Toyota Tundra 5.7 and CrewMax sales stronger than expected

They are effectively doing that, with $2000 in incentives on the regular cab, and $1000 on the Extra cab models.
 
Think about it, though - if the high-price high-margin models are in demand, then sell those! Listen to the customer.
 
There's no reason Toyota can't make a healthy profit selling trucks in the higher price segments.
 
Shoot, build tons of Crew Cabs with the big engine and see how many you can sell.

I'm with redliner on this. If the CrewMax is so coveted (and we all know how profitable top-o-the-line models are), then undercutting the base model should be more than offset by the CrewMax's premium.
 
Besides, as expensive as the Tundra has become, cutting the price could be a huge boon for sales. Heck, they might even reach that fantastic 200K trucks/year.

estreka
 
Is the CrewMax Tundra really that expensive? Limited trim level models are quite pricey, for sure, but the SR5 CrewMax models are relatively reasonable I think.
 
Then again, all the desirable (loaded!) full-size crew cab pickups—from all the makers—are priced out of this world.

Bob - I'm under the impression that the majority of sales has been well-equipped models. Even at $30K, Toyota is still making a pretty penny on these.
 
Now, this isn't a very fair comparision, but for argument's sake, let's say it costs Chevy and Toyota roughly the same price to build similar trucks (assuming the higher quality parts in the Tundra like 6AT offset the insane pension costs for Chevy). There's still an average $3000 price differential. Another argument is that Toyota doesn't have to ship these things from Japan or even Mexico and Canada (like Chevy does). Despite the impressive quality, I still think the Tundra has quite the premium with drastically less overhead costs than Chevy or Ford.

I think the issue with the Regular Cab models is not necessarily one of price, but one of content. If Toyota removed some of the standard equipment from the rigs, price would be inline with that of its competitors. I recall on tundrasolutions forums a price comparison that showed equilibrium or even a price advantage FOR the Tundra when models of competing vehicles are simlarly equipped.
 
Still, it will be very interesting to see how quickly Toyota can morph production to meet the unexpectedly high demands of the 381 horse 5.7L CrewMax and DoubleCabs. However, I think the organization would be smart to exercise caution in a reactive approach- today's demand could be dramatically different from tomorrow's or next month's, as the novelty of the new Tundra wears off and gas prices climax through the summer months.....
 
Joe

I've got to clear something up- an automatic transmission having six gears while another has only four doesn't make it "higher quality". More expensive, maybe, and definitely more adaptable (possibly more efficient too- but that depends on the design and gear ratios as much as anything else). So far as I can see, the new Tundra has NOTHING on the new GM trucks in the quality arena, nor in the design, fit, or finish. What it has is more power, and more gears, at least in the 5.7l top of the line drivetrain package.

Quality probably wasn't the right word to use. There is more engineering involved in the Tundra than the Silverado. If someone can come up with a better term, lemme know. My point still stands.

Jerry
 
All Tundras have more gears than the 1/-2-ton GM offerings. The 4.0 and 4.7 have 5-speed automatics, while the 5.7 gets a 6-speed automatic.

As I said, number of gears doesn't equate to "higher quality". I'm sure 6 cum 5 speed Camry owners might agree. The 4L60E may be old, but it's a well-tested transmission with lots of refinement. I may agree with many that I'd like to see the 6 speed (mostly about fuel economy), but only if it's at least as durable and smooth as the 4 speed has been. My only real point was and is, STOP trying to equate more complex transmissions with higher quality.

I don't think it's about quality, it's about content and purpose. Just because it's not broke doesn't mean it doesn't age. That's the kind of mentality that GM has had since... well, forever. It's the reason why they still have pushrod engines making appearances in vehicles that are marketed as "cutting edge" and "refined", and why the NorthStar hasn't been given a significant update in the past 10+ years.
 
The car biz is just as much of a technological-based industry as it is a business-based industry. Technology drives the business, and, unfortunately for GM, they're behind the 8-ball on a lot of the technology.

Jerry
 
I never said anything about higher quality.
 
My argument was, and still is, better work capability. This is especially true in a large full-size truck with a relatively small 4.0 or 4.7 engine. The more gears the better in terms of getting the most out of the engine.
 
While it's great that the large 5.7 has 6 gears, it could be argued that the 4.0 and 4.7 would be the engines in more need of 6 gears.

Okay. That's a very true and good point. Weaker engines benefit more from a greater choice of work multipliers (gears) to keep them in their (usually) relatively smaller sweet spots. Stronger (normally read: larger displacement) engines usually have a broader sweet spot, and are more capable of working well with fewer gears.
 
flicmod- sometimes older doesn't mean worse. A few things to keep in mind:
 
- more gears = more complexity
- more gears = more weight, less strength in individual components, and / or higher cost to engineer smaller / lighter components to be just as durable without increasing weight
- older can often mean much more refined (as lessons learned over time get applied to ongoing production- this is VERY much the case with the GM 4 speeds)
 
Now don't misunderstand. I think six speeds would benefit GMs trucks too over the 4 speeds. But I think the difference (at least insofar as efficiency is concerned) is less than some would like to make out. There's an issue with the whole GM vs. Toyota performance thing (Tundra 5.7 vs 5.3 / 6.0) that is more directly related to GM engine controls than any other single issue. I'm sure nobody missed the tests that showed that the 6.0 was handicapped by the ECU unless (or until) >4 seconds of WOT.. GM's conservative torque management strategies are widely documented and areas of major exploitation for cheap power increases by owners / modders. I'd argue that the six speed might lend the Toy an advantage, but every bit as slight as the fuel economy advantage, and that the engine programming has more to do with the performance discrepancies than the transmission.

Fair enough, jerry. Points taken.
 
I'm more in favor of technology and cutting edge design. I guess that's why I like Honda.

Jerrywimer, more gears doesnt necessarily mean more weight. There are plenty of manufacturers that tout their new 6 speed tranny weighs less and takes up less space than the 4/5 speed tranny it replaced. It also doesnt mean that durability or torque capacity will be altered either. Its time that American manufactures stop associating small with weak.
 
GM isnt the only manufacturer with torque management stratigies, other manufacturers have been doing this for years. Ever see a (K20) 2.0 liter Honda uncorked with a lil ECU tuning? Ive seen over 250WHP and 190lb ft of torque with NO internal modifications.