2007 Toyota Tundra SR5 from North America - All Comments

21:48 you could fill volumes with domestic vehicles well beyond the limited few listed still being made... at the current rate of recalls and engine/transmissions failures with imports I suspect there will be a lot of new rows in junkyards. My 2002 Acura is certainly destined to be in one.

21:48 Nice work there. I guess that proves that GM and Ford cars stay in production just long enough for people to realize what a disaster they are. Then GM/Ford discontinue it and spend a ton of money marketing their latest piece of junk. At Ford, quality is job 16.

18:33, Again, all opinion, except for the part where you admit the fact that the Toyota outperforms the Silverado. And don't worry about the transfer case. It won't scatter like a GM would and often do. It's a Toyota.

Got to give you credit for at least recognizing and admitting to at least one fact, which is more than most domestic owners here are capable of doing. You can call this opinion if you like, but there is no chance is Hades that a Silverado handles better than a Tundra, unless you favor sloppy Buick-like handling.

10:42, where do you get your facts?? Currently, there are 0, count them, 0 cars produced by Buick on the Zeta platform.

I am still utterly amazed that there are people on here still trying to make a conspiracy out of something as simple as the fact that one company has built sales and reputation from decades of undeniable quality.

If you look at how things have gone for Toyota, they started out in the US in California in the late 50's. Their first cars were terrible and overheated, like the original Toyota Crown, which sold horribly. Toyotas in the 50's and 60's barely had an impact on the market and were seen as jokes rather than threats by the Big Three.

The reason I can shoot holes in your little "conspiracies" is by simply looking at market share and from the fact that we are a free market economy. Toyota's share of the market didn't happen overnight. It happened over several decades- mainly from the late 70's all the way up until the present.

Why did this happen? The answer is simple: quality. I'll admit that there's been very few what I would call attractive Toyotas out there. Most of their designs are utterly bland. Most are very pedestrian looking vehicles. Sure - Ford and GM have made some good looking cars, like the Mustang, Camero, and even the new Pontiac Solstice. But looks will only get you so far. If you burn your consumers one too many times as GM and Ford did over the years, you will slowly erode your consumer base until one day these companies realize that suddenly that little joke of a company they poked fun of in the 50's and 60's is now beating their sales.

People act like the fact that Toyota has assumed the no.1 position is some great big surprise. But it didn't happen overnight, nor was it the work of sneaky car journalists, "sheeple" mentality, or some other double-crossing aspect. It came from honest, quality engineering and a steadfast belief in product development.

Simply put - If Toyota built bad products, nobody would buy them nor would they have become as successful as they now are. If you look at the many Japanese carmakers, Mitsubishi, Daihatsu, Suzuki (partially owned by GM), and Isuzu have almost disappeared from the market. They did so because they made crappy cars and trucks.

The same can be said for other non-Japanese carmakers that tried to make it here- like Daewoo, Fiat, MG, Yugo, Peugeot, and countless others. These are all carmakers that either made poorly designed or engineered products, or failed to comprehend the US car buying consumer. They all failed here. Toyota succeeded because they did these things right.

Now the question is can GM or Ford succeed here? Of course they can. In China, Buick is a totally different brand and car and highly sought after by young professionals - totally different from the granny-mobiles sold here. In Europe, Ford is actually quite popular as well, like the Ford Mondeo, which isn't even sold in the U.S.

But the big question is whether GM or Ford will eventually do better in the US. The only way they will do so is for one - building cars that are appealing to people that live in metropolitan areas. I have lived on both coasts and in both cities, US-made cars are loathed and despised. Out in the sticks where I grew up, people still swear by their Ford F-150's and Tauruses. This is more to do with inherent patriotism rather than decisions based on quality. Patriotism is great. But it won't sell cars forever, and this is why these strongholds are also starting to be more and more interested in other non-American brands.

Simply put, GM and Ford will need to better adapt to close consumer interests before they can start to get the ball rolling in their court. If they keep ignoring the small car market and keep pumping out jokes like The Chevy Cobalt - they will lose that market. If they keep ignoring the mid-sized market and keep producing old people movers like the Lucerne, then they'll lose that market too. If they keep on building gigantic trucks that are too expensive to keep gassed up by the middle class people who buy them, then they will also eventually lose that market as well.

In conclusion, GM and Ford have a lot of empty holes to fill in their segments. If they can manage to do so, they will do better.

To 11:06 :

Nice comments. But by that same logic you could say GM was #1 Worldwide because of Quality.. and are still #2 Worldwide because of it. Because surely if they produced junk they wouldn't be in that position.

I drive a 20 year old Benz. Now that's quality. The only weak part in the car is the AC, and it's from DENSO, a Japanese supplier.

16:09 I do not own Motor Trend...that's directly taken off their current Tundra... Silverado review. I drove both and bought the Silverado and then added performance upgrades. I am unbiased and buy what handles, hauls and tows the best as a full size truck. If you are into strictly straight line performance I would buy a Tundra if that suits you.

Someone mentioned the MR2 and Insight being discontinued, but I think that is because they were speciality vehicles. However, dumping of the Passport and Crown proves that something went wrong in Detroit and that is that the cars were so bad that they had to change the name, and that is why we have the Fusion and the Lucerne right now.

Also, the Ford's that are using aluminum engines probably work harder than those of the big Fords, since they have to put up to abuse by the police, rental fleets, government fleets, etc. The fleet Ford trucks around my area just sit on the side of the road with flashing lights on them while the workers do bridge inspections... not towing large items...

Boy, an interesting conversation we got goin' here!

I thought I'd add something beneficial to how NOT so great Toyotas really are.

I work for a company called C.O.A.T, a flagging and supervising company. We recruited 5 new Tundras, with the 5.7, to tow our massive loads back and forth between job sites, usually about 1 mile or so, many times a day. Now, don't get me wrong, they are very potent trucks. Potent that is, until they started breaking. All the trucks have UNDER 1000 miles on them, and 2, yes TWO of the five have already broken down. The first one, a co-workers, snapped its camshaft while towing a trailer and a loaded bed up a grade to a rail unit where it was needed.

Now, mind you, this IS a dangerous work site, and having 10,000 pounds of metal and equipment barreling back down a hill isn't exactly something that is welcomed with open arms, nor is it a pretty sight. Since the engine wasn't running, there was very little brake pressure to stop, but fortunately there was ample open roadway behind him to stop.

This was 2 weeks ago, and my supervisors are already doubting these new "tough" Tundras.

The second fault, another co-worker of mine, was something minimal, but rendered it unusable.

As of now, we are running on 4 Toyotas, and one of our old fleet's F-350s, while the other Tundra is getting repaired. I'm sure you're going to say, "well this was a freak incident and I'm sure you're grossly exaggerating the real scenario." But, I'm not. Our old fleet of Fords never let us down, but they did have a few minor errors as the mileage started to climb past the 50,000's of towing/hauling.

Freak incident or not, a truck with less than 1000 miles does not have the right to have this severe of a breakdown, and possibly endanger lives. Had this accident happened a mere 1 hour before it did, the roadway behind my co-worker would've been full of busy motorists before it was closed, and the result of that truck and trailer rolling down the grade would have caused major damage and lawsuits.

For a company as "great" as Toyota, this is absolutely unacceptable. ANY company for that matter.

Especially during this first-term trial as new construction site, company vehicles.

As far as I'm concerned, this settles the debate about whether or not the new Tundra is superior to the new domestic trucks.

17:17 Well, guess what? Try reading the towing capacity for a Tundra and for an F-350. Do you see any difference there?

Toyota doesn't make a truck equivalent in size or towing capacity to an F-350, because they've smart enough to know that they don't sell well, and people who need something as large as an F-350 are not part of Toyota's target market. Try doing the same work load you do with a dump truck in your F-350; it's a mismatch, right? It would break immediately.

You have to use a piece of machinery within its operational limit, or it will break, no matter who built it. I guess a Corolla would be a piece of junk if it couldn't pull a camper behind it, too?

TO 14:12 and the rest that think that dumping a car name = bad quality.

It has always been common to give a car on a new architecture a new name.

Just look around at all the other brands.

I would think that a Toyota dealership would not ethically lease 5 new Tundras without asking what fleet vehicle history the company has utilized. And certainly they would ask application and towing needs... I would immediately return and not let this matter drop. Our company also utilizes new large Fords for this very reason. Even the Toyota commenter picked up on this being the wrong vehicles. Less than 1,000 miles and in the shop is time to pursue this matter.

21:00 Well, guess what? Given Toyota's commercials exaggerating the toughness of their new Tundra, I think that their intended target audience is pretty well defined. On the surface, it appears to me like they're looking for the attention of contractors and guys on serious worksites.

Even if I'm wrong, your statement makes a point that many other defenders of Domestics have been making all along. The new Tundra is marketed toward and intended for macho suburbanite males who want to "play tough." You know, the ones who stand around the office water cooler bragging about towing numbers they heard about on a commercial. You know, the ones they don't use for anything more than moving a picnic bench on a weekend. Yeah. Those ones.

Sir, it looks like you've argued yourself and your Toyota defenders right into a corner.

05:59 It's not the responsibility of Toyota or any of its dealerships to do anyone's thinking for them. No one should spend 30 or 40 thousand dollars on a vehicle, and then realize later that it doesn't satisfy their needs. If you need to haul an extremely heavy load around everyday, buy an F-350 or a tractor trailer. Again, that's not Toyota's venue. For the other 99% of people on the planet that utilize use a truck the way most people do, you cannot and will not buy a better truck than a Toyota.

All Chevy trucks are junk, given their performance, that should be common sense at this point. The F-150's days are over. It was never a good truck, it has only sold well by default.

Toyota has clearly built something a lot better. Go ahead and cite Tundra recalls. For each one of them, I'll gladly list ten of the nearly countless embarrassing recalls and safety issues that Ford has had.

23:11 that is certainly never the way to develop a long term relationship with a customer. I would expect technical expertise and excellent customer service before and after the sale even if one is not acquiring multiple new trucks as a fleet purchase. Perhaps a few simple questions on the exact applications the trucks will be utilized for would have seemed prudent in my opinion. A savvy salesperson should immediately know if the vehicles are not suitable if they do their job. I shudder when I think of some selfish salespeople that possess immediate gratification before the needs of a customer. Now the first Tundra which is almost new is already in a bad way. We have recently replaced a rear of one of our full size trucks (2003 GM) that routinely tows concrete mixers and trailers at 100,000 miles which is not as totally unacceptable as a Tundra at 1,000 miles. It will be interesting to see how and if this customer is attended to now at this late stage.