Howdy, Stranger!

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





Toyota Tundra vs. Chevrolet Silverado

1454648505162

Comments

  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Posts: 7,160
    And yes its funny the tundra with those big bad brakes
    is limited to 1000 lbs. of unbraked trailer towing
    while poor ol' GM is rated at 2000 !!!!!!!!!!!


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Hello, this is OnStar.

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

    Hello, this is OnStar.

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

    Hello, this is Onstar.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Enjoy your Onstar. I'm sure it will protect you just the same as airbags at the time of a collision. :confuse:
  • beliasbelias Posts: 316
    1offroader,
    OnStar adds to the vehicle's cost just like an airbag does. But I don't make monthly payments on airbags after I buy the vehicle. While this feature is good to have, less than half of the people that have it actually subscribe to it after the "free" trial period. Industry experts say retention rates for OnStar are between 20% and 30%.
    Historically, we have been given the choice for exercising our right to "safety", and look where it led us too? In the 70s, it meant big cars that weighed 3 to 4 tons, got 8mpg, and had the handling and attractiveness of a tank. Ironically, the lack of companies like GM to include 6 or 8 standard airbags on every vehicle is reminiscent of the days where dangerous vehicles were allowed on the roads because it was cheaper to take the hit on lawsuits than to make the fixes.
    Ironically, the very people that complain about having these things imposed on them are the very first people to cry wolf and sue when there is a serious accident. I have no doubt that no matter how loyal you are to GM, that if you had a serious injury from an accident because of lack of air bags, that you would sue. There are hundreds of people that do that every year! But until it gets more expensive to pay off the suits than include it in the vehicle, it will continue to be considered a "choice" as you put it...
  • maple2maple2 Posts: 177
    GM again takes risks with the owners health and well being. Just like they don't think that work truck and lower priced buyers deserve all the safety equipment ( all the airbags and Stabilitrak ) they also buck the trend by telling owners it's OK not to use trailer brakes where the rest of the industry is somewhat more careful.

    thats a pile of crap if I ever heard one what do you mean "again takes risks" give me a break.
    you want to talk about automakers taking risks with peoples lives, lets talk about cheap ball joints and then to make it worse after we find out the ball joints are bad we wont tell anybody yeah thats lookin out for the consumer. Or how about carpet that comes unclipped and poses a risk for getting caught on the gas peddal but thats ok we will just put out a service bulletin and secretly fix them when they bring it in for service.
    toyota is the only one taking risks with peoples lives
  • maple2maple2 Posts: 177
    So what WOW! GM is rated at 2000 lbs of unbraked trailer towing, big deal. Those are manufacthers estimates, the trucks can get more or less depending on the engine. For all you could know Tundra could stop upto 2500 lb and GM could be at 1500 lbs, who knows!

    wrong these are not estimates of anything, they are actual limits ie if you get in an accident in a tundra pulling a 1500# boat without trailer brakes you can be charged and your insurance could also be void. The same scenario with the chev, and these are not issues

    by the way have you ever driven a veichle at all never mind a truck? please explain how the size of the engine dictates the braking capacity.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Posts: 7,160
    I will try this again, only this time I will type V-E-R-Y
    S-L-O-W-L-Y so that you understand, OK?

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


    If this isn't spin then what is? Why not just put the airbags in the truck. It's a new model and they had every opportunity to make a statement about safety being important and what was the result...smae ol' - same ol'.

    Bad marketing. Yes they do cost more to put in every single truck, just like OnStar costs more to install. But the reason they didn't put them in standard in every truck and every trim is that they were afraid of putting the price too far above Ford's. They 'dumbed down' the safety aspect to keep the price in line with their major competitor.

    This makes sense, but they could have taken the high road and made Ford react to them. Now in 18 months when Ford sees what Toyota has done - and what GM has not done - the new F150 comes out with all the airbags standard and what does that make GM look like? They should have just done it right from jump street with the new T900's.

    Airbags save lives. The rest of your verbiage is a smokescreen for an 'oops'.
  • beliasbelias Posts: 316
    for GM...
    I would argue for virtually any other point except this... heck, argue that a paint color is better than the Tundra's. But, anybody arguing that somehow the Silverado is a safer truck when it doesn't include even 4 airbags as standard doesn't know their automotive history. Like it or not, that has been the single biggest weakness for GM, hands down.
    I'm not trying to scare people off -- these trucks are still a lot better than they used to be, but having more and better airbags is safer without a doubt.
    What bothers me though is that this is somehow considered to be "ok" with people. Most of us, thankfully will never have to experience a serious car accident. But look, you can always add a new gadget to your ride or have smaller wheels then you want to have, but there is no replacing a lost arm, leg, or a whole life due to something that should be made standard and is already widely developed and available in other vehicles. I hope that GM will at least plan to offer that in their next round of trucks, for everyone's sake...
  • beliasbelias Posts: 316
    maple2, I understand what you're saying and thankfully trucks are safer now than they were before, but the Silverados certainly could have been better in this respect. More airbagss are in the Tundra and some other trucks, no reason it couldn't be done here. I think what some are saying about OnStar is that it is more of a secondary safety system and doesn't provide direct injury protection. I think there are certain situations where OnStar would be more beneficial, but in general, most of those situations that involve preserving life would be due to things that are not necessarily caused directly by a car accident (i.e. heart-attack, stroke, etc.). Obviously we wouldn't be talking about this at all if the Tundra had something like OnStar and the SIlverado would have more airbags. When it comes to safety, everyone should be expecting more from their manufacturers. Even though cell phones can do most of what OnStar offers (i.e. make calls, gps location, etc.) it doesn't activate automatically like OnStar does. Gotta run!
  • geo9geo9 Posts: 739
    You salesfolks (and non-owners) plying your "craft" trying
    to put the scare into us NON-buyers of tundra with the
    "no side air bags and your gonna get killed" sales pitch
    is real funny...............

    Driving another brand of full size truck without side bags is not dangerous IMO. So I get t-boned by the average family camcord tin can am I worried????????????
    Most likely they will be kissing my frame or my side
    impact door beam and be in a world of hurt.........

    Stability control.........In a pickup?

    I suppose paying $6000 MORE for a tundra with these items
    over a base GM truck may be worth it to some folks.
    You salesfolks sure have your work cut out for yourselves.

    I suppose its just as easy to be explaining toyotas SET
    fees along with pushin' choke n' croak, rust and dust,
    floor mats, and those extra goodies...........
  • cooterbfdcooterbfd Posts: 2,770
    Stability control.........In a pickup?

    Absolutely!!! Not because you want to take a hairpin curve at 75, but for emergency manuvers in foul weather. Trucks and SUV's are at greater risk of rollover in this instance.
  • 1offroader1offroader Posts: 208
    belias,

    While this feature is good to have, less than half of the people that have it actually subscribe to it after the "free" trial period. Industry experts say retention rates for OnStar are between 20% and 30%.

    Then that's their choice. They had it "free" (note the quotes, it's not really free) for a year, and for some reason didn't want to continue. I'm perfectly OK with that.

    I have no doubt that no matter how loyal you are to GM, that if you had a serious injury from an accident because of lack of air bags, that you would sue.

    Let's get something straight here. I'm not loyal to GM or any other automaker. This is my first GM product in more than 20 years. I have had 2 Toyota 4x4 pickups in the interim - a 1985 and a 1992. I just dumped the 92 Toyota in favor of the Silverado. The 92 should have had front airbags, but it didn't. The technology was well known and widely used by then. Toyota was just too CHEAP to use it in their pickups. But I bought the truck anyway, knowing that, and that was my choice. No regrets, no complaints, no lawsuits. Got that? OK, now that's settled.

    BTW, the reasson I dumped the 92 Toy was extremely mediocre quality and reliability, and JUNK dealer service. The dealer actually created more problems than they fixed, but that is the subject of another story. The 1985 was a better truck than the 1992. Toyota went downhill from there in my experience. You'd think they would learn more over time and get better, but that isn't the case.

    As to the utility of the OnStar, just listen to the radio ads. Real people, real accidents. The air bags deploy, and the OnStar operator contacts you - if possible. If not, they send an ambulance. What is that worth? Well, what is your life worth? Or, your wife or child's life?

    No, OnStar doesn't do anything to help the driver avoid the accident, but neither do airbags. If the airbags go off in either the Toyota or the Silverado, you are already in deep guano. The OnStar just takes the next step, checking to see if you are OK. What is the problem with that? It also offers some other nice safety features such as regularly checking the anti-lock braking system, engine functions, etc. and sending you a notice if there is a problem.

    1offroader
  • 1offroader1offroader Posts: 208
    Just changed the break-in oil on my 6.0L Silverado. Piece of cake! It is one of the easiest vehicles I have ever owned to change the oil. The filter is located in the vertical position on the bottom of the engine, right where it should be. No muss, no fuss.

    On the other hand, both of my Toyota pickups were terrible. On the 1985 (22RE inline 4) the filter was mounted sideways on the block. Of course, when it was unscrewed the oil drooled everywhere except into the drain pan. On the 1992 (3.0L v-6) it was mounted high up on the block near the front of the engine, at an angle. After removing the front skid plate and moving a heater hose and bracket out of the way and unscrewing the filter, oil also drooled down the block and onto the frame cross member and everywhere else except into the drain pan. Both were a PITA. I hated changing oil in both of those trucks and dreaded when the 3,000 mile mark came around.

    I haven't looked at the Tundra in detail with respect to maintenance such as oil changes. Hopefully, Toyota has learned from their past maintenance design failures and incorporated some 20th century technology and common sense in their new 21st century truck. They certainly didn't as late as 1992.

    Vehicles require maintenance. These things matter. Take a look before you buy.

    BTW, for you 6.0L Silverado owners, the engine takes 6 qts. of 5W-30, and the proper oil filter is the AC Delco PF48.

    1offroader
  • pmuscepmusce Posts: 132
    This is the dumbest post I've read so far on this thread. First of all, OnStar is a great safety feature that has proven to save lives. Yes, it won't help you if you are dead. It would however send an ambulance to the scene immediately which may save the life of the 6 year old in your silly scenario.

    The reason GM does not offer all safety features as standard is SOME PEOPLE DON'T WANT THEM. GM sells over 800,000 full size pickups a year. The reason they sell that volume is the breadth of offerings which Toyota does not offer. Toyota has limited the number of offerings because they have limited capacity so it makes sense to limit the number of variations hence more standard features.

    Even if they had the capacity, the would NEVER sell 800,000 Tundra's in 2007 because there is not 800,000 people that want a Tundra. Don't preach that Toyota's approach is better when it is clear that GM knows what people want in this market.
  • beliasbelias Posts: 316
    Nothing is wrong with OnStar! It is a great feature to have; the point was that it shouldn't be in lieu of other safety devices such as air bags. Why wouldn't GM do this? They do it on so many other vehicles; it just doesn't make sense for them not to, so it is obviously a business decision.
    Just FYI, the OnStar commercials here on the radio have advertised one air bag deployment, two people that left their keys in their vehicle while the vehicle was running and it locked on them (I have never had a vehicle allow me to do this), one person that wanted to add more cellular callling minutes, one person that was having a heart attack, and one of a kid that didn't know what was wrong with his mom. They were all very good ads and certainly show the benefits of the system, but I think GM missed an opportunity to just hit this one out of the ball park.
    Unfortunately nobody bothers to take this stuff seriously until they're in a serious accident. SUVs and trucks get into a lot more accidents and also have a much higher percentage of deaths and serious injuries (many due to rolling over).
    Anyhow, this is not a big deal either way, but I do believe that people that don't recognize the necessity of safety systems such as airbags have just no concept of the amount of money, pain, and suffering that comes from them. My father had a serious accident that broke his back and it took years for him to get back to normal. It ended his career as a teacher and caused a lot of hardship for everyone involved for many years. Thankfully he is alive and doing well, though he has serious hardware in his back that he will have to live with the rest of his life.
    Many others in the hospital around him had experienced accidents of different kinds and some lost the use of their limbs, etc. If you asked any of them now, I'm sure none of them would have hesitated to spend the extra money to get added safety systems such as airbags and various drive/brake control systems. You can do without a lot of other luxuries in a vehicle and it may be a minor annoyance or inconvenience at best. Heck it may be even something you can get later, but somebody like geo9 arguing that he thinks he'll be t-boned by a Honda Accord and have no problems just doesn't appreciate what even a small accident like that can do to you... it isn't like a movie... nothing is going in "slow-mo", and trivializing it just shows why these systems are needed... if they are not mandated, many more lives will be lost or seriously injured. I don't wish that on anybody! We're all free to express our opinions here and certainly I'm giving my own, but I would like to see OnStar or something similar on a Toyota; likewise I would like to see more airbags on the Silverado. For me personally, I'll take the air bags because my cell phone will do most of what I value about OnStar. For others, they will go with OnStar and less air bags, but it would have been nice if this was a no-brainer win for Chevy -- they could've done both easily. Now companies like Ford or Dodge may do that in the future, who knows... but somebody will step up and offer these types of added features. I'll be very happy to see that impressed on every vehicle made!
  • 1offroader1offroader Posts: 208
    kdhspyder,

    Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery...

    Having said that...
    Dude, if you can, you REALLY need to develop your own style. Your imitation was pathetic and unfunny. Totally.

    1offroader
  • blckislandguyblckislandguy Posts: 1,150
    Sorry, but please don't assume that I "know what I said is true." I have no idea what you said in Paragraph One and I suspect that no one else does either. It is nonsensical.
  • KCRamKCRam Mt. Arlington NJPosts: 3,516
    as in zero... along with the irrelevant history lessons. We're talking about just-released 2007 model trucks here.

    kcram - Pickups Host
  • 1offroader1offroader Posts: 208
    "For me personally, I'll take the air bags because my cell phone will do most of what I value about OnStar. "

    Hey belias, we agree! I have four air bags, antilock discs, stabilitrack, my cell phone, AND the OnStar!!!

    If we get any safer we'll live forever...

    1offroader
  • drfilldrfill Posts: 2,484
    And your point is......don't buy a Tundra if the oil filter is hard to get to?

    When is a Toyota dealer really gonna see a Toyota owner? They need to make money too! :confuse:

    Take a look at a new Lexus. Virtually everything under the hood is protected. Should that kill a deal?

    Some people buy filters, I'd buy a great car/truck, then worry about the filter.

    DrFill
  • pmuscepmusce Posts: 132
    The point is, some people want to have a choice as whether they want certain features, safety or not. If safety is so important to Toyota, why are they putting out video's of 1/2 ton pickups drag racing with 8,000 pound trailers? Do these videos condone safe driving? Should people be drag racing from stoplight to stoplight with 8,000 trailers? No. I hate to break the news to you, but none of these companies care about your safety. They are in business to make money. YOU are responsible for your safety. If you want airbags all around, you can get them on any 1/2 ton on the market. To try and come on this forum and convince people that Toyota has taken some higher moral ground by making air bags all around standard is laughable. GM does not put OnStar in their vehicles for the common good of man. They do it to generate more revenue. These companies are all the same in this regard.
  • toykickstoykicks Posts: 95
    Its all marketing. Toyota wanted to make sure people get the point. Its not only good for 0-60 times. As for safety well no one knows yet.

    check out the GMC chevys car interior look a like. Dont know what all the hype is about The dash & door panels are all hard plastic. ;)

    image
  • chrmdomechrmdome Posts: 107
    Greetings:

    I've just picked up my 2007 Silverado and unlike the 2006's ,installation of a brake controller for towing does not include a supplied pigtail wiring harness. I have located the under dash blunt cut wires, but the manual say that the underhood wiring must be attached to the fusebox. There should be two wires blunt cut under the hood, one is the battery connect and the other is the brake control lead. A fuse must also be installed ( 40A) to compete the circut to the main battery. Does anyone know A) where the wires are, B) what posts to connect them to and C) where do you place the 40 amp fuse?

    Thanks guys, Chromedome
This discussion has been closed.