The New 2007 Toyota Camry....(pics 56k ok)

[jfelbab]

Originally Posted by LightngSVT

I know they all use the pushrod V8 engines. But I thought that FOrds used Ford based engines, Checy's used Chevy based engines, etc? I didnt think Toyota had a pushrod, carbed V8 that they could pull out to use. Im not a NASCAR fan, but to use a common body is ridiculous, what fun is that?

Sort of but not really. These are race engines only and are not a modification of any production engine offering. The basic parts are supplied to people like Roush, Hendricks, and Jasper where the engines are really built.

Toyota, TRD more specifically, does have a pushrod V8 that they have been using quite successfully in the truck series. It has won a few races and has proven reliability. I suspect they feel that they have acquired enough experience there to move to the Cup series where they get more exposure for their investment. IIRC, they are working with Jasper.

Toyota is in a unique position here. They are one manufacturer who is actually making money and thus have money to burn in this sport.

A lot of the GOBs hate the fact that Toyota has chosen to enter this sport. They don't want a non-American (read Japanese) company in it. They often fail to grasp that Toyota and other "foreign" cars are frequently more american than the big three. Chrysler is now a German owned company. The American "big three" use a higher percentage of "foreign" made parts in their automobiles than either Toyota or Honda.

In eny event, it will give them someone to boo at and throw beer cans at other than Jeff Gordon

[RANT]
Me, I like the added competition. What I don't like is the way NASCAR has been leading the sport in the past two years. They are doing everything they can to stifle innovation and lessen competition. They don't want to see any manufacturer or team dominate the races. So instead of letting the competitors figure out how to make their cars better, NASCAR takes away the advantages. I don't like what they have done by adding the "sprint" to the end of the series. I especially don't like their common body scheme program. I want the cars to actually resemble the automaker's offering. Pasting a decal and badge on identical cars doesn't make a Ford look much different than a Chrysler or a Chevy. I don't like the fact that the engines are based on 60's designs. I believe that when NASCAR gets done they will have identical cars with identical engines in the series just like their highly unsuccessful(IMHO) IROC series. I find the IROC series boring and no longer watch it.
[RANT OFF]

[PhilStatic]

Originally Posted by jfelbab

Sort of but not really. These are race engines only and are not a modification of any production engine offering. The basic parts are supplied to people like Roush, Hendricks, and Jasper where the engines are really built.

Toyota, TRD more specifically, does have a pushrod V8 that they have been using quite successfully in the truck series. It has won a few races and has proven reliability. I suspect they feel that they have acquired enough experience there to move to the Cup series where they get more exposure for their investment. IIRC, they are working with Jasper.

Toyota is in a unique position here. They are one manufacturer who is actually making money and thus have money to burn in this sport.

A lot of the GOBs hate the fact that Toyota has chosen to enter this sport. They don't want a non-American (read Japanese) company in it. They often fail to grasp that Toyota and other "foreign" cars are frequently more american than the big three. Chrysler is now a German owned company. The American "big three" use a higher percentage of "foreign" made parts in their automobiles than either Toyota or Honda.

In eny event, it will give them someone to boo at and throw beer cans at other than Jeff Gordon

[RANT]
Me, I like the added competition. What I don't like is the way NASCAR has been leading the sport in the past two years. They are doing everything they can to stifle innovation and lessen competition. They don't want to see any manufacturer or team dominate the races. So instead of letting the competitors figure out how to make their cars better, NASCAR takes away the advantages. I don't like what they have done by adding the "sprint" to the end of the series. I especially don't like their common body scheme program. I want the cars to actually resemble the automaker's offering. Pasting a decal and badge on identical cars doesn't make a Ford look much different than a Chrysler or a Chevy. I don't like the fact that the engines are based on 60's designs. I believe that when NASCAR gets done they will have identical cars with identical engines in the series just like their highly unsuccessful(IMHO) IROC series. I find the IROC series boring and no longer watch it.
[RANT OFF]

Not to jack this thread or get too far off topic but I agreed with everything you said. I really dont like the fact that Nascar decided to limit the number of teams one person can own. I may be bias becouse I'm a Jack Roush fan and he's came a long way in this sport, but I'd rather see five competitve Roush cars race then a bunch of field fillers that run a few laps then head to the garage.

[SilverLexus]

I want to know where can I get a hold of that guy to detail my car? The paper toweling and duster routine is what my car badly needs.

Very funny.

[tabinha]

What ever it looks like, and it really is not that bad looking. It is just a great car. This and the Camry, with a little help from Honda, just about killed Ford and GM. Shame we you consider the head start they had.

Thats what happens when the customer is alway wrong.

[Len_A]

Originally Posted by tabinha

What ever it looks like, and it really is not that bad looking. It is just a great car. This and the Camry, with a little help from Honda, just about killed Ford and GM. Shame we you consider the head start they had.

Thats what happens when the customer is always wrong.

I'm a bit confused by what you mean "Thats what happens when the customer is always wrong.".

[drewski59]

Originally Posted by Len_A

I'm a bit confused by what you mean "Thats what happens when the customer is always wrong.".

I think he means that GM and Ford have ignored for years and years what we, as consumers, really wanted in our cars while the Japanese companies picked up on it almost instantly....and BOOM! Accord, Camry, Civic, Corolla....they are all leaders in their categories, and the best-selling cars for that matter....

I agree that Ford and GM cars haven't been up to par for the past few decades; only NOW would I even consider an Impala or Fusion when I out new-car shopping.

Another problem is that Ford and GM don't bring out cars that move them to the top of the heap, where Honda and Toyota would have to play catch-up, but they bring out new cars that are just good enough to remain competitive. However, as soon as a redesigned Honda or Toyota comes out, it totally gets trounced. It seems as though Ford and GM are constantly playing catch-up with the Japanese brands.

The exceptions to this include the F150, the new GM big SUVs, and the Mustang and Corvette. These are truly innovative American vehicles that remain above their Japanese competition, IMHO.

[Len_A]

Originally Posted by drewski59

I think he means that GM and Ford have ignored for years and years what we, as consumers, really wanted in our cars while the Japanese companies picked up on it almost instantly....and BOOM! Accord, Camry, Civic, Corolla....they are all leaders in their categories, and the best-selling cars for that matter....

I agree that Ford and GM cars haven't been up to par for the past few decades; only NOW would I even consider an Impala or Fusion when I out new-car shopping.

Another problem is that Ford and GM don't bring out cars that move them to the top of the heap, where Honda and Toyota would have to play catch-up, but they bring out new cars that are just good enough to remain competitive. However, as soon as a redesigned Honda or Toyota comes out, it totally gets trounced. It seems as though Ford and GM are constantly playing catch-up with the Japanese brands.

The exceptions to this include the F150, the new GM big SUVs, and the Mustang and Corvette. These are truly innovative American vehicles that remain above their Japanese competition, IMHO.

I had to wait a few days to respond, but here it is: "GM & Ford ignoring the consumer" is myopic, at best. Ask anyone who is involved in auto industry, and they'll tell you that the consumer is a bit schizophrenic with anything built by a Detroit automaker. The consumer has been willing to pay top dollar for high content SUV's, but as long as gas prices were low, they wouldn't buy high content Detroit small cars at all, and mid-range content small cars only sold with lots of cash on the hood (incentives/rebates). With most of their customer base in the 1990's and early 2000's shifting their purchases from sedans and coupes to pickups and SUV's, who the hell can fault GM & Ford for putting the most content into those Vehicles. I'll be bold enough to remind you that in the late 1990's Toyota and Nissan noticed the same trend - and developed and marketed the Tundra, the Sequoia, the Lexus LX, the Nissan Armada, and the Nissan Titan, plus the Infinity QX.

The same time this is happening, Ford brings out the Lincoln LS in 1999 (which shared the chassis with the Jaguar S-type), which Car & Driver in 2001 called "The best-driving V-8 sedan for the enthusiast dollar." Motor Trend said, in 2000, "A world-class sport/luxury sedan with a carefully crafted European persona and is one of the best new cars from an American marque. Don't be misled by the badging; if you're considering a BMW, Mercedes, Audi, or Lexus, do yourself a favor and put the LS on your test-drive list. You won't believe it's a Lincoln." Road & Track said "The Lincoln LS is a winner. "

What happens? Buyers the Lincoln LS is aimed at come into a Lincoln-Mercury dealer to look at an LS, see the Town Car and/or the Gran Marquis on the showroom floor next to it....and leave. As conservative as the LS's styling has been, that wasn't what turned off potential buyers. It was any possible association with the larger sedans, which sold to older buyers. Somehow, this is supposed to be Ford's fault? I personally know three people here in the Detroit area that went to shop a Lincoln LS, and said they were turned off that Lincoln still had the Town Car, so they bought a smaller BMW 3 series instead. When I asked if they actually expected Lincoln to ignore what was then still good sales of the larger sedans, they all answered in the affirmative. One jerk went so far as to say he actually expected Ford to completely dump any product that appealed to his parents generation if they ever wanted his business.

Ford also had a winner, with the automotive press, including the performance and enthusiast magazines, in the mid 1990's, with the Ford Contour. Again, US & Canadian buyers wouldn't pay for the higher content, and sales tanked. This was despite reviews from the press that put the Contour above comparable models from Toyota, Honda, and Nissan. In order to move them of the lots, Ford had to take content out of the cars.

But, hey, this is Ford fault, right? Not hardly. Same thing has happened to a lesser degree with GM.

"GM & Ford ignoring the consumer", while occasionally true (like Honda didn't ignore their own customer base with the previous generation Civic - 2001 to 2005 model years - that cost them sales to the "tuners" who went to other small cars, but hey, no one mentions that), it boils down to a lot of irrational prejudice on the part of some consumers. GM hits th e targets squarely with Cadillac CTS, STS, and SRX, and even in these forums I've seen complete nonsence like "too much cheap leather and plastic" in opinions of the new Cadillacs. Funny, the leather for the seats, the seats themselves, and the instrument panels and door trim panels all come from the same suppliers, and of the same exact material grade, as the USA assembled BMW & Mercedes SUV's, as sell as the Lexus and Inifinty SUV's, but some how, it's "cheap" in the Cady. Still, Cadillac has moved ahead of Mercedes to be the third best selling luxury brand in the USA. But "GM & Ford ignoring the consumer".

What a bunch of nonsence.

[jfelbab]

I believe it is the "Brand" 'they have developed. I am not in the market for a "Ford" or "Chevy" or "Chrysler" brand. Why? because through the years ( I bought my first new car in 1964) I have learned through ownership what to expect from these brands. Typically lots of problems poor workmanship, poor engineering coupled with about the worst service experiences one could imagine. Excuse me but I've been there, multiple times, and won't be going back. The "Brand" they have built has stuck. Oh, you can say that things are different now but "Once burned, twice shy" as they say. It boils down to this. I have no compelling reason to put myself through another bad experience as long as I am happy with my current choice.

[Len_A]

Originally Posted by jfelbab

I believe it is the "Brand" 'they have developed. I am not in the market for a "Ford" or "Chevy" or "Chrysler" brand. Why? because through the years ( I bought my first new car in 1964) I have learned through ownership what to expect from these brands. Typically lots of problems poor workmanship, poor engineering coupled with about the worst service experiences one could imagine. Excuse me but I've been there, multiple times, and won't be going back. The "Brand" they have built has stuck. Oh, you can say that things are different now but "Once burned, twice shy" as they say. It boils down to this. I have no compelling reason to put myself through another bad experience as long as I am happy with my current choice.

Your new car experiences go back to 1964, and that's relevant today? Like I said, a lot of irrational prejudice.

Glad you're happy with your choices.

[GoodnClean]

But Len, these are things that every company has to deal with when they're marketing product, the perceptions of the consumer. Saying "waa waa the consumers are mean and not fair!" isn't going to help anyone. Why do the consumers feel that way? Its because of the decades of poor quality products and the notion that Ford and GM out in the consumer's mind that when you buy an American car, you're going to get huge rebates, but if you want a real car it has to be foreign. Ford and GM did that to themselves. The question they have to be asking is "How do we fix this?".

I actually agree with your friend, if Lincoln wants to be taken seriously the Town Car has got to go.I don't know that consumers will ever totally embrace a competent vehicle like the LS anyways because its a "Lincoln". They certainly haven't fully embraced the new Cadillacs. The TOwn Car sitting in the showroom is an example of what a "Lincoln" really is, a car that his father would drive. He's afraid of becoming his father, so no way he's gonna buy a Lincoln if it was the most fantastic car to ever roll down the road. This is Psychology 101.

Your friend's not a jerk, he's a consumer, a consumer Ford desperately needs. Not being able to reach him is thier failure.

Thats how business works. This happens in every business. You say what does experience back from 1964 mean? It means everything. Consumers don't forgive and forget so easy. I'm not about to go out and buy a Lincoln, what would I buy? A reworked Ford Fusion with weird styling for $30k? And then its still a Lincoln? No thanks. I had hope for Lincoln until they came out with that rediculous car.

And I'll stop you before you do it and say my Lexus is just a worked over Toyota. Toyota sells more Lexuses than ANY other luxury brand in the US. Why? Because they've overcome the objections of the consumer by building a solid reputation for quality and reliability that has stuck in the consumers mind. The same irrational prejudice you complain about against Ford, Toyota has put to work for them.

Here's how the thought process works:

I'm going to buy a Lincoln=but really a Lincoln is just a warmed over Ford just look at that steering wheel=a Ford is a bad car, Found on the Road Dead=and didn't my father keel over dead in a Lincoln at 87? He loved that car=A Lincoln is nothing but a warmed over Ford which isn't a good car and buying one would admit that I'm actually old like my father and thats more than I can handle.

Out the door he goes.

I'm going to buy a Lexus=but really a Lexus is just a warmed over Toyota=but Jack (his peer) loves his Lexus and he's had it for 200k miles and Jill loves her Toyota so thats not so bad=so what if its a warmed over Toyota, its a smart buy over more expensive BMWs or Mercedes=Its a smart decision to buy this car.

Into his driveway the car goes.

With a BMW or a Mercedes there's even less cognitive hurdles to get over. Until people can use the experiences of their peers with Lincolns to cancel out the fact that decaying old people drive Lincolns in their minds and STOP associating them with Fords. Thats not going to happen as long as the new cars are like the Zephyr, or even the new Lincoln Aviator which is obviously a warmed over Ford Edge.

This is how consumers think. You can't fault them for being what they are, and niether Ford nor GM has understood them since the 60s.

[Sherman8r44]

Originally Posted by GoodnClean

But Len, these are things that every company has to deal with when they're marketing product, the perceptions of the consumer. Saying "waa waa the consumers are mean and not fair!" isn't going to help anyone. Why do the consumers feel that way? Its because of the decades of poor quality products and the notion that Ford and GM out in the consumer's mind that when you buy an American car, you're going to get huge rebates, but if you want a real car it has to be foreign. Ford and GM did that to themselves. The question they have to be asking is "How do we fix this?".

I actually agree with your friend, if Lincoln wants to be taken seriously the Town Car has got to go.I don't know that consumers will ever totally embrace a competent vehicle like the LS anyways because its a "Lincoln". They certainly haven't fully embraced the new Cadillacs. The TOwn Car sitting in the showroom is an example of what a "Lincoln" really is, a car that his father would drive. He's afraid of becoming his father, so no way he's gonna buy a Lincoln if it was the most fantastic car to ever roll down the road. This is Psychology 101.

Your friend's not a jerk, he's a consumer, a consumer Ford desperately needs. Not being able to reach him is thier failure.

Thats how business works. This happens in every business. You say what does experience back from 1964 mean? It means everything. Consumers don't forgive and forget so easy. I'm not about to go out and buy a Lincoln, what would I buy? A reworked Ford Fusion with weird styling for $30k? And then its still a Lincoln? No thanks. I had hope for Lincoln until they came out with that rediculous car.

And I'll stop you before you do it and say my Lexus is just a worked over Toyota. Toyota sells more Lexuses than ANY other luxury brand in the US. Why? Because they've overcome the objections of the consumer by building a solid reputation for quality and reliability that has stuck in the consumers mind. The same irrational prejudice you complain about against Ford, Toyota has put to work for them.

Here's how the thought process works:

I'm going to buy a Lincoln=but really a Lincoln is just a warmed over Ford just look at that steering wheel=a Ford is a bad car, Found on the Road Dead=and didn't my father keel over dead in a Lincoln at 87? He loved that car=A Lincoln is nothing but a warmed over Ford which isn't a good car and buying one would admit that I'm actually old like my father and thats more than I can handle.

Out the door he goes.

I'm going to buy a Lexus=but really a Lexus is just a warmed over Toyota=but Jack (his peer) loves his Lexus and he's had it for 200k miles and Jill loves her Toyota so thats not so bad=so what if its a warmed over Toyota, its a smart buy over more expensive BMWs or Mercedes=Its a smart decision to buy this car.

Into his driveway the car goes.

With a BMW or a Mercedes there's even less cognitive hurdles to get over. Until people can use the experiences of their peers with Lincolns to cancel out the fact that decaying old people drive Lincolns in their minds and STOP associating them with Fords. Thats not going to happen as long as the new cars are like the Zephyr, or even the new Lincoln Aviator which is obviously a warmed over Ford Edge.

This is how consumers think. You can't fault them for being what they are, and niether Ford nor GM has understood them since the 60s.

I couldn't have said it better!

Len, that Lincoln LS V8 of yours came in DEAD LAST in a 2002 Car and Driver comparison test where the other six were V6s, IIRC. THAT is Ford's fault. The Contour didn't sell because it was too small for the class which didn't suit the needs of the consumer shopping for that class of car. Despite losing some of it's tuner crowd, the Civic still managed to pull out strong sales for Honda. And yes, it is Ford's fault that they sell Town Cars next to LS's--it's called MARKETING. It is up to them to make sure that the car is branded and sold properly so as not to inspire these judgements in people (it's not irrational prejudice, it is induced judgement ). The reason that people have a prejudice against GM's crappy cheap interiors is because they have been that way for a long, long time. And would you like to tell me the names of these "same suppliers"?.

Chrysler has managed to keep out of the borderline Chapter 11 state of GM and Ford by producing solid, exciting cars. Excellent, well-marketed cars like the Chrysler 300C manage to win comparison tests AND sell quite a few vehicles. I have not seen any kind of inspirational designs out of GM like the 300C or the PT Cruser (and don't say the HHC, copycats always suck). Plus, Ford and GM (the latter in particular) are reknown for shoddy build quality and suspect reliability. That reputation IS absolutely their fault--there is no conspiracy, nobody trying to take them down--the quality and refinement is just totally lacking.

P.S. It's spelled nonsense

[jfelbab]

Originally Posted by Len_A

Your new car experiences go back to 1964, and that's relevant today? Like I said, a lot of irrational prejudice.

Glad you're happy with your choices.

Ken, For the record, I've owned some 26 cars over the years and 19 of them were "Big Three" vehicles. Only 7 were not. My opinion was not just formed from a single bad experience in 1964. Out of the 19, only one experience was close to being satisfactory. Out of the 7 Asian vehicles, all were above my expectations. I listened to the "Big Three" marketing BS in the mid 90's that their cars were every bit as good. I bought two and found it just wasn't true. I've learned a lot of painful lessons over the years and one of them, unfortunately, is that I don't wish to own another vehicle from the "Big Three." I can only handle so much pain.

What I find interesting is that the "Asian" vehicles I've owned have all been built here by American workers. Yet the cars were so much better as was the experience with the dealership. This speaks volumes to me about the management of the "Big Three" companies.

This is what the Big Three is facing. No amount of rebate would sway me again. They burned that bridge. I suspect I'm not unique in my experience as evidenced by the success of the "Big Three" in selling their goods.