Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Consumer Reports praises Toyota Tundra
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.
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.
Tagged:
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
purchased as work trucks as opposed to domestic
trucks?
You would be surprised! My county bought 18 of them.
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?
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!
and
Coors Light
.....just not at the same time
rwellbaum,
What did Bud say?
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.
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
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
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.
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
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?
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
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.
kyle
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.