I like this point about "heavy duty" and "light duty." Most on this forum (and most LC guys) tend to think that heavy duty is superior in every way, but a few thoughts based on my experience:
My first wheeling rig was a 1984 hilux, a few years later I got my first fj60. When I worked on the 60, I was shocked by the size of the axles (9.5" vs 8") frame rails, engine mounts, leaf springs--basically everything on the truck was bigger, "heavy duty." But with no hesitation, no doubt in my mind whatsoever, the hilux was the better offroad vehicle. I ran it hard, wheeled it hard, got it stuck, taught two teenage girls how to drive stick and offroad (they hit stuff) and the thing never broke, never let me down. Would I have been any better off with a "heavy duty" rig? I don't think so. fj60 was much more thirsty, more maintenance-hungry and generally more expensive to keep--didn't get me anywhere the hilux couldn't and got stuck a couple times where the hilux wouldn't have (hung up on spring hangers or diff, both of which hang down a lot lower). The reason I bought it was for the back seat. The only other benefit is that it did a little better on the highway.
Another perfect example: 4th gen 4runner v8 vs. LC100. Exact same powertrain, both IFS, but about a half-ton weight difference due to "heavy duty." But a 4runner will go anywhere the 100 will and not break doing so. The main reason consumers bought the 100 is for 3rd row or perceived status.
If something is good enough to do the job, what is the benefit of getting something beefier? I'd argue there is no benefit, and there are significant drawbacks.
As for the new generation--seems they're going to have problems for some users. But the cost savings measures will probably affect the whole lineup similarly. Comparing a 200 and a 250 is really a cross-generational comparison. 200 was designed 20 years ago under different regulations and in a different market.