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

1235716

Comments

  • 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: 2,931
    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
  • Onstar isnt free :P if you dont pay them you can kiss your butt dead once your free trail is up. The tundra isnt last place. It did pretty well considering the weight disadvantage The axles on new tundras arnt made to break off like the old ones but the engine mounts and steering column are they scored the tundra above average in hwy crash tests which isnt bad. I wouldnt consider a GM product any way. It took them 5 years to work out all of their Problems out on old powertrains which they passed on to the 07s and im not judging by what people post online on forums. Just ask your local GM mechanic how many transmission they would have to rebuild to reband rubber into their trannys :P yeah we can go there ;) .
  • A good friend of mine was a service manager for a GMC dealer in NH. I guess the old 800 transmissions were problematic, but even worse was the rear axle whine and brake issues. Both those trucks and his wifes current Suburban had the ISS replacments a few times as well.

    Even with an entire service bay at his disposal, he still managed to jump ship on a new Tundra DC back in March. Didn't even give the new truck a chance (We looked briefly when I went shopping with him but put off by reliability concerns). Plus the trucks are just fugly looking, especially the smiley-faced Silverado.

    Carry on :shades:
  • obyoneobyone Posts: 8,065
    I've lost count on the number of times you've told that same "my friend was a service manager for a GMC dealer". Don't you get tired of repeating yourself or do you do a copy and paste from some word program? Sheesh!!! ;)
  • drfilldrfill Posts: 2,484
    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


    One thing you can't really accuse Toyota of is marketing blunders.

    Having sold quite a few '07 Tundras this year, the ads bring in traffic! The marketing is working. Sales are up more than 50% YTD. And GM is rethinking their market strategy, after being shown how to sell a redesigned truck by Toyota (The new GM's are actually down 7% YTD). :surprise:

    http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2007/08/02/057062.html

    And patting Ford on the back doesn't make a whole lot of sense, as their new marjeting campaign only came about when Toyota took HUGE MARKET SHARE CHUNKS out of Ford's portfolio. If you look up sales, pretty much every sales Toyota has picked up has come at the expense of F-150.

    And the 2009 F-150 is not going to sport a 5.4 Triton replacement, so it will get worse before it gets better at Ford. :sick:
    http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=121668#3

    Regarding the why's and the what's, the Tundra does have the best towing in it's class, and that is a big deal. The '09 F-150 and Ram will be benchmarking the Tundra when their new (Not exactly new in Ford's case) trucks get here next year.

    Selling a Tundra against a domestic is exceedingly easy, as I've done it. They targeted 3/4 tons in design and interior styling, and looked to set new standards in interior features and safety.

    Making a Ram/F-150 look unsafe, by comparison, helps sell a few. :blush:

    The transmission loop in the GM cripples that truck, so the 6.2 needs to overcome that deficit pronto!

    The domestics did score with the NHTSA tests, but the IIHS test is the standard. Much harder test to pass. Tundra has always built a safe truck. :blush:

    http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=70

    http://www.iihs.org/ratings/earliermodels.aspx?class=70

    You have to work hard, and be dedicated, to get hurt in a head on collision in a 5k truck. Rollovers are the real issue with these vehicles, and Toyota has more safety features than any vehicle in the class, with TRAC, Brake assist, and VSC standard.

    When you are up 50-60%, and everyone else is down, that's sayin' somethin about the truck. Getting to 200k is a big deal! Toyota has made a major dent in the market in a flat/declining truck market. Now the Big 3 are sweatin' bullets!

    Whether anyone wants to admit that or not.....

    DrFill
  • I will agree when you simply look at percentages, the Tundra is doing well. But what does that really mean? The Tundra is a completely different truck than the 1st gen Tundra, which was a failure as a full-size truck. Do you really believe the 50-60% will be sustainable? Also, the numbers (150-200K) are still very small and the only way they will mean anything is if Toyota can SUSTAIN these percentages over a long period of time. A 1-year snapshot does not tell the whole story, especially when the competition is releasing new redesigns as well. Yes, Tundra is conquesting sales from Ford's F150, but will they continue to do so when the newly designed F150 comes out, or the newly designed Dodge Ram comes out? Only time will tell. I am guessing not. This "spike" is indicative of a brand new truck being released and the "hype" will wear off, just like it did with the T100 and the 1st gen Tundra.
  • obyoneobyone Posts: 8,065
    Perhaps a little closer look at the sales numbers.

    Toyota Tundra
    July 2007: 23,150
    August 2007: 18,919

    Hmmm...what could this be saying? That you took a vacation for the month of August and didn't sell your usual 5k trucks?
  • Or, it could be that the full size truck buying public, which has traditionally had three manufacturers to choose from, is simply not immediately welcoming to the new Tundra and want to wait it out a little. I'm sure there are disgruntled Ford, Chev and Dodge customers that are now buying Tundras, and probably a lot of them are Toyota loyals who naturally buy the Tundra because it's a Toyota. But, to assume the Tundra will simply become another Nissan Titan would be a mistake. I would wager that sales will hold steady if not gradually increase. There's always a crop of ready buyers when a new model comes out, so it's natural for sales to level off after the initial surge. But the current Tundra has staying power - it has one of the highest power ratings, some of the best economy numbers, and comes from the manufacturer recognized the world over (except maybe here in this forum) for leading the industry in long term quality. Fortunately, all of the full size trucks are very good now, so there's plenty of good choices out there, but I wouldn't write off any product from the most admired and studied car manufacturer in the world. It may not become the best selling truck in America (and probably won't) but it will still be there and I'd be very surprised if Tundra sales miss the conservative mark set by Toyota.
  • drfilldrfill Posts: 2,484
    This "spike" is indicative of a brand new truck being released and the "hype" will wear off, just like it did with the T100 and the 1st gen Tundra

    Not exactly.

    1. Toyota wanted to sell 125k Tundras in the previous generation. They did that every year, consistently.

    2. GM's trucks also came out last year, but have fallen on their face, and Sierra has been out sold by Tundra half the time!

    3. Toyota isn't looking to grow 50% a year for the next 5 years. Toyota doesn't need Tundra to make money. They make money hand over fist with everything they build!

    This can be a pet project for them. Tundra doesn't make ot break Toyota. For the domestics, it's do or die.

    There is NO EXCUSE for the new GM's to be losing share, in chunks, to the Toyota. they just aren't losing as fast as F-150. :mad:

    The Tundra will level off at 225k a year or so. Which is fine with them.

    Prius and Tundra are HUGE HITS for toyota, not that they need a hit. :blush:

    DrFill
  • Yes, GM's trucks are new, but not a completely different truck like the Tundra is. This is the first real full size truck for Toyota, and Toyota loyalists have ONE choice in full sized trucks, no HD's. So, of course their sales will spike the first year, people have been waiting for a full sizer from Toyota for years.

    So, by saying Toyota "wanted' to sell 125K/yr of the old Tundra's, are you saying they did NOT want to sell more than that? I don't see your point here?

    I agree the Tundra will probably level off at 225K/yr in the next couple of years, assuming they fix the issues they are having currently. But I do not see how an extra 100K/yr vs the old Tundra is going to make much of an impact on the domestics overall sales, especially if Toyota does not introduce a HD/Diesel Tundra.

    How can the Tundra be a "Huge Hit" for Toyota when it only sells 200K.....total, it's not even sold outside the USA. I'd say it's a pretty small moneymaker when you look at the big (global) picture.

    The marketshare lost to F150 is only because the F150 is nearing the end of it's current generation. Once the new F150 rolls off the line, then we'll see how many sales are lost to the Tundra.

    GM's sales are not down for any other reason than the fact that gas prices are high and housing market is down (construction companies are not buying them right now). Don't kid yourself into assuming it's because people are buying the Tundra instead of the GM. I would bet that Tundra conquest sales account for very few lost GM sales.
  • drfilldrfill Posts: 2,484
    So, by saying Toyota "wanted' to sell 125K/yr of the old Tundra's, are you saying they did NOT want to sell more than that? I don't see your point here?

    I don't understand your point. Toyota sets a goal, and reaches it, cosistently. Now you want to penalize them for not overshooting their goal? :confuse:

    But I do not see how an extra 100K/yr vs the old Tundra is going to make much of an impact on the domestics overall sales, especially if Toyota does not introduce a HD/Diesel Tundra.

    You just hit the bullseye! ;)

    The will have gained 100k in a receeding market, without having to build an additional line of trucks. That's progress.

    And finally:

    How can the Tundra be a "Huge Hit" for Toyota when it only sells 200K.....total, it's not even sold outside the USA. I'd say it's a pretty small moneymaker when you look at the big (global) picture.

    The Tundra's main objective is to show the domestics, to show America, that they can build a more-than-competitive full-sized truck. That's the "Hit". Toyota has done it.

    It can take Toyota 10-15 years to reach Chevy/Ford sales numbers. And that is fine. Toyota has two things the domestics don't.

    Money and patience. This is not life or death for Toyota. They are the tortoise (sic). They are thinking 10 years from now. The domestics never did, and now don't have that luxury. :(

    The Silvy/Sierra is a fine truck. I've driven it. Quiet, car-like. But if you drive the Tundra, and have a good salesman show you what's what, you will pause before getting ANY domestic truck. Mission accomplished. ;)

    Selling against a domestic truck is very easy. They are good, but the GM's have holes big enough to drive a Tundra thru, if you know where to look. :blush:

    DrFill
This discussion has been closed.