2002 Toyota Tundra SR5 from North America - Off Topic Comments

Every prior post likely Tacoma guy I have read makes me question Toyota what? Or GM what or Ford what or Chrysler what? Meaning what model on earth are you talking about?

If a person owned a used Century, how does that have any bearing on any late model full size truck? And if they have a recommendation, have they ever followed through and bought a full size truck of any manufacturer ever? Apparently this post has survived so long as those that actually owned full size trucks know otherwise.

I started out with small trucks myself and have since put many miles on my new GM Silverado trucks. I drive a lot rarely empty and tow at the same time. It's doubtful anyone is going to repeat purchase spending over $45k unless they have a specific purpose, are extremely satisfied with past performance, and have faith the vehicle will tow a very expensive investment. This is not an empty to and from work commuter. I trust it to carry my family safely while towing. None of this is ever discussed with the small car/small truck owners as they would own one if there was an application at their home.

I do not walk in with stacks of magazine articles, who is in office comments... I test them and I buy. I promise to look at every new Toyota and every other full size truck before buying. The anti domestic hatred is quite evident and I can see how it could turn even a prospective import owner for a small truck away from even considering one. I use to feel there was some kind of cachet with imports when we had them, but ours became mechanical headaches to own. When you can cover up the price sticker and buy the most capable truck (and not a F-350) I have had mixed import/domestics ownership, do not ride around as good "ole" boy or wear cowboy hats. I work, boat and play golf and just happen to also own a new domestic GM truck for towing applications.

"I like Fords too, but someone who would buy a $25,000-$50,000 vehicle on the say-so of some nameless, faceless bloggers on a Tundra thread, no less, is a gambler of Russian proportions.'

The whole point is, if a commenter is not using supportive data or rational, fact-based arguments, it tends to give one the distinct impression that they HAVE no supporting evidence. My friends who have read this thread and bought Fords bought them BECAUSE the commenter made no sense, not because he persuaded them with any arguments. It was because he doesn't HAVE any arguments. That is the whole point.

I DEFINITELY put lots of credence in the owner experiences shared here and it is usually VERY easy to tell which are bogus and which are not. If a commenter says "All fords are crap" I instantly KNOW that is a totally subjective and highly prejudiced, unfounded statement. If a commenter says "I put 277,000 miles on a 1977 Buick LaSabre (as my family did) with zero problems", I feel a bit more comfortable in accepting the credibility of the commenter.

To say this site shouldn't influence car buyer's choices is a bit hasty. I was on the brink of buying an imported sports car when I came across this site. After reading numerous posts from owners who had had warranty repairs denied, I opted to buy a Ford Mustang instead (and have been VERY happy with it). I am a certified therapist as well, so it's not hard for me to spot (and point out to my friends) BS when I see it. When a commenter who has previously stated that they have never owned a new domestic or full sized truck suddenly states "I've owned NEW and used domestics", you can immediately disregard the credibility of any previous (or future) statements from that commenter.

Of course, car buyers should NEVER base a final buying decision on ANY one source (ESPECIALLY biased magazine reviews). They should drive many vehicles and base their choice on what is more in line with their needs and what has the best quality.

Before my friends bought their new Fords, each looked over and drove my 2006 Ford Fusion and agreed the fit, finish, feel and handling were better than the 2009 Accords and Camrys they had driven. In addition, they actually talked with others who had bought Fords and driven them for a few years. This is an excellent way of determining quality and reliability.

I have yet to talk to even ONE Fusion owner who has not been tremendously impressed. The same can be said of the F-150. It takes more than reading a Toyota sales brochure or baseless rants from prejudiced used car owners brochure to become fully informed about a vehicle.

06:37 I agree. I've also owned domestics. Clearly, I wasn't biased if I bought them. The problem is, they let me down almost every time.

Now I am biased. More than 1000 comments on this ridiculous thread don't change the fact that I, along with MOST buyers, discovered Toyota vehicles at some point, bought them, and stopped buying domestics cold turkey. Sales numbers over the last decade reflect my statements.

I've said this before, but the really absurd argument is that domestics are better AND cost less. If this were true, Toyota would never have gotten off the ground. The FACT is, domestics DO cost less but you GET less. You get a LESS reliable, lower quality vehicle. Toyota's cost more because they're WORTH more; i.e. built with a higher standard for quality. FAR better research and development practices; hence a better product that lands on the dealer sales lots.

I've seen the same argument about Honda's on Honda threads. Anybody who is mechanically aware knows that Honda builds probably the best engines in the world. But, you'll still get some people who actually believe that a Chevy Cobalt or a Ford Focus has a better engine, or is a better car. Not even close. Nor are they close to any of Toyota's products in quality, cars, trucks, vans, or otherwise.

"If GM goes out of business (HIGHLY unlikely) you import fans most likely won't be buying ANYTHING. If the U.S. auto industry goes under, so does the ENTIRE ECONOMY."

First of all, the US economy will not go into a depression if the US auto industry fails. Manufacturing is no longer the largest industry in the US economy. In fact, auto manufacturing doesn't even make the top 50 on the current list. Education, medical, technology, and even grocery stores are all considerably higher than that of the auto industry.

Secondly, I have to agree with you. The US government won't allow the big three to go under. That said, what will happen is that when they do go bankrupt - which likely will be GM and Chrysler - they will emerge as smaller, niche players with smaller lineups and smaller production numbers. Bankruptcy will give GM the chance to basically eradicate their union obligations. But even so, the days of US cars and trucks are likely numbered. With the future bringing even more cars and trucks from India and China, the US auto industry cannot compete on that level.

21:50 I also am extremely specific and own a new full size domestic GM Silverado. Since the topic is specifically full size trucks, I appreciate direct comparisons as well.

Some might feel that my new full size truck was a considerable investment, and I would like to know how you spent more $ specifically and attained a lot more than myself with your research on full size models. Why would you spend almost $50,000 and what far greater functions, applications were attained?

Since I own a new full size and apparently spent less and received less, what is it exactly that your truck has? I drove them both and bought just 1. It was not pricing by the way. This is not a small 4 cylinder vehicle, it's a considerable investment and I suspect you have many posts.

Is the model I bought and comparing to a "Toyota whatcar" or a "Toyota whattruck"? If you indicated you spend more and get more, what do you specifically have? It would nice to just say I have a F- Series, Tundra, Silverado, Ram, Titan as we all know the models on here as well as the manufacturers.

If you are conjuring about comments, be true to the exact model being compared to... full sizes.

There are a lot of cars I do not like... as well I do not like them. It's not very indicative of actual full size truck ownership and daily experience.

If you read Car Survey, I have yet to see a manufacturer, only on any reader comments. It actually has a manufacturer, a make and a year involved. Maybe there should just be a "Toyota" list and never say any more. Maybe there are others like myself that appreciate specifics as we own exact categories being discussed.

Also Honda keeps being commented on... there is not 1 single full size truck. And Aveos on here... why? What full size truck do you own that you are so enamored with and are raving about?

"The whole point is, if a commenter is not using supportive data or rational, fact-based arguments, it tends to give one the distinct impression that they HAVE no supporting evidence. My friends who have read this thread and bought Fords bought them BECAUSE the commenter made no sense, not because he persuaded them with any arguments. It was because he doesn't HAVE any arguments. That is the whole point."

The problem that you, if you are indeed a therapist, should realize is that whether or not some Toyota fanatic has a supporting rationale is immaterial to the question of whether or not one exists. Restated, it simply doesn't matter if you are able to talk down, outlast, outclass, or outthink a Toyota lover because the truth is independent of his argument. You could absolutely blow someone out of the proverbial water with your information... yet still be absolutely, utterly wrong.

Also your friends, I maintain, would have to have incredibly low standards of evidence as well. That was the point of my post. If they weren't already going to purchase Fusions because of the other evidence, to accept a blog as remotely conclusive is just plain bizarre.

Again... I'm not talking about the actual reviews on here (they have value). I'm talking about this thread.

So what if the Toyota guys on here haven't produced a compelling rationale? It doesn't make an ounce of real difference. It's a blog!!! Its likely loaded with half-truths and outright lies.

The reality is that according to most sites that use or at least attempt scientific type surveys, Toyota and Ford are some of the highest rated companies (based on average product quality) in the world. You can sit on here posting otherwise based on purely anecdotal evidence as some have done and seem to be making a rational argument. But the truth remains that the most conclusive, scientific, and large-scale studies show very similar results: Toyota AND Ford are VERY highly rated as are several brands and products from GM and Chrysler.

You and others can pretend that they are just "magazines" and that they don't represent any research, but until someone has actual proof of intentional wrong-doing in an attempt to create biased outcomes with these studies, they remain what they are: the single best source for reliability information.

You mentioned that your friends didn't ONLY look at this thread in making up their minds (that's a relief). Neither do I or anyone else that I've read suggest the same of surveys. They are ONE OF MANY factors someone should consider before their money should hit the barrel-head.

"When a commenter who has previously stated that they have never owned a new domestic or full sized truck suddenly states "I've owned NEW and used domestics", you can immediately disregard the credibility of any previous (or future) statements from that commenter."

And if you can tell with absolute certainty that the poster is one and the same person, you are a far more than a therapist, you're a demi-god. I've been wrong (I think) when I've assumed that two people were one on this thread alone... so I'm a mere mortal.

"In addition, they actually talked with others who had bought Fords and driven them for a few years. This is an excellent way of determining quality and reliability."

That's fine but a survey is helpful too because of the number of respondents. The outcome will be more conclusive... especially if you examine more than one survey to average their scoring.

16:00 These are "off-topic" comments, as the title indicates.

This whole process started with some Ford or Chevy fan bad-mouthing something they probably know little or nothing about, which is Toyota vehicles.

I haven't owned a full size truck, because I have no use for one. Besides, this whole discussion is mainly about brand superiority, and Toyota wins that one hands down, as a careful look at the reviews, frequency of repair records, problems per 100 vehicles (by brand and model), and reality will indicate.

Most of these empty comments obviously come from people who've never owned a Toyota, although claim otherwise, or at least can document all of their neighbors problems with some Toyota lemon...

Getting back to the point, I actually have owned at least one of each of the big 3's offerings, and like every single other person I've ever known that switched to Toyota (or Honda, or Nissan, I immediately noticed how much better built they are, and saw the long-term effects, which amounts to them breaking down a lot less than domestics, and in my case, never once.

New or old, I still see some people having trouble with Fords, GM's, and Chryslers. I can, and have, cited many specific examples in the past. I still continue to see how content Toyota owners are. It's simple, they break down rarely, are more efficient, and hold their value better because of those facts.

"First of all, the US economy will not go into a depression if the US auto industry fails"

Losing 14 out of every 100 jobs in the U.S. wouldn't cause a depression?? That is the percentage of people whose jobs are either directly or indirectly tied to the U.S. auto industry. Losing Chrysler we might survive. GM, no way. Allowing another 14% of our people to be unemployed is unthinkable.

There have been dozens of comments on this thread alone suggesting that whenever an import owner gives their experience, its always on something other than a full-size and that this review and subsequent commentary is and should be about full-sizers.

SHOULD and IS are two very different things. When a guy posts that he convinced two friends to buy Fusions because of commentary on a full-sized-truck review, it kind of empties that argument of validity... unless those who have said that this is strictly about full sized trucks, and only applies to the same, come out of the woodwork and say that this approach is no more valid than using something less than a full sized imported truck as an example of import quality.

Why does that argument only apply to import owners?

The truth is that one vehicle DOES have a tiny, little bearing on another from the same manufacturer since they often use the same parts bin. It DOESN'T make all the vehicles from the same region of the same quality. It doesn't even make the two that share parts the same. But it DOES mean that an F150 CAN have an impact (very small) on a purchase decision of... say... a Fusion.

So yes, someone's experience with their Corolla has an impact on their buying decision of another Toyota vehicle. Is that completely reasonable? No. Only a very little bit. But the same is true of the myriad domestic comments from the "I've owned 40 domestics and they were all perfect, so ALL domestics MUST be good" crowd. That parallel doesn't hold up to the very same standard. If a guy's experiences with a dozen Toyota cars is incomparable to a Tundra, a dozen GM cars are just as incomparable to a Silverado. Even a previous model of the same name can be VERY different... note the difference between the last iteration of the Tundra and the current one.

I really like some of the new domestics AND imports so I have no argument if comments are related to ownership experiences. But when guys on here try to discredit ALL ownership experiences from an entire region using double standards, my feeling is that it only serves to discredit THEIR OWN VIEWPOINT... even if they think they "won" the argument.

As I've posted before, most people who come across this thread are likely laughing and scratching their collective heads... not feeling compelled to buy import or domestic (notwithstanding the examples you may hold forth about). They won't comment because they may have come here just to see if a Tundra is a halfway decent truck... only to find that the commentary isn't really about that. So this tempest rages on in its own teapot completely and blithely unaware of just how inconsequential it really is.

Someone earlier posted that an equally important subject worth debating was the Ginger vs. Mary Ann question... I couldn't have said it better.

"Losing 14 out of every 100 jobs in the U.S. wouldn't cause a depression?? That is the percentage of people whose jobs are either directly or indirectly tied to the U.S. auto industry. Losing Chrysler we might survive. GM, no way. Allowing another 14% of our people to be unemployed is unthinkable."

That's not what would happen. Your numbers would indicate that every single person related to the automotive industry would lose their job, which is simply not the likely outcome. For one thing, some of those would include automotive parts sellers. If you look at the stocks of auto parts retailers, their numbers are through the roof. In a recession, consumers tends to keep and repair older vehicles versus sell and buy new ones. Many of these retailers are actually opening new stores to date. So in some cases, MORE jobs tied to the auto industry are being created.

Secondly, just because GM and Chrysler are going under doesn't mean auto workers have nowhere to go. Foreign brand manufacturers are setting up shop in the US even as we speak. VW has a new plant opening in Tennessee with parts manufacturing and steel plants joining that operation across state lines in Alabama. Toyota has a Prius and hybrid plant in the works. There has even been talks about a company called Mahindra opening a plant to manufacture their new line of small diesel trucks for the NA markets.

Additionally, many US parts makers have contracts with other companies. Delphi makes AC systems for Toyota for example.

So in reality, if GM and Chrysler went under, nothing close to 14% of the US workforce would be out of work. In all likelihood, many of those workers would find work elsewhere in similar fields.

Relevance is full size trucks being on topic. It's clear you have zero applications and recognize that's the true reasoning to buy and own. It is not a car or small truck being empty 99 percent of the time. It would be like someone with a canoe telling me what props I need for twins, just because they both float.

Full sizes haul and tow, not like the little train that could. When you own a model and look for reviews, do you not look for exactly the same? A Tacoma would not budge my boat - blown engine, trans rear no doubt in short order, waste of time. You have no concept and cannot recommend any full size. It's scary someone would have faith in zero experience.

"Losing 14 out of every 100 jobs in the U.S. wouldn't cause a depression?? That is the percentage of people whose jobs are either directly or indirectly tied to the U.S. auto industry. Losing Chrysler we might survive. GM, no way. Allowing another 14% of our people to be unemployed is unthinkable."

The funny thing is, the US Auto Industry includes all manufacturers in the US including VW, Toyota, and Hyundai plus parts plants that make for more than one brand. So that 14% wouldn't lose their jobs if GM went under. For that 14% to be unemployed the US would have to stop making parts, vehicles and quit buying new ones of every single brand.

"And if you can tell with absolute certainty that the poster is one and the same person, you are a far more than a therapist, you're a demi-god. I've been wrong (I think) when I've assumed that two people were one on this thread alone... so I'm a mere mortal."

OK, call me a DEMI-GOD. The commenter in question ADMITTED he exaggerated in a later comment. It's in the previous comments (which my wise friends DID bother to read).

21:25 commented on how well a 1998 Tacoma holds its value keeping it over 200-250,000 miles. If one were to do that, the 2009 Kelly Blue Book value trading in this 1998 gem (average Tacoma model in good condition) would be a whopping $925.00 trade in. Besides the fact it's not a full size... but if I could pick one up for that price, I could park it 99% of the time that I need a full size truck and use it 1% of the time empty to go to the store to pick up a gallon of milk.

Any major repair, why keep some old heap over 200,000 miles that has washed all its value out unless you never sell it, can do 100% of all road side repairs yourself to not exceed the value of the vehicle. Most people I know find they want to have some value left in a vehicle to offset a brand new vehicle purchase. It's just not worth repairing if a dealer socks you with a engine/trans replacement with every other single aged component no longer anywhere near new condition. But it's cheap apparently to buy these 200,000 mile plus creampuffs. I would not buy any small domestic pick up either with same mileage or even less as it's not a full size (the actual review topic)

"The reality is that according to most sites that use or at least attempt scientific type surveys, Toyota and Ford are some of the highest rated companies (based on average product quality) in the world."

It's me, the demi-god therapist car enthusiast again. There is not, nor ever WILL BE a "scientific type survey" of something as emotionally motivating and purely subjective as reliability in automobiles.

Just take high-priced imported luxury/sports cars as an example. The cost-to-own factor of these cars is OUTRAGEOUS. Maintenance costs ALONE for 5 years on some of them would pay for a Corolla or Focus (and I'm not speaking from a non-owner perspective. My family has owned 5-series BMW's and C-class Mercedes). Yet time and again the owners, who are loath to admit they got taken, will say "Oh, it's the best car in the world, I LOVE it!!" over and over again in the face of ridiculous maintenance and repair costs.

Likewise, a car buyer who pays thousands more for a Camry or Accord than they would for a virtually identical-in-every-respect Ford (or Chevy) will staunchly report in a survey that they are "very satisfied", and have had "no problems" to avoid the embarrassment of having to admit they made a bad decision. Just look at this thread alone: You have a Toyota owner who had a vehicle that Toyota had to replace because it had a flawed FRAME that could BREAK IN HALF maintaining that it was "better" than a Ford that was far more solid and reliable.

The best example of this kind of reasoning was my good friend with the exotic and expensive Italian sports car. It started falling apart at 40,000 miles. At 63,000 it was pretty much ready for the scrap heap. His DEALER even had the audacity to tell him "These cars are not MADE to be reliable or long-lived, they are purely high-performance toys". Till his dying day my friend will STILL staunchly argue that his "fine Italian sports car" was a better car than his wife's lowly old Plymouth Barracuda that made 200,000 miles with nothing beyond routine maintenance because he won't admit he got taken. This is human nature. It's also the reason NO SURVEY dealing with automobiles can be "scientific".

I'm now old and cantankerous enough not to be swayed by silly ego-based buying decisions. I now (and for the rest of my life) will use my hard-earned money for more important things than status symbols and ad-hype influenced car purchases. I'll buy the cars that have served us the best of any: Ford. 325,000 miles is quite enough out of ANY car, and that's what one of our Fords got in 18 years with less than $500 in total repairs. Since I no longer have to keep ANY car that long, I don't expect to have any repair costs at all on our 2006 and 2007 Fords. We have only had $27 in total repair costs on our 2001 and 2003 GM vehicles, so I doubt they'll be a problem either. And when I fill out some car survey, I can HONESTLY say "I haven't had any problems with ANY of my cars".