This is why I love my 80 series Land Cruiser (carb, not EFI), it's really simple that a lot of maintenance can be done with just wrenches. And the charm of having almost no electronics[1] on the car control is that if something is wrong, you will know it by the sounds it makes, and you will have a lot of times to fix it before it's completely toast. I have heard of horror stories about newer cars with electric ABS accumulator that stopped working on the high way, not with my FZJ80[2].
[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.
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).
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]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”"
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
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
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.
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/
>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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
Readit News
[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.
(of course for something critical such as brake booster I would only use OEM).
Overall cost of ownership is rough due to terrible MPG, but maintenance hasn't been an issue at all.
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
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 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.
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.
[1] I've had to do the PHH on a rusty-ish 80, not fun: https://youtu.be/WQabGr4KY5g?t=158
Get it fixed ASAP.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"“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...
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.
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.
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.
This is coming from a Toyota fanboy (owned 2 Tacomas and now drive a Tundra).
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.
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.
Deleted Comment
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.
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.
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
https://www.topgear.com/car-news/classic/you-could-own-forme...
https://africatimes.com/2017/03/30/msf-mali-report-perilous-...
If it would, then we likely would see more of it ...
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
https://www.toyota.com.au/landcruiser-70
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!
* 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.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Land_Cruiser_Prado
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.
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.
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...