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
And nice twist on my common sense comment btw. So, your saying Toyota's engineers are better than GM's engineers because they used a boxed frame? What are you saying here?
Mr Eagan JR. aka Eric
Torsionally Stiffer!!! Which equates to better ride and handling since the suspension can now behave as it was designed to behave.
Got it? or are you going to keep asking?
BTW, I don't know if you're jreagan under a 5th alias but you sure do write like him. Time will tell if you go off the deepend in anger.
Ok, I will grant that somehow, in your opinion, the FBF's have more steel in them and yet are lighter :surprise: ???
This would definitely equate to better fuel economy but, I'm going to trap you so be prepared, the FBF offers no advantage over the Tundra's TripleTech frame because the differences are nominal at best. And most of the benefit GM receives is from it's AFM ( 5% ).
However to compare apples with apples..
the 5.3L ( w/FBF ) has slightly better FE than the 5.7L
but..
the 5.7L has slightly better FE than the 6.0L ( w/FBF )
so..
the FBF offers what benefit exactly?
The 5.7L is a much better package than any of the 5.3L packages. The 5.7L and the 6.0L are roughly equivalent - unless GM drops the 4 sec TM delay into the equation. Then the 6.0L is only slightly better than the 5.3L.
You still haven't shown me one measurable benefit to the FBF. I've done the research. There isn't any.
The fact that you claim that looking at the frame at an autoshow and claim that this gives you more credibility than a mechanical engineer that is actually in the business just shows how ignorant your claim is. At the very least you should be educated about it if you're going to make claims otherwise.
Everyone here has agreed that everything being equal, a FBF is stronger. But we don't know that everything is equal, nor do we know how that even translates into any real benefit for the driver. It is obvious from larger vehicles that an open C channel is incredibly strong, durable, and cheap to produce. Those trucks can tow and load up amounts that are many times more than any of these trucks. So, in what sense does the FBF give any kind of advantage? You've claimed weight but can't give frame-weight numbers for either truck. You've claimed rigidity but can't give gauge calculations of either of the frames, or what their respective rigidity tolerances are. Even Ford hasn't done any testing on this yet (though they have on previous models) and one would think that if this was a "major" sticking point for the Detroit3, that they would start putting out numbers in that regard. They haven't and your claims can't be supported materially even by someone that is in the field. So, at best, you can raise some doubt, but there isn't proof of any lack in capability/performance/strength on the side of the Tundra.
It is more like his 12th alias! (This time he figured out how to do get his ip changed at work)...
Did I say they have more steel in them? Nope, I sure didn't. I said they are stronger pound for pound. meaning they achieve higher strength with less material due to the boxed structure. Wall thickness is similar, but the boxed profile requires no reinforcements. Why else is the Tundra so much heavier? Bigger egos?
BTW, I doubt AFM even amounts to 5%, maybe if you do mostly highway driving without a load.
If your numbers are accurate, and I don't think their is enough time on these trucks yet to say for sure one way or the other. Just think how much better the Tundra could be with a lighter boxed frame. Interesting perspective huh?
WHO THE HECK IS JREAGAN???????????
There, is that what you want to hear? You obviously don't hear anything else.
This oughta get interesting...
As far as more capable is concerned, just read the last ~2000 posts on this subject, it has been exhausted dozens of times. I'm sure kdhspyder and dr. fill would agree that we're pretty tired of doing all the spec hunting for you guys. Go to toyota.com and go take a test drive or at least look at the vehicles so you know what you up against.
Better accleration
And this is a benefit how? (This is a truck forum, not a Corvette forum). Oh, and is it better than the 6.2l with 400+ hp and 417 lb-ft of torque available in the Denali and soon-to-be available in the Sierra and Silvy.
better braking
Not true, not on all of the tests I've seen.
higher towing capacity
10,800 vs 10,500??? Ok, if you consider 300 lbs at a ridiculously high rating for a 1/2 ton an advantage, more power to ya.
6 speed vs 4 speed auto
How is this better? And even if it is, which it very well may be. The GM's have it available also on a limited basis, full scale next year. So, this is a very short term "advantage" if you insist it is an advantage. I'll give ya this one for now.
My consensus...BOTH trucks are equally "capable" as far as work goes. but the GMs are better built, classier, better interiors, more features (rear Locking Diff, Rainsense wipers, heated Washer fluid, Onstar, Electrochromic mirrors, remote start....etc, etc). More comfortable seats and all this for less $$$
As for your last comment...yeah, right, your dreaming.
I saw that Onstar is dumping millions of customers because they are turning off analog transmissions! LOL, yeah... that is going to keep people loyal to GM. Sheesh, now all those vehicles can't even claim their Onstar systems as an asset. I'm sure a "digital" solution will be found but will bet GM will make good coin on the retrofit... it is that attitude that I resented most when I had my Chevy... as soon as I bought it and they had my money, I was made to feel that my car was inferior to everything else that they had. I don't know how they thought this would make me a return buyer. I doubt fans of Onstar will be feeling the same about GM after this...
"Analog-to-Digital Transition
Revised January 16, 2007
Q1. What different types of equipment do OnStar-equipped vehicles have?
A1. OnStar-equipped vehicles have one of three types of equipment:
Analog-Only: OnStar-equipped vehicles with analog-only equipment were designed to operate only on the analog cellular network and cannot be upgraded to operate on the digital network. Vehicles with this equipment will no longer be able to receive OnStar services beginning January 1, 2008. At that time, service will be available only through dual-mode (analog/digital) equipment. Analog-only vehicles cannot be upgraded to digital equipment. (Refer to Question #6 for additional details.)
Analog/Digital-Ready: OnStar-equipped vehicles with analog/digital-ready equipment operate on the analog cellular network, but can be upgraded to dual-mode (analog/digital) equipment if available for that vehicle. Beginning January 1, 2008, OnStar service will not be available on these vehicles unless the OnStar equipment has been upgraded to dual-mode (analog/digital) equipment.
Dual-Mode (Analog/Digital): OnStar-equipped vehicles with dual-mode (analog/digital) equipment operate on both the analog and digital cellular networks and will not require an upgrade in connection with the cellular industry's transition to the digital network."
-- from http://www.onstar.com/us_english/jsp/explore/onstar_basics/helpful_info.jsp?info- -view=tech_equip
OH, and you better not buy any more Japanese TV's anymore then, since they will require you spending money on the current analog sets to get them to receive digital signals next year. Like GM had anything to do with the analog to digital transition. Wow, you really are twisted.
Oh and BTW, no, I haven't receieved it yet, because I haven't ordered one yet. But I am going to, probably this summer. Although I will probably just find one on a dealer lot instead of ordering it. Thanks for your concern though.
I saw the video, and my teenage daughter even commented that it was made by Toyota and they can do whatever they wanted to do to sell their truck. Boy, are you ever gullible. Besides, who races trucks pulling heavy trailers? How relevant is that? So, the tundra can beat a Peterbilt too, does that mean it's more powerful and more capable than the peterbilt?
That's your opinion, as arrogant as it may be, you are entitled to it.
Toyota is growing and GM is shrinking. That pretty much proves my point.
That proves nothing!!! GM is still bigger that Toyota, and in the truck market, it always will be. Deal with it.
And this is a benefit how? (This is a truck forum, not a Corvette forum). Oh, and is it better than the 6.2l with 400+ hp and 417 lb-ft of torque available in the Denali and soon-to-be available in the Sierra and Silvy.
This needs very little explanation. Passing, entering a highway, constant 'pulling power'. Yep, pretty soon the GM's will be equal to the Toyota's in powertrain capability.
better braking
Not true, not on all of the tests I've seen.
True, the braking seems very similar in both sets of vehicles
higher towing capacity
10,800 vs 10,500??? Ok, if you consider 300 lbs at a ridiculously high rating for a 1/2 ton an advantage, more power to ya.
Not so unless you happen to order one of the 4 cab/chassis configurations where the T900's are close to the Tundra. Otherwise the capacity is about 2000# less.
6 speed vs 4 speed auto
How is this better? And even if it is, which it very well may be. The GM's have it available also on a limited basis, full scale next year. So, this is a very short term "advantage" if you insist it is an advantage. I'll give ya this one for now.
Lower low and a higher high. Again the GM's will be up to the Tundra level pretty soon.
In addition the T900's have to get the Max Trailering tow package standard across the board if they want to be competitive... ( all the 6.0L and the 6.2L )
Problem for GM: With an MSRP that is already higher than the Tundra, how do they add the Max Trailering tow package, Stabilitrak, side and curtain airbags and the new 6.2L engine and even hope to be near the same price as the Tundra. I know that the marketing at GM people are hating this problem.
Are you saying the GM's don't have enough power to merge safely, pass or pull? haha, yeah, right. When is the last time you floored it to merge or pass? Even while towing? Oh, and wrong again, GM will not be equal to Toyota's powertrain capability soon, they will be ABOVE it.
Not so unless you happen to order one of the 4 cab/chassis configurations where the T900's are close to the Tundra. Otherwise the capacity is about 2000# less.
True, but you buy/order based on your needs, so this is a moot point.
Lower low and a higher high. Again the GM's will be up to the Tundra level pretty soon.
Higher high I'll agree with, but what are the 1st gear ratios? Again, moot point in the not-so-long run, GMs are here and coming fast.
C) Ramp up on the 6 spds?
When you can do things a little easier, a little faster, a little cheaper, usually means you're a little better.
So your point is if I spent $35-40k for a Denali, or wait a year or two, GM will provide a competitive engine?
And side airbags, stabilitrac, and a 6-speed?
What if my budget is $30k? How much will I have to settle for? I can get all of those features on a Tundra for close to $25k!
I'm sure GM will get there, but the point is they're not there unless you leave the heart of the market behind. Tundra LTD and Denali are not fair representatives of each model.
DrFill
Yep, 6 spd production is being ramped up, and the Denali doesn't get the max towing pkg because it is AWD, the 1/2 tons won't be.
The TM nanny you speak of is a non-factor. It has zero effect on towing capacity. You either refuse to educate yourself on the subject or choose to consider this a negative, when in reality, it is a technological advantage which is part of the reason these trucks' exhaust is cleaner than the air in LA. GM is and always will be the leader in low-emissions in the big V8 truck segment for reasons such as this. We only have one planet.
GM knows people who want a RC and and want to tow 10K+ lbs will be smart enough to buy a HD.
a) you're unconvinced that more hp and torque is better
b) you're unconvinced that more towing is better
c) you're unconvinced that the Tundra's frame is good
d) you have yet to visit the Toyota web site to get any info
e) you have yet to visit a Toyota dealership to see the Tundra
f) you don't use emperical values for calculations, just your "opinion" as fact instead of actual numbers
g) you still believe the interior of the Chevy is better than the Tundra even though all you've seen of the latter are online pictures at best
h) you have little understanding of transmissions or even a plausible argument for them (i.e. you claim that a 6-speed is not better than a 4-speed and then in the same breath say that GM's 6-speed will be coming out -- so why if it is not better? just stick with the 4 speed -- makes no sense)
i) you don't value any review that gives favorable treatment to the Tundra even when they are more credible (i.e. mag reviews from trucking web-sites, towing web-sites, and quality/reliability web-sites such as JD Powers, CR, and even government statistics web sites) though apparently a company web site that reviews "cars" is more credible in your estimation
j) you don't think that acceleration, braking, or handling have anything to do with getting a good truck
k) you ignore 30 years worth of numerous recalls on the Silverado; even when the Tundra was around, their were less recalls for each year in comparison with the Silverado
l) apparently your understanding of airbags seems to suggest that two upfront are enough though head-on collisions account for less than 2% of accidents and side airbags and side-curtain airbags are not as important to you even though most of the rest of the accidents are off-set front end collisions, rollovers, t-bones, and rear-end collisions.
m) you keep repeating rear lockers as beneficial to lsds though you seem to think that chevy's abs and trac control somehow is the same as all 5 of the Star safety systems on the Tundra.
...
How much more do you want me to state here? I can leave this for others to finish if they want to add more here, but you've repeated the same things using the same logic and with the same uninformed state of mind (i.e. you refuse to go to Toyota's web site or see the truck in person).
Heck, in other Toyota forums, a good percentage of the actual buyers are disgruntled GM and Ford truck owners. At least they looked to see. I have, and many of the other Toyota defenders here have as well. But for me it isn't personal if you don't want one. I could care less. But trying to convince me based on your uninformed illogical criteria is just not going to happen.
As another poster put it... we've heard it all before.
Dump trucks don't used AISC standard sections either for their frames. But since the dimensions for the tundra and GM frame is not public knowledge, I used readily available info as an example that a C-channel is stronger pound for pound for weight carrying than a box section. For the same amount of steel, a C-section is much stronger than a box section in bending. Go and ask any engineer works in structures/frame design and they will tell you this. But a box section is stronger in torsion. If you understood "basic engineering principles" you would know this.
GM 2500 and 3500 use C-channel frames out back because they are stronger pound for pound for weight carrying duties. Same with Ford Super Duty. Same with every heavy duty truck. These trucks are engineered as well. They don't just throw as much steel in their frame as possible. The engineers will design the strongest but as light as possible frame for the job required of it.
This may have been the 'common knowledge' in the past....but half-ton pickups should only be able to carry 'half a ton'. Today that's a Tacoma or Dakota or Frontier. Being rooted in the past may cause you ( or a company ) to be left standing still as the world rushes past. What if the technology has developed to the point where half-tonners can carry 2000# or tow 10000# regularly?
This may be the revolutionary effect of the Tundra to which Edmunds refers when it gave the Tundra its 'Most Signifcant' award. Despite the 'common knowledge' the new trucks might be impinging on the domain of the HD's. Time will tell.
NON owners fail to point out:
That "wonderkind" 6 speed trans. is ONLY avail. with the 5.7
engine !
Why no actual limited slip (posi, trac. loc. etc.)
rear avail. ?
Why the toyota zealots forget the "lesser" frontal crash test ratings????????/
And the world turns................ :sick:
kdhspyder,
Ever tow anything with either of these trucks? Anything near 10K lbs? I don't care if you put 800hp under one of these hoods, the trucks are not heavy enough for this kind of a load on any regular basis. I'm afraid erich1965 is right about this one. "1/2 ton" never meant payload, it referred to axle size.
DrFill, how are your fingers? Carpal Tunnel setting in yet? Chill out dude. I read all of today's posts and I don't see half of those claims you said he made.
Sorry you missed it. It was good!
DrFill
Better braking? No. The Silverado has outbraked the Tundra in both the C&D and Motor Trend tests.
Higher Towing Capacity? Sure, if you ignore the GMT900 heavy duty models. What about the fact that the GMT900's generally have higher payload capacity than the Tundra?
6 speed vs 4 speed auto - Toyota only has the 6 speed with the 5.7. They have a 5 speed with the 4.7 and the V6. GM will sell more 6 speed 1/2 tons in 2008 than Toyota.
What point are you making? GM is growing in the full size pickup market (even though they are already the biggest). This is not the mid-size of small car market. GM rules the full size truck market and the Tundra is not going to change that.
PS Awesome capabilities alone do not make a great truck. It's only one ingredient, to leave out the other ingredients leaves the recipe incomplete.
I realize sales jobs are to make people feel they need what's being sold rather than needing only the ability of the truck they need so that they overbuy. But all this verbage is becoming wearing. It's like hearing about a passenger car that the fanmags love because it does 10 Gs on the skid pad and can do 0-60 in 4 seconds? Who uses that to commute downtown Philly to work and back and an occasional trip to Pittsburg?
I want real vehicles that do well for the application of typical, real drivers in the real world. Most pickups I see are driven to and from a work with a tie and dress clothes or high heels for the ladies. They don't need 5.7 and 6 speed. For some reason they choose to drive a pickup.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Toyota, and the Tundra, are wrong, and you are right.
The Tundra should not have redesigned the truck, and the current Tundra is what Toyota, and America needs, a weaker, more genteel representative.
It should be car-like, and ride nice, and not have too much power, because power really isn't what's important in a pick-up anyway.
Smaller brakes and less towing would be preferable.
And please don't give me a choice of a big back seat, or the biggest back seat, because then I might lose 3 inches of beg length, and then the truck will be worthless.
And why would you charge less than $30k for the strongest truck in the class? A RC 5.7 for $25k? What? That's dumb!! These guys are dopes! What the h$%# is that about? Put that on the Limited model only, so you could really a $40k truck worthwhile! Wet behind the ears! :mad:
And since Toyota trucks have such a reputation for rattling and being old pieces of junk, let's do what eevrybody else does to fix the chronic problems with their trucks! Because Toyota obviously doesn't know what they-re doing, and everybody else knows much better, and have been using better frames for all of 5 years now.
And since Toyota can't build a HD model, the Tundra doesn't really count because nobody buys a half-ton to be strong, or tow, or carry weight, or anything else but pack with groceries.
Wheels are too big, brakes are too big, buttons are too big.
Give me a Colorado before I shot myself! :mad: Please save me from sorry excuses for trucks like Toyota Tundra.
Someday Toyota will get it's act together and build a decent full-sized truck. Someday. :confuse:
DrFill
Do some research first.
Hint: ALSD
Do you prefer to be possibly injured slightly more, somewhere from 1% to 19%, in a frontal collision?
OR
Do you prefer to be possibly more dead in a rollover or side crash because there are no Side and Curtain airbags or Stability Control on your T900? Forget the T800's.
1500# in the bed and a 4500# trailer.
I'm suggessting that the 'common knowledge' about trucks may be about to change. Things that a 1/2 ton never could be considered to do might from now onward be considered.
From a commercial pov some of the lighter diesel work might now be considered for the new generation 1/2 tonners...but at a $5000-$8000 discount. We'll see.
a dually is better when hauling something that outweighs the tow vehicle by a factor of 2.
We'll have to see.