Originally Posted by JDNSW
Interesting your comments on the steering and brakes of the S3. Compared to even cars of that time they would have been fairly ordinary - steering slow and relatively heavy (improved with radials - which were almost unheard of, although see below), but compared to the mid sixties Landcruiser they were notably better. The early Landcruisers had the steering drag link going onto the side of the track rod, which meant that every time the load on it reversed, the track rod twisted as far as the track rod ends allowed. In addition, the steering relay, which like the Landrover had the link from the steering box avove the link to the track rod, had the bearings only about an inch apart, which meant when they wore, as they inevitably did in a few thousand miles, the whole thing tilted every time the load reversed, giving even more free play.
I actually had a diesel 2a 109 when I was working in the Simpson Desert. And, following the company lead I fitted it with radial tyres, which performed better in the sand. Also improved matters on the road when I finished there.
At least one company I am aware of replaced their Landcruisers with Landrovers (can't remember whether petrol or diesel) with the intention of reducing the fatality rate.
You have to remember that in the sixties at least Landrover had a dealer network - Toyota didn't, but they were still able to take the market from Landrover, at least partly because Landrover were unable to supply vehicles, as you point out. And as you may remember, the first Landcruisers were imported by Thiess after they were unable to buy Landrovers at any price, since Australia's quota for the next couple of years had just been sold to the Army.
John