Has anyone noticed that Toyota’s new pickup truck production plant is located in the same Texas town as The Alamo? I know: metaphorically speaking, it’s not a perfect fit. The Alamo has come to symbolize the spirit of any small group of believers holding out against overwhelming odds. In that sense, it should be Texas-built domestics pickups facing Mexican-built Toyota Tundras. Only Toyota is the little guy in this battle. Well, sort of. Anyway, no matter how you look at it, this whole pickup truck thing is shaping-up to be a Texas-sized brawl, and anyone who discounts ToMoCo’s chances (so to speak) is making a big mistake.
The perceived wisdom says Toyota’s Texas Tundra faces insurmountable odds. Last year, The Big Two Point Five carved-up 90 percent of the market. We’re talking 2.25m full-size pickups split between GM (935k), Ford (901k) and Dodge (414k). Thanks to rising gas prices and a falling construction market, ’06 pickup truck sales have taken a big hit. But the segment still generates enormous, life-sustaining profits. No wonder GM CEO Rabid Rick Wagoner publicly declared that his company’s fortunes rest squarely on the broad shoulders of the new Chevy Silverado and GMC Sierra. In short, there’s everything to play for.
Ho-hum. The domestics may not be smug about ToMoCo’s revised entry, but it sure sounds that way. According to an article in yesterday’s Detroit News (DTN), GM Car Czar “Maximum” Bob Lutz doesn’t think his company’s full-size pickups are anywhere near crap enough to lose out to the new Tundra. “Lutz said when Japanese automakers grabbed significant share in the U.S. car market between 1979 and 1981, Toyota and Honda Motor Co. were building better quality vehicles.” Setting aside any debate about the beginning and end points of Maximum Bob’s time line, we can extrapolate his main point: we’re ready. Bring it on.
Fair enough. GM, Ford and Dodge make some mighty fine pickups. As MB said, this is not a case where domestic abuse has thrown open the window of opportunity for higher quality competitors to defenestrate the established players. Pickup truck buyers are also notoriously brand loyal. And if you believe the media, they’re all a bunch of NASCAR-loving red staters (not to say rednecks) who’d rather trade their Budweiser beer for a charming little chardonnay than not buy a gen-u-ine ‘Merican pickup. If ever a market segment was well-defended, this is it.
Yes, well, this time out, Toyota’s not bringing a knife to a gun fight. The '07 Tundra is bigger, tougher-looking and more capable than its predecessor, from its industrial strength air conditioner to its promised "class leading" towing capacity. And Toyota’s going in with their eyes open: "We've been competing with Ford, GM and Dodge for 50 years," Toyota PR flack Denise Morrissey told the DTN. "We know the full-size market is very loyal and smart. Once they get familiar with the Tundra, get to know it, I think they will consider it. Loyalty is definitely key in this market, but it will only get you so far."
If Detroit was paying attention, that little comment would give them major cause for concern. Morrissey is saying that Motown’s pickup buyers aren’t as loyal as the domestics would have themselves believe. While Lutz and his cohorts are right to insist that their products are good enough to withstand a side-by-side comparison with the new Tundra, Toyota is smart enough to know it only has to meet– not beat– the domestic pickups’ capabilities. It can then deploy a secret weapon which will seduce great swathes of brand faithful pickup truck buyers, and carve out an enormous chunk of this vastly profitable market: price.
The GM Silverado starts at $27k. The Dodge Ram starts at $22,135. The Ford F-150 starts at $18,220. The current Toyota Tundra starts at $16,155. While we’d have to turn to Michael Karesh for a proper price comparison, the relative disparity indicated by these numbers is not misleading. Lest we forget, Toyota is a non-union manufacturer without excessive legacy costs and excess production capacity, that’s building its new pickup in a brand spanking new (i.e. extremely efficient) facility. What’s more, pickups trucks are relatively cheap to build and Toyota has plenty of money in the bank.
So, if Toyota builds a competitive product, they’re perfectly positioned to attack domestic pickups on price. Remember: the majority of pickups sold are work trucks. As such, their owners are hardly immune to economic arguments for a different brand; it’s “I’m a businessman” first, “I’m a Chevy guy” second. Toyota says it wants its sell 200k ’07 Tundras. To do that, they’ll have to compete on price– which will put irresistible pressure on The Big 2.5 to cut their margins. Even without capturing significant market share, Toyota’s overwhelming economic force could threaten GM’s survival. Think it couldn’t happen? Remember the Alamo.
3 points
1. Toyota is likely giving these away at or below cost in an effort to buy market share. They can afford to do that.
2. TTAC criticized GM putting money into a new FST due to high gas prices a few months ago. Now you compliment Toyota for the same thing? I thought big trucks were a bad place to put development cash?
3. Don’t forget the contract workers. Toyota hires a lot of contract workers and uses them to balance work load.
Does it even matter if the 2007 Tundra meets the stated goal of 200k units in it’s launch year?
This is Toyota we’re talking about. Toyota (and Honda) built their success in the US because of a tenacious drive to own the market by building a better product. While their first attempts to woo American buyers were a failure, they re-designed, and honed, and polished their product line over a decade and a half. Not to coin a phrase, but Toyota doesn’t cut and run from markets the way Domestic automakers do. As such, can anyone reasonably disagree that the Tundra won’t be the standard in pickups in a decade’s time?
The domestics have forgotten about all the young people that own import cars and have been very happy with them. These same kids will no doubt consider a Toyota or Honda truck most favorably for their truck needs. One only has to look at the Tacoma to realize this is true..
Demographics are working against the US manufacturers.
If toyota only holds the big three pickup truck profit margin down they have done their job. From the huge cash windfall of light trucks the American companies have been able to reinvent and modernize their products. Take this away, and they are in the same boat with trucks as cars, how do you build stuff with little or no profits? And where does the money come to refresh these trucks? Toyota has the deep pockets to price the thing down and sit and wait for the Americans to fall behind in model changes as they did with their cars. They can even fail and convert the plant to other production, but don’t cound on that ;with a parent company cash rich and a culture of long term investments. Toyota is patient and they are always rewarded as Detroit thrashes around changing models and re-inventing themselves.
If the Tundra lives up to the hype, GM and Ford are in BIG trouble.
My father recently bought a 2006 Avalance, and although it is impressive, the interior fit, finish, and materials are abysmal. Lots of panel gaps and dollar store plastic.
All Toyota has to do is three things:
1. Make ’em just slightly better for the same (or cheaper) price.
2. Allow a la’ carte options, don’t force someone to buy leather seats and a sunroof in order to get 4WD.
3. Be fleet friendly. Sell ambulance packages, heavy duty versions, and make sure a deisel is available!
The domestics have forgotten about all the young people that own import cars and have been very happy with them. These same kids will no doubt consider a Toyota or Honda truck most favorably for their truck needs. One only has to look at the Tacoma to realize this is true..
Demographics are working against the US manufacturers.
The problem with that argument is that you need to prove that future truck owners are going to be more and more likely to be moving up from import cars.
Toyota’s growth is likely to come from import-owners who needs trucks, but there are several factors yet to consider:
1. Any surge in oil prices will affect Toyota more than the Big 3, simply because more of the Tundra’s buyers appear to be “casual”–i.e. those who do not need a truck for work.
The only way to stem this flow is to increase the fuel economy of the trucks you have (to a point where they are palatable enough to keep/buy. The current Tundra is near the bottom of the pack for fuel efficiency.
That of course has no bearing on the future Tundra’s fuel efficiency, but it is something to watch.
GM already has plans in place to roll out two-mode hybrid versions of the truck lineup; something that would be critical in keeping “casual” buyers of their own, as well as luring business customers in (if the mileage is good).
2. Another consideration is dealer service and cost to own. GM has too many dealers in general, and many of these happen to be in the “right places”. Easy access to cheap parts and dealer repairs is very important to truck-buyers. Imports are not known for their cheap repair costs.
3. Ford is still around.
Toyota can well do anything it puts its mind to, but the onus is on you to explain why a “good enough” GM car will do more poorly than a “good enough” Toyota truck in markets of similar buyer prejudice. “Price” certainly doesn’t seem to work all that quickly with the domestics.
If you’re looking for people who say “Never!” this time around, you’re going to have a much harder time.
Toyota is SOURCING the PARTS for these vehicles from U.S. manufacturers.
Meanwhile, General Motors has pulled out of domestic parts sources as fast as they could replace them. General Motors knows full well that a large portion of their customer base comes from suppliers. They have walked away from their supplier base in the U.S. and they are spending every spare dollar of cash in China and elsewhere.
The only conclusion to be drawn from this is that General Motors intends to withdraw from the U.S. market, putting its assets out of the reach of the U.S. government and the UAW. When sales fall below critical levels, it can declare bankruptcy on the North American operation and walk away from the retirement obligations that were so stupidly promised.
They are “structuring” their finances for the inevitable bankruptcy.
Meanwhile, they run these idiotic patriotism advertisements to hide the fact that they are pulling out while Toyota is moving in.
The thousands upon thousands of small machine tool businesses that are left standing have a huge infrastructure of manufacturing expertise and capability already paid for. Toyota walks in and gets excellent pricing by taking advantage of the capacity left behind by domestic automakers. Whereas the domestic brands think a purchasing agent has done his job well if a supplier goes bankrupt, Toyota deals with suppliers on a rational level, and sticks to the deal after paying very close attention to every detail up front.
In other news, Democrats win big, so we can expect tax increases, environmental regulations, socialist workplace rules, protectionist legislation, and an ever more sickening economy, just like we had under the Republicans but faster. I predict General Motors will continue moving assets out of the country as rapidly as possible.
It’s called “capital flight”.
–97T–
98. Where’s the party when we hit DW 100?
I think one huge point was missed about domestic vs. Toyota trucks.
Toyota’s only large truck will only compete with only some 1/2 ton trucks. The amount of configurations on a Ford, Chevy, and Dodge are at least 5 times more diverse than any others can offer. I know most of you all have the attitude “who needs a truck anyway” so I really doubt there will be any comprehension for a 3500 series Silverado that can tow 16K lbs. But trust me, there are people that need/want it and they will never buy a Tundra because it does not achieve what they are looking for. Even if it is a better quality truck… it just will not matter.
I live in Alberta, which apparently is the second largest market for pickups after Texas. I have owned Dodge, Ford, and GMC pickups since 1978. Until now, Toyota was not a viable alternative as their trucks weren’t big enough. The big 2.5 have one foot in the grave, Toyota has just put a banana peel under their “good” foot.
97T.
Meanwhile, they run these idiotic patriotism advertisements to hide the fact that they are pulling out while Toyota is moving in.
Have you seen ANY Toyota adds lately?
1984:
Toyota recent purchase of a GM’s abandoned stake in Isuzu means that ToMoCo is buying Isuzu’s diesel engine technology.
I don’t need to tell you that GM’s Duramax diesel is an Isuzu powerplant. GM doesn’t have the engineers or expertise to support this engine; it was all done by Isuzu under contract with GM.
Anyway, expect to see a diesel engine in the new Tundra, with all the stump pulling you’d ever want.
The problem is not the “lack of engine know-how” it’s the lack of chassis “know-how” by Toyota.
Isuzu supplies the engines and GM supplies the chassis/axle/Allison transmission. Did you ever see an Isuzu cab-over truck? The frame, axles, suspension is all GMC Top Kick.
Currently there are no Tundra chassis/axles that (or heard of going to have) can hold a Duramax V8. Chevrolet trucks with the Duramax do not appear on a 1/2 ton frame. Actually I believe the frame under a Duramax are special built by Dana.
In case you haven’t noticed, real wages haven’t increased in years. This makes the average consumer even more sensitive to price points than in years past. Not to mention all those former-UAW families who took major pay cuts to change careers, and whose brand loyalty could be shaking. The broad economic indicators are not in the Big 2.5’s favor.
anyhow, good news http://www.autoblog.com/2006/11/08/adjustment-to-gm-3q-losses-now-only-91m/
Toyota’s annual profits are up to $13b. GM lost less money than they thought they did. Do the math.
“1. Any surge in oil prices will affect Toyota more than the Big 3, simply because more of the Tundra’s buyers appear to be “casual”–i.e. those who do not need a truck for work.” – Somethingtosay
I don’t think so. Accord and Camry buyers overwhelmingly go for the 4-bangers and they’ll still buy it with a stick. It’s an eminently practical decision based on needs rather than wants. Fuel economy typically matters a great deal to the imports’ base and they know that fuel economy will suffer when they buy a truck. I think you’ll find that Honda and Toyota buyers who move to a truck have given the situation considerable thought and won’t do it casually.
RF,
So now it’s Toyota that will “have to compete on price”? I thought that was the domestics only hope.
And where did you come up with your price figures anyhow? According to PC Carbook, a 2006 Chevy Silverado Regular Cab starts at $16,715 with destination vs the comparable 2006 Toyota Tundra Reg cab at $16,800 with shipping.
And you know how GM offers incentives? Right now you can get a $4000 rebate, for a net list price of $12,715 on the ’06 Chevy. Even the 2007 “classics” are not much more.
The new-style 2007 Silverado will start at $18,760 with freight, and, even with GMs new pricing strategy, there are sure to be incentives to adjust this price to current market. The new Tundra will be bigger and include more features than than the current truck, and a model year newer, so I’m sure it will significantly higher priced than the current truck.
They’ll sell them, for sure. But don’t count on the new Tundra to be the GM killer you are waiting for like the second coming.
1984:
I think the point is that Toyota doesn’t have to steal purchasers from the heavy and super duty trucks (which it can’t) to do real damage to GM and Ford. This is the first real competitor for 1/2 ton, light duty trucks that the domestics have faced (the Titan tried, but it’s lack of configurations, and partially because it was Nissan, hurt it). The Tundra will have some configurability – admittedly not as much as Ford and GM, but still enough to maybe steal away 10% or more of the market share (which would be plenty to hurt their profitability – the heart of this matter). There are plenty of people in the construction business that don’t need to tow more than 10k lbs and are more open-minded than their stereotypes would allow.
GM can’t afford to compete on price in the pickup truck market– just like they can’t afford to compete on price in the car market. But that’s what they’re doing and that’s what’s gonna happen.
The automaker isn’t making money on its NA vehicle operations. Diminishing margins in the pickup market will accelerate the trend.
GM’s Deathwatch by a thousand cuts continues. Let us recount the defenders’ whining ways:
– public perception that GM vehicles are still crap, when they’re really best-in-class
– currency fluctuations in favor of Japanese importers
– onerous UAW contracts
– legacy costs are so high, we have to build “American” vehicles in Korea, Mexico, Canada, and China
– use of nonunion labor by the transplant factories
– press bias in the auto magaziness
– press bias in the business magaziness
– press bias in the newspapers, TV, radio
– Consumer Reports
– market share doesn’t mean squat
And along comes Toyota with an entry into the 2.5’s most profitable sector yet, that won’t need $4000 on the hood like the current Tundra. Every little cut hurts, but the next Tundra will be a hundred slices, financially. Each lost sale is several thousand bucks less in the 2.5’s coffers. Keeping each sale will cost a couple of thousand dollars. It’s going to add up eventually.
The 17K Silverado comes standard with a 296 HP V8 as its base work truck.
For 17K Toyota would have to sell the “larger and nicer” 2007 V6 model for 2-3K less than the prior year to make ANY logic to buy a V6 Tundra. Remember, domestic truck reputation is equal to Toyota small car reputation and loyalty. Tundra vs. Silverado is like Impala vs. Camry.
Like you like to say oh so often about GM… “Close but no cigar”… This time it’s Toyota.
I’m no truck lover in general, but the Toyota seems to have outdone itself in ugliness with this thing.
The problem with that argument is that you need to prove that future truck owners are going to be more and more likely to be moving up from import cars.
Outside the upper Midwest, hardly any young people buy domestic cars. Seriously. So it would be quite hard for future truck owners NOT to have moved up from import cars.
This article is right on the money. Several things:
People have been burned. Take myself. I had a 2000 F150 that was a total POS. Inside 3 years and 30K loving miles: warped drums and rotors @ 12K that F refused to repair, tranny fell apart at 20K, steering fell apart at 24K, head gaskets started weeping oil at 28K and then – the thing started rusting everywhere. Inside inquiries at the point of assembly (Norfolk) indicate that the body probably missed E-coat.
So I traded a rusty F150 on a Toyota. I need a truck (or at least a large trailer) for what I do, but I am not a contactor. The Toyota will hual 14 sheets of drywall, which is enough for me. If the Toyo is extra money, some (not all) people that can afford it will pay it. When you look at total cost of ownership it’s worth it anyway. Adios domestics.
Regarding non-casual users. I think that businesses still buy domestic because that’s what’s always been available, and the aftermarket for them is huge. But if you talk to contractors, you’ll find that most have flip-flopped between F and GM over the years due to runs of poor quality. So once a higher (real or percieved) quality choice comes along they might try it and stay. Once the aftermarket comes on strong (tool boxes, racks, etc.) look out. The 3/4 and 1 Ton market is a totally different animal.
Diesel. Veru good rumor has it that Toyota will have a diesel option in the Tundra soon. Not the Isuzu V8 but a V6. Maybe beating the domestics to market.
Contrary to popular wisdom, the Big 2.5 have not sent everything to China. If I recall correctly GM North America sources only 1 or 2% of their Tier 1 parts from China. Most come from North America (including Mexico.) And the Japanese still source most parts from their traditional suppliers, even if they are manufactured in North America. They will occasionally look into the domestics traditional suppliers (because they are growing fast AND looking to avoid political backlash), but often turn around and walk out once they get 50 feet into the manufacturing facility.
Finally, what others have said. This is not a here or there argument. It’s Kaizen – constant improvement. Toyota doesn’t need to take 51% market share next year. Steady improvement is enough. And the pressure on Big 2.5 profits will kill them in the mid term. And if the Toyota is a major flop, they lay off the temps in Texas and slow the line rate. Easy.
Toyota is trying to emulate American cars and they are going down the same dead end path as American manufacturers. True their products are very reliable, I own three, but lately they are boring, boring, boring. They don’t have a decent sporty vehicle in their lineup. You can’t take a granny Camry or Corolla and slap on a “S” badge and call it sporty. Their trucks and SUVs are getting bigger and when the next gas price hike hits, and you know it is coming, the elections are over, their sales will suffer. Toyota is trying too hard to be an American company and so they are making the same mistakes as American companies. Honda is making much more innovative and fun products. You can find Civic Sis around here, Philadelphia.
Many of these guys have a Chevy or Ford P/U, ehile their wives drive a Camry or Accord. Maybe a Sienna or Odyssey.
Don’t think they haven’t noticed that the wife’s car NEVER BREAKS.
So when they have to go out and buy a work truck, they’ll look at the Tundra. At that point, all bets are off. Toyota’s legendary quality will sway lots of buyers. May not happen in 1 year. Or three. But it’ll happen, unless the domestic trucks are way ahead on perceived quality. If the new GM’s have teething problems, or major issues like Ford’s diesels, then Toyota will hammer them.
Toyota has a very simple system: Fire, observe, adjust. Fire, observe, adjust. Fire, ….
Robert:
I think that loyality is still key in the truck segment. So while I agree with pretty much everything you say, it is going to take a long time untill Toyota is really able to spoil the domestics Truck-party. Nontheless, it’s going to happen at some point and Toyota has the will, the money and the experience to go that way.
“Many of these guys have a Chevy or Ford P/U, ehile their wives drive a Camry or Accord. Maybe a Sienna or Odyssey.
Don’t think they haven’t noticed that the wife’s car NEVER BREAKS”
That’s funny, my local Toyota dealers service department seems like it’s still quite busy. And since one of the vehicles that visits it quite frequently is a 2004 Tundra belonging to my next-door neighbor, i find it hard to believe that these things never break.
Every time I see one of these articles about the Tundra being the next Great Japanese Invasion, I remember how the Nissan Titan was supposed to lead the Great Japanese Invasion a few years ago. Two questions, 1) What did the Titan do/not do that has left it completely out of the conversation over Japanese full-sized pickup trucks, and 2) how is the new Tundra meant to avoid those mistakes?
I susepct the demographic shift in truck buying is already starting to happen.
My brother is one example. My father has always owned Chevy trucks. My brother neede a truck and, like dad, bought himself a used 2000 Chevy extended cab. He hates the thing. He’s had various issues, can’t stand the rattles, and dislikes the fit and finish. Consquently, my father has had numerous issues with his 2000 Chevy he bought new, the latest being the small fortune he has paid in rear brake pads and disks because they rust out.
When my brother pays off his truck in two years, he’s going to look at a Toyota. My father won’t even consider Toyota. He’ll probably buy another Chevy.
Gosh, even on TTAC, seems like there are a lot of rabid and ignorant posters getting all riled up about the Tundra. What does this mean? That they are worried about the new Tundra. If the new tundra was really as crappy as domestic fanboys would have you believe, then it wouldn’t even be a point of discussion. I mean, almost nobody discusses Mitsubishi, because they are practically a non-player in the US market.
Now, lets point out the blatant ignorant and bring in some facts:
Joe, Toyota and GM are in *substantially* different financial positions. Yes, Robert is doing EXACTLY that. Criticizing GM, while praising Toyota, because GM CANNOT afford to be putting so much money only into trucks. Word has from a very reliable source of mine (he knows senior GM Canada officials) that GM upped the budget on their GMT-900 trucks by almost a billion dollars, after hearing some office rumours on the capabilities of the new Tundra. What about GM’s other models, like cars and crossovers? Don’t they need the R & D money just as much? Toyota has huge potential for growth in this market, and they are only flexing their financial as well as R & D muscles with the new Tundra. Toyota is always paranoid of what they do, which is partly what makes them so sharp in the marketplace. Toyota is concerned they invested too much in the new Tundra, which is almost baffling considering their juggernaut profits.. Have you heard GM say the same about their new trucks? Of course not. GM has complete confidence in their new trucks, *even though* GM is in a very shaky position financially. This is simply a difference of two (corporate) cultures. Detriot automakers almost never admit defeat, or admit to their mistakes, while Japanese automakers are eager to do this, and Toyota in particular sometimes considers even it’s sucesses as mistakes.
Robert, just to correct you, Toyota actually knows that they must *beat* the domestic trucks, at least in a few key areas, to grab the attention of die-hard truck owners. The 2007 F150 and new GM 1/2 ton trucks both have a max tow rating of 10500 lbs. Toyota has repeatedly stated in recent news that the Tundra will have a max tow rating “well over 10, 000 pounds”. It’s quite likely that the Tundra will have *class leading* towing capacity. We have yet to see the Tundra crew cab, which will be unveiled in Detriot in January, along with all official Tundra specs. Also, current rumours say the new 5.7L V8 just might be class leading in HP, torque, or both.
Somethingtosay, you are wrong. Do more research before talking about fuel economy. The Dodge Ram consistently rates at the BOTTOM of real world fuel economy, NOT the Tundra. In fact, the F150 typically rates lower in fuel economy than the Tundra. The Tundra in most real world comparisons is second behind the GM trucks in fuel economy.
1984, what you say is irrelevant. The VAST MAJORITY of the over-2-million a year in truck sales are 1/2 ton trucks, not 3/4 ton or some other niche models. Toyota is aiming at the heart of the market. Plus, the new Tundra will have 31 different configurations, which is NOT “5 times less” than what domestic makers offer. Dodge offers I believe less than 50 configurations, GM somewhere in the 50 – 60 range, and Ford the most, because the F Series is a COLLECTION of different models, ranging from the F150 to the F650, each with multiple configurations.
You are also wrong regarding “know-how”. You seem to be living under a rock, as you apparently are either ignoring or have never heard of the Land Cruiser, which is one of the toughest trucks/SUVs in the world. Outside of the US, do you think they use Tahoes, Yukons, and F150s off-road, or in tough conditions? Not even close. The vehicle of choice in most cases around the world ends up as the Land Cruiser or the Prado, a cousin of the Land Cruiser. The Land Cruiser has an extremely tough chassis. And you seem to completely have no knowledge of Hino, Toyota’s commercial truck division. They have immense experience in making a strong and tough chassis.
Regarding Isuzu, Toyota is partnering with them mainly for small, state of the art clean diesels. Toyota will combine their know-how with Isuzu to make, likely, class leading small diesels for their cars. Toyota’s trucks and other large vehicles will likely continue to use Hino sourced or developed engines. The rumoured diesel in the Tundra most likely will be a Hino-linked engine, which all it means in the end is that it’s Toyota developed.
barberoux, you sound like some spoiled whiny little child. Your points have no credibility. Toyota is making “the same mistakes as American automakers”? What are you talking about? What mistakes? How? Are you even reading what you post? I know that among rednecks, fanboys, and rabid extremists, the “popular” thing to do is hate on Toyota no matter what, simply because they are so so successful, but jumping on the bandwagon doesn’t mean any of it is true.
And some of you are thinking only in extremes. No, the new Tundra won’t make a BIG impact in domestic truck sales, but it will be big enough to hurt the domestic automakers financially, Dodge and Ford more-so than GM. It will also establish a reputation, and strong credibility among loyal domestic buyers, which is a very important point. That’s the main reason why Toyota is in the Craftsman Truck Series. That means the next-gen Tundra in a few years will have a much easier chance at taking away conquest buyers from the domestic makers.
Johnson –
Read the post fully. This was my first paragraph:
GM’s Deathwatch by a thousand cuts continues. Let us recount the defenders’ whining ways:
Then comes the list. Any clearer?
Charles T, I will address the so-called Tundra vs Titan issue.
First off, the Titan has extremely limited cab and bed configurations. Even the current, dated 2006 Tundra handily beats the Titan in terms of available configurations.
Second of all, look at sales. Since the Titan came out, it has failed to even come close to Nissan’s goal of 100,000 annual sales. The Tundra has been achieving above 100,000 annual sales every year, save one, since in was introduced in 1999. So the current dated Tundra substantially outsells the Titan. So think for a moment then, that the new Tundra, vastly improved in so many ways, can only go up in sales from here.
Also, let’s discuss price. The Titan’s base price is expensive, because it only comes with ONE available engine, again mirroring the extremely limited cab and bed options. The Titan does not have an available V6, like all domestic trucks, and the Tundra have.
Then there are the reliability problems. In particular during the first year models, the Titan had notorious reliability problems, much worse than the current Tundra’s reliability. A lot of owners got burned, and that also turned away a lot of potential buyers. Of course, there is also the very cheap interior. That didn’t help matters either.
Nissan in North America generally has a poor reputation for trucks (and SUVs). Toyota’s reputation is vastly better, and the success of the Tacoma is one example of that, seeing as the Tacoma is class leading in sales.
Lastly, there is marketing. When the Titan came out, the *only* big thing it had going for it was class-leading torque. Towing capacity was not class leading, engine power was not class leading, nothing essentially was class leading. Offering only one engine and limited cab/bed options was a step backwards compared to all the domestic trucks, and to the Tundra.
Toyota says the new Tundra is their biggest launch in history for North America, bigger than the new Camry was. Toyota dealers have spent over 1 billion dollars just preparing and upgrading their facilities to meet the new Tundra. Time and money have been spent training dealers how to specifically handle truck customers. Toyota being in the Craftsman Truck Series, and also having lots of wins is a big perception boost compared to Nissan. Toyota will have an onslaught of marketing. There are over 8 different ad and marketing agencies working with Toyota on the new Tundra. So far, the new Tundra has been shown at State Fairs, tractor-pulling events, bass fishing events, Nascar shows, and a few autoshows. And the truck is not even out yet. Closer to the truck’s launch, we will see TV ads, and print ads. Toyota will have it’s first Nextel Cup race in January, at the Daytona 500 no less. The Tundra comes out in February. You can bet that Toyota will show the new Tundra at Daytona. The Daytona race will happen just weeks after Toyota reveals the full specs for the Tundra. Toyota basically wants to build a huge buzz about the new Tundra right before it goes on sale, so that awareness for the truck is at an all-time high
Nissan did almost none of this when they released the Titan.
Thanks mica, ignore previous comments.
Toyota has missed the mark – again – with the new Tundra.
There is no doubt that driving dynamics will be first rate and reliability will be touted as best-in-class (recent Toyota quality snafus not withstanding). But the design inside and out are decidedly foreign, which is not (yet) a good thing in the full-size truck market. Some will call it just plain ugly, while the Toyota kool-aid crowd will say it looks like a closed fist, an angry Kojishi mask, or a tough bulldog (don’t tell Mack). I’m of the former opinion.
The every-man truck buyer is fiercely loyal. Large domestic trucks have been quite reliable in the last few years. You don’t hear of widespread problems like you once did. I could give you my first-hand anecdotal experiences, but I’m just one guy. GM trucks have served me very well and I would have no reliability/durability reasons to switch.
The hardware is quite close as well: there is nothing revolutionary here. Without knowing the marque, look at the specs on paper and you would have no idea who built which 1/2 ton crew cab 4×4. Toyota’s 5.7L iForce V8 should make 370hp +/- which would give them a competetive edge in power for a very short time (GM’s 403hp all-aluminum 6.2L? Dodge’s 425hp Hemi?) The six-speed automatic Toyota is using behind the 5.7L is very similar to offerings already used in Ford and GM SUVs.
GM will fight the truck war head-on as the GMT900’s are just rolling in, a couple months ahead of Toyota. Ford and Dodge make do with aging platforms, for now. I have driven the new GMT900’s and I think they are head-and-shoulders above the old trucks, and out-do the F-series in refinement. Game on.
It will take several years for Toyota to do tremendous damage to sales of the big 2.5. They can build only ~300K before they have to invest in new infrastructure. And they do not have the 3/4 and 1 ton models that have been growing in popularity. I’m not saying it won’t happen, it just won’t happen anytime too soon.
Kaisen, you’re off the mark. You’re making an elephant out of a mouse. What you speak of is not what Toyota intends for the new Tundra to accomplish, ie “tremendous change”.
You are foolishly making assumptions having driven the 900s, yet not knowing anything concrete, or having driven the new Tundra.
Gosh, even on TTAC, seems like there are a lot of rabid and ignorant posters getting all riled up about the Tundra. What does this mean? That they are worried about the new Tundra. If the new tundra was really as crappy as domestic fanboys would have you believe, then it wouldn’t even be a point of discussion. I mean, almost nobody discusses Mitsubishi, because they are practically a non-player in the US market.
Even, on TTAC?
That aside, please count the number of “rabid” posts up above.
Whatever will happen will happen. Everyone agrees that the Tundra is here to stay now.
The point of the article is that the Tundra is going to make hay in the segment sooner or later simply by erosion of GM’s profits. That is a distinct possibility but as with everything else, we will have to wait and see.
P.S. Let us not fool ourselves into thinking that the Tundra is “flawless” and will “never break”. That isn’t even true of Camrys.
There are two major things you’re missing Mr. Farago:
1. The new Silverado starts at $23K and expect the Tundra to be priced very similarly.
2. The Silverado is a darn good truck from every report out there.
KBB just ranked it the best redesigned 2007 model. Autoweek liked it.
I’ve only seen it static, but a production version and it was excellent inside. much better than the Tundra concept was.
They sold what? like 50K of the old Silverados this month. Please. When are you going to give the general credit when it deserves it? Sure rip the aveo and the Cobalt, those are horrible cars. But the new Tahoe, and the new Silverado are top notch.
Also to Blunozer: If your dad got an 07 Avalanche he’d probably be happier with its interior.
Nissan built a great truck in the Titan, guess what?No one bought it. I see the new Tundra maintaining the same market share or slightly more than the current model. if it steals from anyone else it’ll be dodge and ford. not the new Chevy and GMC.
Anyone here watch Fronline on PBS? Anyone watch it last night? Anyone notice the similarities between Untied Air and GM? Bankruptcy, she’s a comin’.
David Thomas, I’m sorry, but I would have to disagree. Nissan DID NOT build a “great truck” with the Titan. At best, it’s an average truck. The reliability problems alone are cause for this.
Somethingtosay,
Point taken. Toyota with it’s profits and persistence, eventually *will* be a big player in the truck market. The more they fail, the more they will try harder. It’s simple math that GM doesn’t have the money (right now) to compete with Toyota head-to-head. In a few years, this discrepency will be more apparent.
Who mentioned the Tundra as flawless? I sure didn’t. Yet another foolish assumption, that Toyotas are “perfect”. Even Toyota fans almost never say that. I only typically see domestic fans using this argument. No, Toyotas are not perfect, nothing is … but for the most part, they are damn good.
They sold what? like 50K of the old Silverados this month. Please. When are you going to give the general credit when it deserves it? Sure rip the aveo and the Cobalt, those are horrible cars. But the new Tahoe, and the new Silverado are top notch.
He never said that this is the model that will start and complete the fall. This is the model that will start it.
Secondly, one only has to look at how the “inferior” current Tundra beat the more capable Titan in sales.
I think some of it has to do with badge goodwill, but the new Tundra could only do better than the last one.
Mr. Farago,
I am not sure the Isuzu diesel thing is as it appears. GM isn’t “running away” from diesels:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/11/08/asia/AS_FIN_COM_Japan_Toyota_GM.php
Interesting point nevertheless.
Econ 101, amongst other things, teaches us the important point that what happens at the margin affects everything else. The importance of the new Tundra is not that it will quickly become the best seller in its’ class, but that it will be a serious contender. GM is totally dependent on its’ trucks to provide it with positive cash flow. Think about it in terms of a typical college whose men’s football team supports all the other intercollegiate sports teams at that university. That is why in many states the highest paid government official is the football coach at the major state institution. If the football team is not successful enough state subsidies are required to keep the sports operation going. That is just the way it is. F and GM cannot afford the Tundra competition. Literally. Are you up for a national subsidy of our (sorta) domestic auto/truck manufacturers?
Johnson-
Read my post again carefully and notice that I did not compare the GMT900’s with the Tundra, as the Tundra isn’t out yet. On paper, they are similar.
Do they need to be revolutionary? No, but Honda Ridgeline was. 2008 Toyota Tundra = 2008 GMC Sierra = 2008 Ford F150. Why switch from one to the next unless you are dissatisfied? Truck owners aren’t generally displeased.
What do you know that’s concrete that I don’t? Love to hear it.
Toyota Motor Sales COO, Jim Press, said “[The Tundra] is about keeping our small-truck buyers in the Toyota family, and keeping people from going to our rivals.” Toyota says more owners of the Toyota Tacoma small pickup traded up to the Ford F-series last year than Toyota sold Tundras.
I agree with 1984, Toyota has a serious uphill battle against the domestic trucks. The Titan was a good effort but still fell far short. The Tundra will likely be better than that but not anywhere near good enough, despite any car mag claims, to take over as the top selling truck in America. However, Big 2.5 truck profits are huge. There is alot of room for competitors to undercut them. Wether or not the Tundra makes a big cut in these profits the writing is on the wall. GM and Ford need to figure out how to drastically reduce costs, ie pension/healthcare liabilities/labor and overhead and fast.
Johnson,
I mean, almost nobody discusses Mitsubishi, because they are practically a non-player in the US market.
Now, lets point out the blatant ignorant and bring in some facts:
Which one of these sentences should come first? Everyone knows that full size Mitsus are Dodge trucks.
You seem to be living under a rock, as you apparently are either ignoring or have never heard of the Land Cruiser, which is one of the toughest trucks/SUVs in the world.
Yeah, I had one… a 67′ FJ40. There is a reason they are known as a tough truck. Check out where the drivetrain comes from and get back with me. LOL ;-)
So all domestics have more configurations. GM comes standard with a 300 HP V8. Toyota has no 3/4, 1, 1+ ton anything (Hino or not) and no diesel. Imports do not have the loyalty of domestic trucks. Did I leave anything out?
These are just facts, not sure why you sound so pissed.
BTW I never stated that the Toyota was an inferior truck… Sorry, even if it’s better it still does not stand a chance.
sorry, you’re right the Titan has the Nissan reliability issues, but the owners seem to love it and stick by it. I’ve heard many stories of people switching entire company fleets to Titans after they were big 3 owners etc. Regardless the titan isn’t the big deal here. The big deal is the new Silverado could outsell the F-150 in early 2007.
I don’t think they’re that worried about the Tundra. Plus have you seen the new Tundra?
Plus have you seen the new Tundra?
Every time I see it… I dunno… I think Battlestar Galactica robot head… Cylon I think. Perhaps it’s the grill?
http://user.dls.net/~rick/callisto/multi/cylon.gif
If you add Silverado and Sierra together, GM has been outselling the F-series for quite a while.
2005 numbers:
F-series 901,463
Silverado 705,980
Sierra 229,488
GM TOTAL 935,468
GM full-size pickup outsold Ford full-size pickup 34,005 units in 2005
BTW, Tundra 126,529 units in 2005
Kaisen,
That’s my point. GM’s been using that line “well together we sell more than the F-150” but that’s lame. Now they might be able to have just the Silverado overtake it. Who knows.
For anyone commenting on styling, none of the trucks are particularly good looking. The only remotely good looking truck I’ve seen recently is the Jeep Gladiator concept. Ford, GM, Toyota, Dodge, whatever, they are all boring. I’d say design is a non-issue in this market, so I wouldn’t use it as a knock against the Tundra.
Hutton-
The Tundra is just uglier than the other uglies. The new GM interiors are gorgeous, IMO.
I something wrong with me?
I do not find the Tundra–or the Ridgeline to be “ugly”, yet everyone says that they are.
(The new Tundra interior seems pretty nice to me).
I am not convinced that “ugly” is anything GM should hang it coat on. That is subjective, and Toyota has a world of goodwill behind it.
I think it will boil down to customer satisfaction and raw merit (who can offer the best for the least and still make a profit handsome enough to spur on future development).
The real, yet understated, problem here are the Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon. Ford is doing the same thing with its Ranger too–nothing.
The reputation of those three vehicles will be responsible for more lost half-ton sales than any other reason you can find. They are absolutely exposed on their bottom end and they seem blissfully ready to let them go the way of the CSVs (alone and unloved).
(P.S. In my subjective opinion, the Colorado and Canyon are quite unsightly vehicles)
I’m with you on the little Colorado/Canyon/Isuzu, and Ranger/B4000, and Frontier (Dakota and the Mitsu are tweeners). The Tacoma kicks butt and takes names.
However, the GM triplets still sell as many little trucks (about 170K/yr) as Tacoma. I have NO idea why.
It’s as if they have all conceded that market altogether. But if I were GM or Ford I would have bet my R&D dollars on the big trucks too.
(P.S. In my subjective opinion, the Colorado and Canyon are quite unsightly vehicles)
With quite unsightly sticker prices as well.
My company uses 3/4 ton and up pickups for all of our work. We used to use Dodge Ram’s (old body style) but had horrible reliablity problems. I don’t know why they just didn’t give me extra transmissions when I picked up a truck.
Due to the bad luck we switched to Fords (I refuse to by a GM product) and guess what, horrible reliability problems. We looked at a Tundra years ago for a supervisor, but it just wasn’t a work truck.
If Toyota (or Honda – the Ridgeline is just a joke) can build a work truck that competes on load and haul capability and has Toyota reliability (well, ignore recently when even the President of Toyota admits they have a reliability “crisis”) and that truck is priced similarly to the domestics, we will switch in a minute. I don’t care about looks, just make it white with AC, auto, and nothing else.
For fleets, reliability trumps all other issues.
The new Tundra should win a TWAT award for being the butt ugliest truck out there. By a mile. Oh but wait, since it has a Toyota badge on it, that must mean it walks on water and TTAC will dutifully worship the ground it treads.
Jeep Compass – ugly, trying to win on price = TWAT
Toyata Tundra – uglier, trying to win on price = best truck ever.
Makes sense. The new GM trucks look fantastic, build quality will be on par with anything out there. Dodge’s new Ram is coming out next summer, sure to be a big improvement on an outstanding pickup. But Toyota puts out a butt ugly truck and “Watch out America!!!!” It probably will happen simply because the American automobile media is so blindly in love with anything foreign that they will talk the Tundra up so much that Americans will just buy it in droves.
For fleets, reliability trumps all other issues.
No, cost of ownership trumps all. If a Toyota costs $1500 more (after all fleet incentives), then fleet administrators will be VERY reluctant to buy them.
RF-
Since the new GM 900 pickups are already on dealer’s lots, why not do a full write up? Then follow it up with Tundra story in January.
Just a little something for all of you to consider – Toyota will sell trucks, for sure. And probably enough to measure market share. But this will be a lo-o-o-o-o-ng term project.
NOTE:
1. The ToMoCo dealer body (and sales staffs) have little or no experience in the truck business. This will take time to develop.
2. Trucks are about more than HP, torque and towing capability. Trucks must be able to do the following: Hold, Move and Stop. Nissan’s Titan claimed an industry-leading towing capacity for a while. The only problem was the brakes would overheat and fail even without that big load on the back. Anybody want to tow 9,000 pounds with those weak brakes? Anybody want to be in the Yaris in front of that truck at the stop light? The Big 2.5 have a huge head start on the design and engineering of these trucks. There will undoubtedly be learning experiences along the way for Toyota.
3. The Big 2.5 are bracing for a battle-royal this time and they will not cede ground easily. They will vigorously defend this turf because their very survival depends on it for the short to mid-term. Toyota may have the resources to engage for as long as it takes, but do they have the will?
4. These customers are more brand loyal than car owners ever were. The demographics of this segment lean right, red, union. And for every unsatisfactory owner experience you can name, you will find many more satisfied customers with no real reason to change.
you can lean right and union? and that has what to do with trucks?
kaisen:
True, total cost of ownership is really the most important factor, but how do you calculate that? I save $1500 by going with a Ford instead of a Tundra, but what is the value of having my Ford’s transmission blow 40 miles from my office and, worst case scenario, preventing my crew from getting to their job? I get back-charged by my customer who is unable to perform their work, I have to get the truck towed to a dealership, send another vehicle to the jobsite to perform the work (assuming I have an available vehicle to send) and pick up my crew. Then I have to wait an unknown amount of time for my truck to get fixed, hopefully it was under warranty.
Obviously just because it’s not a domestic truck doesn’t mean that it will never break, but I’m VERY glad my current fleet of Fords are all leased and they will be turned in before the warranties are up. The transmission problems alone are killing us, and that $1500 extra up-front cost is a small price to pay for a reliable fleet.
levaris,
If you refuse to buy GM, that is your loss (or gain?), but why didn’t you all switch to the Titan? If the Toyotas give you trouble, what will you do then?
SuperAROD,
The Compass isn’t a very good car overall, and it really tarnishes the brand. It is not something DCX should be too proud of.
The “ugly” argument can only go so far. The Tundra will do well for itself regardless.
For fleets, reliability trumps all other issues.
levaris… Thanks for your rational/non-emotional post.
A lot of fleet buyers are no-doubt having the same reliability issues with the 2.5. If the 07 Tundra has the capability the fleet managers require and it is prices say $1K less…..
Ugh. Thats a lot of sales (High profits) taken away from the 2.5
Levaris-
Sounds like your company would be the perfect candidate for a fleet of Toyota Tundras if they offered 3/4 or 1 ton pickups.
Since they do not (yet), what will you replace the Fords with? More Fords? Back to Dodge? Or (gulp) GM?
How will fleet administrators weigh GM’s 100,000 mile powertrain warranty (with roadside assistance and rental reimbursement) compared to Ford and Toyota’s 60K, or Dodge’s 36K?
Hutton:
The segment doesn’t necessarily lean all those ways at once, but they do typically lean one of those ways. These characteristics make them more likely to remain loyal customers of the domestic brands.
Levaris:
Fleet managers very often minimize or ignore depreciation and operating costs, focusing much more on up-front costs.
No, cost of ownership trumps all. If a Toyota costs $1500 more (after all fleet incentives), then fleet administrators will be VERY reluctant to buy them.
You don’t seem to know what cost of ownership truly is. Cost of ownership includes the purchase price, depreciation, fuel, maintenance and repairs. Depreciation is the most significant contributor to the cost of ownership. Toyota’s depreciate far less than domestic vehicles. Your $1500 difference evaporates most likely the second you drive the trucks off the lot.
Toyota’s patience and persistence never cease to impress me. While GM throws up it’s hands and kicks Subaru and Isuzu out of bed, Toyota quietly steps in to pick up the pieces and find ways to bring these companies productively into the Toyota Family. Isuzu’s diesel expertise will be put to good use and Subaru’s underutilized Indiana factory is going to crank out Camrys. US companies never seem to pick a good market or strategy and keep working it. They lurch from strategy to strategy, boss to boss and all the while give away the store one penny pinched piece at a time.
The Nissan Titan is a real don’t care. In fact, Nissan is a don’t care. It’s history is more like that of GM than it is like Toyota. Nissan lurches from relative prosperity to near disaster on a ten year cycle. Toyota keeps plugging along.
The Japanese companies to watch are Toyota and Honda. Honda shoots rifle shots at market segments and usually scores a hit. Toyota is almost everywhere and almost always has a strong product. Nissan, Mitsubishi, Suzuki et. al. are really minor players. Subaru has a niche it usually sticks to and works well, the Tribeca standing out as a big miss.
Toyota is going to keep taking share of the US 1/2 ton market for decades to come.
Perhaps the company in the most trouble in this market is Dodge. Dodge has long been the step-sister in the pickup wars and doesn’t show the will to really play hardball. Dated products and lackluster reliability history just don’t get ‘er done. Now that the match is GM-Ford-Toyota the step-sister is going to be caught watching from the bench.
John
A welcome to David Thomas, one of the two originals at autoblog.com and currently at blogs.cars.com. David was wondering why I was still posting at Autoblog, long after he left – well, it took TTAC to pull me away.
—
For all the talk that Toyota can’t do a truck right, isn’t the new Tundra being designed by pickup truck engineers plucked from the 2.5? I don’t know where I read that, just that I did.
The dealer end will have a learning curve, but remember that having a Toyota dealership is basically a license to print money, and money can buy knowledgable staff. Toyota isn’t buidling the plant in San Antonio for nothing, they’re looking for a (slow) domino effect starting from the heart of Truck Country.
ktm-
Your hypothesis may be true for cars (Camry vs Impala), but not for trucks.
If fleet trucks are leased (like levaris’), depreciation is already factored (non-variable).
I will avoid taking your ‘you don’t seem to know what…..’ as a personal attack. I will just prove you wrong.
Automotive Lease Guide (ALG) is the basis to underwrite all residual values (wholesale resale values). According to the November/December 2006 tables a 2006 Chev K1500 Crew Cab LS is guaranteed to hold 54% of its value after 36 months and 45,000 miles. A 2006 Toyota Tundra Double Cab SR5 4×4 is 50% for the same period. Assuming these are both $30,000 vehicles that 4% difference translates into a $1200 depreciation advantage for Chevrolet, plus whatever the difference in their up-front cost. Service/maint expenses are typically lower for domestics.
So where is the savings buying a more-expensive-up-front Toyota?
P.S. If I were the Toyota Tundra product strategy manager my first objective would be to knock Dodge completely out of the game. Us price to take the fleet/government business Dodge has so often taken refuge in and simply hit them on every competitive front. Mabye even put a 120 day special $3000 bonus cash offer out to anyone who trades in a Dodge truck and then make a public display out of recycling the Dodge instead of selling it into the used market :). Boy, that would be fun.
Now run a Be American, Buy American campaign and point out that a huge number of the 2.5’s trucks are Made in Mexico while every Tunda is Made in Texas, USA. Hit ’em hard.
John
Allright RF the gloves are off now…
lets start by saying bottom line GM holds 40 % of the lite truck market in the US YTD right now as we speak.
Next… I think that this has already been mentioned but I will mention it again… GM trucks come standard with a V8 and Toyota with a V6… think about this… why do truck buyers buy trucks? For the power!!!!
I know its coming so I will address it right now… Some toyota fan is gonna say ” well, with the price of gas so high a V6 motor is a good trade off” but your argument is moot, pointless and doesnt make sense because:
1. Gas prices have dropped to pre katrina levels
2. GM has technology that shuts down two cylinders on these motors making it optional to run on a V6 or V8 on the fly and this is my decision… I’m not stuck with a V6
3. GM has developed the E85 motor capable of running on 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline (anyone got a still out there?) which is a renewable fuel and will cut the price of your gas cost by more than half!
GM Trucks look better, tougher and run better than ever before. Toyota overtake GM in the truck market? I dont think so.
I think Toyota is in for an ass whippin
I got one more thing to say about the difference between GM and Toyota.
ONSTAR
NinerSevenTango:
Thanks for the Schadenfreude – you made Pelosi’s and my day.
We’re going to make you wear pink pants and lavender blouses. And we’ll ban flatulence, pizza, body odor, football and bad hair.
Wow cykickspy, maybe happy hour was more than an hour, eh?
You make some good points so I’ll clarify:
The 2007 Toyota Tundra 2WD 4.0L V6 auto is EPA rated 17/20
The 2007 Chev C1500 2WD 5.3L V8 auto is EPA rated 16/22
GM’s displacement on demand cuts 4 cylinders, not 2.
So Chev -1 city / +2 freeway is close enough to call a draw.
But Chev’s V8 makes 315hp (vs 236) and 338 lb-ft (vs 266)
Chev can tow 5200lbs (vs 5000) and haul 1952lbs (vs 1535)
e85 isn’t much of an advantage, as fuel mileage drops
I don’t think OnStar will make a big difference, but it is a difference.
cykickspy: I heard the same arguments many years ago.
GM had 52% of the US vehicle market. Now they have around 25%. They have lost in small car, intermediate car, small truck, intermediate truck, mini van and small SUV. GM only has full size SUV and truck left.
Would you bet your life savings on GM not losing in these last 2 categories? Toyota has vast sums of money to improve product. This may very well be GM’s last gasp.
Johnson, great points I have to say I agree completely.
GM and Ford rely on pickups for the lion’s share of their profits. Toyota doesn’t need to half their sales to hurt profits: when just about everything else is losing you money, you need every last pickup you can sell. If GM/Ford each sold 850k pickups last year instead of 900k, how much MORE would they have lost? What many (domestic fanboys) don’t seem to get is that Toyota doesn’t need a home run, it needs to be a viable option.
This seems to be the first pickup that is a viable option to the big3 lines. While plenty of buyers are satisfied (tolerant) of their GM/Ford/Dodge, as some have said some have been staying there for lack of a better option. As long as the Tundra doesn’t make any major quality fumbles on the get-go, I think 150k-200k units a year is attainable.
What many people seem to fail to realize is that it is not a problem that the new Tundra is not all things to all people; it doesn’t need to be, it needs to be enough to enough people to make a dent in the market. Believe me, regardless of whether it’s a massive hit or a flop, one thing that’s for sure is the next generation will fix those problems and then some. It’ll be the same for the Ridgeline (albeit appealing to a different demographic).
It’s true that the Japanese are having more problems cracking the truck market, loyalty issues aside, a big part of the problem is that pickups are nowhere near as big a market anywhere else in the world as they are in North America, especially not Japan (unless you count a 0.66L -41c.i.- “truck” a pickup). That doesn’t mean it can’t be done, just that it might take more adaptation and more work.
The whole “bah they don’t know what they are doing/what we want/what we need/how to do it” attitude is what got the Big 3 where they are today. Sure would be a shame to make the same mistake…gosh, it’s been more than twice now hasn’t it?
jthorner: The only FoMoCo trucks sold in USA assembled in Mexico are F650/F750 and LCF.
Do people in Japan drive pickups? They have food, so in theory there are farms. They have buildings, so in theory there is construction. But everyone thinks that Japan doesn’t have the truck building know-how. Maybe they don’t. I admit I don’t know a lot about Japan, but if they can’t build a good truck, what are they using for their truck-requiring jobs… Silverados?
Serious question. Someone help me.
kablamo-
Toyota’s share of the full-size truck market *so far* is a relative non-issue to the short term financial health of GM. In the short term Toyota will certainly sell more than the 125K they sold the last couple years, but still no more than the 250-300K they have capacity to build. While these ‘additional’ 150K units may hurt, they will most likely be at the greater expense of Ford and Dodge. The entire truck market fluctuates more than the 150K units based on lots of factors, like the economy (housing market!) and gas prices. GM can (and has/will) absorb 50-100K units as the market swings, regardless of how Toyota fares …. SHORT TERM.
Toyota can still be relatively successful (i.e., hit their moderate goals) and GM can still ‘win’. GM has to steal market share from Ford and Dodge. Each unit GM sells is reported to put $10,000 back to the company coffers (hopefully to bankroll future product). Stealing 10% from Toyota means only 13K units. Stealing 10% from Dodge means 36K units, and 10% from Ford would mean 90K units. Gunning for Ford or Dodge makes more sense, and that’s what the new GMT900 pickups intend to do.
When (not if) Toyota grows its share of the full size truck market enough to justify a new plant (3/4 – 1 tons?), increasing its capacity to, say, 500,000 trucks, then there will be a fight to the death. GM has knocked Toyota down (but not TKO) in the first two rounds. For now, it’s just round three.
“The GM Silverado starts at $27k”
don’t you mean 17K
Here’s hoping the Big 2.5 put their A-Teams together. Toyota’s coming to town! Again. This time it’s going to be for all the marbles! Maybe. Winner take all! Or at least some.
I don’t believe this battle necessarily spells doom for any of the Big 2.5. It’s a big and lucrative market. The big 2.5 already compete in this segment well and VERY profitably with competent product that gets refreshed fairly often. However, if they don’t figure out how to build and sell cars profitably, this outcome won’t make any difference to their survival. They’ll be gone. Sooner than later.
“The GM Silverado starts at $27k”
don’t you mean 17K
The new-bodystyle GMT900’s are available at launch in CREW CAB ONLY. So yes, they start at $27,000. When the regular cab base models are available they will likely mirror the $16,740 ‘Classic’ (old-style but still 2007) model, adjusted for differences in standard equipment.
Somethingtosay: I waited anxiously for the Nissan Titans to come out, but Nissan doesn’t offer them in “work truck” configuration, they have crew and king-cab only. For a typical fleet work truck you need regular-cab, long bed – for some strange reason not offered by Nissan.
Kaisen: We will probably continue with Fords (as they are considerably cheaper than Dodge’s and our previous Dodge ownership experience was no better than Ford) until there is a viable alternative to domestics with a good reliablity assurance. The new Tundra looks like it is getting close, and a 10k towing capacity almost matches an F250, not sure about load carying capability.
Japan has “brought the fight” to domestic truck makers several times in the past, but no foreign automaker has ever really sold a down-and-dirty work truck here. The new Tundra has a bed that is as large or larger than the F250’s.
Also, I believe the 2007 Tundra will have a V8 available.
So it looks like they are getting closer, but as noted on this site previously, with the amount of options, features, and configurations available with the domestic fleet trucks, Japan or, eventually, China, will have to really step up to steal a large market share. If only the big 2.5 would really step up on the reliability issue. GM’s 100,000 limited warranty is a start, but it’s the actual down-time that matters even more than the repair costs to an over-extended fleet.
Yep, the 100,000 mile warranty is limited to the engine, transmission, transfer case, axles, and all related seals, belts, and gaskets. Same as Toyota, or Ford’s 60,000 miles limited powertrain warranties. Your transmission troubles would be covered.
The new Tundra will be available with two different V8s. The 4.7L will be carryover and the 5.7L will be all-new. It will take the 5.7L with 6 speed auto and ~3.92 gears to tow 10,000 lbs. The long-bed dimensions will be similar to the F250 Super Duty.
Where they differ: The Super Duty has a full-floating rear-end where 1/2 tons (new Tundra) are semi-floating. The brakes are much smaller on the Tundra. The ‘E’ load range tires on your Super Duties will be much happier under heavy loads than the Toyota’s ‘C’-loads. The frames are much stronger in your Super Duty. The front suspensions are also much stronger and are made to distribute the weight of the load in the box (max ~1800 lbs Tundra vs 4000 lbs SD), as opposed to just pulling the weight behind the truck. Obviously, the springs are heavier (and longer) to support those heavier loads.
In short, the new beefed-up 1/2 ton Tundra still ain’t no Super Duty (or Ram 2500, or GM 2500). If your needs currently dictate a 3/4 ton, then it sounds like you’ll be getting some new SDs.
Hutton:
November 8th, 2006 at 8:16 pm
Do people in Japan drive pickups? They have food, so in theory there are farms. They have buildings, so in theory there is construction. But everyone thinks that Japan doesn’t have the truck building know-how. Maybe they don’t. I admit I don’t know a lot about Japan, but if they can’t build a good truck, what are they using for their truck-requiring jobs… Silverados?
Serious question. Someone help me.
Are you kidding?
unfair trade practices dont allow GM to sell in Japan in a free market… Japan has to “protect” their native companies… we should do the same
I am gonna hafta wade in here.CYKICKSPY has it all figured out.Toyota might make a pretty good “WANABE TRUCK”,but its no Chevy or GMC or for that matter Ford or Dodge.
Real truck guys do not buy Japanese trucks.Even trucks made buy contract, non union workers in Texas.
I will agree that Impala vs. Camry is an endless debate.
But when it comes to trucks the big 2.5 kick ass.
“Are you kidding?
unfair trade practices dont allow GM to sell in Japan in a free market… Japan has to “protect” their native companies… we should do the same”
I used to live in Japan. Driving a Silverado there would be like using a dual axle Kenworth as your daily commuter here.
kaisen – point taken, however regardless of whose ‘hide it comes from, more players in a shrinking (or static) field is never a good thing. I find it hard to believe GM would be exempt from conquest sales on Toyota’s part, although I can see them losing the least, for now.
Where the units come from will likely not be a simple case of 10%, but will depend on the quality of the offering. I can see Dodge losing a lot, Ford as well though not quite as much. I don’t think GM is immune to anything, if people have been burnt by a GM truck before (and there are plenty), they’re in no better mood to try a brand new GM model, a Toyota would be no worse.
Although I am by no means 100% confident in my opinions, I don’t think there is any doubt this upcoming Tundra is the most competent pickup ever offered by a foreign manufacturer. Even if one the Big 3 (GM) doesn’t lose in sales, it could forever destroy the last bastion of domestic dominance.
As for 3/4 and 1 tons, those are what, no more than 10-20% of total pickup truck sales? If I were building a plant to attack a new market, I’d focus on the biggest target to avoid losing my shirt. That seems to be what’s happening.
Bill,
Are the work trucks over there similar in design or function to work trucks here? Or is there more demanded of an American truck?
Japan does not have the sprawl that we have. They use commercial trucks (not pickups) to move product from place to place. In urban settings they do have pickups and box vans that are micro-sized. They like small vehicles. They have little use for ‘personal’ (non-commercial) pickups.
Yeah, Japan is small and urban… But they have work to do too. it just seems like a lot of people are judging the quality of a pickup based on its ability to haul/pull/carry things. Which is fine, that’s it’s function. But obviosly America is not the only place where things need to be hauled, pulled, or carried. Maybe American trucks are the best right now, but there’s a lot of chatter alluding to how only America could ever know how to build a truck right. Sorry, but other countries aren’t moving their drywall or mulch or refridgerators by donkey. What does a truck do in America that is so much more demanding than what a truck would do in Japan or China or Sweden or Germany or anywhere for that matter?
I personally see the halo (aspirational?) vehicles in the truck market as the big tough Super Duty sized trucks (3/4 ton- up). Toyota may not be taken as seriously unless they have a heavyweight contender. Its like the Mustang: most people buy V6s, but they buy one for the heritage of the Shelby GT500s. Powerstrokes, Cummins, and Duramaxes are the Cobra Jets, Six Packs, and Tri-Powers of today’s truck world.
Hutton, kaisen covered it well. The same situation exists in most of Europe. High fuel costs plus very narrow and congested roadways, especially in the cities, pretty much precludes large trucks like we have.
Very efficient use of compact vans and box trucks is much more the norm.
In many countries a vehicle the size of a US Camry would be considered a large car. Many vehicles overseas make much better use of cargo and passenger space than US vehicles.
Realistically the vast majority of pickups sold in the US are used as single occupant commuter vehicles which is a lifestyle choice versus practicality.
I just got back from Switzerland and my hosts had a new Mercedes diesel van. Truly a remarkable multi use vehicle. I’m at a loss as to why they are not imported into the US. These same vans were towing 24′ travel trailers at 70mph.
Also the capability to seat 8 people or carry a considerable amount of cargo was quite a plus.
Kaisen, Yeah, I’m with you on that. Wranglers sell Libertys, 911’s sell Boxters, H1’s sell H3’s and STi’s sell Imprezas. That may be the missing piece of the Toyota puzzle.
Bill, I think we all know in the back of our mind that most pick-ups are going to be image/commuter cars… which is why its seems silly to hear all the quoting of capacity/towing/payload, etc. if Toyota is shooting for the end of the market that doesn’t need that. I’m sure a Tundra will move a pile of leaves as good as an F150.
Hutton-
There are lots of countries that produce great commercial trucks. Hino and Isuzu, Mann and Mercedes, and countless others around the world. The personal-use pickup is a North American phenomenon.
Someone besides the 2.5 CAN build a pickup. No one is better poised than Toyota. The new generation is a BIG step in the right direction, but not ready to deliver a TKO yet.
Agreed. And I’m not rooting for Toyota to deliver the TKO. Just hoping they poke some holes in the prevailing theory that quality trucks will only come out of Ford or GM from now until the end of time.
I’d actually rather see Toyota hone the Tacoma to perfection, as thats such a neglected market, and I could see myself eventually buying a small pickup to carry whitewater kayaks and canoes and the occasional large appliance. I don’t think I’d ever drive to work in it though.
I just can’t believe people are so passionate about dirt haulers.
Dirt hauling has somehow become synonymous with America. We are the dirt haulingest country ever.
Isn’t the Tacoma honed to perfection now? At least from a competitive standpoint. I don’t see much competition from any other manufacturer. The Colorado/Canyon was the ‘newest’ platform and WAY missed the mark. Who thought the 5 cylinder was a good idea?
Meh. They should scale it down. Like an Australian ‘ute.
Kaisen
Volvo.
I just can’t believe people are so passionate about dirt haulers.
You live in the hills above LA. You’re not going to get it as much as I’m not going to get why people would pay $200 for pre-ripped jeans or $10 cups of (machiato latte half-caf) designer coffee.
What about Volvo?
^volvo = t5
Kaisen — not those hills. And I wear Levis 501 shrink to fits that I buy at army surplus stores. And I drink black coffee.
I also grew up in a Thomas Kinkade painting, so watch the aspersions you cast around.
Anyhow, they are all trucks and really boring. Unless you manage a fleet, apparently.
So what about Volvo?
Jonny-
I’m glad you grew up with happy clouds and dancing light, but LA is just different than the heartland. Not better or worse, just different.
Just looking through our metropolitan Polk registration data Jan1-Sept1 and people here have purchased 16,500 full-sized pickups. Hey, we also bought 373 Tacomas. Oh, and 2,360 Toyota Camrys and 16 Nissan 350Zs.
See what I mean? It ain’t LA, no matter which hill we’re talking about.
We buy domestic trucks here. Out of 104K total new-vehicle registrations, 35K were Asian/Japanese brands.
We’re a product of our environment. So you can not ‘get’ the truck-thing. I don’t get the plastic surgery thing either.
The point of the article is not that Toyota is going to kill GM in the pickup market. The point is that Toyota can spoil much of GM’s profits in this segment.
1. GM might have the world’s most profitable auto line with it’s full size pickups – indeed the most profitable line in the history of the universe. 900,000 per year with 10,000 per vehicle is 9 billion per year in profit.
2. But . . . . GM is losing money. This is because of huge legacy costs. GM needs huge truck-SUV profits to compensate for huge fixed costs . . . and even then it is sinking.
3. Imagine Toyota takes addtional 150,000 per year, 50k each from each of the big2.5 (some people speculate that most of this would come out of Ford and Chrysler-Daimler, but remember GM sells the most units and has the most to lose). 50k units at 10k proffit is 500 million.
4. Farago’s point about price is valid. Toyota has costs as low or lower than GM, they start selling more cheaply. Now part of GM’s sales are HD models not affected, but what if they lose 5,000$ of margin on 400,000 units? this is 2 billion lost profit. Of course this estimate is just a guess, but history shows that when you have market this big and profitable you draw competition.
Again: the point is that GM could start losing money more quickly as there profitable business makes less, while their losers keep losing.
Two more points:
The HD market is important, but I am skeptical that so many are needed. A half-ton pickup with 10,000 lb towing is pretty capable vehicle. Part of this market is driven by federal tax treatment that gives favorable treatment to the heavier pickups.
I dont’ own a truck, but I have to admit GM has some impressive vehicles. GM *does* have world class engineering – it just mostly works in the truck business (compare GM fuel economy to Ford’s, Chrysler-Daimlers or Honda Ridgeline)
The very number of posts this article has brought forth – 110 in only a few hours – says a lot about the market for pickup trucks. That market doesn’t exist in Europe; and maybe it is one reason they don’t have the problem we do with securing foreign oil to literally fuel the economy.
Whether or not the people in Texas switch to Toyota for their hauling needs depends on whether they do it for a living – day in and day out – as opposed to simply making an occasional run to Home Depot. Then too, there is the fact that many people all over America, but especially those in Texas, use the pickup truck as a fashion (or political statement). I believe the jury is out on whether or not Toyota can really kick GM or even Ford’s can in the heavy duty truck market.
But then, before November 7, the Democrats thought they’d be lucky to just win 15 seats in the U.S. House of Representative. Sometimes, things change – in a major way – unexpectedly, even to the experts.
Kaisen:
I’ll accept your conclusion if you accept mine.
Dirt Haulers are boring.
Larry McFadden:
Toyota has built a very fine truck with the Tundra, however they don’t offer many of the configuations that true truck drivers look for in their trucks. Many truck owners would like to have a standard transmission rather than an automatic and Toyota doesn’t offer the choice of a standard transmission in their Tundra model. Ford, GM and Dodge still offer choices when it comes to transmissions. While the market for standards have been decreasing for some time, they are still popular with truck owners. For those of us who still prefer to shift our own gears, Toyota should offer us a choice. Until then we will have to make do with our Fords, Chevys and Dodges.
Two points:
1) To improve market acceptance of their new Tundra, Toyota should sell bare chassis to RV makers. The late-70s through early-90s Toyota-based RVs are *still* very popular. If they included the diesel option, they would sell like hotcakes.
2) Just a minor grammatical point: Several of the above posts have used “it’s” as the posessive of “it”. That is incorrect.
“It’s” is a contraction for “it is”. Its posessive is its.
Larry McFadden:
I should add that I live in Northern British Columbia where pickups are the common vehicle on the road. Fords are most common followed by GMs and then Dodges. There aren’t too many Toyotas however they are gaining in popularity.
Toyota entering the 1/2 ton market will drive down costs and improve quality regardless of whos truck you buy. Standard of living will improve thanks to the competition. The GMT900 is as good as it is thanks to Toyota.
I bet the Tundra plant in SA will be at full capacity by the end of 07 just from pentup demand for a reliable altenative.
kaisen, *you* seem to be certain you know of concrete details of the Tundra, when you yourself say you have not driven it, and that the production truck is not out yet.
I have nothing concrete, but most of my info is coming from very reliable and reputable sources, like Toyota employees who were/are involved with the new Tundra.
Where is your info coming from?
And I find it comical that some of you people continue to compare 3/4 HEAVY DUTY trucks to the meager Tundra 1/2 ton.
When the first gen Tundra came out, critics called it too small, and not enough configurations. Toyota then came out with a Double Cab, and similar criticisms remained, yet sales rose.
Now, the new Tundra more than doubles configurations compared to the old one, and is vastly improved in many ways. Now, the Tundra is definitely big enough, and capable enough, so critics have moved to “it’s TOO big” or that “the 5.7L V8 will be a gas hog”. So GM’s 6.0L Vortec isn’t a gas hog? Apples to apples kids.
The new Tundra IS NOT a heavy duty truck, I repeat, is NOT an HD truck, so STOP comparing it to other HDs! Nobody cares what the Super Duty or 3500HDs can or cannot do, because the Tundra is not competing in that segment (not yet anyways). Compare the Tundra to it’s competition, which are the 1/2 ton trucks.
Funny how everyone is reluctant then to compare an F150 to the Tundra, because suddenly, the Ford does not seem so superior.
Baby steps. Toyota is aiming to win over buyers in the heart of the market, then when market share is suitable enough, they will introduce and HD with a diesel and likely a hybrid.
1984, check out 1980s, 1990s, and current Land Cruisers. Take a look at who makes the chassis and drivertrain, and THEN get back to me. How convenient of you to bring up *only* the ’67 FJ40, which you clearly know had some domestic-sourced parts, and it makes it very convenient to your argument. Most LCs around the world today are NOT FJ40s, but rather newer LCs, running a Toyota chassis with a Toyota drivetrain.
And again, you are totally oblivious to Hino, even though they are the BEST selling commercial trucks in Asia, and are legendary for their toughness, and reliability. Even in Canada, Hino has about 13- 17% market share of the commercial truck market, which is not too shabby.
FYI, the new GM trucks, technically, DO NOT come standard with a V8. They offer a V6, but that is almost exclusively to fleet buyers. For most consumers then, practically speaking, they CAN’T BUY a V6. Ironic isn’t it. Many of you are bashing that the Tundra will have bad fuel economy, when inexplicably, you seem to ignore how hard it is to actually get a V6 in a GM truck.
jthorner and kablamo, you guys seem to get it. Most of you unfortunately do not.
Instead of repeating myself ad naseum (and feel like I’m talking to a wall), I will end with this: Toyota’s goal for the time being is to double Tundra sales for 2007. It’s very likely they will achieve this. Toyota’s longer-term goal is to max-out production of the Indiana and Texas plants, which would put Tundra production somewhere in the range of 300,000 units. For 2008-2009, that is Toyota’s sales goal for the Tundra. If they fail or are dissapointed, they will ONLY try harder. This has been illustrated throughout Toyota’s history numerous times. Keep in mind, biggest launch in Toyota’s history for North America, biggest marketing campaign ever, huge upgrades of Toyota dealers all across North America, and extensive dealer training.
Some of you have said this is a LONG term war Toyota is getting into, and believe me, Toyota is in this for the long term. They spent 7 years of R & D on the new Tundra, and I don’t think that’s just for the 1/2 ton model, so expect more variants soon.
And one last thing to think about: Between 1999 and now, which has essentially been the life span of the current 1st gen Tundra, GM released their GMT-800 trucks, Ford released an all-new F150, and Dodge released a new Ram. Throughout all of this, Tundra sales remained stable and solid, while slowly but gradually climbing in sales.
kaisen, your panties must be in a twist. My comment was not a personal attack. Most folks do not consider depreciation into their calculations when looking at cost of ownership. They simply look at the purchase price of a vehicle, fuel and maintenance.
You are correct that in leasing a vehicle depreciation is already factored into monthly payment. You only pay for that portion of the vehicle you use.
I was unaware of the depreciation rate for the Chevy trucks. Regardless of whether or not they are leased, the Chevy truck has a higher residual than the Tundra, thus making it cheaper to own.
Toyota’s marketing ploy with the Tundra is very predictable.
Toyota spent most of it’s marketing costs for the Lexus brand by simply under-pricing everybody else’s luxury cars. In two or three years Lexus cars became just as expensive as anybody else’s.
Seems to me Toyota is doing the same thing with the Tundra. Introducing it at a price that is below their cost of delivery to the dealer. Once Toyota “buys” their market share after a few years they will jack up the price of the Tundra.
You can do this when you are the world’s most profitable car company. ($13 billion profit in last quarter.)
Actually allen, Toyota had a profit of 3.44 Billion for Q3 of this year. I think you meant to say annual profit of about 13 Billion.
And with also what you said, the Tundra marketing is designed to attack from all sides and all directions, from the local rural tractor pull or anonymous state fair, to commercials during prime time monday night football.
One caveat of business is that where there are huge profits competitors will rush in. Toyota looked around and saw car companies reaping huge profits on luxury cars. Toyota looked at these luxury cars at that time (late 1970’s) and said ‘for this junk they are getting a $5,000 profit per unit?’ (I said the same thing.) So Toyota introduced the Lexus brand. And now it is introducing the Tundra.
What this means is that the profit margins will be reduced in this big truck segment for all players. I do not know if the D2.5 will start losing money in this segment because of the Tundra, but certainly the profit margins will not be as high. There will definatley be an impact on the bottom line of the D2.5.
Just look at the casualty list of the luxury car segment since the Asian Luxury onslought starting in 1980:
Ford used to make lots of profits of its Lincoln/Mercury division. How long has it been?
Chrysler started making money again of big luxurious cars when it introduced the new 300. But recently, even these vehicles require incentives to move ’em.
GM lost its way with Cadillac but has found its way again.
Mercedes has been losing money in NA for some years now.
Audi loses money year after year after year in NA. Ditto Jaguar, Ditto Land Rover.
The Lexus/Acura/Infinity brands have stressed everybody’s profit margins in luxury cars, and the Tundra/Titan will do the same thing in the big truck segment. (It does not appear that Honda will ever compete in big trucks because Honda is so adverse to developing a non-racing V8.)
Warning: If the D2.5 loses out in big trucks, then there will be nothing left in Detroit. Game over. Checkmate. Over and out.
Johnson-
The concrete details of the Tundra are available on Toyota’s website. The only info that is not on there is the power ratings of the 5.7L V8, which the industry speculates to be at least 360hp and as much as 380hp. Production versions of the Tundra were shown at the Texas State Fair several weeks ago, so it’s not top secret.
I have not driven the Tundra. If you’ll read back to my post, you’ll see that I acknowledged that. I also gave Tundra the benefit of the doubt that it will have excellent driving dynamics and great durability.
My comparisons to the F250 Super Duty were for levaris’ benefit, as he currently ‘needs’ 3/4 tons for his fleet. Towing capacity alone does not tell the story of how heavy a truck is built. If levaris needs a 3/4 ton, the Tundra will not be a direct substitute. You and I are saying the same thing. I just happened to point out WHY they aren’t comparable, and you must somehow see that as unfair.
I agree, the new Tundra will likely be as-good-as a new F150 (or Dodge 1500, or GM 1500). Toyota delayed the introduction of the new Tundra by a couple months to make sure they had quality issues under control. The recent Camry-launch debacle taught them a lesson and the Tundra is critical to get right from the start.
Your V6 / V8 comparison is a non-issue. GM’s V8 gets better EPA freeway fuel efficiency ratings than Toyota’s V6. See above post.
1984, check out 1980s, 1990s, and current Land Cruisers. Take a look at who makes the chassis and drivertrain, and THEN get back to me. How convenient of you to bring up *only* the ‘67 FJ40, which you clearly know had some domestic-sourced parts, and it makes it very convenient to your argument. Most LCs around the world today are NOT FJ40s, but rather newer LCs, running a Toyota chassis with a Toyota drivetrain.
More like 20+ years of FJ40’s. Sourced “some” parts? What like the entire engine transmission and transfer case? Remember, I’m living “under a rock” and can’t possibly know anything about LC’s. Do you really think everyone you cross on the internet is some nameless faceless idiot.
And again, you are totally oblivious to Hino, even though they are the BEST selling commercial trucks in Asia, and are legendary for their toughness, and reliability. Even in Canada, Hino has about 13- 17% market share of the commercial truck market, which is not too shabby.
OK, so Toyota should have no excuse not to offer something more useful than a 1/2 ton to the states. But… yep… nothing.
FYI, the new GM trucks, technically, DO NOT come standard with a V8. They offer a V6, but that is almost exclusively to fleet buyers. For most consumers then, practically speaking, they CAN’T BUY a V6. Ironic isn’t it. Many of you are bashing that the Tundra will have bad fuel economy, when inexplicably, you seem to ignore how hard it is to actually get a V6 in a GM truck.
“Technically” you can’t buy a fleet car so what the hell are you talking about. Why are you arguing, the cheapest Silverado YOU can buy has a V8. The Tundra V6 gets worse mileage than a Silverado V8, or perhaps you would like to leave out that one small detail?
Good points made by many but the bottom line is, Toyota has already built the factory. They will build the trucks and dealers will sell the trucks here in the US. Each Tundra takes away a high profit domestic pickup sale. We can debate about whether Toyota will sell 100 or 200 thousand trucks but either way, it is bad news for the 2.5.
ktm wrote:
“I was unaware of the depreciation rate for the Chevy trucks. Regardless of whether or not they are leased, the Chevy truck has a higher residual than the Tundra, thus making it cheaper to own.”
I have to ask. How on earth can the Chevrolet trucks have a “better resale value” than Toyota or for that matter, Ford trucks?!
Recently, GM had brand new full-sized trucks plastered all over advertisements for $11,000 which pretty much HAS to be less than the cost of production, am I right? I had a friend who’d bought a year old USED Chevy pickup for more than that, and he was absolutely, and understandably, livid.
Resale value on GM products is in the toilet. That’s because they have to keep dropping prices or slap money on the hood to bribe customers to keep buying their crap.
Every time a company has to slap money on the hood, it adversely affects the resale value of the product, doesn’t it? It’s cannot do otherwise.
On the other side of the coin, my Prius has 28,000 miles, is 19 months old and I could sell it for as much as I paid for it. I’ve NEVER had that scenario with a car I’ve ever owned before.
But no way am I selling it, ‘coz just as my wife predicted, 1/2 way through election day, gas prices went up 19 cents a gallon. “You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.”
Toyota already has been selling the old Tundra and GM has been selling the old GMT 800. The question is can they sell more new Tundra’s vs. the new GMT 900. Toyota seems to think so but that “MAY” be only true vs. the GMT 800 not the 900. The Titan or any truck Toyota has ever built before has not been able to do any damage to domestic sales.
I have to ask. How on earth can the Chevrolet trucks have a “better resale value” than Toyota or for that matter, Ford trucks?! – Glenn A.
Maybe ktm was in error… This is a link to the top 10 highest projected per cent resisual value vehicles of 2006:
The Tacoma is #8 and the Tundra is #10. There are no domestic trucks on the list and the only domestic vehicle of any sort is the Viper at #9
*Listed style had the highest residual value for that model.
There’s always a ‘read the fine print’
If you follow the link and use the ‘residual values tool’ you can confirm the data I supplied in my previous post. 54% for Chevrolet vs 50% for Toyota, both mid-level crew-cab V8 4×4 models for 36 months. Every model will be different, for many reasons.
GlennA-
Didn’t you just refute your own point? You mention that a buddy just paid MORE for a used Silverado than he could have for a new one (extreme case for sure) and then say that Chevy’s can’t possibly have a better resale value? Sure, incentives and discounts have a lot to do with resale value, but Toyota’s got loads of cash on Tundra hoods as well.
http://www.autos.com/autos/rankings_reviews?cat=trucks&segment=fullsize_trucks&rank=resale&year=2006
Oh really Kaisen? Can you tell me specifics then like exact tow capacity, EPA fuel economy, HP and torque ratings, emissions ratings, performance, payload, as well as other applicable load and tow ratings? How about specific details about it’s frame, suspension, brakes, gear ratios, departure angles, No, you cannot. The only specs Toyota.com gives you about the new Tundra are basic physical measurements.
If he needs a 3/4 ton. Fine, but that’s irrelevant since the new Tundra is ONLY a 1/2 ton (so far), and is not competing with 3/4 tons. So there is no need to mention the Tundra at all in this context then.
And where the heck are you getting these fuel economy numbers? Toyota has not released economy numbers for the new Tundra. The current 2006 Tundra 2WD 4.0L V6 auto(http://www.toyota.com/tundra/specs.html) gets 18/22 EPA mileage. None of the variations of the new 2007 Silverado get that mileage. The 2WD 4.3L V6 auto Silverado (http://www.chevrolet.com/silverado/specifications/) gets 17/21, which is a fleet vehicle, and underpowered compared to the V6 Tundra. The 2WD auto Silvys with the 4.8L V8 and 5.3L V8 respectively get 16/20, and 16/22 EPA mileage. Besides, you are comparing the new Silverado to the current dated Tundra. Let’s wait until January for the new Tundra figures before making such comparisons.
And yes, Toyota had production versions at the Texas State Fair, except not all trim levels were there, specs were barely mentioned, and you could not drive one. Recently, Toyota had a press intro for the new Tundra in Santa Barbara, with every spec and trim, including the 5.7L V8 Crew Max, available for testing and driving. But anyone there is signed to an NDA. What’s your point?
Well, if you seem so knowledgeable on the FJ40 1984, then you would know that the FJ40’s predecessor, the AK10, was extremely similar in design compared to the FJ40, but it appeared in 1942. The first US Jeeps landed on Japan soil in 1943, so it’s debatable if Toyota actually “copied” the US Jeep. Toyota used American sourced parts as part of a contract it had with the US army.
Again, you are arguing *only* using the FJ40. You are conveniently ignoring the FJ60, FJ70, FJ80, FJ90, FJ100, FJ120, and the current FJ130 series. ALL of these models have a Toyota sourced chassis, with Toyota sourced engines.
Toyota DOES offer more than 1/2 ton vehicles. http://www.hino.com
Get back to me when you finally visit that site. The difference is that Toyota currently does not offer heavy duty *personal use* pickups. They certainly offer commercial trucks. But you seem so confident there is nothing in store. Chances are, Toyota is currently developing a 3/4 ton Tundra. When that is unveiled, what will be your criticism of the Tundra then?
Fuel economy, read above, as I am interested to see where kaisen got his figures from.
Kaisen, follow which link?
I did revisit that site and I find:
Ten Worst Resale Values
that certain styles of the Colorado and Silverado are on the WORST 10 list. But no Toyotas appear on that list. If overall resale values are as you represent, the middle of the truck resale market must be very skewed to compensate for these extremes.
1984, that link did not seem to work.
Here is the sub-link to the ‘residual guide’ where you can corroborate the residual data I gave:
http://www.cars.com/go/alg/index.jsp
Your link to the worst has the same disclaimer, but reversed:
*Listed style had the lowest residual value for that model.
Yes, every single model may have its own residual value. Some models/trim levels may hold value very well, while others may not. That’s why I picked ONE specific ‘normal’ model and compared apples to apples. My statement was not a blanket statement that Toyota resale sucked. It was an example that portrayed that GM resale value didn’t suck.
If you’d like to get into the market mechanics behind residual and resale values I’d be glad to have that discussion. It’s not as easy as you’d think.
So, Kaisen, I did follow the residual value calculator link and I looked up the values for all of the 2WD styles of the C1500 Silverado and the Tundra 2WD. Of the list of 2 year residual percentage figures, the median value for the Silverado models is 49% and for the Tundra it is 55%. The mean residual value for the Silverado is 48% and 53% for the Tundra. The gap narrows slightly for 4WD models but Toyota still has a 4 point advantage on median and a 2 point advantage on mean.
I could sit and spin numbers all day but, so far, I’m not seeing the GM products winning any residual value contests, at least not by enough to justify a claim of better residual value in any meaningful way.
Johnson-
Read back through my posts very carefully and tell me what you take issue with. I made some specific references, some general references, and some suppositions (‘about’ – usually signified by ~).
Fuel economy data is available at:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov
The new Tundra will likely be a 2008 model as it launches after January 2007. My references were to 2007 models for both the Silverado and Tundra as my posts specified.
Johnson – you need to chill out a little.
Starlight,
thanks for the welcome.
Can’t believe there are this many comments! crazy. Seriously though if the Silverado is as good as the Tahoe and it should be, then I think GM could actually gain market share here despite a new Tundra.
Also, I don’t think many of us are actually truck buyers or fans, we just recognize their importance in the automotive industry. Are there any big “truck” blogs out there even?
Our posts crossed. OK, I agree. Compared to Toyota trucks, there I see no clear justification for saying that GM truck resale values suck*. I also doubt that there is clear justification for claiming GM is noticeably worse than Toyota.
* which I never wrote, anyway, so I don’t mind admitting this.
Johnson,
What argument? What am I arguing? There is no argument. For many years the FJ40 had a GM inline 6, transmission and transfercase. That’s it, move on.
Hino sells nothing to the US. See, no argument there either.
V6 gas mileage of the 2006 tundra was 20 mpg H. The same 4L engine is going to be used in a heavier 2007 so it’s not unreasonable to draw a conclusion from that. Chevy gas mileage is stated anywhere you look.
The tundra is no doubt a nice truck but matching the performance of the prior model T800 is not enough to knock the socks off any loyal domestic truck buyers. I’m from the Midwest, the truck loyalty factor imbedded in their DNA.
“Hino sells nothing to the US.”
I wonder what I’ve been seeing running around with a badge that say HINO?
Might be some of these:
http://www.hinotrucksusa.com/index.htm
Kaisen, I merely take issue with irrelevant comments regarding 3/4 ton comparisons. It’s fine to compare 3/4 tons to other 3/4 tons, but should not be compared to the Tundra. If there is a need for a 3/4 ton pickup, Toyota does not yet have an answer for that. It’s simple.
And I also take issue with your idea that Toyota has posted “concrete facts” about the new Tundra, when clearly, they have not, and I have proven that.
Regarding fuel economy, the .gov numbers seem to conflict with Toyota’s EPA numbers, so who is correct in this case? I don’t know to be honest.
That’s all. Merely my point is wait until all official specs and figures come out before being a critic.
1984, I’m not sure what to make of your posts. You either have reading comprehension problems, are ignorant, or both.
What argument? Your original argument that Toyota doesn’t have the “chassis know-how” to make a tough truck, which I have demonstrated is a silly and ludicrous claim, by using the Land Cruiser as reference, as well as Hino vehicles.
Hino sells nothing to the US? Illiterate much? Did you even visit http://www.hino.com? That’s Hino’s UNITED STATES website. Yes, they DO sell vehicles in the US, FOR the US, as well as in Canada. So by extension, these Hino vehicles, are *in fact*, Toyota commercial trucks being sold in the UNITED STATES, *right now*. Can this point be made any more clear?
It comes as no surprise you are from the midwest 1984, as you seem to almost perfectly fit the stereotype of an ignorant, red State, Nascar loving, beer drinking, domestic truck fan. Don’t wish to be stereotyped as such? Well then it would be wise to do more research regarding Toyota and other competitors.
I stand corrected, I never seen one of those things… ever.
I don’t live in a “Red State” (whatever the hell that is supposed to do with anything), I don’t watch NASCAR. But seriously, do you actually talk to people like this in person?
Do you ever take a step back and realize that you come in here, quote a few people and call them all names from the get-go?
Anything else to call me? Make it a lengthy post because you seem to be having fun wasting all of your time.
Johnson-
As I’ve said twice now, my only reason for bringing up the 3/4 ton comparisons were to highlight the differences for levaris’ sake, as he/she thought the Tundra was ‘getting close’ to the capacity of their current F250 Super Duties but wasn’t sure about differences in payload. I agree with you about comparing apples to apples.
Fueleconomy.gov is the EPA’s website so I wouldn’t think there would be any descrepancies, but it’s certainly possible.
Concrete: I have crawled underneath a production version of the Tundra and have access to several photos referencing what brakes, frames, axles, etc were under there. It doesn’t take more than a few seconds to see the difference between a full-floating or semi-floating rear end, for example. If I have stated (as fact) anything other than what is factual, please correct me. We are all here to learn.
I’ll state my opinion one last time for those who care: I’m sure the new 2008 Tundra will be a great truck. For those who lean Toyota, there will be nothing to apologize for. I personally think it isn’t the most attractive truck, but you are welcome to feel otherwise. However, this being a GM Deathwatch thread, I would say that the new Tundra will not be the final nails in GM’s coffin. The GMT900s are up to the challenge. For those who lean GM, there will be nothing to apologize for. Even match … we’re in for a long fight.
For what it’s worth:
Hino sold 2,387 Medium/Heavy Duty (Class 4-7) trucks here in 2004, and 4,290 in 2005, and 4,695 YTD 2006. That’s out of segment of roughly a half million vehicles sold. It wouldn’t be a surprise if someone hasn’t noticed. I am not commenting on how good or bad a truck they may or may not be, just stating the facts.
Provocative remarks about being an ignorant redneck notwithstanding, there are plenty of Americans who don’t HAVE to believe a Toyota is a superior option as a pick-up truck, even if it is at some level or another.
Brand loyalty is not the byproduct of being ignorant, a NASCAR fan, or from a “red state.” Perception of quality or value is what counts in the car business, just like any other business in America.
In my opinion, most people choose an American brand for all the right reasons. One reason people are buying American pick-up trucks (and pick-up based SUVs) right now is because they are the only innovative, V8-powered, RWD American vehicles that give the perception of having good quality or value (and/or aren’t based on a 20 year-old design like the Panther). Americans like big cars if they can afford them…everybody knows that.
I drove an ’85 Land Cruiser. It had a manual choke from the factory. Everything on it was a copy of an American design — and it was totally indestructible. I once hit a solid steel dock hidden by a snow bank while sliding sideways at 40 mph on a frozen lake in northern Wisconsin. The Cruiser was so heavy that we didn’t flip; we just slid up, over, and down it. I ripped both of the tires on the right side of the truck completely off the rims, but there was no other damage to it. It didn’t even need an alignment. I drove the living piss out of that thing, in Chicago, in the country, wherever, and got 9 mpg while doing it. However, if it ever broke down mechanically, which it did, nobody — and I mean nobody — could get parts for it, except for the Toyota dealer = $$$.
There are still PLENTY of people who think that Toyota just produces high quality knock-offs, a Lexus is boring, badge-engineered Toyota, and they can keep an ’87 Lumina running forever just by keeping the oil clean. And for the most part, they’re right. Or THEY BELIEVE that they are. It doesn’t make them ignorant. It makes them Americans.
“In my opinion, most people choose an American brand for all the right reasons. One reason people are buying American pick-up trucks (and pick-up based SUVs) right now because they are the only innovative, V8-powered, RWD American vehicles that give the perception of having good quality or value (and/or aren’t based on a 20 year-old design like the Panther).” – CAHIBOstep
What’s innovative about it? There’s not much to a truck… frame, engine, cab, box. From their web site:
“Vortec … V8 engine…” yadda yadda “muscular front-end design with an aggressive powerdome hood.”
Ummm… yeah. It has a V8 and bulgy sheetmetal. Gotta get me some of that.
So, what’s innovative about it? Please, don’t mention the hybrid. My doctor says if I laugh too hard, I could rupture something.
“Ummm… yeah. It has a V8 and bulgy sheetmetal. Gotta get me some of that.”
I would say that most truck buyers do want some of that. If not, Toyota wouldn’t be doing the exact same thing as GM and Ford with their design.
Innovative means that full-sized trucks are much better than what they used to be (and they weren’t ever bad). Now they actually have a pronounced sense of style to them. And they definitely project an image, one that has become very, very profitable.
It comes as no surprise you are from the midwest 1984, as you seem to almost perfectly fit the stereotype of an ignorant, red State, Nascar loving, beer drinking, domestic truck fan. Don’t wish to be stereotyped as such? Well then it would be wise to do more research regarding Toyota and other competitors.
Why is this necessary?
This adds absolutely nothing to the discussion (rather it implies very unpleasant things about you).
1984, it doesn’t matter whether you’ve “seen” any of those things or not. I posted the Hino website, and you had ignored it. But you stand corrected, so fair enough.
I will not respond to your personal attack, as for my “stereotypical midwestern” comments, you initially said you’re from the midwest, and I merely pointed out the stereotype that midwestern truck owners have.
For the record, I think GM makes some *great* trucks, followed by Ford, and questionably, Dodge. The current Tundra is outclassed for big jobs, and I can’t comment on the new Tundra yet. But I will also refuse to harp on, and criticize the new Tundra like so many of you have been doing, because it’s not out yet, and we do not yet know the facts about it.
Kaisen, I agree with most of what you say. Since we’re talking about 1/2 tons anyways, it’s not a bad thing the Tundra has a semi-floating rear axle. Since you have seen the frame, then I reckon you will also agree that it has a thick frame, and the rear end, frame and axles included, sure does make the Nissan Titan’s rear look rather weak.
And I too stated the facts in an above post, that Hino, in Canada, holds a significant market share in the commercial truck segment. Yes, Hino is a non-player in the US, that fact is true, but that doesn’t mean they are non-existent.
CAHIBOstep, your final statement, DOES make them ignorant. Yes, it may also make them American, and I guess that would account for the common worldwide stereotype that Americans are stupid and ignorant. Those people who still hold those ignorant beliefs are shrinking. The market is changing, as brands like Toyota gain an ever-growing foothold in the US market, and gain a better image every day. 10 or 20 years ago, the majority of Americans probably DID think that of Toyotas, but now, the reverse is true. The majority of Americans hold Toyota in high regard. This is not Hyundai we’re talking about here.
Just to get back to the original point of the article, NOBODY here has said that the Tundra will be the “nail in the coffin” for GM’s trucks, or anything of that sort. The only people in this thread who have mentioned that, are ironically, Toyota, Tundra, and import critics. The POINT of this article is to show that the new Tundra will give Toyota a bigger and stronger foothold in the truck market, which will put pressure on the domestic Big 3 profit-wise.
I don’t see what else there is to discuss.
Somethingtosay, read my reply directly above. My post was not meant as a personal attack, it was a response to his admittal of being from the midwest, and my comment was illustrating the stereotype that a lot of people have with regard to midwest truck buyers or owners.
EDIT: this stereotype, which he wasn’t exactly helping to get rid of with some of his ignorant comments.
[in re bulgy sheetmetal…] “I would say that most truck buyers do want some of that.” – CAHIBOstep
The website actually used the word “powerdome.” Is there something under there that justifies this bulgy sheetmetal?
And you evaded my original question. What’s innovative about it? Sorry, “style” is not an “innovation.” Everything has “style” or strives for a lack of it, which is a style all its own.
And in the marketplace, “much better than they used to be” is not an innovation, it’s progression. Innovation is some nifty feature of your product that the competition covets.
A stylish pick-up truck is indeed innovative. In fact, it was damn near revolutionary when they figured out how stylish a pick-up could be. Someone put a permanent cap on a pick-up and called it an SUV, and now every car company in the world builds an SUV.
Even cars are built to look like SUVs. And now pick-ups are being built to look more like cars, at least with regard to their elaborate styling cues. Assuming we are all older than 13 years old, none of us would have ever dreamed that there would be pick-ups with elaborate interiors like there are now, Honda and Toyota included. It used to be vinyl seats and a rubber floor.
I’m not looking for a vehicle with a “powerdome,” and I doubt anyone else is, either. It’s a dumb name. So is “Velveeta.” So is “Camry.” But they sell.
Again, a stylish pick-up truck, in my opinion, is “some nifty feature of your product that the competition covets.”
KixStart
What’s innovative about it?
Displacement on Demand (8-4 cylinder mode). The V8 has better fuel economy (22 MPG H) than the Tundra V6 and makes about 300 HP. Hell the 6L 400 HP V8 does 19 mpg.
Johnson,
“Personal attack”?
What did I say?
EDIT: this stereotype, which he wasn’t exactly helping to get rid of with some of his ignorant comments.
What is so ignorant about stating that I really think you have not been very respectful to people on this public forum? Others seem to think so, I guess what I see is just not only my interpretation.
“A stylish pick-up truck is indeed innovative.” – CSHIBOstep
No, it’s not. Even if it is, all the other pickup trucks on the market have “style.”
“Displacement on Demand” – 1984
Honda’s got that.
C’mon CAHIBOstep, you described these pickups as innovative. Show me something.
Honda just got that this year!
How about variable valve timing on a cam-in-block engine?
Silverado 22 MPG @ 300 HP is the industry leader for a full size pickup. Some may describe the V8 DOD that was designed a few years ago as innovative. I’m not sure what you are looking for.
Kaisen, it seems to me that Toyota has had VVT in ALL of its motors (even the lowly Echo) since 2001. And it does make a difference, every Toyota I’ve driven seems much more lively than its displacement and horsepower rating would lead one to expect.
And, no, I’m not getting excited about pushrod technology. GM’s basic Silverado has an OHV, 16 valve, V8 with a 4-speed auto. That’s hardly a class-leading powertrain. Yes, you can get DoD but you pay extra.
Pushrods or not, it works better than anything else available for this application and that is all that really matters.
It is the leader, sorry it’s not fancy.
Oh. I thought I heard it was innovative. Guess not. My mistake.
I guess I am using “innovative” in a marketing context.
This is a definition from Barron’s: Innovative = “Product, service, or idea that is perceived by consumers as new. There are differing magnitudes of innovation. Adding bran to an established brand of breakfast cereal is considered a continuous innovation in that it constitutes a small change to an existing product with little market impact, as opposed to discontinuous innovations like the personal computer, which caused great societal impact. The public outcry against the “new” Coca-Cola belied the relatively small continuous innovation that it was. An innovative strategy uses continuous innovation to stay one step ahead of the competition.”
In this context, the American pick-ups have remained innovative, while the V8 RWD sedans have not. In fact, they almost became extinct until the debut of the 300C.
It’s more complicated than just push rods. 4 Individual cylinders release engine compression and drop fuel to those cylinders simultaneously. I have driven one of them and the amazing part about it is the transition is invisible to the driver. No vibration at all, it’s really quite a feat.
“It’s more complicated than …” – 1984
Not quite. Yes, the valves get jiggered and fuel cut off as you describe but compression is not released, it’s maintained so that the pistons and the air above them function as springs. The cost of the “pumping loss,” pushing air through chambers that don’t need it, is avoided.
dhathewa, I was basing my comment on the points kaisen raised. I see that kaisen explained it all already. This thread exploded and I do not have the time to track all the comments.
Wow . . . I read these comments by Mr Johnson, and I’m the one threatened with banishment for bad behavior?
And of course only the inimitable Glenn A could successfully use a passionate debate on huge trucks as a place to plug his beloved Prius! :)
The GM Silverado starts at $27k. The Dodge Ram starts at $22,135. The Ford F-150 starts at $18,220. The current Toyota Tundra starts at $16,155.
Right. $16,155 gets you a Toyota V6 regular cab, 2 wheel drive, stick, No A/C. $22,600 gets you a V8, Extended Cab, Automatic Transmission, Air Conditioned, OnStar equipped, anti lock brakes 2007 Silverado. Quite a disparity?
Why in the world would you say the GM Silverado starts at 27K?
I hope GM can turn things around and flourish as the No. 1 car company. I know that rankles the Prius driving, NY Times reading, Starbucks sipping crowd.
Regarding the early Land Cruisers. There is some evidence that the Toyota Truck 6 cylinder engine has based in part on the old Chevy straight 6 design, which wouldn’t be surprising for a 1960s Japanese design, but that hardly means they sourced a GM engine. I also cannot find any evidence that Land Cruisers sourced transfer cases from GM, though of course it is possible. In it’s prime GM sold components to many other companies. I’ve seen GM-Delco shock absorbers on old Volvos, GM power steering pumps in many other brands of vehicles and GM transmissions are still used in some other makes from time to time. GM likewise buys plenty of parts from other people when it suits them.
One consequence of the outsourcing binge the car companies have been on is that most technologies and assemblies are now available on the market. Dana (assuming they survive Chapter 11) can provide complete rolling chasis assemblies if you want to buy them.
The core notion that there is some magical reason why Toyota would be unable to purchase or develop the pieces needed to compete in any market segment is just wrong. Toyota has the finances and the WILL to compete effectively anywhere they choose to go. Ghosn is right to be terrified of them.
“I hope GM can turn things around and flourish as the No. 1 car company. I know that rankles the Prius driving, NY Times reading, Starbucks sipping crowd.” – finger
Why should it bother anybody for GM to flourish? I want an excellent, reliable car. If GM builds that, I will buy it.
FYI – I don’t have a Prius, the way I drive, it wouldn’t be a good value. I drink Starbuck’s because it’s excellent coffee; I buy their beans and brew it myself. I read the NYT because it gives me a crapload of news; far more news than the hometown paper. I like excellent coffee, I want an excellent newspaper and, hell yes, for my money, I want an excellent car.
Why should it bother anybody for GM to flourish?
I like excellent coffee, I want an excellent newspaper and, hell yes, for my money, I want an excellent car.
You just may not be able to afford them if GM tanks the economy with bankruptcy.
“You just may not be able to afford them if GM tanks the economy with bankruptcy. ”
GM has already made a significant contribution to the nation’s ill financial health. Their enthusiasm for maketing gas hogs has already caused us to import extra billions of dollars worth of oil and helped drive up the price of that oil. That’s money out of the country.
Hmmm…. and ToMoCo doesn’t market Land Cruisers/LX470s, GX470s, Sequoias, 4Runner V8s, and Tundras?
Your statement is, at least, a stretch.
But (going with you here) if GM didn’t exist, then the economy would benefit???
Then we’d ALL get our Starbucks!?
How the hell did Starbucks get dragged into this?
“Hmmm…. and ToMoCo doesn’t market Land Cruisers/LX470s, GX470s, Sequoias, 4Runner V8s, and Tundras?” – Kaisen
Sure they do. GM (and Ford) created the market for super-sized vehicles and Toyota moved in. For Toyota, those large SUVs are a sideshow. For GM (and Ford), they’re the main stream. How often does GM advertising still pump things like the “availabiilty of a V-8 engine?” Or “largest engine in its class?” Even when it’s pointless (see “Impala SS”)?
Toyota, however, didn’t build the Excursion. And Toyota offers me a choice of cars – nice cars – that get 40+mpg. Does GM?
What’s Toyota’s most popular sport-ute? Could it be the 30mpg Rav4?
GM has spent a fortune persuading people that bigger is better and that their bigger is patriotic. Toyota spent their ad budget on technology. Toyota has spent a fortune building small cars that are really quite good. Toyota has invested heavily in hybrid tech and isn’t shipping cheesy Belt-Alternator-Starter systems or talking about prototype two-modes at auto shows next year, Toyota has full hybrids in showrooms now.
If GM tanks, sure, that’s bad. But don’t get carried away with remorse because GM’s been hurting our economy for years.
By the by, excellence doesn’t appear to cost extra. I don’t spend any more for my Starbucks beans than I do for decent coffee beans at the grocery store.
And I bought a cup of coffee at a bakery last night. It was $1.79, mediocre and small. If I do stop at a Starbuck’s, it’s $1.89 for a cup at least 4 oz larger that tastes far better.
…GM’s been hurting our economy for years…
And how does this statement make sense? Could you please tell me how many people GM employs? And how many people do the dealers that sell and service their product employ? And their suppliers? And on and on…?
Until this year, Toyota has sold more 16/19 mpg V8 4×4 4Runners than 22/27 mpg 4 cyl AWD RAV4s.
Of course so far THIS year Toyota has doubled RAV4 sales to 127,000. Gas prices will do that.
It is worth note that GM sold 210,000 Thetas (VUE/Torrent/Equinox) in the same period.
One of the Thetas, the VUE Greenline Hybrid, has the ‘cheesy’ belt-alternator-starter system. It is currenty the least expensive hybrid on the market at just under $24K. It is a 170 hp 4cyl front-drive automatic that the EPA rated 27 mpg city / 32 mpg highway.
By comparison, a similarly equipped 166hp 4cyl front-drive automatic RAV4 costs about the same and is rated 24 mpg city / 30 mpg highway.
So as cheesy as it may be, the BAS Greenline VUE would seem to counter your opinions.
“So as cheesy as it may be, the BAS Greenline VUE would seem to counter your opinions.” – Kaisen
Did I say, “cheesy?” Sorry. I should have said “primitive” or, maybe, “antiquated.”
Well, it couldn’t be ‘antiquated’ as no one else has ever done it. ‘Primitive’ also gives it a timeline perspective that simply doesn’t exist.
How about ‘simple’?
I was okay with cheesy.
“Well, it couldn’t be ‘antiquated’ as no one else has ever done it. ‘Primitive’ also gives it a timeline perspective that simply doesn’t exist.” – Kaisen
No, the more I think about it, “primitive” is the word. I could shut off the motor in my 5-speed vehicle, coast to a light and restart just in time to take off. That’s all the BAS handles.
And any discussion of whether or not a “timeline perspective” exists should take into account the fact that the Escape Hybrid, Prius, Accord and Insight have been available for years.
The BAS does more than shut the motor off and restart it.
Acting as a motor, the BAS also briefly provides up to 110lb-ft of torque assist to the gas engine during acceleration (one of the reasons the Greenline accelerates to 60 one second faster than the gas 4cyl). Acting as a alternator/generator, the BAS provides up to 3000 watts (3 kilowatts) of continous power. Acting as a starter, the 42V BAS is much more efficient than the 12V gear-drive brush/stator starter in your car, and can silently (and smoothly) start the gas engine as quickly as you lift your foot from the brake and move it to the gas pedal. The nickel-metal-hydride (NiMh)batteries are there for a reason too, providing 10,000 watts of reserve to run all electrical systems such as headlights and HVAC when the engine is off. It may be simple, but it is not primitive.
And any discussion of timeline should include the GM/Saturn EV1 electric car which preceded the Prius by several years.