2002 Toyota Tundra SR5 from North America - Off Topic Comments

12:30's answer... that the import dweller went to a car show and saw people walking around cars. Maybe they were looking for something cheaper to drive that burned less gas.

I would like to see more detailed comments such as 12:30. They have yet to ever comment on consumeraffairs.com catastrophic Toyota engine issues. Maybe everyone else got a chance to absorb that illustration however. I will not be in line for another import replacement myself.

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

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.

We will never see an answer to 12:30's challenge to address the serious issues Toyota, and Tundra especially, have had in recent years. All we have seen is opinion and comments about car shows where people were looking for cheap basic transportation. We have yet to see a single frequency-of-repair study, nor any justification for why Toyota does not have the confidence in their vehicles to provide a decent warranty. We have also never heard from one single individual who has bought a SECOND Tundra. Every Tundra owner I know has traded back to a domestic well before 100,000 miles due to major issues with their Tundras.

For the guy who keeps posting the links as "proof" of how supposedly bad Toyotas are, I suppose I could owe you an explanation, but on the other hand, I could just as easily do the same and post the rotten reviews from just two models Chevrolet makes alone, and just on this site. I in no way even came close to posting even a small fraction of the numbers of bad reviews for these models, but here are just a few for you to gaze at:

Chevrolet Silverado:

http://www.carsurvey.org/review_111793.html

http://www.carsurvey.org/review_103160.html

http://www.carsurvey.org/review_112330.html

http://www.carsurvey.org/review_98836.html

http://www.carsurvey.org/review_111355.html

http://www.carsurvey.org/review_117352.html

http://www.carsurvey.org/review_76336.html

http://www.carsurvey.org/review_110024.html

http://www.carsurvey.org/review_78376.html

http://www.carsurvey.org/review_23398.html

http://www.carsurvey.org/review_17465.html

http://www.carsurvey.org/review_98161.html

http://www.carsurvey.org/review_89593.html

http://www.carsurvey.org/review_43962.html

Malibu:

http://www.carsurvey.org/review_104376.html

http://www.carsurvey.org/review_112325.html

http://www.carsurvey.org/review_94578.html

http://www.carsurvey.org/review_100845.html

http://www.carsurvey.org/review_77066.html

http://www.carsurvey.org/review_102557.html

http://www.carsurvey.org/review_95426.html

http://www.carsurvey.org/review_112437.html

http://www.carsurvey.org/review_32204.html

http://www.carsurvey.org/review_34791.html

http://www.carsurvey.org/review_57022.html

http://www.carsurvey.org/review_51921.html

http://www.carsurvey.org/review_17310.html

http://www.carsurvey.org/review_28570.html

http://www.carsurvey.org/review_115175.html

http://www.carsurvey.org/review_36386.html

So you go right ahead and post all the "horrible engine failures" from the cherry-picked reviews you've found. That still doesn't change the overall fact that Toyota and Honda still build better cars and trucks. Sure - they've had some problems, and some still do. The important part is what manufacturer has LESS problems, and by and far, there's no contest here. Toyota and Honda still come out well ahead in every aspect.

If there is a comparison regarding new full size truck any make or manufacturer it remains on topic. Its when it drifts off to cars or small trucks that it loses relevance. Individuals that own or are contemplating ownership of a full size truck can certainly benefit from actual first hand ownership within a few years at least of the original commenters review.

10:19 I don't know who mentioned any 20 year old domestic with 200,000 miles on it.

The only domestic that I know of that has made it over 200,000 miles WITHOUT major engine work or a tranny rebuild or replacement (or a ton of minor work) is a Dodge Ram with a 318. ONE truck.

Your blessed timing chain is a perfect example of just how outdated your domestic is. A Toyota with a timing BELT will in almost all cases run for 100,000 miles more than your Ford or Chevy. Change it every 100,000 or so. If you want. Most people I know don't even do that with their Toyota's.

The most recent problem I have encountered with that was an S-10 with a timing CHAIN that broke and tore the engine to pieces. It had about 70,000 miles on it if I remember correctly, which for a GM meant it was at or near the end of it's productive life anyway.

You may have 40 years experience, but this isn't 1970 anymore. The timing chains are fine.

2 Durango company vehicles; mine is a 2003 with 228,000 miles and a co worker with 260,000. We also have a smaller V8 Dakota touching 200,000. Same engines.

Universals and 1 one had a trans replacement, but run great. The Dakota 4 door handles the best and we alternate driving it when we service our larger SUV's.

If they gave me a Tundra to drive as a free company vehicle I would be unbiased as well. But the Chryslers we have are nice and the V8's are the way to go.

It's easy for commenter 10:08 to find lots of examples of defects in the Silverado. I suspect that that has a lot to do with the fact that there are about 1000 Silverados on the road for every Tundra. When you have 1000 times the number of vehicles, finding 10 times the number of problems is pretty easy. It still leaves the Silverado AHEAD by a factor of 100 to 1. Nice try, but sorry, no prize.

I'm not surprised that an import fan would regard a cheap, flimsy RUBBER timing belt as superior to a STEEL one. It seems that anything cheaper that is put in a Japanese car is "better quality" no matter how unreliable and troublesome it is. I don't know of anyone who has gone over 100,000 miles in a Toyota without having to replace the flimsy rubber belt. Of course, I only know of TWO people who have actually gotten over 100,000 miles out of a Toyota anyway. Only ONE of our domestics ever required a timing belt. It was a Dodge with 192,000 miles on it, and it DID have the flimsy rubber belt like Toyota and Honda use.

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.