you guys that claim Toyotas(in general) are not significantly more reliable then the "big 3"(especially Dodge and Chevy) have your heads up your tailpipes. Plain and simple. Give it a REST!! Your arguments are pitiful, to say the least.
You make more bogus, non-verifiable, and untruthful claims of any poster I have encountered on this site. You have no respect for others and thus, no respect for yourself.
Toyotas are good trucks, but no more reliable than any other truck. I think the comments made here about the statistics and reliablity of trucks are pretty fair and accurate.
I have read the posts of Tundra and Tacoma owners, both here and elsewhere. There are plenty of unhappy Tundra and Tacoma owners and plenty of reported problems with each. No more or less than the big three trucks.
Why must you disrespect others in order to attempt gaining any kind of credibility. If you are so confident that your Toyota is superior, you shouldn't have to disrespect others' choices and talk so much trash.
I can personally tell you of many problems I have had with Toyota trucks AND cars, but it is a waste of time to try and convince others that Toyota's are junk, even if it were true.
Why must everyone get envolved in brand bashing and wars? Must make up for the lack of self worth in your lives.
A friend was offered a buy back when he asked about it. He took it. Don't know if this is the case, but he was told that Dodge accidently put the towing specs for the Ram in the Dakota brochure. Whatever the case, someone goofed in the brochure and Dodge made good on buying back the vehicles if the customer wanted them to.
Let's get back to the trucks! Attention Dakota owners! Here is a website that may be of help with your premature balljoint failures: www.nhtsa.dot.gov There is a questionaire for Dakota owners that is helping NHTSA with it's investigation into this problem. Apparently they are in the final stages of determining how widespread the recall of these trucks will be.
Thats exactly what im talking about, I never said I wanted to give up rights for the sake of convenince, I just think life needs rules because everything someone does will effect others. Just like you defend rights, rights are a form of rule, some good some bad. but enough of that, lets talk trucks. I now have almost 4000 miles on my Dakota Quad cab, 4.7, auto, 4x2. It has been the best car I have owned so far and I have owned alot. I have owned Toyotas also and I had good luck out of them. The reason I went for the Dodge was the room in the back for comfort and incredible legroom. I took a D.B. meter from Radio Shack and measured sound levels at 60 mph, and did the same in a Friends 99 Lincoln, the dodge was 3db louder at the same speed on the same stretch of road, I was very impressed.
IMO we have more than enough rules in America (maybe too many?). That's why I questioned your statement about wanting even more rules. I'm not attacking you so don't think that. I am, however, trying to understand why you feel the need for more regulation. BTW, I'm glad you enjoy your truck. I too am loving my Tundra and still believe that Toyota makes the most durable trucks. Anyone disagree? Lets's hear it before we're regulated into one monotonous voice, repeating only what we're allowed to say.
The margin of error in any statistical test is determined by the size of the sample. If 1000 or more people resond to a survey, you can assume the margin of error is well under 3%, and probably less than 1%. There is a formula for it, but probably forgot it the day after I was tested on it about 22 years ago! As for the R/T recall, it was done simply because the '98 and '99 R/Ts (or the '00s for that matter) cannot tow more than about 2000 lbs, and the sales brochures from that time didn't differentiate them from the rest of the Dakota lineup. Sometime in 1999, the engineers at DC determined that because of its lowered suspension, and probably the lower profile tires, that it wouldn't be safe to tow more than 2000, instead of the otherwise rated 5000 to 6500 or so, depending on options. Hence the buyback program. Check out dakotart.com if you want more info on the topic
don't think so. I would like to know what you are basing this on. Other toy products, the tacoma, t-100?? Tundra's only been out a little while and it's already the most dependable, reliable thing ever made - not! Let's wait a few years and see what happens, maybe it will prove to be a good, dependable truck, or maybe it will fall off the face of the earth...
That's precisely my point. When Consumers observes a difference that is not statistically significant, they don't give a rating. They simply say there is insufficient data.
Conversely, when they report a difference, it is because they found one that IS statistically significant. That is, given the data (including sample size) and the methodology, there is a reasonable statistical basis to conclude that the difference observed in the sample reflects a real difference in the population.
One way to express this without becoming too technical is to say that the observed difference is larger than the margin of error. This is often how poll results are reported by the media, and while not completely accurate, it does convey the gist of the idea.
In short, my point was simply this. Don't automatically dismiss small differences in statistical studies. If the study is well done, the difference is probably "real", even if small.
chad - not sure exactly what happened with the tow ratings, but I know it was a brochure problem. The bad press (and law suit) started because when Dodge realised the problem last spring they weren't too smart in putting together an across the board communications package. As a result some owners were offered buy backs and some weren't. The problem has now been resolved, though I don't think that the California court where the case was filed last fall as scheduled the hearing yet.
rwellbaum2 - nice to see a truck related comment, shame it was a copy of snother person's post in another topic, but at least it's a start. And just to make it clear - this message is not sarcastic and does not imply anything. If you find that hard to accept then I suggest that you ignore my posts, it would appear that (without trying) I have an ability to press your buttons - so lets just ignore one another and not force everyone else to read through it. If you really have something to say my e-mail is, and always has been, part of my profile.
As long as we are dealing in quantitative methods, statistical analysis, probabilities, sample sizes, margin of error, standard deviation etc, etc.........
It seems to me Toyota doesn't have a large population of heavy duty automatic transmissions that Consumer Reports could lay claim to superiority. I mean isn't it true, that the vast majority of Tacomas and T100's have manual transmissions installed? Has the Tundra 4 speed automatic been around before the recent Land Cruisers?
Quadrunner: the debate about statistics is on point because it goes to the heart of something many of us on the board are concerned about-- the relative reliability of Toyotas and Dodges.
As for your specific question, if Consumers doesn't have enough data to rate automatics in Tacomas or T100s, that'll show up in their reports. Offhand, I don't know.
I thought long and hard before posting this, but then I thought 'why shouldn't I'. It is sad that I shouldn't post facts about Tundra that are bad, or Dakota that are good, just because it may well lead to various people attacking me personally.
So with hockey gear on to deflect the blows:
I understand that some Tundra owners are complaining about a shudder in their trucks (don't know if this is like the problem some GM trucks have / had (I don't know if they still do)). I understand that Toyota terms it a "flutter" caused by the steering column, but I am not sure whether there is a TSB or not. Now I know that everyone is going to tell me how wonderful their Tundra is, its steady as anything etc.,but I really feel that potential buyers should be aware so that they can research further.
I see from previous posts you have owned 12 mopar vehicles. Have you owned any of them long enough to give a valid "reliability" rating??? What is your usual length of ownership of these vehicles??? I'm 40 and have had 3 vehicles. One was an 87' Pathfinder that I just sold. 12 years / 160K of troublefree service (except new clutch and brakes). The kid I sold it to is beating the snot out of it right now...keeps on running. That is what I base "reliability" on. Granted, I take care of my vehicles. Either you're about 80 years old or you don't keep vehicles long enough to give you trouble. What's the deal ???
I'm basing the reliability of Toy trucks on past experience and, yes, the experience of people I personally know that own Toyota trucks. You are correct to say that it does not directly infer anything about the Tundra's reliability. Theoretically my truck could disintegrate tomorrow in a ball of fire. However, Given the choices (yes I believe there are more than three brands of trucks) I'm choosing what's been very good to me so far. Toyota!
What I find interesting about the Tundra vib topic is the disparity of Tundra owners vs. non-owners. Most of the posts are by Tundra critics. Compare this with one of the many chevy problem topics. You'll be hard pressed to find any Tundra owners posting on those topics.
I generally keep trucks about two years,I generally have a couple at a time.I am a Union Carpenter so I put tons and tons of mileage on a truck,I buy most of them used and they are always sold with well over 100,000 miles on them.My wife also works and drives and puts 20,000 miles a year on them herself. This topic has run far off what it was intended to originally be.I think from all the post that it is obvious though that the question has been answered that the Tundra is more akin to a Dakota than a Ram.I have already spoke my piece and will not keep repeating everything over and over so I bid you all peace.
I was curious how you are making out with your Dak. (you do own a Dak?) In the summer, we were both waiting for delivery on 4x4, 5speed, 4.7,SLT's. After 4 months of waiting and Dodge telling me my Dak was "unbuildable" I bailed on the order. I have since purchased the Tundra V6, 5speed and am thoroughly satisfied with my decision. I have not experienced any of the problems that earlier Tundra owners expressed. I think they may have resolved some of those issues as of September when I took delivery. I am one of the few V6 owners mainly because I did not want an automatic. Seems like all manufacturers have issues with their automatics and in a 4x4 I would not opt for anything other than a stick. So how is your Dak holding up...just curious.
Read back on this topic and you will realize why I hesitate to tell you - whatever I say will be attacked by certain individuals.
Anyway, bottom line is I am very happy. I have not experienced any problems with my particular truck. Some of the 'features' I have noticed - by features I mean common to EVERY Dakota. The ticking in particular that has been mentioned, but I can't say it bothers me - can only hear it when you think about it, if you see what I mean.
Persoanl bugbear is that I sometimes hit the radio controls when shifting into top gear - but other than that nothing bad. Fuel economy is what I expected, performance is great. I have been off road some, though not as much as I would have liked as we haven't had much snow yet, but I am pleased with its capabilities.
I am not going to get into the merits of Dakota over Tundra, as long as you are happy with your choice that is all that matters. I didn't do too bad on the delay - ordered July 31st, picked it up October 4th.
Two mid-sized trucks. This is a better comparison for the Tundra. I'm not knocking the truck (I'm sure that owners will be very happy with it!) but it shouldn't be compared to the full sized models because the Tundra isn't!
I had a 00' Dak on order, after 4 months of waiting I declined and purchased the Tundra. I crawled in, over and under both trucks and the Tundra is bigger, no if's ands or buts. I don't know where others get their measurements, but put the 2 side by side. The Tundra is a larger truck. It may not be a F250, but it has created another size class, much in the way the Dak did. That is why I originally ordered the Dak, because of it's unique size....but, you don't have to be a gymnast to get into the back seat of the Tundra and I can slide 4x8 sheets in the bed. You don't have 48" between the wheelwells in the Dak and it lacks rear doors. Granted, the Quad cab has more rear room, but what can you do with a 5' bed ?? It reminds me of the "van-ups" (remember those?).I personally don't like the looks of the Quad. I monitor both Dak and Tundra sites and know I have made the right decision. To each his own ...
The Tundra is longer than Dakota - by 2 1/2 inches, higher than Dakota by 3 1/2 inches. Big deal - hardly enough for a new class.
The only significant difference is in width - Tundra is bigger by 8 inches. To some this is good, as you say you can lay a 4x8 flat. But to some this is bad - harder to maneuver.
Incidentally the volume of the truck bed in the Dakota is actually bigger than the Tundra because the Tundra's bed is shallower.
I too know that I have made the right decision, in buying Dakota.
That bed volume will really come in handy! What a STRETCH!! Let's see, the Tundra is taller, wider, and longer(and don't forget...MORE RELIABLE!!!!!). I think that makes it bigger & better(Maybe not for YOUR needs but for most people it is). Since the Tundra isn't full-size, I guess the Dodge isn't really a mid-size. Is it? Is that another marketing mistake?
So, since each of the Big 3's full-size trucks are taller, wider and longer than the Tundra, and don't forget, JUST AS RELIABLE, then all three are bigger & just-as-good trucks as the Tundra. Maybe not for your needs, but for most people, it is. Your infallable logic, pyro, not mine.
Back to reality, the Tundra does a good job of mixing the benefits of the full-size trucks with the benefits of the Compacts. From the full size trucks they borrowed V8 power, able to carry 4x8s flat, and (somewhat) interior space. From the compacts, they got nimbleness. Among others. But both full size and compact trucks have advantages the Tundra doesn't. Yes, pyro, bed volume DOES come in handy. Ask anyone who has ever had to move. When I left LA I was able to borrow a trailer from a friend. If the bed on my F-150 was any smaller (especially in depth), I would have had to get a bigger Uhaul. The way it was I had to repack the truck & trailer a dozen times to get it all to fit perfectly. But I got it to work. I could not have gotten the Tundra with the more shallow bed to work. The F-150 bed volume saved me a couple hundred dollars in a Uhaul rental. I would use overall bed volume MUCH MORE OFTEN than I would use the truck to carry plywood. So, I can definitely say with confidence that my buying your Tundra would have been a mistake.
Says who? Consumer Reports (lover of all things Toyota) wont even make that claim. Tundra has yet to prove itself in that regard, so let's hold off on any conclusions concerning reliability. With regard to "most people"s needs, I'm quite sure the Toyota "full size" entry will be outsold (most people) by the domestics by a factor of, oh say..15 or so. Finally, trucks come in all sizes, what difference does a name(midsize/fullsize)make, marketing notwithstanding. Almost everyone's needs can be met by the great number of choices out there, but the choice itself is not wrong, it simply serves different masters.
With the money I saved buying a Dak over the Tundra I can buy a 7x12 utility trailer, haul whatever I want, and still have bucks left over to buy many sheets of plywood. (or,yes, a long term warranty).
We all know the fatcs. We can all read sales figures, prices, spec sheets and so on.
But there are some Tundra owners whose only pleasure in life is to come on here and tell everyone how eonderful their Tundra is and how crap anything else is. I think this comes down to the fact that no matter how many arguments there are between the big three fans, everyone has a similar view on Tundra - that is a good truck for the mid-size market with a few questions still to answer (not because of faults, because it hasn't been around long enough). Like every truck it has its drawbacks - rear seat room is one that is often mentioned, and its advantages - DOHC V8 for instance.
Unfortunately there is a vocal minority, pyrodex among them who can't accept that, so I find the easiest thing to be just to ignore them.
I issued a challenge a little while ago to any Tundra owner who disagreed with the facts in any of my posts to prove it. I haven't heard anything yet, but the offer still stands.
It is true that the Tundra has not been out long enought to provide an accurate reliability rating so we must look at past Toyota products. Just take a look at the Big 3 past offerings. Many problems, especially GM. As for the Dakota, it too has had it's share of problem especially the early years. I really wanted to get buy the Club Cab, the Quad has a terribly short bed and the truck overall looks strange. However, I had to stop myself from buying the Dakota even though I find it more attractive than my Tundra because I felt the long term (over 5 years) reliability of Chrysler products is questionable. I did not want to spend the extra money on the Tundra because I feel it was alot for a truck but I am glad I did.
smcpherr, First, I would like to point out that this is the Tundra vs. Dakota topic...not Tundra vs. everything topic. Having said that, I'll continue. Sorry to bring this up but the big 3 are NOT as reliable(GENERALLY SPEAKING) as Toyota. That's a big deal with me so I can't say they are better...just bigger. However, my big problem with the big 3 is really only with the big two(Dodge and Chevy). They are nowhere near as reliable as Toyota. I also own an F150, by the way. My experience with it has been flawless to date.
Wetwillie, Like they say, McDonald's sells the most hamburgers. They don't sell the best, however.
tpmiller, If you bought a utility trailer, it would probably help the looks of your Dakota. That's the best I could come up with for you. LOL!
Andy, I know the fatcs. My Tundra is eonderful!
To all, Surely you guys have figured out that I'm just trying to push your buttons...especially Andy's (He seems to get so bent out of shape over small things). I can't believe ANYONE would seriously argue over trucks. Let's just have a little fun here. OK? I'm really only KIDDING!!!!!!!!!!!!
Certainly your handle fits you (you firestarter you!). My sense is that your agenda is hidden somewhat, be that as it may, "best" is a relative term. While you may not think mcd's burgers are the "best", their popularity allows them pretty much disregard pursuing the practices of 'better' burger builders. What qualities define best for one person do not necessarily apply for another(in the case of mcd's, value makes them the best for their customers).I digress, sorry. (and leave andy's spelling alone - you get the point) bye now.
I've been following this board for a couple of months and have an observation to make: I don't know if you realize this, but you do come across as condescending and "holier than thou", which is why, I suspect, people jump all over you. It's not so much because of what you write (god knows, we're all entitled to our opinions) but what's between the lines. It's subtle, but definitely there. For what it's worth, I've been enjoying the give and take between various Tundra owners and you, even though it's often deviated from the intent of this board :-). Like I said, this is just a personal observation and NOT a personal attack.
Gotta love MCD's...a 1/4 pounder with cheese & a large fry does it everytime.
I really don't have a hidden agenda. I have just been checking this site out for months and am continually amazed at the arguments that erupt here over totally stupid things. I mean, why would ANYONE care what type of truck someone else has? It seems so pointless. It certainly is not something to get angry about. And believe me, some people here really DO get angry. It is wierd...at least to little ol' me. I'm all for exchanging meaningful info, however. Later.
So what do you guys think about the Motor Trend truck of the year award? personally, I thought the piece on the Tundra was too glowing. I also read the article in 4wd and off-road. They seemed more balanced and real world. They had lots of good things to say and lots of critisisms about the Tundra. Although, when the testing was complete and they tallied up the points it nudged out the Dakota for first place.
First, Fords are no more reliable than Dodge or GM. My only personal experience with Ford was a nightmare. But, I may agree that GM has been having more than its share of problems lately. As for the Tundra, it comes in 2 widths for some reason. The Access cab is 3.5" wider than Dakota, but the Limited is 8" wider. What gives? I figure the extra 4.5" on the fancier model is extra wheel moldings. Thats a pretty deceptive "8" wider" if you ask me!
The body of the Tundra may look larger, but I think the size difference is deceiving. Specifically, 3.5" in height to the Tundra seems to come mostly from a higher suspension. And the 3.5" in width to the Tundra is hardly anything to boast about. But after all, the only size difference that matters is inside the cab, and inside the bed. The two trucks are close, with the Tundra just a few inches larger where it counts, here and there. The big three are all much larger than Dakota (and Tundra), with option packages that can make the Tundra look like a dwarf, not to mention huge engines, turbo diesel power, etc.
I agree that 3.5 inches isn't much. That's exactly the difference between the Tundra (no wheel moldings) and the silverado. Mathematically the width of the Tundra is exactly in between the Dakota and Silverado. So the argument is: If the Tundra and Dakota are comparible then why not the Tundra and Silverado?
tgr1, The width is the width. There is nothing deceptive about it. But, thanks for pointing out that the Tundra is bigger than the Dakota "where it counts", though.
rwellbaum2, Why are you attempting to bring common sense and reasoning into this debate?
Is 3" worth an extra $4,000? In fact, for less than the price of a Tundra, you can move up to a Ram, comparably equipped, and still have money left over for the 100,000 mile warranty! So, if size is all that matters to you, one of the big 3 is clearly what you're really looking for. But my point all along is, drive whatever fits you best, and the one that offers YOU the most value.
My English is good, no doubt about that (see I'm arrogant too). My typing isn't - there's a difference.
samirpowar - I salute you, you are more observant than most, though perhaps my subtleties are deliberate - ever consider that? (see that could be taken the wrong way too).
Oh and please all bear in mind that I am struggling with 3 languages here - my native (English), my adopted (Canadian), and most of yours (American).
I think your digging a bigger hole (or should I say orifice) with that statement! Maybe some WD-40 would help. If all else fails, I'd say have it surgically removed.
Comments
You make more bogus, non-verifiable, and untruthful claims of any poster I have encountered on this site. You have no respect for others and thus, no respect for yourself.
Toyotas are good trucks, but no more reliable than any other truck. I think the comments made here about the statistics and reliablity of trucks are pretty fair and accurate.
I have read the posts of Tundra and Tacoma owners, both here and elsewhere. There are plenty of unhappy Tundra and Tacoma owners and plenty of reported problems with each. No more or less than the big three trucks.
Why must you disrespect others in order to attempt gaining any kind of credibility. If you are so confident that your Toyota is superior, you shouldn't have to disrespect others' choices and talk so much trash.
I can personally tell you of many problems I have had with Toyota trucks AND cars, but it is a waste of time to try and convince others that Toyota's are junk, even if it were true.
Why must everyone get envolved in brand bashing and wars? Must make up for the lack of self worth in your lives.
Chad
Attention Dakota owners! Here is a website that may be of help with your premature balljoint failures: www.nhtsa.dot.gov
There is a questionaire for Dakota owners that is helping NHTSA with it's investigation into this problem. Apparently they are in the final stages of determining how widespread the recall of these trucks will be.
Have a good week all,
Henne
Conversely, when they report a difference, it is because they found one that IS statistically significant. That is, given the data (including sample size) and the methodology, there is a reasonable statistical basis to conclude that the difference observed in the sample reflects a real difference in the population.
One way to express this without becoming too technical is to say that the observed difference is larger than the margin of error. This is often how poll results are reported by the media, and while not completely accurate, it does convey the gist of the idea.
In short, my point was simply this. Don't automatically dismiss small differences in statistical studies. If the study is well done, the difference is probably "real", even if small.
chad - not sure exactly what happened with the tow ratings, but I know it was a brochure problem. The bad press (and law suit) started because when Dodge realised the problem last spring they weren't too smart in putting together an across the board communications package. As a result some owners were offered buy backs and some weren't. The problem has now been resolved, though I don't think that the California court where the case was filed last fall as scheduled the hearing yet.
rwellbaum2 - nice to see a truck related comment, shame it was a copy of snother person's post in another topic, but at least it's a start. And just to make it clear - this message is not sarcastic and does not imply anything. If you find that hard to accept then I suggest that you ignore my posts, it would appear that (without trying) I have an ability to press your buttons - so lets just ignore one another and not force everyone else to read through it. If you really have something to say my e-mail is, and always has been, part of my profile.
It seems to me Toyota doesn't have a large population of heavy duty automatic transmissions that Consumer Reports could lay claim to superiority. I mean isn't it true, that the vast majority of Tacomas and T100's have manual transmissions installed? Has the Tundra 4 speed automatic been around before the recent Land Cruisers?
Enlighten me, please!
As for your specific question, if Consumers doesn't have enough data to rate automatics in Tacomas or T100s, that'll show up in their reports. Offhand, I don't know.
So with hockey gear on to deflect the blows:
I understand that some Tundra owners are complaining about a shudder in their trucks (don't know if this is like the problem some GM trucks have / had (I don't know if they still do)). I understand that Toyota terms it a "flutter" caused by the steering column, but I am not sure whether there is a TSB or not. Now I know that everyone is going to tell me how wonderful their Tundra is, its steady as anything etc.,but I really feel that potential buyers should be aware so that they can research further.
This topic has run far off what it was intended to originally be.I think from all the post that it is obvious though that the question has been answered that the Tundra is more akin to a Dakota than a Ram.I have already spoke my piece and will not keep repeating everything over and over so I bid you all peace.
Read back on this topic and you will realize why I hesitate to tell you - whatever I say will be attacked by certain individuals.
Anyway, bottom line is I am very happy. I have not experienced any problems with my particular truck. Some of the 'features' I have noticed - by features I mean common to EVERY Dakota. The ticking in particular that has been mentioned, but I can't say it bothers me - can only hear it when you think about it, if you see what I mean.
Persoanl bugbear is that I sometimes hit the radio controls when shifting into top gear - but other than that nothing bad. Fuel economy is what I expected, performance is great. I have been off road some, though not as much as I would have liked as we haven't had much snow yet, but I am pleased with its capabilities.
I am not going to get into the merits of Dakota over Tundra, as long as you are happy with your choice that is all that matters. I didn't do too bad on the delay - ordered July 31st, picked it up October 4th.
The Tundra is longer than Dakota - by 2 1/2 inches, higher than Dakota by 3 1/2 inches. Big deal - hardly enough for a new class.
The only significant difference is in width - Tundra is bigger by 8 inches. To some this is good, as you say you can lay a 4x8 flat. But to some this is bad - harder to maneuver.
Incidentally the volume of the truck bed in the Dakota is actually bigger than the Tundra because the Tundra's bed is shallower.
I too know that I have made the right decision, in buying Dakota.
Back to reality, the Tundra does a good job of mixing the benefits of the full-size trucks with the benefits of the Compacts. From the full size trucks they borrowed V8 power, able to carry 4x8s flat, and (somewhat) interior space. From the compacts, they got nimbleness. Among others. But both full size and compact trucks have advantages the Tundra doesn't. Yes, pyro, bed volume DOES come in handy. Ask anyone who has ever had to move. When I left LA I was able to borrow a trailer from a friend. If the bed on my F-150 was any smaller (especially in depth), I would have had to get a bigger Uhaul. The way it was I had to repack the truck & trailer a dozen times to get it all to fit perfectly. But I got it to work. I could not have gotten the Tundra with the more shallow bed to work. The F-150 bed volume saved me a couple hundred dollars in a Uhaul rental. I would use overall bed volume MUCH MORE OFTEN than I would use the truck to carry plywood. So, I can definitely say with confidence that my buying your Tundra would have been a mistake.
We all know the fatcs. We can all read sales figures, prices, spec sheets and so on.
But there are some Tundra owners whose only pleasure in life is to come on here and tell everyone how eonderful their Tundra is and how crap anything else is. I think this comes down to the fact that no matter how many arguments there are between the big three fans, everyone has a similar view on Tundra - that is a good truck for the mid-size market with a few questions still to answer (not because of faults, because it hasn't been around long enough). Like every truck it has its drawbacks - rear seat room is one that is often mentioned, and its advantages - DOHC V8 for instance.
Unfortunately there is a vocal minority, pyrodex among them who can't accept that, so I find the easiest thing to be just to ignore them.
I issued a challenge a little while ago to any Tundra owner who disagreed with the facts in any of my posts to prove it. I haven't heard anything yet, but the offer still stands.
Toyota has never made anything like Tundra before. Most parts are completely new, and many are purchased by Toyota, not manufactured.
The same is true for all truck brands, so reliability must be the same as for any new truck - wait and see.
I am not saying that Tundra won't prove to be reliable, just that no one knows.
First, I would like to point out that this is the Tundra vs. Dakota topic...not Tundra vs. everything topic. Having said that, I'll continue. Sorry to bring this up but the big 3 are NOT as reliable(GENERALLY SPEAKING) as Toyota. That's a big deal with me so I can't say they are better...just bigger. However, my big problem with the big 3 is really only with the big two(Dodge and Chevy). They are nowhere near as reliable as Toyota. I also own an F150, by the way. My experience with it has been flawless to date.
Wetwillie,
Like they say, McDonald's sells the most hamburgers. They don't sell the best, however.
tpmiller,
If you bought a utility trailer, it would probably help the looks of your Dakota. That's the best I could come up with for you. LOL!
Andy,
I know the fatcs. My Tundra is eonderful!
To all,
Surely you guys have figured out that I'm just trying to push your buttons...especially Andy's (He seems to get so bent out of shape over small things). I can't believe ANYONE would seriously argue over trucks. Let's just have a little fun here. OK? I'm really only KIDDING!!!!!!!!!!!!
I really don't have a hidden agenda. I have just been checking this site out for months and am continually amazed at the arguments that erupt here over totally stupid things. I mean, why would ANYONE care what type of truck someone else has? It seems so pointless. It certainly is not something to get angry about. And believe me, some people here really DO get angry. It is wierd...at least to little ol' me. I'm all for exchanging meaningful info, however. Later.
The width is the width. There is nothing deceptive about it. But, thanks for pointing out that the Tundra is bigger than the Dakota "where it counts", though.
rwellbaum2,
Why are you attempting to bring common sense and reasoning into this debate?
Heh, since Toyota is so great I'm starting a new post - Toyota vs. Big 3.
Hope to see you there...
samirpowar - I salute you, you are more observant than most, though perhaps my subtleties are deliberate - ever consider that? (see that could be taken the wrong way too).
Oh and please all bear in mind that I am struggling with 3 languages here - my native (English), my adopted (Canadian), and most of yours (American).