This point is misleading. American Toyota workers replace American Ford/GM workers at a dispropotionate rate. Buying a Toyota in no way supports the USA wether it was assembled here or not....the money goes to Japan.
This admittedly is true. The business model of the Detroit3 is designed to make do with inefficiencies. They have been fighting this battel for 30+ years. As long as they have to pay workers NOT to work they are not operating in the most efficient manner.
While the truck and SUV segment was controlled by the 3 then they could absorb significant inefficiencies and still make even more significant profits. When pressure, from outside forces, made these segments vulnerable then the Detroit3 could no longer afford to carry the extra workers.
The fact that they moved large segments of their business to Mexico, Europe and Asia shows that the Detroit3 knows very well what they need to do.
Just a quick logic test, over the past 50 years how many trucks of any make have bounced from one pad to the next and ended up breaking in half? ( Until 2004 no trucks from any maker had a fully boxed frame unless GM/F/D were hiding signficant failures it doesn't seem like any were reported ).
As to why there are an over-abundance of Reg Cabs, initial production at a new plant. Baby steps. The plant is brand new and the vehicle has been on sale for 6 weeks total.
We'll revisit this in 4th Qtr. 20 years from now everything will look different.
Dodge was boxed in 03. Ford in 04. Chevy / GMC in 07. The Titan is also boxed. Yes, I am aware the front of the frame is boxed. Why not spend the extra couple of bucks and do the whole thing right? It is put together with cheapo rivets, by the way.
The underachieving crash test results are indeed significant. It is a result of the overall weakness of the design.
The point is this: If you're going to come to the truck party 3 years late and charge more than the other guys, at least bring something new to the table. This truck is sub-standard by any measurement. I will concede there are people that will buy it because it's a Toyota.... Continued sales of the Solara prove that. I will also concede it is an improvement over the last model. That step side has to be the ugliest truck ever. You will not knock off the big boys with this one. The Titan got Titaniced, and it was a better truck than this. Good luck.
who can tell me if it is true that old car use more fuel? and can you give me a detailed explaination? i want to know some about it thank you very much
The point is this: If you're going to come to the truck party 3 years late and charge more than the other guys, at least bring something new to the table. This truck is sub-standard by any measurement. I will concede there are people that will buy it because it's a Toyota.... Continued sales of the Solara prove that. I will also concede it is an improvement over the last model. That step side has to be the ugliest truck ever. You will not knock off the big boys with this one. The Titan got Titaniced, and it was a better truck than this. Good luck.
Toyota never got anything through luck.
They have the strongest engine, the most towing, the biggest crew cabs, the biggest brakes, and can do everything faster than your (name any truck here)!
Other than that they have come to the dance buck naked.
FBF is somewhat over-rated, since, as Spyfer said, domestics have been using C-channel for decades. Toyota has built many FBF trucks before, so I'm sure they did cost/benefit analysis.
Since the full-sizes are just now going FBF, are we questioning their long-term ability? I didn't think so. :surprise:
Look at it this way. If Toyota offered FBF, maybe it's towing lead would only grow, and the mountain the domestics would have to climb would only grow from here.
Did a FBF help Titan? Oh......uh......
Titan failed because:
A. Brand is weak, especially in trucks. Frontier is no big seller. B. No V6 offered to build the brand. Hard to start at $25k for a rookie. C. Got lost in Nissan's product offensive. Nissan offered Xterra, Murano, Quest, Titan, Armada, all around the same time. They flooded their own market! D. 3 years after getting bought by the French, they're ready to take on the domestics toughest market? I don't think so.
People are also trying to paint Toyota into a corner where they have to sell 200k this year, or the truck is a failure. That's a gull-a-bull!
They are giving away the first quarter of the year! 175k this year is a strong start, and passing 200k next year will net an HD model down the road, probably with the next redesign.
I see everyone, BUT Toyota sweatin' at this point.
I will have to assume you are not familiar with construction sites. When they build a subdivision in CA it can be 40,000 homes or more. They are many times built on a slope. They terrace them and if you are involved in the building you may need to go from one to the other. When you are driving someone else's truck it is easy to beat it to death. It is tough on trucks. Time will tell if the Tundra can hold up. From one of your other posts it sounds like the demand is not for work trucks but family haulers. So Toyota may sidestep the problems of real truck usage.
Oh, by the way I do not believe for a minute they built regular cabs to try out the new plant. Toyota miscalculated the market plain and simple. They must have sent them all back East. I have not seen one on the road here yet.
Two points. Toyota painted their own self into a corner bragging last year they were going to double the sales of the Tundra in 2007, to 250k units. If safety is so all fired important to Toyota why did they settle for a truck that was not up to the standard bearer? That would be the new Chevy & GMC full size PU trucks. They have 5 stars for driver and passenger. According to the EPA the new Tundra with SABs could only muster 4 stars for the driver and passenger. I guess it is back to the old drawing board for the folks at Toyota. You are probably right that Toyota is not sweating. It will take another class action lawsuit to get them to make what ever is wrong right.
GMC Sierra has 6 truck configurations tested. 3 configurations, 3 stars both driver and passenger and the other 3 at 5. I'd say the combined average of GMC Sierra is 4 stars, which...wait for it...is what Toyota Tundra gets across the board.
The Chevy Silverado has 6 configurations. 3 cars at 5 across the board, the other 3 has 4 for the driver, and 3 for the passenger. This averages out to 4.5 for the driver and 4 for the passenger. Just how far behind is Toyota again?
Personally, I believe there's 2 ways for a car to average out to be normal. One is for a majority of cars in a model line to be good, not exceptional, just good. The other way to average out to normalcy is to have half the cars be exceptional, and the other half be problem-ridden.
Personally, I believe the problem here lies in brand perception. I'll leave you to guess as to which type of "normal" people believe Toyota to be, and which people believe GMC/Chevy to be.
Dodge was boxed in 03. Ford in 04. Chevy / GMC in 07. The Titan is also boxed. Yes, I am aware the front of the frame is boxed. Why not spend the extra couple of bucks and do the whole thing right? It is put together with cheapo rivets, by the way.
The underachieving crash test results are indeed significant. It is a result of the overall weakness of the design.
The reason the whole frame is not boxed is that it does nothing but add weight. There is no measurable effect. None. Zero. So what good is it. Dead weight in the truck reducing the payload at best.
Your second statement is just false. It's a knee-jerk reaction of the uninformed. Why did the Tundra get 4 iso 5? What specific reason can you point out quantitatively? This is just an engineering test so everything can be reduced to numbers and data.
Again your math needs some work ( para 3 ). A little more time doing homework instead of hanging out will help.
This is never intended to knock off the big boys in terms of volume. It's only intended to do the following... sell about 150K-175K units this year with a mix of 10-15% RC 65-70% DC 20-25% CM All at a profit.. nothing more.
Then next year sell 200K-250K units with the same mix. It's that simple. Just make a profit.
You compared a base model work truck Silverado to an SR5 Tundra. Why not compare a 5 spd manual ColoCanyon to it? Did you even try to equate the equipment or was that too much work? Note from my post that I stated ( with equal equipment )
Did you ever attend school past 7th grade?
OK here's a hint: The emphasis is on the Big V8's which should be about 70% of total volume in all cab sizes.
To make it clearer........
If the price of the V6 Reg Cab is $5000 higher than the rest it's intentional. It sends a message to the buying public 'Why not buy a V8?'. If the 5.7L is only $1300 higher than the 4.7 and gets better fuel economy and comes with the state of the art 6 speed tranny it also sends a message 'Why not get the bigger V8?'
Oh, by the way I do not believe for a minute they built regular cabs to try out the new plant. Toyota miscalculated the market plain and simple. They must have sent them all back East. I have not seen one on the road here yet.
What I meant by the prior post was that when they began ramping up the TX plant they started with Reg Cabs then they moved to Dbl Cabs. First basic work trucks, then SR5 models then Limited models. In August, after TX adds it's 2nd shift it will then add the CrewMax. The first slug of trucks arriving from 2/5-2/20 carried an awful lot of RC basic work trucks. The initial buyers are asking about $40K Limiteds ( Prius with Navi all over again ). There's very little interest in the basic model the buyers want it all.
Indiana with 7 years experience began with the Dbl Cabs and the CrewMax but they were scheduled 60 days after Texas.
They have 5 stars for driver and passenger. According to the EPA the new Tundra with SABs could only muster 4 stars for the driver and passenger. I guess it is back to the old drawing board for the folks at Toyota. You are probably right that Toyota is not sweating. It will take another class action lawsuit to get them to make what ever is wrong right.
They only did the Frontal crash test. In this test it only measures the front airbags. This NHTSA test doesn't even consider the Side Airbags.
Since the governments values are indicative and they don't give any explanations all of us are just guessing why it's 4 iso 5.
My own guess is it's the seatbelts or as a colleague pointed out - paradoxically it could be that the front of the truck is too stiff!!!!! It doesn't dissipate and deflect the crash energy well enough so more is transferred to the occupants. Both are just guesses. As is everything else here.
With your continual hype ( hope? ) about class action suits you're beginning to sound like an ambulance chaser's shill. You can't get sued for having a 4 star NHTSA Frontal Crash test rating. If you could then every truck on the market for the last 30 years would have been subject to such a suit.
when the Tundra nails the IIHS test? Much harder offset test?
Toyota pointed out only the RC was tested, not several to get a desired result, like the GM.
A link showing where Toyota said 250k sold in 2007 would be appreciated.
I say 175k this year, 210k next year.
I'm not counting any sales until the 2nd quarter. Most dealers are still waiting for supply to catch up. And they have to adjust to market demand, and CrewMax is just starting production.
after 1000 posts about how the UAW and all good working people are being mistreated by Toyota, we have finally moved a little closer to topic with 100 posts all in a row about everything wrong with the Tundra. While the Tundra is the single most important project to Toyota this year, are there are any OTHER troubles ahead?
BTW, 2007 is a partial year - Toyota wants 150-175K Tundra sales this year if they can get them, and the oft-stated 250K goal is just for the future of the San Antonio plant and this model.
The new Highlander needs to do as well as the current model, and hopefully 25% better in sales. Will it? It doesn't seem to me there is anything super remarkable about the new model, but it will be competent I am sure. Too bad the 4-cyl goes away - the RAV4 is a step down from the current 4-cyl HL IMO. And too bad the new model joins the ranks of minivans in porkiness.
The Corolla is a like a money-printing machine, but the new Elantra is out and looking pretty good, Civic is down in sales but far from out, and who knows if the Sentra will take off (it hasn't so far). Will holding off a year on the Corolla redo wind up biting Toyota in the butt come summer?
And then of course the all-new-and-improved Accord hits the dealerships this fall. Does Camry have anything to fear, or will there still be plenty of room for both in the market? When Civic appeared, its sales shot way up but Corolla seemed unaffected - the lost sales must have come from other brands.
And at the risk of reigniting the passion of all the vocal folks here that want to rip Toyota a new one, I do hope that recalls are down significantly this year, and that they can honestly say they have turned the page on some of the problems they have been having the last few years (several models around '02-04 including Camry and Corolla/Matrix rated only average by CR not for mechanical defects but for body integrity and things of that sort, more recently the Prius stalling thing and this glitchy transmission programming in the new Camrys, the nature of which problem still seems not to have been fully sorted out).
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The Titan was a reliability disaster. I've never seen so many black circles in Consumer Reports for a new car.
I'm looking forward to the new Scions- The XB replacement looks like something I might want. I liked the original, but a little rough around the edges and my 93 Infiniti G20 is still running well...
nippononly: And then of course the all-new-and-improved Accord hits the dealerships this fall. Does Camry have anything to fear, or will there still be plenty of room for both in the market? When Civic appeared, its sales shot way up but Corolla seemed unaffected - the lost sales must have come from other brands.
Both the new Civic and the CR-V are more expensive than their predecessors. This appears to have worked with the CR-V, but the Civic is butting heads with the value-edition Accords. I've seen Civic EX models for over $20,000, while there are decently equipped Accords available for less than that.
Given that the Accord is hardly outdated, it is still an attractive proposition, and probably captured a few Civic buyers. Don't be surprised if the new Accord moves slightly upmarket, too.
I also wouldn't be surprised if a few returning Civic DX and LX owners experienced "sticker shock" when looking at the new Civic - or were turned off by the more radical styling - and went over to their Toyota dealer and bought a Corolla instead.
Some people talk about "Toyhonda" as though the companies are interchangeable, but I seem them diverging. Honda is clearly moving its new models a little upscale and emphasizing performance with economy. Toyota appears content to stake out the middle of the market, and leave the job of capturing more youthful customers to Scion.
They don't have the strongest engine and never have. Their towing capacity doesn't beat the offerings from Ford, Chevy, and Dodge and the thought of a heavy duty looks dim at this point. An engine doesn't make a truck it takes a balance of everything. Time will tell if the Toyota 5.7 will be reliable or not.
They don't have the strongest engine and never have.
What? You want to run that by us one more time?
Please list an engine (any engine) that's on the current full size (domestic or import) with more than 381 HP and 401 lb-ft of torque other than the Toyota 5.7L V8.
You know, it's good that you are loyal to a brand but blind loyalty can sometimes turn into disaster.
Please list an engine (any engine) that's on the current full size (domestic or import) with more than 381 HP and 401 lb-ft of torque other than the Toyota 5.7L V8.
How about the GMC 6.2 L that Toyota is trying to compete against. It is 403 HP with 417 ft lbs of torque.
I think what Pancho is trying to point out is that having the strongest engine on paper doesnt count very much. Dodge has had the most horsepower for a gas engine in a 1/2 ton truck for years, and they haven't gotten very far with it. You certainly need an engine with enough power to perform the duties expected of a 1/2 ton truck. Toyota has joined the club on that issue with this model year, but every other manufacturer already had an engine as capable. The large Toyota engine cant do anything the other engines cant do already.
I think the big issue about their large engine will be availability. The large engine will only be made in limited numbers, and trucks equipped with them will cost significantly more. The price tags on those trucks will put them into the domain of the heavy duty trucks. How brain washed would one have to be to purchase one of these large engine trucks, based on it's capability (which is no more than any other half ton truck), when they can buy a heavy duty truck for similar money that has far more capability?
Look, Toyota has tried to take a chunk of the truck market twice before, and has failed both times. Nissan tried it once with a similar result. I think it's time we look to the Tundra with a little sceptisism. It does not have a good track record, and should not be given the benefit of any doubt. The truck that "changes everything" really doesnt look like it's going to affect the status quo. People that want a well made truck will still buy the Ford. People that want a cheap truck will still buy the Dodge. People that want a mix of quality and value will still buy the Chevy. At least Nissan had their gimmicky rail cargo system. It was useless, but is was something new they brought to the table. I really dont see anything Toyota can claim as an improvement over the other manufacturers offerings.
As I said, your company has failed twice. The difference this time around is that they are gambling far more money on it than the two times before. The track record is not a good one, sir. If it was me calling the shots, I think I would have used all that marketing money on the styling of the Camry to make it look a little more presentable.
"They don't have the strongest engine and never have. Their towing capacity doesn't beat the offerings from Ford, Chevy, and Dodge and the thought of a heavy duty looks dim at this point. An engine doesn't make a truck it takes a balance of everything. Time will tell if the Toyota 5.7 will be reliable or not. "
Part of taking the "middle of the road", so to speak is TO emphasize the reliability and in some cases durability.
Actually that has been the norm across the whole product line. Or in my case, that has been my Toyota experiences over 22 plus years. I only know of two exceptions and Toyota killed both those that segment and models, Supra and Cressida. They both used the same I6 engine, which tuned correctly was an absolute BEAST. The Cresida line was essentially a detuned Supra I6. My parents had the station wagon and it was a fantastic road car!!??
I've read that Toyota expects 70% of Tundra sales to come equipped with the 5.7. Now this may not be happening at the moment or even this year, but I'd expect the engine to make its way across the lineup to other vehicles like the next gen LC, Sequoia and Lexus LX and VX (or whatever its nomenclature will be). The 4.7 i-force has been around for 10+ years now and is ready for a makeover (Toyota doesn't hold onto engines and platforms for decades like some other brands). From my experience it is buttery smooth, and works very well with the Tundra both old and new.
The 5.7 is just a monster, retaining the smoothness of the 4.7 but with more power down low. And I am a huge fan of the Endurance V8 found in the Nissans, the Toyota unit is even more impressive. I'll admit I am a fan of OHC engines (no knock to pushrod designs in truck applications) so both those were right up my alley.
I am crossing my fingers that Ford gets it right with their proposed "Hurricane" V8 line that is apparently in the works. Toyota has really raised the bar with their new monster and I KNOW Ford has the talent (maybe not the $$$ ) of matching or even outgunning the competition. But will they be as smooth?
Yes, I have to admit I was intriqued by this new Tundra and went down to the local dealer. Actually I was there for another cars' maintenance work, so just walked over to the new car area. The cool thing is with so much hp and torque the EPA rating for highway is 20 mpg.
A diesel Tundra at 25-35 mpg would just be a great killer application!
I agree. Since Toyota aquired GM's stake in Isuzu, maybe we may get our wish. Word is that the FJ cruiser gets a diesel for 09', what's stopping them from stuffing that into the Tundra? :shades:
When I heard the "Changes Everything" slogan the first thing that came to mind is that it changes everything for Toyota (sub par trucks) and no one else.
Woo Hoo! The new FJ Cruiser is a very quirky vehicle and probably because I had a 1974 TLC new, it appeals to me. I was drawn instantly to the manual transmission option. The wife of course rolled her eyes as she likes the FJ but would probably like a auto. (yuck to me)
But a 09 FJ Cruiser diesel 6/7 speed manual would really be cool.
When I heard the "Changes Everything" slogan the first thing that came to mind is that it changes everything for Toyota (sub par trucks) and no one else.
Okay, I'll bite...
When I heard Saturn calls the Aura a "sports sedan" the first thing came to my mind is: You've got to be kidding me.
When I heard the Caddy slogan "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit" I was asking myself: of what? 65-year-old retirees in Florida currently driving DTS?
When I see the "This is ourrrrrrr country" commercials from Chevy I thought: Give me a break, this is year 2007 for crying out loud.
I could go on but this is really getting off the topic so let's try to stick with cars/trucks here, shall we?
Sure thing. Take a look at the videos of the Tundra commercials on the Toyota website? Good. Now explain to me why out of all the trucks in the background (the ones actually used by the construction crews on the set), none of them are Toyotas? I think the big question here is will Toyota be able to sell this heap to their own employees?
Speaking of foolish posts...YOURS missed the point again salesguy............
$5000 bucks is $5000 bucks............ Thats at MSRP not to mention SET, toyoguard (rust n' dust), mudflaps all all the other "toyota tricks" to seperate folks from their money.............
They few options that the GM WT model doesn't have compared to the tindra can be had for less than $1000 bucks........
Even the x-cab models LT1 vs. sr-5 v-8 4x4 models the GM is still priced lower at MSRP and even more so OTD!
Again REMEMBER we are talking FULLSIZE trucks!
Can't argue with that eh?????
As far as YOU tossing insults.....may I ask if YOU own your own business(s)? Guess you don't but I DO !
You salesfolks and non-owners can't deal with the fact of the tindras LESSER crash test ratings or the huge price difference which is crippling sales.........
A smart consumer will purchase other brands with a lower OTD price as well as better frontal crash test ratings. You DO note that consumers are voting with their $$$$ and feet and thats why the camry LOST its #1 sales crown...............
I think the days of toyota truck/car buyers blindly paying whatever the toy dealers command for a lesser product are over !!!!!!!!!
GM full sizers are on track to be king of the hill both in sales, price, and crash test ratings.......... While toyota will be lucky to sell a puny 125 units !
The production company for the commercial and the contractor(s) building the equipments for the Tundra commercials aren't Toyota themselves. It's irrelevant what THEY drive.
Irrelevent? Dont they represent the market segment you are trying to win over? I dont know if I would call my customers irrelevent. Those guys actually got paid by Toyota, wether they are full time employees or contractors, and none of them had one. On the other hand, a truck going up and down a giant see-saw is irrelevent. I dont think I've ever run across one of those on my daily commute. Failure #3. On the bright side, the folks who fall for this one will probably buy the "environmental package", or whatever you're calling the worthless dealer add-on Toyota dealers are slapping on these things too.
Why is it that forums like this one usually start out civil, but before long become silly oneupmanship duels? Could we put aside the hair shirts now, and can the "my truck's better than yours" debates? C'mon guys, grow up--it's only a discussion. At the end of the day, does it really matter?
I believe the reason that the Tundra is being hotly debated is the role that Toyota has for it. As much as they want to maintain a green image, they want to dominate every segment of the auto industry. Full size trucks has eluded them. They did not spend a billion plus on that factory in TX because they love Texans. They built it in the middle of truck country, hoping to get in on the high profits being made in the truck business. I don't believe they have gambled any more $$$ on any other vehicle being a success.
Noting a article written by GP Blumberg of the ny times news service.
Did the mfrs. of youth oriented cars miss their targets? Anticipated median age of a matrix driver 28.8.......Actual age 42.7 element28.6 ...................... 44.7 vibe48.2 ...................... 30.2 neon22.7 .......................39.2 scion ??.......................... 50 !!!!!
Hotly debated is one thing. Adults behaving like five year olds in a public forum isn't about "hotly debated". Preferring a vehicle by Toyota, Honda, GM, Chrysler, or Ford, etc., is a personal choice, but badmouthing others about theirs is just dumb.
I worked for Toyota back in the mid-1980's and indeed both cars shared the same engine. The Supra was fun to drive, but neither car was that quick/fast. I got an automatic Supra up to 112 mph once but that was it. It was a long stretch on the road but it wouldn't go anymore.
I worked for Nissan after that and the 300Z was quicker/faster. A Chevy Z28 Camera would beat both these cars.
Is there any reason these things ALWAYS have to turn personal?
We're on a message board. It's highly likely that you're going to see opinions posted that you disagree with. That's fine. That's what makes the discussions interesting. But once you've made your point, move on. In case you hadn't noticed, repeating the same points over and over, or saying them LOUDER, or resorting to personal barbs and insults gets the other guy to change their mind and see things your way about as often as I hit the Powerball jackpot.
Nobody is coming in, looking at these posts, and then deciding to hate YOUR choice in vehicles for life based on what they see here. It's time to stop behaving as if the fate of your favorite auto manufacturer depends on defending them to the death every time an opinion posted disagrees with what you might think.
Yep they put that in the new Denali then they take away the Max Trailering package and youre left with a nice powerful engine that's about as capable as the 5.3L.
I think the big issue about their large engine will be availability. The large engine will only be made in limited numbers, and trucks equipped with them will cost significantly more. The price tags on those trucks will put them into the domain of the heavy duty trucks. How brain washed would one have to be to purchase one of these large engine trucks, based on it's capability (which is no more than any other half ton truck), when they can buy a heavy duty truck for similar money that has far more capability?
This whole paragraph is erroneous. Every idea in it is just wrong. There's data all over the internet to show you why.
They few options that the GM WT model doesn't have compared to the tindra can be had for less than $1000 bucks........
You've never done the homework so I can understand your confusion. Take-home exercise for tonight. Part#1 Silverado Ext Cab Std Bed 5.3L ( the weak engine ) 4WD 2LT vs Tundra Dbl Cab Std Bed 5.7L ( the real engine ) 4WD SR5
Just the Base models with no options.
Part#2 Now find the 4 items you have to add to the Silverado to bring it up to the level of the Tundra in equipment.
Part#3 Now add the 6 speed transmission option to the Silverado. :surprise: oops.
Hint: the Silverado is already more than $3000 higher in MSRP than the Tundra. This is going to be a bloodbath in this middle range of the product line where Toyota wants to compete.
Part#4 Do the same for the RAM. It's ugly. The pricing difference is almost $5000.
Homework is due next Monday. Don't let the dog eat it.
Also what's up with the continual fixation with SET? You're in upstate NY, it has nothing to do with SET. Weird.
I think GM did some other things that I am not that impressed with. Some kind of WOT delay that kills the 0-60 times. All in the name of emissions control. It will be interesting to see how the Tundra makes out in this tough truck market. Like someone else posted, give it a couple quarters. I guess we hide and watch.
How is your market doing? Is Toyota in trouble or is that all rumor?
Comments
This admittedly is true. The business model of the Detroit3 is designed to make do with inefficiencies. They have been fighting this battel for 30+ years. As long as they have to pay workers NOT to work they are not operating in the most efficient manner.
While the truck and SUV segment was controlled by the 3 then they could absorb significant inefficiencies and still make even more significant profits. When pressure, from outside forces, made these segments vulnerable then the Detroit3 could no longer afford to carry the extra workers.
The fact that they moved large segments of their business to Mexico, Europe and Asia shows that the Detroit3 knows very well what they need to do.
As to why there are an over-abundance of Reg Cabs, initial production at a new plant. Baby steps. The plant is brand new and the vehicle has been on sale for 6 weeks total.
We'll revisit this in 4th Qtr. 20 years from now everything will look different.
The underachieving crash test results are indeed significant. It is a result of the overall weakness of the design.
The point is this: If you're going to come to the truck party 3 years late and charge more than the other guys, at least bring something new to the table. This truck is sub-standard by any measurement. I will concede there are people that will buy it because it's a Toyota.... Continued sales of the Solara prove that. I will also concede it is an improvement over the last model. That step side has to be the ugliest truck ever. You will not knock off the big boys with this one. The Titan got Titaniced, and it was a better truck than this. Good luck.
and can you give me a detailed explaination?
i want to know some about it
thank you very much
Toyota never got anything through luck.
They have the strongest engine, the most towing, the biggest crew cabs, the biggest brakes, and can do everything faster than your (name any truck here)!
Other than that they have come to the dance buck naked.
FBF is somewhat over-rated, since, as Spyfer said, domestics have been using C-channel for decades. Toyota has built many FBF trucks before, so I'm sure they did cost/benefit analysis.
Since the full-sizes are just now going FBF, are we questioning their long-term ability? I didn't think so. :surprise:
Look at it this way. If Toyota offered FBF, maybe it's towing lead would only grow, and the mountain the domestics would have to climb would only grow from here.
Did a FBF help Titan? Oh......uh......
Titan failed because:
A. Brand is weak, especially in trucks. Frontier is no big seller.
B. No V6 offered to build the brand. Hard to start at $25k for a rookie.
C. Got lost in Nissan's product offensive. Nissan offered Xterra, Murano, Quest, Titan, Armada, all around the same time. They flooded their own market!
D. 3 years after getting bought by the French, they're ready to take on the domestics toughest market? I don't think so.
People are also trying to paint Toyota into a corner where they have to sell 200k this year, or the truck is a failure. That's a gull-a-bull!
They are giving away the first quarter of the year! 175k this year is a strong start, and passing 200k next year will net an HD model down the road, probably with the next redesign.
I see everyone, BUT Toyota sweatin' at this point.
DrFill
that tundra is $2 to $5 THOUSAND cheaper than GM trucks.
If this is true Edmunds made a boo boo..........
http://www.edmunds.com/apps/nvc/edmunds/VehicleComparison?op=0&tab=pricing&isbas- ecar=false&modelid=&styleid=&refid=&maxvehicles=5&vehicleindex=&removestyle=&num- Cars=2&just=center&disclaimer=false&modelId0=100505549&styleId0=100812277&modelI- d1=100504204&styleId1=100840262
http://www.boch.com/boch/common/aspx/SearchResults.aspx?StoreID=2&model=Tundra&s- - - - earchType=new&vehicleType=Truck
Oh, by the way I do not believe for a minute they built regular cabs to try out the new plant. Toyota miscalculated the market plain and simple. They must have sent them all back East. I have not seen one on the road here yet.
Toyota painted their own self into a corner bragging last year they were going to double the sales of the Tundra in 2007, to 250k units.
If safety is so all fired important to Toyota why did they settle for a truck that was not up to the standard bearer? That would be the new Chevy & GMC full size PU trucks. They have 5 stars for driver and passenger. According to the EPA the new Tundra with SABs could only muster 4 stars for the driver and passenger. I guess it is back to the old drawing board for the folks at Toyota.
You are probably right that Toyota is not sweating. It will take another class action lawsuit to get them to make what ever is wrong right.
GMC Sierra has 6 truck configurations tested. 3 configurations, 3 stars both driver and passenger and the other 3 at 5. I'd say the combined average of GMC Sierra is 4 stars, which...wait for it...is what Toyota Tundra gets across the board.
The Chevy Silverado has 6 configurations. 3 cars at 5 across the board, the other 3 has 4 for the driver, and 3 for the passenger. This averages out to 4.5 for the driver and 4 for the passenger. Just how far behind is Toyota again?
Personally, I believe there's 2 ways for a car to average out to be normal. One is for a majority of cars in a model line to be good, not exceptional, just good. The other way to average out to normalcy is to have half the cars be exceptional, and the other half be problem-ridden.
Personally, I believe the problem here lies in brand perception. I'll leave you to guess as to which type of "normal" people believe Toyota to be, and which people believe GMC/Chevy to be.
The underachieving crash test results are indeed significant. It is a result of the overall weakness of the design.
The reason the whole frame is not boxed is that it does nothing but add weight. There is no measurable effect. None. Zero. So what good is it. Dead weight in the truck reducing the payload at best.
Your second statement is just false. It's a knee-jerk reaction of the uninformed. Why did the Tundra get 4 iso 5? What specific reason can you point out quantitatively? This is just an engineering test so everything can be reduced to numbers and data.
Again your math needs some work ( para 3 ). A little more time doing homework instead of hanging out will help.
This is never intended to knock off the big boys in terms of volume. It's only intended to do the following...
sell about 150K-175K units this year with a mix of
10-15% RC
65-70% DC
20-25% CM
All at a profit.. nothing more.
Then next year sell 200K-250K units with the same mix. It's that simple. Just make a profit.
You compared a base model work truck Silverado to an SR5 Tundra. Why not compare a 5 spd manual ColoCanyon to it?
Did you even try to equate the equipment or was that too much work? Note from my post that I stated ( with equal equipment )
Did you ever attend school past 7th grade?
OK here's a hint: The emphasis is on the Big V8's which should be about 70% of total volume in all cab sizes.
To make it clearer........
If the price of the V6 Reg Cab is $5000 higher than the rest it's intentional. It sends a message to the buying public 'Why not buy a V8?'. If the 5.7L is only $1300 higher than the 4.7 and gets better fuel economy and comes with the state of the art 6 speed tranny it also sends a message 'Why not get the bigger V8?'
What I meant by the prior post was that when they began ramping up the TX plant they started with Reg Cabs then they moved to Dbl Cabs. First basic work trucks, then SR5 models then Limited models. In August, after TX adds it's 2nd shift it will then add the CrewMax. The first slug of trucks arriving from 2/5-2/20 carried an awful lot of RC basic work trucks. The initial buyers are asking about $40K Limiteds
Indiana with 7 years experience began with the Dbl Cabs and the CrewMax but they were scheduled 60 days after Texas.
You are probably right that Toyota is not sweating. It will take another class action lawsuit to get them to make what ever is wrong right.
They only did the Frontal crash test. In this test it only measures the front airbags. This NHTSA test doesn't even consider the Side Airbags.
Since the governments values are indicative and they don't give any explanations all of us are just guessing why it's 4 iso 5.
My own guess is it's the seatbelts or as a colleague pointed out - paradoxically it could be that the front of the truck is too stiff!!!!! It doesn't dissipate and deflect the crash energy well enough so more is transferred to the occupants. Both are just guesses. As is everything else here.
With your continual hype ( hope? ) about class action suits you're beginning to sound like an ambulance chaser's shill. You can't get sued for having a 4 star NHTSA Frontal Crash test rating. If you could then every truck on the market for the last 30 years would have been subject to such a suit.
Next..
Toyota pointed out only the RC was tested, not several to get a desired result, like the GM.
A link showing where Toyota said 250k sold in 2007 would be appreciated.
I say 175k this year, 210k next year.
I'm not counting any sales until the 2nd quarter. Most dealers are still waiting for supply to catch up. And they have to adjust to market demand, and CrewMax is just starting production.
This 1st quarter can be thrown out.
DrFill
BTW, 2007 is a partial year - Toyota wants 150-175K Tundra sales this year if they can get them, and the oft-stated 250K goal is just for the future of the San Antonio plant and this model.
The new Highlander needs to do as well as the current model, and hopefully 25% better in sales. Will it? It doesn't seem to me there is anything super remarkable about the new model, but it will be competent I am sure. Too bad the 4-cyl goes away - the RAV4 is a step down from the current 4-cyl HL IMO. And too bad the new model joins the ranks of minivans in porkiness.
The Corolla is a like a money-printing machine, but the new Elantra is out and looking pretty good, Civic is down in sales but far from out, and who knows if the Sentra will take off (it hasn't so far). Will holding off a year on the Corolla redo wind up biting Toyota in the butt come summer?
And then of course the all-new-and-improved Accord hits the dealerships this fall. Does Camry have anything to fear, or will there still be plenty of room for both in the market? When Civic appeared, its sales shot way up but Corolla seemed unaffected - the lost sales must have come from other brands.
And at the risk of reigniting the passion of all the vocal folks here that want to rip Toyota a new one, I do hope that recalls are down significantly this year, and that they can honestly say they have turned the page on some of the problems they have been having the last few years (several models around '02-04 including Camry and Corolla/Matrix rated only average by CR not for mechanical defects but for body integrity and things of that sort, more recently the Prius stalling thing and this glitchy transmission programming in the new Camrys, the nature of which problem still seems not to have been fully sorted out).
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I'm looking forward to the new Scions- The XB replacement looks like something I might want. I liked the original, but a little rough around the edges and my 93 Infiniti G20 is still running well...
Both the new Civic and the CR-V are more expensive than their predecessors. This appears to have worked with the CR-V, but the Civic is butting heads with the value-edition Accords. I've seen Civic EX models for over $20,000, while there are decently equipped Accords available for less than that.
Given that the Accord is hardly outdated, it is still an attractive proposition, and probably captured a few Civic buyers. Don't be surprised if the new Accord moves slightly upmarket, too.
I also wouldn't be surprised if a few returning Civic DX and LX owners experienced "sticker shock" when looking at the new Civic - or were turned off by the more radical styling - and went over to their Toyota dealer and bought a Corolla instead.
Some people talk about "Toyhonda" as though the companies are interchangeable, but I seem them diverging. Honda is clearly moving its new models a little upscale and emphasizing performance with economy. Toyota appears content to stake out the middle of the market, and leave the job of capturing more youthful customers to Scion.
What? You want to run that by us one more time?
Please list an engine (any engine) that's on the current full size (domestic or import) with more than 381 HP and 401 lb-ft of torque other than the Toyota 5.7L V8.
You know, it's good that you are loyal to a brand but blind loyalty can sometimes turn into disaster.
Do you think things through before you post? Have you heard of the Duramax or Cummins diesel or the GM 8.1 L engine?
What does a non-potent plant fiber have to do with anything?
How about the GMC 6.2 L that Toyota is trying to compete against. It is 403 HP with 417 ft lbs of torque.
I think the big issue about their large engine will be availability. The large engine will only be made in limited numbers, and trucks equipped with them will cost significantly more. The price tags on those trucks will put them into the domain of the heavy duty trucks. How brain washed would one have to be to purchase one of these large engine trucks, based on it's capability (which is no more than any other half ton truck), when they can buy a heavy duty truck for similar money that has far more capability?
Look, Toyota has tried to take a chunk of the truck market twice before, and has failed both times. Nissan tried it once with a similar result. I think it's time we look to the Tundra with a little sceptisism. It does not have a good track record, and should not be given the benefit of any doubt. The truck that "changes everything" really doesnt look like it's going to affect the status quo. People that want a well made truck will still buy the Ford. People that want a cheap truck will still buy the Dodge. People that want a mix of quality and value will still buy the Chevy. At least Nissan had their gimmicky rail cargo system. It was useless, but is was something new they brought to the table. I really dont see anything Toyota can claim as an improvement over the other manufacturers offerings.
Part of taking the "middle of the road", so to speak is TO emphasize the reliability and in some cases durability.
Actually that has been the norm across the whole product line. Or in my case, that has been my Toyota experiences over 22 plus years. I only know of two exceptions and Toyota killed both those that segment and models, Supra and Cressida. They both used the same I6 engine, which tuned correctly was an absolute BEAST. The Cresida line was essentially a detuned Supra I6. My parents had the station wagon and it was a fantastic road car!!??
The 5.7 is just a monster, retaining the smoothness of the 4.7 but with more power down low. And I am a huge fan of the Endurance V8 found in the Nissans, the Toyota unit is even more impressive. I'll admit I am a fan of OHC engines (no knock to pushrod designs in truck applications) so both those were right up my alley.
I am crossing my fingers that Ford gets it right with their proposed "Hurricane" V8 line that is apparently in the works. Toyota has really raised the bar with their new monster and I KNOW Ford has the talent (maybe not the $$$
A diesel Tundra at 25-35 mpg would just be a great killer application!
But a 09 FJ Cruiser diesel 6/7 speed manual would really be cool.
Okay, I'll bite...
When I heard Saturn calls the Aura a "sports sedan" the first thing came to my mind is: You've got to be kidding me.
When I heard the Caddy slogan "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit" I was asking myself: of what? 65-year-old retirees in Florida currently driving DTS?
When I see the "This is ourrrrrrr country" commercials from Chevy I thought: Give me a break, this is year 2007 for crying out loud.
I could go on but this is really getting off the topic so let's try to stick with cars/trucks here, shall we?
salesguy............
$5000 bucks is $5000 bucks............
Thats at MSRP not to mention SET, toyoguard (rust n' dust),
mudflaps all all the other "toyota tricks" to seperate folks
from their money.............
They few options that the GM WT model doesn't have compared to the tindra can be had for less than $1000 bucks........
Even the x-cab models LT1 vs. sr-5 v-8 4x4 models the GM
is still priced lower at MSRP and even more so OTD!
Again REMEMBER we are talking FULLSIZE trucks!
Can't argue with that eh?????
As far as YOU tossing insults.....may I ask if YOU own
your own business(s)? Guess you don't but I DO !
You salesfolks and non-owners can't deal with the fact
of the tindras LESSER crash test ratings or the huge
price difference which is crippling sales.........
A smart consumer will purchase other brands with a
lower OTD price as well as better frontal crash test
ratings.
You DO note that consumers are voting with
their $$$$ and feet and thats why the camry LOST its
#1 sales crown...............
I think the days of toyota truck/car buyers blindly paying
whatever the toy dealers command for a lesser product
are over !!!!!!!!!
GM full sizers are on track to be king of the hill both
in sales, price, and crash test ratings..........
While toyota will be lucky to sell a puny 125 units !
Could we put aside the hair shirts now, and can the "my truck's better than yours" debates?
C'mon guys, grow up--it's only a discussion. At the end of the day, does it really matter?
Did the mfrs. of youth oriented cars miss their targets?
Anticipated median age of a matrix driver 28.8.......Actual age 42.7
element28.6 ...................... 44.7
vibe48.2 ...................... 30.2
neon22.7 .......................39.2
scion ??.......................... 50 !!!!!
Heck the average age of a Caddy buyer is 54 !
I worked for Nissan after that and the 300Z was quicker/faster. A Chevy Z28 Camera would beat both these cars.
We're on a message board. It's highly likely that you're going to see opinions posted that you disagree with. That's fine. That's what makes the discussions interesting. But once you've made your point, move on. In case you hadn't noticed, repeating the same points over and over, or saying them LOUDER, or resorting to personal barbs and insults gets the other guy to change their mind and see things your way about as often as I hit the Powerball jackpot.
Nobody is coming in, looking at these posts, and then deciding to hate YOUR choice in vehicles for life based on what they see here. It's time to stop behaving as if the fate of your favorite auto manufacturer depends on defending them to the death every time an opinion posted disagrees with what you might think.
We're suposed to be enoying this,right??
I can't think of any brand new car that would expect a 22 year old owner, not even something as lowly as a Neon. Now a driver, maybe.
OK, we are in agreement.
But it's in a nice package.
This whole paragraph is erroneous. Every idea in it is just wrong. There's data all over the internet to show you why.
Maybe it was an outside contractor for bridge and iron work.
And to this the only response is... so what!
They few options that the GM WT model doesn't have compared to the tindra can be had for less than $1000 bucks........
You've never done the homework so I can understand your confusion. Take-home exercise for tonight.
Part#1
Silverado Ext Cab Std Bed 5.3L ( the weak engine ) 4WD 2LT
vs
Tundra Dbl Cab Std Bed 5.7L ( the real engine ) 4WD SR5
Just the Base models with no options.
Part#2
Now find the 4 items you have to add to the Silverado to bring it up to the level of the Tundra in equipment.
Part#3
Now add the 6 speed transmission option to the Silverado. :surprise: oops.
Hint: the Silverado is already more than $3000 higher in MSRP than the Tundra. This is going to be a bloodbath in this middle range of the product line where Toyota wants to compete.
Part#4
Do the same for the RAM. It's ugly. The pricing difference is almost $5000.
Homework is due next Monday. Don't let the dog eat it.
Also what's up with the continual fixation with SET? You're in upstate NY, it has nothing to do with SET. Weird.
How is your market doing? Is Toyota in trouble or is that all rumor?