Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see May lease deals!
Options
Anybody have any thoughts on the upcoming Nissan and Honda pickups???
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Honda will not use GM motors. Why would you put a Briggs and Stratton lawnmower engine in your new truck? Oh, wait! in the case of the Shakerado - that is an improvement!
It is not possible to buy American in many cases because many products are simply not made here anymore. Buying American and outsourcing to American companies is more important now than ever before. If it hasn't affected you yet, it wil.
Bob
Right or wrong, I don't know. It's simply the direction things have gone over the last 25 years.
Yeah, the cars/trucks are being assembled in other parts of North America, but aren't those parts American made? Also, TOyota, , Isuzu, Subaru, BMW, Mercedes Benz,and of course, Honda and Nissan, have plants here in the states. (Volkswagen did at one point.) Who's to say some of those parts being assembled in those aren't American?
Perhaps after the 9/11 incident, the American workers in the auto factories will put better pride in assembling their vehicles. A long time ago, you couldn't put me in a GM or Ford or Chrysler vehicle because of crappy quality and poor designs. GM was notorious in bragging and shuffling around overpaid VP's and not putting emphasis in their products. Cadillac will be the first to prove that they are not playing games anymore...we will see.
HOwever, I've noticed in the German cars that their quality is not the same as it used to be (experienced-I'm on my fifth BMW).
In any event, the point I was trying to make to CTF was, Germany and Japan are not enemies (which he seems to think). They (and other countries) are global partners. They're friends, not enemies. WW II ended 56 years ago. So my advice to him is to learn and appreciate what these products from other countries offer, and benefit from them. If you shut them out, and refuse to learn from them, then all you're doing is short-changing yourself. If you think you're hurting or punishing them, you're kidding yourself, that's all.
Bob
chevytruckfan, i guarantee that nearly everything you are wearing right now is from the orient. Shoes either from Italy or the UK. Your friends-your origins-not from America.
America is the great melting pot, comprised of ideas, beliefs, and blood from other countries. Has been and will always be.
Now...can be get back to the trucks??
Bob
Trucks outside of the US are basically durable enough to handle the nasty terrain. The Toyota Tacoma crew cab(elsewhere called the Hi-Lux) was/is a popular vehicle to get...
Full-size "American-type" pickups are somewhat rare in markets other than North America. I know some are sold in Central and South America, as well as the Mid-East. Not sure about Australia, New Zealand or Africa? They're too impractical (too large and expensive to run) for Europe and most of Asia.
Bob
Besides, pickups overseas are used as "trucks," not as "macho-ego-machines," as often as is the case here.
Bob
Dave
Honda should enter the market with a compact, too! That way, they can make a hot rodder like the Tacoma S-Runner.
I believe that if you check with your local college economics proffesor, you will find that historically, countries with a manufacturing based economy will fare much better than service based economies. Service based economies are weak in nature and tend to fall apart quickly during rough times. My concerns are not for the present, but 10 or 20 years down the road.
Is it the same as not reducing the amount of hard-working people from other countries to become respectable citizens as to reducing the forein outsourcing?
If you don't like a German or Japanese car, present some solid arguments as to why, other than it being made in a country other than the USA. I want to know why you don't like it: Does it not handle as well? Is it not as well made? Is it not as powerful? Does it not perform the task it was designed for very well? Answers to those kinds of questions impress me. Just saying I don't like it because it was built elsewhere doesn't win any "brownie points" with me. All that does is tell me that you have a closed mind.
As to service-based, or product-based economies, I leave that to the experts to figure out. I do know that Toyota, Honda, BMW, Mercedes, Subaru, etc., all have factories right here in the States—and they make excellent products here. If anything, I'd say there's a "new order" of product being built here, and that's great for this country.
Bob
tavgrad-lets see, all three of my pairs of boots are made in Texas (Justin brand if you would like to know), lets see my socks are also made in the USA (they are dickies and carhartts), my pants are made in the USA (wranglers), my shirts well almost all are made in the USA, carhartts, some hanes etc that are (though some hanes are made overseas), if not they are made in central America. Both my jackets are also made in the US (Carhartt) and most of my flannels are, some are made in haiti or some place like that, all made with US cotton. Though I prefer not to talk about my underwear brand they are also made in the USA. SO about 98% of my clothing is USA. Oh and my hats, the cowboy hats, my Chevy truck hat, Case tractor hat, union hat are made in the US. I have 2 baseball caps that aren't made in America.
I will admit my cigars aren't made in the US.
bama, lets see all the 2500/3500 Chevrolets are made in the USA, and about 3/5 of the Silverados are made in the US.
As to my knowledge, correct me if I'm wrong, I have never said any other country that produces cars makes bad vehicles, or sub par to American. My person choice for my personal piece of mind is to buy American vehicles. Now people like to say well toyota has factories here, look on a EPA sticker on most foreign cars, they have a lower % of US/Canadian component than domestics, more parts are made here in the US on domestics. Also, American corporations pay more taxes than foreign corps, and they have a lot more stockholders in this country that foreign corps.
Its not because I have prejudice against people in other countries, though people like to try to claim that.
Though one complaint I have with foreign makes is they have a foreign philosophy that clashese with mine, they believe smaller is better, and I hate that idea.
Diesels were offered in 1/2 tons till the early/mid 90's, and looks like they will be offered again with the popularity of diesels rising again. 1/2 ton diesel, I would buy one, but I have reservations with having a V6 in any truck. Wish they would just make a smaller V8 than the V6 like Ford is talking about. Dodge could easily (or should I say cummings) size down and have a small I6 diesel for the half tons.
My problem is with the mindset that foregn is better. Its not the case. And I certainly would encourge anyone to buy the best vehicle suited for them. I also would have no problem encouraging them to buy using a high American parts content as a prerequisite.
Toyota is spending billions on a new engine plant in Huntsville, AL. The engine and transmission are the only appreciable Tundra parts still built in Japan. Do you see GM opening any new engine plants in the US? Makes you wonder.
GM-New Plants-Flint Michigan I6 plant, New Cadillac Plant in Lansing, another new plant in Lansing (they are keeping a secret as to what it is)
Wasn't the morain, ohio plant for the duramax a new plant? I could be wrong.
Bob
If DOHC is such a good thing for full size trucks, why havent the big 3 gone with DOHC engines in their trucks? They build more full size trucks than anyone.
Ford is now using OHC V8s and a OHC V10 on their full-size trucks. The Lincoln gets the premium DOHC engine.
The Tundra DOHC V8, is judged by experts to be an excellent truck engine. When they start offering a 5+L version, I'm sure that it will be more than a match for any domestic OHV V8.
Bob
So there is no reason to change from OHV. Its more of a gimmick to get people that have some unfounded belief that OHC is better to buy their trucks.
i don't recall quoting anyone here at Edmunds-If i did, show me the post number/topic, please.
CTF is right, also I think the reason why they are not offered in domestic pickups is that this is costly to operate and maintain. Put some 6.0L DOHC V8 in a pickup-Powerful yes...costs like an arm and leg. If all Pickups used 32V DOHC in their V8s, the prices of the pickups would not be cheap. Most of you guys like to tinker the engines too, huh? They have to keep loyal fan base in order to sell their new ones. Would you buy one with a 32V DOHC?
However, GM's next compact/midsizers pickups WILL have the inline 6 DOHC 24V in their next pickups.
and CTF, not all OHCs have multivalve configurations. Both Dodge and Ford have OHC, but only 2 valves per cylinder.
DOHC Engines: engine design in which two camshafts are fitted atop the cylinder head. One camshaft operates the intake valves, the other operates the exhaust valves. Such engines permit optimizing the angle at which the valves enter the combustion chamber and the shape of the combustion chamber itself. This results in improved performance and fuel efficiency, offering the potential for greater power output and higher engine speeds. No pushrods translates into lower valvetrain weight, which in turn translates into higher RPM.
One question to you, Jimmie...why does the Corvette still have a pushrod?
Yes, OHC and DOHC engines, especially multi-valve versions are costly to build and repair. Many people will also argue that the advantages of such engines are rarely realized in "truck-type" usage, hence staying with OHV units. GM has done an excellent job with their OHV units, no question about it.
Bob
Tav, multi-valve, OHC engines DO potentially rev higher....but not in truck engines. The Chevy small block V8 redline, now at 5600 rpm is as high as any truck engine. Who needs to go higher?
I do agree about the brakes.
Bob
I do admit, GM's "truck" engines have far improved from the previous generation. They did emphasise on more power and improved fuel economy in 1998.
2002 Chevy Silverado 1500 4dr Extended Cab 4WD LT 4WD SB (5.3L 8cyl 4A) = 14/17 mpg with torque lbs of 325@4000rpm
2002 Toyota Tundra 4dr Access Cab SR5 4WD SB (4.7L 8cyl 4A) = 14/17 mpg with torque lbs of 315@3400
There essentially is no mpg difference among these trucks. What's interesting is the Toyota 4.7 making just 10 lb/ft torque less than the Chevy 5.3, at a whopping 600rpm less (and also outperforming the 4.8). Now, I don't know if the Toyota 4.7's performance is purely due to its DOHC design, but something was obviously done right with this motor.
As for disks versus drums. The Chevy has disks on all 4 corners, while the Toyota has disks up front and drums in the back. Despite this, the Tundra stops quicker than the Chevy. What's more important, the technology/features or the results? Let's not even bring up Edmund's long term review of the 1999 Silverado and its problematic brakes and ABS system.
Toyota has a good thing with the IForce V8. (WAtch Nissan top even that)...
Motor Trend comparisons with ford, chevy, and toyota-5.4, 5.3, and 4.7 respectfully. The chevy took the lead in top speed, ford last. However they said if the ford and chevy were equipped with the smaller v8's toyota would have easily beaten (hey, jim4444, I'm quoting motor trend-not you)
GM could too with their full size trucks. The did with the mid size suvs and their pickups for next year. Look at the HP/torque difference. They have the xperience and the technology. I ask you chevy fans-what's keeping them from doing it?
Like I said earlier, obviously having twice as many valves is going to give you more power for a smaller engine.
And 40 more HP is 40 more Horses no matter how you look at it.
ALSO TAKE NOTE-in the truck trend test the observed torque was 266@3000 on the silverado, 252@3500 rpm on the tundra. So as to what gets to the wheels the Silverado has 14 more ft lbs at 500 less rpm. interesting
although the differnce is small, the Chevy when loaded widened its lead in accleration over the Tundra. Meaning towing the Chevy accelerates even better.
looking at the engine pick in truck trend it appaers that the tundra does have timing belts.
Oh man, aahhhhhhhhhh there is a reason not to buy the truck right there. Ive changed one timing belt in my life that was enough.
It was just mentioned on the Tundra forum, that Toyota has a 5.3 or 5.4 engine in the works. When that debuts, are you going to then compare it to the still larger GM 6.0, or against the GM 5.3?
Bob
Bob
You gotta compare apples-to-apples CTF.
Bob
Bob
Chevytruck_fan, you wouldn't buy a truck just because it had a timing belt? Timing chains have their share of problems, too. While a chain rarely breaks, it does stretch out more than a belt over time, and this throws the timing off. Also, a timing chain causes wear on the gear's teeth, which also throws off timing. So a timing chain set-up isn't indestructible either. A belt, though it may need to be replaced every 70K miles or so, holds the timing better and causes less frictional resistance on the engine. To boot, the 4.7L utilizes direct coil ignition, meaning there's no distributor and all that nonsense that needs to be adjusted for timing. If I'm not mistaken, doesn't Chevy now use direct coil ignition as well? Been a little while since I looked under a Chevy hood...
Years ago I had the timing belt break on my 1984 VW Scirocco with 210K miles. The car had its original timing belt. I never replaced it because the car had a non-interference engine. Drive it till it breaks, and no harm done. 210K miles ain't bad...
Are you in Ellensburg? I remember not long ago when Boeing did a lot of aviation testing (especially on the 777) in either Ellensburg or Moses lake. Fun stuff to watch. How close are you to getting your instrument/commercial ratings? I'm working on mine now. My eyes aren't good enough to be an airliner pilot (screwy colorvision) but I can still pass a Class I physical and fly for the government.
-For 1999-2001, the 5.3L in 4x4 was rated by EPA 15 City 18 Hwy
http://carpoint.msn.com/Vip/Engines/Chevrolet/Silverado%201500/2001.asp
-In 1999, the 5.3L was rated 270 hp, the 4.8L rated 255.
-For 2000-2002, 5.3L rated 285, 4.8L rated 270.
-Never mind the torque numbers. Drive them both! By comparison, Toyota bottom end is gutless, possibly (as is being discussed extensively at TS), due to the drive-by-wire throttle control, which intercepts driver input, and gives you what throttle it thinks you should have, either to protect the drivetrain or other concerns.
-The Toyota 4.7L engine uses a belt to drive one cam on each bank, geared to the other. There are solid lifters, shim under bucket.
Bottom line...I think it's perfectly fair to compare the 5.3L to the 4.7L because both companies have their own approach to making horsepower, simplistic horsepower through cubic inches, versus sophistication through multi valve, multi cam complexity. The GMC 6.0L makes 330 horsepower in the 1/2 ton Sierra C3. GM will have competitive horsepower to a future 5.4L Tundra. If they choose lower specific output as a path, i.e. fewer HP per cu./inch, but gain simplicity, who cares?
The question you should ask is why doesn't Toyota match engines cubic inch for cubic inch? The simple answer, is with their higher specific output, they don't need to. All they need to do is have enough, (ie be competitive) so you come running to them with cash in fist!
That's not the argument. It is to compare horsepower, fuel economy, and reliability among distinctly different paths to achieving them. If you can't compare a 4.7L Toyota to a 5.3L GM, then you also can't compare a Toyota to a GM truck since the wheelbase is 11 inches less, has 2000 lbs less max towing etc.
4 valves per cylinder gives higher specific output everywhere. But they make them smaller. This leaves them in a higher state of tune, and a higher state of stress for the same power. The pertinent questions with a multi cam, 4 valve per cylinder engine are:
-Do you get more power per buck than the same power through less complexity but more cubic inches?
-Is it more reliable than a simpler design with fewer parts that can fail?
-Does it yield better economies of operation, through lower maintenance, better fuel mileage?
I do agree that Toyota should be using a timing chain and a nonadjustable type of valve control.
Bob