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
#1860 of 2059 Re: GM fans rejoice! [drfill]
Mar 20, 2007 (3:20 am)
"Can I yawn any louder?
What happens when Tundra aces the IIHS test, a much harder test?
The only people who get hurt in a full-size truck are the ones who don't wear seat belts. Natural Selection.
It's not like they built the thing with gas tanks outside the frame rails or something.....
If Toyota has the same attitude as you they will never lead or make significant headway the full size truck market. This market is very tough. I guarantee the 2009 Ram and F150 will erase the power and towing advantage the Tundra has over them. You can ignore weaknesses the Tundra has all you want but Toyota needs to address them or risk being the fringe player they have been in this market for the last 13+ years. I know what GM has planned over the next couple of year for the GMT900's and I can tell you they are certainly not sitting still. GM knows that despite how much improved the new Tundra is, they are preparing for the new Ram and F150.
#1861 of 2059 Re: Toyota comes up short [pmusce]
Mar 20, 2007 (3:28 am)
I have not seen anything from Toyota talking about whether or not plans for HD versions of the Tundra are on hold or stopped altogether. My guess is that unless there is some major problem with development or a supplier, I can't see any kind of decisions coming through the pipeline this early on. Toyota hasn't had the chance to get much feedback on the new Tundra and the larger question is at what point will that affect development of the HD versions of their trucks.
My guess is that this is merely a rumor or speculation that is not based on anything coming from Toyota directly. I think it would be too early to have a decision like this made. They are not in any financial difficulty, they haven't had the chance to get much feedback on the current Tundra, and they've expressed their desire to enter and be a contender in the full-size truck market with larger, heavier-duty trucks. That seems like, if anything, they are just moving ahead quietly like with many other projects. I think it was mentioned earlier that 2010 was a target date for the larger trucks. Frankly I would be surprised to see that... more likely 2012 or so as they need to ramp up manufacturing capability and they have to do it without it being at the expense of production of other vehicles...
In any case, it is a long way off... news on this likely won't be significant or important for at least the next year or two.
#1862 of 2059 Re: GM fans rejoice! [pmusce]
Mar 20, 2007 (3:37 am)
I can certainly agree with most of your post here. Certainly the next F150 and Ram will be taking the lead in power and other areas for bragging rights. The real question for them is whether they can do it while keeping costs down. Unfortunately, both Ford and Dodge do not have the luxury of a balance sheet like GM, much less Toyota. The problem with the "1-upsmanship" game for both Ford and Dodge is that it doesn't work to their advantage in the long term. It means expensive R&D, development, and manufacturing to get the product to market.
The main difference I see between them and GM/Toyota is that while GM/Toyota will actually sell the majority of their trucks (in particular the Toyotas) with their "best" engine, Ford and Dodge will probably only keep those as limited-production models because they would be pricing themselves out of the market otherwise.
GM has a number of powertrains that can be used, so their vast selection just provides more options, but they produce in big numbers. Toyota will sell the majority of their trucks with the 5.7l engine. Ford and Dodge will probably introduce new engines at the higher end and probably enhance current engines to be the "mainstream" product for getting sales numbers. But it will be tough for both of them going forward.
#1863 of 2059 Re: GM fans rejoice! [pmusce]
Mar 20, 2007 (7:46 am)
Toyota's attitude is a winning attitude, but they have a business plan where they can be far more patient that other makers.
I wouldn't consider a 4-star test a "weakness", any more than you would consider 10k towing in a Silverado a "weakness". It's a small victory for the domestics, but the IIHS is a tougher test, and I will wait for the other shoe to drop before making any conclusions.
Crash tests are the last thing full-size buyers look at. If you get hurt in a crash in one of these things, you are the problem, probably not wearing your belt.
I'm confident the Ram will offer some modified 6.1 Hemi with 400HP. Ford will have to raise their game.
I've seen tests where the Tundra beats Ram and F-150 by 2 seconds, 0-60. That's HUGE, especially on a test drive! They must feel like glaciers in comparison.
Toyota's job, over the next 18 months, is to create enough buzz to get domestic buyers in to at least try the truck. Toyota needs to get to 200k by the end of next year.
Even when Ford, GM, and Dodge bring more power, do you think they can be that much quicker than 6.0 to 60 MPH? It's hard just to get that much power down for a empty truck! The Tundra powertrain will be competitive, even 3-4 years from now, it is that good.
Toyota has other cards up their sleeve. It's not over. Not by a long shot.
#1864 of 2059 Re: crash test results [1offroader]
Mar 20, 2007 (8:20 am)
kdh you seem to be very selective in your choice of numbers. In my previous post I used the WORST case for each vehicle - 10% vs. 20% risk of injury - in order to be conservative. However, for some reason you chose 10% vs. 11% - the WORST case for the GM vs. the BEST case for the Tundra. Now, why would you do that??? Let me guess...perhaps to put the WORST spin on the Silverado vs. the BEST possible spin on the Tundra? If that makes you feel better about the test results, well, golly, who are we to argue with your innermost need to do that?
We both see the relative weakness of such a % comparison. I did intentionally choose the best case scenario of the 5 star vs 4 star ratings becauase you on the other hand chose the worst case scenario. Absent any other criteria and specificity both could be accurate....or anything in between.
But we are not in disagreement on any of the other points above.
#1865 of 2059 Re: crash test results [
Mar 20, 2007 (8:37 am)
Re safety tests:
I've watched posters in past (not anyone here) wave a 5 star test as making their favorite foreign brand so much better than the other brands with 4 stars.
With the Tundra it's reversed and now the 4 star test doesn't make that much difference some say.
Actually it's only one indicator. It's the rest of the integrity and design that's important, not just the ability to design for that one known conditions crash test.
So just be sure not to get in a crash that uses the weak points in the design; only get into crashes that you can survive. Obviously that's a dumb statement on my part. But it's meant to point out that a 4 or 5 star test only counts if the crash you are involved in meets that particular strong point. I've seen too many cars dissected into little parts in accidents I've been by for crash tests results to affect me as much as careful, defensive driving on my part will help.
#1866 of 2059 NEW TUNDRA A SALES FLOP ?????
Mar 20, 2007 (8:52 am)
WOW! Checking aicautosite.com it seems the 07 tunras
sales of the redesigned model is NOT a hit with consumers.
Could it be price? design? If not what?
GM is going gangbusters with its new models sales are up
over 10,000 units over last year on the Silverado alone
but toyota is down almost 5000 units in 07 vs. 06
tundra sales feb 07 9669 jan. 07 10,566
ytd 07 15,990 ytd 06 20,025
I guess extra airbags, bigger tow ratings and better
1/4 mile ETs do NOT make a truck popular or a sales hit!
Will the tundra outsell last years weak figures?
Even if toyotas new "wondertruck" continues to sell poorly
I doubt it will soon to be a orphan like the honda ridgeline
with its paultry 7000 units sold YTD...........
#1867 of 2059 Re: crash test results [ [imidazol97]
Mar 20, 2007 (9:10 am)
Actually here in these forums I've generally put down the NHTSA tests as being outdated and not giving an real information other than a 'Pass/Fail'.
The Frontal tests are only done at 35 mph and are full head-on tests. Essentially they test the airbags and seatbelts.
The Side Crash test ( when done !!! ) use an outdated ( by the NHTSA's own admission ) methodology that give no valid information.
There is no Rear Crash test at all.
All of these are 'for guidance only'.
The IIHS is the pitbull of the Insurance Industry. It's job is to evaluate specific vehicles to show it's principals where they might have to pay large claims, i.e. real world real money losses. This is why you will never see a NHTSA official in public recommending one vehicle over another or advising the public to avoid certain vehicles ( 2001 F150 ). That's not the government's job but it is the job of the IIHS. They are there to evaluate risk and losses to the insurance companies. The insurance companies don't want to have to pay money for claims when people ride in vehicles like the Heritage F150.
So the IIHS tests more criteria and they do it in more difficult situations.
The Frontal Crash is done at a 40% offset 40 mph. This more accurately describes a typical accident and it tries to tear the vehicle apart while throwing the dummies around front/back left/right more than the NHTSA test.
The Side Crash test is far more difficult. The sled used is designed to emulate an SUV or truck front end crashing through the glass next to a driver's head.
The Rear Crash test is not even done by the US Govt. It measures the ability of the seats and restraints to minimize whiplash injuries. This is very new an most vehicles fail the test miserably or are at best mediocre. A few are 'Good'.
For all my own vehicles I give a 90% weighting to the IIHS testing and a 10% Pass/Fail to the NHTSA testing.
#1868 of 2059 Re: GM fans rejoice! [drfill]
Mar 20, 2007 (9:12 am)
"I wouldn't consider a 4-star test a "weakness", any more than you would consider 10k towing in a Silverado a "weakness". It's a small victory for the domestics, but the IIHS is a tougher test, and I will wait for the other shoe to drop before making any conclusions."
Why don't you consider it a weakness when all the major competition is 5-stars? As for towing, a 2500 HD Silverado with the 6.0 V8 will tow more than Tundra (up to 12,900 lbs), so you are right, I don't consider it a weakness. The 2500 HD Silverado's equipped with the 6.0 V8 have a 6-speed automatic as well. This is the kind of truck anyone should use to tow a 10,000 pound trailer.
"Even when Ford, GM, and Dodge bring more power, do you think they can be that much quicker than 6.0 to 60 MPH? It's hard just to get that much power down for a empty truck! The Tundra powertrain will be competitive, even 3-4 years from now, it is that good."
Your statement is correct. The point I was trying to make is Toyota is pushing the power/towing numbers card with this truck hard and that advantage will disappear very soon. They better start working on other areas of their truck (crash test results, panel gaps, interior quality, HD versions, Diesels, etc) because they are not the leader (or not even a player) in these areas. As well, I don't know if Toyota is planning a hybrid version of the Tundra, but their will be a dual mode hybrid Silverado in 2009 model year.
#1869 of 2059 Re: NEW TUNDRA A SALES FLOP ????? [geo9]
Mar 20, 2007 (9:23 am)
You might want to re-check those numbers... 07 Tundras weren't even available for January, so whatever sales numbers were quoted there were likely for the 06 models. It is just too early to tell how sales are going for the Tundra yet since demand is outstripping supply and dealers still aren't stocked with the trucks. Heck the CM has barely arrived at some dealerships. I'd wait until at least June or July to see any kind of real numbers with consistancy.
As for the Silverado, yes, they should be very happy with their sales numbers! But it has been available at dealerships almost 6 months earlier than the Tundra so it is being produced in sufficient numbers to meet demand. Again, it is interesting to see in particular that the Silverado eclipsed the F150 for sales in February for the first time. I'm sure Ford isn't too happy with that!!