Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Pickups Toyota Tundra Toyota Tundra vs. Chevrolet Silverado 
2059 messages, Last post on Mar 29, 2007 at 5:33 AM
You are in the Toyota Tundra Forum. Your Host is kcram
|
Replying to: dreasdad (Mar 28, 2007 5:40 pm) Oh really? Can you name me any other top people outside of Jim Press? How has Toyota been taxed twice? How is Toyota held back from selling cars at every turn? The US market is the most open car market in the world. If you want to see a closed market, look at Japan. Import sales in Japan or minuscule and make up a smaller percentage of total sales than any other market. Even companies like BMW and Mercedes have a hard time selling vehicles in Japan. |
|
|
Replying to: pmusce (Mar 29, 2007 3:25 am) Yes, 4-star rating on NHTSA's frontal crash has been noted and of course disappointing, but again, it accounts for 2% of accidents. And of that 2%, the actual opposing vehicle will need to weigh as much for the damage to occur, which, in any heavy vehicle gets a less likely probability the higher the weight (as there are not as many heavy trucks/suvs as there are cars). All that is being said is lets wait for actual IIHS test results on the other 98% of accidents that will happen (off-set front, rear, side, and rollover collisions). The reason being is that if Toyota gets poor marks for that, then you'll have a good case. However, if the Tundra does well and the Silverado does not, then you're in a much bigger predicament. That will more heavily impact this argument as there is no debate --even with government statistics as the source -- as to what is more representative of the vast majority of accidents. When those numbers come in, I'm sure the debate on safety will be given new life.
|
|
|
Replying to: belias (Mar 29, 2007 3:32 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: belias (Mar 29, 2007 3:40 am) BS!!! Only difference is in the terminology. Look at the area of protection, it's the same. Do the Tundra's side airbags sense a rollover vs a side impact and stay inflated longer (up to 6 secs) to prevent post-contact injury or ejection upon rollover? I didn't think so. The rest of this post is just plain old-fashioned DENIAL!!! I can hardly wait for the next set of results so we can watch you wriggle out of that one.
|
|
|
Replying to: blckislandguy (Mar 28, 2007 6:29 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: erich1965 (Mar 29, 2007 3:45 am) The point is that even if the FBF can be proven to be "better" in this application, you have to show somehow what benefit "better" provides. So far, you claim torsional rigidity (which as the example that an ME engineer provided isn't necessarily the case anyway), but that hasn't led to anybody being able to show that it provides a better ride, better handling, better control. The only thing that has been pointed out is that it may help prevent squeaks and rattles. But even that needs time to prove. A lot of these arguments you and others have made here have been in the form of things that are either promised to happen in the future (added air bags, power, transmission, etc.) or can not be proven yet. Not one single poster here has been able to show me a vehicle with an open c-channel frame that has somehow either broken, rusted, or damage, or somehow caused serious injury, inconvenience or just plain incapable of doing the job that a FBF framed vehicle has. This has been argued for the last 1000 posts and still not even one example. Give your argument some meat and maybe it will stand, but right now just saying it is better without showing how it is better doesn't provide this claim with any real-life benefits... that is what we want to see.
|
|
|
Replying to: erich1965 (Mar 29, 2007 3:47 am) Yes in fact, they do sense rollovers and side-impact and stay inflated longer (though they don't say for how long). And in case you didn't notice 6 airbags vs 4 airbags is not a difference in "terminology". See, that is what we call mathematics. Let me break this down real simple for you because I think that this has been confused for you since you started here with a dozen different aliases all floating around in your head. Here we go... Silverado air bags: - 2 front air bags come standard - 2 side CURTAIN air bags are optional on some models (side curtain air bags only protect the heads) Tundra air bags: - 2 front air bags come standard - 2 side CURTAIN air bags come standard - 2 side air bags (for your TORSO) come standard Now, lets add this up shall we? Silverado: standard=2, with options=4 Tundra: standard=6, with options=6 So, just "standard" configurations mean that the Tundra has 4 more airbags or, let me put in terms that the GM guys here can understand... the Tundra has THREE TIMES THE AIR BAGS THAT THE SILVERADO DOES!!! I used the caps because apparently GM loyalists like pointing things out like that -- the extra emphasis seems to give more credibility  . With options, the Tundra STILL has 2 more airbags and considerably more coverage and protection.
|
|
|
Replying to: andy82471 (Mar 28, 2007 6:31 pm) GM stands the best chance of coming out of this alive for sure, but it is obvious that at least the number of vehicles/brands from the Detroit3 are going to have to be severely consolidated. Forget about Toyota being a threat; they're just plugging along taking marketshare slowly. What the Detroit3 should be worried about is China. Not only are a significant (and ever increasing) amount of parts suppliers sourcing from China, but the introduction of their own vehicles may take away a good amount of the Detroit3's international sales. That only amplifies the squeeze their currently feeling at home... Trucks are going to be an ever-increasing part of their dependence on revenue as more and more of their cars are being displaced by yet more auto dealers. |
|
|
Replying to: belias (Feb 23, 2007 6:44 pm) And give the jreagan thing a rest would ya? Give it up mr paranoia.
|
|
|
Replying to: belias (Mar 29, 2007 4:06 am) Funny you bring up crossmembers being "integral" to the design, I agree completely, so why do you refuse to address my claim of inferiority in the Tundra in that regard? Or do I need an ME's numbers to know that Tubular, welded in cross members are stronger and better than bolted in stamped sheet steel crossmembers? PS FYI, I am an ME. So there!!! Is Titancrew an ME? I don't see that anywhere in his post. Just because he can pull out a structural steel book and throw out irrelevant numbers to support his theory, does that make him an ME? Again, you love to make assumptions, don't you? Let me guess, jreagan was an ME too, right? therefore supporting your alias theory. Go ahead, plug it in, it should add interest to your story. if you can help me get the dimensional cross sections of these frames in various areas, i would love to do a FEA analysis on Solidworks and show you the differences in both torsional and bending stresses in these frames. |
|
You are here:
Forums
Pickups Toyota Tundra Toyota Tundra vs. Chevrolet Silverado
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Toyota Tundra
2010 Chevrolet Silverado 1500
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
