Interesting LC trans rating on consumer reports (1 Viewer)

[BManning`]

Not trying to start a turf war between those who believe in CR and those who don't- sincerely. I check it out a couple of times a year just for fun, and this morning I read something quite interesting. To me, it's like any "poll"...food for thought, far from certain but interesting to consider.

2000 & 2001 model year transmission according to CR are more reliable that 2004 models year transmissions! "Transmission major" is listed as very few problems in 00s & 01s (solid red), yet listed as "average amount of problems" (hollow circle) for 04. Don't believe me, it's there- consumerreports.org.

Many model years, 02, 03, etc., were not ranked, I suppose due to lack of enough data to make determinations.

Gotta admit, made me smile a bit, thinking of some of you on here who think your 5-speeds are clearly superior to the 4-speeds, and that 00s and 01s are junk.

Before anybody gets a virilent case of the goo, this is all in fun. Fodder for debate...

 

[2000UZJ]

That's good to know that about the 2000 tranmissions. Makes me feel a little better and for future buyers concerned about this.

 

[syrinxstar]

I have what I believe is the fifth gear shudder on my rig that had a TSB for 2004 (and maybe 05) LCs. I'd bet that this is what dropped the rating for that year. The fix is to R&R the trans! (and replace the breather)

 

[e9999]

I don't think that most people will argue that the 5 speed is more reliable than the 4.

Much better to drive with, though.

 

[BManning`]

I don't think that most people will argue that the 5 speed is more reliable than the 4.

Much better to drive with, though.

I agree with you-- I have no doubt that the 5-speed gets more performance out of the 4.7L. Having said that, my 4-speed handles the monster climbs and descents from Phoenix to Flagstaff & back all day at 75+mph without a whimper...more performance is always nice, even if it's not "needed" per se.

I just found the CR info interesting...based upon cruising ih8mud.com for the past 4 years, I thought the 00/01s, especially the 00s, would have a much worse rating than any year of the 5-speed.

 

[hoser]

All the 2004 transmission complaints were because the owners couldn't find the dipstick!

I looked up the LX in the same years. And actually many more LX's were sold than LC's in that year. The 2004 shows "most reliable" for major/minor transmission problems but shows average for "drive system" (whatever that encompasses).

 

[cmfhsu]

I think the main problem is that there isn't really that much data on these cars. Just a few people could skew the data towards "unreliable", especially if it's an issue like the tranny dipstick...

And OT: BManning, did you go and look this up after reading about the weird OD in our cars?

 

[Trunk Monkey]

CR reports on what their readers submit and I think they had dealership repair records factored in at some point. The issue with their ratings is it doesn't break down what the problem was or the severity with any of their categories. Did some reader submit that they had a problem because they had their tranny serviced or did someone have a total failure?

I'd look to CR as more of an overall picture of a vehicle and manufacturer's reliability than down to individual components.

 

[re_guderian]

I think the main problem is that there isn't really that much data on these cars. Just a few people could skew the data towards "unreliable...

There is a minimum number of respondents for each car before they will publish numbers.

CR reports on what their readers submit...

True to some extent, but they do use a standardized form so everyone reports the same. There is no way to break it down by every type of issues/severity/symptom/system. Tranny is probably one of the more straightforward ones, though. Maintenance is not considered in the ratings...

 

[dclee]

They're just getting weaker all the time. Ah, I miss the bus tranny out of my `94 80 Series...

 

[hoser]

I think all automatic 80's and 100's up to 2002 in Australia had the A343F bus tranny. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[NMuzj100]

I think all automatic 80's and 100's up to 2002 in Australia had the A343F bus tranny. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

IFS Gassers got the same as the NA models.

The Consumer Reports methodology is sound with statistical minimum numbers of responses required before they issue a rating.

- It's very possible that the general transmission problem level for all makes/models at 5 years is low and so it's harder to get away from the "average" rating. At 10 years old the 04s may also be "very few problems" if their year class starts to have problems but they remain solid.
- I can't remember but these figures may also be calculated on reported problems in the past year but not earlier. If all the 2000 and 2001 ones had the trannies replaced two years ago but have been perfect since then they would score a perfect score despite 100% of them being replaced.

What's surprising to me is that those with 2004 problems haven't flooded the board.

 

[syrinxstar]

What's surprising to me is that those with 2004 problems haven't flooded the board.

I agree -- when I noticed the problem in the new-to-me 2004, I thought for sure I'd come on here and read about people having the same problem. I am glad I found the TSB though -- that was huge. The toyota service dept just called us today and said they'd be putting in a new trans -- no charge.

 

[flyfish4life]

I agree -- when I noticed the problem in the new-to-me 2004, I thought for sure I'd come on here and read about people having the same problem. I am glad I found the TSB though -- that was huge. The toyota service dept just called us today and said they'd be putting in a new trans -- no charge.

Was your 04 made at the Araco plant? If so, some of the conspiracy theorists aren't going to like that.

 

[syrinxstar]

Finally got the truck back. Build date was Mar04...Araco.

 

[OGBeno]

Finally got the truck back. Build date was Mar04...Araco.

ARACO was no longer in later 2004 when ARACO's manufacturing was spun off and combined with Toyota Auto Body's. Same plant, different name.

 

[scottm]

My '03 was diagnosed with a bad torque converter by a mechanic sent from Toyota to figure out the vibration problem. They decided that wasn't the problem after replacing the thing. I wonder if they did get enough problems that they were overly quick to blame the torque converter without doing a lot of diagnosis? Would that unfairly bump up the transmission problem stats? It was actually caused by them double-filling the oil, but I got a super-thorough checkup from multiple mechanics and new trans fluid out of the deal.

 

[OregonLC]

? It was actually caused by them double-filling the oil.

As in 16 qts of oil in the 2UZ-FE? Holy smokes batman!

 

[NMuzj100]

As in 16 qts of oil in the 2UZ-FE? Holy smokes batman!

I'm guessing it was more like more like 4 extra quarts in the A343F.

I had shifting irregularities when the fluid was just slightly over the "hot full" mark.

Seems like that would be pretty easy to figure out but then I'm not a highly trained dealer tech with a hand-held scantool and troubleshooting software.

 

[OregonLC]

I'm guessing it was more like more like 4 extra quarts in the A343F.

I had shifting irregularities when the fluid was just slightly over the "hot full" mark.

Seems like that would be pretty easy to figure out but then I'm not a highly trained dealer tech.

oh, tranny fluid rather than oil. gotcha.

But I agree, checking the stick seems like engine mechanical 101.