If they truly want to make the IS more sporty and a real contender to the 3 series throne then do what Nissan did. Design a great sports car platform and then stretch it to make a sports sedan.
You could have three or four sizes out of it.
Two seat only 2,700 lbs or so with a high reving 4 cylinder and rwd as the smallest.
Supra sized car with a big V6 and maybe optional turbochargers. This would be the main platform and then all other versions would be stretch/shrunk accordingly.
New IS
Possibly new GS although I think a separate platform for the GS and LS would be better. Maybe make a really big powerful true two door hardtop like the CL off of this platform too.
Okay, I wasn't awared of that the last gen Celica weighed 2500 lbs. If that's the case then I don't see why a 2800 lbs (or lower) AE86 succesor is not possible.
200HP 2.4L + 2800 lbs could be a very sweet combination.
Do I think Toyota is going to deliever? Not really. Like I said we are talking about Toyota here...
I am just expecting the worst (180HP + 3000 lbs) yet hoping for the best (220HP + 2600 lbs) so after it came out I wouldn't be so dissapointed and rush to Edmunds starting a thread named "Toyota Lied, Toyota Lied"...
The problem with anyone actually building that vehicle is that insurance costs would go through the roof and kill the segment before it really got started.
The Nissan 240SX never sold very well. And it didn't really handle as well as the Prelude, for instance.
Mustangs are what 16 year olds wrap around trees on a daily basis (at least it seems).
If someone does build such a car, we're gonna see amateur drift racers crashing them left and right.
Even though it would be fun, light weight + RWD + low cost = recipe for disaster.
Lexus did make a formidable 3-series competitor called IS300. The result? It didn't sell.
Although it looks like Lexus is aiming at the 3er with the new IS I think its real "direct" competitor is the C-class. I think MB agrees with that either, just look at their new C-class marketing strategy.
I think even the new F division is aiming at the AMG more than at the M. If Lexus really wants to take on the M they'll drop a MT or DSG into the IS-F instead of that 8-speed AT.
The bottom line, Lexus is the victim of their own marketing strategy. Throughout the years people are used to a Lexus being luxury, quiet and comfortable so when they see a different kind of Lexus, the IS300, they automatically rejected it and called it cheap. The result: the current gen IS being more of a real Lexus than a real 3-series fighter.
1. Toyota is selling about 37% more Tundras than they did a year ago BUT it aint hard to sell 37% more when you aint selling very many to begin with. Also, This increase hasnt been bumped up against the Fall numbers for the old model yet, and last Fall, Toyota was giving those away.
2. I remember Toyota threatening to raise the price of the Tundra when it first came out because their costs were supposedly a lot higher to build the new truck than they thought it would be, but now they can afford $4625 rebates?....glad I'm not one of the suckers that fell for that one.
3. As long as Toyota was at it, why didn't they put a little more thought into their truck? Incentives are great for sales, but I'll tell you whats even better....quality. I would say the issue isnt so much that the dummy American truck buyers are stuck on large incentives, it's that they know a terd when they see one.
2. Like I said, I don't agree with Toyota's strategy of quantity at all cost. However, I can understand that is necessary to "get into the game".
3. Have you actually driven a Tundra before? If you did, why don't you share with us the pros (if there is any) and cons (I bet there are plenty) of the truck? If not then what are you based on calling it a "terd"? From its debut it hasn't ranked worse than 2nd place in all comparos. Just based on that I don't think it qualifies as a "terd".
1. As I said, it aint hard to increase sales when you're really not selling very many to begin with. If Toyota was a player in the truck market already, the percentage increase might be a little more impressive.
2. You still didnt adress my point. Quality at all cost? would it have cost them a lot to tuck the fuel tank in above the frame? Make the oil drain plug accessable? Make a frame that doesnt move so much that it can actually knock paint off the cab? My point was that Toyota said the truck cost lots more to make than they thought it would, so they were considering raising the price. Instead of raising the price, they slapped a $4600 rebate on it, which makes their original statement sound pretty bogus.
3. Yes Sir, I have indeed driven a Tundra or three. It's not a bad truck, but it brings nothing new to the table. It is no world changer. Wow a new vehicle from Toyota ranking high in media comparos, who woulda thought that? For crying out loud, the freeking Solara ranks high in magazine comparos. By the way, I didn't call it a terd, Toyota did. It says it right on the back of all their trucks.
By the way, I didn't call it a terd, Toyota did. It says it right on the back of all their trucks.
LOL
First of all, it's TRD, not Terd. Second, it's not on ALL of Toyota trucks. Third, do you even know what does TRD stand for?
You didn't get my point either. Toyota at this point is trying to become a major player in the full size truck market AT ALL COST. Before achieving that, Toyota can make a Cadillac of all trucks but it still won't sell. Yes, market share is THAT important, see Accord and Camry for example.
Granted the current Tundra interior is not as refined as the previous gen but apparently the Toyota Camry Tundra didn't do a thing to the core truck customer base. Toyota addressed previous Tundra's shortcomings and added muscles with functionality and now is being called no quality? Please tell me (or Toyota) what do they have to do to make the Tundra right?
What Toyota should have done to have a hit truck without HUGE incentives was to hit the market with a 1/2 ton diesel. Not a fire breathing diesel as in the Big 3 heavy duty trucks. A mid range V6 diesel would have sold without a penny on the hood. Diesel HD trucks sell faster than any of the gas versions. My local Dodge dealer sells 70% of his Ram trucks with diesel. The big hemi gassers sit for ever on the lot with huge incentives. No one really wants a gas truck anymore. Toyota misread the truck market.
Hi, I'm new to this forum and want to know why some of you seem to think the Tundra isn't worth a pile of TRD's? I'm toying with the idea of buying one in a year or so (when the wifes vehicle is paid off) and would like to know if any of you actually have real world experience with one of these? Where I live they seem to be selling well and on paper, they look great. 381 Hp, 402 ft-lbs, 6-speed auto, 0-60 in 6.0 sec, etc, plus room for 5 full size adults, Toyotas LEGENDARY reputation for quality and dependability, etc.. I have an in-law who just purchased a loaded 07 Silverado 6.0L and a friend just purchased an '07 F-150 XLT with 5.4L Triton. While both are nice trucks with good build quality and nice interiors and seem to have decent powertrains, they pale in comparison to the Tundra in terms of power and driveline sophistication. Plus, my experience with GM and Ford has not been good. So someone enlighten me please. All emotions aside, the Tundra is a good truck. I have not driven one, just looked at one at the dealer and read whatever I can about them. I think it's impressive in every respect and doubt a test drive would persuade me otherwise. Can it be that bad? If the Tundra is really that bad, why isn't it being reported in the news and by the automotive press? True, it isn't taking the crown in comparison tests, but it's hardly getting it's nose bloodied either. Car publications are very subjective in their reviews and don't portray the true ownership experience or take into account all the quality issues that only come up when you OWN a car. Driving a car for a few days hardly gives one an accurate and comprehensive picture of what it would be like to own that vehicle. My wife drives such a vehicle now, and even though it's considered best in class, or was at the time we purchased it (not a Toyota, incidentally), our experience with it has shown it to be a poor quality vehicle that is ultimately not very good to own. I'd be willing to bet the Tundra serves it's purpose at least as well as its competitors from Ford, Chevy, Nissan, etc.... Where it loses points to its competitors is in the subjective areas. If you are a Ford or GM person, you will simply not like the Tundra because it's a Toyota. If it had a GM or Ford badge on it, y'all would be braggin about its HP, towing capacity, powertrain, etc. To illustrate my point, look at Hyundai - everything I read about them is good, but I don't like them because they are Korean, which I've always associated with cheap, and because they are going after the established brands that I respect and trust. I don't care how good they are, I won't buy one. But I wouldn't say they are BAD cars. I choose not to buy them because I have the choice and I believe I would be happier with something else, but I don't try to call them garbage either or look down on people who do buy them. I'll admit I don't like hearing the good things reported about them, because it goes against my opinion about Hyundai, but there comes a point where you have to accept things as they are. Just illustrating a point.... The made in America argument doesn't work for the American car companies anymore either, because much of their content now comes from Mexico - many of them are now built in Mexico - all this while Toyota (and others) is increasingly building and sourcing in the US. So really, what is it about the Tundra that makes it inferior?
That they can even sway two time Sierra owners to trade their miserable piles of garbage for a new truck even with an entire service dept. (read: free labor!) at his disposal to fix said piles of garbage... I mean, like they always say, third times a charm, but the first two killed those chances.
I'll be curious as to what he does with his wifes 2003 Suburban that is in for a "routine" Intermediate steering shaft replacement. That and the 12mpg (It costs 100 bucks to fill the pig every 6 days) and it sounds like the "Big Bourbon" is on life support.
Y'all are aiming too high. I'd expect something like 2300 pounds and 120hp in the base model (a Valvematic version of the Yaris engine) and maybe a 160hp turbo option. Basically, a mid-90s Miata with a roof and a token back seat.
"To illustrate my point, look at Hyundai - everything I read about them is good, but I don't like them because they are Korean, which I've always associated with cheap, and because they are going after the established brands that I respect and trust. I don't care how good they are, I won't buy one."
If one warps back 40 years when Datsuns and Toyotas started hitting our shores, the exact same thing was said about Japanese vehicles. As one who lived through the '50s and '60s, anything made in Japan was synonymous with the word "cheap." "Made in Japan" meant junk in the 1950s and into the '60s - and in most cases, it was junk.
My how times change, and Korean products are going through the same evolution as did the Japanese products before them. For instance, practically all flat panels that you find in your laptop computer are manufactured by LG (Lucky Goldstar) or Samsung - both Korean companies. On the other hand, check out the laptop or cellphone batteries that are overheating, exploding, etc. - they're either Sony or Mashushita (Panasonic), both Japanese brands and made in Japan.
Japanese auto manufacturers are held in high regard now, and have been for some time. The same will be said of Hyundai and Kia if they continue to improve their products. The next "cheap, whipping boy" on the scene will be Chinese cars. But, wait and you'll see, that in time, they too will have an excellent product. It's all a natural progression of the world's industrial base in search of cheap labor. China's wealth and industrial might will be a juggernaut in the next 50 years.
Yeah but a mid 90s Miata didn't have half the safety features that are expected/required in a modern car now. I don't think they even had side impact door beams then.
since you have such indepth knowledge of midsize diesel trucks. I have this question: Do the dodge cummins, and the other big diesel trucks with ford and gm currently for sale have a different set of emission standards due to their weight or classification? Would the midsize be in the same emission standard caterory as the pass cars?
That is the problem. You can have a diesel engine in a PU over 8500 lbs. A lighter truck with a diesel engine that will pollute less is blocked from CARB states. Making it a marginal business decision to market them. Same goes for diesel cars and SUVs. The reason that the 3/4 ton and bigger trucks sell better with diesel engines is twofold. They tow more and use a lot less fuel. The big three cannot give their big gas rigs away without big incentives. Now Toyota with their big gas engine are finding that out.
Now that low sulfur diesel fuel is abundant it's up to the EPA to allow urea injection diesels. I don't see the big deal for dealers to refill a tank every time they have to service the ATF fluid.
in the Camry was a strong enough offensive punch to knock Honda off of their drive train pedestal. But Honda got up before the ten count, and they are about to throw a whopping Mike Tyson Wing Punch back with the 2008 Honda.... time will tell.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I'd have to agree. But I'd give the nod to Honda when it came to 4 cylinders.
Toyota's 2GR V6 is nearly as efficient as their 2.4l 4 cylinder engine. May as well get the V6, especially with all the extra power.
Not so with Honda. Their 4 banger has a measurable efficiency edge over their own V6, and the V6 doesn't add as much power as the option does with Toyota.
My fave vanilla sedan might be the Altima 2.5S, though, they balance economy and power impressively well.
No real news to me. Toyota has already acknowledged their issues (small issues, but still issues). The difference? Toyota admitted it, and they have more money than any other maker to fix issues, so if anyone was really an intelligent "gambler" or investor, all money goes on Toyota to correct the issues and beat everyone. They (Lexus) still are in the lead, with Toyota not far behind at all. If you HAD to put all your retirement money into only one company, which would it be?
It sure would not be Toyota. They do not pay a dividend. They greedily take all the money to Japan and that is the last an investor will see of it. I don't even think we can buy shares of Toyota stock. It is some kind of front company If I am reading it right.
I don't even think we can buy shares of Toyota stock.
What? It's easy to buy Toyota stocks. First of all just enroll in of the trading service companies, the online one includes etrade, scottrade, ameritrade and others (I am not advertising here). Then you put in the symbol TOYOF and choose how many you wish to buy, it's that simple. Although it's listed as OTC but that doesn't mean one can't buy it.
It sure would not be Toyota
I agree, I probably wouldn't choose Toyota either if I can go with companies outside the auto industry. I'll go with pharmaceutical or health care companies. Within the auto industry my money is on Toyota, Honda and BMW. But whatever it is, it sure heck won't be GM, Ford or Chrysler. I personally would like to see the domestic 3 prosper because that's good for the economy. However, when it comes to MY money then emotion has to take a backseat for intelligent decisions.
1. Toyota was still ranked #1, so you gotta love their spin in that title.
2. This is the University of MICHIGAN, folks, which last I heard was home turf of the big 3.
So basically even the home team admits Toyota is #1. Funny how they try to spin that as a negative towards Toyota.
Viewed from the other angle, you could say the Big Three stink, but this year they stink less!
That's hyperbole, by the way, for those that can't tell. The gap has narrowed, and pretty much any new car is reliable. I'm just amused by their spin on the subject.
is porsche still privately owned? I know they're in the audi family, the porsche people are also taking in cash by the wheel barrels. I was kind of suprised yota did not buy lambo when they were on the block.
...that's not mentioned at all in any of the articles, nor in Edmunds analysis, is that the largest incentive is waived interest charges. All that's normally mentioned is the total figure.
It always appears that from the headlines and the resulting rush of commentary it's 2004 all over again and there's gobs of cash on the hood to move the vehicles which has to have an effect down the road on resale values. Well yes and no. There is certainly about a $4600-$5000 incentive available to the buyer but frankly it's slickly done in the form of waived interest. The actual 'cash on the hood' in the form of 'rebate' or 'customer cash' is significantly lower.
When we appraise a prior year's vehicle for trade there is no way to know if a customer was able to get a $5000 interest saving or not. The transaction price is the transaction price. It doesn't affect the market price of the vehicle if internally Toyota takes $5000 from one pocket ( commercial department's profit margin ) and puts it in another pocket ( TFS's finance profit margin ) then gives it to the buyer. It's a slick sleight of hand there.
Not much info available on TOYOF. Still no dividends. I like stocks that pay out each year. I am not a day trader. I follow the Warren Buffett school of thought. Buy for the long haul. Get good solid companies that make a good product and profit. My two largest holdings over the last 5 years are ALEX & MCD. Both steady gainers with nice dividends.
Back in College I had a professor that was truly against dividends. In his opinion they made the stocks less valuable over time and he had the research to back it up. I don't remember all the specifics but after reading all his research I had to admit I could see where he was going.
I don't think he was a 100 percent right but ever since then I have always thought that in some cases a stock without a dividend is worth more in the long haul then one with a dividend.
Thanks for clearing that "discussion" up. Yes, you can own Toyota stock - ask me how I know! Also, a correction to my post: I meant to say "If you HAD to put all your retirement money into only one AUTOMOTIVE company, which would it be?" I know I would never do this, nor would I ever advise it, but my question was meant to be hypothetical, trying to point out that Toyota Motor has been, and is still on the right path.
So, IF someone put a gun to your head and said you must put all your money into ONE automaker, which would you choose? Any smart investor has to pick Toyota as #1, or maybe at worst #2. I had grad school discussions, studies, etc. about the top manufacturing companies, and Toyota was almost always the company that nearly everyone benchmarked.
Sorry, I just do not see them falling flat on their face, although I know some people who hope they do!
But the people in them who run them day by day are human and humans make errors and need oft times to make adjustments when problems arise. I do feel that Toyota has a good handle on the day-to-day operations. They do react quickly when problems arise.
I can foresee this coming about. Toyota decides that it has grown fast enough and needs to refocus its efforts on what got it to the top. Pure volume growth has had its share of pitfalls in CSI, overall quality and perception.
There are several ways to look at the stock market. I think it would be easier to make money buying and selling GM. Their stock has a more up and down trend. My statement was in reference to TM stock falling. I think that Toyota will continue to make gains. Maybe become number one for more than a quarter.
If you HAD to put all your retirement money into only one AUTOMOTIVE company, which would it be?"
When can I take it out again? Ford was around $7.50 in the gloom and doom days last December and popped up to $9.50 in six months. Nice rate of return if you happen to know how to time the market, lol. Toyota's share price fell relative to Ford's during that same period. (link)
Now that Ford is back down there again in the current meltdown - it may be a buy. :shades:
"I don't think he was a 100 percent right but ever since then I have always thought that in some cases a stock without a dividend is worth more in the long haul then one with a dividend."
Are you sure? I ask because Digital Equipment Company never ever paid a dividend. You do remember what became of DEC, don't you?
thanks for the clarification. I thougth vw/audi is the giant over there and some brother or relative of the vw founder or someone down the family tree open the porsche store.
Your comments (at the bottom of the blog entry) would be most welcome, and here as well if you want to do a back and forth debate on my opinions and/or your own!
Thanks, and don't forget to sign up for the "friends" option. (you may follow british rover's good example in this regard )
does toyota diverse into making anything else other than automobile? Small time (comparatively) player honda has developed a jet sans the engine - vtec just won't do, bikes, outboard motors, the asimo project(tell me again these asimos not going to be battle droids). Now that they got all the money and power and the manufacturing know how, why not diversify their products?
By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our Visitor Agreement.
Comments
If they truly want to make the IS more sporty and a real contender to the 3 series throne then do what Nissan did. Design a great sports car platform and then stretch it to make a sports sedan.
You could have three or four sizes out of it.
Two seat only 2,700 lbs or so with a high reving 4 cylinder and rwd as the smallest.
Supra sized car with a big V6 and maybe optional turbochargers. This would be the main platform and then all other versions would be stretch/shrunk accordingly.
New IS
Possibly new GS although I think a separate platform for the GS and LS would be better. Maybe make a really big powerful true two door hardtop like the CL off of this platform too.
200HP 2.4L + 2800 lbs could be a very sweet combination.
Do I think Toyota is going to deliever? Not really. Like I said we are talking about Toyota here...
I am just expecting the worst (180HP + 3000 lbs) yet hoping for the best (220HP + 2600 lbs) so after it came out I wouldn't be so dissapointed and rush to Edmunds starting a thread named "Toyota Lied, Toyota Lied"...
The Nissan 240SX never sold very well. And it didn't really handle as well as the Prelude, for instance.
Mustangs are what 16 year olds wrap around trees on a daily basis (at least it seems).
If someone does build such a car, we're gonna see amateur drift racers crashing them left and right.
Even though it would be fun, light weight + RWD + low cost = recipe for disaster.
Although it looks like Lexus is aiming at the 3er with the new IS I think its real "direct" competitor is the C-class. I think MB agrees with that either, just look at their new C-class marketing strategy.
I think even the new F division is aiming at the AMG more than at the M. If Lexus really wants to take on the M they'll drop a MT or DSG into the IS-F instead of that 8-speed AT.
The bottom line, Lexus is the victim of their own marketing strategy. Throughout the years people are used to a Lexus being luxury, quiet and comfortable so when they see a different kind of Lexus, the IS300, they automatically rejected it and called it cheap. The result: the current gen IS being more of a real Lexus than a real 3-series fighter.
1. Toyota is selling about 37% more Tundras than they did a year ago BUT it aint hard to sell 37% more when you aint selling very many to begin with. Also, This increase hasnt been bumped up against the Fall numbers for the old model yet, and last Fall, Toyota was giving those away.
2. I remember Toyota threatening to raise the price of the Tundra when it first came out because their costs were supposedly a lot higher to build the new truck than they thought it would be, but now they can afford $4625 rebates?....glad I'm not one of the suckers that fell for that one.
3. As long as Toyota was at it, why didn't they put a little more thought into their truck? Incentives are great for sales, but I'll tell you whats even better....quality. I would say the issue isnt so much that the dummy American truck buyers are stuck on large incentives, it's that they know a terd when they see one.
Toyota Reports July Sales
Where is yours? :confuse:
2. Like I said, I don't agree with Toyota's strategy of quantity at all cost. However, I can understand that is necessary to "get into the game".
3. Have you actually driven a Tundra before? If you did, why don't you share with us the pros (if there is any) and cons (I bet there are plenty) of the truck? If not then what are you based on calling it a "terd"? From its debut it hasn't ranked worse than 2nd place in all comparos. Just based on that I don't think it qualifies as a "terd".
2. You still didnt adress my point. Quality at all cost? would it have cost them a lot to tuck the fuel tank in above the frame? Make the oil drain plug accessable? Make a frame that doesnt move so much that it can actually knock paint off the cab? My point was that Toyota said the truck cost lots more to make than they thought it would, so they were considering raising the price. Instead of raising the price, they slapped a $4600 rebate on it, which makes their original statement sound pretty bogus.
3. Yes Sir, I have indeed driven a Tundra or three. It's not a bad truck, but it brings nothing new to the table. It is no world changer. Wow a new vehicle from Toyota ranking high in media comparos, who woulda thought that? For crying out loud, the freeking Solara ranks high in magazine comparos. By the way, I didn't call it a terd, Toyota did. It says it right on the back of all their trucks.
LOL
First of all, it's TRD, not Terd. Second, it's not on ALL of Toyota trucks. Third, do you even know what does TRD stand for?
You didn't get my point either. Toyota at this point is trying to become a major player in the full size truck market AT ALL COST. Before achieving that, Toyota can make a Cadillac of all trucks but it still won't sell. Yes, market share is THAT important, see Accord and Camry for example.
Granted the current Tundra interior is not as refined as the previous gen but apparently the Toyota Camry Tundra didn't do a thing to the core truck customer base. Toyota addressed previous Tundra's shortcomings and added muscles with functionality and now is being called no quality? Please tell me (or Toyota) what do they have to do to make the Tundra right?
Toyota misspelled turd.
What Toyota should have done to have a hit truck without HUGE incentives was to hit the market with a 1/2 ton diesel. Not a fire breathing diesel as in the Big 3 heavy duty trucks. A mid range V6 diesel would have sold without a penny on the hood. Diesel HD trucks sell faster than any of the gas versions. My local Dodge dealer sells 70% of his Ram trucks with diesel. The big hemi gassers sit for ever on the lot with huge incentives. No one really wants a gas truck anymore. Toyota misread the truck market.
Let me guess on "TRD" Toyota Rotten Design?
Dodge Ram and Nissan Titan have bigger incentives. link - July '07 figures
I'll be curious as to what he does with his wifes 2003 Suburban that is in for a "routine" Intermediate steering shaft replacement. That and the 12mpg (It costs 100 bucks to fill the pig every 6 days) and it sounds like the "Big Bourbon" is on life support.
Looks like the new Highlander may be it. :shades:
If one warps back 40 years when Datsuns and Toyotas started hitting our shores, the exact same thing was said about Japanese vehicles. As one who lived through the '50s and '60s, anything made in Japan was synonymous with the word "cheap." "Made in Japan" meant junk in the 1950s and into the '60s - and in most cases, it was junk.
My how times change, and Korean products are going through the same evolution as did the Japanese products before them. For instance, practically all flat panels that you find in your laptop computer are manufactured by LG (Lucky Goldstar) or Samsung - both Korean companies. On the other hand, check out the laptop or cellphone batteries that are overheating, exploding, etc. - they're either Sony or Mashushita (Panasonic), both Japanese brands and made in Japan.
Japanese auto manufacturers are held in high regard now, and have been for some time. The same will be said of Hyundai and Kia if they continue to improve their products. The next "cheap, whipping boy" on the scene will be Chinese cars. But, wait and you'll see, that in time, they too will have an excellent product. It's all a natural progression of the world's industrial base in search of cheap labor. China's wealth and industrial might will be a juggernaut in the next 50 years.
since you have such indepth knowledge of midsize diesel trucks. I have this question: Do the dodge cummins, and the other big diesel trucks with ford and gm currently for sale have a different set of emission standards due to their weight or classification? Would the midsize be in the same emission standard caterory as the pass cars?
Who cares? The truck still costs more than competitors do. Toyota is getting more $ per truck.
It's a brand new engine and transmission, right? Teething issues are to be expected.
They certainly had more issues than expected for a Toyota. But what does that tell you?
The EPA simply cannot post guards at dealerships to make sure the urea service is done as required.
And everyone knows you cannot trust a car dealership to do the right thing on it's very own recognizance. LOL.
Thus, the first US-bound urea BlueTecs were denied.
P.S. How did this subject get here, in the "Toyota is on the Offensive. Will it work?" forum?
Here in MD we have bi-annual emissions inspections, so it could be done then. I doubt the EPA wants to delegate that power to the states, though.
Toyota's 2GR V6 is nearly as efficient as their 2.4l 4 cylinder engine. May as well get the V6, especially with all the extra power.
Not so with Honda. Their 4 banger has a measurable efficiency edge over their own V6, and the V6 doesn't add as much power as the option does with Toyota.
My fave vanilla sedan might be the Altima 2.5S, though, they balance economy and power impressively well.
What? It's easy to buy Toyota stocks. First of all just enroll in of the trading service companies, the online one includes etrade, scottrade, ameritrade and others (I am not advertising here). Then you put in the symbol TOYOF and choose how many you wish to buy, it's that simple. Although it's listed as OTC but that doesn't mean one can't buy it.
It sure would not be Toyota
I agree, I probably wouldn't choose Toyota either if I can go with companies outside the auto industry. I'll go with pharmaceutical or health care companies. Within the auto industry my money is on Toyota, Honda and BMW. But whatever it is, it sure heck won't be GM, Ford or Chrysler. I personally would like to see the domestic 3 prosper because that's good for the economy. However, when it comes to MY money then emotion has to take a backseat for intelligent decisions.
A couple of basic observations:
1. Toyota was still ranked #1, so you gotta love their spin in that title.
2. This is the University of MICHIGAN, folks, which last I heard was home turf of the big 3.
So basically even the home team admits Toyota is #1. Funny how they try to spin that as a negative towards Toyota.
Viewed from the other angle, you could say the Big Three stink, but this year they stink less!
That's hyperbole, by the way, for those that can't tell. The gap has narrowed, and pretty much any new car is reliable. I'm just amused by their spin on the subject.
It always appears that from the headlines and the resulting rush of commentary it's 2004 all over again and there's gobs of cash on the hood to move the vehicles which has to have an effect down the road on resale values. Well yes and no. There is certainly about a $4600-$5000 incentive available to the buyer but frankly it's slickly done in the form of waived interest. The actual 'cash on the hood' in the form of 'rebate' or 'customer cash' is significantly lower.
When we appraise a prior year's vehicle for trade there is no way to know if a customer was able to get a $5000 interest saving or not. The transaction price is the transaction price. It doesn't affect the market price of the vehicle if internally Toyota takes $5000 from one pocket ( commercial department's profit margin ) and puts it in another pocket ( TFS's finance profit margin ) then gives it to the buyer. It's a slick sleight of hand there.
Just look at Saab if you want an extreme case of that.
Not much info available on TOYOF. Still no dividends. I like stocks that pay out each year. I am not a day trader. I follow the Warren Buffett school of thought. Buy for the long haul. Get good solid companies that make a good product and profit. My two largest holdings over the last 5 years are ALEX & MCD. Both steady gainers with nice dividends.
Toyota stock is set for a fall.
Then your best option is either 401k or mutual funds.
Toyota stock is set for a fall.
Really? Where can I get the crystal ball that you have?
I don't think he was a 100 percent right but ever since then I have always thought that in some cases a stock without a dividend is worth more in the long haul then one with a dividend.
So, IF someone put a gun to your head and said you must put all your money into ONE automaker, which would you choose? Any smart investor has to pick Toyota as #1, or maybe at worst #2. I had grad school discussions, studies, etc. about the top manufacturing companies, and Toyota was almost always the company that nearly everyone benchmarked.
Sorry, I just do not see them falling flat on their face, although I know some people who hope they do!
But the people in them who run them day by day are human and humans make errors and need oft times to make adjustments when problems arise. I do feel that Toyota has a good handle on the day-to-day operations. They do react quickly when problems arise.
I can foresee this coming about. Toyota decides that it has grown fast enough and needs to refocus its efforts on what got it to the top. Pure volume growth has had its share of pitfalls in CSI, overall quality and perception.
When can I take it out again? Ford was around $7.50 in the gloom and doom days last December and popped up to $9.50 in six months. Nice rate of return if you happen to know how to time the market, lol. Toyota's share price fell relative to Ford's during that same period. (link)
Now that Ford is back down there again in the current meltdown - it may be a buy. :shades:
Feel free to tout your favorite portfolio over in the The Stock Market and Investing discussion.
That's the same thing as saying they're on top now, and when you're on top there is nowhere to go but down.
What I would say is it's too late, if you don't already own Toyota stock you missed the boat. It has been a good investment.
Forget the crystal ball, you'll need a time machine.
Are you sure? I ask because Digital Equipment Company never ever paid a dividend. You do remember what became of DEC, don't you?
Why The World Might Belong To Toyota
Your comments (at the bottom of the blog entry) would be most welcome, and here as well if you want to do a back and forth debate on my opinions and/or your own!
Thanks, and don't forget to sign up for the "friends" option. (you may follow british rover's good example in this regard
best
Shifty, the Visiting Host
I make my own fabric too so maybe one of these days I'll branch out into piston rings or something.