Tundra vs the Big 3 Continued IV

1131416181922

Comments

  • ryanbabryanbab Member Posts: 7,240
    Dean i thought the same thing when i read that post. A 01 to a 98 silverado. Have you even seen the new rear ext cab knobs? Also the truck heats up and cools down very quick. Heats up to fast for me. Its been in the 30's in the morning i heat the truck up and 2 min later i have to turn the selector to cold.

    Ryan

    try a better comparison next time
  • justtheonejusttheone Member Posts: 403
    How bout that shine. Did that tundra have more shine than that Chevy now? Folks that work em need to know how they haul and such. Yuppies fad chasin, be worryin on how they shine and such. That sure was a good compare for them chasin that fad though. Good luck on this one now!
  • bamatundrabamatundra Member Posts: 1,583
    BCO - Still upset about me calling you the runt of the Chevy Pack? I have already said I am sorry. (The runt of the pack DOES whine the most)

    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.
  • rooster9rooster9 Member Posts: 239
    I was only comparing my Tundra to my parents '98 because that's what they have. I have a few miles behind the wheel on it and I've done lots of riding in it as a transportation vehicle so that's why I compared it to my Tundra. I shouldn't have though. The one main difference is the Chevy's interior is definitely bigger, the front seat room that is. I was just trying to make a point that no matter what heater or air conditioner a vehicle has, a smaller cabin will take less time to heat or cool. The Tundra is to operating temp in about 3 minutes or so, and it will have me sweating if I'm not paying attention and shut it down. The real test will be when it gets 20 below zero here in Wisconsin.

    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.
  • bcobco Member Posts: 756
    with two things you stated in your last post:

    "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
  • bcobco Member Posts: 756
    TWO TENTHS of an inch. ROTFLMAO!!! need i say more?

    note: if you are 6'5" you will fit just fine in a silverado...if you're 6'5.2"...get a tundra!!!

    bco
  • davids1davids1 Member Posts: 411
    6'5", the Tundra was just too cramped for me (If anybody really cares).
  • bcobco Member Posts: 756
    what vehicles have you test-driven? what "fit" you best?

    bco
  • davids1davids1 Member Posts: 411
    In July/August 1999, I test drove a 1999 F150 4 door X-cab, a 2000 silverado 3 door X-cab, a 1999 Dodge Quad-cab, and I even looked at, and sat in, a 2000 Tundra 4 door x-cab. All were 4WD, and the test drives were brief (within 5-10 miles). The following were my observations, (and yes, personal opinions) in the order driven.

    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.
  • ryanbabryanbab Member Posts: 7,240
    Very good review. I must comment on the abs of the silverado. AT first i hated the feeling but since i have broken the truck in (7700 mls) the premature engaging of the abs has disappeared.

    Ryan
  • quadrunner500quadrunner500 Member Posts: 2,721
    on your Tundra...you will very soon. It's a very hot topic among the Tundra enthusiasts at http://www.tundrasolutions.com

    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.
  • bamatundrabamatundra Member Posts: 1,583
    BCO - "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."

    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?
  • bamatundrabamatundra Member Posts: 1,583
    The title of the article verbatim: "LONG-TERM TEST: Chevrolet Silverado LT K1500
    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.
  • dogsterdogster Member Posts: 94
    Hey Justtheone! You're back under another name. How's those pressed in piston pins on your 409? Anyway, I've had mhy Tundra over a year now. No problem with vibrations or brakes. They didn't warp towing my 5000 lb. boat through triple digits in the desert so they should be fine around town too. Actually the four piston disk brakes up front and drum in rear works great. I guess the four piston front disks must have nullified the need for rear disk. By the way, I had the misfortune to ride in the back of a friend's Ford SD250 the other day. Talk about an uncomfortable back seat...
  • rooster9rooster9 Member Posts: 239
    If anyone is paying attention to the auto shows, the TRD Supercharged Tundra at the SEMA Auto Show has 4 piston front and rear disc brakes, limited slip back end, 340 horsepower, and 457 ft-lbs of torque. How's that for improving the Tundra?
  • bamatundrabamatundra Member Posts: 1,583
    Rooster - More torque than the 5.4L F-150 Lightning! And only 5 lbs. of boost. I guess Toyota put those extra valves and camshafts to good use! And with the factory warranty!

    http://www.pickuptruck.com/html/autoshows/sema2000/toyota/customized/tundrasc.html
  • ryanbabryanbab Member Posts: 7,240
    "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."

    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
  • timothyadavistimothyadavis Member Posts: 322
    why don't you just whip 'em out and compare directly?! Somehow it's just pitiable to have so much of your ego stored in your truck. I mean fun's fun and all but pickup truck pissing contests are for weenies.

    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! ;-)
  • ryanbabryanbab Member Posts: 7,240
    Its all in fun. Chill its entertainment as well as informative.

    Ryan
  • bcobco Member Posts: 756
    you got it all wrong, my man...just ask bama. why
    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
  • bcobco Member Posts: 756
    i'm interested to see what you have to say to ryan's reply to your latest post. now, because YOU haven't experienced the problem it doesn't exist? ok...then like we've all been saying, the silverados are not noisy, do not ping, do not knock, do not clunk, ride fine, brakes are great, outstanding build quality, blah blah blah. anything else you can come up with. why? cuz it's never happened to me, that's why. guess i got the perfect truck...

    bco
  • ryanbabryanbab Member Posts: 7,240
    I have a perfect truck also.

    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
  • bcobco Member Posts: 756
    david -
    great, impartial review. glad to hear you're (for the most part) satisfied with your dodge. good luck!

    bco
  • bcobco Member Posts: 756
    say, bama, explain this to me:

    "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
  • bamatundrabamatundra Member Posts: 1,583
    Timothy,

    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.
  • bamatundrabamatundra Member Posts: 1,583
    Aren't you both responding to sarcasm?
  • ryanbabryanbab Member Posts: 7,240
    So your saying you have been sarcastic and know that the tundra has problems?

    Ryan
  • timothyadavistimothyadavis Member Posts: 322
    Well, I do live in Texas so a gun is never all that far from my head. ;-)

    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.
  • ryanbabryanbab Member Posts: 7,240
    "WE ARE THE WORLD WE ARE THE CHILDREN"

    (stevie doing the head weavin)
    (michael with his high squeaky voice)

    haha

    Ryan
  • timothyadavistimothyadavis Member Posts: 322
    Man, if you start singing "It's a Small World After All" I'm leaving!






    ;-)



    But, seriously now, don't start it....
  • ryanbabryanbab Member Posts: 7,240
    NO BUT AFTER YOUR POST THATS WHAT I THOUGHT OF (opps sorry bout the caps)

    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
  • timothyadavistimothyadavis Member Posts: 322
    I think we can make do with a nice group hug and then spend the next hour or so reaffirming each others' wholeness.... ;-)

    All right, everybody together now:

    My truck's OK.
    Your truck's OK.


    Don't we feel so much better now? :-)
  • superjim2000superjim2000 Member Posts: 314
    NO, NO, NO, NO, NO.
  • davids1davids1 Member Posts: 411
    who touched me???
  • swobigswobig Member Posts: 634
    rwell go???
  • ratboy3ratboy3 Member Posts: 324
    Hey I see the site is up and running again... and group hugging?!
  • rwellbaum2rwellbaum2 Member Posts: 1,006
    Been busy with a new baby, instructor school, etc. I can barely keep my eyelids open. That TRD Tundra is awesome. It would only get me in trouble, way too much power. With the current gas prices, I've been driving my old 78 alot more. Speaking of 1978 g"yo"zas. I was watching part of "Toy Story 2" with my Son. The truck that the little toys drive is a 1978 Gyoza (my truck).
  • ryanbabryanbab Member Posts: 7,240
    congrats with the baby Rwell

    Ryan
  • obyoneobyone Member Posts: 7,841
    .
  • rwellbaum2rwellbaum2 Member Posts: 1,006
    she got here earlier than expected. My wife has been driving the Tundra because 2 car seats and an 11 year old fit in it's back seat better than in her Saturn. I'm fighting off the minivan purchase till I no longer have strength to fight. I was thinking about buying an older Suburban, but after replacing the engine and other odds/ends and getting 12 MPG, I'd be spending too much. Any suggestions (other than succumb to the minivan demon)
  • z71billz71bill Member Posts: 1,986
    How about the Sequoia. The review I read said it needed a bigger engine, but that was VS other SUV's (Tahoe and Expedition), it would keep up with most Mini vans.
  • ryanbabryanbab Member Posts: 7,240
    What about a 4 runner??? They arent bad. Kinda pricy though.

    Ryan
  • bcobco Member Posts: 756
    with a gmc jimmy. just got my wife one. she loves the fact that it sits higher than her old altima, but doesn't require a mooring (sp?) license to operate. (sarcasm intended) good price, good gas mileage, not a mini-van.

    bco
  • ryanbabryanbab Member Posts: 7,240
    yea a SUV like a blazer is a nice family vehicle. We have had a 87 and a 2000 blazer in our family. I can ride in the back now at 21 comfortably for a few hrs. I know for little kids its a good choice.

    Ryan
  • rwellbaum2rwellbaum2 Member Posts: 1,006
    the new jimmy looks very narrow, like an s-10. The Sasquach is too expensive. I'm still thinking older suburban. Do the older ones have 3 rows of seats? I dread having to replace lots of parts. anyone know what usually needs replacing on a older burb? Are there any full size vans, that get decent mileage? God, please save me from the satanically inspired minivan. Heck, I'd rather drive an old volvo station wagon
  • bamatundrabamatundra Member Posts: 1,583
    You know that the practical thing to do is to get a minivan. The whole problem is image. There is a rumor that the seats in minivans cause males pants to bunch up and thereby decrease testosterone levels.

    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.
  • obyoneobyone Member Posts: 7,841
    You could always get a Quad cab Silverado....
  • bamatundrabamatundra Member Posts: 1,583
    "i'm interested to see what you have to say to
    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.
  • timothyadavistimothyadavis Member Posts: 322
    I will defend to the death (or expulsion from Edmunds, whichever comes first) your and everyone's right to post here -- whether or not I agree or have my sensibilities accosted. What I continue to rant against is the nasty tendency you and many others have to include personal put downs (everyone can spell ideology by now!). That sort of thing is juvenile, pointless and unhelpful.

    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. ;-)
  • truckdudetruckdude Member Posts: 55
    Look at the Toyota Sienna. I too hated to get a minivan, but with 2 kids, you will appreciate it more than any SUV. Plus it is safer and less likely to roll over.

    And you can do what I do - make your wife drive and stick to your truck.
This discussion has been closed.

Your Privacy

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.