Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Full-size pickup sales - F-150 best selling truck, but for how much longer?

1679111218

Comments

  • KHS, without referring me to links I'm just not going to have time to read, please give us the summary on these various tests. Is Tundra safer? Which tests?
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Posts: 7,160
    The NHTSA frontal crash test was designed back in the 70s-80s when seatbelts were first put into wide usage. The vehicle is slammed into a barrier full front at 35 mph ( as if a driver drove squarely into a wall ). Essentially it tests the ability of the seatbelts to hold the occupants in place

    The IIHS test, which is the standard test in the rest of the world also, uses a 40% offset ( as if two drivers swerved out of the way but still hit headon about 40% of the way across the front of the vehicle ) and at a higher speed. This type of collision tends to tear the vehicles apart with multi-directional forces not just forward and back. It also throws the occupants around inside the cabin more than the NHTSA test, again not just forward and back.

    The side tests are a huge failing of the NHTSA and they recognize it. Their barrier simulates an auto crashing into the side impact door beam of the vehicle being tested. That happens to be the strongest part of the vehicle on the side.

    The IIHS test simulates an SUV or truck front end crashing through the window glass of an auto or other vehicle. The barrier is much larger and much higher up the side of the impacted vehicle. There is no comparison between these two tests.

    The NHTSA has no test at all for rearend collisions.

    The IIHS two years ago instituted this test to try to reduce or to eliminate the risk of heck injuries and whiplash. It first measures the geometry of the head restrains, if there are any. some GM vehicles don't have head restraints in all seating positions. Then the newest technology has the seat and headrest move forward with the passenger in the event of a rearend collision so that when the seatbelts and normal forces bring the head and neck backward that distance is not too great and the headreast is positioned correctly to 'catch' the 'whipping' head with less force. No vehicle can get a top rating unless it gets top scores on all three tests.

    In addition now, ESC has to be at least available for the IIHS criteria.

    Again the NHTSA says nothing about ESC. Although ESC will be mandated for all vehicles on the road by 2012.

    That's the summary of the tests.

    The Tundra and the F150 and the Titan and the Ram all get top marks in the 40% offset frontal crash test.

    None of the trucks have been tested for side impact crashes.

    Only the Tundra gets a top mark in the Rear crash test.

    Only the Tundra has ESC ( VSC ) standard on every model.

    For some reason GM has not provided any of its new GMT900s to the IIHS for testing. Thus the only rating shown there is for the 90's technology GMT800s, the 'Classics'. It has the worst performance of all the trucks.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Posts: 7,160
    Nevertheless despite all your efforts in various locations this vehicle still grows and grows month after month. There is no denying that some issues like the tailgate have to be corrected for the users satisfaction but as the several reports on the Tundra Owners thread indicate the vehicle is making a lot of new friends.

    The little things will get corrected and the basic superior performance and safety will shine through. Several months ago I said that this was a marathon not a sprint. 10 yrs from now we'll reassess.
  • I'm just not at all worried about rear-end crash ratings. I've never heard of a fatality in a full size pickup that was rear-ended, unless it was by a semi-tractor/trailer. You've got 6 feet of bed and frame, minimum, in all pickups before the oncoming vehicle gets into the passenger cabin. I'm much more concerned about head-on crash results and tests. Here, the Tundra gets a last place finish in the NHTSA test. Even the Toyota guys are head scratching over that. You can read there posts right here on Edmunds. Their disappointment really shows, as it should.

    Also, what does either the IIHS and NHSTA say about the vehicle's ability to automatically call for emergency help once the crash occurs and the occupants are injured or dying? Zip, that's what. I'll take that over a one-star difference any day of the week. If IIHS and NHTSA were really interested in the ultimate passenger safety, that point would be factored into the equation. All the ratings in the world don't mean squat once the crash occurs and someone is bleeding and unconscious. From then on, it's up to God and OnStar to save your [non-permissible content removed]. Or just God, if you don't have OnStar.

    1offroader
  • too bad Honda doesn't make a decent sized pick up.....
  • obyoneobyone Posts: 8,065
    Yeah it seems they just are not interested in a V8 which it needs for a truck not to mention to compete against Lexus which they had intended with the Acura line.
  • obyoneobyone Posts: 8,065
    "The IIHS test simulates an SUV or truck front end crashing through the window glass of an auto or other vehicle. The barrier is much larger and much higher up the side of the impacted vehicle. There is no comparison between these two tests."

    Where's the logic?

    If you want us to believe what you say to be true there has to be some logic to it. From what you've been saying the IIHS is much more difficult than the test that the NHTSA does. If that is TRUELY the case, the Tundra should have had absolutely no problem passing the NHTSA test. Since it did not receive a five star rating from the NHTSA but did so from the IIHS, LOGIC would dictate that the NHTSA test as more difficult.

    Obviously your logic is flawed.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Posts: 7,160
    No it's your reading that's flawed.

    You were quoting what I wrote about the side crash tests. What I wrote is exactly correct. However trucks are not tested yet for side impacts by the IIHS. There are no ratings for any of them. That doesn't mean that the NHTSA test, which is done, is any les outdated.

    The NHTSA it self says its own test is of little use in predicting suvivability in a side crash,

    You also don't unhderstand the ranking system of the NHTSA tests themselves. I'll leave it to the student to do the researach to find out why the top rated Silverado may only have 2% 'less risk of injury' than the Tundra in the NHTSA's frontal crash test.

    Here is the final nail in the coffin of the Federal Government's tests. They themselves admit that the testing that they do is of little use in predicting 'safety' because people are still being hurt severely even in their top rated vehicles beyond what the statistics would indicate.

    All you can really say is that
    a 4-5 star ranking is a passing grade
    3 stars is marginal
    1 and 2 stars ( there are NONE by the way ) is a failing grade.
    And these are all just recommendations. The rankings have no teeth to them.

    Now YOUR logic might make you believe that the Feds tests are more difficult but THEIR data and results lead THEM to a different conclusion.
  • obyoneobyone Posts: 8,065
    Ok lets try this again:

    The NHTSA frontal crash test was designed back in the 70s-80s when seatbelts were first put into wide usage. The vehicle is slammed into a barrier full front at 35 mph ( as if a driver drove squarely into a wall ). Essentially it tests the ability of the seatbelts to hold the occupants in place

    The IIHS test, which is the standard test in the rest of the world also, uses a 40% offset ( as if two drivers swerved out of the way but still hit headon about 40% of the way across the front of the vehicle ) and at a higher speed. This type of collision tends to tear the vehicles apart with multi-directional forces not just forward and back. It also throws the occupants around inside the cabin more than the NHTSA test, again not just forward and back.


    This is how you summarized both tests and your conclusion was that the NHTSA was an old test born in the 70s and not realistic as it tests only seatbelts while the IIHS represented more real world. Right?

    So again if the IIHS testing is so much harder that the NHTSA why couldn't the Tundra receive five stars? I mean geez if a Ford could do it...

    BTW I don't really expect an answer since Toyota engineers are still working on it.
  • KCRamKCRam Mt. Arlington NJPosts: 3,516
    ...several crash test discussions in the Automotive News and Views Board. You can continue that line of debate there.

    kcram - Pickups Host
  • The little things will get corrected and the basic superior performance and safety will shine through. Several months ago I said that this was a marathon not a sprint. 10 yrs from now we'll reassess.

    Pretty hard to win a marathon when you fall on your face coming out of the gate. This "Marathon" started about 1993 with the T100 and again in 2000 with the 1st gen Tundra, when can we "reassess" those launches? Or don't they "count"?

    "Little Things"??? I wonder how "little" you would think they were if the GMT900's had them. Funny how the new Tundra can have a dozen or so "not-so-little" issues in it's first year yet you consider them "little and they will get solved". Yet GM has very few issues with their GMT900's, yet they are still inferior? Typical Toyota fan logic.

    "Basic Superior Performance and Safety"??? Please tell me how the Tundra performs better (as a 1/2 ton truck, not a drag racer). And how is it safer than the GMT900's? (facts, not opinions please). The GMT900's have better payload and very similar (better in some configs) towing capacities. Safety features are just as good as well. At least I can get my payload into my bed without removing the tailgate first. And at least I can wipe my dash and set stuff on it without worrying about the paint rubbing off. Yep, top-notch quality there!!!

    If you don't think these quality issues with the Tundra will affect sales, you are dreaming. This news travels fast in this Truck segment and people will not buy a truck that cannot be used as a truck.

    I have a question maybe you can answer since you are a Toyota guy. Toyota's response to the tailgate issue was that it was not a load bearing component, therefore they recommend that you remove it when loading/hauling heavy stuff and also that you should never drive with it down with or without cargo on it. Yet they advertise and sell a bed extender on their accessories website??? Please explain that for me.
  • None of your business. Why do you ask? Lead Frycook at Mickey D's. :shades:
  • ok let me get this straight, so Toyota engineers a soft-drop tailgate for women...err...i mean ease of use, but to load anything "heavy" in my newly built, with "superior performance" truck, I'm supposed to remove the whole thing? Whats the point of having a soft-drop tailgate if i have to remove the damn thing to get anything in there? Please tell me Toyota didn't actually propose this as their solution...and it looks like this isnt the first time they've had problems with their trucks' tailgates..

    http://www.toyotanation.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=124526
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Posts: 7,160
    Reading between the lines of Toyota's response on the NHTSA frontal crash tests,,,, [hmmmm it's interesting that our own testing and that of the IIHS show the Tundra to be at the top or at least equal to all the others, except in the testing done by the agency that has often been considered to be in the back pocket of the US Auto Industry ( see Ford Explorer for example )]

    This of course was never said. But the NHTSA is an arm of the largest political organization in the country, the US Fed Govt. double hmmmm nah that;s like the Big 3 always chirping about CR's 'paid off' bias.

    The answer is only the engineers and testers know;
    Raw scores:
    S.. 471/428 and 35/42
    T.. 476/486 and 47/46
    R.. 411/378 and 39/41
    F.. 493/617 and 38/34 **** the highest risk of head injury of all the vehicles but still both 5 stars [between the lines hmmmmm]

    On the basis of these four sets of numbers, 3 are 5* and the other is 4*.

    I am not a collision testing engineer but to me these numbers show that in comparing the GMT900s vs the new Tundra by the NHTSA test the drivers of the two vehicles are the same essentially but the passenger might have more risk. So if the driver numbers are the same essentially why is one 5* and the other 4*? Maybe the nominal dividing line is a score of 475!!! That means the Silvy just squeeked in under the wire and the Tundra missed by 1 point!! Now there's a huge safety difference. ;) Now how the NHTSA came to that score [reading between the lines, again] is what Toyota is studying.

    Just for comparision purposes here are the raw scores for the 2007 'Classic' ( 4* / 3* ) and the 2006 Tundra ( 4* / 5* ) both with 'older technology':
    788/1106 and 46/53
    615/413 and 46/44
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Posts: 7,160
    srry replied b4 I saw your post.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Posts: 7,160
    OK and the sales have been increasing steadily for 14 yrs. So.

    It's only about money and profits, nothing more. If each model is profitable and growth is slow and steady then it's a successful business venture.

    Profits, bottom line, cash in the bank..nothing more, it's just business.

    The standard Safety features of the Tundra on every model in the lineup is what tilts the balance in favor of the Tundra. By the NHTSA figures the two are essentially the same ( see the raw scores ). The fact is that in a lot of GMT900 models a buyer can't get the same features that a Tundra buyer can.

    We've been over and over the performance numbers ad infinitum.
    ..the GMT900s generally have better payloads, true
    ..the GMT900s vs the Tundra 5.7L are only competitive in towing in 4 configurations. They are far behind in all the others.
    ..pickup under load and pickup empty are far far in favor of the Tundra due to GMs built-in torque limiter.

    But this thread is only about sales, profits, money, cash. Here the figures speak for themselves.
  • mschmalmschmal Posts: 1,757
    IMHO, the Tundra representing the biggest pickup truck ever made by Toyota is a scaled up Tacoma.

    Not counting the Ranger, the F-150 is the smallest lightest pickup truck Ford makes.

    The Max GVW you can get on an F-150 is 8300. This is just under the CURB weight of the F-450 pickup which has a GVW of up to 14,500 and a 5th wheel tow rating over 22,000 (Yes thats CDL territory)

    The F-150 is built like a scaled down version of the Super Duty and the different approach tells.

    Mark.
  • Increasing steadily for 14 years? How many T100's did Toyota sell in 1993, Tundra's in 2000? At this rate, how many Tundra's will sell in 2015? 2020? Maybe 300K? And you think this will threaten the domestic truck market?

    You sure like to hang your hat on safety. I have said it before and I'll say it again, all of the newer vehicles (cars and trucks) are very safe compared to even 10 years ago. Kudos to Toyota for making the Tundra "safe", arguing about which ones are safer is truly splitting hairs as there are so many variables when it comes to real-world accidents. People can die in even the safest vehicle and live in the least safe vehicle, it all depends on the circumstances. Yes, Toyota did make side airbags and ESC standard in all Tundra's, again, Kudos to them. But you do realize it is much easier to accomplish this when you only make 200K/yr. GM makes a million+ trucks/yr. And in a few years it will all be a moot point anyway as it will be mandated by Gov't in all vehicles. My question to you is this; How many truck buyers make safety features a #1 priority in a truck? (besides soccer moms). Yes, safety is important, but if Toyota wants to compete in this truck segment, they need to realize there is more to building a great truck than HP, 0-60 times and number of airbags. Things like payload, frame design, bed integrity, tailgate design, interior quality (painted dash/panels?), etc etc will play a much larger role in long term sales than how many airbags it has. People that buy a truck expect to be able to use it like one. Toyota's response to the tailgate issue saying the Tailgate is part of the body and is not a load bearing component and needs to be removed to load heavy objects into the bed simply will not fly in this country. Whether Bed Bounce is a real issue or just a percieved issue does not matter, it is an issue and it WILL affect sales. Tundra owners are "expecting" Toyota to address these issues, and if they do, all will be well since they have a good reputation for customer satisfaction. But responses such as this show that may be changing and if they do not address this tailgate or bed bounce issue, it will be a huge mistake on their part, especially when everyone knows how "rich" Toyota is and they can afford to fix these issues. If they don't it will show their greed and people will be a bit upset, doncha think?

    Please do not respond with more of your "safety facts", save that for your customers. I already know how safe the Tundra is. I also know how cheaply it is built. America is also finding that out at an alarming rate.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Posts: 7,160
    Increasing steadily for 14 years? How many T100's did Toyota sell in 1993, Tundra's in 2000? At this rate, how many Tundra's will sell in 2015? 2020? Maybe 300K? And you think this will threaten the domestic truck market?

    Who cares about 1993 sales wnd who cares about 'threatening' anybody. It's only about money...profits...cash... nothing more. It's just business.

    All the rest is fanboi hoohaa.

    It's a huge market with plenty of profit potential for every company that wants to make the effort to put out a competitive product. Now change some of the parameters like send fuel up to $6 a gal and have a lot of the 'recreational' truck buyers begin walking away then it might become messy. Until then everybody is on their toes, if they weren't already. There are 4 fulltime players now instead of 3.

    As regards to the first year issues you mentioned yes Toyota owes it to the purchasers to 'address' the issues to try to keep them as owners for life like a lot of the Corolla and Camry owners. Thye 'bed bounce' is a good example since enough people are reporting about it that it's a real issue. OTOH there are a bunch of owners who are not experiencing it all. Weird. Some have resolved the problems themselves and others cannot. More data nees to be gathered to determine the actual cause(s). This is something Toyota should do for the satisfaction of those involved. Again time will tell on this.

    To be revisited in 3 and 5 and 7 yrs from now.
  • There are 4 fulltime players now instead of 3.

    Aren't you forgetting Nissan? If 200K/yr is worthy of being considered a player, then Nissan needs to be considered one as well. I would buy a Titan before I bought a Tundra any day. They are nice trucks, but not as nice as GM/F/D.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Posts: 7,160
    Nissan has a full sized truck but only with one engine and two cabs. It won't reach 70000 units. At 125,000 units last year and only limited configurations Toyota was not a major player either.
  • So, 70K and 125K is not a "major" player but 200K is?

    Let's see. 75K, 125K, 200K.................900K Seems like Tundra is closer to a "minor" player than a "Major" player to me.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Posts: 7,160
    It's not even so much the volume. It's the breadth of the lineup and the volume. But that's just my own view. There are others for sure.

    Toyota is definitely a minor player at present no question. In comparison to the Big Two it's small. It's not so small in relation to Dodge though. But in any event it still only comes down to profits and bottom line. All 4 are likely to be HUGELY profitable in this segment.
  • b2900b2900 Posts: 20
    Can't beat them, I joined them. My age is 53 and I remember the Toyota dealership opening with their small cars that rusted out pretty fast.Back then I thought Toyota did not have a chance against the big three. Well I humbly admitt I was wrong. As a former owner of Ford PKUPS I am now the proud owner of my second Toyota PKUP Simply put QUALITY, GREAT RESALE, and finally a truck that not only meets but exceeds anything the big three offers in their gas engine line up. More horse power, more tow ability, better fuel mileage, many standard options that is options in others. I for one will never say never as to who will sell the most pickups in the future.
  • h20h20 Posts: 42
    I'm 55 years old, not to trump you,I ownd a 1960 chevy fleet side bought in 1985 loved it,three on the tree and had to bouble clutch first and secound gear to make them drop in. my next truck was a toyota deluxe single cab I bought three toys after that and they were bullet proof. I now own a 07 crewmax sr5 4by4 and love driving it. I see alot of negative posts about this model but have not yet expeienced most of the problems listed. Rumble strip has seamed to have gone away when I don't feather the the throtle between 30 and 40 mph. I love this truck!
  • obyoneobyone Posts: 8,065
    "I see alot of negative posts about this model but have not yet expeienced most of the problems listed."

    The words "not yet" means that you expect to experience the problems? Seriously though good luck with your truck. I wouldn't wish a bad experience on anyone especially when Consumer Reports just gave the 4x4 Tundra an "unreliable" rating.
  • b2900

    I had just the opposite experience as you. Bought my first Toyota 4x4 in 1985, really liked it. Based on my experience with my '85, I eagerly bought another in 1992, and after quite a few problems, WORSE quality than my 1985, factory recalls, and crummy dealer service I said not again this time around. Why should a vehicle get worse from 1985 to 1992? With 7 more years of experience under their belt, it should have been significantly better.

    Quality? 1985 yes, 1992 no. The quality trend is in the wrong direction. CR just verified my attitude, but I don't pay a whole lotta attention to magazine reports. I trust my own eyes and judgment much more, having worked on cars and trucks for the last 35 years. Resale? Doesn't matter much to me, I tend to keep a vehicle for a long time, and resale is usually pretty low by then on anything no matter who makes it.

    Looked at the Tundra frame, interior, exterior and it didn't make the grade, and they couldn't make the sale to me. I'm absolutely not saying I'll never buy another Toyota, I might, but they have a looooong way to go to get me to return to buy a full size p'up. The Big 3 offerings aren't perfect, nothing is, but I see lots of ancient Chevys, Dodges, & Fords still hard at work after years of loyal service to their owners. The 2007 Tundra? How many will be on the road in 20-25 years? Few, if any, I'm guessing.

    But good luck w/yours, I really do hope it works out for you. Compettiton is good for the industry, and if it serves to shake things up a bit I'm all for it.

    1offroader
  • h20h20 Posts: 42
    i'm not sure how you get expect from "not yet" but you know best. btw i was just having a conversation with another person on this site. don't understand your motivations to attack and be rude? never mind please don't respond.
  • h20h20 Posts: 42
    i may not agree with all you have said but at least your honest and you make good points. no truck/car is perfict.
  • mschmalmschmal Posts: 1,757
    Resale is based on 2 things, Supply and Demand.

    Toyotas have higher resale value right now because the never made huge numbers of trucks. Even 250,000 per year is not a big number compared to what the Big 3 especially Ford and GM have been churning out over 30 years.

    The Ford and GM trucks lower resale value is solely a reflection of lower perceived quality. Even if they were perfect and ran for 500,000 miles there are still so many of them out there.

    Here in NJ i OFTEN seen F-series and GM trucks from the 70s and 80s on the road. I don't hardly ever see an older Toyota truck on the road.

    Mark.
Sign In or Register to comment.