Toyota Unleashing PR Juggernaut

I'll probably get some heat from certain members for posting this on a Toyota board, but the man makes some perfectly valid points. Like I've said before as well, how can Toyota claim its image of being a green automaker when it produces just as many large trucks and SUVs alongside models like the Prius and Highlander hybrid? This new San Antonio doesn't exactly solidify that green image as well. If Toyota wouldn't play it up so much about how green they were and how awful GM and Ford were, I wouldn't have any problem with it...but they are so incredibly hypocritical...especially since many of their large SUVs receive worse gas mileage than comparable GM and Ford models.

Well, it was just a matter of time, ladies and gentlemen. According to Mark Rechtin's report this week in Automotive News, Toyota is about to unleash the full force of its marketing might in order to cement its "Mr. Green Jeans" persona into the hearts and minds of the American consumer, beginning next week.

Toyota is said to be spending as much as the proper launch of a new car (perhaps as much as $60 million) to tout its Hybrid Synergy Drive technology. Jim Farley, Toyota's vice president of marketing, told Rechtin that "We want to make Hybrid Synergy Drive the Intel chip of cars. We want it to be a badge of honor." Toyota is clearly out to corner the Green positioning in the U.S. market with this move.

As a result of a masterfully calculated and orchestrated PR/advertising push, Toyota has already successfully convinced the anti-car, anti-Detroit intelligentsia on both coasts that they're the only automobile company in the world capable of building hybrids, even though that's simply untrue. They've even managed to convince New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman that we'd all be better off if GM and the rest of Detroit went away in favor of Toyota becoming America's car company. This new campaign is meant to solidify that notion even further, apparently.

Farley said that the campaign would blatantly play on people's emotions, posing such questions as: "What if the air was clean again?" "What if you could breathe clearly forever?" "Wouldn't you like a car that creates 80 percent less smog-forming emissions?" "Mostly we're going to focus on the environment, miles per gallon, social responsibility, and people making a choice," the always-smug Farley continued. But Farley also conveniently glossed over the fact that Toyota is one of the biggest purveyors of SUVs in the North American market right now and that they're getting ready to open a brand-new plant in 2007 just south of San Antonio that will produce the biggest full-size pickup trucks in the company's history. "Consumers are smart," Farley told Rechtin. "They understand Toyota makes a lot of different vehicles. Hybrid Synergy Drive is not a conflict with us building Sequoia or Tundra." Oh really, Jim? Sounds like unmitigated bullshit to us.

Consumers only understand what your carefully crafted promotional campaigns have mislead them to believe, Jim. And that is that Toyota is made up of Shiny Happy People who build totally benign vehicles propelled by hugs and a smile - vehicles with no downside whatsoever, which is flat-out untrue. Toyota's calculated manipulation of the mainstream media yielded breathless early road test results of the Prius that outrageously exaggerated the fuel economy numbers. And even though subsequent road tests from actual real live automotive writers debunked Toyota's mileage claims, the ship had sailed - and Toyota had delivered the "magic bullet." Toyota's greatest single advantage over Detroit right now (although the list is long and growing by the day) is that they have a war chest deep enough to do a launch-level campaign just to talk about hybrid technology and not even give it a second thought.

GM, for instance, can't afford to spend that much to even launch one important vehicle properly, because they're juggling so many models and divisions and have such a cash crunch that they simply can't afford it - let alone devote that much to a technology campaign. There's no question about it, folks, Toyota is going for Detroit's jugular with this move. They are hell-bent on world domination, and if what's left of the Detroit-based auto industry is a casualty along the way - then so be it. http://www.autoextremist.com/page6.shtml#table

Uh Toyota doesnt' produce 2mpg H2s, and Excursions, and they are at least TRYING TO HELP, the environment.

Uh Toyota doesnt' produce 2mpg H2s, and Excursions, and they are at least TRYING TO HELP, the environment.
No they're not trying to help the environment. Although Toyota may have a beautiful image of being a green company that cares about the earth thats all it is--an image. Its a great marketing ploy, that gets people into the showrooms. Thats the point of this, and the hybrids--To sell themselves as Earth-conscious, and to in the process sell cars.

I read that by 2008 or around there every toyota is going to have a hybrid option

Well, Toyota actually has these hybrid vehicles unlike GM. Well, technically, GM has a hybrid truck that really doesn't do much better than a normal gas truck. But you could say the same for the Highlander hybrid and RX400h. They don't get much better mpg but the performance is a bit better.
Lastly, this plant is going to be in texas. Of course there most gas guzzling vehicles are going to be produced there.:D

dsm, don't underestimate Toyota, let alone the entire Japanese Auto Industry. Because of the fact that every drop of oil in Japan is shipped there, and their levels of air pollution, the real innovations in emissions control and mileage advances are more likely to come from there than Detroit.

Once they take a pretty god piece of the truck market, then you'll start to see innovations making the trucks have better mileage, either through better fuel burning or through hybrid synergy drives, or something else.

While GM/Ford are working on hydrogen fueling, and DCX still has its hydrogen fuel cell project going, I doubt that technology would ever become practical, because of the amount of space needed to cause a hydrogen combustion.

The only flaw with this fuel system change, especially with Hybrids, if hybrids become dominant in the world for fueling, and you need to refill every 500 city miles instead of 300, since everyone would be going less, gas prices will go higher.

Same thing with the other technology. The less frequently you have to fill up on it, the more expensive it'll be to do so.

... coincidentally...

Hydro Man saves the day (http://www.canada.com/montreal/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=cfeb17de-d945-4db4-87a6-090911200e96)

Why should the fact that Toyota does a lot for the environment* hinder them from making large trucks and SUVs that the American people apparently need or want? If Toyota has the money and incestive to make the manufactoring, repairing and even recycling of these monsters cleaner, then why the hell not let them?!

M, for instance, can't afford to spend that much to even launch one important vehicle properly, because they're juggling so many models and divisions and have such a cash crunch that they simply can't afford it - let alone devote that much to a technology campaign.
Please give me his address so I can send him a napkin.


*by giving people a choice to get an environmentally friendly car, forcing both dealerships, garages and factories into polluting less and making cars almost completely recyclable. They even give you a bounty for handing in the used hybrid battery! (Read my post in the "what do you think about GM and Ford"-thread to see some surveys about which cars are cleanest)

I'll probably get some heat from certain members for posting this on a Toyota board, but the man makes some perfectly valid points. Like I've said before as well, how can Toyota claim its image of being a green automaker when it produces just as many large trucks and SUVs alongside models like the Prius and Highlander hybrid? This new San Antonio doesn't exactly solidify that green image as well. If Toyota wouldn't play it up so much about how green they were and how awful GM and Ford were, I wouldn't have any problem with it...but they are so incredibly hypocritical...especially since many of their large SUVs receive worse gas mileage than comparable GM and Ford models.

http://www.autoextremist.com/page6.shtml#table

"green" corresponds to low emmissions, not low fuel consumption and they are two different things..

No they're not trying to help the environment. Although Toyota may have a beautiful image of being a green company that cares about the earth thats all it is--an image. Its a great marketing ploy, that gets people into the showrooms. Thats the point of this, and the hybrids--To sell themselves as Earth-conscious, and to in the process sell cars.

Toyota produces large trucks and SUV's because AMERICANS ARE STILL HUNGRY FOR THEM!
I would suggest that offering a half-dozen hybrid alternatives and having sold a few hundred thousand prius' makes them a helluva lot greener and more 'on the ball' than their domestic competitors for right now. I can also tell you that they operate their manufacturing facilities about as environmentally friendly as possible and they don't use that fact to sell cars.

Toyota is "GREEN" They produce vehicles that have the best low emissions engines. And now you know why Toyota has uncompetive hp. So it doesn't lose its Ultra Low Emission Crown. Sure the Hemi has 345+hp, but does it burn cleaner? Heck no.

Toyota is satan.. I knew it.. Ah well, it'll happen.

:lol:

Toyota is the world's largest hybrid car manufacturer. My question is, why WOULDN'T Toyota want to use that fact to their advantage in advertising campaigns?

Why is it that this columnist condemns Toyota for "misleading marketing" of the Hybrid Synergy Drive and poo-poos Toyota for taking an approach in its marketing that it makes "vehicles with no downside whatsoever, which is flat-out untrue"

Since when has any automaker launched a marketing campaign that tells consumers about the "downside" of owning their vehicles?

If this is this coiumnist's beef then he should also condem the "Hemi" marketing of Chrysler, since every commercial they make touts this engine, and then justifies the wasteful consumption of fuel with "cylinder deactivation technology"

And condemn the GM commercials that claim "more horsepower than every import in their class" without telling us that their cars get substantially less fuel economy...

Cheers

Why is it that this columnist condemns Toyota for "misleading marketing" of the Hybrid Synergy Drive and poo-poos Toyota for taking an approach in its marketing that it makes "vehicles with no downside whatsoever, which is flat-out untrue"

Since when has any automaker launched a marketing campaign that tells consumers about the "downside" of owning their vehicles?

If this is this coiumnist's beef then he should also condem the "Hemi" marketing of Chrysler, since every commercial they make touts this engine, and then justifies the wasteful consumption of fuel with "cylinder deactivation technology"

And condemn the GM commercials that claim "more horsepower than every import in their class" without telling us that their cars get substantially less fuel economy...

Cheers
I haven't seen that last commercial as of yet.
But I am sick of the Hemi commercials. I actually saw a guy with a liscense plate frame on a PT Cruiser that said "yeah, its got a hemi." I almost cried.

Toyota produces large trucks and SUV's because AMERICANS ARE STILL HUNGRY FOR THEM!
I would suggest that offering a half-dozen hybrid alternatives and having sold a few hundred thousand prius' makes them a helluva lot greener and more 'on the ball' than their domestic competitors for right now. I can also tell you that they operate their manufacturing facilities about as environmentally friendly as possible and they don't use that fact to sell cars.
I'm not condemning Toyota for using the green-company approach--I think its brilliant and has sold many cars. My point was, in their minds, selling those cars is more important to them than is doing everything they can to save the environment. I'm not dogging on Toyota, I'm just saying its more an issue of appearance than of actually saving the earth. Do you disagree?

I don't know of any car company yet who's main goal isn't to sell more cars :D...
Or any coffee company who's main goal isn't to sell more coffee...
Or any computer company who's main goal isn't to sell more computers....

...

Look at Toyota. They have some of the cleanest plants in the world. Reclycing is big (I forget, but some precent of cars it sell is made from recycled materials.) Toyota still has a hydrgen program. Toyota provides hybrid busses and future fuel cars for some educational bodies and local governments. When they ship back shipping containers, its not empty, it is filled with soy beans, which they use in research.

I'm not condemning Toyota for using the green-company approach--I think its brilliant and has sold many cars. My point was, in their minds, selling those cars is more important to them than is doing everything they can to save the environment. I'm not dogging on Toyota, I'm just saying its more an issue of appearance than of actually saving the earth. Do you disagree?

how can you claim to understand the minds of Toyota's leaders and management? sounds like you're making some big assumptions.

how can you claim to understand the minds of Toyota's leaders and management? sounds like you're making some big assumptions.
Your right, I'm making assumptions that are based on others who also sell products. Although they may, in fact, have the earth's well-being as their chief concern, I do doubt that.

Oh come on. :rolleyes: :eek: Here we go again with another baseless reverse arguement against Toyota's green policies and advertising. I smell sour grapes because many are not pleased that the Big-3 are going to get another @ss kicking.
If someone's going to complaing about Toyota's green policies, they need to bring some facts other than simply stating that becuase they're building a truck plant in the US. Did it ever cross someone's mind that these trucks were produced somewhere else...perhaps even Japan...and that this is just part of smart localization strategies? Good God - Canada or Mexico will take the plant if the US doesn't want the jobs.

Fact: Toyota is the "greenest" automotive manufacturer per vehicle on the planet - bar none. Review this list of vehicles by segment (in which Toyota and the Big-3 all have representation)...notice the absense of many Big-3 vehicles.
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/WOL/Challenge/Newsletter/mar2004_cars/good.asp

Now look at the list of ugly manufacturers that pump out crud from their tail pipes. Notice how they are ALL from the Big-3 except for two. Poor little Porsche and Lexus. Every family has a black sheep. :lol:
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/WOL/Challenge/Newsletter/mar2004_cars/bad.asp


Toyota has spent more on positive environmental measures than any other manufacturer - this not only includes their vehicles and research, but their manufacturing and support processes. Even Toyota's administrative offices in Canada were the first of any auto manufacturer to achieve IS14001 certification almost 5 years ago...and that's just an office! Their plants have all been ISO for many many years.


Fact: Toyota makes more money than the Big-3 combined yet still manages to outperform and outspend them on environmental research, development and deployment. Last count they made $9 Billion...compared to the combined $5 Billion for the Big-3.

I could go on and on and on...but I have better things than to punk that article as BS.


That said...don't kid yourself. All fossil fuel cars are evil. They burn a non-renewable resource and their future demise is inevitable. Deferring this crisis to a later date to allow for alternative fuel is the goal. Until we have vehicles with alternative fuels, it's time to save a few drops of crude.

Now if the US President and Congress would get off their fat ass' and ratify Kyoto, then we could all breathe a bit easier - no pun intended. :naughty: Otherwise pretty much the entire eastern seaboard might as well start buying ventilator's. (humm...must look for stock in ventilator companies. :naughty: )

Oh yeah...here's a snippette of Toyota's public environmental Policy which balances profit and environmental impact.

"We will minimize our environmental impact by reducing waste material to landfill, reducing the depletion of natural resources and practicing effective pollution prevention giving top priority to the reduction of waste at the source; reusing and recycling."

Toyota has done more than anyone to improve fuel economy. They have the highest average fuel economy of any auto manufactuer and have done more than anyone to advance hybrid technology.
The Corolla gets 41 mgh highway, try to find a Focus or Cobalt that can match that milage (aint gonna happen).
Nice try, Dsmnick, but your case doesnt hold water. :thumbsdow:
Cap'n

Oh come on. :rolleyes: :eek: Here we go again with another baseless reverse arguement against Toyota's green policies and advertising. I smell sour grapes because many are not pleased that the Big-3 are going to get another @ss kicking.
If someone's going to complaing about Toyota's green policies, they need to bring some facts other than simply stating that becuase they're building a truck plant in the US. Did it ever cross someone's mind that these trucks were produced somewhere else...perhaps even Japan...and that this is just part of smart localization strategies? Good God - Canada or Mexico will take the plant if the US doesn't want the jobs.

Fact: Toyota is the "greenest" automotive manufacturer per vehicle on the planet - bar none. Review this list of vehicles by segment (in which Toyota and the Big-3 all have representation)...notice the absense of many Big-3 vehicles.
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/WOL/Challenge/Newsletter/mar2004_cars/good.asp

Now look at the list of ugly manufacturers that pump out crud from their tail pipes. Notice how they are ALL from the Big-3 except for two. Poor little Porsche and Lexus. Every family has a black sheep. :lol:
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/WOL/Challenge/Newsletter/mar2004_cars/bad.asp


Toyota has spent more on positive environmental measures than any other manufacturer - this not only includes their vehicles and research, but their manufacturing and support processes. Even Toyota's administrative offices in Canada were the first of any auto manufacturer to achieve IS14001 certification almost 5 years ago...and that's just an office! Their plants have all been ISO for many many years.


Fact: Toyota makes more money than the Big-3 combined yet still manages to outperform and outspend them on environmental research, development and deployment. Last count they made $9 Billion...compared to the combined $5 Billion for the Big-3.

I could go on and on and on...but I have better things than to punk that article as BS.


That said...don't kid yourself. All fossil fuel cars are evil. They burn a non-renewable resource and their future demise is inevitable. Deferring this crisis to a later date to allow for alternative fuel is the goal. Until we have vehicles with alternative fuels, it's time to save a few drops of crude.

Now if the US President and Congress would get off their fat ass' and ratify Kyoto, then we could all breathe a bit easier - no pun intended. :naughty: Otherwise pretty much the entire eastern seaboard might as well start buying ventilator's. (humm...must look for stock in ventilator companies. :naughty: )

Oh yeah...here's a snippette of Toyota's public environmental Policy which balances profit and environmental impact.

"We will minimize our environmental impact by reducing waste material to landfill, reducing the depletion of natural resources and practicing effective pollution prevention giving top priority to the reduction of waste at the source; reusing and recycling."



DAMN!!!

MAJOR OWNAGE!!!! :lol: :p:

:clap:

Yup, makes more money and spends more to help not destroy our environment. It's not all crap and some marketing ploy because you can read all about what they do. They are about profit like any other company but the big three tout high-power with low mileage. We tout high mileage and relatively good power (1ZZFE vs. 2NR-FE) PLUS reliablity. JD Power, Consumer Reports, NHTSA recalls, they'll all show that Toyota does know what they are doing.

In the end, you have to give 'em big props because Toyota sells ALOT of cars and they have a low PPR (Problem per car) according to JD Power. Their resell value is pretty good through their years, their maintence is easy and not toooooo costly (ehhh. Lexus kids... this may be a little diff for you guys;) But, why not spend a little more on my Lex when it is the most reliable car brand in the US (JD Power, 2005 Survey). 11 years of being the most dependable brand. Oh yeah, the most RELIABLE car is the LS430 (2005 Survey). Toyota doesn't sell cars PURELY from their ECO-friendly image, they sell because people want a name they can trust, Toyota.

I'm not brand loyal, I'm wallet loyal. With 6 Toyotas (currently) owned and only ONE giving problems, it can't be beat.

:thumbup: Damn Straight!

2002 4Runner Sport Edition-
Pros: Bought it new, 200,000 problem free miles, too damn reliable, nice MPG, styling

Cons: Damn 3 sets of tires from 4wheelin.

1991 Cressida-
Pros- 230,000 problem free miles, Smooth, style, factory CD player, auto climate control, cops don't notice it doing 100+mph

Cons- armrest needs to be alil longer

1989 Cressida-
Same as the above


From what I experienced from my cars, their all happy with doing alot of miles without breaking down....I'm happy. Are you (Chevy, Ford, Dodge)?

Here's the *BIGGGG* Problem with the American idea of gas mileage: The Industry uses MPG because it measures a "product benefit" or a "feature" of the car. It subconsciously puts in your mind "HEY! I get to drive X miles for every gallon of gas I put in my car!" MPG totally takes your mind off of the CONSUMPTION of gasoline. I'm sure that the carmakers had this in mind when working with the EPA to create the standard. The Canadians have this right by measuring fuel economy with L/100km (Can we get an EH?).

By showing how much gas is USED with a certain amount of driving causes the consumer to think about it as a cost instead of a product "feature." Just for S&Gs I ran some numbers using the Canadian system, just with the English measurement system.

I took MPGs from the EPA website (which means real life gas mileage figures will be lower for all vehicles) and converted to Gallons per 200 miles of driving:

All figures are City/HWY format:

My 99 Camry Auto: 23/30 MPG = 8.7/6.6 G/200mi
A 2005 Corolla Auto: 30/38 MPG = 6.6/5.3 G/200mi
2005 Chevy 1500 V8: 16/21 MPG = 12.5/9.5 G/200mi

Yes folks.... a Chevy Silverado 1500 uses a little less than TWICE the fuel to drive the exact same distance as a Corolla! Curiously, the EPA site doesn't even have the information for the Hummers... :confused: A quick internet search sheds some light: http://trucks.about.com/cs/suvreviews/a/hummer_fuel04.htm

If you don't want to click the link, I'll summarize: Since the Hummers weigh in at more than 8,500 lbs, they are classified as "heavy use vehicles" and therefore not regulated by the EPA. A Hummer H2 clocks in at 9.6 MPG over rolling terrain (off-road). While this is not quite a fair comparison given the different tests, our G/200mi measurement produces a whopping 20.8 GALLONS!




While the refinery capacity & hurricanes in the Gulf partly explains the soaring gas prices, the large influx of fuel inefficient Trucks & SUVs is also largely responsible.

Yes.
To use a volume/distance measurement yields larger gaps for fuel inefficient vehicles and is very smart when comparing large vehicles.
The distance/volume measurement has the opposite result it changes a lot for fuel efficient vehicles.

I just find it easier to calculate with measures in km/l than l/100km. There's also often a significant digit more when using km/l.

I'm just glad the Yaris' computer can show both km/l, mpg and l/100km :)

Yes, apparently it does yield larger gaps for inefficient vehicles.

My point is, though, that automakers PURPOSELY use the distance/volume metric to take the consumers mind off of how much fuel that they will use to drive a certain distance. It's an issue of semantics. If the automakers had never done this, I don't think people would have ever bought SUVs in large numbers.

Also, the larger gaps apparent when using distance/volume are exactly what cause the soaring fuel prices. Does anyone think that because someone buys a Silverado instead of a Ford Focus that he's going to change his job and/or drive any less? Probably not.

Of course, there is the question of the economic value of utility, but these considerations (when taken to extreme) would mean that everyone should have a truck available for hauling/trailering and a small car for commuting

-Joel.

[EDIT: OOPS: distance/volume, not volume/distance]

Joel, its not fair to compare the milage of a full-size 1/2 ton truck to that of a compact car like the Corolla. Its like comparing apples to oranges.
It would be like saying the Silverado is a better vehicle because it can tow 9,000 pounds whereas the Corolla can only tow 1,500 pounds.
Cap'n

You're right, it's unfair to compare the two. I was merely trying to make the point that switching to the volume/distance comparison metric (gallons/x miles) emphasizes the undisputed fact that the large trucks that (seemingly) everyone is so in love with actually helps to drive up the cost of gasoline.

In effect, the users of these vehicles "demand" a greater quantity of gasoline to drive the same distance, thus increasing the price. Basic Economics.

Of course the fact that the large trucks with lift kits and grille-guards that so many people love here in Texas would have their bumper meeting exactly above my door in the event of a side collision makes me like these trucks even less. It's scary just to think about it.

-Joel

Here's what's funny... Have you guys seen people drivin' H2 and you know for a FACT that those things have not EVER seen any terrain other than some snow or a little mud? Why buy the baby sister of the H1 to drive it like you would any other CAR? Status symbol? Ehhh.. IS350/GS430/LS430.. The proper symbol;)

Why pay more for gas? I mean, trucks are useful for hauling lots of stuff and heavy stuff too but for daily driving? They aren't worth the gas/insurance/upkeep if they aren't being used as designed. SUVs are plain useless. Argue it if you want but they are useless if it's just for daily driving with a fam of four. You want more people? Buy a Sienna.

Plenty of SUV owners have NEVER used the tow hitch. But, you bought the trim with the V8 in it WITH a tow package. Oh... I see.... Guess I'm the asshole then....

Here's what's funny... Have you guys seen people drivin' H2 and you know for a FACT that those things have not EVER seen any terrain other than some snow or a little mud? Why buy the baby sister of the H1 to drive it like you would any other CAR? Status symbol? Ehhh.. IS350/GS430/LS430.. The proper symbol;)

Why pay more for gas? I mean, trucks are useful for hauling lots of stuff and heavy stuff too but for daily driving? They aren't worth the gas/insurance/upkeep if they aren't being used as designed. SUVs are plain useless. Argue it if you want but they are useless if it's just for daily driving with a fam of four. You want more people? Buy a Sienna.

Plenty of SUV owners have NEVER used the tow hitch. But, you bought the trim with the V8 in it WITH a tow package. Oh... I see.... Guess I'm the asshole then....

its just a matter of preference.. you cant tell what people should buy.. some people have more money than others.. thats why they buy these suvs and trucks.. they dont even care about gas price or insurance price.. some people who care would ditch their suvs and go to smaller car.. in the end, its up to consumers to reduce dependance on gas, not to car makers.. they already offer all the options and its all up to the buyer

Well, here in Wisconsin a 4x4 makes sense. A lot of people around here use their trucks and SUVs for hauling and driving in snow, so its not as much of a status symbol as it is in other areas.
However, I cant see much sense in people who live in L.A. driving a big 4x4 when you will almost NEVER drive it off-road or in snow...
Cap'n

Yeaaaa! Finally a thread with some real thought rather than mud slinging. :thumbup: :clap:

A station wagon did my family of 5 for years, even with hockey, horseback riding, etc.. etc..

Families seem unable to think outside the box, or their busy schedules, and "convenience" which means, throwing everything into a large vehicle without having to think of organizing a smaller car to fit stuff is the standard...

The Mini-MPV is starting to appear now in North America (a la Mazda 5), and offers the cargo, seating, but less of a fuel penalty...

Seems like every automaker is offering a 5 door Hatch/Sport/Liftback, while avoiding the "Station Wagon" stamp of death on it, while they are, sans the wood grain panelling....

Maybe we'll start seeing SWUVs soon :lol:
Cheers

In the end, it is your money to do as you wish but I'm not one for throwing money away for nothing. Now, Capt. Toyota sees my POV where he NEEDS a truck because it makes SENSE there. The only thing a H2 is good for in LA is runnin' over the curbs since they can barely drive down there.

Station Wagon... ugh.. what a ugly car segment. Do you guys remember the commercials for the Matrix? Asking "What is it?" They had these hilarious ass little names for segment. The memory is not good but I do remember laughing my ass off all the time.

You are right, Lord. I use my truck as a truck, not because I think it makes me look cool.
Believe me, if I didnt use my truck for hauling Id be driving a Corolla.
Its kind of hard to haul a snowmobile/ATV, all the racing gear, oil, fuel and tools in a car. There just isnt enough room and a car just isnt built for that kind of use.
Nothing aganst cars, but for me they just arent practical.
Cap'n

I sincerely do congratulate you on actually finding a use for your truck! In my book, this puts you ahead of the other 75% of truck owners who maybe use the "truck" function <10% of the time. I've always driven a sedan, and I've gotten by just fine. Sure there's been a time or two where a truck would come in handy (like buying appliances), but that's what paying for delivery is for. It's less than the cost of a tank of gas these days (even for *MY* car)!

-Joel

Hmm... Let's see. Toyota made 1 trillion yen in profits. Some of you are saying that they just want to look good by promoting hybrid cars. Well, let's put it this way. How much money have they invested in making hybrid technology from scratch? They have nothing to compare to, nothing to base their results and have no clue whether they're on the right track. They had to make the battery work in conjunction with the vehicle. You have no idea how many times that damn battery failed on them on the test track. They had battery problems to the last minute before launch in 1997.

This book is out of production but if you can get your hands on it (or if you're nice enough to ask, I'll send a softcopy over). It's called The Prius That Shook The World by Hideshi Itazaki and it documents the development of the first Prius from concept in 1992 with the G21 project to designing the compact car to presenting the finished product on time. After reading that, I wonder if any of those engineers got divorced from their wives from working too many overtime shifts :eek: .

Give them a little credit for at least not using the customer as their guinnea pigs, Tideland.
I can think of some other automakers who would have rushed something like the Prius to market and then when it turned out to be a POS they would have said, "its new technology and its going to take us time to work out all the problems."
Cap'n

give who credit? sorry I'm confused.

give who credit? sorry I'm confused.
GM of course.:rolleyes:

Give Toyota credit, of course! :D
Cap'n