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

1545557596093

Comments

  • 1offroader1offroader Posts: 208
    And that's where you're WRONG, pmusce. That big gold bow tie IS available for the Tundra. The Chevy parts department would be HAPPY to sell one, EVEN to a Tundra owner ;)

    1offroader
  • ggesqggesq Posts: 701
    "Belias likes to twist what we say around to his liking so that he can try to maintain his arguments."

    After spending 45 minutes catching up to where I last left off- this comment is equivalent to the pot calling the kettle black. :P

    "Bottom line:
    Toyota is "Fugly", Inside and out. Fast? yes, Powerful? Yes. Reliable? Remains to be seen. Better? Nope. Ugly? In every way possible.

    I have asked several times...Doesn't Toyota believe in body lines? And nice front end!!! haha. Oh, and don't get me started on that really stupid, ugly and poorly layed out interior."

    IMHO, neither truck outshines the other in exterior or interior looks. The Tundra's quality and materials are better on the inside. The dash on the Tundra is a little ackward i.e. you better have long arms to reach those nobs but otherwise it is big and brawny looking. The faux wood in the Silvy is really poor but the dash is driver oriented. The polished silver dash components in the Tundra are definately a sign of the times similar to what is found in the Lincoln MKZ and Lexus IS.
    Toyota will generally have a more reliable vehicle compared to that of GM. Tundra wins there even if it is new- Toyota's reputation for quality and dependability speaks for itself and the previous generation Tundra even with the recalls is one of the most reliable trucks on the road today.
    Front end wise, Tundra looks like a wanna be Ram and the Silvy looks like a wannabe Ford Fusion.
    Bottom line- both are good trucks. Use your $$ and buy what makes you happy.
  • KCRam@EdmundsKCRam@Edmunds Mt. Arlington NJPosts: 3,495
    Having driven light trucks since I got my license 25 years ago, and having owned full-size pickups exclusively since 1990 (you can see all of them at my CarSpace page), I think I'm qualified to say that the hp/torque numbers of any given engine are meaningless to compare to another engine.

    Two factors will determine the "strength":
    1 - usable power
    2 - power-to-weight ratio of the vehicle

    Most of these new V8s, starting with the GM triplets (4.8/5.3/6.0) and reinforced by the Dodge 5.7, are bragging these high hp numbers. All of these engines make that hp at VERY high rpm. I'll ask the truck owners here to watch their tach during a typical day's driving - I can almost guarantee that 90% of the time, the tach is under 3000. How often are you going to be at 4500-5500 rpm to "use" that horsepower rating?

    And the vehicle itself certainly makes a difference. A 400-horse engine in a 6000 pound truck will NOT be faster than a 335-horse engine in a 5000 pound truck, if tire size and transmission/axle gearing are the same.

    Probably no surprise that for the last 11 years, I've driven a diesel-powered pickup. I get all the hp and torque in an rpm range that I actually drive. I get better (I won't say "great") fuel economy than a gas engine of similar hp output if installed in the same truck. I get maximum torque down low that will get me off the line - I surprised a Z28 at a green light with a 180-hp Cummins in my 1996 Ram... yes he caught me, but I got to the speed I wanted without holding up traffic.

    Having said that, the proper way to compare the Tundra and the Silverado/Sierra will be with similarly-equipped equivalent-body trucks, the same driver, and a test course that best resembles everyday driving. Acceleration times taken at a drag strip don't impress me. And I think it's safe to say that for the majority of people in the full-size half-ton market, they will never notice the power differences between these trucks unless they are constantly flooring the go-pedal... which will lead them to wonder why their mileage is so bad.

    kcram - Pickups Host

    KCRam - Pickups/Wagons/Vans+Minivans Moderator

  • titancrewtitancrew Posts: 14
    1) Tundra do have "cargo management" option, it's called deck rail system. Nissan had this first btw.
    http://www.toyota.com/tundra/options.html

    2) Personally, I prefer the front hinge doors on the Tundra. Don't have to open front doors first before you can open rear doors. Plus the B-pillar probably helps the structural integrity of the Cab.

    5) All Tundra engines have DOHC, 4valves per cylinder. GM gassers still have cam in block and 2 valves per cylinder. Only DURAMAX have 4 valves...only because Isuzu help design it. :-)

    6) Tundra gets better gas mileage in real world (Trailer Boats, Edmunds) testing. EPA estimates are just that...estimates.

    13 & 14) Remote start and satellite radio is available on Tundra
    http://www.toyota.com/tundra/accessories.html

    16) I've seen the new Tundra and Silverado in the same showroom and the body gaps of either one did not jump out at me...so unless someone has taken some gap measurements, this is just speculation. Toyota claimed they made the gap bigger on purpose, but how do we know the gaps are larger than the Silverado's. Get tape out and go measure it.

    17) Why is 6 bolts better? 5 bolts can be just as strong or stronger than 6 bolts. Ford and Dodge 1/2 tons uses 5 bolts with no problems. Last Gen Tundra had 6 bolts. Maybe they found that 5 is just as good.

    Tundra has FRONT and rear sonar...is that available on Silverado?
    Tundra has backup camera without NAVI...is that available on Silverado?

    Get you facts straight.

    Oh, BTW...my Titan have the electronic locking rear diff...still haven't need to use it yet. Electronic limited-slip a.k.a ABLS (same as Auto LSD on Tundra) and 4-lo have gotten me through a muddy stream up to the hubs and up a wet grassy slope just fine. My dad's '90 Toyota 4x4 with open diffs actually got up that hill better (very little tire slip) than my Titan. He thinks it's because his Toyota is much lighter than My Titan. But I think better tires than the BFG Rugged Trails would help more.
  • 1offroader1offroader Posts: 208
    kcram - you are, of course, correct. See my earlier posts on the subject. I'd be perfectly satisfied if all truck makers called a truce in the horsepower wars and waged a fuel economy war. That would be truly meaningful to all but the most wealthy drivers.

    BTW, the diesel is the wave of the future. Hybrids are too complex IMO. Hybrid may even be just an interim technology. But diesels have a lot of untapped potential for both power and fuel economy.

    Give me a 250 hp diesel with 450 ft lbs. at 1800 rpm and and an honest 30 mpg highway and I'd be one happy camper.

    1offroader
  • titancrewtitancrew Posts: 14
    Take a look at the Dyno graphs from Edmunds. The Titan 5.6L and the Tundra 5.7L engines have way more power down low than the GM 6.0L V8 (50+ @ 4k RPM). Too bad they don't have the data all the way down to about 1500 rpm. I suspected that Nissan under-rated the Titan's V8 as soon as I bought one. No way 305hp runs away from Hemi's 345hp. Nissan needs to add VVT to the Titan engine to improve high RPM Power. It's the high RPM that the Tundra engines runs away from the Titan. I'm still waiting for Toyota to put their new 4.5L V8 Turbo Diesel in the 1/2 ton Tundra. I'll buy that one!
  • pmuscepmusce Posts: 132
    "1) Tundra do have "cargo management" option, it's called deck rail system. Nissan had this first btw.
    http://www.toyota.com/tundra/options.html"

    My mistake. I missed that on the Toyota site.

    "2) Personally, I prefer the front hinge doors on the Tundra. Don't have to open front doors first before you can open rear doors. Plus the B-pillar probably helps the structural integrity of the Cab."

    If I need 4 doors, I would get a proper crew cab. Entry/Exit on the those mini doors is terrible. Your comment on structural integrity is not based on any factual data. GM has had extended cabs with clamshell openings for years and their are no structural integrity issues.

    "5) All Tundra engines have DOHC, 4valves per cylinder. GM gassers still have cam in block and 2 valves per cylinder. Only DURAMAX have 4 valves...only because Isuzu help design it."

    Your response has nothing to do with my point that Toyota's 4.7 uses a belt instead of chains. As far as I am concerned, I hope GM stays with overhead valve for their trucks. The OHC/OHV argument has been done to death.

    "6) Tundra gets better gas mileage in real world (Trailer Boats, Edmunds) testing. EPA estimates are just that...estimates"

    Sorry read my post carefully. The 5.7 Tundra does not get better real world mileage than the 5.3 Silverado. Trailer Boats and Edmunds never tested the 5.3 Silverado.

    13 & 14) Remote start and satellite radio is available on Tundra
    http://www.toyota.com/tundra/accessories.html

    My mistake again.

    "16) I've seen the new Tundra and Silverado in the same showroom and the body gaps of either one did not jump out at me...so unless someone has taken some gap measurements, this is just speculation. Toyota claimed they made the gap bigger on purpose, but how do we know the gaps are larger than the Silverado's. Get tape out and go measure it."

    I've seen them as well and it is pretty evident that the gaps are larger on the Tundra. Toyota even acknowledged thsi fact when they claimed that designed the larger gaps purposely for a tougher look.

    17) Why is 6 bolts better? 5 bolts can be just as strong or stronger than 6 bolts. Ford and Dodge 1/2 tons uses 5 bolts with no problems. Last Gen Tundra had 6 bolts. Maybe they found that 5 is just as good.

    Are you serious? All heavy duty trucks have 6 bolts. Why do you think that is? your stretching on this one.

    "Tundra has FRONT and rear sonar...is that available on Silverado?"
    The Silverado has rear sonar. What is Front sonar for?

    Tundra has backup camera without NAVI...is that available on Silverado?"
    I don't think it is.


    "Get you facts straight."

    Hey I'm willing to admit when I've posted something that is not factual, which is more than I can say for most people on this board.

    "Oh, BTW...my Titan have the electronic locking rear diff...still haven't need to use it yet. Electronic limited-slip a.k.a ABLS (same as Auto LSD on Tundra) and 4-lo have gotten me through a muddy stream up to the hubs and up a wet grassy slope just fine. My dad's '90 Toyota 4x4 with open diffs actually got up that hill better (very little tire slip) than my Titan. He thinks it's because his Toyota is much lighter than My Titan. But I think better tires than the BFG Rugged Trails would help more."

    Just because you don't think a rear locker is useful does not take away the fact that Silverado has it available and the Tundra does not.
  • titancrewtitancrew Posts: 14
    Toyota's and Nissan's DOHC have more Low-end torque than GM's OHV. Isn't OHV supposed to have more Low-end torque?

    Did you measure the gaps? Let's see some numbers.

    Since that last gen Tundra had 6 bolts wheels, does that make it more capable than the current gen or more heavy duty? I guess the Tacoma must be a HD truck too. My point is that Ford and Dodge have used 5 bolts for years with no problems. HD pickups have 8 bolts btw.

    Tundra with 5.7L also have 10.5" ring gear. All other have 9.5" ring gear. To get 9.5" ring gear on GM, you need to order the Tow Package and that's the largest one available.
  • titancrewtitancrew Posts: 14
    Front sonar for parking/slow speed maneuvering. There's been more than a few times when I wished my Titan had front sonars in tight spaces. It's hard to judge the where the front bumper is on a big truck.

    Let's see some real world mpg numbers for the GM 5.3L V8. My Titan Crewcab 4x4 is averaging about 14mpg (actually 13.8, but what's a couple of tenths). That's about 75% city, 25% highway. And that number is from my calculations not the on-board computer (My Titan don't have one anyway, so I keep track of the MPG at every fill-up). I bet the 5.3 would have a difficult time achieving the EPA estimates.
  • pmuscepmusce Posts: 132
    titancrew, every vehicle for sale today would have a hard time ahieving the over-inflated EPA estimates. The EPA formula used to 2008 is more realistic. Besides, I said it had the best mileage based on EPA in the full size truck industry, which is true.

    The 5.3 is the engine I would get if I was buying a Silverado today. I have no need for the 6.0. The 5.3 is by far the most popular configuration that the GMT900's are sold. Its got a very good combination of power and fuel economy, which will only get better when it gets the 6-speed auto in 2008.

    Front sonar sounds useful and I can see the benefit of it.
  • pmuscepmusce Posts: 132
    "Toyota's and Nissan's DOHC have more Low-end torque than GM's OHV. Isn't OHV supposed to have more Low-end torque?"

    titancrew, did I ever say OHV has more low-end torque? Anyone who makes those kinds of blanket statements about OHV or OHC with respect to any performance characteristics would be wrong.

    "Did you measure the gaps? Let's see some numbers"
    Go look for yourself. I don't need to measure the see what is obvious. I can also tell you a Lexus LS had tighter gaps than a Cadillac STS without measuring.

    "Since that last gen Tundra had 6 bolts wheels, does that make it more capable than the current gen or more heavy duty? I guess the Tacoma must be a HD truck too. My point is that Ford and Dodge have used 5 bolts for years with no problems. HD pickups have 8 bolts btw."

    What would you rather have if given the choice, a 5 bolt wheel or a 6 bolt wheel?
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,627
    GM needs the 6 speed for the 5.3 and 6.0 big time. My 5.3 powered suburban w/ trailer tow package w/ 3.73 gears struggles to pull my near 5000lb boat through the hills.

    A friend of mine tows a boat that is about 1000lbs heavier than mine with an Armada and he just smokes me in the hills. I struggle to maintain 45 and he's cruising at 60+ up the same hill.

    Two problems hurt the 5.3 while towing. Torque peak at 4000+rpm. I don't care what the torque curve shows, this engine needs to rev for power. Off idle torque is good but midrange lacks punch until 3500+rpm. Add this to tall gearing and wide ratio spacing and the hills become a problem when towing, unless you don't mind listening to the engine scream at 5000+rpm on a 100 degree day.

    When I've driven the Armada, it feels like it's packing a big block. So much off the line and midrange torque plus aggressive gearing. 1 extra gear makes a big difference, particularly when towing. I'd put nissan's 5.6 w/5pseed in my suburban over my 5.3/4speed or 6.0/4speed any day.

    Just wish I could get a diesel in an Expedition or Suburban.
  • jreaganjreagan Posts: 285
    but the exterior (in person) is ugly!

    In person? Well maybe when you are standing in front of it.
  • jreaganjreagan Posts: 285
    "Tundra has FRONT and rear sonar...is that available on Silverado?"
    The Silverado has rear sonar. What is Front sonar for?


    Blonde women drivers? hahaha Now dat's funny, I don't care who ya are, dat's funny...Git-R-Done!!!
  • jreaganjreagan Posts: 285
    Front sonar for parking/slow speed maneuvering. There's been more than a few times when I wished my Titan had front sonars in tight spaces. It's hard to judge the where the front bumper is on a big truck.

    Then you shouldn't be driving a truck. I have been driving a full size truck since 1990 and I NEVER have a problem. I can pull to within 2 inches of a wall or car in front of me without bumping it or seeing it. Learn to drive.
  • jreaganjreagan Posts: 285
    I can't argue this one, but later this year, it won't be an issue. The GM's will be using a 6-speed automatic. So, for the next few months, Toy has the advantage here. For me, a 4-spd will be sufficient since I only tow about 3500#'s and I have the 6.0l.
  • maple2maple2 Posts: 177
    Its really hard to like the silvy/sierra to get the same capabilities you need to pay extra for a 6.0 and not have the same towing acceleration or standard safety features in the tundra.

    why is it hard to like the sily/sierra because you have to pay extra for the 6.0? Is toyota giving the 5.7 for free?
  • toykickstoykicks Posts: 95
    the ext. cab 5.3 sierra is priced around the same as a 5.7 dc tundra. 6.0s runs for 3k more

    Sierra/silverado with the 5.3 engine doesnt really stand out vs. the titan tundra and hemi which are priced around the same or lower. The 6.0 has less power and doesnt peak torque lower then the 5.7 tundra and averages 2-3 mpgs less then the tundra in most tests & has restricted power to extend drivetrain durability.
  • maple2maple2 Posts: 177
    the ext. cab 5.3 sierra is priced around the same as a 5.7 dc tundra. 6.0s runs for 3k more

    Thats odd, I just built a tundra with the 5.7 and a silverado with the 6.0 on their respective sites, and the tundra was almost 1000 more. No extra options just the engines silverado crew cab= 45400 tundra dc =46210 (canadian dollars)

    & has restricted power to extend drivetrain durability.

    you see that is the difference, assuming your explanation of the delay is to extend durability instead of the gm reason of fuel economy, what ever the reason it dosent matter 6.0 liter= proven workhorse... 5.7liter toyota= proven 1/4 mile champ for the next couple monthes anyway. if you need to put your foot to the floor to get moving (which is where this delay happens) than you need a bigger truck period. I pull a 6500lb trailer with my avalanche and have never needed to put my foot to the floor if i found myself doing this i would go to a 2500 silverado.
  • jreaganjreagan Posts: 285
    Well said Maple2...
This discussion has been closed.