It’s good to be a Toyota driver in the NASCAR Cup Series in 2026.
The manufacturer has enjoyed a lot of success this season, with 14 wins among five drivers in 23 races. That’s more than Chevrolet and Ford, the other two manufacturers, combined, and more than three times as many wins as the Ford camp alone.
Two of three organizations within the Toyota camp, Joe Gibbs Racing and 23XI Racing, account for all 14 wins. The third, Legacy Motor Club, does not have the same level of support and information sharing as Gibbs and 23XI.
Team Penske is the only Ford organization with wins, though RFK Racing has Chris Buescher in the top 10 in points and Front Row Motorsports recently saw Todd Gilliland win the In-Season Challenge, a bracket-based bonus program, against the 31 top drivers in the series. Chevrolet has the most diversity in winners, with victories for Hendrick Motorsports, Spire Motorsports and Trackhouse Racing, with Spire leading the way with two different winners.
At this point in the season, it’s safe to say that Toyota has found something the other manufacturers have not. Sunday (Aug. 9) at Iowa Speedway, even with several teams reporting early brake issues, the Gibbs cars were the class of the field in the Iowa Corn 350. But are they winning too much?
No one driver can win too much. Individual teams and drivers sometimes dominate a season or more, and to fans, particularly fans of other drivers, it seems excessive (mid-2000s Jimmie Johnson, I’m looking at you). But one team hitting on something that works isn’t the same as one manufacturer winning the lion’s share of races.
That ultimately isn’t a great thing.
Here’s why. A lot of fans are extremely loyal to a manufacturer, to the point that it outweighs their loyalty to any driver. If their favorite driver jumps ship to another make, they’re picking a new driver. A manufacturer having a distinct advantage is nothing new, but it’s something fans absolutely dislike.
The Next Gen racecar has a lot less room for teams to work to find speed, with most of the bodies and much of the suspension single-sourced parts, the same for teams across platforms. What’s different among manufacturers in today’s NASCAR is mainly the nose and tail pieces. Teams have some flexibility with suspensions, and engines are manufacturer-specific though many teams purchase them from one or two engine programs. The days of most teams building their own engines are in the past.
So, if teams of one make have an advantage, it’s because NASCAR approved something in the cars that’s still manufacturer-specific, mainly the nose and/or tail. To a degree, that means, in the eyes of many, that NASCAR approved an aerodynamic advantage for one manufacturer.
What’s also true is that the other makes are hard at work correcting any competitive deficit and will push for its approval for the next season, but that doesn’t change what fans are missing right now.
Parity is a bit of a double-edged sword. Cars that are too equal struggle to pass because they’re equal, not better than the others. Passing is already at a premium because of aerodynamic dependency, and if all of the cars were exactly equal, nobody would pass anyone. Parity among teams can produce different winners, but the races as a whole won’t be as compelling.
Every car in the field shouldn’t be equal.
However, it’s where the parity, or lack thereof, comes from that’s important. If a team or driver figures something out, some fans will grumble if it’s not someone they pull for, but at the end of the day the advantage comes, in theory, from that team and driver working hard and that work paying off. A racing tale as old as time.
When it’s one organization dominating the landscape, that’s a little bit more of a bitter pill. Yes, there’s still the human element and hard work, but it breeds more questions. Does the owner have higher favor with NASCAR? With the manufacturer? Furthermore, as this can be the case, do some teams get more support, and usually it’s the successful ones, meaning they get more successful? Why do they have something but no one else does?
At the top of the pyramid is the dominant manufacturer. Again, it’s not that NASCAR sets out to give someone a competitive advantage; that’s terrible for the sport and the sanctioning body knows that. However, when someone gets one, NASCAR is in the crosshairs.
In the late 1990s, NASCAR got caught up in dueling manufacturer brawls and made multiple rule changes; some during the season, to counter all small changes one manufacturer made. If Ford did one thing, Chevrolet demanded something to make up for it, Pontiac asked for changes of its own, and then Ford complained that the thing it found had been erased.
The constant rule changes didn’t really help and sometimes hurt. NASCAR stopped allowing individual teams to select gears and suspensions to appease the makers. That, in conjunction with the development of more aerodynamic street versions of cars, led to cars becoming more aerodynamically dependent, and…well, you know the rest.
The short version: NASCAR needs a certain level of parity at the manufacturer level, some control at the organizational level, and more ways for individual teams to make their cars faster for their drivers. Right now, that balance is off. Toyota has hit on something, and its richest teams reap the benefits more than its smaller one. While those organizations have produced multiple winners, the perception is that’s because of the Toyota advantage, not something the individual teams did.
Is there an answer? In the big picture, not really. Toyota’s advantage could disappear next year if Ford or Chevy finds something. NASCAR shouldn’t go back to the car wars days when manufacturers made repeated changes. Once a model has the nose and tail approved, there should not be multiple major changes in season.
What NASCAR should do is ensure that any approved changes don’t produce a significant aerodynamic advantage, and to that end, allow limited offseason testing at a variety of tracks with NASCAR reaping some of the data. Giving each organization one, maybe two spots at each test (one at Charlotte Motor Speedway, one at Daytona International Speedway and one at a flat track) would give smaller teams the same amount of data as larger ones.
Using those tests to determine realistic impacts of requested changes could help ensure the process is fair and allow teams to find speed. The sport doesn’t feel like it’s in the hands of individual teams very much, and that’s not really a good perception to have. NASCAR was built on teams making their own advantages, not one manufacturer having one.
Amy is an 20-year veteran NASCAR writer and a six-time National Motorsports Press Association (NMPA) writing award winner, including first place awards for both columns and race coverage. As well as serving as Photo Editor, Amy writes The Big 6 (Mondays) after every NASCAR Cup Series race. She can also be found working on her bi-weekly columns Holding A Pretty Wheel (Tuesdays) and Only Yesterday (Wednesdays). A New Hampshire native whose heart is in North Carolina, Amy’s work credits have extended everywhere from driver Kenny Wallace’s website to Athlon Sports. She can also be heard weekly as a panelist on the Hard Left Turn podcast that can be found on AccessWDUN.com's Around the Track page.
Has there been any recently analysis if this kit car actually saves teams money?
I wonder if they big teams are spending more money than ever because the window is so small to make any actual significant performance advantage?
I miss the days when cars actually had damage from hitting the wall and would and be able to bump someone and it be noticeable.
NA$CAR designed the NA$CAR kit car to make money for NA$CAR.
Until NASCAR’s huge inventory of discount parts, exclusive agreements, and back room deals are depleted…expect more of the same.
I’ve seen a lot of hits that look minor while putting the car out of commission, and other hits that look rough and the car keeps going.
Good read , I miss the days of team fabrication and engine builders This kit car is esthetically pleasing on some level but a huge failure overall on track compounded by yrs of no practice time The micromanagement of teams and changes has driven many legacy fans away Nascar needs to give the teams more room to find solutions not more rule changes
Maybe I’m missing something, but if the cars are equal, doesn’t that put it primarily in the driver’s hands? I’ll give you that passing is tougher, but if the cars are equal, they would theoretically be closer together, making for more exciting racing. In the end, perhaps it’s inconsequential. Pushing the rules for an advantage is the nature of the sport, and luck and circumstances are always at play.
That is one theory, but if all cars are equal and there is a significant aero advantage to being the lead car, then it negates driver skill and places everything on track position, does it not? It also makes it tough for NASCAR to market itself as another “stick and ball” team sport if the team doesn’t matter. Providing 40 identical cars removes a large portion of the team element. I guess you still have the pit crews, as the only passing that takes place is in the pits. But personally, I’d rather see the teams have the freedom to showcase their ability to tweak a car setup to work better where they are at in the race (mired in traffic vs out front) to help the driver make moves in the pack and move forward. I think this is especially necessary when “clean air” is such an advantage. Give the other 39 teams an opportunity to find a way to mechanically overcome the disadvantage of “dirty air” and get a shot at the lead on track. The current planned stage breaks take away any and all organic opportunities to do it through pit strategy.
The OEM’s had to step up once the kit car was created because it requires a lot of basic engineering to find the little things that now matter. Teams possess the knowledge perhaps, but OEM’s have the facilities or have suppliers that do. I would much rather see Nascar open up the tuning window for the teams to make greater changes. Maybe allow them to change parts or allow any manufacturer of shocks, etc. The window is tight and Nascar is not the only form of motorsports that each OEM in involved in.
I can watch a program called From The Vault that shows different types of racing like Can-Am, Trans-Am and others from the past. They recently showed the 1983 ASA 300 and 200 lap races from Cayuga Speedway.
The lineup for the 300 included Butch Miller, Mike Eddy, Jim Sauter, Jr. Hanley, Bob Senneker(W), Harold Fair, Rusty Wallacew, Alan Kulwicki, Dick Trickle, Bobby Dotter, Chuck Roumell, Don Gregory, Mark Malcuit and Robin McCall (Mrs. Wally Dallenbach, Jr.).
The 200 limneup included Jim Sauter, Dick Trickle, Butch Miller, Mike Eddy, Mark Martin, Mark Malcuit, Harold Fair, Bob Senneker, Alan Kulwicki(W), Jr. Hanley, Jay Sauter, Bobby Dotter and Don Gregory.
Watching an ASA race was like watching a legends race.