2002 Toyota Tundra SR5 from North America - Off Topic Comments

"Toyota had a very long stretch of reliable models so Consumer Reports started to base recommendations of new models upon old ones. In this they were caught by surprise. The new models of both the Camry 6cyl and the Tundra were rushed in their release and had flaws that were widespread enough to cause them to no longer be recommended"

This statement is true, however NO magazine does real research on frequency of repair records as such. J.D. Powers and Consumer Reports do surveys on vehicles within just a few months of purchase. Some magazines do what are (laughably) called "long-term" tests of various vehicles, none of which are usually driven more than a few thousand miles. Neither method tells us ANYTHING about REAL "long term" reliability, just little nit-picky stuff that people may find in the first few weeks. Usually even Toyota's defective engines will run up to 20,000 miles before seizing up (my neighbor's actually made 30,000). The real test is how many of these cars come in at 40,000-60,000 miles for transmission replacements or major engine repairs. Sorry, but ONLY records showing that kind of data can or should enter into a discussion about reliability. Provide those and we'll listen.

As for large trucks, Honda has no place in a discussion on ANY kind of truck. The Ridgeline is a Pilot SUV with the rear of the roof removed. The rear side panels are so high that loading anything from the sides is impossible. In addition, the problem-plagued Honda automatic transmissions can't deal with the type of loads a real truck is designed to handle. The Tundra would be a good truck if it weren't for the defective engines, brakes, steering, front suspension, transmissions, electrical system, and fuel system. Other than that it is not too bad a truck.

"NO magazine does real research on frequency of repair records as such. J.D. Powers and Consumer Reports do surveys on vehicles within just a few months of purchase. Some magazines do what are (laughably) called "long-term" tests of various vehicles, none of which are usually driven more than a few thousand miles. Neither method tells us ANYTHING about REAL "long term" reliability, just little nit-picky stuff that people may find in the first few weeks".

That is true of "JD Powers" but not of "Consumer Reports". Consumer Reports actually does ONLY long term tests. In fact if you'll actually crack open their "Buying Guide" you'll find that they don't even typically rate a vehicle for two years. So in the 08 buying guide you'll only find info up to 06 because they need time to compile data. Next, they continue to compile survey results for eight years. In the 08 buying guide you'll find data going back to 1999 models. And, yes, that is based on actual data from owners who fill out the surveys. These surveys are annual and reasonably comprehensive. I've filled them out before, by the way, and the surveys include far more than just autos.

Since there is some confusion on this thread about "Consumer Reports" -- its mission and method, here's their FAQ page: http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/auto-test/consumer-reports-car-reliability-faq-8-06/overview/0608_consumer-reports-carreliability-faq_ov.htm#1.5

Hope this helps. I learned a thing or two myself.

It doesn't matter what the one domestic fan believes. He/she asked for frequency of repair records, and was given them. It's called: Consumer Reports. Guess he didn't like the results when he was proved wrong. Toyota's and Honda's break down less. It's simple, it's fact, and it's documented. Believe it or not, it's still true.

I guess if I were a Ford or Chevy owner, I'd get upset too when I read proof of how mediocre at best they usually are. The funny part is, real world experience backs it all up. Toyota and Honda owners already know this.

22:31 I am in full agreement and was wary of buying a Tundra, plus driving one did not impress me with its ride, handling as well. Some will seem likely that a small Tacoma owner will say the Tundra does not have any problems. The problem I also have with it is limited applications, but to date I must be the only one that buys applications and utility when I buy a full size truck. All that is thrown out the window; it's carlike, small vehicle owners that apply that analogy to full sizes. Yet they do not own one. My theory on that is that they do not need one either. Yet most of us do that buy full sizes must have applications for them.

"Truth be known, imports were NEVER that good anyway. Millions of dollars in ad hype created a false impression."

Again... WHAT imports are we talking about? Alfa Romeos? Yugos? Fiats? Toyotas? I assume you mean Toyotas since that's how this topic has been going.

I mean - cmon'... are you seriously comparing a Ford Taurus, or a Chevette, or even a late 90's Chevy Malibu to a Toyota Camry or Corolla from the same vintage? Well I'm sorry but my family grew up with both, and back then the difference between what the Big three produced and what Toyota offered was so night and day it wasn't funny. Even as a kid I couldn't get over how utterly poor the quality was of the vast majority of the junk spewed from GM and Ford. They just looked cheap and shoddily manufactured.

Even today, when I go look at newer GM or Ford cars ands trucks compared to the two Toyotas I drive, the quality is still miles from being the same. The Big three skimp and cut corners at every single chance they get, whether it's making flimsy and overly plasticy interiors, to sloppy welds and frame hardware, to crudely cast engine blocks.

The argument that GM and Ford products are better will never hold up. Sorry, but that's the honest truth. Don't get me wrong - nothing would make me happier to see GM and Ford get their act together. But what they produce is hardly world class, and until they are, they will continue to lose market share.

I really felt let down by Consumer Reports giving the redesigned Camry "better than average" reliability ratings for a full two years, even as they must have been receiving data indicating that something was going amiss. I feel like they abandoned their mission to always be looking out for the little guy who doesn't have a lot of money, and who has to be careful how he spends it.

I enjoy reading Consumer Reports tremendously, and I keep all my old issues in the garage. So I went out and checked. Sure enough, in the 2006 and 2007 Buyers Guides, there are those red half circles for the Camry meaning above average. Then in 2008 it says "Reliability of the V6 dropped to below average and it is no longer recommended." No explanation, no apologies.

The other thing I felt so let down by was Toyota rushing vehicles into production before they were ready just to be the biggest car company in the world. I used to feel like they really were a different kind of car company that cared more about giving us something dependable all the time, and in an environmentally friendly way. Then they brought out that global warming monster V8 Tundra. And they sold V6 Camrys that took 9 seconds to go 0-60 mph, supposedly so the transmission software would get better fuel mileage. Didn't anyone at Toyota think maybe some one buying a V6 expected the car to go at least a little bit faster than the 4 cylinder?

I never thought both Toyota and Consumer Reports would disappoint me the same way in the same year.

Again... when discussing the 'problems' of Toyota, the arguments here are basically making mountains out of ant hills. Nobody seemed to read my previous statement on this- but I'll simplify them:

Camry: Total No. affected: Less than 1/2 of 1% of the total production for the V6, 6 speed automatic models. The problem was a faulty snap ring. problem solved.

Tundra: 20 TOTAL engines affected with faulty cams. 20 out of 30,000. Problem remedied, trucks affected repaired if owners chooses to do so.

Lastly, to the guy mentioning that the Tundra is for "small car minded people", well that's rather interesting considering the Tundra has more HP, more torque, more towing capacity, plus it's overall larger than the equivalent F-150 or Silverado.

"I enjoy reading Consumer Reports tremendously, and I keep all my old issues in the garage. So I went out and checked. Sure enough, in the 2006 and 2007 Buyers Guides, there are those red half circles for the Camry meaning above average. Then in 2008 it says "Reliability of the V6 dropped to below average and it is no longer recommended." No explanation, no apologies"

In 2008 Consumer Reports had enough data on the NEW MODEL (07) to stop recommending it. There WAS an explanation in the annual auto issue and no apology was necessary unless it came from Toyota. They explained that the 07 Camry has a 6 speed automatic (unlike the 4 cylinder) that has been troublesome -- something about the shift program if I remember right. Remember there is a lag between the introduction of a new model and Consumer Reports having enough data to either recommend or criticize it. Pay attention to the data section. It's broken down by model year, so your 2006 and 2007 Buying Guides wouldn't have data on 07 Camrys yet. In fact I have the 07 Buying Guide open in front of me and they only have ratings up to 05.

They released early info on 07 Camrys, Tundras, and a Lexus model last year (because they had compiled enough data already to be concerned and thought readers should be aware of the large scale problems). According to Consumer Reports, all of these vehicles' problems are being addressed by Toyota, but their overall rating is still only about average -- significant teething problems for Toyotas.

The truth is that there is no way to know for sure that a new model will be reliable no matter what its source is. If you want to be more sure, wait a year or two until Consumer Reports has data on it. Then their predicted reliability is likely to be accurate. Again, I hope this helps to clarify things.

"Camry: Total No. affected: Less than 1/2 of 1% of the total production for the V6, 6 speed automatic models. The problem was a faulty snap ring. problem solved.

Tundra: 20 TOTAL engines affected with faulty cams. 20 out of 30,000. Problem remedied, trucks affected repaired if owners chooses to do so".

I've read that before too. Odd, though, because that doesn't account for Consumer Reports' negative rating. Their sample would have had to include some of those faulty engines and transmissions -- unlikely if there were so few. Plus the Tundra also had some faulty propeller shafts as well. I'd like to know what other problems have come up in the sample that concerned them so much. Anyway... I'm not arguing with you; I'm just adding some questions that Consumer Reports could probably easily answer. I can't ask them, though, because I'm not a member anymore. Oh well...

Tundra is not for small minded individuals. In fact I tested one and considered acquiring a new one.

If you read the previous post, it seems that comments pertaining to full size trucks that lack utility or function of a full size... seem like they are emanating from a small truck "Tacoma" owner and individuals applying small car like analogies on a full size truck review.

Mechanically it can be A-1 if that's the point you are addressing however... you seem to forget why individuals buy larger full size vehicles to begin with. It seems all that is lost.

Sure the Tundra has power, but I found it in a straight line. I feel the handling, room, comfort, capability as far as load handling and towing characteristics are far better in my new domestic.

Have you driven both lately, meaning 2 or 3 new full size ones at least? If you take it a step forward and own and live with a full size truck, it gives even better insight.

I am not seeing any issues anyway... but again function, utility aspect comes first. So again a Tundra is a larger truck... I highly recommend buying a brand new full size after owning small trucks, if you are so devoted with much time and space enamored with these full size vehicles. Gets tiring reading about Camrys and small trucks on here though.

If the only problem with the Camry was just the blip with the 1/2 of 1% snap ring in the transmission, they would have a better rating than the "average predicted reliability" that is now showing in the January 2009 Consumer Reports magazine for both the V6 and 4 cylinder.

17:45 I wish I could take you in a ride in a Dodge Viper or a GM Vette C5 or a Z06, and then rave on about your Toyotas. Toyota V6 0-60 in 9 seconds must be utterly fantastic?

I also drove an NSX when they first came out; nicely balanced but overpriced.

Other than the Toyota Supra, great in a straight line but poor handling... I have yet to ever gotten excited whatsover over any relatively recent Toyota.

Sorry your exposure is limited to Chevettes, you must be kidding. The generalization of brands by bottom end comparisons is such a shame. Maybe I bore easily reading bland boring basic car comments.

Even full size trucks can be tastefully upgraded with nice performance features to make them fun to drive. But maybe fun to drive isn't necessary, it seems just a vehicle and Consumer Reports that chooses what you buy vs. what you enjoy and like.

Why not continue the Tundra conversation after reading....

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/01/toyota_ball_joints.html

And then go down to the 3-4 million Toyotas with sludging engine issues next.

Selective reading is why I insist on personal first hand ownership, bought new, and my own personal repairs monitored since inception.

If it happens 2-3 times in a row, I look at maybe stronger elements lacking in my previous vehicle and try yet again. I am not personally locked into a nameplate, only best service and less issues to buy yet again the next one.

Used Car Verdict. Reliability "Much Worse than average" Toyota Tundra 2007 (V8 4WD)

New Car Prediction. Reliability "Much Worse than average" Toyota Tundra 2007 (V8 4WD)

Page 261 Consumer Reports Ratings and Pricing Guide Winter 2009.

"as a result, we cannot recommend it." page 197.

On the newstands now. You can go down to the grocery store and read it for yourself.