Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Toyota Tundra Problems

1171820222340

Comments

  • bamatundrabamatundra Posts: 1,583
    Don't pay too much attention to Quad - he is just a poor misguided Chev owner with a raging case of Tundra envy.
  • I don't see your point. When I said Tundras are generating complaints to the NHTSA at a rate double G.M. or Ford, I wasn't specifically referring to transmissions, just complaints in general. But it doesn't matter, because the rate of complaints for Tundra transmission woes also exceeds the rate for Silverado even by your numbers of 7 for Tundra and 28 for Silverado, since Silverados outnumber Tundras by 6.75 to 1 over the same period of 2000-2002

    Since I've already stated for you elsewhere that Tundra is generating complaints to the NHTSA at a rate of 0.6 complaints per 1000 vehicles, compared to 0.3 complaints per 1000 vehicles for Silverado, and a similar number for Ford, please explain exactly what misinformation you think I'm spreading?
  • brucec35brucec35 Posts: 246
    Did a Toyota Salesman run off with your wife or something? You don't seem to have much good to say about them. I think they call it a "vendetta" in Italy.

    As for Chevy out-accelerating the Tundra, I haven't seen that yet in reports I've read. But anything less than a .3 seconds to 60 difference is considered unnoticable according to Motor Trend editors. What is noticable? The Tundra's much quieter and smoother reving DOHC engine that is simply more sophisticated than the pushrod 5.3L engine in the 1500 Chevy's. It's a nice engine too, but hard to say it's better.

    Oh, in case you think I'm biased..... I spent the last two days putting offers in on Silverados LT's. Didn't get a price I liked though, and the rebates are ending before I'll have time to negotiate any more. So I have since decided to get another Tundra. I was mainly going Chevy to avoid the boredom of owning two Tundras and experience a more spacious truck. But when I thought about how easy it is to own a Tundra and how fun it is to drive, I decided to get a Tundra.
  • brucec35brucec35 Posts: 246
    Unless someone needs to haul more than 1950 lbs on a regular basis, why would they want a rougher riding HD truck that costs more to operate? And if you own a boat heavy enough to overwhelm a Tundra, maybe you should be able to afford to keep it docked somewhere instead of the hassle of hauling it around. Then again, some people buy boats mainly so people can see them towing them around.

    You know, Home Depot will rent you a flatbed for about $50 if you need to haul some crossties once every 5 years. You could buy a Tundra, rent a big flatbed twice a month, and still probably come out even in costs vs. a heavy duty truck.
  • >You don't seem to have much good to say about them.<


    I said a few nice things about them when I wrote this account two years ago. http://members.aol.com/sturbridg1/utahtrek.html


    The problem a few seem to have with the one sentence I wrote in #568, is the fact of the matter. No opinion was stated, except in response.

  • brucec35brucec35 Posts: 246
    I think I'm starting to hear faint braying noises here. 6 feet shorter braking isn't like the difference in a semi big rig and a Porsche, but it could be significant. What's more important is that in real world situations the Tundra will stop shorter and give more easily modulated and CONTROLLED stops than the Silverado, based on my test drives and ownership of a similar '01 Tahoe.

    To put 6 feet in perspective. Edmunds says a '98 BMW 540i , widely considered to be the ultimate dream sports sedan, the personal choice of the (former) Editor in chief of Motor Trend magazine, stops in 136 feet from 60mph. A '98 Camry is shown as stopping in 140 feet. If you can't tell the difference in how a 540i stops and how a Camry stops, you obviously haven't driven anything even remotely like one. So yes, 6 feet matters, but what matters more is how it stops in the real world, away from test pads. I've owned them all since '95 (dodge, ford, chevy, toyota), and the Tundra seems to stop the best of them all.

    To me, nothing says "redneck" more than unwavering biased cheerleading for domestics, and bashing of imports, regardless of the reality. And I'm a Georgia native.
  • ...a few posts ago you mentioned not having seen any reports about the Chevy out-acclerating the Tundra. Here's a couple good self-explanatory performance comparisons:

    http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/comparison/articles/43902/page015.html
    &
    http://www.trucktrend.com/editorial/article_popup.jsp?id=30189&sidebar=1

    Not meant as a bash on the Tundra! One of GM's selling points for me is the 5.3L engine! The articles have alot of good info worth reading. Catch you later-have a good weekend and good luck with the truck shopping down there in Georgia!!
  • ak4x4ak4x4 Posts: 126
    Every brand of Car or truck will have defects. It's not an anti-toyota thing here. Even I don't own a Tundra But a Rado, they are both good trucks. If you asked me which one I thought was better I would probably answer this way:

    I like the Rado for everything. But I know the tranny will only last 100K. But I should have a newer truck before that happens so I'll keep it.

    The Tundra: In my eyes Toyota, Honda, And Mazda all would get my money again for a car. Not a truck. I know Toyotas are known for 200K or more on the original driveline and I have seen this personally. If I was to go back and make the decision between the Tundra and the Rado again, I would probably still go with the Chevy because where I live the re-sale is higher. But as for a truck I could keep all my life, I would probably take the Tundra.

    Maybe if I see a Tundra with 200K and the original driveline, it might persude me in the future to buy one!

    Also just on a lighter note: something good about a GM. Just saw a 77 1500 series van(Called the 15) with 775,000 miles on the original engine and tranny. Sad as the guy had gotten T-boned and got nothing for the thing. That in my eyes is a peice of "union pride"!
  • ak4x4ak4x4 Posts: 126
    If you take a look at the 01 5.3's you see that they make 285HP with 300 ft/lbs tourque. Yes the Tundra only has 245 Hp, but it also has over 300 ft/lbs of tourque. So what would you rather have?? Tourque is what makes a truck a truck. Can't pull anything without tourque. And for that reason is why I will give toyota credit. But yes we do have 45 more hp then them, so I guess it all evens out.
  • I would rather drive a Tundra or F150 intead of that overpriced junk called chevy. They have had transmission problems for almost 20 years and now they got oil consumption,vibration,alignment,electrical and paint adhesion problems.

    G- General
    M- Maintenance
    C- Curse
  • you're dead wrong about your the hp/torque numbers. The GM 5.3L is rated at 285hp/325lbft and the Toyota 4.7L is rated at 245hp/315lbft.

    Have a good weekend guys!
  • ak4x4ak4x4 Posts: 126
    285 and 300.

    Unless the model year brochure is wrong... But I doubt that. Since I have a 5.3 I can say its true. The 02 models have those specs you say.

    And you keep forgetting Cali emmissions lower your Hp figure by 5 and you are right.

    And KC:First off that F-150 is a POS. It ain't worth a penny. I would buy a 250 or 350 for that price, that is unless you're a girl...

    And if you can drive around the south with the Toyota without getting laughed at by all the Ford and Gm guys more power to ya.. ANd You keep forgetting Chevy and GMC are sold at different lots. GMC sucks, but I love my Chevy... But then again I don't care about options like most people with Tundra's and Fords. Like you need leather and a Cd player in a 4x4 that will be used for that purpose... Pleeze...
  • ryanbabryanbab Posts: 7,240
    if you notice at the top those numbers are for the 2000 model yr engine
  • AK it seemed like only 1 month ago that you were in here spewing all sorts of mis-information regarding all sorts of truck issues. So I find it funny that you say :

    " But then again I don't care about options like most people with Tundra's and Fords "

    When it seems like only a few short weeks ago you were bashing the Tundra for not having ENOUGH options. You knock the Tundra for not having snow plow option, for lack of 4wd / gearing options as well as other little things. You say you dont like options on a truck, yet knock Tundra for lack of options.

    The only thing funny about driving a Toyota in the south is that its probably one of the few trucks actually running. I also think its funny how u claim that Chev is such a big bad truck yet you downplay the fact that the GM 5.3L is rated at 285hp/325lbft and the Toyota 4.7L is rated at 245hp/315lbft. So since you're a big bad rugged guy who doesn't need any stinkin options in a truck, why are you driving a Rado, you should be driving an option lacking Tundra it seems.
  • ndahi12ndahi12 Posts: 235
    check out this entry from the NHTSA complaint section

    Make: CHEVROLET TRUCK
    Model: SILVERADO
    Year: 2000
    ODI ID: 550970

    Summary:
    THE MANUFACTURER OF THE VEHICLE DID NOT INSTALL FRONT SHOCK ABSORBERS. YH

    Bwaaaaaaahaaaaaaa. No shocks on the truck. ROTFLMAO.

    You guys should go read about the 2000 Rado in the complaint section. Some of the funniest stuff you will ever read. What a blast!!!
  • LOL! Yeah that's pretty funny when manufacturers screw stuff up like that, huh? Kinda like Toyota putting oil dipsticks that were too short in some earlier Tundras!!
  • would buy a Chevy and not notice it was missing its front shock absorbers! Just kidding...
  • ndahi12ndahi12 Posts: 235
    Go read the complaint section on the site. There is absolutely no comparison between the number and severity of complaints on the Tundra vs. the Rado. Read 2000, 2001, and 2002 and make your own judgement. I am amazed at the sheer number and severity of the complaints about the Rado. It makes the Town Hall Rado board look like nothing.
  • LOL! Yeah that makes you wonder! How long could you possibly drive a truck without noticing the shocks are missing...maybe I better run out in the garage and take a look at my Chevy!!

    And ndaihi...lighten up! Your gonna give yourself a stroke my patriotic friend!
  • modvptnlmodvptnl Posts: 1,352
    Back a few months ago this mis-guided a** posts this in the Tundra owners link:

    #1183 of 1388 People, People. by ak4x4 Jan 03, 2002 (12:53 am)
    First off let me say that I paid $22k for my EXT cab LS Silverado 4x4. It has the 4.8 but not the crap Z71 with "Push button" or autotrac system. Also no offense to our Canadian pal,

    There was this also:

    #1154 of 1388 My input on Tundras! by ak4x4 Jan 02, 2002 (01:06 pm)
    Before I bought my Silverado I was looking at the Tundras. The miss really wanted one!. had certain squabbles that might interest other people. First what bothered me was the interior space. I had none compared to the Silverdo. Second, the price. Why would I pay 28K for a base 2wd v8 Tundra when I can get a LT Z71 for that much?? Third safety. This was the clincher after I put a '01 Tundra 4x4 on hold(Sticker was 30K got it down to 24K demo truck) On my way home I actually saw a Tundra and a Silverado get in an accident. The Silverado T-Boned the Tundra. The Silverado was not an EXT cab, the Tundra was! The Toyota was totaled while the Silverado had front end damage. Keep in mind this was a 30-35 mph T-bone crash. No offense to [non-permissible content removed] cars my Miata was great before I sold it(100K with no probs) but the truck in my opinion is a waste!. I mean it's funny all u Tundra owners think u can beat A silverado off the line. Look at the HP ratings! And yes I do have the 4.8.

    And today we have:

    583 of 591 Nope not the 01 model year by ak4x4 Feb 22, 2002 (09:12 pm)
    285 and 300.

    Unless the model year brochure is wrong... But I doubt that. Since I have a 5.3 I can say its true. The 02 models have those specs you say.

    And you keep forgetting Cali emmissions lower your Hp figure by 5 and you are right.

    And KC:First off that F-150 is a POS. It ain't worth a penny. I would buy a 250 or 350 for that price, that is unless you're a girl...

    And if you can drive around the south with the Toyota without getting laughed at by all the Ford and Gm guys more power to ya.. ANd You keep forgetting Chevy and GMC are sold at different lots. GMC sucks, but I love my Chevy... But then again I don't care about options like most people with Tundra's and Fords. Like you need leather and a Cd player in a 4x4 that will be used for that purpose... Pleeze...
    --------------------------------------------------

    First it was the BS about towing, then the idiotic polished piston statements, then we get GM coolant ruins piston ring seals, how can we forget the Cummins block in the Ford Super Duties?

    Now the Jon Lovitz wannabe magically has the 5.3 when just last month it was a 4.8!!!!! What UNBELIVEABLE bu!!$h!t is he going to come up with to get out of this one????
  • Complaints to NTHSA:
    Tundra 148/Silverado 528

    Units produced 2000-2002:
    Tundra 237,000/Silverado 1,665,000

    Complaints per 1000 units:
    Tundra 0.6/Silverado 0.3

    *******************************
    Tundra generates double the rate of complaints to NTHSA.

    Top 25 Best and Worst Vehicles
    The Center for Auto Safety analyzed complaints made to the government by Americans having problems with their vehicles. Below are the models that received the fewest complaints, and those that received the most. Models introduced in 2000 and 2001 are not represented due to a lack of data.
    Best (Fewest complaints) Worst (Most complaints)
    1. Ford F-Series 1. Mazda MPV
    2. BMW 3 Series 2. Kia Sportage
    3. BMW 5 Series 3. Ford Excursion
    4. Volkswagen Golf 4. Ford Windstar
    5. Mazda Truck 5. Mercury Cougar
    6. Volvo C70 6. Volvo S40
    7. Volkswagen Beetle 7. Honda Passport
    8. Nissan Sentra 8. Honda S2000
    9. Infiniti G20 9. Mitsubishi Eclipse
    10. Acura RL 10. Isuzu Rodeo
    11. Saab 9-5 11. Ford Explorer
    12. Chevrolet Prizm 12. Land Rover Range Rover
    13. Toyota Corolla 13. Audi A6
    14. Infiniti QX4 14. Hyundai Tiburon
    15. Nissan Altima 15. Honda Odyssey
    16. Lexus RX300 16. Lincoln LS
    17. Nissan Maxima 17. Jeep Grand Cherokee
    18. Acura TL 18. Volkswagen Passat
    19. Saab 9-3 19. Buick LeSabre
    20. Pontiac Bonneville 20. Suzuki Grand Vitara
    21. Mazda Millenia 21. Chevrolet Blazer
    22. Mazda 626 22. Chevrolet Impala
    23. Lincoln Town Car 23. Toyota Tundra
    24. Ford Focus 24. Dodge Dakota
    25. Honda Accord 25. Dodge Neon
  • ndahi12ndahi12 Posts: 235
    If you read the posts on the NHTSA complaint board, you will find out that the complaints about the Rado are WAY more severe than the complaints about the Tundra. Just read the damned things and you will see. Moreover, the some of the posts are redundant, so a count is not adequate for both the Tundra and the Rado.

    Tell you what, find the 5 most severe complaints you can about the 2000 Tundra and I will find the 5 most severe complaints about the 2000 Rado. Pick one from each area of the truck, ie, suspension, engine, electrical, structure, interior and we will compare. I bet that the problems on the Rado will be more severe compared to those of the Tundra. Are you willing to play the game?

    As for that Center For Auto Safety that you keep on pasting, I will believe it when I you post a LINK to it. Until then I am not convinced. I searched the CAS site and did not find it. Post a link or SU.
  • obyoneobyone Posts: 8,065
    "Post a link or SU."

    Seems to me you're in need of an attitude adjustment. For someone who is soooo into links, where are the links for the forged pistons in the Tundra? I'm still waiting on that one. Certainly there should be somewhere in this vast internet that can substantiate what you proclaimed that the Toyota help line told you.

    Good luck on this one now!!
  • Just read the THOUSANDS of posts here about Chevy problems - knocking engines, vibration, the Duramax/Allison combo, etc. Count how many disgruntled owners there are who want their money back. Cound how many disgruntled owners there are who are bickering with GM and have to go to the BBB and get lawyers. Read Edmunds' long term review on their Silverado. Draw your own conclusions.

    Then read the couple hundred posts about Tundra problems and their short dipsticks or tail-lamps.

    Enjoy.
  • obyoneobyone Posts: 8,065
    makes the world go round. Didn't you know that dood?
  • links. I've been driving Chevys at my work for quite a while and there's no way I would spend my money on one. Heck, they can't even make a truck whose steering doesn't shake and feel loose or align the door so you don't have to slam the dickens out of it to close it...

    But hey, go Chevy - even yours, the lemon-law qualified Shakerado, right?
  • bamatundrabamatundra Posts: 1,583
    By your own admission, your Lemon Chev has been in the shop over 4 months. Look at the bright side - you were able to drive much better built rental vehicles while you were waiting to get your Lemonado back.

    You and Quad(both lemon Chev owners) routinely follow each other in Tundra topics. Sort of like tweedledumb and tweedledumber. I'm just trying to figure out which is which.
  • Are we sure that this guy even owns a Chevy lol. Maybe he indeed is quoting the right engine but failed to realize its in his FORD !!!
This discussion has been closed.