Damn you everywhere else but USA!!!!

[Martinjmpr]

Sadly for some of us, Toyota (and many others) can't see the cost benefit in paying for all the BS and then having to charge $50K+ for a somewhat bare-bones, fairly rudimentary truck/4wd, esp. with some US consumers obsession giant POS SUV's/trucks regardless of their actual needs in a vehicle.

Bingo. Toyota's not stupid. If they could make money selling the 70 here they would. They used to sell the FJ40 and it was discontinued in the US market in favor of the 60. Why was that? It was because the 60 was a better vehicle for the American market. A 2 door vehicle with a removable top only serves a tiny niche market, but a 4 door wagon will appeal to a lot more potential customers.

I understand the "why", but I do think it's funny/sad how some US consumers have paid exorbitant prices for a chincy, poorly made H2, Cadillac Escalade or a Lincon Navigator etc. (or whatever the hip thing is now) cause it "looks nice" but they won't even consider buying a vehicle that's MADE well and will last them many many years just because it doesn't have the requisite TV's and "gee-gaws" everyone thinks they "need" .

Why would they care how long it lasts? Think about the first person to buy a luxury SUV: Do you think he/she intends to keep it for 10 years? Of course not. Even 5 is a stretch. Realistically anyone who can afford to throw down $55k+ on a vehicle is probably going to keep it less than 3 years and then trade it in on a newer one.
.
So if I'm a potential customer for a new SUV, why would I be interested in buying the one that "lasts longer?" It only needs to last 2 -3 years and then still retain enough residual value for me to get some of my money back in order to be worth it to me, and most modern vehicles are fine in this respect.
.
If you think about it, the "customer" for a vehicle manufacturer is the person who buys it NEW. PERIOD. The manufacturer doesn't give a rip about the 2nd, 3rd or 4th owner, and why should they? That 2nd owner didn't put so much as a dime in the manufacturer's pockets.
.
If you're paying that much for a new vehicle, it makes more sense to buy the vehicle with the leather seats and the DVD and all the other bells and whistles because that's going to boost the resale value in 2 - 3 years. The fact that those things might be broken in 8 years is irrelevant - by that time the vehicle is on its 3rd or 4th owner and long out of warranty.
.

But why would it have to be $50k?

.
I can think of a number of reasons: First of all, because it will absolutely be a low volume seller (just like the LC200 is today) all the costs of bringing it over have to be spread over a smaller pool of vehicles (unless Toyota thinks its smart to let buyers of their more popular vehicles subsidize the cost of bringing a niche-market vehicle to the US.)
.
Second, because there are certain things that buyers will expect in a vehicle like this. You can't bring a poverty-package truck with manual crank windows and rubber floorboards and expect people to pay $30k for it when they can spend exactly that same amount of money and get power windows, leather seats, navigation, etc etc. Like it or not these are things that customers expect (yeah, I know, the folks here on ExPo are all rough, tough, macho men who don't need any of that stinkin' crap. Of course, they don't buy new vehicles either...)
.

Let's not kid ourselves Toyota doesn't bring it here because of draconian EPA/DOT regulations, but because they don't think it will sell well enough to justify the cost of bringing to market.

There are-and have been-cheap imported light trucks, especially as emissions and safety regulations are less strict than automobiles, but it just isn't worth it in their eyes.

There's got to be a reason no one, including the big three, makes a Jeep competitor....

.
International Scout?
Early Bronco?
Land Rover?
Nissan Patrol?
Suzuki Samurai?
Toyota FJ-40?
.
And if you mean "2 door SUV with a removable top" you could add:
.
Chevy Blazer (72-89 or so)
Ford Bronco (78 - late 90's)
Dodge Ramcharger (74 - 1980's?) and also the Ramcharger clone the Plymouth Trail Duster
.
All were sold in the US at one time. And all were eventually dropped by their manufacturer (well except for International which went out of business.)
.
Just a guess but I assume these vehicles weren't dropped because the companies were selling too many of them. The other companies probably realized that there was a serious limit to the customers who wanted a short, soft top 2 door SUV and since Jeep already "owned" that market, it wouldn't be worth it to them to try to compete.

 

[Toiyabe]

.
International Scout?
Early Bronco?
Land Rover?
Nissan Patrol?
Suzuki Samurai?
Toyota FJ-40?
.
And if you mean "2 door SUV with a removable top" you could add:
.
Chevy Blazer (72-89 or so)
Ford Bronco (78 - late 90's)
Dodge Ramcharger (74 - 1980's?) and also the Ramcharger clone the Plymouth Trail Duster
.
All were sold in the US at one time. And all were eventually dropped by their manufacturer (well except for International which went out of business.)
.
Just a guess but I assume these vehicles weren't dropped because the companies were selling too many of them. The other companies probably realized that there was a serious limit to the customers who wanted a short, soft top 2 door SUV and since Jeep already "owned" that market, it wouldn't be worth it to them to try to compete.

My point, exactly.
I have imported more than a few cars over the past decade, and enjoy the vilification of DOT/EPA regulations - as if that was all that kept vehicles from our shores.

"Small diesels don't come here because of emissions and import tariffs!"
Yeah, except for VAG, BMW, and Mercedes.
"Small trucks don't come here because of DOT regs, trade restrictions, and CAFE standards!"
Yeah, except that void isn't exactly rushing to be filled by the Big Three, is it? And it sure was pioneered by the Japanese, and trade restrictions have relaxed since then.
"EPA standards are horrible"
Except European and Japanese emissions standards are comparable, just with different test methodology. The cost of homologation is not insignificant, but companies such as Lotus have managed to do it with low volume, and not obscene costs. Hell, Land Rover does it at relatively low volume, of all companies.

The simple fact is some companies don't bring things here because they don't see a return on investment (Defenders, 70s, etc...). Some don't do it because the vehicles in question would require to substantial of a redesign to comply with some rules, notably RHD vehicles (R33 Skyline). Some don't do it because they don't want to deal with the hassle of having an American arm (PSA).

That's life.

ETA:
Don't forget the first gen 4Runner, the Dodge Raider/Mitsu Montero/Pajero, Daihatsu Rocky, Geo Tracker/Suzuki Sidekick/Vitara, 1st Gen RAV4, Suzuki X90, Land Rover Freelander, Isuzu Vehicross (a bit of a stretch), etc...

 

[4Rescue]

...
Why would they care how long it lasts? Think about the first person to buy a luxury SUV: Do you think he/she intends to keep it for 10 years? Of course not. Even 5 is a stretch. Realistically anyone who can afford to throw down $55k+ on a vehicle is probably going to keep it less than 3 years and then trade it in on a newer one.
...

All really good points as usual Martin. Like I said, I get the "why", but I just don't like the sentiment and the thought process or what it says about the US and our acceptance of "disposable/one-time use" product culture. US auto-buyers remind me of fish: "OOH, shiny!!!". Doesn't mean you're not 100% accurate in your assessment, you are, I just think it says a lot about the US consumer.

Having lived in OZ where the 70 is literally everywhere, people pay top dollar for them and then run them literally into the ground and they look at them as an investment into being able to work from them and drive them for many many years to come. I also sold my HJ75 for a mere $500 Aus. less then when I bought it 4 years and a lot of use/abuse prior so it certainly held it's value in THAT market aye.

For ME, and my way of thinking (and that's the crux of it), this is the approach I take, but then I've never been one to buy a vehicle and sell it off a few years later, so that's all down to me and personal philosophies. I grew up in a very "Scotch" family and we collect antique tools and other items, we re-use, re-purpose and save all kinds of things, and we run our vehicles until they're simply not viable anymore because we tend to scrutinize our purchases and then buy. My 1st Gen's running on 380K, my Dad's 81 VW Caddy (Rabbit P/U) is getting on 290K, and my Mom drives a Jetta TDi Wagon that I'll probably have to take away from her before she'd ever think of selling it, and once I get my Diesel on teh road, I imagine I'll be driving it for as long as it will move under it's own power. Different strokes I guess, but I'm WAY down the other end of the spectrum from the buyers you describe. That's all.

BTW, you forgot the 1st Gen 4Runner in your list of "2dr Removable top trucks" how COULD YOU!!!! HAHAHAHA

Cheers mate,

Dave

 

[Martinjmpr]

All really good points as usual Martin. Like I said, I get the "why", but I just don't like the sentiment and the thought process or what it says about the US and our acceptance of "disposable/one-time use" product culture. US auto-buyers remind me of fish: "OOH, shiny!!!". Doesn't mean you're not 100% accurate in your assessment, you are, I just think it says a lot about the US consumer.

Well, as trite as the saying goes, it is what it is. Those of us on ExPo are statistical outliers, anomalies, and we are in such small numbers that any large business that was trying to court us would not be in business long.
.
I've said before on this topic that as much as I like Toyota (and I do), Toyota has absolutely no reason to like me or to cater to my tastes. The last time Toyota saw any of my money was in 1985 when I bought my first new vehicle, an 85 4x4 pickup. I'm on Toyota #4 but the last 3 were all bought used.
.
I think sometimes people have a tendency to get a "grass is always greener" approach and to assume that just because something is not available here then it must be better or otherwise more desirable than what we have.
.
To me it makes more sense to look at a vehicle like the 70 series and ask "what is it that I like about this vehicle?" and then figure out how to either get that stuff on a vehicle that is available here, to build your own, or to live with the limitations we have.
.
Gnashing one's teeth and rending one's clothes because a huge corporation has made an absolutely logical and sensible business decision seems like a colossal waste of time and energy.

 

[Martinjmpr]

BTW, you forgot the 1st Gen 4Runner in your list of "2dr Removable top trucks" how COULD YOU!!!! HAHAHAHA

Ah you got me. And my dad had one of those, too!

 

[FJR Colorado]

While an LC70 would be nice, I really want a MegaCruiser!

Hey, a guy can dream...:ylsmoke:

 

[Clutch]

.
Second, because there are certain things that buyers will expect in a vehicle like this. You can't bring a poverty-package truck with manual crank windows and rubber floorboards and expect people to pay $30k for it when they can spend exactly that same amount of money and get power windows, leather seats, navigation, etc etc. Like it or not these are things that customers expect (yeah, I know, the folks here on ExPo are all rough, tough, macho men who don't need any of that stinkin' crap. Of course, they don't buy new vehicles either...)

After owning power nothing vehicles for years and years, I like some of the fluff...real treat to push a button and roll down the the passenger window without leaning across the seat...my dog likes that too!

I do like my manual transmissions though, something about it. The diesel 26' bobtail I used to move was auto, I had to help it find the right gear to pull hills...thought that was BS.
.

.
International Scout?
Early Bronco?
Land Rover?
Nissan Patrol?
Suzuki Samurai?
Toyota FJ-40?
.
And if you mean "2 door SUV with a removable top" you could add:
.
Chevy Blazer (72-89 or so)
Ford Bronco (78 - late 90's)
Dodge Ramcharger (74 - 1980's?) and also the Ramcharger clone the Plymouth Trail Duster
.
All were sold in the US at one time. And all were eventually dropped by their manufacturer (well except for International which went out of business.)
.
Just a guess but I assume these vehicles weren't dropped because the companies were selling too many of them. The other companies probably realized that there was a serious limit to the customers who wanted a short, soft top 2 door SUV and since Jeep already "owned" that market, it wouldn't be worth it to them to try to compete.

I took it as there is nothing currently being manufactured that competes with JK. It would be nice to get a Toyota quality version of the JK...the FJ wasn't it, neat vehicle...but not the same.

But yeah, if you want something similar your gonna have to build it yourself.

 

[Martinjmpr]

After owning power nothing vehicles for years and years, I like some of the fluff...real treat to push a button and roll down the the passenger window without leaning across the seat...my dog likes that too!

I do like my manual transmissions though, something about it. The diesel 26' bobtail I used to move was auto, I had to help it find the right gear to pull hills...thought that was BS.

.
I'm another MT lover but I think we have to sadly acknowledge that within our lifetimes the manual will be gone from most vehicles. My DD (Mazda B2300) has both a MT and manual crank windows, kind of makes it feel like a "time machine" even though it's not really that old (1996.) I do sometimes wish I could open the passenger side window while driving, especially when making a left turn on a cold day when the windows are fogged up or icy. But I like the simplicity.
.

I took it as there is nothing currently being manufactured that competes with JK.

.
I agree and the reason I wrote that list was to point out that there is nothing preventing any of the other manufacturers from making a vehicle that competes with the Jeep. They could but they don't, and since these companies are in business to make money, you have to consider that if they thought they could make money selling a Jeep competitor, they would.
.
Look at how many people drool over the Early Bronco. So if the EB was such an awesome, great vehicle, why did Ford drop it in '78 in favor of the bigger, F-150 based full size Bronco?
.
Well, that's easy: They did it because they were tired of losing sales to Chevy, Jeep and Dodge, all of whom made full-sized, truck-based SUVs. People in '78 might have thought the Bronco was cute, but they saw that the likes of the Blazer, Ramcharger, and Cherokee offered them more than the Bronco could.
.
And it was the same for Toyota. In the early 80's as the SUV market started exploding, they realized that there were more potential customers for the FJ-60 than the FJ-40. So they dropped the '40 in the US (I want to say 83 or 84 was the last year) and sold the 60 exclusively, even while the 40 continued on for another few years in other markets.

 

[Clutch]

.
I'm another MT lover but I think we have to sadly acknowledge that within our lifetimes the manual will be gone from most vehicles. My DD (Mazda B2300) has both a MT and manual crank windows, kind of makes it feel like a "time machine" even though it's not really that old (1996.) I do sometimes wish I could open the passenger side window while driving, especially when making a left turn on a cold day when the windows are fogged up or icy. But I like the simplicity.

That bobtail, had crank windows....I couldn't even reach it to roll down the window. I was wishing for the button...mainly for the dog, she had to wait until the next stop.

Heck, when we had our swimming pool business, all of our service trucks had bench seats, mannies, crank windows...and no AC! I sure do like my AC now...though I haven't used it much since the move to Idaho.

I agree and the reason I wrote that list was to point out that there is nothing preventing any of the other manufacturers from making a vehicle that competes with the Jeep. They could but they don't, and since these companies are in business to make money, you have to consider that if they thought they could make money selling a Jeep competitor, they would.
.
Look at how many people drool over the Early Bronco. So if the EB was such an awesome, great vehicle, why did Ford drop it in '78 in favor of the bigger, F-150 based full size Bronco?
.
Well, that's easy: They did it because they were tired of losing sales to Chevy, Jeep and Dodge, all of whom made full-sized, truck-based SUVs. People in '78 might have thought the Bronco was cute, but they saw that the likes of the Blazer, Ramcharger, and Cherokee offered them more than the Bronco could.
.
And it was the same for Toyota. In the early 80's as the SUV market started exploding, they realized that there were more potential customers for the FJ-60 than the FJ-40. So they dropped the '40 in the US (I want to say 83 or 84 was the last year) and sold the 60 exclusively, even while the 40 continued on for another few years in other markets.

Yep the market changes...one example being, crew cabs were a rare thing years ago....now you can barely find a regular cab. Trucks went from work horses to the go to, do-it-all vehicle...which that is ok too.

I dunno, I keep on hemming and hawing on either building my own, or buying new. Pickins are slim for a manual trans...we will see what Toyota is going to do with the Tacoma...getting tired of waiting, though now if I go buy a new one like "today" off the lot...watch the 2016 will be awesome. Though I am not counting on it...'Yotas have been lack luster for years...they are loosing this fanboi....

Very interested in the new 2.7 Ecoboost F150...will have to give up my manny trans though. Do you buy the lesser truck just so you can have the manual that gets crappy gas mileage for what it is (current Tacoma)...or toss in the towel?

 

[Martinjmpr]

Though I am not counting on it...'Yotas have been lack luster for years...they are loosing this fanboi....

.
Seems like Toyota pretty much owns the "compact truck" market these days. Who are their competitors? Nissan is about it.
.
Chevy makes the Colorado but I don't see many of them on the road, and I sure as hell don't see them advertised (while OTOH I can't watch TV for 10 minutes without seeing a "Chevy truck" commercial - by "chevy truck" of course they mean the full sized Silverado, the Colorado doesn't get so much as a mention.) Ford got out of the small truck market a couple of years ago and Dodge got out of it a couple of decades ago (do they even still make the Dakota?) Mitsubishi and Isuzu are long gone and Mahindra never got off the ground (though I saw a few of them back around 2007 - 2008 in Denver.)
.
Given that their competitors have thrown in the towel, Toyota can do whatever they want and if you want a small truck, they're just about the only game in town.

 

[Clutch]

.
Seems like Toyota pretty much owns the "compact truck" market these days. Who are their competitors? Nissan is about it.
.
Chevy makes the Colorado but I don't see many of them on the road, and I sure as hell don't see them advertised (while OTOH I can't watch TV for 10 minutes without seeing a "Chevy truck" commercial - by "chevy truck" of course they mean the full sized Silverado, the Colorado doesn't get so much as a mention.) Ford got out of the small truck market a couple of years ago and Dodge got out of it a couple of decades ago (do they even still make the Dakota?) Mitsubishi and Isuzu are long gone and Mahindra never got off the ground (though I saw a few of them back around 2007 - 2008 in Denver.)
.
Given that their competitors have thrown in the towel, Toyota can do whatever they want and if you want a small truck, they're just about the only game in town.

The new Colorado is coming soon isn't it? No manual trans pretty much "X's" off the the list. If I am going to give up my manual trans, might as well get 1/2 Ton.

I do like the Tacoma's...it is the dismal gas mileage, keeps me from buying a new one...when you can buy a 1/2 ton (with capacity) that gets the same or better.

Think I can accept having 2 of the 3 things I want...but not 1. Tacoma you get the manny, but give up capacity and fuel mileage. 1/2 Ton...no manny, but better mpg, plus capacity. That 2.7 Eco is going to have a payload around 2000+/- lbs. depending how you configure the body style/drive train, and if it fetches mid 20's for mpg. Sounds like good platform to me.


The numbers look good to me. Link

 

[Martinjmpr]

I do like the Tacoma's...it is the dismal gas mileage, keeps me from buying a new one...when you can buy a 1/2 ton (with capacity) that gets the same or better.

.
Yup, that's the rub, isn't it? Used to be that the primary benefit of a "compact" truck vs. a "full size" truck is that the compact is cheaper to buy and (in theory) uses less gas. But as "compacts" have gotten bigger and "full size" trucks have gotten more fuel efficient, that situation has changed.
.
And honestly, since the manufacturer reaps a higher profit when selling a more expensive full size truck, why would they want to offer a compact? I think that's one of the main reasons Ford dropped the Ranger. Every time they sold a Ranger, they figured they were losing out on selling a more profitable F-150 - they were competing with themselves and losing out on a more profitable sale.
.
Other than the compact size, to most buyers there's not really much of an advantage to a small truck, which I think is a shame because there are a lot of people who don't like (and don't need) a big truck. I'm one of them (my DD is a 96 Mazda B2300 a/k/a Ford Ranger.)

 

[Clutch]

.
Yup, that's the rub, isn't it? Used to be that the primary benefit of a "compact" truck vs. a "full size" truck is that the compact is cheaper to buy and (in theory) uses less gas. But as "compacts" have gotten bigger and "full size" trucks have gotten more fuel efficient, that situation has changed.
.
And honestly, since the manufacturer reaps a higher profit when selling a more expensive full size truck, why would they want to offer a compact? I think that's one of the main reasons Ford dropped the Ranger. Every time they sold a Ranger, they figured they were losing out on selling a more profitable F-150 - they were competing with themselves and losing out on a more profitable sale.

Yep

.
Other than the compact size, to most buyers there's not really much of an advantage to a small truck, which I think is a shame because there are a lot of people who don't like (and don't need) a big truck. I'm one of them (my DD is a 96 Mazda B2300 a/k/a Ford Ranger.)

I sure do like the size of my Tacoma for 90% of the things I use it for it is perfect. It is loading it up traveling is when I hate it. Which is funny since it is very popular with the Overland crowd. Seems like a 1/2 ton would fill all my needs (except the tranny, which is more of a want than need)...and if that Ecoboost gets the mileage they say it is going to, wouldn't feel horrible commuting in it either, because my current commuter vehicle gets 20 mpg. Honestly if it only got 20 mpg...I am ok with that too...it is better than my Tacoma.

My buddy has an extra cab Silverado...I do like the larger extra cab space over my Tacoma.