Toyota's 9.3 milion recalls in the last few years and a decline in quality

While Toyota has done a stellar job in the past, I think they're going to find out that being #1 or #2 isn't going to be easy once they become the new target of lawyers and the media.

http://www.businessweek.com/autos/content/jan2007/bw20070111_217870.htm?chan=autos_autos+index+page


Even Toyota Isn't Perfect

A raft of recalls lately has the automaker scrambling to safeguard its reputation for quality
by Ian Rowley

Toyota (TM) was built on details. After decades of study and refinement, the company has developed thousands of pages of guidelines that lay out exactly what needs to be done at every step of the automaking process. That attention to the nitty-gritty has helped create an industrial machine that's unparalleled in building problem-free cars and trucks.

But growing numbers of flaws have started to tarnish Toyota Motor Corp.'s reputation for quality. Since 2004 the automaker has had to recall 9.3 million vehicles in the U.S. and Japan—its two biggest markets—up from 2.5 million in the previous three years. The problems got so bad that, in July, Toyota CEO Katsuaki Watanabe felt obliged to bow deeply in apology.

Given Toyota's obsession with details, it's no surprise that it would ask someone who knows how to focus on the small stuff to fix the problem. In June, Toyota ordered former Europe chief Shinichi Sasaki back to Japan to help get a grip on the issue. The 36-year Toyota veteran has spent three decades working to ensure glitch-free production. Although Toyota has long had a quality chief, Sasaki is the first person to do the job full-time. "My responsibility is to tell all Toyota employees the quality aspect of their jobs," says Sasaki.

Toyota chieftains say the company is making progress. In December, Executive Vice-President Masatami Takimoto said that when it comes to recalls, "the worst is now over." And Watanabe, while again apologizing for recent faults in vehicles, said Toyota is "right on track in ensuring good quality."

Sasaki's task is made more difficult by Toyota's rapid growth. In recent years, the company has opened at least two overseas plants annually, and this year it's poised to overtake General Motors Corp. (GM) as the world's No. 1 carmaker. Today, Toyota makes nearly as many vehicles outside Japan as it does at home, meaning its cadre of Japanese engineers is no longer big enough to train all the new workers at foreign plants. To make up for the deficit, Toyota last year opened new "Global Production Centers" in Kentucky, England, and Thailand. These facilities, modeled after one established in Japan three years ago, teach trainees the Toyota way in tasks such as welding and painting.

Garage Reports

Another new initiative: better record-keeping. In years past, Toyota maintained repair data only on vehicles under warranty, which meant it missed glitches that popped up later on. Now, Toyota shops in Japan provide a full report on repairs to cars of any age. The quality chief is also asking suppliers to share information and use common parts. Denso (DNZOY), Aishin Seiki, and others have just started using one design for voltage stabilizers for electronics in Toyota's cars.

More important is designing quality into cars in the first place. To give designers extra time to get things right, Toyota has tapped the brakes on the introduction of new models. For instance, the new generation of Corollas, already on sale in Japan, has been held back for a year in the U.S. to ensure that American workers have the time to learn how to build the model without glitches.

There's clearly room for improvement. In July, the company recalled 157,000 Tundra pickups because the trucks lacked front-seat anchors for child safety seats—a feature required in any vehicle that has a switch to turn off air bags. (When deployed, air bags can kill children riding in the front seat.) Toyota, it seems, simply forgot about the anchors when designing the trucks. It's the kind of oversight Sasaki vows to spot long before any recall notices need to be sent out. "Every decision at every stage," he says, "must be done properly."

I don't see this having a negative impact on their image as of now, if this becomes a consistent trend, then the media may actually focus some negative energy on them for a change.

would be front page news or TV if GM..not media bias but fact..

Weren't Ford and Toyota going to merge? Might not help Ford out much if Toyota keeps having problems.

And don't they tell people to put children in the back seats to avoid air bag injury??? Well, unless there IS no back seat, then yeah..

I don't see this having a negative impact on their image as of now, if this becomes a consistent trend, then the media may actually focus some negative energy on them for a change.

I wouldn't hold my breath on them "focusing" negative attention on yota, even if the trend continues. IMO outside of people I will show this to, I doubt many people will ever even hear about this........"problem" they've been having. Spread the word folks, that's about the only way this "news" will get out there, unless of course you're rooting for yota! I hope Ford does NOT merge with them. I would love one day, to see the big 3, back in full swing, this would not help with that.

Anyone notice the insinuation in this:

For instance, the new generation of Corollas, already on sale in Japan, has been held back for a year in the U.S. to ensure that American workers have the time to learn how to build the model without glitches.

Anyone notice the insinuation in this:

I hope you didn't think that just because they have plants here didn't mean that they actually wanted to build cars here but the economics dictate the location. If Toyota had their way they would build all vehicles in Japan with "their" workers. Foreign factories are only used to supplement their production needs for that region that Japanese built vehicles can't keep up with the demand or the added costs make them not as competitive.

Yeah Toyota has had lots of problems this year. I know you guys never believed me before but I had ALWAYS said I would prefer that the domestic companies do well, but I still won't hesitate to buy what vehicle I think is made the best. So it's not like I'm crying over this.;)

I hope you didn't think that just because they have plants here didn't mean that they actually wanted to build cars here but the economics dictate the location. If Toyota had their way they would build all vehicles in Japan with "their" workers. Foreign factories are only used to supplement their production needs for that region that Japanese built vehicles can't keep up with the demand or the added costs make them not as competitive.

Toyota and Honda both have a habit of building any new untried type of design in Japan, first, before moving production out to the continent where it will be sold. The Honda Accords with navigation were like this in the beginning of the 2003 model year before moving that small batch of production back out to Ohio. The Lexus RX330 was like that before moving production to Canada, and they're doing the same thing with the Corolla.

It's just a test run for them to fix bugs in any radically newer design.

Another new initiative: better record-keeping. In years past, Toyota maintained repair data only on vehicles under warranty, which meant it missed glitches that popped up later on. Now, Toyota shops in Japan provide a full report on repairs to cars of any age. The quality chief is also asking suppliers to share information and use common parts. Denso (DNZOY), Aishin Seiki, and others have just started using one design for voltage stabilizers for electronics in Toyota's cars.

So if I'm reading this right, then they're only keeping track of problems that happen on their cars under warranty and not really making an effort to track what problems their older cars may have had. Who's to say their older product doesn't have just as many problems as a domestic car of the same age? If there's no numbers there to see, then who's to say?

Toyota=child killers

the trucks lacked front-seat anchors for child safety seats—a feature required in any vehicle that has a switch to turn off air bags. (When deployed, air bags can kill children riding in the front seat.) Toyota, it seems, simply forgot about the anchors when designing the trucks.

So if I'm reading this right, then they're only keeping track of problems that happen on their cars under warranty and not really making an effort to track what problems their older cars may have had. Who's to say their older product doesn't have just as many problems as a domestic car of the same age? If there's no numbers there to see, then who's to say?
I don't know for certain but I suspect what Toyota was doing was the "norm" - I suspect that most manufactureres don't keep track of "problems" once a car leaves the warranty period...if anyone knows otherwise it would interesting to know.

As to overall reliability, I believe that's what J.D.Power, and others as well, do - tracking continuing/long term reliability as well as initial quality.

Likewise, depending on the issue, NHTSA gets into the picture as well - as far as I know, if consumer safety is involved, a manufacturere is always held responsible and can be ordered to recall; if there is a cutoff (a statue of limitations) for such recalls I would say it's a very long one.

Speaking of Toyota, here is a tidbit I came across in my morning's news service...

Leaked: Toyota May Add Up to Five More North American Plants
Toyota may build as many as five North American assembly plants in the next 10 years in order to keep up with surging U.S. demand that has forced the company to begin importing more vehicles from overseas, The Detroit Free Press reported people familiar with the plans as saying. Toyota is already likely to build one of those factories in the southeastern United States and another in Mexico, the sources said. Based on Toyota's recent investments, five factories would create about 10,000 jobs and cost $5 billion.

You guys might want to consider safety-specific recalls, though... they tend to be the ones most focused on

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070105/UPDATE/701050465

Toyota could come out on the 5 o'clock news and proclaim that they had nothing to do with the cars being built like crap it is the Americans that build them here in the U.S..
And you know what. Blinders on Americans would still buy them..

That last part Robert about the factories is what scares me...

Want some insight into why they are having troubles...

Toyota says, ‘We know more about trucks than Ford’ (http://blueovalblogs.com/blogs/?p=81)
"The new Tundra does not have fully boxed rear frame rails. As reported in the USA Today"
"And, let’s ask another question: Why would fully boxed frame rails decrease payload? Maybe because the powertrain and suspension on the new Tundra has been rigorously tested to a certain GVWR, such that even if you added say 100lbs to the vehicle due to fully boxed frame rails, and this increased your payload by say 300lbs, the whole vehicle would be well past the GVWR it was engineered and tuned around."

The above response came directly from this article in USAToday...
Toyota bulks up Tundra, hoping to draw a crowd of buyers (http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2007-01-07-tundra_x.htm)
"Only the front half is fully boxed, a description that implies the sturdiest type of construction. The rest is so-called C-channel construction. Competitors who make greater use of boxed rails will say the Tundra frame could twist and sag easier.
Toyota says there's no need for the extra weight of fully boxed rails on some parts of the frame. Adding that weight would cut into the truck's payload capacity without improving the ride, handling, safety or durability, the car company contends."

OMFG. Does ANYBODY on this site ACTUALLY believe that there could be more than 20-30lbs of steel involved in closing a C-shape channel into a box on this truck's back half, and that the extra 20 lbs would ACTUALLY DECREASE THE PAYLOAD!?!? :lol:
If so, you have been :Owned: by the Toyota media department!
What's worse, they say right in the sentence above it that "Only the front half is fully boxed, a description that implies the sturdiest type of construction."
Well DUH... so why use it on the front half of the truck only?!?! Especially don't want the "most sturdy construction" under the bed where all the load and abuse takes place, do we now. :no:

Seriously... THIS is the kind of money-saving, penny-pinching stuff that will cause problems down the road. It tickles me pink to see that Toyota has finally become such a financially-driven company that the bean-counters are now able to screw-up what the technical people do right. JUST LIKE THE BIG 2.5 have done for years now.

Welcome to the top Toyota... let's see how YOU like it with all the attention and the bullseyes painted on YOUR front door...;)

Toyota could come out on the 5 o'clock news and proclaim that they had nothing to do with the cars being built like crap it is the Americans that build them here in the U.S..
And you know what. Blinders on Americans would still buy them..

That last part Robert about the factories is what scares me...
The more I look at those numbers (10 plants and only $5billion) they don't add up...most of the facilities must be other than assembly plants; a vehicle assembly plant will easily run well past the $1Billion mark so they must be talking about two or three assembly plants and the others woudl just be supporting facilities.

Of course, this is credited to a "leak" so obviously the details are few.

Want some insight into why they are having troubles...

Toyota says, ‘We know more about trucks than Ford’ (http://blueovalblogs.com/blogs/?p=81)
"The new Tundra does not have fully boxed rear frame rails. As reported in the USA Today"
"And, let’s ask another question: Why would fully boxed frame rails decrease payload? Maybe because the powertrain and suspension on the new Tundra has been rigorously tested to a certain GVWR, such that even if you added say 100lbs to the vehicle due to fully boxed frame rails, and this increased your payload by say 300lbs, the whole vehicle would be well past the GVWR it was engineered and tuned around."

The above response came directly from this article in USAToday...
Toyota bulks up Tundra, hoping to draw a crowd of buyers (http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2007-01-07-tundra_x.htm)
"Only the front half is fully boxed, a description that implies the sturdiest type of construction. The rest is so-called C-channel construction. Competitors who make greater use of boxed rails will say the Tundra frame could twist and sag easier.
Toyota says there's no need for the extra weight of fully boxed rails on some parts of the frame. Adding that weight would cut into the truck's payload capacity without improving the ride, handling, safety or durability, the car company contends."

OMFG. Does ANYBODY on this site ACTUALLY believe that there could be more than 20-30lbs of steel involved in closing a C-shape channel into a box on this truck's back half, and that the extra 20 lbs would ACTUALLY DECREASE THE PAYLOAD!?!? :lol:
If so, you have been :Owned: by the Toyota media department!
What's worse, they say right in the sentence above it that "Only the front half is fully boxed, a description that implies the sturdiest type of construction."
Well DUH... so why use it on the front half of the truck only?!?! Especially don't want the "most sturdy construction" under the bed where all the load and abuse takes place, do we now. :no:

Seriously... THIS is the kind of money-saving, penny-pinching stuff that will cause problems down the road. It tickles me pink to see that Toyota has finally become such a financially-driven company that the bean-counters are now able to screw-up what the technical people do right. JUST LIKE THE BIG 2.5 have done for years now.

Welcome to the top Toyota... let's see how YOU like it with all the attention and the bullseyes painted on YOUR front door...;)
Could it be that there is some "method to their madness"?

I think it safe to say that for people serious about using thier pick-ups for towing/hauling may never be attracted to the Toyota fold...if Totyot thinks this they may well have decided that the extra weight/cost really isn't justified (a few pounds and a few dollars per vehicle, when you are talking about thousands of vehicles can add up quickly).

What I'm saying is, if they, internally, see their primary market as people who don't really do much towing/hauling then they may be making a smart move here.

I have no idea if that's the case...just theorizing.

What I'm saying is, if they, internally, see their primary market as people who don't really do much towing/hauling then they may be making a smart move here.

But designing a truck fora makret of people who don't do towing and hauling is no way to attack the american truck companies that dominate the market because they sell many trucks to people that actually need and use them.

I know it's just your theory, but it just doesn't make any sense, except to the bean counters. If you want to increase your truck market share you have to go after the true truck buyers, not just hope people buying camrys and corrollas will wake up one day and say "hmmm, i'd rather have a truck even though i only need to pick up a bag of potting soil once a year for my petunias"

Now if their goal was to just stand pat and keep making the best truck for the decidedly non-working truck buyers they have now, you'd be on to something. Toy is on record as saying they want to go after market share though.

Could it be that there is some "method to their madness"?

I think it safe to say that for people serious about using thier pick-ups for towing/hauling may never be attracted to the Toyota fold...if Totyot thinks this they may well have decided that the extra weight/cost really isn't justified (a few pounds and a few dollars per vehicle, when you are talking about thousands of vehicles can add up quickly).

What I'm saying is, if they, internally, see their primary market as people who don't really do much towing/hauling then they may be making a smart move here.

I have no idea if that's the case...just theorizing.

Not gonna quibble about what I think toyota might be trying to do, but I can D@MN-SURE tell you that if I were a powerplayer at GM or Ford, I'd already have my marketing group getting a few good commercials ready to exploit THIS little faux-pas!

Personally though, I think it's purely the $aving$. Something I routinely bash Ford and GM for doing that results in cracked plastic parts or squeaky hinges in an otherwise outstanding automobile. Why run 99.5 yards, and stop to look around and see if anyone is catching you?!?! :shrug:

I don’t want to carry the theorizing too far…I suspect it is almost certainly just a matter of finding a way to cut the cost of the vehicle (everybody is scrambling to find ways to save a penny here and nickel there (often at the expense of their suppliers which is part of what is forcing a lot of work off shore).

That said, what I was getting at is that while there is certainly a big market of people who use pick-up trucks as TRUCKS, there is also a very big market segment of people, generated over the past decade or two, who really never use their pick-up truck’s capabilities…I’m a perfect example of that...that part of the truck market may not really care about (or ever bother to try an understand) the difference between a fully boxed frame and one that isn't so it would never impact their buying decision.

I’ve never hauled anything larger then my motorcycle – I got my pick-up because I always try to have at least one 4WD vehicle in my driveway (just in case) and because most “cars” don’t really interest me (with just a few notable exceptions)…I could have gotten by with an econobox as my primary vehicle but where is the fun in that? :)

I don’t have the studies in front of me to prove it but I believe it correct to say that most of the growth in the Truck/SUV segment (and what has largely kept GM/Ford in the black until recently) came from those who really don’t “need” a Truck/SUV but have turned to them as cars started to shrink and often became "less interesting"…I think you can see this in how luxurious trucks have become over what was available 10-15 years ago.

Again, not to carry the theorizing too far – it will be interesting to see how this piece of news about Toyota’s “big truck” will play out.

ProudPony, is the new Silverado/Sierra fully boxed front to back? I'm just asking. I know the GMT-800s were not, but then again the frame on the last Tundra looks downright wimpy anyway.

Still, just wondering.

Also, does Toyota use hydroformed rails and cross members? I've heard a very very select couple of articles and people mention that they used hydroformed frame components in the current gen 4Runner, Tacoma, and the new Tundra... but I hear it so rarely it makes me wonder if they're misinformed or if maybe Toyota is quietely moving up to the standard of hydroformed steel and not making a big deal about it since they're among the last ones to the party.

That said, what I was getting at is that while there is certainly a big market of people who use pick-up trucks as TRUCKS, there is also a very big market segment of people, generated over the past decade or two, who really never use their pick-up truck’s capabilities…I’m a perfect example of that.

Indeed I agree 100% - just like soccer moms that drive suburbans to drop off their only child at practice, then go to the salon for a hairdo, a few groceries, and back home. Do they really need a Suburban or Excursion for this? :no:
(And for those not of the male persuasion, I offer the guy who drives his 350 Superduty or Silvy 3500 Dually 50 miles to a gunshow, buys nothing, and goes 20 miles out of his way to have the best steak dinner in the state on his way home, all the way with an empty bed an by himself. ;) Both sexes are guilty and I admit it.)

MY POINT is that Toyota's "Mega Super Duper Killer TRUCK" is supposed to have more "capability" in almost every category than any other full size standard duty half-ton. They are advertising this.
It's going to be yet another black eye for them (the theme of this thread BTW) in a few years when the 10-20% of hard-core truck drivers start having their beds and frame rails fail on them while actually "working" the truck. Not to mention the bragging rights that are sought after so dilligently like, "The most long-lasting truck on the road", or "The most trucks on the road with over 250,000 miles"... they will never happen if their trucks start to suffer bent or broken frame units from even a few hard-core users. :no:

WORST of all - imagine if Toyota had to actually recall their "mightiest truck ever" because JUST A FEW drivers actually lose control of the vehicle due to frame failures while moving under load, and some fatalities occurr. :o

Remember, out of ALL the Crown Vics that are used in police, taxi, and other severe duty service, there has been a grand total of 158 deaths associated with the cars, and not all of those have been the people in the Crown Vic either. Remember, these are typically rear-end crashes at 70mph, sometimes more. Point here is that it only takes a SMALL percentage of failures to create a MAJOR fiasco for a company to deal with, and often the image/reputation of the vehicle is lost whether it deserves it or not.

Thatsa my pointa. :cool:

It's going to be yet another black eye for them (the theme of this thread BTW) in a few years when the 10-20% of hard-core truck drivers start having their beds and frame rails fail on them while actually "working" the truck.

How are you able to assume that just because Toyota chose to use c-channels for some parts of the truck frame that it will result in failed/bent frames when used for actual work?

Did that happen to the Silverados and Sierras made before 2007? Because I think a lot of them used c-channels as well. Or is no c-channels the new standard for having a 'worthy' work truck now that GM is doing it?;)

ProudPony, is the new Silverado/Sierra fully boxed front to back? I'm just asking. I know the GMT-800s were not, but then again the frame on the last Tundra looks downright wimpy anyway.


In a word, YES.

Hyroformed sections in front and rear stress areas too, which has lots of benefits in controlling material displacement, surface stresses, and overall quality.

:thumb:

How are you able to assume that just because Toyota chose to use c-channels for some parts of the truck frame that it will result in failed/bent frames when used for actual work?

Did that happen to the Silverados and Sierras made before 2007? Because I think a lot of them used c-channels as well. Or is no c-channels the new standard for having a 'worthy' work truck now that GM is doing it?;)

I don't know it for sure. It's speculation on my part - as is the whole issue with their chassis and it's future performance.

I can say however that a fully boxed design is stronger than a C-shaped design if both material thickness and outer dimensions are identical because of the mass moment of inertia given by such geometry. The C-shape is far more likely to buckle under cantilevered load. I'd need to go do some calculations to see how much taller the C-shape needs to be, or how much thicker it's material needs to be, to be equally "strong" regarding load support.

We'll give them their chance to prove themselves. ;)

Seriously though - it does not take agenious to imply that Ford (or GM) does not know how to build trucks. You've got to admit that was a goofy thing to imply, and even their own comments in the interview contradict themselves.

I will hedge my bets according to what I think will happen... you feel free to do the same! :thumb:

PP,
I don't doubt at all that the Silverado/Sierra will prove to be a tougher work truck, but you basically just came right out and said "because the Tundra uses c-channel construction in parts of its frame, they will bend and break when put to actual real truck use".

That logic makes absolutely no sense because 2007 is the first year that the Silverado/Sierra haven't used c-channels and I sure haven't heard of anyone destroying any GMT-800 frames through reasonable work duties.

the thing is will Toyota get any fire over this from commercials from Ford or GM stating exactly what Toyota has been doing for thier trucks beefing things up..well how bout we exploit the weakness of the Toyota GM???

Toyota=child killers

the trucks lacked front-seat anchors for child safety seats—a feature required in any vehicle that has a switch to turn off air bags. (When deployed, air bags can kill children riding in the front seat.) Toyota, it seems, simply forgot about the anchors when designing the trucks.

Right, Toyota failed to comply with a year 2002 mandate with LATCH anchors in the front passenger seat of the previous Tundra. Instead of complying initially, or after it was noted and installing a fix, Toyota decide to remove the air bag cut off switch!!!! Where's the safety consideration? Toyota states it would cost to much. Eh? Didn't Toyota profit (ie after all the bills are paid) 10 billion in 2005?

Toyota even has the balls to send multiple appeals to the NHTSA asking for basically permission to not be compliant.

Why is it that many other manufacturers will retro fit single and sometimes multiple LATCH anchors and top tether anchors at ZERO charge to the customer on older vehicles that didn't even have a LATCH requirement? GM does it, DCX does it, Ford does it, but Toyota offers zero for free.

Right, Toyota failed to comply with a year 2002 mandate with LATCH anchors in the front passenger seat of the previous Tundra. Instead of complying initially, or after it was noted and installing a fix, Toyota decide to remove the air bag cut off switch!!!! Where's the safety consideration? Toyota states it would cost to much. Eh? Didn't Toyota profit (ie after all the bills are paid) 10 billion in 2005?

Toyota even has the balls to send multiple appeals to the NHTSA asking for basically permission to not be compliant.

Why is it that many other manufacturers will retro fit single and sometimes multiple LATCH anchors and top tether anchors at ZERO charge to the customer on older vehicles that didn't even have a LATCH requirement? GM does it, DCX does it, Ford does it, but Toyota offers zero for free.

Given that what you pasted above is true,
I repeat my earlier post...

Toyota is becoming more governed by bean counters than by quality-driven technical people. The recalls will continue!

My words are public, and I am not hiding from anyone!;)

PP,
I don't doubt at all that the Silverado/Sierra will prove to be a tougher work truck, but you basically just came right out and said "because the Tundra uses c-channel construction in parts of its frame, they will bend and break when put to actual real truck use".

That logic makes absolutely no sense because 2007 is the first year that the Silverado/Sierra haven't used c-channels and I sure haven't heard of anyone destroying any GMT-800 frames through reasonable work duties.

RESPECTFULLY...

Even Toyota says boxing is better.
Ford has BEEN doing it.
GM is doing it.

Why would they NOT do it 100% of the way if it IS better?
It is conceeding that they actually did not make the truck as strong as they could have, nor as strong as the competitors as far as I am concerned.

And categorically, I have already stated the reasons why I said what I did.
I'm not saying there will be a rash of 90% of their trucks failing... I said JUST LIKE YOU DID ABOVE - that their trucks that actually DO see the extreme abuse are going to show it if there is a weakness - probably more than the Ford or GM units that see the same abuse - and if JUST A FEW DO FAIL (and it is my opinion that there will be some) then those few will taint the reputation of the truck as a whole.

I'd rather we move this detailed discussion to another thread if I am going to have to perform engineering calculations and demonstrate why C's are more prone to buckling under heavy or shock loads. The rest of this thread should concentrate on why Toyota is still the saviour to many Americans, despite their growing problems with safety, recalls, and general quality. :cool:

How did this:

It's going to be yet another black eye for them (the theme of this thread BTW) in a few years when the 10-20% of hard-core truck drivers start having their beds and frame rails fail on them while actually "working" the truck. Not to mention the bragging rights that are sought after so dilligently like, "The most long-lasting truck on the road", or "The most trucks on the road with over 250,000 miles"... they will never happen if their trucks start to suffer bent or broken frame units from even a few hard-core users. :no:

Go to this?

I said that their trucks that actually DO see the extreme abuse are going to show it if there is a weakness - probably more than the Ford or GM units that see the same abuse - and if JUST A FEW DO FAIL (and it is my opinion that there will be some) then those few will taint the reputation of the truck as a whole.

How did this:



Go to this?

Looks about the same to me?:shrug:

Just exactly what part of this do you not understand?
I'm saying I think a small portion of their trucks are going to fail under extreme use, and Toyota will end up with egg on their face. It's purely a guess how many... maybe 2%, maybe 20... depends how many buyers actually use the pizz out of them and in what way (hauling v. payload v. offroading, etc).

The theme of the thread is "Toyota's increasing amount of recalls", and I am pointing out what I think will be another one yet to come.

Meanwhile, I think it's time to drop this sidebar... in case you haven't noticed, it seems to only be you and I discussing this boxed-frame issue in this thread.


Save my posts to your "favorites", let's give them 2 years, and see what we have. Since we both can not cite factual examples of failure or success for the trucks yet, the best we can do is agree to disagree for the moment, and see what happens!:thumb:

i hope this is egg on Toyotas face.. the GM and Ford trucks are all full..

they should point this out..in so many commercials..

i hope this is egg on Toyotas face.. the GM and Ford trucks are all full..

they should point this out..in so many commercials..
If I understand, GM only recently, as in just this model year, started using fully boxed frames is that correct?

If so, I'm not sure how "big a thing" GM would want to make of Toyota's not doing so...it would seem to me that for GM to make much of this issue it would open itself up to questions about why it only just now started using a fully boxed frame.

I also don't know that Toyota is going to see many failures...I saw the question asked earlier but not answered; how many failures has GM seen during the time it wasn't using a fully boxed frame? I suspect, not many at all or we would have heard about it.

If someone has some figures to the contrary I think it would be helpful to see them.

What I'm getting at in a round about way is that I think some of the "improvements" in pick-up design have more to do with "one upmanship" that an answer to a problem...the fully boxed frame may the the answer to a problem that no one was really having but it does give some bragging rights. :)

If I understand, GM only recently, as in just this model year, started using fully boxed frames is that correct?

If so, I'm not sure how "big a thing" GM would want to make of Toyota's not doing so...it would seem to me that for GM to make much of this issue it would open itself up to questions about why it only just now started using a fully boxed frame.
Well that's exactly it. To GM fanatics it was acceptable while GM was doing it, but the very instant the GM trucks start going to fully boxed frames, it's an absolute joke that Toyota isn't.

Sorry but that's the epitome of fanboy mentality right there. Granted I think it's equally retarded that all of a sudden the Tundra gets big brake rotors and some other beefy parts and then starts advertising these 'comparisons' all over the place despite the fact that the previous gen truck was downright wimpy in those same regards compared to the competition. (the frame on the previous tundra was especially pathetic looking...

I also don't know that Toyota is going to see many failures...I saw the question asked earlier but not answered; how many failures has GM seen during the time it wasn't using a fully boxed frame? I suspect, not many at all or we would have heard about it.
Yeah I tried a couple times to get that question answered. Why are people assuming that a C-channel frame section will fail for the Tundra unless it was also failing for the domestic branded c-channel frames when they were using them? I mean GM was using them as recently as the 2006 model year so do we have a percentage of GMT-800 truck frames that have failed too? Using that simple logic that 'non-fully boxed = failures', it would seem the 800s should have seen measurable cases of failures as well.

And by failures I don't mean billy bob dumps 2 tons of gravel in the bed and tows a yacht in the back and gets pissed when the truck breaks down. I mean failure within actual rated tolerances.

no its called all new truck and still not the same as the ones they are looking to beat, brand new..comparisons to comparisons that Toyota has been doing in thier commercials....I know Ford has been throwing it around for a while..

no its called all new truck and still not the same as the ones they are looking to beat..

No, it's better in some ways, and worse in others... nobody ever said it's the best truck in its class... at least I didn't. I just think it's stupid to claim a 2007 model truck is junk because it uses a frame design spec that GM just stopped using this current model year. What if the GMT-900s didn't come out until mid 2007 as was rumored at one point? Would this dicussion even be going on, or would people at least wait until the 900s came out before they talked smack about this particular design specification?

never said the Toyota was junk..in fact I think the Tacoma is one of the best out there..But it never carried over to the Tundra where full size trucks it counts alot more.

No, it's better in some ways, and worse in others... nobody ever said it's the best truck in its class... at least I didn't. I just think it's stupid to claim a 2007 model truck is junk because it uses a frame design spec that GM just stopped using this current model year. What if the GMT-900s didn't come out until mid 2007 as was rumored at one point? Would this dicussion even be going on, or would people at least wait until the 900s came out before they talked smack about this particular design specification?

I decided after my last post that I was not going to post about this truck thing in this thread again - you and others have already carried it WAAAYYY too far from what it was intended to demonstrate - which is the fact that Toyota is now turning into the big cash machine that GM and Ford have been for decades, and their migration from purely quality-driven decisions to monetary-based decisions will cost them more problems and recalls in the future.
THAT'S ALL I MEANT TO SHOW, NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS, NOTHING HIDDEN, NOTHING SECRET.

If you choose to carry on this petty debate about when some company went to fully-boxed versus when some company decided it cost too much and how it would diminish the payload - suit yourself.

AS I said - Toyota THEMSELVES admitted boxing is a stronger design, but opted NOT to use it under the whole truck, basing their decision (publicly) on a BS statement that "the added steel will reduce payload", and even implying that "they know more about trucks than Ford and GM".
Apparently, Ford and GM have decided to use the strongest design they can afford to - whether it is needed or not. Maybe it IS overkill, maybe it's not.
THAT SPEAKS VOLUMES TO ME, as an engineer AND a consumer.

As a last point, it would seem to me that you would want to attack your competition with at least as good/strong a product - especially if you are going to advertise that it's maximum capabilities and ratings exceed that of your competition. With a design that they admit is not as strong as the competition is using?!?!
I'll leave it at that.

At this point however, I will point out that I do not appreciate being called "STUPID", and I never said this new Toyota was "JUNK" anywhere in any post.
You refuse to acknowledge simple points, opinions, or even facts that are irrefutable.
You choose to put spin and fictitious words in their place, and debate on them.
Your bias shines through in spades.


At this point, I find this thread becoming more offensive and pointless than the one Jason closed last week.

Post what you like, respond how you want.
I will not post in this thread again. :no:

At this point however, I will point out that I do not appreciate being called "STUPID", and I never said this new Toyota was "JUNK" anywhere in any post.
If you didn't call them junk, (and I'm not sure how saying 'Toyota will get a black eye when 10 to 20% of their hardcore truck users suffer failed frames' is not saying junk) then why are you concerned?

You refuse to acknowledge simple points, opinions, or even facts that are irrefutable.
What, like that a fully boxed frame is superior? That the GMT-900 seems to be a superior truck platform? I've acknowledged both of those multiple times and the second one isn't even a fact or irrefutable.

You choose to put spin and fictitious words in their place, and debate on them.
I didn't put any spin on these words. They were your own and it was you who can't seem to see that back pedaling you've done.
http://web.camaross.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4341609&postcount=31

Your bias shines through in spades.
Really? What bias is that? Pro-Toyota? I guess that explains why the majority of my posts and threads on the lexus car chat forum are like these from just the last couple weeks of my posting?
http://www.clublexus.com/forums/showthread.php?t=258834
http://www.clublexus.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2318813&postcount=6
http://www.clublexus.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2356380&postcount=8
http://www.clublexus.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2336741&postcount=33
http://www.clublexus.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2339911&postcount=17
http://www.clublexus.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2355737&postcount=28
http://www.clublexus.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2351356&postcount=493
http://www.clublexus.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2342731&postcount=13
http://www.clublexus.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1940996&postcount=52

At this point, I find this thread becoming more offensive and pointless than the one Jason closed last week.
It's becoming offensive because you feel uncomfortable with your being criticized. You're not used to being on the other end of the stick - 90% of the time you enjoy being a forum bully... this is uncomfortable territory for you, I'm sure... but why not just be more careful with your wording when you start off a thread making grand claims and then just back down to 'I didn't really mean that's what would actually happen, but lets just see...'

Post what you like, respond how you want.
And that I did.

Sad to say, its not about the cars anymore...we're in the 21st century already and yet so much hate still abounds...