Brian, I detect an assumption string. That is, you make a reasonable conjecture ("I'm sure today, Toyota has a basic standard of quality..."). I'm pretty sure of it too, though neither of us know first hand what that might be. Then you make another reasonable conjecture, "Just like any manufacture has a "basic" standard. So does Ford, so does GM." But in this conjecture is a semantic error you extend beyond reasonable: both must have "basic" standards, so both must define "basic" similarly. "Toyota basic" = "GM basic". This is the flaw. Then you reason on the basis of that flaw, "But we don't just want a "basic" standard. We want the above and beyond that we are used too in our over built, over quality Toyota rigs of yesteryear." Sure we do. But the implication is that we don't have it already.

No sale.

As far as that Yota going through the slop, well done, driver. My hunting buddy took a nearly stock YJ, not an offroad powerhouse, up Holy Cross trail to the top - including the French Creek crossing. No lockers. Minimal and basic lift, 33s. This is one of several Jeeps he has owned and he endorses them. He also likes his 96 4Runner, but his wife drives that.

You've not identified the variables that add up to "capable" and "reliable", and you are making unwarranted logical leaps and generalizations. I own domestic and Japanese Toyotas and find them of similar quality and capability, and I find in my experience that their general quality and reliability has improved over quality Toyota rigs of yesteryear - a difficult achievement.