You can't logically reason with bamatundra about anything. After all, Consumer Reports??? Gimme a break. And as usual, he is clueless and posts a bunch of unfounded crap that nobody is even interested in. Ford IS still replacing piston slap engines. Anyone who is claiming Ford isn't, are the ones like bamatundra who went to their dealers half cocked and clueless,demanding this and demanding that. Using bamatundra's illogical thought processes, a guy probably wouldn't get an oil change accomplished, let alone any warranty work.
Toyota did extend the powertrain only warranties on their junk V6's that had head gasket problems, but only for the head gaskets, nothing else. In addition, the cause of the head gaskets going out, in many cases as soon as a couple thousand miles from new, is a design flaw. Heads were too small to handle the pressure. How long did Toyota know about the problem? Long before the T100 was designed. How long after they knew about the problem did Toyota continue putting that same poorly designed engines in their vehicles? Only about 6 years!
Ford has and still is making good on their piston slap engines that never caused a failure or performance problem at all, even after warranty. Again, bamatundra posting unfounded crap. Not only that, but they "FIXED" their design flaw in not 6 years, but 2 1/2. Big difference.
Make up your mind. I haven't posted in a couple of days, but I gather that you guys were going to be civil and avoid personal attacks. Read F150rules last post. What happened?
I also read that you wanted to compare reliability ratings of similar vehicles (trucks). I agree. The T100 is the most similar truck that Toyota has made for a period of several years.
I'm sorry that you don't like the results, but facts are facts.
Bigsnag - the Ford did well in reliability, but not as well as the T100.
no comments needed. Bama just entirely contradicted himself. pretty funny.
When going to those links, I urge you to click on the symbols and read what the probs where. The Chevrolets showed significant problems a couple of years, but it was only one problem---early fuel pump failures. (which is something I guess I should expect on my truck now, and maybe take early action against it.) The Toyotas showed several problems, all much more expensive. Thats just not proof of this 'wonderful engineering' and quality we have to listen to around here.
I was surprised by the clean slate on the Dodges. My personal experience has been the exact opposite. Then again, I don't make it all the way across America, either...
"I also read that you wanted to compare reliability ratings of similar vehicles (trucks). I agree. The T100 is the most similar truck that Toyota has made for a period of several years.
I'm sorry that you don't like the results, but facts are facts.
Bigsnag - the Ford did well in reliability, but not as well as the T100."
in your previous post, you were whining about apples and oranges. now, you're willing to compare the t-100...glad to see you've made up your mind.
now, i ask you again. what makes CR's evaluations and ratings better than the information msn carpoint gathered from over 30k participating service centers?
Several posts back youbetcha asked where the Dodge owners were. I think we just stop in and read the posts get a laugh about the arguements and get back on the road I can honestly say this is the most entertaining topic I have found.Everybody is talking about reliability right now and so far my 98 Ram with the 24v cummmins has cost me a grand total of $17.50 in repairs after 3 years and 60,000 miles that seems pretty reliable seeing that I live in Alaska and the truck is run in temperature well below -50F on a regular basis in the winter. By the way I keep my laptop computer in the center console of my truck when I am on the road,where do you tundra owners keep your laptop when you are on the road? I saw more proof of how well Tundras are selling in the Northwest yesterday when I checked the mail and found a flier for the Tundra they are offering rebates of up to 2000 dollars and no payments for 150 days on all 2000 Tundras.Maybe I will go down to the dealer and tell them if they can find a Tundra that will haul more,and out tow my Ram I will buy it.....maybe not it is just a waste of my time seeing that Tundras only come in pint size and I need a 3/4 ton.
I think my Tundra has no comparison to your 3/4 ton Ram. I won't even try to compare my truck to yours because I'm not even sure what tonage my truck is?! If that was the basis for comparison.
I like my Tundra very much but I'm not going to claim it to be the best. After all it is pint size. I do hope it last as long as my other Toyotas. I hope to avoid any recalls also! My Tacoma had the gasket and front suspension recall on it. Didn't cost me a dime but still a pain in the rear to go get it done.
Nobody can post entirely civil to you. You ride the fence with your arguements. You avoid questions, topics, or bend things to suit your point at the time. Posting that crap about the piston slap was pretty lame. Everyone knows the story on Ford ps. PS was never a reliability concern anyway, only an annoyance.
Interesting how you can find the T100 more reliable when all I see across the board, every year Toyota trucks had red x's in the engine column indicating serious problem or problems. Ford had none. Guess that is yet again another time you saw what you wanted to see to fit your "lack of point".
You're right. You can't reason with him. I told him I'd give him the notion that Toyota's have better reliability, but the margin is so miniscule that it really doesn't matter. He couldn't seem to understand. I'll say it again. Toyota's are more reliable. BUT, if they are more reliable than something that doesn't have reliability problems in the first place, how is that an advantage?? Oh... I guess it's not...hmmm. Well then it comes down to other things, among which the Toy is close but not up to it, yet.
The good news is...after balancing the front tires the very slight shimmy at 60-65 is gone and the truck once again is smooth as silk. The bad news is the dealer tried to rip me off. They brought out a bill for $30 bucks after they quoted $8 per tire. After talking to some mysterious person "in the back room" the service manager(aka shiester) admitted they had misquoted the price and reduced the charge to $16. This is the same place that insisted on a dealer markup of $3000 on Tundras last year. Guess what! The idiots are still marking up Tundras $3000-4000 over MSRP. They had 10 unsold 2000 Tundras and 2 2001's already on the lot. They also had a limited 4runner marked up to $38,000. This kind of ridiculous price gouging is what sends buyers to Ford (F-150, explorer) in droves. Despite the firestone tires making corpses out of some Ford owners, it has not hurt sales at all!
My daughter spent a week up at her Aunt's. They were going to bring her back today. I just got a call from them and their Suburban had to be towed to the shop. It has some kind of electrical problem. Unless they can get it fixed I'll be driving up to Oregon @1.75 a gallon...Yikes!
I totally agree with a post earlier how, until Toyota can prove that it has something better than what is currently offered, that, people won't flock to them. I think that is true with any vehicle, especially when it is a new offering. I do applaud cdean's comparison, but, I side with bama on the one point about comparing apples to apples. However, bco is right... you can't claim that the T100 was a full size truck... and two wrongs DEFINITELY don't make a right. I guess the only option available for Toyota to compete on a full-size level is to consider the Tundra a "mid-size" truck (where they would do very well against the competition but where they would have to lower their prices), and produce a much larger truck to compete with the domestics. However, I find that the biggest complaints about the Tundra don't come from truck owners that go off-roading, driving through the city, hauling construction supplies, etc. but, from those who insist on towing 10,000 lbs. or going through some extremely adverse conditions. Like I said before... you've gotten the best vehicle for your needs. But, what about those who aren't going to be too concerned about that? What do they have to say about the Tundra? What things other than towing would be of concern? Oh, and, I do know that Dodge trucks with the Cummins Diesel is one of the BEST vehicles they produce. But, I didn't think it was appropriate to bring that calibre truck into this discussion since Toyota does not offer a diesel. $1.75/gallon... try $2.10/gallon out where I am...
My Dodge is considered a "Full size" truck just like the Tundra.I was offer my comparison as it perteins to my needs albeit a little sarcastic but it was meant to be all in fun. One thing I did notice though is the more popular trucks get the higher the manufactures jack up the prices. A 1/2 ton is now right around $30000 I only paid $28500 for my 2500 Quad cab diesel.I hate to see how much trucks will cost in the next 5 years.
If it makes you feel a little better I live in Alaska right next to the pipeline and a refinery and gas is $1.57 diesel $1.54. I dont understand how I can live next to the source of the oil and a refinery and pay more for gas than half the country that doesnt have oil.How many oil fields are in Georgia? and gas there is like $1.35 or something like that.
Just came back from the U.A.E. Gas was @ .35, yep thirty five pennies a gallon. BTW, I saw that hybrid Toyota at the dealer. It gets 57 mpg in the city and 45 mpg on the hwy.
In 5 years, I would just love to have a get together with some of these guys and compare trucks then. As a salesman who sees trucks traded in every week, I can tell you that unless these are the most anal retentive people in the world, our Tundra will look and feel much tighter and quieter than any domestic. In 6 years of selling trucks and seeing every trade in the world, I have only seen one older, high mileage domestic truck that felt like most Toyota trades do. That truck happened to be a Ford Ranger and it stands out because it is the only really nice one I have run across.
The only problem with this is that it is hard to quantify what I'm talking about. There is just an old and loose feeling in many of these trucks. They feel distinctly old and worn out. There may not be anything mechanically wrong with them but they feel used up. Toyota trucks on the other hand have to have been totally ragged to have the same feeling and even then, it isn't as bad. Go to a used car lot sometime and see what I mean. Find a lot that has older trucks on its lot and the difference will jump out at you rather quickly.
but I think your last statement is BS. I sold trucks for awhile myself and did not notice what you just explained. I've run across many good used Ford, GM, and Dodge trucks. I've also run across some good Toyota's, but there are bad ones. I had a harder time selling a good Toyota over a bad domestic. Just my opinion. It is hard to quantify what your saying and I don't know that ANYBODY will agree - that's why it's called an opinion!!!
The T100 is a full size truck. The Tundra is also.
It is full size because:
1) You can get a 4 X 8 foot sheet of plywood flat in the bed. Try that in a Dakota.
2) Toyota says so.
3) Ford, GM, and Dodge all compare their full size trucks to Toyota full size trucks. They must think they are full size (I don't see them comparing their full size to a Dakota)
4) Every single publication and website)(Edmunds, pricewatch, MSN etc.)that I have read list the Tundra as full size . The only place I see the Tundra called midsize is by Big3 owners in this forum. Could that be due to envy?
It is the smallest of the full size (which I like) but it is full size.
Alright Big3 owners - here is your chance, give me your definition of full size and why the Tundra is not. Try to use criteria which can be measured or confirmed, not "Its smaller".
Bigsnag and F15rules - I appreciate your efforts to be civil and avoid personal attacks, but you still have a long way to go. Keep up the good work!
You would be hard pressed to compare trucks in 5 years. The problem is domestic truck owners usually don't keep their trucks that long. In fact, certain members of this board are already trading in their 1999/2000 Silverados in on the 2001 Silverado.
It was just an observation from personal experience. Like I said, I couldn't quantify it if I wanted to but it wouldn't hurt to actually go to a used car lot with older trucks on it. Since the Tundra is obviously new, you would need to look at compacts, T100s or 4Runners but I really think you could tell the difference.
Anyone can say that anyone of thier models are fullsize. Then thier marketing people have to make a case to the buying public and see if they buy it. You feel that toyota has been successful at this and others feel that the buying numbers prove that it does not compete.
I will agree with you that if it is full size then it would have to be the smallest, daintiest full size around. All of the 1/2 ton trucks are Light duty" and I think that the Tundra definately qualifies as light duty.
The carmakers like to make thier offerings a little different from thier competition. This allows them to compete with "different" and not necesarily "better".
Toyota has done well at coming up with something different. There is a market for this slightly softer riding, smaller truck.
you can call the tundra full-sized if you want, it's not going to hurt my feelings. as long you accept and admit that, when comparing it to other full-sized trucks, it's average at best. let's see what categories tundra leads: 1. reliability - not yet proven. 2. payload - no. 3. towing capacity - no. 4. overall power - no. 5. gas mileage - no. 6. acceleration - marginal lead, at best. larger issue here is: anyone dumping $30k into a vehicle with speed in mind should NOT be looking at a 1/2 ton truck. 7. safety - no. 8. build quality, fit/finish/ride - subjective. why subjective? as previously explained, if you are looking for a smooth ride/better handling - you're going to sacrifice payload and towing capacities. so, it's subjective based on what the buyer is shopping for.
tell you what. you guys call me up in 10 years. if it hasn't been stolen or wrecked, i'll still have my silverado. and at that point i'll cede fit and finish to you. because, if the rest of the tundra's interior is built as solidly as their airbags, i'm sure it will still be very tight!!! LOL!
I can't imagine anyone thinking the T-100 is a true full size truck. Plywood test or not. If Toyota put a Tundra bed on the Tacoma and called it a full size would you accept it as such?
Maybe you could tell me how much smaller the Tundra would have to be before you would consider it to be a mid-size. Just for your reference the Mid size Dakota is 215.1 inches, Tundra is 217.5 and the Silverado is 227.6 (all X-cab short bed length), Width is 71.6 for the Dakota, 75.2 Tundra and 78.5 for the Chevy.
Where do you draw the line?
Does not really matter to me if the Tundra is the smallest full size or the largest mid-size. It is not the size truck I wanted. The cab seems cramped, narrow and uncomfortable, the bed is shallow and small. Couldn't get the options I wanted and did not want to pay more for less. But if it is what you want/need it is the best truck for you.
I just want to comment on your list from above. While the Tundra has much less less payload capacity than the F150, it has more in the 4x2 configuration than the Silverado (2011 vs 1834) and nearly as much in the 4x4 (1406 vs 1606). The ground clearance is higher at 11.7 versus 8.7 for the Silverado and 7.7 for the F150. Combined with a shorter wheel base, it should be a better off road platform.
Let me also mention the brakes. In the 4x4 configuration, the Tundra stops from 70 with 1200 pounds of payload in 199.8 feet. The F150 does it in 225.8 feet and the Silverado does it in 219.0 feet. The Tundra also turns 3 feet tighter than the 'Rado and 1.5 feet tighter than the F150.
Lets also talk about safety. Neither the Chevy nor the Ford comes with seatbelt pre-tensioners.
I also want to point out an advantage to a more shallow bed. I have made it known that I don't load up my tundra with anything but hunting and fishing gear. When I go to grab that gear, it is much easier to access than deeper beds. If it were much deeper, I would need to climb up in the bed to get things like tackle boxes (mine weighs over 30 pounds), guns and other gear. For recreational use, the Tundra is very well set up.
I am still not claiming that the Tundra is the right truck for everybody. I only want to point out that it does have certain advantages. When one chooses a new truck, one must weigh more factors than your analysis suggests.
Full-size is all relative. Trucks have gotten bigger over time, especially when the extended-cabs got more popular and bigger to make the whole truck bigger. Chevrolet is a good example.
If this pattern continues, then the average "full-size" truck could hit 240 in length in the next decade.
yeah..some people are trading in theirs already...I bought every 2 years...then kept one for a decade..and now am going back to every to years...why?...I like driving new cars and can afford it....as for "they don't keep them long"...where is that going?...are you saying they don't last?....uhh..hello....I believe someone else gets it after?....ohh..wait a minute..they all go into the crusher..yeahh....that's it..
look close...even a Tundra fan here states in his profile he has a 2000 and is shopping for a 2001...
just not between the wheel wells. I'll grant you it's full size, just not big enough for me. It's a second vehicle in our family. I have 2 kids and they frequently ride in it and often I sit in the back with one, just so there not at each others throats. With a Tundra I wouldn't do it, but I rode from West Virginia to Wisconsin like that 10 hours without much trouble - Tundra I wouldn't even attempt it. I like you statement Cliffy that you don't think the Tundra is for everyone, but you sure "seem" awful loyal to it. I had no problem owning a Dodge while working for a Ford dealer. Maybe you got a great deal, I don't know. My truck can be improved upon and so can everybody elses. Seems to me though that some of you would stand behind your Tundra even if it burst into flames. I detect some strong brand loyalty, which I think is just dumb...
i got your point on the payload. but if you read my comments again, you'll see my point. tundra leads nothing significant. you admit ford has greatest payload, so is tundra a class leader? no. turning radius and braking distances, while important, are marginal advantages and, frankly something i think most consumers would readily sacrifice for advantages in other areas. for example: if truck 'a' leads in any of the following: towing cap, payload cap, overall power, powertrain (or overall for that matter)warranty, or gas mileage - are you going to select a different truck solely because it brakes in the shortest distances or turns the tightest circles? as a salesman, i'm sure you can count the number of times on one hand that a truck buyer has walked into your showroom and said, "i'm looking for a truck with a really tight turning radius...what can you do for me?"
safety? please. tell me what the benefits of seatbelt pre-tensioner are. does the tundra come standard with dual airbags? can you disarm the passenger one in the event you've got a child seat there? does it come standard with abs? have you looked at crash test ratings? i know when i looked the tundra and silverado were about equal. this does not even take into account the f150 which i know little about. other than ford has an excellent (if not the best) safety reputation.
the shallow bed theory is weak also, cliff. i understand what point your making with it...but, again, as a salesman, do you really get a lot of folks come in and say, "finally, a shallow bed. i'll tell you those domestic beds are soooo cavernous - they're just inconvenient!"?
lastly, understand this. the characteristics i chose to compare were not selected simply because tundra isn't tops in any of them. they were selected based off of the advantages light trucks have over suv's, mini-vans, and cars. i know not everyone selects a pickup based off of the greatest payload, etc. but those people can feasibly include mini-vans, suv's, etc in their selection process. and this topic is tundra vs. the big 3 (read: pickups), so we'll keep it there...
Seat belt pretensioners were developed by Volvo several years ago. They are linked to the air bag sensors and set off a small charge in the retractor. It pulls you back into the seat rather than just locking up. Since you body is soft, you are moving forward as the air bag is coming back. The pretensioner pulls you back into the seat and away from the air bag. It also have something called a force limiter which keeps this feature from breaking your collar bone.
All Tundras come with dual air bags and a passenger side cut off switch. They don't all come with ABS and some people don't even want this feature. When towing, it can make you sloppy with braking with disastrous results. If you don't pump the brakes (which is how you are supposed to use ABS), you can lock up the trailer brakes and jackknife the trailer. It is a personal decision and one based on experience that you have the option with Toyota. I personally want them and got them on my truck but can understand why some people would not want them.
My post was not intended to be the only criteria for truck purchasing decisions. It was meant to point out that there are more factors than you suggested. Based on your limited list, no body would buy a Tundra and we know this is not the case. It is the best choice for many people and not for others. It all depends on what the consumer's needs and expectations are.
I just re-read post #350 and have a few other comments. In the sales process, I am constantly asking questions. If I discover that the customer is a fisherman, I will point out the advantage to him of having a shallow bed. If I find out that he is a contractor who specializes in restoration work in Old Town Alexandria, I wouldn't point out the bed but I would point out the turning radius because I know how difficult it is to park in Old Town.
It is all about listening and presenting the features that matter to that individual customer. For instance, I wouldn't bother to discuss ground clearance to a guy who never plans on going off road. I wouldn't get into towing capacity to a guy who never tows. I wouldn't get into the benefits of the interior and exterior door handles on the back door to a single guy with no kids.
I figure out what a person's buying motives are and tailor a presentation to meet his needs. There are plenty of great things about this truck and it is a matter of listening to my customer to figure out those features that matter to him. If he wants a big back seat for his work crew, a bed big enough to haul a load of gravel every day, plans on attaching a plow in the winter and he weights 350 pounds, I ask him why he is here in front of me.
we would be hard pressed to find domestic owners that still have their trucks in five years. He obviously does not live in the mid west. Two years ago I was helping my son look for a two to five year old used Chevy/GMC C-1500. There aren't any on the lots. True there was/is no Tundras in that bracket, but we found many small trucks, including Toyota, Nissan, Ranger, S-10, and odd balls like Isuzu and Mazda (last two don't sell well around here). He didn't want 4X4, as used (abused?) 4X4's often need a lot of maintenance. Dodge was not a choice as we work on them, and Fords in that age bracket still had the swing axel front end. I know some Ford fans defend it, but in my line of work I have driven about 4000 GM 4X2 trucks, about 3000 Ford 4X2's and almost 1000 Dodges, and with exceptions, Fords did not handle as well. The 97 + Fords, I would consider. There were almost new trucks from buyers who could not afford the payments, but they were more money than he wanted to spend, and does some one who cannot make the payment change the oil?
If one of the domestics fit my needs, I would buy one. I actually looked at a Tahoe a couple of years ago but ended up with a T100. Yes, I am a Toyota partisan but not enough to make me buy a truck that didn't do what I needed it to do.
Robbie, people turn to Ford in droves because it is the most truck for the money. High in reliability, which was proved by CDean. Toyota had engine faults in the serious catagory for every year listed. The Ford has lots of options for the money. Ford has an engine that has rated in the top ten engines list for the last 3 years. Never seen Toyota even on that list. Must be the head gasket issue that went on for more than 6 years.
I have kept several Ford trucks more than 5 years and still with over 150k miles, they were tight and performed as well as any Toyota. Matter of fact, most Toyota's start rusting around 5-6 years so if you see an original owner with a truck in that age bracket, the truck usually has cancer or has primer spots where the body has been make-shift repaired.
Cliffy- For someone who keeps saying that the Tundra is not for everyone, you sure are persistent to try and prove it better than any of the domestics for every buyer. You are persistent because you still have not been successful. I doubt to most truck buyers, you ever will be.
All this arguement is pointless. If Toyota had what most people wanted in a truck, it wouldn't be far far back in last place for sales. With more than 2.5 million trucks sold between the big3 and not even 100k Tundra's sold at mid year, I think it is very apparent that the Tundra is no real winner among full size truck buyers and I don't see that changing, even five years from now. Toyota has already stated that they have no interest in making a true full size truck. They have nothing planned or even discussed for a truck closer to the same dimensions and capacity as the big three 1/2 tons. No 3/4 ton, 1 ton etc. either. All they wanted to do by creating the Tundra was try and recoup the screw-up they made with the T100. I see the Tundra as a much better truck than the T100, but they still havn't done anything to fuss about.
"If you don't pump the brakes (which is how you are supposed to use ABS), you can lock up the trailer brakes and....."
Between your misinformation on new engines and then Hemis and now this unbelievable info on you're supposed to PUMP ANTILOCK BRAKES I really think you should engage brain before typing.
The shallow bed on the Tundra is a big advantage - I guess I will need to put 10 sheets of plywood in the bed of my Silverado - that way I can reach my tackle box without climbing up into the bed. LOL
I wanted to (and did) put a soft bed cover on my truck, the extra 3 inches of depth are an advantage -IMO
Pump antilock brakes??? ok Pumping (letting off brakes then reapplying) disengages them
Also i am wondering. Everytime i go to my Girlfriends which is just abotu everyday i see her neighbors Tundra in the garage. The garage no matter what time of day is open and the tundra is in there. Guess he doesnt want to get it dirty huh???
Ryan, the only thing you do by pumping ABS is confuse the hell out of the system and add distance to any stop. The ABS is pumping the brakes for you, it needs no help.
I didnt mean pumping but that was only way i could describe it. Ok lets say the ABS engages when you dont want it to ok you let off the gas then reapply the brakes the ABS will then be disengaged.
Thanks Dean for actually READING my post and understanding it
"If you don't pump the brakes (which is how you are supposed to use ABS), you can lock up the trailer brakes and....."
if you take out the parenthetical statement, it reads: "if you don't pump the brakes, you can lock up the trailer brakes and..."
what he's implying is that by pumping the brakes, you'll avoid locking up the trailer brakes - implying that that's how you're supposed to use abs - pump them - which is wrong.
cliffy - i hope for your sake that you just typed this cryptically as an accident. abs "pumps" the brakes for you...
i would agree with you that, if you plan on using a fifth wheel or other trailer that requires it's own brakes, abs could potentially be detrimental to the vehicle as a whole (truck and trailer). however, as you and every other tundra fan on this site love to point out, most tundra drivers aren't looking for a monster truck to tow/haul everything they own around town. they're looking for a vehicle that has a "shallow bed" so they can reach their fishing gear. something with a "tight turning radius" and "shorter braking distance" that make it more maneuverable. which is why tundra is such a great truck for them. seems to me that standard abs would be the perfect choice for such a vehicle...seeing as that's the market toyota's taking aim at...
I was all for jumping on cliffy for the ABS "gaff" as well, but realized immediately that he undoubtedly knows better and probably did not intend it to say what I and many of you thought he said (i.e. the incorrect statement that you should pump ABS brakes). But then, after reading bamatundra's take, I looked at what cliffy said exactly:
"If you don't pump the brakes (which is how you are supposed to use ABS),..."
Taking that literally, the parenthetical statement simply affirms the preceding clause: "how you are supposed to use ABS" is "you don't pump the brakes" which is absolutely correct (no pumping the brakes with ABS).
The wording is unfortunate. We are so accustomed to "translating" statements with negatives that we do it without thinking. Like I ask you, "Don't you want to go to dinner with us?" and you answer, "Yes." I understand what you probably actually mean which is, "Yes, I would like to go to dinner with you." However, the literal interpretation of your answer would be, "Yes, I do not want to go to dinner with you." And the literal opposite would be "No, I do want to go to dinner with you."
"Pump antilock brakes??? ok Pumping (letting off brakes then reapplying) disengages them"
Sorry if my comprehension thought pumping meant pumping. Letting off brakes and reapplying ONE time I understand. I guess my college edumacation 'aint not as good as yours, Ryan. My bad.
Wow, 8000 trucks! If I drove a different truck every single day, it would take me over 20 years to drive 8000 trucks. I guess your screen name is more descriptive than most.
My shimmy is still here, alive and well! At @58-63mph. I started after rotating my tires (the backs went to the front). After having the dealer rebalance them I thought it might be fixed. No such luck! I looked real close at the tires and cannot tell if anything was done. Normally you see an outline of dirt where the balance was removed. I'm jacking up the front today and checking for runout and any bulges. Currently I'm running @32psi all the way around. If your cryan' Ryan, then I'm sobbin' Robbie
Comments
Ryan
Toyota did extend the powertrain only warranties on their junk V6's that had head gasket problems, but only for the head gaskets, nothing else. In addition, the cause of the head gaskets going out, in many cases as soon as a couple thousand miles from new, is a design flaw. Heads were too small to handle the pressure. How long did Toyota know about the problem? Long before the T100 was designed. How long after they knew about the problem did Toyota continue putting that same poorly designed engines in their vehicles? Only about 6 years!
Ford has and still is making good on their piston slap engines that never caused a failure or performance problem at all, even after warranty. Again, bamatundra posting unfounded crap. Not only that, but they "FIXED" their design flaw in not 6 years, but 2 1/2. Big difference.
I also read that you wanted to compare reliability ratings of similar vehicles (trucks). I agree. The T100 is the most similar truck that Toyota has made for a period of several years.
I'm sorry that you don't like the results, but facts are facts.
Bigsnag - the Ford did well in reliability, but not as well as the T100.
When going to those links, I urge you to click on the symbols and read what the probs where. The Chevrolets showed significant problems a couple of years, but it was only one problem---early fuel pump failures. (which is something I guess I should expect on my truck now, and maybe take early action against it.) The Toyotas showed several problems, all much more expensive. Thats just not proof of this 'wonderful engineering' and quality we have to listen to around here.
I was surprised by the clean slate on the Dodges. My personal experience has been the exact opposite. Then again, I don't make it all the way across America, either...
"I also read that you wanted to compare reliability ratings of similar vehicles (trucks). I agree. The T100 is the most similar truck that Toyota has made for a period of several years.
I'm sorry that you don't like the results, but
facts are facts.
Bigsnag - the Ford did well in reliability, but
not as well as the T100."
in your previous post, you were whining about apples and oranges. now, you're willing to compare the t-100...glad to see you've made up your mind.
now, i ask you again. what makes CR's evaluations and ratings better than the information msn carpoint gathered from over 30k participating service centers?
bco
By the way I keep my laptop computer in the center console of my truck when I am on the road,where do you tundra owners keep your laptop when you are on the road?
I saw more proof of how well Tundras are selling in the Northwest yesterday when I checked the mail and found a flier for the Tundra they are offering rebates of up to 2000 dollars and no payments for 150 days on all 2000 Tundras.Maybe I will go down to the dealer and tell them if they can find a Tundra that will haul more,and out tow my Ram I will buy it.....maybe not it is just a waste of my time seeing that Tundras only come in pint size and I need a 3/4 ton.
I like my Tundra very much but I'm not going to claim it to be the best. After all it is pint size. I do hope it last as long as my other Toyotas. I hope to avoid any recalls also! My Tacoma had the gasket and front suspension recall on it. Didn't cost me a dime but still a pain in the rear to go get it done.
Interesting how you can find the T100 more reliable when all I see across the board, every year Toyota trucks had red x's in the engine column indicating serious problem or problems. Ford had none. Guess that is yet again another time you saw what you wanted to see to fit your "lack of point".
I guess the only option available for Toyota to compete on a full-size level is to consider the Tundra a "mid-size" truck (where they would do very well against the competition but where they would have to lower their prices), and produce a much larger truck to compete with the domestics. However, I find that the biggest complaints about the Tundra don't come from truck owners that go off-roading, driving through the city, hauling construction supplies, etc. but, from those who insist on towing 10,000 lbs. or going through some extremely adverse conditions. Like I said before... you've gotten the best vehicle for your needs. But, what about those who aren't going to be too concerned about that? What do they have to say about the Tundra? What things other than towing would be of concern?
Oh, and, I do know that Dodge trucks with the Cummins Diesel is one of the BEST vehicles they produce. But, I didn't think it was appropriate to bring that calibre truck into this discussion since Toyota does not offer a diesel.
$1.75/gallon... try $2.10/gallon out where I am...
haha
Your lucky i was paying like 2.15 for a few wks
Ryan
One thing I did notice though is the more popular trucks get the higher the manufactures jack up the prices. A 1/2 ton is now right around $30000 I only paid $28500 for my 2500 Quad cab diesel.I hate to see how much trucks will cost in the next 5 years.
The only problem with this is that it is hard to quantify what I'm talking about. There is just an old and loose feeling in many of these trucks. They feel distinctly old and worn out. There may not be anything mechanically wrong with them but they feel used up. Toyota trucks on the other hand have to have been totally ragged to have the same feeling and even then, it isn't as bad. Go to a used car lot sometime and see what I mean. Find a lot that has older trucks on its lot and the difference will jump out at you rather quickly.
It is full size because:
1) You can get a 4 X 8 foot sheet of plywood flat in the bed. Try that in a Dakota.
2) Toyota says so.
3) Ford, GM, and Dodge all compare their full size trucks to Toyota full size trucks. They must think they are full size (I don't see them comparing their full size to a Dakota)
4) Every single publication and website)(Edmunds, pricewatch, MSN etc.)that I have read list the Tundra as full size . The only place I see the Tundra called midsize is by Big3 owners in this forum. Could that be due to envy?
It is the smallest of the full size (which I like) but it is full size.
Alright Big3 owners - here is your chance, give me your definition of full size and why the Tundra is not. Try to use criteria which can be measured or confirmed, not "Its smaller".
Bigsnag and F15rules - I appreciate your efforts to be civil and avoid personal attacks, but you still have a long way to go. Keep up the good work!
I will agree with you that if it is full size then it would have to be the smallest, daintiest full size around. All of the 1/2 ton trucks are Light duty" and I think that the Tundra definately qualifies as light duty.
The carmakers like to make thier offerings a little different from thier competition. This allows them to compete with "different" and not necesarily "better".
Toyota has done well at coming up with something different. There is a market for this slightly softer riding, smaller truck.
1. reliability - not yet proven.
2. payload - no.
3. towing capacity - no.
4. overall power - no.
5. gas mileage - no.
6. acceleration - marginal lead, at best. larger issue here is: anyone dumping $30k into a vehicle with speed in mind should NOT be looking at a 1/2 ton truck.
7. safety - no.
8. build quality, fit/finish/ride - subjective.
why subjective? as previously explained, if you are looking for a smooth ride/better handling - you're going to sacrifice payload and towing capacities. so, it's subjective based on what the buyer is shopping for.
tell you what. you guys call me up in 10 years. if it hasn't been stolen or wrecked, i'll still have my silverado. and at that point i'll cede fit and finish to you. because, if the rest of the tundra's interior is built as solidly as their airbags, i'm sure it will still be very tight!!! LOL!
bco
Maybe you could tell me how much smaller the Tundra would have to be before you would consider it to be a mid-size. Just for your reference the Mid size Dakota is 215.1 inches, Tundra is 217.5 and the Silverado is 227.6 (all X-cab short bed length), Width is 71.6 for the Dakota, 75.2 Tundra and 78.5 for the Chevy.
Where do you draw the line?
Does not really matter to me if the Tundra is the smallest full size or the largest mid-size. It is not the size truck I wanted. The cab seems cramped, narrow and uncomfortable, the bed is shallow and small. Couldn't get the options I wanted and did not want to pay more for less. But if it is what you want/need it is the best truck for you.
Let me also mention the brakes. In the 4x4 configuration, the Tundra stops from 70 with 1200 pounds of payload in 199.8 feet. The F150 does it in 225.8 feet and the Silverado does it in 219.0 feet. The Tundra also turns 3 feet tighter than the 'Rado and 1.5 feet tighter than the F150.
Lets also talk about safety. Neither the Chevy nor the Ford comes with seatbelt pre-tensioners.
I also want to point out an advantage to a more shallow bed. I have made it known that I don't load up my tundra with anything but hunting and fishing gear. When I go to grab that gear, it is much easier to access than deeper beds. If it were much deeper, I would need to climb up in the bed to get things like tackle boxes (mine weighs over 30 pounds), guns and other gear. For recreational use, the Tundra is very well set up.
I am still not claiming that the Tundra is the right truck for everybody. I only want to point out that it does have certain advantages. When one chooses a new truck, one must weigh more factors than your analysis suggests.
If this pattern continues, then the average "full-size" truck could hit 240 in length in the next decade.
look close...even a Tundra fan here states in his profile he has a 2000 and is shopping for a 2001...
hmmmmmm
- Tim
safety? please. tell me what the benefits of seatbelt pre-tensioner are. does the tundra come standard with dual airbags? can you disarm the passenger one in the event you've got a child seat there? does it come standard with abs? have you looked at crash test ratings? i know when i looked the tundra and silverado were about equal. this does not even take into account the f150 which i know little about. other than ford has an excellent (if not the best) safety reputation.
the shallow bed theory is weak also, cliff. i understand what point your making with it...but, again, as a salesman, do you really get a lot of folks come in and say, "finally, a shallow bed. i'll tell you those domestic beds are soooo cavernous - they're just inconvenient!"?
lastly, understand this. the characteristics i chose to compare were not selected simply because tundra isn't tops in any of them. they were selected based off of the advantages light trucks have over suv's, mini-vans, and cars. i know not everyone selects a pickup based off of the greatest payload, etc. but those people can feasibly include mini-vans, suv's, etc in their selection process. and this topic is tundra vs. the big 3 (read: pickups), so we'll keep it there...
bco
All Tundras come with dual air bags and a passenger side cut off switch. They don't all come with ABS and some people don't even want this feature. When towing, it can make you sloppy with braking with disastrous results. If you don't pump the brakes (which is how you are supposed to use ABS), you can lock up the trailer brakes and jackknife the trailer. It is a personal decision and one based on experience that you have the option with Toyota. I personally want them and got them on my truck but can understand why some people would not want them.
My post was not intended to be the only criteria for truck purchasing decisions. It was meant to point out that there are more factors than you suggested. Based on your limited list, no body would buy a Tundra and we know this is not the case. It is the best choice for many people and not for others. It all depends on what the consumer's needs and expectations are.
It is all about listening and presenting the features that matter to that individual customer. For instance, I wouldn't bother to discuss ground clearance to a guy who never plans on going off road. I wouldn't get into towing capacity to a guy who never tows. I wouldn't get into the benefits of the interior and exterior door handles on the back door to a single guy with no kids.
I figure out what a person's buying motives are and tailor a presentation to meet his needs. There are plenty of great things about this truck and it is a matter of listening to my customer to figure out those features that matter to him. If he wants a big back seat for his work crew, a bed big enough to haul a load of gravel every day, plans on attaching a plow in the winter and he weights 350 pounds, I ask him why he is here in front of me.
Harry
I have kept several Ford trucks more than 5 years and still with over 150k miles, they were tight and performed as well as any Toyota. Matter of fact, most Toyota's start rusting around 5-6 years so if you see an original owner with a truck in that age bracket, the truck usually has cancer or has primer spots where the body has been make-shift repaired.
Cliffy- For someone who keeps saying that the Tundra is not for everyone, you sure are persistent to try and prove it better than any of the domestics for every buyer. You are persistent because you still have not been successful. I doubt to most truck buyers, you ever will be.
All this arguement is pointless. If Toyota had what most people wanted in a truck, it wouldn't be far far back in last place for sales. With more than 2.5 million trucks sold between the big3 and not even 100k Tundra's sold at mid year, I think it is very apparent that the Tundra is no real winner among full size truck buyers and I don't see that changing, even five years from now.
Toyota has already stated that they have no interest in making a true full size truck. They have nothing planned or even discussed for a truck closer to the same dimensions and capacity as the big three 1/2 tons. No 3/4 ton, 1 ton etc. either. All they wanted to do by creating the Tundra was try and recoup the screw-up they made with the T100. I see the Tundra as a much better truck than the T100, but they still havn't done anything to fuss about.
bamatundra: You rate no comments.
the brakes (which is how you are supposed to use
ABS), you can lock up the trailer brakes and....."
Between your misinformation on new engines and then Hemis and now this unbelievable info on you're supposed to PUMP ANTILOCK BRAKES I really think you should engage brain before typing.
I wanted to (and did) put a soft bed cover on my truck, the extra 3 inches of depth are an advantage -IMO
Also i am wondering. Everytime i go to my Girlfriends which is just abotu everyday i see her neighbors Tundra in the garage. The garage no matter what time of day is open and the tundra is in there. Guess he doesnt want to get it dirty huh???
Ryan
Ryan, the only thing you do by pumping ABS is confuse the hell out of the system and add distance to any stop. The ABS is pumping the brakes for you, it needs no help.
I didnt mean pumping but that was only way i could describe it. Ok lets say the ABS engages when you dont want it to ok you let off the gas then reapply the brakes the ABS will then be disengaged.
Thanks Dean for actually READING my post and understanding it
Ryan
"If you don't pump the brakes (which is how you are supposed to use ABS), you can lock up the trailer brakes and....."
if you take out the parenthetical statement, it reads: "if you don't pump the brakes, you can lock up the trailer brakes and..."
what he's implying is that by pumping the brakes, you'll avoid locking up the trailer brakes - implying that that's how you're supposed to use abs - pump them - which is wrong.
cliffy - i hope for your sake that you just typed this cryptically as an accident. abs "pumps" the brakes for you...
i would agree with you that, if you plan on using a fifth wheel or other trailer that requires it's own brakes, abs could potentially be detrimental to the vehicle as a whole (truck and trailer). however, as you and every other tundra fan on this site love to point out, most tundra drivers aren't looking for a monster truck to tow/haul everything they own around town. they're looking for a vehicle that has a "shallow bed" so they can reach their fishing gear. something with a "tight turning radius" and "shorter braking distance" that make it more maneuverable. which is why tundra is such a great truck for them. seems to me that standard abs would be the perfect choice for such a vehicle...seeing as that's the market toyota's taking aim at...
bco
- Tim
"If you don't pump the brakes (which is how you are supposed to use ABS),..."
Taking that literally, the parenthetical statement simply affirms the preceding clause: "how you are supposed to use ABS" is "you don't pump the brakes" which is absolutely correct (no pumping the brakes with ABS).
The wording is unfortunate. We are so accustomed to "translating" statements with negatives that we do it without thinking. Like I ask you, "Don't you want to go to dinner with us?" and you answer, "Yes." I understand what you probably actually mean which is, "Yes, I would like to go to dinner with you." However, the literal interpretation of your answer would be, "Yes, I do not want to go to dinner with you." And the literal opposite would be "No, I do want to go to dinner with you."
Is everybody confused now?
"Pump antilock brakes??? ok Pumping (letting off
brakes then reapplying) disengages them"
Sorry if my comprehension thought pumping meant pumping. Letting off brakes and reapplying ONE time I understand. I guess my college edumacation 'aint not as good as yours, Ryan. My bad.
If your cryan' Ryan, then I'm sobbin' Robbie
with the fender flares, the truck looks like it is toed in. I want wider tires. Yeah I'm after looks on this one.