2002 Toyota Tundra SR5 from North America - All Comments

The only problem I have had with my new full size domestic truck has been a flat tire. I am glad I do not have to cherry pick with sludging, engine failures, trans issues, and flimsy tailgates. I would love to go into a new dealership and hear my flimsy import concerns were just cherry picked after being towed in. Just what you want to hear.

14:38 drives a 2002 Tundra and a Ford prior to that. I do not see how they can comment on newest models. If your vehicle spends most of its life in the garage or going to a park, it's not like many of us that truly use our full size trucks.

My GM Silverado is driven daily and weekends towing up to 4 hours... a better testament to full size truck comments.

If I keep repeating full size it's because this is the topic of this specific review. I would like to see full size truck comments across the board... Ford F-150 250's, Silverados, Titans, Ram ownership comparisons gas and diesel more relevant to Tundra's size.

I came across some information in an article on the U.S. auto industry this morning that I found rather interesting:

Ford outsold Nissan, Honda, BMW, Mercedes Benz, and Mitsubishi COMBINED last year by approximately 1.5 million vehicles in the U.S.

Overall, Ford ranks tops in quality as rated by J.D. Powers and Associates.

Ford sold approximately 1,000,000 F-series trucks last year. That's more that all other comparable truck lines COMBINED, and about 20 times as many as the Tundra.

Japanese auto makers in Tennessee, Alabama, Texas and Mississippi have ALREADY gotten billions in government bail outs in the form of tax abatements.

"I came across some information in an article on the U.S. auto industry this morning that I found rather interesting:

Ford outsold Nissan, Honda, BMW, Mercedes Benz, and Mitsubishi COMBINED last year by approximately 1.5 million vehicles in the U.S.

Overall, Ford ranks tops in quality as rated by J.D. Powers and Associates."

I assume you're as perplexed as many as to how a company like Ford, Chrysler, and GM can outsell imported brands and still be close to bankruptcy. The explanation is simple.

First of all, the Big three factories are concentrated in the upper Midwest if the US. They've been there since their beginning, and in that time, Unions and various labor organizations have basically incurred an enormous expense to these companies in the form of high wages, which isn't a bad thing except that Toyota can make a car in KY and pay their workers a lot less. Additionally, states like Michigan have extremely high corporate taxes. Once more, it's more cost effective to do business in "newer" manufacturing states. Thus I'd suggest that if the big Three go bankrupt, they should severe ties with Unions entirely. Additionally, they might consider relocating to cheaper states.

Secondly, the Big Three are somewhat inefficient when it comes to their plants, distribution, and Dealer networks. This causes even more costs.

Bottom line: the big three have been functioning on very thin margins for years. All it took was a fall in sales to topple them over. If they survive, they're going to have to become leaner, more efficient companies.

"Japanese auto makers in Tennessee, Alabama, Texas and Mississippi have ALREADY gotten billions in government bail outs in the form of tax abatements."

Thank you for speaking the truth. This does not get talked about a lot, but it is a fact.

By the way, the US automakers are not asking for a "bailout;" they are asking for a loan. Unlike the the banking industry, who are getting HANDOUTS to use however they please, the government wants to step in and execute a hostile takeover of the auto industries for their nowhere near as massive LOAN.

I do not support the government giving money in either bailouts or loans to any company or industry. It is not their role. But even still, the contrast between how the government treats the manufacturing industries versus the special interest industries (e.g., banking industries, pharmaceutical industries and military industrial complex) is mind boggling. It is equally mind boggling how the government stacks the deck against US manufacturers versus foreign manufacturers, even subsidizing the foreign companies while placing crippling restrictions and obstacles in the way of US companies as mentioned by the previous commenter.

The following article explains how buying Japanese and other Asian products, even those assembled in America, is totally destroying our country:

http://www.uwsa.com/issues/trade/japanyes.html

I totally disagree that foreign carmakers deciding to produce cars in the USA is "Destroying our country". I happen to be from Tennessee where Nissan, Toyota, Honda, and soon VW have either assembly plants, or plants that produce parts for these cars, like Denso USA. I grew up in the late 70's, early 80's, and prior to the 90's when the first Japanese automakers set up plants here, the region was economically depressed... much like areas of the Midwest now. Since then, the Southern US has become one of the fastest growing economies in the country, plus it enjoys one of the best qualities of living standards in the US. We have in part foreign automakers to thank for helping us transition into this new economy. I imagine that if you're from Michigan, then your opinion that import brands are destroying the US economy might be more confined to the state level.

That being the case, then it's less to do with where a car's brand may originate and more to do with states that are less favorable to manufacturing along with long-standing unions that make manufacturing in these older established areas less profitable. So the problem isn't necessarily the fault of import automakers, but actually that of the US manufacturers as well as the way in which they manage their affairs.

Lastly, the reason that the US government is less than thrilled about handing out loans to ailing automakers is because the big three's problems have been brewing for decades: Their lack of ability in producing comparably built vehicles with the same levels of quality or fit and finish, their total reliance on high profit margin vehicles like SUVs, and their slow adoption of alternative powertrains.

The US government wants to see a plan and how these companies plan to regain their competitive edge. So far, the Big three have failed to deliver anything believable. Do I think they have some good products either now or in the future? Yes. But just as they found in the 70's when the fuel crisis hit, they had been making cars the same way for too long and got caught with their pants down when Japanese cars hit the market with better built, more fuel efficient cars and trucks. Once more, they've done exactly the same thing, with Toyota having had hybrids on the road for almost 10 years with GM's first serious attempt at their own dedicated hybrid coming out in 2010.

GM, Ford, and Chrysler need to get with the program. We can't afford to lose them due to the huge number of jobs we would lose. But at the same time, they make mediocre, "acceptable" cars that are once more - just behind the competition. That needs to change.

Thank you 10:18. As a loyal American I have tried to impress upon others the harm that the destruction of our native industries does. It's very hard to make people aware of the fact that although a company may have a factory in the U.S., it still does horrible damage to our economy and lifestyle to send our buying dollars overseas. I realize that patriotism is an outmoded concept, especially among the younger members of our citizenry, but there are dire consequences for turning our backs on our country, especially in times of dire economic circumstances.

As a mechanic for over 40 years, I can assure you that people spend far, far more dollars having imported cars repaired than domestics. A mechanic friend of mine retired a few years ago. He said he started really getting rich once big numbers of Hondas, Toyotas and Nissans hit the 3-year-old mark and were out of warranty. He said he had made more money in just a few years off of imports than he had in 20 years off domestics.

Billions of dollars have been poured into ads creating a myth that anything imported is better. For years Toyota used subliminal ads that featured a broken-down Ford Taurus in the background of every ad. All of a sudden people seemed to "remember" seeing broken down Tauruses everywhere, but could NEVER tell you WHERE. That is the result of subliminal advertising. It works. Never mind that the Taurus was an incredibly reliable car that has far BETTER ratings on this site than Camry. The brain-washed import fans will still chant "I see broken down Tauruses" just as they have been programmed to. I drive a 20-mile stretch of freeway to my company. I see DOZENS of broken down Camrys, Tundras and older Honda Civics, as well as a number of Nissans of all models. In the past 10 years I have seen ONE broken down Taurus, and it was a 1986 model that probably had 300,000 miles on it.

-- I totally disagree that foreign carmakers deciding to produce cars in the USA is "Destroying our country" --

I am referring to our government allowing the Japanese and now other Asian governments to implement policies intended to put US companies out of business and we let them get away with as articulated in this article:

http://www.uwsa.com/issues/trade/japanyes.html

The plants in the states you mentioned may provide benefits in the short term, but US industry going out of business and the Japanese (or anyone else) controlling all industry is not good in the long run. Buying foreign vehicles directly contributes to that happening. Once the Japanese companies control the economy after (God forbid) having put the US companies out of business, you are at their mercy. They will pay you as little as they want, with no incentive to do otherwise. Take a look at how they do not allow unions, albeit the unions are in no way without fault in this whole mess as you mentioned.

Also, this has no influence on my feelings on these matters, but I am from NJ - a decidedly UNFRIENDLY state toward business by most accounts.

-- Lastly, the reason that the US government is less than thrilled about handing out loans to ailing automakers is because the big three's problems have been brewing for decades: Their lack of ability in producing comparably built vehicles with the same levels of quality or fit and finish, their total reliance on high profit margin vehicles like SUVs, and their slow adoption of alternative powertrains. --

I disagree about the quality and fit and finish assertion for reasons several people including myself have mentioned on previous comments, which I do not feel like rewriting and I doubt anybody feels like rereading. But, they are there for anybody who wants to see them.

Regarding the US manufacturers' seemingly over reliance on SUVs, they were just building products people wanted to buy, and making huge sums of money doing it. Can you blame them? It was the increase in gas prices that put the damper on those vehicles. Yet even while people were buying those gas guzzling vehicles in droves, Chevy alone (not combined with other GM divisions) was still building more vehicle models that get 30 MPG or more than Toyota. GM engines are also consistently more efficient than Toyota engines, as indicated by GM being able to offer a more powerful engine in a heavier vehicle, while achieving better fuel economy than import vehicles (particularly Toyota) with less powerful engines in lighter vehicles.

Regarding alternative powertrains, GM designed and sold the first production electric car, the EV1. They are now in the process of producing the first plug-in hybrid with a series drivetrain architecture, which is a much more complicated design endeavor than the parallel architectures currently being produced. Moreover, the parallel designs are not nearly as efficient as people have been led to believe. While they may appease politicians who do not know any better, they are not necessarily a sensible engineering solution, at least not in their current form.

GM also has more ethanol fueled vehicles on the road than all other manufacturers combined. Ethanol, the fuel itself, is another brilliant shoot form the hip political scheme that has extreme problems. But, this is not GM's fault, and they (along with other domestic manufacturers) should be commended for their major commitment ethanol research (for which their thanks was getting shafted by the government's incompetence in the whole ethanol scam), MUCH more so than any import manufacturer. OF course the government conveniently does not mention that.

Regarding fuel cells, GM has been involved in fuel cell research as long as anyone. But the problem fuel cell technology is not necessarily the cells themselves (although they are highly complicated), but the amount of energy it takes to extract the hydrogen necessary to run them - e.g., 75% or more of the energy the hydrogen can even produce. Thus, nobody has been able to come up with a fuel cell vehicle that makes engineering sense to produce.

But, GM is still on the forefront of fuel cell research, coming out before anyone with a test fleet of actual fuel cell vehicles currently on the streets in New York City, Washington DC and Southern California, for which GM received the 2008 Green Car Vision Award from Green Car Journal (I keep up with these things).

-- The US government wants to see a plan and how these companies plan to regain their competitive edge. --

The government cannot even run its own budget without hundreds of billions of dollars heading toward a trillion+ in deficit. It is laughable that they want to stand in judgement of how any real world (as opposed to Washington) runs its operations. The automakers are not blameless for their current situation. But the government should be looking at the substantial contribution THEY made to the situation through oppressive taxes and regulation, instead of pretending as if they have a clue of how to solve anything.

-- just as they found in the 70's when the fuel crisis hit, they had been making cars the same way for too long and got caught with their pants down when Japanese cars hit the market with... more fuel efficient cars and trucks.--

True, but this is not the 70's anymore.

-- Toyota having had hybrids on the road for almost 10 years with GM's first serious attempt at their own dedicated hybrid coming out in 2010. --

As noted above, you are comparing apples to oranges. GM's series hybrid is a completely different and much more challenging to design vehicle than Toyota's parallel design, which is not nearly as efficient or sensible a long term solution.

Once again, I must state that I think most of the comments here are off topic.

I honestly don't understand why this has to turn into a debate about Imports vs. Domestics. I find it hard to understand why people are either dead set against imports, or dead set against domestic vehicles.

I also don't understand why so many people take it so personally.

All cars are basically "global" now, with parts being made all over the world, as well as assembly plants.

In our household we have an American made vehicle, a European made vehicle, and a Japanese vehicle.

We like them all, and all have been very reliable.

If you have a make or model that you like and have had good luck with - Good for you! Enjoy it! Whether it be a domestic make or an import, and please don't take other's opinions so seriously.

It's great to have another worthy and well informed defender of U.S. built vehicles. Commenter 11:08 has definitely told it like it is. No need to even address his comments. They are RIGHT ON.

As a mechanic and car enthusiast for 40+ years, I have never felt that domestic auto makers had ANYTHING to apologize for.

My first new car (a Chrysler) was purchased in 1972. It never cost me a cent in repairs in 130,000+ miles. My family has usually owned three or four vehicles at a time, and over the years we have owned over 35 vehicles. Some were traded quickly (such as a Ford my wife traded after 3 WEEKS and 800 miles because she hated the color) and another Ford that was traded after 17 years and 300,000 miles still in good running condition.

We've put way over 200,000 miles on Ford, GM and Chrysler products. Not ONE has ever required an engine or transmission. In the 80's and early 90's we lost our sanity and experimented with three imports. NEVER AGAIN. The "myth" that Japanese cars are more reliable took a LOT of advertising dollars to deceive the American public, but after having worked on my own imports I can assure you the parts are simpler, cheaper, and not built to last as long, whether they were made in Japan or the U.S. The argument that domestics USED TO BE less reliable than imports just doesn't wash with me. My 70's domestics were light years ahead of our 80's and 90's imports.

People's perceptions of cars is so purely subjective and uninformed that 99.99% of the American car buying public has not a clue to how reliable or well built any vehicle is.

Last week I read a road test on a new 2009 vehicle. The review referred to it's awful ride, very jerky transmission, lack of power, poor fuel mileage and concrete hard seats that had pieces of trim falling off. It was ranked well below the Ford Edge and Flex, as well as the Dodge Durango and Hyundai Vera Cruze. And just what was this obvious piece of junk?? A new Kia maybe?? No, it was the new Mercedes ML-320. The "benchmark" of automotive excellence (or so we are told).

I'll respond to 11:08's post. First of all, you mentioned that:

"The plants in the states you mentioned may provide benefits in the short term, but US industry going out of business and the Japanese (or anyone else) controlling all industry is not good in the long run."

The first Japanese car plants setup shop in TN and OH in the early 80's, almost 30 years ago. So much for their presence being a "short term" benefit. The response that they will take captive the US worker and pay them as little as possible is also bogus. Ford and GM have had a presence in the UK and Europe for almost as long as they've existed in the US. Despite the UK having lost all of its brands to foreign car makers, Fords are still made in the UK with the same comparable wages. Hence the argument falls flat. Besides- Companies like Toyota have incentives to pay their employees decent wages: They can then afford to buy their cars plus they stay on the job longer.

Next you mention:

"I disagree about the quality and fit and finish assertion for reasons several people including myself have mentioned on previous comments, which I do not feel like rewriting and I doubt anybody feels like rereading. But, they are there for anybody who wants to see them."

I've rented numerous brand-new GM and Ford brand vehicles on trips. Indeed the fit and finish is better than it was in the past, but it's still not anywhere close to the newer Japanese or European equivalents. I also went to a international car show a few weeks ago. Again, the fit and finish are not what I would call... bad. But it isn't great either.

In regards to your comment about GM and Ford giving the public what they wanted - large SUVs, sure. I agree that they would be foolish not to provide this need. But they also completely ignored their small and mid sized car offerings. Cars from GM and Ford in the 90's and early 2000's were dinosaurs. Buick, Cadillac, and Oldsmobile were hopelessly outdated cars that appealed mainly to older buyers. The interiors and materials used in them were cheap and lacked imagination. In ignoring these cars while Toyota and Honda continually improved theres was a huge mistake that they are still paying for. Nobody my age (30) even considers most of the cars GM and Ford makes mainly because the cars they made that we grew up seeing were totally uninteresting. Hence why should we care now?

Now for your last comments regarding GM's Hybrid, fuel cell, and electric car programs, I've been paying close attention to these development for years. I applaud them for their efforts. They have the most advanced fuel cell cars and trucks in existence. The Volt is truly revolutionary as was the EV-1. Technically, they succeed. In making them practical for average consumer consumption they fail miserably. Why? Well for one, hydrogen takes TWICE as much energy to produce and requires a massive change in infrastructure to implement. Thus it's a tremendous waste not to mention the cars right now cost almost a million dollars each. The inefficiency of hydrogen production alone is enough to make me think that they should scrap this plan completely.

Their latest attempt is the Volt, available in 2010. Again - promising car with lots of potential. The problem is that GM has put its latest cost estimate for this car at slightly over $40,000. At that price, they are still losing money on it. $40,000 is in the semi-luxury threshold. The Volt is a four door family sedan. On top of that, we're in a recession. They might as well ask $100,000 for it because nobody is going to pay that kind of money for a family car. Yet Toyota has an upgraded version of the Prius coming out in 2010 that will cost the same as the current one: $20,000, plus it'll get 75MPG. Its more conventional in terms of hybrid technology, but just like what Toyota has always done, they choose a path that yields a good, practical product at a reasonable cost.In other words, they get what consumers need and are willing to pay. The Volt is a better design. But if they can't sell it then they fail.Their business model for the Volt is a glaring mistake.

GM's timing on all of their breakthrough projects is way off. That or they fail to consider the marketing problems these products will hit. This pretty much sums up GM: A dinosaur with poor direction and poor management.

Here's the deal: GM, Ford, and Chrysler make junk and they KNOW IT. In fact, RIGHT NOW I am watching all 3 of these people beg for money in front of a senate committee, and ALL 3 ADMITTED to being behind in technology, making poor vehicles and needing, I quote "a product renaissance".

So, for you people out there attacking Toyota, give it up. You don't have a leg to stand on. The point of this review, the Tundra, is a better truck than anything the Big 3 have ever made and likely will ever make.

Turn on CNN, listen to the very LEADERS of GM, Ford, and Chrysler prove me right. Remember..."a product renaissance". You don't hear Toyota or Honda talking about that. Because they don't need it. GM does. And Rick Wagoner just said it himself.

If I were an older import commenter that lives in California, I would be shopping for a moving van instead of any car. The taxation of California cars is likely to be tripling, the state has the highest deficit in the country, and the second highest income tax in the country.

Rather than dwell on economy I would move and have the capability to own a much higher quality more expensive domestic! It's understandable why you are so focused on old or real small imports, as if there are not higher end cars based on the area you are commenting from. It's steep to live there. I just rented a new Mercury Marquis in Orlando and drove 70 mph (speed limit) and sometimes a bit over still averaging 23 mpg and a nice comfortable V8 with leather interior. After driving 319 miles round trip Orlando/Jax and back I was ready to keep driving. We went out to dinner and were not tired of driving at all. Quality ride, comfort and very respectable mileage. I rent a lot of cars as well, both personal and business.

But they also completely ignored their small and mid sized car offerings."

As usual, totally untrue. Chevrolet alone makes more 30+ mpg cars than Honda and Toyota COMBINED. The incorrect idea that the Big Three only make gas-guzzling SUV's is another of those urban myths that just won't die. All of the Big Three auto makers build vehicles rated higher than even the Honda Fit. GM builds 37mpg vehicles, as does Ford, and the Dodge Caliber with the small 4 and CVT is rated at 35mpg. In addition, all these cars cost several thousand dollars less than Japanese cars and offer far better warranties due to higher build quality.

"Nobody my age (30) even considers most of the cars GM and Ford makes mainly because the cars they made that we grew up seeing were totally uninteresting. Hence why should we care now?"

Oh yes, all those "boring" Mustang Bosses, Shelbys and Cobras, Camaro Z-28's, Corvettes, Dodge Hemis, Buick Grand Nationals, Firebird Trans Ams, and a host of other "boring" cars. Please tell us of ONE Japanese import that has NOT been totally boring.

Something I rarely do is watch TV, but today I watched CNN for nearly three hours. What I saw was the 3 CEO's of GM, Ford, and Chrysler beg for money in front of a Congressional committee, who basically ridiculed them and tore them to pieces. Which is just exactly what they should have done.

The big question that reoccurred was: why should we give you guys money when there is no guarantee that you will do anything useful with it? Why give 38 billion dollars to three companies that will probably just use it to survive just a LITTLE longer and continue to build the same unappealing, outdated, low quality vehicles?

An interesting fact I learned today is that GM has FOUR times as many plants in the U.S. as Toyota, yet Toyota still has the best selling, best rated (in terms of quality and reliability) vehicles on the market. Not only that, but Toyota is worth about 143 billion and GM, the biggest of the "big" 3 (laughable) is worth about 110 billion dollars less than that.

So.. here's what I want you domestic fans that comment here to understand: the Big 3 make scrap. Plain and simple. And even if they DID make good automobiles, a person would have to be seriously confused to even consider buying one again. To roughly quote Rick Wagoner (CEO of GM)..."General Motors WILL declare bankruptcy before the new year (January 2009) unless we receive money from the taxpayers". Same goes for Ford and Chrysler. In fact, Chrysler is so far beyond hope that they are expected to go out of business even if they DO get this money. The company that OWNS 80% of Chrysler refuses to give them another nickel, because they know it would be wasting money on something doomed to fail.

So, domestic fans...let's hear ALL that talk about GM's precious 100,000 mile warranty again... (I'm laughing to myself). I don't care if they offer a bumper to bumper 500,000 mile warranty, it'd just be another scam. They most likely won't be there in about a month to back up ANY warranty. To anyone reading out there - do yourself a favor (and this is obvious to most people) - buy a Toyota or a Honda. Not only is it a clearly superior vehicle, but they will be in existence after January to back up their warranty.