Why do so many Americans hate European trucks?

And what the heck is the deal with the X bars behind the seats? If that's for structural integrity then yes it really is a flimsy pos.

 

That is called a roll-over cage, never heard of those? What do you think would happen if your pick-up would roll down from a hill? You may think that the cab of an off-road vehicle is very strong, but that is a big mistake. Usually they are flimsy, because the chassis takes all the driving forces. There are videos of crash tests of off-road vehicles, where the cab is completely destroyed. And yes, that also applies to US pick-ups. These days it will be better, but a few decades ago it was horrible.

 

Then you should have taken the time to watch it a bit longer. But I was very impressed with the video of those Fords driving through a bit of mud, that was real off-roading.

 

Before pickup were considered as cargo vehicles, which in my opinion they really are. But now tax system see most of them as passenger vehicles.
Our annual tax is very low almost insignifical maybe 50 euros.

but lexury tax on vehicle itself when you buy it are big, larger car more more equipment it cost you more,they have reduced it significantly beggining of this year, some high end cars are more than 50 000euro cheaper, if you are buying high end car you must pay at least its value to country. This is where mixto come on its own. It is cargo van with 5seats, no regular tax (25%) and no lexury tax as it is van, means you get it in about half price of normal, add to that financial depreciation each year and you almost get it for free...this value if you have company example with trucks.
I am not fan of minivan layout but for someone with company this is best choice

 

I know what a roll over cage is

Here we dont have those ridiculous tax burdens. that makes a bigger vehicle a good option. Also minivans here are larger than that 5 seat mixto. A typical minivan sits either 7 or 8 depending on if you get a second row of Captain chairs or a bench seat. So it's either 2 2 3. Or 2 3 3.

If i was in the market for a minivan i would get a Honda oddysey. They cost a bit more than the competitors but imo are nicer and i have a good track record with previous honda vehicles.

 

No, not at all. Those Land Cruisers had nothing to do with the US. After world war 2 there were lots of Jeeps around, and someone at the Rover factories in England looked at them , and thought a car like that would be great for farmers. So he designed the first Land Rover, it had a 88 inch wheelbase, a steel chassis, two life axles on leaf springs, and an aluminium body, since there was plenty of aluminium around, and not enough steel. Later the 109 with a longer wheel base and body followed. Those cars were used all over the world in what were then British colonies. Toyota saw that, more or less copied those cars, and so the Land Cruiser was born. Of course they were also shipped to the US, but they were meant as competition to the Land Rovers.

 

So they were based off(a copy cat version from a different manufacturer) a jeep.. sold to the many of the same markets jeep was selling to. But had nothing to do with the US? And wasnt a competitor of amc?

Can someone explain to me how this kids logic works?

 

It's a Toyota HJ45 Built pretty much unchanged from the '60s right trough until the Mid '80s. The petrol (Gas) Version had a Tojo Built copy of a 6 cylinder Chev Engine...

 

No, the Jeep was used as a start. The resulting Land Rover was a very different vehicle with a loading bay, a power take off and so on. The Jeep was an open car, the Land Rover often had a closed body. There are plenty of pictures of Land Rovers around, try to find them.