The factory that only builds white Toyota Land Cruisers(topgear.com)
topgear.com
The factory that only builds white Toyota Land Cruisers
https://www.topgear.com/car-news/big-reads/inside-factory-only-builds-white-toyotas
352 comments
Those are excellent vehicles indeed. Unfortunately they're also very expensive to maintain. As for a brake booster, I once swapped a booster from a 1990's Toyota pickup into a FJ55. Would you believe it bolted to the firewall? Might be a worthy swap in your FJZ80.
OEM parts can be really expensive, but there are also choices of buying aftermarket ones (mostly made in China) or salvaging from another ones. Near where I live there is a guy who salvages Land Cruisers for a living, he has more than hundreds frames lying around in his yard. Since most of the Land cruisers here have 3rd world spec (carb-ed and detuned engine, part time 4WD, mechanical gas pump etc...), the used parts are often in very good condition. Take the dreaded blown head gasket for example, I rarely see that here because 1FZ-F doesn't run as hot as 1FZ-FE. Or the Birfield, most people just run on RWD mode so they are often pristine.
(of course for something critical such as brake booster I would only use OEM).
(of course for something critical such as brake booster I would only use OEM).
Oh, you're outside the US! Then the scene changes. In the US, they're expensive even for used parts.
Really? My '95 FJ80, now over 200k miles, has been one of the cheapest and easiest to mantain, and most reliable vehicles I've ever owned.
Overall cost of ownership is rough due to terrible MPG, but maintenance hasn't been an issue at all.
Overall cost of ownership is rough due to terrible MPG, but maintenance hasn't been an issue at all.
So that's like what, 82 in Town and Country years?
Point being, 200k and 25yr on an SUV isn't that impressive on something expensive enough in its day to mostly avoid being rode hard and put away wet from day one. There are a lot of pretty pristine 90s Jags kicking around too and they weren't exactly the pinnacle of reliability. Minivans, commuter compacts, station wagons, they got chewed up and spit out.
Point being, 200k and 25yr on an SUV isn't that impressive on something expensive enough in its day to mostly avoid being rode hard and put away wet from day one. There are a lot of pretty pristine 90s Jags kicking around too and they weren't exactly the pinnacle of reliability. Minivans, commuter compacts, station wagons, they got chewed up and spit out.
Last time I looked, parts were fairly expensive. They are excellent otherwise.
What kind of fuel consumption do you get on that? I've been considering getting an older vehicles exactly for that reason (and you can easily tinker with it), but I'd imagine the fuel consumption is a lot higher than a modern vehicle, to the point where you are not saving anything by being able to fix it yourself.
My 1997 LX450 (4.5L I6) with armor (front/rear bumpers, sliders), a roof rack, other random accessories with a 2.5" lift and 33" tires gets about 11 MPG highway, and maybe 7-9 city. I take it off-road often, and on trails I get maybe...4-6?
It does come with the territory though, and anyone owning an 80 (and probably a 100 series) at this point isn't doing it really to "save money" imo.
That being said, the recently outgoing 200 series LC didn't really do all that much better[1], and neither does the new 300 series.[2]
[1] https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2021_Toyota_Land_Cru...
[2] https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/45010.shtml
It does come with the territory though, and anyone owning an 80 (and probably a 100 series) at this point isn't doing it really to "save money" imo.
That being said, the recently outgoing 200 series LC didn't really do all that much better[1], and neither does the new 300 series.[2]
[1] https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2021_Toyota_Land_Cru...
[2] https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/45010.shtml
Do people ever give you grief about the climate impact of owning a vehicle like that?
I don't mean to judge and am genuinely curious -- I have a fairly fuel inefficient vehicle as well and it weighs on me sometimes that I maybe should try different, more climate friendly hobbies (like, stopping overlanding and pick up knitting or something...)
I don't mean to judge and am genuinely curious -- I have a fairly fuel inefficient vehicle as well and it weighs on me sometimes that I maybe should try different, more climate friendly hobbies (like, stopping overlanding and pick up knitting or something...)
Yes, but the service life of a Land Cruiser 200 series is 25 years. There’s a profound amount of environmental impact beyond the gas pump, and most of it comes from building and shipping all the parts to assemble the automobile over and over again. The manufacturing process is profoundly environmentally destructive, so vehicles that have a longer service life (Land Cruiser is 2-2.5 times the average) have a role to play.
They are also one of the few petrol vehicles that are still built to this kind of standard, so they do demonstrate as the “smoking gun” that the industry itself engineers obsolescence into their vehicles and could do much better.
Somehow we’ve all been reduced to yakking on and on about fuel economy. There are 30,000 parts in the average car, and almost all of them are manufactured and shipped. What’s the impact of tens of thousands of components and built onsite for JIT manufacturing?
If we wanted to change this, we could do very easily. We would just need to put a sticker in the window of the car that says: “Designed to Last: 12 years” or whatever. That way people could make an informed decision and game theory would come in to effect. Auto makers know this information: every car has a design life of you wouldn’t have anything like the “25 year design life” of a Land Cruiser in the first place.
I consider it the impact of car and oil company propaganda, as they’ve narrowed the discussion to “miles per gallon” rather than the overall impact of design life and the constant need to remanufacture the same vehicle over and over again for the same customer throughout their lifetime.
The hidden danger is in the subtle propaganda of suggested talking points from industry that subtly moves the conversation over decades. Propaganda isn’t to tell us what to think, it’s to frame and influence the things we talk about and give us a industry favorable set of opinion talking points to frame a conversation that benefits the status quo.
The Land Cruiser is one of the last petrol vehicles that demonstrates without a doubt that we could be building to a much higher standard for viritually the same money. It was 84k when it went off the market in 2020, and Toyotas next most expensive vehicle with half the service life was about 75k. The Land Cruiser has a 10,000 usd tax because it isn’t assembled in North America, so double the service life vehicle can be delivered at the same price as the top end vehicle in a lineup. Its simply a choice by car companies not to do it.
But all we as a society can talk about is gas mileage, because that’s something the “industry can get behind.”
It’s something to bear in mind.
They are also one of the few petrol vehicles that are still built to this kind of standard, so they do demonstrate as the “smoking gun” that the industry itself engineers obsolescence into their vehicles and could do much better.
Somehow we’ve all been reduced to yakking on and on about fuel economy. There are 30,000 parts in the average car, and almost all of them are manufactured and shipped. What’s the impact of tens of thousands of components and built onsite for JIT manufacturing?
If we wanted to change this, we could do very easily. We would just need to put a sticker in the window of the car that says: “Designed to Last: 12 years” or whatever. That way people could make an informed decision and game theory would come in to effect. Auto makers know this information: every car has a design life of you wouldn’t have anything like the “25 year design life” of a Land Cruiser in the first place.
I consider it the impact of car and oil company propaganda, as they’ve narrowed the discussion to “miles per gallon” rather than the overall impact of design life and the constant need to remanufacture the same vehicle over and over again for the same customer throughout their lifetime.
The hidden danger is in the subtle propaganda of suggested talking points from industry that subtly moves the conversation over decades. Propaganda isn’t to tell us what to think, it’s to frame and influence the things we talk about and give us a industry favorable set of opinion talking points to frame a conversation that benefits the status quo.
The Land Cruiser is one of the last petrol vehicles that demonstrates without a doubt that we could be building to a much higher standard for viritually the same money. It was 84k when it went off the market in 2020, and Toyotas next most expensive vehicle with half the service life was about 75k. The Land Cruiser has a 10,000 usd tax because it isn’t assembled in North America, so double the service life vehicle can be delivered at the same price as the top end vehicle in a lineup. Its simply a choice by car companies not to do it.
But all we as a society can talk about is gas mileage, because that’s something the “industry can get behind.”
It’s something to bear in mind.
> There’s a profound amount of environmental impact beyond the gas pump, and most of it comes from building and shipping all the parts to assemble the automobile over and over again. The manufacturing process is profoundly environmentally destructive, so vehicles that have a longer service life (Land Cruiser is 2-2.5 times the average) have a role to play.
This isn't really true. The manufacturing is intensive but not nearly as intensive as setting fire to 1/4 gallon of gas every mile.
This impact is also significantly lower for gas cars than electric, which achieve parity around 15,000 driven miles.
There is an obvious inherent trade-off of a longer service life: you don't get efficiency improvements for 25 years.
[edit] Studies show an average gas car produces about 5.6t of CO2e in manufacture, an electric car about 8.8t of CO2e. For the gasoline car that's equivalent to burning ~600 gallons of gasoline and for the electric, ~1000 gallons.
An average car is driven 12500mi per year, and look if you're getting 10mpg, that's 6 months. How about the other 24 years 6 months? Buying a car that's 10% more efficient breaks even after what, a couple of years? [1]
If you care about the environment, take a train. Caltrain gets 100 passenger-miles per gallon average on their diesel engines and those train cars are older than I am. Once they move to electric, it should be 250-ish pax-mi/gal-equivalent based on Bart. Although I suspect probably a lot more due to the longer runs between stations.
[1] https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends/highlights-automotive-...
This isn't really true. The manufacturing is intensive but not nearly as intensive as setting fire to 1/4 gallon of gas every mile.
This impact is also significantly lower for gas cars than electric, which achieve parity around 15,000 driven miles.
There is an obvious inherent trade-off of a longer service life: you don't get efficiency improvements for 25 years.
[edit] Studies show an average gas car produces about 5.6t of CO2e in manufacture, an electric car about 8.8t of CO2e. For the gasoline car that's equivalent to burning ~600 gallons of gasoline and for the electric, ~1000 gallons.
An average car is driven 12500mi per year, and look if you're getting 10mpg, that's 6 months. How about the other 24 years 6 months? Buying a car that's 10% more efficient breaks even after what, a couple of years? [1]
If you care about the environment, take a train. Caltrain gets 100 passenger-miles per gallon average on their diesel engines and those train cars are older than I am. Once they move to electric, it should be 250-ish pax-mi/gal-equivalent based on Bart. Although I suspect probably a lot more due to the longer runs between stations.
[1] https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends/highlights-automotive-...
Regarding trains, I don't think that's really accurate. Yes, a train that's completely full gets excellent effective mileage per passenger for that trip. But how often are they anywhere near full? In reality, trains and buses have to make a huge number of runs either completely or virtually empty in order to have a regular enough schedule for anybody to be willing to depend on them. We need to know the effective fuel consumption of all runs actually made per total actual passenger-miles transported over the course of at least a week, maybe more like a month.
And that's before we account for any additional trips needed for personnel movements, car and track servicing, and other such things.
And that's before we account for any additional trips needed for personnel movements, car and track servicing, and other such things.
Those numbers are from Bart and Caltrain's operating reports.
The Bart number may have been during peak only so fair point there, I can certainly look for the systemwide average. [1]
The Caltrain number is average over FY2016-2018, from their sustainability report page 5. [2] They completed roughly 436M passenger-miles per year, and consumed roughly 4.4M gallons of diesel. Clocks in around 100 passenger-miles per gallon. I'm sure its worse now with the COVID numbers. I think it's a fair ballpark point of comparison though, and you can consider the Bart number an upper limit.
You're of course right its a function of ridership. An average freight train gets over 400 miles per gallon per ton of cargo.
[1] https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/GreenSheet.pdf
[2] https://www.caltrain.com/about-caltrain/sustainability
The Bart number may have been during peak only so fair point there, I can certainly look for the systemwide average. [1]
The Caltrain number is average over FY2016-2018, from their sustainability report page 5. [2] They completed roughly 436M passenger-miles per year, and consumed roughly 4.4M gallons of diesel. Clocks in around 100 passenger-miles per gallon. I'm sure its worse now with the COVID numbers. I think it's a fair ballpark point of comparison though, and you can consider the Bart number an upper limit.
You're of course right its a function of ridership. An average freight train gets over 400 miles per gallon per ton of cargo.
[1] https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/GreenSheet.pdf
[2] https://www.caltrain.com/about-caltrain/sustainability
No, what matters is the marginal additional emissions of a passenger choosing to ride the train. An empty train is going from A-B regardless.
I mean, the environment impact on buying a vehicle that polute less might not be worth running this one to the ground.
Same argument I have with aquaintainces that switch their cars to an electric ones... it's worse at the end if your previous car was in working order.
Same argument I have with aquaintainces that switch their cars to an electric ones... it's worse at the end if your previous car was in working order.
Presumably that car goes to someone else who will use it rather than being scrapped (a la Cash-for-Clunkers), right?
I've argued* that, because we drive our second car so little per year, that it makes more sense for us to buy an inexpensive, relatively gas-guzzling used car rather than a more economical hybrid. Reasoning being that someone is going to drive the gas guzzler and someone is going to drive that hybrid and better the hybrid go to someone driving a typical amount and we drive the worse one only 2-3K miles/year.
* - so far unsuccessfully, but the crazy used car market has made that moot for now.
I've argued* that, because we drive our second car so little per year, that it makes more sense for us to buy an inexpensive, relatively gas-guzzling used car rather than a more economical hybrid. Reasoning being that someone is going to drive the gas guzzler and someone is going to drive that hybrid and better the hybrid go to someone driving a typical amount and we drive the worse one only 2-3K miles/year.
* - so far unsuccessfully, but the crazy used car market has made that moot for now.
Reasonable logic, but I feel that a moderately priced small/medium electric car would be ideal for the day-to-day short trips around town that is most of our driving these days. Unfortunately such cars don't exist yet in my market and there is not yet a significant used market for electric cars.
I completely agree!
Because I only use my car for long trips (1h or more) a couple times a month. I got a 25 years old executive sedan... Sure 21 MPG is bad, but no new cars was made for my needs. And I stay under 3 metric tons of CO2 per year.
By buying an SUV (used or not), you're increasing--if only slightly--total demand for SUVs. Increased demand usually begets increased production.
This could be true, but isn't the whole story. Cars tend to be sold more and more as they age, for lower and lower prices. In fact, where I live (Honduras), many of the vehicles were "totaled" in the US, sold as salvage in the US, then imported to Honduras and fixed. My daily driver is an SUV that was a salvage title from Wisconsin. It has a little over 150,000 miles on it and I'm pretty sure my mechanic can keep it running over 200,000.
Would depend on the size of the engine I'd think. Old SUVs are going to have big engines and eat gas. My '78 Scout II had a 345 (5.6L?) v8 and did 12 mpg when it was running well. But if you get a smaller car with a smaller engine, you can get better mileage. My wife's '86 Civic doesn't fit the no engine electronics ideal (and it did have electronics problems that required replacing the engine control module (module sourced from a junkyard worked fine though)), but it did around 40 mpg in normal driving, 60 for cross country highway driving with A/C off. No modern safety equipment isn't great if you get in an accident, but curb weight is a lot less.
If you get an early Civic or VW Bug, you're going to get pretty good mileage as long as the engine is well adjusted.
If you get an early Civic or VW Bug, you're going to get pretty good mileage as long as the engine is well adjusted.
The issue with smaller vehicles, if you do actually go off-road or tow things, is they get destroyed in short order with very few exceptions.
I ended up having to get a proper truck because I kept breaking suspension components in my Forester shrug.
And for all the climate sin folks, it’s to manage 90 acres of previously overgrown timberland which was a huge fire danger and would have gone up in smoke in short order otherwise.
It’s now happily sitting there sequestering far more carbon than the truck will ever release.
I ended up having to get a proper truck because I kept breaking suspension components in my Forester shrug.
And for all the climate sin folks, it’s to manage 90 acres of previously overgrown timberland which was a huge fire danger and would have gone up in smoke in short order otherwise.
It’s now happily sitting there sequestering far more carbon than the truck will ever release.
This is the achilles heel of the FJ80 we get in the US with a gas engine.
The official EPA rating on my 1995 is 12MPG city, and 14MPG highway. Real world, I'm more often in the 10-12 MPG range. If you add heavy offroad accessories, expect that to drop further.
The Diesel engine you can get in other parts of the world can get 20+ MPG in the same vehicle.
The official EPA rating on my 1995 is 12MPG city, and 14MPG highway. Real world, I'm more often in the 10-12 MPG range. If you add heavy offroad accessories, expect that to drop further.
The Diesel engine you can get in other parts of the world can get 20+ MPG in the same vehicle.
I get around 12.5 l/100 km (19 mpg?) if I got easy on the throttle, and around 18L/100 km (13 mpg) on a rough road. There is no feedback loop since it uses on carb, so as long as I keep the throttle steady it isn't that bad. Of course it can't compare with modern SUVs but not too terrible either.
Economically wise, a 2 years old mid sized SUV here costs around 40000 USD, meanwhile I bought my FZJ80 with 6000 USD (with 200000 km on the ODO). Even if I drive 1000 km a month it will take me more than 30 years of driving to start losing money compare to buying a modern one.
Economically wise, a 2 years old mid sized SUV here costs around 40000 USD, meanwhile I bought my FZJ80 with 6000 USD (with 200000 km on the ODO). Even if I drive 1000 km a month it will take me more than 30 years of driving to start losing money compare to buying a modern one.
More "Earth Fucker" than, "Land Cruiser" when it comes to MPG.
Having one of those, from England and not Japan, they are less bad for the environment than one might think. You just don't drive them as much, gas milleage takes care of that. Being classics, you don't drive in winter with salt on the road. And you keep them on the road far longer than they were intended, no new car is a net positive.
Well obviously the less you use a car the less environmental damage it does, but if you're not driving it half the year then it's probably not displacing a new car purchase.
>no new car is a net positive.
But you're saying you're required to own an addition car?
But you're saying you're required to own an addition car?
In that case? Yes, because for it is used for I don't have an alternative. And new ones capable of doing the same thing used to be unaffordable.
These older vehicles emit roughly as much as current (gas powered) small gas engines (aka lawnmowers, leaf blowers, etc).
So unless your household (or your maintenance crew) is 100% electrified, your part of the problem.
https://www.pressherald.com/2022/03/31/our-sustainable-city-...
So unless your household (or your maintenance crew) is 100% electrified, your part of the problem.
https://www.pressherald.com/2022/03/31/our-sustainable-city-...
What I love about the “movement” (just like in CAlifornian Politics!) is that everyone is terrible if they try to actually do anything useful, but everyone is great if they do random stuff that wastes time and effort without accomplishing it’s stated goals - as long as it seems futurist and green.
It’s basically the now is unacceptable, and the future is impossible.
It’s basically the now is unacceptable, and the future is impossible.
Personally no lawn, no lawnmower, no leaf blower. No car either, to be honest.
I have an 80 as well (1997 LX450) and another positive aspect of owning it is that when maintenance items become due, a lot of them can be fun[1] and enjoyable to tackle, and very very rarely will you run into an issue that doesn't have threads and discussions talking about the best ways to fix it. One downside to that is that you normally have to do a little bit of legwork to filter out the noise caused by other owners also looking for how to solve that particular issue.
[1] I've had to do the PHH on a rusty-ish 80, not fun: https://youtu.be/WQabGr4KY5g?t=158
[1] I've had to do the PHH on a rusty-ish 80, not fun: https://youtu.be/WQabGr4KY5g?t=158
Starter replacement on my strait-six LX450 took ~1 hr. Pull the wheel and you're practically looking at the unit. OTOH the Birfield Joints are kind of like prehistoric CV joints and have to be rebuilt in-situ. I love mine, 400k+ miles, still going strong and slurping fuel at 14 mpg.
mine had a leaky rear main seal. That was not a fun job. Fortunatly, my brother is an experienced auto mechanic (with ~$50k of SnapOn tools). So we were able to get it done, but there is no way I could have done it myself. The vehicle had 300k on the odometer and ran perfectly when I sold it last year for more than I paid. The reason I sold it was that the plastics had got brittle from the UV in the new mexico sun, so much of the interiod was falling apart.
I wouldn't be sure about that brake booster. They can fail spectacularly, feeding a pile of brake fluid into your intake and leaving you with a huge cloud of smoke / clogged exhaust valves and ports and no brakes.
Get it fixed ASAP.
Get it fixed ASAP.
I'm not sure how can it spill brake fluid in my vacuum line since they aren't really connected together (the booster has a push rod that connects to the master cylinder). But yes, I will get it replaced soon for my safety.
The safety of others as well.
Can you give an example of this mode of failure? I've never heard of this. Ever. The worst I saw on a YT channel recently (JustRolledIn) was a booster that exploded from a backfire. But never have I heard of one failing in such a way that it sucked the fluid right out of the (sealed) master cylinder.
Now, could a master cylinder and a brake booster fail this way? I suppose if the brake booster was already failed and leaked vacuum at the booster/cylinder interface, and then the master cylinder seal at the main plunger also failed, that this could happen. But I don't see one causing the other.
Now, could a master cylinder and a brake booster fail this way? I suppose if the brake booster was already failed and leaked vacuum at the booster/cylinder interface, and then the master cylinder seal at the main plunger also failed, that this could happen. But I don't see one causing the other.
1975 RHD alfa spider veloce failed on me this way. True the booster setup was stupid, placed after the master cylinder and exposed to the fluid internally.
Since then, any sign of a leak == park it and take the bus.
Since then, any sign of a leak == park it and take the bus.
Ah, so it was a specific failure along with a specifically bad design. THAT I get. I'm thinking of the Toyota's, Fords, Chevy's, Nissans, Mitsubishi, Internationals, Chryslers that I've owned. You know, mostly non-terrible cars :D
Oh, the spider was not a terrible car. Some interesting engineering choices for the RHD Alfas to cope with the dual carbs getting in the way of the brake booster should go meant they either had the crazy remote dual boosters, or a hideous metal bracket that ran the width of the firewall (Alfetta, 75 etc).
Other than that, the first spider I had was a wonderful thing. Plenty of performance, dynamic handling, looked gorgeous. The 2nd one was a complete sh*tbox because it was allowed to rust and never fixed properly or drove properly.
Chryslers have a bad reputation in Australia. Poor quality control, bad reliability (compared to Toyota), hard to get parts, interiors that eat themselves etc. I should know having owned a few (and rebuilding a 300C at the moment). Once they bought AMC all the terrible Chrysler problems seemed to be like a virus on Jeeps.
Other than that, the first spider I had was a wonderful thing. Plenty of performance, dynamic handling, looked gorgeous. The 2nd one was a complete sh*tbox because it was allowed to rust and never fixed properly or drove properly.
Chryslers have a bad reputation in Australia. Poor quality control, bad reliability (compared to Toyota), hard to get parts, interiors that eat themselves etc. I should know having owned a few (and rebuilding a 300C at the moment). Once they bought AMC all the terrible Chrysler problems seemed to be like a virus on Jeeps.
And all the pollution you spread everywhere you go, from gas and micro-plastics from your car tires. What is not to love?
These are all genuine and critical problems, but the solution can really only come from governments and industry, with more emphasis on public transport, better city design and industry getting greener.
We can praise those who organise their lives in such ways as to not be too much of a burden on the planet but I don’t believe it’s effective to shame those that don’t, or do it in different ways than you expect.
It is effective to put pressure on governments and industry though.
We can praise those who organise their lives in such ways as to not be too much of a burden on the planet but I don’t believe it’s effective to shame those that don’t, or do it in different ways than you expect.
It is effective to put pressure on governments and industry though.
I wish we could get these in the US. We lack basic cars anymore. This is why I still drive a 1988 Suburban. Yes, it requires a lot of maintenance (It's almost 35 years old!) but it's simple, and tough as nails and, in general, simple to repair.
I think part of the problem is that safety and fuel economy regulations have made it unprofitable to manufacture basic cars.
But my slightly-conspiratorial view is also that companies want to engage in a kind of "customer indoctrination", where they want to train customers to expect and demand high-margin low-value features, so they can freely cut lower-margin sections of their product line. Sort of like the "starve the beast" approach, but for consumer preferences.
But my slightly-conspiratorial view is also that companies want to engage in a kind of "customer indoctrination", where they want to train customers to expect and demand high-margin low-value features, so they can freely cut lower-margin sections of their product line. Sort of like the "starve the beast" approach, but for consumer preferences.
The problem is entirely that the vast majority of new car buyers don't want "basic cars."
Even car enthusiasts, who talk endlessly about how simple cars are better, will point out how poor of a deal a new "basic" car is compared to a used luxury car. Jalopnik and the like used to constantly run articles like, "Why buy a new Honda Civic when you can get this 2012 Infiniti G35 for the same price?!!?" Sometimes they were tongue-in-cheek, featuring something like an Maserati, but most of the time, it was genuine advice.
It's totally possible to sell cheap, basic cars in the USA and make a profit, but the key is that those cars need to sell. Companies have tried for years to make the formula work. The Versa, Mirage, Fiesta, and Fit were all basic, no frills transportation, but the only one left is the Versa.
I think it's hypocritical of people who don't own one of those (preferably that they bought new) to complain about lack of basic cars in the USA. If you weren't willing to make the sacrifices necessary to drive a basic car, why should you complain about other people not making the same sacrifice?
> But my slightly-conspiratorial view is also that companies want to engage in a kind of "customer indoctrination",
Or...Vehicles exist at a high enough price point that price/performance is a key driver of value. Spending more on a larger, more capable vehicle makes sense if you plan to use it for the next 15 years. Transaction costs on cars are insane. So if one buy small, then trade up as one needs, then it's going to be much more expensive in the long run than just going big the first time.
Barring pickup trucks, the best selling vehicles in the USA are all pretty much mid-level, family-focused transportation: Rav4, CRV, Rogue, Camry. These are big enough to haul a family, but not loaded to the gills with luxury appointments.
Even car enthusiasts, who talk endlessly about how simple cars are better, will point out how poor of a deal a new "basic" car is compared to a used luxury car. Jalopnik and the like used to constantly run articles like, "Why buy a new Honda Civic when you can get this 2012 Infiniti G35 for the same price?!!?" Sometimes they were tongue-in-cheek, featuring something like an Maserati, but most of the time, it was genuine advice.
It's totally possible to sell cheap, basic cars in the USA and make a profit, but the key is that those cars need to sell. Companies have tried for years to make the formula work. The Versa, Mirage, Fiesta, and Fit were all basic, no frills transportation, but the only one left is the Versa.
I think it's hypocritical of people who don't own one of those (preferably that they bought new) to complain about lack of basic cars in the USA. If you weren't willing to make the sacrifices necessary to drive a basic car, why should you complain about other people not making the same sacrifice?
> But my slightly-conspiratorial view is also that companies want to engage in a kind of "customer indoctrination",
Or...Vehicles exist at a high enough price point that price/performance is a key driver of value. Spending more on a larger, more capable vehicle makes sense if you plan to use it for the next 15 years. Transaction costs on cars are insane. So if one buy small, then trade up as one needs, then it's going to be much more expensive in the long run than just going big the first time.
Barring pickup trucks, the best selling vehicles in the USA are all pretty much mid-level, family-focused transportation: Rav4, CRV, Rogue, Camry. These are big enough to haul a family, but not loaded to the gills with luxury appointments.
> The problem is entirely that the vast majority of new car buyers don't want "basic cars."
Mostly, I'd like to buy a basic car, but in the US, you've mostly got to buy off the lot, and basic cars aren't well stocked; maybe they don't sell as fast so dealers don't stock them, maybe they don't make as much margin so dealers don't stock them, either way, they're not there so you can't buy them. You might be able to convince a dealer to order it, but then you're usually not going to get any of the promotions, and it's not worth waiting 2-3 months and paying more so you don't have to get the features you don't want.
Mostly, I'd like to buy a basic car, but in the US, you've mostly got to buy off the lot, and basic cars aren't well stocked; maybe they don't sell as fast so dealers don't stock them, maybe they don't make as much margin so dealers don't stock them, either way, they're not there so you can't buy them. You might be able to convince a dealer to order it, but then you're usually not going to get any of the promotions, and it's not worth waiting 2-3 months and paying more so you don't have to get the features you don't want.
It's probably both - there isn't a lot of margin in something like a base model vehicle compared to its upmarket family and not a lot of people come in looking for a vehicle with manual crank windows and a stick shift (I WOULD) so they aren't flying off the lot.
I wonder if there is a feedback loop between this phenomenon and income inequality. People in the "lower middle" income tier can't afford anything but the cheapest basics (or are forced to switch to used cars), so demand becomes skewed towards higher quality stuff, so the product mix gets adjusted towards higher quality stuff, further increasing prices, etc.
> I think it's hypocritical of people who don't own one of those (preferably that they bought new) to complain about lack of basic cars in the USA.
I remember shaking my head in disagreement the last time I saw you bring this up in the thread about the hypothetical "Costco car" <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28569886>.
I don't own any of the cars you mention and don't care to. I also, however, don't care to own a luxury brand, or even some mid-level with fully loaded options, or even what you would probably consider to be a reasonably priced modest choice, e.g. Toyota Corolla, for that matter. Why? Because when I think of "great, small, cheap cars", I don't think any of those fit the bill. All the aforementioned cars (including your recommendations) all share one or more qualities with luxury buys that disqualify them from being considered by my rubric as "basic cars". Bezos famously drove a beater. At some point he upgraded to a newer (but still old) Honda Accord that I would probably classify similarly—not basic enough.
I own (and for years drove) a mid-90s Mustang. (Still owned, but no longer driven.) It is/was a great economy car, which crucially by my rubric includes low-cost maintenance, given that it lends itself to easy repair. Still it came with some things outside the bare essentials, including AC, power locks, power windows, a nice stereo, and zero smart features (another pro in my book, not a con). Having never bought and owned one of the cars you recommend, where do I stand, in your book, on being able to complain about the state of access to basic and affordable cars in the US car market?
> Or...Vehicles exist at a high enough price point that price/performance is a key driver of value. Spending more on a larger, more capable vehicle makes sense if you plan to use it for the next 15 years.
Alternatively: we know that people are not rational actors, and car ownership is just one of the many things that people can be observed to be incredibly irrational about (to the point of acting counter to their best interests and/or their own stated interests).
I remember shaking my head in disagreement the last time I saw you bring this up in the thread about the hypothetical "Costco car" <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28569886>.
I don't own any of the cars you mention and don't care to. I also, however, don't care to own a luxury brand, or even some mid-level with fully loaded options, or even what you would probably consider to be a reasonably priced modest choice, e.g. Toyota Corolla, for that matter. Why? Because when I think of "great, small, cheap cars", I don't think any of those fit the bill. All the aforementioned cars (including your recommendations) all share one or more qualities with luxury buys that disqualify them from being considered by my rubric as "basic cars". Bezos famously drove a beater. At some point he upgraded to a newer (but still old) Honda Accord that I would probably classify similarly—not basic enough.
I own (and for years drove) a mid-90s Mustang. (Still owned, but no longer driven.) It is/was a great economy car, which crucially by my rubric includes low-cost maintenance, given that it lends itself to easy repair. Still it came with some things outside the bare essentials, including AC, power locks, power windows, a nice stereo, and zero smart features (another pro in my book, not a con). Having never bought and owned one of the cars you recommend, where do I stand, in your book, on being able to complain about the state of access to basic and affordable cars in the US car market?
> Or...Vehicles exist at a high enough price point that price/performance is a key driver of value. Spending more on a larger, more capable vehicle makes sense if you plan to use it for the next 15 years.
Alternatively: we know that people are not rational actors, and car ownership is just one of the many things that people can be observed to be incredibly irrational about (to the point of acting counter to their best interests and/or their own stated interests).
>All the aforementioned cars (including your recommendations) all share one or more qualities with luxury buys that disqualify them from being considered by my rubric as "basic cars". Bezos famously drove a beater.
Ah, I'm curious what new car you consider to be "basic". I'm guessing none of them are. Whatever "beater" Bezos drove, probably has a modern analog, and that modern analog is probably the same price or cheaper, adjusted for inflation; safer; and more reliable.
Simple does not mean reliable, and reliability does not require simplicity. First-gen Lexus LS400s are still rolling around after 30 years, despite being a flagship vehicle that was loaded with enough technology to compete with top end Mercedes. Meanwhile, a Trabant is as simple as cars get, but keeping one going is quite the challenge, even though pretty much every part on one can be built by a local specialist, or adapted from another vehicle.
You'll get 250k miles and 20 years out of a new Corolla. And if the car has a fundamental defect that prevents that from happening, they'll make it right with an out of warranty repair. See: Taco drivers who received new chassis or cars with the 2AZ-FE who received complete engine rebuilds under warranty, even on vehicles with well over 100k miles. After that, because Toyota sold millions of them each generation (and shared parts with millions of other cars), you can easily find a lifetime supply of replacement parts. And that's what you like about your Mustang, right?
> Alternatively: we know that people are not rational actors, and car ownership is just one of the many things that people can be observed to be incredibly irrational about (to the point of acting counter to their best interests and/or their own stated interests).
Two of my siblings bought the basic transportation people are espousing here: one an older Civic, the other a Mazda2. Neither owned those cars for more than 18 months because, like many 20-somethings, "oopsies" happened and they find out things like, car seats don't fit if the person in the front seat is over 5'6, or strollers are gigantic. Both ended up trading their cars in for a minivan and a crossover. Both took a bath on the trades too.
This was irrational behavior. They were buying the car they could live with now with the expectation of keeping it for 15 years. A rational person would consider what life looks like in 15 years if they were planning on keeping a car that long.
Ah, I'm curious what new car you consider to be "basic". I'm guessing none of them are. Whatever "beater" Bezos drove, probably has a modern analog, and that modern analog is probably the same price or cheaper, adjusted for inflation; safer; and more reliable.
Simple does not mean reliable, and reliability does not require simplicity. First-gen Lexus LS400s are still rolling around after 30 years, despite being a flagship vehicle that was loaded with enough technology to compete with top end Mercedes. Meanwhile, a Trabant is as simple as cars get, but keeping one going is quite the challenge, even though pretty much every part on one can be built by a local specialist, or adapted from another vehicle.
You'll get 250k miles and 20 years out of a new Corolla. And if the car has a fundamental defect that prevents that from happening, they'll make it right with an out of warranty repair. See: Taco drivers who received new chassis or cars with the 2AZ-FE who received complete engine rebuilds under warranty, even on vehicles with well over 100k miles. After that, because Toyota sold millions of them each generation (and shared parts with millions of other cars), you can easily find a lifetime supply of replacement parts. And that's what you like about your Mustang, right?
> Alternatively: we know that people are not rational actors, and car ownership is just one of the many things that people can be observed to be incredibly irrational about (to the point of acting counter to their best interests and/or their own stated interests).
Two of my siblings bought the basic transportation people are espousing here: one an older Civic, the other a Mazda2. Neither owned those cars for more than 18 months because, like many 20-somethings, "oopsies" happened and they find out things like, car seats don't fit if the person in the front seat is over 5'6, or strollers are gigantic. Both ended up trading their cars in for a minivan and a crossover. Both took a bath on the trades too.
This was irrational behavior. They were buying the car they could live with now with the expectation of keeping it for 15 years. A rational person would consider what life looks like in 15 years if they were planning on keeping a car that long.
The aforementioned used Mustang is/was good for 250k more miles after purchase and 20 more years, too, but it didn't cost as much as a new Corolla does, even adjusted for inflation.
I've driven both. I'll take the Mustang on that alone, even though gas mileage is better in the Corolla.
Naturally, I've done maintenance and repairs on a Mustang from the mid-90s. I'm guessing you haven't. I've only done minimal repairs on a new Corolla. The Corolla loses there, too.
Strike 3 really is the price. Given all this, you'd think the one with these downsides would be cheaper or something. Otherwise, you're putting one car up against a less desirable one, except it also costs more money? Would you pay extra for the privilege of having a bird shit on you while you walk down the street—where not paying means trudging through your day shitless? The choice is simple.
With lots of things in life, you expect there to be some sort of tradeoff involved. With food, for example, maybe something tastes great but it's bad for you, or vice versa. It doesn't always work like that, though.
New cars are like chicken-fried steak in a competition with salad: no pros, all cons. I hate chicken fried steak, and if you hate chicken-fried steak, too, but your view of the world is one where tradeoffs are axiomatic and inescapable, then the natural outcome is to find yourself probably on the cusp of thinking that you should, like, eat more chicken-fried steak, even though you don't like it—or more precisely: because you don't like it. But that's crazy, and you shouldn't! Something can both taste bad and be bad for you while other things (like a salad) can be better for you and be delicious. It turns out there's actually lots of stuff like this, and the car market in 2022 is one of them.
Barring any changes (like Bezos taking a personal interest in fixing this problem and making the hypothetical Costco car a real thing), fuck the whole industry.
> I'm curious what new car you consider to be "basic". I'm guessing none
Right.
I've driven both. I'll take the Mustang on that alone, even though gas mileage is better in the Corolla.
Naturally, I've done maintenance and repairs on a Mustang from the mid-90s. I'm guessing you haven't. I've only done minimal repairs on a new Corolla. The Corolla loses there, too.
Strike 3 really is the price. Given all this, you'd think the one with these downsides would be cheaper or something. Otherwise, you're putting one car up against a less desirable one, except it also costs more money? Would you pay extra for the privilege of having a bird shit on you while you walk down the street—where not paying means trudging through your day shitless? The choice is simple.
With lots of things in life, you expect there to be some sort of tradeoff involved. With food, for example, maybe something tastes great but it's bad for you, or vice versa. It doesn't always work like that, though.
New cars are like chicken-fried steak in a competition with salad: no pros, all cons. I hate chicken fried steak, and if you hate chicken-fried steak, too, but your view of the world is one where tradeoffs are axiomatic and inescapable, then the natural outcome is to find yourself probably on the cusp of thinking that you should, like, eat more chicken-fried steak, even though you don't like it—or more precisely: because you don't like it. But that's crazy, and you shouldn't! Something can both taste bad and be bad for you while other things (like a salad) can be better for you and be delicious. It turns out there's actually lots of stuff like this, and the car market in 2022 is one of them.
Barring any changes (like Bezos taking a personal interest in fixing this problem and making the hypothetical Costco car a real thing), fuck the whole industry.
> I'm curious what new car you consider to be "basic". I'm guessing none
Right.
My 2013 Fit was definitely low frills and "easy to maintain", but when I saw how much work it took to change the spark plugs I laughed out loud.
That doesn't sound conspiratorial at all. All sorts of features drift from being 'luxury items' to 'no one will buy a car without it.' In my life time time this has happened with air conditioning, power windows, heated seats. To say nothing of mandated safety features.
I think the way auto makers have 'trained' their customers is by removing the granularity of customization. Back in the day, every possible option could be tweaked when you ordered a new car. I knew a family that ordered their van with (standard) upholstery seats in the front, but cheaper vinyl seats in the back (because small kids with drinks).
You can't cherry pick features now, you just get 3 or 4 trim packages: base / standard / luxury / luxury + sport. And base is so punishingly sparse it only exists to lower the 'starting at' price in ads.
And that level of indoctrination is nothing compared to the 60 years long campaign to keep most urban development zoned as car-centric sprawl.
I think the way auto makers have 'trained' their customers is by removing the granularity of customization. Back in the day, every possible option could be tweaked when you ordered a new car. I knew a family that ordered their van with (standard) upholstery seats in the front, but cheaper vinyl seats in the back (because small kids with drinks).
You can't cherry pick features now, you just get 3 or 4 trim packages: base / standard / luxury / luxury + sport. And base is so punishingly sparse it only exists to lower the 'starting at' price in ads.
And that level of indoctrination is nothing compared to the 60 years long campaign to keep most urban development zoned as car-centric sprawl.
It’s kind of crazy how many things are mandated now that weren’t 20 years ago. Abs, traction control, airbags for both driver and passenger, rear camera (which means a screen to view it is also mandated), more and more emissions controls, etc. Not saying all or most of these are bad things but the number of expensive electronic and mechanical add-ons legislated into every vehicle makes it basically impossible to make a “basic” car.
And despite all that more people are dying on the roads, and there are more cars on the road (290 million around August, ) ... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33765179
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
What data are you looking at?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...
There is a definite bump in the last couple years (likely covid-related) but we are still at about 1/2 the rate of the 60s/70s/80s, and roughly 1/3 the rate per-mile driven. Even by total deaths, fewer people died last year than in most every year of the 1960s. The increasing safety standards of the modern road system (cars and infrastructure) should be applauded as an engineered success story.
Roughly two or times as many people die each year of alcohol abuse. If we are going after dangerous evils there are better areas to attack.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...
There is a definite bump in the last couple years (likely covid-related) but we are still at about 1/2 the rate of the 60s/70s/80s, and roughly 1/3 the rate per-mile driven. Even by total deaths, fewer people died last year than in most every year of the 1960s. The increasing safety standards of the modern road system (cars and infrastructure) should be applauded as an engineered success story.
Roughly two or times as many people die each year of alcohol abuse. If we are going after dangerous evils there are better areas to attack.
the argument in the NYT piece[0] is that the US is not doing enough to protect pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists[1] compared to other rich nations. (obviously because they have less cars than the US, so the article just points out that "cars first" costs a lot of lives)
> If we are going after dangerous evils there are better areas to attack.
Absolutely, but ... I'm not saying "it's all connected" and all of it is due to suburban sprawl, but ... it's a common factor.
If people were not driving, drinking, vaping, fentanyling in their little isolation cubes (ah, I mean cars, or houses with perfectly useless backyards, or tents), they might die less. Low population density does nasty things to communities. NIMBYs keep density low, commute times high, etc.
[0] https://archive.ph/sEmh5
[1] usually "bigger car wins"
> If we are going after dangerous evils there are better areas to attack.
Absolutely, but ... I'm not saying "it's all connected" and all of it is due to suburban sprawl, but ... it's a common factor.
If people were not driving, drinking, vaping, fentanyling in their little isolation cubes (ah, I mean cars, or houses with perfectly useless backyards, or tents), they might die less. Low population density does nasty things to communities. NIMBYs keep density low, commute times high, etc.
[0] https://archive.ph/sEmh5
[1] usually "bigger car wins"
So all the ills of society are focused on the car. No wonder then that drivers feel so persecuted, which was the root of the yellow vests protests.
Crash testing has been about saving the driver not the pedestrian
The European ratings have included pedestrian collision safety since 1997.
https://www.euroncap.com/en/vehicle-safety/the-ratings-expla...
https://www.euroncap.com/en/vehicle-safety/the-ratings-expla...
I wonder how the new F150 slipped by
By not getting tested in EuroNCAP, they aren't stupid. Here's all pickups [0].
https://www.euroncap.com/en/ratings-rewards/latest-safety-ra...
https://www.euroncap.com/en/ratings-rewards/latest-safety-ra...
It's coming next year at least:
https://fordauthority.com/2022/09/ford-f-150-officially-head...
The US is getting worse at pretty much everything. It's a long-term, comprehensive cultural erosion that stretches from mainstreet to DC.
> cultural erosion
Meh. US culture was always a bit too simplistic, from homesteading the manifest destiny to "USSR has fallen, democracy won" and finally with "first black president elected, racism officially over guys", and now it seems society entered a post-modernist phase.
I mean the obvious fallacies[0] of these oversimplifications are getting the spotlight culturally. And it's mighty polarizing. One one hand it's too much for some people and on the other hand it's still nothing substantial for others.
[0] Yes, the USSR has fallen, but Putin built a cleptocracy, also here comes China. Oh, yes Obama got elected and the ACA is nice, but it hardly moved the needle for millions of people. The benefits of half a century of global and domestic changes concentrated in the top ~30%, and the drawbacks hit the bottom ~30%, and weaponized selfishness, shortsightedness, and radical demagoguery (ie. ingroup vs outgroup populism, both the eat-the-rich and the republiklan variety) are on the rise again, because social media maximizes engagement.
Meh. US culture was always a bit too simplistic, from homesteading the manifest destiny to "USSR has fallen, democracy won" and finally with "first black president elected, racism officially over guys", and now it seems society entered a post-modernist phase.
I mean the obvious fallacies[0] of these oversimplifications are getting the spotlight culturally. And it's mighty polarizing. One one hand it's too much for some people and on the other hand it's still nothing substantial for others.
[0] Yes, the USSR has fallen, but Putin built a cleptocracy, also here comes China. Oh, yes Obama got elected and the ACA is nice, but it hardly moved the needle for millions of people. The benefits of half a century of global and domestic changes concentrated in the top ~30%, and the drawbacks hit the bottom ~30%, and weaponized selfishness, shortsightedness, and radical demagoguery (ie. ingroup vs outgroup populism, both the eat-the-rich and the republiklan variety) are on the rise again, because social media maximizes engagement.
I am going to be very sad when I find I can no longer buy a car without bullshit like parking sensors, auto braking, digital screens, tracking/logging and so on.It's not really a conspiracy. Even setting aside all the ads/product placement for SUVs and trucks, you can't really go to a dealership and expect them to have any make/model, like types of jeans at a levi's store. You can only buy what they have for sale, which is big autos with high profit margins. The big 3 automakers in the US simply aren't making smaller cars like they used to.
"“You know, carmakers always say they build what people want. But they never mention the fact that they spend billions to tell them what they want. It wasn’t just that consumers spontaneously desired a truck that was as big as a house. No, that was a gradual process. And it has been pushed by the automakers primarily because bigger equals more profit.”"
https://www.marketplace.org/2018/04/26/business/ford-motor-c...
"“You know, carmakers always say they build what people want. But they never mention the fact that they spend billions to tell them what they want. It wasn’t just that consumers spontaneously desired a truck that was as big as a house. No, that was a gradual process. And it has been pushed by the automakers primarily because bigger equals more profit.”"
https://www.marketplace.org/2018/04/26/business/ford-motor-c...
I think case in point with this is the engine bay cover that a lot of cars have these days. To me these sorts of design elements are useless costs unless they exist for these two reasons: either to scare off the curious from ever seeing the full beast, or to make it annoying enough to repair for the handy person who after seeing the amount of labor required for what used to be a trivial repair in older cars, simply opts for taking it to the service center because they lack time or an engine lift or any proprietary tooling.
Or to reduce noise and vibration
I can't imagine they reduce a significant amount. I've driven some more recent cars that did not have these covers and they weren't any louder or anything. Most noise comes from your exhaust, if you don't believe it just take off your muffler and see what happens.
It doesn’t require any conspiratorial thinking. If the math says that the company will lose sales to higher-margin products by offering low-margin ones, it’s a simple calculation to make the most profitable choice.
Of course, potential consumers could switch to a cheaper product from another manufacturer — in a sufficiently free market the unfulfilled demand for the low-margin option should be enough warrant a new entrant if the market is big enough.
TLDR if enough people wanted a simple car, someone would make it even if the existing companies don’t want to.
Of course, potential consumers could switch to a cheaper product from another manufacturer — in a sufficiently free market the unfulfilled demand for the low-margin option should be enough warrant a new entrant if the market is big enough.
TLDR if enough people wanted a simple car, someone would make it even if the existing companies don’t want to.
I'm not sure where I read it, but Toyota apparently saves money in the USA by making optional features included in the base model. In the 90's and early 00's, US companies would churn out base models with crank windows, manual transmissions, etc. Toyota found it was cheaper to engineer/build cars with fewer options, especially one's that everyone chose anyway. And customers didn't feel nickle and dimed.
That makes sense to me. That's part of why the Model T was so cheap.
That makes sense to me. That's part of why the Model T was so cheap.
>Toyota found it was cheaper to engineer/build cars with fewer options, especially one's that everyone chose anyway
It's easy when you're Toyota and the overwhelming majority of your customers are middle class on up consumers.
When you're Nissan or Chrysler and you NEED to offer low MSRP stuff so your customers can just barely qualify for the loan or you're Ford and you NEED to offer base spec stuff for the fleet customers it's not so easy.
It's easy when you're Toyota and the overwhelming majority of your customers are middle class on up consumers.
When you're Nissan or Chrysler and you NEED to offer low MSRP stuff so your customers can just barely qualify for the loan or you're Ford and you NEED to offer base spec stuff for the fleet customers it's not so easy.
They already manufacture he toyota hilux at scale yet you can't buy it in America.
Sounds like that underlines the OP's point. Toyota makes more profit in the US on a Tacoma designed for US tastes and price points. The US demand for Hiluxes isn't enough to either persuade Toyota to add it to their US line or importers to pay the import tariff.
Like an old thinkpad
That's why I'll be really sad when my Fit goes. Honda cheaped out in a few places (the seats could be a _lot_ more comfortable) but overall it's a fairly simple, easy to drive, practical car.
Mine just hit 250k miles of trouble free driving. I did change out the front seats to leather RSX seats at one point as I too hated the stock seats.
Whats your mpg on the fit after 250k miles?
asking as i'm considering getting one from someone close to me, but recall it once getting 40-45mpg and now it seems stuck at 30mpg after ~180k miles.
asking as i'm considering getting one from someone close to me, but recall it once getting 40-45mpg and now it seems stuck at 30mpg after ~180k miles.
I don't think mine was ever quite that high. Around 35-37mpg when I got it and probably around 30 now. Its a MT though and I think they get slightly worse mpg than AT.
My mom's 2006 Honda Fit only has 35,000-ish miles on it. It's basically brand new.
>I wish we could get these in the US. We lack basic cars anymore.
In the EU, if you want a basic no thrills car, there's the Dacia (Oh no! ... anyway) brand which is basically older, tried and tested, Renault-Nissan group parts put in a budget yet attractive shell, built in Romania.
IIRC they're now the second best selling brand in the EU.
The exact same cars are being sold under either Renault or Nissan badges in different parts of the world.
There was also the Russian Lada Niva Taiga which was very popular here for those living in the mountainous countryside. Very basic and sturdy with almost no electronics at all. Not sure how the situation is now with the war and the sanctions.
In the EU, if you want a basic no thrills car, there's the Dacia (Oh no! ... anyway) brand which is basically older, tried and tested, Renault-Nissan group parts put in a budget yet attractive shell, built in Romania.
IIRC they're now the second best selling brand in the EU.
The exact same cars are being sold under either Renault or Nissan badges in different parts of the world.
There was also the Russian Lada Niva Taiga which was very popular here for those living in the mountainous countryside. Very basic and sturdy with almost no electronics at all. Not sure how the situation is now with the war and the sanctions.
I did the Amsterdam-Dakar banger challenge a few years ago. The story was that a Lada Niva has never made it to the finish line :-). Oh and Landrovers you could track by the oil they were leaking.
The Lada Niva was popular because it was one of the very few socialist block cars that could officially go proper off-road, in other words, people had no choice (welcome to the wonderful world of socialism!).
But it was - and still is, can't believe they still make it - a _terrible_ car by any standard, and I can't really understand anyone buying one today. They are not cheap, have terrible design, terrible build quality, terrible fuel consumption, they are loud, and break easily - and they are not THAT good off-road ironically. If you want to put them somewhere on a map, they are about as bad as 70s British cars were.
But it was - and still is, can't believe they still make it - a _terrible_ car by any standard, and I can't really understand anyone buying one today. They are not cheap, have terrible design, terrible build quality, terrible fuel consumption, they are loud, and break easily - and they are not THAT good off-road ironically. If you want to put them somewhere on a map, they are about as bad as 70s British cars were.
Tacoma with the 4cyl engine is an old reliable design you can still buy today.
I would stay away from the 4cyl Tacoma. Only because the V6 in the current gen is under powered as it is.
This is coming from a Toyota fanboy (owned 2 Tacomas and now drive a Tundra).
This is coming from a Toyota fanboy (owned 2 Tacomas and now drive a Tundra).
The problem is that squeezing out more fuel economy + power and reducing emissions has also made the engine design more complex. Not too big a leap to say this also makes them less reliable and more difficult to service.
There's a video going over the new and old designs (pinned to where the 4cyl part starts): https://youtu.be/ei5yC4IdDhs
Wouldn't be too surprised if they retire it next year.
There's a video going over the new and old designs (pinned to where the 4cyl part starts): https://youtu.be/ei5yC4IdDhs
Wouldn't be too surprised if they retire it next year.
I think the engine offered in new 4Runners and tacomas is a 10 year old model. I like the “if it isn’t broke don’t fix it” mentality Toyota has managed to keep over the years. Emissions are catching up with them and they’re probably going to make a mess of transition to the new platform in upcoming model years though
Tacomas switched to the 3.5L 2GR-FKS with port + direct injection (& Atkinson cycle), years ago.
4Runners still have the old 4.0L 1GR-FE, port-injected. (and a 5-speed automatic! you're right about low-change mentality)
Fuel economy is roughly similar (>= 11.0 L / 100 Km), as far as I know, as is power.
4Runners still have the old 4.0L 1GR-FE, port-injected. (and a 5-speed automatic! you're right about low-change mentality)
Fuel economy is roughly similar (>= 11.0 L / 100 Km), as far as I know, as is power.
I've stuck with my early model FJ Cruiser. It has such a unique, rugged aesthetic and I'm still upset that they discontinued it. I dread the day that I have to replace it and probably deal with a lack of an all-tactile interface. It seems like every car nowadays has some form of touch interface and/or endless menus for basic functionality. Every time I use my partner's car, I'm reminded of how good it feels not have to take my eyes off the road just to play some music or adjust the AC in my vehicle. I think what I'd miss the most, surprisingly, is the little glovebox-like compartment on the top of the dashboard right above the steering wheel that I use to hold my phone for GPS.
My only complaints are the horrendous fuel efficiency and the windshield, which is prone to nicks due to its almost straight vertical position and is comparatively expensive to replace due to its abnormal size and the steps to remove/install it being rather involved. Beyond getting that windshield replaced twice, I haven't had to do anything besides general oil, tire, and light changes. It's seen better days with some paint chipping, but with more than 200,000 miles over 15 years, it's still going strong. I'm hopeful that I'll get to stick with it for the foreseeable future.
My only complaints are the horrendous fuel efficiency and the windshield, which is prone to nicks due to its almost straight vertical position and is comparatively expensive to replace due to its abnormal size and the steps to remove/install it being rather involved. Beyond getting that windshield replaced twice, I haven't had to do anything besides general oil, tire, and light changes. It's seen better days with some paint chipping, but with more than 200,000 miles over 15 years, it's still going strong. I'm hopeful that I'll get to stick with it for the foreseeable future.
Fun fact! They still sell new FJ cruisers in Dubai. Same look as the discontinued model. The locals love them. Probably the greatest testament to how good these things are if people want to keep buying the slightly older design over a Land Rover https://www.toyota.ae/en/new-cars/fj-cruiser/
It's being discontinued in the Middle East in December.
https://www.carscoops.com/2022/10/toyota-ending-production-o...
https://www.carscoops.com/2022/10/toyota-ending-production-o...
>I dread the day that I have to replace it and probably deal with a lack of an all-tactile interface.
If this is a big thing for you, then know that you can still find great vehicles today that balance it well, even brand new ones.
Vote with your wallet, everyone! Car manufacturers are doing these things because they think/(know?) that it will sell better. But they still make cars with dials and knobs. My 2020 Subaru has them, and even the newer ones with the huge screens still have volume and temperature buttons.
If this is a big thing for you, then know that you can still find great vehicles today that balance it well, even brand new ones.
Vote with your wallet, everyone! Car manufacturers are doing these things because they think/(know?) that it will sell better. But they still make cars with dials and knobs. My 2020 Subaru has them, and even the newer ones with the huge screens still have volume and temperature buttons.
4runner is as close as you'll get. The drive train really hasn't changed in almost 15 years.
I have several 4Runners, 2nd and 3rd gen, they're fantastic cars from a maintenance perspective.
And very fun to take off the road sometimes :) fun to see other 4Runner drivers on HN!
If you want this experience in the US and you are looking for a new car you need a new 4RUNNER
The new 4RUNNER starts at $40k and is loaded with technology. You've completely missed the target
I have seen a non-US spec Land Cruiser like the one in the article driving around Quantico with Virginia plates so it seems that it is possible to register them. When I look where to buy one it seems there is one company in Arlington that builds them for the defense market, but after the modifications I'm sure it costs an arm and a leg.
The US 25-year-rule means that 70-series Land Cruisers up through 1997 have been imported into the US with little fuss.
You can find owners listing their for sale here: https://forum.ih8mud.com/forums/bj74-vzj95-hzj75-kzj90.332/
You can find owners listing their for sale here: https://forum.ih8mud.com/forums/bj74-vzj95-hzj75-kzj90.332/
A fellow ih8mudder! Fancy seeing you here. Fun fact: I used to run the ih8mud servers back in the early/mid 2000's :D
As someone who have learned a lot from ih8mud, thank you for helping such a great community! I live in a 3rd world country where it's very hard to get proper maintenance services like in America, ih8mud is the reason why I picked the FZJ80.
(now, if only I can find the emission manual for the 1fz-f...)
(now, if only I can find the emission manual for the 1fz-f...)
A fair few of these are right hand drive, which is, to put it lightly, a huge pain the rear to deal with. LHD versions are bananas expensive.
I'm saying I saw a brand new 70 series Land Cruiser on I-95 near Quantico/Woodbridge with normal Virginia tags two months ago.
A "a non-US spec Land Cruiser like the one in the article" isn't close to a new 4RUNNER. New 4RUNNER's are loaded with computers and not easy to fix on the fly. They are also expensive, even for the base model. They also aren't Landcruisers. My understanding is if you want a Landcruiser in the states you should get a Lexus GX460/470 as they are the Landcruiser Prado's badged as a lexus (with only cosmetic differences such as higher quality touch materials (think seats and dash)).
And doesn’t come in manual anymore :( I miss my 3rd gen
It has CarPlay and radar cruise control, but hardly a loaded with tech car beyond that - the software used in the media display feels ancient!
[deleted]
You must be in a relatively mild winter area, or avoid winter driving. Around upstate NY, you rarely see winter cars older than about 20 years. I got 18 years and 250,000 miles out of a Toyota Highlander and that felt absolutely ancient. The underframe was really starting to rust out. It was getting too expensive to maintain at that point.
Everything old is either summer show cars that never see salt, or rust buckets barely holding together. I definitely see the appeal of simple cars though.
Everything old is either summer show cars that never see salt, or rust buckets barely holding together. I definitely see the appeal of simple cars though.
Different segment, but I've considered getting a Mitsubishi Mirage as they are quite simple and about the cheapest new car you can get in the US. My wife already drives a subcompact (Honda Fit) that we have been quite happy with.
80's and early-mid 90's Monteros are very much the same way. They're originally 3rd world vehicles.
>We lack basic cars anymore.
There is a near-infinite number of basic cars rotting away on dealer lots.
People don't want them. They want compact SUVs with 47 cameras and adaptive cruise control.
There is a near-infinite number of basic cars rotting away on dealer lots.
People don't want them. They want compact SUVs with 47 cameras and adaptive cruise control.
The current 4Runner is the closest reasonably priced alternative, until Toyota transforms to the new platform, probably making it worse.
I wish I lived in a world where the words "4Runner" and "reasonably priced" actually belonged in the same sentence. $39k for the bare bones base model is not reasonably priced. Signed a Nissan Frontier owner who still wishes Nissan hadn't killed the XTerra.
Unfortunately, Toyota has now discontinued the Land Cruiser.
ink_13(9)
I have a Toyota Land Cruiser here in South Africa with the petrol/gasoline engine. Amazing car. It's built to last though, so its on-road handling is not as great as modern cars.
They are a very common theme on an IG account dedicated to collecting Toyotas in war zones: https://www.instagram.com/toyotasofwar/?hl=en
It didn't happen often but for security reasons in some conflict areas MSF decided to paint their white Land Cruisers in pink to make sure everyone knew who was driving the car. It also made their cars less attractive for thieves.
That could backfire a bit! The SAS used to paint their Land Rovers pink for desert camouflage:
https://www.topgear.com/car-news/classic/you-could-own-forme...
https://www.topgear.com/car-news/classic/you-could-own-forme...
It appears to be a pretty distinctive pink design:
https://africatimes.com/2017/03/30/msf-mali-report-perilous-...
https://africatimes.com/2017/03/30/msf-mali-report-perilous-...
Also their strike aircraft. https://theaviationist.com/2016/02/20/desert-pink-special-co...
Eh, I'd say it is quite a stretch to call that color "pink".
But I guess in comparison to other traditional martial colors? But show that photo to a person on the street and ask what color it is... you're unlikely to get "pink" in response.
But I guess in comparison to other traditional martial colors? But show that photo to a person on the street and ask what color it is... you're unlikely to get "pink" in response.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Lane Cruiser 70s are still very common in Australia and available new. They might be basic and old but they’re not cheap - starting around 80K aud.
https://www.toyota.com.au/landcruiser-70
https://www.toyota.com.au/landcruiser-70
And I believe you can't order one at that price as the waiting list had reached several years so they closed the book. You're looking at over 100kAUD to buy a low km used one.
You are correct, you cannot order a new 70 series in Australia at the moment (or a 200, or a 300 series I believe).
Right now dealer 'used' 78 series with 300kms on the clock are around 120k, or you can buy a 20 year old one for just under half of that!
Right now dealer 'used' 78 series with 300kms on the clock are around 120k, or you can buy a 20 year old one for just under half of that!
If you are interested in a current year vehicle that is durable and simple, I recommend looking into the current generation Toyota 4Runner:
* body-on-frame construction
* reliable and proven engine platform (naturally aspirated v6)
* 5 speed auto transmission (modern trannys have like 10 gears bc of emissions)
* no fancy hybrid / turbo drivetrain that will start breaking after 3 years
* big after market so you can customize to your liking (got a bunch of off road toys on mine)
Cons:
* expensive (though you will save on maintenance and repair costs in the long run)
* there is a big demand for these trucks so you might need to stomach a $5K dealer mark up
* gas hog
* drives like farm equipment compared to a tesla, not refined at all
* infotainment is about as modern as the rest of the car
Next generation, it will probably go the hybrid / turbo route like the tundra.
* body-on-frame construction
* reliable and proven engine platform (naturally aspirated v6)
* 5 speed auto transmission (modern trannys have like 10 gears bc of emissions)
* no fancy hybrid / turbo drivetrain that will start breaking after 3 years
* big after market so you can customize to your liking (got a bunch of off road toys on mine)
Cons:
* expensive (though you will save on maintenance and repair costs in the long run)
* there is a big demand for these trucks so you might need to stomach a $5K dealer mark up
* gas hog
* drives like farm equipment compared to a tesla, not refined at all
* infotainment is about as modern as the rest of the car
Next generation, it will probably go the hybrid / turbo route like the tundra.
I had one of these (well, I had a 2010), and sold it in 2016 (it could not accommodate 3 across car seats). While everything you say is true, I suggest those attributes only carry overweight value for people who are inclined to 1) do their own wrenching, or 2) spend a lot of time off road. For normal city use, 4Runners are a really poor option, given how "truck-like" they are, how inefficient their use of interior space is, and how poor their gas mileage is. I would much rather have something like a Forester or even CR-V, or Explorer or Highlander or any of the other unibody AWD car-like options. Even my actual truck (2017 F150, which I bought to replace the 4R) is FAR more pleasant to drive, more useful, and gets better mileage.
At least in my region (Southern California), the 4x2 4Runners are going for $3-4k below MSRP. IMO, the biggest drawback is that all of your savings from maintenance will go towards paying for gas.
A 4x2 4Runner is an absolute waste of parts. If you aren't going to take it somewhere that you at least sometimes need 4x4, why on Earth are you buying a 4Runner at all? (I know, because it's a status symbol, but that's not what this thread is about.)
They get better gas mileage, and the reality is most SUVs never get properly utilized anyhow.
I'm with you though, 2x4 is a gross frankencar combo.
I'm with you though, 2x4 is a gross frankencar combo.
I'd recommend a mildly-used GX instead. More luxurious + a V8 + same off-road chops for the same price.
Fun fact -- GX is the US version of the international Toyota Land Cruiser Prado. [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Land_Cruiser_Prado
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Land_Cruiser_Prado
That's a cool story!
When I lived in Africa, everyone drove a Land Rover (don't remember the model name, though). Damn uncomfortable ride, but you could go anywhere. I think it was also possible to completely dismantle the car, by hand, so it could be portaged around.
When I lived in Africa, everyone drove a Land Rover (don't remember the model name, though). Damn uncomfortable ride, but you could go anywhere. I think it was also possible to completely dismantle the car, by hand, so it could be portaged around.
What I heard from my South African friends who experienced the 1960s there, was a Land Rover Series I or II could be disassembled by hand, with hand tools, and nearly completely rebuilt not to speak of repaired in the bush. And it was claimed yes, they could be portaged across any terrain once fully-disassembled with sufficient manpower, beast power, time, and logistical train.
Portaging was not done lightly, as the effort was considerable, and the vast logistical tail to accomplish it had to hoof it back on their own with the exception of the handful or fewer who could ride onwards on the re-assembled and fueled up Land Rover. Carrying the fuel and bare minimum consumables for the round-trip logistical train (assuming foraging on the go was even an option) I imagine was almost as much of a burden as the vehicle itself.
Toyota does seem to have taken over this niche though, as Land Rover doesn't seem too interested any longer in the market these days.
Portaging was not done lightly, as the effort was considerable, and the vast logistical tail to accomplish it had to hoof it back on their own with the exception of the handful or fewer who could ride onwards on the re-assembled and fueled up Land Rover. Carrying the fuel and bare minimum consumables for the round-trip logistical train (assuming foraging on the go was even an option) I imagine was almost as much of a burden as the vehicle itself.
Toyota does seem to have taken over this niche though, as Land Rover doesn't seem too interested any longer in the market these days.
I remember reading a few years ago a really interesting trip report of a couple doing a proper road trip through Africa in a Landcruiser.
Was impressed just how much the car went through and how it was still operational. Super interesting read if you have some time to spare.
https://expeditionportal.com/forum/threads/democratic-republ...
Was impressed just how much the car went through and how it was still operational. Super interesting read if you have some time to spare.
https://expeditionportal.com/forum/threads/democratic-republ...
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Z_V5ggUo2Y
I had no idea, amazing. Old school, long-lasting, reliable. Is there a car for us "normies" that is like this? Being a swede, I would say the Volvo 240.
I had no idea, amazing. Old school, long-lasting, reliable. Is there a car for us "normies" that is like this? Being a swede, I would say the Volvo 240.
If you're living in the "normal" world, I'd say just go buy the Landcruiser that's sold in your area. Landcruisers are designed for a 25 year service life, so you'll probably be fine.
Alternately, you could look around for an old Unimog -- I'm still dreaming of one. If you're in the US, you can often find an LMTV for sale: a fair amount of people refit them for overlanding or vanlife. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_of_Medium_Tactical_Vehi.... I don't think those are very computerized.
Alternately, you could look around for an old Unimog -- I'm still dreaming of one. If you're in the US, you can often find an LMTV for sale: a fair amount of people refit them for overlanding or vanlife. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_of_Medium_Tactical_Vehi.... I don't think those are very computerized.
The lada niva is a similarly simple and reliable car still sold in some eu countries for about 13k
I love land cruisers, in particular I'm attracted to the design ethos. Every series and every style. I have a land cruiser sticker on my laptop for that reason. In a society of throw away automobiles, here's something built to withstand. Miss my 250k+ mile 80 series we got rid of because we needed to go down to one car. As soon as I need another 2nd vehicle it'll be a land cruiser (or Lexus LX) or Land Cruiser Prado (Lexus GX here in the states).
Would a new land cruiser have the same longevity?
There is no reason to believe they wouldn't. The 2 models in appreciable production, the 70 series highlighted here has proven itself with a long track record. The 200 series, soon to be replaced has generally been the most expensive Toyota one can buy. The LX generally the most expensive Lexus (apart from super special models like LFA or Century in Japan), and engineers are generally given "a blank check" to build what they want to build that meets that ethos. Even though the next version will go more complicated with smaller engines and turbo chargers, they are still properly built. It's not just classic land cruisers with longevity, easy to find examples of 100 series land cruisers and Lexus GS (120 series) from the early to late 00s with half a million miles and going strong. 200s will when they've been around long enough.
Fascinating. I hope someone makes a similar EV vehicle without all the bells and whistles.
Bollinger Motors had a utilitarian EV offering for a while, but kept bumping up the price for whatever reason. Looks like they've pivoted into electric semis now?
https://bollingermotors.com/b1-b2/
https://bollingermotors.com/b1-b2/
EVs require quite a lot of electronics just to function, are hard to fix, and also finding extra electricity in places where those kind of vehicles are used wouldn't be as easy a getting a jerrycan.
I've got to ask the stupid question...
Why do EV's need lots of electronics? the only required controls I can think of are: - Charge control, - Power control - accelerator and regen breaking - Whatever driver assist is legally required
You don't need phone home telemetry, glass dashboard controls, dodgy auto pilot or many other luxury "needs"
I would think that an EV could be even simpler than a ICE vehicle as there is no need for all the complex engine management required to keep fuel consumption down.
Why do EV's need lots of electronics? the only required controls I can think of are: - Charge control, - Power control - accelerator and regen breaking - Whatever driver assist is legally required
You don't need phone home telemetry, glass dashboard controls, dodgy auto pilot or many other luxury "needs"
I would think that an EV could be even simpler than a ICE vehicle as there is no need for all the complex engine management required to keep fuel consumption down.
When I was young, we did a unit in Japan in school. I remember specifically that white cars were a thing. Like virtually every privately owned auto in Tokyo was white.
Somewhat counterintuitively, white cars show less dirt. This is also pretty common for the government fleet here in the USA.
As the owner of a white car I can attest that they show the most dirt easily.
Matt white is the most popular color for governments and businesses because it's the cheapest to buy and the cheapest/easiest to fix by yourself when scuffed (I fixed mine with a 2 Euro tippex like marker from Amazon).
Metallic/perlescent paints are far pricier for buying and are a nightmare to maintain and fix when scuffed.
In Europe, the white van is the workhorse of every business.
Matt white is the most popular color for governments and businesses because it's the cheapest to buy and the cheapest/easiest to fix by yourself when scuffed (I fixed mine with a 2 Euro tippex like marker from Amazon).
Metallic/perlescent paints are far pricier for buying and are a nightmare to maintain and fix when scuffed.
In Europe, the white van is the workhorse of every business.
I had a couple black cars and currently a white one. Imho, black is much more susceptible to dirt, even the lightest dust is visible immediately. White is quite a bit better but still needs a wash every now and then. And then there's "silver" aka light grey, that never needs a wash at all pretty much.
Agreed re black vs white, haven't had silver. I suppose it depends on the type of dirt you encounter.
Agree w/ GP re: touchup, "white van man" aka contrators.
Agree w/ GP re: touchup, "white van man" aka contrators.
White paint also doesn't fade. It can still look worse as it ages, of course, but it's still white. Red cars don't stay red, and neither do black cars, but white cars are still white (or white with road grime)
How about a mainly analog Toyota EV with no bells and whistles? I absolutely do not want a giant touchscreen interface.
I visited Nepal a few years back and it was amusing seeing the UN drive these massive shiny land cruisers while everybody else was drying cars a bit smaller than a 90s civic. Optics matter, and maybe a Hilux or RAV4 would have suited the environment better
I've seen the same in many other humanitarian responses. The UN also has Toyota Corollas (or similar sedans) in their fleets and they're often used for short distances. The problem (or the advantage depending on the security situation) is Corollas don't stand out as much as Land Cruisers. In some countries, white Toyota Corollas are the most common car.
those are also a key tool in "modern warfare". because it could be supplied very early on before any weapon, since technically they are not a weapon. when war started in libya, qatar sent hundreds of those to the terrorists to fuel the war.
Old Land Cruisers have been my "dream car" since I first rode on one on Mt. St. Helens in 1998, and really saw what they can do.
[deleted]
The stark white Toyota is really a symbol. Had no idea they are going to Ukrine too.
Is it possible to buy one in North America?
The article answers that question relatively early on.
foobarian(4)
This is amazing. I wish more car companies had this focus. I would bet all in, it’s more green than other cars. Emission standards tend to be poorly thought out.
I doubt it. Modern cars are very efficient in burning fuel, and this kind of old-fashioned engine, while necessary for infrastructure-poor areas, is going to have comparatively poor mileage and tailpipe emissions.
Considered -all in- - if you count the emissions required to keep a modern car operational (which includes accounting for much of society itself, I'd guess) this may be lower.
But that gets obscured because we already HAVE the high-emissions society with all the parts and pieces and knowhow.
After all, a vehicle that fails in the middle of nowhere may never be towed back and fixed unless it's like this one - fixable with very little.
But that gets obscured because we already HAVE the high-emissions society with all the parts and pieces and knowhow.
After all, a vehicle that fails in the middle of nowhere may never be towed back and fixed unless it's like this one - fixable with very little.
I agree. One has to ask: what is worse for the environment, a car that pollutes more but lasts 400k miles or a car that pollutes less but only lasts 200k. The cost and environmental affects of manufacturing aren't zero.
It also varies based on what you have for recycling and other things, too - if we're talking the only vehicle in an entire town that is otherwise from the 1800s, the long-running simple one will almost certainly win.
But in Los Angeles? That's an entire different issue, especially as there will be so many that economies of scale come into play.
But in Los Angeles? That's an entire different issue, especially as there will be so many that economies of scale come into play.
80% of the CO2 is in the operation and servicing.
https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/comparative-l...
https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/comparative-l...
I’d just chime in that emissions controls are about particulates NOx, SOx and other pollutants, but not CO2. Combustion of a gallon of diesel will create the same volume of CO2. That’s not to say that those other pollutants aren’t important, they’re damaging to human health, but when I hear “green” I think CO2.
Correct. It's why landrover doesn't make its Defender available anymore. They can't fix the emissions to comply with modern regulations.
This was a reply to bombcar.
This was a reply to bombcar.
The emissions weren't the issue; they just kept replacing the engine with newer ones - the Ford one they were using at the end had a Euro VI version so they could have kept using that.
The issues were more around safety (both passenger and pedestrian) and not being able to sell it in many countries because it can't have an airbag fitted (I think there was an ergonomics reason it wasn't possible).
The issues were more around safety (both passenger and pedestrian) and not being able to sell it in many countries because it can't have an airbag fitted (I think there was an ergonomics reason it wasn't possible).
They do have a new defender but it’s a far cry from the old version.
It has better fuel economy than anything in it's class available now.
> fuel consumption of 29.7 mpg US - 35.7 mpg UK - 7.9 L/100km, a weight of 7187 lbs (3260 kg)
https://specs.cars-directory.net/toyota/land_cruiser/4.2_VX-...
> fuel consumption of 29.7 mpg US - 35.7 mpg UK - 7.9 L/100km, a weight of 7187 lbs (3260 kg)
https://specs.cars-directory.net/toyota/land_cruiser/4.2_VX-...
Emission and mileage are not correlated positively. Healthy exhaust comes at a cost. An engine purely optimized for efficieny would be more efficient than those that comply with emission regulations.
But in practice, of course the old ones are worse at efficieny, too.
But in practice, of course the old ones are worse at efficieny, too.
The important thing is also that you do not have to breath the fumes in the city. This applies well to EVs -- they might more polluting (all in) in the first years then ICEs, but the pollution does not happen where you live.
[deleted]
carsharing an EV would be a lot more green though
Are we talking about the same Land Cruiser? In my home country, Indonesia, Land Cruiser is a luxury car. It sounds like in US or other countries it's like Honda Civic level.
No, it's not really the same vehicle. The name is the same, but the 70 Series mentioned in the article is built since 1984, what you are thinking of are the 200 and 300 series, which are decidely luxury SUVs.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Land_Cruiser
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Land_Cruiser
Probably not. These are 70 series land cruisers which are essentially the same as those manufactures in the mid 80s and are designed to be mechanically robust and simple to repair. Latest model land cruisers are pretty much luxury cars that you can take off road but most people probably don't, same as a range rover etc.
Is the Fortuner available in your market? That is how Toyota offers a reasonably priced modern alternative in some countries
There is a thriving trade in older and used land cruisers which are more bare bones but known for their reliability.
I wonder if the lower emissions are really worth it if the car breaks down sooner.
All the electronics and gimmicks to lower immediate emissions at the cost of reliability.
My car, for instance, turns off the engine when stopped, that can't be good for the engine and battery.
If saves a bit of gas but I am sure I'll have to change my battery sooner, not to mention the wear and tear on other components.
All the electronics and gimmicks to lower immediate emissions at the cost of reliability.
My car, for instance, turns off the engine when stopped, that can't be good for the engine and battery.
If saves a bit of gas but I am sure I'll have to change my battery sooner, not to mention the wear and tear on other components.
Diesel engines in particular, do not like being run under no load - it is far far better to have them switched off rather than running. Boat owners struggle with this when moored, as they can't charge their leisure batteries by just running the the engine without engaging the prop.
I don't know anyone with a stop/start engine that has ever complained to me about having to replace their battery sooner. Personally, I drive clunkers, and have never had to replace a battery on one of those, despite me turning off the engine whenever I can. I think modern batteries are pretty damn hardy.
I don't know anyone with a stop/start engine that has ever complained to me about having to replace their battery sooner. Personally, I drive clunkers, and have never had to replace a battery on one of those, despite me turning off the engine whenever I can. I think modern batteries are pretty damn hardy.
Yeah. While the instantaneous power draw is absolutely colossal, the actual energy drained from a battery starting a (healthy!) engine is fairly minimal, and its replaced very quickly by the alternator once it's up and running. Stop/start engines also use the ECU to stop the engine at the right point in the compression cycle for it to fire immediately, without cranking, so there's even less drain. (Even pre-stop/start engines in cars with modern ECUs tend to leave them in a position where they fire almost immediately.)
What kills batteries is deep discharge cycles. Sipping a bit of juice to start an engine and replacing it quickly does almost nothing to reduce its lifespan.
What kills batteries is deep discharge cycles. Sipping a bit of juice to start an engine and replacing it quickly does almost nothing to reduce its lifespan.
> My car, for instance, turns off the engine when stopped, that can't be good for the engine and battery.
It's largely irrelevant.
More than half of the wear and tear in an engine happens during cold starts. Unless you're in utter gridlock, you won't experience them more often than when at the start of the trip.
Toyota's hybrids turn the engine off and on on a regular basis, even during cruising, and have a proven track record of reliability.
It's largely irrelevant.
More than half of the wear and tear in an engine happens during cold starts. Unless you're in utter gridlock, you won't experience them more often than when at the start of the trip.
Toyota's hybrids turn the engine off and on on a regular basis, even during cruising, and have a proven track record of reliability.
>>My car, for instance, turns off the engine when stopped, that can't be good for the engine and battery.
A friendly reminder to everyone on the internet that your instinct and "gut feeling" isn't worth all that much. It's trivial to find out stats on this, and they prove that the inclusion of Start&Stop systems in cars had zero impact on reliability since their introduction over 10 years ago. But I still see people on forums saying "this can't be good for the engine!".
A friendly reminder to everyone on the internet that your instinct and "gut feeling" isn't worth all that much. It's trivial to find out stats on this, and they prove that the inclusion of Start&Stop systems in cars had zero impact on reliability since their introduction over 10 years ago. But I still see people on forums saying "this can't be good for the engine!".
> My car, for instance, turns off the engine when stopped, that can't be good for the engine and battery.
I understand the intuition behind this, but one could also see a place where starting the engine while it's still hot is better than idling (less wear, fewer opportunities for deposits to build up from wasted combustion), and where the impact to the battery is minimal as the hot engine makes it easier to turn over for the very few cycles it takes to get it going again.
I understand the intuition behind this, but one could also see a place where starting the engine while it's still hot is better than idling (less wear, fewer opportunities for deposits to build up from wasted combustion), and where the impact to the battery is minimal as the hot engine makes it easier to turn over for the very few cycles it takes to get it going again.
It isn't about heat, it is about the main crank bearing which is a fluid bearing that needs oil pressure to work. When your engine isn't running there isn't sufficient oil pressure so the first few revolutions are pretty tough on the engine. Hot is actually worse because the oil that is there is thinner and more likely to result in metal on metal. Engineering an ICE for an order of magnitude more starts is probably mostly upgrading the battery, starter motor, and main crank bearing.
they coat the cranks with a special polymer to help with start/stop and hybrid engines that undergo frequent cranking
A Prius starts and stops the engine constantly while driving, not just stopped - and they are known for lasting a very long time as well
Why would it not be good to turn your engine off? I sometimes come across stationary cars with a running engine, and I honestly wonder why anyone does that.
> I sometimes come across stationary cars with a running engine, and I honestly wonder why anyone does that.
As someone who frequents very warm countries, I think most people do it because of the AC. If the engine is not on, the AC won't adjust the temperature that you've selected.
As someone who frequents very warm countries, I think most people do it because of the AC. If the engine is not on, the AC won't adjust the temperature that you've selected.
I have a Volvo hybrid where the AC continues running even when the main ICE is off(as long as you have charge in the main battery pack). It's honestly fantastic.
Hybrid (or PEV/BEV) car's electric A/C is heavily underrated feature compared to pure ICE cars. Idling engine only for A/C seems to really inefficient. I think every police cars should be at least hybrid, but still not here.
Toyota Hybrids do this too and it’s an incredible experience to sit in a parking lot blasting full efficiency AC with the engine off. I’ve heard of people camping overnight in their Priuses this way with minimal engine use.
As a general rule, most machines break during state changes like start/stop. Keeping an engine running means no piece is subjected to the extra acceleration of restarting and your starter isn't used.
You mean besides the constant vibration and acceleration of pistons changing direction multiple times each second?
Yep, which is why diesel cars auto-off/on when stopped is a mixed blessing.
Saves fuel but wears out the battery and starter motor much faster.
Saves fuel but wears out the battery and starter motor much faster.
[deleted](1)
A good portion of the mechanical wear and tear on an engine comes from starting/stopping it.
cold starting, actually.
Oil is viscous. It takes time for it to flow down.
Oil is viscous. It takes time for it to flow down.
I thought cold starting was only an issue in the distant past, and not for modern models.
Time to full lubrication and working temperature has been reduced greatly, but it's still there.
As I understand it, when your car comes off its fast idle (which even at -30 is less than a minute) you're good to gently go now.
probably only when cold.
If you grew up poor a few decades ago, you probably saw your parents begin every journey praying the car would start. Because loads of vehicle faults manifest as failing to start - flat battery, spark plug problems, cold weather, no fuel.
Starting the engine is a stressful experience if you're used to vehicles where sometimes the engine won't start. Especially if you're at the front of a queue of traffic.
Starting the engine is a stressful experience if you're used to vehicles where sometimes the engine won't start. Especially if you're at the front of a queue of traffic.
It's actually an offence in the UK to do that. Not that it stops anyone.
I was with you until "turns off the engine when stopped, that can't be good for the engine". That was a concern in the mid 2000s when start-stop hybrids were just starting to become mainstream. Today nobody notices or cares because the concerns never materialized.
My 2013 Volt has 150+ K miles - the engine runs like new. I've never touched the brakes, only 2 oil changes, etc.
Regenerative breaking is an amazing piece of tech. I really like electric cars that have it baked-in the "gas" pedal so that releasing it slows down the car without using the brakes. You can achieve "optimal" driving by always recouping the kinetic energy as electricity instead.of heat in your break pads.
Most of my EV driving is in single pedal mode. I absolutely love driving in this mode. I feel like I just have far more control over the vehicle by having a single pedal to directly control the speed instead of the vehicle just rolling when I get off the accelerator. Also, the fact the car just stays put when stopped instead of constantly rolling forward in drive is really nice.
Sometimes my car loads my wife's profile when I drive which changes it back to standard driving. It is jarring having the car just always want to roll forward. It just feels so much worse than single pedal driving.
Sometimes my car loads my wife's profile when I drive which changes it back to standard driving. It is jarring having the car just always want to roll forward. It just feels so much worse than single pedal driving.
I'm assuming the standard driving profile imitates an automatic transmission with a torque converter, which continually creeps forward if the brake isn't held down. As opposed to a manual or dual-clutch automatic transmission, which does not creep (except by gravity).
Is disabling this "creep" independently of braking with the gas pedal an option in any electric vehicles? I seem to remember that some cars with continuously variable transmissions had this as an option.
Is disabling this "creep" independently of braking with the gas pedal an option in any electric vehicles? I seem to remember that some cars with continuously variable transmissions had this as an option.
There is still often an "Auto Hold" feature that will engage the brake when the vehicle comes to a complete stop. My EV can have auto hold engaged while not being in the single pedal drive. I have this in my ICE as well, but it doesn't seem as smooth overall, so I don't end up using it much.
It is still not quite the same experience though, as the ICE will just keep rolling at low speeds forever without actually ever coming to a stop until you press the brake. Auto hold will only engage when the vehicle actually stops. For my EV, when I get off the accelerator pedal it'll come to a complete stop on its own and then hold itself there.
Other than turning on my EV, most trips don't involve me touching the brake pedal at all.
It is still not quite the same experience though, as the ICE will just keep rolling at low speeds forever without actually ever coming to a stop until you press the brake. Auto hold will only engage when the vehicle actually stops. For my EV, when I get off the accelerator pedal it'll come to a complete stop on its own and then hold itself there.
Other than turning on my EV, most trips don't involve me touching the brake pedal at all.
On Teslas, I believe the creep setting is independent of the coasting/regenerative braking setting.
Tesla's have the unfortunate downside that they refuse to enable regen braking through the brake pedal, even as an option
Sometimes the autostart can be an annoyance but newer cars have got it down to almost imperceptible. The restarting shouldn’t be rough like a cold start.
[1] The so called 'emission computer' unit on the car is a simple pulse counter/comparator that activates a VSV on the carb to reduce backfire while descending downhill with the foot off the throttle.
[2] My brake booster is leaking a little bit, but at least it won't suddenly gives up on me while I'm riding, still looking for a replacement.