is toyota like gm 2.0?
09-01-15, 04:05 PM
#16
Lexus Test Driver
What @Sulu said. North Americans, specifically US market is totally different and Toyota is milking the platforms to get long term benefits and cost returns. DOT and NHTSA don't make it any easier with some archaic rules and regulations that just prohibit innovation. Fostering the reuse of the tried and true platform forever.
Case in point, in Canada, Toyota sells 3 Corollas for every Camry, in the US, it's exactly the opposite, guess which one gets refreshed more often. International model Corolla is a totally different beast, or is it beauty in this case, as the NA one does 't hold a candle to it.
Case in point, in Canada, Toyota sells 3 Corollas for every Camry, in the US, it's exactly the opposite, guess which one gets refreshed more often. International model Corolla is a totally different beast, or is it beauty in this case, as the NA one does 't hold a candle to it.
09-01-15, 04:13 PM
#17
Lexus Fanatic
09-01-15, 04:40 PM
#18
Pole Position
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: IL
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In fairness to Toyota, it did produce the first commercially viable hybrid gas-electric vehicle, the Prius. Now, Toyota is putting its heft behind hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. If Toyota can succeed with the Mirai just like it did with the Prius, I would think Toyota has introduced substantial innovation into the automotive industry that is even more fundamental and disruptive than making 800 hp turbo engines that racer types seem to think are the only ones that count as "innovation".
09-01-15, 05:03 PM
#19
Pole Position
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: IL
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
now this isn't in any way an obituary for toyota, but i am saying they need to open the purse strings and stop being so stingy.
toyota seems very slow to introduce new models and even refreshes, but i'm sure their execs and bean counters are 'pleased' with financial results, regardless.
09-01-15, 05:20 PM
#20
I keep hearing people talk about the ride height, but all the Lexus data shows the RC RWD and AWD with the same ground clearance (5.3 inches) and the same overall height (54.9 inches). The GS AWD models are correctly identified as riding higher than their RWD counterparts, but I'm not sure about the RC. To my eye, I can't see a difference.
09-01-15, 05:29 PM
#21
Lexus Test Driver
I guess looks are subjective, measurements are not. The RC AWD looks just fine for a coupe, and measurements put it lower than GS AWD.
09-02-15, 06:41 AM
#22
Driver
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Ontario
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite agree with Bitkahuna on his original post and many others. My problem as a consumer is not that they are using the time tested powertrain, including a platform, shared or not as long as the latest and greatest are not substantially better. I actually like the fact that they, for example, did not jump on direct injection right with others and make carbonization a problem. Rather wait, perfect it, add port and direct injection to eliminate the carbonization problem before introducing it.
My problem is that in their zeal to make every dime from me, Toyota will charge horrendously high value for replacement parts, and their financing and depreciation is out to lunch. I suspect that the high volume sales of BMW is partly because their finance and lease amounts are very attractive. I mean, if you leave out the bread and butter corolla, camry etc., I find the prices and lease values are very high for pretty much an old technology laden vehicle for most of the time. Toyota may be the most reliable brand on paper, but for my two month old Sienna Limited, it has been to the shop twice already for QA/QC issues from the factory. And I am again having another part showing signs of failing, right at 2-3 months of ownership. Granted, Dodge Grand Caravans are one of most depreciating cars and very unreliable, but I have found, when my pocket book is concerned, the depreciation amount on a base Sienna is higher any month compared to a base Caravan, simply because the starting price is so high to begin with.
My personal observation is, regardless of the make, barring a few exceptional models (such as Lexus RX), most of the north american factories churn out defective pieces around the same ballpark. Today with so many parts supply chain leading to the same parts manufacturer, including big ones such as transmission, there is less reason to charge very differently with different products, at least on the volume brands. My three year old Japan built CT hybrid on the other hand is built like it will never disappoint me on its parts failing.
You know what I found the most sickening though. It's Audi charging $6,000 extra for just a diesel engine over its gasoline version, no other add-ons, in Canada. Why am I saying this? Bad deals are everywhere. I love Toyota/Lexus. I just don't want to see them trying to forage in the short term dancing to the shareholders tunes, while forgetting the long term commitment to its customers. With Akio Toyoda at the top, there is hope.
My problem is that in their zeal to make every dime from me, Toyota will charge horrendously high value for replacement parts, and their financing and depreciation is out to lunch. I suspect that the high volume sales of BMW is partly because their finance and lease amounts are very attractive. I mean, if you leave out the bread and butter corolla, camry etc., I find the prices and lease values are very high for pretty much an old technology laden vehicle for most of the time. Toyota may be the most reliable brand on paper, but for my two month old Sienna Limited, it has been to the shop twice already for QA/QC issues from the factory. And I am again having another part showing signs of failing, right at 2-3 months of ownership. Granted, Dodge Grand Caravans are one of most depreciating cars and very unreliable, but I have found, when my pocket book is concerned, the depreciation amount on a base Sienna is higher any month compared to a base Caravan, simply because the starting price is so high to begin with.
My personal observation is, regardless of the make, barring a few exceptional models (such as Lexus RX), most of the north american factories churn out defective pieces around the same ballpark. Today with so many parts supply chain leading to the same parts manufacturer, including big ones such as transmission, there is less reason to charge very differently with different products, at least on the volume brands. My three year old Japan built CT hybrid on the other hand is built like it will never disappoint me on its parts failing.
You know what I found the most sickening though. It's Audi charging $6,000 extra for just a diesel engine over its gasoline version, no other add-ons, in Canada. Why am I saying this? Bad deals are everywhere. I love Toyota/Lexus. I just don't want to see them trying to forage in the short term dancing to the shareholders tunes, while forgetting the long term commitment to its customers. With Akio Toyoda at the top, there is hope.
09-02-15, 07:06 AM
#23
Pole Position
The past few decades, Toyco has been very reactive to the market, instead of proactive (see HRV fighter). but, i think the most glaring deficiency they have is in their powertains: it's way behind the competition (especially in the luxury and truck markets).
09-02-15, 07:12 AM
#24
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
iTrader: (20)
wow, i'm really happy the posts have been so informative, intelligent, and not defensive. great stuff, thank you!
09-02-15, 07:18 AM
#25
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
iTrader: (20)
As to the innovation, it is interesting opinion - what exactly is innovation? If we are talking about innovative vehicles that sell in volume and are not PR pieces, then Toyota is certainly the most innovative car company in the world with their 1.3m hybrid sales in 2014 alone.
i did say in my OP that "they are very innovative* (*when they want to be)."
i believe toyota (and lexus) sells based on reliability/quality/resale reputation more than anything.
09-02-15, 08:18 AM
#26
Yet Toyota is trying to sell cars here that they designed and built in Japan, a very high-cost country where it costs a lot to design, produce and sell cars. Toyota can sell their high-cost cars in Japan at higher prices but is forced to sell the cars it exports to North America for lower prices, so cost-cutting is a given.
.
.
Not sure I agree at all with this statement. I have been to a number of Toyota showrooms in Japan and find their prices comparable to at least Canadian prices. A lot depends on the state of the dollar vs yen, but still.
Heading to the Tokyo Auto Show in early November so will check out prices more closely then.
09-02-15, 09:38 AM
#28
Lexus Test Driver
I don't think so. Toyota tends to go through spurts of innovation that puts them way ahead of the competition and then they sit on it until the next spurt. Unfortunately, those spurts are driven by external factors (competition, regulators, safety deficiencies, or pending fuel economy regs) not customer focus. If anything, this is their Achilles's heel. They have been able to stay or jump ahead up to now, but it is bound to give at one point or another.
09-02-15, 09:47 AM
#29
Yep-looking forward to it. I head to Japan several times a year but just realized the Auto Show will be on during my next trip. They only hold it every 2 years. Already have purchased my ticket on line and definitely will be bringing a decent camera to this event
09-02-15, 10:48 AM
#30
Lexus Champion
When we try to rate Toyota on innovation, again, we are at a slight disadvantage here in North America. As has been said, it seems to come in spurts from Toyota.
The 6-speed automatic on the 2007 Camry V6 was considered innovative at the time (very compact and lightweight). The 8-speed automatic on the 2007 LS was a world's first. The GR, ZR and AR engines, when first introduced, were ahead of their game. VVTi was innovative also, when first introduced. And, of course, the Toyota Hybrid System, which was a complete re-think and re-design of a hybrid drivetrain (rather than just substituting an electric motor for the torque converter in an automatic transmission), was ahead of its game.
But then, as we see other manufacturers catching up while Toyota has seemingly stayed stagnant (although Toyota's technology is still competitive), we complain that Toyota is not innovative.
But again, here in price-conscious North America, we get what we pay for, and Toyota, as a company that knows how to do business (and make money), will give us what they can afford to give us at the prices we are willing to pay. So Toyota will introduce new technology to us here in North America when it needs to, in order to remain competitive (and charge for it so that they continue to make money). As an example, updating engines seemingly every year (as the Germans seem to be doing) is expensive, and because Toyota's GR and AR engines are still competitive, they will not introduce new technology. They are now introducing new technology, though, with the direct-injected, on-demand Atkinson and Otto cycle engines, and turbocharging, which is technology that no other auto manufacturer offers. But keeping the same engine family code of GR and AR does not help, giving people the impression that they are not new engines.
What we have not seen -- because we were not willing to pay for it -- is what has been available on Toyotas in the rest-of-the-world. Toyota had direct injection on the AZ engine (now obsolete large 4-cylinder engine family) some years ago. Toyota has had the Valvematic continuously variable valve-timing and lift valvetrain for some years, and only now being introduced on the North American Corolla and Scion iM's 2ZR engine. Toyota has had a CVT available for years but only available now on the Corolla. Toyota has had an automated manual 5-speed transmission (a 5-speed manual with an automatic clutch release and shifting mechanism added to it) that we have not seen here.
So who says that Toyota is not innovative?
Why does Toyota not have a true, sequential-shift double clutch automatic transmission? Perhaps they are secretly working on one (and refining the hell out of it). I think it may have to do with patents. Various companies hold patents on the double clutch mechanism. Toyota does not buy technology from outside companies (thus avoiding having to pay licensing fees), but rather prefers to develop its technology with its own family of companies (such as the various Aisin companies for transmissions) so that it owns the technology itself.
The 6-speed automatic on the 2007 Camry V6 was considered innovative at the time (very compact and lightweight). The 8-speed automatic on the 2007 LS was a world's first. The GR, ZR and AR engines, when first introduced, were ahead of their game. VVTi was innovative also, when first introduced. And, of course, the Toyota Hybrid System, which was a complete re-think and re-design of a hybrid drivetrain (rather than just substituting an electric motor for the torque converter in an automatic transmission), was ahead of its game.
But then, as we see other manufacturers catching up while Toyota has seemingly stayed stagnant (although Toyota's technology is still competitive), we complain that Toyota is not innovative.
But again, here in price-conscious North America, we get what we pay for, and Toyota, as a company that knows how to do business (and make money), will give us what they can afford to give us at the prices we are willing to pay. So Toyota will introduce new technology to us here in North America when it needs to, in order to remain competitive (and charge for it so that they continue to make money). As an example, updating engines seemingly every year (as the Germans seem to be doing) is expensive, and because Toyota's GR and AR engines are still competitive, they will not introduce new technology. They are now introducing new technology, though, with the direct-injected, on-demand Atkinson and Otto cycle engines, and turbocharging, which is technology that no other auto manufacturer offers. But keeping the same engine family code of GR and AR does not help, giving people the impression that they are not new engines.
What we have not seen -- because we were not willing to pay for it -- is what has been available on Toyotas in the rest-of-the-world. Toyota had direct injection on the AZ engine (now obsolete large 4-cylinder engine family) some years ago. Toyota has had the Valvematic continuously variable valve-timing and lift valvetrain for some years, and only now being introduced on the North American Corolla and Scion iM's 2ZR engine. Toyota has had a CVT available for years but only available now on the Corolla. Toyota has had an automated manual 5-speed transmission (a 5-speed manual with an automatic clutch release and shifting mechanism added to it) that we have not seen here.
So who says that Toyota is not innovative?
Why does Toyota not have a true, sequential-shift double clutch automatic transmission? Perhaps they are secretly working on one (and refining the hell out of it). I think it may have to do with patents. Various companies hold patents on the double clutch mechanism. Toyota does not buy technology from outside companies (thus avoiding having to pay licensing fees), but rather prefers to develop its technology with its own family of companies (such as the various Aisin companies for transmissions) so that it owns the technology itself.