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



  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,452
    nissan titan and chysler hemi tried the 'more horspower' strategy. toyota's car based reliability reputation gives them a better base to work from for first time truck buyers.
  • rockyleerockylee Posts: 14,011
    Thanks for the info. I had a 2000 Z-71 and loved it. I know the Sierra Denali has skid plates thus based on your info I'd be best to get the Z60 as most of my driving would be street but with once in a while off-roading. ;)

  • rockyleerockylee Posts: 14,011
    I'd shop other dealers even if it meant just to further educate myself if I was you. ;)

  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Posts: 7,160
    The San Antonion plant is laid out to produce 500K units tomorrow. It won't happen of course. With one additional line in that plant it can go up to 700K with no expansion of of the site.

    I will venture that if Ford doesn't solve it's problems before it runs out of money it will be absorbed by someone as a much smaller entity. Already the volume is down to 800K units and they just cut the workforce by 50% closing the plant 10 min from where I work. And even with reduced goals on sales Mullaly advised the workers that they would not hit their Feb or Mar numbers either.

    I know very well that to be fully competitive both the Nissan and the Toyota will have to offer HD versions. Soon, they will be here soon enough.

    As to 12-15 years it may very well be that to challenge GM. I've never said otherwise.

    If Ford doesn't solve its financial problems immediately it won't be here in 12-15 years and those sales will have to go somewhere.

    Dodge may not last out the year much less see the next Ram.
    If GM were to buy it..
    If the Chinese were to buy it..
    If an PEF were to buy it..
    If it's spun off to the unions..
    Which of these four have the multi-$Billions to fund development of the new Ram while at the same time funding ongoing losses in the current model?
  • I think you overstate how hard it is to change consumers buying habits. Sure the full size truck buyer is in the heartland where there are Ford families and "Chivvy" families. But once the tide begins to change, watch out. For example, once they had a competitive product, it didn't take very long for Germany's M/B and BMW to convince upper middle class Americans, many of them WWII vets and/or Jewish Americans, to buy German sedans.
  • pmuscepmusce Posts: 132
    This is from

    'Toyota's San Antonio plant was announced in February 2003, and construction began later that year. When the plant reaches full operations next spring, it will have the capacity to produce 200,000 Tundra full-size pickup trucks and employ 2,000 team members.

    The plant's investment was originally estimated at $800 million, but grew to approximately $1.28 billion because of a capacity expansion for 50,000 more trucks; rising material costs, especially for steel; and additional infrastructure needed for the on-site suppliers.'

    Can you show me where it says that they can produce 500,000?
  • pmuscepmusce Posts: 132
    Why do think I am overstating it? This is Toyotas third try at a competative full size. Its been 14 years since Toyota entered this market and they are at 100,000 sales a year. There goal with the new Tundra is 200,000. To get to Ford and GM volumes you are talking 800,000-900,000 trucks. I've stated how long I think it would take assuming it actually happens. How long do you think it would take for shift in buying habits. Don't forget, these buyers have no reason to switch.

    By the way it took 40 years for BMW and M/B to start outselling Cadillac in North America after WWII. That seems pretty long to me.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Posts: 7,160
    Internal Toyota documents. What the public sees and what the real situation is can often be different. You need to visit the plant to see how big it is and how empty it is.

    TMMTX is on one shift until June when they will bring on the 2nd shift. Indiana is well established but smaller with more vehicles on its schedule.

    The plant was built with the expectation of going to 700K units somewhere in the 2015-2020 time frame.

    If events shorten this then it will have to be addressed.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Posts: 7,160
    It may seem glacially slow but every baby step has a purpose. Again this isn't a sprint. just looking at the numbers going from 125K units to 200K units is very very modest. It doesn't distupt the market and it keeps the vehicles being sold in a sweet spot where they all can be profitable without massive rebates.

    The whole purpose is just to make money as every business wants to do. Being first or second is of no importance here as long as by the end of the next decade all the vehicles are profitable, whatever the volume, and the lines are busy. It's been 14 yrs since the initial baby step. That's just a beginning in a 25 or 50 year cycle.
  • geo9geo9 Posts: 739
    Is the 07 tundra 5.7 having the cold start knock issues like
    the 4.7 has? Seems GM isn't the only one having this problem.

    This link is one to watch: - tartup/
  • rockyleerockylee Posts: 14,011
    Good find geo9 ;)

  • jreaganjreagan Posts: 285
    You speak as though Toyota lives in this fairytale land where they can do no wrong and everything is and always will be "Rosy". You don't think they will/do have their share of problems? Yeah, The big 3 have issues to take care of, and I am confident they will. How? I don't know, I am not there, but I am confident they will do whatever it takes to fix whatever is "broken". They already are taking steps in the right direction. They are both true American companies and have the strength of our economy to back them up. Even Dodge will survive in some form, again, not sure how drastic the changes over there will be, but they will restructure themselves somehow and survive, mark my words.
    Toyota can and probably will survive and thrive in America as well, but to say they will pass by GM and Ford as they crumble is just plain arrogant and ignorant. Remember, GM and Ford have strong loyalties that date back several decades, these will not be easily broken. However, Toyota's loyalties in America (especially in the truck segment) are still very young and fragile. If these Tundra's start to show reliability issues or any other quality issues, it will lose the little bit of backing by the American people a heck of a lot quicker then GM or Ford. You (and Toyota) had better hope these trucks are as good (if not better) than you "anti-American" people think/say they are. And please stop with the "Toyota is just as American as the big 3 are" crapola. yes, it is a global economy and GM and Ford both have ties to foreign cars companies, that is not the point. GM, Ford, Chrysler (among a few others) are American and Honda, Toyota, Kia, BMW..etc, etc, are all still "foreign" cars. period.

    2 questions for you..

    1. Do you own or do you even plan to buy a Toyota Tundra or any pickup?
    2. Have you driven any of the 2007's yet? (GM or Tundra specifically?)

    Oh, and another thing...If you think Toyota can ramp up production of the 1/2 ton segment, enter the HD segment, add diesels, etc etc, without suffering "growing pains" and having quality or other issues? You are dreaming.
  • beliasbelias Posts: 316
    Geez, I can't believe some of the posts recently. Anybody ever wonder why in icy conditions, the vehicles you see in the ditch the most are all these small to medium size SUVs? It is because people have this false sense of security that AWD and 4-wheel drive vehicles are safer on ice. In fact it is the exact opposite!! I'll take a front-wheel drive or rear-wheel drive vehicle over AWD in those conditions any day.
    Its just plain physics people... growing up in central Canada means that you experience 6 months of cold winters with a few months of icy roads. When you loose traction it is because the driving wheels are spinning on a slippery surface. The wheels that aren't driving are actually stablizing the vehicle because there is some friction there to help. Engage AWD and 4-wheel drive vehicles into this scenario and you can see how easy it is for people to end up in a ditch off an inter-state hwy.
    The only good thing about AWD and 4-wheel drive systems are better handling and traction in conditions without ice and for getting through a lot of snow or mud or when trailblazing. For "slippery" conditions, its virtually suicide to have it; especially if you're falsely convinced of its abilities. Even with all of the technologies greatly helping ensure that wheels don't all spin, etc. at speeds beyond 30mph, it only takes a split second to completely loose control over an AWD/4WD vehicle.
  • beliasbelias Posts: 316
    OnStar is a great thing to have on any vehicle, I certainly agree, but it has a few minor problems.
    The first is that it is positioned in easily one of the most break-able parts of the vehicle. Put it on the console, or on the steering wheel. Putting it on the top console on the roof by the front windshield almost guarantees that it won't work in a roll-over (a situation where you would definitely need it).
    Secondly, and I can't believe GM was advertising this for so long, people use OnStar to unlock their vehicles when the keys were in the ignition and the vehicle is running! Sorry folks, but my old 1988 Celica wouldn't let me do that, much less any of the vehicles I've had since (Dodge included). That means that they're using the service to help deflect some of the design issues with the vehicle rather than solving those issues.
    Whereas a cell phone will work in virtually any condition, a disruption to the electrical system could prevent OnStar from working (though one could argue that a cell phone needs to be charged).
    Lastly, the rates keep going up on the service. It started out free for the 1st year and $12.95 a month after that. Now, there are tiered levels of service that start at $16.95 and only the first 3 months are free.
    Having said that, this is definitely a great feature to have, and it is a pity that other companies don't have this or a similar service.
    I wouldn't call this a quality issue though. It is a great feature to have and certainly there are features that the Tundra has that the Silverado doesn't as well.
  • rockyleerockylee Posts: 14,011

    I to some degree disagree with you as I'd rather have a AWD car or long/wide wheel based Full-Size SUV on ice over a RWD/FWD car. (I'll explain later) The midsize SUV's end up in the ditch because their wheel bases are way to short. Ever notice why a Jeep Wrangler is great in Snow and Mud but stinks in slippery conditions ? Hell they stink in rain and are just to tipsy.

    I agree many drivers get a false security with 4WD but a Wide Wheel Base AWD/4WD Car/SUV/Truck is damn hard to beat.

    FWD/RWD on real icy conditions tend to have their butts slide out because they are so nose heavy and once you lose a FWD car it's very hard to recover it and most are headed for the ditch. RWD sucks because unless your car has some weight it will spin it tail back n' forth but if you lose it on ice it is the easiest to recover and thus is why I've always been told if I was driving a 4WD Truck or SUV that has 2WD option to engage the 2WD mode if I was slipping out of control to recover from a slide.

  • beliasbelias Posts: 316
    Yes, I agree a long wheel-base is advantageous! I should put the post in a more concentrated context: that is to say that (as per some previous posts), having AWD/4WD is not going to help you encountering black-ice on a freeway. At those speeds, it is better to have virtually any 2WD vehicle.
    As you stated, if you do loose control on a front-wheel drive vehicle or if you are trying to start out in icy conditions on a rear-wheel drive vehicle, then obviously AWD/4WD is better. Though, again, you'll loose control a lot faster with an AWD/4WD vehicle at faster speeds than a front-wheel drive vehicle. But that's my point. AWD/4WD isn't meant for high-speed traction control - it is meant for getting out of bad situations or going through tough terrain.
    I think we're pretty much in agreement on those things; wow, how did that happen? :D
  • jreaganjreagan Posts: 285
    Well, as a driver in Minnesota for the past 24 yrs (I am 40), I have driven RWD cars, FWD cars and 4WD trucks in all kinds of winter driving conditions. Here is my opinion:
    1. 4WD and AWD is by far superior to anything else as long as you do not get overconfident or a false sense of security. Any vehicle requires extra care/caution in slippery conditions. But an AWD or 4WD vehicle will maintain control better in snow and ice. IF you know your vehicle and drive within it's own limits (based on size, weight, etc).
    2. FWD is almost as good. My wife has been driving FWD cars now since 1993 and they too work pretty well in our MN winters. Again, IF, you drive within it's limitations, which of course means SLOWING down in winter driving conditions.
    3. RWD cars are absolutely worthless in snow and ice, even with traction control. Oh sure, traction control does help over plain RWD and adding weight over the wheels helps with traction when starting on ice, but it doesn't help much at all (if any) while at speed on ice.

    My guess is that most SUV's that end up in the ditch is due to overconfidence of inexperienced drivers.

    I've always been told if I was driving a 4WD Truck or SUV that has 2WD option to engage the 2WD mode if I was slipping out of control to recover from a slide.

    Is this really realistic since this happens so quickly? Also, I question why this would help?

    As far as "physics" go, there is a finite amount of friction between the tires and the road, which is GREATLY decreased in slippery conditions. This friction is needed for steering, maintaining grip (traction), accelerating and braking. That is why if you do start to slide, the first thing you need to do is let off the brakes (unless you have ABS), this allows you to use whatever friction you do have to maintain control of the vehicle. Of course each situation is different, but tires that aren't turning (sliding during lockup) eliminate any steering control. This is also why they teach you to slow down BEFORE entering a turn and accelerate coming out of a turn. This spreads out the friction requirements and maximizes steering control through the turn.
  • jreaganjreagan Posts: 285
    I have a 2000 GMC Sierra, and I CANNOT lock my keys into the car while they are in the ignition. If the keys are in the ignition, the driver's side door will not remain locked when you close the door. I am assuming the newer trucks since then also share this feature. However, I can lock my doors with the key or remote key while the engine is running for security while warming up, even though this is illegal in MN, regardless of whether the door is locked or not. Unless you have remote start, because the car/truck cannot be operated until you put the key in. So, not sure what ads you are referring to, but rest assured, GM does have this anti-lockout feature. My wife's 2004 Impala also has this feature.
  • rockyleerockylee Posts: 14,011
    Though, again, you'll loose control a lot faster with an AWD/4WD vehicle at faster speeds than a front-wheel drive vehicle.

    Well that depends on the wheel base again. I'd rather Drive a 07' Volvo S80 V8 AWD at 85 mph on ice than lets say a FWD Honda CRV at 75 mph on ice. With the modern stability control systems, traction controls, Safety ABS system like EBD, etc nothing IMHO beats AWD/4WD for all weather safety and I've driven both (FWD/4wd/AWD) my whole life. My best FWD car for winter weather was my 92' Bonneville SSEi and would blow by 4WD trucks because it was wide and long. I however could do the same thing in my family's Z-71's ;)

  • jreaganjreagan Posts: 285
    having AWD/4WD is not going to help you encountering black-ice on a freeway. At those speeds, it is better to have virtually any 2WD vehicle.

    When comparing 4WD/AWD to RWD, I disagree completely on this one, based on experience.

    Though, again, you'll loose control a lot faster with an AWD/4WD vehicle at faster speeds than a front-wheel drive vehicle.

    This I will agree with you on.
This discussion has been closed.