Toyota loses 7B(and its not UAW fault)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: brianl703
The house next to my rental property was purchased for $79k. It was put on the market a couple years later for $225k. The price slowly dropped as it sat unsold till it got down to $150k and it was a short sale at that price. The house was a short sale with a listing price $71k over what it was purchased for.

Home equity loans? Who knows.


That's not what's happening here in Utah. Just found out my 300k home has dropped 50k in value with the recession.
Good thing about it is, when the economy gets better it will come right back up again and even be worth more.
 
Originally Posted By: rszappa1
Just think how much they would have lost with the UAW....


Yeah, no kidding.

A lot of the 7b i'm sure had something to do with their GM joint venture on the corolla/vibe, in that UAW plant.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: panthermike
Originally Posted By: genynnc
Let's just say this... the big 3 WISH they only lost 7 billion over the past quarter... I think GM alone has lost $98 Billion over the past 8 quarters (quite a bit of that came from tax payers)... think about that. $98 BILLION.




That's a lot of money!

According to LLN, Ford only lost 1.8 million in the first quarter;

http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-reports-better-than-expected-first-quarter-financial-results.html


That is correct. Ford has worked to seriously reduce its losses.


Ford has done a great job with their operations, and they're headed in the right direction. I think it has something to do with the new big wig money guy they just hired.

Great job Ford!!
 
Originally Posted By: 3Toyotas
That's not what's happening here in Utah. Just found out my 300k home has dropped 50k in value with the recession.
Good thing about it is, when the economy gets better it will come right back up again and even be worth more.


It just might take a long time for it to regain that value.
 
Not realy for Ford. They borrowed a whole bunch of money a few years ago form the banks that will have to be repayed. If the sales dont improve no money coming in to repay the loans....they are in deep debt to the banks right now....but i will say they were at least smarter then GM and Chrysler...
 
Originally Posted By: 3Toyotas
Ford has done a great job with their operations, and they're headed in the right direction. I think it has something to do with the new big wig money guy they just hired.


You realize that Ford also builds cars and trucks in "UAW" plants? If the "UAW" is so bad, how could Ford possibly succeed?

Seriously, get a grip.
 
Originally Posted By: mstrjon32

You realize that Ford also builds cars and trucks in "UAW" plants? If the "UAW" is so bad, how could Ford possibly succeed?

Seriously, get a grip.


Ford has a friendly relationship with the UAW...unlike GM. Look at the worker productivity numbers at Ford compared to GM. You won't even believe it is the same union. GM management is nothing but complete bafoons...all 110% idiots since Roger Smith was CEO.
 
Last edited:
So, the UAW's OK if they're not working in a GM plant?

The reasoning here is so illogical and circular that I can't even formulate a response.
 
Originally Posted By: 3Toyotas
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: Johnny
Easy answer, RECESSION. Folks loosing their jobs and nobody buying new cars.


Yes, but a lot of it is dumb stuff like building a plant for a huge pickup truck that isn't as capable as its competitors, but burns more gas just looking "tough." And finishing the plant mere months before gas prices shot to $4/gallon.



Beg you pardon?

I'd say they put a TON of money into the Texas government and community when building that plant.


IF they can keep it open long enough for all the tax subsidies to expire, then MAYBE it will turn out good for us Texas taxpayers. That's a big "if" and a bigger "maybe."


Originally Posted By: 3Toyotas

Isn't as capable as it's competitors you say?


Yes I do say that. Its an urban/suburban status truck. There's no 3/4 ton. There's no diesel. I have yet to see one hauling a cattle trailer or bales of hay. I'm sure its GREAT for hauling 2x4s (short ones, anyway) back to the ol' condo from Home Depot.


Originally Posted By: 3Toyotas
AND i might ad, did it with BEST mpg out of them all as well.


Looking at MY 2008 data, all of the trucks get within a couple of MPG of each other when comparably equipped. You canna change the laws of physics, after all. But there is a small difference and the Tundra has the lowest EPA highway rating of them all, and that's even comparing against Ford and Chevy with 4-speed transmissions vice the Toy's 6-speed (score another one for simplicity). And what's more, even the 6.2L Chevy beats it on highway mileage. In fact the ONLY number it wins is city mileage against the 5.7L 2008 Ram (by 1 mpg, and with the improvements the 09 Ram got, it'll win that too).

But really, all that's beside my point, which was that Toyota made a big mistake by introducing a luxury/status truck AND the entire infrastructure to make it just as fuel prices spiked. Work trucks are semi-immune to changes in fuel cost because the jobs HAVE to be done. Even if diesel goes to $9/gallon, there will be a demand for Ram 1500CTDs and F250 Powerstrokes because the job has to be done no matter what. But people that make the weekend run to Home Depot will quickly stop buying leather-seat crew cabs with 6' shorty beds and soft-riding passenger-car tires. Any criticism of the type of vehicle itself can obviously also be levelled at the Chevy Avalanche and its Escalade twin... however GM built them on an existing platform in existing plants-minimal cost. They didn't enter a new market and set up an entirely new plant and all the infrastructure for a one-model product line that is also unusually vulnerable to fuel prices the way Toyota did.

Originally Posted By: 3Toyotas

Another fact for you. MY tundra 4x4 gets 19-20 mpg hiway, and 15/16 around town. And you say they burn more fuel? I'd say that's [censored] good mileage for a 400 hp 6k lb truck.


I'm glad you like it and it works for you. But if I want 400 horsepower, I'll go buy a Challenger SRT-8 and play with it. I see no need whatsoever for a 400-horsepower gasoline truck. (I see no need for a half-ton truck to weigh 6000 lbs either, but all of them now do for some reason). I do see a need for a 600+ ft-lb / ~300 horsepower diesel truck, and the other 3 brands have those.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
I'm sure its GREAT for hauling 2x4s (short ones, anyway) back to the ol' condo from Home Depot.


Couldn't you do that with an Escort wagon that has a roof rack on it?
 
Originally Posted By: brianl703
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
I'm sure its GREAT for hauling 2x4s (short ones, anyway) back to the ol' condo from Home Depot.


Couldn't you do that with an Escort wagon that has a roof rack on it?


Err.... that was kinda my point. ;-)
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum


Err.... that was kinda my point. ;-)



I kinda figured, I just wanted to come right out and suggest that a Toyota Tacoma is being used for things which could adequately be done by an economy car.
 
A couple of things that have not been mentioned in this thread.

First, Toyota held off for years in building a large truck, because they didn't think it was a logical vehicle. It was only after the corporate execs visited Texas and saw the volume of Big 3 trucks that they decided to get into the market. Unfortunately they were so late as to be counter cyclical, but their basic instincts were precisely correct.

Two, Toyota gave millions of dollars in gifts to the local health and education initiatives because it is a strong believer in being a good corporate citizen.
 
Originally Posted By: TooManyWheels

Two, Toyota gave millions of dollars in gifts to the local health and education initiatives because it is a strong believer in being a good corporate citizen.


Exxon-Mobil paid 30 BILLION in taxes in 2007. Does that make them a better corporate citizen?

How about all the money and support provided by the domestic three during 9/11, how that does impact their "corporate citizen" status?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL


Exxon-Mobil paid 30 BILLION in taxes in 2007. Does that make them a better corporate citizen?



Overbearing:

What exactly does that have to do with automakers, Toyota in particular? Perhaps you missed the point of the thread.

And if you are going to mention Big 3 charity as a counterpoint to Toyota's, then mention Big 3 tax breaks which counterpoint Toyota's.
 
Originally Posted By: TooManyWheels
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL


Exxon-Mobil paid 30 BILLION in taxes in 2007. Does that make them a better corporate citizen?



Overbearing:

What exactly does that have to do with automakers, Toyota in particular? Perhaps you missed the point of the thread.

And if you are going to mention Big 3 charity as a counterpoint to Toyota's, then mention Big 3 tax breaks which counterpoint Toyota's.


Exactly my point though. Toyota's attempt at being a good corporate citizen is nothing more than any of the other auto manufacturers have done.
 
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: 3Toyotas
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: Johnny
Easy answer, RECESSION. Folks loosing their jobs and nobody buying new cars.


Yes, but a lot of it is dumb stuff like building a plant for a huge pickup truck that isn't as capable as its competitors, but burns more gas just looking "tough." And finishing the plant mere months before gas prices shot to $4/gallon.



Beg you pardon?

I'd say they put a TON of money into the Texas government and community when building that plant.


IF they can keep it open long enough for all the tax subsidies to expire, then MAYBE it will turn out good for us Texas taxpayers. That's a big "if" and a bigger "maybe."


Originally Posted By: 3Toyotas

Isn't as capable as it's competitors you say?


Yes I do say that. Its an urban/suburban status truck. There's no 3/4 ton. There's no diesel. I have yet to see one hauling a cattle trailer or bales of hay. I'm sure its GREAT for hauling 2x4s (short ones, anyway) back to the ol' condo from Home Depot.


Originally Posted By: 3Toyotas
AND i might ad, did it with BEST mpg out of them all as well.


Looking at MY 2008 data, all of the trucks get within a couple of MPG of each other when comparably equipped. You canna change the laws of physics, after all. But there is a small difference and the Tundra has the lowest EPA highway rating of them all, and that's even comparing against Ford and Chevy with 4-speed transmissions vice the Toy's 6-speed (score another one for simplicity). And what's more, even the 6.2L Chevy beats it on highway mileage. In fact the ONLY number it wins is city mileage against the 5.7L 2008 Ram (by 1 mpg, and with the improvements the 09 Ram got, it'll win that too).

But really, all that's beside my point, which was that Toyota made a big mistake by introducing a luxury/status truck AND the entire infrastructure to make it just as fuel prices spiked. Work trucks are semi-immune to changes in fuel cost because the jobs HAVE to be done. Even if diesel goes to $9/gallon, there will be a demand for Ram 1500CTDs and F250 Powerstrokes because the job has to be done no matter what. But people that make the weekend run to Home Depot will quickly stop buying leather-seat crew cabs with 6' shorty beds and soft-riding passenger-car tires. Any criticism of the type of vehicle itself can obviously also be levelled at the Chevy Avalanche and its Escalade twin... however GM built them on an existing platform in existing plants-minimal cost. They didn't enter a new market and set up an entirely new plant and all the infrastructure for a one-model product line that is also unusually vulnerable to fuel prices the way Toyota did.

Originally Posted By: 3Toyotas

Another fact for you. MY tundra 4x4 gets 19-20 mpg hiway, and 15/16 around town. And you say they burn more fuel? I'd say that's [censored] good mileage for a 400 hp 6k lb truck.


I'm glad you like it and it works for you. But if I want 400 horsepower, I'll go buy a Challenger SRT-8 and play with it. I see no need whatsoever for a 400-horsepower gasoline truck. (I see no need for a half-ton truck to weigh 6000 lbs either, but all of them now do for some reason). I do see a need for a 600+ ft-lb / ~300 horsepower diesel truck, and the other 3 brands have those.



Great for hauling short 2x4's. hahaha that was a good one there magnum.

As for mpg; they all don't get great mileage. We all know that. But a 6k lb truck getting 20 on the hiway is quite impressive you have to admit.
As far as your comment goes about the others supposedly getting close to the same or better. It's all about REAL WORLD numbers my friend (without the POS cylinder deactivation).

Go ahead and take that challenger out and hook onto a 10k lb trailer and go for a spin why don't you. Get real man; I use my truck for towing purposes mainly, and i have no need whatsoever for a 400hp passenger car.
And not interested one bit in an oil burner for my type of use. Especially when my truck can maintain speed on any hill towing 8-10k lbs. So Do i really need an oil burner? Not.
They definately won't stop the load better (which is more important), so i see no advantage whatsoever in an 8k lb oil burner.
But to each their own i guess.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: TooManyWheels
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL


Exxon-Mobil paid 30 BILLION in taxes in 2007. Does that make them a better corporate citizen?



Overbearing:

What exactly does that have to do with automakers, Toyota in particular? Perhaps you missed the point of the thread.

And if you are going to mention Big 3 charity as a counterpoint to Toyota's, then mention Big 3 tax breaks which counterpoint Toyota's.


Exactly my point though. Toyota's attempt at being a good corporate citizen is nothing more than any of the other auto manufacturers have done.


Why don't you name a few then?

I don't beleive toyota has ever taken any U.S. taxpayer bailouts, have they? Or did i miss something?

I'd say that pretty much washes away a lot of good the big 3 have done for us.
 
Originally Posted By: mstrjon32
Originally Posted By: 3Toyotas
Ford has done a great job with their operations, and they're headed in the right direction. I think it has something to do with the new big wig money guy they just hired.


You realize that Ford also builds cars and trucks in "UAW" plants? If the "UAW" is so bad, how could Ford possibly succeed?

Seriously, get a grip.


They are succeeding due to the restructering of their finances.
Duh. The new guy they just hired surely has something to do with it.
But i do beleive the UAW has a lot to do with the big 3's financial problems. UAW protects most of the workers who want a free ride.
I said MOST not all, so don't take this wrong. It's too bad they have to jump thru so many hoopes just to fire somebody. Big brother has to step in and say "you can't do that", blah, blah, blah. What a joke.
If someone is not performing well enough for the company to prosper, they need to find another job. Simple as that.

Tell me to get a grip. hahaha
 
Originally Posted By: PT1
Originally Posted By: mstrjon32

You realize that Ford also builds cars and trucks in "UAW" plants? If the "UAW" is so bad, how could Ford possibly succeed?

Seriously, get a grip.


Ford has a friendly relationship with the UAW...unlike GM. Look at the worker productivity numbers at Ford compared to GM. You won't even believe it is the same union. GM management is nothing but complete bafoons...all 110% idiots since Roger Smith was CEO.


Interesting.....

I think the hand writing is on the wall here, and who's on the brink of bankrupcy.
So i think your response does in fact have some merit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top