2002 Toyota Tundra SR5 from North America - Off Topic Comments

Actually we switched to domestics recently, and found that 80-90's imports were then better, and had the cachet if you wish to call it that, as they were truly made in Japan then.

It would certainly be helpful if comments like 20:06 and 20:08 would actually QUOTE SOME SOURCES. Other comments, such as 16:28, 11:48, 17:48, and 23:06 all cite sources. It gets tiresome reading the same old "It's better because I say so" and "Every source says Toyota is best" (THEY DON'T) without a single quote or reference.

It is one thing to read comments from obviously car-savvy people (many of whom have owned a great number of domestics and imports) and who bother to list sources and back up their claims. It gets a bit tiresome reading quotes from individuals who have owned one used Ford with 200,000 miles on it that had a bad cigarette lighter and was considered "crap". It also sounds somewhat less than credible to read "Toyota is best" from people who owned a Tacoma that actually BROKE IN HALF due to improperly designed FRAMES!! Of course the argument will be made "but Toyota FIXED it!!" Sure, I guess so. Any manufacturer that builds vehicles that BREAK IN HALF SHOULD fix them!!

If people are going to comment on a full sized truck, it might help if they had ever OWNED one. Comments from full sized truck owners back up the overwhelming amount of data in showing that, for now, no manufacturer makes a full sized truck that is as good (or has as good a warranty) as ANY domestic truck. For the heavy duty hauling our companies use Ford, Chevy and Dodge trucks, and have for decades. We do so for one major reason: NOTHING ELSE MADE CAN DO THE JOB.

I wrote the comment providing the JD Power article giving Ford a higher overall quality rating than Toyota. I noticed the Toyota defenders are trying to discredit that article, saying it is only "initial" quality, not "long term" quality, etc. Yet, it is interesting how they emphatically take every other news source that reports favorably about Toyota in any capacity as gospel. I think the double standard these folks have is blatantly obvious.

But I do not let auto magazines do my thinking for me. I merely provided that article in response to a previous comment asking for one indicating Ford has higher quality than Toyota. I did not wish to it cause so much pain to the Toyota fans, as the truth evidently creates.

I personally put a lot more stock in personal experience and web sites documenting real ownership experience such as this one, Consumer Affairs, etc., not magazines such as Consumer Reports that are at liberty to skew the data to spin any outcome they want, and has likely been provided by people conditioned to report in a manner that agrees with the publication.

Subscribers who have been trained by the magazine may for example might ignore the rough shifting of a Japanese transmission (as many Japanese transmissions are), while lambasting the shifting of a domestic vehicle, even though domestic vehicle transmissions historically perform much smoother. Mind you, these people only own one vehicle, so they have absolutely no basis for comparison. That in and of itself is a fatal flaw in Consumer Reports methods, rendering their "results" a complete joke if you ask me. Yet so many people on this site promote Consumer Reports as an "expert" source. But look at the source of their data: normal people, not "experts" by their very own definition.

Moreover, do we really know what constitutes a "greater than average" vs. "worse than average" reliability rating at Consumer Reports? Could it be that there is such an insignificant difference, the margin of error caused by the altered judgment of subscribers to conform to the magazine's positions is a lot greater, such that a "much better than average" rating should really be "a much worse than average" rating and vise versa? We just don't know. The only thing a reader sees is red circles versus black circles, the perceived difference between which is damning. It is a very misleading way way to present data, which I highly suspect is intentional.

I have been around test and evaluation in my career for years and believe me, you can manipulate and twist data to make a test appear to have almost any outcome you want.

To that end, it is quite a significant testimony against Consumer Reports' "methods" that I and others who have commented here have had vehicles rated as "much worse than average" by Consumer Reports that have been absolutely trouble free, while friends of mine have had vehicles (Toyota's) rated as "much better than average" that have been woefully unreliable. Likewise, I also have to wonder why I see so many Toyota's broken down on the side of the road. Consumer Reports themselves even had to admit they botched the ratings of the 2007 Toyota's. I would argue they botched a lot more than the 2007's, based on my personal experience, and the countless problems we have seen on Consumer Affairs and this site.

So, I just do not take any of these "auto magazines," especially Consumer Reports, seriously. I'll go with real world experience any day.

"I wrote the comment providing the JD Power article giving Ford a higher overall quality rating than Toyota. I noticed the Toyota defenders are trying to discredit that article, saying it is only "initial" quality, not "long term" quality, etc. Yet, it is interesting how they emphatically take every other news source that reports favorably about Toyota in any capacity as gospel."

Very well, how about let's put this to rest and actually read these articles.

Per the report from JD power short term reliability ratings: Problems per vehicle by brand:

Lexus: 120

Mercury: 151

Cadillac: 155

Toyota: 159

Acura: 160

Buick: 163

BMW: 164

Lincoln:165

Honda: 177

Ford: 204

Infiniti: 204

Audi: 207

Chrysler: 229

Chevrolet: 239

In that regard, Toyota, Honda and their luxury entries are ahead of Ford. Not by a huge margin, which definitely shows some improvement, but still by enough to show a clear winner. Mercury also did quite well, which isn't surprising given 50% of their lineup are re-badged Mazdas. I will give kudos to Cadillac, who for once builds a halfway decent car and will hopefully do better if GM survives.

But the problem with this report again is that it is a short term report. The test was for a 3 year time period. Most people I know keep cars for at least 10-12 years, and if you're going to have problems with a car, it tends to be once the car starts to age. This is where the importance of long term reliability comes in, which in my opinion is a lot more telling in regards to overall quality.

Consumer reports actually does long term reliability ratings with more comprehensive testing of electrical and mechanical systems. Their findings were:

"The best vehicles are built by Honda, Subaru, and Toyota. They make well-rounded cars that excel across the board, getting very good scores in our road tests and high marks in reliability from subscribers in our Annual Auto Survey.

Those are the findings of our latest automaker report cards, which reflect the performance, reliability, fuel economy, and comfort of about 300 vehicles that we've recently tested. Here's what else we found:

* Among domestic automakers, Ford continues to improve in reliability, and some of its cars now rival the best from Japan. Some newer or freshened models, such as the Ford Flex and F-150, also rank in the top of their class in our testing, though other Ford models are merely competent, not outstanding.

* A Japanese nameplate doesn't guarantee that a car is reliable or scores well in our testing. Although most models from Honda, Subaru, and Toyota are very reliable, the Honda Element, Mitsubishi Eclipse, and Toyota Yaris all score too low in our tests for us to recommend."

In other words, much of what has already been said before, which is that overall, Honda and Toyota makes a better product than Ford, GM, and definitely Chrysler. Of course some of Ford's products do well competing against the Japanese automakers, but as the report said, it is really hit and miss, which is exactly the problem domestic automakers have had for decades. You might get a "good" one but you're just as likely to get junk as well.

So to summarize, why would a consumer make a dicey decision buying a product that has a good chance of being faulty when they can buy another brand that has a significantly better chance of being good? Like I've told many people, I've owned nothing but Toyotas and have had no problems. Hence the no amount of reports showing mediocre performance and reliability from the big three compels me to make a switch when I already have my own "proof".

"Actually we switched to domestics recently, and found that 80-90's imports were then better, and had the cachet if you wish to call it that, as they were truly made in Japan then."

With all due respect, that really is a moot point.

The Japanese vehicles of the 80's and early 90's are completely different than those of today. The US federal government mandated that major changes be made to engine control systems in 1996 that reshaped the whole industry from there on out. As has been documented on earlier comments, the Japanese manufacturers, especially Toyota, had many problems developing those systems, and their delivered reliability.

By contrast, the Japanese vehicles of the 1980's and early 1990's, regardless of where they were made, were designed with tried and true technology that they copied from everyone else. Japanese auto manufacturers at that time had always shied away from developing any technological advances on their own because there was an abundance of vehicles they could copy from. It is a well known practice in Japanese industry to acquire the intellectual property of American companies to permit that technology to be sold in Japan, and then turn around and sell that same technology to Americans at a loss, making up the difference by inflating the prices of those items in their home markets, with the intend to put the American companies out of business. Name one major technological advance of any Japanese auto manufacturer in the 1980's through early 1990's. There are not any.

-- So to summarize, why would a consumer make a dicey decision buying a product that has a good chance of being faulty when they can buy another brand that has a significantly better chance of being good? --

Once again, that is if you believe Consumer Reports is accurate, which as I explained on my previous post, I do not think they are.

-- Like I've told many people, I've owned nothing but Toyotas and have had no problems. Hence the no amount of reports showing mediocre performance and reliability from then big three compels me to make a switch when I already have my own "proof". --

In all sincerity, I am glad you have had good luck with your Toyota's. The people I have known who owned them had nothing but problems. But, just speaking for myself, perhaps we can agree on that one point you made. I realize myself and others here might not be successful in changing your opinion toward Toyota, but I have had far too many personal experiences to convince me that they are anything other than pure junk and domestics are far superior.

So, acknowledging that we will probably not change each other's minds, I will accept your experiences as legitimate "proof" in support of your position if you accept my experience as legitimate "proof" in support of mine. But, I will not a magazine article as proof of anything. Once again, I only brought up the JD Powers article because we (those of us on this thread) were challenged to produce an article saying Ford was more reliable than Toyota, which I did.

Personally, I think GM is more reliable than Ford (and thus Toyota), but do not believe that is not represented in the auto magazines, which once again I give absolutely no credence to.

This entire thread is probably two guys arguing with each other (or one guy arguing with himself).

!0:24 it would be nice when you use the word "proof" would be to indicate how many full size trucks you have personally owned new or used.

The heading of this review is full size trucks. I will indicate on my comments that I have and currently own full size trucks (not a car... not a little truck). It would also be nice to read exact commenter applications and why you selected what full size truck when you make your unconditional recommendations.

I also feel its helpful to indicate (especially full sizes) whether you bought it new or used, and know its complete current or prior history.

I always buy new, and another comment I will make is if you special order any vehicle, to test drive one exactly as ordered. The consumer guides do not thoroughly cover headrooms, all applications on your full size truck. It's best to get out there, and I have learned by owning several new trucks what works application and feature, benefit wise. That is why I read on my specific category hoping to learn even more not on little cars and trucks. It's so generalized on here not even specific to the exact vehicle under review. Maybe a few others feel the same on here as well.

"Like I've told many people, I've owned nothing but Toyotas and have had no problems"

How can anyone have any OBJECTIVE view of any product, especially an automobile, if they HAVE NEVER OWNED ONE?? If you have never owned a domestic, how can you POSSIBLY state with a straight face that they are "better". That is like saying "All I've ever eaten is chocolate ice cream, but I KNOW it is better!! If all you have ever owned is Toyota, then OF COURSE the "best car" you ever owned would be a Toyota!!

We've owned Ford, Chevy, Dodge, Plymouth, Pontiac, GMC, BMW, Mercedes, Toyota, Honda, Mazda and VW. Not a one of our Big Three vehicles ever had a problem, including many we drove over 200,000 miles. Not a single Japanese car made 100,000 miles without MANY repairs. Sorry, but with our country in major financial distress you'll have to excuse me if I don't rush out and start sending my car-buying dollars to Japan.

"To that end, it is quite a significant testimony against Consumer Reports' "methods" that I and others who have commented here have had vehicles rated as "much worse than average" by Consumer Reports that have been absolutely trouble free, while friends of mine have had vehicles (Toyota's) rated as "much better than average" that have been woefully unreliable. Likewise, I also have to wonder why I see so many Toyota's broken down on the side of the road. Consumer Reports themselves even had to admit they botched the ratings of the 2007 Toyota's. I would argue they botched a lot more than the 2007's, based on my personal experience, and the countless problems we have seen on Consumer Affairs and this site."

Very true. Over the years we have owned a number of "worse than average" or "much worse than average" vehicles. One of these made over 300,000 miles with virtually no problems. One made 277,000 miles with ZERO problems, and one made 240,000 miles with two timing belts and one heater hose replaced.

The worst nightmares we had were a Mazda (that was built in Japan before Ford took over and improved the quality) and a (Heaven forbid!!) HONDA CIVIC!!

We currently own an 8-year old and 6-year-old GM vehicle, neither of which has had a single issue beyond one burned out light bulb. We also own a 2006 and 2007 Ford and they are both flawless. I'm a mechanic and do all my own servicing and any repairs required (which on domestics has been virtually ZERO). The two worst built cars I have ever worked on were the much-ballyhooed Honda and Mazda.

Your observations about Consumer Reports are certainly very appropriate. I found it VERY INTERESTING that in the October 2007 issue of CR they did a story on "Long Lasting Vehicles". On the COVER was a picture of (what else??) a HONDA CIVIC!! Ironically in the ACTUAL ARTICLE it turned out the Civic had the LOWEST mileage of any vehicle in the entire article. The one with the HIGHEST MILEAGE was a FORD!!! (with 488,000 miles). No doubt many people glanced at the COVER and saw a Civic under a headline about "high mileage cars") and were misled. This is VERY typical of so many publications. I also noticed that under the title "The Best and Worst Cars of 2009" CR very prominently displayed a FORD FUSION (which has their HIGHEST rating) directly under the word "Worst". This sort of thing is very misleading, and I think 100% deliberate.

When it comes to broken down cars on the side of the road, I drive 20 miles one-way to my office on the freeway, and over the course of the past 20 years I've seen AT LEAST 20 times more Japanese vehicles than domestics waiting to be towed. Just yesterday on a THREE MILE STRETCH I saw 2: A Nissan Maxima and a Toyota Camry. I honestly can't remember the last time I saw a broken down domestic.

10:24 Thanks for reciting the facts (again) that the domestic owners seem to overlook. "The best vehicles are built by Toyota, Honda, and Subaru". That is correct, and it is fact. It is also a fact that Ford scores near the bottom, or at least in the bottom third. If you want a vehicle that rates low because it isn't built well enough to GET a better rating, buy a Ford. If you want an even crappier one than that, buy a Chevy or a Dodge. If you want the best, buy a Toyota or a Honda. I rest my case.

Of course, one comment from some anonymous Ford owner with claims of high mileage and no repairs on a Ford will change those facts... (laughing).

Why doesn't anyone give credit to the Crown Victoria/Grand Marquis/Town Car? They are some of the most reliable and durable vehicles produced. It's no wonder people have problems with most domestic and foreign vehicles, most of them are built the same way: uni-body, front-wheel drive, with overstressed 4 cylinder engines.

GM and Chrysler really started building junk when they dropped their body-on-frame, RWD cars, at least Ford kept them around. The Crown Vic and its sister cars have been tried and true over and over again. When NYC tried to switch to hybrid taxis, they couldn't hold up to the abuse the Vics could and they were doing horribly in safety tests. Oh yeah, and how many police departments use Honda's and Toyota's? Yeah didn't think so. That's because they know that junk won't hold up!

"It is a well known practice in Japanese industry to acquire the intellectual property of American companies to permit that technology to be sold in Japan, and then turn around and sell that same technology to Americans at a loss, making up the difference by inflating the prices of those items in their home markets, with the intend to put the American companies out of business. Name one major technological advance of any Japanese auto manufacturer in the 1980's through early 1990's. There are not any."

That's hardly what I'd call accurate. Sure - right after WW2, American companies offered patent technology to Japanese firms to help them rebuild their economy. But if you look under any hood of any Japanese car from the 70's - today, there's few similarities between them and their American-made counterparts. As far as "copying technology", that's a very vague term given that the four stroke engine was developed in 1854 by Otto in France and later configured into an automotive engine by Daimler Benz... hence in that respect, Henry Ford and other US carmakers did the same thing.

But the difference between Japanese and American engines is drastic, and especially in the 70's-90's time period. The Japanese government employed Edward Demmming, whom was an industrial designer and manufacturing specialist who ironically helped the US develop and manufacture war related items quicker, more efficiently, and with more quality control. He brought this same approach to Japanese firms who applied it to making cars. They used what is known as lean manufacturing where one plant could make numerous cars.

Another thing that Japanese car companies did was focus on making engines and drive trains simpler by eliminating unnecessary parts. This in turn made them more reliable. This was ironically what Henry Ford did with the model T, yet later abandoned in favor of competing with GM, where the approach was to slap the same aged drive train under a new body every year.

Lastly, the attention to quality was above average. Look at any Honda from the 70's. The parking brake cables are sheathed. Look at any American car from that era: No sheathing. It's not like you need it per say, but that one extra step is an example of how companies like Toyota took extra steps that ultimately meant better cars.

I can attest to this personally. My "other" car is a 1955 Mercury Monterey. Under the hood is a 1972 351 V8. Ford made variants of this engine from the 60's all the way up to the 90's. Parts will fit it from numerous decades. The engine is in comparison to the one in my 90's or even previous 80's Toyotas is crudely cast, continuously in need of proper maintenance, and unrefined. There is no comparison here, and if some are suggesting that Japanese car makers "copied" American engines from the same 70's-90's era, then that's a joke in itself.

I had Crown Vics as company cars and they were outstanding. Long distance, stop starting many times daily with decent mileage.

I now have a company SUV and I miss the Crown Vics. I rented a brand new one in Florida recently and was very pleased with it. I haven't seen any Camry police cars, taxis anywhere, wonder why?

I can highly recommend Crown Vics, Mercury Marquis. The only comment is it is sometimes perceived as a seniors car, as is the Camry I might add. Very nice to drive and I was getting high MPG on the digital dash. V8 with overdrive gets great mileage and I would much rather have that than high revving, noisy, rough riding compacts with 4 cylinders overtaxed and overworked.

18th Mar 2009, 12:59 - Yes, I don't see any Smart Cars or Mini's being used as Police Cars around these parts either!