Japan is freaking out a little right now, much like the rest of the world. The country has a new prime minister, a new sense of its place in the world after a “lost decade” turned into “lost decades.” Does that apply to Toyota? I’m not so sure. Toyota looks like it’s in great shape.
Today was the first day of the Japan Mobility Show, and we’re already starting to see the concepts roll out on the pages of The Autopian. Toyota has a bunch of concepts to look at, though we’ve seen some of them before. Mostly, Toyota has a new energy
Could the same be said of Honda? The company is in a slightly different situation, and it seems to be looking inward at what it can accomplish in Japan during this show. Japan itself is in an interesting situation relative to the rest of the globe. President Trump is in Tokyo and asking Asian nations to contribute more to the American economy and global stability.
The reaction from Japan? Enthusiastic but measured. While companies like Toyota are willing to invest, a lot of the big numbers being thrown around may not exactly happen as the President has expressed. And a deal to stop Russian LNG? That might be an energy bridge too far.
Toyota’s New Century
Toyota took a lot of crap in the early part of this decade for, among other things, being “too slow” on electric cars. Instead, Toyota was careful and cautious, and invested heavily in hybrids as a bridge technology. That was clearly the right move.
There’s a column from Automotive News that drives this point home today:
Amid challenges and criticisms, the one thing that Toyota repeatedly does right is set a course and stick to it. In the U.S., that means moving forward with electric vehicles while continuing to expand hybrids and plug-in hybrid availability across the market and throughout its lineup.
Toyota’s $14 billion battery complex in North Carolina is beginning to produce batteries for its electrified vehicles in North America. Meanwhile, it still plans to introduce new three-row EVs next year that will be built in Kentucky, as well as bring in other new EVs, including the C-HR.
Why? Because it won’t be pushing those EVs on its dealers and customers, but allowing both to pull the vehicles as real market demand for them grows naturally — just as demand has grown for hybrids. Toyota’s determination to follow the multipath powertrain strategy it adopted nearly a decade ago has allowed it to capture share from competitors, especially those who now find themselves flat-footed because they opted to not offer hybrids.
Preach!
Toyota’s eclectic mix of concepts at the Japan Mobility Concept demonstrates a lot of swagger, including the crazy Century coupe:
Toyota Chairman Akio Toyoda gave a speech at the launch of the vehicle, and he didn’t sound like someone content to rest on his own laurels (or Levins, I guess). Referencing Kiichiro Toyoda and Toyota’s first chief engineer, Kenya Nakamura, Toyoda calls on his country and company to jump into action:
The “Japan as No.1” era is behind us, and we are now in what has come to be known as “the lost 30 years.”
Japan as a nation seems to have lost some of its energy and dynamism, along with our presence in the world.
If Kiichiro and Nakamura could see Japan today, what would they say?
I suspect they wouldn’t say anything, and instead leap straight into action.
When Nakamura saw the postwar media headline “Starting from Zero,” he said, “It’s not zero. It’s true that our facilities were destroyed, and we had no materials or money. But we had the strengths and skills that Japan had built up. That’s why we were able to rebuild.”
He said that in anger.
Toyota is in a great position globally, with a lot of production in the United States, and products people want. While it was slow to develop EVs, it’s not like Toyota can’t build a great EV.
They’re smart, so if you’re a competitor, watch out.
Honda Isn’t In Bad Shape, Either, Though It Feels A Bit More Insular
Sam has a full write-up on what Japan is doing at the big show, and it feels like Japan is sort of the focus. Not like I blame Honda. The company is also well-situated when it comes to hybrids and other products in the United States, although it has some issues and exposure when it comes to production in Mexico and to the new Nexperia chip shortage, as Nikkei Asia writes:
Honda also said it began adjusting output in the U.S. and Canada on Monday due to a shortage of Nexperia chips. The company did not disclose details, such as the scale of the cuts or how long it expects them to last. A prolonged slowdown in North America, its key manufacturing base, could weigh on the company’s earnings for the fiscal year ending March 2026.
The Celaya auto plant in central Mexico, which has suspended operations, has an annual capacity of around 200,000 cars and makes the HR-V sport utility vehicle. Last year, the plant turned out more than 190,000 vehicles, far exceeding the 40,000 sold in Mexico, making it a major export hub for the U.S. market.
North America is Honda’s important market. In 2024, the company sold about 1.61 million vehicles across the region, including the U.S. and Mexico, making up about 40% of its global sales.
It would be bold of Honda to bring some of the cars it showed in Japan to the United States, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.
Toyota: Uh, No, We Are Not Giving You $10 Billion Mr. President
If you ask for $100, no one is going to give you $1 billion. But if you ask for $10 billion, well, a cold $1 billion doesn’t seem like such a stretch. This appears to be the strategy from President Trump, who keeps stating that different countries will invest billions of dollars, only to find out that the promises are really for loans and not cash.
This happened earlier this week with South Korea, which didn’t want to destabilize its own currency in the process of making investments. That’s probably less of a risk with the Japanese yen, but companies like Toyota are smart and don’t want to over-invest in one market.
Per Reuters:
Speaking during his visit to Japan on Tuesday evening, Trump said the automaker would be looking to invest around $10 billion in the United States.
However, Toyota executive Hiroyuki Ueda said no such explicit promise was made about an investment of that size, adding that Toyota would continue to invest and create jobs in America.
Ueda was speaking to reporters on the sidelines of the Japan Mobility Show in Tokyo.
Look, let’s just make it $8 billion between friends and call it a day, of which $300 million is going to be earmarked for The Autopian to build a test track. Thank you, Toyota!
Japan Probably Won’t Be Shutting Out Russian LNG
Japan’s new Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi [Ed Note: She’s a car enthusiast! -DT] stepped into the job at a difficult time between her country and the United States. The big question going into this week has been: Could she appeal to President Trump?
It seemed to go well, according to The Japan Times:
“It was a near-perfect meeting,” LDP Policy Research Council Chairman Takayuki Kobayashi said after the summit Tuesday. “We were able to demonstrate to the world the strength of the Japan-U.S. relationship and the close rapport between our leaders.”
Even the head of the main opposition Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan (CDP), which has often been critical of the LDP, welcomed Takaichi’s performance.
“It is most significant that, despite it being their first meeting, they were able to start off on a harmonious note through their shared friendship with the late Prime Minister Shinzo Abe,” CDP leader Yoshihiko Noda said Tuesday, adding that the key outcome of the summit was “the establishment of a personal relationship of trust.”
Experts agree, with many describing the meeting as an “overwhelming success,” especially considering the tumult and uncertainty in bilateral relations over the past year.
I credit all the F-150s that Japan is going to buy.
Not everything was perfect, and President Trump’s request to freeze out Russian LNG as punishment for their illegal and cruel occupation of Ukraine doesn’t seem to have gone over, according to Nikkei Asia:
The U.S. is seeking cooperation from Group of Seven nations to impose an embargo on energy imports from Russia in order to ratchet up pressure on the country. Trump reportedly reiterated this request to Takaichi during their working lunch at the summit.
Russia accounts for nearly 9% of Japan’s LNG imports. A ban on Russian imports would have repercussions for the economy, leading Takaichi to determine that an embargo would not be possible.
You can’t win ’em all.
What I’m Listening To While Writing TMD
All of the outtakes from Bruce Springsteen’s sessions for Nebraska are out and, honestly, incredible. I’m not Springsteen-pilled, although Nebraska is one of my all-time favorite albums. The raw and stripped down version of “Pink Cadillac” above, and “Born in the USA” are both eye-opening.
The Big Question
What could Toyota be doing even better?
Photo: Toyota
What could Toyota do better?
Build a Maverick competitor. Yesterday.
Unless Tacoma demand cools, they are in an enviable position not to have a lot of excess capacity right now.
The Toyota IMV truck would be great if they would sell it here.
I agree if it could pass the safety tests.
What was the right move for Toyota was not really the right move for the planet. I guess I’m glad we’re still getting EVs. Still strange to see how much of a disconnect there is. But then again, this has more to do with American politics than it has to do with Toyota.
Biden said all we need to sell battery cars is ten dollar a gallon gas.
That and a train full of treasure to alter the electric grid from the ground up.
So battery cars might break even 200 years from now.
That’s not even true…EVs are a better value now in most of the world. And that’s BEFORE you factor in costs of the environmental damage of fossil fuels that is already happening now, much less in the future.
On top of that, China adding a gigawatt of solar per day plus 80GW of wind per year and building the most powerful transmission lines on the planet that are 2000 miles long to take the power to every major city in the country.
There is no scenario where America doesn’t die economically if it doesn’t transition to renewables. China has already won. Europe is not far behind. But we have our heads in our asses.
You have to include the cost of rebuilding the electric grid before there is any profit to battery cars.
That applies to USA and China.
Probably other places as well.
Toyota specifically mentioned selling cars in countries with a tenuous electric grid.
Battery cars are being made for a world that still runs on diesel.
Well, the cost for electricity is plummeting. The problem is distribution, and the fact that the power producers in America charged for the power and gave the distribution away for free.
I’m in a traditionally low cost area for electricity and it’s climbing rapidly here, and has been for years.
Once you load battery cars onto a system already overstretched, electricity won’t look so good.
California is already asking people not to use power in the summer.
Where I am in California , it’s more like don’t use power in the afternoon in the summer
If you want to talk about environmental damage, China has also added well over 300GW of coal to their portfolio in the last few years and coal power accounts for over 50% of their total generation. China alone is still responsible for over 30% of the world’s CO2 emissions despite their push to electrification. Still want us to be just like China? Or should I keep going?
It’s not really a climate problem, however defined, or a resource problem, though that’s in play.
It’s an over population problem, which leads inevitably to runaway health problems caused by density of population, and faster disease mutation.
The Zero Population movement in the 70s were the ones that got it right.
In Los Angeles, St John Green wrote,
Big black horseless carriage called Destruction
Slumbers blindly through the night
Trucks. Their trucks are outdated, uncompetitive, and no longer even the reliable workhorses they once were. The whole market segment feels like something Toyota has consciously neglected.
Promises, promises. None of this means anything unless pen is put to paper and promises are made binding. The exact same thing happened last time he was in office and none of those non-binding promises were fulfilled either. They’re just gladhanding him until there’s an adult in the White House again.
Appeasing Trump is easier than appeasing a 2 year-old – the 2 year-old will likely remember that you promised him/her candy tomorrow. Trump won’t.
IDK. With a 2 year old you can discipline them and get them in line.
This guy,not so much.
Makes me wonder why the Democrats insist on electing him
The Toyota IMV would be great if they sold it here.
Toyota seems to have abandoned actual trucks in the American market. Have you seen how much of a premium an old Hilux in good shape sells for?
Sad times when “being the smartest” is attributed to the only bug that did not flew head first into the blue EV light
Especially given what the technology is capable of. The $40k-100k EV CUV/SUV/truck market is way over-saturated with offerings, when we could have entry-level $25k-30k EV liftback RWD sedans and even sports cars with similar range per charge made with 1st world labor.
The only companies that appear to have made “good” decisions regarding their EV lineup are Tesla and the Chinese, and the former is riding on its own brand recognition that is rapidly losing favor with the public, while the latter are kept out of the USA altogether.
Not the only one, but he actually said it.
“Toyota’s New Century” above the picture of the bus/van thing confused me greatly until I read on.
Give the LandCruiser and GX550 a split tailgate and I’m one happy camper!
Preach.
What could Toyota be doing better? How about making better cars? Getting in and driving almost any Toyota is not a pleasant experience. They need to improve their materials quality, ride & handling, NVH, seat comfort, and in some cases, assembly quality. I can’t believe people pay MSRP or above, and possibly wait months for delivery, for cars that don’t do anything better than most competitors, and in some metrics are much worse.
They’re trading on a reputation for extremely high reliability and resale. Once a segment of buyers have it in their head to not even check elsewhere, just go get another Toyota because the last 3 were flawless, there’s really no need to mess with the formula. One big caveat here though: They have to continue with high resale and highly reliability. Not that I’m too concerned, but there are rumblings on the internet that Toyota has lost its way with reliability.
It wasn’t very long ago that Jeep had 3 small, archaic, somewhat cramped SUVs that all sold incredibly well, because the 4.0 powertrain developed a reputation for being bulletproof. Look what happened there.
I don’t like how Mr Akio is trying to turn the LS into a minivan.
Yeah I agree, the new-ish Toyotas I have been in lately are uncomfortable. I can’t figure out how they went from making relatively comfortable vehicles to a whole lineup that seems designed to punish the occupants
“Meanwhile, it still plans to introduce new three-row EVs next year that will be built in Kentucky”
Yeah just what America needs on the precipice of a recession, another 70k luxo barge with a battery that weighs as much as a Corolla.
I get why they’re doing this but I miss the age when Toyota was truly economy-minded in the US.
But maybe, as The Boss said, their love is bigger than a Honda, it’s bigger than a Subaru…
Hahahaha, excellent pull!
come on now, it won’t be $70k. It will start at $70k.
*Marge Simpson Annoyed Grunt*
Toyota needs to offer more of their color palate across the models. Give me that green that the Highlander/Sienna get on a Taco please. Also, I need them to post more job openings for engineers, I’d love to work for them
You might have more luck working for them as a LEAN advocate. {runs_away.gif}
What excuse is there for months/year+ long wait for a Sienna? As far as I can tell, it is just artificial scarcity to keep cars moving at over MSRP.
I think for the next Corolla in the US, it would be nice to see them split the model. Go a half size up, and a half size down. The Civic is slightly bigger, better looking, and premium. Make the Corolla go a half size class up to compete with that, then bring back the Yaris, but slot it sizewise between the old Yaris and the current Corolla.
This is a great story idea.
I don’t have any inside knowledge but I’ve heard people blame the fact that the Sienna is made in the same plant as the Highlander and Grand Highlander, but is the least profitable of the three: https://old.reddit.com/r/ToyotaSienna/comments/15vpvwa/why_such_low_production_output_from_toyota_for/
Same thing I heard about the demise of the Honda Fit – it shared a factory with the HR-V, but the HR-V was more profitable, and grew popular enough to warrant 100% use of the factory. Just be thankful the Sienna still gets made at all I guess?
That’s logical enough to satisfy my curiosity. But you’d think after almost a half-decade of supply constraints they would figure out how to up production of all three vehicles made at that plant.
It might not be what you want, but Toyota could simply start selling the Yaris Cross in North-America: larger than a normal Yaris, smaller than a Corolla hatchback.
It would work, but secretly I just want the return of the Honda Fit
The Corolla is almost the only compact sedan left in the USA. It is the same size as it was in 1995 and has escaped the size creep that has moved the competition up a class size.
The Civic is midsize and the same size as the Camry (which is only slightly bigger than it was in 1995. (The Accord is now a large sedan)
In terms of interior volume yes, but a new Corolla is a much bigger vehicle in exterior dimensions than it was 30 years ago. It’s had size creep, it just hasn’t translated into a gain in space (actually it shrunk over the prior gen, most Toyota models have).
The packaging matters, a new Corolla dwarfs a ’95 outside at 10″ longer & 4″ wider, but hasn’t gained interior space. A new Civic is maybe 2″ longer than a new Corolla yet as you said it’s closer to the Camry in space – but it’s also ~8″ shorter in length than a Camry and an inch or two narrower and shorter in height.
Civic is more expensive than Corolla, but it’s similar with most of the key competitors that are lower priced – a Sentra, K4, Elantra, Jetta are sized similar outside to Corolla but roomier inside.
Sentra, K4, Elantra – all midsize sedans. The Jetta is a compact. Yes, some vehicle are packaged better than others.
Sitting in a Civic and Corolla side by side the Civic feels like a class size bigger car which makes that higher price make sense.
Either way a car smaller than a Corolla simply isn’t happening in the USA. Subcompacts are dead – compact sedans are dying if you aren’t selling a Corolla which has 70% of compact car sales in the USA (not including luxury brands in that number)
The Corolla is also one of the cheapest new vehicles sold in the USA so there really isn’t a reason for Toyota spend a bunch of money to bring in an even smaller car with even smaller profit margins (or no profit margins)
By EPA class yes, but it doesn’t change anything about their being competitors and not the sole identifier of class segments. The Civic hatch is an EPA large car too, but it doesn’t mean it would end up in a comparison with say, the Charger.
Beyond the EPA segments the Civic is still considered a compact even by Honda and it’s been the segment volume leader in sales. The labels mean little to the average consumer, the sizing just poses a competitive advantage. And price, which the Elantra, K4, Sentra are all cheaper to start than a Corolla, so size and price aren’t correlated there either.
The difference in Toyota vs. the others is they are focused on protecting the Camry and its best-selling passenger car title, where others stepped back and focused on one solid entry for the price range. Toyota essentially throttles Corolla back as a result. Honda has been comfortable letting the Accord fall way back and let the Civic take over volume.
That said, my point wasn’t about a sub-Corolla car though, just the classes don’t really make a difference; as I agree, there’s no reason for something below. The cheapest, smallest car by MSRP isn’t the cheapest car to buy and most buyers aren’t really focused on the type of vehicle, just what they can afford. It’s more effective to sell cheaper Corollas than slot a model below. The Corolla always had more margin over a Yaris (certainly over a no-haggle Scion), and throw in whatever incentives the Corolla could easily be cheaper. And same for any of the others too.
This is why marketing classes are useless. You point out that Honda still markets the Civic as a compact. Of course they do as it lets them claim they have the best selling compact car. If they properly compare it to the Camry then it would come in second.
This is the same type of games that Ford and GM play when they both claim to sell the most trucks.
The Accord is steadily losing sales because more and more people that want a vehicle that big want a crossover instead of a sedan. Sedan sales are consolidating to the midsize class.
But it isn’t a direct Camry competitor, either, interior space alone doesn’t lend it to a “proper” comparison. There’s vast differences in equipment, powertrain, and most importantly pricing. It would be extremely easy for Toyota to say “well actually…” if they thought it were an issue, but I don’t think either brand sees a benefit to such a comparison. I’d agree that the segment naming is more of a figurehead though.
Well aware of the sedan-CUV shift, that wasn’t why I mentioned. Accord has always nipped at the Camry ever since Toyota took the best-selling passenger car title and only grabbed it once. Camry still retains the title now despite RAV4 sales soaring so that it’s the overall SUV sales leader and vehicle period. If they chose to scale Camry back and let Corolla absorb more of those sales, they’d surely retain the segment best seller title, but having that 1-2 punch of best-selling car and SUV is valuable.
Toyota has a huge amount of room to improve on lobbying against fuel economy standards and such. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/22/climate/toyota-hybrid-epa-pollution.html, https://www.citizen.org/news/report-exposes-toyotas-effort-to-fund-climate-deniers/, https://electrek.co/2024/05/14/toyota-once-again-ranked-as-worst-automaker-on-climate-lobbying-globally/, etc
Not too surprising, considering that their trucks are maybe the only category of vehicle that look like they have not made fuel economy improvements in the past 20 years or so, ie https://www.fuelly.com/car/toyota/tacoma
It would be nice if they would put more of their effort into improving their vehicles, instead of lobbying for easier standards.
Toyota’s position is that if the goal is to reduce CO2 then set a corporate fleet average and let the manufacturers decide how to meet it. Don’t set regulations that say in year X you must make Y percentage of your cars battery electric.
Toyota’s 2023 fleet average in the USA was 28.2 mpg which places them at #6 Ahead of Subaru, Nissan and Mazda despite selling a bunch of trucks.
Companies ahead of Toyota: #1 Tesla, #2 Kia (29.7 mpg), #3 Hyundai, #4 VW, #5 Honda. (None of which sells a BoF vehicle)
Stellantis is last @ 22 mpg.
Overall fleet average in 2023 was 26.9 mpg
Problem is they lobby hard against raising the fleet average economy, if they were serious about trying to lower CO2 they would not be pushing back against harder standards every step of the way
Your links don’t say that. They say Toyota lobbied against requirements to build EVs. They also lobbied against special treatments of BEVs in the EPA standard – before it was revised.
You link also says they supported the continuation of federal tax credits for EVs and credits for building batteries in the USA.
As to lobbying – 60% of their money to Republicans and 40% to Democrats. I’d bet if you look at they manufacturing footprint they have a lot more factories in red districts than blue.
Toyota’s “crime” in some people’s mind is refusing to give a date to go 100% EV and not enthusiastically pushing EVs. Toyota has repeated said if the goal is to reduce CO2 emission then just set CO2 fleet averages and leave it to automakers on how they want to meet them.
At the end of the day the proof is in actions. They have the most efficient full line fleet in the USA and have steadily increased their fleet average while others (Honda, Subaru, Mazda, GM) have decreased their fleet average.
Since the mid-1990s, Toyota’s strength has been in their conservatism. Most buyers are average and want a well-built but average car. Almost everything in the Toyota lineup crushes the market in “average but good”.
From a business standpoint I think Toyota is crushing it, but I do wish they would make it possible to actually order a car. It would not help them sell more, but they would have gotten me as a customer.
Shopping for a new Tacoma I wanted a TRD-Offroad, in a color, with a manual transmission and few other boxes checked. When I went to a few local toyota dealers they showed me the next one that would be made to fit my spec that wasn’t already spoken for and it was over 1-yr out with basically no hope of getting something sooner and I am pretty sure that was for a black truck and they couldn’t guarantee the timeline if I insisted on a different color.
They told me Siennas are even worse, they recommend families order their Sienna when they have their first kid so the vehicle will be ready once the 2nd kid shows up, that is anecdotal but leads to me to believe that Toyota has always kept production lower than it should be, to ensure sales.
Honda is that way too about ordering. It was a bit of a pain trying to find the spec Pilot my wife wanted. Honda doesn’t even offer crazy options; we just wanted a particular trim and color.
That is strange, what part of the country are you in? Did a quick search in the Boston area, was able to find Siennas in stock, a large variety of colors and trims. Same with the harder (at least when I was interested in them earlier this year) Land Cruiser, plenty now available. When I was looking at the LC, I looked at Lexus for TX and GX models, the saleswoman was telling the same story you heard, you only get what we have and it is limited. She was trying to sell what was on the lot so hard vs even trying to get what we wanted at the time (willing to wait since it had just come out).
I am in Minnesota, and like I said it could have been the dealership not wanting to deal with me. This was about a year ago, and new Tacomas were a very hot commodity. The second I told the Toyota salesperson that what I really wanted was a manual Tacoma, I pretty much got a “good luck”, since they didn’t have them in stock and there was usually a line of people shopping for vehicles that they could actually buy today (Tacomas, Highlanders, Rav4s).
Also regarding the Sienna’s I should say that I didn’t fact-check the statement at the time, since I wasn’t shopping for one. A large local dealership has exactly one Sienna in inventory right now that is available and it is $60k+. They advertise a number that are in production or transit, but in my experience with the Tacoma’s those vehicles in transit usually have a deposit down already, they just aren’t marked as such until they arrive on the lot. This dealership always advertises an inventory of 500+ vehicles but its false advertising. For example right now they claim over 130 RAV4s in stock, but I think there are about 6 that aren’t in transit, in production, or sale pending.
I know someone that wanted one of the special trims in a Ford truck and basically had two options, so had to decide what part of the country they had to drive to.
Might have had more choices if they wanted to overpay.
They got a black truck, not their first choice.
Honestly, a manual Tacoma might as well be a special trim since they are produced in relatively low quantities. I could have travelled and found one I am sure, but I never wanted to spend $50k in the first place so I shifted my focus to the used market.
Toyota is obviously a very smartly-run company, and has been for many decades. They make very few mistakes. I respect them and their products greatly, even if very, very few of their products have any appeal to me as things I want to own.
Things they could do better? Figure out how to make cars drive properly (hire some Brits and Germans to do the suspension tuning for God’s sake), figure out how to make decent seats (hire the French or Swedes), and stop letting their stylists/designers do so many drugs (probably a lost cause today).
They are great at fuel efficiency , no doubt.
I respect the company- but I don’t like the cult that surrounds them worldwide.
That too – though at least they aren’t nearly as bad as Tesla in that respect. More that they are just such the “default option” for so many who won’t even consider something else that might be better, or at least better value.
The resale value is also what prices many people out of buying them. The cult doesn’t understand that.
Not to turn this into a Springsteen discussion (“Boss” is a Mustang, so it’s cool, right?), but I really appreciate your inclusion of this particular song, and the accompanying reference to “Born in the USA,” because it turns out my antipathy toward this guy WASN’T the fault of the ridiculous production of the two radio versions of those songs.
Their styling is hit or miss. They’ve come a long way from boring but have overdone it on some vehicles like the 4Runner.
This is a very good point.
Now that you mention it, they could do better with the gaping maw on the Corolla. It almost looks like a catfish with its mouth open,sans “whiskers”,of course.
Unfortunately, such gaping grilles have been the trend for the past few years. Otherwise, the Corolla and Camry are examples of new Toyotas that aren’t overly hideous. I’m not alone in saying the Camry facelift is a major improvement over the last one.
FTFY.
Toyota could turn into a juggernaut if they wanted, but instead continues to simply want to build its empire with a longer-term plan than worrying about the 4-year cycles of regional politics in a noisy corner of the planet.
It’s refreshing to thing that Elon has no control over Toyota’s vast resources.
In a hypothetical situation where a US President decided to ban all imports, I fell like many large car manufacturers would actually be somewhat relived. Sure, they’d lose a big chunk of their business, but they’d also not have to worry about building cars specifically for a very, shall we say, demanding customer base.
Some brands, like Toyota, could easily just pare back their US lineup for 4 years, and then come back when the winds have changed.
Toyota could have followed the lead of tesla and expanded the Hydrogen fueling stations out of California and more in california, this cost could have been difficult at first, but make it simple so the competition has to buy from you on not to well regulated pricing and if the cars and usefulness is sound, then it should will be a long term positive. The fact that it failed in even the mostly left wing state California kind of tells me the Hyrdogen fuel cell which has been touted as the next big thing since the 90’s. But I do still wonder if it was not infrastructure that was the problem.
Considering the fuel cell system uses electric motors for actual forward motion, it might have been nice to have an alternative electricity generator for the Mirai. can they not put a battery in the place that the Hydrogen system fits? Or maybe make a Mirai Crossover with space to fit more battery or Erev setup?
Not that it matters really, I am not the normal Toyota customer I suppose. I do like some of the stuff they have, but I would want a new/simple but rugged FJ with a super low gear manual trans and an NA 6 cylinder minimally. I definitely don’t need or want a 300HP high strung turbo 4, I am fine with offering the turbo 6 from the Tundra, as long as the quality issues are sorted.
Honestly though, I think that is the one place that Toyota could do better. offering more niche drivetrains. I know it makes sense to someone to sell everything with one engine basically, but not to me.
Back when batteries were prohibitively expensive, hydrogen seemed like the way to go. But at this point in time there is really no reason for hydrogen.
I would have a Tundra with the 3UR. The Turbo V6 has failed in models past the recall.
Toyota could have better financing rates for their damn trucks.
The BoC just dropped their rate to 2.25%, why the HELL are your Toyota-backed interest rates still like 8%?
Because, if you want it, you’ll pay it. Just like waiting months for delivery of a PHEV RAV4 if that’s what you want.
Else you can always go back to your own bank.
No one is buying Tundras, though. I would if they’d cut me a financing deal, but they’re not. So I won’t.
If you need a financing deal, Nissan and Ram are just down the road.
Toyota has no need to put cash on the hood of their products – Just as it’s always been.
Except they ARE putting cash on the hood these days, cause they’re not moving.
Which used to work when half tons were 40-50k. Now in the age of 60-80k, the financing matters more than 5-10k off the price.
Starting down the discount road isn’t a path to success. Since Toyota is doing well as a whole and doesn’t have excess capacity in general, they are better off waiting for the market to come to them or adjusting their product a bit to be more attractive. The dealers can do their own discounting to match their inventory to demand but Toyota corporate doesn’t need to support it in any way.
Because they can. You only need to subsidize rates when you need incentives to move the metal. When has the ever been an issue with Toyota trucks? Cash on the hood is a one-time hit, interest rate incentives are over time, so I can see doing one instead of the other depending on circumstances.
My credit union is offering 4% currently for top-tier borrowers. If you don’t have the credit score to qualify, you probably shouldn’t be shopping new in that price range anyway, IMHO.
Credit score isn’t the issue. Historically the cheapest rates were at the dealer, now I have to add a 2nd step to this nonsense.
Your first step in buying a car should always be getting pre-approved at YOUR financial institution. Dealerships are not your friend in this, they can and will mark up the rate as much as they feel they can get away with. Making them beat your rate can work out in your favor – though for God’s sake don’t tell them what it is.
The lowest rates being at the dealer is only really true for undesirable vehicles where they need to do what they can to get people to buy the things at all. That has rarely to never been anything with a Toyota badge on it. And for sure Toyota dealers can be some of the shadiest out there, especially here in the Southeast. They know what they’ve got.
I’d rather not take the hard check on my credit twice.
I work my math out ahead of time, and if I can’t real a deal, then I don’t buy. I’ve walked out of many dealerships.
But I’m also in Canada. I’m assuming you’re talking the states cause there’s no real “southeast” in Canada. And, well, the readership here is mostly Americans as well, lol.
All the checks for given type of credit in a fairly short span of time are only counted once. There is no penalty for shopping around for rates.
Canada may be different. No idea, different country obviously.
This is just reminding me how much I hate vehicle shopping.
Meh, it’s just a game to be played. I found it a lot of fun as a general rule (with occasional exceptions). The most important thing is to remember that unless you are an idiot or deeply unfortunate, you never NEED to buy a car, but the dealer NEEDS to sell them to eat. Being willing to get up and walk out gives you all the power.
But, but, but, I was told many times on this very site (granted, in many cases by a writer who is no longer here) that Toyota was making a giant mistake not prioritizing EVs over everything else and was going to be left behind.
I think the fact that the first really viable and accepted Hybrid was the Toyota Prius indicated more along the lines that Toyota could, but decided it should not go all in on drinking the last president’s cool-aid. I will admit, they missed out on the free lunch handouts from ICE mfr’s given to the like s of Musk to pad his pockets. Which is sad isnce they really could have dredged up the Scion brand name and easily converted the existing Prius’s at the time to have a battery up front in place of the motor and gotten in on the ground floor, maybe paid themselves in a round about way the Emission credits they likely sent Musks way for things like the V8 Tundra and what not.
I think their biggest fumble was not making the Tundra the first PHEV half ton on the market.
They’ll sell Tacos by the boatload even if the truck kicked you in the nuts every time you started it, but the Tundra needs a feature to help it gain market share.
The new RAV 4 is gonna absolutely dominate it’s segment.
Not focusing on EVs is a long term issue that may appear 10 years from now. I think everyone agreed that their current strategy is great for the next 5 or so years.
No this is not the case at all. When EV fever started, there were 3 years minimum where Toyota took no active action and essentially EVERY major automotive news outlet bashed Toyota for being “behind on the times”. The commentariat often followed suit. Its something that V10omous and I were pretty vocal about Toyota being right. And every year for the past 3, they’ve been proven more and more correct in their approach. And 10 years from now, their careful planning is likely to have them continue down the most viable path.
And, they can always buy/steal the technology that someone else created. No need to reinvent the wheel. (Almost literally.)
Yeah, they’re sitting on so much money that this is an additional smart part of the strategy—why spend all that money to develop a product that might not be great and might have a short shelf life (if the magic beans of solid state even hit the market) when you can wait, let others see what works and get it to work, then buy them? Plus, they have EV knowledge from hybrids, so it’s not like they were completely lost.
I’m pretty sure there would be working on EV tech as much as any other company and will roll it out when the time is right. Their current offering is a little wanting but I don’t think they are going to be left behind.
Toyota has a model mix in the USA that allows them to meet regulations without selling EVs.
In the UK they have 9 EV models, 3 PHEVs, and pretty much all the rest are hybrids. Their diesel and pure ICE cars are limited the Land Cruiser, Hilux, 2 vans and the GR Yaris
Different markets, different regulations, different model mix.
I’m sure Toyota have plenty of EV Tech ready to roll out when the battery tech is sufficiently advanced.
To be fair, A LOT has changed since then.
Yes, the hype is finally getting towards something far more realistic.
Life comes at you fast!
I was one of the few who thought Toyota was the only smart one. I’d have invested in them for it, but auto stocks tend to have weak returns.
Toyota could do better from the dealership perspective, having markups in this economy is insane, if they could focus on product availability, they could dominate the market very easily and eat a big portion from Ford and GM (Not the truck divisions but the other stuff).
People are paying markups for Toyotas? In almost-2026?
Yes. Still a thing for in-demand Toyotas.
And, no, many of those still aren’t “in-stock” either – so you’re waiting, as well.
Yup. Here in the DC area people are literally buying Highlanders and Siennas for over MSRP while they’re still in transit, and the only ones dealerships have in stock are Platinum models that cost $60,000+.
We’re going to need to buy a hauler in the next year or two, and my wife will only consider cars that are hybrid and Japanese.
She’s not budging either, I’ve tried. Her family has always owned nothing but Japanese cars and none of them have ever had problems, which is her biggest priority because she doesn’t care about cars and hates having to deal with them. Anyway I am very much not looking forward to dropping $65,000 on a Grand Highlander or Sienna and am really hoping Honda gets the hybrid Pilot to market before we’re shopping, because most DMV Hondas have money on their hoods right now.
Get a certified pre-owned in very good shape. You’ll cut at least 1/3 off that cost.
She’s never had a brand new car in her life and wants this to be her first. Happy wife, happy life, etc. I’ve got to win my battles in the margins.
I hope she gets that dark blue GH. A neighbor picked one up and I do like the styling. It stands out, looks new, but isn’t in your face about it. Actually, I hope she gets a Sienna. I don’t know what colors they come in or what the new ones even look like but having grown up in and learned to drive in a Sienna, it’s cooler than a Grand Highlander.
But I’m of the beige wagon camp and practicality, in my eyes, is cool.
Granted, I likely have the highest per capita Grand Highlanders local to me on this site, but they are bland and boring styling wise to me. Plus, no cool colors. It’s one of the reasons my wife wanted that robins egg blue on her Pilot Trailsport
She wouldn’t be happy with a used practical vehicle and have money left over for a “fun” car, maybe even for retirement, or the kids’ college fund in addition to that?
You could get a Corvette C6 for around $20k right now. That’s the difference between a certified pre-owned and brand new “boring” car.
Reminds me of a 30-something friend of mine who had a V8-swapped 240SX, a project he had since he was 16. It ran well until it needed less than $1,000 of some minor repairs after a decade of use, which he never had time to perform while working two jobs as the car sat for an entire year. She wanted a NEW CUV, and it had to be NEW. She wouldn’t accept a 2-year-old used one still under warrantee with less than 40,000 miles on it. She wanted the NEW body style. So he went into debt for it. Big debt.
She decided she didn’t want the NEW CUV exposed to the elements. She wanted to park it in the garage. So she made him get rid of the project car, since the HOA wouldn’t let it sit outside of the garage non-running. He had to find a buyer for well less than the car was worth, because she wanted it gone NOW.
He had a used Nissan sedan that he used as a daily while the project car sat(the project car used to be a daily), then it went out. Another NEW CUV sits in its place in the driveway, because she demanded it, because according to him her thought was “what will the neighbors think?” if he brought over another “crappy” 7-10 year old used sedan to get around in?
He’s now almost 6-figures in debt for vehicles he didn’t even want. He has to work even more hours to pay both car notes. And these cars aren’t even “fun” vehicles, they’re money pits that conform to what everyone else has, in order to look “practical” to the neighbors. The savings just by getting a used “boring” car instead of a new one, could have bought multiple used “fun” cars, like Corvettes or Vipers, in addition to having that certified pre-owned CUV.
Now he’s miserable in terms of his car-life AND money. These car payments plus interest are going to consume nearly a decade of his life’s “disposable” income, for no real tangible benefit over having just gotten a used CUV in the first place.
Were I him, I’d have put my foot down: used CUV, paid for cash, it’s used so it can be parked outside, no car loan, keep the project car until it is fixed for a few hundred bucks and 10-20 hours work. You still have your “fun” car, and you’re much better off financially at the same time! It just makes sense.
And if you don’t even have a “fun” car? GET ONE! Used Chargers and Challengers both depreciate fairly quickly and good ones aren’t that expensive, either.
I don’t see how Nsane’s wife wanting a new car that they can afford reminds you of your friend who seems to have made bad financial decisions in the context of a terrible bad.
Not to mention, Nsane is talking about a Toyota minivan not whatever your CUV friend managed to go 6-figures into debt for.
It’s a matter of priority. This friend kept his wife happy, which entailed significant sacrifice and expense, for no practical benefit on the whole, and no actual fun derived with the purchases made.
New cars, next to homes and educations, are among the most significant purchases that a well-off person will ever make in their life.
From what I can tell, a factor driving many(maybe even most) new car purchases is described accurately by this:
“We buy things we don’t need with money we don’t have to impress people we don’t like.” – Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club
That is what my friend’s wife wanted him to do via new vehicle purchases. There was no real gain by him doing this to himself other than trying to keep her “happy”, which I predict will prove fleeting because I think she’ll just want an upgrade when the next body style comes out, just to keep up with the Joneses and show status(Look at me! My husband makes enough money working himself to death to go into debt for NEW cars we don’t really need!).
Everyone has to evaluate what is actually valuable to them, and it’s easy to make mistakes that stem from an impulse to just do whatever is necessary to keep another person happy, no matter the cost.
I once heard a joke.
Q: What are the three rings of marriage?
A: The engagement ring, the wedding ring and finally the suffering.
I do not envy Nsane’s current position. Not in the least. Then again, it’s not my business either. I’m just sharing a harsh life lesson learned vicariously through someone I know. It may or may not be applicable to Nsane’s situation, but I had a feeling that it was based upon him describing that he was not looking forward to making such a purchase. At the end of the day, he will make his own choices, for better or worse, and only he can decide which choice is right for him.
Me personally, if I’m ever going to make a new vehicle purchase, it damned well better be something I actually want. I won’t be buying it on a whim, and it sure as hell isn’t going to be something that could just as well be replaced with a 2-3 year old used offering of the same make/model at greatly less expense where I derive all the same benefits from vs paying greatly more to buy new. An extra $20k+ could take years/decades of one’s life to set aside these days, and that is always a consideration when I make any purchase over $1,000, nevermind a purchase deep into the 5 figures.
Dude you’re still conflating two very different situations and being extremely judgment. My husband recently exchanged his newer model, very comfortable truck for a mid-90s F350 with an engine that sounds like a school bus. It’s an unnecessary expense that was kind of annoying to me. But he loves the fucking thing (as does every other guy in the tri-state area, apparently), so whatever. We can be ever-so-slightly put out at our significant others’ vehicle purchasing decisions without going to into crushing debt or living in a disfunctional marriage.
Your movie quote and “joke” are very telling. Your “marriage sucks and society sucks” lenses are so thick, you can’t see clearly.
I am being judgmental, but the only one I’m judging is my friend. He made a very bad mistake, and knows it. I felt there was something to be learned from it. He made decisions that did the opposite of bringing him happiness. Was the alternative worse? Maybe. He didn’t make an alternative choice. Had he done so, it may or may not have been better, I don’t know. I know what I’d have done, and it might have made things a lot worse for me were I in that sort of position. This scenario really is an expression of game theory in the real world, and IMO should be approached as such.
People should be making choices that bring them and theirs happiness. The philosophical question I’m exploring is utilitarian: what purchase decision will bring the most happiness per dollar spent, dollars that are accumulated based upon the amount of dollars per hour one earns minus their living expenses, so really what choice will bring the most happiness per hour of labor spent?
Considering we are talking about years for most people to come up with on the side(after paying basic living expenses) the sort of money that describes the price delta between a new minivan/CUV/people-hauler-thing and a 2-3 year old used one that does all of the same things every bit as reliably, it’s not a question to be taken lightly or glossed over. And I can tell the OP has done some thinking about it based upon what he has relayed thus far.
No offense intended, especially if I’m being ignorant right now.
Ironically, I sincerely believe that thinking about things this way makes someone less happy than just living life and not stressing. Trying to optimize happiness per dollar on a spreadsheet is something that sounds great in a comment section but is neither practical nor enjoyable in real life, especially when another person’s feelings are involved.
I disagree. When you are deeply in debt five years after making poor decisions to placate someone else’s feelings I think you are likely to be worst off than if you did the prudent thing in the first place.
I don’t know from my experience but I have seen acquaintance’s marriages fall apart from poor choices that were meant to make them happy at the time they were made.
To me, there is a large gulf between prudence and ruthless optimization.
One’s resource limitations have a direct relationship to one’s options, and ignoring these limitations is folly. It’s easy to just “live life” if your resources are ample, or even from a practical perspective limitless compared to the average person.
I’ve seen people of limited means who have led themselves into very miserable lives by not considering this, some of them close family members. My father once made the foolish decision of purchasing an Audi TT he really couldn’t afford, and got on a 6 year payment plan at massive interest to do it, only to lose the vehicle halfway through the payments upon losing his job. It was fun for him while it lasted, although toward the end he started referring to the car as “the money pit”, because that’s exactly what it was. It was a sweet car, and I even got to drive it.
I can’t speak directly to Nsane’s personal scenario, but he doesn’t strike me as someone for whom a new Toyota Highlander/Sienna is an insignificant difference in price versus a very nice 2-3 year old used one. I certainly have less living expenses and possibly more money than he does, and even then a $40k-65k purchase to me is just mind boggling and financially reckless. Not everyone will share that same measure of value though, I’m looking at this through my own lens. $40k-65k to me lets me build a dream vehicle from scratch, something I couldn’t buy on today’s vehicle market for $5 million(not that I have $5 million, as I probably never will).
I’m very happy with my financial choices overall. Most people of similar means to myself think that the way I live is miserable, but from where I’m at, I’m living much better than I lived when I was younger, even while living cheap. I have peace of mind at least regarding having no financial worries and also have spare money to work on my own projects. I don’t have to worry where my next meal is coming from, I don’t have to worry about my laughably miniscule bills going unpaid or having to juggle them around from check to check, don’t have to worry about whether spending $100 outside the house to do something fun for the day is going to murder my monthly budget, and as a result actually think about money a lot less than I used to when I didn’t have money. Most people in the USA will never have that sort of financial peace of mind, ever. If I lost my job today, I could last for many years without finding another, even if I’m not even close to being independently wealthy enough to just quit and retire. If I had ever purchased a new car at any time in my life up to this point, I would not be in my current financial position, just going by basic math. Just that one purchase would have took this peace of mind away from me. Nevermind being chained to a mortgage on a 3,000 sq ft home, still having a student loan to worry about(I got mine paid off thankfully), or having a family always wanting shiny new things in addition to that; add those in too and I’d be in significant debt living paycheck to paycheck constantly worried about money, just like most Americans.
Then again, I’ve been poor and even homeless before. I’ve lived days at a time with no access to food. As a child I’ve sometimes had to sit at home with the lights off because my parents didn’t have the money to pay their electricity bill. I look at money differently from most people who make similar incomes compared to what I currently make, in part as a result of learning from those experiences. I LOVE not having to worry about meeting basic life expenses or having to service debt loads to keep my credit score from dropping. I don’t have to put in that extra overtime just to pay bills. Life is so much less stressful for me than it used to be as a result.
If the right Lotus Elise, Alfa Romeo 4C, or Chinese electric sports car comes along in the $25k-$45k range and I then have a place to keep it, I could even realistically consider making that purchase. Again, I wouldn’t do it on a whim, but I’d be close enough to that point anyway where I wouldn’t be financially devastated if I did and it didn’t work out, and I’d have no debt from it.
To each their own.
“ I’m living much better than I lived when I was younger”
This is key. A lot of happiness is based on expectations. Both my wife an I grew up in working class families. Then we both went to college and got engineering degrees and make multiples of what our parents did. To them we live very “fancy” lives. To most of our peers that make similar money we live rather frugal lives driving used cars and living in a 1000 sq ft home in a working class burb instead of leasing a Mercedes and living in a downtown loft or 3000 sq ft home in the new money burbs.
When I was a kid a dreamed of having Porsche or Lamborghini. Now that I could go out a buy one without a worry I would rather stick that money into a brokerage account and retire a few years earlier.
Thats one thing keeping me from buying a German car- they tend to be money pits if abused.
Used Lexus or used Cadillacs (depends on the model and engine), as long as they are well maintained, will be good to go, and if you have the budget to accommodate it.
Funny enough, a mini cooper was suggested as an option for me, but too bad: They don’t hold well to abuse in Qatar, and are too feminine and the option B) A used GMC Yukon, which supposedly would break down even if much cheaper, was actually the better option.
Even if the Yukon broke down, it would probably be back on the road within a week or two. Less electronics too (note: I am referring to the GMT900 generation) The truck like build of the GMC also ensures it can hold up to decent abuse, and is MUCH safer in a crash too (they are incredibly strong).
Lifter replacements will still be less costly (aftermarket price) than what anything a Mini Cooper needs, though this depends on the maintenance.
WAF
Wife Acceptance Factor
The reason a lot of superior technology disappears
Update: I just checked local listings and I misspoke. It’s not nearly as dire as I thought, but you’re definitely not getting any discounts.
Shop out of state. If you can wait until spring 2026, AWD fever will be abating in the Northeast. Getting out of DC to a smaller market and saving $5k by taking a 6 hour drive or 2.5 hour flight (including airport security theater) is definitely worth the extra DMV hassle in my book.
$65K puts you into an entry level X5, maybe even with some options depending on if they are dealing. $75K would get you a well outfitted version. If you go with the I6 engine, (40i) the powertrain reliability is probably the same – and I am getting well over 30 mpg on long trips with mine.
The Pilot is an impressive vehicle – way more roomy on the inside than it has any right to be. If you have young soccer players that you have to take to games the Pilot is a good option.
So I’m hearing a Mazda CX-90 (or -70 if you don’t need the third row) in your future, then.
That’s what she wants. The myriad teething issues those cars have had has me worried though, and they’re not as efficient as an actual hybrid because they’re only mild hybrids. I’m not touching the PHEV with a 10 foot pole based on all the horror stories online and endless sea of recalls.
When a PHEV is done poorly it’s just not worth it to me. See also: Jeep 4Xes. I’m sure some of the second gen stuff that’s going to come out will be much better but I don’t want to beta test some company’s first foray into developing something that’s so complex.
Only if they’re dumb. Plenty of Toyota dealers out there without markups.
This was my understanding and experience too.
I helped my parents buy a GH hybrid about a year ago and they paid MSRP, I could not imagine the situation being worse now.
Probably a DC area thing. Get outside that market/dealer conglomerate and it should be cheaper.
Believe it or not, yes.
I don’t know if it’s just my region, but the inventory for the dealers around here is basically a lie. Half their inventory is either “in transit” or “expected to become available in December”. They don’t even have a single available Sienna to go test drive. Yet somehow, they still sell every single one.
I guess in those circumstances, it’s pretty easy to get someone to pay at or above MSRP, if someone is so desperate for a Toyota that they basically purchase it sight unseen.
For whatever reason, Toyota has obviously decided that they are better off limiting production of Siennas and charging up the wazoo for them. I’d much rather have a deeply discounted Pacifica, having driven both.
I just can’t see paying the Toyota Tax plus a markup on a minivan. Or anything else they make really. They are good cars, but they just aren’t that much better than other options that sell for rather less in each class. I got my mother to buy a Prius – but it was a Prius V with $6K cash on the hood because “God Forbid, station wagon”. Good car, that. Shame she and my nephew killed it.
The Toyota Tax works both ways. You get it back when you onsell it.
Maybe, maybe not. And you pay interest and taxes on it in the meantime.
Granted i live in a heavily Toyota saturated market, their largest factory in the world is in my backyard, but for non employees its a pain in the rear to get a car without markup. If you want one of the hot ones (Sienna, RAV4 Prime TRD Pro) you have to get on a list even as an employee
Toyota could bring that wonderful little FJ and Hilux Champ to North America.
Get the 2 Door LC78. 4ltr V6, auto transmission.
Wishful thinking….
What could Toyota be doing even better?
Make the Supra and GR86 10% larger. They are incredibly cool cars, but it is hard to fit in either if you are above average size. Both would still be fun to drive if slightly larger, but far less hostile to the XXL gentleman (Mazda should also do the same with the Miata).
Aside from that, I don’t have a lot of criticism for Toyota. Their current lineup is excellent.
No, no, no, NO.
The entire automotive industry is predicated around “I wish it was just 10% bigger”
So, every generation of cars, from sub-compact to luxury SUVs just gets a little bit bigger, little bit fatter every single year. This is why we now have 4k pound two door coupes and 6k pound crossovers.
The Miata and GR86 need to be excused from this madness. If you don’t fit, lose some weight. If you’re too tall, understand that designing a car for the 5 percentile makes it measurably worse for the other 95%.
Agreed. The journalist feedback is forever “if it was just a bit bigger” every goddamn product cycle. So they grow until they’re now in the next size class, and a new model gets slotted in to the size category the car USED to be.
Then the cycle begins anew.
The answer, is to buy the right car. Corolla too small? Buy a Camry. Rav 4 too small? Buy a highlander. Tacoma too small? Buy a Tundra. GR86 too small? Buy a goddamn Supra.
I’d argue for the Kia Stinger to be about 10% smaller would have made me more interested in it.
That was the Genesis G70.
Was there a hatchback version in America that I missed?
No, but it is smaller on the same platform. As the Rolling Stones famously sang, you can’t always get what you want.
If only it just had a manual transmission…
I think the Stinger being about 10% less KIA and having a stick would have made me more interested in it, the size was fine, and the utility was great.
“The answer, is to buy the right car. “
Fine, but one question for you – if someone is 6’2″ and 250 lbs. (a fairly common size in the US), what is the right sports car for that person to buy?
I don’t disagree with you, but if the right car doesn’t exist, how can a person buy the right car?
Probably most offerings from German auto makers.
My wife is only 6′, but she’s all legs and she fit fine in my ’81 RX7 when she was 7 months pregnant.
I do fit in a 911 comfortably, although they are more expensive than I’m willing to pay. The Boxster/Cayman don’t work for me, unfortunately.
It is frustrating that nice, affordable sports cars exist that could be comfortable if they were just slightly larger. I don’t think I am asking for too much.
It is also frustrating that many commenters here are very critical of those who drive larger vehicles, yet those same people are hostile to a suggestion that minor size increases would allow larger people to enjoy small, desirable vehicles.
BMW also historically makes lots of room in their 2-door offerings.
The problem that everyone always gets hung up against is that “sporty” is antithesis to “large”. It takes considerable engineering to overcome that. That engineering costs money.
There’s a reason the 6’2″ 250lb dudes tend to play the “field” part of track & field.
I have heard the Z3 is surprisingly spacious inside. I haven’t had a chance to drive one yet. I couldn’t fit in a Z4, though.
Yeah, I’m definitely far more “track” than “field.” That is usually not a bad thing, but it sucks when it comes to fitting in cars.
I’m on the other end of the spectrum. At a towering 5’7″, I’ve had zero issues fitting in any car ever. One of the few perks of being a short guy, hah.
Me too, and I love it.
I’m 5’8″ and 130lbs, I even fit somewhat comfortably in the backseat of my air-cooled Beetle. I love getting into a car that has tight bucket seats, it feels like it was made just for me.
Air cooled Beetles are surprisingly roomy.
This is why I find the Supra so frustrating. A lot of small cars manage to be comfortable for larger people. Toyota seemed to go out of the way to make the Supra uncomfortably small.
Particularly for the front seat passengers, there’s lots of legroom with the seat all the way back and tons of headroom, I could wear a top hat and still not bump it on the headliner.
Haven’t been in a Supra but I know what you’re talking about. A small car should not be claustrophobic and the seats should be designed for more than one body type.
An asset for fighter pilots and space travel.
I’ve always relied on psychedelics for space travel.
I agree with this. I have a Boxster that I love but I would have something less costly and (probably) Japanese if they just provided more leg room. I am actually fine with being cramped at the waist and shoulder in a fun sports car if my legs would fit.
I remember trying to sit in a S2000 in the showroom when they were new and I couldn’t even get in the damn thing because the door hinge was placed too far back from the A-pillar and my knee wouldn’t bend enough to allow me to get my foot through the door opening.
It is frustrating all the great cars I’ll never be able to consider.
Removable steering wheel solves a lot of problems.
Old cars had far more space even on much smaller footprints. The inefficiency of interior packaging is something that’s largely ignored when it’s almost as laughably bad as Malaise Era domestics were before they downsized, it’s just not as glaringly obvious.
Well, I’m 6’3″ with an odd proportion (my legs are longer than the average 6’3″ person). I am a relatively thin 210 lbs though.
Because of this I was quite limited in shopping sports cars because very few provide adequate leg room and none of the Japanese offerings could be considered. I would love a Miata, or GR86 etc.
My recommendation is to shop for rear/mid engine placement cars. I got a CPO Boxster. Because of it being mid-engine there’s plenty of leg room for me.
When shopping for it, I drove multiple generations of Boxster and Cayman and all were adequate and even comfortable. If you’re heavier I suggest the 981 generation or newer since they improved the interior space quite a bit. The first car I’ve owned I didn’t push the seat back as far as it could go.
They can be pricey but there are enough out there you can find them in a lot of price ranges. You do have to work to find reasonable costs on service/repair though.
Part of the problem for me is I’m 6’2″ with a 30-inch inseam. I’m not particularly tall, but I am an outlier when it comes to seated height.
I probably am not going to find a small sports car I can drive with the top up. I can fit in a Boxster, but I look over the windshield. I could probably justify buying a cheaper, older Boxster to drive only when weather permits, though. A 918 Boxster might be worth a look.
If you find one with the power seat option (not all that common but it is a good one for me too) the seat will get quite low to the ground.
I would think you would have other options with American cars maybe? Although how many are left? Corvette, Mustang and… ?
You could try trimming the seat foam, or dropping it to the floor.
I had a Lancia that installing a sunroof made all the difference.
The seats from the Evo or the later Ralliart felt they could get a good 2″ closer to the floor than the standard ones.
I could fit those models easily, but the standard model left my head tapping the roofliner.
Holy hell, that’s some short legs and a long back! My spouse is the opposite. 6′ but with a 35-37″ inseam.
I have similar proportions.
I kept hearing some people complain about getting in an Elise (not the car’s real name) so when I had the chance tried one out.
Maybe I’m used to sports cars, but it felt easy first try!
As another 6’2″ person, I’m kind of surprised nobody has said “Mustang” yet.
Any German car ever. Boxster/Cayman/911 are designed for 6ft+ Germans.
Nice straw man argument.
Where was I arguing that all vehicles should be larger? We certainly don’t need an F150 or Suburban to be 10% larger. We don’t even need a Corolla or Civic to be 10% larger. I just want one damn sports car that can accommodate someone who is above average size. I’m not the size of an NFL lineman or NBA center, yet I have yet to find a sports car that I can fit in even remotely comfortably. Is that really unacceptable to ask for?
It’s not unacceptable to ask for, but I don’t think there’s a ton of money to be made in the “tall men with long torsos who want to drive a sports car but can’t afford a 911” segment. 🙁
That is a valid point.
I have heard smaller people complain about the Supra, though.
No, I feel you that it’s frustrating. The car that would most closely tick all my boxes is probably a Cayenne and I’m not affording that anytime soon.
But virtually everything is larger and a big reason they’ve gotten larger is because people kept asking for more space instead of moving up a segment. I get that often is down to cost—they didn’t want to pay for the next size up—but it results in bloat. Even back in the ’90s you had smaller cars introduced to take up the segment the previous holder grew out of and it’s only gotten more common since. Some of that, though, is the GD safety intruding on interior space and forcing people to move up/ask for more space. The Miata is one of the few that’s barely moved on size meaning it stays too cramped for me, but I’m glad it’s out there for people who can fit.
How is this relevant?
I’m not arguing that all vehicles should be larger. I’m also not arguing that vehicles haven’t increased in size over the years.
My one and only contention is that three sports cars (Supra, GR86, and Miata) should be slightly larger to allow larger drivers to enjoy them.
I am confused as to why a comment basically saying “I would like Toyota’s fun, affordable, really cool sports cars to be slightly larger so I, a car enthusiast of above average size, might be able to enjoy them” is getting this reaction.
Because making it larger makes it something else, likely not as affordable. For instance, the GR86 is based on a development of the old original Legacy platform, which no other car uses anymore, and is likely how it exists at all and I still don’t know how they make any money off it. Without knowing your specific fit issue, having to possibly change hard points would likely make it no longer viable or the marginal engine becomes an even bigger issue as it gets heavier, and then it doesn’t have the same feel of a lighter car, and there just aren’t many small cars left and some people like small cars. Maybe you’re just not meant to fit in them. Think of all the women out there who won’t date short men—you have one up on the short guys and they have their small cars.
That said, in the case of the GR86, at least, if your issue is height, the seat seems like it could have been designed to go lower as its lowest position is still kind of high and there might be aftermarket rails or something available to drop it down. Can’t say with the Supra. Miata? I’m shorter than you and even a lower seat wouldn’t be enough for me, so it’s just a car I accept I won’t buy.
“Because making it larger makes it something else, likely not as affordable.”
That is a valid point. I assumed Toyota could make the Supra or GR86 slightly larger without them being substantially more expensive or compromising performance, but that may not be the case.
I really don’t know much about the Supra other than it’s built off the Z4 platform by Magna Steyr. It might be cramped because of the Z4s convertible top location hard points restricting space, but that’s a guess. I don’t know where you’re finding it cramped, but if it’s a seat travel or height thing, there might be a solution out there for that if you check forums.
For me, the problem with both the Supra and GR86 is headroom. I couldn’t adjust the seat in either to a point where I could sit up without my head tilting sharply to the side. Same problem with the Miata and Z4. I presume there is just a limit as to how much headroom a vehicle that size can have.
Also, I should clarify that I don’t want the Supra and GR86 to be bigger for the sake of being bigger. If they could make them roomier while maintaining the same dimensions and weight that would be ideal. I doubt that is possible, though.
Do you think a lower seat would fix that? In the 86 at least, there’s easily a few inches if there were some kind of aftermarket rails or similar that would allow it. I’ve read that people have swapped in lower seats, but they might be fixed position and I would think you’d still want that fore-aft movement.
And yet people keep getting bigger and especially, taller. Particularly in the places with the disposable income to buy toy sports cars. There is a happy medium in vehicle size. Small cars need more people room, big vehicles need to be smaller. The trick is to make these cars a bit bigger in the right places, while keeping the weight the same. From personal experience, the current Miata could be notably more spacious inside if it was slightly less stupid inside. It doesn’t need a bigger footprint, it needs better packaging. The rear cabin area could be better designed to increase the cabin space, or at least allowing the seat to go all the way back without being church-pew bolt upright. There was a ton of hollow space back there that was just wasted.
Weight has nothing to do with it. Width and depth is largely irrelevant to fitting in a car – but I can’t lose *height*. So do fuck right off with the irrelevant fat-shaming. I fit just fine in a ’74 Spitfire that is 4/5ths the size of a current Miata and drive it all day (and a Spitfire has more room behind the seats than a Miata has in the trunk, PLUS a bigger trunk than a Miata), but I can’t comfortably drive an ND Miata for any length of time. It was literally painful after 30-40 minutes, and I *loved* that car (Fiata but the inside is identical) so I really tried to deal with it. But when you are literally limping after a drive it’s no bueno, so the car had to go.
Make the GR86 longer. Make the rear seat useable.
I’d make it my daily if I could comfortably fit my kid behind me rathe than ramming my seat into the rearseat in order to drive it.
Else ditch the rear seats.
Might as well add another set of doors, too. It’s a 2+2, which it’s called for a reason—it’s not a 4 seater—and that’s a category of car that’s been around for decades. Rear seats are for stuff, to allow the front seat back to recline, and maybe people in emergencies. I do daily mine and fit a ton of crap in it thanks to the folding rear seats. Making it a 2-seater makes it a heavier Miata and just as useless of a toy. It’s really not meant for families, certainly not as a primary car, and especially not if you’re already large. I get it, there are smaller cars I can’t fit in, but even if I could, I wouldn’t expect them to accommodate a kid, especially with today’s ridiculous space-capsule car seats. I’ve known people with 4-door vehicles who up-sized just to fit those damn things.
2+ a space for a small dog.
Not 2+2 people.
No argument there from me, but that’s what they’re like. Some are slightly better (especially old cars as they tended to be roomier), but none of them are places you’d want to stuff humans for long, especially with exceptionally tall people. I heard a long time ago that they were almost there more as an insurance discount thing and for additional luggage than meant for people, but that could very well be an urban legend sort of thing.
I stuffed two kids in car seats in the back in my ’86 in an emergency when my friend’s minivan broke down and it was rough. I was jammed up to the point where I could barely move enough to drive. Their mother is about 5’3″ and small and even she was pressed in like she was undergoing a Polar Cave challenge. The bigger kid actually fit better because he was in more of a booster that allowed his legs to dangle a bit whereas the other kid’s legs stuck out straight. As a joke where the consumer is the punchline, they include standard kid seat anchors when the hardest damn thing was trying to get the younger kid’s seat back there at all without damaging anything. I fit two sets of tires inside it far more easily.
No, they’re small and relatively light and one of them is amazingly cheap and that’s the point. There are plenty of bigger cars. Not to mention the GR86 has the same wheelbase as the first generation Legacy—it’s big enough. I find the Miata too small and cramped, but oh well, that’s my problem (though making a fastback coupe Miata with the convertible top well removed would fix that problem).
The size of the car is not necessarily related to how comfy it is for oversized people. I am always surprised that I get into full size pickups and my over-tall frame doesn’t fit because the seat rails are not long enough, but I can easily fit in a (modern) mini. Even four more inches of length in the Miata cockpit would open it up to a lot of us top-decile folks.
I find the GR86 to be pretty roomy. I would guess your problem is seat height? The seat even in the lowest setting is kind of high for a sports car, at least compared to old ones. There might be a way to get them lower aftermarket or something, but I don’t know. The seat bottom is also pretty cramped, but that was easily fixable for me. Don’t know how much more you’d have to do, but I took the covers off and sliced about 1/2 the bolster foam out and cut off the metal loop that reinforces them with bolt cutters. I have a 32″ inseam and have more than enough seat travel. I have more room for my knees than I do in much bigger vehicles (though it took about a week to find the perfect position thanks to the annoying start button).
What could Toyota be doing even better?
Finally abandoning Hydrogen. It’s really the only technological mistake they have and continue to make. While Akio Toyoda has been effectively dead on about every market trend, the billions dumped into Hydrogen Fuel Cell vehicles and technology would have gone far and wide to make their Hybrid tech even more game changing, as well as helped with EV competitiveness, and powertrains and motorsport ventures.
Hydrogen has always been a bit of a pet project for Toyota, but there remains zero future for it for the non-commercial vehicle space, the limitations and costs are far too great to be overcome when hybrids, PHEVS, and EVs do what Hydrogen promises but at scale and lower cost.
Put it another way, Hydrogen makes zero sense from an environmental or energy efficiency standpoint. Hydrogen may be the most abundant element, but getting it into a pure, stable form is extremely energy intensive, very often environmentally damaging, and the conversion into hydrogen and back to electricity is a net loss compared to just using battery power. It’s a neat concept, but a dead end. Otherwise Toyota continues to be the absolute best positioned automaker for the short and medium term state of vehicle sales.
Hydrogen research is subsidized by the Japanese government.
“Hydrogen makes zero sense from an environmental or energy efficiency standpoint. Hydrogen may be the most abundant element, but getting it into a pure, stable form is extremely energy intensive, very often environmentally damaging, and the conversion into hydrogen and back to electricity is a net loss compared to just using battery power.”
Your argument is weakened by the fact that Toyota has invested zero dollars in companies that produce hydrogen from electricity. The contract they do have for hydrogen supply at their port facility comes from a tri-gen carbonate fuel cell that generates 2.3 MW of electricity and also hot water at the same time as hydrogen.
I don’t think that’s entirely fair. The reason being, Toyota has long pushed Hybrids and PHEVs over BEVs because they are a more efficient use of resources, and better environmentally. Whether or not they invest or develop the infrastructure for producing and transporting Hyrdogen makes zero bearing on the fact that Hydrogen Fuel Cells for passenger cars are inherently a less efficient use of energy than PHEVs and BEVs.
If your are only comparing the electrical use of making hydrogen from water, then sure. This is a common fallacy called a false dilemma.
https://berc.berkeley.edu/news/methane-pyrolysis-alternative-producing-low-emission-hydrogen-feedstock
This is a good blog post written by a smart person. It only takes under 20% of the electricity to make a plasma that turns methane into solid carbon and hydrogen. The lowest quality carbon that is possible to produce can be used as an asphalt. How do you even compare the efficiency between water electrolysis and methane pyrolysis? Energy return over energy invested is a much more useful metric.
Back to electricity?
You just burn hydrogen and oxygen in a piston engine tuned for it.
It is far easier and cheaper to test fuel cell tech in cars than semi trucks.
“Instead, Toyota was careful and cautious, and invested heavily in hybrids as a bridge technology. That was clearly the right move.”
It was only the right move in hindsight from where you sit because America has lurched into the 1930’s.
In the regularly-scheduled timeline for the rest of the world, it was not a great choice.
“What could Toyota be doing even better?”
How about some actual talented designers for exteriors and interiors?
“In the regularly-scheduled timeline for the rest of the world, it was not a great choice.”
Nah, their point then and now still holds water. If the goal is reduced emissions, we can do more with 10 hybrid batteries than 1 EV battery pack. It’s what consumers want as well, even outside of the USDM.
While I would agree to this point at this exact moment in time, the goal of reduced emissions is better served by a majority EV fleet over hybrids. This has been shown again and again, and has been shown to be an even better outcome as the grid gets cleaner.
Until the buildout of battery manufacturing infrastructure (including getting the materials out of the ground) can meet a majority EV fleet, hybridization is a good stepping stone.
That assumes a limited supply of batteries – which was a thing a decade ago. Today there is an oversupply of batteries
I’m not so sure that’s a fair statement. Factoring out the cutbacks of EV incentives in the US, Hybrids and PHEVs continue to gain market share and traction in other North American markets, as well as Europe and much of Asia discounting China. EV sales by market share are still in the 15% range, while hybrids are seeing 10-20% YoY rises in market share.
Generally speaking, the argument Akio has made for a long time on hybrids is fairly sound, that for the resources of 1 EV you can make nearly 20 hybrids, or ~6 PHEVs, and the net reduction in emissions and fuel consumption from taking 20-50% of the load out of 20 or even 6 ICE only cars is far greater overall than replacing 1 full stop.
Hybrid adoption rates have been steadily climbing long before the anti-EV sentiment and discontinuation of benefits due to this administration came to be.
There’s basically no learning curve or compromise with hybrids unlike EVs, so the dramatically better fuel economy is appealing to a lot of “normal” people. My wife wants her next car to be a hybrid.
Subsidizing rich people buying battery cars is the opposite of market acceptance, and people that can’t afford new cars of any kind know they are paying to subsidize that artificial market.
No one is fooled.