2002 Toyota Tundra SR5 from North America - Off Topic Comments

"So when looking for a full size truck do you walk in say I need 30 MPG and I have Blue Cross Blue Shield?"

No, I walk in knowing I will have to pay $1500 MORE for a domestic vehicle because the customer has to pay the exorbitant health care costs for U.S. auto workers, which no other car maker in the world has to pay because every other civilized country provides health care for their citizens.

So explain how the free health care is paid for... maybe raise our personal income tax $1500... since when is there a free ride anywhere unless it's a tooth fairy paying.

My employer pays 100% of mine, but I suspect it's either less pay with or more pay without, and I am not in the automotive industry. So why ever overpay high profitability for inflated priced imports with those that ship their profits overseas?

Better yet, test drive and compare feature for feature and make a personal determination. Then buy.

Also, why ever settle for less than a 100,000 mile warranty in this day and age vs. charge a relatively new vehicle owner that has 51,000 miles on the odometer.

If the vehicles are so exceptional in my opinion, offer a great warranty, spend less on advertising and give more features in the vehicle. If the drivetrain is so perfect then warranty it for 100000 miles with scheduled intervals maintained.

I left imports over the warranty issue.... maybe repeat business is not as valued today. I'll try something once or twice, but not without exceptional service from now on.

16:12

All of your points have been dealt with in detail earlier in this thread.

There are real issues with the way CR reports their data and reviews. But what's the point, if you and others are content to explain everything with a conspiracy theory?

Real issues?: I know of at least three.

#1 There is real bias in their test drives and the reviews based upon them.

#2 There isn't a numerical value placed upon their symbols any more, so there may not be that much of a difference between a solid black and a solid red (much worse than average vs. much better than average) which leads to comments like "I've owned my Ford with a solid black in the area of the body integrity for 150,000 miles. When are the problems supposed to show up?" The "average" may be so good that "below average" may take in a grand total of two vehicles in a thousand, for all we know.

#3 They seem to have a "perfect vehicle" in the back of their collective mind. It is obviously some kind of reasonably efficient car, too. So ANY vehicle that strays too far from that ideal is roundly criticized even if its intended purpose is far afield of that imaginary car.

"It is very easy to prove that Consumer Reports is bias in their recommendation (s) of Toyota."

I am not so sure the bad reporting by CR is entirely intentional. They rely on voluntary reporting, which has quite a few pitfalls of its own. People who subscribe to CR in the first place are a small segment of the population. Then on top of that only 12% of subscribers respond. It is a known phenomena that people who respond to those kinds of surveys exhibit a need for approval, they feel like they have a relationship with the people doing the survey, and they feel like they want to give the answers that the surveyors want. It is a bit of a stretch to call the CR data "scientific." And it is deceptive for them to call their results "unbiased" when their very data collection method is recognized scientifically to involve some significant bias problems.

I have been involved in some marketing research in the Fortune 500 company I work for, and I have been amazed at how difficult it is to get meaningful results with all the different kinds of biases that can get introduced. In every consumer research project I have been involved in, we have seen how you can get the consumers to say anything you want just by how we set up the data collection. This is all just for internal use - we are just trying to gauge what products to make, or what features to include. But it drives us nuts because every time we do a study, we get completely different results from the last study.

"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."

I've tried to get this point across for years. I've owned several vehicles that were rated "much worse than average". We never have had a single problem with ANY of them.

On the other hand, we've had a car the magazines all freak out over and rate as the best in the universe (Honda). It was a total disaster and was not as reliable as the very WORST domestic I've ever heard of.

I no longer mindlessly accept the myths put out by Japanese car companies. I go by my own experience and drive only domestics. My money is too hard to come by these days to spend it on something that will sit in the repair shop several days a month.

"It is a known phenomena that people who respond to those kinds of surveys exhibit a need for approval, they feel like they have a relationship with the people doing the survey, and they feel like they want to give the answers that the surveyors want. It is a bit of a stretch to call the CR data "scientific." And it is deceptive for them to call their results "unbiased" when their very data collection method is recognized scientifically to involve some significant bias problems."

That is fine. But there are several problems with your logic.

#1 I used to take their surveys. They weren't interested in how I FELT. They simply asked what went wrong with my vehicle.

#2 Your logic is only valid if a subscriber KNOWS what the surveyor wants them to say... in other words, you presume bias as a part of your premise... even though you begin by saying it is unintentional.

#3 Where is the payoff (approval)? No one is contacted directly via phone or other medium so they can "feel the love". It's just an ugly form... and there is no bias in the way it's set up (if you saw it, you'd likely agree. They ask what you drive and what went wrong. That's it.)

#4 CR itself admits that there are built-in pitfalls to this type (or any type) of data collection. So they use various mechanisms to attempt to avoid these things. Read their FAQ.

#5 It is equally a stretch to call their method biased when you are only comparing it to data collection you say you did. Who did you work for? How large were your surveys? How were they conducted? What studies are you referring to? Why would this benefit the Japanese and not the Germans, for example.

#6 Even if what you said was true and happening, wouldn't it break down over time so that, like you say, their results would be all over the map? Instead trends show up that are validated by other reporting agencies with a much less storied past. For example, go to the sections on long term reliability in Truedelta.com or JD Power. These publications mostly agree with CR so...

#7 Why would that be? They all use varying methods.

Yes, this is a science AND an art. Surveyors agree on this point. But your criticism of what they do will be taken as a REPUDIATION of what they do. Further... by this logic, ALL surveying is invalidated.

Moreover, on this forum, it furthers the argument that some have forwarded that their experience is so profound that it is of universal value. The "I've owned 25 Toyotas and I've only spent $2.50 on repairs so EVERYONE who takes care of them WILL have the same outcome... how could it be any other way?".

So do we completely abandon the only and most scientific tools at our disposal? Are we, instead, supposed to embrace the opinions and prejudices of our acquaintances; people whose knowledge, though broad by individual standards, is a mere drop in the bucket of human experience? WHAT WOULD YOU REPLACE SURVEYS WITH?

My point is that 2 people's experience HAS to be more conclusive than 1, and 10,000 is perhaps as much as a thousand times better than that even if you feel that scale begins to mitigate the value of the results.

I know that's a lot of questions, but if you cast aspersions on these organizations and their techniques, they at least deserve a detailed and specific explanation of your criticisms.

Again, I can't get over how generalized this thread has become. The reason this thread is ridiculous is because the argument has trickled down to a basic "Domestics" versus "Imports" argument. There's lots of people here who seem to be implicating that every single domestically produced product is completely and utterly reliable just because it happens to have been produced within a narrow geographic location. The term "domestic" is so generic that it's impossible to make such an assertion. When we're talking Domestic output, it could be anything from a Toyota Camry made in Kentucky, a Ford F-150 made in Michigan, to a Tesla electric roadster made in Silicon Valley. Comparatively speaking, these three are totally different cars with completely different reliability and quality distinctions.

What it boils down to is protective patriotism and the suggestion that all things American are better than all things from anywhere else because we happen to be Americans, thus we must be better than other nations and their own domestic output. I have a Weber Grill, a Maglight flashlight, a Lawnboy mower, and a Leatherman multi-tool. All American made and in my opinion the best quality for their intended application. But my truck is a Toyota because as with the previous items, it too is the best quality for the application, which is proven reliability.

The reason arguments like these never make any sense is because the products are not looked at as those made by unique and independent companies with their own corporate management and development tendencies, but rather as generic entities that are given in many respects either deserved or undeserved criticism simply because they happen to originate from either a foreign or national corporate home.

Look at it this way. Go to a hardware store. There's a choice of different tools. Yes, there's your typical selection of cheap, stamped steel push mowers with your typical little Briggs engine. It'll probably work for 4-5 years then need replacement. On the other hand, you could also get a John Deere mower with a cast deck and Kohler engine that will last 20-30 years. BOTH are American, but they are not the same quality, nor are they both better simply because they're American. The same is true when stating that all things that GM makes are equal. Let's be serious here. The Chevy Aveo is garbage. A Cadillac on the other hand is vastly better and more dependable.

Hence the point that claiming something is better based on a general nationalism is moot and pointless.

Consumer Reports "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)."

That is pretty much right. CR does the same kind of testing that the car magazines do, which means they prefer fast cars with big engines and are more tolerant of road noise and stiff suspensions than the average consumer. I wish they understood us average buyers better and adjusted the reporting for that.

CRs attitude on safety is somewhat schizophrenic. They criticize the manufacturers for safety issues, but they are too wise to offend the readers and point out that consumers should consider safety more. CR should put more effort in educating readers about real safety issues.

CR is good a posturing, like in the last issue saying that the government should toughen the roll over crash standards and showing a picture of a man in a wheelchair who could have been helped by a tougher roll standard. But why has CR hardly ever said a word about which cars (like Volvo) that have been designed to much stronger roll over standards for many years?

I'd rather ask what warranty I am getting and then test drive. I am tall and my options I choose and driving gives me a first hand observation. Sitting in a chair at home with piles of magazines doesn't work. A review from someone 5'4 for a 6' driver is perhaps overlooked. Maybe someone likes driving a car as slow as a slug and vague handling. I like my own determination. I do compare pricing however online.

15:47

I agree wholeheartedly with most of what you said. Unfortunately your use of the Aveo vs Cadillac will be used by some to dismiss your whole argument. The Aveo is a Korean car with a Chevy nameplate slapped on... much like the Geo Metro.

"I'd rather ask what warranty I am getting and then test drive. I am tall and my options I choose and driving gives me a first hand observation. Sitting in a chair at home with piles of magazines doesn't work. A review from someone 5'4 for a 6' driver is perhaps overlooked. Maybe someone likes driving a car as slow as a slug and vague handling. I like my own determination. I do compare pricing however online."

You make some very good points. I agree, but would add that publications can be used as a source of info in the process of elimination. For example if you do some trailering you can find out which vehicles fit the need. You may find that one vehicle has a better stock trailering package. You might find that one was more troublesome in some meaningful area.

What I mean is that magazines should just be a means of informing your test-driving process.

"#2 Your logic is only valid if a subscriber KNOWS what the surveyor wants them to say... in other words, you presume bias as a part of your premise... even though you begin by saying it is unintentional."

Any one who is a regular reader of CR knows what the expected responses are. CR does not want that confounding factor in there data, but I guarantee you they know it is there. Any one who handles market research data struggles with this. I have been in numerous data review meetings where we look at the data, discuss the problems, then at the end say, you know, all we can do is analyze and report what we got.

This kind of thing is one of the very hardest things about doing good market research. Even though what a researcher can present to the subjects is very neutral and unbiased, like the form you mentioned, that form is really only a very small portion of what the subject is responding to. The responders carry with them a world of experience, conversations, TV ads they saw, remembrances of things they read in previous CR issues. And it affects how they respond.

I do not mean to disparage the fine work that CR does, and the positive contributions they make to our society. I am just trying to share a little knowledge about these issues so people can better understand how to interpret and use the results that CR gives.

Any one who has been involved in data collection in market research has seen a subject trying really hard and getting frustrated and saying something like "what is my response supposed to be?" One way we normally try to control for those kinds of overly involved people is to throw out the very most positive responses, and the very most negative responses. Maybe you don't know that if you ever filled out a survey and gave a product all 10's for very best of everything, that response probably got discarded and not factored into the final tally.

I think we're all smart enough to realize what "domestic" and "import" stands for.

Don't bring that kind of technicality to a debate like this. Domestic means the big 3. Import or foreign means Toyota, Honda, Nissan. And always will.

Were they are built is irrelevant. It's simply a label to separate the two.

"But my truck is a Toyota because as with the previous items, it too is the best quality for the application, which is proven reliability."

The Tacoma has exactly the SAME reliability rating as the Ford Ranger, which is less expensive and comes with a better warranty.

"The Chevy Aveo is garbage. A Cadillac on the other hand is vastly better and more dependable"

I don't understand how people who are supposedly car-literate keep confusing the Aveo with GM-built cars. The Aveo is Korean. It is basically a mechanical twin under the sheet metal to the Hyundai Accent. I have driven the Aveo and found it to be an incredibly smooth and good riding car for a sub-compact. The ride is better than that of the Accent. Friends who own Aveos and follow the recommended maintenance procedures have had no trouble with theirs, though the highest mileage any of them has on theirs is just over 98,000 miles.

"#5 It is equally a stretch to call their method biased when you are only comparing it to data collection you say you did. "

I am sorry if it sounded like my work was related to the car industry in some way. I am but a small cog in a giant big pharmaceutical firm. Our market research is only used internally to help us figure out what projects to pursue and what features to include. I have been very unimpressed with how well that works. In reality, all the real decisions are made by top level executives who ignore the market research. It is just like a Dilbert cartoon.

Like any other big company, my firm makes us sign papers that say we understand that we are subject to immediate termination if we say things that can reflect poorly on the firm or are outside the narrow confines of press releases from the PR department. We are told that as long we don't identify who we work for, we can say what we want. But as soon as we represent ourselves as belonging to the firm, we can't say anything interesting.

The thing I was trying to point out was how hard it is to get good results. I think CR does a great job on data collection and a pretty good job on reporting fairly raw results.

But I lost any notion that CR is "unbiased" when I found out that they gave the 2007 and 2008 Camry "better than average" reliability ratings when in fact they had not collected any data on those cars yet. Then they had to recant their ratings and report they were actually "worse than average" and remove the "recommended" status. Judging from my experience in a big bureaucracy, it looks to me like the same kinds of Dilbert cartoon behaviors happen at CR just like they do in any organization of any size. Little cogs like me collecting good data - executives above me ignoring it and following their internal biases.