I dunno, that sort of review is informative but maybe not really good. What I mean is the underlying message makes a presumption that everything is junk but it's not. Just because something is improved doesn't make what came before bad. It was good at the time and continues to be just as good as it ever was.
Videos like this might seem negative to Toyota but they're not. They stoke a fire to stay on the treadmill chasing an unobtanium next best ever. It's actually good marketing since it doesn't leave you thinking badly about the brand, just that maybe instead of a LC250 you want the Tacoma.
The flip side is Toyota built the 250 in their conservative way, using parts that in some cases have 30 years of history and design iteration. They know the right alloy, the right process, the right way to optimize it. The supply chains are in place globally. That, I think, may have something to do with their choices. The parts on the 250 are the same as they've used on Prado and Hilux (and 4Runner, Tacoma, GX) for 30 years. You'll have no trouble finding a CV boot kit for one you pull from a middle of nowhere junk yard. The space around the fuel tank seems unnecessary in first world America where dust is washed off with an automatic undercarriage car wash while you doomscroll inside but maybe not after 2 months of monsoon season mud in southeast Asia.
We have forgotten what a global vehicle looks like maybe? Just spit balling as I look out the window at my Tacoma, which has magically survived 18 years with many of the same "inferior" parts.
But then again, the choice to use thinner material. That's something that has irked me on my Tacoma and has me questioning it. They clearly cheapened the truck. There's no obvious excuse for that IMO. It makes me think they're trying to sell on image and flashy but pointless tech instead of a solid truck where a fraction of the buyers will ever really test its limits. So using existing parts wasn't a nod to long term availability but just because they had to rush a design out when they realized how badly they misjudged market demand.
To boil it down, maybe Toyota did the research and found that someone considering replacing a 120 or 150 series truck, who's collected spare parts and tools for that, didn't want to have to start over again, so an incremental step instead of a leap with it. Gotta remember that most markets for Land Cruiser, Prado and Hilux don't swap cars every 2 years on lease but long term own-until-it-dies purchases. I mean, look at how slow the 40-70 series evolved. In comparison the 90-120-150-250 platform has gone through warp speed change and it still falls under the light duty branch in markets that get a 300 series.
