: Toyota's Q1 losses even bigger than GM's



The Tony Show
05-08-09, 12:29 PM
Just like the headline says- Toyota more than doubled the losses projected by analysts, losing $7.6 Billion dollars in the first quarter of 2009. In comparison, GM's Q1 losses were $6 Billion, which is the story that every major news outlet has been trumpeting loudly for the last two days. Funny how that works....

In light of this huge loss for Toyota, I think it's safe to say that the market has spoken- Toyota needs to stop making antiquated, gas guzzling SUVs that no one wants, and instead focus on smaller, "green" cars that are higher quality and actually competitive against the American cars in terms of interiors, safety and reliability.

Wait- what?

Story @ Autoblog (http://blogs.edmunds.com/straightline/2009/05/toyota-announces-larger-q1-loss-than-gm.html)

c5 rv
05-08-09, 01:24 PM
Fixed it for you...


In light of this huge loss for Toyota, I think it's safe to say that the market has spoken- Toyota needs to stop making antiquated, smaller, "green" cars that no one wants, and instead focus on gas guzzling SUVs, trucks, and larger cars that are higher quality and actually competitive against the American cars in terms of interiors, safety and reliability.

Playdrv4me
05-08-09, 01:55 PM
Is it that much of a surprise? I suspect the lack of news interest in Toyota's loss comes from the fact that they have more than sufficient cash reserves and Japanese government backing to stem the tide of those losses for along time to come, and they aren't being kept afloat by U.S. taxpayers. In essence, what happens to Toyota isn't as salacious because the -perception- is that it has nothing to do with out wallets.

The Tony Show
05-08-09, 02:18 PM
It's not a surprise to smart people, but the "average joe" that I see commenting in newpapers and message boards seems to recycle the same tired argument- that GM is losing money because they built SUVs, because they don't have more Hybrids, because their quality is bad, blah blah blah. I'm sick to death of reading these comments.

This is just proof of what I (and many other people) have been saying all along: that GM's losses are the result of a global economic downturn caused by the housing and credit markets, and that their product mix, quality and average mpg have exactly ZERO to do with it. They came up short of cash due to many poor management and labor cost decisions over the last 15 years, but to blame their current situation on the product is a fallacy.

Playdrv4me
05-08-09, 05:37 PM
Certainly people are buying less of EVERYTHING right now so what you are saying makes sense. However, it should go without saying that GM HAS made product mis-steps here and there. Even GM themselves have admitted these faults.

The Tony Show
05-08-09, 06:06 PM
Oh sure- they've been cash starved for years because of the hole they dug themselves in the 80s and 90s, and even once the good product started flowing out of Detroit they were unable to turn a profit due to all the ridiculous contracts the Management approved during that time. Debt was slowly shrinking and losses were nearly becoming profits when the bottom fell out of the entire industry, and that's why they needed Government loans- the global demand for cars and trucks dried up while they were in the middle of an extremely expensive restructuring.

It's kind of like a guy losing his job in the middle of remodeling his house, after he laid out all the cash.

Rodya234
05-08-09, 06:48 PM
It's not a surprise to smart people, but the "average joe" that I see commenting in newpapers and message boards seems to recycle the same tired argument- that GM is losing money because they built SUVs, because they don't have more Hybrids, because their quality is bad, blah blah blah. I'm sick to death of reading these comments.


Oh mein gott, I hate talking about cars with an average person. They just believe the stereotype that everyone tells them and don't even educate themselves. (But that's the average person on any topic, amirite?) I was talking with a girl who wanted a SLK320 (non AMG), and she said "I don't want a big muscle car, I want a sporty coupe, so no American cars for me."

I couldn't help but laugh. My Deville gets just as good mileage, accelerates just as fast, has nearly as good road holding (it'll be better when I do my suspension upgrades) and has six seats and four doors.

I think if people actually researched things instead of believing what people tell them, we'd be a much more advanced species.

the cadillac kid
05-08-09, 09:32 PM
good info, tone. :thumbsup:

I~LUV~Caddys8792
05-08-09, 10:07 PM
I was talking with a girl who wanted a SLK320 (non AMG), and she said "I don't want a big muscle car, I want a sporty coupe, so no American cars for me."

I couldn't help but laugh. [B]My Deville gets just as good mileage, accelerates just as fast, has nearly as good road holding (it'll be better when I do my suspension upgrades) [B] and has six seats and four doors.

I think if people actually researched things instead of believing what people tell them, we'd be a much more advanced species.

Dude, are you for real? In any sort of performance test, an SLK would walk all over a Cadillac deVille. And I'm not being a Mercedes Fanboy, but let's look at this logically. The SLK weighs probably atleast 400 lbs less, is the proper RWD configuration, rides a much shorter wheelbase, is much shorter overall, has a suspension and steering system designed to handle and it's motor puts out more horsepower than the 4.9's 200. Granted, it doesn't have the torque, but it's got a much tighter spaced five speed automatic, with a much steeper rear end.

You'd better avoid this girl if she wants to take you up on your race invitation.

Rodya234
05-08-09, 10:09 PM
C&D and Popular mechanics tested it about 7 seconds flat. A Deville with 3.06:1 gearing (which we're putting on all our Devilles, its performance on the cheap) would run that.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
05-08-09, 10:13 PM
Yes, but what happens after the surge of low end torque in the 4.9's runs out? My Mercedes would outrun my 4.9 deVille from a 70mph run, no doubt. Now put a similar 3.2L six cylinder in a car 1300 lbs less and watch it run.

What year is it? 1st generation or current generation?

Rodya234
05-08-09, 10:19 PM
Yeah, thats the only problem with the 4.9L. by 5000rpm you're outta breath. Of course, anywhere near Chicago over 55mph and you're illegal (:halo:), but it would be nice to have more high-range power.

I'm still contemplating getting a cam made for my car. It would only be about $120 for the grind, but I'd need to do a lot of computer tuning, plus I'd miss all that low end torque.

93DevilleUSMC
05-08-09, 10:39 PM
Rodya...a 4.9 in anything versus an SLK? Give me a break.
I'll take your post as humor to give you some credit here.

93DevilleUSMC
05-08-09, 10:41 PM
Tony, thanks for posting this. I have seriously had it with all of this pro-Toyota group think. Even my last girlfriend assumed that Toyota is automatically better than any American brand.

Rodya234
05-08-09, 10:52 PM
Rodya...a 4.9 in anything versus an SLK? Give me a break.
I'll take your post as humor to give you some credit here.

Of course I don't mean the new gen SLK. No one I know could afford it. :lol: (I doubt the girl I was talking to could afford it anyways.) Either way, the 1st Gen SLK (up to and including the 320) would find some competition in a 4.9L, until the 4.9's lack of top end ruined your day.

77CDV
05-09-09, 12:03 AM
I just can't tell you how distressed I am to hear of Toyota's woes.....:yawn:

Jesda
05-09-09, 12:18 AM
The old SLK wasn't "fast", but you have to consider things like handling, refinement, balance, braking, styling, features, etc. The only thing the Deville and SLK do similarly is move in a straight line. Outside of that, NO comparison.

LS1Mike
05-09-09, 12:18 AM
All that stuff is slow...:D

LS1Mike
05-09-09, 12:20 AM
Oh yeah, Toyota has it problems just like everyone else, you just don't hear about it.

dirt_cheap_fleetwood
05-09-09, 02:54 AM
At least the 4.9 is a contender up to roughly 60mph. My Brougham dies off at 20. :(

gdwriter
05-09-09, 03:19 AM
Toyota has been coasting on its reputation for years. Everything they make now is a soulless appliance with the Supra, MR2 and Celica all gone. Plus, several of their cars — the Yaris immediately comes to mind — are butt ugly. Don't even get me started on Scion.

And as we know, Toyota's vaunted reputation for reliability has been slipping with the oil sludge issue for example.

People simply aren't buying — cars or much of anything else. With a couple of exceptions like Subaru, everybody's sales are in the crapper. Because Toyota is so big, it stands to reason they'll have some of the biggest losses. As Ian pointed out, Toyota has the kinds of reserves GM can only dream about to get through this downturn. Of course, that didn't stop them from going to the Japanese government for a handout.

Rodya234
05-09-09, 10:17 AM
At least the 4.9 is a contender up to roughly 60mph. My Brougham dies off at 20. :(

Yeah, that's the only reason I like the 4.5L, because it holds its power up till a little bit higher rpm. I'd like the 4.9 to create max power around about 5000rpm. I'd only really need some more valve duration for that, besides, you can't add too much lift with these cars because the valve springs will coil bind.

LS1Mike
05-09-09, 12:22 PM
That is why you change the springs when you do a cam swap.

Rodya234
05-09-09, 12:34 PM
Hard to do with an engine with no aftermarket.

LS1Mike
05-09-09, 03:23 PM
I would bet if you check the size, they are standard GM valves springs.

Rodya234
05-09-09, 03:33 PM
I know there's a guy with a fiero who got his 4.9L to .498 intake/exhaust, but he had a hard time finding springs that would fit, had to machine the valve guides, and custom make his own spring seats. He also installed new rocker arms, which all adds up to stuff that I just could never afford. :(

His engine is at a sweet spot though, max torque at 2500 and max hp at 5500 :drool:

Sandy
05-09-09, 09:37 PM
HOW WONDERFUL !!!!

screw toyopet

GO GM, FORD and CHRYSLER

I~LUV~Caddys8792
05-09-09, 10:42 PM
Funny, my dad was just telling me today that his 17k mile '07 Camry XLE has a few rattles that the dealer can't fix, even after 2-3 trips. There's one in the dash somewhere, one in the headliner near the sunroof and one in the rear seat, near the armrest somewhere.

My Mercedes is silent at speed. Run silent & run deep! :lol:

gdwriter
05-10-09, 02:54 AM
Funny, my dad was just telling me today that his 17k mile '07 Camry XLE has a few rattles that the dealer can't fix, even after 2-3 trips. There's one in the dash somewhere, one in the headliner near the sunroof and one in the rear seat, near the armrest somewhere.Yep, Toyota quality has been slipping, and people are noticing. About damn time.

Even after 18 years and 257,000 miles, Cruella is very solid with just a couple of rattles that you only hear on really crappy roads. Sabrina is as tight as a drum. Hell, after 45 years, Betty is also rock solid.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
05-10-09, 01:44 PM
Yep, Toyota quality has been slipping, and people are noticing. About damn time.

And do you know what's really funny about the situation? He's beginning to think about trading it in....on a Buick LaCrosse! We could both buy our Buicks from the same dealership! :lol:

gdwriter
05-10-09, 06:54 PM
And do you know what's really funny about the situation? He's beginning to think about trading it in....on a Buick LaCrosse! We could both buy our Buicks from the same dealership! :lol:Oh, that would be rich.

As the old ad slogan goes, "Wouldn't you really rather have a Buick?"

I~LUV~Caddys8792
05-10-09, 07:02 PM
I knew you'd like that. :lol: