"After strong start, Tundra stumbles"
john
drop in the segment after that of the Titan, more than twice the F-
Series drop of 24.8% and considerably more than the segment's decline
of 34.1%. In nine months, Toyota dealers have delivered just 56,599
Tundras, which means total 2009 deliveries will fall short of the
century mark for the first time since 2002.
Actual transaction prices from Edmunds.com highlight the Tundra's
declining clout. In eleven of the twelve months in 2008, Tundra sold
at a higher transaction price than the F-150, Silverado 1500, Ram 1500
and Titan. However, in every month of 2009, one or more of the
domestic light-duty pickups has sold at a higher price than the Toyota
product. This past September, average transaction prices for the Ram
1500 ($35,503) and F-150 ($34,824) were 7% and 5%, respectively, above
that of the Tundra ($33,278).
Full article:
M. Balmer
Now there's a worthless POS
Ashton Crusher
No need for you to be so self-referential.
M. Balmer
"Ashton Crusher" <de...@moore.net> wrote in message
news:2qojd5dp3pmc6hr5g...@4ax.com...
No need for you to continually imitate a rat's penis.
Ashton Crusher
Ed White
The new Tundra was a disaster from the beginning. I don't think Toyota
management understood the type of truck buyers who were willing to buy
a Toyota. The old Tundra was a solid truck of a decent size and
actually had advantages over some of the competitor strucks. The new
Tundra is ridulosusly large, wildly overpriced and doesn't appear to
have any features that set it apart from the crowd of large "half-ton"
trucks. And the numerous quality and reliabilty problems have trashed
Toyota's reputation for quality in the eyes of many people. Spending
billions on the Tundra plant in Texas was probably the single dumbest
decision that Toyota managment has made in thirty years. I am sure
Toyota will survive the debacle, but I am also sure Toyota's current
management wish they had spent those billions on other products.
Ed
M. Balmer
>news:2qojd5dp3pmc6hr5g...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 02:05:41 -0700, "M. Balmer"
>> <booger...@wazoo.net> wrote:
>>
>>> <<the Ram 1500
>>>
>>>Now there's a worthless POS
>>>
>>
>> No need for you to be so self-referential.
>
>No need for you to continually imitate a rat's penis.
>
No need for you to be so self-referential.
"Ashton Crusher" <de...@moore.net> wrote in message
news:esjmd5p5u00fs3c4n...@4ax.com...
news:esjmd5p5u00fs3c4n...@4ax.com...
news:esjmd5p5u00fs3c4n...@4ax.com...
news:esjmd5p5u00fs3c4n...@4ax.com...
Steve
And where's the surprise here?
A massively over-bulked pickup introduced at the start of a gas price
spike. With no 3/4 or one-ton option to appeal to contractors. With no
diesel option to appeal to farmers, moving companies, RV-towing
retirees, or other mid-sized hauling operations. With an immediate
record of reliability problems guaranteed to scare away cautious,
bottom-line oriented, data-driven fleet buyers who don't buy into the
Japanese reliability mythos as readily as consumers.
It was a condo-dweller's weekend Home Depot run truck (or city poseur
truck to be blunt) introduced at the VERY instant in time when the
demand for city poseur trucks was guaranteed to tank.
E. Meyer
"Steve" <n...@spam.thanks> wrote:
When you put it that way, I get deja vu of a Nissan Titan.
Ashton Crusher
Is it really that bad? What have been the reliability problems? I
only know one person who owns a Tundra and he seems to like it. I
know several people with the Tacoma? the smaller one and they all
like them.
Steve
> Is it really that bad? What have been the reliability problems? I
> only know one person who owns a Tundra and he seems to like it. I
> know several people with the Tacoma? the smaller one and they all
> like them.
They're far from horrible, but there have been brake and front
suspension problems. Not the kind of thing you want to see in a "tough"
vehicle from the allegedly (self proclaimed anyway) best carmaker in the
world.
C. E. White
The smaller Tundra was a much better vehicle. The new huge Tundra is a
bad copy of a Silverado that incorporates as many bad Ford and Dodge
ideas as they could tack on. Billions wasted.
Ed
Steve
> The smaller Tundra was a much better vehicle. The new huge Tundra is a
> bad copy of a Silverado that incorporates as many bad Ford and Dodge
> ideas as they could tack on. Billions wasted.
>
There ARE no bad Dodge ideas... well, in trucks anyway. :-p
C. E. White
"Steve" <n...@spam.thanks> wrote in message
news:BJqdnbH-aJFHYHjX...@texas.net...
I guess we will see about the current model. I have to wonder about the coil
spring rear end. GMC tried that decades ago and it was not exactly a sucess.
In theory it should be just fine, but as I recall, when you overloaded a GMC
with the coil spring rear suspension, you often wrecked the springs. And if
you were on dirt a lot, the shock would fail, and since coils don't have the
same sort of inherent damping as leaf springs, the rear end would start
bouuncing all over the place. I can still remeber watching the beds of GMCs
with worn out shocks bouncing down the road like someone bouncing a
basketball. I suppose shocks are better now, but I still susspect for a
vehicle like a pickup that has to carry radically different loads in the
bed, leaf springs are a better deal.
My only close experience with Dodge trucks are the ones my nearest neighbor
owned. He had two in the 1990's, both with the Cummins Diesel. He liked them
both, but both had transmission problems (one got a new transmisison and
that failed too). He is happier with his current Chevy Duramax, but he is
not opposed to buying a new Dodge. It seems to me that Dodges are attractive
to the "mavericks," that is people who want to appear to be different (even
if they really are just the same). I can't really think of any reason not to
buy a Dodge, I just can't think of a reason to buy one either.
Ed
M. Balmer
No, just bad Dodge trucks. Like the worst on the market. Total garbage.
jr92
Coming from a GM man, I will admit this:
Toyota makes a lot of decent vehicles.
The Tundra just aint one of them!
Steve
>
>
>
> Coming from a GM man, I will admit this:
>
>
> Toyota makes a lot of decent vehicles.
>
>
>
> The Tundra just aint one of them!
My theory is they just didn't give it a sufficiently masculine name. You
know, something that would have fit in the lineup alongside the
Foreskinner SUV and Prepuce hybrid.
:-) :-)
Steve
>
> "Steve" <n...@spam.thanks> wrote in message
> news:BJqdnbH-aJFHYHjX...@texas.net...
>> C. E. White wrote:
>>
>>> The smaller Tundra was a much better vehicle. The new huge Tundra is
>>> a bad copy of a Silverado that incorporates as many bad Ford and
>>> Dodge ideas as they could tack on. Billions wasted.
>>>
>>
>> There ARE no bad Dodge ideas... well, in trucks anyway. :-p
>
> I guess we will see about the current model. I have to wonder about the
> coil spring rear end. GMC tried that decades ago and it was not exactly
> a sucess. In theory it should be just fine, but as I recall, when you
> overloaded a GMC with the coil spring rear suspension, you often wrecked
> the springs. And if you were on dirt a lot, the shock would fail, and
> since coils don't have the same sort of inherent damping as leaf
All very true and the reason the industry stayed away from coils for so
long. But comparing the old GM long trailing arm rear leaf suspension to
the new Dodge multi-link suspension is kinda like comparing the front
suspension of a Model T to the front suspension of a Lamborghini. Well,
almost that extreme anyway. I think its an amazing performer, and makes
me wonder why pickup trucks have stuck with leafs so long. Dump trucks
and tractor-trailers went to air bag suspension and big shocks 20 years
ago, and that setup is actually more similar to coils than to leafs in
terms of damping, roll rate, etc.
> My only close experience with Dodge trucks are the ones my nearest
> neighbor owned. He had two in the 1990's, both with the Cummins Diesel.
> He liked them both, but both had transmission problems (one got a new
> transmisison and that failed too). He is happier with his current Chevy
> Duramax, but he is not opposed to buying a new Dodge.
The Duramax is a great truck and engine, but to be honest there more
than expected field failures with its Allison transmission, and that
frankly surprised the heck out of me. I think they really watered down
an Allison (or mostly used the name as a selling point) in the Duramax.
The newer Dodges have the 545RFE automatic, and its looking very
bulletproof. The chassis-cab Cummins Dodges have a monstrous iron-cased
Asin automatic with PTO, similar to what's used in Hino and Fuso trucks.
The old 727-based 47RH, tough as it was, really wasn't up to the torque
of the mid/late 90s versions of the Cummins.
Which brings us back to the "WTF?" factor with the way Toyota marketed
Tundra. Toyota *owns* most or all of Asin, so they have an HD
transmission option practically in-house (and are in fact selling it to
Dodge for the chassis-cabs!) If they really wanted to go after the
full-size pickup and chassis-cab market, then WHY didn't they outsource
a diesel with an equally good reputation and put together a heavy-duty
version of the Tundra to go after market segment owned by Powerstroke
Fords and Cummins Dodges? That *might* have been enough to make the
Tundra a success, especially with all the problems Ford and Navistar
have had with the down-sized twin-turbo Powerstrokes. I think GM has
actually benefitted a lot from Ford's woes to boost Duramax sales and
Toyota could have gotten in on that action. Too late now- Ford's
impressive looking diesel ("Scorpion" IIRC) will be out soon, and it
looks pretty good. About the only worries I'd have with it are a) the
aluminum heads, and b) the choice to use urea injection for emission
control. Cummins still has it beat on those issues.
It seems to me
> that Dodges are attractive to the "mavericks," that is people who want
> to appear to be different (even if they really are just the same). I
> can't really think of any reason not to buy a Dodge, I just can't think
> of a reason to buy one either.
I've got a long history of good experience with them (somewhere around 2
million miles between me and my Dad), so I've tended to stick to them.
The minivans of the 90s ate transmissions like tic-tacs so I wouldn't go
near one of them, but the trucks and Jeeps stayed pretty solid- even
through the Daimler and Cerberus messes. I later learned that Chrysler's
Jeep/Truck engineering division is fairly separate from the car/van
side of things and got left alone a lot more. Despite all the mistakes
the car side of the business made in the past 10 years, the trucks
seemed to avoid most of it.