Toyota Vs Ralph Nader: Get A Hearing Aid

by Cammy Corrigan

Published: October 20th, 2010

A few days ago I wrote about Ralph Nader asking Toyota to break down their somewhat suspect figure of “$1,000,000 every hour” on safety. Well, quite surprisingly, Toyota answered back.

USA Today reports that Toyota issued “a statement” which addressed these issues (but didn’t mention Ralph Nader) and they still stand by their figures. “While the yen and the dollar are constantly fluctuating, we believe that over the course of the year, Toyota’s R&D spending will average about one million U.S Dollars an hour…the amount set forth in our advertisements.” said the statement. Hang on a minute. Nader didn’t want to know your R&D budget. How much did you spend on safety? They won’t tell him.

Well, listen to the advert again: “That’s why we’re investing one million dollars every hour. To improve our technology, and your safety.” So, the figure was never exclusively for safety, which means anything can get lumped into that figure. Research on air conditioning units, more comfy seats, etc.

But hey, they said “our technology, and your safety.” It’s Nader’s problem if he’s hard of hearing.

The cited statement also mentioned a study by Booz & Co. that stated that Toyota spent more on R&D than any other company. It also mentions that next year, the figure being spent on “their technology and our safety” will come in at $8.4 billion. Just slightly lower than last year.

[ED: A press release is nowhere to be found. We called Toyota HQ in Japan, and they don’t have it either. They are digging for it. It could have been made over the phone. Once we have it, you’ll have it.]

[Ed2: We tracked down Mike Michels at Toyota USA. He confirmed that they did not issue a press release regarding Nader, because he did not issue any public statement. He provided a letter directly to USA Today, so Toyota responded directly to USA Today. USA Today has the letter, and you have it now, too:]

Regarding recent questions about Research & Development investment, Toyota spent 725.3 billion yen, or approximately $8.9 billion, in fiscal year 2010 on technology and safety development. This is outlined in Toyota Motor Corporation’s public financial reports, which can be found at this web site: http://www.toyota.co.jp/en/ir/library/annual/pdf/2010/p18_19.pdf.

In May 2010, Toyota Motor Corporation projected spending 760 billion yen on R&D during the fiscal year ending March 31, 2011. The exchange rate used for those projections was 90 Japanese yen to the dollar. As a result, Toyota is expecting to spend approximately $8.44 billion on R&D in the current fiscal year. With the yen and dollar currencies constantly moving up and down against each other, we thus believe that, over the course of the year, Toyota’s R&D spending will average around one million U.S. dollars per hour – the number set forth in our ads.

Further, in a recent study, the consulting firm Booz & Company identified Toyota as spending more on Research and Development than any other corporation in 2009, the third straight year Toyota has held that distinction. That study can be found here: http://www.booz.com/media/uploads/Innovation_1000-2009.pdf

In fact, the auto industry is typically a leader in R&D spending. According to that same Booz & Company study, the auto industry spends $86 billion per year on research and development, more than any other manufacturing industry. According to the study, for 2009, three out of the world’s top 10 R&D companies were automakers.

In our effort to develop the cars and technologies of the future, Toyota’s Research & Development commitment has generated numerous advancements in the interrelated areas of vehicle safety, quality, durability and sustainability.

#Advertising #CammyCorrigan #Japan #Nader #R&D #Safety #Toyota

Cammy Corrigan

More by Cammy Corrigan

Comments

Join the conversation

4 of 13 comments

CarPerson on Oct 20, 2010

The government cleared the Corvair if you pulled a dumb-ass stunt and let half the air out of the front tires like the manufacturer said to. The later models with the re-designed suspension was the real-world solution to the substandard original design. Instead of also fixing the engine issues they ran from the whole car. They (and we) paid a price for that unfortunate decision. Ford read from the Corvair playbook and convinced themselves games with tire air pressure was a fine solution to the bad Explorer suspension design. They failed to read the fine print where GM got their ass kicked in courtrooms from shore to shore. Ford toughed it out and builds a much-improved product.

Like Reply
- Geeber on Oct 20, 2010
  
  GM did not "get their asses kicked" in courtrooms over the Corvair. What happened was that GM's insurance company settled in the Perini case, much to GM's chagrin. GM subsequently took over the defense of the Corvair. Several cases were then consolidated into one, big case, and GM WON that case. Corvair litigation basically faded away at that point. The Corvair's handling was cleared by both NHTSA in 1971 (the report was released in 1972) and a 1972 study by Texas A&M University. NHTSA compared the 1960-63 Corvair to the Falcon, Valiant, VW Beetle and Renault Dauphine and the second-generation model. It's findings were reviewed a panel of engineers. It's handling was not dangerous compared to its contemporaries. And GM "ran from the whole car" because of the Mustang and the beancounters' dislike of the Corvair, not because of Ralph Nader. GM had decided to kill the Corvair BEFORE Nader's book was published, primarily because the conventional Mustang slaughtered the Corvair in sales. Plus, the beancounters hated that the Corvair shared virtually nothing with any other GM vehicle. The new 1967 Camaro basically replaced the Corvair, and it used a platform that would also be used on the 1968 Chevy II Nova. Plus, it used the standard lineup of Chevrolet engines, unlike the Corvair. If it hadn't been for Nader's book, GM probably would have killed the Corvair after the 1966 model year, but the corporation didn't want it to look as though Nader's book had forced GM to kill the car. So the Corvair soldiered on through May 1969, when production finally stopped. If anything, Nader extended the lifespan of the second-generation model! Incidentally, using tire pressure to balance handling was not unique to the Corvair. The Cadillac Eldorado did the same thing, and I don't recall Ralph Nader saying anything about that. The Corvair was different, but not necessarily unsafe. But best-selling books do not spring from that sort of conclusion.
  
  Like
Zackman on Oct 20, 2010

I scratch my head about Nader. Like geeber said, he did some good things, which led to some necessary reforms in the auto industry. He seemed to "jump the shark" too many years ago, though, and have no idea of what he stands for anymore. Toyota, on the other hand, 1 million per hour on R&D, and the milquetoast Camry and Corolla are all we get? Well, their logos on their cars are bigger than almost everyone else's, so I suppose that's money well spent!

Like Reply
- Geeber on Oct 20, 2010
  
  Like too many people who have had their day in the sun, he now primarily stands for getting his name in the paper...
  
  Like

Recent Comments

Redapple2 Love the wheels
Redapple2 Good luck to them. They used to make great cars. 510. 240Z, Sentra SE-R. Maxima. Frontier.
Joe65688619 Under Ghosn they went through the same short-term bottom-line thinking that GM did in the 80s/90s, and they have not recovered say, to their heyday in the 50s and 60s in terms of market share and innovation. Poor design decisions (a CVT in their front-wheel drive "4-Door Sports Car", model overlap in a poorly performing segment (they never needed the Altima AND the Maxima...what they needed was one vehicle with different drivetrain, including hybrid, to compete with the Accord/Camry, and decontenting their vehicles: My 2012 QX56 (I know, not a Nissan, but the same holds for the Armada) had power rear windows in the cargo area that could vent, a glass hatch on the back door that could be opened separate from the whole liftgate (in such a tall vehicle, kinda essential if you have it in a garage and want to load the trunk without having to open the garage door to make room for the lift gate), a nice driver's side folding armrest, and a few other quality-of-life details absent from my 2018 QX80. In a competitive market this attention to detai is can be the differentiator that sell cars. Now they are caught in the middle of the market, competing more with Hyundai and Kia and selling discounted vehicles near the same price points, but losing money on them. They invested also invested a lot in niche platforms. The Leaf was one of the first full EVs, but never really evolved. They misjudged the market - luxury EVs are selling, small budget models not so much. Variable compression engines offering little in terms of real-world power or tech, let a lot of complexity that is leading to higher failure rates. Aside from the Z and GT-R (low volume models), not much forced induction (whether your a fan or not, look at what Honda did with the CR-V and Acura RDX - same chassis, slap a turbo on it, make it nicer inside, and now you can sell it as a semi-premium brand with higher markup). That said, I do believe they retain the technical and engineering capability to do far better. About time management realized they need to make smarter investments and understand their markets better.
Kwik_Shift_Pro4X Off-road fluff on vehicles that should not be off road needs to die.
Kwik_Shift_Pro4X Saw this posted on social media; “Just bought a 2023 Tundra with the 14" screen. Let my son borrow it for the afternoon, he connected his phone to listen to his iTunes.The next day my insurance company raised my rates and added my son to my policy. The email said that a private company showed that my son drove the vehicle. He already had his own vehicle that he was insuring.My insurance company demanded he give all his insurance info and some private info for proof. He declined for privacy reasons and my insurance cancelled my policy.These new vehicles with their tech are on condition that we give up our privacy to enter their world. It's not worth it people.”