2020 Toyota Sequoia TRD Pro
- Thread starter john_pifer
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted by PimTac
Don't feed the 👹
Hey, Ford's are coming with engines from actual, existing factories.
Don't feed the 👹
Hey, Ford's are coming with engines from actual, existing factories.
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted by SteveSRT8
Originally Posted by JHZR2
I guess one needs to define tough as nails.
I dont necessarily see any rationale to justify that this is tougher or stronger than a similar full size Ford or GM SUV. And I've seen a good number of those with very high mileage and good reliability. On the flip side, the last Toyota truck we had messed with (a tundra) had severe frame rot and rusted brake lines. And it wasnt a snow/rust belt truck.
The Sequoia is nominally more handsome than the domestic offerings, but this TRD package and the wannabe retro grill just screams gaudy, if not "poser". They had done a pretty good job with styling, but some of the treatments on their cars and trucks just make me scratch my head.
All styling aside this truck is indeed a weak choice if rust is the issue. I hear way too much from my northern folks about rusty pieces and frames.
Makes me glad I am in sunny Fl...
The one I'm speaking of was from FL.
Originally Posted by JHZR2
I guess one needs to define tough as nails.
I dont necessarily see any rationale to justify that this is tougher or stronger than a similar full size Ford or GM SUV. And I've seen a good number of those with very high mileage and good reliability. On the flip side, the last Toyota truck we had messed with (a tundra) had severe frame rot and rusted brake lines. And it wasnt a snow/rust belt truck.
The Sequoia is nominally more handsome than the domestic offerings, but this TRD package and the wannabe retro grill just screams gaudy, if not "poser". They had done a pretty good job with styling, but some of the treatments on their cars and trucks just make me scratch my head.
All styling aside this truck is indeed a weak choice if rust is the issue. I hear way too much from my northern folks about rusty pieces and frames.
Makes me glad I am in sunny Fl...
The one I'm speaking of was from FL.
Before I bought a Mazda, I checked out the Taco and tundra and was stunned at how poor the mpg was. Other than that, within the realm of it's intended purpose, I dont think anything out there matches toyota truck and SUVs for reliable offroad utility, except for their lexus siblings.
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by wag123
Originally Posted by Rand
65k+ on those.. too much for me. Thats 1/2 a good house around here.
When equally equipped, most of it's direct competitors are more expensive than the Sequoia. If that isn't high enough, look at the prices of new Escalades, Navigators, and QX80s! The last time I visited a Cadillac dealer, I didn't see a single Escalade on the lot priced at under $80k, most were in the mid/upper $80k range, and some were in the $90k range. With the prices being so high, I'm not surprised that they are not selling as well as they once did.
I do agree paying that much money for SUV that will haul kids to the school is absolutely crazy, regardless of a vehicle. However, that new Expedition/Navigator is really compelling vehicle.
I dunno. A friend of mine just bought his wife a nice new G Wagon to do just that. I think it depends on your disposable income level. It may be insane for you or I, but for others, it's a question with as much financial consequence as "yes" or "no" when they ask if you need extra sauce at the drive through.
Originally Posted by wag123
Originally Posted by Rand
65k+ on those.. too much for me. Thats 1/2 a good house around here.
When equally equipped, most of it's direct competitors are more expensive than the Sequoia. If that isn't high enough, look at the prices of new Escalades, Navigators, and QX80s! The last time I visited a Cadillac dealer, I didn't see a single Escalade on the lot priced at under $80k, most were in the mid/upper $80k range, and some were in the $90k range. With the prices being so high, I'm not surprised that they are not selling as well as they once did.
I do agree paying that much money for SUV that will haul kids to the school is absolutely crazy, regardless of a vehicle. However, that new Expedition/Navigator is really compelling vehicle.
I dunno. A friend of mine just bought his wife a nice new G Wagon to do just that. I think it depends on your disposable income level. It may be insane for you or I, but for others, it's a question with as much financial consequence as "yes" or "no" when they ask if you need extra sauce at the drive through.
Originally Posted by JHZR2
Originally Posted by SteveSRT8
Originally Posted by JHZR2
I guess one needs to define tough as nails.
I dont necessarily see any rationale to justify that this is tougher or stronger than a similar full size Ford or GM SUV. And I've seen a good number of those with very high mileage and good reliability. On the flip side, the last Toyota truck we had messed with (a tundra) had severe frame rot and rusted brake lines. And it wasnt a snow/rust belt truck.
The Sequoia is nominally more handsome than the domestic offerings, but this TRD package and the wannabe retro grill just screams gaudy, if not "poser". They had done a pretty good job with styling, but some of the treatments on their cars and trucks just make me scratch my head.
All styling aside this truck is indeed a weak choice if rust is the issue. I hear way too much from my northern folks about rusty pieces and frames.
Makes me glad I am in sunny Fl...
The one I'm speaking of was from FL.
So was it one of the Tundra's with an improperly made by Dana Corp frame? Did it live it's life on the beach and in salt water? Was it a flood vehicle?
Too many unknowns.
Originally Posted by SteveSRT8
Originally Posted by JHZR2
I guess one needs to define tough as nails.
I dont necessarily see any rationale to justify that this is tougher or stronger than a similar full size Ford or GM SUV. And I've seen a good number of those with very high mileage and good reliability. On the flip side, the last Toyota truck we had messed with (a tundra) had severe frame rot and rusted brake lines. And it wasnt a snow/rust belt truck.
The Sequoia is nominally more handsome than the domestic offerings, but this TRD package and the wannabe retro grill just screams gaudy, if not "poser". They had done a pretty good job with styling, but some of the treatments on their cars and trucks just make me scratch my head.
All styling aside this truck is indeed a weak choice if rust is the issue. I hear way too much from my northern folks about rusty pieces and frames.
Makes me glad I am in sunny Fl...
The one I'm speaking of was from FL.
So was it one of the Tundra's with an improperly made by Dana Corp frame? Did it live it's life on the beach and in salt water? Was it a flood vehicle?
Too many unknowns.
Originally Posted by wag123
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by wag123
Originally Posted by Rand
65k+ on those.. too much for me. Thats 1/2 a good house around here.
When equally equipped, most of it's direct competitors are more expensive than the Sequoia. If that isn't high enough, look at the prices of new Escalades, Navigators, and QX80s! The last time I visited a Cadillac dealer, I didn't see a single Escalade on the lot priced at under $80k, most were in the mid/upper $80k range, and some were in the $90k range. With the prices being so high, I'm not surprised that they are not selling as well as they once did.
I do agree paying that much money for SUV that will haul kids to the school is absolutely crazy, regardless of a vehicle. However, that new Expedition/Navigator is really compelling vehicle.
http://dashboard-light.com/vehicles/Ford_Expedition.html
http://dashboard-light.com/vehicles/Lincoln_Navigator.html
Compelling? In what way? Build quality? Reliability? Bang-for-the-buc?
It is funny to hear YOU say this given how you are so critical of a manufacturer's build quality.
That site still uses a statistically insignificant amount of USED AUCTION vehicles to draw their conclusions on.
Ford Expedition Vehicle count: 18,203
They sold 2,188,454 Expeditions from 1997-2015. That is a WHOPPING 0.8% of all vehicles sold.
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by wag123
Originally Posted by Rand
65k+ on those.. too much for me. Thats 1/2 a good house around here.
When equally equipped, most of it's direct competitors are more expensive than the Sequoia. If that isn't high enough, look at the prices of new Escalades, Navigators, and QX80s! The last time I visited a Cadillac dealer, I didn't see a single Escalade on the lot priced at under $80k, most were in the mid/upper $80k range, and some were in the $90k range. With the prices being so high, I'm not surprised that they are not selling as well as they once did.
I do agree paying that much money for SUV that will haul kids to the school is absolutely crazy, regardless of a vehicle. However, that new Expedition/Navigator is really compelling vehicle.
http://dashboard-light.com/vehicles/Ford_Expedition.html
http://dashboard-light.com/vehicles/Lincoln_Navigator.html
Compelling? In what way? Build quality? Reliability? Bang-for-the-buc?
It is funny to hear YOU say this given how you are so critical of a manufacturer's build quality.
That site still uses a statistically insignificant amount of USED AUCTION vehicles to draw their conclusions on.
Ford Expedition Vehicle count: 18,203
They sold 2,188,454 Expeditions from 1997-2015. That is a WHOPPING 0.8% of all vehicles sold.
Decent vehicle, but I'd rather have a Land Cruiser if the sole purpose is offroad use, which is still Toyota's biggest seller in the Middle East 4x4 market.
If memory serves me right, it wasn't until 2009/2010 that they started exporting the Sequoia to the Middle East as a direct competitor to the Chevrolet Tahoe/GMC Yukon and Ford Expedition, given its American roots, and while it is a somewhat "decent" seller, the Land Cruiser still takes the cake in the Toyota lineup despite its price tag. You just don't see that many Sequoias around here.
GM has the biggest share of the fullsize SUV market here with the Tahoe/Yukon and Suburban for on-road use, but 4x4s are treated as a completely different segment, where the Toyota Land Cruiser and the Nissan Patrol (the new Armada in the USDM) compete head to head. The midsize 4x4 segment has the Toyota Land Cruiser Prado (same platform as the Lexus GX) competing heavily against the Mitsubishi Pajero/Montero. Other Japanese manufacturers do not have a dog in this fight.
RWD SUVs with available 4x4, such as GM's offerings, are heavily used as family haulers and police cruisers for their body-on-frame construction, V8 power plants and solid rear axle setups. GM SUVs with the 6.2L EcoTec3, namely Yukon Denalis, are heavily used as close protection vehicles bar none.
If memory serves me right, it wasn't until 2009/2010 that they started exporting the Sequoia to the Middle East as a direct competitor to the Chevrolet Tahoe/GMC Yukon and Ford Expedition, given its American roots, and while it is a somewhat "decent" seller, the Land Cruiser still takes the cake in the Toyota lineup despite its price tag. You just don't see that many Sequoias around here.
GM has the biggest share of the fullsize SUV market here with the Tahoe/Yukon and Suburban for on-road use, but 4x4s are treated as a completely different segment, where the Toyota Land Cruiser and the Nissan Patrol (the new Armada in the USDM) compete head to head. The midsize 4x4 segment has the Toyota Land Cruiser Prado (same platform as the Lexus GX) competing heavily against the Mitsubishi Pajero/Montero. Other Japanese manufacturers do not have a dog in this fight.
RWD SUVs with available 4x4, such as GM's offerings, are heavily used as family haulers and police cruisers for their body-on-frame construction, V8 power plants and solid rear axle setups. GM SUVs with the 6.2L EcoTec3, namely Yukon Denalis, are heavily used as close protection vehicles bar none.
Originally Posted by Falcon_LS
Decent vehicle, but I'd rather have a Land Cruiser if the sole purpose is offroad use, which is still Toyota's biggest seller in the Middle East 4x4 market.
If memory serves me right, it wasn't until 2009/2010 that they started exporting the Sequoia to the Middle East as a direct competitor to the Chevrolet Tahoe/GMC Yukon and Ford Expedition, given its American roots, and while it is a somewhat "decent" seller, the Land Cruiser still takes the cake in the Toyota lineup despite its price tag. You just don't see that many Sequoias around here.
GM has the biggest share of the fullsize SUV market here with the Tahoe/Yukon and Suburban for on-road use, but 4x4s are treated as a completely different segment, where the Toyota Land Cruiser and the Nissan Patrol (the new Armada in the USDM) compete head to head. The midsize 4x4 segment has the Toyota Land Cruiser Prado (same platform as the Lexus GX) competing heavily against the Mitsubishi Pajero/Montero. Other Japanese manufacturers do not have a dog in this fight.
RWD SUVs with available 4x4, such as GM's offerings, are heavily used as family haulers and police cruisers for their body-on-frame construction, V8 power plants and solid rear axle setups. GM SUVs with the 6.2L EcoTec3, namely Yukon Denalis, are heavily used as close protection vehicles bar none.
Yeah, but landcruiser and sequoia money are quite different, lol! I'd rather drink a 25 year single malt over some wild turkey, too, but...
Decent vehicle, but I'd rather have a Land Cruiser if the sole purpose is offroad use, which is still Toyota's biggest seller in the Middle East 4x4 market.
If memory serves me right, it wasn't until 2009/2010 that they started exporting the Sequoia to the Middle East as a direct competitor to the Chevrolet Tahoe/GMC Yukon and Ford Expedition, given its American roots, and while it is a somewhat "decent" seller, the Land Cruiser still takes the cake in the Toyota lineup despite its price tag. You just don't see that many Sequoias around here.
GM has the biggest share of the fullsize SUV market here with the Tahoe/Yukon and Suburban for on-road use, but 4x4s are treated as a completely different segment, where the Toyota Land Cruiser and the Nissan Patrol (the new Armada in the USDM) compete head to head. The midsize 4x4 segment has the Toyota Land Cruiser Prado (same platform as the Lexus GX) competing heavily against the Mitsubishi Pajero/Montero. Other Japanese manufacturers do not have a dog in this fight.
RWD SUVs with available 4x4, such as GM's offerings, are heavily used as family haulers and police cruisers for their body-on-frame construction, V8 power plants and solid rear axle setups. GM SUVs with the 6.2L EcoTec3, namely Yukon Denalis, are heavily used as close protection vehicles bar none.
Yeah, but landcruiser and sequoia money are quite different, lol! I'd rather drink a 25 year single malt over some wild turkey, too, but...
Originally Posted by Skippy722
Originally Posted by wag123
http://dashboard-light.com/vehicles/Ford_Expedition.html
http://dashboard-light.com/vehicles/Lincoln_Navigator.html
Compelling? In what way? Build quality? Reliability? Bang-for-the-buc?
It is funny to hear YOU say this given how you are so critical of a manufacturer's build quality.
That site still uses a statistically insignificant amount of USED AUCTION vehicles to draw their conclusions on.
Ford Expedition Vehicle count: 18,203
They sold 2,188,454 Expeditions from 1997-2015. That is a WHOPPING 0.8% of all vehicles sold.
Compared to each other, it is statistically significant when you consider that all of the vehicle models are based on roughly the same percentage of total production.
If you know how auto auctions work now days, you know that it is relevant to use auction vehicles to obtain reliability data based on vehicle defects. Auction mechanics know better than anyone which vehicle makes and models have specific problems that they commonly see on a regular basis, such as engine mechanical problems on 5.4L Expeditions and CVT transmission problems on Nissan Altimas, etc.
Also, Dashboard-Light's data closely correlates with Consumer Reports' reliability data.
Originally Posted by wag123
http://dashboard-light.com/vehicles/Ford_Expedition.html
http://dashboard-light.com/vehicles/Lincoln_Navigator.html
Compelling? In what way? Build quality? Reliability? Bang-for-the-buc?
It is funny to hear YOU say this given how you are so critical of a manufacturer's build quality.
That site still uses a statistically insignificant amount of USED AUCTION vehicles to draw their conclusions on.
Ford Expedition Vehicle count: 18,203
They sold 2,188,454 Expeditions from 1997-2015. That is a WHOPPING 0.8% of all vehicles sold.
Compared to each other, it is statistically significant when you consider that all of the vehicle models are based on roughly the same percentage of total production.
If you know how auto auctions work now days, you know that it is relevant to use auction vehicles to obtain reliability data based on vehicle defects. Auction mechanics know better than anyone which vehicle makes and models have specific problems that they commonly see on a regular basis, such as engine mechanical problems on 5.4L Expeditions and CVT transmission problems on Nissan Altimas, etc.
Also, Dashboard-Light's data closely correlates with Consumer Reports' reliability data.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by wag123
Originally Posted by Skippy722
Originally Posted by wag123
http://dashboard-light.com/vehicles/Ford_Expedition.html
http://dashboard-light.com/vehicles/Lincoln_Navigator.html
Compelling? In what way? Build quality? Reliability? Bang-for-the-buc?
It is funny to hear YOU say this given how you are so critical of a manufacturer's build quality.
That site still uses a statistically insignificant amount of USED AUCTION vehicles to draw their conclusions on.
Ford Expedition Vehicle count: 18,203
They sold 2,188,454 Expeditions from 1997-2015. That is a WHOPPING 0.8% of all vehicles sold.
Compared to each other, it is statistically significant when you consider that all of the vehicle models are based on roughly the same percentage of total production.
If you know how auto auctions work now days, you know that it is relevant to use auction vehicles to obtain reliability data based on vehicle defects. Auction mechanics know better than anyone which vehicle makes and models have specific problems that they commonly see on a regular basis, such as engine mechanical problems on 5.4L Expeditions and CVT transmission problems on Nissan Altimas, etc.
Also, Dashboard-Light's data closely correlates with Consumer Reports' reliability data.
Is that Expedition from time of rusted Toyota frames? So basically Expedition was able to get to mechanics shop bcs. well frame was still there.
Originally Posted by Skippy722
Originally Posted by wag123
http://dashboard-light.com/vehicles/Ford_Expedition.html
http://dashboard-light.com/vehicles/Lincoln_Navigator.html
Compelling? In what way? Build quality? Reliability? Bang-for-the-buc?
It is funny to hear YOU say this given how you are so critical of a manufacturer's build quality.
That site still uses a statistically insignificant amount of USED AUCTION vehicles to draw their conclusions on.
Ford Expedition Vehicle count: 18,203
They sold 2,188,454 Expeditions from 1997-2015. That is a WHOPPING 0.8% of all vehicles sold.
Compared to each other, it is statistically significant when you consider that all of the vehicle models are based on roughly the same percentage of total production.
If you know how auto auctions work now days, you know that it is relevant to use auction vehicles to obtain reliability data based on vehicle defects. Auction mechanics know better than anyone which vehicle makes and models have specific problems that they commonly see on a regular basis, such as engine mechanical problems on 5.4L Expeditions and CVT transmission problems on Nissan Altimas, etc.
Also, Dashboard-Light's data closely correlates with Consumer Reports' reliability data.
Is that Expedition from time of rusted Toyota frames? So basically Expedition was able to get to mechanics shop bcs. well frame was still there.
Originally Posted by wag123
Originally Posted by Skippy722
Originally Posted by wag123
http://dashboard-light.com/vehicles/Ford_Expedition.html
http://dashboard-light.com/vehicles/Lincoln_Navigator.html
Compelling? In what way? Build quality? Reliability? Bang-for-the-buc?
It is funny to hear YOU say this given how you are so critical of a manufacturer's build quality.
That site still uses a statistically insignificant amount of USED AUCTION vehicles to draw their conclusions on.
Ford Expedition Vehicle count: 18,203
They sold 2,188,454 Expeditions from 1997-2015. That is a WHOPPING 0.8% of all vehicles sold.
Compared to each other, it is statistically significant when you consider that all of the vehicle models are based on roughly the same percentage of total production.
If you know how auto auctions work now days, you know that it is relevant to use auction vehicles to obtain reliability data based on vehicle defects. Auction mechanics know better than anyone which vehicle makes and models have specific problems that they commonly see on a regular basis, such as engine mechanical problems on 5.4L Expeditions and CVT transmission problems on Nissan Altimas, etc.
Also, Dashboard-Light's data closely correlates with Consumer Reports' reliability data.
You can try to justify it however you want, it's still a very tiny subset of all the vehicles. In an age where people trade their vehicles in instead of fixing them, I'd take anything that uses only auction vehicles with 150,000+ miles with a grain of salt.
Originally Posted by Skippy722
Originally Posted by wag123
http://dashboard-light.com/vehicles/Ford_Expedition.html
http://dashboard-light.com/vehicles/Lincoln_Navigator.html
Compelling? In what way? Build quality? Reliability? Bang-for-the-buc?
It is funny to hear YOU say this given how you are so critical of a manufacturer's build quality.
That site still uses a statistically insignificant amount of USED AUCTION vehicles to draw their conclusions on.
Ford Expedition Vehicle count: 18,203
They sold 2,188,454 Expeditions from 1997-2015. That is a WHOPPING 0.8% of all vehicles sold.
Compared to each other, it is statistically significant when you consider that all of the vehicle models are based on roughly the same percentage of total production.
If you know how auto auctions work now days, you know that it is relevant to use auction vehicles to obtain reliability data based on vehicle defects. Auction mechanics know better than anyone which vehicle makes and models have specific problems that they commonly see on a regular basis, such as engine mechanical problems on 5.4L Expeditions and CVT transmission problems on Nissan Altimas, etc.
Also, Dashboard-Light's data closely correlates with Consumer Reports' reliability data.
You can try to justify it however you want, it's still a very tiny subset of all the vehicles. In an age where people trade their vehicles in instead of fixing them, I'd take anything that uses only auction vehicles with 150,000+ miles with a grain of salt.
Originally Posted by Skippy722
Originally Posted by wag123
Originally Posted by Skippy722
Originally Posted by wag123
http://dashboard-light.com/vehicles/Ford_Expedition.html
http://dashboard-light.com/vehicles/Lincoln_Navigator.html
Compelling? In what way? Build quality? Reliability? Bang-for-the-buc?
It is funny to hear YOU say this given how you are so critical of a manufacturer's build quality.
That site still uses a statistically insignificant amount of USED AUCTION vehicles to draw their conclusions on.
Ford Expedition Vehicle count: 18,203
They sold 2,188,454 Expeditions from 1997-2015. That is a WHOPPING 0.8% of all vehicles sold.
Compared to each other, it is statistically significant when you consider that all of the vehicle models are based on roughly the same percentage of total production.
If you know how auto auctions work now days, you know that it is relevant to use auction vehicles to obtain reliability data based on vehicle defects. Auction mechanics know better than anyone which vehicle makes and models have specific problems that they commonly see on a regular basis, such as engine mechanical problems on 5.4L Expeditions and CVT transmission problems on Nissan Altimas, etc.
Also, Dashboard-Light's data closely correlates with Consumer Reports' reliability data.
You can try to justify it however you want, it's still a very tiny subset of all the vehicles. In an age where people trade their vehicles in instead of fixing them, I'd take anything that uses only auction vehicles with 150,000+ miles with a grain of salt.
Do not forget, consumer reports, company that said that Camry has exemplary sporty handling.
Originally Posted by wag123
Originally Posted by Skippy722
Originally Posted by wag123
http://dashboard-light.com/vehicles/Ford_Expedition.html
http://dashboard-light.com/vehicles/Lincoln_Navigator.html
Compelling? In what way? Build quality? Reliability? Bang-for-the-buc?
It is funny to hear YOU say this given how you are so critical of a manufacturer's build quality.
That site still uses a statistically insignificant amount of USED AUCTION vehicles to draw their conclusions on.
Ford Expedition Vehicle count: 18,203
They sold 2,188,454 Expeditions from 1997-2015. That is a WHOPPING 0.8% of all vehicles sold.
Compared to each other, it is statistically significant when you consider that all of the vehicle models are based on roughly the same percentage of total production.
If you know how auto auctions work now days, you know that it is relevant to use auction vehicles to obtain reliability data based on vehicle defects. Auction mechanics know better than anyone which vehicle makes and models have specific problems that they commonly see on a regular basis, such as engine mechanical problems on 5.4L Expeditions and CVT transmission problems on Nissan Altimas, etc.
Also, Dashboard-Light's data closely correlates with Consumer Reports' reliability data.
You can try to justify it however you want, it's still a very tiny subset of all the vehicles. In an age where people trade their vehicles in instead of fixing them, I'd take anything that uses only auction vehicles with 150,000+ miles with a grain of salt.
Do not forget, consumer reports, company that said that Camry has exemplary sporty handling.
Originally Posted by edyvw
Do not forget, consumer reports, company that said that Camry has exemplary sporty handling.
Right, and how many drivers are going through chicanes at more than 7/10ths of the cars capability? For its purpose the Camry handles fine. It's a "Family" car.
Do not forget, consumer reports, company that said that Camry has exemplary sporty handling.
Right, and how many drivers are going through chicanes at more than 7/10ths of the cars capability? For its purpose the Camry handles fine. It's a "Family" car.
Originally Posted by ndfergy
Originally Posted by edyvw
Do not forget, consumer reports, company that said that Camry has exemplary sporty handling.
Right, and how many drivers are going through chicanes at more than 7/10ths of the cars capability? For its purpose the Camry handles fine. It's a "Family" car.
As you said, it handles "fine.' Which is different from exemplary sporty handling. There is nothing sporty, and especially exemplary.
Originally Posted by edyvw
Do not forget, consumer reports, company that said that Camry has exemplary sporty handling.
Right, and how many drivers are going through chicanes at more than 7/10ths of the cars capability? For its purpose the Camry handles fine. It's a "Family" car.
As you said, it handles "fine.' Which is different from exemplary sporty handling. There is nothing sporty, and especially exemplary.
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by ndfergy
Originally Posted by edyvw
Do not forget, consumer reports, company that said that Camry has exemplary sporty handling.
Right, and how many drivers are going through chicanes at more than 7/10ths of the cars capability? For its purpose the Camry handles fine. It's a "Family" car.
As you said, it handles "fine.' Which is different from exemplary sporty handling. There is nothing sporty, and especially exemplary.
And where does CR state the Camry's handling is exemplary? I couldn't find it in in either 2019's or '20's review. Are you just making up dodo for your own agenda? Below is excerpts from their last review.
Overview:
The new Camry offers sleeker styling, but it's the improved fuel economy and handling, plus standard advanced safety systems that distinguish it among the crowd of midsized sedans.
The Camry has long held the distinction as a competent, well-rounded and pleasant family sedan. However, it gets a bad rap among critics as unexciting. To address that perception, the redesign brings snazzier styling and slightly nimbler handling. The end result is mixed, but the Camry remains a competitive midsized sedan.
Handling:
The Camry feels spry when driving, with a prompt turn-in response and nicely controlled body lean. This new generation incrementally moves the needle toward being more agile, not that the previous one was found wanting in the handling department. The redesigned Camry was capable and forgiving at the track where it posted a commendable 54 mph through our avoidance maneuver. It was secure when pushed to its limits on our road course, showing good grip right up to an eventual, predictable and benign understeer.
Originally Posted by ndfergy
Originally Posted by edyvw
Do not forget, consumer reports, company that said that Camry has exemplary sporty handling.
Right, and how many drivers are going through chicanes at more than 7/10ths of the cars capability? For its purpose the Camry handles fine. It's a "Family" car.
As you said, it handles "fine.' Which is different from exemplary sporty handling. There is nothing sporty, and especially exemplary.
And where does CR state the Camry's handling is exemplary? I couldn't find it in in either 2019's or '20's review. Are you just making up dodo for your own agenda? Below is excerpts from their last review.
Overview:
The new Camry offers sleeker styling, but it's the improved fuel economy and handling, plus standard advanced safety systems that distinguish it among the crowd of midsized sedans.
The Camry has long held the distinction as a competent, well-rounded and pleasant family sedan. However, it gets a bad rap among critics as unexciting. To address that perception, the redesign brings snazzier styling and slightly nimbler handling. The end result is mixed, but the Camry remains a competitive midsized sedan.
Handling:
The Camry feels spry when driving, with a prompt turn-in response and nicely controlled body lean. This new generation incrementally moves the needle toward being more agile, not that the previous one was found wanting in the handling department. The redesigned Camry was capable and forgiving at the track where it posted a commendable 54 mph through our avoidance maneuver. It was secure when pushed to its limits on our road course, showing good grip right up to an eventual, predictable and benign understeer.
Originally Posted by edyvw
Is that Expedition from time of rusted Toyota frames? So basically Expedition was able to get to mechanics shop bcs. well frame was still there.
Toyota was NOT the only auto manufacturer that purchased frames from Dana Corp, and the frames that Dana sold to Toyota were not the only frames that had issues. For the record, Ford & GM also purchased frames from Dana, and they also had rust issues as well as stress cracking issues with them. FYI, Ford was Dana's largest customer. The resulting lawsuits and settlements forced Dana out of the frame business.
As I understand it, the problem specific to Toyota frames manufactured by Dana was that, unknown to Toyota, Dana substituted a lower quality softer steel that was cheaper and easier to hydroform in a fully boxed frame design, but the lower quality steel was also much more prone to rust in salty climates. Also, the bare frames were not prepped properly before priming and painting. Toyota took partial responsibility for the problem because of the fact that the fully boxed frame design would allow debris to build-up inside the frame and hold moisture. The frames that Dana produced for the other manufacturers were not fully boxed and hydroformed at that time, so Dana used harder steel, but the harder steel that they used in these frames was subject to stress cranking and the frames breaking, which was (and is) a problem that Ford & GM trucks had with Dana frames manufactured during that time frame.
Like I said before, to Toyota's credit, they took care of their customers, and they rectified the problem. Toyota is a company that learns from their mistakes, and unlike many other auto manufacturers, doesn't repeat them. IMO Toyota buyers do not have to worry about this problem.
Since Ford is now using fully boxed hydroformed frames on its F150s and Expeditions, I expect to see this same problem appear on them at some point in the future.
Is that Expedition from time of rusted Toyota frames? So basically Expedition was able to get to mechanics shop bcs. well frame was still there.
Toyota was NOT the only auto manufacturer that purchased frames from Dana Corp, and the frames that Dana sold to Toyota were not the only frames that had issues. For the record, Ford & GM also purchased frames from Dana, and they also had rust issues as well as stress cracking issues with them. FYI, Ford was Dana's largest customer. The resulting lawsuits and settlements forced Dana out of the frame business.
As I understand it, the problem specific to Toyota frames manufactured by Dana was that, unknown to Toyota, Dana substituted a lower quality softer steel that was cheaper and easier to hydroform in a fully boxed frame design, but the lower quality steel was also much more prone to rust in salty climates. Also, the bare frames were not prepped properly before priming and painting. Toyota took partial responsibility for the problem because of the fact that the fully boxed frame design would allow debris to build-up inside the frame and hold moisture. The frames that Dana produced for the other manufacturers were not fully boxed and hydroformed at that time, so Dana used harder steel, but the harder steel that they used in these frames was subject to stress cranking and the frames breaking, which was (and is) a problem that Ford & GM trucks had with Dana frames manufactured during that time frame.
Like I said before, to Toyota's credit, they took care of their customers, and they rectified the problem. Toyota is a company that learns from their mistakes, and unlike many other auto manufacturers, doesn't repeat them. IMO Toyota buyers do not have to worry about this problem.
Since Ford is now using fully boxed hydroformed frames on its F150s and Expeditions, I expect to see this same problem appear on them at some point in the future.
Originally Posted by wag123
Originally Posted by edyvw
Is that Expedition from time of rusted Toyota frames? So basically Expedition was able to get to mechanics shop bcs. well frame was still there.
Toyota was NOT the only auto manufacturer that purchased frames from Dana Corp, and the frames that Dana sold to Toyota were not the only frames that had issues. For the record, Ford & GM also purchased frames from Dana, and they also had rust issues as well as stress cracking issues with them. FYI, Ford was Dana's largest customer. The resulting lawsuits and settlements forced Dana out of the frame business.
As I understand it, the problem specific to Toyota frames manufactured by Dana was that, unknown to Toyota, Dana substituted a lower quality softer steel that was cheaper and easier to hydroform in a fully boxed frame design, but the lower quality steel was also much more prone to rust in salty climates. Also, the bare frames were not prepped properly before priming and painting. Toyota took partial responsibility for the problem because of the fact that the fully boxed frame design would allow debris to build-up inside the frame and hold moisture. The frames that Dana produced for the other manufacturers were not fully boxed and hydroformed at that time, so Dana used harder steel, but the harder steel that they used in these frames was subject to stress cranking and the frames breaking, which was (and is) a problem that Ford & GM trucks had with Dana frames manufactured during that time frame.
Like I said before, to Toyota's credit, they took care of their customers, and they rectified the problem. Toyota is a company that learns from their mistakes, and unlike many other auto manufacturers, doesn't repeat them. IMO Toyota buyers do not have to worry about this problem.
Since Ford is now using fully boxed hydroformed frames on its F150s and Expeditions, I expect to see this same problem appear on them at some point in the future.
So, reliability is not supplier issue, but this is?
Problems with Toyota: It is supplier. Supplier came to Toyota HQ and pointed gun to QC people. They did not have any choice.
Problems with EVERYONE else: It is just example why one should buy Toyota.
Originally Posted by edyvw
Is that Expedition from time of rusted Toyota frames? So basically Expedition was able to get to mechanics shop bcs. well frame was still there.
Toyota was NOT the only auto manufacturer that purchased frames from Dana Corp, and the frames that Dana sold to Toyota were not the only frames that had issues. For the record, Ford & GM also purchased frames from Dana, and they also had rust issues as well as stress cracking issues with them. FYI, Ford was Dana's largest customer. The resulting lawsuits and settlements forced Dana out of the frame business.
As I understand it, the problem specific to Toyota frames manufactured by Dana was that, unknown to Toyota, Dana substituted a lower quality softer steel that was cheaper and easier to hydroform in a fully boxed frame design, but the lower quality steel was also much more prone to rust in salty climates. Also, the bare frames were not prepped properly before priming and painting. Toyota took partial responsibility for the problem because of the fact that the fully boxed frame design would allow debris to build-up inside the frame and hold moisture. The frames that Dana produced for the other manufacturers were not fully boxed and hydroformed at that time, so Dana used harder steel, but the harder steel that they used in these frames was subject to stress cranking and the frames breaking, which was (and is) a problem that Ford & GM trucks had with Dana frames manufactured during that time frame.
Like I said before, to Toyota's credit, they took care of their customers, and they rectified the problem. Toyota is a company that learns from their mistakes, and unlike many other auto manufacturers, doesn't repeat them. IMO Toyota buyers do not have to worry about this problem.
Since Ford is now using fully boxed hydroformed frames on its F150s and Expeditions, I expect to see this same problem appear on them at some point in the future.
So, reliability is not supplier issue, but this is?
Problems with Toyota: It is supplier. Supplier came to Toyota HQ and pointed gun to QC people. They did not have any choice.
Problems with EVERYONE else: It is just example why one should buy Toyota.
Originally Posted by ndfergy
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by ndfergy
Originally Posted by edyvw
Do not forget, consumer reports, company that said that Camry has exemplary sporty handling.
Right, and how many drivers are going through chicanes at more than 7/10ths of the cars capability? For its purpose the Camry handles fine. It's a "Family" car.
As you said, it handles "fine.' Which is different from exemplary sporty handling. There is nothing sporty, and especially exemplary.
And where does CR state the Camry's handling is exemplary? I couldn't find it in in either 2019's or '20's review. Are you just making up dodo for your own agenda? Below is excerpts from their last review.
Overview:
The new Camry offers sleeker styling, but it's the improved fuel economy and handling, plus standard advanced safety systems that distinguish it among the crowd of midsized sedans.
The Camry has long held the distinction as a competent, well-rounded and pleasant family sedan. However, it gets a bad rap among critics as unexciting. To address that perception, the redesign brings snazzier styling and slightly nimbler handling. The end result is mixed, but the Camry remains a competitive midsized sedan.
Handling:
The Camry feels spry when driving, with a prompt turn-in response and nicely controlled body lean. This new generation incrementally moves the needle toward being more agile, not that the previous one was found wanting in the handling department. The redesigned Camry was capable and forgiving at the track where it posted a commendable 54 mph through our avoidance maneuver. It was secure when pushed to its limits on our road course, showing good grip right up to an eventual, predictable and benign understeer.
This was previous Camry model.
Anyone that puts "response" into same sentence with Camry (or pretty much any Toyota model) is enough to tell how "serious" they are.
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by ndfergy
Originally Posted by edyvw
Do not forget, consumer reports, company that said that Camry has exemplary sporty handling.
Right, and how many drivers are going through chicanes at more than 7/10ths of the cars capability? For its purpose the Camry handles fine. It's a "Family" car.
As you said, it handles "fine.' Which is different from exemplary sporty handling. There is nothing sporty, and especially exemplary.
And where does CR state the Camry's handling is exemplary? I couldn't find it in in either 2019's or '20's review. Are you just making up dodo for your own agenda? Below is excerpts from their last review.
Overview:
The new Camry offers sleeker styling, but it's the improved fuel economy and handling, plus standard advanced safety systems that distinguish it among the crowd of midsized sedans.
The Camry has long held the distinction as a competent, well-rounded and pleasant family sedan. However, it gets a bad rap among critics as unexciting. To address that perception, the redesign brings snazzier styling and slightly nimbler handling. The end result is mixed, but the Camry remains a competitive midsized sedan.
Handling:
The Camry feels spry when driving, with a prompt turn-in response and nicely controlled body lean. This new generation incrementally moves the needle toward being more agile, not that the previous one was found wanting in the handling department. The redesigned Camry was capable and forgiving at the track where it posted a commendable 54 mph through our avoidance maneuver. It was secure when pushed to its limits on our road course, showing good grip right up to an eventual, predictable and benign understeer.
This was previous Camry model.
Anyone that puts "response" into same sentence with Camry (or pretty much any Toyota model) is enough to tell how "serious" they are.
Last edited:
- Status
