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.
Comments
To say the tundra is not the better off-road truck is not entirely accurate. With a good driver and chains, I'll take the Tundra over any other full size on trails. Deep snow on an open lake? Whichever has the most clearance - Dodge, I think?
The tundra does come with a skid plate. The lack of limited slip is pretty dumb, however.
It would be nice to have a "mother ship" as you put it... to get the gear in the area. Then have an ATV to get in those hard-to-reach areas, then have a fast truck to cruise to town that night, 6 fullsize seats to haul people, then have a 30 mpg vehicle to drive to work on Monday. But, since we are all non-lottery winners we have to make some compromises.
That's why I say "Remember there is no perfect truck"
I'm not bashing anyone. All of those people have every right to own a truck. But for some to say that brand X is no good because it's too small or too slow or whatever is ridiculous. If you don't have enough power, then you are either over-loaded or you don't know how to drive. If you can't go fast enough, then you're trying to drive too fast. If it's too small, then you've got too much stuff.
Take the fastest, baddest, biggest, meanest truck you can find and I'll have an application where it will loose to a 1985 4-cyl Ford Ranger.
Remember... There is no perfect truck
cdean,
Don't agree with you on the incrementalism thing. Ford didn't know that better heads, intake would result in more horsepower/mileage? I think they knew - I think everyone knows that. I think they wanted to keep the power/mileage near the 350 at 250 horse. When Chevy's new engines came out Ford's improved. I really don't think it takes 4 years to figure head/intake/exhaust stuff. Just like GM and the different cam which gives 15 horse and 10 ft. lbs. torque more. Just trying to one up the other guy, but that's just my opinion...
oK, modify my statement slightly. 4 years ago, Ford didn't know how to put a 260 hp 5.4 that COSTS reasonable and wouldn't be burned out in 100K miles under truck duty.
It awes me that after listening to GM fans about how this was going to be "The Year of the Truck"--that it still gets resoundly BEATEN by the ole' blue oval.
cdean, When will you concede??
LOL!!!!
Roc
The big issue I have with all the focus on the J.D. Powers results is those individuals that quote the data seem to feel that being #1 is so much better than anyone else. Like why would anyone buy a truck that wasn't #1 in the survey.
The answer is that all of the brands have acceptable quality and reliability. Otherwise they wouldn't sell trucks. Now the guy that does have problems or past problems with a brand won't believe this. Only the big3 make greater than 1/2 ton trucks, which is what all of the tradesmen, commercial, and government agencies typically use. These trucks are not better nor worse than the 1/2 ton models from the big3. If these trucks were always in the shop getting fixed or broke down on the road waiting for a big3 tow truck to pick them up, well then no one would get much work done. Taxes would have to go up to pay for the constant repair costs and the Tundra owner couldn't get a service man to come to his house and fix his refrigerator.
Survey data is just one piece of data to use in selecting a truck, it is not the answer.
You think that being #1 is all important. A difference of 60k trucks is about a 1% difference in total sales (I don't have the exact numbers). This is not a resounding loss for GM. The fact that the sales numbers are so close says that both brands are good trucks. And this has been true for many years.
Some of Fords sales are because they can advertise that they are #1. There are some individuals who will buy Ford primarily for that reason. Just like if GM didn't have both Chevy and GMC trucks, they would have lower sales. Because some buyers want to buy a truck from a "truck only" dealer.
BTW, any change in sales ranking can't happen in a short time. Maybe 20% of us buy a new truck each year, and of those, maybe only 25% of us seriously consider a different brand (i.e., spend hours talking, inspecting and driving other brands). And since one brand is not head-and-shoulders above the others, very few buyers actually change brands in a single year. And over several years, the manufacturers can react to any minor shift in buying trends to stay competitive. To repeat my point, sales are so close between Ford and GM year after year to prove that they are competitively matched.
Ford still has 3 models of truck that are 10 years newer in design in the Superduty class. The C/K is not an eye catcher like the F & D big rigs. I will concede after the the NEW GM HD's come out and GM still gets beat, with an all new lineup across the board.
read: loophole tillnext year buddy!
As far as it being an early test of quality... that's why they call it an initial quality award. What is being measured is the initial build quality and assembly. Do the parts all fit together... Did the buttons fall off the first time you used them... etc
The Tundra was #1.
I agree that #1 in JD Power is not the "end-all" award. I agree that the margin between the Tundra and other trucks is not clear with JD Power's award. I also agree that the Tundra is not the right truck for a lot of buyers.
My point of all this was to try to explain the difference between JD Power's Award and the other awards (motor trend truck of the year, etc). Some of us were confusing opinions versus data.
No, sorry, i don't think I'm wrong, i think i'm just not communicating exactly what I'm talking about. I also just don't buy into the fact ANY manufacturer would hold back performance potential just as a tease. THE MORE IT PERFORMS, THE BIGGER THE ADVANTAGE, WHY NOT HAVE THE BIGGEST ADVANGATE?
I've been in product engineering my whole life, and I can tell you this, engineering is a big daily trade-off. You always know what you can do, BUT, there is always that deadline. It doesn't move. So in this case, there are always technical issues that arise from having say the 210 hp engine vs the 260 hp engine. The problem is figuring out how many of those issues you can confidently tackle by the deadline. And there is not one single day that goes by where you don't have to decide "do I spend 5 hours and work on this prob more, or do I just go with this other solution that I know will work, but won't be quite as good."
THis is how the product engineering environment works, hypothetical situation:
If I worked at Ford, say I was working on this engine. I knew I could get 190hp, but I had an idea on how to get 210 and another idea to get 240. My boss and marketing are interested and they ALWAYS WANT THE MOST POSSIBLE. so they tell me "Let us know what it would cost and how long it would take to develop 250 hp." I say OK. I work, research, try different things, do some tests. I come back to them 4 weeks later. I tell them, I know I can get 210 hp, I know it will meet emissions and I can easily have it ready for production by August 1st. Now the 240 hp version, we will have to develop this ----- first, which will require more engineers and some new equipment if we are going to get prototypes in time to test and qualify and be factory ready by August. I also found a way to do 260 hp, but I would have to change this part of the head which could seriously affect the valve train, so we need to spend a LOT of time studying this to make sure this change doesn't compromise the reliability.
Then marketing will say, "OK, since we have to be in production by August, we will just go with the 210 hp this year. In the meantime, we will test the 240 hp version and get it ready for next year. We will also set up a small team to research the 260 hp engine, and hopefully the design will be in line for production in 3 years.
Thats the way it goes. In all products: computers, cars, watches, toasters, TVs...everything.
Not trying to be condescending toward you or Ford, just trying to get across why I think the development pans out as is.
And to answer your other question, why they could develop a 300 hp 4.6, well thats easy. Its called the SVT team. They have a dedicated team of engineers that work on NOTHING but getting that engine to super high performance. Cost and time are NOT as much a factor to them, because it is a high end product. They can do individual engineering tweaks and changes to the engine because it is a low volume, special made engine that won't be made on their normal high volume lines. This also means quality control, inventory control, product test, and qualification is MUCH easier to do and control since the volume is low.
Ryan
LOL
Babbling is Ryans department...I have been skipping over all this crud...
too long to hear Toy owners babble about crud..
- Tim
Harry
Zbill and Ryan have both said exactly what i'm trying to say. PLEASE reread my post--you are not understanding what I'm saying.
Why don't they just plop out the 600 hp 5.4 right now? No one would buy anything but Ford, right?
@!@!@ You dont' just s**t an engine in a day.
The chip industry is the PERFECT example. They've been able to making 1500 Mhz chips for some time now. But are they in the market? No. Why do you ask? Because they are not efficient. Because the manufacturing is so complex and they are not tooled for high production--Dell, Compaq, Gateway, etc have not developed the chipset motherboards and linking technologies to incorporate them yet. Some shortage in a part or engineering change could delay it. But next year, you can bet your booty, PRICES COME DOWN--because manufacturing has been refined, technology is FULLY DEVELOPED, and the 'pipeline' is in place. BUt today, if someone wanted to build 500,000 computers with 1 Ghz chips--they would all cost $8000 and no one would buy them. EXACTLY MY POINT. dont' you think that if one company could offer a chip to the market that is twice as fast as the world right now--they would make a 98% market share instead of their 40% current? That is sheltered.
Please reread my examples. I understand the marketing side of products because I deal with marketing EVERY DAY. If you are in marketing and you do this, please cite examples. I don't offer hearsay, nor do i listen to it.
And I think you are being very naive to think that engineers can just come up with huge horsepowers on a snap and immediately put them into production.
I'm in the business, I'm telling you, it doesn't happen that way. Just because a special team (i.e. Special Vehicle Team)of engineers at Ford can build a 300 hp 4.6, doesn't mean they can easily qualify and ramp up 50X production numbers of a new engine that will
I don't work at Ford, so maybe they can magically do that, but nobody else in the world can.
So I will go to bed knowing I'm right, you'll go to bed knowing you're right, and we're all happy.
I'm not saying the world revolves around engineers, But, they make the whole thing possible in the first place, and the go or no-go starts there.
Can you actually believe fords motto??? Quality is job #1??? Thats totally wrong all BS its $$$.
Does this make sense??? If you need more clarification let me know.
Ryan
The sales numbers are darn right pathetic...
- Tim
Dean
If Toyota owners put more emphasis on quality, that would penalize them in the JD Power's Award.
I also agree that initial quality is not as important as long-term, but I'm not aware of any long-term DATA. The initial quality is just an indication of how well the assembly went and how well the plant operates.
Tim - where are the recent sales #'s just out of curiousity?
You really need to read my post, try slowly. I'm sorry if my background makes me communicate this unclearly to outsiders. I didn't mean Ford was clueless to how to make the highpower engine. IF YOU READ MY LONG POST, I EXPLAIN THAT. They couldn't put it place economically at the time. The SVT Mustang engine is that power because IT HAS 40 ENGINEERS PER PROJECT, as opposed to the regular production stuff which is about 5 engineers per project.
Sorry if I didn't make this clear before.
to your market share theory, I just don't agree with it because what I have seen is that as soon as a 'better' product is cost effective as the previous version, it is put in place as fast as possible. I quoted examples. you can't convince me anything less. where are these facts that make me mad?
Guilty conscience? hardly. just wondered why you were taking the tones you were. I think i understand now, though. Don't expect someone to admit they're wrong when they've given proof they aren't.
Sampson why do you keep talking about the JD power survey??? Its a survey (peoples OPINIONS). It means very little.
Ryan
Wow!..look at the awesome stats for the T100 as well!!...some months are 7!!..even as low as 1 made per month.....wow..what a company...
Now look at real sales figures...
http://www.ai-online.com/stats/chevrolet.htm
http://www.ai-online.com/stats/ford.htm
This site is amusing.....they list the Tundra and the T100 as the same truck.....as they should be..
http://www.ai-online.com/stats/2000FullSizePickup-na.htm
June 99...8,011 Tundras and 52,296 for Silverado, and 81,275 for F Series...
The awesome Toy just blows the domestics away....DOHH!
Any more Doubt?
- Tim
- Tim
Cdean, I was under the impression your ORIGINAL feelings were that the Technology wasn't available. Now you're saying it's cost effectiveness that dictate the changes.
If we can look at this from an abstract(?) view. Not releasing your best right away is making SOME people want/need to trade up sooner then they normally would. How many people do you think would have kept their 235 hP 5.4's longer if it wasn't for the NEW AND IMPROVED 260 hp. If Ford had been unseated in sales and it was determined that it was because of lack of performance you bet we would have seen some monster motors like right NOW.
Take the Lincoln Navigator for instance. Ford felt that in order to compete with upscale SUV's they needed to have the hottest motor going. They slapped some 7 year old DOHC 4 Valve heads on the 5.4 and made 300 horsepower. That "technology" was there for a while. Ford's going with a 3 valve head for the 5.4 in a year or two. Why? small steps to keep the sales flow going IMHO.
I know I waited about 6 months because Ford's V10 went from 275 hP to 310hp.
Dean
Please don't tell me to get a real truck to haul it. My Tundra does fine. LOL
I would never buy a Tundra...or a Dodge...just my opinion...but the fact remains Toyota sold or are on their way to sell 100,000 units
Dean
Ryan
I think most Tundra owners considered all 3 before purchase. I think buying a truck based on looks is a pretty shallow concept.
Tim -
Thanks for the sales info. I never doubted it, just wanted to know where I could find it for future reference. I don't think Toyota will ever be in the top #2 in sales... but, then again, I don't really care.
Ryan
some months 1 T100 sold??....in the entire country!?....why make them?
TP,
I'll have to stop on by if in NC some time....that is IF you think a Silverado could make it??
LOL
- Tim
"Basically, I'm saying they simply could NOT get
260 hp out of the 5.4 until this year."???
That is a direct quote from your post. I have read your posts. You have given no examples other than what I gave, which were abstractions about the computer industry in general, among others. I think Ryan was saying what I was saying. It all comes down to the dollar. They are trying to maximize both volume of sales and profit margin per sale. Putting a 500 hp motor into a truck would accomplish the first goal, but would definitely be at the expense of the second. Mod made a good point and he used a real world example. The Navigator engine. It is clear that Ford now has the technology to make a durable 300 hp out of the 5.4. Actually they have had it since late '98 ('99 model Navigators). SO, now that it is three years later and they have had plenty of time to "tool-up", are those 4 valve heads going to be on the 2001 F-150's? No!! In fact, they are waiting to switch to 3V heads until 2003. Then they are "saving" the 4V heads till later. It will take just as much time, energy, and money to "tool-up" for the new 3V heads as it would for 4V so it is CLEAR, that they ARE, without a doubt, using incrementalism. Is that a good enough real-world example??? Does that prove my point? Will you admit you were wrong??? Do you need to re-read this post, slowly?