Toyota Tundra vs. Chevrolet Silverado

anythngbutgm · February 2007

what is BA, EBD, TC?

Brake Assist, Elecronic Brakeforce Distribution, and Traction Control.

My friend is a service manager for a GMC/Pontiac/Buick dealer in NH. After being on his second Sierra which is still riddled with problems, he is turning to the dark side and planning on buying a new Tundra. See, even though he can get things fixed in a jiffy without even leaving the office, he is still fed up with the quality and durability of his own product! Really says something about the impact that the Tundra is making on the domestic dominating market. If Toyota keeps the recall count to a minimum and these trucks really go off without a hitch (no pun intended) then they may very well earn the respect they deserve with the "Buy American" mindset.

It's obvious that both the domestic manufacturers and their loyal customers have stood up and taken notice of the new Tundra. This is always a good thing as it will keep everyone on their toes. The buyers are going to prosper the most from it.

drfill · February 2007

The Tundra may be the best, but it will need work to hold the crown. They have 18 months before a real challenge can be mounted.

Either the 2009 Ram (Rampage?), or 2009 F-150 will surpass the Tundra, so the 2010 Tundra will need:

1. The 270HP V6 in the 4Runner
2. A new 5.0 V8 with 325HP to replace the 4.7
3. Another 25Hp in the 5.7
4. A more cohesive dash update, maybe a more car-like interior on the LTD.
5. Obviously, a dualie/HD model should be available by then, with diesel and/or hybrid for half-ton.

DrFill

jreagan · February 2007

Not sure what Brake Assist is or how it works. But the GM Crewcabs come std with "Stabilitrak" which utilizes engine power dist, and brake distribution, even steering input. So, essentially, the GM's DO have EBD and Traction control, they just use different terminology for the same technology.

I am sure there are people who can give both good and bad testimony on any brand. I personally go by my own personal experience and to date I can NOT justify changing brands since my 89 GMC Sierra and my 2000 Sierra were both awesome trucks and NEVER gave me any significant problems. Now, if I have alot of problems with my 2007, would it make me go to the Dark Side? Maybe, maybe not, depends on the reputation of the competition. Bottom line is that trucks are Electro-Mechanical machines and you can get a good or bad one no matter what brand you buy.

I agree that all of the mfrs will need to keep up with each other as they play "Technological Leapfrog". The domestic big 3 have been doing this for decades now and GM is almost always the lead frog. The Tundra just joined this game, so I wouldn't crown them lead frog just yet. Wait a year or so, so they can rate durability in there too. I also agree that the Tundra and all of the other foreign makes entering this market as legitimate contenders make ALL of the mfrs better and we the consumers all gain from it.

belias · February 2007

I think what this comparison comes down to is just what people WANT it to be rather than what it really is. Personally the newer truck interiors are a lot better than they were before. The trucks are a lot stronger and better overall in terms of safety, design, power, and speed.
But what is really annoying is when the same factors that people were using to claim superiority in their choice are negating them as insignificant now. It is the most hypocritical aspect of the statements posted here. If power, acceleration, braking, etc is all of a sudden useless to you when your choice is no longer at the forefront of these comparisons, then why bother having the comparison in the first place? All these forums serve to do is just facilitate subjective claims which may not even affect anybody's decisions.
One would hope that posts could be a little more objective so that when people make their decisions, they can at least do it on solid information knowing what the strengths and weaknesses of their choice are.
Saying either of these trucks are perfect is just being blind. They are both very good trucks, but people need to DRIVE them first and SEE them in person at first to really understand what is going to be suitable for them.
I've seen both vehicles in person. I have not gotten the chance to drive either of them, so I can not comment on that aspect. But I will say that the interiors are comparable in terms of functions. I like the layout of the Tundra's features better, though the mix/match of design is a little weird. I think a better interior would be the Denali, so I'm waiting to see that. However, the Silverado crew cab I saw, though the mix/match of materials was decent, the quality of the fit and finish was pretty bad. I made a point of telling the salesman about how even the gaps were uneven from one end of the dash to the other. Things like that bother me a lot, but it may not matter to others. Back seats were nicer in the Tundra than in the Silverado. Otherwise both were fairly comparable and nicer than most. Ford had a model (I think the King Ranch) that had a beautiful interior, but the actual truck was not great in terms of me finding a good seating position.
For me, there isn't enough incentive for me to get the Silverado over the Tundra. The availability of the 6.0 would've made it a better comparison for capability if it was going to be as capable as the 5.7 of the Tundra, but it looks like the 6.2 in the Denali would be a better comparison.
That is my preference right now, but I'll be anxious to see if the Denali lives up to all the hype that people give it or if this is going to be just a mediocre improvement. Judging from seeing the interior of the EXT, it looks like it will be somewhere between a mediocre improvement and an all out spectacular improvement. I'm especially interested in the leather as this is not an especially strong point of Toyota.
Again, people will make up their own minds no matter what is said here. It is fine to ignore reviews if everyone agrees, but that means for better or for worse. People should go see the vehicles in person. And yes, that means that GM folks should step into a Toyota dealership and vice versa. Satisfy your curiosity instead of just making theoretical claims. Get in the truck, look around and be fair in terms of what you like and don't like. That way, when you do make a decision, you know what you have and can be content and satisfied in your choice.
If not, you end up defending your choice without knowing your competition...

jreagan · February 2007

The Tundra may be the best, but it will need work to hold the crown.

What "Crown"? Who has crowned them and how can they be crowned already when they are just releasing these trucks? They need to be out at least a year b4 they can take any crown, unless you are basing the crown solely on power and 0-60 times and not taking into account all of the other criteria.

Sure they have a better shot with this Tundra at being the best than they ever have before, but I wouldn't count my chickens before they are hatched. They have been trying to compete with the big 3 for quite awhile now and haven't had any long-term success yet. Time will tell!!! In the meantime, we will all continue to benefit from this, no matter what brand we prefer.

jreagan · February 2007

You can get a 5.7 Tundra for well under $30k

BS, not a 4x4 LTD Crewmax anyway.

Invoice on a 2007 Tundra Crewmax LTD 4x4 BEFORE adding any options is $37,873 and MSRP is $41,850

jreagan · February 2007

I couldn't agree more...Finally a good post from you.

I have seen both in person, but have only driven the GMC and the Silverado. I am sure the Toyota has tons of power based on what I read, but I was thoroughly impressed with every aspect of the GM's. Power, ride, interior, comfort...everything. And my past experience with GM confirms I made the right choice...for ME.

member12 · February 2007

Great point.

I remember the day when all you can get out of a 1/2 ton truck was 200 horses and maybe an 8,000 lb towing capacity. I have personally pulled more weight with a Chevy 350 1/2 ton than that....those things were beast in their day. The size given to them (1/2 ton, 3/4 ton, 1 ton) are all out of date...but still usefull when describing hauling capacity.

The truth is now, a Colorado and Tacoma are pretty much 1/2 ton trucks.

Either way...go with a 3/4 ton if you make a habit out of towing 8K-10K lbs. The engine power, cooling capacity, load ratings, transmission, rear axle, brakes are all upgraded over the 1/2 tons. The Silverado and Tundra may pull the weight, but they are mostly for light needs. The suspensions were designed for ride and handling (relative to 3/4 ton trucks which ride like tanks), etc.

Maybe in a few years some of these 1/2 ton truck buyers who pull all this weight will say something different. I wouldnt' want to be the the first to try it, though.
The 6.0L Chevy (in 3/4 tons that I have driven), while a great motor, just doesn't cut it with 10,000 lbs. It will move, but not very well. In fact, the only gas motor I have ever driven that could handle that kind of weight is the 8.1L V8 GM or the V10 Ford. Both of them take so much gasoline that you might as well have gotten a diesel engine, which cost thousands more. I doubt that the 5.7L Tundra is any better.

Some of you should go price those 3/4 ton trucks. They are not that much more expensive than the 1/2 tons. The diesels are pricey, but they are actually worth it. If you do have a 4+ ton load, I would go with the 3/4 ton truck.

jreagan · February 2007

I agree with you 100%, check my recent posts. What you are seeing here is not what these people need for towing, they are seeking "Bragging Rights" for 0-60, 1/4 mile times and whose truck is capable of towing the most. However, these Tundra Loyalists on here trying to say the Tundra is the best truck made do not even own a truck and probably do not have a need for one. Must be macho thing or they are trying to compensate for "other" in-adequacies. I personally do not need anything more than a 1/2 ton since all I tow is a 3500# boat. But these people seem to think that 0-60 times are more important than anything else. Whatever!

rorr · February 2007

"You cannot compare a $30K base Tundra to any 6.2 since they are top-of-line Denali's."

Interesting. The only ones trying to make this comparison (apparently) are the GM folks.

To clear the air: what was happening was the Toyota folks trumpeting the Tundra 5.7 powertrain as being 'superior' to the 6.0 in the Silverado. This was countered by the GM folks bringing up the 6.2l in the Denali.

Yeah, ok, the 6.2l in the Denali is a nice piece of work; unfortunately it's gonna run in excess of $40k to GET the 6.2. It was then stated by the Tundra folks that IF you wanted that kind of power, you don't HAVE to spend that kind of money since the 5.7l powertrain IS AVAILABLE for under $30 in a Tundra.

No, you don't get all the luxury crap that you'll find on a Denali. It's a damn TRUCK. I always thought the issue with the domestic folks in the past was NOT how 'nice' the truck was (since the older Tundras were generally regarded as being 'nicer' than the old Silverados). No, the dump on the old Tundra was that it didn't have the POWER and TOWING CAPACITY to be a 'real' 1/2 ton truck.

But NOW? Jeez, now the issue is which one is 'nicer'?

Enjoy the Denali. I'm sure it's a real 'nice' truck. But the fact is that one doesn't HAVE to spend in excess of $40k (or even $30k) to get a monster powertrain in a 1/2 ton truck.....

kdhspyder · February 2007

Yes Stabilitrak is the same as Stbility Control and Traction control. Both are options on the GM's.

EBD is also on the GM's in the brake force distribution from front to rear axels.

Brake Assist is an advancement of the ABS system and the Electronic Braking system. When the computer senses that the pedal has been hit in a panic situation it puts the full force of the brakes on even if the brake pedal isn't fully depressed ( say a short-legged person or woman driver ). In a normal stop it does nothing.

jreagan · February 2007

I didn't buy a Denali, I bought a 2007 GMC Sierra SLT Crewcab with the 6.0l. I spent about $37K after a couple of $1K rebates and no, it's not a Denali, but it is loaded with everything except DVD and Nav. For the record, and my past posts show this. I NEVER ripped the Toyota, I simply defended the GM's. I also argued the power issue stating that both trucks have more than enough power for a 1/2 ton truck. I do value the car-like ride and luxury features since even though I do need a truck for towing my boat, 90% of my miles are as a daily driver. For me, the GM was the best choice because I believe they are the best value when you consider ALL of the criteria. Power, Amenities, features, safety, cost of ownership, fuel mileage and overall value for the $.

A comparably equipped Tundra is MORE expensive than my GM. Sure, if you need the power and do not care about anything else and do not want to spend more than 30K, then the Toyota may be the right truck for you. But these comparisons (up until just recently) were comparing the loaded up Tundra to the GM's (SLT and Denali). Now all of sudden were comparing a stripped down Tundra with the 5.7l to the Denali?? Well, duh, of course it's cheaper.

I think this forum has run it's course.

Toyota Loyalists...Buy your Toyota
GM Loyalists...Buy your GM
End of story.

jreagan · February 2007

Yes Stabilitrak is the same as Stbility Control and Traction control. Both are options on the GM's.

Correction, they are options on SOME of the GM's. The Crewcabs come with it standard.

Brake assist sounds cool, but a little scary too. But so is Stability Control in a way. Scary to think that new technology is trying to do our thinking for us. Which is a good thing for the most part, but not necessarily ALL of the time.

kdhspyder · February 2007

Correction, they are options on SOME of the GM's. The Crewcabs come with it standard.

Knew that... mistyped and left out a line, my bad good catch.

muskyfever · February 2007

I just can't wait until summer to get the crewmax. I'm going to jack it up a few inches and throw some huge 38" inch tires on it. I can't wait to take it camping and fishing to show all the American made truck fans what a real machine looks like.

I will never buy an American made vehicle. I work too hard for my money to just throw it away.

And I'll be glad to race anyone once I get it. I can't wait to tell people "This rice burner will smoke your American made muscle." LMAO!

Toyota rules!

maple2 · February 2007

If you want to jack it up and put 38" tires on it, then go racing let me know how that works for you. youd probly have a tough time beating anything besides possibly a ridgeline

muskyfever · February 2007

Don't worry. I'll get a street set of wheels and tires to race with. I'll keep the 38 inchers for the mud and for show.

Thanks for caring.

Check this out.

http://forums.clubrsx.com/showthread.php?t=456494

I think I'll stick with Toyota and Nissan.

clarkkent · February 2007

Some of us remember. Some of us were their. Some of you are too young to remember. Some of you don't care.

CK

blkhemi · February 2007

Seeing how we have a huge crowd of mixed opinions of both trucks, let's put it all into perspective.

Dr. Fill, I didn't think you participated on other threads except for HELC. Good to see you, however, the debate must go on.

For the record, you know I'm not completely against all Toyota's. I think the Tacoma midsize is best in class. Much better than that pseudo-truck Ridgeline and it's caught the domestics sleeping.

For the record tho, the Tundra doesn't equal or exceed the likes of the GMT-900 full-size GM pick-ups. The overall feel is nowhere near as solid as the ingot-like structure of the Silverado. Yeah, it has power, lots of it, but I'd like to see the average Tundra owner trying to hustle down an Corvette in a straight line. And the overall look is very disturbed. It's a Ram copy gone completely wrong. Oh and those brakes, let's just say that Toyota needs to apply some of that brute force to some it's Lexus cars.

Me, I'm just a bystander. I love Rams's. HEMI's and CTD's, I've gottem all. But this Chevy for me goes down as the best assembled and best complete design of any pick-up. Oh and I hear that the other makers had better watch out when the big 2500/3500 models go on sale, with Duramax being completely redone, altho Dodge and Ford have completely fortified their HD line right along with the diesels. Since were here, where is the Toyota HD that we were promised upon release of the Tundra? Yeah that 800lbs-ft torque of diesel power was just another Toyota hoax. At least Nissan admitted it won't have one until next model cycle.

For sure, the planned 200k Tundra's will for sure eat into the domestic slice of the pie by about 10%, but if Toyota is living on the same promises that Nissan showed up with the lackadaisical Titan, I believe I may be buying more Rams or Chevy's.

BTW, Doc, you can read the Truck Trend, MT, and C&D articles to back up my Silverado claims. Truck Trend even tested a 5.3 against the mighty 5.7 and it still didn't waver them one bit, altho the accel times were pretty evident.

But I will say. I'm very glad Toyota stopped bringing a butter knife to a .306 rifle fight. And to the guys that say they only by Toyota or Nissan, what were you driving long before these guys even attempted the full-size class?

kdhspyder · February 2007

Well that's one perspective. Maybe not the most accurate one but everyone's entitled.....

The GMT900's are solid no doubt and the look is much better than before, although for my preference they might be too pretty to be work vehicles.

For the record tho, the Tundra doesn't equal or exceed the likes of the GMT-900 full-size GM pick-ups.

This statement is just inaccurate. If you read the previous posts..
..the Tundra far exceeds the GM's in towing capability with two minor exceptions;
..engine strength is about the same but the 6 spd tranny on the Tundra sets it apart;
..the braking system on this beast is second to none;
..no other truck in the segment has all of the passive and active safety features standard across every single model;

Since were here, where is the Toyota HD that we were promised upon release of the Tundra? Yeah that 800lbs-ft torque of diesel power was just another Toyota hoax. At least Nissan admitted it won't have one until next model cycle.

You are grossly misinformed or misread someones ill-informed opinion. The HD versions were never scheduled to debut with the gasser version. It has always been said that they are 1-2 years later. It makes no sense to shoot all the ammunition in the first volley.

This isn't a sprint to be number one in trucks in 3 years. It's a marathon over the next 20 years to make this product profitable by small but ever-increasing steps. It doesn't matter what the volume is or which one is No 1 in sales just that all of them are profitable.

It's only business.

So now Toyota just put a .44 Magnum on the table, 'Let's deal the cards'. Let the market decide.

drfill · February 2007

As I mentioned before, Popular Mechanics and this site chose the Tundra over the GM. And the AMCI tests were rather decisive!

I've read TruckTrend articles on the two trucks, but they begged off picking a winner in the one I read last week at the mall, which didn't have full Tundra pricing at print.

If you have another comparison for me to see, please advise. I'm more than happy to stay appraised of the media's scrutiny.

And for the record, I am glad that GM is turning this Titanic around, and fielding competitive products! They are easily the most adaptable of the Big 2.5, and can mount a credible defense against the juggernaut that is Toyota!

If the 6.0 was readily available, or not overmanaged at the factory, I'd see it as a closer match-up, but if you need a $45k truck to fight the 5.7 SR5, just to get a competitive engine, you are 2nd best.... :sick:

I'm just a bystander myself.

But it looks like a fun contest to call.

When the '09 Ram and F-150 get here, it should really stoke the fire! :surprise:

DrFill

drfill · February 2007

You are grossly misinformed or misread someones ill-informed opinion. The HD versions were never scheduled to debut with the gasser version. It has always been said that they are 1-2 years later. It makes no sense to shoot all the ammunition in the first volley.

This isn't a sprint to be number one in trucks in 3 years. It's a marathon over the next 20 years to make this product profitable by small but ever-increasing steps. It doesn't matter what the volume is or which one is No 1 in sales just that all of them are profitable.

The Camry had a relatively easy mountain to climb compared to the Tundra.

The Tundra should sell 175k this year, over 200k next year, and then we'll see how the Tundra HD enters the frey.

By 2010, the Tundra will still probably be only make it to Ram-level sales. If all goes well!

If anyone can be patient, or show patience, to get the job done right, it's 'Yota! They aren't trying to take the truck market anytime soon, just get the Tundra brand name established for the long-haul.

Considering the amount of money Toyota brings in, just from this market, it can be considered a pet project at this point.

I'd still like to see a new Supra, for old times sake.

DrFill

ggesq · February 2007

How did the previous generation Tundra fail? Power, towing, interior space, limited configurations...??

How does the new Tundra address these shortcomings (if any)?

jreagan · February 2007

Toyota's solution was simple...

Copy the American trucks as much as possible...throw a bunch of power at it and call themselves the best. Sounds simple huh?....Time will reveal that there is MUCH MORE to it than that if you want to be in it for the long haul (pun intended).

From what I hear, the Toyota does not ride as nice and provides a very rough ride on bumpy roads. This can only lead to one thing....rattles!! I hate rattleboxes and I would like to see how a Tundra rides and sounds after about 50K miles. My 2000 GMC Sierra now has 90K miles on it and I am proud to say it has 0, zero, zilch, nada...NO rattles. It rides as smooth and quiet as the day I got it. With the exception of a little wind noise from one of my rear pass wing windows (ext cab) under certain conditions (speed, wind direction, etc). Truck or not, today's half tons should ride and sound like a car. They are by far the most versatile and practical vehicle a person can own and should carry the attributes of a truck, car and SUV as far as capability, power, ride, amenities, etc, etc.

I am confident my new 2007 will be no different than my last 2 GMC's. Simply the best. My experience speaks for itself. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY can tell me different.

ggesq · February 2007

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my post but you totally missed my question. In all fairness I want to know how the previous generation Tundra failed and how the new one has fixed the predecessors shortcomings. Obviously, there is more hp and more towing capabilities but what else?

I really could care less hearing about the GM products much less your experience with your GM truck.

I really don't agree with the following statement- "Truck or not, today's half tons should ride and sound like a car."
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then...? I don't expect a truck to drive like a car, I expect it to drive like a truck- Big, powerful, and torquey. :confuse: Am I missing something here? Who wants to tool around in a girly truck? I'm not saying either one of these trucks are girly.

I do agree that time will tell how the new Toyota will turn out. But from the outset, it looks like it has the goods.

jreagan · February 2007

Sorry, you're right. I should have rambled on about that in another post, I really didn't intend to address your question....my bad.

Karen_S · February 2007

We love spirited debates, however, when comments become insulting and personal it quickly destroys a good discussion. Please do try to keep your remarks about the two trucks and not each other.

Thanks for your cooperation!

KarenS/CarSpace Forums Manager

belias · February 2007

I think when confronted with undeniable specs (i.e. hp, towing, speed, torque, brakes, transmission, etc.) that the Tundra is at least as good on paper if not all out better than the Silverado that it may be perceived as threatening to people whose loyalties are with GM.
In reality though, few will detract unless their are distinctive qualities not offered in the Silverado (i.e. the CrewMax has a huge back seat or something like that). I see many more sales coming out from under Ford than anybody else. The Silverado is a great truck! My personal preference for comparison is the Denali (to the Tundra because I would be getting the loaded versions of both anyway), but I have to reserve judgement until I can see it in person like I did with the Silverado and Tundra.

Karen_S · February 2007

I'm making this read only briefly. Let's step back and take a deep breath. Time for a break.

KCRam · February 2007

...the recess did everyone some good... hope you had a snack, a beverage, and a nap. Previous warnings still apply, though. If it gets personal or off-topic, it's outta here.

kcram - Pickups Host

jreagan · February 2007

Now where were we before we were so rudely interrupted? haha JK.

the Tundra is at least as good on paper if not all out better than the Silverado

As an avid NFL fan, I have seen MANY "Great On Paper" football teams perform miserably. Not saying the Tundra will perform miserably, but let's not judge a truck or crown it any kind of winner based on paper specs. Until Toyota achieves it's goal of catching GM, GM is still the best. My money is on the reigning champion holding it's title for long, long time. And actually, it's still a 2-man race between Ford and GM as far as sales go (in the truck market). Toyota has joined the race, but has a long way to go to catch up.

belias · February 2007

Toyota does have a long way to go in terms of truck sales for sure; this isn't a segment that turns over quickly as people historically are loyal to their brand of vehicle.
But the association of sales with "best" is lost on me. More often than not, the best in sales is not because the vehicle is the best, it is because it is the cheapest or has the most incentive. If sales = best than companies like BMW, Audi, Porsche, etc. would be considered the worst vehicles.
I think that there are several characteristics that make a vehicle good (in no special order):
- performance
- comfort
- features
- convenience
- capability
- endurance
- reliability
- value
About half of those characteristics are going to be pretty subjective; moreover the weighting of what is important is going to vary a great deal with each individual.
Having said that, even though the new Tundra has not had the time to prove itself in some specific areas (i.e. reliability), its previous model and most of its other vehicles have been stellar in that department, though lacking in others (i.e. capability).
Every truck builder has had issues with quality, reliability and recalls -- the Silverado and Sierra had 4 each themselves last year (though 2 of those were pretty minor). [Edit: there were actually 7 recalls for the 2006 Silverado] But what sticks in the minds of many buyers that have left companies like Chevy and Ford, etc. are the times where they've had terrible experiences.
For me personally, that was with two of my cars and just about every available dealer for them. The combination of a bad vehicle and literally several bad dealerships turned me off from those companies.
Does that translate into the Silverado being a bad truck? Probably not, but the risk for me (and I think many that are in my shoes) is that any kind of problems that occur just make the experience of having to go to those dealerships a bad one; I don't want to deal with dealerships that treat their customers badly and having a history of that only reinforces my belief that it will happen again.
So, given the experiences of past Silverado/Sierra owners, Consumer Reports assessments and information from customers directly, coupled with dealership experiences only fuels the thinking that the Silverado has to be a LOT better than something like the Tundra to convince me to go back to buying from them. For most of the features above, it doesn't even match it, much less trounce it. Not that the Tundra trounces it either, but in most areas it is a better package.
Who knows, maybe we'll get some positive feedback from people that have had good dealerships take care of them when they've had serious problems with their trucks, I don't know. But most of what I'm reading is that you can enjoy the Silverado if it doesn't have to go to a dealership; that is, of course, impossible for any vehicle.

jreagan · February 2007

Well, I bought my first GM truck in 1990, it was a 1989 GMC Sierra SLE 4x4 Reg Cab with the 350. I bought it from a local Chevy dealer, and had no issues with my dealership experience. Then, in late 1999, I sold it to a buddy and bought a brand new 2000 GMC Sierra SLE Z71 ext cab from Routson Motors in Stillwater, MN. I had only minor things the first few years that needed taking care of and my dealer was more than happy to care of me. They either gave me a free loaner or a ride (17 miles each way) to work without whining. I even had a non-recall issue with my rear pass (wing style) windows leaking air at highway speeds, they could have blown me off, but instead they replaced both windows...frame and all..for FREE. I have been to 3-4 dealers in town and have yet to have a bad experience. They all have exceeded my expectations and I am a VERY picky customer.

BTW, does the Tundra have "Auto-Trac" (automatic transfer case) or anything similar to it? I have that in my 2000 and think it is an awesome feature. I rarely use 4hi since auto-4wd is seamless and saves fuel. I cannot tell the difference between 4-hi and auto 4wd, even when accelerating on snow and ice, it is way quicker than my senses.

jreagan · February 2007

I have sat in the Tundra and have sat in many (and driven) the Chevy/GMC and when it comes to the interior, I cannot see how anyone would prefer the Tundra's over the GM's.

Funny story... the other day I was at Lifetime Fitness exercising and was running on a treadmill. Anyway, it has a large console/dash that is silver plastic and as I was running, it occured to me that it looked alot like the dash in the Tundra. I chuckled to myself. The Tundra dash IMO is very cheesy looking. Also, why are most of the controls closer to the passenger than the driver? It's not an airplane (co-pilot).

belias · February 2007

Sounds like you've had better luck than me. My old Sunbird started falling apart not even 3 years after buying it. Dealership refused to replace wiring for passenger powered window even though it had cracked in half (in the gap between the inside of the door and the car itself). Little did I know that was the start of a slew of problems. The window problem, alternator, water pump -- all during warranty period were being refused by the dealerships. The excuse was that I was using the car "excessively". I'm not sure what they meant, but if they meant I was driving it hard, that is a laugh! The thing could barely do hwy speed with the pedal to the floor -- acceleration was not its strength, it was supposed to be a good, reliable, and inexpensive to operate. Soon the driver's door siezed (i.e. it wouldn't open -- had to go in through the passenger side), the passenger seat latch stopped working (so the seat slid back and forth on the rails whenver I would brake or accelerate), the key lock on the trunk stopped working (i.e. could not get the key in), and numerous other problems from brakes and brake lines to the transmission, etc. By the time I had approached 6 years on this vehicle, I couldn't even give it away. I had to spend $100 to have it towed to a scrap yard.
That was a 1987 model. Dealerships did not honor repairs under warranty at that time and I was too young to know and enforce my rights. I won't even get into MY experience with Dodge -- a complete nightmare! And after the way they treated my parents with their caravan, I had just about had with them (my parents on the other hand bought another Dodge from a dealer 4 hours away that treated them very well).
So, part of my reluctance in looking at Chevy again is this feeling that I'm going to regret my decision as I did before. As a vehicle, the Silverado looks pretty good to me -- the Denali even better (though I still have not seen it in person). But I worry about the history of recalls and problems reported by owners and the experience with dealerships and in particular GM's reluctance in general to resolve problems in a timely manner even when it is a serious safety issue.

jreagan · February 2007

The 1987 Sunbird....ahhh, what a classic example of an awesome vehicle...hahaha I must admit that I am NOT a fan of that era GM or any American-made car (mid 80's-early 90's). But I would not judge GM or it's dealers based on 20 year old experiences. I am sure that not only the vehicles have improved, but customer satisfaction is a much higher priority in today's market than it was back then. Thanks in part to more competition from everyone, including Toyota. My mom owned a 1987 Olds Calais, and even though it was a reliable car that had few (if any?) mechanical issues. I drove it several times and even used it on my honeymoon trip (since it got better gas mileage than my 89 GMC and the wife owned a 1983 Cutlass that also had a V8. the car was a cheaply built, rattlebox 4-banger with no power. She has been a GM person her whole life, well, since her 1966 Impala SS days (the year I was born). I talked her into buying a Ford Taurus in 1995 because I thought GM's cars were junk. Turns out the Taurus was a piece of junk too. Now she drives a 2005 Chev Malibu and loves it.

The Toyota Camry is a very nice car, and because of them as well as other foreign brands, the American made cars HAD to get better, and did. Now I think the quality is equivalent across the board (in cars anyway) with the exception of Chrysler. But I am not a car person, I think trucks are a much better value. ALL cars, although more reliable than ever before, are a ripoff. They depreciate more and don't last as long. Even my wife's 2004 Impala LS (with 28K miles), as nice of a car as it is, and very reliable I might add, cost about $23K only 3 years ago and is now worth only a little more than my 2000 GMC with 90K miles on it.

Dodge? I can't tell of any dealer experiences, but I will say I bought my wife a 1993 Plymouth Voyageur minivan in 1994. What pile of JUNK!!! Never again!!! Within the first year (and last year I may add, I dumped 12 months after buying it) and with only 34K miles on it. it had 20K miles when I bought it. It had the following problems:
Bad water pump, leaked and burned oil (excessively), Tranny leaked, rear window washer pump was bad, and several other minor issues were present. Although I could have had the dealer fix most of the major stuff since it was still under warranty, I traded that thing so fast it wasn't even funny. yes, that is an "old" experience too, but I have not seen much improvement from Chrysler's products since then.

I would buy a Tundra before a Ram.

geo9 · February 2007

REGAN......Ya got to remember those vintage DCX vans used
the mitsubishi (spl) engine. They aged poorly...........
At one time Chrysler had the BEST auto. trans. in the business. Too bad they missed the mark on their frt.WD
versions.............

Hands down GM units are the best...............

Check out the "transmission trauma" forums here at Edmunds.
The new camrys auto unit has several issues not to mention
the honda posts................

Will have to see how the tundra as well as the new GM 6
speed auto units fare in the world of truck usage......

belias · February 2007

Yeah, I hear ya, I know that many of the domestics have gotten better. In fact a lot of them rank above even many German vehicles in terms of satisfaction and reliability. My most recent experience with Honda and in particular Acura have been fantastic! Going on 7 years with not a single problem! But, for the kind of work I'll be doing, I need a truck going forward. I originally tried to get a Yukon and then an Avalanche when I settled on the Acura. However, the Yukon was too pricey and I didn't like the interior, and while the Avalanche was almost exactly what I wanted, it ranked next to the Aztek in terms of looks.
So, I'm in the market again for a vehicle later this summer and having looked at the F150, the Silverado, and the Tundra, it looks like for me, the overall package favors the Tundra. Others will have criteria that are more/less important than mine, but I'm a big guy and am not going to try to force myself to fit into a vehicle anymore. I was set on the new Avalanche but disliked the dash plastic and overall lack of features for a loaded LTZ. Also, things like the column shifter, feel of the steering wheel and the big blind spots were just a little annoying to me (though not a deal-breaker). The ride was comfortable and the seats were pretty nice and overall it fit me well.
The Silverado was pretty much the same in almost every aspect except the exterior looks. Salesman said that the ride is comfortable but not quite as much as in the Avalanche. At $46K (before deals/incentives) the Avalanche was not a good deal (that is with the 5.3L) though not terrible -- I just thought I could do better.
My guess is that the Denali may be the answer in terms of comfort/performance. However, it will be more expensive than a loaded Tundra and there is no version that has as large a back seat as the CrewMax (which is essential for me in particular because I have two big dogs that I want to keep back there on trips).
If I were to load both the Silverado and the Tundra up, they would be roughly equivalent in price. But I would get only the 5.3l instead of the 6.2l in the Denali. I'm not confident in the 6.0l being advantageous because the 5.3l/transmission combo is proven. The idea of torque management on the 6.0l when other engine/transmission combos that are larger are available without it makes me think that GM is using this as a trial or perhaps a migration movement before a 5 or 6 speed heavier-duty transmission is offered.
Add to that the whole debacle with brake problems over the last few years with GM's SUVs and trucks, and I can't help but think of having to make trips back to the dealership.
So, it isn't as if I don't want to try to get something like the Silverado (or preferably the Denali), but given its history in the areas that are critical to my needs, it will be a tough sell -- probably have to be priced significantly less than the Tundra. Ultimately though, the Denali looks like the only other true option on the table that provides the combination of features required. I'll see what its like when it gets to the showroom floor!

jreagan · February 2007

Good point, knew that.

And why do you call me Regan? It's Reagan. No offense taken, just wondered why you left out the A.

jreagan · February 2007

So, were you looking at the new body style Avalanche? Coincidentally, I was shopping the Avalanche last summer because I think they look alot better that they did last year. They look basically like a Tahoe. But, after researching and learning that I could ONLY get the 6.0 with 4.10 gears, I decided to wait. Also, I thought they were too expensive and questioned how much I would use the whole mid-gate transformation do-hickey stuff. I am guessing it would get seldom used and would just add to the rattle factor. I ultimatelt decided to wait until the new trucks came out. which was a wise decisin, although they are'nt much (if any) cheaper than the Avalanche, which I was told they would be.

As for the 6.0 in the trucks, I still think it is a good value over and above the power issue. For only $1000, you get the bigger engine. SD Tranny (much heavier duty), engine oil cooler (a must have IMO), ext tranny cooler, larger 9.5" rear end and 4 wheel disc brakes. Heck, if they offered all of this with the 5.3l as an option for $1000, I would take it. But the 6.0 is a better, stronger engine. based on what I have read about it. Deep skirt design, 6-bolt mains, etc, etc. Way more power and torque than I need for my useage. Better to have more than you need than not enough. I only put on about 10-12K miles per year, so gas mileage isn't a huge factor. And I do need a truck.

Nice to hear you want your dogs to be comfy. My current 2000 GMC is just an Ext cab 3-door, and the back seat is plenty big enough for my 2 daughters, but the 4 real doors will be nice. I never liked the rear doors on ext cabs. Personally, i never ride back there, so I only care about the driver's seat..haha.

Brake problems? the only complaint I can think of for mine is the rotors were rusted and needed replacement. But that was at 72,000 miles and the entire cost to replace 4 rotors and brake pads was only about $600. Not bad. Otherwise they have been flawless. The days of turning rotors are gone, they make them "disposable" nowadays. I suppose to keep the weight down. Also, in 2004 GM went back to drums in the rear on the half-tons only. Have asked several salesmen, techinicians, etc and have not gotten a good answer as to why yet. I do not believe cost is a reason since they still use discs on the HD's and drums actually have more components to them. Also, the cost to changeover and maintain 2 production methods has to be more than using a common design. Still waiting for a legit reason on that one. Part of the reason I went with the 6.0.

The idea of torque management on the 6.0l when other engine/transmission combos that are larger are available without it

Keep in mind that these larger engines/tranny combos either use a 6 speed tranny (Denali 6.2) or a 3/4 ton duty (Allison in the Diesel) tranny. Also, the Denali is AWD, not 4WD, so traction from a dead stop is always there. They figure that without the 4 sec closed loop delay at WOT from a dead stop, you would just burn up the tires anyway, so what's the point? There is still plenty of torque available for towing. Otherwise it wouldn't have the 10,500 lb tow rating (with 4.10's). People need to understand torque better and how it is used and when it's available, etc. If they did, they would realize that this is really a non-issue. Unless you are stoplight racing. Even then, traction is still necessary to transfer that torque to the road.

I would at least drive a GM a few more times before making your final decision later this summer. More info will be available on both by then as well as far as initial quality, etc.

belias · February 2007

Yeah, I probably will wait a little for the Denali and see how things pan out with owners of the first round of 07s.
As for the brake problems, I wasn't referring to your previous posts, I was referring to the recalls GM had a couple of years ago that made the headlines. I don't remember all the details, but I think there was a serious image problem for GM because they left some states out of the fix and were late to fix the problems or even admit a problem for many years. Here are a couple of links:

Consumer Affairs Link

NHTSA Gov Link

DOJ Link

geo9 · February 2007

No slam intended.....just old fingers typing faster than eyes ! :shades:

toykicks · February 2007

most recalled cars for 06 link title

Ram, Durango, Silverado/Sierra,Civic

belias · February 2007

jreagan,
Basically, to sum up my concerns, the issue for me isn't so much with the actual Silverado itself despite some past problems (I believe the new ones are much better). It really comes down to how I think GM treats its customers and their attitude towards fixes in general. Add to that the dealership difficulties and I don't envision a good experience. Heck, I would have gotten the Avalanche if it wasn't so expensive and if it didn't have some of the design issues that I mentioned previously. But there is a basic lack of respect and good treatment that I find in dealing with GM and Dodge (I can't speak for Ford). This is not necessarily everyone's experience, but even my immediate neighbors have had similar experiences and have altogether stopped buying from domestic dealerships (though their kids in college still are). What can I say? Attitude is the easiest thing to fix yet it is the most prevelant barrier to entry for me.

jreagan · February 2007

That I cannot argue since I tend to be the same way. If you piss me off, good luck getting my business ever again. It's just that dealers are NOT GM and vice versa. You should maybe consider another dealer rather than boycott GM. That's what I would do (and have done actually). There is a couple of dealers in town here that I shopped where I said to myself as I was walking out the door that I would never buy from. Mostly due to a salesman's attitude. But the dealer I bought from was straight up and I like that in a salesman. No BS, butt-kissin, etc, etc. After all, it's a business deal, that's it. He's not my friend, I am not his friend, don't try to pretend differently. That doesn't mean he doesn't have to be courteous, friendly and respectful, just not fakey and buddy, buddy. Know what I mean? I consider myself to be a slight pain in the rear as a customer. Not because I am a jerk or anything, but because I expect good service, quality answers to my questions and no BS. That is probably why I did my own research before ever stepping into a dealership. I did most of this before the trucks were even in dealerships yet, so when they did arrive, I literally knew more about them than the salesmen did.

Basically, in a nutshell. I dislike almost all car salesman. But that's ok, it's the people in the service dept that you need to like long term. And you can get your GM truck serviced at any GM dealership. There are literally dozens of GM dealerships for me to choose from in the Twin Cities or not too far away. Maybe that's why they are nicer, they know that I have choices. And even on warranty work, dealers still make money on servicework. Servicework is where dealers make their most profits anyway.

nvbanker · February 2007

Recall statistics are misleading IMO. You'll never see Japanese cars leading the recall stats - the Japanese manufacturers simply can't accept that they ever have a design flaw, and it takes some horrible issues to ever get them to issue a recall. They'll fix their cars on demand, but a recall is very rare. Mitsubishi was putting out some miserable cars a few years ago, with major design and safety flaws, but would ever issue any type of recall until forced to by our government.

I am the first to admit that the Asians make the best cars right now - however, the recall chart actually tells a different story that being a quality guage.

jreagan · February 2007

I am the first to admit that the Asians make the best cars right now

Best based on what? Reliability? Maybe in the car segment they used to be 10 years ago, but today most cars are all about the same in reliability...on average. But there is more to overall quality than just reliability. Yes, that is important and probably the most significant factor in most people's mind when it comes to judging quality. But let's not forget about all of the other criteria; Comfort, features, value, resale (although most Asian cars lead this category as well), fit and finish, etc.

KCRam · February 2007

That's the topic here. Recalls and other corporate issues... head over to the Automotive News and Views Board. Got it?

kcram - Pickups Host

toykicks · February 2007

asain cars? well not all "Asain" cars are better. But theres a few brands which stand out... GM is barely catching up after 20 years. Thats GM as a whole & if they continue to make POS' Then they will go under just like chrysler.

jaymack1979 · February 2007

GM makes a "pretty" truck and it is comfortable to drive. My experience is that they are not made to drive very often anymore. I just traded a 2006 LT2 z71 crew cab for an 07 Tundra sr5 4x4 dbl cab 5.7L.

The GM could not manage to stay out of the repair shop. In 5 mos, I racked up 25000 miles with very little towing. The outcome:
-new transfer case
-new rotors 2X
-new transmission seal
-new tires
-new water pump
-terrible noise from front diff when in 4wd
-terrible shaking called "beam shake" by GM engineers - a vibration that occurs at 45 and 70mph. No know cures for this, and GM realizes the problem.

This was the 3rd new GM in 11 yrs, and definitely the last. This is not the performance that I expected out of a $37,000.00 vehicle.

The Tundra: more power, better handling, better fuel mileage, more safety features - which is important if you drive as much as I do. I've barely acquired 2000 miles on this vehicle; It may break down tomorrow. However atleast I'm content.

...And I'm driving a true American made vehicle that doesnt just "look pretty".

Toyota Tundra vs. Chevrolet Silverado

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles