Toyota.

On the web,
Aging, boring lineup of cars called problem for Toyota

I am not bashing Toyota.I saw that article at,
http://www.clarionledger.com
(Business section)
cuhulin

On 01/14/2011 03:18 PM, wrote:
> On the web,
> Aging, boring lineup of cars called problem for Toyota
>
> I am not bashing Toyota.I saw that article at,
> http://www.clarionledger.com
> (Business section)
> cuhulin
>

Toyota, the new Oldsmobile?

quite possibly... wasn't the Cutlass the best selling car in the US for
several years back in the 70's?

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Toyota, Blue Springs,Mississippi new factory (near Tupelo, I think) will
soon be turning out some Toyota cars.I hope they are not too boring.
http://www.southernautocorridor.com
cuhulin

Nate Nagel > wrote in
:

> On 01/14/2011 03:18 PM, wrote:
>> On the web,
>> Aging, boring lineup of cars called problem for Toyota
>>
>> I am not bashing Toyota.I saw that article at,
>> http://www.clarionledger.com
>> (Business section)
>> cuhulin
>>
>
> Toyota, the new Oldsmobile?


I don't think so. Olds was just one of five GM divisions. Increased foreign
competition eventually made Alfred Sloan's original vision impracticable,
and some of those divisions had to go.

Toyota only has three divisions, with one of them very distinct from the
others marketing-wise (Lexus). If anything's going to die for Toyota, I
think it's going to be Scion.

But Toyota has /never/ had the most exciting image. They did go postal with
the original MR2 and the FX-16, but kinda lost the plot after that. If you
buy a Toyota, you're looking for boring competence: cars that just run and
run and run and run.



>
> quite possibly... wasn't the Cutlass the best selling car in the US for
> several years back in the 70's?
>


Yep. Those were /everywhere/ for a long time.


--
Tegger

On 01/14/2011 06:49 PM, Tegger wrote:
> Nate > wrote in
> :
>
>> On 01/14/2011 03:18 PM, wrote:
>>> On the web,
>>> Aging, boring lineup of cars called problem for Toyota
>>>
>>> I am not bashing Toyota.I saw that article at,
>>> http://www.clarionledger.com
>>> (Business section)
>>> cuhulin
>>>
>>
>> Toyota, the new Oldsmobile?
>
>
> I don't think so. Olds was just one of five GM divisions. Increased foreign
> competition eventually made Alfred Sloan's original vision impracticable,
> and some of those divisions had to go.
>
> Toyota only has three divisions, with one of them very distinct from the
> others marketing-wise (Lexus). If anything's going to die for Toyota, I
> think it's going to be Scion.
>
> But Toyota has /never/ had the most exciting image. They did go postal with
> the original MR2 and the FX-16, but kinda lost the plot after that. If you
> buy a Toyota, you're looking for boring competence: cars that just run and
> run and run and run.
>
>
>
>>
>> quite possibly... wasn't the Cutlass the best selling car in the US for
>> several years back in the 70's?
>>
>
>
> Yep. Those were /everywhere/ for a long time.
>
>

The point that I was trying to make was that somewhere along the line
Olds went from having a home run hitter (in the Cutlass - and even
before it was a best seller, it was still a contender - I remember
seeing lots of the 68-up ones on the road as a kid, along with other
A-bodies, and our own family car was a '67 which my dad had bought new)
and the 88/98 were solid options for larger families. Then somewhere
along the way everyone looked at Oldsmobile and just went
"Oldsmobile...? meh." They weren't particularly *bad,* but they had
all the excitement of low-fat vanilla pudding. And nobody but nobody
bought them. Hope that doesn't happen to Toyota, but frankly, most of
their current cars have that effect on me.

I would really like a twin-turbo Supra, but there's two problems: 1)
they don't sell 'em here anymore and 2) I *hate* F&F-loving ricers, so
the styling of the last generation was a huge turnoff to me. They look
reasonably OK without the basket handle though.

Even an old RWD Corolla holds more interest to me than anything Toyota
currently makes...

always wondered if a Supra drivetrain transplant into an old Cressida
sedan would work? :P

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Nate Nagel > wrote in
:

> On 01/14/2011 06:49 PM, Tegger wrote:

>>
>
> The point that I was trying to make was that somewhere along the line
> Olds went from having a home run hitter (in the Cutlass - and even
> before it was a best seller, it was still a contender - I remember
> seeing lots of the 68-up ones on the road as a kid, along with other
> A-bodies, and our own family car was a '67 which my dad had bought
> new) and the 88/98 were solid options for larger families. Then
> somewhere along the way everyone looked at Oldsmobile and just went
> "Oldsmobile...? meh."



I think I know what you mean. You're thinking of the Alero, the Aurora,
and other cars whose names make you say "Oldsmobile WHAT?". Who
remembers them?



> They weren't particularly *bad,* but they had
> all the excitement of low-fat vanilla pudding.



Since the platforms are all shared between divisions and between many
models, the difference must come down to styling and marketing. Maybe GM
just gave up on Olds but was reluctant to actually pull the trigger.



> And nobody but nobody
> bought them. Hope that doesn't happen to Toyota, but frankly, most of
> their current cars have that effect on me.



Just about everything from GM has had the same effect on me since about
1975, so maybe it has to do with where you're coming from.



>
> I would really like a twin-turbo Supra, but there's two problems: 1)
> they don't sell 'em here anymore and 2) I *hate* F&F-loving ricers,



"F&F"? What's that?


> so
> the styling of the last generation was a huge turnoff to me. They
> look reasonably OK without the basket handle though.



The Supra, like the MR2, was sort of out of Toyota's oeuvre.

I think sales were falling for years, to the point where they couldn't
charge enough for the cars to make them worth any kind of payback. Same
reason the MR2 was eventually killed.

And the last gens of each were both kinda caricatures of what they
originally were, akin to the last of the '70s "muscle" cars.



>
> Even an old RWD Corolla holds more interest to me than anything Toyota
> currently makes...


I had three of those, two of them TE72 Liftbacks.

And this is how dull I am: I bought them not because they had blistering
acceleration or stuck to the road like glue, but because they HELD LOTS
OF CARGO! Like a Pinto wagon, but more reliable.



--
Tegger

On 2011-01-15, Tegger > wrote:

> I think I know what you mean. You're thinking of the Alero, the Aurora,
> and other cars whose names make you say "Oldsmobile WHAT?". Who
> remembers them?

Starting a little over 30 years ago GM decided that they could go clone
and buyers wouldn't notice. The problem is they noticed. The middle
divisions became more expensive chevies and lost their unique and better
quality engines and other aspects. Attempts to reverse this didn't
really take.

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 23:49:21 +0000, Tegger wrote:

> Nate Nagel > wrote in
> :
>
>> On 01/14/2011 03:18 PM, wrote:
>>> On the web,
>>> Aging, boring lineup of cars called problem for Toyota
>>>
>>> I am not bashing Toyota.I saw that article at,
>>> http://www.clarionledger.com
>>> (Business section)
>>> cuhulin
>>>
>>>
>> Toyota, the new Oldsmobile?
>
>
> I don't think so. Olds was just one of five GM divisions. Increased
> foreign competition eventually made Alfred Sloan's original vision
> impracticable, and some of those divisions had to go.
>
> Toyota only has three divisions, with one of them very distinct from the
> others marketing-wise (Lexus). If anything's going to die for Toyota, I
> think it's going to be Scion.
>
> But Toyota has /never/ had the most exciting image. They did go postal
> with the original MR2 and the FX-16, but kinda lost the plot after that.
> If you buy a Toyota, you're looking for boring competence: cars that just
> run and run and run and run.

I think maybe you forgot one....!

Actually, you left off the Supra and the Celica, too. They were both fun
cars to drive with a sporty personality. They may not have been as
edge-pushing as some Nissans and Mitsus, but a lot of them are still
running after the other two have blown motors or fallen apart.

Yeah, I definitely think the one word summation for Toyota right now is
BORRRRRING!!!!!!!!



>
>
>
>
>> quite possibly... wasn't the Cutlass the best selling car in the US for
>> several years back in the 70's?
>>
>>
>
> Yep. Those were /everywhere/ for a long time.

> wrote in message
...
> On the web,
> Aging, boring lineup of cars called problem for Toyota
>
> I am not bashing Toyota.I saw that article at,
> http://www.clarionledger.com
> (Business section)
> cuhulin
>

It is hard to improve on perfection, that's all. Toyota hasn't had to
upgrade, it was already far superior over most of its competition (at least
in the car market, not truck) and well suited for the majority who want
quality and practicality over flashy, and dashes jam packed with crap toys
they will never use, such as the overpriced junk found in most recently
released Ford's and Chryslers.

The main reason we bought a second Yaris over the Fiesta is in the Fiesta we
were being forced to pay for a bunch of junk we didn't want if we upgraded
to the model with the few features we want and use often. Those basic
features were bundled in the same expensive package that included toys we
didn't need or want, but we could buy each feature we wanted separate on the
Yaris which made for a huge savings..

Econo-cars

On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 05:38:58 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:

>On 2011-01-15, Tegger > wrote:
>
>> I think I know what you mean. You're thinking of the Alero, the Aurora,
>> and other cars whose names make you say "Oldsmobile WHAT?". Who
>> remembers them?
>
>Starting a little over 30 years ago GM decided that they could go clone
>and buyers wouldn't notice. The problem is they noticed. The middle
>divisions became more expensive chevies and lost their unique and better
>quality engines and other aspects. Attempts to reverse this didn't
>really take.
>

At one time Pontiac was the number 3 in sales nationwide. Now it's
gone. It was because of the people who developed the Pontiacs made
them cars people wanted. Then They let the bean counters take over.