Ike gauntlet Tacoma 3.5 vs Canyon 2.8 diesel...surprising uphill times

You are saying diesel is more energy dense, correct? Kind of hard to understand which one you're saying is more energy dense.

Ford trucks do as well as they do because they sell them for dirt cheap to corporations. My company gets them for well below invoice that you and I would see at a dealership and they buy them hundreds at a time. Fleet pricing on Tacomas is nowhere near as low so it's a no brainer on which one to get. However down time on vehicles can be frustrating since now I have to walk across the refinery instead of driving so we lose some productivity. Are Tacomas perfect? No, but neither is the F150, Colorado, Ram, Silverado or Tundra. No truck is a one size fits all solution. Try finding parking in LA, SF, or any other area for the full sizes and see how much harder it is than the mid size segment.

 

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/diesel3.htm

The proof IS in the sales including fleet trucks. Full size trucks fill more needs then an intermediate. I don't want to pretend that the only reason Tacos don't sell as much as Ford f150s, is their price. But, isn't price a very mportant factor in buying anything and part of why we judge "best buys" regardless what truck it is ?

Bigger trucks are inherently more useful then smaller trucks for the needs that most people and businesses need them for.
You can carry less in a big truck but you can't carry more in a smaller truck. I guess thinking that being better off road and having better longevity makes up for all the other needs of truck owners. They don't for new truck buyers and lease renters where longevity and off road ability is ancillary to ford truck buyers and lease. .

Using fleet trucks and especially the more options that Ford offers gets Fords much closer to most people's needs then the, one size fits all toyota approach. You can't pretend that PRICE is not a factor in buying the perfect truck either. Btw, are you telling me the f150 invoice is less then a comparably equipped Taco ? I didn't know for years till now, you could get a base Ford so poorly equipped as a base Tacoma.

173,000 vs 35,000 year to date 2014 sales difference ?
Please.

 

You can't have it all. European cars that pride themselves on the most advanced motors and accessories have the most "advanced" problems. Toyotas are what they are because change comes very slow to them and they use mechanics that are tried and true for reliability.

 

Not sure I agree that capability is proven by the sales numbers. If Toyota had the capacity to produce Tacomas at an extraordinary level like Ford, and sold them dirt cheap like Ford does, I'm certain they could capture a huge percentage of the mid sized SUV market and sell hundreds of thousands more than they do. So why don't they do it? CAFE laws and desired profit margins.

By that logic the Camry is more capable than an Accord (it sure sells a ton more). Truth is Toyota just gives them away to maintain it's position as a volume leader. Same thing Ford does.

 

We debated that. Tacos DONOT have the capabilities of a Ford F-150. That's Plain and simple. They have different capabilities not needed as much in fleet trucks. Fleet trucks don't have to be good off road. They have to be BIGGER. Reliability up to the lease term is average with fords. After that, the Taco is better. What does that mean till the lease is up.....little . No advantage to owning a Taco.
The comparison of a Camry to an Accord as a Taco to an F150 is not valid. The Camry and Accord compete in the same class. The Ford 150 and the Taco do not.
Btw...429000 compared to 88000 in 2014 ? They are in two different leagues. Other then off road, the Ford outperformed the Taco in nearly every area.....including price ! Have you ever driven a new f150 vs a Taco ?
The mileage is as good or better, the load carrying and towing is better, it's aluminum, it's bigger, it rides better....etc. and, it's cheaper ?

 

I don't think you read what I wrote, so I'm unsure how to respond. All I said was the sales have nothing to do with it, I'm certain Toyota could close that gap quite easily if they whored them out like Ford does.

 

Whored them out lol.

Let's be clear. You can be successful selling a smaller amount of vehicles for a higher price or more vehicles for a lower price. You could even have many of the same total costs and total profits doing each without sacrificing quality. Let's not act like Toyota spends hours more time building every vehicle that much more carefully than everyone else because that's simply not true.

 

If you sell 100,000 vehicles at a 10% margin, that's going to generate more gross than selling 500,000 vehicles at a 1% margin. I have absolutely no idea what the margins are in either truck, but I'd place quite the wager that Toyota's margin is significantly higher, and if they lowered it and found the capacity to produce more, they'd sell quite a few more. For whatever reason they've chosen not to do that. That really in no way pertains to which truck is "better" (The Tacoma or F150) as the other poster was saying.

I'm not saying anything about build quality, so not sure where you're going with that.

 

It seemed like the conversation was about to turn that direction again lol.

 

I was watching a video a while ago where Mike Sweers stated that the truck plants are at capacity, for the Tacoma and Tundra. If that is true then there is no need to lower the price.

 

They are over capacity, of course there's no reason to lower the price.

 

I think Toyota needs to build another plant and get more serious about the Tundra. Its a well built truck but besides that it isn't very competitive. It's in desperate need for a update.

 

There are several reasons they don't do this. #1 it's a saturated market. Trying to push the Tundra into Chevy or Ford numbers, they would have to invest a serious dollar amount into the platform, build the plants, and all of this to ultimately lower their margins to virtually nothing. Doesn't sound like a good business model.

#2 Toyota is highly concerned with their CAFE rankings. They are literally blowing the doors off all other manufacturers in CAFE credits, which will be worth serious dollars in a few years (they can actually sell the credits to poor performing companies). Building a giant fleet of 15mpg trucks is going to take a real bite out of those numbers.

 

Talking about CAFE numbers. Have you seen the Tundra fuel mileage? Those numbers are working against Toyota and the Big 3 have proven that a full-size truck is capable of better fuel economy.
I agree that they won't build another plant. Also with more competition in the midsize market coming in the near future, that will have a effect on Tacoma sales.

 

Let me be susinct; the sales have everything to do with it. IMO, they can never sell anywhere near the f150s no matter what they did with the same truck they have....well, of course, they could offer them for free. Taco fan boys have to realize that Ford sells more f150 s for a HIGHER price then Tacos, not less, because they serve the needs better for their target buyers. Their target buyers are a bigger part of the buying public. It's the Tundra that competes unsuccessfully too, with the f150.

 

Toyota reps have made this point many times. They "can" improve mileage in their trucks, but at the expense of reliability and drivability. The engines they have in the Tundra are as powerful as anyone else makes and they argue, are the most reliable. They are not as economical. If your motor, transmission or any drivetrain part breaks down in 100 k miles, what good was it to have two more mpgs

 

What? A company engineering team says they make the most reliable engine? NO WAY!

Yes, an engine design that is 10 years old likely has a few more kinks worked out but that doesn't mean that brand new designs can't be made that have similar reliability based off related platforms that have also stood the test of time. Truthfully, if this was what Toyota thought, why did they stick the 2GR with a new top end in the Tacoma?

Bottom line, Toyota isn't willing to invest in the Tundra. The new model is a pretty half assed refresh on the mechanical side because they didn't want to spend the money on a fresh rebuild with a new engine because they are likely making great money off of people who buy it just for the Toyota badge on the front.

 

Did BlueT change his username?

 

Yeah, except I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade. Honestly, why would you believe Toyota is keeping the engine the same in the Tundra for reliability when in their other truck they went with a refreshed design?

 

The only reason I can see that Toyota just went with a simple cosmetic refresh on the new Tundra is because that's what their interpretation of the market lead them to do. Their target market didn't need better mpgs, more power, or better value. They just needed the same truck in a different shell, and that's what Toyota did.