Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Toyota Tundra vs. Chevrolet Silverado

1181921232462

Comments

  • what is BA, EBD, TC?

    Brake Assist, Elecronic Brakeforce Distribution, and Traction Control.

    My friend is a service manager for a GMC/Pontiac/Buick dealer in NH. After being on his second Sierra which is still riddled with problems, he is turning to the dark side and planning on buying a new Tundra. See, even though he can get things fixed in a jiffy without even leaving the office, he is still fed up with the quality and durability of his own product! Really says something about the impact that the Tundra is making on the domestic dominating market. If Toyota keeps the recall count to a minimum and these trucks really go off without a hitch (no pun intended) then they may very well earn the respect they deserve with the "Buy American" mindset.

    It's obvious that both the domestic manufacturers and their loyal customers have stood up and taken notice of the new Tundra. This is always a good thing as it will keep everyone on their toes. The buyers are going to prosper the most from it. ;)
  • drfilldrfill Posts: 2,484
    The Tundra may be the best, but it will need work to hold the crown. They have 18 months before a real challenge can be mounted.

    Either the 2009 Ram (Rampage?), or 2009 F-150 will surpass the Tundra, so the 2010 Tundra will need:

    1. The 270HP V6 in the 4Runner
    2. A new 5.0 V8 with 325HP to replace the 4.7
    3. Another 25Hp in the 5.7
    4. A more cohesive dash update, maybe a more car-like interior on the LTD.
    5. Obviously, a dualie/HD model should be available by then, with diesel and/or hybrid for half-ton.

    DrFill
  • jreaganjreagan Posts: 285
    Not sure what Brake Assist is or how it works. But the GM Crewcabs come std with "Stabilitrak" which utilizes engine power dist, and brake distribution, even steering input. So, essentially, the GM's DO have EBD and Traction control, they just use different terminology for the same technology.

    I am sure there are people who can give both good and bad testimony on any brand. I personally go by my own personal experience and to date I can NOT justify changing brands since my 89 GMC Sierra and my 2000 Sierra were both awesome trucks and NEVER gave me any significant problems. Now, if I have alot of problems with my 2007, would it make me go to the Dark Side? Maybe, maybe not, depends on the reputation of the competition. Bottom line is that trucks are Electro-Mechanical machines and you can get a good or bad one no matter what brand you buy.

    I agree that all of the mfrs will need to keep up with each other as they play "Technological Leapfrog". The domestic big 3 have been doing this for decades now and GM is almost always the lead frog. The Tundra just joined this game, so I wouldn't crown them lead frog just yet. Wait a year or so, so they can rate durability in there too. I also agree that the Tundra and all of the other foreign makes entering this market as legitimate contenders make ALL of the mfrs better and we the consumers all gain from it.
  • beliasbelias Posts: 316
    I think what this comparison comes down to is just what people WANT it to be rather than what it really is. Personally the newer truck interiors are a lot better than they were before. The trucks are a lot stronger and better overall in terms of safety, design, power, and speed.
    But what is really annoying is when the same factors that people were using to claim superiority in their choice are negating them as insignificant now. It is the most hypocritical aspect of the statements posted here. If power, acceleration, braking, etc is all of a sudden useless to you when your choice is no longer at the forefront of these comparisons, then why bother having the comparison in the first place? All these forums serve to do is just facilitate subjective claims which may not even affect anybody's decisions.
    One would hope that posts could be a little more objective so that when people make their decisions, they can at least do it on solid information knowing what the strengths and weaknesses of their choice are.
    Saying either of these trucks are perfect is just being blind. They are both very good trucks, but people need to DRIVE them first and SEE them in person at first to really understand what is going to be suitable for them.
    I've seen both vehicles in person. I have not gotten the chance to drive either of them, so I can not comment on that aspect. But I will say that the interiors are comparable in terms of functions. I like the layout of the Tundra's features better, though the mix/match of design is a little weird. I think a better interior would be the Denali, so I'm waiting to see that. However, the Silverado crew cab I saw, though the mix/match of materials was decent, the quality of the fit and finish was pretty bad. I made a point of telling the salesman about how even the gaps were uneven from one end of the dash to the other. Things like that bother me a lot, but it may not matter to others. Back seats were nicer in the Tundra than in the Silverado. Otherwise both were fairly comparable and nicer than most. Ford had a model (I think the King Ranch) that had a beautiful interior, but the actual truck was not great in terms of me finding a good seating position.
    For me, there isn't enough incentive for me to get the Silverado over the Tundra. The availability of the 6.0 would've made it a better comparison for capability if it was going to be as capable as the 5.7 of the Tundra, but it looks like the 6.2 in the Denali would be a better comparison.
    That is my preference right now, but I'll be anxious to see if the Denali lives up to all the hype that people give it or if this is going to be just a mediocre improvement. Judging from seeing the interior of the EXT, it looks like it will be somewhere between a mediocre improvement and an all out spectacular improvement. I'm especially interested in the leather as this is not an especially strong point of Toyota.
    Again, people will make up their own minds no matter what is said here. It is fine to ignore reviews if everyone agrees, but that means for better or for worse. People should go see the vehicles in person. And yes, that means that GM folks should step into a Toyota dealership and vice versa. Satisfy your curiosity instead of just making theoretical claims. Get in the truck, look around and be fair in terms of what you like and don't like. That way, when you do make a decision, you know what you have and can be content and satisfied in your choice.
    If not, you end up defending your choice without knowing your competition...
  • jreaganjreagan Posts: 285
    The Tundra may be the best, but it will need work to hold the crown.

    What "Crown"? Who has crowned them and how can they be crowned already when they are just releasing these trucks? They need to be out at least a year b4 they can take any crown, unless you are basing the crown solely on power and 0-60 times and not taking into account all of the other criteria.

    Sure they have a better shot with this Tundra at being the best than they ever have before, but I wouldn't count my chickens before they are hatched. They have been trying to compete with the big 3 for quite awhile now and haven't had any long-term success yet. Time will tell!!! In the meantime, we will all continue to benefit from this, no matter what brand we prefer.
  • jreaganjreagan Posts: 285
    You can get a 5.7 Tundra for well under $30k

    BS, not a 4x4 LTD Crewmax anyway.

    Invoice on a 2007 Tundra Crewmax LTD 4x4 BEFORE adding any options is $37,873 and MSRP is $41,850
  • jreaganjreagan Posts: 285
    I couldn't agree more...Finally a good post from you.

    I have seen both in person, but have only driven the GMC and the Silverado. I am sure the Toyota has tons of power based on what I read, but I was thoroughly impressed with every aspect of the GM's. Power, ride, interior, comfort...everything. And my past experience with GM confirms I made the right choice...for ME.
  • Great point.

    I remember the day when all you can get out of a 1/2 ton truck was 200 horses and maybe an 8,000 lb towing capacity. I have personally pulled more weight with a Chevy 350 1/2 ton than that....those things were beast in their day. The size given to them (1/2 ton, 3/4 ton, 1 ton) are all out of date...but still usefull when describing hauling capacity.

    The truth is now, a Colorado and Tacoma are pretty much 1/2 ton trucks.

    Either way...go with a 3/4 ton if you make a habit out of towing 8K-10K lbs. The engine power, cooling capacity, load ratings, transmission, rear axle, brakes are all upgraded over the 1/2 tons. The Silverado and Tundra may pull the weight, but they are mostly for light needs. The suspensions were designed for ride and handling (relative to 3/4 ton trucks which ride like tanks), etc.

    Maybe in a few years some of these 1/2 ton truck buyers who pull all this weight will say something different. I wouldnt' want to be the the first to try it, though.
    The 6.0L Chevy (in 3/4 tons that I have driven), while a great motor, just doesn't cut it with 10,000 lbs. It will move, but not very well. In fact, the only gas motor I have ever driven that could handle that kind of weight is the 8.1L V8 GM or the V10 Ford. Both of them take so much gasoline that you might as well have gotten a diesel engine, which cost thousands more. I doubt that the 5.7L Tundra is any better.

    Some of you should go price those 3/4 ton trucks. They are not that much more expensive than the 1/2 tons. The diesels are pricey, but they are actually worth it. If you do have a 4+ ton load, I would go with the 3/4 ton truck.
  • jreaganjreagan Posts: 285
    I agree with you 100%, check my recent posts. What you are seeing here is not what these people need for towing, they are seeking "Bragging Rights" for 0-60, 1/4 mile times and whose truck is capable of towing the most. However, these Tundra Loyalists on here trying to say the Tundra is the best truck made do not even own a truck and probably do not have a need for one. Must be macho thing or they are trying to compensate for "other" in-adequacies. I personally do not need anything more than a 1/2 ton since all I tow is a 3500# boat. But these people seem to think that 0-60 times are more important than anything else. Whatever!
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    "You cannot compare a $30K base Tundra to any 6.2 since they are top-of-line Denali's."

    Interesting. The only ones trying to make this comparison (apparently) are the GM folks.

    To clear the air: what was happening was the Toyota folks trumpeting the Tundra 5.7 powertrain as being 'superior' to the 6.0 in the Silverado. This was countered by the GM folks bringing up the 6.2l in the Denali.

    Yeah, ok, the 6.2l in the Denali is a nice piece of work; unfortunately it's gonna run in excess of $40k to GET the 6.2. It was then stated by the Tundra folks that IF you wanted that kind of power, you don't HAVE to spend that kind of money since the 5.7l powertrain IS AVAILABLE for under $30 in a Tundra.

    No, you don't get all the luxury crap that you'll find on a Denali. It's a damn TRUCK. I always thought the issue with the domestic folks in the past was NOT how 'nice' the truck was (since the older Tundras were generally regarded as being 'nicer' than the old Silverados). No, the dump on the old Tundra was that it didn't have the POWER and TOWING CAPACITY to be a 'real' 1/2 ton truck.

    But NOW? Jeez, now the issue is which one is 'nicer'?

    Enjoy the Denali. I'm sure it's a real 'nice' truck. But the fact is that one doesn't HAVE to spend in excess of $40k (or even $30k) to get a monster powertrain in a 1/2 ton truck.....
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Posts: 7,160
    Yes Stabilitrak is the same as Stbility Control and Traction control. Both are options on the GM's.

    EBD is also on the GM's in the brake force distribution from front to rear axels.

    Brake Assist is an advancement of the ABS system and the Electronic Braking system. When the computer senses that the pedal has been hit in a panic situation it puts the full force of the brakes on even if the brake pedal isn't fully depressed ( say a short-legged person or woman driver ). In a normal stop it does nothing.
  • jreaganjreagan Posts: 285
    I didn't buy a Denali, I bought a 2007 GMC Sierra SLT Crewcab with the 6.0l. I spent about $37K after a couple of $1K rebates and no, it's not a Denali, but it is loaded with everything except DVD and Nav. For the record, and my past posts show this. I NEVER ripped the Toyota, I simply defended the GM's. I also argued the power issue stating that both trucks have more than enough power for a 1/2 ton truck. I do value the car-like ride and luxury features since even though I do need a truck for towing my boat, 90% of my miles are as a daily driver. For me, the GM was the best choice because I believe they are the best value when you consider ALL of the criteria. Power, Amenities, features, safety, cost of ownership, fuel mileage and overall value for the $.

    A comparably equipped Tundra is MORE expensive than my GM. Sure, if you need the power and do not care about anything else and do not want to spend more than 30K, then the Toyota may be the right truck for you. But these comparisons (up until just recently) were comparing the loaded up Tundra to the GM's (SLT and Denali). Now all of sudden were comparing a stripped down Tundra with the 5.7l to the Denali?? Well, duh, of course it's cheaper.

    I think this forum has run it's course.

    Toyota Loyalists...Buy your Toyota
    GM Loyalists...Buy your GM
    End of story.
  • jreaganjreagan Posts: 285
    Yes Stabilitrak is the same as Stbility Control and Traction control. Both are options on the GM's.

    Correction, they are options on SOME of the GM's. The Crewcabs come with it standard.

    Brake assist sounds cool, but a little scary too. But so is Stability Control in a way. Scary to think that new technology is trying to do our thinking for us. Which is a good thing for the most part, but not necessarily ALL of the time.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Posts: 7,160
    Correction, they are options on SOME of the GM's. The Crewcabs come with it standard.

    Knew that... mistyped and left out a line, my bad good catch.
  • I just can't wait until summer to get the crewmax. I'm going to jack it up a few inches and throw some huge 38" inch tires on it. I can't wait to take it camping and fishing to show all the American made truck fans what a real machine looks like.

    I will never buy an American made vehicle. I work too hard for my money to just throw it away.

    And I'll be glad to race anyone once I get it. I can't wait to tell people "This rice burner will smoke your American made muscle." LMAO!

    Toyota rules!
  • maple2maple2 Posts: 177
    If you want to jack it up and put 38" tires on it, then go racing let me know how that works for you. youd probly have a tough time beating anything besides possibly a ridgeline :)
  • Don't worry. I'll get a street set of wheels and tires to race with. I'll keep the 38 inchers for the mud and for show.

    Thanks for caring.

    Check this out.

    http://forums.clubrsx.com/showthread.php?t=456494

    I think I'll stick with Toyota and Nissan.
  • Some of us remember. Some of us were their. Some of you are too young to remember. Some of you don't care.

    CK
  • blkhemiblkhemi Posts: 1,717
    Seeing how we have a huge crowd of mixed opinions of both trucks, let's put it all into perspective.

    Dr. Fill, I didn't think you participated on other threads except for HELC. Good to see you, however, the debate must go on.

    For the record, you know I'm not completely against all Toyota's. I think the Tacoma midsize is best in class. Much better than that pseudo-truck Ridgeline and it's caught the domestics sleeping.

    For the record tho, the Tundra doesn't equal or exceed the likes of the GMT-900 full-size GM pick-ups. The overall feel is nowhere near as solid as the ingot-like structure of the Silverado. Yeah, it has power, lots of it, but I'd like to see the average Tundra owner trying to hustle down an Corvette in a straight line. And the overall look is very disturbed. It's a Ram copy gone completely wrong. Oh and those brakes, let's just say that Toyota needs to apply some of that brute force to some it's Lexus cars.

    Me, I'm just a bystander. I love Rams's. HEMI's and CTD's, I've gottem all. But this Chevy for me goes down as the best assembled and best complete design of any pick-up. Oh and I hear that the other makers had better watch out when the big 2500/3500 models go on sale, with Duramax being completely redone, altho Dodge and Ford have completely fortified their HD line right along with the diesels. Since were here, where is the Toyota HD that we were promised upon release of the Tundra? Yeah that 800lbs-ft torque of diesel power was just another Toyota hoax. At least Nissan admitted it won't have one until next model cycle.

    For sure, the planned 200k Tundra's will for sure eat into the domestic slice of the pie by about 10%, but if Toyota is living on the same promises that Nissan showed up with the lackadaisical Titan, I believe I may be buying more Rams or Chevy's.

    BTW, Doc, you can read the Truck Trend, MT, and C&D articles to back up my Silverado claims. Truck Trend even tested a 5.3 against the mighty 5.7 and it still didn't waver them one bit, altho the accel times were pretty evident.

    But I will say. I'm very glad Toyota stopped bringing a butter knife to a .306 rifle fight. And to the guys that say they only by Toyota or Nissan, what were you driving long before these guys even attempted the full-size class?
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Posts: 7,160
    Well that's one perspective. Maybe not the most accurate one but everyone's entitled.....

    The GMT900's are solid no doubt and the look is much better than before, although for my preference they might be too pretty to be work vehicles.

    For the record tho, the Tundra doesn't equal or exceed the likes of the GMT-900 full-size GM pick-ups.

    This statement is just inaccurate. If you read the previous posts..
    ..the Tundra far exceeds the GM's in towing capability with two minor exceptions;
    ..engine strength is about the same but the 6 spd tranny on the Tundra sets it apart;
    ..the braking system on this beast is second to none;
    ..no other truck in the segment has all of the passive and active safety features standard across every single model;

    Since were here, where is the Toyota HD that we were promised upon release of the Tundra? Yeah that 800lbs-ft torque of diesel power was just another Toyota hoax. At least Nissan admitted it won't have one until next model cycle.

    You are grossly misinformed or misread someones ill-informed opinion. The HD versions were never scheduled to debut with the gasser version. It has always been said that they are 1-2 years later. It makes no sense to shoot all the ammunition in the first volley.

    This isn't a sprint to be number one in trucks in 3 years. It's a marathon over the next 20 years to make this product profitable by small but ever-increasing steps. It doesn't matter what the volume is or which one is No 1 in sales just that all of them are profitable.

    It's only business.

    So now Toyota just put a .44 Magnum on the table, 'Let's deal the cards'. Let the market decide.
  • drfilldrfill Posts: 2,484
    As I mentioned before, Popular Mechanics and this site chose the Tundra over the GM. And the AMCI tests were rather decisive! :blush:

    I've read TruckTrend articles on the two trucks, but they begged off picking a winner in the one I read last week at the mall, which didn't have full Tundra pricing at print.

    If you have another comparison for me to see, please advise. I'm more than happy to stay appraised of the media's scrutiny.

    And for the record, I am glad that GM is turning this Titanic around, and fielding competitive products! They are easily the most adaptable of the Big 2.5, and can mount a credible defense against the juggernaut that is Toyota!

    If the 6.0 was readily available, or not overmanaged at the factory, I'd see it as a closer match-up, but if you need a $45k truck to fight the 5.7 SR5, just to get a competitive engine, you are 2nd best.... :sick:

    I'm just a bystander myself. ;) But it looks like a fun contest to call.

    When the '09 Ram and F-150 get here, it should really stoke the fire! :surprise:

    DrFill
  • drfilldrfill Posts: 2,484
    You are grossly misinformed or misread someones ill-informed opinion. The HD versions were never scheduled to debut with the gasser version. It has always been said that they are 1-2 years later. It makes no sense to shoot all the ammunition in the first volley.

    This isn't a sprint to be number one in trucks in 3 years. It's a marathon over the next 20 years to make this product profitable by small but ever-increasing steps. It doesn't matter what the volume is or which one is No 1 in sales just that all of them are profitable.


    The Camry had a relatively easy mountain to climb compared to the Tundra.

    The Tundra should sell 175k this year, over 200k next year, and then we'll see how the Tundra HD enters the frey.

    By 2010, the Tundra will still probably be only make it to Ram-level sales. If all goes well!

    If anyone can be patient, or show patience, to get the job done right, it's 'Yota! They aren't trying to take the truck market anytime soon, just get the Tundra brand name established for the long-haul.

    Considering the amount of money Toyota brings in, just from this market, it can be considered a pet project at this point.

    I'd still like to see a new Supra, for old times sake. :cry:

    DrFill
  • ggesqggesq Posts: 701
    How did the previous generation Tundra fail? Power, towing, interior space, limited configurations...??

    How does the new Tundra address these shortcomings (if any)?
  • jreaganjreagan Posts: 285
    Toyota's solution was simple...

    Copy the American trucks as much as possible...throw a bunch of power at it and call themselves the best. Sounds simple huh?....Time will reveal that there is MUCH MORE to it than that if you want to be in it for the long haul (pun intended).

    From what I hear, the Toyota does not ride as nice and provides a very rough ride on bumpy roads. This can only lead to one thing....rattles!! I hate rattleboxes and I would like to see how a Tundra rides and sounds after about 50K miles. My 2000 GMC Sierra now has 90K miles on it and I am proud to say it has 0, zero, zilch, nada...NO rattles. It rides as smooth and quiet as the day I got it. With the exception of a little wind noise from one of my rear pass wing windows (ext cab) under certain conditions (speed, wind direction, etc). Truck or not, today's half tons should ride and sound like a car. They are by far the most versatile and practical vehicle a person can own and should carry the attributes of a truck, car and SUV as far as capability, power, ride, amenities, etc, etc.

    I am confident my new 2007 will be no different than my last 2 GMC's. Simply the best. My experience speaks for itself. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY can tell me different.
  • ggesqggesq Posts: 701
    Thanks for taking the time to respond to my post but you totally missed my question. In all fairness I want to know how the previous generation Tundra failed and how the new one has fixed the predecessors shortcomings. Obviously, there is more hp and more towing capabilities but what else?

    I really could care less hearing about the GM products much less your experience with your GM truck.

    I really don't agree with the following statement- "Truck or not, today's half tons should ride and sound like a car."
    If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then...? I don't expect a truck to drive like a car, I expect it to drive like a truck- Big, powerful, and torquey. :confuse: Am I missing something here? Who wants to tool around in a girly truck? I'm not saying either one of these trucks are girly.

    I do agree that time will tell how the new Toyota will turn out. But from the outset, it looks like it has the goods.
  • jreaganjreagan Posts: 285
    Sorry, you're right. I should have rambled on about that in another post, I really didn't intend to address your question....my bad.
  • Karen_CMKaren_CM Posts: 5,014
    We love spirited debates, however, when comments become insulting and personal it quickly destroys a good discussion. Please do try to keep your remarks about the two trucks and not each other.

    Thanks for your cooperation!

    KarenS/CarSpace Forums Manager

    Community Manager If you have any questions or concerns about the Forums, send me an email, karen@edmunds.com, or click on my screen name to send a personal message.

  • beliasbelias Posts: 316
    I think when confronted with undeniable specs (i.e. hp, towing, speed, torque, brakes, transmission, etc.) that the Tundra is at least as good on paper if not all out better than the Silverado that it may be perceived as threatening to people whose loyalties are with GM.
    In reality though, few will detract unless their are distinctive qualities not offered in the Silverado (i.e. the CrewMax has a huge back seat or something like that). I see many more sales coming out from under Ford than anybody else. The Silverado is a great truck! My personal preference for comparison is the Denali (to the Tundra because I would be getting the loaded versions of both anyway), but I have to reserve judgement until I can see it in person like I did with the Silverado and Tundra.
  • Karen_CMKaren_CM Posts: 5,014
    I'm making this read only briefly. Let's step back and take a deep breath. Time for a break.

    Community Manager If you have any questions or concerns about the Forums, send me an email, karen@edmunds.com, or click on my screen name to send a personal message.

  • KCRamKCRam Mt. Arlington NJPosts: 3,516
    ...the recess did everyone some good... hope you had a snack, a beverage, and a nap. Previous warnings still apply, though. If it gets personal or off-topic, it's outta here.

    kcram - Pickups Host
This discussion has been closed.