ford f350 vs. chevy silverado 3500

plutonious · February 2002

Point #1:

Chevy ABS brakes are known to be problematic. Many different Chevy vehicles use common ABS parts. I supported links as proof. A potential buyer should take this into consideration. These facts pertain to the topic being discussed.

Point #2:

I'm enjoying watching you fall on your own sword with this whole DOHC thing. Did you know other large V8 vehicles are now using DOHC as well, and not just the Tundra? I believe the Lincoln Navigator is one of them. Now why would that be? And who cares about horsepower when we talk about trucks? Torque, especially at low RPMs, is what matters, and the Toy DOHC 4.7 beats the Ford and Chevy in that respect. Typically, high-revving DOHC motors WITH variable valve timing technology produce lots of HP simply because they spin so fast, but very little usable torque. The Tundra is the exact opposite: More torque than horsepower at a low RPM.

The Toyota DOHC 4.7 contradicts everything you say about these engines. As far as it not being used to its potential in a truck, well, it's obviously being used more to its potential than the Ford 4.6 and Chevy 4.8 because it outperforms them by such a large margin everybody wants to compare the Ford 5.4 or Chevy 5.3 to it.

I think you're confused on the difference of DOHC/4 valve and variable valve timing. Basically, everything you said about high-revving engines perfectly explains variable valve timing and not necessarily DOHC/4 valve. When an engine starts to spin fast, the time interval in which the intake and exhaust valves are open decrease and the engine can't breath (meaning take in enough fuel and expel the exhaust fast enough). Variable valve timing increases these time intervals (in fact, when increased, they will actually overlap with eachother) at high RPMs so the engine continues to breath.

While variable valve timing may not be used to its potential in a truck because that's what allows an engine to spin faster, what has that to do with DOHC/4 valve? You most certainly can have DOHC/4 valves without variable valve timing. And just because an engine has DOHC doesn't mean it's going to spin fast and produce no torque. Case in point: Toyota 4.7 V8.

What you should have been saying all along is "variable valve timing can't be used to its potential in a truck."

--------------------------------------------------

End of discussion. This has nothing to do with the topic anymore.

modvptnl · February 2002

You're soooo transparent, it's making you look silly.

You get stomped on the brake issue (no pun intended) so you bring up a debate that you conceded to months ago.

Again, you have the mechanics so far out of whack, it's hilarious. VVT or variable intakes are for one thing only: That is to limit the lift/duration of the valves at LOWER engine speeds. Usually around 3000 RPM all variable parameters are off and the engine is breathing with its compliment of full lift. PERIOD.

The Lincoln DOHC proves my point without a doubt. Ford wanted more (HP 300 vs 260) out of the 5.4 so they slapped the 4 valve heads on(which do use a variable intake track BTW) Take a look, the torque stayed within 5 pounds. This is a perfect example of what 4 valve heads are utilized for, thanks.

Toy, for good reason, tuned the 4.7 for low end and gave up the one main advantage of 4 valve technology, high end HP. The HP numbers of the 4.7 are pitiful when compared to DOHC/4 valve motors of the same size and even some push rod motors.

Again, the DOHC/4valve technology is a waste on a pick up truck.

PF_Flyer · February 2002

...and let's STOP these personal disputes here. Honestly, it doesn't matter that you look like you're arguing about trucks. It's the same people going after each other over the same things over and over...

If you have a beef with someone that you don't want to let go, take it up with them in their email. Don't fight it out in Town Hall.

PF Flyer

Host

Pickups & News & Views Message Boards

plutonious · February 2002

GMC is known to have faulty ABS systems. GMC is known to to utilize same ABS componets throughout its different trucks. This is a valid point.

"Again, you have the mecahnaics so far out of whack, it's hilarious. VVT or vatible intakes are for one thing only: That is to limit the lift/duration of the valves at LOWER engine speeds. Usually around 3000 RPM all varible parameters are off and the engine is breathing with its compliment of full lift. PERIOD"

Now this is where you're really making yourself look uninformed. VARIABLE VALVE TIMING ADJUSTS VALVE TIMING AS THE ENGINE SPEEDS UP! Look at the older Honda 2 stage variable valve timing engines. From idle to about 4000rpms a unique cam is utilized to open and close the valves and the engine runs "normal." But at rpms greater than 4000, the engine can't breath. Therefore, a SECOND cam with a different shape/profile which actuates the valves kicks in and alters their timing so the engine can breath at high rpms.

This is an example of a 2 stage variable valve timing design. There are also 3 stage variable valve timing designs which have 3 different cams which kick in as the rpms rise, allowing the engine to breath.

And it doesn't stop there. The disadvantage with multi-stage variable valve timing designs is that they can't produce power smoothly across the RPM range. You have to reach a certain RPM before the next cam kicks in and then the engine takes off like a rocket - which perfectly describes the Honda engines. Obviously, the more stages and different cams you have, the smoother the power will become but at the expense of added complexity.

Now they even have continously variable valve timing technology which eliminates the nonuniform power distribution/transition problems the multi-stage designs suffer from. And, many engines are now using variable valve timing on both the intake AND exhaust valves. And if that weren't enough, variable valve lift is also being used to optimize performance.

But the whole point of this is the valve timing is altered as the RPMs rise so that the engine can still breath. And according to you, the Toyota 4.7 doesn't even utilize variable valve timing and why should it? It's not designed to high-rev.

"the HP numbers of the 4.7 are pitiful when compared to DOHC/4 valve motors of the same size and even some push rod motors."

Duh - the 4.7 is tuned for torque at low rpms, not high revving horse power. And it beats the Ford 4.6 and Chevy 4.8.

You know, if you're going to say DOHC technology is a waste on a truck without having variable valve timing, why not say the same for SOHC engines like the Ford? SOHC engines could certainly benefit from variable valve timing as well.

NO MATTER WHAT YOU MAY SAY ABOUT DOHC TECHNOLOGY ON A TRUCK, IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT THE TOYOTA DOHC 4.7 OUTPERFORMS THE FORD SOHC 4.6 AND CHEVY OHV 4.8.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Pf-flyer's right. This doesn't belong here. If you want to discuss this further, let's start our own thread.

modvptnl · February 2002

The GM 4.8 has more HP. The Ford 4.6 in the Mustang has more HP. The SOHC Fords are 2 valve(don't need VVT, besides the 4 valve Fords have variable intakes which restricts the air at lower RPM, JUST LIKE VVT)

VVT increases low speed torque. The VVT is the exact opposite as you've explained. It limits the air at lower RPM to increase port velocity. Why can't you understand this. OHC 4 valve motors allow an engine to breathe too MUCH.(not being utilized in the toy) There has to be something in place to keep low speed port velocity up. Too much air at lower port velocities hurts low speed performance/torque. 4 valve heads by nature will allow more air. I can't make it any more simple. BTW, VVT has no extra "cams" some use variable lobes or extra lobes that are activated hydraulicly(sp?) or mechanically. there are no Honda's with 3 different cams. LOL!!! Infact the VVT in the V6 Hondas use 1 cam(SOHC) per bank and stilluse 4 valves.

Ok, all Gm trucks have faulty ABS. By this logic all toys rust and blow headgaskets and warp their front rotors.

PF, the engine technology stuff may be off this particular topic but I'm sincere in saying that I'm honestly trying to make a point. There is nothing personal.

plutonious · February 2002

about the cam lobes, not cams. My bad, it was a word mix-up. But that doesn't change the fact VVT increases the engines ability to breath at high RPMs.

I still don't see why you're arguing about horsepower instead of torque when we're talking about trucks. The Tundra may have a lower hp rating than the F-150 4.6 and Silverado 4.8, but it has more torque. It will also out-accelerate both of these trucks.

"VVT increases low speed torque. The VVT is the exact opposite as you've explained. It limits the air at lower RPM to increase port velocity. Why can't you understand this. OHC 4 valve motors allow an engine to breathe too MUCH.(not being utilized in the toy) There has to be something in place to keep low speed port velocity up. Too much air at lower port velocities hurts low speed performance/torque."

Then how is the DOHC 4 valve Toyota 4.7 MAKING MORE TORQUE AT A LOWER RPM THAN THE FORD 4.6 OR CHEVY 4.8??????????????????????????????????

Go do a search on autozine technical school. This website explains in detail what VVT is all about and it COMPLETELY CONTRADICTS your statements on VVT.

While I do agree that much of this technology is put to waste on a truck, you have to consider which type of truck we're talking about. There are advantages to this technology to an engine of less than 5 litres being used to tow less than 8000lbs. Big trucks, that's a different story.

modvptnl · February 2002

The HP vs torque is EXACTLY my point. A 4 valve head should have an advantage at higher engine speeds to produce more HP. Toy does not use it for that. They choose to tune a high performance 4 valve head to run higher torque at lower RPM.

This is what I've said from the beginning of time. Why waste high RPM high horsepower 4 valve technology to produce a torque motor?

modvptnl · February 2002

Your last paragraph of your edited post is exactly how you left it last time. That is all i've been trying to say.

plutonious · February 2002

This explains in depth what variable valve timing is all about:

http://autozine.kyul.net/technical_school/engine/vvt_1.htm

This is the best part of the article:

As you know, valves activate the breathing of engine. The timing of breathing, that is, the timing of air intake and exhaust, is controlled by the shape and phase angle of cams. To optimise the breathing, engine requires different valve timing at different speed. When the rev increases, the duration of intake and exhaust stroke decreases so that fresh air becomes not fast enough to enter the combustion chamber, while the exhaust becomes not fast enough to leave the combustion chamber. Therefore, the best solution is to open the inlet valves earlier and close the exhaust valves later. In other words, the Overlapping between intake period and exhaust period should be increased as rev increases.

With Variable Valve Timing, power and torque can be optimised across a wide rpm band. The most noticeable results are:

The engine can rev higher, thus raises peak power. For example, Nissan's 2-litre Neo VVL engine output 25% more peak power than its non-VVT version.
Low-speed torque increases, thus improves drivability. For example, Fiat Barchetta's 1.8 VVT engine provides 90% peak torque between 2,000 and 6,000 rpm.

Moreover, all these benefits come without any drawback.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This explains 4 valve engines. This should be of particular interest to you because it explains how Toyota solved some of the low-rpm problems associated with such engines.

http://autozine.kyul.net/technical_school/engine/tech_engine_2.htm#Multi-valve

This was the best part of the article:

Most early 4-valve engines were not good at low-to-middle speed torque, simply because the larger intake area resulted in slower air flow. Especially at low speed, the slow air flow in the intake manifold led to imperfect mixing of fuel and air, hence knocking and reduced power and torque. Therefore 4-valve engines were regarded as strong at top end but weak at the bottom end, until the technology of variable intake manifold became popular recently. The aforementioned Chevrolet Cosworth Vega performed particularly weak at low speed.

In response to this, Toyota introduced T-VIS (Toyota Variable Intake System) in the mid-80s. T-VIS accelerated low speed air flow to the manifold. The theory was quite simple: the intake manifold for each cylinder was split into two separate sub-manifold which joint together near the intake valves. A butterfly valve was added at one of the sub-manifold. At below 4,650 rpm the butterfly valve would be closed so that raising the velocity of air in the manifold. As a result, better mixing could be obtained at the manifold (excluding direct-injection engines, fuel injection always takes place in the manifold).

However, for later mainstream sedan engines, Toyota dropped this idea and adopted a small-diameter intake manifold / port design. Many other car makers also went the same way, sacrificing a bit top end power to improve low speed flexibility. Today, the introduction of variable intake manifold can solve this problem.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

plutonious · February 2002

This is what you said about my understanding of VVT and also your explanation of what it does:

"Again, you have the mechanics so far out of whack, it's hilarious. VVT or variable intakes are for one thing only: That is to limit the lift/duration of the valves at LOWER engine speeds. Usually around 3000 RPM all variable parameters are off and the engine is breathing with its compliment of full lift. PERIOD"

With all due respect, but "whose mechanics are so far out of whack it's hilarious?" Just as a I stated earlier, VVT certainly IS what allows and engine to spin faster by allowing it to breath at high rpms. VVT doesn't just "limit the lift/duration of the valves at LOWER engine speeds...PERIOD" as you stated. Rather, it "opens the inlet valves earlier and close the exhaust valves later. In other words, the Overlapping between intake period and exhaust period should be increased as rev increases. With Variable Valve Timing, power and torque can be optimised across a wide rpm band. The most noticeable results are: The engine can rev higher, thus raises peak power."
--------------------------------------------------

Here's what you said about DOHC/4 valve engines:

"The VVT is the exact opposite as you've explained. It limits the air at lower RPM to increase port velocity. Why can't you understand this. OHC 4 valve motors allow an engine to breathe too MUCH.(not being utilized in the toy) There has to be something in place to keep low speed port velocity up. Too much air at lower port velocities hurts low speed performance/torque."

What? How does VVT "limit the air at lower RPM to increase port velocity. Why can't you understand this." No, VVT doesn't do that, a variable intake manifold does. All a variable intake manifold does is restrict the size of the column of air, therefore speeding it up.

Your impressions of DOHC/4 valve engines are based on older designs which probably did not benefit from things like variable intake manifolds. Furthermore, the biggest problem that DOHC/4 valve engines had with their slow-moving air in intake manifold was poor fuel/air mixing. And as the article stated, this problem was alleviated when fuel injection was introduced. And the last time I checked, there's no carburetor on the Toyota DOHC 4.7. And this engine still produced more torque at lower RPMs than the SOHC Ford 4.6 or OHV Chevy 4.8 (both of which aren't 4 valve engines, obviously).

catam · February 2002

You both keep stating this is your last point and then you keep making posts. Just drop it. Neither one of you is ever going to change the other's mind, or prove your point. Why do you waste so much time trying? Trying banging your head on a brick wall sometime it will be just as effective.
Actually both of you ought to do that right now.

modvptnl · February 2002

Almost everything in your posts prove what I've been saying all along. What you're not comprehending in your own research is that the variable "what ever" is not what makes for the top end power of a 4 valve motor. By being able to control the valves enhances the low speed drivability. Read it again. Every for instance is how the variable helps regain lost low end with out the sacrifice of top end power. By limiting the lift of a valve early you increase port velocity, This increases low end. Without it you usually tune for one or the other(toy 4.7)

Yes, VVT optimises the valve timing. What you're not getting is you don't need it for High end. You can have the correct lift/duration to spin 7000 RPM and make great peak power. The VVT is to get some of that power back down in the powerband.

The exact opposite can be said of the above paragraph also.

Thank you!!!

cat, you don't like it, don't read it. Pretty simple.

kg11 · February 2002

It makes you look silly , and it annoys the pig.
kip

bamatundra · February 2002

"Trying banging your head on a brick wall sometime it will be just as effective."

Evidently, Mod has not tried the head banging yet.

kg11 · February 2002

(no offense cat)
kip

bamatundra · February 2002

I'm not training Mod to sing. I think it is rude of you to infer that he is of the porcine persuasion anyway.

I'm just agreeing with Catam. Have a nice day - and for god's sake leave a lot of following distance and drive extremely defensively. I wouldn't want to see you get hurt by the fact that your truck has weak brakes.

quadrunner500 · February 2002

ZZZzzzzzzzz........

kg11 · February 2002

I'm NOT calling anyone a pig,just pointing out how foolish it is to try to change people's point of view.Now I'm failing to follow my own advice.2500HD don't have the same brakes as the 1500HD just look at them,and the roters don't warp.
kip

tbunder · February 2002

thing anyways? is it supposed to be special? ford offers a package that at least surpasses this or at least equals it. it is a special payload package that gives you larger brakes, re-inforced frame, heavier gvwr, stiffer susp., and so forth. just another point that ford doesn't have to brag by putting a couple letters behind their f150 insignia. you ask for it, and ford offers it. end of story. when you think of a heavy duty truck, you dont think torsion bars do you? i dont think chevy builds a solid axled light truck anymore do they? nope.

modvptnl · February 2002

And bama's rantings are soooo informative.

kg, a little research can be dangerous(ask bam and pluto) but the rotor sizes on the HD, 1500 and 2500/3500, are the same. Using this info someone could make the blanket statement "the 'brakes' are the same" not taking into account that there may be a few other parts to the system. BTW, points of view are usually subjective, that was not what was being discussed.

kg11 · February 2002

tbunder;does'nt the f150 have torsion bars?Isn't the "special payload package"formerly the f250 LD?

mod "points of view are usually subjective"
And often based on little research or the opinions of those who say what you want to hear.Pluto's opinions often have at least some bassis in fact.Bama often takes something stated as opinion for gospel ,then fantisizes the most incredible things about things he has very few facts.I didn't read the posts where rotor size was first discussed but I speculate that pluto discovered these similarities ,posted them cuasing poor bama to think his tundra could out-hual a 3500HD.
kip

tbunder · February 2002

i wasn't talking about the F150 being a heavy duty truck. i was talking super-duty vs their hd's. and the payload pkg. is called the 7700# GVWR group A or B pkg. it gives you quite a lot of hd stuff for your F150. ill check the 1500 hd to see its GVWR. well, its 8600.

bamatundra · February 2002

I said that the 1500HD is a weak truck. The Tundra outaccelerates it both loaded with 1000lb and empty. It demolishes the Whimperado HD in braking both empty and loaded.

Hillyhoundog claimed that the 1500HD was just a rebadged 3/4 ton. I don't have any reason to believe he was mistaken.

I have no idea what pluto said about brake rotors if anything. I just know that according to real world data (Motor Trend) the Tundra is a more capable truck.

If Chev ever equips their trucks with brakes, then you would just have to contend with Yugo levels of quality and reliability.

Honestly - If you want a capable 3/4 ton or 1 ton truck - Dodge or Ford are the only game in town.

Take heart though - the Chev HD does make a good minivan, just don't try to load it or work it. A couple of grocery bags would probably be safe.

modvptnl · March 2002

#19 of 74 Mullins by bamatundra Feb 25, 2002 (07:57 am)
I know that you are going to find this hard to believe but that wimpy 1500HD is just a rebadged 3/4 ton. The Chev 3500 has the SAME weak brakes as the 1500HD.

Let's face it - as long as the Chev owners keep their loads limited to a couple of bags of groceries they MAY be alright. Don't try to work them though.

I personally think that the Ford F350 is a fine truck, in fact I suggested that people buy the Ford in an earlier post. That way they will get a heavy duty truck that isn't just heavy duty in name only like the Chevs.

Any time a 1/2ton truck such as the Tundra can outperform a Chev "HD" truck when loaded with just 1000lb, you got to wonder how Chev got the nerve to call their weak trucks "HD".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now in post #74 he doesn't know where the info came from...........typical.

modvptnl · March 2002

That's why I made the statement. Pluto and I were discussing interpretations of objective info. I don't believe anyone was trying to change points of view (toy vs Gm vs Ford for example) as much as show how technology applies to current powertrains.

Whether it was appreciated by anyone else besides us is of no concern to me. It surely was much more informative than running around Edmunds and whining to anyone who will listen how much better toy is than GM. (Gee, who could that be??)

quadrunner500 · March 2002

He was duped into buying a Taco meal that got value sized by toymota for $0.39 cents more. Put #700 lbs in the back, it squats like chihuahua peeing the carpet. No wonder he covets a 3/4 ton!
All would envy those state of the art drum brakes. Have you thumped your driveline today? ROFLMAO!!!

tbunder · March 2002

said that the tundra is "a more capable truck". what are you talking about? the chevy has 300 horses and im not sure how much torque, but i would bet its buckets more than the tundra has. maybe the tundra out-accelerates it, maybe not. but when it comes to trucks, a tenth of a second advantage in acceleration doesn't mean squat. what does matter is torque, power, towing ability, hauling capacity, configurations, availability, etc. do a comparison of each of these with the tundra and the 1500, hd or not, and im sure you'll see that the tundra can't hold a candle to the chevy. please get real. the tundra is (if i should give it this much credit) a toned 8th grade sprinter, where the 1500hd is more like a husky country boy that sucks on grass all day long. sorry, but i like to analogize things. see what i mean though? tundra may be faster and lighter, but 1500hd steps up when its time to do some serious work. and im not even a chevy man. do you know how many people laugh when you compare a tundra against any domestic full-size truck in this class? the tundra is a tacoma with a bigger body and longer frame. same drivetrain stuff. NOT heavy duty material by any means. heck, the ranger almost matches the tundras maximum gvwr ratings.

bamatundra · March 2002

You need to calm down just a little. Just because you bought a $40000 dollar truck that can't haul 1000lb as capably as a Tundra - you don't need to get so upset!

And this is AFTER unloading a 1500 LEMON! Some people never learn.

bamatundra · March 2002

It doesn't matter if the Whimperado HDs accelerate like a Saturn 5 rocket if they can't stop! You guys are certainly taking a long time to get this simple point. Like teaching pigs to sing!

quadrunner500 · March 2002

Any 3/4 truck around will haul your undernourished wimperundra with #1000s in it. Face it, you bought a small truck but paid a big truck price. And now you are upside down, desperately praying for a miracle to buy you out of your mistake.

Tell us again about those class leading drum brakes! LOL!!!!

bamatundra · March 2002

I guess I can't lose any respect for you, since I never had any. You never have had any credibility either. Your continuous rambling posts about VVT and DOHCs were good for a hoot though. If nothing else - you are entertaining!

Learn how to READ. I told you my source. Hillyhoundog claimed that the 1500HD is a rebadged 3/4 ton. Neither you nor anyone else has provided any facts to prove Hillyhoundog wrong.

tbunder · March 2002

i love how you totally disregard everything in my post. all the facts i pointed out just went right over your head didn't they? again i ask, do you know your tundra is just a large tacoma? have you ever heard of dana axles? how about 15000 lb. tow ratings? 4-wheel disc brakes? this is what real pickup trucks are made of. your tundra cant even pull 7000 lbs. its the wimperado around here. you talk so highly of the "weak" brakes on the hd, but please show us some proof that this is so. i think all you have is hearsay. and that doesn't hold up anywhere bud.

here's just a sample of what tundra owners have to do just to tow 6000 lbs. please. i believe the tundra is just a fancy camry.

http://forums.vmag.com/RVTowingVehicles5thwheel/messages/279.html

plutonious · March 2002

is circular and never-ending. The Chevy guys will always say the Tundra can't tow as much, and the Toyota guys will always attack the Chevy's poor reliability. Consider the following:

Toyota Tundra "A" spends 365 days a year operational, just like your average Tundra.

Chevy Silverado "B" spends 4 months a year at the shop, like obyone's. From what I've read, the Silverado is far more problematic than the Tundra.

Tundra's towing with 4.7 = 7200lbs
Silverado's towing with 5.3 = 8700lbs

Assuming everyday your truck is operational in a one year period and you tow the max limit everyday:

Tundra: 365 days x 7200lbs = 2,628,000lbs a year towed.

Silverado: 240 days (only operational 8 months a year) x 8700lbs = 2,088,000lbs a year towed.

This means despite the Silverado's greater towing capacity, its poor reliablity only allowed it to tow 79% as much as the Tundra in a one year time period. Then factor in the fact the Silverado could also not be used for commuting, which it probably spends the majority of its time doing anyway. Then factor in the inconvenience and aggravation of dealer repairs.

Sure, somebody is going to write below "my Silverado has never been in the shop." Well, for every person who writes that, there's one who will say their Chevy has been terribly unreliable.

Why take the chance?

catam · March 2002

I think your mother's are all calling you home for dinner. After you are done please play at your own playground. Try a Tundra vs. ?? forum, I know they are already there, although I am sure they don't want you back either.

modvptnl · March 2002

How about learn to write!!

"#15 of 85 Go for the Ford by bamatundra Feb 24, 2002 (09:01 pm)
Read the March Motor Trend. The Tundra outhauled and outbraked the Chev 1500HD. This is basically the same truck as the 3500.

"#19 of 86 Mullins by bamatundra Feb 25, 2002 (07:57 am)
I know that you are going to find this hard to believe but that wimpy 1500HD is just a rebadged 3/4 ton. The Chev 3500 has the SAME weak brakes as the 1500HD."

"45 of 86 Mod by bamatundra Feb 26, 2002 (12:04 am)
"I'm sure you know the manual will assist in braking and the Allison also has a feature to do so."

So what are you going to do in a panic stop? Compression brake? Downshift? LMFAO!!!

Since the 1500HD has exactly the same wimpy brakes as the 2500 and 3500 LDs the brakes are pertinent to this discussion."

----------------------------------------------------------------------

These are all YOUR posts. You don't mention Hillhound until post #74.

Are you sure you're not related to someone in Alaska???

kg11 · March 2002

Most folks know my 2500HD is a lemon law buy-back candidate.In 11 months and 17,480 mi is has been in the shop a total of 8 days,and it's one of the nightmare ones you hear about.Why don't you average my 15,000 lb towing capacity instead of the half-ton not being discussed here.Bama is constantly making ridicules claims about Tundra's ability vs. 3/4 ton trucks and now you're backing him up.The Tundra is a nice little urban runabout but anyone who has ever moved large loads with ANYTHING would not try to do it with a tundra.As I stated before,your posts usually have SOME basis in fact.Please don't twist reality like bama and "farmer rubien".I'll give you "Toyota quality"but not Toyota mountian-mover.
kip

bamatundra · March 2002

You are not getting it either - a truck without brakes is a minivan.

The Tundra - unfortunately for Chevy - is a more capable truck. You can brag about your spacious back seat, but that is it.

If you want a 3/4 ton truck that you can actually WORK - then the Dodge or Ford trucks are the only game in town.

When a 3/4 ton Chev is embarassed by a Tundra, it says that Chev cheaped out just a little too much on their so-called "HD" trucks.

bamatundra · March 2002

What point are you trying to make - that I didn't reference my source when I posted? When asked for my source - I supplied it.

I have not seen anyone question the validity of my source - including you. So what was your point?

modvptnl · March 2002

Your thoughts are not your own.

You base all your "factual" info off a poster from Edmunds.....that is only if you agree with it. I guess the majority of tundras have start up knock.....after all, a poster from edmunds said so.

I've posted info where the 3500 Gm stops within a few feet of Dodge or Ford. This came from TRUCK TREND in an actual test. Your info comes from a test of a 1500HD which is not even being discussed in this topic..... so typical bamatroll material.

There has been at least three posts that dispute that the 2500HD/3500 have the "exact brakes". Mine included.

From your own childish way of the past, prove they have the same brakes(not by "supposedly" quoting a poster) or STFU.

bamatundra · March 2002

"Your thoughts are not your own. "

WTF?

"I've posted info where the 3500 Gm stops within a few feet of Dodge or Ford."

Are you talking UNLOADED? Are the Big2 pickups really this WEAK?

"This came from TRUCK TREND in an actual test."

The info I posted came from an actual test by MOTOR TREND.

"Your info comes from a test of a 1500HD which is not even being discussed in this topic..."

Hillyhoundog seems to think it is. This is a surprise!

"There has been at least three posts that dispute that the 2500HD/3500 have the "exact brakes". Mine included."

Why would Yugo, (Oops I meant Chubby) put WEAK brakes on ONLY the 1500HD? This does not make any sense.

"From your own childish way of the past, prove they have the same brakes"

It is apparent that Chubby cheaped out. The fact that a Furd Stuporduty owner cannot provide proof otherwise just proves my point.

kg11 · March 2002

IF you did ANY research on the 2500HD/3500HD you wouldn't be saying they can't stop.They don't have the same brakes as the 1500HD just because you say so.GM makes some very large trucks .Do you think they all have the same brakes just because your Tundra has the same brekes as my Tacoma(Which is MORE truck than Tundra)?Is that what you're pissed about ?YOU bought a "big"truck and when you looked under it you found a Tacoma?Don't feel bad.Taco is a great little truck,and only about $18,000 fully loaded.Enjoy it,but don't try to sing.
kip
BTW "farmer rubein"was dillusional but funny.You're just FOS

modvptnl · March 2002

"hillyhoundog" said. Well, Vince 8 said toys suck, I guess that's proof enough for me......pretty clear you can't prove the brakes are the same either.

When did MOTORTREND test a 3500??? How does a 1500HD have anything to do with how a 3500 compares with an F350. Can we say TROLL!!!

My proof is the GM stopped within 4 feet of a Ford. Now you say that if this is so, that the big 2 have weak brakes also??? Earlier you said you'd pick the Ford or Dodge because of their braking ability. Make up your mind.

The originator of this topic(pay attention pluto) wants to pull over 16,000 pounds. I guess according to you the tundra would be the best pick. FOS indeed.

tbunder · March 2002

too.
FOS
STFU.....hilarious. i think i've got them figured out. and i agree wholeheartedly. you two, please obey these words. by doing this, you won't come across as being as FOS as you may seem.
maybe toyota should just build one truck: the TACUNDRA! hahahaha

at least that way, we wouldn't have to make fun of two trucks. and who knows, with the two combined into one they may just come close to eclipsing ford's sales lead. hehe

kg11 · March 2002

I have the Corolla option and bama has the Avalon option.
TACUNDRA IT IS !
kip

PF_Flyer · March 2002

Last time I'm going to handle it this way... this topic is closed.

One last warning... if you have a personal beef with someone - and that's what this ALWAYS is - take it somewhere else. If you can't, then find another place to hang out online.

This garbage is WAY past being old.

PF Flyer

Host

Pickups & News & Views Message Boards

ford f350 vs. chevy silverado 3500

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles