Last post on Nov 02, 2007 at 2:16 AM
You are in the Toyota Tundra
What is this discussion about?
Chevrolet Silverado 1500, Nissan Titan, Toyota Tundra, Truck
Article comments for Comparison Test: 2007 Half-Ton Pickup Trucks - For almost two weeks, we drove all three trucks in a variety of terrain including urban crush, freeways and gravel roads. We loaded and unloaded them, poked and prodded them, and even dyno-tested them. (more)
#244 of 259 Re: Pretty Good [belias]
Jun 26, 2007 (5:04 pm)
I think you're showing your frustration at being embarrassed by your previous statement about "obtuse tests". Those were your words, not mine, and I simply called you out on them. Toyota is the company performing incredibly obtuse tests, and I provided several famous examples. So, where's your beef?
Next time you post, think about it first. You seem like a reasonably intelligent person, but one who, alas, doesn't completely think before you post.
BTW, I didn't post the original link on the 28 mph test, someone else did. So, I'm not sure why you bring that up in the context of my post. Perhaps you can explain? The test did show an outrageous amount of bed flex and bounce that I would not expect in a truck that had been fully tested and vetted by the engineers.
As to the NHTSA test, I stand by my words - Tundra placed
L-A-S-T. The record speaks for itself. 4 stars isn't horrible, I never said it was. It's just not 5 stars, like each of the Big 3 got. Get over it, dude.
As to attacking me or what I drive, whoever said that?
Geez, belias - get a life, woodja? When someone honestly and objectively refutes your statements, take it like a man and move on! Cowboy Up!
#245 of 259 Re: Pretty Good [1offroader]
Jun 26, 2007 (6:12 pm)
"Next time you post, think about it first. You seem like a reasonably intelligent person, but one who, alas, doesn't completely think before you post."
"Geez, belias - get a life, woodja? When someone honestly and objectively refutes your statements, take it like a man and move on! Cowboy Up!"
Give em a break would ya? No one cyber bullied you around for your ground breaking words of wisdom in post #223. Very hypocritical bro....
#246 of 259 Re: Pretty Good [ggesq]
Jun 26, 2007 (7:24 pm)
"Give em a break would ya? No one cyber bullied you around for your ground breaking words of wisdom in post #223. Very hypocritical bro...."
'cept you of course, ggesq.
But I have the stones to admit it, right? And that makes all the difference.
#247 of 259 2007 Half-Ton Pickups Comparison
Jun 26, 2007 (9:44 pm)
This forum is entertaining and comical. Keep it up.
So what is everybody's favorite half-ton? I just love the 2007 Sierra and Silverado Crew Cabs. Every day I think about trading my now paid for 04' Trailblazer 4x4 in for one of those trucks.
It would be hard to part with the Trailblazer but that would be the trade in. I have a 70' Chevy p/u that I'll never part with, but it only seats four girthly people in the cab.
Oh, also Chevy Trailblazer is far superior to Toy 4Runner.
#248 of 259 Re: 2007 Half-Ton Pickups Comparison [captainmatty]
Jun 27, 2007 (2:56 am)
LOL, is that why the Trailblazer and its 14 different clones are on the chopping block this year?
You may still be living in 1970...
#249 of 259 Re: Pretty Good [1offroader]
Jun 27, 2007 (4:01 am)
I'm not in the least frustrated, as I said, get whatever you like. I simply made a statement and you came out and disected my post like it was something personal. It wasn't even directed at you or any of your posts. It was a response to the 28mph testing and how GM/Ford/Dodge aren't doing themselves any favors by making these obtuse-type tests. Stick to what people that own and use trucks know and rely on. I can't see anybody with half a brain that would say differently. A truck is exactly that, a truck. When you start arguing about bed wiggle performance at 28mph on some road with specific conditions attributed to it, it just makes the whole argument for the truck seem weak.
I think that these truck comparison articles are good for showing the strengths and weaknesses of each model, but people here are really taking it personally.
As for your safety test, I completely agreed with you on it and specificaly said so in my post, but you're making it more of an issue. Heck the 2007 GMC "Classic" models have 4-star and 3-star safety ratings link title for the same tests (for driver and passenger) NHTSA 2007 GMC Fine, score one for the Detroit3 on this. That is good that they are tops in safety, that means that Toyota needs work on the Tundra.
But, that is just one item out of literally dozens that need to be looked at to get the overall picture.
I thought that those that "think before they post" would understand that there are many more aspects to a comparison.
Again, to summarize for you, the whole point of this was to say that the Detroit3 would better serve themselves in the truck market if they simply continued advertising their strengths in terms of towing, hauling, and being "tough". These other types of comparison tests make them look worse than if they hadn't done anything at all. Can you at least agree to that? Or are you going to continue to argue that I'm apparently frustrated by this (fyi, these are trucks, not my relatives or anything meaningful to me, so I can't be frustrated about material things) or that somehow the crash-test result is so damaging to me that I can't get over it! LOL, that one took the cake! Just lighten up a bit. People have every right to make statements here on this forum about whatever truck or product they like. Just because you don't agree with them, doesn't make you the expert on it.
#251 of 259 Re: More necessary rational testing.
Jun 27, 2007 (4:56 pm)
Those were interesting and meaningful (read: not obtuse) tests.
The frame flex test was especially relevant. The Toyota was dismal, to say the least. More than 3 inches of torsional flex, with only 275 lbs. of unsupported load. Those types of conditions are encountered all the time off road. In fact, I predicted that outcome in a much earlier post, just based on my observations from sliding under the Tundra and looking at it. The frame does indeed look flimsy, and the test clearly bears that out. I also believe that frame flex contributes to the severe bed floppage of the Tundra in the 28 mph test.
Interestingly, I note that none of the tests included a GM product for comparison - just Ford vs. Toyota. I wonder why?
#252 of 259 Re: Pretty Good [belias]
Jun 27, 2007 (5:08 pm)
You may find this surprising, but I agree with some of your points.
My point, in the original post, was that you made a big deal of Ford's "obtuse" (your word, not mine) test, specifically the 28 mph test. If you'd thought about it for a nanosecond, you'd have realized that Toyota's so-called "tests" are the most "obtuse" of any pickup manufacturer. After all, people DO drive 28 mph on rough roads, whereas they NEVER drive up giant teeter-totters or through giant slamming doors on the edge of the Grand Canyon.
Do we at least agree on that? If you'd have said so in the beginning, the rest of the posts would have been unnecessary.
I've never considered it a personal "attack" (again, your word) when someone challenges my posts. And of course, people can post whatever they like - hey, it's a forum. But it is a public forum, and when you post something on a public forum, expect that someone may challenge you to back up your statements. And if you can't back it up, expect to take a shot, OK? It's nothing personal. That's my point.
#253 of 259 Re: Pretty Good [1offroader]
Jun 28, 2007 (3:29 am)
OK, fair enough -- I respect your right to post your opinion as well. While I do agree with you that the teeter totter test and grand-canyon test were unrealistic in real life, the point isn't that you'll take your truck through those conditions, the point is that they are showing you the benefits of their braking/acceleration. It is the same like the GM commercials where the trucks were towing other 1/2 ton trucks on a railroad flat-bed. Of course, who is going to driver their truck on a railroad flatbed towing a bunch of the competition's trucks? But, that wasn't the point either -- it was that they wanted to show that their trucks were good at towing.
For the Ford test of the 28mph test, there is nothing of great value there. It is trying to create a problem where none has existed before (i.e. there weren't 28mph off-road tests done for the last 30 years) and provide a solution (their F150) where none is needed. It is the classic marketing campaign more attributable to pharmaceuticals where they want the consumer to be their own doctor, diagnose a condition which really doesn't exist only so that you'll ask your doctor to prescribe you a medication to treat it.
So, yeah, I think we're in agreement and we probably beat this horse to death on this issue.
I do agree that frame-flex can be a problem if it isn't properly controlled. On the other hand, too much rigidity can also be a problem. That is why the largest trucks don't have FBF frames -- the lack of flex for such large loads would be a serious detriment to the ability to handle the weight for the driver. Ironically, even Ford admitted as much when questioned why their super-duty line of trucks weren't fully boxed. So, there is obviously some detriment to having torsional stiffness beyond a certain payload/towing capacity for a truck. What that level is, I don't know. Every manufacturer is going to have their different takes on how to resolve this issue and so far it seems that there hasn't been any serious handling problems from one solution to another. We'll see how the Tundra fairs in the long run with their setup. It may be proven to be a disaster or it may prove to be irrelevant. Right now it is difficult to tell other than to show that it has more flex in the bed than its competition (gotta wonder why all the 1/2 ton trucks weren't included too!)
Have a good one!