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 21 of 34: 1; ...; 18; 19; 20; 21; 22; 23; 24; ...; 34; Prev; Next; Last

#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.
#201 of 333 Re: People here make way too much of the interiors of pick-up trucks [anythingbuttoy] by gotoyota Sep 24, 2007 (8:53 pm)
Replying to: anythingbuttoy (Sep 23, 2007 7:55 am) Nobody cares? LOL, nice try!!! I do, and from reading all of the forums, so do most people. "Utilitarian" Most people? To me, it sounds like a few very noisy people. Tundra...again, LOL, is that why I have yet to see one with a company badge/sign on it or on ANY construction sites? Ahem... I would say at least half of the Tundras I have seen over the last few days (since I've been watching) DO have a business name on the side. AND, one major builder who's HQ is right off the freeway on my way to work has been changing out their fleet of various Ford and Chevy HD's to white Tundra's. At first they had one... now they have 4. Go figure. Only a few Ford SD's remain to represent the BIG3 in their parking lot. Face it, 95% of Tundra's are driveway queens that make Home Depot runs and streetlight race back home with fertilizer and plants in the bed. And your point is... there's something wrong with that? But in a sense you are correct, Toyota fans who buy this truck for it's 0-60 times can overlook it's inferiorities. What inferiorities are you talking about? The C-channel frame? I don't think that argument is holding up based on what the real truck experts are saying. If it truly was inferior, nobody would even use the words Tundra and Benchmark in the same sentence, as they have. Oh, what was wrong with the GMT800's interiors? How about cheap plastic on the dash and door panels and way too many seams, none of which aligned (I'm surprised you even have to ask, as often as you praise the "fit-n-finish" of its successor) in a purposeful fashion, or how about the generic GM parts bin door pulls (painted chrome in the very pricey Escalade) or the generic GM parts bin pieces used for HVAC etc.? Dude, c'mon, it sucked compared to pretty much everything else... Although it did have probably the most comfortable ride of all its competitors - I'll give it that. But quality it wasn't.
#202 of 333 Re: Did I say something funny? [1offroader] by gotoyota Sep 24, 2007 (9:10 pm)
Replying to: 1offroader (Sep 24, 2007 5:06 pm) 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. Not true. More cogs helps to ensure that the engine stays at optimum efficiency more of the time, thereby reducing the need for more throttle input while waiting to achieve RPM nirvana. Other factors come into play as well, such as the availability of the power and the engine speed at which peak torque is achieved. If the torque peak is reached at a higher RPM in one vehicle versus another, the one in which peak torque is reached earlier will tend to get better fuel economy. The Tundra has a broader torque curve than Chevy's 6.0 and more gears, and I'll bet it has no trouble achieving at least 18 mpg on the highway.
#203 of 333 Re: Uh.... [anythingbuttoy] by gotoyota Sep 24, 2007 (9:33 pm)
Replying to: anythingbuttoy (Sep 24, 2007 4:45 pm) "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" You're buyin' this? You love it because it reinforces what you would like to think. The first thing I think when I read this is that it completely contradicts everything else I have read about the Tundra and everything I have personally known about Toyota's in general. In my readings I find that it has the sportiest handling of all trucks and has a high quality feel to all of its parts - even the hard plastic dash. No Toyota I have ever driven or looked at on a showroom floor has had anything even remotely tinny about it, but quite to the contrary, has been notably solid and really, almost over-engineered. Toyota is anything but dumb or short-sighted and they have spent a lot of $$ making sure the new Tundra is ready to play with Detroit. The guy is either a fake or just plain ignorant. Also with regard to the silver paint rubbing off, I'm curious to see this as my wifes new Sienna Limited has some silver trim on the dash at knee level, and it's a quality piece. It appears that the silver mixed in with the plastic, not painted on. but it is at least a very high quality piece, even if it turns out to be painted. I can say that it doesn't even have a single scratch on it today, in spite of my wife's big purse smacking into it every time she drives it, or my daughter throwing her metal framed backpack at it when riding to school. I would think if it can withstand this, it ought to be able to hold up at least as well to a knee covered in jeans. Again, I have not examined the Tundra up close... just find it curious to have so many contradictions to traditional Toyota quality popping up -only in the forums...
#204 of 333 Re: I know you're not tellin' me [1offroader] by drfill Sep 25, 2007 (5:00 am)
Replying to: 1offroader (Sep 24, 2007 7:06 pm) If the lesson is over, hopefully you've learned something! The final drive ratios and gearing are factors, but far from the final chapter in the story of fuel economy. The chances of a Tundra driver with a 6-speed and a Silvy driver with a 4-speed getting the same economy are slim, factoring in vehicle weight, power/torque curves, engine technology available, aerodynamic drag, driving conditions, driver input, road conditions, drivetrain applications, payload/towing usage, etc. Maybe you should tell me you want a 4-speed instead and be done with it. The comparison does mean zip, because you are better off with the 6-speed for both acceleration and/or economy purposes, depending on your needs, if you are of normal intellect. The fantasy island you live in, where every factor will be equal between two unequal trucks, is ready for YouTube, but not a serious discussion. If you want 4-speeds please, take the 4-speed! Just don't advertise it as something of any particular value against a better tranny. I'm trying to give you some credit here..... DrFill Replies to this message: dennisplus (Sep 25, 2007 6:48 am) anythingbuttoy (Sep 25, 2007 5:10 pm)