Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Tundra vs the Big 3 Continued III

1…34689…11

Comments

  • cliffy1cliffy1 Member Posts: 3,581
    I had an odd customer last year on the Tundra. He was about 30 years old, didn't hunt or fish, had no intentions of driving off road, worked in an office in downtown Washington DC and had never owned a truck. I asked him why he wanted a truck and his answer almost made me laugh out loud. "Well, I know this may sound strange, but I believe a man should own a truck at some point in his life. I think women respect that."

    Well... OK. Whatever floats your boat man. I was actually a bit nervous about selling it to him. I was afraid that in two months he would regret his decision. He traded in a Nissan Altima and had some credit issues which would prevent him from getting out of this loan for at least 4 years.

    A week later, I called him to see how he w s enjoying the truck. "What did you sell me Cliffy?" Oh no, I thought. Here is comes. "What do you mean what did I sell you? I sold you a real nice truck" I responded. His response was, "My friend just bought a new Mercedes and my truck drives nicer than his Benz! What did you sell me!"

    I breathed a big sigh of relief and laughed with him. He couldn't get over the ride quality and said it just keeps getting better every time he drives it.
  • youbetchayoubetcha Member Posts: 26
    Yes, I meant Tundra, not Tacoma, forgive my error.
    A note on the size difference that seems to be an issue here. I didn't think it was that big of a deal. I know that people have different needs, etc., but, there is something stinging about the implication that size in vehicles has something to do with quality. If anything it favors the Tundra to have that good towing capacity and payload while being significantly smaller. I don't see how that is a disadvantage. It is kind of like having a 3rd row in a minivan... for most people, it will just eat up luggage space and hardly be used unless they have a big family. I doubt that people who own huge trucks (i.e. F350 dually, etc.) use that capacity even 50% of the time... I see those things on a regular basis hauling only groceries. Not to say that it isn't important. It is. But, there are other things that are much more important such as the things you would use on a daily basis (i.e. interior comfort, ride quality, handling, interior finish, etc.). The towing capacity for trucks is equivalent to the speed issue for sports cars. How many people actually take a corvette 160mph? Here in the Bay Area in traffic, it hardly matters... on a race track, yes, but, not in daily travel. So, please give appropriate weight to the towing spec. 7200lbs for the Tundra is pretty good... that is going to tow most things out there, and that isn't bad.
  • newtruckbuyernewtruckbuyer Member Posts: 3
    Some good rational points being made here. Nice posts F150 and youbetcha. Lets keep it up and forget about mudslinging!
  • bcobco Member Posts: 756
    i think what ryan was trying to say was that a less smooth ride is something most people in the market for a truck expect to, and are willing to accept. reasons for this were spelled out by f150rules. generally speaking...the higher the towing/hauling capacities of a truck, the "rougher" the empty ride is going to be.

    also, i don't know if you've seen it yet, but www.tundrasolutions.com has a good deal of input from tundra owners. both good and bad. if you haven't checked it out, you need to before you buy a tundra. why? because when you walk into your dealership you need to be armed to the teeth with questions to ask. when the '99 'rado had the serious vibe problems, i was waiting/looking at the '00s. i asked several dealerships about the vibe problem. of course, most said, "we don't know what you're talking about. we've never sold a truck that's had that problem." after some chuckling, i pulled out a string of posts from the silverado vibe thread going here at the time and showed them. i then explained to them that i understand a defective truck is not their fault. i just wanted their complete assurance they would do everything possible to make me happy in the event the truck i got vibrated (remember, i ordered mine from the factory). some did, some didn't. the ones who didn't came right off my list of ones to purchase from. funny story...one of the dealers that told me they hadn't sold any "shakerados" was one of the ones that didn't do a good job assuring me that i'd be satisfied with their service if i got a defective truck. guess what...i did a better business bureau background check on them. they were embroiled in buyback arbitration with a customer at that very time.

    my point? what cliff said is exactly right. shop for the right dealership and salesman before you start talking numbers. you'll save yourself a headache.

    damn, sorry that was so long...

    bco
  • cliffy1cliffy1 Member Posts: 3,581
    Was that last sentence really required? I was actually softening up until I read that last one. You spend a considerable amount of time writing a well thought out justification of your purchase, just as I had done earlier and then you finish with a backhand at my face.

    Over the past several posts, I have tried to lower the level of personal attacks and I will continue to do so a long as everybody else does as well. Even Ryan and bco and I seems to have found some common ground and some respect. Your last sentence shows a distinct lack of this but I am going to refrain from taking it too personally for now.
  • f150rulesf150rules Member Posts: 195
    Like I said in my post, the size of the truck may not be important to everyone, but for me it is. I "DO" use "ALL" my F150's space and actually on many occasions could use more. For a daily use as well as for the moderately large jobs, the F150 does it all much better than the Tundra could do for me. I bought a truck and although I do drive it as a daily also, I forgoe lots of cushy ride to get stiffer springs and such, which whether you buy it or not "does contribute" to more hauling and towing capacity. I use every 100% of my truck and often moreso. The size, options, and price are my only reasons for preferring my F150 over the Tundra.

    A smaller truck with relatively close power, should out-tow my F150 hands down. When I was test driving and with my research, the Tundra didn't offer that in my opinion. Again, it is obvious that others didn't see that as I did and to them, I say, I respect that you bought what works for you. Just don't say you bought a Tundra because domestics are less reliable because it too, is subjective.
  • ryanbabryanbab Member Posts: 7,240
    I would take the 00 over the 72. I didnt mean it like you thought. I meant it as A truck my silverado for example should be less smooth as a vette. Most people think a truck should ride like a sportscar and it doesnt common sense should tell you this. A "LITTLE" bounce and roughness should be expected especially when unloaded.

    F150 i have always been civil (or at least have tried haha)

    Ryan
  • f150rulesf150rules Member Posts: 195
    Well, I apologize for my last comment. I didn't think it to be all that harsh. No offense intended here, but maybe you need do as you said in your last post. Don't take things so personal and directly to heart. Are we going forward on a positive note now?
  • cliffy1cliffy1 Member Posts: 3,581
    Do we actually have a peaceful discussion now? Very cool. I'll do my part to keep it this way.
  • ryanbabryanbab Member Posts: 7,240
    Oh my god a Crossroads.

    ok we can all shake hands now

    WOOHOO haha

    Ryan
  • youbetchayoubetcha Member Posts: 26
    Thanks for the response. Only mean to clarify that in your case, the towing/hauling capacity has more weight than most. Just like the minivan example I gave, not a lot of families have 5 kids. But, in this case, you do, and you picked the best product for your needs.
    One point on reliability though, it is subjective when it is one on one discussion etc., but, if you look at automobile sources, you will quickly see that there isn't much question as to quality and reliability of Toyota products as opposed to not just domestics, but other import vehicles. I've seen reports from J.D. Powers, Motor Trend, Car & Driver, Kelley Blue Book, etc. where literally every Toyota vehicle has made it into the top 25 vehicles as based on what customers have said, maintenance schedules, long-term costs, repair and recall campaigns, etc. I've seen Toyota take 10 spots of 25, 6 of 10 where other companies struggle just to get 1. Now, you may choose to call this subjective, but, I guarantee you that if Chevy or Ford or Dodge had this reputation, they would be basking in the sunlight over their accomplishments in this area. Now, in all fairness, you should still judge vehicles individually, but, as I stated in a previous post... when a company has a reputation for something, it is up to opponents to prove that a vehicle doesn't live up to that reputation and not for the vehicle to prove that it does. Why? Because otherwise, we would have to call every single new car and truck a complete piece of crap until it could prove otherwise.
    That is how you run things in your daily life when you get groceries or products. SONY doesn't need to prove to people that they have an innovative product if that is what their company has been doing for years. The burden of proof is on others to prove that a new product is not innovative... do you see what I mean? I hope so. So, I'm not going to insult BIG3 quality or anything, but, I will site that if you REALLY believe that the quality is every bit as good as a company like Toyota, than how come they don't have the same numbers as this company? Does that mean that consumers are wrong? Does that mean that analysts are wrong? Does that mean that there is some kind of conspiracy? In order to justify this type of claim that quality is subjective... you should first site that the sources that show otherwise are somehow invalid as legitimate sources of accurate quality information. I don't just mean stupid articles or reviews... I'm talking about national government statistics, costs of ownership, consumer feed-back, etc. That is where HUGE numbers of people respond and where a true statistical normal curve can be made without have to estimate it and a confidence interval from a smaller populations size (i.e. less than 30 people). Just something to think about. I'm not trying to be offensive, just stating how I think a statement showed be backed up with a proper process of investigation which supports that conclusion. Fire away... but be gentle please.
  • cliffy1cliffy1 Member Posts: 3,581
    This dovetails into youbetchas post. Take a look at a domestic truck with over 80K miles on it. Then take a look at a Toyota with the same miles. I'm not talking about anything mechanical here (although this does begin to show itself here as well) but rather just how the whole thing holds up and feels. I find that the domestics are far more likely to feel loose, faded, and old. Toyotas tend to still feel tight and crisp. They don't exactly feel new but far closer to it than the domestics.

    This is something I began to notice in the car business. We take trade ins all the time. In general, the imports (Honda and Nissan included) just feel like they took the miles and abuse better.

    I really don't know how important this is. To me, if I kept my trucks for 7 to 10 years, I would want it feeling newer for longer even if there was no other reliability difference. I am aware that this is highly subjective but check it out. You'll see what I mean very quickly.
  • eagle63eagle63 Member Posts: 599
    I'm thinking about stepping up and getting a new F150. what's the highest axle-ratio I can get? 3.73? thanks. BTW, I'm assuming by your handle that you like your rig. anything about it that you don't like?
  • bigsnagbigsnag Member Posts: 394
    I have to agree with you about Toyota's remaining very tight, but I've had domestics that seemed very tight after 100K as well. My Land Cruiser has 230K on it right now and it has NO squeaks or rattles and rides pretty dag-gone good. Of course I am pretty anal about staying on top of maintenance and replacing anything at the first sign of wear. Maybe that's why my domestics last, too???
  • bigsnagbigsnag Member Posts: 394
    Yes, as far as I can tell, the lowest gearing (numerically higher) you can get is the 3.73. I have a '98 F-150 XLT reg cab with auto and 3.55's. I have the lower hp (235) engine as compared to the '99-up, but even so, I don't see why 99% of people would need anything lower. I have pulled several trailers, including a 16 ft dovetail trailer with a '75 F-150 w/ a 460, total weight approx 5500-6000 lbs with NO problems. It will pull it as fast as I want to go. 70 mph on the interstate with plenty left for hills. Never has to shift to 2nd. It may begin to lose speed, shift to third and quickly regain any speed I lost. That's with the cruise on. I'm not talking Colorado mountains here, but I'm talking about good sized hills and decent grades. Of course I have a 2wd with the stock tires on it. If you get a 4X4 and get the optional wheels/tires then 3.73's will put you basically where I am as far as RPM/mph. Sorry about the long post, I just wanted to explain my situation and yes, I am very pleased with my truck.

    FYI- For anyone who didn't already know, the piston slap issue, which as described before, affected very few vehicles and caused NO, (absolutely none), reliability issues. It's sort of like the loose main bearings on the Chevy's. An annoyance at start-up, but not a real problem. Both manufacturer's have corrected the problems, anyway.
  • cdeancdean Member Posts: 1,110
    Bigsnag
    an F-150 with a 460? did they do that?
  • cliffy1cliffy1 Member Posts: 3,581
    There are a lot of exceptions to this observation but in my experience, a Toyota is more likely to stand up over time than a domestic. Understanding that you have had good luck with domestics as well, let me ask, of the vehicle you have owned, which ones felt the best after 100K miles?
  • bigsnagbigsnag Member Posts: 394
    They didn't do it on a wide spread basis until '77. This particular truck was special ordered, but I think it was a "normal" option in '75. In '77-'79 many (well maybe not many, but quite a few) F-150's came with 460's. They would get about 11-12 mpg empty, loaded, highway, in town, with your foot in it, driving like a grandpa, it didn't matter. They sucked gas. Of course I'm being absurd, but their mpg was not affected by much, and it really wasn't that much worse than the small V-8's of the day. The truck I hauled on the trailer is my current project, sort-of hot rod thing. I want it to be a total sleeper. I thought about not painting it, leaving it ugly for a while, just get about 420 hp and 520 ft.lbs. of torque out of it. That should surprise a few people. Haha!!
  • bigsnagbigsnag Member Posts: 394
    #1 Toyota Land Cruiser, 230K and just as tight as the day it left Japan.
    #2 '88 Merkur Scorpio, 160K still ran like a banshee and you couldn't get it to burn a drop of oil. Everything, and it had a lot of crap on it, still worked.
    #3 '91 F-150 4.9L I-6 with a 5 speed. I abused that thing and it kept coming back for more.
    Those are the cars I have owned that had over 100K. As to other cars I've had experience with, my brother has a '95 F-150 with a 4.9 and it's a very solid truck at 150K miles, he also has a '90 Nissan pickup with over 1/4 million miles and it is pretty stinkin' tight. Talk about driving the hell out of it. That thing doesn't have a squeak or rattle, although it is beginning to rust, lot's of salty roads. My worst experience with a vehicle is when I drove my dad's '88 1 ton srw Chevy with a 350 and a standard tranny for about a week. That was a total POS, it burned two quarts of oil on me in 210 miles. OUCH!! It didn't even have 100K on it. The oil light came on and I had no idea why. I had just checked it before I left. It was already that low. I got mad at my dad for not warning me. I could have ruined the engine, but I guess that might have been doing him a favor!!
  • f150rulesf150rules Member Posts: 195
    Not going into this again, but just to say, when Toyota puts out even a quarter of the amount of vehicles as Ford, then lets talk. If Toyota put out as many units as Ford, there would be higher numbers of quality problems. Again, not starting another war, but I have also heard an awful lot about Toyota and their representing dealers being extremely stubborn as a whole when it comes time to do warranty work, especially on anything they have to delve into at all to figure out.
    That's not my personal experience as I have never owned a new Toyota, but I have lots of friends and even family members that have not had any better luck with Toyota than I have had with my Fords.
  • f150rulesf150rules Member Posts: 195
    Two of the best trucks I ever owned was a 79 Ford F150 with a 400 in it. Absolutely a bulletproof tank and yes, it was tight even after over 150k miles. Only thing bad about that truck was keeping gas in it.

    The other well worth mentioning was an 89 F250 with the 300 I6. I would match that truck and its "little" I6 against any of the base v8 engined trucks today in a tow or haul contest any day of the week. Lots of RPM's pulled towing on the highway due to the low gearing, but if you can live with that, it was an easy 250k mile engine. A guy could pull Redwood tree stumps all day long with it and it would never so much as whimper. By far one of the best trucks ever built. Sure was disappointed when Ford cut it from the lineup.

    Cliffy1: Again, not doubting your love for Toyota's, but I have beat the crap out of my trucks, asking them to do more than they were even built and guaranteed to do. They have lasted well beyond 100k miles and were tight with no rattles or major problems either. Toyota service shops make money on more than just oil changes or they wouldn't stay in business.

    I still don't justify a Tundra for my needs.
  • mgdvhmanmgdvhman Member Posts: 4,157
    ..Yawn....

    - Tim
  • bcobco Member Posts: 756
    i can't remember who posed the question. but here's my ranking. again, haven't owned a toyota (nor been close to anyone who has that i can think of, but...anyways).

    #1 ~90 honda civic hatchback. stripper, but a good 'un. vinyl seats, am/fm cassette, 4 spd stick, 4 cyl (duh). great car. great gas mileage. real tight. got rid of it around...80k or so.

    #2 94 gmc sonoma. never had any real fit/finish problems with it except a self-installed cd player/head unit. kinda botched a little, but that's on me. got rid of it with ~75k miles on it.

    #3 93 nissan altima. beater. purchased (with the assumption of reliability) for cheap with 75k already on it. at about 85k, electrical system went to pot and you had to jiggle the key in the ignition to get the fan blower to work - not fun to do at 75mph, risking shutting the car down; the paint started peeling off the grill; the center console would not stay closed; the tape deck worked when it wanted to; the graphics on the stereo buttons started peeling off; and worst of all, the defroster vent moldings up by the windshield warped and stuck up out of the dash. looked ugly and cheap. fyi, this car had been meticulously maintained prior to us purchasing it also. only reason we kept that one was we couldn't afford a new one. got her (wife) a '99 jimmy this summer. got $3k for her altima though...god knows how/why.

    bco
  • gotribe1gotribe1 Member Posts: 81
    is really something! I recently returned from a trip that took me to five campgrounds and didn't see a single tundra towing anything more than a bicycle. Lots of Ford super duty and Dodge diesels pulling fifth wheels. I was amazed how many of the newer Chevys and GMCs were towing travel trailers and boats; but either Toyota is using stealth paint or they haven't convinced people who need real trucks. BTW the same was true of the numerous construction zones I passed through! Bama,and you other tundrats, I'm sure you are right about the tundra being great. But what its great at, is being a starter truck! When Toyota understands that most people who buy FULLSIZE trucks really need them, maybe then they will build them!
  • mgdvhmanmgdvhman Member Posts: 4,157
    this topic for a while....but read only the short posts...when them tundra fans go too deep into thought....I don't know where that crap comes from they type?

    ..."Cuz they be thinkin' them trucks be full size...truth of the matter is...TUNDRA = LESS TRUCK FOR MORE BUCK!.....

    GOOD LUCK ON THIS ONE NOW!

    - RubeTim
  • superjim2000superjim2000 Member Posts: 314
    trucksrtim??
  • rwellbaum2rwellbaum2 Member Posts: 1,006
    Wow! You actually saw some yuppie Tundras out of the city. I can't believe those full-size wannabees are brave enough to take them tiny things off the pavement. I hear if they hit a little pepple they'll start shaking and never drive straight again. That sheet metal is made out of tin foil and the engines explode if they tow a bicycle trailer.
    "Like a rock, ohhhh yeah, like a rock"
  • youbetchayoubetcha Member Posts: 26
    You know, I can't help but think with a couple of exceptions (and good ones to their credit) that the comments made by some of these BIG3 owners are utterly ridiculous and childish. You keep arguing the same stupid things.... its like a CD skipping over and over again... I suppose that seeing a few domestic trucks take a fifth wheel and a Tundra not taking a fifth wheel completely justifies your argument that it is a small truck. Anybody who uses that kind of evidence as backing up their claim is (and I could use a lot of names on this one) out to lunch. Do people here lack education? Anybody even remotely take a statistics course? Anybody understand what a sample size is? Confidence intervals? You can't base a multi-billion dollar industry on your SELECTIVE observations... you don't even know where the burden of proof lies! Given Toyota's reputation, it doesn't NEED to prove its truck is good... you have to prove its truck is BAD!
    And if the size of truck is what you are concerned about, than don't make any inferences based on quality about that because it shows how ignorant your statements are. You know, the "bigger is better" attitude died out in the 80's when the Japanese took over the automobile industry. Quite frankly I'm happy about it... otherwise we would all still be driving cars that are 6000 lbs. get 9 or 10 miles to the gallon in the city, and consider an analog clock and a seatbelt buzzer as "luxury" features.
    So, let me put this question to people here... how many BIG3 owners consider the Tundra to be a bad-quality truck? What are your reasons? This will show me and others here if your reasoning is valid or if you're simply the type that does things the way it has always been done or believe things because those around you believe it (i.e. not a free-thinker, but, just another sheep following the crowd). If you don't know what makes a vehicle good or bad, you certainly won't know how to choose the best vehicle for your needs period.
  • youbetchayoubetcha Member Posts: 26
    I'm even more amazed that a lot of people who make claims either that the quality of the BIG3 trucks is bad or the Tundra is bad have never actually DRIVEN them or taken a close look at them...
    Take it out for a spin and keep an open mind and you will see which one(s) are best for you and your needs.
    And please don't claim that Tundra owners have been "suckered" in to buying those trucks... PLEASE!!! Quite frankly, Toyota and Honda really bite when it comes to marketing. But, their strategy is different.
  • gotribe1gotribe1 Member Posts: 81
    I have never said that the tundra is a bad truck; I have stated that in my opinion it is not going to compete with GM, Ford, or Dodge in the full size truck market. It is the attitude of many tundra drivers that is causing ridicule and scorn to be directed at the product. Months ago I said that I looked at the tundra in comparrison to the F150 and GM products. The company I worked for had two Toyota franchises; I could have gotten an employee discount on a tundra, but no Ford or GM franchises. I sincerely wanted to purchase a vehicle with the record of quality that Toyota has established, but the number of compromises that I would have to make were too numerous for me to chose Toyota. Towing ability, and interior space, particularly in the rear seat area, were two of the more serious issues for me. And all I am saying about Toyota missing the share of the market that I saw, is that apparently many people use and need a traditional full size truck. Toyota, so far has not produced one. If tundra suits your need, fine! You may never out grow it, but if you do, you'll need to move up or down [depending on your point of view]to an offering from one of the big 3.
  • cdeancdean Member Posts: 1,110
    youbetcha

    I echo your response about people trash talking vehicles they have never driven...that goes on entirely too much.

    But I rebut about Toyota's reliability. What has Toyota built that does the duty of this truck? Nothing. Reliability of compacts that never carry more than their own weight has nothing really to do with this market space.

    If reliability is a door squeaking after 150K miles, or an electric window motor dying after 10 years--than yes, that is more typical of the Big 3 than Japanese, but again--Toyota doesn't operate in these environments.

    excellent car reliability does not translate into trucks. Just like Ford or chevrolet..I feel their trucks are MUCH more reliable than the cars that either company sells.

    Here's some of the evidence you wanted. The evidence does not put Toyota in the same reliability as some folks around here do. I would love to see the sample size and confidence intervals on these. But i find it VERY interesting the way these stats were gathered. Seems like a pretty accurate way to do it.

    Toyota:
    http://carpoint.msn.com/vip/UsedRelOver/Toyota/Pickup/Used.asp.

    Chevrolet:
    http://carpoint.msn.com/vip/UsedRelOver/Chevrolet/C-K%201500/Used.asp

    Ford:
    http://carpoint.msn.com/vip/UsedRelOver/Ford/F-150/Used.asp



    Dodge:
    http://carpoint.msn.com/vip/UsedRelOver/Dodge/Ram%201500/Used.asp


    How data was gathered:
    http://carpoint.msn.com/reliability_ratingsinfo.asp

    You can click on the symbols and see what the problems reported were.
  • f150rulesf150rules Member Posts: 195
    You know, in my 6 years of college education, and even statistics, actuarial math, etc, I still see nothing in the Tundra that convinces me of what you say.

    You used to have some posts that were worth reading and actually had me sorta toned down with my approach on these topics, but your last two posts are absolutely a waste of space. You hypocrite. What makes you so "educated" to say domestic owners are clueless to know whats best for them to drive?

    I may not have done a 6 month case study to draw a scientific conclusion, but I didn't need to.
    The specs of the Tundra and driving the Tundra was enough for me to make a well informed decision that there wasn't anything of benefit over the F150 for my money. Apparently with Tundra being near the bottom of the list in sales, there are a lot of other truck buyers that were able to draw the same conclusions. I would bet that there are quite a number of those that are "educated" as you call it too. Probably took one of them there worthless statistics classes like I did to.

    Come on back when you have something of value to post for all us "uneducated" domestic truck owners.
  • bigsnagbigsnag Member Posts: 394
    You keep saying that Toyota doesn't have to prove it is good, instead it's up to the Big3 people to prove that it is bad. I disagree. All I have to prove is that my Ford is better. That's been done. Facts given here on this board have proven the Chevy to be better as well. Dodge....well, maybe not. But the point is still the same, the Tundra may be good, but the Ford and Chevy are better.
  • f150rulesf150rules Member Posts: 195
    The CarPoint info sure brings some truths to light. I suspect now though, that there will be ongoing arguements from the Tundra owners about why the methods used to gather that data were "skewed" some how or for whatever reason are "inaccurate"

    I said it before, "Toyota service shops do more than oil changes or they would not stay in business"!
  • ratboy3ratboy3 Member Posts: 324
    this is damn lie I tell ya! haha!

    http://carpoint.msn.com/vip/UsedRelOver/Toyota/Pickup/Used.asp

    Kidding aside, I do read the problems other Tundra owners have on the Tundrasolutions site. I thank my lucky stars I don't have any (or same) problems so far. Crossing my fingers!
  • timothyadavistimothyadavis Member Posts: 322
    Thanks for posting all of the links from CarPoint; I hadn't bothered to look at all of them together like that before. Wow! Way to go Dodge and Ford! Of course, that makes me feel better! ;-) Chevy looking good for 1999 (so far) too.

    I also strongly agree with your statement about cars and trucks being different wrt reputation. I have not been particularly impressed with the Ford car-building reputation, but have been unable to find any really serious problems with their trucks.

    Agreed though, that the benefit of the doubt would have initially gone with Toyota for their reputation with cars. However, trucks are a lot different to design and build, so they still have to prove that reputation carries over to their trucks -- even more so as they build bigger ones. I trust they'll get it right sooner or later. But, like it or not, the CarPoint data at least shows that they are still working on it.

    Similarly, Honda has had some annoying problems as they learn the perversities of building a great minivan. They have good ideas. They built arguably the newest benchmark for minivans in the Odyssey. And they have generally handled problems better than average. But they did have the problems and they have had to learn and improve.

    It appears that Toyota is going through a very similar process with the Tundra (having learned a lot from the Tacoma and T100, no doubt). But still they must learn and improve. Past reputation is insufficient. Especially with the actual data in on the Tundra, Toyota must prove that they can hit the nail on the head.

    Now, let calm prevail as you form replies. Please. :-) Peace....
  • bcobco Member Posts: 756
    you know, as a matter of OPINION i've got to side with those who feel new products must prove themselves. but of course, i've said that before. youbetcha, i've agreed with a lot of your view points, but i gotta draw the line here. i don't think you'll find many who will tell you toyota doesn't build a reliable car. but trucks are different, and it appears cdean has posted one source that feels that way. is carpoint.msn.com the be-all-end-all? perhaps not. but it sure presents some interesting data. see, tundra is toyota's first attempt at a full-sized truck. so, it can't just walk in and declare itself the benchmark among full-sized trucks. since TUNDRA reliability at this point is not a given fact, please inform the rest of us what full-sized truck capabilities does tundra offer that ford and chevy do not. towing? no. payload? no. off-road capabilities? no. greatest interior room? no. best powertrain warranty? yes - and given the stats toyota trucks posted in the first half of the 90's (according to carpoint) perhaps well it should. gas mileage? no. see where we're coming from? tundra fails to set the standard most full-sized trucks are measured by.

    i know this comes across as confrontational...so in advance i apologize. i know you all feel (and perhaps rightfully so - i just know i didn't) that tundra accelerates faster, brakes shorter, turns tighter, and handles better (which it should, it's smaller and lighter) and has better fit and finish (which is subjective - i think the interior of my 'rado looks great and is ergonmically perfect for me). but, and here's the important part...what else?

    bco
  • mgdvhmanmgdvhman Member Posts: 4,157
    TrucksrTim?......RUblueTim?....hmmmmm

    could stick!?

    - Tim
  • swobigswobig Member Posts: 634
    good response back. That's what I was looking for. Most Tundra owners here seem to think there truck is king s@^@, but you admittingly said it may not suit everybody's needs. I agree it has some good points, but the price considering it's 7/8ths the size does not add up to me. It could be a car for all I care, but the price still does not justify the truck. Maybe with the incentives/rebates it's a better value. I've driven one recently and it's not bad. I would buy a Hyuandi, Daewoo, Yugo, whatever if it was the best value for the $ - for me it was the Silverado. Maybe next time the F-150, Tundra, etc., but keep posting - I enjoy a good conversation...
  • swobigswobig Member Posts: 634
    and I don't think you'll ever convince me. I've had just the opposite luck. Every import I or my family has owned has been a big pain in the butt. Maybe I'm the minority, but parts are more expensive and harder to find. If domestics do break down twice as much (which is extremly highly unlikly), but parts are half as much as import parts (which is also unlikly), wouldn't it be a wash? Which it is in my opinion - if anything I would give the nod to the domestics...
  • ryanbabryanbab Member Posts: 7,240
    Back in feb went to the auto show with my friend ken we looked and sat in all the 4 full size trucks. Hes pretty short and skinny about 5'8 150.

    Ok well heres my story after class today me and 4 friends went out to lunch and i drove. My friend ken didnt get shot gun and had to ride in the back. After he got back there he said to me

    "Ryan, thank you for not buying the tundra i dont think i would have went to lunch with you today if you did."

    Im not knocking anything Cliff so dont say i am. I just thought it was funny what he said. Im so glad my passnegers were happy.

    Ryan
  • rwellbaum2rwellbaum2 Member Posts: 1,006
    The Big-3 guys are gonna have a hayday with this, but I've always maintained I'm brand neutral, so....
    I rotated my tires today and took the Tundra for a test drive. Got a slight shimmy in the steering @ 60 mph. I called tire shops to get the fronts balanced. Toyota had the best price, so I'm taking it there tomorrow. I'll let you know how it goes.
  • youbetchayoubetcha Member Posts: 26
    Trying to tell me that you can see the light when you're looking at me with your hand over your eyes! I did NOT call domestic owners uneducated... I ASKED the questions because, as my patience on this point fades, over the past few dozen points, NOBODY has given a correct analysis of my question! I have not even made claim that the Toyota truck is BETTER than the BIG3! All I've said is for somebody to prove to me that the Tundra is a bad truck as the majority of BIG3 owners have claimed here... some having the audacity to do so claiming that they have not even seen the truck up front or driven it! You want to tell me that this is much better reasoning than taking the sum total of opinions of owners and testers and government statistics? Saying that people are "uneducated" does not imply "university" education... it implies using that thing in your skull to investigate properly to find out what the TRUTH is... not merely make assumptions because you FEEL a certain way or you decide to look at a couple of trucks one day on a camping or fishing trip and see one pulling a trailer and one not and assuming that the one that isn't is some how "less in quality".
    Now, I know that trucks are vastly different than cars as everyone here can attest to, and there is no doubt in my mind that the BIG3's strongest vehicle types are in fact trucks. However, it still doesn't have anything to do with whether or not Toyota builds a good truck! If you want to claim that the Ford is a better quality truck just because it tows more than your assumption is wrong. You may PREFER Ford because it can tow more, but, it doesn't mean that it's quality is higher. They serve different purposes. I may choose Ford because the back seat in the Tundra sucks. It doesn't mean that the Tundra is going to fall apart when I drive it off the lot. I may not need the back seat at all, I may use the truck in a more sporty fashion. Does that mean that the F150 is a bad truck? Because it can't handle as well as the Ford?
    If you don't think that the Tundra competes in the "Full-Size" category, than say so. It isn't as big a vehicle as the F150, so what? A Lexus GS400 isn't as big as a Lincoln Continnental, but, of course, by your reasoning that would make the Lexus a piece of crap. Deal with what makes something a "quality" vehicle and compare the trucks that way as cdean has so graciously offered links to start that process off, and then we'll have a good foundation to build on.
    And for the record I DON'T think the Tundra is the absolute BEST truck. It is what I would choose, yes, but, only because the other trucks I tried had other things that bothered me more than what this had... I made a choice, I didn't put the vehicle on a pedestal like I see a lot of the Ford owners doing here. If you want to make those claims, back them up. Don't use that bull about towing, etc. I guarantee you that most people won't be towing more than 7,200 lbs. and more than that, people don't buy trucks for just towing... look around you in traffic. I can honestly say that I hardly EVER see anybody towing anything in their trucks. Most don't carry ANYTHING, others haul rugs, furniture, etc. So, evaluate it on more than just the size factor. And for Pete's sake... one more time... somebody tell me the correlation between size and quality... I'd like to see that proven. I'd like somebody here to show me that just because an F350 is bigger than an F150 that it is a better vehicle. Prove that and you will have more clout in proving the F150 is better than the Tundra based solely on size... good luck...
  • youbetchayoubetcha Member Posts: 26
    Good for you! I applaud your knowledge and concern in this matter and especially acknowledge that your posted links were a great indicator of the quality of the used vehicles. I think that this is a much better source to infer information from than somebody observing a couple of trucks on the road! Interesting that Dodge had the absolute best ratings... how come there aren't any Dodge owners on this topic list? Thanks for bringing some legitimate life into the topic!
  • jcmdiejcmdie Member Posts: 594
    Us Dodge guys are just here for the entertainment.
  • f150rulesf150rules Member Posts: 195
    I never claimed superiority of Fords over the Tundra. I simply stated that the Tundra has no quality advantage either. Funny how CDeans info revealed the Ford to have the best reliability findings though.

    Enough said.
  • bigsnagbigsnag Member Posts: 394
    This is a long post, but I read your's hopefully you can stomach mine. I think you might be missing the point. With the Tundra being the new kid on the block and the majority of people being satisfied with their Big 3 vehicles (including the build quality) it is up to Toyota to prove that they are the better truck. That's the only way people will begin to abandon the Big 3 and flock to the Toyota. Ford, for example, doesn't have to prove that the Tundra is a "bad" truck. Heck, it can be a pretty dag-gone good truck, but so is the Ford, so why would Ford owners switch to the Tundra?? They won't. Not until Toyota does something to separate themselves from the pack. They haven't done that yet. In fact I'm not sure they are even with the pack yet. The main thing Toyota has going for them is the quality issue, and that's still unproven, but I'll go ahead and give it to you. But you have to think about it this way, example: so we'll say the average Tundra will go 250K with very few problems. Well, the average domestic will go 225K with very few problems. Not a distinct advantage. The point is the Tundra is marginally better (at best) than the domesticsm, at something the domestics don't have a problem with in the first place.
    Okay, already. I give up. You win the reliability debate. So I admit, the Tundra has slightly better reliability than my Ford which already has great reliability. So what. I'm not going to run trade my F-150 in, not with so many good, trouble-free miles left in it (knock on wood). :)
  • bamatundrabamatundra Member Posts: 1,583
    What are these links you provided supposed to prove? You compared new full size trucks to old compact Toyota trucks. What is your point?

    How about apples to apples? Full size trucks to Full size trucks. These ratings cover 1992 to 1999 trucks.

    Consumer Reports ratings:

    Chevrolet C/K1500, Silverado
    Reliability: Spotty; avoid the 1996 2WD model and the 1995 to 1998 4WD models; also avoid the 1999 model.

    Ford F150
    Reliability: Average overall; avoid the 1992, 1993 and 1995 4WD models.

    Dodge Ram 1500
    Reliability: Below par; avoid the 1997 and 1999 2WD models, and the 1994 to 1999 4WD model.

    Toyota T100
    Reliability: Very Good.

    I think that these ratings are pretty unambiguous. The T100 is more reliable than the Big3. This is in spite of the fact that the early T100s had a well known problem with the head gaskets on V6s. Toyota not only fixed this problem, but are still warrantying trucks for this defect.

    Can you imagine trying to get a Big3 truck repaired 8 years after you bought it under warranty. This is the big difference - Toyota has a reputation to uphold.

    I have read on F150online that Ford is refusing to repair piston slap on vehicles out of warranty. They claim that piston slap is normal. Big difference.
  • bigsnagbigsnag Member Posts: 394
    Actually the big difference is that piston slap has caused NO (read: ZERO) reliability problems. It is simply an annoyance during cold start-ups. Speaking of head gaskets, atually I can imagine getting the Big 3 to repair a vehicle long after the warranty is up. Ever heard of the 3.8L V6? Ford had trouble with their head gaskets, too. Their trouble was a bad batch of gaskets instead of poor design, but the point is, they do have a record of repairing vehicles outside of the normal warranty IF there is a problem. As far as your "apples to apples" comparison, Consumer Reports most recent complaint against Ford is the '95 4X4 model? Ford redesigned in '97, so I guess since then (apples to apples), Ford is great, that is, if you're in love with Consumer Reports!!! Right? How about we compare current production vehicles. I guess I just don't get it, you want apples to apples then you bring up the T-100. Can anyone explain this? Thanks.
  • bcobco Member Posts: 756
    i didn't understand the apples to apples and then turning around and comparing the t-100 to the big 3. or, are you trying to convince us that the t-100 is a full-sized truck now too?

    correct me if i'm wrong, but i'm going to throw out a couple assumptions here:
    1. consumer reports is a not-for-profit magazine that does not sell ad space (and thereby theoretically defuses the issue of being influenced by any given manufacturer).
    2. other than that, consumer reports runs tests on vehicles similar to those run by for-profit mags like truck trend, motor trend, etc. etc. (endurance tests, 1/4 miles, off-road, skid pad, crash tests, towing/payload capacities, etc...)
    3. if those two are true, how is it that you can use consumer reports as an accurate gauge when, arguably, carpointmsn.com has a larger sample size (i think it said something like 30k participating service stations) of vehicles to evaluate?

    now, i know what you're going to say about the time-honored tradition of americans consulting consumer reports as a reliable source, blah blah blah. but other than that...since this is toyota's first year producing what they consider a full-sized truck...can you give me a reason NOT to believe the links cdean posted?

    more importantly bama, you have simply stated what domestic fans here have been trying to convince you all of for the longest time.

    "What are these links you provided supposed to
    prove? You compared new full size trucks to old
    compact Toyota trucks. What is your point?"

    YOU translate toyota's reliability reputation for cars to it's full sized trucks. that, my friend, is apples to watermelons...thanks for your help...

    bco
This discussion has been closed.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles