From: Ed White on
On Oct 17, 2:06 am, john <johngd...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> Tundra's September YTD unit sales are down 50.8%, the second greatest
> drop in the segment after that of the Titan, more than twice the F-
> Series drop of 24.8% and considerably more than the segment's decline
> of 34.1%. In nine months, Toyota dealers have delivered just 56,599
> Tundras, which means total 2009 deliveries will fall short of the
> century mark for the first time since 2002.
>
> Actual transaction prices from Edmunds.com highlight the Tundra's
> declining clout. In eleven of the twelve months in 2008, Tundra sold
> at a higher transaction price than the F-150, Silverado 1500, Ram 1500
> and Titan. However, in every month of 2009, one or more of the
> domestic light-duty pickups has sold at a higher price than the Toyota
> product. This past September, average transaction prices for the Ram
> 1500 ($35,503) and F-150 ($34,824) were 7% and 5%, respectively, above
> that of the Tundra ($33,278).
>
> Full article:
>
> http://www.freep.com/article/20091016/BUSINESS01/91015059/1331/busine...

The new Tundra was a disaster from the beginning. I don't think Toyota
management understood the type of truck buyers who were willing to buy
a Toyota. The old Tundra was a solid truck of a decent size and
actually had advantages over some of the competitor strucks. The new
Tundra is ridulosusly large, wildly overpriced and doesn't appear to
have any features that set it apart from the crowd of large "half-ton"
trucks. And the numerous quality and reliabilty problems have trashed
Toyota's reputation for quality in the eyes of many people. Spending
billions on the Tundra plant in Texas was probably the single dumbest
decision that Toyota managment has made in thirty years. I am sure
Toyota will survive the debacle, but I am also sure Toyota's current
management wish they had spent those billions on other products.

Ed
From: Mike Hunter on
The Tundra plant, was built with Texas State low interest bonds, not Toyota
funds. The taxpayers paid to build the roads to the plant, as well.
Toyota however is paying off the bonds as is the case with most of the
import brand plants in the south. Taxpayer money was also use to train the
employees that worked there.

If Tundra sales stay in the tank, particularly if the workers join the UAW
as is rumored, look for Toyota to walk away and leave the state taxpayers to
pay off the bonds, as did Volkswagen in Pennsylvania. They walked away
from the Westmorland plant because the Rabbit was not selling, after giving
the employees a months notice. Pennsylvania was lucky it got Chrysler to
buy the plant a few years later.


"Ed White" <ce.white3(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dbad0daa-bd25-4dc1-9777-4bb7f8a573b4(a)b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 17, 2:06 am, john <johngd...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> Tundra's September YTD unit sales are down 50.8%, the second greatest
> drop in the segment after that of the Titan, more than twice the F-
> Series drop of 24.8% and considerably more than the segment's decline
> of 34.1%. In nine months, Toyota dealers have delivered just 56,599
> Tundras, which means total 2009 deliveries will fall short of the
> century mark for the first time since 2002.
>
> Actual transaction prices from Edmunds.com highlight the Tundra's
> declining clout. In eleven of the twelve months in 2008, Tundra sold
> at a higher transaction price than the F-150, Silverado 1500, Ram 1500
> and Titan. However, in every month of 2009, one or more of the
> domestic light-duty pickups has sold at a higher price than the Toyota
> product. This past September, average transaction prices for the Ram
> 1500 ($35,503) and F-150 ($34,824) were 7% and 5%, respectively, above
> that of the Tundra ($33,278).
>
> Full article:
>
> http://www.freep.com/article/20091016/BUSINESS01/91015059/1331/busine...

The new Tundra was a disaster from the beginning. I don't think Toyota
management understood the type of truck buyers who were willing to buy
a Toyota. The old Tundra was a solid truck of a decent size and
actually had advantages over some of the competitor strucks. The new
Tundra is ridulosusly large, wildly overpriced and doesn't appear to
have any features that set it apart from the crowd of large "half-ton"
trucks. And the numerous quality and reliabilty problems have trashed
Toyota's reputation for quality in the eyes of many people. Spending
billions on the Tundra plant in Texas was probably the single dumbest
decision that Toyota managment has made in thirty years. I am sure
Toyota will survive the debacle, but I am also sure Toyota's current
management wish they had spent those billions on other products.

Ed


From: Tom on

"Mike Hunter" <Mikehunt2(a)lycos,com> wrote in message
news:4ade1297$0$12292$ce5e7886(a)news-radius.ptd.net...
> The Tundra plant, was built with Texas State low interest bonds, not
> Toyota funds. The taxpayers paid to build the roads to the plant, as
> well. Toyota however is paying off the bonds as is the case with most of
> the import brand plants in the south. Taxpayer money was also use to
> train the employees that worked there.
>
> If Tundra sales stay in the tank, particularly if the workers join the UAW
> as is rumored, look for Toyota to walk away and leave the state taxpayers
> to pay off the bonds, as did Volkswagen in Pennsylvania. They walked
> away from the Westmorland plant because the Rabbit was not selling, after
> giving the employees a months notice. Pennsylvania was lucky it got
> Chrysler to buy the plant a few years later.


> The Plant was supposed to be a chrysler plant from the beginning but was
> never completed
Then VW took over and used the rest of the taxpayer money they then said the
rabbit wasnt selling
so they shut it down (could have built another car but taxpayer money was
used up after 10 years
Then Sony moved in with more taxpayer money and built TVs used more tax
money to build a
glass plant. They they also moved out. I think there is a experimental
ethanol plant using a small
portion of the plant now also with taxpayer money. Every state is standing
in line to give foreign companys more taxpayer money, think there sould be
some lessons learned. When they suck all the money out of our country and
the jobs with it how much help will we get from them. NONE





>
> "Ed White" <ce.white3(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:dbad0daa-bd25-4dc1-9777-4bb7f8a573b4(a)b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 17, 2:06 am, john <johngd...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Tundra's September YTD unit sales are down 50.8%, the second greatest
>> drop in the segment after that of the Titan, more than twice the F-
>> Series drop of 24.8% and considerably more than the segment's decline
>> of 34.1%. In nine months, Toyota dealers have delivered just 56,599
>> Tundras, which means total 2009 deliveries will fall short of the
>> century mark for the first time since 2002.
>>
>> Actual transaction prices from Edmunds.com highlight the Tundra's
>> declining clout. In eleven of the twelve months in 2008, Tundra sold
>> at a higher transaction price than the F-150, Silverado 1500, Ram 1500
>> and Titan. However, in every month of 2009, one or more of the
>> domestic light-duty pickups has sold at a higher price than the Toyota
>> product. This past September, average transaction prices for the Ram
>> 1500 ($35,503) and F-150 ($34,824) were 7% and 5%, respectively, above
>> that of the Tundra ($33,278).
>>
>> Full article:
>>
>> http://www.freep.com/article/20091016/BUSINESS01/91015059/1331/busine...
>
> The new Tundra was a disaster from the beginning. I don't think Toyota
> management understood the type of truck buyers who were willing to buy
> a Toyota. The old Tundra was a solid truck of a decent size and
> actually had advantages over some of the competitor strucks. The new
> Tundra is ridulosusly large, wildly overpriced and doesn't appear to
> have any features that set it apart from the crowd of large "half-ton"
> trucks. And the numerous quality and reliabilty problems have trashed
> Toyota's reputation for quality in the eyes of many people. Spending
> billions on the Tundra plant in Texas was probably the single dumbest
> decision that Toyota managment has made in thirty years. I am sure
> Toyota will survive the debacle, but I am also sure Toyota's current
> management wish they had spent those billions on other products.
>
> Ed
>

From: M. Balmer on
>"Ashton Crusher" <demi(a)moore.net> wrote in message
>news:2qojd5dp3pmc6hr5g4l58jer17em50vvc7(a)4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 02:05:41 -0700, "M. Balmer"
>> <boogerpicker(a)wazoo.net> wrote:
>>
>>> <<the Ram 1500
>>>
>>>Now there's a worthless POS
>>>
>>
>> No need for you to be so self-referential.
>
>No need for you to continually imitate a rat's penis.
>
No need for you to be so self-referential.


"Ashton Crusher" <demi(a)moore.net> wrote in message
news:esjmd5p5u00fs3c4n3vgtj3sesdvm7fj23(a)4ax.com...
> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 21:55:29 -0700, "M. Balmer"
> <boogerpicker(a)wazoo.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Ashton Crusher" <demi(a)moore.net> wrote in message
>>news:2qojd5dp3pmc6hr5g4l58jer17em50vvc7(a)4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 02:05:41 -0700, "M. Balmer"
>>> <boogerpicker(a)wazoo.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> <<the Ram 1500
>>>>
>>>>Now there's a worthless POS
>>>>
>>>
>>> No need for you to be so self-referential.
>>
>>No need for you to continually imitate a rat's penis.
>>
> No need for you to be so self-referential.

>"Ashton Crusher" <demi(a)moore.net> wrote in message
>news:2qojd5dp3pmc6hr5g4l58jer17em50vvc7(a)4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 02:05:41 -0700, "M. Balmer"
>> <boogerpicker(a)wazoo.net> wrote:
>>
>>> <<the Ram 1500
>>>
>>>Now there's a worthless POS
>>>
>>
>> No need for you to be so self-referential.
>
>No need for you to continually imitate a rat's penis.
>
No need for you to be so self-referential.


"Ashton Crusher" <demi(a)moore.net> wrote in message
news:esjmd5p5u00fs3c4n3vgtj3sesdvm7fj23(a)4ax.com...
> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 21:55:29 -0700, "M. Balmer"
> <boogerpicker(a)wazoo.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Ashton Crusher" <demi(a)moore.net> wrote in message
>>news:2qojd5dp3pmc6hr5g4l58jer17em50vvc7(a)4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 02:05:41 -0700, "M. Balmer"
>>> <boogerpicker(a)wazoo.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> <<the Ram 1500
>>>>
>>>>Now there's a worthless POS
>>>>
>>>
>>> No need for you to be so self-referential.
>>
>>No need for you to continually imitate a rat's penis.
>>
> No need for you to be so self-referential.

>"Ashton Crusher" <demi(a)moore.net> wrote in message
>news:2qojd5dp3pmc6hr5g4l58jer17em50vvc7(a)4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 02:05:41 -0700, "M. Balmer"
>> <boogerpicker(a)wazoo.net> wrote:
>>
>>> <<the Ram 1500
>>>
>>>Now there's a worthless POS
>>>
>>
>> No need for you to be so self-referential.
>
>No need for you to continually imitate a rat's penis.
>
No need for you to be so self-referential.


"Ashton Crusher" <demi(a)moore.net> wrote in message
news:esjmd5p5u00fs3c4n3vgtj3sesdvm7fj23(a)4ax.com...
> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 21:55:29 -0700, "M. Balmer"
> <boogerpicker(a)wazoo.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Ashton Crusher" <demi(a)moore.net> wrote in message
>>news:2qojd5dp3pmc6hr5g4l58jer17em50vvc7(a)4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 02:05:41 -0700, "M. Balmer"
>>> <boogerpicker(a)wazoo.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> <<the Ram 1500
>>>>
>>>>Now there's a worthless POS
>>>>
>>>
>>> No need for you to be so self-referential.
>>
>>No need for you to continually imitate a rat's penis.
>>
> No need for you to be so self-referential.

>"Ashton Crusher" <demi(a)moore.net> wrote in message
>news:2qojd5dp3pmc6hr5g4l58jer17em50vvc7(a)4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 02:05:41 -0700, "M. Balmer"
>> <boogerpicker(a)wazoo.net> wrote:
>>
>>> <<the Ram 1500
>>>
>>>Now there's a worthless POS
>>>
>>
>> No need for you to be so self-referential.
>
>No need for you to continually imitate a rat's penis.
>
No need for you to be so self-referential.


"Ashton Crusher" <demi(a)moore.net> wrote in message
news:esjmd5p5u00fs3c4n3vgtj3sesdvm7fj23(a)4ax.com...
> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 21:55:29 -0700, "M. Balmer"
> <boogerpicker(a)wazoo.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Ashton Crusher" <demi(a)moore.net> wrote in message
>>news:2qojd5dp3pmc6hr5g4l58jer17em50vvc7(a)4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 02:05:41 -0700, "M. Balmer"
>>> <boogerpicker(a)wazoo.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> <<the Ram 1500
>>>>
>>>>Now there's a worthless POS
>>>>
>>>
>>> No need for you to be so self-referential.
>>
>>No need for you to continually imitate a rat's penis.
>>
> No need for you to be so self-referential.


From: Steve on

And where's the surprise here?


A massively over-bulked pickup introduced at the start of a gas price
spike. With no 3/4 or one-ton option to appeal to contractors. With no
diesel option to appeal to farmers, moving companies, RV-towing
retirees, or other mid-sized hauling operations. With an immediate
record of reliability problems guaranteed to scare away cautious,
bottom-line oriented, data-driven fleet buyers who don't buy into the
Japanese reliability mythos as readily as consumers.

It was a condo-dweller's weekend Home Depot run truck (or city poseur
truck to be blunt) introduced at the VERY instant in time when the
demand for city poseur trucks was guaranteed to tank.