2002 Toyota Tundra SR5 from North America - All Comments

"First of all, the US economy will not go into a depression if the US auto industry fails"

Losing 14 out of every 100 jobs in the U.S. wouldn't cause a depression?? That is the percentage of people whose jobs are either directly or indirectly tied to the U.S. auto industry. Losing Chrysler we might survive. GM, no way. Allowing another 14% of our people to be unemployed is unthinkable.

There have been dozens of comments on this thread alone suggesting that whenever an import owner gives their experience, its always on something other than a full-size and that this review and subsequent commentary is and should be about full-sizers.

SHOULD and IS are two very different things. When a guy posts that he convinced two friends to buy Fusions because of commentary on a full-sized-truck review, it kind of empties that argument of validity... unless those who have said that this is strictly about full sized trucks, and only applies to the same, come out of the woodwork and say that this approach is no more valid than using something less than a full sized imported truck as an example of import quality.

Why does that argument only apply to import owners?

The truth is that one vehicle DOES have a tiny, little bearing on another from the same manufacturer since they often use the same parts bin. It DOESN'T make all the vehicles from the same region of the same quality. It doesn't even make the two that share parts the same. But it DOES mean that an F150 CAN have an impact (very small) on a purchase decision of... say... a Fusion.

So yes, someone's experience with their Corolla has an impact on their buying decision of another Toyota vehicle. Is that completely reasonable? No. Only a very little bit. But the same is true of the myriad domestic comments from the "I've owned 40 domestics and they were all perfect, so ALL domestics MUST be good" crowd. That parallel doesn't hold up to the very same standard. If a guy's experiences with a dozen Toyota cars is incomparable to a Tundra, a dozen GM cars are just as incomparable to a Silverado. Even a previous model of the same name can be VERY different... note the difference between the last iteration of the Tundra and the current one.

I really like some of the new domestics AND imports so I have no argument if comments are related to ownership experiences. But when guys on here try to discredit ALL ownership experiences from an entire region using double standards, my feeling is that it only serves to discredit THEIR OWN VIEWPOINT... even if they think they "won" the argument.

As I've posted before, most people who come across this thread are likely laughing and scratching their collective heads... not feeling compelled to buy import or domestic (notwithstanding the examples you may hold forth about). They won't comment because they may have come here just to see if a Tundra is a halfway decent truck... only to find that the commentary isn't really about that. So this tempest rages on in its own teapot completely and blithely unaware of just how inconsequential it really is.

Someone earlier posted that an equally important subject worth debating was the Ginger vs. Mary Ann question... I couldn't have said it better.

"Losing 14 out of every 100 jobs in the U.S. wouldn't cause a depression?? That is the percentage of people whose jobs are either directly or indirectly tied to the U.S. auto industry. Losing Chrysler we might survive. GM, no way. Allowing another 14% of our people to be unemployed is unthinkable."

That's not what would happen. Your numbers would indicate that every single person related to the automotive industry would lose their job, which is simply not the likely outcome. For one thing, some of those would include automotive parts sellers. If you look at the stocks of auto parts retailers, their numbers are through the roof. In a recession, consumers tends to keep and repair older vehicles versus sell and buy new ones. Many of these retailers are actually opening new stores to date. So in some cases, MORE jobs tied to the auto industry are being created.

Secondly, just because GM and Chrysler are going under doesn't mean auto workers have nowhere to go. Foreign brand manufacturers are setting up shop in the US even as we speak. VW has a new plant opening in Tennessee with parts manufacturing and steel plants joining that operation across state lines in Alabama. Toyota has a Prius and hybrid plant in the works. There has even been talks about a company called Mahindra opening a plant to manufacture their new line of small diesel trucks for the NA markets.

Additionally, many US parts makers have contracts with other companies. Delphi makes AC systems for Toyota for example.

So in reality, if GM and Chrysler went under, nothing close to 14% of the US workforce would be out of work. In all likelihood, many of those workers would find work elsewhere in similar fields.

Relevance is full size trucks being on topic. It's clear you have zero applications and recognize that's the true reasoning to buy and own. It is not a car or small truck being empty 99 percent of the time. It would be like someone with a canoe telling me what props I need for twins, just because they both float.

Full sizes haul and tow, not like the little train that could. When you own a model and look for reviews, do you not look for exactly the same? A Tacoma would not budge my boat - blown engine, trans rear no doubt in short order, waste of time. You have no concept and cannot recommend any full size. It's scary someone would have faith in zero experience.

"Losing 14 out of every 100 jobs in the U.S. wouldn't cause a depression?? That is the percentage of people whose jobs are either directly or indirectly tied to the U.S. auto industry. Losing Chrysler we might survive. GM, no way. Allowing another 14% of our people to be unemployed is unthinkable."

The funny thing is, the US Auto Industry includes all manufacturers in the US including VW, Toyota, and Hyundai plus parts plants that make for more than one brand. So that 14% wouldn't lose their jobs if GM went under. For that 14% to be unemployed the US would have to stop making parts, vehicles and quit buying new ones of every single brand.

"And if you can tell with absolute certainty that the poster is one and the same person, you are a far more than a therapist, you're a demi-god. I've been wrong (I think) when I've assumed that two people were one on this thread alone... so I'm a mere mortal."

OK, call me a DEMI-GOD. The commenter in question ADMITTED he exaggerated in a later comment. It's in the previous comments (which my wise friends DID bother to read).

21:25 commented on how well a 1998 Tacoma holds its value keeping it over 200-250,000 miles. If one were to do that, the 2009 Kelly Blue Book value trading in this 1998 gem (average Tacoma model in good condition) would be a whopping $925.00 trade in. Besides the fact it's not a full size... but if I could pick one up for that price, I could park it 99% of the time that I need a full size truck and use it 1% of the time empty to go to the store to pick up a gallon of milk.

Any major repair, why keep some old heap over 200,000 miles that has washed all its value out unless you never sell it, can do 100% of all road side repairs yourself to not exceed the value of the vehicle. Most people I know find they want to have some value left in a vehicle to offset a brand new vehicle purchase. It's just not worth repairing if a dealer socks you with a engine/trans replacement with every other single aged component no longer anywhere near new condition. But it's cheap apparently to buy these 200,000 mile plus creampuffs. I would not buy any small domestic pick up either with same mileage or even less as it's not a full size (the actual review topic)

"The reality is that according to most sites that use or at least attempt scientific type surveys, Toyota and Ford are some of the highest rated companies (based on average product quality) in the world."

It's me, the demi-god therapist car enthusiast again. There is not, nor ever WILL BE a "scientific type survey" of something as emotionally motivating and purely subjective as reliability in automobiles.

Just take high-priced imported luxury/sports cars as an example. The cost-to-own factor of these cars is OUTRAGEOUS. Maintenance costs ALONE for 5 years on some of them would pay for a Corolla or Focus (and I'm not speaking from a non-owner perspective. My family has owned 5-series BMW's and C-class Mercedes). Yet time and again the owners, who are loath to admit they got taken, will say "Oh, it's the best car in the world, I LOVE it!!" over and over again in the face of ridiculous maintenance and repair costs.

Likewise, a car buyer who pays thousands more for a Camry or Accord than they would for a virtually identical-in-every-respect Ford (or Chevy) will staunchly report in a survey that they are "very satisfied", and have had "no problems" to avoid the embarrassment of having to admit they made a bad decision. Just look at this thread alone: You have a Toyota owner who had a vehicle that Toyota had to replace because it had a flawed FRAME that could BREAK IN HALF maintaining that it was "better" than a Ford that was far more solid and reliable.

The best example of this kind of reasoning was my good friend with the exotic and expensive Italian sports car. It started falling apart at 40,000 miles. At 63,000 it was pretty much ready for the scrap heap. His DEALER even had the audacity to tell him "These cars are not MADE to be reliable or long-lived, they are purely high-performance toys". Till his dying day my friend will STILL staunchly argue that his "fine Italian sports car" was a better car than his wife's lowly old Plymouth Barracuda that made 200,000 miles with nothing beyond routine maintenance because he won't admit he got taken. This is human nature. It's also the reason NO SURVEY dealing with automobiles can be "scientific".

I'm now old and cantankerous enough not to be swayed by silly ego-based buying decisions. I now (and for the rest of my life) will use my hard-earned money for more important things than status symbols and ad-hype influenced car purchases. I'll buy the cars that have served us the best of any: Ford. 325,000 miles is quite enough out of ANY car, and that's what one of our Fords got in 18 years with less than $500 in total repairs. Since I no longer have to keep ANY car that long, I don't expect to have any repair costs at all on our 2006 and 2007 Fords. We have only had $27 in total repair costs on our 2001 and 2003 GM vehicles, so I doubt they'll be a problem either. And when I fill out some car survey, I can HONESTLY say "I haven't had any problems with ANY of my cars".

"why keep some old heap over 200,000 miles that has washed all its value out unless you never sell it, can do 100% of all road side repairs yourself to not exceed the value of the vehicle. Most people I know find they want to have some value left in a vehicle to offset a brand new vehicle purchase."

There's a number of reasons to keep a vehicle past 200,000 miles. It saves money. Using the bulk of the population as a shining example of what should be done - which is to buy a new car every 5 years - isn't exactly proving anything since the avg. US citizen is around $10,000 in debt and lacks any real savings or retirement. That tends to come from overconsumption of goods like cars, flatscreen TVs, and houses.

I've had the same Toyota truck for almost 14 years. It has 220,000 miles on it. It actually still looks and drives like new. The paint even still has a nice shine. I maintain it religiously, change the oil every 3,000 miles, do all the right maintenance, and so on. Other than brake pads, a clutch, a water pump, and a few other little odds and ends, that's all it has needed. As mentioned, it is in fantastic condition. The miles are only incidental because I could easily drive it another 200,000 miles and be just fine.

In the time I've had this truck, the average person has already bought 3 new cars or trucks, which even if bought with residual trade-in value means they've spent 2-3 times as much in the same time period. If I say - keep the truck for a total of 20 years, which seems likely, I would have saved almost 4 times the money over someone who trades in every 5 years. That represents a total savings of anywhere from $75,000-$100,000, which these days means half a decent house, two college educations, or a good amount of retirement. In fact, I've saved more than that already, and that comes from being frugal, but also keeping the same vehicles for long periods.

This comes back to the core issue at hand. I have Toyotas because even though they might not have as many whistles and bells, nor fantastic styling, or even the best interior materials, but ultimately, their drivetrains are absolutely top-notch, easy to service, and well-engineeered and in almost any case perform reliably for long past the time that typical domestic cars and trucks I've owned have made it. To me it is a money saving advantage to own quality engineering... which again is why I own Toyotas.

"When a commenter who has previously stated that they have never owned a new domestic or full sized truck suddenly states "I've owned NEW and used domestics", you can immediately disregard the credibility of any previous (or future) statements from that commenter."

"OK, call me a DEMI-GOD. The commenter in question ADMITTED he exaggerated in a later comment. It's in the previous comments (which my wise friends DID bother to read)."

You'll have to forgive my ignorance since I don't know to whom you refer, who YOU are with any certainty, or if you were just making a general statement vs. one referencing a specific event. Furthermore, and I quote, you said "you can immediately disregard the credibility of any previous (or future) statements from that commenter." How can you be sure that the person so identifies themselves with each and every post? That's why I figured that your comment was at least mostly "rhetorical, not historical"... and also virtually impossible without "higher knowledge". If they don't identify themselves, you're stuck disregarding all posts you don't like that sound sort-of like his writing. Sounds almighty convenient.

"Likewise, a car buyer who pays thousands more for a Camry or Accord than they would for a virtually identical-in-every-respect Ford (or Chevy) will staunchly report in a survey that they are "very satisfied", and have had "no problems" to avoid the embarrassment of having to admit they made a bad decision."

I've seen that phenomenon before too, but it was in no way limited to imports. Owners don't like to tell those they know that their new _____ is a piece of crap. But a form won't ridicule you for making a "bad" decision... only your friends or perhaps people on this forum. So I doubt that this reality has very much bearing at all on a mail-in survey or that it specifically helps those companies that you don't like.

Further...merely suggesting that people MIGHT be too emotionally involved with cars to tell the truth even on a survey form, IN NO WAY PROVES IT. I could similarly come up with semi-psychological reasons that all the domestic owners (which would include me, I guess) on this forum are pathological liars (I don't remotely believe this, by the way) but it wouldn't make it true. I could make up similar reasons to doubt virtually every survey ever done, but those reasons would be just doubts and wouldn't discredit the surveys until I have PROOF.

The truth is that the surveys that are being done use different methods and emphasize different aspects of reliability. They ask primarily for parts replaced or trips to the shop. The majors in this regard are mostly consistent with their outcomes. They usually accept no advertising. A person COULD fail to report out of some weird pride but that would be unlikely to help one brand over another so, YES, I believe the surveys are accurate if not scientific.

"There is not, nor ever WILL BE a "scientific type survey" of something as emotionally motivating and purely subjective as reliability in automobiles."

Reliability isn't subjective. How people feel about it IS. So they don't ask how people feel about the reliability of their vehicle. They only ask what went wrong in some appropriate time span. They do this on a form so there is no one to impress or disappoint. They compile that information then report it in some orderly fashion that they've chosen for clarity and accuracy.

The truth remains that most of the people who dislike the surveys seem to do so because they dislike the conclusions of them. They'll say "I had a Cordoba that went 2,000,000 miles before a tune up, so any survey that doesn't show the absolute divine nature of Cordobas must be flawed". Not true. That would assume that:

#1 all Cordobas were built exactly the same

#2 all Cordobas were driven exactly the same

#3 all Cordobas were driven in exactly the same environs

#4 all Cordobas were maintained exactly the same

#5 all other potential variables were perfectly controlled as well. Surveys are able to ignore the variables and just report the outcomes using objective standards. Anything less is INDEED less.

So, to conclude, I respectfully (but nearly completely) disagree with your approach to these issues.... even if you ARE a demi-god :)

"Full sizes haul and tow, not like the little train that could. When you own a model and look for reviews, do you not look for exactly the same? A Tacoma would not budge my boat - blown engine, trans rear no doubt in short order, waste of time. You have no concept and cannot recommend any full size. It's scary someone would have faith in zero experience."

What do you drive? How does its capacities compare to the new Toyota Tundra?

12:28 Well, the fact is, if GM hadn't been making junk for the last 35 years, they wouldn't be in the sad position that they're in today. If they'd had the frame of mind to actually build cars and trucks that last, they'd be in good shape today, just like Toyota is, because they DID choose a philosophy that revolves around quality.

There is one point that I have to agree with "Tacoma Guy" on. Driving an old vehicle does save you money, particularly if you keep it well maintained and can handle some repairs yourself. However, unlike him, my choices for cheap, reliable, used cars have been Dodge and more recently Ford, which I have typically bought when 5-10 years old for less than a few thousand dollars. I'm not helping the economy any more than he is, except by having more discretionary spending in areas other than a car payment. On the other hand, my savings rate of 35% makes me feel okay about buying something when I need it.

"For that 14% to be unemployed the US would have to stop making parts, vehicles and quit buying new ones of every single brand."

Not true. The 14% is DOMESTIC MANUFACTURERS ONLY. Please review the book "The United States of Toyota" for the figures. The percentage of people directly or indirectly employed by foreign industrial concerns is minuscule. Also, if ANY of the Big Three go under, in all likelihood so will 90% of the independent parts manufacturers. Delphi had to file bankruptcy FOUR YEARS AGO due to Japan and China providing more cheaply built parts to the auto industry.

"The truth is that the surveys that are being done use different methods and emphasize different aspects of reliability."

Yes, exactly... and NONE of them are very accurate or even remotely reliable. And YES, people lie on every conceivable type of survey, even anonymous ones. Many people would rather hold on to their prejudiced views (as import fans do) than admit that a problem IS a problem. To the average import fan, a blown engine is "just a small issue" with Toyota, but a non-functioning cigarette lighter on a Taurus with 200,000 miles on it makes it "crap".

In college we had a wonderful course on "How to use research, statistics and sales data to lie effectively" I LOVED that course. It was so true to life. ALL companies skew statistics and research studies for their own benefit, and magazines and "unbiased" sources are just as bogus as any. Does ANYONE really believe the ratings in Consumer Reports or J.D. Powers are 100% accurate?? Give me a break! The ONLY reliable source for REAL accuracy in automotive reliability is ACTUAL FREQUENCY OF REPAIR RECORDS from dealers and outside service facilities, and getting ACCURATE records from EITHER foreign OR domestic dealers would be about as hard as finding a politician who tells the truth. It's NOT going to happen. God only knows how many bad engines Toyota has replaced in their vehicles in the past 5 years and ONLY God will know, because Toyota (OR Ford OR GM) aren't ABOUT to tell us!!

And yes, it's me, the Demigod (I LIKE that name, it's as big an ego trip as saying "LOOK AT ME! I DRIVE A BEEMER!"