Can Anything Stop Toyota?

Is that the day he skipped and went to some party on the other side of the river in a black 1968 Olds Delta 88?

You must be reading someone else's mind.

What I really think -

Most US car magazines never print truly negative reviews. Advertising revenue is all important and if you trash cars that need to be trashed you'll lose revenue, plus you won't get all expenses paid invitations to the various manufacturer's cool events. Even when cars are truly rotten, they always find a few good things to say. In comparison tests where they have to have a winner, the company that buys the most ads is more likely to win. The only exception is that German cars usually win because that is what the readers expect.

Consumers Report is the one US exception to this behavior. I rarely agree with their opinions. And in the end, despite all their claims to unbiased evaluations, that is all that their ratings reflect. For at least the last 20 years they have largely favored Japanese cars. I am sure they have their reasons. However, my own personal experiences with numerous Japanese cars is so far off of theirs that I don't pay much attention to their opinions any more. They have shown such favoritism to Toyotas (for whatever reason) that I think it is ironic that, because of a few less than glowing reviews, you said to dump the magazine.

Back when I was younger I used to subscribe to a couple of British car magazines. They were very much different that US magazines. Instead of always saying nice thing about everybody's cars, they had no problem at all in trashing certain cars. In general, the further the manufacturer's headquarters was from London, the worse they rated the car. Even while British Leyland was sinking under the waves, they tended to praise the BL products. To them the Rover 3500 was a winner. I still enjoyed the reviews because I am a natural cynic and appreciate criticism instead of faint praise. I had no trouble separating out chauvinism from facts.

Ed

I said "dump the magazine" back in the early '70's after the purchase of a 1972 Chrysler. CR has the freedom to apply their editoral prejudice to all their product evaluations. I recognize that fact too. To claim they are objective and / or have similar evaluation priorities as I do has not been evident to me. Evaluations by definition are subjective.

I believe that I have had better than average service from product purchases because I have been a rather faithful subscriber to Consumer's Union. About the only product that has not done well is my '94 T-Bird. But, not being clairevoyant, CU could not report that the tranny and disc brakes were deficient until after those problems showed up a few thousand miles after production.

I disagree with your "evaluations" statement. If I were to evaluate two brands of vaccuum bottles, I could certainly objectively evaluate: that one holds four onces more than the other; one loses heat at a rate two degrees per hour faster than the other; one comes with a carrying handle while one does not; etc. To say that one has a prettier color would be, of course, subjective. I have never known CU to rate anything subjectively.

Then by the definition of the word "subjective", CU must never have made a judgment about a test subject. In fact, CU does make judgments about everything they test.

Objective: Expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived WITHOUT distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.

I am unable to distinguish whether it is your logic, your semantics or both, but your message is somewhat obscure to me.

They recently rated wines. How can that be anything but subjective?

Ed

If you cannot distinguish subjective from objective.... especially after you were given the definitions of both words, then everything you see in print probably seems "true." Can't help you further.

One of these days the teflon is gonna wear off, and everyone will see that Toyota is just another car maker. I'm sure Toyota's PR dept is working overtime to squelch negative press. Besides, "everyone" knows that American vehicles are crap and Japanese cars are flawless, right? :-/

While the Camry seems to be a decent car, I can't say I've ever been impressed with much of the rest of their lineup. Their trucks are really pathetic.

My failure to grasp your message was from YOUR logic and YOUR semantics, such as they are. And you're probably correct. You probably are unable to clarify it for me.

I vaguely remember that article now that you mention it. I would have to agree that unless they investigated solely at the molecular level, which they did not, the results would be highly subjective. I am sure there must be other examples on which I would concede. I yield the point.

I have owned GM all my life and my experience is just the contrary. These cars last well into the 300 000 kms without major power train repairs. In fact I have ever had a power train problem with a GM although I have run them into the ground !

I currently own a Lexus es300 and an Oldsmobile 88. In terms of quietness, smooth ride, reliability, power, and fuel economy, my 88 is better even though it has over 300 000kms, and the Lexus only 200 000.

When the GM needs attention, the price is always reasonable. With the Lexus, it is always shocking.

The Lexus is a fine car with a great image, and I love it. But larger GMs are better value if bang for the buck is what you are looking for. In terms of value, from my experience, large GM cars are second to none. A.Z.

Toyota has already done it.

:-p

I have a friend that had a TOYota. It should have said in the owners manual "REPLACE ENGINE EVERY 75,000 TO 100,000 MILES. (at 3 to 4 times the cost to replace an engine in an American vehicle).

That's why the first 3 letters are TOY.

-------

Troll!

Though it is passe now, it was a truism years ago. Before unleaded gas it was commonplace for Toyota engines to require valves, pistons and rings be replaced around 75K. However, it was also true for Chevrolet, Ford, Chrylser, Datsun and Henry J. Unleaded gas was the best thing that could ever happen to car engines.

Despite doing well in the IIHS offset barrier crash test, Tundras have the highest injury loss rating of any full sized pick-up. And in the goverment (NHTSA) crash tests they don't do as well as the Ford and GM pick-ups. This seems to be another example of the typical Toyota bias I see in the press - They do one thing well and get rave reviews. The fact that in the "real world" they are not as safe as other similar vehicles is never mentioned. In my opinion, Tundras are the least advanced design of any full size truck. The day they rolled out of the factory, they were not as good as Ford or Chevy full sized pick-up trucks, and they have none nothing to improve them over the past few years. Now they aren't even the best full size truck from a Japanes manufacturer.

Ed

The Tundra isn't a F150 or GMC 2500. Nice try, Toyota - but it's not a serious truck.