2002 Toyota Tundra SR5 from North America - Off Topic Comments

The Hybrid Tahoe gets better fuel economy than the Camry. However, since this is a full size truck review... and if anyone more than maybe 3 or 4 on the entire review that perhaps even actually own one, there are primary considerations beyond just pump miserly concerns. It's clearly evident very few ever discuss function and applications, and why a full size truck is purchased to start with.

When I buy one, I look at the bed, the hitch ratings, the power, the cooling aspects, then room, comfort, handling, people carrying, warranty and quite frankly I do not even check my mileage or fuel anyway.

I need a full size truck and tow. If I did not and commuted solo to work maybe a cheap little ride might be the concern. But when you buy a full size truck, you do not walk in and start up immediately on not caring about applications.

I have had mid size import sedans that required 93 octane by the way, and again I opted for performance, capability and handling being more an enjoyable part of ownership. If you own a small car or small little truck, and are on a full size truck review, at least consider why real actual people buy them. Again it's purpose, function and having applications.

It sometimes get pretty political on here, and half of that conversation drifted into application and needs it might help prospective buyers and actual individuals that have ownership interest.

21:29.

You're talking about PERCENTAGE of vehicles getting "good" gas mileage from these manufacturers or perhaps the CAFE number. 11:28 was talking about NUMBERS of models rated to get 30 mpg or better as found on GMs advertising. So you're probably both right.

"11:28 OK... 1. GM does NOT build more fuel efficient vehicles than Honda OR Toyota, and most definitely not combined. Honda and Toyota are the two most 'fuel efficient' auto manufacturers in the world. GM is not'

Check the EPA figures yourself. GM builds more 30mpg+ vehicles than Toyota and Honda COMBINED and has for a decade. This is a good example of claims tossed out by import fans. The highest rated cars besides hybrids sold in the U.S. (according to EPA figures) are BOTH GM with the possible exception of the Fit and Yaris. I haven't checked the revised figures on those, but I am virtually certain they are STILL lower than GM's. It gets tiresome defending one of our major industries from all the myths propagated by Japanese car companies.

"2. Ford is NOT rated in reliability with ANY Japanese auto manufacturer. ALL major publications still, as usual, rate Japanese automobiles at the top of that list."

No, the most recent article on the U.S. auto industry (MSN, Feb. 2009) states very clearly "Ford is now rated EQUAL in reliability to the BEST Japanese cars". That means Honda, as Toyota has plummeted in quality over the past decade.

Again, please verify FACTS before making such incorrect statements. The "recommended" status for some Toyota models was pulled by CR last year because they proved so UNRELIABLE.

"and PLEASE, none of this "hospitals HAVE to treat emergencies". It isn't true"

"You may want to check some legal sites before you say more. There is a federal statute called EMTALA (Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act) that requires hospitals (public and private) to provide limited screening, emergency care and stabilization if they are equipped to, or to provide transport to the proper facility if they aren't. In addition, Certain states also impose duties to offer emergency assistance, especially if the facility is a non-profit or charitable health care provider.'

Yes, there are laws against hospitals denying care to patients in urgent immediate need. There are also laws that state that driving 80mph in a 60mph zone is illegal, but do you know of even ONE driver who OBEYS it? (well, maybe the guy with the mangled rear bumper from getting rear-ended). Having laws DOES NOT mean they will be OBEYED. I know many people who work in the health care field. ALL of them have horror stories about "dumping". This is the practice hospitals use to avoid treating patients without insurance. It involves "referring" them to a charity hospital (never mind that it may be HOURS away) and leaving them to die on the way. And YES, it DOES happen every day.

To all you domestic fans: pick up the new Consumer Reports, 2009, Best and Worst car issue. As always, and has been exhaustively stated, Japanese automobiles come out ahead in every single category. Just spent a half hour reading. I'm not going to repeat the entire thing, go read the facts for yourself.

Most reliable? Toyota/Honda. Best buys? Toyota/Honda.

Most fuel efficient? Toy./Honda.

Highest initial quality and long-term reliability? Toyota/Honda.

It even explains in the beginning of the book how the tests are done and how the results are compiled. They go buy them anonymously, just as you or I would, and drive them for years, just like you and I would. Those that have problems and break down get the worst of the ratings.

As usual, Dodge is pathetic, the very worst of the bunch, GM is hardly better than that, and Ford, while the best of the domestics, trails FAR behind Toyota, Honda, and Nissan.

Oh, and by the way, Consumer Reports isn't biased, so don't say something like that. They don't accept advertising from any auto manufacturer. They just tell you what breaks down and what doesn't.

P.S. The even funnier list is the "used automobiles to avoid" list - literally dozens and dozens of Fords, Chevy's, and Dodges, and ONE single Toyota and ONE single Honda.

If you're going to pretend that the Big 3 make good cars, read the facts that prove otherwise.

So when looking for a full size truck do you walk in say I need 30 MPG and I have Blue Cross Blue Shield? I'll love to see the facial expressions of the new sales dept. when I walk in to buy my next new one and hand my check with that concept.

"There is a federal statute called EMTALA (Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act) "

If you have been to a hospital anywhere near the emergency rooms, you will have seen numerous signs on the wall informing everyone of the basics of the EMTALA statute. I believe it is also federally mandated that there be numerous conspicuous copies of those signs.

"Having laws DOES NOT mean they will be OBEYED."

So why have a national health system if you don't believe that laws will be obeyed? That would provide just more laws to break.

"and PLEASE, none of this "hospitals HAVE to treat emergencies". It isn't true"

It is by statute as stated before. I mentioned that I thought it was a law and you responded with your quote above... which, by context, infers that no such law exists. Now you say that the law exists but isn't going to be obeyed because of "dumping" which is possible but restricted under Social Security Act: Section 1867 - Examination and Treatment For Emergency Medical Conditions and Women in Labor. Secs. 1866 and 1867 apply here.

These two sections are designed specifically to avoid dumping. So dumping, while still possible, places a hospital at litigation risk. A hospital actually has to show that they don't have the equipment to care for a client (they have to be able to show that the client is at greater risk by staying than by transfer) -- not simply the desire to avoid charity care (by the way the afore-mentioned refers specifically to a client who hasn't been stabilized prior to transfer). By federal law hospitals are required to assess, stabilize, and transport. Even with national healthcare, this would be necessary for more acute-care clients in rural settings (in particular).

Furthermore, you first suggested that hospitals could deny care at whim (a'la the child left to bleed to death or the guy left to die without an insulin shot), now that you find out that this isn't the case, you change your argument to say that they do it as a part of their HANDLING of a client. EMTALA doesn't completely eliminate abuse but it does limit opportunities for it.

Client handling may indeed be a beneficial aspect of national healthcare and a genuine argument for its implementation. My only concerns with what you said were that:

#1 You appeared to be unaware that EMTALA prohibits the things that you said were "happening every day"---i.e. people simply being left in or outside of emergency rooms to die.

#2 A one payer system will be expensive and is an unknown (in terms of cost). So the automakers may or may not benefit. * It's very possible, however, that the automakers WILL benefit financially from such an arrangement even though their tax burden will be significantly higher. *

"And YES, it DOES happen every day."

Prove it. Name the last 365.

ANY is too much, but your blanket statement is almost certainly wrong by its very nature. Still, as you can see, we mostly agree on the ultimate issues here.... which is why I responded at all. Otherwise we would just be sitting here saying the sky is green....No the sky is blue.....etc. ad nauseum.

"If you have been to a hospital anywhere near the emergency rooms, you will have seen numerous signs on the wall informing everyone of the basics of the EMTALA statute. I believe it is also federally mandated that there be numerous conspicuous copies of those signs."

If you have been anywhere near a highway you will notice that there are VERY conspicuous speed limit signs at very short intervals... those are ignored too.

One of the latest articles on the domestic auto industry (MSN, February 27, 2009) CLEARLY STATES that Ford's reliability is now EQUAL to "the best Japanese brands". If you check the "projected reliability" in Consumer Reports, you'll find the Fusion is ranked two levels HIGHER than Camry and one level HIGHER than Accord. The average rating for BOTH Toyota and Ford's overall line up is "average". That means they are both EQUAL (as clearly stated in the MSN article). Just how does this "prove" either is any better than the other?

A car review in USA today (February 27,2009) on the Nissan Versa was entitled "The Nissan Versa sings like a bird: "CHEAP, CHEAP, CHEAP" and discusses the many squeaks, rattles and clunks, and the rock hard rear seat.

Since USA Today's automotive reviewers are some of the most objective in the business, I tend to listen to most of what they say. They were the ones who took on the Mercedes ML-320 Bluetech and dared to label this supposedly "untouchable" luxury brand as being worse than a Dodge Durango. ALL of their recent reviews on domestics have been VERY GOOD. They are independent testers and do not receive money from ANY manufacturer or lobbying firm working with them.

If anyone wants a vision of what socialized health care would look like in the United States, take a good look at the Veterans Administration Hospitals. I would think that would cool off any ones enthusiasm for socialized health care.

"It even explains in the beginning of the book how the tests are done and how the results are compiled. They go buy them anonymously, just as you or I would, and drive them for years, just like you and I would. Those that have problems and break down get the worst of the ratings."

Yes they buy cars anonymously but that isn't where they get their repair info. The repair information comes from thousands of consumers who fill out the surveys. These surveys simply ask for the repairs that needed to be done on the consumer's vehicle (s). CR then compiles, categorizes, and averages these responses.

They buy the cars to do their road tests which are done much like those in C%D, Automobile, R&T, Autoweek, etc. The comments related to performance come from these road tests. CR also has a heavy emphasis on safety (like most consumer organizations).

Just thought I should clear that up.

20:52.

It is very easy to prove that Consumer Reports is bias in their recommendation (s) of Toyota. Look at all the engine failures Toyota continue to have, yet Consumer Reports continues to recommend them:

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/toyota_engine.html

How can Consumer Reports rate a car company like this top? Other manufacturers do not have these problems. Consumer Reports is flat out wrong in their ratings, regardless of what you say, or how much infallibility you think they have.

I know so many people that have had terrible problems with their Toyota's (including complete engine failures) and had to sell them early at a substantial loss, bringing their families to the brink of financial ruin, just to rid themselves of all the problems. They would have a thing or two to say to you, and would probably not be polite about it.

The consumer reporting mags may be a useful starting point for some people, but they are not some great oracle. I ignore what they say about interior design, appeal, and similar points because that is simply their subjective opinion. If I like something, I'm not going to be told that I shouldn't like it just because some magazine editor couldn't find a cup holder or power port for his PC. I never use either, so I don't care.

I am interested in the ratings of mechanical quality only, because I can decide for myself whether I like the interior, seats, storage space, handling, and ride. However, even the mechanical ratings are not necessarily enough for me to give credence to. For instance, JD Powers rates the mechanical quality of my 2002 Ford with only 2 circles, while it has never needed a single mechanical (or any other kind) repair -- ever -- and it has 105,000 miles. No repairs ever -- how could perfection rate only 2 out of 5 circles???

It's the same story with the Jeep, Mercury, and Cadillac that my family owns. Perfect reliability, with JD Powers ratings of only 2-3 circles. Sorry, I will believe my own personal experience with vehicles before being a slave to somebody elses rating system.