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

1404143454662

Comments

  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    "Of course if you NEVER hauled anything but people back there, the Tundra seat would make sense."

    Are you saying Tundra owners CAN'T carry any cargo in the rear of a CrewMax? That would be asinine. The volume available is not appreciably changed by folding the seatbacks down rather than the seatbottoms up; it's just configured differently.

    "If this were really a crucial feature in people's minds, why don't full size 4-door sedans have this capability?"

    Lack of legroom in the rear of 4-door sedans; the same reason than the Silverado doesn't have this feature. Show me 4-door sedans with over 44" of rear-seat legroom.

    Cadillac DTS? Nope - 'only' 42".
    Mercedes S-class? Nope - 'only' 42.6"
    Lexus LS460? Not on the base version, but the extended wheelbase LS460 DOES offer reclining rearseats.

    "This argument for the Tundra's reclining seats would have more merit if the seats in the GM's were at all questionable when it comes to comfort."

    True. But your argument for the Silverados fixed seats would have more merit if we ALL liked the exact same seatback angle. Would you be okay if the front seats were fixed in position? Would you be okay if the front seats DIDN'T tilt and recline and have adjustable lumbar or thigh support? Somehow I think you'd look pretty foolish arguing that fixed FRONT seats are plenty comfy for everybody....yet that is the tactic you are taking for the rears.
  • jreaganjreagan Posts: 285
    Are you saying Tundra owners CAN'T carry any cargo in the rear of a CrewMax? That would be asinine. The volume available is not appreciably changed by folding the seatbacks down rather than the seatbottoms up; it's just configured differently.

    You are as bad as Belias, twisting my words around. Did I say you CAN'T carry any cargo in the rear of a Crewmax? But you CAN'T carry as much as in a GM Crewcab. No, the "Volume" doesn't change, but the useable volume does. The tundra is geared for people and cargo is secondary. The GM is great for both. More versatile.

    Lack of legroom in the rear of 4-door sedans; the same reason than the Silverado doesn't have this feature. Show me 4-door sedans with over 44" of rear-seat legroom.

    No, the reason the GM's don't have it is because they made the rear seats plenty comfy for anyone, AND they optimized cargo carrying capacity WITHOUT sacrificing additional bed length. They didn't feel the need for a gimmicky thing like reclining rear seats. Look at that pic again. With the seats reclined that far, there is very little legroom left for stretching out. Who wants to recline back when you can't even stretch your legs? VERY uncomfortable. Front seats don't have that problem because they recline without having to slide the seat bottom forward.

    Would you be okay if the front seats were fixed in position? Would you be okay if the front seats DIDN'T tilt and recline and have adjustable lumbar or thigh support?

    Yes, some front seat adjustment to suit your individual preference is nice, but they do not need to recline as far as they do. If the front seats ate up all your leg room when they reclined, it certainly would not go over too well, would it?
    And what does Lumbar and thigh support have to do with this?
  • geo9geo9 Posts: 739
    Been sittin' on the sidelines ENJOYING your banter
    with the "toyota terriorist(s)" folks..........

    Funny how none of them has answered the question
    "do YOU actually own a truck?"..........

    Its also funny that a certain poster here is actually
    a toyota salesman. At least thats what he implies
    on another toyota owners forum elsewhere.... :confuse:
  • ggesqggesq Posts: 701
    can be useful. One scenario- young children (who don't use car seats) can recline their seats and get comfy on long road trips.
    There are a few vehicles that have this feature as well. Someone pointed out the Lexus LS having it as well as other high end luxury vehicles. It's also found on the Malibu Maxx I believe :confuse:
  • jreaganjreagan Posts: 285
    Its also funny that a certain poster here is actually
    a toyota salesman.


    Hmmm, let me guess...Is it kdhspyder? Or Belias?
  • chrmdomechrmdome Posts: 107
    Greetings:

    In our world of the bell shaped curve:
    1) Towing capacity of 10,300 lbs or 10,600 lbs. means...
    2) Having 44 in. or 43 in. of rear seat leg room is.....
    3) Having a 5 ft., 8 in. bed or a 5 ft., 10 in. bed is ....

    Nothing, meaningless, unimportant.... ( all negitives !)
    Final analysis...there are Chevy guys and there are Toyota guys. Moot point, no argument necessary.

    Chromedome ( Chevy guy )
  • toykickstoykicks Posts: 95
    yeah whats more stable a 5400 pound truck or 5800 pound truck.

    which ones better a vehicle with a GVWR of 6900 pounds or 7200. doesnt matter, Toyota isnt playing # games right now. Wait a year theyre under rating.

    when is GM coming out with direct injection? I've heard toyota is doing the same with their tundras in 1-2 years giving them an extra 50+hp and better fuel effeciency.
  • pmuscepmusce Posts: 132
    "when is GM coming out with direct injection? I've heard toyota is doing the same with their tundras in 1-2 years giving them an extra 50+hp and better fuel effeciency."

    You think GM needs direct injection to get another 50hp out of their V8's? I can't speak for Toyota but GM has lots of juice left in the V8's. Just to give you an idea, the 6.2 will be the new standard engine on the vette next year and I'm hearing 450HP.

    When is Toyota coming out with a Diesel? Heavy Duty?
  • 1offroader1offroader Posts: 208
    Actually, reclining without being able to stretch out the legs is a very uncomfortable position. The reason? Basic kinesthetics. When the legs are bent and the upper body is at an incline, it focuses stress on the abdominals and quadriceps (front thigh muscles).

    That's why "crunches" are done with the legs bent - it's more effective. The quads and abs cannot completely relax, which is the whole point of the exercise.

    That's why living room reclining chairs always have a support to lift and support the outstretched legs. They don't just recline.

    That's why first-class airline passengers PAY BIG BUCKS to be able to recline AND stretch out their legs. Coach passengers can recline their seats, but it's not comfortable. I've spent many hours in the air, mostly in coach, and I should know.

    That's why it's practical for the front seat in automobiles to recline - because the foot bucket allows the legs to be stretched out.

    So, when the Tundra has a reclining rear seat feature that by its very design eliminates the extra legroom, the value is dubious at best. It's either lots of legroom (which is good), or recline the seat back with bent legs, but you can't recline AND stretch out.

    BTW, I'm 6'3" 225 lbs. w/long legs, and I have lots of leg room in the Silverado Crew Cab back seat. I can't imagine carrying anyone bigger than me back there, but if I do he'll still have plenty of room unless his name is Shaquille. I'd let Shaq ride in front. ;)

    1offroader
  • toykickstoykicks Posts: 95
    And how do you know that new 6.2 wont have direct injection? if it does it will have way over 450+ hp and average more then 20mpg in the vette. Now imagine that kinda technology in the 5.3 and 6.0 vortec engines. i wont be surprised if next year the 5.3 vortec makes around the same power as the current 5.7 tundra. A lot of people already know about it. toyota is also thinking of doing the same.
  • jreaganjreagan Posts: 285
    Just to give you an idea, the 6.2 will be the new standard engine on the vette next year and I'm hearing 450HP.

    450hp? Doesn't the Z06 now have 500+HP? If not, it will next year. If not even more.
  • jreaganjreagan Posts: 285
    Thanks Offroader,

    That's what I have been trying to tell them, they won't listen, or they don't understand common sense.
  • pmuscepmusce Posts: 132
    jreagan,

    I'm not talking about the Z06, which has the 505HP 7.0L V8, I'm talking about the base corvette. It currently has a 6.0L V8 making 400HP, which will be replaced by a 6.2L V8 and the rumour for the 6.2 is 450HP.
  • jreaganjreagan Posts: 285
    Final analysis...there are Chevy guys and there are Toyota guys. Moot point, no argument necessary.

    But what fun would this forum be then? I actually enjoy debating the "Wannabe" Toy truck vs a "Real" truck.
    :P
  • jreaganjreagan Posts: 285
    The Z06 has a 7.0L? I didn't realize that, sorry.
    Carry on...
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    "No, the reason the GM's don't have it is because they made the rear seats plenty comfy for anyone, AND they optimized cargo carrying capacity WITHOUT sacrificing additional bed length."

    Plenty comfy for anyone? Really? Did you take a poll?

    Personally, I've found that I've usually had a problem with seat comfort with most GM vehicles I've been in; that problem is that even in the seat's most upright position, I feel that the seat reclines too much. You may feel the seat angle is just fine; however, I would like for the seat to have SOME ADJUSTABILITY. Nowhere have I stated that the only way to 'enjoy' the rear seats in a Tundra CrewMax is to recline them FULLY.

    All I've been trying to point out is that the seatback angle is ADJUSTABLE. Sometimes, changing the seatback angle by only 2-3 degrees, either up or down, can be beneficial to back comfort on long trips. That's the whole point of having adjustable seats, so they can be CHANGED to meet the CHANGING needs of the individual sitting in the seat. Which is why I brought up ADJUSTABLE lumbar and thigh support. Apparently, adjustability is good BUT ONLY IF IT'S IN THE FRONT SEATS. Apparently you believe that whoever sits in the rear will be 'plenty comfy' because the engineers who designed the rear seats for all Silverados were freakin' genius's who happened to hit on the preCISE backrest angle to satisfy 100% of the motoring public, therefore adjustability wasn't needed.....

    Let me make it simple: adjustability is better than fixed. It's the reason why tilt/telescopic wheels are preferable to steering wheels that are fixed in place. It's the reason mirrors are adjustable rather than fixed in place. It's the reason why HVAC controls are adjustable rather than fixed in place. It's the reason why the FRONT SEATS are adjustable rather than fixed in place. Why you would exempt rear-seats from this common-sense rule is beyond me.....no actually, it's not. The Tundra CrewMax has adjustable rear seats while the Silverado doesn't....therefore in your universe this means that fixed in place is preferable.

    Now, as far as sacrificing bed length: Yes, the Tundra CrewMax has a bed that is 2.6" shorter than the Chevy Crewcab. Which means that if you had an object which was between 66.8" in length and 69.2" in length, and it HAD to fit in the bed with the tailgate up, and you didn't have a bed extender, THEN you would look like a genius for buying a Chevy. Congrats.
  • jreaganjreagan Posts: 285
    Which means that if you had an object which was between 66.8" in length and 69.2" in length, and it HAD to fit in the bed with the tailgate up, and you didn't have a bed extender, THEN you would look like a genius for buying a Chevy. Congrats.

    You are so ignorant!!! What about overall capacity? Or overhung loads? (Lumber). I fill my 6-1/2' bed up all the time with stuff when going on trips and I am sacrificing more than I want to already by going to a Crewcab with a 5.8' box. I don't want to lose any more than I have to. Not for stupid reclining rear seats.

    Also, I did not say adjustable is a bad thing for rear seats, I simply stated it was not worth what you must sacrifice in order to get it (Cargo space efficiency, legroom, and bed space). The fold-down rear seatbacks are simply stupid by design. Now, if they could have incorporated GM's design (no seat bottom sliders) and added minor seatback angle adjustablility, which I think is possible, I would have commended them. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see GM or someone else do this soon. GM was the first to actually have an articulating rear seat to provide an angled seatback that folds flat against the rear cab wall when folded up. Again, they are optimizing comfort WITHOUT sacrificing useable cargo volume.

    Oh, and have you ever sat in the back of a GM Crewcab? No? I didn't think so. So shut your mouth until you do. I have sat in both and I am NOT impressed with the Tundra's hard, flat, non-conforming, park-bench-like seats.
  • ggesqggesq Posts: 701
    Couldn't have said it better myself.

    Let the word twisting begin.....
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    "You are so ignorant!!! What about overall capacity?"

    Okay, what about overall capacity?

    The Tundra bed is 66.4" WIDE at the tailgate, the Chevy is only 61.6" wide at the tailgate. So, you really NEED those extra 2.6" of length for overall capacity, yet see no need for the extra 4.8" of WIDTH that the Tundra has? Lots of gear when going on trips? Super, with the Tundra CrewMax I can ADJUST THE SEAT forward and stow more of that gear behind the seat (particularly since I've started OUT with nearly 6" more rear legroom......).

    "Not for stupid reclining rear seats."

    Oh, so now rear seats that are adjustable are stupid? Okay...

    "I simply stated it was not worth what you must sacrifice in order to get it (Cargo space efficiency, legroom, and bed space)."

    In your opinion. Personally, I like the choice that an adjustable seat gives me. I like the ability to stow items behind the seat. Plus, I like a wider bed width.....thanks for goading me into looking that up. I hate being ignorant.

    "Oh, and have you ever sat in the back of a GM Crewcab?"

    Yes. It was comfy for the 5 minutes I explored the truck. I also know that when I drive a vehicle (any vehicle) for extended periods of time I occassionally adjust the seat so my back isn't ALWAYS at the same angle. For that reason, I'm afraid I have to insist on sitting in the front of a Chevy. BTW - I'd sure like to know where you managed to sit in the back of a Tundra CrewMax since they haven't hit the dealers yet. Carshow?

    "So shut your mouth until you do."

    Haven't said a word..... ;)
  • dreasdaddreasdad Posts: 276
    ooohh- jreagan caught in another lie, I love it
  • pmuscepmusce Posts: 132
    rorr,

    Adjustability is good but not at the expense of cargo carrying configuration. Yes front seats recline, but when front seats recline they do not reduce your leg room and they are not designed to decrease cargo carrying configurations.

    "Yes, the Tundra CrewMax has a bed that is 2.6" shorter than the Chevy Crewcab. Which means that if you had an object which was between 66.8" in length and 69.2" in length, and it HAD to fit in the bed with the tailgate up, and you didn't have a bed extender, THEN you would look like a genius for buying a Chevy. Congrats."

    And when you tow something that is between 10500 and 10800 pounds, then you will think you are a genius for buying the Toyota, even thought at GMT900 HD will tow that 10800 pound load better.

    The end result is you feel reclining rear seats are important to you and some people would rather have the cargo carrying flexibility of the GM setup. To each his own.
  • jreaganjreagan Posts: 285
    OK, I haven't seen cubic feet specs on the two beds. But if the Tundra has more, kudos to them for overall volume. But length is still important for hauling long items that stick out of the bed (ie: Lumber). Bottom line, bed size is a secondary issue to the reclining seat comparison anyway. My biggest issue is the folding seatbacks compared to the GM's folding seat bottom. I still say that the GM's configuration lends itself to cargo carrying MUCH better than the Tundra's goofy fold down design. Full floor to ceiling access is better and the cargo gets a solid floor to sit on instead of a folded down seatback. Plus, as was mentioned earlier, much safer for obvious reasons (or do I need to explain that again too?). And as for stowing stuff behind the rear seat, I would need to compare that area to the area under the GM's seat. But I am betting the GM's is also better because the GM's have no slides or other bracketry getting in the way under the seat. Which BTW is much easier to get at while underway and your sitting in the seat. ie: Kid's backpacks with the stuff they want to use while in the car.

    As for sitting in the Crewmax, no, I was actually referring to sitting in the front seats of a Tundra DC, but am I safe in assuming the rear seats in a crewmax are no more comfortable than the front buckets in a DC?

    You may want to see a Chiropractor. I set my seatback where I like and it never changes, no matter how long the trip. And I even have lower back issues. And BTW, the cloth front buckets in my old 2000 are the most comfortable seats I have ever sat in...EVER!! I just hope my leather seats in my new GMC will be as comfortable as these are over the long term. When comparing comfy seats amd ride against a GM truck, good luck, they are the best in the business. Hands down!!!
  • jreaganjreagan Posts: 285
    ooohh- jreagan caught in another lie, I love it

    Another lie huh? I have not lied on here yet, I clarified the seat issue, sorry for leaving out a simple detail. I was referring to general seat comfort.

    Oh, and have you ever sat in the back of a GM Crewcab? No? I didn't think so. So shut your mouth until you do. I have sat in both and I am NOT impressed with the Tundra's hard, flat, non-conforming, park-bench-like seats.

    Where in here does it say I sat in a "crewmax"???
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    "The end result is you feel reclining rear seats are important to you and some people would rather have the cargo carrying flexibility of the GM setup. To each his own."

    Yep, to each his own.

    I've already acknowledged (a couple of times) that IF you intend to carry large individual items (like large icechests) inside the cab that it made sense to be able to load them on the floor. In such a case, the Chevy Crewcab has an advantage. Personally, I'd actually put them in the bed but that's just probably out of habit since that's where I've ALWAYS put the large chest (small chest with snacks/beverages goes into the cab and would fit just fine in any of these trucks).

    Speaking personally again, I'd probably spend MORE time hauling additional adults in the back rather than large bulky items that for whatever reason I didn't want to carry in the bed. For that reason, I personally would be more interested in how well the truck works for hauling additional adults rather than cargo. Since the CrewMax offers substantially more rearseat legroom (for stretching out) PLUS the option of moving the seat forward for storage behind the seat and/or adjusting the seatback, I consider that a benefit. However, like you said some folks would prefer the flat load floor. Personally, I think it's good that Toyota and GM diverge on SOME design issues because it gives the consumer a choice.

    Only reason I brought up bed lengths was because our resident firebrand Bowtie fan kept harping over the 'sacrifices' made to get the larger cab on the CrewMax. Personally, I figure that once you've made a decision to live with a bed length under 6', arguing over a couple of inches is just pissing in the wind. But there's been a lot of that lately.

    As far as I'm concerned, both of these trucks are essentially equal in virtually every MAJOR way. In fact, I think both of these (barring reliability issues) are head and shoulders above the 1/2 tons from Ford and Dodge. The only thing that tends to set my teeth on edge (as I'm sure some may have noticed) are comments that the Tundra is a "wannabe" truck. Personally, I think this reflects poorly on those making that statement since, by EVERY objective measurement, the new Tundra is a very capable truck.
  • toykickstoykicks Posts: 95
    why is the tundra a wannabe truck? I bet you picked your truck just cause its pretty didnt you? You should look at the suspension, axles tie rods etc. on the new tundra then compare to the Silverado and sierra. The rear end is also bigger on the tundra then the sierra/silverado. Brakes are 13+inches and stop the heavier tundra as quick or quicker then the sierra/silverado. The Crewmax is a copy of the Dodge mega cab. Its almost identical in size. Crewmax is more of a personal truck then a work truck just like the mega cab. DC tundra will be the most sold. seats on that one fold up ;)
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    "Where in here does it say I sat in a "crewmax"??? "

    You didn't. However, since we've been discussing the Chevy Crewcab and the Toyota CrewMax, and you made a comment about seat comfort in the Tundra, I had assumed you were ALSO talking about the CrewMax.

    My bad.

    Were you even sitting in a new '07 Tundra to make that comment? I had assumed so, but for all I know you were refering to the backseat in a 5 yearold Tundra ExtCab....

    edit - nevermind, I see now you were sitting in the front of a new DC. In which case I sincerely question your ability to judge seat comfort since, FOR ME, the front seats of a new Tundra were ANYTHING but a 'park bench'. Methinks your Chevy bias is showing....
  • jreaganjreagan Posts: 285
    Good post, the only thing I question is...

    (barring reliability issues)

    What "issues"?

    Sounds like a typical Toy loyalist ready to proclaim the Toyota superior to the new GM's based on OLD data not related to these trucks in any way, shape,or form. The GM's are all-new and so is the Tundra. Time can only answer this question.

    As for the "wannabe" statements...Toyota even admits they "wannabe" as good in this market segment as GM (and the big 3 in general). But they are not there yet and have a LOOOONG way to go to get there. Maybe not specifically in towing capability, but obviously there is much more to overall truck quality than that. And anyone who thinks Ford is about to go extinct and will not re-enter this game of "leapfrog" with a vengeance is just plain naive (And this is coming from a GM guy).
  • jreaganjreagan Posts: 285
    I did, that is why I opted for the 6.0. Not only more power, but it also has a bigger rear end (hmmm, one time when men actually like a bigger rear end), HP suspension (bigger stabilizer bar and heavier duty shocks), heavier duty transmission and better brakes. Oh, and according to what I have heard, the GM's stopped better than the Tundra.

    Sorry, but GM has no interest in copying Dodge...That's just ludicrous (sp?).
  • toykickstoykicks Posts: 95
    I think this would be a better comparison.

    work trucks

    regular cab tundra
    image

    regular cab Silverado/sierra

    image
  • jreaganjreagan Posts: 285
    What kind of comparison is this?

    1. Look at how far forward the driver's seat is on the Tundra? Ok if you are 5'2" or less.
    2. The GM isn't illustrating cargo space. Do their seats not move? Find a pic showing the same config and then we'll compare.
    3. Since when do "workers" carry stuff like 5 gal buckets and generators (or whatever that thing is) in the cab? They throw their $hit in the back and want the cab for themselves, paperwork and maybe a pair of gloves and a thermos.
This discussion has been closed.