Thread: An update.

Originally Posted by JDNSW

Theiss's importing of Toyotas was a direct result of the simple fact that he could not buy Landrovers.

Very true, but you overlook the extraordinary efforts both he and Toyota put in to make the LandCruiser suitable for the conditions, something LR did not do. Every broken part was investigated, and improved. It's what built Toyota's reputation as makers of tough 4x4s, and, as I understand it, why Toyotas are the go to choice for most industries that require reliable off road vehicles. It is a reputation that I think is largely undeserved in more recent times, as I have seen plenty of broken Toyotas, but it persists nonetheless.

It's definitely starting to lose ground on sites and workers car parks

Originally Posted by johntins

Very true, but you overlook the extraordinary efforts both he and Toyota put in to make the LandCruiser suitable for the conditions, something LR did not do. Every broken part was investigated, and improved. It's what built Toyota's reputation as makers of tough 4x4s, and, as I understand it, why Toyotas are the go to choice for most industries that require reliable off road vehicles. It is a reputation that I think is largely undeserved in more recent times, as I have seen plenty of broken Toyotas, but it persists nonetheless.

I suggest you find some of the descriptions of the early days of the Landrover - Rover actually had some of their engineers stationed in Cooma to ensure rapid response to problems. And there were many changes made in the period 1948-53, where Toyota made was in a similar position a decade later.

And the company I worked for re-equipped with Landcruisers in the mid sixties, and I can assure you that the Landcruisers of that period had plenty of shortcomings in quality and design. Certainly they continued to improve, at least until the end of the eighties, where Landrover remained virtually unchanged from 1958-1983, leaving a big gap to catch up.

Originally Posted by JDNSW

I suggest you find some of the descriptions of the early days of the Landrover - Rover actually had some of their engineers stationed in Cooma to ensure rapid response to problems. And there were many changes made in the period 1948-53, where Toyota made was in a similar position a decade later.

Fair enough. I didn't know that. However, the IIAs that we had in the military would still break axles at the drop of a hat. We all used to carry a lung length of steel rod, with a slot cut in one end to get around the planetary gear shaft, so we could drive out the broken off end from the centre. Weaknesses like that held LR back for decades.

Originally Posted by JDNSW

On the contrary, I suggest that it was their core business at least from 1949 to 1967 (Leyland merger), and possibly into the seventies.

I'd suggest that was mainly luck and not brand strategy.

Originally Posted by johntins

Fair enough. I didn't know that. However, the IIAs that we had in the military would still break axles at the drop of a hat. We all used to carry a lung length of steel rod, with a slot cut in one end to get around the planetary gear shaft, so we could drive out the broken off end from the centre. Weaknesses like that held LR back for decades.

That particular one was fixed by the introduction of the Salisbury axle in the last of the 2as - probably would have been better if it had happened earlier, but in fact, they did not break very often in my experience - in the last 55 years, I have driven 2as for nearly forty of those years, often with heavy loads in very rough country - and, perhaps surprisingly, have never broken an axle. A diff yes, but not an axle. Actually, I strongly suspect that axle quality was a bit of a lottery, especially after the Leyland merger, and I may have been lucky.

Some of the issues I remember with Toyotas in the sixties - a steering relay that within a couple of thousand miles from new added about fifteen degrees of slack to the steering; dangerous fuel tank setup with the tank inside the body, so any leaks were inside - lost one due to a smoker from this; seat frames that collapsed on corrugated roads with a typical Aussie on it; upholstery that fell to bits with six months of sunshine; broken wheel studs - we carried spare studs in the glovebox - at least they had a good tool kit, and I could replace one in about fifteen minutes by the roadside; only vehicle I have ever had break a spring right through all leaves; bodywork just fell to bits; very temperamental carburettor.

As for quality control - one incident that sticks in my mind is the time a mechanic an a new cylinder head were flown from Brisbane to the Mt Isa area - can you imagine his feelings when he found after unpacking the new head, that one of the spark plug holes had not been threaded! As one of my crew commented in 1966 "They said 'War last 100 years' - and they meant it!"

On the other hand, one real advantage the Toyotas had over Landrover was higher carrying capacity - they were just a bit larger, and particularly the swb, the larger engine gave better on - road performance, although offroad this was hampered by the three speed gearbox. But this was offset by higher, often much higher, fuel consumption, emphasising the fact that Toyota came to diesels about fifteen years after Rover did.

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Where something is made is not so important nowdays when companies insist on uniform standards worldwide. For example, so many of our Japanese vehicles are actually made in Thailand, but the quality is good.
Slovakia could be a good base when the UK exits the EU and there is a 10 per cent import duty of products from the UK into Europe. Lower costs could produce big benefits. JLR also has plants in Brazil and China now.
I agree with those who say the commercial 4WD market is wide open to a new vehicle if it is competent, as the 70 series gets pensioned off. JLR could produce a whole range of tough vehicles and dominate the mining, NGO, commercial and tough recreational markets if they are smart.

While I'm sure they could, the question is will they IMO.

When we first started to see manufacturing on mass out of China, or Thailand quality wasn't great but has developed well.

I still wouldn't be running out to buy the first model off the production line that's for sure.

Originally Posted by JDNSW

That particular one was fixed by the introduction of the Salisbury axle in the last of the 2as - probably would have been better if it had happened earlier, but in fact, they did not break very often in my experience - in the last 55 years, I have driven 2as for nearly forty of those years, often with heavy loads in very rough country - and, perhaps surprisingly, have never broken an axle. A diff yes, but not an axle. Actually, I strongly suspect that axle quality was a bit of a lottery, especially after the Leyland merger, and I may have been lucky.

You may have been lucky, or it may have been your driving, John. Soldiers come from all walks of life, but it always seemed that the drivers came from families of stock car racers. Broken axles were common.

Don't think I'm anti Land Rover, 'cos I aint, and I believe that they have a reputation they don't deserve, but British Leyland helped nobody with reputations. Jaguar, for example. I also believe Toyota have a reputation they don't deserve. Calling Toyotas unbreakable is like calling MacDonalds food. People will believe anything, it seems. I do, however, believe LR could have been far more proactive in sorting out the problems than they were.