Hyundai'ish?

[Sleeping Dog]

Hyundi-ish

When the 80 came out I had a 62 and a friend used a 40 as a daily driver. He whined incessantly that Toyota had ruined the Land Cruiser with the introduction of the 80.

I always suspected he felt I drove a sissy truck since it had an automatic and overdrive.:sport_box

Jim

 

[Martinjmpr]

I miss manual tranny. I miss PTO. I miss live axles. I miss straight engines. I miss heavy-duty frames. I miss manual windows.

Well, you're not alone, but I don't know how many of us are out there.

I've always had fairly utilitarian vehicles (my first vehicle was a 1957 IHC Travelall, 4x4, with a 240 straight-6, wide-ratio 4 speed and a two-stick T-case.) In fact, I'm 45 and I've actually only owned one "car" in my life, a 1999 Subaru Outback wagon. That was also the only vehicle I've ever owned that had power windows, RKE and an automatic tranny. Driving it felt like - well, like nothing. It was a transportation appliance, that's it. When I started looking for a truck, I promised the GF I'd try to find something with an automatic (she can drive a stick but doesn't like to) but when I found my Taco it was love at first sight: 5 speed, manual windows, no remote keyless entry, and best of all, a manual T-case shifter (one reason I wouldn't even consider an '05-up.) The only concession to "luxury" I insist on is AC. I've spent enough years in hot climates without AC to appreciate it.

For a while it seemed like you could still get a utilitarian vehicle if you bought a truck instead of an SUV, but now even the trucks have all these top-of-the-food-chain luxuries on them, which is a pity. My personal pet peeve is the pushbutton or dial-type 4wd selector. Full time 4x4 is one thing, but having a switch or a dial just seems like it's asking for trouble (it doesn't help that a friend of mine who owned a late model Ford Ranger had significant problems with his T-case not going into 4x4 in extremely cold weather.)

I mean, come on, is it that difficult to grab a shifter and move it 3 inches?

The frustrating thing is, Toyota (and the other companies) are making pragmatic business decisions. They know the money is in the luxury mobiles, not the stripped down utilitarian ones. They're not in business to make us happy, they're in business to make money.

Just like the mob says when they "whack" someone, "it's nothing personal, just business."

 

[Martinjmpr]

I hope that as the gulf continues to widen between the new Land Cruiser and an off road vehicle, that we will see Toyota bring a Prado or something similar to the American market to fill the void.

We had a Prado in Kuwait. It was a total mall cruiser: Auto tranny, power everything, leather seats. IOW, pretty much the same as the Lexus GX470, which is our version of the Prado. About the only difference between the Lexus and the Prado is that the Prado had a side-opening rear door with the spare tire mounted on it, and a bigger gas tank (about 45 gallons, or 180l, IIRC.) I assume the gas tank was mounted under the rear of the vehicle where the spare tire sits on the Lexus. It had a neat little computer that would tell you the range and the current MPG - I think at one point it gave the range as 1200km, with a full tank. That works out to something like 16mpg, not exactly impressive, although a little better than an 80 series, I suppose. And this was with the AC blasting in 125+ temperatures.

In any case, Toyota seems to see the FJ cruiser as their main "off road" vehicle. My guess is that any further off-road accessories will be geared toward the FJ while the LC gets more "luxuried" up.

One question remains and that is how the Sequoia fits into this scheme.

 

[DaveInDenver]

My personal pet peeve is the pushbutton or dial-type 4wd selector. Full time 4x4 is one thing, but having a switch or a dial just seems like it's asking for trouble (it doesn't help that a friend of mine who owned a late model Ford Ranger had significant problems with his T-case not going into 4x4 in extremely cold weather.)

I mean, come on, is it that difficult to grab a shifter and move it 3 inches?

I hate electronic shift transfer cases, too. Always have and always will. But I don't think the root of the switch is only because people are lazy. I think it's two fold. First, a manual shift seems old and passe to people, like the truck isn't cutting edge (just my marketing perception, true or not). But mostly I think it's so that manufacturers don't have to worry about fitting a standard transfer case into several different models. Toyota for example uses the same basic 120 series chassis on a bunch of different trucks and this way the tranny hump can be shaped to the interior designer's whims rather than be forced to have holes and space for shifters. The 4Runner for example has a big ol' center console that pretty much eliminates any chance for sticks coming up from the floor. With manual shifters, the location of the drivetrain relative to the interior is fixed pretty rigidly. And honestly it's a PITA sometimes to configure your interior around the stick. Whenever I do get around to putting a Marlin Crawler into my truck, my Tuffy center console will have to be modified to get the second stick in. As it is I'm limited on the size of the coffee mug in the cup holder if I want to use 2, 4 and reverse without hitting it. Trust me, I'm 100% with you that a truck should be a truck, utility is the bottom line. But we get what we get and so that's why there was no question I would rebuild the engine in my truck last winter...

 

[Pskhaat]

The frustrating thing is, Toyota (and the other companies) are making pragmatic business decisions. They know the money is in the luxury mobiles, not the stripped down utilitarian ones. They're not in business to make us happy, they're in business to make money.

I must respectfully disagree. It's retail 101 that dictates you sell more variety than just your highest margin products. If you were a grocery, would you sell jelly and not peanut butter just because the margins weren't as great on peanut butter? These are complimentary and affinity products.

I can almost guarantee Toyota could make profit from a utilitarian line, even if small. It'd be a whole different game if they didn't actually even have the products developed but alas they do; all they have to do is invest a tiny sum for US compliance and make an entry in a computer to bring some over.

I am much more apt to buy a luxury car and a utilitarian truck from the same company but find little reason to buy at all when the company only sells one.

it's nothing personal, just business

True, but would you continue going to a restaurant where you couldn't choose exactly what you want to eat? Would you be insulted by someone saying, ``sorry sir, the hot peppers are just too spicy for the general public instead we've put in olives, plus they're cheaper for us anyway?''

My point is that IMNSHO Toyota is leaving good amounts of money and customer relations on the table due to management bias.

 

[DaveInDenver]

I must respectfully disagree. It's retail 101 that dictates you sell more variety than just your highest margin products. If you were a grocery, would you sell jelly and not peanut butter just because the margins weren't as great on peanut butter? These are complimentary and affinity products.

This is true to the point that having two separate products doesn't cost you more to manufacture each. So as long as the margin on both the PB and jelly are high enough to make both profitable, then variety is fine. But variety costs more to manufacture, mass production gains margin as variation is reduced. If Toyota can sell us a homogenized, watered down truck and enough people are happily throwing their money at them to get it, then there is no incentive to add variety if doing so reduces their overall margin. I have this feeling that for Toyota NA to recognize the market they'll have to really struggle in the marketplace first. But OTOH as the price of fuel goes up, people I think /must/ be willing to buy a less expensive vehicle to compensate.

 

[ShottsCruisers]

Yeah, the 80 is probably the most capable Cruisers we ever got, but it wasn't brought in and marketed to the hunters and utility crowd. That's all my point was. I mean, the 40 series was sold completely on it's off highway capability. But in 1988 with the FJ62, Toyota I think made a shift to market a 'more refined' Cruiser. Power windows, automatic transmission, etc. For example there aren't many 80 series with cloth seats in the US. I have my doubts that we'd have gotten locked Cruisers if they didn't exist already for other markets.

Of course they weren't marketed that way. This is the US. What hunter would pay $45-50K for a new vehicle to go beat up.

Back when 40's and 60's were new, the entire US vehicle market was totally different. Since the 90's the US is spoiled by luxury. It's amazing the 80 series sold through 1997 here in the US because it test drove badly compared to IFS and V8 models from other makes.

So we're all lucky we have 80s and 100s to mod out for wheeling. I'm sure the LX580 will hold it's own too. My clue? The same 112" wheelbase. Probably little changes (I hope!). Might have a instant lift kit! (From a 100?)

 

[Jacket]

Interesting thread.....

While I consider myself a "traditionalist" in many, many ways, I also enjoy and celebrate progression. While I'm an avid fan and drooler over old FJ's , I love my new Tacoma, even if it has an e-transfer case, an e-locker, e-windows, e-traction control, e-etc. Only time will tell if it stands up to the legacy, but so far I feel it has the Toyota truck spirit, and just like the Land Cruiser's evolution, it's grown larger and more refined than its predecessor. As another poster pointed out, the 80 series LC's weren't exactly loved by 40 and 60 owners when they first came out.

The funny thing is that around the 2005+ Tacoma message boards, there are many, many "complaints" from current or prospective buyers that the Toyota trucks aren't keeping up with the trends in modern truck luxury that you can get in a new Ford, GM or Chevy. Toyota trucks are too "spartan" for many that feel leather, sunroofs, wood grain and things like that should be generally available in the truck market. Funny how the message is different depending on your perspective....

I hope one day soon my driveway will be shared by my new Taco and an old FJ40. I'll love 'em both just the same.

 

[DaveInDenver]

While I consider myself a "traditionalist" in many, many ways, I also enjoy and celebrate progression.

I am completely a traditionalist and hate change for change's sake. I guess I just rather tolerate certain 'progressions', in that I'm not offended much by IFS and EFI (both of which I've come to like during ownership, particularly EFI). I bought my generation truck based on the size of the XtraCab and that's mostly it. Two people and a dog fit best in this one. If I could have gotten a 22R (or 2L-TE), Double Cab 2nd gen or live front axle, that would have been my choice but I don't dislike my truck as it is. Different perspectives is right. I thought I was going soft with a WilderNest, CD player and A/C!

 

[Martinjmpr]

I must respectfully disagree. It's retail 101 that dictates you sell more variety than just your highest margin products. If you were a grocery, would you sell jelly and not peanut butter just because the margins weren't as great on peanut butter? These are complimentary and affinity products.

I can almost guarantee Toyota could make profit from a utilitarian line, even if small. It'd be a whole different game if they didn't actually even have the products developed but alas they do; all they have to do is invest a tiny sum for US compliance and make an entry in a computer to bring some over.
I am much more apt to buy a luxury car and a utilitarian truck from the same company but find little reason to buy at all when the company only sells one.

Except that it's not a "tiny sum", it's a huge investment of money that may or may not pay off. This is one of those situations where the specter of "cognitive dissonanace" raises it's ugly head: That is, where what people say they want and what they actually want are very different. People may say they want a simple, rugged, uncompromising utilitity vehicle, but when they go to lay down their cash, it's the one with the soft (comfy) suspension, the 3-sector climate control and the DVD player that they buy. Toyota is not oblivious to this.

For that matter, since Toyota is in business to make money, there's no reason to believe they wouldn't sell a stripped-down cruiser in the US if they thought they could make money doing it. Since they haven't, it's reasonable to conclude that their business people have crunched the numbers and realized the profit just isn't there.

True, but would you continue going to a restaurant where you couldn't choose exactly what you want to eat? Would you be insulted by someone saying, ``sorry sir, the hot peppers are just too spicy for the general public instead we've put in olives, plus they're cheaper for us anyway?''

If the cost of getting those peppers was higher than you'd be willing to pay, and you were the only customer that wanted them, then that would be a sound business decision, and if it cost them your business, then clearly your business is something they can live without.

My point is that IMNSHO Toyota is leaving good amounts of money and customer relations on the table due to management bias.

They may be upsetting a few die-hards, but how often do die-hards buy a new vehicle anyway? IOW, they're not "leaving money on the table" because that money just isn't there. If it was there, somebody would be grabbing it.

 

[Martinjmpr]

Interesting thread.....

While I consider myself a "traditionalist" in many, many ways, I also enjoy and celebrate progression.

Don't get me wrong, I like progress, too. My current Taco is head and shoulders above my 85 Hilux, and I wouldn't trade the new one for the old one even if I could.

I'm willing to accept more complicated/expensive hardware if it gives me a genuinely new or improved capability that I didn't have before. My 85 had the 22r carbureted engine, no AC, a plastic seat, no power steering, and the SAS that hardcore off-roaders seem to love so much.

And now, I'm happy to have a vehicle with an EFI V-6, comfortable cloth seats, power steering, IFS and AC because all of those things give me benefits I didn't have in my old truck. I'm even willing to accept the tradeoffs in the form of more difficult maintenance, worse MPG, and more complex machinery that can break and cost me $$ because I'm getting something valuable from the trade.

My gripe with things like power windows, power door locks, and e-shift t-cases is that they are more complex but they don't really give you any capacity or capability you didn't have before. The windows still go up and down but now you may face the possibility of having a switch break when you're out in the boonies, the window is down, and there's a snowstorm coming in (I saw this happen to another Montero owner at the Montero rally in 1999. I was grateful for my manual-crank windows.) The T-case still shifts in and out of 4wd but you may find yourself like my buddy with his Ranger that wouldn't go into 4wd when it was 20 below zero (in Laramie, WY, this is a problem.) Besides, as Dave pointed out, the E-shift T-case is not made that way for the convenience of the user, it's made for the convenience of the manufacturer.

 

[ShottsCruisers]

They may be upsetting a few die-hards, but how often do die-hards buy a new vehicle anyway? IOW, they're not "leaving money on the table" because that money just isn't there. If it was there, somebody would be grabbing it.

VERY TRUE!

Can you imagine the typical US buyer test driving a striped down, cloth, AM radio, 100-series and the cost being $51,256.88? They'd sell one per year. MEanwhile, the $62K 100 and $70K LX keep selling to the cell phone against the ear, one person inside, female driver going to lunch with her friend.

 

[ShottsCruisers]

Besides, as Dave pointed out, the E-shift T-case is not made that way for the convenience of the user, it's made for the convenience of the manufacturer.

I think a little of both. I would prefer E-shift on my 100-series. No question. I hate the friggin' lever.

 

[Jacket]

I thought I was going soft with a WilderNest, CD player and A/C!

I think we can all agree that good tunes and cold A/C are acceptable "modernizations!"

 

[DaveInDenver]

I think we can all agree that good tunes and cold A/C are acceptable "modernizations!"

Oh heck yeah! I made it without A/C up until our Grand Canyon trip in October of '04. Coming down through St. George with the temps at 100F changed my mind. We timed the trip hoping it would be cooler and it was really uncomfortable. My poor dog was just miserable. He's a shepherd/malamute, in the fall he starts getting his winter coat. We took soooo many shade, water and rest stops for him.