2019 J.D. Power VDS

[wdn]

Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Originally Posted by wdn
2004-2005 Toyota Tundra. Reliability score: 100. Exceptional. These are now 15 year old trucks.


I wonder if the site looks at structural issues because IIRC Toyota just agreed to a big settlement over rust on a bunch of trucks from around 2010.


Toyota did frame recall on mine after I bought it used seven years ago, in 2012; Toyota removed the bed, sandblasted the frame and put on anti-rust coating both inside the frame and out. It had just surface rust on it before the treatment. There is no rust at all on my frame, even seven years later. The treatment still sticks to the steel. I park it outside year round in the frozen North, in New Hampshire.

I don't know how many other manufacturers if any, would give the second-owner of an eight year old used truck, a free new frame or lifetime rustproofing. I cannot think of anyone but Toyota who would do that.

 

[wemay]

Originally Posted by itguy08
Originally Posted by wemay
Thanks buster. Everyone has their favorite review publication, I enjoy JDPower and trust it.

Dashboard Light, which is constantly inserted in these threads by a few other members, tests auctioned vehicles. Not for me but to each his/her own.


Funny thing is that site doesn't even test them. They only look at "powertrain issues" on auctioned vehicles. Then they make up some "Quality index" and spit it out. No mention of what the "powertrain issue" is or anything. The spammer that usually brings it up always forgets that piece.

For all the hate that Consumer Reports gets around here they seem to be one of the better ones as they list the various areas (powertrain, brakes, body, electronics, etc) so you can get a better idea of where problem areas lie.


I agree. Consumer Reports is the other one I trust. I'm not saying the others are bad but I decided long ago to just pick one or two and stick with them. This way you don't appear to only cherry pick ones that confirm your purchase as a good one.

 

[buster]

Originally Posted by LoneRanger
Why do some new vehicle owners constantly seek affirmation of their purchase decision? Is it due to buyer's remorse or something else?


If you're directing that at me, the answer no. I did my research beforehand. I came across it on another forum.

CR is good too.

 

[Elkins45]

On what planet is a Chrysler minivan more reliable than a Toyota? Pretty sure it isn't this one!

 

[itguy08]

Originally Posted by wdn
I don't know how many other manufacturers if any, would give the second-owner of an eight year old used truck, a free new frame or lifetime rustproofing. I cannot think of anyone but Toyota who would do that.


Ford replaced lots of rusty Windstar frames/subframes. Interestingly they used the same supplier (Dana) as Toyota.

 

[Skippy722]

I guess the Toyota Kool-aId wasn't strong enough to mask how truly awful those Sienna's are

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by wemay
Originally Posted by itguy08
Originally Posted by wemay
Thanks buster. Everyone has their favorite review publication, I enjoy JDPower and trust it.

Dashboard Light, which is constantly inserted in these threads by a few other members, tests auctioned vehicles. Not for me but to each his/her own.


Funny thing is that site doesn't even test them. They only look at "powertrain issues" on auctioned vehicles. Then they make up some "Quality index" and spit it out. No mention of what the "powertrain issue" is or anything. The spammer that usually brings it up always forgets that piece.

For all the hate that Consumer Reports gets around here they seem to be one of the better ones as they list the various areas (powertrain, brakes, body, electronics, etc) so you can get a better idea of where problem areas lie.


I agree. Consumer Reports is the other one I trust. I'm not saying the others are bad but I decided long ago to just pick one or two and stick with them. This way you don't appear to only cherry pick ones that confirm your purchase as a good one.

I look at them as a whole, but CR has been spot-on for every vehicle I've owned. It said my 2010 Jeep was a POS...and it was. It said my CX5 was awesome...and it was. I looked up my friend's vehicles on it, and they did exactly how CR said they would.

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by itguy08

I don't know how many other manufacturers if any, would give the second-owner of an eight year old used truck, a free new frame or lifetime rustproofing. I cannot think of anyone but Toyota who would do that.




Suppliers typically "build to spec". Sometimes things go wrong and slip through QA/QC, but typically, the company spec's from the manufacturer what they want, and what QA/QC stringency is to be used, and this influences cost due to labor and cull rate. The frame issue discussed may have been a QA/QC gaffe, I'm just saying that that "same supplier" typically means very little when each manufacturer is spec'ing to their own TDP.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Originally Posted by wdn
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Originally Posted by wdn
2004-2005 Toyota Tundra. Reliability score: 100. Exceptional. These are now 15 year old trucks.


I wonder if the site looks at structural issues because IIRC Toyota just agreed to a big settlement over rust on a bunch of trucks from around 2010.


Toyota did frame recall on mine after I bought it used seven years ago, in 2012; Toyota removed the bed, sandblasted the frame and put on anti-rust coating both inside the frame and out. It had just surface rust on it before the treatment. There is no rust at all on my frame, even seven years later. The treatment still sticks to the steel. I park it outside year round in the frozen North, in New Hampshire.

I don't know how many other manufacturers if any, would give the second-owner of an eight year old used truck, a free new frame or lifetime rustproofing. I cannot think of anyone but Toyota who would do that.



Class action lawsuits make that happen. Toyota fixes "free of charge" and admits no wrongdoing.

Here's another example. BMW a few years ago settled a class action over what was commonly called a rear-subframe failure on the 3-series (1996-2006). The mounts for the rear suspension would eventually tear away from the body. Owners had until 2010 to file a claim for the free repair. So theoretically a 14 yr old 3-series was eligible for the repair.

 

[DoubleWasp]

From the experience of people I know who own some of those vehicles, it seems to make sense.

Don't doubt the Chrysler Town and Country. I've spoken to a lot of Uber XL drivers who have 40-70k miles on them (or Pacificas), and they swear by them. All were in incredible shape. Practically showroom condition, despite getting beaten through rideshare and family hauling.

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by DoubleWasp
From the experience of people I know who own some of those vehicles, it seems to make sense.

Don't doubt the Chrysler Town and Country. I've spoken to a lot of Uber XL drivers who have 40-70k miles on them (or Pacificas), and they swear by them. All were in incredible shape. Practically showroom condition, despite getting beaten through rideshare and family hauling.

Ummm....40-70K miles? So like, they had it for 2 years? lol. No. That is not an indication of something quality "Did not fall apart in 2 years". My CX5 had nearly 30K rental miles on it when I bought it, and I drove it another 70k miles, and it looked and performed like new. That's "beginning" to be confidence inspiring. Anything under 100k miles should be "of course it didn't break, why the heck should it!?" It's like those people who say "I'm a good person! I pay my bills and I'm not a felon!" Well...wanna cookie?

 

[KrisZ]

Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by DoubleWasp
From the experience of people I know who own some of those vehicles, it seems to make sense.

Don't doubt the Chrysler Town and Country. I've spoken to a lot of Uber XL drivers who have 40-70k miles on them (or Pacificas), and they swear by them. All were in incredible shape. Practically showroom condition, despite getting beaten through rideshare and family hauling.

Ummm....40-70K miles? So like, they had it for 2 years? lol. No. That is not an indication of something quality "Did not fall apart in 2 years". My CX5 had nearly 30K rental miles on it when I bought it, and I drove it another 70k miles, and it looked and performed like new. That's "beginning" to be confidence inspiring. Anything under 100k miles should be "of course it didn't break, why the heck should it!?" It's like those people who say "I'm a good person! I pay my bills and I'm not a felon!" Well...wanna cookie?


It is still quite valid. When Overkill posted his review of a rental Sienna a while back with pictures of interior bits falling off, being broken, many people argued that it's a rental, it was abused and it is not the same as personally owned vehicles. Which I agree with. Rental, fleet, ride share usage is far more abusive than privately owned.

So now we have an example of Chrysler interiors holding up well in similar usage, but you are dismissing it simply because its chrysler and comparing it to your usage.

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by KrisZ
Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by DoubleWasp
From the experience of people I know who own some of those vehicles, it seems to make sense.

Don't doubt the Chrysler Town and Country. I've spoken to a lot of Uber XL drivers who have 40-70k miles on them (or Pacificas), and they swear by them. All were in incredible shape. Practically showroom condition, despite getting beaten through rideshare and family hauling.

Ummm....40-70K miles? So like, they had it for 2 years? lol. No. That is not an indication of something quality "Did not fall apart in 2 years". My CX5 had nearly 30K rental miles on it when I bought it, and I drove it another 70k miles, and it looked and performed like new. That's "beginning" to be confidence inspiring. Anything under 100k miles should be "of course it didn't break, why the heck should it!?" It's like those people who say "I'm a good person! I pay my bills and I'm not a felon!" Well...wanna cookie?


It is still quite valid. When Overkill posted his review of a rental Sienna a while back with pictures of interior bits falling off, being broken, many people argued that it's a rental, it was abused and it is not the same as personally owned vehicles. Which I agree with. Rental, fleet, ride share usage is far more abusive than privately owned.

So now we have an example of Chrysler interiors holding up well in similar usage, but you are dismissing it simply because its chrysler and comparing it to your usage.


I'm dismissing it because 40-70K miles is nothing, no-matter who owns it.

 

[KrisZ]

Originally Posted by Ws6


I'm dismissing it because 40-70K miles is nothing, no-matter who owns it.


As a whole, I agree, but for interior an uber or rental will see a lot more abuse during those miles than a privately owned one in 150k miles. Provided the owner is not a total slob.