We have an updated look. Click here for information on how to manage your settings. If you run into any issues, please email [email protected]

Consumer Reports praises Toyota Tundra

devil1devil1 Posts: 74
edited March 2014 in Toyota
I just picked up a copy of Consumer Reports today
and looked to see if they showed the reliability of
the Tundra as per the first model year. I was a
little skeptical because of some of the problems I
have heard, but it got an "Above Average" rating
(Half red circle) for reliability! Not only that,
but it got Consumer Reports TOP pick for full size
pickups!!

This is how the reliability index went for full
size pickups:

Ford F-150: Average
Chevy Silverado: Well Below Average
Dodge Ram: Well Below Average
Toyota Tundra: Above Average

Well once again Toyota out does the competition!
Oh and they said the Chevy's reliability has been
very poor for this new model year. Now I am very
confident in the Tundra's reliability. People will
always have problems with any vehicle, but on a
percentage basis it is now proven that the Tundra
will have a better reliability factor than the
Big3. Sorry fellas.
«13

Comments

  • quadrunner500quadrunner500 Posts: 2,721
    No need to get overconfident, or apologize. Just go to topic #1060 before writing your rebuttal. Maybe Consumers Reports doesn't check for oil pressure, or metal shavings?
  • barlitzbarlitz Posts: 752
    How can consumers even say that the tundra hasn't even been out for a year yet.F150's been around for many years so hasn't the dodge and chevy.I wouldn't read to much into that article they are comparing almost a million and a half trucks (big3)combined to 100,000 tundras,thats almost a 15 to 1 ratio.Be real.
  • kit1404kit1404 Posts: 124
    Consumer's Reports does not like trucks/SUV's or anything close to a vehicle that is truck-based. They like the Tundra for its smooth Lexus engine/drivetrain. Curious to me is how they ignore the gas mileage - the Tundra does no better than the bigger and much more comfortable Ford and GM trucks. Don't get me wrong - I consider them a source for vehicle info and have had a subscription for about 20 years. But, you must read them all the time and understand the bias. (By the way, good luck interpretting their latest reliability ratings - they generally do not interpret at first glance, you must refer to a scale at the beginning of the ratings.)
  • Another literal Consumer Report believer!

    Guess we all have to have a good laugh now and then. I don't believe anything those magazine reports state. Motor Trend gave the Silverado Truck of the Year in 99. Now Consumer Reports rates it "below average" in 00. I don't think so. Everyone knows that the newest models and designs are always pushed and advertized as the best and all the others get terrible ratings.

    But, there are people all over the world that will believe it as gospel. What Chuckleheads.
  • ferris47ferris47 Posts: 131
    I love my Tundra, and have had no problems whatsoever but the fact remains that it is a brand new truck. I would be willing to bet that initial quality is better and I would surmise a guess that overall quality will be better but there is really no way of knowing that until at least a couple of years.

    Does CR make a statment like they are talking about inital quality? Just curious. They would have to be making the same educated guess that I made when I bought the truck. I did read an article, though, where Ivan Stuart was given a pre-production Tundra and told to "Go break it" and all he could do was screw up one of the access doors and get it really really dirty. That was selling point to me.

    If you go with the Tundra I think you will be happy, but take the CR article with a grain of salt on long term reliability. It still remains to be seen, although I truely believe it will last longer and better then the others.
  • jaijayjaijay Posts: 162
    I guess Ivan Stewart or Consumer Reports have ever changed the oil in one of those Tundras.
  • RoclesRocles Posts: 982
    I'll stick with Fords. They seem to get the least press crap--pro and con---must be those ugly front ends, eh?

    In all seriousness, don't ever buy what a moto-journalist spews from their pseudo-intelligence in the subject. Most of these guys are rejects from good magazines and either settled for the paycheck or came into the buisness with some form of bias for a manufactuer in one way or another.
    I take motorcycle mags as a comparison. Most of these clowns either dream of yesterday Brit icons (BSA, Enfield or Norton) or rave about a rare and expensive bike like Aprilia. They mutter about the big four from Japan and always dismiss HD and gloss over BMWs. Why? Because they aren't "exotic" to talk about. Why don't they bring up the old Triumphs? Too common--everyone had one. HD? Too much image--good and bad.
    Truck and car mags are no different. They always rave about teh new and throw out the common or older models despite the stats.
  • jcmdiejcmdie Posts: 594
    What percentage of Tundra trucks do think are purchased as work trucks as opposed to domestic trucks? I have not seen or heard of any fleet users that have bought the Tundra. There may be a few independant workers with them but I think that you will find that almost all of the Tundras bought are family cars. That is thier market. Nothing wrong with that but it is not fair to compare a truck used to go to Home Depot once a month with trucks that are used for hauling and towing daily.

    In addition to that, realize that there hasn't been a Honda or Toyota that Consumer Reports didn't like. You would have to look real hard to find any Dodge or Chevy that they do like. There is good information in that magazine but only if taken with a grain of salt.
  • devil1devil1 Posts: 74
    You make an intelligent case (unlike some other people). That would work in the equation, but not to the extent to change the whole outcome (Maybe Ford, they have a big market of Fleet trucks and such). Dodge and Chevy don't nearly have as much share though.

    In reference to your second question, I used to own a Tacoma and they ripped it to shreds in Consumer Reports. I was very disappointed after reading it. Although in reliability it did fine, but they hated the truck. I, on the other hand, loved my Taco.

    Again, I am debating between the F-150 and Tundra. Chevy and Dodge are not in my consideration due mainly to looks and info I find.

    I right now own a 97 Eclipse that consumer reports ripped to pieces on reliability, and it HAS been very unreliable. Nothing too major but it has been in shop probably 6 or 7 times in 3 years. (Not too good)
  • RoclesRocles Posts: 982
    ouch! I felt that one from here!
  • tundradudetundradude Posts: 588
    What percentage of Tundra trucks do think are
    purchased as work trucks as opposed to domestic
    trucks?

    You would be surprised! My county bought 18 of them.
  • barlitzbarlitz Posts: 752
    I am mortified, stupified and horrified to read that my tax dollars are being spent on foreign trucks.
  • tundradudetundradude Posts: 588
    Actually that was my tax dollars in this case.
  • rwellbaum2rwellbaum2 Posts: 1,006
    Love your post. Quote..."I am...stupified" ;)
  • barlitzbarlitz Posts: 752
    In all honesty is that a goverment agency that purchased those trucks.I didn't think they could do that.I can't imagine the Presidents motorcade being protected by 4Runners.It would be an injustice to the American people to spend there money (tax dollars) to support another Country.Out of curiosity are you from the State of Indiana maybe there is some kind of deal with the Toyota maufacturing plant that is there.
  • arkie6arkie6 Posts: 198
    So, do you think it's ok to spend government money (our tax dollars) on pork barrel make work projects like the Big Dig?

    Regarding supporting a foreign country with tax dollars, I can buy stock in Toyota Motors Co. just like you or any other red blooded American. I can also buy stock in GM just like the Japanese can. So what is a foreign company? Is it just a matter of where the headquarters are located or where the owners (stockholders) are located? Both GM and Toyota are "World" companies. The lines between "us" and "them" are now pretty grey. It's a global economy.

    Again, is the Tundra that's made in Indiana "foreign" or is the Ford that's made in Canada "American"? So, if a government agency purchases a Ford made in Canada or a Chevy made in Mexico, are they supporting a foreign country with our tax dollars?

    Why are we even haggling over this?
  • tundradudetundradude Posts: 588
    north carolina
  • tundradudetundradude Posts: 588
    One day you need to look and see what automobile companies owns who and what percentage and include the European makes not just the Japanese. I have seen so many people that have a problem with the Japanese and will proudly own or dismiss a German make. What you will see will surprise you. For example, did you know GM owns a part of Subaru?

    GM is the biggest company in the world. They make more money than the continent of Africa. Even though they are losing market share incrementally especially to Ford, they are so dominant, they own more than you think they do. Just think; after GM and Toyota had their joint venture in Freemont; GM used what they learned to better their operations in all their factories and their consumers benefited as well.

    You need to look at the whole picture(globally) and just not what you may see on some commerical on TV or some billboard on a trip to work someday.

    The most scariest thing that has happened in the auto industry is not that government is buying toyotas, mazdas, or whatever. It is that Mercedes has bought out Chrysler. Plymouth will soon be dead. How many jobs will be lost for that reason?

    Enough of my babbling!
  • barlitzbarlitz Posts: 752
    There is a site called www.bigdig that is updated daily with photos and info on whats going on.I don't know if you've ever been to Boston.But there is a highway that goes right through the city.They are taking that highway adding lanes to it and putting it underground.There are sections of it that come within feet of underground train lines built many years ago.Also if you do go to look at pics you might see a picture of me keying a Tundra (just kidding).GM is the #1 followed by Ford and then Toyota as far as world companies.I guess we look at things differently and in the end it probably doesn't matter to any one.
  • All the Toyota cars look the same and the Toyota trucks are just smaller or bigger versions of the same truck. No originality whatsoever. Pretty blah to buy cars and trucks with zero personality of their own.
  • who makes it or if it is American or Non-American. The Tundra costs too much for much less truck and has no personality. Ugly, ugly, ugly. Looks somewhat like a slightly bigger version of it's Tacoma predecessor! The Tacoma is at least decent looking.
  • quadrunner500quadrunner500 Posts: 2,721
    Pewter Z71
    and
    Coors Light

    .....just not at the same time
  • rwellbaum2rwellbaum2 Posts: 1,006
    I'm glad to see that bud lite dud had the decency to leave this post after his fraudulent war hero claims were exposed as lies. BLD, if your lurking about reading this, thank you for doing the only honorable thing you could have and disappeared from this topic. I'm no war hero, but I've been in combat and shot at. There's a couple of other guys here that can say the same. We'll let you fib about alot of things that are not important, but not about serving your country in wartime.
  • barlitzbarlitz Posts: 752
    I'm ashamed with people like you fighting for our country.
  • RoclesRocles Posts: 982
    What happened to posts 38-39?

    rwellbaum,
    What did Bud say?
  • rwellbaum2rwellbaum2 Posts: 1,006
    Bud light dud claimed to have fought a war for america, but was exposed as a liar. After his lies were revealed, he deleted the incriminating posts. I happen to be in the military and have been in combat. I don't mind giving each other a bad time about our truck preferences, I don't mind BLD acting like a fool, but I just won't tolerate him lying about being a war hero when he has never been in a war.
  • rwellbaum2rwellbaum2 Posts: 1,006
    You should be ashamed! While I'm putting my life on the line to keep that oil coming, your bad-mouthing my choice of vehicles.
  • quadrunner500quadrunner500 Posts: 2,721
    I purchased the Consumer Reports Sport Utility Special 2000. I must admit, the mag has added quite a bit of splash and color since those days of 30 years ago when I read it in the school library. While they may not accept advertising, that hasn't kept them from hawking their own used car pricing service, auto insurance pricing service, etc prominently on the magazine pages. In this regard, they have to sell to keep the presses rolling, just like the mighty Petersen Publishing empire, no different.

    In the section on reliability forecasts, they state: "We give results only for models for which there were sufficient survey responses to make a judgement. So you won't find all-new or recently redesigned models listed here. The zero line in each graph is the average trouble rate for all 1997 to 1999 vehicles."

    I note that in the reliability history for Tundra trouble spots, "NO DATA NEW MODEL" is the wording used. But unlike for all other vehicles for which data is not available, this aspect did not restrain the editors from making a reliability prediction of "better than average" anyway. Bias?

    I found it ironic also, that Tundra was praised for being "relatively frugal" on fuel, yet according to EPA figures for city and highway, the class leaders are GMC Sierra and Chevy Silverado. But if you dismiss this as part of the same EPA conspiracy allegedly responsible for denying the Tundra Limited models a factory receiver hitch consider the following:

    Trucks are not directly compared to each other in Consumer Reports. Rather, they are compared to each other indirectly, by how well each are able to fare against all cars, minivans, trucks, suvs tested from 1997 to 1999, as a group.

    The flaw in this, is the natural bias towards the center. A truck that is more car like gets better scores. And as trucks and suvs gather a larger percentage of total vehicle sales, scores for all trucks and suvs improve for this reason alone, even if there are no improvements in reliability. Put another way, if you adjust the floor height, we can all be 6 feet tall.
  • rwellbaum2rwellbaum2 Posts: 1,006
    I find it hard to believe that if money played a part in consumer reports, they'd still have the Tundra as their top pick. Ford easily makes 10 times more money off the f-150 and could easily "buy-off" the editors of CR, if that were the case. The simple fact is that they liked it better. Motor trend also picked the Tundra as their top truck, along with 4x4&off-road magazine. If it makes you feel any better, the writers at "truckin" magazine didn't like the Tundra that much. Especially because there's not a lot of aftermarket "lowering" parts for it yet. ;)
  • quadrunner500quadrunner500 Posts: 2,721
    Agree, the editors like the Tundra better. The buying public on the other hand, doesn't seem to be headed that way.
  • barlitzbarlitz Posts: 752
    If you fought and protected this Country thats great and I respect that, but when you bad mouth American made products I can't live with that if you are so displeased then leave and allow another Mexican across the Border to come and purchase a Chevy.
  • rwellbaum2rwellbaum2 Posts: 1,006
    It's called freedom of choice! It's a good thing! I have the freedom to bad mouth anything I want and you have the freedom to badmouth me, if you want. I may not like what you say but I will defend to my death, your right to say it.
  • meredithmeredith Posts: 575
    ENOUGH with the personal attacks people!!!!....

    this is an AUTOMOTIVE site. Nothing else is relevant or allowed. Not your gender, your sexual orientation, your age, your religion, your politics.... Edmunds doesn't care. And neither do the overwhelming majority or the other conference members.

    KEEP IT ON TOPIC!!!!!

    Front Porch Philosopher
    SUV, Pickups, & Aftermarket and Accessories Host
  • werkingwerking Posts: 431
    agree with quad on post 46 and 48. consumer reports is a biased magazine (who knows why) that leans toward the center. the buying public has not been swayed. i've seen MAYBE one tundra for every 50 silverados around here (columbia, south carolina). and prob'ly 1/4 of the 'rados i see are "fleet" or "work" trucks of some commercial sort.
    here's the skinny on magazine ratings. motor trend (and several others i can't recall) chose the silverado as "truck of the year" in 99 -why? because it was new. go read the posts reference 99 silverados to see how good they were. the ratings on new trucks mean nothing in my opinion. i've got a 00 silverado that runs like a pearl. am i lucky? perhaps. but i'd say the other 100+ 'rados i've seen running around here look to be pretty lucky too.
    answer this question. how can consumer reports rate the tundra on reliability? they can't. they may be able to trash the big three, but they can't pass educated judgment on tundra reliability. it's too new.
    lastly, and this is just me, i don't think i'd ever leave it up to consumer reports to dictate to me what to buy. i would take their opinion into consideration, maybe. but i would use a much wider scope of opinion - more geared toward what i was shopping for. edmunds, truck trend, 4 whl & offroad, etc...for buying a truck. consumer reports would be almost an afterthought. but that's just me.
    sorry for the long post...
    kyle
  • edharri3edharri3 Posts: 35
    First, they love any truck that is not truck like. They could care less about capacity or power. They rate every single type of vehicle they test as if they are family secans. They like the trucks that are least trucklike(eg. they love the Ford Explorer and the Tundra) Also, The Tundra sells in smaller numbers than either of the other two brands and idoesn't have as much capacity, so You can't compare reliability. What kind of sense does it make to compare Silverados and F150's that regularly may haul or tow large trailers with Tundras that may occasionally carry antique furniture home from the second hand store?
    For tundra owners who to have just spent 30 large on a truck and are still trying to convince themselves that it makes perfect sense to buy a truck that has less capacity than all competitiors but costs more, you can't do it with consumer reports. They mostly trash domestics and kiss import [non-permissible content removed] and they know nothing about rating anything other than minivans and family sedans.
  • rwellbaum2rwellbaum2 Posts: 1,006
    I agree with most of what you say. I wouldn't let a magazine influence me to buy a truck. I based my choice by my own excellent luck with the Toyota trucks I've had and of those I Know personally. I also took into account the people I know that by Ford and chevy exclusively
  • rwellbaum2rwellbaum2 Posts: 1,006
    You sound bitter! I've ran my Toyota trucks very hard and they really last a long time, even when punished and worked hard. I payed 27K out the door for a fully loaded 4X4 access cab. The snide antique furniture remark could describe 90% of silverado or F-150 owners as well. I've already seen Tundra trucks towing large industrial trailers for commercial firms. The capacity is nearly identical as the other 1/2 ton pickups, so why all the anger?
  • rooster9rooster9 Posts: 239
    I think the best thing to do when shopping for anything, is to not be biased and try every one out. Otherwise you'll never know how the "other" ones are. I test drove all the trucks, except for the Ram, which I plan on doing sometime, and now I know what they're all like. I know that past ownership of a vehicle is the biggest deciding factor to what new vehicle someone is gonna buy, especially for pickups. That also makes them biased a lot of times. They'll go out and test drive the brand they like and nothing else, and then they'll never know what the others are like. There could be one that better suits the person's needs. I know a lot of people buy Dodge trucks for their looks, and everyone has different preferences, me personally, don't care for the looks of Dodge trucks. Also, people come in all different sizes and shapes, so one truck might sit comfortably for one person but uncomfortably for another person. I'm sure you all know this, but I just want to say to go into buying something with an open mind. Just because you're last vehicle made by whoever was a lemon, doesn't mean the next one will be, it could be flawless. Some people do a lot of towing, so they will probably opt for a heavy duty truck, and more than likely a diesel. Everyone is different. One thing I can say, is don't give any negative comments about someone's vehicle, mainly in person, it really makes them feel bad, unless you're teasing. I would not like it if I bought a new truck and had a friend take it for a test drive and then say afterwards "well, I like mine better."
  • barlitzbarlitz Posts: 752
    Good work on those stats,rwellbaum2 is constantly degrading american quality and praising his Tundra.I'd assume that the Chevy is also priced less.
  • rwellbaum2rwellbaum2 Posts: 1,006
    Damn! I've got to keep my eye on you fibbers!

    Here's the real stats for those interested in the truth:

    From edmunds:
    Chevrolet K1500 extended cab, shortbed
    HP........230
    torque....285
    payload...1634
    max towing..5000
  • bigsnagbigsnag Posts: 394
    rwellbaum:
    You're not comparing equal trucks. As you should have read, Werking was comparing '00 Silverado 1500 vs. Tundra. You are bring up stats on a '99 C/K1500. As anyone should know, the C/K pickups were basically unchanged from '98 except for three new colors, i.e. an old design. Werking was not fibbing, he was only making a more fair comparison. You seem to be trying to mislead people. Why?
  • bigsnagbigsnag Posts: 394
    Before the flames begin, let me say that one of my vehichles is a '88 Toyota Land Cruiser with 230,000 miles. It can't be bought. I wouldn't even think of selling it, so I am not Anti-Toyota, like you will probably try to label me.
  • rwellbaum2rwellbaum2 Posts: 1,006
    It's the 1/2 ton I'm comparing. It's straight off edmunds.
  • bigsnagbigsnag Posts: 394
    You must not have read my post. I never said you weren't comparing 1/2 tons. You were comparing old vs. new. The old C/K is not the truck the new Silverado is. Check Truskrme's post above. It is straight off of Edmund's too.
  • rooster9rooster9 Posts: 239
    I have to add that before you look at the hp and torques of both, you should race one at a stop and go lights or something. The Tundra's 4.7L I-Force can easily beat Chevy's 4.8L engine, and I know the '99 it could take by a hair, but the 2000's have more power, so I think they would be either equal or the Chevy would be a hair faster. Now no bad mouthing, I like Chevrolet.
  • edharri3edharri3 Posts: 35
    I'm not bitter about anything. Look at Toyota's marketing strategy. Lexus Derived engine, cushy ride on a pickup? Fastest truck on the market? They are marketing the tundra to recreational users. It is more luxurious and carlike than other trucks because it is designed to attract those who want a comfortable vehicle for occassional light hauling. ITs capacity does not equal those of the other trucks. The domestics on the other hand can be optioned out as light duty personal use vehicles OR HEAVY DUTY work trucks with bigger engines and more strength and power. The domestics are likely to be used for the heaviest tasks. So it isn't fair to compare for instance all Silverados, including V6 1500's used as a second vehicle and occassional errand runhner along with 2500's that regularly tow and haul, to Tundras, One of which I have yet to see at a work cite.
  • werkingwerking Posts: 431
    robbie -
    i gotta go with ed on his statements. that is also, my primary argument. tundra just does not belong in the same class as any of the big three. and if you want to boost the biggest tundra against the smallest, older chevy, maybe we'll pull the 6.0 L 3/4 ton silverado long bed out. sh*t, you could prob'ly park a tundra in the bed of one of those. face it, with the 4.7L being the biggest engine they offer, you can brag on how fast and comfy and blah blah blah it is. it's NOT a work truck. comparing the tundra to the the base silverado is like me tying one arm behind my back to wrestle with my little brother. you gotta do it to be fair. put a couple hairs on it's chest and tundra may eventually become a real grown up truck...
    kyle
  • DaggettDaggett Posts: 23
    From the Chevy Brochure...

    Max towing for the 2000 Chevy, 4.8L, with Auto transmission is 8500 (If I remember right). In fine print it says that this is for a single cab - the extended cab tows less please see dealer for details.

    I don't want to start comparing Toy 4.7 vs. Chevy 4.8 vs the 5.3 to see what is the "appropriate" comparison. Chevy has more options, including a bigger engine. Chevy does have a higer tow rating. I would argue, however, that if you're going to be hauling 9400lbs, you should be getting a 3/4 ton - not comparing Chevy 1500s vs. Toyota.

    I think Edharri3 is right, Toyota is aiming for recreational users. Cause that's who is buying the majority of 1/2 ton pickups.

    For my purposes (towing 3000 lb boat, hauling hunting/fishing/camping gear, dogs, light construction materials) the Toyota will handle the job and will hopefully be more reliable than the Chevy or Ford.

    If I was buying a truck to tow about 10,000 lbs, haul concrete blocks, etc I'd get a Ford Super Duty.
  • werkingwerking Posts: 431
    there's a lot of room between a 3000 lb bass boat, and 10,000 lb of brick. almost as much room as there is in the extended cab of the silverado. almost. if the tundra does end up being more reliable than the chevy/ford/dodge, then kudos for tundra owners. but you're paying for it. you pay as much for less truck as a comparably equipped chevy. i just wish folks would stop calling the tundra a full size truck. sure, it's got an eight cylinder and a big price tag...but that's it. group it in with the dodge dakota...a midsize. that's all it is...

    kyle
  • quadrunner500quadrunner500 Posts: 2,721
    My '99 1500 1/2 ton long bed 4x4 has a payload of 2035 lbs.

    Of course, I didn't buy it for speed or acceleration, but I think it is at least as quick, possibly quicker up to about 30-40 mph, than Tundra. I've run side by side comparisons, and also driven my friend's Tundra. I wrote about them at http://members.aol.com/sturbridg1/utahtrek.html for those unfamiliar. But they are very close, feel very similar. Both shift at exactly 5200 rpm. The 2000 GM's I believe shift at 5600 rpm, having a 285 hp 5.3L available. The Ford Lightning blows either away, and if you need this much speed anyway, you should be driving a pony car.
This discussion has been closed.