23rd Jan 2009, 22:17

Yes and this is more proof that "Consumer Reports" takes their job seriously. THEY CHANGED THEIR POLICY. You can kinda understand if they considered 30 years of good performance suggestive of a trend. But when their formula failed they scrapped it. That's good science, folks.

Read the data for yourselves and remember that special use and heavier duty vehicles will have a higher incidence of repairs.

23rd Jan 2009, 22:47

This is exactly what "Consumer Reports" provides. They break down their frequency of repair data into a number of categories. These categories are rated by symbols that represent a range of percentages of vehicles in the sample with problems in that area. The data isn't presented unless the sample size is sufficiently large.

Toyota had a very long stretch of reliable models so Consumer Reports started to base recommendations of new models upon old ones. In this they were caught by surprise. The new models of both the Camry 6cyl and the Tundra were rushed in their release and had flaws that were widespread enough to cause them to no longer be recommended. Because of this Consumer Reports (to their credit) no longer bases new model recommendations on the previous model's reliability. They refined their system... you can use that as a reason to discredit them or you can see it as a reason to believe in their willingness to change for the sake of accuracy. Either way... the data is valuable. Their research criteria, data filtering rules, and the compiled outcomes are all too long and complex for me to write here in a blog, but they are readily available in the annual auto issue that you should be able to get at most book stores. That is where you'll find the data that shows that many Japanese vehicles have fared better over time.

Recently GM themselves admitted that they had let their reliability fall "below industry standards". Who are we to argue with them. Rather we should cheer them on as they continue their quest to restore their reputation for building world class automobiles.

24th Jan 2009, 07:09

11:18 Again, all of that is your opinion, none of it was fact. As has been stated before, Consumer Reports IS based on frequency of repair records by owners, and those owners, nationwide, report less mechanical issues with Toyota's and Honda's. Again, fact.

All we continue to see from domestic owners is stories about how much they like their Fords.

You don't have to drive a Toyota, but those of us who want to drive automobiles from the top two most reliable makes (Toyota and Honda) will continue to drive them, knowing that (and able to provide facts to back it up).

24th Jan 2009, 09:32

There are two major problems with this truck that have shown up on Consumer Reports and Toyota recalls. The first is the brakes; the second is the ball joints (the troubles experienced by the current model hadn't happened yet). The overall vehicle still shows up reliable because, apart from these issues, other problems have been much more infrequent than in some of the competition.

Consumer Affairs' site would seem to be a wake up call except for a few interesting problems:

#1 They accept advertising -- notably from Chevrolet. The most reputable consumer organizations, in an effort to maintain absolute independence, do not.

#2 The Tundra seems to be the prime beneficiary of such a long list of complaints. The pickups from Ford and GM have also had trouble areas and recalls (note GM's quiet buy-back of trucks because of piston-slap). Yet there is very little owner commentary on the site by comparison.

#3 They say as the first words in their summary "Yes it's an ugly truck". Pejorative commentary from a supposedly objective organization is a strike against their objectivity --- Particularly when no objective data is made available to put suspicion to rest.

#4 Finally; even if all my suspicions about Consumer Affairs are baseless, the long list of Tundra complaints are still merely anecdotal evidence that could either reflect a poor vehicle or an anomaly that is allayed by large scale data. Most of the comments seem to be on target, though, for common problems in Tundras. The real question is; where are the similar complaints about 2006 Ford F150s dead on the side of the highway from computer trouble or the GM pickups with piston slap?

But be honest guys. You don't care about this stuff. You still wouldn't buy a Toyota truck even if it walked on water on a regular basis. You dislike it because it comes from Toyota -- strike one... no more strikes necessary. Ford, Chevy, or Dodge is tattooed on your soul. All else is just window dressing and a search for a rationale for what you already believe. You're entitled to your opinion and the method you used to arrive at it. But, really, its not as though you're going unrecognized here. You're a (insert Ford, Chevy or Dodge) guy. Enjoy your trucks.

24th Jan 2009, 12:39

7:09 be more specific what full size Honda truck are you referring to? So its wrong to discuss a non existent vehicle that is the topic of this specific review

#2 your comments say Toyota, so is that cars or the one large truck?... What defines the best when you buy a full size truck?

I will test drive any new full size truck and buy the best and I do. It happens to be now it's not a Tundra.

Work on the best as far as handling, ride, room, comfort and warranty. I could care less what it costs by the way, it's these critical elements that will bring my checkbook out.

I don't harp and complain, I actually buy after driving several. I find it a waste to time to go on and on over non related vehicles or even full size trucks as theory vs. acquiring a 2009. It's like looking at homes... I sell one and actively buy another. I do active research and then act.

Sit behind the wheel of one you just bought and add some first hand beneficial knowledge to us to us that buy. Its very vague and carlike on a full size truck review..... how about a specific make,model and full size truck year you are actively staying specifically on topic about.