Last post on Mar 29, 2007 at 5:33 AM
You are in the Toyota Tundra
What is this discussion about?
Toyota Tundra, Chevrolet Silverado 1500, Truck
#250 of 2059 Re: BELIAS [lazygoodan]
Feb 07, 2007 (5:09 am)
Uh, no, I'm not wrong, you just didn't read what I wrote. Taking two companies and comparing them isn't what I stated; "foreign companies dominate the car/wagon market and much of the luxury vehicle markets as well...". Last time I checked that meant more than just Toyota vs. GM. But go ahead and keep making that kind of comparison... in two or three years, it will be in Toyota's favor anyway. Everyone knows that GM is the biggest automaker in the world. But, check what I wrote again. You're also including fleet sales to rental companies in the totals. The reason that those aren't counted is because these are rental companies that are either currently or formly owned by the Big3 auto makers (that is why you almost never find a foreign car at your local Hertz, Avis, Enterprise, or Dollar rental companies). Even forgetting those numbers it isn't close. See info below:
Foreign companies as a total do sell more cars than the Big3. Here is a more recent quote from Yahoo finance:
"In total, based on the results Ward's compiled, the "Big 3" sold 51.8% of all new units in January 2007, down 530 basis points (5.3 "percentage" points) from the 57% share (of all new vehicle sales) they held in January 2006. GM's share fell 3.2 percentage points (from last January) to account for only 22.5% of all new vehicle sales in the month. Ford also lost share, down nearly three percentage points (from last January) to only account for 14.8% of the industry volumes."
All you need to do is use your own figures for the percentage of trucks vs cars to see that foreign companies have dominated this sector for a long time now. This isn't news. The foreign brands have been a distant second in trucks. That's why when you take their total sales, they are much higher than the foreign brands. However, truck sales for Dodge account for 2/3 of all sales, for Ford, it is something close to that, but not as much, and for GM, by your own stated figures it looks to be close to 63%. Toyota and many other foreign companies are more like 67%/33% car/truck sales. That is why foreign companies outsell the Big3 in car sales here in NA... even WITH the fleet sales to rental companies included in the Big3's numbers.
As for the production numbers, again, you didn't READ what I said. In case you haven't noticed, look at the sticker on the inside of your car door and see how much of the vehicle is actually PRODUCED here. You'll be lucky if you see anything close to 50%. I checked out an Avalanche and 75% of it was built in Canada/Mexico. And while there are certainly a large number of people employed here, they are doing much more assembly work than production work. Why does this matter? Because production work benefits the businesses that supply the plants with raw materials and parts. Assembly only benefits the actual plants because the majority of the parts aren't coming from local markets. Even though there are far fewer actual plants (never mind how large/small or efficient they may be) from foreign companies here, they are actually producing the vehicles, not just assembly (though they do some of that too). And unlike the Big3, they are growing, not shrinking... check out this from Bloomberg.com on Feb. 1st/07:
"GM and Ford ``are finally taking the medicine and cutting their sales to rental-fleet companies,'' said John Casesa, an analyst at Casesa Strategic Advisors in New York. ``These are low-margin sales. Those cars go to Hertz and Avis, then come back and wind up as used cars, undermining the selling of new cars.''
The January results showed the price in sales and market share that the U.S. automakers may have to pay to sustain profits. Last year, GM and Ford announced plans to close a combined 28 plants and other facilities in North America as they align their production base with shrinking consumer demand.
GM, Ford and Chrysler are trimming sales to so-called fleet customers to help stem losses. Ford last week reported a $12.7 billion loss for 2006, its worst year ever. GM lost more than $13 billion in the seven quarters through last Sept. 30. Chrysler lost $1.5 billion in the third quarter of last year.
GM and Ford ``have one last chance'' to fix the business, Casesa said.
``These companies have used fleets as ways to dump cars and keep the factories running,'' Casesa said. ``Up until now, they have said we really can't fire people, but they're rethinking that strategy.''
GM cut January sales to rental companies almost 40 percent to 56,000 vehicles from 90,000 a year earlier, sales analyst Paul Ballew said on a conference call. Ford said it had a 65 percent reduction.
Chrysler sales chief Steve Landry also has said he wants to reduce sales to fleet customers."
Unless you call that progress I would say that it is imperative for the Big3 to give the Tundra and other products that are coming in the future to threaten their dominant truck market share a decent look over instead of just blowing it off like they did to cars in the mid 70s.
By blindly defending their current way of producing and selling vehicles, all the Big3 are doing is giving more room for the foreign companies to eat into their market share. Remember, in 1975 the Big3 accounted for more than 9 out of every 10 vehicles sold in the U.S. They're no where near that now and it is getting worse by the minute. Their one strong-hold is in trucks and they had better start taking companies like Toyota and Nissan seriously. Pretty soon, those companies may end up digging deeper into 3/4 ton and 1 ton variants and if the Big3 don't keep pushing the envelope and staying a step ahead of them, they will continue to loose business.
That is why I think people on this board should make a fair comparison. I have no problem looking at the new Chevy truck and saying that it is a great truck. Nor do I have a problem saying that about the Toyota. I think both are better than Ford and Dodge currently. Choosing between the Tundra and the Chevy is difficult just based on the numbers, but I won't exclude either just because there is the perception that one is supporting another country. Toyota is actually producing this truck here in NA with suppliers from NA. I think it is worth a trip to the Chevy dealer to see what the sticker says about production content on their new truck. I just hope it won't be like the Avalanche. I would rather my money go to the good folks of this country that work hard and do their jobs. But I also want a good product. You can't go wrong with either truck, but someone saying that they wouldn't get the Tundra because it is "foreign" has not done their homework on how Toyota operates. There is hardly anything foreign about it...
#251 of 2059 Re: RUBE [geo9]
Feb 07, 2007 (5:19 am)
Completely wrong on both counts. Limited slip differential is STANDARD on all Tundra models and the trailer hitch is BUILT INTO the frame. The Limited slip differential is the first item specified on their list:
Go through the "Tundra Experience" part to see the how the trailer hitch is built into the frame of the vehicle.
#252 of 2059 Re: BELIAS [belias]
Feb 07, 2007 (5:40 am)
Yes, I agree that I should have included all the manufacturers car sales -- not comparing GM and Toyota. In fact, I wish I'd left that part out.
My main point was that GM is more domestic than Toyota any way you slice it. You CANNOT make the case that Toyota is an American company, regardless of what their propaganda says. GM pays more taxes, employs more Americans, and has higher content in their vehicles than Toyota.
The Big 3 still employ 8 out of every 10 auto workers in the US. The Big 3 buy 80% of all the auto parts built in the US every year ($171B vs. $50B for foreigners). The average domestic car contains 78% US content, vs. 48% for foreign cars. The Big 3 still build 7 out of every 10 cars made in the US. Since 1980, the Big 3 have invested 6 times as much in the US as all other automakers combined ($206B vs. $33B).
#253 of 2059 Re: YEA YEA [gearhead1]
Feb 07, 2007 (5:49 am)
So far, Edmunds is the only comparo I'm aware of. Are there others?
Links please. I don't doubt you, but when you say that links are always nice to back you up. Plus I can't recall any other hands on comparisons from reputable sites. Edmunds is about as reputable as it gets at least on the internet.
Is this enough or do you want more ?
Sorry, but any truck that starts with a MSRP of $40,000+ is a luxury truck.
Dude, if it had a Toyota emblem on it you'd have no problem boasting about it. GMC, isn't a luxury brand thus the Denali isn't a luxury truck. Again the Cadillac Slade EXT fits that bill. The Denali, is a trim line-up not a luxury brand.
500hp sounds very impressive, but it also sounds like a domestic fan's wishful thinking. We'll have to wait and see. You'll have to keep a thousand lbs in the bed just to keep traction upon acceleration. Nope the 5.7 isn't proven, but the 4.7 and other legendary Toyota truck engines like the 22RE are proven. Toyota has earned the benefit of the doubt. GM has taken advantage of their customers for so long with inferior products especially their trucks (from the 80s-90s) from my direct experience that they'll have to prove themselves first.
500 hp. is just a rumor right now. I'm not going to put much stock into it yet. 400 hp. from the 6.2 VVT V8 is real and will for sure happen this fall according to Motor Trend. GM, had among the most reliable Trucks in the 1980's and 90's and is why you see so many 350's still running today. My father has almost 250K on his 98' Silvy Z-71 5.7 "350" I think some of you like to live 20 years or so ago in the past with bad GM cars. The Full-Size Trucks have been pretty damn reliable.
Come on, Edmunds has positive reviews about GM products when they deserve it like the new Silverado and the new Saturn Aura for instance. Did you know that GM is Edmunds biggest advertiser? Do you hear me say Edmunds is biased in favor of these two products because of payola. Nope, I think they deserved the praise they received from Edmunds. The bottom line is no publication can afford to praise an unworthy product. Publications can't get away with that stuff and risk credibility. Customers are to savy and see through it. No credibility, no readers, no ad revenue, no job. It just doesn't pay in the long run except in the music industry where your selling to 16 year olds. They're stupid. Car buying adults are not.
Well I gave my facts and you know them already. The edmunds comparo was a apples to oranges comparo because of the trim levels. Hell they had to strip down a Titan, also to make the appearance look bigger. Toyota, does a lot of advertising on this site also.
If the 5.7 has sludge issues, I myself will call for Toyota to be driven from US shores.
Is that just sludge issues or does that include other recalls ?
Just as a side note, I have relatives that own a Camry from the sludge period. They believe in changing a car's oil every 20K whether it needs it or not. That Camry still runs great at 140K with no sludge issues. They beat that thing on and off road and use it as a ranch vehicle. Amazing.
Is this suppose to prove to me how superior engineering is done ????? I could find plenty of other people that had sludge issues that babied their camry's.
It's not just the review. The powertrain can't be denied. They are facts that can't be denied. They can be denied, but only by people in denial (not the river). I don't think they need to be repeated ad nauseum
Is the power difference really that significant ????
We are talking about 14 hp. difference. The major difference is the 6-speed auto if you ask me. GM, can't get their hands on enough of them at the moment.
Okay, now that just hurt.
You take one comparo and label it as fact. I dispute it with credible reasons why the comparo is flawed and you dispute it. I have no problem with you liking the Tundra, but would respect you more if you at least admit the test should of had similar trim levels. Giving a Tundra, a leather lined with gadgets interior vs a stripped Silverado and Titan IMHO is a apples to oranges comparo. The Tundra, is of course going to look nicer. It also would of been nice having a CrewMax Tundra, in the test with prices. The current Tundra got hammered by Angus McKenzie in Motor Trend over high MSRP's in March issue.
What? you think Toyota wouldn't spring for a tape measure for their engineers and they made the last Tundra, parked it next to a Ford or Chevy and said "Dang they're bigger than us, and they have bigger engines too. Toyota's only fault was making a truck that they thought did the job and it did do the job. Their only mistake was not taking into account the "Super Size" mentality of the american consumer and the fact that domestics would discount thousands of dollars off of MSRP off their monster trucks. They under estimated the american thirst for more than they'll ever use or need. Personally, I'm convinced that Japanese executives look at the new Tundra and almost burst out laughing saying "Well, if that's what they want give it to them". I just don't think they comprehend the need for that much power and size the segment demands. If I hear one more time about the needs of the american construction worker, I'll hurl. I have news for people, all those building supplies are delivered by the supply companies, not by 3/4, 0ne ton trucks. Most of the contractors, sub contractors I see at the sites are using any vehicle that gets the job done ie, Tacomas, older Toy trucks, vans, beater little trucks as well as a sprinkling of full size trucks that typically never have more than a couple of hundred lbs in the bed.
Well here in Truck Country they use modern equipment for construction. I'm not sure where you live but in Michigan and Texas the majority of folks still tow, haul, with a modern pick-up truck. They mostly use 3/4-1 ton diesels for the jobs. Vans, won't cut it in our mud. I'm yet to see a Tundra used by a farmer or oil fields down here in Texas. I also have never seen a non-domestic at a building site. I suppose where you live it's different and major buildings aren't going up ????
Come on, the hate was there for asian imports long before the Japanese put on the big belt buckle, cowboy hat and said Yee Haw! They supply thousands of american jobs, feed and put thousands of american kids through college, take billions of their profits that people say go to japan and pump those billions back into building factories on american soil supplying more american jobs. They are more Ameri
#254 of 2059 Re: BELIAS [lazygoodan]
Feb 07, 2007 (5:52 am)
I guess they will ignore those facts also.....
BTW-Good Post !
#255 of 2059 Re: YEA YEA [rockylee]
Feb 07, 2007 (5:57 am)
Come on, the hate was there for asian imports long before the Japanese put on the big belt buckle, cowboy hat and said Yee Haw! They supply thousands of american jobs, feed and put thousands of american kids through college, take billions of their profits that people say go to japan and pump those billions back into building factories on american soil supplying more american jobs. They are more American than most Americans. They can be as American as they want to be. I'll give them the spurs and chaps myself. I just hope they can continue to produce reliable products with american hands assembling them, because in this society where the work ethic is in short supply I sometimes doubt it.
Well I don't root for the away team. GM and Ford are my home teams. Sure they have off-shored some business and yes I have a problem with that. However when you have politicans that are trader's and subsidize foreign company's over american company's and that's when I start having a problem. I respect that they give jobs to americans but they have done more harm than good with their presence. The currency manipulation issue might finally get noticed by the new 110th congress. We still have some trader's in congress that I'd love to see go. Some of which is in my party mainly from the left coast. My point of my reply is you can continue to root for the away team and that's fine but I personally don't want my tax dollars going to them.
Toyota, provides no personal benefit to me being here. General Motor's does. GM, also still provides income to many members of my family.
Toyota, has 2 dealerships in my local area while GM, has at least 20 off the top of my head thus having a bigger impact on my local economy here in the Panhandle. I have no doubt here in the Panhadle I will see at a mininum 15-20 new GM full-size trucks for every 1 Toyota Tundra. This is truck country gearhead1 and is one reason why I was interviewed by a WSJ reporter over this topic.
#256 of 2059 Re: BELIAS [lazygoodan]
Feb 07, 2007 (6:08 am)
Well, I would agree that GM is more of a domestic company than Toyota. However, GM is becoming less domestic and Toyota is becoming more domestic, so it is only a matter of time before this isn't much of an issue.
I would totally argue against the U.S. content for GM vehicles. I'll need to do a search again, but I do remember reading that every year for the past 12 years, a greater percentage of parts comes from foreign companies or vendors with foreign suppliers.
As for your employment numbers, that is UAW based workers only. Include non-unionized workers and the numbers change dramatically. Latest numbers show that the Big 3 barely make 50% of all vehicles currently, not 70% as you claimed (that number is more than 15 years old). Counting investment from 1980 is just silly. If you're going to do that, than we should include things like total number of recalls since 1980, total layoffs and plant closures since 1980, ROI since 1980, etc. etc. Also, you need to define "investment". That number could easily include forced retirement packages and the like.
In any case, this is a truck comparison. Trucks like the Avalanche have far less NA content than foreign content. I wish I could check what it is for the Silveraldo. But there is no question that this Tundra is an American vehicle. Taking numbers from 26 years ago to try to discredit a legitimate contender in the truck arena only feeds the fact that people loyal to the Big3 feel threatened.
The reality is that products are going to leapfrog each other almost every year with something new and innovative. So, this is possibly a year for the Tundra and the Silverado. No need to worry if you're a Chevy fan. If you are a Ford or Dodge fan, you better start worrying.
My generation (born in early 70's to early 80's) are not as brand loyal as the generation of people who grew up going to "Ford" only or "Chevy" only bars and restaurants. We like a good product and something that is a solid build.
I don't care about financial numbers except to see if a company is stable. That is something I would have expected fans of the Big3 to leave out since it is currently a sore spot in their overall business.
I would summize that trying to argue the dominance of the Big3 based on historical numbers is a complete disaster. Anyway you work it, they are worse off now than they were 10 or 20 years ago. So, lets just get to the comparision that is really needed here.
Out of all the features in the new Chevy and the new Tundra, which do you think has a meaningful advantage over the other? Give a list if you've got it, but it has to be based on FACT. That means you need to actually read info on both vehicles and make a fair comparison. And by meaningful, I don't mean one truck has a 10-stage intermittent wiper instead of an 8-stage. Meaningful as in I think that there are more bed/cab choices for the Chevy than the Tundra or that the Tundra's CrewMax offers an exceptionally large cab.
The Chevy starts at $18,760, the Tundra starts at $22,290. This is definitely an advantage for Chevy and especially for contractor sales. OK, somebody make another fact-based comparison.
#257 of 2059 Re: RUBE [geo9]
Feb 07, 2007 (7:36 am)
You post things about which you know nothing. Or, you truly have no reading ability. It's all on the web you just need to be smart enough to find it. Hint: Try Toyota's website.
All Tundras come standard with Auto LSD.
All V8's come standard with the Tow Package, Class IV hitch ( this is new this week ).
farmer-rube: You need a new truck and you need a towin' truck.
Here are the most popular cab/chassis configurations and the Max Towing Capacity of each of the six competitors..
RC Std Bed... 10400...8200...8200...8500,,,9100... Not Avail
RC Long Bed.. 10800...8000...8000...11000...8900...Not Avail
DC Std Bed.... 10600...7700...10300...9500...8700...9500
DC Long Bed.. 10500...7500...7500...9500...8550...Not Avail
Crew Sht Bed. 10400...7600...10200...9500...8600...9400
RC Std Bed... 10100...8900...8900...8200...8800...Not Avail
RC Long Bed.. 10500...8900...8900...9500...8650...Not Avail
DC Std Bed.... 10300...8500...10500...9300...8500...9500
DC Long Bed.. 10200...8300...8300...9300...8250...Not Avail
Crew Sht Bed. 10100...8500...10500...9200...8300...9400
All the Tundras can tow ..And.. they are the only ones to give you a 6 speed tranny with a 4.30 rear end. If you need better than that then you need a diesel. It's standard class IV hitch is twice as big as the F150's and it's rear ring gear is 10.5" to the F150's 9.5".
The 2007 Sierra, in some configurations is the only one on the same level as the 2007 Tundra, the others are a grade or two back.
#258 of 2059 Re: RUBE [kdhspyder]
Feb 07, 2007 (8:02 am)
Great post! Good hard numbers should at least put to bed the concerns for towing/hauling for the tundra and silveraldo.
Now, I wonder what criteria people will come up with to show advantages/disadvantages of the Tundra/Silveraldo!