Tundra is Cheap as Hell!

[SVT666]

I too own a Toyota ('97 Tacoma). Despite 165,xxx miles, the cloth seats, and especially the vinyl portions, look almost new. (The cloth though could use a steam cleaning.) The plastic dahs panels are a bit scratched, but after that much use, that's to be expected I think.

Do I really have to point out that your truck is hardly new.  It's 10 years old. 

Am I trying to defend Toyota? Not in the least.

Looks like it to me.

[SVT666]

I've had a few Chrysler products, almost universally panned for interiors, as week-long rentals. The PT Cruiser and Durango I felt had decent materials, fit and all around good interiors. There was loads of hard plastics (I have yet to see why this is a detriment). The Grand Cherokee was similarly constructed, but the gages were very hard to read. I've driven the 300C a little bit, and though it wasn't replete with real wood trim and other luxury, it was similarly quite good IMO.

The only poor quality interior I've ever seen in a new car was in the (or more appropriately, "a") new Mustang. It had blatant inconsisent panel-to-panel dye coloring, bunches of flashing around the shifter and console, and at least a few panels simply didn't fit together.

Fuck you just lost all credibility.  Chrysler products have good interiors and the Mustang's is poor?  Right.

[Raghavan]

Fuck you just lost all credibility. Chrysler products have good interiors and the Mustang's is poor? Right.

See, now you're just being a troll.

[GoCougs]

See, now you're just being a troll.

Not quite a troll (yet); just utterly unhinged on the Tundra.

Word is this morning that Toyota has overtaken GM for the first quarter of 2007. Now let's see what is said.

LOL.

They're just trucks, people.

[SVT666]

See, now you're just being a troll.

I'm not being a troll.  I'm calling him out for calling Chrysler interiors nice and the Mustang's poor.  The Mustang's interior is at least on par with any Chrysler interior.

[SVT666]

Wow, some of you sure are trying hard...

Read and weep Cougs.  Especially that last sentence.

http://www.leftlanenews.com/toyota-experiences-growing-pains-as-expansion-continues.html

[VetteZ06]

The 1990 pickup, 2001 4Runner, and 2001 Sequoia that have gone through my family (still own the 4Runner and the truck) have all been satisfactory in the area of quality. The pickup is nothing special, obviously, but for its time the interior is more than fine. The 4Runner doesn't have the most luxurious interior, but it's comfortable and very solidly built - no rattles or anything of the sort, and it certainly doesn't feel cheap. The Sequoia had a very nice interior, even if some of the plastics were hard (particularly the dash) - it was definitely in keeping with Toyota's reputation. The Tundra, though? Not so much. It just felt cheap to me from the moment I opened the door and sat down. The experience was probably made worse by the fact that I had just been in a loaded Sierra, but nevertheless, I didn't like what I saw. I can't really even pinpoint a certain aspect of the Tundra's interior that made it so unappealing - it just wasn't very well-executed.

As a person who has had plenty of experience with Toyota products over the years, I can honestly say the Tundra doesn't match their previous efforts in certain areas. It has a nice engine, but with several other recently updated trucks out there, a quicker 0-60 time may not be able to make up for a subpar interior and other execution miscues. You like to laugh all of this off, Cougs, because you think everybody else has it out for Toyota, but I am an experienced Toyota owner and I was truly not impressed. Take from this what you will.

[ifcar]

I'm not being a troll.  I'm calling him out for calling Chrysler interiors nice and the Mustang's poor.  The Mustang's interior is at least on par with any Chrysler interior.

Perhaps he happened upon a Mustang with production flaws. A Durango or PT Cruiser would definitely have a nicer interior than a Mustang that wasn't built properly.

[Catman]

To add insult to injury.....when I was surveying the new Tundra, Sax walked over and started showing me mold lines in some of the interior pieces.  In my Sequoia you have to look long and hard to see anything like that...

[rjm]

To add insult to injury.....when I was surveying the new Tundra, Sax walked over and started showing me mold lines in some of the interior pieces.? In my Sequoia you have to look long and hard to see anything like that...

Could Toyota be collaborating with GM more than we know??

[Catman]

Could Toyota be collaborating with GM more than we know??

New sig requirements.  Max 120 pix high.

http://www.carspin.net/forums/index.php?topic=8735.0

[rjm]

New sig requirements.? Max 120 pix high.

http://www.carspin.net/forums/index.php?topic=8735.0

Went back to reread another post and realized how big that pic is, working on a change.

[Raghavan]

Went back to reread another post and realized how big that pic is, working on a change.

Still too big.

[Catman]

Went back to reread another post and realized how big that pic is, working on a change.

If you see a pic you want let me know I can resize and crop.  Post it in the sig thread.

[SVT666]

Cool sig Catman.  is that a photochop of the new Camaro?

[Catman]

Cool sig Catman.  is that a photochop of the new Camaro?

it's the carbon motors future police car.  www.carbonmotors.com

[SVT666]

it's the carbon motors future police car.? www.carbonmotors.com

THAT, my friend, is one badass police car.  The front and rear are awesome, but the profile is not so hot.  It looks too short, tall, and boxy form the side.  But the other angles look rediculously cool.  Is it actually going to go into production?

[Catman]

THAT, my friend, is one badass police car.  The front and rear are awesome, but the profile is not so hot.  It looks too short, tall, and boxy form the side.  But the other angles look rediculously cool.  Is it actually going to go into production?

I guess.  It might be a little too optimistic.  The boxy shape if a function over form issue I surmise.  Should be much more passenger friendly.

[JYODER240]

I guess.? It might be a little too optimistic.? The boxy shape if a function over form issue I surmise.? Should be much more passenger friendly.

Why would someone be concerned with the comfort of passengers in a police car?

[SVT666]

I guess.? It might be a little too optimistic.? The boxy shape if a function over form issue I surmise.? Should be much more passenger friendly.

Who gives a shit about the rear passengers comfort?  I certainly don't, cause it will never be me.  Just make the roofline look cool, that's what matters.

[Catman]

It's not a comfort issue.  Getting people in and out is the problem. 

[rjm]

If you see a pic you want let me know I can resize and crop.? Post it in the sig thread.

Will do.

[SVT666]

It's not a comfort issue.? Getting people in and out is the problem.?

So they smack their heads once in a while...whoopee!

[GoCougs]

Perhaps he happened upon a Mustang with production flaws. A Durango or PT Cruiser would definitely have a nicer interior than a Mustang that wasn't built properly.

Yep. I specifically stated ("a" new Mustang) which is to explicitly state that that particular car had issues. I am not using such anecdotal evidence to indict the whole of Ford Motor (hint, hint, to a few).

The only poor quality interior I've ever seen in a new car was in the (or more appropriately, "a") new Mustang. It had blatant inconsisent panel-to-panel dye coloring, bunches of flashing around the shifter and console, and at least a few panels simply didn't fit together.

[SVT666]

Yep. I specifically stated ("a" new Mustang) which is to explicitly state that that particular car had issues. I am not using such anecdotal evidence to indict the whole of Ford Motor (hint, hint, to a few).

The way you stated it, you would have had us believe all Mustangs were like that.