Any 200 series owners considering a 2017 Ford Raptor?

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

Some of my personal experience:

1. The only GM cars I have confidence in are the CTS and the Corvette (I owned the latter).

2. I have a new Ford Explorer and I'm not happy with the build quality or reliability so far.

3. I had the dreaded VCM issue on the engine of my 2014 Odyssey causing limp mode and running on 3 cylinders.

4. I bought a new 2013 Accord for one of my managers to use as a company car and the alternator is acting up at about 82,000 miles.

I don't see Toyota going in the same direction as Honda, their products have served my family and my business well. The worst thing I had in a Toyota or Lexus product was the sunroof rattling in a 2012 Camry. I think that's pretty solid.

I will be the first to admit Toyota and Lexus are far from the sexiest manufacturers. Lexus doesn't debut as many crazy gizmos as its German competitors but it also doesn't have silly issues confining brand new cars to the dealer. There is a big market for that.

Back to the thread - I love the Raptor and the only reason I wouldn't buy one is I rather spend the money on a sports car or motorbike if I already have a 200.
 
LALC: My argument isn't grounded in me being right, I find that to be an insulting way to try to frame my responses.

This started with my comment that I was personally disappointed in the latest Tacoma, and if it was my money I would be waiting to see what the new Chevy Colorado ZR2 brings. However, what this evolved into was the group-at-large generally deriding GM's quality and durability, especially as compared to Toyota, and as I'm aware of numerous data points indicating this to be an incorrect assertion re: their trucks, the thread unfolded as follows.

Canyonero initially commented that "the size, price, efficiency, capability and look of the Tacoma were the best for me" but following my comment re: the ZR2 remarked "GM quality is a non-starter for me. I didn't even look at the Chevy/GMC twins."

This was the first comment I replied to as I know - empirically know - that it's misleading at best, or based on apocryphal experience that isn't backed up by the reality of GM building good trucks. As he was shopping trucks, both then and now I'm imploring all of you to focus on their truck line, as the trucks themselves very clearly stand out as being built to a different standard (perhaps one met by no GM car save, possibly, the Corvette, and even then only likely would this apply to the C5 and C6. I'm not writing about their cars, which definitely vary far more widely. This thread was and is about trucks.)

So first addressing GM quality: first I linked the full-size truck LTQI data, which shows the Tundra leading the full-size trucks in measured quality/durability over time, and the Sierra and Silverado (ignoring the C/K trucks - good rankings, but too old for the sake of this discussion) second and third behind the Tundra. I also mentioned Tacoma owners were reporting numerous NVH issues and some were even pursuing buybacks.

- A word about LTQI: I can't find any other sources out there tracking long-term reliability, but their methods are interesting, backed by a statistician, and free. You can choose to debate their conclusions or methods, and I suspect they welcome the discussion, but thus far I haven't personally come across anything disqualifying their methods or conclusions. If you find something please share?

Secondary observation that wasn't part of the initial kerfluffle: coming back to Canyonero's allegations re: GM quality, let's also look at initial quality: check out JD Power & Associates' 2016 conclusions in which they wrote the following:

JD_Power said:
General Motors receives seven model-level awards, followed by Toyota Motor Corporation with six and Hyundai Motor Company and Volkswagen AG, each with four.

  • General Motors models that rank highest in their respective segments are the Buick Cascada; Chevrolet Equinox; Chevrolet Silverado HD; Chevrolet Silverado LD; Chevrolet Spark; Chevrolet Tahoe; and GMC Terrain.
  • Toyota Motor Corporation models that rank highest in their segment are the Lexus CT; Lexus GS; Scion tC; Toyota Camry; Toyota Corolla; and Toyota Highlander.
Click to expand...

Take a moment to reflect on 3 GM truck-chassis models (Silverado in both 1/2 and 3/4 ton trim + the Tahoe) being included in their initial quality assessment - and interestingly, none of Toyota's body-on-frame models are listed.

If you, dear reader, can view this impartially for a moment, would this not be another data point indicating that GM is doing something right from a quality perspective?

Returning to the thread: Canyonero replied immediately following my post that "Toyota is certainly not infallible (as the 2016/17 Land Cruiser proves), but their quality is still not even close to being rivaled by GM. This is objectively verifiable data."

... this would imply to me that perhaps he didn't read the LTQI data I linked, ignored it, or believes it to be false. So I linked LTQI's overall manufacturer rankings chart, where even based on older models - those not on the market from GM today as they released the latest "K2XX" platform designation trucks for the 2014 model year - shows GM, even as a composite entity, ranked as the 4th-most reliable manufacturer on average.

TonyP made a few troll posts here and there, but Chocolate made a contention re: Toyota "will hold its value far better (Toyota is #1 in resale value - an important buying factor for me)" which I also found interesting as I knew that's arguably an incorrect assertion.

I pulled a few sources re: comparable trucks - a range of model years of both the 1st gen GMC Canyon (as it's comparable both in size and initial MSRP to the Tacoma of the same years) and found they're essentially identical in value.

Chocolate then made a sniping comment re: 'work trucks' - "I agree that there's not as much difference with 8 year old work trucks closer to the end of their depreciation curve. However, the difference is more noticeable with newer and more expensive trucks" - implying all these trucks I linked - all 4WDs under under 100k miles, which if you know anything about work trucks, probably aren't work trucks - and then also made a spurious argument re: F150s (which haven't been part of this line of discussion, at all) versus Tundras.

Well, if it's somehow old trucks that are the problem, let's compare the current gen Canyons versus the current Tacoma, again, filtering by 4WD and <100k miles (to ironically enough, ensure we're not looking at 'work trucks'):

2015-2017 used Tacomas
2015-2017 used Canyons

Two things immediately jump out at me: for the same date range, and the same years as both manufacturers introduced new models to the market - the GMC's floor and ceiling are both respectively higher than the Tacoma. So again, I contend that this another interesting data point - one that refutes Chocolate's assertion pretty clearly both on the older trucks (parity) and on the new trucks (where GMC's residual appears to be even higher!)

Finally I referenced how some of the auto journo mags were also hailing the Colorado/Canyon as a good - and perhaps better truck, as compared to the Tacoma - and a number of you pounced on that, indicating contempt for the auto journalism establishment. OK, sure. That's fine to have that subjective opinion. Yet that's the only point you-all want to directly refute, and not with data, but with emotion?

I have owned dozens of different brands of cars. I'm familiar with ignorant partisanship that many brand-loyal owners will take - God forbid you stumble into www.vwvortex.com or www.challengertalk.com - but in spite of my attempt to provide you guys with actual, objective information, I'm derided for calling out either flat-out wrong allegations or snide attempts at invalidating the argument based purely on opinion.

Where's your data, guys?

Finally, to Markuson: the value of any forum such as this is to not facilitate the blind leading the blind, but to expand knowledge and discourse. Please don't try to chase off people who are helping, especially when comments such as yours are hurting, particularly when (to your point around Mud folks owning many different makes/mfrs) GM - or anyone else - producing class-competitive cars is a benefit to all auto enthusiasts.

Being aware of that, as opposed to being misled by ignorant or unfounded positions, is a benefit to all.
 
Last edited:
Tremek said:
Stuff
Click to expand...

Yes, Canyonero wrote "GM quality is a non-starter for me."
"GM quality is a non-starter FOR ME."

Different strokes for different folks.
I don't eat seafood. Therefore don't need a diatribe about the merits of eating seafood. Some people dig it, that's gravy, I don't. It's not my bag.
Same with our friend Canyonero. GM stuff isn't his bag, some people prefer the feel and characteristics of one manufacterer over another. It's all gravy.

Opinions aren't up for debate. Whatever tickles your pickle, go for it.
 
Defending an opinion which was stated as fact - and is in fact, factually invalid - is a bad practice. It’s okay to have an opinion, but anyone reading this should recognize that it is an opinion and not necessarily an objective fact, but which was then defended (without supporting data, and in the face of contradicting information) as an objective fact, and that's not good for anyone.
 
Canyonero said:
Toyota is certainly not infallible (as the 2016/17 Land Cruiser proves), but their quality is still not even close to being rivaled by GM. This is objectively verifiable data.
Click to expand...

...and this is an opinion stated as fact. Please stop derailing.
 
@Tremek

Oh jeez... I commented about your use of the "Truck of the Year" award as some sort of basis for comparative legitimacy.

Utterly ridiculous for you to extrapolate from that...that I somehow support the "blind leading the blind" in this forum.

You seem committed to blowing this up.

Why?
 
I'm not trying to blow anything up. My posts (and then later, me) were dogpiled on without good reason and you were part of it. For what it's worth I've enjoyed many of your other posts?
 
Tremek said:
I'm not trying to blow anything up. My posts (and then later, me) were dogpiled on without good reason and you were part of it. For what it's worth I've enjoyed many of your other posts?
Click to expand...

For what it's worth...I root for the competition always, because their success means more pressure on all, and that means better products all around.
 
as a partially impartial observer to this thread, i agree with @Tremek ... and @Markuson ... and probably a few others. you guys need to take a break - it's the holidays and you're killing my holiday spirit.


okay, not really. i have a lot of holiday spirit right now and this didn't make much of a dent in it. but i do think there was an appreciable amount of good data given by @Tremek that was largely cast aside as poop. and i also think that "Marketing-$$ of the Year" awards are useless. :)

we can all get a little sensitive to the written words on forums, but we're all here for the same reason: because it's better than all other forums on the internet wrt 200's. let's keep it clean and show respect for one another, lest we end up with a bag full of coal next christmas instead of a set of slee sliders.

peace on earth. good will toward (wo)men... all that. ;)
 
Agree.
All good guys here.
This thread just got a little sideways.

:santa::bounce:
 
Last edited:
Wow, I can't leave you guys alone in this room for a minute! :)

@Tremek - I did say GM quality is a non-starter for me. You've cherry-picked data points from trucks to make your case that their TRUCKS have good quality. Like I said earlier about the GM twins -you might be right!

Why did you gloss over this acknowledgement from me that the GM mid-size trucks might be built well?

There is evidence to support the belief that GM quality has improved in the last 5 years. But there's plenty of evidence that they haven't improved all that much. Again, I'm talking about the COMPANY, GM - not a truck here or a truck there. Not a "this generation of truck, but not that generation of truck" conversation. You seem to have missed this.

Chevy ranked 20th? Which Car Brands Make the Best Vehicles?
19th and 23rd? America’s Best (and Worst) Car Brands

Reliability/QDR - Lexus and Toyota at the top, as usual. Car Brands Reliability: How They Stack Up

Vehicles most likely to make it to 200,000 miles: 10 Best Cars to Get to 200,000 Miles and Beyond

These studies and others like them are helpful because they are not issuing "golden calipers" or some stupid award for a brand that may also (coincidentally) pay a lot of advertising dollars. These are scientific studies, utilizing data from a large number of disparate sources. Consumer Reports and JD Power use actual data for their rankings, so you get at least someone of an objective set of conclusions. But all of these studies should be taken with a grain of salt. There are so many variables including operator error that might lead to consumer complaints, so I don't think any one study can be relied on as the holy grail of information. If you look at comprehensive studies of a brand, as a whole, over a period of years, however, a very clear pattern becomes apparent.

Lexus and Toyota build better vehicles than any other auto manufacturer. @Tremek, you seem to really not like this FACT. But not-liking it, or cherry-picking data won't change it. You seem to believe that an auto maker can build a solid truck but have QDR-plagued lineups outside of that truck. While that may be true on occasion, companies are who they are. Or, to put it another way, it's a more intelligent decision as a consumer to buy from a brand that makes EVERY vehicle to a high standard, rather than guess that maybe a certain model was made well.

Company culture shows itself many ways at GM - The ignition issue that was linked to 124 deaths and 275 injuries. GM knew of it and did nothing for a decade - that's a big deal and I believe it's as relevant to company culture as is long term QDR data. It's relevant to me, insomuch as the ignition switch issue was obviously a major QDR issue, but it was also more evidence of a cost-cutting company culture.

If you're thinking you should bring up "unintended acceleration" I will remind you that no person-from journalists to NASA engineers-was able to duplicate a sinlge unintended acceleration problem with any Toyota. Many tried. So hopefully you're not going to attempt some equivalency argument. Many tried to duplicate GM's ignition of death, and easily found it to be a real-world problem.

It's All Your Fault: The DOT Renders Its Verdict on Toyota's Unintended-Acceleration Scare - Feature
 
If you're accusing me of cherry-picking results, then consider that you're doing exactly the same thing.

Perhaps you're unaware, but:

- 24/7 Wall Street is a clickbait/link-aggregation site under the Huffpost/AOL umbrella and I challenge you to identify it as a reputable source. But if you do want to insist that they're reputable, let's also consider that another, more recent article from this year on the same site ranked GMC as the 5th best auto manufacturer right behind Toyota at 4th! PS, here's the 'author' of your link's most recent articles.

I would humbly submit you're not making a convincing argument citing them.

- Consumer Reports: note that I have conspicuously not referred to them as they have experienced a huge drain on their editorial staff over the past few years, and their quality and findings can and should be called into question as their motivations, editorial quality, and testing methods are likely affected by their pursuit to become net-profitable once more.

At this stage in the org's evolution and this discussion, I submit that hailing them as a reputable source carries less weight than the auto magazines which at the very least focus on the auto industry and have maintained relatively consistent editorial quality over the past few years.

Moreover - in your link CR identified Audi and Subaru as their top two brands, and neither of them are known for long-term quality and durability, which was part of your initial contention for Toyota being head-and-shoulders above all others. How does that bolster your overall contention here that Toyota has miles between them and other manufacturers?

I have never said in this entire thread that Toyota doesn't produce good cars. To summarize, I wrote:
  • that I was personally disappointed by the latest Tacoma,
  • that I wouldn't buy any new Toyota product on the market (used is a different story),
  • that there's evidence Toyota may be experiencing a decline in quality in some places,
  • that other manufacturers (GM in particular) were improving in quality,
  • and that Tacoma quality was currently in question.

My first two assertions are of a personal opinion-based nature, but my last three points are supported by data and findings.

Re: culture, and past manufacturer transgressions - clearly, in the past, both Toyota and GM have been highly negligent.

GM, for their part, is experiencing a significant culture shift and is owning the transgressions of (literally) the Old GM and trying to change for the better. I haven't been able to find much on whether Toyota's experiencing the same sort of culture changes one might hope for - have any articles on that front?

So no problem that you don't like GM! What I took issue with were your unfounded allegations that they're producing garbage, when to the contrary, they're producing very good trucks and also some other vehicles within their brands' broad product range are also class-competitive, world-class cars (see the latest Camaro being regularly hailed as the best pony car ever produced, the Cadillac ATS being as good as the German sports sedans, etc.)

I hope your Tacoma treats you well, and thankfully your affinity for it doesn't change that other manufacturers are also producing very competitive vehicles in the same market as well, which is ultimately a good thing for all auto consumers.
 
Last edited:
:deadhorse:
 
You seem to think I'm making an argument. I'm not.

I have an opinion based on data.

Maybe you question the data. Maybe you question 20+ years of recorded data, and countless sources which all tend to rank QDR among brands generally the same order.

Maybe facts don't reach you. I realize here's a lot of that going around these days.

In any case, I wish you all the best with your Toyota Land Cruiser. :)
 
Anyone here remember Pagemaster? Wanted to argue more than share knowledge?
 
Don't know that guy, mark, but care to share some knowledge yourself?
 
To sum up...

Chevy has reached Tremek's personal threshold for quality.
Chevy has not reached Canyonero's personal threshold for quality.
They have both done their homework, and arrived at reasonable conclusions.

Did I miss anything? ;)

Now-
...How bout them Land Cruisers!

IMG_9845.webp

IMG_9863 2.webp


Fact is... nearly everyone here MODS their Cruisers. So... Even though we believe they are top notch...we want them even MORE top notch, and deem them in need of those modifications. I think we can all agree that no truck or SUV is built that doesn't benefit from additional help in aftermarket parts and upgrades. So...no truck is perfect. ;) I DO believe, however, that Toyota still buries the competition for over-all reliability. Whether they are trending upward...or trending downward as a brand in relation to others--they are still a reliability standard-bearer. Can we at least agree on that?

It's also true that Chevy is serving its customer base in a way that pleases millions. Clearly they build a quality truck. But one man's level of acceptable "quality" is another man's miss. Some love conservative Toyota...and some hate that it's conservative.

We will never settle the ultimate argument to everyone's satisfaction, but thankfully, we are all free to choose whichever product satisfies us. To each their own. As Forrest Gump said to Jenny at the "Black Panther Party..." "-You know what I think..." ;)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom