2002 Toyota Tundra SR5 from North America - All Comments

I suggest everyone in this forum read "The United States of Toyota" by Peter DeLorenzo before flippantly commenting that destroying the U.S. auto industry is "their business if they choose to buy from a foreign company". His figures indicate that ONE IN FOURTEEN jobs in the U.S. is either directly or indirectly related to the U.S. auto industry. You may not even KNOW if your job is related to domestic car makers or not... until you get your pink slip.

"Costa Rico"

Do you mean Costa Rica or Puerto Rico? The amalgam seems an unlikely source for good dental care :)

Costa Rica. I agree I'll take health care here as well. And also avoid the Tundra for a better domestic full size as well.

"Even better than addressing these health concerns on a car review... do not just read magazines, test drive everything in your price range before you buy. Don't get so locked up in a brand to not personally get behind the wheel and really like what you select. And get a decent warranty."

I totally agree, and have long urged people to do just this. I am a car nut and love to just go out and drive different cars. I have many friends who work at dealerships and service departments in my area, and on several occasions I've been offered a new car to use for the entire day or weekend. A 5-minute test drive tells you very little, especially if you can't really drive the guts out of the vehicle to assess its performance capabilities. When people whine about buying a "puny performing" vehicle they'll get no sympathy from me. You can tell in TEN SECONDS if a car is "puny". Simply floor the accelerator and if you aren't doing 60mph in 10 seconds, I'd say it is "puny". That's not to say many "puny" cars aren't very good and economical cars. It depends on your needs and preferences. Some of my 10+ second cars were extremely good for the tasks I expected of them.

With all that said, after driving domestic, Japanese, Korean, German and Swedish cars, I always come to the same conclusion: For the overall BEST in warranty, performance, value and reliability, NOTHING has ever proven better for us than a Ford, GM or Chrysler, whether it be cars, trucks or SUV's. New domestics are just better overall than anything available today. This is especially true of full-sized trucks. The Tundra falls so far short in this area it should not even be considered.

"Yeah... particularly if it were true. Most hospitals either won't or can't by law turn away a patient based on their ability to pay -- something about that "do no harm" thing. So this isn't about the poor being left to die"

You might inform the family of a young man who was left on the concrete walk outside an emergency room to die for want of a shot of insulin here in our area about this "myth".

Wow! This thread has gotten so far off topic, I'm very surprised that Steven (steven@carsurvey.org) hasn't pulled the plug on adding comments to it!

"Costa Rico"

"Do you mean Costa Rica or Puerto Rico? The amalgam seems an unlikely source for good dental care :) "

I'm really not quite sure where discussions of dental fillings apply on a car review site. I suppose if you drove a really rough-riding car, such as a Mustang GT or Scion Tc it might apply, as those cars DO tend to jar your fillings out!! :)

"You might inform the family of a young man who was left on the concrete walk outside an emergency room to die for want of a shot of insulin here in our area about this "myth"."

I didn't use the term "myth" but I DID use the term "Most". My wife has worked in 4 different health systems in two states... two public, two private. All offered service at no cost to those who couldn't pay. It's also notable that the young man that you referred to apparently made the news by his misfortune. That suggests just how extraordinary his circumstance was. Even your outrage, alone, should confirm this. This was not a daily occurrence and was not likely the result of a policy of patient denial. Please understand here that I don't know for sure if the policies in MN and ND are based upon state laws or federal ones, but the stated basis of these laws is universal... to whit, the hippocratic oath. The failure to provide care is considered my most (there is some debate on this subject) to be the same as "doing harm".

Anyway patient denial is uncommon and not the real base rationale for a government-based single payer system. Unfortunately this is an inappropriate forum for this discussion.

So back to cars.

"I'm really not quite sure where discussions of dental fillings apply on a car review site. I suppose if you drove a really rough-riding car, such as a Mustang GT or Scion Tc it might apply, as those cars DO tend to jar your fillings out!! :) "

So does my Jeep. But, oh what fun!! Dentist be d@#$ed :)

I used to own a 2000 Tundra. It was sold at 107,000 miles and was a good reliable vehicle during that time-frame. However, I will be buying domestically for my next truck. The Tundra WAS a lightweight vehicle and not great for trailering heavy stuff. The suspension was too soft to keep a trailer running straight in a side wind. My old Chevy was stiffer but it liked to wander a bit due to play in the steering. Newer Domestics look to be fairly reliable (according to CR) and have great features for trailering. Also Toyota's recent quality glitches make me nervous about longer-term wear and tear. If they missed a number of "misforged" cams, etc. what else have they missed that will only show up just after the warranty expires or at 100,000 miles? The latest model just seemed like it was released half-baked... which isn't very confidence inspiring. It's usually good to wait a few years before buying a new model anyway because everyone makes mistakes.

"Wow! This thread has gotten so far off topic, I'm very surprised that Steven (steven@carsurvey.org) hasn't pulled the plug on adding comments to it!"

I, for one, appreciate the fact that Steven has allowed these seemingly off-track comments. So few people in the U.S. really have the faintest idea of how far-reaching the auto industry and its effects are. With approximately one in fifteen U.S. jobs tied directly or indirectly to the American auto industry, discussions of related topics is very much appropriate to a vehicle-related site.

The U.S. auto industry involves financial institutions, insurance firms and the health care industry. As stated earlier, one of the U.S. auto makers largest problems is the draconian health care system here that costs auto makers billions of dollars. Unlike more enlightened countries, such as the UK and Canada, many people here scream bloody murder at the idea of our government doing anything to help our poor or elderly citizens. Lobbying groups such as the AMA put out false information to frighten our citizens into avoiding providing our people with health care. They tell us that you have to wait 6 months to see a doctor if you have a medical emergency in Canada or the UK. This is patently false. I have friends in both Canada and the UK and they literally fear coming to the U.S. because they might become ill or involved in an accident, and either be denied care or literally bankrupted by an emergency room visit.

There is one case here where a child was left to bleed to death in an emergency room without care because his father had to rush home to get his insurance card before a doctor would even LOOK at the child. The family sued and it was one of the largest awards ever made for medical malpractice at the time. This sort of thing happens EVERY DAY in the U.S., and health care is VERY MUCH a part of the economic problems facing domestic auto makers.

Comparing vehicles is far more involved than saying "I prefer Ford" or "I prefer Toyota". We need to look at the disastrous effects of buying from foreign companies, and we need to understand the archaic governmental policies here that hinder our businesses. The American public (the 50% that CAN read) need to inform themselves about many aspects of our economy while we still have one to read about. A foreign commentator on a TV show recently referred to "undeveloped countries such as Australia and the U.S." He was pretty much right on (about the U.S. at least).

I could wait til my teeth fall out naturally from age, and be one of the many new Camry owners about.

"There is one case here where a child was left to bleed to death in an emergency room without care because his father had to rush home to get his insurance card before a doctor would even LOOK at the child. The family sued and it was one of the largest awards ever made for medical malpractice at the time. This sort of thing happens EVERY DAY in the U.S., and health care is VERY MUCH a part of the economic problems facing domestic auto makers."

Note that the family sued and won. Why would they win? Why is it called malpractice? Answer: because it ISN'T common or considered acceptable. Your point that it happens daily is completely baseless. It happens, but it is uncommon and, again, NOT THE RATIONALE BEHIND A SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM. It results in lawsuits, public outrage, and loss of prestige. None of these things would be true if it happened "EVERY DAY in the U.S.".

There IS a reasonable basis for a single-payer system but this is an AUTO BLOG!! Yes it has an affect on the automakers but so would the higher taxes that would be necessary to pay for such a system --- it ain't free no matter what.

You would likely be surprised that I don't take a hard position because the facts of which I am aware don't support doing so. I have concerns and doubts that such a system would be cheaper, but it is perhaps valid to say that healthcare should be a right and not merely the privilege of the very poor, the wealthy, and those of the middle class who are not self-employed. There are aggravating and mitigating points on both sides.

There is absolutely no point in arguing this any further, though, because this is the wrong venue and we can't even get to the real arguments on both sides of this issue. This relates to auto making only in the same way that it relates to doing any kind of business here in the U.S. Everyone faces the same realities, so it isn't truly an appropriate subject for this forum unless we want to also plumb the depths of business models, advertising, merchandising, accounting, and employee relations.

So... I'm out. If getting the last word is your definition of success, then have at it. I'm back to cars.

Yes, many Camry owners ARE elderly, and the car is perfect for them. They never use 10% of any car's potential. And therein lies the problem with the Tundra. It, too, was built in much the same manner as the Camry. It simply cannot handle being used like a Ford F-150 or Chevy Silverado would. It, too, is a perfect vehicle for retired elderly men who putter around hauling garden supplies. In real, day-to-day work usage it leaves a lot to be desired.

"The solution is not to regulate industry. It is Washington who accepts all of the special interest money you mention and needs to clean out their own house. We tried regulating the banking industry, requiring banks to loan money to people who could not afford to pay them back. Now the banks are in trouble because of all the bad debt they have on their books. The government's devious response to have taxpayers buy up all this bad debt that it (government) created so they can slither in and take over the industry."

I think you're misinterpreting what the situation on Wall Street and its relationship with the government has been. Banks, lenders, and financial institutions were never "forced" to loan money. The reality is that financial institutions wanted to loan more money to higher risk clientele. As I mentioned before, lobbies had much to do with getting the government to look the other way.

Now why would banks want to lend to riskier borrowers? The reasons are complex, but to boil it down to a few of them, one is that few banks actually hold onto mortgages for very long. Instead, mortgages are soon sold off up stream to other banks and investment firms. Reason no.2 is that investing in risk means higher returns and quicker profits.

What enabled the risk to seem more digestible was the ease of obtaining insurance. What I mean by this is that it's actually extremely easy to setup a financial insurance entity that can insure anything. Let's say that you're afraid Brazil could someday go bankrupt because you have large investments in Brazilian companies. No problem, just find an insurance firm that will insure your assets in Brazil. Pay them 100k to insure 100 million worth of investments. The insurance company likely never has to pay out anything, and thus probably doesn't actually have enough to cover those insured if there was.

That's precisely what happened on Wall Street: Banks sold high risk debt, but also bought insurance from companies like AIG. When these banks began to show heavy losses from mortgage defualts, AIG was unable to pay, hence their failure and why the US stepped in and shored things up, because had they not, the entire system would have collapsed. All because everyone assumed that their backs were covered when in fact nobody had any safety rope whatsoever, since what was being insured had no real value to begin with, since the investments in question were heavily tied to overpriced real estate.

Bottom line: You can't make money off of non-existent, non-performing capital.

As you can see, these people on Wall Street basically played with the money of everyone in a very irresponsible way.If you think this sounds crazy, than perhaps you would agree with me that indeed - these companies acted with great abandon. These industries MUST be regulated, because not having any regulation is exactly what created this entire problem. There is no such thing as capitalism without regulation. You cannot expect a balanced system unless corporate interests are held accountable for their actions.

People need to get out there and actually understand how the market works.

"A foreign commentator on a TV show recently referred to "undeveloped countries such as Australia and the U.S." He was pretty much right on (about the U.S. at least)."

His being foreign must qualify him. What a stupid statement! The U.S. is still the world's largest economy, Has the most powerful military, is the seminal leader of the G8 (group of eight INDUSTRIALIZED nations, has the highest quality healthcare (though its not generally available), is the technological leader, is the leader in the area of innovation, and has the world's most stable government. The lack of socialized healthcare seems like a minor difference in light of these facts. It could be a good idea to consider the possibility that his comment was "sour grapes" from another disappointed socialist.

I think that within the next two years you'll see a rebound in GM and Ford's fortunes (I'm not sure what will happen to Chrysler) as they now have cost structures that rival their foreign counterparts. Hopefully they will allow "car guys" rather than accountants design their vehicles. This could be a very exciting time as we see improvements in quality, technology, "greenness", and fuel economy. Already their trucks, in particular, are class acts.

10:39 The Tundra has more horsepower, torque, and towing capacity than either of those trucks if I'm not mistaken. Not to mention it's a Toyota, and not a Chevy, which means that it isn't a misaligned collection of cheap parts like a Chevy is.