Half-ton Pickups - The full field - READ ONLY

333 messages, Last post on Oct 12, 2007 at 5:58 PM

You are in the Pickups - Archived Discussions Forum. Your Host is kcram

This discussion is ARCHIVED. To reactivate the discussion, post a request in the Lost? Ask the Pickups Host for directions! discussion.

What is this discussion about? Toyota Tundra, Dodge Ram Pickup 1500, Ford F-150, Chevrolet Silverado 1500, GMC Sierra 1500, Nissan Titan, Car Comparisons, Car Buying, Truck

Outline

Messages Page 20 of 34: 1; ...; 17; 18; 19; 20; 21; 22; 23; ...; 34; Prev; Next; Last

#191 of 333 Re: Did I say something funny? [drfill] by anythingbuttoy Sep 24, 2007 (3:02 am)
Replying to: drfill (Sep 23, 2007 5:55 pm) Yes, you did. I don't need to look it up to know that any HD frame, which is capable of twice the payload of the Tundra has a much beefier frame. Taller profile, heavier wall, etc, etc. Go ahead, prove me wrong, I challenge you. Yeah, they are similar alright, they are both made from steel and formed into a C...LOL You crack me up dude. So, Mr Toyota, tell me why the Tundra has such wimpy payload numbers. Suspension? Frame? Or is Toyota Sandbagging? LOL Replies to this message: gotoyota (Sep 24, 2007 1:03 pm) 1offroader (Sep 24, 2007 5:06 pm) gotoyota (Sep 24, 2007 9:10 pm)
#192 of 333 Re: Uh.... [anythingbuttoy] by gotoyota Sep 24, 2007 (7:15 am)
Replying to: anythingbuttoy (Sep 23, 2007 4:50 pm) GM, Ford and Chrysler execs all said the same things you are saying back in the 60's, 70's and 80's, and even in the 90's. Toyota was the least of their worries back then. It doesn't matter if Hyundai starts making half tons with V6 engines - to dismiss as a non-threat is utter foolishness and is exactly the kind of thinking that got Detroit into the trouble it's in now. Don't kid yourself into thinking no-one at the big three is staying up at night evaluating and re-thinking their strategy against the girly Tundra. They have learned their lessons from losing market share to cars like the Camry and Accord, and know that in order to stay viable they can't repeat the same foolishness of the past. Just because you have such strong opinions about the superiority of the GMT900 over the Tundra, that doesn't make you right about everything you are saying. No reputable source has said anything about the Tudra being less capable than any other half ton, and if fact, it has proven to be a formidable competitor - yet a few of you guys in this forum won't even acknowledge it as a legitimate player. Even the GMT900's purportedly better fuel economy is suspect - real world testing shows their mileage to be much less than the mfr claims. And if I were you, I wouldn't bet the farm against a beefier, Diesel Tundra either, because Toyota will build it if the demand is there. Toyota is a quiet company - they don't make things public until they are ready and they do not want to appear as though they are directly competing with the Big Three on their holy ground. By the way, who says people don't buy the Tundra for work? Where are you getting your info? As for me, I will gain confidence in GM's ability to build a car or truck the right way when I start seeing at least 99% of their newer (less than 5 yrs old) cars and trucks on the road with all the lights working, windows not being held up with duct tape, and interiors that aren't warped from the sun. Sure the GMT900's interior looks nice now, but any objective and rational person has to wonder how it's going to hold up over time, because all of their interiors in the past have been terrible. The Tundra's interior looks a bit stark in comparison, but it's a safe bet that it's solidly built, and will hold up well over time because that's the way Toyota's have been for decades. Just because GM finally puts a nice interior in the GMT900 after years of cheap, misaligned plasticky interiors, it doesn't convince me overnight that they have completely changed their ways. Their MO in the past has always been to make it look good enough to move off the lot - who cares after that... Why should I think they haven't just found more clever packaging that will still peel away and warp and smell bad after a few summers? Replies to this message: anythingbuttoy (Sep 24, 2007 4:45 pm) gotoyota (Sep 24, 2007 9:33 pm)
#193 of 333 Re: Did I say something funny? [anythingbuttoy] by gotoyota Sep 24, 2007 (1:03 pm)
Replying to: anythingbuttoy (Sep 24, 2007 3:02 am) Funny, I've been looking for expert reviews to corroborate the complaints voiced so often by a few cowboys in this here forum, and all I can find is good stuff. How can this be? http://www.automotive.com/2007/43/toyota/tundra/reviews/driving-impressions/inde- x.html http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2007/02/carscom_faceoff.html http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2007/08/06/057372.html http://www.trucktrend.com/roadtests/suv/163_0704_fullsize_truck_comparison Before the GM guys start pointing out that the Silvy was handicapped by the 5.3L engine in a couple of the tests, it still has to make due with 2 fewer gears and still doesn't do as well in real world fuel economy. The 6.0 certainly wouldn't be more economical than the 5.3L. And strangely, no one is complaining about the C-channel rear frame on the Tundra. Looks to me like both are pretty dang good trucks, which is good news for everyone. Even the "biased" folks at CR rated the Silvy a top pick, second to the Tundra, of course But that won't matter in this crowd, I just think it's fun to point it out. Replies to this message: 1offroader (Sep 24, 2007 5:06 pm) gotoyota (Sep 24, 2007 9:10 pm)
#194 of 333 Re: Did I say something funny? [anythingbuttoy] by gotoyota by obyone Sep 24, 2007 (3:39 pm)
I wouldn't consider the folks at CR to be biased. I think uninformed would be a better description. I will give the Tundra this....I'd buy it in a heartbeat any day of the week over a Ridgeline..... Replies to this message: gotoyota (Sep 24, 2007 8:31 pm)
#195 of 333 Re: Uh.... [gotoyota] by anythingbuttoy Sep 24, 2007 (4:45 pm)
Replying to: gotoyota (Sep 24, 2007 7:15 am) "Sure the GMT900's interior looks nice now, but any objective and rational person has to wonder how it's going to hold up over time, because all of their interiors in the past have been terrible. The Tundra's interior looks a bit stark in comparison, but it's a safe bet that it's solidly built, and will hold up well over time because that's the way Toyota's have been for decades. Just because GM finally puts a nice interior in the GMT900 after years of cheap, misaligned plasticky interiors, it doesn't convince me overnight that they have completely changed their ways." Um, you may want to check out the several threads over at TS about the complaints about the Tundra's painted interior plastic rubbing off from normal wiping and even from a driver's knee after one long trip. I owned my last GM truck for 8 years and the dash and interior looked as good as it did on day 1. My bet would be on the GMT900's, their colors are dyed right into the plastic/vinyl. http://www.tundrasolutions.com/forums/tundra/110309-has-this-happened-to-your-da- - - - - sh/ http://www.tundrasolutions.com/forums/tundra/110530-dash-problems-see-this/ http://www.tundrasolutions.com/forums/tundra/110056-dash-rattle/ http://www.tundrasolutions.com/forums/tundra/107567-grey-int-paint-comes-off-eas- - ily/ Here is an excerpt from a post by a new Tundra buyer over at TS: "However i did find some irritating things, the radio didn't pickup any stations, the antenna was tight, but still only got a few stations and it sounded like crap. The truck didn't have remote start which sucks. Every piece of the truck just feels cheap. The dash vibrates over bumps, the doors bow out when you shut the door, also is very hard to shut, the tailgate sounds like an aluminum can, and all the interior compartments just were flimsy and cheaply made. The hitch reciever was also way too large for my hitch and it rattled like crazy. I know it's a very large truck, but the thing handles horridly. I can't believe i haven't read about this on the forum or any review, but while cornering at any speed the steering is horridly sloppy. Literally a quarter of a turn worth of slack in the steering while taking curves at any speed. As stated elsewhere the gauges while cool were horrible visibility wise while driving, "but was nice cause g/f couldn't see the speedo and gripe while driving" Another thing the exhaust sounds odd, more of a clatter/whine, than the rumble of my GM. Honestly i wish i could keep them both which i probably will, being as my dad is gonna keep his denali also" Replies to this message: gotoyota (Sep 24, 2007 9:33 pm)
#196 of 333 Re: Did I say something funny? [gotoyota] by 1offroader Sep 24, 2007 (5:06 pm)
Replying to: gotoyota (Sep 24, 2007 1:03 pm) I'm not sure why the CR people can't get better mpg, but I got 18.2 on a 350 mile trip before the engine (6.0L) was even broken in. And that's at a constant 70 mph (cruise control on, a/c on about 30%, only 100 lbs. of gear in the back), not 65 mph as many tests are done. It was also before I installed a tonneau, which might help with mpg. The AFM really works, I could see it toggle on and off. I challenge any other full size p/u to do better, or even as well. I find the combination of power and mileage astonishing in the Silverado, though I'd still like a small v-8 diesel w/250 hp and an honest 25 mpg. I'd buy that in a heartbeat. Just this past weekend, I drove to the mtns. pulling a small trailer (approx. 3,000 lbs.), 60-65 mph. Lots of mtn. roads, steep grades. Only got 14.7 mpg overall, but still I can't complain. I noticed the AFM didn't go into the 4 cyl. mode as often, but it did when the hwy. was flat and there was no head wind. No complaints here. Oh, and also, a 6 sp. does NOT guarantee any better fuel economy than a 4 sp. trans. What matters is the final drive ratio, which can be lower, higher, or the same between a 4 sp. and 6 sp. trans depending on final drive trans. gearing and the rear diff. gearing. 1offroader Replies to this message: gotoyota (Sep 24, 2007 9:10 pm)
#197 of 333 I know you're not tellin' me by drfill Sep 24, 2007 (5:30 pm)
A Chevy going 60 MPH in 3rd, and a Tundra going 60MPH in 5th will get the same economy. I HOPE you're not tellin' me that. I HOPE..... DrFill Replies to this message: 1offroader (Sep 24, 2007 7:06 pm) paisan (Sep 24, 2007 7:47 pm) drfill (Sep 25, 2007 5:00 am) dennisplus (Sep 25, 2007 6:48 am) anythingbuttoy (Sep 25, 2007 5:10 pm)
#198 of 333 Re: I know you're not tellin' me [drfill] by 1offroader Sep 24, 2007 (7:06 pm)
Replying to: drfill (Sep 24, 2007 5:30 pm) OK, fill, let's try this again. We understand you're just a salesman, and a Toyota salesman at that, but I'll make this simple enough for even you to understand. And I will use small-ish words whenever possible, OK? And, I will even try to stay out of the realm of mechanical engineering, just for you. Fair enuf? MPG is determined by final drive ratio, all else being equal. Final drive ratio is determined by the final gear ratio of the trans X the rear diff gear ratio. So, for example, IF the trucks have the same trans ratios and rear diff ratios, the remaining factors would be engine displacement, engine efficiency, body aerodynamics, vehicle weight, etc. Both the Tundra and Silverado have overdrive final trans ratios. I don't know what they are for either vehicle. My guess is you don't either, and you sell one of them. You may know the rear diff ratios offered in the Tundra because it's in the brochure, which as a salesman you're supposed to be familiar with. The rear diff on my Silverado is 3.73:1. That means that for every time the driveshaft turns 3.73 revolutions, the wheels turn once. (Ask a mechanic what the "driveshaft" is, since I promised you I wouldn't go into the icky mechanical engineering stuff). I posted what I have recently gotten in real mpg numbers (18.2 empty, 14.7 towing). I note with some curiosity that Tundra owners don't do much braggin' about their mpg, but I do, because it amazes me considering the power and weight of the vehicle, esp. compared to what trucks were getting just a few years ago. I owned a 1992 Toyota 4wd v-6 (3.0L) that could barely get 19 mpg on a good day with a tailwind. My 1985 4wd Toyota (2.4L 4 cyl.) would occasionally get 20 mpg, if it was feeling good on that day. Both of those trucks were downright feeble compared to my Silverado, and not half as capable. I have absolutely no idea what your post means about 3rd in the Chevy vs. 5th in the Tundra. The comparison means zip, because those are not the final gears that most people drive in. Most normal people (this may exclude you but I'm just being honest) do their hwy. driving in 4th (Chevy) and 6th (Tundra). So those are the only numbers that are directly comparable and have any meaning. Got it? Lesson over. 1offroader Replies to this message: paisan (Sep 24, 2007 7:47 pm) drfill (Sep 25, 2007 5:00 am) dennisplus (Sep 25, 2007 6:48 am) anythingbuttoy (Sep 25, 2007 5:10 pm)
#199 of 333 Re: I know you're not tellin' me [1offroader] by paisan Sep 24, 2007 (7:47 pm)
Replying to: 1offroader (Sep 24, 2007 7:06 pm) You are right offroader, the final ratios are what matters. It wouldn't matter if the chevy had a 2 speed transmission and the toyota had a 20 speed trans. If the final ratios are the same and all other factors equal, they would roughly get the same milage. On a side note at 67mph, I get 10.5mpg with my Armada towing 10,000 lbs with the A/C on. -mike
#200 of 333 Re: Did I say something funny? [anythingbuttoy] by gotoyota [obyone] by gotoyota Sep 24, 2007 (8:31 pm)
Replying to: obyone (Sep 24, 2007 3:39 pm) Good, good. We are making progress. I might be able to work with you, obyone The Ridgeline IS a girl truck. BUT, sorry, can't buy that the CR guys are the uninformed ones ... and the guys here in the forum are the experts Ha! We are all just a bunch of folks with opinions - AND BIAS.