Toyota vs VW reliability

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've owned exactly one Toyota (2002 Corolla), and it was the biggest piece of [censored] that I hope I'll ever have to drive. It pinged badly in hot weather on all grades of gas since it was new. Dealership replaced the head under warranty, but that didn't fix the problem. Developed piston slap somewhere around 50k, started burning oil shortly after. The interior seemed to break if I so much as looked at it wrong. Suspension and steering seemed like they belonged in granny's Cadillac; absolutely no feel whatsoever.

On the upside, it gave me 42 mpg on a couple occasions, but not worth all of its faults, in my opinion. I'm much happier with my *ahem* GM econobox.
 
Last edited:
Give me a Cobalt or Focus any day over those utterly unreliable Corollas that have bad pinging and bad head problems.
35.gif
 
I don't wanna get involved into this sort of mud-slinging festival, but only to cite a few things based on experience:

(1) IMHO most NA assembled imports such as Honda, Toyota, etc. quality isn't up to snuff if you are to compare to the Japanese import stuff: the probably of getting quality issues due to components, parts and assembly, etc. are much, much higer. IMHO citing NA built Accords, Civics and Corollas (which I'm highly familiar of their quality), they are, IMHO only up to 75% to that of the true 100% Japanese assembled (incl Japanese parts). Most complaints incl. poor fit and finish, squeaks, mechanical noises, poorly assembled panel pcs, plastic panel pcs, etc.

(2) due to importation regulations and the tax associated, most NA assembled vehicles carry at least 50%+ locally sourced parts and components from local NA parts suppliers such as AC Delco, Nippon Denso (US, Mexico, etc.), TRW, Mitsu/Hitachi USA alternators and various electrical motor assembles,KYB or Tokico USA for shocks and struts, etc.) While some of the component suppliers do a good job in terms of maintaining their quality, I DO found out that not all of them can hold up to their reputation, citing frequent AC Delco/Delphi alternator mishaps, power steering pump whine, seal failures, and various electrical or ECU control-related sensors and component failures. While to the unknowing vehicle owners this may be considered as part of the total ownership cost for owning such vehicle, me personally refuse to accept that as a fact of life.

IMHO once their OE components are sourced outside of their country (e.g. Japan), most of them quality goes down the drain as well.

Oh well, so much for ranting about quality issues. Given the complexity of modern electronically-controlled, emissions-compliant gasoline/diesel vehicles, electronic component failure is part of the way of life. If I can only get that down to a reasonable level, I would stay true to their products.

My 2c's worth. Have you played with an ND sensor(Mexico made) lately?

Q.
 
Just about all of the issues I've had with cars were due to problems that started on the drawing board. Assembly issues are not very common.

One of the most memorable was the foglight/low beam problem on the 87-89 Ford Mustang. If you used the foglights and the low beams at the same time, it would cause the wire to overheat, tripping the thermal breaker in the main headlight switch.

Ford TSB suggested to replace undersized 14 gauge wire with 12 gauge wire.

I happen to have the no longer available Ford wiring diagram (it looks like it was printed straight off the CAD system they used to draft it).

Looking at it, it's obvious to me that some engineer at Ford originally designed it so the foglights were powered off the main light switch, through a 12 gauge wire.

Unfortunately this configuration allowed the foglights to operate at the same time as the high beams, a violation of some NHTSA or DOT regulation.

Another Ford engineer came along and "fixed" this by moving the foglight power feed to the low-beam circuit which came out of the column switch (selects low/high beam and flash-to-pass).

Alas, this low-beam circuit only had a 14 gauge wire, and the Ford engineer did not realize that it should be upgraded to a 12 gauge wire to handle the extra load of the foglights.

Someone looks at this wiring diagram, builds a harness according to what it says, and it doesn't work right.

We call that "garbage in, garbage out" in the computer industry.
 
Originally Posted By: VeeDubb
These two makes are on opposite ends of the Consumer Reports reliability metric. And it just so happens that I own both an 07 Toyota Sienna and an 07 VW Passat. So what is my experience one year later?

VW - no unscheduled visits for repairs. The only issue is updating some software while I was in for an oil change.

Toyota - Dead battery, electronic driver's side window wasn't working properly. And just today, the CD player is no longer working. Won't eject or read the CDs in the player. So a trip to the dealer will be forthcoming this week. That would make it three unscheduled visits over the year.

I know, I know, some of you are going to tell me about statistical averages and so on and that one anecdotal story doesn't mean squat. And I get that argument.

On the other hand, if it takes a really large sample to detect a difference; i.e. if I'd have to buy 1000 VWs and 1000 Toyotas to get any statistical significance, perhaps the reliability gap between best and worse has been narrowed so much that it is no longer worth worrying about relative to other attributes of a car.



If your sample is 10, 100, 1000, or 1 million, the statistical differences are nearly the same. Just admit it. You love VW cars despite their VERY POOR reliability record. I too love the way VW's drive, but why would I own one if it is at the bottom in reliability?

Why you even mention your ONE VW vs. your ONE Toyota suggest you might have educational issues. I would suggest taking a college course in statistics at the local Junior College, and you're good to good ;-)

Just accept the fact that VW's are sheet quality, even if they drive really fun. My Rabbit sucked, so did my Passat, and my sister's Passat too. My father's dasher was the most reliable VW in our family....it only broke down on average about 7 times every year he owned it.
 
Last edited:
I grew up in a VW and toyota family. 3x toyota corollas (1989, 1993 and 2000) and 1x VW Jetta (1993).

the 1989 4A-FE corolla went fine, was mum's compnay car for 4 years, with no trouble. 1993 corolla (4A-FE) fine too, started giving trouble in about 2004 when my sister owned it, she traded it in when she got a 2005 corolla hatchback. 2000 corolla aboslutely trouble free until traded in in 2007 with only 70,000 km for my dad's honda accord euro, which...

replaced the 93 jetta. gave a long list of problems, was still a 1.8 carby engine. It would just conk out with no warning for ages and no one (even the garage) could fix it. it only lasted for 210,000km when it became more money to repair than it was worth. (needs new engine).

Now I'm sure my folks weren;t the best on maintenance, oil changes only every 15,000km or 10,000miles in hot city driving, lots of start stop, and maybe the VW just suffered a bit more for it.

I obviously drive a toyota but I have a soft spot for VW's and would love to own a diesel golf (heck even the 1.6 FI would do). my father is trying to talk me out of vw's though.
 
Last edited:
Crinkles, I do think Toyotas are well built cars and very reliable, especially a decade or two ago. So I'm not surprised by your family's experience. One of the things I've been reading over the last fewer years, is that all manufacturers have increased reliability so much that today, the least reliable car is more reliable than the most reliable car from a couple decades ago. I don't think I would have bought a VW in the 80s or even 90s. And today, I still believe that toyotas are more reliable than VWs on average. I'm just trying to figure out if the gap is enough for me to put a priority on it anymore. And my intention is not to bash Toyotas - just trying to figure out the practical significance of what it means to me "more reliable" in 2007 or 2008.
 
My personal feeling is the majority of each model produced have few if any issues.

The problems are in a subet 5-20%. That is where reliability information comes from. I have known a few VW owners with sheer pleasure in their purchase with hardly any issues in their first 7yrs/150k miles of service. I have also known people with significant issues with Toyota in that time period.

I believe consumer reports even backs this up too.

I say buy what meets all your criteria including perceived reliability. Buying sheerly on perceived reliability you will will be sorely disappointed if the vehicle lacks everywhere else.
 
Originally Posted By: buster
I would probably own one if it weren't for the 8 friends/people I know that have had them and had nothing but problems.


I could have made the same post myself! It seemed for awhile in the late-90s - early 2000s many of my friends were buying Golfs or Jettas.... They sure seemed like nice cars but I grew weary of hearing them going in to the shop every few months for new alternators, water pumps, or various electrical maladies - always at $600 a pop.
 
Originally Posted By: brianl703


Toyota: Because sometimes you have to drive, but don't really want to.


That should be their new advertising slogan!!
 
Reading some of these comments are really interesting. VWs have bad water pumps, peeling stuff, and so on. And yes, I even have my own story of my AM radio going out on my 02 Passat and my CEL coming on.

But not one mention of Toyota V6s sludging up or Honda transmissions going ballistic. Nope, these problems get a free pass. It's also amazing that none of the people that I personally know who own VWs encounter such comprehensive lists of problems as I read about on the internet. I do know two people, however, who had Honda transmissions repaired.

It's obvious we all have selective perceptions (and yes I include myself), which is why I ask for data. It is also why I want to understand the true cost differences of owning a VW versus a Toyota. If the true cost is say a few hundred dollars, I don't want to pay a few thousand dollars for the "reliability premium."
And I surely don't want to sacrifice 365 days of driving pleasure for 365 days of boredom. That is worth something to me.

And I am talking about modern VWs and Toyotas. I am not in the market for 1990 Rabbits.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: VeeDubb


But not one mention of Toyota V6s sludging up or Honda transmissions going ballistic. Nope, these problems get a free pass. It's also amazing that none of the people that I personally know who own VWs encounter such comprehensive lists of problems as I read about on the internet. I do know two people, however, who had Honda transmissions repaired.




Hey I resemble that remark!!
wink.gif
I did mention my 2006 Ody puking the PS pump - a repeating problem. And when the AT detonates - you guys will know about it. But it seems fine.
 
Originally Posted By: Pablo


Is it wrong to want a Touareg?
grin2.gif



Now now Pablo. With gas prices like they are and the notorious lack of reliability, you need to be spanked
18.gif


(p.s. just so there is no confusion, I don't want to spank you. ;))
 
Only buy a VW if there is a financially secure (read: not going to go out of business soon), local dealer. Otherwise finding parts may be a problem.

Also, Passats seem to be more reliable than the others.

Toyotas aren't perfect (no brand is), but they are pretty darn good. The most common Toyota failing we've observed is that the latest incarnation of the Sienna eats tires like popcorn, even with regular rotations and alignment checks. No one seems to know why.

We've switched many of our late-model Sienna customers to Yokohama TRZ's, and these tires appear to be holding up the best, so far.

My $.02
 
Dave, I've learned from some Sienna owners that the secret to keeping tire longevity is to inflate them to about 40psi. I've had mine at 40psi since about 2000 miles on the odometer. At 18000 miles now, my Energy LX4 still look brand new, which is a shame, because they really suck.
 
In other posts Critic has mentioned the Honda transmission problems, and how the company has made good on them, even in some cases where they were no longer obligated.

Now, for a direct answer to your original question (assuming it was not rhetorical) - if you want to know what the CR reliability data means, then go research their methodology. See how the classifications are defined and that will give you your answer.
 
CR does not answer my question. They calculate number of problems per 100 vehicles (no mention of avg dollar costs of each problem) and do not conduct any stats tests. They do have 1.3 million responses so I'd be stunned if there wasn't statistical significance. The crucial variable here is what is the critical threshold number of responses needed to get significance. If it is 5, then it means a helluva a lot because we would be playing Russian roulette by buying a VW rather than a Toyota. On the other hand, if it is 10,000, then you can basically ignore the difference in the same way you ignore the probability of dying everytime you drive.

BTW, whether Honda fixed the transmissions or not only matters if we start comparing warranties and extended warranties, which I am not doing here. If I did, it would stack the deck in favor of VW s because the VW warranty is longer than Toyota and HOndas. Not only that, the sludge warranty on 1.8Ts have been extended to like 8 years 100K. These problems still count whether they are covered or not. When your transmission goes kaboom on the freeway at 70mph, my first thought would not be whether Honda will cover this.
 
Originally Posted By: VeeDubb

But not one mention of Toyota V6s sludging up


That's because it's the owner's fault for not performing proper maintenance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top