I said it, but your out of context, literal interpretation is not what i meant.
Your last post is REAlLY close to what I was trying to say, Bigsnag. I'm apparently communcating it very poorly.
Your last example is EXACTLY what i was trying to get across!! What you said in your last post contradicts what you've been saying. You've been saying that Ford holds back and teases for the sole purpose of teasing. and only offers up a little each year, and that if they wanted to they could jump 100 hp a year. Thats what i've taken from you're post. I was argueing how it was technically not possible.
My use of the word technology has caused the major confusion. When I said Ford didn't have the technology in '96, I meant it there--only in the case of the 5.4. Not to Ford overall, which is what I think is how i came across. I'm saying that very special attention (manpower) was given to projects like SVT Mustang and the Navigator to get the engine where it was. That attention wasn't given to the 5.4. There were actual, tangible, physical differences between '96 and '99 that did NOT EXIST anywhere in Ford that allowed them to majorly increase mileage and power. I can tell you actual part and configuration differences. I call this technology because of what it does to the combustion. AT the very least, if they HAD the actual technology, they would have at least used it for CAFE.
I NEVER never meant that it couldn't be done. I want to get across the technical time cycles it takes to make these jumps a high volume, tested and proven (to EPA) reality.
I think we are starting to say the same thing, just from very very different backgrounds. My 4th paragraph of Post 126 is best example i've given i think, and says what i've been trying to say.
And the answer is no, I'm still not wrong. all my examples have been exactly what goes on in a specific product development cycle.
I don't see the 100,000 units sold of Tundra as sales that came from the big three. Actually I think that a lot of these sales are people coming from a tacoma, ranger, or s-10 and looking for the next step- a mid size truck that looks like the #1 seller. Maybe its taking a few dakota sales away also as they are most similar in size and specs.
Who cares what the sales numbers of various trucks are? Maybe salesmen or manufacturers? As a truck owner I could care less. The T100 had abyssmal sales and yet when I checked before buying my Tundra the T100 resale was so high that I decided to buy new.
I am planning to keep my truck at least 10 years. Why would I care what truck sales are?
Even if I cared about resale, Toyota truck resale has always been fantastic. Why would I think the Tundra would be different?
I guess that you could hypothesize that Toyota resale or quality will go to he** in a handbasket, but you cannot base that on prior history. In fact, the opposite is true.
In short, you cannot state the reliability of the Tundra anymore than you can any other new truck. The Tundra is new for 2000, the Chevy is new for 1999, the Ford is new for 1997. How can you predict long term reliability (>5yrs.) for any of these?
You have to go with manufacturer's reputation for reliability. Toyota is much better than the Big3.
This being said, the Chevy is in the dumpster for short and long term reliabiliy. The Chevy owners posting in this group don't seem to be too concerned about this. Maybe that is why they own Chevies.
The Ford family of Modular motors was built on the basis of interchangeability. The 4.6 and 5.4 motors share heads, pistons, bearings, etc. The V10 share rods, pistons, bearings and valves, springs etc. The crankshafts are obviously different and the 5.4 uses a taller block then the 4.6.
The 4.6 DOHC 4Valve motor was originally a '92-'93 Lincoln Mark 8 motor rated at 280 horsepower, it was also used in the front wheel drive Continental in a detuned state. No SVT, SVO or SVE involvement. The 4valve heads ARE A DIRECT BOLT ON to the 5.4 block as evidenced by the Navigator motor.
The point to all this is the technology has been there for 8+ years. Ford didn't ignore it for cost reasons or technology reasons. They ignored 'cause they didn't need it. It would take away future sales if they gave the truck buyers an engine that was 3- 5 years ahead of GM. By staying even and leap frogging each other it stimulates sales.
Out of context or not, you said the technology wasn't there for a 260 horse motor. Even if you meant the budget wasn't there, or the time wasn't there I politely disagree. Ford chose not to use it just yet.
Toys are known for 10 year throw aways.....so since that is your time frame....I guess it works out perfect for you!
I'm just saying if all the comic books were Gods word..(which you seem to think so)...then I guess people would be running out to buy them....when the fact is...they are not even putting a dent in the "full size" market....so the mid size market is where they go to......
I lose no sleep over any of this....buy a Mid size Tundra and feel that you have bought the best.....Your decision just makes for more laughs with me and the guys at the bar..(like last night..had the whole front bar going)
Enjoy them midsize tundras..........Cuz them yuppys be thinkin' the tundra be full size..truth of the matter is...."Tundra = less truck for more buck!!"
(darn did your blood pressure go up just then bamat)
I would agree that maybe we both could have done a better job of communicating our point and I think we are closer to agreeing than we previuosly thought. However, I will take the side of Mod. It is pretty obvious that the technology was there they just chose not to use it, for whatever reason, and I would bet it had something to do with money.
Does this make the Silverado/Sierra GM's mid-sized trucks? That would make the S-10 GM's subcompact truck, right? Now the Silverado/Sierra can claim the "biggest, most powerful mid-sized truck available in the USA...."
They just aint gettin it, and never will, till they hear that tacoma drivetrain snappin first time they be "workin" that tundra. Snap, crackle, pop. That be that sound them tundras be makin when put too "workin". And why, ya may be askin? Cuz they got that tacoma drivetrain under em. Use your eyes for the facts on this one. Good luck on this one now!
Bigsnag and Mod, thats good proof, and I can swallow that pill. I 'still' don't think that runs all cases, from my experience and from the documented evolution of the 5.4, but then again, I don't work in the car industry.
I have always stayed with my first statement..the 3 door is fine, but yes i would rather have a 4 door..(only cuz it would have a drivers rear door)..but I would not wait for the 4 door.
Next 'Ado I have no choice..but if it had a 3rd drivers door..that would be fine..
Hey?...is this topic wandering?....come on Toy Jokes....tell some more funny stuff..
...the GM line instead or Ford, they would sell even more! The Japanese have a hard time understanding what Americans want. That's how they erred in labeling a mid size truck as a full size.
Need to maybe drop in america once in awhile to see what people here want. Then maybe they could possibly be #1. AHHH what am i talking about nah probably not
I don't understand where you are going. Is this what you think..
People want trucks that looks like Fords.
Therefore Toyota makes a truck that looks like a Ford.
Therefore people will buy Toyota?????
That's ridiculous.
The looks of a truck is probably one of the LAST things that most truck drivers consider. You know, kinda like pickin out the color after you've decided on everything else.
I think if you really want an answer to your question, you will have to contact Toyota. Everything else is pure speculation. I wouldn't have cared if the Tundra was shaped like the Tacoma.. would have made sense. But like I said, the way it looks is probably the last consideration for me.
About the different sizes, I've said it a bunch of times, but here goes again. Some people actually prefer a slightly smaller truck. It suits their needs better. Some people want the biggest. BOTH CHOICES ARE FINE AND HAVE NO BEARING ON WHICH TRUCK IS "BETTER".
Your full of BS sampson. Flat out. How can you say people dont choose trucks over looks??? I would be lying if i said i didnt. Thats not the only reason but its an important reason.
Dont get me wrong people choose for relaibilty dependability and other reasons but deep down subconsciously looks come into it big time.
Back in the 80's would you have bought a dodge??? Probably not and the biggest reason i bet was looks.
Im curious whats in your top 10??? I think looks has to be in the top 10 choices. It might be ugly to someone else but not to another but still thats deciding based on looks.
You are right, I wouldn't have bought a dodge in the '80s. But that has nothing to do with looks.
The top 10 is actually a question worthy of its own topic. I won't put them in order of importance, but here are 10 that I consider more important than looks:
Price - I won't be buying one of those leather-lined, luxury liners for a pick-up.
Durability - how do I think it will hold up to heavy use. (example - a tank is durable even if it only starts when it's warm)
Reliability - related to durability, but more along the lines of how much do I think I can trust it to run. (example - a bicycle almost always works).
Towing Capabilities - whatever I buy has to be able to tow the trailers I need towed.
Seating Capacity - I need something that will seat 2 adults and have room leftover for baby seats (preferably with 4 doors for easy access).
4X4 Capability - gotta have 4 wheel drive (even if only two of them will be spinning when I get stuck).
Mileage - no V10s for me.
Comfort - don't want my legs going numb on those 10 hour drives.
Driving performance - in additon to comfort, can I pass safely, brake safely, and not roll-over on a corner.
Amenities - I love the little stuff like good cupholders, standard tow hooks, good tie-downs in the bed, etc.
Bed Capabilities - I have to have a 6 foot plus bed at a MINIMUM. If the Tundra's bed was a couple inches shorter I wouldn't have gotten one.
Re-sale - like it or not, someday I will have to sell it.
I would rate looks down there in the tier with whether or not I like the sound of the name.
I bought my truck because of personal preference. I don't know anything about gear ratio's and stuff. For all I know I bought the worst truck in the world. I do enjoy it though. I'm sure you all enjoy your trucks as well.
No top 10 for me only one - Value. Which trucks offers what your looking for for the best value. It may cost a little more, use a little more gas, etc., etc., but the overall value is better than the rest, then you buy.
S-10 & Ranger 7/10 of a truck. Dakota 8/10 of a truck. Toy. Tundra 9/10 truck. Silverado/F-150/Ram 10/10 truck. Super Duty 11/10 truck. Or somewhere close to this. Either 8ths, 10ths, or 12ths, but you get my point.
I believe Ford makes a darn good truck...but I prefer the Chevy look...always have.
Be it a house/car/truck/bike/clothes/person..whatever..looks are the FIRST thing that people go for....yeah when you get to know that car/person/etc..maybe it's not all about what's on the outside...but I believe looks are very important..
while one person may find a Chevy horrible...I like it....just like one guys wife may be a dog to me...but to him..she is the Queen of his life....is either wrong?....no...it's personal opinion..
Looks are very important....unless you buy a Tundra I guess?...you must be blind then!
The Ford F150 copied the Tacoma styling in '97. The Tundra copied the styling of the Tacoma - family resemblance. Now you guys are saying that the Tundra copied the Ford. What a laugh. Try again.
I love my Tundra. Best truck I have ever driven and I am not going to get into the my truck is better then your truck argument because it simply is better for me. Nuff said.
That fact out of the way, Toyota came right out and said during the development of the Tundra or T150 back then, that they were using the Ford F150 as a benchmark in order to design the Tundra. They did not want another T100 fiasco and basically took lessons from the best selling truck in the country, probably the world. Do I think they made it better, hell yes but they did "copy" or take design cues from the F150. Smart marketing to me. Most of the people I have met who own Tundras bought them because they originally had Fords and liked the "Perceived Toyata Reliability." Most people shopping are comparing Fords and Toyota right now.
Anyway 10000 some miles on my Tundra no problems whatsoever. Perfect size and very comfortable for me. Does all I need it to do and much much more. There is no point in arguing mostly because I like all the trucks on the market right now except for the Nissans. I really like what I am hearing about the New Ford Rangers coming out. I wouldn't trade my Tundra for anything though. I still contend that the Tundra is a full size wash and wax!!!
No response to my post #186? I bet that a higher PERCENTAGE of T100/Tacoma owners traded in for a Tundra than the PERCENTAGE of C/K & Silverado owners that traded for a Tundra.
that the Tundra design followed the Ford look. F150? I always thought the Tundra's looked familiar when it first came out.
It was a toss up between the F150 and the Tundra when I was shopping. I just happen to choose the Tundra. Been a Toyota buyer. I can't help it because I've had Toyotas and never had problems. Well major problems that is. No perfect vehicle out there.
My buddy who bought the F150 put in some accessories. He put on a brush guard and step side. Looks cool.
if toyota will come out with a tundra 250? Will it have the front end look of the F-250 with the grill sticking out a little more??? I give it a few yrs and itll happen watch.
with a GM motor. I say the more the merrier. Will only make the trucks were driving get even better. I'll say it again - the Tundra's not bad it just needs to grow a little. I see the next generation S-10 growing and other compacts will probably follow suit to compete more with the Dakota. So where does that leave the Tundra? Maybe there will be small, medium, and large trucks, but I think one will be Dakota sized, one will be Silverado/F-150 size, and one will be Superduty size. I don't see any inbetween's being successful here, but I've been wrong before...
In 2003 the F150 will have a total makeover so I wonder if Toyota will follow suit.They will also have a new 5.4 and a V6 deisel with 450 lbs of tourque probably capable of towing 10,000 lbs and an engine good for at least 300,000 miles.I can't believe that post that the F150 copied the Tacoma #1 selling truck for 23 years and they copy a compact import,BTW the Tundra sales are slipping even more it seems every month they sell less and less trucks,I've noticed prices being slashed in the newspapers and used ones in the classified. I like what I've been reading on the new ranger there's a picture at blueoval along with a picture of the 2001.5 lightning.The ranger will be making a model called the tremor with a 560 watt stereo system it will be a supercab but the back will be all bass tubes and speakers from the factory,not for me but I'm sure they'll sell.
cause it's such a well made truck!! Size is probably it. People either want a compact or fullsize. And like I said the compacts will probably grow to Dakota size like the new S-10 leaving little room for a inbetweener...
Comments
Your last post is REAlLY close to what I was trying to say, Bigsnag. I'm apparently communcating it very poorly.
Your last example is EXACTLY what i was trying to get across!! What you said in your last post contradicts what you've been saying. You've been saying that Ford holds back and teases for the sole purpose of teasing. and only offers up a little each year, and that if they wanted to they could jump 100 hp a year. Thats what i've taken from you're post. I was argueing how it was technically not possible.
My use of the word technology has caused the major confusion. When I said Ford didn't have the technology in '96, I meant it there--only in the case of the 5.4. Not to Ford overall, which is what I think is how i came across. I'm saying that very special attention (manpower) was given to projects like SVT Mustang and the Navigator to get the engine where it was. That attention wasn't given to the 5.4. There were actual, tangible, physical differences between '96 and '99 that did NOT EXIST anywhere in Ford that allowed them to majorly increase mileage and power. I can tell you actual part and configuration differences. I call this technology because of what it does to the combustion. AT the very least, if they HAD the actual technology, they would have at least used it for CAFE.
I NEVER never meant that it couldn't be done. I want to get across the technical time cycles it takes to make these jumps a high volume, tested and proven (to EPA) reality.
I think we are starting to say the same thing, just from very very different backgrounds. My 4th paragraph of Post 126 is best example i've given i think, and says what i've been trying to say.
And the answer is no, I'm still not wrong. all my examples have been exactly what goes on in a specific product development cycle.
I am planning to keep my truck at least 10 years. Why would I care what truck sales are?
Even if I cared about resale, Toyota truck resale has always been fantastic. Why would I think the Tundra would be different?
I guess that you could hypothesize that Toyota resale or quality will go to he** in a handbasket, but you cannot base that on prior history. In fact, the opposite is true.
In short, you cannot state the reliability of the Tundra anymore than you can any other new truck. The Tundra is new for 2000, the Chevy is new for 1999, the Ford is new for 1997. How can you predict long term reliability (>5yrs.) for any of these?
You have to go with manufacturer's reputation for reliability. Toyota is much better than the Big3.
This being said, the Chevy is in the dumpster for short and long term reliabiliy. The Chevy owners posting in this group don't seem to be too concerned about this. Maybe that is why they own Chevies.
The 4.6 DOHC 4Valve motor was originally a '92-'93 Lincoln Mark 8 motor rated at 280 horsepower, it was also used in the front wheel drive Continental in a detuned state. No SVT, SVO or SVE involvement. The 4valve heads ARE A DIRECT BOLT ON to the 5.4 block as evidenced by the Navigator motor.
The point to all this is the technology has been there for 8+ years. Ford didn't ignore it for cost reasons or technology reasons. They ignored 'cause they didn't need it. It would take away future sales if they gave the truck buyers an engine that was 3- 5 years ahead of GM. By staying even and leap frogging each other it stimulates sales.
Out of context or not, you said the technology wasn't there for a 260 horse motor. Even if you meant the budget wasn't there, or the time wasn't there I politely disagree. Ford chose not to use it just yet.
Toys are known for 10 year throw aways.....so since that is your time frame....I guess it works out perfect for you!
I'm just saying if all the comic books were Gods word..(which you seem to think so)...then I guess people would be running out to buy them....when the fact is...they are not even putting a dent in the "full size" market....so the mid size market is where they go to......
I lose no sleep over any of this....buy a Mid size Tundra and feel that you have bought the best.....Your decision just makes for more laughs with me and the guys at the bar..(like last night..had the whole front bar going)
Enjoy them midsize tundras..........Cuz them yuppys be thinkin' the tundra be full size..truth of the matter is...."Tundra = less truck for more buck!!"
(darn did your blood pressure go up just then bamat)
- Tim
I get so full of tears from laughing at Toys....I can't see the keys!!
bamatundra
who is your post directed to? Doesn't look like your normal cut and paste. I didn't see any previous post that yours could have referred to.
Keep up the good work yaking about the "superior" tundra..
TP,
Maybe we can make it Uphill both ways??
heheh
- Tim
thats good proof, and I can swallow that pill. I 'still' don't think that runs all cases, from my experience and from the documented evolution of the 5.4, but then again, I don't work in the car industry.
Or izuzu (hombre) copy the looks of the S-10
Its really sad these foreign automakers have no design of their own. No imagination just copy and paste.
Next 'Ado I have no choice..but if it had a 3rd drivers door..that would be fine..
Hey?...is this topic wandering?....come on Toy Jokes....tell some more funny stuff..
- Tim
Ryan
Ryan
People want trucks that looks like Fords.
Therefore Toyota makes a truck that looks like a Ford.
Therefore people will buy Toyota?????
That's ridiculous.
The looks of a truck is probably one of the LAST things that most truck drivers consider. You know, kinda like pickin out the color after you've decided on everything else.
I think if you really want an answer to your question, you will have to contact Toyota. Everything else is pure speculation. I wouldn't have cared if the Tundra was shaped like the Tacoma.. would have made sense. But like I said, the way it looks is probably the last consideration for me.
About the different sizes, I've said it a bunch of times, but here goes again. Some people actually prefer a slightly smaller truck. It suits their needs better. Some people want the biggest. BOTH CHOICES ARE FINE AND HAVE NO BEARING ON WHICH TRUCK IS "BETTER".
Remember... there is no perfect truck.
Dont get me wrong people choose for relaibilty dependability and other reasons but deep down subconsciously looks come into it big time.
Ryan
Im curious whats in your top 10??? I think looks has to be in the top 10 choices. It might be ugly to someone else but not to another but still thats deciding based on looks.
Ryan
The top 10 is actually a question worthy of its own topic. I won't put them in order of importance, but here are 10 that I consider more important than looks:
Price - I won't be buying one of those leather-lined, luxury liners for a pick-up.
Durability - how do I think it will hold up to heavy use. (example - a tank is durable even if it only starts when it's warm)
Reliability - related to durability, but more along the lines of how much do I think I can trust it to run. (example - a bicycle almost always works).
Towing Capabilities - whatever I buy has to be able to tow the trailers I need towed.
Seating Capacity - I need something that will seat 2 adults and have room leftover for baby seats (preferably with 4 doors for easy access).
4X4 Capability - gotta have 4 wheel drive (even if only two of them will be spinning when I get stuck).
Mileage - no V10s for me.
Comfort - don't want my legs going numb on those 10 hour drives.
Driving performance - in additon to comfort, can I pass safely, brake safely, and not roll-over on a corner.
Amenities - I love the little stuff like good cupholders, standard tow hooks, good tie-downs in the bed, etc.
Bed Capabilities - I have to have a 6 foot plus bed at a MINIMUM. If the Tundra's bed was a couple inches shorter I wouldn't have gotten one.
Re-sale - like it or not, someday I will have to sell it.
I would rate looks down there in the tier with whether or not I like the sound of the name.
Have a great day!
Comfort and seating capacity could be 1
Price and Mileage all come down to COST
so does resale value
Only 1 i dont get is 4x4 capability??? If you get a 4x4 it has capability.
Ryan
S-10 & Ranger 7/10 of a truck. Dakota 8/10 of a truck. Toy. Tundra 9/10 truck. Silverado/F-150/Ram 10/10 truck. Super Duty 11/10 truck. Or somewhere close to this. Either 8ths, 10ths, or 12ths, but you get my point.
Welcome back Rube. I knew he would be back...
Rube shows us this
haha
Ryan
I believe Ford makes a darn good truck...but I prefer the Chevy look...always have.
Be it a house/car/truck/bike/clothes/person..whatever..looks are the FIRST thing that people go for....yeah when you get to know that car/person/etc..maybe it's not all about what's on the outside...but I believe looks are very important..
while one person may find a Chevy horrible...I like it....just like one guys wife may be a dog to me...but to him..she is the Queen of his life....is either wrong?....no...it's personal opinion..
Looks are very important....unless you buy a Tundra I guess?...you must be blind then!
..BTW....What happened to the "U" on the side?
- Tim
....1/2 BBL. Of Dunkel - $127
...Entertainment Value of Toyota fans - Priceless
- Tim
Rube propbably doesn't even know why, so if someone who actually owns a silverado knows, please explain.
LS's used to have it earlier in the year..but a supplier problem with cracking windows forced them to drop it for now.
- Tim
Pure denial now. This is so funny. Tim your commercial would be great better than the WASSSUP bud commercial.
Ryan
That fact out of the way, Toyota came right out and said during the development of the Tundra or T150 back then, that they were using the Ford F150 as a benchmark in order to design the Tundra. They did not want another T100 fiasco and basically took lessons from the best selling truck in the country, probably the world. Do I think they made it better, hell yes but they did "copy" or take design cues from the F150. Smart marketing to me. Most of the people I have met who own Tundras bought them because they originally had Fords and liked the "Perceived Toyata Reliability." Most people shopping are comparing Fords and Toyota right now.
Anyway 10000 some miles on my Tundra no problems whatsoever. Perfect size and very comfortable for me. Does all I need it to do and much much more. There is no point in arguing mostly because I like all the trucks on the market right now except for the Nissans. I really like what I am hearing about the New Ford Rangers coming out. I wouldn't trade my Tundra for anything though. I still contend that the Tundra is a full size wash and wax!!!
Enjoy your trucks.
What i dont like is when people DENY the fact that you just pointed out.
Ryan
It was a toss up between the F150 and the Tundra when I was shopping. I just happen to choose the Tundra. Been a Toyota buyer. I can't help it because I've had Toyotas and never had problems. Well major problems that is. No perfect vehicle out there.
My buddy who bought the F150 put in some accessories. He put on a brush guard and step side. Looks cool.
Have a great day!
Ryan
People say the Tundra is not a full size truck, what dimensions does it have to be, to be called 'full size'?
I like the name Tindra, that was funny, forgot who post that!
Next on the full size import news. Nissan has one coming out in 2 yrs
Ryan
I have a friend who lives in Munich, she said she saw a Tacoma there, and it was like an enigma to the Germans! haha!
I like what I've been reading on the new ranger there's a picture at blueoval along with a picture of the 2001.5 lightning.The ranger will be making a model called the tremor with a 560 watt stereo system it will be a supercab but the back will be all bass tubes and speakers from the factory,not for me but I'm sure they'll sell.