20th Apr 2012, 19:21
Seriously? Go look at JD Powers for reliability for all models. Toyota is right up there with best. Maybe others need to do some research for themselves.
22nd Apr 2012, 08:55
I own a 2010 Camry, LE 4-cylinder, automatic. It gets 18 MPG in the city and 29 highway. Depressing.
22nd Apr 2012, 20:56
You must be a really aggressive driver! I have an '09 Toyota Camry with the the 4-cylinder and the 5-speed automatic transmission. On the highway I average 34-36 MPG. I've gotten as much as 38. Around town I averaged 28-30 MPG. The lowest mileage I've ever gotten was 26.
23rd Apr 2012, 18:48
Researching "best cars" is a mixed bag. Ford outranks (and outsells) Toyota. No "10 best" list ever includes any Toyotas. Wards "10 Best Engines" list includes Ford, GM and Chrysler but no Toyota or Honda engines. Consumer Reports rates the Camry "average". That is hardly "best". It is also two full ratings below the Ford Fusion. Yes, by all means, do some research.
24th Apr 2012, 13:55
Not so. Every major automotive quality report to this day still shows Honda, Toyota, and now Subaru at the top of the reliability reports, and what's more - those same brands are also at the top of those lists for long-term reliability.
Nothing new to report here, other than that these brands still make the best products.
29th Jul 2012, 19:23
OK, time to put the cap on this whole pointless Domestic vs. Import battle by getting the facts straight. I'll admit, I'm no Toyota fan, but I highly respect them as an auto maker. I believe the American auto industry used to be the best in the world, building cars that no other foreign manufacturers could touch.
The American auto industry retained its superiority until 1986, when Ford released the god forsaken Taurus; a cheaply made, affordable, and ugly thing. Despite the car's crappiness, it was a BIG hit and was considered to be "revolutionary" at the time due to its aerodynamic styling. Before you know it, GM and Chrysler were building cars along the same lines to cash in on the Taurus' success. In effect, the hideous, unreliable Ford Taurus taught the American auto makers that they could get away with making crap, and the lesson really stuck.
The foreign auto makers took the Taurus concept, but improved upon the obvious problems, and basically created a line of reliable cars that the American auto makers couldn't match. The "Big Three" on the other hand, kept on churning out their low quality cars, completely oblivious to the fact that the manufacturers in Japan and Europe were building up for a major move on the US.
The Ford Taurus was the car that basically ruined the American auto industry, and its legacy still endures today. It's hard to change after being accustomed to the easy life, which is what the Big Three had until the late-1990s-early-2000s.
30th Jul 2012, 16:42
Funny you brought up Ford, because in 2012 they are outstanding. Sharp styling throughout the line as well. Even the trucks are upscale.
31st Jul 2012, 15:25
I had Ford Taurus as company cars, as well as others I know, and they served us well.
Highly unreliable? Not true. I got them brand new, driving on average typically up to 50,000 miles annually.
I especially liked the 3.8 engine and the 4 wheel disc brakes. In fact I picked up a couple tickets in mine.
It's been out since 86, and Ford focused interest more into their SUVs and the 500 model for only a few years, and it's returned.
I then got Crown Vics and a Marquis as new company cars. I actually preferred the Crown Vics with the 302 V8, but other than that, a great company vehicle as well. Start stop all day long with 200 mile daily trips. Since they were not mine, I would have no qualms sharing a totally unbiased opinion.
I now drive a crossover; a Ford Edge All Wheel Drive with 64,000 miles on it, and it's under 2 years old. No issues other than an A/C charge last month.
The worse thing in my position is having an unreliable vehicle, as it's imperative in my job. I have had quite a variety of company cars, and prior to the Taurus, the Pontiacs with the 3.8 were also the best company vehicles I recall. Anyway, I figure I have driven over a million miles to date in business. That's quite a bit!
31st Jul 2012, 20:03
It is always a real hoot to see the "Toyota is better" remarks on these sites. After twenty-three million recalls (mostly forced by court orders) and "average" ratings (compared to Fords "Much better than average"), you'd think people would get the message.
At present no Toyota can (or even TRIES) to compete with any Ford product. I mean really, can you even conceive of the silly Yaris competing with the awesome Fiesta? And certainly not the worst-in-class Corolla competing with the world-class Focus?
Of course the Camry/Fusion debate has been settled since 2006. All Fusions since have been ranked "much better than average" to Camry's "average".
In trucks, the unreliable Tundra can't come remotely close to the F-150 (best seller for 4 DECADES). Just watch the "torture tests" of Ford's Boss 302 Mustang or F-150 or (if it's still available) the comparo between the F-150 and the much-inferior Tundra, which clearly shows how fragile and flimsy the Tundra's structural components are compared to the F-150's. Better yet, ask a contractor who has used F-150's for two decades in his business. Some are still driving 40-year-old F-150's.
1st Aug 2012, 11:31
I knew it. As soon as any Toyota reviews show up, out come the highly predictable anti-import remarks. If some of you dislike these cars so much, then why waste so much time making the same repetitive comments over and over again? People are still going to buy Toyotas, whether you like it or not, so just give it a rest already.
1st Aug 2012, 14:22
It's an import-owner-spread myth that the Taurus was not a reliable car. Just check the older Taurus reviews and Camry reviews, and you'll see far more positive Taurus reviews. Look especially at the absolutely horrible 2006 Camry reviews. Many companies used the older Taurus as company vehicles, and they performed flawlessly.
2nd Aug 2012, 01:27
I'll second that.
78% of owners would buy another Ford F150.
...62% would buy another Toyota Tundra.
2nd Aug 2012, 09:42
Percentage of people who want to buy such-and-such vehicle doesn't really define quality. Most people would rather eat junk food.
2nd Aug 2012, 13:20
But would they want to buy junk cars? Cars are expensive, and repeat buyer surveys indicate quality. Buy junk once or twice, and you switch. I now drive new domestic Fords.
2nd Aug 2012, 13:34
It always amuses me that import owners will say "sales don't matter" and then argue that if Toyota outsells Ford or GM (which it hasn't in some time), that all of a sudden that means it must be "better".
2nd Aug 2012, 17:35
Sure it defines quality. How do you think auto manufacturers accumulate repeat customers?
3rd Aug 2012, 13:37
If a car is lousy, why not just say so vs defend a purchase. That's what amazes me. Defend and disregard all the other's issues. I don't..... as no auto manufacturer buys and gives me a free car to lavish praise. I use to buy the same model over and over, never looking at any other brand. When I had issues, I thought maybe it was a fluke or I got a lemon this time. So I bought another. Finally I wised up and looked around at many makes, imports and domestics. The import hype was very strong in our household in the 70s, 80s and into the late 90s. That's a long time. I would have never looked around if quality had not dropped for us.
29th Mar 2012, 23:47
"People would do well to educate themselves about their cars. It would save a LOT of money, and reduce all these complaints of non-existent "problems" we see on these reviews and comments."
Best comment ever!!