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
Ryan
try a better comparison next time
I am sorry that I called you a sissy. (Although BCO posted calling another poster "Mr. Johhny Roughnuts". This sounds like something Libby would say before she hits someone with her purse. And he doesn't even know how to spell "ideological" or what it means.
You need to chill out man.
Lets me get this straight - If I take my Tundra, give it weak brakes, increase its turning radius, made it handle like a barge, made it noisier, decreased its ground clearance by 3 inches, took off the skid plates, transmission oil cooler, engine oil cooler, removed 16 of its 32 valves, 3 of its 4 camshafts, decreased its powertrain warranty by 40%, decreased its quality from BMW levels to Hyundai levels, decreased its front seat legroom, gave it a chintzy plastic interior, made its rods knock when cold, and made it knock on regular gas - I would have a Chevy(Hyundai) Shakerado. Makes me want to run out and buy one now.
And BCO - please no more whining. I swear you are starting to sound like my 5 year old daughter.
Chevy Pack - is BCO the best you can come up with? Pretty weak. Can you at least find a vertebrate next time?
And Libby - lying about owning a '52. Pirating pictures from the pickuptruck.com website and calling them yours. I'm trying to get a hold of Donny now. He should be very interested in the fact that you are posting his pictures as yours. You should be ashamed! Here is the link:
http://www.pickuptruck.com/html/history/chev_segment5.html
Quad - "Bama is fixing his shaking brakes now." That is a lie. Are you taking lessons from Libby now?
Ryan - Sorry I called you a mascot and a cheerleader. It appears that you and Oby are two of the honorable ones of the Chevy pack. I will be posting pictures of my truck soon with a load on it. Stay posted.
I have tested the new Silverados. The difference between that and the old generation is night and day. I tested all the brands before I bought, to give them all a fair chance. Lets just say I'd be driving a Silverado now if it wasn't for the first test drive in the Tundra. The back seat window knobs look a little better in the new Silverados, but they should still use a different material. And the interior plastic is of the same quality. My parents lease their truck and were planning on getting a 2001 Silverado when their lease is due, but they're gonna let the lease run out and drive the older vehicles for awhile. They always can get a new one. If they would have gone for a 2001, then I'd have a real comparison.
"I have already said I am sorry." yes you are...
"I am sorry" i completely agree, you ARE sorry.
LOL!
i need to chill out? damn, dude. you apologize for calling me a sissy, but then compare me to your 5 year old and imply that i lack a spine? oh, and we're back to the correct spelling of ideology and it's meaning now? yawn...you're in a dream world...cut and paste, cut and paste, shish boom bah!!! LOL.
let's play deconstruct bama's post, shall we?
"And BCO - please no more whining." translation: i can't take the truth.
"If I take my Tundra, give it weak brakes, increase its turning radius,"
for starters, i'd rather my truck take an extra 15 feet to stop than have to take it back to have the rotors ground down every week. turning radius? what is it? three feet tighter? wow.
"made it handle like a barge, made it noisier," not sure where this is coming from...it's a truck...with the exception of stopping distance and turning radius, handles every bit as well as a tundra.
"decreased its ground clearance by 3 inches,"
truth
"took off the skid plates, transmission oil cooler, engine oil cooler,"
all options with the chevy, something toyota doesn't believe in... i mean, can i get a long bed access cab? how 'bout onstar? 3/4 ton? dualie? maybe ABS - i know, i know...only if i'm lucky. LOL
"removed 16 of its 32 valves, 3 of its 4 camshafts, decreased its powertrain warranty by 40%," all that stuff's neat and all, but i'll take the increased overall horsepower, torque, and gas mileage of my silverado...
"decreased its quality from BMW levels to Hyundai levels,"
who in the hell are you kidding? BMW? hello? mcfly?
"decreased its front seat legroom," pardon me? certainly we're talking no more than tenths of inches here right? besides, i thought you didn't care about seat room and comfort. after all, you did buy a tundra...
"gave it a chintzy plastic interior," and new armrests every two months...
"made its rods knock when cold," ASSUMING that it starts on the first try AS IT IS! LOL!
"and made it knock on regular gas" yawn...not a systemic problem...
i see why you rely on personal attacks now...cuz you're truck arguments (can you say straw man?) don't hold up for jack...
bco
note: if you are 6'5" you will fit just fine in a silverado...if you're 6'5.2"...get a tundra!!!
bco
bco
1999 Ford: The first thing I did when I saddled up to the Ford was bang my knee on the bottom of the dashboard, OUCH! The Ford seemed to wander somewhat, but otherwise drove OK. The cab appeared to be somewhat narrow, but had plenty of headroom. I honestly do not remember which engine the Ford had, so I cannot give an adequate comparison to the others in that department. I did not like the way Ford chose to transition the back of the rear door/bed. To me it looked unfinished, and like a place that would collect dirt and debris.
2000 Chevy: The Chevy had less headroom than the Ford, but definitely appeared to be wider. Remember, wider is better! The seats were comfortable, but sat a little too low for my tastes. Plenty of legroom in the front. The bucket seats are definitely more comfortable than the split bench, and the back seat felt comfortable. The door panel had too much give for my liking when the door was pulled shut. The truck drove nicely, but the anti lock brakes seemed to engage prematurely. The 5.3 liter engine was strong but seemed to be noisy. The steering wheel was also very slippery. Maybe that would go away with age.
1999 Dodge: The seats in the Dodge were definitely higher than the Chevy, and appeared to be higher than the Ford (very important to me). The seats were also much firmer than the other two (again, very important to me). Some may characterize the seats as hard, but I like them. The cabin also appears very spacious, with plenty of head room. However, if I sit in the passenger seat I don't have much knee room. The back seat is definitely not as comfortable as the Chevy, but I will probably never sit there. The Dodge is definitely slower than the other two, but the difference in seat-of-the-pants feel is not substantial. The ride is firm, but not too harsh.
2000 Tundra: Just sat in this one. There definitely was not enough room in it for me so I did not take it for a test drive. Kinda wish I had now though, just for the heckuvit.
I truly gave all three I test drove a serious look. I liked the styling of all three very much, and am not partial or loyal to one brand.
The Ford just did not fit the bill for me. After fierce negotiations with two Chevy dealers and two Dodge dealers, I bought a 1999 Dodge Quad 1500 4x4 w/5.2 liter engine. The main difference at this point was price. I could get the Dodge, with trade-in, rebates, etc. for about $4,000.00 less than the Chevy.
My only complaint about the Dodge at this point is that I can feel something in the steering system moving around on rougher roads. After three steering shafts, the problem is MUCH better, but is still noticeable, at least to me.
Sorry for the long post, but to answer your question, the Dodge definitely fit me best.
Ryan
I don't think this flaw is too surprising to most of them, who seem more reasonable in their expectations than BAMA, whose theory on weak Chevy brakes just doesn't fit with the reality of 100,000 mile expected service life for the pads and rotors according to Car and Driver long term Silverado update. Tundra owners have been turning rotors on lathes, even replacing them, and pads, per the Toyota TSBs at much lower mileage, 10-15k miles, to solve the pulsating brake pedal steering shimmy. I have yet to read or hear about a '99 or newer Chevy truck that has required those repairs.
I'm sure he can't resist saying something about a defective abs recall. As long as you remember he put his yen towards the superiority of DRUM brakes, you can take his comments with the skepticism it deserve.
Let's see - that means that I should have had 40 brake jobs on my Tundra. That's funny - I have never had the brakes worked on and they work fine. Must be a fluke I guess.
Quad - "Tundra owners have been turning rotors on
lathes, even replacing them, and pads, per the
Toyota TSBs at much lower mileage, 10-15k miles,"
Hmm. Quad says that they need to be turned every 10-15K. I guess they could both be right. Picture this: All 120,000 Tundra owners drive their Tundras 15,000 mi/wk. This would result in 120,000 brake jobs/week. Man Midas would love this.
That's funny the Automobile magazine long term Tundra road test that I quoted didn't have any brake problems in over 25,000 miles. Must be another fluke.
By the way - in order to travel 15,000 mi/wk the Tundras would have to be driven 24hrs/day at an average speed of 90 mph. No wonder Ryan never sees them at Menard's - they are always on the road.
Quad - "As long as you remember he
put his yen towards the superiority of DRUM brakes"
I never said drum brakes are superior to disk brakes - I said that the Tundra has much stronger brakes than the Chevy. Also - what does turning rotors have to with drum brakes?
A fine towing vehicle comes with a substantial price and a perplexing clunk."
A CLUNK? Not the Silverado - say it ain't so, Joe.
http://www.caranddriver.com/xp/Caranddriver/features/2000/July/200007_feature_chevrolet_silveradoltk1500.xml?&page=1
"the brake pedal felt mushy, not firm the way you'd like it when towing a heavy load." Not the Silverado - say it ain't so, Joe.
"After just six weeks, the latch on the tailgate wouldn't close, and the power driver's seat only worked on a sometime basis." Not the Silverado - say it ain't so, Joe.
"Five hundred miles later, that power seat quit for good."
"at 20,189 miles. While new oil flowed into our truck, we asked the dealer to investigate a rattling passenger-door window and a clunking sound coming from the rear during acceleration. Hoping to mute the noise, the dealer first lubed the rear suspension bushing. No luck. Next the rear suspension bolts were torqued. Nada. Finally, the rear driveshaft was removed and the truck driven around in four-wheel-drive mode. The clunk was no longer heard. The same driveshaft was reinstalled, and the problem seemed solved. Another automotive mystery.
The technicians also found cross-threaded bolts holding the passenger's-door window on its track, which loosened and rattled. The driver's window had the same problem. Both were fixed without charge. The service cost $42."
"at 27,553 miles. The driveshaft was clunking again. This time the dealer lubed the driveshaft splines. It silenced the problem, but again, only temporarily"
"At 33,648 miles, a lighted "check engine" warning on the dashboard sent us to the dealer for our second unscheduled stop. Once again, the driveshaft was doing its clunking thing. Also, the throttle pedal's action had become stiff, and during turns, the front end was rattling."
"About 6000 miles later, at the scheduled 37,500-mile service (the odo, in fact, read 39,075 miles), dealer technicians diagnosed the front-end noise as a worn steering shaft, and they replaced it. Astute readers will note that our mileage had gone beyond the warranty's limit,"
"Brakes have the typical awful, spongy pedal that feels like one out of a 1978 Chevrolet Caprice Classic."
"but braking had worsened, stopping at the end of the test from 70 mph in 226 feet, 19 more feet than it required at the outset. The brakes were the least impressive feature of the Silverado--they produced heavy fade and would emit a spooky gasp when the test driver hit the brake pedal."
Just like I said Quad - Wimpy brakes on expensive junk. You should know - you own a Lemonado.
http://www.pickuptruck.com/html/autoshows/sema2000/toyota/customized/tundrasc.html
brake jobs on my Tundra. That's funny - I have
never had the brakes worked on and they work fine.
Must be a fluke I guess."
Hmmmmm seems like when you talk about all the chevy knock and ping and when we say we dont have the problem you keep on harping about it eh? Same exact reasoning whys that? Dont get upset you are doing the same exact things. What comes around goes around
Oh yea how come toyota has to put a supercharger in the tundra to make it better? I dont understand the foreign companies adding superchargers (i think the frontier has em i dont know its a midsize truck) Did you see the chevys at the sema show? Those were "IMPRESSIVE".
Ryan
Get in your trucks. Drive somewhere you want to go, preferably with some people you care about. And then proceed to live your life. That will prove your manliness. This drivel -- I mean now some of you (you know who you are!) are giving serious, point-by-point responses to sarcasm!?! If that doesn't scream out "YOU NEED A LIFE!!!" then....
Besides, having an F150, I know for sure that I'm a man! ;-)
Ryan
on earth would toyota want to put disk brakes on
the rear??? that would make them all mushy and
crap like a silverado. and a limited slip???
leave it to the japanese to put an LSD on a racing
truck...
or...could it be??? they've realized how stupid
they were to start, how much money they're losing
regrinding drums, and now...they're offering 4
wheel disk brakes on a "performance" version of
their truck.
so...what can we glean from this? well, we can
see that toyota has disappointed many owners (ok,
NOT including bama on this one) with their defective rear drums. so...they decide to offer a version with 4 wheel disks. now...how much would one have to pay to get a tundra with 4 wheel disks? are they available on a "run-of-the-mill" tundra, or must one fork over big duckets for a "souped up" version with more horsepower and torque than they need to haul their groceries?
bco
bco
We dont deny any of the silverados problems exist. But when a tundra problem is brought up it immediately doesnt exist because you havent experienced it. Total denial.
Ryan
great, impartial review. glad to hear you're (for the most part) satisfied with your dodge. good luck!
bco
"I never said drum brakes are superior to disk
brakes - I said that the Tundra has much stronger
brakes than the Chevy."
according to edmunds head to head comparison...the tundra stopped shorter than the silverado from 60-0 mph by 6 feet (134 feet vs. 140 feet, respectively). link:
http://www.edmunds.com/roadtests/comparison/2000/fulltrucks/performance.html
you call that "much stronger"? if so, ok, just curious.
note: for testing purposes, the chevy weighed 103 pounds more (4621 vs 4518).
bco
I don't remember anyone holding a gun to your head requiring you to read this topic. By responding to this topic - aren't you one of us? Didn't you just whip yours out? Just curious.
Ryan
Yes, of course, I am one of "us."
Glad you noticed.
You don't have to respond to each point here.
I'm very happy with my F150 but that proves nothing to anyone who is not, like me, an avowed yuppy type, who won't haul much more than the occasional furniture purchase and the annual Christmas tree (otherwise, the hard-tonneau-covered bed is simply a huge trunk) and who won't be able to afford a boat until this current truck is rusting (there will be college educations to be saved for first and I hope that it's at least 10 years before the rust is terminal).
The point is that one can actually discuss what is good, positive and personally preferable without letting the truck be a representation of your self worth. To tie our egos to our trucks is silly, childish, sad, foolish and unnecessary. You, I and each and every one of us posting here are worth a whole lot more than the $30,000 or so that the best of these pickups costs. That's what I'd like you and everyone else to keep in mind before bickering about whose is better.
(stevie doing the head weavin)
(michael with his high squeaky voice)
haha
Ryan
;-)
But, seriously now, don't start it....
Why cant we all just get along?
I cant sing its a small world. I need to be at disney world to do that
Ryan
All right, everybody together now:
My truck's OK.
Your truck's OK.
Don't we feel so much better now? :-)
Ryan
Ryan
bco
Ryan
There is a cure - get a Suzuki GSX1300 Hayabusa. This motorcycle will do 190 easily. This will counterbalance the testosterone that you lose by getting the minivan. Just be sure to get lots of life insurance.
ryan's reply to your latest post. now, because YOU
haven't experienced the problem it doesn't exist?"
BCO - I never said that it doesn't exist. I said that it doesn't exist on my truck. You have a very annoying tendency to overgeneralize. I don't expect you to understand this - after all - you can't even spell "ideology". You have posted numerous times about your perfect truck - can you spell "hypocrite"?
Let me give you an example: I am sure that you can do a web search and find someone who is having trouble with their Lexus. BCO logic would be: "I found a person with a person with a Lexus who is having a problem. That means that all cars have problems. Therefore - I should buy a Yugo." (In fact you own the best full size pickup that Yugo could build).
I have NEVER stated that Tundras don't have problems. I have posted several times to the contrary. In fact you have your Chevy blinders firmly on because you cannot seem to comprehend this simple fact no matter how many times I post it. Did you enjoy your ride at Disneyland?
I HAVE stated that Chevies do not have the same quality and reliability as a Toyota. Never have and never will. I have posted several different highly regarded sources (J.D. Powers and Consumer Reports are two) which back up my statements. The source for these ratings are the results of surveys filled out by owners of these trucks.
And BCO don't give me your lame excuse about Chevies outselling Tundras. These sources post failure rates. This is independent of how many vehicles are sold.
Like I said before - If you like your truck - fine. It does have a big back seat. But you are never going to make that Chevy of yours into a Toyota no matter how hard you try. You might as well compare a Yugo to a Lexus.
You should go out and buy Lotto tickets - if you have a flawless Chevy you are incredibly lucky.
Timothy - If this post offends your sensibilities you have the option not to read it. This is a Tundra vs. Big3 topic so I feel it is appropriate to express my opinion in this forum.
Yes, I know, you are most certainly not the only one and you'll say you didn't start it. But, as I know I will tell my growing children many times, that doesn't excuse you from keeping it going! Just cut that stuff out of your posting above and my sensibilities won't require that your postings be skipped or selectively censored. ;-)
And you can do what I do - make your wife drive and stick to your truck.