Last post on Oct 12, 2007 at 5:58 PM
You are in the Pickups - Archived Discussions
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
#324 of 333 Re: Like you'd wise up? [titancrew]
Oct 12, 2007 (7:09 am)
"Tundra has better ground clearance, approach and departure angles. GM 1/2tons have horrible approach angles. Most CUV have better approach angles. If you're planning to do some offroading with the silverado, better memorize the part the number of that front air dam and foglights. No bluetooth connectivity on silverado. 4spd tranny issues on silverado, eventhough they had a million years to perfect this tranny, they still having failures. Even fulgier than the Tundra with that huge fugly grill. Tundra has 10.5" rear diff on 5.7L V8 and 9.5" on all other. Front and Rear sonar parking assist on Tundra, only rear parking assist on silverado. Unlike ford and nissan, which have a true fully boxed frame, silverado is only boxed to the spare tire cross-member and c-channel from there on. "
#326 of 333 In other words
Oct 12, 2007 (12:33 pm)
If you want a GM advantage, go off-road, way off-road, to find one.
It has a very nice interior, and a versatile 4WD set-up.
Maybe that bird will fly in a walkaround. But I'm not counting on it.
#329 of 333 Re: Like you'd wise up? [titancrew]
Oct 12, 2007 (1:54 pm)
Actually the G80 in the heavier duty versions of the rear axle are quite stout. The G80 in the lighter duty half ton is the one that has been known to "grenade" but usually only because the tires guys use to go off-roading are too large for that particular axle. Also, GM transmissions are known for their toughness. It wasn't until the GMT 800 re-design in '99 that the light duty 4L60E started having problems. Before that, that transmission would average 150,000 miles before it had to be serviced or rebuilt. But the heavier duty 4L80E is just down right legendary. (which is one of the reasons why i opted for a K2500 over the K1500 by the way)
As far as trucks spending most of their time in drive ways, well that's true for most trucks, foreign and domestic. I'm in California and I see many new Tundras, not a one has a spec of dirty on em. My theory is that the type of buyer that buys the tundra usually isn't one to go off-road or haul anything "heavy" in the first place so most likely they will only use a fraction of all that power and size over it's life time. Very sad indeed. And it is curious why the Tundra doesn't have a locker. Maybe they know their market and that their buyers don't like dirt..although the new Land Cruiser has one and it has roughly the same power and weight as the Tundra. But there's absolutely no excuse for the frame. The new Tundra frame is a decades old design and I can't for the life of me figure out why they went that direction. It is true that the HD's from the domestics also use C-channel frames, but the steel they use is much thicker than the stuff used on the Tundra so that's why they can get away with it there. Anyway, here's a few videos some of you might find interesting depending on your persuasion...
P.S. I love how in the second video, the Tundra has a hard time keeping up with everyone else..hehehe
Oct 12, 2007 (2:30 pm)
It's better than talking about box sizes, interior room, safety features, gear ratios, engine power, or comparison tests.
Best to steer consumers away from such minor issues.
Fine, let's talk about these..here is my take on them:
Box sizes: The GMT900 Crewcab's are 4" longer than the Crewmax's. Not sure about actual volume, but if you think that is more important then length, then so be it. But with significantly less payload, how can the crewmax take advantage of higher "volume" unless you're hauling pillows in it. As long as you brought up Boxes, nice exposed bed bolts on the Tundra, nice touch!!!
Interior room: Ext cab vs DC, not sure if there is any difference? Crewcab vs Crewmax...Yes, the Crewmax has more rear legroom...BUT!!! The way the rear seats fold is simply retarded and a completely innefficient use of space. I can guarantee you if I completely filled my rear cab area up with "stuff" (luggage, boxes, etc) with the seats folded up there is no way in hell you could take it all out and get it into a Crewmax. The seats are right in the way...all the time. Why would you want to haul stuff stacked on top of a folded down seatback instead of on the floor? Just so you can claim "reclining rear seat backs"? My rear seats have a very comfortable seatback angle already. And there are NO exposed seat brackets on the floor when I fold my seat bottoms up. Nothing but a flat, clean floor.
Safety features: My truck has them ALL, plus Onstar. All for less money that a comparably equipped Tundra.
Gear Ratios: GM offers more choices there too; 3.42, 3.73 and 4.10.
Engine Power: 367 HP and 375 lb-ft isn't enough in a 1/2 ton? hmmm, I wonder how 1/2 tons got by for so many years with sub-300 HP engines? (sub-200 HP in the 80's). Oh, and GM offers more HP than Tundra does (403 in the Denalis). I know you will say that "Toyota offers the 5.7 in all configs"...true, BUT!!! They have to, they have no 3/4 or 1 ton's to offer as an alternative. Need a high-torque engine in RC? Simple, buy a K2500 with either the 6.0 gasser or a Diesel. Even then, who will have a diesel available in the 1/2 ton first? Yep, GM!!!
Comparison tests: LOL, I ain't even goin' there. Great marketing stuff for you sales guys though huh? Too bad that's all it is though. "Buy the Tundra" CR says it's the best, just like a Maytag!!! LOL
#333 of 333 Since a few of you can't behave...
by KCRam@Edmunds HOST
Oct 12, 2007 (5:58 pm)
...you can be proud of yourselves for getting this discussion suspended.
kcram - Pickups Host