Toyota Nation Forum banner

1 - 20 of 23 Posts
J

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Toyota's production up; gap with GM narrows
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070126/BUSINESS01/70126004

TOKYO - Toyota's global production last year surged 10 percent to more than
9 million vehicles, the Japanese automaker said Friday, narrowing the gap
with General Motors, the world's No. 1 automaker.

Toyota Motor Corp., riding on its reputation for fuel-efficient cars like
the Prius hybrid, produced 9.018 million vehicles, including its Japanese
subsidiaries that make trucks and smaller models. It was its fifth straight
year of growth.

General Motors Corp. and its group automakers' production rose to 9.18
million vehicles worldwide in 2006, according to the Detroit-based
automaker - about 162,000 vehicles more than its Japanese rival.

That gap has narrowed from about 819,000 vehicles at the end of 2005, when
Toyota and its Japanese units made 8.232 million vehicles worldwide and GM's
production totaled 9.051 million.

Late last year, Toyota set a global production target of 9.42 million
vehicles for this year, which is likely to put it ahead of GM, which does
not announce production targets for the full year ahead.

Toyota has already long beat GM in profitability, reporting robust earnings,
while GM has sunk into the red on massive restructuring costs. GM lost $3
billion through the first nine months of last year and lost $10.6 billion in
2005, but said it will report a profit in the fourth quarter.

Also Friday, data from automakers showed Honda Motor Co. had surpassed
Nissan Motor Co. to rise to Japan's No. 2 automaker in annual global vehicle
production.

Solid demand for the Civic model boosted Honda's production in North America
and China, said company spokeswoman Yu Kimoto, as Honda achieved an all-time
calendar year record for worldwide production in 2006.

Honda had been ranked second among Japanese automakers in 2003, but fell to
No. 3 the last few years.

Global production at Nissan fell 7.7 percent in 2006 to 3.24 million
vehicles, while Honda's worldwide production last year rose 6.6 percent to
3.63 million vehicles.
In December, Toyota's global output totaled 624,219 vehicles, up 4.7 percent
from the same month of last year for a 26th straight month of growth.

Overseas production edged up 0.1 percent to 285,931 in the 60th consecutive
month of increase, while domestic production 8.8 percent to 338,288, the
16th straight monthly gain and a record high for December.

Nissan, which has an alliance with Renault SA of France, said global
production in December fell 3.2 percent 238,332 vehicles with domestic
output declining 6.9 percent and overseas production inching down 0.6
percent.

Honda said its global output rose 6.4 percent to 283,245 vehicles in
December. Production in Japan posted a 14.8 percent gain while overseas
output rose 1.2 percent.

Global production for Mazda Motor Corp. climbed 14.2 percent to 116,276
vehicles last month. For 2006, Mazda - 33.9 percent owned by U.S. automaker
Ford Motor Co. - produced 1.285 million vehicles worldwide, up 12.1 percent
from 2005.

Output at Mitsubishi Motors Corp. declined 3 percent to 109,960 vehicles in
December. Mitsubishi's global production last year slipped 3.6 percent to
1.31 million vehicles.



--
"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without
bloodshed,if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not
too costly,you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with
all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival.There may
even be a worse case;you may have to fight when there is no hope of
victory,because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."
---Winston Churchill
 
D

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
In article <[email protected]>,
"Jim Higgins" <[email protected]> wrote:


> "If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without
> bloodshed,if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not
> too costly,you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with
> all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival.There may
> even be a worse case;you may have to fight when there is no hope of
> victory,because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."
> ---Winston Churchill


Thankyou Jim and thankyou Winston.

We should have been fighting the terrorists after the first WTC bombing.
We wouldn't have had 9/11.
--
 
D

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
In article <[email protected]>,
dbu <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Jim Higgins" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> > "If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without
> > bloodshed,if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not
> > too costly,you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with
> > all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival.There may
> > even be a worse case;you may have to fight when there is no hope of
> > victory,because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."
> > ---Winston Churchill

>
> Thankyou Jim and thankyou Winston.
>
> We should have been fighting the terrorists after the first WTC bombing.
> We wouldn't have had 9/11.


Here I am reply to my own posting.

I post a non-OT topic and get only one reply. OT postings are multiple
replies. Go figure.
--
 
W

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
"dbu" <:
>,
>
> Here I am reply to my own posting.
>
> I post a non-OT topic and get only one reply. OT postings are multiple
> replies. Go figure.
> --
>


Dunno why others didn't reply, but I didn't because it's not exactly
earth-shatteringly new.

LOL We knew this was coming. Now, if you'd posted that GM was pulling back
into the lead, then that would be more interesting.

:)

Natalie
 
A

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
In article <[email protected]>
[email protected] "dbu" writes:

> I post a non-OT topic and get only one reply. OT postings are
> multiple replies. Go figure.


It was interesting but final in itself. Didn't seem to call for
comment. Happens quite a lot on Usenet. Thanks for it, though.

(Now, had you slipped in some gratuitous insults of Demonrats or
Republigoons, we could be enjoying a lively thread of nonsense.)
--
Andrew Stephenson
 
D

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Andrew Stephenson) wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>
> [email protected] "dbu" writes:
>
> > I post a non-OT topic and get only one reply. OT postings are
> > multiple replies. Go figure.

>
> It was interesting but final in itself. Didn't seem to call for
> comment. Happens quite a lot on Usenet. Thanks for it, though.
>
> (Now, had you slipped in some gratuitous insults of Demonrats or
> Republigoons, we could be enjoying a lively thread of nonsense.)


Cheers Andrew, you seem like a fellow I'd have a beer with....
--
 
B

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
"Wickeddoll®" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> I post a non-OT topic and get only one reply. OT postings are multiple
>> replies. Go figure.

>
> Dunno why others didn't reply, but I didn't because it's not exactly
> earth-shatteringly new.
>
> LOL We knew this was coming. Now, if you'd posted that GM was pulling back
> into the lead, then that would be more interesting.


Once GM comes out with their plug-in hybrid, WATCH OUT TOYOTA!!!
This might happen in, oh let me predict, 2025.
 
A

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
In article <[email protected]>
[email protected] "dbu" writes:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Andrew Stephenson) wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>
> > [email protected] "dbu" writes:
> >
> > > I post a non-OT topic and get only one reply. OT postings are
> > > multiple replies. Go figure.

> >
> > It was interesting but final in itself. Didn't seem to call for
> > comment. Happens quite a lot on Usenet. Thanks for it, though.
> >
> > (Now, had you slipped in some gratuitous insults of Demonrats or
> > Republigoons, we could be enjoying a lively thread of nonsense.)

>
> Cheers Andrew, you seem like a fellow I'd have a beer with....


The real stuff, I hope? There are some decent micro-breweries in
the US these days.
--
Andrew Stephenson
 
W

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
"Bill Tuthill" ...
"Wickeddoll®" :
>>
>> I post a non-OT topic and get only one reply. OT postings are multiple
>> replies. Go figure.

>
> Dunno why others didn't reply, but I didn't because it's not exactly
> earth-shatteringly new.
>
> LOL We knew this was coming. Now, if you'd posted that GM was pulling back
> into the lead, then that would be more interesting.


Once GM comes out with their plug-in hybrid, WATCH OUT TOYOTA!!!
This might happen in, oh let me predict, 2025.

BT

ROFL!

Natalie
 
D

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
In article <[email protected]>, Bill Tuthill <[email protected]>
wrote:

> "Wickeddoll®" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> I post a non-OT topic and get only one reply. OT postings are multiple
> >> replies. Go figure.

> >
> > Dunno why others didn't reply, but I didn't because it's not exactly
> > earth-shatteringly new.
> >
> > LOL We knew this was coming. Now, if you'd posted that GM was pulling back
> > into the lead, then that would be more interesting.

>
> Once GM comes out with their plug-in hybrid, WATCH OUT TOYOTA!!!
> This might happen in, oh let me predict, 2025.



The BIG question is what kind of cupholders will it have.
--
 
S

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Jim Higgins wrote:
> Late last year, Toyota set a global production target of 9.42 million
> vehicles for this year, which is likely to put it ahead of GM, which does
> not announce production targets for the full year ahead.


i think toyota ought to just go slow and not just crank out the cars to
beat a target. if theyre selling? sure.

cranking em out, forcing em on dealers is a detroit trick, and just
leads to crap quality and incentives to move the stuff thats been made.
 
S

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
dbu wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Jim Higgins" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> "If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without
>> bloodshed,if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not
>> too costly,you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with
>> all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival.There may
>> even be a worse case;you may have to fight when there is no hope of
>> victory,because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."
>> ---Winston Churchill

>
> Thankyou Jim and thankyou Winston.
>
> We should have been fighting the terrorists after the first WTC bombing.
> We wouldn't have had 9/11.


and since 9/11 we should have been fighting terrorism in afghanistan,
where the actual terrorists are.
 
W

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
"SoCalMike" ...
> Jim Higgins wrote:
>> Late last year, Toyota set a global production target of 9.42 million
>> vehicles for this year, which is likely to put it ahead of GM, which does
>> not announce production targets for the full year ahead.

>
> i think toyota ought to just go slow and not just crank out the cars to
> beat a target. if theyre selling? sure.
>
> cranking em out, forcing em on dealers is a detroit trick, and just leads
> to crap quality and incentives to move the stuff thats been made.


Good point. Hope you're not right.

Natalie
 
A

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
In article <[email protected]>
[email protected] "SoCalMike" writes:

> i think toyota ought to just go slow and not just crank out the
> cars to beat a target. if theyre selling? sure.
>
> cranking em out, forcing em on dealers is a detroit trick, and
> just leads to crap quality and incentives to move the stuff
> thats been made.


Funnily enough, there was an "expert" on BBC-tv, two nights ago,
who agreed with you. He felt that Ford (and thus presumably any
car maker who wants to prosper) should switch to making a varied
range of vehicle types that covers the likely needs of the focus
market but restrict models within each type. This permits rapid
ramping up/down of production as fashion and demand fluctuate; a
production base that must be built before a market can be served
is no bleeding use. How close to this ideal is Toyota already?
--
Andrew Stephenson
 
D

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
In article <[email protected]>,
SoCalMike <[email protected]> wrote:

> Jim Higgins wrote:
> > Late last year, Toyota set a global production target of 9.42 million
> > vehicles for this year, which is likely to put it ahead of GM, which does
> > not announce production targets for the full year ahead.

>
> i think toyota ought to just go slow and not just crank out the cars to
> beat a target. if theyre selling? sure.
>
> cranking em out, forcing em on dealers is a detroit trick, and just
> leads to crap quality and incentives to move the stuff thats been made.


Roger that.

What makes Toyotas good is they depart from the old Detroit in
workmanship and sales tactics. Personally I want stability in price and
in resale value.
--
 
D

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
In article <[email protected]>,
SoCalMike <[email protected]> wrote:

> dbu wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Jim Higgins" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> "If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without
> >> bloodshed,if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not
> >> too costly,you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with
> >> all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival.There may
> >> even be a worse case;you may have to fight when there is no hope of
> >> victory,because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."
> >> ---Winston Churchill

> >
> > Thankyou Jim and thankyou Winston.
> >
> > We should have been fighting the terrorists after the first WTC bombing.
> > We wouldn't have had 9/11.

>
> and since 9/11 we should have been fighting terrorism in afghanistan,
> where the actual terrorists are.


I suppose there are times the quarterback would like to take back that
last pass that was intercepted.

I guess history will be the final judge.
--
 
W

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
"Andrew Stephenson" >
"SoCalMike" writes:
>
>> i think toyota ought to just go slow and not just crank out the
>> cars to beat a target. if theyre selling? sure.
>>
>> cranking em out, forcing em on dealers is a detroit trick, and
>> just leads to crap quality and incentives to move the stuff
>> thats been made.

>
> Funnily enough, there was an "expert" on BBC-tv, two nights ago,
> who agreed with you. He felt that Ford (and thus presumably any
> car maker who wants to prosper) should switch to making a varied
> range of vehicle types that covers the likely needs of the focus
> market but restrict models within each type. This permits rapid
> ramping up/down of production as fashion and demand fluctuate; a
> production base that must be built before a market can be served
> is no bleeding use. How close to this ideal is Toyota already?
> --
> Andrew Stephenson
>


That's an interesting perspective? Somehow, I don't think Toyota will be as
short-sighted as GM has been. If nothing else, they should learn from GM's
mistakes, and not go down that path.

One would think.

Natalie
 
A

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
In article <[email protected]>
[email protected] "Wickeddoll®" writes:

> [... ] Somehow, I don't think Toyota will be as short-sighted
> as GM has been. If nothing else, they should learn from GM's
> mistakes, and not go down that path.
>
> One would think.


Agreed. One would. But the Right Course being glaringly obvious
hasn't stopped so many companies (and larger concerns) from doing
utterly daft things, while galloping down the road to extinction.
--
Andrew Stephenson
 
W

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
"Andrew Stephenson" >
"Wickeddoll®" writes:
>
>> [... ] Somehow, I don't think Toyota will be as short-sighted
>> as GM has been. If nothing else, they should learn from GM's
>> mistakes, and not go down that path.
>>
>> One would think.

>
> Agreed. One would. But the Right Course being glaringly obvious
> hasn't stopped so many companies (and larger concerns) from doing
> utterly daft things, while galloping down the road to extinction.
> --
> Andrew Stephenson
>


GM in a nutshell.

Natalie
 
R

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
"Andrew Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> In article <[email protected]>
> [email protected] "SoCalMike" writes:
>
>> i think toyota ought to just go slow and not just crank out the
>> cars to beat a target. if theyre selling? sure.
>>
>> cranking em out, forcing em on dealers is a detroit trick, and
>> just leads to crap quality and incentives to move the stuff
>> thats been made.

>
> Funnily enough, there was an "expert" on BBC-tv, two nights ago,
> who agreed with you. He felt that Ford (and thus presumably any
> car maker who wants to prosper) should switch to making a varied
> range of vehicle types that covers the likely needs of the focus
> market but restrict models within each type. This permits rapid
> ramping up/down of production as fashion and demand fluctuate; a
> production base that must be built before a market can be served
> is no bleeding use. How close to this ideal is Toyota already?
> --
> Andrew Stephenson
>


In the auto business, vehicle inventory is measured in days supply.
Basically, days supply is calculated by measuring how many vehicles are sold
over a given time period and dividing the number of vehicles sold during
that time period by the number of days in the time period to arrive at
average sales per day. The number of vehicles in the inventory is divided
by sales per day to arrive at days supply. For example, if a dealer sells
an average of 2 Camrys per day over a 120 day period and has 60 Camrys in
stock, then the dealer has a 30 days supply of Camrys. The shorter the time
period used, the more responsive an automaker can be in adjusting
production. I don't know if this is still the case, Toyota used to use a
120 day time period. The advantage of a longer days supply of inventory is
more choices for their customers, and automakers get to have the dealers
carry the inventory and keep their production lines busy. The advantage of
a shorter days supply of inventory is that dealers' cost of carrying the
inventory is lower, gross profit margins can be a little higher, there is
less exposure to the automaker and dealer if there is a sudden downturn in
sales, and there are fewer vehicles to get rid of at the end of the
production cycle.

Dealers generally like to carry a 45 to 60 days supply of vehicles. Dealer
inventory of Toyota's most popular models are in the neighborhood of 30 to
45 days supply, while slower selling vehicles like the 2006 Tundra was
closer to 90 at the end of 2006. Toyota is adding production capacity to
meet consumer demand and bring dealer inventories closer to 60 days supply.
--

Ray O
(correct punctuation to reply)
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top