2002 Toyota Tundra Sr5 from North America - Comments

There are many more blue faces in the Ford section of this site, (by percentage) than there are in the Toyota section, so I guess Ford owners are a lot less content with there vehicles than Toyota owners. No surprise there. Also no proof offered by Ford owners as to why they imagine that their trucks are in any way better than a Toyota. Lots of long-winded comments, still no proof, (well, to be fair, there IS none, so I guess that explains the lack of it).

I don't really get what all the fuss is about here. All the new trucks are nice, and for me the only ones I would consider buying are the F-150, the Tundra, and the Ram 1500. I went with the Ford, because I liked it more. Its tough as hell if I wanted to haul loads of stuff, but it is also extremely refined. I almost went with the Ram, but it just didn't really have what I was looking for, it just didn't "click." Neither did the Tundra. Since I drove it first, of course it set the bar for the other trucks. I thought it was marvelous... untill I drove the F-150 next, and that truck just blew it out of the water. More powerful, felt more solid, the cabin was comfortable and airy, and the ride was much better. The Ram was wonderful and felt to pack a bigger punch than the others, but it just wasnt as comfortable. I just guess it depends on personal opinion. But, if I had bought a truck to do some serious work, I DEFINATELY would have bought my truck without even batting an eye at the others.

Fuel mileage isn't really any better with the 4.7 Tundras. Our friend's Tundra V-8 gets an average of only 14mpg according to him (and he's not too happy about that). Another friend's full size GMC super cab gets over 18 average with the V-8.

To 19:52- Actually, a test drive is not what it is all about. A test drive is important, but knowing what your trucks capabilities are is just as important. This is what us domestic owners are all responding about. You could test drive the Tundra and think, wow, what a beautiful car-like ride it has. But then try to do some work with it and quickly realize the capabilities are lacking, when compared to the big 3 offerings. So, certainly test drive them, but educate yourself on what these trucks can do for you.

8:58... please look on the internet at Wilmington News Journal Wilmington Delaware dated Jan 19 07 on the comments and read the statistics. Read it twice if it does not make sense. The statistics were presented as written... what part is it you do not understand or more likely not want to accept?

Also look at the large steering defect recall on the Tundra... was on Yahoo News main page yesterday Jan 18 2007 as well. I much prefer GM or a Ford for my full size trucks.

The Tundra steering defect is just a continuation of a downward-spiraling trend for Toyota. The Tundra is already plagued with braking and transmission problems, and other Toyota products have faced recent recalls for major safety defects. It seems that every time I read a newspaper or magazine I see something about another big problem at Toyota. I am so thankful that we bought a domestic last time. It has not had a single problem in 60,000 miles.

8:47...this review is not about SUV's so why drift off topic? Comparing Tundra to strictly truck only competition...Ford F Series... why were there almost 7 times repeat 7 times... more Ford F-Series sold than Tundra in 2006? What a major gap. I maintain the bigger engine, equivalent fuel economy, more towing, people carrying capacity to name a few has more of a bearing in this price range as these vehicles are not inexpensive. In addition Edmunds researches vehicles and calculates True Cost of Ownership... Ford F Series and Silverados come out less to own per mile over 5 years than a Tundra. True cost of ownership is not subjective its factual. It has been very useful to my evaluations when I test drove about everything last year. The closest import I might have considered was the Titan. I feel I am very savvy consumer and believe that you think that full size truck owners are not as smart as they really are. If you feel that domestic owners bought the F Series as it was cheap... I then put the following question out to you... the Toyota Tundra has less performance, towing and people capacity, identical fuel consumption on the highway, less weight so if anything that indicates the Tundra in my opinion is overpriced and its annual sales figures bears this out. If you stick to full size truck comments and quit drifting onto SUV's etc. it may sink in. Anyway statistics show facts... if you want the best value, tough, cost per mile and a great non compromise full size you cannot beat Ford F-Series! The 2007 Silverado is also a very nice truck as well. Again a better value cost per mile than a Tundra...

I wrote comment 14:40. I'm going to repeat myself in some instances, but some things need repeating. Look people, first off, let me say that I am a proud American. Secondly, I am not in any way biased toward "foreign products", nor am I "pro-Japanese", or whatever some may call my comments, or me. Nor am I a kid; and I am very mechanically knowledgable, including automobiles.

Now, I have owned a Buick car, two Chevy cars, a Ford truck, a Dodge truck, and the three most recent being two Toyota trucks and a Toyota car. I gave everyone a fair shake. Toyota wins by a landslide. I WOULD own another Buick, and I would possibly own another Dodge. Sorry Ford and Chevy fans out there; they SUCK. This is of course not just me talking, but millions of other people who are now buying imports. My first car, an '80 Buick Century, was a great car, I beat it and it never stranded me. The '95 Dakota was another great vehicle, it was perfect through 115,000 miles until someone broadsided me and totalled it for me.

The Ford Ranger was (and still is) one of the biggest pieces of crap ever to be assembled by anyone. And the Chevy Malibu was even worse. That's why I laugh at people who think that Ford/Chevy can stand in the shadow of Toyota; the difference in build quality is staggering. Toyota is in a different, (better) league. I owned the Ranger and the Malibu and became so disgusted with Big 3 products that I decided to make a change, (I figured I got lucky with the Dodge).I bought a Toyota truck. As soon as I drove it, heard the precision purr of the engine, and took it off road, I knew I had always made a mistake buying anything else. I sold this one because I wanted a car, and I bought a Toyota Tercel. This is one of, if not THE GREATEST cars ever built. I beat this car as bad as anyone reading this has ever beaten any vehicle, and it ran to perfection, even though I'm not sure I ever even changed the oil in it. NOTHING the Big 3 has EVER made could have took beating like this and had the engine stay together (much less running perfectly and STILL burning not a drop of oil).

I decided I wanted another truck, and bought the '98 Tacoma that I drive today, which, as my other 2 Toyota's were, is PERFECT. ZERO dollars repair in all 3 Toyota's combined. And everyone that I know that has owned Toyota's has had the same experience that I have. I get tired of reading B.S. reviews and comments that anti-Toyota people make on this site just to badmouth them. Grow up. You may like your F-150 better than a Toyota, but the Fact is that it is not even close in comparison when measuring build quality and reliability. I don't care who disagrees, because I KNOW that anyone who does is wrong, as do the millions of people that are switching to Toyota, Honda, Nissan, (not because they're foreign, because they're BETTER MADE). I bought into the Big 3, "American Quality" B.S. when I was younger, then I learned where to better spend my money. Some will say that despite this comment, I still have not presented any facts. The fact is that I have done so on other threads of this site, and right now I do not feel like researching again to repeat them.

But, the fact remains, imports are better made, specifically Toyota and Honda, especially the quality of the engines: if you're going to say that a Ford, Chevy, or Dodge engine is better built than a Toy. or Honda, then you have no business discussing the mechanics of an automobile engine, because you lack the knowledge to do so.

Considering that the Tundra had the highest crash test ratings among full size pickups, I would feel the safest in the Tundra, sorry. I saw a crash between two GM fullsize pickups and they were unrecognizable. You do not know the facts of the crash with the Hummer. Many things could have been different. Was it as 2wd Tundra? Would have been lower. Did the Tundra slam on the brakes in the crash causing a nose dive causing it to ride under the Hummer? There are things we do not know about the crash.

Well, it looks as if Toyota has finally woken up to the fact that their previous Tundra wasn't gonna cut it when it comes to the needs of a real truck user. Has anyone seen the new Tundra? It's actually pretty impressive, I'll give them that. The engine/transmission combination is the real winner, and it's got a lot of useful features. Now, I guess it's down to just personal preference.

<<21:15...if Ford is #1 and so lousy why is Camry #3 then in the U.S.A. If you can select a Tundra or an F Series... people buy more F Series becauce they cost less to own and drive per mile than a Tundra, The F Series has a bigger engine, more towing power, can carry one add'l person, is heavier yet gets identical mileage on the interstate. Maybe Americans just see what is the best value and buy several more times as many as Tundra. This was read by everyone earlier, but bears repeating...>

No, it's a combination of cheaper pricing (I've seen loaded F-150's with $10K off list) and more dealers (there are many that sell only Ford trucks vs. Toyota sells all in one place).

The new Tundra will be the first serious competition for the domestics, although from the preliminary reviews I've read it's inline with the domestics vs. being ahead. If they can get the quality right (unlike the Titan) they will have a winner. Otherwise, it will simply be an also ran.

9:57...No wonder the cost per mile to own overall is better with F Series... more power, towing, value overall. I do not know how the morale is at any plant and frankly do not care. My morale was not high after test driving a Tundra and ultimately did not buy one. I doubt the millions that are on the road keep buying them because people take other job responsibilities, what their morale is etc. Toyota is just not strong with trucks like the domestics.

"""<I thought it was a pretty good review, though they did seem to be biased towards the Toyota. For one, they didn't mention the Silverado's bed tie-downs, or it's on star emergency system. I also wondered why they tested a fully loaded Tundra and only a fairly base-line Silverado. They also added off-road packeges to the others as well... hmmm I wonder why they didn't compare more alike trucks. AND WHY THE HELL DIDN'T THEY ADD FORD AND DODGE!?

I don't see why they couldn't have compared all the full size trucks, instead of 2 imports and a domestic.>.

Auto reviews such as this one are usually set up by the marketing people at the manufacturer, meaning the manufacturer, not the reviewer, is the one who provides the vehicle. If Chevy didn't feel it necessary to provide the appropriate vehicle that's Chevy's fault, not Edmunds."""

Actually Edmunds. com BUYS the vehicles they test, unless the company loans one to them. The tundra was loaned to them, and they bought the silverado. and no, the companies do not decide waht to send them, they fill out applications and specify what exactly they want sent to them.

Because of this, edmunds did not order comprably equipped trucks.

Hey everyone, we might as well stop trying to convince this one guy that keeps bragging about his Tundra. Obviously, even with all of the vast differences in weight, metal, rigidity, not to mention aluminum engine vs. cast iron, lack of any real abuse to brag about besides spinning tires in mud instead of real work, and the front end crumpling like a pop can in any minor wreck, if he can't pull his head out of his "hind-quarters" long enough to acknowledge these differences, that's his problem.

He's the sucker that bought into the baloney. Toyota needs to change their slogan from "moving forwards" to the Charmin toilet paper slogan, "less is more". Because somehow Toyota has managed to violate both the laws of physics, and logic by convincing people that quality is to have less metal and yet pay more for it.

At least we're not that naive. I actually get down and look underneath these vehicles and compare one to the other instead of just talking out of my butt. There is no opinionated rants when the metal in the domestics is indeed more from frame, to suspension, to engine. Also, we gave less money for a work machines than what he gave for his car with a bed. Since we know that Ford's and Chevy's can go for thousands of trouble free miles, we know that we have saved our money.

Who cares what anybody else says about Ford? I know mine has 259,500 miles on it right now and I'm going to put another 1000+ miles on it this coming week as I have been doing to this thing for nine months now. I know that it starts for me every time and I can still squall the tires off of it when I pull out onto the road even though it's a V6. I know what Ford is able to do and I've seen what they can go through.

I also know my Chevy is 29 years old and very capable of performing real work. Since Chevy had the brains to put lots of metal re-enforcement into the whole thing in 1978, I still am able to drive it today. A rusted out Chevy with gaping holes all through it can do more work than a Toyota that has rolled fresh off of the assembly line.

Even with this new Tundra coming out that is finally a competent contender with the domestics, it still wouldn't be very wise to do a lot of work with it on a daily basis. The new 5.7 liter engine is still aluminum. They can't get anything through their thick heads. Aluminum, though it will dissipate heat faster, will not tolerate heat as well as cast iron. If any aluminum engine were to get over-worked or have an error with the cooling system, it would melt into a giant glob of goo. Aluminum will melt faster than cast iron at a temperature a few hundred degrees lower. Try taking an aluminum skillet and a cast-iron skillet, set both of them empty on a red-hot stove burner and see which one warps or melts first. That's not opinionated rantings, that's Chemistry.

Of course I doubt many people will be getting even this new Tundra for much work. Anyone who has already been doing any real work in the past has probably already been driving a domestic and using them for years. That's one of the reason the F-150 keeps setting new records each year for sales. The people who really do anything with them return for another one when they finally reach 250,000 miles on the previous one. Before the gas price surge, Ford had one of the highest customer retain-rates of any company.

The mentality that has over-casted the pro-Toyota and (sad to say) pro-Honda community is repulsive. This arrogance that these people have that makes them seem like they think they are better than everyone else has caused me to look at my Accord in a different way. I'm sad to say that I don't really know if I want another one, even as good as this one has been. I don't want to become one of these people and I think many readers of these reviews probably feel the same way. Toyota could make a car out of twigs and manure and somehow people would still drool on themselves and say, "it quality, it gooooood, must buy".

This whole entire stream of comments and debates have been filled with domestic owners having to defend their vehicle with actual experiences and then having to listen to the import owners making excuses for their vehicles and why they are supposedly better, or conditional statements such as "my truck WILL" or "WOULD easily outlast any of the domestics" while having no actual experience to back them up.

There's no getting through to these people. what's the point? If they want to throw their money away, that's their choice. I will do better with mine.

Oh yeah, the best way to sound like a spoiled seven year old child would be to keep saying, "nuh-huh, mine is better than yours" with no supporting facts. That is exactly how a young child carries out an argument, the same way you Toyota-lovers have been carrying out this debate. You can't explain anything in structure or work-experience, you just say, "no, mine better because my mommy say so".

Then we respond back with chassis differences from thin frame rails, skinny control arms and hub carries, small axles, aluminum engines, and you call this opinionated ranting? Seven year old children couldn't make arguments like this. There is no opinion about thin metal. Thin metal is thin metal whether you says its thin or not. No one's opinion is going to change this. Your Tundra is physically a weaker truck. I like to think of it as the skinny kid on the football team that looks as big as the other team members because of the shoulder pads. The illusion of the sheet metal makes the truck look pretty much the same compared to the others, but underneath it all, it simply isn't there.

P.S. I am still awaiting someone to name a component of the older Tundra that is bigger or stronger made than the domestics. Still no one has named a part. Just quoting Edmunds and CNN out of desperation.

I bet if Toyota did make an engine out of swiss cheese, you would be goofy enough to still pay more for it. "It's quality cheese, it will last forever."

Fact: The original Tundra was not beefed up enough to handle heavy work, yet these people act like they are better.

Fact: The original Tundra is only rated to pull 6500 lbs and haul maybe around 1000lbs or so. That is easily beaten by the competitors, just by numbers alone.

Fact: I have never seen a 70's model Toyota "anything" that is still on the road today.

Fact: Toyota's trucks in the seventies were extreme jokes, even worse than today. They were basically Corolla El Camino's.

Fact: I see hundreds of 60's, 70's, and 80's Chevy's, Ford's, and Dodge's still being driven on the road today. One of them is mine.

Fact: The oldest Toyota trucks I see on the road today are maybe from the late 80's. As bad as the rust was on those old Chevy's, these late 80's model Toyota's are actually as badly eaten out with holes or the bed is twisted because someone sat a cement block in the bed and broke the truck.

Fact: The Tundra has skinny leaf springs that are spongy and not able to stand up against weight. (Even the new Tundra can only handle 1700 lbs in its bed) That is pathetic and worthless for any work load especially rocks or wood, in my family's experience, tobacco.

Fact: Ford puts three inch wide leaf springs on their trucks that are thicker than the Tundra and wider meaning that they will not bend as easily. Chevrolet uses 2.5" wide leaf springs, but they are thicker and usually have more so that the truck will hold over a ton easily, as my family has proven with them. Two tons to be exact.

Fact: Toyota cuts corners when making a frame. They make a frame good enough for what anyone would ever do with a Tundra, but they still come short of any competitor. Ford makes a thicker frame rail and folds it into a wider and taller, box shaped rail. You have four walls of metal, instead of three-known as open channel. Chevy uses open channel, but the metal is as thick as Ford's and the width is about the same, and the height is maybe an inch or so less. Toyota uses thinner metal and the fold of the bend is not as wide and not as tall. Also, it is open channel, so it doesn't even have that advantage, either.

Fact: Ford and Chevy both have larger axle housings with larger axles inside. Toyota uses smaller axles and places them inside of smaller axle housings. Less mass to the axles either ways.

Fact: Toyota has smaller steel control arms. They are light and less re-enforced. They may be strong enough to hold the wheels onto the Tundra, but only because no one ever puts anything on the front of a Tundra. Heaven forbid anyone try attaching a plow or anything else, the wheels would pop off. Ford uses aluminum control arms, I don't really care much for that, but they use plenty of aluminum so that it is re-enforced. They are larger than any of the competitor's. Chevy uses steel control arms and they are heavier than any of the competitors.

Fact: Toyota uses smaller hub-carriers to attach the wheel between the upper and lower control arms. Ford and Chevy use heavy-duty steel hub-carrier arms to go between their larger control arms.

Fact: Aluminum is a weaker, less dense metal that will melt and wear faster than cast iron. The precision doesn't matter, the actual mass that is used is a weaker and lighter weight metal. Who cares if you can spin tires in mud? No one, who is going to pull enormous amounts of weight, is going to use an aluminum engine to do it. How many semi trucks use aluminum engines? How many tanks use aluminum engines? How many trains use aluminum engines? How many super-duty or heavy-duty machines, from dump trucks to bulldozers, use aluminum engines? How many tractors use aluminum engines? Aluminum will not hold up over time when put through excessive pulling. It can't stand the resistance. I could spin tires like crazy in my Accord and red-line it plenty and not hurt the engine, but as soon as I attach a 3000+ lb trailer to the back of it, the engine would wear out in no time. The domestic use cast-iron engines in all of their entry-level full size trucks and anything bigger, because they know that if anyone uses these trucks for work, they will need heavy metal for longevity.

Fact: Nine times out of ten, when I see real work being done with a pickup, it is being done with a domestic. I have seen Tundra's pulling campers, small tractors, and hay bails, but that is a rare event; and each time, the truck is squatting down to its axles and moving slowly.

Fact: When I see Ford's being squatted down, they're usually moving tree trunks or rocks. Yes, I've seen things like this being done with entry-level full size pickups.

Tundra's cannot be declared to outlast other trucks yet, because they have not existed long enough to do this. Even if the Tundra was made larger and heavier-duty inside and out than any of the domestics, you can't already declare them longer lasting because they have not existed on this Earth long enough to be confirmed. That is about as dumb as someone saying the new Silverado has already proven it can outlast the 80's or 90's model Silverado's even though it has only been in existence for a few months. The Tundra has not even been around for a decade yet, and these current American truck configurations have been around for four decades or more.

Chevrolet gets its name for having the most dependable trucks on the road by drawing the numbers from decades in the past. Ford gets its name for having the most sold trucks and with the most trucks having 250,000 miles and still on the road by drawing the numbers up from the decades in the past, as well.

What numbers is Toyota pulling up? No one would ever touch one in the 70's and 80's to do heavy work, they were just good for saving gas and hauling refrigerators. They were useless otherwise. How do they prove to be so good, when they couldn't do anything?

The point is this: Pickup trucks were originally made for doing work. Even though today, no one hardly needs one because no one ever does anything. The domestics have been making them since the 40's or maybe even before that. They have had their careless streaks where they didn't make enough improvements to them, but they were always re-enforced to hold up to the demand that they were put through. The domestics have made trucks that could pull 10,000 lbs easily for decades. Now Toyota has finally made it to that number 40 or 50 years later and it's so impressive. Wow, it can pull all that weight? That's amazing.

It has taken Toyota forever to even try and get up into an actual class of trucks as the domestics as far as pulling and hauling. That's not impressive. It's about time.

If any of you people would ever leave your subdivision or inner-city long enough to go to any real farm, (not an alpaca farm or emu farm, but a real farm) you would see what a truck really has to go through. You would also see that an aluminum engine couldn't stand the work.

Before my father sold his farm, if he would have ever used a Toyota to do anything that he used his other trucks for, he would have ruined it. Aluminum engines, regardless of their torque or horsepower numbers, are not going to hold together when being used to pull several tons of weight. It's simply too light and weak of a metal. If you can bounce through mud and haul lawn mowers with your Tundra, good for you. But people with real work to do are not even going to consider using one because a truck that squats down with any weight in the bed, struggles to pull any weight behind it, and has a light-weight, pop can engine in it is useless. It would have been a waste of money. Those old 70's and 80's Fords did have their streak of problems with the engines. That's where they got all of those acronyms that mock them. My father had an extended cab F-150 with a 460 cu. in. engine. The thing was a beast. The only problem was the starter was made for a smaller engine and kept burning out. Someone else put that larger Ford engine in there and didn't upgrade the starter. So it would pitch fits where it wouldn't start, but when it did start, you couldn't stop that engine. My Chevy on the other hand never gave my Dad any problems and wouldn't give in to any load you put on it or behind it. Those old 350's are simple and yet powerful. Anyone who says they are junk, probably never had one. I wish engines could be that simple today. They will run come Hell or high water.

We just couldn't stop that old truck. We were cruel to all of them as well. We never washed them, probably went too long without oil changes, and never hesitated to beat on them. No one with a work truck is going to care about ride quality or smoothness. Those attributes just prove how out of touch people are today. They have completely lost sight of the purpose behind pickup trucks. That goes for American or foreign.

Anyone who thinks their Tundra is the greatest thing, probably never does anything. No one with real work to do is going to touch one. You people are just oblivious because you have never had to do anything, so your trucks haven't either. To me, if a truck can't do real work, it's useless.

My Dad gave 1000 dollars for that old C20 and it probably earned him 10,000 or 20,000 dollars if not more in the farm work he accomplished with it. You people on the other hand gave probably near 30,000 or more for a brand new Tundra and don't even accomplish 5 dollar's work with it. Then you think that if you floor-board it through mud, you've abused it. You don't have a clue. It's just a toy.