Toyota slips in Consumer Reports' reliability rankings

OMG! I'm posting bad news! I must hate Toyota! :rolleyes:


"NEW YORK, CNNMoney.com -- The Toyota brand has lost its top position for iron-clad reliability, according to an influential Consumer Reports survey released Tuesday.

The survey dropped Toyota from first to fifth place - behind Honda, Acura, Scion and Subaru - in average vehicle reliability. The rankings are based on average predicted reliability for all models sold under a given brand.

Brands made by Toyota Motor Co. and Honda Motor Co. still dominate the rankings: Scion is Toyota's low-priced car brand and Acura is Honda's luxury car brand.

Consumer Reports said it no longer recommends V6 versions of Toyota's Camry or V8 versions of its Tundra pick-up because of poor reliability."


Click for full story: http://money.cnn.com/2007/10/16/autos/cr_reliability/index.htm?cnn=yes

I wonder what it is in these engines (V6 Camry and V8 Tundra) that has made CR lose faith in Toyota's reliability.

OMG! I'm posting bad news! I must hate Toyota! :rolleyes:

That crap is getting pretty old by now. Don't you think?

In the past, because Toyota (http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=TM&source=story_quote_link) (Charts (http://money.cnn.com/quote/chart/chart.html?symb=TM&source=story_charts_link)) products have so consistently proved reliable, the magazine would assume at least average reliability for Toyota's brand new cars, without waiting for survey data from owners.

But from now on, the magazine will wait for a full year of reliability survey data to come in before it recommends a Toyota product - as it does with most other manufacturers.Finally they admit it! This is exactly why domestic fans berate CR...why give some manufacturers special treatment over others?

Ford, in particular, is improving in quality, according to Consumer Reports. In all, 93 percent of Ford, Lincoln and Mercury vehicles showed average or better reliability in the most recent reliability survey.


Among overall brands, Ford's Mercury brand ranked 11th, the Ford brand ranked 13th and the Lincoln luxury brand ranked 14th. Other than Buick, they were the highest-ranking domestic brands.


Mike Hardie, Ford's director of quality, predicted that Ford would take the top position in Consumer Reports reliability rankings in the near future.


Ford's quality has tended to be more consistent, with steady improvement year over year, than that of other domestic manufacturers, said David Champion, head of auto testing for Consumer Reports.

Good to hear.

I wonder what it is in these engines (V6 Camry and V8 Tundra) that has made CR lose faith in Toyota's reliability.



Consumer complaints about them?

I wonder if they're referring to the 4.8 or 5.7L???

Aside from the few camshaft snaps, I haven't heard anything negative with the tundra v-8's or camry's v6?

In the past, because Toyota (http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=TM&source=story_quote_link) (Charts (http://money.cnn.com/quote/chart/chart.html?symb=TM&source=story_charts_link)) products have so consistently proved reliable, the magazine would assume at least average reliability for Toyota's brand new cars, without waiting for survey data from owners.

Wow, this is just amazing!!! No statistically relevant survey should "assume" anything. . . the number should fall where they may. CR truly is rubbish. . . . . .

This does explain CR's recent blunder when they gave the BRAND NEW '07 Tundra a reliability rating (of "good", iirc), while claiming "no data available" for the re-designed (but mechanically similar) '07 Silverado/Sierra. I truly despise this publication. . . . .



One major reason for that difference: J.D. Power only surveys owners of three-year-old vehicles. But Consumer Reports surveys its subscribers about vehicles from all three of the most recent model years, unless the vehicle has changed significantly. If the vehicle has changed in that time, only vehicles built since the change are included.


If I'm reading this right, CR surveys any owner (so long as they are a CR subscriber) of a vehicle, whether it is brand new, or 3 years old (no redesign within those 3 years). This seems to me like the CR survey would skew positive for brand new vehicles (not old enough to have problems), and skew negative for older vehicles (more use/wear and tear). JD Powers ONLY surveys vehicles that are 3 years old, thus leveling the playing field. . . . seems more relevent, and accurate. . . .

Ohhh, I get's it now... derrr :lol:

It's not the engine's they're not recommending, it's the model with the engine :lol:

Ooops :D

Consumer reports is full of crap. I have seen alot of the stuff they have said were NOT at all true, or very few situations... so eh screw em. :)

Toyota has had some slip-ups in quality recently, thats not exactly news.
Look at it this way though, Toyota ranks 3rd behind Honda and Subaru but they rank well better than some of their main competitiors.
#10) Buick
#11) Mercury
#12) Ford
#13) Lincoln
#20) Chrysler
#26) Dodge
#28) GMC
#29) Jeep
#30) Chevrolet
#34) Cadillac
Another key bit of info from that study: 34 of the 39 models named "most reliable" are Asian.
Also, the Pontiac Solstice had worst new car prediction score in the survey.
So, lets not be all "doom 'n gloom" here. Yes, Toyota has some work to do.....but they still rank considerably better than their American competitiors.

.....but they still rank considerably better than their American competitiors.

How much of that is due to this:


In the past, because Toyota (http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=TM&source=story_quote_link) (Charts (http://money.cnn.com/quote/chart/chart.html?symb=TM&source=story_charts_link)) products have so consistently proved reliable, the magazine would assume at least average reliability for Toyota's brand new cars, without waiting for survey data from owners.

But from now on, the magazine will wait for a full year of reliability survey data to come in before it recommends a Toyota product - as it does with most other manufacturers.



Who wants to guess what other manufactures get the same preferential treatment Toyota used to enjoy? I'd say Honda/Acura, Subaru, and Infinity. For a magazine that has so much clout, these types of assumption should not be allowed. A large number of consumers rely on CR for auto buying advise, and these consumers deserve to have actual facts, not assumptions. . . .

How much of that is due to this:




Who wants to guess what other manufactures get the same preferential treatment Toyota used to enjoy? I'd say Honda/Acura, Subaru, and Infinity. For a magazine that has so much clout, these types of assumption should not be allowed. A large number of consumers rely on CR for auto buying advise, and these consumers deserve to have actual facts, not assumptions. . . .I've never understood that practice. Of all the things you can't reliably predict...reliability must be the hardest. I don't think this will hurt the Camry too much, because last I heard most mid-size car sales were of 4-cylinders, but the Tundra lives and dies with that V-8!

I wonder what it is in these engines (V6 Camry and V8 Tundra) that has made CR lose faith in Toyota's reliability.
Its actually the 6-speed transmissions on the V6 Camrys and the 4WD system on the Tundras. The AWD GS300 apparently has issues as well.

That's the part that got me laughing -- that "we will now treat Toyota like everyone else and not assume excellent reliability on new models." You would think that a consumer research journal whose methods and measurements are supposed to be beyond reproach would understand that this is not good practice.

Ahh well, I'm just one of those dumb whiny Domestic guys. :)

Oh no!! I must dump my Toyota now!!!:eek::eek:

Toyota is going down! We're all going to die! The sky is falling!

Hopefully this will put more of a realistic perspective on things.

I found it amusing Toyota is behind Scion in reliability...Scion is Toyota dumb asses!!:lol::lol::lol::lol:

the camry 4 cylinder improved from last year's average to above average this year. it's not all doom and gloom.

Oh no!! I must dump my Toyota now!!!:eek::eek:

Toyota is going down! We're all going to die! The sky is falling!

Hopefully this will put more of a realistic perspective on things.

I found it amusing Toyota is behind Scion in reliability...Scion is Toyota dumb asses!!:lol::lol::lol::lol:
Exactly. IMO there is no shame in placing 3rd behind Honda and Subaru. I have to laugh about the comments of "preferential treatment". Kinda sounds like domestic fanboy sour grapes to me. :lol:

Toyota is still better than GM & ford so it doesn't matter.

This piece of "news" makes no difference to me. I never give a crap about CR.

Actually, we all knew about this all along. There have been many discussions here in the recent past, and even a thread about how Toyota wasn't going to focus on any new models until they get their quality back up.

As I stated in another thread regarding this subject, everyone has growing pains.

Toyota still makes fantastic vehicles, even at their low point.

They will be the worlds largest and either the best in quality or very close to it. You really couldn't ask for anything more from any manufacturer. Nobody else has ever been able to balance quantity and quality as good as Toyota has, and they are striving to get better.

I gotta say, there is a lot of apathy considering that Toyota dropped five slots while the domestics continue to gain ground. Keep in mind that these stats are for the cars from 2004-2005, before Toyota began the big product push starting in '06. I have ready plenty on this board about problems with the '04-05 Camry, and plenty on the '07 as well. Read the comments over at Yahoo autos for the Camry...not pretty, especially compared to domestic competition such as the Fusion and Impala.

It's easy to say "Toyota is still the best," but growing stats show that Toyota is "moving backward" while the domestics continue to make progress in quality and perception. First JD Power, now Consumer Reports. First Jim Press, now Jim Farley. Something is amiss in Torrance and in the Toyota Way.

Exactly. IMO there is no shame in placing 3rd behind Honda and Subaru. I have to laugh about the comments of "preferential treatment". Kinda sounds like domestic fanboy sour grapes to me. :lol:
How else do you explain blatant skewing of statistics via unscientific "assumptions." CR is quickly proving itself irrelevant.

Who wants to guess what other manufactures get the same preferential treatment Toyota used to enjoy? I'd say Honda/Acura, Subaru, and Infinity. For a magazine that has so much clout, these types of assumption should not be allowed. A large number of consumers rely on CR for auto buying advise, and these consumers deserve to have actual facts, not assumptions. . . .
You are not understanding how CR works. They are NOT giving anyone preferential treatment. Period. They are not making blind assumptions. Certain manufactures have earned the right to be assumed reliable, over many many years and generations of models. They CLEARLY state when a new model comes out that it will have a certain projected reliability rating. They then gather actual data over the years and that is what is published. There is no bias in this method. If you go back and look at their recommendations based on projected reliability, they have been quite accurate over the years. All car makers have their own "DNA" that largely determines the overall quality of the car, regardless of the year or generation. Sadly, it appears that the gen6 Camry has picked up some bad genes.

CR has decided Toyota quality has slipped enough where they can no longer automatically recommend a new model. I find this fair, but people need to realize the projections cannot be 100% accurate. In fact, CR may end up being wrong and the 2008 Camry's could end up being one of the most reliable cars on the road. And if it continues to be very reliable, then at some point CU will go back to automatically recommending the vehicle, even a new generation.

Toyota is still better than GM & ford so it doesn't matter.

Anything small like that about Toyota is big news big it has higher expectations. Ford and GM spit out horse shit all the time and it is considered normal... :lol:

Before I begin, let me state that I am not trying to deliberately bait the domestic-lovers who have posted on this thread, but... :D

What I noticed, after all the crying (from the Toyota fanboys) and the "told you so" from the Toyota-haters, is that GM, once again, is very inconsistent. They have Buick in the Top 10 most reliable makes, and they have what are considered to be the among the most efficient and highest quality automotive plants in North America; yet, they also have the least reliable car, the Pontiac Solstice.

One question that I have, perhaps a challenge for some, is whether or not there is a difference in quality and reliability between two models that are built on the same assembly line, for example Ford Fusion and Mercury Milan, Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable, and Pontiac Solstice and Saturn Sky. If there is an appreciable difference, then that would point out to me that CR's (or JD Power's) protocols (questions they ask, etc.) may be wrong, or that reliability (at least as measured by CR or JD Power) is a perception thing. Mercury is a more luxurious brand, and so perceived to be higher quality than Ford, so the Mercury Milan will be assumed to be higher quality than its sister, the Ford Fusion, even though both may be built on the same line.

That may also explain the Fall of Toyota: Toyotas are perceived by many to be very reliable, whereas GMs are not. So any minor problem with a new Toyota (e.g. hard plastics in the new Camry) may be perceived to be a big (reliability) problem (when you go and survey new owners), whereas a minor improvement in a GM (e.g. better plastics in their new dashboards) may be perceived to be a great improvement, dragging Toyota down and bringing GM up.

In a news release following Consumer Reports' reliability survey which showed that Toyota is slipping in reliability ratings, Toyota issued this brief statement:

"Toyota, Lexus and Scion models collectively led the industry with the greatest number of models, 17, ranked "Most Reliable" in this year's Consumer Reports Reliability Survey. With dozens of models from three dozen makes vying for a spot on the magazine's "Most Reliable" list, only 39 were chosen. Toyota, Lexus and Scion models accounted for 44 percent of the list. ..."


Complete news story available at: http://www.canadiandriver.com/news/071017-3.htm

You are not understanding how CR works. They are NOT giving anyone preferential treatment. Period. They are not making blind assumptions.

Yes they are making blind assumptions, and giving preferential treatment. When a vehicle is “all new”, there is nothing to base reliability on, period. I don’t care if the car was made by Toyota (or Honda, or GM for that matter), a new car should not automatically receive a favorable reliability rating based on past products. IT’S ALL NEW!!!!

Certain manufactures have earned the right to be assumed reliable, over many many years and generations of models. They CLEARLY state when a new model comes out that it will have a certain projected reliability rating. They then gather actual data over the years and that is what is published. There is no bias in this method. If you go back and look at their recommendations based on projected reliability, they have been quite accurate over the years. All car makers have their own "DNA" that largely determines the overall quality of the car, regardless of the year or generation. Sadly, it appears that the gen6 Camry has picked up some bad genes.

There in lies the problem. . . .For a statistical based publication to assume reliability without data to validate the claim is inexcusable. They are not “gathering actuall data over the years” and reporting that, they are looking at a brand new model and saying it will be reliable, based on the past. At what point is this cycle broken if you continually use the past to predict the reliability of present/future vehicles? What ends up happening is, CR recommends a vehicle (like the new V6 Camry) based on past Camry’s, and when the new (recommended) Camry ends up being unreliable, CR ends up with egg on their face.

According to one article, this embarrassment has already happened, and the editor had to apologize for recommending the Camry, even though it should not have been due to it’s many issues.

Or that the august publication's editor apologized to readers for recommending the problem-plagued Camry V-6 and said the magazine has decided new Toyota models can no longer be given the benefit of the doubt -- and its "recommended" moniker -- anymore? They have to earn it again, just like the folks in Detroit have had to do for, well, forever.

CR has decided Toyota quality has slipped enough where they can no longer automatically recommend a new model. I find this fair, but people need to realize the projections cannot be 100% accurate.

Projection should not be used, for the exactly that reason. . . .it can not be 100% accurate. CR should not predict, but only report on what the readers supply. . . .to provide data any other way is borderline fraudulent.


In fact, CR may end up being wrong and the 2008 Camry's could end up being one of the most reliable cars on the road. And if it continues to be very reliable, then at some point CU will go back to automatically recommending the vehicle, even a new generation.

No they should not go back to automatically recommending any vehicle. Let the data fall out where it may. If the ’08 Camry does turn out to be reliable, let the data prove it, not some prediction based on past cars that may (or may not) share anything in common with the car in question. . . . .this is not a hard concept to comprehend.

Before I begin, let me state that I am not trying to deliberately bait the domestic-lovers who have posted on this thread, but... :D

What I noticed, after all the crying (from the Toyota fanboys) and the "told you so" from the Toyota-haters, is that GM, once again, is very inconsistent. They have Buick in the Top 10 most reliable makes, and they have what are considered to be the among the most efficient and highest quality automotive plants in North America; yet, they also have the least reliable car, the Pontiac Solstice.

One question that I have, perhaps a challenge for some, is whether or not there is a difference in quality and reliability between two models that are built on the same assembly line, for example Ford Fusion and Mercury Milan, Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable, and Pontiac Solstice and Saturn Sky. If there is an appreciable difference, then that would point out to me that CR's (or JD Power's) protocols (questions they ask, etc.) may be wrong, or that reliability (at least as measured by CR or JD Power) is a perception thing. Mercury is a more luxurious brand, and so perceived to be higher quality than Ford, so the Mercury Milan will be assumed to be higher quality than its sister, the Ford Fusion, even though both may be built on the same line.

That may also explain the Fall of Toyota: Toyotas are perceived by many to be very reliable, whereas GMs are not. So any minor problem with a new Toyota (e.g. hard plastics in the new Camry) may be perceived to be a big (reliability) problem (when you go and survey new owners), whereas a minor improvement in a GM (e.g. better plastics in their new dashboards) may be perceived to be a great improvement, dragging Toyota down and bringing GM up.


Good points :thumbup:

How can you guys have it both ways? Either CR is full of crap and it's ratings are worthless OR Hey look Toyota is slipping (according to CR's numbers)

Toyota has 2 vehicles that in 2007 were below average in reliability. Which would put Toyota Camry V6 as the Superstar of the GM line.....and the Tundra as better than average for the pickup category overall. Watch as Toyota actually does something about it and the reliability increases in the next year. As for the doom and gloom:

Top 3 most Reliable Cars (by category) according to CR
Small cars:

Toyota Yaris
Honda Fit
Toyota Corolla

Midsize:
Toyota Prius
Honda Accord
Hyundai Sonata

Small SUV:
Honda Element
Mitsubishi Outlander
Toyota Rav4

Midsize SUV:
Toyota Highlander
Honda Pilot
Toyota 4runner

Large SUV:
Toyota Land Cruiser (only model with above average reliability)

Pickups:
Toyota Tundra (2WD v8)
Toyota Tacoma
Ford F150 (v6, 2wd)

Wagons/Minivans
Pontiac Vibe/Toyota Matrix
Scion Xb
Toyota Sienna

And just to be fair....the ONLY Toyota on the least reliable list...Tundra 4WD V8....


On another note.....BOth the Saturn Sky and Pontiac Solstice are below average which would seem to confirm at least the consistency of the results. (Just like Matrix/Vibe)

Theres a reason why I still own the old Cressidas and Supras.. :)


What ever happened to padded dashboards wrapped in vynil? All these new cars with plastic hollow dashes and light weight crap and shit. I don't really give a damn how tight the interior panel gaps are, i give a damn about the quality. Exterior body panels with there gaps is what im picky about.

Engine-wise, thats one of the main reasons I love Toyota and Honda. Always the most reliable cars under abuse i've ever owned period. And when I say abuse... ABUSE!

You are not understanding how CR works. They are NOT giving anyone preferential treatment. Period. They are not making blind assumptions. Certain manufactures have earned the right to be assumed reliable, over many many years and generations of models. They CLEARLY state when a new model comes out that it will have a certain projected reliability rating. They then gather actual data over the years and that is what is published. There is no bias in this method. If you go back and look at their recommendations based on projected reliability, they have been quite accurate over the years. All car makers have their own "DNA" that largely determines the overall quality of the car, regardless of the year or generation. Sadly, it appears that the gen6 Camry has picked up some bad genes.

CR has decided Toyota quality has slipped enough where they can no longer automatically recommend a new model. I find this fair, but people need to realize the projections cannot be 100% accurate. In fact, CR may end up being wrong and the 2008 Camry's could end up being one of the most reliable cars on the road. And if it continues to be very reliable, then at some point CU will go back to automatically recommending the vehicle, even a new generation.
I'm not pro-domestic at all but I agree with them that projected reliability is a bad way to judge any new cars. The only way projected reliability would work is if the car remained almost exactly the same like British Leyland's Mini or the old VW Beetle. Today's Corolla has absolutely nothing in common with the very first Corolla except its name. Mercedes is probably the ultimate example of why you shouldn't do this. A brand that had more prestige and a great name for durability, suddenly drops all the way near the bottom of the list.

As for Toyota, I think things like this are the only way Toyota will know what to fix or what to improve. Its better to have a slip than a free fall like what happened to Mercedes. You should use more than one source to research a car.

Consumer Reports Reliability = Poor

This article makes EVERYTHING they rank unreliable...

but people will still take there word as fact...

Yes they are making blind assumptions, and giving preferential treatment.
No they're not. Maybe in your reality distortion field it seems that way.
When a vehicle is “all new”, there is nothing to base reliability on, period.
There is no such thing as "all new" unless the auto maker has never existed before. A certain percentage of the new model has parts carried over. It is pure idiocy to think that you can't make a reasonable prediction of a new models quality and reliability based on what was produced previously. By your "logic" then Toyota's well earned reputation for quality is USELESS for making a decision on ANY new model Toyota. Do you actually believe that?

I don’t care if the car was made by Toyota (or Honda, or GM for that matter), a new car should not automatically receive a favorable reliability rating based on past products. IT’S ALL NEW!!!!
Again, there is no such thing as "ALL NEW!!!" you display significant ignorance if you think this. Plus this totally ignores the history and breeding of the brand name, which is very, very important and highly relevant.

There in lies the problem. . . .For a statistical based publication to assume reliability without data to validate the claim is inexcusable.
Again, you fail to understand or grasp what CR is actually doing. They have PAST DATA and use that to make a projection. It has proven (especially in the case of Toyota) to be very accurate. The new Camry turned out to be the exception. And again, it is important to understand and take the projected reliability into context. It is not 100%. It is not intended to be. It is simply a reasonable assumption based on many years of history. And has been proven CORRECT far more often than not. But you conveniently ignore this fact.
They are not “gathering actuall data over the years” and reporting that, they are looking at a brand new model and saying it will be reliable, based on the past. At what point is this cycle broken if you continually use the past to predict the reliability of present/future vehicles?
Of course they are gathering data and reporting the results. Have you actually even seen or read a CR magazine? And your statement about "breaking the cycle" makes zero sense. Go pick up a CR magazine and take a look at for example the Toyota Corolla. It has an excellent history of reliability. If you look at 20 years worth of data, the Corolla is easily one of the most reliable cars ever made. But according to you, you CANNOT use that data to predict how a new model will perform, which is quite honestly idiotic. You make it sound like no actual data is used at any point, which is 100% false.

There is no need to "break the cycle" or any such nonsense. The gen6 Camry has been out long enough where CR has more than enough data to show CURRENT reliability of the model. And this data shows their projected reliability rating was wrong. Blame Toyota, not CR.
What ends up happening is, CR recommends a vehicle (like the new V6 Camry) based on past Camry’s, and when the new (recommended) Camry ends up being unreliable, CR ends up with egg on their face.
The only ones that have egg on their face are Toyota. CR confidently and accurately recommended 1st year new generation Toyota models with good reason. But Toyota dropped the ball, not CR. In nearly every other case, the new generation Toyota model was in fact reliable and the recommendation was justified.

Projection should not be used, for the exactly that reason. . . .it can not be 100% accurate. CR should not predict, but only report on what the readers supply. . . .to provide data any other way is borderline fraudulent.
Nothing is 100% accurate. So by your "logic" let's toss out ALL of Toyota's quality history when deciding on a new model. After all, why bother trying to predict how well the car is made? Decades of producing high quality, reliable cars means nothing right?

There is no such thing as "all new" unless the auto maker has never existed before. A certain percentage of the new model has parts carried over. It is pure idiocy to think that you can't make a reasonable prediction of a new models quality and reliability based on what was produced previously.



I'm going to disagree with that. Aside from the V-6 and low level V-8 the new 5.7L Tundra shares nothing with the previous Tundra, nor with any other vehicle in the Toyota line-up. All new body, frame, suspension, transmission, transfer case, interior, etc... A LOT of possibilities for error.

Also, when the new Tacoma came out, it was essentially 100% new as well.

What about the Prius?

Now when the Sequoia come outs, that won't be true for the Sequoia as it will share a lot with the Tundra :D

So there :woot::lol:

Hey, what's up with all the ads in the threads? Is that spam or a new Toyota Nation thing?

Also I've said it before and I'll say it again, CR blows! :D

No they're not. Maybe in your reality distortion field it seems that way.

Reality Distortion field? I assume you mean engineering. . . . You’re a business person, aren’t you? In the business field, you can whip up some fancy chart, come up with some great IDEAS, and so long as you can BS well, your right. . . .

In engineering, you actually have analytical thinking, and can’t just “come up“ with an answer without some sort of data that supports your findings. . . . If I’m wrong on my “ideas”, people die. . . .that’s why numbers, natural sciences, and statistics are important to me, no a prediction based on past results. . . . . Sure we use predictions in my field (call analysis by similarity), but we NEVER, EVER use that for a final answer. . . .there is actual numbers that prove my design. . . .and actual numbers that mater most to me. . . . . .not some business “idea” that was fluffed up in some cubical with Excel and a nifty PowerPoint presentation. . . .

There is no such thing as "all new" unless the auto maker has never existed before. A certain percentage of the new model has parts carried over.

Please let me know what parts carried over from the ’06 Tundra to the ’07. . . .Transmission, nope. 5.7liter engine, nope. Rear-end, nope try again. Frame, radio, steering wheel, brakes, seats, radiator, bed, tires, lug nuts, key lock, side view mirrors, switchgear, AC compressor, speakers. . . . . .ALL A BIG NO!!!! The ’07 Tundra is ALL NEW.

How about the new Corolla? Not sure what parts it carries over, but it sure is taking them a long time to release it, especially since it’s carrying over a “certain percentage” of parts. What you fail to realize is it’s not the individual parts, but rather the integration of those parts into an ALL NEW vehicle. Just because a motor worked flawlessly in one design does not mean it will automatically work flawlessly in another. Cooling, air flow, vibration (due to new chassis), packaging, and certainly new programming for that engine need to be taken into account.

These are not easily predictable variances, nor should they be assumed to be the same as an older generation/platform. Just because the parts are the same does not mean they were integrated the same, or have the same supporting subsystems. This integration is what give designers challenges, and is what takes them so long to accomplish. It’s not simply dropping the same drivetrain in a new chassis. . . . . .

Business people have no “business” speaking on topic they are not familiar with. . . . stick to PowerPoint and Excel.

It is pure idiocy to think that you can't make a reasonable prediction of a new models quality and reliability based on what was produced previously. By your "logic" then Toyota's well earned reputation for quality is USELESS for making a decision on ANY new model Toyota. Do you actually believe that?

Your damn right I believe that. What is the harm in reporting actual findings (like CR does for most other auto makers), instead of assuming reliability for a select few makers? Past performance has no relevance.

Toyota makes reliable cars, nobody is denying that. But to somehow assume that an ALL NEW car will be reliable is truly idiotic. Again, why assume anything? Why not wait for the data to come in and avoid the embarrassment of having to apologize to subscribers for recommending a problematic vehicle (see V6 Camry).


Again, there is no such thing as "ALL NEW!!!" you display significant ignorance if you think this. Plus this totally ignores the history and breeding of the brand name, which is very, very important and highly relevant.

Breeding? You speak as if cars are born, instead of designed (by people). People screw up, and those screw-ups result in a problematic vehicle, be that from a designer, or an assembler. . . . . these screw-ups occur, regardless of pedigree.

Breeding. . . .get real.

Again, you fail to understand or grasp what CR is actually doing. They have PAST DATA and use that to make a projection. It has proven (especially in the case of Toyota) to be very accurate. The new Camry turned out to be the exception. And again, it is important to understand and take the projected reliability into context. It is not 100%. It is not intended to be. It is simply a reasonable assumption based on many years of history. And has been proven CORRECT far more often than not. But you conveniently ignore this fact.

CR should report actual results from the data their subscribers provide, not some business world “prediction” that allows a group of car buyers to purchase a vehicle on the pretenses that it’s reliable, then to be told, “sorry, we mislead you because we assumed it would be just as reliable as the past vehicles.” How can you defend this practice? As a consumer, you should want real data, not someone’s opinion (which is all this prediction/assumption BS is).

Post actual results, and if those results show that Toyota (or Ford, or BMW, or whoever) has a reliable car, so be it. DO NOT ASSUME, period.


Of course they are gathering data and reporting the results. Have you actually even seen or read a CR magazine? And your statement about "breaking the cycle" makes zero sense. Go pick up a CR magazine and take a look at for example the Toyota Corolla. It has an excellent history of reliability. If you look at 20 years worth of data, the Corolla is easily one of the most reliable cars ever made. But according to you, you CANNOT use that data to predict how a new model will perform, which is quite honestly idiotic. You make it sound like no actual data is used at any point, which is 100% false.

Actually, if the data showed that the Corolla was a reliable vehicle, one could easily say, “past Corolla’s were reliable”. I would even go so far as to say current Corolla’s are reliable, assuming there had not been any major updates. The issue I have is with ALL NEW vehicles that use an untested chassis, or engine, or software, or drivetrain. For these vehicles, there should be no recommendations until the data is gathered (I don’t care who makes the vehicle). CR should not assume this vehicle is reliable. . . . .nor should the consumer. How many times have you heard not to buy a vehicle the first year is comes out? Why do you think that is? Exactly, because all of the bugs have not been worked out. . . . . .

There is no need to "break the cycle" or any such nonsense. The gen6 Camry has been out long enough where CR has more than enough data to show CURRENT reliability of the model. And this data shows their projected reliability rating was wrong. Blame Toyota, not CR.

No, blame CR and Toyota. Blame Toyota for building a vehicle that was not up to it’s reputation of quality, and blame CR for assuming that just because it was a Toyota, it would be reliable. If CR would have avoided this assumption and only reported actual data (the real, unreliable data), they would not have had to apologize to subscribers for recommending a problematic vehicle. Are you starting to understand the logic here?

Decades of producing high quality, reliable cars means nothing right?

When it comes to an ALL NEW offering, yes, reputation means nothing. No matter the manufacture, if you buy a first year vehicle (newly redesigned or all new), you are taking a risk. This risk should not be brushed under the rug by CR by blindly recommending a vehicle because of the badge on the trunk lid. What is the harm in waiting for actual data?

Reality Distortion field? I assume you mean engineering. . . . You’re a business person, aren’t you?
You complain about assumptions, then you make a giant one of your own.
Please let me know what parts carried over from the ’06 Tundra to the ’07. . . .Transmission, nope. 5.7liter engine, nope. Rear-end, nope try again. Frame, radio, steering wheel, brakes, seats, radiator, bed, tires, lug nuts, key lock, side view mirrors, switchgear, AC compressor, speakers. . . . . .ALL A BIG NO!!!! The ’07 Tundra is ALL NEW.
Correction, the Tundra is MORE new than some other new generation Toyota's. But again, you show your ignorance if you think it is ALL NEW. It isn't. Period. Such a thing would be a waste of resources. Of course the vehicle itself can be characterized as all new. And it is. But it inevitably SHARES components with other Toyota's. Toyota is not so stupid as to use separate, unique parts for each model and each new generation. The only question is how much is new, the ENTIRE vehicle is not. But that point is neither here nor there.
What you fail to realize is it’s not the individual parts, but rather the integration of those parts into an ALL NEW vehicle. Just because a motor worked flawlessly in one design does not mean it will automatically work flawlessly in another.
It doesn't automatically mean it will perform flawlessly. But it sure as hell improves the chances. Just as Toyota has a much better chance of making a new generation reliable, based on 40+ years of history.

Business people have no “business” speaking on topic they are not familiar with. . . . stick to PowerPoint and Excel.
Stop making stupid assumptions. I you actually are an engineer, you exhibit some alarming concepts and traits. I hope I never have the misfortune of relying on something you "engineered" but let me guess, you work in the U.S. Auto industry. :lol:
Your damn right I believe that. What is the harm in reporting actual findings (like CR does for most other auto makers), instead of assuming reliability for a select few makers? Past performance has no relevance.
Do you have some sort of comprehension deficiency? CR DOES REPORT FINDINGS. Hello. They do NOT assume based on NOTHING that a new generation of Toyota will be reliable. They base it on REPAIR HISTORY of the model. And it has PROVEN to be a VALID prediction for the vast majority of Toyota models. Also, CR does not single out a "select few" makers and favour them, they apply the repair history criteria to ALL makes and models and base predicted reliability on this criteria. Got it?

Do you have some sort of mental block where you cannot comprehend this? It is not the end all be all, it is not the definitive statement on the reliability of the car. The actual DATA is, which until gen6 was copasetic with the predicted reliability. Saying "Past performance has no relevance" is about the stupidest thing you can possibly say. It is VERY relevant. WTF? So according to you, the performance, reliability and economy of the next generation of Prius has nothing at all to do with the current model? No knowledge was gleaned from the current design? Nothing was learned? They are just going to toss the entire knowledge base away and start from scratch? And you call yourself an engineer? Toyota has built their empire on "constant improvement" which very obviously means that every new model is based on what was learned and produced previously. And this history very often translates into a new generation that proves to be reliable despite being a new design.

But wait, the past has no "relevence" ??? :nuts:

But to somehow assume that an ALL NEW car will be reliable is truly idiotic.
For the last time, it is not some blind assumption. Okay?
Breeding? You speak as if cars are born, instead of designed (by people).
Breeding is a common term you hear in the auto industry. Sorry that you are not able to put proper context into the use of the word and think breeding only means little puppies and kittens.
CR should report actual results from the data their subscribers provide...
Not again.
Post actual results, and if those results show that Toyota (or Ford, or BMW, or whoever) has a reliable car, so be it. DO NOT ASSUME, period.
Repeating yourself over and over again doesn't make your point any more valid.



Not going to respond to the rest, not worth it. Have a nice day.

Solstice as a POS? I'd never imagine that in a year :lol: Pontiac did set its own bar a little too high by comparing that POS to a Boxster though :rofl:



71Corolla: Why even bother arguing with someone who might or might not be a real engineer? :lol: I'd safely "assume" that an engineer should have real jobs to do, like engineering something, NOT arguing with a bunch of Toyota fans in a Toyota Enthusiasts forum :lol:

Relax....crack open a beer, think about the Patriots going 16-0...anything... but relax.

http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/2599/frankiesw4.gif



:lol:

Also, CR does not single out a "select few" makers and favour them, they apply the repair history criteria to ALL makes and models and base predicted reliability on this criteria. Got it?

Holy shnipes, they only do this for a select few. Read the article again. It clearly states that Toyota is one of the few brands CR actually gives a "free" pass to in terms of new model reliablity ratings. It's right there in black and white! This is like playing the game of defending the indefenseable.

Let me make this clear ok, I would not at all have a problem with this practice if they treated EVERY new model from every manufacturer this way. At least there would be some consistancy and some level playing field in the results. Last model was bad? Give the new one a bad predicted rating. Last one was good? Give it a good one. Do it ACROSS THE BOARD. There is something that is simply not right when, as an example, the 2007 Silverado comes out with no predicted reliability and the 2007 Tundra comes out with excellent predicted reliability. Two new trucks, released near the same time. You don't feel this might give the Tundra an inherent advantage to people who lean on CR for their purchasing decisions?

Again, for the consumer "Bible" that Consumer Reports claims to be, an organization that prides itself on statistical analysis and research, how do you make predictions for different groups by a different set of standards? Those in the scientific community who use these types of methods would never keep their jobs. Their hypotheses would be null and void. You have got to apply the same rules to all. Period.

Saying "Past performance has no relevance" is about the stupidest thing you can possibly say. It is VERY relevant.

Yes, it could be relevant. But again, you need to apply this logic to ALL CARS, not just pick and choose whichever you'd like. I go back to the truck example I gave. The Silverado has a decent reputation for reliability, so why was the new model not rated at all when it came out? Give it a rating, good bad or indifferent. Just be consistant. That is where a lot of the skepticism comes from with CR.

Holy shnipes, they only do this for a select few. Read the article again. It clearly states that Toyota is one of the few brands CR actually gives a "free" pass to in terms of new model reliablity ratings. It's right there in black and white! This is like playing the game of defending the indefenseable.

I really don't know how else to better explain how CR gives certain new models a recommendation vs. others. Toyota is one of the few manufactures that gets a "pass" BECAUSE THEY HAVE EARNED IT. Is that clear enough for everyone? They apply the EXACT SAME criteria to ALL CARS. The do NOT give special treatment to Toyota or any other maker. Period! It is the height of ignorance, stupidity, or perhaps both that gives people the false impression that CR somehow favours Toyota.

When Consumer Reports states that a new model Toyota is recommended, and that they generally recommend brand new models of Toyota's, unlike most other makers, it is SOLELY based on Toyota's reliability record. If in 20 years Ford earns the same level of reliability ratings, they will ALSO be given the same treatment. Or any other maker that earns it. I fail to see why this is so hard to understand for some people.

Again, for the consumer "Bible" that Consumer Reports claims to be, an organization that prides itself on statistical analysis and research, how do you make predictions for different groups by a different set of standards?
The SAME standard is applied to General Motors. And the criteria of that standard says that GM has not been able to consistently produce a new model that has better or much better than average reliability. The SAME STANDARD is applied! But GM does not pass the standard, therefore it is not justified to say that a new model GM vehicle can be automatically recommended and predicted to be reliable. And it is also clearly stated as predicted reliabllity not actual. For actual, obviously the car has to be on the road for at least a year.

Now take that 1st year data of a new model. In the case of Toyota, they have shown that a new generation has been in fact reliable. (with a few exceptions, such as the gen6 Camry) CR uses this data to project reliability of successive new generations. The SAME logic is applied to all other cars. The very same. But the vast majority of makers did not produce new models over the year reliable enough to earn a "pass" hence they didn't get one.

Those in the scientific community who use these types of methods would never keep their jobs. Their hypotheses would be null and void. You have got to apply the same rules to all. Period.
As I have explained from multiple angles, the same rules ARE applied. The results are just different depending on the car.

he Silverado has a decent reputation for reliability, so why was the new model not rated at all when it came out? Give it a rating, good bad or indifferent. Just be consistant. That is where a lot of the skepticism comes from with CR.
The reliability of a GM truck over many years has not been good enough to earn it a "pass" according to CR data. Simple.

Imagine, if you will, that CR actually did apply the same rules (using past reliability statistics to predict how reliable an "all new" model will be) to ALL vehicles, not just the models that were previously recommended...

Imagine that it is 2011 / 2012 and the Gen7 Camry comes out. Imagine that the final years of the Gen6 Camry have been very reliable and recommended by CR each of the past few years. CR recommends the Gen7 Camry, based upon its past history.

Imagine that at the same time, Pontiac introduces a new Solstice (I told you all to IMAGINE!), and that the Solstice has always been near the bottom of CR's reliability list. Now, if CR applied the same rules to all, they would not recommend the Gen2 Solstice, because, based upon its reliability history, it is predicted that the new generation model will be just as bad.

Does CR do this, and apply its rule of predicting future reliability from past reliability (which may be valid, I would say) for all models, good or bad?

... One thing that I think was missed (or perhaps I missed it in all the back-and-forth sniping) is that the Gen6 Camry 4-cylinder model is not "all new". Its engine and transmission were both carried over from the Gen5 Camry. The Gen6 Camry V6, however, is "new" because the 3.5 litre V6 was not previously used in the Camry, and the 6-speed transmission is an all-new transmission. So, would it be a complete surprise that the Camry V6 with 6-speed transmission turns out to have "poor" reliability?

... One thing that I think was missed (or perhaps I missed it in all the back-and-forth sniping) is that the Gen6 Camry 4-cylinder model is not "all new". Its engine and transmission were both carried over from the Gen5 Camry. The Gen6 Camry V6, however, is "new" because the 3.5 litre V6 was not previously used in the Camry, and the 6-speed transmission is an all-new transmission. So, would it be a complete surprise that the Camry V6 with 6-speed transmission turns out to have "poor" reliability?
You bring up a very valid point, and this has no doubt contributed to the Camry having uncharacteristic mechanical problems. The thing is, Toyota has introduced new engines, transmissions etc. in new models before, and were able to make them reliable. What exactly changed for the generation 6 Camry is open for endless debate.

I will say this, I don't understand why some people are all up in arms over Consumer Reports and their bias towards Toyota, when in fact they have basically revoked Toyota's hall pass for the Camry. Bias would be if they continued to endorse the model just because it is a Toyota.

You bring up a very valid point, and this has no doubt contributed to the Camry having uncharacteristic mechanical problems. The thing is, Toyota has introduced new engines, transmissions etc. in new models before, and were able to make them reliable. What exactly changed for the generation 6 Camry is open for endless debate.

I will say this, I don't understand why some people are all up in arms over Consumer Reports and their bias towards Toyota, when in fact they have basically revoked Toyota's hall pass for the Camry. Bias would be if they continued to endorse the model just because it is a Toyota.

Perhaps the 2007 Gen6 Camry was rushed to market? There were also obvious cost-cutting measures on the Gen6 Camry, compared to the Gen5 Camry (i.e. poor quality plastics). Let's hope that the delay (for North America) of the Gen10 Corolla will be put to good use to ensure that "quality is Job One" (sorry, Ford!).

Perhaps the 2007 Gen6 Camry was rushed to market? There were also obvious cost-cutting measures on the Gen6 Camry, compared to the Gen5 Camry (i.e. poor quality plastics). Let's hope that the delay (for North America) of the Gen10 Corolla will be put to good use to ensure that "quality is Job One" (sorry, Ford!).



Yeah I believe that was one of the main factors. That and the Tundra were rushed to the market. Toyota has or hopefully learned their lesson. They usually don't rush things like this but the competition was getting too hot. Toyota's president did make an official appology for the slip in quality. That's why Toyota has delayed the Corolla to ensure quality control. Lets hope it keeps up.

I think this is a win win for Toyota, hopefully they will continue (which I have no doubt) making great relaible transportation but with more excitment this time. Knowing that Toyota's competitors are closing in Toyota really doesn't have much to offer in the way of exciting. If all things equal or about Toyota's offer would be obsolete when carmaker B offers just as much refindment but a touch of excitement and interesting designs. If you can see my point.

You have to remember majority of the public at least U.S. buying public knows nothing about cars, doesn't care and probably will never. Yes there are car enthuaists like us but we are the minority. So public perception is changing but its still going to be a very long road for GM and the others to convience people to drop their Camry's in favor for a Malibu. I applaud the big3 trying to turn things around, i hope they get back on their feet. If Hyundai can make a name for themselves then they should be able to. All these years we be fed imports namely Toyota, and Honda are the kings of reliability and quality and its true but things are changing but like I said its ingrained into people that Toyota is superior but I say yes and no on that. But going on the fact not many people pay attention to this unless its constant and very evident. Toyota is new at being number one and they know its a tough road plus the journey never ends and it shouldn't.
I digress.:thumbup::cool:

You complain about assumptions, then you make a giant one of your own.

Correction, the Tundra is MORE new than some other new generation Toyota's. But again, you show your ignorance if you think it is ALL NEW. It isn't. Period. Such a thing would be a waste of resources. Of course the vehicle itself can be characterized as all new. And it is. But it inevitably SHARES components with other Toyota's. Toyota is not so stupid as to use separate, unique parts for each model and each new generation. The only question is how much is new, the ENTIRE vehicle is not. But that point is neither here nor there.

It doesn't automatically mean it will perform flawlessly. But it sure as hell improves the chances. Just as Toyota has a much better chance of making a new generation reliable, based on 40+ years of history.


Stop making stupid assumptions. I you actually are an engineer, you exhibit some alarming concepts and traits. I hope I never have the misfortune of relying on something you "engineered" but let me guess, you work in the U.S. Auto industry.

Do you have some sort of comprehension deficiency? CR DOES REPORT FINDINGS. Hello. They do NOT assume based on NOTHING that a new generation of Toyota will be reliable. They base it on REPAIR HISTORY of the model. And it has PROVEN to be a VALID prediction for the vast majority of Toyota models. Also, CR does not single out a "select few" makers and favour them, they apply the repair history criteria to ALL makes and models and base predicted reliability on this criteria. Got it?

Do you have some sort of mental block where you cannot comprehend this? It is not the end all be all, it is not the definitive statement on the reliability of the car. The actual DATA is, which until gen6 was copasetic with the predicted reliability. Saying "Past performance has no relevance" is about the stupidest thing you can possibly say. It is VERY relevant. WTF? So according to you, the performance, reliability and economy of the next generation of Prius has nothing at all to do with the current model? No knowledge was gleaned from the current design? Nothing was learned? They are just going to toss the entire knowledge base away and start from scratch? And you call yourself an engineer? Toyota has built their empire on "constant improvement" which very obviously means that every new model is based on what was learned and produced previously. And this history very often translates into a new generation that proves to be reliable despite being a new design.

But wait, the past has no "relevence" ??? :nuts:


For the last time, it is not some blind assumption. Okay?

Breeding is a common term you hear in the auto industry. Sorry that you are not able to put proper context into the use of the word and think breeding only means little puppies and kittens.

Not again.

Repeating yourself over and over again doesn't make your point any more valid.



Not going to respond to the rest, not worth it. Have a nice day.

Yep, definitely a business person. . . .

First, I’m going to put the onus on you inform us of what parts the ALL NEW Tundra shares with the previous generation. My best is you wont find so much as a fuse. . . . prove me wrong.

Second, Toyota does spend billions of dollars developing ALL NEW platforms, engines, transmissions, soft touch plastic, vehicle control systems, etc. To assume Toyota just regurgitates the same parts every generation of an new car is laughable. There is a department called R & D, and their sole purpose is to develop ALL NEW things, be that engines, headlights, or switchgear. . . . . This is not a waist of resources, and to say otherwise shows your business mentality. . . .

Third, you (and your country) depend on the things I engineer everyday. They are the things that allow you to sleep safe at night. Some of these things you see, while others you will never know about.

Lastly, I can see you have a reading comprehension issue, so let me provide CR own quote (paraphrased from CNNmoney).

http://money.cnn.com/2007/10/16/autos/cr_reliability/index.htm?source=yahoo_quote (http://money.cnn.com/2007/10/16/autos/cr_reliability/index.htm?source=yahoo_quote)

Consumer Reports said it no longer recommends V6 versions of Toyota's Camry or V8 versions of its Tundra pick-up because of poor reliability. In the past, because Toyota products have so consistently proved reliable, the magazine would assume at least average reliability for Toyota's brand new cars, without waiting for survey data from owners.

But from now on, the magazine will wait for a full year of reliability survey data to come in before it recommends a Toyota product - as it does with most other manufacturers.


CR making an assumption about a vehicle’s reliability, without waiting for survey results. . . . .this is only done for a select group of manufactures, and now Toyota has lost that privilege.

Plain and simple, CR should not give a reliability rating to a vehicle if the car is ALL NEW (gen6 Camry, ’07 Tundra, ’08 Corolla, gen2 Prius, ’08 Accord, new Civic, etc.). CR methods should be beyond reproach, and transparent to give customers the confidence that CR is a viable resource. Preferential treatment to certain manufacture’s ALL NEW vehicle (assigning favorable ratings before survey results are even tallied) result in nothing more than a hypothesis with no data to back it up. Business people may find this acceptable, engineers find this reckless.

Is it just me or does the "All New" Tundra not have a 4.0l engine that's been used for years....or the 4.7l that's been used for years? I would say that qualifies as better than a spark plug. Or the Camry's 3.5l engine that was already in the Lexus RX and the Avalon. Even the "completely redesigned" vehicle do share some parts. Now the 5.7 is all new, but the problems are obviously not in the engine but in other parts like the transmission and the 4wd system. How can I make this claim? Because the V8 4x2 models have above average reliability so far.

Plain and simple, CR should not give a reliability rating to a vehicle if the car is ALL NEW (gen6 Camry, ’07 Tundra, ’08 Corolla, gen2 Prius, ’08 Accord, new Civic, etc.). CR methods should be beyond reproach, and transparent to give customers the confidence that CR is a viable resource. Preferential treatment to certain manufacture’s ALL NEW vehicle (assigning favorable ratings before survey results are even tallied) result in nothing more than a hypothesis with no data to back it up.

Exactly. You say Toyota has "earned the right" to be given favorable reliability rankings when they introduce a new model? In statistics, there is no such thing as "right-earning." And a magazine that is supposed to be beyond reproach with the way they gather and analyze data should not be deciding who "earns the right" to have their data predicted.

Again I will say, make predictions about everyone or no one. This is basic, analytical procedure here.

Wow, this is just amazing!!! No statistically relevant survey should "assume" anything. . . the number should fall where they may. CR truly is rubbish. . . . . .

This does explain CR's recent blunder when they gave the BRAND NEW '07 Tundra a reliability rating (of "good", iirc), while claiming "no data available" for the re-designed (but mechanically similar) '07 Silverado/Sierra. I truly despise this publication. . . . .




If I'm reading this right, CR surveys any owner (so long as they are a CR subscriber) of a vehicle, whether it is brand new, or 3 years old (no redesign within those 3 years). This seems to me like the CR survey would skew positive for brand new vehicles (not old enough to have problems), and skew negative for older vehicles (more use/wear and tear). JD Powers ONLY surveys vehicles that are 3 years old, thus leveling the playing field. . . . seems more relevent, and accurate. . . .

+100. I cannot believe they have done that all the past years :thumbdown:thumbdown:thumbdown

ANyway, at least realistic and more accurate recomendations may come in the future.

Toyota has had some slip-ups in quality recently, thats not exactly news.
Look at it this way though, Toyota ranks 3rd behind Honda and Subaru but they rank well better than some of their main competitiors.
#10) Buick
#11) Mercury
#12) Ford
#13) Lincoln
#20) Chrysler
#26) Dodge
#28) GMC
#29) Jeep
#30) Chevrolet
#34) Cadillac
Another key bit of info from that study: 34 of the 39 models named "most reliable" are Asian.
Also, the Pontiac Solstice had worst new car prediction score in the survey.
So, lets not be all "doom 'n gloom" here. Yes, Toyota has some work to do.....but they still rank considerably better than their American competitiors.

Yeah, u got a point there. Still playing in another league.

Actually, we all knew about this all along. There have been many discussions here in the recent past, and even a thread about how Toyota wasn't going to focus on any new models until they get their quality back up.

As I stated in another thread regarding this subject, everyone has growing pains.

Toyota still makes fantastic vehicles, even at their low point.

They will be the worlds largest and either the best in quality or very close to it. You really couldn't ask for anything more from any manufacturer. Nobody else has ever been able to balance quantity and quality as good as Toyota has, and they are striving to get better.

Yeah, thats why they recalled 470000 vehicles yesterday for engine tranny problems. I agree its hard to maintain quality when u grow up so much in quantity, I think they are still learning that lesson, now with this drop, with that wake up call maybe they will recover what they have lost. Oh well, GM youre not alone, more quantity, more quality issues.

Anything small like that about Toyota is big news big it has higher expectations. Ford and GM spit out horse shit all the time and it is considered normal... :lol:

Exactly, because one of the main reasons toyota sells their cars is the high expectations in quality and reliability. And of course, toyota has now even more higher expectations as trying to sell over 10million vehicles worldwide in a few years.

I gotta say, there is a lot of apathy considering that Toyota dropped five slots while the domestics continue to gain ground. Keep in mind that these stats are for the cars from 2004-2005, before Toyota began the big product push starting in '06. I have ready plenty on this board about problems with the '04-05 Camry, and plenty on the '07 as well. Read the comments over at Yahoo autos for the Camry...not pretty, especially compared to domestic competition such as the Fusion and Impala.

It's easy to say "Toyota is still the best," but growing stats show that Toyota is "moving backward" while the domestics continue to make progress in quality and perception. First JD Power, now Consumer Reports. First Jim Press, now Jim Farley. Something is amiss in Torrance and in the Toyota Way.

YEAH, I said that exactly in a thread posted a few weeks ago. But still, toyota is the best versus american manufacturers.

How can you guys have it both ways? Either CR is full of crap and it's ratings are worthless OR Hey look Toyota is slipping (according to CR's numbers)

Toyota has 2 vehicles that in 2007 were below average in reliability. Which would put Toyota Camry V6 as the Superstar of the GM line.....and the Tundra as better than average for the pickup category overall. Watch as Toyota actually does something about it and the reliability increases in the next year. As for the doom and gloom:

Top 3 most Reliable Cars (by category) according to CR
Small cars:

Toyota Yaris
Honda Fit
Toyota Corolla

Midsize:
Toyota Prius
Honda Accord
Hyundai Sonata

Small SUV:
Honda Element
Mitsubishi Outlander
Toyota Rav4

Midsize SUV:
Toyota Highlander
Honda Pilot
Toyota 4runner

Large SUV:
Toyota Land Cruiser (only model with above average reliability)

Pickups:
Toyota Tundra (2WD v8)
Toyota Tacoma
Ford F150 (v6, 2wd)

Wagons/Minivans
Pontiac Vibe/Toyota Matrix
Scion Xb
Toyota Sienna

And just to be fair....the ONLY Toyota on the least reliable list...Tundra 4WD V8....


On another note.....BOth the Saturn Sky and Pontiac Solstice are below average which would seem to confirm at least the consistency of the results. (Just like Matrix/Vibe)

SO, the outlander is more reliable than the rav4? Anyway, great news for this car, I think besides been stylish and very techno , now is realiable as well. As for the tacoma, :lol::D just confirmation of all he can do.

I'm not pro-domestic at all but I agree with them that projected reliability is a bad way to judge any new cars. The only way projected reliability would work is if the car remained almost exactly the same like British Leyland's Mini or the old VW Beetle. Today's Corolla has absolutely nothing in common with the very first Corolla except its name. Mercedes is probably the ultimate example of why you shouldn't do this. A brand that had more prestige and a great name for durability, suddenly drops all the way near the bottom of the list.

As for Toyota, I think things like this are the only way Toyota will know what to fix or what to improve. Its better to have a slip than a free fall like what happened to Mercedes. You should use more than one source to research a car.


WTF??? :confused: Really wow........that hurts!!!! U get what u pay for! :lol:
Big money, big fall down.

You bring up a very valid point, and this has no doubt contributed to the Camry having uncharacteristic mechanical problems. The thing is, Toyota has introduced new engines, transmissions etc. in new models before, and were able to make them reliable. What exactly changed for the generation 6 Camry is open for endless debate.

I will say this, I don't understand why some people are all up in arms over Consumer Reports and their bias towards Toyota, when in fact they have basically revoked Toyota's hall pass for the Camry. Bias would be if they continued to endorse the model just because it is a Toyota.

Ok now CRfinally is not biased towards toyota, they have learned their mistake. They used to be bias , they arent anymore cause they fucked up. SImple. Why they fucked up, because assumptions arent scientific arent reality and u cannot base an opinion on one without risking to be all wrong.

I never did like how CU "allowed" for so-called predicted reliability in their ratings. That is very unscientific and they have burned their readers by doing that.

However, CU has been in business for over 70 years; the folks in this thread calling CU "irrelevant" are just pissed-off duhmestic fans torqued by all the drubbing CU has given the duhmestics over the years. CU will be around for a long time as no one else provides their service.

C

I never did like how CU "allowed" for so-called predicted reliability in their ratings. That is very unscientific and they have burned their readers by doing that.

However, CU has been in business for over 70 years; the folks in this thread calling CU "irrelevant" are just pissed-off duhmestic fans torqued by all the drubbing CU has given the duhmestics over the years. CU will be around for a long time as no one else provides their service.

C

So that makes their rating practices ok? Silly me!

So that makes their rating practices ok? Silly me!


Anyone who thinks that "predicted reliability" and "reliability" are the same thing is a moron anyway.

Here's some definition for all:

Predict

v. tr.
To state, tell about, or make known in advance, especially on the basis of special knowledge.

v. intr.
To foretell something; prophesy.

That second one doesn't sound like it's 100% now does it. Let's use it in a sentence or two....

1. I predict the Sox will win the world series.
2. I predict that next years reliability for v6 camry's will improve.
3. I predict that the Supra will be unveiled next week and be in dealers next month with 600hp and cost $16700!

Which of those statements have the highest likelyhood? I'll use my special knowledge so lets see...

1. Everyone knows God likes the Rockies in this one.
2. Years of previous reliability, Toyota having already fixed the 6 speed on current models, reliability of other Toyota models using the same engine, other camrys having good reliability etc.
3. Everyone knows the new supra will have 750 hp.

So I guess it's #2 then.

Predicting reliability going forward based upon past reliability is merely forecasting, and it is not unscientific. Forecasting is done all the time.

It was done in Denver and Atlanta and Toronto to justify spending great amounts of money to build new airports or airport terminals, because, based upon the past growth of air traffic, they forecast that future traffic would overload existing facilities, and new, larger facilities would have to be built to service the predicted new, higher traffic levels.

It was done by Toyota to justify building a properly full-sized pickup truck, the 2007 Tundra. They forecast that there was demand at the time of the forecast, and would be enough demand in the future, that they could get into the market and still make money.

It is done on Toyota Nation each month when the monthly sales figures are posted, and the Toyota fans try to prove that Toyota's annual sales figures for the new Tundra will be met; and by the domestic fans who try to prove that the annual Tundra sales figures will not be met.

It was done by GM and Ford when they decided to no longer build minivans; they forecast that minivan sales would continue to drop. They forecast again to justify the decision to gamble on crossover vehicles; they forecast that sales of crossover vehicles would continue to climb.

Some forecasting is accurate, some not, or rather, some of the decisions made based upon forecasting is accurate, while others decisions are not. Chrysler's decision in the mid-1980s to invest in the minivan was a good decision. The decision by the Detroit 3 to invest heavily in trucks and SUVs, but invest so little in cars, was not a good decision.

CR's decision to predict future Toyota models' reliability based upon past reliability was valid. The forecasting of good future reliability held true in the past, but this time, the forecasting did not hold true; it is very difficult right now to know whether or not next year's predictions will hold true. What was not valid was CR's bias, and the resulting decision not to forecast future reliability for all automakers. If they forecast for Toyota, they should have forecast for Mercedes-Benz, Pontiac, Audi, and all others, regardless of history of good or bad reliability.

Let's put this to rest.

So that makes their rating practices ok? Silly me!

[Ahem] Actually, I did note my objections to how CR predicted reliability, even with reliable Toyotas. It was in the part where I wrote in English.

Anyone who thinks that "predicted reliability" and "reliability" are the same thing is a moron anyway.

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:!

Here's some definition for all:

Predict

v. tr.
To state, tell about, or make known in advance, especially on the basis of special knowledge.

v. intr.
To foretell something; prophesy.

That second one doesn't sound like it's 100% now does it. Let's use it in a sentence or two....

1. I predict the Sox will win the world series.
2. I predict that next years reliability for v6 camry's will improve.
3. I predict that the Supra will be unveiled next week and be in dealers next month with 600hp and cost $16700!

Which of those statements have the highest likelyhood? I'll use my special knowledge so lets see...

1. Everyone knows God likes the Rockies in this one.
2. Years of previous reliability, Toyota having already fixed the 6 speed on current models, reliability of other Toyota models using the same engine, other camrys having good reliability etc.
3. Everyone knows the new supra will have 750 hp.

So I guess it's #2 then.

:lol: Great post; and I must compliment you on your use of sarcasm. Topped me on this one, you did! :lol:

C