Did Nissan Kill the SFA for Toyota???
- Thread starter wesel123
- Start date
spressomon
Expedition Leader
Yeah!!! Where's Santa Claus when you really need him? :coffeedrink:
sleeoffroad
Adventurer
Buy that 06 with no Nav in WA and send it down here. You know you want to.
ShottsCruisers
Explorer
Yes, for 1/100th of 1% of the Land Cruiser owner population. For everyone else, thank God for Mr. T's decision to go IFS.
Their mission is to sell LC's and LX's. SFA isn't tolerated for it's shortcomings in the "real world" any longer. Hmmm....how many SFA models are left out there? All the automakers can't be stupid can they?
Pskhaat
2005 Expedition Trophy Champion
Most folks I know buying new LCs buy it for the name, not the ride. Let's be honest, do we really think Mr. Consumption neighbor would even know it was a live axle?
In the day, why not LC100s for Lexus (that's what the brand is for, right?) and LC105s for Toyota? Smoke and mirrors, $ and $, and we loose.
ShottsCruisers
Explorer
do we really think Mr. Consumption neighbor would even know it was a live axle?
I would bet most buyers don't know anything about the undersides though you short-change the US (and most of the world) buyers AND Toyota. It's the SFA die hards that beat the dead horse because their opinions represent a minicule amount of new SUV buyers based on current designs. The horse is beaten 24/7 because they hope for the SFA's return. AIN'T happenin'. Extreme wheelers don't buy new LC's...regular folks and upscale folks do.
While the US buyer might not be aware of the technocrap, they luv to drive their vehicles. It's not rocket science to test drive a car. If they drove a 2010 LC or LX and it still was an 80 underneath (or even a SFA with the 5.7) sales would really suffer because of the other choices out there. Toyota knows this and that's why we have IFS and 4.7, 4.6 and 5.7L V8's. Just imagine THE TYPICAL BUYER (99+% of the new car buyers) test driving a new 200 or 100 and then a new 80. 200 RULES. 100 IS CLOSE. 80 is a dog and handles like crap. ANY other brand would dwarf the ride and comfort of an 80's underpinning/suspension in this day and age. Navigator, Escalade, GL450...it's 2010 folks!
And thanks for being normal...when you disagree with someone you attack and personally...like with the horse picture. Doesn't bother me. Toyota Corp agrees with me, not you. Peace brother!
Pskhaat
2005 Expedition Trophy Champion
Shotts, I have no idea what that means. It is a funny picture of Office Space and the dead horse cliché. I am beating the dead horse, not you (well...you do too sometimes).
ShottsCruisers
Explorer
Oh, well my appologies! I misread. Hey, let's both beat the dead horse then!
You for SFA and me for IFS. :victory:
We both win!:coffeedrink:
spressomon
Expedition Leader
Is your current customer going to add an aux tank for his Alaska trip? And if he is how are you going to deal with the canister?
You are right...if I was employed right now...that is EXACTLY what I would be doing.
Although the comfort and overall performance of the IFS is nice for most of my applications it is IMO just not robust enough for serious mileage in my off-roading world...this is my "real world"; it is kind of maintenance intensive! Mainly, but not exclusively, I am speaking about the rack...they just need to be about 50% larger IMO for 35" tires for better overall durability for how I use my rig.
Last edited:
ShottsCruisers
Explorer
Normally I don't answer these types of questions. In this case though......
*Since 1998 how may IFS 100's were sold vs SFA 105?
*Which model did Toyota discontinue? The SFA model.
*If the SFA is in more demand than IFS for new car buyers, why didn't the IFS 100 go away instead?
*Does Toyota make a full size SUV LC or LX with a SFA any longer? Why not?
*How about he 120-series? Offered in SFA? Why not?
Do you know these answers Klierslc?
Pskhaat
2005 Expedition Trophy Champion
Here comes horse beater...
Statistic should be # of 100s vs 105s sold normalized against availability:
Affinity analogy. If food market sold both peanut butter and jelly but peanut butter was much higher profit and sold in higher volumes, would you discontinue the jelly?
How about a cannibalistic product analogy? If jelly sold more and had higher profit, would you decide to no longer sell jam? If so are you doing an injustice to your consumers? If you don't care, how long until someone decides they like the supermarket who will sell them both?
Statistic should be # of 100s vs 105s sold normalized against availability:
- If only 233 (i.e.) were imported into Oz, did they all sell? If not what %?
- Add relative % factors against 100 and 105 volume.
- Remove for unavailability in other markets. e.g. US never got 105 and thus alternative purchase propensity not known, market volume must be removed from sales stats.
Volume drives it, profit is greater on higher volume sales. If the 105 were offered in all global markets would that have changed the outcome of model discontinuation? No one will know.
Tooling, cost, margin/profit, existing parts queues. Executive decisions that were likely made not based upon true market demand.
Affinity analogy. If food market sold both peanut butter and jelly but peanut butter was much higher profit and sold in higher volumes, would you discontinue the jelly?
How about a cannibalistic product analogy? If jelly sold more and had higher profit, would you decide to no longer sell jam? If so are you doing an injustice to your consumers? If you don't care, how long until someone decides they like the supermarket who will sell them both?
Many consider the LC90 and LC120 to be light-weight LCs, not for the same intended purposes.
Last edited:
ShottsCruisers
Explorer
Let's beat!
Do you really believe decisions were made NOT based on market demand? This from the #1 maker on the globe? Really?
Life_in_4Lo
Explorer
One can argue about SFA vs IFS all day long but the simple fact is the 100 series is saddled with a IFS that Toyota has never made before or since in the Land Cruiser.
If you want to ask why they never made a SFA Cruiser after the 80, you can ask the same about the IFS on the 100. That train of logic cuts both ways.
Truth is, Chief engineer of the 100 Land Cruiser stated the 105 was made because the IFS was not durable enough. The 105 addressed those shortcomings.
To improve it in any way with a modified IFS or SFA, would be a great decision for the 100 series owner. If not, just enjoy it and replace whatever breaks or wears out. Simple.
Doesn't mean the 100 is bad, it's a great Cruiser. But lessons learned.
If you want to ask why they never made a SFA Cruiser after the 80, you can ask the same about the IFS on the 100. That train of logic cuts both ways.
Truth is, Chief engineer of the 100 Land Cruiser stated the 105 was made because the IFS was not durable enough. The 105 addressed those shortcomings.
To improve it in any way with a modified IFS or SFA, would be a great decision for the 100 series owner. If not, just enjoy it and replace whatever breaks or wears out. Simple.
Doesn't mean the 100 is bad, it's a great Cruiser. But lessons learned.