Toyota's high reputation

Or that could be seen as toyota still riding on the cars they previously made. While the US car companies are having to deal with their previous poor products (which cr pointed out under the ford description, stating their ratings are hurt by old models, but the new models are a huge improvement).

The sheer fact that hyundai is #4 speaks volumes about where hyundai is headed. Toyota needs to be worried about that. Quality cars that run cheaper than a comparable toyota.

 

One of my favorite threads:

I would like someone to define that for me? "A great company"

Great at putting its customers first? This is the one that is really laugable now..."time to come clean"?

Great at building safe vehicles? The $100 million win?

Great at creating jobs in the US on a net basis? Toyota has cost the US approximately 10 US manufacturing and engineering job for every manufacturing job they have created. Jim Lentz(I am paraphrasing) "Toyota USA is one gigantic sales arm for toyota in the motherland." "all of the important decisions are made in toyota city".

Ah, toyota's high reputation.

 

It is interesting as an outsider to read this thread - I have not gone through all of it but I get the general gist.

The history of Toyota as a motor manufacturer is obviously a lot shorter than that of Ford and GM. It wasn't until the 1970's that Toyota, Nissan/Datsun and to a lesser extent Honda started to make forays into Europe and on a smaler scale the US. The European market probably suited the Japanese more as there were various motor manufacturers in severe difficulties, primarily the UK manufacturers that had in the late 1960's been nationalised into one corporate group. So you had the likes of Austin, Triumph, MG,Jaguar and Rover placed into the same stable with a model range that in many cases competed with others in the same stable. Ford and GM's Vauxhall and Chrysler were the other mainstream players. The mid 1970's saw problems with several European manufacturers. Italy's Lancia produced a car that was so weak that engines were in danger of dropping out of them, Fiat too had rust issues, French Renault's, Peugeot's and Citroen's were - well French and amongst the other European manufacturers only VW seemed to be producing a car that people wanted (the Golf). With this background you would expect that the UK car industry would have realised if they had got their act together, they could be soon be a force in Europe again. Renault of France in the late 1960's launched one of the early 5 door hatchback cars that gave the versitility of an estate car without the length. What did the British Leyand group do in response? It lauched the Austin Allegro and the Morris Marina. Both models competing against each other and neither with the versitility of a hatchback, and with no advance in the underlying drive train. The build quality of these cars were appalling and basically they were rapidly becoming a music hall joke.

Compare this with the offerings from Japan. They were designs that appealed to all markets - no French idiosynchronies here, and they actually lasted several years without breaking down or rusting away. It was little surprise that people took to these Japanese cars. Yes there was a generation who would never buy anything from Japan or indeed Germany on principle, but a new generation who did not experience the War were quite happy to buy a reliable and affordable product that moved with the times, and came with free goodies.

Meanwhile British Leyland were still making cars that rusted. The Rover 3500 series and the Austin Ambassador came too late and the industrial landscape changed when Margaret Thatcher came to power. She basically insisted that the British Taxpayer could not continue to throw money at an industry that had by then had over 10 years to get its house in order. She was happy to support those marques that were Worldbeaters such as Landrover and Jaguar, but not an industry that was full of industrial strife. Leyland were encouraged to form a partnership with Honda for the Rover 200 series which was a good reliable car, but clearly in doing so, there was an acknowledgement that we could no longer design a mainstream reliable engine. As Chrysler by then had just about ceased making cars in the UK and Ford were looking ot the benefits of German efficiencies, she took the view that if there was to be a motor manufacturing industry in the UK providing work, then if it had to be run by Japanese companies so be it. Thus Nissan opened a factory in Sunderland an area hit by the loss of shipbuilding, Honda in Swindon, hit by changes in the railway industry and Toyota in Burnaston, Derbyshire an area hit by the loss of mining.

Mrs Thatcher saw that protectionism was the worst thing you could have and that only the Free Market would result in innovation. That principle is now accepted across the board, by the mainstream and one of the old Socialist arguments is dead and buried.

What relevence does this have today? Well there may be some comparisons drawn with the decline of the British motor manufacturing industry and the problems in the US (poor model range that no one wants), and what happens if they are not addressed quickly. Fortunately Ford probably because of its experiences in Europe have been able to react and adapt far more quickly to its problems in the US - it never really had any problems with its model range in Europe and they have always been reliable. Rust was the enemy in the 1970's but this was addressed by the 1980's. GM however has been a different issue. It's main German based Opel arm has certainly not kept up with VW, Mercedes Benz or BMW. Given that the likes of Hyundai are moving forward in leaps and bounds and looking at where they are based, it is evidence that the World is now that much smaller and the days of any manufacturer resting on its laurels and relying on its domestic market are now well and truly over. Those who don't accept that should look at the last 40 years of motor manufacturing in Europe.

Interestingly in the UK, the reputation of Toyota has not really been hit at all by the recalls. It has been accepted that these things happen. Every manufacturer has to recall something or repair something in a hurry (look at the problems with the first version of Windows XP!). As someone looking across the pond, I feel that Toyota are being perhaps unfairly slated by some elements in the US, not because of the seriousness of the issue, but more because of an element of protectionist bias in favour of GM. GM should be forced to face up to the fact that it has lost direction globally over the last few years, and if it needs to rationalise its model range and brands then it must do so. In Europe Opel's and Vauxhall's are the same thing with different badges. It probably needs to do the same in the US, say concentrating on the Chevrolet brand which it can easily use for international sales. If it can become an innovator and build cars of international appeal then it will once again rightfully belong in its place as a global automotive giant.

 

NUMMI is a perfect example of why I don't trust GM cars the way I trust Toyota. During these recalls, Toyota (albeit too late to save those who passed away in recall related accidents) fessed up to poor quality control and I highly doubt they could get away with a continuation of poor quality. GM however has been getting away with it for years, puffing their egos with "American made" as if that really means a whole lot. GM quality suffered for a lot of reasons, and you can track it down to these big ones:
-in the 80's/90's GM felt it had nothing to necessarily learn from the high quality toyota was putting out (despite NUMMI)
- the design, unionization, and management of GM plants led to many oor quality workers lazily doing their jobs slowly and with lots of mistakes (which as you can imagine, would be costly)

Toyota caught itself being the old GM. Quantity over quality, and these recalls are the price they have to pay. At least they eventually admitted it. Can't really say the same for GM

 

A company that has a long term plan for growth and improvement. A company whose CEO makes 25 times what the average employee makes, and has to worry about the company's financial status in 10 years not EOQ.

TMC has GM and Ford beat here. You know Mr. Miller was "out of the loop" because he was retiring.

The number of alleged Toyota SUA incidents in this country make it much more likely that I get struck by lightning than involved in an SUA. And Toyota isn't Volvo. If Volvo had a vehicle comparable to a Prius I might have bought one of them. But did Toyota join with Detroit in fighting seat belts for decades?

As you well know, the number of manufacturing and service jobs lost to other countries has more to do with American corporate executives than it does with imports. That's why people can't get their mortgages adjusted- they don't speak the language at the call center.

Beats GM's reputation. I really doubt GM will ever regain its former glory. One annus horribilus does not destroy a manufacturer. 36 years does.

 

An excellent point that bears repeating. The corporate executives are the ones that decide to build car parts and refridgerators in Mexico or electronics and dog food in China. Not the consumers.

 

malorn, i think your intentions are honorable, but you (and GM) would be better served if you put your energy and efforts into convincing them to change, than you are trying to convince prius drivers (and whatever other import boards you are on) that we are dring junk, or are traitors or whatever it is you think about us. america imports too much for many reasons, our politicians not least among them. but americans buying american to support our country would just serve to recreate lazy union members, poor products and a bigger separation between the haves and have nots as products would be too expensive for most americans. peace brother.:rockon:

 

This is how most Americans view American cars. The video was made 30 years ago, and is a snippet from a movie called Elephant Parts. We have 2 generations of Americans who (rightfully) believe that there is no such thing as a desirable American car. Throw in the Government Motors takeover, and that's just another nail in the coffin.

Sucking sickness and death. That's the American car manufacturing industry, right now.

A shame, because even in the UK press, Ford is recognized as one of the best and most reliable brands on the market. (Jeremy Clarkson, on Top Gear)

 

many manufacturing jobs went away but due to several mitigating factors snowballing into a financial situation that could only be maintained in a robust economy.

*housing shortages

*free easy credit with very detrimental terms

*unions who felt that not gaining major concessions on every contract was a loss to them

*stock market synergy where all of a sudden if you were not making double digit profits yearly you were considered a loser (iow, small profits or break even was way less than acceptable)

all of this created an unsustainable "house of cards" economy. eventually the base became smaller and smaller and could no longer support the apex causing the collapse.

so who is to blame? when did it all start?

we harp on the surface issues, etc.

"gm makes crap" so i aint buying... is that really true? probably not. they may not make the best car, but they do ok. now who do we blame for their actions?? GM may be an american company, but they have caused us way more harm to our economy and people's livelihood than Toyota could in 100 years. but GM did not act alone. in fact, they may have started something that they completely lost control of, ending up nearly as much of a pawn as us, the American consumer

so do we blame GM for allowing unions to basically force GM into bankruptcy? or should we blame credit card companies and financial institutions for putting out so much credit that most realistically could not pay for?? all it did was jacked up the price of basic necessities, houses, cars etc.

would Toyota have done so well selling $20,000 cars if "$10,000 car payment" loans were not be giving out at 7-11?

what if we had a realistic credit industry that actually did their job and qualified a buyer? what if you actually had to have a decent paying job to buy a fricking car in the first place? where would we be then?

definitely something to think about and we can put the blame on anyone we want. lets face it, several dozen companies and industries all played a part. we, as a consumer were victimized.

sadly, only a very small few of us escaped the credit trap. its not a coincidence, that the percentage of relatively debt free people congregate here. but what we dont realize is that our $15,000 Prius cost us $25,000 and we only have our corner lending institution to blame for that

 

Looking at some of the posts here and having read Deming and other books on Japanese business methods, I think Toyota's problem is cultural. In Japanese society, when a problem is identified, the question is how to fix it. In American culture, when a problem is identified, the question is who do we blame. Both approaches have problems. If you don't know how the problem developed, your "fix" may be unsuccessful. And on the other hand if you worry too much about finding a scapegoat, you may never get around to fixing the problem.

Somehow, Toyota needs to go about fixing the problem and let their American executives deal with the American culture. Mr. Toyoda's apology was correct for Japanese culture. In our culture, it just gave the impression of weakness encouraging the bullies of our MSM, LaHood (king of earmarks) and Ralph Nader and his mentees.

 

There are some very interesting points made here. Perhaps PC can hold an international conference and solve our economic problems...
Honestly, I have a hard time nailing down any one, two or even three causes... there is a lot of blame to go around and I accept my share.
Consumers (us) want and often need, whatever it is at the lowest price.:mod:
Stockholders (many of us) want the highest return on investments, even if that means foreign (not local) manufacturing.
Employees (most of us) want high paying jobs that are secure.:rockon:
Governments (us) want the revenues from all of us to provide needed and wanted services to US.
There does seem to be a lot of us in the text here but I really don't see a way to change US
Oh well, I need to go to Wally World and purchase some oil that has a "falling price" :focus:

Posters, please do not take offense. I'm just frustrated with a lot of the material world we live in and needed to vent.

 

Would your energy be better spent convincing American manufacturers to make cars people want?

 

Exactly.

As a somewhat outsider to American culture, Mr. Toyoda's apology was fitting and sincere. But to most people around here that actually watched the conferences (very few) and those that saw the snippets on Fox News (majority) it was seen as him admitting he duped them purposely and was caught in some sort of huge lie and there was no way out. I think this is because from what I have seen, most people only apologize once they are backed into a corner. They try everything they can to scapegoat the problem and only when proved wrong do they sometimes apologize. Whereas in Japanese and most all East-Asian culutres, you take the blame "like a man" and move on.

 

During March the BBC's Money Programme did a special called "Total Recall" on the Toyota recall crisis. I don't know whether it has found its way to the BBC World Service or will have been shown by any US broadcaster. One thing that struck me greatly was the way that Mr Toyoda broke down in a number of press conferences after his appearance before the US congress, showing his gratitude for the support he received from US Toyota dealers and executives. This was probably a mixture of a reaction to all the pressure he had over the previous few weeks and genuine gratitude but it showed the man to be human.

After all lets not forget that Akio Toyoda only became President in June 2009. As suggested above in Western cultures he could have easily have said that the problems occured after his father stepped down in 1999 and before he became President. He didn't - he took full responsibility even though no one could argue that he was directly at fault.

 

Toyota does build safe, efficient and reliable cars, but they do not seem to build cars for people who actually enjoy driving. Apparently, an Accord is fun to drive, a Camry, not so much.

I don't see a Camry interior, even S model as very sleek and sexy. An Accord, yes.

Prius is a good car for those who drive many miles a year, at least 15k / year to get advantage on CA hybrid warranty. It's tough to appreciate a Prius when driving well under 10k / year - the initial thrill with HSD has faded a lot. I don't like the way it drives on a twisty road, but that's not what it was built for.

I guess you can get some backroad prowess with a 2010 V, but that's over $31k and the rearview mirror hangs down in my line of sight. So, to me, even the new Prius is not a polished car.

I'm looking more at Honda, but not an Insight. Honda puts more emphasis on making a car enjoyable to drive.

 

Top 50: Best Selling Cars Of All Time

True, Corolla is the #1 selling car of all time.

I think Toyota's are more for people who need the best reliability and utility, not those who are so picky about a sleek interior, aesthetics and fun to drive factor.

 

Not really a fair comparison. You are comparing Honda's luxury brand to a standard Toyota.
How do you feel about an accord vs a Lexus?

 

Not really a correct statement. The Accord and Camry compete in the same market segments. Neither is suld under a "luxury" marque. In the same way, comparing an Acura with a Lexus would be valid.

 

This is why they make more than one kind of vehicle. Some people like to drive one way, some another way. Some people think smooth edges like the Camry and the new Hyundai Sonata are great. Some like sharp lines like the Accord and the Cadillac DTS. Some people like to drive fast around corners, some people like to go slower and watch the scenery as much as the road. I like the sticker on my old Jeep Cherokee's drivers sun visor: "This vehicle is not designed to go safely around corners at speed like a sports car. It is designed to go places a sports car can't go." My Dad loved cars and was a Pontiac fan until he reached his early 40s when he switched to Oldsmobile and then in his early 50s to Cadillac. The Pontiac was a driver's car. The Cadillac (at least the Brougham and Deville) were couch potato's cars.

The only complaint I have about my Prius is that as much as I need to replace my 14 mpg Blazer with another SUV, I don't think I could handle 30 mpg. I may not have as much driving it, but I don't spend my time driving it thinking about how much I'm paying for a 28 mile round trip.

 

I had a 2002 Honda Accord for a couple years and called it the best car I've ever owned. It was only lacking cargo utility.

The Civic and Accord interiors are gorgeous - classy, sexy, with seating and steering wheel placement ergonmically 'correct' for cruising the highway and instilling confidence on a backroad in the wine country. Steering is said to be responsive in Hondas. Someone who knows cars, looking for a sporty sedan will likely buy a 2-door Civic, not a Corolla.

I don't believe Car and Driver labels a Corolla 2 stars out of 10 in enthusiast rating because Toyota may not throw money their way. No. I believe they run a Corolla on their test loop and rate it 2 stars.

C&D rates a Civic as 6 / 10 stars for enthusiast rating. Accord, 4/10. Camry - 2/10....

and you can drive an Accord slow if you want, but the better handling is there in case.

Toyota still has a massive hit with the Prius. No one can top 50 MPG's average.

Still, it's a drag that the 'more fun to drive' 2010 Prius is rolled up in a V package at $31.3k that still has ergonomic flaws in steering wheel and rearview mirror placement. So, I'll pass on the all-new Prius.