2002 Toyota Tundra SR5 from North America - All Comments

11:48 How you can write such a long comment, yet be completely incorrect about the facts is beyond me.

I just left the J.D. Power website. As I knew already, Ford is (of course) rated LOWER in overall quality than Toyota...

Well, here is MSNBC reporting on JD Power and Associate's survey with an article titled, "Ford Beats Toyota in Quality Rankings"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19073071/

Thanks for the info. I haven't seen any sources lately that DON'T rank Ford as good or better than Toyota or Honda in reliability. Consumer Reports, J.D. Powers, USA Today, and most other sources and reviewers are coming out on the side of Ford. Japanese cars are losing ground, and FAST. USA Today alone has featured reviews in the past month bashing both Nissan and Toyota, and stating that the Ford Focus is a much better car and "more upscale" in feel than the Toyota. EVERYONE agrees that the Fusion is several notches above both the Camry and Accord in reliability.

It's becoming obvious that Japanese cars are not now, and in reality never have been anywhere near as good as the hype has made them out to be. We had Japanese cars made when they were SUPPOSED to be better (late 80's, early 90's). Ours weren't as reliable then as our Fords were. Today there is no comparison at all. Ford takes it hands down.

9:46... has a 7000 lb. pull plus with my 2 boats another factor to consider is tongue weight. There are a lot of people focused on "gas sippers" on here. I prefer a V8 with towing. Or better yet Diesel.

Heres some recommendations for the readers on here:

http://www.autotropolis.com/wiki/index.php?title=Top_10_Towing_Vehicles_for_2008

I found the best way is to look out in the parking lot at all the newer full size trucks with small and large trailers. I go to the massive new boat ramps and everyone is lined up and its lined with 1/2-3/4 ton with some even larger domestics. Everyone loves talking about their boats/trucks waiting and I ask there. Not from people trying to sell me one. If you do not tow or carry loads why buy a full size truck at all? And I suspect most on here do not own one to comprehend why they are bought on applications in 2009. I suspect we will hear about not needing a domestic dually or 1 ton truck. I agree with that in my case I prefer 3/4 ton no compromises on application or safety. Performs flawless and far better capability and warranty as well.

"has a 7000 lb. pull plus with my 2 boats another factor to consider is tongue weight. There are a lot of people focused on "gas sippers" on here. I prefer a V8 with towing. Or better yet Diesel.

Heres some recommendations for the readers on here:

http://www.autotropolis.com/wiki/index.php?title=Top_10_Towing_Vehicles_for_2008"

Thanks for the site. The tongue weight issue is significant but is mitigated somewhat by my weight distribution hitch. What pickup do you own? Right now I have a trailer but no reliable pickup to pull it with. So I'm looking toward the future. How long have you owned it? What problems have you had? Could they have been avoided? If so, how? When you tow, does your truck wander?

Thanks for any answers in advance. Obviously I'm not a Toyota basher since I'm a former owner, but my experience tells me that the Tundra needs a fair amount of beefing-up to pull heavier trailers.

"I just left the J.D. Power website. As I knew already, Ford is (of course) rated LOWER in overall quality than Toyota..."

Oh really?? Then I guess you somehow conveniently overlooked the Fusion (rated MUCH higher than the Camry) and the Mustang (rated tops over the Toyota Solara). I'm also sure you weren't aware that the 2007 Pontiac Grand Prix beat out the Toyota Avalon for "Best in class" in J.D. Powers rankings. Sounds a bit like VERY selective reading to me. Try reading comments 23:06, 17:11,17:48 and 16:28. Real data from real sources. In full size trucks NOTHING beats ANY domestic. That's fact, not opinion. Ask people who actually own and use trucks in their work. How many Tundras have you seen on construction sites?

J.D. Power rates Toyota below Ford (of course) in overall quality. It's that simple. As does any other source I've ever read. I guess if you want to buy a Ford and believe that it's as good, that's your decision.

23:06, Ahh...no. Sorry. In reality, the Japanese automobiles of the 80's and 90's were WORLDS ahead of all the domestics. Ford is beginning to at least close the gap a little, not nearly in the same league as a Toyota or a Honda of course, but closer. At least they're not complete junk now.

There is a BIG difference between INITIAL and LONG TERM reliability. All of you guys jumping all over that MSNBC/JD power article are getting a little too excited over the fact that they are indicating INITIAL quality. I could really care less about initial quality, which is a moot point anyway. What counts is long term reliability, which I'm sorry to once more point out is by far in Toyota's favor. Sorry - but Ford is NOT more reliable than Toyota in any shape, form, or fashion.

And in regards to this comment:

"OK, let's say it ISN'T about patriotism. Let's say it's about WORLD economics. Are you aware that right now even the "can do no wrong" Japanese car makers are up against the wall because numerous companies that build various items THEY use are being affected by the slow sales of the Big Three? (USA Today, March 12, 2009) If we bury our heads in the sand long enough we can convince ourselves of anything. Of course by the time it becomes obvious that supporting U.S. auto makers effects the WORLD's economy it will be too late to salvage ANYONE'S auto industry. Enjoy your bicycles."

ALL automakers are having problems right now. But the reason isn't because US car makers are doing badly. The reason is that credit has dried up. But just to back up the boat for just a second, US car makers have been in trouble for a long time now, and well before the current economic crisis. GM and Ford have been losing market share not because they build fantastic cars that everyone wants, but because they build less and less that people want. Oh sure - they built loads of trucks and SUVs for sure. But they totally ignored their small and mid sized car lineups, with examples like the Cavalier, Taurus, and Escort being total jokes.

What it boils down too is really, really simple: The company with better products wins, and regardless of how you feel about it, success doesn't come from building poor products. Hence GM and Ford's eventual demise.

Lastly, Toyota will be around for a long time, so I will have a choice of what to drive. But I do enjoy a nice bike ride on occasion...

Actually we switched to domestics recently, and found that 80-90's imports were then better, and had the cachet if you wish to call it that, as they were truly made in Japan then.

It would certainly be helpful if comments like 20:06 and 20:08 would actually QUOTE SOME SOURCES. Other comments, such as 16:28, 11:48, 17:48, and 23:06 all cite sources. It gets tiresome reading the same old "It's better because I say so" and "Every source says Toyota is best" (THEY DON'T) without a single quote or reference.

It is one thing to read comments from obviously car-savvy people (many of whom have owned a great number of domestics and imports) and who bother to list sources and back up their claims. It gets a bit tiresome reading quotes from individuals who have owned one used Ford with 200,000 miles on it that had a bad cigarette lighter and was considered "crap". It also sounds somewhat less than credible to read "Toyota is best" from people who owned a Tacoma that actually BROKE IN HALF due to improperly designed FRAMES!! Of course the argument will be made "but Toyota FIXED it!!" Sure, I guess so. Any manufacturer that builds vehicles that BREAK IN HALF SHOULD fix them!!

If people are going to comment on a full sized truck, it might help if they had ever OWNED one. Comments from full sized truck owners back up the overwhelming amount of data in showing that, for now, no manufacturer makes a full sized truck that is as good (or has as good a warranty) as ANY domestic truck. For the heavy duty hauling our companies use Ford, Chevy and Dodge trucks, and have for decades. We do so for one major reason: NOTHING ELSE MADE CAN DO THE JOB.

I wrote the comment providing the JD Power article giving Ford a higher overall quality rating than Toyota. I noticed the Toyota defenders are trying to discredit that article, saying it is only "initial" quality, not "long term" quality, etc. Yet, it is interesting how they emphatically take every other news source that reports favorably about Toyota in any capacity as gospel. I think the double standard these folks have is blatantly obvious.

But I do not let auto magazines do my thinking for me. I merely provided that article in response to a previous comment asking for one indicating Ford has higher quality than Toyota. I did not wish to it cause so much pain to the Toyota fans, as the truth evidently creates.

I personally put a lot more stock in personal experience and web sites documenting real ownership experience such as this one, Consumer Affairs, etc., not magazines such as Consumer Reports that are at liberty to skew the data to spin any outcome they want, and has likely been provided by people conditioned to report in a manner that agrees with the publication.

Subscribers who have been trained by the magazine may for example might ignore the rough shifting of a Japanese transmission (as many Japanese transmissions are), while lambasting the shifting of a domestic vehicle, even though domestic vehicle transmissions historically perform much smoother. Mind you, these people only own one vehicle, so they have absolutely no basis for comparison. That in and of itself is a fatal flaw in Consumer Reports methods, rendering their "results" a complete joke if you ask me. Yet so many people on this site promote Consumer Reports as an "expert" source. But look at the source of their data: normal people, not "experts" by their very own definition.

Moreover, do we really know what constitutes a "greater than average" vs. "worse than average" reliability rating at Consumer Reports? Could it be that there is such an insignificant difference, the margin of error caused by the altered judgment of subscribers to conform to the magazine's positions is a lot greater, such that a "much better than average" rating should really be "a much worse than average" rating and vise versa? We just don't know. The only thing a reader sees is red circles versus black circles, the perceived difference between which is damning. It is a very misleading way way to present data, which I highly suspect is intentional.

I have been around test and evaluation in my career for years and believe me, you can manipulate and twist data to make a test appear to have almost any outcome you want.

To that end, it is quite a significant testimony against Consumer Reports' "methods" that I and others who have commented here have had vehicles rated as "much worse than average" by Consumer Reports that have been absolutely trouble free, while friends of mine have had vehicles (Toyota's) rated as "much better than average" that have been woefully unreliable. Likewise, I also have to wonder why I see so many Toyota's broken down on the side of the road. Consumer Reports themselves even had to admit they botched the ratings of the 2007 Toyota's. I would argue they botched a lot more than the 2007's, based on my personal experience, and the countless problems we have seen on Consumer Affairs and this site.

So, I just do not take any of these "auto magazines," especially Consumer Reports, seriously. I'll go with real world experience any day.

"I wrote the comment providing the JD Power article giving Ford a higher overall quality rating than Toyota. I noticed the Toyota defenders are trying to discredit that article, saying it is only "initial" quality, not "long term" quality, etc. Yet, it is interesting how they emphatically take every other news source that reports favorably about Toyota in any capacity as gospel."

Very well, how about let's put this to rest and actually read these articles.

Per the report from JD power short term reliability ratings: Problems per vehicle by brand:

Lexus: 120

Mercury: 151

Cadillac: 155

Toyota: 159

Acura: 160

Buick: 163

BMW: 164

Lincoln:165

Honda: 177

Ford: 204

Infiniti: 204

Audi: 207

Chrysler: 229

Chevrolet: 239

In that regard, Toyota, Honda and their luxury entries are ahead of Ford. Not by a huge margin, which definitely shows some improvement, but still by enough to show a clear winner. Mercury also did quite well, which isn't surprising given 50% of their lineup are re-badged Mazdas. I will give kudos to Cadillac, who for once builds a halfway decent car and will hopefully do better if GM survives.

But the problem with this report again is that it is a short term report. The test was for a 3 year time period. Most people I know keep cars for at least 10-12 years, and if you're going to have problems with a car, it tends to be once the car starts to age. This is where the importance of long term reliability comes in, which in my opinion is a lot more telling in regards to overall quality.

Consumer reports actually does long term reliability ratings with more comprehensive testing of electrical and mechanical systems. Their findings were:

"The best vehicles are built by Honda, Subaru, and Toyota. They make well-rounded cars that excel across the board, getting very good scores in our road tests and high marks in reliability from subscribers in our Annual Auto Survey.

Those are the findings of our latest automaker report cards, which reflect the performance, reliability, fuel economy, and comfort of about 300 vehicles that we've recently tested. Here's what else we found:

* Among domestic automakers, Ford continues to improve in reliability, and some of its cars now rival the best from Japan. Some newer or freshened models, such as the Ford Flex and F-150, also rank in the top of their class in our testing, though other Ford models are merely competent, not outstanding.

* A Japanese nameplate doesn't guarantee that a car is reliable or scores well in our testing. Although most models from Honda, Subaru, and Toyota are very reliable, the Honda Element, Mitsubishi Eclipse, and Toyota Yaris all score too low in our tests for us to recommend."

In other words, much of what has already been said before, which is that overall, Honda and Toyota makes a better product than Ford, GM, and definitely Chrysler. Of course some of Ford's products do well competing against the Japanese automakers, but as the report said, it is really hit and miss, which is exactly the problem domestic automakers have had for decades. You might get a "good" one but you're just as likely to get junk as well.

So to summarize, why would a consumer make a dicey decision buying a product that has a good chance of being faulty when they can buy another brand that has a significantly better chance of being good? Like I've told many people, I've owned nothing but Toyotas and have had no problems. Hence the no amount of reports showing mediocre performance and reliability from the big three compels me to make a switch when I already have my own "proof".

"Actually we switched to domestics recently, and found that 80-90's imports were then better, and had the cachet if you wish to call it that, as they were truly made in Japan then."

With all due respect, that really is a moot point.

The Japanese vehicles of the 80's and early 90's are completely different than those of today. The US federal government mandated that major changes be made to engine control systems in 1996 that reshaped the whole industry from there on out. As has been documented on earlier comments, the Japanese manufacturers, especially Toyota, had many problems developing those systems, and their delivered reliability.

By contrast, the Japanese vehicles of the 1980's and early 1990's, regardless of where they were made, were designed with tried and true technology that they copied from everyone else. Japanese auto manufacturers at that time had always shied away from developing any technological advances on their own because there was an abundance of vehicles they could copy from. It is a well known practice in Japanese industry to acquire the intellectual property of American companies to permit that technology to be sold in Japan, and then turn around and sell that same technology to Americans at a loss, making up the difference by inflating the prices of those items in their home markets, with the intend to put the American companies out of business. Name one major technological advance of any Japanese auto manufacturer in the 1980's through early 1990's. There are not any.

-- So to summarize, why would a consumer make a dicey decision buying a product that has a good chance of being faulty when they can buy another brand that has a significantly better chance of being good? --

Once again, that is if you believe Consumer Reports is accurate, which as I explained on my previous post, I do not think they are.

-- Like I've told many people, I've owned nothing but Toyotas and have had no problems. Hence the no amount of reports showing mediocre performance and reliability from then big three compels me to make a switch when I already have my own "proof". --

In all sincerity, I am glad you have had good luck with your Toyota's. The people I have known who owned them had nothing but problems. But, just speaking for myself, perhaps we can agree on that one point you made. I realize myself and others here might not be successful in changing your opinion toward Toyota, but I have had far too many personal experiences to convince me that they are anything other than pure junk and domestics are far superior.

So, acknowledging that we will probably not change each other's minds, I will accept your experiences as legitimate "proof" in support of your position if you accept my experience as legitimate "proof" in support of mine. But, I will not a magazine article as proof of anything. Once again, I only brought up the JD Powers article because we (those of us on this thread) were challenged to produce an article saying Ford was more reliable than Toyota, which I did.

Personally, I think GM is more reliable than Ford (and thus Toyota), but do not believe that is not represented in the auto magazines, which once again I give absolutely no credence to.

This entire thread is probably two guys arguing with each other (or one guy arguing with himself).