Toyota Tacoma production increasing by 60% because of 'exponential' growth

The plant was built for the Tundras. They were expecting about 200000 sales a year. The sales were not meeting their expectations and when the plant they shared with GM closed in California closed they needed somewhere to build the Tacomas. So they moved production to the San Antonio plant. That plant is running over capacity and if they want to sell more Tundras they need to lower Tacoma production in that plant.

 

A sound business decision if you ask me. That won't stop the made in America lynch mob though. Clearly a Japanese company previously importing all their trucks, changing their minds
To build trucks in America, then deciding later to change the location of their final assembly again is a clear affront to America.

 

If they were to introduce a new Tundra the waiting list would be huge because the plant is already over capacity. I think the profit margins on a full size are larger then a midsize truck.
Is their any data on the two plants building tacomas regarding the build quality. Lots of people assume that the Mexican built tacomas are inferior.

 

I'll start thinking about buying a truck in a couple of years. I hope their is a Tundra update by then and Toyota has improved the Tacoma.

 

Quality is the same or better than before but there's more stuff in the trucks to complain about today.

Construction, fit and finish today is well above my previous trucks but they never had traction control navigation, bluetooth, backup camera, heated mirrors, blindspot monitoring. Only one had throttle by wire, power windows and door locks, only two had cruise control, air conditioning and reclining seats.

There wasn't anything to complain about as long as they started up and went where you pointed them.

Even then they still had their own issues.

 

These are table stakes now, and the Tacoma is still lagging behind some of its bigger competitors (Subaru to name one). This 3rd gen update is a step in the right direction, and the anti-change/anti-technology attitudes of truck drivers can be thanked for the delay. I think we, as consumers, need to press Toyota for more. compact car shit boxes are coming with more tech as standard equipment. Tacoma's dont have electric seats, just got a power rear windows, the tailgate locks aren't tied into the rest of the locking system (so its keyless everywhere except you have to carry a key for the tailgate), etc. I could go on.

Integrating this technology is cheap. The sensors for most of this tech costs peanuts (especially if buying in bulk) and the software/hardware integration work is minimal and can be shared across all of Toyota.

 

Adding more tech doesn't necessarily make it "better".

 

Fair point. (But, you may have also given credence to my "anti-tech attitude of truck drivers" comment. )

I guess I was just pointing out that, in terms of things that stand out, these Tacomas are noticeably lacking in the tech arena.

 

What do they expect someone buying the OR to do... park it in their garage and watch it shine!?!

 

Personally I couldn't care any less about tech. I wish I could still buy a small, simple, rugged rig....like the mid 80s trucks. Yes...I know there's something to be said about safety improvements and such. But if I could own an '84 extra cab, 4x4 with a 22R and a 5 speed with all manual options...I would.

 

Looks wise other than white I guess I agree.
It's just supply and demand, and to be honest I'd rather spend a couple extra thousand dollars knowing peace of mind coming out of Toyotas in buying a Chevy or Ford and not knowing whether or not it's going to last as long

 

That may be but you also want to be careful to not alienate your customer, particularly the repeats.

I'm curious how Nissan is doing with the new Pathfinder, especially since the Xterra is gone for decent offroad capabilities in an SUV platform.

 

@Marshal Dillon

 

I agree wholeheartedly. I have a serious "anti-tech attitude ". I know everyone says there is no market for this sort of vehicle, but I really think it would sell. There's 2 of us right here.

 

If only it were that easy- add backup camera, many airbags and all the other safety mandates, and that simple truck is not so simple. Sprinkle on a little consumer demand and poof- the 3rd gen is born- I wish for a simple truck but I do not believe it is possible anymore- it hurts since I would just like a "work" truck, but I console myself to be driving a really nice vehicle which can also do work when I need it to....

 

3 of us.

 

8/2/2016
http://www.mysanantonio.com/busines...ilt-Tacoma-sales-continue-decline-9060108.php

 

Well, there you go. We're practically a market segment.

 

Those people are buying 4Runners. Back when the Pathfinder was cool...

 

The problem is it's the safety stuff that costs the most and options are only costly when they exist. What I mean by the first point is that the ABS system, TRAC system, VSC system, crash testing, the airbags, testing, etc cost way more now than they did in the 80's. The 70's and 80's were the last of the "deathtrap okay" vehicles. Look at how many vehicles from that era went 4-5 year before things like exploding gas tanks or lethal steering columns were brought to the public attention let alone recalled. Now if you mess up a crash test it makes 60 minutes within a week, just ask Ram and GM. Companies have to invest heavily in safety and that eats up a lot of cost right there.

The second point is the cost of options. Believe it or not it's cheaper to simply offer power everything and an automatic transmission now than to offer the manual options. That's why those options are disappearing, it doesn't make the company any money to offer a choice. If a company wanted to come to the market with an all manual truck they'd have to avoid options in order to just make the thing cheap enough to justify. The problem there is that I doubt more than a few people are going to go for a vehicle with no modern options on it and that eliminates the economy of scale.

Look at the Ford Ranger when it died. They cost about 5K less than a Tacoma but they were rated as marginally safe and their sales numbers were garbage as the other trucks moved farther and farther ahead. Arguably they were selling basically the same truck you just described, a manual no option base model truck. It died off for a reason, that market for a beater compact was never big enough to justify it sticking around.

I loved my Ranger. I only bought it though because I couldn't afford a Tacoma. While it had it's purpose I understand it was a minor market that wasn't doing anything for Ford. It only stuck around because they had zero development cost involved. To bring something similar to the market would take costs that couldn't be made back.