Northstar

CR does some more Toyota humping

28 posts in this topic

CR picked the Tundra over the Silverado, though they still rated the Avalanche significantly higher than either of them. That, however, is not what I thought was BS. Under reliability, the Avalanche and Silverado are rated as "new" (and therefore do not have a real rating) but the newer-than either of the Chevys Tundra gets a "very good." I guess since it says Toyota on it it gets a free pass.

And people say CR has no bias...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consumer Reports is bias. Another area they mislead is towing capacity. They list Nissan and Toyota pickups at their maximum towing capacity IF properly equipped, 9400 and 10000 lbs. I noticed they list Chevrolet haft ton at 8500 and the GMC half ton at 4700. Yep, according to the last consumer reports magazine I'll buy, the maximim towing capacity of a 07 GMC Sierra is 4763 pounds. Both of these rigs properly configured and equipped are rated over 10000 lbs.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I decided to look up what they said about the Silverado after seeing this thread. Here's their initial report:

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/ne...ilverado_ov.htm

While they give it some compliments, I gotta laugh when they write stuff like, "That might add a couple of mpg but the results are hardly dramatic" or "While not agile, handling is reasonably responsive" or "The front seats are firm and comfortable now". So someone didn't thing the seats were comfortable before? You know that they've never driven an all around better pickup. Because no one's made one yet.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how can you predict good reliability for a vehicle that shreds its internal engine components within the first few months of release?

CR's staff should be fired for printing that rating on the turd.

Edited by regfootball
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CR is not worth their weight in bull crap.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please, Consumer's Report is only good for a laugh. If I want to compare vehicles, I'll go out and compare them.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And people say CR has no bias...

We each have our own life experiences and thoughts on this subject. I for one don't think that consumer reports has a bias, rather they are just incompetent.

Edited by haypops
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CR picked the Tundra over the Silverado, though they still rated the Avalanche significantly higher than either of them. That, however, is not what I thought was BS. Under reliability, the Avalanche and Silverado are rated as "new" (and therefore do not have a real rating) but the newer-than either of the Chevys Tundra gets a "very good." I guess since it says Toyota on it it gets a free pass.

And people say CR has no bias...

The GMT900s share far more in common with the GMT800s than the new Tundra with and the old.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They did the same thing with the LS sedan last year.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consumer Reports is bias. Another area they mislead is towing capacity. They list Nissan and Toyota pickups at their maximum towing capacity IF properly equipped, 9400 and 10000 lbs.

they tested a 5.7L Tundra, all 5.7L engines come from the factory with the tow package.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they tested a 5.7L Tundra, all 5.7L engines come from the factory with the tow package.

But towing capacity is at the expense of ride, and that is the reason that Detroit produces two or even three levels of duty. I would not want to drive around in the city with a Duramax 3500 with the 4.10 axle, but it would yank a tree stump out like it wasn't there. Since 80% of the pick up buyers only use them for show, I wonder if they'd appreciate the 'heavier duty' ride and suspension of the standard Tundra. Just asking.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consumer Reports responds to pickup comparo controversy

Earlier this week we told you about a pickup truck comparison in the most recent issue of Consumer Reports that seemed a bit fishy. The comparison pitted the new 2007 Toyota Tundra against the 2007 Chevy Silverado, Ford F-150 and Dodge Ram. It was clearly a fight between the Tundra and Silverado from the get-go, since both were the only two completely new trucks in the test. The Tundra, however, seemed to have an advantage in that it was ordered up with the larger of its two engines, the 5.7L V8 producing 381 hp. The Silverado, while available with a more evenly matched 6.0L Vortec MAX V8, was ordered with a less powerful 5.3L V8 producing 315 hp. Not only that, but the Tundra benefited from a 4.30 rear axle ratio that provides better towing and acceleration than the 3.73 ratio in the Silverado, which sacrifices those qualities for better fuel economy. The Silverado, however, could've been ordered with a more comparable 4.10 rear axle ratio at no extra charge.

Well, the gentlefolks at CR recently posted an answer to everyone's questions about this particular half-ton pickup comparo on their blog, which you should go read by clicking here before going on. They explain that choosing equipment for vehicles involved in a comparison is a tricky thing that involves balancing the objective of several goals.

"In general, we want to test a representative vehicle that is comparable to other vehicles in the test group (and previously tested peer vehicles). We also typically test the version--powertrain and trim level--that most regular consumers will buy. "

Read on after the jump to hear our take on CR's explanation.

At face value, it seemed to us that the cards were stacked in the Tundra's favor.

It appears to us that CR failed in terms of acquiring vehicles that were comparable to each other. We recognize the difficulty that's presented with the new Tundra, since Toyota offers significantly fewer configurations than do Chevy, Ford and Dodge. Nevertheless, there are other configurations of the Silverado that would have better matched the Tundra and likely led to the Silverado scoring higher. We admit, the Silverado may not have won the comparo even if it had been configured to better match the Tundra, as Toyota's powertrain is particularly strong and fuel efficient. In the end, however, we believe the consumer would've been better served by reading about an evenly-matched contest.

On CR's second point, that it typically tests versions of vehicles that most regular consumers will buy, we concede that is a good strategy if the plan is to offer a review that will benefit the largest number of consumers. That's fine if a single vehicle is reviewed, but totally inappropriate for a comparison test. As a consumer, why would I want to read a comparison test of trucks that aren't similar? It would like reading about the Honda Civic versus the Saturn Aura. Comparison tests, at least to us, are not about comparing what people buy, they're about advising what people should buy based on an equal comparison.

CR also gave the Tundra a predicted reliability rating of Very Good based on the reliability of past Tundras and Toyotas in general. The Silverado was labeled as too new to predict its reliability. In our eyes, the Tundra should have also been labeled as too new to predict its reliability, considering it is an all-new model built at an all-new assembly plant in San Antonio, TX. Mechanically speaking, the Tundra of today is completely different than the previous Tundra on which CR's reliability scores were based. The Tundra has also suffered 20 cases of reported camshaft failures in models equipped with the same 5.7L engine CR tested.

We still have a lot of respect for the hardworking people at Consumer Reports and value their opinion, but in the case of this half-ton pickup comparo, we believe its value is limited.

http://www.autoblog.com/2007/08/10/consume...versy/#comments

Once again proving CR is a worthy magazine for your dog to take a sh*t on.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, instead of saying they screwed up and mismatched the trucks, they make excuses. I've never trusted CR, and I've done my share of telling others about their biases and have even gotten a few to cancel their subscriptions to the magazine because of it. I hope that this public screw up will cause much of the public to lose trust in them.

My favorite story about them is when my former in laws bought a Toyota because CR said that it was the most reliable. Twelve trips to the dealer for unscheduled maintenance and powertrain failures they became more skeptical. They bought another Toyota because they CR said it was the most reliable. Well, Eight more vehicle failures in the first year and they now no longer trust CR.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they tested a 5.7L Tundra, all 5.7L engines come from the factory with the tow package.

Good for them. They're also available with a 4.7 too. They didn't list the tow rating as the max for the 4.7. The numbers they listed for Chevy and Ford are possibly for smaller engine packages? I don't even know where they made up the number for the GMC (which should be really be 10500 for both GM's). If they're going to list a max spec, they should be fair about it and not mislead...which is what they do.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consumer Reports responds to pickup comparo controversy

Earlier this week we told you about a pickup truck comparison in the most recent issue of Consumer Reports that seemed a bit fishy. The comparison pitted the new 2007 Toyota Tundra against the 2007 Chevy Silverado, Ford F-150 and Dodge Ram. It was clearly a fight between the Tundra and Silverado from the get-go, since both were the only two completely new trucks in the test. The Tundra, however, seemed to have an advantage in that it was ordered up with the larger of its two engines, the 5.7L V8 producing 381 hp. The Silverado, while available with a more evenly matched 6.0L Vortec MAX V8, was ordered with a less powerful 5.3L V8 producing 315 hp. Not only that, but the Tundra benefited from a 4.30 rear axle ratio that provides better towing and acceleration than the 3.73 ratio in the Silverado, which sacrifices those qualities for better fuel economy. The Silverado, however, could've been ordered with a more comparable 4.10 rear axle ratio at no extra charge.

Well, the gentlefolks at CR recently posted an answer to everyone's questions about this particular half-ton pickup comparo on their blog, which you should go read by clicking here before going on. They explain that choosing equipment for vehicles involved in a comparison is a tricky thing that involves balancing the objective of several goals.

"In general, we want to test a representative vehicle that is comparable to other vehicles in the test group (and previously tested peer vehicles). We also typically test the version--powertrain and trim level--that most regular consumers will buy. "

Read on after the jump to hear our take on CR's explanation.

At face value, it seemed to us that the cards were stacked in the Tundra's favor.

It appears to us that CR failed in terms of acquiring vehicles that were comparable to each other. We recognize the difficulty that's presented with the new Tundra, since Toyota offers significantly fewer configurations than do Chevy, Ford and Dodge. Nevertheless, there are other configurations of the Silverado that would have better matched the Tundra and likely led to the Silverado scoring higher. We admit, the Silverado may not have won the comparo even if it had been configured to better match the Tundra, as Toyota's powertrain is particularly strong and fuel efficient. In the end, however, we believe the consumer would've been better served by reading about an evenly-matched contest.

On CR's second point, that it typically tests versions of vehicles that most regular consumers will buy, we concede that is a good strategy if the plan is to offer a review that will benefit the largest number of consumers. That's fine if a single vehicle is reviewed, but totally inappropriate for a comparison test. As a consumer, why would I want to read a comparison test of trucks that aren't similar? It would like reading about the Honda Civic versus the Saturn Aura. Comparison tests, at least to us, are not about comparing what people buy, they're about advising what people should buy based on an equal comparison.

CR also gave the Tundra a predicted reliability rating of Very Good based on the reliability of past Tundras and Toyotas in general. The Silverado was labeled as too new to predict its reliability. In our eyes, the Tundra should have also been labeled as too new to predict its reliability, considering it is an all-new model built at an all-new assembly plant in San Antonio, TX. Mechanically speaking, the Tundra of today is completely different than the previous Tundra on which CR's reliability scores were based. The Tundra has also suffered 20 cases of reported camshaft failures in models equipped with the same 5.7L engine CR tested.

We still have a lot of respect for the hardworking people at Consumer Reports and value their opinion, but in the case of this half-ton pickup comparo, we believe its value is limited.

http://www.autoblog.com/2007/08/10/consume...versy/#comments

Once again proving CR is a worthy magazine for your dog to take a sh*t on.

Check out some of those import humping comments, it's ridiculous how stupid people are.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CR f-^u^-cking sucks. simple as that. people who use their mag as the one and only gospel are sheepish assholes.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, what are you people thinking? Toyota's latest entry into the truck market and trying to be as American as Chevrolet has been a failure. Toyota never will have the same emotional investment in American's hearts or mind like Chevrolet has. I tend to drive more American cars. But honestly the Tundra is one seriously ugly and poor excuse for a truck. Yes it might be powerful and have a 6spd. automatic. But alas by the 2009 model year the Chevrolet/GMC trucks will have them too. If you want to talk about selection the Silverado has a configuration to fit you and your lifestyle/budget. The Silverado is a much more solid choice proven dependablity and excellent fuel economy with the AFM V8's. It even can run on E85, Toyota being so "green" can't offer that on there Tundra. Chevy offers two interiors and has won comparos at Motor Trend and Car and Driver. I think the MT Truck of the Year Award is enough for me. Any moron that actually reads this mag anymore and BELIEVES what they say is an idot. The bias here is so crazy. I stopped getting it in 1991! If you need to tow then get a Vortec Max Chevy or better yet get a 2500HD or 3500HD with a 6spd. automatic. Toyota is not serious enough to build a real HD truck, and can't. For some reason the cam-shaft snapping and the big face I am not finding the new Tundra a compelling choice. Before you buy one do you homework. Please realize that the Toyota should have a had a different axle along with the smaller 4.7L or the Chevy should have had a 6.0L. What is the point if your not comparing apples to apples? Oh that would be like comparing a BMW 328i to a Lincoln Town Car L and saying well the each have RWD! One if body on frame and other a uni-body. This makes me sick, the Tundra is hardly an Ameircan truck when the profits go to Japan. How fast we forget who bomb pearl harbor? Oh thats right we forgot...

This is sad that this world is coming to this. The even more depressing part is that the new GMT-900's are GREAT and lugit trucks, and for one to get screwed over like this is sickening. I think GM has done a good job, Toyota is also now fleeting vehicles to sell more. Watch what happens to Toyota resale value... What resale value. They should have been more like Honda focus on quality and not just cranking out Corolla's for Hertz or Avis. Oh well another thing that will help GM and other compaines later. They certainly will pay for there mistakes. It is clear Toyota is not the "green" brand they always claim to be! They can't have there cake and eat too.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

That is what I posted. Or at least meant to say hope it went up... Tell me what you think!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It even can run on E85, Toyota being so "green" can't offer that on there Tundra. Chevy offers two interiors and has won comparos at Motor Trend and Car and Driver.

What does E85 have to due with being green?

It even can run on E85, Toyota being so "green" can't offer that on there Tundra. Chevy offers two interiors and has won comparos at Motor Trend and Car and Driver.

No, the Tundra won MT's comparo.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good for them. They're also available with a 4.7 too. They didn't list the tow rating as the max for the 4.7. The numbers they listed for Chevy and Ford are possibly for smaller engine packages? I don't even know where they made up the number for the GMC (which should be really be 10500 for both GM's). If they're going to list a max spec, they should be fair about it and not mislead...which is what they do.

The listed the tow ratings for the vehicles they tested. Towing wasn't the only criteria for the comparision and it was not the sole reason the Tundra won.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Tundra is a pussy truck, there I said it. I've seen some here, but NONE of them were doing anything. No towing, no hauling, not even dirty ones. Yet I've seen plenty of new Silverado's being used for work and on construction sites.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The listed the tow ratings for the vehicles they tested. Towing wasn't the only criteria for the comparision and it was not the sole reason the Tundra won.

There are a lot of things that Toyota does well, but the Tundra is not one of them. Despite their billions of OUR dollars they have stashed away, Toyota is making the same mistake that GM made 20 years ago when it foisted mediocre product on an unsuspecting public, who at that time was loyal to a fault.

The Tundra is over-priced and under built. It isn't that it is a BAD truck, but that Toyota is still just putting its toe in the market by offering only one truck. The Tundra is a decent truck and does many things well; however, for CR to put it automatically at the head of the pack clearly shows their bias.

I have never had any respect for CR, but now I will trash them at every opportunity I get, both in my personal and professional life.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How coudlnt you be biased when brands like Toyota, Lexus and Honda have come out with extremely reliable cars year after year after year.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How coudlnt you be biased when brands like Toyota, Lexus and Honda have come out with extremely reliable cars year after year after year.

So, they get an automatic Free Pass? Reliablility is only one issue and it is purely SUBJECTIVE. Unless CR gets total access to all the manufacturer's warranty data (fat chance), there is no 100% full proof way to prove any of this. There are so many factors that play into 'reliability', such as the rigors of maintenance, the mentality of the typical buyer, the environments in which the vehicle is to be used, etc., etc. I have seen many an import buyer justify $800 'service' trips (like a timing belt on a Honda) because they are considered 'maintenance.'

And the biggest flaw with all of these surveys is that they are not COMPULSARY. To be truly effective, a survey needs to be wholly random and of a significant statistical basis. Sending out 90,000 (like JD Powers does) and hoping they come back is not necessarily effective.

I live these surveys every day. Customers have flawed memories when it comes to what they did or didn't pay. Recently, I had an old geezer ranting and raving on the phone because of a $350 service trip on his 2003 Impala. He was threatening never to come back and kept commenting what a disappointment his car has been. When I went into his service file, I discovered that in 42,000 km of driving, he had done 4 oil changes, two tire rotations and this $350 service trip, which included a tire rotation, oil change, fuel filter and wheel balancing. When I called him back and confronted him on this, he sputtered a bit then mumbled that he was sorry. BTW, up here, we pay 14% taxes, so his $350 service trip was only $300 to us!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor




  • Who's Online (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

  • Who's Chatting

    There are no users currently in the chat room