2002 Toyota Tundra SR5 from North America - All Comments

I have found that being closed minded in life can eventually prove costly. If someone wished to walk in a Honda or Toyota showroom, only each and every time, same model over and over, that is their prerogative.

My spouse elected to go that route for many years, and likely would have never looked elsewhere if not for mechanical issues commencing quite early on. She has a high disposable income (only as a comment), therefore enabling her to buy new within 2-3 years max. I do the same.

Questioning ones intelligence because they do not buy your favorite brand is pretty close minded. If you feel your comments/comparison have more credence than individuals with many new multi brand late model ownership/repair exposure that's your prerogative.

I fail to see how a 10 year old plus import vehicle mechanical/reliability evaluation has bearing on 2008 vehicles. In fact our imports 10 years ago were superior mechanically as well at that given point and time. I somehow feel there is some other issue beyond vehicles that

is definitely at play here. Too much animosity and not even remotely current.

But at any rate, some of us have owned a significant amount of vehicles mixed (import/domestic ) ownership and can easily derive a direct representation of good and bad models. It may be better to indicate if your comments may be based on a 1987 domestic model etc. and indicate you have little basis on the 2008's.

Well, in regards to how well newer "domestic" vehicles have gotten, In the last year I have rented two Chevy Cobalts, A Chevy Malibu (the last version), a Ford Mustang, a Pontiac G6, and a Grand Am.

Out of those 6 cars, 3 were hardly what I'd call acceptable. The quality of the Cobalts was embarrassingly cheap. The fit and finish of the body and interior panels was fairly crude. The engine was harsh and sort of clanky.

The latest one I drove was a fairly high mileage vehicle for a rental, with 30,000 miles. The interior was shot. The speakers were actually blown and rattled in the doors. The trim for the door panels where the locks and handle was painted silver. A lot of the paint was coming off. The seats were extremely worn. Lastly, the engine made this hideous whining sound as if something like a belt was rubbing on something.

The Malibu's E-brake cable actually came loose on the second day. The trunk lid wasn't properly aligned and we had to slam it to shut, sometimes taking two attempts.

The two Pontiacs were OK. Given that these were brand new cars, I wouldn't expect anything wrong to happen. The Grand Am was probably the best of the GM products I drove. It was large, comfortable, and fuel efficient. But even so, it made a terrible grinding noise the first morning we drove it. It stopped after awhile. The rental agency told us "they all did it". The C6 was fine. There wasn't anything remarkable about it, but it ran fine and didn't have any problems.

The Mustang in my opinion was better built than any of the GM products. If I had to choose, I'd probably go with a Ford. But even though this was a V6, it got HORRIBLE fuel economy. As in 15-18MPG.

To me, domestic vehicles are much the same as they've always been: hit-or-miss. You might get a "good one", but you're almost as likely to get a bad one too. I still feel that by and large, the batting average for most Honda and Toyota products is better.

Thankfully the subject of this review (and the related bickering) seems to be nearing an end, thanks to public opinion. This morning's news reported that Toyota is closing one parts plant and stopping production of both the Tundra and Sequoia at other plants. Hopefully this move will herald the end of the poorly-built, much-recalled and totally unacceptable Tundra once and for all. It has never been competition for real trucks (Ford, GM or Dodge), and has been a source of all too many problems.

The news article stated that Toyota, which had once been regarded as unstoppable no longer was. Also cited were the sales figures showing that Toyota sales dropped even MORE than GM.

The American public has spoken: The Tundra is NOT competition and sales drops by the big 3 have nothing to do with quality. The average Tundra now sits on a dealer's lot for over 2 months. Ads in this morning's paper offered $8,000 discounts on the Tundra. That's TWICE the discounts Ford and GM are offering on comparable vehicles.

I just read the same article from AP. The Princeton, IN plant will close, the Tundra and Sequoia will be terminated, Tundras sit on lots an average of 64 days, and Toyota sales dropped 21%, even faster than the average industry-wide decline of 18%. The article also quotes an analyst that Toyota is not immune to $4/gallon gasoline, and have been brought back down to earth.

Looks like Toyota has been forced to abandon the mid- and full-sized truck segment. The previous comment is correct: this domestic v. Toyota debate appears to be over.

11th Jul 2008, 11:07

I love selective reading, but it doesn’t offer the true facts of the situation, so allow me to fill in the parts that seem to be missing.

First Toyota is not stopping production of the Tundra and Sequoia, they both will still be produced, just not at the numbers that have been making them, as demand has fell due to gas prices. This is happening across the board with all truck producers. This has nothing to do with public opinion.

Second, I notice there is no mention of the GM, Ford, and Dodge plants that are being shutdown and completely closing. The only difference between those and Toyota plants, is that Toyota is not dismissing its employees and is moving different vehicles to those plants, like the Prius. That is correct, Toyota is still keeping the workers employed and paid, can’t say the same for those who are unemployed now from those closed GM, Ford, and Dodge plants. Here are a few things from the article…

“Toyota generally doesn't lay off full-time workers during shutdowns, as U.S. automakers do, and this will be no exception. The San Antonio plant employs 1,900 people, while the Princeton plant employs nearly 4,500, although only 2,000 of those build the Tundra and Sequoia, Goss said. All will stay on the job, along with 891 workers in Huntsville, Ala., who make engines for the Tundra and Sequoia.”

“Toyota's moves follow production cuts at General Motors Corp. and other automakers. GM said last month it is cutting shifts, reducing assembly line speeds and temporarily idling seven factories because of declining consumer demand for truck-based vehicles. Chrysler LLC recently announced plans to close a minivan factory and cut a shift at a full-size pickup factory, while Ford is cutting truck and SUV production, cutting salaried workers and ramping up production of the Focus small car.”

Finally onto the lose of sales by Toyota, yes they are of a higher percentage than GM, but this needs to be put in full context. The numbers are compared to a year ago, meaning in July 2007 Toyota sold “x” number of vehicles and this years number are lower by what ever the percentage is. Now to look at the full picture, from 2006 to 2007 Toyota was the only maker to see an increase in sales, where GM and Ford both have been showing loses in sales for the last 3 years. So, Toyota finally saw a drop in sales numbers that is still no where near the continuous sales numbers drops by GM. This just means that the slowed economy has finally reached Toyota, and does not mean Toyota is doomed.

"This just means that the slowed economy has finally reached Toyota, and does not mean Toyota is doomed."

No, just the outclassed and low quality Tundra and Sequoias.

16:00; The foreign/domestic debate was over a long, long time ago. The imports (Toyota/Honda specifically) clearly took the lead with superior quality, resale value, lower cost of ownership company-wide among the fleet, higher efficiency, and simply overall better vehicles.

Here's how the domestic/foreign debate can be summarized; and I know this is common; I've seen it all my life:

I just got back from a long trip to camp, 8 of us went, took 4 vehicles, a Hyundai, a Nissan and 2 Fords, all about the same age within a year or two of each other. Both Fords broke down.

Actually, one Ford needed repairs just to make the trip and the other overheated on the way there.

You can talk if you like about who maintains what and how, and I need to be more specific. I could do that, but the end result would be the same. Both Fords broke down.

I've seen this my whole life. No matter how they were maintained, the Toyota's and Honda's for example get you where you need to go, and use less gas doing it. If something's going to break down, it'll nearly ALWAYS be a Ford or a Chevy.

My girlfriend's idea of maintaining her Nissan is to drive it 90 miles per hour to work every day and not even know how to open the hood. It's an Xterra, and is what pulled the trailer full of stuff to camp. The Fords are barely put together well enough to haul their own weight up a hill without falling apart. That's just what I've come to expect from them, while my imports always do the job flawlessly.

Two 30-year-old Fords with over 200,000 miles each are hardly comparable to a brand new Nissan (one of the world's most UN-reliable cars) and a Hyundai.

Yes, Toyota is going to reduce the production of the Tundra and Sequoia. But this has nothing to do with anything other than high fuel prices. Ford and GM are simply closing full size truck plants and laying off their employees altogether. So your argument that "ah-ha! they're closing plants because their trucks were bad!" is incorrect. In fact, Ford has delayed the launch of their new F-150- another result of high fuel costs.

I wouldn't buy a Tundra either. But I wouldn't buy anything full size given the cost of gas, no matter who makes it. That goes for just about everyone else. Have you seen any new Ford Expeditions lately? I haven't, and the few I see are for sale.

This marks the end of the full size truck and SUV era. Or course contractors and professional business will need large trucks, but trucks will increasingly become niche vehicles just as they were prior to the truck craze of the 90's.

19:53 you can take out the word Toyota Tundra and replace it with GM Silverado. Plus better ride, better towing, better handling, more people carrying capacity, better warranty.

Let's look at the new 2008 Corvette V8 great engine just for fun... 0-60 under 5 seconds, 180 mph top speed, outstanding fit and finish on the newest models and better mpg both in city and highway then the Toyota Tacoma and the Tundra. Go to Edmunds true cost to own on full size trucks and resale over 5 years... on full size trucks

The Tacoma comment pertains to the V6's mpg to the 2008 Corvette V8...

Just to clarify earlier comment. Thx.

Its pretty interesting to just show how focused on MPG people are at the moment. Imagine owning a great car like a Corvette, having a better mpg and 100,000 mile warranty as well, than the V6 Tacoma or Tundra. With a great V8 engine. That has to be the greatest bargain; to do the same with an import would cost 2-3 times as much.

If you quit buying full size trucks, look at what MPG you can have with a great sports car. The Solstice is another great car if you want to stay small engine and not be bored to death driving a lot of bland boring offerings out there.

Comment 12:31 is quite right. High fuel costs ARE bringing to an end the large truck and SUV craze, and as far as I'm concerned it should have happened years ago. Naturally there will always be a niche market in industry for large trucks, but no private individual really has any need for an 8 mpg, 3-ton vehicle to haul the kids to soccer practice and pick up groceries. A 100 pound woman driving a Ford Excursion alone to Wal-Mart makes no sense whatsoever.

I can't really see the Tundra surviving the new market, as I know of no companies or industries that use them. The Tacoma is a good small truck, and it should do very well for families or individuals wanting a fairly economical smaller truck. Ford is coming out with a totally new mid-size, smaller-engined truck, which will probably be called the F-100. They are also coming out with a replacement for the rock-solid and venerable Ranger line. Both should do extremely well, especially in view of the Ranger and F-150's record of rugged reliability and quality.

In driving to my office yesterday I saw 3 nearly new full-size trucks with "For Sale" signs on the freeway. The high cost of gas is finally bringing a little common sense to the forefront in America's driving habits. It's about time.

11:53 Uhhh... I don't know if you were referring to my comment about our recent Ford headaches; the two that broke down, but the neither of them have anywhere close to 200,000 miles on them, of course, they're Fords.

Oh, and by the way, Nissan is much more reliable than any Ford. In fact, I don't think there's an automaker with worse overall reliability than Ford, possibly GM I suppose.

I always get a kick out of Consumer Reports' "used cars to avoid" section, and there's the majority of everything Ford has made in the last 10 years on the list, followed closely by GM's lineup of scrap cars. It's kind of funny to read all of the Ford fanatic comments about how they run forever, and all the miles they put on with no trouble, when in reality it's the complete opposite.

Ford owners seem to think that they're driving a good car or truck as long as it's still on the road, even after they've put an engine and two transmissions in it to get to 115,000 miles or whatever.

I guess if they ever buy a Toyota and get at least double that mileage with no problems whatsoever, they'll know better.