Very true. Toyota can afford to sell Tundras at break-even without feeling much pain; putting the hurt on the 2.8 big time by kicking the only profitable Detroit tent pole out at the base. Not that mighty Toyota would ever play hardball like that ….

Full Death Watch on Monday.

If the CEO of Wal-Mart, Exxon or HP stood up and said we can “make it through the end of the year” he would make the front page and be beset by people asking “And then what happens?”

But it seems that Rick is like Bush. His time is over, his credibility is shot and nobody listens or cares any more.

The trouble is they can still both do us all a lot of damage. But at least we know when Bush is going.

A. The Titanic had an orchestra.

btw he also turns off the webcast immediately following his initial welcoming speech.

get the drift of this guy?

Well put. But your conclusion is wrong. Toyotas history (and long term interest) made them competable in todays market. But the big 2.8 had THIRTY YEARS to catch up, from the latest oil crisis in 1979. But they didn’t. Or they didn’t give a shit. It is not the history of Toyotas success that made the failure of the big 2.8. It is their own inability to make the right decisions in the right time that made them fail. You can’t blame the incompetence of Detroit on Japanese makers being smart.

Toyota did the same when they “invented” the car-based SUV (now known as the CUV) in the Highlander. Same deal with the car-based luxury SUV/CUV in the Lexus RX.

They created, and I’d say most would agree, kept a lead in compact pickups as well.

And, of course, the Toyota Hybrid System is what may very well keep them above water in an era of expensive energy.

None of these were developed as a holy-shit scramble to frantically adjust to market conditions. They were done in a methodical way to cover all their bases while growing their market share, all without any significant debt, and while preparing for the future. At the same time, they never abandoned what gave them a start in the first place: basic small cars.

Because of this method, Toyota can now give away every Tundra it ever built for free, close down the new factory, and still be on a steady path for growth. That’s what matters, everything else is just bickering over GM’s chemotherapy.

Edit: The Prius was indeed conceptualized and developed in an era of $1.00 gasoline; the project started in 1993.

First, let me say I find your reviews and comments here always worth a read, inciteful, and concise.

As to your question about the Prius and Rav 4…

The concept of mating an electric powertrain to an ICE is attributed to Toyota because of the Prius. That’s all the Prius contributes. If gas was still $1.00/gal would they NOT have made it. But it’s not and, lets face it, the business case for it is the gas situation and that is all, in terms of desireability it brings to the table. Right appliance for the right climate by a company, because of it’s roots, were in a much better position to make a marketing case for it.

As for the Rav 4, at this point, Toyota began life in Japan where smaller was necessary, not necessarily desired. Fast forward, the market here played into their hands. Which is fine. That’s the way the cards were cut. Sure, GM missed the boat. Sure, Rick is the devil incarnate for what has happened under his watch. And they should have seen this coming and better prepared for it. And, to be sure, all the American companies had an opportunity to embrace the manufacturing knowledge to produce the kind of quality product Toyota produces and passed. However, the small SUV is not a Toyota concept (original Bronco or Jeep maybe?). But a small SUV was the ONLY SUV Toyota could make and sell in it’s home market. Fast forward to today and you can see the market played in to it’s hand, and away from the American dream. To ignore the history and the background of the two companies is not fair, and paints an incomplete picture.

While Toyota might or might not wish they’d timed things differently with their San Antonio plant, they’re in a strong position to take advantage of serious weakening, even collapse, of any of the 2.8. Toyota has established the new Tundra as a legit player in the large truck segment. GM’s announced shutdown of their truck plants said 2010 ‘or before’ as I remember. Now Ricky is hoping to keep the lights on for 6 more months, and with the financial and oil price news out this morning, I think the operative phrase might be ‘or before’. And he conditioned his keep the lights on prediction based on his ability to see the future; not reassuring from recent and not so recent experience with the demonstrated lack of prescience from Mr. Rick.

To me, though I would not hesitate to buy a Toyota if I needed a small reliable car, Toyota is nothing more than an American Idol contestant. They may be able to perform the song better than the original artist but without the original artist, they got nothing.

The Texas factory is another matter, but still I guarantee that Toyo will not let that capacity sit there idle. They will add other options (already have, Sequoia) and shift other production around to make use of their capacity. They won’t be shuttering the Texas plant anytime soon. It’s called planning ahead, Rick.

Always thought GM could get through this year as long as there were no more UAW/supplier dramatics. Spring was going to be the interesting time in Detroit for me.

I’m not one to criticize another man’s theology, but who’s the Thomas Beckett here?

John

So now I guess they won’t make it till the end of the year. He’s been wrong on everything else. If they go CH 11 then will he be fired?

To me GM’s biggest bright spot is the impending demise of the Crown Vic…just think of all those police departments, taxi companies and utilities that will need to switch to the Impala. (I wouldn’t count on the Charger being around if I were them.)