Warranty Increase? "No" says Toyota

[engineer]

In the face of increasing quality problems, Jim Press, president of Toyota North America, revealed at the recent Chicago Auto Show that no discussions have taken place within Toyota about increasing its new or used vehicle warranty coverage. Speaking about the topic to Automotive News, Press said, "It's something you need as a solution to a problem." Hmm... a problem like this, this, or this? AN reports that the company has recalled 3.4 million vehicles since 2005, 2.2 million of which occurred in 2005 alone.

more:

http://www.autoblog.com/2007/02/19/t...anty-coverage/

[CarGuyLee]

I don't understand not increasing the warranty. If you have a quality product (which Toyota is known for) why not back it. Even with the known quality of Toyota or Honda, it would be hard for me to not be drawn to a better warranty by another maker.

[engineer]

As the saying goes: "A longer warranty in never a bad thing for the customer."

[Z28Wilson]

It is quite simple. Toyota doesn't need to increase its warranty. Longer warranties are designed to boost things like resale value and consumer confidence in the brand. If you haven't noticed lately, they need no help with either.

[engineer]

^^^ Very true. . . .

I am curious, though, how Jim Press came up with his assertion that Toyota does not "need" to extend their warranties. He says it's "a solution to a problem", however Toyota has admitted that it has not tracked out of warranty repair costs (they just recently changed that policy, and are now tracking these cost/frequency of repairs after the warranty ends). So, honestly, how did Jim Press come up with his conclusion?

[Voodoo.Priest]

Originally Posted by engineer

So, honestly, how did Jim Press come up with his conclusion?

The same way he keeps his job. Magic!

[ECHOKnight2000]

A lot of Toyota hate on that blog site but people are entiled to their opinion. I really hope Toyota doesn't pull a GM or any of the big three, sure they know what to look for but...its like when an unknown person becomes a superstar then really fucks up their life as they can't handle it or that's how they handle it. Toyota is its worst enemy...we all know its growing so fast and racking up the sales, but its like a kingdom ready to conquer or fall...I'm fan of Toyota, but I worry about them sometimes, I think they get ahead of themselves, obviously no one is perfect. As a buisness its good to be number one but not always and not so fast either, I hope Toyota can see that quality, and customer satisfaction is number one not sales or putting all their energy towards being number one and "we have to beat GM mentality" but rather a quality brand for the masses.

[Gekko]

Increasing warranty isn't going to solve the problem of build-faults in products. When a build-fault is discovered Toyota is just going to recall those vehicles. Even if the vehicle is older then five years. I've seen that here in the Netherlands where LC 90's where call back in (i thought) 2001. Increasing warranty is going to cost Toyota a lot of money but isn't going to solve the quality problem. It seems that the bad 2002-2005 season is past. Toyota made some good calls by delaying new models to go over them again to detect faults.
It is just weird that quality problems can change from plant. When we look at the first gen Yaris back here (sold as the Toyota Echo in the US) the one that where build in Japan are ok. But those that are build bij TMMF in France have a lot of problems (most of them arround the steeringcolumn). Same with the '92 Carina. Again those build in Japan are fine but those build bu TMUK in the UK are of less quality. Now I don't want to offend any employee of TMMF and TMUK. It has to do with stupids rules like that when you build a foreign car in a country like the UK some parts have to come from UK companies. So thrusty DENSO parts are replaced with UK manufactured parts which apparently are of lesser quality.

[Geotpf]

Originally Posted by Z28Wilson

It is quite simple. Toyota doesn't need to increase its warranty. Longer warranties are designed to boost things like resale value and consumer confidence in the brand. If you haven't noticed lately, they need no help with either.

Exactly. Basically, they are running all of thier plants at 110% of capacity, selling every vehicle they make. There's no need to offer incentives to consumers to buy thier product. Now, it would be nice for the consumer, and since Toyota's quality is high, thier costs of increasing the warranty may be less than thier competitors would be if they felt forced to match Toyota's move, but at this point, all it would do would increase costs without increasing sales (since they are capacity-limited on many models).

[Corona67]

Warranties have become a marketing gimmick to sell undesireable makes/models. They are not free; the consumer pays for them as consumers pay for everything else. Warranties were originally designed to correct major/expensive defects with new cars.

Now, certain manufacturers have targeted the apparently large-sized population of simple-minded folk in a desperate attempt to lure them from better-quality vehicles.

If you require a warranty repair, you have to schedule a date with the dealer, get put on a waiting list, take time off work, etc, etc, etc. Then they say "cannot duplicate", and you have to go through the whole BS again, or suck it up and tolerate the defect. If you want to put up with this crap for the next 100,000 miles, be my frickin' guest.

I'd rather buy a Toyota with an appropriately-sized warranty any day.

C

[engineer]

Originally Posted by Corona67

Warranties have become a marketing gimmick to sell undesireable makes/models. They are not free; the consumer pays for them as consumers pay for everything else. Warranties were originally designed to correct major/expensive defects with new cars.

About the only thing you said there that was even remotely rational was the part about customers paying for longer warranty. Your right, the longer warranty is rolled into the price of the vehicle, whether the customer knows it or not.

As far as it being a "gimmick", not so much. I would say it is more of a "reassurance" to the customer that their vehicle will be fixed for X amount of years, for free (I know there are exceptions to this). And it's not to get rid of "undesirable" models either. GM sells over 1 million 1/2 ton trucks/year. . . . so I would hardly call them "undesirable", yet they are covered under their new 100k mile warranty. Same can be said for Ford.

Originally Posted by Corona67

Now, certain manufacturers have targeted the apparently large-sized population of simple-minded folk in a desperate attempt to lure them from better-quality vehicles.

If you think people buy other brands only because they have been "lured", you are sadly mistaken. It is quite possible that people 1) Don't like the way Toyotas look 2) Don't like the way Toyota's drive 3) Don't like Toyota, period 4) Have no reason to go to a Toyota dealership, because they had great luck with X brand, or 5) They have been burned by Toyota in the past, and refuse to buy another one.

Originally Posted by Corona67

If you require a warranty repair, you have to schedule a date with the dealer, get put on a waiting list, take time off work, etc, etc, etc. Then they say "cannot duplicate", and you have to go through the whole BS again, or suck it up and tolerate the defect. If you want to put up with this crap for the next 100,000 miles, be my frickin' guest.

Originally Posted by Corona67

I'd rather buy a Toyota with an appropriately-sized warranty any day.

C

Yea, like Toyota owners never have to deal with this. only difference is that after 36k miles, they are stuck with paying for it out of their own pockets. . . . .get real!!!

[Z28Wilson]

Yeah, warranties are most definitely a marketing function, but they do also provide some piece of mind. And they most definitely can cost automakers a lot of money if their quality is not up to snuff. It takes a lot of research and analysis to come up with a proper warranty period.

So I suppose it all depends on your point of view. But I'm sure that if Brand 'X' owner had a major failure at 61,000 miles on the factory 5/60 warranty, said owner isn't going to care about the politics of longer vs. shorter warranties....he/she isn't even going to care that he/she would have to take the car in if it was covered....they're only going to know that they got screwed and the brand across the street would've covered them in the same instance.

[Corona67]

Originally Posted by engineer

About the only thing you said there that was even remotely rational was the part about customers paying for longer warranty. Your right, the longer warranty is rolled into the price of the vehicle, whether the customer knows it or not.

As far as it being a "gimmick", not so much. I would say it is more of a "reassurance" to the customer that their vehicle will be fixed for X amount of years, for free (I know there are exceptions to this). And it's not to get rid of "undesirable" models either. GM sells over 1 million 1/2 ton trucks/year. . . . so I would hardly call them "undesirable", yet they are covered under their new 100k mile warranty. Same can be said for Ford.

It is most definitely a gimmick. GMs, Chryslers and Fords are much less reliable than Toyotas; that's why they've started offering higher warranties in order to draw in buyers.

There is nothing "reassuring" about higher warranties when one takes more than five seconds to think about what they really imply in terms of reliability. You are simply paying more for a longer warranty period. Toyotas don't need it, on average and resale values and reliability studies bear that out.

Originally Posted by engineer

If you think people buy other brands only because they have been "lured", you are sadly mistaken. It is quite possible that people 1) Don't like the way Toyotas look 2) Don't like the way Toyota's drive 3) Don't like Toyota, period 4) Have no reason to go to a Toyota dealership, because they had great luck with X brand, or 5) They have been burned by Toyota in the past, and refuse to buy another one.

Ya, boo-hoo. I figured that your numerous threads that are poorly-concealed mudslinging efforts were in response to some real or imagined slight done to you by Toyota in years past.
Second, if you're going to quote what I wrote, at least try to quote it correctly and in the proper context. I didn't refer to people as "lured"; I referred to them as "simple-minded". That is in reference to longer warranties; no other consideration was included. People buy cars and trucks for all kinds of reasons; some very smart and some not-so-smart.

Toyota isn't perfect. I bought my Taco new and had an intermittent problem that the dealer took a couple thousand miles to correct, under warranty. Besides that frustrating event, I've had all of $200 in unscheduled maintenance done in the following 90,000 miles. If I'd bought a Ranger or S-10, not only would I have paid more in repairs, I would likely be shopping for a new vehicle soon. I'll take Toyota's imperfections over anyone else's any and every day of the week.

Originally Posted by engineer

Yea, like Toyota owners never have to deal with this. only difference is that after 36k miles, they are stuck with paying for it out of their own pockets. . . . .get real!!!

Again, boo-hoo! I'll gladly take post-warranty reliability from my 16-year-old and 10-year-old Toyotas any goddamn day of the week over even a brand-new 100K-warranty domestic slug. They are truly that good, and I am STILL many dollars ahead.

Troll on!

C

[Corona67]

Originally Posted by Z28Wilson

So I suppose it all depends on your point of view. But I'm sure that if Brand 'X' owner had a major failure at 61,000 miles on the factory 5/60 warranty, said owner isn't going to care about the politics of longer vs. shorter warranties....he/she isn't even going to care that he/she would have to take the car in if it was covered....they're only going to know that they got screwed and the brand across the street would've covered them in the same instance.

I agree with you. If Toyota started treating the customers as have other manufacturers (not just the domestics), they would find themselves in a similar predicament, and rightly so. If they start selling me lemons on a regular basis you can rest assured I would look elsewhere.

To me, brand loyalty is the manufacturer being loyal to me, the consumer who pays out a lotta cash. They gotta put out the goods to get my money!

Of course, having a major failure at even 60K would be an unusual event for a Toyota. Certainly not unheard of (engine sludge), but unusual. Plus, they seem to be doing a better job of owning up to mistakes lately (engine sludge, again) so hopefully they can resist the warranty-extension gimmick.

C

[Z28Wilson]

Originally Posted by Corona67

It is most definitely a gimmick. GMs, Chryslers and Fords are much less reliable than Toyotas; that's why they've started offering higher warranties in order to draw in buyers.

Actually, going back to the whole point-of-view thing, many people would tend to view this as a sign that Domestic quality is up, and to drive the point home they're offering longer warranties. Again, if quality was still in the crapper these longer warranties would be a big money-losing proposition for these companies. So while I agree with you that longer warranties are marketing tools, you cannot ignore the logic that quality gains have to occur in order to form a solid enough business case for these longer warranties.

You don't know how many times I've heard "Well if the Big 3 were really confident in their product they'd extend the warranties to drive the point home." I suppose they're damned either way.

On a side note, MSRPs on GM vehicles AFAIK were unaffected after GM announced the 5/100 Powertrain warranty. I also found it really odd that GM is also offering the warranty on Certified Used Cars, since GM does not make a dime off the sale of a used car.