For Fellow 70-Series Lovers

[UofRichmondRover]

look at the sale page.

Aaron

it's a nissan, but hey, its the one I would want

 

[xcmountain80]

Yep

Aaron

 

[a.mus.ed]

It says on the webpage...

...but they look like leaf springs on the rear, not coils as it says in the specs.

Maybe it has 'helper' coils in the rear along with the leaves?

It also says it's running Michelin XZLs, but it can lie to me all day and I'll still love it.

 

[ChuckB]

:drool:

 

[Martinjmpr]

Martin, I have to disagree with you here. I hate to say this but it is my true belief that there is bias at Toyota USA against said vehicles, for many corporate moves in the past. Though surely not as profitable a market, I don't buy the argument that it isn't "worth it." I think that is a subjective stance.

If you were a grocery store and only made 1% profit on jelly and 50% on peanut butter, would you simply decide to not sell jelly?

That's the wrong question. The appropriate analogy would be this: If the only way the store could sell jelly and make a profit was to charge $50 a jar, would it make sense to sell jelly? No, because at $50/jar the number of people who will buy it is not worth the effort. Why throw money away if you don't have to?

It's not that Toyota can't bring the vehicles in. It's that they can't sell them at a profit.

As much as I drool over a 70 series Troopie with a diesel, there's no way in hell I'd ever be in a position to lay down the ~$60k that such a vehicle would cost by the time you brought it in. Hell, I wouldn't be able to buy one at $35k.

Most of us ExPoers are cheap SOBs. We'd rather buy a used vehicle and drive it into the ground than buy a new vehicle every 2 years. I'm a great example of this.

Toyota hasn't seen a dime of my money since 1985 when I bought a new 85 Toyota pickup (I bought my 04 used.) Why should they do anything to cater to me when it makes more sense for them to cater to people who will be buying new cars (and putting money in Toyota's pocket?)

 

[FourByLand]

It also says it's running Michelin XZLs, but it can lie to me all day and I'll still love it.

LOL, no kiddin!

 

[Pskhaat]

If the only way the store could sell jelly and make a profit was to charge $50 a jar, would it make sense to sell jelly? No, because at $50/jar the number of people who will buy it is not worth the effort. Why throw money away if you don't have to?

I see where you're going but there are a few things to consider here: you don't have to make the same profit margin on all products, it is often an executive's desire though again doesn't mean it is the best business decision; in fact you can even sell something at a loss if it is a driver for additional sales, Toyota has enough volume to consider this. That last point neither here nor there but cross-selling options nonetheless.

There are always a few customers willing to pay $50 for a can of jelly, but here's what's called affinity in that these customers will come in for not just jelly but peanut butter and bread too, if not day 0 then likely day 3 because you're the only store around selling jelly.

...lay down the ~$60k that such a vehicle would cost by the time you brought it in. Hell, I wouldn't be able to buy one at $35k.

Nor I, but I've never in my life been able to afford a spanking new vehicle. Millions of people though have or else there would be no used vehicles.

It would be one thing if the infrastructure didn't already exist. My point is that any company in any market should be able to offer their customers what they want (even low volume customers). There's always a price tag but it makes little business sense to me (like the PB&J analogy) to limit sales of products you already have. Yeah, yeah safety feature XYZ but I bet these would be fairly easy to overcome for a few hundred units. Additionally the USC code allows for exemptions for low-volume models anyways.

Most of us ExPoers are cheap SOBs. We'd rather buy a used vehicle and drive it into the ground than buy a new vehicle every 2 years.

But someone has to buy them new, even the Chevy Luminas.

 

[Martinjmpr]

There are always a few customers willing to pay $50 for a can of jelly, but here's what's called affinity in that these customers will come in for not just jelly but peanut butter and bread too, if not day 0 then likely day 3 because you're the only store around selling jelly.

The problem with the grocery store analogy is that I might indeed walk into store X because it sells the product I need (albeit at a loss) and while I'm there, I'll also buy 5 other products that the store will make a profit on.

Motor vehicles aren't like that. It's not likely that I'm going to walk into the Toyota dealership to pick up that -70 series 'Cruiser, and while I'm there get a couple of Corollas and a Prius. Furthermore, I'm no more likely to buy a Camry just because Toyota also sells the 70 cruiser than I am likely to buy an Altima if Nissan decides to bring the Patrol to the US. Motor vehicle purchases are spaced too far apart for most people (even frequent buyers rarely buy more than once a year) for that kind of "affinity" to catch on.

It would be one thing if the infrastructure didn't already exist. My point is that any company in any market should be able to offer their customers what they want (even low volume customers). There's always a price tag but it makes little business sense to me (like the PB&J analogy) to limit sales of products you already have. Yeah, yeah safety feature XYZ but I bet these would be fairly easy to overcome for a few hundred units. Additionally the USC code allows for exemptions for low-volume models anyways.

But it's not just the cost of bringing in the vehicles that Toyota has to consider. They also have to consider the cost of bringing in an maintaining a certain quantity of repair parts and whatever specialized tools are needed to service those vehicles. If the vehicles aren't profitable to begin with, all the added cost of maintaining the parts and service infrastructure is wasted.

And suppose they did that - brought in low-volume vehicles for the die-hard fans. What benefit do they get out of it? Your good will? What is that worth to Toyota? Precious little if you're not buying new vehicles.

Toyota is in business to make money, not to make people happy (even the die-hard fans.) As I've said before on this topic, it's just like the Mafia says when they 'whack' someone: It's nothing personal, just business.

But someone has to buy them new, even the Chevy Luminas.

People buy Chevy Luminas because they can't afford a nicer car, not because they really want a Lumina (at least I've never known anybody who wanted a Lumina.) Price something low enough and people will buy it, no matter how crappy it is.

 

[UofRichmondRover]

Both arguments have validity from a business standpoint. there is no right answer until they bring them in and it is a disaster, but I doubt it would be. I just want one asap!

On the note of additional costs for Toyota to provide maintenance, these vehicles are so simple and devoid of electronics that I can't see any special tool going beyond something simple like a bearing puller. Training costs would be minimal too. They already have a parts distribution network in place.

 

[SimonInAustralia]

On the note of additional costs for Toyota to provide maintenance, these vehicles are so simple and devoid of electronics that I can't see any special tool going beyond something simple like a bearing puller.

You obviously have not looked at the factory repair manuals, lots of special service tools in there!

 

[lowenbrau]

This conversation comes up pretty regularly. I've spoken to some of the dealers in Canada which had diesel LandCruisers 'forced' on them in the late 80s. They were unsaleable in those days. A few enthusiasts bought them and the rest got sold at a loss. There were a few dealer exceptions that were able to sell bunches of them mostly due to the local climate that was particularly suitable for them.

Canada got the 70 series for three years. They sold less than 2000 total in three years in spite of a price less than $15,000 cdn at the time. (probably $10,000US). Nothing has changed in the market and the fact that 80 series LCs are virtually worthless on the used market is a testament to that.

Now the current problem is all the things that a 70 series LC would have to do in order to be used in the US. Unless the 2008 frame widening to suit the V8 diesel changed things, they are still not airbag ready. I'm not sure if they use ABS anywhere yet. They are probably not any more stable than some of the lesser rigs that got lambasted stateside. A $40,000 rig currently sold in Australia is gonna be a $60,000 rig in the US. The market for that is tiny. Case in point would be the lack of Utility Rovers, Mercedes, Nissans etc.

I might be a buyer and I can afford the payments and am the biggest Cruiser, 70 series, diesel fan there is.

Sorry for the discouraging point of view.

 

[Pskhaat]

FWIW, I think 2000 sounds pretty good even over 3 years in CA as that's close to the full number of all LCs sold in the States per year (~3000 or so?).

Let's take the 105 as an example, we can even forget the diesel issue. Parts were 80/100 combos both with a parts pipeline in the US. Really, would it have `diluted' the brand should Toyota have sold the 105 and 100 simultaneously? Would profit suffer? What's our guess?

I talked to a nice Toyota product manager at the Detroit Car Show one year and asked why Toyota was not offering manual transmissions in many of their vehicles. He asked which one, I said my favorite LandCruiser. Seems like a genuine guy, older and very professional. The guy hops on the phone to someone, nods a few times, hangs up and comes over to me and says something like "actually our research shows that all of our landcruiser customers are buying automatics."

My thought was: let me guess your sales figures show exactly 100%?

 

[lowenbrau]

3000 cars sales doesn't cover party favors for Toyota.

They sold 3800 LandCruisers in the US last year. That's a pretty small part of the 2 million total US car sales for the year. I'd be surprised if they don't drop the model in the US the same way they did in Canada.

Prius is where its at.

 

[Pskhaat]

They sold 3800 LandCruisers in the US last year. That's a pretty small part of the 2 million total US car sales for the year. I'd be surprised if they don't drop the model in the US the same way they did in Canada.

Can't image at all that it has anything to do with making it a luxury premium price vehicle instead of offering poverty-pack options at a reasonable price? Nah...

 

[Martinjmpr]

Can't image at all that it has anything to do with making it a luxury premium price vehicle instead of offering poverty-pack options at a reasonable price? Nah...

But the poverty-pack LC would still be priced thousands above domestic trucks and SUVs that are not poverty packs. You (and maybe a dozen other people) would see the rugged design and the simple components and drool. 99.99999% of the other buyers would simply say "why should I pay $35k for something with cloth seats and a manual tranny, when for the same price I can get this blinged-out domestic with leather seats, sat nav and a killer stereo?"

And can you imagine a spouse looking at the rubber floor mats and the cheap cloth seats and saying "you paid how much? For THAT?"