(I will say, I find it a bit amusing that some of the GM faithful are bragging about CR's high ratings of GM vehicles of late, yet completely disregarded CR's credibility when GM vehicles used to score poorly.)
Bragging is now stating facts? I thought bragging was when it was half made up?
The GM 6.2 liter gasser was just crowned HP, Torque, and tow king.
Even the V6 has awesome Torque at 1500 revs and 50% HP increase along with a respectable 24 mpg hwy rating.
The 5.3 355 HP tows 8500 and gets 23 hwy, beating all other competitors V8s in mpgs.
All 3 all new engines become 2.7-3.1 liter V4s when cruising.
The real test of a tow/fuel mileage champ, is if it can accomplish both at the same time. Super tall rear axle and final drive ratios, (GM) make for competitive EPA FE numbers, but put that same truck to work.. and then the real numbers become revealed. Usually unimpressive.
"The GM 6.2 liter gasser was just crowned HP, Torque, and tow king. "
Considering it's not even out yet, that remains to be seen. Honestly, towing 12k lbs really requires a 3/4 ton. Plus you won't see many 6.2s available considering it's only available on the top trim levels. That said, I'm sure the 6.2 will be impressive, it just will be one expensive truck. It will be to the point that buying a 3/4 ton diesel may make more sense.
What's odd is when I went to my local Chevy dealer, they didn't have a v6 model on the lot and every truck with the 5.3 had 3.08 gears. Yuck.
I didn't bother to drive a Silverado as I didn't care for the looks inside and out. Just a personal preference. Who knows, I may end up regretting buying a Ram, but I simply like it's looks the best and the 8 speed trans is really slick. It's by far the best auto trans I've ever had performance wise and it's super smooth. What's really cool is now that's it has become accustom to how I drive it has completely changed how quick it up shifts. It doesn't up shift nearly as soon as it did the first few hundred miles. The truck makes my wife's Taurus feel dog slow.
Who knows, I may end up regretting buying a Ram, but I simply like it's looks the best and the 8 speed trans is really slick.
Hope it proves to be a good truck for you. September 23 marks the one year anniversary for my 2012 Ram...and it doesn't even have 5,000 miles on it yet!
I have a few complaints, but overall I don't think any are big enough to make me regret buying the truck. My biggest issue is that it simply feels too cumbersome in tight maneuvers. But, I have a feeling that would be any full-sized truck today, and not Ram-specific. I tend to use my old '85 Silverado as sort of a benchmark, and all trucks have gotten bigger since then. I think my Ram is about 233" long. I think I've seen measurements for the Silverado published at a mere 212", but that almost seems too short. For some reason I'm thinking that back in those days the length measurement didn't include the rear bumper, which was technically optional. That would probably add another 8" to the total.
And, I can't remember a time when it was common to see pickup trucks without rear bumpers. Maybe I'll just take a tape measure to it, and see what it comes up with.
I also think the transmission is a weak spot in my Ram, but I have the 6-speed, not the 8-speed. To me, it feels like it shifts roughly, and sometimes takes too long to shift. But, as little as the truck gets driven, I wonder if it's still trying to learn my habits?
"I have a few complaints, but overall I don't think any are big enough to make me regret buying the truck. My biggest issue is that it simply feels too cumbersome in tight maneuvers. But, I have a feeling that would be any full-sized truck today, and not Ram-specific."
No it's certainly not ram specific. In tight situations my Expedition was docile compared to the Ram. I'm still getting used to parking it and the rear camera is a huge help.
Since mine is a crew cab with a 6'4" bed, it's like 239 inches long. So it's definitely a PITA in tight spaces and it barely fits in my garage. Add the towing mirrors and you really have to watch out for them.
I had to take last week into downtown Chicago and that was interesting to say the least.
I didn't think I'd like the knob for a gear shift, but I really like it. I like it now and it makes a 3 point turn around a breeze and I like how it opens up the center console.
Andre, one thing you may want to do is contact your dealer regarding the shift quality in your Ram. The 6 speed in my Expedition had some shift issues when I first got it. It would shift hard when downshifting from 6th gear and get confused when coming to a stop. The dealer performed a reflash with a software update and the problem was resolved.
Andre or dieselone, was it here or maybe Midsize 2.0 during a slight derailment that we were talking about Ram trucks, and someone made a comment about it not having a very good ride. I meant to ask them about it but then something came up and I had to log off..then I forgot where that was to ask later. Not sure if it was either of you or someone else...do you remember that conversation?
The comment sounded curious to me because I thought they had gone back to coil spring rear suspension to try to make the ride better than Ford or GM.
Yeah the Ram has rear coil springs. I think it rides well. It's still a pickup, so it's firm, but overall I find it to be one of the Ram's strengths. Particularly over choppy roads as the rear axle does a good job of staying planted to the road. Overall I think it rides better than my Expedition did. A lot of that might be with the Ram (or any pickup) having a much longer wheel base.
No question, the ride is considered a strong point when you look at comparisons with other 1/2 ton trucks. The flip side is with coil springs it doesn't have the payload capacity of a GM or Ford. But that's not an issue for me.
I haven't driven the new GM trucks, but the ride in a Silverado seems to be an area that gets negative reviews in the articles I've read. But that's the price to be paid for maximum cargo and tow ratings.
That's why I don't think there is one best truck. It depends on what your needs and wants are. I wanted something more stylish inside and out and I really like how the Ram drives. To me it drives more like a fulsize SUV than a pickup.
The steering and brakes feel more responsive than some of the other trucks I've driven. Since I don't need to haul two tons in the bed or tow 10k lbs, the Ram is a good fit for my needs. But that doesn't mean it's the best truck for everyone or even overall. As I generally agree with CR's ratings on the Ram and Silverado.
I'm not overly impressed with the ride in my Ram, but it could be because I'm more used to cars, and the only truck point of reference I really have is, again, my '85 Silverado.
In my case, I think it's simply because they engineered the Ram to make the body so stiff and solid, and that might hurt the ride a bit. With my '85 Silverado, for example, I can see the bed flex a bit compared to the cab on rough roads, but with the Ram, it feels like it's all one piece. I think that flexing might lead to a slightly smoother ride.
My uncle, whose '97 Silverado we used as a trade for the Ram, says it rides a bit rough, as well. And I even remember commenting to the salesguy that I thought it rode a bit rough, the day I bought it, and my uncle said "That's because you're used to a Chevy!"
Still, it's not so rough as to be unbearable, or anything like that. Also, with mine just having the 8 foot bed and yours having the crew cab, I wonder if yours might have a bit more weight over the rear axle? That might improve its ride a bit?
And, I haven't driven a newer GM or Ford truck in years, other than the small, closed courses they have at the car shows in Carlisle, PA, so I can't really comment on how I feel my Ram compares to the competition. Like you've said, I don't think there's a real winner or loser out there, anymore.
"I'm not overly impressed with the ride in my Ram, but it could be because I'm more used to cars, and the only truck point of reference I really have is, again, my '85 Silverado. "
I've driven a friend's '13 Silverado LT 4x4. The suspension in it is definitely softer than my Ram. But it shakes and jiggles over everything. The Ram definitely is more taught and controlled and overall feels smoother to me as the truck doesn't sake and shimmy all over the road.
What's odd is in some ways I think the Ram rides better than my wife's Taurus. Slight bumps are more noticeable in the Ram, but say going over rough railroad tracks, the Ram isn't as jarring as the Taurus. It may have something to do with having 20" rims with much taller tires vs. the Taurus.
I'd think if you're used to something like a Park Ave, any current pickup won't seem to ride very well, I'd think.
" I wonder if yours might have a bit more weight over the rear axle? That might improve its ride a bit? "
I quickly looked up curb weights and according to Ram, my CrewCab 6'4" bed Laramie 4x4 weighs about 5,600lbs vs 4,850 for a 2wd single cab 8' bed tradesmen. So yeah, mine weighs quite a bit more.
Mine probably weighs more than 5,600lbs due to having a few options on top of the Laramie package like a power moon roof, etc.
Comparing the weight between your truck and mine kind of shows why trucks have gained so much weight vs 20 or 30 years ago. Crew cabs were pretty much non existent on 1/2 tons and they were fairly basic vehicles compared to what's available today. I think a higher percentage of pickups sold with 2wd 30+ years ago too. I was surprised your truck was under 5k lbs. The 4x4 Laramie Longhorn and Laramie Limited are around 6k lbs.
Pickups have gotten so tall, built in steps for the beds are getting pretty common (my brother has some kind of fold-out gizmo in the tailgate of his newish F-150).
Power hatches are de rigueur now for SUVs - tailgate lifts for truck beds will be the next must have feature for the everyday pickemup truck.
Actually, I was a bit surprised that my Ram isn't heavier, as well. According to the scale at the local landfill, my '85 Silverado is around 4200 lb. So that would mean the Ram is only about 650 lb heavier. Considering the added height, length, beefing up, safety equipment, and so on, I would think there would be a bigger difference.
I've seen a few Impala LTZs running around lately and I've got to say it's really grown on me. It has real presence to it. I'm not particularly fond of the rear styling, but overall it does look like a nice car.
One of the other Dads at my daughter's sorority's "Dad's Weekend" was driving a new Impala. It was a rental and he was not a car guy--said he didn't even know anything about the new Impala. He liked it but did comment seeing out the rear was hard, which I've heard elsewhere.
I totally like the car. If I could swing one, I'd buy one in a hearbeat (no pun intended).
I do think the LT's need the bright side molding of the LTZ.
The rear styling to me is imitative of the Sonata...wish they would've done something a la '87 and '88 Thunderbird and did three lights under one smoked lens, or something, in back.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
The Impala isn't alone regarding rear visibility. Seems most cars these days are horrible in that area and almost make a rear camera a necessity.
Backing out of a parking space in my wife's Taurus is a daunting task. I'm surprised I haven't backed into something or someone yet. Being a standard trim level Taurus it doesn't have a rear camera or sensors and you certainly can't see well out the rear window.
Funny you'd mention the '87-88 T-bird. I always liked the taillight treatment on that one and yeah, I always thought it would've worked well on a Chevy.
I think the Impala's rear is okay looking...definitely not ugly. But just too generic. It does have a Hyundai-ish look about it. So does the rump of the Chrysler 200, IMO.
I don't think the rear of the Impala is ugly, just not as well styled as the rest of the car. Like Andre said, it looks kind of generic, particularly on the lower trim levels without dual exhaust.
Overall though, If I were in the market for a family sedan, I'd certainly check one out and take it for a spin.
My BIL still has his 07 and it is well over 100 thousand miles and still chugging along with zero unscheduled repairs. And my Buddy who was a former service manager for GMC (and lemon lawed one of his Sierra's and sold his second lemon dirt cheap) still has one of the very first 5.7L monsters and it too has had no unscheduled maintainence except for a recall notice. not sure his mileage tho...
So Congrats to the gentlemen and women of San Antonio, you've got (2) very happy owners that I know of Keep up the good work!
I have a couple of boating buddies that have '08-09 Tundras and they love them too. All previously Chevy truck owners and swear they'll never go back.
That said, I've driven my buddies '08 Tundra CrewMax Limited many times and while the powertrain rocks, the rest of the truck isn't anything special to me. But no doubt they appear to have very good reliability.
As a non-truck guy myself, I can believe the product doesn't match up to the best in the business (F-series) or even your new RAM. I've read the reviews and IMO, Toyota seems to be letting the product whither on the vine, especially with the new model which will be on store shelves with carryover engines, trannies and frame... The big truck makers are certainly putting a ton more effort into their latest offerings, and as far as looks go, I gotta give props to the RAM, it's the best looking of the bunch IMO.
I will say that the one thing I really like about the Tundra (outside of the engine) is that they drive so much mile a car to me. I could actually live with one as a daily driver if I had to, although my friends and BIL are DC and CrewMax versions.
I would probably go with the short box, single cab with the 5.7L (with the TRD Bolt-on pack).
"I have a couple of boating buddies that have '08-09 Tundras and they love them too"
Those owners should hope that their frames will not rust out like earlier models. Owners of 2005 and 2006 Trucks are now seeing the typical frame rust seen in earlier models. Although there is no formal program in place for the later years as they have had for the pre-2001 models (buyback program) and the 2001-2004 models (frame replacement) Toyota has been stepping up and replacing the frames on 2005 and 2006 models on a case by case basis.
No matter how reliable a vehicle is or how much the owner likes it if an inspection of the frame results in a recommendation that the vehicle is unsafe to drive, and if the manufacturer will not step up and agree to fix it at a cost north of $12,000, then that vehicle must be junked resulting in a complete loss to the owner. Luckily Toyota has been paying for the re-frames but have of late been requiring the owners to have yearly inspections as well as limiting their liability to 15 years. That means owners of 1998 and older Tacomas and Tundras with unsafe frames are out of luck.
Needless to say I would recommend anyone purchasing an older Toyota Truck to have the frame inspected carefully. Many of them from southern states are fine, but personally I would not take a chance on a used one and I would recommend dumping them when they are around 6-8 years old assuming that the frames look OK.
While the 3.08 is base ratio, 3.48 and 3.72 are no cost options. However, the 11,200 # base towing of the GM 6.2 is still 700 lbs above the next closest competitor. So, yes, it can accomplish both at the same time.
I guess that makes GM unusually Impressive now that the real numbers are revealed?
A guy said that looking out the rear of new Impala is difficult.
The side windows and rear window of many cars are too short. For styling purposes probably. The extreme on this matter is the Camaro.
Have a friend that is American brand only and would like to buy a Chrysler or Buick larger size car. But, he says that the 300 and the LaCrosse windows are too small and severely limit visibility for himself and his wife as drivers. He otherwise likes these cars but will not buy them.
The shape and window size of the cars mentioned to indeed limit visibility. Has he considered that back-up cameras and lane change alert systems can mitigate this deficiency?
It's probably a conspiracy theory but it just occurred to me that maybe these cars were designed so that buyers need to spend extra money for nannies.
Part of the problem is that side impact and rollover standards are stricter, so that's forced thicker roof pillars and higher window sills on us. But, as you mentioned, the Accord does show that it doesn't have to be that way.
My only experience with the newest Accord is sitting in one for a few minutes at an auto show. I can't remember how its visibility was. I have a feeling it's still compromised, compared to older cars. But, I'm sure it's better than something like a 300 or Charger.
I had to drive our company fleet Impala a year or so ago, a 2011 model I think. Its view out the back was almost non-existent. Between the high trunklid, headrests, thick pillars, etc, it had roughly the same visibility to the rear as a U-Haul truck.
I did drive the new Impala at a car show earlier this year, but can't remember how the view out the back was. This was just around on a test loop, and I didn't have to worry about backing up.
I'm driving a used '13 Avenger while the dealer re-details my Ram. Man does this car suck. It's god awful slow and the 4cyl is crude. It's reasonable quiet while cruising, but man it doesn't have much power when you step on the gas. I couldn't imagine paying the $16k they're asking for it. No way. It feels cheap and it butt ugly to boot.
I think the Impala actually has a backup camera that appears on a screen in the middle of the instrument panel. I remember the demonstrator showing that feature. I know it's on the Cadillac XTS and ATS I test drove earlier this year.
It had the 2.0 turbo-four. It didn't seem bad and had a lot of power with no turbo-lag. I was thinking of it as a car for my wife, but it didn't seem like a bad car for me. I actually liked it better than the XTS.
I'm driving a used '13 Avenger while the dealer re-details my Ram. Man does this car suck. It's god awful slow and the 4cyl is crude. It's reasonable quiet while cruising, but man it doesn't have much power when you step on the gas. I couldn't imagine paying the $16k they're asking for it. No way. It feels cheap and it butt ugly to boot. ________________
I agree with you 100%. The slowness and lack of power is not just subjective, but objective. The car is slow compared to 95% of the cars on the road. Anyone who says otherwise is paid by Chrysler in some manner.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Just talked to my new middle-manager boss who was recently promoted from another team.
Everyone liked his new '14 Acura MDX. Someone said what happened to your new Jeep?
He said he had to get rid of it, and trade it in; that it was a total lemon in its first year and he lost $4,000 on it (not to mention countless loss of use days). A couple including me asked about Virgina/Maryland lemon laws.
He mentioned something about a short timespan to use it. He didn't sound too sure of himself, I think he just rushed to get rid of it and didn't put up much of a fight to get Chrysler to cover the lemon losses like I would have.
Of course, I'm smart enough to not repeat mistakes I made in the 90's.
I just mentioned something about Chrysler being known for having lots of lemons.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I do find it amusing that the first-year Cobalt is considered more reliable by CR than subsequent years. That sure is conventional thinking, isn't it? ____________________________________
I only find that amusing because it proves that GM has no quality control or assurance standards to speak of. They probably de-contented the hell out of that car after the first year and the results are what you see.
I know I know, you'll say nothing changed. Sometimes specifications that have been lowered are not visible to the untrained naked eye.
Sometimes you won't notice those cost cuts until after the warranty expires.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Car magazine testers said the Cadillac 4-cyl ATS was crude, maybe not refined. Did you find that to be true?
A Cadillac with a 4-cylinder. Is Cadillac rerunning the ill fated Cimmaron that had a 4-cylinder? Should a Cadillac have a V8 or a V6 only? Isn't a 4-cylinder engine for compact cars primarily? Not for a luxury brand?
Comments
Bragging is now stating facts? I thought bragging was when it was half made up?
The GM 6.2 liter gasser was just crowned HP, Torque, and tow king.
Even the V6 has awesome Torque at 1500 revs and 50% HP increase along with a respectable 24 mpg hwy rating.
The 5.3 355 HP tows 8500 and gets 23 hwy, beating all other competitors V8s in mpgs.
All 3 all new engines become 2.7-3.1 liter V4s when cruising.
Maybe the belt driven fans are gone too.
Considering it's not even out yet, that remains to be seen. Honestly, towing 12k lbs really requires a 3/4 ton. Plus you won't see many 6.2s available considering it's only available on the top trim levels. That said, I'm sure the 6.2 will be impressive, it just will be one expensive truck. It will be to the point that buying a 3/4 ton diesel may make more sense.
What's odd is when I went to my local Chevy dealer, they didn't have a v6 model on the lot and every truck with the 5.3 had 3.08 gears. Yuck.
I didn't bother to drive a Silverado as I didn't care for the looks inside and out. Just a personal preference. Who knows, I may end up regretting buying a Ram, but I simply like it's looks the best and the 8 speed trans is really slick. It's by far the best auto trans I've ever had performance wise and it's super smooth. What's really cool is now that's it has become accustom to how I drive it has completely changed how quick it up shifts. It doesn't up shift nearly as soon as it did the first few hundred miles. The truck makes my wife's Taurus feel dog slow.
One of my auto encyclopedias jokingly states that those Japanese monster movies were inspired by the 1961 Plymouth!
Hope it proves to be a good truck for you. September 23 marks the one year anniversary for my 2012 Ram...and it doesn't even have 5,000 miles on it yet!
I have a few complaints, but overall I don't think any are big enough to make me regret buying the truck. My biggest issue is that it simply feels too cumbersome in tight maneuvers. But, I have a feeling that would be any full-sized truck today, and not Ram-specific. I tend to use my old '85 Silverado as sort of a benchmark, and all trucks have gotten bigger since then. I think my Ram is about 233" long. I think I've seen measurements for the Silverado published at a mere 212", but that almost seems too short. For some reason I'm thinking that back in those days the length measurement didn't include the rear bumper, which was technically optional. That would probably add another 8" to the total.
And, I can't remember a time when it was common to see pickup trucks without rear bumpers. Maybe I'll just take a tape measure to it, and see what it comes up with.
I also think the transmission is a weak spot in my Ram, but I have the 6-speed, not the 8-speed. To me, it feels like it shifts roughly, and sometimes takes too long to shift. But, as little as the truck gets driven, I wonder if it's still trying to learn my habits?
No it's certainly not ram specific. In tight situations my Expedition was docile compared to the Ram. I'm still getting used to parking it and the rear camera is a huge help.
Since mine is a crew cab with a 6'4" bed, it's like 239 inches long. So it's definitely a PITA in tight spaces and it barely fits in my garage. Add the towing mirrors and you really have to watch out for them.
I had to take last week into downtown Chicago and that was interesting to say the least.
I didn't think I'd like the knob for a gear shift, but I really like it. I like it now and it makes a 3 point turn around a breeze and I like how it opens up the center console.
The comment sounded curious to me because I thought they had gone back to coil spring rear suspension to try to make the ride better than Ford or GM.
No question, the ride is considered a strong point when you look at comparisons with other 1/2 ton trucks. The flip side is with coil springs it doesn't have the payload capacity of a GM or Ford. But that's not an issue for me.
I haven't driven the new GM trucks, but the ride in a Silverado seems to be an area that gets negative reviews in the articles I've read. But that's the price to be paid for maximum cargo and tow ratings.
That's why I don't think there is one best truck. It depends on what your needs and wants are. I wanted something more stylish inside and out and I really like how the Ram drives. To me it drives more like a fulsize SUV than a pickup.
The steering and brakes feel more responsive than some of the other trucks I've driven. Since I don't need to haul two tons in the bed or tow 10k lbs, the Ram is a good fit for my needs. But that doesn't mean it's the best truck for everyone or even overall. As I generally agree with CR's ratings on the Ram and Silverado.
In my case, I think it's simply because they engineered the Ram to make the body so stiff and solid, and that might hurt the ride a bit. With my '85 Silverado, for example, I can see the bed flex a bit compared to the cab on rough roads, but with the Ram, it feels like it's all one piece. I think that flexing might lead to a slightly smoother ride.
My uncle, whose '97 Silverado we used as a trade for the Ram, says it rides a bit rough, as well. And I even remember commenting to the salesguy that I thought it rode a bit rough, the day I bought it, and my uncle said "That's because you're used to a Chevy!"
Still, it's not so rough as to be unbearable, or anything like that. Also, with mine just having the 8 foot bed and yours having the crew cab, I wonder if yours might have a bit more weight over the rear axle? That might improve its ride a bit?
And, I haven't driven a newer GM or Ford truck in years, other than the small, closed courses they have at the car shows in Carlisle, PA, so I can't really comment on how I feel my Ram compares to the competition. Like you've said, I don't think there's a real winner or loser out there, anymore.
I've driven a friend's '13 Silverado LT 4x4. The suspension in it is definitely softer than my Ram. But it shakes and jiggles over everything. The Ram definitely is more taught and controlled and overall feels smoother to me as the truck doesn't sake and shimmy all over the road.
What's odd is in some ways I think the Ram rides better than my wife's Taurus. Slight bumps are more noticeable in the Ram, but say going over rough railroad tracks, the Ram isn't as jarring as the Taurus. It may have something to do with having 20" rims with much taller tires vs. the Taurus.
I'd think if you're used to something like a Park Ave, any current pickup won't seem to ride very well, I'd think.
I quickly looked up curb weights and according to Ram, my CrewCab 6'4" bed Laramie 4x4 weighs about 5,600lbs vs 4,850 for a 2wd single cab 8' bed tradesmen. So yeah, mine weighs quite a bit more.
Mine probably weighs more than 5,600lbs due to having a few options on top of the Laramie package like a power moon roof, etc.
Comparing the weight between your truck and mine kind of shows why trucks have gained so much weight vs 20 or 30 years ago. Crew cabs were pretty much non existent on 1/2 tons and they were fairly basic vehicles compared to what's available today. I think a higher percentage of pickups sold with 2wd 30+ years ago too. I was surprised your truck was under 5k lbs. The 4x4 Laramie Longhorn and Laramie Limited are around 6k lbs.
Power hatches are de rigueur now for SUVs - tailgate lifts for truck beds will be the next must have feature for the everyday pickemup truck.
I totally like the car. If I could swing one, I'd buy one in a hearbeat (no pun intended).
I do think the LT's need the bright side molding of the LTZ.
The rear styling to me is imitative of the Sonata...wish they would've done something a la '87 and '88 Thunderbird and did three lights under one smoked lens, or something, in back.
Backing out of a parking space in my wife's Taurus is a daunting task. I'm surprised I haven't backed into something or someone yet. Being a standard trim level Taurus it doesn't have a rear camera or sensors and you certainly can't see well out the rear window.
I think the Impala's rear is okay looking...definitely not ugly. But just too generic. It does have a Hyundai-ish look about it. So does the rump of the Chrysler 200, IMO.
Overall though, If I were in the market for a family sedan, I'd certainly check one out and take it for a spin.
My BIL still has his 07 and it is well over 100 thousand miles and still chugging along with zero unscheduled repairs. And my Buddy who was a former service manager for GMC (and lemon lawed one of his Sierra's and sold his second lemon dirt cheap) still has one of the very first 5.7L monsters and it too has had no unscheduled maintainence except for a recall notice. not sure his mileage tho...
So Congrats to the gentlemen and women of San Antonio, you've got (2) very happy owners that I know of
That said, I've driven my buddies '08 Tundra CrewMax Limited many times and while the powertrain rocks, the rest of the truck isn't anything special to me. But no doubt they appear to have very good reliability.
I will say that the one thing I really like about the Tundra (outside of the engine) is that they drive so much mile a car to me. I could actually live with one as a daily driver if I had to, although my friends and BIL are DC and CrewMax versions.
I would probably go with the short box, single cab with the 5.7L (with the TRD Bolt-on pack).
Those owners should hope that their frames will not rust out like earlier models. Owners of 2005 and 2006 Trucks are now seeing the typical frame rust seen in earlier models. Although there is no formal program in place for the later years as they have had for the pre-2001 models (buyback program)
and the 2001-2004 models (frame replacement) Toyota has been stepping up and replacing the frames on 2005 and 2006 models on a case by case basis.
No matter how reliable a vehicle is or how much the owner likes it if an inspection of the frame results in a recommendation that the vehicle is unsafe to drive, and if the manufacturer will not step up and agree to fix it at a cost north of $12,000, then that vehicle must be junked resulting in a complete loss to the owner. Luckily Toyota has been paying for the re-frames but have of late been requiring the owners to have yearly inspections as well as limiting their liability to 15 years. That means owners of 1998 and older Tacomas and Tundras with unsafe frames are out of luck.
Needless to say I would recommend anyone purchasing an older Toyota Truck to have the frame inspected carefully. Many of them from southern states are fine, but personally I would not take a chance on a used one and I would recommend dumping them when they are around 6-8 years old assuming that the frames look OK.
'24 Chevy Blazer EV 2LT
These 2005 Tacomas sure did not. 8 years is alot less than forever.
www.arfc.org/complaints/2005/toyota/tacoma/structure/problem.aspx
I guess that makes GM unusually Impressive now that the real numbers are revealed?
The side windows and rear window of many cars are too short. For styling purposes probably. The extreme on this matter is the Camaro.
Have a friend that is American brand only and would like to buy a Chrysler or Buick larger size car. But, he says that the 300 and the LaCrosse windows are too small and severely limit visibility for himself and his wife as drivers. He otherwise likes these cars but will not buy them.
It's probably a conspiracy theory but it just occurred to me that maybe these cars were designed so that buyers need to spend extra money for nannies.
'24 Chevy Blazer EV 2LT
My only experience with the newest Accord is sitting in one for a few minutes at an auto show. I can't remember how its visibility was. I have a feeling it's still compromised, compared to older cars. But, I'm sure it's better than something like a 300 or Charger.
I had to drive our company fleet Impala a year or so ago, a 2011 model I think. Its view out the back was almost non-existent. Between the high trunklid, headrests, thick pillars, etc, it had roughly the same visibility to the rear as a U-Haul truck.
I did drive the new Impala at a car show earlier this year, but can't remember how the view out the back was. This was just around on a test loop, and I didn't have to worry about backing up.
As for the XTS, I think just get an Impala LTZ, other than the rear end styling, I think it looks better.
________________
I agree with you 100%. The slowness and lack of power is not just subjective, but objective. The car is slow compared to 95% of the cars on the road. Anyone who says otherwise is paid by Chrysler in some manner.
Just talked to my new middle-manager boss who was recently promoted from another team.
Everyone liked his new '14 Acura MDX. Someone said what happened to your new Jeep?
He said he had to get rid of it, and trade it in; that it was a total lemon in its first year and he lost $4,000 on it (not to mention countless loss of use days). A couple including me asked about Virgina/Maryland lemon laws.
He mentioned something about a short timespan to use it. He didn't sound too sure of himself, I think he just rushed to get rid of it and didn't put up much of a fight to get Chrysler to cover the lemon losses like I would have.
Of course, I'm smart enough to not repeat mistakes I made in the 90's.
I just mentioned something about Chrysler being known for having lots of lemons.
Am I missing something? Have they invented a 5 minute fill-up?
____________________________________
I only find that amusing because it proves that GM has no quality control or assurance standards to speak of. They probably de-contented the hell out of that car after the first year and the results are what you see.
I know I know, you'll say nothing changed. Sometimes specifications that have been lowered are not visible to the untrained naked eye.
Sometimes you won't notice those cost cuts until after the warranty expires.
A Cadillac with a 4-cylinder. Is Cadillac rerunning the ill fated Cimmaron that had a 4-cylinder? Should a Cadillac have a V8 or a V6 only? Isn't a 4-cylinder engine for compact cars primarily? Not for a luxury brand?