http://www.autoblog.com/2007/08/06/c...ises-eyebrows/

In its most recent issue, CR is publishing a report on half-ton pickups that might have some crying foul and revisiting claims the publication is biased in favor of imports. Included in the test are the 2007 Toyota Tundra 5.7L V8, 2007 Chevy Silverado 1500 5.3L V8, 2007 Ford F-150 5.4L V8 and 2007 Dodge Ram 1500 5.7L V8. The report puts an emphasis on towing, and (spoiler alert) the Toyota Tundra received the best score of the four pickups. The Tundra also received the "Recommended" label from CR (as did the Dodge Ram 1500), and was awarded a predicted reliability rating of "Very Good" thanks to the past performance of all Toyota's in CR's reader survey results.

We can already hear the grumbling. The domestic half-tons are offered in such a dizzying array of configurations, why didn't CR choose to buy a Silverado with the larger 6.0L V8 and a 4.10 rear-axle ratio (a no-cost option that would have matched the Tundra's ratio)? Jake Fisher, a senior automotive engineer for Consumer Reports, told Mike Levine at Pickuptruck.com, "For our readers, fuel economy is more important than gaining an extra second or two faster time 0 to 60, and we tested the trucks we felt were configured as our subscribers would use them."

 

If fuel economy is so important, why did they use 5.7L in Tundra instead of 4.7L?

 

Maybee because it would be harder to rig the tests that way?


CR mag is so full of doo-doo

 

things that make you 'hmmm'

The Tundra is a good truck - that part is beleivable but the Dodge.

 

The 5.7 actually has a higher EPA rating.

I don't know why anyone would buy the 4.7 except on price.

There is another thread on this topic in the SD forum.

https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/6...ts-bummer.html

 

The 4.10 ratio is not a "no cost option" and neither is the 6.0L engine. The Chevy "build your own website" shows a cost of $0.00, but when you select just the gears, it adds $325 to the price. And you can't get a 6.0 without the 4.10 gears... a package that costs $2,265.00.

 

The configurations picked just may be the most "popular" for each respective make. It does make "apples to apples" comparisons difficult, but may be "fair" as far as what the average buyer of each really drives, and what is most likely to be on the lots when shopping.

Doesnt anyone put a load in the bed of a pickup anymore? what's the point of a pickup truck if it is only used as a tow vehicle. That being said, it is not only Toyota that concentrates on tow ratings in marketing pickup trucks today. They all do it.

I still do not like the half-century-obsolete "half ton" term. It is factually and legally meaningless. Ford's SuperDuty and GM's HD designations (including something called a 1500HD) at least mean something, over 8500lb GVWR for emissions certification. What would you call an F-150 with the "payload package"? Hint: it replaced the "light duty" F-250. Rant over.

Jim

 

CR secretly buys off the lot, they do not order in. So if dealers in its area normally stock small V-8's with tall gears for MPGs, that's what they buy. This is rarely an issue with cars, as there are far fewer choices with engines, trannys, etc.

The Dodge 1500 MegaCab is exactly the same at the 2500 except for the badges. Dodge figured that there would not be enough sales of the 1500 MegaCab to justify an unique spring/suspension package.

 

Now this intrigues me. I used to be a subscriber to CR from the early 90's to the early 00's. One thing I noticed a constant was on new vehicles, under the predicted reliability column would be a blank or say something to the effect of "Data Unavailable". So now since it's a Toy that is brand new they can give it a "Very Good" rating, basing this on previous performance of prior Toy CR surveys.

Seems a little biased to me, but then again that is why I discontinued my subscription. Their surveys/reports were no longer as reliable or trustworthy as when I began, if they ever were, I was a lot younger and more gullible then. I will get recommendations and reliability data from other sources and totally disregard CR's rating anymore.

 

Consumer Reports is humping Toyota?

There's a real surprise.

 

I used to be a CR subscriber back in the 70-80s. Then quit for allot of the same reasons cited here. I resubscribed last year as I was told that they had advanced their test policies and practices. The reality is that it's the same song second verse. And if there is something that is important to learn about. Say the differences between LCD and Plasma displays they do write about it. Yet they fail to evaluate in any meaningful manner. As for the truck article, it's just another rehash of what we all knew was coming from them. I am not going to subscribe another time. The article has once again proven that when you compare apples to oranges you don't get an unbiased test or article. Car and Driver does a better job, and many subscribers of that magazine cry about their technic.

Humping is optional, but necessary as more consumers get it than don't...

 

yeah but i would still know that my truck would last and not have the cam shaft eat all the valves. even if toyota is fixing the truck and its cam's who wants to be without there truck for a week. just my 2ct (by the way there are a bunch of recalls for the tundra's cam shaft)

Ryder

 

Don't talk about recalls. My F-150 hasn't had any recalls but my wife's Escape has had 6 or 7. Nothing of note and still a good vehicle at 99,000 miles but you don't want to complain about another vehicle and recalls when you drive a Ford.

 

I'd sooner have the recalls, than to have a mfg. not announce the problem and the cure. People forget what it was like years ago. You bought the car, you owned the car. Warts and all. So, give me the recall and the cure for my Ford. Don't treat me like a mushroom like Honda, Japan et all does their customers. They say the don't announce a recall to save face...

And yes, I know doesn't like them either. But they do announce a recall after they have developed a fix. Honda has yet to admit they have a problem with the CR-V catching on fire. And that's a known problem in house with them for years now! Where, oh where, are the lawyers on that one?

 

Seems like CR was in such a hurry to suck up to the new Tundra that they couldn't even get together a proper sampling of trucks for comparison. And then they go on to give the Tundra a "predicted reliability rating" of very good without any basis whatsoever (but hey, it's a Toyota, right?).

Next thing you know, CR will be raving about positive "projected test drive results" of a Toyota vehicle that hasn't even been built yet.