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 205 of 206

#2040 of 2059 Re: Satisfied with my Silverado [dreasdad] by pmusce

Mar 29, 2007 (4:32 am)

Replying to: dreasdad (Mar 28, 2007 6:40 pm)
Dave, you don't know a thing about what you are talking about. There are many ,many manager and top people working for Toyota who are not japanese. Jim Press is Presidnet of North America Toyota just for starters and he did not change his name. Toyota has gotten whrere it has even though they have been taxed twice as much as the Detroit 3 and held back from selling cars at Every turn.
 
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.

#2041 of 2059 Re: Lag time... [pmusce] by belias

Mar 29, 2007 (4:40 am)

Replying to: pmusce (Mar 29, 2007 4:25 am)
Just a small correction here; there are no side airbags, only side curtain airbags available on some of the Silverados. All the Tundras have side curtain airbags as well as side airbags.
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.

#2042 of 2059 Re: Lag time... [belias] by erich1965

Mar 29, 2007 (4:45 am)

Replying to: belias (Mar 29, 2007 4:32 am)
Nobody said the C channel frame in the Tundra was "bad", we are simply saying the FBF is BETTER!!! Although I do believe the bolted construction and stamped crossmembers in the Tundra is really bad. Go ahead, defend that cheesy design. If the HD's used an equivalently sized/proportionatley sized boxed frame vs their C channel frames, they would also be better, but that would drive up the cost and is unnecessary since the amount of steel they use in these frames is not an issue. Fuel Economy and ride quality is not as high of a priority on the HD trucks. We HAVE mentioned real benefits SEVERAL times, you just choose to not hear them or understand us. Your ladder analogy is weak btw. You are talking in circles, saying thet the boxed is stronger, but unnecessary, but yet 300 lbs of more towing capacity is so huge. C'mon, if you want to keep things in perspective, be consistent.

#2043 of 2059 Re: Lag time... [belias] by erich1965

Mar 29, 2007 (4:47 am)

Replying to: belias (Mar 29, 2007 4:40 am)
Just a small correction here; there are no side airbags, only side curtain airbags available on some of the Silverados. All the Tundras have side curtain airbags as well as side airbags.
 
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.

#2044 of 2059 Re: Satisfied with my Silverado [blckislandguy] by belias

Mar 29, 2007 (4:51 am)

Replying to: blckislandguy (Mar 28, 2007 7:29 pm)
You've got this completely backwards... back in 1995, GM had 11 levels of management between the CEO and its workers... 11!! GM was the poster-child for hierarchial problems. Changes at that time came slow because the paper-trails within the company's facilities took so long to get to top level management that improvements were agonizingly slow to address manufacturing issues. They've since managed to cut down to just 7 levels of management. Toyota has 3 levels. All financial decisions are made at headquarters, that is true, but there is a lot more flexibility in the Japanese companies and in particular Toyota and Honda than there used to be even 10 years ago. But show me any successful company here in the U.S. where regular workers or even 1st or 2nd level managers are able to command company-wide decisions? So, it happens here too. One of the major differences is that in Japanese society there is a greater expectation of going out to socialize with your co-workers than there is here. We like to go back to our families!! Gotta love that!

#2045 of 2059 Re: Lag time... [erich1965] by belias

Mar 29, 2007 (5:06 am)

Replying to: erich1965 (Mar 29, 2007 4:45 am)
I never once said that 300 lbs of extra towing capacity is HUGE!! Keep twisting my words jreagan! And if fuel economy and ride quality is not as high a priority on HD trucks than why not have the supposed "added" strength that the FBF provides? That is completely illogical that they would put that "benefit" on their least capable truck and not do it on the vehicles that supposedly benefit the most from it! And why is my ladder analogy weak? In case you haven't noticed, frames have cross-members -- that is an integral part of the design.
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.

#2046 of 2059 Re: Lag time... [erich1965] by belias

Mar 29, 2007 (5:19 am)

Replying to: erich1965 (Mar 29, 2007 4:47 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.
 
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.

#2047 of 2059 Re: Lag time... [andy82471] by belias

Mar 29, 2007 (5:28 am)

Replying to: andy82471 (Mar 28, 2007 7:31 pm)
Unfortunately for the Detroit3, the UAW screwed things up for everyone. If management at the Detroit3 had been fair in their treatment of workers, there would have been no need for the move to unionization and this constantly contentious attitude between management and workers. The UAW took advantage of this by promising great things in the short term at the expense of long-term viability.
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.

#2048 of 2059 Re: Lag time... [belias] by erich1965

Mar 29, 2007 (5:32 am)

Replying to: belias (Feb 23, 2007 7:44 pm)
So, would 400 small airbags be even better? It is not the quantity of airbags, but the area protected. The GMs provide complete protection from the roof down to the armrests (hip level), so you are wrong!!!
 
And give the jreagan thing a rest would ya? Give it up mr paranoia.

#2049 of 2059 Re: Lag time... [belias] by erich1965

Mar 29, 2007 (5:38 am)

Replying to: belias (Mar 29, 2007 5:06 am)
Others, including yourself have been proclaiming the Tundra far superior in towing capability, which is 300 lbs at both truck's max capacities. So, yes, you did. As for twisting words, how does it feel? What comes around, goes around.
 
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.

Messages Page 205 of 206

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement