Totally hear you Stickshifter and I completely agree with you - saying no to some basic options like heated wheel as "techy" does fall a bit flat in the context of a vehicle that shuts off when you shift into drive with the door open! (Still not clear to me how that works and what the weakpoints are/how it'll break!).
And, related to my last post, the more these techy features are routed through the CANBUS - like the aforementioned won't-drive-with-the-door-open -- the more likely those subsystems are to trigger a system-wide failure in the event of an upset. It goes back to the Socio-Technical Theory of Disasters, best illustrated by TWA Flight 800, but the short version is "the more complex and interconnected a system, the more unpredictable the impacts of discrete failures".
For example: TWA 800 was a Boeing 747 that crashed off the coast of the USA in the 1990s. There was a lot of hullabaloo about it being shot down by a missile back in the day - that is in large part because the airframe, the 747, had been flying for a really long time and was regarded as a very reliable aircraft. No way they would just blow up; we would have seen that happen by the 1990s if that was a risk, right?
Well what actually happened: There was a spark in the fuel tank caused by a faulty fuel pump. This fuel pump was installed in every single 747 ever made, and each one of them had an equal chance of sparking. But none of the other 747s blew up. Why? Because of two more factors; First, TWA800's fuel tanks were only partially that day for some reason, which allowed the fuel/air mixture in the tank to be perfectly combustible, AND, crucially, the ambient temperature on the ground pre-takeoff was such that the fuel in the tanks had vaporized enough in the heat to create that perfect fuel air mixture. Every 747 had that fuel pump. Every 747 had flown with partially empty tanks. But not every 747 with that fuel pump flew with partially empty tanks on a day with that specific temperature, and it was the combination of all three of those things that resulted in the explosion; as you can imagine as a designer, that kind of disaster would be really, really hard to predict.
I'm not saying the Grenadier will explode because of a spark in the fuel tank
What I am saying is that interconnected complex systems, by virtue of their design, greatly increase the risk of unpredictable malfunctions. From that perspective, the less that can go through a CANBUS, and the more that can be on it's own independent system that I can troubleshoot in isolation, the better bush-fixability we're likely to see.
The Yota's new Land Cruiser 250 (See how I'm linking that back?) has me worried in this way - it appears to be more bare bones than the previous generations of Land Cruiser and eschewed the luxury bloat of the 200 and 300 series, but so far that impression is based on price and photos - if the entire Hybrid powertrain runs through a CANBUS along with a door sensor and a backup camera and a gnat's wing arcing a pin in the camera connector can trigger a limp home mode (or whatever - as in, if the design philosophy embraces simplicity only in aesthetics, and not in actual function) it may not be the Land Cruiser many are hoping for when used for real remote travel.
