Tundra vs the Big 3 Continued IV



  • toytunonetoytunone Member Posts: 56
    The link is to a search of Bloomberg news. You keep paging through articles using "more articles" at the bottom of the page until you get to Sept.18, then start looking at the titles. I'm sorry I don't feel free to cut and paste the entire article but it is copyrighted on the Houston Chronicle and archives are only available to subscribers, and Bloomberg will only sell their copyrighted archives to the public. For all you budding lawyers out there, this is what happens to you if you don't settle out of court and get a gag order, this was a jury trial. DaimlerChrysler's director of public affairs Mike Aberlich admitted they'd erred in saying the Dodge Ram could pull such weights.
  • toytunonetoytunone Member Posts: 56
    You should learn to research. You live in Dallas, this jury trial happened last week in McKinney, TX. Why don't you just drive over there and find out. Or make a phone call to someone over there. The litigants were from Ann Arbor, Michigan, which is odd.
  • ryanbabryanbab Member Posts: 7,240
    I couldnt find the article either

  • obyoneobyone Member Posts: 7,841
    Got to hit more articles about eight or nine times and you'll find the beginning of the article.
  • toytunonetoytunone Member Posts: 56
    Regarding the court case on Dodge Ram


    The original article had some of the facts different.
  • timothyadavistimothyadavis Member Posts: 322
    I humbly apologize for doubting you. I could not turn up any other on line source with the same story possibly due to search engine shortcomings on their sites or my inadequate searching techniques/tricks. I also had a great deal of trouble finding the article on the Bloomberg site even after others said they had seen it. I even tried the Dallas Morning News and found nothing for Daimler or Dodge (obviously I didn't try Chrysler!).

    Thank you for the link. I have a call in to their Business/Transportation reporter for more info.

    Once again, please accept my apology for saying that you made the whole thing up. I was wrong and I'm sorry.
  • rwellbaum2rwellbaum2 Member Posts: 1,006
    This lawsuit brings up another controversy. Ever since the Tundra was introduced, big 3 owners have been slamming it for various reasons. One being that it doesn't come in the 2500, 3500 load ratings. Now it's been shown that even the Biggest, baddest 3500 Dodge couldn't handle the 8000lbs horse trailers. I've seen several posts about towing 6000+ trailers with the wimpy Tundra half ton. All have commented on good experiences with the Tundra.
  • toytunonetoytunone Member Posts: 56
    I should have waited until I could post a better link. The original story said the truck wouldn't tow 5000 lb trailers and the truck is rated for 11,000 in the 3500 trim. I hope Dodge will fix the problem in the future or settle out of court instead of trying their luck with juries. Once again, "Crime doesn't pay" ;-))
  • obyoneobyone Member Posts: 7,841
    same problem with exaggerated towing specs for the Dakota. I remember a few disgruntled Dakota owners. I doubt that DC will pay the 80 mil. Probably tie it up in the courts for another millenium.
  • ryanbabryanbab Member Posts: 7,240
    80 some million was on the high side. I could see compensation for the lost money work and mental anguish (losing house and job) but 80 million come on thats RIDICULOUS.

  • lariat1lariat1 Member Posts: 461
    I wonder what the salesman told those people and what the trailers are like that they were trying to tow.I have know doubt that a 3500 Ram can tow 8000# ....WHEN PROPERLY EQUIPPED if they were trying to tow an 8000# trailer on a standard receiver hitch it sounds like it is the customers fault.Now if they were having trouble with the truck and they were using a king pin and trailer brakes it sounds like the manufactures fault there are a lot of variables in the case and I am sure eventually it will all get worked out.
  • timothyadavistimothyadavis Member Posts: 322
    From the Dallas Morning News Article, Couple who won huge award says resolution was main goal (thanks again, toytunone, and sorry again!), it is obvious that this quickly grew from the "mole hill" of an overly enthusiastic towing ability claim into this "mountain" of law suit judgement because of the Dodge dealer's and DC's mishandling of the original complaint.

    Regarding the towing abilities of the truck "The suit alleged that the Dodge Ram 3500 Club Cab pickup truck could not withstand towing the trailers that Mr. and Mrs. Sellers transported and sold. The Sellerses said the truck jerked forward and backward when it towed the trailers, which were within the weight limits the truck was supposed to be able to handle." This after "the dealership assured him the truck could tow up to 11,000 pounds, much more than the 8,000 to 9,000 pounds a typical trailer weighs."

    "Because they could not tow the trailers, they said, their business failed. They said they had to pay other people to transport the trailers and eventually had to sell their inventory at a significant loss just to pay their bills, including the loan on the pickup."

    The dealer/corporate reaction: "[Mike Aberlich, director of public affairs for DaimlerChrysler,] said the company admits it erred in saying the truck could handle the loads Mr. and Mrs. Sellers needed it to carry (emphasis mine), but he said the company also tried to remedy the mistake." However, their offer "to get him a flatbed truck" "was unacceptable because the company asked [Mr. Sellers] to pay the difference in cost between the two trucks, about $5,000 – money he didn't have." So basically they sold him on a truck that wouldn't do what they said it would and then wanted to "make things right" by selling him even more truck.

    It seems obvious to me that they should have given him -- at no further charge -- the truck that would in fact do what he was promised. If they had done that then this would be a non-story and they could even claim to be thoroughly customer-oriented by standing behind their claims (while quickly, of course, adjusting their claims for the pickup to be more honest and appropriate!).

    As is often the case in such situations, a company poised on the knife edge between the lush valley of the heroes and the barren crevasse of the villains, chooses the short-sighted "cheap" route (really very, very expensive in the long run!) and tumbles off the precipice on the villain side. They basically took an unexpected (and not very welcome) opportunity and blew it big time. It is almost impossible to climb back out of that pit. Ask Firestone....
  • jcmdiejcmdie Member Posts: 594
    What I don't understand about this whole deal is that the 3500 Dodge can and does tow 11,000# trailers all the time. Look in the campgrounds at what is pulling these large fifth wheels.
  • quadrunner500quadrunner500 Member Posts: 2,721
    Juries...don't drive trucks.
  • timothyadavistimothyadavis Member Posts: 322
    the company that makes them does! Note the quote from the article cited earlier: "[Mike Aberlich, director of public affairs for DaimlerChrysler,] said the company admits it erred in saying the truck could handle the loads Mr. and Mrs. Sellers needed it to carry (emphasis mine)..."

    The article does not specify the exact setup they were sold, but it is telling that they were offered a bigger (I assume, though that has gotten me in trouble before!) flat bed truck that would handle their needs. Ya got me!
  • swobigswobig Member Posts: 634
    yeah, I'd like to see a Tundra towing a 6000# trailer against a Dodge one ton towing 8000#'s. I hate to make a judgement on this case, but it sounds to me as though the people who bought the truck didn't know what they were doing in the first place. I'm sure you could put 4000# on a truck and do damage, if not done properly. Keep dreaming on the Tundra outpulling anything except maybe my garden tractor...hehehe
  • rwellbaum2rwellbaum2 Member Posts: 1,006
    Let's see Dodge 3500 can't pull 8000lbs and Daimler Chrysler(you know, the foreign owned company)has to fork out 80+million dollars.
    Even the Dodge representatives were forced to admit they lied about the trucks capabilities. So why is it the owners fault?

    "I'd like to see a Tundra towing a 6000#
    trailer against a Dodge one ton towing 8000#'s."

    The Tundra has been put to use pulling 6000lbs trailers with good reviews by the owners, so what's your point on this?
  • mrurlmrurl Member Posts: 116
    what kind of trailers these people were making. I'll bet they are like the ones I used to see at the Houston horse show when I lived there. These trailers are 30+ feet long and are normally pulled by light dual axle semi's. Admittedly, four horses adds a lot of weight, but even empty they have very high hitch weight (2000+). That kind of trailer should never be pulled by a one ton truck, and the salesman should have known that.

  • jcmdiejcmdie Member Posts: 594
    Don't underestimate that garden tracter of yours.
  • rwellbaum2rwellbaum2 Member Posts: 1,006
    "Don't underestimate that garden tracter of yours"
    Yep, especially when comparared to a Dodge 3500! ;)
  • swobigswobig Member Posts: 634
    my point is that your Tundra can not pull as much as a one ton Dodge. But, I see you have it all figured out again. One case a Dodge (or anything else for that matter) can't pull some weight, and here you are bragging that a Tundra will pull 6000#. If you don't think a one ton Dodge will out pull your Tundra, then I really don't know what to say. Again, it's probably somebody stupid who didn't know what the hell they were doing in the first place. 80M is crazy. If that's the case I should buy a Tundra, hook up something to it improperly, and sue the crap out of them for a billion dollars. See how stupid that sounds?? A one ton can pull much more than 8000# if done properly, just as I'm sure your wussy Tundra can pull some weight if done properly. And there's no way that Tundra will outpull ANY one ton...
  • rwellbaum2rwellbaum2 Member Posts: 1,006
    You continue to blame the owners of the Dodge 3500 for improperly hooking up the trailer. Don't you think that Dodge's army of lawers would have brought that up if it were the case? The truth is, Dodge was forced to admit it's trucks could not handle the weight they claimed it could...period!
    BTW, if your so sure of your "improperly hooked up trailer" theory then buy a Tundra, hook up 7200lbs(the max tow rating) improperly and then sue Toyota. Your $80 million fortune is waiting...
  • bigal31bigal31 Member Posts: 189
    to run smack just to stir things up. Posting false info.
    Toytunone- post #118 you posted misinformation.

    "A 1997 Dodge Ram 3500 pickup wouldn't tow a 5000 lb trailer"

    D/C never admitted such a thing..Get it right.

    Not only that I'm SURE Toyota has never been in court for a law suit...Give me a break!!

    What a dumb subject..
  • timothyadavistimothyadavis Member Posts: 322
    you were the messenger! (a traditionally dangerous occupation beginning way back in ancient Greece....)
  • toytunonetoytunone Member Posts: 56
    (this one's for you, F150), let's assume Tundra increases sales dramatically in the next two years and becomes a popular replacement for many pickup owners out there of small, mid and some full size trucks. What would this mean to buyers of full size domestics? Simply that Domestic Manufacturors will have to add technical innovations and increased reliability to compete. You will benefit from Tundra's success on your next vehicle. Maybe Chevy will come out with a DOHC VVTI 32-valve V-8 and trump Ford or vice-versa, either way you will benefit. So it doesn't make sense to be jealous of Tundra owners and try to disrupt their message boards wherever you can find them. The Tundra, like the Camry and Corolla and Tacoma before it, will spur long-overdue improvements in domestic full-size trucks. There would be no Cadillac Northstar if it weren't for the success of Lexus 400. How'd you like that engine in your Silverado? How about Ford's Triton, it can be improved dramatically by changing the heads to DOHC 32 Valve design. Dodge is overdue for a new engine design (why not make a fuel-efficient V-8 that outperforms a V-10?), they have the resources, Tundra may make it happen.
  • mgdvhmanmgdvhman Member Posts: 4,157
    ...."let's assume Tundra
    increases sales dramatically in the next two years
    and becomes a popular replacement for many pickup
    owners out there of small, mid and some full size


    That's a good one!

    - Tim
  • toytunonetoytunone Member Posts: 56
    1969 Toyota Hi-Lux mini-truck which started a mini-truck explosion, and about the 1972 Toyota Celica and the 1990 Lexus, to name a few............
    Keep laughing, it's good for the soul. BTW, do you work for GM?
  • ryanbabryanbab Member Posts: 7,240
    1990 lexuses i see very few lexus cars around. They arent 9 out of 10 cars on the road. WHen they are then you can talk.

    its about 1 in 50 maybe. Thats no explosion

  • toytunonetoytunone Member Posts: 56
    Then WHen GM makes a family car in the top 5 sellers by volume, you can talk! They're about 6th with the Cavalier. That's no explosion either. BTW guess who's #1? Hint, hint it starts with Cam..

    However, "they" said Lexus would never make it in the luxury car business, since it was already so overcrowded, but today Lexus sells more than half as many Luxury cars as Cadillac or Lincoln in the U.S.
  • rwellbaum2rwellbaum2 Member Posts: 1,006
    Many of us jumped on the B.S. bandwagon regarding the Dodge lawsuit and then were forced to eat crow; when it all turned out to be....TRUE!!!!
    Hopefully, after reading the article for yourself, you'll apolegize to toytunone, as I did.
  • superjim2000superjim2000 Member Posts: 314
    The Tundra isnt full size to begin with but you want to compare it to full size trucks, ok. So youre suggesting that Chevy, which already gets better mileage from a OHV engine switch to DOHC.

    The smaller DOHC engine in the smaller truck is a gas guzzler, oh but thats an improvement right?

    The LS1 based engines are fresh designs and meet current and future emmision standards and get good fuel economy so why would GM spend a ton of dough for a DOHC engine? A sticker maybe?

    I havent met a Silverado owner who doesnt like their truck, and it offers much, much more than the upgraded T100 (Tundra) in standard features and available equipment.

    And what, in your opinion, is a long overdue improvement for domestic full size trucks?

    Standard 4 wheel ABS disc brakes on the Silverado, what does the Tundra come with?

    I like 4 wheel ABS standard and the optional posi traction.
  • toytunonetoytunone Member Posts: 56
    better mileage, that's a myth cooked up by GM owners. I don't lie about my mileage, it's 16 mpg overall about 40% city 60 % highway, 4X4 XCAB LTD Tundra 4.7L V-8, weight 4600 lbs. I always run the air conditioner and frequently stop and idle the truck for several minutes waiting for someone. Also I drive aggressively on 2 lane highways a lot. Check with Z-71 XCAB 4X4 owners about their overall mileage.
    My Tundra has ABS and dual caliper front disc brakes. Tundra doesn't offer positraction yet, that's a good point. Maybe Toyota will fix it soon.
    Tell you what, you don't think it's full size? Let's compare it point by point to your S-10:
    Load capacity: 2000 lbs
    Towing capacity: 7200 lbs
    0-60 mph: 7.8 seconds (every try this in 4X4 Low?) Wow, about 5 seconds, don't try on dry pavement!
    Why don't you go to a showroom and drive a Tundra and see what you think?
  • bcobco Member Posts: 756
    ...to explain all this again. who else thinks toytunone is another reincarnation of bama? damn, man...

    my '00 'rado z71's overall gas mileage (over the first 12k miles) has been just over 15 mpg. the kicker? 80%+ has been commuting or off road. on the one long trip i took, it spiked to 19+. i too, drive aggressively (lead foot if you will) both on the highway and around town. so no, that is not a gm myth. my 'rado has gotten as good, if not better mileage than advertised.


    here we go, disassembling each tundra accusation apart, piece by piece again. why can't everyone just look back at the earlier topics and realize the tundra dicks aren't ever gonna get it?
  • ratboy3ratboy3 Member Posts: 324
  • toytunonetoytunone Member Posts: 56
    but the original posting I was responding to was:

    youre suggesting that Chevy, which already gets
    better mileage from a OHV engine switch to DOHC.
    The smaller DOHC engine in the smaller truck is a
    gas guzzler, oh but thats an improvement right?

    No, I'm saying the silverado gets about the SAME,(NOT BETTER), gas mileage as a similiarly equipped Tundra. OK? SAME, NOT BETTER. Got it??

    Talk about dense.
  • mgdvhmanmgdvhman Member Posts: 4,157
    ..I don't work for GM...but still find humor in them tundra fans...

    take it away Kyle!.....ya got a whole new audience!


    - Tim
  • swobigswobig Member Posts: 634
    so your Tundra can tow 7200 lbs. And a one ton Dodge cannot tow 8000 lbs. Right?? Anybody want to compare the two. I really don't give a damn what you say, there is no way in the world you Tundra will compete with a one ton. Get it? I know your Toy is the best thing on earth, but give me a break...
  • rwellbaum2rwellbaum2 Member Posts: 1,006
    One more time for the learning impaired:

    I never said the Dodge 3500 could not tow 8000lbs.

    Dodge representitives themselves admitted to that fact in court!!!!

    If you don't like the truth...that's too bad! If you want to get mad, take it up with Dodge and their false claims/advertising.
  • rwellbaum2rwellbaum2 Member Posts: 1,006
    I've seen claims by Silverado owners that they are getting 25+ mpg. I think they might just be fudging the truth a little. Their posts eventually turn from how great their silverado is to "how can I enact a buyback on this Lemon"
  • toytunonetoytunone Member Posts: 56
    or anyone else, but I definitely admire the man. He is much more literary than I. bco, how many reincarnations are you? Probably about 5 is average for Silverado owners. Come to think of it, I might enjoy being reincarnated here as F150drools or slowbig or rwatbgsman or ryanbabbler or redshakerado or (please Meredith, stop me!) You get the point, don't you?

    Anyway, you guys have been cracking me up for months here and I think I'll go back on the sidelines for awhile
  • mgdvhmanmgdvhman Member Posts: 4,157
    after all...when you know you have been beat..it's the right thing to do....crawl away and cower...

  • z71billz71bill Member Posts: 1,986
    Edmunds did a comparison of the Ram, Tundra, Silverado and F-150. All 4x4 X-cabs. I thought it was well written. The trucks finished in the order I listed from last place (by a wide margin) Ram to First place (by a very narrow margin) F-150.
  • ryanbabryanbab Member Posts: 7,240
    My Z71 ext cab silverado in 5 months (today is its 5 month bday) has gotten an average of 14.4 mpg. This is 80-85% city and 20-15% highway. DOnt forget to throw in im 21 (woohoo as of yesterday) and i like to go stop light to stop light all out.

    Toytunone. I do not have thw weight facts of the tundra or silverado if you know these could you post them. This also should having bearing with mpg.

  • dmdbitdmdbit Member Posts: 23
    all of the mpg comparisons i read about from you guys is mostly 5.3gm vs 4.7toy. Im that case gm seems to do well considering a larger engine and larger truck. maybe a better comparison would be the toy vs. 4.8gm.I have an ext cab with the 4.8l and 5spd that gets consistent 22.5.Yes this is mostly highway but i have been very pleased.

  • redsilveradoredsilverado Member Posts: 1,000
    you talk just like f150 aka etc. etc.(meredith
    please stop me)ZZZZZZZZZ BTW, and i'm not putting
    the toyota guys down but, have you actually
    ridden in the back seat of the tundra? also the
    gas milage you are talking about may well be the
    guys with the v-6. in your previous life you also
    left out those particular details. only now
    you're starting a whole new war. it's just a
    matter of time before you're caught again.
  • redsilveradoredsilverado Member Posts: 1,000
    pulling the disappearing act just as you no who
    used to.
  • bamatundrabamatundra Member Posts: 1,583
    The May '00 issue of Motor Trend had a comparison test of 4X4 extended cabs. Toyota finished first (as it should) and F150 finished dead last (as it should).
  • quadrunner500quadrunner500 Member Posts: 2,721
    I'm a domestic owner, with first hand experience behind the wheel of the Toyota. You can read my link below.

    When I think about the problems with any truck, imperfect as it may be, and then compare it to Toyota I start asking questions.

    Why would Toyota put on a pip squeak horn?
    Why would Toyota put on drum brakes?
    Why doesn't the Toyota get good gas mileage?

    The inevitable answer, though they are not without some appeal, mostly due to the superior warranty, is that they are built this way because that's the knowhow Toyota has for building small trucks cheaply. You don't have think of Frank Sinatra to know they did it "your way."

    I would consider one, based on reputation. I already have, several times. But the truck itself is too big of a disappointment, to bother with. Face reality. Your lifestyle dictates you will switch to something new again, long before 200,000 miles. (Robby, you old truck doesn't pass emissions, so spare us the testimonial.)

  • obyoneobyone Member Posts: 7,841
    you are closer than you think on this one...glad you thought so...I didn't want to seem paranoid. Ironic isn't it?


    Something you posted reminded me of Burger King..."Have it your way" ...LOL
  • rwellbaum2rwellbaum2 Member Posts: 1,006
    Sorry Quad,
    You force the review of my testimonial.
    1978 Toyota 2WD. At 280,000 miles, many of them driven around the moto-cross track, it no longer passed emissions. I put in a $300 cate engine (I put in a new clutch/throwout bearing/pilot bearing while I was at it for $129.00) and now have 387,000 miles and it is fully liscensed with current tags. It still runs great!
This discussion has been closed.