Comments on: This is the Land Cruiser Toyota Should Import Into the US http://www.pnwadventures.com/web/toyota_land_cruiser_70_series/ Vehicle Dependent Overland Touring, Backroad Explorations and Outdoor Adventures in the Pacific Northwest Mon, 01 Dec 2008 20:21:07 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 By: C. Alexander Leigh http://www.pnwadventures.com/web/toyota_land_cruiser_70_series/#comment-56 C. Alexander Leigh Thu, 10 May 2007 01:24:13 +0000 http://www.pnwadventures.com/web/toyota_land_cruiser_70_series/#comment-56 The costs of bringing a vehicle to market are more than just importing one and putting it in a dealer's lot. The vehicle does require some redesign; for example MPH on the speedos. DOT doesn't care for EU lighting; not the often used clear lenses, the headlights with a totally different lighting pattern, or the headlight-leveling systems. Even though these seem like relatively minor build options, they do have to be designed into the line, and all that costs money. Especially if final assy is occurring on fixed lines... Not every assy plant can handle one car being different than the next like some of the line technology BMW pioneered with their "build module" technique that lets them turn out different cars at the same time on the line. If these trucks are relatively low volume, then final assy may even be by hand... For example it's generally told that the Discovery's through the 90s were still hand-built vehicles. Looking at mine, I totally believe it. So the production volume might be at an awkward place - not enough production capacity to support the NA market, but not enough volume would be generated by NA to support the capital costs of computerizing the line and doing the tooling. Then there's the fact that DOT doesn't care about all those EU crash tests, engine tests, etc you had done... You have to do all that again, and re-certify everything. The DOT requires a bunch of the cars to wreck, blah blah blah. It all adds up. You also have to setup a parts distribution network for the vehicle, and start shipping parts over. This sinks a large capital cost into the roll-out into the market because all these parts have to be produced and sent to dealers, supply chains have to be managed, etc etc. Basically unless they feel pretty sure of selling thousands of them a year, they aren’t going to bother. I can’t really blame them. And this is before they even spend some number of millions to market the car to the fickle American audience who pretty provably does not want to build solid axle, frame-rail SUV’s for recreation. If they did, Ford would still make the Bronco’s, Jeeps wouldn’t look like they do, and the world would be a better place for ORV users. The answer though is to dump the IFS. No one says you have to keep it. There are people in the area that have been cutting the IFS not only off their Toyotas but even crazier things like XTerras. The costs of bringing a vehicle to market are more than just importing one and putting it in a dealer’s lot. The vehicle does require some redesign; for example MPH on the speedos. DOT doesn’t care for EU lighting; not the often used clear lenses, the headlights with a totally different lighting pattern, or the headlight-leveling systems.

Even though these seem like relatively minor build options, they do have to be designed into the line, and all that costs money. Especially if final assy is occurring on fixed lines… Not every assy plant can handle one car being different than the next like some of the line technology BMW pioneered with their “build module” technique that lets them turn out different cars at the same time on the line.

If these trucks are relatively low volume, then final assy may even be by hand… For example it’s generally told that the Discovery’s through the 90s were still hand-built vehicles. Looking at mine, I totally believe it. So the production volume might be at an awkward place - not enough production capacity to support the NA market, but not enough volume would be generated by NA to support the capital costs of computerizing the line and doing the tooling.

Then there’s the fact that DOT doesn’t care about all those EU crash tests, engine tests, etc you had done… You have to do all that again, and re-certify everything. The DOT requires a bunch of the cars to wreck, blah blah blah. It all adds up.

You also have to setup a parts distribution network for the vehicle, and start shipping parts over. This sinks a large capital cost into the roll-out into the market because all these parts have to be produced and sent to dealers, supply chains have to be managed, etc etc.

Basically unless they feel pretty sure of selling thousands of them a year, they aren’t going to bother. I can’t really blame them.

And this is before they even spend some number of millions to market the car to the fickle American audience who pretty provably does not want to build solid axle, frame-rail SUV’s for recreation. If they did, Ford would still make the Bronco’s, Jeeps wouldn’t look like they do, and the world would be a better place for ORV users.

The answer though is to dump the IFS. No one says you have to keep it. There are people in the area that have been cutting the IFS not only off their Toyotas but even crazier things like XTerras.

]]>