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

1474850525393

Comments

  • pmuscepmusce Posts: 132
    Yeah and the 2011 Sierra will fly and have 6 wheels. What is your source of information? Sorry DrFill but people are buying great Heavy Duty diesals today at your local Chevy store. Will the gaps on the 2010 Tundra HD have 1 inch gaps for a real rugged look?
  • drfilldrfill Posts: 2,484
    But it will be able to fly, compared to the Chevy. Kinda like they do today, just bigger and better.

    The more things change.... :blush:

    DrFill
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Posts: 7,160
    That's the sophistication of the 'TripleTech' frame.

    There is no doubt, there never has been, that a fully boxed frame from front to back is stiffer than one that is not. Curiously though it may not be stronger as rorr noted above there are a lot of other factors like yield strength, design, and material thickness.

    What I used to supply to GM for their frame rails and cross members was 50ksi and 80ksi HSLA ultra clean ( minimal impurities ) steel. 80 ksi steel is 60% stronger than 50 ksi steel. 100 ksi steel is twice as strong as 50 ksi, etc.

    Toyota does use FBF in the high-torque area where the engine is secured, reinforced open C's under the cab where most of the weight goes and Open C under the bed. For 50 years trucks have been using this open C under the beds with great results. Toyota's view is that the extra stiffness is not needed there.

    It's a good technical subject to be resolved after 5-10 years of use. That's all that can be said at this time.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Posts: 7,160
    Towing Top V8 2WD
    Tundra 5.7 - 10800
    Silverado 6.0 - 10300
    (Silverado HD 6.0 - 12900)
    (Silverado HD Duramax Diesal - 15800)

    Towing Top V8 4x4
    Tundra 5.7 - 10500
    Silverado 6.0 - 10500
    (Silverado HD 6.0 - 12700)
    (Silverado HD Duramax Diesal - 15500)

    Except in 2007 you can't order this Silverado with the 6.0L and Max Trailering Package. It is in the specs but at least from the Build/Price module it can't be ordered that way.

    I've done the summary of the 'truck specs' for the two vehicles.
    In general the Silverado can carry more than the Tundra.
    in 10 similar configurations
    The Silvy leads in 5
    The Tundra leads in 2
    They are tied in 3

    In Towing ( 5.7L vs 6.0L ) the Tundra leads in all 10 configurations ( Max Trailering Pckg not available to the Silvy ).
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Posts: 7,160
    Done. A month's silence on these boards.

    a) possibly a locker if the market demands it
    b) FBF all the way back? - I'll confidently say NO
    c) OnStar - I'll VERY confidently say NO.
    d) Higher price??? - prices always go up but they will remain lower than GM's in the 'area of interest'.

    I know I'm good for at least 5 years ( next model iteration )
  • pmuscepmusce Posts: 132
    hdhspyder,

    You have stated time and again that the Max Trailering Pckg is not available but IT IS. I got this on Chevrolet.com. Other people on this sight have driven 2007 GMT900 Silverado's with the package. You lose credibility when you state false information. I have a Silverado brochure in my hands as I type this that shows the package offered.

    Click this link and see for yourself:

    http://www.chevrolet.com/pop/silverado/2007/max_trailering_en.jsp
  • beliasbelias Posts: 316
    I think this forum is completely wiped out now. There seems to be a big disconnect between what makes a truck better vs what doesn't.
    The argument for the previous tundra was that it wasn't large or strong enough. Now apparently this one is TOO strong and large because the only way to criticize it is to mention 3/4 and 1 ton trucks.
    Rorr gave a great explanation about the frame. I think that is still lost on a lot of the posters here, but I like his explanation as it is very technical and makes the point about where benefits actually are in the design.
    Personally, aside from the subjective comparison of the interiors, there is an overwhelming amount of technical advantages in favor of the Tundra. That isn't to say that the Silverado is bad, but I wish at least one of the Chevy posters here would admit to it. It is like they are afraid of doing it for some unknown reason. Sure the Chevy has a rear locker; something that is admitedly better than having an LSD. But it is missing a number of other more critical safety features such as a complete air bag safety system and a number of vehicle drive control technologies available on the Tundra. Power, transmission, technology, interior features -- heck even the stereo system -- are all better on the Tundra. But people are free to choose what they want. I just wish that others could own up to this.
    For me, after seeing the dashboard gap issue on the Silverado and just not particularly liking the look of the interior (literally 10 times better than the previous one). I didn't like the steering wheel controls at all -- very poorly laid out as you have to look down at them to know what you're pressing -- it isn't intuitive.
    Toyota's interior isn't fantastic either, but the gauges and seats are excellent. Add to that the different storage areas and the many interior conveniences and its a great truck setup for sure. I'm holding out to see the Denali in person because I'm hoping the interior will be a lot better then what I saw in the Silverado.
    I can see Toyota doing a rear-locker in the distant future but I do agree with kdhspyder that neither OnStar or FBF all the way through will happen anytime soon.
    Toyota is at a higher price in some configurations -- namely at the lowest configuration and top configuration. But right in the middle, where they aim to sell more than 60% of these truck configurations, there is hardly a better deal to be had, no question. Even the Chevy guys should see that.
    Anyhow, it all depends on taste I guess, but I think I'm done with this forum for now as there hasn't been any new information to come out that would make me reconsider either alternative just yet. Good luck to all of you on your purchases and be sure to report on your buying experience and prices paid! Remember... a good deal is even better if you share it with others! :D
  • beliasbelias Posts: 316
    pmusce,
    Yes, it is available, but he is stating that you can't order it right now. It shows up as an option, but you're unable to actually order it. I don't know why this is a big deal. I agree with you that if it is on the list, it should be included. Chances are that if it is listed for the 07s, then it will be made available sometime soon.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Posts: 7,160
    Your reading comprehension suffers. And I don't post false information. It's just that some don't read very well.

    I'll try again. I said yes the Max Trailering Pack is listed in the Chevy specs. It's clearly there.

    Now this is important to read carefully.... pay attention..

    You cannot go on Chevy's Build/Price module and actually build a Silverado with this option. They don't offer it.

    Do I need to repeat it? I can.

    OK to be balanced, I'm certain that the Silverado can haul the spec'd Max towing capacities...when it has the package. it is afterall the same vehicle as the Sierra.

    You can spec out the Max Trailering Pack with the 6.0L on the Sierra for ~$1000 extra. So it seems that GM Marketing has decided to give the top capabilities to the Sierra and the standard capabilities to the Silverado. In this way they don't push the pricing of the Silvy too high. GM to buyers: You want better towing? Step up to the Sierra.

    It's marketing exerting its influence.
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    "I haven't looked under the Tundra, but the cross members on the Silverado go through both sides of the boxed frame, and they are welded. The cross members transfer the stress to both of the frame rails. When the opposite corners of the vehicle are lifted, as happens often when offroading, the boxed frame is able to take the torque with much less flex."

    I think we've established a few points:

    First, as regards bending stiffness, the two sections are essentially equal. So, from a load carrying or towing capacity view, the FBC section wouldn't automatically be more beneficial.

    Second, with regards to torsional stiffness, the FBC section would have an advantage. So, from an off-roading viewpoint, the FBC section would be beneficial.

    Serious question: what % of full-size truck owners do SERIOUS off-roading with these types of vehicles (as opposed to using something a bit shorter, narrower, and nimble)? I know that Toyota offers OTHER vehicles which would be much more suitable to this type of use.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Posts: 7,160
    Subquestion: with 200,000 units to sell do you concentrate on all sectors of the potential buying public? Or do you concentrate your efforts and resources on establishing your bona-fides in a narrow focused sector where towing is of more importance.

    Walk before you run.

    As you say there are plenty of Toyota's all over the world proving themselves in areas where US half ton pickups would never go.
  • Belias, I have to say the majority of your arguments for the Toyota are subjective. I will say that some of the reasons I prefer the Chevy are subjective as well. You say that Chevy doesn't have the technical side but then admit that it has the locking differential, which is admittedly better (technical?).
    The argument for the previous GM trucks was that the interior was poor especially the gaps. Now GM has improved the gaps dramatically but "it's not your thing" and it's "subjective". I have the same response to the Toyota's interior...It's not my thing but agree it is subjective. I think the Chevy interior is well laid out and gauges are close and directed to the driver. Edmunds also agrees. :P
    Also, no mention of the gas mileage advantage of the Chevy. I do understand that it doesn't matter to a lot of people that drive trucks but the amount of people that use them as a daily driver and care about gas mileage is a factor.
    Can you explain to me the amount of technical advantages in favor of the Tundra that are "overwhelming". I don't see it. I guess I don't know what I'm admitting to when I don't see almost any advantage let alone overwhelming ones.
    You say that the Chevy is missing critical safety features...such as? You say that Chevy is missing air bags but yet when I go the website I can see Chevy has dual stage front/side impact air bags and stability control. I will give you that they are not standard in all trims but it will become the standard by 2008 for all vehicles in the US.
    Also, I'm not sure about the stereo system either. Chevy offers a Bose 6 disc CD changer. Seems pretty good to me.
  • pmuscepmusce Posts: 132
    How can you not order it when there are Silverado's on the lot with it already. He is assuming you can't order it because he could not figure it out on the 'Build Your Own' section of Chevrolet.com.
  • blufz1blufz1 Posts: 2,045
    Strongest frame? Who cares? The frame just has to be strong enough to do the job that's all. On the street I don't think the chevy get's better mileage on an engine by engine basis than the Toy. If you can, just wait a few years into the model run and you will get a better truck at a better price. Think of the incentives when gas is $4 a gallon and Honda has diesel power across it's entire lineup. :)
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Posts: 7,160
    OH..

    On our Chevy lot, we sell both, there are none. If you can show me on the Chevy Build module where it is then I will apologize profusely.

    But I don't think I'll have to ;)

    It's clearly there on the GMC site and Build module, but not on the Chevy version.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Posts: 7,160
    Yes if the Ridgeline gets Honda's diesel in 2009, along with the Ody, MDX/Pilot and Accord then all the gassers here may be sucking wind ( or diesel exhaust ) trying to get their diesels on the market.
  • blufz1blufz1 Posts: 2,045
    It's going to happen. Wait 3 years,if you can, to buy a pickup. Ah.... I can see it now....$4000 cash back and 200,000 mile warranty.
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    "Also, no mention of the gas mileage advantage of the Chevy."

    Odd thing is, that in Edmunds direct comparison test between the 5.7l Tundra 4x4 and the 6.0l Silverado 4x4, they observed 14.4 mpg on the Tundra and 12.7 mpg on the Siverado. Both trucks driven by the same panel of drivers in the same tests over the same roads.

    As usual, YMMV..... ;)
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,627
    The latest issue of Trailer Boats Magazine did a 1/2 ton comparison test of the Dodge Ram 1500 Mega Cab 4x4 with 5.7 Hemi, F150 supercrew 4x4, GMC 1500 Sierra crew cab 4x4 w/ 6.0L, Nissan Titan crew cab 4x4 SE, and a Toyota Tundra Double cab 4x4 with the 5.7.

    Note, I've subscribed to this magazine for many years and they are as unbiased as I've seen, if anything they prefer domestics as do most of their subscribers.

    The Tundra was picked as 1/2ton tow vehicle of the year due to posting the best overall scores related to towing a 6,840lb boat with 500lbs of tongue weight.

    Over the course of 2 weeks of testing, the tundra avg. 13.2mpg non towing and 9.1 while towing. The Sierra got 12.2mpg NT and 8.9 while towing.

    Since this was a towing test, the Tundra excelled at handling the tongue weight, pulling up grades, and towing stability. They commented the Tundra's towing performance felt more like a 3/4 ton than a 1/2 ton with the way the boat felt much smaller behind it than the other trucks.

    Surprisingly, the titan won the 0-30, and 0-60 times, beating all the other trucks by nearly a second or more to 60. The toyota posted by far the best 40-60 times while towing. The toyota posted a 7.7 second 40-60 time where as the sierra was 12.3 (the slowest of the bunch) that's a huge difference and a prime example where the sierra is hamstrung by it's gearing. Ironically, all of the OHC engines in the test had torque peaks under 4000rpm. The titan's 385lb-ft of torque comes at 3400rpm vs. GMs 6.0 375lb-ft @ 4300rpm, that's a big difference and partially explains the performance difference. So much for the torque advantages of OHV.

    Time will tell if the Tundra will hold up, but you can't deny it is capable truck.
  • blufz1blufz1 Posts: 2,045
    Good post w/ facts not conversation. Thanks!
This discussion has been closed.