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
#531 of 2059 Re: GM's 4 sec closed loop mode [kdhspyder]
Feb 15, 2007 (6:45 am)
Not sure where the numbers are coming from, but just so you know, the dealers I talked to say that the CrewMax is arriving in mid to late March. He also said that all of the first few deliveries of the CrewMax are sold to customers and that people ordering from his dealership now have to wait until mid-April to get theirs. If that's true, I'm guessing that Toyota will sell around 175K units in 2007, 225K or so in 2008. The 2009 Tundra is supposed to be E85 capable. Toyota estimates that 60% of sales will be some version of the double-cab -- no estimates going on the other two.
#532 of 2059 TUNING
Feb 15, 2007 (7:22 am)
Take a trip over to MOST any truck forum.
Those crazy folks think NOTHING of slapping a custom
tune/exaust/engine mod./tires-wheels etc.
Its like the good old days of performance cars.
Except now most of these folks have the $$$$ to lay
out for those goodies.............
A landrover or a land cruiser offroad ??????????
I have yet to see one ! Maybe a L-R on their fancy-
schmancie dealer test course.
Heck, these big buck luxo barge trucks prob. never
see the 4wd engaged................
Unless your Denali2 with that bad boy rig at the track
crackin' off 1/4 mile runs. ...................
#533 of 2059 Re: GM's 4 sec closed loop mode [kdhspyder]
Feb 15, 2007 (7:59 am)
I think, in my region anyway, Crew max % will be much higher
closer to 40%, Gulf states.
And we supposedly account for the bulk of Tundra sales.
And production this year will be a lot closer to 200,000
as you are not taking in to acount Indiana, where tehy built 120,000+ this year alone.
#534 of 2059 Re: TUNING [geo9]
Feb 15, 2007 (8:01 am)
I am on other truck forums, namely the chevyavalanchefanclub site and there is a small area dedicated to modding, but, like you said, mostly for street racing. The vast majority do the aesthetic-type mods (billit gas caps, new grills, rims, etc.). I'm not suggesting this isn't a good thing to do, quite the opposite, I am merely saying that comparisons should be on equitable grounds. I don't know why this is such a difficult thing to grasp here. Just compare apples to apples. If you "mod" a Silverado and say it will beat a Tundra, then that isn't a good comparison. My first reaction would be "well D'uh!". Get a similarly "modded" Tundra and THEN make the comparison. It does help to actually have proof in numbers and not just speculation as well. That helps add credibility to the argument.
As for off-roading, you may have missed the point. Large trucks are not meant for serious off-roading. Anybody that has done that seriously should know this... the fact that I even have to mention it is amusing. Sure, some people may consider the Land Cruiser or Land Rover a "luxury" vehicle, but they are pretty well known here and around the world as the standard for all-terrain vehicles (though more recent models have definitely exuded luxury over function unfortunately). Still, Jeeps, Tacomas, even Dakotas and XTerras are fantastic (and in many cases better and cheaper) for doing this. If you have more money, yes, the Land Cruiser and Land Rover are pretty good choices (especially for hauling more people). Jeep's Commander is trying to get a good foot-hold in this space and I think they have an excellent product to do it with.
Point is... if you want to do serious off-roading, getting a nearly 3-ton full-size truck is not going to be a great choice -- even with a lot of mods. Besides, most of the other vehicles mentioned above will do it well stock and there is a much larger market of mods suitable to muddin', off-roading and things like desert racing and rock climbing.
#535 of 2059 Re: GM's 4 sec closed loop mode [dreasdad]
Feb 15, 2007 (8:46 am)
If the 6.2 had this closed loop gap thing that is most discouraging. I can't go to the dark side because I have to many relatives that worked for GM, including my father and both grand fathers along with many uncles, aunts, etc
#536 of 2059 Re: GM's 4 sec closed loop mode [rockylee]
Feb 15, 2007 (9:02 am)
Hey, I can completely understand your predicament. There are a number of issues that you would be sure to encounter by getting a vehicle from a company that is a major competitor to the company that your family has worked for. Obviously doing what is best for you entails much more than just specs. You have the unity of your family to consider and, after all, a vehicle is just that... a vehicle.
Even with the closed-loop issue, it isn't as if you would be getting a bad vehicle. Heck most people would be fortunate to own either of the trucks we're discussing here. They are both much better than the rest of the competition, that is why it is a good comparison to make. I think for you the matter may already be settled, but for others, there may be factors that can lead them in one direction or another.
Competition provides better quality products all around and certainly ensures that the consumer has more choice! Good luck with your endeavor!
#537 of 2059 Re: GM's 4 sec closed loop mode [belias]
Feb 15, 2007 (9:55 am)
Appreciate the post. I've already been to the darkside once in my life as I bought a........
My GM, family didn't speak to me for about 3 or 4 months. I got burned by them
(a long story) So I'd never do it again.
#538 of 2059 Re: GM's 4 sec closed loop mode [rockylee]
Feb 15, 2007 (10:30 am)
I wouldn't be too concerned about this "Closed Loop" torque management thing GM is doing. I have been researching this and currently still am, but if it is as much of an issue as people are making it out to be, it looks as though a simple "Tune" would take care of the problem. This can be done by a professional, or it also looks fairly straight forward to do with a handheld tuner which run about $400. The advantage with the handheld option is it would allow you to reset it to factory prior to bringing in to a dealer if you are concerned about warranty issues. Also, I did read that the most likely reasoning GM has for doing this is not for CAFE or mileage/emission reasons because these engines (6.0, 6.2 and 8.1) only represent a very small portion of the trucks they sell. Also, I do not believe that it would make much of a difference in the EPA's data anyway since it only occurs during WOT. It is most likely to alleviate the wear and tear on the drivetrain components when punching the throttle from a dead stop and at shift points. These trucks weigh over 5K lbs and applying that much torque to a mass that large puts alot of stress on these components. Yes, GM could make them "beefier", but that would make the truck even heavier and then they may as well make it a 3/4 or 1 ton chassis. As it is, they did beef up the tranny and rear end used on the 6.0 and 6.2's. This allows them to provide a 5 yr/100K mile warranty (which the competition does NOT). And remember, if you look at the numbers, it's not as if these trucks are slouches. They still beat the Ford F150's 5.4L and Dodge's 5.7L Hemi. I am guessing with a simple tune, it will make new Tundra buyers question their decision.
#539 of 2059 Re: GM's 4 sec closed loop mode [jreagan]
Feb 15, 2007 (10:41 am)
Okay, So I need a programmer if I buy a Sierra Denali. Can the factory diagnostic machine tell if I ever used a programmer ?????
I guess that's my biggest concern.
#540 of 2059 Re: GM's 4 sec closed loop mode [jreagan]
Feb 15, 2007 (10:46 am)
I doubt that a tune on the 6.0 or 6.2 is going to worry Tundra owners. Even if the numbers end up being better AND that translates into faster times, the difference won't be great.
As far as warranties, they are identical. GM's 5/100K warranty applies to the powertrain, just like Toyota's. They have the same 3/36K bumper-to-bumper warranty, so there is no advantage to either company on this one.