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 34 of 34: 1; ...; 28; 29; 30; 31; 32; 33; 34; Prev; Next; Last

#331 of 333 Re: Well, [drfill] by anythingbuttoy Oct 12, 2007 (2:30 pm)
Replying to: drfill (Oct 11, 2007 7:36 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. DrFill 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 HOST Oct 12, 2007 (5:58 pm)
...you can be proud of yourselves for getting this discussion suspended. kcram - Pickups Host