Last post on Dec 05, 1999 at 10:51 PM
You are in the Pickups - Archived Discussions
Nov 24, 1999 (1:54 pm)
Pyrodex- I wouldn't want you to have a dodge. You wouln't enjoy it. You're just a little too hung up on the toyota nameplate.
606zpx- Exellent post! Finally someone who bought a toyota because it fits his needs instead of toyota being the best thing since sliced bread. I happen to like toyota in general and wasn't so much disappointed in thier tundra as I was in the fact that It didn't fit my needs well enough to consider.
teagan- My grandfather thought that was old. You can do better. Or maybe that's your best,after all you did buy toyota.
I took my 7,000# boat, loaded the back of the truck completely full, and and took my wife and two teenage kids in back on a 1,000 mile vaction this past summer. There is no way I could have completed this trip in the tundra. Different uses require different vehicles. If I had to tow a fifth wheel I couln't consider what I drive now.
#426 of 474 And that essentially is the point
Nov 24, 1999 (3:42 pm)
Different trucks, different uses. Tundra has an image problem in some minds. Toyota, and most Tundra owners say it is full size. Most others say it is more like the Dakota. In truth it is somewhere between the two.
The problem is one of image, and is of Toyota's making. They produced a full size truck that was 7/8 of full size. Now this is a niche in the market I am sure - 606zpx is a case in point. The problem that the Tundra will always have is that it is going to come up short as a full size workhorse truck. For this reason it will never be a mainstay of the construction sites etc.
Lets face it we hear a lot about Tundra quality because that is the most easily perceived advantage over domestics. The Tundra doesn't measure up (literally or figuratively) in many other categories. That is not a problem, it was the way it was designed. What annoys people here (myself included) is when people won't acknowledge that simple fact.
#427 of 474 Andy & jcmdie
Nov 24, 1999 (4:15 pm)
Not ONE pro-Tundra person has ever said the Tundra is as big as a Silverado, F150, or a Ram. We have never said the Tundra's backseat is not smaller, too. We simply like the marvelous engine, refinement, quality build, and Toyota reliabilty. I don't understand what your problem is? I assume you feel the F150, Slverado, and Ram are "full-size" trucks. They are not all equal in size, however. Where, EXACTLY, does full-size begin? I have not found the official "full-size" specs listed anywhere. I am not the first poster to request this info...it's just that there has never been an answer. Your help will be appreciated.
The Tundra fits my needs just fine.
#428 of 474 Them full sizer specs here:
Nov 24, 1999 (4:31 pm)
Here them specs folks be askin on:
Wheelbase Length Width
Chevy : 143 227 79
Ford : 138 224 79
Dodge : 138 224 79
Tindra: 128 217 73
difference -15 -10 -6
Use your eyes on this one now. Them tindras not the full sizer, its plain for all to see. Good luck on this one now!
Nov 24, 1999 (4:47 pm)
But Andy, your Dodge won't measure up to a 3/4 Ton diesel at a construction site or down on the farm either. The manufacturers know that most 1/2t trucks built today are being used for personal transportation - not a work truck. Comfort, safety, convenience are more important than pure guts. I get a kick out of Chevy's new commercial for the Silverado showing it hauling a Hereford bull out to the herd. It'll do it, but probably not for years without problems, and not as good as 3/4t's (or my personal favorite of a Allis-Chalmers and cattle trailer). We are so lucky to have 4 good trucks to pick from. The competition will make them all better over the next few years. Happy Trails!
Nov 24, 1999 (4:55 pm)
pyrodex - I didn't say that you were claiming Tundra to be physically as large as any of the big three - nor did I suggest that you personally were saying anything. I said that Toyota and a good many Tundra owners (I mentioned NO names) were claiming Tundra to be in the category of trucks known as 'full size'.
rs petty - I am sorry I think I must be missing your point - 1/2 ton won't comparre with 3/4 - well no of course it won't. I think you are trying to suggest that most trucks at construction sites etc are larger than 1/2 ton - I don't disagree. My point was that of the smaller trucks you do see there virtually all will be F150, Ram 1500 or Sierra / Silverado 1500.
#431 of 474 Have you seen the one...
Nov 24, 1999 (5:00 pm)
Starts out with a game of poker. A guy throws in some chips, 2nd guy looks at his hand, then throws a warranty deed on the pile to call the bet.
Next scene, Silverado towing away a house. Moral, a full house always beats three of a kind. Bob Seger strikes the chord, Silverado...The Truck.
Nov 24, 1999 (5:37 pm)
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that most people consider a 1/2 ton and above to be a full size truck. Are the tow ratings, GVWR, and GCWR of the Tundra similar to the Big 3? My guess is that it is close in all of those categories, which means that it belongs in the full-size class.
As far as the actual size of the truck, consumers will likely weigh those possible disadvantages against what is likely better handling (smaller wheel base equals easier turning ability). For me personally, I would rather have the larger cab size, but I'm very comfortable driving big pickups as every day drivers in heavy traffic.
It seems a little unfair to question the Tundras reliability and durability based it not having been around long enough and then in the same breath fault them for not having many trucks showing up at the construction sites or in the fleets. It seems to me that most fleet trucks are 3/4 and 1 ton trucks. The 1/2 tons get worked, but not as hard and there aren't as many of them on the site. If the Tundra proves it's durability and reliability over time, and Toyota offers fleets a comparable price, I'm sure you'll see more of them showing up at construction sites in the future.
Personally, I welcome Toyota to the full size pickup market. I hope the durability and reliability does prove to carry over to the pickups. I really hope that Toyota gets enough confidence with this foray into the 1/2 ton market to move into the 3/4 and 1 ton market. When there is more high quality competition, we benefit by getting better trucks from all of the manufacturers at better prices. The best thing that happened for pickup owners in the last 10 years or so was Dodge stepping it up several notches in the quality and design area, which forced Ford and GM to step it up. Look at how many changes have happened in the pickup market since Dodge introduced the new Ram.
#433 of 474 Hey Rublue..I mean Trucks4me
Nov 24, 1999 (5:50 pm)
I know you're a Chevy guy but do your specs mean the Ford and Dodge are not full-size because they are smaller than the Chevy? Does the F350 crew cab dually make your Silverado a mid-size truck? Please explain EXACTLY what dimensions/specs mark the beginning of the full-size truck market and why. Thanks.
Please answer the same question. I am awaiting your response. Thanks.
#434 of 474 This is getting painful
Nov 24, 1999 (6:47 pm)
pyrodex - grow up or shut up. You know as well as I do that there is no definition. As Brutus notes full size is usually considered to be 1/2 ton or above. Trucks4me, or whatever his name is this week provided measurements. The big 3 are SIMILAR, the Tundra is noticeably smaller. You knw it, I know it, everyone knows it.
Brutus, you make a good point concerning newness of Tundra for construction sites, time will tell I guess.
I wasn't knocking Tundra reliability, in fact my point was the same as yours - reliability must be proved over time. Unfortunately that is something that many Tundra owners refuse to accept saying that the Tundra must be reliable because all Toyotas are reliable. My point, maybe they are, but we don't know yet. This logic applies in any case. I jumped in a little while ago when someone attacked the Tundra collision ratings. I pointed out that they weren't yet available so wait and see. If I had followed the 'all Toyotas are reliable' logic my point would have been Tundras kill people in side impacts because Tacomas do. Anyway, I digress.
In terms of where Tundra fits in to the 'full size' picture - Brutus your definition is as good as any. A maxxed out Tundra - the ones with the 7000lb towing capacity and the V8 compares with the V8s in the big 3 1/2 tons (in fact the numbers maybe somewhat better). The problem is that is where Tundra ends - it compares with a low to medium equipped 1/2 ton. As noted and accepted, the Tundra is also noticeably smaller in terms of dimensions.
I guess a comparison would be between Ranger and Dakota. A well equipped Ranger can compete with a low to medium equipped Dakota, but that is as far as it goes. Dakota can do more. Would many people put Ranger and Dakota in the same category - no they serve different market sectors.