Ask the Car People.SM


Toyota Tundra vs. Chevrolet Silverado - READ ONLY

2059 messages,  Last post on Mar 29, 2007 at 6:33 AM

You are in the Toyota Tundra Forum.

What is this discussion about? Toyota Tundra, Chevrolet Silverado 1500, Truck

Messages Page 141 of 207

#1398 of 2059 Re: love this forum [toykicks] by pmusce

Mar 06, 2007 (5:23 am)

Replying to: toykicks (Mar 06, 2007 12:14 am)
"But the Tundra is my favorite 1/2 ton since the old gen gave a wake up call to the Big 3 back in 2000. a lot of People hate it because They believe it will bring down GM,Ford and chrysler financially But toyota isn't aiming at a big market"
 
Sorry, this statement is completely false. First of all, the last gen Tundra did not give anyone a wake up call. It was un-competative as a full size truck from day 1. Secondly, if you think Toyota would not love to dominate this market, you are wrong. They didn't invest the dollars they did into their plant and the Tundra to get a small share of the market. The problem is this market is not going to be easy for them to crack and they know it.
 
"Domestics still employ a bit more here then import companies but not by a lot and honda, toyota, nissan are building new plants this year and in the near future. Like i said buy what you like."
 
A bit more? You are way off on your facts. Here is how many vehicles GM/Ford/DCX produced in the US compared to Toyota/Honda/Nissan:
 
GM/Ford/DCX: 7,162,909
Toyota/Honda/Nissan: 2,549,482
 
Here is how many cars were sold in the US in 2006 that were imported:
 
GM/Ford/DCX: 472,499
Toyota/Honda/Nissan: 1,741,725
 
The bulk of the GM/Ford/DCX numbers are Mercedes/Volvo/Land Rover/Saab sales, which are also non-domestic.
 
Source: Automotive News
 
If you want to write about the virtue's of Toyota/Honda/Nissan cars or trucks thats fine. They do assemble vehicles in the US and employ people in the US. They do not create jobs. The net affect of their sales rising has meant greater job losses at the big three than jobs created by them and more vehicles imported from Japan (import sales rose in 2006 from 2005) which means more jobs for Japan. These are indisputable facts.

#1399 of 2059 Re: Something else I noticed.... [jreagan] by rorr

Mar 06, 2007 (7:35 am)

Replying to: jreagan (Mar 05, 2007 5:48 pm)
"You are 100% correct. GM's is MUCH better. Toyota's looks worthless, may as well just put the stuff on the seats."
 
In each of these trucks, the space behind the front seats can be used for TWO main purposes: carrying additional passengers or carrying additional cargo.
 
You guys are only considering the cargo standpoint - and you're only considering it based on a bunch of PHOTOS (kinda like examining engine specs and curb weights to try and figure out which vehicle would be more powerful.....).
 
What about those folks who buy Crewcab trucks to haul....gee, I dunno...EXTRA PASSENGERS? The Tundra CrewMax STARTS OUT with nearly 6" more rear seat legroom than the GM Crewcabs. Somehow, this is completely unimportant to you guys (even you TALL guys). Yet the ability to carry an icechest, in the cab, on the floor is of PRIME SUPERDUPER A-No.1 IMPORTANCE!!!!!
 
Get a grip guys.
 
"I don't understand that concept at all. Nothing like I pictured it."
 
How did you picture it? I described it at LEAST twice as the rear seatbacks folding down onto the seat bottoms. And that's EXACTLY what the photos show. What in the heck were you picturing?
 
Is there some pathological need to refuse to admit that the Tundra does ANYTHING better than the Silverado? For each and every difference between these trucks, your claim is the Silverado is better and the Toyota method is "worthless".
 
Let's try a different feature: on the Tundra CrewMax, the ENTIRE back glass (with defroster) power slides DOWN into the back wall of the cab, rather than just the middle portion of the back window sliding to one side or the other.
 
I can't wait to see how you guys spin the Chevy method as being better....

#1400 of 2059 Re: Something else I noticed.... [rorr] by jreagan

Mar 06, 2007 (8:12 am)

Replying to: rorr (Mar 06, 2007 7:35 am)
First of all, I am 6' tall and sat in the backseat of the GM, and I had plenty of room. NO need for any more at all. I was very comfortable and the seatbacks have a nice angle to them already.
 
The reclining feature is a joke because all of that "extra" legroom you just bragged about is GONE when you slide the seats forward. I am betting they put that extra room back there JUST to accomodate the reclining feature, Not because it's needed in the normal seating position. Unfortunately, 6" of extra legroom isn't enough when you recline the seats and bring the seat bottom forward at least 6 inches and while reclined, you tend to want to stretch out your legs even more. Ever try sitting in a reclined position with minimal legroom? Kinda like in coach in an airplane? Not very comfortable if you ask me. That 6" would have been much better utilized in the bed.
 
Cargo space is much more efficient in the GM. The stuff sits on the floor, which BTW has NO exposed seat brackets to get in the way and allows heavier stuff to sit on a solid floor and not folded down seatbacks. The photos pmusce posted show this as plain as day. Even my 2000 ext cab had seats that folded up this way and the cargo space in that truck was better than the Tundra's silly configuration. I am betting that Tundra would have had them fold up if not for the reclining feature, so they sacrificed cargo carrying convenience for a stupid recliner option that will suck alot of people in, but in reality is not a very comfortable position to be seated in. Have I sat in the back of a Tundra? No, but I have sat in many front reclining seats and I find them uncomfotable for any length of time, especially if I cannot stretch my legs. it's simply a marketing gimmick, kinda like rain sensing wipers are.
 
Now for the personal, subjective part...I get a longer box. So, for me, the GM is better for that reason alone. Plus, I never plan to ride back there and the only ones who will are my 2 (small) daughters.
 
I could care less about the rear window. I opted for a non-opening one anyway. Unless you have a topper and need to access the bed area while driving, why would you want to open the rear window? Makes no sense, buy an Avalanche if you want the back wide open. And with a topper, the window access in the topper is no bigger then the one in the GM, so, what's the advantage here?
 
Oh, since you brought up the topic of windows opening. How does the Tundra's sunroof open? The GM's (in the crewcabs anyway) open INTO the roof, not above it. Very nice feature, less wind resistance and wind noise.
Also, on the ext cabs, the rear passenger windows are not "wing" windows anymore, they actually roll down into the door like the front ones do. Not sure about the Tundra, they may too, do you know? Wing style windows are stupid and worthless and I hated them in my old truck. Very nice improvement IMO.
 
I guess if I felt the need to have the rear window open, the Tundra's design might be a little better because I do not like rear sliding windows, but for the life of me, I cannot think of a good reason for this? No matter what kind of rear window is available, I would ALWAYS opt for the fixed one.

#1401 of 2059 Re: love this forum [pmusce] by kdhspyder

Mar 06, 2007 (8:46 am)

Replying to: pmusce (Mar 06, 2007 5:23 am)
If you want to write about the virtue's of Toyota/Honda/Nissan cars or trucks thats fine. They do assemble vehicles in the US and employ people in the US. They do not create jobs. The net affect of their sales rising has meant greater job losses at the big three than jobs created by them and more vehicles imported from Japan (import sales rose in 2006 from 2005) which means more jobs for Japan. These are indisputable facts.
 
These 'lost jobs' were going to go in any event. If it wasn't competition from Asian transplants it would have been from European transplants. The managments of the Big 3 gave away the small car market and most of the midsized car market because they had no interest in it. I'm certain that except for productivity advances the employment in the SUV and truck segments are much higher now than in 1985.
 
Job losses due to internal productivity advances can't be laid at the feet of the transplants. Job losses in the small/medium segment might...except that the detroiters didn't want those anyway. Those jobs were sacrificed to keep the Big Rigs healthy.
 
Consider the Ford Ranger plant in St Paul. There is a world class Ranger being produced by Ford. They just decided that it doesn't belong in the US. The jobs at the St Paul plant appear to be on the chopping block but the world class Ranger being sold in SE Asia could have been put there.

#1402 of 2059 Re: Something else I noticed.... [jreagan] by jreagan

Mar 06, 2007 (8:50 am)

Replying to: jreagan (Mar 06, 2007 8:12 am)
PS: I will be going to the Mpls Auto Show this weekend and I will sit in both the Tundra and the GM. IF the Tundra's rear seat are more comfortable, reclined or not, I will humbly admit it. Then the Tundra can be considered better for large adult rear seat comfort. If they are only equally as comfortable or less comfortable than the GM's, then I will conclude the GM is superior due to a better cargo carrying configuration. Fair enough?

#1403 of 2059 Re: love this forum [kdhspyder] by jreagan

Mar 06, 2007 (8:53 am)

Replying to: kdhspyder (Mar 06, 2007 8:46 am)
Oh yay, Spyder's back!!! Such a WEALTH of BS...ooops, I mean "knowledge".

#1404 of 2059 Re: Something else I noticed.... [jreagan] by rorr

Mar 06, 2007 (9:02 am)

Replying to: jreagan (Mar 06, 2007 8:12 am)
"First of all, I am 6' tall and sat in the backseat of the GM, and I had plenty of room. NO need for any more at all. I was very comfortable and the seatbacks have a nice angle to them already."
 
Fair enough.
 
With the Tundra CrewMax, one could slide the seat forward to EXACTLY MATCH the Chevy, AND have space behind the seat for storage.
 
Or, with kids (you've got kids, right?) where rear legroom isn't as important, one could slide the rear seat EVEN FURTHER FORWARD, making LOTS of room behind the rear seat for storage.
 
Imagine that; hauling passengers in the rear AND having room for some duffle bags, briefcases etc. Or, with the Chevy, all that stuff would go under their feet.
 
Face it, the Tundra CrewMax offers an additional 6" in the rear of the cab; and with sliding seats the owner has OPTIONS about how that space is utilized. Want to recline the seat a bit? Fine. Want to move the seat all the way back to stretch out? Fine. Want to move the seat forward for storage while hauling folks? Fine.
 
With the Chevy, it's fixed: either haul passengers (with a fixed amount of legroom/fixed backrest angle) OR haul cargo with the seat cushion up. Yet, somehow the Toyota method is a joke?

#1405 of 2059 Re: Something else I noticed.... [rorr] by jreagan

Mar 06, 2007 (9:27 am)

Replying to: rorr (Mar 06, 2007 9:02 am)
Imagine that; hauling passengers in the rear AND having room for some duffle bags, briefcases etc. Or, with the Chevy, all that stuff would go under their feet.
 
Wrong again. There is plenty of room UNDER the seat for these things you mention. I know, I have an ext cab now and when we travel, I put LOTS of stuff under the rear seat. ie: sleeping bags, pillows, backpacks (for the kids' in-car items) etc, etc.
And that's with the smaller ext cab!!!
 
Face it, the Tundra's rear seat area is focused on passengers only, the cargo configuration is not as good as the GM's. And they sacrifice bed length to get this so-called 6" advantage. Not worth it to me.
 
GM: Rear seat comfort that is BETTER than a full size sedan (which do not have reclining back seats BTW). Better cargo carrying convenience/configuration AND a longer bed. I know which I prefer.

#1406 of 2059 Where is Spyder and Belias? by jreagan

Mar 06, 2007 (9:35 am)

At least they gave me a challenge here...Albeit not much of one.

#1407 of 2059 amazing....simply amazing.... by rorr

Mar 06, 2007 (10:05 am)

Somehow, nearly 6" more rear legroom and a seat which can be adjusted is somehow inferior to less legroom and a seat that is non-adjustable. Let's try a few facts please:
 
Tundra CrewMax rear seat legroom: 44.5"
Silverado Crewcab rear legroom: 38.7"
 
Advatage: Tundra (by 5.8"; nothing 'so called' about it).
 
Tundra CrewMax bedlength: 66.7"
Silverado Crewcab bedlength: 69.3"
 
Advantage: Silverado (by 2.6")
 
Tundra CrewMax oveall length: 228.7"
Silverado overall length: 229.9"
 
Advantage: Tundra (by 1.2")
 
So, you wouldn't sacrifice 2.6" of bed length to gain 5.8" of rear legroom (which can be adjusted to provide more STORAGE if desired). With your seeming priority on putting cargo inside the cab, why the fascination over 2.6" more bed length?
 
Rear seat comfort in your Chevy truck is better than a full-size sedan? Maybe you need to look beyond Chevy sedans......

Messages Page 141 of 207

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement