"Tundra-Gate" Heats Up

[YSSMAN]

So there has been a bit of a blowout between a couple pickup truck guys and Consumer Reports over the way in which they have rated the new Tundra against the new Silverado. Not a surprise really, given how much flak is shot at Consumer Reports every day of "bias" issues (I'll admit to doing it), but this is probably one of the biggest issues they've had in a while.

Shall we start at the beginning?

While we do respect the folks over at Consumer Reports, we do not envy them. Whether the subject is vacuums, lawnmowers or half-ton pickups, nearly every test they perform is scrutinized down to the tiniest of details. We suppose it goes with the reputation of being the most reliable source of production information for consumers, but it's gotta be hell on the nerves.

In its most recent issue, CR is publishing a report on half-ton pickups that might have some crying foul and revisiting claims the publication is biased in favor of imports. Included in the test are the 2007 Toyota Tundra 5.7L V8, 2007 Chevy Silverado 1500 5.3L V8, 2007 Ford F-150 5.4L V8 and 2007 Dodge Ram 1500 5.7L V8. The report puts an emphasis on towing, and (spoiler alert) the Toyota Tundra received the best score of the four pickups. The Tundra also received the "Recommended" label from CR (as did the Dodge Ram 1500), and was awarded a predicted reliability rating of "Very Good" thanks to the past performance of all Toyota's in CR's reader survey results.

We can already hear the grumbling. The domestic half-tons are offered in such a dizzying array of configurations, why didn't CR choose to buy a Silverado with the larger 6.0L V8 and a 4.10 rear-axle ratio (a no-cost option that would have matched the Tundra's ratio)? Jake Fisher, a senior automotive engineer for Consumer Reports, told Mike Levine at Pickuptruck.com, "For our readers, fuel economy is more important than gaining an extra second or two faster time 0 to 60, and we tested the trucks we felt were configured as our subscribers would use them."

It seems clear that CR could've have made an effort to more closely match the configuration of each truck in this test, specifically the Silverado, but they instead chose to test configurations that they felt were the most popular with consumers. We take their explanation at face value, but considering the Tundra is brand new to market and has fewer configurations, it seems a bit unfair to pit Toyota's monster 5.7L and a rear-axle ratio better suited to towing against a less optimally configured Silverado, especially when a more capable Silverado is available.

...Followed-up by the Consumer Reports Reply:

Earlier this week we told you about a pickup truck comparison in the most recent issue of Consumer Reports that seemed a bit fishy. The comparison pitted the new 2007 Toyota Tundra against the 2007 Chevy Silverado, Ford F-150 and Dodge Ram. It was clearly a fight between the Tundra and Silverado from the get-go, since both were the only two completely new trucks in the test. The Tundra, however, seemed to have an advantage in that it was ordered up with the larger of its two engines, the 5.7L V8 producing 381 hp. The Silverado, while available with a more evenly matched 6.0L Vortec MAX V8, was ordered with a less powerful 5.3L V8 producing 315 hp. Not only that, but the Tundra benefited from a 4.30 rear axle ratio that provides better towing and acceleration than the 3.73 ratio in the Silverado, which sacrifices those qualities for better fuel economy. The Silverado, however, could've been ordered with a more comparable 4.10 rear axle ratio at no extra charge.

Well, the gentlefolks at CR recently posted an answer to everyone's questions about this particular half-ton pickup comparo on their blog, which you should go read by clicking here before going on. They explain that choosing equipment for vehicles involved in a comparison is a tricky thing that involves balancing the objective of several goals.

"In general, we want to test a representative vehicle that is comparable to other vehicles in the test group (and previously tested peer vehicles). We also typically test the version--powertrain and trim level--that most regular consumers will buy. "

Read on after the jump to hear our take on CR's explanation.

At face value, it seemed to us that the cards were stacked in the Tundra's favor.

It appears to us that CR failed in terms of acquiring vehicles that were comparable to each other. We recognize the difficulty that's presented with the new Tundra, since Toyota offers significantly fewer configurations than do Chevy, Ford and Dodge. Nevertheless, there are other configurations of the Silverado that would have better matched the Tundra and likely led to the Silverado scoring higher. We admit, the Silverado may not have won the comparo even if it had been configured to better match the Tundra, as Toyota's powertrain is particularly strong and fuel efficient. In the end, however, we believe the consumer would've been better served by reading about an evenly-matched contest.

On CR's second point, that it typically tests versions of vehicles that most regular consumers will buy, we concede that is a good strategy if the plan is to offer a review that will benefit the largest number of consumers. That's fine if a single vehicle is reviewed, but totally inappropriate for a comparison test. As a consumer, why would I want to read a comparison test of trucks that aren't similar? It would like reading about the Honda Civic versus the Saturn Aura. Comparison tests, at least to us, are not about comparing what people buy, they're about advising what people should buy based on an equal comparison.

CR also gave the Tundra a predicted reliability rating of Very Good based on the reliability of past Tundras and Toyotas in general. The Silverado was labeled as too new to predict its reliability. In our eyes, the Tundra should have also been labeled as too new to predict its reliability, considering it is an all-new model built at an all-new assembly plant in San Antonio, TX. Mechanically speaking, the Tundra of today is completely different than the previous Tundra on which CR's reliability scores were based. The Tundra has also suffered 20 cases of reported camshaft failures in models equipped with the same 5.7L engine CR tested.

We still have a lot of respect for the hardworking people at Consumer Reports and value their opinion, but in the case of this half-ton pickup comparo, we believe its value is limited.

Thoughts?

===

This all comes off as another situation where it would seem as though they shut-out Detroit on purpose. Not putting comparably-equipped trucks against each other is just moronic, and quite frankly, I could care less what the sales figures are. I see far more Tundras with the 4.7L V8 than I do with the 5.7L V8, and thusly comparing the big engine to Chevy's "little" one is step one in it not being a fair shot.

If I can overlook the engine/axle ratio issue, which I may be able to do, I think I have a greater problem accepting their rating on the Tundra as "Good" based on previous products by comparison to the Silverado, which was "too new," despite the fact the Tundra came out after the Silverado. I call BS here, as I've heard a lot more about Tundra failures than I have with the Chevrolet, and as far as quality is concerned, I'd nearly rate the Chevrolet better thus far.

...It all makes me very upset. They did much the same thing with the Saturn Outlook, giving it an overall good rating, but putting it behind the older Toyotas and Hondas because it was brand-new...

I can understand if the vehicles are outright crappy models, but these aren't. Furthermore, I'm not all that impressed with the new Toyotas, so I'm quite surprised they've put that much faith in them despite the reports that circulate around, interestingly never in their magazine. But its not just GM that they so often snub... Very rarely do Ford or Chrysler get a fair crack either, particularly when they too have made vast improvements in their new vehicles (well, Ford anyway).

 

[Wolfe]

This is why most magazines set a price limit (strict or loose) and get the best trim/options they can. According to Edmunds, the 6.0L Silverado will set you back a minimum of $27655, and the 5.7L Tundra requires a minimum of $24380, but I don't know what kind of trim level or options they chose for the Tundra.

Really, this is all that needs to be said:

On CR's second point, that it typically tests versions of vehicles that most regular consumers will buy, we concede that is a good strategy if the plan is to offer a review that will benefit the largest number of consumers. That's fine if a single vehicle is reviewed, but totally inappropriate for a comparison test. As a consumer, why would I want to read a comparison test of trucks that aren't similar? It would like reading about the Honda Civic versus the Saturn Aura. Comparison tests, at least to us, are not about comparing what people buy, they're about advising what people should buy based on an equal comparison.

 

[a6m5]

Well, I'm glad that reported camshaft failure still is just 20.

As for the comparison test, it is ridiculous.

 

[The Vanishing Boy]

-> I am a loyal CR reader, but what they did was wrong. Its just not an equal battle here. If they got the 2nd tier engine of the Silverado, at least they should got a 2nd tier engine for the Tuntra too. I don't get it why they were unable to purchase the top-tier engine for the Silverado? I guess the demand for the Chevy truck in Connecticut is staggering, but I don't know, I don't live there.

 

[Kent]

I never touch CR unless it is the only option and this is why.
The test was clearly biased and should serve as a good example of how not to run a auto comparison and report. 👎
Frankly, I don't even see why people honor the opinion of CR.
Probably just the conspiracy theorist in me but I've never trusted CR (ever since I was a little kid reading about cars I couldn't drive yet).

 

[Tornado]

The Tundra also received the "Recommended" label from CR (as did the Dodge Ram 1500),

That says all that need to be said.

 

[YSSMAN]

A lot of the car websites I click around on that are covering this just want an apology, or at least an admission of error on their behalf. That alone would make a lot of us feel better, I think. I mean, lets be honest, this doesn't make their bias issues look any better than it has before. That test of the Saturn Outlook pissed off a lot of people a few months ago as well...

Their stuff on appliances and telephones is one thing, but year after year I keep getting the feeling they need to get out of the car business. I find that most magazine runs (be they C/D, MT, R&T, Automobile, etc) are far better representations of what is likely to happen as compared to a bunch of old folks filling out a rather confusing booklet of information for CR to crunch numbers with...

And yes, I've seen the book. I filled one out for my Grandmother on her 2002 VW Cabrio. Its a pain in the butt. Really, after seeing it, it really makes you realize how screwed up their data likely is... People who care about how good their cars are will fill them out, people who care about how bad their cars are will fill them out... And people like my Grandmother, who hasn't had any outstandingly good or bad experiences with her car, and would rather spend time quilting or riding her bike, won't fill out the book.

 

[neanderthal]

what part of this

"In general, we want to test a representative vehicle that is comparable to other vehicles in the test group (and previously tested peer vehicles). We also typically test the version--powertrain and trim level--that most regular consumers will buy. "

emphasis mine
doesnt make any sense.

they are testing vehicles in the most popular trim and engine options. they arent testing them for the ultimate best towing rig. they just used that to compare the most common denominator toyota vs the MCD chevy and ford and dodge. to get the result that joe avg will get when he does decide to tow that trailer to help his brother move. or whatever.

anybody who is going to be doing any real towing wouldnt bother with the 6.0 chevy anyway, when the duramax is available. should CR have used a duramax and completely disregarded toyota for not offering a diesel? that wasnt what the comparison was about.

you dont compare the base model camry with the top level sonata, unless that sonata only comes that way.
you dont do a fuel economy comparison with the prius and the honda civic SI when theres a civic hybrid. in that case the test is specifically for fuel economy so get the most economic model in each range.

you have room for complaint if this was towing and hauling weekly. its not. and not only is it not, but the parameters for the test have been stated and show no bias.

and yes, i see more 5.7 tundras here in los angeles than 4.7s

 

[Tornado]

what part of this
doesnt make any sense.

The part where the second sentence disregards the first sentence in this particular case. And for that matter, it doesn't explain away the issue over rating the Tundra's reliability.

 

[YSSMAN]

Here is the deal:

- CR said they upgraded the engine in the Tundra because they were going to be towing
- All of the other trucks, with the exception of the Chevrolet, used their top-spec engines
- So, while having a test that was going to include towing as a measurement, they optioned the Chevy with the smaller engine, for fuel efficiency, despite the fact that the Chevrolet (or better yet, the GMC Sierra) can be comparably equipped to do the same tasks that the Tundra was to be tested for.

* Alo, please note that fuel efficiency and towing do not go together *

- Furthermore, none of this explains the quality ratings on the trucks whatsoever. Calling the Silverado "Too New" to rate, despite the fact that the Tundra is newer than it to begin with (which which they gave a "Good" rating) is yet another mistake... Particularly with decreasing quality levels in so many Toyota products.

If it isn't bias, its the highest rating of stupidity that you can get when it comes to testing a bunch of trucks.

 

[neanderthal]

i agree with most of your post.

but you do realise that someone who owns a daily driven truck and occasionally tows with it will still be concerned with fuel efficiency? and even for people to do tow regularly, fuel efficiency is still a concern. of course that is looked at through the lens of towing capability.

in an ideal world we'd all have a nice 5 bedroom house with a 30000 sq ft garage that housed several cars and trucks and some agricultural equipment. it'd be on 100plus acres and have a race track and off road course on the property.
in the real world most of us have to deal with just one car and need it to do as many things as well as possible.
we may be biased towards ride comfort (used primarily for business) fuel economy (commuting) space (car pooling) performance (occasional track work, auto cross, canyon carving) style (insinuating success to cater to clients. important for lawyers and accts in business related fields and so on) getting chics (still have a small d!ck, lol!!!) and so on. you get the idea.

i dont think that full on focus on one particular arena of performance will garner any kind of meaningful sales for anybody. every vehicle has to be able to do several things reasonably well. especially the most common versions.

 

[a6m5]

Yeah, fuel economy does matter to the owners, while I'm not sure if it matters as much to the buyers. Pattern I see a lot of is, buyer barely pay attention to the fuel economy rating and buys the truck. Month or two later, they are crying about the fuel consumption(guzzling ) of their new truck.

On the apology, they should issue one. Not only is it the right thing to do, but by not apologizing, it would suggest that they do not see anything wrong with their comparison test, and that will hurt their credibility with some.

 

[JCE]

That says all that need to be said.

+1 1,000,000% agreed.

 

[Bram Turismo]

Particularly with decreasing quality levels in so many Toyota products.

If you give me test results and/or graphs, or any other material which backs you up, decent material, I'll keep my mouth shut forever on that topic...(Please also say whether you are talking about U.S Toyotas and/or European Toyotas)

On that, I have to agree with all of you though, the people who who tested these cars were definitly biased. YSSMAN was completely right on the "too new" thing as well, the Thundra is from this year, so any newer is nearly impossible...However, I was not aware Toyota builds such large engines, we don't get those here in Europe. The largest ones would probably be the 4.7 and 4.2 V6 used in the Landcruiser and Landcruiser 100...

Did earlier Thundra models, or any other Toyot offroaders in the U.S have such large engines? I would like to see a European 5.7 V8

 

[Jim Prower]

Did earlier Thundra models, or any other offroaders in the U.S have such large engines? I would like to see a European 5.7 V8

want to know the truth? We've had 4x4 vehicles with gasoline engines above 8 liters. Really, these aren't true "Offroaders," just monster pullers that happen to have 4WD in case you find yourself on a washed-out construction site or farm field. Earlier Tundras didn't have the 5.7, Just the 4.7. But 5.7 Liters is roughly 350 Cubic inches, which is the size of the majority of pickup Chevrolets and Fords over the last 30 years. Mopars had a 5.9, which I believe is the 360Ci mill.

On Consumer Reports: Really, they're a consumer advocacy group, and they almost never take into account the driving feel of cars or how they perform. their concern seems to be day-to-day livability, which makes them dislikable enough, (they lump sports models in with everything else, and somehow are emotionless enough to not care about that "fun factor." Perhaps they all need to learn to actually drive well.) but not speccing trucks evenly makes things a bit shady. Ideally, one would test every engine/drivetrain combo, and then give a verdict, but that's time consuming, so you'd have to select engines that had similar horsepower, and similar rear ends. Apples to Apples, not Apples to Kumquats.

 

[Bram Turismo]

Sorry on that Jim, I was not clear enough: By my question on "any other U.S offroaders", I meant "any other Toyota offroader in the U.S? I'll edit my previous post to avoid getting you guys confused 👍

 

[Jim Prower]

Oh, No, the 5.7 is the biggest U.S. engine Toyota makes, Equal (Roughly) in size to both the Nextel Cup and Craftsman Truck mills. I think only their JDM Crown V12 is larger, and then again, maybe not. I can't remember if it's a 5.0L or a 6.0L

 

[YSSMAN]

Quite right, their big V8 is just that... A big V8. I'd be interested to see a weight comparison between it an the GM 6.0L and 6.2L V8s, furthermore how much it costs Toyota to build each one.

...But like Jim said, before the 5.7L model, it was the 4.7L only. The 4.7L is available in everything from the 4Runner up to the Lexus GX470, so it has quite a reputation as a pretty good engine. I personally wouldn't rate it much higher than the Ford 4.6L V8, as the power figures really don't cut it in the class anymore...

===

In an OT moment:

Toyota slipped out of the top-five in the 2007 JD Power dependability survey for the first time in a while, although they still had a few segment leaders. However, the 2007 results do not include brand-new models, many of which I'd consider very un-Toyota in terms of quality, and in some cases reliability.

A study done by the University of Michigan, released today, scored Toyota's Satisfaction at a fairly solid 84 points out of 100 possible. The highest score was an 87, held by the Lexus brand, however they (Toyota) were beaten by Buick, BMW, Cadillac, Lincoln and Mercury. Compared to last year's results, Toyota's score fell the most, at 3.4%.

LINK

===

It may not be exactly the same in Europe, but the US arm of the brand is feeling the heat being number one (well, we'll see if GM can hold on this year). Many of the US-built Toyotas, models like the Camry and the Tundra, are having more quality issues than any other Toyota I can think of in recent memory. But, even imported models aren't class-leading like they should be... I'm looking at the Yaris and the xB here...

To put it simply, I remember when Toyota built outstandingly good vehicles by every measure of the stick. Nowadays, thats not the case. Interior quality is suffering severely, reliability is getting spotty in some cases, and they're slowly cutting out some of the hardcore fans by not offering fun-to-drive and affordable models.

...I know its the same argument I make every time, but its the truth. I'd love to see Toyota do pretty well, in fact I miss the Toyota of the '90s that I quite liked, but Toyota now is no better than the GM of the '80s. I just wish someone in Japan would figure it out...

 

[Bram Turismo]

According to you, what would be the reason of quality issues? Toyota begins to feel the need for being the number 1 and drastically turns up production?

It would make sense though, at least to me. I hear you, though Toyota never had any extremely nice looking cars, they had their topnotch models like the MR2, Celica, Supra...It seems, when Toyota comes out of the box with something new, they always score. I'm talking about the '90s now, I mean, the MR2, MR-S, Celica and Supra were always near the top of their categories, if not already. I can't see a logical reason why Toyota ever stopped building them, everyone wanted the Supra, if was without any doubt, amongst the greater Japanese sportscar. The Supra always reminds me of the typical Toyota image we used to have: A design which is apart form others, high quality, yet no special looking interior, and an engine which survives anything.

Face some 3.0L, 6-cylinder twin turbo engines against the powers the 2JZ-GTE has experienced, and only few will survive. It's ridiculous how good the Supra holds its ground to other heavily tuned sportscar, tuned properly, it even manages to eat Viper, which have ridiculous big engines.

Remember the Top Gear video on the Hilux? Best pickup truck ever made...

I also remember the 1989 Corolla we had, and it's the best car we've ever had, followed by the 1992 Legacy we drive now. The Corolla had over 400k kilometres on the clock, before we had an accident


But anyway, I'm having a new image on Toyota: A car manufacturer that is turning into a luxury look-a-like brand, but fails miserably at it. Somewhere, I hope Toyota falls in a deep dip and realises it needs to change plans. Proof that a Toyota actually can do something would be Lotus, we all know how fast the Elise is, and it only uses a 2.0L 192 hp engine from a Celica. Redesign the MR-S, more MR2 looking and put the VVT-i of the Celica in there, a good suspension and you've got a ridiculously fast car, for a decent amount of money as well

 

[JCE]

Face some 3.0L, 6-cylinder twin turbo engines against the powers the 2JZ-GTE has experienced, and only few will survive.

The RB26DETT will take the 2JZ-GTE to school, and then beat it up during recess.

And Toyota now is much different from Toyota 10 years ago. The 80's~90's were definately Toyota's best decades in my opinion. Now, I couldn't care less about a modern Toyota--and this includes Lexus. The Corolla is their best product, and only because its possibly still in the top 5 best point A to point B transportation vehicles you can buy in my opinion.

 

[Bram Turismo]

The RB26DETT will take the 2JZ-GTE to school, and then beat it up during recess.

I will go and ignore that as it makes no sense at all and sounds like the words from a Skyline fanboy...

 

[JCE]

I will go and ignore that as it makes no sense at all and sounds like the words from a Skyline fanboy...

I listed a 6cyl Twin Turbo Japanese engine that beats up on the said Supra engine. I used an American-style sarcastic remark, sorry if you didn't understand it. Let me rephrase my post with no comedic remarks so my point gets across.

"You forgot the RB26DETT which competes and in my opinion beats the 2JZ-GTE. "

Better?

Oh and I'm not a "fanboy" of anything. I didn't insult you personally therfore you shouldn't of personally insulted me by calling me one. Humor is subjective I guess.

 

[YSSMAN]

According to you, what would be the reason of quality issues? Toyota begins to feel the need for being the number 1 and drastically turns up production?

My theory is, that at least in the US, they don't have the capacity to meet demand, and thusly are being forced to cut more and more corners in order to rush their way to the top. Being on top is going to demand newer cars more frequently, more models to appeal to more people, etc. Personally speaking, the Camry was the first car to feel the effects. The car felt, and really looks like it was rushed out of the box. The interior isn't built well, the paint isn't that good on too many models, trim pieces aren't fitting correctly both inside and out, etc. The Yaris came along, felt cheaper than most late-model Korean cars, and didn't drive much better at all either. Now that the new Tundra and Highlander are out, they're facing the same issues as the Camry as well.

Toyota, as a company, I don't think is ready for the success that they want so bad. Being as big as GM, Ford, or Chrysler would be nice they must assume, but I don't think they have any idea how to operate a fully-global company, keep all of it profitable, and maintain it so for decades on end... Particularly when Honda, Nissan, GM, Ford, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Volkswagen, Audi, etc all want a piece of their pie, and will make Toyota work hard to keep every bit they already have.

What will be Toyota's downfall in this situation will be their ability to maintain what moved them to be neck-and-neck with GM on the global scale. Their cars need to be well built (fading fast), reliable (spotty), and most important of all, a great value to the consumer (depends lately).

Remember the Top Gear video on the Hilux? Best pickup truck ever made...

No Toyota will ever match an F150 or a Silverado in my book. Sure, the Hilux (we call them Tacomas here) are tough, but the big kids are tougher. And no, the Tundra isn't nearly as tough as the big Americans... What we call "normal" pickups.

I also remember the 1989 Corolla we had, and it's the best car we've ever had, followed by the 1992 Legacy we drive now. The Corolla had over 400k kilometres on the clock, before we had an accident

We had a '93 Corolla, and that was a piece of junk...

But, we bought a '95 Camry after that, and that has been a very good car. Built exceptionally well, drives well, cheap to buy and operate, easily one of the best cars of the '90s. My brother will probably drive it for a year or two and sell it, buying a pickup most likely (for his auto body stuff).

...But they don't do Camrys like they used to...

But anyway, I'm having a new image on Toyota: A car manufacturer that is turning into a luxury look-a-like brand, but fails miserably at it.

I'm getting that feeling as well. I want to say the average Toyota owner in the US is well over 50 years old these days, and as they demand more comfortable and otherwise "solid" vehicles, they're going to drift further and further away from the cars that we all grew up liking. This is why they launched the Scion (Dihatsu, but even the dealer guys won't admit it) brand in the US, to keep the kiddies coming in. But even then, I see more older folks driving those anyway...

I wouldn't be surprised to see them move sort of up-market to compete more with Volkswagen, Saturn, and to some extent Acura. The problem is, if they leave their core consumers out in the cold, I'd be willing to bet they jump ship to Honda or Nissan, who'd be happy to take them on.

 

[JCE]

You had bad luck with that Corolla YSS. They have been and always will be super reliable as a whole in my book. You can get lemons from any manufacturer.

 

[YSSMAN]

Yes, I do know that. The Camry was an awesome car, but the Corolla just seemed like it was at the dealer more than on the road. We actually had a Peugeot (or was it a Rover?) as a loaner car during the tenure of the Corolla... That was a cool car.

Compared to the Hondas, Nissans, VWs, Chevrolets, Oldsmobiles, GMCs, Fords, and other Toyotas we've had in my family... That car must rank as the worst. If not, my brother's former Mazda 323...

 

[a6m5]

Toyota, as a company, I don't think is ready for the success that they want so bad. Being as big as GM, Ford, or Chrysler would be nice they must assume, but I don't think they have any idea how to operate a fully-global company, keep all of it profitable, and maintain it so for decades on end...

Yeah, Toyota is way out of their league. They want to be a profittable, global success like the GM, Ford, or Chrysler? In your dreams, silly Toyota! I'm sorry, I couldn't resist.

 

[YSSMAN]

Well, my point is that they're going to find it harder than what they thought to be number one.

Lets put it this way for those of us in the US: If the UAW gets their way with Toyota down in Kentucky and Texas, we can pretty much write-off having them build that many more plants here. Furthermore, I've always found it odd that a company that is "dedicated to America" won't build any more plants in Michigan, the State that knows how to build cars, and has the most people who know how to build cars.

...Oh, thats right, we've got the UAW...

Toyota: Run to the South for cheap taxes and a non-union mindset!

 

[a6m5]

Well, my point is that they're going to find it harder than what they thought to be number one.

Well, being number one in the world, and being as successful as GM/Ford/Chrysler, especially Chrysler , are two very different things. If Toyota's goal is to be the #1 in the world, then they are very misguided bunch. Their aims should be focused sales, quality, efficiency, profits, etc. If you lose sight of what got you this far, and focus on something like "Beat GM", then they are hopeless.

Don't get me wrong, it would be a very special thing for Toyota be #1 auto maker in the world. I just hope that's not what their main focus is.

Lets put it this way for those of us in the US: If the UAW gets their way with Toyota down in Kentucky and Texas, we can pretty much write-off having them build that many more plants here. Furthermore, I've always found it odd that a company that is "dedicated to America" won't build any more plants in Michigan, the State that knows how to build cars, and has the most people who know how to build cars.

...Oh, thats right, we've got the UAW...

Toyota: Run to the South for cheap taxes and a non-union mindset!

I hate the UAW. Reminds me of professional athletes who just thinks about themselves, and couldn't care less(I almost did it again!) if their team, or the league went bankrupt. And those union workers thinks they are so special and important. Give me a break. Who's hurting the Big 3? International competition, or their own workers?

 

[YSSMAN]

Don't get me wrong, it would be a very special thing for Toyota be #1 auto maker in the world. I just hope that's not what their main focus is.

Its a good question that I don't have a very good answer to. If often seems as though they are focused only on being number one, but for such a long time they were so focused on being the kind, compassionate, quality-focused company that most automakers should be. But then you think about how they positioned Lexus in the market, what they've done with various Toyota products using the same pricing scheme, look at the overall packaging of the newer vehicles... You just have to question whats going on.

I'm sure that any one of the top-tier companies would like to be number one, but with GM sitting at that spot for so long, I often wonder if even they are tired of it. I do recall a statement made by Lutz (or was it Wagoner?) about being number one, and how it wasn't going to be their focus anymore... Basically it boiled down to "If Toyota wants it, they can have it... We want to build cars and trucks people want to buy."