data threshold.

Evidence / 100
Evidence-index readout

SHARK 6 DMO leads by 14 points

SHARK 6 DMO has a modest catalogue-index lead, while Land Cruiser FJ remains close.

Evidence leader 82 /100
Lead 14 points
Data 83% source coverage
82
#1 Evidence leader

SHARK 6 DMO

83% source coverage 3 strong categories
Best at Safety 99 Check Efficiency 53
Performance 82
Efficiency 53
Safety 99
Practicality 87
Leads by 14 points
68
#2

Land Cruiser FJ

74% source coverage 2 strong categories
Best at Safety 94 Check Efficiency 38
Performance 60
Efficiency 38
Safety 94
Practicality 74
Performance 24% Safety 22% Practicality 22% Efficiency 17% Ownership 15%
Category leaders What moves the verdict
Performance SHARK 6 DMO +22 Efficiency SHARK 6 DMO +15 Safety SHARK 6 DMO +5 Practicality SHARK 6 DMO +13

Moderate difference in the source-backed catalogue index.

Why this score View full breakdown
Evidence-index leader

SHARK 6 DMO

Performance 82/100
Efficiency 53/100
Safety 99/100
Practicality 87/100

Land Cruiser FJ

Performance 60/100
Efficiency 38/100
Safety 94/100
Practicality 74/100

What the evidence means

Evidence index BYD SHARK 6 DMO leads the specification evidence index with 82 pts vs 68 pts for Land Cruiser FJ

In Hagalu's specification evidence index, SHARK 6 DMO leads. However, Land Cruiser FJ may suit buyers prioritising different confirmed fields. Ultimately, the right choice depends on your driving priorities in South Africa.

Land Cruiser FJ vs SHARK 6 DMO questions

There is no universal winner. Use the comparison table to match the models and available derivatives in South Africa on price, safety equipment, space, powertrain and ownership cover. The category indicators summarise published catalogue data; they are not a road test or customer rating.

Compare the published consumption or mileage rows for the exact derivatives using the same unit and test basis. A catalogue figure is useful for like-for-like comparison, but traffic, speed, load, weather and driving style can change actual fuel use.

Compare only equipment explicitly listed for each derivative, including airbags, stability control and driver-assistance systems. Confirm the exact trim with the manufacturer, and treat any independent crash-test result separately because equipment and ratings can differ by market.

A reliable five-year total cannot be calculated from catalogue data alone. Add the exact purchase and finance cost, fuel or electricity, insurance quotes, scheduled servicing, tyres and expected resale value. Check whether the selected derivative includes a service or maintenance plan.

Use the seating, boot or load-space, ISOFIX and safety rows as a first check. Then test the exact cars with your child seats, passengers and typical luggage, because published dimensions do not show every access or comfort difference.

Compare the published power, torque and 0–100 km/h rows when they are available for both exact derivatives. Vehicle weight, gearing and power delivery also matter, so catalogue outputs alone do not establish real-world overtaking or response.