mmarshall

That right there may be part of the problem. One reason (among many) why Honda/Acura vehicles (except for some 1999-2002 transmissions) have not had quality issues like recent Toyota models is that they didn't try and over-expand. It is becoming more and more obvious now that Toyota, in its bid to become the world's largest carmaker, poured too many resources into trying to produce too many models, and, in doing so, simply cost-cut too much on each one. I saw signs of this as far back as the late 1990's (before I was here at CL), but really taking off around 2006 or so. I made significant complaints about the current Camry and Tundra when I first reviewed them, and a number of CL fans disagreed with me. Hondas also showed some signs of cost-cutting, but not anywhere near as as severely, and they still kept the qiuality up.

Now, that does NOT mean that all automakers will suffer quality losses as they expand or become more successful......Hyundai proved that after 2000, and Ford is proving that today. But what happened to Toyota can, and should, be a warning sign to other companies, that quantity does not always mean quality. And, judging by what I have seen with the new 2011 Sonata(though I haven't test-driven it yet), Hyundai may (?) have already reached their peak and be starting a slow descent once again. It's too early, though, to make that prediction.

Actually, like most Japanese products, Nissan quality was pretty good in the 1990's (I had an extremely high opinion, for example, of the 1Gen Altima)....and the rest of their line-up, at that time, seemed well-built. But you and I both know what dragged Nissan down after 2000.....Ghosn's famous cost-cutting.

Ford has definitely improved the reliability of their vehicles, while at the same time expanding.....like Hyundai after 2000 or so. But Ford vehicles still have some cheap or sub-standard parts on them....primarily in exterior/interior trim and hardware.

pagemaster

This sums up well some of the problems at Toyota. I would like to also add that Toyota built way too much production for their market share. Then they had the whole San Antonia/Indiana Tundra plant fiasco where they were building Tundra in Indiana in 2007 and then they had to move all production to San Antonio as the plant was not operating at even close to capacity. I read it cost Toyota 1 billion to move all Tundra production San Antonio and retool the Indiana plant.

Then Toyota has the Mississippi plant which is built but has no tools or machinery. They plan to built the Prius there but they keep postponing it.

All this idling costs money, the money has to be recouped or saved from somewhere else. Costs have to be cut somewhere.

Another thing that is interesting about the Tundra manufacturing. I have read that the Tundra was the very first new Toyota model in North America to be built by new workers in a new plant.

mmarshall

That alone, though, does not necessarily mean a sub-standard vehicle. Hyundai introduced its all-new, 4Gen Sonata, in 2006, at an all-new American plant in Alabama (Hyundai's first in the U.S.). This combined an all-new, designed Sonata with an all-new plant and an all-new work force....yet it still turned out to be a well-made vehicle. In fact, I think the outgoing 4Gen model, in several ways, is better than the new, redesigned 2011 5Gen model......I just introduced a thread on that a couple of days ago.

The reason the Tundra turned out rather poorly was because of the cheap materials Toyota used in its design, not because of the new plant or new workers. To be fair, though, the Tundra does have some good points.........notably, a smooth ride by pickup-truck standards, and a smooth, refined drivetrain that could pass for a Lexus (Lexus, of course, uses the Tundra's 4.6L and 5.7L V8s in some of its own vehicles)