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

1252628303137

Comments

  • dreasdaddreasdad Member Posts: 276
    E85 is not what its cracked up to be -cost more the gas in tyhe long run as mielage goes down by 30% when running on E85 so it has to be about a $1.00 cheaper a gallon before it makes sense.

    Pull up Consumer Reports study on E85
  • geo9geo9 Member Posts: 735
    TOY..........Snowplows can be installed on MOST trucks!
    But yet again what size plow???????????

    A small homesteader or light duty model ? Less than a big 8 footer? One with a rubber band instead of springs?
    (for tripping on either a full blade trip or foot trip model)
    This is where the Fisher differs from a Western, Meyers,
    Diamond etc..............
    And on and on......... You bet !!!!!!!!!!!

    Please note the different models that can and cannot be installed on a tundra or most models..............
    The ONLY Fisher plow that can be installed IS the tiny
    Homesteader model 7.4 ft. Useless in my working world.

    Just be reminded when you smoke that wonderkinds tranny,
    or transfer case and go to mr. dealer don't be suprised
    if warranty is denied because of snowplow related
    breakage.
    This is noted on several snowplowing sites and the
    "plowheads" know this and buy trucks accordingly.
    So besides the $6000 difference in a base GM or a
    base tundra model not to mention the blade size the
    tundra is NOT the truck of choice of most contractors.
    Maybe for Harry homeowner...But not in the real world !

    If it doesn't offer a snowplow prep. pkg. it is not
    equipped to do so no matter WHAT brand !
    So in my book its a weaker brand not up to the task !

    No matter the opinions of the salesfolks and non truck
    owners posting here...............
  • bingo3bingo3 Member Posts: 3
    New to list and have not read all posts BUT have started kicking tires of new pickups. Use the pick up to tow single and double PWC trailers, runabout boat and a 16' flatbed trailer (that being the only one that has trailer brakes) A detail read of the Tundra Owner's Manual limits trailers to 1,000 lbs w/o brakes. I looks at a 2002 S-10 and found the same limt. What does towing section of the Silverado owner's manual limit say?
  • dreasdaddreasdad Member Posts: 276
    I think you are looking at Tongue weight not trailer weight
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Member Posts: 7,160
    Lot's or words here but little or no substance. Sounds typical.

    What the GM's have going for them is history, admittedly, and.....
    less towing capabilities - across the board,
    less standard safety features - across the board,
    less maneuverability,
    an 80's-90's vintage transmission - oh boy.

    Now the F150. Well they better have some massive surprise waiting to be sprung on the market because for the next 15 months the current F150 is the tailender.

    Will the Ram even survive this year? Snowplow package or not what if there is no 2009 model?

    The survivors will be the GM's and the T's.

    The Tundra will do just fine with it's advantages.
  • bingo3bingo3 Member Posts: 3
    No sir! If you look in the index in the back for "tow" then carefully read the towing instructions and limits, the Tundra (and Chev S-10 I looked at) limit a trailer to 1,000 pounds without trailer brakes. Nothing to do with tongue weight in that particular limit.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Member Posts: 7,160
    2. GM is still ramping up with their drivetrains, they produce nearly 10X what Toyota will be producing in the 1/2 tons. So, going to the 6.2L and the 6-spd transmission will take some time. But by year's end, it WILL be available in all 1/2 tons, and then where is the tundra's so-called advantage?

    GM is going to produce 2 Million 1/2-ton trucks!!!?? Let me call my broker and sell short every GM stock in existence. They'll never climb out of that hole.

    4. GM already has 4 available engines, and once the 6.2's become available in all of the 1/2 tons, it will be 5. Much better choices and configurations available from GM. This will suit everyone's needs and maximize HP and fuel economy.

    This may actuall be a problem...and this is just the 1/2-ton market. Economies of scale seem to suffer in this system.

    5. GM offers Active Fuel Mgmnt and E85.
    AFM is another techno-bling-bling. The AFM from reports I've seen on GMI and Ts are at best a 5% improvement. See Edmunds analysis.

    E85 is unfortunately a bow to political pressure. It takes more than one gallon of dino fuel to produce one gallon of E85. Then the E85 gets worse fuel economy than dino fuel. That saves (?) what exactly? Actually I'm sorry to see that Toyota caved in and will offer it next year.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Member Posts: 7,160
    This is correct. It's margin-of-safety CYA.

    Toyota says to use trailer brakes over 1000# Gross Trailer Wgt
    GM say to use trailer brakes over 2000# Gross Trailer Wgt.

    Next subject.
  • geo9geo9 Member Posts: 735
    I love those above posts of the upcoming non survival of
    Ford and Mopar trucks !!!!!!!!

    Seems the yota salesfolks WISH this might come true!

    The "wonderkind may get it right someday" brand is gonna
    steal those 1 million a year Ford buyers or the 250k +
    mopar buyers?????????????

    Not in my lifetime............In the 7 years of the tundra
    they have barely cracked 100k a year in sales !
    I don't think GM, Ford, or DCX is sweating the truck dept.!

    As a actual OWNER and truck BUYER...........I know better!
  • dreasdaddreasdad Member Posts: 276
    "they have barely cracked 100k a year in sales"

    Tundra sold 124,508 for 2006, 126,529 for 2005. Thats more than 100,000.Must be Chevy fuzzzy math.
    Drive down any major Highway in San Antonio where the Tundra is bult and every otrher bilboard is for a Chevy or Ford truck.

    They have already admitted they are concerned about competion thats why the Chevy is as good a truck as it is.
  • drfilldrfill Member Posts: 2,484
    Since Chevy guys are eager to downplay the Tundra, what is really important to make a great (the greatest?) full-size truck?

    1. Jreagen, give us your 3 top attributes for any full-size truck buyer. Why should someone buy a Silverado/Tundra over a Colorado/Tacoma?

    2. If payload and towing numbers aren't that important, why is GMC using them in every ad? "Over 5 tons of towing! 2010 lbs of payload! The stronger, more powerful Sierra!"

    3. Why was the last Silvy better than the last Tundra?

    4. Why are the Ram and F-150 considered bottom-feeders at this point in time? Power? Towing? Payload?

    5. Did Chevy underestimate what the next Tundra would be? Is the 6.2 "Plan B"?

    I don't have a problem with the Silvy being better than the Tundra, it has been for several years, until now.

    Why is it better now? Or is it "just as good"?

    DrFill
  • blkhemiblkhemi Member Posts: 1,717
    While there is much-hype(with little fuzz) about the survival of the Ram or F-150, we may need to ask to that the same question involving the Tundra:

    Who is the king of kings in recalls last year AND '05 involving full-size pickups and SUV's? TOYOTA( twice over).

    And with the quality slipping south with the American-built Toyota vehicles, who's to say the Tundra won't be the equal of the degrading Toyota Camry. As I've admitted several times, I really like how Toyota has loosened up and came to the fight with a gun instead of a butter knife this go'round.

    But the Silverado is a tried and true, genuine pickup. The Tundra is generally playing catch up to the big leagers, including Nissan.

    As to the Silvy's engine lineup, it was said earlier this week that the 4.8L and 6.0L maybe exiting out of the lineup. With the 4.3L, 5.3L, and 6.2L, the Chevy should be the one to contend with, until the optional 5.8L 410hp HEMI gets here early next year(the 5.7L will remain however as the midlevel V8 engine).
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Member Posts: 7,160
    AFM is not the future. It's marginal but if it costs little or nothing why not.

    E85? If you truly think this is the future then you have no appreciation of value. How is spending 1.3 gal to produce 1.0 gallon a good thing?

    The idea is to use less dino fuel, not more.

    Now if you said that B20 or B100 or Butanol, all home grown, is the future then I'm with you all the way. E85 is a boondoggle to ADM. It doesn't disturb the current oil oligopoly in the least and it also makes ADM the kingpin.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Member Posts: 7,160
    Who is the king of kings in recalls last year AND '05 involving full-size pickups and SUV's? TOYOTA( twice over).

    This is false. Try again. [HINT: Try the chart from the Detroit News ]

    The T900's are the real thing. GM unfortunately cut corners on them to bring them out before the Tundra.

    This isn't a sprint to top of the sales charts. It's only about making money with good balance between sales and production. If 200K units generates good profits but 500K means no profits then it's more important to stay profitable. Volume will come with time. 20 years from now this will all look different.
  • maple2maple2 Member Posts: 177
    an 80's-90's vintage transmission - oh boy.

    Just because a transmission has been around for a long time does not mean it is old technology,only the # of gears remains the same. gm's 4 speed transmissions seem to hold up fine in their 2500 and 3500 series trucks. If toyota had such a truck, do you think they would trust this 6 speed tranny to stand up to the abuse it would see? If the tundra 6 speed turns out to be as reliable as the one in the camry would you still think it is the superior tranny just because it has 2 more gears?
  • maple2maple2 Member Posts: 177
    Volume will come with time. 20 years from now this will all look different.

    yes 20 years ago we were laughing at the t100. 20 years from now when the new toyota xxxxx is due to come out we will be laughing at the 2007 tundra

    Just kidding, but really, if toyota wants to go for the "meat of the market" why the 5.7 6sp? That is not the meat of the market most people want the smaller v8, as far as 1/2 tons go anyway. If they think that their 6 spd is so great they could have put it in their 4.7 lt and personaly i think it would have done better for them as the 4.7 is outgunned by the 5.3 so it could use the extra 2 gears to compensate and the 5.7 could still be a force to be reckoned with using the 5 spd (with some beefing up if required)
  • maple2maple2 Member Posts: 177
    This is correct. It's margin-of-safety CYA.

    Toyota says to use trailer brakes over 1000# Gross Trailer Wgt
    GM say to use trailer brakes over 2000# Gross Trailer Wgt.

    Next subject.


    Why so quick to brush this off as a non issue? Seems like a pretty big advantage for the general on this issue to me. Twice the rating. 1000# is not very much weight before you need trailer brakes. Sounds pretty lame to me, What happened to those big bad brakes on the tundra?
  • chrmdomechrmdome Member Posts: 107
    Sir:

    I will be picking up my 2007 Silverado tomorrow , Crew cab, 4x4 ,short box, Max Vortec 6.0 liter. I have reviewed the Chevy catalog and Chevy.com and it clearly states that the 2007 Silverado ( New body style ) has the 900 frame and can tow 10,500 lbs, the main reason for my purchase. The dealerships manager discussed the towing ability with me personally. You must be refering to the 2007 Silverado Classic, not the new body style. The new body style has the 900 frame. Ya, research...... The kicker here bucko is that you need the 6.0 liter motor AND the Maximum Trailering Package, which gives you a great suspension, better transmission and oil cooling and the necessary towing accessories such as shocks, wiring etc. but as I stated, it tows 10, 500 lbs.....Final analysis as I have stated many times, moot point, no argument. Either you are a Toyota guy or a Chevy guy... to each his own. I love my country and I buy American... ( oh ya a little German stuff too, but they build great stuff )

    Chromedome
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    Chromedome,

    Congrats on buying the best. I just got my latest Motor Trend today in the mail and skimmed through it and the Silvy won against the Tundra in a comparo. ;)

    I was shocked at Motor Trend putting a GM truck above a Toyota. :surprise:

    Rocky
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    But the Tundra wasn't available for the truck of the year test pal and that magazine has a tradition of bashing domestics but as of late they are supporting GM's efforts. ;)

    Rocky

    P.S. y'all need to get your carspace pages off the ground so we can talk :P
  • ggesqggesq Member Posts: 701
    or does "sierra2007" sound alot like jreagan? :P

    Just joined edmunds too...hmmm....
  • ggesqggesq Member Posts: 701
    Can't we all just get along.. ;)
  • chrmdomechrmdome Member Posts: 107
    Rocky:

    Ya.... I am really excited about my new truck. I have a 2002 Chevy Tahoe and it has been a great vehicle. I love it. I have always worked on my cars myself ( Since 1992, no car of mine has been to a mechanic , radiators, water pumps, fuel pumps , alternators etc, etc, I do it myself ). and Chevy has been great. But as I say, if ya love Chevy so be it.

    See ya, Chromedome
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    That great. :) I don't have the patience to repair my own but my father does. ;)

    I hope to see pics of your new truck ;)

    Rocky
  • drfilldrfill Member Posts: 2,484
    BTW, the last Tundra may've been better than the last Silvy, as the Tundra beat it in more than one comparison.

    The Silvy will have the sales for awhile, a long while.

    Toyota just needs to chip away at the foundation, which is kinda crumbling anyway. :sick:

    Toyotas recalls are up.

    Sales are up more.

    It would be an accomplishment to catch GM is recalls, doh. The Silvy had 4 recalls last year on the '06, a truck they've been making for 10 years!

    DrFill
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Member Posts: 7,160
    The 4.7 is roughly the same as the other 4.x small V8's but it is probably outdated. It's been around since the late 90's and while it's been upgraded along the way it doesn't have all the technology of the 5.7.

    It's clear that the 5.7L is the engine Toyota wants to push; to wit, there's only a $1300 difference between the two, the 5.7L is far more capable, it gets about 10% better fuel economy and it requires less maintenance ( chain vs belt ).

    As with the Reg Cabs T is pushing the market by using price as it's tool.

    The 4.7L is not long for this world....and the V6 ( from any manufacturer ) shouldn't even be considered in this segment.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Member Posts: 7,160
    I'm guessing it's lawyer input. CYA. Always err on the side of too much safety.
  • drfilldrfill Member Posts: 2,484
    Toyota makes 4.0 eights that get close to 300HP; I'd expect a new 5L that gets 300+ HP and 20MPG in 2010.

    Toyota has trouble just keeping up with demand, at this point. They have a real problem!

    http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070308/FREE/70307005/1528

    DrFill
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Member Posts: 7,160
    jr might have been banned for name-calling on the other thread so you might be right. We'll see soon.
  • drfilldrfill Member Posts: 2,484
    Tryin' to call it the "Tough Box"

    Anyone else want to play Name That Tune?

    "The Lame Box"

    "Jack%$# in a Box"

    "The White Flag Edition"

    "Crying For Help Package"

    This is fun. :)

    DrFill
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    Silvy had 4 recalls last year on the '06, a truck they've been making for 10 years!

    You meant 7 years as the current truck was built in 1999' The 07' Classic makes 8 years. ;)

    Rocky
  • pmuscepmusce Member Posts: 132
    "Toyota has trouble just keeping up with demand, at this point. They have a real problem!"

    drfill, the article you linked to mentions Toyota having a a problem keeping up with demand for engines in general, not with the Tundra in particular. In terms of sales of the Tundra so far, there should be no issue with having enough engines to meet demand. If Toyota spent the massive dollars they did building a 200,000 capacity plant and a new pickup but can't build enough engines to support the plant capacity, then they are idiots.

    "I'd expect a new 5L that gets 300+ HP and 20MPG in 2010"

    2010? Gm's 5.3 currently makes 320 HP and is rated 16/22 today. By 2010, the numbers you are stating will not be competitive. They better be aiming higher than that.
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    "or does "sierra2007" sound alot like jreagan?"

    What'd I miss? I can't find any posts from 'sierra2007' (and a few posts appear to be missing as well).

    Is someone being a bad boy?
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    That's a good question, truckgirl76.

    Have you ever posted to Edmunds before, under a different username? From what I understand, Edmunds has the capacity to track individuals through their ISP address so that even if a particular individual changes their user name, an individual who has been banned will STAY banned.

    However, if you are indeed a brand new individual posting here (rather than just someone with a new user name), you might try sending a note to Edmund's technical support. Or, you might try sending an e-mail to the Host of the Pickups forum, kcram@edmunds.com.

    I hope this helps - and welcome to the forums. It can get lively......
  • drfilldrfill Member Posts: 2,484
    Their 4.7 is used in many different vehicles, which affects Tundra in particular, and creates the 5.7 push from Toyota.

    GM will have the same problem with the 6-speed, and it'll be a couple of years before every Silverado engine gets a 6-speed.

    By 2010, both trucks middle-offerings will be similar in drivetrain.

    Haven't seen the 4.7 tested in the Tundra. Have seen 7.7 0-60, 7k towing out of the 5.3 with a 4-speed. Nothing to fear there. I'm sure the 4.7 can compete with that at this point, and with a 5-speed at that.

    DrFill
  • rubendogrubendog Member Posts: 7
    Did jreagan change into sierra mist2007 then into truck girl 76? I thought cross-dressing was banned in the truck forums. :)
  • beliasbelias Member Posts: 316
    Well, I've been away from the forum for a number of days doing my own research on the vehicles after work and trying to bring some possibly new info to help with the discussion here.
    I spent 2 hours at a Chevy dealership and almost 1/2 hour at a GMC dealership in my area and got a lot of hands on information. Again, unfortunately, I was not able to take a test drive, but I did deal with a very knowledgeable, experienced, and all-around good salesman at the Chevy dealership.
    Even though I've had several more "personal" attacks (even when I was off the board), I made a point of at least trying to emphasize the benefits of the Chevy truck that the GMers here were pointing out and asked the salesman (lets call him CH) about them and told him about some of the points for/against both the Chevy and the Tundra that were made and assured him that even though I wasn't there to buy on the spot, that if he could help sort through the info that it would at least give me the chance to actually look at things in more detail and more objectively.
    I told CH that I had just been to another Chevy dealership in the area almost 2 weeks earlier and looked at the truck, but there were a number of things that I had questions about. I also assured him that he has every opportunity to emphasize the positives and make the best case for why things are the way they are.
    CH looked to be in his late 50s, maybe early 60s (but I doubt that). He said that he had sold cars/trucks from Ford, Dodge, and now Chevy and has been selling for a total of over 20 years and for almost 10 years with Chevy. So I got the notion that he knows what he is doing.
    The first thing he did was asked me what I drove and what do I know about the new trucks. I told him that currently I have an Acura, but that I've had both Toyota and Chevy before. I also proceeded to tell him everything that I knew about the new trucks. The whole time he listened and didn't once interrupt me.
    After I finished, he said that while not everything that I knew was 100% correct that most of it was; but more importantly that some of those things weren't why he thinks the GMT900 was a better truck overall.
    He proceeded to take me over to a truck that had been recently sold and was getting gassed up and prepped for the customer to pick it up the next day (crew-cab LTZ – fully loaded except for Nav and 4x4 – steps uninstalled). Then he asked me if I had a family, and I told him yes, that is why I’m looking at doing a crew-cab only. What followed was a confirmation of what I had said much earlier in the discussion. He said that this truck is more than capable of doing what I needed it to do unless I have a yacht of some kind (which I assured him I don’t) and that luxury crew-cabs have essentially become a family vehicle and that people that want REAL trucks usually get at least a ¾ if not 1 ton truck. I didn’t expect CH to say that, but again, that is how I’ve always felt about trucks and it established some common ground right away.
    CH did emphasize what he felt were some proven aspects of the truck that I had brought about in the discussion. First off, he said that the frame is fully boxed and is very strong all the way through. He did say that while they believe that it is better than Toyota’s, that he would not want to insist on that yet because they have not completely examined the whole Tundra setup through and through and that to him it didn’t matter much in the grand scheme of things (that he has not seen a broken frame on a truck even before they were fully boxed that was not in some kind of an accident). But what he did know was that there is no issue to frame strength with the Chevy. He then proceeded to talk about the power-train saying that whether I get the 5.3 or 6.0 engine, that both were proven to be strong and reliable and that Toyota’s may indeed be more advanced and have broader power around the range, that it won’t really matter much in real-world driving. Beyond a certain amount of power, there is no real benefit. I agreed with him somewhat on that count. Still, he admitted though that if people truly felt that it was no issue, we wouldn’t need to build the larger engines, so CH said that it is up to me to choose what I think is good, but that what they have is proven well. He talked a little about AFM but said that it is not a major selling point because most people don’t know the difference in gas mileage and that at about 10,000 miles the truck will really be giving the proper mpg for virtually the rest of the life of the truck.
    CH said that for families, we try to emphasize that we have the best mileage, but if you buy a truck, that isn’t what I should count on and that I should look at cars/minivans if mileage is a big concern to me.
    Following this, he took me inside the truck and proceeded to show me the luxury items and seating configuration for the back seat and the fronts. Here I took a little issue, but didn’t make a big fuss, but I did tell him that it didn’t feel really luxurious (lots of plastic and the fake wood didn’t remotely look close to real wood and “creaked” when I put my fingers on it) he said that for a truck this is as good as it gets unless I step up into the Denali which is sold at the GMC dealer down the street. He didn’t seem to want to talk too much about the interior (surprisingly), but he did show me the flip-up rear seats in the back to address my concern. He said that while he won’t claim that it is bigger than in the Tundra CrewMax, he does feel it is better then the reclining feature because it offers space on the floor. So I told him about the fact that reclining the seat up does provide space on the floor, but takes away width and that it is already 6 inches less-wide then the Tundra’s when the seat folds down. CH did say that yes, it just depends on what you want… larger square boxes more easily fit in the Tundra, taller narrower boxes more easily fit in the Silverado. So I told him what he thought about loading a big ice box in the back here after a hunting trip. He got this look of shock on his face and said that it should be put in the bed – that the mess of the cooler and the smell coming out of it would get in the carpet and would need to be thoroughly cleaned. CH did say that if I’m going to go hunting, that, unless I need to take all my hunting buddies with me, I should look at a regular cab or get a cap or tonneau cover on the bed if I’m concerned about theft or space. I told him that I don’t hunt now, but that this was mentioned as a benefit of the flip up seat. CH said that a better benefit is if I want to take a new Plasma tv home… the box should fit in the cab.
  • beliasbelias Member Posts: 316
    We went through a number of things including how to properly engage 4wd low (the vehicle must be in N and go no more than 30mph) and things like storage, etc. Neither of us were rude or challenging, just genuinely asking questions and he never got upset or frustrated – neither did I. CH did mention that two things they didn’t anticipate being a big deal on these trucks were that having no driver’s grab handle and only a total of 4 air bags possible. CH thinks that these should have been corrected because guys (like me) that have families and are looking at these vehicles have a hard time with WAF (wife acceptance factor) when a) it is difficult for the wife to get in without the grab handle, and b) that the single biggest look of shock from the wife comes when they find out that you can’t get more than 4 air bags. CH did emphasize the bed and the tailgate assist. Just an fyi for people here though, the tailgate assist only works bringing it up, not down… it will slam down if you let go. But nothing bad about that setup, just a caution.
    Now, CH did concede that the truck does ride lower (not as much ground clearance) than the Tundra but he saw that as an advantage. He also talked bout E85 compatibility, lots of available parts and a knowledgeable service staff and crew that understand how to build and repair trucks and Chevy’s incredible history in this regard.
    Overall I left with a positive impression of the truck, and especially with CH. He was pretty honest about the strengths/weaknesses of the truck overall when I questioned him about it. The interior was something that just didn’t seem nearly as good as people made it out to be and both times that I saw one I wasn’t that impressed with it, but that is more personal taste. Even the 07 Denali that I looked at afterwards (though it was a Yukon and not the truck since the truck was not in stock) had all plastic door panels and dash/surround. We both agreed though that it was a lot better then the last one. CH said that the old interior just had to go! I think Ford seems to be the best in this area, though it lacks in many other areas.
    So while there is a lot of fur flying over which truck is better on this forum, I can say that many of the points argued on both sides do seem a little exaggerated when it comes to how it will influence the buying decision. That is not to say that they don’t matter, but ultimately what suits each individual’s needs is going to drive the decision. While I came away with a good impression of the truck and an even better one of CH, there were a few things that he even admitted should be improved on. I thought that an extra headrest in the back and moving the back seat away from the window would make a more comfortable ride for adults. He thought that adding leather in more places and a more rugged look to the interior controls were called for. I mentioned that the side-curtain air bag really protruded into the driver’s headroom on the side (i.e. that it goes into the cabin too deeply for taller guys not to hit their heads on – especially when turning or on bumpy roads). I also pointed out the differences in the stereo and just a lack of storage bins in the cabin overall including the center console not being as large as expected. Also that the gauges looked dated and that there is no option for the shifter to come off of the steering column when not having a bench-seat up front. He nodded and said that not every truck is going to be perfect, but that capability and reliability were not issues.
    In any case, we parted company with a very good impression of the other. CH even told me he was impressed with what I did know and wants my business and that questionable claims by loyalists often alienate new people from coming into their dealership. He mentioned that while he loves having their business, they don’t want to be viewed as an exclusive bunch and that there is room for everyone. I thought that was a nice gesture! Anyhow… this is a really long post, but I just wanted to get it out
  • trucktrickstrucktricks Member Posts: 45
    Hmmmm.... I see on the Wall Street Journal on line that some of the Toyota dealers are offering $1500 cash on the 2007 Tundra. It seems they are "stacking up" on the dealers lots. I think Toyota over estimated the demand for this truck. Stay tuned.
  • bugchuckerbugchucker Member Posts: 118
    "Some" dealers? How do you find them? If this is just off MSRP, you could negotiate that yourself on any Tundra. With the price of gas rising, the sale of any truck will slow. It is $2.75 for regular and will soon be over $3 again. The first thing that my wife pointed out on the truck was the 14/18 MPG posted.
  • beliasbelias Member Posts: 316
    2010? Gm's 5.3 currently makes 320 HP and is rated 16/22 today. By 2010, the numbers you are stating will not be competitive. They better be aiming higher than that.

    True, but one has to wonder in general if fuel economy will get better for anyone. The epa numbers for the Silverado next year are going to fall considerably because the new epa standards will be in place (something that will now actually be meaningful). Not that it is bad, but more likely a 13or14/17or18 city/hwy rating and an overall average of 15/16 may be more the case.
    By 2010 it is doubtful that any truck will get any meaningful fuel average benefit (though we can all hope!). Alternative fuels (aside from diesel) that are new are not getting better economy, in fact it is worse in most cases. And historically, the averages have been getting worse for most of the last 20+ years. That isn't because engines are worse; they are a lot better, but people's demand for more power and capability has usurped much of the technology used to deliver the main fuel-efficiency strides that were gained along the way.
    In 2010, people may demand a 500hp engine on a 1/2 ton truck. It sound ridiculous, but until recently 400hp sounded that way too... we're already there and even more on several engines in the market.
  • fshifshi Member Posts: 57
    Toyota Dealers Offer Discount On Newly Redesigned Tundra
    By Norihiko Shirouzu
    Word Count: 916 | Companies Featured in This Article: Toyota Motor, General Motors, Ford Motor, DaimlerChrysler

    Toyota Motor Corp. says some of its dealers are offering as much as a $1,500 discount on the basic work truck version of Toyota's newly redesigned Tundra truck, just barely one month after it went on sale. The discount for the Texas-built large truck reflects the intense competition in this lucrative segment, and the challenge Toyota faces in its effort to substantially expand its sales in a segment long dominated by Detroit brands.

    The discount is a one-month, nationwide program that began this month and is described by Toyota as "another tool," to spur sales, in addition to relatively low ...
  • 03accordman03accordman Member Posts: 671
    "Hmmmm.... I see on the Wall Street Journal on line that some of the Toyota dealers are offering $1500 cash on the 2007 Tundra. It seems they are "stacking up" on the dealers lots. I think Toyota over estimated the demand for this truck. Stay tuned."

    Yestarday's WSJ had the Tundra listed on the top 10 list of vehicles that stay on dealer lots for minimum days (i think it was like 17 or so days for the Tundra)
  • beliasbelias Member Posts: 316
    Personally, I would welcome a discount as that is good for the consumer, but I think it is relatively early for having trucks "sit on the lot". If the article is true and it is referring to regular cab work trucks, then it may be that they're targeting that group to get more of their trucks on construction sites, during the pre-spring/early-spring season.
    Judging how home-building companies are doing though, truck numbers for everyone may be down this year...
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    Belias - I just wanted to say thanks for the time and effort you put into this; and for the fact that even though CH knew you weren't in there to buy but was willing to spend a LOT of time discussing the truck with you. He sounds a like a rare breed of salesman.....
  • beliasbelias Member Posts: 316
    Yes, I was surprised that he spent that much time with me going over the truck. But I should let people know a couple of things that make it easy for the salesperson. The first is that you shouldn't go during busy times; generally speaking busy times are evenings and weekends. I went literally early afternoon and nobody was in the showroom when I arrived, though a couple of people showed up during part of my discussion with CH.
    Secondly, make it a point to let the salesperson know that if he/she has to look after another customer to get a sale that they are most welcome to do so. Not only does this give some good will and show sincerity, but the salesperson should appreciate the fact that you understand that they need to make a living like everyone else. Another benefit is that the salesperson won't rush the answers because they are worried about not getting in on a deal...
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Member Posts: 7,160
    From Day#1 the more agressive dealers have been dealing at $500-$2500 off sticker. See Ts for reports. A good sized dealer need to have about 40 to 70 in stock to cover the wide variety of colors and configurations ( there are nearly 700 possibilities ).
  • trucktrickstrucktricks Member Posts: 45
    You can't make any judgements based on these # of days on the lot at this time because the supply pipeline is not full.

    If the typical Toyota dealer only has an average of 4 trucks on the lot, he is going to burn through these much faster than if he had a more normal 40 units. With 10 times the inventory, the average number of days goes to 170.
  • bingo3bingo3 Member Posts: 3
    This is correct. It's margin-of-safety CYA.

    Toyota says to use trailer brakes over 1000# Gross Trailer Wgt
    GM say to use trailer brakes over 2000# Gross Trailer Wgt.

    Next subject.

    Why so quick to brush this off as a non issue? Seems like a pretty big advantage for the general on this issue to me. Twice the rating. 1000# is not very much weight before you need trailer brakes. Sounds pretty lame to me, What happened to those big bad brakes on the tundra?

    If you tow anything... jet skis, fishing boats, ruabouts, lawn tractors or any other light to moderate trailer load that does not require a 3/4 Ton, that 1000# limit is a major factor to consider. Why buy a truck if you cannot use it. I want a pick up that will tow 2 PWC's or a ski boat. TOYOTA CANNOT. There is no logic in risking a warranty on a $30K investment to go fishing! That ALONE stopped me from buying the Tundra. So I guess I will now say hi to my new Silvy brothers (and sisters)!
  • titancrewtitancrew Member Posts: 17
    California law requires trailers weighing more than 1500# to have brakes. Laws differ for other states.
This discussion has been closed.