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
Both regions are owned by private businessmen who have the right to buy and redistribute all the Toyota vehicles in their respective regions. After buying the base vehicles from Toyota they can do as they wish with them.
Rocky - in the Tundra CrewMax, the entire rear window (with defroster) goes DOWN, like the glass in the doors. And yes, it is powered.....
BTW - on that cost buildout, are there any boxes you DIDN'T check?
I know for a fact that Toyota rarely gives any kind of incentives on price -- best deals on any Toyota vehicle is around $2500 off. Expect maybe close to $2K off in the future, but certainly nothing now.
As for Chevy, there are better deals for sure, but they're pretty much starting to put lids on their prices as well though I'm sure one can still get at least $4K off of MSRP.
Judging by the numbers I see right now, it looks like they're almost neck-and-neck in terms of MSRP, so it really is going to come down to what kind of deal you can get. Doing a feature-for-feature comparison would be great except for the fact that it may be more bias in favor of the Toyota. That is because there are only a few different "packages" that Toyota offers whereas the Chevy gives you more options without being tied into a particular package. In any case, we'll need to run the numbers. The difference on Edmunds comparison isn't that much (under $1K), but I'm guessing that the Denali will be significantly more than either of these vehicles.
We can 'guesstimate' that the CrewMax @ $41500 Base MSRP will have little or no options other than Navi and Rear DVD.
All the safety equipment is standard .. Ditto Sierra/Silvy
Leather & Heated seats standard .. Ditto Sierra/Silvy
20" wheels .. $920 extra ( Edmunds )
JBL 440 watt + Bluetooth .. Standard No Cost
Parking assist sonar..$500 extra ( Edmunds )
Power retractable rear window.. Standard No Cost
Power sunroof.. $810 extra ( Edmunds )
MIsc accessories.. $250 extra
MSRP w/o Navi or Rear Ent should be about $44-$45000 MSRP.
Buyers are getting $500-700 above invoice on the other models from agressive dealers right from week one. $41000 for this sounds about right.
Both GM and Toyota have done their homework.
This is hilarious in a good way. rorr, do you know why our prices are 10-20% higher here in Tejas ? Is it only in my part of the state ? Is their region pricing and it's more because I live in truck country and they can suck more money ?
I did check every box but the Texas Edition, (I Think) but the Texas Edition was a decrease in features.
The Sierra Denali I highly doubt cross's the $50K mark. The Tundra, has a lot of features available but those features add to the MSRP very quickly and some of the boxes had to be checked in order to get features found on the Denali.
So I had to see for myself on how much the Tundra, would go. It wasn't an attempt to mock or down play the Tundra, but rather build a Tundra with a Denali like luxury package. I'd like to own a Tundra, like I built as it would be one helluva a truck but the Denali would be a better bargain IMHO. Well that's the case anyways for me because of my GM Discount.
Rocky
2007 GMC Sierra Denali w/Rear DVD and Nav., Electric Sunroof,Power rear window, 20" Chrome Alum Wheels.
Invoice: $43,000
MSRP: $47,375
Not bad, I thought they were more, maybe I should have waited and got the Denali? Nah, still too much $$$
BTW...Motor Trend also named it Truck of the Year. How many awards has Toy won?
http://blogs.automotive.com/1008809/miscellaneous/2007-chevrolet-silverado-is-mo- tor-trend-truck-of-the-year/index.html
Edmund's Most Significant Vehicle - 2007 Tundra.
Go figure.
you did, remeber posting this
1. GMC Sierra
2. Chevy Silverado
3. Ford F150
4. Toyota Tundra
5. Nissan Titan
.
They're the ones that published the unknown fact that GM was pulling a slick one on the 2007 Silvy buyers. Imagine selling a 6.0L that's about as capable as the 5.3L.
Do you think that early, and current, 6.0L Silvy buyers might be a little upset at these shenanigans.
Motor Trend, using all the resources at it's disposal somehow missed this
My guess is that the Silvy was the only truck worthy of TOTY in 2007 so they gave it the 'once over' and didn't look too closely.... oops on MT.
Oh and BTW..I am one of them 07 GM truck buyers and I have no problem with it. I think it is a good thing. If I want to race, I will put my boat in the water and leave every boat in my class in my wake. Racing is meant for the racetrack and the water, not the public streets.
And no, the same tune to a Tundra will not get you the same hp gain since they already have theirs pushed to the max.
Why do they advertise 367 horses if you can't use them?
As for this so-called 4 sec closed loop delay, engines are almost always in closed loop mode anyway, except during WOT. All they are doing is keeping it in in closed loop at start-up for 4 secs to save a little fuel and exhaust emissions. How often does a person floor it from a stop anyway? Even with a trailer. I never do, even on the rare occasion when I want to smoke the Hemi next to me. It's doesn't gain you anything, you can only feed an engine so much air/fuel at a given RPM anyway. Again, think about it. Better yet, go read about it and educate yourself, I did. I will admit, when I first heard about this, I was skeptical too, but after educating myself on it and thinking about it, only then I realized it is a good thing.
But honestly though- if the 07 Tundra was slower 0-60 the GM fans would be posting it all over this forum. It's bragging rights and that's it. You can downplay that fact in your own personal driving situations but most if not all reviews of the Tundra mention its incredible get up and go.
The fact is- the Tundra is a pretty fast (0-60) truck- in its stock form, period. Why not just acknowledge it and move on?
Highly technical thesis on Torque Management...Educate yourself.
73. No Jayson and all the others, the 4 seconds means that the FULL TORQUE NUMBERS aren't reached immediately so that the drivetrain builds a smooth
arc of power WHICH RESULTS IN FAR SUPERIOR DURABILITY/RELIABILTY. That's why the COMPUTER does this, and that's why I WOULD BUY THE CHEVY ANY DAY!
Truck Trend and the other magazines devoted to TRUCKS understand this, and overwhelmingly recommend SILVERADO
Say, what???
I truly don't understand your point. It sounds like you are saying that a 5.3 is as powerful as a 6.0. Kind of like someone suggesting that the 4.8 (?) GM engine is almost as good as the 5.3. Or in my case, the old Ford 302 V8 is only 49 cubes short of the 351 and so it is almost as good. Incidentally, the 351 engine upgrade was a $750 option in 1987 and well worth it.
A guy who buys the 6.0 for about $1000 more (compare that figure to the $750 upgrade of 20 years ago) gets more cubic inches than a 5.3 and more reserve power. It also might be the case (I can't prove it, though) that the 6.0 block is heavier and more rugged with perhaps higher nickel content. After all, this engine is also used as a GM industrial engine. Moreover, the 6.0 buyer gets a better transmission with a larger torque convertor and a tranny cooler, if his 6.0 comes as the TowMax option for $2000. No tranny cooler is available with the 5.3. None. The owner of a 5.3 Silvy had better know how to spell AAMCO at 85,000 miles.
I'd rather have the 6.0 with the Towmax option even if we didn't plan on towing a darn thing. It is just that much better. Which powertrain would you rather have for the next 120,000 miles? One that was 3/4 of a litre bigger, with a better block and a better transmission/torque convertor with an auxilliary cooler? Or essentially a pass car powertrain package?
I think that the closed loop thing isn't an engineering problem... it is a solution to an economic model. Engineering would put in a 750hp motor on 22" wheels with 18" brake rotors and 6-piston calipers if they could. Management says otherwise -- if they did it to protect the drivetrain, it is because they couldn't justify the added cost. What company doesn't want 0-60 bragging rights? Prolonging the life of the drivetrain is a secondary result of ensuring that you can still get a good engine and good drivetrain without having to spend excess $$ on a better drivetrain. Toyota has a different economic model to work with...
But, as I said before, it is more likely due to the economic model. Maybe there wasn't enough time to get it done at a decent cost and with enough testing to verify it. Remember the whole GMT900 platform came out a year earlier. That alone makes me hesitate, but I still think the design is great.
Overall though, I wouldn't argue in favor of this feature. I don't think it is a major hinderance as some may suggest, but I do think that it does raise the question of the value of getting the 6.0L engine. I think it looks like it makes more sense to stick with the 5.3L or go to the Denali with the 6.2 (if that engine doesn't have it either -- though someone mentioned, but didn't confirm that the 6.0, 6.2, and 8.1 engines had this system).
GM has DOHC motors in the works.
http://www.motortrend.com/features/auto_news/2007/112_0702_gm_ultra_v8_engine
Rocky
If another truck maker, say Toyota, had put this in to 'smooth out' the Torque or to 'protect the tranny' there'd be heehaws and screams of laughter at how weak the tranny really was.
7/8th's tranny?
That is the way us GM, guys are feeling right now. :sick:
Rocky
IMO, The value of the 6.0 vs the 5.3 is a "no-brainer". For an extra $1000, you not only get the bigger, more powerful engine, but you get a heavier duty tranny with external cooling, external engine oil cooling, a heavier duty 9.5" rear end and 4 wheel disc brakes. I personnally opted for the 6.0 w/o the Max Trailering pack because I wanted 3.73 rear end gears. I also wanted the 20" wheels which are not available with the max trailering pkg.
I ordered it on Jan 22nd.
The Toyota doesn't need this feature, maybe because of the 6-speed.
As many have said, if the shoe was on the other foot, Toyota would be catching hell for it.
The GM truck is a full second slower! That's big. And with a bigger engine! You can't just blow that off. And it hurts drivability, at least as far as Edmunds is concerned.
If it runs like a gimp, it's a gimp!
DrFill
Actually blackislandguy, the new 6.0L has an aluminum block. It also features a "deep skirt" meaning that overall the the block is "taller". You will notice that the oil pan is shallower, because the block now takes up the space that the sheet metal oil pan used to occupy. The deep skirt block allows the use of 6-bolt main caps on the crankshaft. Yes, that's right, six bolt mains. 4-bolt mains + 2 cross bolts on each cap. The cross bolts go through the sides of the block. This creates a much more rigid block/crank interface, less crank flex, smoother operation, more power. The 6.0L also features a separate engine oil cooler. These features were once reserved for very exotic racing engines, now avail. on a "civilian" engine. The 6.0 is a big leap forward.
As has been mentioned by other posters, the 6.0 also comes with the M70 4-speed, a super-duty version of the previous HD trans. It has hardened gear sets and other heavy duty features, such as a trans oil cooler, to handle the increased power from the 6.0L. In additon, the 6.0L package also comes with the 9.5-inch super duty rearend with mechancial locker. This is superior to any "limited slip" rearend in soft sand & mud. It delivers equal power to each of the rear wheels, not just full power to one and partial power to the other. It is similar to the rearend in the older 1500HD model, and the Hummer H2. Note also the beefier shock mounts and other similar features.
The 6.0L package is about $1,000 option and well worth it considering all the other goodies you get.
First, who cares about ¼ mile times? Who drives like that? Maximum horsepower numbers are almost as meaningless. The Horsepower Wars can never be won. As true as I write this, Dodge and Ford are designing engines RIGHT NOW that have more hp than either Chevy or Toyota has today. In a few years, people (some people, anyway) will look back and wonder at how they survived with “only” 400 hp. Want speed? Get a Z06. All this nonsense about what the dyno says, 4-second loops, etc. I have not driven the Tundra, I’m sure it’s excellent, but I drove the Silverado 6.0L, the throttle response is OUTSTANDING. I know about throttle response, growing up in the Golden Era of hot rods in the 1960s. I would venture to guess that I have won more street races than most of the posters here have ever seen.
Here’s my measure of a truck. The top five tiers are (in no particular order):
1) Will it do what needs to be done? Will it haul the gear and people that need hauling? Does it have enough power to do the job?
2) Is it reliable? Is it built solidly? Will it last? Can I get good dealer service? I have no recent experience with GM/Chevy dealers, but my experience with Toyota dealers has been bad. Real bad.
3) Is it comfortable? If you are like me you spend quite a few hours behind the wheel. The truck needs to be comfortable on the inside. Firm solid feel, good dash layout, quiet interior, decent stereo. Must have great seats because that’s where my butt will spend many hours.
4) Is it safe? Does it handle well? Good brakes? I also like the GM OnStar. I go a lot of places most of you will never dare to go. If I get stuck, or sick, or injured, I want help RIGHT NOW, not next spring when the snow thaws. Remember that family a few months ago in Oregon? If they had OnStar they’d all be alive right now, talking to their friends about their big adventure. Instead, there is a wife and child without a husband/dad. Every vehicle should have a system like that, but especially 4x4s and pickups. As I get older, I figure the odds of me having to use it go up. OnStar may save my life some day, or the life of someone I love. What’s that worth?
5) Does it get decent fuel economy? Not great, mind you, no full size truck gets great fuel economy. But it shouldn’t be unnecessarily wasteful.
The next two tiers are as follows:
6) Styling. Does it look OK? Not great mind you, no truck has ever won a beauty contest. If you want beauty, buy a Corvette or GT Mustang some other sports car. BTW, styling is such a personal issue that I wouldn’t spend a nanosecond debating which truck looks better. I used to think the Dodge was ugly, but it grew on me and now I think it’s the best looking truck out there. Better than Silverado, better than Tundra, better than F-150. But that’s not enough for me to buy one. That’s why styling is second tier.
7) What others say. I read the forums, mostly to find out about problems. But I don’t give a rat’s sphincter about what other people think about looks, or their speculation, or their smarta** comments. Give me facts, or shuddup already.
Finally, there are the “intangibles”:
As I grow older (and hopefully wiser) I am getting concerned about a lot of things that are happening to my country. Things such as wide-open borders and massive illegal immigration. Yeah, it’s great for the short run, for the consumer who wants to hire the illegal alien to get some work done around the house on the cheap. But what is it doing to us all in the long term? Go to WalMart, take a look at all the consumer products on store shelves – a huge percentage are made in China. And, by gosh, some of it is pretty darned good quality and getting better every day. Same for vehicles. The Japanese build some good stuff, there’s no doubting it. I own 3 Japanese vehicles right now – a Toyota, an Isuzu, and a Nissan. I’ve been fairly happy with each, less so with the Toyota (4x4 pickup). But overall they’ve been good. But my philosophy is changing. If Americans build a real good product at a reasonable price, I’m going to buy it from now on. If I can get an American, or legal immigrant, to do some work for me at a fair day’s wages, he (or she) will get my business over the illegal alien every time, even if it costs a little more.
And don’t give me that garbage about Toyota being as American as apple pie. Yes, they hire Americans in their factory in Texas, but the profits end up in Japan. That’s OK, at least Toyota pays taxes and is playing by the rules, unlike illegal immigrants. But a lot of that Toyota money leaves the country, just like the illegals sending billion$ back to their home countries.
I have no brand loyalty. The competition has made the Silverado as good as it is. Detroit should at least be thankful for that. I won’t buy junk even if it is American made junk. But I am an American and if Detroit builds a great product I’ll buy it.
The fact that there are so many posts about Tundra vs. Silverado tells me that it’s at least a horse race. The Tundra is great, but I’ve had enough experience with Toyota trucks to wonder about the quality that is automatically assumed every time the word “Toyota” is mentioned. Based on lots of personal experience with Toyotas, my response is “Eh”. But the Silverado is also great (thanks to the competition), and it’s American. That gives it the slight edge for me. If it turns out to be a poor product, you can count on me to post about it. Finally, I reserve the right to go back to Toyota (or Nissan, or whatever) if Detroit doesn’t measure up.
Sorry about the long post, end of rant. Thanks for reading.
1offroader
For those of you (Drfill) that insist on comparing 0-60 times between GM and Toyota, let's move this comparison to a sports car forum and we'll compare GM's top performer (the Corvette Z06) to Toyota's top performer (anyone know what that is?). As for this forum, let's compare performance based on what the design intent is.
First, let's compare towing capability: GM wins! Even with TM (because TM does NOT affect it)...for the millionth time!!!
Ride quality: GM wins again (based on every comparison test I have read..PM magazine for one).
My last comment on TM..Since you (drfill, kdhspyder and belias) obviously cannot understand TM from a technological standpoint, let me use an example maybe you can understand.
Let's say it's a little misty out (or even dry for that matter) and you pull up to a stoplight driving your 2007 Toyota Tundra with the 5.7L and there is an identical Toyota next to you wanting to race. The light turns green and you stomp the accelerator to the floor and the guy next to you accelerates as much as he can without breaking the tires loose (manual TM)...who wins? My point? TM (or 4 sec closed loop delay in this case) makes no difference from a stop since the maximum acceleration is limited to traction achieved anyway. And we all know that pickups in 2wd with an empty box do not get much traction from a stop due to the lack of weight over the drive wheels. Oh sure, traction control, limited slip and rear lockers help, but you can and will burn up your tires if you apply all the available torque to the rear wheels from a dead stop. Sure, you can use 4wd to eliminate this, but who drives in 4wd all the time? Let's compare realistic driving. That may be the reason GM uses TM differently (notice I say "uses it differently", not "doesn't use it") in the Denali's with the 6.2 liter. Because they are AWD, not 4wd.
Bottom line...without traction, hp and torque are worthless.
Am I saying that the GM would beat the Toyota in 0-60 times or 1/4 mile times in "real world" conditions? Probably not, the Toyota does have more hp and torque, but NOT because of TM, most likely it is due to the DOHC design which IMO is a superior design. Does that mean the Toyota is the better truck? Not IMO, I look at the entire package and I would still take the GM anyday. It hauls just as much, rides better, gets better mileage and costs less. Not to mention it looks way better, but that is just my opinion. Oh and the interior in the Toy sucks!!! Again, my opinion, but I think I share that opinion with almost everyone.
Oh and BTW drfill, please explain how TM affects "driveability"?? You confused me on that one?
Bringing up Vettes vs. Toyota sports cars, eh? Desperate men do desperate things.
I distinctly remember the 1993 Toyota Supra embarassing every sports car on the planet, especially Vette ZR1s back in the day. Even the C5, 5 years later, was only able to MATCH the Supra!
If Toyota wants to build the best vehicle, in any class, they do it. Period.
Best Hybrid. Bets family car. Best compact truck. Best full-size truck. Best luxury car.
It's getting boring.
DrFill
Read the article? I drove the truck!!! Maybe you should do the same before shooting off your mouth.
The only real caveat they came up with is how the truck didn't respond with full power when floored
That's funny..When I drove it it responded just fine when I floored it??? I didn't have to wait 4 secs. Have you ever driven one? I didn't think so.
You have to change how you drive based on what the truck will let you do, which is less than what you want.
Maybe if you are a Nascar driver or drag racer, but since your not in Daytona driving 185mph right now (nor am I) I guess that's a moot point.
Desperate? Haha what a joke, I am not desperate, why would I be desperate? I am perfectly happy with the choice I made and would make the same choice without hesitation again.
What planet were you on in 1993? The Supra?? hahahaha Now THAT'S funny, oh I am sure every ZR1 owner was shakin in their boots. Oh, and I suppose it handled better too huh? Funny, I didn't see a Toyota pacing the Daytona 500 today (or EVER!!!).
I actually find your ignorance amusing, Thank You for making my day.
The only thing more wasteful than driving 2nd best, is buying 2nd best! I don't waste time, and certainly don't waste cash.
Penny-wise, pound-foolish. You got what you paid for, so enjoy. See you in the rearview, kid! :P
DrFill
Both we're extended cabs and both we're 4WD. First, the Silverado immediately impressed with it's extraordinary fit/finish. The exterior, while I wasn't overly impressed with it, looks quite fetching in fully-dressed LTZ guise. The interior is a quantum leap over it's predecessor, with gap tolerances and use of materials not seen in a pick-up, ever. The ride was very compliant, smooth, and super quiet. And while I wasn't overly impressed with the brake feel upon modulation, they stopped true and short.
The Toyota, with such hoopla placed on it to over take Detroit's only remaining stronghold, wasn't so impressive. Like most products that Toyota is churning out lately, the quality doesn't match what it used to be. The use of interior materials and panel linearity was way worse than the Chevy. When is the last time that happened? The ride was choppier, bouncier, and stiffer than the sure-footed Chevy. And altho it makes a statement, that 5.7L i-Force V8 belted out more noise than necessary. And I thought the Ram HEMI 5.7L was loud, and it's a OHV motor. So much for quad cams...
All in, I think Chevy(and GMC) has a homerun. All of the publications(Truck Trend, Motor Trend, and C&D) seem to think so, especially C&D putting the Silverado over the Tundra for the 5best trucks last month. Toyota has to learn that you can't just throw power behind something and call it a day. It takes decades of experience and that will be the reason that the Tundra and Titan will forever live in the shadow of the Big 3.
Looks like your in the minority now. Thanks for the opinions "blkhemi" and "blckislandguy".
Do you even have a 2007 Tundra? Or are you a "dreamer"? If so, congrats, you now own a "wannabe" just like all Toyota's are and always have been. BTW, what ever happened to the Supra? Vettes are still around and getting better every year. Tundra is destined to the same fate.
If you do see me in your rear view, I suggest getting outta my way quick, cuz I'll be coming quick. Probably with my boat in tow.
This is a false statement.
A) the 2007 Silverado cannot tow more than 9000#. ( will leave the proof to the students )
2WD............Sierra ... Tundra
RC Std Bed........ 8200 .... 10400
RC Long Bed...... 8000 .... 10800
DC/EC Std Bed..10300 .... 10600
DC/EC Long Bed. 7500 .... 10500
CM/CC Shrt Bed.10200 .... 10400
No 2WD GM truck out-tows the Tundra..None, nada, zilch.
4WD
RC Std Bed........ 8900 .... 10100
RC Long Bed...... 8900 .... 10500
DC/EC Std Bed..10500 .... 10300
DC/EC Long Bed. 8300 .... 10200
CM/CC Shrt Bed.10500 .... 10100
Only in two configurations do the 4Wd GM's out-tow the Tundra then only slightly
There is no question that the Tundra out-tows the two GM's across the board.
OH, the reason why it's so dominating... GM only offers the 6.0L in 4 configurations. Otherwise it's the smaller, weaker 5.3L.
Weaker? you say. Here are the Torque ratings ( disregarding any TM programs slipped in by GM ). Bottom to top.
GM 5.3L.... 338 ft-lbs 4 Spd tranny
Ford 5.4L . 365 ft-lbs 4 Spd tranny
GM 6.0L.... 375 ft-lbs 4 Spd tranny
Dodge 5.7L. 375 ft-lbs 5 Spd tranny
Niss 5.6L.. 385 ft-lbs 5 Spd tranny
Toyota 5.7. 401 ft-lbs 6 Spd tranny
As you know in a truck it's all about Torque - and trannys and rear ends. The tundra has the most torque the most sophisticated powerful tranny and the largest rearend of any half tonner on the market. The 5.3L is nowhere in the hunt. The 6.0L is, but it's only offered in limited configs.
No Toyota's since 2002 have any such 'issue'. You have to look deeper into an article to read what it really says - and know something about how vehicles are built. The 2001 vehicles used 90's-era engines.
And Popular Mechanics and Inside Line have already backed the new leader. Haven't seen anyone say the Silvy is better.
I've sat in the Tundra at the car show, and the build of the truck is more than competitive, just like every Toyota. Looks Ram-ish, not played-out. Not a fan of the multi-colored dash, but it was fine, dynamically.
Anybody trying to sell the Silvy as better built than the Tundra can sell that Snake Oil somewhere else! :sick:
I don't see any fire sales at Toyota, like I do with GM.
0% for 60 months reeks for a world-beater redesign. Explain away that!
Hopefully, the 6.2 will match the Tundra's capability. Not that a $45k Denali should be considered competitive with a $30k Tundra.
As the last Tundra proved, it's not about being car-like. I don't rememeber a ton of respect for the weaker, more car-like '06 Tundra.
And the '06 Silvy had the worst interior ever in a truck (since the '98), and nobody cared.
Trucks are about what you can do with them. And the Tundra can do more.
And whoever said Truck Trend/MT said the Silvy is better can stop lying to the people. We'd appreciate it! The Tundra wasn't included in TOY, and the Truck Trend article didn't choose a winner. :mad:
I'd bet good money C&d will compare them this week. But C&D has been slippin' in their comparisons lately. Should be very interesting.
Another glowing review:
http://www.fourwheeler.com/roadtests/129_0703_2007_toyota_tundra_first_drive/
DrFill
And an interesting review of the GM HD 6.0 and it's brakes:
http://www.pickuptruck.com/html/2007/gm/firstdrive/hd/page1.html
Fascinating! :surprise:
DrFill
Define "Leader"...In sales? Never happen...Quality? Subjective, but I'd bet on the GM...Durability/Longevity? 5yr/100K warranty says GM backs theirs better.
Haven't seen anyone say the Silvy is better.
Purely a case of "selective" reading, I've seen it several places.
I've sat in the Tundra at the car show, and the build of the truck is more than competitive, just like every Toyota. Looks Ram-ish, not played-out. Not a fan of the multi-colored dash, but it was fine, dynamically.
Sat in it? Oh, that makes you an expert for sure...Did you bounce up and down and go "Vroom, Vroom" to make it more realistic?
Anybody trying to sell the Silvy as better built than the Tundra can sell that Snake Oil somewhere else!
Only time will tell...
0% for 60 months reeks for a world-beater redesign. Explain away that!
Since when is a good deal a bad thing? Oh, and BTW, the 0% for 60 months is only a week long Presidents Day sale and on the new style (not classic style) it's only available on 12 and 36 month terms and ends tomorrow, hardly a "fire sale". What deals is Toyota offering?
Hopefully, the 6.2 will match the Tundra's capability. Not that a $45k Denali should be considered competitive with a $30k Tundra.
Show me where you can get a Tundra Crewmax Ltd with the 5.7L for $30K...I've priced them out, they list at $45K and are selling for list (or more). Gee, let's spend 5K more because Toyota can't make enough to keep up with demand on a 200K/yr sales projection. Can't? more like...Won't...to keep the prices/profits up.
As the last Tundra proved, it's not about being car-like. I don't rememeber a ton of respect for the weaker, more car-like '06 Tundra.
The GM's are both powerful AND ride like a luxury vehicle. Not one or the other like the Tundra.
And the '06 Silvy had the worst interior ever in a truck (since the '98), and nobody cared.
I still don't get this? I have a 2000 GMC Sierra with basically the same interior and I don't have any problem with it??? I have been driving this truck since brand new in late 99 and to this day I see NOTHING wrong with it's interior (except the stereo leaves alot ot be desired).
Trucks are about what you can do with them. And the Tundra can do more.
More? Please do tell...and DON'T even start to talk about towing 10K+ pounds with either of these trucks. I don't care what the ratings say, anyone who tries to tow 10k lbs with a 1/2 ton is crazy, get a diesel for that kind of towing. And let's put the stupid 0-60 times to bed, that is not a "practical" use of a pick-up truck. When we say "do more", let's talk practicality. IMO, both trucks are equally capable of doing anything a 1/2 ton truck is meant to do. The question is which one does it longer, more comfortably, value ($$$), efficiency (gas mileage) and overall cost of ownership.
And whoever said Truck Trend/MT said the Silvy is better can stop lying to the people. We'd appreciate it! The Tundra wasn't included in TOY, and the Truck Trend article didn't choose a winner.
Again, time will tell...
BTW, YOU started the bashing war, I was merely defending GM from BS and misconceptions. I never said the Toyota was a "bad" truck, but I do think the GM is better and will stand the test of time, just as it always has.
Pulled from the following article...
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/trucks/112_0701_2007_toyota_tundra
The Competition
Chevrolet Silverado/GMC Sierra: All new for 2007 and the best in the business, Motor Trend's Truck of the Year.
This article does NOT bash the Toyota, but it certainly states that Toyota is still trying to get to where the "Big-three" are today...Good Luck is all I can say, they have a LONG way to go. And history is not on there side. Until then, I will be enjoying my GM as I have for the past 17 years. And I am brand-Loyal based on experience, no other reason. If GM had disappointed me (like Chrysler did) I would have changed brands without hesitation.
we are getting through this one subject at a time.
Acceleration and horsepower ( while carrying a load or towing ) the Tundra is the clear leader. But these 0-60 tests mean nothing
Towing capacity - the Tundra is the clear leader. But half-tonners shouldn't be doing diesel work anyway
Tundra 2-0 but these mean nothing
Now safety features:
..... T900's ... Tundra
Airbags 2 stand .. 6 standard
ABS . standard .. standard
BA... Not Avail .. standard
EBD . standard .. standard
VSC . Optional .. standard
TC .. Optional .. standard
braking distance, 60 -0...TBD
0 to 40 to 0 ( pulling 8500 lbs ), Tundra is the clear leader stopping 21 feet shorter than the 2nd place finisher.
Tundra vs the Competition
When we say "do more", let's talk practicality. IMO, both trucks are equally capable of doing anything a 1/2 ton truck is meant to do. The question is which one does it longer, more comfortably, value ($$$), efficiency (gas mileage) and overall cost of ownership.
Agree wholeheartedly. Time will tell and the market will speak its mind. Both vehicles are at the top of the class now.
Towing capacity....you agree that both trucks are equally capable of doing 1/2 ton rated work, right? Let's not quibble over a few hundred pounds at the top of an over-inflated rating scale anyway. Either company can put what they want in the towing capacities, what is it based on? IMO if you tow anything over 5000 lbs on a regular basis, spring for the 3/4 ton, anything over 8000 lbs, get the diesel, they are the real workhorses. I only tow about 3500lbs (my boat).
Sorry, not up on all of your acronyms..
what is BA, EBD, TC?
Also, regarding the 0-40-0 (pulling 8500 lbs). How long do you think this (or any 1/2 ton) truck (specifically the tranny and brakes) would last doing this? Sure, I realize it is a measure of the stopping ability, Kudos to Toyota, but my GM will yank around my 3500# boat like it isn't even back there, so I looked beyond that and went for the entire package which IMO GM is the clear winner. Maybe for you the Toyota is the better choice, I can admit that, but stop bashing the GM, it is a great truck and you know it. Remember, there is more to a truck than sheer power. As long as it has 1/2 ton rated power (which all 5 branded trucks have), the rest of the package should decide the better overall truck. ie; would you buy a 1/2 ton truck that was a "POS" but had 800hp and 1100 ft-lb of torque?
PS When I get my new GMC and I pull up to a stoplight next to a Tundra and he wants to race me, I will laugh at him as he squeels his tires and takes off like a rabbit and I just take off normally....I will be thinking..."Grow-up". If you want to streetrace, buy a fast car that was meant for it. Face it, most performance-oriented cars will kick both our butts anyway. So, where are the real bragging rights when it comes to 0-60? In the other market.