Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see May lease deals!
Options
Tundra vs the Big 3 Continued III
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Well... OK. Whatever floats your boat man. I was actually a bit nervous about selling it to him. I was afraid that in two months he would regret his decision. He traded in a Nissan Altima and had some credit issues which would prevent him from getting out of this loan for at least 4 years.
A week later, I called him to see how he w s enjoying the truck. "What did you sell me Cliffy?" Oh no, I thought. Here is comes. "What do you mean what did I sell you? I sold you a real nice truck" I responded. His response was, "My friend just bought a new Mercedes and my truck drives nicer than his Benz! What did you sell me!"
I breathed a big sigh of relief and laughed with him. He couldn't get over the ride quality and said it just keeps getting better every time he drives it.
A note on the size difference that seems to be an issue here. I didn't think it was that big of a deal. I know that people have different needs, etc., but, there is something stinging about the implication that size in vehicles has something to do with quality. If anything it favors the Tundra to have that good towing capacity and payload while being significantly smaller. I don't see how that is a disadvantage. It is kind of like having a 3rd row in a minivan... for most people, it will just eat up luggage space and hardly be used unless they have a big family. I doubt that people who own huge trucks (i.e. F350 dually, etc.) use that capacity even 50% of the time... I see those things on a regular basis hauling only groceries. Not to say that it isn't important. It is. But, there are other things that are much more important such as the things you would use on a daily basis (i.e. interior comfort, ride quality, handling, interior finish, etc.). The towing capacity for trucks is equivalent to the speed issue for sports cars. How many people actually take a corvette 160mph? Here in the Bay Area in traffic, it hardly matters... on a race track, yes, but, not in daily travel. So, please give appropriate weight to the towing spec. 7200lbs for the Tundra is pretty good... that is going to tow most things out there, and that isn't bad.
also, i don't know if you've seen it yet, but www.tundrasolutions.com has a good deal of input from tundra owners. both good and bad. if you haven't checked it out, you need to before you buy a tundra. why? because when you walk into your dealership you need to be armed to the teeth with questions to ask. when the '99 'rado had the serious vibe problems, i was waiting/looking at the '00s. i asked several dealerships about the vibe problem. of course, most said, "we don't know what you're talking about. we've never sold a truck that's had that problem." after some chuckling, i pulled out a string of posts from the silverado vibe thread going here at the time and showed them. i then explained to them that i understand a defective truck is not their fault. i just wanted their complete assurance they would do everything possible to make me happy in the event the truck i got vibrated (remember, i ordered mine from the factory). some did, some didn't. the ones who didn't came right off my list of ones to purchase from. funny story...one of the dealers that told me they hadn't sold any "shakerados" was one of the ones that didn't do a good job assuring me that i'd be satisfied with their service if i got a defective truck. guess what...i did a better business bureau background check on them. they were embroiled in buyback arbitration with a customer at that very time.
my point? what cliff said is exactly right. shop for the right dealership and salesman before you start talking numbers. you'll save yourself a headache.
damn, sorry that was so long...
bco
Over the past several posts, I have tried to lower the level of personal attacks and I will continue to do so a long as everybody else does as well. Even Ryan and bco and I seems to have found some common ground and some respect. Your last sentence shows a distinct lack of this but I am going to refrain from taking it too personally for now.
A smaller truck with relatively close power, should out-tow my F150 hands down. When I was test driving and with my research, the Tundra didn't offer that in my opinion. Again, it is obvious that others didn't see that as I did and to them, I say, I respect that you bought what works for you. Just don't say you bought a Tundra because domestics are less reliable because it too, is subjective.
F150 i have always been civil (or at least have tried haha)
Ryan
ok we can all shake hands now
WOOHOO haha
Ryan
One point on reliability though, it is subjective when it is one on one discussion etc., but, if you look at automobile sources, you will quickly see that there isn't much question as to quality and reliability of Toyota products as opposed to not just domestics, but other import vehicles. I've seen reports from J.D. Powers, Motor Trend, Car & Driver, Kelley Blue Book, etc. where literally every Toyota vehicle has made it into the top 25 vehicles as based on what customers have said, maintenance schedules, long-term costs, repair and recall campaigns, etc. I've seen Toyota take 10 spots of 25, 6 of 10 where other companies struggle just to get 1. Now, you may choose to call this subjective, but, I guarantee you that if Chevy or Ford or Dodge had this reputation, they would be basking in the sunlight over their accomplishments in this area. Now, in all fairness, you should still judge vehicles individually, but, as I stated in a previous post... when a company has a reputation for something, it is up to opponents to prove that a vehicle doesn't live up to that reputation and not for the vehicle to prove that it does. Why? Because otherwise, we would have to call every single new car and truck a complete piece of crap until it could prove otherwise.
That is how you run things in your daily life when you get groceries or products. SONY doesn't need to prove to people that they have an innovative product if that is what their company has been doing for years. The burden of proof is on others to prove that a new product is not innovative... do you see what I mean? I hope so. So, I'm not going to insult BIG3 quality or anything, but, I will site that if you REALLY believe that the quality is every bit as good as a company like Toyota, than how come they don't have the same numbers as this company? Does that mean that consumers are wrong? Does that mean that analysts are wrong? Does that mean that there is some kind of conspiracy? In order to justify this type of claim that quality is subjective... you should first site that the sources that show otherwise are somehow invalid as legitimate sources of accurate quality information. I don't just mean stupid articles or reviews... I'm talking about national government statistics, costs of ownership, consumer feed-back, etc. That is where HUGE numbers of people respond and where a true statistical normal curve can be made without have to estimate it and a confidence interval from a smaller populations size (i.e. less than 30 people). Just something to think about. I'm not trying to be offensive, just stating how I think a statement showed be backed up with a proper process of investigation which supports that conclusion. Fire away... but be gentle please.
This is something I began to notice in the car business. We take trade ins all the time. In general, the imports (Honda and Nissan included) just feel like they took the miles and abuse better.
I really don't know how important this is. To me, if I kept my trucks for 7 to 10 years, I would want it feeling newer for longer even if there was no other reliability difference. I am aware that this is highly subjective but check it out. You'll see what I mean very quickly.
FYI- For anyone who didn't already know, the piston slap issue, which as described before, affected very few vehicles and caused NO, (absolutely none), reliability issues. It's sort of like the loose main bearings on the Chevy's. An annoyance at start-up, but not a real problem. Both manufacturer's have corrected the problems, anyway.
an F-150 with a 460? did they do that?
#2 '88 Merkur Scorpio, 160K still ran like a banshee and you couldn't get it to burn a drop of oil. Everything, and it had a lot of crap on it, still worked.
#3 '91 F-150 4.9L I-6 with a 5 speed. I abused that thing and it kept coming back for more.
Those are the cars I have owned that had over 100K. As to other cars I've had experience with, my brother has a '95 F-150 with a 4.9 and it's a very solid truck at 150K miles, he also has a '90 Nissan pickup with over 1/4 million miles and it is pretty stinkin' tight. Talk about driving the hell out of it. That thing doesn't have a squeak or rattle, although it is beginning to rust, lot's of salty roads. My worst experience with a vehicle is when I drove my dad's '88 1 ton srw Chevy with a 350 and a standard tranny for about a week. That was a total POS, it burned two quarts of oil on me in 210 miles. OUCH!! It didn't even have 100K on it. The oil light came on and I had no idea why. I had just checked it before I left. It was already that low. I got mad at my dad for not warning me. I could have ruined the engine, but I guess that might have been doing him a favor!!
That's not my personal experience as I have never owned a new Toyota, but I have lots of friends and even family members that have not had any better luck with Toyota than I have had with my Fords.
The other well worth mentioning was an 89 F250 with the 300 I6. I would match that truck and its "little" I6 against any of the base v8 engined trucks today in a tow or haul contest any day of the week. Lots of RPM's pulled towing on the highway due to the low gearing, but if you can live with that, it was an easy 250k mile engine. A guy could pull Redwood tree stumps all day long with it and it would never so much as whimper. By far one of the best trucks ever built. Sure was disappointed when Ford cut it from the lineup.
Cliffy1: Again, not doubting your love for Toyota's, but I have beat the crap out of my trucks, asking them to do more than they were even built and guaranteed to do. They have lasted well beyond 100k miles and were tight with no rattles or major problems either. Toyota service shops make money on more than just oil changes or they wouldn't stay in business.
I still don't justify a Tundra for my needs.
- Tim
#1 ~90 honda civic hatchback. stripper, but a good 'un. vinyl seats, am/fm cassette, 4 spd stick, 4 cyl (duh). great car. great gas mileage. real tight. got rid of it around...80k or so.
#2 94 gmc sonoma. never had any real fit/finish problems with it except a self-installed cd player/head unit. kinda botched a little, but that's on me. got rid of it with ~75k miles on it.
#3 93 nissan altima. beater. purchased (with the assumption of reliability) for cheap with 75k already on it. at about 85k, electrical system went to pot and you had to jiggle the key in the ignition to get the fan blower to work - not fun to do at 75mph, risking shutting the car down; the paint started peeling off the grill; the center console would not stay closed; the tape deck worked when it wanted to; the graphics on the stereo buttons started peeling off; and worst of all, the defroster vent moldings up by the windshield warped and stuck up out of the dash. looked ugly and cheap. fyi, this car had been meticulously maintained prior to us purchasing it also. only reason we kept that one was we couldn't afford a new one. got her (wife) a '99 jimmy this summer. got $3k for her altima though...god knows how/why.
bco
..."Cuz they be thinkin' them trucks be full size...truth of the matter is...TUNDRA = LESS TRUCK FOR MORE BUCK!.....
GOOD LUCK ON THIS ONE NOW!
- RubeTim
"Like a rock, ohhhh yeah, like a rock"
And if the size of truck is what you are concerned about, than don't make any inferences based on quality about that because it shows how ignorant your statements are. You know, the "bigger is better" attitude died out in the 80's when the Japanese took over the automobile industry. Quite frankly I'm happy about it... otherwise we would all still be driving cars that are 6000 lbs. get 9 or 10 miles to the gallon in the city, and consider an analog clock and a seatbelt buzzer as "luxury" features.
So, let me put this question to people here... how many BIG3 owners consider the Tundra to be a bad-quality truck? What are your reasons? This will show me and others here if your reasoning is valid or if you're simply the type that does things the way it has always been done or believe things because those around you believe it (i.e. not a free-thinker, but, just another sheep following the crowd). If you don't know what makes a vehicle good or bad, you certainly won't know how to choose the best vehicle for your needs period.
Take it out for a spin and keep an open mind and you will see which one(s) are best for you and your needs.
And please don't claim that Tundra owners have been "suckered" in to buying those trucks... PLEASE!!! Quite frankly, Toyota and Honda really bite when it comes to marketing. But, their strategy is different.
I echo your response about people trash talking vehicles they have never driven...that goes on entirely too much.
But I rebut about Toyota's reliability. What has Toyota built that does the duty of this truck? Nothing. Reliability of compacts that never carry more than their own weight has nothing really to do with this market space.
If reliability is a door squeaking after 150K miles, or an electric window motor dying after 10 years--than yes, that is more typical of the Big 3 than Japanese, but again--Toyota doesn't operate in these environments.
excellent car reliability does not translate into trucks. Just like Ford or chevrolet..I feel their trucks are MUCH more reliable than the cars that either company sells.
Here's some of the evidence you wanted. The evidence does not put Toyota in the same reliability as some folks around here do. I would love to see the sample size and confidence intervals on these. But i find it VERY interesting the way these stats were gathered. Seems like a pretty accurate way to do it.
Toyota:
http://carpoint.msn.com/vip/UsedRelOver/Toyota/Pickup/Used.asp.
Chevrolet:
http://carpoint.msn.com/vip/UsedRelOver/Chevrolet/C-K%201500/Used.asp
Ford:
http://carpoint.msn.com/vip/UsedRelOver/Ford/F-150/Used.asp
Dodge:
http://carpoint.msn.com/vip/UsedRelOver/Dodge/Ram%201500/Used.asp
How data was gathered:
http://carpoint.msn.com/reliability_ratingsinfo.asp
You can click on the symbols and see what the problems reported were.
You used to have some posts that were worth reading and actually had me sorta toned down with my approach on these topics, but your last two posts are absolutely a waste of space. You hypocrite. What makes you so "educated" to say domestic owners are clueless to know whats best for them to drive?
I may not have done a 6 month case study to draw a scientific conclusion, but I didn't need to.
The specs of the Tundra and driving the Tundra was enough for me to make a well informed decision that there wasn't anything of benefit over the F150 for my money. Apparently with Tundra being near the bottom of the list in sales, there are a lot of other truck buyers that were able to draw the same conclusions. I would bet that there are quite a number of those that are "educated" as you call it too. Probably took one of them there worthless statistics classes like I did to.
Come on back when you have something of value to post for all us "uneducated" domestic truck owners.
I said it before, "Toyota service shops do more than oil changes or they would not stay in business"!
http://carpoint.msn.com/vip/UsedRelOver/Toyota/Pickup/Used.asp
Kidding aside, I do read the problems other Tundra owners have on the Tundrasolutions site. I thank my lucky stars I don't have any (or same) problems so far. Crossing my fingers!
I also strongly agree with your statement about cars and trucks being different wrt reputation. I have not been particularly impressed with the Ford car-building reputation, but have been unable to find any really serious problems with their trucks.
Agreed though, that the benefit of the doubt would have initially gone with Toyota for their reputation with cars. However, trucks are a lot different to design and build, so they still have to prove that reputation carries over to their trucks -- even more so as they build bigger ones. I trust they'll get it right sooner or later. But, like it or not, the CarPoint data at least shows that they are still working on it.
Similarly, Honda has had some annoying problems as they learn the perversities of building a great minivan. They have good ideas. They built arguably the newest benchmark for minivans in the Odyssey. And they have generally handled problems better than average. But they did have the problems and they have had to learn and improve.
It appears that Toyota is going through a very similar process with the Tundra (having learned a lot from the Tacoma and T100, no doubt). But still they must learn and improve. Past reputation is insufficient. Especially with the actual data in on the Tundra, Toyota must prove that they can hit the nail on the head.
Now, let calm prevail as you form replies. Please. :-) Peace....
i know this comes across as confrontational...so in advance i apologize. i know you all feel (and perhaps rightfully so - i just know i didn't) that tundra accelerates faster, brakes shorter, turns tighter, and handles better (which it should, it's smaller and lighter) and has better fit and finish (which is subjective - i think the interior of my 'rado looks great and is ergonmically perfect for me). but, and here's the important part...what else?
bco
could stick!?
- Tim
Ok well heres my story after class today me and 4 friends went out to lunch and i drove. My friend ken didnt get shot gun and had to ride in the back. After he got back there he said to me
"Ryan, thank you for not buying the tundra i dont think i would have went to lunch with you today if you did."
Im not knocking anything Cliff so dont say i am. I just thought it was funny what he said. Im so glad my passnegers were happy.
Ryan
I rotated my tires today and took the Tundra for a test drive. Got a slight shimmy in the steering @ 60 mph. I called tire shops to get the fronts balanced. Toyota had the best price, so I'm taking it there tomorrow. I'll let you know how it goes.
Now, I know that trucks are vastly different than cars as everyone here can attest to, and there is no doubt in my mind that the BIG3's strongest vehicle types are in fact trucks. However, it still doesn't have anything to do with whether or not Toyota builds a good truck! If you want to claim that the Ford is a better quality truck just because it tows more than your assumption is wrong. You may PREFER Ford because it can tow more, but, it doesn't mean that it's quality is higher. They serve different purposes. I may choose Ford because the back seat in the Tundra sucks. It doesn't mean that the Tundra is going to fall apart when I drive it off the lot. I may not need the back seat at all, I may use the truck in a more sporty fashion. Does that mean that the F150 is a bad truck? Because it can't handle as well as the Ford?
If you don't think that the Tundra competes in the "Full-Size" category, than say so. It isn't as big a vehicle as the F150, so what? A Lexus GS400 isn't as big as a Lincoln Continnental, but, of course, by your reasoning that would make the Lexus a piece of crap. Deal with what makes something a "quality" vehicle and compare the trucks that way as cdean has so graciously offered links to start that process off, and then we'll have a good foundation to build on.
And for the record I DON'T think the Tundra is the absolute BEST truck. It is what I would choose, yes, but, only because the other trucks I tried had other things that bothered me more than what this had... I made a choice, I didn't put the vehicle on a pedestal like I see a lot of the Ford owners doing here. If you want to make those claims, back them up. Don't use that bull about towing, etc. I guarantee you that most people won't be towing more than 7,200 lbs. and more than that, people don't buy trucks for just towing... look around you in traffic. I can honestly say that I hardly EVER see anybody towing anything in their trucks. Most don't carry ANYTHING, others haul rugs, furniture, etc. So, evaluate it on more than just the size factor. And for Pete's sake... one more time... somebody tell me the correlation between size and quality... I'd like to see that proven. I'd like somebody here to show me that just because an F350 is bigger than an F150 that it is a better vehicle. Prove that and you will have more clout in proving the F150 is better than the Tundra based solely on size... good luck...
Enough said.
Okay, already. I give up. You win the reliability debate. So I admit, the Tundra has slightly better reliability than my Ford which already has great reliability. So what. I'm not going to run trade my F-150 in, not with so many good, trouble-free miles left in it (knock on wood).
How about apples to apples? Full size trucks to Full size trucks. These ratings cover 1992 to 1999 trucks.
Consumer Reports ratings:
Chevrolet C/K1500, Silverado
Reliability: Spotty; avoid the 1996 2WD model and the 1995 to 1998 4WD models; also avoid the 1999 model.
Ford F150
Reliability: Average overall; avoid the 1992, 1993 and 1995 4WD models.
Dodge Ram 1500
Reliability: Below par; avoid the 1997 and 1999 2WD models, and the 1994 to 1999 4WD model.
Toyota T100
Reliability: Very Good.
I think that these ratings are pretty unambiguous. The T100 is more reliable than the Big3. This is in spite of the fact that the early T100s had a well known problem with the head gaskets on V6s. Toyota not only fixed this problem, but are still warrantying trucks for this defect.
Can you imagine trying to get a Big3 truck repaired 8 years after you bought it under warranty. This is the big difference - Toyota has a reputation to uphold.
I have read on F150online that Ford is refusing to repair piston slap on vehicles out of warranty. They claim that piston slap is normal. Big difference.
correct me if i'm wrong, but i'm going to throw out a couple assumptions here:
1. consumer reports is a not-for-profit magazine that does not sell ad space (and thereby theoretically defuses the issue of being influenced by any given manufacturer).
2. other than that, consumer reports runs tests on vehicles similar to those run by for-profit mags like truck trend, motor trend, etc. etc. (endurance tests, 1/4 miles, off-road, skid pad, crash tests, towing/payload capacities, etc...)
3. if those two are true, how is it that you can use consumer reports as an accurate gauge when, arguably, carpointmsn.com has a larger sample size (i think it said something like 30k participating service stations) of vehicles to evaluate?
now, i know what you're going to say about the time-honored tradition of americans consulting consumer reports as a reliable source, blah blah blah. but other than that...since this is toyota's first year producing what they consider a full-sized truck...can you give me a reason NOT to believe the links cdean posted?
more importantly bama, you have simply stated what domestic fans here have been trying to convince you all of for the longest time.
"What are these links you provided supposed to
prove? You compared new full size trucks to old
compact Toyota trucks. What is your point?"
YOU translate toyota's reliability reputation for cars to it's full sized trucks. that, my friend, is apples to watermelons...thanks for your help...
bco