Toyota makes just as good a truck as the domestics, but not any better. They are no more reliable than the domestics, which is the only arguement I ever hear from Toyota owners.
I think Moparmad may be right to a point about brand loyalty, but I don't think it's a huge part of a truck buyers equation. I for one have owned all BUT Dodge trucks. Not that I don't like them, just never had one I "preferred" over the others. I would buy a Toyota without hesitation if they had a truck that I "preferred" over my Silverado. That doesn't make Toyota a bad truck, just not my preference. Toyota still needs to make the Tundra bigger both in Cab space and in the bed, as well as offer more of the full size domestic truck amenities that the domestic truck manufacturers offer.
Its a good truck for it's market of buyers. I am just used to a bigger truck with more options. I have been frustrated with a few minor problems with my new Silverado, but nothing major enough to make me hate the truck and definitely nothing any worse than I had with the import trucks I have had.
Mostly trucks are what people drive around here. In my naked eye opinion - the Tundra is not a full-size truck. I looked at it as a nice replacement for my former Ranger - I also looked at the Dakota, which was a lot of small truck for the bucks compared to the Tundra. Ended up with a new F-150 for not much more than the Dakota and about the same price as the Tundra. I have a real full-size truck with a strong V-8 and at least the same gas mileage as the Tundra - and what seems like lots more room and comfort. In my mind - the Tundra competes only with the Dakota as a mid-size - maybe this is an unrecognized category? How did they ever compare them to the full-size trucks? I can park next to one in my F-150 and there is just literally no comparison. I suspect our government has dropped the ball again. The Tundra found a way to meet U.S. specs for a full-size truck - these specs need to be revisited - it is a mid-size competing with the very nice Dakota.
There's no arguing the size issue...the Tundra is approx. 8-10 inches shorter and 2-3 inches narrower than comparable full size trucks from the big 3. It's size does compare favorably to the Dakota but it really falls between the Dakota and a full size. The real difference between the Tundra and Dakota is that the payload and towing capacities of the Tundra are very similiar to those of a full size that is equipped about the same---not to mention far exceeding the Ranger. The Tundra would make a good step up from the Ranger, not a replacement. 606
The Tundra's size is perfect for me. If it were the a full size truck I would never had bought it. Probably would have gone with the Dakota, but in hindsight, I am glad I bought the Tundra.
You got you Dakota at less than half the price of the Tundra? Boy, did you get a good deal! The average Tundra price is around $27000. When I shopped Quad Cabs they were around $22000 (4x4). I guess $5000 is less than half of $27000. For the extra $5k I don't need the extended warranty. Giving into buying an extended warranty is something like figuring the vehicle WILL have problems.
If your calculations assume stocks will continue to provide the returns they have over the past few years, you've never seen a real bear market.
Of course, you might also be one of the very few people out there who can actually beat the market consistently, but I wouldn't put you in that league on the basis of a single stock pick during one of the greatest bull markets in history.
I am not a full time investor a friend of mine told me to buy into it they will be building 500 new stores throughout the World in the next five years.He works for them and he has the employee stock option plan.He made a lot of money last year.He also mentioned a Hartcourt or something like that its an over the counter stock which will be something like aol but in the asian market.
Barlitz, good luck with your investments. My only word of advice would be to be careful and thoughtful. The market has been producing returns way above its historical average for several years now. This probably won't continue.
The quad costs $3,000-$4,000 dollars less than a comparable equipped Tundra, and I said less than 1/2 the price DIFFERENCE. A very good warranty, with Allstate, will cost about $1,000. Anyway, the Tundra was just out of my price range, even if I had wanted to buy it. Anyway, I'm sure the Tundra is a good truck, but I much prefer the looks and the performance on the Dakota.
The Tundra has the dohc setup. That probably accounts for most of the difference in the #s. It also has a flatter torque curve (more torque available at lower rpms) Avail. torque @2000 rpm: Tundra - 285 Dakota - 190 Also, peak torque is avail. in the Tundra @ 3400 rpm, vs. 5000 rpm for Dakota. So - why is the Dakota quicker? The weights and axle ratios are very similar, but my new Dakota quad is definitely quicker than the Tundra I test drove. Several mags also confirm that the Dakota is quicker. Horsepower, is simply a formula calculating how fast a given weight (of vehicle) can be increased in speed over a distance. The Tundra should be quicker, but unless the magazine testers and the one I drove were poor examples, it isn't. Maybe the rear wheel power is less. Maybe its losing more through the drivetrain. Any comments?
Probably right about the loss at the drivetrain. You gave me an idea. I think I'll get mine dynoed and find what it's putting out at the wheel. Should be intresting. I don't pay much attention to HP figures for cages, but I do with bikes. Usually the loss from the crank to the rear wheel is around 10%. I know that for instance Honda is very generous with their HP numbers. The bike rags always dyno Honda's a lot less then published numbers. Could be Toyota has picked up on this.
I was thinking about he Dakota when I first started looking at getting a p/u. I wanted a truck that would fit in my garage, had a V8 for towing, extended cab to store stuff in and carry the occasional passanger, and had a bed that my bike would fit in. My decision came down to the Tundra and the Dakota. Since price didn't matter too me as much as reliability I went with the Tundra.
Just out of curiosity, how do you know the Tundra is more reliable than the Dakota? Its only been out about a year. Where is your data? links? that show how reliable the Tundra is? Along with the several post of folks having everything from frontend shaking to trans probs, to brakes ect..?
Both the Tundra and the Quad Cab are new and hence reliability is uncertain. However, based on ratings of Toyota products and Dodge products in Consumer Reports, I'd say it's a no brainer that the Toyota will prove more reliable.
This doesn't mean I'll be buying the Toyota, since the Quad's design is far more appealing to me, but let's be real. There won't be any comparison in terms of reliability, which is something those of us who buy a Quad will just have to accept.
vince8: If you want to talk about transmission problems I think DC has the lock on that. Believe me I know, had a Chrysler trans go out at 57k. Fortunately they picked up the whole tab. I received an addendum to the drivetrain warranty about one month after I bought it. The addendum stated that the transmission was exempt from the $100 drivetrain warranty deductible. I guess they knew something. Same vehicle blew smoke at 94k. That was the last DC I will own. Love my Tundra!
You are correct, I reread my brochure, and I was looking at the wrong line. The torque @ 2000 rpm is about 250 in the Dak 4.7, compared to about 285 for the Tundra in their brochure. Sorry.
I've owned one Toyota. I put 100,000 miles on an '82 supra, and it was a fine car. I've also owned 5 Dodge cars and trucks, and had a few minor problems, nothing serious. Toyotas probably are more reliable, at least in my experience. However, there are plenty of offsetting factors, such as cheaper parts for Dodge when things do go wrong, and easier availability. Most people can buy either truck, and have very few problems. I think the difference is you have a higher chance of buying a lemon with the Dodge. For instance, if you read Cons. Reports reliability ratings carefully, you'll note that the difference between cars rated above average, and those rated below average, may have only a small difference in reported problems, such as 3% reporting tranny problems for the '96 year, vs. 6% for another make of the same year. A few % difference is small enough for me to take my chances on.
Of all the people I personally know who have owned probably every make under the sun,when really asked honestly about it,we have come to only one conclusion.That conclusion is that no matter what brand you buy you have just about the same chance of getting a lemon as any other brand. As for Chrysler changing your warranty I guess your the only one they ever did that to,my wife's 300M was bought this summer and the warranties 50$ deductible applies to the tranny the same way it applies to everything else.I know personally two Toyota owners who broke the frames on thier Toyotas.This doesn't mean Toyotas are all bad,these were abused,but still the one now has an S10 the other a Ranger and niether have broken these trucks.Maybe it says something of Toymota quality,probably says more of people learning from thier mistakes,but how do you think these guys would rate Toyota in a survey.I know as well as anyone this is just misuse and a fluke,but these guys bash Toymota constantly does this mean Toymota's are junk because of two isolated incidents.By the way,I have owned 8 Trucks,and my wife has had 4 cars all Mopars,all have never had anything even close to tranny problems,all have been very good,reliable machines.I don't think this is a fluke because my luck aint that good,but maybe,you never know I guess.The only really bad car we've owned was an Eagle Talon,and they are Japanese(made by Mitsubishi).
I want the Tundra and if anybody want the Dakota, we can make the trade with the same features on both trucks. You buy the Tundra and I buy the Dakota, then we trade even. 4.7L V8 4x4 4 doors, power mirrors, lock, sw, windows, cdplayers, al wheels....etc. For short, the same Tundra and Dakota comparison in the Motor Trend Truck of the Year issue. Does anybody out there want to do this?
Why would anyone go out and spend $5,000.00 more for an overpriced toyota and then turn it over to you when they could have gotten the better truck that is more "right priced" in the first place. Apparently there are way too many drugs available in your area.
Yes, you would still be under price but isn't your time worth something? I mean, taking your Dodge into the the dealer for warranty work can be aggravating (sp). I would rather spend alittle more and not worry about taking the vehicle in and hoping the dealer fix it right the first time.
100,000 miles!! That's the break in period for Toyota trucks. I drove my 78 Toy for 280,000 miles before replacing the engine. It was still running good but had started to burn a quart of oil every thousand miles. Today It's still going strong with over 380,000 miles. This is no fluke either. Most Toy trucks average over 200,000 miles before the engine needs to be rebuilt. So if the extended warranty takes care of you only to 100,000 miles, what will you do for the next 100,000? Oh yeah sell it cheap of course and buy a new one. To me a truck that costs a couple of grand more but isn't prone to failure and lasts twice as long is a better value.
6 or 7 years of ownership is more than enough for me. When I sell it with 80 or 90,000 on the odometer, it'll still be under warranty. Since its transferable, thats a pretty good incentive to a potential buyer. Besides, when I wake up in the morning, the Dakota may or may not start, but the Tundra will still be UGLY. :-) Peace!
Every Dodge I owned has always started fine,ran fine,drove fine.Only thing ever left me stranded was my wife's ^&**&$$$#%# Eagle Talon,and that was made in Japan.Hey, have any of you Toymota guys seen the Lochness monster,or a UFO?
You are right I do disagree,the tundra looks like a baby F150 it figures Toyota can't come up with there own look so they have to copy the best selling truck on the planet.Weren't they gonna call it the T150 geez give me a break.
to say the vast majority of Toy truck go 200,000 miles is a bit of a stretch. Maybe you've had good luck with them, which is great for you. I'm sure on a percentage basis they have less problems, however I don't think it's worth $5,000 for similar trucks. I'd happily take my Dodge to the dealership a couple of extra times during the warranty to get repairs in order to save $5,000. Most problems I've encountered have been within the warranty window. After a vehicle is broke in it tends to run ok. For someone who does not make a lot of money wouldn't you be better off with the less expensive model?? I really don't care what you do, but the Dodge is clearly the better value. For as much as you are going to spend on a Tundra, you could get a full size by Ford, Dogde, or GM that in my opinion puts the Tundra to shame. Good luck with yours...
Lets get this styling thing straight. The Ford F150 copied the styling of the T100 when it came out in the last bodystyle. The new Tundra is just an evolution of the T100.
Tundra was going to be T150. Ford got angry so Toyota did the Tundra name instead.
Funny though, Ford copies Toyota, and gets away with it. Toyota uses 150 moniker and Ford has a cow. It is interesting though that both Dodge and Chevrolet or GMC use the same monikers; 1500, 2500, etc.
The Big 3 are probably just jealous that their vehiches can't compare to the reliability of Toyoto's. Just remember, if you buy one the Big 3's don't forget the extended warranty, you're going to need it.
My 4.7L quad cab, with 3.92 and limited slip did a hand timed 7.8 seconds, 0-60. I have also driven a Tundra, and there is no comparison. As for the Tundra styling, the look is growing on me some, but to me, again, no comparison. As for the F-150/T-150 thing, the Tundra is the ripoff, and they have a history of doing it (look at Lexus/Mercedes). Heck, the new interior of the Tundra looks even more like the F-150 than the exterior. The Japanese in general have a VERY long history of copying american products, and you almost can't blame them. Industry after industry, from Harleys to snowmobiles, have almost been put out of business from copycat products.
is a bunch of bull. Talk to all the Farmers and Heavy duty users of trucks who use the big 3 and most would never even consider a Toy truck. Maybe for your yuppie friends it's a "cool" truck, but if actually work with your truck, towing, hauling, etc., any of the big 3 whip Toyota. Your Toy may last a while on the road, but put it to work and watch it break - seen it many times. Good luck with yours...
I grew up on a ranch in Oregon. We drove our Toy instead of our chevy most of the time. It's been severely abused and is still running while the chevy was parted out long ago, even though it was a newer truck with less miles. 200,000 miles is very average for a Toy. My friends Toy has 240,000 and still passes emission testing (barely). Toyota trucks have there own brand of faults(mainly a lack of options), but excel in the areas that matter to me: reliability, build quality and they can really take a beating.
I don't know why you toyota guys think your trucks are so reliable I have a friend who is a girl she had a tacoma 4x4 nothong but problems for her, she traded it for a suzuki sidekick which she thinks is better,my tenant also has a 96 camry 60000 miles had to have clutch rebuilt $700. Where you guys come up with this is beyond me, maybe 1 toyota mile is equal to 7 real miles kinda like dog years 240000 divided 7 =34285 miles that makes more sense to me.
Just ask around. Many Toyota owners I have talked with say the same thing. They are reliable and get many miles with them. I have yet to find someone that has had problems with their Toyota. Sure, I am sure there are some out there that do have problems but I believe they are alot fewer than GM owners can report. It was just these facts that led me to purchase my first 'foreign' vehicle and I am glad I did.
personally I wouldn't even consider the Toy BECAUSE of reliability of their trucks. 200,000 average - I don't think so. I could tell you of Chevy and Ford trucks that have went 400,000 miles and still ran good, but your probably a lot like me and don't want to listen to it. As I've said before, I don't think Toy trucks are quite there yet. Once they come out with a 3/4 ton with a bigger V-8, maybe I'll consider it, but it will probably be a looong time. Good luck with yours...
Rebuilt Camry clutch? Is this another one of your stories like the exploding Avalon axle? BTW, how do you rebuild a clutch?...I thought you could only replace the clucth disc, throwout bearing and pilot bearing.
Since you have such a good memory you'll remeber that my sister backed into a curb, and I'm not sure if it was replaced or rebuilt but I do know it was expensive because she complained about the $700,I'm not bad mouthing the toyota but I'm sick of reading how you all think your vehicles are so not prone to mechanical failure when in fact they are and if they aren't why does ford and gm and dodge outsell them nearly 7 to 1.If they were such an outstanding vehicles shouldn't people be lining up to buy them. PS I'm an electrician not a mechanic I wouldn't know how to rebuild a clutch.
Better than trading stories, look at some statistics.
Consumer Reports shows that Toyota products, including trucks, have top-notch reliability-- better than all three American manufacturers. These ratings are based on thousands of surveys from owners, NOT on the opinions of those who work for Consumers Union.
I know Consumers isn't perfect, and sometimes their reviews of trucks miss the point. But if you're looking for objective data about reliability, their information is far more valid and statistically reliable than stories about how "this truck lasted X million miles" or "that truck was a POS."
As I said in a prior post, this isn't the end of the story. American auto makers have come a long way in terms of reliability, and there is a lot to like about their trucks. But if you can't accept the fact that American trucks are simply not as reliable on average as Japanese trucks, you're either fooling yourself or engaging in wishful thinking.
Toyota has sold lots of cars in this country, but not nearly as many trucks. Sure, they sold plenty of Tacomas and SR5s, etc, but they haven't sold bigger trucks. Even Dodge probably outsold the T-100 by 10-1 (just a wild guess). So, it stands to reason you'll find at least 10 times more complaints from Dodge owners. Anyway, I'm sure the Tundra will be a reasonably reliable truck, and maybe slightly more so than the Dakota, at least from my experience, but I like the Dakota for lots of other reasons. To each his own. BTW, both the Tundra and Dakota are made in the heartland by Americans, employed by foriegn companies. But I consider DC more "domestic" than Toyota. Anyway, its the stockholders that count, because thats who the workers are really employed by, and thats where the profits go. I thought it also interesting that DC seems very interested in buying a major stake in Honda.
This is my experience with one Toyota car (1990 Cressida) Transmission went out at 24 months (18,000 miles) replaced under warranty. At 39 months (30,000 miles) tranny went bad again. The car was out of warranty (back then 36 months or 36K miles) , but Toyota went ahead and covered it anyway - no charge to me. It took a little bit of effort on my part, but it was really not that bad. During the test drive (for the second tranny) the mechanic discovered the A/C did not work. Leak in evaporator - they fixed that also no charge....
So - in my experience Toyota is no more reliable- but they do stand behind their cars/trucks better. I have never had to have a major repair on any of my other vehicles so close after the end of warranty, but I doubt GM, Ford or Dodge would agree to fix it once the 36 months was up.
vehicle have improved in quality. I would argue that it exceeds or at least meets foreign standards. Most are made here anyway. However, American trucks have always had a high trade in value vs. cars. I don't know that foreign trucks have had as high resale value on a percentage basis as the Big 3. Reliability is tied to this. I don't think you'll ever convince me spending $5000 more for a Tundra is a better deal than a Quad cab. Even if I have to take it to the dealer several times under warranty I would do so to save the money!!! And rather than spend $5000 more on the Toy, I would look at one of the Big 3 that has much more experience building trucks. All will have problems. Good luck with yours...
Priced the Dakota crew cab at DC auto show. An SLT w/4.7 auto, 2wd had a sticker of 23,400. The sport 4wd w/4.7 auto sticker'd at 29+. My 2wd Tundra sticker'd at 24,800. Glad I didn't wait on the Dakota.
Comments
I think Moparmad may be right to a point about brand loyalty, but I don't think it's a huge part of a truck buyers equation. I for one have owned all BUT Dodge trucks. Not that I don't like them, just never had one I "preferred" over the others. I would buy a Toyota without hesitation if they had a truck that I "preferred" over my Silverado. That doesn't make Toyota a bad truck, just not my preference. Toyota still needs to make the Tundra bigger both in Cab space and in the bed, as well as offer more of the full size domestic truck amenities that the domestic truck manufacturers offer.
Its a good truck for it's market of buyers. I am just used to a bigger truck with more options. I have been frustrated with a few minor problems with my new Silverado, but nothing major enough to make me hate the truck and definitely nothing any worse than I had with the import trucks I have had.
606
Of course, you might also be one of the very few people out there who can actually beat the market consistently, but I wouldn't put you in that league on the basis of a single stock pick during one of the greatest bull markets in history.
Avail. torque @2000 rpm:
Tundra - 285
Dakota - 190
Also, peak torque is avail. in the Tundra @ 3400 rpm, vs. 5000 rpm for Dakota. So - why is the Dakota quicker? The weights and axle ratios are very similar, but my new Dakota quad is definitely quicker than the Tundra I test drove. Several mags also confirm that the Dakota is quicker. Horsepower, is simply a formula calculating how fast a given weight (of vehicle) can be increased in speed over a distance. The Tundra should be quicker, but unless the magazine testers and the one I drove were poor examples, it isn't. Maybe the rear wheel power is less. Maybe its losing more through the drivetrain. Any comments?
I was thinking about he Dakota when I first started looking at getting a p/u. I wanted a truck that would fit in my garage, had a V8 for towing, extended cab to store stuff in and carry the occasional passanger, and had a bed that my bike would fit in. My decision came down to the Tundra and the Dakota. Since price didn't matter too me as much as reliability I went with the Tundra.
This doesn't mean I'll be buying the Toyota, since the Quad's design is far more appealing to me, but let's be real. There won't be any comparison in terms of reliability, which is something those of us who buy a Quad will just have to accept.
vince8: If you want to talk about transmission problems I think DC has the lock on that. Believe me I know, had a Chrysler trans go out at 57k. Fortunately they picked up the whole tab. I received an addendum to the drivetrain warranty about one month after I bought it. The addendum stated that the transmission was exempt from the $100 drivetrain warranty deductible. I guess they knew something. Same vehicle blew smoke at 94k. That was the last DC I will own. Love my Tundra!
As for Chrysler changing your warranty I guess your the only one they ever did that to,my wife's 300M was bought this summer and the warranties
50$ deductible applies to the tranny the same way it applies to everything else.I know personally two Toyota owners who broke the frames on thier Toyotas.This doesn't mean Toyotas are all bad,these were abused,but still the one now has an S10 the other a Ranger and niether have broken these trucks.Maybe it says something of Toymota quality,probably says more of people learning from thier mistakes,but how do you think these guys would rate Toyota in a survey.I know as well as anyone this is just misuse and a fluke,but these guys bash Toymota constantly does this mean Toymota's are junk because of two isolated incidents.By the way,I have owned 8 Trucks,and my wife has had 4 cars all Mopars,all have never had anything even close to tranny problems,all have been very good,reliable machines.I don't think this is a fluke because my luck aint that good,but maybe,you never know I guess.The only really bad car we've owned was an Eagle Talon,and they are Japanese(made by Mitsubishi).
4.7L V8 4x4 4 doors, power mirrors, lock, sw, windows, cdplayers, al wheels....etc. For short, the same Tundra and Dakota comparison in the Motor Trend Truck of the Year issue.
Does anybody out there want to do this?
The Tundra does not look that bad - If you put a set of custom wheels and tires on it -it actually looks pretty sharp.
Tundra was going to be T150. Ford got angry so Toyota did the Tundra name instead.
Funny though, Ford copies Toyota, and gets away with it. Toyota uses 150 moniker and Ford has a cow. It is interesting though that both Dodge and Chevrolet or GMC use the same monikers; 1500, 2500, etc.
200,000 miles is very average for a Toy. My friends Toy has 240,000 and still passes emission testing (barely). Toyota trucks have there own brand of faults(mainly a lack of options), but excel in the areas that matter to me: reliability, build quality and they can really take a beating.
Consumer Reports shows that Toyota products, including trucks, have top-notch reliability-- better than all three American manufacturers. These ratings are based on thousands of surveys from owners, NOT on the opinions of those who work for Consumers Union.
I know Consumers isn't perfect, and sometimes their reviews of trucks miss the point. But if you're looking for objective data about reliability, their information is far more valid and statistically reliable than stories about how "this truck lasted X million miles" or "that truck was a POS."
As I said in a prior post, this isn't the end of the story. American auto makers have come a long way in terms of reliability, and there is a lot to like about their trucks. But if you can't accept the fact that American trucks are simply not as reliable on average as Japanese trucks, you're either fooling yourself or engaging in wishful thinking.
So - in my experience Toyota is no more reliable- but they do stand behind their cars/trucks better. I have never had to have a major repair on any of my other vehicles so close after the end of warranty, but I doubt GM, Ford or Dodge would agree to fix it once the 36 months was up.