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

1394042444593

Comments

  • 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.