Autoblog

The only object more dense than a neutron star is the mind of a Toy apologist.

↓↑report

I'm sure that Irv Miller and his band of merry spin-meisters in the TMS PR Dept. will tell us that they are all over this and that IT IS NOT because Toyota has grown too big too fast.

↓↑report

I agree thats why Detroit auto makers have had so much trouble, Quality in all cars matters more than in just a couple trucks, I mean the new Focus has rear drums...this is not 1981, come on no drum brakes on new cars.

↓↑report

Do you have any clue why they left? It was because Ford and Chrysler paid them stupid money to come try to save their behinds... These 2 guys are laughing all the way to the bank... They both know that they won't be able to save the sinking ship but boy will they have a nice nest egg when they're done.
So who's the fool?

↓↑report

Two points:
1. Remember the first year of the Ford Focus? New plant, new design, new suppliers, FOURTEEN RECALLS IN ONE YEAR. Other than the Ford Fusion (not a new plant, not a new platform) I can't think of any new model that didn't have a rocky start. As domestic fans have been saying (rightly) for years, recalls do not equal long-term reliability.
2. Check the reliability ratings of any of the fullsize trucks? The Tundra is still the best of the lot. If you read the NHTSA complaint databases, it doesn't get any prettier for any of the manufacturers, especially Chrysler and GM.

No, a recall isn't okay, but they're forgivable if they're handled promptly. It sounds like Toyota is handling these and it's too early in the Tundra's lifespan (and it's too unlike it's predecessor) to comment on the long-term durability of the thing.

↓↑report

GM's Delta Twp. Plant. It is brand new with a brand new platform and vehicle. Guess what...NO RECALLS. I has had a couple of small service bulletins, but no recalls.

↓↑report

psarhjinian,

Failed launches just aren't acceptable anymore, especially for a company that claims it's green and reliable while launching a gas guzzler with multiple problems.

Ford has launched the new F150 in '04, the new Mustang in '05, the Fusion in '06, the Edge in '07 and none have suffered from this kind of quality whether in launch or later downcycle.

For the record, go and look at the posts on the tailgate issue. The issue isn't due to poor plant quality, it's due to piss poor design that was intended to save money.

I find it funny that you and others tell on how everyone is blasting Toyota. There's a reason. They are arrogant, claim to be things they are not, and keep making the same mistakes that GM and Ford had made for years. If they were humble and stood up and took blame for their mistakes, no one would be so pissed at them for failing to live up to their own claims.

↓↑report

As an owner of an '00 Focus in all its recall laden glory...I can honestly say I'd gladly take a Camry with this "rumble strip" problem.

↓↑report

This is one of the things that suprises me: "it had issues, but it was a solid truck". Either the product is solid, or it isn't. Now, this is an objective experience, but I can't think of one truck owner who hasn't had to replace a transmission, but still considers the vehicle "solid". I think people who buy certain products (trucks, Crown Vics, some European imports) have a different perspective on "solid' than someone who buys a Civic or Corolla.

My Saab has issues. Lots of issues. I could see it going a million miles, but it won't be pleasant. I know a lot of Saab owners who will say the same thing: that it's a solid vehicle, even when it's costing $3000/year in upkeep. Solid means nothing breaks or wears out unexpectedly, not that it needed a transmission at 150K but can still tow a boat.

I think the Tundra has teething pains. It's a new design and new product from a new plant with new suppliers. I also think that Toyota is under a microscope now that they've made a serious challenge to GM. First-year teething problems are no real suprise for any make (have a look at CR and note that every product does worse in a new year, especially if it's a new design) and have been characteristic of Toyota for some time. The real proof will be if the long-term durability holds up and, thusfar, they've still been doing quite well.

I also think that Toyota is suffering media backlash, especially among 2nd-tier automotive publications (ie, not Car And Driver and the other traditional print mags). This started with the Prius and got a lot worse when they a) passed GM in sales and b) released the Tundra. It's like it was ok when Toyota was making microcars, but something about the Tundra personally offends (or scares) people. I think there's an undercurrent of fear there, too, that the last bastion of the North American auto industry could be in real trouble as Toyota (and Nissan) get closer to the mark.

I also think that I haven't seen single positive Toyota story on Autoblog in some time. I've also seen some pretty shameless spin: like the recent Toyota/CR story that conveniently buried the fact that. even with the Camry and Tundra taking hits, Toyota still holds a larger chunk of the reliable vehicles pie. I don't think it's anti-Toyota bias per se, but I do think that Autoblog's owners are appreciating the ad revenue that a good Toyota-bash generates.

↓↑report

So tailgates falling off, transmissions blowing up all in the first seems to indicate to you that this truck would be good reliable one longterm?

Okay i learned something here today.

↓↑report

"teething pains?"

when can you remember the last time a domestic pickup had a problem with the tailgate cracking and falling off? excessive bed shake? we're not taking about some rusty 25 year old truck that spend its life in Michigan, but a brand new truck.

the transmission issue is rather scary too; it's hard to imagine this didn't show up in endurance testing. I think there was just a big push to get the truck to market, and quality be damned.

Toyota is really under the gun on this one. they had lots of big plans building the new factory outside of San Antonio, and it was set up to build 500,000 units annually. and let's not forget the one in Princeton, Indiana; there's another 300,000+ there, including the forgettable Sequoia.

so we have a total production capacity of over 800,000+ trucks, and Toyota will reach its "goal" of 200,000 Tundras for the year. you can spin this any way you want, but it looks like a whole bunch of overcapacity to me.

the head folks from Japan who set up the San Antonio facility were "called home" to Japan before it was even completed. this dosn't happen when success is on the horizon.

I'm sure the small-timer's bible, Consumer Reports, hasn't even done reliability ratings on the 2007 models yet. perhaps the worst is yet to come for Toyota.

AZMike

↓↑report

David; I'll bet you believed those phony Tundra commercials showing Tundra stopping with 10,000 lbs on a trailer? They don't show the tires smoking on the trailer locked up and the 5/8 th inch cable running under the truck and trailer back to a winch with the brake on it smoking. then the tundra pulling the 10,000 lb trailer up over the clif, again, enter the famous cable and winch. Those Japanese think the American public will believe any thing since they pulled the wool over our eyes on the U.S.S. Missouri in Tokyo Bay in 1945. They would have agreed to anything to stop the American invasion of the Home Islands which would have been preceeded by three low yeald atomic bombs obliterating the Japanese population!

↓↑report

You know, I hear this in every Toyota post. I have yet to see the kind of pro-Toyota comment that domestic fans claim will happen. I might see one twerp make a "Found on Road Dead" comment, but it's pretty rare.

What I do see, without fail, is at least a page worth of incredible chip-on-the-shoulder whining about Toyota, it's fans and the media and how unfair it is that they get a free pass.

I don't actually see the free pass happening, but it doesn't silence the whining. It's usually GM people, too.

↓↑report