Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Toyota Tundra vs. Chevrolet Silverado

1596062646593

Comments

  • jreaganjreagan Posts: 285
    Life would be pretty boring if the only differences between these trucks would be who made a prettier shade of gray....

    Very true, but PLEASE not NOT call any shade of Gray "Pretty"...Thank You (I bought Gray).
  • 1offroader1offroader Posts: 208
    I don't like the idea of stuff in the back seat area any higher than about the middle of the front seats unless it's extremely lightweight (sleeping bag, etc.). The overall useable space in the Tundra rear cab area sounds like it is less functional due to the way the seats fold.

    Yes, for years we have hauled ice chests around in the bed, but it is not optimal. (BTW they are not bloody or grungy on the outside). On the way home from a hunt, I usually travel thru several other states. While the weather in Montana or Wyoming might be cool, it often isn't that way in Utah, Nevada and California. A couple years ago I stopped in Vegas for gas and felt the ice chest lid, it was easily 90 F after sitting in the sun for hours.

    As far as guns and other gear, you can't carry rifles or any firearms in the cab in California, whether they are behind the front seats or not. Good way to land in jail and have your expensive rifles confiscated :cry: . That's not Toyota's fault of course, it's just the way things are on the Left Coast.

    Something to think about for hunters like me, who use a truck for that purpose. It's not a deal killer but it is an issue.

    1offroader
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    "Very true, but PLEASE not NOT call any shade of Gray "Pretty"...Thank You (I bought Gray)."

    And I'm sure it's a very purty truck.... ;)

    ....sorry, couldn't resist.... :shades:
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    I'll have to add that to my loooooooong list of reasons to avoid the left coast....

    Just seems so bass-ackwards to me; icechest in the cab and firearms in the bed.... :confuse:

    BTW - that seating configuration is only on the CrewMax version. The seats bottoms on the Doublecabs fold up like the GM version. Then the only issue becomes whether or not the icechest fits in the forward hinged rear doors.
  • jreaganjreagan Posts: 285
    Purtier than yo mama... :surprise:
  • jreaganjreagan Posts: 285
    Here's my solution to your hunting issues..

    BUY YOUR DAMN MEAT AT THE GROCERY STORE!!!

    haha
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    "BUY YOUR DAMN MEAT AT THE GROCERY STORE!!!"

    Which is precisely what my wife does. However, if/when I get the hankerin' to shoot my own, I just walk up my drive a bit to a deer stand. Of course the only local variety I've got are little bitty whitetails. But, since I've seen signs of hogs lately (rooted up pasture) I may try to lay in a little pork.

    All of which has zip to do with pickups.

    Look guys, all I was trying to do was point out an OBJECTIVE difference between the trucks. If, for you, it makes more sense for the seat cushions to fold UP, fine. All I'm saying is that for PEOPLE HAULING (we are talking about a crewcab truck), having reclining seats MIGHT be preferable.
  • 1offroader1offroader Posts: 208
    I do buy meat at the store, but only because I can't hunt enough to feed the family all year.

    BTW, nothing wrong with whitetails, they make fine eatin', especially the corn-fed variety in the midwest. Mmm, mmm, good. And try some of that wild pork, it's the absolute finest. The store bought stuff doesn't even compare.

    1offroader
  • dreasdaddreasdad Posts: 276
    March 9 to teh 21st I think, its out at the Expo center off Decker
  • Since I seen where ppl were arguing about the Chevy site not showing a Max trailer PKG I though I would investigate myself. Not sure if this has already been solved or figured out but I went to the chevrolet site and built an Ext Cab 4x4 1500 with the standard bed and added the 6.0 and on the options list the fourth one down is the max trailer pkg. Just build and price what I have shown and its on there. I believe thats what some were saying wasn't on there but at least its on there now.
  • pmuscepmusce Posts: 132
    I definitely think the Silverado solution is much better, reclining seats or not. You just lose too much room with the Toyota Solution. See for yourself:

    Tundra Crew Cab

    http://autodeadline.com/detail?source=&mid=WKA2007010744568&mime=JPG

    Silverado Crew Cab:

    http://autodeadline.com/detail?source=&mid=WKA2006080227754&mime=JPG
  • jreaganjreagan Posts: 285
    Thanks for the pics pmusce.

    You are 100% correct. GM's is MUCH better. Toyota's looks worthless, may as well just put the stuff on the seats. I don't understand that concept at all. Nothing like I pictured it. But, of course, we'll need "numbers" to make our point to some of these Toy fans, not mentioning any names (kdhspyder).
  • 1offroader1offroader Posts: 208
    Sometimes simpler is better. Silverado design wins hands down here.

    Hard to tell from the photos, but the seat back on the Tundra looks like hard plastic - slippery. Will your gear stay there on a rough road? I'd much rather have my gear on the floor.

    Also...if you want to recline the rear seat, which has been claimed as an advantage for the Tundra, wouldn't you have to slide the entire seat forward away from the rear firewall? If that's the case, where do the rear passengers' legs go?

    Like a sub-second 1/4-mile advantage, another ingenious solution to a non-existent problem...

    1offroader
  • pmuscepmusce Posts: 132
    The 'recline' feature is pretty useless in my opinion. The seats don't actually recline but rather the bottom sections slides forward, which kills legroom. I'm not sure what Toyota was trying to do here but the results are under whelming to say the least. See for yourself:

    http://autodeadline.com/detail?source=&mid=WKA2007010744501&mime=JPG
  • 1offroader1offroader Posts: 208
    Definitely underwhelming. Also, it looks like the front seats are all the way forward in that photo just to provide the illusion of legroom for the rear seat when it is reclined.

    I'm 6'3". I drive with the front seat ALL THE WAY BACK, and I ain't moving my seat up because someone in the back wants to "recline". They can recline when I get them safely home and they go to bed.

    Of course, there are no "numbers" to go with that pic, so it'll probably be ignored.

    Like they say in the software business, "It's not a bug, it's a FEATURE!"

    1offroader
  • murphydogmurphydog SeattlePosts: 715
    y'all should be happy about the sniping going back and forth. For you folks who love the general what better way to drive improvements that some good old competition. And for you all who hate the general, there is one more serious player to look at.

    In the end it really is a win win situation!!

    But please don't let me stop y'all. I love the silly petty arguments that are flying back and forth. Kind of like those reality shows, except with more frequent bickering. Now if farmer rube would just add a post or two!!! You gotta believe I am always psyched when the host has made this a read only forum! ;) :shades:
  • toykickstoykicks Posts: 95
    I dont hate GM, Theyre actually my favorite out of the big 3.

    But the Tundra is my favorite 1/2 ton ;) since the old gen gave a wake up call to the Big 3 back in 2000. a lot of People hate it because They believe it will bring down GM,Ford and chrysler financially But toyota isnt aiming at a big market. They just want a piece of the pie and want to build a product that people will like and be satisfied with. GM,Ford and daimler chrysler have been having financial problems for a long time. Chrysler almost went under in 95-96 but got saved by merc. You cant blame other companies for anothers financial problems. People just simply move on to better things. Saying its the [non-permissible content removed] fault is just retarded and racist. I dont think GM is going bankrupt they will adjust to the market and make a comeback in quality & reliability just like ford and hopefully d.chrysler.

    To bad a lot of people are losing their jobs but not so long ago before this import vs. domestic crap started GM,Ford and dodge were planning to ditch most of their plants in the US and build in Canada and mexico because of union dues ;) while toyota,honda and nissan opened multi million dollar plants in the US and employed more workers here since its cheaper for them to build here then to export from japan lol . yeah but people still like to blame the [non-permissible content removed] ;)

    Domestics still employ a bit more here then import companies but not by a lot and honda, toyota, nissan are building new plants this year and in the near future. Like i said buy what you like.
  • pmuscepmusce Posts: 132
    "But the Tundra is my favorite 1/2 ton since the old gen gave a wake up call to the Big 3 back in 2000. a lot of People hate it because They believe it will bring down GM,Ford and chrysler financially But toyota isn't aiming at a big market"

    Sorry, this statement is completely false. First of all, the last gen Tundra did not give anyone a wake up call. It was un-competative as a full size truck from day 1. Secondly, if you think Toyota would not love to dominate this market, you are wrong. They didn't invest the dollars they did into their plant and the Tundra to get a small share of the market. The problem is this market is not going to be easy for them to crack and they know it.

    "Domestics still employ a bit more here then import companies but not by a lot and honda, toyota, nissan are building new plants this year and in the near future. Like i said buy what you like."

    A bit more? You are way off on your facts. Here is how many vehicles GM/Ford/DCX produced in the US compared to Toyota/Honda/Nissan:

    GM/Ford/DCX: 7,162,909
    Toyota/Honda/Nissan: 2,549,482

    Here is how many cars were sold in the US in 2006 that were imported:

    GM/Ford/DCX: 472,499
    Toyota/Honda/Nissan: 1,741,725

    The bulk of the GM/Ford/DCX numbers are Mercedes/Volvo/Land Rover/Saab sales, which are also non-domestic.

    Source: Automotive News

    If you want to write about the virtue's of Toyota/Honda/Nissan cars or trucks thats fine. They do assemble vehicles in the US and employ people in the US. They do not create jobs. The net affect of their sales rising has meant greater job losses at the big three than jobs created by them and more vehicles imported from Japan (import sales rose in 2006 from 2005) which means more jobs for Japan. These are indisputable facts.
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    "You are 100% correct. GM's is MUCH better. Toyota's looks worthless, may as well just put the stuff on the seats."

    In each of these trucks, the space behind the front seats can be used for TWO main purposes: carrying additional passengers or carrying additional cargo.

    You guys are only considering the cargo standpoint - and you're only considering it based on a bunch of PHOTOS (kinda like examining engine specs and curb weights to try and figure out which vehicle would be more powerful.....).

    What about those folks who buy Crewcab trucks to haul....gee, I dunno...EXTRA PASSENGERS? The Tundra CrewMax STARTS OUT with nearly 6" more rear seat legroom than the GM Crewcabs. Somehow, this is completely unimportant to you guys (even you TALL guys). Yet the ability to carry an icechest, in the cab, on the floor is of PRIME SUPERDUPER A-No.1 IMPORTANCE!!!!!

    Get a grip guys.

    "I don't understand that concept at all. Nothing like I pictured it."

    How did you picture it? I described it at LEAST twice as the rear seatbacks folding down onto the seat bottoms. And that's EXACTLY what the photos show. What in the heck were you picturing? :confuse:

    Is there some pathological need to refuse to admit that the Tundra does ANYTHING better than the Silverado? For each and every difference between these trucks, your claim is the Silverado is better and the Toyota method is "worthless".

    Let's try a different feature: on the Tundra CrewMax, the ENTIRE back glass (with defroster) power slides DOWN into the back wall of the cab, rather than just the middle portion of the back window sliding to one side or the other.

    I can't wait to see how you guys spin the Chevy method as being better....
  • jreaganjreagan Posts: 285
    First of all, I am 6' tall and sat in the backseat of the GM, and I had plenty of room. NO need for any more at all. I was very comfortable and the seatbacks have a nice angle to them already.

    The reclining feature is a joke because all of that "extra" legroom you just bragged about is GONE when you slide the seats forward. I am betting they put that extra room back there JUST to accomodate the reclining feature, Not because it's needed in the normal seating position. Unfortunately, 6" of extra legroom isn't enough when you recline the seats and bring the seat bottom forward at least 6 inches and while reclined, you tend to want to stretch out your legs even more. Ever try sitting in a reclined position with minimal legroom? Kinda like in coach in an airplane? Not very comfortable if you ask me. That 6" would have been much better utilized in the bed.

    Cargo space is much more efficient in the GM. The stuff sits on the floor, which BTW has NO exposed seat brackets to get in the way and allows heavier stuff to sit on a solid floor and not folded down seatbacks. The photos pmusce posted show this as plain as day. Even my 2000 ext cab had seats that folded up this way and the cargo space in that truck was better than the Tundra's silly configuration. I am betting that Tundra would have had them fold up if not for the reclining feature, so they sacrificed cargo carrying convenience for a stupid recliner option that will suck alot of people in, but in reality is not a very comfortable position to be seated in. Have I sat in the back of a Tundra? No, but I have sat in many front reclining seats and I find them uncomfotable for any length of time, especially if I cannot stretch my legs. it's simply a marketing gimmick, kinda like rain sensing wipers are.

    Now for the personal, subjective part...I get a longer box. So, for me, the GM is better for that reason alone. Plus, I never plan to ride back there and the only ones who will are my 2 (small) daughters.

    I could care less about the rear window. I opted for a non-opening one anyway. Unless you have a topper and need to access the bed area while driving, why would you want to open the rear window? Makes no sense, buy an Avalanche if you want the back wide open. And with a topper, the window access in the topper is no bigger then the one in the GM, so, what's the advantage here?

    Oh, since you brought up the topic of windows opening. How does the Tundra's sunroof open? The GM's (in the crewcabs anyway) open INTO the roof, not above it. Very nice feature, less wind resistance and wind noise.
    Also, on the ext cabs, the rear passenger windows are not "wing" windows anymore, they actually roll down into the door like the front ones do. Not sure about the Tundra, they may too, do you know? Wing style windows are stupid and worthless and I hated them in my old truck. Very nice improvement IMO.

    I guess if I felt the need to have the rear window open, the Tundra's design might be a little better because I do not like rear sliding windows, but for the life of me, I cannot think of a good reason for this? No matter what kind of rear window is available, I would ALWAYS opt for the fixed one.
This discussion has been closed.