Howdy, Stranger!

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





Half-ton Pickups - The full field

1246711

Comments

  • Onstar isnt free :P if you dont pay them you can kiss your butt dead once your free trail is up. The tundra isnt last place. It did pretty well considering the weight disadvantage The axles on new tundras arnt made to break off like the old ones but the engine mounts and steering column are they scored the tundra above average in hwy crash tests which isnt bad. I wouldnt consider a GM product any way. It took them 5 years to work out all of their Problems out on old powertrains which they passed on to the 07s and im not judging by what people post online on forums. Just ask your local GM mechanic how many transmission they would have to rebuild to reband rubber into their trannys :P yeah we can go there ;) .
  • A good friend of mine was a service manager for a GMC dealer in NH. I guess the old 800 transmissions were problematic, but even worse was the rear axle whine and brake issues. Both those trucks and his wifes current Suburban had the ISS replacments a few times as well.

    Even with an entire service bay at his disposal, he still managed to jump ship on a new Tundra DC back in March. Didn't even give the new truck a chance (We looked briefly when I went shopping with him but put off by reliability concerns). Plus the trucks are just fugly looking, especially the smiley-faced Silverado.

    Carry on :shades:
  • obyoneobyone Posts: 8,065
    I've lost count on the number of times you've told that same "my friend was a service manager for a GMC dealer". Don't you get tired of repeating yourself or do you do a copy and paste from some word program? Sheesh!!! ;)
  • drfilldrfill Posts: 2,484
    Before you start the flames, let me once again say that I've owned 2 Toyotas, 1 of which was really good (1985) and one of which was mediocre at best (1992). But at least they both had relatively beefy fully boxed frames considering they were "mini-trucks". The riveted c-channel Tundra frame is a huge step backward. Why would Toyota do that? To save on cost maybe? I dunno, but it's a mistake in terms of durability and a marketing blunder, if what you're trying to do is appeal to the American truck owner who needs a working machine that will last.

    Once again, a good marketing strategy by Ford. When you strip a vehicle down you really get to see what's underneath. The Tundra is wearin' a thong under them fancy duds, I'm tellin' ya


    One thing you can't really accuse Toyota of is marketing blunders.

    Having sold quite a few '07 Tundras this year, the ads bring in traffic! The marketing is working. Sales are up more than 50% YTD. And GM is rethinking their market strategy, after being shown how to sell a redesigned truck by Toyota (The new GM's are actually down 7% YTD). :surprise:

    http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2007/08/02/057062.html

    And patting Ford on the back doesn't make a whole lot of sense, as their new marjeting campaign only came about when Toyota took HUGE MARKET SHARE CHUNKS out of Ford's portfolio. If you look up sales, pretty much every sales Toyota has picked up has come at the expense of F-150.

    And the 2009 F-150 is not going to sport a 5.4 Triton replacement, so it will get worse before it gets better at Ford. :sick:
    http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=121668#3

    Regarding the why's and the what's, the Tundra does have the best towing in it's class, and that is a big deal. The '09 F-150 and Ram will be benchmarking the Tundra when their new (Not exactly new in Ford's case) trucks get here next year.

    Selling a Tundra against a domestic is exceedingly easy, as I've done it. They targeted 3/4 tons in design and interior styling, and looked to set new standards in interior features and safety.

    Making a Ram/F-150 look unsafe, by comparison, helps sell a few. :blush:

    The transmission loop in the GM cripples that truck, so the 6.2 needs to overcome that deficit pronto!

    The domestics did score with the NHTSA tests, but the IIHS test is the standard. Much harder test to pass. Tundra has always built a safe truck. :blush:

    http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=70

    http://www.iihs.org/ratings/earliermodels.aspx?class=70

    You have to work hard, and be dedicated, to get hurt in a head on collision in a 5k truck. Rollovers are the real issue with these vehicles, and Toyota has more safety features than any vehicle in the class, with TRAC, Brake assist, and VSC standard.

    When you are up 50-60%, and everyone else is down, that's sayin' somethin about the truck. Getting to 200k is a big deal! Toyota has made a major dent in the market in a flat/declining truck market. Now the Big 3 are sweatin' bullets!

    Whether anyone wants to admit that or not.....

    DrFill
  • I will agree when you simply look at percentages, the Tundra is doing well. But what does that really mean? The Tundra is a completely different truck than the 1st gen Tundra, which was a failure as a full-size truck. Do you really believe the 50-60% will be sustainable? Also, the numbers (150-200K) are still very small and the only way they will mean anything is if Toyota can SUSTAIN these percentages over a long period of time. A 1-year snapshot does not tell the whole story, especially when the competition is releasing new redesigns as well. Yes, Tundra is conquesting sales from Ford's F150, but will they continue to do so when the newly designed F150 comes out, or the newly designed Dodge Ram comes out? Only time will tell. I am guessing not. This "spike" is indicative of a brand new truck being released and the "hype" will wear off, just like it did with the T100 and the 1st gen Tundra.
  • obyoneobyone Posts: 8,065
    Perhaps a little closer look at the sales numbers.

    Toyota Tundra
    July 2007: 23,150
    August 2007: 18,919

    Hmmm...what could this be saying? That you took a vacation for the month of August and didn't sell your usual 5k trucks?
  • Or, it could be that the full size truck buying public, which has traditionally had three manufacturers to choose from, is simply not immediately welcoming to the new Tundra and want to wait it out a little. I'm sure there are disgruntled Ford, Chev and Dodge customers that are now buying Tundras, and probably a lot of them are Toyota loyals who naturally buy the Tundra because it's a Toyota. But, to assume the Tundra will simply become another Nissan Titan would be a mistake. I would wager that sales will hold steady if not gradually increase. There's always a crop of ready buyers when a new model comes out, so it's natural for sales to level off after the initial surge. But the current Tundra has staying power - it has one of the highest power ratings, some of the best economy numbers, and comes from the manufacturer recognized the world over (except maybe here in this forum) for leading the industry in long term quality. Fortunately, all of the full size trucks are very good now, so there's plenty of good choices out there, but I wouldn't write off any product from the most admired and studied car manufacturer in the world. It may not become the best selling truck in America (and probably won't) but it will still be there and I'd be very surprised if Tundra sales miss the conservative mark set by Toyota.
  • drfilldrfill Posts: 2,484
    This "spike" is indicative of a brand new truck being released and the "hype" will wear off, just like it did with the T100 and the 1st gen Tundra

    Not exactly.

    1. Toyota wanted to sell 125k Tundras in the previous generation. They did that every year, consistently.

    2. GM's trucks also came out last year, but have fallen on their face, and Sierra has been out sold by Tundra half the time!

    3. Toyota isn't looking to grow 50% a year for the next 5 years. Toyota doesn't need Tundra to make money. They make money hand over fist with everything they build!

    This can be a pet project for them. Tundra doesn't make ot break Toyota. For the domestics, it's do or die.

    There is NO EXCUSE for the new GM's to be losing share, in chunks, to the Toyota. they just aren't losing as fast as F-150. :mad:

    The Tundra will level off at 225k a year or so. Which is fine with them.

    Prius and Tundra are HUGE HITS for toyota, not that they need a hit. :blush:

    DrFill
  • Yes, GM's trucks are new, but not a completely different truck like the Tundra is. This is the first real full size truck for Toyota, and Toyota loyalists have ONE choice in full sized trucks, no HD's. So, of course their sales will spike the first year, people have been waiting for a full sizer from Toyota for years.

    So, by saying Toyota "wanted' to sell 125K/yr of the old Tundra's, are you saying they did NOT want to sell more than that? I don't see your point here?

    I agree the Tundra will probably level off at 225K/yr in the next couple of years, assuming they fix the issues they are having currently. But I do not see how an extra 100K/yr vs the old Tundra is going to make much of an impact on the domestics overall sales, especially if Toyota does not introduce a HD/Diesel Tundra.

    How can the Tundra be a "Huge Hit" for Toyota when it only sells 200K.....total, it's not even sold outside the USA. I'd say it's a pretty small moneymaker when you look at the big (global) picture.

    The marketshare lost to F150 is only because the F150 is nearing the end of it's current generation. Once the new F150 rolls off the line, then we'll see how many sales are lost to the Tundra.

    GM's sales are not down for any other reason than the fact that gas prices are high and housing market is down (construction companies are not buying them right now). Don't kid yourself into assuming it's because people are buying the Tundra instead of the GM. I would bet that Tundra conquest sales account for very few lost GM sales.
  • drfilldrfill Posts: 2,484
    So, by saying Toyota "wanted' to sell 125K/yr of the old Tundra's, are you saying they did NOT want to sell more than that? I don't see your point here?

    I don't understand your point. Toyota sets a goal, and reaches it, cosistently. Now you want to penalize them for not overshooting their goal? :confuse:

    But I do not see how an extra 100K/yr vs the old Tundra is going to make much of an impact on the domestics overall sales, especially if Toyota does not introduce a HD/Diesel Tundra.

    You just hit the bullseye! ;)

    The will have gained 100k in a receeding market, without having to build an additional line of trucks. That's progress.

    And finally:

    How can the Tundra be a "Huge Hit" for Toyota when it only sells 200K.....total, it's not even sold outside the USA. I'd say it's a pretty small moneymaker when you look at the big (global) picture.

    The Tundra's main objective is to show the domestics, to show America, that they can build a more-than-competitive full-sized truck. That's the "Hit". Toyota has done it.

    It can take Toyota 10-15 years to reach Chevy/Ford sales numbers. And that is fine. Toyota has two things the domestics don't.

    Money and patience. This is not life or death for Toyota. They are the tortoise (sic). They are thinking 10 years from now. The domestics never did, and now don't have that luxury. :(

    The Silvy/Sierra is a fine truck. I've driven it. Quiet, car-like. But if you drive the Tundra, and have a good salesman show you what's what, you will pause before getting ANY domestic truck. Mission accomplished. ;)

    Selling against a domestic truck is very easy. They are good, but the GM's have holes big enough to drive a Tundra thru, if you know where to look. :blush:

    DrFill
  • drfill, where can I read your column? Man, you are good.
  • drfilldrfill Posts: 2,484
    You should've seen me when I was young....I was a real pistol! Thanks. :)

    DrFill
  • dustykdustyk Posts: 2,926
    Actually, Toyota and their competitors know where sales acquisitions are coming from as they are constantly monitoring the market.

    Based on what I know I think you'll find that Ford is losing more to Tundra than Chevy, Dodge, or Nissan, but a very large portion of Tundra sales are coming from people that have previously owned Toyota products.

    I was by our Toyota dealer just a few day ago and saw three Titans on their lot. Of course, lot watching is not necessarily accurate since dealers buy from wholesalers.

    Look for the stock code on a vehicle. A "P" prefix will often mean "purchased."

    Regards,
    Dusty
  • Ok, Mr Salesman, I'll bite. Tell me about these "holes" and "what's what". In other words, tell me why I should buy a Tundra over a GMT900. And please don't waste my time with answers such as:
    1. Toyota's reliability history, they have NO history building 1/2 ton trucks. And so far, their reliability with the new Tundra is a huge ?.
    2. 0-60 times...irrelevant, let's stick to truck practicality and capability.
  • hey toykicks

    Whoever said OnStar was "free"? Not me, not anyone. I said it was "standard". Of course it costs after the first year, just like the internet service you pay for to post your silly responses.

    1offroader
  • Selling a Tundra against a domestic is exceedingly easy, as I've done it. They targeted 3/4 tons in design and interior styling, and looked to set new standards in interior features and safety.

    Design and interior styling??? Are you kidding??? Even diehard Tundra owners admit to the ugly styling both inside and out. It is the worst interior styling I've ever seen in a modern full size pickup. It is really jarring to look at inside and, frankly, that's where the driver spends all of his/her time. You don't see the outside when your behind the wheel which, in Tundra's case, is a blessing.

    It looks like a cross between the Ford and Dodge. But, like two decent-looking parents, they occasionally have an ugly offspring. Hey, it happens.

    1offroader
  • drfilldrfill Posts: 2,484
    My bad. Sorry. :blush:

    I meant to say frame design/chassis (3/4), with new levels of safety/value features (vs other 1/2 tons).

    DrFill
  • drfilldrfill Posts: 2,484
    I'll only give you the outline:

    1. Cargo/Passenger Space
    2. Max Power/Capability
    3. Safety Features
    4. Standard value features.
    5. Incentives (after test drive)

    15 minutes, then a test drive, it's all over but the washin'. ;)

    DrFill
  • But if you drive the Tundra, and have a good salesman show you what's what, you will pause before getting ANY domestic truck.
    I went to a Toyota Dealership to see what they had to say. There was NO WAY!!! They were going to convince me to buy a Tundra! Dodge all the way
  • well thats true but i'm near a hot spot lol so its free broadband ;). Onstar runs 50 bucks a month ? and additional charges for calls or operator use right?
  • $50/month??? Wrong, try $199/year ($16.58/mo) for standard service. Service with Navigaton is $299/yr.

    Cell minutes are .40/min. Admittedly, this is a ripoff, but who cares, most people have their own cell phone anyway.
  • 1. Cargo/Passenger Space
    2. Max Power/Capability
    3. Safety Features
    4. Standard value features.
    5. Incentives (after test drive)

    15 minutes, then a test drive, it's all over but the washin'


    1. yep, crewmax has a bigger back seat....and a smaller bed. Depends on which you'd prefer, but I'll take the bigger bed. The tundra also lacks headroom, partly due to the lack of 12 way power seats with no height control.
    2. Max power? Techinically, wrong, the 6.2 has 403 HP and 401 lb-ft. But 5.7 vs 6.0...14 hp difference. Capability? Again, towing cap depends on config, payload the Tundra falls short in most configs.
    3. Safety Features? Please elaborate, the GMT900s have the same features available, just because they are not std, does not mean they are not available. Oh, and what about the 4 stars the tundra received in the nhtsa test? Oh yeah, they don't count, right?
    4. Std value features? Huh? the GM900s have more available features and a lower bottom line cost. I'd call that a better value.
    5. Not sure what you mean by this, but I drove one (as well as a Ford and Dodge) and I didn't buy one, not even close!!!

    The interior in the Tundra is a complete joke. Not to mention the butt-ugly exterior.

    Nice c-channel frame too BTW.
  • Funny, but wrong. Styling is subjective. I like it and most of the people I know love how it looks. I never hear anyone complain that the exterior or interior looks bad. You want to talk about ugly interior and exterior styling, look no further than the melted candybar inspired previous generation of F-150's. Yuck. Thankfully Ford got it right with the current one.
  • Which GM model do you have to buy the get the 6.2L? I thought they only came in the Escalade and the 367HP version was the top dog in the Chevy.
  • Funny, but wrong. Styling is subjective.

    Kinda hypocritical, wouldn't you say?

    You mean to tell me you have NEVER heard anyone say the new Tundra is ugly? Even I can admit the nose of the new Silvy's is ugly, I prefer the Sierra's look over any new truck.
  • Sierra Denali has the 6.2/6 spd. As does the Yukon Denali.

    6.2 liter is 403 HP/401 lb-ft and the 6.0's are 367 HP/375 lb-ft.
  • drfilldrfill Posts: 2,484
    The only truck that I can't stand is the Silvy. The Titan is so ugly, it actually looks tough.

    I like the Ford Flareside. Too bad a Prius will smoke it like a blunt. :blush:

    DrFill
  • Yep, and the Tundra is so ugly, it actually looks......well, ugly. :P
  • drfilldrfill Posts: 2,484
    And my Dad can beat up your Dad!

    Let's keep this on at least a High School level, k?

    DrFill
  • K...I was just making a joke/play on your words, sheesh, touchy aren't we?

    Oh, and I am sure he could, my Dad is dead.
This discussion has been closed.