Are US Rover lovers mad like Toyota lovers?

[durango_60]

Again, take the international LC105 which would easily qualify for every like safety test as the LC100, but has a preferrable engine(s), axles, frame, and tranny. Someone please tell me why this couldn't be the ``poverty pack'' option when one went to buy an LC? It doesn't even require retooling or shipping changes, they're all coming over from the same plant in Japan, just throw the LC100 airbags in, and drive a couple dozen LC105s on the boat.

Yes, but why would Toyota incur the same shipping cost to bring over a vehicle that will most likely sit on the lot longer and sell for a lower profiit?

 

[Scott Brady]

Upon further review of this discussion, I think there is a cycle that creates the issue. The cycle does start with regulations and tariffs though.

Look at the defender 90 for example, which only left the US because of regulations. Now, Ford would likely LOVE to bring them back, but the regulations from the US gov make it difficult.

Regulations are borne from lack of personal responsibility (and our liberal litigation limits), which build in more safety to protect the peons from themselves. This puts trucks like the 70 series, Defender, etc. at a disadvantage. Then, the likely low sales volume cannot justify the effort to meet regulations.

People get stupider (sic) and we get more vehicles our demographic cannot stand.

It is a vicious cycle my friends. Time to move to Argentina...

 

[cruiser guy]

Yes, but why would Toyota incur the same shipping cost to bring over a vehicle that will most likely sit on the lot longer and sell for a lower profiit?

True, but IF you could order and even wait for say a diesel powered 105 for the same profit margin as the UZJ100 wouldn't that make you look ALOT harder at doing so? I can tell you that for me IF I could order the diesel 105 it would significantly increase the possibility of my purchasing new 'Cruiser in the future, but if there is only the UZJ100 available I'm frankly not interested! I'm not sold by the number of cupholders and bling on a truck. I'll buy a JDM one then and get the diesel and whatever else I want that way and live with right hand drive!

 

[Pskhaat]

why would Toyota incur the same shipping cost to bring over a vehicle that will most likely sit on the lot longer and sell for a lower profiit?

Not exactly, you see if it's not on the lot folks such as myself--I'm guessing also at least a few thousand more in aggregate--aren't going buy the UZJ100, I'm not going to replace my desired product with their replacement, these are not `canabilistic' (economic term) products. Retailers for instance just don't dump the lowest margin (profit) items, you'd end up with lower selection, loose diversification in your product mix and loose customers.

If you're a grocer and jelly was just not your key profit product, would you eliminate it? Someone's going to find a store that sells jelly along with everything else and do the remainder of their shopping there.

The whole point is finding the supply #s that reach the demand. If there is at least a dollar to be made by selling 500 of them a year, Toyota's still making money, increasing customer base, increasing parts sales, increasing market share, and ensuring additional sales. The key here is that they just need to find the sweet spot on both price and units, but a multi-billion multi-national should have absolutely no problem doing that.

By not doing this, they are either strategically elimating a customer base such as us (which doesn't make sense considering their FJ introduction) or simply acting in poor/blind business practice. Y'all'll have to forgive me for believing it's the latter case.

The example here is Toyota, but barring any regulatory action as being mentioned, this applies to the majority of models & manufacturers IMO: they're not seeing the whole of the auto market; I don't believe this is particular to 4WD, but to the greater set of automobile markets in general. My current thinking is the auto industy is too big or too hopped up on a dated business practice.

 

[durango_60]

Not exactly, you see if it's not on the lot folks such as myself--I'm guessing also at least a few thousand more in aggregate--aren't going buy the UZJ100, I'm not going to replace my desired product with their replacement, these are not `canabilistic' (economic term) products. Retailers for instance just don't dump the lowest margin (profit) items, you'd end up with lower selection, loose diversification in your product mix and loose customers.

If you're a grocer and jelly was just not your key profit product, would you eliminate it? Someone's going to find a store that sells jelly along with everything else and do the remainder of their shopping there.

The whole point is finding the supply #s that reach the demand. If there is at least a dollar to be made by selling 500 of them a year, Toyota's still making money, increasing customer base, increasing parts sales, increasing market share, and ensuring additional sales. The key here is that they just need to find the sweet spot on both price and units, but a multi-billion multi-national should have absolutely no problem doing that.

By not doing this, they are either strategically elimating a customer base such as us (which doesn't make sense considering their FJ introduction) or simply acting in poor/blind business practice. Y'all'll have to forgive me for believing it's the latter case.

The example here is Toyota, but barring any regulatory action as being mentioned, this applies to the majority of models & manufacturers IMO: they're not seeing the whole of the auto market; I don't believe this is particular to 4WD, but to the greater set of automobile markets in general. My current thinking is the auto industy is too big or too hopped up on a dated business practice.

I hate to point this out, but when I look in your garage it appears that Toyota isn't missing the mark by very far. And besides, if we could have our diesel 105 the only stuff left to dream about at night would get us in trouble with our sig others...

Do you truly think Toyota could sell 500 105's with rubber flooring, vinyl seats, standard tranny, and a am/fm radio in the US for 45k plus? I think we should just feel lucky that Toyota did decide to gussy our Cruisers up with leather etc. so people who don't give a crap about the mechanicals will pay 60k and we can buy them 4-5 years later. The alternative would be a US without a new Cruiser since about 1992.

Does it make me less of a man to acknowledge the fact that I much prefer supportive leather seats over cheap vinyl after a long day in the bush?

 

[Scott Brady]

Does it make me less of a man to acknowledge the fact that I much prefer supportive leather seats over cheap vinyl after a long day in the bush?

I do like cupholders, I must admit... :sunflower

 

[datrupr]

Hey, my cupholders do a great job of holding my Venti Cinnamon Dulce Latte, with out spillage

 

[Pskhaat]

Do you truly think Toyota could sell 500 105's with rubber flooring, vinyl seats, standard tranny, and a am/fm radio in the US for 45k plus?

I don't know the magic price (thinking sub 40), but absolutely I think they'd sell 500 a year, even being cheaper I bet you they make $.

Does it make me less of a man...

Durango_60, there are just so many things that make you less of a man that your preference for a hot sweaty rear end on leather is just a drop in the bucket. :O

 

[Pskhaat]

your garage..appears that Toyota isn't missing the mark

But I didn't buy our UZJ100 new, I bought it after gross depreciation set in. Bring me even an FZJ105 and I'll go to the dealership tomorrow, and that's where the big $ is for the auto companies.

To keep this on Rover topic, bring me a new D90 something tomorrow and I'd sell my 3FJ40 without a tear and drive to the nearest dealership.

If Jeep put the CRD in the Rubicon, I'd do the same (gotta admit, I'm tempted daily to just get a Rubi as it is), Jeep at least is close.

 

[Scott Brady]

To keep this on Rover topic, bring me a new D90 something tomorrow and I'd sell my 3FJ40 without a tear and drive to the nearest dealership.

If Jeep put the CRD in the Rubicon, I'd do the same (gotta admit, I'm tempted daily to just get a Rubi as it is), Jeep at least is close.

Amen brother... me too.

 

[durango_60]

Durango_60, there are just so many things that make you less of a man that your preference for a hot sweaty rear end on leather is just a drop in the bucket. :O

Touche, but you're making me uncomfortable with this talk of my rear...

I'm with you on the Rubicon, I was just looking at the new Unlimited and if they come out with a diesel I believe my 80 will be yesterdays news.

 

[ShottsCruisers]

Many say they want function, but would not be willing to give up their leather seats and latte sized cupholders.

Exactly. ME included! :victory:

 

[ShottsCruisers]

Again, take the international LC105 which would easily qualify for every like safety test as the LC100, but has a preferrable engine(s), axles, frame, and tranny. Someone please tell me why this couldn't be the ``poverty pack'' option when one went to buy an LC? It doesn't even require retooling or shipping changes, they're all coming over from the same plant in Japan, just throw the LC100 airbags in, and drive a couple dozen LC105s on the boat.

Very true. And I'd luv a 105 for my "2nd" 100. "Preferrable" to you maybe, however to the US "test drive" the 105 would suffer in sales as the ride and handling does also. I prefer the UZJ to the 105. Sure wish we could pick though like you said! :ar15: = Toyota America

 

[Z O O R O P A]

hmm interesting topic and responses. Again just want to thnk eveyone for being so re eptive ot others opinions without being dismissive as other forums I have visited.

Having owned Toyotas and 2 Discoverys I have an informative opinion.

The goal to me is to offer a 4x4 that is worthy on the trail without to much modification but comfy to run the kids around or take the wife to a nice place for dinner and not making everyone galk when you pull up to valet or perhaps to solicite the tender affections (for those of us single) without being perceived in the wrong light.

Certain things like roof racks orheavy duty springs winches etc must be understood to be aftermarket and always will be with the exception of basic bike racks like those offered by Nissan,Dicos rails,Toyotas Rails and small racks which are highly limited. As it would not be finacially viable since such a small market actually would use them and they hamper mpg

When driving my HSE LR I long for Toyotas reliability period, all the time, every day. I have not had any issues with this Rover yet but it only has 50k and its a 2004 but DAMN maybe its the duality of life that everytime I am reminded how much I enjoy it I also am reminded how much I pay for it in insurance and potentially repairs. My first Rover exped. equipped cost on average 6k$ in repairs after regular matin. not do to bad driving or to much subjection to trail beatings and left my lady in the side of hte road to many times

Toyota lacks Rovers conveiance in everyway. Seats, looks, sex appeal, but can handle 10x the beating. I have seen Toyotas do many things Rovers never would have stood for. Like 10 year old Toyotas with wood beds go 15K without an oil change and never complain. They eat 87octane like its King Crab legs and traverse below zero days without a strain or whine. Lightbulbs last and are more bright than my HSE and electronics are far less complicated. Insurance is cheap
and blah blah

I never thought much of Jeeps since they just didnt seem my style of car and didnt seem to do well but lately I think they have come miles and miles but are not the solution to our problem nor is Nissans attempt

The vehicle must be comfy and sexy and capable under that skin. The Disco series one was great fof road and on....when it ran. For evey 100 series 1s I'd guess 60-70% had MAJOR problems The early series 2s had as many issues until 2003 which they now have difference issues but fewer it seems for the most part although in 2004 I think it was Land ROver finished LAST in reliability

Toyota is predictable and a safe bet but lacks the charachter however look at Lexus and the Land Cruiser by Toyota. It seems to be the very perfect combination of comfort and performance with little mods

As far as Defenders go we can only look to Jeep and that will be all as I dont see Toyota stretching its legs any further off the trail than the new Cruiser and we are lucky I think it made it through the red tape. Why should they since the Tacoma 4Runner and Cruiser are all very capable off the line and with little mod

Give Jeep a chance and see what they are willing to risk I applaud them for the effort and gamble

jmo

 

[Pskhaat]

I sadly have not owned a Rover but have come very close.

As per reliability (and absolutely not stating anything about anyone's maintenance capabilities; luck also comes to play) but I've seen the worst designed vehicles go without issue as long as they were kept up-with.

I have a lowly Ford commuter with just under 200k and nothing but tires, oil, and fuel, getting within 1-2 mpg economy the same as it did off the lot, and still many years ahead. Yet, others of this model have met very early and unfortunate deaths many years ago.

I guess my point/question is: most of us here are probably quite anal about maintenance and up-keep: is it not reasonable to expect folks like us to get quite a lifetime out of any vehicle we have whilst the remainder of the population seemingly has frequent and costly repairs along the way. (Who knows, maybe I've got luck playing on my team).