Latest Mis-Leading Tundra Commercial
in [Toyota Trucks]
|
From: SMS on 22 Oct 2009 09:08 M. Balmer wrote: > the oddity is finding very many eight to ten year old F150's running the > roads At least those that have been used as work trucks. Many non-professional users buy pick up trucks to use as personal vehicles with only occasional use to haul stuff or to tow a boat or trailer. Any truck can last a long time under that kind of use. The advantage of the Tundra is that they are very tough in terms of the engine and body. You still see a lot of 10 year old (model year 2000) contractor's Tundra's on the road, having had nothing but routine maintenance. I told my contractor, "you need a new truck" because his 00 Tundra has 300K miles on it and is rather beat up on the outside, but he has no interest in spending $30K on another truck while the current one still runs fine. When you look at the big picture, in terms of not only initial cost, but in terms of costs of maintenance and longevity, the cost per year of a Tundra is much less than that of other trucks. You also have to consider the costs of outfitting a new truck more often. Stuff like racks that are truck specific can add thousands in extra cost, and you don't want to be replacing them every three years. Just the mere fact that a contractor is using a Tundra is one indication that they are one of the better contractor's to consider, in terms of price, quality of work, or both.
From: C. E. White on 22 Oct 2009 10:19 "SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message news:4ae05905$0$1647$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... > Just the mere fact that a contractor is using a Tundra is one > indication that they are one of the better contractor's to consider, > in terms of price, quality of work, or both. This may be the silliest thing I have ever heard. I would suggest that the contrator you driving a Tundra likes Toyotas and nothing more. There is no credible evidence that suggest that Tundras last longer than US pick-up. Actually, given all the quality problems associated with Tundras, I'd suggest it implies the Contractor didn't research things at all and just blindly purchased a third rate truck based on a bunch of BS he read on the internet. Ed
From: SMS on 26 Oct 2009 12:09 JoeSpareBedroom wrote: > But these words say the opposite: You're guessing, wishing or hoping. Maybe > ***SOMEONE*** has this information, but you do not, and neither does anyone > else in this discussion, including me. You're right. Empirical evidence doesn't really prove anything. In my area the Tundra is an extremely popular truck for contractors, while the F150 is more for the person that wants a truck to use as a personal vehicle. If you read the reviews of the Tundra, it makes a poor personal vehicle. Look at the Popular Mechanics review. The Tundra with the V8 had the strongest engine, with the quickest 0-30 (laden with ballast it was still better than the F150 or the Ram, and the crew cab was the best for, well, actually carrying a crew. But it got dinged for its truck-like suspension (well duh, it's actually a truck!). The F150 had a softer, more car-like suspension because its target market is different. It was rated the best for handling. It got dinged for the extra deep bed which made loading more difficult. The engine isn't as powerful so it was a bit slower as well, but nothing to worry about. The biggest problem with the Tundra is that not enough buyers are willing to pay premium for toughness or longevity. Look at how many older F-150's you see on the road versus older Tundra's. It's not an exaggeration to say that you could buy one Tundra for every two F150s, so the upfront savings on the F150 is offset by the longevity of the Tundra. Actually in the PM test the TOYOTA TUNDRA CREWMAX LIMITED had a lower MSRP than the FORD F-150 KING RANCH. The difference is that the F-150 is heavily discounted to well under invoice, while the Tundra is discounted less.
From: benteaches on 26 Oct 2009 12:32 On Oct 19, 7:40 pm, "C. E. White" <cewhite3rem...(a)mindspring.com> wrote: > Has anyone notice the snap shot in the new Tundra Commercial? Havent seen the add, but then I dont believe anything in adds anyway. I have contractor friends who swear by Tundra's and some who swear at them. Every mfgr has lovers and haters.
From: C. E. White on 26 Oct 2009 14:16
"Sir F. A. Rien" <jaSPAMc(a)gbr.online.com> wrote in message news:o6hbe55hoqno4r6fcm42nkarbb8i9a1o65(a)4ax.com... > DETROIT (AP) - General Motors' (GM) U.S. sales plunged 21.3% in June > and > Ford (F) dropped 8.1% while Toyota (TM) reported a 10.2% sales surge > compared with a year ago. > Light-truck sales were up 11.9%, led by the redesigned Tundra > full-size > pickup. > "Tundra really hit its stride this month, posting a record sales > pace," Jim > Lentz, executive vice president of Toyota's U.S. division, said in a > statement. "In a short five months, the new truck's earned its > stripes with > both loyal Toyota owners and those new to the brand." > [July 2009] Check the latest numbers.... For September 2009 Tundra sales were down 21.3% compared to Sept 2008 (6,308 vs 7,696). For 2009 year to date (end of September) Tundra sales were down 50.6% (56,599 vs 115, 026). That doesn't seem like the Tundra is hitting it stride any more.... For September 2009 F Series Sales were UP 3.5 percent campared to Sept 2009 (33,877 vs 32,727). For 2009 year to date (end of September) F Series sales were down 24.8% (295,426 vs 392,698). Toyota can spin things any way they want, but the facts are clear - the Tundra is huge flop. Billion down the tube on an oversized poorly designed pig of a truck. They took a decent design and turned it into a bad clone of a Silverado. I suppose you might argue that it is about as good as a Titan, but when the debate is whether your truck is the fourth or fifth best large pickup in the US, you should just stamp loser on the taillgate and go back to building vehicles you understand. At least they still have the Tacoma to give them some credibility in the pickup world. The Tundra is just a bad joke. Ed |