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

1686971737493

Comments

  • fshifshi Posts: 57
    Toyota Tundra Makes Inroads with Its Owners
    autoobserver.com (Edmunds.com)

    By Michelle Krebs

    March 9, 2007

    Toyota launched the Tundra pickup truck only last month, and so far, based on Edmunds.com’s analysis, it is drawing sales largely from Toyota loyalists rather than stealing sales from General Motors, Ford, Chrysler and Nissan.

    Based on February sales data, Edmunds.com puts Toyota ’s loyalty rate on the Tundra – calculated based on what make vehicle was traded in for the Tundra – at 50 percent, up dramatically from 38.3 percent the month before. That indicates Toyota owners are trading their current Toyotas – Tundras, largely – for the new Tundra.

    To meet its goal of selling 200,000 Tundras that are built at its new plant in Texas annually, Toyota will have to steal sales from existing truck makers. Ford and Dodge may be most vulnerable to Toyota ’s conquest attempts. The Dodge Ram is the oldest of the full-size pickups on the market. The Ford F-150, America ’s best-selling truck for three decades, is just behind it.

    Ford’s loyalty rate slipped to 61 percent in February from 65.2 percent; Dodge dipped from 53.2 percent to 49.6 percent. Nissan edged up to 33 percent from 31.5 percent.

    The Edmunds.com data shows General Motors owners are extremely loyal to the automaker’s full-size pickup trucks, and their loyalty is climbing. Loyalty rates on the Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra, already the highest in the industry, have been creeping up month by month since the new models were introduced. Chevrolet Silverado buyers in February, who previously owned a GM-branded vehicle rose to 75.6 percent from 71.3 percent; the Sierra to 70.4 percent from 69.3 percent. More specifically, owners of Silverado and Sierra pickups increasingly are trading them for the new versions.

    Toyota kicked off its largest advertising campaign ever with the NFL Super Bowl; Advertising Age places Tundra advertising spending at more than $100 million, a number Toyota does not dispute. Those ads focus on the Tundra’s hauling and load-carrying capabilities, aspects lacking in previous versions of the Tundra. Toyota also spent more on training dealership personnel on the Tundra than it has on any other vehicle.

    Toyota is rumored to be providing incentives to dealers to sell Tundras, giving a bonus if it is sold to the owner of a Detroit-produced pickup.

    In response, Ford began advertising its Super Duty heavily during Super Bowl and recently announced a new truck ad campaign featuring Mike Rowe, host of the cable television program, “Dirty Jobs.” Dodge has beefed up advertising. And GM’s pickup truck advertising remains strong since its trucks still are in launch mode.
  • beliasbelias Posts: 316
    If you tow anything... jet skis, fishing boats, ruabouts, lawn tractors or any other light to moderate trailer load that does not require a 3/4 Ton, that 1000# limit is a major factor to consider. Why buy a truck if you cannot use it. I want a pick up that will tow 2 PWC's or a ski boat. TOYOTA CANNOT. There is no logic in risking a warranty on a $30K investment to go fishing! That ALONE stopped me from buying the Tundra. So I guess I will now say hi to my new Silvy brothers (and sisters)!

    This isn't saying that you can't tow those things with the Tundra, just that trailer brakes should be used beyond a certain weight. Anybody that has towed anything remotely heavy will understand this is a non-issue as you should be using trailer brakes anyway. Toyota just has a more restricted interpretation of its safety policy. It has nothing to do with capability. If you believe that, you've obviously never towed anything -- even with a compact truck. I gotta say bingo3, your posts sounds an awful lot like somebody that was previously on the forums... funny how you started around the same time he had to leave too! ;)
  • How strange? Car and Driver had a Pickup contest for its April '06 issue.

    They did not mention the Chevys 6.0L engine fuel cutoff-slash-lying to customer about Engine Performance feature.

    They did however, say that the Chevy won the comparison!
    What does this mean? And you know, if you read the artcle without looking at the place number, you would think that they hated it :P

    I hope that next year they will add the 6 speed and remove the fuel cutoff thing. It would increase performance and have more respect for the customer.

    I am not a buy foreign guy, but seriously guys GM has to change this.
  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,661
    Most manufacturers, not just Toyotas, have a 1000 lb. non-trailer brake tow rating. Nissan, Jeep, Dodge Ram and so forth all are rated at 1000 pounds for non-braked trailers. If you read Ford truck/SUV owner's manuals they recommend trailer brakes on EVERYTHING!

    Full size GM trucks do have a 2000 unbraked tow limit. The Chevy TrailBlazer has a 1500 pound rating, but the old S-Blazer was rated at 1000. I think Land Rover is around 1650 pounds, not sure about the VW Touareg?

    This towing information is in your owners manual. Check it out.

    Bob
  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,661
    Not sure if this has been mentioned here, but the new Tundra passes the upcoming 2009 government roof strength/rollover regulations. Not sure if GM, and any/or any other fullsize truck can match that.

    For MY2009 all trucks must meet these regulations, and the Tundra already does.

    Bob
  • geo9geo9 Posts: 739
    I guess the "toyota terroists" salesfolks aka NON-owners
    are gonna beat up on the new guy (a GM fan)............

    And yes its funny the tundra with those big bad brakes
    is limited to 1000 lbs. of unbraked trailer towing
    while poor ol' GM is rated at 2000 !!!!!!!!!!!

    Ahh........the spin continues !!!!!!!!!!!!

    Could be worse........could of bought a honda "pantyline"
    or those problematic titans.....aka future orphan trucks!
    Sales of both are swirling down the bowl! :sick:
  • ggesqggesq Posts: 701
    I guess being a "toyotaterrorist" & "nonowner" is worse than getting booted off of Edmunds and then coming back under a different name and then getting booted off again?

    Desperate times call for desperate measures.

    I agree with most that the Silvy/Sierra are probably the "benchmark" in this segment. I also believe that it is "healthy" for the full size truck market to be competitive. I don't believe anyone here or Toyota corporate intended the 07 Tundra surpassing the Silvy/Sierra in sales because obviously it needs to prove itself.
    IMHO, Toyota is finally taking the full size truck segment seriously and will keep GM on its toes. Obviously that last statement is up to debate but for the time being however short it may be there are specific advantages that the Tundra has over the Silvy/Sierra and vice-versa. It really depends on what your looking for in a truck and in a company in general.
    This isn't a sprint to the top, it's a marathon. Only time will tell how well either truck will do in the long run IMHO.

    BTW, here's a perfect example of a spin:

    "And yes its funny the tundra with those big bad brakes
    is limited to 1000 lbs. of unbraked trailer towing
    while poor ol' GM is rated at 2000 !!!!!!!!!!!"
  • Ur funny u redneck, so what who cares about sales it's quality that matters. Look at the Tundra for a instance the Tundra has nothing in sales compared to Ford, GM, Dodge, but the quality is the key ingredient, in the Tundra. So what WOW! GM is rated at 2000 lbs of unbraked trailer towing, big deal. Those are manufacthers estimates, the trucks can get more or less depending on the engine. For all you could know Tundra could stop upto 2500 lb and GM could be at 1500 lbs, who knows! All I know is that Toyota is gonna steal alot of sales from Ford, and Dodge!
  • obyoneobyone Posts: 8,065
    seems like all the tundra is doing is stealing sales from previous tundra owners.

    Personally, don't care who the manufacturer is....I wouldn't buy the first model year of any truck or car. No company is perfect.
  • blckislandguyblckislandguy Posts: 1,150
    Belias, gee, both you and CH must have a lot of time on your hands. There isn't really anything new or significant in all this. Yeh, the GM interior isn't quite a Maybach's, while the Tundra engine can wind higher and has slightly more power at the margins you can buy Chevy parts anywhere, blue collar guys and wannabes buy 3/4 ton or more, etc. etc.

    Speaking of frames, the reason why you box a frame on a 1/2 ton really isn't to prevent the frame from breaking (these aren't KW logging trucks pulling double trailers from a landing in ME) but to not allow flexing and to keep the suspension geometry fixed. As a side note, I have had a frame break, actually rust through, on an F150. But only after 20 New England winters. I wonder though if boxing the frame is going to trap moisture and hurt longevity some years down the road?
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Posts: 7,160
    And yes its funny the tundra with those big bad brakes
    is limited to 1000 lbs. of unbraked trailer towing
    while poor ol' GM is rated at 2000 !!!!!!!!!!!


    Here's the spin....and it's gonna hurt some.

    GM again takes risks with the owners health and well being. Just like they don't think that work truck and lower priced buyers deserve all the safety equipment ( all the airbags and Stabilitrak ) they also buck the trend by telling owners it's OK not to use trailer brakes where the rest of the industry is somewhat more careful.

    I see a trend here. OUCH!!!!!
  • 1offroader1offroader Posts: 208
    That's a crock. GM isn't taking any risks with owners' health and well being. They are simply offering owners a
    C-H-O-I-C-E. What's so difficult to understand about that? Example - If I was buying a farm pickup to haul feed to my cattle, and it saw little use on the pavement, I wouldn't buy the side air bags or the antilock brakes or the traction control or any of that stuff. I just want an appliance to haul feed and the extra expense would be wasted $. On the other hand, GM offers those items for those who want them. No problem.

    However, one of the best safety systems, OnStar, isn't available on the Tundra or any Toyota product AT ANY PRICE.

    So, class, let's review today's lesson - one truck maker offers all the safety items either standard or optional, and one truck maker offers those same items EXCEPT the excellent OnStar which has proven itself many times to save lives (not to mention recovers stolen cars and unlocks your doors).

    Quiz question: So which car maker is being more careless with their owners' safety and well-being???

    1offroader
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Posts: 7,160
    That's a cop out or another way of saying "Let's keep the price low!'

    Discussing a stupid 1000# difference in requirement for safety brakes vs NOT EVEN OFFERING side/curtain airbags on the lower end models isn't even in the same universe.

    C-H-O-I-C-E my butt. C-H-E-A-P is the more rational answer.

    If GM was serious about making OnStar a true safety feature then they would provide it and then waive the monthly charge.

    It sounds like the same thing as the Side/Curtain airbags and StabiliTrak. It's here ( for some of you potential owners ) but you have to pay for it. Hellooo. C-H-E-A-P.

    Just Do It. Put it in there and dont charge the monthly fee. Sorry this one doesn't fly. There is no excuse at all for not even allowing the buyers of lower trim models to get airbags and StabiliTrak if they want it.

    Talk all you want about OnStar but if an 18 wheeler T-bones one of these poor souls, OnStar is of no use in Heaven.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Posts: 7,160
    Hello, this is OnStar.

    Yes I'd like to report an accident. I was hit by a large dump truck and driven off the road down an embanqment. We rolled over several times and I died from the impact.

    Hello, this is OnStar.

    Help me. My 6 year old is trapped in the truck and needs assistance. I'm calling you from Heaven.

    Hello, this is OnStar.

    Hey!!! Can't you hear me? Can't you see the airbag deployment warning on your monitor? Oh wait I couldn't get airbags in my Regular Cab Silverado.

    Hello, this is Onstar.

    I sure hope someone with a cell phone or BlueTooth can get through to the authorities in time to help my son.

    Hello, this is OnStar.
  • ggesqggesq Posts: 701
    Your statement is a little twisted.

    First off- *most people buying 1/2 trucks are not exclusively using it for the farm and barely seeing the pavement.
    BTW- IMHO, most people aren't putting coolers INSIDE the cab either.
    Both of these situations are too few or far between and may exist for you and "farmerrube" but for the rest of us- let's keep it real.

    OnStar can be a definite asset. I can appreciate all that it has to offer including the periodic diagnostic tests that can be emailed to you grading the truck's performance.
    Should it be on every car, truck, van....YES, absolutely.
    However, having Onstar comes at a price.

    Conversely, having more STANDARD airbags without having to pay for them can be a definite asset also. I can appreciate the fact that in a serious collision ALL of those airbags are going to help save my, or my family or friends' lives- at no cost.

    Bottom line IMHO- apples to apples- the Tundra with more standard airbags is gonna save your hide in an accident moreso than a Onstar equipped Silvy/Sierra. The Onstar in the Silvy/Sierra will help save your hide AFTER the accident occurred.

    I'll take more standard airbags please.
  • dreasdaddreasdad Posts: 276
    But Gmwas told when tehy started ONstar that the syetem(analog) that they used for Onsatrt would be shut off with 5 years but they continued to use it for another 4 years before swithcing over this last year to a digital system.

    Also you can't get side airbags and traction control and stabilty control the 2wd Chevy Reg cab at any price. Not availabe. And thats the size of truck most people recommened and buy for the kids.
  • blckislandguyblckislandguy Posts: 1,150
    Not only is most of the above post unintelligible it indicates a complete disregard for the forum reader's time and attention span. Come on, use at least grammar school level grammar and spelling.
  • 1offroader1offroader Posts: 208
    kdhspyder and others,

    I will try this again, only this time I will type V-E-R-Y
    S-L-O-W-L-Y so that you understand, OK?

    It is not C-H-E-A-P, as you say, to offer those items as an option. This was covered in a previous post long ago. "STANDARD" IS NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH "FREE". You all seem to think it is. In reality, "STANDARD" actually means "If you purchase this vehicle you are going to pay for this feature whether you like it or not".

    I don't like the nanny auto makers deciding for me what to buy any more than I like the nanny government telling me what to do. If I had my druthers, the OnSTar would also be optional. Unfortunately, it's not. But, at least GM has it, and provides it "free" (not really 'free', I just wanted to know what it feels like to be completely ignorant like a lot of posters on this thread, who shall remain nameless for the time being) for the first year.

    GM is a business. Why shouldn't it charge for the OnStar service, just like Toyota charges for the air bags, traction control, etc. You might think it's "free", but that's because you've swallowed a large glass of the Toyota marketing Koolaid. You're paying for it, you just prefer to remain ignorant regarding basic business economics.

    And BTW, show me where I've been involved with the 1,000 lb. vs. the 2,000 lb. trailer brake debate. I think it's silly. What it really means is that Toyota just has more nervous lawyers than GM.

    Oh, and what's wrong with keeping the price low for those who C-H-O-O-S-E to make that choice?

    If you don't understand this, try re-reading it at a slower pace. The rest of us will wait until you catch up.

    1offroader
  • dreasdaddreasdad Posts: 276
    I humbly apologize for not proof reading but you know know what I said is true
  • ggesqggesq Posts: 701
    Ok, I'll play along. Accepting your logic (using that term very loosely) as being on point, then:

    I will glady pay extra for the truck which offers more standard airbags. The safety is worth it.

    Enjoy your Onstar. I'm sure it will protect you just the same as airbags at the time of a collision. :confuse:
This discussion has been closed.