Toyota Could Shake Up the Market With a New Hilux

Toytoa hilux

What might the next-generation Toyota Hilux look like? That's what our colleagues at have started to wonder about by imagining what direction the next global-platform midsize Toyota pickup truck could take.

Typically used as a workhorse construction truck around the world, the 46-year-old midsize Hilux is unique for Toyota in that the platform is not identical to the midsize Toyota Tacoma sold and built in the U.S., although it's essentially the same size and lives in the same segment. And now that the two pickups are closer together in look and feel, some are suggesting that the next Hilux could take a step forward in design to better compete with a new crop of global competitors.'s photo rendering mixes some of the newer design language Toyota has infused in the new Highlander SUV and Tundra pickup with some global spice from the Volkswagen Amarok. We're not saying we think this is what Toyota is likely to do, but it does shed light on the age-old question about how long Toyota will keep the Tacoma and Hilux on such divergent paths. And does this strategy make sense with the possibility of more competitors in the global market (think China and Ford Ranger) as well as here in the U.S. (think Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon)? Brynes photo rendering



Who cares? Really?


The concept photo makes the truck look like a slammed El Camino clone.

@ Len

I could think of one cry b@by who would probably care.

TFL Truck someone took a picture of 3 of these trucks headed north out of Florida on I-95. From just looking at the pictures they look a lot like the T6 ranger.

I had several friends that were disappointed when these trucks came out.They thought they were going to be compact 4 cylinder and get good gas mileage

My bad This last post was for the Honda Ridgeline.

I would think the next Tacoma will be a Hilux.

I hope they will come with a BMW 2 litre diesel. BMW have versions of this diesel with over 210hp and 400ftlb of torque.

I don't see the 4 litre V6 as a viable engine as it's quite thirsty in the fuel department and lacks the FE, towing and pulling power of a diesel.

I bet the size will be competitive with the Amarok/Ranger as well, since it's apparent that most global midsizers have moved up in size.

Australia has done much of the chassis and suspension work for the new Hilux, so it will like most Australian designed chassis and suspensions work very well.

The ToyotaTacoma is a whimp compared to the global Hilux, the Hilux is like a half ton truck here.

Not going to happen. Old, underpowered, out of date, and not up to our quality standards.

I agree with Tom Lemon. A new Tacoma won't be much of a shake up. More like a blip on the radar. A few years ago Zubaz tried to resurrect baggy parachute pants that were opular in the 90's. There was a little buzz, but they didn't catch on like they did 20+ years ago.

Agreed. It is interesting there seems to be a big difference in the smaller selling 2WD model and the 4WD

"shake up" LOL not a chance... GMC canyon powered with a 2.8l diesel getting 32mpg and towing 10k that everyone is clammering for is going to shake up Toyota and shock with sales that will sink the Taco. PERIOD

@woodpud - The Hilux would be about a 1/4 ton here. You can't overlook its small brakes, small bearings, small bushings, small axles, small drive shafts, small splines, small u-joints, small ball joints, small tie rods, small tires, and small everything else.

When it comes down to it, American buyers of luxury 4X4 crew cabs aren't expecting (and not getting) much payload. It doesn't matter if you're talking fullsize or midsize.

Every option you add to a base stripper, 2wd pickup (of any class), subtracts directly from its gross rating.

Typically used as a terrorist truck around the world with a machine gun mounted in the bed.

Someone a few weeks ago posted pictures of the Hilux in Victoria, (Ballarat or Bendigo) it look proportionally different.

Somehow the aspect ratio of this image is distorted.

I'm very interested in seeing what underneath and all of the electronic aids.

Toyota has a habit of providing marginally less than other manufacturers and expecting the consumer to pay more.

I do think it will be robust. Our current Hilux has a stronger frame than you current Taco. The Taco frame is SUV based on the Surf/4Runner.

Suspension I bet will be coil overs and rear leafs with a disc/drum setup, 6spd manual/auto. The powerplants on offer will be very interesting. Toyota gas and diesel engines are getting old.

Our base model pickups now come with all the connectivity, all the acronyms for traction, braking, towing, A/C, powerwindows, cloth seats, etc. All they need is carpet in the vehicle and they would be midspec.

So competition is getting fiercer. The Chinese, Indians, Spanish, Argentinian, Japanese, Aussies, Korean, British, Sth Africans, US, Mexico and more all provide pickups.

Having a choice is great. I do hope this Toyota leads the way and forces the others to progress and improve.

Many brands encourages this.

When Canada eases it import restrictions I hope you do get a larger range of pickups.

@Big Al from Oz - I would like to see our economy become less tied to the USA. We've already seen that happen in the lumber industry courtesy of USA import tariffs on softwood lumber. We adapted by selling more wood to the orient. The housing collapse did affect our industry but it was insignificant in relation to past USA housing slumps.

According to this article from late last year Australia has a significant input into the new Hilux. It is becoming apparent that Australia is becoming a leading pickup designing nation.

I hope we keep on designing SUVs and pickups/utes and muscle cars. (Sounds like we are in competition with another country famous for pickups, muscle cars and SUVs ;)

But we built the worlds most awarded pickup the Ranger, the quickest pickup in the Maloo. It will be a hard act to follow ;)

This comment will stir a bit of 'nationalistic' banter.

People who keep looking for a conservative company like Toyota to do something radical in the powertrain are sure to be disappointed. Toyota's four, six and eight cylinder gas engines are very competitive, especially within the market/product space for mid size and full size pickups.

The added cost of a diesel engine takes the price for a mid-trim Tacoma out of the reach of buyers at this price point. The Tacoma is already the higher priced selection here, and with GM bringing the new Colorado/Canyon models out in a few months, there is no way that Toyota will give diesel anything more than lip service, at least in North America.

People who keep looking for a conservative company like Toyota to do something radical in the powertrain are sure to be disappointed. Toyota's four, six and eight cylinder gas engines are very competitive, especially within the market/product space for mid size and full size pickups.

The added cost of a diesel engine takes the price for a mid-trim Tacoma out of the reach of buyers at this price point. The Tacoma is already the higher priced selection here, and with GM bringing the new Colorado/Canyon models out in a few months, there is no way that Toyota will give diesel anything more than lip service, at least in North America.

People who keep looking for a conservative company like Toyota to do something radical in the powertrain are sure to be disappointed. Toyota's four, six and eight cylinder gas engines are very competitive, especially within the market/product space for mid size and full size pickups.

The added cost of a diesel engine takes the price for a mid-trim Tacoma out of the reach of buyers at this price point. The Tacoma is already the higher priced selection here, and with GM bringing the new Colorado/Canyon models out in a few months, there is no way that Toyota will give diesel anything more than lip service, at least in North America.

PUTC liked my last comment so much it was copied 2x

I agree with papa jim that Toyota is a conservative company and will wait to see what happens with the new Colorado/Canyon especially the diesel versions. Toyota could come up with a redesigned Tacoma or have a Hilux in the NA market in a short period of time if the Colorado/Canyon are successful. The additional cost of the diesel will determine how successful it is--if it is not priced too much higher it will sell. I would like to see the midsize truck market experience a revival. I do agree with others that the midsize truck has grown to be close in size to the full size half ton, but then the full size half ton has grown to the size of HDs. I hope trucks don't grow anymore in size. Bigger is not always better for everyone especially when a truck becomes bigger and less capable.

@Jeff S

The American market isn't growing very fast so there really isn't a lot of incentive for Detroit to change. That would all change quickly if housing starts headed up in some sustained way, or if personal incomes were going up alot, but they aren't.

Sine the economy is stagnant, and because there is ZERO chance that some foreign maker will move into their markets with trucks that are BIGGER than the current half ton and HD pickups, Detroit won't change the formula on the big side of things very much.

Also the EPA doesn't mess with the commercial stuff all that much (compared to personal cars/trucks).

Detroit is very comfortable with that.

On the midsize end, buyers have become accustomed to mid-sizers being affordable and economical. That bit is over.

There were certain internal-economies at GM and Ford back in the 1980s that are now gone.

The next gen midsizers like the global Ranger and the new (?) GM midsizers cost just as much to build, advertise and sell as a half ton truck. Add diesel to that mix and it comes out the same.

Dealers don't make any more profit on a well equipped Frontier or a Tacoma as they do a well equipped Titan or Tundra. Nobody is more brand-conscious than pickup buyers, so the automakers jealously protect market share and to hell with the rest.

@papa jim and Jeff S
Here are two interesting links.

I can forsee a battle between CO2 and particulates. Gasoline engine are showing poorer performance than diesel in this area. But the possibility of a cheaper 'fix' for gasoline appears to be higher (maybe?).

Current gasoline GDI gasoline engines now emit far more particulates than diesel. Gasoline engine to achieve work emit far more CO2 than diesel.

The big but is, a particulate filter for gasoline is valued between 35 and 160 Pounds Sterling per vehicle. In Australia when we moved to DPF the government figured fitting DPF to a vehicle would cost $80 per vehicle. But in fact the cost are significantly higher.

The second link has a really good slide show in layman terms. It's quite fascinating to see the regulated adjustment in particulates between now and 2020 in the US, Japan, and Europe.

The US is currently allowing 10 milligrams per mile. By 2021 it will be down to 3 milligrams per mile. This will be a huge knock for gasoline engines. Also, CO2 from a gasoline engine vs work achieved is poorer than diesel.

I wouldn't write off diesel yet even though the second link shows no real growth in diesel engines as a percentage of market share.

The real cost for a particulate filter for a direct injected gasoline engine is an unknown.

I hope it looks a bit more rugged than a photoshop looking Camry.

The new Lexus El Caminoson, man is this thing ugly! kind of like a Lexus LS El Camino!

@papa jim
In Australia Toyota doesn't provide competitive engines in any commercial vehicle, quite the opposite to the US.

Toyota still provides a V6 4 litre in the Hilux, which is about as useful as it's old 3 litre diesel.

All of the other manufacturers provide diesels that outperform the V6 Hilux.

Toyota's larger engines in the Landcruiser utes and wagons are also deemed thirsty and old, all you have to do is look at the new Patrol V8 to see how poor Toyota gasoline and diesel engines are.

A Landcruiser V8 diesel in the ute has the same power and torque as my 5 cylinder 3.2. I will add though the V8 has a significant amount more torque than I do off idle.

@Big Al

When the middle class in the world's industrial nations starts wising-up to the extent of the whole "climate" fraud, the whole regime respective to carbon credits is dead.

There are, as I've stated before, regional concerns relating to fossil fuel exhausts, whether from electrical generation or internal combustion engines. However, there are far more numerous places in the world where all of the costly carbon credits and exhaust-gas gimmickry is totally over done, and becomes a colossal economic drag.

Do you think the emerging middle class in Asia gives a big bleeping f**k about the concerns that social progressives in Scandinavia, Britain and the US elevated to such extremes during the last 30 years.

Try telling those people that their kids will be forced to accept a less attractive future because people in the EU countries and US back in the 1990s got all hung up over vehicle exhaust.

@Big Al

The (gas) V8 Toyota engines in the Landcruiser, outside the US, I'm presuming is the same 32 valve all alloy engine they put in the Tundra here in the US.

I believe that basic design is suitable for trucks and SUVs. Those motors are probably much cleaner and more efficient than their predecessors were 20 years ago, because of superior electronics and fuel management systems.

Can't tell you how they'll be regarded in fifteen years, but for now they remain competitive in the affluent markets, unless climate regulators put them out to pasture. It certainly won't be because they weren't powerful or sturdy.

@papa jim
I think the argument is a little more complex than what you wrote.

The first thing you must realise is the emerging economies produce significantly less pollutants per person than we do in the 'West'.

All you have to do is look at he number of vehicle per 1 000 in a country like Indonesia and compare it to Australia and the US which have the highest ownership of vehicles per captia.

The Indonesians have below 40 vehicles per thousand and we have somewhere approaching 750 vehicles per thousand.

Even their power generation is low per capita.

The big advantage they have is their economies will not be affected by change like ours. Hence the bitching and whining by many in our countries. Just from an economic perspective we must change even disregarding pollution concerns.

This is so we can remain competitive with developing nations in the efficient use of energy. They have to use energy efficiently as possible, because it is expensive for them to buy energy due to their low income.

Our economies are based on over 100 year old infrastructure models. This translates into inefficiencies.

Their countries will be over 100 years in front of us. We need to modernise our energy model.

That's why I argue about the use of energy in our countries, ie, the waste of CNG, EV, Hybrid, etc. This money should be spent expanding gas infrastructure into business and homes across our countries. This would leave liquid fossil fuel for vehicles and reduce our pollution significantly.

I would also use fuel tax to reduce our reliance on 'liquid' fuel for vehicles and improve transport infrastructure. At the end of the day who really cares if you are driving a HD, 1/2 ton or midsize? Especially the way we use these vehicles on average.

Our whole system of energy must change. The odd issue I see here is we can do it with what we currently are using.

"Do you think the emerging middle class in Asia gives a big bleeping f**k about the concerns that social progressives in Scandinavia, Britain and the US elevated to such extremes during the last 30 years."

@Big Al

Appreciate your answer but my question went unanswered, best I can tell.

The obsession with climate and environment is largely a phenomenon found in the world's most affluent economies. Not that it's all wrong, it just won't fly in the China's and India's of the world during the coming decades.

Also, many indications exist pointing to a sufficiency of energy, and amazingly it's government and trade regulations that block the easy commerce in these commodities.

@papa jim
It was a response to your climate change rant.

I'm no greenie, but I do see the Chinese in particular developing a much more efficient economic model than the US.

Also, just because you consider we have significant amounts of energy why do we need to use it up quickly? What is wrong with becoming more efficient with what we have? You have told me you are a business person. You comments don't reflect that you have much business acumen. You'd be broke very quickly by unnecessary waste.

I bet you supersize at McDonalds as well. More, give me more. Your problem is similar to gluttony.

That is a very selfish comment. What about the future?

Just because you want something doesn't mean you are entitled to have it. As I stated earlier you must earn it.

@Big Al,

A climate change rant, you ask?

Again, as I've charitably pointed out to you in the past, your response to virtually any dissent or disagreement becomes quite egocentric, even meglo-maniacal.

Efficiency seems important to you, Big Al. If given a choice between a delicious meal, and one that was served efficiently, I'll take the former. Sounds like you'd differ on that.

Lastly, since neither you or I know the precise time in history when this world "runs out of energy" isn't it kind of ridiculous to worry over it. Greenies have been predicting the end of the world's cheap oil since the early post war era.

The greenies and the climate alarmists have added huge expense to the energy markets during the last fifty years without adding any corresponding value of their own.

Count me unconvinced!

@papa jim
You have tailored an 'Americanised' response.

I would rather have a delicious meal that is made more efficiently, which would make it cheaper.

Don't confuse size/quantity with quality. They are two different issues. A larger vehicle that uses more fuel doesn't translate into quality.

Your comment should have been wouldn't you rather eat a larger hamburger with larger fries for one more dollar rather than eating the same size burger and fries using lean beef and a better oil for frying for the same price. I would choose the latter.

I don't disagree with the green argument. But I fully support using our energy more efficiently.

Some aspects of the 'green' movement has created much lower polluting and more powerful vehicles using the same amount of energy, this can only be good for us.

Just 'using stuff up' because we can through a subjective feeling you have isn't your decision.

Remember, as the world globalises the US will be held more accountable. It's no different than your views on your community, you hold your neighbours to account, because what they do impacts your life, whether you pay more tax for the unemployed or whatever.

Globally countries are confronted with these issues, everyone has to live together.

Compromise is what is going to occur with energy.

Energy isn't a US controlled commodity, it's a global issue. You just can't state I 'feel' we have priority over the rest of the world because we are Americans and this is the way we live and our lifestyles.

Because the rest of the world will say, well then earn it.

The same goes for all aspects of trade and 'neighbourly' activities, like military, education, energy, etc.

The world is shrinking and what you do in the US will affect what someone does in Australia and so on.

Don't be so narrow minded. Look for the good, as it is there if you look.

For every downside there is an upside, like I just stated regarding emissions and the 'green' influence on the motor vehicle.

@Big Al You have a very First World viewpoint. Green policies are in conflict with cheap energy. Cheap energy is key to the success of developing nations.

Efficiency ranks among the Nice-to-have benefits of applying a crafted solution to a problem.

Not having enough to eat, or not having sufficient medical care, these are the crises facing the third world. People who are regularly struggling to get enough to eat will show little regard for nice ideas about efficiency or fresh air.

So, in conclusion (ahem!) Toyota should focus on new markets, and matching their products to the concerns of people in those emerging markets that have the best fit.

Toyota will not substantially grow its market in the US because they are already a dominant player here. They need to look at the markets that will unfold in the next 20 years, in the developing world.

@papa jim
It is coming down to two horse race between Toyota and VW, to exploit these developing markets. All the other players(Ford, GM,Renault/Nissan etc)plus VW/Toyota are very much concentrating on the Chinese market.

@papa jim
Energy and energy use isn't a god given right.

Here's the way I see it.

Prior to myself choosing my pickup I had many choices available to me for the type of vehicle I could purchase.

I could have bought a SuperDuty with a PowerStroke, it will achieve 95% of what I needed.

This goes for a SUV like a Discovery or even a Grand Cherokee. These vehicles would also achieve 95% of what I want.

First look at what you need and require to achieve your goals. This is contrary to how many on this site including yourself view selecting a vehicle and state I want the 'biggest' with the biggest engine.

Actually assess your requirements accurately, you'll be surprised what vehicle you would buy.

Here is what I required;
1. Ability to off road,
2. Ability to tow up to 3 tonnes,
3. Ability to drive long distances comfortably,
4. Ability to move 2 people and maybe once or twice a year 4/5 people.
5. Ability to carry up to 2 000lbs and sometime when towing.

Now a SuperDuty can tow, is comfortable in long distance driving. But is lacking off road and uses lots of fuel compared to competition. It has the capacity to carry 2 000lbs.

The Discovery and Grand Cherokee are comfortable for long distances can tow 3 tonnes and carry 4/5 people comfortably. But, it's payload is low at around 1 500lbs. But I considered packing weight into the boat if needed. They have pretty good FE at around 30mpg on the highway.

This left me with my current vehicle. It will do 98% of what I require. It will carry weight and tow at the same time even off road. It is cheap on fuel. Can cruise at high speeds cheaply and is getting around 30mpg.

The bonus is the initial cost was cheaper as well.

A full size 1/2 ton, would not suffice. At high speeds and towing it will chew through fuel because of gasoline engine. Is more limited off road.

So, in the end I choose the most efficient vehicle to fit my requirements even though there are many other alternatives.

It ended up being a midsize diesel. A diesel HD would have been the next closest vehicle to meet my requirements.

A diesel Ram wouldn't quite fulfill my needs as they have difficulty carrying its own weight let alone 4 guys, their gear in the back towing 3 tonnes.

A gasoline 1/2 ton would be in a similar position, except fuel usage would be double what I'm using now.

Just buying the biggest because you can is a very immature way to organise you finances. If it floats you boat, go ahead, I don't care, but don't whine because of the price of energy or the green movement, etc.

You tend to do this a lot, even with your view that you should be able to afford a Suburban because it's what you wanted. There are alternatives, even that Transit Connect minivan that will carry 7 people.

I would love to have a PowerStroke SuperDuty, but there are other alternatives that fit my needs better.

I made the most efficient choice in all instances in how I choose my vehicle.

@DeverMike/Paul/Tom Lemon/Greg Baird/TRX4Tom/Dave/Hemi V8/Tom Terrific/sandman 4x4/lautenslager/zveria/Bob/US Truck Driver/Glenn/Jason/Hemi Rampage/smartest truck guy/Maxx/SuperDuty37/Ken/Ron/johnny doe/jim/ALL1/Frank/Idahoe Joe/The Guy/AD/Casey/papa jim/Young Guy/BeeBe/Steve/Chris/The truck guy/Alex/Mr Chow/Yessir/All Americans/Scott/Buy American or say Bye to America/Ram Big Horn 1500 or whoever you want to call yourself.

Quit the crap, really.

It's getting long in the tooth.

You want to debate, but it has to be on your terms.

Learn to debate with good information, then we might be able to have a decent debate.

Opinions are good, but if they are only your view to support the UAW, then how good are they. Look at what you guys have done to Detroit.

Terror tactics (union tactics) don't work on me.

If PUTC wants the UAW or whatever to control this site I suppose it's their decision.

It's not kids like I've been told by PUTC.

They don't seem to care. So this will go on.

Wow something lower and uglier than the Tundra. Keep it up Toyota you will lose the mid-size market yet!

@papa jim
Now after reading my requirements it is apparent that in Australia the Cummins V8 Titan and Tundra should be a big seller.

This also can be proven the links in my comment.

Some competition though will come from our mid sizers and their ability to off road and work.

But for people who want to tow the Cummins Titan/Tundra might sell, more than a full size or HD. There is enough differential between them and a midsizer. Whereas a full size 1/2 ton isn't as useful as one of our midsizer diesels.

The wood is Australian hardwood, twice as heavy as Oregon.

A Patrol pickup with what looks like a 4" lift.

@papa jim--That is why Toyota is holding off on any changes on the Tacoma, they are waiting to see how successful the Colorado/Canyon will be. For many of us we are hoping for the success of the Colorado/Canyon because it would revive the midsize truck market. As for what will actually happen we will see.

As for what might happen to the truck market and how the full size half ton pickup will change to comply with the new fuel standards we are getting a glimpse of the future in that there will be use of aluminum in Ford and GM trucks, more gears in the automatic transmissions, and smaller engines with more V-6s. It would not surprise me is the manufacturers shorten the fronts of their trucks because the need for a longer and bigger front will not be necessary with smaller displacement engines. A foot in length could be taken off the front of the full size trucks and still retain interior and exterior dimensions which is similar to what happen to the the full size GM cars in 1977 from the 1976 models and for the 1978 GM intermediates compared to the 1977 models. Taking a foot off the length would put these trucks very close to the size of the new Colorado except maybe a little more interior room and a wider bed. What will actually happen is anyone's guess but that is just my guess. If this did happen it would make the midsize trucks obsolete. It is possible then that this would become the new global size.

@Jeff S
I do think one day the possibility of a morphing of full size and mid size might occur.

The biggest killer of this occurring in the US is CAFE. It's a real pity the US didn't go down the Euro path using weight.

This could have made it easier for the manufacturers to produce cheaper pickups made of steel.

This new Hilux will have the same issue as he Colorado/Canyon in that the footprint of these penalises them more so than a full size using the CAFE formula.

Also, Lou's interest in GDI particulates had me do some research and it's apparent globally governments will be addressing this sooner than we think.

They are right now considering ways to reduce these gasoline particulates.

Direct injected gasoline engines are now producing 10 times the particulates that diesels produce. So some form of particulate filter will be required for direct injected gas engines to survive.

Manufacturers are unable move away from direct injection because they offer approximately a 10% reduction in CO2 emissions. CO2 emissions are a thorn in the side of gasoline engines more so than diesels.

The greenies as much as we dislike them has forced manufacturers produce more efficient engines. This combined with the inevitable rise in the cost of energy will ensure that we will always be looking for ways in improving FE.

This can only be good.

@Big Al--Agree with the above. I do believe that the midsize and full size will morph into one size over a period of time. Manufacturers are more focused on cutting costs and developing products that are unique to just one market are a luxury that a manufacturer cannot afford over the long run. The global trucks have grown so much that it is not hard to see a trend emerging. The full size half ton of 2025 will be noticeably different than the 2014 models. This has happened before with full size and midsize cars evolving over a generation or more. Most change does not happen overnight but over a period of years.

Correction not "that" but "that are not unique"

"...Toyota is holding off on any changes on the Tacoma, they are waiting to see how successful the Colorado/Canyon will be."

@Jeff S


Actually, Jeff, Toyota's plans for changing something significant on the Tacoma are made years in advance. GM's decision to come back in doesn't affect Toyota much because of two key factors:

A. mid-size trucks are a small part of the overall US market, revenue-wise

B. The US market for Toyota's trucks is fully matured and as such simply represents a non-strategic target for them.

They will occasionally will deploy common tactics in sales & distribution to mess with GM/Ford/Fiat-Chrysler but not at the expense of their overall global strategy.

"...the inevitable RISE in the cost of energy will ensure that we will always be looking for ways in improving FE"

@Big Al

Rising prices paid for energy are not inevitable, instead are the result of several artificial constraints on refiners, shippers, and consumers.

The cost of crude oil moves in a trading range, apart from occasional geo-political shocks that occur every few years, or adjustments within the refining business, resource constraints affect refiners, e.g., shutdowns for maintenance, etc.

The global price of crude compared to the price of precious metals, particularly gold, has not changed much since the 1930s.

Simply put: Constraints on the availability of crude are mostly temporary suppy-chain disruptions.

The changes in retail gasoline and diesel prices to the consumer are mostly due to the decline in the buying power of currrency, i.e., the value of the dollar, not the actual price of crude.

The number of barrels of crude that you could buy with an ounce of gold has not changed virtually at all for 80 years.

This phenomenon is very easy to look up because gold, the dollar and crude are all tracked daily in the press, just like any other commodity.

Google it if you like.

Most of the current rise in oil is due to World wide increased demand.

As for Toyota yes they do make plans on vehicles in advance as all manufacturers but to say that they cannot make a change sooner because of a competitor is erroneous. Toyota could have a redesigned Tacoma and plan on releasing it in five years but if a competitor comes out with a newer better midsize truck and it starts to effect sales of the Tacoma then Toyota would not wait five years (this is an example). If it were true then why is the 2015 Camry all new instead of waiting for 2017 which has been on the five year product cycle.

@Jeff S

You clearly did NOT google it!

It's not about demand. Supply and demand track each other very closely.

Jeff, one ounce of gold will buy almost 15 barrels of Oil on average. This has been true since the 1930s.

The variability in oil prices is about currency volatility, not changes in demand (relative to supply).

Please look it up.

@papa jim and Jeff S,
Gold? Gold is just another metal. It's biggest value is it's use in medicine, industry and a hedge, like any other commodity.

Benchmarking the value of gold against crude isn't really proving anything.

Sort of like saying the cost of a rocking chair used to be the cost of an electric iron. But look at the difference now, you can buy and iron for $10 and a rocking chair is now $60.

Technologies and resources availability will affect the cost of commodities as well. It's ludicrous to assume that their will be a constant in the valuation of any commodity or consumer product.

Supply and demand will dictate pricing, forever. But supply and demand is influenced by many factors.

Supply and demand prices for crude is affected by the way in which we trade commodities now. Oil price is volatile and can be affected by an election in a small nation.

Why? Because the risk of instability had increased. Now if oil was readily available like you claim these seemingly insignificant events wouldn't impact the oil price.

The price of extraction and refining this day and age also has an impact on the value of commodities. If it is costing more to extract and refine oil and the prices at the market for oil drops, production slows as the cost to extract the oil forces the closure of wells.

Again, supply and demand will dictate the price which is impact by another influence.

I think if you sat down and really looked at your views on the big world of business you will see so many factors that influence the cost of toothpaste.

You try and always generalise and simplify a situation or condition. Dig a little deeper and look at what really occurs and why a particular event occurs.

The world isn't like a Superman movie, black and white. It's quite complex. Use scientific methods when assessing a situation. Like my comment on what vehicle and why I bought it.

Just buying a vehicle that's big will do the task, but is it best suited for the task.

As Jeff S stated regarding pickups, they have replaced SUVs in many cases along with CUVs. These vehicles aren't not indispensable, there will be a replacement for these one day

The comments to this entry are closed.