Did not feel any malicious intent. But thank you. As far as CR goes, I feel that CONSUMER GUIDE does a great job at reveiwing autos. You can see their thick auto guide books on the market. They are informative, give good reviews as well as show the car's pricing and options, etc.
Consumer's Union Reports and Tests
- Thread starter 63Avanti
- Start date
- Status
Quote:
Look again, as much as I like Toyota, they are probably the least reliable car made from 1999 to 2002 if you consider the sludge problem that can lead to a very expensive pre mature engine failure. And I am not impressed with how they handled it. It finally was said in a court judgement that they are responisble for the manufactoring defect, we just got the papers last week for our Camry. Previously, they would offer some coverage to some people, while totally denying others. People had to often pay 7k to fix their car because of Toyotas mistake. Add that to the American companies stepping up their warranty's, and Toyota is not worth the risk IMO. Toyota is one of my last choices for a vehicle at this point. Maybe in a couple years my mind will change, but we are shopping for a Honda now. I'd say Nissan and Honda still have the lead in reliabilty, but GM and Ford are making gains. I don't know why CU would be biased towards Toyota with this major hit on their credibilty. Sorry about getting off topic-
Look. The sludge problem with Toyotas is near non-existent for those who adhered to a strict 5k OCI or less. None of my local dealerships have had an issue with those who followed the correct service intervals.
On the other hand, Honda is not a pillar of reliability either. Honda has replaced more blown transmissions on their 99-03 V6 vehicles (TL, CL, MDX, Accord, Odyssey, etc) compared to Toyota customers having sludge problems.
I too am a strong advocate of CR. I have subscribed for over 25 years and place a lot of creedence on their recommendations.
Having said that, I am capable of additional research. I personally use Klasse AOI, an unrated product, with great success on my Passat.
Having said that, I am capable of additional research. I personally use Klasse AOI, an unrated product, with great success on my Passat.
American car companies would like to have Toyota's problems. Toyota Camry has been the best seller in the US for years, and their biggest problem is keeping inventory on their lots. Only a tiny percentage of Toyotas have the sludge problem - if it really is an engine defect, one wonders why more of them don't experience it.
Matter-of-fact, 3,200,000 Toyota engines are in the so-called sludge prone group. Of this number, 7,000 have failed due to sludging, a failure rate of .02%.
Seems like all of the automotive enthusiast magazines have this same bias towards Toyota and Honda. Matter of fact, the American public seems to have the same bias. Toyota Camry and Honda Accord have occupied the number one and number two spots in automobile sales for the last ten years.
LOL Nick,
Actually I'm pretty sure the US makers are GLAD they don't have Toyota's sludge problem. And I'm not sure where you got your numbers, but even if they are correct that is not a .02% failure rate. Plus that number doesn't consider all the vehicles that have sludge related problems but haven't had a total engine failure. The American Automakers deserved they hit to their credibilty in the 80's and early 90's, but nowadays most of the makes are pretty equal in reliabilty. Too many people are just going off old information and not doing the research. You might want to add that now the American makers have or are going to have a way better 100,000 mile warranty. They wouldn't be doing this unless their cars are relaible.
Actually I'm pretty sure the US makers are GLAD they don't have Toyota's sludge problem. And I'm not sure where you got your numbers, but even if they are correct that is not a .02% failure rate. Plus that number doesn't consider all the vehicles that have sludge related problems but haven't had a total engine failure. The American Automakers deserved they hit to their credibilty in the 80's and early 90's, but nowadays most of the makes are pretty equal in reliabilty. Too many people are just going off old information and not doing the research. You might want to add that now the American makers have or are going to have a way better 100,000 mile warranty. They wouldn't be doing this unless their cars are relaible.
Hey, Shelby
According to my $3.00 calculator, that figures to a .0021875 failure rate. That's around 2 failures for every 1000 engines. You are correct; that is .2%, not .02%.
There is no opportunity to bad mouth a brand you don't even own because the surveys ask you to report on the vehicles you own and to report how much you spent on repairs on it in 17 specific areas(2005 report). Unless you make up data, there is no place for "bad mouthing" I can't find the latest one but the '05 report was based on 810,000 responses. FWIW
Shelby,
I think we can agree that more than 0.2% of GM 3.1/3.4L V6 engines have had intake manifold problems, agree?
In addition, I think Honda's failure rate for their V6 automatic transmissions for the 99-03 model years is much, much higher than 0.2%.
I think we can agree that more than 0.2% of GM 3.1/3.4L V6 engines have had intake manifold problems, agree?
In addition, I think Honda's failure rate for their V6 automatic transmissions for the 99-03 model years is much, much higher than 0.2%.
No reason to keep at this, I am a fan of Toyota and I always have been. I don't think they stepped up to the plate the way they blamed the owners for poor maintenance when the issue is a poor engine design. It also might be helpful if they install a 10 dollar sensor like GM has that takes into consideration engine wear patterns and oil life. I hope that Toyota can win back my admiration over the next couple years. If I owned one of the effected years you could bet that I would be running Autorx every oil change. If everyone had been then maybe nobody would have even known about this. Maybe Toyo should buy ARX? Sludge problem aside, Toyota's are built excellent.
The point is, Toyota's problem was no where as widespread as Honda's transmission problems. With Toyota, owners HAD a way of pro actively preventing sludge issues...with Honda transmissions problems...NO amount of maintenance would prevent a failure...those units just failed, period.
I do not deny that Toyota's 2.2 and 3.0L V6 engines were extremely sensitive to OCIs...but the vast majority of those who did their servicing on time had no issues...
Also, I know of many, many Toyota 3.0L V6 engines with 150k miles on the clock, and most get serviced every 5-7k with 5w30 and a ? filter...no driveability issues.
I do not deny that Toyota's 2.2 and 3.0L V6 engines were extremely sensitive to OCIs...but the vast majority of those who did their servicing on time had no issues...
Also, I know of many, many Toyota 3.0L V6 engines with 150k miles on the clock, and most get serviced every 5-7k with 5w30 and a ? filter...no driveability issues.
If you reread the first paragraph they state the liquid provides the best combination of cleaning and protection. Not better or best. As for the scratching of paint, and the handling characteristics test. I agree.
Regardless, it's a blanket statement that does not specifically look at what the product is formulated to do. Besides, you don't always want/need a cleaner wax, and there are plenty of off the shelf paste waxes that have more cleaning ability than several off the shelf liquid waxes. No matter how you slice it, it's incomplete information, and potentially misleading. There's enough #@$%! nonsense about all kinds of things on various discussion forums, I don't think we need more of the same from a "respected" magazine. ("Well, CR says it, so it must be true. They don't take any advertising dollars, so you know there's no bias")
I think a lot of the bias comes from the people reporting themselves.Owners of Japanese cars are a very loyal group and calling some very minor issue a defect is like throwing their favorite car maker under the bus.On the other hand people who spend a lot of money on a top of the line luxury or sports car have no problem reporting a loose door screw as a interior defect,or a check engine light for some very minor issue as a "engine"defect.I often hear customers when asked about what wrong with it answer the check engine light is on so I'm having engine trouble when in fact it was only a minor sensor etc.A Toyota owner in a similar situation would say oh the engine light came on but it turned out to be nothing.I take everything i read in CR with very large grain of salt.
---Well I get the surveys every year as a subscriber and they do NOT ask for proof that you own the cars you are reporting on in the survey. There is no safeguards to keep people from talking bad about cars they don't even own...so how do we know there aren't people lying?? We don't...proves the CR reliabilty reports hold no credibility...FWIW
Not lambasting the poster of the above chart.
Basically, that chart/graph/whatever is meaningless.
A statistician could likely write for hours about the uselessnes of said chart.
Too many variables. Too much subjective opinion involved regarding those reporting to the ones concocting the graph.
Just a WHOLE lot wrong with what Powers is doing and MUCH better minds than mine could explain the multitude of reasons.
Basically, that chart/graph/whatever is meaningless.
A statistician could likely write for hours about the uselessnes of said chart.
Too many variables. Too much subjective opinion involved regarding those reporting to the ones concocting the graph.
Just a WHOLE lot wrong with what Powers is doing and MUCH better minds than mine could explain the multitude of reasons.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked