I mean...Armada*?
The new Armada is the old Patrol (y62) which is a very good, very tough and very attractive (imo) 8 seater built in Japan to be a direct competitor to the Land Cruiser. I have my own very strong biases towards Toyota (duh) but I’m not above a great alternative, which the Patrol/Armada legitimately is. Given that the new Armada is going to be available with cloth seats (!) and actual options the pricing should be in much less need of an explanation than with the Land Cruiser and more in line with competitors like the Sequoia, Tahoe and Expedition. Granted I know that I lot of you aren’t in the market for 3 tons of anything but say you did need more than 5 seats, and have a good reason to tow more than 5000 lbs and you wanted something that could handle more than a dirt road. What would you choose, and why?
A few notes:
For pricing, the “S” will likely start in the mid 40's for 4x2 and go up to high 60's low 70's for platinum trim.
No rear locker option (off-road traction management standard)
No HBMC (Hydraulic Body Motion Control)
All 4x4 models are full time with automatic front axle engagement (ramping clutches that can vary between fully unlocked to fully locked) and locked clutches in low range.
Skid plates standard as well as the “off road” shock package.
built in Japan except the engine which is built in Tennessee
A few more pictures
*Frankly I think that calling it an Armada is dumb since the old Armada was originally tacked onto the pathfinder name then dropped and since its sold so poorly anyway. This is like Subaru keeping the “Tribeca” name for its next large crossover despite the fact that its a really dumb name for a Subaru and doesn’t have many positive associations. Whats wrong with abandoning a bad model name with little brand presence? 10/10 would rebadge as a patrol.