By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
In any case, it is a limiting factor for sure. I will give the Tundra the advantage in this department as it is the quickest of the trucks with everything stock -- more importantly, it is doing so also when towing heavy loads. I don't remember seeing a flat 6.0 sec run for 0-60, but I do remember seeing around 6.3 or 6.4 because I was amazed that it could match my current car.
Anyhow, as much as any of these things seem important, they really aren't except for bragging rights. I have a fast car and very rarely ever get to use its potential. It is nice knowing that the power is "on tap" should I need it, but really, aside from exit ramp merges and take-offs from the toll booths, it is next to impossible to use that kind of acceleration. There is just too much traffic all the time. I often wonder why a speed limit in this area is even posted as it is pretty rare when anybody can travel at it anyway.
Yes, I live reasonbly close to the D.C. area and have to use the beltway and I-95 frequently. I-95 drives quite nicely, the beltway on the other hand is a parking lot most of the time...
GMs torque management program that STRANGLES the
6.0, 6.2, and 8.1 engines esp. at wide open throttle.
Mostly it retards the timing during WOT events.
Posts on the GM truck forums say GM does this purposely
to prevent abuse and parts breakage and the related
costs while the truck is under the factory warranty
period.
One simple way around that is a PCM burn or the
use of certain hand held tuner units............
For a full details on GMs TM programming read this:
http://www.fullsizechevy.com/forums/showthread.php?t=123667
I must say I'm a lil' disappointed. They should make the parts stronger instead of strangling it. :confuse:
Rocky
on the 5.3 and 4.8 engines..............
I can assume the TM was started in 99.
My buds identical 04 1/2 ton x-cab 5.3 4:10s can blow the
doors off my 04 6.0. Not to mention burn the tires up
the street !
He can't out tow me tho !!!!!!!!!!
But at WOT you can sure feel the motor being held back!
I do run a Hypertech programmer but it does NOT address
the TM program. The only handheld tuner I know of that
does modify or shut off the TM program is the Diablo
Preditor. Didn't know that when I bought it !
But I got a bit more "seat of the pants feel" and a better
burn out and a few more mpgs............. :P
I guess if I pony up for a Sierra Denali I'm going to have to buy a Diablo Preditor, eh ? How much is the Diablo Peditor ? Does it work like all programmers where you can over ride the governor ?
Thanks for the info pal...
Rocky
Still, I'm not exactly sure that the 6.2 can beat the Tundra, even on the Denali though it would be good to watch. Right now, unless there is evidence to support that, I think the video speaks for itself...
I guess your explanation is then that the engine just stinks. No reason.
Sounds like something GM would put in their brouchure. Doesn't sound like something you'd hide from consumers.
DrFill :confuse:
To help with emissions is a different story, but if they did something like this on the 6.0, expect it on the 6.2 as well.
The volume these trucks can sell in may necessitate this move.
Funny how GM's weakness in building/selling cars may end up crippling their ability to sell trucks too! :surprise:
DrFill
RE: the EXT vs. the Denali- I would choose the EXT in a heartbeat. It's interior is classier, smooth, better materials and its aggressive looking front end makes it more appealing than the Denali. The Denali really looks like a "supped" up Silvy. It's the poor man's EXT. The above is obviously purely subjective and is IMHO.
Either way- neither the Denali nor the Escalade is doing any "real" work in the real world. Their show trucks essentially and used on the weekends on the occasional trips to Home Depot. I mean- how many Denali's or Escalades do you see with ladders, paint, wood, any anything else people generally put in work trucks?
I can respect your opinion about the Denali being better looking than everything else including the Tundra- but that's about it all it is- an opinion.
But how GM plans to explain this to new buyers and early owners will be interesting to note. I wonder too if any of this will make it into the specs online and in the brochures.
A PCM burn tune can run $125-$500..............
Most handhelds can adjust for tire size, shift points,
top speed, rpm limiter and the Diablo can address the
dreaded TM program...........
Of course the same can be done with a PCM burn too.
I run the handhelds because I like being able to pull
the tune out or change parameters at a moments notice.
Never know if and when I am gonna break that bad boy
truck pounding on it heavy towing or workin' the piss
out of it snowplowing.
I don't buy these trucks for a fashion statement or to
be a driveway queen !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mr. GM dealers Tech 2 machine CAN spot the tune thru the changed parameters and/or erase/change the altered
settings back to stock in some cases.............
Thats all I would need is to have the dealer void the
warranty because of "modifications".
Been there and done that routine and forget the posts
that say "the dealer must prove the mods caused the
problem". You trying to prove to the dealer otherwise
is like fighting city hall. It does a body no good trying
to sway the dealer when your vehicle is broke and you
need it fixed yesterday on GMs dime !!!!!!!!!! :sick:
No excuses- GM should put the 6.2 in the "regular" ones and if they do- kudos to GM. :confuse:
Until 07, Toyota IMO did not take the full size truck market seriously. I'm not saying the current Tundra or the T-100 are complete failures but in reality they really didn't cut the mustard. Whether or not Toyota sells 200k of the new ones a year is a fact that remains to be seen.
I'll bet you'll see a loaded crewmax for bushwhacking before you see any pretty looking Denali or EXT doing it. I do admit that the Denali has the hardware and suspension to do the job but I still stand by my statement that the Denali won't be as mainstream as the Silvy in doing daily "work" chores.
muddin' or offroading ! Prob. won't see too many on
the jobsite either.
Most likely ALL will end up as driveway queens and the only
heavy duty those will see is a trip to the garden store.
Possibly they might see some trailering duty hauling their
owners boat down to the water.
GM prob. will not offer the 6.0/6.2 in the full 1/2 ton
line because of the dreaded CAFE ratings. If the average
mpgs are too low it will cost them BIG $$$$.
(3/4 tons are exempt-for the time being)
toyota don't have to worry about that problem.
My point is that starting on this road of "tuning" and even adding performance parts etc to brag about numbers is just a good way to decieve others, if not yourself. Either do stock vs stock or tuned vs tuned (and more specifically mod vs mod) or don't make the comparison.
Comparing a "tuned" vehicle to a "stock" vehicle is hardly an equitable comparison. How do we know what the Tundra could do if it was "tuned" as well?
I find it funny when people think full-size trucks are good for off-roading. Everytime I see a F350 crew-cab long-bed with the FX4 Off Road sticker, I think that Ford is out of their minds. Trucks are meant for towing/hauling and "mild" off road duties. If you want to do serious off-roading you get a Jeep, Land Cruiser, Tacoma, Land Rover, etc. Where I grew up, I can't tell you how many times people with their trucks thought they could go muddin' only to get stuck. Doing that requires a light vehicle with a strong engine and big fat tires.
I will say this though, I do think that out of the 3 mentioned that the Tundra is more likely to be on a work-site just like the Silverado would be...
2007 - launch year ( shortie )
.. CrewMax only begins sales on Apr 1
.. TMMTX only begins CrewMax production in Aug ( '08 MY ? )
.. Total production: 10000 - 15000 units monthly iso 8000 - 12000 units in the past
2008
.. full production at 15000 - 20000 units monthly
.. Reg Cab sales 10%
.. Double Cab sales 70%
.. CrewMax sales 20%
First year the 5.7L should be 40-50% of production
2nd year the 5.7L should be 60-75% of production
GM may very well leave the 6.0 and 6.2 to be put into the driveway queens as you note.
Those crazy folks think NOTHING of slapping a custom
tune/exaust/engine mod./tires-wheels etc.
Its like the good old days of performance cars.
Except now most of these folks have the $$$$ to lay
out for those goodies.............
A landrover or a land cruiser offroad ??????????
I have yet to see one ! Maybe a L-R on their fancy-
schmancie dealer test course.
Heck, these big buck luxo barge trucks prob. never
see the 4wd engaged................
Unless your Denali2 with that bad boy rig at the track
crackin' off 1/4 mile runs. ...................
closer to 40%, Gulf states.
And we supposedly account for the bulk of Tundra sales.
And production this year will be a lot closer to 200,000
as you are not taking in to acount Indiana, where tehy built 120,000+ this year alone.
As for off-roading, you may have missed the point. Large trucks are not meant for serious off-roading. Anybody that has done that seriously should know this... the fact that I even have to mention it is amusing. Sure, some people may consider the Land Cruiser or Land Rover a "luxury" vehicle, but they are pretty well known here and around the world as the standard for all-terrain vehicles (though more recent models have definitely exuded luxury over function unfortunately). Still, Jeeps, Tacomas, even Dakotas and XTerras are fantastic (and in many cases better and cheaper) for doing this. If you have more money, yes, the Land Cruiser and Land Rover are pretty good choices (especially for hauling more people). Jeep's Commander is trying to get a good foot-hold in this space and I think they have an excellent product to do it with.
Point is... if you want to do serious off-roading, getting a nearly 3-ton full-size truck is not going to be a great choice -- even with a lot of mods. Besides, most of the other vehicles mentioned above will do it well stock and there is a much larger market of mods suitable to muddin', off-roading and things like desert racing and rock climbing.
Rocky
Hey, I can completely understand your predicament. There are a number of issues that you would be sure to encounter by getting a vehicle from a company that is a major competitor to the company that your family has worked for. Obviously doing what is best for you entails much more than just specs. You have the unity of your family to consider and, after all, a vehicle is just that... a vehicle.
Even with the closed-loop issue, it isn't as if you would be getting a bad vehicle. Heck most people would be fortunate to own either of the trucks we're discussing here. They are both much better than the rest of the competition, that is why it is a good comparison to make. I think for you the matter may already be settled, but for others, there may be factors that can lead them in one direction or another.
Competition provides better quality products all around and certainly ensures that the consumer has more choice! Good luck with your endeavor!
link title
My GM, family didn't speak to me for about 3 or 4 months. :surprise: I got burned by them
(a long story) So I'd never do it again.
Rocky
I wouldn't be too concerned about this "Closed Loop" torque management thing GM is doing. I have been researching this and currently still am, but if it is as much of an issue as people are making it out to be, it looks as though a simple "Tune" would take care of the problem. This can be done by a professional, or it also looks fairly straight forward to do with a handheld tuner which run about $400. The advantage with the handheld option is it would allow you to reset it to factory prior to bringing in to a dealer if you are concerned about warranty issues. Also, I did read that the most likely reasoning GM has for doing this is not for CAFE or mileage/emission reasons because these engines (6.0, 6.2 and 8.1) only represent a very small portion of the trucks they sell. Also, I do not believe that it would make much of a difference in the EPA's data anyway since it only occurs during WOT. It is most likely to alleviate the wear and tear on the drivetrain components when punching the throttle from a dead stop and at shift points. These trucks weigh over 5K lbs and applying that much torque to a mass that large puts alot of stress on these components. Yes, GM could make them "beefier", but that would make the truck even heavier and then they may as well make it a 3/4 or 1 ton chassis. As it is, they did beef up the tranny and rear end used on the 6.0 and 6.2's. This allows them to provide a 5 yr/100K mile warranty (which the competition does NOT). And remember, if you look at the numbers, it's not as if these trucks are slouches. They still beat the Ford F150's 5.4L and Dodge's 5.7L Hemi. I am guessing with a simple tune, it will make new Tundra buyers question their decision.
I guess that's my biggest concern.
Rocky
As far as warranties, they are identical. GM's 5/100K warranty applies to the powertrain, just like Toyota's. They have the same 3/36K bumper-to-bumper warranty, so there is no advantage to either company on this one.
From the figures provided to us by Toyota they are going to concentrate on the Dbl Cabs to the tune of 60-70% being Dble Cabs with the 4.7 & 5.7. The 'goal' for the CrewMax is 20-25% with the rest being the Reg Cab.
I should have been clearer when I miswrote 'production' iso 'sales'. Obviously production has been going on now at both plants since January. But sales really only have started this month and the date we've been told on the CM is last week of March ( or Apr 1 ). Earlier would be nicer.
It's the best of all the large manufacturers because it does include the mega-milers who drive 20K miles annually whereas Toyota and Nissan with their 5/60 PT warranties don't include these high milers.
However for the normal driver who goes 12K - 15K miles annually GM's warranty is about the same as the other two. It's great marketing at little risk. Kudo's to GM for 'staking out the high ground'.
Rocky
Go to the dark side. Look on the bright side, there will be more turkey and stuffing for you on Thanksgiving.
I don't understand any family that stops talking to other members of their family because of the car they buy even if they do work for GM. Actually, my father and brother are pretty loyal domestic buyers. If they stopped talking to me until I bought domestic, they would be waiting for a long, long time. They can take my Honda and Toyotas from me when they can pry the steering wheel from my could dead hands.
Nobody is preventing you from getting your GMC. And yes, I've seen Pearl Harbor, but if you hope to get any American-Japanese people to even consider buying GM or other American products, you better be the one to not shoot your mouth off. Idiotic comments like that feed the type of corporate snobbish attitude that has contributed to the ever shrinking business losses of GM, Ford, and Chrysler. You're going to need the business the way GM is doing right now, so I would keep comments about cultural intolerance to yourself.
I wonder if you ask him if he knows any reason why GM did the 4 sec closed loop on the Chevys and not the Yukon? Maybe he has some insight on this since he probably does a lot of these. It seems strange that the Yukon wouldn't have it, but the Silverado (and I'm assuming the Tahoe as well) would.
"AN IMPORTANT NOTE ABOUT ALTERATIONS AND WARRANTIES
Installations or alterations to the original equipment vehicle (or chassis) as distributed by General Motors are not covered by the General Motors New Vehicle Limited Warranty. The special body company, assembler, equipment installer or upfitter is solely responsible for warranties on the body or equipment and any alterations (or any effect of the alterations) to any of the parts, components, systems or assemblies installed by GM. General Motors is not responsible for the safety or quality of design features, materials or workmanship of any alterations by such suppliers."
They don't mention "tuning" specifically, but I probably wouldn't bring in a "tuned" vehicle for servicing without retuning it back to original specs. Even if nothing is wrong with the vehicle, they may note it in your profile if you try to make some kind of claim later. Better to be safe than sorry!
In any case, hopefully no harm is done. But I'm telling you as a favor (and hopefully as a friend as I consider all those who are on this forum)... comments like that -- even just a little bit of that attitude -- are what drive people away from American products. Just be a little more sensitive to your audience here and it will be alright. And I'll try to "lighten up" a little! Cheers!
Now, let's put performance aside a minute since both of these trucks are very capable workers.
Let's talk about looks, interior amenities, fit-n-finish etc. Of course this is mostly opinion, but I think the Chevys and GMC's look way nicer than the bland looking Toyota. Where are the body lines? Toyota has none!!!
For me personally this is a pretty difficult decision. I think if it was the Chevy vs the Tundra, I would get the Tundra, but I must admit that denali2 got me interested in the upcoming Denali. So, I'll need to see it and drive it in person to get a real-life impression.
My only caveat with the Denali so far is that it doesn't have a back seat as large as the CrewMax. I know, that this isn't going to be important to most people, but for me with 2 big dogs, it makes a lot of difference. It isn't a deal breaker, just something that I wish was on the Denali.