Consumer Reports...2003 V6 4runner

[ToolmanJohn]

Can they read their own data??? This is a scan of their latest issue, the "2004 Best and Worst Cars".. I have circled the V6 4runner reliabilty chart and the V8 chart is to the right.. They have checked the V6 with an "X" at the bottom which means:

QUOTE " Worse-than-average reliability for that year." End quote.

Wickedly confusing, as there are MANY other vehicles in their report which have less than excellent ratings which ARE checked as reliable. I'm gonna get to the bottom of this!! I am a subscriber, and by gum, I am gonna RANT!!.. Well I probably will be polite but still, I want to know WHY the rating which seems in contradiction to the owners responses?

 

[NoDak]

see my reply to your post in this other thread

http://www.toyota-4runner.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=19367

 

[khaug]

CU Reliability Data

You need to consider a couple of things: First, CU's reliability ratings ard comparative, not absolute - they compare reliability data reported by owners from model to model. Second, the data here are for new vehicles, as the gen 4 'Runners have been out for just over a year. New vehicles are inherently not troublesome compared to older vehicles, so small differences can seem exaggerated.

Early 4.0 V-6s had problems with fuel pressure regulators (if memory serves) and noise which may have been from valve clearance or piston slap. The absence of lots of recent complaints on forums such as this regarding these issues suggests the problems may now have been solved.

We've subscribed to CR for more than thirty years now, and I'm firmly convinced they are the absolute best consumer reference there is. However, they aren't perfect, and I think that the statistical modeling they use for first and second-year reliability ratings could use some rethinking. The issue with the V-6 4Runners is a prime example of this need.

 

[thholr]

how does the V8 get an excellent rating for fuel economy and the v6 only gets very good ???? seems weird.

 

[peter78]

how does the V8 get an excellent rating for fuel economy and the v6 only gets very good ???? seems weird.

Fuel on the CR Report is for the "fuel system" and if there are any problems. Things like choke, fuel injection, computer & sensors, fuel pump, tank, emissions controls, leaks, stalling, etc. It is not related to fuel economy. Since the V6 had a fuel related system re-call, it makes sense to show a small problem here.

 

[GatorGreg]

I take CR's automotive info with a huge grain of salt. For example, they've assigned a lower rating for "paint/trim/rust" for the '03 V6 model than the '03 V8 model, when as far as I know there is absolutely no difference between them :dunno:

 

[peter78]

I just saw the April issue and Consumer Reports rates the 2003 4Runner V6 as being worse than 40% BELOW average. To my eye it was around 42% worse than average. They rated the Jeep Grand Cherokee, which is also 40% bleow average as slightly better than the 2003 4Runner V6.

Consumer Reports also rates the 2003 4Runner V8 as being better than 40% ABOVE average. To my eye it was around 45% better than average.

In one section it had used cars to avoid and under Toyota they had only one car, the 2003 4Runner V6. Damn those Consumer Reports people.:50cal:

 

[BURNIN M]

'03 V6 4 Runners SUCK!!!! HAAAA, HAAAAA!

 

[Good Times]

I just saw the April issue and Consumer Reports rates the 2003 4Runner V6 as being worse than 40% BELOW average. To my eye it was around 42% worse than average. They rated the Jeep Grand Cherokee, which is also 40% bleow average as slightly better than the 2003 4Runner V6.

Consumer Reports also rates the 2003 4Runner V8 as being better than 40% ABOVE average. To my eye it was around 45% better than average.

In one section it had used cars to avoid and under Toyota they had only one car, the 2003 4Runner V6. Damn those Consumer Reports people.:50cal:

Since CR is stating that the v6 is bad, I'd bet the dealers are feeling the pain from the report to some respect. They'll prob try to push the v8 instead but with only a certain amount of v8's available, you know the v6 will sit on the lot longer. Factoring that in, you could possible try to get a better. Hell if I was in the market for the v6, I'd use the report to the best I can and try to get a killer deal out of all of this. Since I already know that the v6 is a great engine I know that CR is full of it

 

[NoDak]

'03 V6 4 Runners SUCK!!!! HAAAA, HAAAAA!

and this from a person who has in his sig. that he use to drive a ford bronco II.

just poking fun back at ya!!!

 

[BURNIN M]

1984 Ford Bronco II are Way better than V6 4 Runners!!!! :50cal:

and this from a person who has in his sig. that he use to drive a ford bronco II.

just poking fun back at ya!!!

 

[NoDak]

last comment on the bronco.

i remember old friend back in 88 i think, during the winter up here, he went to push in his clutch (slowly since it was cold out), and next thing he knows he pushed the whole clutch pedal/assembly thru the floor board/firewall. funniest thing i ever saw, sad on his part, but man it was funny. didnt help either that he was wearing cold winter gear and couldnt really feel the resistance and such which i think lead to his mishap.

also didnt help we nicknamed him homer (aka simpson)

 

[rando]

Can they read their own data???

stuff deleted

I'm gonna get to the bottom of this!! I am a subscriber, and by gum, I am gonna RANT!!.. Well I probably will be polite but still, I want to know WHY the rating which seems in contradiction to the owners responses?

You don't need to search too hard. CR's own site explains how this situation can happen. Just click on the little 'how we do ratings' or something like that.