School Essay on Toyota

[NorCalToy]

I have to write a persuasive essay for my english class. The topic I chose is "WHy you should buy a Toyota instead of any other vehicle" SO. I need some points about why a Toyota is better than any other brand if you were gonna buy a new vehicle.

So far Iv got:

-Supports American Labor with factories inside US
-Proven more reliable


Essay is due in full on friday


Jerry92toy added:

-Large aftermarket support
-Out of the box off road ability

[junya92toy]

Its highly customizable, it can go offroad stock very well. the drivetrain is great. the engines are too, they tread lightly,

[catfish]

resale, durebility, customer service

[bigarms23]

that you still see 79-present yr Toyota's on the road today versus other vehicle makes and models

[46&2]

Their legendary reputation around the world. Trusted in more out of the way places, potentially deadly areas than any brand I know of.

[46&2]

You might also note how piss poor American automotive companies have fared in the recent years compared to Toyota

[ROKTOY829]

I would also talk about how many jobs there are due to tms. usa

[NorCalToy]

Thanks for the Ideas guys keep em comin. I had to go check in with my teacher and she was impressed with the number of reasons a Toyota is better.

[Sparkplug]

I dont know about later models, but my 81 has been cheap as hell to find parts for, and easy as cake to work on.

[46&2]

I dont know about later models, but my 81 has been cheap as hell to find parts for, and easy as cake to work on.

Yeah, even the 95-04 tacomas are still easy to work on. Can't speak for the 05+ cuz I have never tinkered with one of those.

[RokCrawlinToy]

Some cool things I learned about Toyota when I worked for them.
"Kaizen" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaizen Continous improvement. Its part of the work ethic.
Also on the production line, if someone see's something wrong, regradless of who they are. They can stop the production line so that the problem can be addressed.
Their production efficiency is something like 105% or more IIRC. They have been by domestic auto mfgs. to come to their factories to consult them about improving their factory productivity.
When they look at the companies future, they are not looking 3-5 years ahead, they are thinking 50-100 years ahead and what it will take to get them there.
One thing that I was   by is, Toyota has enough cash in the bank. They could stop selling cars world wide for 5 years and still make payroll!!!

[46&2]

Some cool things I learned about Toyota when I worked for them.
"Kaizen" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaizen Continous improvement. Its part of the work ethic.
Also on the production line, if someone see's something wrong, regradless of who they are. They can stop the production line so that the problem can be addressed.
Their production efficiency is something like 105% or more IIRC. They have been by domestic auto mfgs. to come to their factories to consult them about improving their factory productivity.
When they look at the companies future, they are not looking 3-5 years ahead, they are thinking 50-100 years ahead and what it will take to get them there.
One thing that I was  by is, Toyota has enough cash in the bank. They could stop selling cars world wide for 5 years and still make payroll!!!

Wow, very interesting information!!!

[junya92toy]

I see my last post was removed because it was not PC. SO here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_War

[ROKTOY829]

The car company was a spin off of the textile company and it orginal spelling is toyoda if you look at some of the parts it still says toyoda. If my history is correct toyota just about went under in the korean war and if it wasn't for GM asking toyota to help out on the vehicle orders they would have. Also there are alot of gm cars that are toyota built.

[Steve_925]

i think one of the big things is there re-sale value

[Stocker]

Better resale not only means you can get more money when you sell it -- it also means it will probably sell more quickly & easily.


Better reliability = less down time (obviously, duh! ) which means a lot less aggravation and inconvenience for private individuals, and a lot less $$$ lost for business owners.

[thegoofster21]

Yeah, even the 95-04 tacomas are still easy to work on. Can't speak for the 05+ cuz I have never tinkered with one of those.

yeah my 04 is easy to work on

[madmax886]

i think one of the big things is there re-sale value

ya you should include a general price for like a 95 4runner to a 95 ford explorer, or simular genaric vehicle, then compare the 2 or somethin

[madmax886]

and maybe include that the ford explorer was the most turned in vehicle for cash for clunckers haha

[Yoat Goat]

Car and driver or consumer reports said '98 tacoma's were the most reliable pickup ever made.

[zembalayan]

If you had a little more time, you could develop an argument that describes the stringent Japanese "Shaken" policy/system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaken) , which rarely allows Japanese consumers a chance at keeping their new Toyotas for more than a few years because ultimately the vehicles will fail required vehicle inspections, and the consumers will have to fork out a ton of Yen for repairs and inspection fees to keep their beloved used cars on the road.  Because the Shaken policy basically forces consumers to replace their vehicles every three years or so with brand new cars, the Japanese manufacturers do not have to worry about losing future sales because they over-engineered or built their cars too well; furthermore, because Toyota, like other Japanese car makers, fanatically wanted to lift its world wide reputation above and beyond all other manufacturers, Toyota knew that the exportation of used Japanese vehicles, which would be discarded by the original Japanese owners due to Shaken laws, meant their vehicles had to continue to kick ass overseas to build Toyota's reputation and to allow it to carve out a bigger world wide market share.  Truly, the side benefit of Shaken is that Japanese consumers continue to export all of their good used vehicles to other countries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_used_vehicle_exporting) for probably pretty good resale prices, while at the same time the auto manufacturers continue to reap the benefit of a government policy that forces Japanese consumers to buy new vehicles whether they need to or not, which in turn may drive real and quicker-paced design innovation to capture the higher expectations and technologically savvy tastes of Japanese new car buyers.

Compare this Shaken/Used-Car-Exportation system with what exists in the United States. Over here, many people drive their junk for a lot longer than Japanese consumers do (because they can).  Also, many people over here buy new cars whenever their warranties expire because they fear high repair costs and inconvenience.  This trend to buy a car for a new warranty illustrates the low expectations of U.S. new car buyers, and the reason I'd rather own a 1980 Toyota Hi-lux.  I certainly didn't purchase mine last year for the warranty.
When you think about it, hardly anyone in the United States buys a new car because he expects to drive it for 30 years, well intending to exceed the terms of the warranty.  

Then we come to the idea of "planned obsolescence."  In the U.S., manufacturers will never benefit in terms of future and continuous new car sales by building vehicles that are designed to last for 50 years.  They know that consumers would keep and cherish these types of vehicles for a lifetime or at least until TRUE innovations in technology persuade them to buy something new or better.  By incorporating planned obsolescence, manufacturers can build junk that conks out right on cue with consumers' low expectations that they have to buy new cars with warranties.   I'd even say that Toyota knew that without any planned obsolescence for its U.S. motor designs they might last too long and hurt new car sales as well; you can see this change in its R Series engine design when it converted from the double row timing chain to a single row design in the 1980s.  Why was this change made?  Did it save money?  Probably, yes.  Will it wear out quicker and require enough future maintenance costs to drive someone to just buy another vehicle?  Maybe and maybe not.   Toyota never sold the 22R in Japan, and its reputation for reliability had already been solidified by that time, which hints at its move to not "overbuild" its newer 22Rs.

This is just my opinion, which I thought might be interesting to put forth for the essay writer or general discussion.  I am certainly not advocating for the U.S. to enact a Shaken-like system that would take my Toy babies off the road and thwart aftermarket Toy innovators.  No way, but we owe some gratitude to the Japanese consumer who has to buy all of the new stuff so we can benefit through this side-effect.  

I remember when some of my buddies from Japan expressed their shock at seeing all of the old junk cars still on the road when they visited me in the U.S., which is something you don't see in Japan.  

[Halladay]

chicks dig'em 

[NorCalToy]

If you had a little more time, you could develop an argument that describes the stringent Japanese "Shaken" policy/system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaken) , which rarely allows Japanese consumers a chance at keeping their new Toyotas for more than a few years because ultimately the vehicles will fail required vehicle inspections, and the consumers will have to fork out a ton of Yen for repairs and inspection fees to keep their beloved used cars on the road.  Because the Shaken policy basically forces consumers to replace their vehicles every three years or so with brand new cars, the Japanese manufactures do not have to worry about losing future sales because they over-engineered or built their cars too well; furthermore, because Toyota, like other Japanese car makers, fanatically wanted to lift its world wide reputation above and beyond all other manufacturers, Toyota knew that the exportation of used Japanese vehicles, which would be discarded by the original Japanese owners due to Shaken laws, meant their vehicles had to continue to kick ass overseas to build Toyota's reputation and to allow it to carve out a bigger world wide market share.  Truly, the side benefit of Shaken is that Japanese consumers continue to export all of their good used vehicles to other countries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_used_vehicle_exporting) for probably pretty good resale prices, while at the same time the auto manufacturers continue to reap the benefit of a government policy that forces Japanese consumers to buy new vehicles whether they need to or not, which in turn may drive real and quicker-paced design innovation to capture the higher expectations and technologically savvy tastes of Japanese new car buyers.

Compare this Shaken/Used-Car-Exportation system with what exists in the United States. Over here, many people drive their junk for a lot longer than Japanese consumers do (because they can).  Also, many people over here buy new cars whenever their warranties expire because they fear high repair costs and inconvenience.  This trend to buy a car for a new warranty illustrates the low expectations of U.S. new car buyers, and the reason I'd rather own a 1980 Toyota Hi-lux.  I certainly didn't purchase mine last year for the warranty.
When you think about it, hardly anyone in the United States buys a new car because he expects to drive it for 30 years, well intending to exceed the terms of the warranty. 

Then we come to the idea of "planned obsolescence."  In the U.S., manufactures will never benefit in terms of future and continuous new car sales by building vehicles that are designed to last for 50 years.  They know that consumers would keep and cherish these types of vehicles for a lifetime or at least until TRUE innovations in technology persuade them to buy something new or better.  By incorporating planned obsolescence, manufacturers can build junk that conks out right on cue with consumers' low expectations that they have to buy new cars with warranties.   I'd even say that Toyota knew that without any planned obsolescence for its U.S. motor designs they might last too long and hurt new car sales as well; you can see this change in its R Series engine design when it converted from the double row timing chain to a single row design in the 1980s.  Why was this change made?  Did it save money?  Probably, yes.  Will it wear out quicker and require enough future maintenance costs to drive someone to just buy another vehicle?  Maybe and maybe not.   Toyota never sold the 22R in Japan, and its reputation for reliability had already been solidified by that time, which hints at its move to not "overbuild" its newer 22Rs.

This is just my opinion, which I thought might be interesting to put forth for the essay writer or general discussion.  I am certainly not advocating for the U.S. to enact a Shaken-like system that would take my Toy babies off the road and thwart aftermarket Toy innovators.  No way, but we owe some gratitude to the Japanese consumer who has to buy all of the new stuff so we can benefit through this side-effect. 

I remember when some of my buddies from Japan expressed their shock at seeing all of the old junk cars still on the road when they visited me in the U.S., which is something you don't see in Japan. 

wow good read



GOt my Paper all written. Thanks for the help everyone! Turtle points all around

[46&2]

If you had a little more time, you could develop an argument that describes the stringent Japanese "Shaken" policy/system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaken) , which rarely allows Japanese consumers a chance at keeping their new Toyotas for more than a few years because ultimately the vehicles will fail required vehicle inspections, and the consumers will have to fork out a ton of Yen for repairs and inspection fees to keep their beloved used cars on the road.  Because the Shaken policy basically forces consumers to replace their vehicles every three years or so with brand new cars, the Japanese manufactures do not have to worry about losing future sales because they over-engineered or built their cars too well; furthermore, because Toyota, like other Japanese car makers, fanatically wanted to lift its world wide reputation above and beyond all other manufacturers, Toyota knew that the exportation of used Japanese vehicles, which would be discarded by the original Japanese owners due to Shaken laws, meant their vehicles had to continue to kick ass overseas to build Toyota's reputation and to allow it to carve out a bigger world wide market share.  Truly, the side benefit of Shaken is that Japanese consumers continue to export all of their good used vehicles to other countries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_used_vehicle_exporting) for probably pretty good resale prices, while at the same time the auto manufacturers continue to reap the benefit of a government policy that forces Japanese consumers to buy new vehicles whether they need to or not, which in turn may drive real and quicker-paced design innovation to capture the higher expectations and technologically savvy tastes of Japanese new car buyers.

Compare this Shaken/Used-Car-Exportation system with what exists in the United States. Over here, many people drive their junk for a lot longer than Japanese consumers do (because they can).  Also, many people over here buy new cars whenever their warranties expire because they fear high repair costs and inconvenience.  This trend to buy a car for a new warranty illustrates the low expectations of U.S. new car buyers, and the reason I'd rather own a 1980 Toyota Hi-lux.  I certainly didn't purchase mine last year for the warranty.
When you think about it, hardly anyone in the United States buys a new car because he expects to drive it for 30 years, well intending to exceed the terms of the warranty. 

Then we come to the idea of "planned obsolescence."  In the U.S., manufactures will never benefit in terms of future and continuous new car sales by building vehicles that are designed to last for 50 years.  They know that consumers would keep and cherish these types of vehicles for a lifetime or at least until TRUE innovations in technology persuade them to buy something new or better.  By incorporating planned obsolescence, manufacturers can build junk that conks out right on cue with consumers' low expectations that they have to buy new cars with warranties.   I'd even say that Toyota knew that without any planned obsolescence for its U.S. motor designs they might last too long and hurt new car sales as well; you can see this change in its R Series engine design when it converted from the double row timing chain to a single row design in the 1980s.  Why was this change made?  Did it save money?  Probably, yes.  Will it wear out quicker and require enough future maintenance costs to drive someone to just buy another vehicle?  Maybe and maybe not.   Toyota never sold the 22R in Japan, and its reputation for reliability had already been solidified by that time, which hints at its move to not "overbuild" its newer 22Rs.

This is just my opinion, which I thought might be interesting to put forth for the essay writer or general discussion.  I am certainly not advocating for the U.S. to enact a Shaken-like system that would take my Toy babies off the road and thwart aftermarket Toy innovators.  No way, but we owe some gratitude to the Japanese consumer who has to buy all of the new stuff so we can benefit through this side-effect. 

I remember when some of my buddies from Japan expressed their shock at seeing all of the old junk cars still on the road when they visited me in the U.S., which is something you don't see in Japan. 

Very interesting. I had heard of the Shaken policy but didn't know what it was called or how it worked. Thanks for the information.