Consumer Reports slap on the 4Runner
- Thread starter Larry
- Start date
Incredibly generous of you, but I'll pass for now.Pitbull said:I'm willing to take a big chance and give you V6 guys $.10 on the dollar for your dangerous defective 4runners "right now" or if you are a risk taker you can continue to drive them and end up risking your welfare and getting nothing for your tradein.
Actually, I have one of the very first production V6's made and it has been flawless -- the service manager checked the dates and confirmed it was a very early model. The fuel damper recall was done, but it was a non-event IMHO.
I think you should consider Pitbull's offer. After all CR does not take advertising, so how could they be wrong. Oh, and they have a lab, too. This fuel system problem was bad enough to trash the V6 ratings. After all, what do you expect. Now, if it was only a mechanical problem that did not involve fuel it would have been ok, like the wheels falling off of Durangos because of a failed ball-joint. Since it did not involve the fuel system it does not hurt the Durango ratings. Just because there were seven people killed or injured, with the Durango problem, at least they did not have a fuel leak.
If you think CR was wrong you should organize a letter campaign to annoy those folks. But they probably won't read your letters because they have made up their mind and are not often confused by outsiders. They have a lab and so they don't need any help, and they don't take advertising, either...did I say that, already, they don't, you know.
If you don't want to get skinned by a used car dealer you can save all that trouble and just buy one of their magazines. After all they don't take advertising.
If you think CR was wrong you should organize a letter campaign to annoy those folks. But they probably won't read your letters because they have made up their mind and are not often confused by outsiders. They have a lab and so they don't need any help, and they don't take advertising, either...did I say that, already, they don't, you know.
If you don't want to get skinned by a used car dealer you can save all that trouble and just buy one of their magazines. After all they don't take advertising.
sharp4runr
New member
Oh man, I didn't look at CR before I bought my V6. I should have brought the magazine in and demanded an even lower price than what I got becuase this truck will spew fuel everywhere and burn my family and I into ashes...
Did I forget to mention that CR does not take advertising, they only take consumers. And they have a lab, too. They don't take information from others, they have their own.
And they will 'check rate' a vehicle as a best buy that has the dreaded black circle of death on reliability. And they say they don't take advertising. Does that mean they only sell it? I wonder how much a report costs? You should get a discount if you buy directly from the manufacturer. After all they have their own lab....how good can you afford to be?
And if a new vehicle that is too new to have a reliability rating it gets left out of 'worst of the bunch' lists, even though it belongs there. In 03 there were I think 37 best vehicles and Toyota had 17 of them and none in the 'cars to avoid'. That left 20 places to divide up amoung all the rest. But have one recall generated by Toyota themselves to make a simple mechanical repair and it's a slap down. I guess it's expectitations. If a wheel falls off a Dodge, it's just a 'Dodge'. If a warranty mechanical adjustment is needed on a Toyota, it's a lemon, piece of junk, a failure in the market place, oh the shame of it all. Where's Pitbull with his ten cents? Get him before it drops to five cents. After all the V6 is now in the 'cars to avoid' list.
Did I forget to mention, CR does not take advertising.
And they will 'check rate' a vehicle as a best buy that has the dreaded black circle of death on reliability. And they say they don't take advertising. Does that mean they only sell it? I wonder how much a report costs? You should get a discount if you buy directly from the manufacturer. After all they have their own lab....how good can you afford to be?
And if a new vehicle that is too new to have a reliability rating it gets left out of 'worst of the bunch' lists, even though it belongs there. In 03 there were I think 37 best vehicles and Toyota had 17 of them and none in the 'cars to avoid'. That left 20 places to divide up amoung all the rest. But have one recall generated by Toyota themselves to make a simple mechanical repair and it's a slap down. I guess it's expectitations. If a wheel falls off a Dodge, it's just a 'Dodge'. If a warranty mechanical adjustment is needed on a Toyota, it's a lemon, piece of junk, a failure in the market place, oh the shame of it all. Where's Pitbull with his ten cents? Get him before it drops to five cents. After all the V6 is now in the 'cars to avoid' list.
Did I forget to mention, CR does not take advertising.
94yotarunner
New member
If anyone wants to trade, which is relatively a better offer than Pitbull is offering, just give me a shout. Even trade, well, I'll even toss in dinner and a movie with the truck in exchange... but thats as high as I'm going.
A v6 4x4 in exchange for a v6 4x4, except mine's not defective. Ohh yea, and I just put in a new air freshner too... I'll even leave that in there cause I'm a nice guy.
Since the 2nd gen is much more reliable and safe, your family will be perfectly OK in the "new" truck.
Let me know.
A v6 4x4 in exchange for a v6 4x4, except mine's not defective. Ohh yea, and I just put in a new air freshner too... I'll even leave that in there cause I'm a nice guy.
Since the 2nd gen is much more reliable and safe, your family will be perfectly OK in the "new" truck.
Let me know.
MicaBlue03
Member
I had to read CRs explanation about how they do their ratings multiple times and compare the V6 and V8 4Runners to a number of other vehicles to begin to understand how they arrived at their ratings.
The best I can figure it, the V6 was hurt by a combination of the "fuel pulsation damper" recall and a few other minor things. Some owners of early units complained of a squealing serpentine belt, some complained of a louder-than-expected ticking sound from the exhaust or valvetrain somewhere, some complained about the exhaust smell; some had a problem with a roof rail plastic trim piece that loosened; some complained of sunroof rattles.
Not big stuff, and not good indicators of overall quality or reliability. However the CR folks just run with relatively raw numbers and don't do any analysis--only categorization into fuel vs. exhaust vs. body vs. electrics, etc. Then if a vehicle has a higher (than average) *number* of complaints reported, it gets tagged as a problem and that year/model keeps that rating forever. In this case the data was all from the first 2-3 months of the new V6, and there was no effort to look at initial quality vs. long-term reliability or anything else.
Thus the rating they arrive at isn't the overall indicator they claim it to be, and that's my main heartburn with their approach.
The best I can figure it, the V6 was hurt by a combination of the "fuel pulsation damper" recall and a few other minor things. Some owners of early units complained of a squealing serpentine belt, some complained of a louder-than-expected ticking sound from the exhaust or valvetrain somewhere, some complained about the exhaust smell; some had a problem with a roof rail plastic trim piece that loosened; some complained of sunroof rattles.
Not big stuff, and not good indicators of overall quality or reliability. However the CR folks just run with relatively raw numbers and don't do any analysis--only categorization into fuel vs. exhaust vs. body vs. electrics, etc. Then if a vehicle has a higher (than average) *number* of complaints reported, it gets tagged as a problem and that year/model keeps that rating forever. In this case the data was all from the first 2-3 months of the new V6, and there was no effort to look at initial quality vs. long-term reliability or anything else.
Thus the rating they arrive at isn't the overall indicator they claim it to be, and that's my main heartburn with their approach.
So, MicaBlue03, lets see if I've got all this straignt. CR has a lab and professional testers and they can make piles of professional data. Then some times they throw it all away for a good story, based on complaints from owners with no reference for the relative value of such judgments. CR is acurate like a busted watch. It's very accurate, twice a day, if you know when to look. But, we must remember that they don't take advertising, just their readers.
Can we guess that it's ok for V6 owners to keep on trucking and the response to CR would be something like, 'Up yours, Gomer!'. Sorry, Pitbull, but survey sez, 'keep 'em'.
Can we guess that it's ok for V6 owners to keep on trucking and the response to CR would be something like, 'Up yours, Gomer!'. Sorry, Pitbull, but survey sez, 'keep 'em'.
MicaBlue03
Member
Larry, I'm frequently conflicted about Consumer Reports. They often do boneheaded things in interpreting the information they have and the test data they gather. They seem to understand washing machines better than they understand cars, but try to talk about both with equal authority.
However I haven't decided to ignore them entirely, for two reasons. Firstly, lots of dedicated car/truck magazines have terrible conflicts of interest, and CR avoids some of those--both as an "outsider" in the car business and since they aren't advertiser-supported. Secondly, they are one of the few publications that pay any attention to long-term durability. The major magazines mention it only in passing, though a few of them are doing a small number of long-term evaluations. Even though they only do a few of these evaluations and "long term" to them is less than 50 kmiles, the results are often some of the most interesting stuff they publish. But I suspect most of the manufacturers hate to see their products as the subject of these long-term tests.
In a sense, they do throw away useful data that they get or generate. The 2003 V6 rating they gave deserved a modification or a real explanation, but the oversimplified mechanical process they used to arrive it did them no credit.
Toyota's history and culture, and the experiences so far with the V6 suggest that it will be excellent long term bet that Toyotas usually are, and I'm sure as heck holding onto mine!
However I haven't decided to ignore them entirely, for two reasons. Firstly, lots of dedicated car/truck magazines have terrible conflicts of interest, and CR avoids some of those--both as an "outsider" in the car business and since they aren't advertiser-supported. Secondly, they are one of the few publications that pay any attention to long-term durability. The major magazines mention it only in passing, though a few of them are doing a small number of long-term evaluations. Even though they only do a few of these evaluations and "long term" to them is less than 50 kmiles, the results are often some of the most interesting stuff they publish. But I suspect most of the manufacturers hate to see their products as the subject of these long-term tests.
In a sense, they do throw away useful data that they get or generate. The 2003 V6 rating they gave deserved a modification or a real explanation, but the oversimplified mechanical process they used to arrive it did them no credit.
Toyota's history and culture, and the experiences so far with the V6 suggest that it will be excellent long term bet that Toyotas usually are, and I'm sure as heck holding onto mine!
Similar threads
