Toyota says, ‘We know more about trucks than Ford’

[Bluecon]

Now come on...on what basis do you have to form any opinion about the Tundra and it's quality? Neither of us have driven one, have used it on the job, etc. This is all bench racing or "bench trucking." I have made no comment in regards to the truck specifically because I DON'T KNOW.

 

Guess what? Neither do you. Go throw a load on one or hook a trailer up yourself THEN you can make comments such as above. Until then, it's all speculation and quoting OTHER people. And every test I read said this truck is ready for business.

Well RJ has never been right on any of these predictions and if this Toyota truck is a good as the early reports it is going to be a much greater force in the market. I know many truck owners that are not brand loyal. Ford should not count on that to protect the sales.

[LSFan00]

Well RJ has never been right on any of these predictions and if this Toyota truck is a good as the early reports it is going to be a much greater force in the market. I know many truck owners that are not brand loyal. Ford should not count on that to protect the sales.

 

 

Yeah, but every test I read about the Ridgeline was that it was ready to dominate the market too. Tundra is a good truck with a great brand. It will get 15-20 percent of the light-medium market, whatever that means.

[BlackHorse]

I have to admit I got a bit of a chuckle out of the assertion that people who read magazines about the auto industry are not as well informed about pickup trucks as the guys who get it word of mouth from their good buddies Buck, or Dale over a six-pack at halftime. Word of mouth being the absolute least reliable source of good information when it comes to purchasing anything, especially vehicles, a major purchase.

Edited January 15, 2007 by BlackHorse

[kenp77]

Richard, you know that, and I know that, and people that bother to research and compare trucks that thoroughly might know that. But the vast majority of people don't know it. If they did, possibly no one would ever buy anything but F150's and Silverados would they? We both know that Toyota is not going to advertise their Tundra as "less than Ford" with respect to capability. They are always going to say it's better or at the very least just as good. Weather that's true or not doesn't matter. Plenty of people will buy a Tundra based on the "Toyota Quality" perception. Others will buy it because maybe they just like it's looks over the F150 and they figue "Meh, it'll do everything I need it to do." Others still will opt for the F150, out of loyalty, perception of quality or what have you. Point is, Toyota's truck may not be as rugged as the F150 but you and I know Toyota is never going to say that and plenty of people aren't going to delve into the dirty details to find out. They'll take it at face value that Toyota is as tuff as they claim. Also I wouldn't reccomend telling most guys that use trucks as daily drivers that they bought them as vanity items. It's probably true, but you'll never get them to admit it because it doesn't come off looking good. So once again, it's not necessarily about the truth, even when we all know what the truth is.

Also as a point of interest I have been seeing the new toyo commercials showing one piece at a time their stuff against ford they started with a ring gear then a brake rotor and today they showed an easy lift hitch receiver and admittedly the toyo pieces look stronger and heavier don't know if that is the case but looks like they are going to make a run at ford???

[RichardJensen]

Also as a point of interest I have been seeing the new toyo commercials showing one piece at a time their stuff against ford they started with a ring gear then a brake rotor and today they showed an easy lift hitch receiver and admittedly the toyo pieces look stronger and heavier don't know if that is the case but looks like they are going to make a run at ford???

Front & Rear brakes on the F150 are 13.0" and 13.7"

 

On the 2007 Tundra, they're 13.9" at the front and 13.6" at the rear (on the GMTs, it's 12" and 12.8").

 

Hmmmmmmmmmm. I wonder why Ford (and GM) have bigger brakes on the rear.

 

Boy, that sure don't make sense, does it?

 

Those Ford engineers are dumb as rocks, aren't they?

 

Yep. Good thing Toyota's around to show the way.

 

Oh, wait......... You don't suppose that you'd need big brakes in the back if you were towing, now would you?

 

Maybe Toyota's aiming for great stats with an empty truck. Bet brake distribution is similarly skewed as well.

Edited January 15, 2007 by RichardJensen

[630land]

They may get more sales, but they will not "take the market", as they did with mid sized and compact cars. There are not legions of "pissed off" domestic truck owners.

 

Also, Chrysler is still #1 in minivans, period. Is not fair when one media source said "Honda and Toyota combined outsell the Mopar minis". Honda and Toyota are not "one company"!

[Bluecon]

USA gives the Toyota a good rating. Houston we have a problem!! (despite RJs silly talk about rear brakes)

 

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/review...11-tundra_x.htm

[RichardJensen]

Dude. That's the article that started this column.

[Bluecon]

Dude. That's the article that started this column.

I see nowhere in that story that Toyota says,

"We know more about trucks than Ford". Did you just make that up? Starting that again?

Anyways now there is a link.

[RichardJensen]

I see nowhere in that story that Toyota says,

"We know more about trucks than Ford". Did you just make that up? Starting that again?

Anyways now there is a link.

The link was posted about 2 pages ago.

 

http://www.blueovalforums.com/forums/index...st&p=131040

 

It's RIGHT BELOW one of your posts

 

And the implication is quite clear when Toyota engineers are cited as saying that there are no inherent benefits to using box section.

Edited January 15, 2007 by RichardJensen

[Bluecon]

The link was posted about 2 pages ago.

 

http://www.blueovalforums.com/forums/index...st&p=131040

 

It's RIGHT BELOW one of your posts

 

And the implication is quite clear when Toyota engineers are cited as saying that there are no inherent benefits to using box section.

Where in this article is there any mention of box section frames?

 

You wrote this from that article?

 

Quote RJ

"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."

Edited January 15, 2007 by Bluecon

[RichardJensen]

HOLY COW!

 

They took it out!!!!!!???????!!!!???

 

UN-BELIEVABLE!

[LincolnFan]

LMFAO @ JAPS.

[silvrsvt]

HOLY COW!

 

They took it out!!!!!!???????!!!!???

 

UN-BELIEVABLE!

 

 

LOL must have been paid off

[Bluecon]

I know what you mean. Hard to trust the press. Who would have thought Car and Driver would take a (bribe) payment to 'organize' this test.

 

"Ford Fusion challenges Toyota Camry and Honda Accord in a head-to-head drive organized by Car and Driver magazine for its subscribers.

Consumers rate Ford Fusion with all-wheel drive first in “Styling,” “Handling,” “Performance,” and “Fun to Drive” categories.

Test results will be foundation of major, nationwide marketing campaign that begins today."

 

http://www.prdomain.com/companies/F/FordMo...20071538335.htm

[range]

Looks like a poor way of attaching a skid plate, directly to the object you are trying to protect, in this case an aluminum transfer case.

 

They should at least put a drain hole at the lowest point to keep water from collecting (and rusting).

 

 

 

And who says you need a fully boxed frame?

 

 

Edited January 15, 2007 by range

[Bluecon]

Looks like a poor way of attaching a skid plate, directly to the object you are trying to protect, in this case an aluminum transfer case.

 

They should at least put a drain hole at the lowest point to keep water from collecting (and rusting).

 

And who says you need a fully boxed frame?

What? No flaming Hondas?

[bilge]

Have always been able to use a F150, IMO tho, the new body style '04 is not as strong as older models. Front end drags on low spots in the road and bends the crossmember, pulling wheels out of alignment, never to be aligned again. WIll be replacing with a F250 in the next year or so, little more ground clearance and still like the old style front end suspension. Hope rear axles hold up a little better too.

Absolute, positive, sure that I will not look at toyota.

[jlsaylor]

USA gives the Toyota a good rating. Houston we have a problem!! (despite RJs silly talk about rear brakes)

 

I disagree wholeheartedly, and I frankly don't think you really believe that this is a huge, near-future threat either. First, in the midst of USA Today's love fest with the new pickup they clearly point out that many of the same criticisms leveled at past Toyota trucks remain in the new one. Issues like poor gas mileage and low payload ratings. And while USA Today did it's best to downplay the notion that these are as bad as they once were, or might now seem, Toyota hasn't gone out of their way in these areas to convince people the tide has significantly changed. Lauded as Toyota might be not even they can ignore public perception, especially in areas where that perception is apparently still somewhat accurate.

 

Also, many of the 'novel' ideas employed here have been seen before. Dropping in a high power, top of the line V-8 as a ringer has been done before by both Nissan and Dodge, with little effect on Ford and GM. In fact Toyota's strategy seems eerily like the one DCX uses for the full size Ram pickups, offering a high power top of the line V-8 for the power addled and two other engines which aren't nearly as compelling for everyone else. I'll also be curious to see the price tag, as Toyota has seldom set out to be the value leader. And frankly most people seem to find the truck ugly...I'd go a step further and say that it genuinely lacks character. The first isn't so bad, but the latter is a death sentence as we saw with the Nissan Titan. Everything about the Titan looked like an afterthought, as though they had to go out of their way to make their product actually look like a proper truck. The Tundra gives off the same vibe.

 

The real problem here is that Toyota is tying to gain ground in an area where Ford and GM are doing a pretty good job already, and it is simply difficult to steal sales away in a category these days without giving consumers a very compelling reason to switch. The Fusion, which is a well executed mid-size sedan at a very good price, has the same problem. Yes, Toyota has some quantifiable advanatages, but nothing that is sweeping or likely compelling enough to convince buyers to leave their GM's and Ford's behind in droves.

 

I think they'll do more damage to Dodge and Nissan than anybody else.

[NJSteve3]

HOLY COW!

 

They took it out!!!!!!???????!!!!???

 

UN-BELIEVABLE!

If this is so (I did not read the initial article) it points to one of the risks inherent to the otherwise reasonable policy of linking - not copying - articles. Shades of 1984 and the Ministry of Truth....

[ANTAUS]

Something I was reading in one of the reviews of the Tundra, get this...Toyota states that the body panel gaps on the Tundra are intentially larger, to give it a more "masculine" look. If thats the case, then the previous generation Polymer panel Saturns must have been the butchiest vehicles of it's time!! Gotta love the spin.