Now I know my Dakota came from Canada where the pricing is different - BUT - there is absolutely no way that that is right!!!
rs_petty - you are claiming that the SLT model stickered at 23,400 - probably about right - but add 4wd, drop down to the sport package and the price goes up 6k - I don't think so.
Your comparison of Silverado / Tundra seems a bit pointless, presumably if you are here at all you can see that there is a lot of truth in saying that Tundra isn't full size - so you might as well compare 1/2 ton with 3/4 ton pricing.
I purchased a used 1994 Chrylser LHS from a private owner name Dan from the Twin Cities(White Bear Lake) in late Summer of 1998. The wheather was cool enough that when I checked the AC, it seemed to work. A month after I purchased it with a credit card checks(cash advance), the AC went bad. Dealer had to replace the auto temp. controler $560.00 out of my pocket. By then, I didn't have to use the ac. June of 1999, the controler malefunction. The damn thing blows hot air thru defrost vents when the car is out in the sun all day and I couldn't turn it off or on, nothing works. I took it back to the same dealer and they said I have to replace the condenser, evaporator that cost approximately $1500.00. That was less then 1 year of ownership and less than 90K miles. Dealer won't refund the controler cost and the BBB is powerless. Things like these that steer me away from Chrysler or Dodge product. Also, water pumps in these are like spark plugs. You have to change often.
I guess some people just have a reading comprehension problem here. You can sit there and cry BS till you're blue in the face. I really don't give a rat's [non-permissible content removed] what you believe or what your opinion is about he reliability of Toyota. I know for a FACT that my Toyota's have been MUCH more reliable then any other brand I've owned. I don't care if your cousins, brothers, half sisters, mongoloid nanny had a Camry that the clutch went out on after 300 miles.
Now then, once again somone claims that the reason Dodge has a lower reliability rating then Toyota is because they sell so many more. Nice try, but you want to talk raw figures, then why does Ford, who outsells Dodge by 10 to 1 have a much higher relibility rating then Dodge?
All that crap about work trucks, please. I'm 10 times harder on a vehicle then any farmer, or construction worker is. If you don't believe me come spend a week riding around with me. I'll have to warn you though, not too many people that know me would take that offer. It's real simple, if you're really fed up with reading about how reliable Toyota's are, then go read an Old3 topic.
Someone seems to think Tundras cost only about $1,000-$2,000 more than Dakota. Try again. I priced both, and Tundra was $4,000 more! Partly because they were less likely to negotiate, and had a bit of an arrogant attitude. Drove by two Toyota dealers the other day, and they each have at least 20 Tundras on the lot, and probably more out back. Anyway, my claim is simple: I've had good luck with 5 different Dodge's, and I love em. I don't care that much about someone elses opinion on reliability, or that so and so survey company says 3.6% of Toyota buyers have problems, versus 5.1% of Dodge buyers and 4.8% of Ford or whatever. It's nice to have the information, but there are many other factors to consider, and most of them more important, at least to me. Cars are built better today than ever before, and chances are very good that everyone reading this will have a good experience with their car or truck. Just enjoy your choice, and good luck, no matter what you drive.
You did not comprehend my post #102. I did not say Dodges are less reliable because they sell more trucks. Also, who says Fords are more reliable, some magazine or survey company? Too many of them provide biased or contradicting information. Look at Consumer Reports ratings. I see just as many black circles with the Fords as I do the Dodge. They rate the Toyotas very highly, but again, only a few percentage points difference seperates above average from below average.
A good comprehension on surveys can be had by looking at the esteemed J.d. Powers report.Dodge and Chevy both claim to be the longest lasting trucks on the road according to this report.At first glance you kinda go "HUH?".But on reading the fine print you will see they are talking about different years,I think this illustrates the validity of these reports.Also,they never asked me about any of the Dozen Mopars I've owned,they have all been virtually bulletproof.I never owned a Toymota but I probably would have the same luck.This is because apparently I know what I am looking for when I buy a vehicle and I take good care of my vehicles,or else I am just super lucky. A news flash for everyone who believes all this survey and stories crap...ALL OF THE TRUCKS BEING SOLD TODAY ARE MADE BASICALLY THE SAME WAY,WITH THE SAME TECHNIQUES,AND MANY OF THE SAME PARTS SUPPLIERS.That guy complaining about the parts on his Dodges air conditioning may find out if he checked that the same manufacturer made the parts in his Toymota. Another point I make about this stuff about Toymota building trucks in the US is this.Toymota is not contracted with the UAW,it does not build union,it does not pay union rates and union benefits to its employee's.I know many of you may think the unions are the scourge of the earth,but I will not even go into the benefits unions brought all American workers(such as standard 8 hour days,weekends off,safety in the work place etc.)You will all do what you will but I will not support a company that does not support its workers and my American way of life.Especailly when I don't feel it has a superior product. Further,I am a carpenter and I can restrain from using profanity in this forum I would appreciate it if others will too.I know some may be too dim-witted to express thier views without it.Please consider that someone's child may be reading this.
had one and it was junk (Tacoma). But it's just my opinion, which is something you toy people need to realize - if you like it great, get one. If you need to justify you purchase by splatting out how reliable it is, we can argue all day long...
A big thing to consider is whether reliability per se is a great issue in the first place. The majority of new car and truck buyers will only own their vehicles for 5 years or less before trading in. I don't care about individuals who respond by saying they have put 500,000 miles on their truck in 20 years, that is why I said the majority.
Given that the reliability, real or perceived, is largely irrelevant. What is more of an issue is build quality - the difference being not how long a widget will last through normal wear and tear, but what percentage fail through production or design quality issues. You would expect Japanese and European vehicles to last longer than American because quality controls on production lines tend to have much lower tolerances. This is nothing to do with 'building better' it is because vehicles are much more expensive in those domestic markets and vehicles tend to be owned longer - hence reliability becomes a greater issue and consumers demand these things. In North America that just isn't the case - especially in the truck market.
For the same reason Japanese vehicles have thinner sheet metal than North American vehicles - cheaper to ship and more fuel efficeint - a big issue in parts of the world where gas is much more expensive. Does this matter - to some it will, some not. Most people will say who cares, simply because as I said 5 years is a long time for a first owner, so rust issues won't be major. Gotta wonder whether Tacoma would have such a lousy side impact rating with thicker sheet metal though. Tundra side impact rating due February.
Hey, the only comparisons in reliability I'm talking about is the ones I've done myself. As for the Ford, Chrysler comparisons, I mentioned this in another topic. Here in Texas, they published the 10 most returned vehicles due to lemon law. 7 were GM's 3 were Chryslers. Not a single Ford in that list. No bias, no self intrest. In order to get a lemon law return here, a vehicle has to have the same problem occur 3 times. Use your own deduction, maybe you come up with a different answer. To ME it says stay away from GM and Chrysler products.
BTW, I'm looking at Consumer Reports as I'm typing this and guess what, there are more black circles on the Dodge then there are on the Ford. In fact the Ford doesn't have any and Dodge has 3. Maybe you have a different issue then I do???
A couple of your statements are incorrect. The sheet metal on the Tundra is actually the same guage as the siverado. If you don't believe me, take a micrometer and measure them. I measured on the inside lip of the bed since this is where it's a single layered edge on both trucks. I haven't measured the tacoma sheet metal but it doesn't appear any thinner to the touch than any domestic. If the tacoma has bad side impact ratings it's more to do with the structure of the protective door beams than sheetmetal thickness. My saturn has good side impact ratings and the door panels are plastic!
Which ones. Your post says Silverado has the same guage sheet metal as Tundra - I don't know whether it does or it doesn't - I never claimed otherwise.
Tacoma side impact weakness because of structure - maybe, I never claimed otherwise - I said that I couldn't help wondering what the rating would have been with thicker sheet metal.
It is a fact (for the reasons I stated) that Japanese cars generally have thinner sheet metal (if I made a mistake in the first post it was missing out 'generally'). I also stated that it wouldn't matter to some people.
Please, if you are going to say things like "a couple of your statements are incorrect", back it up. You highlighted nothing that I said that was incorrect. I was careful in my post to be objective, but please, if I was wrong - tell me where. Your post highlighted absolutely nothing that I said that was incorrect - despite your first sentence.
Incidentally - I am not sure that all of the sheet metal thicknesses can be deduced by measuring the inside lip of the bed. Don't rant at that - read it again I AM NOT SURE not YOU ARE WRONG.
Thank you for selectively quoting me - are you a journalist?
As I said in my post build quality is much more important for the majority of owners than long term reliability. You could make an argument that reliability is an issue in terms of residual value because it is a bigger issue in the used market. I am not sure how much of an issue this is with trucks given that they are supposed to be worked hard anyway (again NOT SURE).
I stand by my post - which incidentally made no comments on build quality of any manufacturer, good or bad. As I have said once today already, my post was objective.
I am getting about 15.5 average with all around town driving. Not bad for a truck, but not as impressive as it could be. I am doing a road trip tomorrow so we will see what she gets on the Highways. BTW, I only have 3100 miles on it so it may get better, but I have driven trucks long enough to know that if you buy a truck and complain about mileage, you shoulda bought a car. I mean bad mileage in a truck is ok by me, as long as the performance is there and decent to good mileage is a bonus. To me 15.5 around town is enough to put a smile on my face. Although I would like to get the mileage some of the Silverado owners have reported but, our axel ratios are pretty high at 3.92, compared to the Silverado's 3.42 or 3.73.
I am getting about 15.5 average with all around town driving. Not bad for a truck, but not as impressive as it could be. I am doing a road trip tomorrow so we will see what she gets on the Highways. BTW, I only have 3100 miles on it so it may get better, but I have driven trucks long enough to know that if you buy a truck and complain about mileage, you shoulda bought a car. I mean bad mileage in a truck is ok by me, as long as the performance is there and decent to good mileage is a bonus. To me 15.5 around town is enough to put a smile on my face. Although I would like to get the mileage some of the Silverado owners have reported but, our axel ratios are pretty high at 3.92, compared to the Silverado's 3.42 or 3.73.
My quad cab, with 1200 miles, is getting about 13.5 mpg city, and 17.5 highway. I am watching the numbers carefully, and they are slowly climbing. Thats on a 4.7L, auto 4x2, 3.92 rear, with the a/c on (I'm in S. Florida). BTW, at first I didnt trust the trip computer mileage, and it wasnt right on at first, but the last two fillups its been dead on (compared to actual miles, divided by gallons pumped). I think the computer has "learned". Also, my city driving can easily be quite different from someone elses, so its hard to compare, not to mention highway driving. Steady driving at 60 mph can easily get you about 2 mpg more than 70 mph, at least according to the "computer". The engine revs at 2600 rpm at 70.
I've driven Dakotas. I own a Tundra. The Dakota is a fine truck. I almost bought one but backed out due to concerns over poor offset crash testing and the many reliability problems I read on posts here, as well as my previous experience with a Ram and numerous incompetent and dishonest Dodge dealer service shops(botched 3 tranny repairs, couldn't fix rear drum brakes that don't work, even put on front brake pads improperly, causing near total brake failure) The Dakota has many good design features. But the Dakota is no Tundra. For the money though, it's a good alternative if you're a low-payment buyer.
If you feel your misquoted or misunderstood by so many of us, then I suggest you post what you mean....EXACTLY. You make inferences and innuendo in your writing and get mad if people interpret your text in a different way than you meant.
Where ya been ol' timer. have you been sick or is that prostate actin' up again. I was beginning to worry about you and I'm truly happy to see your alive and kickin'!
Ok What I mean exactly is this(just so noone misunderstands).I have owned a dozen Mopars(that is Dodges,Plymouths and Chryslers for the unknowing).All you Toymota guys keep telling me my trucks are inferior and unreliable.Adding ALL the repair bills on all my trucks throughout all the years I have owned them would not equal $1000.00.I have NEVER been left stranded by any of my trucks or cars.The only time I was stranded by a car it was my wifes Eagle Talon(which is JAPANESE).If you think your Toymota is so tough I invite you to sit in it and I will give you a mighty Mopar side impact with my Ram.After you get done crying you will wish you drove a REAL american truck.This crap about Toymota reliability is very understandable though,what other claims would Toymota make.Don't have no power to pull,can't carry no weight.I know they get good gas mileage...so does a Sprint.I try to be nice and not put other people's trucks down but I am sick of hearing about Toymota reliability,when the only thing they got to go on is Consumer Reports.This is the same great magazine that figured out an Suv would rollover if you cranked the wheel hard at fifty. I have a friend who bought a Toy with 270,000 miles on it.I said I didn't think they marked over 100,000 miles in the '80's.His answer was that as bad as the body was and as much oil as it used it must have rolled over twice it couldn't have just 70,000 miles on it because Toymotas run forever.How many people filled out the mileage on thier surveys the same way.By the way a few months later he contacted the original owner and found out the truck really did have only 65,000 miles on it,about a year before my buddy bought it.
Obviously, you're less biased than Consumer Reports, and your statistical methods and analyses are superior, indeed, ground breaking.
Apparently, you've discovered a way to get around the normal problem of small sample size, which let's you draw valid conclusions about millions of trucks from a sample size of, what is it, twelve Mopars and one Toyota.
I congratulate you. I never should have spent all that time studying statistics. It was clearly wasted.
So, I'm ready to cancel my subscription to CR. When are you going to begin publishing your results?
To anyone - find one of my posts, copy the phrase that bothers you and ask me to explain - I will do. I want to see these innuendos and inferences.
I am not being sarcastic - do it, but don't paraphrase, and don't miss out words that don't suit you. My first language is English, not American English, maybe that is part of it - I am also aware that wit and sarcasm don't always come across well in the written word and so if I am going to use them I make it obvious.
I have had enough of the attacks and backstabbing - if you have a problem with what I wrote - tell me what and where and I will try and explain - if not back off.
This is a worthwhile discussion that is not served by anyone accusing people of things that were never intended.
One factor in my future truck buying is the size, and based on the size I'd say that the Tundra and Dakota are great comparables. I'm comparing extended cab, short bed V8s for my purchase. I have found the Silverado to be too large for me to be comfortable driving, so I'm looking at the mid-size class, non-existant as it is.
Anyway, it seems to me that the Tundra has a couple of things going for it compared to the Dakota: Longer bed, 4x8s can lie between the wheelwells, it's supposed to have a higher payload and towing capacity (with the V8, and has a better reputation for reliability. Now, the Dakota has more room in the Quad cab, which is not a concern for me, but gas milage sounds similar, and I was pretty much scared off by the horrible off-set crash test results Brusec35 also referred to.
So I would ask this: with the 5.7L V8 in the Dakota, how do the payloads/towing compare, what's the gas mileage?
I'm certainly interested in crash-testing of the Tundra, and have to look at the economics of buying a Dakota, but the reliabilty and safety issues along with the work capacity have me leaning towards the Tundra pretty heavily again.
The Tundra link also has mileage estimates, but I don't know whether they are accurate - existing owners will be able to tell you. I don't know what the estimates are for Dakota but my V8 club cab started around 15-16mpg and now that it is run in is nearer 16.5 - 18mpg.
You may also want to look at www.nhtsa.gov which has front and side impact ratings for all vehicles. I think front impact (as opposed to offset) are similar between the two, side impact is due next month for Tundra - not sure about Dakota.
I wasn't aware that Tundra had a longer bed than Dakota - certainly for quad, but I think dimensions are pretty similar between club and Tundra - around 6 1/2 ft. Certainly a 4x8 will lay flat in both with the gate dropped.
Look at the various topics here for information on both as well, there is some amongst all the vitriol. My preference is obvious from my posts, but once more I have attempted to make this post objective.
Never the less I am sure that I have upset someone.
Here's one thing to consider when you're looking at crash test results.
The government's front impact test and the Insurance Institute for Highway Saftey's offset test are both intended to measure the same thing: how well a vehicle fares in a front-end collision.
I think a consensus may be forming, at least among consumer oriented groups, that the offset test is better at predicting real world performance in this respect.
The Dakota did well in the goverment's front and side impact tests, but it did poorly in Insurance Institute's offset test.
I don't know how the Tundra did on the government's tests. The Insurance Institute hasn't tested it, and I'm not sure they will. For some reason, they've never tested pickups other than compacts (a category that included the Dakota).
Thanks for the help Andy. I've been lurking on Tundra topics, as well as some others for about six months now, so I'm well aware of the vitriol and most regular posters' biases.
I thought that I had read in someone's post on a Tundra topic that a 4x8 piece of wood wouldn't fit between the Dakota's wheelwells. I also read that with the quad cab (isn't this the extended cab with extra doors?) the bed is only 5.5', but maybe they were referring to the new crew cab. Obviously I have done little research on the Dakota. I saw the IIHS crash test on TV before I even switched jobs (the reason I am buying a truck), and didn't even bother looking at it. Now I figure I should make a thorough search as I am about ready to buy in the next couple of months. My understanding is that noone has tested the Tundra for crash-worthiness, so I figure I'll make sure I see that before I buy. I hope they test it for off-set so I can make a fair comparison to the Dakota.
Dakota club cab - 6'6" bed, two doors, small back seat Dakota quad cab - 5'3" bed, four full size front hinged doors - the new one.
Just looked on the Dodge site and they quote width between wheel housings as 45.1", so around 3" short of 4'. Tundra is 49.3". So you are right, in that respect. Tundra also has a slightly wider bed 61.2" vs 59.3".
Dakota (club) is actually a longer bed 78" vs 76.5" and also deeper 17.5" vs 16.7".
This translates into around 46.8 cu ft on Dakota and 45.2 cu ft on Tundra - both less the wheel wells. I calculated those figures and couldn't be bothered to try and factor that into it - it won't make much difference - call it around 3% more volume in Dakota.
I wouldn't count on an offset test for the Tundra.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is the U.S. government agency that does crash testing. They'll probably test the Tundra, but they don't use the offset method.
As I mentioned in a prior post, the Insurance Institute is the entity that does the offset testing (not affiliated with the U.S. government), but for whatever reason, they don't seem to test anything but compact trucks.
An article in the Jan edition of Sport Truck magazine describes a lawsuit against DC. Consumers were misled into believing that their 98/99 model Dakota R/T trucks could tow 6,400 lbs when in actuality all it could handle was 2,000 lbs. All the owners were notified and 64 demanded buybacks. The attorny for the original plaintiff says the letter sent by DC didn't mention the buyback option. "they're not telling everybody if their going to buy these trucks back," he says. "we think people should be given the option"
Geez... I must have struck a nerve.This is very funny to me,I point out that I have not had bad experiances with a dozen Mopar's and suddenly I am engadged in a statistics battle.I was trying to show the unreliablility of statistics in general,and if you are such a statistics expert then you must agree that statistics have too many variables to really give any concrete data. It is nice how you attack me for owning 12 good Mopars and saying I think they are reliable but say nothing to people who say they have had one bad Mopar and a couple of good Toymotas.Seems they are in no better position to say anything than I am about both vehicles.I know a lady that dumped two trannys on her Honda Accord but insisted it was not Honda's fault because Honda builds good cars.She was partially right Honda does build good cars,just hers wasn't one of them.But this kind of attitude does tend to make you wonder how she would rate her Honda on a survey compared to a guy who bought a domestic because the price was right,even though he heard from his cousin's,uncle's,mother's,brother that the car was unreliable.Obviously the Lady would fill out her survey that her car is good(because it wasn't typical Honda so it must have been a fluke),and the guy will fill his out that his car is junk because he was warned and just knew eventually his car would break. Now,only a moron would say that he would feel more comfortable in a side impact in a Tacoma than any fullsize truck(Tundra included).My point here is that those of you that are so worried about safety should not bother looking at a Tacoma at all,but at a fullsize,5200 lbs of steel will always hurt 3000 pounds of steel very badly.My own personal opinion is that I would rather have the truck I want and realize that all accidents are different and even a truck with a good rating may not fair as good in a crash as another just because the wide array of circumstances invovled in a crash. I was in a plucky mood when I wrote the last post I want to say that if somebody likes thier Toymota that is fine with me,I think they make fine trucks.But I also think the other manufacturers do to,I wanted to say that I have never had problems with my Dodge trucks,and I thought that Dodge should have thier side of the story in here too.I just think it is insane to spend alot of extra money on a truck just because rumor has it that it is more reliable.Remember that the Tundra is a totally new vehicle as is the Dakota.But Dodge has many,many decades of experiance building truck V8's,Toymota has no experiance building truck V8's.You are all lab rats,but at least the Dakota buyers surgeon isn't straight out of college,wet behind the ears.Toyota will find out it is alot easier to build a tough four banger,than a tough V8.
You did strike a nerve, but not the one you think. I’ve got nothing against the Dakota. In fact, it’s likely that I’ll be buying a Quad Cab this spring or summer.
What DOES get me is your explicit assumption that statistics don’t prove anything, and your implicit assumption that your personal experiences do. Please don’t take this personally. You’re not the only intelligent person out there who thinks this way. I just happened to respond to your post.
In my opinion, which I believe is an informed one, statistics are far more useful for assessing the relative reliability of two vehicles than are personal stories. In other words, I flatly disagree with your statement that "statistics have too many variables to really give any concrete data." That is precisely the function of good statistical analyses—to attempt to draw useful and valid conclusions from seemingly chaotic data.
Another way to look at is this. If a Martian came down to Earth and asked which truck is more reliable, I think he would get a better answer by looking at Consumer Reports than by posting the question in this or any other forum and then reading the things that individual owners have to say about their trucks.
Neither source of information is perfect, but the statistics are more likely to give him the true answer.
Now, as to the more substantive question, the statistics clearly show that the odds of getting a lemon are higher if you buy a Dodge than if you buy a Toyota. Any given person may get an unreliable Toyota or a reliable Dodge, but if you buy a Tundra, the odds are that it will be more reliable than a Dakota. The fact that you or others have had reliable Dodges doesn’t change this.
However, as I also said in a previous post, this isn’t the end of the story. As someone else noted, all vehicles sold these days, including the Dakota, are pretty reliable, and for some buyers, including me, the differences may not be enough to make or break a purchase.
Finally, as I mentioned at the beginning of this post, I am currently in the market for a new truck, and the Dakota is at the top of my list. I really think that, in terms of design, Dodge has a winner. But, if I buy it, it will be in full knowledge that it is likely to be less reliable than the Tundra.
I actually agree with both of you guys in different areas. Statistics do have thier place but they have severe limitations such as how the data is collected and what it is trying to show. Both Dodge and Chevy are currently claiming rights to the longest lasting trucks on the road. Both are correct because what years they are referring to. Statistics can and frequently are slanted to prove a point. Consumer reports in my buyers guide has conflicting information on dodge's reliability from one section of the book to another. Consumer reports also has a very limited sample of testers and because of this they definately have strong bias of opinion. On this board at least people can tell it like it is or at least how they think it is and you can get a very real sense of customer satisfaction or not. Regarding slanting statistics there is the old story of asking an accountant what 2+2 is and him replying "What would you like it to be".
Don't forget that Consumer Reports bases their reliablity ratings not on in-house testers, but on thousands of surveys filled in by readers.
I know this has limitations, but effectively, it's like getting stories from thousands of owners rather than from the few dozen like you do here.
Also, of all the sources out there, Consumer Reports is, in my opinion, the most unbiased. They don't accept any advertising and they don't allow any manufacturers to use their ratings in ads.
Consumers Guide, on the other hand, does accept advertising and does allow their ratings to be used in product ads, as do all of the auto mags, and all of the major auto-related Web sites.
While CR may have biases, I think those biases are far less likely to affect the way they review and rank products than the biases of these other sources of information.
CR gets ALL their funding from you and me. The rest of these sources get the lion's share of their funding from ads paid for by the Companies whose prodcuts they review.
Many years ago, in a quantitative analysis class (my toughest in 4 years at the Univ. of Florida) the professor said, "statistics are like a bikini: what they reveal is interesting, what they conceal is vital". How true. I'm reminded of the old Russian, who claimed they raced one of their Lada's with an American muscle car. He said the Russian car finished second, while the American finished next to last. Too many of these tests can be misconstrued, and all kinds of spin can be put on them. As for crash tests, the Dakota has done well in the 2 government tests, but poorly in the insurance institutes offset test. Now, I wouldn't take any of the tests too seriously, because even many of the engineers disagree with the validity of some of the tests. You see, there is no way they can test for every possible scenario in a real world accident. A few inches one way or another can make a big difference in the crash results. As for reliability, as I've said several times before, I'm sure the Tundra will be a reliable truck, but I'm not counting the Dakota out. The Big 3 have made enormous strides in the past 10 years, and the reliability gap is closing. If Toyotas have a 3% failure rate, versus 6% for Dodge, (as I read somewhere) a Toyota guy might tell me my truck is twice as likely to break down, and he might be right. But in reality the difference is only 3%, and I'll take my chances on being one of the 94% who report no serious problems.
Parked right next to a Tundra SR5 today in a parking lot with my QC Dakota. The suspension is what makes for the height difference between the 2 trucks. The Tundra is 4" higher and 3.5" wider overall. The suspension, even in 4x2, probably makes all the difference in the height. Too bad for my Dakota that for all but a stinkin 3" in width, I could lay a sheet of plywood or drywall flat in the bed. That 3" is also about all that keeps the Dakota from being virtually identical in size to the Tundra. You'd think they could find another 1.5" in each wheelwell, but they might have to redesign (widen) the axle, and the beancounters wouldn't like that. Besides, then they'd also be competing with the Ram!
I am not saying that Consumer Reports is biased I am saying that many people who fill out thier surveys are more than likely swayed by what they feel is correct to say,because of what they believe is the reputation of the vehicle in question.Case in point...Many people will tell you that a Jeep Wrangler will go places off road that no other vehicle can go.This is the Jeep reputation,but it is not the truth.However it will invoke that response if you polled many people. I think that basing a several thousand dollar desicion on a reputation is unwise. The majority of people in here are going to have to keep a truck for several years after they buy it.I will tell you that if you say you like the Dakota better but bought the Tundra because it is reputed to be more reliable than the Dakota,you will wind up regreting your desicion.It is tough to drive the vehicle you settled for because of some obscure reason,and see the vehicle you wanted drive by you every day.I know this for a fact,I bought a Dakota,even though I always wanted a Ram.I thought I would like it better because of the gas mileage,ride,etc..I soon found that every day I drove the Dakota I was more disappointed that I didn't buy the Ram.I traded the Dakota in on a Ram and have never owned anything since.Moral of the story...Buy a vehicle for real,fathomable differences,not because of paranoid fears.Remember,this is Toymota's first attempt at a V8 and only time will tell if they got it right.Four and six cylinder engines are naturally strong,think about it,not as much torque but nearly the same size mains,and a shorter crank,lighter rotating mass,etc. I have never said Toyota's are bad trucks,I have never said that the dozen Mopars I own mean anything about the total picture.I simply say that in reality I don't think anyone knows for sure what truck is the best,unless you can count every single truck made and have its repair history recorded by an unbiased party using the same parameters for what constitutes a major or minor repair,and if you can do that then you got way too much time on your hands.I am willing to bet that when all is said and done you would find out that your chances are just about equal with any brand.
tgr1: There is no question that bad statistics are worse than no statistics. However, the whole point of good quantitative analysis is to provide useful information, and, take this for what it's worth, I trust Consumer Reports to do their stats right.
On crash testing, we agree. I think in some ways it is more art than science, but to tell you the truth, I don't know much about it. I've heard that the offset test is a better indicator of real world crash test performance, from sources I trust, but I've not spent a lot of time reading about it.
morparmad: I think the way Consumers conducts their surveys minimizes this kind of problem. They don't ask "how reliable was your car". They ask stuff like "did you have a transmission problem in the last year". Still not perfect, and won't eliminate the kind of survey bias you refer to, but again, I trust them to do the stats right. There is a whole theory and methodology for doing surveys, and I have no doubt they have first rate statisticians working for them.
On the choice of truck, I'm struggling with the very point you're making, but I think you're right in some ways. If I end up with the Tundra, I'll probably be pissed every time I have to cram someone into that miserable back seat!
I hit post by accident (instead of spell check) When I saw you had posted the same thing as me I scribbled my post. I heard the bikini thing about 20 years ago and had not thought about in since.
Ok one other thought.If we assume that Consumer reports stats are as correct as possible but realize that there is room for error.And by your own admission figure the difference between Dodge and Toymota is only 3%.Then isn't it safe to say that it only takes a 3% error in the raw data to make these trucks equal in reliability.Obviously there must be room for error,otherwise they would be called facts,not stats,and 3% room for error is more than possible.Thus my point,it is quite possible that it really doesn't matter what you buy in terms of reliability.Now if you do believe intirely in stats then a Toyota man is in for some confusion.Toyota according to Consumer reports is more reliable than Dodge,thus Toyota fans say if you plan to keep your truck buy a Toyota.However according to JD Powers Dodge's and Chevy's are the longest lasting trucks on the road. My biggest concern is that people who like the Dakota better might decide to buy the Tundra just on this reliability issue,which is very hard for anyone to prove to be true.And I can say from personal experience that they will regret it.
Me for only just responding to post #147 concernint R/T towing, and rwellbaum2 for just finding out about it.
Can't recall when the case was filed - September / October I believe. Anyway, I posted about it then to all the relevant topics - well done rwellbaum2 for catching up.
Anyway, as this is now ancient history most of the problems have been resolved. I believe the court case is still pending but all affected R/T owners have been contacted and offered alternatives. I don't know the details, but it appears to have been a DC snafu that caused all of the mess in the first place.
Oh and incidentally, if any of the Tundra owners want to take issue with my post bear this in mind. It doesn't matter what I post a group of you assume that I am Tundra bashing, being sarcastic etc. etc. I issued a challenge in this forum last week to call me on any post - since then you have all been rather quiet - so put up or carry on shutting up.
One more point on this then I'll shut up. If Consumers did their stats right, the differences they observed should be "statistically significant."
This means that, even accounting for the kind of errors you cite, the differences they observed in their sample data (the surveys they collected from their subscribers) are big enough to allow them to conclude there is a real difference in the population (all cars or trucks of a particular model made by a particular manufacturer in a particular year).
In other words, a 3% difference should be greater than the margin of error, so that it is likely that the difference is "real", even though it is small.
Of course, this doesn't address your two earlier points. First, is this small difference enough to worry about and, second, do people's personal biases affect the way they fill out the surveys?
The first point is a matter for each of us to decide. The second can only be addressed by proper survey design (and I'm simply assuming Consumers did this right).
The problem is in gathering the data. The larger the population, the smaller the margin of error.
By the time you have a large enough population to be significant, the data is old, the world has moved on.
Take the Tacoma for example. When it first comes out, CU gives it a reliability rating of better than average, based on experience from previous models. Later on, as the problems crop up, like leaking head gaskets, the rating either changes to "worse than average," or it is bogus.
But the real problem is you can't forecast the future based on past, so the best you can do is make predictions, which often are wrong, as was the case when Dewey beat Roosevelt. (Not!)
Benjamin Franklin said, "..for those who would trade liberty for safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Bottom line, it's a 100% certainty that Tundra, like all other models, is going to need repairs to stay viable. Toyota service departments are in no danger of closing, technicians are at no risk of losing jobs.
Comments
rs_petty - you are claiming that the SLT model stickered at 23,400 - probably about right - but add 4wd, drop down to the sport package and the price goes up 6k - I don't think so.
Your comparison of Silverado / Tundra seems a bit pointless, presumably if you are here at all you can see that there is a lot of truth in saying that Tundra isn't full size - so you might as well compare 1/2 ton with 3/4 ton pricing.
That was less then 1 year of ownership and less than 90K miles. Dealer won't refund the controler cost and the BBB is powerless.
Things like these that steer me away from Chrysler or Dodge product. Also, water pumps in these are like spark plugs. You have to change often.
Now then, once again somone claims that the reason Dodge has a lower reliability rating then Toyota is because they sell so many more. Nice try, but you want to talk raw figures, then why does Ford, who outsells Dodge by 10 to 1 have a much higher relibility rating then Dodge?
All that crap about work trucks, please. I'm 10 times harder on a vehicle then any farmer, or construction worker is. If you don't believe me come spend a week riding around with me. I'll have to warn you though, not too many people that know me would take that offer. It's real simple, if you're really fed up with reading about how reliable Toyota's are, then go read an Old3 topic.
A news flash for everyone who believes all this survey and stories crap...ALL OF THE TRUCKS BEING SOLD TODAY ARE MADE BASICALLY THE SAME WAY,WITH THE SAME TECHNIQUES,AND MANY OF THE SAME PARTS SUPPLIERS.That guy complaining about the parts on his Dodges air conditioning may find out if he checked that the same manufacturer made the parts in his Toymota.
Another point I make about this stuff about Toymota building trucks in the US is this.Toymota is not contracted with the UAW,it does not build union,it does not pay union rates and union benefits to its employee's.I know many of you may think the unions are the scourge of the earth,but I will not even go into the benefits unions brought all American workers(such as standard 8 hour days,weekends off,safety in the work place etc.)You will all do what you will but I will not support a company that does not support its workers and my American way of life.Especailly when I don't feel it has a superior product.
Further,I am a carpenter and I can restrain from using profanity in this forum I would appreciate it if others will too.I know some may be too dim-witted to express thier views without it.Please consider that someone's child may be reading this.
Given that the reliability, real or perceived, is largely irrelevant. What is more of an issue is build quality - the difference being not how long a widget will last through normal wear and tear, but what percentage fail through production or design quality issues. You would expect Japanese and European vehicles to last longer than American because quality controls on production lines tend to have much lower tolerances. This is nothing to do with 'building better' it is because vehicles are much more expensive in those domestic markets and vehicles tend to be owned longer - hence reliability becomes a greater issue and consumers demand these things. In North America that just isn't the case - especially in the truck market.
For the same reason Japanese vehicles have thinner sheet metal than North American vehicles - cheaper to ship and more fuel efficeint - a big issue in parts of the world where gas is much more expensive. Does this matter - to some it will, some not. Most people will say who cares, simply because as I said 5 years is a long time for a first owner, so rust issues won't be major. Gotta wonder whether Tacoma would have such a lousy side impact rating with thicker sheet metal though. Tundra side impact rating due February.
BTW, I'm looking at Consumer Reports as I'm typing this and guess what, there are more black circles on the Dodge then there are on the Ford. In fact the Ford doesn't have any and Dodge has 3. Maybe you have a different issue then I do???
Which ones. Your post says Silverado has the same guage sheet metal as Tundra - I don't know whether it does or it doesn't - I never claimed otherwise.
Tacoma side impact weakness because of structure - maybe, I never claimed otherwise - I said that I couldn't help wondering what the rating would have been with thicker sheet metal.
It is a fact (for the reasons I stated) that Japanese cars generally have thinner sheet metal (if I made a mistake in the first post it was missing out 'generally'). I also stated that it wouldn't matter to some people.
Please, if you are going to say things like "a couple of your statements are incorrect", back it up. You highlighted nothing that I said that was incorrect. I was careful in my post to be objective, but please, if I was wrong - tell me where. Your post highlighted absolutely nothing that I said that was incorrect - despite your first sentence.
Incidentally - I am not sure that all of the sheet metal thicknesses can be deduced by measuring the inside lip of the bed. Don't rant at that - read it again I AM NOT SURE not YOU ARE WRONG.
Or, does the definition of reliable differ up there in Canada? I look forward to your reply.
As I said in my post build quality is much more important for the majority of owners than long term reliability. You could make an argument that reliability is an issue in terms of residual value because it is a bigger issue in the used market. I am not sure how much of an issue this is with trucks given that they are supposed to be worked hard anyway (again NOT SURE).
I stand by my post - which incidentally made no comments on build quality of any manufacturer, good or bad. As I have said once today already, my post was objective.
Your mileage (15's) is ok, better than the old (302, 305, and 318), but not as good as the new 5.3L GM. Axle ratio is a little higher...
I have a friend who bought a Toy with 270,000 miles on it.I said I didn't think they marked over 100,000 miles in the '80's.His answer was that as bad as the body was and as much oil as it used it must have rolled over twice it couldn't have just 70,000 miles on it because Toymotas run forever.How many people filled out the mileage on thier surveys the same way.By the way a few months later he contacted the original owner and found out the truck really did have only 65,000 miles on it,about a year before my buddy bought it.
Obviously, you're less biased than Consumer Reports, and your statistical methods and analyses are superior, indeed, ground breaking.
Apparently, you've discovered a way to get around the normal problem of small sample size, which let's you draw valid conclusions about millions of trucks from a sample size of, what is it, twelve Mopars and one Toyota.
I congratulate you. I never should have spent all that time studying statistics. It was clearly wasted.
So, I'm ready to cancel my subscription to CR. When are you going to begin publishing your results?
I am not being sarcastic - do it, but don't paraphrase, and don't miss out words that don't suit you. My first language is English, not American English, maybe that is part of it - I am also aware that wit and sarcasm don't always come across well in the written word and so if I am going to use them I make it obvious.
I have had enough of the attacks and backstabbing - if you have a problem with what I wrote - tell me what and where and I will try and explain - if not back off.
This is a worthwhile discussion that is not served by anyone accusing people of things that were never intended.
Anyway, it seems to me that the Tundra has a couple of things going for it compared to the Dakota: Longer bed, 4x8s can lie between the wheelwells, it's supposed to have a higher payload and towing capacity (with the V8, and has a better reputation for reliability. Now, the Dakota has more room in the Quad cab, which is not a concern for me, but gas milage sounds similar, and I was pretty much scared off by the horrible off-set crash test results Brusec35 also referred to.
So I would ask this: with the 5.7L V8 in the Dakota, how do the payloads/towing compare, what's the gas mileage?
I'm certainly interested in crash-testing of the Tundra, and have to look at the economics of buying a Dakota, but the reliabilty and safety issues along with the work capacity have me leaning towards the Tundra pretty heavily again.
http://www.4adodge.com/glossary/charts/dakota_tow2.html
Not sure whether you were looking at club cab or quad cab, but both are there.
Tundras specs are here:
http://www.toyota.com/tundra/specs/chart.cgi?first=4x4&second=all
The Tundra link also has mileage estimates, but I don't know whether they are accurate - existing owners will be able to tell you. I don't know what the estimates are for Dakota but my V8 club cab started around 15-16mpg and now that it is run in is nearer 16.5 - 18mpg.
You may also want to look at www.nhtsa.gov which has front and side impact ratings for all vehicles. I think front impact (as opposed to offset) are similar between the two, side impact is due next month for Tundra - not sure about Dakota.
I wasn't aware that Tundra had a longer bed than Dakota - certainly for quad, but I think dimensions are pretty similar between club and Tundra - around 6 1/2 ft. Certainly a 4x8 will lay flat in both with the gate dropped.
Look at the various topics here for information on both as well, there is some amongst all the vitriol. My preference is obvious from my posts, but once more I have attempted to make this post objective.
Never the less I am sure that I have upset someone.
The government's front impact test and the Insurance Institute for Highway Saftey's offset test are both intended to measure the same thing: how well a vehicle fares in a front-end collision.
I think a consensus may be forming, at least among consumer oriented groups, that the offset test is better at predicting real world performance in this respect.
The Dakota did well in the goverment's front and side impact tests, but it did poorly in Insurance Institute's offset test.
I don't know how the Tundra did on the government's tests. The Insurance Institute hasn't tested it, and I'm not sure they will. For some reason, they've never tested pickups other than compacts (a category that included the Dakota).
I thought that I had read in someone's post on a Tundra topic that a 4x8 piece of wood wouldn't fit between the Dakota's wheelwells. I also read that with the quad cab (isn't this the extended cab with extra doors?) the bed is only 5.5', but maybe they were referring to the new crew cab. Obviously I have done little research on the Dakota. I saw the IIHS crash test on TV before I even switched jobs (the reason I am buying a truck), and didn't even bother looking at it. Now I figure I should make a thorough search as I am about ready to buy in the next couple of months. My understanding is that noone has tested the Tundra for crash-worthiness, so I figure I'll make sure I see that before I buy. I hope they test it for off-set so I can make a fair comparison to the Dakota.
Dakota club cab - 6'6" bed, two doors, small back seat
Dakota quad cab - 5'3" bed, four full size front hinged doors - the new one.
Just looked on the Dodge site and they quote width between wheel housings as 45.1", so around 3" short of 4'. Tundra is 49.3". So you are right, in that respect. Tundra also has a slightly wider bed 61.2" vs 59.3".
Dakota (club) is actually a longer bed 78" vs 76.5" and also deeper 17.5" vs 16.7".
This translates into around 46.8 cu ft on Dakota and 45.2 cu ft on Tundra - both less the wheel wells. I calculated those figures and couldn't be bothered to try and factor that into it - it won't make much difference - call it around 3% more volume in Dakota.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is the U.S. government agency that does crash testing. They'll probably test the Tundra, but they don't use the offset method.
As I mentioned in a prior post, the Insurance Institute is the entity that does the offset testing (not affiliated with the U.S. government), but for whatever reason, they don't seem to test anything but compact trucks.
Check out http://www.hwysafety.org/
An article in the Jan edition of Sport Truck magazine describes a lawsuit against DC. Consumers were misled into believing that their 98/99 model Dakota R/T trucks could tow 6,400 lbs when in actuality all it could handle was 2,000 lbs. All the owners were notified and 64 demanded buybacks. The attorny for the original plaintiff says the letter sent by DC didn't mention the buyback option. "they're not telling everybody if their going to buy these trucks back," he says. "we think people should be given the option"
Now,only a moron would say that he would feel more comfortable in a side impact in a Tacoma than any fullsize truck(Tundra included).My point here is that those of you that are so worried about safety should not bother looking at a Tacoma at all,but at a fullsize,5200 lbs of steel will always hurt 3000 pounds of steel very badly.My own personal opinion is that I would rather have the truck I want and realize that all accidents are different and even a truck with a good rating may not fair as good in a crash as another just because the wide array of circumstances invovled in a crash.
I was in a plucky mood when I wrote the last post I want to say that if somebody likes thier Toymota that is fine with me,I think they make fine trucks.But I also think the other manufacturers do to,I wanted to say that I have never had problems with my Dodge trucks,and I thought that Dodge should have thier side of the story in here too.I just think it is insane to spend alot of extra money on a truck just because rumor has it that it is more reliable.Remember that the Tundra is a totally new vehicle as is the Dakota.But Dodge has many,many decades of experiance building truck V8's,Toymota has no experiance building truck V8's.You are all lab rats,but at least the Dakota buyers surgeon isn't straight out of college,wet behind the ears.Toyota will find out it is alot easier to build a tough four banger,than a tough V8.
What DOES get me is your explicit assumption that statistics don’t prove anything, and your implicit assumption that your personal experiences do. Please don’t take this personally. You’re not the only intelligent person out there who thinks this way. I just happened to respond to your post.
In my opinion, which I believe is an informed one, statistics are far more useful for assessing the relative reliability of two vehicles than are personal stories. In other words, I flatly disagree with your statement that "statistics have too many variables to really give any concrete data." That is precisely the function of good statistical analyses—to attempt to draw useful and valid conclusions from seemingly chaotic data.
Another way to look at is this. If a Martian came down to Earth and asked which truck is more reliable, I think he would get a better answer by looking at Consumer Reports than by posting the question in this or any other forum and then reading the things that individual owners have to say about their trucks.
Neither source of information is perfect, but the statistics are more likely to give him the true answer.
Now, as to the more substantive question, the statistics clearly show that the odds of getting a lemon are higher if you buy a Dodge than if you buy a Toyota. Any given person may get an unreliable Toyota or a reliable Dodge, but if you buy a Tundra, the odds are that it will be more reliable than a Dakota. The fact that you or others have had reliable Dodges doesn’t change this.
However, as I also said in a previous post, this isn’t the end of the story. As someone else noted, all vehicles sold these days, including the Dakota, are pretty reliable, and for some buyers, including me, the differences may not be enough to make or break a purchase.
Finally, as I mentioned at the beginning of this post, I am currently in the market for a new truck, and the Dakota is at the top of my list. I really think that, in terms of design, Dodge has a winner. But, if I buy it, it will be in full knowledge that it is likely to be less reliable than the Tundra.
I know this has limitations, but effectively, it's like getting stories from thousands of owners rather than from the few dozen like you do here.
Also, of all the sources out there, Consumer Reports is, in my opinion, the most unbiased. They don't accept any advertising and they don't allow any manufacturers to use their ratings in ads.
Consumers Guide, on the other hand, does accept advertising and does allow their ratings to be used in product ads, as do all of the auto mags, and all of the major auto-related Web sites.
While CR may have biases, I think those biases are far less likely to affect the way they review and rank products than the biases of these other sources of information.
CR gets ALL their funding from you and me. The rest of these sources get the lion's share of their funding from ads paid for by the Companies whose prodcuts they review.
The majority of people in here are going to have to keep a truck for several years after they buy it.I will tell you that if you say you like the Dakota better but bought the Tundra because it is reputed to be more reliable than the Dakota,you will wind up regreting your desicion.It is tough to drive the vehicle you settled for because of some obscure reason,and see the vehicle you wanted drive by you every day.I know this for a fact,I bought a Dakota,even though I always wanted a Ram.I thought I would like it better because of the gas mileage,ride,etc..I soon found that every day I drove the Dakota I was more disappointed that I didn't buy the Ram.I traded the Dakota in on a Ram and have never owned anything since.Moral of the story...Buy a vehicle for real,fathomable differences,not because of paranoid fears.Remember,this is Toymota's first attempt at a V8 and only time will tell if they got it right.Four and six cylinder engines are naturally strong,think about it,not as much torque but nearly the same size mains,and a shorter crank,lighter rotating mass,etc.
I have never said Toyota's are bad trucks,I have never said that the dozen Mopars I own mean anything about the total picture.I simply say that in reality I don't think anyone knows for sure what truck is the best,unless you can count every single truck made and have its repair history recorded by an unbiased party using the same parameters for what constitutes a major or minor repair,and if you can do that then you got way too much time on your hands.I am willing to bet that when all is said and done you would find out that your chances are just about equal with any brand.
On crash testing, we agree. I think in some ways it is more art than science, but to tell you the truth, I don't know much about it. I've heard that the offset test is a better indicator of real world crash test performance, from sources I trust, but I've not spent a lot of time reading about it.
morparmad: I think the way Consumers conducts their surveys minimizes this kind of problem. They don't ask "how reliable was your car". They ask stuff like "did you have a transmission problem in the last year". Still not perfect, and won't eliminate the kind of survey bias you refer to, but again, I trust them to do the stats right. There is a whole theory and methodology for doing surveys, and I have no doubt they have first rate statisticians working for them.
On the choice of truck, I'm struggling with the very point you're making, but I think you're right in some ways. If I end up with the Tundra, I'll probably be pissed every time I have to cram someone into that miserable back seat!
My biggest concern is that people who like the Dakota better might decide to buy the Tundra just on this reliability issue,which is very hard for anyone to prove to be true.And I can say from personal experience that they will regret it.
Me for only just responding to post #147 concernint R/T towing, and rwellbaum2 for just finding out about it.
Can't recall when the case was filed - September / October I believe. Anyway, I posted about it then to all the relevant topics - well done rwellbaum2 for catching up.
Anyway, as this is now ancient history most of the problems have been resolved. I believe the court case is still pending but all affected R/T owners have been contacted and offered alternatives. I don't know the details, but it appears to have been a DC snafu that caused all of the mess in the first place.
Oh and incidentally, if any of the Tundra owners want to take issue with my post bear this in mind. It doesn't matter what I post a group of you assume that I am Tundra bashing, being sarcastic etc. etc. I issued a challenge in this forum last week to call me on any post - since then you have all been rather quiet - so put up or carry on shutting up.
This means that, even accounting for the kind of errors you cite, the differences they observed in their sample data (the surveys they collected from their subscribers) are big enough to allow them to conclude there is a real difference in the population (all cars or trucks of a particular model made by a particular manufacturer in a particular year).
In other words, a 3% difference should be greater than the margin of error, so that it is likely that the difference is "real", even though it is small.
Of course, this doesn't address your two earlier points. First, is this small difference enough to worry about and, second, do people's personal biases affect the way they fill out the surveys?
The first point is a matter for each of us to decide. The second can only be addressed by proper survey design (and I'm simply assuming Consumers did this right).
By the time you have a large enough population to be significant, the data is old, the world has moved on.
Take the Tacoma for example. When it first comes out, CU gives it a reliability rating of better than average, based on experience from previous models. Later on, as the problems crop up, like leaking head gaskets, the rating either changes to "worse than average," or it is bogus.
But the real problem is you can't forecast the future based on past, so the best you can do is make predictions, which often are wrong, as was the case when Dewey beat Roosevelt. (Not!)
Benjamin Franklin said, "..for those who would trade liberty for safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Bottom line, it's a 100% certainty that Tundra, like all other models, is going to need repairs to stay viable. Toyota service departments are in no danger of closing, technicians are at no risk of losing jobs.