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
It's true that Toyota overtook GM for the 1st time in 2008 and barely hold on to the title for 3 years. It's the No. 1 curse. When GM was No. 1, they were under the microscope. Now when Toyota is No. 1, they are under the microscope; and they make all the mistakes GM did. Toyota recalled almost 20 million cars in the past one year or so.
It's lucky for Toyota to hang on for 3 years instead of 2. Last year, Toyota sold 8.42 million cars, GM 8.39 million. But clearly the momentum is with GM and they rammed Toyota in Jan 2011 right away.
Please list them.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Like it or not, the USA CAR market is not owned by GM anymore and never will be again.
Despite rising gas prices, Americans continued to purchase SUVs and crossovers at a higher rate than any other vehicle segment. The segment sold 367,826 units and was up 12.3 percent over the same month last year. The mid-size car segment trailed in second place with sales of 320,251 units, up 19.1 percent over March 2010. However, the small car segment experienced the most significant jump, with sales of 238,257 units which was up 32.1 percent over March 2010. All segments experienced growth in March, with the exception of the large car segment, down 7.4 percent. Asian nameplates sold 383,900 cars and 221,043 trucks in March. European nameplates sold 74,901 cars and 26,633 trucks. Domestic nameplates registered sales of 195,288 cars and 344,858 trucks.
Can't do it with one Civic-clone.
International nameplates held six of the top ten selling vehicle spots during March, which was consistent with last month. The Ford F-Series and Chevrolet Silverado remained the top two selling vehicles, while the Nissan Altima jumped from the seventh spot in February to the second spot this month, overtaking the Toyota Camry to be the top selling car in the U.S. The Altima was followed by the Honda Accord at number four and the Camry at number five. The Hyundai Sonata rejoined the top ten list for the first time since October 2010 with sales of 22,894 units, up 20.9 percent since March 2010. With the exception of the Toyota Camry (down 13.2 percent) every vehicle on the top ten list experienced an average 21.3 percent year-over-year improvement. The Honda Civic was the most significant, with sales up 39 percent, followed by the Nissan Altima (up 31 percent), Ford F-Series Pickup (up 25.3 percent), and Ford Escape (up 25 percent).
Cars DO NOT "Run Deep" at Chevy. Only the old pick-up!
Regards,
OW
Regards,
OW
Not a great argument that because some other government(s) do something that the U.S. government should too! Think of some of the things that other governments do to their people!
Maybe we shouldn't allow subsidized foreign industries or companies to sell their products here? But you're right that we should stop subsidizing everyone's defense, thus allowing those governments to put $ into their economies and societies.
Getting back to the GM-issue specifically; it wasn't a - THEY subsidize so we have to issue. Because there's that 1 big exception - Ford. Ford showed that if you ran your company somewhat decently, you wouldn't need a subsidy/bailout.
If GM had saved the billions they had made over the years, and was making billions/year before the Great Recession of 2008, they would have been fine. But GM was a leaky super-tanker when the storm came.
Not even relevant to my response to Fezo's comment. Let's try , try to stay on topic here.
>Maybe we shouldn't allow subsidized foreign industries or companies to sell their products here?
Now that's a thought. Good job.
>But you're right that we should stop subsidizing everyone's defense
You've been listening to too much Rush Limbaugh!
>If GM had saved the billions they had made over the years, and was making billions/year before the Great Recession of 2008, they would have been fine.
At last a lucid point. Can't argue with dollars and Economy 101! Yup, if a company makes money, they have money.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Yes, GM is not as dominant as it used to be; but GM is No. 1 in car sales worldwide, No. 1 in overall vehicles sales worldwide, No. 1 in overall vehicle sales in the US still. It appears that GM maybe able to gain back some of the lost market share in the future.
Yup, and if a company looses billions year after year, they fail.
Chrysler is on Life-support#2 and GM finally made the bailout-grade. Now we will see if the repeat of Oil Price Shock 2008 that GM is a little bit better prepared but seeing as the competition rules over 80% of the CAR MARKET in the USA, it's gonna hurt big time to the heavily-weighted truck making GM.
Join us back here for more lost market share next month when Ford continues gains over GM based on their more efficient head start in the new energy environment delivering more desirable products to the USA auto market...(not to mention the high underwear company.) :shades:
Regards,
OW
Maybe...but not in the USA. Never in the USA because the market will never be the same where one company controls all of the great product designs and delivers what customers want and need time after time. GM is not built for that. They just make trucks that and even up to 2 years ago, were not the best in quality vs. the competition. That's why customers went away.
Regards,
OW
Maybe...but not in the USA. Never in the USA
Never say never. GM's US market share one year ago was 18.7%; now it's 19.4%. That's the biggest jump in market share of ALL automakers in this market!
Market share point change from 2010 to 2011 (Mar YTD):
GM +0.7%
Ford -0.6%
Toyota -1.0%
Honda 0.0%
Chrysler +0.2%
Nissan +0.4%
Hyundai +0.3%
all rest are unchange or down (except Mits +0.1%)
Well, one more sales for GM!
Issue with the manual transmission? Does a manual even exist?
Issue with vibration not being perfectly muzzled with the ext cab long bed? I may be lucky if I have ever seen a single ext cab long bed in ten years.
Both these problems had fixes that were free to owners. All 3 owners, that is!!!
And that leaves just the possibility that the clutch plates in the AWD transaxle can wear out and oil that costs a few extra bucks is suggested for the transaxle.
The rating was based on a '99 two wheel drive regular cab. Could have been a V6 work truck that sold for $15k.
a 2 in fuel economy? I get 15 city and 18.5 hwy with 87 oct w/10% ethanol. The hwy # is with a 1500 lb load 4WD ext cab with trail tires. If that's a 2 out of ten then CG has a job offer for you.
Exactly; as long as the EPA fuel economy is great, the added weight can only increase the car's safety, longevity and stability at speed.
Well, I've mentioned all the problems many times, so I won't list them all out again.
If you consider having a transmission rebuilt at 46k miles fine, then yes.
Toyota Tundra Wins the Award - Large Pickup Segment
Imagine that! Another Toyota that wins in the press. :P
Regards,
OW
And add to acceleration times and braking distances. A lot of cars are too heavy these days, but the extra weight doesn't seem to hurt fuel economy to much.
My wife has been getting a little bit better fuel economy with her '11 Taurus vs the '07 Grand Prix it replaced. The Taurus has 63 more HP and weighs over 500lbs more. The first tank yielded a 24.7 avg (computer said 25.3) a bit surprising considering it still has under 500 miles on it. She drove her normal 400 mile or so weekly route. The Grand Prix would generally averaged 23-24 or so. That coincides with the EPA estimates where the EPA rates the Taurus 22 vs 21 overall.
My cousin has a nearly identical age Surburban in 2WD and it's been bulletproof. Though, he does live in Southern California, so it's not subjected to harsh weather or rough roads. As a huge freeway barge, it's great.
Guess they have to win something cause it's not sales records. The Tundra has to be one of Toyota's greatest disappointments in terms of sales. It was suppose to turn the domestic truck market towards Toyota. It's not even a blip on the radar.
http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2011/04/march-2011-top-10-pickup-truck-sales.html
Good grief even the Tacoma outsells it.
They lost a few ticks on cars lately but I'm sure that will change as $4 gasoline will slow truck sales and increase car sales which GM is weak in. Toyota should regain #1 in sales a year or so.
Regards,
OW
Yeah, the few people I know that have one are happy. Toyota's 5.7/6speed combo is sweet. But the rest of the truck really doesn't do anything for me.
No doubt Toyota makes a more reliable product, but that doesn't always equate to a better one. The D3 are just to customizable in their truck offerings for Toyota to match.
Still, Toyota is still a formidable competitor and they aren't going anywhere.
It was 4wd. My Expedition hasn't been a whole lot better, but so far it's certainly been cheaper to maintain up to 83k miles than my Suburban was. The Expe has had a few problems that it shouldn't, but I guess that's the way it goes sometimes. One area it's infinitely better (I'm sure the GMT-900's are too) is body integrity, build quality, and fit-n-finish. By 60k, my Suburban was a complete rattle trap where as my '07 Expedition is pretty much devoid of rattles and such.
Endurance?"I-force" V8 has so much sack it's scary. And does it love to rev!Me, I'm not a truck guy and if I was, a Tacoma, Frontier or Ridgeline would be my choice but the Tundra and all it's girth, it really did drive like a car. Heck, my 5 ft tall sister borrowed it for work a couple of days last week, lol!
My only citicism of it was on the interior which while not uber cheap, does have a very drab and tacky look to it. Everything is meant to be turned by gorilla hands (or at least those wearing gloves
It may not be a sales homerun that Toyota was looking for (although I don't recall them looking to sell more than 150k/year due to capacity constraints) but they are still quite common here in New England and they are built in the US which is a positive IMO.
Toyota's 5.7 is probably the best engine available in a 1/2 ton. Maybe Ford's new 5.0 and Ecoboost v6 even the score, if they're reliable.
Once in a while I'll see a Tundra or Titan at a construction site, but it's certainly not common.
Now that Ford has the best base engine option attached to a 6 speed trans, they really have an advantage. Granted it's not cheap. Trucktrend mag recently compared the base engine pickups from the D3. The Ford simply outperformed the Dodge and GM v6 trucks by a wide margin and got significantly better fuel economy despite being the heaviest truck.
Agreed. Just about every company I've seen that pastes their name on the side of a truck (or van) has them on a Ford, GM, and (to a lesser extent) Dodge (or Ram, whatever they're called these days!)
I deal with construction contractors, suppliers, developers, and state and local governments on a daily basis, and I've yet to see ANY of them drive a Tundra (or Titan, for that matter). They're all fiercely loyal to their brand, and with good reason, since most of these vehicles will see 200K-300K miles in very rough conditions, and they NEED to start up and run everyday, or businesses lose $$$$.
Whether or not Toyota or Nissan has the capacity, I doubt they'll make any significant inroads in the light-truck segment as they've done with cars. The D3 offers literally hundreds of different engine, transmission, cab, and bed configurations each, and it's this variety that businesses thrive on, to create a custom truck to suit their needs. Toyota and Nissan doesn't even come close, and IMO they NEED to if they want to get serious.
As for the $4 gas lowering truck sales, it'll make a dent, but not nearly as big as the doomsday fans are preaching. Whether or not gas is $4 or $6, businesses, contractors, etc. still NEED their trucks, since no Prius can haul a bed full of wood, tools, cement bags, gravel, etc. Trucks will still lead in overall sales, because the commercial sector requires them.
Not in a 1/2 ton. GM still uses the 195hp 4.3 with a 4speed trans.
Exactly. The last price spike caused many those who really didn't need a full-size truck or SUV to switch. If you tow, haul, and/or need a work vehicle, a pickup is still the only way to go.
I think one big reason there is because the Titan and Tundra are only offered in half-ton versions, and most "real" pickups used by construction companies, contractors, etc are 3/4 or 1-ton.
A few years back, my uncle worked for a construction company in Virginia that had a few Toyota Tundras around, the older style, that they used for light-duty work.
That company got bought out, and a lot of those trucks got sold off. My uncle had thought about buying one, but never did. He said their company had good luck with them. I'm not sure what kind of trucks the new company uses, although my uncle says he's driven a Ford F-350 crew cab. From time to time he's also driven dumptrucks, water trucks, and so on. Don't think any of 'em are Toyota, though! :P
That's a big part of it. Even in the 1/2 ton market, the titan and tundra don't have near the different configurations and options as the the domestics.
GM's older designs, unfortunately are junk concerning the interiors. They are junk or nearly so in ten years.
But the engine is good... :P
Ford uses a lot of the same small parts in the Expedition and F150 that it uses in the Crown Victoria, and vice-versa, so things are suitably overbuilt. The engine and drivetrain isn't *quite* as good as GM, but the truck does feel more solid and the interiors can survive much more abuse, so overall most people consider it to be a better vehicle. Overall, I'd pick the Ford over the GM truck because of this.
I can live with a little less reliability if the thing doesn't make me cringe sitting in it.
Still, I'd think it wouldn't be TOO hard to make it fit. The old '73-87 era pickups had a 250 inline-6 as the standard engine (until they replaced it around '85 with the 4.3), and those trucks don't have especially long engine bays. Wide enough to practically climb in beside the engine, but still not overly long.
The 4.3 isn't a horrible engine, but I just think it's past its prime.
No question about that. GM should use the 3.6 as the base engine in the trucks just like Ford does with the 3.7. Both produce more torque than the 4.3 and substantially more HP. Not to mention the newer v6's don't make nasty noises and vibrations while making more power.
One thing with the 4.2 is it's torque peak is 277ft-lbs at 4800 rpm. Ford's 3.7 is 278 at 4000rpm and produces 302HP 6500rpm vs 291HP @6000 for the I6. So it looks like Ford's 3.7 has a wider powerband.
I'm sure GM could update the 4.2 to the latest valve timing systems etc to boost power. Another thing is I've never heard much for fuel economy for the I6. In the TB it got the same FE as the 5.3 v8.
I'm sure it comes down to packaging issues and scale. GM needs to use an engine that is used in other vehicles (3.6). The 4.3 is still used in the marine industry. That may partially explain why GM has kept it around so long.
Or, like the "Shortstar" V6 (which was a Northie with a pair of cylinders lopped off) it may have been too expensive to produce. Government Motors, in recent years has been following the japanese model and downsizing their engine family to just a couple of sizes to be used in multiple applications.
Otherwise, the historical facts we experienced will keep us from buying GM for a long, long, long time.
We were not as fortunate as Lemko, as you already know.
Regards,
OW
Back when they still made the Century it was OK but had more competition than the rest of the Buick lineup.
My dad gave to my sister to drive when she needed a car. It made to about 140k miles until she couldn't take it anymore. Nothing worked, the auto HVAC was stuck on heat and high fan, it leaked oil, the paint faded quickly. Quality it was not.