Originally, Land Rovers were 100% customer spec, and because it was designed like a mechano set, the guy in order control could call up a build to suit the customer's requirements. You can imagine what a tedious job that was, with 20-30,000 individual parts making up a vehicle.
Then, to improve efficiency, they block-coded parts bundles, specific to particular types of base vehicles, truck-cab, chassis-cab, hard-top, station-wagon and the like.
Armies around the world were the main customers, so specific builds were developed for the British Army, Dutch Army, Danish, French, Israeli, Iraq, and so on, you can't imagine the hundreds of countries on the list, and they would be ordering in blocks of hundreds.
Generally, development of the product was customer led, such as the 101 forward control, and the 88 1/2 tonner.
However, the basic mechano set components themselves didn't change much at all, so Ben's real complaint about B pillar dents in your right shoulder never got addressed. I think some proper market research in the 50s would have sorted out problems like this, but in those days, as a customer, you bought what was on offer, or you went somewhere else.
There were no computers then and data such as market research was very difficult to process with some certainty. Everything to do with a build was manual and build cards were physical paper bundles that followed each truck down the line. By this method, all varieties of the vehicle would run down the same line, picking up the parts specific to its build card as it went.
Truly, it was an amazing place to be, seeing all those vehicles coming together. Sadly, LR didn't move fast enough to embrace the computer age as it developed IMO. They did have microfiche, but it was developed late and was not digitized as and when digital systems started to be developed. At that time, the unions had taken hold and the as the wage bill spiraled, there was little money in the pot to invest in expensive computer control systems. This is all JMO of course, but I think it sealed the fate of the British car manufacturing industry generally.
Why this didn't change after the sell-off, I will never know. It was an ideal opportunity to fix all the bugs and to develop the product into something reliable, versatile and relevant in today's market.
We all know Land Cruisers are good, but why is this? Toyota have always embraced the trends, but it's not always been the best route to take IMO. They still have to demonstrate that going electronic is a wise move. It may be ok for urban use the all singing and dancing SUV, but as a rugged reliable outback vehicle, most would now be turning to the 70 series, which IMO is sad.
I've nothing against the 70 of course, but when the only way to secure reliability is to step back in time, there must be something wrong with the direction Toyota are going with the Land Cruiser, and their utility truck range.
Maybe the writing will be on the wall for Toyota, if they don't get their act together.
. The Japanese philosophy of continuous development and improvement made the LC what it is today. Exactly the same happened in the bike industry. The first Japanese bikes were copies but were improved and developed continually whereas many British manufacturers just rested on their laurels and turned out the same old outdated machinery that owners got fed up with when they could have something faster, leak free and more reliable for less money. JMO
