It's the engine, trans. etc. which are the most expensive to repair. If the powertrain warranty is nothing then why doesn't Ford throw it in to compete?
I'd hazard a guess that Ford doesn't need to throw in the extended power train warranty to compete, as they've been #1 in sales for some umpteen years now. I'd bet that a lot of people use part of the few thousand cost difference for an extended warranty (a 6yr/75K bumper to bumper extended warranty costs around $500).
What I do find interesting is that the Mazda B-Series trucks (Ranger clones) come with a better warranty and cost less to boot. Maybe they have to throw in a better warranty to compete as a Japanese-branded truck?
the Ranger is a low cost, quality built, reliable 4x4 compact truck. I'm telling you. I have yet to see a Tacoma TRD in some of the most heavily 4x4 areas of the NW region. I'm talking from the Coast of Oregon/Washington to Cascades. I just can't picture anyone taking a 24K vehicle into areas that are bound to scratch the paint, put a small dent here and there... Especially a TRD. For those of us who know what a locker, how a locker, when a locker is to be used, I know you won't find a TRD in those places....
Ct - I guess you've got me there. Rather than compete thay can sell even more. Then again maybe it would cost them too much in repairs or, it would cost them in lost extended waranty revenues which would necesitate a price increase. The biggest blessing I had when buying the Tacoma was that no one tried to sell me an extended waranty because there was no need to.
Vince - Southern Oregon mountains are full of Tacoma's. Don't know where you've been. I go there almost every summer and I doubt that they're there only for me.
I guess it all comes down to the bottom line. After all, that's why Ford and Toyota are in business. They just use different methods of maximizing black ink.
One more note on the Mazda. They offer limited trim levels and group their options in packages similar to Toyota. Maybe that's why their prices are a bit cheaper than the very customizable Ranger.
Actually, the dealer didn't try to sell me an extended warranty either (didn't want one anyways). I think that GM has got the market cornered there! ;^)
I've posted the same link about five times now, to no avail. The posters here at edmunds have made it clear to me that unless the statistics or charts favor their opinions, they don't want to see or to be shown those statistics and charts.
I, at first, was outraged that objectivity could be thrown out the window so readily, but soon I realized that I am just one, and what good is it to try to be objective when no one else makes the effort?
So, for the sake of brotherly love, I will now only post to correct erroneous data concerning concrete subjects like dimensions, prices (we all know how absolute these are), warranties, etc., and the rest of the time I will post, over and over, my own personal experiences in disregard to what anyone else has posted in a particular topic and will take delight in knowing, that in my finite world, I am right.
I think I could live with 4.5 average problems per vehicle (Ford) compared to 3.0 (Toyota). Doesn't seem like such a BIIGGGG difference to me.
Of course, maybe that's because my wife and I are considering a new full-size SUV and are as yet unable to decide between the Ford Expedition (@ $33-35K) and the Toyota Sequoia (@ $39-44K). The $6-9K difference would sure seem to make up for the additional 1.5 problems. At least that's how I see it. BTW- these are real-world prices, not MSRP. Ford dealers are offering huge discounts and Toyota (of course) wants MSRP or more.
Toyota gang just shot themselves in the foot again. I would agree. 1.5 difference in problems hardly justifies the extra thousands of dollars you WILL spend for this perceived huge gap in quality/relibiality. As a matter of fact. Check out the latest Motor Trend. They constantly comment on the lack of quality in the interior of the new Toyota's. As is stated, and not only from me, Toyota is in this ball game for money, not to build an outstanding vehicle at a loss....
I have to admit that my Taco with 42k is holding up much better than my Ford trucks or van I had owned previously. Fords are getting better, but still not as good as Toyota.
yesterday. Got a loaded Eddie Bauer and saved about $9K over the Toyota Sequoia Limited. These are VERY similar vehicles, and given that the Sequoia is based on the Tundra, which seems to be problem-plagued, I think we made the right choice.
I know, I know, this isn't keeping with the Tacoma-Ranger topic, but I thought you guys might find the cost differences as amazing as I did.
BTW- The Sequoia aside, it seems ALL the dealers here in the Denver area are over-stocked with 4x4s, both SUVs and trucks. With a little effort, a great deal can be had. We paid about $650 less than invoice for the Expedition. They split their holdback with us, crying and moaning the whole time..
They don't want to believe the reliability reports but they continue to push the safety reports.
Your completely right I will not post any more Reliability information.
I will however, post my opinion on the whole [non-permissible content removed]. Vs. domestic thing. Which seems to be the core of this discussion
1.If it wasn't for the [non-permissible content removed] carmakers, who knows where the domestic market would be. It seemed the domestic cars were getting worse until the First reliable, fuel economy car was introduced from Japan. 2.Toyota and other [non-permissible content removed] carmakers have a good reputation for building (quality, reliable, ect...)cars. Ford DOSEN'T have a good reputation for building (quality, reliable, ect...)cars. They do have the niche in the cheap car market I will give them that. Well at least that's what most of these pro-Ford posts sound like. I don't think I need to go about how they got their reputations. 3. From a young age most people have that anti-[non-permissible content removed] ideology. I am guilty my self I was known to say. "No way would I ever own a foreign car. Only if someone gave it to me or I won it as a prize." Well I changed my motto to say "domestic" instead of foreign.
That all said neither Ford nor Toyota is going away any time soon, so I guess this form will stay lively.
Good point. I was raised with the same mentality. Of course, when I became an adult and learned to make decisions for myself, I realized the futility of being so narrowminded. We live in a global economy. Nothing is completely homegrown anymore.
I have owned about 15-18 Toyotas (lost count)since my first one in 1982. Most were exceptional vehicles. Few if any problems and great reliability.
The BIG exception was my '95 Tacoma, which was such a lemon the dealer voluntarily took it back and gave me a new T100 after four months (this is why I hang out on this topic).
I was willing to pay a bit extra for what I perceived as a better vehicle, and I still will, unless the price difference becomes more than about 10% or so.
That's why I took the chance with the Expedition. I saved about 25% compared to a comparably equipped Sequoia. To me, that $9000 savings represents a MAJOR chunk of change. In addition, the Sequoia is based on the Tundra, which sounds at least as problem-prone as any Ford truck, according to the Tundra topic here on Edmunds.
For a savings of $9000, I would have bought the Expedition, too. You made a wise decision and saved your family many future headaches--the Tundra is a piece of crap. Everyone knows this. The only argument which still remains is whether or not it is really a "full-size" truck, and the majority of posters have made it clear to the minority of Tundra owners that the Tundra is not.
have set the standard as what a full size truck should be. The Tundra is not full size, Nor can Toyota just step in and change the standards for what a full size truck should be. Tundra sales are falling now. The initial run up in sales were the Tacoma owners trading in their Tacoma's for somthing a bit larger. Someone posted dimensions comparing a Tundra to a Dakota. Very close and some the same. The Tundra is a mid-size truck. I also find it funny how its ok for Toyota to pick its top of the line engine offered in the Tundra (V8)and compare it to the lowest V8 offered by Chevy/Ford/Dodge. People caught on to this and it hurt Toyota..
Vince, the 4.7L V-8 in the Tundra is its ONLY V-8 offering. Comparing it to the 4.6L Ford, 4.8L Chevy and 5.2L Dodge is only fair. Of course, this yields better acceleration times for the Tundra, and that's never good if you're driving a big, bad "American" truck.
What happened to the pursuit of fairness?
Toyota only makes one engine as it does, comparably, what the "domestics" do. It goes 0-60 in 8.2 (Motortrend), pulls 7200 lbs, and is quiet and smooth. Of course, if someone wants to tow a house or pull up tree stumps, the engine will prove inadequate, but this is not the role Toyota envisioned for the Tundra. It was simply built to achieve 100,000 in sales and be an alternative to Ford and Chevy for people who wanted a high quality, Toyota-type truck. It's done that. Mission accomplished.
just want a FAIR test. So, its ok for Toyota to use its top of the line engine offered in the Tundra to compete with the lowest engines offered by Ford/Dodge/Chevy in their fullsize trucks? How? If you notice in their advertisments they have a little astrik and small writing at the bottom of the page telling readers that these engine offered by Ford/Chevy/Dodge are their base V8 engines. So why don't they use their BASE V6 offered in the Tundra? Web, search the net, the Tundra is having problems and sales are shrinking now. The consumer has caught on to Toyota and its numbers game and advertising game. Toyota should have never tried to compare the Tundra to the Chevy/Ford/Dodge. Take a look at the Motor Trend Truck of the year, A big hint, its not a Toyota....
( AND NOW, LADIES AND GENTLEMAN...... the black taco owning, supercharged, high ground clearance, offroad feature owning SPOOG is back on the forum!!!!!!)
Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeehaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwww!
It's good to be back!
GREAT post Tacorunner on the JD reliability report. Excellent.
ah ah ah...before I say another word:
here is a COMPLETE list of the TSB's, Defect Investigations, and Safety Recalls for the Toyota pickup, Chevy s-10, Ford Ranger, and Dodge Dakota from the years 1989-2000. Enjoy.
Defect Investigations 1989-2000
Ford Ranger - 20
Dodge Dakota- 14
Chevy S10 - 51
Toyota Tacoma - 2
Safety Recalls 1989-2000
Ford Ranger- 32
Dodge Dakota - 28
Chevyy S10 - 47
Toyota Tacoma - 6
Technical Service Bulletins 1989-2000
Ford Ranger -2,279(yes, 2,279)
Dodge Dakota- 940
Chevy S10 -448
Toyota Tacoma - 150
-------
So there you have it. All data is factual, and very telling. This is NOT "subjective".
A trucks reliability and build quality is NOT "subjective".
Not all trucks are built the same, as you can plainly see.
Not only Toyota, but actual publications have compared the Tundra's engine with the small and large V8 engine offerings with the domestics. Each time, the results were interesting. The Tundra V8 with 4.7 liters was more comparable to the larger domestic engines in terms of speed and power. Check any magazine where the trucks are compared (I think I have them all, from Four Wheeler Magazine to Motor Trend) and the 4.7 Tundra numbers are right up there and in some cases exceeding the domestic numbers with their bigger V8s.
As for the Tundra sales falling. Every vehilce pretty much starts off like that. With a vehicle that created the anticipation the Tundra did, it never took a genius to figure out that after a couple months, the atmosphere would change. It had nothing to do with the quality of the truck (I really don't know where you get your information). Toyota has NEVER had a problem in terms of quality.
The Tundra was Motor Trend's "Truck of the Year" last year, and was not eligable this year. They only compare the most recently updated or changed models. The Tundra was new in 2000 so obviously there wouldn't be a whole lot of changes.
If you need more info, check out Consumer Reports, where the Tundra is a recommended model...Why would Consumer Reports recommend a bad quality truck??? Hmmm.... You should review your facts...
Spoog, don't forget my contributions--I posted the J.D. Powers 5-Year Reliability Study three or four times......to no avail.
Natureboy1, I've got the issue of Motortrend (May 2000) where the Tundra 4.7L is compared with the Chevy 5.3L, Ford 5.4L, and Dodge 5.9L. All were extended cab, half-ton, 4x4 models. Here are the results for 0-60 and 1/4 mile:
Okay, Vince, here is an objective test with the Tundra's only V-8 vs. the Big2 and DaimlerGerman's biggest (Dodge and Ford) or next-to-biggest and most popular (Chevy) V-8's. You'll notice that the Tundra came in second in both the 0-60 sprint and the 1/4 mile with the highest trap speed in the 1/4 mile. Is this a fair test, or do we need to get the HD versions from the Big2 and DaimlerGerman with their honking V-10's or 8.1L V-8 (Chevy)?
The last time I looked (a couple of months ago), the JD Powers 5-year reliability report DID NOT include the Tacoma at all. Just the pre-Tacoma trucks, which IMHO, were MUCH better trucks than the Tacoma will ever be.
Hopefully Toyota has the sense to build something better (than the Tacoma) next year. Of course, they should also change the name and promise to NEVER build such a POS again! Sure they will....
I do agree the V8 in the Tacoma/Sequoia is a pretty good engine. Its based on the Landcruiser engine, which is one of the best. Dual OH cams do produce horsepower, but not much torque. Perhaps that's why the towing ratings for the Tacoma/Sequoia are so low.
Welcome back! I was getting withdrawls on the TSB and the 1998 comparisons of the Tacoma vs Ranger in 4wheel mag. Will someone please explaing how the Tundra can be rated at higher reliability when its only been out for about 2 years? Can we say bias reporting on consumer reports part? Please post a link that shows the 4.7 does better than the larger V8 engines offered by Ford/Dodge or Chevy? And quit this stupid 0-60 garbage. These are trucks not race cars. Please post HP/Torque curves along with towing specs and hauling specs and lets see who does better towing 6K pounds up a 7percent incline....Why doesn't the Tundra offer a limited slip? Nice to see all those Toyota's out there spinning one tire!! LOL!
What gearings are those trucks using? Also www.wardsauto.com has rated the 2001 best engines with the 5.4 being there for the 4th straight year, while they say again like they said last year the Toyota 4.7 is to soft for a truck.
Rickc5, the J.D. Powers 5-year reliability study does include the Tacoma. The dependability study for 2000 was based on responses from 28,415 original vehicle owners, and owners who bought used 1996-model vehicles. The Tacoma was introduced in 1995. Here's the link. When it comes up, you'll have to click on "Most Dedependable Older Vehicles" on the left:
Vince, I post a link to an objective test where the Tundra holds its own versus the largest V-8's from Ford and Dodge and the next-to-largest from Chevy, and now you want me to "please post a link that shows the 4.7 does better than the larger V8 engines offered by Ford/Dodge or Chevy?" Did you have trouble decyphering the results from my other link?
Well, in addition to spanking the Ford and Dodge above in acceleration, here are the towing limits for the trucks in this test, equipped as they were:
Note: These were 4x4 trucks weighing more, of course, than their 2WD counterparts; however, the Dodge and Ford were equipped with their largest V-8, and they only tow 150 and 300 lbs more respectively. The Chevy can tow 8600 with its 6.0L engine, but that's 1.3 liters larger than Toyota's engine, and in this test with its 5.3L engine it tows only 900 lbs more than the Tundra. For an engine, the Tundra 4.7L, that suffers from a .7, .6, and 1.2L disadvantage in displacement versus the competition, this is pretty good. What is the towing limit of the 4.6L Ford or the 5.2L Dodge or the 4.8L Chevy.....just for the sake of argument? We won't actually put any stock in these results because this is not a fair comparison, right?
BUT, despite all this objective information from a magazine which you just touted over in another topic, you want me to "please post HP/Torque curves along with towing specs and hauling specs and lets see who does better towing 6K pounds up a 7percent incline." What kind of madness is this?
Why don't I just post a link that shows the F-150, Silverado, Ram, and Tundra pulling 6000 lbs up a 7 percent incline with an Eskimo at the wheel of each truck, tooting their horns and singing the National Anthem of Ukraine, which they will know as they will all be required to speak fluent Russian?
Motortrend didn't list the gearings, so we will just have to assume, like Vince will, that the Toyota came equipped with "gearing from God" and the Big2 and DaimlerGerman came with gearing longer than the Golden State Bridge.
I wouldn't think of the Tundra V-8 as soft considering it tows only 300 lbs less than the larger 5.4L Ford, which produces 350 lbs torque at 2500 RPM's and considering the Tundra V-8 accelerates faster to 60 MPH by almost a full second vs. the Ford.
When most people and magazines rate trucks for real pickup purposes,they go by tourque and especially low end tourque,the Ford's by far have the best low end making them real trucks,You know I have a chevy S-10, I'm brand loyal to no one other then my fellow union members UAW.The Tundra may be an alright truck but its suffered its many problems, its nothing more than an oversized and overpriced Tacoma.I even think it uses the Tacoma drive shaft.Someone says its the quickest,if you call the Tundra a pickup you might as well call the Lightning a pickup and the lightning would spank the Tundra.BTW the lightning will tow 5000lbs and can handle 800lbs in the bed.What is the weight of the Tundra you are comparing to the weight of the big3, again the Tundra is a midsize truck and not fullsize,Thats like comparing the Dakota 4.7 to the fullsize in acceleration tests,its lighter it should be quicker.
If you hadn't noticed very few people are buying pickups for "real pickup purposes", they just like them for the same reasons they are picking SUV's rather than station wagons. They are "cool" the "in thing to buy" and they are status symbol, "real pickup purposes" what was that nobody remembers....:0)
Well, My truck, at least, is used for what p/u's are made for. Haul 200 gal of water (8.33lb per gal), and all the hoses and stuff to water trees.
Lets see, think that is about 1,660 lb's of water. Oh forgot the tank weight! That is 70 lb. Hmm up to 1,730 lb. Add weight of passengers we have: about 2,100 lb.
How does he do that in a truck rated for 1,260 lb?!?
Secret is it is a Ford and will take the punishment.
Nice lame duck pars who couldn't even win the popular vote, and had to have the supreme court elect him.
Sorry Cspounser, I like to vote for people who have made something of themselves instead of being fortunate sons who had everything handed to them........
By the way, did you see that the Road less Initiative has passed, and is now law? I have the entire package, maps and everything. There are some great areas to explore in Colorado. All the 4x4 trails are still open..... something you said wouldn't happen.
Also take note that the US forest service chief just banned all logging of 200 year old plus trees on national forest lands. Very nice.
By the way, you still driving that car with a bed?
I looking forward to more of your " Bunny" trail photos.
Hayden pass between Villa Grove and highway US 50 is not to be maintained. Stop by any shop in Villa Grove and ask their opinion as to what areas are open/closed for 4 wheeling. Almost the whole area from Villa Grove west to Gunnison is now closed.
Moot point on the election. Palm Beach Post is reporting a gain of 6 Bush votes after counting the 10,000 supposed uncounted votes.
Comments
What I do find interesting is that the Mazda B-Series trucks (Ranger clones) come with a better warranty and cost less to boot. Maybe they have to throw in a better warranty to compete as a Japanese-branded truck?
Vince - Southern Oregon mountains are full of Tacoma's. Don't know where you've been. I go there almost every summer and I doubt that they're there only for me.
One more note on the Mazda. They offer limited trim levels and group their options in packages similar to Toyota. Maybe that's why their prices are a bit cheaper than the very customizable Ranger.
Actually, the dealer didn't try to sell me an extended warranty either (didn't want one anyways). I think that GM has got the market cornered there! ;^)
A lesson learned from the Firestone debacle?
Will the other auto makers follow suit?
http://www.jdpower.com/global/jdpaawards/releases/110200.html
I, at first, was outraged that objectivity could be thrown out the window so readily, but soon I realized that I am just one, and what good is it to try to be objective when no one else makes the effort?
So, for the sake of brotherly love, I will now only post to correct erroneous data concerning concrete subjects like dimensions, prices (we all know how absolute these are), warranties, etc., and the rest of the time I will post, over and over, my own personal experiences in disregard to what anyone else has posted in a particular topic and will take delight in knowing, that in my finite world, I am right.
Of course, maybe that's because my wife and I are considering a new full-size SUV and are as yet unable to decide between the Ford Expedition (@ $33-35K) and the Toyota Sequoia (@ $39-44K). The $6-9K difference would sure seem to make up for the additional 1.5 problems. At least that's how I see it. BTW- these are real-world prices, not MSRP. Ford dealers are offering huge discounts and Toyota (of course) wants MSRP or more.
As a matter of fact. Check out the latest Motor Trend. They constantly comment on the lack of quality in the interior of the new Toyota's.
As is stated, and not only from me, Toyota is in this ball game for money, not to build an outstanding vehicle at a loss....
It is not a reflection of a Tacoma vs a Ranger.
I know, I know, this isn't keeping with the Tacoma-Ranger topic, but I thought you guys might find the cost differences as amazing as I did.
BTW- The Sequoia aside, it seems ALL the dealers here in the Denver area are over-stocked with 4x4s, both SUVs and trucks. With a little effort, a great deal can be had. We paid about $650 less than invoice for the Expedition. They split their holdback with us, crying and moaning the whole time..
Your completely right I will not post any more Reliability information.
I will however, post my opinion on the whole [non-permissible content removed]. Vs. domestic thing. Which seems to be the core of this discussion
1.If it wasn't for the [non-permissible content removed] carmakers, who knows where the domestic market would be. It seemed the domestic cars were getting worse until the First reliable, fuel economy car was introduced from Japan.
2.Toyota and other [non-permissible content removed] carmakers have a good reputation for building (quality, reliable, ect...)cars. Ford DOSEN'T have a good reputation for building (quality, reliable, ect...)cars. They do have the niche in the cheap car market I will give them that.
Well at least that's what most of these pro-Ford posts sound like.
I don't think I need to go about how they got their reputations.
3. From a young age most people have that anti-[non-permissible content removed] ideology. I am guilty my self I was known to say. "No way would I ever own a foreign car. Only if someone gave it to me or I won it as a prize." Well I changed my motto to say "domestic" instead of foreign.
That all said neither Ford nor Toyota is going away any time soon, so I guess this form will stay lively.
Later
The BIG exception was my '95 Tacoma, which was such a lemon the dealer voluntarily took it back and gave me a new T100 after four months (this is why I hang out on this topic).
I was willing to pay a bit extra for what I perceived as a better vehicle, and I still will, unless the price difference becomes more than about 10% or so.
That's why I took the chance with the Expedition. I saved about 25% compared to a comparably equipped Sequoia. To me, that $9000 savings represents a MAJOR chunk of change. In addition, the Sequoia is based on the Tundra, which sounds at least as problem-prone as any Ford truck, according to the Tundra topic here on Edmunds.
What happened to the pursuit of fairness?
Toyota only makes one engine as it does, comparably, what the "domestics" do. It goes 0-60 in 8.2 (Motortrend), pulls 7200 lbs, and is quiet and smooth. Of course, if someone wants to tow a house or pull up tree stumps, the engine will prove inadequate, but this is not the role Toyota envisioned for the Tundra. It was simply built to achieve 100,000 in sales and be an alternative to Ford and Chevy for people who wanted a high quality, Toyota-type truck. It's done that. Mission accomplished.
Why are you so threatened by everything?
If you notice in their advertisments they have a little astrik and small writing at the bottom of the page telling readers that these engine offered by Ford/Chevy/Dodge are their base V8 engines. So why don't they use their BASE V6 offered in the Tundra?
Web, search the net, the Tundra is having problems and sales are shrinking now. The consumer has caught on to Toyota and its numbers game and advertising game. Toyota should have never tried to compare the Tundra to the Chevy/Ford/Dodge. Take a look at the Motor Trend Truck of the year, A big hint, its not a Toyota....
David Cone should do well for you guys up there.
Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeehaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwww!
It's good to be back!
GREAT post Tacorunner on the JD reliability report. Excellent.
ah ah ah...before I say another word:
here is a COMPLETE list of the TSB's, Defect Investigations, and Safety Recalls for the Toyota pickup, Chevy s-10, Ford Ranger, and Dodge Dakota from the years 1989-2000. Enjoy.
Defect Investigations 1989-2000
Ford Ranger - 20
Dodge Dakota- 14
Chevy S10 - 51
Toyota Tacoma - 2
Safety Recalls 1989-2000
Ford Ranger- 32
Dodge Dakota - 28
Chevyy S10 - 47
Toyota Tacoma - 6
Technical Service Bulletins 1989-2000
Ford Ranger -2,279(yes, 2,279)
Dodge Dakota- 940
Chevy S10 -448
Toyota Tacoma - 150
-------
So there you have it. All data is factual, and very telling. This is NOT "subjective".
A trucks reliability and build quality is NOT "subjective".
Not all trucks are built the same, as you can plainly see.
Here is the hard link:
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
" If you are planning on buying a used Ranger, take one for a long, long test drive...."
-Edmunds.com
" The Ranger rattled like a Diamonback offroad"
- Edmunds.com
As for the Tundra sales falling. Every vehilce pretty much starts off like that. With a vehicle that created the anticipation the Tundra did, it never took a genius to figure out that after a couple months, the atmosphere would change. It had nothing to do with the quality of the truck (I really don't know where you get your information). Toyota has NEVER had a problem in terms of quality.
The Tundra was Motor Trend's "Truck of the Year" last year, and was not eligable this year. They only compare the most recently updated or changed models. The Tundra was new in 2000 so obviously there wouldn't be a whole lot of changes.
If you need more info, check out Consumer Reports, where the Tundra is a recommended model...Why would Consumer Reports recommend a bad quality truck??? Hmmm.... You should review your facts...
Now, could you post that article comparing the Ranger and Tacoma back in 1998 in its entirity??? I've been dying to read it again.
That was the "initial consumer report" quality test done. The tests Tacorunner and I have posted were the long term 5 year reliability tests.
Natureboy1, I've got the issue of Motortrend (May 2000) where the Tundra 4.7L is compared with the Chevy 5.3L, Ford 5.4L, and Dodge 5.9L. All were extended cab, half-ton, 4x4 models. Here are the results for 0-60 and 1/4 mile:
0-60.........1/4 mile/speed
Chevy: 7.8..... 16.0 @ 84.6 MPH
Ford: 8.9..... 16.7 @ 82.0 MPH
Dodge: 9.2..... 17.0 @ 80.1 MPH
Tundra: 8.0..... 16.2 @ 85.7 MPH
Okay, Vince, here is an objective test with the Tundra's only V-8 vs. the Big2 and DaimlerGerman's biggest (Dodge and Ford) or next-to-biggest and most popular (Chevy) V-8's. You'll notice that the Tundra came in second in both the 0-60 sprint and the 1/4 mile with the highest trap speed in the 1/4 mile. Is this a fair test, or do we need to get the HD versions from the Big2 and DaimlerGerman with their honking V-10's or 8.1L V-8 (Chevy)?
Hopefully Toyota has the sense to build something better (than the Tacoma) next year. Of course, they should also change the name and promise to NEVER build such a POS again! Sure they will....
I do agree the V8 in the Tacoma/Sequoia is a pretty good engine. Its based on the Landcruiser engine, which is one of the best. Dual OH cams do produce horsepower, but not much torque. Perhaps that's why the towing ratings for the Tacoma/Sequoia are so low.
Will someone please explaing how the Tundra can be rated at higher reliability when its only been out for about 2 years? Can we say bias reporting on consumer reports part?
Please post a link that shows the 4.7 does better than the larger V8 engines offered by Ford/Dodge or Chevy? And quit this stupid 0-60 garbage. These are trucks not race cars. Please post HP/Torque curves along with towing specs and hauling specs and lets see who does better towing 6K pounds up a 7percent incline....Why doesn't the Tundra offer a limited slip? Nice to see all those Toyota's out there spinning one tire!! LOL!
http://carpoint.msn.com/advice/?src=Home&pos=Edit4
Vince, I post a link to an objective test where the Tundra holds its own versus the largest V-8's from Ford and Dodge and the next-to-largest from Chevy, and now you want me to "please post a link that shows the 4.7 does better than the larger V8 engines offered by Ford/Dodge or Chevy?" Did you have trouble decyphering the results from my other link?
Well, in addition to spanking the Ford and Dodge above in acceleration, here are the towing limits for the trucks in this test, equipped as they were:
Chevy: 8000 lbs
Ford: 7400 lbs
Dodge: 7250 lbs
Tundra: 7100 lbs
Note: These were 4x4 trucks weighing more, of course, than their 2WD counterparts; however, the Dodge and Ford were equipped with their largest V-8, and they only tow 150 and 300 lbs more respectively. The Chevy can tow 8600 with its 6.0L engine, but that's 1.3 liters larger than Toyota's engine, and in this test with its 5.3L engine it tows only 900 lbs more than the Tundra.
For an engine, the Tundra 4.7L, that suffers from a .7, .6, and 1.2L disadvantage in displacement versus the competition, this is pretty good. What is the towing limit of the 4.6L Ford or the 5.2L Dodge or the 4.8L Chevy.....just for the sake of argument? We won't actually put any stock in these results because this is not a fair comparison, right?
BUT, despite all this objective information from a magazine which you just touted over in another topic, you want me to "please post HP/Torque curves along with towing specs and hauling specs and lets see who does better towing 6K pounds up a 7percent incline." What kind of madness is this?
Why don't I just post a link that shows the F-150, Silverado, Ram, and Tundra pulling 6000 lbs up a 7 percent incline with an Eskimo at the wheel of each truck, tooting their horns and singing the National Anthem of Ukraine, which they will know as they will all be required to speak fluent Russian?
I wouldn't think of the Tundra V-8 as soft considering it tows only 300 lbs less than the larger 5.4L Ford, which produces 350 lbs torque at 2500 RPM's and considering the Tundra V-8 accelerates faster to 60 MPH by almost a full second vs. the Ford.
Haul 200 gal of water (8.33lb per gal), and all the hoses and stuff to water trees.
Lets see, think that is about 1,660 lb's of water.
Oh forgot the tank weight! That is 70 lb. Hmm up to 1,730 lb. Add weight of passengers we have:
about 2,100 lb.
How does he do that in a truck rated for 1,260 lb?!?
Secret is it is a Ford and will take the punishment.
Oh THATS right, your guy came in 2nd. . .
Nice lame duck pars who couldn't even win the popular vote, and had to have the supreme court elect him.
Sorry Cspounser, I like to vote for people who have made something of themselves instead of being fortunate sons who had everything handed to them........
By the way, did you see that the Road less Initiative has passed, and is now law? I have the entire package, maps and everything. There are some great areas to explore in Colorado. All the 4x4 trails are still open..... something you said wouldn't happen.
Also take note that the US forest service chief just banned all logging of 200 year old plus trees on national forest lands. Very nice.
By the way, you still driving that car with a bed?
I looking forward to more of your " Bunny" trail photos.
Moot point on the election. Palm Beach Post is reporting a gain of 6 Bush votes after counting the 10,000 supposed uncounted votes.