Chicago Auto Show: Toyota boss calls for more industry cooperation
Even though Toyota is the most profitable automaker in the world, the company is open to more cooperative research efforts with Detroit. Jim Press, president of Toyota Motor North America, said the challenges in responding to environmental concerns are increasing for all manufacturers.
"And while I know our industry can meet these challenges, we always have and now more than ever need to work together," said Press, speaking before the Economic Club of Chicago at the Chicago Auto Show.
Press said Toyota and other manufacturers have made important contributions in fuel economy and pollution controls, but more advancement are being produced "through technology sharing agreements."
Noting the "monumental effort" and staggering costs required to support an infrastructure for fuel cell vehicles, Press said more cooperation is the answer. He called on for "changes in our relationships" with suppliers, the government and communities.
"At Toyota, we've said for years that automakers should compete in the showroom but cooperate in the laboratory," said Press. "I hope we're alert enough to recognize that what began a century ago as a metal-bending business has transformed into an amazing high-technology environment that presents a whole world of opportunities for creative solutions."
Press said the economic outlook for this year is "good," noting low inflation, rising consumer spending and continued business investments. He said he's also confident that Detroit automakers will "continue their recovery" and will adjust production to align with "real market demand." He expects 2007 auto sales to hit 16.5 million, or "a year much like the last one."
Finally, Press said Toyota supports the Bush administration's goals on CAFE.
In a Q&A session after the speech, Press said Toyota entered NASCAR because there are 80 million fans of the sport, and few are driving a Camry or Tundra.
"The reality is from a marketing point of view, when you go out to the parking lot at a NASCAR event and see what the fans are driving," said Press. "You can see why we're in NASCAR."
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
ryan 6:17PM (2/08/2007)
""At Toyota, we've said for years that automakers should compete in the showroom but cooperate in the laboratory," said Press. "I hope we're alert enough to recognize that what began a century ago as a metal-bending business has transformed into an amazing high-technology environment that presents a whole world of opportunities for creative solutions."
-Oh bullshit, then you turn around after being flower pedal enviro freak and make redneck looking Tundra commercials that go off on how big the components are vs. the other guys. It's hypocritical.
Reply
Lithous 6:29PM (2/08/2007)
Interesting. From autoblog's reader's digest version it seems basically like an acceptance speech for the #1 position.
Cooperation from gov't? Most import fans would not agree.
Anyone have any links to Toyota stating that the fight should be in the showroom and not in the laboratory? Not saying it isn't true, just curious to see what they have been stating and for how long.
I think Toyota would like to rather fight it out in the showroom because quite honestly if they are sued for the hybrid piece in question in court (I know it isn't the whole system) and they don't have a quick fix and the other full hybrids coming out they maybe be a little worried.
Seriously, it seems like: we one so now let's share and be good to each other and see who can give the best service to the customer and that is how we'll differentiate.
Reply
Richard Warren 6:31PM (2/08/2007)
And WalMarts a great place to work part time. Uh-Huh
Reply
Lithous 6:34PM (2/08/2007)
I meant "we won".
Reply
Dustin 6:40PM (2/08/2007)
Lithous, what do you mean about Toyota being sued about a hybrid part? I am not familiar with that.
Reply
Mike 6:45PM (2/08/2007)
Of course they want to share, they almost never come out with anything new or cutting edge themselves, they just copy the competition (Hybrids, of course, being the exception).
They shouldn't want to fight it out in the showroom though, their designs are boring at best and hideous at worst.
Reply
ORoad 11:09PM (2/08/2007)
Hybrid technology isn't exclusive to Toyota. Honda put the Insight out long before Toyota cared.
Cooperate their a55. Look at the Geo Metro and the Pontiac Vibe. Do you think we will see a Toyota Tahoe?
Reply
j 7:52PM (2/08/2007)
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha, he must be auditioning for Leno's job, maybe Toyota can buy it for him.
Reply
Phil 8:21PM (2/08/2007)
HERE IT IS , PLUS ALL THE STUFF YOU FANBOYS MISSED~~~
Toyota recalls more than 750,000 SUVs, trucks
Problems with front suspensions may hinder steering
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7887155
Toyota Recalls 75,000 Prius Hybrids
Software glitch may make engine stall
http://www.autoweb.com/content/shared/articles/templates/index.cfm/article_id_int/795
Toyota vehicle recalls double in 2005http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2005-12-01-toyota-recalls_x.htm
Toyota Recalls 880,000 SUVs & Pickupshttp://www.truckblog.com/story-305-toyota_recalls_880000_suvs_and_pickups
Toyota Recalls Vehicles Over Faulty Enginehttp://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=alerts_recalls&id=4375708
Toyota Recalls 160,000 Prius Hybrids http://cbs5.com/recalls/recalls_story_287113259.html
DON"T FORGET THE TOYOTA ENGINE SLUDGE PROBLEMS WHICH CAUSE ENGINE TO FAIL/DIE!
Toyota Motor Sales, Inc. ripoff Engine Oil Sludge Debacle consumer fraud Torrance California *Consumer Suggestion ..Charlene you must agreehttp://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/ripoff41001.htm
Toyota Prius Named in Patent Infringement SUIT!
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/02/prius_patent.html
Jeff Meckstroth's dispute with Toyota Motor Corp. might have ended quietly on March 1, 2001, when an arbitration panel unanimously agreed that Toyota was liable for the damage to the engine of his 2-year-old $37,000 Lexus RX300 sport utility vehicle.
Instead, it escalated. As the two Toyota representatives packed up their papers, they referred casually to other, similar cases they were handling. "Then we had our suspicions up that this isn't an unusual case, that Lexus knows about the problem, and has formed a response -- just deny, deny, deny," said Meckstroth, a 47-year-old New Orleans stockbroker. "We decided to sue."
His case mushroomed into a class-action suit representing prior and current owners of nearly 4 million Toyota and Lexus vehicles that may have suffered engine damage due to thickening oil, or sludge. It can accumulate and deprive the engine of necessary lubrication.
Toyota agreed last fall to settle the case but maintains that its engines were not defective. It said the settlement terms mirror a program to reimburse customers for sludge-related engine damage or repairs that it put in place in 2002. A Louisiana state court is expected to approve the settlement this week after a hearing today.
With engine replacements costing as much as $10,000, the final tab could run into the billions. But the damage to Toyota's reputation might be even more costly for the Japanese automaker.
Toyota is not the only automaker that has received complaints from consumers whose engines are damaged by sludge -- and the source of the problem and who bears responsibility are disputed issues.
But the high-profile case is the latest in a series of recalls and other signs suggesting that the Japanese automaker's quality controls aren't foolproof.
"It would be accurate to say that there have been enough issues with Toyota in the past couple of years that they don't have the spotless image they had a couple of years ago," said Karl Brauer, editor in chief of Edmunds.com, an automotive research Web site.
But he adds that problems at Toyota attract a disproportionate amount of attention because of the automaker's sterling reputation for quality. "Most companies wouldn't get noticed for these problems."
Further complicating matters, sludge issues aren't clear-cut. Excessive heat, sediment, poor oil condition or a combination of those factors may thicken the oil. In engines with very narrow passages, small amounts of sludge may get stuck, causing damage.
DaimlerChrysler AG's Chrysler Group and Volkswagen AG are among the automakers that have faced complaints about engine sludge in their vehicles.
Gary Gambel, an attorney at Murphy, Rogers, Sloss & Gambel in New Orleans, argued that Toyota's engines had a defect giving them a propensity to develop sludge.
But "the terms of the settlement and the settlement itself have no finding of defect in the product," Toyota spokesman Xavier Dominicis said. "They're not saying these engines are predisposed to sludge."
The settlement covers certain model years between 1997 and 2002 for the Toyota Camry, Solara, Avalon, Celica, and Lexus ES300 cars, and the RX300 and Highlander SUVs. The settlement amount "is tailored to what your damages are," Gambel said.
Toyota does not expect the rate at which customers are coming in for engine repairs in those vehicles or for compensation to change as a result of the settlement, Dominicis said.
In a recent interview, Yuki Funo, Toyota's highest-level U.S. Toyota executive, said he thought Toyota had "come through the worst period."
Most experts say it takes years for brands to lose -- and restore -- their reputations.
"The sludge issue was a significant blow," said Art Spinella, president of CNW Marketing Research Inc. in Bandon, Ore. "Toyota's in the position that GM was in back in the 1970s. A lot of people were buying GM products in the '70s because they were GM products, but they had fractures at the edges. It took 15 years before GM started to suffer from that long-term negative word-of-mouth."
At Toyota, he said, "it's going to hurt them if they don't turn it around."
gO GET A bUICK!!!
Send that to all your real friends, bloggers!!!
Reply
Robert 1:45PM (6/30/2007)
It might not be over yet with the Sludge Problem. My wife has a 2003 Camry with 50000 miles. Guess what? Sludge. $1500.00 just to open it up and determine the amount of damage and the final cost. Of course, not covered by warranty. It seems Toyota believes it is cheaper to fight then repair their defective products. I have also heard of other people, post 2002 toyotas, same models, with the same problem.
Gavin 8:29PM (2/08/2007)
That was probably the longest post in Autoblog history...
Reply
bernie 8:27PM (2/08/2007)
It's hard to argue the decision making of a company that hasn't had a bad year since the 60s. Sure some of their vehicles are painfully dull, but their business accumen is amazing. If you talk to Toyota people it's like none of them has any idea how great the company is doing. They stay hungry. It's kind of the opposite of the Big 3, where all they do is snipe at managment and whine. Kudos to the big guys fo keeping the pedal to the metal. Sooner or later they'll design a car that doesn't make us yawn and the rest of the industry will be in deep doo doo.
Reply
rrr 9:13PM (2/08/2007)
Phil, here's something for you. It's from Autoblog itself.
Surprise! Recalls fall in 2006
Posted Jan 19th 2007 6:27PM by John Neff
Filed under: Recalls/TSBs
We've noticed a few more posts about recalls have been going up the last couple of days, so one reader wanted us to know that, in fact, there were a lot fewer recalls last year in the U.S. than there were in 2005. Overall, the whole of the U.S. auto industry recalled 10.6 million vehicles in 2006, down some 38% from the 17.1 million vehicles that were recalled in 2005. Let's look at which automakers had a good year for recalls last year and which didn't.
General Motors: -73% at 1.4 million recalls (2005: 5 million)
Ford Motor Company: -71% at 1.7 million recalls (2005: 6 million)
Chrysler Group: 200% at 2.3 million recalls (2005: 765,777)
Nissan North America: 83% at 1.3 million recalls (2005: 709,838)
The article also talked about Toyota and Honda, but didn't provide enough recall info on either to include in our list above (and have you ever tried to search the NHTSA website for such information? Good luck). Both automakers, however, had a good year for recalls. Toyota, for instance, finished 2006 with 814,507 recalls, far fewer than the over 2 million that were issued in 2005. Honda, meanwhile, issues recalls affecting 1.2 million vehicles, the bulk of which was to replace owners manuals that were printed the incorrect telephone number for the NHTSA that led callers to a phone sex service. Without the printing fuax pas include, Honda recalled only 1,397 vehicles in the U.S. for actual mechanical troubles that adversely affected the safety of its vehicles.
Thanks for the tip, logiste!
[Source: American Society for Quality]
Read Permalink Email this Linking Blogs Comments [11]
Reply
Lithous 9:25PM (2/08/2007)
"Lithous, what do you mean about Toyota being sued about a hybrid part? I am not familiar with that."
Which one? Solomon or Antonov? ... Don't worry, Toyota is at least the 9th most valuable company in the world by one of the financial analysts so no real problems there.
http://www.patenthawk.com/blog/2006/03/patent_transmission.html
But, if Toyota did have to pay one or more companies off (a decent amount of money) that *might* make it so that they were not profitable with their hybrids even with gov't tax and HOV use subsidies adding to sales. I.e. they might not be the first and only company to profit off of hybrids at that point. Hmm.
Reply
Jaimie B 9:32PM (2/08/2007)
Hey #8 how many days did it take you to compile that list? It must have taken quite a while - oh well I guess being an unemployed bum, you got lots of time on your hands. I must say you obviously searched far and wide to find these. All for the sole purpose of bashing Toyota. You must have an inborn hatred toward the company.
I'll tell you one thing that's really easy to find these days - NUMBERS. Yes, that's the profits (or losses) of automakers. You see #8 this is actually more important than any of your dumb "facts". You know why #8, that's because these numbers actually UNDESPUTEDLY says a lot about the desirability of a company's products. And you know what the numbers are telling all of us these past few years #8?
It's telling us that more and more people are not only attracted to Toyotas, they're actually buying them - a lot of them. The company made about 4 BILLION BUCKS in the last quarter alone. Now tell me how much GM and Ford made LOST over the same period? I bet you know.
The bottom line is this - village idiots such as yourself like to bash Toyota because of some personal hatred you have towards them. So now you want the rest of the world to feel the same sh1tty feeling you have so you try to spread any negative publicity about the company you can find.
But you know what #8, WE DON'T GIVE A SHIT. The only people that really care are the two or three people (ok it may sound like 10 but that's because they're posting under different names) who share the same sentiment as you. But you don't really need to sell them your crap - they already believe in it.
Reply
Lithous 9:36PM (2/08/2007)
All the hybrid lawsuit info looks to be 2006 that I can find, yet nothing shows as being settled. Anyone know the current state of the lawsuit(s)?
Wasn't Toyota trying to offer up their hybrid technology to others? Did they want to split the cost of the lawsuits? Does Ford and Nissan have to pay up if they use Toyota's (or Toyota/Solomon/Antonov's) hybrid system?
Reply
david 9:48PM (2/08/2007)
the more and more i hear of toyota, the more and more i hate them.. the recalls (oops! i mean service adjustments), the sludging and their arrogant attitude when forced to resolve the problem are imo just the tip of the iceberg. my son fought for almost 18 months to get a warranty problem on a blown transmission on his tundra resolved. not until he hired an attorney did they then show some interest is solving the nightmare. and that was corporate. the dealer tried to make a liar out of him by saying he destroyed the tranny by break torqueing. service writer said "it has to be something you did because toyota's don't break. not so. first time the tranny slipped was in rush hour traffic on the dan ryan expy. at 10 mph. the second time was when he was pulling my boat (4800lbs)out of the water, tranny would not engage and had to hook a chain up to a dodge dakota and pull the tundra and boat out. bty, his was one of the ones that the front wheel assy, fell apart from the defective ball joints. some people love them, and some people see them for what they really are. my son and i know, and will never buy their vehicles or their line of crap.
Reply
david 9:57PM (2/08/2007)
lithious, as of now the lawsuit has not been settled. still months to go, and last heard, only one affected is toyota. trust me, this will be big. so big, toyota may have to drop the last three letters of their name.
Reply
Mike 10:26PM (2/08/2007)
Jaimie B,
I would say the village idiot is the person who buys into all the hype that a company spews out. Believing a vehicle is high quality because of business practices that cover up mistakes doesn't make it so. It doesn't help you when your engine sludges and doesn't get paid for, it doesn't help when your ball joints seperate.
The reason Toyota sells so many vehicles is because of perceived quality. When that perception is damaged because it can't be hidden anymore, the playing field will be leveled.
Maybe then the village idiots will understand that Toyota can still screw a car together but it isn't as far in advance in terms of reliability and quality as they were led to believe.
Also, the reason Toyota is making so much money is because of their cost advantage- small amounts of health care costs and no legacy costs. Add the fact that a similiarly equipped Toyota is a good deal more expensive than it's American competitor and you have a recipe for profit. The lemmings (village idiots are willing to pay the additional cost for the same reason- percieved quality and resale value- which by the way is also inflated due to their high initial cost).
Reply
DC 10:33PM (2/08/2007)
#13 - that was pathetic, feeling a little hurt that someone brought real numbers to the table? I tell you what is "UNDESPUTED", its those numbers. Take your sorry fan boy @$$ elsewhere. I have nothing against Toyota, but that was weak.
Reply