That "Off Road" package on them Dodge ones be lookin like it be takin too the farm but quick! Them ones got what it takes too work em hard now. Do that compare too that "TRD" package on them limited ones now! One be for the workin man, one be for that yuppie. Use them eyes too be figurin out which one that yuppie be chasin now! Good luck on this one now!
Yep, compare that TRD package. Got the highest ground clearance over all them jacked-up trucks. The fad chasers care about looks. That's why Ford outsells em' all. They jack there trucks up high, so dim-witted folk can feel superior by being 3 inches higher than the next guy. Too bad they couldn't increase the ground clearance to make it effective. All they accomplished is to raise the center of gravity for a more roll-over happy vehicle. The lawsuits are already coming in quicker than Ford can settle em'. The money-hungered lawers got hold of the Ford memos statin' they knew their jacked up vehicles are at severely increased risk to rollover. At least chevy learned their lesson from all the lawsuits they've endured. You'll notice that the chevs are about the same height as the Tundra, while the Dodge and Ford went with the "higher is better" gimmick to sell to the fad chaser.
A muscular truck, cold air conditioner, and business persona, but large abdomen? I'm flattered you think of me this way, since much of my life mirrored your current undernourished toothpick.
Silverado...yes...but don't hate me because I'm beautiful!
The 72 C10 was nice, especially with the 350 small block. But the '58, with the white bumper and matching hub caps was the sweetest. I still remember the "new car" smell, jumping up and down on the seat, etc.!
I find it hilarious that all of Libby's apologists do her talking for her - Just trying to support their wounded ersatz hick. Why not? - She is the Chevy pack's intellectual. Enjoy those "twinkies" she's been feeding you.
When I post about the Tundra vs. the Big3, I assume that we are talking about 1/2 ton pickups. If I wanted a 3/4 ton or 1 ton pickup - I would have bought a Ford.
I guess that the Chevy 1/2 ton is too wimpy to directly compare to the Tundra. Maybe if they add a few more braces to the Chevy next year? Maybe they could tighten up those main bearing clearances again. Maybe they could get it to run on regular gas. Maybe they could give it decent brakes. Maybe?
Now the Chevy pack wants to compare the Tundra to the duramax diesel? While I think that Chevy is taking a step in the right direction by giving up designing their own engines and transmissions, the Isuzu engine is STILL being mounted in a first year Chevy - a horrible waste of a good engine and transmission. Maybe in 3 or 4 years they might have all the major bugs worked out.
4 inches less ground clearance? How the hell is Libby going to use that in the fields? It will get hung up on the first furrow she tries to plow. She better get a real heavy duty truck - the Tundra.
I don't have time to post continuously in this topic. If I had all day, I could post as prolifically as Libby. I am sorry that my posts seem disjointed, but it is because I am trying to post responses to 32 different posts in a short amount of time.
Season's Greetings Quad, So your latest argument is a that bloated, fat gut is healthy and a lean midsection constitutes an undernourished toothpick? I'd better see the doctor to get some fat injections! Maybe they could transfer it from the interior skull of a GM fan!
you can tell christmas is coming...everyone's all up tight right now. yikes!
bama, i believe you initiated the comparison to 3/4 and 1 ton trucks when you stated that tundras are "heavy duty". brought that on yourself now.
now, instead of having libby "trained" it's now her "apologists" that rise to the bait, eh? hey...when you make up your mind, let us know, ok? LOL! go back and read your last few "disjointed" posts...they're not disjointed, they're just plain stupid.
the tundrats must be on a high right now thinking that you have people comparing your undersized gnome-savers to real trucks. even got a tacoma-owner in here fighting for you.
and rwell, fyi...that's dirt on the drive shaft and springs of that truck...not rust.
And why not, them tacomas and them tundras all but be the same ones now. They be parts sharin that trannie, transfercase, pumpkins, belly pans, and lot of other doo-dads now. The only part them ones aint sharin for sure be them rear door-handles now. Is them yuppies blind too these facts now? How can them ones be "full size" if they built on them pee-wee parts? Does this explain that hitch mystery? Only that factory be knowin the answer too these ones now. Good luck on this one now!
Ever eyeball that "workin" end of them tundras? Is them beds even a foot deep? What be the point of that? How is folks goin haul things in that? What was that factory thinkin on when they made them beds this way? Is that bed just them tacoma beds slapped on them tundras? This be a mystery for sure! Good luck on this one now!
Also someone made the mistake of saying that the Tundra's and Chevy's are the same size. I don't think so. Here is a comparison between extended cab, 4x4's.
Silverado(in) Tundra(in) Length 227.6 217.5 Width 78.5 75.2 Wheelbase 143.5 128.3 Height 73.9 71.5 Gnd Clear 8.7 11.4 Toy's jacked up more but still not as tall Box Length 78.7 76.5 Box Height 19.5 16.7
welcome to the fray. what you can expect to receive now are several rude retorts and attacks on you personally. seems some folks don't enjoy having the facts pointed out to them. 1. as for your sales figures, tundra fans will prefer to have sales figures reported as a percentage of those produced. for example, 'x'% of tundras produced last year were sold, vs. 'y'% of (insert gm, ford, or dodge here). this allows them to "level the playing field" and make it look more like tundra really is starting to "take over" the full-size truck market. 2. reference the size issues you mentioned. bigger is not better (at least according to these guys). what is better is less horse-power, torque, cargo capacity, towing ability, gas mileage, etc. bama will be producing the same old jd powers, consumer reports, and motor trend drivel again. you see, some folks are willing to buy off on the idea that a truck that has existed for less than one year will outlast and outperform anything else on the road. fascinating isn't it? 3. oh, and expect to be "cyber-handed" a set of pom-poms and labeled a "libby apologist". that kinda goes with the territory also.
That somethings never change. Sure, some of the participants come and go but the level of discourse never seems to raise above the playground level in any topic that includes the Tundra. My 4 month, self imposed, "exile" from this topic brought my blood pressure down several notches and I'll leave the playground to the kids.
So hilly billy you "thunk" that the chevy diesel compares to the cummings and power stroke. Well here in texas we do something called hot shoting. Pulling loads to other citys. My brother in law was issued a 2000 Chevy Diesel went through 2 motors in 1 month, new truck for power strokes cant even fill the load. My cousin hauls around a 550 case dozer 350 4x4 power stroke (99') cant notice a difference if it is back there in power or Gas Milage. The Diesel chevrolet pulled the dozer out to hempsted broken axle and a half tank of gas later there we were stranded so you can keep teh old chevrolet. As far as ground clearance goes i wouldnt go over to many speed bumps even in the chevy. "Good Luck on this one"
like most toyotas, it's so small it's too hard to tell what it is. LOL! tacoma? i don't see any exterior door handles on the extended cab, so i can only suppose.
was just thinking about you the other day. someone else was posting that same preposterous crap about how beneficial it is that the tundra's bed is so shallow. LOL! i wonder why they didn't just go flatbed, eh?
Hope you don't have to wait too long for your 2001. There's already a big waiting list of loyal, cultlike GM zombies waiting to trade in their 1999/2000 shakerado for a 2001 with the beefed up frame. GM knows how to save money, just have it's wretched consumers pay for the R&D. How does it feel to be a GM product tester? Shouldn't they be paying you, instead of the other way around?
You be misleading folk again on the HD's from chevy. Slapping each others tails calling them heavy duty's. The real truth be stinging your bloodshot, tobacco yellowed eyes now. Chevy calls them "HD's", which is their abbreviation for Hidden Defects. That be the truth of it, for sure! Best get this tell right from now on.
(justtheone) I have two things to say to you: #1 Your'e right, the Tundra is not a heavy duty pick-up and whoever started comparing it to the 3/4 and 1 ton trucks is living in a dream world.
#2 I don't know how old you are, but if you were born between 1945 & 1964 that automatically puts you in the Babyboomer/Yuppie demographic catagory. Sputnik was being manufactured when I was born.
How many idiots live in this world? How stupid can anyone be? Not naming any names here, but it isn't hard to figure out.
Tundra: 1 plant, in Indiana, production capacity of 100,000.
Big 3's: more than 1 plant, mostly in Canada or Mexico, production capacity of ?.
Why does the Tundra not compare to the Big 3 in sales? They can only make 100,000 Tundras a year. The Big 3 can make as many as they need to. Big 3 has more dealers. Why isn't Dodge comparing to Chevy or Ford in truck sales? Also, the Tundra is one model-half ton. In Ford's sales you add in all the Superduties, and now the Supercrew, those add up quick. Dodge and Chevy also have HD's added to their sales figures.
I know the response already: "Well then Toyota should make some 3/4 and 1 tons then." Well now you know why the Big 3, or 2, sell all those trucks.
Comparing the Tundra to the Big 3's heavy duties is not right. The Tundra is a 1/2 ton truck, the Big 3's heavy duties are 3/4, 1 tons and so on. Those could haul and pull 3 times more weight than a Tundra. They're designed to.
There's no denying that the Tundra is smaller than the Silverado, F-150, or Ram. But on the other end of the spectrum, it's noticeably bigger than the Dakota, and will waste the Dakota in anything. So what class do you put the Tundra in? Don't matter to me, put it in the "almost full-size" category. All I can tell you is that the Tundra compares to the full-size ones nicely in any performance test.
What class is them limited ones in, folks be askin? That be an easy one, they be in that "yuppie class" now! Facts is facts on them limited ones, they aint got no "haul" in em, and that be that truth of that one. Chase that shine yuppie! Good luck on this one now!
You haven't done your homework. Better pull out that dakota broshure again and recheck the size, towing payload etc... The dakota nevere claimed to be full size because you can't lay a 4x8 sheet of plywood flat on the bed. That is about the only thing that a tundra can do that a dakota can't.
Them Dakota ones be bigger, and got more haul than them limited ones. Why is folks even buyin them forien ones now? I sure aint gettin that "yuppie logic" of this one now. Use that hint that factory gave ya: "Da Runt"! Good luck on this one now!
Heard some tells that them limited ones be joinin them t100 ones soon now. Wont be long now before that factory be announcin an "all new full size" one. That factory be as hard too learn as them yuppies be. Good luck on this one now!
Good ole indiana. Fort Wayne to be exact. Home state and all.
Someone said we are comparing trucks right 1500's? Well no chevy 1500 is built outside the us or canada. 3 plants 1 in indiana 1 in michigan and 1 in canada.
Comments
As them eyes can tell, that tundra with that tacoma drivetrain aint no HD, it aint even "full size" now! Good luck on this one now!
Silverado...yes...but don't hate me because I'm beautiful!
When I post about the Tundra vs. the Big3, I assume that we are talking about 1/2 ton pickups. If I wanted a 3/4 ton or 1 ton pickup - I would have bought a Ford.
I guess that the Chevy 1/2 ton is too wimpy to directly compare to the Tundra. Maybe if they add a few more braces to the Chevy next year? Maybe they could tighten up those main bearing clearances again. Maybe they could get it to run on regular gas. Maybe they could give it decent brakes. Maybe?
Now the Chevy pack wants to compare the Tundra to the duramax diesel? While I think that Chevy is taking a step in the right direction by giving up designing their own engines and transmissions, the Isuzu engine is STILL being mounted in a first year Chevy - a horrible waste of a good engine and transmission. Maybe in 3 or 4 years they might have all the major bugs worked out.
4 inches less ground clearance? How the hell is Libby going to use that in the fields? It will get hung up on the first furrow she tries to plow. She better get a real heavy duty truck - the Tundra.
So your latest argument is a that bloated, fat gut is healthy and a lean midsection constitutes an undernourished toothpick? I'd better see the doctor to get some fat injections! Maybe they could transfer it from the interior skull of a GM fan!
bama, i believe you initiated the comparison to 3/4 and 1 ton trucks when you stated that tundras are "heavy duty". brought that on yourself now.
now, instead of having libby "trained" it's now her "apologists" that rise to the bait, eh? hey...when you make up your mind, let us know, ok? LOL! go back and read your last few "disjointed" posts...they're not disjointed, they're just plain stupid.
the tundrats must be on a high right now thinking that you have people comparing your undersized gnome-savers to real trucks. even got a tacoma-owner in here fighting for you.
and rwell, fyi...that's dirt on the drive shaft and springs of that truck...not rust.
bco
Sales volume from AutoSite:
Model YTD Sales
----- ---------
Ford Trucks 748,025
Chevy/GMC 699,901
Dodge Ram 324,860
.
{several compact trucks}
.
Tundra 85,349
Sorry but in a couple of years the Tundra's going the way of the T100.
Silverado(in) Tundra(in)
Length 227.6 217.5
Width 78.5 75.2
Wheelbase 143.5 128.3
Height 73.9 71.5
Gnd Clear 8.7 11.4 Toy's jacked up more but still not as tall
Box Length 78.7 76.5
Box Height 19.5 16.7
Wheelbase 131
Length 215.1
Width 71.6
Height 68.8
I think its plain to see that the Tundra's real competition is the Dakota making it "Midsize" not "Fullsize".
1. as for your sales figures, tundra fans will prefer to have sales figures reported as a percentage of those produced. for example, 'x'% of tundras produced last year were sold, vs. 'y'% of (insert gm, ford, or dodge here). this allows them to "level the playing field" and make it look more like tundra really is starting to "take over" the full-size truck market.
2. reference the size issues you mentioned. bigger is not better (at least according to these guys). what is better is less horse-power, torque, cargo capacity, towing ability, gas mileage, etc. bama will be producing the same old jd powers, consumer reports, and motor trend drivel again. you see, some folks are willing to buy off on the idea that a truck that has existed for less than one year will outlast and outperform anything else on the road. fascinating isn't it?
3. oh, and expect to be "cyber-handed" a set of pom-poms and labeled a "libby apologist". that kinda goes with the territory also.
other than that, welcome and enjoy the fun!
bco
SILV facts hurt. They will deny deny deny but all us rational people know what the facts are and we live in reality.
Ryan
naahhhh
- Tim
Ford F Series sales year to date (Oct) up 2.8%
Chevy Silv & CK " " up 3.3%
Dodge Ram " " down 11%
Tundra " " up 291%
or
October of 2000 vs. October of 1999
Ford F Series down 11%
Chevy Silv & CK down 15%
Dodge Ram down 12%
Tundra up 19%
Toyota makes no claim about wanting to dominate full size truck sales. They see it as a very lucrative market in the US and want a piece of it.
LMFAO!!!
...hey...we sold 3 instead of 1!...we are up 200%
WOW!
Get real...it's the last on the list....and it's only going down from there....
- Tim
Here is a real truck!!!!!!!1
bco
bco
That's rust on the universal, for sure. The springs have rust too. But if it makes you feel better to call it rust colored dirt.....;)
I have two things to say to you:
#1 Your'e right, the Tundra is not a heavy duty pick-up and whoever started comparing it to the 3/4 and 1 ton trucks is living in a dream world.
#2 I don't know how old you are, but if you were born between 1945 & 1964 that automatically puts you in the Babyboomer/Yuppie demographic catagory.
Sputnik was being manufactured when I was born.
You wouldn't seriously get another truck with drum brakes?
BTW, Jray18, the reasons for choosing the Ranger over Tacoma are the same given by the Tindra owners,....because Consumer Reports says so.
Good luck on this one now!
1) When you get to a topic by Justtheone, skip it until you get to somebody that lives in the 90's.
Tundra: 1 plant, in Indiana, production capacity of 100,000.
Big 3's: more than 1 plant, mostly in Canada or Mexico, production capacity of ?.
Why does the Tundra not compare to the Big 3 in sales? They can only make 100,000 Tundras a year. The Big 3 can make as many as they need to. Big 3 has more dealers. Why isn't Dodge comparing to Chevy or Ford in truck sales? Also, the Tundra is one model-half ton. In Ford's sales you add in all the Superduties, and now the Supercrew, those add up quick. Dodge and Chevy also have HD's added to their sales figures.
I know the response already: "Well then Toyota should make some 3/4 and 1 tons then." Well now you know why the Big 3, or 2, sell all those trucks.
compares to the full-size ones nicely in any
performance test.<<<
Translation----> (makes a good grocery getter!)
Sales are running 300%, but are UP 200% since we already had the first 100%.
Good ole indiana. Fort Wayne to be exact. Home state and all.
Someone said we are comparing trucks right 1500's? Well no chevy 1500 is built outside the us or canada. 3 plants 1 in indiana 1 in michigan and 1 in canada.
Ryan