Bookmarking Auto on Info pages
Supporting Auto on Info
Home or
Site Layout or
Site Map or
Site Index or
Quick Jumps or
Search Engine Directory or
The Mart or
The LinksAuto
InformationAuto
Durability
InformationThe Results from the 2001 Survey
of Owners of High Mileage Toyotas Displayed or Listed on Internet Galleries or
Rosters
In late May and early June 2001, a survey of owners of high
mileage Toyota motor vehicles exhibited on internet galleries or listed on
internet rosters was conducted. In the questionnaire, there were several queries
regarding durability. The queries included:
The Queries
The Responses
For vehicles with reported mileage ranging from 199,959 miles to
364,000 miles, the responses were distributed
thusly:
Query No. 4 Original
engine, transmission and air conditioner?
An air conditioner with a replaced compressor was counted as not
original.
Query No. 5 Any
significant amount of time or money on repair, renovation or cleaning of the
original engine, transmission or air conditioner?
Query No. 10 How the Engine Presently Runs:
| |
3 |
|
It runs now as well as it did when it was new. |
| |
5 |
|
It runs now nearly as well as it did when it was new. |
| |
1 |
|
It runs some worse now than when it was new. |
| |
1 |
|
It runs quite noticeably worse now than when it was new. |
| |
0 |
|
It runs much worse now than when it was new. |
| |
0 |
|
It barely runs at all. |
One person reported that he was in the process of
replacing the engine.
Query No. 11 How the Mechanical Parts, Other Than the
Engine, Presently Run:
| |
3 |
|
They run now as well as they did when they were new. |
| |
5 |
|
They run now nearly as well as they did when they were new. |
| |
3 |
|
They run some worse now than when they were new. |
| |
0 |
|
One or more run quite noticeably worse now than when they
were new. |
| |
0 |
|
One or more run much worse now than when they were new. |
| |
0 |
|
One or more barely run at all. |
Query No. 12 How the Electrical Parts Presently Operate:
| |
4 |
|
They operate now as well as they did when they were new. |
| |
5 |
|
They operate now nearly as well as they did when they were
new. |
| |
2 |
|
They operate some worse now than when they were new. |
| |
0 |
|
One or more operate quite noticeably worse now than when
they were new. |
| |
0 |
|
One or more operate much worse now than when they were new. |
| |
0 |
|
One or more barely operate at all. |
Query No. 27 Estimation as to when
the owner's Toyota vehicle operated or
will operate as a typical Big Three vehicle at 3,000 miles, by those who judged
themselves as having a basis sufficient to make an estimate:
Query No. 28 Estimation as to when
the owner's Toyota vehicle operated or
will operate as a typical Big Three vehicle at 6,000 miles, by those who judged
themselves as having a basis sufficient to make an estimate:
Query No. 29 Estimation as to when
the owner's Toyota vehicle operated or
will operate as a typical Big Three vehicle at 22,000 miles, by those who judged
themselves as having a basis sufficient to make an estimate:
Query No. 30 Estimation as to when
the interior of the owner's Toyota vehicle aged or will age to that of a typical Big Three vehicle at
25,000 miles, by those who judged themselves as having a basis sufficient to make
an estimate:
Query No. 31 Estimation as to when
the interior of the owner's Toyota vehicle aged or will age to that of a typical Big Three vehicle at
40,000 miles, by those who judged themselves as having a basis sufficient to make
an estimate:
Caveats: The number of respondents is small. The plots for some
models may be dramatically to the right of the plots for other models and the
above plots. Notably, the plots for a mid-1980s made in Japan Corolla, the then
flagship of Toyota Motor Corporation, may be very markedly to the right of the
above plots for queries 27 through 31.
For a detailed presentation of the methodology and results of
the survey, click here.
To read the June 2001 news article on the survey,
click here.
© Copyrighted
|
Additional Information Pertaining to Durability and
Long-Term Ownership
| Some
Additional
Charts Pertaining to Durability |
|
(Each chart is linked to a news article providing additional
information.) |
More Charts and Tables appear below the list of
news articles.
Some Auto News Articles:
|
March 2007:
Toyota and Honda Increase Dominance of Consumer Reports' Good Bets List: Toyota's Best Widen Quality Gap |
|
January 2007:
Toyota Expands Dominance on Durability Measure |
|
November 2006:
True Value Estimates of GM's 2007 Vehicles |
|
November 2006:
The 2006 Updates: Honda Age-Equivalent Estimates: Estimates of When a Typical 1998 Model of Honda Motor Company Will Be as Troublesome as Typical 1998 Models of General Motors Corporation and Its Several Marques Were Circa 3 Years, 4 Years, ..., and 7 Years of Age |
|
November 2006:
The 2006 Updates: Toyota Age-Equivalent Estimates: Estimates of When a Typical 1998 Model of Toyota Motor Corporation Will Be as Troublesome as Typical 1998 Models of General Motors Corporation and Its Several Marques Were Circa 3 Years, 4 Years, ..., and 7 Years of Age |
|
October 2006:
Site Manager's 1984 Corolla Passes 500,000 Mark |
|
October 2006:
The 2006 Updates: Toyota and Honda Account for 4 of 5 Most Durable Sport-Utility Vehicles; General Motors - 7 of 10 Worst: Will a Typical 1998 Toyota SUV Be More Trouble Free at 21 Years of Age Than a Typical 1998 GM SUV at 3? |
|
October 2006:
The 2006 Updates: Toyota Tops in Pickup Reliability and Durability: Just How Bad, or Disastrous, Are GM Pickups? |
|
October 2006:
The 2006 Updates: Toyota and Honda Account for 4 Most Durable Vehicle Lines; General Motors - 4 of 10 Worst: Will a Typical Toyota or Honda 1998 Model Be More Trouble Free at 20 Years of Age Than a Typical 1998 GM Model at 3? |
|
September 2006:
Reliability Updates: Best and Worst Cars and Trucks Tables: A Chart Summary |
|
August 2006:
Reliability Updates: For Vehicles 6-to-8 Years Old, Toyota Accounts for 7 of 10 Best, GM - 17 of 36 Worst |
|
August 2006:
Reliability Updates: For Vehicles 5-to-7 Years Old, Toyota Accounts for 9 of 13 Best, GM - 17 of 42 Worst |
|
August 2006:
Fitch Cuts Ford Debt Deeper into Junk, Retains Negative Outlook, Puts Estimated Post-Bankruptcy Recovery at 51-70%; Will GM-Ford Race to Bankruptcy End in Dead Heat? |
|
August 2006:
Toyota Dominates Auto on Info's Rosters of High Mileage Vehicles; Honda Places Second: Another Auto Manufacturer Durability Award for Each |
|
August 2006:
Ford Announces Recall of 1.2 Million More Incendiaries, But No New Relief for Owners of GM's Runaways, Collapsing Tailgates, and Engine Knockers |
|
January 2006:
Toyota Overwhelmingly Dominates Another Measure of Durability |
|
August 2005:
For Vehicles 6-to-8 Years Old, Toyota Garners 7 of Top 10 Reliability Percentranks, General Motors Gathers 23 of Lowest 36 |
|
August 2005:
Speediest Dilapidations: General Motors Accounts for 16 of the 20 Worst |
|
August 2005:
Toyota Dominates Auto on Info's Rosters of High Mileage Vehicles; Honda Places Second: Another Auto Manufacturer Durability Award for Each |
|
August 2005:
In the U.S. in July 2005, Reliable Two and Nissan Sales Soar on Quality; Big Three Sales Soar on Discounts |
|
July 2005:
Another Ford Fire: Park That Ford on the Street! IV |
|
July 2005:
As Fires Mount, NHTSA Puts the Heat on Ford: Park That Ford on the Street! III |
|
July 2005:
Did GM's Marketing Department Make Out GM's CEO an Unmitigated Nincompoop? |
|
July 2005:
In the U.S. in June 2005, Sales by Quality Four Continue Growth and GM Shows World That It Can Move Off Dealer Lots Anything That Rolls |
|
June 2005:
Site Manager Replaces Corolla Transmission: 1984 Torque Converter Expires at 478,943 Miles |
|
June 2005:
Park That Ford on the Street! II |
|
June 2005:
In the U.S. in May 2005, Sales Shift Toward Quality Continues |
|
May 2005:
Fitch Says GM Bonds Junk Too |
|
May 2005:
Does 'GM' Mean 'Junk'? |
|
May 2005:
Toyota-Big Three Quality Gap Huge, and Growing |
|
May 2005:
Toyota and Honda Rule Most Reliable List with 12 of 12 Best, GM Dominates Least Reliable List with 8 of 11 Worst |
|
May 2005:
With U.S. Consumer Shift toward Quality Unabated, S&P Cuts GM and Ford's Debt to Junk |
|
May 2005:
In the U.S. in April 2005, Quality Four Sales Soar, GM and Ford Continue Free Fall |
|
May 2005:
Park That Ford on the Street! |
|
April 2005:
Consumer Shift Toward Quality Gives Honda Market Capitalization Greater Than GM's and Ford's Combined |
|
April 2005:
Moody's Cuts GM Long-Term Debt Rating to One Notch Above Junk, Puts Ford Debt Under Review |
|
March 2005:
Additional Measures of Toyota's Dominion in Automotive Quality: Market Capitalizations and Bond Ratings of Toyota vs. General Motors, Ford, DaimlerChrysler, and Volkswagen |
|
March 2005:
GM's Bond Rating, Bond Outlook, Common Stock, and Market Cap Take a Tumble, Reports WSJ |
|
March 2005:
General Motors and Chrysler Dominate Consumer Reports Used-Cars-To-Avoid List |
|
March 2005:
General Motors Dominates Consumer Reports Much-Worse-Than-Average Reliability List, Again |
|
March 2005:
Toyota and Honda Again Dominate Consumer Reports Good Bets List |
|
October 2004:
Is GM King of Junk? |
|
October 2004:
The 2004 Auto Reliability Updates: Toyota Continues to Govern; GM Stays Stuck ... Deep, Down and Under, and Below |
The visitor may find the following tables and charts useful as well.
|
Cumulative Number of Auto on Info
Auto Manufacturer Awards for Motor
Vehicle Quality |
|
Cumulative Number of First Place Positions in Auto on Info's
Auto
Manufacturer Awards for Motor Vehicle Quality |
|
Auto Manufacturer |
Awards |
Auto Manufacturer |
First Place Positions |
|
Toyota |
35 |
Toyota |
34 |
|
Honda |
27 |
Honda |
2 |
|
Mercedes-Benz |
2 |
Mercedes-Benz |
0 |
|
Nissan |
4 |
Nissan |
0 |
|
BMW |
1 |
BMW |
0 |
|
Volvo |
1 |
Volvo |
0 |
|
General Motors |
0 |
General Motors |
0 |
|
Ford |
0 |
Ford |
0 |
|
Chrysler |
0 |
Chrysler |
0 |
|
This table is current as of 15
October 2006. |
This table is current as of 15
October 2006. |
|
Shares of Consumer Reports' 2005 Quick Picks, by Auto
Manufacturer and Motor Vehicle Line |
|
Manufacturer |
Share of
2005 Reliability Quick Picks |
Share of
2005 Owner Satisfaction Quick Picks |
Share of
2005 Fuel Economy Quick Picks |
Share of
2005 Overall Quick Picks |
|
|
Vehicle Line |
|
Toyota |
.63 |
.47 |
.46 |
.33 |
|
|
Lexus |
.11 |
.16 |
0.00 |
.14 |
|
|
Toyota |
.53 |
.32 |
.46 |
.19 |
|
Honda |
.21 |
.26 |
.38 |
.33 |
|
|
Acura |
.11 |
.11 |
.08 |
.05 |
|
|
Honda |
.11 |
.16 |
.31 |
.29 |
|
Subaru |
.05 |
.11 |
0.00 |
.14 |
|
Nissan |
0.00 |
.05 |
0.00 |
.14 |
|
|
Infiniti |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
.05 |
|
|
Nissan |
0.00 |
.05 |
0.00 |
.10 |
|
Mazda |
.05 |
.05 |
.15 |
.051 |
|
BMW |
0.00 |
.05 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
Mitsubishi |
.05 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
Ford, Chrysler,
General Motors, and all others |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
1
Mazda's one entry, the Mazda3 i, may have been pulled from Consumer
Reports' Overall Quick Pick List due to a
"Poor" side-impact crash test rating
by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The Insurance
Institute's rating did cause Consumer Reports to pull the Mazda3
from its recommended list. |
|
All shares are rounded to two
significant digits. |
|
CR 2005 Quick Picks are quick pick
models of model year 2005. |
|
Note: A rebadge of a product
engineered by Toyota, but sold by another auto manufacturer, is
omitted from the latter's share. |
|
Source for Consumer Reports' Good
Bets: "Quick Picks," Consumer Reports, April 2005, P. 31 |
|
Shares of Consumer Reports'
2007 Good Bets for Model Years
1997-2006 with Selected 1998-2002 Reliability Percentrank Averages,
by Auto Manufacturer and Motor Vehicle Line |
|
Manufacturer |
Share of CR 2007 Good Bets
with a 1998-2002 Reliability Percentrank Average1 Greater
Than or Equal to .80 |
Share of CR 2007 Good Bets
with a 1998-2002 Reliability Percentrank Average1 Greater
Than or Equal to .85 |
Share of CR 2007 Good Bets
with a 1998-2002 Reliability Percentrank Average1 Greater
Than or Equal to .90 |
Share of CR 2007 Good Bets
with a 1998-2002 Reliability Percentrank Average1 Greater
Than or Equal to .95 |
|
|
Vehicle Line |
|
Toyota |
.54 |
.55 |
.72 |
.83 |
|
|
Lexus |
.16 |
.19 |
.28 |
.50 |
|
|
Toyota |
.38 |
.35 |
.44 |
.33 |
|
Honda |
.27 |
.32 |
.22 |
.17 |
|
|
Acura |
.11 |
.13 |
.06 |
0.00 |
|
|
Honda |
.16 |
.19 |
.17 |
.17 |
|
Subaru |
.03 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
Nissan |
.14 |
.10 |
.06 |
0.00 |
|
|
Infiniti |
.08 |
.10 |
.06 |
0.00 |
|
|
Nissan |
.05 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
Mazda |
.03 |
.03 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
Ford, Chrysler,
General Motors, and all others |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
1
If the vehicle model is too new for a 1998-2002 Reliability Percentrank average to exist, the early 2003 Reliability Percentrank
is used when such exists. |
|
All shares are rounded to two
significant digits. |
|
CR Good Bets are models that have
several
model years between 1997 and 2006 of better-than-average reliability
and have performed well on Consumer Reports' road tests. An auto
Reliability Percentrank is
a measure of relative overall reliability used by Auto on Info. |
|
Note: Two rebadges of products
engineered by Toyota, but sold by another auto manufacturer, are
omitted from the latter's share. |
|
Source for Consumer Reports' Good
Bets: "CR Good Bet: The Best of Both World's,"
Consumer Reports Cars: Used
Car Buying Guide 2006, p.
25 |
|
Source for Reliability
Percentrank averages:
Table I-MVRP |
|
Median Reported
Severity of Engine Knock for Various Classes of GM Vehicles as
of July 12, 2005 |
|
Class |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
|
GM pickup trucks |
|
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
GM sport utility vehicles |
|
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
GM minivans |
|
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
GM passenger cars |
|
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
Value definitions: 0 is not
auditorily offensive; 2 is auditorily offensive; 6 is very
auditorily offensive; 8 is extremely auditorily offensive. |
|
To view more results or to express
your opinion regarding the engine knock in General Motors
Corporation's products, go to Mini-Survey No. 65, "GM's
Piston Slap - Engine Knock." |
|
Table I: Number and Percentage
of Entries in CR's 2006
Much-Worse-Than-Average List, by Manufacturer |
|
Auto Manufacturer |
Number of Entries |
Percent of Entires |
|
General Motors Corporation |
17 |
50.0% |
|
Ford Motor Company |
6* |
17.6% |
|
DaimlerChrysler AG |
4** |
11.8% |
|
Volkswagen AG |
4 |
11.8% |
|
BMW AG |
2 |
5.9% |
|
Kia Motors
Corporation |
1 |
2.9% |
|
All Others |
0 |
0% |
|
*
Two are from Ford's North American group, two are from the
Jaguar division, one is from the Land Rover division, and one is
from the Volvo division. |
|
**
Two are from DaimlerChrysler's North American Chrysler group and
two are from the Mercedes-Benz division. |
|
Source: "CR Bad Bets: Be
Especially Careful," Consumer Reports Cars: Used Car Buying Guide
2006,
p. 26 |
|
Median Value of a New Big Three
Vehicle as Assessed by Mini-Survey Respondents Reporting
Ownership of a Quality Four Product on or before July 8, 2005,
by Manufacturer |
|
Manufacturer |
Big 3 Vehicle Valued at More Than
What Is Currently Asked |
Big 3 Vehicle Valued at What Is
Currently Asked |
Big 3 Vehicle Valued at Only 95%
of What Is Currently Asked |
Big 3 Vehicle Valued at Only 80%
of What Is Currently Asked |
Big 3 Vehicle Valued at Only 50%
of What Is Currently Asked |
Big 3 Vehicle Valued at Nothing |
Big 3 Vehicle Valued at Nothing
Plus Respondent Would Require $20,000+ per Year to Drive It |
Big 3 Vehicle Valued at Nothing
Plus Respondent Would Require $200,000+ per Year to Drive It |
Respondent Unwilling to Own a Big
Three Vehicle under Any Circumstance |
|
Toyota Motor Corporation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
Honda Motor Company |
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
Subaru Division of Fuji Heavy
Industries, Ltd.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
Nissan Motor Company1 |
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
Very few respondents reported owning a product by Nissan or
Subaru. |
|
The Big Three manufacturers are
General Motors Corporation, Ford Motor Company, and the Chrysler
Group of DaimlerChrysler AG. See
Glossary. |
|
To view more results or to express
your assessment of the value of a new Big Three Vehicle, go to
Mini-Survey No. 31, "The
True Value of a Big Three." |
|
Table X |
|
S&P, Fitch,
and Moody's Senior Unsecured Long-Term Debt Ratings
as of September 19, 2006 |
|
|
Ratings |
Automobile Manufacturers |
|
S&P, Fitch Denominations |
Moody's Denominations |
|
Investment Grade Ratings |
|
|
AAA |
|
Toyota Motor Corporation |
|
AA+ |
|
|
|
AA |
|
|
|
AA- |
|
|
|
A+ |
|
Honda Motor Company |
|
A |
|
|
|
A- |
|
|
|
BBB+ |
Baa1 |
|
|
BBB |
Baa2 |
DaimlerChrysler AG |
|
BBB- |
Baa3 |
|
|
Junk Grade
Ratings |
|
|
BB+ |
Ba1 |
|
|
BB |
Ba2 |
|
|
BB- |
Ba3 |
|
|
B+ |
B1 |
Ford Motor Company |
|
B |
B2 |
Ford
Motor Company,
General Motors Corporation |
|
B- |
B3 |
Ford Motor Company,
General Motors Corporation |
|
CCC+ |
Caa1 |
General Motors Corporation |
|
CCC |
Caa2 |
|
|
CCC- |
Caa3 |
Delphi Corporation
(GM's jettisoned aggregation
of parts plants is in Chapter 11 bankruptcy.) |
|
D |
|
|
Moody's Ratings of General Motors Corporation's
Unsecured Long-Term Debt |
|
Investment Grade Ratings |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
