Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options

Tundra vs the Big 3 - Continued

13468911

Comments

  • mgdvhmanmgdvhman Member Posts: 4,157
    ....Then it should be by farr the best seller??

    DDOOOHHHHH!!

    ..second??....DOHHHHH
    ..third?.....dohhhhhh!

    last?..Ahhhhh

    - Tim
  • bamatundrabamatundra Member Posts: 1,583
    Why can't Chevy compete with the Tundra?

    Maybe if they put the biggest engine in it.... Doh!

    Maybe the lowest gears... Doh!

    Maybe if they redesigned it ... Doh!

    Oh well, maybe next time.
  • mgdvhmanmgdvhman Member Posts: 4,157
    you make a good attempt.....but lose every time.

    Last in sales....that's gotta hurt

    - Tim
  • trucksrmetrucksrme Member Posts: 381
    Ya said:

    Why can't Chevy compete with the Tundra?

    That answer be simple. Cuz that Chevy be competein with them other big3 trucks. That tundra be competin with hondas, and nissans, and such. That Chevy be for the workin man, them tundras be for the yuppie chasin the fad. That Chevy be for folks that need em too last and work long. That tundra need too be "car like" and just last as long as that fad. As folks can see, that Chevy and that tundra dont be competein at all. Good luck on this one now!
  • quark99quark99 Member Posts: 136
    The Ford Ranger! Most popular amongst tradesman, from gardners to plumbers to construction people-better take a second look around. Your comment about the "workin' man" don't hold water.
    The yuppies around here all drive new Suburbans, Silverados, SuperDuty's, or yes, the Tundra.
    Size of the truck isn't as important as the reliability of the truck-guess that's why GM products suck hind titty when it comes to being used for real "work." Course, I don't know about real farm use-I just live in the world's largest farming community in the world, Central Valley, CA....where we grow the food that you and the entire world eats. (Unless you live on a strict diet of butter beans.)
    Most of the full-size Chevys out here in the "real" country are owned by the "boss" of the construction crew and the only thing they carry are the magnetic signs on the doors. Wearin' a flannel shirt, cowboy boots, and a pager pretty well describes your average construction boss, who's usually on a cell phone talking to the real workers on the job site. Or hanging out at the local 7-11 enjoying the A/C, while eating a Slurpee. Take a look at your local construction site. You'll see a few GM products, but the majority of trucks will small Rangers, S-10's, Dakotas, Toyotas, Nissans, etc. When it comes to the "real workin' man", your statement about "full-size" just ain't true. Course, you probably have a scathing response to this post, which will require much preparation, so I'll let you go-Good luck on this one now!
  • mgdvhmanmgdvhman Member Posts: 4,157
    Around here..Full size Ford and Chevy are the work horses. Even Dodge falls in place here....but I have yet to see a Tundra.

    - Tim
  • barlitzbarlitz Member Posts: 752
    Why don't you take a drive up to Boston and see one of the largest construction sites going on right .The Big Dig,Not to many compacts up here mainly the Big3 and an occasional Tacoma owner who usually gets strapped to a crane and raised about 10 stories by his underpants.I've never seen a Tundra at any construcion site I've been on.
  • swobigswobig Member Posts: 634
    your always good for a laugh - hahaha
  • mgdvhmanmgdvhman Member Posts: 4,157
    all good for a Laugh!

    ...why do you think I see what goes on here??

    LOL

    - Tim
  • trucksrmetrucksrme Member Posts: 381
    Them big3 "full size" ones be the ones folks be workin, this be that fact on that. Use your eyes on this one. Good luck on this one now!
  • dbhulldbhull Member Posts: 150
    I see that Bama has carried over his crying the blues to this topic as well. Gotta feel sorry for a man crying so much.
  • gnippergnipper Member Posts: 120
    I can't believe I'm about to enter this discussion, but I probably won't post often, because I'm one of those people that once I find the vehicle that fits my needs and do an evaluation and decide which one I think is best, then there is no other in my mind regardless of what happens. In the half ton market - that happens to be GM.

    I'll start by saying there is indeed only 3 in the big 3, I'm almost tempted to really say there are only 2, but I'll give the Dodge a little credit since it is at least "full size". The Japanese must have been measuring in centimeters rather than inches and missed the size somewhere on that design.

    I love my 2000 GMC - and it is 100% trouble free for the first 2000 miles, not much yet, I'll admit. But not a better running more comfortable, better looking truck in its class.

    My proof to go along with that. I left the magazine at home, but it is the current issue of Automobile magazine. They wrap up their test of the new GM truck. Their rating - the BEST of the big 3. And even they know and admit there are only 3 in the big 3. They do real world testing and drive the trucks and use them for several months. It is a good article - they point out the bad points as well, every truck has it's faults, every one of them. The good news here, GM has worked on and corrected in 2000 every thing they talked about - I believe that had a '99 in the test.

    As well for a definition of a work truck, I come from Central Oklahoma and have lived in Texas for the last 12 years I've been around farms and ranches, oil fields, and construction sites. I've never seen anyone call anything less than a half ton GM or Ford and sometimes a Dodge, a work truck. The only people I've seen call a Ranger, Toyota, or even an S10 a work truck was maybe a lawn guy or the pool guys or someone like that. If you're on the farm/ranch or construction site it'll be a big 3 half ton or more. I'm also going to admit, that if you're talking serious work truck, GM has been behind the past few years, I honestly think that Ford has owned the one ton market for sure. But that only happened after they introduced the Powerstroke diesel. That reign will end this year now that GM has the new HD trucks and their new diesel.

    So thats my take on it, blast away. But there is only one truck - my version of it is at http://www.netcom.com/~gdn .

    Greg
  • ferris47ferris47 Member Posts: 131
    Why should we blast away on you. You did your homework and got the truck that was the best for you. 2000 miles later and you are still happy with it, no regrets. Hey sounds like you spent your 30K or whatever pretty wisely.

    I did my homework, drove everything and ended up with my Tundra. 9000 miles later not one problem, and the best truck I have ever owned and the best truck on the market for me.

    I do think my Tundra has advantages over your GM, I also think your GM has advantages over my Tundra. What the hell. I love my truck and don't mind writing that check every month. I hope everybody feels the same, because it is horrible to pay that much money for something you are not completely satisfied with.

    Regarding your GM did you happen to see TRUCKS on Sunday. I think it is on TNN. They had a Prototype GM Contractors series 3/4 ton. It was awesome. It had all kinds of containers, blue print holders, tool holders, a battery recharging bank that held 3 or 4 batteries, a generator built into the engine bay, a loading ramp. It was a really cool truck. Of course the thing would probably cost like 60K.
  • rdve80rdve80 Member Posts: 139
    This post may be a few days late, but not as slow as your reading the May issue of Motor Trend. That is OLD info. If you understand the entire article and not just the conclusion, then you just might realize that the conclusion is not supported by the facts that precede it. This comparison is 4x4 extended cab trucks, so the 2 most important qualities in this comparison are a) off-road results and b) rear cab comfort (i.e. barcolounger).

    Motor Trend picked this truck configuration claiming it to be the most popular one. But the comparison could have been done with a different configuration (with emphasis on other performance parameters). Maybe regular cab/short bed/4x4 -- OOPS Tundra doesn't have this. Maybe extended cab/long bed/4x4 -- OOPS. Maybe any 2wd with limited slip axle -- OOPS. Maybe any 3/4 ton or 1 ton -- OOPS.

    Maybe Motor Trend is bending over backwards to help the newcomer get more than 4% of the full-size market. However, Toyota already knows that it cannot make much of an impact in the full-size market (because of the variety of configurations/options) and still make money. Watch Toyota's new vehicle intros and you will see that their focus is on the expanding SUV's market because it has fewer options and bigger profit margins.

    LOL
    Larry
  • swobigswobig Member Posts: 634
    the more you read those magazines the more you find them contridicting themselves. I've stopped reading them for several months now and think this type of forum is much more informative, but you still have to watch for people who don't know a truck from a hole in the ground...
  • barlitzbarlitz Member Posts: 752
    I was reading the msn carpoint yesterday and I can't remember word for word but they said the Chevrolet c/k1500 series is the most reliable and cost effecient truck over a 5 year period,beating any of the big 3 and compact trucks..
  • mgdvhmanmgdvhman Member Posts: 4,157
    ..That's what I call the car/truck magazines. I haven't bought those in years...as they say one thing this month...and something different next one.

    Like DLR said when someone told him something they read about him...

    "You READ it!?....MUST be true!"

    - Tim
  • trucksrmetrucksrme Member Posts: 381
    That yuppie aint got no other way too be getin that learnin on them trucks. They aint workin em, so they got too get that learnin on em from them magazine tells now. This, in the mind of that yuppie, be makin em that expert on them trucks now. Now ya be understandin where that confusin be comin from. Good luck on this one now!
  • fordsrmefordsrme Member Posts: 22
    It's too bad folks ain't realizing that Ford whips that Tundra and Chevy and Dodge.. hands down with better gas mileage, quicker, bigger, better looking, more reliable. EVERYTHING. I don't see why anyone would buy anything except them F-150's!?
  • rcoosrcoos Member Posts: 167
    Besides coming across like some uneducated goof (where are you from ...some swamp in the south?), you don't even know what you are talking about!

    I'm not going to waste my time arguing with someone who not all there!
  • trucksrmetrucksrme Member Posts: 381
    ...some swamp in the south?...
    Funny how them yuppies always be equatin "uneducated" and that "South" together now. This be called bein ignorant of that fact now. Ponder this, if them yuppies be so smart, why they so easily tricked on that "size" of them limited ones? Good luck on this one now!
  • arkie6arkie6 Member Posts: 198
    fordsrme, I'm sure that you make all Ford owners proud. Kinda like trucksrme and the Chevy owners. I do have to admit that it is kind of amusing though reading through all of these posts in the Tundra related topics. If it weren't for you guys (or are you the same guy?), these topics would be pretty bland.

    Trucksrme occasionally makes sense (albeit quite repetitive) until he mentions something about Massey-Fergusons being good farming tractors. The only thing I've seen a Massey do worth a damn is disc a garden or do light bushhogging (that's probably what he uses one for). If you want a real farm tractor, everyone knows that John Deere is king of the hill.
  • swobigswobig Member Posts: 634
    boy are you confused. 20 MPG in your Ford - are they putting 4 cyl. in them now? EPA est. on Ford 13 - Chevy 15. Horsepower Ford 260 - Chevy 285. Looks is too subjective, reliability is subjective, size I'm confused - thought Chevy had the biggest interior (or I know it has the biggest ext. cab). I'll give Ford torque, but you have nothing else. Stick to the facts, not what you percieve to be true. But you are good for a laugh...
  • modvptnlmodvptnl Member Posts: 1,352
    Why are you falling for it? LOL!!!!!!
  • gnippergnipper Member Posts: 120
    I'd have to agree, it's got to be GREEN to be worth anything.
  • bigsnagbigsnag Member Posts: 394
    Green is definitely the way to go, but some of us poor folk have to stick to International. I wouldn't want a Massey, though, that's for sure.
  • swobigswobig Member Posts: 634
    couldn't resist. Good call on dbhull, that "other" topic was just getting good till it got the ax...
  • fordsrmefordsrme Member Posts: 22
    My ford here gets 20 MPG combines city/hwy with mostly highway miles driving out of state once a week. I've had Chevy and Dodge and they both get what I posted respectively. Not a lie here. The Ford has .39 drag coefficient that help with the wind and gets superior gas mileage.
  • fordsrmefordsrme Member Posts: 22
    here is a knee slaper for ya'll about the tundra here. I work at Lowe's in Alabama here as a delivery driver. I have an F-150 and you get paid extra here if you use your own truck here. My buddy Carl here just bought a brand new Tee-yota Tundra SR-22 4x4. He decided to use it as a work truck here. I was making a large delivery here for 20 sand bags and two 8 foot ladders. I loaded up 15 in my Ford and didn't have room for the others on account of I had a bunch of equipment in my truck along with a toolbox. Carl loaded the 5 sandbags (75 lbs each I reckon)and the two ladders that stuck out about 4 feet out of his Tee-Yota cause the bed is only 4 feet I think here. He was in front of me on account of his BIG load, and I noticed his bumper was nering the ground. I flagged him 2 stop and told him to look at his rear and it was sagging down to the asphault which was makling the ladders fall out. He re-arranged them and it lifted 2 inches and graobbed his ladders and put his warning blinkers on and finished the delivery. He said to me afterward how embarrased he was.
  • dbhulldbhull Member Posts: 150
    After driving the F150 for a while now, I am starting to really think that GM over-rates the hp stats on the Silverado 5.3l. Having owned both, I think the 5.4l, when stock, has a better overall powerband. I know the 5.4l takes to modifications much better too, so if you have some aftermarket bolt ons with the 5.4l, you can quickly surpass the 5.3ls power having the same mods.

    Owned and driven both. Not biased to any make. Just calling it like I see em. a year and a half ago I would definitely have said different.
  • trucksrmetrucksrme Member Posts: 381
    That be a good one for sure. That ones the first one I heard on them tundras doin a haul. Bout what too be expectin of em for sure. Good luck on this one now!
  • quadrunner500quadrunner500 Member Posts: 2,721
    The "Tee-Yota SR-22 4x4" must be for high risk drivers and topic posters who don't qualify for regular insurance premiums. You?
  • fordsrmefordsrme Member Posts: 22
    Actually that there Tundra's a nice truck for what it is now, but what it is is a 3/4 Full Size. Not bad if that's what you need, but the F-150's like I be having here are the real full size. Them Tundra's need themselves their own class of "Nearly Full Size". That would suit them just fine. It's a pretty truck but just don't add 5 sand bags or it will fall over.
  • trucksrmetrucksrme Member Posts: 381
    Dont be thinkin them ones quite "Nearly full size", I put em closer too that "wannabe full size" now. Least that be what them ones who be buyin em want em too be. Good luck on this one now!
  • swobigswobig Member Posts: 634
    would argue your point on horsepower. Blown away many a Ford before I did any mods to my Chevy. Worked for a Ford dealer for awhile and drove them quite often. It's a good truck, but there definately not racing machines.

    fordrme, what color is the sky in your world???
  • dbhulldbhull Member Posts: 150
    Well, I guess that is why you drive a GM and I now drive a Ford. I see it differently. In the old c/ks with the 350 or 454, I would agree with you. The new model GM trucks just don't have as much gumption and definitely don't take to mods as well. Heck, 2002, Ford will have a 300 hp 400 lbs torque 5.4l with 3 valves per cylinder, and will be getting it with ease. Like to see those numbers coming from a stock 5.3l any time soon.

    Glad you are impressed with your Silverado.
  • swobigswobig Member Posts: 634
    makes a good truck. I think they are the standard in the industry, but I think GM finally exceeded the standard. Your entitiled to your opinion and views - I look forward to a 300 horse 400 ft. lbs. torque motor, but that probably wouldn't have happened if GM wouldn't have leapfroged them. Sorry you had so much trouble with your GM, but mine has been flawless and your right it is technlogically a better truck. Good luck with your 4 letter word...
  • bamatundrabamatundra Member Posts: 1,583
    GM has gone as far as can be expected with OHV. I admire simplicity (as does Chevy, simplicity = cheap) but I don't think that anyone can magically make it breathe better. The Tundra and the Ford have much more potential. Chevy is eventually going to have to join the 20th century. They have done an admirable job of putting it off until now.
  • barlitzbarlitz Member Posts: 752
    I own Ford like dbhull and I am looking forward to the new 5.4,they will also have a V6 deisel availible for the F150 in the next few years something Chevy I'm sure will have soon,I highly doubt Toyota will ever catch on with that.But what I wanted to say is if you check out msn carpoint they rate the Chevy c/k 1500 as the most reliable and cost effecient truck over a 5 year period.I drive a Ford and probably always will but thats a nice award to give to a truck.And although all trucks are nice sometimes you can get a bad one which can give you harsh feelings toward that particular make.
  • swobigswobig Member Posts: 634
    I agree with you - they probably have taken it as far as it will go, but it does exceed what's out there now. I hope Ford does leapfrog them and my next truck will probably be a Ford. The do seem to be a little more on the cutting edge and GM often plays catch up, but at least they did a better job this time.

    And I think your right too Bartlitz. You see too many people that own a bad Chevy or Ford or whatever then bad mouth that brand. It's almost like brand loyality but reverse (brand unloyality) and that's no better. I've had my share of lemons from Chevy and Ford, but still would buy another one of their products cause this s#&t happens...
  • dbhulldbhull Member Posts: 150
    Barlitz, Swobig: I agree with both of you. I had a bad F150 (bought used however), bought a Silverado. Got a bad Silverado, now have another
    F150 (brand new). I am not crying over spilt milk, I am not bashing one or the other, and I still bought another one of the two brands.

    Am I a brand "unloyalist"?
  • rcoosrcoos Member Posts: 167
    Lets take a look at your list! Horsepower, well the Chevy's rating speaks for it self (since it seems that you have a problem with facts...there is nothing that I can do about that). Looks, reliability, truck size & price.....well that depends on your point of view!

    As far as I'm concerned...the Silverado kick the **** out of the ford on all these! If you like that BUBBLEBOY look of the fords, good for you.
    rcoos

    p.s. #287 trucksrme......well, I can see why some people in the south still fly that rebel flag! Oh, by the way the civil war is over & the south lost!
  • quark99quark99 Member Posts: 136
    Do any of the full-size trucks, F-150, Silverado, or Ram come standard with a full-size (identical to what's on the rims) spare tire AND a full-size (identical to the other 4 rims) alloy rim? Only reason I'm asking is I was astonished to find both items underneath my QuadCab. That feeling lasted about 1 second, now I've got to find a way to protect it from road wash, spray, and debris.....maybe this isn't something new, but it's new to me...made me think of that VW commercial: "great day in the morning..."
    Thanks.
    -quark
  • quadrunner500quadrunner500 Member Posts: 2,721
    There will always be life in the pushrod motor until the other manufacturers find a way to match the reliability, simplicity, and fuel economy of the Chevy small block. Typically, you expect an overhead cam engine to rev higher, but that's not the case. The Tundra I drove shifted at exactly 5200 rpm, same as my Chevy. The 2000 Chevys are shifting at 5600. The Ford needs to finish the job in my opinion, by putting in 4 valves. 3 is a step in the right direction, but they are scrimping when you consider they already have the 4 valve heads on the lincolns and Cobras. Pushrods are a cheap $8 dollar fusible link for an over-revved engine, like when the idiot with a manual transmission down shifts while at redline, the rev limiter does no good. Probably why Toyota doesn't offer their 4.7L with a manual transmission.
  • bamatundrabamatundra Member Posts: 1,583
    OHC allows engine designers to create more efficient combustion chamber designs. This allows engines to run higher compression ratios without pinging. Many Chevy owners know all about pinging, unfortunately.
  • dbhulldbhull Member Posts: 150
    Ouch! No offense Quadrunner500, but that had to hurt a little. This is the only correct thing I have seen Bama post since he started posting on Edmunds. He has a point about the ping.

    But to the Chevy's corner, the ping is not prevelant on all the trucks. Some have it. Some dont. Some have it worse. Some have it less, depending on where (altitude, gas quality, etc.) they live.

    I had the pinging problem with my past Silverado 5.3l and cleared 98% of it by changing the plugs to a copper core (better conductivity and lower cylinder temps).

    Another thing to mention is my brother in law got one of the pinging C/K trucks with the 350 engine.
    To this day, 208,000 miles later, still has the same light ping. Still runs like a striped ape. All the same powertrain and no rebuilds. It will easily go another 50-75k miles and when in the end, can be overhauled very easily and CHEAPLY! (around 300 for an overhaul kit using the same pistons) A brand new 350 engine from the factory is about $1,800. I have heard that the 4.7l Tundra engine is in the neighborhood of $7,000.
    Lets see, 1,800.....7,000....I do believe I would rather pay 1,800.
  • mgdvhmanmgdvhman Member Posts: 4,157
    professional racing will all be switching to the superior OHC system now that the superior Tundra has mastered it?

    Gimme a break..

    What is it about Dodge and Toy owners that come up with the lamest excuses?

    - Tim
  • trucksrmetrucksrme Member Posts: 381
    Speakin of not havin the knowin of things. It was that "War between the States", not the "civil war" now. And it aint that "rebel flag" now, it be the "Battle Flag of the Confederate States". Ya seem to have as much knowin on these things as them trucks now, that bout figures right. Yuppies, thinkin they got the knowin on things, but aint got no knowin of em at all. Good luck on this one now!
  • cdeancdean Member Posts: 1,110
    bama and db
    you're convincing yourself, but not anyone else what's better. How in the hell does OHC prevent pinging? how does OHC allow better combustion chamber design? It doesn't! If the OHC's could breathe so much better, why were GM's pushrod engines developing more horsepower and torque than Ford's OHC every year of existence until this year? GM figured out how to make an engine breathe back in '96 with the Vortec head design. It had everything to do with intake runners, and condition of the entry air. And had nothing to do with where the cam was placed. In '98 Ford basically copied GM's air intake design, and boosted the hp of the 5.4 significantly. Go check out the archives of Popular Mechanics over the past 4 years, they chronicle this progression.

    Ping has absolutely nothing to do with cam placement. Ping is caused by too much spark advance. Cams don't control your sparkplug.

    I agree with DBhull's last statement. The GM pushrod model is simple, cheap, and just as effective. Why build a $5,000 engine, when you can design a $2000 engine to do the same thing?
  • mgdvhmanmgdvhman Member Posts: 4,157
    ..you must remember...these are Tundra fans...they know little or next to nothing about facts..much less engines and trucks.

    - Tim
This discussion has been closed.