Welcome Toyota Tundra - IV

2456789

Comments

  • evcvevcv Member Posts: 16
    I'm looking to buy the black andchrome wheel arch moldings that some of you may have taken off and replace them with wheel flares. Contact me. (CFWIRTH: do you still have yours -- tried to contact you but you must have new email adress).
  • rwellbaum2rwellbaum2 Member Posts: 1,006
    Just looked at the government tests. The correct ratings are as follows:

    Driver-4 stars for Tundra, 3 stars for Silverado
    Passenger-3 stars for Tundra, 4 stars silverado

    So Your safer driving the Tundra and safer riding in the front passenger seat of the silverado. Also chevy has no plans to allow testing of side impact or rear seats (I don't know why). The Tundra will be tested in Feb. The dakota extended cab rear seats were deemed to small to test. Thanks for the link cskala.
  • rwellbaum2rwellbaum2 Member Posts: 1,006
    I'm getting tired of you switching back and forth on your name. Why can't you stick to one? Did you get booted off and have to invent a new name? Now how bout answering some serious questions on those vibratin' chevys. Lots a silverado owners real mad and don't like you for steerin' em away from the Tundra with false statements. Good luck on this one now!
  • otto14otto14 Member Posts: 19
    once again - why are you here, nobody likes to hear your opinions -what qualifications have you to talk about the tundra (or even the silverado for that matter). Perhaps you had a chevy truck last and found out you could shell out more money for it than the tundra but just could not afford the repair bills (am i warmer?).

    my tundra has 2500miles on it now (and i have had some really good luck on that one now)- and no i aint a yankee, just a southener who meets rednecks like you everyday and know how little to value their opinion when it comes to anything else but wheather and hunting spots.

    Its feed time - get off the net and go feed the cows. (get in that John Deere for some of the vibration that you like so much). Good luck on that one now!
  • otto14otto14 Member Posts: 19
    Ok,thats enought venting at least for me now,
    has anyone got any exprerience on K & N filters?
    What about the Bosch Platinum +4 plugs.

    Has anyone found that these increase horsepower/fuel economy?
  • rwellbaum2rwellbaum2 Member Posts: 1,006
    Have you read the Tundra vib topic? Toyota rebalanced the tires on a few trucks and all is well now. That silverado topic be a different story now. Them folks have tried everything and now their demanding chevy buy back their lemons. You won't answer about that because it be a God-awful embarrassment to you! You haven't owned a truck in years and your grandson is in prison doing time, so both your opinions are crap!
  • z71billz71bill Member Posts: 1,986
    Any idea why one truck rates better for driver and the other is better for the passenger? It does not seem logical to me.

    I will take your word for the ratings -

    Anyone have any idea what the difference is between 3 or 4 stars? Broken leg VS broken neck? Walk way VS put in a box?
  • powercatpowercat Member Posts: 96
    Sounds like a simple latch adjustment is all that's needed. It took them 5 minutes to adjust mine.
  • bud_light_dudebud_light_dude Member Posts: 330
    Again, your posts are just as redneck as Rutublues. You just make things worse by even acknowledging him here.

    I take offense to your posts that slam the Silverado too. I don't think you have any clue about the Silverado and just use some of the reported problems on this site to use as ammunition. We can all use the same type of ammo here from the enumerous Tundra problems posted here as well, but that would not be very respectful to the owners of Tundra's.

    Why must you slam others' choices just for retaliation of a known problem on this site? Ignore him and he will leave. Your posts just feed the fire and cause more disruption.

    Give the Silverado slams a rest, please. Not everyone is disrespectful of your choice of truck.
    Please remember that.
  • otto14otto14 Member Posts: 19
    i can only imagine the difference amounts to drivers pedals moving into the cabin or the steering wheel - its a funny thing, crumple zones should really work for both. The interior; airbag size, and the amount of time it takes to inflate (passenger airbag is much bigger so it takes more time to inflate) will affect the HIC (head injury criterion) level - mind you HIC level 1000 is considered the number over which you will not walk away - ie. you obtain some sort of serious injury. I'm surprised though that neither one of the pickups did better.
  • otto14otto14 Member Posts: 19
    2000 models
    tundra: Driver 795 Passenger: 821
    silverado: Driver: 825 Passenger: 704

    both look pretty darn good to me...
  • kirbytkirbyt Member Posts: 39
    Sorry to break up the thread but has anyone heard news of the next model changes and when? Looking to buy a Tundra but wondering as to new colors and the improved rear seat? Will come out this spring or have to wait until next fall?

    Anyone with contacts at the plant? Any change over schedules released to the line workers yet?

    Thanks and hope RUBLU2 just finds a new hobby.
  • bigboy3bigboy3 Member Posts: 22
    Samipowar, thanks for the advice on the seatbelt hanger. It is on the passenger side where I hear the squeaking. I will try what you said today after work. If that does not work, I will take Powercat's advice and let the dealership make an
    adjustment on the door latch. I appreciate the input and am glad that we have this forum to discuss these minor problems.
  • kurt17kurt17 Member Posts: 4
    Has anyone tried to put children in car seats in the back seat of a Tundra? Does the front seat need to be moved forward to accomodate the child seat? Is the access OK to insert the seat?
  • drjeckyldrjeckyl Member Posts: 4
    I have not visited these posts for some time. My Tundra has 6000 miles on it. On a upland game hunt in Kansas I had my backseat loaded with my cooler and extra clothes. The cargo would shift around and when it was pushing on my left rear door it would sound like it came ajar, the door open light would come on and the truck would automatically unlock the doors. I was talking with another Tundra owner and he noticed the same thing when his children would lean on the door when they were riding around in the back. Anyone else heard/seen any other posts about this? I will ask the dealer about it when I am due for a check-up.

    Thanks
  • bud_light_dudebud_light_dude Member Posts: 330
    I have heard of the door open light alluminating for no reason, but not of the doors sounding like they are coming open.

    Please keep this topic informed. This one can't be good. Are you going to take it to the dealer for a check?
  • rwellbaum2rwellbaum2 Member Posts: 1,006
    My 2 year old sits in the back in a large car seat. We have the captains chairs up front and he can swing his legs up between them. This is nice since he doesn't kick the back of our seat. My lanky 11 year old daughter says she is comfortable in back on 500 mile trips. I'm 5' 11" and don't mind sitting in the back. The silveado is roomier in back but I found the ford to be the same.
  • rwellbaum2rwellbaum2 Member Posts: 1,006
    Be sure to inform us what the dealer says on this. After reading your posts I went out and pushed on the rear doors from the inside, just to make sure it wasn't occuring on my truck.
  • bluebeastbluebeast Member Posts: 258
    ckski1, crash tests are made on immovable objects, and with that in mind you are probably right with your analogy, but most accidents are with another vehicle which is moveable and the lighter of the two WILL absorb the brunt of the energy. Therefore size/weight matters first, crumple zones are secondary. Meaning the Tundra WILL loose the battle when colliding with a true full size truck.
  • ckski1ckski1 Member Posts: 20
    Between a Tundra and Silverado? Size matters and Crumple zones are secondary? I know the weight difference is not a significant factor.

    Mental experiment: Have the Tundra broadside/T-Bone the Silverado at 65 mph. Now reverse the vehicles. What you should end up with in BOTH situations is the car broadsided has taken the brunt of the crash. Crumple zones play the largest role in reducing localized damage.

    Your logic seems to be:weigh more, better protected. (true)Full size:even better crash advantage.
    Please take these FACTS:
    Ford Sportrac 4wdr-4332 lbs.*
    Chevy Silverado 2wdr Reg cab-4248 lbs*
    *figures taken from Edmunds web side
    Now, you have a fullsize truck crashing with a compact truck that weighs more. Is it the one that weighs more? Or the full size. You know it is a full size. But weighs less, than the compact?? What is going on??? Who wins????
    I know, do you?
    65 mph is very fast.

    I still know that A collision between a Silverado and Tundra at 65 mph does not yield a winner beacuse of the extra weight.

    Equation- F=ma^2;
    F=is the Force in Newtons
    m=mass
    a=is acceleration.
    As you can see as speed gets by every 1, m (mass) contribution gets reduced by a Factor of 2!
    You will find the equation for kinetic energy transfer to be derived from this (above) equation.

    Armed with the facts, you will see the truth.
    Trust me. It works.
  • quadrunner500quadrunner500 Member Posts: 2,721
    You are a little confused:

    F= ma, Newtons 2nd law

    K= 1/2mv^2

    **********************************
    I know you mean well, but when you need particle dynamics, come to Quadrunner!
  • bluebeastbluebeast Member Posts: 258
    A'hem, how many 65 mph highway crashes are T-bones??.....Hello!!...most are head on, that is what I am baseing the comparison on. Even on a T-bone at 40mph crash, would you like the extra 2 or so inches a Silverado gives you before the door squashes your flesh? Yep, keep clicking your heels together Dorthy and say "my Tundra is full size", "my Tundra is full size" and maybe the Wiz (Toyota) will hear you and make you wish come true on their 3rd attempt at a full size truck!
  • ckski1ckski1 Member Posts: 20
    I need to apologize for my incorrect publication of F=ma^2 => s/b F=ma.
    Thanks Quadrunner500 for pointing it out. I was thinking of something else.
    Quad, when I need particle dynamics, I will go to you.
    The Acceleration (a) constant has the parabolic curve I meant.
    I happily stand corrected.
    But I still stand confident with what I have been posting.

    Bluebeast-I don't mean to upset you by my postings. I never stated pro/anti Tundra/Silverado in any posting (the Wiz of OZ is a Great movie). That was to avoid (hopefully) avoid a brand war.
    The extra 2 inches the Silverado has, gives you a livesaving advantage at those speeds. Don't you understand that in a T-bone, the truck would be instantly moving at 40 mgh quickly cover the 2 inches distance. You can calculate how much time it would take to cover 2 inches traveling at 40mpg.

    So, is the (heavier) compact truck better then your full size in a collision? I would like to know your thoughts.
  • werkingwerking Member Posts: 431
    holy shnikes!!!
    where did you get this complete trash:
    "Equation- F=ma^2;
    F=is the Force in Newtons
    m=mass
    a=is acceleration.
    As you can see as speed gets by every 1, m (mass)
    contribution gets reduced by a Factor of 2!"

    1. quad's right with newton's 2nd law of F=ma...NOT ma^2
    2. "speed" as you say, does not play into force at all. speed is velocity or distance over time. acceleration - which IS part of newton's 2nd is the rate of change of velocity.
    3. IF the formula was f=ma^2 (WHICH IT's NOT) mass would not "get reduced by a factor of 2", you moron, and no...acceleration would not be considered "twice as much" either...squaring the number creates an "exponential curve" when you graph it - hence it will increase or decrease in value more rapidly. multiplying a number by any factor changes the slope of the "line" when you graph it - hence it still changes constantly or linearly.

    tell you what...go back and brush up on something more basic - like arithmatic - before trying to confuse people trying to get REAL knowledge about what kind of truck to buy. perhaps that's why your so-called "logic" does not pan out. i will NOT trust you...because it does NOT work.
  • otto14otto14 Member Posts: 19
    back to the tundra vs. silverado battle - i love to hate it!!

    anyway:
    in a crash i would rather be in the drivers seat of the tundra than in the silverado, and on the passenger seat of the silverado rather than the tundra. i own a tundra that i drive mostly by myself (from the drivers seat) and i feel pretty darn good about it. Both are very safe vehicles and if i was paranoid about safety i would drive a minivan - im not that paranoid,sorry.

    from the drivers seat, i will keep the tundra thanks.

    info is from the edmunds link to highway safety tests.
    -maybe if i could drive from the passenger seat i could concentrate on trying to feel any vibration that i cant feelfor the life of me, anywhere - ever.
  • pchengpcheng Member Posts: 162
    Kurt,

    I have two kids (3yr & 1yr). I have two full sized car seats in the back. The boys love it back there. They can see out the window, which they can't in our Camry. We don't need to move the seats forward to accomodate them.
  • smcpherrsmcpherr Member Posts: 114
    Little bit tense, werking?
  • ckski1ckski1 Member Posts: 20
    Perfectly said.

    werking:yes I should have brushed up.
  • ckski1ckski1 Member Posts: 20
    Perfectly said.

    werking:yes I should have brushed up.

    I regret my hubris didn't let me double check what I wrote. I petty sure it won't happen again.
    But I know I am not wrong about the crash.
  • rwellbaum2rwellbaum2 Member Posts: 1,006
    Rube, the only particle flow dynamics you know about, are the ones you release in your splintered outhouse @32 ft per second/per second!
  • kurt17kurt17 Member Posts: 4
    pcheng,
    You mentioned that you don't need to move the drivers seat forward to accomodate the kid's car seats in the back, how tall are you. I'm am 6'4" and wondering if I will have the same luck.

    thanks
  • otto14otto14 Member Posts: 19
    thank you everyone, but this discussion has really left the subject from the tundra to physics. I'll get back in my tundra and enjoy it, take care you all - hope someone will post about the subject soon. Until then, Bye.
  • powercatpowercat Member Posts: 96
    T-Bone, head-on, rear-end, what's the difference? The Sliveroddo will catch fire and then it will be a BURNT, ugly, rattletrap! Has GM got those transmission's figured out yet? Oh, I forget, it's an inch or so bigger than a Tundra so what difference does it make?
  • kurt17kurt17 Member Posts: 4
    pcheng,

    How tall are you? I am 6'4" and wondering if I will be able to have car seats behind me without moving the front seat forward.
  • geezer3geezer3 Member Posts: 30
    Oops! Somehow my Tundra comments ended up in Toyota Tacoma vs Ford Ranger ? First time to the site and new computer user.. Go figure! Anyhow looking at Tundra SR5, 2Whl. drive access cab with V/8 and Auto. Finally found dealer who would deal, but learned two things that concern me.
    1. No keyless entry (no big deal)

    2. Premium fuel for V/8.. Given current fuel prices and no relief in sight, could be a significant cost over time. Lower fuel prices in the future(not likely) More efficient engines while still providing performance, maybe ! Or perhaps you just can't have it both ways.

    Dealer says if you want book performance with the V/8 should use premium.

    Anybody know about this stuff !
  • hunterdahunterda Member Posts: 5
    There is a fix for the lights coming on and the doors unlocking. It is to get the rear door latch replaced. I had the same problem and they ordered me a new set.
  • macduffmacduff Member Posts: 15
    Just got my new Tundra last night. Ltd., 4WD,TRD, leather w/captains' chairs - all the options. Have 75 miles on it already. One word - fantastic.

    It's quieter than my '96 Impala SS, which I'm selling. The engine seems very powerful, though I haven't really wanted to floor it yet, Sounds great too - throaty. The ride is smooth, if a little bumpy over potholes, but it is a truck. A bit disappointed with the skinny armrests, but I can live with them. Overall I'm very happy with it.

    geezer 3 - my dealer says they can do a keyless entry very easily. I'm going to do it. The manual says 87 octane is fine, don't know why they're telling you it needs premium.

    rublu - you have no idea what you're talking about. This is the best truck I've ever driven or ridden in.

    Anyone considering buying a Tundra - go for it!
  • 1swine1swine Member Posts: 1
    Just a comment on the safety/size matter. I've been at quite a few accidents, my experience is: if a Tundra and Sierra meet head on at 65 MPH, your both in big trouble. Most crashes, even highway, aren't head on--most fatal crashes are. Most accidents are rear enders, driving off into the ditch, sideswipe (divided) which usually leads to somebody in the ditch, and t-bone (non-expressway). In most of these your better off in a truck, it probably won't mattter much between a Tundra or Sierra. If you hit another vehicle, most likely it will be a car, and the trucks hieght is the big factor. The truck sits higher, when a truck strikes the car it's hitting the car in the sheet metal, where the truck takes the impact through the frame. The only problem is roll overs. Trucks tend to roll over more often. Some truck cabs seem to crumple more often than others, but I've only personally had experience with one fatal roll over involving a truck--the driver wasn't wearing a seat belt and smashed his head on the passenger side of the windshield where it met the post. Big thing to remember, all crashes are different. No matter what the formulas say should happen, doesn't mean it will under real world conditions--I've never seen two vehicles hit "perfectly" head on to test your equations. I pay the most attention to test that actually crash the vehicles and check possible injuries, They seem to be better guides to how a vehicle may behave under a real crash.
  • ferris47ferris47 Member Posts: 131
    I always run at least one tank of all the different grades of gas just to see what the truck likes and drives the best with. With my Tundra I get better gas mileage, quieter operation, and a better seat o pants feel with regular ole 87 octane gase. I have heard others with the same story so you should be ok with 87. If you are worried about gas cost though, remember that this is a truck, and trucks in general are thirsty beasts and the Tundra is no exception. I average around 16 mpg with 95% city/around town driving. I was able to pull 19-20 on a highway run. Mine seems to fall right within factory/epa mileage specs.

    Good luck with the truck. I think you will love it. I love mine. Best truck I have ever owned.
  • ferris47ferris47 Member Posts: 131
    I always run at least one tank of all the different grades of gas just to see what the truck likes and drives the best with. With my Tundra I get better gas mileage, quieter operation, and a better seat o pants feel with regular ole 87 octane gase. I have heard others with the same story so you should be ok with 87. If you are worried about gas cost though, remember that this is a truck, and trucks in general are thirsty beasts and the Tundra is no exception. I average around 16 mpg with 95% city/around town driving. I was able to pull 19-20 on a highway run. Mine seems to fall right within factory/epa mileage specs.

    Good luck with the truck. I think you will love it. I love mine. Best truck I have ever owned.
  • rs_pettyrs_petty Member Posts: 423
    The dealer is selling you bunk. 87 Octane is the right choice. Seems to me that using different octane ratings would confuse the computer causing a variation in performance over time. Any differences you noticed other than already stated, ferris47?
  • ferris47ferris47 Member Posts: 131
    I don't use different octanes on a regular changing basis. I just do it when I initially get a vehicle to see what, by feel and gas mileage, seems to be the best octane. Once I make my choice I stick with that octane and about every 5000 miles I run some injector cleaner through. I have never had any problems with any vehicles by doing this and the Tundra doesn't seem to show any adverse reaction. I had an S10 with the 195 HP Vortech in it that ran much better on high grade, even though it also recommend 87 octane, so I ran High grade for the 80,000 miles I owned it. Only problem I ever had was the computer that controls the intermitted windshield wipers went up. Can't complain.
  • BrutusBrutus Member Posts: 1,113
    I don't own a Tundra and haven't read the posts in this topic, but I came across an article that I thought might interest Tundra owners. I know you have been taking a lot of ribbing about the Tundra not be a true 1/2 ton etc. In the topic areas I have particpated in, I have defended the Tundra as a 1/2 when it comes up. The article I read should help provide some support for your position.

    The latest edition of Trailer Life Magazine has the Tundra has it's feature tow vehicle for the month. The tow trailer weighed over 6,300 pounds with full holding tanks and fuel, but not including gear. They ran the combo from sea level up to 9,000 feet during the test. They were impressed with the power of the engine and the handling. They mentioned that it was the best handling truck they had driven in a long time. They said the truck is clearly a strong competitor for the Big 3 in the 1/2 ton market.

    There were two negative issues, one that I do not find significant. They mentioned the small rear seat and doors in the access cab. However, they did say that the front seat offered plenty of room for driver's and passengers well in excess of 6'.

    The second negative issue could be significant if you tow. As I mentioned, performance was not a question mark for the testers. They were very pleased with the power and the handling of the Tundra, whether running empty or under tow. The negative was the towing mpg. The truck got 19 hwy and 15 city running empty during their test, which are good figures. However, it dropped all the way down to 6.9 with the trailer. With a 25 gallon tank, you're looking for a gas station every couple hours.

    The test vehicle had a 3.9 axle ratio. Does it come with a 4.10? Although the 4.10 would negatively impact your empty mpg, it might improve the towing mpg. On the other hand, if you only tow occasionally like most 1/2 ton owners do (whether they own Ford, Chevy or Dodge), the towing mpg is probably only a minor inconvenience at worse. If you do tow alot, though, it could be an issue. My 7,000+ pound 1 ton 4x4 dually V-10 with the 4.30 axle ratio beats the Tundra towing that size load.

    Summary of the article:

    - Definitely a very competitive 1/2 ton
    - Impressive power & handling, whether running empty or towing a load that is pushing the rating
    - Good mpg running empty
    - Small rear seat
    - Poor mpg towing
  • geezer3geezer3 Member Posts: 30
    Thanks guys, that info. was very helpful. Dealer called this morning and has located an access cab SR5 with options I like. Will talk to them about 'keyless entry' install also. What was the cost for dealer installed KE? Haven't even driven one yet, but think I'll go for it !

    TNX
  • ferris47ferris47 Member Posts: 131
    You haven't even driven one yet. Ya gotta drive one to really appreciate it. If I were you I would make a Saturday of it, go find a Tundra, a Silverado, A Ram and a F150 and drive em back to back. For me the Tundra was way above the rest, but I am a firm believer in trying everthing so when you finally buy you should know that you got the best thing for you. I mean hey you might fall in love with one of the other ones.

    Besides when you tell the dealer you just came from the Chevy dealership up the road he might be willing to work with you a bit more.

    Don't mean to preach, I am the guy that helps all his friends and family get their cars and to me the most important thing isn't the price tag or who makes it but is it the right vehicle for you. You gotta live with it for at least 3 to 5 years and you don't wanna have any regrets. Besides ragging other peoples vehicles out on test drives is so much fun.

    Wanna see a classic face? Go test drive a sports car, Mustang, Corvette, Firebird whatever, and make sure the salesman comes with you. While sitting at a stop look around and nonchalantly ask..."You don't see any cops do you?????" Talk about looks of fear. Then just for good measure light em up a little bit.
  • ferris47ferris47 Member Posts: 131
    Thanks for the info. I will probably never tow that much but it is nice to know that I could with relative ease. Thanks for posting some unbiased information.

    What exactly do you use your truck for. I mean that is a monster. You thinking about towing Manhattan Island to the Great Lakes or something. You must be real popular with your friends come moving day.
  • BrutusBrutus Member Posts: 1,113
    I own a 10'11" Bigfoot 3000 slide-in cabover truck camper with every available option except the solar energy option. When I have it in the bed of the truck, with the holding tanks full, gear for a trip and one passenger, I'm tipping the scales about 500-700 over the 11,200 GVWR for my dually 1 ton. The truck rides level and has great stability despite being over the GVWR.

    I've got around 27,000 miles on the truck, with over 10,000 of that with the camper in the bed. I live in Alaska, so I camp alot. The main topic area I post is the Superduty topic on the last page of this pickup conference.

    FYI: 99 F-350 Superduty Supercab Lariat (including leather, trip computer, etc) 4x4 V-10 dually auto trans. 4.30 axle ratio.

    For the record, needless to say, I can't touch your Toyota mpg, except towing. Although the Ford V-10s with the 3.73 axle ratio are getting around 11 city and 14 hwy, with the duallys and 4.30, I get 9.5ish in a mix of city/hwy and 11.5-12 hwy running empty. With the camper on, I get 8.5-9, although I can get 10 if I'm on flat hwy and keep it around 55mph.
  • bg4dgbg4dg Member Posts: 44
    I had heard similar things about the Tundra gas mileage, but I also read that the truck improves significantly after several thousand miles of break in. Any idea of the mileage on the tester? I don't think you can get the 4.30's with the V-8. Did this tow test include the hill climbing, or was this mostly flat ground? My Z71 drinks gas like it's goin' out of style when pulling a load up hill.
  • brucec35brucec35 Member Posts: 246
    I own a Ram and a Tundra. I just sold an F-150. The Dodge is ok, if not exactly reliable and confidence inspiring. The F-150 was (I thought) more refined and smooth. The Tundra makes them both seem "old" in comparison. The ride, the handling, the quietness, they're all superior. What I don't get is the Toyota bashers coming in with complaints about its size or towing capacity or payload capacity( all are close to the big three light duty versions). Most people don't need or want a powerful but crude and rough riding heavy duty version. I love the Tundra's slightly smaller size. It's big enough for safety and comfort, but much easier to handle in traffic, on narrow roads, and in parking lots. It also, sorry to tell you guys, hauls serious tail. Much quicker than my 5.9 Ram or 4.6 F-150's. And it does it smooooooth.

    Because I wasn't hot for the styling, I almost didn't even consider a Tundra. I'm glad I finally, as a lark, test drove one. My wife HATED them until she drove one. We bought the next week.
  • cliffy1cliffy1 Member Posts: 3,581
    I've got a Limited 4X4 and it hasn't hit its first oil change yet. One back roads, I am getting about 16.5 MPG in two wheel drive. Due to our recent storm I have been driving in 4 wheel drive over hlf the time and my mileage dropped to 14.2. When towing my 3300 pound boat, it is roughly 13 MPG.

    I expect most of these to improve after the first oil change which will be this week.
This discussion has been closed.

Your Privacy

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.