Toyota reliability?? > or < Honda??

[CookieRoe]

I only purchase Toyota/Honda products. We've had 4 Grand Cherokees in the past and can say you can't GIVE me one, new or old. I don't care how nice they are. My 4Runner is almost to 150K and my Civic 240K. I enjoy both my rides and take crazy care of them. However, if I had to "renew" my family fleet today, I would get a Honda Pilot (replace the Runner) and an Accord (or CRV to replace my Civic). Toyota's styling/features have disappointed me as of late (started downhill years ago, but that's my opinion). Although I firmly believe you can't go wrong with either brand in terms of reliability.

 

[Hitman]

I only purchase Toyota/Honda products. We've had 4 Grand Cherokees in the past and can say you can't GIVE me one, new or old.

So what do you know about the new ones? Have you owned one? Or are you biased based upon what you've experienced from the past?

My brother has owned several Grand Cherokees in a row and his have all been terrific. That's one of the reasons I didn't hesitate to get one myself. It's by far the nicest SUV I've ever owned. It's like an American version of a Land Rover.

 

[CookieRoe]

So what do you know about the new ones? Have you owned one? Or are you biased based upon what you've experienced from the past?

My brother has owned several Grand Cherokees in a row and his have all been terrific. That's one of the reasons I didn't hesitate to get one myself. It's by far the nicest SUV I've ever owned. It's like an American version of a Land Rover.

Dont' take what I said personally. I based my buying habits on what happened to me AND my family in the past. I BABY my vehicles, but the Jeeps were absolutely terrible.

I'm not a fan of constantly fixing my car, which is what our jeeps did.

 

[TacoRunn0517]

I don't really disagree with anything you said, but I will say this---modern vehicles don't really break down anymore. It's a rare sight to see a new vehicle broken down on the side of the road. Does it happen? Sure. It is rare? Extremely. And my belief is that most of the vehicles that you do see broken down are older vehicles and many of those older vehicles that are in fact broken down are most often vehicles that were neglected and didn't receive proper maintenance.

Personally, I've never once in my life had a breakdown and ended up on the side of the road. Then again, I take good care of my vehicles. I maintain them myself and keep them in top condition.

You are correct: modern vehicles don't break down as much as their predecessors did. What I forgot to include in my original post was maintenance/upkeep costs. I guess that falls under reliability? Not sure if one would put it under the reliability umbrella or not but I would. I like the JGC but the modern (FCA) version is something I had to pass on because of what I consider as most important. If my driving was much more limited, I'd be more inclined to have purchased (at the time) a JGC/JKU.

 

[Toffees]

I only purchase Toyota/Honda products. We've had 4 Grand Cherokees in the past and can say you can't GIVE me one, new or old. I don't care how nice they are. My 4Runner is almost to 150K and my Civic 240K. I enjoy both my rides and take crazy care of them. However, if I had to "renew" my family fleet today, I would get a Honda Pilot (replace the Runner) and an Accord (or CRV to replace my Civic). Toyota's styling/features have disappointed me as of late (started downhill years ago, but that's my opinion). Although I firmly believe you can't go wrong with either brand in terms of reliability.

Interesting. I had a Ridgeline and initially leaned toward the Pilot, except I didn't like their redesigned styling. Everything is so egalitarian and utilitarian. It's a fabulous vehicle, no doubt, but for me it was too... unisex? That's what drove me towards the 4R. But to each their own.

 

[Hitman]

Dont' take what I said personally. I based my buying habits on what happened to me AND my family in the past. I BABY my vehicles, but the Jeeps were absolutely terrible.

I'm not a fan of constantly fixing my car, which is what our jeeps did.

Trust me, you're not hurting my feelings. I don't take anything on this forum personally. I asked what you know about the new ones. I'm guessing that you don't have any experience with the new ones. And that's okay, it's your money and your choice. I've had the opposite experience, that's all.

 

[Hitman]

You are correct: modern vehicles don't break down as much as their predecessors did. What I forgot to include in my original post was maintenance/upkeep costs. I guess that falls under reliability? Not sure if one would put it under the reliability umbrella or not but I would. I like the JGC but the modern (FCA) version is something I had to pass on because of what I consider as most important. If my driving was much more limited, I'd be more inclined to have purchased (at the time) a JGC/JKU.

Well, I'm defining reliability as either breaking down or having to return to the dealership because of an issue that may or may not have caused a break down. I see maintenance as an expected expense for any vehicle.

Any new vehicle will come with a warranty. That said, if I buy a vehicle that is problematic, I'll most likely keep it right up until the factory warranty expires and then I'll make a decision whether or not I want to keep it or get rid of it. I obviously kept my 4Runner for far longer than the factory warranty simply because it didn't give me any good reason not to do so. I had quite a few things go wrong with it over the years, but nothing earth shattering. The biggest problem that I'm facing now is rust on the undercarriage. The rust is getting to the point that the frame probably isn't going to last. It's a shame.

 

[TacoRunn0517]

Well, I'm defining reliability as either breaking down or having to return to the dealership because of an issue that may or may not have caused a break down. I see maintenance as an expected expense for any vehicle.

Any new vehicle will come with a warranty. That said, if I buy a vehicle that is problematic, I'll most likely keep it right up until the factory warranty expires and then I'll make a decision whether or not I want to keep it or get rid of it. I obviously kept my 4Runner for far longer than the factory warranty simply because it didn't give me any good reason not to do so. I had quite a few things go wrong with it over the years, but nothing earth shattering. The biggest problem that I'm facing now is rust on the undercarriage. The rust is getting to the point that the frame probably isn't going to last. It's a shame.

Alright. I see where you are coming from.

 

[CookieRoe]

Interesting. I had a Ridgeline and initially leaned toward the Pilot, except I didn't like their redesigned styling. Everything is so egalitarian and utilitarian. It's a fabulous vehicle, no doubt, but for me it was too... unisex? That's what drove me towards the 4R. But to each their own.

Yes, the Pilot is very "vanilla", but it hits our needs to a Tee. Styling can be better, and I know the tranny is crap (first year EX and up trims have the optional tranny), but then mine (Civic) isn't supposed to last either. BUT, I do have 240K miles on it. Could be the way I drive or service it every 30,000 miles, I dunno. Anyway, supposedly Honda worked out the kinks for 2017-18. AS for the Highlander, my sister has one, but I don't care for it. having that said, it's a SOLID (good) vehicle.

Trust me, you're not hurting my feelings. I don't take anything on this forum personally. I asked what you know about the new ones. I'm guessing that you don't have any experience with the new ones. And that's okay, it's your money and your choice. I've had the opposite experience, that's all.

LOL, me neither. Anyway, glad to see you are having luck with them. I know it's unfair to compare what I had (1st/2nd gens) to todays WKII, but when you've been punched in the face by a certain company over the years, you tend to stay away from them. In my case, forever.

 

[Jetboy]

So what do you know about the new ones? Have you owned one? Or are you biased based upon what you've experienced from the past?

My brother has owned several Grand Cherokees in a row and his have all been terrific. That's one of the reasons I didn't hesitate to get one myself. It's by far the nicest SUV I've ever owned. It's like an American version of a Land Rover.

Just anecdotal - but there was a 2015ish JKUR stuck on the Rubicon last year during the Jeep Jamboree - so lots of folks from FCA were there. It had to be hauled out by a Unimog because the FCA engineers could get it to even run. It was not involved in a crash or roll over. Just dead electronics out of nowhere. And none of the fixes can be done without live internet connection - and you can't swap the ECU either without live internet to program it. It's that type of thing that seems to be common. And it's not necessarily manufacturing quality - it's a design choice to use ECU and certain software that's not repairable or replaceable even by FCA's own engineers in the field. Even with a Unimog it's a heavy lift to pull that thing out of there. How could FCA not build in a limp-mode? It's that type of corner cutting that I avoid by avoiding those products.

I don't know whatever happened to that jeep or if/how they fixed it - but I think they did eventually get it to a dealer and swapped ECUs and got it programmed to work again. The main point is simply that it's not just the old ones.

Toyota cuts corners too of course. The 4runner lacks a ton of basic features that you expect on all new cars. Auto headlights, rear HVAC controls, - that sort of stuff.

I do think Toyota could learn a thing or two from Jeep's product marketing choices. Toyota doesn't have a real GC competitor. IMO they really need to build a highlander with an offroad package to be a more direct competitor. My suggestion would be to use the GS350 awd system that's rear-biased. It would be ideal for a number of reasons - the primary being that it's strong and does a great job of torque biasing up to 100% either way, and it's not a transaxle up front - so you can built the SUV with proper front and rear double a-arm suspension and design it to work well as a utility vehicle too. I think they would then need to go a bit more JK with the 4runner to distinguish it. I think those two options could make a lot of 4runner owners happier with two choices that better fit the diverting wants of many customers.

 

[wcjeep]

Toyota and Honda are in the same ballpark as far as reliability.

That said, it makes me chuckle when people focus strictly on reliability. Personally, I'd rather have a vehicle that makes me happy much more than just the most reliable vehicle out there.

I agreed with you. Until we bought a new vehicle that spent half the year in the shop for many items. Lemon Law'd the Jeep Cherokee Trailhawk and bought the 4runner. The Jeep had the great gadgets and heated steering wheel. Our 4Runner has been very reliable. After dealing with the Jeep I will focus on reliability first.

 

[Toffees]

Yes, the Pilot is very "vanilla", but it hits our needs to a Tee. Styling can be better, and I know the tranny is crap (first year EX and up trims have the optional tranny), but then mine (Civic) isn't supposed to last either. BUT, I do have 240K miles on it. Could be the way I drive or service it every 30,000 miles, I dunno. Anyway, supposedly Honda worked out the kinks for 2017-18. AS for the Highlander, my sister has one, but I don't care for it. having that said, it's a SOLID (good) vehicle.

Certainly understand all of that. Test drove the 4Runner and immediately reminded my of my prior Tacoma. Intentionally didn't test drive the Pilot because I knew it would drive well and I'd like it, despite not liking it. Test drove the Highlander and turned around within a block. Of all the vehicles we've owned, my wife still says her CR-V was her favorite.

 

[Prado]

I would put Toyota reliability above Honda, but have always considered Honda reliability as 'good enough' for me. I would never choose a Toyota over a Honda just because it is more reliable. I would take a Civic over a Corolla, and a CRV over the RAV4. I tend to find the seats of lower end Toyota's uncomfortable with limited adjustability. Specifically I cannot stand that on certain Toyota's , the seat height adjustment also changes the seat angle.

 

[Jetboy]

I have to say it is odd that Honda never seriously considered getting into the truck and suv market. I know they dabble in trucklets, but why they've never even really attempted to build a truck is something I don't really understand. They're very well known for their dirt bikes and ATVs and other powersports toys. It seems like they have great brand recognition even among the outdoor motorsports crowd. I would think a real small truck would be a hit.

 

[TacoRunn0517]

I agreed with you. Until we bought a new vehicle that spent half the year in the shop for many items. Lemon Law'd the Jeep Cherokee Trailhawk and bought the 4runner. The Jeep had the great gadgets and heated steering wheel. Our 4Runner has been very reliable. After dealing with the Jeep I will focus on reliability first.

Exactly why the closet I ever got to owning a Jeep was a test drive. I didn't want to be another storyteller of a common story.

 

[p nut]

I have to say it is odd that Honda never seriously considered getting into the truck and suv market. I know they dabble in trucklets, but why they've never even really attempted to build a truck is something I don't really understand. They're very well known for their dirt bikes and ATVs and other powersports toys. It seems like they have great brand recognition even among the outdoor motorsports crowd. I would think a real small truck would be a hit.

?? They do have a small (midsize) truck. It'll tow bikes and ATV's just fine. And in fact, will do everything 95% of consumers need in a mid-size pick up. A friend of mine has one of the 1st generation, which he loves. A neighbor bought a new one recently. They're nice enough, for sure. They ride great (IFS/IRS), new ones have a nicer bed space than my Tacoma (and I like the dual swing tailgate), and will get you to all trailheads. I was actually looking at the current gen when they first came out, but it didn't have low range. I can deal with the AWD and no rear locker, but I must have LR. So that was the hang up for me.

Now, if you're talking big full-size trucks. That's never been their MO. They know the Big 3 have the full-size market cornered. Toyota's doing "OK", but still far far behind the domestics. Nissan....they should just give up.

 

[CookieRoe]

Certainly understand all of that. Test drove the 4Runner and immediately reminded my of my prior Tacoma. Intentionally didn't test drive the Pilot because I knew it would drive well and I'd like it, despite not liking it. Test drove the Highlander and turned around within a block. Of all the vehicles we've owned, my wife still says her CR-V was her favorite.

I really like the CRV (Touring), but it's hard to digest the asking price of one. A touring goes for almost $35K (not included tax/destination/etc). I'd also heard the turbo4 engine sounds bad (drone-like) which is a disappointment b/c many (or all) Honda engines have an (nice) harmonic noise to them..... its hard to explain, but as an auto enthusiast, it's satisfying. BTW, I like to buy my rides fully loaded only b/c I plan on keeping them until they blow up. Anyway, My brother has an 09 RAV4 with the I-4 motor. It's crazy nice and everything, but the engine is "buzzy". That always bothered me. My aunt had late 90s Camrys and those sounded buzzy as well. But, YES, Toyota engines are built to last. (Nevermind the early '00s V6 engines sludge problems they had). If I were forced to buy a Toyota, I'd be fine with it.

I would put Toyota reliability above Honda, but have always considered Honda reliability as 'good enough' for me. I would never choose a Toyota over a Honda just because it is more reliable. I would take a Civic over a Corolla, and a CRV over the RAV4. I tend to find the seats of lower end Toyota's uncomfortable with limited adjustability. Specifically I cannot stand that on certain Toyota's , the seat height adjustment also changes the seat angle.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who notices this as well. This is especially true on corollas. The Civic (as least to me) is so much more comfortable (even with the cheap seats)

 

[Toffees]

I really like the CRV (Touring), but it's hard to digest the asking price of one. A touring goes for almost $35K (not included tax/destination/etc). I'd also heard the turbo4 engine sounds bad (drone-like) which is a disappointment b/c many (or all) Honda engines have an (nice) harmonic noise to them..... its hard to explain, but as an auto enthusiast, it's satisfying. BTW, I like to buy my rides fully loaded only b/c I plan on keeping them until they blow up. Anyway, My brother has an 09 RAV4 with the I-4 motor. It's crazy nice and everything, but the engine is "buzzy". That always bothered me. My aunt had late 90s Camrys and those sounded buzzy as well. But, YES, Toyota engines are built to last. (Nevermind the early '00s V6 engines sludge problems they had). If I were forced to buy a Toyota, I'd be fine with it.

I'm only 40k (just a little under) into my 4Runner, but love the sound of it (slow, mechanical persistence) and just about everything else. I don't think I've ever had another vehicle that felt like it drives at 4 miles more or less the same at 40,0004 miles.

 

[Jetboy]

?? They do have a small (midsize) truck. It'll tow bikes and ATV's just fine. And in fact, will do everything 95% of consumers need in a mid-size pick up. A friend of mine has one of the 1st generation, which he loves. A neighbor bought a new one recently. They're nice enough, for sure. They ride great (IFS/IRS), new ones have a nicer bed space than my Tacoma (and I like the dual swing tailgate), and will get you to all trailheads. I was actually looking at the current gen when they first came out, but it didn't have low range. I can deal with the AWD and no rear locker, but I must have LR. So that was the hang up for me.

Now, if you're talking big full-size trucks. That's never been their MO. They know the Big 3 have the full-size market cornered. Toyota's doing "OK", but still far far behind the domestics. Nissan....they should just give up.

The Honda is a trucklet in my view. It's the crossover of midsize trucks. And it's not a very good truck. For starters it has a doughnut spare - so you can't really be serious about going either offroad or towing or hauling. If you get a flat you have to first unload everything from the bed just to get the spare. And then you can't haul anything or tow anything once the spare is put on. So you're basically limited to short distance use for anything "truck" related.

The second issue is that it's a transaxle front wheel drive front end. So you can't do anything with it other than keep stock suspension and tire size. No gears are available. No lockers. You can't really lift it either. So you can't do much toward offroad use.

And the third issue is that it's not a very good unibody either. It weights MORE than a Tacoma. So all the compromises of unibody don't offer any of the benefits of weight savings.

It's a car with a bed. And for some people that's all they need. But it's not a serious attempt at a truck for the things that most truck users either want or need. It's kinda like calling a Honda Cub a motorcoss bike. It's a fine commuter bike. And yeah, you could probably make your way around a course - but it's not really the same thing.

 

[p nut]

The Honda is a trucklet in my view. It's the crossover of midsize trucks. And it's not a very good truck. For starters it has a doughnut spare - so you can't really be serious about going either offroad or towing or hauling. If you get a flat you have to first unload everything from the bed just to get the spare. And then you can't haul anything or tow anything once the spare is put on. So you're basically limited to short distance use for anything "truck" related.

The second issue is that it's a transaxle front wheel drive front end. So you can't do anything with it other than keep stock suspension and tire size. No gears are available. No lockers. You can't really lift it either. So you can't do much toward offroad use.

And the third issue is that it's not a very good unibody either. It weights MORE than a Tacoma. So all the compromises of unibody don't offer any of the benefits of weight savings.

It's a car with a bed. And for some people that's all they need. But it's not a serious attempt at a truck for the things that most truck users either want or need. It's kinda like calling a Honda Cub a motorcoss bike. It's a fine commuter bike. And yeah, you could probably make your way around a course - but it's not really the same thing.

But that's exactly the thing. They never made the Ridgeline or the Pilot to conquer Hell's Gate. Or as a prerunner blasting up sand dunes. Like the Tacoma, it's a lifestyle truck. But a different lifestyle. Light towing, hauling, Home Depot runs, springtime gardening, getting your dirt bikes/atv's to the trails, etc. Still has good enough off-road capability to take you to many backcountry roads in Utah and elsewhere. That VTM-4 actually works pretty well, in lieu of a locker.

They stiffened up the Ridgeline quite a bit in the new gen, which may have added to it's heft. But I disagree--I think the unibody in that truck is just fine. Not a poor design at all. It does exactly what it's intended to do.

As I said, I think it's a great truck for 95% of the consumers looking at midsize trucks. I have several friends who own Tacoma's and 4Runners. Based on their usage, they would've been just as happy in a Ridgeline or Pilot. Maybe even happier. I don't think any of them have even ever engaged the rear locker. Truth be told, I haven't really had to, either. (meaning I have, but probably didn't need to! )

I know you're looking at it from an enthusiast's point of view, which from that point, I agree with you. But the definition of truck, SUV are changing and evolving. Which is not a bad thing. It's just businesses catering to the consumer's needs. Unfortunately for you and me, we don't carry a lot of weight in their decision making process.