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
The side/curtain airbag and stability contro issue is far more important than the 4 vs 5 stars. Let's just keep the subject in perspective.
Whenever anyone brings up the NHTSA test on one Reg Cab model I only ask why GM and Ford don't even offer S/C airbags and stability control on all their Reg Cab models.
The level of risks aren't nearly the same. So by 2010 the the others will finally reach the safety level of the Tundra. I accept that.
Let's wait several years to see how these new structures react.
Does anyone remember the dumping era we went through? Products sold in this country for below cost just to undercut the US companies who theen went out of business leaving the market for ....
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
By 2010, the Tundra probably will be dead and buried, right next to the T100.
kdh, all I can say is hogmuckledung to that silly statement. Anyone knows, or should know, that in a three-way tie for FIRST, the first three spots are taken, and the odd man out is forth, also known as LAAAAASSSSSTT. Dead last.
Then there is the issue of side and curtain airbags (which you conveniently neglect to mention) and stability control.
We haven't ignored it. My Silverado has traction control and side curtain airbags. And I paid for them, just like Tundra owners. No problem.
Point-of-fact: No one on any forum here or elsewhere has been able to point out one single advantage to the FBF in the performance of the truck. None, Zero, Zilch.
Once again, hogmuckledung. The fbf is superior whenever conditions are rough. A non-fbf is MUCH worse in torsion, meaning more of the flexing stresses are transferred to the body instead of being absorbed by the frame. Now, this is not a big deal over the short term, but if the flexing cycle is repeated thousands of times, as it is in my vehicles, it induces rattles and other nuisances. These are not fatal to the truck (or occupants), it's just annoying. But Toyota is doing it because it's cheaper. My older Toyotas were actually both superior in that regard than the new Tundra and Tacoma. But hey, if you never or rarely use the vehicle where the road is dirt or the pavement is uneven it may never be a problem.
BTW, you conveniently failed to address my discussion of fuel economy. Is there a problem? I gave an honest, recent account of my experience with the 6.0L Silverado. Why doesn't a Tundra owner tell us about his/her mpg in a similar situation? Strange that there are basically NO posts about that tender subject.
Keep in mind, my ENTIRE POST was just a response to belias' rhetorical excess wherein he claimed that the Tundra was as good or best in every category that makes a truck "good". I was just pointing out the error of his statement, that's all. You seem to be really sensitive about my reasoned, rational response to belias' unsupportable claim. Is that a problem?
You continue to refer to "being in heaven" with the OnStar. I notice an obsession with that idea. Does anyone else notice that? Perhap an intervention is warranted?
And finally, what is this weird obsession with jreagan and his 53 aliases?
I want you to know, I'M really jreagan. MWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!
1offroader
The toyoyo salesfolk and non owner cheerleaders LIKE that one !
As you have prob. noticed there are NO actual tundra owners
posting here..........
Most (if any) are posting over at tundrasolutions.com with
their problems and other issues. Do you think they would
dare complain here? They know they overpaid for a lesser
truck and won't gain any sympathy here because our resident
salesfolk here already GOT their money and don't need to
hear from them anymore...........
new $1000 rebate on the new tundra !
Slow sales eh????????? :lemon:
Hate to disagree with you, blckislandguy, but the Japanese economy has been in the tank for more than a decade. Once, the world thought the Japanese had figured it all out, but that balloon burst big time many years ago.
Even with all our social dysfunction, which I agree with BTW, the U.S. economy is so big and incredibly dynamic compared to Japan or any other country, there is simply no argument that the ones going to "the bank" are Americans by a ratio of about 10:1.
1offroader
1offroader
Although we've barely passed mid-February, Toyota has already recalled 533,417 vehicles this year in a mix that, according to http://www.AutoRecalls.us, includes Tundras Sequoias and Camrys. That puts Toyota on track to recall
more than the over 1.76 million autos they recalled in the U.S. and Japan in 2006, and the 2.2 million they recalled in 2005 when they recalled more cars than they built.
What's more, the current recall related to the Turdra trucks and Sequioa SUVs is similar to the same defect in 800,000 of the same vehicles in 2005.
Maybe somebody at Toyota isn't paying attention?
Hopefully the American consumers are. Recall numbers by domestic companies (GM and Ford) so far this year are as follows: Ford, 128,163; Chevrolet, 4,829; and Pontiac, 1,602. Chrysler - a German company masquerading as
an American company with plans to start importing cars from China in 2008 - has recalled 77,432 vehicles so far in 2007. :P
You are unbeleiveable!!!
To clarify (even though it's a waste of my time and typing, because you only hear what you want to hear anyway) here goes:
a) I never said more hp and torque wasn't better. I simply stated that 26 more hp is insignificant in the grand scheme of things. 367hp vs 381hp? Big Deal!! Unless your drag racing. To steal a Toyota phrase..."It has no "real benefit" based on the fact that 367/375 is plenty of power for any 1/2 ton, and it gets better mileage and creates fewer emissions.
b)More towing? 300 lbs, ok, if you need to tow a 10,800lb trailer (not 10,500...10,800) then fine, the Tundra is more capable. But enjoy your Tundra for the year (or less) it will last pulling that much weight.
c) Not unconvinced the Tundra frame is good, I am CONVINCED the GM frame is BETTER.
d) How in the world would you know what websites I have and haven't visited? This staement is simply arrogant and ignorant!!! I had to read it twice just because I couldn't believe you would make such a statement.
e) Again, How in the world would you know what dealerships I have visited???
f) Since when do we need emperical values to have an opinion based on common sense. Oopps I used that phrase again. Now I will be accused of saying that common sense overrides Engineering knowledge...hahaha
g) Again, How do you know what I've seen in pics vs in person?
h) I agreed that 6 spds do have their advantages, but that is not saying that Toyota's 6 spd is "better" than GM's 4 spd or 6 spd. Anyone can make a 6 spd, 10 spd, or 100 spd tranny. What does that prove?
i) You are partially correct. I don't value biased comparisons from magazines that make most of their money from advertising dollars. I do value unbiased, official tests, it's you Toyota guys that don't, that is why you debunk the crash test results. Can you say "hypocrite"
j) Accelerating? yeah, to a point. But beyond the rate of these trucks, it is useless in the real world of truck use. Braking? yeah, VERY important, but the GM is just as good as the Tundra, better isn some tests I've seen. handling? Again, very important, and again, the GM is better.
k) See post #2035
l) I never said or implied any of this.
m) rear lockers are far superior in all slippery driving conditions, on and off road. End of story!!! The GMs have all of the same "safety" systems, and their airbags are better ("smarter").
Funny, I didn't see anyone take you up and "finish" as you stated.
PS I have sat in a Tundra DC more than once, and I have been to several dealerships, Toyota, GM (GMC and Chevy), Ford (my 2nd choice), but not Dodge (but I have looked at them elsewhere). So, please stop assuming and putting words in my mouth. And please, ENOUGH with the jreagan crap, it's getting old.
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.
Your argument has holes. You can get stability control and full side curtain airbags (they are one in the GMT900's. Look it up) in the GMT900's. It's called choice and its available. It's not free in the Tundra as the feature is part of the higher MSRP the Tundra has against the lower end GMT900's. You can't get 5 start crash ratings on any Tundra. Amazing that you seem to argue how important safety features are yet you have no problem overlooking the fact that Toyota built a brand new truck and failed to get 5 star crash ratings.
It reminds me of those commercials for the "little giant" ladders where they explain that the ladder is "fully boxed" and show that a normal "c" channel ladder has a lot of flex in it and isn't as strong. But you know why they can show it flex? Because the guy "bending" the c-channel frame is doing it when there are NO cross-members on it!! Do they ever show the guy doing that with a regular ladder? Of course not, because they CAN'T do it!! The guy across the street from me drives Silverado 2500HD diesel trucks and he has about 6 different ladders on his truck frame... not a one is "fully boxed". The advantages are slim if anything at all and until somebody can post some massive problem showing that the c-channel frames are falling apart at the seams, I don't see this as something that is a good argument for the Silverado. The Tundra is fully boxed up front, has double or triple reinforced c-channel under the cab and an open c channel under the bed. It has been noted that having a c channel reduces NVH by almost every auto manufacturer -- cars use it because if the public was subjected to FBF frames in their cars they would be bounced all over the road! The ride is rough on it and is over-kill for its application. If vehicles that can tow 3 to 5 times as much as these 1/2 ton trailers don't use it and if cement trucks don't use it and if virtually every big rig and trailer doesn't use it, of what real "benefit" is it other than marketing hype? I don't see any construction guys using the "little giant" ladders anywhere. I've yet to see even see one of them in any construction site. It doesn't matter if they say it can hold 1200 lbs -- no 1200 lb guy is going to be climing a ladder to do anything useful and of what benefit does having 3 people on a 4 foot long ladder provide? Same thing with the trucks here. So the Chevy has a FBF frame. Nobody is claiming it is bad, but it has yet to be proven in terms of offering real benefits.
Oh, and sorry for not claiming you are jreagan. He does conveniently have many aliases because he is unable to leave this forum and actually thinks that all of his aliases (now using them interchangably) is actually fooling any of us.
Oh really? Can you name me any other top people outside of Jim Press? How has Toyota been taxed twice? How is Toyota held back from selling cars at every turn? The US market is the most open car market in the world. If you want to see a closed market, look at Japan. Import sales in Japan or minuscule and make up a smaller percentage of total sales than any other market. Even companies like BMW and Mercedes have a hard time selling vehicles in Japan.
Yes, 4-star rating on NHTSA's frontal crash has been noted and of course disappointing, but again, it accounts for 2% of accidents. And of that 2%, the actual opposing vehicle will need to weigh as much for the damage to occur, which, in any heavy vehicle gets a less likely probability the higher the weight (as there are not as many heavy trucks/suvs as there are cars). All that is being said is lets wait for actual IIHS test results on the other 98% of accidents that will happen (off-set front, rear, side, and rollover collisions). The reason being is that if Toyota gets poor marks for that, then you'll have a good case. However, if the Tundra does well and the Silverado does not, then you're in a much bigger predicament. That will more heavily impact this argument as there is no debate --even with government statistics as the source -- as to what is more representative of the vast majority of accidents.
When those numbers come in, I'm sure the debate on safety will be given new life.
BS!!! Only difference is in the terminology. Look at the area of protection, it's the same. Do the Tundra's side airbags sense a rollover vs a side impact and stay inflated longer (up to 6 secs) to prevent post-contact injury or ejection upon rollover? I didn't think so.
The rest of this post is just plain old-fashioned DENIAL!!! I can hardly wait for the next set of results so we can watch you wriggle out of that one.
The point is that even if the FBF can be proven to be "better" in this application, you have to show somehow what benefit "better" provides. So far, you claim torsional rigidity (which as the example that an ME engineer provided isn't necessarily the case anyway), but that hasn't led to anybody being able to show that it provides a better ride, better handling, better control. The only thing that has been pointed out is that it may help prevent squeaks and rattles. But even that needs time to prove. A lot of these arguments you and others have made here have been in the form of things that are either promised to happen in the future (added air bags, power, transmission, etc.) or can not be proven yet.
Not one single poster here has been able to show me a vehicle with an open c-channel frame that has somehow either broken, rusted, or damage, or somehow caused serious injury, inconvenience or just plain incapable of doing the job that a FBF framed vehicle has. This has been argued for the last 1000 posts and still not even one example. Give your argument some meat and maybe it will stand, but right now just saying it is better without showing how it is better doesn't provide this claim with any real-life benefits... that is what we want to see.
GM stands the best chance of coming out of this alive for sure, but it is obvious that at least the number of vehicles/brands from the Detroit3 are going to have to be severely consolidated. Forget about Toyota being a threat; they're just plugging along taking marketshare slowly. What the Detroit3 should be worried about is China. Not only are a significant (and ever increasing) amount of parts suppliers sourcing from China, but the introduction of their own vehicles may take away a good amount of the Detroit3's international sales. That only amplifies the squeeze their currently feeling at home...
Trucks are going to be an ever-increasing part of their dependence on revenue as more and more of their cars are being displaced by yet more auto dealers.
And give the jreagan thing a rest would ya? Give it up mr paranoia.
Funny you bring up crossmembers being "integral" to the design, I agree completely, so why do you refuse to address my claim of inferiority in the Tundra in that regard? Or do I need an ME's numbers to know that Tubular, welded in cross members are stronger and better than bolted in stamped sheet steel crossmembers?
PS FYI, I am an ME. So there!!! Is Titancrew an ME? I don't see that anywhere in his post. Just because he can pull out a structural steel book and throw out irrelevant numbers to support his theory, does that make him an ME? Again, you love to make assumptions, don't you? Let me guess, jreagan was an ME too, right? therefore supporting your alias theory. Go ahead, plug it in, it should add interest to your story.
if you can help me get the dimensional cross sections of these frames in various areas, i would love to do a FEA analysis on Solidworks and show you the differences in both torsional and bending stresses in these frames.
http://www.chevrolet.com/silverado/safety/
http://www.gmc.com/sierra900/1500/index.jsp
They cover all the way to the armrests, just like I said. When is the last time anyone got killed from a hip injury anyway?
And yeah, you are jreagan, and so is jim servers, and that girl that you had an alias for and about 8 or 9 more other failed alias attempts. I'm 100% sure that your IP address comes from the same office pool (or if at home, the same server pool) as jreagan's and that your computer's mac address is the same at both your office and home computers as jreagan's was...
So, do whatever you want to try to convince us otherwise, it doesn't matter, but even the guys on the other GM/Chevy sites don't have nearly the signature MO that you have... I've been on the Avalanche site for 5 years talking with all kinds of GM guys (when I was seriously considering buying one) and none of them remotely speak the way you do... you're one of a kind!! (even if you have a dozen different names)
Again, I have not been silent on the stamped, bolted in crossmembers for the SAME reasons given above. You're the one that brought it up, so go ahead and show me how this gives some advantage to the Chevy. I'm not the one making the claims. You can't "sue" me in court and expect me to make my case against you... you're the one bringing the case, it is yours to make. If I don't say a thing, the judge will dismiss it. Same thing here with the frame argument. You're the one touting the design of it (cross members and all since you're obviously not picking up on the fact that cross-members in fact make up part of the frame) and proclaiming all the supposed "benefits" that it provides the Silverado. So, go ahead lets hear them... (Your silence regarding this is understandable as well)
And, more importantly your statement should be more akin to somebody getting killed from a hip/chest injury -- apparently you don't know that you have a torso -- and yes, PLENTY of people have been killed from that over the last x number of years and decades. Just because I don't know them personally doesn't mean it hasn't happened (that is why they made airbags in the first place).