Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Half-ton Pickups - The full field

1356711

Comments

  • look i found a non bias video lol

    couple of regular rednecks hookin up their trucks up to each other. (i mean redneck in a good way ;) )

    Whats interesting is that they're both locked in 4x4 You can see the dodge rams all four wheels grabbing :surprise: .

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHc9Jd78iQs
  • obyoneobyone Posts: 8,065
    What's interesting is the bed shake on the Tundra.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zShwG9l1F0Q
  • What is interesting is the Tundra pulling all the domestics toys like raggdolls ,after watching the bed shake the video should be right there,if not just pounch in tundra vs silverado,or f150 or ram :P
  • :surprise: Woooooow!!! That thing Would not be a good offroad truck! I love my Dodge!
  • What's interesting is the seemingly arbitrary and random entry speed number of 28mph for those road conditions.

    I suspect, but cannot prove, that it's a resonance frequency for the Tundra bed shake and less so for all the others.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonance_frequency

    I bet all the trucks would exhibit similar behavior if you hit just the right speed for them...
  • obyoneobyone Posts: 8,065
    While I agree on the resonance and why at 28 mph, the fact remains that the bed bounce is unacceptable. More I think about it there are current '07 Tundra owners complaining about the bed bounce at tundrasolutions. Wish I could post a link but that is against Edmunds policy to link to another forum especially one that features autos but I'm sure you can find them if you looked.
  • The "American" car makers are outsourcing components, and in some cases, assembly, to Mexico. Your logic is flawed. If Toyota, who is sourcing nearly 100% of the components for the Tundra from US suppliers and building them here with American workers, is only helping the Japanese economy, then who gets the dollars for all those parts they buy and for all the labor to build each Tundra? American companies and workers, that's who. Who gets the dollars for all the components that sum up an American truck? Some go to the US, some go to Mexican (and other countries) companies they source from. The final product sale may ultimately benefit Toy of Japan or, or in the case of the American counterparts, GM, Ford or Dodge, but that's only a slice of the pie. For your argument to hold up, you'd have to disregard all the components that go into each vehicle and the direct benefit to all the American suppliers who help build the various parts of each truck. Any more, no matter which brand of vehicle you purchase, you are helping the American economy. And conversely, buying exclusively American means you will consequently benefit many foreign suppliers. This IS a global economy. I'm very happy to see GM, Ford and Dodge upping their game in terms of the quality of their vehicles in recent years, but they've burned a lot of people in the past. It takes more than the "buy American" argument to persuade most people to choose a GM or Ford or Dodge over a Toyota or any other brand, for that matter. Establishing a track record of consistent quality and building a more desireable truck (or car) that looks great, drives well and does what buyers want is what will ultimately win buyers who might otherwise shop for a foreign brand. I have been burned badly on three American cars, and at one point would never consider buying another. Time heals wounds however, and I would consider another at some point, when I feel like they have proven that they build a vehicle that equals offerings from Toyota, for example. Until then, I'll buy Toyota's because every one I've owned has held up remarkably well, and has been nearly bullet proof. All cars are just machines, subject to the laws of entropy, but Toyota has the best reputation in the industry for consistenly high quality.
  • I should add that if I needed to pull something, I'd have to go with a diesel which precludes the Tundra from even being in the running - just so I don't appear to be completely biased :shades:
  • And all marketing done by ford ;)

    You'll be surprised how many trolls are around Tundrasolutions.com People have gotten caught lying about their issues.. and continue to post at TS.com. Some are so good at lying its amazing how far theyve gone before getting busted... That site is a troll space and will continue to be one since There are thousands of people who hate toyota.. I dont blame them thousands are jobless because of the low car sales for the big 3 and toyota is a target :P. GM, Ford and Diamler are relying on trucks sales to keep them in business theyre going to do an all out war against Toyota & nissan. GM already said they're going to attack online and Television advertising to pick up sales. And yep you guessed it Forums are a huge target.
  • drfilldrfill Posts: 2,484
    With the Cummins Diesel, a 6.1 Hemi at 400+HP, and updated safety features, I'm sure the next Ram will be quite competitive, and Tundra will get a update for 2010.

    DrFill
  • obyoneobyone Posts: 8,065
    at least we got a once dead topic revived... :P
  • what i want to know is, where were all these tundra lovers when the last tundra was fallin apart? Talk about bandwagon fans.....
  • What I want to know is where are all the critics when a Ford, GM or Dodge truck falls apart? Certainly no one here is going to try to say THAT never happens, right? We all know better. And if the previous Tundra was such a piece of garbage, how did it manage to win so many accolades for most trouble free and lowest cost of ownership? When used within the scope of its design which was a medium-large light duty truck, not a heavy duty, it performed well, albeit with a somewhat undersized engine. The new one is not a heavy duty either so it's not reasonable to compare it with the heavy duty offerings from GM, Ford and Dodge. Let's compare apples to apples. If and when Toyota makes a one-ton Tundra it would be reasonable to compare it with heavy duty trucks. Right now it's only reasonable to compare with other half tons. For someone who simply needs a half ton truck with lots of balls, the Tundra is a good choice. For those of us who have owned American cars that didn't hold up after 40K miles or so, the Tundra is a clear winner.
  • obyoneobyone Posts: 8,065
    "For those of us who have owned American cars that didn't hold up after 40K miles or so"

    Now that makes sense as I used to trade my American cars before the OEM tires wore out.

    "The new one is not a heavy duty either so it's not reasonable to compare it with the heavy duty offerings from GM, Ford and Dodge."

    You are correct and it is usually the Tundra owners who bring up how "heavy duty" it is not the big 3 owners. I can understand their enthusiasm with their new truck and also understand how dangerous it is to overestimate the capabilities of a truck when hauling and towing are concerned.
  • Your message cracked me up. Wish I had known that before - if I just traded in instead of replacing the tires it would have save me a lot of headaches - and cash!

    Yeah, you can't blame them for getting excited about their new trucks. I am a Toyota fan (obviously) but if I needed to haul a big trailor or boat (I don't) I would buy a diesel and pray that the rest of the truck holds up as long as the engine. I used to work for one of the leaders in performance electronics for the "Big Three" diesels, and I have driven them all a fair amount. I am a huge fan of the Cummins and the Duramax, but even the engineers I worked with realized that those trucks, as good as their engines were, suffered in terms of quality. A lot of the guys that drove them frequently complained about the problems they had - not just with the modified parts, but with things like interior pieces that fell apart, electrical problems, bed jitters, you name it. Still, there's nothing like the rush of 900 lb-ft of torque under foot. Yee haw! ;) But then nothing can be more frustrating than something breaking on a truck you paid $50K+ for.
  • obyone

    Thanks for the links to the videos. I don't care if it was a Ford ad, the video doesn't lie. It is what it is. The video of the frames was really interesting. The Tundra frame is flimsy by comparison, the F150 frame is clearly superior in every respect. I'd be interested in a "frame-off" between the F150 and the new Silverado, since that is what I currently own. The Silverado is also fully boxed. Before I bought I slid under the Silverado and Tundra (which I always do when I contemplate a car puchase. How many other people do that I wonder???). The Silverado undercarriage blew me away compared to the Tundra.

    Before you start the flames, let me once again say that I've owned 2 Toyotas, 1 of which was really good (1985) and one of which was mediocre at best (1992). But at least they both had relatively beefy fully boxed frames considering they were "mini-trucks". The riveted c-channel Tundra frame is a huge step backward. Why would Toyota do that? To save on cost maybe? I dunno, but it's a mistake in terms of durability and a marketing blunder, if what you're trying to do is appeal to the American truck owner who needs a working machine that will last.

    Once again, a good marketing strategy by Ford. When you strip a vehicle down you really get to see what's underneath. The Tundra is wearin' a thong under them fancy duds, I'm tellin' ya.

    1offroader
  • Well the critics are right here in this forum..duh. Thats my point. the new tundra owners are having a grand ol time these days, as they should, since their beloved company FINALLY built them a decent truck. All im saying is that you never hear a peep out the previous model tundra owners but now they're talkin all big and bad...I just find it funny. And funnier still how, i would guess, that 99% of these tundras will never see a spec of dirt. They'll just sit in the drive-way looking fugly as all toyota vehicles do, never being used for their intended purpose or using anywhere near all the power they make. But when you look at most work trucks they are always chevys fords and dodges, even though the trundra name has been out for several years now...and i guess im not one of those americans who owned an american car that didn't make it past 40k. both my parents still have their old chevy's(camaro) and fords(f150) and are well on their way to seeing almost half a milliion miles. My '91 Explorer had almost 140,000 on it before i got into a wreck. Not a lick of problems. Meanwhile almost 10 million toyotas have been recalled in the past few years both here and in japan for quality issues, sludge in the engine, or shaky suspensions...just food for thought.
  • 12oz

    I posted a few weeks back in the Silverado forum about a vacation I took into the Heartland (Montana, Utah, Wyo., Iowa, S.Dakota, etc.) . I made some observations about the trucks I saw doing actual work. I saw a few new Tundras, but they were all in the cities, nice and clean, hauling zip. I also saw quite a few new 2007 Silverados/GMCs, hauling hay, towing trailers loaded with farm equip. etc., splattered in mud and gawd knows what else. In other words, working. (There were also tons of Fords & Dodges, but I can't tell the 07s from earlier models). My conclusion was that a sale is a sale as far as Toyota is concerned, but if they want to crack the truck market they are going to need to get some of their trucks on ranches and farms where the real work is going on. So far it ain't happenin'.

    1offroader
  • drfilldrfill Posts: 2,484
    Whether you read the link or not. :surprise:

    Moving on....

    DrFill
  • i see a lot of tundras towing. Theres a hell of a lot more chevys and gmc trucks out there. Millions actually the sierra and silverado combined are close or over a million trucks a year thats more then the f150 now 2-3 years of gm trucks thats 3+ million of course your going to see some doing some farm work in the middle of no where since they come easy. Toyotas gotten into the big 3s sweet spot and their only selling 150-200k trucks a year and arnt doing that bad and a lot of people are finding out toyota sandbagged this sucker. I would like to see how the chevy would do in a head on crash with a similar tundra. Tundras weight 500-600 pounds more then the a fully loaded 6.o silvy.
  • Towing what, jet-skis? I'm talkin about real towing, real work and off-road play...The point i was trying to make is not that the new tundra isn't capable, but the the type of buyer who purchases these trucks aren't the type that are going to actually use their trucks as trucks...
  • toykicks,

    You are mixing apples & oranges here. I made it clear that I was making an observation about the 07s *only*. I am NOT referring to previous years' sales, so your 3+ million trucks reference is completely irrelevant. If you are being purposely obtuse, then stop it, OK?

    The 07 Tundras I observed were towing/hauling/working at NOTHING. They were all CITY TRUCKS. The 07 Silverados & Sierras (mostly Silverados BTW) were in large measure on farms, ranches, etc.

    I live in the Los Angeles area. I actually see quite a few 07 Tundras, but they are not doing any work, except hauling their owners back and forth to jobs in the city. They are commuter vehicles. If Toyota wants to ultimately be successful in the truck segment they will need to crack the work market, and they aren't doing that, at least not yet. Perhaps, in time, they will.

    That was my entire point.

    As far as a head to head crash, what I am going to say will make you very sad, but that's life. That crash test was recently done by NHTSA and Tundra came in LAST(!) against the Big 3. Dodge, Chevy, and Ford all got 5 stars, Tundra got 4 stars. Do you understand Tundra=LAST in a head-on crash test??? The ratings mean that the Tundra was twice as likely to result in a serious injury or death to the driver. Don't believe me? Google it, or check these boards!

    1offroader
  • Point well taken and I appreciate your thought. But in all fairness, Toyota had a couple of years of recalls and everyone is jumping all over them (I haven't heard anything about a recall for shaky suspensions, just the ball joint issue). Lets not ignore the fact that millions of Chevy's and Fords have been recalled over the years as well. Personally, I don't hold recalls against any carmaker - I see them as a good thing. Having a manufacturing background, I know how a supplier can really screw things up, even when you have done everything humanly possible to ensure all will go as planned. Recalls are a way for a manufacturer to take responsibility and own their mistakes, as well they should. Ford has had its share of of problems during recent years, and so has Chevy. My last GM needed a new engine at 80K. I was pissed when that happened, because it wasn't my fault and it was due to a problem they knew existed but did nothing about it. Sure, Toyota had a sludging problem with it's 2.2L and 3.0L engines... My mother in law had one that blew, but she NEVER changed the oil, either, and it lasted through 130k miles of her abuse and neglect. When it happened, Toyota sent her a letter - on their own accord - notifying her that they regretted the situation and would be willing to reimburse her for the incurred costs if she could verify that she'd at least changed the oil once every 15K miles!! I think that shows a lot of integrity. There was a reasonable explanation as to why the engines were failing that I don't want to go into right now because it isn't going to change anyones mind anyway... GM has literally had hundreds of thousands of engine failures in the last ten to fifteen years because of faulty intake gaskets, or dex-cool, or whatever it turned out to be. I was one of those cases. Point is, no manufacturer is perfect and no machine is 100% reliable... but Toyota's line is the most dependable over the long term, especially when all models are considered. GM and Ford have had some that are very good, but they have not been consistent accross all models. Perceptions are different as well. People have different expecations for their cars and what one person would report as a problem, another person wouldn't. I've heard people tell me things as crazy as "I never had any problems with it... just the transmission had to be replaced at 60K... other than that it has been perfect." There are always some good apples and some bad ones - as a buyer, you simply have to look at a manufacturers track record and assess the risk and make your choice based on the facts. And if you're smart you pick the one that has a reputation for having mostly good ones. And... you probably didn't hear a lot of bragging from the previous Tundra owners because they knew their trucks really didn't compete with real full size trucks, but were more designed as a truck that a Tacoma driver could "graduate" to. The new one is a credible threat to GM, Ford and Dodge half tons, and that's why everyone is trashing it. As for the bed shake, it does look pretty bad in the video, but I don't know that it means the truck is designed badly - it just doesn't look good in that particular test. I saw it looking pretty dang good in the pull tests, which i would think is more applicable.
  • That's probably accurate. I know I'm not ever going to take one into the mud unless I have to. Heck, if I spend that much on a new truck, I'm not beating it up :shades: But I would use it to haul a boat (or maybe jet ski's) and for occasional trips to Home Depot, etc. Maybe Toyota designed it to appeal to people like myself? I dunno. But I sure like it and if I did buy one it would be because I occasionally need a truck to haul stuff, but still want something that goes from 0-60 in 6.0 seconds too. For me, the Tundra is the perfect fit. And I actually DO like the new Silverado and the F150 quite a lot, but if I bought one of those, it would be decked out with all the goodies, like 20" rims so it would handle more like a car, but then I would want it to go faster and have more gears.... so yeah, I'm one of the people who would never use it for a work truck, but I can still have one, can't I?
  • hahaha for sure man, it's all good. It just pisses me off when some toyota guys act like their vehicles are the best thing since silicon implants. It's all up to the potential owner. For me, I go off road and beat the living crap out of my truck so naturally I'm not going to get something new or fancy whatever the brand, it just all depends. And as far as recalls go, I'm surely aware of the big 3 and their recalls. Every car company has their problems, especially these days as cars and trucks get ever more complicated. But as i said before, some act like their rigs are perfect, especially sum of the Toyota guys. I was simply trying to remeind everyone that they have their problems as well. I have a '98 Chevy K2500 with a lift and big tires, in case anyone was wondering where I'm comming from....
  • dustykdustyk Posts: 2,926
    That was a sophomoric demonstration of the laws of physics.

    The truck on the left (the video quality was not that good) lost cohesion (ie: reduced friction) with the road surface as soon as the tires started to spin on the pavement. The blue truck could then more easily pull the black truck forward despite the black trucks wheels spinning against the direction of pull.

    Notice that the black truck could no longer pull the blue truck as soon as the blue truck driver applied the brakes. Prior to that, when engine power was applied through the transmission torque converters, neither truck was going anywhere.

    The only thing this test proves is that some people have too much free time on their hands and others are extremely naive.

    Dusty
  • What does naive mean :shades:
  • yeah Government crash tests also show that people shouldnt compare vehicles Crash test results with others which have a 400+ & - pound difference which the Gm twins do and dodge also. Side impact air bags are optional on the GM twins which means that 5 star crash rating isnt any better then a 4 star car. When you get t boned by a vehicle which has its bumper/grill by your head it only takes 30 mph to kill you without a side impact airbag.

    as for the 3 million comment you wernt specific. Combined 07 GM twin models are at over 700k Tundra 124k? year to date does that answer your question? ;)
  • toykicks

    I don't have a question, other than "Do you read a post thoroughly before spouting off?" My post was completely clear if you'd bothered to read it. Suggest you go back and do so. Next time I'll type more s-l-o-w-l-y so you'll understand.

    As to the side air bags, I have them. They are an option, and I ordered it. I also have OnStar, which is standard, and which will call an ambulance if my air bag deploys and they can't contact me. Did you order that on your Tundra? Oh, wait...not even an option.

    You seem to be kinda sensitive to the Tundra's LAST PLACE finish in the frontal crash test. Why is that?

    1offroader
This discussion has been closed.