This is the second and final part of this report about why you should wait at least a year before putting a deposit down on the over-hyped and probably underdone new LandCruiser 300. 

In part one, we covered Why the media is wrong about the LC300 >> of Toyotas PR material, the official details, or the deluge of remarkably positive things their marketing campaign had to say about the inadequate improvements made to a vehicle which has had decades to improve - but hasnt.

And heres Everything (else) wrong with the new Toyota LandCruiser 300 >>

If you trust Toyota to get this new Landcruiser 300 engine right, youre probably a bolted-on fan-boy, or you havent been given any technical analysis in the reviews youve read.

I dont think Toyota can do it, and the evidence is on my side. History is the predicter of the future, so you can bring the hate; Ill bring the facts.

In this report, were going to put the new V6 twin-turbo diesel engine in the crosshairs. Its a hot vee design, which has exhaust ports up the top of the engine, in the V, between the two banks of cylinders, and with the inlet ports on the outside, which is arse-backwards in the context of vee-configured engines.

A hot vee is not intrinsically a bad idea. The core message for you, if you are thinking about dropping $100,000 on a place in the LandCruiser 300 queue is to look at Toyotas recent track record with deploying new technology. The facts should tell you theyre bad at this.

This is Toyotas most complex and ambitious engine in years, and theres a 10-speed transmission, with terrain sensing tech. As you may know, complexity is the enemy of reliability, but so is the average accountant who runs R&D departments in car companies.

Youre probably reading this thinking, Toyota spends millions on reliability, which is true, but specifically, what Toyota actually does is spend millions to market the concept that Toyota is the god of reliability. I would argue this is objectively not the case. A gulf separates the message and the reality, and it appears to be getting wider, in my view.

The advice youre getting here is to let someone else be the lab rat, because the best way to manage this risk is to let others run the experiment. Then, when the dust settles and we have a track record of nothing going wrong with the LandCruiser 300, you can benefit from the results. Just watch from the sidelines, and if the 300 is bulletproof, Ill take the reputational hit.

The past is a predictor of the future, and this is a risk you should not ignore, based upon Toyotas recent technology deployment botches. We manage risk in this way, all the time, in other areas of life.

Its the same with wearing a seatbelt when you drive. The risk of injury in a crash is high, and the potential consequences of crashing unrestrained are profound, we wear seatbelts every drive.