...It just comes down to the fact that people making enough money to buy $50000+ cars and trucks dont have time to fill out surveys.
...
I gotta dissagree there, most folks who make a ton of money have MORE time than the rest of us who work for our money day after day after day, I just think they don't care as much.
CR is crap because it relies on the responses from the owners. Owners are biased, and none moreso than Toyota owners. That is both because they feel they have the ultimate vehicle (they feel the need to justify their purchase) and because Toyota dealerships take better care of problems and so owners forget the problem existed when it's survey time. Yes, Toyotas are quality vehicles, and their dealers treat customers right. But the spread is not nearly what it's made out to be. Land Rovers may be of no worse quality than a Hyundai or a Chrysler, but because they are so expensive and they spend so much time marketing the "capability" of them, people get pissed off when they have problems. And then I believe the dealers are pretty bad too, making the problem worse.
And now Musky... don't go quoting JDP Appeal survey results when talking about quality. Appeal survey is exactly what it's named for, and does not measure quality.
I do and I don't agree with you... You make a good point about dealer's but some of us have never had to use those things
I think if both of our trucks were on the same road for 1000 miles mine would make it with ZERO faults and I'd probably be towing you...Maybe maybe not. Sorry mate, but there's no way to simply dismiss Toyotas superior built quality as "Owner bias" nor is it as easy to simply base Rovers under-built drivetrains and electrical issues as simple "internet rumor"...
I agree thought that CR is a bit of a crap shoot. but in reality TSB's and dealer service records wich companies like JD power (not their "appeal" survey obviously) and others use to rate vehucles still find that Rovers, and espescialy the LR3 are a far cry from the tightly QC'd standard of Toyota's build standards.
Another thing to consider, and I understand that in the last few years that Toyota has "lightened" their trucks, is that older Toyotas consistantly hold up to FAR MORE than they were originaly intended to. Rover portrays everythig they make as this ultimate off-road vehicle (OK not everything, but most of their trucks) but in reality in severe duty most of the NA Rovers just don't hold up. That said we don't get the Diesel/simple Rovers that the rest of the world gets and that kind of makes things a bit un-fair but we are talking about trucks we can get here in NA. It's no secret that Rover's axles simply aren't up to snuff run ning over a 32" tire, however IFS Toyotas consistantly run 33's and while CV's break in the roughest of conditions, the diffs etc stay alive becaue they're
OVER ENGINEERED, something that I don't feel Rovers are for their portrayed image. Since the first inception of the Land Cruiser this has always been the case, and more to the point, the "mini-trucks" wich really aren't ment to compete with say a Disco (that's more Cruiser territory) are easily comparable, and I think that says something for the "over built" nature of Toyotas
Aw screw it guy's can't we all just go wheeling together and if someone has a break down we'll just stay out a little longer and have more fun and stories to tell??? Basicly from and Engineering/Fact stand point there's a clear winner, but we all still like to go out and get dirty so who cares??? I know that's alot coming from a guy like me who's SO pro Toyota, but I really think it's a valid point. Can't we all just get along???
Cheers
Dave
