Toyota Motor Corp. (TM)

All Comments on TM

  • commenter
    Gumby
    Aug 17 02:37 PM
    Automaker Rebadging Revisited [view article]
    If I prefer imports over GM or Ford, I would buy imports as long as GM and Ford is still financially sound. It is quite the opposite lately, I would reconsider GM and Ford this time around until they get back on thier own feet. This is not the time to compare now, we should know by now that GM and Ford might not be around much longer if we continue to wear blinders. It is like watching a huge ice block breaking off the ice shelf down there in the Antarctica. Once GM and Ford goes, so will the rest of the American industry. Maybe General Electric, 3M, Caterpillar, Dow Chemical will be next to go down the tubes.. We already lost a lot of companies over the past decades. Reply
  • commenter
    Gumby
    Aug 17 02:31 PM
    Automaker Rebadging Revisited [view article]
    What do you mean? Do you mean that readers are having trouble believing what J D Powers and those other quality examiners are saying? People have no trouble believing what JD Powers say about imports but not our domestic models? Is that what you are talking about?
    I think the real reason we are wary about our domestic makers stems largely from the quarrels between managements and unions. Either unions or managments got to shut up and do the job! This will do the trick!     Reply
  • commenter
    failureengin
    eer
    Aug 17 01:45 PM
    Automaker Rebadging Revisited [view article]
    Great idea! GM does sell some very good vehicles (including the mentioned Malibu as well as their Avalanche pickup). Some other brands would be enhanced if they sold select GM vehicles - I'm thinking Hyndai/Kia perhaps. GM probably needs to start importing their Korean product to the US as well for traditional badge engineering. They do it in the rest of the world where they are marketed as Chevys. Just don't remind everyone of the origin manufacturer - Dawoo! Reply
  • commenter
    SpclEd
    Aug 17 01:43 PM
    Automaker Rebadging Revisited [view article]
    This is one of my Main complaints with GM, cross pollination. A couple of examples: Saturn's Sky (If Saturn wants a 2 seat roadster, then let them design one! Stealing Pontiac's is so lame); any GMC truck vs. Chevy Trucks (Is the U.S. consumer this stupid to think there is a nickles difference between a GMC and Chevy truck?). Big frinkin' deal there's interior differences, like that in the Cadillac Escalade. It's the same truck design.

    All manufactures do this to a degree. What's the difference? The Author attempted to answer this. It is the perceived low evel of quality of U.S. auto products, regardless of how it is badged.

    Stop the cross pollenation and put Engineering first.     Reply
  • commenter
    bearfund
    Aug 17 01:24 PM
    Forget $100 a Barrel - Oil Will Plummet to $30 [view article]
    If you think the run-up to $147 was analogous to the early 1980s spike, your downside overshoot target should be $46 and your long-term uptrend (recovery) line sits near $80. And yes, for those of you arguing that the recession will lend further downside pressure, there was a recession in the early 1980s, too (two of them, actually). A target price much below $50 at any date is highly suspect, and any long-term forecast that has oil falling is even moreso.

    My personal expectations are for a 10-year average (2007-2016) in the $100-120 area; we may see $60-70 along the way but anything much lower than that would require outright global collapse. Worth noting is that many of the major oil producers are already priced as though oil is at $60-70. I sold most of my position in STO at 40 but will consider any move below 25 an opportunity to accumulate. There are other healthy producers starting to look very cheap as well and further deterioration in oil shares will present long-term investors with solid long opportunities.

    I'm curious about one thing, though. The author claims to be short USO. Are you really, or are those fictitious shares? USO has been on the reg SHO threshold list for 289 days and in my experience has been impossible to borrow. It was quite interesting to watch the SEC vigorously attack hypothetical naked Fannie shorts (despite the issue never appearing on the reg SHO list) while ignoring the longstanding USO fails. I'd be outraged but frankly who is surprised? Official manipulation is the name of the game these days. Wouldn't surprise me if the USO fails were coming from the US Treasury itself.     Reply
  • commenter
    Realsit
    Aug 17 01:16 PM
    Forget $100 a Barrel - Oil Will Plummet to $30 [view article]
    Brown calls California a model of energy efficiency; Calls for R&D tax
    breaks

    "...How do we afford to buy the foreign oil?" he asked rhetorically.
    "The fact is we can't afford not to. That is why efficiencies are
    critical."


    He said the federal government has failed to address these problems,
    choosing instead to ignore them. He added it is time for the country
    as a whole to start listening more. When asked how much stock he put
    into Peak Oil theories - a belief that the world has reached the peak
    of its oil production and will soon face severe shortages - Brown said
    it's better to think ahead than remain skeptical.


    "(Peak Oil) is certainly a risk," Brown said. "If you totally ignore
    it you'll be caught with your pants down it will be pretty bad. So you
    have to pay attention. Oil is going to get harder to get and more
    expensive. That's a fact."

    www.legalnewsline.com/...     Reply
  • commenter
    Larry
    Bellehumeur
    Aug 17 01:04 PM
    Forget $100 a Barrel - Oil Will Plummet to $30 [view article]
    You're missing an important point.....if Oil were to drop that low, many of the projects that are going to fill in for the dropping capacity of fields like Cattarell and the North Sea come from sources that cost more to get the stuff out of the ground (like Off shore and Oil Sands). At that low of a price, these projects stop being financially feasible and will cease, dramatically reducing supply.

    As for Oil being plentiful, you might be the only one with this opinion....


     Reply
  • commenter
    theBike45
    Aug 17 12:36 PM
    Automaker Rebadging Revisited [view article]
    I couldn't agree more - building better cars so you can build up the image of another company rather than yoor own is possibly the most brainless idea anyone ever came up with. And the idea that those who remember the bad old models GM produced years ago will forever be the car buying public apparently forgets that the population constantly ages and new youngsters come along who don't have any memories of bad GM products. Altogether, one of the lamest articles I've seen in quite some time. Alpha can be proud - you're number one in the idiot journalism hit parade. Reply
  • commenter
    Chubbs
    Aug 17 12:30 PM
    Forget $100 a Barrel - Oil Will Plummet to $30 [view article]
    An article like this means it is time to buy oil and oil stocks. Reply
  • commenter
    hoffman23
    Aug 17 11:13 AM
    Automaker Rebadging Revisited [view article]
    The premise is soooooo stupid !!! Haven't you heard of the "Internet"? Every car website shows badge engineering within a company and badge engineering between companies ( see Matrix and Vibe). Have your people run out of ideas? Subaru is a Northeast US brand. It has little traction in the marketplace other than quirky 4x4's. At GM, it is a process getting the buyers back. Probably slower than desired, but check the Malibu's sales. They selling everything they can produce. Reply
  • commenter
    dr. detroit
    Aug 17 11:09 AM
    Automaker Rebadging Revisited [view article]
    What analysis have you done to determine that selling a Volt as a Subaru would achieve higher volumes that as a Chevy? If 10% of Chevy buyers pick a Volt, that would still be a higher volume than if 20% of Subaru buyers chose it. As for building the brand, becoming a supplier to another OEM is not a brand building exercise (how many end customers have ever heard of Magna?)! Reply
  • commenter
    greygoat
    Aug 17 10:54 AM
    Automaker Rebadging Revisited [view article]
    I couldn't agree more - why does GM stick with the same brands? Let them go - perception is reality. I don't want to buy a Chevy. Reply
  • commenter
    WEBISKING
    Aug 17 06:09 AM
    My Website
    Forget $100 a Barrel - Oil Will Plummet to $30 [view article]
    President of gulf oil said we will be under 100 by year end however 30$ is unreasonable.Oncean asset becomes"cheap&quo... conservation is no longer an issue Reply
  • commenter
    User 169775
    Aug 17 03:14 AM
    Brand Names: Important, But Not Key to Investment Decisions [view article]
    ...Except even though people thought the Japanese cars in the 70s and 80s weren't well-built, they still bought them in droves because they got BETTER FUEL ECONOMY.

    This year it's history repeating itself-- People buying Toyota Corollas that can get 30mpg COMBINED (not just highway as GM and Ford have been advertising) because of $4/gallon gas.

    Ford and GM needs to realize that not only do they need to build cars that are put together well, they also need to make cars that are MORE FUEL EFFICIENT than the Japanese if they want to regain market share in North America.

    The situation in Europe for Ford is not applicable here in North America. Ford is doing well in Europe because they have less-stringent emissions laws, which means Ford's fuel-efficient diesel cars are a big hit there. They can NEVER sell those diesels as-is here, because they don't meet the EPA's Tier2 emissions standards.

    The situation for GM in China is also NOT applicable for the North American market-- GM is doing well in China because gas is still cheap there at $2 a gallon, and the noveau-riche Chinese middle class don't mind buying gas-guzzlers because of that.

    Until one of the Big Three can produce a 50mpg car that is street-legal in the U.S. with comparable reliability and cost about the same as the Toyota Prius, they are not going to gain back market share in the era of $4/gallon gas.

    (Don't bother mentioning the Chevy Volt. Sucker is going to cost $40,000 and by the time it comes out Toyota will have its 3rd-gen PHEV Prius with similar 40-mile-electric capability in the showrooms for $30,000.)     Reply
  • commenter
    Jim Dale
    Aug 17 02:10 AM
    My Website
    The Electric Car Battery Battle [view article]
    I can't believe how this article and all these replies contain:
    --- Only one reference to Phoenix Motorcars ( phoenixmotorcars.com )
    --- Not a single references to Altair Nanotechnologies ( altairnano.com ).

    The Phoenix Motorcars SUTs (Sports Utility Trucks) are 4-door all-electric EV trucks that can haul 4 people and a piano 100 MPH down the highway and go 130 miles on one 10-minute ($3) charge!
    That is thanks to the NanoSafe battery from Altair Nanotechnologies.

    The NanoSafe generates virtually no heat while charging (allowing the quick 10-minute charge when you have a 480v triple-phase power supply).
    These batteries have a base similar to lithium-ion, but they use nano-structured lithium-titanate instead of the graphite used in lithium-ion batteries (on the cathode? ... I forget).

    This eliminates the heat & breakdown problems common to lithium-ion and tests indicate that you'd have to drive that EV about a million miles worth of charges/discharges before those NanoSafe batteries would lose a lousy 4% of their charging capacity!

    Unlike just about all other batteries, they have a full 100% range depth of charge.
    What does that mean?
    You can fully charge and fully discharge them without hurting them in the least.
    It doesn't matter how much they're charged at any time ... even when you store them for a long time.
    With most batteries, there's a narrow middle-range you must keep them charged within .. or they break down.
    With the NanoSafe, you can fully charge them and/or discharge them... unlike others.
    No "memory" effects, either (like with NiCad, etc.).

    Because of the safe, fast charge/discharge rates, the NanoSafe have extremely high efficiency in handling regenerative braking, whereas other batteries are on the opposite (low percentage).
    If you're driving a Phoenix EV in stop-and-go city traffic, you'll get even better mileage than on the highway due to the regenerative braking (and it'll also save your brakes in the meantime).
    I think the regenerative braking for the Phoenix is up in the 90% range of efficiency whereas it's down around the 20% range for most other batteries.
    (Since the others can't charge that fast, they therefore have to throw away most of the energy produced from the regenerative braking.)

    Phoenix Motorcars hopes to deliver their first products to their first fleet-order customer, PG&E (Pacific Gas & Electric), around late September or early October (less than a couple months away).
    All of Phoenix's first customers will be California fleet customers initially (for about a year).
    That way they can work with those customers and fine-tune things during that period ... like a "dress rehearsal" ... before they let them loose to the general consumer public.

    PG&E is working on setting up an electric grid for charging these in that northern California area ... but you can still charge them at home for about $3 for a full 130-mile charge. (It's just a slower charge at home, since you don't have much power there.)

    I got to drive one at a Dallas unveiling last year.
    I was invited as one of the Phoenix's few private investors (for about 7 years now).
    (Was already doing business with it's founders before they started it.)
    Phoenix Motorcars is not publicly traded, but Altair Nanotechnologies is (ALTI).

    Phoenix is the only one (so far) in the States that uses the NanoSafe.
    The Lightning GT, recently unveiled in Great Britain, is the only other vehicle in the world (so far) that also uses the NanoSafe.
    Those can go from 0 to 60 in less than 4 seconds.

    -- Jim Dale
    (not to be confused with Jim Kingsdale, the author of the article)     Reply
Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
Quick Links: