I was not going for the "planned obsolescence" angle, I was going for the "Boy our attempt to make this as cheap as possible, (even though it is common knowledge what is needed for it to work), really bit us in the kiester. Now, how do we get out of this, with any creditability to make, and sell trucks in the future", angle.
rusted toyotas
- Thread starter vtcoyote
- Start date
- Views: 3582
I really don't think Toyota would go with the mindset of trying to make any of their products "as cheap as possible" at the risk of quality. As a Toyota truck owner I have found the general quality to be much better than the competiton. I drove Chevy trucks for 40 years before the Toyota truck I have now and I would never go back. I am impressed that Toy. is paying 150% of RETAIL value of the buy back vehs. They wouldn't even have to do that. Who of us wouldn't sell our vehs. if we could get full "retail" Whens the last time any of us bought a veh. at full retail? They are doing a buy back on their own, not a goverment imposed recall. How many other auto makers would do that?
radman1
Elite Member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2006
- Messages
- 3,016
- Location
- midwest
- Tractor
- JD 4520, Toolcat 5610, Bobcat S300, Case-IH 125 Pro, Case-IH 245, IH 1086, IH 806
It doesn't surprise me that Toy is giving the big buy backs. They have to get those trucks off the road. Many people may not want to give them back if they offered less. It is also reputation protection. "Toyota will take care of you" approach. If they could recall and just fix the frames, they probably would but the cost of replacing the frames is going to be much higher and they may have to extend or rewarranty the truck. The legal implications of an accident will loss of life/limb is tremendous unless they get these trucks off the road. Huge potential for high $$$$ lawsuits if these trucks are not deemed safe because of manufacture attempt to use substandard methods/materials. Remember the Ford Pinto?rickguns said:
Scooby074
Super Member
While i do think that potential liability is partly on the mind of toyota, you can't diminish the fact that they have really stepped up. Can you even imagine Ford or Chevy doing this with their trucks?
Ive witnessed Ford's so-called "warranty"
first hand with my 03 f150 King Ranch crew, a $50,000 truck. Nothing is covered this includes the rotten door bottoms at 100000 KMs. Running boards and bumpers? Rotten. Rockers are starting to bubble. It's frame has equally as much rust as my '96 Toyota. So much for modern alloys .
I won't even get into the mechanical problems ive had with the ford's front end, tranny and rear end. Ford knows these issues and refuses to do anything. My toyora's been bulletproof mechanically and the paint has stayed mint, even though it has many more kms.
Ive witnessed Ford's so-called "warranty"
first hand with my 03 f150 King Ranch crew, a $50,000 truck. Nothing is covered this includes the rotten door bottoms at 100000 KMs. Running boards and bumpers? Rotten. Rockers are starting to bubble. It's frame has equally as much rust as my '96 Toyota. So much for modern alloys .I won't even get into the mechanical problems ive had with the ford's front end, tranny and rear end. Ford knows these issues and refuses to do anything. My toyora's been bulletproof mechanically and the paint has stayed mint, even though it has many more kms.
jbrumberg
Elite Member
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2006
- Messages
- 4,903
- Location
- Cummington, MA
- Tractor
- New Holland TC29DA, John Deere D130
Right now I am driving a Ford F-150 XLT at Toyota's expense . It is a nice truck and that Triton V-8 has some serious muscle, but it is very thirsty. I like this truck, but after "building" one on the internet and comparing it to an equivalent "built" Tacoma and/or Tundra the Ford was quite a bit more expensive and thirsty. I have had a 70's vintage Landcruiser, a Tercel, an old Toyota 4WD [I forget the series name (It had ~ 200K when I traded it in.)], and 2 4WD Tacomas since 1977. I will probably stay with Toyota. Jay
. It is a nice truck and that Triton V-8 has some serious muscle, but it is very thirsty. I like this truck, but after "building" one on the internet and comparing it to an equivalent "built" Tacoma and/or Tundra the Ford was quite a bit more expensive and thirsty. I have had a 70's vintage Landcruiser, a Tercel, an old Toyota 4WD [I forget the series name (It had ~ 200K when I traded it in.)], and 2 4WD Tacomas since 1977. I will probably stay with Toyota. Jayrickguns said:
Sorry, but there really is no other explanation for this. The specs as I said, for a frame, are well know. This was a failed experiment.
I do not have enough space in this forum to list all the times I have seen these experiments in 30 years of fixing cars.
Their fix for this on the other hand, has worked perfectly. Even though you should be disappointed with them, Your 150% satisfied.
burnetma
Gold Member
rickguns said:
I am sorry to say that you do not understand the auto industry. If any auto manufacturer can save 2 cents per vehicle they will do it. The suppliers are even under more pressure to do the same.
Having worked in the industry, I know the car companies require suppliers to submit ideas on how to reduce the cost of parts every year. As a matter of fact, the contracts that are signed to produce a component (frames for instance), include annual decreases in unit price.
Say your company makes frames for Toyota. You are bidding the contract for the next generation Tacoma which is a five year run. Year 1 price may be $200/frame. Year 2 = $195 ... Year 5 = $180. Your company will need to find $20, in this example, of cost reduction over the 5 year run to stay at the same profit per unit. So you submit engineering change requests to Toyota to help you reduce the cost to make the product. It is up to the supplier to prove the change is acceptable through analysis or testing, but sometimes things may "slip". I am not saying that is what happened, as I know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about this particular problem, but I just wanted to give you some insight to the industry.
I understand what you are saying. What you are illustrating is the ongoing evolution of cost effecient manufacturing.The hoped for result being that you can build a better product than your competitor for less money and have a larger share of the market without out-sourceing to Canada, Mexico, South America. I would like to see the figure on how many Toyota vehicles come back to dealers under the lemon law compared to other vehicle makers. True, Toyota made a mistake but they are doing their best to correct the situation.
Two years ago I had a friend spend over $40,000 for a new Dodge truck. It would not hold a alignment, after the third trip back to the dealer he asked the general manager what to do with the truck, he told him to trade it for a different truck, just not here!
Two years ago I had a friend spend over $40,000 for a new Dodge truck. It would not hold a alignment, after the third trip back to the dealer he asked the general manager what to do with the truck, he told him to trade it for a different truck, just not here!
