Latest Mis-Leading Tundra Commercial
in [Toyota Trucks]
|
From: someone on 30 Oct 2009 23:18 In article <m76dnRfYroNU-3bXnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, "C. E. White" <cewhite3remove(a)mindspring.com> wrote: > >----- Original Message ----- >From: <someone(a)some.domain> >Newsgroups: alt.autos,alt.autos.toyota,alt.autos.toyota.trucks >Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 9:45 PM >Subject: Re: Latest Mis-Leading Tundra Commercial > > >> In article <pfSdnUwnF6u2n3fXnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, "C. E. White" >> <cewhite3remove(a)mindspring.com> wrote: >>> >>>"SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message >>>news:4ae5c972$0$1603$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... >>>> The biggest problem with the Tundra is that not enough buyers are >>>> willing >>>> to pay premium for toughness or longevity. >>> >>>When I was pricing trucks last February, the Tundras were heavily >>>discounted. I actually paid more for an F150 than I was qouted for a >>>Tundra >>>with similar equipment (smaller V8, Access Cab). One trip down a rough >>>road >>>convinced me the Tundra was a no go. Try running one over a few bumps with >>>the tailgate down and you wouldn't want one either. It was painfully >>>obvious >>>the Tundra was the inferior truck. Toyota builds some fine vehicle. The >>>Tundra isn't one of them. I probably would be able to get buy with a >>>Tundra, >>>but I prefer something that is overbuilt to something that is just good >>>enough to get buy. A Tundra wouldn't last some farmers I know a year. The >>>frame is too weak, the sheet metal to timmy. And given Toyota mediocre >>>reliabilty record of late and high Toyota repair prices, I couldn't see >>>taking a chance on a Tundra with my money. >>> >>>Ed. >>> >> the sheet metal is timmy? what about lassie, too? >> getting buy? you mean by? >> (i don't proofread either.) > >Worse than that...I let windows spell check for me... > >Ed > so that's what that smell is? i thought something died next to a heater. let me guess, the new windums 7? vista couldn't spell check it's way out of it's crutch.
From: someone on 30 Oct 2009 23:24 In article <ANydnYKQOY5P9HbXnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, "C. E. White" <cewhite3remove(a)mindspring.com> wrote: > >"dbu`" <nospam(a)nobama.com.invalid> wrote in message >news:-4CdnU86zfdtj3fXnZ2dnUVZ_oCdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >> In article <pfSdnUwnF6u2n3fXnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, >> "C. E. White" <cewhite3remove(a)mindspring.com> wrote: >> >>> "SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message >>> news:4ae5c972$0$1603$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... >>> > The biggest problem with the Tundra is that not enough buyers are >>> > willing >>> > to pay premium for toughness or longevity. >>> >>> When I was pricing trucks last February, the Tundras were heavily >>> discounted. I actually paid more for an F150 than I was qouted for a >>> Tundra >>> with similar equipment (smaller V8, Access Cab). One trip down a rough >>> road >>> convinced me the Tundra was a no go. Try running one over a few bumps >>> with >>> the tailgate down and you wouldn't want one either. It was painfully >>> obvious >>> the Tundra was the inferior truck. Toyota builds some fine vehicle. The >>> Tundra isn't one of them. I probably would be able to get buy with a >>> Tundra, >>> but I prefer something that is overbuilt to something that is just good >>> enough to get buy. A Tundra wouldn't last some farmers I know a year. The >>> frame is too weak, the sheet metal to timmy. And given Toyota mediocre >>> reliabilty record of late and high Toyota repair prices, I couldn't see >>> taking a chance on a Tundra with my money. >>> >>> Ed. >> >> I was at my Toyota dealer today getting my Sienna serviced, oil change. >> They had a demo board set up showing the difference between the Tundra, >> F150, Dodge PU, Chev PU and Nissan, showing the tie rod, brake, frame >> member. The Tundra seemed to have the most heavy duty components >> compared with the rest. The tie rod and brake disk assy seemed to be >> the two that stuck out the most. Maybe the Tundra is a pretty good >> truck after all. > >But which Ford, Dodge, or Chevy - HD, SD, 2007, 2008, 2009? Ford did the >same thing, and their parts looked better.... > >When you control the message, you can always make yourself look good. > >> The 2010 Prius is a mighty impressive vehicle too. It might be in my >> future sights a couple years down the road. > >I was actually suprised how roomy the Prius is. My SO wishes she had one. I >don't think it would be at the very top of my list for a new car, butI'd at >least be willing to consider one - particaulrly if I changed my life style >and had a shorter commute (more city miles). One of the guys at my office >has one of the previous generation Prius (actually his wife's) and he is >really happy with it - zero problems so far and great gas mileage (even on >the highway). My SO's parent also have one of the prior version, and they >love theirs too. They are very common around here and I have not heard >anyone complaining about them. > >Ed > my best friend buys a new one every other year and says they constantly improve them also. she does a lot of commuting and kid's taxi. she hit the side of a red light runner in a 2003 or 04 and it really kept her and daughter from injury. didn't total it either. pretty rare in a t boning. she won't loan it to me. durn.
From: JoeSpareBedroom on 31 Oct 2009 14:53 "C. E. White" <cewhite3remove(a)mindspring.com> wrote in message news:XqWdnax08t_E-3bXnZ2dnUVZ_oOdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com... > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> > Newsgroups: alt.autos,alt.autos.toyota,alt.autos.toyota.trucks > Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 4:27 AM > Subject: Re: Latest Mis-Leading Tundra Commercial > > >> I'm Right wrote: >>> That is odd when I drive I see 30+ year old Chevy, GMC, Ford and a Dodge >>> once in a while. >>> Chevy PU's from 73-87 are everywhere, the 88-98 are too as well as the >>> newr chevys >>> I see 80-86 Fords, 87-97 fords and up. Dodges are mostly 94 and up, with >>> a few older 88-ish with a cummins. >>> I do see a few 89-94 Toy PU. The truck they should have kept building. >> >> Toyota really hit their stride with Tundra. It's rather over-built, but >> that's why it lasts so long. If you want something that's just "good >> enough" but cheaper truck that will last 1/3 as long. The Tundra has a >> stronger frame and thicker steel throughout. But it goes beyond just the >> design, Toyotas are also more reliable, repairs are reasonably priced, >> and parts availability is excellent. > > Over built? Overbuilt for what - carrying a couple of bags of groceries? > Seriously, have you actually driven a current style Tundra? It is clearly > inferior to anything form Ford or Chevy or even Dodge. What characteristics of THE RIDE provide clues about the heftiness of the frame, or other aspects of how it's built?
From: C. E. White on 1 Nov 2009 11:13 ----- Original Message ----- > As for the Tundra as opposed to F and GM I can't say except for what I > seen at the Toyota dealership and as you know they puff their vehicles > as do Ford and GM. So what ever it's worth. Ford uses three different rear ends in F150 (not jsut different gear ratios), three different engines, 3 different transmissions, two different frames, different front and rear springs, etc. Likewise Toyota uses two different rear ends, three different transmissions, and three different engines. Chevy has even more variations. If you carefully pick and chose parts from the various combinations you can create the appearance that one is more heavy duty that another. One thing for sure, none of the parts you saw were from a Super Duty or a Silverado HD. Toyota would like to create the impression that the Tundra is especially heavy duty. The truth is it can't even match up with a properly ordered F150 if you want the a maximum capcity 1/2 ton pick-up. A properly spec'd F150 can tow more, and carry more than the maximum sped'd Tundra. That is the bottom line. I have been disgusted with the Toyota's marketing for the new Tundra from day one. I don't think I have ever seen a more misleading marketing plan. They have tried to cover up the deficiencies of the product with a bunch of misleading commercials. It is sad that such a successful company has resorted to such tactics. Sadder still is the fact that they wasted billions on this dog. Ed
From: C. E. White on 1 Nov 2009 11:17
----- Original Message ----- From: "SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> Newsgroups: alt.autos,alt.autos.toyota,alt.autos.toyota.trucks Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 8:16 PM Subject: Re: Latest Mis-Leading Tundra Commercial > "dbu`" <nospam(a)nobama.com.invalid> wrote in message >> >> I was at my Toyota dealer today getting my Sienna serviced, oil change. >> They had a demo board set up showing the difference between the Tundra, >> F150, Dodge PU, Chev PU and Nissan, showing the tie rod, brake, frame >> member. The Tundra seemed to have the most heavy duty components >> compared with the rest. The tie rod and brake disk assy seemed to be >> the two that stuck out the most. Maybe the Tundra is a pretty good >> truck after all. > > Yes, that's why the Tundras last so long, and have higher resale value. > They're built as real commercial trucks, not as a glorified passenger car. More BS. The Tundra is nothing special. Sure if you do a careful selection of parts you can make a Tundra look good, but I could do the same thing with a Ford or Dodge or Chey and make them look better. Just drive Tundra down a rough road witht he tail gate open and tell me how strong the frame is. It is a joke. Ed |