Latest Mis-Leading Tundra Commercial

#41

----- Original Message -----
From: <someone (AT) some (DOT) domain>
Newsgroups: alt.autos,alt.autos.toyota,alt.autos.toyota.trucks
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 9:45 PM
Subject: Re: Latest Mis-Leading Tundra Commercial

Quote:

In article <pfSdnUwnF6u2n3fXnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d (AT) earthlink (DOT) com>, "C. E. White"
cewhite3remove (AT) mindspring (DOT) com> wrote:

"SMS" <scharf.steven (AT) geemail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:4ae5c972$0$1603$742ec2ed (AT) news (DOT) sonic.net...
The biggest problem with the Tundra is that not enough buyers are
willing
to pay premium for toughness or longevity.

When I was pricing trucks last February, the Tundras were heavily
discounted. I actually paid more for an F150 than I was qouted for a
Tundra
with similar equipment (smaller V8, Access Cab). One trip down a rough
road
convinced me the Tundra was a no go. Try running one over a few bumps with
the tailgate down and you wouldn't want one either. It was painfully
obvious
the Tundra was the inferior truck. Toyota builds some fine vehicle. The
Tundra isn't one of them. I probably would be able to get buy with a
Tundra,
but I prefer something that is overbuilt to something that is just good
enough to get buy. A Tundra wouldn't last some farmers I know a year. The
frame is too weak, the sheet metal to timmy. And given Toyota mediocre
reliabilty record of late and high Toyota repair prices, I couldn't see
taking a chance on a Tundra with my money.

Ed.

the sheet metal is timmy? what about lassie, too?
getting buy? you mean by?
(i don't proofread either.)

Worse than that...I let windows spell check for me...

Ed

#42

In article <m76dnRfYroNU-3bXnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d (AT) earthlink (DOT) com>, "C. E. White" <cewhite3remove (AT) mindspring (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

----- Original Message -----
From: <someone (AT) some (DOT) domain
Newsgroups: alt.autos,alt.autos.toyota,alt.autos.toyota.trucks
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 9:45 PM
Subject: Re: Latest Mis-Leading Tundra Commercial

In article <pfSdnUwnF6u2n3fXnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d (AT) earthlink (DOT) com>, "C. E. White"
cewhite3remove (AT) mindspring (DOT) com> wrote:

"SMS" <scharf.steven (AT) geemail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:4ae5c972$0$1603$742ec2ed (AT) news (DOT) sonic.net...
The biggest problem with the Tundra is that not enough buyers are
willing
to pay premium for toughness or longevity.

When I was pricing trucks last February, the Tundras were heavily
discounted. I actually paid more for an F150 than I was qouted for a
Tundra
with similar equipment (smaller V8, Access Cab). One trip down a rough
road
convinced me the Tundra was a no go. Try running one over a few bumps with
the tailgate down and you wouldn't want one either. It was painfully
obvious
the Tundra was the inferior truck. Toyota builds some fine vehicle. The
Tundra isn't one of them. I probably would be able to get buy with a
Tundra,
but I prefer something that is overbuilt to something that is just good
enough to get buy. A Tundra wouldn't last some farmers I know a year. The
frame is too weak, the sheet metal to timmy. And given Toyota mediocre
reliabilty record of late and high Toyota repair prices, I couldn't see
taking a chance on a Tundra with my money.

Ed.

the sheet metal is timmy? what about lassie, too?
getting buy? you mean by?
(i don't proofread either.)

Worse than that...I let windows spell check for me...

Ed

so that's what that smell is? i thought something died next to a heater.

let me guess, the new windums 7? vista couldn't spell check it's way out of
it's crutch.

#43

"C. E. White" <cewhite3remove (AT) mindspring (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

----- Original Message -----
From: "SMS" <scharf.steven (AT) geemail (DOT) com
Newsgroups: alt.autos,alt.autos.toyota,alt.autos.toyota.trucks
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 4:27 AM
Subject: Re: Latest Mis-Leading Tundra Commercial

I'm Right wrote:
That is odd when I drive I see 30+ year old Chevy, GMC, Ford and a Dodge
once in a while.
Chevy PU's from 73-87 are everywhere, the 88-98 are too as well as the
newr chevys
I see 80-86 Fords, 87-97 fords and up. Dodges are mostly 94 and up, with
a few older 88-ish with a cummins.
I do see a few 89-94 Toy PU. The truck they should have kept building.

Toyota really hit their stride with Tundra. It's rather over-built, but
that's why it lasts so long. If you want something that's just "good
enough" but cheaper truck that will last 1/3 as long. The Tundra has a
stronger frame and thicker steel throughout. But it goes beyond just the
design, Toyotas are also more reliable, repairs are reasonably priced,
and parts availability is excellent.

Over built? Overbuilt for what - carrying a couple of bags of groceries?
Seriously, have you actually driven a current style Tundra? It is clearly
inferior to anything form Ford or Chevy or even Dodge.

What characteristics of THE RIDE provide clues about the heftiness of the
frame, or other aspects of how it's built?

#44

----- Original Message -----

Quote:

As for the Tundra as opposed to F and GM I can't say except for what I
seen at the Toyota dealership and as you know they puff their vehicles
as do Ford and GM. So what ever it's worth.

Ford uses three different rear ends in F150 (not jsut different gear
ratios), three different engines, 3 different transmissions, two different
frames, different front and rear springs, etc. Likewise Toyota uses two
different rear ends, three different transmissions, and three different
engines. Chevy has even more variations. If you carefully pick and chose
parts from the various combinations you can create the appearance that one
is more heavy duty that another. One thing for sure, none of the parts you
saw were from a Super Duty or a Silverado HD. Toyota would like to create
the impression that the Tundra is especially heavy duty. The truth is it
can't even match up with a properly ordered F150 if you want the a maximum
capcity 1/2 ton pick-up. A properly spec'd F150 can tow more, and carry more
than the maximum sped'd Tundra. That is the bottom line.

I have been disgusted with the Toyota's marketing for the new Tundra from
day one. I don't think I have ever seen a more misleading marketing plan.
They have tried to cover up the deficiencies of the product with a bunch of
misleading commercials. It is sad that such a successful company has
resorted to such tactics. Sadder still is the fact that they wasted billions
on this dog.

Ed

#45

<< light-duty pickups

well at least they are honest about that part

#46

I'm still waiting to see a ford off road somewhere (other than in a dirt
parking lot)

#47

if you had a Mac you'd have to ride at the back of the bus

"C. E. White" <cewhite3remove (AT) mindspring (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

----- Original Message -----
From: <someone (AT) some (DOT) domain
Newsgroups: alt.autos,alt.autos.toyota,alt.autos.toyota.trucks
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 9:45 PM
Subject: Re: Latest Mis-Leading Tundra Commercial

In article <pfSdnUwnF6u2n3fXnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d (AT) earthlink (DOT) com>, "C. E.
White" <cewhite3remove (AT) mindspring (DOT) com> wrote:

"SMS" <scharf.steven (AT) geemail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:4ae5c972$0$1603$742ec2ed (AT) news (DOT) sonic.net...
The biggest problem with the Tundra is that not enough buyers are
willing
to pay premium for toughness or longevity.

When I was pricing trucks last February, the Tundras were heavily
discounted. I actually paid more for an F150 than I was qouted for a
Tundra
with similar equipment (smaller V8, Access Cab). One trip down a rough
road
convinced me the Tundra was a no go. Try running one over a few bumps
with
the tailgate down and you wouldn't want one either. It was painfully
obvious
the Tundra was the inferior truck. Toyota builds some fine vehicle. The
Tundra isn't one of them. I probably would be able to get buy with a
Tundra,
but I prefer something that is overbuilt to something that is just good
enough to get buy. A Tundra wouldn't last some farmers I know a year. The
frame is too weak, the sheet metal to timmy. And given Toyota mediocre
reliabilty record of late and high Toyota repair prices, I couldn't see
taking a chance on a Tundra with my money.

Ed.

the sheet metal is timmy? what about lassie, too?
getting buy? you mean by?
(i don't proofread either.)

Worse than that...I let windows spell check for me...

Ed

#48

"M. Balmer" <boogerpicker (AT) wazoo (DOT) net> wrote

Quote:

I'm still waiting to see a ford off road somewhere (other than in a dirt
parking lot)

But it says "Off Road©" right on the side of the trucks. Isn't that the
absolute truth?

Warning: That might've been a sarcastic statement.

#49

Toyota used to have a disclaimer in their sales brochure that the Tacoma was
built to be used off road. GM used to market their losers as light duty,
which I take to mean station wagons with a bed.

"JoeSpareBedroom" <newstrash (AT) frontiernet (DOT) net> wrote

Quote:

"M. Balmer" <boogerpicker (AT) wazoo (DOT) net> wrote in message
news:gjMHm.44$oH2.26 (AT) newsfe10 (DOT) iad...
I'm still waiting to see a ford off road somewhere (other than in a dirt
parking lot)

But it says "Off Road©" right on the side of the trucks. Isn't that the
absolute truth?

Warning: That might've been a sarcastic statement.

#50

"M. Balmer" <boogerpicker (AT) wazoo (DOT) net> wrote

Quote:

I'm still waiting to see a ford off road somewhere (other than in a dirt
parking lot)

You are going to need to define "off road" My trucks are off road all the
time - checking cattle fences, chasing cows, hauling supplies to the
planters, pulling equipment out to a field, etc.

Now if you are talking about riding around in the mud for fun, well, that is
just playing and of no importance to me.

I actaully have a lot of problems with people who like to play off road.
More than once one of the boys haa had to leave their toy stuck out in the
middle of one of my fields. I've had to pull more than one Tacoma out of the
mud becasue the idiot driver thought his paly toy could go anywhere. I
should start taking pictures.

Ed