"Arguably in every parameter that you can look at, the Toyota Production System is the finest product system in the world for designing and manufacturing products. They make products that people want and they do it with less resources and less time than anybody in the world. They're a magical machine." Not my words, but those of Alan Mulally, now charged with pulling a carmaker out of the swamp marshes of Fordor. Like Alan, I admire Toyota’s manufacturing processes, quality control and after-sales. But I also know their weakness…
First, to those of you who are tired of hearing what a great company Toyota is, Toyota is the world’s foremost manufacturer. Bar none. Other manufacturers must study, learn, apply and improve. That’s the only way they’ll build the war chest they need to fight back from a position of strength. Until they do, they’ll be playing a hopeless game of catch-up.
Back to Alan for a moment. Every day a 737 pumps out of the hangar at Boeing, and after a 35 minute flight it’s in revenue service. Of course, they told Mulally it couldn’t be done – ”You can’t build planes the same way you build cars!” Yes you can, and doesn’t Airbus wish they were? This was Mulally’s gift to Boeing, and in a strange game of hopscotch it could become Toyota’s gift to Ford channeled through a disciple. Bill Ford only wishes he’d thought of it sooner.
Reaching parity with Toyota– and adding a few bells and whistles of their own– is the best Ford can hope for. It’s a long shot, as ToMoCo isn’t standing still. But Mulally is a self-professed disciple of The Way and if Ford’s resources don’t run out first, he’s the man who can give it the best shot. Who would you rather have making the effort: Wagoner and Lutz in their constant states of denial, or someone who’s actually hit the bullseye already?
Mulally is already applying his knowledge to the task at hand. For example, he knows that Ford must align itself more closely with its suppliers’ best interest. FoMoCo’s suppliers are wobbling with fatigue, having been squeezed dry by their overlords. They’re so fed up they’ve started to squeeze back, exploiting the weakness of the rulers up at the Castle. Hopefully both sides will see the light before they force one another off the field of battle. Ford’s already seeking a more constructive relationship with its key suppliers, so don’t think Mr. Mulally is simply holding Thursday chat sessions.
Mulally’s also begun realigning his forces in the field, making the various divisions understand they’re answerable to High Command and that the brandmash has got to stop. That’s going to be the tough one. There are hundreds of stakeholders who will be resisting any transfer of power back to the corporate mothership. I suspect this is why Mulally insisted on being co-director along with Bill Ford. A fly on the wall would have heard this: ”I’ll do it, but only if you’re willing to rain hell on the holdouts that will be fighting my changes. You and me Bill, we’re in this together.”
Assuming Mulally can get Ford’s ducks in a row, it’s time to reveal Toyota’s weakness: a legacy. They don’t have one.
Where do Toyota owners go to proudly display their classic Toyotas to other owners? Right, nowhere. What comes to mind when you think of Toyota’s history? Nothing. Yes, 25 million Camrys sold is fantastic. But Toyota is not a brand builder. They’re blandbuilders. They’re not building dream machines. Instead, they are experts at playing the law of averages to their consumers’ satisfaction.
Without a legacy you’re not building brands, you’re building cars, you’re providing transportation. Toyota is aware of this. That’s why it’s in F1 and NASCAR. That’s why they’re pushing the envelope on alternative drive-trains, and spending without limit on Lexus. And that’s why they put the brakes on building more Scions – sensing an opportunity to harness brand cachet. They are wising up. Toyota is trying to build a legacy before their opponents notice their weakness. While we wonder whether there’s a future to GM and Ford (a pity given their past achievements), there is no past in Toyota, only a future that’s going to be better than average.
If Ford (or any of the domestics) want to take on Toyota, they’ve got to show what brand spirit is all about. Ford and GM have some choice morsels in their history, ready to be added to the mix. Of course, to do that Ford and its cohorts need to get rid of their spreadsheet ”car makers” and tune their brandlines for an exhilirating roll of the dice. Which is the topic of my next column.
168 Comments on “Toyota: The Weakness...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
thought you might enjoy this article
http://info.detnews.com/autosblog/index.cfm?blogid=127
cya
All of this may be true but let’s look at mercedes of 1990. Mercedes felt the new lexus ls400 to be bland and derivative in styling (it was) and it had no heritage to bank on. However, with perfect execution of a well made machine good new dealers and a 30% price break over an S class mercedes, they sold the things and made the next model better and larger. No, they didn’t put benz out of business, but when the suv’s are figured in (here benz did a worse job than lexus), they outsold benz who had a 30 year head start in this country. In cars there are value buyers who perceive a deal and will let the sizzle of prestige, and perfomance take a second place to transportation and upkeep costs not to mention depreciation. Now the Koreans are taking care of the low priced road on this and the Japanese are working the middle and high end. until American cars get this “value” thing down, they cannot dethrone the competition with heritage and sizzle.
cykickspy
the article u give us says that toyota is not an american company. I fail to see what that has to do with anything.
Secondly, to the legacy idea, good luck. It seems to me that the very people who remember this legacy are the ones who will not buy “american” cars. This is a hard sell, no matter what.
Still i am usually touched by the plight of the underdog. I wish Ford well, in spite of a really really bad Mustang in the mid 80’s. I won’t buy one, but maybe others who never owned one will.
I once owned an 1987 5 liter stang and I dont remember not being proud of it… but a toyota????
I’d hide a toyota
I have to admit finding it ironic that you state Toyota has no heritage, yet your photo is the Toyota 2000GT built from 1965-1970, as a semi-exotic with an extremely advanced dual ovehead camshaft inline six, superlative styling (NOT derivative of anyone else), and that my book “The Complete Book of Collector Cars” also adds the 1985-90 Toyota MR2, 1988-93 Toyota Celica GT AWD, 1991-95 Toyota MR2, 1993-98 Toyota Supra. I also recall that Toyota built sporting cars during the 1970’s, the 1970-77 Celica, which another one of my books considers collectible. Then there was a restyle in 1978 and 1981 and again in 1985 and 1989. Before you laugh, would you rather have a collector Celica from 1974, or maybe a Mustang II? Yeah, me too.
I hope this editorial and it’s promised follow up represents a new direction for TTAC. One in which solutions and opportunities are presented without the tone of criticism. The DW articles do have positive suggestions, but the underlying tone is one of criticism. Now there is nothing wrong with that in an of itself. Especially in the beginning you have to state your case for why things are not going well and if the reader is from the company who is the subject of the DW article (and I’m sure there are employees of those companies who read it) you sometimes have to get “in their face” to get their attention and get them to face reality.
But once that’s done you have offer some solutions or take an honest look at a companies strengths and how they can be leveraged.
Toyota doesn’t make a single car that’s of any interest to me. The Supra and the MR2 are long gone and they were the only products that rang my bell.
Why Toyota continues to spend zillions of dollars in Formula One is beyond me, unless they’re hoping to learn (copy?) from the others.
Toyota is also the worlds most hypocritical company as it pushes hybrids, pretends to be green and goes ahead producing the largest pick up truck in the world down in Texas.
I’ve owned a Toyota for almost six years now and am looking at other brands, simply because the after-sales service at three Toyota dealerships has been terrible.
You could argue that their legacy is the generic attribute of dependability, reliability, and resale.
That’s their legacy. Consumers associate them with quality. For the big 3 it’s about specific model’s, for Toyota, it’s about attributes that the public now assumes applies to all their cars.
So I’m not so sure it matters that they don’t have a place at the car show. The majority of the american public is not passionate about cards, they just want to buy a good transportation appliance.
And it’s only going to get worse as all the young’un’s with their tricked out Civic’s and Supra’s grow up. This is a whole generation growing up not thinking about small block chevy’s, but instead about how good the jap cars are, and how cheap they are to mod.
Glenn A:
Thank you. I would’ve stressed the “If-it-were-any-slower-it-would-be-a-Ferrari” MR2 more, but yes. I’m not a Toyota fan at all, but I do know some.
On the other hand, the “legacy” is smaller than that of Ford’s, for example.
All in all, an absolutely terrific article!
I read that lack of legacy supposedly means something in the EU market, that it impedes sales of Lexus as they’ve only been around since 1989. From the looks of Toyota’s sales in the US, the lack of a legacy isn’t getting in the way of expansion.
Speaking of legacy and the US market, did you know that Fiat is 108 years old this year?
Usually I look forward to TTAC editorials for the insight they provide on the auto industry. I must disagree though with the legacy of auto manufacturers.
Sure, I own a 1967 Hemi GTX. An awesome piece of Detroit high performance machinery. This does not influence in any way my purchase of American cars.
What does influence my purchasing decisions is my old 1998 Grand Cherokee and 2000 Suburban which are absolutely the last American vehicles I will ever own.
That is the legacy Detroit has left me. It is most distressing. Thank you Detroit, I now see the light.
You are absolutely wrong. Toyota does have a legacy in the US. That legacy is one of… Reliability. Obviously. There’s also a whole generation in love with the classic boxiness old Toyotas and Hondas that you’re completely disregarding. People have grown to love those cars as more than just basic transportation.
It may be hard to love an ‘05 Corolla, but you can’t deny that the car has a legacy behind it which is most likely responsable for much of its sales. Camry too has a legacy of being the mom friendly car. That may not hold to the same standard as the machismo of a ‘Stang. But denying Toyota’s strength in that area for the sake of writing this article does this site a disservice. Pointing out a non-existant weakness, which even if it does exist is not effecting sales or reputation, also seems questionable.
Toyota’s legacy is Toyota as the company not individual models. When someone says Ford the first thing I think of is the F150 and the Mustang. When someone says Toyota the first thing I think of is dependable and reliable. Both companies have legacies they are just different.
I really do wish GM and Ford well. I’ve owned Ford products before and have been happy with them. The last four vehicles my wife and have purchased have been Japanese not because we have a dislike for domestics it was simply that they had nothing that we were looking for.
With all of Ford and GM’s involvement in racing you would think that a lot more of it would trickle down into their production models. Why is there no Euro Focus with AWD and 300+ hp here in the states? Ford just won another rally championship, why not capitalize on that?
Glenn A,
How can you claim that the above pictures Toyota is NOT derivative?
How many of us saw the pic and at first glance asked “Isn’t that an odd looking Jag?”
“Still i am usually touched by the plight of the underdog. I wish Ford well, in spite of a really really bad Mustang in the mid 80’s. I won’t buy one, but maybe others who never owned one will.”
I learned on an 1984 Crown Vic. My first car that I owned was a 79 Mustang straight 6 cyl auto. Later I had an 88 Mustang 4 cyl 5 speed. Then a 5 door 3 cyc Geo Metro. Finally my last non-brand new car was a 1985 Chysler Lebaron 4 cyl Tubro.
Since then I have driven a 2000 Altima & now a 2004 Sentra. They may not be the most exciting vehicles ever made, but they are both faster than anythnig else I have driven.(including both Mustangs) The Sentra is very fuel efficient at 34 MPG on the highway. Yeah, to an extent, some might say that it has the soul of a kitchen appliance.
Well, I’d say maybe. Atleast thru 42,000(+50,00 on the Altima before It went back) I haven’t leaked a drop of fluid or been stuck once. Regular Oil Changes, a cheap break job, & a covered recall for the California Emissions Cat Converter. Oh, and the E on the word sentra on the back of the car feel off.
Much better than having a Tranny leak on the Lebaron; an oil leak on the 2nd Mustang, several engige problems on the Metro, a leaky sunroof on the 1st Mustang, and about 4-6 Tranny’s on the 84 Crown Vic.
I am not really asking for much. All I demmand is reliable transportation. Granted they were all used,(and both Japs were brand new) but why would someone like me ever buy another american car?
If a U.S. automaker made a(Prius killer) hybrid that got better MPG, a lower price, & = driving dinamics & interior space & safety, I would consider buying the vehicle. But, then, I don’t see the 2.5 making that vehicle.
It is that simple. If the Japs give me what I want, I am buying that vehicle.
Toyota has not made decisions specifically in an attempt to establish a legacy, but they haven’t run from the idea either. By keeping model names for decades (minus Tercel & Previa) that creates a defacto legacy…the rest is really up to the market.
I think their biggest mistake in the legacy department has been to drop plans for a new Supra. I think that a I-6 RWD sports car in the $28K base-price-range would sell very well, especially in a basic (read: easily modifiable) form.
Ultimately, I do think that Toyota will be hurt by their current place in the tuner-crowd pecking order. The question I have is: have any of the other more favored tuner brands such as Honda, Subaru and Mitsubishi actively encouraged or assisted tuners in their design of the car? Or do they simply have more street credibility for various reasons of economy and availability of parts.
I ask this because if Honda, et al. did nothing in the design of their cars to encourage tuners, then is Toyota really at fault for their dowdy image? Or are they simply unlucky to be a brand associate with parents driving slow Camry’s.
My prediction, in 20 years there will be a strong classic car market for more expensive Japanese cars such as the 350Z, S2000, etc, but not for Civics.
Wasn’t the VW beetle once known for being boring, slow, and basic transportation… now look, I’d say there’s quite a following. Old boxy Volvo wagons, once the epitome of lame and boring are also enjoying a resurgence.
So maybe Toyota does have a chance at a legacy.
@Glenn A
If there were cut-out, black&white truths then all would be simple, wouldn’t it?
I am convinced of my main point. Toyota has not had a consistent sense of the value that myth and heritage add to brand perception. Fits and starts have petered out, as the company has gone for the safety of the center in a way that give the majority of the car buying public the hardest time imagining where Toyota is coming from. For a long time, the company has simply been reiterating itself with new model years while settling in the middle of the road.
That said – they have done a brilliant job of it.
I’m not going to write my next articles in this post – that would be trying your patience. But the road ahead for the majors must build on differentiation and excellence — the middle of the road is too crowded. Which is where their legacies play a role.
As to the success of Lexus in the U.S., etc. – the U.S. market is evolving in interesting ways that are opening up opportunities that are much more varied than what were in place in 1989.
(And I have owned a Jag E-Type. The Toyota in the picture does a good job of copying it).
@Dayveo
You are absolutely wrong. Toyota does have a legacy in the US. That legacy is one of… Reliability. Obviously.
That’s not a legacy. That’s a brand promise relative to the customer experience.
What we are looking at here are what we can do to help the majors distinguish themselves once they get their production lines and brand offerings sorted. Sure – they can copy Toyota 100%, but then I’d just lift the phone, call Nagoya and discuss a merger.
We’re looking at some truly exciting times ahead. The majors have gone face-first right into the concrete wall, and now they have to pick themselves up, do a reality check and get going – again.
Excellence and differentiation, exploiting the brand legacy (and quite a lot remains) is one way to go.
I couldn’t disagree more in the end. Legacy is something that is an advantage only up to so far. It is why the Mustang gets a nod from the press despite really not being that good. It is why the Ford GT was cooler than it would have been as just another exotic.
And what is the rest of Ford’s legacy. I can’t think of a single classic Ford that is relevant today except for those two. And frankly the 2000GT is a bit of legacy waiting for Toyota to exploit, and there is a whole generation which would rather have a Supra than a classic Mustang.
Toyota has one major weakness and that is the lack of any sporting pretensions. And, in all honesty, it is a minor weakness given that most people do not buy sports cars. They could easily create a cheap sports car from the IS platform if they feel the need…
Their minor weakness is styling, but they are trying, witness the bull-nose of the current Camry (and the Jetta shamelessly copying the Corolla silhouette).
Ford’s strengths are Mazda and Volvo right now. American car manufacturers are almost at the point where their desperation will give them massive political influence. The threat of American car manufacturers being driven into bankruptcy is actually their greatest negotiation asset with Congress. If they use it to break union strangleholds and local dealership monopolies, to establish JIT/click-to-order purchasing, and all the other things people want in this modern age; they will do well.
The readers of this site are gear- or pistonheads (I don’t know the exact difference) who want their cars to taste like a fresh strawberry every morning. Being one myself, I know very well some of Toyota’s weaknesses. A test drive will convince you, it’s more like a raw carrot.
I have one important question to the TTAC community: is it possible that a lot of people simply doesn’t like the strawberry cars, but prefer the cars that we gearheads reject, even if they had the chance to make extensive comparisons? Or are they just insensible to auto delikatessen? Or firmly believe that carrots are healthier than strawberries?
Toyota’s trucks have legacy. FJ40? Land Cruiser? SR5?
In my neck of the woods, there are a lot more people driving old Toyota trucks covered in mud with 250k+ miles on them then there are any other brand. That kind of reliability and service is what builds legacies with trucks.
I see what you mean about Toyota’s cars, though.
I’d say Toyota’s legacy beats any other Japanese carmakers’ bar Nissan. Compare them to, say, Honda, which was making motorcycles and kei-cars when Toyota started its sports car drive. Even Nissan has only one thing to show – the 240Z Datsun and its family tree. But as everyone else has said, Toyota build a reputation rather than legacy. Think of America – there’s not much history to show off, but in whatever little (comparatively) time it existed, the country managed to show its full character. When one says “great military power”, younger people think US – not England, France, or Russia, even though historically all three have far more right to claim such a position. History is great, but when you sum it all up it’s today that everyone is concerned about.
By the way, Glenn, I wouldn’t call 2000GT a “semi-exotic”. A little over 300 ever made, good luck finding one :)
This article left me feeling empty. So Toyota fails next to Detroit and Germany when it comes to Legacy – big deal. Sony is ‘legacy’ in CE products, and they’re still bowing at the altar of Apple on Digital Audio Players. Where is Apple’s legacy? (for reference purposes, I loathe the iPod itself, but admire the job Apple has done with it. I personally, like more flexibility and less restriction in my DAP, which is why I’m still rocking an old iRiver that doesn’t restrict my choice in formats…nor hold me to using proprietary software to load it)
Here’s the fact – the market, in the past 10 years, has become less concerned with legacy, tradition, and even quality on most products – price drives all, no matter what, in the US. Status follows closely behind, and that isn’t necessarily related to heritage. Unless you successfully market heritage, a la Harley Davidson, it simply isn’t enough to get by on anymore. The exceptions to this are the Mustang and…well, the Mustang. But look at the Impala, and tell me heritage has anything to do with success as a matter of formula? It doesn’t hold sway anymore.
The better focus for this article on heritage would have been what makes those cars memorable – why, the sharp sheet-metal of the 60’s is still firmly ingrained in people’s memories – why that heritage still sparks hour long conversations. There’s been TTAC articles about character, and few Toyota vehicles have had that – regardless of the number of years their history goes back. Only this year has Toyota injected some character into their vehicles, good and bad, with the redesign of the Camry, the toy truck shaped (and character champ) FJ, and the marketing of the Yaris. Legacy or no, those vehicles will, perhaps, 10 years down the road create legacy (well, the FJ…the other two? meh…). When Toyota designs something that just leaves people’s jaws slacked, like the concept for the new Supra, THEN they will have legacy. Not when they reach a magical anniversary in how long they’ve been in a marketplace.
There’s plenty of companies that have been out there for any number of years that don’t have legacy. It’s like the lifers at some of the corporations I’ve worked for – they get promoted only because they’ve been there so damn long and there’s nothing else to do with them. They achieve legacy based on longevity, not memorability. GM, DCM, and Ford didn’t attain their legacy based on longevity, and neither should Toyota.
Fantastic article.
Full of insight and well thought out ideas.
More editorials like today’s to balance off of the Death Watch series would be a great idea.
Hal.
So, Spartacus, your comment about the Toyota 2000GT in the photo ’surely’ being derivative of the Jag XKE – so, why then, did GM Opel copy the GT2000 for their Opel GT?
Look at the roof line. The Opel GT came out in 1968, a full three years after the Toyota GT2000, and of course, the names sound “nothing” alike unless you ignore two letters, G and T.
Then, too, let us not forget the Datsun 240Z which came out in 1970, and looks “nothing at all” like the Toyota 2000GT.
I’m not so much defending Toyota as I am just saying – many cars with a similar purpose have resemblences if they are from a similar era. They are not necessarily copies.
Now, the Chinese cars – well that’s quite another thing. Yikes, I’ve seen some posts from Beijing Auto Show now going on and you’d be amazed how just ‘coincidentally’ many of these cars are virtual clones of Japanese or Korean brands.
NN: I agree with you totally. The FJ series and Land Cruisers are Toyota’s most visible legacy. Just look at the new FJ Cruiser, which is based on this legacy and selling quickly. A lot of the owners of the FJ Cruiser are previous Land Cruiser models (FJ or what have you) owners. So to say that Toyota has no legacy is really both unfair and wrong. I realize you’ve got pistonheads to keep happy with Camry-bashing, but thats no reason to ignore actual legacies.
If Toyota is looking at building a legacy for pistonheads, then they should bring back the MR2, Supra, Celica -but it seems that ToMoCo surrendered in light of sporty competition from Mazda, Honda and Nissan.
Maybe we’re blind to it in North America, but I think that they’re looking towards their trucks to build a legacy -why else would they bring back the FJ? The old FJs, 4-Runners and LandCruisers rival Jeeps and LandRovers in terms of durability, versatility and luxury. Some have a softspot for their pickups (the Hilux is popular worldwide). Arguably, Toyota is building better trucks than their Japanese counterparts. A previous editorial by TTAC forecasted that they’re grooming their pickups to to supplant the domestics too.
NN: you beat me to it! Agreed.
Toyota is doing more than anyone else at trying to gain lifetime customers (Scion-Toyota-Lexus) and I applaud them for that. There are far fewer lifetime-brand-loyal people out there, because thinking folks realize that just because a name is carried to a new model doesn’t mean it has anything to do with the old one. At the dealership level, so many manufacturers are horrible at viewing their customers as a lifetime investment. Customers seem to be increasingly taking the same basic, fickle viewpoint of seeing each auto purchase as an independent decision. However, for many, Toyota will always be the no-brainer decision: Your car dies and you urgently need something reasonably priced and reliable, Toyota will have what you need. Nothing exciting in the lineup, but they’ve got a lot of segments and price points covered, and most are done very well. And as far as I can tell, they do by far the best job at seeking and delivering to those lifetime customers.
Alex, I suppose you are right the Toyota 2000GT is a true exotic. I qualified the description as a semi-exotic because of it’s badge – Toyota. I see your point, though.
For example, the Ford GT (whether from the 1960’s or new) are exotic cars, despite the ‘plebian’ Ford badge.
So, point taken. You are right. The Toyota GT2000 was an exotic, pure and simple. And (while I was only 8 at the time) when it came out I have read that it really set the automotive world on it’s ear.
Kind of the equivalent of Kia coming out with a 500hp ultra-high tech 2 seat sports fuel cell vehicle today with all wheel drive, and all the style of a Lamborghini. It’d be a shocker!
Toyota does not make a car currently I would think about even washing or waxing… ever. Any chance of that died with the Supra.
By the way, Toyota still do produce sports cars and sporty cars. It is Toyota USA which chooses not to sell them here.
http://www.globalautoindex.com/bodies.plt?no=178&ass=&g=Toyota-MR-S
http://www.globalautoindex.com/bodies.plt?no=169&ass=&g=Toyota-Celica
And for those of us who missed out on buying a new MG Midget, Toyota’s partner, Daihatsu, offer the Copen pretty much worldwide (including in the UK)
http://www.globalautoindex.com/bodies.plt?no=1492&ass=&g=Daihatsu-Copen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_2000_GT
Note that Yamaha did much of the work on the car noted – it was hardly an all-Toyota project.
@NN
Exactly.
As I write, they are working hard to build that sense of brand integrity which historical lines and a cohesive brand direction provide.
The Tundra is a case in point. (And as someone points out, also a problem – since it doesn’t mesh well with the environmentally friendly image Toyota seeks to foster elsewhere).
Toyota is a formidable opponent, because it has the war chest required to make intelligent “mistakes”. (The Hybrid Synergy Drive, for instance).
But it is not a maker of dream machines – yet.
I think this is an excellent article, and I like the way Steve summarised it:
Toyota’s legacy is Toyota as the company not individual models. When someone says Ford the first thing I think of is the F150 and the Mustang. When someone says Toyota the first thing I think of is dependable and reliable. Both companies have legacies they are just different.
Howevever, painting a lack of legacy as a weakness isn’t exactly accurate. Having a strong model-based legacy allows Ford and GM to create tribute models that can draw on the legacy to achieve very strong sales over a short period. This is great in terms of boosting a single model.
What Toyota has done is distinctly different, and that is to build their legacy as a brand, so every Toyota is a Toyota. That means you expect certain things, and by and large, they deliver. However, they really can not release any tribute vehicles, so it’s difficult for them to achieve short term sales successes in the manner of the current Mustang or the 300.
So far, even including the alternative drivetrains and F1 efforts, I don’t believe Toyota is altering this strategy. I believe they are simply pursuing additional avenues to burnish their reputation, beyond simply producing good vehicles.
If it is at all possible for Ford to take advantage of this, they need to deliver a bevy of tribute vehicles, each good in it’s own right. It is not enough to simply have the occassional hit retro-styled vehicle. They need to have an entire product line-up that showcases the best of Ford yesterday, combined with the best of Ford today.
I think the Fusion is a good start, but even though it is inspired by the 427 concept, it’s execution looks far more modern, and I believe will do little to attract retro buyers. What is necessary is to replace the 500 with something very close to the 427 concept, and replace the Focus with a similarily styled hatch-back. These are the bread-and-butter vehicles, and while they actually aren’t that bad as they are right now, the lack of similarity between them means that a buyer who likes the Fusion but can’t afford it, or wants something a little upscale, is less likely to buy a Focus or 500.
If you look at what Nissan has done with the product launches this year, they have really made the product line-up a cohesive group. The Maxima is still a bit of an odd duck, given just how good the Altima is, but there is still quite a bit of family resemblance as you move down the line. The Sentra and Versa aren’t necessarily the belles of the ball, but that’s ok, because the Altima is nice enough looking to get people in the door. Once they are in, they might be looking for something cheaper, and the Sentra is sitting right there.
I actually think Ford knows this, and I expect very good things from them if they can survive for the next 3 years.
I wonder does Japanese TV run TUNDRA commecials with the slogan THIS OUR COUNTRY THIS IS OUR TRUCK.
even though its made in TEXAS, yeah some legacy eh
@gforce2002
That’s interesting. Didn’t know that.
Yamaha is a member of the Fuyo Keiretsu in Japan, while Toyota is a member of the Mitsui Keiretsu.
So we’re looking at a truly early example of rebadging here. :-)
Camry just got MT’s COTY. Nobody saw this coming, right?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15833397/
@disgruntled
Sounds like you are experiencing the downside of Toyota’s growth.
The quality problems they have had, and the growing complaints about the after-sales experiences are not in keeping with what people expect from Toyota.
But they are typical when sudden growth is experienced, and your system fails to provide consistency during the expansion phase.
@ash78
Absolutely – let me remind you of the opening of my article:
“Arguably in every parameter that you can look at, the Toyota Production System is the finest product system in the world for designing and manufacturing products. They make products that people want and they do it with less resources and less time than anybody in the world. They’re a magical machine.”
Im inclined to agree with the author here off the cuff. It seems that there are simply more and more people who demand so little “soul” in return for a purchase. If you are buying a Fridgidaire, I suppose this is fine, but a car is entirely on a different level…for some. Perhaps, as it has been mentioned earlier, those of us who actually demand soul are being outnumbered by those that dont.
I never imagined that buying a mazda instead of a toyota would place me in such a minority…and I cannot help but believe that this is a very sad commentary on the current autobuying market
One thing I must say, however, the author is dead-solid-perfect regarding improving the relationship between the mfr and suppliers. As a buyer by profession, the concept of “the best deal is a fair deal” is a VERY tough sell to upper mgmt.
Bravo! Toyota does not walk on water. I said about 3 weeks ago on another thread that Mullaly has a great shot of turning this thing around, and almost got laughed off this board, everyone say that Ford is not Boeing and Airbus is not Toyota and that Ford Junior was never going to let Alan do anything.
Now it seems we have a coherent editorial that says otherwise.
You are exactly right. American cars have the heritage and the brands to fight the imports and go to a place they cannot go. Toyota cannot compete with a car like the Mustang, or the Challenger. Viper. Corvette, etc. That is where American car design needs to continue to go: reminding the consumer why America was the dominant auto-producing nation for almost a century.
Most people aren’t looking for a legacy, a brand identity, a reminder of past manufactured glory. They want a car that will work without emptying the wallet. Sure, Toyota may never fill as many classic car shows as Ford or GM, but then again, most Natural History museums are full of “legacy” too.
The Mustang in the front might get someone in to consider a car farther back, but if that car is too expensive and guzzles gas, how useful is the Mustang?
This essay makes a useful point, although it can be pushed too far. Legacy can be a selling point, but it hardly guarantees survival. Nor is a strong legacy necessary to success.
As VW found out with the New Beetle, paying more attention to legacy can revitalize a brand, but it won’t maintain owner loyalty if you don’t get the fundamentals right, e.g., reliability, dealer service, etc.
The irony of the Big 2.5’s legacy advantages is that they have often pissed them away. Look at how Toyota and Honda usually hold onto their nameplates while Detroit often throws them away like disposable diapers. (Lutz may be the biggest legacy nameplate killer.) A similar pattern holds for styling approaches.
Detroit has only recently started to wise up. Mustang is one of the few nameplates that Ford has preserved. Yet only in recent years has Ford stopped running away from the early Mustang’s classic styling cues. I think the Fox platform had the best size-weight dynamics of all of the Mustangs, but the design was entirely too anonymous.
Cultivating legacy doesn’t have to mean a slavish devotion to retro. Here is where I think the current Mustang and forthcoming Challenger go wrong, and where the Camaro shows more promise. People want continuity, but not necessarily a single-minded exercise in nostalgia. At least until recently, Mercedes seemed to understand best how to maintain this sometimes subtle balance.
Toyota changed the way Americans look at cars. We expect more from our cars now. Now there’s a legacy.
I wouldn’t say Toyota, or any other Japaness marque, has a significant weakness in a lack of a legacy. Nor would I say that they are without one.
When I think of Toyota a few legacy products come to mind. The early RWD Corollas that were darn near bulletproof. The nigh indestructible pickups and Landcruisers. With Honda there’s the early Civics which were as bulletproof as the Corollas. With Nissan, the 280Z. With Mazada, the RX-7. It’s a small legacy compared to the Big 2.5, but it’s substantial enough for them.
The makers that need legacy are the 2.5. If it wasn’t for legacy Ford and GM would be getting carved up at the slaughterhouse right now instead of attempting to restructure.
Speaking of Ford and GM, if I was a betting man I think I would be putting money on GM hitting the Chapter 11 skids first. At least Ford has admitted to the problem and is trying. GM still thinks it’s the 1990′$ (Hey, look at our new trucks and SUV’s!).
Thought provoking piece. In my business, we focus on quality, authenticity and pleasure. Toyota has clearly succeeded on the first and this article points out its detriments on the second, which I agree with. On the matter of pleasure, I find Toyota quite weak; it is almost as though they disdain personality. Why did the last generation Supra have such a short lifespan? I think because it made all the other Toyotas look boring and that made the head guys nervous. I suspect us pistonheads would rather drive a completely unreliable but exhilarating Alfa than a totally reliable but boring Toyota.
Toyota has a legacy, its just not with the over 30 group, their legacy is growing. They are building it by selling fine pieces of machinery. Start asking younger people what their first car was, many might say a corolla or camry, which they probably loved because of its reliability. Then ask the kid that got stuck with the cavalier, century, Taurus, acclaim, skylark, and you’ll probably get a vulgar statement in return.