Latest Mis-Leading Tundra Commercial
in [Toyota Trucks]
|
From: SMS on 2 Nov 2009 11:41 JoeSpareBedroom wrote: <snip> > What characteristics of THE RIDE provide clues about the heftiness of the > frame, or other aspects of how it's built? Yes, that's the big problem with the Tundra; Toyota built a heavy duty truck for commercial use, not a truck that was intended to be a substitute for a passenger car like GM, Ford, and Dodge have been doing (since they make all their money from such vehicles). On Saturday I was at Home Depot. There were four trucks with racks parked by the large roll-up door by the lumber and building materials section being loaded up with supplies by contractors. Three were Tundras of various vintage, one was a Ford F150. Then I went to Trader Joe's across the street and counted trucks, three Fords, one Chevy, one Dodge, and one Tundra. To make a long story short, it's very clear that the Tundra is being purchased by companies and individuals that actually need a truck to do work, not just for going around town. They can't afford to buy a less reliable, less capable truck because any tiny savings in initial price would be lost many times over in the future. Perhaps Toyota is missing out on a profitable market segment by not building a car-like full-size truck. They probably are reluctant to build a light-duty full size truck because they don't see that as a market that they could easily take away from Ford in the areas of the country where such vehicles are used as passenger cars.
From: M. Balmer on 2 Nov 2009 21:00 << light-duty pickups well at least they are honest about that part
From: M. Balmer on 2 Nov 2009 21:08 check your math "I'm Right" <ImRight(a)URwrong.net> wrote in message news:7krreaF39s2tmU1(a)mid.individual.net... > 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. > I see a few Pre-Ranger Mazda PU > But very few nissans. > > -- > I'm Right, U R Wrong! > "M. Balmer" <boogerpicker(a)wazoo.net> wrote in message > news:TBuDm.1340$OY2.1255(a)newsfe22.iad... >> the oddity is finding very many eight to ten year old F150's running the >> roads >> >> >> "Mike Hunter" <Mikehunt2(a)lycos,com> wrote in message >> news:4addcb85$0$12271$ce5e7886(a)news-radius.ptd.net... >>> Really? If anyone actually wanted a Tundra they could have had their >>> pick at the Manheim Auto Auctions for as low as $25,000 just last month. >>> >>> I don't know were you live but I'm sure if you look around and you will >>> see plenty of twenty year old F150's still running on the roadways. >>> One old Tundra is an oddity ;) >>> >>> >>> "SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message >>> news:4addc5ba$0$1632$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... >>>> C. E. White wrote: >>>>> Has anyone notice the snap shot in the new Tundra Commercial? In the >>>>> commercial a contractor talks about when he started out 7 years ago >>>>> he needed a dependable truck and bought a Tundra (this in itself is >>>>> misleading - I doubt if 1 in a 100 contractor considered a Tunda in >>>>> 2002). >>>> >>>> The only contractor I've used had a Tundra of that era. He still has it >>>> with nearly 300K miles on it. His feeling is that it's better to spend >>>> a little more for a truck that will not need replacing every few years, >>>> but it's true that the Tundra cost more than your standard Ford, Chevy, >>>> or Dodge truck. >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
From: M. Balmer on 2 Nov 2009 21:11 I'm still waiting to see a ford off road somewhere (other than in a dirt parking lot)
From: M. Balmer on 2 Nov 2009 21:12
if you had a Mac you'd have to ride at the back of the bus "C. E. White" <cewhite3remove(a)mindspring.com> wrote in message news:m76dnRfYroNU-3bXnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d(a)earthlink.com... > > ----- 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 |