• Oct 19, 2009
Toyota's arrangements for its San Antonio plant are coming together after the closure of NUMMI and the announced relocation of Tacoma pickup production. The company will be adding 850 permanent and temporary workers to its labor force in Texas, taking the number of associates from 1,850 to about 2,700 – and that doesn't include increases in the supplier workforce. For those with an eye on the employment scene, Toyota posted the job openings in August and 14,000 people applied.

The assumption of Tacoma duties will put the San Antonio plant on a schedule of two shifts per day for the first time since last year's plant idling. When the $100 million retooling is finished, the plant will be able to produce 200,000 Tacomas every year. Toyota engineers are preparing the assembly line now and Tacoma production is scheduled to being next spring, with 100,000 units projected annually.

[Source: My San Antonio]


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 15 Comments
      • 5 Years Ago
      this is a good thing, drop by drop we have to see this industry getting back on track ... we are still far away but, this is at least some good news ...
        • 5 Years Ago
        Unions need to quit getting a bad rap. What is is with our race to the bottom? We're f-ing better than that. I was just in Australia where even waitresses and bartenders make $15-30 an hour, people get at least 4 weeks of vacation per year and have universal access to healthcare. The people are happy and the country moves forward. And the police drive Lancers.

        Americans are whacked out in their attempt to pay the lowest wages and compete against each other, leaving workers in the dust. The income gap between the wealthiest and the rest of us is disgustingly high, and the rest of us are duped into thinking this is a good thing. Wake up America - unions are not a bad thing!
        • 5 Years Ago
        @ bobfranks:

        "It is good news, at least these jobs did not end up in Mexico or Canada! That tends to be the north american trend...."

        You mean, like Corolla production?



        and @ djSyndrome916:

        Well, the only GM vehicle made there was the Vibe, and IIRC, only constituted 15% of the factory's output. (2005 - 62,159 Vibes out of 417,505 total units). Since GM was killing the brand the Vibe was going to, and had no plans on "any re-badging of old vehicles", it made no sense for GM to stay for a 15% stake. And you'd think Toyota could make up that volume with another car line, but it made more sense to close the expensive UAW factory instead, when you had a newer factory underutilized.



        • 5 Years Ago
        Mofan, it is good news ... djSyndrome916 almost answered it for me (thanks, djSyndrome916) but a couple of more things ... I still think that moving the Tacoma production to another plant in US is a good thing, no matter whether this will take 850 or 4500 people .. the mere fct that they are planning to reopen the 2 shift production means a lot ... a whole lot of suppliers will have more work or will have some of their work back... which is a good thing again.

        I am not comparing this truck to that truck or this company to that company. I am simply stating that opening 850 work places by an Auto company NOW is a good thing for any state in US. (thanks to BobFranks here, work not going to Mexico or Canada, right?)

        1. NUMMI was unionized and that burden there was more than obvious, not good not only for Toyota only, not good for both companies.

        2. GM is no more in the picture @ NUMMI, why would they keep the plant in expensive CA?

        • 5 Years Ago
        Better news would be if they canceled the shutdown of the Ford Ranger plant in Minnesota.
      • 5 Years Ago
      Let's hope some of them are rust control specialists.
        • 5 Years Ago
        they said several times that the rust issue has been taken care of .. new Tundra does not have it .. but you never know, at least a few more years have to pass so we are certain too ...
      • 5 Years Ago
      The Tacoma is quite a nice truck unlike the Tundra.
        • 5 Years Ago
        There's nothing wrong with the tundra, fanboi.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Yup. Toyota's the top of the midsize class and the bottom of the full size class.
      • 5 Years Ago
      I like the Toyota Tacoma. It is a good pick up truck for it's size but its engine line up needs to be updated. First update the V6 with the new one coming out for the new 4runner. Then the 4-banger and perhaps just maybe we could get a 3.0 turbo diesel? plz Toyota.
      • 5 Years Ago
      I like the Tacoma exterior, but I owned an 06 Frontier and the interior was better than the Tacoma in every way. From the stance to the fabric. Another notable quality difference was in the bed. The Utili-trac system of the Frontier is beefy and solid feeling while the Tacoma's equivalent felt small and cheap/breakable even.

      I looked at them both before buying, and for the money I don't really know why anyone would get the Tacoma over the Frontier unless it's just about the exterior styling as both get terrible gas mileage but the Frontier feels sturdier.

      Oh well, I ended up selling the Fronty and getting a 2.3l Ranger and lifted it. I get 25 mpg on average (Yes AVERAGE) compared to an average of 17 mpg w/ no lift on the Fronty (never peaking over 19 mpg out here in the hill country). My friend had an 05 Taco and it got identical mileage.
        • 5 Years Ago
        I am aware of the size differences, but it is sad what mpgs the V6's get in today's midsize trucks (yes, mine was a 4.0 as was my friend's Taco). I drive heavy on my Ranger that has 32's, and I have never once got under 23 mpg and that was when I was hauling a trailer going 75 in hills. I have gotten up to 28 mpg numerous times. Look on the Ranger forums and you will see people that don't have lifts exceeding 38 mpg with hypermilling.

        I'm not really trying to compare the trucks other than I am pleased with my personal mileage and power and realized I do not need a 4.0 liter V6. Mid-size trucks seem pointless to me when you can get a full-size that gets better gas mileage and has a bigger engine now (well maybe not the Tundra or Titan, but definitely the F-150 or Silverado). They should have never bloated the Taco and Fronty, imo, or instead they should have just graduated them to the larger class and come out with a new mini-truck that gets good mileage.

        Anyways, my real comparison was for the Frontier vs the Tacoma. I found the Frontier far exceeded the Tacoma in materials quality and interior design and considering everything else is just about identical on the trucks, that's why I bought a Frontier.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Well, if the Ranger were in the same class as the Frontier or the Tacoma, then it might mean something. Both the Nissan and Toyota are mid-size trucks while the Ranger is pretty much the last remaining compact pickup available here after Nissan, Toyota, GM, and Dodge all stretched their offerings in recent years.

        Were you surprised that the smallest truck with the smallest and least powerful engine would get the best mileage?

        You also neglected to mention whether the Frontier or Tacoma were 6cyl or not, an important distinction. I have a cousin who owns an '05 Tacoma AccessCab V6 4x4 6spd manual and he averages around 18mpg in that, if someone is averaging that with the 4cyl, something's not right or they drive with a pretty heavy foot.
        • 5 Years Ago
        See, now we have something to work with. I'd venture that if you had opted for the 4cyl engine in either the Frontier or your friend in his Tacoma, the mileage would have increased considerably. That's the primary reason for the mileage dfference between your Ranger and the other two. Looking at the EPA figures, all three 4cyl versions are within a few mpg's of each other though the Nissan does fall considerably lower. Basically what you discovered is that the smaller engine will get you better mileage. Again, that would have been the case across the board.

        There's also the fact that you effectively changed the gear ratio of your truck by now driving with 32" tires. That's not an insignificant change and will affect the mileage you get. You engine will now be turning more slowly in all gears since the axle has to turn less in order to maintain the same speed due to the larger circumference of the tires. Granted, I'll admit that the increased footprint of the tires, increased weight of the additions and other items will likely counter the ratio difference, it's still something to consider.

        Additionally, I find it somewhat funny that some people are concerned with hypermiling pickup trucks, as if that's their intended purpose.

        I will admit though that I think the mpg's that the V6 versions of these mid-size trucks achieve is somewhat laughable. Ford and Chevy can sell you a larger, V8 powered full-size truck that will get you better mileage than a V6 Tacoma or Frontier. I personally just picked up an '03 Jeep Grand Cherokee V8 that will probably beat the mileage of the either the Tacoma or Frontier V6's. I haven't had my Jeep long enough to get a mileage figure personally(it's a 2nd car and not driven much), but looking at the EPA figures, the V8 is rated identically to the I-6 version. That's probably due mostly to the V8's 5speed auto compared to the 4spd of the I-6, but it really makes you wonder why you'd get the 6cyl.
    • Load More Comments