Consmer Reports Threads Merged

[impilot]

Yeah..especially for sub systems that are identical between two and four wheel drive models....this makes little sense at all....

[billyii]

I have my doubts that CR has rated the Tundra reliability as "well below average and can not recommend it".

I am not an on line subscriber but I do subscribe to their magazine, and if my memory serves me correctly, they do not publish the results of their annual auto owner's survey until the April issue of CR. I can't remember when the survey is taken but I think it is only a few months prior to April and the survey has not been taken yet for the April 2008 issue. The April, 2007 survey results would not have included the 2007 Tundra as it just came out in February, 2007. I do not believe the survey for the April 2008 issue has been taken yet. Please correct me if this is wrong.

All magazine subscribers are sent the survey each year and I assume the on line subscribers as well. Approximately one and one-third million subscribers participate and the survey is on various things such as autos, appliances, TVs. lawn mowers, etc.

CR did test the Tundra as well as 1/2 and 3/4 ton American trucks a few months back and they rated the Tundra high at that time. However, they tested the TRD against the regular sprung other pickups and unfairly (IMHO) criticized the Toyota Tundra for a harsh ride. The other pickups they tested were not off road models with beefed up springs and shocks. IMO, the TRD does ride harsher than the regular sprung Tundra and other pickups but so does the Chevrolet Z71. CR was not comparing apples to apples.

Maybe someone who subscribes to CR on line can find out the truth.

[Tundradrenalin]

This report comes days after two major strikes from GM. I don't see it as very valid. Cliffy1 has outstanding points as well. If you're rating a truck against impossible odds, then you'll get irrelavent results. I wonder if the liberal media will make a special about this on the nightly news.

However, does this "consumer" report make you not want to drive your Tundra now? doubtful.

[MMitsock]

I guess I don't understand, here are the item by item reliability results for the 07, V8, 4WD Tundra (you know, the little circle things, sorry they didn't cut and past to the posting below so I wrote in the results) Average was an open circle, Above Average was half red circle and Much Above Average was a full red circle. Below Average is half black and much below average is all black. None of the listed items were any less than average yet the overall prediction was much worse than average. Could it be a miss print?


Reliability History - Toyota Tundra (V8, 4WD)Trouble spots by year 07
Engine Major - - Above Average
Engine Minor - - Above Average
Engine Cooling - - Much Above Average
Transmission Major - Much Above Average
Transmission Minor - Much Above Average
Drive System - - Average
Fuel System - - Above Average
Electrical System - - Above Average
Climate System - - Much Above Average
Suspension - - Above Average
Brakes - - Above Average
Exhaust - - Much Above Average
Paint/Trim - - Above Average
Squeaks & Rattles - -Above Average
Body Hardware - - Average
Power Equip. - - Average
Audio System - - Average

New Car Prediction- Much Worse than Average

[moto22]

Means exactly squat to me.

I've had 6 Toyotas in the last 20 years:

2 - 1986 Celicas
1 - 1986 4x4
1 - 1989 4x4
1 - 1996 4 Runner
and now the 2007 Tundra Crewmax

Out of those vehicles - I only had a "problem" with the 4x4 which amounted to a small leak in the rear diff. New seal - problem solved. That's it. I have little doubt my Tundra will carry on the tradition.

Now - how you do "project" reliability anyway? To me - a reliable car is one that runs flawlessly for years. 2-3-4 years from now if Tundra owners have experienced a ton of problems - then we know the reliability was below average.

Also - I love my truck. I think it rides great - the powertrain is smooth and powerful and I am totally satisfied with the truck. I've got a 2002 M5 in the garage bay next to it and it doesn't get driven now because the Tundra is so much fun and I love driving it.

You know what else - I have a 7 year warranty and NO ONE backs vehicles like Toyota. So - if there happens to be a problem here or there I know Toyota will stand behind the vehicle. I'm not planning on selling this truck for at least that long. So - no worries!

A few comments on CR using a small amount of data in a small window of time to determine overall reliability - to me it is a non-event. I could care less!

So I say - RELAX - enjoy the truck. CR isn't driving your truck - you are. If you are happy that is all that counts. A few colored dots on the CR website means nothing to your driving experience.

[TwinStop]

edmunds.com's Consumer rating is 9.2

[moto22]

Originally Posted by 1tundradude

Here you go:




Seems odd that there is such a HUGE discrepancy between 2WD and 4WD models.

Huh??? Its basically Good and Excellent all the way down the line - then they give it a black ball for "Used Car Verdicts"? Is that a joke? How can you have all those above average marks and then try and claim it will be worse than average? That is FUNNY! It is simply a prediction - nothing less and it is based on SQUAT!

[Coal Dragger]

Consumer Reports' testers are a bunch of old women as far as I can tell. In a previous career I sold BMW's at a dealership that also sold Toyota and Lexus. Consumer Reports hates BMW's, hates just about everything about them. The Consumer Reports testers with few exceptions do not understand the purpose of say a sport sedan, or sports car. I once read a review that criticized (I believe the M Roadster) for being too loud, and having acceleration that hurt the tester's neck or some such nonsense.

Consumer Reports also does not understand trucks. They never have, and probably never will. Any truck that rides like a car and requires no driver competency to use (Honda Ridgeline) is great to them. Real trucks that can do actual work, or go places they probably shouldn't, like most 1/2 tons 3/4 tons and 1 tons, are despised by CR.

As someone mentioned their target car for excellence is a Buick/Avalon. Soft, quiet, unobtrusive, easy to use even for morons that can barely understand a touch tone phone. Just like a good dishwasher, or toaster. Think of a good appliance, apply it's virtues to a vehicle, and you can predict what CR will like. These are of course all subjective.

For the quantitative part (reliability, durability) I am curious to see what vehicle systems were causing issues. CR does a reasonably good job of compiling this info and presenting it. I am not too surprised that the first year reliability for the 5.7L/six speed has been well below average. The release was very ambitious, new motor, new transmission, new truck, new plant, new tooling. Too many variables to control for quality, even for a company known for high quality.

[tabing]

I've been researching trucks for over a year now. Originally I wanted the Dodge Ram with the cummins diesel, the 5.9 before all the pollution stuff was put on the the new 6.7. Found out that unless you plan to work that diesel really hard, it's not a good option for someone like me that will only do an occasional haul in the bed, and rarely tow anything heavier than an aluminum canoe.

Settling on a Tundra Limited 4X4 probably with TRD, most likely a 2008 or 2009 when I return from the sandbox next June or July.

I'm not at all discouraged by one article in CR. I've had a few Japanese vehicles and always been satisfied with reliability and service.

From what I've read on the various Tundra forums the majority of folks seem to be very happy with them. Sure, there is the occasional problem, often dealer mistakes rather than the vehicles themselves.

I have faith that Toyota will solve and resolve the problems. They have too much riding on this venture. Two plants (I think) is a huge investment and they need to protect that investment and more important their reputation. They also don't carry the union baggage that the big 3 have, which makes them more flexible in cutting back profits a bit to fix things.

[gdotgarrett]

Originally Posted by 1tundradude

Here you go:




Seems odd that there is such a HUGE discrepancy between 2WD and 4WD models.

I am not sure I understand the symbols here, but how can the audio system, power equipment, and body hardware have different reliabilities between 2WD and 4WD? I am pretty sure they are the same for both vehicles... Can someone post the symbol legend.

I second thought: If these are based on customer surveys then what this is really telling me is that more people purchased the 4WD than the 2WD, and they complained about their clocks, radios, navs, transmission, cam shaft, bed bounce, etc. For example, all of the things emphasized over and over on this forum.

I would like to see the breakdown of the survey participants. Specifically, how many total data points and of those how many owned 4WD vs. 2WD.

[impilot]

Originally Posted by billyii

I have my doubts that CR has rated the Tundra reliability as "well below average and can not recommend it".

I subscribe..and they did. Does not make sense that major subsystems are greatly different between 4x2 and 4x4 modes....like audio system, power equipment and body hardware...average on 4x4, much better than average on 4x2....same type of differences, but smaller in size for fuel and electrical systems...even brakes. This is messed up!!!

[sticksnstonesrus]

I waited for two years planning for a truck. Did my shopping, test drove everything...almost bought a megacab....for $56,000.

I'm glad I didn't. I might not have gotten the same excessive rear-spaciousness. Same gi-normous towing capacity. But you know what? The tundra had everything I really need. Enough space front, rear and even the 5.5' bed. Suits me fine. Tows my jeep(s), trailer, drums...whatever...just fine. For $41,000. And I think it looks better (at the very least)

Over 5K miles now. Not a single problem noted. Survived the first oil change without issue.

I have been (and still am) and avid CR reader....but everything must be taken with a grain of salt.

Andy

[The Phoenix]

Articles from other sites are not permitted even if they are cited. You may post links to them though.

[Cliffy1]

Originally Posted by MMitsock

I guess I don't understand, here are the item by item reliability results for the 07, V8, 4WD Tundra (you know, the little circle things, sorry they didn't cut and past to the posting below so I wrote in the results) Average was an open circle, Above Average was half red circle and Much Above Average was a full red circle. Below Average is half black and much below average is all black. None of the listed items were any less than average yet the overall prediction was much worse than average. Could it be a miss print?


Reliability History - Toyota Tundra (V8, 4WD)Trouble spots by year 07
Engine Major - - Above Average
Engine Minor - - Above Average
Engine Cooling - - Much Above Average
Transmission Major - Much Above Average
Transmission Minor - Much Above Average
Drive System - - Average
Fuel System - - Above Average
Electrical System - - Above Average
Climate System - - Much Above Average
Suspension - - Above Average
Brakes - - Above Average
Exhaust - - Much Above Average
Paint/Trim - - Above Average
Squeaks & Rattles - -Above Average
Body Hardware - - Average
Power Equip. - - Average
Audio System - - Average

New Car Prediction- Much Worse than Average

that's exactly what I was thinking when I saw the breakdown. Everything is average or better except their "prediction". That prediction doesn't seem to be based on the evidence presented.

I sometimes think CR intentionally bashes Toyota so they don't sound like a shill for the company. I think they hold Toyota to a higher standard than anybody else (including Honda). This time, its just more obvious.

[StatCoder]

Originally Posted by Cliffy1

I sometimes think CR intentionally bashes Toyota so they don't sound like a shill for the company. I think they hold Toyota to a higher standard than anybody else (including Honda).

So the spin on this at the dealership is "It's a Toyota - They expected it to be a better truck."