Toyota reports record $14-billion profit ! ! Cha-Ching!

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: Ktulu
I see you're point. But as of late Toyota's quality has gone down, while GM's has gone up significantly. I won't say GM's cars are better than Toyota's, because they're not, but they don't suck (except for the Malibu). It's almost as if people won't even give them a chance anymore.

Latest quality/reliability results from JD Power and Consumer Reports:

reliabilitysmr.jpg
2006133a.gif

Well, from that Chart, Toyota's best selling I4 Camry has only Average reliability. Lower than Sonata or Fusion triplets, or Mazda3. That car is their bread and butter in America, and they can't even get it right. The people who are paying more for the Camry because of "reliability" are just wasting money, and could be driving a much nicer looking, better handling, and more reliable Fusion for less money.

What?? Toyota is ranked first!!?!?

Additionally, have you read the reviews on the fusion? The fusion can't hold a candle to the Accord and Camry.

I generally prefer Toyotas for my mid-sized trucks (Tacoma's are amazing!!) as well as regular SUV's (4-Runner). I generally prefer Honda's for Cars (Civic, Accord...). Not to mention their luxury line (Lexus and Acura respectively) just make it even better.

I've driven a Mazda 3 and to be honest, while the car looks pretty nice, it still has nothing on the Civic. I don't even know how you can say that the Fusion or the Mazda 3 is way better than the Honda or Toyota equivalent.

This thread is full of people who are completely and utterly blind towards the flaws of our cars here in America. Fusion and Mazda 3 are a step in the right direction (As are Acadia etc...) but they have a long way to go with the Toyotas and Hondas continually being refined and improved.

-Kevin

You're full of crap if you think that the Mazda3 is in anyway inferior to the Civic in anything other than fuel economy and resale (slightly) compared to a Mazda 3s.

http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/comparison/articles/108601/article.html
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons...-rabbit-vs-2007-nissan-sentra-20s.html

Same goes for the MazdaSpeed3 vs the Civic Si.

Its not even a comparison between the Mazda 3s and the Corolla.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: Ktulu
I see you're point. But as of late Toyota's quality has gone down, while GM's has gone up significantly. I won't say GM's cars are better than Toyota's, because they're not, but they don't suck (except for the Malibu). It's almost as if people won't even give them a chance anymore.

Latest quality/reliability results from JD Power and Consumer Reports:

reliabilitysmr.jpg
2006133a.gif

Well, from that Chart, Toyota's best selling I4 Camry has only Average reliability. Lower than Sonata or Fusion triplets, or Mazda3. That car is their bread and butter in America, and they can't even get it right. The people who are paying more for the Camry because of "reliability" are just wasting money, and could be driving a much nicer looking, better handling, and more reliable Fusion for less money.

What?? Toyota is ranked first!!?!?

Additionally, have you read the reviews on the fusion? The fusion can't hold a candle to the Accord and Camry.

I generally prefer Toyotas for my mid-sized trucks (Tacoma's are amazing!!) as well as regular SUV's (4-Runner). I generally prefer Honda's for Cars (Civic, Accord...). Not to mention their luxury line (Lexus and Acura respectively) just make it even better.

I've driven a Mazda 3 and to be honest, while the car looks pretty nice, it still has nothing on the Civic. I don't even know how you can say that the Fusion or the Mazda 3 is way better than the Honda or Toyota equivalent.

This thread is full of people who are completely and utterly blind towards the flaws of our cars here in America. Fusion and Mazda 3 are a step in the right direction (As are Acadia etc...) but they have a long way to go with the Toyotas and Hondas continually being refined and improved.

-Kevin

You're full of crap if you think that the Mazda3 is in anyway inferior to the Civic in anything other than fuel economy and resale (slightly) compared to a Mazda 3s.

http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/comparison/articles/108601/article.html
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons...-rabbit-vs-2007-nissan-sentra-20s.html

Same goes for the MazdaSpeed3 vs the Civic Si.

Its not even a comparison between the Mazda 3s and the Corolla.

Looks to me like they both perform very well and that they just prefer the Mazda 3's interior. Also it looks like if you race then you will want the 3 instead of the Civic...thats real great because everyone races -_-.

Ill say that I was hard on the 3 and that it is a very nice car, but still Mazda is owned by Ford now. You have Ford reliability vs. Honda reliability. I don't think I'll test Ford out AGAIN (Explorer=Exploder etc...).

-Kevin

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: Ktulu
I see you're point. But as of late Toyota's quality has gone down, while GM's has gone up significantly. I won't say GM's cars are better than Toyota's, because they're not, but they don't suck (except for the Malibu). It's almost as if people won't even give them a chance anymore.

Latest quality/reliability results from JD Power and Consumer Reports:

reliabilitysmr.jpg
2006133a.gif

Well, from that Chart, Toyota's best selling I4 Camry has only Average reliability. Lower than Sonata or Fusion triplets, or Mazda3. That car is their bread and butter in America, and they can't even get it right. The people who are paying more for the Camry because of "reliability" are just wasting money, and could be driving a much nicer looking, better handling, and more reliable Fusion for less money.

What?? Toyota is ranked first!!?!?

Additionally, have you read the reviews on the fusion? The fusion can't hold a candle to the Accord and Camry.

I generally prefer Toyotas for my mid-sized trucks (Tacoma's are amazing!!) as well as regular SUV's (4-Runner). I generally prefer Honda's for Cars (Civic, Accord...). Not to mention their luxury line (Lexus and Acura respectively) just make it even better.

I've driven a Mazda 3 and to be honest, while the car looks pretty nice, it still has nothing on the Civic. I don't even know how you can say that the Fusion or the Mazda 3 is way better than the Honda or Toyota equivalent.

This thread is full of people who are completely and utterly blind towards the flaws of our cars here in America. Fusion and Mazda 3 are a step in the right direction (As are Acadia etc...) but they have a long way to go with the Toyotas and Hondas continually being refined and improved.

-Kevin

You're full of crap if you think that the Mazda3 is in anyway inferior to the Civic in anything other than fuel economy and resale (slightly) compared to a Mazda 3s.

http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/comparison/articles/108601/article.html
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons...-rabbit-vs-2007-nissan-sentra-20s.html

Same goes for the MazdaSpeed3 vs the Civic Si.

Its not even a comparison between the Mazda 3s and the Corolla.

Looks to me like they both perform very well and that they just prefer the Mazda 3's interior. Also it looks like if you race then you will want the 3 instead of the Civic...thats real great because everyone races -_-.

Ill say that I was hard on the 3 and that it is a very nice car, but still Mazda is owned by Ford now. You have Ford reliability vs. Honda reliability. I don't think I'll test Ford out AGAIN (Explorer=Exploder etc...).

-Kevin

Ford has a 33.4% controlling interest in Mazda. And Mazda's reliability is better than Fords. On top of that, the Mazda3 is Mazda's most reliable model putting in in the center of Honda's reliability as an average.

http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/NFS4/reliabilitysmr.jpg

 

[0roo0roo]

http://www.automobilemag.com/features/news/0706_future_toyota_hybrids/
there are going to be 3 new prius models
http://www.motorauthority.com/cars/toyo...ius-coming-in-three-different-flavors/

 

[Gamingphreek]

I would be more likely to buy a Mazda than a Ford, but still the quality of Mazda's best car is just below the average Honda car on the graph.

Link

Someone didn't think too much of the Mazdaspeed 3. It is unrefined. While the Civic and the GLI can't beat it performance wise, the Civic, with almost half the torque and 1/4 less HP manages to keep up with it. As they said in the article, there is a difference between brute force and magnificence. Throw a Turbo on the Si and I would be very surprised if the Mazdaspeed 3 gives it a run for its money.

-Kevin

 

[gsethi]

Originally posted by: Goo
Toyota/Honda is selling car base on their past reputation alone, nothing more. Everyone and their dog have a toyota/Honda and they try to tell everyone how good their car WAS.

If you check out the 06 recall, Toyota and Honda are recalling left right and center. And people talking about how jap company renew their model every 4-5yrs.. Guess what, Corolla have been the same since 2002 (2003 model year).

FIXED (next time, do some research before typing

 

[thecoolnessrune]

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: Phokus
Ford is run by monkeys

Well, WAS run by monkeys. They're turning it around, cutting the fat now, and they're also got a slew of better products - but expect them to be in the red until 2009 (at least, that's what they're projecting ).

Indeed, I will actually most like be buying a Ford Five Hundred in the very near future.. (couple of weeks). I love the car and while I wanted the Zephyr I simply can't foot that bill.

 

[SVT Cobra]

The argument of where they are built means nothing as the majority of the money still goes to where it was engineered and designed. See last January's Motor Trend (which are extremely japanese biased).

 

[tcsenter]

Originally posted by: jupiter57
GM & Ford only "lost" as much as they did because they give their Top Executives multi-million dollar bonuses, usually far, far greater than the "losses" they post. The American Tax system at it's best.

lol! Apparently math wasn't your strong subject in elementary school.

Completely eliminating all forms of compensation for all company executives would amount to a drop in the proverbial bucket relative not only to the Big Three's losses but the exorbitant labor costs of paying high school drop-outs obscene wages and benefits to turn lug nuts.

The Japanese are building cars in state-of-art factories that spare no automation and technology with full cooperation of Japanese unions because world-class quality and the financial health of their company are a matter of national and cultural pride for them. Sworn hostility to the company's interest, fat union coffers, and a juvenile need to get its way even at the expense of American quality or competitiveness are the only sources of pride for the UAW (Solidarity, bruh-thuh).

We're still building cars with manual labor utilization rates higher than the Japanese used in 1980s because the UAW makes eliminating obsolete labor three times more costly than the company would save. Health care and retirement costs are also significant contributors to Big Three operating losses.

Executive compensation doesn't affect profit or loss remotely as much as insatiable labor self-interest.

The American education system (and UAW propaganda) at its finest.

 

[tvdang7]

i just bought a scion TC sorry im asian and i love asian brands. go toyota!! my scion rocks for what i paid for it.

 

[Penth]

I agree that it is the unions and health-care costs that are killing the big 3. Their reliability in the past also hurts them but I think they can counter that by offering long-term comprehensive warranties (and building quality cars so that the warranties don't cost them much from always having to fix things.) I think Hyundai's reputation in the past was worse than any american companies is now, but building quality cars and offering an amazing warranty seems to be working for them. I considered and test drove a santa fe. I think I'm going to end up with an Acura though.

 

[senseamp]

Toyota has not earned my business. From what I am seeing, products are absolutely mediocre and can't appeal to anyone with a pulse. I was tempted by the tC when it first came out, but once I drove it, I didn't see what all the hype was about. I did drive Camry, and it drove like a complete boat. If I wanted boring A-B transportation, I'd get a more reliable Hyundai Sonata over a Camry and save my money and get a longer warranty. Americans also haven't earned my business so far, only Mazda and Nissan have, but if they bring a V8 Camaro out around $30K, they will have, and I will own one. Yes, I'll pay GM's union wages and some guys retirement benefits to own a Camaro. I am willing to spend money to drive something special, but for generic product, I will only pay generic prices. And Toyota's product is generic. I think Toyota is going to run into the problems that Walmart and Dell are having now, where the brand will be very generic and unable to command price premiums.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: Ktulu
I see you're point. But as of late Toyota's quality has gone down, while GM's has gone up significantly. I won't say GM's cars are better than Toyota's, because they're not, but they don't suck (except for the Malibu). It's almost as if people won't even give them a chance anymore.

Latest quality/reliability results from JD Power and Consumer Reports:

reliabilitysmr.jpg
2006133a.gif

Well, from that Chart, Toyota's best selling I4 Camry has only Average reliability. Lower than Sonata or Fusion triplets, or Mazda3. That car is their bread and butter in America, and they can't even get it right. The people who are paying more for the Camry because of "reliability" are just wasting money, and could be driving a much nicer looking, better handling, and more reliable Fusion for less money.

What?? Toyota is ranked first!!?!?

Additionally, have you read the reviews on the fusion? The fusion can't hold a candle to the Accord and Camry.

I generally prefer Toyotas for my mid-sized trucks (Tacoma's are amazing!!) as well as regular SUV's (4-Runner). I generally prefer Honda's for Cars (Civic, Accord...). Not to mention their luxury line (Lexus and Acura respectively) just make it even better.

I've driven a Mazda 3 and to be honest, while the car looks pretty nice, it still has nothing on the Civic. I don't even know how you can say that the Fusion or the Mazda 3 is way better than the Honda or Toyota equivalent.

This thread is full of people who are completely and utterly blind towards the flaws of our cars here in America. Fusion and Mazda 3 are a step in the right direction (As are Acadia etc...) but they have a long way to go with the Toyotas and Hondas continually being refined and improved.

-Kevin

Obviously the whole point of a Mazda3 escaped you entirely. Which is a good thing because Mazda3s are becoming too common for my liking. Doesn't surprise me considering most of east coast roads are completely boring to drive on. Honda and Toyota seem refined until you take a corner real fast, then you can't help but laugh when comparing them to Mazda3. They drive like pretty much every other mainstream A-B transportation, that is like a boat on wheels with similar responses. Mazda3 feels and drives like a well sorted out suspension should. Perfectly weighted steering, no dive, no drama, perfect balance and composure. Like a car costing $10K more.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: Ktulu
I see you're point. But as of late Toyota's quality has gone down, while GM's has gone up significantly. I won't say GM's cars are better than Toyota's, because they're not, but they don't suck (except for the Malibu). It's almost as if people won't even give them a chance anymore.

Latest quality/reliability results from JD Power and Consumer Reports:

reliabilitysmr.jpg
2006133a.gif

Well, from that Chart, Toyota's best selling I4 Camry has only Average reliability. Lower than Sonata or Fusion triplets, or Mazda3. That car is their bread and butter in America, and they can't even get it right. The people who are paying more for the Camry because of "reliability" are just wasting money, and could be driving a much nicer looking, better handling, and more reliable Fusion for less money.

What?? Toyota is ranked first!!?!?

Additionally, have you read the reviews on the fusion? The fusion can't hold a candle to the Accord and Camry.

I generally prefer Toyotas for my mid-sized trucks (Tacoma's are amazing!!) as well as regular SUV's (4-Runner). I generally prefer Honda's for Cars (Civic, Accord...). Not to mention their luxury line (Lexus and Acura respectively) just make it even better.

I've driven a Mazda 3 and to be honest, while the car looks pretty nice, it still has nothing on the Civic. I don't even know how you can say that the Fusion or the Mazda 3 is way better than the Honda or Toyota equivalent.

This thread is full of people who are completely and utterly blind towards the flaws of our cars here in America. Fusion and Mazda 3 are a step in the right direction (As are Acadia etc...) but they have a long way to go with the Toyotas and Hondas continually being refined and improved.

-Kevin

Obviously the whole point of a Mazda3 escaped you entirely. Which is a good thing because Mazda3s are becoming too common for my liking. Doesn't surprise me considering most of east coast roads are completely boring to drive on. Honda and Toyota seem refined until you take a corner real fast, then you can't help but laugh when comparing them to Mazda3. They drive like pretty much every other mainstream A-B transportation, that is like a boat on wheels with similar responses. Mazda3 feels and drives like a well sorted out suspension should. Perfectly weighted steering, no dive, no drama, perfect balance and composure. Like a car costing $10K more.

That is the first time I have heard someone claim that the Mazda 3 has a better suspension system than the Accord or Civic. No way!

-Kevin

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: iversonyin

Originally posted by: alien42
no unions ftw

Another one that talk out of their a**.

not really. if you knew anything about present day unions and how corrupt they are you'd agree.

and i object to the thread title also. it's like kicking a man when he's down.

 

[alien42]

Originally posted by: iversonyin

Originally posted by: alien42
no unions ftw

Another one that talk out of their a**.

my grandfather was management at GM during the 'sit-down strike' in 1936 and my father worked in a plant in the 60s. i think i may know a thing or two on the subject.

 

[tvdang7]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Toyota has not earned my business. From what I am seeing, products are absolutely mediocre and can't appeal to anyone with a pulse. I was tempted by the tC when it first came out, but once I drove it, I didn't see what all the hype was about. I did drive Camry, and it drove like a complete boat. If I wanted boring A-B transportation, I'd get a more reliable Hyundai Sonata over a Camry and save my money and get a longer warranty. Americans also haven't earned my business so far, only Mazda and Nissan have, but if they bring a V8 Camaro out around $30K, they will have, and I will own one. Yes, I'll pay GM's union wages and some guys retirement benefits to own a Camaro. I am willing to spend money to drive something special, but for generic product, I will only pay generic prices. And Toyota's product is generic. I think Toyota is going to run into the problems that Walmart and Dell are having now, where the brand will be very generic and unable to command price premiums.

i think you are missing the point to why toyota is so successful..... you can have your camaro but everyone else is trying to save gas. and with the american car companies doing so bad i dont see toyota having problems in the future.

 

[postmortemIA]

As usually when it comes to cars, people are pulling info from their ass.

 

[jupiter57]

Originally posted by: Amoreena
Give me a big 3 car that is stylish and gets good mpgs and I'd buy it.

OK, How about Cadillac DeVille, 27 MPG Hiway, all the amenities, Front Wheel Drive, Beautiful car, Luxury, dependability, power to spare, & great fuel Economy?
Or: 99 S-10 Blazer, 23-24 MPG Hiway, fully loaded, All Wheel Drive, sharp, great looking all purpose SUV with V-6 power?

These are just what I own at the moment, there are many more.
Daughter once had a late '80s model Pontiac Grand Am that got over 30 MPG!

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: Ktulu
I see you're point. But as of late Toyota's quality has gone down, while GM's has gone up significantly. I won't say GM's cars are better than Toyota's, because they're not, but they don't suck (except for the Malibu). It's almost as if people won't even give them a chance anymore.

Latest quality/reliability results from JD Power and Consumer Reports:

reliabilitysmr.jpg
2006133a.gif

Well, from that Chart, Toyota's best selling I4 Camry has only Average reliability. Lower than Sonata or Fusion triplets, or Mazda3. That car is their bread and butter in America, and they can't even get it right. The people who are paying more for the Camry because of "reliability" are just wasting money, and could be driving a much nicer looking, better handling, and more reliable Fusion for less money.

What?? Toyota is ranked first!!?!?

Additionally, have you read the reviews on the fusion? The fusion can't hold a candle to the Accord and Camry.

I generally prefer Toyotas for my mid-sized trucks (Tacoma's are amazing!!) as well as regular SUV's (4-Runner). I generally prefer Honda's for Cars (Civic, Accord...). Not to mention their luxury line (Lexus and Acura respectively) just make it even better.

I've driven a Mazda 3 and to be honest, while the car looks pretty nice, it still has nothing on the Civic. I don't even know how you can say that the Fusion or the Mazda 3 is way better than the Honda or Toyota equivalent.

This thread is full of people who are completely and utterly blind towards the flaws of our cars here in America. Fusion and Mazda 3 are a step in the right direction (As are Acadia etc...) but they have a long way to go with the Toyotas and Hondas continually being refined and improved.

-Kevin

Obviously the whole point of a Mazda3 escaped you entirely. Which is a good thing because Mazda3s are becoming too common for my liking. Doesn't surprise me considering most of east coast roads are completely boring to drive on. Honda and Toyota seem refined until you take a corner real fast, then you can't help but laugh when comparing them to Mazda3. They drive like pretty much every other mainstream A-B transportation, that is like a boat on wheels with similar responses. Mazda3 feels and drives like a well sorted out suspension should. Perfectly weighted steering, no dive, no drama, perfect balance and composure. Like a car costing $10K more.

That is the first time I have heard someone claim that the Mazda 3 has a better suspension system than the Accord or Civic. No way!

-Kevin

You should stop posting RIGHT NOW before you embarrass yourself even further if you think that Honda sedans > Mazda sedans in handling.

 

[f1r3s1d3]

Meh, Ford (and GM) FTW

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: Ktulu
I see you're point. But as of late Toyota's quality has gone down, while GM's has gone up significantly. I won't say GM's cars are better than Toyota's, because they're not, but they don't suck (except for the Malibu). It's almost as if people won't even give them a chance anymore.

Latest quality/reliability results from JD Power and Consumer Reports:

reliabilitysmr.jpg
2006133a.gif

Well, from that Chart, Toyota's best selling I4 Camry has only Average reliability. Lower than Sonata or Fusion triplets, or Mazda3. That car is their bread and butter in America, and they can't even get it right. The people who are paying more for the Camry because of "reliability" are just wasting money, and could be driving a much nicer looking, better handling, and more reliable Fusion for less money.

What?? Toyota is ranked first!!?!?

Additionally, have you read the reviews on the fusion? The fusion can't hold a candle to the Accord and Camry.

I generally prefer Toyotas for my mid-sized trucks (Tacoma's are amazing!!) as well as regular SUV's (4-Runner). I generally prefer Honda's for Cars (Civic, Accord...). Not to mention their luxury line (Lexus and Acura respectively) just make it even better.

I've driven a Mazda 3 and to be honest, while the car looks pretty nice, it still has nothing on the Civic. I don't even know how you can say that the Fusion or the Mazda 3 is way better than the Honda or Toyota equivalent.

This thread is full of people who are completely and utterly blind towards the flaws of our cars here in America. Fusion and Mazda 3 are a step in the right direction (As are Acadia etc...) but they have a long way to go with the Toyotas and Hondas continually being refined and improved.

-Kevin

Obviously the whole point of a Mazda3 escaped you entirely. Which is a good thing because Mazda3s are becoming too common for my liking. Doesn't surprise me considering most of east coast roads are completely boring to drive on. Honda and Toyota seem refined until you take a corner real fast, then you can't help but laugh when comparing them to Mazda3. They drive like pretty much every other mainstream A-B transportation, that is like a boat on wheels with similar responses. Mazda3 feels and drives like a well sorted out suspension should. Perfectly weighted steering, no dive, no drama, perfect balance and composure. Like a car costing $10K more.

That is the first time I have heard someone claim that the Mazda 3 has a better suspension system than the Accord or Civic. No way!

-Kevin

You should stop posting RIGHT NOW before you embarrass yourself even further if you think that Honda sedans > Mazda sedans in handling.

So true. Mazda vehicles are basically designed to handle and perform well while remaining civilized and getting good gas mileage.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: tvdang7

Originally posted by: senseamp
Toyota has not earned my business. From what I am seeing, products are absolutely mediocre and can't appeal to anyone with a pulse. I was tempted by the tC when it first came out, but once I drove it, I didn't see what all the hype was about. I did drive Camry, and it drove like a complete boat. If I wanted boring A-B transportation, I'd get a more reliable Hyundai Sonata over a Camry and save my money and get a longer warranty. Americans also haven't earned my business so far, only Mazda and Nissan have, but if they bring a V8 Camaro out around $30K, they will have, and I will own one. Yes, I'll pay GM's union wages and some guys retirement benefits to own a Camaro. I am willing to spend money to drive something special, but for generic product, I will only pay generic prices. And Toyota's product is generic. I think Toyota is going to run into the problems that Walmart and Dell are having now, where the brand will be very generic and unable to command price premiums.

i think you are missing the point to why toyota is so successful..... you can have your camaro but everyone else is trying to save gas. and with the american car companies doing so bad i dont see toyota having problems in the future.

You don't have to drive boring to save gas. Mazda3i is a perfect example. Yeah, Americans may want generic cars, but anyone can build one too, so it's going to be increasingly difficult for Toyota to command a premium for its product as reliability perception gap closes. Because without that perceived reliability advantage, there is no difference between a Toyota and a similar Hyundai. It happened to Sony. People used to buy Sony because it was perceived to be more reliable than other brands. But then the competition caught up, and Sony became just another generic electronics maker, while Apple is the designer brand that commands price premiums for its product.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: tvdang7

Originally posted by: senseamp
Toyota has not earned my business. From what I am seeing, products are absolutely mediocre and can't appeal to anyone with a pulse. I was tempted by the tC when it first came out, but once I drove it, I didn't see what all the hype was about. I did drive Camry, and it drove like a complete boat. If I wanted boring A-B transportation, I'd get a more reliable Hyundai Sonata over a Camry and save my money and get a longer warranty. Americans also haven't earned my business so far, only Mazda and Nissan have, but if they bring a V8 Camaro out around $30K, they will have, and I will own one. Yes, I'll pay GM's union wages and some guys retirement benefits to own a Camaro. I am willing to spend money to drive something special, but for generic product, I will only pay generic prices. And Toyota's product is generic. I think Toyota is going to run into the problems that Walmart and Dell are having now, where the brand will be very generic and unable to command price premiums.

i think you are missing the point to why toyota is so successful..... you can have your camaro but everyone else is trying to save gas. and with the american car companies doing so bad i dont see toyota having problems in the future.

You don't have to drive boring to save gas. Mazda3i is a perfect example. Yeah, Americans may want generic cars, but anyone can build one too, so it's going to be increasingly difficult for Toyota to command a premium for its product as reliability perception gap closes. Because without that perceived reliability advantage, there is no difference between a Toyota and a similar Hyundai. It happened to Sony. People used to buy Sony because it was perceived to be more reliable than other brands. But then the competition caught up, and Sony became just another generic electronics maker, while Apple is the designer brand that commands price premiums for its product.

Except Sony is overpriced and thinks it commands the market by introducing proprietary stuff and forcing the industry to follow its trend.

Toyota doesn't do that. Toyota might be slightly more in $$$ than a domestic car, but you easily get your money's worth there. Furthermore, the Camry is slightly cheaper than the Accord, so go figure.

 

[Tangerines]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: jupiter57
GM & Ford only "lost" as much as they did because they give their Top Executives multi-million dollar bonuses, usually far, far greater than the "losses" they post. The American Tax system at it's best.

lol! Apparently math wasn't your strong subject in elementary school.

Completely eliminating all forms of compensation for all company executives would amount to a drop in the proverbial bucket relative not only to the Big Three's losses but the exorbitant labor costs of paying high school drop-outs obscene wages and benefits to turn lug nuts.

The Japanese are building cars in state-of-art factories that spare no automation and technology with full cooperation of Japanese unions because world-class quality and the financial health of their company are a matter of national and cultural pride for them. Sworn hostility to the company's interest, fat union coffers, and a juvenile need to get its way even at the expense of American quality or competitiveness are the only sources of pride for the UAW (Solidarity, bruh-thuh).

We're still building cars with manual labor utilization rates higher than the Japanese used in 1980s because the UAW makes eliminating obsolete labor three times more costly than the company would save. Health care and retirement costs are also significant contributors to Big Three operating losses.

Executive compensation doesn't affect profit or loss remotely as much as insatiable labor self-interest.

The American education system (and UAW propaganda) at its finest.

Most intelligent post so far.

 

[idiotekniQues]

only blaming unions is in itself capitalist labor exploitation propoganda at its finest.

while the unions are partly to blame, that rant is just a major piece of propaganda that just more bullshit.