Last post on Oct 12, 2007 at 6:58 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
#78 of 333 Re: Couple more vids [obyone]
Sep 14, 2007 (5:40 pm)
Thanks for the links to the videos. I don't care if it was a Ford ad, the video doesn't lie. It is what it is. The video of the frames was really interesting. The Tundra frame is flimsy by comparison, the F150 frame is clearly superior in every respect. I'd be interested in a "frame-off" between the F150 and the new Silverado, since that is what I currently own. The Silverado is also fully boxed. Before I bought I slid under the Silverado and Tundra (which I always do when I contemplate a car puchase. How many other people do that I wonder???). The Silverado undercarriage blew me away compared to the Tundra.
Before you start the flames, let me once again say that I've owned 2 Toyotas, 1 of which was really good (1985) and one of which was mediocre at best (1992). But at least they both had relatively beefy fully boxed frames considering they were "mini-trucks". The riveted c-channel Tundra frame is a huge step backward. Why would Toyota do that? To save on cost maybe? I dunno, but it's a mistake in terms of durability and a marketing blunder, if what you're trying to do is appeal to the American truck owner who needs a working machine that will last.
Once again, a good marketing strategy by Ford. When you strip a vehicle down you really get to see what's underneath. The Tundra is wearin' a thong under them fancy duds, I'm tellin' ya.
#79 of 333 Re: Well... [gotoyota]
Sep 14, 2007 (10:37 pm)
Well the critics are right here in this forum..duh. Thats my point. the new tundra owners are having a grand ol time these days, as they should, since their beloved company FINALLY built them a decent truck. All im saying is that you never hear a peep out the previous model tundra owners but now they're talkin all big and bad...I just find it funny. And funnier still how, i would guess, that 99% of these tundras will never see a spec of dirt. They'll just sit in the drive-way looking fugly as all toyota vehicles do, never being used for their intended purpose or using anywhere near all the power they make. But when you look at most work trucks they are always chevys fords and dodges, even though the trundra name has been out for several years now...and i guess im not one of those americans who owned an american car that didn't make it past 40k. both my parents still have their old chevy's(camaro) and fords(f150) and are well on their way to seeing almost half a milliion miles. My '91 Explorer had almost 140,000 on it before i got into a wreck. Not a lick of problems. Meanwhile almost 10 million toyotas have been recalled in the past few years both here and in japan for quality issues, sludge in the engine, or shaky suspensions...just food for thought.
#80 of 333 Re: Well... [12ozcurls]
Sep 15, 2007 (7:11 am)
I posted a few weeks back in the Silverado forum about a vacation I took into the Heartland (Montana, Utah, Wyo., Iowa, S.Dakota, etc.) . I made some observations about the trucks I saw doing actual work. I saw a few new Tundras, but they were all in the cities, nice and clean, hauling zip. I also saw quite a few new 2007 Silverados/GMCs, hauling hay, towing trailers loaded with farm equip. etc., splattered in mud and gawd knows what else. In other words, working. (There were also tons of Fords & Dodges, but I can't tell the 07s from earlier models). My conclusion was that a sale is a sale as far as Toyota is concerned, but if they want to crack the truck market they are going to need to get some of their trucks on ranches and farms where the real work is going on. So far it ain't happenin'.
#81 of 333 Re: Well... [1offroader]
Sep 15, 2007 (12:21 pm)
i see a lot of tundras towing. Theres a hell of a lot more chevys and gmc trucks out there. Millions actually the sierra and silverado combined are close or over a million trucks a year thats more then the f150 now 2-3 years of gm trucks thats 3+ million of course your going to see some doing some farm work in the middle of no where since they come easy. Toyotas gotten into the big 3s sweet spot and their only selling 150-200k trucks a year and arnt doing that bad and a lot of people are finding out toyota sandbagged this sucker. I would like to see how the chevy would do in a head on crash with a similar tundra. Tundras weight 500-600 pounds more then the a fully loaded 6.o silvy.
#82 of 333 Re: Well... [toykicks]
Sep 15, 2007 (3:47 pm)
Towing what, jet-skis? I'm talkin about real towing, real work and off-road play...The point i was trying to make is not that the new tundra isn't capable, but the the type of buyer who purchases these trucks aren't the type that are going to actually use their trucks as trucks...
#83 of 333 Re: Well... [toykicks]
Sep 15, 2007 (5:57 pm)
You are mixing apples & oranges here. I made it clear that I was making an observation about the 07s *only*. I am NOT referring to previous years' sales, so your 3+ million trucks reference is completely irrelevant. If you are being purposely obtuse, then stop it, OK?
The 07 Tundras I observed were towing/hauling/working at NOTHING. They were all CITY TRUCKS. The 07 Silverados & Sierras (mostly Silverados BTW) were in large measure on farms, ranches, etc.
I live in the Los Angeles area. I actually see quite a few 07 Tundras, but they are not doing any work, except hauling their owners back and forth to jobs in the city. They are commuter vehicles. If Toyota wants to ultimately be successful in the truck segment they will need to crack the work market, and they aren't doing that, at least not yet. Perhaps, in time, they will.
That was my entire point.
As far as a head to head crash, what I am going to say will make you very sad, but that's life. That crash test was recently done by NHTSA and Tundra came in LAST(!) against the Big 3. Dodge, Chevy, and Ford all got 5 stars, Tundra got 4 stars. Do you understand Tundra=LAST in a head-on crash test??? The ratings mean that the Tundra was twice as likely to result in a serious injury or death to the driver. Don't believe me? Google it, or check these boards!
#84 of 333 Re: Well... [12ozcurls]
Sep 15, 2007 (7:41 pm)
Point well taken and I appreciate your thought. But in all fairness, Toyota had a couple of years of recalls and everyone is jumping all over them (I haven't heard anything about a recall for shaky suspensions, just the ball joint issue). Lets not ignore the fact that millions of Chevy's and Fords have been recalled over the years as well. Personally, I don't hold recalls against any carmaker - I see them as a good thing. Having a manufacturing background, I know how a supplier can really screw things up, even when you have done everything humanly possible to ensure all will go as planned. Recalls are a way for a manufacturer to take responsibility and own their mistakes, as well they should. Ford has had its share of of problems during recent years, and so has Chevy. My last GM needed a new engine at 80K. I was pissed when that happened, because it wasn't my fault and it was due to a problem they knew existed but did nothing about it. Sure, Toyota had a sludging problem with it's 2.2L and 3.0L engines... My mother in law had one that blew, but she NEVER changed the oil, either, and it lasted through 130k miles of her abuse and neglect. When it happened, Toyota sent her a letter - on their own accord - notifying her that they regretted the situation and would be willing to reimburse her for the incurred costs if she could verify that she'd at least changed the oil once every 15K miles!! I think that shows a lot of integrity. There was a reasonable explanation as to why the engines were failing that I don't want to go into right now because it isn't going to change anyones mind anyway... GM has literally had hundreds of thousands of engine failures in the last ten to fifteen years because of faulty intake gaskets, or dex-cool, or whatever it turned out to be. I was one of those cases. Point is, no manufacturer is perfect and no machine is 100% reliable... but Toyota's line is the most dependable over the long term, especially when all models are considered. GM and Ford have had some that are very good, but they have not been consistent accross all models. Perceptions are different as well. People have different expecations for their cars and what one person would report as a problem, another person wouldn't. I've heard people tell me things as crazy as "I never had any problems with it... just the transmission had to be replaced at 60K... other than that it has been perfect." There are always some good apples and some bad ones - as a buyer, you simply have to look at a manufacturers track record and assess the risk and make your choice based on the facts. And if you're smart you pick the one that has a reputation for having mostly good ones. And... you probably didn't hear a lot of bragging from the previous Tundra owners because they knew their trucks really didn't compete with real full size trucks, but were more designed as a truck that a Tacoma driver could "graduate" to. The new one is a credible threat to GM, Ford and Dodge half tons, and that's why everyone is trashing it. As for the bed shake, it does look pretty bad in the video, but I don't know that it means the truck is designed badly - it just doesn't look good in that particular test. I saw it looking pretty dang good in the pull tests, which i would think is more applicable.
#85 of 333 Re: Well... [12ozcurls]
Sep 15, 2007 (8:01 pm)
That's probably accurate. I know I'm not ever going to take one into the mud unless I have to. Heck, if I spend that much on a new truck, I'm not beating it up But I would use it to haul a boat (or maybe jet ski's) and for occasional trips to Home Depot, etc. Maybe Toyota designed it to appeal to people like myself? I dunno. But I sure like it and if I did buy one it would be because I occasionally need a truck to haul stuff, but still want something that goes from 0-60 in 6.0 seconds too. For me, the Tundra is the perfect fit. And I actually DO like the new Silverado and the F150 quite a lot, but if I bought one of those, it would be decked out with all the goodies, like 20" rims so it would handle more like a car, but then I would want it to go faster and have more gears.... so yeah, I'm one of the people who would never use it for a work truck, but I can still have one, can't I?
#86 of 333 Re: Well... [gotoyota]
Sep 15, 2007 (11:55 pm)
hahaha for sure man, it's all good. It just pisses me off when some toyota guys act like their vehicles are the best thing since silicon implants. It's all up to the potential owner. For me, I go off road and beat the living crap out of my truck so naturally I'm not going to get something new or fancy whatever the brand, it just all depends. And as far as recalls go, I'm surely aware of the big 3 and their recalls. Every car company has their problems, especially these days as cars and trucks get ever more complicated. But as i said before, some act like their rigs are perfect, especially sum of the Toyota guys. I was simply trying to remeind everyone that they have their problems as well. I have a '98 Chevy K2500 with a lift and big tires, in case anyone was wondering where I'm comming from....
#87 of 333 Re: Dang! . . . [dennisplus]
Sep 16, 2007 (9:43 am)
That was a sophomoric demonstration of the laws of physics.
The truck on the left (the video quality was not that good) lost cohesion (ie: reduced friction) with the road surface as soon as the tires started to spin on the pavement. The blue truck could then more easily pull the black truck forward despite the black trucks wheels spinning against the direction of pull.
Notice that the black truck could no longer pull the blue truck as soon as the blue truck driver applied the brakes. Prior to that, when engine power was applied through the transmission torque converters, neither truck was going anywhere.
The only thing this test proves is that some people have too much free time on their hands and others are extremely naive.