See the article link below. Maybe because they are trying to get too big, too fast?
http://money.cnn.com/2007/10/16/auto...ex.htm?cnn=yes

Let the pro-Toyota flames begin!

 

Another ....

http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/pro...016&ID=7639513

 

Toyota Tundra Slips to Below Average Reliability in Latest Consumer Reports Ratings
By: Mike Levine Posted: 10-16-07 10:15 PT
© 2007 PickupTruck.com

Page: [1]

Consumer Reports has issued a press release that four wheel drive versions of the new Toyota Tundra have been scored 'Below Average' in CR’s predicted reliability rating, down from its previous rating of 'Very Good'.

This is one more challenge Toyota has faced launching the Tundra, after four-star crash test ratings in federal impact tests, camshaft problems in early 5.7-liter V8 models, and the addition of a new, low-end trim line to better value-price the truck for shoppers.

In light of these difficulties, the 2007 Tundra still continues to sell incredibly well, with sales up 57.9% year to date through September.

It will be interesting to watch what impact, if any, the CR Ratings will have over the next few months and if that might cause Toyota to miss its first year target of 200,000 units in sales volume.

This also begs the question, what is causing owners to rate the Tundra so much lower than its predecessor? Toyota has previously told PickupTruck.com the camshaft issue was very limited in volume. Are there other mechanical issues owners are experiencing?

Excerpt From Consumer Reports' Press Release:

Findings are based on responses on almost 1.3 million vehicles owned or leased by subscribers to Consumer Reports or its web site, www.ConsumerReports.org.

The survey was conducted in the spring of 2007 by Consumer Reports’ National Survey Research Center and covered model years 1998 to 2007. Consumer Reports’ expert team of statisticians and automotive engineers used the survey data to predict reliability of new 2008 models. Predicted reliability is CR’s forecast of how well models currently on sale are likely to hold up. To calculate predicted-reliability ratings, CR averages the overall reliability scores (used car verdicts) for the most recent three model years, provided that the model remained unchanged in that period and also didn’t substantially change for 2008. If a model was new or redesigned in the past couple of years, one or two years’ data may be used, or if that’s all that’s available.

Consumer Reports annual reliability survey is used in determining which makes and models are recommended to consumers by CR. Consumer Reports recommends only models that have performed well in tests conducted at its 327-acre Auto Test Center in Connecticut, and that have average or better predicted reliability based on its annual survey. In addition, vehicles must perform well in government or insurance-industry crash and rollover tests, if tested, in order to be recommended. Occasionally, Consumer Reports may recommend a new or redesigned model too new to have compiled a reliability record if the previous generation, or the manufacturer’s reliability track record has been consistently outstanding, and if the model scores well in CR’s tests.

 

Someone please esplain how being 4WD or 2WD can affect some of the systems???? (in other words, brakes are the same, engines are the same, fuel system is the same whether 2 or 4WD....how can they have different ratings??)



What I find ironic is that when CR rips Ford they are the most biased, POS rag out there (which I actually agree with)......now that Toy is on that list, they're gonna be the Bible.


CR rated the Tundra #1 just a few short months ago......while I very rarely agree with their assinine subjective writing, they actually did some OBJECTIVE performance testing that humbled even the diesels while towing a moderate load.

 

And your point is???

Tim

 

Ford is finally getting the media coverage they deserve, and in the next few years, I see ford ahead of toyota, and Ford doing awesome again.

 

Not sure how 4WD & 2WD reliability ratings differ, but below is my understanding.

These CR reviews are based on consumer complaints/issues/repairs. So I'd gather that more people experienced issues with 4WD models than owners with 2WD models did. These are not results based on CR's reviews, but by actual owners of these trucks.

Are the 4WD owners pushing their rigs harder than 2WD owners, it's possible. Are there more 4WD models on the road than 2WD, bringing up the number of 4WD with potential issues, possibly. Examples would be, if there were only 5 2WD models and none experienced an issue, then it'd receive a great rating. But if there were 10 4WD models and 5 had problems, then the 4WD model would get a horrible rating.

Not sure if you were being sarcastic or not, but from my years of getting CR, this is what I concluded from their review process. I actually stopped getting CR in the early 2000's because I no longer felt some of their information was as reliable as it once was.

Just my 2 cents.

 

Good explanation but still makes no sense to me concerning redundant mechanical systems......audio system.....body hardware etc......it's a very flawed system.


To rate one "much better" and one "much worse" is very contradictory based on just that data.


I could understand the different ratings if 4WD SPECIFIC hardware was fragging..........

 

well... its kinda wierd.

FoA (Ford of Australia) make 5 different models (Falcon, Fairlane, Ute, Territory and Falcon Wagon) on the one production line, with the same people, with mostly the same parts.
YET, the consumer feedback surveys vary significantly... and even more interestingly so would warranty costs.
The Fairlane would have on average, one concern raised per vehicle on a quality survey (similar to say a Camry in quality)... and it stretch out the Ute, where on average thier would be 2.5concerns per vehicle (similar in quality to the Mustang).
Warranty costs had similar discrepancies.

Part of the reason was
1. Use. People buying a Ute would load 1.5t in the back, tow 3t. A Fairlane would be used by a retiree to go to Wednesday golf, and maybe Saturday bingo (sounds like you DOHC ). Who is going to see more problems?
2. Expectations. Those purchasing commercial vehicles seem to have (almost unreasonable) expectations as to what thier vehicle should be at, and they have a better understanding of when things are going wrong. Wheel balance slightly out - expect them to come back to dealership, screaming, whereas on a Fairlane, I think you could almost put the steering wheel upside down, and the owner wouldn't know any better.
3. Production quality. Even though there may be only small apparent differentations in a vehicle specification, it may have drastic differences in real world quality. The fitment of T/C may make some parts harder to fit on assembly, using slightly different suppliers may make large parts quality differences. Even use, the extra weight of carrying extra trim may be enough to trigger a failure of a component that may normally last for ages... (the 4R70W transmission comes to mind, fine in CV's and Stangs, in an F-Series however...)

 

How could Consumer Reports get the 2007 data so quickly? The Tundra didn't come out till the second week of February 2007. The survey was mailed to subscribers several months later. How many 2007 Tundras were sold in the first few months? How many owners could have possibly responded? I'm not defending Toyota, but IMO, that data is flawed, and based on a small number of respondees...if based on any at all. I believe that some of CR's "data" is culled from what is posted on vehicle enthusiasts websites.

 

IMO Ford was never as bad in quality, durability, or reliability as they claimed they were. Seems to me CR is finally publishing what many of us Ford owners all already knew.

 

Funny how that happens......

My thoughts exactly. And it has been stated here numerous times, even about our beloved F150, that the first year models are prone to more problems. I wouldn't want common sense to be confused with fanboyism. (is that even a word?)

 

I think the interesting point is that this is not an isolated instance. The JD Powers surveys have found similar trends for both Toyota and Ford. The difference is, Powers uses numbers from 3 year old vehicles, CR uses a different mix, that include the current model year. They both agree on the Fusion/Milan/MKZ though!
Don't get me wrong, Toyota makes some very reliable vehicles, but it is a combination of their quality slipping some, and the domestics, especially Ford, raising theirs. Let's face it, the more you produce, the harder it becomes to perform quality control.
I wouldn't use info from CR or JD Powers as a reason to buy, or not buy, any vehicle. But together with other sources they do paint an interesting picture of the trends in quality.

 

I agree, I'm not sure how some basic items differ so greatly when they are used across all models. Only item I can see is maybe most 4X4 models that are being sold that are having issues are high end models, while most 4X2's sold are base model work trucks.

An example is the Camry mentioned in these articles. CR still recommends the Hybrid & 4 cylinder, but not the 6 cylinder and the 6 speed trans. Certain options may be more prone to fail or have issues.

I know I hated my supposed top of the line stereo in my '99 Explorer, as it was always having issues, while my base model stereo in the '99 Ranger never had one problem.

Also remember, and this still may be true, but CR used to never recommend the Ranger 4X4 due to its problematic front hubs and 4WD system, but the 2WD Ranger almost always got a for sure recommendation. Of course this was back in the '90s so I'm unsure how they view the Ford 4WD systems today.

 

I noticed that as well - kinda funny how that works around here.

Still think the Tundra is a good truck - a little humility will only make it better.