the labor changing the pump is expensive but it will leave you stranded if it fails. for 142k mi you're rolling the dice on the pump. otoh, who cares about the cat until it fails emission test.
"No vehicle maker can add all the desired features to a vehicle, design it to be drop dead gorgeous, give it best interiors and still expect to sell it for a profit at $17000 - $18000. It can't be done.....by any vehicle maker."
I agree. Honda is also cheapening up their interiors on new models. Carpet is extremely thin, lots of hard plastic, etc. All makers are doing this to keep costs down.
Me, while I don't entirely disagree, I know that if I were running Toyota I would be wondering how Honda, which sells a Civic with all the popular equipment and nice interior materials for $17000-18000, and Mazda which sells a Mazda3 with all the popular equipment and nice interior materials for $17000-18000, manage to do what they do.
Yes this is the next step in the progress of the discussion. 'What about the competition?'
All vehicle makers have the same decisions to make, the same production and supply questions, the same market headwinds into which it must sell. In fact each of them has to 'cut corners' if you will.
The Mazda 3 is gorgeous and more powerful, but it's not at fuel efficient as the Corolla, nor does it have all the same safety features, nor does it sell in anywhere near the quantities of the Corolla, it's intended for a different type of buyer. Corners cut.
The Civic does have nicer interior feel and it too is more powerful, but you can't buy any LX model with Stability Control and Traction Control, nor can you get a sunroof if you wished and it doesn't get the fuel economy of a Corolla. Corners cut.
The Corolla doesn't have the power of the other two and the interior is more basic. Corners cut. However it does have more safety features at the market price and it will cost less to own over its lifetime than the other two.
In my opinion, the current Toyota Corolla should drop both the 1.8-liter 128 bhp engine and the 2.4-liter 158 bhp engine in favor of the 2.0-liter Valvematic engine rated at 145-147 bhp with a five-speed automatic. That change right there will improve both performance and fuel efficiency, especially at highway speeds.
the labor changing the pump is expensive but it will leave you stranded if it fails. for 142k mi you're rolling the dice on the pump. otoh, who cares about the cat until it fails emission test.
On the Intrepid 2.7, I think the water pump is buried pretty far into the engine, and not just a bolt-on job like back in the good old days. So on my 142K, 9 year old Intrepid, it might not be worth fixing. At least with my uncle's Corolla, the water pump was relatively easy to get to.
As for the catalytic converter, when they go bad, won't they sometimes affect fuel economy, and put a strain on the engine?
With inflation figured in at 2% pa over that 10 yr period the $20500 1997 Camry today 'should' cost ~$25000
Try that analysis going back to 1964. I paid $2400 for a new Land Cruiser. Using 2% a year that vehicle should be only $4512 today. Vehicles have gone up more over the last 50 years than any other consumer product. My family paid $800 in 1948 for a 9 inch TV. Look what you get today for $800. No vehicles are a total rip off by any calculation. Nothing else is close except maybe healthcare.
Vehicles have gone up more over the last 50 years than any other consumer product. My family paid $800 in 1948 for a 9 inch TV. Look what you get today for $800. No vehicles are a total rip off by any calculation.
My grandparents bought a brand-new, top-of-the line Ford Fairlane 500 4-door hardtop in 1957. Paid about $3500 for it. Adjusted for inflation (using a calculator, and not 2% annually), that would come out to about $25,500 in 2007 dollars (most recent year available). And if you want to be conservative, and throw on another 2% to adjust to 2008, that gets you to $26K. That Ford had an automatic transmission, power steering, power brakes, and AM radio with one speaker, a heater, whitewall tires, and the biggest V-8 (a 312 I think). Possibly 2-tone paint and some extra chrome trim, as well. Air conditioning? Nope. That was about a $500 option in those days, so needless to say it was rare unless you bought a Caddy, Lincoln, or maybe a Buick or Chrysler. Crank windows, manual locks, a bench seat with manual fore/aft. No tilt on the steering wheel. And the automatic transmission was most likely only a 3-speed, at best. The only air bag would be if you gave your mother in law a ride (oh wait, that's "wind bag" :P )
As expensive as cars may seem nowadays, I'd say they're one thing that's a relative bargain. For comparison, I just spec'ed out a 2009 Ford Taurus. Limited, AWD. Added on Nav, power moonroof, rear window sunshade, and even a wood trim package, and Edmund's gave me a TMV of $30,324.
So that's a difference of about $4300, adjusted for inflation, over roughly 50 years. But consider that extra $4300 gives you you power windows, doors locks, seat, tilt wheel, leather, a nice sound system, sunroof, nav, alloy wheels, etc, plus safety advances like ABS, air bags, crumple zones, side impact protection, etc, plus technological advances such as AWD and, fuel injection, a transmission with at least three extra forward gears, and a body that won't rust out in two-three years, I'd say that $4300 is money well-spent. Forgo some of those luxuries, and get a base SE model, and Edmund's gives it a TMV of $22,150, about $4K LESS than that '57 Ford, adjusted for inflation, but overall, still better-equipped.
Now granted, you could get a stripper 1957 Ford for about $2,000 (~$15K today) new, but you wouldn't want it. :P 6-cyl engine, 3-on-the-tree that would get you from 0-60 in about 16 seconds, no radio, no power steering or power brakes, undersized (even by 50's standards) tires. No heater. Possibly no windshield washer. Might not even have backup lights!
**Edit...also, $2400 in 1964, with 2% compounded annually, is actually $5736 in 2008 dollars. I think you forgot the compounding part.
You are correct. I just tossed an 88% increase over the 1964 price. You are also right that you get a lot of comfort doodads for the extra. But you give up heavy sheet metal and lower cost of repair. Compared to other consumer goods I don't see the automobile as being a bargain. Plus I would take my old Land Cruiser over what Toyota tried to pawn off as a retro, the FJ Cruiser. At least Ford came out with a great looking retro Mustang and sales proves it.
The Civic does have nicer interior feel and it too is more powerful, but you can't buy any LX model with Stability Control and Traction Control, nor can you get a sunroof if you wished and it doesn't get the fuel economy of a Corolla. Corners cut.
LOL! Well you can't get a sunroof in a Corolla for $18000 either, but both Corolla and Civic have step-up trims (or option packages in the case of the Corolla) if a sunroof is your thing. Doesn't get the fuel economy of a Corolla? 27/35 Corolla vs 25/36 for the Civic? I'm sorry, but in my book that's a wash, especially when the Civic has more power doing it.
And "However (Corolla) does have more safety features at the market price"?? All 3 have ABS and 6 airbags in this price range. In fact the $16000 Mazda3i has them, so you can save some money going with Mazda. What other safety features would you like to point out on the Corolla?
As for stability control, once it is mandated for all cars in a couple of years, I wonder what Toyota will tout then as the Corolla's big advantage over the Civic, eh? ;-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Doesn't get the fuel economy of a Corolla? 27/35 Corolla vs 25/36 for the Civic? I'm sorry, but in my book that's a wash, especially when the Civic has more power doing it.
I'm impressed that the Corolla got its EPA numbers up, considering it's still using a 4-speed automatic. I remember my uncle's '03 was rated at 30/38, although the new numbers they use dumb that down to 25/34. When the 2006 Civic came out, its automatic was rated at 30/40, which really impressed me. I guess 40 highway isn't really going to save you much compared to 38, but it just sounds more impressive.
But now if the Corolla's getting 27/35 and the Civic is 25/36, I'd say that really is a wash. IMO, they really improved the Corolla's interior for 2009, to the point that I don't see a distinction between its quality and that of the Civic. I'd probably still go with a Civic though, as it has a driving position that I find more comfortable.
As for stability control, once it is mandated for all cars in a couple of years, I wonder what Toyota will tout then as the Corolla's big advantage over the Civic, eh?
Agreed. In 2012 when stability control is mandated all vehicles will effectively be equal in terms of safety features, but.... the others have the unenviable situation of being between a rock and a hard place.
The Mazda3 is ~$300 less than a Corolla without SC/TC so Mazda can add it for 'free', maintain the $300 advantage, absorb the cost thereby lower its margin.
The Civic which is already $400 more expensive could also add it for free thus lower its margin in order not to get too expensive vis-a-vis the Corolla.
Nothing added comes without a price. Toyota has put the pressure on the others to conform or appear too expensive or take a hit on the bottom line. One figure that I heard recently but cannot verify is that profitable vehicle makers end up with a net income of about 5% per vehicle( not sure if this was after tax or not ). On an $18500 MSRP ( $16000 SP Mfg -->Dealer ) this means that a vehicle such as a Corolla, Civic or 3 would expect to make about $800 per unit. Adding $300 or $400 or $500 to the cost makes this segment very dicey. It's all about volume and holding down costs. Note that there are never any expensive TV adds for vehicles in this segment.
For the makers it's all about having a critical mass of satisfied buyers who come looking for that vehicle and pass on good reports by word-of-mouth. Essentially it's free advertising.
As to what will be touted 3 years from now? The new Prius being debuted next Jan may offer some hints. Then as raychuang00 noted there are the new technologies just over the horizon in ICE's and trannies already being launched in the JDM and even here ( 2.7L I4 + 6 spd in the Venza ).
"if you look at the affordability index [for car buying], it is the best it's been since 1979."
In 1979, I think my '79 5th Ave stickered for about $12,000. And that's just about fully-loaded, although I guess an upgraded sound system, sunroof, power passenger seat, and 4-bbl on the 360 would have really taken it to the top.
Adjusted for inflation, that's about $34K in 2007 dollars. I just spec'ed out a 2009 Chrysler 300 Hemi, only option being a sunroof, and got a TMV of $35,623. The 300C still gives you a lot more for the price, although I don't think the difference is as radical as the '57 Ford versus 2009 Taurus. Mainly because, IMO at least, luxury cars haven't "advanced" as far as mainstream cars have. That $12K in 1979 still got you power everything, leather, tilt wheel, a nice (for the time) sound system, a/c.
I think the problem nowadays is that people just don't have the disposable income they used to, so a car might "feel" like a bigger chunk of your paycheck than it would have been back in the day. But if you compare similar-level products, I still think that cars today are a better value. Heck, the 1978 Mark V Diamond Jubilee that one of my friends has had a sticker price of around $20,000 when it was new! That'd be like $65,000 nowadays! I think something like $6-7K of that was just for the "Diamond Jubilee" package, which was mostly fluff, but was in vogue at the time.
cmon guys, have you ever sat in a new dodge charger? anything you touch makes a skweaky noise. Toyota did get a little cheaper over the years, alot of plastic, but than look at bmw's and other makes, they are all going the same way. The only reason why overall toyota quality numbers went down is cuz they made that huge tundra, 5.7 with a 6 speed automatic. Many recalls. if you look at the JD Power list, toyota isnt exactly on time, infiniti rules that place for now.
Ford has come out with its Fusion hybrid and Milan hybrid....announced today.
They are squarely aimed at the TCH in price and performance. In fact they outdo the TCH in power and fuel economy. The Ford hybrid system is every bit as capable as the HSD. Now it's Toyota's turn to react. Whither thou goest?
OH, GM + Chrysler is all but done and reports ( unverified ) have Rick Wagoner on a plane to Japan to visit Toyota. It's a normal courtesy call that was scheduled months ago I'm sure. :surprise:
That is not correct. There were no recalls on the new Tundra with the 5.7L and 6 spd.
There was a huge number of recalls on the first Tundras and Sequoia. That's been well-documented for several years. THAT's why CR dropped the Tundra from its Recommended list.
Umm, the 5.7 was recalled for crankshafts, and some 5.7L trucks were among the ones recalled for the steering problem, no?
I wonder if the GM/Chrysler tie-up will have any impact on Toyota. I suppose it could put the market share war back in GM's hands for a little while, but I wouldn't be surprised if this merger is what sinks GM for good in the long run.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
But the greater question will be what effect will this economy have on Toyota? How long can any of the manufacturers hold on if sales fall for another two years? I believe the government will attempt to save GM but that will not help Toyota. Will the Japanese help Toyota? If we are honest we know if GM goes south then something like 70 billion in pensions at risk. Would the government allow that to fall in a hole with so many retired auto workers depending on it? (I don't have the answer.) But still if as reported in Business week Toyota reports a 40 percent short fall in projected profits how long before they need assistance as well? Notice I didn't say a 40 percent loss but a short fall to investors. I wonder how Nissan, and Subaru will do in this economy?
But whatever happens out outlook for Toyota must have changed since this forum first started.
Well Subaru sales are up for the year (pretty much the only automaker that can make that claim) and their sales mix hasn't changed, so I imagine they are swimming in profits and wondering what they did so right.
And Toyota is still in the black, which in a recession of this proportion is probably something to celebrate even if profits ARE down.
They have been making like $15 billion a year in profits for years on end now, so a couple of years of low-to-no profit won't hurt them much, I wouldn't think.
Indeed, word late in the day today was that Rick Wagoner is on his way to Japan to make arrangements for Toyota to loan GM money and right their business. Toyota probably has billions in the bank after so many good years - they must have money to burn if they are considering investing anything at all in GM in its current state.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
There were less than 50 units involved in a the camshaft problem which was caught during or just after production. There was no 'recall'.
The steering recall involved only the old Tundra and the old Sequoia. 500,000+ units
Yes I don't think that the merger of the two will serve a great benefit to GM. It will do all the work, incur all the wrath of the public and the dealerships and the localities as it closes Chrysler....and Toyota, Ford and Honda will be hanging around under the basket to pick up the loose balls for easy scores.
The big issue for the Japanese makers IMO is the yen/$ rate. At 100 JY / $ there is little or no incentive to import vehicles from there to here. Toyota and Honda seem prescient in increasing their NA manufacturing operations over the last two years.
It's one of the reasons that they don't take body blows and crumple. They are being hit like all the rest but when things do rebound all the key products for both makers will be made here protected from the ebb and flow of the currencies.
True, but if this downturn continues and spreads as it seems to have consumers everywhere will be holding on to their wallets. Just about every country is looking at helping out their banking institutions and business is suffering. We shall see. Reading Automotive review we see that car registrations in Japan were down 11 percent in September. Even in Europe Chosn laid off 6000 renault employees. It might be too soon to panic but from what I have been reading if it were not for China the automotive outlook would be as bad as our housing market. It is clear Toyota has the money now to hold on but reporting a 40 percent short fall to predicted profits can't be easy for the stock holders. And if a crack in the dam develops Toyota is no longer as quick to respond to market demands as it once was. Honda is still pretty nimble but the Scion line has shown how conservitive Toyota has become. The "youth" division hasn't kept or delivered on its promises.
I think it is too soon to call for a Hurst for anyone but Toyota's biggest advantage is not being saddled with retirement pensions and it is unlikely they ever will be. But history teaches us that a recession in the US effects the whole world. If we continue our economic down slide can Japan be far behind? We know Europe is having troubles of their own. Still for 2008 Toyota is doing just fine but they will have to change gears if this recession last till 2010 or longer because we know deep inside our Politicians will come to GM rescue as they did will wall street. Will Japan do the same if Toyota is left out in the cold?
I think it is too soon to call for a Hurst for anyone
Perfect typo - that's a performance hearse, right? We know where your mind is these days. You're probably gonna die with your shifter boots on too, lol.
Don't know about Toyotas, but Scions are moving good here still. One dealer even pre-sells most of them and wants an non-refundable deposit to hold one coming in transit.
You know how it is? Once a wrench head always one.
This was reported by left lane in March and hasn't improved since.
"Last year saw the brand’s total sales fall by nearly a quarter – 24.8 percent – and the significant loss is blamed partially for lengthy model introductions of the redesigned xB model and new xD. January 2006 saw sales of 10,701 vehicles, while the same month in 2007 saw only 7,782 cars roll off lots, and that’s with 60 more dealers selling them, according to Automotive News."
The failure I was referring to was the target market and not adjusting for the changing economy. Scion has become just another Toyota and you will likely see as many retired people in one as "youthful" drivers. It is not just the auto press talking about it but blogs and reviews like Cnet. They simply did not live up to the promise of new and exciting as quickly as promised and they are paying for it. Time will tell how much they pay.
We're pushing retirement and we're shopping Scions. The xB is much tamer looking these days and lots of boomers have figured out that they want iPod/AUX and Bluetooth connections in their cars as much as Generation Text.
There's a NY Times story today about how tech is differentiating cars and how the automakers are struggling to keep up. A couple of CarSpace members are quoted. Fully Loaded
An interesting side light here about the Scions. One of the early boosts for the line was that it was different, odd, unique, individualistic. This appealed to youthful buyers.
However the young are fickle. They change vehicles, clothing styles, careers, partners, living accomodations on a whim. Two to three years ( the length of a lease ) is about right. What this demands of an auto company is to be new and fresh all the time....like every 6 months! Otherwise you're yesterday's news.
For an automotive company this is next to impossible where 4-8 yr cycles is the norm.
Last week Toyota adjusted their profit and sales projection. they are looking to sell 8.5 million vehicles (I believe that is correct) and projecting a profit of $10-$12 billion dollars.
There you go! I knew someone would have the exact numbers (although I believe the downward-revised global sales projection is 8.1 million vehicles, right?). GM is down so much this year that Toyota's title as #1 in global sales is all but assured for 2008. And Toyota makes more money than any other Japanese car company in good times and bad. A pattern like that can make an automaker complacent. Don't get too complacent Toyota! Oh yeah, and don't lend money to GM! If you have to buy GM assets, make sure they are worth the value they are advertised at, and that you can genuinely use them!
But it is true that Scion is not what it was promised to be. Knowing Toyota I would suspect that as long as sales meet targets they will continue the brand even though it does not serve the purpose it was intended to serve.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
If Toyota is really planning on bringing the IQ over here, they should badge it as a Scion IMO. Also, a quirky, spacious yet affordable sedan in the mix wouldn't hurt either. Plus, with that partnership with Subie on the RWD/AWD coupe could spin off a pretty cool tC replacement.
Scion is a pretty hot seller in my region, the kids gobble up tC's like there's no tomorrow here, and a lot of business owners have been using the last generation xB's for transport so I think in the big picture, Scion is still doing pretty well..
Is that the IQ could overlap the Yaris, and so much so that it actually becomes the next gen Yaris. Smart thing to do IMO is to phase out the Yaris all together since Scion is sold at Toyota dealerships already. Move the Yaris sedan over to Scion while your at it.
Either one or the other IMO. Don't want to be selling the same exact car under multiple badges and causing in-fighting. This isn't GM after all :P
Umm, do you realize how small iQ is?? No way is THAT going to be overlapping Yaris, and Toyota should always have a Toyota-branded car smaller than Corolla. I like the idea of the iQ and the new rwd coupe under development with Subaru as two new Scions though.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
We hit two Scion dealers a week or so ago to look at the xD. The first dealer didn't have any in stock and told up that they could hold one for us for a non-refundable deposit. I choked back my snorts of laughter. :shades:
The other dealer had several in stock, including a manual.
Take a Vacation to San Diego. The Toyota dealers here have a lot of xD Scions available. Toyota of Escondido lists 818 vehicles in stock of every kind. They have 17 Prius for those that think they are in short supply.
Next time I am in your town I'll contact you and you can buy a light lunch, at Anthony's? I was there last month but I didn't realize you lived there. I think you live in the best large city in Southern California.
To be honest I never thought the online ordering thing would work long term for Scion.
The point is Scion sales have slipped and no one knows if it will recover. even Toyota admits there is a problem. One of the few Magazines I still read, Autoweek said;
"In the past, Scion routinely notched 15,000 to 20,000 sales per month. But January sales were 7,782 units. In January 2006, Scion sold 10,701 vehicles with about 60 fewer dealers than it has now. The average sales per outlet during that period dropped from 11.9 to 8.1."
This is not someone just looking in a parking lot it is real numbers. In the same article the President of Toyota motors USA said;
"But Jim Lentz, president of Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., concedes that Scion mishandled last year's model changeover. "We underestimated the loss of momentum from the dark period for those two vehicles," said Lentz, who once ran the Scion brand. "The way Scion is marketed, it takes longer to get traction."
Even for a corporate spin it doesn't sound like all is well in Scion land. But then what does the president of Toyota USA know? They are selling well in someone's neighborhood so all must be well.
Gagrice isn't right in town or I would have tried to hook up with him at the Hob Nob Hill. Unfortunately, none of my wife's relatives have lived there for more than a decade, and she grew up there. No one to freeload on anymore. :P
I may have to print out your post and leave a copy on the sales desk at the one dealer.
The Toy/Scion sales guy was good though. He found out where my wife worked and asked her if she knew so-and-so (let's call her Jane). My wife said no (she's new there), but then met Jane yesterday morning and asked her about buying a car from this guy. Jane was amazed that the sales guy remembered her name since it had been two years since she had purchased a Camry from him and hadn't seen him since.
The iQ is the same size as a Smart car, although Toyota managed to fit a third seat, strictly for children, in there. In fact, the size similarity had some speculating that it was no coincidence Toyota called it iQ (Smart, iQ, get it?! ;-))
And I know you have nothing but disdain for the Smart car (non-diesel) gagrice, but it is apparently selling as well (and then some) as they hoped when they introduced it here.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Next time I am in your town I'll contact you and you can buy a light lunch, at Anthony's?
I am just 30 miles due East of Anthony's on Harbor Dr. I live at the 2000 foot level of Alpine with a view of Coronado and Pt Loma on a clear day. I love it up here away from the maddening crowd. What part of the desert do you live? We go out to see the flowers and get Medjool dates.
I think Scion made a mistake doing away with the BOX look of the xB. We actually went and sat in one and liked it. The dealer thought it was worth over $20k and we left. They seem to hold their value used at least the last time I looked on Craigslist for one.
I think Scion made a mistake doing away with the BOX look of the xB. We actually went and sat in one and liked it. The dealer thought it was worth over $20k and we left.
Point taken. I have always hated the Box but that was the intention wasn't it? The little toaster on wheels was anti car and the kids loved it. But it isn't cool anymore and now everyone just sees it as a Toyota. In fact some of the people I talk to that have one call it a little Toyota. But it cost too much for the "youth" entry market and it doesn't get the hyper fuel mileage many other toyota's do. Not bad fuel mileage but not top of the class. But Toyota has made mistakes in the past haven't they, Echo and the MR-2? Good concept bad execution? Dropped for lack of sales.
I have been to Alpine, played at the HAG festival two years ago, or was it three? Anyway our percussion group played there and it was the first time I visited Alpine. I have moved from the Crestline-Lake Arrowhead area to the Hemet area, Just below Diamond Lake. Cheeper to retire and flatter for cycling.
But Toyota has made mistakes in the past haven't they, Echo and the MR-2?
Are you kidding? One of those two (not the one I drive, of course ;-)) has a cult following as fiercely loyal as that of any model out there!
They made a BIG mistake Toyota-izing the Scion line with the redone xB and xD, and sales are bearing that out. But at least both still sell, so they weren't a flop, they just didn't accomplish their intended mission.
And since the new Yaris is less fuel-efficient than the Echo, the Echo is STILL the 4-seater with the highest fuel economy among gas-only cars sold since Honda quit with the Civic HX 3 years ago. And the most fuel-efficient gas-only 4-door sold in probably close to 20 years. Certainly the Sprint/Swift/Metro was rated lower by the EPA, and that's the only contender I can think of except the Civic HX and VX 2-doors.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Certainly the Sprint/Swift/Metro was rated lower by the EPA, and that's the only contender I can think of except the Civic HX and VX 2-doors.
With the Sprint/Swift/Metro, if you got a 4-door model, wasn't the 4-cyl standard? I think the 3-cyl was only offered on the 2-door hatchback, but I could be mistaken. Anyway, the 4-cyl, was rated at 39/43 with the 5-speed. I think the Echo was 35/43, so the Sprint wasn't that much better, especially when you consider the Echo feels like a much more substantial car.
Are you kidding? One of those two (not the one I drive, of course ) has a cult following as fiercely loyal as that of any model out there!
When I go to classic car shows someone always shows up with a Edsel. Loyal doesn't make it a success. :P If it was a success it would still be with us wouldn't it?
When Toyota says Scion has sales problems and most of the Auto mags comment on those problems are we simply being loyal rowing down the river denial? Toyota reports more dealers and fewer sales and still everything is fine?
All I am saying is that Scion is not selling to kids anymore. Average is 42 I believe. Scion is not the economy king for first time drivers either getting a new car or driving one. There is more compitition in the class now. Sales are off and Toyota themselves have expressed concerns over their sales falling. I just happened to mention it.
Oh, but I was referring to the MR2, boaz. I know Scion hasn't worked out and sales are way down this year at Toyota Inc USA.
The thing about Scion is that it got off to a good start. If they got off their duffs and did something about it right now, it could be hot again tomorrow. But Toyota is too conservative to do that. The whole problem with Scion in the first place was its philosophy ran counter to everything that Toyota is these days. It was the pet project of a few key people, and now that they work elsewhere (Chrysler, Ford) there is no-one to carry it forward as it was intended to be.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Comments
I agree. Honda is also cheapening up their interiors on new models. Carpet is extremely thin, lots of hard plastic, etc. All makers are doing this to keep costs down.
Yes this is the next step in the progress of the discussion. 'What about the competition?'
All vehicle makers have the same decisions to make, the same production and supply questions, the same market headwinds into which it must sell. In fact each of them has to 'cut corners' if you will.
The Mazda 3 is gorgeous and more powerful, but it's not at fuel efficient as the Corolla, nor does it have all the same safety features, nor does it sell in anywhere near the quantities of the Corolla, it's intended for a different type of buyer. Corners cut.
The Civic does have nicer interior feel and it too is more powerful, but you can't buy any LX model with Stability Control and Traction Control, nor can you get a sunroof if you wished and it doesn't get the fuel economy of a Corolla. Corners cut.
The Corolla doesn't have the power of the other two and the interior is more basic. Corners cut. However it does have more safety features at the market price and it will cost less to own over its lifetime than the other two.
Prices: ( per Edmunds herein )
Mazda3 ...... $18145 ( all inclusive price )
Civic LX....... $18825 ( all inclusive price )
Corolla LE... $18450 ( VS, KE, CL, CF )
On the Intrepid 2.7, I think the water pump is buried pretty far into the engine, and not just a bolt-on job like back in the good old days. So on my 142K, 9 year old Intrepid, it might not be worth fixing. At least with my uncle's Corolla, the water pump was relatively easy to get to.
As for the catalytic converter, when they go bad, won't they sometimes affect fuel economy, and put a strain on the engine?
Try that analysis going back to 1964. I paid $2400 for a new Land Cruiser. Using 2% a year that vehicle should be only $4512 today. Vehicles have gone up more over the last 50 years than any other consumer product. My family paid $800 in 1948 for a 9 inch TV. Look what you get today for $800. No vehicles are a total rip off by any calculation. Nothing else is close except maybe healthcare.
My grandparents bought a brand-new, top-of-the line Ford Fairlane 500 4-door hardtop in 1957. Paid about $3500 for it. Adjusted for inflation (using a calculator, and not 2% annually), that would come out to about $25,500 in 2007 dollars (most recent year available). And if you want to be conservative, and throw on another 2% to adjust to 2008, that gets you to $26K. That Ford had an automatic transmission, power steering, power brakes, and AM radio with one speaker, a heater, whitewall tires, and the biggest V-8 (a 312 I think). Possibly 2-tone paint and some extra chrome trim, as well. Air conditioning? Nope. That was about a $500 option in those days, so needless to say it was rare unless you bought a Caddy, Lincoln, or maybe a Buick or Chrysler. Crank windows, manual locks, a bench seat with manual fore/aft. No tilt on the steering wheel. And the automatic transmission was most likely only a 3-speed, at best. The only air bag would be if you gave your mother in law a ride (oh wait, that's "wind bag" :P )
As expensive as cars may seem nowadays, I'd say they're one thing that's a relative bargain. For comparison, I just spec'ed out a 2009 Ford Taurus. Limited, AWD. Added on Nav, power moonroof, rear window sunshade, and even a wood trim package, and Edmund's gave me a TMV of $30,324.
So that's a difference of about $4300, adjusted for inflation, over roughly 50 years. But consider that extra $4300 gives you you power windows, doors locks, seat, tilt wheel, leather, a nice sound system, sunroof, nav, alloy wheels, etc, plus safety advances like ABS, air bags, crumple zones, side impact protection, etc, plus technological advances such as AWD and, fuel injection, a transmission with at least three extra forward gears, and a body that won't rust out in two-three years, I'd say that $4300 is money well-spent. Forgo some of those luxuries, and get a base SE model, and Edmund's gives it a TMV of $22,150, about $4K LESS than that '57 Ford, adjusted for inflation, but overall, still better-equipped.
Now granted, you could get a stripper 1957 Ford for about $2,000 (~$15K today) new, but you wouldn't want it. :P 6-cyl engine, 3-on-the-tree that would get you from 0-60 in about 16 seconds, no radio, no power steering or power brakes, undersized (even by 50's standards) tires. No heater. Possibly no windshield washer. Might not even have backup lights!
**Edit...also, $2400 in 1964, with 2% compounded annually, is actually $5736 in 2008 dollars. I think you forgot the compounding part.
You are correct. I just tossed an 88% increase over the 1964 price. You are also right that you get a lot of comfort doodads for the extra. But you give up heavy sheet metal and lower cost of repair. Compared to other consumer goods I don't see the automobile as being a bargain. Plus I would take my old Land Cruiser over what Toyota tried to pawn off as a retro, the FJ Cruiser. At least Ford came out with a great looking retro Mustang and sales proves it.
LOL! Well you can't get a sunroof in a Corolla for $18000 either, but both Corolla and Civic have step-up trims (or option packages in the case of the Corolla) if a sunroof is your thing. Doesn't get the fuel economy of a Corolla? 27/35 Corolla vs 25/36 for the Civic? I'm sorry, but in my book that's a wash, especially when the Civic has more power doing it.
And "However (Corolla) does have more safety features at the market price"?? All 3 have ABS and 6 airbags in this price range. In fact the $16000 Mazda3i has them, so you can save some money going with Mazda. What other safety features would you like to point out on the Corolla?
As for stability control, once it is mandated for all cars in a couple of years, I wonder what Toyota will tout then as the Corolla's big advantage over the Civic, eh? ;-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
This just in:
"if you look at the affordability index [for car buying], it is the best it's been since 1979."
As the Economy Dips, Is This a Good Time To Buy a Car?
I'm impressed that the Corolla got its EPA numbers up, considering it's still using a 4-speed automatic. I remember my uncle's '03 was rated at 30/38, although the new numbers they use dumb that down to 25/34. When the 2006 Civic came out, its automatic was rated at 30/40, which really impressed me. I guess 40 highway isn't really going to save you much compared to 38, but it just sounds more impressive.
But now if the Corolla's getting 27/35 and the Civic is 25/36, I'd say that really is a wash. IMO, they really improved the Corolla's interior for 2009, to the point that I don't see a distinction between its quality and that of the Civic. I'd probably still go with a Civic though, as it has a driving position that I find more comfortable.
Agreed. In 2012 when stability control is mandated all vehicles will effectively be equal in terms of safety features, but.... the others have the unenviable situation of being between a rock and a hard place.
The Mazda3 is ~$300 less than a Corolla without SC/TC so Mazda can add it for 'free', maintain the $300 advantage, absorb the cost thereby lower its margin.
The Civic which is already $400 more expensive could also add it for free thus lower its margin in order not to get too expensive vis-a-vis the Corolla.
Nothing added comes without a price. Toyota has put the pressure on the others to conform or appear too expensive or take a hit on the bottom line. One figure that I heard recently but cannot verify is that profitable vehicle makers end up with a net income of about 5% per vehicle( not sure if this was after tax or not ). On an $18500 MSRP ( $16000 SP Mfg -->Dealer ) this means that a vehicle such as a Corolla, Civic or 3 would expect to make about $800 per unit. Adding $300 or $400 or $500 to the cost makes this segment very dicey. It's all about volume and holding down costs. Note that there are never any expensive TV adds for vehicles in this segment.
For the makers it's all about having a critical mass of satisfied buyers who come looking for that vehicle and pass on good reports by word-of-mouth. Essentially it's free advertising.
As to what will be touted 3 years from now? The new Prius being debuted next Jan may offer some hints. Then as raychuang00 noted there are the new technologies just over the horizon in ICE's and trannies already being launched in the JDM and even here ( 2.7L I4 + 6 spd in the Venza ).
In 1979, I think my '79 5th Ave stickered for about $12,000. And that's just about fully-loaded, although I guess an upgraded sound system, sunroof, power passenger seat, and 4-bbl on the 360 would have really taken it to the top.
Adjusted for inflation, that's about $34K in 2007 dollars. I just spec'ed out a 2009 Chrysler 300 Hemi, only option being a sunroof, and got a TMV of $35,623. The 300C still gives you a lot more for the price, although I don't think the difference is as radical as the '57 Ford versus 2009 Taurus. Mainly because, IMO at least, luxury cars haven't "advanced" as far as mainstream cars have. That $12K in 1979 still got you power everything, leather, tilt wheel, a nice (for the time) sound system, a/c.
I think the problem nowadays is that people just don't have the disposable income they used to, so a car might "feel" like a bigger chunk of your paycheck than it would have been back in the day. But if you compare similar-level products, I still think that cars today are a better value. Heck, the 1978 Mark V Diamond Jubilee that one of my friends has had a sticker price of around $20,000 when it was new! That'd be like $65,000 nowadays! I think something like $6-7K of that was just for the "Diamond Jubilee" package, which was mostly fluff, but was in vogue at the time.
They are squarely aimed at the TCH in price and performance. In fact they outdo the TCH in power and fuel economy. The Ford hybrid system is every bit as capable as the HSD. Now it's Toyota's turn to react. Whither thou goest?
OH, GM + Chrysler is all but done and reports ( unverified ) have Rick Wagoner on a plane to Japan to visit Toyota. It's a normal courtesy call that was scheduled months ago I'm sure. :surprise:
There was a huge number of recalls on the first Tundras and Sequoia. That's been well-documented for several years. THAT's why CR dropped the Tundra from its Recommended list.
I wonder if the GM/Chrysler tie-up will have any impact on Toyota. I suppose it could put the market share war back in GM's hands for a little while, but I wouldn't be surprised if this merger is what sinks GM for good in the long run.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
But whatever happens out outlook for Toyota must have changed since this forum first started.
And Toyota is still in the black, which in a recession of this proportion is probably something to celebrate even if profits ARE down.
They have been making like $15 billion a year in profits for years on end now, so a couple of years of low-to-no profit won't hurt them much, I wouldn't think.
Indeed, word late in the day today was that Rick Wagoner is on his way to Japan to make arrangements for Toyota to loan GM money and right their business. Toyota probably has billions in the bank after so many good years - they must have money to burn if they are considering investing anything at all in GM in its current state.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The steering recall involved only the old Tundra and the old Sequoia. 500,000+ units
Yes I don't think that the merger of the two will serve a great benefit to GM. It will do all the work, incur all the wrath of the public and the dealerships and the localities as it closes Chrysler....and Toyota, Ford and Honda will be hanging around under the basket to pick up the loose balls for easy scores.
It's one of the reasons that they don't take body blows and crumple. They are being hit like all the rest but when things do rebound all the key products for both makers will be made here protected from the ebb and flow of the currencies.
I think it is too soon to call for a Hurst for anyone but Toyota's biggest advantage is not being saddled with retirement pensions and it is unlikely they ever will be. But history teaches us that a recession in the US effects the whole world. If we continue our economic down slide can Japan be far behind? We know Europe is having troubles of their own. Still for 2008 Toyota is doing just fine but they will have to change gears if this recession last till 2010 or longer because we know deep inside our Politicians will come to GM rescue as they did will wall street. Will Japan do the same if Toyota is left out in the cold?
Perfect typo - that's a performance hearse, right? We know where your mind is these days.
Don't know about Toyotas, but Scions are moving good here still. One dealer even pre-sells most of them and wants an non-refundable deposit to hold one coming in transit.
This was reported by left lane in March and hasn't improved since.
"Last year saw the brand’s total sales fall by nearly a quarter – 24.8 percent – and the significant loss is blamed partially for lengthy model introductions of the redesigned xB model and new xD. January 2006 saw sales of 10,701 vehicles, while the same month in 2007 saw only 7,782 cars roll off lots, and that’s with 60 more dealers selling them, according to Automotive News."
The failure I was referring to was the target market and not adjusting for the changing economy. Scion has become just another Toyota and you will likely see as many retired people in one as "youthful" drivers. It is not just the auto press talking about it but blogs and reviews like Cnet. They simply did not live up to the promise of new and exciting as quickly as promised and they are paying for it. Time will tell how much they pay.
There's a NY Times story today about how tech is differentiating cars and how the automakers are struggling to keep up. A couple of CarSpace members are quoted. Fully Loaded
However the young are fickle. They change vehicles, clothing styles, careers, partners, living accomodations on a whim. Two to three years ( the length of a lease ) is about right. What this demands of an auto company is to be new and fresh all the time....like every 6 months! Otherwise you're yesterday's news.
For an automotive company this is next to impossible where 4-8 yr cycles is the norm.
Toyota is fine.
But it is true that Scion is not what it was promised to be. Knowing Toyota I would suspect that as long as sales meet targets they will continue the brand even though it does not serve the purpose it was intended to serve.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Scion is a pretty hot seller in my region, the kids gobble up tC's like there's no tomorrow here, and a lot of business owners have been using the last generation xB's for transport so I think in the big picture, Scion is still doing pretty well..
Either one or the other IMO. Don't want to be selling the same exact car under multiple badges and causing in-fighting. This isn't GM after all :P
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
If it is smaller than a Yaris who would want it? Or were you referring to Obama's IQ?
I don't know, I posted the numbers and sales have been off for a long time.
The other dealer had several in stock, including a manual.
To be honest I never thought the online ordering thing would work long term for Scion.
The point is Scion sales have slipped and no one knows if it will recover. even Toyota admits there is a problem. One of the few Magazines I still read, Autoweek said;
"In the past, Scion routinely notched 15,000 to 20,000 sales per month. But January sales were 7,782 units. In January 2006, Scion sold 10,701 vehicles with about 60 fewer dealers than it has now. The average sales per outlet during that period dropped from 11.9 to 8.1."
This is not someone just looking in a parking lot it is real numbers. In the same article the President of Toyota motors USA said;
"But Jim Lentz, president of Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., concedes that Scion mishandled last year's model changeover. "We underestimated the loss of momentum from the dark period for those two vehicles," said Lentz, who once ran the Scion brand. "The way Scion is marketed, it takes longer to get traction."
Even for a corporate spin it doesn't sound like all is well in Scion land. But then what does the president of Toyota USA know? They are selling well in someone's neighborhood so all must be well.
I may have to print out your post and leave a copy on the sales desk at the one dealer.
The Toy/Scion sales guy was good though. He found out where my wife worked and asked her if she knew so-and-so (let's call her Jane). My wife said no (she's new there), but then met Jane yesterday morning and asked her about buying a car from this guy. Jane was amazed that the sales guy remembered her name since it had been two years since she had purchased a Camry from him and hadn't seen him since.
Of course he got my name wrong, lol.
The iQ is the same size as a Smart car, although Toyota managed to fit a third seat, strictly for children, in there. In fact, the size similarity had some speculating that it was no coincidence Toyota called it iQ (Smart, iQ, get it?! ;-))
And I know you have nothing but disdain for the Smart car (non-diesel) gagrice, but it is apparently selling as well (and then some) as they hoped when they introduced it here.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I am just 30 miles due East of Anthony's on Harbor Dr. I live at the 2000 foot level of Alpine with a view of Coronado and Pt Loma on a clear day. I love it up here away from the maddening crowd. What part of the desert do you live? We go out to see the flowers and get Medjool dates.
I think Scion made a mistake doing away with the BOX look of the xB. We actually went and sat in one and liked it. The dealer thought it was worth over $20k and we left. They seem to hold their value used at least the last time I looked on Craigslist for one.
Point taken. I have always hated the Box but that was the intention wasn't it? The little toaster on wheels was anti car and the kids loved it. But it isn't cool anymore and now everyone just sees it as a Toyota. In fact some of the people I talk to that have one call it a little Toyota. But it cost too much for the "youth" entry market and it doesn't get the hyper fuel mileage many other toyota's do. Not bad fuel mileage but not top of the class. But Toyota has made mistakes in the past haven't they, Echo and the MR-2? Good concept bad execution? Dropped for lack of sales.
I have been to Alpine, played at the HAG festival two years ago, or was it three? Anyway our percussion group played there and it was the first time I visited Alpine. I have moved from the Crestline-Lake Arrowhead area to the Hemet area, Just below Diamond Lake. Cheeper to retire and flatter for cycling.
Are you kidding? One of those two (not the one I drive, of course ;-)) has a cult following as fiercely loyal as that of any model out there!
They made a BIG mistake Toyota-izing the Scion line with the redone xB and xD, and sales are bearing that out. But at least both still sell, so they weren't a flop, they just didn't accomplish their intended mission.
And since the new Yaris is less fuel-efficient than the Echo, the Echo is STILL the 4-seater with the highest fuel economy among gas-only cars sold since Honda quit with the Civic HX 3 years ago. And the most fuel-efficient gas-only 4-door sold in probably close to 20 years. Certainly the Sprint/Swift/Metro was rated lower by the EPA, and that's the only contender I can think of except the Civic HX and VX 2-doors.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
With the Sprint/Swift/Metro, if you got a 4-door model, wasn't the 4-cyl standard? I think the 3-cyl was only offered on the 2-door hatchback, but I could be mistaken. Anyway, the 4-cyl, was rated at 39/43 with the 5-speed. I think the Echo was 35/43, so the Sprint wasn't that much better, especially when you consider the Echo feels like a much more substantial car.
The Metro 3-cylinder (available only in the base 2-door, you are correct) was rated at 32/41, with a rather pathetic 55 hp.
Here's the 2000, pulled up at random from Edmunds:
http://www.edmunds.com/used/2000/chevrolet/metro/12439/specs.html
The same year, the Echo with 108 hp was rated at 34/41.
Oh, and the Metro 4-cylinder that was standard in the 4-door model made a most uninspiring 79 hp and an even more uninspiring 31/38 for fuel economy.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
When I go to classic car shows someone always shows up with a Edsel. Loyal doesn't make it a success. :P If it was a success it would still be with us wouldn't it?
When Toyota says Scion has sales problems and most of the Auto mags comment on those problems are we simply being loyal rowing down the river denial? Toyota reports more dealers and fewer sales and still everything is fine?
All I am saying is that Scion is not selling to kids anymore. Average is 42 I believe. Scion is not the economy king for first time drivers either getting a new car or driving one. There is more compitition in the class now. Sales are off and Toyota themselves have expressed concerns over their sales falling. I just happened to mention it.
The thing about Scion is that it got off to a good start. If they got off their duffs and did something about it right now, it could be hot again tomorrow. But Toyota is too conservative to do that. The whole problem with Scion in the first place was its philosophy ran counter to everything that Toyota is these days. It was the pet project of a few key people, and now that they work elsewhere (Chrysler, Ford) there is no-one to carry it forward as it was intended to be.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)