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

1252628303162

Comments

  • jreaganjreagan Posts: 285
    Good post pmusce,
    I would like to add:
    Why do you Toyota fans discount the advantages of the GM over the Toyota as "useless", "insignificant", etc, etc. yet you claim the Tundra is better because it can tow 300 lbs more and does the 1/4 mile in a fraction of a second less time. Talk about useless specs!!!
    Tell me what the Tundra can do that the GM's can't? And with higher tech frames, better ride, better interior, more availability (HD versions...PROVEN ones), better warranty, etc, etc. The obvious choice is the GM.
  • beliasbelias Posts: 316
    Yes, the 5.7l HEMI on paper was the most powerful pick-up up until a couple of years ago, but Chevy/GMC had many options including the 8.1l that was considerably stronger and more capable. The larger problem was that the HEMI didn't feel like it was very powerful. I remember asking the salesman on the test drive if he was sure that it had the HEMI engine in it. Honestly, both the 5.3l Avalanche and the Titan at the time felt stronger. They had better pickup and were quieter on the highway.
    But, you're right about it being technically the most powerful up until recently. That isn't the point though, the larger point is that Dodge in particular, and even Ford have a serious issue producing efficient engines. When a 5.7l Hemi is getting close to the same gas mileage as an 8.1l Chevy engine, something is seriously wrong. Look at some feedback numbers from customers just on sedans with the Hemi in it! It is ridiculous that an AWD 300C with the 5.7 Hemi gets almost the same real-world mileage as an AWD truck like the Tundra or Silverado. Many are saying 14mpg city, 20mpg hwy and there are just as many claiming significantly less as more than that. I didn't do any averages on customer feedback, but results are definitely poor. And that Hemi has MDS on it as well to save fuel on hwy drives.
    So, if a car that weighs 1700 lbs less than a truck has an engine that takes virtually as much gas, what do you think happens when you put it in a full-size truck with the extra weight? Never mind the problems in trying to use the same Hemi design to get more power. That means that fuel consumption will go up even more. The 6.1 Hemi on the sedan gets worse mileage than the Tundra and the Silverado (and Titan and even Ford). That engine already produces 425hp, but add another 1700 lbs, and the already poor mileage drops by another 30%. Ram owners are reporting numbers in the 10mpg range city and 12/13mpg hwy. That is with the current Hemi. Their 5.9l did considerably worse, so the Hemi was a step up, but gas mileage is certainly more important now. Manufacturers have to be able to produce a truck that has a huge capacity for strength, durability and power, while ensuring that it is efficient when those attributes are not required. That is VERY difficult to do.
    Ford has a similar problem though they are not obligated to a particular engine design because of marketing like Dodge is. They just need to bring their numbers up period. Too much weight in the truck, an anemic engine, and pretty much the ugliest truck around up until this current model. I've always wondered why people ever bought them... but they are nice inside.
    Anyhow, point taken on your specs, I understand that; my point was that, going ahead, Ford and Dodge are going to have a lot of challenges to tackle. Nissan's challenge is more related to offerings and more variety in bed lengths and cab configurations. Chevy/GMC have a variety of engines to choose from. Toyota needs to bring out 3/4 and 1 ton trucks to continue to be competititve. I just see Dodge trying to hang on to their current numberd for dear life. Ford is definitely going to shed some truck sales to the competition, though the rate may not be too bad overall.
    Still, it is hard to believe that these trucks all get much better mileage than my dad's 1975 Nova 6-banger...
  • beliasbelias Posts: 316
    Well, the Tundra is fully boxed up front under the engine, then it has a double-re-enforced C channel under the cab and a C channel under the bed.
    The reasoning is that a fully-boxed frame all the way through puts a lot of strain and stress on the suspension. It also has the problem of dragging the front end of the vehicle (causing some control loss) when the bed is loaded and there is a loss of traction.
    The idea of the chassis is to provide both strength and durability. Fully boxed frames are nothing new, but there are proven reasons why they have not always been used. Squeaks and rattles BTW are just as easily caused by a fully boxed frame because the interior materials used in trucks flex more than the frame. So, it is striking a balance that prevents it. If the frame flexes too much, you get squeaks -- not enough, you get squeaks. It has to be accommodating in certain areas.
    It is the same concept used with crash protection. We have the knowledge, materials, and capability to produce a vehicle that will virtually be indestructable in a car accident, but we don't design vehicles that way because all of the crash-energy would then be absorbed by the occupants in the vehicle and would cause a much greater fatality rate.
    I like the Toyota setup on the chassis moreso than on the Chevy -- I consider that a strength. Heck the leaf spring design is great too. For 3/4 and 1 ton models, we're talking completely different priorities. These are, after all REAL trucks. If Toyota could make a chassis design similar to the current Tundra's for 3/4 and 1 ton trucks, it would be pretty amazing. A fully boxed frame in that case may out-weigh the comfort/design benefits of the current frame.
  • jreaganjreagan Posts: 285
    Nice try Belias,
    Boy, you sure are able to convince yourself that even the drawbacks and inferiorities of the Tundra are actually advantages. Impressive. Do you work for Toyota? Have stock in them? Or just plain brainwashed?
  • beliasbelias Posts: 316
    Thanks man!
    Yeah, I know there aren't a lot of Tundra fans on this board (or at least they aren't as visible as the Chevy fans), but I think there is a unique challenge in the truck segment. For the first time in a LONG time, there are two very good, very capable trucks. There is no denying that despite many of our differences on tastes, etc. that both the Tundra and Silverado are way ahead of the competition (including the Sierra as well obviously). My personal preference right now is the Tundra, though I'm holding out on a final decision until I see the Denali. But, others will choose the Silverado.
    In any case, the unique challenge in the industry is that now there are two other companies that thrive on truck sales and are in serious trouble -- both financially and in terms of design. They are a good 1 to 2 years from updating their platforms. They have serious challenges to address in terms of sheer engineering, design, and capability. They have to pair that with the need to be able to charge more for their vehicles without alienating their faithful customers and STILL be able to offer as much or more in terms of features, capabilities, and options.
    In all likelihood at least one of them will do so, but it will be interesting to see the approaches of both Ford and Dodge on this one. It is not going to be easy on either company...
  • jreaganjreagan Posts: 285
    Rest assured...Ford will do it. They have to, and they will. Dodge? They should just go away, but will they? I doubt it, not completely anyway.
  • beliasbelias Posts: 316
    Actually, my uncle used to work for GM and I have 2nd cousins that design for GM, so, ironically I'm getting most of this info from them, not Toyota. I've toured the Nummi plant here and a GM plant overseas. I've seen them build everything from commercial trucks to Opels. I've seen and attended talks on quality control and design from various Toyota, Honda, BMW, Volvo, and GM executives. I have a degree in production and operations management and taken many courses in actuarial mathematics. There are literally dozens, if not hundreds of design considerations that have been well documented by companies like Ford and GM that show that they've sacrificed design aspects for cost rather than safety because they know the average death-benefits of victims and the number of anticipated lawsuits would still be lower than the cost of designing that particular area of the vehicle to meet a safer specification.
    There is little benefit to making a chassis rigid to the point of unusability in a truck. They strive for that in racing cars because the ultimate goal is shaving off that extra 1/10 of a second over the course of 500 miles. In a truck, it is primarily the ability to tow (has nothing to do with fully-boxed frame or not because most of the force is moving front to back) and the actual support between the main channels (i.e. ladder-frame design).
    All you do by making a fully-boxed frame throughout the truck is make the ride more stiff and the handling a little more dangerous. Trucks are not like cars in this regard, they're expected to carry a load and they need a proper balance of strength and durability. That said, we're talking literally 10ths of an inch difference in tolerances, it isn't like these are wooden chassis like on some older exotic race cars.
    So, no, I don't work for Toyota and have never been to a Toyota-only plant, but people here act like these manufacturers and engineers don't know what they're doing. There are different priorities for manufacturers and their designs are far better than most people realize. The "fully boxed" frame that the new Silverado rides on, isn't towing any more than the Tundra, in fact it is less and in some cases the difference is quite a bit more than the 300 lbs that is mentioned here all the time.
    Anybody that thinks that either GM, Ford, Dodge, or Toyota doesn't know how to make a good design has obviously no clue whatsoever about engineering and manufacturing. All of these companies can build vehicles with literally two or three times their current capabilities with little effort (and the engineers would literally LOVE it), but they would also be building vehicles that a) cost $250K, b) kill off most of the rest of their vehicle line-up, and c) prevent them from coming up with a tiered-improvement system for future products (that is what happens when you take one big leap).
    So, Toyota's take was to come up with a better balance. Honda's take was to join the bed with the overall frame for better handling. GM's take is to have a fully-boxed frame to accommodate a variety of engine/platform combinations. Ford and Dodge and Nissan have other priorities.
    jreagan, if you can't see that, then stick to driving trucks, not talking about strategic design. You're fooling yourself if you think any one of these companies can't produce a truck exactly like the others... ok, now I'll get off my soap box!
  • jreaganjreagan Posts: 285
    Belias,
    I too am in the Mfg industry and have been designing custom machinery (automation) for the past 18 years. So, I do know a thing or 2 about engineering principles, so, yes, get off your soap box and stop trying to fool people, including yourself.

    All you do by making a fully-boxed frame throughout the truck is make the ride more stiff and the handling a little more dangerous.

    Then why does the GM truck ride and handle better and smoother than the Toy? (based on EVERY comparison I have read).

    Yes, Engineers have the capability to design/engineer anything they want. What is your point? Toy Engineers have the same hurdles and restrictions that GM and Ford Engineers have. So, maybe they didn't incorporate a fully boxed frame for financial or economic reasons rather than because it was a "better" design? Obviously, all of the Engineers at GM, Ford and other's who use it think it's a better, higher tech design, are they all wrong? Face it, GM is always the "Lead Frog" in the technological game of leapfrog. IE: GM started using Hydroformed frames (for lighter, stronger frames) back in the late 80's and Dodge started using that technology at least 10 years later, then had to "gall" to brag about it in their ads.
    So, call it what you want (balance?) and justify it however you want. The bottom line is that GM is ahead of Toyota in the overall technology dept. yes, they have a great drivetrain (on paper anyway), and my guess is that is where they focused their attention and is why they did not incorporate higher technology elsewhere (such as in frame design). More to follow, gotta go to a meeting...
  • drfilldrfill Posts: 2,484
    And though I like Toyota a lot, I don't really care about either truck, since if Toyota does make the best truck, it won't make a huge difference in the market.

    I know from sitting in, but not driving, both trucks, seen them on the street, and read about them in the mags.

    Have seen the C&D and Inside Line comparisons, and both Tundras had the TRD susp. pkg, which takes the ride quality away, so pumping up the Silvys ride is phony in that regard, since a std. suspenion Tundra hasn't been tested.

    This website's assessment of the Tundra's handling: Steering is quick and precise, and the chassis is suited to dancing.

    Again, the last Tundra rode better, and had a better interior, than the Silverado ever did! Where is the statue in Tundra's honor?

    C&D had to reach to find a negative thing to say about the Tundra. Low tow hooks?

    Why are people here comparing HD GM trucks to the Tundra? GM doesn't make a half-ton diesel/dualie, so you are comparing apples and oranges.

    C&D called the Tundra chassis "sophisticated", with "excellent control". I guess they'd rather have a "squeaky-flexy" Nissan chassis instead.

    To each his own. :surprise:

    DrFill
  • beliasbelias Posts: 316
    jreagan,
    I'm not sure where you're getting the "better handling" from (better ride was mentioned in 1 review) but Chevy is giving up more than an inch of clearance to do it, so that isn't surprising. My car handles a lot better than my wifes, but it is lower to the ground. Still, the point was that Toyota wanted a better balance and that means that under load, it is much better. Read the comparison reviews, they've all mentioned that in towing and with payload that it handled better than every other truck. That is what I mean about "balance". Each manufacturer has a different interpretation of it. They gave up a "little" comfort with no towing and no payload to provide better handling and safety under load.
    GM the "Lead Frog"? Completely false, not even close! GM's own strategy for most of the past 30 years was to watch Ford and Dodge take the hit on the newest technology and adapt it for themselves at a lower cost. They did that for so many technologies that it isn't even funny; everything from air bags to CD players -- they weren't even remotely close to being first on that.
    I will concede that they have gotten better the last 2 or 3 years, but they are still considerably behind in that area. Step into a Cadillac and then step into a Lexus, no comparison on what is available. Heck, there is still a column shifter on a $60K Escalade when there isn't even a bench seat configuration for it (just taken from the same platform where bench seats are available for lesser brands). The Nav systems (on even the Cadillac) are about 3 years behind Honda and Toyota and has no traffic reporting. Many of their vehicles are still 4-speed autos when everyone else is 5, 6, and even 7 speed. Heck, Bluetooth isn't even available on any of their models and you can get that on Scion!
    So look a fully boxed frame is exceptional, but it isn't the end-all of chassis design. The fact that Toyota can produce a frame that is even more capable and better handling under load is saying something about hybrid frame designs. Heck, even the review here on Edmunds could find no noticeable difference between the Titan, Silverado, and Tundra in handling and their frame-twisting obstacle course. The Tundra has a more off-road suspension then the Silverado -- still has nothing to do with the frame!
    But just go to any design facility and talk to engineering there, they'll say that you need the right amount of flexibility in design, not just for safety, but for the vehicles durability. Not saying that the Silverado's fully-boxed frame is bad at all (it is actually fantastic) and the fact that they can get a smooth ride out of it is great. But that doesn't mean the Toyota's is bad either and arguing that a fully-boxed frame is not a rougher ride than one without is just ridiculous. Trucks and truck-based SUVs all ride harsher than their "non-fully-boxed-frame" counterparts. They also all handle worse too.
  • geo9geo9 Posts: 739
    Its funny that import lovin' C&D rag actually chose
    the Silverado over the tundra...........

    Either those testers got a bad batch of toyota koolaid
    or the superior truck actually was the best!

    I still am in shock that they chose Chevy over the
    "terroist toyota brand" !.................. :confuse:
  • beliasbelias Posts: 316
    Really? Hmmm, they must have printed it in invisible ink because THERE IS NO C&D REVIEW COMPARING THESE VEHICLES. You must have a good read though... lol
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Posts: 7,160
    The point of my tongue in cheek post was that the f-b-f are new since 2004 and there is no measurable benefit to them.

    Absolutely they are stronger ( heavier ), stiffer with less flex ( harsher? ) and maybe more durable ( 25 yrs vs 20 yrs? ). But there is nothing all this weight does except give the sense of a more solid ride - at the cost of reduced payload and possibly towing capacity.

    It's like throwing sand bags in the bed over the rear axles. It has a purpose but at what cost. It's very likely that the f-b-f's are Ford's way of putting a cast on a papercut.

    Again show me some measurable advantage of a f-b-f over Toyota's fully boxed-lipped C- open C frame.
  • jreaganjreagan Posts: 285
    No measureable benefit? I am sure the Engineers (who are MUCH smarter than you) would have a good laugh at that claim.
    Heavier? Why? A box design enables much more strength with less material. Why is the Tundra so much heavier than the GM? Surely not from there chincy sheetmetal.

    no measurable benefit to them.
    Back that statement up please. Good luck, I am a mechanical Engineer. I know a little about structural rigidity.

    Harsher? NOT!!! the GM's ride is second to none, loaded or empty. It also was better than the Toy in the slalom course according to PM magazine's test.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Posts: 7,160
    Yes, Engineers have the capability to design/engineer anything they want. What is your point? Toy Engineers have the same hurdles and restrictions that GM and Ford Engineers have. So, maybe they didn't incorporate a fully boxed frame for financial or economic reasons rather than because it was a "better" design? Obviously, all of the Engineers at GM, Ford and other's who use it think it's a better, higher tech design, are they all wrong? Face it, GM is always the "Lead Frog" in the technological game of leapfrog. IE: GM started using Hydroformed frames (for lighter, stronger frames) back in the late 80's and Dodge started using that technology at least 10 years later, then had to "gall" to brag about it in their ads

    Careful here, this is my area because I was the sole supplier to GM through Magna for their truck frames at one plant in the late 80's and 90's when hydroforming first began. Even in 1995 GM was still using stamped frame rails. Hydroforming began in earnest at about that time to reduce the stresses from the traditional stamping process.

    As to technological leadership.

    Obviously, all of the Engineers at GM, Ford and other's who use it think it's a better, higher tech design, are they all wrong?

    Until it can be shown that there is a measurable advantage to the f-b-f's then this 'innovation' is at best marketing bling-bling. It 'feels' like it gives a more solid ride.

    The bottom line is that GM is ahead of Toyota in the overall technology dept. yes, they have a great drivetrain (on paper anyway), and my guess is that is where they focused their attention and is why they did not incorporate higher technology elsewhere (such as in frame design).

    Turning the question around what does GM's purported 'technical leadership' bring to the T900's that aren't also in the Tundra? As a truck to be used for work - nothing.
    It may look nicer ( subjective )
    It may have a prettier interior ( for a work truck? )
    It may 'feel' more solid. ( benefit? )
    It has a rear locker vs Auto LSD ( possibly, an engineer's choice )

    But...
    GM skimped by not making some key safety features standard or even available on most of their models. Now that's a shame.
    The maximum towing capacities are lower for GM vehicles across the board save two ties. Now that's measurable.
    GM also left off it's newest technology in transmissions, 'nuff said for a technological leader

    But other than these three the vehicles are very very close.

    Summary:
    GM opted not to provide some key safety features on most models but gave the truck a more solid feel with a fully boxed frame.
    Toy gave every model all the safety features and opted for a 'triple-tech' frame.
    Toyota has the most capable and technologically leading transmission on the market.
  • beliasbelias Posts: 316
    I think that what kdhspyder is saying is that if nobody on these boards knew about the differences in the frame design that they would be hard pressed to be able to identify which truck had a fully boxed frame all the way through. In terms of towing, handling, slalom comparisons, etc. everything is close if not in favor of the Tundra.
    And jreagan, please, GM itself produces SUVs without the fully-boxed frame BECAUSE it offers more room and a better ride -- it is right there on their web-site. Find anybody with a 9th Grade physics education and they'll tell you as much. For pete's sake, nobody's arguing strength (though again, in this application it isn't making a noticable difference) is a benefit of a closed-frame, but you're loosing all credibility on this harshness thing... give that up. Chevy is getting a better ride because the comparisons that have been made were with the Tundra having the TRD off-road package. Ride comfort is certainly not enhanced by a fully boxed frame. If anything it shows that Chevy has done something great with their suspension, but all things being equal, ride quality is definitely going to be less harsh with a frame that is some form of a C channel.
  • beliasbelias Posts: 316
    FYI, quick quote from Automedia:
    "The composite frame design has three distinct types of construction: a fully boxed front half, rolled and reinforced C-channel in the midsection, and an open C-channel under the bed. When asked why the boxed design wasn't used all the way through, a Toyota engineer explained that the composite approach was employed to reduce NVH (Noise, Vibration, Harshness) levels and accommodate differences in stress loads, depending on location.

    The suspension layout uses dual A-arms and coilovers in the front, and leaf springs in the rear, but with a number of refinements in the geometry and electronics to improve stability, handling and ride quality. Disc brakes are found both front and rear, and are controlled by a type of advanced electronic system not yet found on other full-size pickups, Toyota says."
  • jreaganjreagan Posts: 285
    Belias,
    PM magazine rated the GM best in handling and ride. Next...

    GM is almost always ahead of the competition in new technology (ok, maybe not for audio electronics, big deal). Ford and Dodge always follow. And as far as Japanese technology (in general) goes...they never "invent" anything over there, they take existing technology and build on it. They are known for that in every niche of technology.

    GM's own strategy for most of the past 30 years was to watch Ford and Dodge take the hit on the newest technology and adapt it for themselves at a lower cost.

    BS!!!! GM was the first to use Hydroforming technology to make a stronger, lighter frame. Back in 1989!!! Ford followed a few years later, Dodge bragged about introducing it on their trucks only about 7 or 8 yrs ago.
    Bluetooth? No, because they have a contract with OnStar. Just as good.

    GM was the first to use the 2nd generation Air Bags as well. They also used the "Smart" air bags first. (deployment speed based on occupant size).

    Nice try, but you are WRONG!!!!

    Oh, and why can't a high-tech, well engineered fully boxed frame be designed to flex where needed and still have superior strength and overall rigidity? It's not like they buy rectangular tubing and weld it together. They ENGINEER it.

    I am starting to wonder why I am wasting my time with you Toy lover's. You haven't got a clue!!!
  • jreaganjreagan Posts: 285
    Again, the last Tundra rode better, and had a better interior, than the Silverado ever did! Where is the statue in Tundra's honor?

    Because it lacked in all of the other areas!!! Duh!!
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Posts: 7,160
    The numbers are out in plain view in public. There is no doubt that a f-b-f is stiffer. I don't think any engineer will doubt this.

    And so....

    Towing? GM is significantly behind Toy in 8 o/o 10 configuration and slightly ahead in two.
    Speed with a load or in towing. Toyota is far ahead.
    Braking? Empty and with a load. Toyota leads GM
    These are measurable.

    Even when the Silvy or the Titan win the C&D or Pop Mech comparo's all the testing in both shows the Tundra to be the leader in measurable metrics.
    Now go to the Trailering Boat comparo here Trailer Boats comparo
    where realworld tests were done and the Tundra wins and outshines all the rest.
  • jreaganjreagan Posts: 285
    Oh, and BTW. Regarding interiors....
    All I have been reading about when it comes to interiors is how BAD GM's interiors were the last several years until the 07's came out. I have a 2000 GMC with buckets and the center console. I have tried to find fault in this interior since reading all of this negativity towards it and for the life of me, I cannot see it? What is so bad about it? Yes, I do like the interior in the new GM's alot, but I still don't see anything wrong with my interior. Please help me out here.
  • jreaganjreagan Posts: 285
    Towing? GM is significantly behind Toy in 8 o/o 10 configuration and slightly ahead in two.

    Define "Significantly"!!!

    ALL of these towing numbers are exaggerated for a 1/2 ton anyway. So, Toy exaggerated a little bit more, big deal!!! ANYTHING weighing over 7000 lbs should be towed with a HD anyway. I don't care how much power or torque you have. It's the chassis that's the limiting factor. Not just the frame, the entire chassis!!! (Frame, suspension, brakes, drivetrain, etc, etc). So, let's compare "realistic" numbers here.

    Oh, and the idea behind fully boxed frame goes well beyond stiffness. It is ENGINEERED better to be rigid where needed and flex where needed. I guess it's unfair that I (a Mech Engineer) is arguing with a bunch of bean counters.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Posts: 7,160
    You do know that this yours is a very weak argument when the final conclusion you come to always is...
    'Yeah but you really need a diesel.'

    What you're saying in effect is "OK, OK the Tundra is better than the other's in 1/2 ton measurable metrics, but so what we've got diesels and Toyota doesn't." ... Yet.

    Oh, and the idea behind fully boxed frame goes well beyond stiffness. It is ENGINEERED better to be rigid where needed and flex where needed. I guess it's unfair that I (a Mech Engineer) is arguing with a bunch of bean counters.

    OK there is no disagreement here. There never has been. But it comes back to...... so what, where's the benefit?

    You keep saying on one hand 'Yeah but the Tundra is over-engineered for a 1/2 tonner with all these over the top capabilities that should be done by a diesel' but on the other hand 'The fact that GM has over-engineered it's frame with no measurable benefit is a good thing.'

    At least with the Toyota you can actually do something with the over-engineering other than 'feel' it.
  • pmuscepmusce Posts: 132
    I's sorry but why do the GMT900's have a better ride than the Tundra if the fully boxed frame makes ride worse? Belias, I can guarantee you the next generation Tundra will ride on a fully boxed frame. Will you say its a mistake on Toyota's part when they do that? GM had the same frame layout as Toyota on the GMT800's. If it was the way to go why did they fully box? Belias, I don't deny that you are intelligent and understand engineering and the constraints that are taken into account when making design decisions. I understand them as well. I can't see how you support a frame that is not fully boxed to one that is not. Toyota should be able to overcome the 'disadvantages' you list to a fully boxed frame. GM was able to.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Posts: 7,160
    Towing? GM is significantly behind Toy in 8 o/o 10 configuration and slightly ahead in two.

    Define "Significantly"!!!


    No GM 2WD T900 can out tow a similar 2 WD Tundra. In most cases the difference is over 2000 lbs.

    Using your rationale that no truck should be towing right at it's max capacity then by leaving a margin of safety of say 2000#, the T900's max out under 7000# while the Tundras max out at under 9000# - safely.

    And they accelerate faster and stop shorter with more standard safety features. These are all measurable.
  • beliasbelias Posts: 316
    Belias,
    PM magazine rated the GM best in handling and ride. Next...

    They also rated the Tundra ahead of the Chevy and the Titan better than both -- shows you what they know. Also, quoted from the comparison...
    "Our disappointment grew on the track and on the road. Even though our test truck was optioned with the 6.0-liter Vortec Max V8 — the largest engine in the test — the Chevy lost to both the Toyota and Nissan on the strip. What happened to American muscle? Part of the problem was the transmission. Not only was the Chevy down one gear to the Nissan and down two to the Toyota, its shifts were lethargic. Around town, the Chevy had the same type of easy-to-drive élan as the '06 Silverado. Like the Nissan, the Chevy drives smaller than it actually is. You can confidently wheel it into parking spots you wouldn't dare try in the Tundra or the Ford. Our truck had the NHT towing package that brings with it firmer rear springs to handle the 10,500-pound towing capacity. The ride quality should have been compromised; happily, it wasn't. The Silverado was one of our favorites on the freeway and rough roads. We still like the Chevy more than we did its predecessor, but less than we like the Nissan and Toyota."

    GM is almost always ahead of the competition in new technology (ok, maybe not for audio electronics, big deal). Ford and Dodge always follow. And as far as Japanese technology (in general) goes...they never "invent" anything over there, they take existing technology and build on it. They are known for that in every niche of technology.

    LOL, I don't even know where to start on this one, it is such a ridiculous statement... how does leading in technology suddenly exclude things that are "technological". That is like saying "I have the best computer in the world; but don't look at the processor, memory, video card, or hard drive... but hey, check out that case..."
    In case you didn't notice, virtually every single quality control, just-in-time management, and management science book has been written on the basis of what Honda and Toyota have done over the last 50 years with regard to manufacturing. Even companies like Intel, Cisco, Applied Materials, HP, and Dell have based their manufacturing systems on the innovative manufacturing designs from those companies. Never mind that GM and Dodge have done so too (not sure about Ford).

    GM's own strategy for most of the past 30 years was to watch Ford and Dodge take the hit on the newest technology and adapt it for themselves at a lower cost.

    BS!!!! GM was the first to use Hydroforming technology to make a stronger, lighter frame. Back in 1989!!! Ford followed a few years later, Dodge bragged about introducing it on their trucks only about 7 or 8 yrs ago.
    Bluetooth? No, because they have a contract with OnStar. Just as good.

    Hydroforming -- ok, cool, one innovation in 30+ years. I'm sure there are many more, but "technology" is NOT GM's "forte". Bluetooth isn't offered because they want you to buy cell-phone minutes from the more expensive OnStar offering - it still sucks, it costs you nothing to have bluetooth on your cell phone (most people have cell phones by the way).

    GM was the first to use the 2nd generation Air Bags as well. They also used the "Smart" air bags first. (deployment speed based on occupant size).

    Nice try, but you are WRONG!!!!

    Oh, and why can't a high-tech, well engineered fully boxed frame be designed to flex where needed and still have superior strength and overall rigidity? It's not like they buy rectangular tubing and weld it together. They ENGINEER it.

    I am starting to wonder why I am wasting my time with you Toy lover's. You haven't got a clue!!!


    Are you in wonderland? Do you realize that even the top of the line Silverado still only offers 4 airbags? How is that innovation and "technological" leadership? Even the Ridgeline beats it on that. GM finally discovered HIDs for headlights and LEDs for tailights after virtually every other manufacturer offered them... even Cadillac was lacking for the longest time.
    You can't claim technological leadership when a 2004 Acura TL still has more technological innovations in it then any 2007 Cadillac offering. Never mind Lexus and forget about it completely in lesser brands. Please... the Silverado has a lot going for it as a truck, technology is not one of them.
  • jreaganjreagan Posts: 285
    You never cease to amaze me with your BS.

    I had a 1989 GMC Sierra that had Hydroformed rear frame rails!!! Explain that Mr "Supplier".

    Toy gave every model all the safety features and opted for a 'triple-tech' frame.
    I love this...."Triple-Tech"???, Did you coin that phrase yourself or did Toyota do it to sugarcoat an inferior design?

    The maximum towing capacities are lower for GM vehicles across the board save two ties. Now that's measurable.

    Is 300 lbs (or even 1000 lbs) really "measurable" when we are talking about over-inflated, unrealistic numbers anyway?

    Toyota has the most capable and technologically leading transmission on the market.

    Maybe as std, but wait a year and that claim will die. GM does have a 6-spd automatic available now, only reason it isn't used as std is due to production numbers, something Toyota doesn't have to worry about @ less than 200K/yr.
    Anyone can make the newest tech std right away when they only make a fraction of the number of vehicles.

    GM opted not to provide some key safety features on most models
    Please elaborate? Oh, and if you are referring to side airbags as optional, yes, they are, but don't think Toyota is throwing them in for free. GM is simply giving customers more choices on how to spend their money. Why FORCE people to spend money on them? Personally, I chose them because I was willing to pay for them. Others may think otherwise and decide not to get them. it's their CHOICE!!! Since when is choice a bad thing?

    Trucks today (1/2 tons anyway) are designed and marketed for much more than just working. I am a perfect example of why. I need a truck for boat towing, but I also use it year round as a daily commuter. So, ride comfort is HUGE for me. As are all other car-related amenities. It is my "car" as well as my truck.

    Until it can be shown that there is a measurable advantage to the f-b-f's then this 'innovation' is at best marketing bling-bling. It 'feels' like it gives a more solid ride.
    It's only "bling bling" to people (like you) who don't understand it. As far as "feeling like a more solid ride" All I can say is...Huh?
  • pmuscepmusce Posts: 132
    Yeah. Toyota also says the large gap tolerance in the sheet metel was done on purpose to make the truck look tough. Toyota PR at its best.

    As to the other poster, yes GM does not fully box the full size SUV's, SUV's are not Pickup trucks. Different market, different needs.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Posts: 7,160
    What happened to American muscle? Part of the problem was the transmission. Not only was the Chevy down one gear to the Nissan and down two to the Toyota, its shifts were lethargic

    That's the now-well known ( thanks to Edmunds ) Torque Management 4 sec closed loop GM slipped into the 6.0L so that the 4 spd tranny's wouldn't grenade.

    Hopefully GM will elimiate this when they actually do get around to upgrading their transmissions. ;)
  • pmuscepmusce Posts: 132
    300 pounds is significantly behind?. The GM HDs' tow 16,000 pounds, which is what people who do real towing use. If you had a 10,000 pound trailer, would you buy a 1/2 ton pickup to tow it? Thats HD territory. GM won the braking in the C&D comparison by the way.

    You can't compare these trucks by the numbers. Do any of you drive pickup trucks?
This discussion has been closed.