Information Gleaned from Domestic Content Labels
in [Toyota]
|
Prev: 92 Corolla dies suddenly, won't restart for 5 days, then starts
Next: GM Dealer Challenges the Toyota Tundra's Ads... AS BULL
From: Built_Well on 16 Mar 2007 10:18 Ed, I was going to let things smoothe over between us, but you refuse to let me do so. Once again you are not correct. You write, "It seems that Toyota uses the '5' in the first location to indicate the vehicle is a truck (just like Lincoln does)." Toyota does Not use a "5" in the first VIN position to indicate a truck. You will also find a 5 leading the VIN for Sienna minivans assembled in the Princeton, Indiana plant. "5" also leads VINs for Sequoias assembled there. That plant, by the way, is indicated by the letter "S" found in the eleventh position. Your favorite Toyota factory (a joint operation of GM and 'Yota) is indicated by a "Z" in the eleventh position. The "Z" refers to NUMMI in Fremont. There's no reason to use the first VIN position to indicate a truck, because charactes 4 through 9 (right after the WMI) comprise the "Vehicle Descriptor Section." Ed, I will let this debate go as long as we both recognize that Mike Hunter's assertion regarding the first VIN position has not yet been definitively disproven :-)
From: Jeff on 16 Mar 2007 11:22 "Built_Well" <Built_Well_Toyota(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1174054699.800823.134520(a)e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... <...> > Ed, I will let this debate go as long as we both recognize that > Mike Hunter's assertion regarding the first VIN position has > not yet been definitively disproven :-) Considering that there is not a lick of evidence that Mike's conjecture is true, no documentation of it in the US code or any website, and much information that is inconsistant with it, it is effectively disproven. Jeff
From: Ed White on 16 Mar 2007 11:40 On Mar 16, 10:18 am, "Built_Well" <Built_Well_Toy...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Ed, I was going to let things smoothe over between us, but you > refuse to let me do so. > > Once again you are not correct. You write, "It seems that > Toyota uses the '5' in the first location to indicate the vehicle > is a truck (just like Lincoln does)." > > Toyota does Not use a "5" in the first VIN position to indicate > a truck. You will also find a 5 leading the VIN for Sienna minivans > assembled in the Princeton, Indiana plant. "5" also leads VINs > for Sequoias assembled there. That plant, by the way, is > indicated by the letter "S" found in the eleventh position. As far as CAFE is concnerned, Siennas, Sequoias, Tundras, and Tacomas are all light trucks, and amazingly, they all get a "5" for the first digit. Maybe this is just a coincidence. Navigators and Lincoln Mark LTs are also "light trucks" and they also have a "5" for the first digit. Why don't they get a "1" since they are clearly domestc vehicles? Mercury Trucks (Mariner, Mountaineer) get a "4" as the first digit. Why don't they get a "1"? They are clearly domestic vehicles as well. I don't think there is a rule that requires Toyota or Ford or Lincoln or Mercury to use a 1 or 4 or 5 to indicate the type of vehicle or the plant where it was built. The first three digit taken as a whole identify the manufacturer. Many manufacturers have multiple WMIs. These are assigned by the SAE. There is an easily found list of Ford WMIs and how they are assigned. None of the Ford WMI are assigned based on domestic content. Although Wikipedia has a list of Toyota WMIs, there is not clear list showing how Toyota uses them. By looking at VINs for various Toyta models you can determine the following: 1N - Nummi built cars (Corrollas) 5T - Toyota USA manufactured Light Trucks (Sequioas, Tundras, Tacomas, Tundras) 4T - Toyota USA manufactured Cars (Camry, Solara, Avalon) The third digit has some relationship to the body style. There are lots of different third digits for trucks, not so many for cars (as far as I can tell the third digit for all Camrys and Avalons is "1"). There are no "1T" Toyotas as far as I can tell (but plent of "1Ns"). Why is this the case? I don't know. But I do know that the domestic contnet labels for several Toyota models show 75% or higher domestic content. If the rules required that the first digit indicated domestic contnet, I would think these vehicles would have a "1". Likewise Lincoln LTs which have a 90% domestic contnet, would have a "1" as well, instead of the "5" they actually have for the first digit. So here is the way I see it: 1) Just comparing domestic contnet labels and VINs suggests there is no relation ship between VINs and domestic conntent 2) No one has ever provided any evidence that there is a link between domestic content and VINs. Mike Hunter has alluded to the existence of such a link, but has been unwilling to provide a verifiable reference despite being asked for this repeatedly. 3) If such a link existed, why is it so difficult to find any evidence of it? 4) I think Mike Hunter dreamed up the link and is too stubborn to admit he was wrong. > Your favorite Toyota factory (a joint operation of GM and 'Yota) > is indicated by a "Z" in the eleventh position. The "Z" refers > to NUMMI in Fremont. And? If you go to the Toyota Fleet VIN Decoder (http:// fleet.toyota.com/html/vin_decoder.asp), they claim that at a "1" in the first position of the VIN indicates NUMMI built vehicles. For Position 1 - 1 = USA:NUMMI, 4 = USA: TMMK (Kentucky), 5 = USA: TMMI & TMMCA (Indiana and California) It is pretty obvious that this VIN decoder is not up to date since it won't correctly decode some newer VINs and does not address the new plant in Texas. > There's no reason to use the first VIN position to indicate > a truck, because charactes 4 through 9 (right after the WMI) > comprise the "Vehicle Descriptor Section." That may be ture, but as far as I can tell, all current USA assembled Toyota "Light Trucks" (Light Trucks include Vans and SUVs) get a 5 for the first digit. > Ed, I will let this debate go as long as we both recognize that > Mike Hunter's assertion regarding the first VIN position has > not yet been definitively disproven :-) Hard to prove a negative. No one, not you, not Mike, has provided any evidence that the first digit has anything to do with domestic contnet. Don't you suppose if this was true there would be at least one easily found refernce that confirms it? Mike treats his wild speclation as if was true becasue he said so. He makes vague references to unfindable documents. When he is challenged on this, he says something like "I am not going to do your research for you." Clearly he doesn't have any proof of his claim and is just trying to avoid admitting it is merely his speculation and not a fact. Ed
From: Jeff on 16 Mar 2007 12:02 "Ed White" <ce.white3(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1174059624.036222.148030(a)n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... <...> > 4) I think Mike Hunter dreamed up the link and is too stubborn to > admit he was wrong. Mike Hunter said his engineer friend told him about the VIN content thing. So he might not have dreamt it up. Not that it matters. I concur that he is too stubborn to admit he is wrong. I have admitted I am wrong many times. I even got the type of weight on wheels wrong (I said aluminum instead of lead. Oopsie - Big brain fart there). >> Your favorite Toyota factory (a joint operation of GM and 'Yota) >> is indicated by a "Z" in the eleventh position. The "Z" refers >> to NUMMI in Fremont. > > And? If you go to the Toyota Fleet VIN Decoder (http:// > fleet.toyota.com/html/vin_decoder.asp), they claim that at a "1" in > the first position of the VIN indicates NUMMI built vehicles. > > For Position 1 - 1 = USA:NUMMI, 4 = USA: TMMK (Kentucky), 5 = USA: > TMMI & TMMCA (Indiana and California) > > It is pretty obvious that this VIN decoder is not up to date since it > won't correctly decode some newer VINs and does not address the new > plant in Texas. > >> There's no reason to use the first VIN position to indicate >> a truck, because charactes 4 through 9 (right after the WMI) >> comprise the "Vehicle Descriptor Section." > > That may be ture, but as far as I can tell, all current USA assembled > Toyota "Light Trucks" (Light Trucks include Vans and SUVs) get a 5 for > the first digit. > >> Ed, I will let this debate go as long as we both recognize that >> Mike Hunter's assertion regarding the first VIN position has >> not yet been definitively disproven :-) > > Hard to prove a negative. No one, not you, not Mike, has provided any > evidence that the first digit has anything to do with domestic > contnet. Don't you suppose if this was true there would be at least > one easily found refernce that confirms it? But it is to find evidence that this conjecture of Mike's is wrong. Like the Lincoln and Mercury trucks/SUVs and their VINs. Unfortunately, there is no affordable master list of all the VINs. SAE has one, but it is too expensive. > Mike treats his wild speclation as if was true becasue he said so. He > makes vague references to unfindable documents. When he is challenged > on this, he says something like "I am not going to do your research > for you." Clearly he doesn't have any proof of his claim and is just > trying to avoid admitting it is merely his speculation and not a fact. The fact that the first digit of the VINs are 1, 4 and 5, rather than 1, 2 and 3 is consistant with the 4 and 5 were added on later, as the US ran out of WMIs. Otherwise, the US would 1, 2 and 3, and Canada and Mexico would be 4 and 5. Had the internet been widely used back in the 80s (yeah, I used it college and grad school then), and newspapers were on it back then, there probably would have been documents on sae.org as well as newspaper articles about the new assignment of the first digit of the VINs. But, the archives are incomplete going back that far, at best. And the avaiable sources, like wikipedia are incorrect or misleading, too. Of course, if the VINs reflect content, there should be easily found documents about this too, in the US code, the Transportation Department or SAE, but, there aren't any. The bottom line is that the VINs don't reflect content. That's why there is so little evidence. Jeff > Ed > >
From: mrdarrett on 16 Mar 2007 12:24
On Mar 15, 11:09 am, Hachiroku ããã㯠<Tru...(a)ae86.gts> wrote: > On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 11:11:41 -0400, C. E. White wrote: > > I think the labels hurt the sale of "domestic" vehicles since > > some people apparently would refer their car to be assembled in Japan > > by Japanese workers. I guess they like the idea of being an economic > > colony of Japan. > > Doesn't bother me a whole lot. Hate to say it, but the Japanese made cars > are made better... Are they really? How so? Which years? Thanks, Michael |