This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
Twilly,
More recently they said the same thing about the reintroduction of the 70 series in Japan. No one wants to talk about the "fact" (not speculation) that 70s sales in Japan went off the charts. Two years production sold in nanoseconds. People fighting tooth and claw to get one. Lease only stipulations because the resale market is through the roof. It's hysterical.
In 2014 Toyota tried to reintroduce the 70 series in Japan and it failed. They took it off the market after a year. So much for your "national icon" argument. In the meantime, enthusiasts in Japan militated for its reintroduction. The 2024 model hit a nerve, and the rest is history. Can you imagine: the demand was so great, two years supply sold in minutes, that Toyota, in an unprecedented move, had to stop taking any more orders. Please let's try to keep to facts. I am not certain the same thing would happen in the US or EU, but I am also certain Toyota would sell ten's of thousands more than the 1000 you suggested in your original argument.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. Are you suggesting that Toyota would sell tens of thousands of 70s in the US? I disagree. I think the market for such a vehicle is smaller than most enthusiasts think.
Agree - there's also the argument that Toyota would sell precisely the number of those vehicles that they produce for the US market. Because they (Toyota/Lexus) don't produce to customer orders, they (Toyota) dictate sales volume. It's as simple as that.
The 1000 from OSS was about the stripped down 300. Not the 70.
You may be entirely right. But I wonder, as the car camping craze has exploded here and more people realize, "wait a minute...I bolted all this crap to my Tacoma, and now it's overweight before anyone even sits in it," the market for a vehicle that can actually carry a literal ton of weight without being the size of a Super Duty may be growing.
You are assuming that 1) they know it is overweight and 2) that they care. I suspect your assumptions are incorrect.
I think if it were priced the same as Japan ($34k USD with the 2.8L diesel) - they'd sell tens or hundreds of thousands. If it were priced at $70k, they'd sell a handful.
Yeah, most would prefer not to know. I just want to tow a medium camper and have my family of 5 in the vehicle at the same time. And I don't want to buy an HD truck to do it. This is why I'm over payload but under axle ratings a handful of times per year.
The Toyota engineer said that the payload is often set at a number that fits a government rating category rather than based on vehicle physical attributes. I think you're looking in the wrong place for a solution. What you want is the government rating to change, not necessarily the vehicle. Plenty of vehicles are plenty capable of doing what you want safely - and they do it every day all over the world. They just lack the paper that tells you it's okay. If the reason for the low payload is not a vehicle based limit, no new or different vehicle is likely to solve it. I don't give a lot of thought to the manufacturer payload, but I do care about safety. The two are associated at some level, but not directly related. Especially when payload is set to target an emissions bin not a performance or safety goal.
Are you thinking about payload or GVWR?
Where did you see this? I always thought the rating was hamstrung due to softer stock suspension and/or smaller brakes.
It’s a “how many angels on the head of a pin” debate but I think the market for a “heavy duty” Landcruiser (300, 70 or 4Runner) would surprise us all “as it did Toyota in Japan.” That’s my point.
And I use a 70 85% off-road and nearly 90% for work. So you see we are coming at this from very different frames of reference and, as a consequence, two very different points of view. I would not drive a 70 if I had to commute long hours in it. But a 200 would be useless for me given my intended use.
