2002 Toyota Tundra SR5 from North America - Off Topic Comments

-- 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.

The car manufacturers request a smaller loan than banks.. note a loan not a gift, and are not free to spend it any way they wish as with the banks.

It would be also a good ideal to eliminate all tax concessions and real estate tax exemptions that were given to attract foreign manufacturing. Maybe no warranty meaning past 36-50,000 import may be equivalent to 100,001 miles domestics.

Laughing at the state of the current economy may come back at haunt you as far as future costs of everything you buy including your precious new next import. Why has banking, stock market drop, mortgage defaults and extreme high fuel costs been overlooked in your equation on what has influenced new vehicle purchases this year? What about consumeraffairs.com when you discuss import infallibity? Not buying your comments as 100% quality driven or lack of it. It's people cutting back in my opinion, yet still wanting to keep the homes, pay higher utilities, groceries, jobs and be able to drive. We are in an overall recession my friend.

07:00 IF they get the money, (some of which they ARE asking for as gift, some as a loan), so far they ARE free to spend it any way they wish. Unless the Congressional committee does what they are suggesting, which is to set up another committee that has legal power over the Big 3 to regulate how they spend the money and how they run their companies. As of today, none exists. They went in asking for a GIFT of 25 billion dollars which has mysteriously increased to 38 billion, and none of the 3 CEO's are happy about anyone else having lawful power over how they spend it; that was obvious to anyone who watched the hearing yesterday.

What this all amounts to is the Big 3 wanting to hang around just a little longer. 18 billion dollars will keep GM alive a matter of mere months. That's it. Unless someone that actually knows how to run a company steps in and tells them how things SHOULD be done (they might take a look at Toyota's success as an example) GM is doomed, which I saw coming for years and have been telling Ford and Chevy fans on this site for a long time. All they want to keep doing is living in denial and pretending that any of the Big 3 make cars that are relevant or of quality, like Toyota or Honda does.

To you GM fans that have been asking for 'proof' for the last 500 comments... here's your proof. Told ya so. Toyota has survived, is doing much better than GM, which is blatantly obvious to anyone who can read, see, or hear... and the 100,000 mile warranty you guys keep bragging about means ZERO, just as I said ALL along. Well, that about wraps up the foreign/domestic argument after 500+ comment. Anything else you Ford and GM guys could say would be completely pointless after what has happened to them this week. I won't be checking back to read the replies I'm sure will follow this comment, so... GM and Ford guys, have a nice day, I'll STILL be buying another Toyota next time, especially now that no one can trust the BIG 3 to honor a 10 mile warranty much less a 100,000 mile warranty. See ya.

"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."

Oh, yes, by all means, all patriotic Americans should instantly go out and start throwing our country into a depression by buying foreign vehicles. Nothing like destroying the livelihoods of 13 million MORE Americans and causing a depression that will literally be world-wide. This would effect EVERYONE adversely, including import owners. Why people can't grasp this very obvious issue is beyond me. If the auto industry in the U.S. fails, our government will then have to bail out 13,000,000 FAMILIES with food stamps, unemployment compensation, medical care and assistance with housing. With a trillion+ defecit (thanks to W) we are already almost bankrupt as a country (and YES, countries go bankrupt too). If China (who has been financing our disastrous political decisions for 8 years) decided we were a bad credit risk we'd become a "third world country" overnight and owning ANY car would become nearly impossible for any but the very rich.

The scare tactics being used to try and make people believe domestic auto makers won't honor their warranties is not true or not applicable for 2 very good reasons:

1. BY LAW companies in bankruptcy HAVE to provide for honoring their product's warranties and service needs. If you buy a 2009 GM car with a 100,000 mile warranty (higher than ANY Japanese car) your warranty WILL be honored for 100,000 miles. That's the law. There are NO exceptions.

2. How many people can you HONESTLY say you know who have EVER had a major mechanical issue with a domestic vehicle in the first 100,000 miles? Out of a couple of dozen domestics we've bought new, NOT ONE has ever had a mechanical problem in a mere 100,000 miles...EVER. That includes examples from all 3 of the Big Three.

As for Honda or (ESPECIALLY) Toyota being a "superior" vehicle, there have been literally HUNDREDS of challenges on here for PROOF (NOT opinion) of this... and we're STILL waiting.

Finally, it will be a great case of "payback" if the Big Three DO go out of business, because the price of a Corolla or Civic will jump to $40,000 overnight, with no discounts, high interest rates and no incentives of ANY kind. When that happens I will laugh myself silly at all the import fans and just keep driving my domestics for the rest of my life. My dad bought a GM car in 1956. He died in 2004 and the car is still in the family and still runs as good as new (and is still 100% original). My brother died in 1992 and his son only recently sold his 1977 Buick (which never had had a single mechanical problem).

To all of you who have decided to turn this site into a forum for arguing the domestic vs. import question over and over and over again, - I have one question:

Since the Honda Accord, Toyota Camry & Corolla are built in the USA, while the Chevrolet Impala & Chrysler 300's are built in Canada. The PT Cruiser is built in Mexico. What is YOUR definition of a domestic car?

Now can we get back to using this site for reporting on cars & trucks?

Ford has cash and makes good products. They'll be fine and may emerge as the new dominant American manufacturer. Ford is not even asking for a loan, just a reserve "if they need it" to absorb the shock of suppliers shutting down if GM goes down.

I don't care about a warranty, because my experience has shown that American cars are reliable. If Chrysler were to go insolvent and dealers were selling cars at 20% of MSRP to unload them, heck, I'd buy two Calibers and drive them the rest of my life!

Since this review is specific to full size trucks, and Ford F Series full size trucks alone has sold over 7 times more than Tundra annually, and the number one selling vehicle in America has been the Ford F Series for over 20 years... let's still not lose sight this is a review on full size trucks. It's not Camry time here.

Anyone that has bought a new full size truck this year has bought one over function and utility as fuel costs have risen dramatically... small cars and trucks are for totally different applications. They are cheap to buy and run but they cannot meet the applications that large trucks are designed to perform. Maybe it might sink in... sigh...