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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?!?!

 

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.

 

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?
(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.

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.

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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!

 

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???

 

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 ***** 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!

 

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.