Toyota 3/4 Ton with Big Block V-8

lariat1

What are you talking about? here is another link it shows the Sequioa as an ULEV but no mention of the Tundra, it is interesting that even the old technology Dodge 360 is an ULEV and the 32v Tonka V8 is not.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/ccbg/2002ldt.htm

bamatundra

The Dodge 360 is a gas guzzling DOG! The Dodge Lamb does not have enough ponies to get out of its own way, let alone be worked. Don't get me wrong, I would still list the Lamb above the Chev.

Also, you are just showing California vehicles.
I agree that the Tundra is an LEV, just like all the other 1/2 tons in the other 49 states.

modvptnl

Since your English is poor, I'll translate:

326 of 353 Tundra innovations by ndahi12 Mar 31, 2002 (09:11 pm)
The Tundra is the only 1/2 ton PU to claim the following when it was introduced:

1. DOHC engine.translation: Very important to have for less HP and torque than GM and Ford.

2. ULEV engine. translation: ONLY IN CALIFORNIA.(maybe)

3. Pre-tensioners on seat belts. translation:I'm sooooo impressed!

4. Rack and pinion stearing(sic). translation:Wow!! Just like GM!!!

5. 4 pod front disc brakes with rear drums that stop shorter than Chev/Ford/Dodge.translation: Yup, them drum brakes are true innovations!!!

6. Rear seat head rest.translation: That you have to be a midget to use. Oh, GM has headrests???

7. Standard tranny cooler.translation: Who doesn't???

8. Drive by wire. translation: Dang, that adds HP, torque, load capacity......

9. Coil on plug system with no distributor. translation:Just like Ford on all their modulars after '97??

If you need any more help, professor, whether writing or comprehending your own links, let me know.

lariat1

Ndahi specifically stated that he has the Tundra with the California emissions so I dont know if he was told he bought an ULEV by the salesman or what.
Also from the gas guzzling standpoint the 360 is not any worse in my view than any other V8. I had 2 97 Fords with the 4.6 and I got worse gas mileage than I do with the 360, a friend of mine has a 2001 Tundra and he gets 1 mpg better than me in the city, we get the same on the highway and I get 2 mpg better towing. I have accepted the fact that unless I buy another Cummins the best MPG I will get with a truck is around 18 mpg. The reason I have a Ram and not a Tundra is that my sons car seat would not fit in the Tundra.

bamatundra

1. Four valve per cylinder DOHC engine that will eat any Furd 5.4 L F150 alive in 0-60 and quarter mile. Where are all those ponies - cowering in the barn? The GM Whimperado with the 5.3L only beat the Tundra by .2sec 0 to 60 and quarter mile. The Tundra had a higher trap speed. Are GM's ponies hiding with the Furd's?

2. LEV in 49 states just like the Furd and the Whimperado. Granted - not an advantage, but personally, I could care less.

3. Seatbelt pretensioners. Furd Stuporduty owners don't care about safety? I do.

4. Rack and Pinion steering. GM does not have on their 4WD wimperados. No one else does either.

5. Four caliper front brakes. None of the other 1/2 tons have them. Yes, very innovative. Maybe GM will fix those dangerously weak Chevette brakes they put on their trucks.

6. Rear seat headrests. Furd didn't have them in '00. GM did. I would not buy a Furd deathtrap.

7. Standard tranny cooler. GM and Furd are options.

8. Drive by wire. Toyota is first - innovative.

9. Coil on plug. Toyota Direct ignition. NO PLUG WIRES. What were you spouting about Furd and GM? Your ignorance is showing.

Muddy - open mouth, insert foot! LMFAO!

modvptnl

In the test you LOVE to tout as gospel, the GM put nearly 40 more RWHP to the ground.

I'll be honest(something you nor nd would know about) I don't know what pre tension belts are, don't care. My Super Duty belts retract just fine and lock when braking hard.

Funny, even with R&P steering the toy felt "vague" with a load.....again, your test, your bible.

Brakes??? Your own gospel again showed the GM only losing 7' with a LARGER load than the toy. The toy lost 14'. HMMMMMMMM, stronger brakes on the toy? I think not. Seems the toy brakes wilt when worked...or is that warp when worked.

Thought in the past you'd only buy a Ford 1 ton when compared to GM/Dodge. Do you forget what you post??? Bs'ers usually do.

They all have tranny coolers. You nor nd would know the diff between a standard or aux. cooler.

Goofball, my V10 Ford has no plug wires. pretty sure Fords had coil on plug since '98 and distributorless since the first modulars and last 5.0's.

How's that shoe leather tasting there, blama???

ryanbab

"Standard tranny cooler. GM and Furd are options"

Tells you something there

Gm and ford trucks dont really need it but if you want it to ease your mind its there. Toyota you have to get it cause the truck needs it to survive

losangelesemt

if GM and Ford came standard with trans coolers and Toyota didn't, I somehow get the feeling the GM/Ford guys would be knocking the Tundra for lacking it as a standard option. Then they would be saying how real trucks come standard with them and the play toys don't. So that post means nothing as far as im concerned. Truck owners from all sides will find something that is unique to their truck and then brag about its importance, even if it really isn't important at all. Just goes back to being a kid, and look what I have that you don't.

modvptnl

All automatic equipped vehicles that I've EVER seen have a trans cooler built into the radiator. A heat exchanger if you will.

As GVW goes up or as the need arises, you can add aux. coolers in-line with the stock cooler.

The V8 tundra supercharger has been delayed numerous times because the power keeps frying transmissions(even with an added cooler)Kudos for toy for not releasing it but it shows how weak the standard toy trans really is.

Funny, the supercharged Lightning has no such trans problems.

ndahi12

We are not tlaking about a puny heat exchanger that is barely the size of the palm of your hand. We know that automatics have those. We are talking about a real tranny cooler that is attached in front of the radiator. that is the tranny cooler that comes stock on the tundra and optional on the Chevy. Get it Modron!!!

Yes you cna add a tranny cooler later one, but the point is that the Tundra has it STOCK.

bamatundra

"The V8 tundra supercharger has been delayed numerous times because the power keeps frying transmissions"

Funny, you have absolutely nothing to back up your ridiculous lie. Typical Muddy.

modvptnl

So when you said the tundra was ULEV, you MEANT only the Ca. ones were.

When you said trans cooler was stock, you meant aux. cooler was stock.

I guess you could add an aux. cooler on trucks that didn't get the towing package for around $70. Of course, if you wanted an LSD or any traction aid for your toy......$5-600??? Real innovative not having the OPTION of a traction aid.

When you said short piston skirts reduced emissions........well, nobody knew WTF you were saying then.

Don't they have remedial English for professors???

modvptnl

I read it in a magazine!!!

ndahi12

Well excuse me for saying standard tranny cooler instead of Auxiliary. Still the Tundra has a standard auxiliary cooler and the Chevy/Ford does not.

Sorry the Tundra in 2002 has an LSD. I should know since mine has an LSD. Once again you show how little you know about the tundra.

Ok, I made a mistake regarding the piston skirts. I meant to say the piston rings that are designed closer to the top of the piston to improve emissions. But that was said in a DIFFERENT thread. It was not mentioned here.

lariat1

So what about the ULEV rating for your Tundra? I would still like to know who told you that.

losangelesemt

Well like you, I haven't seen many auto transmissions without a built in cooler in radiator, so I assumed we were talking auxillary equipment. Also going to take the word of others about the Tundra being standardly equipped with aux. cooler. Just because it has one doesn't necessarily mean it can't survive without one. What if people got in vehicles without seat warmers ?? ... Would they necessarily become frozen solid to seat ???

I suppose they could run the Tundra with and without cooler and see what happens. I would find it to be a nice standard option on any heavier duty truck.

BTW ... I was going to refer to you as Mod without a "D" but didn't want you to take offense to the name Mo lol.

bamatundra

"I read it in a magazine"

LOL - you have to choose your lies more carefully, at least make them believable. Oh, I forgot - you are a stuporduty driver.

bamatundra

Shorter piston skirts result in less internal friction and lighter pistons and therefore less reciprocating mass. This results in better fuel economy and therefore less emissions. Muddy, as usual is talking out his A**

bamatundra

I followed your Truck Trend link that you posted because of your problem with reading comprehension. My original post referencing Motor Trend went right over your head (not surprising).

The Tundra, braked in a shorter distance loaded with 1350 lb than the Shakerado empty. Why is this so hard for you to understand? And you claim that the Chevette disks are superior? Not the sharpest knife in the drawer!

The Shakerado was just too wimpy for me to consider it a 1/2 ton. I consider it more akin to a Dakota. The standard V8 tow rating is 5000lb (The Tundra is 7200lb). You have to upgrade tires and suspension on the Shakerado to tow any more. It was clearly built for soccer moms.

No auxiliary tranny cooler. Chev saved a few bucks on that one. The 4WD Wimperado does not even come standard with skid plates, and the one you pay for looks like a cheesy aluminum pie plate - a joke! When you pay extra for the skid plates, there is none over the GAS TANK! What a joke! Chev gave its wimperado 3" less ground clearance to make it easier for the ladies to climb in.

The Chev has no standard oil cooler. Saved another couple of bucks. Only two channel ABS - they saved another couple of bucks. I say if you want a mediocre (at best) pickup with Yugo build quality, styling that went out in the 70's (someone needs to tell chev this), weak brakes, Fisher - Price interior, I say Chev is right for you.

If you want a true full size pickup, I'm afraid the Tundra is the only logical choice.

If and when Toyota comes out with a 3/4 ton, it will totally outclass the Chebby HDs just like the Tundra outclassed the Shakerado 1/4 ton trucks.

The Furd F150 is badly in need of a redesign. I consider it a poor ripoff of Tacoma styling. The Stuporduty also stole the Tacoma's styling (and is even a poorer ripoff). The 5.4L is underpowered. Being a SOHC engine, it would be easy for them to go 3 or 4 valves/cylinder. They need to do this to compete with the Tundra.

losangelesemt

Lol my friend, I think we need to get you in a few Toyota commercials. You are certainly a believer, which is good. Make no mistake though, should Toy decide to enter the 3/4 - 1 ton market, they will give the others a run for their money. It will definitely be interesting seeing how long it takes to convert the die hard domestics over.

plutonious

Many of the ignoramuses in this discussion sure sound like the folks who criticized the "imports" when they appeared in the 1970s. Maybe they're making such a stink because they're about to get a repeat history lesson on what happens when Toyota and Honda decide to compete against the Big 3.

ryanbab

" looks like a cheesy aluminum pie plate"

Bama can i take mine off and hit you with it? Then we will see if its a pie plate

bamatundra

These Chev boys just need to hear some facts! Chev conned them into thinking they had a full size pickup. It might be good competition for a Dakota or a Ranger. Definitely not full size.

I don't think that Muddy, Hilly or Flappy really own trucks. They just seem so ignorant of the basic facts. I think they would really down deep like to own Tundras.

I used to live in LA. I lived in San Pedro for 3 yrs, and Palos Verdes Peninsula for one year. There are certain things I really miss about LA.

modvptnl

Commercials for blama....??? Nah, more like his own NIGHT AT THE IMPROV!!! The dude is seriously full of it!!

Super Duty copied tacoma...LOL!! F150 AND Super Duty stole tacoma's styling?? I think blahma's been eating wild 'shrooms again!!!

GM's max rating is near 2000 pounds more for towing......You're stuck with whatever toy gives you.

Shorter piston skirts reduce friction??Considering the piston should never touch the bore, that's a good one ...LMAO!!

1350 pounds??? The article clearly states 1000 pounds of sand bags.....Fuzzy math??? ROTFLMAO!!!

I'll type even slower for you blams, The GM truck was less affected by a load than the wimpy runtra's disc/drum setup. Even your new found friend, N(er)D sentraspeedracer, can tell you that race car brakes will take some time, heat and loads before working at their full potential. The more weight GM was hauling the less it was affected. Is that so difficult to understand??? I'll try another way for the truly dense. At 0 load the toy stopped 16' shorter, with 75% load(GM actually hauling 500 pounds more on thinner tires) the difference was 9'.Logic would dictate that at full load the GM may even stop a few feet shorter.

3" less ground clearance....Here we go again!! When it's been PROVEN OVER AND OVER, even by toy owners, that the lowest point on each truck is within 3/4".....ROTFLMFAO!!!

Now blahma chooses to believe N(er)D? maybe the tundras do have start up engine knock after all!!

Of course the HEAVIER forged pistons(you agree now, right blahma?) must account for the high tech wiz bang SMALLER toy motor getting less economy than GM and the same as the much more powerful Ford. Sort of embarrassing that such a small, hi-tech truck is such a pig.

quadrunner500

>Make no mistake though, should Toy decide to enter the 3/4 - 1 ton market, they will give the others a run for their money.<

Somebody call the whah-aaa-mbulance for LA_Emt! LOL!

modvptnl

"The lack of bottom-end grunt is evident when carrying heavy loads, where the powertrain bogs a bit from a standing start and needs to rev longer to achieve highway speeds.
Unladen, the Toyota pulled to 60 mph in a respectable 8.0 sec, and a decent quarter-mile pass at 16.2 sec at 85.8 mph. Loaded with 1000 lb of sandbags.............."

I'm sure the toy boys will dispute this somehow.

quadrunner500

Spama is not responsible for the content of his lies.

modvptnl

I was almost ready to go to the dark side until I read the "disclaimer."

I'm gonna pick up the 40' trailer on Thursday...ya' think I should borrow a tundra??? Better yet, maybe a taco will pull it. After all, the Super Duty copied(????) the taco.

hillhound

GM packages their tranny coolers with the FACTORY installed tow package. Why would someone even need a tranny cooler if you don't tow with the truck? Too bad-with the Tundra you pay for it whether you need it or not The last I heard Toyota didn't even install tow hitches at the factory-was a dealer installed accesory (check out the Toy website).

And speaking of skid plates-anyone take a look at that dumb little transfer case plate on the 2/5 Ton-dra?? LOL!! It's about the size of a coffee can lid and get this-it's bolted right onto the transfer case Toyota dupes you into thinking it's protecting!! How stupid is that?? The TC is gonna absorb the energy from any impact the skid plate takes-typical example of shortcut Toyota engineering.

On the other hand, the heavier-duty and more usable GM has it's skid plates bolted to the FRAME so that they actually add some measure of protection to the unit it protects.

lariat1

If you purchase a Toy with the intentions of using the reciever hitch for anything besides a bicycle rack you better get a supercharger from the factory because you are definitely driving "HIGH".

PF_Flyer

Just a reminder that the Town Hall chat is tonight (5-7pm Pacific/8-10 pm Eastern). Hope you can join us tonight, April 3rd, when our topic will be:

Engine sludge got you down?

Hope to see you there!

http://www.edmunds.com/townhall/chat/newsviews.html

PF Flyer

Host

Pickups & News & Views Message Boards

obyone

While all vehicles not maintained have the potentioal to sludge, it seems Toyota is the only manufacturer making the headlines with sludge and how they are handling their customers that have it.

eric2001

if the Tundra was the first with rack & pinion, what does the Dakota count as? It had it back in '88 when it was introduced? Just curious.
-Eric

fischda

I've enjoyed reading this thread a lot. You all have a lot of personality and take a lot of liberty with "facts."

I'll be buying a full-sized truck; probably an '03. I've driven all the '02s out there and I like Tundra, Silverado, F-150 and RAM in that order. None are 100% perfect. I'm buying a truck for what I need - daily driving, hauling MX bikes, home-owner work (landscaping, deck building, sod, etc.), hunting trips, and that's about it.

I think the Tundra has the nicest feel, comfort, and all-around reliability, but I fault it for lack of nice-to-have options, low max payload, and lack of extended cab room. I wouldn't buy a Tundra for a ranch or heavy work truck.

So what I'm saying is that all your arguing doesn't do a lick to prove which is the best truck. Their attributes must be measured individually by the buyer with his/her own list of needs for a truck. For me, unless there are drastic changes in '03, looks like Tundra. However, if I owned a business or something where I'd be hauling and towing all the time, then definitely NOT Tundra.

But keep the facts and mudslinging coming, I like it!

dch0300

Sounds like you have a level-headed approach to buying your new truck.
I too spent a lot of time looking at the different new trucks out there and available options. And for me it came down to a Silverado 1500 ext-cab Z-71 was the best truck for my current needs then or potential future needs. 15 months later, I'm smiling and still have no problems or regrets at all.
I hope you get a great truck, regardless of the make, when you do decide to buy one. I hate to see someone spend $30k and not get a good rig.
I hope that Toyota keeps producing bigger and better trucks, that way it will force the Big 3 to keep building better trucks themselves.

catam

Rational discussion on trucks in the last few posts. How did this happen??!!!! Clearly you have come to the wrong thread, the only people who have posted on this thread are emotional whinners with no self confidence.
The only thing that makes this thread worth reading is the humor content.

losangelesemt

You better believe that should Toyota further itself in the full size market, they'll be giving the others a fair run for the money. Toyota's problem is they don't have the reputation of putting out a true workhorse of a truck. Therefore they lose the business of Americans needing a heavy duty grunt.

They've never mass marketed monster trucks here in America so who knows how it will go. Can't necessarily be noted for your heavy duty trucks, if you've never produced any. You're only kidding yourself if you think theres no potential for Toyota in 3/4 - 1 ton market.

I can think of many guys who love the reliability and smoothness of Toyota trucks but just can't benefit from them to tow/carry huge loads, therefore buying domestic. Once Toy. overcomes that obstacle, all of the sudden the playfield is a little more neutral. Plus it will take quite some time to convert hardcore domestic owners over. Toyota being foreign, doesn't have the traditional American pride advantage of GM/Ford/Dodge. They are indeed an underdog given these things. Should they continue to provide "Toyota Quality" in bigger trucks, it will only be a matter of time before the numbers change.

losangelesemt

Hey L.A. is a nice place to VISIT lol, and thats even a stretch anymore. Place is out of control and not getting any better, even where you were at by the beach. Hey I was thinkin ... since Quad is about halfway between your place and mine, maybe we could meet up in CO. and be there to provide some moral support for him. I mean its not gonna be easy for a die hard domestic to set foot on Toy dealership and step into a new Tundra all by himself. It's really the least we could do. Looking forward to Toyota uping the stakes someday ya know.

bamatundra

Babs: " looks like a cheesy aluminum pie plate"

Bama can i take mine off and hit you with it? Then we will see if its a pie plate "

Babs - my skidplate is double wall thick guage steel, about 50 lb. and at least three times as large as yours. How about I take mine off, hit you with it, and if you survive you can bounce that flimsy, chintzy pie plate off of me?

Face it babs, Chev dropped the ball on this one! Of course their target market is soccer moms who never off-road their vehicles.

quadrunner500

>You're only kidding yourself if you think theres no potential for Toyota in 3/4 - 1 ton market.<

Toyota hasn't proved to me they can even build a 1/2 ton truck. Sales were dismal in February. The tundra stepside, S/C, 3/4, 1 ton et al....exist only in the minds of minolta! For sure they need a morale boost, to stop the hemorrhage of defectors to Avalanche, which will outsell Tundra in a month or two. Change for a dollar?

plutonious

with Bama here, I'd just like to mention old mod seems to act like a self-proclaimed engine expert here but really is nothing more than your scruffy shade-tree mechanic familiar with engines 3 decades old. You just can't talk any sense into mod, you see. He still believes that variable valve timing only helps an engine out in the lower RPMS, and that DOHC 4 valve engines lack low-end grunt due to lower air velocity through the intake manifold.

He conveniently forgets that fuel-injection solved the 4 valve engine's lack of low end grunt (due to improper fuel-air mixing because of the lower air velocity). And despite his wild, 30 year old theories on DOHC engines, he has no explanation for the fact that the Tundra's engine PRODUCES MORE TORQUE AT LOWER RPMS THAN THE FORD 4.6 AND CHEVY 4.8. IN FACT, THE TOYOTA 4.7 HAS TORQUE/RPM SPECS SIMILAR TO THE CHEVY 5.3.

In short, take mod's engine expertise with a grain of salt.

Now for a few rebuttals...

"You want to talk copied?? Toy was going to name their runtra the T-150, EVERY published article states how runtra used the ovoid interior design of the 3 year older Ford....give it up blama. The Japanese make good vehicles but everyone knows the best thing they do is copy other designs."

Really, mod? The Camry and Corolla (best selling cars in the U.S. and WORLD) are designs the domestics constantly chase after...whose the copycat here? Oh, and the Ranger and especially S-10 look like plain crap when compared to the Tacoma. Hey, at least GM isn't THAT much of a copy-cat. They're still using pushrods and 4 speed auto-trannies while everybody else has progressed to OHC/DOHC and 5 speed trannies...

"The 5.4 has 15 more horsepower and 40 pounds more torque. It is within 10ths of every runtra test giving up a couple hundred pounds and taller gearing(3.55 vs 3.92). Real weak. I guess since the old pushrod 4.0 in the Ranger beats the taco in every published test the 3.4 toy must be even a bigger dog..."

Wow, so Ford's 5.4 has a whopping 15 lbs more torque than Toyota's 4.7? Yeah, that's something to be proud of! I don't even care about horsepower, we all know that's insignificant, especially when we talk trucks. Why did you neglect to mention Ford's 4.6 V8 anyway? If the "runtra" is weak, what makes the F-150 with the 4.6 then? Super-Weak, that's what. Oh, and now the Ranger beats the Tacoma in published tests? Like what tests? Please don't make me bring out the laundry-list of comparos where the Tacoma outperformed everything else, including the off-road test against the Wrangler, Land Rover and Hummer. Oh yeah, why wasn't the "superior" Ranger in that comparo, anyway?

"Do you know what piston to bore clearance is??? How about rings??? I cannot believe you have the ba!!s to even argue this point. If the piston makes contact with a cylinder.......here's a new word for you, SEIZE!!!"

Gee, since you're so smart, why don't you lecture GM on piston/bore clearances so they can solve their knocking engines and piston-slap issues?

"If you're talking about the massive, innovative taco skid plate bolted to the transfer...."

Wow, it never ceases to amaze me how often the Tacoma gets involved in full-size truck debates. That the Tacoma is compared to full-sized trucks is nothing but praise for it. Mod, you're a Ford fan. Go look under the front end of any Superduty and see how many gas struts and what-not are protected by nothing at all, not even an "innovative taco skid plate."

Basically, you've been posting the same crap as all the other ignoramuses here. You know, comparing Tacos to 1/2 tons and making mismatched displacement comparos, like Toyota 4.7s to Ford 5.4s and Chevy 5.3s.

If Ford and Chevy are so great, why not be consistent and show us how their 4.6 and 4.8, respectively, stack up when compared to Toyota's 4.7?

You make me laugh, doood!

losangelesemt

"Toyota hasn't proved to me they can even build a 1/2 ton truck. Sales were dismal in February."

You know I'll agree with you to a point regarding the Tundra and sales. Here's the major problems ... Most people who consider the Tundra and turn it down do so because 1) rear seat too small for most, 2) its towing/hauling performance is questioned, 3) its a foreign truck and theres way too many domestic traditionalists here in the U.S. and 4) its not thought of as a work truck/grunt.

I personally like the Tundra not being as long a truck as the others, but you sacrafice rear seat room. My roomate despises driving his huge Rado in L.A. traffic at times, but what can ya do. The part of the market their not catering to or capturing is the 3/4 - 1 ton + category.

If they're gonna take the leap then they better do it right, with a solid truck. Theres too many non Toy owners like yourself who don't even believe in the 1/2 ton, and will certainly be prematurely questioning anything bigger from Toyota.

I figure if they come up with something good in the next few years, it will give you plenty of time to enjoy the Chev you have now. Then you, Bama, and myself can go over to the Toy dealer and trade your Rado in and get ya set-up in a 1 ton Tundra.

losangelesemt

Well I'm a shadetree kinna guy myself, but not sure if I have Mod beat in the scruffy category lol. Nor do I have 30 year old ideas on engines, I leave that to GM.

modvptnl

I'm not going into your lack of knowledge on powerbands and the advantages and disadvantages of multivalve technology. You cannot understand it. It's your problem, not mine. It is almost as sad as your rear locker/LSD confusion a few months back.

Why can't you accept that Ford tunes their 4.6 for trucks that way for whatever reason. The same reason the 3.0 Lexus motor outpowers the truck 3.4 in the toy. The Mustang 4.6 comes very close to the runtra in torque and again wins in HP.(All this using 2 valve technology)

As usual, you're reading skills leave little to be desired. The 5.4 has 15 more HORSEPOWER and 40 pounds more torque. GEE, all that DOHC 4 valve technology and it still falls behind in torque and uses the same amount of fuel in a lighter truck.

I quoted the MOTOR TREND of a few years back where the 4.0 Ranger 5 speed auto beat the toy in measured performance. (The Dakota won overall)

Are you disputing piston to bore clearance? Being a dumass like shortbus bama? Or do you really believe the piston is supposed to make contact contact with the bore?

The taco was brought up by your idol, shortbus, when he unbelievably states that the Super Duty copied its styling. Your subjective styling comments are very important to me.......NOT. And the Camry and Corolla also are on my list of what to buy next.......DOUBLE NOT. Again, shortbus brought up a S/C taco somewhere in this topic...don't flatter yourself. Hey, while you're here, why does toy bolt the skid plate to the very unit it's supposed to protect???

As far as skid plates that are needed on a SFA compared to the IFS....sigh!!! You wouldn't understand anyway.

Why bring the base v8's in against the runtra?? Simple there goofy. Price and top engine that's available should be compared. It's not Ford/GM's problem the gas guzzling, down on torque 4.7 toy is their top offering.

twowheeler

I think it boils down to simple economics. The pushrod products that Chebby shovels are cheaper to manufacture than if they had to retool a plant to pump out the DOHC motors. In light of increasing competition, it only makes sense to keep with the cheapee motors and pacify the poor suckers that complain loud enough about their rattling engines with an extended warranty .

catam

There is a humorous saying about stats, " Statistics are like women's lingerie; what they reveal is interesting, what they hide is vital."

Just about every poster on this forum chooses some stat that supports his view and ignores all the other relevant data.

Just and example: pluto wants to compare the Tundra with its biggest available engine 4.7L v8 which also is its best seller, to a Chev with not its biggest avail engine and certainly not its best seller the 4.8L opposed to the 5.3L, and the same with the Ford 4.6 vs 5.4L

The only rationale for making this comparison is because it provides statistical info to support his view.

The simple fact is the biggest available engines are the best selling engines for all 3 trucks. In comparing these engines, 1)They all deliver very comparable fuel economy, (I believe GM is rated the highest), 2) They all come only available mated to an auto tranny, 3) Performance figures are all within a few tenths of a second.

I know I am asking the impossible, but it sure would be nice for even the true loyalists out there to make an "apples to apples" comparison, and then admit that no single one of these trucks does everything the best. They each have there strengths and weaknesses. Virtually nobody on this thread has any credibility to their opinion because they refuse to acknowledge data that is contrary to their opinion.

Each of us have needs in a truck that may be of limited significance to someone else. (Ie. I have 3 kids so I don't think the Tundra's rear seat is large enough.) Someone else could probably care less because the only thing in his back seat is some tools and groceries.

losangelesemt

Ya I agree with what you're saying but here's one problem ...

" Just and example: pluto wants to compare the Tundra with its biggest available engine 4.7L v8 which also is its best seller, to a Chev with not its biggest avail engine and certainly not its best seller the 4.8L opposed to the 5.3L, and the same with the Ford 4.6 vs 5.4L "

It makes no sense to talk about statistics, if you're going to compare engines that aren't even similar. So you're saying lets see what tastes better, apples, oranges, or grapes, instead of saying which apple tastes best. Darn right the Toy 4.7L should be compared to Fords 4.6L and Chevs 4.8L.

It just so happens that more often than not, the Tundra 4.7 is compared to 5.3 and 5.4 and then people still wanna knock the Tundra. The fact that the Tundra is the best selling top of line model for Toyota has no relevance whatsoever.

Is it the 4.7L Tundra's fault that the Chevs. 4.8 and Ford's 4.6 weren't/aren't their best sellers ??? I understand the point you were getting at, but lets compare apples with apples and then we can talk stats. As far as each truck having its own special attributes, I agree 100%. There will never be a clear winner in these threads since much of owning a truck isn't always statistically based.

I don't have the numbers and don't even know if any tests have been done, but maybe someone in here has stats from 4.7 vs 4.8 and 4.6, then we can talk.

modvptnl

Not positive on torque but the HP is as follows(from memory)

Chev 4.8= 275 HP

Ford 4.6= 240 HP

toy 4.7= 245 HP

I "think" torque is about 15 pound feet down on GM/Ford to toys 315#'s.

Sorry for being redundant, but the reason the 4.7 is compared to the 5.3 and 5.4 is one reason only; It's the top offerings from each maker, Period!!

The tundra has been criticized from the beginning for not offering the options and choices that Ford/GM offer. The motors are part of this criticism.

twowheeler

I think cat's reasoning about the "biggest engine - best seller" issue is a bit off topic. Yeah, if your frame of reference was to choose the best seller to determine performance, then I think it's easy to do the math (statistics) to figure out who the 1/2 ton king is (maybe). Were talking comparable displacement here to determine who leads the performance games. Maybe that's not a perfect comparison because all the other variable are not normalized (i.e. weight, traction, aerodynamics, etc.) but I think it's more of a direct comparison than comparing the best seller. Does it make sense to compare the best selling Kia sedan to the best selling BMW sedan to determine performance ? I'd hope not!

modvptnl

That makes no sense at all!!!

Who out there is choosing between a BMW or a Kia??

If I'm looking at a tundra or GM/Ford I will compare the top offerings I can get. Unless I'm willing to give up some performance for a few more MPG....oh wait, I can't do that with a tundra. It's 1 V6 or 1 V8.

I don't believe anyone here disputes the toy will beat the lesser V8's from Ford or GM. but I believe(too lazy to look it up)that the smaller Ford/GM v8's get a few more MPG since the toy can't even match the bigger V8's. Again, it's a choice toy doesn't even offer.