Trivia buffs, scholars of ancient history and encyclopedia-reading geeks know the first month of the year is named for the Roman god Janus. Janus didn’t have any special powers. His entire claim to fame was based on having two faces, one on the front of his head and one on the back. Since Janus could keep an eye on what was coming as well as what was going, he was placed in charge of gates and doors, transitions, and beginnings and endings. Being two faced also meant he could talk out of two mouths at the same time. Kinda like Toyota.
Toyota spends millions of dollars touting themselves as the automotive equivalent of the Sierra Club. They’re out to save the planet with their Hybrid Synergy Drive and put OPEC sheiks on the public dole with their fuel sipping econoboxes. They’re so magnanimous they’re sharing their hybrid technology with Ford and Nissan (and anyone else willing to pay the price).
Toyota’s even bragging that their new manufacturing plants will produce no waste to clog the landfills. Yes, the birds are singing in the trees and daisies are blooming in the meadows thanks to Toyota. And then there’s the Tundra.
Toyota makes no bones about it: they want to be a major player in America’s lucrative full-size pickup market. After years of twiddling their toes in the water with a size 30-slim Tundra, they finally cowboyed-up and built them a gen-u-ine giant. The new Toyota Tundra is every bit as gi-normous and gluttonous as the Dodge Rams, Chevrolet Silverados and Ford F150's it faces.
And they’re promoting it heavily. Over three-quarters of Toyota's NAIAS stand was dedicated to the Tundra. The display featured the he-man image the Japanese automaker wants to associate with their mega machine. And you can bet the Tundra’s advertising budget will be equal to or greater than that of their tree-hugger specials. Combined.
Meanwhile, Toyota’s playing footsie with federal regulations. Their Texas-built pickup hits dealer showrooms in February– at the same time other manufacturers are beginning to introduce some of their 2008 models. But Toyota is adamant the new Tundra is an ’07. That’s because the U.S. government is changing the way they calculate the fuel mileage ratings for ‘08 model year pickups.
The new procedures will make the numbers on the window sticker more realistic (i.e. lower). ToMoCo can’t risk lower numbers against competition’s higher-rated ’07 models. They’ll get to display the higher numbers for a few months before the (unchanged) ’08 models go on sale this fall with ratings 8 to 12 percent lower than the ‘07s.
As you can imagine, Toyota’s heavy emphasis on their new gas-guzzling leviathan hasn’t gone unnoticed by auto-oriented environmentalists. In fact, environmental groups are finally facing reality: their automotive eco-darling is (gasp!) nothing more than a business. A business that conforms to all CAFE regulations, of course, but will do whatever it takes to make a profit.
Some environmentalists are none-too-pleased to discover Toyota’s enviro-friendly posture was based more on marketing and profits than saving the planet. The greenies are indignant, and they're striking back.
Backed by groups like the Rainforest Action Network, The Freedom From Oil Campaign (FFOC) has put Toyota on notice: no more “free pass.” According to an FFOC statement, the group's launching a new campaign designed to ensure that “auto makers are taking the interim steps needed to show that they are truly committed to fuel economy and not just good PR.”
While commending Toyota for its past record for fuel economy, they’ve added the transplant to their list of targets. It may not be long before the FFOC organizes pickets outside Toyota dealerships, as they’ve done at Ford dealerships. The Toyota Tundra could become the tree-hugger's next lightning rod, replacing the (so-ten-minutes-ago) Hummer H2.
You have to wonder why it took environmentalists this long to see the light (heavy?). Toyota’s trucks have never been what you’d call “parsimonious” with petrol. The automotive press has consistently panned their two hybrid SUVs for their disappointing real world fuel economy. Once the 2008 testing procedures are in place, it’ll be interesting to see where Toyota falls on the charts and how the more realistic numbers will affect opinions of their greenmobiles.
As a company that exploits its environmental responsibility, Toyota can't be pleased to find the eco-radicals on their case. The company will have to spin like a whirling dervish to handle the fallout. I’m confident, though, that they’ll pull out all the stops to protect their green rep. I can see it now: “Clean air for oxygen breathers courtesy of Toyota’s Hybrid Synergy Drive and carbon dioxide for plant life by the Toyota Tundra. We have the ecosystem covered!” Janus would be smiling– on both sides of his head.
184 Comments on “Two Faced Toyota?...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
I still don’t see the Tundra becoming a huge succes. I think the concept of a full size truck clashes to much with Toyota’s brand image.
On top of that, the fuel mileage is EVEN WORSE for this thing then most of its competitors, which, ironically enough, is a big selling point in this segment nowadays, if I’m not mistaken.
I’ve said it before, and as a self proclaimed petrol head it saddens me to say it, but driving these vehicles around in the numbers that they still do in the US seems irresponsible in these times. You’re flooding our country (Netherlands) ;).
Still, there’s hope. I just read BMW is shipping their 1-Series over to the US and it will be sold as a 135i…now that should be a great, fast, nimble, fuel efficient car.
Why was the FFOC giving Toyota a free pass to begin with?
Why was the FFOC giving Toyota a free pass to begin with?
In their mind, Toyota’s hybrids and high-mileage cars more than made up for the damage done by their gas gulpers (Sequoia, etc.) which sold in relatively low numbers.
i’m sick of editorials like this one that place the blame everywhere but where it belongs; the individual buying the damn truck. toyota is a business, a very successful one, because it builds products that PEOPLE WANT TO BUY. if the citizens of this country want to stop polluting the atmosphere they can stop buying the vehicles that pollute. people need/want trucks and toyota, just like the other manufacturers, will build them as long as the people buy them. get over it.
phil
As a free marketeer, I understand your anger and frustration. But this editorial isn’t apportioning blame for environmental damage (rfeal or imagined).
Frank is simply pointing out that Toyota has been playing it both ways: selling itself as the tree hugger’s favorite while selling low mileage trucks.
Frank -
Can Toyota not have the best of both worlds (er faces), by introducing the first full size, hybrid pick-up. Also does the new Tundra have cylinder deactivation options available?
TTAC – Thanks for a post that takes the gloves off with T and H. More of these are needed if you wish to be fair and balanced in the midst of your death and suicide watches for the 2.5.
In the end, business is about making money. PERIOD! Now if you can do that by creating an eco-friendly image or any other type of image then great. But profit is what cycles the blood in the corporate world.
The people giving Toyota a free pass were foolish to begin with… of course its a business first!
But the tone of this article doesn’t make sense to me. You’re attacking Toyota for building product people want to buy, and doing a good job marketing them?
An no, Toyota cars are by no means 100% organic. But they are doing a better job than many other car companies. And doing something is better than doing nothing at all.
Can Toyota not have the best of both worlds (er faces), by introducing the first full size, hybrid pick-up.
Sure, but GM could beat them to the punch with that one. They say they’re going to offer a dual-mode Tahoe hybrid this fall and it probably wouldn’t take much to adapt that powertrain to the Silverado.
Also does the new Tundra have cylinder deactivation options available?
Not at this time, as far as I know.
toyota doesn`t need to the supereconomical to be the best. it is enough to be a trendsetter and create an image of a diverse company. their hybrids are a know how, and shows their potential, and they can make gas guzzlers if they like as well, but still they will be high quality and reliable. the most pollution in the world comes from USA, and not from cars, but from powerstations, that use primitive ancient coal burning system.
you can`t blame toyota, because they don`t have a single platform that would be borrowed from other country, they make everything themselves. they improve fit and finish, material texture, and don`t do rebadging. they play fair game, and will never bankrupt. american manufacturers must realize that only the product matters, not the advertizing slogan, i-pod connection jack or fancy colour options. people want their fords to be proudly designed and manufactured in the Usa, not rebadged mazda 6, that is later from ford fusion re-rebadged as mercury milan or lincoln whatever.
koreans also started their car business building their cars on old japanese paltforms, but they realized, if they wanted to succed, they must show their ability to build complex components themselves. what trust does a ford give me if they build rearview mirrors, while the gearbox is from japan, and engine as well. mirrors we can build in Latvia too. show the ability in manufacturing complexity, and it will bring back consumers.
here in latvia we can buy so many american items- chewing gum, shawing foam, shampoos. but when it deals with manufacutring precision and precision moulded parts, there are zero american manufacturers here. japanese , koreans galore. that is why none of countries really condemn japan, because they have deserved their superpower status by hi-tech manufacturing.
you can`t be superpower by making billions of snickers, movies or ziplock bags. and the biggest added value comes from hi-precision movement manufacturing. and toyota dominates in this market when dealing with cars. they show their supremacy without bragging,. they are bragged by customers, not themselves. juris b. Latvia. lunatics@inbox.lv
RF: I suggest you provide a link back to the Bob Elton article you published in April.
[Here is the link - FW]
Quote: Seen in this light, the Toyota Prius was a stroke of genius: a vehicle that boosts the company's CAFÉ numbers to SUV-sustaining levels AND generates enormous positive PR for the brand. Somehow, no one other than a few tree-hugging environmentalists and Chevy’s PR department seems to notice that Toyota's mileage on their other products lags behind the industry leaders. The social opprobrium attached to selling SUVs that are bigger and thirstier than a Chevy Tahoe (and probably more profitable) slides right off Toyota, because they’re the leaders in hybrid technology. In one brilliant marketing move, Toyota has transformed their money-losing small car operation into a priceless marketing campaign.
phil
That’s exactly what I was thinking–personal responsibility uber alles.
Toyota is NOT a niche player. They are not a brand that caters exclusively to the green movement, although I can see how enviro-conscious people want to align themselves with the brand.
If I believe in eating healthy, I can’t get mad at the companies that produce health food simply because they also produce artery-clogging garbage for a different product line. You might say “Well, your food choices don’t affect others” to which I would reply that poor food choices typically affect entire families, not even counting the social costs of health care down the road due to poor eating. Essentially, the choice has to come down to the buyers and I don’t think Toyota has done anything even immoral here–they still, in fact, have a huge array of vehicles with excellent mileage.
By the way, where the heck is the Diesel V6 or hybrid version for this thing? I’m sure they’ll bring us a Diesel or hybrid in a year or two, but chances are it will be a model with gas-comparable mpg. I think they blew a great opportunity to launch it with an alternative powertrain, thus keeping their green image partially intact.
Phil and Ash,
I think you’re missing the point of the article. I believe Frank is pointing out a level of hypocrisy, not a bad environmental track record.
Take the analogy of health food and junk food. It would be like McDonalds advertising that they are a healthy company and care about the health of their customers because they serve salads. Of course it’s someone’s choice what they eat, but the hypocrisy of that image the company is trying to create is open to critique.
Calling a vehicle introduced in February *2007* an ‘07? For shame! Gimme a break
The way we’re going, we’ll be introducing 2010 models in December 2008. We’ll just skip a model year like the Cayenne, but for a different reason.
If this was an American car company you all would be panning it. “Typical American auto giant” killing the planet type of thing. But because it is Toyota you are all comming to thier defense.
The truth is this is a business andsome of the things that we buy are not environmentally friendly. There is simply no way at this point to make a fuel efficient HD pickup that can do the things that we use our trucks for. BTW the two companies working the hardest to fix this issue are both American. Gm is going the hybrid route and Ford is going clean diesel.
Also do not expect Toyota to sell a whole lot of these trucks, they do not make good HD suspensions and frames. We’ll see…
Cowbell
I gathered as much, but I can’t think of ANY corporations that aren’t hypocritical if you take each of their market-specific message as a whole pie. EVERYONE panders and caters to a degree, so I don’t see how this is really any different.
McD’s often exclusively pitches their healthier alternatives…doesn’t mean they’re obligated to remind us that most of the menu is crap! :D
jurisb:
here in latvia we can buy so many american items- chewing gum, shawing foam, shampoos. but when it deals with manufacutring precision and precision moulded parts, there are zero american manufacturers here. japanese , koreans galore. that is why none of countries really condemn japan, because they have deserved their superpower status by hi-tech manufacturing. you can`t be superpower by making billions of snickers, movies or ziplock bags.
Yup, we’ve built the worlds largest economy on chewing gum and shampoo.
If I believe in eating healthy, I can’t get mad at the companies that produce health food simply because they also produce artery-clogging garbage for a different product line. You might say “Well, your food choices don’t affect others” to which I would reply that poor food choices typically affect entire families, not even counting the social costs of health care down the road due to poor eating. Essentially, the choice has to come down to the buyers and I don’t think Toyota has done anything even immoral here–they still, in fact, have a huge array of vehicles with excellent mileage.
True, but you can’t mark a company that sells whole foods as bastion of healthy living if that same factory is churning out pre-processed junk food.
The same has to apply to Toyota. They can’t claim to be making the world a greener place when they have a bigger SUV lineup than the big 2.5.
After seeing the Tundra at the auto show, I have a feeling they won’t be selling enough of them to make a serious dent in their CAFE numbers. I can’t imagine the frame being stiff enough to provide competetive driving dynamics or more importantly durability. Failing on the quality/reliability end with this vehicle would do more to tarnish Toyota’s rep and this vehicle’s future than its enviro-unfriendliness.
Toyota has done a great job generating good PR regarding their environmental stance. The general public regards Toyota as the leaders in fuel efficent, clean vehicles, all while having no less than (now) 6 vehicles that average mpg are in the teens.
Honda should be the one’s getting all this positive PR. They are the actual leaders in fuel economy and corporate responsibility.
They don’t even offer a V8 in their entire line-up!!
When they entered the pick-up market, they went for a certain niche, and hit it out of the park. If I was in the market for a pick-up, the Ridgeline would be tops on my list.
Some companies keep assigning new intros the current model year until fall. VW, Kia, and Volvo are especially likely to do this. So it’s hardly rare.
The Tundra actually feels significantly larger than the GM and Ford trucks when you’re sitting in it. I felt like a child in daddy’s truck when the driver’s seat behind the massive instrument panel.
Real-world fuel economy for many vehicles here:
http://www.truedelta.com/fuel_economy.php
They can’t claim to be making the world a greener place when they have a bigger SUV lineup than the big 2.5.
Count again, both # of models and vehicles sold. Just one example – GM sells more GMT900 SUV’s in a month than Toyota sells Sequoias in a year.
Speaking of big pickups and SUV’s -Toyota’s obviously pandering to an American need/want, that is by comparison minimal in the rest of the world. Does Toyota’s marketing department look just as Janus-y in other countries and regions, such as the EU?
Corporate hypocrisy. Gee. What a surprise.
Toyota carefully nurtures a variety of illusions about its brand identity. One is the eco-friendly bit, the others are reliability and longevity.
This from a company that has recalled about a million cars worldwide–over 800K in the US alone–in 2006.
Count again, both # of models and vehicles sold. Just one example – GM sells more GMT900 SUV’s in a month than Toyota sells Sequoias in a year.
The keyword was lineup.
Good article Frank. We have discussed this very issue on other forums as the hypocrisy is rather blatant.
Do we blame Toyota? Hell no, they are just running a successful business. I’m not sure there is any blame to be given here, but if there is, it is to gullible media and the public for believing the marketing BS. A lot of people buy useless diet pills too.
Does the Prius get good mileage? Of course. Is Toyota green? No more than any other automaker.
In reality, driving a Prius has the same advantages as smoking light cigarettes.
Some companies keep assigning new intros the current model year until fall. VW, Kia, and Volvo are especially likely to do this. So it’s hardly rare.
Not rare, but not commonplace either based on new model introductions in the past few years. Most manufactures want to get the next year’s designation for new models introduced midyear (based on the traditional October – September model year cycle) so they can claim to have the newest thing on the market. It also saves on having to reprint promo materials for a new model year just a few months after bringing the new model to the market as the previous year’s model. Toyota is bucking this trend to get to advertise the higher mileage ratings the ’07s will have vs. the ’08s.
The keyword was lineup.
Toyota = 6, Lexus = 3
Dodge = 2, Chrysler = 2, Jeep = 6
Ford = 6, Mercury = 2, Lincoln = 2
Boy, I wonder if Toyota will have to discount these pseudo-07 models since they really should have been ‘08 models and will be treated by the used market as true 2007 models. Buyer gets bonus depreciation for free!
Probably about as much as VW discounts its “2006″ tdi models sold through 2007 ;)
They are also marketing the soon-to-be-obsolete 06 Tundra without emphasizing that it is the 06. They are touting the much better fuel economy [over Chevy and Ford] in local ads here. I suspect they hope that message to carry over to the 07.
Folks are just jealous about Toyota’s success.
jurisb:
January 18th, 2007 at 9:11 am
they improve fit and finish, material texture, and don`t do rebadging.
Really? They don’t do rebadging? Funny, I could’ve sworn that Lexus SUV looks EXACTLY like the Toyota Land Cruiser. Hmmmm, if they don’t do rebadging, then I’m stumped…
Just a quick note…
My understanding is that so long a vehicle is manufactured on Jan 1 of the calendar year, the manufacturer can designate the model year to be the same as the calendar year.
Thus, so long as Tundra production spans Jan 1 2007, they can designate them as 2007 models.
Similarly, if GM starts production of its new pickups on Jan 2 2007 and continues until Jan 1 2008, those can be called 2008 models.
As with any interest group, the greenies need to pick a target to focus their propaganda on. To get through the media clutter and the average citizen’s disinterest, they have to simplify their message, even at the risk of accuracy. So they set up a Toyota=good, Big3=bad dynamic in their rhetoric to tell their story.
That they are suddenly surprised by Toyota’s gas guzzling models either shows their ignorance or their disregard for the truth. If they now see the light and will be equally indignant at both domestic and foreign makes, I guess that’s a good thing.
Regardless, what the greenies fail to realize is that many people actually NEED vehicles this size. I agree that soccer mom’s ferrying kids to the mall in a Hummer is unnecessary and wasteful, but many businesses need the capability and so do many Americans to tow campers, horse trailers etc. And they continue to buy despite gas prices because of that need.
“… hypocrisy …”
Is Toyota “really” green? Who cares? For me, it’s not whether or not Toyota is “green” or has a “green image,” it’s whether or not they help me to be green (or greener). Where do I go to get a reliable, economical 40mpg car?
Do I go to GM? Ummm, no. At Toyota, I can choose from the Yaris, Corolla or Prius.
If people really want to discuss hypocrisy, let’s talk about the hypocrisy of a company touting itself as a green company because they make E85-capable vehicles but which they know will never use a drop of E85. Or building concept car after concept car that look sooo green but never seem to hit the streets. Or handing the keys to a prototype “hybrid” over to an auto magazine for testing – except it’s a regular V8 gasser.
I hope this is indicative of future trends in American Automotive media and opinion. Toyota has gotten a free pass for a long time, their cars are worshipped as if they were made of gold, I’ve always stated that their stuff is overrated, simply because they have a Toyota badge on them. They make as many gas guzzlers as the supposedly “backwards” Americans with their Tundras, Land Cruisers, Sequioias, and FJ Cruisers.
KixStart:
January 18th, 2007 at 10:58 am
Do I go to GM? Ummm, no. At Toyota, I can choose from the Yaris, Corolla or Prius.
Once again, this is where the Toyota “myth” of being green hits home. People like KixStart who make a claim like this do it without researching the facts, because they just believe Toyota’s claims. Of the three Toyora brands you mentioned, only the Prius get 40MPG or more in real-world fuel economy ratings. Neither the Corolla NOR the Yaris get 40MPG in ANY type of driving (whether it be city driving, suburb driving, etc.)
I think one of the most blatant (to me) cases of this blind acceptance of anything Toyota and blind rejection of anything American is in the comparisons of the Pontiac Vibe and the Toyota Matrix. These two cars were developed together by GM and Toyota, and are essentially the same exact car with different badges. Yet, somehow, the Matrix consistently beat out the Vibe in juts about every comparison, whether it be from car magazines or from Consumer Reports etc. People just turn a blind eye to the problems that Toyotas have, most of the time blaming themselves if something goes wrong with their Toyota. But they go fishing for problems in Yank cars, with the most recurring thought being “of course it’s broken, I should only have expected it…”
Great piece Frank.No wonder TOYOTA shuns the number 1
spot
Maybe Toyota can produce a greener car but when it comes to making money, you can’t beat a line of big trucks/suvs.
Truck to Truck the TUNDRA doesn’t compare to the 2.5s line up.
If your gonna swallow 16mpg and enviroment concerns,for whatever your needs may be.IMHO buy yourself a real truck.
Wow, lots of comments and anger here today!
Toyota’s a business, and a very successful one. I actually don’t see hypocrisy, I agree with KixStart on this one.
Sure, Honda as a greener ‘image’ and yeah, if I ever wanted a pickup truck, I’d ignore the on-frame stuff and get a Honda, though I’d prefer a hybrid variant if they ever did one (ok Honda, where is it?!)
For that matter, Toyota did drop the ball in not having a hybrid variant of the new Tundra right away. And a diesel for those diesel-philes out there.
They have the money to do it, so IMHO, they should have done three variations of the same theme. A V8 pickup for those who just want the status quo, a V6 hybrid pickup and a V8 diesel pickup (now that they’ve bought into Isuzu, it isn’t exactly brain-surgery).
Though of course it would cause GM fans to have a stroke to realize that the Isuzu company makes the diesel V8’s for GM AND Toyota, were it to come about!
I agree with CarNut and Glen A.: Toyota totally dropped the ball by not introducing some high[er] mileage variants for the Tundra– even if they didn’t sell.
Toyota’s green image may be nothing more than window dressing. Or it may not be. (Feel free to debate the point here.) But the fact remains that Toyota has a tree hugging brand perception that is incredibly valuable.
They should have offered an optional green[er] pickup. If it couldn’t tow toffee and alienated the truck guys, so what? Plausible deniability works for brands as well as politicians.
Since this article, and this type of discussion generally, seems to rely on the spectre of Arab control of our energy supply to establish the scene, I think its important to point out an obvious fact. All Persian Gulf states together supply less than 25% of our crude oil. Our good friends Canda supply an amount more than half of that figure and more than Saudi Arabia. See http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/rankings/crudebycountry.htm.
Would a 25% improvement in overall efficiency be easier to accomplish than keeping the Persian Gulf open for business for ever more?
You want to see hypocricy? Check out this Toyota ad placement:
http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11396.html?cm_ven=one_deg_blog&cm_ite=one_deg_commentary&from=one_deg_commentary
Now that’s insidious!
“Neither the Corolla NOR the Yaris get 40MPG in ANY type of driving”
The Yaris gets 40MPG on the HWY and the Corolla gets 41MPG (both in 5-speed trim). Name a GM car that gets those numbers.
Yes indeed RF its window dressing.Now that they have almost the biggest store in town,folks are looking behind the curtain.
Maybe the Germans, with their diesel technology, will become the new Sierra Club darlings. Or GM with their investment in hydrogen technology. Personally, I would like to see the makers of the Tesla get some serious government funding. While it’s impossible to fault Toyota for being the only automaker to make hybrid vehicles a viable option for everyday transportation, it’s really a novelty more than anything. And the total cost (monetary and environmentally in both production and operation) of a hybrid vehicle having two powertrains has yet to be calculated and compared against the arguable increases in mileage.
dmw:
the problem is not solvable by reducing our gas usage by 25% (which, by the way, would be almost impossible unless Americans accept that the current manner of living is no longer sustainable). Wether we buy 1 barrel from the Saudis or 10 billion, we are not buying directly from anyone. We are buying from the open market. So no matter who WE buy from, we are buying from the same pot in the end. And the fact is, that pot is getting smaller and smaller, and we need to change some fundamental things about the way we live to prevent some catastrophic event (whether it be war or global warming or whatever) from forcing that change on us…
brokenvw:
January 18th, 2007 at 11:29 am
“Neither the Corolla NOR the Yaris get 40MPG in ANY type of driving”
The Yaris gets 40MPG on the HWY and the Corolla gets 41MPG (both in 5-speed trim). Name a GM car that gets those numbers.
according to official mileage ratings. Go check out real-world ratings at http://www.truedelta.com/fuel_economy.php
Yet, somehow, the Matrix consistently beat out the Vibe in juts about every comparison, whether it be from car magazines or from Consumer Reports etc.
The CR Matrix & Vibe review was years ago, but I recall they got a joint article. Slightly different ratings may have been given but that was due to one vehicle being FWD, the other AWD.
Just to make things more confusing, the Vibe was exported as the Toyota Voltz and sold poorly in Japan, being withdrawn after 2 years.
“according to official mileage ratings. Go check out real-world ratings at http://www.truedelta.com/fuel_economy.php”
1 Yaris is listed on TrueDelta. That’s one hell of a sample size. (and it gets 38MPG “real world” to boot)
Excellent article. The Tundra is made to make its occupants seem small to a degree that one really has to experience first-person. I did not believe it until I actually sat in it. It is silly beyond comparison.
Anyway, the thought within the industry is that for 90% of consumers, the green image of Toyota will be so strong that the Tundra will bounce right off of it.
Heck, they have gotten away with their inefficient SUVs so far.
Personally, I see Honda as having taken a more genuine role toward advancing environmental technology than anyone else. They have created some very high technology emissions equipment and they sell very few guzzlers (hence their high CAFE). Note that it is not just having a product line of small vehicles either…Suzuki has all small vehicles too, but they are far less efficient than Honda’s small vehicles.
Toyota is like Mercedes-Benz to me. They create and sell some great and innovative products, economy-wise (petrol and diesel, respectively). However, this image is made up with their other face. Sure, MB is far worse in overall economy…but you get the idea.
as i said, not 40. and the yaris just came to the states less than a year ago i believe. so how would you have more than 1 listed?
All of the big truck makers make these hypocritical statements. Recall back to the turn of the century and GM and Ford on a big PR blitz about how environmentally friendly they were with Billy Bob Fordton setting goals to have certain mpg or hybrids ready by 2003/2004. Only for GM to quitely shut up and do nothing for 5 years but make big trucks (only when gas shoots up to $3 / gallon do they start DoD technology) and Ford to reneg on everything except buying into Toyota’s hybrid system. So all are guilty of deceiving the public. Egregiously Toyota once purposely mislead people by claiming all the Ganassi/CART championships as their own right after they bought their way into the team – these were all won by another mfgr.
Ford / GM / Toyota are not benevolent and PR blitz noise pollution into the public’s ears. However how many reviews piddled on the previous generation’s Tundra by calling it small. Well what does someone do with a massive inferiority complex? They buy / build a enormous vehicle to feel superior or a Porsche – right?