Anybody have any thoughts on the upcoming Nissan and Honda pickups???

tavgrad

tavgrad "HONEST OPINIONS: Are Toyota's Pickups Just as Good as The Big Three?" Nov 19, 2001 8:23am

have your cat fights there.

rsholland

The more the merrier. I'm all for injecting some new blood (and thinking) into the pickup arena.

Bob

tavgrad

I wouldn't mind taking a Mercedes pickup for a spin. Benzes have been making trucks for decades. Not the minivan like one...The Galandewagon (G500 here) is all truck...with a 300 hp 5L engine. Now, stretch out the wheelbase, make it only PT 4WD (shedding about 500 pounds)...What is it that DaimlerChrysler workhorse called...the Unimog?

BMW has also been toying with the idea...

rsholland

is coming over here (it may already be here?) as a Freightliner.

I'd also like to see here more mainstream light trucks from Europe. Unfortunately, until they get rid of the "chicken tax," it won't happen.

Bob

tavgrad

That old handicap. Toyota for one..Even though it's built here, I'm sure that US GOvt. has restrictions set on Tundra.

Toyota has been working on other trucks, that have been stemmed from the third world LandCruisers.
I'd like a LR pickup to set foot on US soil, too.

jim4444

Cost is the only reason the big 3 havent gone with DOHC on their full size trucks?

Ford....new F150 1997

Chevy....new Silverado 1999

Dodge....new Ram 2002.

A new vehicle takes alot of planning and $$$$$

So my question remains......if DOHC is so great for full size trucks why havent the big 3 gone with DOHC?

plutonious

In the case of the Tundra's DOHC 4.7L, it outperforms the Chevy 4.8. That's why in comparisons, they used a Chevy 5.3 against the Tundra. This was a closer comparison, performance wise, but not displacement wise. Kind of bogus if you ask me.

So my question remains: If pushrod/OHC engines are so great, as you imply, why can't you guys compare similar displacement engines to eachother?

tavgrad

But I'm happily married.

I'm actually still waiting for your post you've claimed that I quoted you from.

Go back and READ my post, Jim. I stated the cost to operate and maintain is a reason. For mass production and fleet, it's cheaper.
FOr the engineers, it may be easier to build, and faster to build. 60 Ford F150's to 1 Lincoln Navigator sold a week. Think about it.
Loyalty is another reason. Most die hard truckers don't like their trucks to change, at ALL, for whatever reason.

Do I have to put a restraining order on you? I thought I said if that's not the reason you are looking, nag someone else.

chevytruck_fan

I'm glad outside people understand, the Silverado would have one edmunds truck test but they didn't like the styling, man that makes me mad, I dont' see how any magazine can rate styling, to each his own in that department.

Anyway truck guys don't like change, thats why the Silverado looks like it does, thats why it has pushrods in part. People that buy the SIlverado like it how it is.

tavgrad

Styling plays a big part in an auto purchase, CTF. It represents the vehicle itself. Magazines know this, so that is also important, as well as performance, safety and value. TO you, a Silverado looks good. It has the style and appearance you like...The Pontiac Aztek has a different style that appeals to those who like that look.

chevytruck_fan

yeah but a magazine 6 editors or whatever can't decide on style, they don't know what the whole contry likes.

yes I know styling plays a big part, it is the #1 reason people buy Impalas. I'm just saying magazine shouldn't rate cars on something that is very personal

rsholland

Finally you and I are are in agreement! Styling should play absolutely no part in rating a vehicle. One man's passion is another man's poison...

Bob

ndahi12

Quadrunner4 wrote:

"But I've read more statements from die hard Toyota lovers to the effect, that they wouldn't buy domestic even if it had more power, better fuel economy, better braking, cost less etc."

Hold on a minute where did you get this false info. I looked up the numbers from the Edmunds test on the trucks and found the opposite:

fuel economy observed was 14 mpg for the Tundra, 12.7 for the Chevy and 12.3 for the Ford.

Same for the braking from 60 to 0: Tundra=134 feet; F150=142 feet; Silverado=140 feet

Price: 32,339 for the Chevy, 31,880 for the Ford, and 29,548 for the Tundra

So in terms of price, fuel economy, and braking the Tundra is better. The only problem with the Tundra is the soft stock shocks. They are too soft. But get the TRD option package and your problem is solved. That is why it ranked third in the Edmunds comparo. They should have used the TRD option package on their test truck.

The Tundra is a great truck. It has better reliability and quality and refinement than the big three can offer. It did not becomes the number one pick by Consumer Reports and JD Power and associates by accident.

I have read most of the 1500 plus posts in the Silverado Problems thread and I am shocked by the lack of quality in chevy trucks. The problems are very serious: piston slap, oil consumption, shaking, electrical failures and the list goes on.

Why would someone ever buy a Chevy after reading this thread is beyond me?

chevytruck_fan

lol truck trend had the TRD suspension and 1000 pounds of rock in the bed made it ride the bumpstop, maybe you should read the article again, the suspension isn't going to cause it to get third

bamatundra

You are just a little bit confused. The Tundra won 7 out of 10 categories.

They hooked 5000lb to the Tundra and the Whimperado, and they preferred the Tundra. The Tundra also got 3mpg better mileage while towing the same load. It just shows how weak the Chev 1/2 tons are.

Do you want brakes? The Tundra was loaded with 1350lb. and STILL outbroke the empty Whimperado.

They said that the Tundra was a better value, better off-road, better handling, etc., etc. You need to take those Chev blinders off and READ the article.

chevytruck_fan

lol better hauler, only thing they said about towing was the tundra had a tighter turning radius, you must be missing this part "the Chevrolet nearly dared us to pull larger loads, as the weight we carrierd did nothing to tax the package"

or maybe you missid this part about the tundra "the lack of bottom end frunt is evident when carrying heavly loads"

or maybe you missed the silverado beat the tundra in handling loaded, since it is actually made for what a pickup was invented for.

you could have missed "comparing apples to aplles, we'd say Toyota's payload rating is optimistic, while the Chevy's is pessimistic"

and they suggest getting helper springs if you are going to haul with the tundra, what a joke.

admit it the Tundra is made for people that want trucks to be cars, yes the tundra is more refined, its made for city driving, the silverado is is made for work. we have been arguing this same stupid crap for over a year. Tundra is made for the daily drivers who like cars, and the Silverado is made for truck guys.

yurian44

I work construction in the Denver area of Colorado, of all the new trucks i see on the job site Toyota Tundras are by far the most prevalent. Usually the access cab with the V-8 4X4. The next most popular new truck on the job site is the Ford Ranger extra cab 4X4. There's also a few Ford F250's and 350's for the real heavy haulers, usually in 4X4 with a diesel engine. The only new Chevy i've seen lately on the construction sites has been a fleet S-10.
Since i've been shopping around for a new truck i talked to many of these new truck owners about their trucks unfortunatly they ALL think they have the best truck in the world, getting any complaints out of them has been real tough. So far none of the Toyota drivers has had their truck in the shop for anything but routine maintenence. The Ford drivers have had a few small problems. Reliability seems to be going to the Toyota crowd though.

bamatundra

I thought you would enjoy this article about the Duramin Diesel that GM is using in their pickups. It looks like GM is just hiring some U.S flunkies to assemble their foreign engine.

"This engine demonstrates the global nature of todays economy. All aluminum castings are imported from Japan, while all forged-steel and cast-iron components are imported from Germany. Connecting rods, crankshafts, cylinder heads, and cylinder blocks receive final machining and metal treatments at DMAX, where engine assembly and testing are performed."

plutonious

We all know how chevytruck_fan gets his panties into a bind when we talk about Japanese made trucks. Now what's he going to say about his beloved "Japanese" made Chevy.

You America-hater you, CTF.

chevytruck_fan

I've already stated before that I wouldn't buy the dmax

hey bama no comment on the fact that you overread all the parts of the article that discount toyota as a truck?

tavgrad

tavgrad "HONEST OPINIONS: Are Toyota's Pickups Just as Good as The Big Three?" Nov 20, 2001 12:01pm

Hey, I thought we sent you arch enemies over there.

boaz47

For years Nissan has sent their management outcasts to the truck division. I just can't see much good coming from that arena. I would expect their full sized truck to be adequate but extremely boring. Now that they are partly owned by Renault I would also expect them to be pretty ugly. That is what I expect, that doesn't mean they won't surprise me. The Z car surprised me a lot. Honda has never made a big high torque engine that I can remember. I just can't see a full sized pickup with a high revving 3.0 V-8 putting out 300 HP at 6000 RPM. But I do believe it would be different if they ever decide to make it. I would be very interested in seeing a Honda Truck but I can't picture them leaving the security of their prime market to get in the pickup truck battle. Whatever they decide to do it would be high tech.

jim4444

Do you know the difference between a DOHC engine and a SOHC or OHV engine?

A 4 valve head is superior no question if you want to make maximum power. Why do you think Indy race cars use DOHC? At the same time it consumes more fuel, look at any DOHC engine, they arent easy on gas.

tav I'll stick with talking about trucks instead of your wanting a man in your life, thats your problem.

It was a simple question, I'll try to give you the answer, the big 3 recently (1997 and later) introduced all new trucks. Theres alot of profit made from every truck sold, much more than almost any car with a few exceptions.

So you dont think that if the big 3 thought that DOHC was the way to go they would design DOHC engines for their new trucks?

Chevy brought out all new V8s for the Silverado in '99, if DOHC was the way to go they could've developed DOHC engines for their new full size trucks as easily as they developed OHV engines.

plutonious

DOHC engines have two cams over each cylinder bay, one for opening and closing the intake valves, the other for opening and closing the exhaust valves. 4 valves per cylinder is what is associated with DOHC design. 4 valves = better breathing with more intake and more exhaust.

SOHC engines have one cam over each cylinder bay with opens and closes one intake valve and one exhaust valve. 2 valves per cylinder is what is associated with DOHC design.

OHV engines utilize pushrods to open and close the valves.

Despite all the mumbo-jumbo about DOHC being useless in a truck because they high-rev, Toyota's relatively small 4.7L DOHC produced 315 ft/lbs torque at ONLY 3400RPM. The Chevy 5.3 produces only 10ft/lbs more torque but at 4000RPM. You tell me which one has to high rev to get the torque.

I really don't care why the Big 3 haven't gone with DOHC. The Big 3 are still making trucks in today's day and age that can't be recommended by CR, JD Powers and Edmunds because of atrocious quality/reliability problems (you know, knocking engines, malfunctioning brakes, Fords with bad lug nuts having wheels fall off, interiors literally falling apart, Fords with slashed tires and roll-overs, the list goes on and on). I guess the real reason is that they're not progressive.

Personally, I think Chevy should learn how to fix the knocking problems on its archaic pushrod engines before they even think of attempting something more complex like DOHC. And I think others would just be happy if Chevy just made vehicles that didnt' have interiors that shaked and fell apart.

chevytruck_fan

pluto you really choose to ignore facts, find the 5.3 torque curve on GM Powertrain site, its makes the same torque at 3600 as the tundra, and the torque band is flatter, I don't know where to find torque curves for the tundra but I'm guessing this since the truck trend guys said the tundra had a total lack of low end grunt.

plutonious

You guys had to compare your Chevy engine with .6L more displacement to the Toyota's. Something's got to give SOMEWHERE. That the 4.7L Toyota is even in the SAME LEAGUE as an engine that much bigger is a feat in itself.

So your 5.3 produced the same torque at 3600RPM that the Toyota did at 3400RPM? Wow. Aren't you guys the ones who keep saying you want all your torque at the lowest RPM? Toyota beats again.

This is a totally ASANINE argument - you guys trying to compare your bigger engine to the Tundra's when you could and should be comparing your 4.8. I wonder how the Ranger guys would have reacted if I compared my 3.4L V6 Tacoma to their 3.0L V6 Ranger?

Come back here when you're willing to get REAL and compare the Chevy 4.8 to the Toyota 4.7.

amorales

The DOHC 4.7 should be compared to trucks that have similar powerplants. Ford 4.6 is SOHC and close to 4.7, of course the Toyota outperforms in HP, Torque. Comparing the 3.4 DOHC V6 to a 3.0 OHV Vulcan Ford engine due to close size would cause Ford to whine. Here is ideal engine comparison test: TROYOTA 4.7DOHC vs Chevy 4.2 DOHC I6 available in new COLORADO pick-up. Also Dakota with SOHC 4.7 V8. I respect Toyota engineering. I do not respect the inflated prices of their vehicles, ie $32,000 for a CAMRY? I saw the sticker on a car featured at the FONTANA CART races a few weeks ago. Re: Nissan and Honda pickiups, GOOD IDEA, keep the truck makers from getting complacent.

plutonious

straight six is going to be a beast and am looking forward to seeing it. Why had this awesome design faded away? To my knowledge, about the only companies still making a straight six is Dodge with their Cummins Turbo Diesel (probably the best diesel out there - too bad the rest of the truck wasn't better, especially tranny) and BMW. Actually, I think the straight six lost popularity when everything became front wheel drive and such a long engine couldn't be crammed into an engine bay sideways.

amorales, the domestics have gotten quite expensive as well. My dad and I looked at all kinds of vehicles a few weeks ago and saw $36K Explorers, a $31K tiny Blazer that wasn't close to being loaded, etc. A decently equipped 4cyl Camry can be had for slightly more than a similarly equipped 6cyl Malibu. ALL vehicles, especially trucks, have gotten expensive - just a sign of the times, not one manufacturer's fault.

chevytruck_fan

I have no idea why I-6 lost appeal, mine is a great engine (Chevy 250) and my dads 300 Six is a great engine also. Maybe we will see a return.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone (even pluto but not bama ) talk to you in a couple days

rsholland

is a modern clean sheet of paper design. It's state-of-the-art, and very high-tech. It's a DOHC, 4-valve per cylinder design. It is NOT an OHV design, and it is not at all like a traditional "truck" engine. It's only resemblance to the old Chevy straight six, is that it is a "straight" rather than a "V" configuration.

"Straight six (or eights) lost their appeal because "V-type" engines are easier to package. You don't have to have a long hood with a V-type engine.

Bob

quadrunner500

A straight six has (7) main bearings supporting the crankshaft. A V6 only has (4).

bamatundra

A six cylinder's crankshaft is much longer, requiring more mainbearings.

It all boils down to who designed the engine. If you have a Japanese designed (Whether it is built there or not) engine like Quad, you have a chance of it lasting.

rsholland

shows GM knows how to design an excellent DOHC engine, contrary to popular opinion.

I wonder if the "next generation" truck V-8s will be DOHC? Or, will this new TrailBlazer engine replace the current V-6 and/or 4.8 V-8 in the Silverado? From what I've read about the TrailBlazer engine, it appears to be a better engine than either of those two.

Bob

PF_Flyer

Let's stay away from commenting on each other OK? Avoid the temptation to make "clever" remarks about the spelling, grammar, etc of your fellow users...

Stick to the trucks and we'll be fine!

Thanks

PF Flyer

Host

Pickups & News & Views Message Boards

rsholland

Honda will only build a full-size pickup (and SUV) if they can produce enough V-8 engines. The Honda V-8 will first go into the next Acura RL and NSX. It sounds like if the new RL/NSX demand exceeds their ability to produce enough V-8 engines, a pickup and SUV may not happen. So, the Honda pickup is not yet definite, and if it does occur, the reported GM-Honda engine hook up probably will not occur.

BTW, I couldn't find this bit of info on Motor Trend's web site; only in the magazine itself.

Bob

quadrunner500

...like they plan a real full size truck anymore. You can't expect it to redline at 6500 and tow a 25 foot bayliner. Perhaps a unibody design based on the MDX with all wheel drive, as I think you've suggested. In any case, it doesn't sound like they are close. Nissan would seem more likely to gamble on something big and tough.

chevytruck_fan

more than likely just tough looking with lots of exposed screws to give it that edge.

rsholland

the RL and NSX will have a 4.0L engine, similar to the original Lexus LS400. The Lexus engine grew to a 4.7L engine when it was used in the Land Cruiser and Tundra. There's no reason not to assume Honda won't do the same with the pickup engine.

I'm sure if they decide to build a truck using the 4.0L (as a starting point), the engine will grow and it will be "truck-tuned." As I said before, if there's one thing Honda can do well—it's to build engines; and not just "screamers." Their off-road ATV and off-road motorcycle engines are perfectly suited to their respective tasks. The truck engine will also be well suited to the task at hand too.

MT used the word "full-size," but I know from past discussions with you Quad, your definition of full-size differs somewhat from what the manufacturers (at least Toyota) says. My guess is, if Honda decides to build a truck, it will be in the Tundra size range.

Bob

quadrunner500

Sounds years away to me.

obyone

is that the end of this topic? Sure did die a fast death.

rsholland

til some other new rumor pops up, or until some new participants chime in.

Bob

rsholland

nobody has posted these images here yet. The link shows sketches of the new 8-passenger Honda Pilot SUV, which will be replacing the Passport this summer. A concept version will be shown at the Detroit Auto Show in a few weeks. It shares some running gear with both the Acura MDX (but is bigger) and the Honda Odyssey. It's reportedly the biggest of all the current mid-sized SUVs. In fact, I've read several reports that state it's about the size of a Tahoe.

The reason for posting is that perhaps this would give a hint of what Honda has in mind for their pickup...

http://www.vtec.net/news/

Click on the 10th and 11th bulleted items from the top.

Bob

btate2002

http://www.autoweek.com/cat_content.mv?port_code=autoweek&cat_code=carnews&loc_code=index&content_code=03051829

" Dealers have been pleased with the Pilot, but have been pushing hard for years for Honda to build a pickup in the United States. Asked about Honda's possible plans for a pickup, Elliott said the company, still, has none."