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

1232426282937

Comments

  • jreaganjreagan Member Posts: 285
    Do you read your posts before hitting the "Post My Message" button? I cannot even read that nonsense.

    Oh and BTW, not that it's important to whatever point you were trying to make, but you may want to get your numbers/facts straight too. GM's 5.3's in 2000 were 285hp.
  • toykickstoykicks Member Posts: 95
    whats the point of arguing who has the most plants. Toyota has less plants in japan then the rest of the world. They build manufacturing plants in different countries to better meet their needs. Same thing for GM, and ford they do the same thing but control most of the US market only. Dont know if gm is still thinking of building in china and exporting to Europe? or the US? lets see how that works out for them ;) .
  • toykickstoykicks Member Posts: 95
    oops... i was thinking of the 4.8 ;)
  • toykickstoykicks Member Posts: 95
    again why blame another company for anothers downfall? like i said GM has been having financial problems for a long time and its not due to sales you should get your facts straight also. D. chrysler is dieing because of quality issues. People get fed up.
  • jreaganjreagan Member Posts: 285
    again why blame another company for anothers downfall? like i said GM has been having financial problems for a long time and its not due to sales you should get your facts straight also.

    What the "h-e-double hockey sticks" are you talking about? Where did I "blame another company for anothers downfall"?

    GM's financial troubles surely aren't being reflected in their new trucks.
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    "Yep, when you consider the "advantage" is purely perceptual...."

    Lot of that going around. And your perception, from YOUR posts, is that the Tundra is a "wannabe" truck. You've stated this on at least two ocassions. How I thought you'd be open to reasonable discourse when you STARTED from that basis is beyond me...

    Further discussion with you is pointless since EVERY numerical, objective point where the Tundra may have an advantage is dismissed as either unimportant or immaterial.

    Enjoy your Chevy. Unfortunately, all you've succeeded in doing in here is reinforcing my opinion of Chevy owners.
  • jreaganjreagan Member Posts: 285
    EVERY numerical, objective point where the Tundra may have an advantage is dismissed as either unimportant or immaterial.

    Oh, and the Toy lover's haven't done the same thing? Double standards here big time!!!

    Enjoy your Chevy. Unfortunately, all you've succeeded in doing in here is reinforcing my opinion of Chevy owners

    Are you actually arrogant enough to think that I really care what you think about Chevy owners?

    Enjoy your "Wannabe" Toy truck...IF you even have one!!! Which I doubt.
  • pmuscepmusce Member Posts: 132
    Just because I posted the photo's does not mean that I am basing my decision on them alone. I spent considerable time in both the Toyota and Chevy Crew Cab models at NAIAS and I prefer the chevy setup all the way. Yes, the Toyota has more legroom (at the expense of a smaller bed). That has NOTHING to do with the discussion, which is comparing the approaches each company took to seat configuration. Like everything else on this forum, I don't expect the Tundra lovers to admit to the Chevy having the better approach in this case, but I see no advantage to the seat backs folding forward.
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    "Like everything else on this forum, I don't expect the Tundra lovers to admit to the Chevy having the better approach in this case, but I see no advantage to the seat backs folding forward."

    On the contrary, I've already posted that the Chevy approach is better for loading cargo, the Toyota approach is better (IMO) for hauling people. If I primarily hauled cargo in the rear portion of crewcab truck, I can appreciate having a wide clear floor. However, I don't understand how, FROM A PEOPLE CARRYING STANDPOINT, a fixed seat with less legroom is preferable.

    Which approach is "better" really depends on whether you intend to use your space primarily for carrying full size passengers or full size cargo.
  • jreaganjreagan Member Posts: 285
    However, I don't understand how, FROM A PEOPLE CARRYING STANDPOINT, a fixed seat with less legroom is preferable.

    Which approach is "better" really depends on whether you intend to use your space primarily for carrying full size passengers or full size cargo.


    Of course if you NEVER hauled anything but people back there, the Tundra seat would make sense. But most (if not all) people will surely value the ability to do either. If Toyota didn't agree, they wouldn't have made the seats fold forward either. I think it was the best they could do and still be able to make reclining rear seats, which sound good in brochures and at auto shows. If this were really a crucial feature in people's minds, why don't full size 4-door sedans have this capability?

    Bottom line is the rear seats in the GM's are "Cross-Country" comfortable. Heck, even the rear seat in my ext. cab is more roomy and comfortable then most car's rear seats. The Crew Cab is even better. This argument for the Tundra's reclining seats would have more merit if the seats in the GM's were at all questionable when it comes to comfort. Until you sit in one and can honestly tell me they are not as comfortable, then I'd say the flexibility and the cargo configuration that GM has is the better design.

    I can think of at least a half dozen times where I have hauled stuff in my ext cab that I didn't want in the bed that would NOT have fit in the Tundra's rear seat area. Due to the lack of floor to ceiling and front to back wide open area. One example: The Klipsch Reference Series Home Theater speakers I bought (used) that were not in boxes. they are huge and I certainly didn't want those in the bed. There is NO WAY they would have fit in the Tundra. Another example is some dining room chairs I put back there, again, I didn't want them in the back (I don't have a topper and it was rainy).
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    "Of course if you NEVER hauled anything but people back there, the Tundra seat would make sense."

    Are you saying Tundra owners CAN'T carry any cargo in the rear of a CrewMax? That would be asinine. The volume available is not appreciably changed by folding the seatbacks down rather than the seatbottoms up; it's just configured differently.

    "If this were really a crucial feature in people's minds, why don't full size 4-door sedans have this capability?"

    Lack of legroom in the rear of 4-door sedans; the same reason than the Silverado doesn't have this feature. Show me 4-door sedans with over 44" of rear-seat legroom.

    Cadillac DTS? Nope - 'only' 42".
    Mercedes S-class? Nope - 'only' 42.6"
    Lexus LS460? Not on the base version, but the extended wheelbase LS460 DOES offer reclining rearseats.

    "This argument for the Tundra's reclining seats would have more merit if the seats in the GM's were at all questionable when it comes to comfort."

    True. But your argument for the Silverados fixed seats would have more merit if we ALL liked the exact same seatback angle. Would you be okay if the front seats were fixed in position? Would you be okay if the front seats DIDN'T tilt and recline and have adjustable lumbar or thigh support? Somehow I think you'd look pretty foolish arguing that fixed FRONT seats are plenty comfy for everybody....yet that is the tactic you are taking for the rears.
  • jreaganjreagan Member Posts: 285
    Are you saying Tundra owners CAN'T carry any cargo in the rear of a CrewMax? That would be asinine. The volume available is not appreciably changed by folding the seatbacks down rather than the seatbottoms up; it's just configured differently.

    You are as bad as Belias, twisting my words around. Did I say you CAN'T carry any cargo in the rear of a Crewmax? But you CAN'T carry as much as in a GM Crewcab. No, the "Volume" doesn't change, but the useable volume does. The tundra is geared for people and cargo is secondary. The GM is great for both. More versatile.

    Lack of legroom in the rear of 4-door sedans; the same reason than the Silverado doesn't have this feature. Show me 4-door sedans with over 44" of rear-seat legroom.

    No, the reason the GM's don't have it is because they made the rear seats plenty comfy for anyone, AND they optimized cargo carrying capacity WITHOUT sacrificing additional bed length. They didn't feel the need for a gimmicky thing like reclining rear seats. Look at that pic again. With the seats reclined that far, there is very little legroom left for stretching out. Who wants to recline back when you can't even stretch your legs? VERY uncomfortable. Front seats don't have that problem because they recline without having to slide the seat bottom forward.

    Would you be okay if the front seats were fixed in position? Would you be okay if the front seats DIDN'T tilt and recline and have adjustable lumbar or thigh support?

    Yes, some front seat adjustment to suit your individual preference is nice, but they do not need to recline as far as they do. If the front seats ate up all your leg room when they reclined, it certainly would not go over too well, would it?
    And what does Lumbar and thigh support have to do with this?
  • geo9geo9 Member Posts: 735
    Been sittin' on the sidelines ENJOYING your banter
    with the "toyota terriorist(s)" folks..........

    Funny how none of them has answered the question
    "do YOU actually own a truck?"..........

    Its also funny that a certain poster here is actually
    a toyota salesman. At least thats what he implies
    on another toyota owners forum elsewhere.... :confuse:
  • ggesqggesq Member Posts: 701
    can be useful. One scenario- young children (who don't use car seats) can recline their seats and get comfy on long road trips.
    There are a few vehicles that have this feature as well. Someone pointed out the Lexus LS having it as well as other high end luxury vehicles. It's also found on the Malibu Maxx I believe :confuse:
  • jreaganjreagan Member Posts: 285
    Its also funny that a certain poster here is actually
    a toyota salesman.


    Hmmm, let me guess...Is it kdhspyder? Or Belias?
  • chrmdomechrmdome Member Posts: 107
    Greetings:

    In our world of the bell shaped curve:
    1) Towing capacity of 10,300 lbs or 10,600 lbs. means...
    2) Having 44 in. or 43 in. of rear seat leg room is.....
    3) Having a 5 ft., 8 in. bed or a 5 ft., 10 in. bed is ....

    Nothing, meaningless, unimportant.... ( all negitives !)
    Final analysis...there are Chevy guys and there are Toyota guys. Moot point, no argument necessary.

    Chromedome ( Chevy guy )
  • toykickstoykicks Member Posts: 95
    yeah whats more stable a 5400 pound truck or 5800 pound truck.

    which ones better a vehicle with a GVWR of 6900 pounds or 7200. doesnt matter, Toyota isnt playing # games right now. Wait a year theyre under rating.

    when is GM coming out with direct injection? I've heard toyota is doing the same with their tundras in 1-2 years giving them an extra 50+hp and better fuel effeciency.
  • pmuscepmusce Member Posts: 132
    "when is GM coming out with direct injection? I've heard toyota is doing the same with their tundras in 1-2 years giving them an extra 50+hp and better fuel effeciency."

    You think GM needs direct injection to get another 50hp out of their V8's? I can't speak for Toyota but GM has lots of juice left in the V8's. Just to give you an idea, the 6.2 will be the new standard engine on the vette next year and I'm hearing 450HP.

    When is Toyota coming out with a Diesel? Heavy Duty?
  • 1offroader1offroader Member Posts: 208
    Actually, reclining without being able to stretch out the legs is a very uncomfortable position. The reason? Basic kinesthetics. When the legs are bent and the upper body is at an incline, it focuses stress on the abdominals and quadriceps (front thigh muscles).

    That's why "crunches" are done with the legs bent - it's more effective. The quads and abs cannot completely relax, which is the whole point of the exercise.

    That's why living room reclining chairs always have a support to lift and support the outstretched legs. They don't just recline.

    That's why first-class airline passengers PAY BIG BUCKS to be able to recline AND stretch out their legs. Coach passengers can recline their seats, but it's not comfortable. I've spent many hours in the air, mostly in coach, and I should know.

    That's why it's practical for the front seat in automobiles to recline - because the foot bucket allows the legs to be stretched out.

    So, when the Tundra has a reclining rear seat feature that by its very design eliminates the extra legroom, the value is dubious at best. It's either lots of legroom (which is good), or recline the seat back with bent legs, but you can't recline AND stretch out.

    BTW, I'm 6'3" 225 lbs. w/long legs, and I have lots of leg room in the Silverado Crew Cab back seat. I can't imagine carrying anyone bigger than me back there, but if I do he'll still have plenty of room unless his name is Shaquille. I'd let Shaq ride in front. ;)

    1offroader
  • toykickstoykicks Member Posts: 95
    And how do you know that new 6.2 wont have direct injection? if it does it will have way over 450+ hp and average more then 20mpg in the vette. Now imagine that kinda technology in the 5.3 and 6.0 vortec engines. i wont be surprised if next year the 5.3 vortec makes around the same power as the current 5.7 tundra. A lot of people already know about it. toyota is also thinking of doing the same.
  • jreaganjreagan Member Posts: 285
    Just to give you an idea, the 6.2 will be the new standard engine on the vette next year and I'm hearing 450HP.

    450hp? Doesn't the Z06 now have 500+HP? If not, it will next year. If not even more.
  • jreaganjreagan Member Posts: 285
    Thanks Offroader,

    That's what I have been trying to tell them, they won't listen, or they don't understand common sense.
  • pmuscepmusce Member Posts: 132
    jreagan,

    I'm not talking about the Z06, which has the 505HP 7.0L V8, I'm talking about the base corvette. It currently has a 6.0L V8 making 400HP, which will be replaced by a 6.2L V8 and the rumour for the 6.2 is 450HP.
  • jreaganjreagan Member Posts: 285
    Final analysis...there are Chevy guys and there are Toyota guys. Moot point, no argument necessary.

    But what fun would this forum be then? I actually enjoy debating the "Wannabe" Toy truck vs a "Real" truck.
    :P
  • jreaganjreagan Member Posts: 285
    The Z06 has a 7.0L? I didn't realize that, sorry.
    Carry on...
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    "No, the reason the GM's don't have it is because they made the rear seats plenty comfy for anyone, AND they optimized cargo carrying capacity WITHOUT sacrificing additional bed length."

    Plenty comfy for anyone? Really? Did you take a poll?

    Personally, I've found that I've usually had a problem with seat comfort with most GM vehicles I've been in; that problem is that even in the seat's most upright position, I feel that the seat reclines too much. You may feel the seat angle is just fine; however, I would like for the seat to have SOME ADJUSTABILITY. Nowhere have I stated that the only way to 'enjoy' the rear seats in a Tundra CrewMax is to recline them FULLY.

    All I've been trying to point out is that the seatback angle is ADJUSTABLE. Sometimes, changing the seatback angle by only 2-3 degrees, either up or down, can be beneficial to back comfort on long trips. That's the whole point of having adjustable seats, so they can be CHANGED to meet the CHANGING needs of the individual sitting in the seat. Which is why I brought up ADJUSTABLE lumbar and thigh support. Apparently, adjustability is good BUT ONLY IF IT'S IN THE FRONT SEATS. Apparently you believe that whoever sits in the rear will be 'plenty comfy' because the engineers who designed the rear seats for all Silverados were freakin' genius's who happened to hit on the preCISE backrest angle to satisfy 100% of the motoring public, therefore adjustability wasn't needed.....

    Let me make it simple: adjustability is better than fixed. It's the reason why tilt/telescopic wheels are preferable to steering wheels that are fixed in place. It's the reason mirrors are adjustable rather than fixed in place. It's the reason why HVAC controls are adjustable rather than fixed in place. It's the reason why the FRONT SEATS are adjustable rather than fixed in place. Why you would exempt rear-seats from this common-sense rule is beyond me.....no actually, it's not. The Tundra CrewMax has adjustable rear seats while the Silverado doesn't....therefore in your universe this means that fixed in place is preferable.

    Now, as far as sacrificing bed length: Yes, the Tundra CrewMax has a bed that is 2.6" shorter than the Chevy Crewcab. Which means that if you had an object which was between 66.8" in length and 69.2" in length, and it HAD to fit in the bed with the tailgate up, and you didn't have a bed extender, THEN you would look like a genius for buying a Chevy. Congrats.
  • jreaganjreagan Member Posts: 285
    Which means that if you had an object which was between 66.8" in length and 69.2" in length, and it HAD to fit in the bed with the tailgate up, and you didn't have a bed extender, THEN you would look like a genius for buying a Chevy. Congrats.

    You are so ignorant!!! What about overall capacity? Or overhung loads? (Lumber). I fill my 6-1/2' bed up all the time with stuff when going on trips and I am sacrificing more than I want to already by going to a Crewcab with a 5.8' box. I don't want to lose any more than I have to. Not for stupid reclining rear seats.

    Also, I did not say adjustable is a bad thing for rear seats, I simply stated it was not worth what you must sacrifice in order to get it (Cargo space efficiency, legroom, and bed space). The fold-down rear seatbacks are simply stupid by design. Now, if they could have incorporated GM's design (no seat bottom sliders) and added minor seatback angle adjustablility, which I think is possible, I would have commended them. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see GM or someone else do this soon. GM was the first to actually have an articulating rear seat to provide an angled seatback that folds flat against the rear cab wall when folded up. Again, they are optimizing comfort WITHOUT sacrificing useable cargo volume.

    Oh, and have you ever sat in the back of a GM Crewcab? No? I didn't think so. So shut your mouth until you do. I have sat in both and I am NOT impressed with the Tundra's hard, flat, non-conforming, park-bench-like seats.
  • ggesqggesq Member Posts: 701
    Couldn't have said it better myself.

    Let the word twisting begin.....
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    "You are so ignorant!!! What about overall capacity?"

    Okay, what about overall capacity?

    The Tundra bed is 66.4" WIDE at the tailgate, the Chevy is only 61.6" wide at the tailgate. So, you really NEED those extra 2.6" of length for overall capacity, yet see no need for the extra 4.8" of WIDTH that the Tundra has? Lots of gear when going on trips? Super, with the Tundra CrewMax I can ADJUST THE SEAT forward and stow more of that gear behind the seat (particularly since I've started OUT with nearly 6" more rear legroom......).

    "Not for stupid reclining rear seats."

    Oh, so now rear seats that are adjustable are stupid? Okay...

    "I simply stated it was not worth what you must sacrifice in order to get it (Cargo space efficiency, legroom, and bed space)."

    In your opinion. Personally, I like the choice that an adjustable seat gives me. I like the ability to stow items behind the seat. Plus, I like a wider bed width.....thanks for goading me into looking that up. I hate being ignorant.

    "Oh, and have you ever sat in the back of a GM Crewcab?"

    Yes. It was comfy for the 5 minutes I explored the truck. I also know that when I drive a vehicle (any vehicle) for extended periods of time I occassionally adjust the seat so my back isn't ALWAYS at the same angle. For that reason, I'm afraid I have to insist on sitting in the front of a Chevy. BTW - I'd sure like to know where you managed to sit in the back of a Tundra CrewMax since they haven't hit the dealers yet. Carshow?

    "So shut your mouth until you do."

    Haven't said a word..... ;)
  • dreasdaddreasdad Member Posts: 276
    ooohh- jreagan caught in another lie, I love it
  • pmuscepmusce Member Posts: 132
    rorr,

    Adjustability is good but not at the expense of cargo carrying configuration. Yes front seats recline, but when front seats recline they do not reduce your leg room and they are not designed to decrease cargo carrying configurations.

    "Yes, the Tundra CrewMax has a bed that is 2.6" shorter than the Chevy Crewcab. Which means that if you had an object which was between 66.8" in length and 69.2" in length, and it HAD to fit in the bed with the tailgate up, and you didn't have a bed extender, THEN you would look like a genius for buying a Chevy. Congrats."

    And when you tow something that is between 10500 and 10800 pounds, then you will think you are a genius for buying the Toyota, even thought at GMT900 HD will tow that 10800 pound load better.

    The end result is you feel reclining rear seats are important to you and some people would rather have the cargo carrying flexibility of the GM setup. To each his own.
  • jreaganjreagan Member Posts: 285
    OK, I haven't seen cubic feet specs on the two beds. But if the Tundra has more, kudos to them for overall volume. But length is still important for hauling long items that stick out of the bed (ie: Lumber). Bottom line, bed size is a secondary issue to the reclining seat comparison anyway. My biggest issue is the folding seatbacks compared to the GM's folding seat bottom. I still say that the GM's configuration lends itself to cargo carrying MUCH better than the Tundra's goofy fold down design. Full floor to ceiling access is better and the cargo gets a solid floor to sit on instead of a folded down seatback. Plus, as was mentioned earlier, much safer for obvious reasons (or do I need to explain that again too?). And as for stowing stuff behind the rear seat, I would need to compare that area to the area under the GM's seat. But I am betting the GM's is also better because the GM's have no slides or other bracketry getting in the way under the seat. Which BTW is much easier to get at while underway and your sitting in the seat. ie: Kid's backpacks with the stuff they want to use while in the car.

    As for sitting in the Crewmax, no, I was actually referring to sitting in the front seats of a Tundra DC, but am I safe in assuming the rear seats in a crewmax are no more comfortable than the front buckets in a DC?

    You may want to see a Chiropractor. I set my seatback where I like and it never changes, no matter how long the trip. And I even have lower back issues. And BTW, the cloth front buckets in my old 2000 are the most comfortable seats I have ever sat in...EVER!! I just hope my leather seats in my new GMC will be as comfortable as these are over the long term. When comparing comfy seats amd ride against a GM truck, good luck, they are the best in the business. Hands down!!!
  • jreaganjreagan Member Posts: 285
    ooohh- jreagan caught in another lie, I love it

    Another lie huh? I have not lied on here yet, I clarified the seat issue, sorry for leaving out a simple detail. I was referring to general seat comfort.

    Oh, and have you ever sat in the back of a GM Crewcab? No? I didn't think so. So shut your mouth until you do. I have sat in both and I am NOT impressed with the Tundra's hard, flat, non-conforming, park-bench-like seats.

    Where in here does it say I sat in a "crewmax"???
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    "The end result is you feel reclining rear seats are important to you and some people would rather have the cargo carrying flexibility of the GM setup. To each his own."

    Yep, to each his own.

    I've already acknowledged (a couple of times) that IF you intend to carry large individual items (like large icechests) inside the cab that it made sense to be able to load them on the floor. In such a case, the Chevy Crewcab has an advantage. Personally, I'd actually put them in the bed but that's just probably out of habit since that's where I've ALWAYS put the large chest (small chest with snacks/beverages goes into the cab and would fit just fine in any of these trucks).

    Speaking personally again, I'd probably spend MORE time hauling additional adults in the back rather than large bulky items that for whatever reason I didn't want to carry in the bed. For that reason, I personally would be more interested in how well the truck works for hauling additional adults rather than cargo. Since the CrewMax offers substantially more rearseat legroom (for stretching out) PLUS the option of moving the seat forward for storage behind the seat and/or adjusting the seatback, I consider that a benefit. However, like you said some folks would prefer the flat load floor. Personally, I think it's good that Toyota and GM diverge on SOME design issues because it gives the consumer a choice.

    Only reason I brought up bed lengths was because our resident firebrand Bowtie fan kept harping over the 'sacrifices' made to get the larger cab on the CrewMax. Personally, I figure that once you've made a decision to live with a bed length under 6', arguing over a couple of inches is just pissing in the wind. But there's been a lot of that lately.

    As far as I'm concerned, both of these trucks are essentially equal in virtually every MAJOR way. In fact, I think both of these (barring reliability issues) are head and shoulders above the 1/2 tons from Ford and Dodge. The only thing that tends to set my teeth on edge (as I'm sure some may have noticed) are comments that the Tundra is a "wannabe" truck. Personally, I think this reflects poorly on those making that statement since, by EVERY objective measurement, the new Tundra is a very capable truck.
  • toykickstoykicks Member Posts: 95
    why is the tundra a wannabe truck? I bet you picked your truck just cause its pretty didnt you? You should look at the suspension, axles tie rods etc. on the new tundra then compare to the Silverado and sierra. The rear end is also bigger on the tundra then the sierra/silverado. Brakes are 13+inches and stop the heavier tundra as quick or quicker then the sierra/silverado. The Crewmax is a copy of the Dodge mega cab. Its almost identical in size. Crewmax is more of a personal truck then a work truck just like the mega cab. DC tundra will be the most sold. seats on that one fold up ;)
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    "Where in here does it say I sat in a "crewmax"??? "

    You didn't. However, since we've been discussing the Chevy Crewcab and the Toyota CrewMax, and you made a comment about seat comfort in the Tundra, I had assumed you were ALSO talking about the CrewMax.

    My bad.

    Were you even sitting in a new '07 Tundra to make that comment? I had assumed so, but for all I know you were refering to the backseat in a 5 yearold Tundra ExtCab....

    edit - nevermind, I see now you were sitting in the front of a new DC. In which case I sincerely question your ability to judge seat comfort since, FOR ME, the front seats of a new Tundra were ANYTHING but a 'park bench'. Methinks your Chevy bias is showing....
  • jreaganjreagan Member Posts: 285
    Good post, the only thing I question is...

    (barring reliability issues)

    What "issues"?

    Sounds like a typical Toy loyalist ready to proclaim the Toyota superior to the new GM's based on OLD data not related to these trucks in any way, shape,or form. The GM's are all-new and so is the Tundra. Time can only answer this question.

    As for the "wannabe" statements...Toyota even admits they "wannabe" as good in this market segment as GM (and the big 3 in general). But they are not there yet and have a LOOOONG way to go to get there. Maybe not specifically in towing capability, but obviously there is much more to overall truck quality than that. And anyone who thinks Ford is about to go extinct and will not re-enter this game of "leapfrog" with a vengeance is just plain naive (And this is coming from a GM guy).
  • jreaganjreagan Member Posts: 285
    I did, that is why I opted for the 6.0. Not only more power, but it also has a bigger rear end (hmmm, one time when men actually like a bigger rear end), HP suspension (bigger stabilizer bar and heavier duty shocks), heavier duty transmission and better brakes. Oh, and according to what I have heard, the GM's stopped better than the Tundra.

    Sorry, but GM has no interest in copying Dodge...That's just ludicrous (sp?).
  • toykickstoykicks Member Posts: 95
    I think this would be a better comparison.

    work trucks

    regular cab tundra
    image

    regular cab Silverado/sierra

    image
  • jreaganjreagan Member Posts: 285
    What kind of comparison is this?

    1. Look at how far forward the driver's seat is on the Tundra? Ok if you are 5'2" or less.
    2. The GM isn't illustrating cargo space. Do their seats not move? Find a pic showing the same config and then we'll compare.
    3. Since when do "workers" carry stuff like 5 gal buckets and generators (or whatever that thing is) in the cab? They throw their $hit in the back and want the cab for themselves, paperwork and maybe a pair of gloves and a thermos.
  • toykickstoykicks Member Posts: 95
    I wouldnt brag about stopping the Tundra is heavier.
  • jreaganjreagan Member Posts: 285
    I am not bragging about it, I just corrected another mis-stated toy fact.

    And is heavier better? If you think so, tell me why?
  • toykickstoykicks Member Posts: 95
    actually you have a large amount of space still with the seat all the way back. The regular cab tundras interior is bigger then the sierra/silverado. A Generator wont fit if you have the bed full with gravel,dirt,or wood. But i guess that isnt an issue for you ;)
  • jreaganjreagan Member Posts: 285
    Let's be realistic here...
    If you haul gravel, dirt or wood regularly and fill up the box with it, do you think you would be doing this with a 1/2 ton? Let's stay focused on the center of the range where 95% of users will be, shall we?

    You're right, not an issue with me, I'll never own another reg cab ever again. And anyone who wants to haul anything in the cab will opt for at least an ext cab I would think.
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    I said "barring reliability issues" for the very reason you mention: The GM's are all-new and so is the Tundra. I proclaimed nothing; only your paranoia inserted what I was "ready to proclaim".

    As for your "wannabe" explanation: BS.

    No Toyota exec would say they were a "wannabe". The use of the term is inherently derogatory; you use it for the express intention of inflamming the debate (such that it is). Does Toyota "want to be" as good as the segment leader? To a point; I think it would be more accurate to say that Toyota KNOWS they have to be (or would that be "havtobe") BETTER than the segment leader in order to attract meaningful numbers of buyers. Afterall, they are after owners that are typically VERY loyal to their favorite brand and who will probably enjoy a price advantage on actual selling prices. Does Chevy "want to be as" as good as the segment leader in midsize sedans? I should hope so, but that doesn't make the Impala a "wannabe" sedan, now does it.

    The Tundra has a LOOOOOOOONG way to go? In what way? The ONLY measurement that I can think of would be history in the segment; in which case it makes no difference HOW good the vehicle may be on an objective basis.

    Afterall, what are the qualities of a good pickup? Durability/reliability? At this point, unproven.
    Strength/towing/payload? In 1/2tons, I think the Tundra and Silverado about equal at the head of the class.
    Comfort/usability? Each has their plusses and minuses; however, I think they are STILL both close to the head of their class.
    Style - Entirely subjective. I like the Tundra. I think the Chevy looks plain. Obviously, you'll disagree. But these are PICKUPS fer cryin' out loud......

    Bottom line - Toyota missed with the T100. They had a good cut at it with the last gen Tundra but still had some issues with traditional full-size buyers (a bit small, not enough payload/towing capacity). From where I sit, Toyota has addressed those concerns. Now, the only thing for Toyota to overcome is an inherent bias against "itty-bitty ferrin' trucks" that some folks seemed to have branded on their DNA...
  • toykickstoykicks Member Posts: 95
    Believe it or not jreagan some people/companies actually like using reg cab 1/2 tons for work.
  • jreaganjreagan Member Posts: 285
    You say "To-may-to, I say "To-mah-to". Wannabe is just that...a "want to be", same meaning.

    Does Chevy "want to be as" as good as the segment leader in midsize sedans? I should hope so, but that doesn't make the Impala a "wannabe" sedan, now does it.

    I happen to own (wife's car) a 2004 Chev Impala (BTW, it is considered a full-size sedan) which I bought brand new in fall of 2004. How many times has it been recalled? 0, zilch, nada. How many warranty issues? 0, zilch, nada. How many times has it been in the shop for any reason whatsoever (exluding oil changes/tire rotations)? 0, zilch, nada. So, based on my experience so far, how can it not be at the top?

    I agree, 20-25 years ago, GM and most domestic cars were junk, but that was then, this is now. My wife's 97 Lumina we drove from 97-2004 with NO problems either. Very good car. That makes me 5 for 5 with my modern era GM's. Can't get any better than that.

    The Tundra has a LOOOOOOOONG way to go? In what way?

    Sales, market loyalty, and IMO ruggedness (at least perceived ruggedness) Face it, they have their hands full trying to enter the American Full size truck market.

    Afterall, what are the qualities of a good pickup? Durability/reliability? At this point, unproven.
    Strength/towing/payload? In 1/2tons, I think the Tundra and Silverado about equal at the head of the class.
    Comfort/usability? Each has their plusses and minuses; however, I think they are STILL both close to the head of their class.
    Style - Entirely subjective. I like the Tundra. I think the Chevy looks plain. Obviously, you'll disagree. But these are PICKUPS fer cryin' out loud......


    I agree with this for the most part...except the subjectiveness. ie: Tundra looks much "plainer" than the Silvy or Sierra. Where are the body lines? And nice Grille???
    Also, why didn't Toyota lose the Tundra name since it is a completely new/different truck (size, not just styling). that would have addressed the "bias" issue you refer to. Right?
  • jreaganjreagan Member Posts: 285
    Believe it or not jreagan some people actually like using reg cab 1/2 tons for work.

    Good for them.
  • pmuscepmusce Member Posts: 132
    "As far as I'm concerned, both of these trucks are essentially equal in virtually every MAJOR way. In fact, I think both of these (barring reliability issues) are head and shoulders above the 1/2 tons from Ford and Dodge. The only thing that tends to set my teeth on edge (as I'm sure some may have noticed) are comments that the Tundra is a "wannabe" truck. Personally, I think this reflects poorly on those making that statement since, by EVERY objective measurement, the new Tundra is a very capable truck."

    I agree with this statement 100%. The Tundra is certainly not a "wannabe" truck. It is also not second coming of full size pickups. It is a very strong entry in the full size market. However, the GMT900's are still the 500 pound gorilla in this market with respect to market coverage, breadth of configurations, sales, and capability from 1/2 ton through to HD.
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    Yes, I know your wife has an Impala, which is why I used that example. And GM themselves recognize (whether you do or not) that the segment leader is the Camry. So, by YOUR definition, if Toyota says they "wannabe" as good as the segment leader with the Tundra, why wouldn't it be fair to say that the Impala is also a "wannabe"? BTW - since the term isn't derogratory, why complain if I use it in reference to the Impala?

    They have their hands full entering the full-size truck market? YES. Couldn't agree more. That's because (as I pointed out before) full-size truck buyers are a fiercely loyal lot.

    Obviously, they aren't there in sales. Not sure about "market loyalty"; Toyota owners in general are more loyal than GM owners, but this applies to the company as a whole rather than just the full-size truck segments. Ruggedness? Well, as you pointed out, this is based mostly on perception. Toyota's problem is that they could be offering 400hp trucks that got 25mpg that maxed out at $32k completely dolled up, yet some folks would say they STILL had a "looooooong" way to go simply due to PREVIOUS sales numbers, "market loyalty" and "perceived" ruggedness.

    Not gonna argue styling; as pointless this discussion already is, this would simply be more so. But you go right ahead.....

    Why didn't Toyota lose the Tundra name? You COMPLETELY lost me on that one.....why didn't Chevy lose the Impala name since IT'S been completely revised a number of times? Do you think THAT would have addressed someones "bias" against old Impalas?
This discussion has been closed.