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
#753 of 2059 Re: On Paper...Maybe....but.. [belias]
Feb 22, 2007 (7:16 am)
The 1987 Sunbird....ahhh, what a classic example of an awesome vehicle...hahaha I must admit that I am NOT a fan of that era GM or any American-made car (mid 80's-early 90's). But I would not judge GM or it's dealers based on 20 year old experiences. I am sure that not only the vehicles have improved, but customer satisfaction is a much higher priority in today's market than it was back then. Thanks in part to more competition from everyone, including Toyota. My mom owned a 1987 Olds Calais, and even though it was a reliable car that had few (if any?) mechanical issues. I drove it several times and even used it on my honeymoon trip (since it got better gas mileage than my 89 GMC and the wife owned a 1983 Cutlass that also had a V8. the car was a cheaply built, rattlebox 4-banger with no power. She has been a GM person her whole life, well, since her 1966 Impala SS days (the year I was born). I talked her into buying a Ford Taurus in 1995 because I thought GM's cars were junk. Turns out the Taurus was a piece of junk too. Now she drives a 2005 Chev Malibu and loves it.
The Toyota Camry is a very nice car, and because of them as well as other foreign brands, the American made cars HAD to get better, and did. Now I think the quality is equivalent across the board (in cars anyway) with the exception of Chrysler. But I am not a car person, I think trucks are a much better value. ALL cars, although more reliable than ever before, are a ripoff. They depreciate more and don't last as long. Even my wife's 2004 Impala LS (with 28K miles), as nice of a car as it is, and very reliable I might add, cost about $23K only 3 years ago and is now worth only a little more than my 2000 GMC with 90K miles on it.
Dodge? I can't tell of any dealer experiences, but I will say I bought my wife a 1993 Plymouth Voyageur minivan in 1994. What pile of JUNK!!! Never again!!! Within the first year (and last year I may add, I dumped 12 months after buying it) and with only 34K miles on it. it had 20K miles when I bought it. It had the following problems:
Bad water pump, leaked and burned oil (excessively), Tranny leaked, rear window washer pump was bad, and several other minor issues were present. Although I could have had the dealer fix most of the major stuff since it was still under warranty, I traded that thing so fast it wasn't even funny. yes, that is an "old" experience too, but I have not seen much improvement from Chrysler's products since then.
I would buy a Tundra before a Ram.
#754 of 2059 Re: On Paper...Maybe....but.. [jreagan]
Feb 22, 2007 (7:39 am)
REGAN......Ya got to remember those vintage DCX vans used
the mitsubishi (spl) engine. They aged poorly...........
At one time Chrysler had the BEST auto. trans. in the business. Too bad they missed the mark on their frt.WD
Hands down GM units are the best...............
Check out the "transmission trauma" forums here at Edmunds.
The new camrys auto unit has several issues not to mention
the honda posts................
Will have to see how the tundra as well as the new GM 6
speed auto units fare in the world of truck usage......
#755 of 2059 Re: On Paper...Maybe....but.. [jreagan]
Feb 22, 2007 (7:53 am)
Yeah, I hear ya, I know that many of the domestics have gotten better. In fact a lot of them rank above even many German vehicles in terms of satisfaction and reliability. My most recent experience with Honda and in particular Acura have been fantastic! Going on 7 years with not a single problem! But, for the kind of work I'll be doing, I need a truck going forward. I originally tried to get a Yukon and then an Avalanche when I settled on the Acura. However, the Yukon was too pricey and I didn't like the interior, and while the Avalanche was almost exactly what I wanted, it ranked next to the Aztek in terms of looks.
So, I'm in the market again for a vehicle later this summer and having looked at the F150, the Silverado, and the Tundra, it looks like for me, the overall package favors the Tundra. Others will have criteria that are more/less important than mine, but I'm a big guy and am not going to try to force myself to fit into a vehicle anymore. I was set on the new Avalanche but disliked the dash plastic and overall lack of features for a loaded LTZ. Also, things like the column shifter, feel of the steering wheel and the big blind spots were just a little annoying to me (though not a deal-breaker). The ride was comfortable and the seats were pretty nice and overall it fit me well.
The Silverado was pretty much the same in almost every aspect except the exterior looks. Salesman said that the ride is comfortable but not quite as much as in the Avalanche. At $46K (before deals/incentives) the Avalanche was not a good deal (that is with the 5.3L) though not terrible -- I just thought I could do better.
My guess is that the Denali may be the answer in terms of comfort/performance. However, it will be more expensive than a loaded Tundra and there is no version that has as large a back seat as the CrewMax (which is essential for me in particular because I have two big dogs that I want to keep back there on trips).
If I were to load both the Silverado and the Tundra up, they would be roughly equivalent in price. But I would get only the 5.3l instead of the 6.2l in the Denali. I'm not confident in the 6.0l being advantageous because the 5.3l/transmission combo is proven. The idea of torque management on the 6.0l when other engine/transmission combos that are larger are available without it makes me think that GM is using this as a trial or perhaps a migration movement before a 5 or 6 speed heavier-duty transmission is offered.
Add to that the whole debacle with brake problems over the last few years with GM's SUVs and trucks, and I can't help but think of having to make trips back to the dealership.
So, it isn't as if I don't want to try to get something like the Silverado (or preferably the Denali), but given its history in the areas that are critical to my needs, it will be a tough sell -- probably have to be priced significantly less than the Tundra. Ultimately though, the Denali looks like the only other true option on the table that provides the combination of features required. I'll see what its like when it gets to the showroom floor!
#756 of 2059 Re: On Paper...Maybe....but.. [geo9]
Feb 22, 2007 (7:55 am)
Good point, knew that.
And why do you call me Regan? It's Reagan. No offense taken, just wondered why you left out the A.
#757 of 2059 Re: On Paper...Maybe....but.. [belias]
Feb 22, 2007 (8:28 am)
So, were you looking at the new body style Avalanche? Coincidentally, I was shopping the Avalanche last summer because I think they look alot better that they did last year. They look basically like a Tahoe. But, after researching and learning that I could ONLY get the 6.0 with 4.10 gears, I decided to wait. Also, I thought they were too expensive and questioned how much I would use the whole mid-gate transformation do-hickey stuff. I am guessing it would get seldom used and would just add to the rattle factor. I ultimatelt decided to wait until the new trucks came out. which was a wise decisin, although they are'nt much (if any) cheaper than the Avalanche, which I was told they would be.
As for the 6.0 in the trucks, I still think it is a good value over and above the power issue. For only $1000, you get the bigger engine. SD Tranny (much heavier duty), engine oil cooler (a must have IMO), ext tranny cooler, larger 9.5" rear end and 4 wheel disc brakes. Heck, if they offered all of this with the 5.3l as an option for $1000, I would take it. But the 6.0 is a better, stronger engine. based on what I have read about it. Deep skirt design, 6-bolt mains, etc, etc. Way more power and torque than I need for my useage. Better to have more than you need than not enough. I only put on about 10-12K miles per year, so gas mileage isn't a huge factor. And I do need a truck.
Nice to hear you want your dogs to be comfy. My current 2000 GMC is just an Ext cab 3-door, and the back seat is plenty big enough for my 2 daughters, but the 4 real doors will be nice. I never liked the rear doors on ext cabs. Personally, i never ride back there, so I only care about the driver's seat..haha.
Brake problems? the only complaint I can think of for mine is the rotors were rusted and needed replacement. But that was at 72,000 miles and the entire cost to replace 4 rotors and brake pads was only about $600. Not bad. Otherwise they have been flawless. The days of turning rotors are gone, they make them "disposable" nowadays. I suppose to keep the weight down. Also, in 2004 GM went back to drums in the rear on the half-tons only. Have asked several salesmen, techinicians, etc and have not gotten a good answer as to why yet. I do not believe cost is a reason since they still use discs on the HD's and drums actually have more components to them. Also, the cost to changeover and maintain 2 production methods has to be more than using a common design. Still waiting for a legit reason on that one. Part of the reason I went with the 6.0.
The idea of torque management on the 6.0l when other engine/transmission combos that are larger are available without it
Keep in mind that these larger engines/tranny combos either use a 6 speed tranny (Denali 6.2) or a 3/4 ton duty (Allison in the Diesel) tranny. Also, the Denali is AWD, not 4WD, so traction from a dead stop is always there. They figure that without the 4 sec closed loop delay at WOT from a dead stop, you would just burn up the tires anyway, so what's the point? There is still plenty of torque available for towing. Otherwise it wouldn't have the 10,500 lb tow rating (with 4.10's). People need to understand torque better and how it is used and when it's available, etc. If they did, they would realize that this is really a non-issue. Unless you are stoplight racing. Even then, traction is still necessary to transfer that torque to the road.
I would at least drive a GM a few more times before making your final decision later this summer. More info will be available on both by then as well as far as initial quality, etc.
#758 of 2059 Re: On Paper...Maybe....but.. [jreagan]
Feb 22, 2007 (8:40 am)
Yeah, I probably will wait a little for the Denali and see how things pan out with owners of the first round of 07s.
As for the brake problems, I wasn't referring to your previous posts, I was referring to the recalls GM had a couple of years ago that made the headlines. I don't remember all the details, but I think there was a serious image problem for GM because they left some states out of the fix and were late to fix the problems or even admit a problem for many years. Here are a couple of links:
Consumer Affairs Link
NHTSA Gov Link
#759 of 2059 REAGAN
Feb 22, 2007 (8:47 am)
No slam intended.....just old fingers typing faster than eyes !
#760 of 2059 Re: On Paper...Maybe....but.. [jreagan]
Feb 22, 2007 (8:49 am)
most recalled cars for 06 link title
Ram, Durango, Silverado/Sierra,Civic
#761 of 2059 Issue is GM
Feb 22, 2007 (9:37 am)
Basically, to sum up my concerns, the issue for me isn't so much with the actual Silverado itself despite some past problems (I believe the new ones are much better). It really comes down to how I think GM treats its customers and their attitude towards fixes in general. Add to that the dealership difficulties and I don't envision a good experience. Heck, I would have gotten the Avalanche if it wasn't so expensive and if it didn't have some of the design issues that I mentioned previously. But there is a basic lack of respect and good treatment that I find in dealing with GM and Dodge (I can't speak for Ford). This is not necessarily everyone's experience, but even my immediate neighbors have had similar experiences and have altogether stopped buying from domestic dealerships (though their kids in college still are). What can I say? Attitude is the easiest thing to fix yet it is the most prevelant barrier to entry for me.
#762 of 2059 Re: Issue is GM [belias]
Feb 22, 2007 (10:18 am)
That I cannot argue since I tend to be the same way. If you piss me off, good luck getting my business ever again. It's just that dealers are NOT GM and vice versa. You should maybe consider another dealer rather than boycott GM. That's what I would do (and have done actually). There is a couple of dealers in town here that I shopped where I said to myself as I was walking out the door that I would never buy from. Mostly due to a salesman's attitude. But the dealer I bought from was straight up and I like that in a salesman. No BS, butt-kissin, etc, etc. After all, it's a business deal, that's it. He's not my friend, I am not his friend, don't try to pretend differently. That doesn't mean he doesn't have to be courteous, friendly and respectful, just not fakey and buddy, buddy. Know what I mean? I consider myself to be a slight pain in the rear as a customer. Not because I am a jerk or anything, but because I expect good service, quality answers to my questions and no BS. That is probably why I did my own research before ever stepping into a dealership. I did most of this before the trucks were even in dealerships yet, so when they did arrive, I literally knew more about them than the salesmen did.
Basically, in a nutshell. I dislike almost all car salesman. But that's ok, it's the people in the service dept that you need to like long term. And you can get your GM truck serviced at any GM dealership. There are literally dozens of GM dealerships for me to choose from in the Twin Cities or not too far away. Maybe that's why they are nicer, they know that I have choices. And even on warranty work, dealers still make money on servicework. Servicework is where dealers make their most profits anyway.