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
#986 of 2059 Re: Just read the review of the Tundra by C&D [jreagan]
Feb 27, 2007 (9:41 am)
PM magazine rated the GM best in handling and ride. Next...
They also rated the Tundra ahead of the Chevy and the Titan better than both -- shows you what they know. Also, quoted from the comparison...
"Our disappointment grew on the track and on the road. Even though our test truck was optioned with the 6.0-liter Vortec Max V8 the largest engine in the test the Chevy lost to both the Toyota and Nissan on the strip. What happened to American muscle? Part of the problem was the transmission. Not only was the Chevy down one gear to the Nissan and down two to the Toyota, its shifts were lethargic. Around town, the Chevy had the same type of easy-to-drive ้lan as the '06 Silverado. Like the Nissan, the Chevy drives smaller than it actually is. You can confidently wheel it into parking spots you wouldn't dare try in the Tundra or the Ford. Our truck had the NHT towing package that brings with it firmer rear springs to handle the 10,500-pound towing capacity. The ride quality should have been compromised; happily, it wasn't. The Silverado was one of our favorites on the freeway and rough roads. We still like the Chevy more than we did its predecessor, but less than we like the Nissan and Toyota."
GM is almost always ahead of the competition in new technology (ok, maybe not for audio electronics, big deal). Ford and Dodge always follow. And as far as Japanese technology (in general) goes...they never "invent" anything over there, they take existing technology and build on it. They are known for that in every niche of technology.
LOL, I don't even know where to start on this one, it is such a ridiculous statement... how does leading in technology suddenly exclude things that are "technological". That is like saying "I have the best computer in the world; but don't look at the processor, memory, video card, or hard drive... but hey, check out that case..."
In case you didn't notice, virtually every single quality control, just-in-time management, and management science book has been written on the basis of what Honda and Toyota have done over the last 50 years with regard to manufacturing. Even companies like Intel, Cisco, Applied Materials, HP, and Dell have based their manufacturing systems on the innovative manufacturing designs from those companies. Never mind that GM and Dodge have done so too (not sure about Ford).
GM's own strategy for most of the past 30 years was to watch Ford and Dodge take the hit on the newest technology and adapt it for themselves at a lower cost.
BS!!!! GM was the first to use Hydroforming technology to make a stronger, lighter frame. Back in 1989!!! Ford followed a few years later, Dodge bragged about introducing it on their trucks only about 7 or 8 yrs ago.
Bluetooth? No, because they have a contract with OnStar. Just as good.
Hydroforming -- ok, cool, one innovation in 30+ years. I'm sure there are many more, but "technology" is NOT GM's "forte". Bluetooth isn't offered because they want you to buy cell-phone minutes from the more expensive OnStar offering - it still sucks, it costs you nothing to have bluetooth on your cell phone (most people have cell phones by the way).
GM was the first to use the 2nd generation Air Bags as well. They also used the "Smart" air bags first. (deployment speed based on occupant size).
Nice try, but you are WRONG!!!!
Oh, and why can't a high-tech, well engineered fully boxed frame be designed to flex where needed and still have superior strength and overall rigidity? It's not like they buy rectangular tubing and weld it together. They ENGINEER it.
I am starting to wonder why I am wasting my time with you Toy lover's. You haven't got a clue!!!
Are you in wonderland? Do you realize that even the top of the line Silverado still only offers 4 airbags? How is that innovation and "technological" leadership? Even the Ridgeline beats it on that. GM finally discovered HIDs for headlights and LEDs for tailights after virtually every other manufacturer offered them... even Cadillac was lacking for the longest time.
You can't claim technological leadership when a 2004 Acura TL still has more technological innovations in it then any 2007 Cadillac offering. Never mind Lexus and forget about it completely in lesser brands. Please... the Silverado has a lot going for it as a truck, technology is not one of them.
#987 of 2059 Re: Just read the review of the Tundra by C&D [kdhspyder]
Feb 27, 2007 (9:43 am)
You never cease to amaze me with your BS.
I had a 1989 GMC Sierra that had Hydroformed rear frame rails!!! Explain that Mr "Supplier".
Toy gave every model all the safety features and opted for a 'triple-tech' frame.
I love this...."Triple-Tech"???, Did you coin that phrase yourself or did Toyota do it to sugarcoat an inferior design?
The maximum towing capacities are lower for GM vehicles across the board save two ties. Now that's measurable.
Is 300 lbs (or even 1000 lbs) really "measurable" when we are talking about over-inflated, unrealistic numbers anyway?
Toyota has the most capable and technologically leading transmission on the market.
Maybe as std, but wait a year and that claim will die. GM does have a 6-spd automatic available now, only reason it isn't used as std is due to production numbers, something Toyota doesn't have to worry about less than 200K/yr.
Anyone can make the newest tech std right away when they only make a fraction of the number of vehicles.
GM opted not to provide some key safety features on most models
Please elaborate? Oh, and if you are referring to side airbags as optional, yes, they are, but don't think Toyota is throwing them in for free. GM is simply giving customers more choices on how to spend their money. Why FORCE people to spend money on them? Personally, I chose them because I was willing to pay for them. Others may think otherwise and decide not to get them. it's their CHOICE!!! Since when is choice a bad thing?
Trucks today (1/2 tons anyway) are designed and marketed for much more than just working. I am a perfect example of why. I need a truck for boat towing, but I also use it year round as a daily commuter. So, ride comfort is HUGE for me. As are all other car-related amenities. It is my "car" as well as my truck.
Until it can be shown that there is a measurable advantage to the f-b-f's then this 'innovation' is at best marketing bling-bling. It 'feels' like it gives a more solid ride.
It's only "bling bling" to people (like you) who don't understand it. As far as "feeling like a more solid ride" All I can say is...Huh?
#988 of 2059 Re: Frame [belias]
Feb 27, 2007 (9:44 am)
Yeah. Toyota also says the large gap tolerance in the sheet metel was done on purpose to make the truck look tough. Toyota PR at its best.
As to the other poster, yes GM does not fully box the full size SUV's, SUV's are not Pickup trucks. Different market, different needs.
#989 of 2059 Re: Just read the review of the Tundra by C&D [belias]
Feb 27, 2007 (9:46 am)
What happened to American muscle? Part of the problem was the transmission. Not only was the Chevy down one gear to the Nissan and down two to the Toyota, its shifts were lethargic
That's the now-well known ( thanks to Edmunds ) Torque Management 4 sec closed loop GM slipped into the 6.0L so that the 4 spd tranny's wouldn't grenade.
Hopefully GM will elimiate this when they actually do get around to upgrading their transmissions.
#990 of 2059 Re: Just read the review of the Tundra by C&D [kdhspyder]
Feb 27, 2007 (9:48 am)
300 pounds is significantly behind?. The GM HDs' tow 16,000 pounds, which is what people who do real towing use. If you had a 10,000 pound trailer, would you buy a 1/2 ton pickup to tow it? Thats HD territory. GM won the braking in the C&D comparison by the way.
You can't compare these trucks by the numbers. Do any of you drive pickup trucks?
#991 of 2059 Re: Just read the review of the Tundra by C&D [kdhspyder]
Feb 27, 2007 (9:50 am)
When did I say "Diesel" I said HD.
Speaking of bogus benefits..I am still waiting for the answer to my earlier question: Where is the "benefit" to a fraction of a sec time in the standing 1/4 mile? And you missed my point regarding over-inflated towing numbers. What criteria was used to determine these numbers? Did both GM and Toyota use the same criteria? I doubt it.
The benfit to a better engineered frame is a better overall chassis. Period.
#992 of 2059 Re: Interior comparison [jreagan]
Feb 27, 2007 (9:51 am)
There is nothing wrong with the GMT800 interior. Is the new Tundra better than the GMT800 interior. Yes. Is the new GMT900 better than the Tundra interion. Yes. Things keep improving all the time.
#993 of 2059 Re: Just read the review of the Tundra by C&D [pmusce]
Feb 27, 2007 (9:51 am)
Thank You pmusce!!! My point exactly. But these thick-headed Toy lover's cannot understand common sense.
#994 of 2059 Re: Just read the review of the Tundra by C&D [belias]
Feb 27, 2007 (9:53 am)
#995 of 2059 Re: Just read the review of the Tundra by C&D [jreagan]
Feb 27, 2007 (9:56 am)
Not even GM invented hydroform:
"The first high-volume hydroformed automotive part was made in 1990-an instrument panel beam on a Chrysler Minivan made by VariForm [Warren, MI]." The next highvolume part-an engine cradle used on the Ford Contour and Mercury Mystique-came into production in 1994, he says. "From that point onward, interest in hydroforming accelerated."