Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Toyota Tundra vs. Chevrolet Silverado

1…2223252728…37

Comments

  • toykickstoykicks Member Posts: 95
    yeah very cool :P
  • jreaganjreagan Member Posts: 285
    yeah very cool

    I sense sarcasm...Do the Toy's do that?

    Smart ----> ( ! )
  • 1offroader1offroader Member Posts: 208
    Just curious what a comparable Tundra would cost compared to my Silverado.

    4WD, Crew Cab, 6.0L, Z71 Offroad pkg. (skid plates, locker, gas shocks, heavier front sway bar, larger air cleaner), 2LT pkg. (premium cloth int., power seats, etc.), Safety pkg. (side air bags, power adjustable pedals), power sliding rear window, EZLift tailgate (lockable), 18"x8" Z71 alloy wheels. My MSRP was $38,875, Invoice $35,389, paid $35,642 (but included 3rd ignition key valued approx. $150).

    I know, I know, some features on one truck aren't available on the other, or standard on one and not the other, blah blah. Whatever. Just curious what the relative price would be on the Tundra as close as possible. Thanks.

    1offroader
  • pmuscepmusce Member Posts: 132
    "...and the Tundra tows like crazy with a state-of-the-art 6 spd transmission, ( now there's something you can measure ) something only a few T900 models can state. When it comes down to hard facts you're barking up the wrong tree."

    Actually kdhspyder, not all Tundra's come with a 6 spd transmission. The V6 and 4.7 V-8 models come 5-speed only.
  • pmuscepmusce Member Posts: 132
    "I know.. just about the same time the HD Tundra's hit the market. Then there will be a whole 'nother discussion to have."

    I don't believe the HD Tundra's will be out in 2008. I would be surprised if they are even out by 2009.

    "Now here is something to consider.. and it's just Sunday afternoon speculation...
    Dodge is supposed to get a diesel 1500...soon.
    Toyota has the Isuzu engineers working on something...?"

    GM will have a 1500 diesel in 2009. Toyota better be working on something or they will be left behind with no half ton diesel. I believe both Ford and DCX will also have 1/2 ton diesels in 2009.
  • pmuscepmusce Member Posts: 132
    "Even though we will disagree on this point, there is no way in Edmunds or the Chevy site to spec out a 6.0L Silverado with the Max Trailering Package. It's just not there."

    You can't even build one with the 6.0 V8, does that mean they don't offer it? You need to get over this. The package is available on the Silverado.
  • toykickstoykicks Member Posts: 95
    heres something in your favor jreagan.

    Tundra first impressions

    Let the truck wars begin :P
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    "Just curious what a comparable Tundra would cost compared to my Silverado.

    4WD, Crew Cab, 6.0L, Z71 Offroad pkg. (skid plates, locker, gas shocks, heavier front sway bar, larger air cleaner), 2LT pkg. (premium cloth int., power seats, etc.), Safety pkg. (side air bags, power adjustable pedals), power sliding rear window, EZLift tailgate (lockable), 18"x8" Z71 alloy wheels. My MSRP was $38,875, Invoice $35,389, paid $35,642 (but included 3rd ignition key valued approx. $150)."

    A Tundra SR5 CrewMax 4wd w/ the 5.7l engine, TRD offroad pkg. (Includes offroad suspension, Bilstein shocks, 18" x 8" alloy wheels, P275/65R18 BF Goodrich Tires, fog lamps, engine skidplate, fuel tank skidplate, front tow hook), cloth bucket seats and floor console (in lieu of standard bench seat), running boards, and a cold kit has an MSRP of $36,730 and invoices at $33,079. It has the air bags, power rear window (which drops DOWN rather than slides to the side), and the lockable ezlift tailgate as standard equipment.
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    Rear seats in the Tundra CrewMax can be slid forward for additional storage BEHIND the 2nd row; the rear seats also recline in the Tundra CrewMax.

    The GM Crewcab models may also do this, I don't know.....
  • jreaganjreagan Member Posts: 285
    The rear seat in the GM crewcabs are split about 70-30 and fold up independently (one-hand, latchfree operation). They have a decent fixed recline, but do not have adjustable recline. When folded up, there are NO exposed floor brackets to get in the way or to bang your knees or cargo on while loading/unloading cargo. Very clean design. There is a huge amount of "clean" cargo space in the back when the seats are folded up for when you want to haul something inside the cab to keep it out of the elements and climate controlled.
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    Okay.

    And the split 60-40 rear seatbacks of the Tundra CrewMax fold down to create a flat load surface that extends all the way to the back of the cab. There is also a huge amount of "clean" cargo space for when you want to haul something inside the cab to keep it out of the elements and climate controlled.
  • jreaganjreagan Member Posts: 285
    Sounds very similar. I am sure they are both pretty much the same as far as this goes.
  • 1offroader1offroader Member Posts: 208
    So how does that folding seat work? The seat folds into the floor? I am not visualizing this. If it folds flat on top of the seat bottom, then the flat surface is way higher than the floor level. I haul a big ice chest inside when I'm hunting - hopefully full of deer or elk on the way home. I want it inside so I can keep it cool. Do I have to lift that sucker and add'l. 2 feet higher to get it into the cab? Have you ever lifted a 150 lb. cooler full of elk above waist level? How does one do that? What about safety and visibility when stuff is piled on top of the folded seats? In a hard braking situation I don't want stuff behind me at shoulder or head level coming forward into the front seats - I'd rather having it sitting on the floor where it belongs. Am I getting this right?

    1offroader
  • dreasdaddreasdad Member Posts: 276
    if you are in central Texas checkout the Start of Texas Rodoe, Toyota i sthe officail sponser and I was told they will hve the "Prove It " Tour there where you can drive all 5 trucks on and offroad.
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    They are very similar in that both offer lots of room for people and/or cargo. I was just trying to point out that the Tundra CrewMax offered reclining/sliding rear seats. Yes, this means that the floor has seat tracks and that the seatbacks flop down for stowing large objects as opposed to the Chevy wherein the seat bottoms fold up revealing a wide, flat, unobstructed load floor.

    Different folks value different things. I didn't think anyone had pointed out the reclining seat issue (though I think we've discussed everything ELSE under the sun); this may or may not be a consideration for someone considering purchase.
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    I'm in the Austin area.

    Where/when?
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    Yep. The seat back folds down onto the seat bottoms in the CrewMax. Not sure about the 2' additional height (probably closer to 15"). There is SOME space in front of the folded seat but not anywhere NEARLY enough for an icechest.

    I don't buy the safety/visibility issue. The icechest is only about 15" higher than usual, and you've still got plenty of space for duffle bags/rifle cases/etc. between the folded rear seats and the front seats.

    I will agree though; having to hoist a loaded icechest that additional height to get it on top of the folded seatback would be a PITA.
  • jreaganjreagan Member Posts: 285
    Without looking at how the Tundra's work, based on your description, I personally think the GM's is a better set-up. So the back seats don't recline, I don't care, it's just my kids back there. They are very comfortable with plenty of seatback angle to them. Neither would drive my decision however.
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    "Neither would drive my decision however."

    Fair enough. Though, speaking personally, neither would rain-sensing wipers on the GMs which someone seemed to go to great lengths touting earlier......

    For me personally, I would rather haul large icechests in the bed; particularly since after hunting camp they are liable to be fairly grungy and/or bloody and the OAT is typically low enough that having the icechests get too hot isn't that big of a deal. Good lord, for decades and decades everyone hauled their icechests around in the bed anyway.

    I also like the idea of being able to put duffle bags etc. BEHIND the rear seats so they aren't underfoot while traveling. And if my only rear-seat passengers were kids, I probably wouldn't be considering a Crewcab version anyway. However, when hauling around other adults (often very TIRED adults after a day working outside) I can see how a reclining rear seat MIGHT be a benefit.

    As usual, it just comes down to individual preferences. Life would be pretty boring if the only differences between these trucks would be who made a prettier shade of gray....
  • jreaganjreagan Member Posts: 285
    Rain sensing wipers???....not me, I said I thought they were gimicky and I put very little value on them. In fact, I bet I will have them off most of the time anyway. What I do like though is the heated washer fluid. That just seems so obvious, why all vehicles haven't had these for years is beyond me (I live in MN).
    The seat config seems like a toss-up to me too. Each has it's pluses and minus's IMO.
    I mostly wanted the crewcab for the "real" doors more than the extra room. Not only are my kids small and young, they are girls and always will be small. There is plenty of room in my ext cab as far as space goes. But I hate those rear doors. However, they are nice for cargo loading compared to tiny real doors. Again, a give-and-take. Crewcab with real doors was best for me.
  • jreaganjreagan Member Posts: 285
    Life would be pretty boring if the only differences between these trucks would be who made a prettier shade of gray....

    Very true, but PLEASE not NOT call any shade of Gray "Pretty"...Thank You (I bought Gray).
  • 1offroader1offroader Member Posts: 208
    I don't like the idea of stuff in the back seat area any higher than about the middle of the front seats unless it's extremely lightweight (sleeping bag, etc.). The overall useable space in the Tundra rear cab area sounds like it is less functional due to the way the seats fold.

    Yes, for years we have hauled ice chests around in the bed, but it is not optimal. (BTW they are not bloody or grungy on the outside). On the way home from a hunt, I usually travel thru several other states. While the weather in Montana or Wyoming might be cool, it often isn't that way in Utah, Nevada and California. A couple years ago I stopped in Vegas for gas and felt the ice chest lid, it was easily 90 F after sitting in the sun for hours.

    As far as guns and other gear, you can't carry rifles or any firearms in the cab in California, whether they are behind the front seats or not. Good way to land in jail and have your expensive rifles confiscated :cry: . That's not Toyota's fault of course, it's just the way things are on the Left Coast.

    Something to think about for hunters like me, who use a truck for that purpose. It's not a deal killer but it is an issue.

    1offroader
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    "Very true, but PLEASE not NOT call any shade of Gray "Pretty"...Thank You (I bought Gray)."

    And I'm sure it's a very purty truck.... ;)

    ....sorry, couldn't resist.... :shades:
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    I'll have to add that to my loooooooong list of reasons to avoid the left coast....

    Just seems so bass-ackwards to me; icechest in the cab and firearms in the bed.... :confuse:

    BTW - that seating configuration is only on the CrewMax version. The seats bottoms on the Doublecabs fold up like the GM version. Then the only issue becomes whether or not the icechest fits in the forward hinged rear doors.
  • jreaganjreagan Member Posts: 285
    Purtier than yo mama... :surprise:
  • jreaganjreagan Member Posts: 285
    Here's my solution to your hunting issues..

    BUY YOUR DAMN MEAT AT THE GROCERY STORE!!!

    haha
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    "BUY YOUR DAMN MEAT AT THE GROCERY STORE!!!"

    Which is precisely what my wife does. However, if/when I get the hankerin' to shoot my own, I just walk up my drive a bit to a deer stand. Of course the only local variety I've got are little bitty whitetails. But, since I've seen signs of hogs lately (rooted up pasture) I may try to lay in a little pork.

    All of which has zip to do with pickups.

    Look guys, all I was trying to do was point out an OBJECTIVE difference between the trucks. If, for you, it makes more sense for the seat cushions to fold UP, fine. All I'm saying is that for PEOPLE HAULING (we are talking about a crewcab truck), having reclining seats MIGHT be preferable.
  • 1offroader1offroader Member Posts: 208
    I do buy meat at the store, but only because I can't hunt enough to feed the family all year.

    BTW, nothing wrong with whitetails, they make fine eatin', especially the corn-fed variety in the midwest. Mmm, mmm, good. And try some of that wild pork, it's the absolute finest. The store bought stuff doesn't even compare.

    1offroader
  • dreasdaddreasdad Member Posts: 276
    March 9 to teh 21st I think, its out at the Expo center off Decker
  • stealthzx9rstealthzx9r Member Posts: 1
    Since I seen where ppl were arguing about the Chevy site not showing a Max trailer PKG I though I would investigate myself. Not sure if this has already been solved or figured out but I went to the chevrolet site and built an Ext Cab 4x4 1500 with the standard bed and added the 6.0 and on the options list the fourth one down is the max trailer pkg. Just build and price what I have shown and its on there. I believe thats what some were saying wasn't on there but at least its on there now.
  • pmuscepmusce Member Posts: 132
    I definitely think the Silverado solution is much better, reclining seats or not. You just lose too much room with the Toyota Solution. See for yourself:

    Tundra Crew Cab

    http://autodeadline.com/detail?source=&mid=WKA2007010744568&mime=JPG

    Silverado Crew Cab:

    http://autodeadline.com/detail?source=&mid=WKA2006080227754&mime=JPG
  • jreaganjreagan Member Posts: 285
    Thanks for the pics pmusce.

    You are 100% correct. GM's is MUCH better. Toyota's looks worthless, may as well just put the stuff on the seats. I don't understand that concept at all. Nothing like I pictured it. But, of course, we'll need "numbers" to make our point to some of these Toy fans, not mentioning any names (kdhspyder).
  • 1offroader1offroader Member Posts: 208
    Sometimes simpler is better. Silverado design wins hands down here.

    Hard to tell from the photos, but the seat back on the Tundra looks like hard plastic - slippery. Will your gear stay there on a rough road? I'd much rather have my gear on the floor.

    Also...if you want to recline the rear seat, which has been claimed as an advantage for the Tundra, wouldn't you have to slide the entire seat forward away from the rear firewall? If that's the case, where do the rear passengers' legs go?

    Like a sub-second 1/4-mile advantage, another ingenious solution to a non-existent problem...

    1offroader
  • pmuscepmusce Member Posts: 132
    The 'recline' feature is pretty useless in my opinion. The seats don't actually recline but rather the bottom sections slides forward, which kills legroom. I'm not sure what Toyota was trying to do here but the results are under whelming to say the least. See for yourself:

    http://autodeadline.com/detail?source=&mid=WKA2007010744501&mime=JPG
  • 1offroader1offroader Member Posts: 208
    Definitely underwhelming. Also, it looks like the front seats are all the way forward in that photo just to provide the illusion of legroom for the rear seat when it is reclined.

    I'm 6'3". I drive with the front seat ALL THE WAY BACK, and I ain't moving my seat up because someone in the back wants to "recline". They can recline when I get them safely home and they go to bed.

    Of course, there are no "numbers" to go with that pic, so it'll probably be ignored.

    Like they say in the software business, "It's not a bug, it's a FEATURE!"

    1offroader
  • murphydogmurphydog Member Posts: 735
    y'all should be happy about the sniping going back and forth. For you folks who love the general what better way to drive improvements that some good old competition. And for you all who hate the general, there is one more serious player to look at.

    In the end it really is a win win situation!!

    But please don't let me stop y'all. I love the silly petty arguments that are flying back and forth. Kind of like those reality shows, except with more frequent bickering. Now if farmer rube would just add a post or two!!! You gotta believe I am always psyched when the host has made this a read only forum! ;) :shades:
  • toykickstoykicks Member Posts: 95
    I dont hate GM, Theyre actually my favorite out of the big 3.

    But the Tundra is my favorite 1/2 ton ;) since the old gen gave a wake up call to the Big 3 back in 2000. a lot of People hate it because They believe it will bring down GM,Ford and chrysler financially But toyota isnt aiming at a big market. They just want a piece of the pie and want to build a product that people will like and be satisfied with. GM,Ford and daimler chrysler have been having financial problems for a long time. Chrysler almost went under in 95-96 but got saved by merc. You cant blame other companies for anothers financial problems. People just simply move on to better things. Saying its the [non-permissible content removed] fault is just retarded and racist. I dont think GM is going bankrupt they will adjust to the market and make a comeback in quality & reliability just like ford and hopefully d.chrysler.

    To bad a lot of people are losing their jobs but not so long ago before this import vs. domestic crap started GM,Ford and dodge were planning to ditch most of their plants in the US and build in Canada and mexico because of union dues ;) while toyota,honda and nissan opened multi million dollar plants in the US and employed more workers here since its cheaper for them to build here then to export from japan lol . yeah but people still like to blame the [non-permissible content removed] ;)

    Domestics still employ a bit more here then import companies but not by a lot and honda, toyota, nissan are building new plants this year and in the near future. Like i said buy what you like.
  • pmuscepmusce Member Posts: 132
    "But the Tundra is my favorite 1/2 ton since the old gen gave a wake up call to the Big 3 back in 2000. a lot of People hate it because They believe it will bring down GM,Ford and chrysler financially But toyota isn't aiming at a big market"

    Sorry, this statement is completely false. First of all, the last gen Tundra did not give anyone a wake up call. It was un-competative as a full size truck from day 1. Secondly, if you think Toyota would not love to dominate this market, you are wrong. They didn't invest the dollars they did into their plant and the Tundra to get a small share of the market. The problem is this market is not going to be easy for them to crack and they know it.

    "Domestics still employ a bit more here then import companies but not by a lot and honda, toyota, nissan are building new plants this year and in the near future. Like i said buy what you like."

    A bit more? You are way off on your facts. Here is how many vehicles GM/Ford/DCX produced in the US compared to Toyota/Honda/Nissan:

    GM/Ford/DCX: 7,162,909
    Toyota/Honda/Nissan: 2,549,482

    Here is how many cars were sold in the US in 2006 that were imported:

    GM/Ford/DCX: 472,499
    Toyota/Honda/Nissan: 1,741,725

    The bulk of the GM/Ford/DCX numbers are Mercedes/Volvo/Land Rover/Saab sales, which are also non-domestic.

    Source: Automotive News

    If you want to write about the virtue's of Toyota/Honda/Nissan cars or trucks thats fine. They do assemble vehicles in the US and employ people in the US. They do not create jobs. The net affect of their sales rising has meant greater job losses at the big three than jobs created by them and more vehicles imported from Japan (import sales rose in 2006 from 2005) which means more jobs for Japan. These are indisputable facts.
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    "You are 100% correct. GM's is MUCH better. Toyota's looks worthless, may as well just put the stuff on the seats."

    In each of these trucks, the space behind the front seats can be used for TWO main purposes: carrying additional passengers or carrying additional cargo.

    You guys are only considering the cargo standpoint - and you're only considering it based on a bunch of PHOTOS (kinda like examining engine specs and curb weights to try and figure out which vehicle would be more powerful.....).

    What about those folks who buy Crewcab trucks to haul....gee, I dunno...EXTRA PASSENGERS? The Tundra CrewMax STARTS OUT with nearly 6" more rear seat legroom than the GM Crewcabs. Somehow, this is completely unimportant to you guys (even you TALL guys). Yet the ability to carry an icechest, in the cab, on the floor is of PRIME SUPERDUPER A-No.1 IMPORTANCE!!!!!

    Get a grip guys.

    "I don't understand that concept at all. Nothing like I pictured it."

    How did you picture it? I described it at LEAST twice as the rear seatbacks folding down onto the seat bottoms. And that's EXACTLY what the photos show. What in the heck were you picturing? :confuse:

    Is there some pathological need to refuse to admit that the Tundra does ANYTHING better than the Silverado? For each and every difference between these trucks, your claim is the Silverado is better and the Toyota method is "worthless".

    Let's try a different feature: on the Tundra CrewMax, the ENTIRE back glass (with defroster) power slides DOWN into the back wall of the cab, rather than just the middle portion of the back window sliding to one side or the other.

    I can't wait to see how you guys spin the Chevy method as being better....
  • jreaganjreagan Member Posts: 285
    First of all, I am 6' tall and sat in the backseat of the GM, and I had plenty of room. NO need for any more at all. I was very comfortable and the seatbacks have a nice angle to them already.

    The reclining feature is a joke because all of that "extra" legroom you just bragged about is GONE when you slide the seats forward. I am betting they put that extra room back there JUST to accomodate the reclining feature, Not because it's needed in the normal seating position. Unfortunately, 6" of extra legroom isn't enough when you recline the seats and bring the seat bottom forward at least 6 inches and while reclined, you tend to want to stretch out your legs even more. Ever try sitting in a reclined position with minimal legroom? Kinda like in coach in an airplane? Not very comfortable if you ask me. That 6" would have been much better utilized in the bed.

    Cargo space is much more efficient in the GM. The stuff sits on the floor, which BTW has NO exposed seat brackets to get in the way and allows heavier stuff to sit on a solid floor and not folded down seatbacks. The photos pmusce posted show this as plain as day. Even my 2000 ext cab had seats that folded up this way and the cargo space in that truck was better than the Tundra's silly configuration. I am betting that Tundra would have had them fold up if not for the reclining feature, so they sacrificed cargo carrying convenience for a stupid recliner option that will suck alot of people in, but in reality is not a very comfortable position to be seated in. Have I sat in the back of a Tundra? No, but I have sat in many front reclining seats and I find them uncomfotable for any length of time, especially if I cannot stretch my legs. it's simply a marketing gimmick, kinda like rain sensing wipers are.

    Now for the personal, subjective part...I get a longer box. So, for me, the GM is better for that reason alone. Plus, I never plan to ride back there and the only ones who will are my 2 (small) daughters.

    I could care less about the rear window. I opted for a non-opening one anyway. Unless you have a topper and need to access the bed area while driving, why would you want to open the rear window? Makes no sense, buy an Avalanche if you want the back wide open. And with a topper, the window access in the topper is no bigger then the one in the GM, so, what's the advantage here?

    Oh, since you brought up the topic of windows opening. How does the Tundra's sunroof open? The GM's (in the crewcabs anyway) open INTO the roof, not above it. Very nice feature, less wind resistance and wind noise.
    Also, on the ext cabs, the rear passenger windows are not "wing" windows anymore, they actually roll down into the door like the front ones do. Not sure about the Tundra, they may too, do you know? Wing style windows are stupid and worthless and I hated them in my old truck. Very nice improvement IMO.

    I guess if I felt the need to have the rear window open, the Tundra's design might be a little better because I do not like rear sliding windows, but for the life of me, I cannot think of a good reason for this? No matter what kind of rear window is available, I would ALWAYS opt for the fixed one.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Member Posts: 7,160
    If you want to write about the virtue's of Toyota/Honda/Nissan cars or trucks thats fine. They do assemble vehicles in the US and employ people in the US. They do not create jobs. The net affect of their sales rising has meant greater job losses at the big three than jobs created by them and more vehicles imported from Japan (import sales rose in 2006 from 2005) which means more jobs for Japan. These are indisputable facts.

    These 'lost jobs' were going to go in any event. If it wasn't competition from Asian transplants it would have been from European transplants. The managments of the Big 3 gave away the small car market and most of the midsized car market because they had no interest in it. I'm certain that except for productivity advances the employment in the SUV and truck segments are much higher now than in 1985.

    Job losses due to internal productivity advances can't be laid at the feet of the transplants. Job losses in the small/medium segment might...except that the detroiters didn't want those anyway. Those jobs were sacrificed to keep the Big Rigs healthy.

    Consider the Ford Ranger plant in St Paul. There is a world class Ranger being produced by Ford. They just decided that it doesn't belong in the US. The jobs at the St Paul plant appear to be on the chopping block but the world class Ranger being sold in SE Asia could have been put there.
  • jreaganjreagan Member Posts: 285
    PS: I will be going to the Mpls Auto Show this weekend and I will sit in both the Tundra and the GM. IF the Tundra's rear seat are more comfortable, reclined or not, I will humbly admit it. Then the Tundra can be considered better for large adult rear seat comfort. If they are only equally as comfortable or less comfortable than the GM's, then I will conclude the GM is superior due to a better cargo carrying configuration. Fair enough?
  • jreaganjreagan Member Posts: 285
    Oh yay, Spyder's back!!! Such a WEALTH of BS...ooops, I mean "knowledge". :P
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    "First of all, I am 6' tall and sat in the backseat of the GM, and I had plenty of room. NO need for any more at all. I was very comfortable and the seatbacks have a nice angle to them already."

    Fair enough.

    With the Tundra CrewMax, one could slide the seat forward to EXACTLY MATCH the Chevy, AND have space behind the seat for storage.

    Or, with kids (you've got kids, right?) where rear legroom isn't as important, one could slide the rear seat EVEN FURTHER FORWARD, making LOTS of room behind the rear seat for storage.

    Imagine that; hauling passengers in the rear AND having room for some duffle bags, briefcases etc. Or, with the Chevy, all that stuff would go under their feet.

    Face it, the Tundra CrewMax offers an additional 6" in the rear of the cab; and with sliding seats the owner has OPTIONS about how that space is utilized. Want to recline the seat a bit? Fine. Want to move the seat all the way back to stretch out? Fine. Want to move the seat forward for storage while hauling folks? Fine.

    With the Chevy, it's fixed: either haul passengers (with a fixed amount of legroom/fixed backrest angle) OR haul cargo with the seat cushion up. Yet, somehow the Toyota method is a joke?
  • jreaganjreagan Member Posts: 285
    Imagine that; hauling passengers in the rear AND having room for some duffle bags, briefcases etc. Or, with the Chevy, all that stuff would go under their feet.

    Wrong again. There is plenty of room UNDER the seat for these things you mention. I know, I have an ext cab now and when we travel, I put LOTS of stuff under the rear seat. ie: sleeping bags, pillows, backpacks (for the kids' in-car items) etc, etc.
    And that's with the smaller ext cab!!!

    Face it, the Tundra's rear seat area is focused on passengers only, the cargo configuration is not as good as the GM's. And they sacrifice bed length to get this so-called 6" advantage. Not worth it to me.

    GM: Rear seat comfort that is BETTER than a full size sedan (which do not have reclining back seats BTW). Better cargo carrying convenience/configuration AND a longer bed. I know which I prefer.
  • jreaganjreagan Member Posts: 285
    At least they gave me a challenge here...Albeit not much of one.
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    Somehow, nearly 6" more rear legroom and a seat which can be adjusted is somehow inferior to less legroom and a seat that is non-adjustable. Let's try a few facts please:

    Tundra CrewMax rear seat legroom: 44.5"
    Silverado Crewcab rear legroom: 38.7"

    Advatage: Tundra (by 5.8"; nothing 'so called' about it).

    Tundra CrewMax bedlength: 66.7"
    Silverado Crewcab bedlength: 69.3"

    Advantage: Silverado (by 2.6")

    Tundra CrewMax oveall length: 228.7"
    Silverado overall length: 229.9"

    Advantage: Tundra (by 1.2")

    So, you wouldn't sacrifice 2.6" of bed length to gain 5.8" of rear legroom (which can be adjusted to provide more STORAGE if desired). With your seeming priority on putting cargo inside the cab, why the fascination over 2.6" more bed length?

    Rear seat comfort in your Chevy truck is better than a full-size sedan? Maybe you need to look beyond Chevy sedans...... ;)
  • jreaganjreagan Member Posts: 285
    Somehow, nearly 6" more rear legroom and a seat which can be adjusted is somehow inferior to less legroom and a seat that is non-adjustable.

    Yep, when you consider the "advantage" is purely perceptual and comes at the price of inconvenient cargo configuration.

    So, you wouldn't sacrifice 2.6" of bed length to gain 5.8" of rear legroom (which can be adjusted to provide more STORAGE if desired). With your seeming priority on putting cargo inside the cab, why the fascination over 2.6" more bed length?

    Nope, I already sacrificed enough bed length going from a 6-1/2' box to a 5.8' box with the CrewCab.

    More storage? I don't agree. More cubic feet does not necessarily equate to more storage space. It's all in how "useable" it is. And with a seat always in the way, it is not as useable. I bet I could fit more/larger boxes in my rear seat area than you could in a Tundra.

    I do not prioritize inside or outside cargo. Some things need to go in the clean, climate controlled cab, and others are meant for the bed. Plain and simple.

    Rear seat comfort in your Chevy truck is better than a full-size sedan? Maybe you need to look beyond Chevy sedans......

    Oh, and Toyota Sedans have more rear seat room and comfort I suppose? hahahaha Now THAT'S funny!!! Ever sit in a so-called full sized Camry's back seat? Same size car as my wife's Impala, gee, I wonder which back seat is roomier and comfier?

    C'mon, you're making this WAY too easy for me...
  • jreaganjreagan Member Posts: 285
    Rear seat comfort in your Chevy truck is better than a full-size sedan? Maybe you need to look beyond Chevy sedans......

    Maybe you need to sit in the back seat of a Chevy Truck!!!
  • toykickstoykicks Member Posts: 95
    back in 2000 when they launched the tundra. It wasnt looked at as a capable truck but several towing tests, dyno test, highway crash tests and government tests the tundra did a lot better then all 1/2 tons. back then the 5.3 silvy had only 265+hp dodge ram 5.2 ford 5.4 were out towed in towing acceleration tests. The 00-03 Ford f150 did horrible in highway crash tests the cab collapsed and so did the silvy/sierra and Ram. The tundras both doors were able to open in that crash. in 00-02 GM & Ford were building 60-70% of their 1/2 ton in mexico and canada and were slowly closing plants and outsourcing. People started noticing this and started to bash them. GM has had financial issues for a long time due to Union workers. Thats why you see toyota brag about building the tundra in america. After 03 the big 3 got media and decided to stop outsourcing.
This discussion has been closed.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles