Toyota 'Back to the Future' pickup

[Redline]

I believe his comment about a 14 year vehicle was not that it's old and worn out in 2009, but that the technology/suspension design is old compared to what a new live-axle truck would feel and drive like (with coil springs). If not, that is my point

Edit: [Oh, I was posting at the same time as Life in 4 Low, but it was his point ]

I have been spoiled and really like my coil springs front and rear on my 4Runner. I was leaning toward a Tacoma in 2006 but the ride of the coils on the 4Runner won me over on my first test drive. I'm not knocking the Tacoma, we are still thinking of buying one soon.

I bought my 85 in 1985 and it was brand new. So I'm comparing a brand-new 1985 Toyota to my relatively-new (bought it in 2007) Tacoma. The Tacoma wins, hands down, in every single category: Comfort, power, off-road ability, etc. snip..........

 

[Life_in_4Lo]

Thanks Redline, I guess you said it better than me

 

[cruiseroutfit]

Great points on both sides guys. Quick thought, if & when Toyota were to re-introduce a SFA truck to the US market, its not going to have leaf springs, it will be coil and most likely it will be radius arms/trackbar. So if you want to compare off the shelf handling of existing Toyota platforms, keep the 80 Series in mind. Honestly you'll find few that do handle so nice on and off-road right out of the box. Do they handle just as well as the IFS? Depends who you ask, I'll say no. But they strength increases are well worth the slight handling loss and I emphasize slight. I spent several days behind the wheels of a solid axle 100 Series (2006) and a new IFS Hi-lux in Oz last month... the 100 SFA (identical suspension to the US spec 80 Series) handled awesome in fact even in the rough washboard it didn't really leave me wanting. Was it just as smooth as the Hi-Lux, no, but it was by all means workable. Could this same suspension setup be utilized on a light truck with the same results? Hard to say, dieselcruiserhead needs to hurry and get his done and tell us how it works on a light truck platform.

As for strength of the off the shelf Toyota IFS compared again to say the 80 Series. Sorry, the IFS has its inherent weak links and limiting factors. No available OE e-locker, weak spider design on the 100 Series, rack/pinion issues combined with high angles an flexy suspensions, CV shaft issues on the 100 and Taco/4R platforms especially at angles and the limiting suspension heights due to the fixed differential/CV setup. Is the IFS un-worthy? Not at all... it strong enough for that same 99% and can be modified to fit even more. I always said I would SAS my 96' Tacoma when it was paid off, well that came and went and by the time I got to that point I was actually quite fond of the characteristics of the IFS, now if I had the torsion bar setup of the 86-95' truck/4Runner I'm confident I would be singing a different song but the the coilover setup of the 95.5+ platforms is great. Now I'm well into my second Tacoma and there is nearly zero motivation to do an SAS, however I am on my 3rd rack/pinion and my CV's are starting to 'click' at tight angles in 4WD. Time will tell.

 

[Martinjmpr]

You can't get SFA in many lt truck and suv catagories. Is that even debatable?

My point was that those who really really want SFA can get it. Like every other choice in life, it's a compromise. What are you willing to compromise on?

How are you interpreting what I'm writing? Let me try to be more clear- I am saying consumers looked at lt trucks and suvs as passenger cars-- not trucks. They want the same characteristics in their lt trucks and suv's as they have in their cars.
That is what drives the change to IFS and IRS on lt trucks and suv's.

No, I would say it's an evolutionary change, not something that was driven by demand.

Even some large, full-size work type trucks are going to IFS. IOW, even if there was no such thing as a truck or SUV craze, we would still have had IFS because that's the way the vehicles were evolving. The only reason trucks/4x4s didn't have IFS in the 60's and 70's (when most 2wd vehicles had IFS) is because it wasn't practical or cost-effective. As soon as IFS suspensions became practical and cost effective, most manufacturers switched over to IFS and this was before the SUV boom of the mid-80's hit (I'm thinking of the 1979 Chevy LUV, the first 4x4 mini truck, which featured IFS.)

I'll add that I think Toyota's truck IFS is pretty solid and good. I think they need to add a SFA midsize truck and suv

Might as well wish for a perpetual motion machine, world peace and a unicorn while you're at it. It would cost them millions to either (a) create a new SFA vehicle from scratch, (b) adapt an existing IFS vehicle to use SFA or (c) bring one of their current SFA vehicles (70 series LC is the only one I can think of) up to US specs, and the chances that they would recoup that money in sales is slim to nonexistent.

The latter alternative would probably be the most practical, but think about air bags, crash standards, rollover standards, mandatory stability control, and of course EPA standards, and by the time they brought the vehicle up to the US specs it would be somewhere in the Cadillac Escalade price range. That would mean that the people who want it most would not be able to afford it and the people who could afford it would prefer leather seats, dual zone AC and 22" spinner wheels.

Where do you come up with $40K for a compact or midsize pickup?
SFA or IFS does not make it more expensive. In fact, SFA's simplicity makes it cheaper to make. However, other factors may sway prices but SFA does not make it expensive.

See my post above. How much would it cost to create all the special tooling needed to adapt a 70 series SFA axle to a Tacoma? Not to mention that the T-case would have to be different as well and the rear axle on the SEMA truck was a custom built affair. All of that expense has to be built into the price.

One can debate the market share SFA represents, but the fact Toyota put together a SFA concept to test reaction says something about going back to a simple, functional truck.
I think it's much larger than you think.

Auto companies put "concepts" together all the time without ever having any intention of putting them into production. Often times the only purpose of the "concept" is to get attention for the manufacturer so they can sell more of their mundane, run-of-the-mill vehicles. It seemed to have worked with the SEMA truck but you have to wonder, out of the million people who drooled over this truck, how many of them would actually lay down cash for one?

 

[Life_in_4Lo]

Might as well wish for a perpetual motion machine, world peace and a unicorn while you're at it. It would cost them millions to either (a) create a new SFA vehicle from scratch, (b) adapt an existing IFS vehicle to use SFA or (c) bring one of their current SFA vehicles (70 series LC is the only one I can think of) up to US specs, and the chances that they would recoup that money in sales is slim to nonexistent.

The latter alternative would probably be the most practical, but think about air bags, crash standards, rollover standards, mandatory stability control, and of course EPA standards, and by the time they brought the vehicle up to the US specs it would be somewhere in the Cadillac Escalade price range. That would mean that the people who want it most would not be able to afford it and the people who could afford it would prefer leather seats, dual zone AC and 22" spinner wheels.



See my post above. How much would it cost to create all the special tooling needed to adapt a 70 series SFA axle to a Tacoma? Not to mention that the T-case would have to be different as well and the rear axle on the SEMA truck was a custom built affair. All of that expense has to be built into the price.

I guess we should be amazed that a Yaris costs under $13,000 then?

As with anything, you can build a million arguments why something can't be done. That's why they call them naysayers.
Then something like the Miata, the Lexus brand, etc appears and changes what you thought could be.

It's not rocket science. SFA is like the paper clip- it's simple, Toyota in particular, but everyone knows how and how cheap it is to make.
They are opening their marketing eyes to the potential market and if viable, they will bring it. It's that simple.

If they think it can make money, they will build it. However, manufacturing debates are best left to people that have actual information. I'll leave that to the automakers.

Is there a big, untapped market for it? I think there is for sure.

 

[dieselcruiserhead]

I'm pretty sure the axle is a 70 series based on its width. The arms were also supposedly custom bent for the application so the truck in question is supposedly "undriveable" or at least undriveable "well" because for a long time I've planned on knocking off that suspension into a '91 pickup I have with 80 series arms and a FJ62 front axle (about the same width as a 70 series, maybe a hair wider). 80 series axles are something like 5-6" wider than a 70 series axle.

I really liked that old Tacoma, I even talked Haven into taking some special pics of its suspension for me.

Here is the old 'McFly" pickup, it does look different.

 

[cruiseroutfit]

I'm pretty sure the axle is a 70 series based on its width. The arms were also supposedly custom bent for the application so the truck in question is supposedly "undriveable" or at least undriveable "well" because for a long time I've planned on knocking off that suspension into a '91 pickup I have with 80 series arms and a FJ62 front axle (about the same width as a 70 series, maybe a hair wider). 80 series axles are something like 5-6" wider than a 70 series axle.

Does anyone know if the coil suspension 70 Series had a wider axle than the leaf spring 70 Series?

The leaf spring version (ie BJ70) had the same width front axle as a 40 Series, so 55'ish. The 60/62 is 58'ish and the 80 is 63". This is actually something Craig and I tried to measure at the wrecking yards in Oz but we never had a tape measure or a complete hub to hub axle at the same time.

 

[Martinjmpr]

I guess we should be amazed that a Yaris costs under $13,000 then?

As with anything, you can build a million arguments why something can't be done. That's why they call them naysayers.
Then something like the Miata, the Lexus brand, etc appears and changes what you thought could be.

It's not rocket science. SFA is like the paper clip- it's simple, Toyota in particular, but everyone knows how and how cheap it is to make.
They are opening their marketing eyes to the potential market and if viable, they will bring it. It's that simple.

If they think it can make money, they will build it. However, manufacturing debates are best left to people that have actual information. I'll leave that to the automakers.

Is there a big, untapped market for it? I think there is for sure.

Doesn't the Yaris prove my point? It's a mass-market car and they make money on volume.

Surely you're not arguing that a SFA SUV which would sell for upwards of $35k would have the same market as a $13k econo-box?

Hmmm...a small, simple SUV with SFA that sells for a low price...sounds an awful lot like the Suzuki Samurai, doesn't it? And yet the Samurai has been dead since - what, 1990 or so? Crucified (quite unfairly, IMO) by Consumer Reports, it became a toxic asset and Suzuki had to replace it with the IFS Sidekick a/k/a Vitara.

In essence, I do understand your argument: You are saying that there could be a market out there and the mere fact that nobody has ventured into that market doesn't mean it wouldn't be a success.

It reminds me of an old joke I heard from someone who I think was in business school: Two businessmen meet on the street. The first one says "there's a $50 bill on the ground." Without looking down, the second one says "there can't be." The first one says "why not?" And the second one replies "because if there was, someone would have picked it up by now."

Ultimately your last sentence is where we disagree. Although there is certainly an "untapped market" it's not big enough for Toyota to make money off of.

Maybe a marketing or business person can jump in here but it seems to me that a company can make money on a product if the intended market is either "wide and shallow" (like the Yaris) or "Narrow but deep" (like the LC.) The demand for SFA trucks and SUVs, however, is both "narrow" (not that many people out there who would buy them) as well as being "shallow" (not willing to pay a huge price premium for the product.)

That just doesn't add up to recipe for sales success, which is probably why Toyota hasn't pursued that strategy.

 

[ryguy]

Doesn't the Yaris prove my point? It's a mass-market car and they make money on volume.

Surely you're not arguing that a SFA SUV which would sell for upwards of $35k would have the same market as a $13k econo-box?

Hmmm...a small, simple SUV with SFA that sells for a low price...sounds an awful lot like the Suzuki Samurai, doesn't it? And yet the Samurai has been dead since - what, 1990 or so? Crucified (quite unfairly, IMO) by Consumer Reports, it became a toxic asset and Suzuki had to replace it with the IFS Sidekick a/k/a Vitara.

In essence, I do understand your argument: You are saying that there could be a market out there and the mere fact that nobody has ventured into that market doesn't mean it wouldn't be a success.

It reminds me of an old joke I heard from someone who I think was in business school: Two businessmen meet on the street. The first one says "there's a $50 bill on the ground." Without looking down, the second one says "there can't be." The first one says "why not?" And the second one replies "because if there was, someone would have picked it up by now."

Ultimately your last sentence is where we disagree. Although there is certainly an "untapped market" it's not big enough for Toyota to make money off of.

Maybe a marketing or business person can jump in here but it seems to me that a company can make money on a product if the intended market is either "wide and shallow" (like the Yaris) or "Narrow but deep" (like the LC.) The demand for SFA trucks and SUVs, however, is both "narrow" (not that many people out there who would buy them) as well as being "shallow" (not willing to pay a huge price premium for the product.)

That just doesn't add up to recipe for sales success, which is probably why Toyota hasn't pursued that strategy.

Thats spot on, and these days the auto industry has to go where the money is and nobody is taking chances.

 

[Life_in_4Lo]

The market that has no competition is the SFA Jeep Wrangler lineup. One of the few valuable brands in Chrysler's failing brands.

I don't know how you go from my assertion that a SFA midsize suv & truck would be a profitable venture to a Suzuki Samurai but obviously this is just turned into circular arguments.

 

[Martinjmpr]

The market that has no competition is the SFA Jeep Wrangler lineup. One of the few valuable brands in Chrysler's failing brands.

Yes. Exactly.

The market for small, SFA 4x4s is very small and is adequately served by Jeep. The reason nobody has tried to unseat Jeep from their position is because there's no money in it. It's not a big enough pie for anyone else to spend the $$ to get into.

And now Jeep even makes a mid-sized version of the Wrangler (the 4 door) so, in fact, if you want a family hauler with SFA, you can get it, right down at your local jeep dealer.

I don't know how you go from my assertion that a SFA midsize suv & truck would be a profitable venture to a Suzuki Samurai but obviously this is just turned into circular arguments.

I was simply pointing out that the last time anybody imported a vehicle to compete head-to-head with the jeep, it was ultimately a failure in the market.

 

[Martinjmpr]

Thats spot on, and these days the auto industry has to go where the money is and nobody is taking chances.

Toyota didn't get where they are today by taking chances. They got where they are by making products that were solidly aimed at the middle of the market.

What was the last truly innovative or new product that Toyota introduced? Even the hybrid car wasn't introduced to the US market by Toyota: It was introduced by Honda.

Toyota refined and popularized the concept, and made it sell.

Toyota doesn't really make flashy or innovative or revolutionary products. What they do is make mundane, middle-of-the-road products very well, and then sell them at a low price.

Toyota is the tortoise, methodically going one step at a time until they reach the finish line, not the hare, sprinting off at high speed and then wearing himself out before the end of the race.

 

[Life_in_4Lo]

Maybe that's not what's in Toyota's future.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/04/business/global/04toyota.html

Its new president, Akio Toyoda, has moved quickly since taking charge in June, when he declared his dismay at the company's financial crisis.

“Like everyone in the company, I am extremely frustrated” about the automaker's decline, Mr. Toyoda said at his first news conference as president. “So we must start again from the ground up.”

His first target was Toyota's top management. Already, 40 percent has retired or been reassigned.

Four of Toyota's five executive vice presidents, the group that now leads the company under Mr. Toyoda, are new to their jobs. Only one, Takeshi Uchiyamada, Toyota's product development chief, is a holdover from the team that surrounded Mr. Toyoda's predecessor, Katsuaki Watanabe.

 

[Aggie]

Toyota didn't get where they are today by taking chances. They got where they are by making products that were solidly aimed at the middle of the market.

What was the last truly innovative or new product that Toyota introduced? Even the hybrid car wasn't introduced to the US market by Toyota: It was introduced by Honda.

Toyota refined and popularized the concept, and made it sell.

Toyota doesn't really make flashy or innovative or revolutionary products. What they do is make mundane, middle-of-the-road products very well, and then sell them at a low price.

Toyota is the tortoise, methodically going one step at a time until they reach the finish line, not the hare, sprinting off at high speed and then wearing himself out before the end of the race.

First off you are wrong about a couple of things, Toyota takes plenty of chances. Lexus and Scion being the most prominent. Lexus debuted when no one dared challenge Cadillac and the German's for luxury. Scion just came out a couple of years ago with an entire line geared towards Late Teens and Early 20's, a car market never before touched in new cars by any auto manufacturer, all of that is besides the point tho.

Right now Toyota is a failing ship and in order to get sales away from them the other car manufacturer's are developing vehicles with Shock and Awe that nobody expected them to do. And it is working. Let's look at how the other car manufacturer's are distracting the public from Toyota...

I think Toyota is seeing this, and knows that they need to come out with something innovative that can pull back in their loyal fanbase. I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot of risks being taken by Toyota soon. One fan base they know they can control is the 4x4 market and I wouldn't be surprised if they hit there and then go onto bringing a true sports car back to the table...

 

[Dave Bennett]

They need to bring back the Supra