OK, some of you guys are stuck on this 2WD vs. 4WD comparison.
I'll explain how it works.
CR ONLY uses data collected from surveys, there is no opinion involved. The only time speculation is involved is when it is a NEW model with no data. The first rating was based on past model history, this one is based on actual feedback.
Obviously 4X4 owners had more problems. There are several possible explanations for this.
1) 4X4 owners tend to run their trucks harder and on more difficult terrain.
2) There are more mechanical parts and assembly involved on a 4X4.
3) Possibly Toyota has sold more 4X4's so there is more data or more 4X4 owners responded to the surveys.
CR just takes the results, inserts them in the same formula that it uses for every other vehicle and prints the outcome.
To argue that CR has a hidden agenda against Toyota is absolutely preposterous. Just look at other Toyota vehicle ratings and past ratings.
This is not rocket science. If these reliability ratings are based on surveys sent out w/no proof of ownership-then it is not controlled, not scientific, thus totally flawed. and useless information. Don't they have someone going over this stuff?? No way can you have 2 diff. ratings for the same audio pulled off the same shelf??LOL
Don't worry one bit I appraise trades for toyota, and no way does a domestic car/truck ever get above rough in the black book on my watch. matter of fact I can't tell you how many domestic owners I've sent out the door $10k flipped or more on that domestic. Sometime I'll go $1k under rough black book becouse I'm losing that on domestic trucks becouse wholesalers low ball them and I'm tired of taking a loss.
On the positive side I always give avg. black book for honda and toyota, and if I got to I'll match kbb avg. to make the deal!!!!!!!
REST ASSURED YOU'RE VALUE HASN'T DROPPED ONE DOLLAR.
Here's an interesting quote from the article I posted earlier:
Quote:
The organization comes to such conclusions by drawing on the results of a six-page survey that goes out to approximately seven million readers (print plus online). About 960,000 readers responded to the last year’s survey, representing 1.3 million vehicles. Some vehicles, such as the Honda Accord, Toyota Camry and Honda Oddysey, are represented by as many as 4,000 respondents. No vehicle is represented by less than a hundred.
The last sentence jumped out at me -- "no vehicle is represented by less than *100*." 100! That seems like too low a number to base a reliability conclusion on. I hope the Tundra survey wasn't just 100 users, although it can't have been many...
OK, some of you guys are stuck on this 2WD vs. 4WD comparison.
I'll explain how it works.
CR ONLY uses data collected from surveys, there is no opinion involved. The only time speculation is involved is when it is a NEW model with no data. The first rating was based on past model history, this one is based on actual feedback.
Obviously 4X4 owners had more problems. There are several possible explanations for this.
1) 4X4 owners tend to run their trucks harder and on more difficult terrain.
2) There are more mechanical parts and assembly involved on a 4X4.
3) Possibly Toyota has sold more 4X4's so there is more data or more 4X4 owners responded to the surveys.
CR just takes the results, inserts them in the same formula that it uses for every other vehicle and prints the outcome.
To argue that CR has a hidden agenda against Toyota is absolutely preposterous. Just look at other Toyota vehicle ratings and past ratings.
There is a problem though with the final result for the 07 4x4 model. You cannot just base it on your points above. Secondly, you cannot prove that all 4x4 owners run their trucks hard at all. So CR's result computation is out of whack this year on that basis. Their formula has broken down.. right there.
AND THE STRONGEST POINT OF ALL SO FAR IS: The truck has been out ONLY EIGHT MONTHS. NOT ENOUGH MONTHS to garner data on this truck based on that alone.
There is a problem though with the final result for the 07 4x4 model. You cannot just base it on your points above. Secondly, you cannot prove that all 4x4 owners run their trucks hard at all. So CR's result computation is out of whack this year on that basis. Their formula has broken down.. right there.
AND THE STRONGEST POINT OF ALL SO FAR IS: The truck has been out ONLY EIGHT MONTHS. NOT ENOUGH MONTHS to garner data on this truck based on that alone.
Sanosuke!
1. How do you come to the conclusion that a day, a month, or 8 months is not enough time to gather reliability data on a vehicle?
2. What time length would you consider to be adequate for CR to gather data on the reliability of a vehicle?
1. How do you come to the conclusion that a day, a month, or 8 months is not enough time to gather reliability data on a vehicle?
2. What time length would you consider to be adequate for CR to gather data on the reliability of a vehicle?
Stuball
IMHO,
1. A model year is not considered completely evaluated until it has passed ONE CALENDAR YEAR of its inception.
2. For CR to consider any data seriously it should look at unit reliablity PAST THE YEAR of inception of the design change. IT cannot alone use the data if the unit has not been adequately given time to be fully evaluated by the owners to give a more ACCURATE PICTURE of its reliablity and so forth. I mean, how can you PRESUME that a unit is bad just because it has been out EIGHT months.. this is pretty riduculous of CR to just say "okay, this truck sucks" without realizing how much data they have on hand affects the output of the results. As an IT consultant, the input process at CR has to be scrunitized a bit further as it appears at first glance that the data is incomplete and the ranking given without merit.
1. A model year is not considered completely evaluated until it has passed ONE CALENDAR YEAR of its inception.
2. For CR to consider any data seriously it should look at unit reliablity PAST THE YEAR of inception of the design change. IT cannot alone use the data if the unit has not been adequately given time to be fully evaluated by the owners to give a more ACCURATE PICTURE of its reliablity and so forth. I mean, how can you PRESUME that a unit is bad just because it has been out EIGHT months.. this is pretty riduculous of CR to just say "okay, this truck sucks" without realizing how much data they have on hand affects the output of the results. As an IT consultant, the input process at CR has to be scrunitized a bit further as it appears at first glance that the data is incomplete and the ranking given without merit.
Sanosuke!
CR didn't say the truck sucks. They don't do the reliability portion, consumers do. CR does the testing which was done earlier in the year. I would suggest that CR's response to all this flaming might be; "don't shoot the messenger."
CR won't give a reliability rating to a vehicle that has less than 100 consumer surveys on a particular model of a vehicle. From what I read in CR online is a vehicle that has 3 or more percent problems reported from consumer surveys gets a poor rating. That still means that up to 97% of the poorly rated vehicles have no problems, which is probably why so many TS members report no problems with their Tundra. IMO, 97% is still pretty good for a first-year vehicle.
With respect to the timeframe, as long as CR has the acceptable number of consumer reports returned, whether it's in 2 months, 4 months, or whatever, I really don't see any necessity for the 365 day wait before one can obtain and report data.
CR didn't say the truck sucks. They don't do the reliability portion, consumers do.
And the consumers gave it an above average grade.
When you add up and average the grades for the the 2007 Tundra 4WD "report card", you get a 4.0 GPA (on a scale of 1 - 5, 5 being the red circle).
The "teacher" gave it an "F" and said it performed "much worse than average".
In other words, "the truck sucks".
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuball
CR does the testing which was done earlier in the year. I would suggest that CR's response to all this flaming might be; "don't shoot the messenger."
And I would suggest to CR that, as the messenger, get your message right.
The data that is presented in the form of red and black circles does not warrant a "much worse than average" grade.
If your data is showing that 4WD models have worse audio systems, power equipment, and electrical systems than the 2WD models when they are exactly the same, it's time to question your own methodologies. The data is not repeatable, it's all over the map. It's crap.
I can deal with it getting a bad grade if it is warranted. But I'm having a hard time putting the numbers together here. I see glaring problems with the data set and I assume a great number of other people here do too.
The Big-3 are guilty, in my view, of lots of real injustices like treating workers poorly, attempting to kill off *American* competitors (remember Tucker?), and not least, producing horrible quality vehicles during the 70's and 80's.
Last edited by The Phoenix; 10-19-2007 at 10:31 AM.
Reason: removed quote/baiting comment
The Big-3 are guilty, in my view, of lots of real injustices like treating workers poorly, attempting to kill off *American* competitors (remember Tucker?), and not least, producing horrible quality vehicles during the 70's and 80's.
"Writing without research risks exposing a fool".
Flat; in all the posts you typed in the last few days with respect to CR, you have been conveying my thoughts exactly. Thank you for conveying my opinion about CR. (No sense both of us getting carpal tunnel syndrome.)
Even Jim Lentz of Toyota had nothing negative to say about CR's report on the Tundra as any of the Big 3 would be crying foul.
Flat; in all the posts you typed in the last few days with respect to CR, you have been conveying my thoughts exactly. Thank you for conveying my opinion about CR. (No sense both of us getting carpal tunnel syndrome.)
Even Jim Lentz of Toyota had nothing negative to say about CR's report on the Tundra as any of the Big 3 would be crying foul.
Stuball
Thanks for the feedback. I'm glad you're reading my posts and it's even better that someone agrees. I have lots of questions about CR's report, and I was upset to see it, but that doesn't mean CR is evil. The carpal tunnel is worth it.
1. How do you come to the conclusion that a day, a month, or 8 months is not enough time to gather reliability data on a vehicle?
2. What time length would you consider to be adequate for CR to gather data on the reliability of a vehicle?
Stuball
Its worse than that. Take a look at the CR web site. They gather the reliability data in the spring and they gather it only from CR subscribers. So between February and "spring", they get told by their own subscribers what has happened. That's how they come up with that chart which actually only showed a couple of categories that indicated "below average". With that small sample, over such a short period of time, and in spite of the fact that in most categories, the truck was above average or better, they gave the truck a predicted reliability of "much lower than average". Its absurd and not supported by their own facts.
__________________
I've moved dealers again. Hopefully this is the last one. I'm at Rosner Toyota in Fredericksburg VA. Call 540-898-7900 and ask for Steve Clifford... they will not know who "Cliffy" is.
................So between February and "spring", they get told by their own subscribers what has happened. That's how they come up with that chart which actually only showed a couple of categories that indicated "below average". With that small sample, over such a short period of time, and in spite of the fact that in most categories, the truck was above average or better, they gave the truck a predicted reliability of "much lower than average". Its absurd and not supported by their own facts.
Huh? It's from Spring to the end of summer. This is from your link:
---------------------------(CR Faqs)------------------------
1.5. How current is the data?
All our reliability information is completely updated annually. We begin sending out each year's survey in the spring. By late summer, we have collected and organized responses, and we complete our analysis and update the information online by mid October. The new information first appears in print in the Consumer Reports Best & Worst New Cars, on newsstands in October. Subsequent auto publications, such as the Used Car Buying Guide, also use this new information. In the pages of Consumer Reports, we update Predicted Reliability and Recommendations in the vehicle Ratings beginning in the road tests in the November issue. Full results are published in the following April issue of CR. All reliability information we publish is based on subscribers' experiences with cars in the one-year period immediately preceding the survey.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Now maybe you can argue that the results will look different in the full results which will be published in April, since that will take into effect a larger time period and sample.
You guys are funny, trying to prove how flawed CR is when they come out with results you don't like. And at the same time, Toyota corporate is telling us that the CR data is proof that they offer the most reliable cars around. So which is it?
You bought the truck cause you like it, that's good enough. If you're happy with it, that's all that matters.
/Mike
__________________
2001 2WD Silver Tundra: 4x4 TRD springs, Daystar 1", Carson AAL, red/blue Bilsteins, 265/75 Revo's, IS kit(minus bumper) and rims(hand polished), RF851X amp, Alpine HU, JL 6.5"XR comps, Qlogic with JL 8W3V2 subs. 185k miles and counting......
2005 Silver Sienna LE with 12" Overhead DVD
Huh? It's from Spring to the end of summer. This is from your link:
---------------------------(CR Faqs)------------------------
1.5. How current is the data?
All our reliability information is completely updated annually. We begin sending out each year's survey in the spring. By late summer, we have collected and organized responses, and we complete our analysis and update the information online by mid October. The new information first appears in print in the Consumer Reports Best & Worst New Cars, on newsstands in October. Subsequent auto publications, such as the Used Car Buying Guide, also use this new information. In the pages of Consumer Reports, we update Predicted Reliability and Recommendations in the vehicle Ratings beginning in the road tests in the November issue. Full results are published in the following April issue of CR. All reliability information we publish is based on subscribers' experiences with cars in the one-year period immediately preceding the survey.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Now maybe you can argue that the results will look different in the full results which will be published in April, since that will take into effect a larger time period and sample.
You guys are funny, trying to prove how flawed CR is when they come out with results you don't like. And at the same time, Toyota corporate is telling us that the CR data is proof that they offer the most reliable cars around. So which is it?
You bought the truck cause you like it, that's good enough. If you're happy with it, that's all that matters.
/Mike
Look up one response in the FAQ:
Quote:
1.4. How is the survey conducted?
The Consumer Reports National Research Center conducts the survey each spring. In the questionnaire, we ask subscribers to note any problems with their cars that occurred in the past 12 months. They are asked to identify problems that they considered serious (because of cost, failure, safety, or downtime). We ask them to include problems covered by warranty, but not the ones resulting from accident damage or recall. We also ask them not to include replacement of normal maintenance items (like brake pads, batteries, and mufflers) unless they were replaced much sooner or more often than expected. Respondents check off problems from a list of trouble areas, ranging from the engine and transmission to climate system, brakes, electrical system, and power accessories
Surveys are conducted in the spring and collected and organized in the late summer for publication in October. Let's face it... there were early issues with the truck that have long since been dealt with. Even with those problems, the "predicted reliability" doesn't match the data.
__________________
I've moved dealers again. Hopefully this is the last one. I'm at Rosner Toyota in Fredericksburg VA. Call 540-898-7900 and ask for Steve Clifford... they will not know who "Cliffy" is.
Now that would make sense if they did this assessment when the camshaft failure panic started when in actuallity it affected hardly any of the Tundras at all.
__________________
07 Tundra DC TRD 4WD 5.7L Desert Mica
Re: Consmer Reports Threads Merged
Re: Consmer Reports Threads Merged
Re: Consmer Reports Threads Merged
Re: Consmer Reports Threads Merged
Linear Mode
