Filed under: Car Buying, SUVs, Trucks/Pickups, Plants/Manufacturing, Toyota
Toyota slowing production of Tundra, Sequoia
In a rare move for Toyota, the auto company will be slowing production of the Tundra pickup and the Sequoia SUV due to lagging sales. Last year, Toyota sold 196,555 Tundra's, which was just a bit shy of their stated goal of 200,000. Still, it was enough to make the Tundra the fourth-best-selling truck in America, and very close to the GMC Sierra at third. Significantly, those 196,555 sales represent a 57-percent gain in Tundra sales as compared to 2006. Still, Toyota is not selling as many Tundra's as they had hoped, forcing them to slow down their production cycle. Last month, Toyota sold over 10,000 fewer Tundra's than they are capable of producing. No jobs will be lost at either the Princeton, Indiana plant or the San Antonio, Texas plant where Tundra's and Sequoia's are built.
Those in the market for a new truck are very close to welcoming the redesigned '09 Ford F-150 and '09 Dodge Ram to the stable of choices. Despite this announcement, we're nowhere near ready to count Toyota out, and we're sure that they are well aware that they are in the middle of an uphill battle where consumers will have more quality pickups to choose from than ever before.
[Source: Automotive News - Sub. Req.]
_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
sw 9:49AM (3/14/2008)
I cannot for the life of me understand that they can make a world class truck like the Tacoma and then completely drop the ball on the Tundra.
Reply
ToyotaNationMyAss 10:02AM (3/14/2008)
Please...the only reason the Taco sold well is because Ford and GM did not try to make a midsized or smaller truck and it easily won those comparisons. What the heck does Toyota know about full sized work trucks that Ford and GM have not know for the last 50 years.
sw 10:41AM (3/14/2008)
Your userid makes me think you're quite biased in the issue so you won't even consider my argument, but here it goes anyways. I don't know the sales numbers but from the what I see on the roads it seems like the canyon and dakota are taking a beating from Tacoma's (I consider the ranger to be an entirely different class of truck). What I do know is that a Tacoma will take much more punishment than the comparable trucks from the big 2 and it's been proven by my experience, numerous off road forums and numerous truck reviewers, unless of course they're all wrong and you're right.
Frylock350 11:01AM (3/14/2008)
I think it has to do with their history. Tacoma benefits from the experience of building the Hilux abroad. Tundra was Toyota's attempt to build a Dodge Ram (they got the fuel thirst and garbage interior right!) and they couldn't have done it at a worse time. Building a small/midsize pickup intended for offroad abuse and such (Tacoma and Hilux) is much different than building a full-size pickup built for hauling, stability, and comfort. Toyota completely misinterpreted what Americans buy these things for. Tundra seems like it was built for the truck buyer who lives in the suburb and wants it for the novelty. Toyota missed on the interior, engine, transmission, frame and differential. Styling is subjective so I won't comment (if you like the Ram you should like the Tundra too, they look very similar). The previous gen Tundra has a more reliable drivetrain, much better interior, better frame, etc. It was a superior truck in all aspects. Given the current market trend towards smaller vehicles, they should have stuck with the old Tundra and developed an efficient V8 for it to compete with the 5.3L GM trucks. I think Toyota realizes that they aren't going to be cracking this market anytime soon. Casual buyers of truck (these are Tundra's customers) aren't going to be buying trucks anymore and the loyal truck buyers barely consider Dodge a competitor, much less Toyota.
As for comparing to the domestics, the Colorado isn't as nice at Tacoma but its a better offroader (when properly equipped) and with the 5.3L V8 instead of the I5 will have a more reliable drivetrain. Dakota is practically full-sized, its bigger than Tacoma and actually pretty much the size of the 2006 Tundra.
MikeW 1:46PM (3/14/2008)
There isn't anything wrong with GM's I4 & I5 engines. They could REALLY use variable intake valve timing.
http://media.gm.com/division/powertrain/press_kits/vortec_dynocam/index.html
The problem is the obsolete 4 speed automatic.
GM should have launched the canyon/colorado with the 5L40 ('04,'05,'06), and should have upgraded to the 6L45 ('07,'08,'09) by now.
Maybe for '09 Toyota will couple the 8 speed automatic to the 5.7 V8, and hand me down the 6 speed automatic to the 4.0V6 and 4.7V8.
Any chance Nissan will get that 7 speed automatic into the Titan/Frontier ASAP, more than likely.
Frank 4:25PM (3/14/2008)
"and the loyal truck buyers barely consider Dodge a competitor, much less Toyota."
Yea, that's right, us loyal truck buyers don't consider Dodge a competitor, all 350,000 to 400,000 a year of us. Do you have any other examples of your lack of knowledge of the truck market?
Dave 9:01AM (3/15/2008)
The Tacoma is a descent truck no doubt, but I would rather support an American company and buy something not quit so good such as a Colorado which needs a few fixes (mostly the front end appearance) to make it standout. From what I have read they say the Colorado with its optional Eaton rearend is a better choice for off-roading than the Tacoma.
As far as the Tundra that truck in my opinion is a ways a way to being the leader in the full size class. The looks alone are a big draw back.
That One Person 4:46PM (3/15/2008)
SW...ToyotaNation has a point.
I am a huge Ranger fan. And I do like the Colorado. The Dakota is the Taco's only true competitor (and I happen to think the Dakota, in ways, is the better truck).
But when it comes to mid-size trucks, the Taco may be the best...even though I don't think highly of Toyota. But there are areas where Toyota totally dropped the ball on the Taco. Towing with them is far from great. And the brakes suck.
jim 9:53AM (3/14/2008)
Let's see the construction industry is in the toilet, on the way home last night regular was 3.35 and oil hit 110 a barrel, credit is tight and the dollar down and dollar a day loans for infinity are gone, the economy shed 63K jobs in February. I'd say trimming production is a smart move. Better than have unsold vehicles stacked up like cord wood.
Reply
MemphisNET 10:18AM (3/14/2008)
I don't horribly mind the Tundra, but it was introduced to be cocky - which lead to more Toyota quality issues. I'm far more interested in the 09 RAM. And the current Chev/GMC trucks are great too. The Ford is always just ''ok'' - but nothing to get me worked up about.
Having said all that, at least Toyota is being responsible and not saturating their dealers lots with them, something the Big Three are just starting to learn.
Reply
Mal Fuller 10:35AM (3/14/2008)
Don't count Toyota out yet? Why not? When it comes to trucks they've never been in.
Reply
Geir E 11:37AM (3/14/2008)
It is easy to understand that for a foreign company to produce a truck in USA is a challenge in itself.
But thanks to Toyota and the other non-american brands your favorite company does not sit on its ass wondering what profit he can take from selling the same model without any real progress year after year. Competition is always good. Even if it grabs your american soul. ;)
Mal Fuller 12:04PM (3/14/2008)
I can't help but notice that in your response you use the small case "a" for America and American, but you did manage to use a capital "T" when spelling out toyota.
MoonRover 11:58AM (3/14/2008)
Toyota is placing $10,000 on the hood of the Tundra in parts of the south and the lots are still full, time to cut production. My cousin owns a dealership and he is not selling any larger Toyota products and his lots are full, the Camry is not going well either.
Reply
psarhjinian 10:05PM (3/14/2008)
You don't think the recession might have something to do with that?
MoonRover 12:04PM (3/14/2008)
Also the biggest complaints from his Tundra customers is gas mileage, they come back bitchin' "I can drive this thing because I cannot afford the gas", they also complain that they were mislead on the gas mileage they thought it would be better. Folks 12mpg is not a good thing.
Reply
MajorGeek 12:12PM (3/14/2008)
Most full size trucks get 12-16 MPG, if I understand it correctly, the data used to guess MPG on stickers is very flawed. Add more traffic lights, stop signs, streets and traffic and they are giving you mileage based on roads and highways from 20 years ago. Correct me if I am wrong?
As for Toyota, they knew it was an uphill battle. I don't care what brand you like, Chevy, Ford and Dodge make excellent, dependable pickup trucks.
Reply
Derek 1:30PM (3/14/2008)
for 2008, EPA testing now uses an updated test that is designed to better simulate modern driving conditions.
Either way, as the EPA site says "your mileage will vary" and the numbers are still best used as a comparison between different models.
71cuda 1:22PM (3/14/2008)
Actually, according to you guys, the Tundra was number 5 last year, not fourth. F Series, Silverado, Ram, Sierra, TUNDRA.
http://www.autoblog.com/2008/01/04/2007-the-year-in-truck-sales/
Reply
Harrity 1:23PM (3/14/2008)
"No jobs will be lost at either the Princeton, Indiana plant or the San Antonio, Texas plant where Tundra's and Sequoia's are built."
Where the Tundra's and Sequoia's what are built?
Or were you making them plural?
;)
Reply