I gave this tell: Silverado 113.6 tundra 86.3 ------------------ 27.3 CF (cubic feet)
Silverado +27.3 CF bigger than tundra. Ratio of 27.3 too tundras total of 86.3 = 32%
Bama said this now: This is a good one! Hicksrme giving a grade school math lecture. Too bad Rs_petty was right! The correct answer is actually 24.9%
lmeyer1 gave this tell back at bama: bamatundra you've got the math wrong. According to your math, I only have 50% more. But in fact 50% more than 50 cents is 75 cents. In other words, if I actually had what you had (50) plus half that amount again, or 50% more, I'd have 75 cents. Forgot to add that trucksrme is therefore correct. 113.6 is 31.6% larger than 86.3.
bama admits too it: Good Point. I was using the larger vehicle as the reference - a fallacy.
Now bama tryin too blow smoke like it never happened again. This be the ways of the yuppie, ya cant be trustin em on nothin now. How do ya know that yuppie be strechin that truth? They be movin them lips, that be how. Good luck on this one now!
The point is the Tundra and T-100 are almost the same size, I think the T-100 has more leg room and the bed size is so close that the topper for the T-100 can also be used for the Tundra. Now I can't believe anyone (even you a true Toyota lover) will stand up and say that the T-100 is a full size truck. So use some logic - if the T-100 is not full size and the Tundra is the same size as the T-100 then the Tundra is not full size.
You almost answered my 3rd question on EPA class size. They do classify the Silverado as a Full size truck, and the Tundra as a Standard truck.
Now be honest - wouldn't you rather have (in your Tundra) the larger more comfortable back seat that is in the Silverado?
I think that you admitted yourself that the EPA size ratings don't mean much. I don't think you are going to have a lot of luck convincing Ford F150, Dodge Ram 1500 and Toyota Tundra owners that the Silverado is the only "full size" pickup.
Obviously - cab volume is very important to Chevy owners. I understand that. But there are tradeoffs - it makes the truck longer, wider turning radius, longer wheelbase, heavier, and less maneuverable.
The front seat in my Tundra is huge! It is larger than any sedan that I can recall riding in. I cannot believe anyone saying that the front seat does not have enough room. I occasionally carry adult size passengers in the rear seat of my Tundra. I have not ever heard a complaint. If they don't like the comfort of my truck - they can walk or hitch a ride in a sedan (ingrates).
Hell, I did a cross-country trip in the back seat of a 70's model Toyota Corolla. My Tundra rear seat is huge in comparison. I guess it all depends on your point of reference. Passenger comfort is not a big concern to me. My daughters both prefer to ride in the truck.
I wanted full size capability. The Tundra payload capacity is slightly higher than the Silverado. The Silverado has 800 lbs. more towing capacity but you have to go to 4.1 gearing to get there. The Tundra has better off-road capability. The Tundra has better brakes.
I am not saying that the Tundra is the only truck for everyone. Any truck is a compromise. It all depends on what is important to you. Enjoy your truck (whatever the brand).
You made some errors in your post. Silverado has the better brakes, 4 wheel disc abs, better off road, (Eaton locker) more towing and more haul (i.e. real springs). Also faster, better mileage, more range on a tankful too. An honest mistake on your part, I'm sure.
What is your definition of "better brakes"? The last time that I looked at any testing, the Tundra, even with its drum type rear brakes, stopped quicker than the Chevy, or Ford, or Dodge. And that was unloaded or loaded with 1200 pounds. It may be due to the better Tundra front brakes which use 4 piston calipers vs. 2 piston calipers on the others (not 100% certain on the Chevy calipers, but I'm sure you will correct me if I wrong). What percent of braking is applied to the rear wheels of a pickup anyway? 30%? Maybe GM put the disc brakes on the back as a marketing tool to overcome the poor braking system on the Chevy trucks prior to 1999.
My definition would be the ones they put on the Silverado. 4 wheel abs disc brakes. You'll understand better when you go in to have those antique drums re-lined, or adjusted.
But if your definition is stopping distance, Truck Trend had the following numbers:
60-0, unloaded: Silverado 133 ft Tundra 127 ft
60-0 with 1000# payload: Silverado 135 ft Tundra 141 ft
Silverado has the better transition from empty to loaded. Silverado also weighed more and had smaller tires in the test. So brakes are a slam dunk for Silverado.
But if you are looking for a better definition, look no further than what the toy company puts on the land cruiser, or sequoia. Hint...they're not drums.
Braking: I agree that the Silverado has 4 Wheel ABS. Is this the same Chevy ABS system that has an NHTSA safety recall out on it? If you choose to ignore the fact that Chevy delivers non-functional anti-lock brakes, the Tundra still out brakes it. Read the Motor Trend article.
Hauling: The Tundra Access Cab 4X4 is rated to tow 1532lbs. www.carpoint.com
The Chevy that Motor Trend compared used Limited slip... it still lost.
Towing: If you want a tow package on a Chevy, you must order an automatic transmission, a firm ride, or Z71 suspension, a towing package, and a tow hitch. $1500.
To equip a Tundra 4X4 extended cab V8 to tow 7100 lbs. , you just add a Class IV tow hitch,($100 aftermarket) and a wiring harness ($25 aftermarket).
If you choose the Chevy 4.1 gearing(gulp) it still only outtows the Tundra by 800lbs.
As far as the "real springs" are concerned - why do these "real springs" need to be upgraded to tow anything? The Tundra uses stock springs to tow 7200 lbs.
The 2wd Silverado with the 3.73 gears is rated to tow 8800 pounds. The 4wd with 4.10 ratio is rated to tow 9500 lbs. Seems considerable higher than the Toyota. When you lash up a heavy trailer or 5th wheel, you put a significant amount of weight on the rear axle, and the rear brakes take on a significant portion of the load. With a 1200 pound load, according to the post above the Silverado apparently out brakes the Toyota. Put an 8000 lb trailer behind you, and which one would you want to trust your life to? This is the reason the silverado went to discs in the back, that and also for the well known fade resistance under heavy work. Believe me, with the weight in the back, the discs do work. Also discs have been known to be more fade resistant than drums. If you care to check stopping distances on truly heavy duty trucks, you'll see that the heavier duty trucks take longer to stop empty, but have bigger brakes to handle bigger loads. In terms of what they haul, the numbers I see is 1779 lbs for the 4wd, and 1965 for the 2wd. Check it out for yourself on the www.chevrolet.com and follow the links. Seems the Silverado has more haul. Hmmm The Toyota is nice, like my El Camino is nice and comfortable to drive, and I even encouraged my sister to buy a Tundra, and she's decided she really likes it, and it will be her next vehicle. She doesn't have a heavy trailer to pull like I do. Facts seem pretty clear. The Toyota is a nice truck, but when it comes to more serious work, it's not gonna cut it.
Everyone knows here that F-150 is better in every single category than ANY other truck in any class. I have the facts right here if anyone is here to argue.. And don't give me this more HP horse dung from them Chevy's cause F-150 uses it's less HP to it's advantage in better gas mileage and is still quicker and tow's more and lasts longer..
Tundra is a compact pickup.. In fact I saw a Tundra and Tacoma next to eachother and the Tacoma was a bit bigger in height at least.. The Tacoma made the Tundra look like a 4x2
So I hear the Ford is better than the Tundra too! That Dodge isn't so bad either. Maybe we should pit the Tundra against the Dakota. They are more similar in size. Wait! The Dakota RT would blow the doors, even those small ones in back, clean off. Where does this put the Tundra, oh yeah, reliable, or was that reliably behind the competition.
After them head-gaskets popin, and them ones rustin up quick, most folks now be knowin that "reliabiliy" be the myth started at that factory too sell more of em. So where does that be leavin em? Good luck on this one now!
I would be happy to run my Tundra next to a Dakota R/T. Simply put you will see the Toyota Tailgate. I owned a Dak. R/T and ran it against my Tundra and although right off the line it would take the Tundra by the time first gear was over the Tundra would be pulling on it and eventually overtake it by about 2 truck lengths. Hey I know trucks are not for racing but I always give credit where it is due no matter the make or brand. I have not trashed anybody's choices. I just happen to know what both the R/T and Tundra can do first hand. The Dodge 5.9 was also a hog in hot weather and would run out of breath by the time it hit about 75. For me my Tundra has aspects of all the vehicles I want or need rolled into one. It handles great, has plenty of power, will haul or tow anything I will ever need to haul or tow and is more fun for me as my R/T. Add to this it is much bigger than the Dakota and much more comfortable.
I still wouldn't mind having the Chevy back seat but I don't think I would want the added length. I have said it before the perfect truck would be Toyota Reliability and refinement, Chevy Powertrain, Ford Capability, Daimler Sheister Styling and a Hyundai Warrantee. Unfortunitely that ain't going to happen. So for me it is all Tundra no contest. None of the other trucks come close to meeting all of my needs as well as the Tundra.
Why would you get that Tee-yota when you could have a Ford?? Look here it is bigger, better looking, better gas mileage, more reliable, more power, more torque. There is NOTHING that there Tee-yota could do to match them here Fords.
I'm sorry you chose the Tee-yota but I think that's fine if that's what you need, but it just can't win the stat war.
The only thing better about them Tee-yota's are the powertrain warranty, but you don't need it with them here Ford's because I have had mine for 150,000 miles and never even changed the oil and it runs like a fine tuned machine.
I do like the Tundra, it is especially nice as personal transportation with the ability to work. Will it really outrun the Dakota? Motor Trend has it slightly quicker than the Toyota. I know a lot of this may have to do with gearing, tire size, and other variances. Since you own them both I take your word. Nice V-8, had a ls400, bought new for about the price they are getting for the fully loaded 4x4 trucks. (Had one of the very first ones out in 1990) Now that was a yuppie car. It was really nice when people didn't know what it was. I bought it because it was the best car I'd ever driven. Loved the engine. It got to be a pain when when it became a status symbol.
...obviously a mechanical genius here. Never changed the oil huh? Well I'll tell you what I think I will change the oil in my little itty bitty Toyota every 3K or so just to be safe. I mean I am sure it is not as well engineered as a Ford that can go 150K on the same oil. But hey I am no mechanic so I could be wrong. Think of all the money in oil changes I could have saved over the years. Jeez I could have afforded a Hummer or something.
To those a bit higher on the food chain.
Ford makes a damn good truck. They sell well, are pretty reliable and and come in every configuration known to man. Were I to have needed an end all be all work truck Ford Superduty was it. I did not and can only afford to drive one vehicle and that vehicle has to do it all for me. The Tundra fits that bill perfectly. As for Ford gas mileage, you would be hard pressed to convince me that the average Triton engine gets better mileage then my 4.7. Fords never seem to get the EPA estimates much less better. I am not saying it can't happen but I would bet you out of 20 trucks only two or so would pull it off. That aside I like Fords especially the flareside 150s in 4X4 with the upgraded Rims. Very nice looking truck and no denying she is tall.
I no longer own my R/T but my Tundra would definitely outrun it. It impressed the hell out of me. Much more usable powerband in the Tundra where the R/T is all down low off the line. Now from what I understand there were quite a bit of variance in the performance of the R/Ts so maybe I had a bad one who knows. Just for the record it was a 98 Dak R/T Extended cab.....Red so it was even faster vs. my 2000 Tundra Limited Extended cab 2wd. Gear ratios were almost identical 3.90 in the Tundra and 3.92 I think in the Dak. I tell you beats the hell out of me. The Tundra even feels sportier in everyday driving, I mean it doesn't have the look but it just drives so much better and stronger to me.
The R/T was and it a sweet looking truck though. Tires were a bit pricey.
By The way I also had some slight airbox work done on my R/T because bone stock the airflow is horrible on the Daks.
I realize Toyota is probably just going for the personal use market and probably just needed something to base a large cheaper SUV on but it would be nice to see the Tundra be offered in more configurations over the years. Maybe a beefed up "Work Truck" and something along the lines of the lightning or R/T. I have read that SC Tundras were in the works and were blowing the doors off of lightnings but they were afraid of quality issues and driveability issues and therefore they will not in the foreseable future release a SC for the Tundra. Hey this is just rumor I repectfully ask that every Ford Lighting, Dakota R/T Silverado SS wanting, driving fanatic not jump all over me for this. I just calls them as I see them or hear them.
Where did you get yur info about the SC Tundra? I'd like to know for myself. As for blowing the doors off of the Lightning, (I know you had a disclaimer in your post, but) even the Corvette can't blow the Lightning's doors off. The new 'Vette hardtop with the 6 speed tranny will barely take the Lightning in the 1/4. Only by a few tenths of a second, and the trap speed of the Vette will be about 10 mph faster, meaning the 'Vette had to catch up!!!!! I have no doubt that an SC Tundra would be fast, but I would doubt it could even beat a Lightning at all. Sorry, I'm not a Lightning fanatic. I just calls them as I sees them. LOL!!!
I talked to some people who deal with TRD about the Tundra SC. Again just rumors and I do not claim them to be truth. I didn't think a Lightning could best a vette. I don't have the numbers and have not driven a lightning so for all I know you could be dead on. Pretty impressive. Vehicles I would like to see come to being are a SC Tundra Sports Truck, The Chevy SSR, The Chevy Silverado SS, and a better Dak. R/T. I guess I just feel trucks have more soul and more of that old muscle car feel to them. Cars to me, even most sports cars just don't get my heart racing anymore. If Ford would have made an Ext. Cab Lighting, I would probably be eating PBJ and driving one of those.
technically, the 6 speed 'Vette hardtop (which is the fastest 'Vette, BTW) can take the Lightning, but only by the smallest of margins. It is so close that it would come down to the driver's skill in launching and shifting the 'Vette. Anyone can lauch a Lighnting. The ET's on them are consistent enough to bracket race. Get your R's where you want them and release the brake as you floor it. Bottom line: the guy in the Vette better be on his toes and know what he is doing or he'll get embarassed.
I don't know about this lightning taking the vette thing. I saw a test of a lightning where it had a mid 13 sec et. Saw another where it was only in the 14's. But all LS1 equipped F-Bodys and C5's have turned 13 sec et's or better. Quite a few turn 12's in the hands of amateurs. So I think the ideal bracket racer is still going to be the Corvette automatic, 345 hp in a lightweight car. Lightning is very impressive, but still a truck. Very expensive and hard to insure, and not much towing or haul, but a truck in size and weight. Corvette also geared for 170+ mph.
I guess everyone around here tows more than 5000 lbs on a regular basis (with their corvette, LOL!!!). As far as the lightning taking the 'vette, I NEVER said that. I said it will be behind by a few tenths. Please read my posts, people. I have never heard of ANY stock vette's or f-bod's turning 12's. Manual vette's turn 13.2-13.4 depending on driver. F-bod's one to two tenths behind that. Auto vette's turn mid 13's. The lightning turns mid 13's all day long, too. Check the trap speeds, too. The lightning will be under 100 mph, right around 96-97. The vette will be about 106-108. With the ET's so close and the trap speed so far apart, the vette will have to catch up. The slow trap speed on the lightning is due to the fact that, when compared to the vette, it has the aerodynamics of a box.
Okay Snag...sorry. Poor choice of words on my part about Lightning taking the Vette.
But...on the http://www.ls1.com site, there are scads of stock, or nearly stock F-bodys posting 12 second time slips. Click on "12 second club." Some have only a tire change, maybe slicks, or a K&N, Hypertech+ thermostat etc. Getting into the high 12s is not a big deal, tires can be enough. Please check out for yourself. I was challenged about this before, and I found many examples which I posted before. Due diligence is now your responsibility. And while I'm on the subject, you can say basically the same thing about the Ford Pony cars. It's not impossible to beat the times the magazines post, especially since they use fifth wheel timing equipment, not a true 1/4 mile run.
I totally agree about the make-up of the run, Lightning quicker out of the hole, muscle car making it up at the traps.
I wasn't referring to magazine ET's, or I would have said that the Lightning turns mid 14's. Ford said that their published number of 14.6 or whatever was sort of a red herring, just stuck out there so any retard will feel better when he goes to the track. But back to the f-bods, like I said, stock, not gonna do it. I have heard of a couple of guys getting into the 12's with their '99-'00 Lightnings, with mods of course. They included a K&N obviously, exhaust, and chips. Tires aren't so much of a concern on the Lightnings, they are already huge and since they have an auto, but I'm sure a good set of slicks might let you lauch at higher RPM's and get your 60 ft times down and ultimately your ET, too. All I was trying to say was, any reasonably priced production car, truck, whatever, (including a SC Tundra), being able to blow the doors off of a Lightning is not very likely.
As for corners, the Lightning eats those up pretty good, itself. Sources say it has a road holding index of .85 g's. The vette (only) has .89. Yes, the vette corner's better, no doubt, but have you ridden in a new generation Lightning???
No. Have not driven one. And I agree, not much, if anything is going to "blow the doors" off one. Of course, there are more to lap times than just skid pad numbers, but as I said before, I know the Lightning is impressive.
But...when I looked at the "12 second club" there were several in bone stock cars.
Please don't make me angry by not looking. You won't like me when I'm angry. - David Banner.
albeit not too hard, I didn't check the entire list, but I did look quite a while and I saw one guy. I figured this cat could be fudging just a little. No???
I reckon you like your Tee-yota quite a bit here, but I am curious as to why you chose it over the Ford? Let me just spout of some facts here as I call em:
1. You said the Ford Flareside 4x4 F-150 is snappy looking (That's the one I got) 2. The Ford is, if anything, less buck. 3. The 5.4 beats it in HP and Torque I reckon 4. Engine is smoother and quiter 5. Ride be better 6. Hauls more 7. Tows more 8. Way better gas mileage 9. Bigger 10. Tighter turning radius 11. Backseat much better and not upright 12. Reliability is at least equaled according to Consumer Reports
Why would you pay more money for a smaller truck?? Just curious why folks be choosing them Tundra's now?
Someone near me has a F150 Super Crew Lariat for about a month now. It's white, with beige leather interior. It's really gorgeous. I must admit I liked it. Has Ford changed the dash since the '99 model?
2. Not always 3. But not always in acceleration, depends on the rear axle ratio 4. Yeah right! 5. Bull poop! 6. ? 7. ? 8. Yeah right! 10. Not! 12. The Ford came in second for J.D. Powers Quality Study
1) Yes it is a very nice looking truck. 2) Way wrong at least in my neck of the woods. my loaded Tundra Limited 2wd with all the bells and whistles was 27 out the door. I am afraid the Ford Lariats similarly equipped were a bit more here. Ford Does not deal in my area. 3) Yes but Tundra engine has the same or better overall performance. 4) Triton engines are nowhere near as smooth and quiet as the Tundra 4.7. That is point that is actually my only real complaint with the Fords. I just don't like the way they sound or feel. They always "feel" labored to me. I am not saying they are underpowered but they feel that way to me. actually all the Ford engines feel that way to me except the Mustang Cobra and the V6 SVT Contour. Just personal pref. 5) The ride is ok in a Ford but personally I think the Silverado is a better riding truck and my Tundra rides better than most cars. 6) Yes it does haul more and if I had a hauling service I would have probably bought a Ford. I do not. I use my truck for work or towing as the needs arise, not on an everyday basis. I have always said if you are going to get a work truck to get a Ford. 7) See above. 8) What the hell are you smoking. The 4.6 Triton has been known to be gas hog by everybody I know who owns them. The 5.4 is the same way. As I have said traditionally I have found that Chevys get better mileage then the sticker, Fords get worse and Dodge's gets much worse. My Yota has turned an average of 16ish with 98% of my driving being 7 mile, around town, rush hour short trips. On the highway I have recently seen as high as 22 at 75-80. It is a truck though a MPG here or there really doesn't matter to me. The only truck out there that seems to be getting impressive mileage is the 5.3 GMs. I have seen them get as high as 25 on a highway trip. Admittedly 3.42 rear, 2wd etc. 9) Bigger is fine if that is what you want. My Tundra has a very nice ride height, handles great, looks sharp and will haul all the plywood my little heart desires. I can park easier, drive easier, perform emergency moves easier and so on not to mention the Tundra size makes it a superior 4x4 offroad machine. I have had nobody complain about the backseat and the Tundra being smaller has an excuse for it's back seat. The Ford being larger....What exactly is Fords excuse for that God awful back seat. 10) I do not have the numbers in front of me so I will defer to your Turning radius argument. I would be willing to test this though, as real world maneverability goes to the Tundra. Fords handle horribly compared to the Tundra. Again this my seat o the pants meter here and thats what counts since I am paying the bills. 11) See number 9. Ford should have a better back seat then it does given its size. I have had no complaints about the back seat of my Tundra and I frequently have riders back there. Would I drive for 3 hours with people back there...no. I hope you would not force somebody to spend 3 hours in the back of your Ford. For that matter do you have anybody that would want to spend 3 hours with you period? 12) Who knows how reliable the Tundra will be? For all I know it could fall apart next month. Have I ever trashed Ford's reliability...No. I have trashed Chevy's quality control and reliability as of late because it seems to truely have suffered. My Tundra has 9000 miles on it and is nothing short of flawless. Mileage gets better every day, still put together tightly and not so much as a paint chip. I am banking on Toyota's reputation for reliability and the fact that they back that up with a better powertrain warr. Time will have to tell.
So we have learned that I did not pay more for a smaller truck, have found it to be extremely reliable in the short time I have owned it, have found the engine to be nothing short of spectacular in its smoothness, throttle response and band of usable power, have found the gas mileage to be more than adequate for a truck and in short have found it to be the perfect compromise of all the vehicles I would like to own rolled up into one nice package. It works when I need it too, it runs fast when I want it to, it sounds good, it is very very comfortable and smooth and it has a very nice design. Did Toyota copy alot of what Ford had pioneered. Yep. It is pretty obvious. Did they make it better. Yep when it comes to an everyday personal use pickup they sure did. Were they wrong to copy Ford. Hell no Ford is the sales leader. They make a hell of a truck and certainly 30 some million people can't be wrong about that. Toyota just made a truck to penetrate and dominate the most popular part of the pickup market right now, the personal use family pickup.
Why did you choose a Ford? Why did somebody else choose a Chevy? Why did another person go Dodge? Simple they are either well informed educated consumers who did their own research and homework and bought the best truck for their needs and are extremely happy with their choice or they a brand loyal morons who have no idea the disservice they are doing to themselves, their country and all of us by purchasing crap just because of the logo on the hood. They are just giving that manufacturer a license to build crap.
I sincerely hope you really like your Ford and enjoy it. Buyers remorse is a horrible feeling. you spend more time trashing other peoples rides and not enough time enjoying yours. I don't have time to find every little nitpicky problem with the Big 3 as I am too busy driving the truck I love. Go out and drive and enjoy those truck people.
25 mpg in a 5.3 Chevy??? You better check out topic #1632 http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/engaged/edmund.cgi?c=Pickups&f=0&t=1632 No one in that entire topic has posted any mpg above 21. The only people who got that did it on PART of one tank = possiblity of significant error. I won't argue that Chevy's get the best mileage, but Ford is a very close second. Toyota is third and Dodge, well, I think it's gallons per mile with them.
Was in the truck we ran it from fill up to almost empty. Filled it back up took mileage divided by gallons etc. and came out to 24.8....almost 25 MPG. Actually pretty amazing. It had a K&N but no tonneau or cap or anything. Now this doesn't happen every day. He averages around 17.5 around with regular mixed driving.
Were you heading from Denver to Witchita with a strong west wind behind you? Also, you probably know this but, different pumps kick off at different levels. The difference can be a gallon or more. That can make your mileage off by 1-2 mpg. What was your cruise set on for this trip?
Now before anyone slams me, I'm not necessarily saying that it didn't get 24.8 mpg. I'm just saying that there are a lot of variables in calculating gas mileage and those variables can contribute significantly to calculated mpg, especially when considering only one tank of gas. 17.5 is about right on, right in the middle of 20 for highway 15 for city.
I have a 2000 Silverado 5.3 2wd 3.73 and average about 17 overall in a 50/50 mix. This is the truck I need for my family and towing. Moved out of an El Camino because it didn't have enough truck capabilities, and because it is an old design with old technology. If chevy came out with a new one with the 6.0 or new big block, I'm sure many would be interested. My sister used an El Camino to pull a horse trailer. Well my point is I can understand the rational of the Tundra, it splits between the two leaning closer to the Silverado. A Tundra would be a nice daily driver, especially if they kicked up the engine size, hp, and torque. (Not that is slow now)
It was a 55-60 MPH cruise, and I will agree that pump kickoff could have had an effect and I did not physically fill it. I usually over fill myself and I am not sure if the first tank was over full with the calculated take just to click off. That could very well account for up to 2 mpg.
Bill So how has your Silverado been treating you. Have you been plagued by any of the vib problems? I too would like to see a more powerful Tundra but then I would like to see a more powerful anything. Hell I can't wait for the new Ford engines that should be pushing a little over 300 HP. I guess I just a typical car geek. I want one of each really.
Where I live the speed limit is 75 on most of the major roads and 70 on many others. That means I usually set my cruise on 80-82 sometimes up to 85. I know why my mileage is not very good!!!
Anyone know when the 2001 Chevy Silverados are coming out?
Also, what's the deal with GM and Isuzu? GM makes Isuzu vehicles? If so, how long, and do they make the entire vehicle or just parts for them? Isn't Isuzu a Japanese company?
I know that more Chevy owners hang out here than Tundra owners, (Tundra envy) but don't you think that this question would be best answered in a Silverado forum?
Comments
Silverado 113.6
tundra 86.3
------------------
27.3 CF (cubic feet)
Silverado +27.3 CF bigger than tundra.
Ratio of 27.3 too tundras total of 86.3 = 32%
Bama said this now:
This is a good one! Hicksrme giving a grade
school math lecture. Too bad Rs_petty was right!
The correct answer is actually 24.9%
lmeyer1 gave this tell back at bama:
bamatundra you've got the math wrong. According to your math, I only have 50% more. But in fact 50% more than 50 cents is 75 cents. In other words, if I actually had what you had (50) plus half that amount again, or 50% more, I'd have 75 cents. Forgot to add that trucksrme is therefore correct. 113.6 is 31.6% larger than 86.3.
bama admits too it:
Good Point. I was using the larger vehicle as the
reference - a fallacy.
Now bama tryin too blow smoke like it never happened again. This be the ways of the yuppie, ya cant be trustin em on nothin now. How do ya know that yuppie be strechin that truth? They be movin them lips, that be how. Good luck on this one now!
You almost answered my 3rd question on EPA class size. They do classify the Silverado as a Full size truck, and the Tundra as a Standard truck.
Now be honest - wouldn't you rather have (in your Tundra) the larger more comfortable back seat that is in the Silverado?
You are correct to state "Them Big 3 ones are 25 - 32% larger then them Tundras"
You have also been posting "Them Tundra are 25% too 32% smaller than them big3 ones." This is incorrect.
The correct answer is actually "Them Tundra are 20% too 25% smaller than them big3 ones."
This math is apparently way out of your league. Z71 realized your error and posted a correction. He did not point out your original error.
Again - Better check your numbers before you
bash. You are not the math wiz that you think you are.
Obviously - cab volume is very important to Chevy owners. I understand that. But there are tradeoffs - it makes the truck longer, wider turning radius, longer wheelbase, heavier, and less maneuverable.
The front seat in my Tundra is huge! It is larger than any sedan that I can recall riding in. I cannot believe anyone saying that the front seat does not have enough room. I occasionally carry adult size passengers in the rear seat of my Tundra. I have not ever heard a complaint. If they don't like the comfort of my truck - they can walk or hitch a ride in a sedan (ingrates).
Hell, I did a cross-country trip in the back seat of a 70's model Toyota Corolla. My Tundra rear seat is huge in comparison. I guess it all depends on your point of reference. Passenger comfort is not a big concern to me. My daughters both prefer to ride in the truck.
I wanted full size capability. The Tundra payload capacity is slightly higher than the Silverado. The Silverado has 800 lbs. more towing capacity but you have to go to 4.1 gearing to get there. The Tundra has better off-road capability. The Tundra has better brakes.
I am not saying that the Tundra is the only truck for everyone. Any truck is a compromise. It all depends on what is important to you. Enjoy your truck (whatever the brand).
My definition would be the ones they put on the Silverado. 4 wheel abs disc brakes. You'll understand better when you go in to have those antique drums re-lined, or adjusted.
But if your definition is stopping distance, Truck Trend had the following numbers:
60-0, unloaded:
Silverado 133 ft
Tundra 127 ft
60-0 with 1000# payload:
Silverado 135 ft
Tundra 141 ft
Silverado has the better transition from empty to loaded. Silverado also weighed more and had smaller tires in the test. So brakes are a slam dunk for Silverado.
But if you are looking for a better definition, look no further than what the toy company puts on the land cruiser, or sequoia. Hint...they're not drums.
I agree that the Silverado has 4 Wheel ABS. Is this the same Chevy ABS system that has an NHTSA safety recall out on it? If you choose to ignore the fact that Chevy delivers non-functional anti-lock brakes, the Tundra still out brakes it. Read the Motor Trend article.
Hauling:
The Tundra Access Cab 4X4 is rated to tow 1532lbs. www.carpoint.com
The Silverado extended cab 3 door 4X4 is rated to haul 1480 lbs. http://www.trucktrend.com/feb99/4x4/4x4_f.html
The Chevy that Motor Trend compared used Limited slip... it still lost.
Towing: If you want a tow package on a Chevy, you must order an automatic transmission, a firm ride, or Z71 suspension, a towing package, and a tow hitch. $1500.
To equip a Tundra 4X4 extended cab V8 to tow 7100 lbs. , you just add a Class IV tow hitch,($100 aftermarket) and a wiring harness ($25 aftermarket).
If you choose the Chevy 4.1 gearing(gulp) it still only outtows the Tundra by 800lbs.
As far as the "real springs" are concerned - why do these "real springs" need to be upgraded to tow anything? The Tundra uses stock springs to tow 7200 lbs.
An honest mistake on your part, I'm sure.
Put 700 pounds into the bed of tindra, hunkers down and squats like a peeing puppy. Cleanup in aisle 2 !
Using your carpoint link, they state Chevy max towing is 9400 lbs. More than a "tun" more fun, because Tundra has tacoma pumpkin down 'undra.
Everyone knows here that F-150 is better in every single category than ANY other truck in any class. I have the facts right here if anyone is here to argue.. And don't give me this more HP horse dung from them Chevy's cause F-150 uses it's less HP to it's advantage in better gas mileage and is still quicker and tow's more and lasts longer..
Tundra is a compact pickup.. In fact I saw a Tundra and Tacoma next to eachother and the Tacoma was a bit bigger in height at least.. The Tacoma made the Tundra look like a 4x2
F-150 is the truck of trucks..
Bigsnag, calm down there big fella. We can't be calling everyone Zbad now!!!!!!LOL!!
That Dodge isn't so bad either. Maybe we should pit the Tundra against the Dakota. They are more similar in size. Wait! The Dakota RT would blow the doors, even those small ones in back, clean off. Where does this put the Tundra, oh yeah, reliable, or was that reliably behind the competition.
I still wouldn't mind having the Chevy back seat but I don't think I would want the added length. I have said it before the perfect truck would be Toyota Reliability and refinement, Chevy Powertrain, Ford Capability, Daimler Sheister Styling and a Hyundai Warrantee. Unfortunitely that ain't going to happen. So for me it is all Tundra no contest. None of the other trucks come close to meeting all of my needs as well as the Tundra.
I'm sorry you chose the Tee-yota but I think that's fine if that's what you need, but it just can't win the stat war.
The only thing better about them Tee-yota's are the powertrain warranty, but you don't need it with them here Ford's because I have had mine for 150,000 miles and never even changed the oil and it runs like a fine tuned machine.
Will it really outrun the Dakota? Motor Trend has it slightly quicker than the Toyota. I know a lot of this may have to do with gearing, tire size, and other variances. Since you own them both I take your word. Nice V-8, had a ls400, bought new for about the price they are getting for the fully loaded 4x4 trucks. (Had one of the very first ones out in 1990) Now that was a yuppie car. It was really nice when people didn't know what it was. I bought it because it was the best car I'd ever driven. Loved the engine. It got to be a pain when when it became a status symbol.
To those a bit higher on the food chain.
Ford makes a damn good truck. They sell well, are pretty reliable and and come in every configuration known to man. Were I to have needed an end all be all work truck Ford Superduty was it. I did not and can only afford to drive one vehicle and that vehicle has to do it all for me. The Tundra fits that bill perfectly. As for Ford gas mileage, you would be hard pressed to convince me that the average Triton engine gets better mileage then my 4.7. Fords never seem to get the EPA estimates much less better. I am not saying it can't happen but I would bet you out of 20 trucks only two or so would pull it off. That aside I like Fords especially the flareside 150s in 4X4 with the upgraded Rims. Very nice looking truck and no denying she is tall.
The R/T was and it a sweet looking truck though. Tires were a bit pricey.
By The way I also had some slight airbox work done on my R/T because bone stock the airflow is horrible on the Daks.
I realize Toyota is probably just going for the personal use market and probably just needed something to base a large cheaper SUV on but it would be nice to see the Tundra be offered in more configurations over the years. Maybe a beefed up "Work Truck" and something along the lines of the lightning or R/T. I have read that SC Tundras were in the works and were blowing the doors off of lightnings but they were afraid of quality issues and driveability issues and therefore they will not in the foreseable future release a SC for the Tundra. Hey this is just rumor I repectfully ask that every Ford Lighting, Dakota R/T Silverado SS wanting, driving fanatic not jump all over me for this. I just calls them as I see them or hear them.
I think the Vette also has the Lighning beat in towing capacity!! LOL But the Ford has a larger bed.
Check the trap speeds, too. The lightning will be under 100 mph, right around 96-97. The vette will be about 106-108. With the ET's so close and the trap speed so far apart, the vette will have to catch up. The slow trap speed on the lightning is due to the fact that, when compared to the vette, it has the aerodynamics of a box.
But...on the http://www.ls1.com site, there are scads of stock, or nearly stock F-bodys posting 12 second time slips. Click on "12 second club." Some have only a tire change, maybe slicks, or a K&N, Hypertech+ thermostat etc. Getting into the high 12s is not a big deal, tires can be enough. Please check out for yourself. I was challenged about this before, and I found many examples which I posted before. Due diligence is now your responsibility. And while I'm on the subject, you can say basically the same thing about the Ford Pony cars. It's not impossible to beat the times the magazines post, especially since they use fifth wheel timing equipment, not a true 1/4 mile run.
I totally agree about the make-up of the run, Lightning quicker out of the hole, muscle car making it up at the traps.
But...when I looked at the "12 second club" there were several in bone stock cars.
Please don't make me angry by not looking. You won't like me when I'm angry. - David Banner.
1. You said the Ford Flareside 4x4 F-150 is snappy looking (That's the one I got)
2. The Ford is, if anything, less buck.
3. The 5.4 beats it in HP and Torque I reckon
4. Engine is smoother and quiter
5. Ride be better
6. Hauls more
7. Tows more
8. Way better gas mileage
9. Bigger
10. Tighter turning radius
11. Backseat much better and not upright
12. Reliability is at least equaled according
to Consumer Reports
Why would you pay more money for a smaller truck?? Just curious why folks be choosing them Tundra's now?
3. But not always in acceleration, depends on the rear axle ratio
4. Yeah right!
5. Bull poop!
6. ?
7. ?
8. Yeah right!
10. Not!
12. The Ford came in second for J.D. Powers Quality Study
2) Way wrong at least in my neck of the woods.
my loaded Tundra Limited 2wd with all the
bells and whistles was 27 out the door. I am
afraid the Ford Lariats similarly equipped
were a bit more here. Ford Does not
deal in my area.
3) Yes but Tundra engine has the same or better
overall performance.
4) Triton engines are nowhere near as smooth
and quiet as the Tundra 4.7. That is point
that is actually my only real complaint with
the Fords. I just don't like the way they
sound or feel. They always "feel" labored
to me. I am not saying they are
underpowered but they feel that way to me.
actually all the Ford engines feel that way to
me except the Mustang Cobra and the V6 SVT
Contour. Just personal pref.
5) The ride is ok in a Ford but personally I
think the Silverado is a better riding truck
and my Tundra rides better than most cars.
6) Yes it does haul more and if I had a hauling
service I would have probably bought a Ford.
I do not. I use my truck for work or towing
as the needs arise, not on an everyday basis.
I have always said if you are going to get a
work truck to get a Ford.
7) See above.
8) What the hell are you smoking. The 4.6 Triton
has been known to be gas hog by everybody I
know who owns them. The 5.4 is the same way.
As I have said traditionally I have found that
Chevys get better mileage then the sticker,
Fords get worse and Dodge's gets much worse.
My Yota has turned an average of 16ish with
98% of my driving being 7 mile, around town,
rush hour short trips. On the highway I have
recently seen as high as 22 at 75-80. It is
a truck though a MPG here or there really
doesn't matter to me. The only truck out
there that seems to be getting impressive
mileage is the 5.3 GMs. I have seen them get
as high as 25 on a highway trip. Admittedly
3.42 rear, 2wd etc.
9) Bigger is fine if that is what you want. My
Tundra has a very nice ride height, handles
great, looks sharp and will haul all the
plywood my little heart desires. I can park
easier, drive easier, perform emergency moves
easier and so on not to mention the Tundra
size makes it a superior 4x4 offroad machine.
I have had nobody complain about the backseat
and the Tundra being smaller has an excuse for
it's back seat. The Ford being larger....What
exactly is Fords excuse for that God awful
back seat.
10) I do not have the numbers in front of me so I
will defer to your Turning radius argument.
I would be willing to test this though, as
real world maneverability goes to the Tundra.
Fords handle horribly compared to the Tundra.
Again this my seat o the pants meter here and
thats what counts since I am paying the bills.
11) See number 9. Ford should have a better back
seat then it does given its size. I have had
no complaints about the back seat of my Tundra
and I frequently have riders back there.
Would I drive for 3 hours with people back
there...no. I hope you would not force
somebody to spend 3 hours in the back of your
Ford. For that matter do you have anybody
that would want to spend 3 hours with you
period?
12) Who knows how reliable the Tundra will be?
For all I know it could fall apart next month.
Have I ever trashed Ford's reliability...No.
I have trashed Chevy's quality control and
reliability as of late because it seems to
truely have suffered. My Tundra has 9000
miles on it and is nothing short of flawless.
Mileage gets better every day, still put
together tightly and not so much as a paint
chip. I am banking on Toyota's reputation
for reliability and the fact that they back
that up with a better powertrain warr. Time
will have to tell.
So we have learned that I did not pay more for a smaller truck, have found it to be extremely reliable in the short time I have owned it, have found the engine to be nothing short of spectacular in its smoothness, throttle response and band of usable power, have found the gas mileage to be more than adequate for a truck and in short have found it to be the perfect compromise of all the vehicles I would like to own rolled up into one nice package. It works when I need it too, it runs fast when I want it to, it sounds good, it is very very comfortable and smooth and it has a very nice design. Did Toyota copy alot of what Ford had pioneered. Yep. It is pretty obvious. Did they make it better. Yep when it comes to an everyday personal use pickup they sure did. Were they wrong to copy Ford. Hell no Ford is the sales leader. They make a hell of a truck and certainly 30 some million people can't be wrong about that. Toyota just made a truck to penetrate and dominate the most popular part of the pickup market right now, the personal use family pickup.
Why did you choose a Ford? Why did somebody else choose a Chevy? Why did another person go Dodge? Simple they are either well informed educated consumers who did their own research and homework and bought the best truck for their needs and are extremely happy with their choice or they a brand loyal morons who have no idea the disservice they are doing to themselves, their country and all of us by purchasing crap just because of the logo on the hood. They are just giving that manufacturer a license to build crap.
I sincerely hope you really like your Ford and enjoy it. Buyers remorse is a horrible feeling. you spend more time trashing other peoples rides and not enough time enjoying yours. I don't have time to find every little nitpicky problem with the Big 3 as I am too busy driving the truck I love. Go out and drive and enjoy those truck people.
No one in that entire topic has posted any mpg above 21. The only people who got that did it on PART of one tank = possiblity of significant error. I won't argue that Chevy's get the best mileage, but Ford is a very close second. Toyota is third and Dodge, well, I think it's gallons per mile with them.
Now before anyone slams me, I'm not necessarily saying that it didn't get 24.8 mpg. I'm just saying that there are a lot of variables in calculating gas mileage and those variables can contribute significantly to calculated mpg, especially when considering only one tank of gas. 17.5 is about right on, right in the middle of 20 for highway 15 for city.
Bill
So how has your Silverado been treating you. Have you been plagued by any of the vib problems? I too would like to see a more powerful Tundra but then I would like to see a more powerful anything. Hell I can't wait for the new Ford engines that should be pushing a little over 300 HP. I guess I just a typical car geek. I want one of each really.
Also, what's the deal with GM and Isuzu? GM makes Isuzu vehicles? If so, how long, and do they make the entire vehicle or just parts for them? Isn't Isuzu a Japanese company?