…The Aveo is ridiculous…
(Why on earth would you want to buy a small car only to get the relatively poor mileage AND awful quality of the Chevies in that list?)

The Aveo, horrendous little monster that it is, is manufactured by Daewoo. It’s Korean.

I didn’t really need to point that out, as it doesn’t change the sentiment. I just enjoy spreading bad news, for the same reason I like telling little kids that Santa isn’t real. Cheers!

For years all I’ve ever heard about Toyondissan is how their plants can be easily adapted to build any car at any time and how nimbly they can move in the market. Having the Indiana and/or San Antonio plants retool rather quickly would’ve confirmed that, but this isn’t happening. Toyota says there’s a Prius shortage in the U.S., so why wait until 2010 to ramp up production at a plant yet to be built?

Have claims of adaptability been overstated?

(Why on earth would you want to buy a small car only to get the relatively poor mileage AND awful quality of the Chevies in that list? At least the Focus is mediocre)

…why hasn’t Toyota been pushing Camrys, Priuses, Matrixes, and Yaris’ through that plant to fill the demand?

Give them time, quasimondo, give them time…but not as much time as the domestic branded automakers will need.

For the domestics, an unfortunate benefit of the Japanese automakers’ investment in U.S. production is that their facilities are fairly new, and thus more adaptable to production changes.

Unfortunately, our tax code does not provide incentives for domestic manufacturers to invest in new facilities, since that’s treated as a capital investment rather than as a business expense. Contrast that to foreign automakers, who have local and state governments falling all over themselves to give tax breaks for building in a particular location.

Granted, foreign investment in the U.S. is a good thing, but the tax code and these incentives may be at least partially responsible for the “production technology gap” that exists today.

The U.S. market has pretty much stopped buying large SUV’s and trucks, so why hasn’t Toyota been pushing Camrys, Priuses, Matrixes, and Yaris’ through that plant to fill the demand?

To say the big 2 dont have compentant small cars is just being blind. Both the coblat and focus are selling just fine.

Your argument is not “compentant” (sic) for two reasons.

First, the issue with the two domestic small cars you mentioned is not in simply being competent. The term “competent” implies simply getting the job done; what’s crippling the domestic automakers is the lack of competitive products to pit against other players in our free-market economy. Drive a Cobalt and a non-domestic branded competitor back-to-back, and there is a definite gap in how refined the drivetrain is, as well as simple things such as seat comfort.

Second, putting aside the argument of whether domestic small cars are as good or better than their non-domestic branded competitors, there is the simple point of profitability. GM and Ford carp that they make little or no profit on the Cobalt and Focus, respectively, and some who frequent this site maintain that the domestic automakers in fact lose money on certain small car models. Many blame this on CAFE, saying that the small cars were once sold at a loss to offset the effects of gas guzzler sales when the fleet average was calculated.

In any event, it’s probably not too far-fetched to state that domestic small cars are not nearly as profitable as trucks and SUVs, if they are profitable at all. Because of this, even if every Corolla/Civic/Sentra buyer in the United States were to suddenly choose to buy a Cobalt, Focus or Caliber, it’s doubtful that the domestic automakers would see an economic turnaround of miraculous proportions.

Facts are facts; Toyota is the strongest automobile manufacturer in the world. Currently on the NYSE Toyota’s stock is $90.60 per share, Chrysler oh wait they are 80% “Privately” owned and nobody cares about them anyway, Ford’s stock is $4.86 per share, and the General is $9.92 per share. So everyone that is down on Toyota or the Tundra, get a grip.

No, I do not own a Toyota nor do I work for them. Toyota’s business plan is to have a vehicle for every segment, they now do (super duty’s are still in the works). A “real” full sized pickup was one of the last pieces to the puzzle. If the U.S. market stops buying large SUV’s and trucks all together, guess what? The Toyota plant in Indiana and San Antonio will be pushing out Corolla’s, Camry’s, Prius’s, Matrix’s, Yaris’s to fill the demand.

Flexibility and diversity is the key to a profitable company. If you need proof, look at Honda’s or Subaru’s balance sheet. Skooter, the Tundra is not a disaster. The demand for a full sized pick up is.

Ryan

Thats not scary but reality, as Toy trucks were built like Sh*t brick house, no different than a Corolla from 70’s than a Vega from same era.
s funny a intact Vega worth lots more than a same Vintage Rolla now, go figures.
The honest truth many of us had good rapport with Toyos they’re reliable.
Remember my bro has a decent shape late 60s Rolla and we drove it around for yrs durng the early 80s. could a Vega lasted that long? My fnd bought a new Vega then, luckly he made it here from Ont to BC without resorting to Grey Hound.
SO how many folks get burned on a Vega?
Today GM’s predicament is it avoidable? Is more of what goes around comes around.

I used to live out with the Loggers, they say a Toyo is as good as T H Lawrence’s Rolls Royce is just about toonies here in Canada. They only need to fill gas, and goes forever, just like Energise Bunny.

If t weren’t the Economy tanked we will still see the big 3 trucks got tanked. The F150 hasn’t got the reliablity close to the Toyos. Probably Tundra will out sold them again.

Loggers knew these trucks could save their a**es, when truck dies he dies.

Another fnd who has fairly new local truck, for some reason he needed to get out of truck to check somethng. Suddenly the truck has mind of ts own fired the power locks locked. Rendered him truckless on a -40 cold outside God frosaken isolated logging road.
He was blessed as the good Lord had send somebody along to give him a ride. Or else he would be a Icicle until someone looked for him.

I really think Toyota is trying to give the Tundra away to bury GM in a less obvious way to the American consumer than selling twice as many Camrys/Colloras (and at a profit) as Malibus/Cobalts. How can the average Joe blame the Tundra for GM’s downfall when it sold 1/4 the volume of the Silverado/Sierra and other derivatives?

A mistake is not adjusting to market conditions. Toyota is adjusting to market conditions with the reduction and shifting of products. Plus, utilizing all their manufacturing plants.

There is more damage done by the Tundra to GM, Ford and Chrysler than is evident from reading sales charts.

Excellent point. As we pointed out eons ago, the new Tundra squeezed the D2.8’s pickup truck margins but good. And will continue to do so. Hell, Toyota could afford to GIVE Tundras away and sink the D2.8. Now THAT’S scary.

Toyota launched a competitive truck. When sales were slow, they piled Detroit type incentives on the vehicle in an effort to generate their projected volume. GM, Ford and Chrysler matched these incentives to ward off the challenge and maintain their own sales volumes. However, in doing so, GM, Ford and Chrysler significantly reduced the profit margins on their products most critical to each company’s revenues.

Now with the contraction in the full-size truck segment, Toyota quickly changes gears moving all of its Tundra and Sequoia production to Texas in order to change over to in-demand fuel efficient products. GM, Ford and Chrysler lay off more workers and shutter excess plant capacity.

There is more damage done by the Tundra to GM, Ford and Chrysler than is evident from reading sales charts.

The current Tundra and it’s new factory in Texas were massive strategic investments aimed at what was then the sweet spot of the US market, which sweet spot Toyota was not a tier-1 player in.

Contrary to recent spin, the downturn in this market didn’t start until well after the new Tundra came to market and well after San Antonio was on line.

Toyota’s other product lines are so solidly profitable that they didn’t need to borrow a penny from anyone to make a massive investment going after what was until recently the heart of the US market. Now, obviously, that investment looks very poorly timed. Were the key decisions being made today, I highly doubt Toyota would have done what they did. But, the key decisions were made five or more years ago when things were very different.

The failure of the 2.8 is that they are completely dependent upon a narrow sector of the US market for their gross margin dollars. Had they made a big bet five years ago to really take it to the imports in the sub-compact, compact and hybrid marketplaces they would be heroes today. But, they didn’t.

Toyota has certainly made some mistakes, but so far they have retained a far more balanced product portfolio than has Detroit and that is giving them a long term advantage.

Toyota’s plan for a LONG TIME was to enter the truck market with a legitimate contender. Before any of you mention the old 1st gen Tundra was “good enough”, no it wasn’t. It didn’t have a strong enough engine, it’s towing capacity was too low, and the truck itself was too small. It was also too close in size and capability with the Tacoma.

Regardless of the energy situation, Toyota’s plan was to enter the truck market with a strong contender (the new Tundra). Toyota KNEW the truck market would shrink, but they wanted more marketshare. Toyota simply wanted a bigger slice of a smaller pie. What is so hard to understand about this?

As for all the bashing and criticizing of Toyota making “poor” decisions or losing lots of money on the San Antonio plant … let me just say that Toyota has not had a loss in OVER 50 years.

Let me say this again: Toyota has NOT had a loss in over 50 YEARS.

Some of you need to REALLY think about this fact before making silly statements and criticisms of Toyota.

I’ve taken some stick here for voicing my disappointment over that decision – and it doesn’t really help that they spent time designing doorhandles and radioknobs that could be operated by someone wearing workgloves.

Toyota grew big by building three cars out of the same amount of resources that GM built 1.8 cars with.
And when Toyota decided to get into the 1.8 game, they suckerpunched themselves.

Toyota was selling good cars that whole time. So was Honda. Heck, both sold good small cars when gas was 80 cents a gallon.

GM displayed an active loathing for people who might actually want small cars for years and years. Revisionist history does you no favors now, fanboys.