2002 Toyota Tundra SR5 from North America - Off Topic Comments

"You couldn't give me a car with a Ford emblem on it."

OK you could give it to me :) Next comment:

"Not that I put any stock in Consumer Reports (gag), but for anyone that does, why does Consumer Reports rate the Tundra Reliability as much worse than average?"

They don't. It is currently rated average. The 07 had trouble, though. I'm sure that's what you are referring to. Still, though, the Silverado has been pretty reliable as a viable alternative. If you want something different, try truedelta.com. You can join for free if you post info on your own vehicles. Like someone else said, most of the results are in line with what CR says but they actually post the repair numbers.

"An extremely rare Tundra that makes 200,000 miles is an exception to the rule."

Nope. Not rare at all. You see, I worked at a lumber yard for a number of years out here in California, where Japanese vehicles are more accepted and have had a large market share for decades now. When the Tundra came out, the contractors that I dealt with began buying them like mad, and more importantly, felt they were more modern, better built, and altogether better capable of providing years of trouble-free service. Many of these guys drove A LOT. Hence I knew MANY of them with well over 200,000 miles of real life usage with little to no problems.

But let's back up for just a second. California has almost 40 million people. Considering that the US is around 300 million, then close to 1/6th of the US population lives in this state. Japanese vehicles by and large are the most popular vehicles. Additionally, the avg commute here is longer and further than the avg American's. So Toyota and Hondas get used on a much more abusive scale than elsewhere. Yet it's very common to see a 20-25 year old Toyota still going strong down the freeway. I've been at local junk yards and seen untold numbers of Hondas and Toyotas with 500,000 miles or more on the speedometers, and in many cases, the cars are totaled and not just worn-out.

All the little stories, cherry-picked consumer reports about initial quality, or whatever will convince me what I see with my own eyes, and that is that by and large, you can't argue with success. The facts, overwhelming number of trouble free cars and trucks, and devoted owners with little reason to consider domestic cars and trucks are all reason enough to justify the claims that so many of you with Fords and GM's so desperately want to convince us of otherwise. We already know the truth.

I feel the best way to comment on a manufacturer is "I owned 1 Ford specific model and it was not satisfactory". I cannot comment on past or current models, or the entire Ford line up as I have zero basis of comparison to do so. It would also help to indicate that your comments are also based not on the exact model or size but a smaller nameplate from an earlier date of the review that has been satisfactory again as a 1 time personal experience or observation. (Tacoma) In my own personal experience I have owned many vehicles and am not so broad based to comment on a brand so freely... maybe a few different models within that brand only.

The Tundra bends just driving down the road. Sure.

For your information, it has more horsepower, torque, and towing capacity than the F-150.

As far as sales, that doesn't mean much either. The domestics have been making full size trucks for several decades, people unfortunately still buy them out of habit, as there were no other choices till recently. That's changing for the better, which is why the Big 3 are all on their way out and Toyota only grows stronger over the years. Old (bad) habits die hard.

Want to talk about Consumer Reports ratings? Japanese automobiles are still the most reliable out there... their words, to paraphrase roughly.

Your friend traded in a Toyota for a domestic? Who cares. If your 'friend' did this, then it's his loss and his mistake.

The Tundra is a more capable, better built, more reliable, much higher quality truck than the F-150 (an outdated dinosaur), the Silverado (not worth looking at), or the Dodge Ram. If you're not driving a Toyota, you're driving something of lesser quality. Period. Unless it's a Honda...

Sales don't mean anything. More cheeseburgers are sold than health foods; that doesn't mean they're better...

All other comments on here are opinion, other than those that present the facts: those facts, to repeat again, are that all the experts, from every major auto. publication, STILL rate Japanese automobiles as the most reliable. That's something you domestic owners can't talk your way around, and that's the facts. Refusing to believe it or arguing against it doesn't change anything. Japanese auto's are number ONE in reliability.

Having owned 4 Ford trucks and 1 Dodge, and never having spent one penny on repairs on any of them, I doubt that I'll be gambling on a foreign company that has never built trucks before for a dependable work truck or personal vehicle.

Incidentally, with the January figures, the F-150 is now the top selling truck for twenty-EIGHT years in a row. Nissan tried to compete with the world's best truck with the pathetic Titan and failed. Now Toyota has done the same and the Tundra is (thankfully) biting the dust too.

"The Tundra bends just driving down the road. Sure."

I guess these photographs and the petitions going around for Toyota to address the problem are just people's imaginations:

http://www.bodyshopzone.com/editorial/about_Toyota/Tundra_quality_problem.html

"All other comments on here are opinion, other than those that present the facts: those facts, to repeat again, are that all the experts, from every major auto. publication, STILL rate Japanese automobiles as the most reliable."

Those same "experts" (Consumer Reports) who had to do an about face with their tails between their legs and renege on their ratings of the Camry and Tundra, and admit that their reliabilities are actually much worse than average as opposed to their pompous assumptions that they would be better than average. Never mind the fact that all the while, none of their ratings were ever corresponding to the actual real world experience of people outside of their brain washed subscribers, who seem to think Consumer Reports is God's visible organization on Earth and adjust their evaluations to agree with (and preach) whatever Consumer Reports has trained them to believe.

I do not mean this as an offense to you, but the organization (s) you consider to be "expert," I consider to be a joke.

I have never had any problems with my domestics, but have seen friends of mine countless very serious problems with their imports, ESPECIALLY TOYOTA's. In science, which is my profession, a theory (e.g., the notion of Toyota's being reliable) is tested by experiment (e.g., real world ownership experience). Experimental results always take precedence over theory. If the experimental results agree with the theory, the theory is validated. If the experimental results disagree with the theory, the theory is considered to be proven wrong.

Based on my real world observations, and that of countless other people on this thread, your "experts," and their theory that Toyota's are reliable, are wrong.

"the Tundra is (thankfully) biting the dust too."

Why "thankfully"?

"never having spent one penny on repairs on any of them, I doubt that I'll be gambling on a foreign company that has never built trucks before"

I doubt it too, considering that you find it good news that the Tundra is "biting the dust". Let's face it, this has nothing to do with reliability, capacity, relative inexperience at building trucks, or anything at all that has to do with the vehicle. It's doubtful that you would buy the Tundra even if it walked on water -- carrying 2 tons of bricks in its bed. You just said you were hoping they'd fail... without having owned one.

So if no one cares about sales numbers, then who cares what people prefer owing, driving, Consumer Reports etc.

I tend to agree with that direction myself, basing my buying decisions on performance, features, utility, towing, load carrying, ride, handling, warranty, and then did not buy a Tundra. I test drive one after another, especially with the full size truck...

I disagree Toyota has the best. Put loads towing and aforementioned points in your personal test and find out first hand. I could care less what others drive, but I expect them to perform under load not just an empty interstate commute.

If you think people buy new full size trucks with zero applications or just out of habit, it's not so in 2009. The problem on a new full size truck is mainly when it's your own wallet being hit for repairs, not anyone elses. I have a lot of fun because of mine and do not want my free time destroyed languishing in a new dealership with a really crap warranty. I credit most for being wise enough to test drive before they hand over money to buy in 2009.

"Additionally, the avg commute here is longer and further than the avg American's. So Toyota and Hondas get used on a much more abusive scale than elsewhere"

Flawed logic. Freeway mileage is far EASIER on vehicles than short hops that don't allow for the engine to warm up or the transmissions to get into top gear as much. Short, in-town commutes are the MOST abusive type of driving one can do. We put 325,000 miles of in-town, red-light to red-light rush hour driving on a Ford. THAT is abusive driving, not cruising along a freeway for 25 miles. It never required any repairs beyond a muffler, starter, catalytic converter and hoses and belts. Our pampered imports never lasted HALF that long.

"Sales don't mean anything. More cheeseburgers are sold than health foods; that doesn't mean they're better..."

Isn't it ironic that when a Japanese car sells well, it is "proof of how good they are", but if a domestic sells well, "Sales don't mean anything". Gee boys and girls, can we say "HYPOCRISY"??

"I have never had any problems with my domestics, but have seen friends of mine countless very serious problems with their imports, ESPECIALLY TOYOTA's. In science, which is my profession, a theory (e.g., the notion of Toyota's being reliable) is tested by experiment (e.g., real world ownership experience). Experimental results always take precedence over theory. If the experimental results agree with the theory, the theory is validated. If the experimental results disagree with the theory, the theory is considered to be proven wrong."

Yes... but science requires REPRESENTATIVE samples. Your (and your friends') experiences are too narrow to be considered anything more than indicators. That is why, in science, an "experiment" takes you from hypothesis to theory which is published for peer review. Peers then conduct the same experiment using a set of controls to make sure outside factors aren't skewing the result. They then release the outcomes of their experiments. These outcomes are then used to either further the theory or question its validity. In the realm of vehicles, the organization you reject (CU) is the one who is most careful and scientific with their method. So you say you're a scientist huh?

"I do not mean this as an offense to you, but the organization (s) you consider to be "expert," I consider to be a joke."

And I don't mean this to be offensive to you, but you're rejecting the only and best "science" available out of hand.

"Those same "experts" (Consumer Reports) who had to do an about face with their tails between their legs and renege on their ratings of the Camry and Tundra, and admit that their reliabilities are actually much worse than average as opposed to their pompous assumptions that they would be better than average. Never mind the fact that all the while, none of their ratings were ever corresponding to the actual real world experience of people outside of their brain washed subscribers, who seem to think Consumer Reports is God's visible organization on Earth and adjust their evaluations to agree with (and preach) whatever Consumer Reports has trained them to believe."

CR surveys only ask for what went wrong with your vehicle, vehicle type, and mileage. They also ask if you're satisfied but that is presented separately. Obviously you've never filled out one of their surveys. Nor have you read the FAQ on their method. But you are "preaching" your opinion (in essence a conspiracy theory) that members are adjusting their evaluations en-masse... and that not born of information. I believe that there are weaknesses in the way CR data is compiled, but no discussion here would be an informed one because it would be assumed that I'm "The Brainwashed One".

Yes CR did an about face with the new (07) Camry and Tundra because they thought they would follow the same trajectory as past models. They didn't and caught CR by surprise. Consequently CR changed their method of reporting new models based on the reliability of the last one.

"Based on my real world observations, and that of countless other people on this thread, your "experts," and their theory that Toyota's are reliable, are wrong."

"Countless" indeed. You don't know how many are on this thread (I don't either). For all you know, this subject is being batted around by 6 people. This site isn't a scientific, controlled survey. It isn't designed to be. Toyotas may be fantastic. Toyotas may be crap. This site won't further either hypothesis. You don't even know for a fact that those who claim an experience with a vehicle even own one. In fact there are a couple of posts that go a long way toward proving the opposite on a few threads.

So it's fine to dislike Toyotas....that's your right. But it isn't science.

"Isn't it ironic that when a Japanese car sells well, it is "proof of how good they are", but if a domestic sells well, "Sales don't mean anything". Gee boys and girls, can we say "HYPOCRISY"??"

Only if the same person believes both. Then there would be a double standard.

Regardless of your position here on this thread, you should celebrate crossing the 800 comments line. Pop a top, boys!

Actually would be curious how well a newer Tundra would hold up with 4 passengers and towing a large boat in very hot bumper to bumper traffic 2 hours each way with a limited warranty. Every single weekend year in year out.

It would certainly have time to thoroughly test its drivetrain, braking, cooling, but it seems like the word "commute" on here means driving daily to work empty, again the car comparisons. It seems like its wishful thinking comments on here from those not even a likely consumer for any new late model full size truck. The comments have zero utility ever mentioned, and anyone I know owning them certainly finds that having utmost importance to own/ buy.

"I have never had any problems with my domestics, but have seen friends of mine countless very serious problems with their imports, ESPECIALLY TOYOTA's. In science, which is my profession, a theory (e.g., the notion of Toyota's being reliable) is tested by experiment (e.g., real world ownership experience). Experimental results always take precedence over theory. If the experimental results agree with the theory, the theory is validated. If the experimental results disagree with the theory, the theory is considered to be proven wrong.

Based on my real world observations, and that of countless other people on this thread, your "experts," and their theory that Toyota's are reliable, are wrong"

Very well said, and 100% accurate. Remember, however, that we live in a country that is rife with legends (Bigfoot, UFO's, Japanese cars being better) that are not amenable to logic or rational thinking. When the scientific method can't validate these myths, the "true believers" start chanting "Consumer Reports... High sales... My uncle Ichabod owns a 7,000,000 mile Tacoma..." and totally IGNORE any REAL evidence. If a domestic has good sales, it is written off with the comment "sales don't mean anything". If a Japanese car sells well, it is "proof they are superior". You can't win with non-scientifically minded people. The playing rules change with each game.

And to another commenter, NO, I WOULDN'T buy a Tundra even if it could walk on water, because with the U.S. auto industry in desperate need of help, NO WAY am I sending my American-earned money to a foreign industry (even if the product WAS better, which it definitely is NOT).

Finally, with the world's best selling truck for the THIRD DECADE in a row, Ford doesn't take a backseat to ANYONE. And it's not just the trucks: I'll leave you with this direct quote from USA Today about their test of the new Fusion Hybrid:

"OK, let's just get it out there: The 2010 Ford Hybrid is the best gasoline-electric hybrid yet. What makes it best is a top-drawer blend of an already very good midsize sedan with the industry's smoothest, best-integrated gas-electric power system. It's so well done that you have to look to the $107,000 Lexus LS600h hybrid to come close."

Better than a $107,000 Lexus? Not bad Ford!!

I would buy a Tundra if it were superior and found it lacking in many areas.

I have recommended from the onset to test everything if you are buying a full size truck. Maybe a new car shopper run in buy an new import without looking at any other comparable models. They will certainly get you around, but full size trucks are designed to be utilized; at least that's why I buy them. If it has zero applications or no purpose why buy the larger models... if you have very light applications, no towing, maybe a commuter vehicle that you throw a bike, a shrub, a couple bags of mulch then there's no need to ever consider applications, function and practical usage.

Maybe I am one of the very few that own a new full size on this review. It would be interesting on each comment if it indicating a car owner, a small truck owner making individual comments on a full size review to have a better grasp of personal input, This specific comment however is from an actual full size truck owner that tested them and bought another new GM Silverado.