According to Mike Levine at Pickuptruck.com, the all-new Toyota Tundra has surpassed the new(ish) GMT900 GMC Sierra 1500 in year-to-date sales. Officially, GM claims to have sold 115,185 Sierras. However, there's a bit of cloak and dagger math here. This figure includes 2006 models, and 'Sierra Classics', both built on the GMT800 platform, as well as heavy duty models. After peeling back these layers of confusion and misdirection, Mr. Levine reckons GM has sold only 76,700 brand new(ish) GMT900 Sierras. Toyota on the other hand has sold 97,290 (not quite fully) box(ed) fresh Tundras. This puts the Tundra at number four in full sized truck sales, and marks the first time a foreign automaker has sold more trucks than a domestic— in the history of the world, ever. If current sales trends continue, the Tundra will pass the Sierra in gross sales (i.e. with GM's gorilla math) by October. Currently GM gives up to $2000 in rebates to its new Sierra customers and Toyota offers up to $2,500. May you tow in interesting times.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
This isn’t the veritable milestone it’s being made out to be.
Americans have always preferred their Chevrolets over near-identical GMCs, while in Canada the Sierra sells enormously better, relatively speaking.
When the Tundra outsells the Sierra in Canada then we’ll something on our hands.
It’s just a matter of time!
oboylepr
Toyota will never come near knocking off Silverado or the F150 for that matter.You know how you hear all the time that domestic cars are almost there.When it comes to trucks its the Toyota thats almost there,but it still got a few
things to work out.
Rut Roh Rick……
To be fair, the Silverado dominates this segment, hands down. At least for now.
The issue here is that Toyota is determined to take this segment, and has the cash and the will to do it. Since they have conquered just about every other segment, is there any reason to believe that pickup trucks are going to be the sole exception?
Meanwhile, GM’s success with the Silverado has not come at the expense of Toyota, but at the F-150, which is seeing a sales dive while Toyota holds steady. If the idea here is to push the transplants off the beachhead and back into the sea, that just isn’t happening.
When the Tundra outsells the Sierra in Canada then we’ll something on our hands.
Hardly. Sales in Canada are but a tiny fraction of US sales. Toyota sells more Tundras in the US in one month than they will sell in Canada the whole year. Same with GM truck sales in Canada.
Fact is, F-Series, Silverado, and Sierra sales are all dropping. Ram sales are holding steady, and Tundra sales are increasing. It can only mean one thing, which is the Tundra is increasing sales at the expense of Ford and GM.
Hardly. Sales in Canada are but a tiny fraction of US sales. Toyota sells more Tundras in the US in one month than they will sell in Canada the whole year. Same with GM truck sales in Canada.
Fact is, F-Series, Silverado, and Sierra sales are all dropping.
Fact is, the Sierra sells in far greater volumes vis a vis the Silverado in Canada than it does in the U.S. That was my only point; please make the attempt to note this in future.
It can only mean one thing, which is the Tundra is increasing sales at the expense of Ford and GM.
Hardly. By that logic, one would have to attribute the drop in Titan sales to the Tundra as well.
Let’s not also forget the contraction of the segment due to the housing market and fuel prices.
Ha, that should be amended to say “gorilla cookie math.”
MIKEY-
I agree that the ToyTun isn’t perfect. However it has won about half the comparo’s with the ‘rado.
If the testers are more into comfort etc they go with the ‘rado. If they are power train focused they go with the Tun.
Frankly, I think Toyota can (and will) be able to improve the interior and ride far quicker than Detroit can equal that 5.7 of Toyotas.
It crushes tham on performance and in every test I have seen to date, whether against the 5.3 or 6.0 in the Chevy it has gotten better mileage (forget the EPA stuff). Every test, same day, same drivers, same conditions. More powerful and (slightly) more frugal.
BTW-another signal that two-valve engines are going bye-bye.
Again, not perfect but the Tundra is certainly better than “almost there”.
Look at the ‘Rado sales since they got a decent number to the dealers. If you don’t believe it’s ready, a lot of others do.
Regards,
Bunter
whatdoiknow1:
Trucks like the Tundra and Titan are deliberately targetting the highest-margin segment in light-duty pickups, which are the top of the line fully equipped luxo-trucks.
Two things of note however: this segment is already incredibly crowded, and buyers of these pickups incredibly fickle. They’re trying out the Tundra for the time being, but let’s not forget that an all-new F-150 and Ram are on the horizon.
Two things of note however: this segment is already incredibly crowded, and buyers of these pickups incredibly fickle.
I don’t know how you would know that to be true, but if you are correct, that fickleness would favor Toyota, not the domestics. That would mean that they aren’t brand loyal and are ripe for the plucking, in which case Toyota can respond quickly with whatever features and incentives they might want.
Toyota can easily afford to throw thousands per unit in rebates and giveaways for years on end to conquer this segment. They will win through persistence and attrition, just as they have in every other segment. (Nissan, on the other hand, may be another story.)
I don’t know how you would know that to be true, but if you are correct, that fickleness would favor Toyota, not the domestics.
You’re bang-on on many counts here. Let me elaborate on my previous points.
The evidence would seem to be in the sales to products such as the Titan, Tundra, and Ridgeline, which were products from companies that didn’t offer vehicles in that particular segment before.
The evidence would be in the bleeding off in sales between the two chief rivals Ford and GM every time one or the other puts out a new generation pickup.
We could argue all day that “but, but, they sold better because they were better”, but honestly, how many F-150 owners are going to tell you they own it because it has outboard shocks and the Silverado doesn’t?
This has proved to be my experience with the truck market living in Saskatchewan, where 6 out of 10 people still live in communities of 35,000 or less (i.e. rural). People will inherently give something new a chance, and to that end Toyota’s new Tundra, while the company has a mere toehold on the truck market here, is starting to show up amongst the type of buyers I alluded to earlier. Sales to farmers, ranchers, contractors? Not many yet. But there will be some.
However, when the new F-150 and Ram come out there will be renewed activity on those fronts.
Pch101 is correct, he who underestimates toyota does so at their own peril. when they “invaded” our shores with their weird little cars Americans almost universally derided them and the suggestion that they would EVER outsell the domestic whips was considered ludicrous. Oh my how things have changed. As stated by Pch101 Toyota has the money to push the tundra hard and it is clearly as good or better than the domestics, and as Robert has so eloquently detailed, the domestics just don’t have the resources to sustain a lengthy battle.
If Toyota put the same toughness into the Tundra as they do into PU’s sold in other countries they will dominate the PU market in NA in a few years. Have you seen the TopGear episodes on Youtube showing their efforts to destroy a Toyota Hilux in UK?
They started with a 13 year-old heavily worn diesel Hilux bought from a farmer.
They bashed it into walls and a tree and crashed it down some long stone steps in Bristol.
They drove it straight through a small wooden building.
They then took it to a slipway on the Severn river and tied it down and allowed the incoming tide to completely swamp the truck. The ropes broke and the current carried it away. They found the truck hours later at low tide semi submerged in sand on it’s side.
With only basic tools and no spares allowed, a mechanic succeeded in getting the engine started and it was driven away.
They then dropped it from 20′ from a crane.
They set the truck cab and box on fire and left it until the interior was destroyed.
Even after this it still was possible to start the truck and drive it away.
Finally the truck was placed on the roof of a 20 story building that was being demolished by explosives. When the building came down, the truck was dragged out of the rubble by an excavator and pulled onto it’s wheels.
Once again a mechanic with basic tools, no spares and less than 30 minutes had it started AND THEY STILL DROVE IT INTO THE BBC’S STUDIO. It was totally wrecked and yet it still ran. One was left with a sense of awe and amazement that a vehicle could survive such abuse!
Do a search on youtube with ‘Killing a Toyota’ and check it out. If nothing else it’s entertaining!
oboylepr:
While no one will doubt the toughness of the Toyota Hilux, you can not possibly use Top Gear as a corroboration for your argument. As someone else once wittily remarked after the BBC came out and admitted the Caravan fire was faked, the only naturally occuring thing on the show is Jezza’s bald spot.
————-
This news is quite symbolic, because despite all the bad press, the Tundra is actually gaining steam. Toyota cars are like cockroaches to GM. They will always be around, once you think you’ve crushed them, more of them pop up. They just can not be killed.
Don’t forget, this is the 1st Gen Tundra that Toyota is really trying to push. The mistakes will not be repeated for the 2nd Gen, and now they’ve acquainted themselves with how Americans shop for trucks. Contrary to what others have said, I believe truck buyers are actually quite loyal. Most trucks serve as commercial vehicles, not as personal vehicles. In such fleets, having a bunch of vehicles that are maintained in the same fashion with similar specs is critical to keep costs down. Once the Tundra establishes a beach head, it will be here as long as trucks are sold.
Assuming both firms improve their trucks at the same rate – very dubious, given GM history – it will be down to price and customer service. I’m not sure I’d bet on GM in that war.
Tundra is putting a world of hurt on GM and Ford both for sales volume and in pricing. Without the new Tundra on the market the 2.8 would be selling more trucks and getting higher net prices for them.
I expect Tundra to also kick Titan while Titan is down, but there aren’t that many sales to take away from Titan anyway. Nissan didn’t mount nearly as serious of an effort with it’s full size truck platform as Toyota has done.
As far as GMC is concerned, this is a brand with no good reason for existence anymore. “Professional Grade” … bzzzt, it is just a Chevy with a Tijuana nose job!
Hardly. By that logic, one would have to attribute the drop in Titan sales to the Tundra as well.
Let’s not also forget the contraction of the segment due to the housing market and fuel prices.
Titan sales were dropping even before the new Tundra came out. Titan sales can be attributed from the truck being flat-out uncompetitive, including not having enough engine/cab variations. Titan sales are so small they are almost irrelevant in this segment.
Just to be clear: the segment is contracting. Ram sales remain steady. F-Series, Silverado, and Sierra sales are *all* in decline. Tundra sales are up significantly. Seeing as there are no other competitors in this segment (and that the Titan’s sales are too small to make any noticeable difference) then in a contracting segment logically almost everyone would experience decreasing sales (not factoring in competition). But Tundra sales are up significantly in this contracting segment, so WHERE are the sales coming from then? Based on everything I mentioned above, Tundra sales *must* be coming from former Ford and GM truck owners, as well as prospective new truck buyers. In other words, GM and Ford are losing sales to Toyota’s Tundra.
F-Series, Silverado, and Sierra sales are *all* in decline. Tundra sales are up significantly.
I’m not sure what you’re comparing, but based upon Fleet Central’s report of mid-model year registrations, when comparing the first half of the 2007 model year to the first half of the 2006 model year, I see the full-size truck market as being in slight decline, the GM trucks gaining ground, Ford taking a tremendous hit, and Toyota and Dodge sales both relatively flat.
First half of MY 2006/ First half of MY 2007
Total large pickup sales (retail + fleet): 1,031,765 / 1,012,830
Total large pickup sales (retail only): 891,007 / 864,183
Silverado (total): 273,625 / 296,234
Sierra (total): 87,489 / 97,937
F-series (total): 373,596 / 315,032
Ram (total): 171,433 / 176,527
Tundra (total): 66,043 / 59,962
Just reviewing the figures above, it would appear that the Ford F-series trucks have absorbed virtually all of the decline in the full-size truck market, plus have given up market share to GM. For now, GM is riding pretty high in this segment.
That being said, this is one of those tortoise-hare contests, and I have no doubt that Toyota will eventually conquer this segment, just as it has with everything else. Give them 10-20 years, and I suspect that the distribution of sales will be quite different than what is now. Now that TMC has plants in the NAFTA zone in order to avoid the “chicken tax,” it’s both barrels blazing from here going forward.
But, just because someone is looking at only 2007 Tundras versus only 2006 doesn’t mean that it is actually outselling. The GMC is still ahead. Now, I fully expect that to change by EOY, but as of right now, the GM twins are still both above Toyota. I think it is important to note that GM has been far less agressive to this point than Toyota at discounting its vehicles. That changed a bit in July when GM finally stepped up incentive spending.
I don’t underestimate Toyota in this market at all, but people should not be underestimating the domestics either. Both Dodge and Ford have new trucks debuting at NAIAS for launch in mid-’08 for the ’09 model year. I’m not sure about the Dodge, but I know the F-series will see a huge engine revolution starting with a new V6 when it debuts and finishing with a 6.2L version of its TwinForce technology estimated to be as powerful as and as efficient as a diesel by 2010. I would also expect Ford and Chevy/GMC to take the brunt of this housing decline as both have catered to and are beloved by the construction industry. I would expect it to be 2009 before those sales recover significantly.
Toyota’s gains have been impressive, but they’ve done it by outspending in incentives since May, not because their truck is vastly superior.
Pch101, you’re looking at the wrong figures. Fleet Central’s report of Model Year 2007 sales? Do those Tundra sales figures seem a bit funny to you? That’s right they are, because those figures are out of date.
Let’s look at July sales and YTD sales so far for F-Series, Silverado, Ram, Tundra, and Sierra:
http://www.reuters.com/article/economicNews/idUSN0140862420070801
(I have conveniently listed below only fullsize truck sales, the entire list can be seen at the link)
Vehicles sold Year-to-date (July 2007) compared to
vehicles sold year-to-date July 2006)
Vehicle ———– 2007 —— 2006 —— % change
F-Series — 411,926 — 469,159 -12.2
Silverado — 357,893 — 383,752 -6.7
Ram ——– 214,569 — 215,967 -0.6
Sierra —– 115,185 — 124,565 -7.5
Tundra —– 105,990 — 67,743 +56.5
—————————-
Since now that has been settled, it’s quite obvious that so far for the year F-Series, Silverado, and Sierra sales are ALL DOWN. Ram sales I consider as stable, and Tundra sales as you can see are up significantly.
For the third time, because this is a contracting market, and with everyone I just mentioned above, the Tundra *must* be getting current domestic truck owners switching over and some new prospective truck owners buying the Tundra.
The pie is getting smaller (the truck segment) and Toyota is increasing it’s share of the pie, at the expense of Ford and GM mainly.
RobertSD:
Toyota’s gains have been impressive, but they’ve done it by outspending in incentives since May, not because their truck is vastly superior.
Wrong. Toyota offered tons of incentives and discounts on the old Tundra, and that model sold in much lower volumes than what the new Tundra is selling at.
As for comparing to GM’s discounts, as of now (August 2007) Toyota’s official discounts are 0% APR for 48 months OR $2000 on the hood. GM as of now is offering 0% APR for 60 months on select models, or a similar amount of cash on the hood. So for August, GM and Toyota incentives on trucks are roughly equal. We will see how the sales figures turn out.
Pch101, you’re looking at the wrong figures.
No, I’m not. I’m looking at different figures. I looked at the first half of the model year, you looked at the first half of the calendar year. Both time periods make for valid comparison, there’s nothing “right” or “wrong” about either of them.
Clearly, the calendar year results look different from those of the model year. Take both sets of figures in tandem (which would be the smart thing to do), and that would indicate that the market began to shift during the second quarter of 2007.
I’m going to guess that TMC’s incentives attack has a lot to do with the upsurge. This goes to the earlier point, namely that Toyota can afford to bury the domestics in incentives, and get results from doing it. The domestics still have a formidable lead, but there is a substantial portion of the market that is more price-sensitive than brand loyal.
But you don’t know what time period the Fleet Central Figures are from. They could be only from the beginning of the year.
Looking at “the first half of the model year” is a contradictory statement. Some automakers release their 2007 models in the Fall of 2006, like GM did with the Silverado. Meanwhile some release 2007 models in the Spring of 2007, like Toyota did.
The industry follows year-to-date sales, as should you.
I listed the most up-to-date figures, and we live based on the calendar year, not model year which can vary and be arbitrarily set by each automaker.
As I said to RobertSD, the increase is NOT due to incentives alone. Again, the old Tundra (2006 and older model) had lots of incentives and discounts, but not that many people bought it. Now with the new Tundra, it’s a MUCH better truck than the old one ever was, and combined with incentives it’s selling very well right now and at a much higher rate than the old Tundra ever did.
But you don’t know what time period the Fleet Central Figures are from. They could be only from the beginning of the year.
That is false. The “model year” begins October 1. The mid-year report runs from October 1 to March 31.
If you want to be credible, you have to get off the right/wrong kick that you’re on. There is nothing inherently better about model-year data versus calendar-year data. The point is to look at various time periods and to compare them, not to have a contest about whether my six months are better than your six months. When combined, both data sets provide useful information.
Oh, I certainly don’t think it is all due to incentive spending. For the first time, Toyota has a really competitive truck. That’s probably half the sales boost there. The other half is marketing and incentives. Toyota’s truck is good, but it’s nothing new to the market. Most tests save maybe Edmund’s have rated one of the GM twins better.
My whole point though is that in terms of YTD sales, Toyota is still not in front of the GMC (although, they should be by year end), and that Toyota’s ride in this market isn’t going to get any easier. Toyota’s gains are impressive, but with the truck they have versus what they did have and the marketing and incentives on it, they better be doing this well. The GM twins might be new (and performing disappointingly in sales, admittedly), but the F-150 is almost 4 years old now as is the Dodge, and both are getting overhauled next year.
It’s not that I doubt Toyota’s ability to stay competitive in this market and produce a good truck. I’m just not sure Toyota can waltz over the domestics at this point. GM and Ford at least are not as naive as they used to be in terms of quality, customer satisfaction or engineering prowess. Ford’s own strides in JD Power IQS and APPEAL, Strategic Vision and other quality and customer satisfaction studies are showing this. This probably won’t be like the Camry’s growth in the mid-size market, which was as much a product of Ford’s, particularly, inability to produce a competitive (quality) car as Toyota’s ability to make a good one.
Slightly different game. And Toyota didn’t bring anything revolutionary to it, despite their marketing hype.
This is going to be fun watching the automakers fighting a no holds barred all out fight to make the best full sized truck.
Too bad the former big three didn’t have the same attitude with small cars in the 70s and 80 and then with cars in general after that.
How refreshing! The comments posted on this blog are quite intelligent and informative…unlike those emotional ones on others where arguments are mostly about the back and forth bashing of domestics vs imports(read Japanese). Think I’ll check in more often :)
Pch101
That is false. The “model year” begins October 1. The mid-year report runs from October 1 to March 31.
If you want to be credible, you have to get off the right/wrong kick that you’re on. There is nothing inherently better about model-year data versus calendar-year data. The point is to look at various time periods and to compare them, not to have a contest about whether my six months are better than your six months. When combined, both data sets provide useful information.
Yet again, you missed my point. The time period that Fleet Central does their report is from October 1st to March 31st. That does NOT mean that there is any industry standard in terms of when a model year starts or ends.
My point was, WHY are you looking at the time period between Oct – March? Are we living in the past? Last I checked, it was August, not March. That was then, this is now. Also keep in mind the new Tundra did not come out until February 2007, so the Fleet Central figures you are looking at ARE in fact irrelevant to the discussion currently at hand because the Tundra figures from Fleet Central are mostly of the old model.
Again, what the Fleet Central figures show … that was then. The GM trucks were selling a bit better then, and the new Tundra has just come out.
This is compared to me looking at Year-to-date sales figures up until July 31st, where the new Tundra has been on-sale now for a few months, and where we can ACTUALLY see what effect it’s had on the truck market.
If we go by the Fleet Central figures, we cannot see what effect the new Tundra has had on the market; that effect which is sales being taken away from Ford and GM.
RobertSD, one thing I will mention is that GM, Chrysler and Ford do not have the resources to compete with Toyota toe-to-toe at this point. The 2009 F-Series won’t be a full ground-up redesign like the current F-Series was, or like the new Tundra was. It will also take some time for all the new engines to appear. Word from Ford insiders is that some of the TwinForce engines could be delayed. And at this point it’s not going to get much better for GM as their trucks are new and they’ve already got the HDs out. The only thing GM can do is offer incentives/discounts and offer the 6.2L/6 speed combo across it’s entire truck line. That of course in unlikely to happen. GM does have an upcoming diesel, as does Ford and Dodge, but those are all years away. We don’t know what Toyota has up it’s sleeve. And if Toyota comes out with an HD Tundra, it will only make things tougher for the American Big 3.
Toyota has a huge war chest to use in this truck war but the American Big 3 do not. Their resources are much more limited. Not only that, but the American Big 3 cannot afford to keep focusing on trucks, as they are vastly lagging in many other segments.
The time period that Fleet Central does their report is from October 1st to March 31st. That does NOT mean that there is any industry standard in terms of when a model year starts or ends.
The only person who referenced an “industry standard” was you. You falsely claimed that it is wasn’t possible to know what time periods Fleet Central was reporting, and I corrected you by pointing out that Fleet Central defines it as being October – March for the purposes of its mid year report.
My point was, WHY are you looking at the time period between Oct – March? Are we living in the past?
Because (a) it is a highly reliable source and (b) because it takes awhile to gather this data from new vehicle registrations, as Fleet Central does, so you can rest assured that those are reliable figures that allow for apples-to-apples comparisons.
In contrast, the July YTD figures are preliminary figures that are reported by the manufacturers (who do not all define “sales” in the same way), so they are subject to more adjustment. They are also useful, but you can’t use them without understanding that they are subject to revision later.
By definition, ALL historic data is a matter of “living the past.” The YTD data from Reuters also includes the prior model year Tundra. The focus here is not on the Tundra specifically, but on the truck market as a whole, regardless of what products were introduced when.
For whatever reason, you seem hung up on showing the Tundra as being some fantastic success, but it really isn’t. (And mind you, I say this as one who is a consistent critic of GM and who generally lauds Toyota’s business savvy.) Edmunds estimated Tundra total incentives during June as being more than $5,000 per unit, which tells you that the truck hit the market at too high of a price point, and still has difficulty competing on its merits. It’s going to take awhile for TMC to make headway in this segment, although I have little doubt that it will get there eventually.