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
#896 of 2059 Re: let's talk traction, not trash [kdhspyder]
Feb 25, 2007 (7:38 pm)
This is from toyota.com
'Toyota's San Antonio plant was announced in February 2003, and construction began later that year. When the plant reaches full operations next spring, it will have the capacity to produce 200,000 Tundra full-size pickup trucks and employ 2,000 team members.
The plant's investment was originally estimated at $800 million, but grew to approximately $1.28 billion because of a capacity expansion for 50,000 more trucks; rising material costs, especially for steel; and additional infrastructure needed for the on-site suppliers.'
Can you show me where it says that they can produce 500,000?
#897 of 2059 Re: let's talk traction, not trash [blckislandguy]
Feb 25, 2007 (7:45 pm)
Why do think I am overstating it? This is Toyotas third try at a competative full size. Its been 14 years since Toyota entered this market and they are at 100,000 sales a year. There goal with the new Tundra is 200,000. To get to Ford and GM volumes you are talking 800,000-900,000 trucks. I've stated how long I think it would take assuming it actually happens. How long do you think it would take for shift in buying habits. Don't forget, these buyers have no reason to switch.
By the way it took 40 years for BMW and M/B to start outselling Cadillac in North America after WWII. That seems pretty long to me.
#898 of 2059 Re: let's talk traction, not trash [pmusce]
Feb 25, 2007 (7:52 pm)
Internal Toyota documents. What the public sees and what the real situation is can often be different. You need to visit the plant to see how big it is and how empty it is.
TMMTX is on one shift until June when they will bring on the 2nd shift. Indiana is well established but smaller with more vehicles on its schedule.
The plant was built with the expectation of going to 700K units somewhere in the 2015-2020 time frame.
If events shorten this then it will have to be addressed.
#899 of 2059 Re: let's talk traction, not trash [pmusce]
Feb 25, 2007 (8:08 pm)
It may seem glacially slow but every baby step has a purpose. Again this isn't a sprint. just looking at the numbers going from 125K units to 200K units is very very modest. It doesn't distupt the market and it keeps the vehicles being sold in a sweet spot where they all can be profitable without massive rebates.
The whole purpose is just to make money as every business wants to do. Being first or second is of no importance here as long as by the end of the next decade all the vehicles are profitable, whatever the volume, and the lines are busy. It's been 14 yrs since the initial baby step. That's just a beginning in a 25 or 50 year cycle.
#901 of 2059 Re: 07 TUNDRA COLD START KNOCK? [geo9]
Feb 26, 2007 (3:20 am)
Good find geo9
#902 of 2059 Re: let's talk traction, not trash [kdhspyder]
Feb 26, 2007 (4:39 am)
You speak as though Toyota lives in this fairytale land where they can do no wrong and everything is and always will be "Rosy". You don't think they will/do have their share of problems? Yeah, The big 3 have issues to take care of, and I am confident they will. How? I don't know, I am not there, but I am confident they will do whatever it takes to fix whatever is "broken". They already are taking steps in the right direction. They are both true American companies and have the strength of our economy to back them up. Even Dodge will survive in some form, again, not sure how drastic the changes over there will be, but they will restructure themselves somehow and survive, mark my words.
Toyota can and probably will survive and thrive in America as well, but to say they will pass by GM and Ford as they crumble is just plain arrogant and ignorant. Remember, GM and Ford have strong loyalties that date back several decades, these will not be easily broken. However, Toyota's loyalties in America (especially in the truck segment) are still very young and fragile. If these Tundra's start to show reliability issues or any other quality issues, it will lose the little bit of backing by the American people a heck of a lot quicker then GM or Ford. You (and Toyota) had better hope these trucks are as good (if not better) than you "anti-American" people think/say they are. And please stop with the "Toyota is just as American as the big 3 are" crapola. yes, it is a global economy and GM and Ford both have ties to foreign cars companies, that is not the point. GM, Ford, Chrysler (among a few others) are American and Honda, Toyota, Kia, BMW..etc, etc, are all still "foreign" cars. period.
2 questions for you..
1. Do you own or do you even plan to buy a Toyota Tundra or any pickup?
2. Have you driven any of the 2007's yet? (GM or Tundra specifically?)
Oh, and another thing...If you think Toyota can ramp up production of the 1/2 ton segment, enter the HD segment, add diesels, etc etc, without suffering "growing pains" and having quality or other issues? You are dreaming.
#903 of 2059 Traction
Feb 26, 2007 (5:13 am)
Geez, I can't believe some of the posts recently. Anybody ever wonder why in icy conditions, the vehicles you see in the ditch the most are all these small to medium size SUVs? It is because people have this false sense of security that AWD and 4-wheel drive vehicles are safer on ice. In fact it is the exact opposite!! I'll take a front-wheel drive or rear-wheel drive vehicle over AWD in those conditions any day.
Its just plain physics people... growing up in central Canada means that you experience 6 months of cold winters with a few months of icy roads. When you loose traction it is because the driving wheels are spinning on a slippery surface. The wheels that aren't driving are actually stablizing the vehicle because there is some friction there to help. Engage AWD and 4-wheel drive vehicles into this scenario and you can see how easy it is for people to end up in a ditch off an inter-state hwy.
The only good thing about AWD and 4-wheel drive systems are better handling and traction in conditions without ice and for getting through a lot of snow or mud or when trailblazing. For "slippery" conditions, its virtually suicide to have it; especially if you're falsely convinced of its abilities. Even with all of the technologies greatly helping ensure that wheels don't all spin, etc. at speeds beyond 30mph, it only takes a split second to completely loose control over an AWD/4WD vehicle.
#904 of 2059 Silverado vs Tundra - OnStar
Feb 26, 2007 (5:43 am)
OnStar is a great thing to have on any vehicle, I certainly agree, but it has a few minor problems.
The first is that it is positioned in easily one of the most break-able parts of the vehicle. Put it on the console, or on the steering wheel. Putting it on the top console on the roof by the front windshield almost guarantees that it won't work in a roll-over (a situation where you would definitely need it).
Secondly, and I can't believe GM was advertising this for so long, people use OnStar to unlock their vehicles when the keys were in the ignition and the vehicle is running! Sorry folks, but my old 1988 Celica wouldn't let me do that, much less any of the vehicles I've had since (Dodge included). That means that they're using the service to help deflect some of the design issues with the vehicle rather than solving those issues.
Whereas a cell phone will work in virtually any condition, a disruption to the electrical system could prevent OnStar from working (though one could argue that a cell phone needs to be charged).
Lastly, the rates keep going up on the service. It started out free for the 1st year and $12.95 a month after that. Now, there are tiered levels of service that start at $16.95 and only the first 3 months are free.
Having said that, this is definitely a great feature to have, and it is a pity that other companies don't have this or a similar service.
I wouldn't call this a quality issue though. It is a great feature to have and certainly there are features that the Tundra has that the Silverado doesn't as well.
#905 of 2059 Re: Traction [belias]
Feb 26, 2007 (5:46 am)
I to some degree disagree with you as I'd rather have a AWD car or long/wide wheel based Full-Size SUV on ice over a RWD/FWD car. (I'll explain later) The midsize SUV's end up in the ditch because their wheel bases are way to short. Ever notice why a Jeep Wrangler is great in Snow and Mud but stinks in slippery conditions ? Hell they stink in rain and are just to tipsy.
I agree many drivers get a false security with 4WD but a Wide Wheel Base AWD/4WD Car/SUV/Truck is damn hard to beat.
FWD/RWD on real icy conditions tend to have their butts slide out because they are so nose heavy and once you lose a FWD car it's very hard to recover it and most are headed for the ditch. RWD sucks because unless your car has some weight it will spin it tail back n' forth but if you lose it on ice it is the easiest to recover and thus is why I've always been told if I was driving a 4WD Truck or SUV that has 2WD option to engage the 2WD mode if I was slipping out of control to recover from a slide.