In a speech in Cape Town, South Africa, Robert F. Kennedy put a phrase into common usage by declaring "There is a Chinese curse which says, ‘May you live in interesting times.’" Lexicographers now say Kennedy made it up. But if it was true, you could argue that Toyota’s been cursed. While critics focus on the automaker’s recent experiences with recalls, leaked memos, NASCAR additives and misleading ads, pickup trucks are where things are starting to get scary.
Toyota’s new Tundra has been giving the automaker a rare case of the heebie-jeebies. Beancounters budgeted building the brand’s spanking new San Antonio truck plant at $850m. Due to last-minute changes and higher than expected material costs, the final tab ballooned to $1.28b. The executive who oversaw the cost overruns at the Tundra assembly plant, Hidehiko "T.J." Tajima, returned to Japan to assume Toyota's corporate social responsibility activities.
More worryingly (at least for a company as immensely profitable as Toyota), the San Antonio truck plant’s production schedule wasn’t in synch with their engine plant in Huntsville, Alabama. At the insistence of Toyota’s sales and marketing soothsayers, the first new Tundras to pop out of the cattle chute were supposed to contain 5.7-liter V-8 engines (so that the company could boast horsepower ratings that meet or beat the domestics’). But the big engine's production wasn't scheduled until mid-year.
For a company know for being as efficient as the Borg, this must have come as something as a rude surprise. Fortunately for Toyota, the engines were put into production in time.
Then The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration crash tested the new Tundra. The new vehicle only managed four stars in the frontal crash test. While not a bad rating per se, the Tundra’s domestic opposition– Ford F-150, Dodge Ram and GM Silverado– are all five-star rated. Again, it showed a chink in Toyota’s supposedly unassailable armor.
Most recently, Automotive News reported that Toyota flubbed the product mix coming out of San Antonio. Toyota had underestimated demand for the double cab and CrewMax, while overestimating demand for the lower-priced, standard cab base model. Consumer demand for Huntsville’s 5.7-liter V8 engine also outstripped supply.
Toyota’s miffed model mix put them in the novel and unenviable position of having to offer rebates on a brand new model to move the metal. Just weeks after launch, pickup truck buyers could take advantage of incentives up to $1500 on the slow[er]-selling base Tundra.
"We didn't come to the prizefight with all our tools," admitted metaphor-mixing Ernest Bastien, Toyota's vice president of vehicle operations.
While domestic supporters may smirk at the new Tundra’s teething troubles, no one should mistake them for a lack of commitment. When Toyota first entered the U.S. market their products were not competitive. Rather than retreating, they learned from their mistakes and came back with better vehicles. Toyota is now arguably the world's premier mass market automaker and, soon, the largest as well.
In any case, the new Tundra is hardly DOA, or even “struggling.” In March, Toyota dealers unloaded 13,196 Tundras. Year-to-date, that’s a 12 percent increase over the old model’s numbers. Toyota predicts that new model sales will gather momentum in the summer, going on to achieve the planned 200k annual pace.
Toyota can offer such optimistic predictions with confidence because they are going to do whatever it takes to make it happen. Currently, Toyota offers Tundra buyers low interest financing, $1k trade-in assistance for early lease termination (on a previous generation Tundra) and $1-2k dealer cash incentives, depending on model. If that doesn’t work, more attractive offers will follow.
In other words, those who point at the Tundra incentives as a sign of weakness have got it exactly backwards. They are an indication of the automaker’s resolve to offer whatever financial lures are needed to hit its stated sales goal.
Lest we forget, The Big 2.5’s fortunes have descended to the point where they depend on pickup truck sales for their survival. For Toyota, a big deal is no big deal. Last year, the Japanese automaker’s U.S. sales rose 12.5 percent, helping generate a $13b profit.
This brings us back to the “interesting times” curse and the ToMoCo’s previously stated need to "manage Detroit's decline." If Toyota launches a major price war against the domestics’ high-profit pickups this summer, the damage to GM and/or Ford's profit margins could well be fatal. In that case, there could be some kind of anti-Toyota backlash from either the U.S. government or (worse) consumers.
Toyota knows this. As strange as it sounds, would they hang fire to protect the domestics? That die was cast when they built the San Antonio factory.
The truck's horrible exterior will put a ceiling on sales. 12% increase over the previous model #1 has to be somewhat of a disappointment for ToMoCo, and #2 isn't going to have Chevy, Ford, or Dodge quaking in their boots. Chevy has already responded with a sharp looking truck, and Dodge has an entirely new model on tap for 09. One more comment on the exterior: Can you say El-Camryno?
im sure if Ford posted a 12% gain on the year for the F150s EVERYONE would now about. the tundra was never intended to steal all the sales from the big 2.5. Toyota knows that…that’s why there goal is 200,000….not 1,000,000.
and i have a hard time taking anyone seriously that discusses pick-up trucks and style in the same sentence.
Hmmm. So this truck came out in a market where fuel prices are between $2.50 and $3.00 per gallon. If one was selling a big gas swilling pickup truck in this market, its safe to assume that maybe demand for the smaller engine might be higher than the bigger engine. Wouldn’t it be sweet if they had a diesel up their sleeves that no one knows about. That will get the numbers up quickly
Well, the difference between a frontal 4-star vs. 5-star rating from NHTSA is pretty meaningless, even though the public has been led to believe otherwise. Wait till the IIHS test results come out.
Regarding sales, Toyota is sitting on such a huge pile of cash that they can do anything they want to make the Tundras move out the door.
A very well written editorial. Gathered all the important points.
BTEFan:
The big engine gets better city and highway mileage.
Still trying to figure out what’s so ugly about the Tundra. I saw one the other day while I was running: might have been the endorphins, but it looked pretty good to me.
It’s a matter of taste, but even at that, i doubt style would influence a truck purchase if the more tangible aspects were favorable.
As I have said before, it’s a good thing Toyota is run by engineers, not by bean-counters. Don’t think for a second that the cost overruns at the San Antonio plant were a “surprise”. Toyota made a conscious choice to put some state-of-the-art equipment into the plant that they weren’t going to originally, which is the main reason why cost overruns occured. That cutting edge equipment will save Toyota money in the long term.
As for the 5.7L engine production being out of synch … Toyota had everything planned all along. The first Tundras were supposed to have the 4.0L and 4.7L engines, and then in later months the 5.7L models would come out. The marketing team decided that the first Tundras having 5.7L engines were a must, and so Toyota got the 5.7L production started in time. The marketing team made the right decision, as 5.7L demand is outstripping supply.
ALL trucks in the segment have incentives. Because Toyota is fighting an uphill battle, they had to offer incentives. Have any of you wondered why GM’s March truck sales dropped? They weren’t offering enough incentives, and GM has officially confirmed that they will be adding additional incentives to the Silverado and Sierra.
An interesting point about the Tundra is that the higher-priced, top model Tundras are all selling very well, outstripping supply. The only Tundra model seeing lukewarm sales is the Regular Cab base model. That is, most Tundra sales are Double Cab or Crewmax models with the 5.7L engine. This means that Toyota is maximizing profits per truck. This also means bad news for the domestic makers, as most Tundras on the road have the 5.7L engine, which will do wonders in terms of changing perception about the Tundra. Then there is the Crewmax, which domestic makers (other than Dodge) have no answer for.
Tundra sales continue to go up, so it’s naive to think that sales have hit some sort of ceiling. Rumours about a diesel Tundra are only getting stronger, and you never know what Toyota has under it’s wings.
My main disagreement with this article is simply its conclusion. Why is it assumed Toyota would catch a backlash if GM or Ford go under?
Did Sony suffer from a backlash? Did Walmart?
There was a time not too long ago when 85 percent of the market purchased domestic. There is a reason the domestics are down to less than half of the retail market share.
The people who switched did so for a reason. They use to own domestic cars and were dissatisfied enough to switch brands.
When a company is better at making something and people know it, it generally is rewarded with success.
This might offend some but Toyota is successful and may soon overtake GM as#1 because they deserve to while GM and Ford may go bankrupt soon because they deserve to.
yournamehere:
Styling that nothing to do with pickups? Hmmmm. Please tell that to Dodge, who went from afterthought to serious player in the mid 1990s with their new “big-rig styled” Ram. And please tell that to Ford and GM who subsequently scrambled to make their pickups look more like Dodge’s.
There is a BIG difference between design and style. anyone can design a car/truck but style isn't tangible. its a persecution the car gives off. frankly i don't think there is a truck on the market that will make ppl go…"wow that’s a good looking truck". Trucks are all so similar in appearance…different grill and headlights and you can be looking at any number of current trucks.
Frank—well written.
It is a breath of fresh air to see Toyota’s mis-steps get some thoughtful discourse.
While all may seem rosy for Toyota now—-my prediction is that in 10 years we will all be asking ourselves—–what happened to Toyota ? What happened to the gold standard ? For those that say that could never happen…Toyota is too well run….I offer the following—-
Over the past 5 years Toyota quality has badly slipped relative to the competition. New model entries like the Avalon and Camry have launched with quality defects that trace back to design and engineering once the hallmarks of Toyota(check out the number of TSB’s on both models> is this a blip or a trend ???
Sheer arrogance in the form of years trying to battle the engine sludge issue (“its not the car’s problem… it’s you”) finally ended with over 3M class action lawsuit.
Hmmmmmmm….arrogance and slipping quality—-sounds familiar doesn’t it ?
4.7 litre engine is known to give out good UOA (used oil analysis). It is a rock solid one. Hence it makes sense to offer that initially.
Good article but you may be over estimating the 2.5 brand loyalty when you predict a back lash. I agree with Sherman Lin that people generally spend their hard earned cash to buy whatever is best for the dollar, be it domestic, Japanese, German or Korean.
However, I don’t think there will be large stampede to abandon the 2.5 trucks as there was with cars and not because truck owners are stubbornly brand loyal but maybe because the new Tundra offers nothing new. What will determine the success or failure of the Tundra is not the badge but how well it servers the markets that it aims for – the farmers, contractors and recreational truck owners. In order to entice domestic owners they will need to offer something that is significantly better that what the 2.5 have in either fuel economy, power, durability, towing or load capacity. As far as I see, that is not currently the case unless maybe ‘refinement’ is a deciding feature (which it may be for recreational truck owners). If Toyota offered an entry level diesel that would make things much more interesting.
I don’t know why some folks are expecting to see a big defection from the 2.5 – what exactly is it about the Tundra that is currently so much better then what Ford, GM and Dodge have to offer?
Maybe better dealers?
It is a well known fact that for example a GMC is more desirable then a Chevrolet because the service at Cadillac/GMC dealers is much better.
A few points….
The Tundra is a B-I-G truck. In the current envrionment it works against them for two reasons.
1) Big vehicles are no longer popular with the general public. Keep in mind that gas will most likely hit close to the $80 in the next couple of months and that virtually all the major trucks and SUV’s are suffering from this effect.
2) The Tundra really hasn’t differentiated itself from the competition and in fact, it’s WAY behind them in some key areas.
Toyota has been terrible at building an aftermarket presence specifically because they are so proprietary in nature. While you can customize the heck out of a Big 3 truck the same doesn’t hold true for Toyotas (or Nissans for that matter).
Toyota is really not good at building large vehicles that have ‘presence’. The LS series has been vanilla bland for a very long time as has the Avalon, Land Cruiser, GX, etc.
Overall I really believe would have been better off attempting to launch a vehicle in between the Tacoma and Tundra in terms of size. For a lot of folks out there, neither one has the dimensions and characteristics that best fit the light industrial and towing markets.
The Tundra is too much (and bland to boot). The Tacoma is a bit too small for a lot of folks. Especially since the F-Series and Silverado are price competitive with that model on the lower end.
Toyota will NOT reach their target unless they do a massive amount of discounting and advertising. For a critical first year vehicle, that’s neit geit. Not good.
While all may seem rosy for Toyota now—-my prediction is that in 10 years we will all be asking ourselves—–what happened to Toyota ? What happened to the gold standard ? For those that say that could never happen…Toyota is too well run….I offer the following—-
Over the past 5 years Toyota quality has badly slipped relative to the competition. New model entries like the Avalon and Camry have launched with quality defects that trace back to design and engineering once the hallmarks of Toyota(check out the number of TSB’s on both models> is this a blip or a trend ???
Sheer arrogance in the form of years trying to battle the engine sludge issue (”its not the car’s problem… it’s you”) finally ended with over 3M class action lawsuit.
Badly slipped? Good sir, you are incorrect. It would be wise to look at the JD Power results for the past 5 years, or any other quality survey results for that matter. Toyota quality has remained consistent and has not dropped by any noticeable margin. First year issues are common with new models, no matter what automaker we’re talking about. When the 2002 Camry came out, it had some first year issues. When the 1997 Camry came out, it had some first year issues.
Some of you are simply too eager to jump to the conclusion that Toyota is going to fall apart. It’s certainly hard to accept how well run Toyota is, but whether you like them or hate them, the cold hard truth is that Toyota is, has been and will continue to be well-run for a long time to come.
The Tundra really hasn’t differentiated itself from the competition and in fact, it’s WAY behind them in some key areas.
Way behind in what areas? I’d sure like to know.
The Tacoma is in fact big enough for most buyers. It’s sales support that. The main criticism of the old Tundra was that it was too small, and a lot of buyers who wanted to move up from a Tacoma were forced to buy domestic. Now the new Tundra is big enough.
Having a big truck may have some drawbacks, but it works well mainly because the new Tundra has presence. It’s BIG, and in your face. It’s impossible to ignore on the road, unlike the old Tundra which could easily be ignored. This establishes a tough image for the Tundra, and when backed up by the strong capabilities of the truck, it will do a lot in terms of changing domestic truck buyers’ perception.
carguy “I don’t know why some folks are expecting to see a big defection from the 2.5”.
My take is it was more of a fear factor among Detroit truckmakers and their workers and loyalists that their stronghold and remaining ace would follow the way of the car markets. Wanna see instant flaming? Go to any unmoderated forum and see any posting concerning the Tundra or for that matter the Ridgeline.
My take is that Toyota and even Honda are simply giving their customers someplace to migrate to if they want a truck. The Honda is obviously not a work truck. If some people have a need or desire a truck you gotta have one or you are going to lose those customers to a competitor.
The big 2.5 by abandoning certain car segments (small cars, cars in general) in my opinion opened the door for further market share loss when those buyers migrated to higher margin products (mini vans, large cars, luxury cars, small trucks etc).
Folks – years ago when I compared my old ’93 Taurus to my friends 92′ Accord it was very easy to see why the Honda was the superior car: it was nimble, quick, efficient and durable. My Taurus fell apart after 85K miles, my buddy sold his in perfect working order after 160K miles. It wasn’t hard to see why Honda eroded the domestic market share.
However, I don’t see the same overwhelming case for the Tundra as opposed to the offerings from the 2.5. I usually rent trucks when I need them and have used every domestic brand and fail to see from the specs what Toyota has that GM, Ford and Dodge don’t. Maybe someone that has experience with the new Tundras as well as domestics can help me out and explain (in non-emotional terms if possible) what the deal-closer reason is that would drive a Silverado or F150 user to switch to the Tundra (or the other way around)?
Johnson I see the same tired claims on sludge recalls etc as some sort of indictment against Toyota with regards to quality. Yet I have to agree with you as I still see Toyota consistently always at near the very top for JD Powers, Consumers Reports etc. My take is that if Toyota is either making or made a bad batch of cars that those customers probably won’t be buying a toyota again. The same which is true for all brands. The trick is to piss off the fewest number of your existing customers (holding on to them) while enticing the pissed off customers of other brands. GM and Ford make good trucks but its the cars that have lost them customers and which has allowed Toyota an opening. How many families have an import car and a domestic truck?
Predictions about corporate success or failure are best kept to the short term.
Most companies are just a car wreck or two from turning up or down. In fact, many companies have a rule about how many executives can be on the same plane. Why? Because most managers today are not leaders, so their successors are purposely not ready.
My favorite is when a company buys a less successful rival and then gets infiltrated by the corporate “survivor” specialists.
Toyota could buy some parts company tomorrow and have their leadership destroyed in less than a two years by someone from that company. Or Ford could wise up and fire everyone with an MBA. You never know.
I’ve read a couple of articles that chide the Toyota for having the “feeling” of a less than rigid structure when compared to the new GMT900 platform.
I know that the GMT900 touts its fully boxed frame, and I don’t believe the Toyota’s frame is fully boxed.
Anyone knowledgable care to comment? To me, were I building a pickup myself, I’d think a boxed frame would be much stouter than the open C style frame, were all other things equal.
But perhaps I’m being sold on some subtle, subversive marketing. Besides, I’m a car guy…what do I know?
Yay for Toyota
blautens: I know that the GMT900 touts its fully boxed frame, and I don’t believe the Toyota’s frame is fully boxed.
You are correct. The Tundra’s frame is split into three parts and the front piece is boxed. The frame under the cab and bed are C-channel.
“Some of you are simply too eager to jump to the conclusion that Toyota is going to fall apart. It’s certainly hard to accept how well run Toyota is, but whether you like them or hate them, the cold hard truth is that Toyota is, has been and will continue to be well-run for a long time to come”
I agree, Toyota will remain well run for this generation of management. It will take a change in the company culture for them to slide.
Toyota is bringing up the rear on fuel economy, while providing less power. Shocking.
Suprising since Toyota is supposedly runs around in a big green cape, leaping tall smokestacks in a single bound. Maybe they need to making a plug-in El Camryno
Toyota El Camryno base and V8
4.0L V6, 24 valve, 236 hp @ 5200 rpm
5 speed automatic transmission
17 mpg city / 20 mpg hwy
4.7L V8, 32 valve, 271 hp @ 5400 rpm
5 speed automatic transmission
15 mpg city / 18 mpg hwy
Dodge Ram base and V8
3.7L V6, 12 valve, 215 hp @ 5200 rpm
6 speed manual or 4 speed automatic transmission
16 mpg city / 21 mpg hwy
5.7L V8, 16 valve, 345 hp @ 5400 rpm
5 speed automatic transmission
15 mpg city / 19 mpg hwy
Chevy Silverado base and V8
4.8L V8, 16 valve, 295 hp @ 5600 rpm
4 speed automatic transmission
16 mpg city / 20 mpg hwy
5.3L V8, 16 valve, 315 hp @ 5200 rpm
4 speed automatic transmission
16 mpg city / 22 mpg hwy
When discussing the Toyota engine sludge issue, I don’t think the point is the relative seriousness of the problem. Toyota has obviously remained high up on every single quantifiable aspect of quality and durability, and Lord knows the Big 2.5 have done much, much worse to their unsuspecting customers. The importance of the engine sludge lies in the way Toyota dealt with it, with denial and arrogance. This one event isn’t going to be a big problem for Toyota, and isn’t going to dent people’s perception of Toyota’s corporate agility and product quality, but if it represents the beginning of a trend then it is worrisome. The Big 2.5 didn’t lose their reputations with one event like the engine sludge, they lost it through years of denial and arrogant behavior. If Toyota learns from this experience and deals with their next quality issue more responsibly, no big deal; if they don’t, then it’s the first tiny crack in their reputation, a crack than can grow over time if not dealt with properly.
El-Camryno that’s hilarious.
I personaly like how it looks, but I know that’s not how a lot of people see it.
What I do see and was hinted at in the article is that Toyota will learn from this. Where as GM keeps doing the same stupid things OVER AND OVER AND OVER Toyota (as well as Honda and a lesser extent Nissan) have shown in the American market for the last two plus decades is that they can not only learn from mistakes made in a model, but correct them before the next refresh let alone the next model. I wouldn’t be in the least bit supprised if the Tundra gets a 5 star FCTR before the end of 2008. Not to mention fixing the glut stubbies hanging out on dealer lots.
If I were going to buy a new truck the Tundra would be one of the few I’d consider. Oh don’t get me wrong I think the new Silverado is a BETTER truck, in virtualy every way. I however fear that GM will go bankrupt and although SOMEONE will assume control and continue to produce parts etc, who wants to be seen driving a car made by a recently defunked vendor?
The new Tundra’s frame is ‘boxed’ up front by two C-channels seam-welded at their overlap, where some use hydroformed fully-boxed sections. There are other sections that are open C-channels.
My personal opinion of the Tundra: Great drivetrain in an otherwise mediocre truck.
Predictions about corporate success or failure are best kept to the short term.
Most companies are just a car wreck or two from turning up or down. In fact, many companies have a rule about how many executives can be on the same plane. Why? Because most managers today are not leaders, so their successors are purposely not ready.
My favorite is when a company buys a less successful rival and then gets infiltrated by the corporate “survivor” specialists.
Toyota could buy some parts company tomorrow and have their leadership destroyed in less than a two years by someone from that company. Or Ford could wise up and fire everyone with an MBA. You never know.
Fiddlesticks. The way Toyota’s corporate culture runs does not allow some random yahoo to just ruin the company in a few years. To become a senior exec within Toyota, you need to earn decades of experience, respect and reputation within Toyota (which differs from becoming a senior exec within American automakers). Jim Press is going to be the first American to sit on Toyota’s board of directors, and he’s been with Toyota for decades, as well as being instrumental in helping Toyota achieve North American success.
It’s essential that an automaker has long-term, holistic thinking and goals. Short term thinking is done sweating out the details, once you have established a long-term plan.
I’ve read a couple of articles that chide the Toyota for having the “feeling” of a less than rigid structure when compared to the new GMT900 platform.
And most reviews on the new Tundra praise the truck for having a very stout body structure. Just because it’s a C-channel frame, does not really tell you a whole lot about the truck’s rigidity or structural stiffness.
I agree, Toyota will remain well run for this generation of management. It will take a change in the company culture for them to slide.
And the interesting thing is Toyota execs are well aware that this could happen in the long-term, which is why they are panicking now and taking steps to ensure any and all new workers successfully learn Toyota’s corporate culture, and work to maintain it. In some ways, they are empowering their workers more than ever, further strengthening their corporate culture.
Toyota is bringing up the rear on fuel economy, while providing less power. Shocking.
What’s shocking is that you seem to have conveniently left out the Tundra’s 5.7L fuel economy. 4z2 models get 16/20 EPA, and 4×4 models get 14/18 EPA. For an engine with 381HP/401 lb-ft torque, I’d say they’re leading the way.
Omnivore, if that is how most people see the sludge issue, then it’s speculations and assumptions at best in terms of what will happen with Toyota. The thing is, many automakers that are in trouble today … there have been decades of warning signs, and countless short-sighted, silly decisions made by those companies. In many cases, the corporate culture of some of these troubled automakers is fundamentally flawed, which in a way means they were doomed ever since their culture solidifed. With troubled automakers like the US Big 3, there are countless cold, hard facts as to why they are in trouble. With Toyota? It’s almost all speculation and assumptions, mostly by people who “hope” Toyota will fall apart or have problems.
And no doubt this may be tiring to hear for some, but if this new Tundra only sees lukewarm success, Toyota will KEEP trying until they fully penetrate the market and have a popular, successful truck.
The new Tundra is an interesting conundrum for me. For the past year I have spent most of my day on the road in a pickup truck working as a contractor, and so I have some thoughts on the issue. For the contractor, the rancher, the farmer, and anyone else who drives a pickup truck day in and day out for any period greater than a typical 2 hour commute, priorities are very different than the average auto reviewer or consumer is in tune with. Comfort is of the utmost importance. When you’re working hard when you’re out of the truck you want to be comfortable when you climb back into the truck. At a recent auto show I sat in all of the full-size and mid-size pickups on the market and the Toyotas and Nissans are far and away a more comfortable and inviting place to be than the GM, Ford and Dodge products. That counts for a lot and it’s going to be enough to win some, but not all, of the formerly loyal domestic truck buyers.
The other major issue that this group of truck buyers care about is fuel economy. If you drive your truck all day you’d ideally like not to have to fill it up every single day. This is where Toyota and even Nissan are seriously hurting right now, for the first time in a long time. Both of these companies built their light truck reputations on efficiency and economy and now the domestics are handing their asses to them using decades-old engine designs.
Me, I can’t afford a new truck right now so I putter along in an ’86 Nissan 720 making occasional trips to the local pull-a-part junkyard to make the truck more comfortable and more economical. If I were in the market for a new truck, I’d have a hard time turning down the newer Nissans and Toyotas in spite of the fuel economy problems. If the domestics are really serious about holding on to their truck business, they should build a real mid-size truck with an interior and feature list to compete with the Frontier and Tacoma and stuff one of their new high feature supercharged direct injected 4 cylinders in it and hit the imports where it really hurts, the fuel economy situation. Can you see the ad campaign? “Buy American: use less oil.” If the trucks could tow 6500 pounds like a Frontier V6 and were as comfortable, contractors would flock to them for the savings at the gas pump and the right to keep an American flag sticker and a support the troops ribbon on the back bumper.
blautens:“I’ve read a couple of articles that chide the Toyota for having the “feeling” of a less than rigid structure when compared to the new GMT900 platform.”
Johnson:“And most reviews on the new Tundra praise the truck for having a very stout body structure. Just because it’s a C-channel frame, does not really tell you a whole lot about the truck’s rigidity or structural stiffness.”
Does everyone remember Ford’s “Twin I-Beam” front suspension? ‘Course you do!
I read, in the pre-intertubes-pre-wikipedia era, that the same suspension parts were not any different in tests than differently-shaped, rounder bars. Not better, not worse. It’s just that “Twin I-Beam” sounded so rugged and cool, the decison was made so marketing could feature it.
I make no claim that the modern comparison is the same. I just don’t want to assume a particular difference makes a distinction.
Thresherk-
Ford’s old twin I-beam was supposed to blend the strength of a solid-tube (live) front axle with the compliance and articulation of an independent front end. Which it did, kinda. Neat technology when in debuted in the early sixties.
The difference in frame cross-sections is also real. If you’re interested, I’d be happy to explain those differences. However, HOW and WHY these types of frame sections are applied in a frame are probably more important to how the truck ‘feels’ in the end.
Truck frames aren’t meant to be automotive Viagra. They are engineered to flex in some places and not in others.
Toyota reminds me of Microsoft. Even if a given version of the product isn’t as good as the best competitor they will keep working on it night and day and see the thing through to the end. Ford, on the other hand, flubbed the mid 90s redesign of the once best selling Taurus and chose to sit on their hands.
Toyota never sits on their hands. Every day they appear to come to work committed to doing a better job than they did the day before. Such consistent effort is impossible to compete with unless you do the same. The Tundra isn’t going to put GM and Ford out of the truck business any day soon, but they have put the heat on them big time. I suspect that the GMT900 redesign wouldn’t have been as good as it is were it not for Toyota breathing down their necks. GM and Ford are still first class truck makers, but are second class car makers (at least in the US market).
Personally I suspect that Toyota is too worried about backlash, but it doesn’t hurt them to be a little careful. Their dealers are already plenty busy selling more cars per showroom (in the US) than anyone else. The majority of the vehicle buying public on the two coasts has already lost confidence in the US brands and moved their loyalties to the Asian brands. Even the heartland is slowly but surely being converted.
People who actually need pickup trucks are still very well served by the Ford and GM product lines, but their share is going to continue to erode. Probably the company with the most to loose is Nissan as it’s Titan has been sort of a dud, and Titan owners are natural pickings for Tundra.
Good article overall, but there is one small error.
While it’s true Toyota dealers unloaded 13,196 Tundras in March, and that is a 11.8% increase over their 11,800 March 2006 sales, their year-to-date total of 29,186
is 8.3% less than the 31,825 Tundras sold from January to March 2006.
My prediction is that Toyota will surpass their 2006 Tundra sales (126,529), but think they’ll be a little shy of their 200,000 goal. It’s a good truck, but it’s clearly lacking in as many areas as it is superior.
And I don’t think Toyota can afford to put too many cash incentives on it… not because they don’t have the money, it’s because they can’t afford it from a reputation standpoint. People can rationalize cash on the hood from the big 2.5 (they’ve been doing for so long) but they can’t when its the number one super awesome best automaker from the land of the rising sun (as Ray Wert affectionately calls them) doing it. People would assume there’s something wrong with it… just like many people do now with regards to the North American based manufacturer’s products.
My Source for the above numbers: Automotive News Data Center
What I can’t understand is why Toyota stuck with the “Toyota” brand for what is obviously not a Toyota market ?
They invented “Lexus” because rich people don’t want to drive in the same brand as the proles and they invented “Scion” because young people don’t want to drive in the same brand as their Mom. It’s obvious they’d be fighting an uphill battle to persuade any card carrying contractor to turn up at the building site in a Toyota without fear of having his lunch stuffed down the porta-potty. I doubt many people truly in the market for a pickup will have a Camry or Prius at home and the “Toyota” brand will have no cachet, so why not just invent another one.
How about a “RawHide 5.7 MaxHauler 4×4” ? “Toyota Tundra” sounds like a patch of soggy grass.
Great article, I was almost hoping you’d miss the point about Toyota’s rebates hurting the domestics more than they hurt Toyota so I’d have something intelligent to add. Instead I’ll guess that the more Toyota has to rebate Tundra’s the more they’ll need to sell to reach their desired profit level, even worse news for the domestics. If Toyota finds they can only get 1/3rd of their planned profit per truck, they are going to do what they can to sell 3 times as many.
On the fully boxed frame issue, Toyota certainly knows how to fully box a frame, they’ve been doing it on 4runners and pickups since the 80’s (and probably on landcruisers for decades longer). I’ve read their reasons for building the Tundra frame the way they did, and it sounds plausible to this non-engineer, but I guess it’s also possible that they needed to save a couple bucks per truck, or drop a few pounds. If this is the big blemish maybe they’ll do a completely solid frame on the next one.
On the sizing of past and present Tundra, it’s always seemed to me that the import car makers have a more accurate read about what people really need. HIstorically Imports have been on the small side, Toyota’s T100 and earlier Tundra’s included. I’ve worked construction, and for basically everything those guys used their trucks for the previous Tundra’s size and power was more than ample. Americans don’t always know what they need though, and the current Tundra almost feels like Toyota admiting that they will provide what we think we need if that’s what it takes to crack this nut.
Anyway, another great article and discussion, keep up the great work guys.
I think that Toyota goofed by not offering a Regular Cab “stripper” model for the *huge* fleet sale market. The rest is just normal new model/plant teething pains. Maybe Toyota doesnt want to compete in the low-margin markets (yet?).
kaisen:
Ford’s old twin I-beam was supposed to blend the strength of a solid-tube (live) front axle with the compliance and articulation of an independent front end. Which it did, kinda. Neat technology when in debuted in the early sixties.
Thanks for the explanation on that, and the box v. channel. My info on the I-beam shape remains pulled from my memory only and is subject to review.
First of all, kudos to Frank for writing a well balanced article on a topic that typically incites more religious fervor than rational analysis.
I keep wondering when the bottom will fall out of this market, as I really don’t see the point of a $40K pickup for the vast majority of buyers. Tradespeople are better off with a Sprinter or Econoline, and weekend Home Depot types can rent a truck for the 3 times a year they really need it.
But I have learned that dictating to other people what they should be driving is never a recipe for success. Apparently, there are a lot of people out there who think driving a pickup is prestigious and don’t see the link between wasting gas and kids dying in Iraq.
Maybe in another life I’ll own a car dealership and run it like the Soup Nazi. “You want Silverado? No. Aveo for you.”
I tend to agree with Sherman. They may hate Toyota’s jappanese guts but will buy cheap pretty good trucks (although why anyone who isnt a contractor or a farmer would want a truck is beyond me)
yournamehere: April 19th, 2007 at 12:35 pm … the tundra was never intended to steal all the sales from the big 2.5. Toyota knows that…that's why there goal is 200,000….not 1,000,000. Toyota has two plants to build the Tundra. Everyone is talking about San Antonio's 200,000 capacity but you can bet if sales were good Toyota would find away to push way beyond that number. Toyota never said their max capacity was 200k, just their sales goal. Johnson: April 19th, 2007 at 12:56 pm An interesting point about the Tundra is that the higher-priced, top model Tundras are all selling very well, outstripping supply. The only Tundra model seeing lukewarm sales is the Regular Cab base model. That is, most Tundra sales are Double Cab or Crewmax models with the 5.7L engine. This means that Toyota is maximizing profits per truck. This also means bad news for the domestic makers, as most Tundras on the road have the 5.7L engine, which will do wonders in terms of changing perception about the Tundra. Then there is the Crewmax, which domestic makers (other than Dodge) have no answer for. The Crewmax is currently built in Princeton, Ind., while the new San Antonio plant gets its feet wet with the standard-cab and extended-cab versions. San Antonio won't build the CrewMax until August. Sherman Lin: April 19th, 2007 at 12:56 pm My main disagreement with this article is simply its conclusion. Why is it assumed Toyota would catch a backlash if GM or Ford go under? While one can never predict the future it seems that the vast majority of the American public goes about their business oblivious to many things going on until it becomes front and center on the media radar scope. Terrorism is a good example. We had various attacks all thru the '90's but most people had no clue to the possible danger from them until 9/11, then it became THE big issue. If GM or Ford go bankrupt it will be the biggest business story of this short century. Then EVERYONE will want to know "how the hell did this happen?". Some will be all too ready to blame Toyondassan for the domestics' plight. And that could result in a backlash. We all know about Chrysler's troubles and potential sale. For the most part the public is paying little attention and vehicle sales are not affected overall. They don't know that the company that made their car could be taken to the chopping block. # SuperAROD: April 19th, 2007 at 12:57 pm Styling that nothing to do with pickups? Hmmmm. Please tell that to Dodge, who went from afterthought to serious player in the mid 1990s with their new "big-rig styled" Ram. And please tell that to Ford and GM who subsequently scrambled to make their pickups look more like Dodge's. Styling is important but the success of the original Ram was more that just a pretty face. Dodge was able to combine a polarizing, "hey look at me!" design with some very innovative features and solid performance at the same time. It was a "perfect storm" for them and catapulted them from also-ran to a major player. umterp85: April 19th, 2007 at 1:33 pm Frank-well written. It is a breath of fresh air to see Toyota's mis-steps get some thoughtful discourse. Thank you. It was not my intention to dump on Toyota for their problems as some have in cyberspace. They are still the class act in mass market production. Now they are just a little more human like the rest of us. carguy: April 19th, 2007 at 1:48 pm Good article but you may be over estimating the 2.5 brand loyalty when you predict a back lash. I agree with Sherman Lin that people generally spend their hard earned cash to buy whatever is best for the dollar, be it domestic, Japanese, German or Korean. However, I don't think there will be large stampede to abandon the 2.5 trucks as there was with cars and not because truck owners are stubbornly brand loyal but maybe because the new Tundra offers nothing new. Give yourself a gold star. The press has written volumes about the loyalty of pickup owners to their brand of choice. But this loyalty has been hard earned by the domestics due to their good experiences overall with these vehicles, much like like the owners of Toyota's cars. Loyalty like this has nothing to do with any sense of patriotism regardless of how many commercials they may have seen of John Mellencamp crooning "Our Country". It is won in the trenches of day to day use. If Toyota offers something new or better, or if their quality is so far above the others then they will make significant conquest sales. Sherman Lin: April 19th, 2007 at 3:29 pm …The trick is to piss off the fewest number of your existing customers (holding on to them) while enticing the pissed off customers of other brands. Reminds me of the movie Patton where George C. Scott says "…no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country. " jthorner: April 19th, 2007 at 8:35 pm Toyota reminds me of Microsoft. Even if a given version of the product isn't as good as the best competitor they will keep working on it night and day and see the thing through to the end. Ford, on the other hand, flubbed the mid 90s redesign of the once best selling Taurus and chose to sit on their hands. Toyota never sits on their hands. Every day they appear to come to work committed to doing a better job than they did the day before. Such consistent effort is impossible to compete with unless you do the same. The Tundra isn't going to put GM and Ford out of the truck business any day soon, but they have put the heat on them big time. I suspect that the GMT900 redesign wouldn't have been as good as it is were it not for Toyota breathing down their necks. GM and Ford are still first class truck makers, but are second class car makers (at least in the US market). Toyota is not going anywhere, and no one should mistake these early misteps for a lack of committment. Nor are the domestic makers any less committed. Next up – the new Dodge Ram due out next year as an '09. A new F150 will surely follow. With Toyota joining the ranks of the Ford, Chevy, Dodge, and Nissan in the fullsize pickup market, consumers can lick their collective chops over the prospect of an all new full size pickup coming to market on average every two years. For pickup afficianados these are the golden days. For Toyota, it's the start of a long battle who's outcome has yet to be decided.
A. I loved the movie Patton
B. I look at it this way. I had a GM car. A cavalier. I got my monies worth but by 100,000 miles the interior mirror fell off, the headliner collapsed and had to be held up by staples, The muffler fell off, the AC did not work, the radio, did not work, the front end could no longer be aligned so that the car could not go 70MPH without severe vibrations, and eventually it just died.
My point is that most people who switched to an import brand are simply not going to shed a tear for GM or Ford. The cars were simply not as good as the imported competition period and those people who switched did so because their domestic cars were not as reliable.
That is my perspective from Tampa Florida. I never knew an autoworker or even knew someone who knew an autoworker. Contrast that with someone from Michigan if they don’t work for the big 2.5 or one of their suppliers everyone there has to know someone who does. Down here its just a brand. In Michigan they probably already hate Toyota but in the other areas if they felt that way they wouldn’t have left the domestics
I dont like the Tundra or the Nissan Titan. They are trying way too hard to be maccho. Both companies should quit worrying about American testosterone and get back to basics – reliability and value.
I’ve still yet to see one of these new beasts on the streets.
History has shown that one should never count Toyota out. The new Tundra, its plant and the people who run it might be going through a learning curve; however, Toyota is truly akin to the legendary Borg: resistance is indeed futile.
People can rationalize cash on the hood from the big 2.5 (they’ve been doing for so long) but they can’t when its the number one super awesome best automaker from the land of the rising sun (as Ray Wert affectionately calls them) doing it.
The truck market works differently than the car market. As mentioned, truck buyers *expect* incentives, no matter which automaker we are discussing.
Due to an uphill battle, and the expectation of incentives by truck buyers, Toyota is offering incentives out of necessity really. GM’s March truck sales were hurt specifically because they weren’t offering enough incentives.
Of course, once the Tundra is firmly established in the segment, Toyota will likely ease off the incentives.
I don’t agree that Toyota overestimated demand for the standard-cab Tundra – there appear to be very few standard-cab trucks, and I know a number of people who have been looking for one without success. There are double-cab and crewmax trucks all over the place, but I’ve only seen 2 regular-cab trucks since the Tundra was introduced – and both were shortbeds without the tow package (one was a base model, one was fully loaded). I have never even seen a longbed Tundra, though I know that Toyota is making them.
If I search the inventory of the largest Toyota dealer in the US, they have 177 Tundras in stock – and only 5 of those are standard-cab models. That reflects the ratio I’ve seen locally – for every standard-cab Tundra on the lots I’ve seen at least 25 double-cab and crewmax models. If Toyota has a ‘surplus’ of base standard-cab models, I sure wish they would send some of them to western Michigan…
“Did Sony suffer from a backlash? Did Walmart?”
Oh yes, everyone loves Sony and Walmart. LMAO
I don’t know if you get the same comercials in the US as we do in Canada, but here they feature some male stripper reject in a cowboy costume spouting nuggets of wisdom from John Wayne movies. That alone turns me off the Tundra.
I live in Indiana, where these are “assembled”.
I’ve yet to see one on the streets in Indy, which is quite surprising.
The dealers have a few of them lined up.
If anybody really wants to buy one, I’d wait, figuring the deals will only get better from here.
While ugly, the new Tundras are already showing up in the parking lot here at work (blue collar company, deep south). Folks like ’em. A lot.
Toyota could probably max out their factory capacity tomorrow by building stripper long bed standard work trucks for the fleet market and selling them in the $15k-20k price band. However, that isn’t the most profitable part of the truck market. The real money is made by adding $1k-$2k in actual content cost and selling the truck for $30k.
I keep wondering when the Chinese or Indians are going to bring a tough basic work truck into the US and sell new ones for $12,999. No frills, just a good work truck in the spirit of a base model 1972 F150. Pair that up with a modern rendition of a 1972 Toyota Hilux at $10,999 and you would sell them all day long.
I keep wondering when the Chinese or Indians are going to bring a tough basic work truck into the US and sell new ones for $12,999. No frills, just a good work truck in the spirit of a base model 1972 F150 I don't know that they'll be able to bring something that cheap over because of the cost of complying with US safety, emissions, and fuel economy standards. Oh… and the asinine 25% "chicken tariff" on imported trucks has a lot to do with it too. Mahindra wants to import roughly 50,000 vehicles in 2009. They plan to sell a 2-door single-cab pickup truck in the low $20,000 range, and a 4-door truck and 5-door SUV in the mid-$20,000 range. A high-end version of the 4-door truck will be in the high $20,000 range. The vehicles, made in Mumbai, will feature common rail diesel engines, six-speed automatic transmissions with two or four wheel drive depending on the model and 4-year, 60,000-mile bumper-to-bumper warranties.
@SuperAROD
Toyota El Camryno base and V8
4.0L V6, 24 valve, 236 hp @ 5200 rpm
5 speed automatic transmission
17 mpg city / 20 mpg hwy
4.7L V8, 32 valve, 271 hp @ 5400 rpm
5 speed automatic transmission
15 mpg city / 18 mpg hwy
Dodge Ram base and V8
3.7L V6, 12 valve, 215 hp @ 5200 rpm
6 speed manual or 4 speed automatic transmission
16 mpg city / 21 mpg hwy
-8% displacement -9% HP -6%/+5% mpg
5.7L V8, 16 valve, 345 hp @ 5400 rpm
5 speed automatic transmission
15 mpg city / 19 mpg hwy
+21% displacement +27%HP +0%/-5% mpg
Chevy Silverado base and V8
4.8L V8, 16 valve, 295 hp @ 5600 rpm
4 speed automatic transmission
16 mpg city / 20 mpg hwy
+20% displacement +25% HP -6%/+0% mpg
5.3L V8, 16 valve, 315 hp @ 5200 rpm
4 speed automatic transmission
16 mpg city / 22 mpg hwy
+12% displacement +16%HP -6%/+10% mpg
Not huge differences in the MPG wars, fairly significant differences in most cases on the HP front. (I note that Ford is missing from your stats, and I’m just not ambitious enough to go look them up today.) Nor am I ambitious enough to figure the HP or MPG / liter of displacement, which would be the most telling.
But, huge but, what about the percieved quality difference between To vs F/GM/DCX? Yes, I know that the domestics are climbing in the reliability rankings, but people’s perceptions are that Honda & Toyota just simply out last anything the domestics can put out. It took years for that perception to be established, and it’ll take years for it to be changed. Will the big 2.5 have enough time?
Maybe they need to making a plug-in El Camryno Don’t be surprised if that and a diesel are both in the works.
“Don’t be surprised if that and a diesel are both in the works.”
I would put money on the diesel. GM sold it’s interest in Isuzu, the worlds largest maker of diesel engines. Toyota called Isuzu and asked to buy in, which they did. The only reason for Toyota to partner with Isuzu is for diesel engines. The current GM Duramax is built in what started as a GM-Isuzu joint venture factory. The engine is mostly an Isuzu design and the plant management is all Isuzu.
“Toyota forecasts 13% rise in profit and buys Isuzu stake”:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/07/bloomberg/bxtoyota.php
SuperAROD managed to not quote the stats on the new, superior 5.7 liter engine:
381 hp @ 5600 rpm
401 lb ft torque @ 3600 rpm
6 speed transmission
16/20 MPG 4×2; 14/18 MPG 4×4
Compare that to the biggest engine in a F-150, the 5.4 liter:
300 hp @ 5,000 hp
365 lb ft torque @ 3,750
4 speed transmission
15/19 2WD; 14/18 4WD
Oh, and Ford’s website SUCKS ASS. Argh. I ended up having to pull the fuel ecomony figures off fueleconomy.gov. Toyota’s, however, is quite nice.
The marketing guys were right; it was best to have the 5.7 engine when the truck launched as opposed to six months later, as was originally planned. The 5.7 liter is so superior to the 4.0 and 4.7 it doesn’t make much sense not to get it. So, they speed up production of the new engine and delayed the introduction of the truck so it could be-the correct move.
jthorner, you answered your own question. Toyota is leaving the low profit fleet stripper specials to the domestics; why bother with that low profit segment of the market? Toyota is not going to dominate the market here-thier plant in Indiana can build about 125,000 Tundras (thier sales for 2006), and thier new plant in Texas can build about 200,000 (and much less than that to start with-it’ll take a couple years to get full production in Texas). So, a little more than 300,000 a year, max. Both Ford and GM routinuely sell about three times as many full sized trucks each, plus maybe 400,000 for Dodge and another 100,000 for Nissan, and you can see that there’s plenty of market for Toyota to nibble at without dominating it. Toyota’s only going to take maybe 10% of the domestic’s current sales-fairly easily done. They might as well be mostly the most profitable ones.
In any case, April’s sales will be the key here-all models weren’t available during March. If they are in the 15,000-20,000 range, represenenting a signficant increase over last year’s 10,000 monthly sales range, they are doing good. They should be in the 25,000-30,000 range within two years.
jthorner,
Toyota partnering with Isuzu was mainly to strengthen development of Toyota’s small diesel engines. Toyota already has a lot of experience and expertise making large diesels through their Hino brand.
There is a Chinese curse which says, ‘May you live in interesting times.’
Being a native Chinese, I have never heard of that one. But let me offer you a real old saying “do not worry about the sky falling down.”
The story was about a guy fearing that the sky would fall down and the earth would crack. People just laughed at him. A wise man said:
“Since the sky is comprised of air and the earth of rocks, they are definitely not eternal. That guy has a valid point. However, the sky and the earth are the largest being that we know, their existence far exceed that of our own. It doesn’t make much sense worrying about them.”
Same goes for Toyota. Yeah, it will fall apart in long term. But in long term, we all die. Toyota is still rising, very similar to the post WW2 GM. Let’s say if it takes Toyota another 50 years to reach the current state of GM, how many on this board will live to see that day?
tankd0g: “Oh yes, everyone loves Sony and Walmart. LMAO”
Laugh all you want there is no backlash as judged by sales. Yes unions hate Walmart, yes small shop keepers hate walmart, yes some towns try to ban them. Guess what customers and consumers still flock to them in ever increasing numbers. Detroit may hate Toyota but I never saw a drop in Walmart sales when Monthomery Wards went out of business. If Sears goes under don’t wait for a back lash. Companies are sucessful because they please the end consumer and companies fail when they don’t. GM and Ford have pissed off a lot of people
. GM and Ford have pissed off a lot of people
Amen to that. If GM and Ford have any intentions of gaining even a fraction of their customers back (or god forbid get any new ones), a longer warranty is in order. The money spent on a guarantee ala Hyundai would go further than any “edgy” advertising could even hope for. Anything else is just talk.
Isn’t that what GM was thinking with their 5 year / 100,000 mile powertrain warranty?
Unfortunately, that warranty was too little too late. The 5/60 powertrain (who drives 100K in 5 years anyway?!) has been an industry standard for years. With Hyundai/Kia setting the bar at 10/100, GM needed to put on a better show.
What I propose is a 6yr/72K B2B and a 10yr/100K powertrain. If GM has serious doubts about whether their own cars can run relatively unscathed for this period of time, why should I then trust them?
Geotpf-
Tundra compares favorably to the F150 5.4L, but let’s look at another:
“the new, superior 5.7 liter engine:”
381 hp @ 5600 rpm
401 lb ft torque @ 3600 rpm
6 speed transmission
14/18 MPG 4×4
Compare that to a GMC Denali:
403 hp @ 5,700 hp
417 lb ft torque @ 4,300
6 speed transmission
13/19 AWD
So, the GMC has a 22 horsepower / 16 lb ft torque advantage and is rated 1 mpg better freeway but one less city (so we’ll call it a wash).
Before you get all excited about the parity between a Tundra and a Denali, figure that equipped as apples-to-apples a Tundra Crew Limited is still MORE expensive than the top-level (for GMC) Crew Denali.
The 6.2L GMC also produces slightly LESS greenhouse emissions than the 5.7L Tundra.
Oh, and the 6.2L is physically smaller and weighs less than Toyota’s 5.7L, for those who care about handling and balance.
The 5/60 powertrain (who drives 100K in 5 years anyway?!) has been an industry standard for years.
Industry standard!? Toyota? Nope, not even Lexus. Honda? Nope, not even Acura. Mercedes-Benz? Nope, not even Maybach. The industry ‘standard’ is 3 years and 36,000 miles. The ‘luxury marque’ upgrade is 4 years and 50,000 miles. Less than 5% of all vehicles sold have basic warranty coverage greater than 4 years or 50,000 miles.
And who drives 100,000 miles in 5 years? I would ask who takes 10 years to drive 100,000 miles? The statistically average car owner drives 15,000 miles per year, so they would take about 7 years to reach 100,000 miles. Since most people don’t keep their cars 7 years, perhaps the miles are more important (esp for those who drive >15K). Since Kia’s 100K warranty IS NOT TRANSFERRABLE to subsequent owners and GM’s is, perhaps that’s more important to ‘most’ people, and certainly more important to resale value.
Kaisen, A 5/60 POWERTRAIN warranty has been an industry standard for years. As for B2B coverage, VW, Mitsu, Kia, and Hyundai, all non-luxury marques, offer cars with B2B periods greater than 3/36. The importance of the POWERTRAIN warranty is the amount of years it covers, not the mileage (atleast for me). Thus, a 10 year POWERTRAIN warranty has twice the utility compared with a 5 year one (mileage limits being equal).
As for B2B coverage, VW, Mitsu, Kia, and Hyundai, all non-luxury marques, offer cars with B2B periods greater than 3/36.
Yep, and Buick also has 4 years and 50,000 miles B2B. Mazda too. But just a few short years ago, the only ones to offer B2B more than three years were the ‘luxury’ marques and the ‘please-take-us-seriously’ Koreans.
kaisen:
Fair enough-looks like GM has both Ford and Toyota beat here. Also, when I said Toyota’s 5.7 was superior, I was mainly meaning it was superior to Toyota’s 4.0 and 4.7 (which it is).
kaisen, If you want to compare the Denali to a 5.7L Crewmax, let’s look at ALL the facts, shall we?
You say the 6.2L has better emissions than the 5.7L. Prove it. Last I checked, the 5.7L Toyota engine had ULEV-II emissions, while the 6.2L GM unit only achieves LEV-II.
And then there is the question of towing: The Denali can only tow up to 8600lbs, dissapointing given the output of it’s engine. The 5.7L Crewmax 4×4 can tow 10,100lbs for comparison.
As for fuel economy, the EPA ratings put the Denali and 5.7L Crewmax 4×4 on par with each other, but real-world it’s likely a different story. So far most comparisons between the 5.7L Tundra and 6.0L Silverado have seen the Tundra getting better fuel economy. The Denali’s real world fuel economy will likely be even lower than the 6.0L Silverado’s.
We’ll also get a more accurate fuel economy picture once the 2008 EPA ratings for both the Tundra and Denali come out.
Lastly, the Denali is the ONLY GM truck where you can get the 6.2L, and the MSRP for the Denali starts at 38K. With the Tundra, one can get the 5.7L in any model they want, and the MSRP for a base Crewmax 5.7L is 31K.
Johnson-
Check out the emissions ratings on http://www.fueleconomy.gov where the Denali is estimated to produce 11.7 tons of greenhouse emissions per year where the Tundra produces 11.8 tons. Slightly less, as I said.
Comparing the Denali 6.2L 6 speed and the Sierra/Silverado 6.0L 4 speed, one would expect ‘real world’ fuel economy to differ because. If not then why is it touted to be such a big deal in the Tundra? The Denali’s real world fuel economy will likely be HIGHER than the 6.0L Vortec Max tow pkg 1/2 ton.
The reality is that BOTH the 6.0L and 6.2L are rated at 19mpg freeway, where the Tundra is 18mpg.
The Denali is the first light truck GM has offered with the 6 speed. Versions of this transmission have served duty in the Corvette/XLR, Cadillacs, and Denali/Escalade SUVs. Quite soon they will be offered in the rest of the Sierra/Silverado lineup where the 5.3L is already rated 20mpg.
Comparing $$$? Of course you can get a Tundra 5.7L for less money if you’re willing to take less equipment. But if you compare a $42095 Denali Crew AWD and a $42495 CrewMax Limited 4×4 you’ll find that the Denali has more equipment, including OnStar and Turn-By-Turn Navigation, and a better powertrain warranty.
kaisen,
on http://www.fueleconomy.gov, you’re right. The 5.7L Tundra outputs slightly more greenhouse gases than the 6.2L Denali. But on that same website, it shows overall that the 5.7L 4WD Tundra gets better combined fuel economy than the Denali.
But wait … that website has a disclaimer which states that the accuracy of the estimates provided are not guaranteed by the Department of Energy (DOA) or by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
A more accurate picture is to go to http://www.epa.gov, but the Denali and the 5.7L Tundra aren’t up on that website … yet.
Plus, epa.gov gives more thorough emissions results than http://www.fueleconomy.gov.
fueleconomy.gov in their greenhouse gases estimates only includes carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane.
On the epa.gov website, the emissions scores there include all of those gases, along with carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and formaldehyde.
To correct you, the 2WD 5.7L Tundra is rated 16/20 EPA … that means 20 mpg highway. Only the 4WD 5.7L Tundra is rated at 18 mpg highway. We will see which truck drops more in the 2008 EPA ratings, the Denali or the Tundra.
The Denali might have some things a loaded Crewmax does not have, but likewise the Crewmax has options and features the Denali does not have, like a roomy rear seat area for instance, better towing capacity, or sliding and reclining rear seats.
And you still have not responded as to why the 5.7L Toyota engine gets a ULEV-II emissions rating, while GM’s 6.2L only achieves a LEV-II rating.
Why is Toyota pounding their chest about their 1/2 ton’s towing capabilities?
If you ‘need’ to tow over 8000 pounds, just get a 3/4 ton with the safer E-load 10-ply LT tires, safer full-floating rear end, and other tow-friendly heavy duty features. The Sierra/Silverado 2500HD also comes standard with a 6 speed, by the way, and the base 353hp 6.0L tows up to 12,900 pounds, eclipsing any Tundra you can spec.
Toyota’s doing the best they can with what they’ve got. I understand, but it’s like the Indiana Jones movie where the guy has mad skills with his swords and Indy just pulls out his gun.
To correct you, the 2WD 5.7L Tundra is rated 16/20 EPA … that means 20 mpg highway.
I was talking 4WD to 4WD, but hey we can do 2WD to 2WD: Tundra 5.7L 20 mpg highway – Denali 6.2L 20 mpg highway – Sierra 5.3L 22 mpg highway.
The Denali might have some things a loaded Crewmax does not have, but likewise the Crewmax has options and features the Denali does not have, like a roomy rear seat area for instance, better towing capacity, or sliding and reclining rear seats.
Yep, the CrewMax has more rear seat room and reclining rear seat. I like that. Both have available power sliding rear windows, but Tundra’s fully retracts. Other than those two items, the Denali has better leather, real wood trim, heated wood steering wheel, 12 way power seats both sides (vs. Tundra 10 driver / 4 pass), rainsense wipers with heated washers, power adjustable pedals (vs. Tundra telescopic steering column – checkmate?), standard XM satellite radio, power folding mirrors, OnStar, ‘free’ navigation (don’t have to spend $2K+ like Toyota), factory remote start, and rear audio controls. Of course there’s also more than 20 additional horsepower, and a 100,000 mile powertrain warranty (vs Toyota’s 60K). All for a little LESS than a Tundra CrewMax Limited.
And you still have not responded as to why the 5.7L Toyota engine gets a ULEV-II emissions rating, while GM’s 6.2L only achieves a LEV-II rating.
An engine that produces a lower RATE of specific emissions (parts-per-million) but uses more fuel can still have a higher TOTAL emissions output. Worse fuel economy > more fuel used > higher emissions.
Why compare 3/4 ton HD trucks to the Tundra? Those are in a different market segment for trucks, and the Tundra currently has nothing in that market. Those shopping for an HD truck wouldn’t even consider a Tundra in the first place.
It doesn’t matter whether you “need” it, it’s the fact that the truck can do it, and that you have the choice of towing a heavy load whenever you want.
Toyota must be commended for making the 5.7L available on all Tundra models. The fact that GM offers the 6.2L only on the Denali is a little bit puzzling, and even more so considering that GM’s most powerful and biggest truck engine does not sit in a truck with a high towing capacity.
Let’s list ALL the facts here:
2WD Denali gets 14/20 EPA … 2WD 5.7L Tundra gets 16/20 EPA; Tundra wins. 4WD Denali gets 13/19 EPA, 4WD 5.7L Tundra gets 14/18; it’s a tie. Overall, the Tundra *still* wins (comparing the 5.7L Tundra to the Denali).
Based on EPA figures, a 5.7L Tundra should emit less TOTAL emissions than a Denali. Based on the fueleconomy.gov figures, a Denali 4WD would consume more barrels of petroleum, and thus more gas than a 4WD 5.7L Tundra.
And if a 5.7L Tundra gets better fuel economy (2WD or 4WD) than a Denali, as the EPA figures imply, then it should get better real world economy, which means less greenhouse gases emitted, which also means *less* total emissions.
Apples to apples here, per mile of driving the 5.7L iForce engine is cleaner than GM’s 6.2L engine.