Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

HONEST OPINIONS: Are Toyota's Pickups Just as Good as The Big Three?

tavgradtavgrad Member Posts: 201
edited March 2014 in Toyota
This is the place where Toyota fans can express their views on the Tacoma and the Tundra and how they fare well against the Ford's Ranger and F-Series, Dodge's Dakota and Ram 1500, Chevrolet's S-10/Colorado and Silverado 1500, and GMC's Sonoma and Sierra 1500.
It is funny that debates like this has not been started until the Tundra arrived two years ago...

Come forth and discuss what makes Toyota a competent contender against the others, or why Toyota has a long way to before becoming "an equal".
«134567

Comments

  • plutoniousplutonious Member Posts: 799
    Regarding the Tundra versus other 1/2 ton trucks, I think it's the best truck out there if you value quality and reliability more than being able to tow an additional 1000lbs or so that the others can.

    Regarding compacts, it seems the Ranger is probably the best competitor against the Tacoma. Evidence suggests the Tacoma beats the Ranger in offroading and quality/reliability, but does cost a little more.
  • tavgradtavgrad Member Posts: 201
    this topic should last a while...

    The Ranger/Mazda B Series have been notorious for their off-road prowess...however, Pluto is right on the off-roading skills of Tacoma. With 12" of ground clearance, the TRD package, the lighter frame....
  • lavettdalavettda Member Posts: 7
    I test drove the Toyota several times before deciding not to buy it. I decided on a 2002 Chevy Silverado extended cab Z71 w/5.3L.

    The Toyota did drive smoother and quieter but the interior room was just not large enough. It still felt almost like a midsize truck. If it had the size of the Chevy it would have been a no-brainer to pick the Toyota.

    I just need the room cause we take the truck on surf trips and four - five guys won't fit comfortably in the Toyota.

    As far as the quality of the Chevy... read the silverado posts in town hall. The 5.3 engine has been problamatic and fit-n-finish of interior is weak.
  • tavgradtavgrad Member Posts: 201
    That was the exact same reason I chose not to get it. The back seating is horrible. The interior of the TUndra has good quality, but not like that of a Lexus. However,not many options to choose from, kind of spartan. The Big three scores big on that.

    Neighbor has 2001 TUndra Limited 4x4 w/TRD pkg. Loaded? at $35K, should have quite a bit, but didn't. Maybe some things out of the Sequoia could have been added as at least OPTIONS, but were not.
  • plutoniousplutonious Member Posts: 799
    about the Tundra. I disagree when people refer to it as junk because of a perceived lack of options, however. The Chevy guys always say the Tundra is junk because of the limited space in the ex-cab. Well, then, they should say their own reg-cab Chevy is junk too, then? The Chevy guys complain about the small bed of the Tundra, but say nothing of Chevy step-side trucks with tiny beds. This is why the Chevy guys sometimes make no sense at all. They shred the Tundra when their own beloved Chevy makes trucks with the same "faults." The Tundra is an EXCELLENT truck for those whose needs it suits.

    I do believe, however, that if Toyota wants to become truly successful in the US market, they will have to produce a truck with at least a 5.4L engine, a usable rear seat/crew/ex-cab, and the capacity to tow at least 9000lbs. Like it or not, that is what MOST Americans want in a truck, whether or not they will use these features (most don't).

    Plans are already in the making, however, for a bigger full-size Toyota truck. Can't wait...
  • tavgradtavgrad Member Posts: 201
    Pluto, the Tundra is not junk at all. It's cramped on the inside. You feel like you are in a Tacoma. That's supposed to change when the HD version comes next year. How long is the Tundra's bed? I thought the Regular cab is 8' long, standard. That's optional in a Chievy.
    What my question is to the chievy guys is how is the tundra not full? I know wheelbase is a little shorter, and it's about 3" narrower, but the tundra is taller...
  • tbundertbunder Member Posts: 580
    the ext. cab on the tundra is small, chevy is big. its not fair to compare a reg. cab to tundra's ext. cab. optional on the chevy is an ext. cab as well, which is enormous to the toyota's. in comparing ext. cab size, the chevy wins hands down. your statement about saying that the chevy guys should say their reg. cab is junk too because its small does not make sense, since that is an option. its probably still bigger than the toyota's reg. cab if its even offered.

    also, these "faults" you say that chevy makes applies to what? options? the only way the step-side bed is available is through an option. you DON'T have to get it. i would assume that the people who get this don't care about bed size. however, the tundra's bed is smaller and that's not an option. so the "fault" you're talking about really doesn't make sense either since it's an option. face it, the big three kill toyota on options along with pricing. im not saying the tundra is junk, its actually a really nice truck. but your comments earlier really don't apply to anything here, since everything you talked about being a "fault" of the chevy, are really just options.
  • plutoniousplutonious Member Posts: 799
    I've NEVER heard a Chevy owner shred another Chevy owner because he had a step-side or a regular cab. Just like a guy with an S-10 gets along with the Chevy boys fine, but if a guy has a Tacoma, boy oh boy, watch out!

    Brand loyalty and brotherhood at work, right?
  • tbundertbunder Member Posts: 580
    your point is what? who said anything about brand loyalty? im just debating your prior post in which you make unfair comparisons toward the chevy silverado, which are all options one can get if they desire.
  • plutoniousplutonious Member Posts: 799
    Try the Chevy boys always comparing their 5.3 (not their 4.8) to Toyota's 4.7.
  • tavgradtavgrad Member Posts: 201
    Chevy/GM and Ford beat out both Dodge and Toyota for the number of body configurations, extensive list of options..dealer networking. Major advantages.

    we can get all four pickups with the same stuff. 4x2, 4.7, 4.6, 4.8, 4.7 engines, extended cabs, shortbeds. Price HAS to stay under $25K. WHich is the better deal?
  • ndahi12ndahi12 Member Posts: 235
    So Dodge, Chevy, and Ford have more body configurations than Toyota Tundra. And the Ford F150 is 5 inches longer and the Silverado is 10. But what is really more important here, size and config or quality and reliability.

    I have been reading the more than 1500 posts on the Chevy Silverado problems thread. Oh My God. Shakes, tranny, problems, piston slap, oil consumption, electrical gremlins and the list repeats itself and goes on and on.

    I also read the 188 posts about the Tundra problems and only one of the posters had as serious a problem as the Silverado posters. Most of the posters had minor problems.

    I fully understand that most trucks have lemons in them, but the number of problem trucks among the Chevy ranks are far and away more in numbers and in severity, than the tundra problems.

    Some of the posters did not even learn from their mistake of buying a chevy. So they went and bought another Chevy Sliverado. What is the logic here? I really want to know. Why would you ever buy a chevy again? Hell I will not buy one and I am only reading the damn posts.

    The Tundra is the best full size truck there is. CR chose it as their best truck and so did JD Powers.

    Most of you who complain about the rear seats and the towing capacity do not use them anyway. It tows 7200 lbs and that is plenty. I only need it to tow my race car once a month to and from the track. The rest of the time, I need a reliable means of comfortable daily driver. The truck drives like a car, is exceptionally quiet, and has the most rigid truck chassis in its class.

    Also, it is the safest in an offset collision, one of the most common collisions. I will live with the cramped rear seat and the lower towing capacity rather than drive an F150 or a Silverado and not live at all!!!
  • plutoniousplutonious Member Posts: 799
    down to blind loyalty and ignorance.

    If Chevy made a 4.7L DOHC engine comparable to the competition's 5.3, and put the package in a truck that won over CR and JD Powers with its much higher than average quality and reliability, which also braked better than the competition, we would ABSOLUTELY NEVER hear the end of it.

    But the truck happened to be a Toyota so the Chevy guys will declare it junk.
  • tbundertbunder Member Posts: 580
    pluto, whose the competition to gm that has a 5.3?
    ndahi- what if you want to tow a 4 or 5-ton boat? and you have a tundra? just not go boating? thought so.

    guys, the tundra is nice. but its just a T100 in a prom dress with a manicure. its ALMOST a full-size truck, but not quite. its overpriced (like all toyotas) and cannot equal the work prowess like an F150.

    one question for you guys: if the tundra or toyota for that matter is such a good truck, and you all say CR and JD says it is, and i don't doubt it is, why has the F150 been the best selling VEHICLE in the United States for over twenty years in a row? along with the ranger in its respective class. twenty years of "blind consumers? i dont think so. the truck speaks for itself. Ford builds good long lasting trucks. if they didn't, they wouldn't sell so many year in and year out.

    you really cannot argue this. these are facts. im sure you will though.
  • obyoneobyone Member Posts: 7,841
    We have had this discussion over at the Honda/Nissan full size topic....care to take it back there?

    Blind loyalty and especially ignorance has nothing to do with it. To me someone who drives a truck with a one star side impact rating has more to do with the term ignorant...don't you agree?

    We have also had the discussion regarding the 4.7 vs 4.8 issue. You don't remember?

    Seems like you have nothing else better to do...glad Tbunder straightened you out. Personally, I think its a waste of time discussing a full sized truck with a mini truck owner. DOH!!

    ndahi12

    Ever check out the website tundrasolutions.com. Ever wonder why its there and no Tundra owners here? Think about it for a moment and visit the site for

    TUNDRA SOLUTIONS
  • boaz47boaz47 Member Posts: 2,747
    It all comes down to options for many truck owners. The Ford and Chevy offer more. The Tundra is one good truck if you only need one with the options offered by Toyota. The problem is many of us use a truck for work. Many of the F series trucks are used because the men using them are in construction and need the room and power to haul a load of Sheetrock, cement, nails, re-bar, paint, or wood to the job site. Toyota offers one size fits all power for their truck and if that size fits, good. But if you need anything different you are out of luck. If you want an F-150 with a V-6 and twin tanks it just might be on the lot. Do you need a small V-8? You can get it. How about a big V-8? Or a diesel, or a V-10? Believe me, show up to a job site with a new F- series with a V-10 and a Tundra and the guys will not be huddled around the Tundra to see what you bought. For jobs around the house a Mid or even mini might work but at work you want something that will drive with a load much like it does empty. I just bought a truck, looked at them all. Ended up with a Mazda-Ranger? Why? Light loads and got a better deal. In that case the Tundra and Tacoma would have been fine if the price was right. But when I was pulling heavy loads nothing short of a 350-351-360 seemed to cut it. Remember, the last guy to the job site buys the do-nuts. But I will hand it to Toyota, they are at least in the game, even if they are a bit one dimensional right now. Just another opinion.
  • ndahi12ndahi12 Member Posts: 235
    "the tundra is nice. but its just a T100 in a prom dress with a manicure. its ALMOST a full-size truck, but not quite. its overpriced (like all toyotas) and cannot equal the work prowess like an F150."

    Prowess of an F150? Your kidding right. Let us look at some numbers from Edmunds comparo:

    0-60 Tundra=8.6; F150=8.9
    1/4 mile Tundra=16.7; F150=16.9
    60-0 Tundra=134 ft; F150=142 ft
    Skidpad Tundra=0.72g; F150=0.70
    Slalom Tundra=56.9; F150=54.3
    Observed Fuel Economy Tundra=14 mpg; F150=12.3 mpg
    Price Tundra=29,548; F150=31,880

    And that Tundra in the comparo did not even have the TRD suspension package. Put that on and the handling numbers become even bigger.

    The only prowess that the F150 has is that it tows a bit more than the Tundra. Your statement falls on its face because it is contradicted by the facts.

    "why has the F150 been the best selling VEHICLE in the United States for over twenty years in a row? along with the ranger in its respective class. twenty years of "blind consumers? i dont think so. the truck speaks for itself. Ford builds good long lasting trucks. if they didn't, they wouldn't sell so many year in and year out."

    I will tell you why. The Federal Govt has slapped a 25% tariff on all trucks coming from over seas and that made trucks from overseas not competitive. Second This is the first time Toyota has built a full size truck. So ofcourse the F150 has to be number one. There was no competition from the JDM car makers.

    Now Toyota has built its first full size truck in the US. This way they can escape that sill tariff that protect domestic truck makers from competition.

    This truck has been two years in production and it already has had the JD Power award and the Consumer Reports award. When was the last time a truck by the big three did that?
  • lariat1lariat1 Member Posts: 461
    The first part of your post does not make any sense. You spit out numbers that show the tundra is more carlike than the F-150 and then say that the only place the F-150 has an advantage is it tows a bit more. Doesnt that mean it is more suited for work than a Tundra? Maybe when someone sayss that they are "working" their truck they mean "lets go out and weave through traffic and drag race out at the track.
  • ryanbabryanbab Member Posts: 7,240
    just curious what kind of truck do you own?
  • plutoniousplutonious Member Posts: 799
    And I plan on keeping it for a loooong time. Already going on 4 years old with 50K miles, still tight as a drum and have had only two minor problems (leaking window-washer fluid reservoir and a squeaky clutch - little silicone spray fixed that). Still has the original brake pads and everything. Only thing replaced so far is tires.

    Lariat, I would rather have a truck that perfroms better overall than simply does one thing well, and that's tow about 1000lbs more. Besides, let's face it, anybody who plans on towing 8000lbs or so regulary isn't going to get an F-150 or Tundra, they'll go to the next size up.

    Anyways, I'll say it again. I will sacrifice losing a 1000lbs towing capacity (which I wouldn't use anyway) for Toyota quality and reliability.

    Tbunder, get off your more-Fords-sold = they're better argument. One of the best selling vehicles of ALL TIME is the VW Beetle. Production started decades ago and continues to this day in Mexico, and well over 22 million have been produced. But I think we can all agree the Bug isn't the best car out there.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Member Posts: 897
    I almost think the moderators enjoy reading all these arguements on Toyota guys vs. Everyone else.
    This will be just like the ranger vs. taco board, now that tbunder is here....."Show me the numbers!" "Oh wait, I made up my numbers, but you are all stupid anyway".
  • chevytruck_fanchevytruck_fan Member Posts: 432
    As far as a work truck some things said in the truck trend Silverado vs Tundra led me to believe it really isn't a truck meant for work.

    "the Chevrolet nearly dared us to pull larger loads, as the weight we carrierd did nothing to tax the package"

    tundra "the lack of bottom end frunt is evident when carrying heavly loads"

    "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.
  • lavettdalavettda Member Posts: 7
    What is interesting in reading the last several posts is that no is saying the Tundra is junk.

    Just the opposite, but, we are buying a $30K vehicle and I want a vehicle that has ALL the features I desire. Does the big three have more mechanical problems..yes! Enough to warrant getting less of a vheicle then I want? That is the 30,000 dollar question each of us faces.

    I can say this. WHEN Toyota produces a truck with the size and features comparible to the big three it will be worth the 10 -15% premium it will cost.

    Until then I will stick with a truck that gives me ALL the features I want.
  • plutoniousplutonious Member Posts: 799
    Then why did they pick the Tundra? Maybe Chevy's dismal reliability and quality was a factor?
  • ryanbabryanbab Member Posts: 7,240
    "dismal reliability and quality"

    huh? So in the test the truck wasnt reliable? Wouldnt start? Broke down?

    Some people are past beyond brainwashed
  • boaz47boaz47 Member Posts: 2,747
    I think that was a good point. Toyota makes a good truck for what it is but still they come up short for what a truck should be. To top the American market you have to offer a wide range of options for the buyer of your product. The Tundra with the 4.7 is the top of the line Toyota but that doesn't even come close to a top of the line Chevy, Ford or Dodge. If you want to compare apples to apples as the one using skid pad and 1/4 mile times as a criteria wouldn't a F-150 svt lightning be a better comparison? I think GM is coming out with a new sport truck also but I do remember the 454 SS. These trucks might not be designed to haul as much weight either, but they do haul the rear posterior and give a more car like ride. I have to admit I admire Toyota for coming out to play with the big boys. I think they make a good truck, but with the caveat that they are still behind in giving the working man what he needs in the US. Until they can offer options like Chevy, Ford, and Dodge they will have to play catch up.
  • tbundertbunder Member Posts: 580
    ndahi- so why would you buy the TRD off-road package if all you do is take your 4x4 out and drag race and throw it in the twisties? who buys a 4x4 for those traits?

    lets see the acceleration and skid numbers when you load two comparable equipped tundras and f150's with a couple 1000 pounds. the tundra will be sitting on its rear bumper, and the f150 will be leaving it in the dust up that hill. you're crazy to think the tundra is up to any type of working task like an f150 is. you can't go out and cut a 2500 pound load of wood in a tundra, and expect to cross the creek bottoms and climb up the steep grades to get out of the timber. the payload nor the bottom end grunt needed to do this just isn't there. with an f150 however, it will be no problem.

    pluto, again you're ignoring the common sense here. why do you think that people still keep making the ford's the best selling trucks here in the good ole usa? cuz they're junk? problematic? i dont think so. ignore it and deny it all you want, but when a person or people build a good product, you will get repeat buyers through the years. why do people keep buying heinz ketchup and making it the best selling ketchup worldwide? cuz its a good product and they know they can depend on it tasting good. same analogy goes for the fords. they can be depended on so people keep buying them. you simply cannot argue with this fact. if it was in your ballpark concerning your precious tacoma, you'd argue it too. and you know what, i couldn't defend it. cuz when people keep buying a certain product for years, it says something for that product. it must be a good one.

    scorpio- i assume your little post was directed towards me. exactly what numbers did i ever make up, and how many times did i have to correct you on your erroneous posts? several if i remember. remember, i constantly reminded you that you needed to upgrade your research skills. this should be fun.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Member Posts: 897
    Lets see...
    "Ranger is 400-some lbs heavier than Tacoma, because Ranger is made of real steel, it's not a tincan".

    Man.....tbunder goes to draw analogies between ketchup and trucks, and when I try doing something like that, I get called dumb.
    tbunder.......lets see some NUMBERs. You claim that F150 will climb up the hills, cross the creeks, PROVE IT. Isn't it what you Ranger people have been telling us Taco owners to do for about 2K messages now? Show me the numbers. Show me a fricken video of a Tundra and F150. Have you ever owned a Tundra? No. You can say whatever you want, but please prove it with some good evidence (Oh, and if you are citing any magazines, there better not be any Ford ads in them, since those magazines are sell-outs)
  • plutoniousplutonious Member Posts: 799
    Boaz wants to compare Tundras to Lightnings. Chevy and Ford guys don't want to compare their 4.8 and 4.6 (respectively) to Toyota's 4.7. TRD Tacomas with the TRD supercharger shouldn't be compared to top-of-the-line Rangers and S-10s. Give me a break, already. When you guys want to be consistent, realistic and fair, let me know.

    Ryan, Edmunds and JD Powers wouldn't recomment the Chevy because of quality/reliability issues. That's a FACT. Your Chevy STILL wouldn't impress them, or me, if it towed 15,000lbs but had poor quality and reliability.
  • tbundertbunder Member Posts: 580
    scorpio- here's some hard numbers for you to make common sense conclusions over.

    F150) max. towing- 8400lbs.
    Tundra) max. towing- 7200lbs.

    F150) max. payload- 2810lbs.
    Tundra) max. payload- 1938lbs.

    F150) max. GVWR- 7700
    Tundra) max. GVWR- 6200

    F150) bed depth- 20 inches
    Tundra) bed depth- 16.7 inches

    so there you are. all these aspects are in the major working category, and shows just how strong these trucks are. when it comes to towing, hauling, and overall weight ratings, the Tundra can't run with an F150. who knows, the chevy's might be even higher or dodge. you asked for the numbers, here they are. use your common sense to establish which truck would pull a 2500lb. load of wood out of the timber without dragging its rear-end or running out of grunt up the hills.

    pluto- you need to reread the posts. the only reason Boaz was referring to lightnings is because one of your misinformed toyota brethren was bragging about how awesome his 4x4 tundra accelerated empty and how good it cornered. so if you really want to compare toyota's handling and ford's handling, isn't it fair to bring the lightning in on this? just like you think its fair to compare an add-on item like a supercharger to ford's stock 210 horse SOHC 4.0.

    so why couldn't a ford dealer install a supercharger onto a 4.0? i bet they would. and then do you still want to compare horsepower? granted its not a ford s/c, but hey, a s/c is an s/c. with the right installation (ford technician), i guarantee ford would warranty it. with the ranger already making nearly 20 more horsepower than the 3.4, along with more torque, i'd hate to be you when comparing final power ratings.
  • plutoniousplutonious Member Posts: 799
    Your precious F-150 you talk about is made in...GULP...Cuautitlan, Mexico!!!

    Heehee
  • ryanbabryanbab Member Posts: 7,240
    save your time you can show em hard facts and they still wont believe it.

    Just nod and say alrighty then
  • plutoniousplutonious Member Posts: 799
    Then please acknowledge Edmunds, JD Powers and Consumer Reports can't recommend the Sierra/Silverado because of quality/reliability problems.

    But hey, your max tow rating is 1000lbs more. Hope you're happy!!!
  • gator36gator36 Member Posts: 294
    live by every word that the media reports?

    Consumer reports and JD Powers are mainly
    opinions. Opinions of the few meant to be
    digested by the masses. Yes the articles
    list facts within them. Yet the conclusions
    are based upon opinions.
    Personally I would look at the sales numbers
    to see what the PEOPLE want.
    One would be wise to only use those reports
    as a starter NOT AS GOSPEL.
  • boaz47boaz47 Member Posts: 2,747
    I don't recall saying that the Toyota was a bad truck. So it is hard to understand why some have reacted like I shot their dog. I was speaking from an American perspective of what trucks are used for mostly in this country. Work. If you want a work truck you want choices on cab size, bed size, fuel tank options, towing options and sport options. If the big three only offered the limited options the Tundra does right now they wouldn't be in the leadership position they are right now. In this country 90 percent of all trucks sold are considered domestic. That is domestic as in company because it is after all a global market we live in. I am not sure how to class DC but because the title of the forum called it one of the big three I will except that criteria. When comparing trucks you never ask the one in the dominate position to lower itself to the competition, you require the newcomer to step up to the competition. Toyota has made a fine second effort. I have had 3 [non-permissible content removed] trucks and I am sure you know many of them were made right here in the US. I have also owned more than a few domestics and some of them had transmissions made in Canada and I am sure Mexico. As my needs moved up in hauling ability the [non-permissible content removed] trucks couldn't keep pace so I was forced to look where the options were. The working man doesn't care where his equipment is made as long as it meets his needs. If it doesn't meet his needs being loyal to a brand doesn't make sense. So if the question is, is the Tundra as good as the Domestics? The answer would have to be, only if you don't compare all the options you have with a domestic. If you limit the test to a less than 5 liter engine and a light payload, and a smaller cab the answer might be, yes. To make a comparison like that sounds a little like the line in the movie "the Jerk" where Steve Martin is giving away prizes at the guess your weight booth. You can have any prize you want as long as it is on the shelf he points out and between the prizes he points out. So yes, the Tundra is as good as the big three as long as you don't need it to tow your Bayliner, get a smaller boat The Toyota is as good as the big three as long as your friends and you don't need the extra room, get smaller friends. The Tundra does handle and perform better than the big three as long as you don't consider one of the big three's performance trucks. With that logic I would have to agree. The Tundra is as good as the big three as long as you let a Toyota owner pick the big three truck to compare it against. I will admit the Tundra is hands down a big improvement over their last effort, the T-100.
  • tbundertbunder Member Posts: 580
    very nice post. that really says it all. im sure pluto will argue it though.

    btw- pluto, final assembly point for F150's is GULP- UNITED STATES. check out carpoint.com and yahoo.com if you need assurance. its NOT MEXICO.
    also, the numbers i listed did NOT mention anything about the silverado's. but answer me this, why did it (GM) win the motor trend truck of the year a few years back ('99 if im right) if its so bad. they're a HUGE player in this media game you're so obsessed with. and the gmc envoy winning the suv of the year this year. im sure you've seen the commercial. your reliability statements about gm's just dont go with these prestigious awards gm has been given to its silverado platform. im no big gm fan (love the ZR2) but i assure you, they're not junky trucks.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Member Posts: 897
    Well, the thing is that....if you read through the Ranger vs. Tacoma posts, you'll find that tbunder and the ranger crowd did not want to believe the facts that we provided.
    Hence my comment about not citing any facts from magazines that have Ford/Chevy/etc ads in them, because that same weapon was used against Toyota people by tbunder.
    Hard facts are a hard thing to come by. You all have your personal preferences, we have ours. Personally, I don't care for Tundra/Chevy 1500/F150, I dont need them, I don't like the gas milage they get.
    What I do hear, though, and what partly makes my opinion about those trucks, is what media says. I do rely on my own judgement and taste when I look at the cars and trucks. Which is why I chose Tacoma. Somehow a lot of Tacoma owners are laughing at people driving Dodge, since the Dodge engine wont make it to say 200K miles (I know my Chevy engine did not, I just finally got rid of a Chevy S10 Blazer, 1993 V6 one, 188K miles on it, every trip to a mechanic cost me $500, and engine was about to go real bad), so maybe there is something to the fact that Toyota is more reliable.
    Then again, Tbunder will tell me that his Ranger has 7K miles on it, and it is running flawlessly....so what. My Tacoma has 500 miles on it, and is running flawlessly.
    So until I get disappointed in Toyota, I will keep my opinion about domestic-made trucks and cars, thank you very much. I'm actually considering getting the "Friends don't let friends drive a Chevy" stickers, I've had too much pain with my Chevy.

    See, gator just said that, basically, JD Powers, edmunds, etc, all amount to nothing because they are opinions. Hey....tbunder, you reading? Didnt you try to cite me JD Powers survey about how Nissan you were looking at was more superior to Tacoma?

    You guys might just quit it right now, this is not going anywhere. We are all influenced by our experiences with the trucks, and will not take [non-permissible content removed] from anyone else, wehn they try to bash you. Imagine that....Chevy owner agreeing that they have a crapper truck than Toyota owners do. Maybe, then again, pigs can fly when noone is looking. This board is going to become a ground for personal insults, offers to race for pink slips (tbunder, you still reading?) to prove something, etc. etc. etc.
    I've said it in the Ranger vs. Taco board, and will say it again:
    until you guys can meet somewhere in the US at equal distance from each other, and put your trucks to a set of pre-designed tests side by side, with impartial judges, and everyone oversee the tests, you'll never know what is the correct outcome. And with reliability record, you have to subject trucks to the same sort of abuse for 5 years, then see who blows the headgasket first.
    Until then, this is useless.
  • tbundertbunder Member Posts: 580
    last time i checked, 8400-7200 was 1200. not 1000.-as in towing weight advantage ford has over tundra.
    also, pluto, is that all you got? the little post about the F150 being made in mexico? i post all those factual numbers straight from carpoint.com, and you don't even acknowledge them? yeah, its what i thought you'd do. you always quietly throw in the towel. heehee
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Member Posts: 897
    tbunder has started the word game already. History repeats itself.
    Besides, tbunder, didnt you go all out to prove to us how Ranger was US-made? I mean, it was getting to the point of ridiculousy, Ranger was superior because it was made in the US, and Tacoma is made in Japan. And how you quickly shift gears to the "I don't care where it is made" seeing how others say they don't care. Real good.
  • tbundertbunder Member Posts: 580
    dude, you NEVER provided any hard facts against the ranger, because there ARE NONE. every fact or number in that forum was provided by me. the ONLY thing you toyota dudes did was say "but my truck won four-wheelers off-road contest", or that its "got better reliabilty cuz edmunds says so". please refer me to a specific post over there where i can see some hard numbers you posted. until then, we all know you're blowing smoke. and how many times did i challenge pluto to come to iowa and put his toy to my '01 ranger (with more horsepower than both of you's tacomas, because as much as you both brag about that big bad $2499 supercharger available, neither one of you have the b9ll3 to buy it). ill show you both how good a ranger loaded to the top of the cab with wood can climb out of the timber.
  • tbundertbunder Member Posts: 580
    i ever say i didn't care where it was made? are you making this up too? looks like it. also looks like you'll be the first one with a deleted post on this forum. can't cuss sonny boy. but i understand how you're getting frustrated making up stories. how 'bout those hard facts i posted earlier. care to comment on how the F150 puts it to the toyota in every one? no, you won't comment cuz you can't. they're not in your favor.
  • chevytruck_fanchevytruck_fan Member Posts: 432
    tbunder don't bother pluto thinks you get return buyers by making crappy cars.

    He doesn't want to validate that the Chevy silverado has the most return buyers of any truck.

    Pluto, they didn't pick between the Tundra and the Silverado. They said if you want a daily driver get the tundra, if you want a mans truck for work get the silverado.
  • quadrunner500quadrunner500 Member Posts: 2,721
    >So if the question is, is the Tundra as good as the Domestics? The answer would have to be, only if you don't compare all the options you have with a domestic. If you limit the test to a less than 5 liter engine and a light payload, and a smaller cab the answer might be, yes. To make a comparison like that sounds a little like the line in the movie "the Jerk" where Steve Martin is giving away prizes at the guess your weight booth. You can have any prize you want as long as it is on the shelf he points out and between the prizes he points out. So yes, the Tundra is as good as the big three as long as you don't need it to tow your Bayliner, get a smaller boat The Toyota is as good as the big three as long as your friends and you don't need the extra room, get smaller friends. The Tundra does handle and perform better than the big three as long as you don't consider one of the big three's performance trucks. With that logic I would have to agree. The Tundra is as good as the big three as long as you let a Toyota owner pick the big three truck to compare it against.<
  • tbundertbunder Member Posts: 580
    i ever say i didn't care where it was made? are you making this up too? looks like it. also looks like you'll be the first one with a deleted post on this forum. can't cuss sonny boy. but i understand how you're getting frustrated making up stories. how 'bout those hard facts i posted earlier. care to comment on how the F150 puts it to the toyota in every one? no, you won't comment cuz you can't. they're not in your favor.
  • chevytruck_fanchevytruck_fan Member Posts: 432
    lol yeah the tundra is great if you don't need over a 5.0 l engine lol wow thats one way to put it. lol the tundra guys are really reaching here
  • ndahi12ndahi12 Member Posts: 235
    "F150) max. towing- 8400lbs.
    Tundra) max. towing- 7200lbs.
    F150) max. payload- 2810lbs.
    Tundra) max. payload- 1938lbs.
    F150) max. GVWR- 7700
    Tundra) max. GVWR- 6200
    F150) bed depth- 20 inches
    Tundra) bed depth- 16.7 inches"

    Some of these numbers are way off. The numbers from Consumer Reports say otherwise for a 4X4:

    Towing: Tundra=7,100lbs; F150=7,700lbs
    loading: Tundra=1,340lbs; F150=1,290lbs

    Also CR conducted a towing test of 7,000 lbs from 0-60 for bothe the Tundra and the F150. The Tundra pulled the trialer to 60 in 25 seconds and the F150 in 27 seconds. So I guess that the Tundra can tow even faster than the F150, but it cannot tow as much as the F150
  • ndahi12ndahi12 Member Posts: 235
    "lets see the acceleration and skid numbers when you load two comparable equipped tundras and f150's with a couple 1000 pounds. the tundra will be sitting on its rear bumper, and the f150 will be leaving it in the dust up that hill. you're crazy to think the tundra is up to any type of working task like an f150 is. you can't go out and cut a 2500 pound load of wood in a tundra, and expect to cross the creek bottoms and climb up the steep grades to get out of the timber. the payload nor the bottom end grunt needed to do this just isn't there. with an f150 however, it will be no problem."

    Did you conduct this test? where are your results? where did this info come from. I listed measureable results from Edmunds about the "prowess" of the F150 and it did not exist. Now you come out with this fictitious test.

    I also posted about the fact that the Tundra can tow a 7000 lbs trailer faster 0-60 than the F-150.

    I would like to see your proof!!! Plerase show me some hard test results so I can believe you.
  • chevytruck_fanchevytruck_fan Member Posts: 432
    truck trend recommended a set up helper springs if you are going to tow with the tundra, thats what I look for in a truck, I you want to tow you have to put aftermarket springs on it. how ridiculous

    Trucktrend 0-60 with 1000lbs in bed

    Silverado 9.34
    Tundra 9.86
    Dodge 10.57
    Ford 10.71

    the Ford was using the tallest gears of the group

    But of course that extra time doesn't help if your bumper dragging on the ground, and you can't get the thing started in the first place because of tundras starting problems.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Member Posts: 897
    Well, the times we tried to give you ranger boys some numbers, it was kicked back at us. Yes, Tacoma won the 4wheeler, and the magazine was called a Toyota sellout, since it featured a big Toyota ad. We had given you the resale value numbers. I made a comparison of a ranger to tacoma side by side, pointing out different sections adn winners....what did I get for it? "Ground clearance does not matter. This does not matter. That does not matter". You guys are also hung up on your trucks, and that is fine. But lay off the insults. I mean, it wasnt me, but you who had ...how many deleted posts? I know of two, and one was very juicy.
    By the way....check out #2702. You cited the JD Powers survey, calling it "Hard Facts" (In fact, you pulled the same stunt on me with Nissan, but when I went to look there...whoops, Tacoma was the winner somehow, yet you never acknowledged that). Now read above, where people call these "Hard Facts" opinions. So which one is correct?

    I mean, you've made it sound like a hard fact that Ranger was 400 lbs heavier than Tacoma, because "Ranger is made of real steel, not a tin". WHen you were pointed out the numbers that showed that Ranger was 60lbs heavier, not 400, you did not acknowledge that for a week, and then said "Oh, by the way, I found out where the numbers came from".
    At least I had acknowledged my mistakes when I made them, have you?

    Your challenge was accepted, twice, and you still keep on saying like it never was. Is your memory that short, and should I dig through the messages and give you the #s so you can go and contact the other party?

    Lastly.......what exactly makes you qualified to talk about the 4 trucks in question here? Anyone (well, almost...unless you live in Florida :) can read the numbers and say "Oh, this one is bigger, so must be better". You obviously have not owned a Tundra. Have you owned a Silverado? You make these wonderful claims about "Ford will run up teh hill with the bed full of timber".....sounds like you've done it in all 4 trucks here. Have you? Please back up your claim.
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Member Posts: 9,372
    Let's get off this "trying to PROVE things" kick shall we? It's ALWAYS leads to the same end.


    You want to talk about the trucks, fine. You want to disagree about the trucks, that's OK too...


    But PLEASE stop "challenging" each other.


    Thanks




    PF Flyer

    Host

    Pickups & News & Views Message Boards

    </I

This discussion has been closed.