Welcome Toyota Tundra - IV

meredithmeredith Member Posts: 575
edited March 2014 in Toyota
This topic is a continuation of Topic 1275....

Welcome Toyota Tundra - III. Please continue
these discussions here.


  • tundradudetundradude Member Posts: 588
    Had to let the factory stereo go. Kenwood replaced it. Getting to the stereo is not too difficult. If you are one that might be waiting around for that cd add on, it may be 2002 before it happens (sarcastically). Also make sure that the dealership does know about your particular radio size in your Tundra, because no one has seen it yet in the parts department. They might try to put the one in that is too big.

    The Kenwood sounds better, too.
  • jr26jr26 Member Posts: 7
    I have been following this Tundra site since it began last summer. I was checking out F-150s and decided to wait until after the Tundra launch to decide what to buy. I notice that there are a couple of participants posting here who seem to be close to Toyota either through dealers or otherwise. I am hoping they might be able to let me know if and when a traction control system might be available on the Tundra, as well as any other standard or option additions. Toyota sedans such as the Avalon already offer this system as an option as traction control (slow speed) and Anti Skid Control. Vans also offer it, and 4WD SUVs such as the BMW and Mercedes have it as standard. The research I have done suggests traction control is an excellent safety option. Edmunds recommends it highly in their Safety Info page, and other reviews suggest it will be standard on all high end vehicles within three years.

    I have asked this question at a couple dealerships, but of course since the salesmen wanted me to buy right now, they were pretty evasive about what might be added in future model years (even though they couldn’t get me a 2000 Tundra because they were in high demand so I would have to pay full price, blah, blah, blah).

    This option would solve the problem for those in the previous posts who are annoyed because they can’t get a limited slip differential on a Tundra. In fact LSDs are now old technology compared to traction control systems. For those upset that a "computer is driving the car", let’s face it, computers control lots of systems in modern vehicles from ABS to fuel injection, you just think you’re driving the car. Basic traction control redirects power to a wheel with traction, for example when you start up on ice. Advanced traction control systems work at driving speeds, and do let you drive the car, they just sense through throttle and steering positions when the car is not going where you are telling it to due to loss of traction and give it a split second nudge back to where it should be through the brakes or throttle. Reviewers write that they could hardly tell when the system was active, so it’s not like the computer takes over the vehicle and drives you to the 7-Eleven when you wanted to go to Safeway. You can also shut the system off completely. From my POV, I learned to drive on ice and snow where the year was 8 months of winter and 4 more months of bad sledding. I know how to drive on ice and snow, but a system like TC is a bonus and a no brainer. A split second adjustment beats being a macho-man in the ditch.

    I have decided on a Tundra, but not this year. I’m ordering a sedan this year and the Tundra will be next year. I like the Tundra’s ride, the power, the quietness, the handling and maneuverability. I like the F-150 too, the regular cab and short box is a sharp looking truck, but it’s Big 3. Two friends have 150s and love them. I have test driven both and I don’t understand the comments about Tundra’s small interior - when you look at the dimensions in Edmunds, front legroom, headroom and width are all within an inch of the 150. I’m over 6 feet tall with wide shoulders and there was plenty of comfortable room in the Tundra.

    So can anyone tell me what may be added to the 2001-plus Tundras? Traction control? Side airbags? Regular cab with a short box even? That would be an even nicer truck…
  • bg4dgbg4dg Member Posts: 44
    The Tundra has no traction aiding device at all now or for the near future. The electric locker that is available in the Tacoma, 4-Runner, and Land Cruiser were considered but rejected because of the low anticipated demand. (It is expensive, but a real locker, and not for street use since it works in low range only). Toyota does not use limited slips in trucks due to long term reliability in HD use. If you want a "traction aiding device" beyond what the aftermarket is offering, you will probably be waiting a long time. I know a development engineer at TRD, and it IS possible that the TRD Tundra will get the locker in a few years, but again, low range 4X4 use only.
  • z71billz71bill Member Posts: 1,986
    I have seen this post before -Toyota does not use LSD/ locker because they will not last more than 120,000 miles. Who started this BS some Toyota salesman with a mortgage payment due? I can not accept that the engineers at Toyota are not as smart as the rest of the industry - - they could design one that lasted if they wanted to or could go to Eaton (they make rear ends)and buy one off the shelf. Toyota left off some things so they could have the illusion of a low price...I am not slamming the Tundra - but the lame excuse for not having this basic option available on a truck..
  • quadrunner500quadrunner500 Member Posts: 2,721
    You drive on snow and ice, so you know all about driving on slippery surfaces right?

    Hint: Mud is much more slippery and treacherous than snow/ice.

    I don't think traction control is worthwhile, unless it is on a Camaro, Mustang or Corvette.

    In a 4x4 or front wheel drive car, you don't need traction control for snow and ice.

    You can't stop any faster with 4x4 or traction control. That should be the more important consideration.

    Hint: The pedal on the right is the one that gets you into trouble. The pedal on the left is the one that gets you out.
  • barlitzbarlitz Member Posts: 752
    Check out www.wardsauto.com they have the top 10 best engines Fords 5.4 triton V8 is one of them they say the Tundras 4.7 is to soft for a truck.That tells me if you were to use the tundra like a real truck its not gonna last but if you use it to get groceries or take the dogs for a ride its the truck for you.
  • bg4dgbg4dg Member Posts: 44
    Mr. Z71,
    No limited slip will last very long under heavy use, especially without oil changes which most people won't do. Eaton, Auburn, you name it, they almost all use some type of wearing clutch. Besides, no LSD of ANY brand or design will work like a real locker. Detroit, Toyota elctric or the old cable type, ARB, or Lock-rite spanks the LSD. Since it is an option, they didn't "leave anything out" for the price illusion on their other trucks, they just know that most people don't buy them. You're right that it should be something you can order if you want though.
  • rufarcirufarci Member Posts: 5
    I am wondering if Tundra's already have the wiring in place for the in-cab electric trailer brake actuator? If your towing 5,000 lbs or more, it seems good sense and also a law to have trailer brakes. any ideas?

    Also, anyone have ideas/information about 2001 Tundras, such as: are diesel's going to be available? what about a 5 speed for the V-8?
  • bud_light_dudebud_light_dude Member Posts: 330
    Toyota will be making a heavier truck with a V10 or something like the 8.1l big block V8 that GM is putting out in 2001?

    I wonder if they are going to stay in the extreme light duty realm or if they will continue market expansion into the heavy duty full size trucks.

    They have done a great job with 4 and 6 banger trucks over the years, but they have intentionally stayed in that market without venturing into the full size area until the Tundra. Anyone heard or would take a guess if the Tundra is all they will have to offer in a full size truck for the next 10 years or do they have plans to compete with the full size domestic trucks in the future?

    It should be interesting to see how things unfold in the future.
  • cliffy1cliffy1 Member Posts: 3,581
    I don't think we will be seeing this system on the Tundra any time soon but I would not rule it out. Our Land Cruiser has three open differentials (front, rear and center) with a traction control computer to keep power at the wheels that actually have traction without going to a LSD.

    This feature is supposed to be available as an option on the Sequoia this fall as well. I don't think Toyota wants to let the price go any higher on the Tundra but I have been wrong once or twice before in my life.
  • otto14otto14 Member Posts: 19
    ok, whats the SIZE difference between the Tundra and the domestic 3 in:

    towing - i believe tundra has the most towing in the 1/2ton class?
    bed size - how much bigger are the short beds on the domestic 3? remember, lets compare apples to apples, want a long bed, buy a ford/chevy/gmc/dodge
    engine - i believe the tundra is the fastest pickup? Correct - yes it is faster than the 5.4L triton, checked it out 4 times past weekend with my friend - by a carlength at 50mph.
    rear seat - temporary accommodation for most - have kids,if they cant fit - they need to buy their own cars/trucks and live by themselves, right?!
    what else about size - if you cant fit, its too bad, then you have to settle for something else. I'm 6'1" 200lbs and the truck cabin makes me feel small. While im no giant i tend to reflect the size of the average human.
    Toyota has done well - but seriously, you cant even compare the three domestics to the tundra.
  • bud_light_dudebud_light_dude Member Posts: 330
    Your input was valued, but my question was in regard to whether a HD model will be made.

    Toyota Tundra is not the leader in towing. It's tow "rating" is 7,500 lbs, but they won't put more than a class 3, 5,000 lbs. tow hitch on it. I am not sure what all the 1/2 ton big threes ratings are, but I know the GM is over 8,000 lbs. The other two are at least that, maybe more depending on engine and transmission you choose.

    I don't know the exact bed dimesion differences, never checked. I just know the Tundra's is smaller, both in width and depth.

    The Tundra is faster, but it is also much lighter in weight due to ligher materials used in it's design. Also, if you load the Tundra up, it carries it's load and climbs the hills slower and with less ease than the heavier weighted big three trucks. To me an unloaded truck's speed is pretty irrelevant for a truck.

    The back cabin room is one of the truck markets biggest complaint of the Tundra, much like everyone scoffed the GM for being late on four doors. The smaller rear cabin was more of a let down because people really thought that with an access cab of four doors and exterior door handles like a crew cab, they would have made it bigger.

    Can't compare the Tundra with the big three domestics...why not? Toyota is. Toyota made a quality vehicle. They always have made a reliable truck, but now they claim to have a real contender with the big three full size, but it's not really a true full size if you compare it with the big three dimensions.
  • otto14otto14 Member Posts: 19
    -have a drawtite hitch on mine and it states on the hitch itself it will handle 8000# weight distributing.
    -ford is 7000# with triton 5.4L - unless my memory fails.
    -tundra towing is 7200# with V8,7100# with 4x4 V8
    -where's this info coming from:
    "if you load the Tundra up, it
    carries it's load and climbs the hills slower and
    with less ease than the heavier weighted big three
    trucks." - if its lighter and more powerful,how can it be slower - as i understand it this is exactly where the tundra excells?!?!?! basic physics, right? :-)
    - lighter = good, stronger = good (have a look underneath a tundra and take a close look at the frame, its all one piece,but most important its a much more elaborate frame than any of the domestics.
    - back cabin, if its important its important - cant argue with personal needs/wants. i just like to have the extra interior room for my hunting gear etc.

    Im not brand loyal - if anybody would have made a better truck for me i would have gotten it.
  • cliffy1cliffy1 Member Posts: 3,581
    Good pull on the bed figures!
  • 606zpx606zpx Member Posts: 75
    The class III hitch as installed as a port option on the tundra is a Reese. Its WEIGHT CARRYING capacity is 500 lbs at the tongue and 5000lbs total. However, the WEIGHT DISTRIBUTING capacity exceeds the 7200lb capacity (access cab, v8, 2wd) of the truck. There is a true class IV hitch available as a dealer installed option.
    If you look at chevy and ford 1/2 ton factory hitches they are class III (same specs as I described above).

    bud light dude--I would like to know where you got your info about the tundra not doing well up hills, etc. That is the first and only time Ive heard that.
    By the way, Consumer Reports did an acceleration test between Dodge Ram 5.9, Ford 5.4 and Chevy 5.3 as well as the Tundra of course. All were towing 6500 lbs and the test was 0-60 mph. Tundra=25 secs, Chevy=25 secs, Ford=24 or 27 secs (cant quite remember), Dodge was a good bit slower (but cant remember the exact number).
    You can criticize Consumer's Reports but this was an entirely objective test.
    The Chevy clearly offers much more rear room than the tundra, but from my impression of the Dodge and Ford they were little or no better.
  • macduffmacduff Member Posts: 15
    should wrap up the debate. Should, but won't, because Rube likes to start these little brush fires and run. He's not big on logic and discussing facts.

    Personally, I'm done with buying Big 3 products, whether they be trucks or cars. I've had a few too many bad experiences with them. Expecting my Tundra anyday now, Rube, I'll take you for a drive if you want to experience quality for once.
  • 606zpx606zpx Member Posts: 75
    You can verify the following for yourself--if you wish. This is in follow up to the information I posted above about the Consumer reports article from Nov. 1999, pages 54-59 (I am at home now and have the magazine in front of me).
    The test was actually conduted using 7000 lbs but was 0-60 as I stated above. Tundra 25 secs, Silverado 25 secs, f 150 27 secs, Ram 33 secs. Another error of mine was the size of the Dodge engine which was actually 5.2. The chevy was indeed 5.3 and ford 5.4.
    They listed the payload capacities as follows (keep in mind that these are as closely equipped as possible) Tundra 1340 lbs, Chevy 1465 lbs, Ford 1290 lbs, Dodge 1265 lbs.
    Towing capacities as follows Tundra 7100, Chevy 7500, Ford 7700, Dodge 7200.

    You can draw all kinds of conclusions about the above data....but most would agree that the numbers I have outlined above are very comparable for the above trucks.
    The Tundra is any where from 200-550 lbs lighter that the other trucks, but this is what you would expect with a truck measuring 6-10 inches shorter than the others.(Tundra 218", chevy 228, ford 226, dodge 224). Width was average of 4 inches less than the others.
    Hope this helps clarify matters.....Again, this is all objective data.
  • bud_light_dudebud_light_dude Member Posts: 330
    The reason a Toyota is slower pulling with weight is due to torque curves of the engine. The tundra is fast unloaded because of horsepower, but it doesn't have the same torque for pulling.

    You are not correct about the frame. The Silverado's frame is rated at a much higher strength per square than the Tundra. The Silverado is the very first Hydroformed truck frames and is rated the highest of any 1/2 ton truck made. My Silverado was toasted by a 55-60 mph rear end collision. The frame was only very slightly bent. The frame specialist said that if there wasn't so much damage elsewhere from other hits (panels and cab), then the truck's frame could have been left as is and still would not have even prematurely worn out tires from misalignment. They of course would not have left it, but that is just how rigid the frames of the new Silverados are. The Tundra's is not weak by any means, but not the strongest.
  • bud_light_dudebud_light_dude Member Posts: 330
    My Silverado 4X4 with 5.3l ext cab with only me in it (225 lbs) and a full tank of gas weighed in
    1,536 lbs. That is a huge difference from what you quote and a significant difference to the Tundra's weight.

    Your stats show the Tundra and Silverado the same in your tow comparison. I do not have the stats in front of me and little time to gather them for this post, but I have seen many different ones. They all show the Tundra faster unloaded, but no where near the same with an equal load in the bed or by trailer. The Tundra is close in payload (cargo carrying), but the speed with a trailer is way less. As you know towing is much more torque and work dependant than payload. The Tundra's shorter wheel base helps with it's payload capacity.

    The rated tow capacity of my Silverado is 8,100 lbs. That is plastered on about every test done and marketing brochure GM puts out. There is not a full size 1/2 ton domestic that does not have a 8000 or better tow rating, but it all depends on whether it is 2wd or 4wd, rear gear ratios, tires, etc. My understanding is that the Tundra only has one configuration available for it's max 7,500 tow capacity rating, so I disagree here also.

    Your assumption is logical. With the Tundra being less weight, shorter wheel based, etc. it should have much higher test results than it has gotten, but it doesn't. With a load, the Tundra isn't as impressive as unloaded.

    It's a great truck, reliable as any, stylish, etc. but if they built this truck to be a strong full size competitor, in my opinion, it has some rework to go through and a few more years of refinement to truly compete.
  • otto14otto14 Member Posts: 19
    my neighbor has a Z71 silverado (single cab Z71) with 31x11.50 Mickey Thomson tires, and my tundra has 275/75R16 Bridgestones and my truck is actually EXACTLY the same height - and from the rear the same width by my eye - sorry if i cant double my eyes as a tape measure. The size "difference" is not really that apparent. I know i can trun rings around the town in my tundra compared to any silverado, or as i love in the dense offroad excursions where i so often see the domestic 3 have difficulty in even turning aroun without scratching their so loved heavy, big steel.
  • otto14otto14 Member Posts: 19
    MOTOR TREND 2/2000"

    FRAME "stiffest under any current full-size pickup"

    Rear gear ratio on the 4x4tundra = 3.909, looks like an ideal towing rear to me..
  • powercatpowercat Member Posts: 96
    Looks like the the latest awards for the Tundra have got mobile home park crowd stirred up again. Don't take it personally and QUIT RESPONDING TO THEIR MORONIC BABBLE. We know how good the Tundra is, they do too.
  • bob259bob259 Member Posts: 280
    Well I currently own a Silverado, but will admit that with all the problems I have been looking at other vehicles including the Tundra. To put it mildly I've about had it with GM quality, or what should be said LACK of Quality.

    Now the distressing part of the Tundra to me, this is only my 2 cents.

    1) Poor fuel mileage. Wow I expected to see the Tundra post better numbers then it is. My fuel mileage with my 5.3 Silverado is great compared to the Tundra. Highway mileage averages 19.3+MPG

    2)Poor Back Seat design/Space I don't want to start the debate again but you have to admit the Silverado beats it hands down.

    3) Tow Hitch, or lack of Why can't I get a LTD with a port installed tow hitch. The story about the EPA sounds fishy to me. If I'm buying a truck I want a hitch installed and not have to go back door to get one.

    4) Dash. Poor dash layout on. (my opinion)

    5) Lack of options. I would expect that the top of the line LTD would have seat heaters, etc. to be up to speed with the competition.

    To some it up I'll use a bit of Toyota's own slogan with a little truth added. "Tundra, we're off to a great start, but we havn't gone far enough....."

    To their credit, I'm sure they'll make the necessary changes and when they do I'm pretty positive I'll be driving one. Don't get me wrong, I love my Silverado and GM motors, but as a consumer I'm not going to pay 30+K for junk and be happy about being told they don't know what's the matter with it, or that is NORMAL for a truck.
  • cwirthcwirth Member Posts: 169
    Yea you see alot of the Big 3 trucks down on the farm. They are way out in some cornfield rusting away.
  • bud_light_dudebud_light_dude Member Posts: 330
    Marketing stats you put in your topic do not represent true performance. This has been proven for years. How much of that claimed torque and hp is lost in the drivetrain???? The Silverado has way less power loss through the drivetrain and actually has the flattest torque curve of any 1/2 ton made today. Real world results are what I go by and remain impressed with. The Tundra isn't there yet.

    I agree that the Tundra is much better designed for off-roading. The Tundra clearly has an advantage there and if my need for a truck was more for offroad, I would buy the Tundra hands down, except for the fact that it has no locking differential. That really hurts it's advantage for offroad in the other areas. What on earth was Toyota thinking?!

    I feel you are incorrect about the Silverado only being used to pull bass boats. This is highly untrue. All the big three are used, even 1/2 tons, for heavy work on the job site and also for heavy use on farms, personal businesses, etc. Yeah, in addition to all that, I also use my Silverado to pull a Javelin Bass Boat for tournaments. Out of all the competition out there, most bass fishermen prefer the towing of their GM trucks than any other.

    Don't let Rue2blue cause heated discussion here. I don't agree with his posts. I too like facts, but facts can often be polluted by opinions and become less factual. Consumer reports is the most non-factual and opinionated magazine report I have ever read, but it seems that is the magazine everyone claims to be the most reflective of fact. I wish consumer reports would go under. They do nobody any good at all.
  • bud_light_dudebud_light_dude Member Posts: 330
    Posts by the uneducated and quick to slam like your post cause more disruption than the ones you are upset about. Yeah, ignore them, but don't stoop to the same level of disrespect by postings like your #28.
  • bud_light_dudebud_light_dude Member Posts: 330
    Ditto to you, post #31. Why stoop to the same level? Have respect for yourself and ignore it.
    You know you have a good truck. The only thing that separates your truck from any other is need and preference. Why buy into all the bashing?

    I enjoy comparing trucks intelligently and without heated brand debates.

    If the others get to you, complain to the board. Immature retaliation will only get you more bashing, furthering the polluted topics.
  • bluebeastbluebeast Member Posts: 258
    If you had a choice of being in a highway crash at 65 mph in a "full size Tundra" or a Silverado which do you think most people would pick?......Yes, size matters, simple law of physics.
  • ferris47ferris47 Member Posts: 131
    I would have to say one of those old 70s Monte Carlo's that I think only came in Olive Drab and were made out of armor plate. I have seen those things go though brick walls with nary a scratch.

    Actually that is a tough question. I don't know enough about crash physics to give an educated answer on either one. I have read numerous places that the Tundra has the stiffest frame but that to mean means the truck will be fine while I will be dead as it will transmit the force to me. The Silverado is said to have one of the best crumple zone setups out there and that is what saves lives. A lot of cars out there that look the worst might actually have saved the drivers life because the car took the energy of the crash and that is what is important.

    Right now I would say Silverado just because of the afore mentioned crumple zone design and the real world story of the guy, I am sorry I forget who, was in the accident with the Silverado. Was it BLD? I tend to like real world evidence over anything else and I have none on the Tundra. My gut tells me it will be just as safe but again I have no real world experiences to back this up.

    Sorry about the book. Question just kind of intriged me. Then again the kinda person I am I would be so depressed that my ride was trashed after a 65 mph crash that I would probably want to be in a coma. Just kidding.
  • ferris47ferris47 Member Posts: 131
    Just a side note, I was in two accidents with my S10. One where I was hit behind at about 35 mph and another where a women pulled out in front of me and stopped while I was going about 50 Mph. Neither crash made the CD player skip and neither crash gave me so much as a sore neck. The rear collision caused about 200.00 worth of scratches and the front collison caused about 2600.00 of cosmetic work only. Thankfully both of their insur. promptly paid in both circumstances. What I am getting at is like I said, I like real world exp. and that little S10 did a wonderful job of protecting me and to me that gives me a soft spot for Chevy Truck safety.

    But oh do I love my Tundra so much more than anything else I have ever had. I pray I never get any real world crash exp. with her.

    Sorry about the typos and such in my posts I tend to write this stuff quickly and off the cuff. I actually am reasonably "edumacated".
  • tp4unctp4unc Member Posts: 437
    we don't have any accidents. No matter what we drive.
  • cliffy1cliffy1 Member Posts: 3,581
    You are still having problems understanding the lack of hitches on the LTD Tundra. You are telling me that you believe some conspiracy from Toyota and that you think the EPA is supposed to make any sense.

    Tell me then, why do you think we can put the hitch on the SR5. There is no difference in the trucks except for 40 pounds worth fender flares on the standard equipment.

    This is the same governmental agency that prevents us from selling V6 Camrys with CA emissions but lets us sell 4 cylinders with it to non CA residents. That's right, I can't sell a car with better than required emissions and it is our glorious federal government that does this.

    I feel safer already.
  • ferris47ferris47 Member Posts: 131
    Just a side note, I was in two accidents with my S10. One where I was hit behind at about 35 mph and another where a women pulled out in front of me and stopped while I was going about 50 Mph. Neither crash made the CD player skip and neither crash gave me so much as a sore neck. The rear collision caused about 200.00 worth of scratches and the front collison caused about 2600.00 of cosmetic work only. Thankfully both of their insur. promptly paid in both circumstances. What I am getting at is like I said, I like real world exp. and that little S10 did a wonderful job of protecting me and to me that gives me a soft spot for Chevy Truck safety.

    But oh do I love my Tundra so much more than anything else I have ever had. I pray I never get any real world crash exp. with her.

    Sorry about the typos and such in my posts I tend to write this stuff quickly and off the cuff. I actually am reasonably "edumacated".
  • ferris47ferris47 Member Posts: 131
    I have a class III hitch from the factory on my limited. Well either from the port or the factory. It was on the truck at the dealer and the truck had come in the day before.

    I don't know if this helps anybody.
  • bigboy3bigboy3 Member Posts: 22
  • ckski1ckski1 Member Posts: 20
    I have never been in a crash with a Silverado or Tundra (thank God). You insinuate that one would chose the Silverado over the Tundra due to sheer mass requirements (size matters).
    That logic dictates that you should be in a Mack truck over either Silverado or Tundra. That is obvious.
    As far a Tundra/Silverado crash is concerned, the mass difference at that speed(65) almost is negligible. What I'm trying to say is that if you hit a brick wall at that speed the extra mass will not give you any significant saftey over the other (a mack would). E.g. would you rather have someone 200 lbs tackling you or 205 lbs? You would still be tackled with almost identical forces.
    What seperates the two is crumple zones.
    I personally have no information on crumple zone tests, but to imply that the Silverado is safer in this case is not quite accurate. Several crach tests (offset and direct) show that size, of relatively similar massed vehicles, has no inherent advantage. Safety design is most critical factor.
    Let me know you has the better crash tests!
  • y2ktrdy2ktrd Member Posts: 81
    yup i have a 73 monte and it's green/gold original
  • otto14otto14 Member Posts: 19
    bud light dude: thatnks for your candor, i agree with you - matter of preference, i get into heated discussions from time to time - maybe it the good luck on this one now" that gets me :-)

    anyway, for those of youthat are interested you can see preliminary results for the tundra through a link on the edmunds site-homepage-safety etc....
    i dont know how the silverado did..
    -By the way- has anyone got a k&N filter in the tundra yet - curious about increased performance& fuel economy.
  • samirpowarsamirpowar Member Posts: 28
    Bigboy3 - are you sure the noise is not from the seat belt hinge above your left shoulder? I developed a "creak" which I initially thought was coming from the doors, but is actually from the seat belt hinge. It comes and goes, especially when I lean forward a little bit, but is not enough to bother me. Slide the adjusting mechanism up and down a couple of times and see if it goes away - it did for me. Hope this helps.

  • dcarpenterdcarpenter Member Posts: 26
    If bigger is better, why don't Ford, Dodge and Chevrolet make their trucks even bigger?

    If I buy a Tundra, one of the reasons will be that it is a bit smaller and lighter, not to mention the other many reasons.
  • rwellbaum2rwellbaum2 Member Posts: 1,006
    Hey Ol' Timer, haven't heard from you in a while. How's that prostate surgery healin' up? Hope you don't have no more of them midnight accidents. Now let's talk about them frames bendin' on the silverados. What say on this and all these GM owners that are mad as heck about their vibratin' pickups?
  • z71billz71bill Member Posts: 1,986
    Front crash test rating: 1- 5 star rating with 5 being the best.

    Driver: Silverado and Tundra both rated 4 stars
    Front seat passenger Silverado 5 stars, Tundra 3 stars.
    This was on the Microsoft home page last week, I do not remember who did the test (government or insurance institute)

    I also do not understand why the passenger came out better in the Silverado and worse in the Tundra (when compared to the driver)
  • z71billz71bill Member Posts: 1,986
    They did not test the Tundra for rear seat passenger safety. The test dummies refused to sit in the back of the Tundra.
  • cskalacskala Member Posts: 23
    Haul 7000 pounds, a fifth wheel, or haul a small trailer. Haul 4x8 sheets of plywood or 3 yards of chicken manure. Drag race off the line and beat your pickup buddies. Haul 6 people, haul 5 people, or haul one person and 2 dogs. Go four wheeling or stay in the city.

    What fits my bill is a truck thats not as small as a Dakota, not as cumbersome as a Ram or F-150, drives like a fine sedan in the city, is competent off-road, can haul my dogs and a trailer when I go hunting and camping, one I can use it for the heavy jobs, and one that comes from a company with an excellent reputation for quality and standing behind their products.

    If I was hauling fifth-wheel, or needing a six-pack/crew cab I'd pick the ford or dodge or Chevy, but what suits my weekly commuter / weekend outdoors needs is the Tundra. It's not perfect for everyone but it suits me to a T.

    Just my .02 cents worth.

    By the way my Tundra has been excellent overall. Hope you enjoy whatever you buy!!
  • cskalacskala Member Posts: 23
    A site to help in buyers research
  • otto14otto14 Member Posts: 19
    dont try deteriorate this newsgroup with your farm opinions, most people would not ask a person such as yourself for advice when buying a pickup. The tests speak for themselves, we all know what the truth is - even though you may find it (buyers remorse perhaps?) hard to swallow - you want to buy a farm pickup that you like, fine,people in thbis newsgroup are interested in the tundra - not your redneck opinions which you should post in the silverado newsgroups anyway. By the way - you already know you have the best pickup in the world,the silverado (joke) so why do you keep following the tundra newsgroup?
  • otto14otto14 Member Posts: 19
    oh i forgot - good luck in that silverado newsgroup now!
  • cwirthcwirth Member Posts: 169
    Hey Rube, it was very nice here after Edmunds kicked up off so why don't you be a man, if you can, and get lost. rwellbaum2's comments may be out of line in the past but you don't have to continue that theme.

    By the way, the only thing shakin' around here is you. I have over 17,500 miles on my Tundra and it is excellent, not a shake, ever. I know I shouldn't respond to your comments but I am sorry I can't help it. I really enjoy reading the posts at Edmunds but your presence here really bothers me. If it takes a long time for Edmunds to catch up to you again, if they ever do, then I will be gone forever. So bug off.
  • macduffmacduff Member Posts: 15
    on the old duffer. Rube doesn't even own a pickup truck (per one of his old posts.) I do wonder why he spends so much time obssesing over and writing about the Tundra. Some bizarre form of penis envy, perhaps.

    Hang in there, Rube. I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds you entertaining.
  • bg4dgbg4dg Member Posts: 44
    If Chevy buys my Z71 Vibrator back, I'm probably gettin' a Tundra since the Dodge and Ford boys are just a little too proud of theirs. Plus, I never had a problem with my T100 Jethro.
This discussion has been closed.