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

1343537394062

Comments

  • jreaganjreagan Posts: 285
    I will admit a 6-speed is better than a 4-speed, never said it wasn't. As long as it is as durable. I was merely mentioning the technology GM was using to improve it. Obviously, they think it is better too, otherwise they wouldn't be ramping up to use them as standard later this year. I admit, Toy has the advantage in the tranny....for a few more months anyway.
  • jreaganjreagan Posts: 285
    it is also 1.2 inches deeper on the Tundra on all models

    Give me an example of why this is better? People are criticizing Fords because their bed is also deep, which makes side-loading/unloading more difficult.
    BTW, the new GM's are also deeper than last models.
  • beliasbelias Posts: 316
    Here is a rundown of what Toyota's system does as you asked in your post. This was written for their SUVs but the technology on the Tundra is the same if not more advanced (since the Tundra's is a more modern version of the same systems):

    "THE TOYOTA STAR SAFETY SYSTEMTM
    If a stereo system comes standard on an SUV, shouldn’t a safety system?
    Introducing Toyota’s Star Safety SystemTM, a combination of five safety features that
    comes standard with every one of Toyota’s five SUVs: Vehicle Stability Control, Traction
    Control, Anti-lock Brakes, Electronic Brake-force Distribution, and Brake Assist. All
    designed for one purpose: to help keep the driver in control of the vehicle at all times.
    Because when it comes to the well-being of you and your passengers, Toyota has
    raised the standard.

    Vehicle Stability Control
    Stability Control, or VSC for short, helps prevent two factors that frequently cause
    drivers to lose control of their vehicles: front-wheel slip and rear-wheel slip.

    Traction Control
    Traction Control, helps maintain traction on wet, icy, loose or uneven surfaces. Like
    Vehicle Stability Control, Traction Control applies wheel brake individually and reduces
    engine output to help assist the driver with control of the vehicle.

    Anti-lock Braking System
    Toyota’s Star Safety SystemTM for SUVs incorporates Anti-lock Brake System
    technology, also known as ABS. Anti-lock Brake System helps ensure that you’re able
    to continue steering during emergency braking situations.

    Electronic Brake-force Distribution
    Electronic Brake-force Distribution responds to driving conditions by optimizing the
    amount of brake-force that’s sent to each wheel, even below the level of ABS operation.
    This helps keep you, the driver, in control of your vehicle in both normal and emergency
    driving conditions. Here’s how it works.

    Brake Assist
    The way Brake Assist has been designed, you’ll probably never notice that it’s there.
    But it’s an essential component of Toyota’s Star Safety SystemTM for SUVs. In
    emergency situations, Brake Assist applies additional brake pressure so you can take
    full advantage of Anti-lock Brake System.

    All of the Star Safety Systems discussed — Electronic Brake-force Distribution, Anti-lock Brake System,
    Brake Assist, Vehicle Stability Control and Traction Control — are designed to help the driver maintain
    vehicle control under adverse conditions. When Anti-lock Brake System is activated, the driver should
    not release the brake while it is pulsating. Factors including speed, road conditions and driver steering
    input can all affect whether Vehicle Stability Control will be effective in preventing a loss of control. Please
    see your Owner's Manual for further details. "
  • beliasbelias Posts: 316
    jreagan,
    Speak for yourself on this one. If rear-seat space was of no concern, it wouldn't be increasing on every truck model for the last 30 years. More to the point is that there is more leg room without as much bed space taken out. That says something about the quality of the design. Add 6 inches of cab room, take 3 out of the bed -- better design.
  • jreaganjreagan Posts: 285
    But actual equipment to help prevent and protect in an accident favor the Tundra when you consider air-bags, drive/brake controls (mentioned previously). Crush zones, frame and cab design are all designed on the Tundra as well.

    Air bags? Please!!! the GM's are just as good, show me how they aren't? And DON"T tell me 6 or 8 or 4000 is better than 4. Look at area and "Smartness".
    Drive/Brake controls? Please elaborate. With facts please. The GM's have the same technology.
    Crush Zones? Um, they all have these. Why are Toyotas better?
  • jreaganjreagan Posts: 285
    Add 6 inches of cab room, take 3 out of the bed -- better design.
    Don't forget, the overall length is increased too. That makes big difference since people (like me) have limited garage space.
  • jreaganjreagan Posts: 285
    Agreed..equal to, but NOT better than GM's. Again, same technology, different terminology.
  • beliasbelias Posts: 316
    You answered your own question here... GM's is deeper because it is better. Deeper means you can hold more things in the bed under a hard or soft tonneau covers such as those big 5-gallon paint cans, etc.
    Point is it isn't a big deal, but I mentioned it because it was mentioned that 3 inches on the short-truck bed was mentioned. Point is if you get a crew cab, you're more concerned with interior space anyway. The fact that it has a 3" shorter bed is not too relevent. Now if it was on a long bed, then I would agree with you. But we're talking a crew cab model. So I mentioned the depth as well to make the point. Either way, the Tundra gets the extra 6" of interior room - BMW charges an extra $6K for 4.7" more room in the back seat of their 7 series... this is practically free.
  • jreaganjreagan Posts: 285
    You Toy guys can all go by stupid magazines reports and comparos, but let's be realistic, Money talks here. The more they advertise, the more attention and good PR they get.
    I go by personal experience!!! And my personal experience shows me that GM is an awesome vehicle when it comes to reliability. nuff said!!
  • beliasbelias Posts: 316
    See post 1242 for why controls are better. Again, if you can't see the benefit of more air bags then your logic is seriously flawed. Get t-boned in a car accident and you'll be praying for those extra side air bags. Both the Tundra and Silverado use "smart" air bags -- no difference there, just less available on the SIlverado and less standard.
  • jreaganjreagan Posts: 285
    Yes, stronger means more hp/torque.

    That is your opinion. My defintion of strength also includes robustness and durability. ie: How good is a pro athlete (football player or any other sport where strength is required) if he cannot play the entire game?

    The 6.0 GM has 6-bolt mains, how many does the Toy have? 2? maybe 4?
  • jreaganjreagan Posts: 285
    I agree that the side airbags should be standard, and by next they will be..on ALL vehicles, as mandated by our government. notice I said OUR government. Not Japan's.
  • beliasbelias Posts: 316
    jreagan,
    Nobody claimed that YOUR particular vehicle isn't reliable. What you claimed earlier was that GM trucks were more reliable than Toyota. Well, I wanted to give you reputable sources that definitely show otherwise. I don't wish for you to have any problems at all with your truck, I hope your experience is a good one. But we as consumers can't just depend on one or two individual accounts -- they vary so much. We have to depend on cumulative information to get an idea of paterns or weaknesses in design. That is all.
    BTW, CR does not get any PR or money from advertising from anybody. As far as I know, neither does the DMV.
  • jreaganjreagan Posts: 285
    Not IMO, I was hesitant to get the Crew Cab because I like my 6.5' bed in my ext cab. But ultimately I wanted the Crew Cab, If my garage were big enough and they offered it, I would have gotten a CrewCab with the 6.5' box. So, 5.8 foot is already too short for my taste, 3 inches less is even worse. I have two young daughters that ride in the back and my 2000 ext cab is plenty big for them. I just wanted the 4 real doors. Otherwise the Ext cab would have been sufficient. Yes, this is my opinion, but I beleive many others feel this way too. When it comes to balancing truck/bed/rear seat length, it's a give-and-take. I think Toy gave too much to the rear seat and took too much from the bed.
  • beliasbelias Posts: 316
    I don't think this is a subjective question at all. You have been arguing hp/torque numbers for 30+ years with Ford and Dodge. It still applies here. Look at the torque curve, hp numberes -- even the dynos that put the power at the wheel -- all better for the Tundra.
    Show me how 6-bolt mains=stronger engine and then ask the question separately or just ask it outright. I don't know how many the Toyota has - I can't find the info. But again, show me a case where less bolts=less "strength".
  • jreaganjreagan Posts: 285
    My point..I don't trust any magazines comparisons. I trust my experience with GMs over the past 18 years. I have NO reason to even consider anything else. And my awesome experience with GM's is why I am here backing them up. You think I would be here saying this if I had bad experiences? No way, My loyalty is not based on family tradition or any other BS reasons, it is based on personal experience and no magazine article will convince me otherwise.
  • beliasbelias Posts: 316
    jreagan,
    Opinion is subjective. You stated that hp/torque being equal to strength is MY opinion! Please!! Show me one automotive web site that claims this... just one! I want to see that more hp/torque does not make the vehicle "stronger". Please... you not accepting that is YOUR opinion, not everybody else's...
  • beliasbelias Posts: 316
    I'm happy that you have a great vehicle! But you can't base a whole company's vehicle quality based on your sole experience. You claimed that and it is up to you to prove. I gave you evidence otherwise and for the past x-hundred posts on this forum, there has not been one source cited to support your claim. That's all I'm saying. What you choose is your business.
  • jreaganjreagan Posts: 285
    Show me how 6-bolt mains=stronger engine and then ask the question separately or just ask it outright. I don't know how many the Toyota has - I can't find the info. But again, show me a case where less bolts=less "strength".

    Common sense, at least for an ME. Just look back over the years, the high HP engines and big blocks all had 4 bolt mains and smaller, less hp, lower perf engines used 2 bolt mains.
    The crank sees ALOT of forces and the main bearings have to support these forces. The better the structure around them, the stronger the engine.
  • jreaganjreagan Posts: 285
    But you can't base a whole company's vehicle quality based on your sole experience.

    I sure can, why can't I? Oh, and it should have been plural..VehicleS
  • jreaganjreagan Posts: 285
    I never said hp/torque does not equal strength, I said there is MORE to it than that. Stop twisting my words please.
  • beliasbelias Posts: 316
    Because it isn't based on reliable data that's why. You don't constitute a sample size and you aren't able to even show any statistically significant data showing that your reliability is better than the Tundra. You have no numbers to show, you have no data to show except for just your subjective claim. You are a current new-model owner so you are obviously biased anyway, and you are unable to prove that those with Tundra's have less reliability based on ANYTHING. So please... at least take remedial statistics before you make claims that you can't back up and aren't willing to support.
  • jreaganjreagan Posts: 285
    There you go, twisting my words again. Did I say Tundras were less reliable? Show me where please, post #?? I simply stated that based on my 18 yrs of experience driving GMCs, I beleive they are VERY reliable. Did I get lucky? Maybe, but until I experience otherwise, GM's are my choice. It has nothing to do with the fact I just bought one. It is not my first one, it is my 3rd one in the last 18 yrs.

    Reliable data? Show me where any stupid-a$$ magazines' data is scientific or "reliable"?
    Also, consider this. Most people that have good experiences go unnoticed because they are content. People with bad experiences are PO'd and voice their opinions. So, of course you are going to hear more about the bad experiences than the good ones.
    If GM's reliability is so poor, why do they still hold such a huge loyalty?
  • jreaganjreagan Posts: 285
    Do I think the Toyota Tundra is a good truck? Yes, I do.

    Do I think it is better than the GMs? NO, I don't.

    Do I think the Tundra is a reliable truck? No idea, it is brand new. But based on Toyota's reputation, it should be. Keyword: Should

    Do I think the GM is a reliable truck? I have NO reason to think otherwise.

    Period!!!
  • beliasbelias Posts: 316
    Post 1186 where you say "But what about long-term reliability and customer satisfaction? And don't tell me that their car market or the previous Tundras speak for that. They are completely different vehicles. This is a new segment for Toyota, so there is no doubt they will have a learning curve to get through. Sure, Toyota is a good automotive mfr, but they are NOT immune to all of the challenges required to get a truck to the point that GM, Ford (and even Dodge) are at in overall truck quality. Sure, they are powerful and fast, but there is way more to a truck than that.
    Oh, and BTW...Does Tundra offer such ammenities such as Rain Sense Wipers and Heated washer fluid? Just curious."
    You make the claim right there...and for the record CR takes good and bad responses.
  • beliasbelias Posts: 316
    Fair enough.. I have to go, but don't take these things personally -- we're not criticiaing YOUR truck... we're looking at the whole picture! Baby is crying... gotta go...
  • jreaganjreagan Posts: 285
    Where in that post did I say that Toyota's were less reliable? I don't see it. I was questioning it, yes. But did I say it? You cannot crown anyone or anything King until they prove it, and since the Tundra is new to the segment, therefore, they must prove it.
  • 1offroader1offroader Posts: 208
    jreagan and belias,

    Re: DOHC vs. cam-in-block, Chevy has done A LOT of racing and has built SOHC and DOHC engines for the racing circuit. Their engineers have found that overall internal friction losses are LESS with the pushrod design, and the long term reliability of the timing belt/chain has always been an issue with the DOHC design, no matter who makes it. One of the reasons is that with most modern engines, when the timing chain/belt breaks the valves that are in the open position STAY open when the piston comes up either on the exhaust or compression stroke. The open valves then punch holes in the tops of the pistons and/or the valves get bent, ruining the entire top and bottom end of the motor. This isn't a problem if the belt never breaks, but requires a lot more attention to changing it regularly. Those are two reasons why the engineers feel the pushrod design is better for MOST applications. For extremely high-revving motors the DOHC has some advantages. Until now, the variable valve timing has also been the domain of the DOHC, but Chevy has now licked that technical hurdle and makes a VVT work with pushrods.

    Even in Chevy's top end motor, the big block Z06 (500+ hp), it is a pushrod design. Obviously, cost is not an issue with this world-class performance car, at least in terms of the minor cost difference between the two designs. If Chevy thought it was superior they would use it in the Z06 at least.

    As to the superiority of 6 bolt mains vs. 4 bolt, and 4 bolt vs. 2 bolt, well it's barely worth commenting on but I will anyway. All hi perf v-8s have at least 4 bolts, and only racing motors, until now, have had 6 (4 bolts + 2 cross bolts). The more, the better. Chevy has learned a lot from its many decades of racing experience. (BTW, I don't have the foggiest what the Tundra v-8 has: 2, 4, or 6, so can't comment on that issue.)

    6 bolts are even better than 4 because it ties the opposite sides of the block together into a single rigid unit. It's much stiffer than even the 4 bolt design. To do this, the sides of the block ("skirts") must extend way down past the main bearing caps. On 'typical' v-8 engines, if you remove the sheet metal oil pan you can see part of the crank extending below the bottom edge of the block. With a deep skirt design, the oil pan is very shallow or maybe just a flat plate. When it is removed, you have to look up into the block to see the crank.

    Deep skirts were once the unique domain of hi-perf racing engines but Chevy has chosen to incorporate this design feature on some of its hi-end engines despite its add'l. cost and complexity. They wouldn't add this design feature and NOT use DOHC if they thought it was warranted.

    BTW, I've built hi-perf v-8s with 2 bolt mains - it can be done. But it was always an issue of limited budget, not what's best. If you've ever dropped a crank out the bottom of your car, you'll understand the advantage. :sick: It's not an experience I would recommend.

    1offroader
  • jreaganjreagan Posts: 285
    Thanks for the additional info offroader. However, don't some DOHC engines provide valve clearance so if a timing belt/chain breaks, it does not ruin the valves/pistons? How/why is this related to Pushrod vs DOHC? Just curious.
  • pmuscepmusce Posts: 132
    belias,

    Did I say the Tundra was too big? No. I was just stating that the greater rear leg room comes at a cost of 6 more inches in length and smaller pickup bed of 3 inches.

    As for the deeper bed, the f-series also has a deeper bed like the Tundra. This is because the sides are higher on both these trucks. Sorry, but this is not an advantage, expecially for contractors who load and unload gear from the side of the truck. Its a common complaint of the f-series. There is no benefit to higher sides.
This discussion has been closed.