pagemaster

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2010/02...ing-sales.html

Despite the Toyota Tundra’s dramatically sliding sales since it launched in 2007, Bob Carter, Toyota group vice president and general manager, says the automaker is fully committed to the full-size pickup, according to our friends at TheDetroitBureau.com.

“We have a great truck,” Carter said at the 2010 Chicago Auto Show on Wednesday. “Yes, sales have been challenging but the [entire full-size market] has shrunk from 2.5 million units to barely 1.1 million units.”

Last year, Toyota sold 79,385 Tundra pickups, down from 196,555 in 2007, a drop off of almost 60%.

Now, Carter said, he expects to see industry sales climb as the economy comes out of recession and the construction industry -- which depends on trucks -- recovers.

“The market will come back,” Carter said. “But [full size pickups] will be a lagging segment. We think, eventually, it will come back to 1.8 million units or up to 2 million but we don’t expect it will return to its peak.”

Of course, Toyota expects the Tundra to be there when the rebound happens.

“You can bet your lunch we’ll be a major player.”

SLegacy99

Everyone I know with one really loves them. Perhaps a diesel version would attract customers.

Something that all automakers have to deal with is that the full sized truck market consisted of alot of people who didn't need these vehicles. Thus, with high gas prices they aren't buying them. Figure out how to make a full size truck get 25 MPG on the highway and buyers will trickle back.

LexFather

Its a tough market to crack but they continue to try. The Titan has been an even bigger failure with the Chrylser Ram rebadge canned. I do believe they will make another.

Hyundai, Honda, Mitsubishi, Kia, etc don't compete in this segment.

mmarshall

Mitsubishi probably came closest with the Raider, which was a mid-sized, full-frame, Dodge-Dakota rebadge, and, I believe, has been discontinued. The mid-sized Honda Ridgeline is extremely versatile, well-built and cleverly designed, but, by being a Jack-of-all-Trades, ended up being a Master of None, except perhaps assembly quality.

The first Titan, though the first TRUE full-sized Japanese-designed pickup, failed mostly because of poor reliability (it, along with the Armada and QX-56, was built in the infamous Nissan-Infiniti Canton, MS plant that had so many problems). Its actual hardware, though, seems better that of the 2Gen Tundra, which clearly has sub-standard hardware.

I say that the Titan was the first true Japanese full-sizer because the 1Gen Tundra, though advertised as a full-sizer, was in fact a medium-sized truck with a V8 option. Toyota made some of the same mistakes with that truck that it did with the T-100/150 back in the mid-90s.

Joeb427

iTrader: (1)

Look,I love Toyota but still would buy a F-150 over a Tundra in a heartbeat.

pagemaster

This is just nonsense calling the first gen Tundra a midsize, yes it was a bit smaller and configuration were limited but it is a true full-size. Call it a 7/8th full size or whatever, but calling it a mid-size is wrong.

At the time, the smallest F150 had a length of 202in, the smallest Tundra was 212in...does that make the F150 a midsize as well?

You have to compare the first gen Tundra to the class it was in at the time. The F150 and Dodge Ram were close. The Tundra actually had more HP than the larger 5.4 F150 when the Tundra was intrduced in 2000, this would later change. Toyota access cab had more payload and equal towing capacity compared to a comparable F150 or even a Ram. It was only the Sierra that leap ahead of the competition.

When the Super Crew came out in 2002, Toyota followed in 2004 with the double cab. This was the first time that dimensions equaled that of the the American competition. The sizes were pretty much the same.

Today, the 2nd gen Tundra is about the same size as a first gen Double cab give or take a few inches....its perception that the 2nd gen Tundra looks so big.

Also almost all automotive publications classify and respect the first gen Tundra as a full size. In comparo's, it frequently compared to Ford/GM/Dodge and Nissan.

JD Powers actually called the T100 a full size as well. Winning an award for best full size pickup.

Don't fool yourself into thinking the current Dakota and 1st gen Tundra should be compared. One vehicle was born in the late 90's while the current Dakota is a more recent 2005 effort.

jadu

iTrader: (42)

I'd still love to own one of these things

CK6Speed

iTrader: (1)

I hope they continue on with the Tundra, or get out of the large truck all together. We have a Tacoma Double Cab and that truck is pretty large for us as is. I wouldn't want it any larger, so they need a Tundra sized truck for those that want it. If they drop the Tundra, I hope they don't try and increase the size of the Tacoma in an attempt to cover both segments.

mmarshall

No. I disagree...it is not nonsense. The 1Gen Tundra was about the same size on the outside as the Dodge Dakota and Chevy Colorado, which are considered classic American mid-sized trucks (Ford/Mazda, to date, has not done a true mid-sized truck, but stuck with the compact Ranger/B-series). You can call it "7/8", as many have done, but its size was about the same as the Dakota's (which was also about a 7/8), give of take a couple of inches. In fact, that is what defined a mid-sized truck in the American market.....about 7/8 of the length/size of a true full-sizer. But, unlike the earlier T100/150, with the 1Gen Tundra, you weren't stuck with fours and V6s.....it had a Lexus-derived 4.6L V8 option.



That is more a function of bed length than the size of the actual underlying truck, its frame, and cabin. The Tundra does not (and did not) have as many different bed-length options as the F-150, which has perhaps more different cabin/bed combinations than any other truck in the world.



Well, talk to the Toyota officials. They themselves now admit what I was saying.....that, for a number of years, they vastly underestimated what they would need in the American truck market to seriously compete. That is why the 2Gen Tundra is so much bigger than the 1Gen and the earlier T-series. The difference in size between the 1 and 2Gen Tundras is noticeable (even if you want to call the earlier version a 7/8). There was also competition from the Nissan Titan, which was a true full-sizer from the start. If the Titan's quality had been a little better, it would probably have competed more seriously with the F-150/Silverado/Ram.


I also was only comparing the 1Gen Tundra and Dakota in size...nothing else. The 1Gen Tundra was a far better truck, quality-wise...the Dakota was known for assembly problems and rather poor reliabilty. The 1Gen Tundra, at the time, was a pretty-well-made truck...it did not have the cheap hardware/sheet metal of the larger but flimsier 2Gen model.

J.D. Power was incorrect. It was marketed as a full-sizer, but, in fact, was not.

-J-P-L-

It would be foolish for Toyota to give up on the full size pickup. I'd really have to question the logic of anyone who suggests they should get out of it. They're the world's largest automaker, I think a key product like a full size truck is essential to such a lineup.

If I was in the market my order of choice would be a tie between Ram and Tundra and then Ford and lastly Chevy/GMC. The Ram is truly impressive and tempting but I still question Chrysler's quality and putting money on it would be difficult. On the other hand, I love the Tundra just about as much and can count on Toyota's quality and therefore would probably sign on the dotted line for that.

It's just too bad Toyota got serious late. During the truck boom, it was the smallish last gen Tundra, and then they spent billions developing the new Tundra and its plant(s) to go full force into a deep recession that they couldn't see coming. What can ya do.

pagemaster

I am completely shocked that you are so off base. I read many of the reviews and posts by you and you couldn't be more incorrect, not only that, almost all of the mainstream automotive press understood and called it a full size truck. For you too foolishly dismish the first gen Tundra as mid-size is completely wrong.

CR, MT, Car and Driver etc, etc, etc all claim it is a fullsize. So do pretty much everyone else. Also, the 1900lb payload rating of the 1st gen Tundra and the 2050 payload rating of the T100 cannot be over looked. No Colorado or Dakota mid size even come close to that.

mmarshall

Rams, of course, have the macho, big-rig styling that attracts a fair number of buyers, and the Cummins Ram 3500 diesel , with the double-rear wheels, has a humongous tow rating, but, aside from that, I agree with you...Dodge/Chrysler quality is not impressive.

What is even a bigger shame, IMO, is the fact that when Toyota, after a long delay of some TWELVE years (1994-2006), and FINALLY getting the exterior size, cabin, engine, frame, and towing capacity right, they had to downgrade the truck so much with thin, cheap materials. The tailgate, for example, was poorly-constructed and tended to warp and break.

mmarshall

While I respect your views, your arguement is not with me, but with Toyota itself. They themselves admit that both the T100/150 and 1Gen Tundra were too small. That is why they finally, after years of delay, did the larger 2Gen mode, which, yes, IS full-size.

The auto magazines did not claim that it was necessarily full-size (I read many of those reviews), but that it was marketed as such, despite being an actual mid-size, 7/8. Toyota now admits the discrepancy, so, as far as I'm concerned, this particular matter is closed.

But that doesn't mean that I have disdain for your views and opinions.....I consider you a competent and knowledgeable CL poster. Keep up the good work.

pagemaster

Please shares the claims that the Tundra was a midsize because you are spinning the words of the press. The words of the press are that the Tundra was 7/8th full size....yes, the second gen got it right based on the market that is out there right now.

Toyota has never claimed that they mis marketed or claimed that they were wrong and it was mid size. Again, a spin.

Please do not make this personal.

mmarshall

I think we both agree on that. Here is a good write-up, BTW, from Edmunds.

http://www.edmunds.com/toyota/tundra/review.html

They did so, in press briefings, when they significantly increased the 2Gen Tundra's size.


You started it by formally attacking my factual statements, which, in this case, were not off-base. I did not reply harshly, but tried to be civil. Now, as far as I'm concerned, this matter is closed. Let's knock it off before the moderators get involved.