Last post on Mar 29, 2007 at 5:33 AM
You are in the Toyota Tundra
What is this discussion about?
Toyota Tundra, Chevrolet Silverado 1500, Truck
#1096 of 2059 Re: Final Post...Summary [pmusce]
Feb 27, 2007 (8:16 pm)
We will see how strong the Tundra frame is when they hook up a Diesal with 660 lb.-ft of torque and tow 16,000 pounds with it. The GMT900 frame does this today.
Now THAT is a valid point still to be proven.
As to the other point of GM suddenly changing their 50 year old tradition and going to a f-b-f last Sept I ask again why didn't they do it back in 1980? Engineers surely knew back then that fully boxed would be stiffer. Why suddenly did they switch this year?
I don't think this was an engineering Eureka moment. First Ford started it in 2004 so Gm had to wait until the new T900's came out. Ford's been able to beat this drum now for 3 years and frankly I don't think GM wanted to get into a beauty contest with Ford ( the leader at that time ) over the merits of the two types of frames. So GM followed. Case closed. Except suddenly Ford goes into a tailspin and the F150's are shown to be 1990-era trucks with huge massive frames that are becoming lot anchors at dealerships.
But why did Ford go to the f-b-f? This is why...F150 IIHS crash test
Note how the frame collapsed at 40 mph. This was right at the time of the Explorer fiasco too. The IIHS laughed at the F150 and recommeded that no one buy one until Ford made them stronger. In the face of the Exlporer msss they couldn't afford to have the NO 1 Selling Vehicle in the US being a safety catastrophe too.
'Fix it and make it a tank. Then sell the hell out of it's strength.'
Then Toyota has to go throw water on all the festivities. "Look the Emperor has no clothes.'
#1097 of 2059 Re: Final Post...Summary [kdhspyder]
Feb 27, 2007 (8:52 pm)
I can tell you why GM went with a boxed frame. This is from www.autofieldguide.com. Its an article about the GTM900:
'While the GMT-800 shared its frame with both the truck and SUV variants, engineers on the 900 set out to devise a unique frame for the pickups, one that is more robust and refined. The move wasn’t without some controversy and challenge, as the decision to devise a separate frame wasn’t approved until June 2004. There was an enormous amount of study of the investment needed, not to mention the fact that engineers were ordered to make the changes without adding any mass to the vehicle. The rear section of the truck frame—measuring 42 mm higher than the on the GMT-800—features a fully boxed construction, which improves torsional stiffness by 234% and vertical bending stiffness by 64%.'
And here are all the awards the Silverado had won so far:
2007 Car and Driver 5Best Trucks Award
Here’s just a little of what the March 2007 edition of Car and Driver had to say:
"Put it all together, and pickups don't get any better than the Silverado in 2007." "The small block V8, now in its second half-century of delivering usable power, provides a strong combination of performance, fuel economy, and refinement."
2007 North American Truck of the Year
Here's just a little of what the panel had to say:
"Chevrolet Silverado delivers significant leaps forward in interior design, craftsmanship and materials quality; ride and handling; NVH attenuation; and powertrain efficiency...In every Silverado I tested, I was knocked out by the classiness and high assembly quality of this truck’s interior." Lindsay Brooke
Automotive Engineering International "Chevrolet Silverado - The best full-size truck on the market..." Michelle Krebs
Freelance "Chevrolet Silverado has spared no effort in creating category standards for interior decor and exterior fit and finish. That this huge truck offers such a quality experience deserves high praise." Matthew Nauman
San Jose Mercury News
Kelley Blue Book"s kbb.com "2007 Best Redesigned Vehicle"
Here's just a little of what kbb.com had to say:
"The Silverado impresses immediately with clean, contemporary exterior styling and two equally smart-looking passenger cabin options" "Where the 2007 Silverado solidifies its case for Best Redesigned Vehicle, however, is on the road and the trail. Notably improved steering, braking, ride comfort, handling and power delivery combine in a vehicle that’s infinitely more satisfying in town and on the highway. Combined with the segment’s highest available (Crew Cab) towing capacity and...best available fuel economy, we think Chevy’s newest pickup is poised to make quite an impact in this era of tougher and more luxurious trucks."
2007 Truckin' Magazine's Truck of the Year
Here's just a little of what Truckin' had to say:
"We might be making a relative judgment here. But in our opinion, the Silverado stands at the top of the heap." "...Silverado offers the widest range of capabilities on the freshest platform that exhibits the best-looking design for reasonable prices."
Road & Travel Magazine's 2007 International Car of the Year Awards - Truck of the Year
Here's just a little of what Road & Travel had to say:
"...RTM editors made an obvious choice by announcing Chevrolet's full-size, next generation Silverado as winner. There's no confusing this pure pickup with anything of another genre. Looks alone — with hunky frame, broad chrome face and wideset, double layer headlamps plus pleasantly cushy interior — would be enough to set it above the pack." "When everything new is combined, what's the result? A well thought out, redesigned Silverado, with shoulders broad enough to accommodate its mile-wide smile. Now that's domination."
Road & Travel Magazine's 2007 International Car of the Year Awards - Pickup Truck of the Year - Most Athletic
Here's just a little of what Road & Travel had to say:
"...Silverado Z71... It’s the model designed for true wilderness driving with special suspension requirements."
2007 Detroit Free Press Truck of the Year
Here's just a little of what the Detroit Free Press had to say:
"General Motors has been promising the world for years. This year, it delivered." "Reasonably priced and offering useful and advanced technology, comfort, value and fuel economy..."
Popular Mechanics Automotive Excellence Awards - Workhorse
Here's just a little of what Popular Mechanics had to say:
"When you're behind the wheel of a real pickup like one of the GMs, it's easy to think that you can haul just about anything. Too bad one of these big boys won't fit in my garage." "...the Chevy Silverado (is) all new from (its) fully boxed frame up. The light-duty model offer a long menu of engine choices, including a 4.3-liter V6 and a 6.0-liter V8 with active fuel management for improved economy."
#1098 of 2059 Re: Final Post...Summary [pmusce]
Feb 27, 2007 (9:09 pm)
'While the GMT-800 shared its frame with both the truck and SUV variants, engineers on the 900 set out to devise a unique frame for the pickups, one that is more robust and refined. The move wasn’t without some controversy and challenge, as the decision to devise a separate frame wasn’t approved until June 2004. There was an enormous amount of study of the investment needed, not to mention the fact that engineers were ordered to make the changes without adding any mass to the vehicle. The rear section of the truck frame—measuring 42 mm higher than the on the GMT-800—features a fully boxed construction, which improves torsional stiffness by 234% and vertical bending stiffness by 64%.
It is definitely stronger and I'm certain that a lot of engineering went into it. But note the highlighted text. it goes exactly to what I was proposing...'..that engineers were ordered to make the changes without adding mass to the vehicle..' Nicely done by GM engineers. Who ordered them and why the controversy?
It sounds like a normal Marketing/engineering/accounting clash.
M: We gotta have this f-b-f because the F150 has it and we'll look weak in comparison.
E: We can do anything but it's going to add weight, add cost, make fuel economy go down and reduce payloads.
A: You cannot add cost,
Management: You cannot reduce fuel economy ( CAFE ).
M: No Way, we can't go lower than the F150 in Fuel Economy.
Management to E: Solve the problem.
Nice accolades on the Silverado.
Feb 27, 2007 (9:17 pm)
I went to the local Toyota dealer this weekend and test drove the 5.7 Tundra. As the sales drone and I were walking out to the truck I noticed a some ford and chevys and asked if they were taking trades from the competition?
He replied: "We bought those new so you could do a comparison test here. Which one you want to drive first?"
Now that takes BRASS!!!
#1100 of 2059 Re: Test Drive [rubendog]
Feb 27, 2007 (9:39 pm)
Yes I read in a Dallas paper that a store there bought several Silvy's and F150's but also had the techs disassemble a GM, a F and a T in the showroom so that people could look at the guts inside.
#1101 of 2059 Re: Final Post...Summary [kdhspyder]
Feb 28, 2007 (4:20 am)
Beefing up a frame and adding mass is the easy way out. There was nothing in the article about adding cost. Having a seperate frame for the pickups is more costly. So what do you suppose the Engineers were supposed to be told to do. Build a better frame and don't worry about weight and fuel economy? You have no clue how auto companies work if you think marketing runs auto companies. Do you think Toyota designed their frame without parameters or weight, cost and fuel economy goals?
#1102 of 2059 Middle Finish
Feb 28, 2007 (4:38 am)
Again, I think this goes to my comments earlier, the logic used here by people supporting the Silverado is completely flawed. The point of something being "better" is that it ACTUALLY does better. If I can produce a 3.2L engine that creates 500hp and 750 lbs of torque and is more solidly built then an engine twice as large, nobody is going to convince me that the "larger" engine is better simply because it takes up more space.
We've gone over a 1000 posts here and I have yet not read any actual physical performance or capability numbers that the Silverado beats the Tundra on save one or two configurations. About the only thing that is legitimate is that base configurations are cheaper; but they also lack a lot of the equipment that comes standard with the Tundra.
I think that what is happening is that, like cars, people have bought Silverados, Sierras, F150s, and RAM 1500s because up until a few years ago there was really no practical choice for a full-size truck. These are people that have had generations buy from the same dealer and just LOOKING at something else is a sin unto itself. The result? GM, Ford, and Dodge simply settled into their niche markets and have been content to do small incremental changes to each vehicle to outdo the next, but knowing nonetheless that in the end it wouldn't affect sales much.
Look at the history of those trucks... Ford has been #1 forever, Chevy #2, GMC #3 (sometimes #2 and #3 would swap, but rarely), and Dodge #4. Thirty years people.
jreagan is right when there is a "history" here with GM. But unfortunately convincing him that the Tundra is a better overall truck then the Silverado is next to impossible. He is loyal to GM and furthermore he has a Sierra, so there is no reason for him to think otherwise. And constantly posting numbers that exceed the Silverados does nothing except relegate the posts to "intangible" or subjective benefits such as the interior or frame talk. Fact is on all other relevant specifications the Tundra rules. When it comes to safety Toyota has proven itself over and over again. The Tundra leads in power, speed, capability, and even rear-seat room and interior features and amenities.
But by the logic that some posters are displaying here, they're saying that this needs to be a full-size and "real" truck. So, the Tundra does better then the Silverado on almost every aspect of what a truck is and the argument goes that towing, payload, power, acceleration, braking, safety, handling, etc. are not important (you see because the Tundra is better at this), but hey... we have a FBF all the way through or those things can be trumped by the Silverado 1 ton. Well "d'uh", we're not comparing 1 ton trucks. And to those that somehow think that a FBF frame is even needed for those, most 3/4 and 1 ton trucks never had them and some still don't have them today. They did well in the past, nothing wrong with that. FBF ads "vertical" strength and rigidity.
Nobody is saying that the Silverado is a bad truck. It is an excellent truck, but if you're going to claim "best" you have to be #1, you can't be middle of the pack. That means that all the things that people equate with being a truck and helping them do the things that they need in a truck are important. The Tundra has way more #1s in its column than the Silverado, no question. In areas that are subjective or provide some undetectable benefit, one can come to their own conclusions. Heck, I can argue that there is no grab bar on the driver's side of the Silverado and what the heck kind of truck is that? Dumb argument to make for sure, but I still bet that you would notice that a lot more on a daily basis then whether you had a FBF in your truck...
#1103 of 2059 Re: Final Post...Summary [pmusce]
Feb 28, 2007 (4:44 am)
I hate to disagree with you here pmusce, but though marketing does not "run" engineering, they have about as much say in the vehicle that engineers do, they just don't have the technical design knowledge to produce it. But if you don't think that marketing puts restrictions on vehicles or determines how certain areas of a vehicle is to be built, then you're living in wonderland. If engineers were the sole deciders in building vehicles, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now... we'd be driving vehicles that are a lot better and a lot more expensive then what we have now. Marketing makes many of the requirements for a vehicle; engineering provides several implementations of the specifications to meet them and ultimately the two department heads and management decide on what to do and make adjustments here and there. That is a VERY simplified view, but just because marketing asks for something doesn't mean it won't be done. In most cases, if it can be done, it WILL be done, but there are often dozens of different ways to do it. Aside from physical safety, and design decisions, engineering has little leeway in determining the ultimate fate of a design.
#1104 of 2059 Re: Final Post...Summary [pmusce]
Feb 28, 2007 (4:49 am)
I'm not saying that GM is required to do this in one year (though they could). What I'm saying is that they KNEW about their need a lot earlier -- its not like this was a last second decision. There is no incentive to kill themselves to rapidly produce a 6-speed transmission when they can get a price premium by offering it in more expensive vehicles first and then bring it down the lines. Most companies do this with their luxury brands... no biggie! It was a marketing/management decision. Not many people take well to the idea of a cheaper vehicle from the same manufacturer having more in it then their luxury brand...
#1105 of 2059 Re: Just read the review of the Tundra by C&D [jreagan]
Feb 28, 2007 (5:12 am)
Not sure how this particular post got going, but you are correct; GM sells way more trucks than Toyota. I think that what kdhspyder was saying was that on a per dealership basis, Toyota outsells GM and he is right on that count. There are many more GM dealerships then Toyota dealerships. As a result they can sell their vehicles for less based on the volume the dealership moves. GMs advantage in volume is at the plant. At the dealership, there isn't as much room to maneuver because there is more of a propensity to competing with other GM dealers then in Toyota dealership's case. That is why there are more factory incentives from GM, they get their economies of scale from manufacturing, but the dealership itself has to consider how many vehicles they can sell that month and determine their cut. If they sell 1/2 as much per dealership as a Toyota dealership, then theoretically (all things being equal) they'll need to make twice as much per vehicle then Toyota.
But again, its theory and you're right on this one... GM gives bigger discounts. But I would disagree with you on the "afford" aspect of it. If GM could really continue to "afford" to do this, they wouldn't have lost more than $10B last year. I think the situation was more that they had to do it to get vehicles off the lots because it prevented them from a much greater loss. Unfortunately Toyota can afford to discount significantly, but they won't do it. The only benefit is that large Toyota dealerships can (individual results will vary) discount more at the dealership if they really wanted to, they just don't do it. Their inventory management systems are much more controlled. So, realistically, none of us is going to get any kind of great deal from them. That is why I asked if you think that I could get a decent deal on the Denali. The reason being is that typically higher-end vehicles come with little in incentives (since their attitude is that if you can afford to buy it, you shouldn't have to try to get a discount).
Getting a great deal on ANY vehicle is fantastic and I commend you on the great deal that you got! I believe that the only reason for anyone to ever worry about depreciation is if you won't keep the vehicle for more than 3 years. With few exceptions, that is unheard of in the truck buyer's market -- virtually everyone I know drives their trucks a lot longer then their cars and certainly even 10 years is hardly anything.
So, let me know what kind of discount you think I can expect on a Denali. I doubt it will be as good as on the Silverado, but I'm a little concerned because a loaded Denali is looking like it may be closer to, if not cross the $50K threshold...