The Houston Chronicle is reporting that a ring of catalytic converter thieves who targeted new Toyota Tundras has been broken up. While this is good news for a number of Toyota dealerships in the Houston area, it underscores the seriousness of catalytic converter thefts. To many thieves, stealing a catalytic converter is “easy money,” yet for vehicle owners (and their insurance companies) it’s an incredibly expensive problem.

Why Catalytic Converters Are Stolen

Catalytic converters have value to thieves because they contain a variety of precious medals, all of which can be sold for scrap. Depending on the particular vehicle the catalytic converter comes from, the scrap value can range from $75 to $250 per converter. Unscrupulous scrap yards often don’t require proof that a converter came off of a wrecked or salvaged vehicle, making it far too easy for thieves to turn a quick profit.

Catalytic converters are also targeted because stealing them isn’t terribly complicated. All it takes is a portable saw and a dark place to work. SUVs and trucks are usually targeted because of their high ground clearance, which makes them easier to crawl underneath than passenger cars.

Tundra owners must be careful because newer models have four separate catalytic converters, each of which has a significant value. According to the Houston Chronicle, the recently broken-up theft ring was able to earn $80 per catalytic (or $320 per Tundra). This is a small percentage of the replacement cost, which is over $3500.

Catalytic Converter Theft Prevention Tips

Like most things in life, a little bit of planning goes a long way. Here are some simple tips for keeping potential thieves away from your truck’s catalytic converters.

1. Park inside your garage. It’s obvious to be sure, but it works very well. Not only is your truck out of sight (and out of mind), but there’s a lot more risk involved in breaking into someone’s garage than there is crawling under a vehicle in the driveway or parked on the street.

2. Park in a well-lit area. Again, it’s obvious, but if you have to park outside at night, do so in a well-lit area. Lighting discourages thieves.

3. Install an alarm system. Just about every vehicle alarm system includes a shock sensor, which can detect the vibrations of someone’s portable saw if it’s setup properly. Upgrades like a proximity sensor are nice as well, but it’s sometimes difficult to get the settings just right, so you’ll want to spend some time calibrating everything if you decide to go this route.

4. Install a special catalytic converter theft deterrent. Full disclosure – no anti-theft system can stop a thief. However, both the CatClamp and the CatLock are interesting systems that will deter theft simply because they appear impenetrable (even though they’re fairly simple to defeat). They’re also sort of expensive – $100-$300 per device, which means it would cost $400-$1200 to protect all of the catalytics on a Tundra. Still, if your neighborhood is constantly the target of these thieves, they’re an option worth considering.

5. Get a dog. They’re easily the most expensive anti-theft device on this list, and they’re never guaranteed to work, but it’s a good bet your dog will make some noise if someone is crawling around on your driveway in the middle of the night.

Have you read our Toyota Tundra towing guide?

Here’s the concept: Toyota gives a new Tundra to an East Texas cattle ranch and says “do your worst.” Two years later, Toyota takes the truck back and studies it. Then, Toyota interviews the guys who drove the truck every day and ask them for their impressions. The results are three videos on YouTube that seem completely genuine, not to mention compelling.

Check out these Tundra Deconstructed Videos – very entertaining:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Best Interview Quotes

Ranch Foreman Re: Towing Capacity

“If those calves weigh 1200 and we have 12 in there do the math…I mean that’s pretty close to…I don’t know what. It’s lots of weight.” [Editor's Note: That's 14,400 lbs + the weight of the trailer. Probably 17,000lbs, possibly more.]

Toyota Exec (in response to above):

“Towing capacity is 10,800, although I can’t really say we approve of the use, I’m sure he probably exceeded those capacities at some point in time…”

Ranch Foreman (follow-up):

“ya – ya I overloaded it. But it was a test truck, right?”

Hilarious. Love the Tundra or hate it, you’ve got to admit that was pretty damn funny.

Ranch Foreman Re: Suspension and Steering

“The 100k miles on the suspension and the steering is just unbelievable to me because there’s no other pickup we’ve ever had…that you did not have a steering problem or suspension problem within 100k miles”

How cool is that quote? It seems very genuine (although the setting itself was definitely staged).

The Good:

The concept itself is awesome. The ranch foreman didn’t hide the fact he wanted to break this truck when he got – overloading it, running it hard, etc. He didn’t seem “prepped” or commercial at all – definitely seemed like a real guy. In fact, he seemed a lot like the kind of guy who would have never considered a Tundra until you gave him one to try out.

The mention of frame flexibility and how it’s not necessarily a bad thing. I’m not convinced on that particular point, but it’s Toyota’s best strategy for overcoming all the negative publicity about bed bounce and frame flex.

The mention of the stainless steel water pump design and the fact that a lot of other trucks don’t have it (which ones?).

The fact the truck only needed a battery, a new radio, and regular maintenance…even after 100k miles of tough use.

The fact that Toyota is going to keep this test going – they gave the ranch a new 2010 model to test again.

Areas For Improvement:

Compare the performance of the well-used parts to some brand new parts – How about showing us if the ranch truck’s cooling system performed similarly to a new truck’s system, or if the stopping distances are similar? This would be a great way to showcase the quality of the truck.

How bout’ some dyno stats? – Who wouldn’t love to see the horsepower and torque numbers on that old ranch truck compared to a new one?

Overall, the videos are pretty good advertising. They don’t offer anything useful beyond anecdotes, but since 90% of America would never care about or understand meaty facts and figures anyways, I can see why Toyota skipped it. Still, it would have been better to see some “hard” evidence that this truck could go another 100k miles than the testimonials from a couple of ranch hands and comments from a bunch of Toyota employees.

Still, Toyota gets an “A” – this campaign is definitely going to convert some non-believers.

Have you read our Toyota Tundra towing guide?

This year’s “Four Wheeler Magazine Pickup Truck of the Year” award competition was between the 2010 Tundra 4.6, the Ram 2500 Mega Cab, the Ram Power Wagon, and Ford’s F-150 Raptor. Surprisingly, Four Wheeler magazine’s trail-oriented award did NOT go to the Raptor [which, by the way, is an awesome truck]. Instead, Four Wheeler magazine chose the 3/4-ton Power Wagon as their favorite trail truck of 2010.

Four Wheeler magazine 2010 Truck of the Year Competition

While the Tundra earned fourth place, Four Wheeler magazine did point out that the competition wasn’t quite equal. The Tundra was the least powerful and least expensive truck in the group, and it was the only truck missing an off-road package (sort of essential for these off-road tests, but not available on a 4.6 Tundra). The rules of the comparison aren’t necessarily meant to create an apples-to-apples comparison, so it’s hard to find fault with any of the results. It’s highly unlikely anyone has all four of these trucks on their shopping list. Still, if you’re looking at a new Tundra, you might find some of their observations interesting.

Performance

The Tundra’s 4.6L continues to get good reviews – quite a few reviews have found the small V8 to be surprisingly powerful:

“Leading the field to 60 mph was the lightest truck with the smallest engine, as the 5,385-pound Tundra hit the mark in 8.62 seconds, while crossing the line after a quarter mile in 16.84 seconds at 84.98 mph…The 4.6L feels great, I am not missing the power of the 5.7L.”

In terms of braking, it was quite a shock read that the 7,500 lbs Ram 2500 Mega Cab had a slightly better 60-0 stopping distance than the 5,400 lbs Tundra.

“Surprisingly, it wasn’t the lightweight Tundra that won the braking honors; it was the heaviest truck in the test, the 7,495-pound Mega Cab that defied known physics to come to a complete stop from 60 mph in only 143.33 feet. The Tundra came close by doing the same in 144.35 feet.”

Dodge’s engineers deserve credit on that one for sure.

Fuel Economy

It’s expected that the Tundra would have the best fuel economy rating when compared to a dedicated off-road machine and much heavier HD trucks, but the fact that the Tundra achieved decent fuel economy despite “aggressive testing” is noteworthy.

“For those of you who need a helping of fuel economy with your pickup, nothing in the test came close to the 15.09 mpg average that the Tundra delivered, despite our incredibly aggressive testing procedures. In fact, the Tundra’s best tank was 17.3 mpg, the highest single tank in the test. The Raptor had the next best tank at 16.32 mpg, but averaged 12.07 mpg in a test in which it was flogged mercilessly.”

Imagine what the Tundra 4.6 will get when it isn’t being flogged mercilessly.

Four Wheeler’s Highs and Lows

The Tundra’s Highs

• 4.6 has power comparable to the 5.7
• Smooth ride
• Fuel economy
• Highest ground clearance in test
• Great price

The Tundra’s Lows

• Drab, dated interior
• Overly sensitive throttle for off-road use
• Lacking “personality” compared to the Power Wagon, Diesel 2500, and F-150 Raptor

If you’re reading carefully, you likely noted that the Tundra has more ground clearance than a new Raptor. All things considered, it’s really not that big of a deal that the Tundra has a little more room underneath than the Raptor…but it might be fun to point that out to the next Raptor owner you see. As for the “personality” comment, we suspect that a more expensive and comparably equipped Tundra with the 5.7 would have been more inspiring. There’s also something to be said for the inspiration that comes with spending $6-$20k dollars less for a truck that handled all tests adquately.

The real controversy of these results, however, is that the SVT F-150 Raptor wasn’t the clear winner. Of all the trucks, the Raptor is the truest off-road machine, yet Four Wheeler knocked it for lacking power. What do you think – did Ford get robbed here, or was the Power Wagon the best truck?

You can read the full comparison here.

Have you read our Toyota Tundra towing guide?

Here’s an odd note from the weekend reported by Baton Rouge, LA TV station WAFB:

A Toyota Tundra crashed into the showroom at All Star Toyota in Baton Rouge on Saturday morning. Officers said a customer tried to return his truck following a recent recall on the accelerator. According to the Baton Rouge Police Department, the general manager offered to fix the truck and repeatedly offered to give the customer a loaner in the meantime, but the customer declined and left the building. Police reported the man then drove his Toyota into the side of the dealership, causing major damage to the truck and the building. The customer claimed his accelerator became stuck, causing the crash. All Star said the truck was purchased last March [emphasis added] and did not have any records of mechanical problems.

Police added the accelerator was not stuck when they examined the truck after the crash, but they could not find any evidence that the crash was intentional. The driver was not ticketed.

Here’s a picture of the showroom at All Star Toyota:

Tundra crashes into showroom, driver claims "unintended acceleration."

Anyone else’s BS meter going off here? Here’s why this crash looks intentional:

1.The timing is entirely too convenient. According to Toyota, the odds that a vehicle exhibits unintended acceleration are low. Consumer Reports found that claims were around 1 in 20,000. What are the odds that a truck has this problem immediately following a confrontation between the dealership and the customer? Astronomical.

2. How could the truck being going fast enough to do any damage? The fastest a driver could go in a dealership parking lot is what, 15-20 mph? If the accelerator was somehow stuck or caught on the floormat, it’s hard to imagine how this would be anything other than a low-speed crash.

3. Why not steer away from the showroom? I think most drivers would rather hit another car than a building.

4. The driver never once complained of mechanical problems prior to this incident. If you have a problem that’s ongoing, you owe it to yourself, the dealership, and the manufacturer to try and get the problem fixed. If this truck was really that dangerous, the service department should have been given an opportunity to do their job.

5. Who does this guy think he is? It’s one thing if you bought a truck last week and you want to return it now because of this recall. It will never happen, but it’s a fair question to ask if your brand-new pickup was just recalled. However, trying to return a truck after one year of use is ridiculous.

6. Did we mention the timing?

The bottom line is that this guy is a hot-head, and the police who didn’t ticket him deserve a reprimand. The problem is, this won’t be the last time some Toyota driver claims unintended acceleration after causing an accident…and that’s bad news for everyone.

Have you read our Toyota Tundra towing guide?

We recently received a copy of a Toyota TSB (technical service bulletin) regarding the mysterious 2010 Tundra check engine light issue we documented a few months ago. What follows is an explanation of the exact problem, how it’s fixed, and what Tundra owners can expect. We’ve also included a VIN list that you can use to see if your Tundra is effected by this TSB.

The Issue:

Beginning a few months ago, many 2010 Tundra owners complained about check engine lights coming on in their brand-new trucks (setting code P0012 or P0022). Based on notes from owners and brief conversations with dealership personnel, we wrongly concluded this issue was caused by oil debris clogging cam position sensors. However, the problem is that Toyota used the wrong spring in the VVT-i gear assembly in some 2010 Tundras (both 4.6L and 5.7L). Because the spring in some Tundras is too stiff, the VVT-i system will “stick” in the wrong mode, setting a check engine light.

When this problem was first discovered on some trucks, Toyota advised dealers that it was an oil contamination issue and that an oil change would fix the problem. However, this is not the case. While changing the oil temporarily solved the issue, at some point these Tundras will need a new VVT-i gear assembly.

Some new 2010 Tundras with check-engine lights and codes P0012 or P0022 most likely need a new VVT-i gear.

The Fix:

Tundra’s produced before a certain date need a new VVT-i gear assembly with the correct spring so that the VVT-i system will function correctly. Replacing the assembly is a repair of low difficulty but does require a moderate amount of time. The timing cover, valve covers, and intake manifold must be removed in order to access the cam gears. According to a Toyota technician we spoke with, this is a labor-intensive yet relatively simple task.

Owners should expect to be without their truck for a couple of days, and should be provided a rental vehicle at no charge while the repair is made. This isn’t an item that requires immediate attention either, so feel free to schedule it around your life (this is not an urgent matter).

Effected Trucks

First, this TSB effects 2010 Tundra and Sequoia models ONLY. In order to determine if your truck is effected, you need the last 8 digits of your VIN number. If the last 8 digits of your VIN number are LOWER than the numbers for your vehicle configuration as listed below, you are advised to schedule an appointment.

4.6L 2010 Tundras

• 2wd 4.6L Regular Cab Tundras with the last 8 lower than AX001114
• 2wd 4.6L DoubleCab and CrewMax Tundras with the last 8 lower than AX011968
• 2wd 4.6L DoubleCab Long Bed Tundras with the last 8 lower than AX001123

• 4wd 4.6L Regular Cab Tundras with the last 8 lower than AX001239
• 4wd 4.6L DoubleCab and CrewMax Tundras with the last 8 lower than AX008508
• 4wd 4.6L DoubleCab Long Bed Tundras with the last 8 lower than AX001181

5.7L 2010 Tundras (non flex-fuel)

• 2wd 5.7L Regular Cab Tundras with the last 8 lower than AX003300
• 2wd 5.7L DoubleCab and CrewMax Tundras with the last 8 lower than AX087077
• 2wd 5.7L DoubleCab Long Bed Tundras with the last 8 lower than AX006744

• 4wd 5.7L Regular Cab Tundras with the last 8 lower than AX004038
• 4wd 5.7L DoubleCab and CrewMax Tundras with the last 8 lower than AX125564
• 4wd 5.7L DoubleCab Long Bed Tundras with the last 8 lower than AX010329

5.7L 2010 Tundras (flex-fuel only)

• 4wd 5.7L Regular Cab Tundras with the last 8 lower than AX004040
• 4wd 5.7L DoubleCab and CrewMax Tundras with the last 8 lower than AX125616
• 4wd 5.7L DoubleCab Long Bed Tundras with the last 8 lower than AX010329

This list is sort of confusing, so be sure to double check your VIN. Also be sure to note the cab type and 2wd/4wd.

This isn’t a problem that requires an immediate fix. Feel free to schedule this repair along with your next service.

Technical Explanation of the Problem

All new Toyota Tundras feature VVT-i – variable intake valve timing. VVT-i is one of the marvels of modern engine design, and systems of this type have been successfully used by every auto manufacturer to extract maximum power and efficiency out of their engines for decades.

The Tundra’s VVT-i system relies upon a cam shift to change valve timing. By shifting the cam back and forth, valve timing can be advanced or retarded in order to maximize performance and efficiency. The cam shift mechanism is activated by a combination of oil pressure, electronic valves, and gear assemblies that are set on springs. Here’s a step-by-step explanation of VVT-i in action:

1. As RPMs increase, oil pressure raises.
2. If the engine computer determines that a timing shift is beneficial, it will open the oil control valves and allow oil to apply pressure to the VVT-i gear assembly.
3. The oil pressure on the gears will cause the cam to shift forwards or backwards, moving from one mode to another.

Here’s a video that kind-of-sort-of explains the cam shift. If anyone has a better clip, please share it in the comments.

Click here to view the embedded video.

When this problem first began to occur, the engine computer reported that the oil control valves were malfunctioning (check code P0012 and/or P0022, corresponding to left or right side oil control valve). For some reason or another, it was assumed that oil contamination was causing a false-positive error, so the recommendation was to simply change out the contaminated oil. Because the system is driven by oil pressure, a fresh batch of oil was sufficient to fix the problem (albeit temporarily). As time went by, however, many trucks with oil changes returned once again with the same problem. Further investigation revealed that the cam gears weren’t activating correctly because the spring behind them was a little too stiff. So, replacing the spring is the fix.

As you can see, this repair has absolutely no impact on the heart of engine. Advancing or retarding the cam timing will not cause a situation where valves can be damaged, etc., so a malfunctioning VVT-i gear can not hurt the engine.

Please share your comments or questions below.

Have you read our Toyota Tundra towing guide?

Last Friday Edmunds.com announced their recommended vehicles for 2010, and two Toyota trucks made the list: the Tundra and the Tacoma. Alongside, Edmunds also recommended the Ram 1500 and the Nissan Frontier. Here’s a breakdown of their truck recommendations.

Edmunds compact truck recommendations are the Nissan Frontier and the Toyota Tacoma

Edmunds Recommended Compact Trucks

The Frontier and the Tacoma are fairly obvious recommendations. Not only are they the best selling models, they also offer the widest range of configurations, the best safety and performance ratings, great reliability, and excellent resale value.

Ford’s Ranger is not recommended by Edmunds, but it’s a decent truck that sells very nicely. Edmunds doesn’t like the Ranger – the interior is much smaller than the Tacoma or the Frontier, the ride and handling aren’t competitive, and it doesn’t offer a lot of features. Frankly, the Ranger is an older design that Ford intends to cancel soon, which is likely the reason that Edmunds doesn’t consider it.

The Chevy Colorado/GMC Canyon and the “Ram” Dakota are the other notable compact truck models on the market. Edmunds panned the Dakota as an expensive truck with a very cheap feel, where as the GM trucks are knocked for subpar fit and finish.

It’s important to note that Edmunds doesn’t give the Dakota or the Colorado/Canyon credit for offering V8 engines. Their rationale seems to be that compact truck buyers don’t need a V8 – if they did, they would opt for a full-size. Considering how expensive a V8 powered compact pickup is, this rationale makes some sense.

Edmunds recommends the Tundra for 2010, knocking off the F150 which was recommended in 2009

Edmunds Recommended Full-Size Trucks

The Ram and the Tundra share Edmunds recommendation for 2010, which is bad news for the F150 (which the Tundra replaced). As far as the Ram is concerned, Edmunds really likes the Ram 1500’s refinement. They cite the Ram’s excellent ride (a result of the Ram’s coil spring rear suspension) and luxurious interior as their favorite features.

As for the Tundra, Edmunds really likes the Tundra’s new 4.6L V8:

The Toyota Tundra finds itself back on our recommended list thanks to a new-for-2010 midgrade 4.6-liter V8 that represents an excellent alternative for those who don’t really need the prodigious power of the top-dog 5.7-liter V8. The Tundra’s large cabins, quality construction, comfortable driving position and massive towing capacity add up to a smart choice

This is high praise for the Tundra, but a bit confusing. First and foremost, the note about “massive towing capacity” doesn’t jive with the praise for the 4.6. The most one can tow with the 4.6L V8 is 9,000 lbs – and that’s only if you buy the 4×2 regular cab with the standard bed. While the 5.7 offers excellent to capacity on all models, other models from GM and Ford are rated to tow more. Despite these inconsistencies, it seems the Edmunds likes the overall value offered by the 2010 Tundra.

Last year, Edmunds liked the F150 because it offered a full range of fancy features as well as excellent towing capability. None of this has changed – the F150 still offers a full range of fancy features and excellent towing, so it’s like that the Tundra knocked off the F150 because of an improved safety rating (which is not mentioned but would explain the change).

Frankly, in our minds, the Tundra should have knocked off the Ram. While the Ram’s refinements are wonderful, it’s an expensive truck that simply doesn’t have the capabilities of trucks from Ford, Toyota, or GM. In any case, when it comes to half-tons, GM, Ram, Ford, Toyota, and Nissan all offer an excellent product.

Related Posts:

• 2009 Tundra vs 2009 Ford F150 Comparison
• 2008 Tundra vs 2009 Dodge Ram Comparison
• 2007 Tundra vs 2007 Sierra/Silverado Comparison

What do you think: Should Edmunds have recommended the F150 instead of the Ram for 2010?

Have you read our Toyota Tundra towing guide?

As has been rumored on a few internet forums, Toyota is expected to officially announce a change to the oil change interval for a series of 2010 Toyota vehicles – including the 2010 Toyota Tundra with the new 4.6L V8. Toyota will inform 4.6L Tundra owners that they can go 10,000 miles between oil changes but that they must use 0W-20 synthetic oil. If any 2010 4.6L Tundra owners have already done a full-synthetic oil change at 5k miles, Toyota will credit them a free oil change.

Toyota requires 0W-20 full synthetic oil on new 4.6L 2010 Tundras

Note – if you’re not sure about the difference between synthetic and “natural” motor oil, check out this post about synthetic oil.

However, while the use of 0W-20 synthetic oil is now required for the 2010 and up 4.6L Tundra, the 10k mile oil change interval recommendation is not for Tundras that are used in such a way as to qualify as “severe duty.” Severe duty trucks will instead need oil changes at 5,000 miles. Here are typical truck uses that Toyota would define as “severe duty”:”

• Towing or hauling on any sort of significant/continuous basis
• Exposure to extreme cold (-10 F or below) or extreme heat (120 F or above)
• Long-duration idling (like police and work vehicles that can idle for hours at a time)
• Use in especially dusty or dirty conditions (off-roading, construction sites, etc.)
• Constant use at very high altitude (above 10k feet)
• Continuous stop-and-go traffic
• Racing, off-roading, or any other fun activity that places a lot of strain on a motor

Looking at the list of items that will qualify as severe duty, it’s hard to imagine that many Tundra owners will get to enjoy 10k mile oil changes. So, we decided to create a little poll just to see what the answer will be:

It’s important to note that Toyota has tried this type of program before. A few years ago, Toyota told owners they could switch from 5,000 mile oil change intervals to 7,500 miles. Not long after this change took place, hundreds of Toyota owners began to complain about engines ruined by oil sludge. While the oil sludge issue was likely a combination of engine design issues and inconsistent maintenance, Toyota can ill afford to make the same mistake twice.

We spoke with a local Toyota dealership service manager about this new 10k mile oil change interval, and one of his main concerns was “What if someone forgets an oil change? It could be 20k miles before we get that bad oil out of the motor.” Great question. Here’s a list of the pros and cons of the 10k mile oil change interval we came up with.

PROS

• 0W-20 synthetic oil should boost fuel economy ever so slightly – 0.4 mpg to 0.7 mpg according to Toyota. In fact, Toyota’s memo to dealers mentions that the increase in fuel economy – and the subsequent fuel savings – should offset the higher cost of synthetic oil.
• Synthetic oil protects best in extreme conditions. Synthetic oil offers the greatest benefits when it’s used in extreme situations – like racing, off-roading, or hauling your camper up over Loveland pass.
• Using half as much engine oil is good for the environment. Synthetic oil is still derived from fossil fuels, so using less means less used oil waste.
• Slightly lower maintenance costs. If you combine the gas mileage savings with the fact that your oil is changed half as often, it should be a little cheaper (provided your truck isn’t considered “severe duty”).

CONS

• Forgetting an oil change could kill a motor. No one knows how a motor will respond to 20k miles with the same oil, but no one should want to find out. If oil is only changed every 10k miles, forgetting or skipping an oil change could be tragic.
• Expensive full synthetic oil is now required for 4.6L Tundra owners. If you use your 4.6L Tundra truck like a truck, your oil change bills have just gone up.
• This will soon apply to all new Tundras. Unless the backlash from owners is severe, Toyota is probably going to require full synthetic on all new Tundras in the very new future.

One final thought: Requiring full synthetic for truck owners is a slippery slope. While it’s great to talk about the fact that full synthetic allows 10k mile oil changes, the fact is most truck owners are going to stick with 5,000 mile changes (some even stick with 3,000). Many mechanics would argue that it’s better for an engine to get normal oil changes every 5k miles than full synthetic every 10k miles, so this policy seems to have an environmental aspect that might not be well thought-out. Perhaps Toyota has decided that slightly better gas mileage and reducing the amount of used oil waste is best, but the concern is that this policy isn’t best for the wallets of the truck’s owners.

What do you think – is Toyota crazy to require full synthetic yet allow 10k mile oil change intervals?

Have you read our Toyota Tundra towing guide?

Towing experience ought to be a standard requirement for anyone who reviews pickup trucks. Towing, according to data collected by Ford, is the reason for 44% of all pickup truck purchases (see Why do people buy trucks?). Towing showcases a truck’s most important features – the powertrain and the brakes.

One writer at Automobile Magazine feels the the Tundra "murders" the Ram in terms of towing ability.

A writer at Automobile Magazine found that, after towing with about a half-a-dozen trucks and SUVs, the Tundra was his favorite. Here are the highlights:

First, the writer details all of the trucks he’s towed with and what he was pulling. While the tow rigs vary greatly – from an F350 King Ranch to a BMW X5 – the tow load was always the same – a race car. The writer was quick to point out that every vehicle he towed with had plenty of power for towing. However, the Tundra’s powertrain impressed him the most:

The Tundra is ludicrously fast-and not just when it’s unloaded. Pulling my 2700-lb track car (on a 2000-lb trailer and loaded with another quarter-ton of spare parts), the Tundra feels faster in a straight line than my race car itself.

What’s more, the writer had a great chance to compare the Tundra and Dodge’s new Ram. While the new Ram had some advantages – a better ride, a nicer interior, a better stereo [sounds a lot like our Tundra vs. Ram comparison, no?] – the Tundra’s power advantages were, to quote the writer, “immense.”

Okay, towing isn’t about winning drag races, but having immense power reserves certainly helps when you’re dealing with mountain passes at highway speeds-or merging into fast-moving traffic…The Tundra’s ride isn’t quite as supple as the Dodge Ram’s when it’s driving around empty…the[Tundra's] base stereo is pretty grim…[however] The brakes feel great and the steering, though overboosted, is pleasingly accurate.

As great as the Ram is in many other ways, the Toyota murders it in powertrain refinement, and the six-speed automatic always seems to have the right gear available for ferocious acceleration.

It’s great to see an auto writer really dive into the nuances of great towing – especially one who is admittedly not a huge fan of pickups. If all of the writers at Car & Driver, Motor Trend, Consumer Reports, etc., had to tow a race car cross country, they might give the Tundra’s excellent braking and powertrain the credit it deserves. Unfortunately, most of the people at these magazines don’t know much about towing, so they focus instead on ride quality, handling, and electronic features that don’t amount to much when pulling a big load.

Bottom Line: The Ram’s superior horsepower numbers look great on paper, but according to one reviewer with towing experience, the Tundra’s powertrain “murders” the Ram’s engine and transmission combo. Couldn’t have said it better ourselves.

Read the Automobile Magazine blog post.

Anyone who has towed with both the new Ram and the Tundra care to comment?

Have you read our Toyota Tundra towing guide?

LA Times journalists V&B are at it again – we criticized them a few weeks ago for using inflammatory images and unsubstantiated opinions to stoke consumer fears of Toyotas and unintended acceleration, and now we find them accusing Toyota’s electronic throttle system of being defective (link)…with only manipulated and incomplete data to support their claims.

The LA Times and Consumer Reports use incomplete, manipulated data to accuse Toyota of faulty electronic throttles.

To be clear, we have no business criticizing others for journalistic integrity…but we feel obligated to evaluate these accusations critically considering how many Toyota owners are driving in fear. Here’s why this reporting (link) from the L.A. Times is slanderous:

Let’s assume for a moment that the L.A. Times article is correct and that Toyota has an electronic throttle control system problem. If this is really the case, Toyota would have an inordinate number of complaints when compared to other manufacturers:

Toyota and Lexus vehicles received 41% of all consumer complaints to a federal database about runaway acceleration, more than Chrysler, General Motors, Honda and Nissan combined, analysis by Consumer Reports found

So far, so good. The data may confirm our hypothesis. However, what about the other 59% of complaints? What is the source? According to an expert cited in a previous LA Times article by V and B (link):

Richard Schmidt, a former UCLA psychology professor and now an auto industry consultant specializing in human motor skills, said the problem almost always lies with drivers who step on the wrong pedal

Again, assuming that Toyota’s electronic system is broken, they should have higher than average reported problems…but every manufacturer should have some claims, shouldn’t they? After all, according to the expert most of the time the issue is human error. We’re all humans and we all make errors, so all cars should have reports of unintended acceleration.

Therefore, these reports should loosely reflect market share. Since GM sold 22% of all vehicles in 2008, they should have approximately 22% of all unintended acceleration complaints. Unfortunately, this does not match the data…not even close. Consumer Reports found 165 complaints they believed to be a result of unintended acceleration – here’s how these 165 complaints broke down.

Of course, there are a few possible explanations for the discrepancy. Consumer Reports, which prepared this data, discounts all of these unintended acceleration complaints saying that “because it is dependent upon motorist submissions, the NHTSA complaint database does not reflect all sudden, unintended acceleration cases.” In other words, the data is incomplete. It’s hard to make the case that Toyota has a problem based on incomplete data. That’s strike one.

Strike two is that Consumer Reports didn’t evaluate every complaint – they only evaluated complaints where the consumer “sustained unintended acceleration that the driver found difficult or impossible to control.” Out of 5,916 complaints about 2008 models that were registered with NHTSA, only 166 complaints matched these criteria. Consumer Reports tossed out the other 5,750 NHTSA acceleration complaints. However, if Toyota’s electronic system was really faulty, why throw out all the complaints that don’t match the “out of control” criteria? A faulty system would have problems at 2 miles an hour, 20 miles an hour, and 200 miles an hour, wouldn’t it? Complaints shouldn’t have to be limited to certain special cases if the system is indeed faulty…so why doctor the data?

Consumer Reports says the F150's acceleration complaints are due to pedal problems, yet the same type of data for Toyota's indicates an electronic throttle problem?

Strike three is the way that Ford’s data is handled. When you look at the numbers, you’ll see that Ford had twice as many complaints as they “should” have, based on their market share. Consumer Reports and the L.A. Times were willing to explain away Ford’s discrepancy by citing the fact that most of these complaints were against the F150, saying that the F150’s pedals are too close together (therefore, there’s no problem with the truck’s electronic throttle).

To be fair, this explanation makes perfect sense…but acknowledging that pedal distance is a factor in out of control acceleration reports undermines the argument that Toyota’s electronic throttle system is faulty. After all, if the F150’s above-average number of complaints are a result of pedals, couldn’t it be that Toyota’s complaints are also a result of pedals that are too close together? Or perhaps floor mats? Or perhaps pedal size? Or perhaps driver panic was a factor, just like UCLA professor Schmidt says that it is the vast majority of the time?

Couldn’t it be that these stats are incomplete and possible even incorrect? It’s not nearly as exciting and “newsworthy” to say that this data is incomplete and/or insignificant, but it would certainly match the other data we have, i.e. the 9 NHTSA investigations of Toyota acceleration complaints that found no flaws, plus the internal Toyota investigations that found absolutely no problem.

Finally, one of the authors of this article (Ralph Vartabedian) has a reputation for reporting less than the whole truth. Vartabedian wrote an article in 2008 essentially accusing John McCain of being unfit to be President because he collected a disability pension. Of course, Vartabedian’s article didn’t actually say that McCain was unfit – instead, he just intimated that McCain might be. If you really want to evaluate these LA Times articles about Toyota fairly, take a moment to review Vartabedian’s article on McCain and the numerous rebuttals:

• The article Vartabedian wrote about McCain questioning his fitness – “McCain’s Disability Pension May Renew Questions About His Fitness“
• Well-worded evaluation of Vartabedian’s article showing that the reporter didn’t do his homework – “McCain Unfit Due To Military Disability?“
• Profile of Vartabedian from Newsbusters, accusing Vartabedian of writing a stupid, nonsensical article.
• Mention of shoddy reporting from Vartabedian in regards to Hurricane Katrina (Accuracy in Media)
• A list of all of Vartabedian’s L.A. Times articles since 1997

While every reporter worth his or her salt is accused of bias, a brief glance at Vartabedian’s body of work shows that his “style” seems to be incomplete reporting combined with inflammatory headlines.

Bottom Line: The L.A. Times and Consumer Reports have manipulated incomplete data to accuse Toyota of having a faulty electronic throttle system. While it could be that Toyota has a problem, this type of reporting isn’t helping anyone discover the truth. Instead of going for outrageous headlines that get syndicated nationwide, V & B should stick to the facts and make their case in a logical fashion.

Have you read our Toyota Tundra towing guide?

We’ve obtained a copy of the defect information report from Toyota to NHTSA, which contains information about Toyota’s frame rust recall that, as far as we know, has not yet been disclosed to the mainstream media. What follows are snippets from this letter.

First and foremost, Toyota has acknowledged that ALL first generation Tundras may be subject to the same rust problems that are found on 00-03 Toyota Tundras currently under recall. Therefore, Toyota will be offering rustproofing to 2004-2006 Tundra owners in the near future.

…while Toyota has not determined a defect exists in 2004 through 2006 model year Tundras, Toyota plans on initiating a field action in the near future to prevent future corrosion on those vehicles…at no cost to the owner

Obviously, Toyota would not be offering to rust-proof 04-06 Tundras unless they believed these vehicles also have this issue.

All in all, this is excellent news for first generation Tundra owners. Toyota will begin contacting 2004-2006 Tundra owners in the effected areas at the beginning of next year. Just like the current recall, the offer to rust-proof all 04-06 Tundras will be limited to vehicles currently registered in CT, DE, IL, IN, KY, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, NH, NJ, NY, OH, PA, RI, VA, VT, WI, and WV.

The letter we obtained also outlines the chronology of events leading up to the official Tundra frame rust recall announcement. It turns out that Toyota had evidence of spare tires falling off of Tundras in late 2008 – 6 months prior to the news story in Boston that got this story rolling. While we’re inclined to give Toyota the benefit of the doubt here, we can’t help but wonder: How long was Toyota going to sit on this info?

More to the point – why didn’t Toyota do something earlier? They could have prevented a lot of bad publicity and looked like heroes had they announced a voluntary recall 9 months ago.

The letter describes Toyota’s investigation of the frame rust problems and their conclusions. Specifically:

the root cause is a combination of factors, including usage in areas where road salt is applied, inadequate vehicle maintenance (i.e., not following the recommendations in the Owner’s Manual), the design of the rear cross member, and manufacturing issues

Toyota spokesperson Brian Lyons said earlier this week that Dana was not responsible for the Tundra frame rust issue, yet Toyota’s official letter to NHTSA seems to indicate otherwise.

Finally, this letter offers the most encouraging sign yet that Toyota will honor their commitments to the owners of 2000-2003 Tundras with frame rust. If a dealer inspection finds that:

In those relatively rare cases where the rear cross member is significantly corroded and can no longer safely support the spare tire, but the rear cross member assembly cannot be replaced due to excessive frame corrosion at the mounting location (e.g., if the side rails are too damaged), Toyota will develop an appropriate remedy for those vehicles.

While the phrase “appropriate remedy” can mean many things, Toyota spokesperson Brian Lyons did recently confirm to PickupTrucks.com that Toyota has bought back some Tundras. It sounds like Toyota has promised NHTSA that anyone who owns a Tundra with severe frame rust can expect Toyota to go above and beyond replacing the rear cross member.

So, if you’re a Tundra owner with severe frame rust, it sounds like you’ve got a case for arguing for a buy-back.

Have you read our Toyota Tundra towing guide?