Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see May lease deals!
Options
Toyota Tundra vs. Chevrolet Silverado
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
We've gone over a 1000 posts here and I have yet not read any actual physical performance or capability numbers that the Silverado beats the Tundra on save one or two configurations. About the only thing that is legitimate is that base configurations are cheaper; but they also lack a lot of the equipment that comes standard with the Tundra.
I think that what is happening is that, like cars, people have bought Silverados, Sierras, F150s, and RAM 1500s because up until a few years ago there was really no practical choice for a full-size truck. These are people that have had generations buy from the same dealer and just LOOKING at something else is a sin unto itself. The result? GM, Ford, and Dodge simply settled into their niche markets and have been content to do small incremental changes to each vehicle to outdo the next, but knowing nonetheless that in the end it wouldn't affect sales much.
Look at the history of those trucks... Ford has been #1 forever, Chevy #2, GMC #3 (sometimes #2 and #3 would swap, but rarely), and Dodge #4. Thirty years people.
jreagan is right when there is a "history" here with GM. But unfortunately convincing him that the Tundra is a better overall truck then the Silverado is next to impossible. He is loyal to GM and furthermore he has a Sierra, so there is no reason for him to think otherwise. And constantly posting numbers that exceed the Silverados does nothing except relegate the posts to "intangible" or subjective benefits such as the interior or frame talk. Fact is on all other relevant specifications the Tundra rules. When it comes to safety Toyota has proven itself over and over again. The Tundra leads in power, speed, capability, and even rear-seat room and interior features and amenities.
But by the logic that some posters are displaying here, they're saying that this needs to be a full-size and "real" truck. So, the Tundra does better then the Silverado on almost every aspect of what a truck is and the argument goes that towing, payload, power, acceleration, braking, safety, handling, etc. are not important (you see because the Tundra is better at this), but hey... we have a FBF all the way through or those things can be trumped by the Silverado 1 ton. Well "d'uh", we're not comparing 1 ton trucks. And to those that somehow think that a FBF frame is even needed for those, most 3/4 and 1 ton trucks never had them and some still don't have them today. They did well in the past, nothing wrong with that. FBF ads "vertical" strength and rigidity.
Nobody is saying that the Silverado is a bad truck. It is an excellent truck, but if you're going to claim "best" you have to be #1, you can't be middle of the pack. That means that all the things that people equate with being a truck and helping them do the things that they need in a truck are important. The Tundra has way more #1s in its column than the Silverado, no question. In areas that are subjective or provide some undetectable benefit, one can come to their own conclusions. Heck, I can argue that there is no grab bar on the driver's side of the Silverado and what the heck kind of truck is that? Dumb argument to make for sure, but I still bet that you would notice that a lot more on a daily basis then whether you had a FBF in your truck...
Not sure how this particular post got going, but you are correct; GM sells way more trucks than Toyota. I think that what kdhspyder was saying was that on a per dealership basis, Toyota outsells GM and he is right on that count. There are many more GM dealerships then Toyota dealerships. As a result they can sell their vehicles for less based on the volume the dealership moves. GMs advantage in volume is at the plant. At the dealership, there isn't as much room to maneuver because there is more of a propensity to competing with other GM dealers then in Toyota dealership's case. That is why there are more factory incentives from GM, they get their economies of scale from manufacturing, but the dealership itself has to consider how many vehicles they can sell that month and determine their cut. If they sell 1/2 as much per dealership as a Toyota dealership, then theoretically (all things being equal) they'll need to make twice as much per vehicle then Toyota.
But again, its theory and you're right on this one... GM gives bigger discounts. But I would disagree with you on the "afford" aspect of it. If GM could really continue to "afford" to do this, they wouldn't have lost more than $10B last year. I think the situation was more that they had to do it to get vehicles off the lots because it prevented them from a much greater loss. Unfortunately Toyota can afford to discount significantly, but they won't do it. The only benefit is that large Toyota dealerships can (individual results will vary) discount more at the dealership if they really wanted to, they just don't do it. Their inventory management systems are much more controlled. So, realistically, none of us is going to get any kind of great deal from them. That is why I asked if you think that I could get a decent deal on the Denali. The reason being is that typically higher-end vehicles come with little in incentives (since their attitude is that if you can afford to buy it, you shouldn't have to try to get a discount).
Getting a great deal on ANY vehicle is fantastic and I commend you on the great deal that you got! I believe that the only reason for anyone to ever worry about depreciation is if you won't keep the vehicle for more than 3 years. With few exceptions, that is unheard of in the truck buyer's market -- virtually everyone I know drives their trucks a lot longer then their cars and certainly even 10 years is hardly anything.
So, let me know what kind of discount you think I can expect on a Denali. I doubt it will be as good as on the Silverado, but I'm a little concerned because a loaded Denali is looking like it may be closer to, if not cross the $50K threshold...
Just think this through. Until Sept 2006 GM never used f-b-f. Suddenly for the GMT900's they decide to do it.
Where did the genesis of this idea come from. Seriously did an engineer wake up one morning? Did Management look at the F150 and say 'We cant let them get an advantage on us'. Where did the idea come from since they never did it before?
If you've never been in a typical Marketing/Engineering/Accounting meeting then you've never seen how Marketing wants everything - damn the cost. Engineering can build whatever is needed - but it's going to be costly. Accounting/Management doesn't want to spend any money ( or as little as possible ) to do it. Finally a compromise is reached.
Does anyone think Toyota hasn't torn apart several F-150s? That they don't know the pros and cons of fully-boxed frames?
The Ram has the lowest capacities in the class, and it's fully boxed.
C&D chastised the Titan's shaky structure. Isn't it fully boxed?
All of these trucks, and makers, have checks and balances.
Some people still bring up gap tolerances on the Tundra. Toyota virtually coined the phrase when Lexus was conceived. They know the gap tolerances for every vehicle in the class.
Maybe Toyota uses a higher grade of steel?
My bet is this all comes down to design and execution. Is the fully-boxed frame the end of truck evolution? Maybe. Maybe not. This wasn't an oversight by Toyota.
If you can't execute, it doesn't matter what your design is.
Believe Toyota towed 12,000 lb trailers for millions of miles before giving the truck a 10k tow rating.
DrFill
Ultimately a particular package comes together. The reason why 99% of the concept vehicles are scaled down so much in production (if any of them actually make it that far) has less to do with engineering than it does with marketing and upper management. I was just trying to clarify that engineering certainly has little to say about the final outcome... they're producing to meet a set of requirements, not producing "freely" and trying to fit that into the market. There are instances where they bring many different innovations, but ultimately it is other groups that help determine the final outcome.
I agree with this explanation completely. This was not what you originaly posted or implied with respect to why GM used a fully boxed frame.
Marketing includes
..those who do comparo's between the vehicles ( like here );
..those that look at the pricing differences to make sure one is not too high ( lost sales ) or too low ( lost profit );
..those who go out into the public and ask questions about what the user wants in a vehicle;
..those that do demographic studies about where trucks are sold, what kind of hobbies the owners have, how much is spent on accessories, what the trade-ins are, etc
..those that look up governmental regulations, CAFE, towing, taxes, etc
Marketing puts all this together and makes a presentation to the Marketing Management with a profile ( or multiple profiles ) of what a truck owner is like. Then they make a presentation about what the competition is like; i.e. all the competitors advantages and disadvantages. Then they make an estimate about what volume could be sold and from which competitor they will take volume. Then they make a recommendation about what the new vehicle should be like. Normally they want a vehicle that has everything in it and no increase in price.
If they can get this vehicle they will 'eat the competition alive'.
Marketing Management tones down this because they know when they present this proposal for the 2012 Silvy or Tundra to Top Management that Accounting ( beancounters ) or Engineering will either laugh at them or simply say 'NO, this cannot be done'.
It is marketing that 'creates' the next vehicle at least as a concept. Once the new vehicle is agreed upon then the general 'concept' is given to the designers and engineers to actually do it.
You misunderstand the term Marketing I think. Engineering doesn't care one way or the other because they aren't charged with selling the vehicles. Marketing is. I am certain that the impetus for putting in this stronger frame came from Marketing because they didn't want the new T900 to look bad vis-a-vis the F150.
Again I ask where do you think the idea came from? And then why suddenly in 2006, not earlier?
I don't want to answer for kdhspyder but.....
Frame strength is dependent on a large set of variables:
Grade of steel
Thickness of steel
Ratio of dimensions of the member (height x width)
Number/type of welds
Number/type/dimensions of cross pieces
Number and placement of either lightening holes or mounting holes
Method used to form the steel members
etc. etc. etc.
The pro-GM faction is locking on to a SINGLE variable (full box section vs. C-channel) and (apparently) ASSUMING that every single other variable is either unimportant or identical between the vehicles.
Is there any real DATA that indicates the GM frame is stronger? Stronger is what areas (torsion? bending?).
Hey guys, a SOLID steel member would be even stronger than a fully boxed section. How come we don't see solid steel sections? Answer: because solid sections are unnessary to achieve the required design strength and would impose unnessary penalties with regards to weight and cost. Engineering is used to determine the best method of achieving design parameters at the lowest weight/cost.
And if Toyota's engineers were able to achieve their design parameters using open C-sections in some locations (and fully-boxed sections in others), are any of you actually QUALIFIED to say otherwise?
edit:
Something else to consider - conventional wisdom says a 6.0l motor is stronger (in both hp and torque) than a 5.7l motor. And, IF ALL ELSE WAS EQUAL, such would be the case. Yet I think it's pretty clear that the 5.7l motor in the Tundra is NOT weaker than the 6.0 in the Silverado. So why the assumption that the fully boxed section frame on the Silverado is stronger than the frame on the Tundra?
We go way back, and you know that I respect you as a poster. But let's check the accolades list since you decided to go there.
The top publications have all endorsed the Silverado with their top awards. The Tundra has won some notable, but albeit minor, awards in comparison.
As to the boxed/closed section frame, a fully-boxed-frame adds structural intergrity to the truck. I guess none of you have ever built house and used a closed-section flooring and roofing. It's like a cloth top covertible car, without the roof on, the structure will shake to some degree. The vibrations and shakes associated with Ford and some 4WD-equipped Rams has nothing to do with the frames. Dodge knows it's the driveshafts in the Rams, and Ford now says it's the transmission that gives offs resonances with the F-150.
And as to the Ram, again, why pick on the oldest design in the segment to prove a point? Yes the towing is lacking compared with 6 m/y newer trucks. The '06 Toyota Tundra is out-towed by an '07 Dodge Dakota for comparison.
And on panel gaps? They're getting wider by the minute at Toyota. Oh sure, it lets more air in. It looks more dated than a '79 Oldmobile. And it adds ruggedness!!! Please take that baloney somewhere else to folks that are listening.
Is there any real DATA that indicates the GM frame is stronger? Stronger is what areas (torsion? bending?).
While I think this is really a non issue as I dont expect either truck to have any frame issues, but if you really want to start splitting hairs over it, I think the fact that toyota acknowledges that f-b-f must be stronger otherwise why would they include it in the areas of the frame that see the most twisting and torsional loads? If the open "c" frame was superior, or even equal for that matter, than why not use it all the way back to front?
Sorry for the long post, but hope it helps.
Although I didn't check the specs on your examples, your engineering analysis is correct. However, since we don't know the dimensions of either frame it's speculation, albeit educated speculation, at this point.
First off, let me explain a little about my background and qualifications. I’m not an automotive engineer, but in my college days at UCLA in the 70s I took an upper division engineering course called Engineering 108 – Mechanics of Deformable Solids. The course taught about bending moments, torsional and linear stresses, etc. Basically, the course provided a working knowledge of how engineered materials behave under stress. It was heavy on calculus and physics, and was damn difficult. But I learned a lot.
Anyway
In terms of stiffness, once the design load can be safely carried the frame doesn't need to be any stiffer. The C-channel and boxed frame are about equal, unless one is much larger dimensionally than the other. For the record, a fully boxed frame is FAR superior in terms of torsional rigidity. That’s why trailer hitches are built of square (or round) tubing, not C-channel. Fully boxed frames are also more expensive, as titancrew stated.
I haven't looked under the Tundra, but the cross members on the Silverado go through both sides of the boxed frame, and they are welded. The cross members transfer the stress to both of the frame rails. When the opposite corners of the vehicle are lifted, as happens often when offroading, the boxed frame is able to take the torque with much less flex.
My old 69 Bronco, 85 Toyota 4x4, 92 Toyota 4x4, and 99 Trooper all had fully boxed frames. These vehicles were designed to go offroad. And now my 07 Silverado does, too. Boxed frames are nothing new, but they are effective. The reason large trucks don't use a boxed frame is because they are used for load hauling, not offroading. The C-channel is more efficient, cost and weight-wise, than the boxed frame for purely load carrying. The boxed frame is WAAAAY better if you are going off road where one or more corners of the vehicle may be unsupported. When was the last time you saw a Peterbuilt off road?
That said, anyone who would load the Tundra (or Silverado) to the point of frame failure is an idiot. The strength difference is WAY out on the stress/strain curve where no one operates a mechanical device, except idiots. The practical difference is nil, just like the practical difference in sub-second ¼ mile performance, or a few extra pounds of rated towing capacity at the ragged edge of safety.
I think Toyota chose to use the cheaper C-channel frame because it set the price point of the Tundra near the competition. It used an expensive engine and transmission, which gobbled up a lot of the sales price. In addition, Toyota needs to recoup the cost of the new plant in Texas. Therefore, it had to compromise in other areas – items mentioned numerous times before such as no rear locker, no OnStar, cheaper interior. And a cheaper frame.
To my knowledge, neither the Laws of Physics nor the Laws of Economics have been repealed (although the California Legislature is trying to do the latter). The Laws of Economics dictate that the Tundra cannot offer everything ‘standard’ and still compete at the price point it set for itself. Toyota wants to sell enough Tundras to gain a foothold in the full-size market. And, knowing Toyota, they have a decent chance of doing that.
The larger body gaps may also be a result of the frame design - Toyota knows that with the add'l. frame flex it has to have more tolerance between body parts so they do not rub against each other. A "rugged look" is BS. It's an engineering necessity caused by the decision to use the open frame design.
I’ll go out on a limb here and predict the next gen Tundra will offer a rear locker (perhaps optional), a boxed frame, better interior, and some sort of safety system such as the OnStar. And a higher price.
Anyone care to take that bet?
1offroader
And on panel gaps? They're getting wider by the minute at Toyota. Oh sure, it lets more air in. It looks more dated than a '79 Oldmobile. And it adds ruggedness!!! Please take that baloney somewhere else to folks that are listening.
First, it is nobody's fault but Dodge's if they have an old design. They have an 07 truck just like everybody else here. When they come out with a new design in 09 you can bet they are going to compare to the other 09s which will be 3 year old designs too.
Panel gaps getting wider by the minute? They're still a lot tighter than most trucks out right now... just go and look. Again, this is something that Toyota talked about.
Letting more air in? Perhaps you have never been in a truck before... see air gets in through the engine at several places such as through the front and underneath where it is OPEN. No air gets in the cab on any truck because they seal those gaps... otherwise we would be leaking water like the midgates on Avalanches. So, if anything, the only thing that panel gaps risk are perhaps more wind noise. But that hasn't been an issue on any truck in reviews.
Also, nobody said that it adds ruggedness... again get a grip and read what was written. Toyota claimed that they felt that it LOOKED more rugged. Nobody on this board said that it added ruggedness or that they even liked the panel gaps. But chances are if there are people that expressed it, they would be from around Texas because a lot of the market research for this truck came from there. In any case, Toyota has more than proved themselves in this area unlike other manufacturers that have yet to get there. It would be like me making the argument against Chevy not knowing how to make a 6.2l engine. GM uses them already in Caddys and GMC, so they've proved it already... just because Chevy doesn't use it in their truck doesn't mean they don't know how.
Toyota wants to gain acceptance, not change buyers habits. Lexus-level gaps not required.
Hemi
Since the Tundra was a mid-year addition, you know it wasn't eligible for most of those awards. So throwing awards up in my face doesn't mean anything.
As you well know, Lexus can't count how many awards they've won here for their vehicles, many fold more than Audi, which has to go abroad for love.
Are you saying Lexus vehicles are better than Audi? I knew you had the love! Why fight it? Bask in the afterglow.
So you're saying the excuse for drivability so bad, it shakes the vehicle every time it moves is bad trannys and driveshafts, after 3-4 years on the market, and mid-gen updates. That makes me feel so much better!
Come get your fully-boxed frame here......crappy performance and poor quality thrown in at no extra charge.....0%? $3k off? $5k off?
DrFill
Conventional wisdom would say that a 6.0L motor is stronger than a 5.7L if both motors are Overhead Cam or Overhead Valve. In this case one is Overhead Cam and one is Overhead Valve. Do you realize that the Tundra 5.7 is physically larger than the GM 6.0? In fact, the 4.8, 5.3 and 6.0L GM V8 engines are all physically the same size. They share the same block.
By the way I checked both Toyota.com and Chevrolet.com to get maximum payload and towing capacities for different configurations. I'll include the Heavy Duty Silverado 2500 just for information purposes. GM also has a Heavy Duty 3500 Silverado with even higher capacities. The results are interesting and I don't see the Tundra having this huge advantage like most on this board think:
Payload 2WD Standard Bed
Tundra - 1750
Silverado - 2160
(Silverado HD - 3604)
Payload 2WD Long Bed
Tundra - 2065
Silverado - 1812
(Silverado HD - 3892)
Payload 4x4 Standard Bed
Tundra - 1680
Silverado - 2013
(Silverado HD - 3353)
Payload 4x4 Long Bed
Tundra - 2000
Silverado - 1850
(Silverado HD - 3646)
Towing V6 2WD
Tundra - 5100
Silverado - 5300
(Silverado HD - Not available with V6)
Towing V6 4x4
Tundra - 4x4 not available with V6
Silverado - 5100
(Silverado HD - Not available with V6)
The next part is tougher because Toyota has one mid level V8 and GM has 2 so I included both:
Towing Mid Level V8 2WD
Tundra 4.7 - 8500
Silverado 4.8 - 7200
Silverado 5.3 - 8200
(Silverado HD - Not available with mid level V8)
Towing Mid Level V8 4x4
Tundra 4.7 - 8200
Silverado 4.8 - 7900
Silverado 5.3 - 8900
(Silverado HD - Not available with mid level V8)
Towing Top V8 2WD
Tundra 5.7 - 10800
Silverado 6.0 - 10300
(Silverado HD 6.0 - 12900)
(Silverado HD Duramax Diesal - 15800)
Towing Top V8 4x4
Tundra 5.7 - 10500
Silverado 6.0 - 10500
(Silverado HD 6.0 - 12700)
(Silverado HD Duramax Diesal - 15500)
The 2010 Tundra HD will sport at least 800 lb.ft. of torque when it gets here. They use the engine elsewhere, just shining it up, and waiting for everyone else to show their weaker hands.
Having an ace up your sleeve is quite nice, indeed.
Playtimes over.
DrFill
I would love to see anyone take you up on this bet.
The more things change....
DrFill
There is no doubt, there never has been, that a fully boxed frame from front to back is stiffer than one that is not. Curiously though it may not be stronger as rorr noted above there are a lot of other factors like yield strength, design, and material thickness.
What I used to supply to GM for their frame rails and cross members was 50ksi and 80ksi HSLA ultra clean ( minimal impurities ) steel. 80 ksi steel is 60% stronger than 50 ksi steel. 100 ksi steel is twice as strong as 50 ksi, etc.
Toyota does use FBF in the high-torque area where the engine is secured, reinforced open C's under the cab where most of the weight goes and Open C under the bed. For 50 years trucks have been using this open C under the beds with great results. Toyota's view is that the extra stiffness is not needed there.
It's a good technical subject to be resolved after 5-10 years of use. That's all that can be said at this time.
Tundra 5.7 - 10800
Silverado 6.0 - 10300
(Silverado HD 6.0 - 12900)
(Silverado HD Duramax Diesal - 15800)
Towing Top V8 4x4
Tundra 5.7 - 10500
Silverado 6.0 - 10500
(Silverado HD 6.0 - 12700)
(Silverado HD Duramax Diesal - 15500)
Except in 2007 you can't order this Silverado with the 6.0L and Max Trailering Package. It is in the specs but at least from the Build/Price module it can't be ordered that way.
I've done the summary of the 'truck specs' for the two vehicles.
In general the Silverado can carry more than the Tundra.
in 10 similar configurations
The Silvy leads in 5
The Tundra leads in 2
They are tied in 3
In Towing ( 5.7L vs 6.0L ) the Tundra leads in all 10 configurations ( Max Trailering Pckg not available to the Silvy ).
a) possibly a locker if the market demands it
b) FBF all the way back? - I'll confidently say NO
c) OnStar - I'll VERY confidently say NO.
d) Higher price??? - prices always go up but they will remain lower than GM's in the 'area of interest'.
I know I'm good for at least 5 years ( next model iteration )
You have stated time and again that the Max Trailering Pckg is not available but IT IS. I got this on Chevrolet.com. Other people on this sight have driven 2007 GMT900 Silverado's with the package. You lose credibility when you state false information. I have a Silverado brochure in my hands as I type this that shows the package offered.
Click this link and see for yourself:
http://www.chevrolet.com/pop/silverado/2007/max_trailering_en.jsp
The argument for the previous tundra was that it wasn't large or strong enough. Now apparently this one is TOO strong and large because the only way to criticize it is to mention 3/4 and 1 ton trucks.
Rorr gave a great explanation about the frame. I think that is still lost on a lot of the posters here, but I like his explanation as it is very technical and makes the point about where benefits actually are in the design.
Personally, aside from the subjective comparison of the interiors, there is an overwhelming amount of technical advantages in favor of the Tundra. That isn't to say that the Silverado is bad, but I wish at least one of the Chevy posters here would admit to it. It is like they are afraid of doing it for some unknown reason. Sure the Chevy has a rear locker; something that is admitedly better than having an LSD. But it is missing a number of other more critical safety features such as a complete air bag safety system and a number of vehicle drive control technologies available on the Tundra. Power, transmission, technology, interior features -- heck even the stereo system -- are all better on the Tundra. But people are free to choose what they want. I just wish that others could own up to this.
For me, after seeing the dashboard gap issue on the Silverado and just not particularly liking the look of the interior (literally 10 times better than the previous one). I didn't like the steering wheel controls at all -- very poorly laid out as you have to look down at them to know what you're pressing -- it isn't intuitive.
Toyota's interior isn't fantastic either, but the gauges and seats are excellent. Add to that the different storage areas and the many interior conveniences and its a great truck setup for sure. I'm holding out to see the Denali in person because I'm hoping the interior will be a lot better then what I saw in the Silverado.
I can see Toyota doing a rear-locker in the distant future but I do agree with kdhspyder that neither OnStar or FBF all the way through will happen anytime soon.
Toyota is at a higher price in some configurations -- namely at the lowest configuration and top configuration. But right in the middle, where they aim to sell more than 60% of these truck configurations, there is hardly a better deal to be had, no question. Even the Chevy guys should see that.
Anyhow, it all depends on taste I guess, but I think I'm done with this forum for now as there hasn't been any new information to come out that would make me reconsider either alternative just yet. Good luck to all of you on your purchases and be sure to report on your buying experience and prices paid! Remember... a good deal is even better if you share it with others!
Yes, it is available, but he is stating that you can't order it right now. It shows up as an option, but you're unable to actually order it. I don't know why this is a big deal. I agree with you that if it is on the list, it should be included. Chances are that if it is listed for the 07s, then it will be made available sometime soon.
I'll try again. I said yes the Max Trailering Pack is listed in the Chevy specs. It's clearly there.
Now this is important to read carefully.... pay attention..
You cannot go on Chevy's Build/Price module and actually build a Silverado with this option. They don't offer it.
Do I need to repeat it? I can.
OK to be balanced, I'm certain that the Silverado can haul the spec'd Max towing capacities...when it has the package. it is afterall the same vehicle as the Sierra.
You can spec out the Max Trailering Pack with the 6.0L on the Sierra for ~$1000 extra. So it seems that GM Marketing has decided to give the top capabilities to the Sierra and the standard capabilities to the Silverado. In this way they don't push the pricing of the Silvy too high. GM to buyers: You want better towing? Step up to the Sierra.
It's marketing exerting its influence.
I think we've established a few points:
First, as regards bending stiffness, the two sections are essentially equal. So, from a load carrying or towing capacity view, the FBC section wouldn't automatically be more beneficial.
Second, with regards to torsional stiffness, the FBC section would have an advantage. So, from an off-roading viewpoint, the FBC section would be beneficial.
Serious question: what % of full-size truck owners do SERIOUS off-roading with these types of vehicles (as opposed to using something a bit shorter, narrower, and nimble)? I know that Toyota offers OTHER vehicles which would be much more suitable to this type of use.
Walk before you run.
As you say there are plenty of Toyota's all over the world proving themselves in areas where US half ton pickups would never go.
The argument for the previous GM trucks was that the interior was poor especially the gaps. Now GM has improved the gaps dramatically but "it's not your thing" and it's "subjective". I have the same response to the Toyota's interior...It's not my thing but agree it is subjective. I think the Chevy interior is well laid out and gauges are close and directed to the driver. Edmunds also agrees. :P
Also, no mention of the gas mileage advantage of the Chevy. I do understand that it doesn't matter to a lot of people that drive trucks but the amount of people that use them as a daily driver and care about gas mileage is a factor.
Can you explain to me the amount of technical advantages in favor of the Tundra that are "overwhelming". I don't see it. I guess I don't know what I'm admitting to when I don't see almost any advantage let alone overwhelming ones.
You say that the Chevy is missing critical safety features...such as? You say that Chevy is missing air bags but yet when I go the website I can see Chevy has dual stage front/side impact air bags and stability control. I will give you that they are not standard in all trims but it will become the standard by 2008 for all vehicles in the US.
Also, I'm not sure about the stereo system either. Chevy offers a Bose 6 disc CD changer. Seems pretty good to me.
On our Chevy lot, we sell both, there are none. If you can show me on the Chevy Build module where it is then I will apologize profusely.
But I don't think I'll have to
It's clearly there on the GMC site and Build module, but not on the Chevy version.
Odd thing is, that in Edmunds direct comparison test between the 5.7l Tundra 4x4 and the 6.0l Silverado 4x4, they observed 14.4 mpg on the Tundra and 12.7 mpg on the Siverado. Both trucks driven by the same panel of drivers in the same tests over the same roads.
As usual, YMMV.....
Note, I've subscribed to this magazine for many years and they are as unbiased as I've seen, if anything they prefer domestics as do most of their subscribers.
The Tundra was picked as 1/2ton tow vehicle of the year due to posting the best overall scores related to towing a 6,840lb boat with 500lbs of tongue weight.
Over the course of 2 weeks of testing, the tundra avg. 13.2mpg non towing and 9.1 while towing. The Sierra got 12.2mpg NT and 8.9 while towing.
Since this was a towing test, the Tundra excelled at handling the tongue weight, pulling up grades, and towing stability. They commented the Tundra's towing performance felt more like a 3/4 ton than a 1/2 ton with the way the boat felt much smaller behind it than the other trucks.
Surprisingly, the titan won the 0-30, and 0-60 times, beating all the other trucks by nearly a second or more to 60. The toyota posted by far the best 40-60 times while towing. The toyota posted a 7.7 second 40-60 time where as the sierra was 12.3 (the slowest of the bunch) that's a huge difference and a prime example where the sierra is hamstrung by it's gearing. Ironically, all of the OHC engines in the test had torque peaks under 4000rpm. The titan's 385lb-ft of torque comes at 3400rpm vs. GMs 6.0 375lb-ft @ 4300rpm, that's a big difference and partially explains the performance difference. So much for the torque advantages of OHV.
Time will tell if the Tundra will hold up, but you can't deny it is capable truck.