Automotive News [AN, sub] reckons it’s got the inside line on Toyota’s “new U.S. plan.” They’re so chuffed with the scoop that their article presents the bulleted battle plan in both the body text and a little gray box. And here it is: “Review and possibly trim the lineup of full-frame trucks; Skip midcycle vehicle enhancements to focus on bigger launches; Introduce more hybrids to North America; Give U.S. engineers a bigger voice in r&d.” AN reckons the headline is the potential truck trimming and hybrid adding bit. Which is certainly important news for a company with a “tattered image” (Toyota, apparently, not the American zombies clinging to profits via pickups, who’ve yet to produce a single large-volume hybrid vehicle). But what of ToMoCo leaving existing vehicles as is for longer?
Toyota will drop minor model changes and make a bigger deal of model changes when they do occur. That will happen more, even if it means delaying launches, said Yukitoshi Funo, an executive vice president who now oversees emerging markets. He formerly headed North American operations.
“We are going to have a smaller number of production actions so that each of those has more impact,” Funo said in a separate interview. “Instead of cosmetic changes, we may have more fundamental changes, though it may require a little longer time.”
Executives cited midcycle face-lifts to items such as grilles, headlamps, bumpers and interior colors as tweaks that might get passed over.
Oh dear. Is this cost-cutting run amok or a fundamental misunderstanding of the American automotive business? Yes. By sacrificing cosmetic changes for cost savings, Toyota fails to see the importance of fashion in their core demographic. Maybe they’ve bought into the motorhead meme that their products are appliances, and nothing more. If so, Toyota has just opened the door a bit wider for their American competition. Well, any automaker fast enough to outpace them with regular style updates.
Toyota seems to have the right idea here.
Can you name a single mid cycle refresh (plastic bits only) that looks better than the original?
I hope Toyota can put some of the savings towards improving their quality slightly. The bean counter interiors, and fit and finish problems are starting to wear thin, although lately, Hondas are guilty of this as well.
njoneer
That’s a question of taste. In terms of sales, ask any Toyota dealer: the mid-cycle refreshes (no matter how cosmetic) are vital to maintaining sales.
Again, I could be wrong. But I’ve talked to plenty of people on the sharp end and they see the constant updates as a key differentiator between ToMoCo and The Big Three.
I must be getting old. That corolla actually looks nice.
-ted
Toyota seems to have the right idea here.
Can you name a single mid cycle refresh (plastic bits only) that looks better than the original?
The problem isn’t necessarily which looks better, but just that fact that there is a notable difference. There are people out there that want the newest one, and will trade in fairly new cars just to get it. I have customers that come in all the time and ask about the new models. When you tell them that they’re carryover with no changes, then they’ll usually stick with what they’ve got, but when something has changed, many decide to trade up to the new model. If Toyota carries through with this plan, they are eliminating sales to that type of customer, and it’s a bad idea.
I refer to the mid-cycle refreshes as “mid-model corrections.” After all, why would they change the grille and tail lamps if they weren’t wrong to begin with?
segfault: to make the current owner dissatisfied with his old car because it isn’t the latest, newest, best so that owner as described above, will want to trade.
That’s called “change for the sake of change”.
It’s what defined “Planned Obsolescence”, especially in the 50s and 60s
Actually I kind of agree with you on this one. I might not like Toyota styling in every instance, but overall I think they’ve done a pretty good job recently. What I mostly mean by that is the Camry and Corolla are kept fresh, and despite the fact that I see them everywhere, they seem to exist in a huge variety of exterior trims and grills. I especially liked the black honeycomb front end on recent corollas.
“Maybe they’ve bought into the motorhead meme that their products are appliances, and nothing more”
I think they have actually have bought into this, and don’t like it one bit. If they want every update to contain, “fundamental changes” they’ve missed the point of the criticism though. The things that Toyota needs to fix are steering, suspension and chassis setup minutae, and while these are fundamental, the fix isn’t a marketable and expensive DSG gearbox or variable rate dampers, it’s just spending some more time in development and hiring some competent test drivers (seriously Toyota, fire someone). If they can do that while retaining their apparently excellent product stewardship as is, they’ve cracked it and will be competitive on all fronts for a long time.
Mid-cycle changes help sales and promote the idea that the product is evolving. It also gives stylists and engineers a chance to play with new ideas and fix things that might be wrong.
Say no changes are made for six years, then all the changes are made at once. They could be polarizing taken together, and if the new model has poor CR reliability, that “new” vehicle will be shunned for years down the road. You’d have to restyle it to differentiate it.
Putting all your eggs in one basket: never a good idea.
Just look at the Big 3: Bold new launch, crap sales four to six years later.
Huh. The last gen Corolla was kept on the market surprisingly long without refreshes. Are they just formalizing something they already do?
“I especially liked the black honeycomb front end on recent corollas.”
Correction here, I think it was actually the Camry.
I’m guessing that no MCE’s will cut down Toyota’s leasing numbers and will increase their profit (also by saving money by not redesigning or retooling plants). Of course this will lead to fewer sales and an oportunity for VW to become #1 in the world and Hyundai to catch up even more.
Eliminating mid-cycle product changes is appealing in that it reduces planned obsolescence and enhances resale value. But it could also be just another step in becoming the New GM. Today’s Camry and Corolla are somewhat mediocre to begin with, and letting them hang on the vine without freshening could make them tomorrow’s Impala and Cavalier.
The engineer in me says refreshes are a wasted effort and are often better left undone, but the salesman in me says they help to gin up excitement and move the product.
During Detroit’s heyday they tweaked the product EVERY YEAR! The iconic 55, 56 & 57 Chevrolets are all different from one another, as anyone who has restored one knows.
Push comes to shove, salesmanship always beats out engineering as long as the engineering is good enough. Having worked extensively in both fields this causes me all kinds of brain pain.
“Can you name a single mid cycle refresh (plastic bits only) that looks better than the original?”
I’d say the 2005 Focus refresh tidied things up a bit, except that Ford also decided that year to make 95% of the wagons available in metallic green or champagne, or with an all-tan interior (I mean ALL tan. Steering wheel too).
Makes sense to me; somewhere in the world are warehouses of Toyota spare trim/detail parts that were never needed after a “refresh”.
Over the life of a vehicle it costs a staggering amount of money to keep 5 units each of two “1-year” parts rather than 6-7 units of a “2-year” part.
Making these changes I think its great for Toyota, this will allow them to take more profit. I hear they are putting more on the workers and less benifits, this should help their stock which would be great. This will get their stock moving twice as fast, we all know the bluecollar workers are to fat…We all know its better to support the ones that buy the 2nd house and spends the most money.
Workers and Americans should be glad Toyota has built some plants here even tho they haven taken the money and built in other countries, atleast their stock has done good. We should support companies that are in buisness for profit thats what companies are for. The States and citizens see it that way they have given Toyota Tax breaks so they agree its also good to let business do what they want to do.
Soon Companies will be able to take more with the economy slow down get back what has beeen taken away from them for years. its going to be great a more enhanced Busch years !!!!!
C’mon, RF….it’s after 10….we’ve all been waiting for your take on Ford’s profit announcement. And we get…..this.
Surely, you must have a comment?
Killing the mid-cycle refresh is a horrible idea. Think about the typical Japanese car-as-appliance buyer. They want a car that looks new and won’t break. So after the first purchase, what’s the motivation to buy another new Toyota except that the body style is a few generations old?
When I was at Chrysler in the 90s, I remember talking with folks about the Hondas that rusted so quickly. Their take was that Honda had a good plan – their cars never broke but after 5-6 years they would rust. The rust issue would motivate the owner to look into buying a new car. Since the owner had a positive experience with their Honda, they would buy another one.
Contrast that with the typical Chrysler that didn’t rust, but would have many electrical and mechanical failures in that same time period. The Chrysler owner would not buy another one.
Can you name a single mid cycle refresh (plastic bits only) that looks better than the original?
1997 Camry was all-new; 1999 or 2000 refresh, although very subtle, looked better.
The updates are great for those who do a 3-year lease loyally on the same car, over and over and over again. Guy in the neighborhood has had like 6 Camrys, all 3-year leases. A family friend, 8 Accords, again, all 3-year leases. He almost didn’t do a lease on the 2003 Accord, but loved the 2006 Accord, even though I think they only changed the tail lamps.
Can someone please explain the previous assertion that mid-cycle changes “help sales”….
How many people do you reasonably assume look at a new model and say to themselves, “Hmmmmm. I want to buy this car, but I hate what they’ve done to the headlights/cornering lights/grille! I’ll wait two years until the refresh to see if they do a better job, THEN I’ll buy.”?
Mid-model refreshes to stimulate sales has always sounded like non-sense, and a waste of money to me.
How about it B&B? Anyone here ever made a purchasing decision solely because they liked the aesthetics of a refreshed model?
I noticed that “refreshed” cars are invariably getting worse, with the example being the previous generation CR-V. This has absolutely nothing to do with “corrections”, but purely marketing-driven design, and it’s evil.
Notice that Toyota is not rejecting valuable mid-cycle updates, like the engine replacements on RAV-4 (the new 2.5L is better in every respect than the 2.4L: noise, power, economy, and costs about the same).
Americans get sick of things in a big hurry and want something new or different quite frequently. Keeping models longer without any mid year MCE’s is only holding the door open to the competition. That Corolla looks like a 2002 model with all exterior trim removed and a Camry SE grille. Talk about keeping the same basic model around too long. Back when I grew up in the 70’s and 80’s cars changed almost every year. Dashes went from silver to black on some GM models. Grilles changed. Engine lineups varied year by year. Colors both outside and inside changed, woodgrain went to silver, radios were always being updated, seat fabrics varied year to year and there was always something different to look forward to. I have many vintage Motor Trend and C&D September/October issues with there new cars issues and a boat load of changes and updates for each model year of car. All that seems to change with todays cars are colors, decontented exterior trim and a slight grille or air intake revision.
Can you name a single mid cycle refresh (plastic bits only) that looks better than the original?
I’ve got two, same company, same year:
The 2001 refreshes of the second generation Mazda Miata and third generation Mazda Protege. Both got more angular, aggressive and distinctive front ends, the Miata got better looking wheels and the Protege got the 2.0L engine. Improvements all around.
People I’ve talked to that that have bought Toyotas just want to get from A to B as reliably as possible. They don’t care about driving and don’t want to think about their car. Fashion is the least of their worries, so Toyota is making the right move. It’s not the right move for everybody, but should work for them. However, there are a few exceptions – fashion items such as coupes (FT-86) & convertibles (IS-C).
I agree that there is a core demographic that will buy a Corolla no matter how dated it looks.
The irony here is that Toyota’s application of the old “Crown Vic” approach to their US spec’d Corolla may help Ford when it launches the new Focus.
Visual mid-cycle refreshes always look like crap, so I’m fine with this.
Keeping doors and a roof that were designed to go with one design, and then changing the front clip and rear bumper always results in a Frankenstien looking mess.
The 1995-96 240SX (which I owned) was much better looking that the ’97-98. The “new” Mustang has completely screwed up proportions, just like the “new” Fusion. I really can’t think of a refresh that improved the looks.
That doesn’t mean that mid-cycle improvements aren’t good; for example, a 2005-’06 G35 is much nicer than an ’03-’04 G35, even though they look the same. It just means actually improve and fix the car mid-cycle, don’t waste money on disjointed sheet metal.
But those are just my selfish preferences. Skipping mid-cycle refreshes may likely hurt Toyota with appliance buyers wanting to show that they have a “newer”, if uglier, one than their neighbor.
If Toyota eliminates the next round of model refreshes, that’s probably a good way to increase near-term earnings without doing any harm.
If this is intended to be a permanent policy, then it’s a huge mistake. One way that Toyota keeps its opponents on the run is to force the rest of the market to make more frequent updates, which raises their costs, forcing them to channel resources toward constant styling changes and keeping them on the defensive.
Since Toyota can afford it more easily than the rest, this works to Toyota’s benefit. Toyota is in the top tier, and it should take advantage of its ability to outspend the rivals. For a long-term policy, this would be horribly pennywise and pound foolish.
Maybe there’s an underlying shift in the market here. With a slow to recover economy and the general tightening up of credit to the consumer, perhaps the amount of customers who are willing or able to trade up a reasonably new car to the very latest (mid-cycle) model, are actually on the slide.
If Big-T are focusing development cash on what they consider to be more rewarding engineering (as opposed to cosmetic changes of grilles etc), then this will probably end up in better cars for the customer overall.
@Mark MacInnis :
How about it B&B? Anyone here ever made a purchasing decision solely because they liked the aesthetics of a refreshed model?
The European Ford Focus went off my list of possible cars last year because I did not like the half-baked “Kinetic” refresh.
Most mid-cycle refreshs ruin the original styling instead of improving on it. See: Fiat Grande Punto, Skoda Octavia, BMW E46 for really good examples how nit to do a mid-cycle refresh.
I think this is a bad idea for Toyota. One of GM’s problems was not updating models and letting them rot out there. While the platform wasn’t bad, a few cosmetic changes can improve the car and buyers. Especially when other companies will be doing these updates and release new models while yours is 3 years old and has another 3 years to go.
I wouldn’t think this would be a good move for Toyota.
Toyota vehicles pretty much ARE appliances. Does anyone buy a Toyota for it’s driving dynamics or acceleration? And what about the styling itself. Do you look at a Toyota with lust and think to yourself “wow, that is one sexy car”? About the best you can say is “hey, not bad”.
People buy Toyotas because they are affordable, dependable basic transportation that will get you from point A to point B with minimal fuss, effort or thought. Plus they retain their resale value. I would suspect that the average Toyota buyer could care less about a mid-cycle refresh of the headlights and a few chrome bits.
I prefer to buy a car that has had a mid-model refresh. The manufacturer, hopefully, resolves the initial design and production gaffes that have come to its attention. Unfortunately, they often treat it as an opportunity to decontent the car.
I think it may be that Toyota recognizes its core demographic in the US: utilitarian buyers who want reliable, inexpensive transportation.
It could be that Toyota is returning to its roots and trying to focus resources on engineering and quality over styling, where they never particularly excelled anyhow.
Maybe some of the engineers can chime in here on mid-cycle refreshes and how manufacturers like to see them. In the past I would bet that this would be the time when you fix a lot of the bugs, but with modern techniques most manufacturers are able to make changes on the fly to correct production issues.
I can think of a few major mid-cycle refreshes that were big improvements: the previous generation Passat had a major mid-cycle refresh that was a big improvement in aesthetics, as was the mid-cycle Audi A4 B7 refresh.
The way I read the statement, it seems that Toyota will invest it’s resources in new product, rather than refreshed product. This will allow them to introduce new products at a faster rate.
I can’t imagine that refreshing product every two years helps the residual values much when you’re selling lease prices, rather than cars.
I think Toyota’s making a mistake here…and it’s not like they have no money in the bank…
I disagree that mid-cycle refreshes aren’t important. On ocassion, they can screw up a great design, or cheapen it…but more often, can improve a marginal design and/or respond to real world criticism of the car. It also keeps the car more competitive against newly introduced models from other manufacturers.
Honda’s 2006 Accord ‘buttlift’ corrected the 03-05’s droopy posterior, the 2001 Miata gave a slightly edgier appearance and upgraded interior to the gen 2 Miata, and the recent Dodge Caliber/Jeep Patriot interior update corrected one of the most embarassingly craptastic interiors on the market…a few of many examples.
In general, I’ve found Toyota adds more style at the mid-cycle…People still want to spend their money on something fresh, and year 4/5 sales of a design could nosedive, as the car is seen as stale in the market.
I agree with the above posters. Toyota does not build cars for gear heads. It builds appliances for people to get around in comfortably and reliably. Trying to put moxie into a Camry is a complete waste of time and resources and Toyota knows it. Have a look at the average Corolla driver. Do they look like they are remotely interested in g-forces or apexes? They are not. Honda drivers are more diving oriented and pay more for the privilege of doing so.
I just rented a brand new 4 cyl Camry on a recent vacation and was surprised what a POS it was. The car wandered around on the freeway and has no directional sense. Even my wife commented on how poor it drove. The engine made nasty growling sounds even though it was well isolated from vibration. Lots of cheap plastic inside. Only good think was that it did not do anything to piss me off. 22 mpg sucks too. I’m now sure that a Malibu 4 cyl is a better car, even though the Camry will probably last forever (like punishment).
“njoneer :
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:33 am
Toyota seems to have the right idea here.
Can you name a single mid cycle refresh (plastic bits only) that looks better than the original?”
The rear on the refreshed 2005-2007 Accord with it’s LED tailamps is about a million times better than the Buick inspired droopy tail lamps of the original 2002-2004 design.
That’s a question of taste. In terms of sales, ask any Toyota dealer: the mid-cycle refreshes (no matter how cosmetic) are vital to maintaining sales.
Again, I could be wrong. But I’ve talked to plenty of people on the sharp end and they see the constant updates as a key differentiator between ToMoCo and The Big Three.
Outside of speeding and red light cameras, I typically don’t agree with RF on anything but like him, the car salesmen I’ve talked to (admitedly very anecdotal evidence) all agree that mid-cycle refreshining is vital to maintain not only some sales volume but customer brand loyalty. Sure, many of their customers fall into the “autos and appliances” mentality we’ve seen develop over the last 15 or so years.
But…we’re a consumer group that hasn’t completely “lost it” for cars, and that’s evidenced by wanting *stylish* appliances. And that’s typically done best via the mid-cycle refresh.
Sure, much can be said for the total dumb-ass mid-cycle refresh. I know some here hate Mazda’s refresh of the 3, I love it and that was a factor in purchasing it. Plus, many of these mid-cycle refreshes correct deficiencies in the original design. Again, I’ll use the Mazda 3 sedan as an example. That love it or hate it front and along with a few other body tweaks significantly reduced road noise in the cabin.
Toyota’s going down a slippery slope with this decision. And yes, that Corolla does look nice.
@Canucknucklehead
Gear heads would want better engines, acceleration, handling, etc etc. That is not typical of mid cycle refreshing. It does happen on occasion, but it isn’t the norm.
The refreshes would actually help the appliance buying public who wants the latest gadget in their car or a nicer look.
For those saying it could help with resale value not to do it, it could also hurt it. If Toyota gets the GM image of letting vehicles rot on the vine, what will that do for resale value?
Can you name a single mid cycle refresh (plastic bits only) that looks better than the original?
Sure I can. The 2006 update for the 4Runner turned an ugly duckling into something that actually had nice lines again.
As we’ve seen with the 2010 Mazda 3 (not a mid-cycle refresh, BTW), any car company can make a mistake. Sometimes the “bold launch design”, while effective in the short-term, get’s stale fast. The mid-cycle refresh is a good way to add needed refinement. This sounds like a mistake on Toyota’s part.
As for the Mazda 3, it’s ugly now, it’s not going to get any prettier with time either. The sooner they can fix that toothless gap the better.
I’m guessing Toyota is pretty confident with their product lineup, both current and future. I mean the Camry and Corolla continue to top the sales charts even with newer and more competitive product for sale elsewhere. For now I suppose this idea will work.
Then again what happens when a new vehicle doesn’t meet expectations. Is management literally going to ride out 5-6 years of subpar product? Wouldn’t this mean that Toyota would essentially be playing catchup?
Reading that auto buying decisions are increasingly made by females I will conjecture that various changes to design, appearance, color etc will be done to either sate females or to increase their innate subjective emotionality to create desire for the appearance of a vehicle.
Ford had their Eddie Bauer line.
Expect the future to offer the Max Factor line or whatever.
Sort of a Cover Girl look where appearance is used to cover interior sins and to smooth over the creases and make subjective outer beauty of more importance than what lies underneath.
Toyota has already extended product life-cycles beyond the traditional 4-5 years on many key lines.
One of the reasons why Ford is on the upswing is that its new product introductions were increased.
It seems to me that Toyota lost its mojo the moment it became the world’s #1 automaker. Of course it was a long time in the making, but Toyota forgot what its strengths were in its ambition to be the biggest.
Just for the heckuva it… how about we look at actual data? These researchers at Virginia Commonwealth, in a just-released paper, looked at virtually all models on sale in the USA over about a decade, and regressed market share gains and losses on things like ad spend, warranty coverage changes, and large and small (total overhaul and mid-cycle refresh) styling changes. (Reference: Non-Price Determinants of Automotive Demand: Restyling Matters Most; Oleg Korenok, George E. Hoffer, and Edward L. Millner; Virginia Commonwealth University 9/8/2009). For what it is worth, the findings were that NOTHING mattered to market share as much as restyling, and that while mid-cycle mild restyles had only about half the impact of full-cycle total restyles, the positive impact was still VERY major. The authors actually ascribe most of the Japanese market share gain in the USA in recent years to more frequent restyles (full and partial)… more than price, ad spend, etc.
Here’s a great quote from the study: “We find that new product, as measured by restyling, represents the most consistent, dominant determinant of demand. On average a ten percent reduction in relative price would yield only one-tenth the market share impact of a restyling. Alternatively, one would have to double one’s relative advertising expenditures to match the impact of a restyling.”
So, yes, mid-cycle light restyles matter, a lot. Before y’all yell at me, read the study, it is generally available.
OR, we could do the internet thing and just shout assertions at each other (grin).
PS: Merrill Lynch in its annual Car Wars studies proves the same point by the way.
+1 Glenn Mercer. For those who don’t want to do the work of Googling for themselves, here is a link to the paper in question:
http://www.people.vcu.edu/~okorenok/JBR090809.pdf
i think the refresh Honda did on the 2002 to 2007 model accord sedan’s bangel butt did wonders in 2005 also the 2004’s refresh of the civic did wonders too especially the coupe
Conventional wisdom and the aforementioned study dictate the midcycle restyle sells more vehicles but in Toyota’s case I’m not so sure it applies in the conventional sense. Since styling has never been one of their strong points it makes me think most of their buyers are buying for quality and reliability reasons as opposed to style. They would know from their internal sales numbers how many of their buyers are trading up for midcycle restyling and I’m sure took that into consideration when making their decision. I seriously doubt they would leave a model on the market unchanged as long as GM did with the Cavalier for example. There is a difference between a full model run and leaving a vehicle on the market unchanged for so long it dies on the vine. Toyota has a long history of calculated marketing and they just may be on to something here keeping in mind the benefit given was new models at a more rapid pace.
To mtymsi: Oddly enough, the research study shows the impact of styling changes to be greatest at Ford, then Toyota, then GM… the study does break the effects out by OEM. But if you take a look at it you will see the conclusions across all OEMs are stronger than results by individual OEM, I will grant that. But any way one looks at it, the mid-term styling impact is indeed positive for Toyota… more so than for GM.
Remember a key thing about both the VCU and the ML studies: in the long run the QUALITY of styling is not as important as the FREQUENCY of styling changes. I may not agree with that, you may not, but when we look at millions of Americans as a group they seem to prefer “new and improved!” over “new and better looking.”
Midcycle restyles will be less important as the economy slows down the replacement rate of cars in the US. One of the artifacts of the inflation of the last couple of decades was the prevalence of 24-36 month leases. By dropping, or at least reducing, restyles, Toyota is positioning for a world with a larger portion of the market shifting towards 48-60 month replacement intervals. Not a bad bet, if you ask me. Relatively, they will likely benefit from a transition like this, as longer lease / ownership terms will drive a higher focus on perceived build quality, and less on up front fashionableness.
Of course, eliminating mid-cycle refreshes would hurt Toyota in sales. Not doubting that.
However, is that damage significant?
What if the damage is $1B per year, and yet the savings would be $2B per years?
What if the major iteration becomes more successful because of increased resources?
If I saw a 2008 IS350 next to a 2009, I’d buy the 2008 based on the wheels alone. Can you say lobster claws?
The only mid-cycle refresh that I’ve seen make a difference were the ’98 Supra price drop (not a refresh but they dropped the price like $10K on the sticker), 2006-7 GS 300/400 o 350-460 (huge bump in power), and 2006 Impreza (incorporating the corporate vagigrill).
441Zuke :
November 2nd, 2009 at 6:04 pm
i think the refresh Honda did on the 2002 to 2007 model accord sedan’s bangel butt did wonders in 2005 also the 2004’s refresh of the civic did wonders too especially the coupe
See my coment above.
Bad idea. Think of cars that are really good but just too damn ugly to ever own. Think Mazda 3 and Acura TL. Great cars. Ugly as sin. Kinda like Shelly Duvall. Acts well, looks bad. ‘Nuff said.
God..
They spent so much DAMN TIME on redoing the Corolla.
Its got to be one of the ugliest damn cars on the road. My neighbor (this guy who lives next to me who is positively WEIRD) has a silver one (base model, black basic interior, parking brake on on a FLAT SURFACE). Place this next to the new one.. and he wouldn’t know the difference.
But god..
KILL IT WITH FIRE!
AWFUL!
As for regular refreshes..
Honda does it every 2.5yrs on the good stuff.
We all wait for something significant and it turns out to be MEH.
Am I seeing a trend here..
No more MMC’s?
Average Toyota buyer gets a new Toyota every 3 years?
Does anyone have the stats to support this bold claim?
I can see Lexus buyers doing that, but I am not so sure about Toyota. Let’s see some numbers, let’s see how many people are crazy enough to trade their Camry after 3 years.
Who knows how this will play out for Toyota. There is nothing crazier than the new car market.
God we depended on restyles. I sold Porsche and audi for years and we would always get huge spikes in sales when a vehicle was restyled or a new engine or trim became available. Porsche even more so. I was selling 996 c4s for almost turbo money when that car came out. That was a fantastic car. I wanted one sooo bad but held off for the 997. Now That early carrera s seems so dated with the new DI engines and styling/interior updates. Same was true at the mercedes store I’m at now. We used to get 20k over on SL’s and big market adjustments on S and CL class cars when changes happened. Now people don’t care. Our last huge success was the 2007 S550. When the new SL came out in 2009 we started discounting them not long after launch. We have sold 2 SL65 Blacks, both only got MSRP.
wsn :
November 2nd, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Of course, eliminating mid-cycle refreshes would hurt Toyota in sales. Not doubting that.
However, is that damage significant?
What if the damage is $1B per year, and yet the savings would be $2B per years?
What if the major iteration becomes more successful because of increased resources?
So, basically a Jay-Leno-at-10-PM strategy. You lose revenue, but you lower your costs by more, at least in theory. The thing that makes this dangerous is what happens if the theory doesn’t pan out and the loss in revenue is greater than the savings in lower costs.
This will certainly help reliability numbers, though. If you are in the fifth year of making the same car, you’ve gotten all the kinks out of it. Not that Toyota really needs help in this department.
@ Glenn Mercer (thanks for the link John Horner)
Interesting report, although the lack of a “restyle” definition made understanding “partial restyling” a little harder. Nice slam to the domestics for changing vehicle names so frequently and poor launches.
In automotives, our market research guys always talk about brand loyalty as the first determining factor however. If you’re a Toyota customer you are extremely likely to buy another, over-and-above various “restyling” factors. Price was significant, but not more powerful factor than brand, quality and reliability.
I guess that is why the report is “Non-Price Determinants of Automotive Demand” except they did not discuss brand loyalty.
@saponetta
Luxury car market is different. Porsche and high-end Mercedes is very different. You are talking about people who pay 20K over sticker, those are filthy rich people with money to burn.
Toyota buyers want value for their money, they want a workhorse that will last for many years and most of those ppl want a car that goes for 200k miles with nothing more than routine maintenance and oil changes.
Why on earth would you buy a new Camry after 3 years? It’s like buying a new washer and dryer every 3 years, sure, there are crazy people like that but they are a tiny minority.
Durask,
The comprehensive warranty on Toyotas last 36 months, and I’d be very surprised if they commonly lease for longer terms than that. Don’t know what the lease vs sales is for new Camrys, but quite a few people do lease them. All this will undoubtedly change with a slowing economy and more difficult credit access, which is one reason for Toyota to be considering such a move.
Mid-cycle refreshes only look terrible if they’re not pre-planned.
Honda has it spot on. Launch a new car with rather controversial styling… then “fix” it at the mid-model refresh. Of course, they usually use the refresh to fine-tune the suspension and some of the mechanical bits, too… one of the coolest ones was changing the rotation of one of the radiator fans on the Honda Fit platform to ensure a cooler intake charge, leading to a 5 hp increase.