Talk:Toyota Dyna

HiAce
I have seen some late '80s/early '90s Japanese imports labelled "Hiace" on the front, with "ハイエース" ("Hiace" in katakana) on the back, though they are pickup trucks identical to the Dynas/Toyoaces of the same era, which is quite confusing. Does the Hiace van share much in common with the Dyna/Toyoace? --Zilog Jones 10:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Split?
Between 1954 and 1985, the Toyoace was a much smaller version than the Dyna. The lines were then merged, but even now the Dynas are heavier duty versions and the Toyoaces are for lighter use. I have plenty of material on the earlier Toyoaces and intend to split these articles accordingly, any opposition or suggestions?  Mr.choppers &#124;  ✎  16:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support I've got some early ToyoAce material too.  Stepho  talk 23:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Kuozui Motors
I propose to remove Kuozui Motors from the manufacturer para, as it's just a joint venture assembling the vehicle. We usually not include joint ventures assemblers that have nothing to do with the vehicle development in the manufacturer list. Toyota and Hino have arguments to be classified as manufacturers as both have developed and assembled the vehicle (Hino especially since the late 1990s as the company mostly in charge of developing it and being the only Japanese assembler). Urbanoc (talk) 21:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)


 * http://www.kuozui.com.tw/history.html 1986 entry says they have sheet stamping facilities. Doesn't say for which vehicle but implies that they make their own panels.  Stepho  talk 22:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I personally don't think that qualifies as saying they are manufacturers of this vehicle (although I may be wrong, of course). The Chinese JVs also have those capabilities (either by themselves or throught the Chinese associated companies) and we usually don't include them as manufacturers (except for some local models). Besides, Kuozui doesn't claim more than assembly for the Hino H300. They do claim they developed a Corolla variant, according to that corporate history, which I don't know how true it is...


 * Having said that, if there is no consensus to remove it, let's keep it. I don't have strong opinions either way, but I wanted to know if it was OK to just move it to the assembly list. --Urbanoc (talk) 22:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I wasn't sure either. And also have no opinion either way.  Stepho  talk 10:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)