Sierra or Tundra

rwellbaum2 · August 2001

An old guy who lived next to me in Washington(the state) had a 1983 Toy 4x4 with 210,000. He routinely hauled vintage junkers from mexico with it. Many time with the bed loaded down with misc engine and tranny parts. I know for a fact, that he's still driving it today with over 280,000K

nato1 · August 2001

I'd take the toyota too. In fact I'd take a honda if they made a pick up.
BUT, if I had I the option of an old (lets say ' 71) Dodge pickup 150 with a slant 6 and 3 on the tree, that would be my choice.
Why is it that the tundra truck is the only truck that is 100% assembled in the U.S.?
by American hands?
not Canada or Mexico ( no offense ).

A housing contractor friend of mine has a (mid 80's) Toyota 4x4 with over 350K. It's not the prettiest, nor the quietest, but it keeps going. (P.S. burns 1/2 a quart of oil over 3k miles)

Later
Nate

nato1 · August 2001

Can someone answer these questions:
How can the tundra 'bottom' out (i'm guessing frame or skid plate hit the ground) when the tundra has 3" more clearance (out of the box) than any other truck (1500 class) ?

What percentage of trucks are actually used off-road ?

hillhound · August 2001

The Four Wheeler magazine claimed the Tundra front end "bottomed" while offroading. This means the front suspension was pushed up as far as it could travel. Whether or not this caused the front end of the truck to contact the gound I can't tell from the article (I doubt it). The testers claimed, based on this, that the Tundra's front suspension was too soft to provide better performance offroad.
Basically you can't get great offroad performance and have a nice soft road ride at the same time. As a result they recommeded the Tundra as a great daily driver but said to avoid it if you're looking for offroad capability.
As you can see, that extra 3" of front end clearance doesn't mean much when the front suspesnion is so soft. The Four Wheeler article claims the minimum ground clearance of the Tundra is only 8.8", which essentially the same as Ford, GM and Dodge.
And that harsh and stiff-riding suspension many people bash the GM for suddenly becomes a nice asset when doing a little 4 wheeling. Apparently you don't need the extra 3" up front if the suspension is nice and stiff!

hillhound · August 2001

I don't know what percentage of trucks are used offroad. I would guess that the average person's definition of "offroad" might vary.
Personally, my trucks have gone off the beaten path I would guess 1 to 2 dozen times per year mainly on a hunting or fishing trip. As a rule I only do that when I need to get somewhere and I don't go offorad just for fun.

ryanbab · August 2001

My truck was 100% assembled in the US in the same state as the tundra (indiana) Fort wayne Indiana to be exact

amorales · August 2001

I would take the DODGE RAM w/Cummins turbodiesel inline 20 valve million mile engine, IS THERE ANY OTHER?????

mr620 · August 2001

your post:
If the Tundra is so good can you explain this..
Tundra YTD sales 49,344
Silverado YTD Sales 347,750
Sierra YTD Sales 96,213
Sounds to me that the Toy lovers are in a rather
small minority...
-------------------
gator, sales volume is not a good measure of quality of an item. If i use your logic, then roll-royce, ferrari, lotus are crappy automobiles as there YTD sales volumes are even less than tundra.

modvptnl · August 2001

"I would take the DODGE RAM w/Cummins turbodiesel inline 20 valve million mile engine, IS THERE ANY OTHER????? "

How the he!! do you divide 20 valves into 6 cylinders????

Even if the TWENTY-FOUR valve motor lasted 1,000,000 miles, all you'd have left is a diesel motor and a steering wheel at less than a quarter of that!!! The rest of the truck is a dodge after all!!

mr620 · August 2001

gm had been making trucks for over 70 years where as toyota maybe 20 years, so gm should have 50+ years of truck making experience advantage over toyota. All these debates going on here tell me that toyota had caught up to american truck manufacturers because their differences are not very large. GM still sell more trucks than toyota because gm legacy and many loyalist to american trucks. Give it 5 more years, the scale will tips toward japanese trucks. Just look at subcompact, the japanese and european wax the american products. Same goes for the compacts and intermediates. The only remaining holdout for amercian vehicles are their trucks and big mother luxury cars like caddy and crown vic. GM now take chances on quadrasteer, DOD and flex fuel. The [non-permissible content removed] and european stick to the winning formula of making a reliable, easy to use products that customer want and count on.

obyone · August 2001

"The [non-permissible content removed] and european stick to the winning formula of making a reliable, easy to use products that customer want and count on."

Have you been to tundrasolutions.com? Better check it out cause I'm not so sure on your winning formula. And FYI, the term "[non-permissible content removed]" is an insult to anyone of Japanese ancestry whether from Japan or the United States. Much similar to Canuck, Wop, [non-permissible content removed], Kraut, Spick and others if you get my drift.

ryanbab · August 2001

isnt a Canuck(s) a hockey team in canada?

gator36 · August 2001

"If i use your logic, then roll-royce, ferrari, lotus are crappy automobiles as there YTD sales volumes are even less than tundra."

As with alot of other posts here in this topic.
It is rather apparent that most Toyota FANatics are in some state of denial.

My original post was with regards to "If the Tundra is so good?" And I posted some facts with regards to my point of view.

If we were to look at your statement. Well, I don't think we should.. To even put a Rolls or a Ferrari in the same context is ridiculous.
Rolls and Ferrari both limit production numbers.
Rolls and Ferrari both are not marketed at the masses.
Rolls and Ferrari are both priced out of the average guys (or girls) range.

Again, if the Tundra was soo good, why are the production numbers soo low?
I don't think Toyota is limiting their production numbers to raise the price.
I would think, if they were soo good, then demand (note this word "demand") would raise production numbers or the price. (law of supply and demand)
Since neither is happening I would put it to conjecture that;
Toyota's second attempt at a "fullsize" truck is not faring well with the U.S. public.
I don't see any huge demand increases in the near future for this so called "fullsize" truck. Come on, it is not a Miata or a PT Cruiser... (Both of these vehicles had huge demands and subsequent price increases until production met demand)

mr620 · August 2001

i think u r the 1 in denial. History and reality don't lie. The european and japanese have beaten (cream) almost every class of american auto except trucks and suv. It is toyota business decision to go slow against american truck industry. Remember how crappy the 1st datsun and toyota were? Like i said, give toyota a few more years. Do u know where the car industry heading?
The trend is now reversing and the truck craze should subside. I dont think nissan, honda, toyota & mazda worry american car maker as much anymore, they got the korean on their back soon.

I'm not a toyota fanatics. I currently own and drive two 1976 gm boats.

You have contradicted yourself between remarks on rolls/ferrari and toyota.

your statement **Rolls and Ferrari both limit production numbers.
Rolls and Ferrari both are not marketed at the masses.
Rolls and Ferrari are both priced out of the average guys (or girls) range.**

Yet you then say **I don't think Toyota is limiting their production numbers to raise the price. I would think, if they were soo good, then demand (note this word "demand") would raise production numbers or the price. (law of supply and demand) **

If there are demand for rolls and ferrari like for toyota, then rolls * ferrari would make more of them. Are u saying rolls and ferrari don't like to make ton of money and be as big as like toyota? Give me a break.

ratboy3 · August 2001

I would agree the demand for the Tundra is not comparable to the other brands being a relatively new product. Also I think since it is being produced from one location that it would be impossible for them to match the numbers the other brands have. Just my opinion.. dont listen to me!

amorales · August 2001

world is my sliderule, ie 6 x 4 valves= 24 valves yes that is about right, but you must agree 1000% on the million mile cummins engine, so what if the Dodge Rambo pick-up up dies of rust, you can pull the engine out and put it in a Dodge Rambo with a worn out 318, or 360, forget it, not worth the expense of the exchange, umm yes a worn out '91 or '93 garaged Ram
2500 diesel may benefit form the turbo and extra power and torque. Yes that is about right.
Returning to topic immediately, the Tundra with an updated Lexus 300 HP DOHC V8 should do it. Sierra C3 may be contender

amorales · August 2001

was possibility of 4.8L Vortec pushrod, and the DOHC 4.2 inline six....the inline had 2-3 different HP configurations. One model of the Colorado looked like the old Jeep Commanche, i think they revised the body style. Love those 2.8L 60 deg GM V6 equipped Commanches and cherokees, nice and gutless....

For Jason: Driving a Cummins Dodge diesel is akin to riding an elephant to work, A Tundra would be a gelding, a 2000 3/4 ton Chevy 350 would be a clydesdale and a Ford Lightning a
3 legged Thoroughbred

gator36 · August 2001

Go back to business school.

If you would understand the laws of supply and demand my previous post would not be so hard for you to understand.

If the Tundra was a high demand vehicle and production could not meet demand, price would be artificially increased. More people on dealer lots looking for Tundras than Tundras are available. That is not the case.
Once more, knowing how anal the Japanese are in the auto industry, I seriously doubt that they would build a plant that cannot meet demand.
Business school tells a company to build with a safe margin.

With regards to Ferrari and Rolls. I seriously doubt that they cost nearly as much to build as they go for at the dealers. These are high margin items with a known demand. The makers limit production so they can exact a higher price for their product. Reputation, status and quality vs. sheer numbers is what these companies are looking for. Therefor if they keep supply low and demand is high, they can exact a high price for their goods.

mrurl · August 2001

Your contention that numbers don't equal demand does not hold water. The comparison to Rolls and Ferrari would be valid, as would the numbers, if the Tundra was priced at $100k. It is not. Toyota dealers here in Memphis are offering the same kinds of discounts as the Big 3 on 2001 models.

Further, your contention that a single plant limits the quantity they can produce is also invalid. GM makes 300k+ trucks at each of its plants. Toyota can only produce ~80k at theirs? I don't think so.

The newness idea as an excuse for low sales also is invalid. At first, the newness created so much demand that dealers were charging >MSRP - and getting it. Now the "Toyota at any cost" demand has been satisfied and standard discounting is in place.

The fact is that the majority of 1/2 ton buyers want a full sized truck, and the Toyota isn't.

Peter

mr620 · August 2001

of course the toyota executives know what amercian wanted, V8 full size truck. You think toyota engineers have a mental block when they r designing their trucks? It is my guess their business strategy to attack the american truck makers bit by bit. Why else datsun and toyota first trucks were 4 banger when american trucks back in teh 70's were roaming around with v8 350 and 454 ci. It is obvious that toyota truck is progressing each year with bigger engine and overall dimension. Like i keep saying, give toyota a few more years. Most people dislike toyota truck for now because of its size (limited cab space). It really beats me why toyota move so slow on matching american full size truck dimension.

mr620 · August 2001

i think u got confused with ratboy3 post. I don't even know where toyota trucks are made, USA or japan. So, i wouldn't know how many plant toyota have either.

nato1 · August 2001

It could be that the tundra is in a minority class, but the numbers from post #109 include fleet vehicles, right? i.e. electric companies, cable, phone, etc.
I think the numbers will always show one of the big three infront in sales, but you have to figure the 50,000 or so toyotas sold came from someplace. So did ford, chevy, or dodge loose the sale?
Not every one want's a tundra anyways. You can't plow with it, you can't get an 'access cab' with an 8' bed. It's not for everyone. So the people that bought the toyota, bought it because they wanted one.

hillhound · August 2001

From what I've seen, alot (not all) of Tundra owners are first time fullsize pickup buyers. They are either buying their first pickup or upgrading from a minitruck. A while back I came across some data that supported this statement but sorry I don't know where it was.
Toyota is taking some business from the big3 but alot of their Tundra sales are "new" business which the Tundra has created. I look at it as a kind of entry level truck for people who like to own a pickup because it's trendy and useful but don't want to be thought of as everyday work truck owners.

duckshooter · August 2001

"Further, your contention that a single plant limits the quantity they can produce is also invalid. GM makes 300k+ trucks at each of its plants. Toyota can only produce ~80k at theirs? I don't think so."

Do you know what it costs to build a brand-new, auto plant from scratch? Do you know where the money for this comes from? Do you know what Toyota's ROI numbers looked like for Tundra? Did they tell you their market penetration strategy by year? Are they even making money yet?

Have you researched the capacity of the existing Tundra plant? Are they right at their optimum production rates? Slightly under or over? Are you aware of the costs of expanding production [hint: it ain't linear] at the existing plant? Have you pored over their thousands of subcontracts with suppliers to ascertain which ones have additional capacity?

I could go on here... and no, I can't answer any of these questions either. But before I'd go making a remark like the one you did, I'd do some research.

It's probably a fairly safe bet that the Toyota people know EXACTLY what they're doing. After all, they sell the number one selling passenger car in America today (Camry) and the number one selling luxury sedan (Lexus). They didn't get there by being stupid.

duckshooter · August 2001

From what I've seen, the GM crowd pretty much don't know any better and just buy what their old man bought back in '69. Don't care too much about quality either, just don't want anybody lookin' at 'em funny for buyin' a furrin truck.

Sorry if this hacks a bunch of you off - just letting old hiller know these little biases don't do any good in the debate. I bought my Tundra (second time pickup buyer) because (1) it's fullsize enough for me; (2) it has a V-8 with all the horses I'll ever need; and (3) Toyota makes it. As I've said before - the only thing they could have done better was build it in Japan.

hillhound · August 2001

Please don't let my opinions get your feathers all ruffled! Take a look in the mirror. Sounds like you're making fun of people who are "brand loyal" to Big3 autos; am I right? The goofy thing here is that in the same post (126) you claim a main reason you let Toyota unload a Tundra on you is that "Toyota makes it"! Apparently you have biases the same as me.
Well ducky, you can quack on about "what the old man bought back in '69" 'til your shotgun shoots loose but here's why I bought my GM truck:
1. It has MORE horses than I'll ever need
2. It's a real fullsize (not a poser)
3. Toyota didn't make it!

quadrunner500 · August 2001

I thought you wanted to raise the level of discourse?

>>>From what I've seen, the GM crowd pretty much don't know any better and just buy what their old man bought back in '69. Don't care too much about quality either, just don't want anybody lookin' at 'em funny for buyin' a furrin truck.

>>>Sorry if this hacks a bunch of you off - just letting old hiller know these little biases don't do any good in the debate.

gator36 · August 2001

If you read myt post...
You would understand that I was not even close to implying that
1. Their current plant was at capacity.
2. The guys at Toyota didn't do their business plan.

The fact you obviously are looking at this with a slighted view.

I am a realist. I bought what I thought would suit me the best.
Sorry Ford guys.. Been there done that. Won't do it again.. Burned twice..
As far as Toys are concerned.. They seemed just like that to me Toys..
Friend had one with over 200,000 miles. I didn't like anything about it.
Test drove a Tundra... Did not like it...
Test drove the Dodge Did not like it..
Loved my Silverado..

By the way... My daddy drove a nissan when I was a kid..
So I guess your biased assumptions are all wet, like your feet..

duckshooter · August 2001

Of course you weren't insinuating they are at capacity - you were insinuating just the opposite. You were insinuating that Toyota could easily build more if they want to - easily. Just like GM churns out 300,000 from a plant. Just flip a switch and they start spewing out of the assembly line. To you, it's just a matter of demand - since demand for the Tundra is low (relative to GM's market share), Toyota chooses not to build more. I'm informing you that there are two sides to the equation: demand AND supply.

I'm insinuating that the Tundra plant may already be at capacity - or at it's optimum production level already. Automotive production is not a linear function - at a certain point it's a step function requiring a massive infusion of capital, hiring gobs more people and networking and certifying countless more suppliers.

Like - this is something you want to do as America is staring down a recession?

gator36 · August 2001

From your posts it seems asif you were insinuating that I only understood half of the supply and demand equation. That is not the case. Here let us look at the demand. I am sure Toyota knew that it's market share would be low to begin with. Therefor they staffed and supplied the plant appropriately.
What would be interesting is to see their forcast
numbers.
Where you might have been confused is by my earlier
statements regarding the Miata or the PT cruiser.
I used those two as an example of supply not meeting demand. Further I would find it hard to believe that Toyota would limit production artificially in order to increase the price of a vehicle. Obviously the current production numbers out of the Tundra plant are a good balance between supply and demand. I have yet to hear of a fire sale on the Tundras (i.e. Too many on dealer lots) conversely I have yet to hear of prices being artificially raised.

bamatundra · August 2001

The Tundra assembly plant was designed to produce 100,000 Tundras a year. They have been running at capacity for the last two years.

mrurl · August 2001

If the Toyotas plant is running at capacity why are they offering discounts? There is a $1000 rebate on Tundras here in Memphis. At the same time, VW dealers are getting $1000 over MSRP for the new Beetle.

That tells me that supply is slightly greater than demand. Maybe they are just trying to get rid of the 2001's with the rear drums to make way for the 2002's with 4 wheel disks.

Peter

rwellbaum2 · August 2001

The reason Toyota is offering $1000.00 is to compete with the $6000.00 offered off silverados and $8000.00 off Dodge. If price is the main consideration, now is a great time to buy a Dodge Ram. In comparasion, the Tundra is higher priced/overpriced. So why are 100,000 people a year still buying Tundras, even though they can get a lot beeter price on a Silverado or Ram? That's a complex question involving personal choice and perceived quality issues.
Also, the Tundra plant is designed with 2 lines. They can produce 100,000 Tundras on one line and 100,000 trucks on a second line. The Sequoia is being built on the second line. They have 2 choices rergarding demand for Tundras. #1 Keep prices high on the Tundra to make up for lower sales or #2 shut down the Sequoia line, re-tool, re-train and produce more Tundras at a lower price to the consumer. Consindering the greater profit margin on the Sequoia, it wouldn't make sense to do the latter.

jcmdie · August 2001

Where do we go to get these trucks at $8,000 discount? Point me the way. I haven't seen anything remotely like that. In fact my local Dodge dealer has less than a handfull of 2001 Rams available on the lot. Don't see $8,000 off any of those. I'd be first in line.

chevytruck_fan · August 2001

I see the toyota crowd has nothing over the sierra so they are on personal attacks of Silverado and Sierra owners, boy that shure makes me want to buy a tundra.

6,000$ of Sierra, where do you come up with this stuff. The average GM discount is about $2,000 on all their vehicles, so why would they offer $6,000 discount on one of their most demanded product? I mean honestly where do you come up with this junk?

I hate to tell you this but toyota tundras aren't a limited product there are plenty on lots too buy. it shows your posts are bull when you talk about how toyota wants to keep up with GM on incentives yet they sell all the trucks they make? why would they need incentives if they sold all the trucks they make? Also Sequios aren't exactly the hottest item either, the Trailblazer has been out less time and out sells the Sequoia no problem.

gator36 · August 2001

bamatundra · August 2001

There are no rear disks for '02. Although Toyota is offering rebates, they are less than Shakerado or Sierra.

Why should Toyota change the most powerful brakes on any 1/2 ton pickup? You aren't making sense here.

bamatundra · August 2001

Here is the conclusion:

"As we were preparing the Wrap-Up for our GMC Sierra, we decided to jot down a list of every problem ever reported in the logbook and its resolution; so as not to leave anything out. After examining all 24 updates, we had well over three pages of problems. Even more striking was our realization that in two years, the Sierra had 20 warranty repairs. That's a new record for the long-term program, doubling our '99 Jeep Grand Cherokee's nine."

http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/longterm/articles/44039/page024.html

bamatundra · August 2001

Sierra or Tundra

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles