Edmunds CarPool

Now? They're a car company that makes cars for people who don't care about cars. They are not built for enthusiasts (although that might be changing if the FT-86 is any inclination), that ship sailed (at least) when the Celica was killed although I agree with Karl that the Supra was really the last of the true performance era at Toyota. Sure there is a spattering of excitment here and there (The V6 RAV4 and Camry come to mind as well as some niche products like the FJ and Scion Tc) but picking thru the rest of the lineup is no different than picking out an appliance for your house.

But stepping away from the excitment aspects and Toyota still has innovation going for it. They do have the largest and most successful hybrid lineup out there. They also manage very respectable fuel economy numbers for the size and power of their non-hybrid vehicles (Again a 270hp V6 that gets mid to high 20's is impressive) and reliability is still highly regarded.

I still think Toyota does a good job of understanding their intended market and any product they release (for the most part) ends up smack dab in the middle of their intended target.

Now sure, the Echo mentioned in the article had it's flaws but it's competition wasn't much better in it's 11 thousand dollar price range. The Chevy Metro for example. Or Hyndai/Kia who matched the Echo on price but were still battling their own perceptions of quality and reliability. Honda, Nissan, Mazda and Ford had nothing to offer in this segment. The Echo succeeded as a world car that was sold in one form or another (Vitz, Platz, Yaris) and did it's job as a cheap, fuel efficient econobox that had Toyota reliability to back it up. It's just that we auto enthusiasts don't follow this (or particularly care) so therefore we don't think highly of this car (like so many Toyota products) because it wasn't targeted at us folks looking for the performance.

Toyota will always be the "Appliance" unless something really drastic happens to change that image. And an SE version of a minivan isn't it.

I'm a little confused about all of this talk of Toyota having a great history of innovation and engineering. Toyota is primarily known for two things- relentless quality control and relentless work at maximizing efficiency and saving money. Their contributions to the industry are much more production oriented than engineering oriented. If you forget about Synergy Drive you will be hard pressed to name any major Toyota technology that was first to market. They are still using 4 speed automatics when GM and Chrysler were criticized for doing that 5 years ago.

Toyota has become (or has been) much of what American automakers were supposed to be in the past. Its more than the slipping quality, its the fact that they seem to design cars to a price point and design them to be slightly better than their predecessors but not best in class. Toyota is so insular and confident that they have not learned anything from the troubles of Detroit. With few exceptions Toyota's current products are designed as if they have to do nothing more than attract current Toyota owners. This is evident in the interior designs, materials choices, transmissions, styling, value, fuel economy, etc. Toyota is known for fuel economy but aside from the Prius and vehicles with the 3.5L V6 they don't really make any vehicles that are best in class in efficiency. In the 70s-90s American cars generally were designed as if the potential buyers were going to be loyal customers who wouldnt really investigate the competition. That is exactly how Toyota vehicles are today. Folks who swear by Toyota and don't spend 5 minutes researching the competition believe Toyota is unsurpassed. People who are more savvy know Toyota's are largely middle of the pack. Toyota designs vehicles to ensure profitability, not to win comparison tests or to better the competition.

What innovation, outside of lean manufacturing, has Toyota given us?

Yes they build reliable cars which a certain sort of consumer wants. But those consumers would be equally happy with the equally relibale Nissan, Honda, Mazda, Subaru or nowadays Ford. All of those companies at least make more interesting cars (whether that be interior/exterior design or driving fun). Toyota just got consumers and as long as the car runs Ok they will be back for another Toyota. No thought goes on in the decision.

1487 - I agree Toyota build cars for profiability. However profitability and winning comparison tests are no mutally exclusive. See BMW and Porsche as two great examples of that.

As noted, Toyota makes fine, durable appliances. Their cars have been uninspiring, usually with uncomfortable seating and interiors that are pitched to a very specific type of taste, which I don't share. I have never enjoyed driving any Toyota car, but for customers who want uninvolving transportation they do just fine.

They have done a great job with market segmentation and anticipating where their customers were trending in lifestyle and demographics.

Toyota has done some good car engines, measured by power output combined with fuel efficiency. Chassis, steering, brakes have been midrange at best. Hybrid systems have been truly innovative and quite brilliantly engineered.

Where I think they truly excelled is in the truck arena. Land Cruiser is the best large SUV, and for many years Toyota compact trucks were quite capable and durable, though recent Tacomas have lost their advantage. If I had to do some off-road or bad snow driving, the 4-Runner would clearly be the mid-size SUV of choice, better overall durability and control than junky Jeep Grand Cherokee or similar alternatives. They have earned the trust of those who depend on their truck in remote, difficult terrain.

The Toyota production system has been their greatest innovation and long term strength, along with their hybrid innovations, but they remain a conservative Japan Inc institution. Coping with the unexpected will be a challenge.

Toyota builds appliances, and there isn't really anything wrong with that on the whole. There is obviously a huge market for them (most people aren't enthusiasts in the least) and Toyota has done a good job appealing to that market. They don't offer a single vehicle that interests me in the least, though I do love the old Supra.

"Toyota just got consumers and as long as the car runs Ok they will be back for another Toyota. No thought goes on in the decision."

Exactly.

I agree that you can make inspirational, well designed cars AND make money. Toyota is much more concerned with how quickly a model can be produced and how much money can be saved by commonizing parts than they are about design or great engineering. They could make better cars but they dont feel they NEED to make better cars. I hate their ads because they NEVER tell you anything about their vehicles. They just talk about reliability and dependibility and attempt to coast on their reputation. They have an ad with a Camry where they claim 80% of 20 year old Toyotas are on the road or something. Who cares? If I'm buying a car in 2010 and I plan to keep it 6 years or so why would I care that Toyota has tons of 1990 models on the road?

I'm with you, dougtheeng. Their products don't interest me, but some of their past products did (Supra, MR2, MR2 Spyder). My sister has a Corolla and it runs well, but actually has been less reliable than my '03 Mazda 6s.

1487, you need some or maybe a lot of common sense. A car built to last 20 years should be expected to give you 6 good years. A car built to last 8 years would not.
Also, remember Toyota still has the best 4W drive system on the planet. Sequoia can be driven in 4W drive at all times if you so desire. I am not sure about the rest.

My first car was a 1991 Tercel. They actually weren’t long-lived – the engine was underdesigned and would often start burning oil and eventually just burn out. But at the time I was broke and became acquainted with all the offerings in that sad segment, and I began to see the Toyota’s qualities. There were no exposed screws on the door panels, the interior plastics and moving parts held up better, and the controls were better than most of the competition too. Its manual steering was great, and is largely responsible for making me fall in love with driving.

I was poor at the time and got to know all the competitors in that budget category, mostly subcompacts plus a few decontented compacts like the Sentra E and the Civic CX (all with 4-speed manuals, no power steering, “passive” seatbelts, etc.). Other than the Civic CX, and not counting the engines, the Tercel did have a feel of higher quality.

I would’ve liked a Supra or MR2. Fortunately, it looks like Toyota remembers that it used to have car enthusiast fans. They can win me back (first cars can have that effect on people). As for non-enthusiasts, I think they’re responding quickly enough to this current mess. Not like GM that took 30 years.

Flame:

I guess this is what happens when they dont steal something from us germans...

Flame end

In the past, Toyota gave us a relative amount of consistency. I wouldn't say they were better, but more consistent. You knew what you were getting.

The competition is now consistent and, quite honestly, better. With the possible exception of the Prius, I see no reason to buy a Toyota over a Ford, Honda, or GM.

Nissan and Chrysler have some interesting vehicles, but haven't figured out the consistency issue yet.

Toyota, to me, has always been the appliance brand. I think of Toyota in the 90's as the Nissan of the 70's: a few fantastic flagship products, but otherwise very bland. I absolutely loved the Supra, the MR-2, and the Land Cruiser. To this day, I'd like to get my hands of any of those old models. Beyond that, though, no thanks.

As a nonenthusiast, Toyota makes great appliances. If I didn't follow industry trends and only heard what I saw on TV, I would of course stay away from Toyota. They grew way too fast and it's catching up to them.

My perception of Toyota hasn't fundamentally changed. The only true breakthrough product Toyota ever made was the 2JZ, and that was actually developed by a German company. The Prius was another major stepping stone for Toyota with the development of the Hybrid Synergy Drive. This was done in-house. But to me, hybrids are this decade's ethanol.

"1487, you need some or maybe a lot of common sense. A car built to last 20 years should be expected to give you 6 good years. A car built to last 8 years would not."

Products that Toyota made in 1990 have no bearing on what is sold today. None. Toyota can't get past talking about reliability and they really don't know how else to sell their cars. A car is so complex and made from so many pre assembled parts supplied by 3rd parties that the concept of a car "built to last 8 years" doesn't even make sense. Toyota and their fans are obsessed with the notion of cars lasting 150k or 200k miles when people don't generally keep cars that long. I don't doubt a Toyota will last 200k miles but that really has no bearing on what car I will buy.

Karl, we need to forward Toyota (Chairman TOYODA) some of those old commercials so they can remember what Toyota use to mean for several of us.

True, Toyota was never a new technology/concept moving technology car company nor a company that will push their cars or products to racing. Both Honda, Mazda & Nissan were ahead of the game regarding new technology introduction and racing.

Toyota mentality is very hardcore conservative regarding vehicle developments and concepts. It will take some time for a turn around.

Over the past 10-20 years Toyota has worked harder at engineering its image and ad campaigns than products. At this point they are an automaker with an exceptional reputation and a powerful PR/marketing machine that generally makes average products. Toyota has been adept at convincing people the Toyota badge is more important than the attributes of any particular vehicle. People will deal with subpar dealers, subpar plastics, subpar equipment levels, numb steering, dull styling, etc. because of the Toyota brand name.

Toyota has always meant affordable, reliable transportation for the masses. They manufacture vehicles to appeal to the broadest audience possible and have been able to have both the guy flipping the burgers and his general manager driving a camry suited to their income. their ability to create a vehicle (venza) that will fit in the market, yet does not fit in a market category (cuv is the closest, though you could argue camry wagon) is a a testiment to their desire to give the people what they want even if they don't know they want it yet. to say that their designs are weak and uninspired in the current generations where technology has afforded us the ability to crease and sculpt lines into the sheetmetal is simply a matter of taste. almost all of their recent designs have come from the trendiest of all places, the calty design studios in california. toyota is wounded from the recall campaign, but their reputation will carry on with minimal impact.

1487, the fact that they tout their reliability in current commercials instead of their performance figures and cash back amounts shows that they realize more people are buying cars who may need to hang on to them longer than we presently do or have since the economy tanked. this seems to be a bit of clever marketing and not an attempt to ignore how their cars perform. they tried the simple performance numbers with the new tundra... and it is lost in the full size truck mix.

In my opinion, the diesel corolla of the early 1980's was a flop, but moreso was the Previa. that van did open up the minivan market to the idea of foldable and stowable 3rd row seating... no innovation there...

Karl, my perception of Toyota now is exactly the same as yours.

My perception of Toyota (and Nissan) in the first 19 years of my life was very positive too (mostly '80s and '90s), but for different reasons. Then, I didn't understand things like handling, nor did I care for acceleration. But, in Africa, Japanese cars are the "normal" cars, and Toyota and Nissan made very reliable cars then. American cars are just not popular. European luxury cars are popular with the rich, but only VW and Opel are popular with the middle class.
Secondly, there still is a huge market for the Tacoma (called Hilux in most of Africa) and the Frontier (then the Datsun or Nissan pickup), as well as the Toyota Hi-Ace and Nissan Urvan....they are used for commercial activity, mostly as commercial transport for passengers and goods between cities or between a city and surrounding rural areas. The Hilux, Frontier, Hi_ace and Urvan have earned an awesome reputation for longevity and reliability. They can withstand the abuse from bad rural roads and overloading for many years. Similar vehicles from Mazda, Mitsubishi and Isuzu are just not as strong.
Lastly, there were the Nissan Patrol and Toyota Land Cruiser. These were mostly used by politicians and the rich.....and still are. They were (and are) still considered fast, and their off-road ability is beaten only by the Spartan Land Rover 110. [These days, American SUVs are also popular with the rich, but politicians still rely on the Patrol and Land Cruiser. The 110 is popular with police and the military.]

The amazing capabilities of Toyota's commercial and off-roading vehicles, as well as the reliability of their cars gave me (and I believe most Africans my age) an awesome reputation of Toyota as a kid.

I would describe the Urvan and Hi-Ace as the precursor to the modern minivan...they are slightly larger and (relatively) very spartan; the seats are not designed for long-term comfort, but for durability and easy loading/unloading of passengers.

My favorite Toyota models are the Tacoma and the Land Cruiser. They are tough, reliable, can last very long, and still retain body-on-frame construction.
The Land Cruiser has kinda lost a bit of favour with me, though: it's become a quasi-Range Rover that only the wealthy can afford. For the price, I'd rather get a Range Rover. But I still respect its fantastic abilities.

Toyota, for many years, has made cars for my wife. Her main criteria: does it start today, will it start tomorrow, does the radio sound ok. The soel performance criteria is; can it accelerate enough to merge onto a freeway with no drama.
In past models they have been masters at selling/marketing to those buyers. Hard to argue with 120k miles,no repairs and still looks very good inside and out, as is the case in my wife's current car (2002 Camry).

Cars with excitement? Not since the Supra. My personal favorite was the Celica All-trac - comfortable seats, decent power, good handling, superb System 10 sound system.

The comments from 1487 are surprising. Of course long-term durability and dependability are important to many buyers.

You may be privileged to discard a car when boredom sets in, long before there are many miles on the odometer, but there are many, many people to whom a car purchase is a substantial commitment of resources. They need to make the vehicle last to higher mileage because they have other financial obligations, for instance, or like I do, drive many miles each year.

Or they don't commit a lot of attention to their car's care and upkeep, and the margin of safety in solid, dependable track records means they are less likely to be out of service.

Toyota will be very sorry if they lose that reputation, as Mercedes-Benz has since the Jurgen Schremp era.

mnorm1, It sounds like all (most) manufacturers make cars for your wife. ;)

"1487, the fact that they tout their reliability in current commercials instead of their performance figures and cash back amounts shows that they realize more people are buying cars who may need to hang on to them longer than we presently do or have since the economy tanked. this seems to be a bit of clever marketing and not an attempt to ignore how their cars perform."

first of all most current Toyota ads focus on deals so let's not pretend Toyota advertises quality while others focus on price. Over the last year or two Toyota has launched more 0% financing ads and cut rate lease ads than anyone. The point is they dont have anything to talk about besides quality and they refuse to acknowledge that quality isnt a major differentiator at this point. They have taken it back to the 80s with their new ads touting quality. No one really doubts their quality so why spend millions doing ads talking about quality? Tell us what stands out about your vehicles other than Prius. They haven't come up with anything yet.

"The comments from 1487 are surprising. Of course long-term durability and dependability are important to many buyers.

You may be privileged to discard a car when boredom sets in, long before there are many miles on the odometer, but there are many, many people to whom a car purchase is a substantial commitment of resources."

Give me a break. I'm not saying a car is a minor purchase, I am saying MOST Americans do not keep a new car for 10-15 years. Period. If the average American kept thier car that long the new car market would be a disaster. The fact that there are plentiful numbers of late model cars available (do an internet search) in every segment in every price range tells you that most Americans trade in a car before its close to death. I don't know one person driving a vehicle with more than 150k miles on it and that includes friends and family with Toyotas. while reliability pitches are enough to keep the attention of group think loving Boomers its not going to work with the younger generations. Increasingly I am noticing that Toyotas are piloted by older people and it makes sense because these are the people who were in their 20s and 30s when Toyota was really establishing itself as the reliable alternative to Detroit "junk". Those people have been loyal but Toyota has nothing in its stable to really attract a new generation of buyers. Their US marketshare and profitability has peaked.

Toyota is unmatched in long-term dullability.

No Celica. No Supra. No MR2.

After Toyota removed any remaining fun from their vehicles they still maintained their reputation for quality, reliability and value.

Between 1996 and 2000 I perceived a gradual decline in the overall quality of finish and materials in Toyota vehicles. Mainly in the areas that you would not notice unless you were specifically looking for them.

Now Toyota appears to be slipping in quality, safety and reliability while Ford and GM have caught up with Toyota or surpassed them.

"to say that their designs are weak and uninspired in the current generations where technology has afforded us the ability to crease and sculpt lines into the sheetmetal is simply a matter of taste. almost all of their recent designs have come from the trendiest of all places, the calty design studios in california."

I don't care where their vehicles are designed, their designs are lacking overall. They are not a leader in design and never have been. This isnt an opinion, its a fact and I doubt anyone at Toyota would deny that. Historically, the designs that have stood the test of time or have been come to be known as classics come from the US and Europe. European and American automakers have rich design histories to draw from when creating new models and it shows. Toyota does not have that. Nothing they sold here in the 60s or 70s would ever be called classic. Design has always been secondary to reliability and production efficiency at Toyota.

"Toyota is unmatched in long-term dullability."

Says Toyota.

"mnorm1, It sounds like all (most) manufacturers make cars for your wife. ;)" I agree, and Toyota has done it better than most in the last several years.