I suppose I read the topic of this thread the wrong way. I took reliability to mean something you could reasonably have a chance of doing some of the stuff seen being done by OLD LCs in the movies. Would I take a new LC (the 200 station wagon) or a "new" diesel FJ40 on a round the world excursion/expedition? After seeing new vehicles get "totalled" after a dunking because the entire electrical system becomes a nightmare. I want the least amount of things that can go wrong as I can. I don't need nor want ABS, TC, anti-roll active stability, theft deterrent immobilizers, "valet" power reducing keys, air bag/engine shut-offs, fuel impact shutoff breakers, and on and on. This is esptrue for an offroading rig. There are plenty of things to make a vehicle not work without having engineers design systems with that specific purpose into them.
Some need or want all the nanny features they can get. There are also others who'd prefer power windows and an auto tranny and every whizbang do-dad they can get. It is their money, more power to them. They are also SELDOM the person who has these vehicles at the touted 500K mile/25 yr mark. So yeah if I knew I'd never get stuck with it past 100K miles, I'd probably take a new vehicle for a daily driver provided I could get it optioned the way I like (I can't, I've checked). BUT it would not be my first choice if my life had to depend on it long term in adverse situations. Again that is my choice, not everyones. It has nothing to do with being a Toyota. In fact I drove a 1981 Toyota 4x4 for a bit (it had around 180K when I got it). I'd toss a spare distributor, alternator, and starter in the tool box and choose it even in its raggedy beat-down shape if I knew it'd see some seriously rough conditions over a new one. Like I said though, if I knew I'd be in phone range all the time and that I'd get rid of it by 100K miles, I'd pick a new one--bells, whistles, butt-warmers and all. But here in the real world, I gladly spend more than book value when I can find an older extra low mileage vehicle with a minimum of options THAT HASN'T BEEN MODIFIED. And that is just for dd duties. Anything I'm going to be out of touch in, I build from bumper to bumper.
When on boat forum and reliability topics came up I tried to "measure" what folks meant by reliable. I tend to think of jumping aboard and crossing the Gulf of Mexico in the summer-time when gauging how reliable I considered a rig, others point of view was based on a 200 acre mountain lake with dozens of boats around on a perfect sunny day with excellent cellular coverage and a SeaTow concession on site.
That is where I think some of the discrepancies lie in the attitudes shown in this thread. Some folks are looking at this as a my brand is better than yours. No one ever claimed a Wrangler was a HD grade vehicle. The question was how to make a Wrangler as "reliable" as the LC's reputation, not which was better in one way or another.
On a side note, my best friend had a mid-late '90's 4Runner and I remember being VERY impressed at how heavy and solid it seemed to feel. I always thought I'd like to get one of them to build up but alas finding a low mileage unit is like finding a bone stock Harley! Toys tend to be bought with the intention of putting lots of miles on like Harleys are bought to farkle.
I thought of "The Gods must be Crazy" types of situations. Those are what made the LC's rep. Bombing around in 3rd world countries where there were no roads long before the days of cell/sat phones. As has been pointed out, the cost of a new LC precludes their belonging to corporations or the more well-heeled individual. In the case of a corporation they are more likely to travel in pairs or more if in any danger of becoming stranded in an isolated area and the individual owners aren't likely to take their pride and joy out swamp crossing. Atleast not until it has enough miles/time under its timing belt to have reduced its value to the point that its no more "foolish" to thrash it than it would be a Wrangler!
