Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Meet your fellow owners in our Owners Clubs
DAKOTA VS TUNDRA
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
comparison. Qualit issues alone will put the
Dakota to shame. nice try bud, but you really
should just climb back up into your treehouse and
continue reading sad sack or whatever other comic
books you were getting bored with.
...red
It really cracks me up on how the Tundra being only 2 years old can just suddenly be a high quality vehicle with NO track record to prove it. I have read multiple stories of electrical to transmission problems to even an engine fire on a Tundra along with wheel vibration.
Bookitty
50 or 20 whichever one he decides to be. AKA ford
30. i could care less which one is better. and
just to let you know how i feel about the way
vehicles get rated, let's just say i totally
agree with you. the japeneese must pay some big
bucks to get the high ratings on some of their
products that hav'nt even had time to have track
records. ex; wife wanted a new car. choice was
between the olds Alero or the toyota celica.
guess what, crash test are available for alero
but celica shows up as "not tested". give me a
break. i know this is off topic but here goes, my
son bought a new sony playstation that now has to
be in the turned upside down to play properly.
sony acknowledged that the first ones have a
problem that they will fix for $$$$. another
crock. as for the tundra being rated as high as
it is that's another crock. this is USA allright
but sometimes i think we've been sold out by our
own government. sorry for the long post, i just
did'nt want to get a opinion war goin' between
us.
...red
- Tim
I've experienced both the Tundra and the Dakota... And frankly, they're BOTH impressive trucks! Were it not for the work capacity I needed, I might well be driving a Tundra rather than a Dakota!
Seems to me it's simply a matter of purchasing what you NEED... Different strokes for different folks!
Quality ratings are relative... Sure, they tend to reveal certain "trends" regarding problems with certain components. But their greater purpose is to alert the makers to things that may be refined or corrected (and usually are).
Ah well... ENJOY your Tundras and Dakotas!
Bookitty
Isn't it great to be able to select from such a wide range of trucks!!?? I mean, 10-12 years ago it just wasn't this way!!!
(My personal opinion from Detroit)... Global competition has done nothing but IMPROVE the quality of our domestic trucks. I deal day-in and day-out with the "big three," and they're ALL accutely aware of what's going on with foreign manufacturers... Which has made them ALL a bit sharper in the ways they engineer, design and build our U.S. products!
Fact is (and I'll probably get some flack from the UAW on this), we're not in a domestic economic situation anymore... We're looking at producing cars and trucks that can compete well in a GLOBAL market.
Tundra vs. Dakota???
JEEZ! I don't know!
But isn't it GREAT that we're "on the globe??!!"
Getting a bit worn out after a day of work, then installing "goodies" on the QC... But inclined to pontificate on your "Geo vs. Jag" coment...
Funny... Finished designing a training program for Jaguar (Ford) for Parts and Service personnel... And Astounded at the sort of "we are we" attitude of the Jaguar folks. They don't wish to be associated with Ford (though they're bought by them)... Jaguar dealerships, in general, are accustommed to charging at least $1,000 per service visit, and having a hard time recognizing that product quality (under Ford) has taken a sharp upward turn, and that they need to think in terms of Long-Term P&S sales as they relate to customer satisfaction and loyalty on the next buy.
Conversely... We've had a GEO in the family since 1992. Its maintenance and service requirements have probably netted the dealership $200 per service visit.
I HATE the GEO, but it's done well as a "spare car" for well over 70K miles! The service folks are friendly... Probably thinking that we'll "step-up" to a Cavalier or some such nonsense!
Ahh well... Point well-taken on the "Geo vs. Jag"... And I would conjecture again that it's what you NEED and what you're willing to pay to satisfy that need...
Good luck to ALL!
the engineering mantel). When I first searched for a four door compact class truck, the only one was the Nissan Frontier Crew Cab. It was small, underpowered, and the truck was not in stock somewhere, you took what you could get. The dealers told me that the factory would not build a truck to individual specifications. When I test drove the Nissan, there was no room for my big feet between the service brake pedal and the clutch pedal. I kept tying up my size 12's with each other. The Quad suits me exactly. This posting is not an attempt to demean offshore cars and trucks, because I have owned them and for the most part received value. Thats my .02 worth.
Bookitty
It is shame that some Toyota dealers are extremely moronic. I have come across some of these. We have nice dealers here in NC where I live. The same is true about service and the cost of service. It all depends on where you live. The same is also true for any automaker.
Unless you buy a Saturn, no one should pay sticker price. I never have and never will. Here again, it all depends where you live. Places that have more competition will spur better prices and an easier way to haggle over prices.
The Dakota is no question a midsize truck. Dodge thinks its a compact and anyone can see in most automotive magazines that is compared as such. Even Dodge in its advertising says its a compact. There are two Dakota's in my neighborhood. One is an 89 and the other is a 92. Both of my neighbors have been trying to sell them for the past year but no one wants them. They are perfect for the midsize classification but they have towing and hauling capacties of a compact. I know the newer Dakotas have addressed this issue in the towing area with now a V8 option but not in the hauling capcity. In conclusion, this truck is not a true comparsion with the Tundra.
Next size up is the Tundra.
The next size up is the Ford and the Dodge. The Tundra would be comparable if it was a few inches wider and a few inches longer. Although, I would like to say the only difference in the length is the hood length. The Tundra stands with the crowd in towing and hauling capacity for like trucks. This means Ford and Dodge produce heavy duty versions and this is not comparable to the Tundras.
The biggest of the crowd is the new Chevy. Its bigger mainly because of its big back seat. There is a 93 Chevy in the neighberhood, too. Its been a good truck and the two Dakotas pale in comparison in reliability. The same is true about the Tundra here too in comparing these two trucks.
I like what Motor Trend said about the Tundra in this aspect: The Tundra is 7/8 the Ford, Chevy, or Dodge. Its truly 24/25 the size. The Dakota is 23/25. A true compact like the Ford Ranger is 20/25. It puts all the trucks in perspective.
In conclusion, the Tundra is more full size than midsize if their had to be a decison. Personally, the tundra is between the two and should be noted as such. So what is the fair comparison. There is no direct competition in size but there is competition between the Big 3 in hauling and towing capacities. The Tundra used to be the correct size in full size terms. The big 3 trucks just got bigger. Its all related to those extended cabs getting bigger and bigger with each redesign. Quad cab designs will continue this pattern.
Finally; one more point, its not the big 3, its the big 2. Dodge is owned by Damiler-Benz and guess who gets the profit out of those Dodge trucks. Plymouth will die soon, Dodge will see some changes and maybe some changes in their trucks by Damiler-Benz corporate headquarters. Dodge owners should be wary.
... but there is competition between the Big 3 in hauling and towing capacities.
Truth:
tundra max haul 7200 LBS
Silverado max haul 9600 LBS
That be competive now? That Chevy be towin 2400 LBS more than "da runt"! Yet "da runt" just tow 1000 LBS more than Dakota. Lookin like "da runt" be more the mid than a "full size" now. Let that smoke clear from ya eyes now! Good luck on this one now!
Let me let everyone in on a little secret here: the 'majors' in every industry (I'm in the oil business and it's exactly the same) absolutely LOVE all this bickering - they sell more 'stuff,' trucks, cars, dishwashers - whatever. In the case of high profit margin trucks, they fall all over themselves laughing their way to the bank. And so should we. WE own the stock. In essence we are laughing at ourselves and don't even know NOT to take it seriously. This is exactly what our politicians (prey on and) do to us every damned day. And we still fall for it. Amazing.
These are just trucks, folks. Can you imagine how much amusement and perspective our (real) U.S. enemies get from watching and listening to this 'sandlot' stuff? This is the Internet age u-know.
To the subject: I wanted the Tundra desperately - heck I wanted the T-100, still a great truck that the big three tried to kill with an unwarranted 20-25% tax. I like it a bunch. I like the Chevy and Ford trucks, just a little too big for MY needs. I do not like the Dodge Rams or the @$%# dealers. But I drove everything in sight, and the 3/4 ton Dakota Quad was perfect for me (and apparently about 65,000 others). The Tundra, highest in my sights up to that point, lost me on price, step-in height and rear seat space. If they'd done the true Quad thing, I'd be driving one now, overlooking the price and height snafus. -- Others like the size of the Tundra and conversely won't buy the smaller Dakota. Still others think that all of these are 'little toys' and have to have a 1 or 2-ton 4 door 'big rig gas pig' in their driveways that never get used like farmers and ranchers use em. Etc. Etc. But that's OK too, it's a free country (if we don't run out of gas)-- I don't think Toyota made a mistake (or Dodge with the Dakota Quad) because they absolutely can't keep em on the lots. And I had a couple of Toyota work trucks and a Ford F-150 in the past and still have an 85 Dodge Prospector and a 71 Chevy Super Cheyenne. All are built very, very well. But then again so are most trucks today whose makers are not out of business (I hear U.S. Nissan's in BIG financial trouble). Maintenance from new has a LOT to do with longevity as well. Aren't we lucky to be able to [non-permissible content removed] and gossip in so MANY directions these days, for really no reason other than to say that 'my truck is ______ than your truck!'
Heck, I consider it a real privilege just to be able to afford a new vehicle - of any kind - after what's happened to employment and wages in my industry (nearly dead) over the past 15 years! I hope you all have fared better than us. :-)
foodforthought
Bookitty
I don't think Toyota made a mistake (or Dodge with the Dakota Quad) because they absolutely can't keep em on the lots.
Here be the top 10 sales now:
#1 Ford F series
#2 Chevy Silverado
#3 Dodge ram
#4 Ford Ranger
#5 Chevy S10
#6 GMC Sierra
#7 Dodge Dakota
#8 Tacoma
#9 Frontier
#10 Tundra
Reckin they aint sellin too many of them limited ones now, as they be at the bottom in sales. Heard all this hype with them "full size" t100 ones a few years back, now where they be? Them tunras just be this years t100 now. Good luck on this one now!
of the popularity and demand of the Quad Cab in their maiden voyage year. They were overwhelmed with the acceptance of and subsequent demand for the product. Hence the many material restrictions
encountered. In that sense, I totally agree with
themacguy. He is not saying that they produce or sell the most units, only that they sell the units that they build.
Bookitty
You think to be considered one of the big boys "a few inches doesn't matter" ...
yeah right....tell that to your honey..see what she says..
- Tim
I have always had manual transmissions. I know that only 10% of all drivers actually get it these days, but they should always be available on any vehicle except for the Cadillac Fleetwood type cars.
But some of your statements about the Dakota are not entirely accurate. Dodge doesn't think that the Dakota is a compact. Rather, they were relatively unsuccessful at advertising the first generation Dakota as a midsize(no competition except the T100). Actually, they marketed the Dakota as a downsized fullsize truck (the Dakota had a payload capacity of 2,500 lbs., and Dodge discontinued the entry level Ram so as not to overlap products).
So when they introduced the second generation Dakota (in fact larger, heavier and more powerful), they changed their approach and marketed the Dakota as a compact against the competition's smaller trucks.
I think Toyota learned from Dodge's "midsize" marketing experience and took a similar approach in marketing the Tundra against the major competition, and did not try to market the Tundra "alone" as a "midsize" truck.
BTW you mentioned that there was no comparison in towing/hauling between the Tundra and the Dakota.
Compare max. specs with the 4x4 extended cabs:
Dakota Tundra
Payload 1,800 1,532
GVWR 6,050 6,050
Towing 6,200 7,100
Shakerado also! Man, those Shakerados are wimpy.
Must be made for housewives to haul groceries with.
If you want a working truck, you need a Toyota.
You were right about the V8 only having 1532 lbs.
haul. The funny thing is, this still beats that
wimpy Shakerado! The Shakerado with a 5.3L and
airconditioning weighs 4920 lbs. If you take the
6400 lb GVWR and subtract 4920 you get 1480lbs.
Wimpy! Maybe Chevy will build a real "full size"
truck someday. Just no competition for the Toyota.
I would guess a yuppy like you...has never even had his hands under the hood...much less knows a damn thing about trucks or cars.
The good old Toiletta....such a work horse that nobody seems to use them in construction/farms/roofing/or any line of work?
Nope...just plain old grocery getters seem to be the only use for Toiletta's.
And geez...My Silverado has a payload of 3200 lbs...just about enough for a Tundra!?
Keep spewing your nonsense...sip your cappuccino..and make us all laugh. I can't buy entertainment like you if I tried.
- Tim
throwing stones at the chevy's? if you wanna
start sumthin' well you're headin' in the right
direction.
Have a friend with a T-100 who owns a painting business... He's been hauling tons of paint and racking ladders on the poor thing for 5 years, and he swears by it!
Point is, if we don't have the offshore competition, we're going NOWHERE domestically.
I look back to 1989 and the S-10... Chevy was getting VERY nervous about overseas competition, and beginning to wake up and smell the coffee! It was a great truck, it served me well for 5 years and fetched a good resale price.
As we move into 2000, I sense that the same thing is happening with the trucks... Each maker has its own targets. But each maker ALSO has a sense for what it takes in terms of QUALITY to earn and retain customers... That's what "getting better" is all about!
Put the plants here...emplpy some US workers..and people will accept that it's here to "help" America...
Too bad the real money goes overseas to never be seen here again....but yet a lot of people..including yourself...seem to think it's OK...because the factory is here.
perhaps YOU need to wake up and smell the coffee?
- Tim
I got a big grin when you wrote that. Imagined a strech caddy limo with a Hurst shifter going through the gears..........................
If a foreign company invests in America and employs American workers to build his quality product what is the problem with that? Is it because they aren't union members and your union honchos don't get enough of your members hard earned cash to support themselves in the luxury they are accustomed? Ford Crown Victorias and Chevy Camaros are made in Canada. Dodge Rams and Chrysler PT Cruisers are made in Mexico. How is that better, at least Nissan and Toyota are building their vehicles where American Workers get some benefit. Those Dodges some of us buy are still made in Michigan (my Dodge Quad) and by union members too, but the parent company is now German, is that OK? I bought an American union made truck but the profits from that sale are enroute to Germany. Open your eyes, it is a world economy and its only gonna get worse for those companies and employees who make products perceived to be substandard. Rick
by the way, that coffee probably comes from Central or South America and its certainly not union made. think about it!
Toyota/Honda/Nissan make American trucks better? Don't think so - there's never been a challenge to Ford/Chevy/Dodge trucks - they compete more with each other than imports...
pretty well here. it's great that we have foriegn comp. just look what it did for harley davidson back in the early 80's. even household goods have improved. like towcrazy said "buy what you like and need".
No place did I ever say it all was...BUT..a Vehicle is the most important American purchase you can make as far as impact on the economy.
...and I agree with Swobig....about 50% or more in this house is American.....but ALL 4 cars are American...which is the most important issue..
- Tim
The current Dakota is no question living in the shadow of styling of its sibiling the Ram. Thats not a bad thing. The Dakota is considerable more upmarket than its predecessor. I have not seen those hauling figures you posted, but it could be from the sites that I have referenced.
The Dakota has the towing capacity and very near hauling capacity. Its still a smaller truck. This could be used for the same argument as the Tundra compared to the other three full size trucks.
The Dakota as you said is competing over the market it can easily win. Its a good marketing strategy.
Another issue I like to bring up is the difference of weight. The Dakota and Tundra both use lighter chassis to pull off better towing figures and hauling figures compared to the three bigger trucks.
I was thinking about your comment on the Big 3 full size trucks getting bigger with each new truck redesign. That sure is happening with the Dodge Ram. I checked out some old specifications on the previous generation Ram, the truck built prior to 1994, and compared it to the current Dakota.
Comparing the extended cab models we get:
Dakota Ram
Wheelbase 131" 133"
Length 215" 211"
Weight 3,760 3,730
Fuel tank 22gal 22gal
And they both use the 3.9L, 5.2L and 5.9L engines.
I was surprised to see the similarity between the two trucks.
in weight of the previous generation Ram. Of course, as products are redesigned and improved with each new generation, they represent a moving target for the competition to stay with.