I honestly haven't seen the commercial. While the four guys standing there may seem laughable, I find Toyota's comparisons to the domestic brands via the "independent testing agency" bogus.
For example, (and I may not remember this exactly right) in an acceleration test, they compared the Tundra 4.7L to a Silverado 4.8L, but then turned around and compared a Tundra 4.7L to a Silverado 5.3L in a braking test. How convenient!
I certainly understand the importance of fitting whatever you get into your garage. I measured mine to be about 240 inches long, and about 80 inches tall. I don't know how "standard" those dimensions are, but most domestic extended cab short bed models would fit. I hung a tennis ball from a string at eye level in front of the windshield to aid in parking.
And in a general sense, I expect the Tundra to be up to Toyotas usual high standards. I think I know what they are capable of. I have put in quite a few miles behind the wheel of the '98 Lexus LS-400 sedan. And while I would never draw a comparison of that vehicle to say, an Impala or Crown Victoria, I think there's probably not 3 decibels difference in the noise level at idle between my Silverado and that Lexus, or the Tundra. And even the Lexus has not been without a few minor problems. Fortunately, it's under warranty because Japanese parts can be very expensive.
Although I have never had to have any major work done on the foreign cars and trucks I have owned, I scare at the thought of replacing the parts. I have owned a lot of Nissans and have read that people that have replaced the automatic transmission were going to pay $2500-4000 depending on what the quote was and who was giving it. Probably would be easier to swap in a 4.3l Chevy and a new Th350 or 400. Certainly can't be any more expensive. I actaully hope we get to see some Tundra's on the road over the next few months so we can get some feedback on problems, fuel mileage etc.
Everyone keeps saying what about the head gasket. First of all, every headgasket problem was in the 3.4L V-6 engines not the V8! And Toyota says 90% of the Tundras are going to be V8. So that means there will be few gasket problems with the Tundra. DO NOT FORGET the V8 is scraped from the Lexus LX470
My nephew ruined the engine in his Nissan Maxima by driving it without coolant. His uncle (me) got involved at the request of his parents to get it repaired. What I found out from talking to several shops that rebuild engines, is that in general, Japanese engines are not cost effective to rebuild. The cost of parts are high, the labor and skill required is substantial. For those reasons, less reputable shops will be forced to cut corners to make it affordable within peoples expectations. What we ended up doing was buying the good engine out of a wrecked Maxima, and putting it in as a replacement.
Meanwhile, you can get a brand new 350 cu/in chevy long block from the factory for about $1500. Economies of scale.....
I have personal experience to back up my statement about the Landcruiser. Persons in my family own suburbans, expeditions, and a wife of a co-worker had a brand new Landcruiser. I also have seen a couple of older landcruisers, one particularly impressive one was one with over 200,000 miles on it driven by a high school kid with no respect for his machine. that car took a beating i haven't seen any other vehicles hold up to.
The Chevy's and Ford just don't compare up to the Landcruiser. Yes the Landcruiser is & $40K, but compared to $38K for a suburban, $35K for an Expedition. look under the hood, look under the vehicle, look at the axles, the frame, the engine technology...I guarantee you are getting more for you buck with the Landcruiser.
Where have you seen a land crusser for anywhere near $40K? If I'm not mistaken they START at $53K+. A good friend of mine picked up his tahoe less than 2 months ago and spent $30K out the door. There is a lot I could do with the $23K difference.
I am a Toyota salesman and jcmdie is right alll Land Crusiers start at $53,000. I never scene a 1999 Land Crusier under $50,000, unless it was sold under the table.
Who's kidding who? Reliability is going downhill for all manufacturers. I know that's negative,but everybody's having problems.We consumers tend to minimize it sometimes....I for one am fed up with them all! It's even hard to find an excellent service department that really knows what they're doing, and gives a hoot!....... I just had to get that out.
Just read most of the responses, including all the badmouthing of the little Toyota 4x4s. I've owned a dozen or more Chevy 1/2 tons and two Fords since the '50s and I've got to say the little '91 Toyota 4x4, dollar for dollar, is the best value I've ever had. How many of you critics have owned one of these tough little critters? We run a little beef farm in upstate New York and I haul some hellaceous loads in that little rig... rear-end-rubbing-the-ground type loads. The truck is in the mud, snow and crud up and down the mountain all winter. Except for a clutch at 60K (dragging a 4000# trailer up a mountain), we've had NO trouble. Toyota makes exceptional equipment. We're trying to decide now on a 2500 Cummins or an F350SD PSD to pull a cattle trailer to shows, but the little Toyota will still be in the barn and still earning a living on our place.
The Tundra runs regular unleaded. It has knock sensors. It comes standard with smallish engine and tranny oil coolers. In 0-60 times, it ties the chevy 5.3l, and loses to the Ford 5.4, and beats everything else. Why? Because Toyota simply put 4.09 rear axle in it to make it that way. That's why the "efficient" 32valve technological wonder of an engine only returns 18mpg freeway. Gear the chevy or ford with a 4.10 rear and you'll see the tide turn...remember the Tundra's only making 240-245Hp... and its only a couple hundred pound lighter than similarly equipped domestics. (and the sheetmetal seems thinner/weaker..)It remains to be seen how the beefed-up landcruiser transmission will handle heavy towing loads in the long run. This isn't too much of a concern, as it has a 6yr/60k mile powertrain warranty! The pricing is not that expensive. A comparably equipped domestic is almost exact same price (toyota made sure of that, obviously) Compared to the big three: the chassis is extremely stiff. The shorter wheelbase makes it very nimble/responsive, yet a little less stable on the highway. Steering feel and response is like a sports sedan, as is braking feel/power. Even the 2wd rides pretty high off the ground. The ride is pretty good, about like the F150. The interior is the most quiet under all conditions, this is quite noticable. Comfort-wise, seats are about the same as the Ford split bench. Not as comfy/supportive as Chevy LS seats. The seat is lower to the floor than the BIG 3. The lack of a limited slip is a real negative. Even the current TRD off-road package omits one...I was spinning that 4.10 geared rear end all over the place during the test drives. The salesman got pissed. The fit/finish and materials are really first rate. I wouldn't jump to say that are that much better than Ford's, but certainly better than GM. Dodge (I currently own a RAM). In short, my opinion is that, as a daily driver, the Toyota is the most livable and car-like, with great performance/road manners, and a warranty to back up its expected reliability. Under the commercial/severe-duty situations a lot of BIG 3 trucks see, however, the situation would/could be very different, and the smaller size/capacity becomes an issue as well. So, to each his/her own, I guess. As for me, I think I'll buy a Ford next. I'm used to driving/parking big things, and I prefer to buy American when the product is comparable/acceptable. Remember, those Toyota profits are going back to Japan...its only being built in the U.S. to avoid the tariff that the T100 suffered from.
Nice appraisal of the Tundra. I must mention, however, that my ext. cab, 4x4 Silverado with a the standard transmission and 4.10 rear end is getting about 17.8 mpg with 1,500 miles on the engine. The point is that the GM trucks have proven that they can achieve the mileage efficiency that Toyota hopes for.
What I mean by that is why would Toyota decide not to include one?
Got two other questions:
I use 4WD (currently without LS) to access remote fishing spots and driving in the snow. I know what LS is, I just don't know if it would be that important to me.
Also, sorry if this is a dumb question, but could the limited slip be installed at a later on? -let the flames begin
One of the features I like about the Tundra is the compact looking rear differential. But there is not much volume to it, meaning there are possible technical obstacles to fitting the carrier clutches.
I drove a tundra and it is not half the truck my 99 F-150 is. I used to work at a Toyota dealer here in Fl. and I have said it once and I will say it again. I have seen some of the worst car problems ever on American built Toyotas (windsheilds falling out of Avalons, bad paint jobs and 4cyl engine problems on camry's, etc) The Tundra is built in American along with these now and I expect about the same form it. The Japanese Toy's Celica, Landcruiser, 4Runner former Previa and Supra were some of the best if impractical cars I have seen or driven. Be realistic not brainwashed. Ford has Toyota all but beat in the quality dept. I love my 98 Explorer and the afformetioned truck I own and will keep them for a long time. I keep my money at home.
I just traded my 97 Expedition in on a Tundra The Expedition was my first Ford in 9 years, I was very disappointed. I know I took a chance with a first year SUV, but I expected better. I had at least three recalls and 5 other trips to the dealer for warranty items. I did not mind the so much the things going wrong it was the attitude of the Ford dealers. I had to go to four different dealers before I found one that really seemed to care about what he was doing. I never had this with Toyota service. Ford could take a lesson from Toyota in customer service. I have owned 2 F250 4x4 and 7 Toyota's. I am back to Toyota's for both my cars now and will stick to them until either the cars or dealers disappoint me than I will switch. Ford was very disappointing.
I find it humorous how fans of each brand vehicle nit pick the others to death, while overlooking flaws in their preferred type. They all have pros and cons. Buy and enjoy the one that meets your needs and that you enjoy driving. I doubt anyone could tell the difference of 10 ft lbs of torque or 5 ft of braking distance in real world driving. If your personal sense of pride is so heavily invested in a motor vehicle, you might want to consider becoming a more well rounded person. Besides, unless you designed it yourself, you really don't have anything to brag about, do you?
Interesting points on the 4.10 making the truck quicker. I've always understood that the lower rear axle (higher number) makes for better acceleration and more specifically better towing. But, isn't there a point of diminishing return, or even a point where acceleration begins to slow due to the lower gearing?
It seems to me that a 3.55 or a 3.73 may be the optimum axle ratio for acceleration but that a 4.10 or a 4.3 may begin to bog you down a little.
Can someone explain if I'm on track here or completely barking up the wrong tree.
My new Tundra has *3.90* gears in the rear. My pal Jeff's 5.4-liter F-150 XLT has 4.10s. We did a three block drag down by the ocean and I had him by one full length after he got the holeshot off the green light.
In case you're wondering, Jeff is about thirty pounds lighter than I am, so I don't think driver's weight made the difference...
It hardly matters.. If we wanted drag-racers, we'd have bought Corvettes.
On the good side, thank God that neither of us own a GM 4x4 with ABS, or we'd be heading for a recall.
I looked at the Tundra before I purchase my Z71 4x4 LT extended cab Chevy. It is not a bad truck if you want a compact - it is over priced and under optioned. I know GM messed up by not having the 4 door option, but If GM had introduced the exact same truck as the Toyota Tundra they would have lost almost all of their business to Ford and Dodge. I was very disappointed that this is the best effort Toyota could come up with. If any of the "Big 3" had put this truck on the market and tryed to tell the public it was a full sized truck they would have been laughed at. You must give the Toyota marketing department credit- Toyota has such a good reputation that they can get away with almost anything - All I can say is keep an open mind and test drive a Chevy, Ford or even a Dodge before you pay close to Full MSRP for this truck.
I was a loyal Toyota customer before this - I even waited for two months for the Tundra to come out - I almost put a down payment on one without even seeing one or taking a test drive.
At least ask your Toyota salesman where is the : 1. Locking differential 2. Automatic 4X4 (part time 4x4 is a joke) 3. Keyless entry 4. Power, heated seats for both Driver and passenger 5. Memory seats 6. Full size box 7. 265/75r 16 tires 8. Standard anti lock brakes 9. Automatic head lights 10. Seat belts built into the seats
If you need full time 4wd and heated seats, don't get a truck get a car. Full time 4wd is never necessary. Memory seats? Might as well buy an Escalade. It is no wonder trucks aren't as useful as the used to be, everyone wants them to be a car.
I have test driven a Tundra and have seen several now on the streets. I also believe because of Toyota's rep they can get away with calling this a full size truck. I like the commercial where it shows some very large construction workers appearing to be getting out of the truck, but doesn't show them in the truck or actually getting out of the truck?? I find it really hard to believe these guys fit back there period. The Tundra is aimed at more the Dakota buyer than the full size buyer. Also aimed at Tacoma owners who want just a slightly larger truck. Prices are steep for these, but people are paying it which just confuses me?? I remember when the T100 came out and the magazines were all claiming it was the end of Ford/GM/Dodge dominance in the full size truck market. Now again they seem to be chanting the same message. Don't think so. Between Ford/Dodge/GM they offer so many engines and drivetrains and cab configurations that Toyota has a heck of a lot of ground to cover. The Tundra is a nice truck don't get me wrong, but at what price???
O.K. the Tundra is a 7/8 full-size truck. But, we like the fact that it has four doors, fits nicely in an average size garage, can haul more and tow MORE than enough weight to satisfy 90% of American truck buyers, will start when we turn the key & will continue to run until WE decide to stop, looks great, and has Toyota's undeniable reputation for excellent quality & reliability. I have priced comparably equipped Fords and Chevys and I do not view the Tundra as being over-priced in relation to these two. I have owned several Chevys(both cars and trucks). There is NO comparison to Toyota in terms of quality. I wish things were different because I truly like the Silverado....I just couldn't spend that kind of money knowing the repair bills in my future. I do not believe Toyota will do serious damage to the big 3 anytime soon(even if Toyota made the most PERFECT truck ever conceived). The TYPICAL American truck buyer is not what you would call open-minded about truck choices(be it Ford, Chevy, Dodge, or, God forbid, Toyota). My two cents worth.
I started out in agreement with your post, until you got to the part about Tundra satisfying 90% of American truck buyers. If it were that satisfying, Toyota could claim 90% of the market, and American truck builders would be down-sizing models to the 7/8 scale of the Toyota. As things are, the American truck buyer votes with dollars. And the sales figures will show that if Toyota is anywhere near as satisfying as they hope, the actual number will amount to about 10%.
Now as for the undeniable reputation for quality and reliability, I agree that the reputation is there, but not the reliability. If you factor in the typical V6 head gasket repair every 60,000 miles, most would be in the scrap yard by now if not for the fact that Toyota generously picks up the repair tab.
The TYPICAL import truck buyer is not what you would call open minded about truck choices, (be it Ford, Chevy, Dodge, or, God forbid, Toyota).
I said the Tundra will haul and tow enough weight to satisfy the NEEDS of 90% of the American truck buyers. I did not say 90% of the American market will BUY it. Most truckers tow bass boats, utiity trailers, mulch, wood, lumber, blah, blah, blah. The Tundra is MORE than enough truck to do this. I said the TYPICAL die-hard truck lover is not open-minded about truck choices Ford guys love Fords no matter what...Chevy guys love Chevys and so on. When you factor this in(along with other factors exhibited by the Rice Burner and Rice hauler remarks) and Toyota's production capacity they will not have a large share of the truck market anytime soon. These are the facts. Period.
"hauls looks of rice". Now there is an intelligent statement if I have ever seen one.
Vince8-I like the Tundra but I also find it hard to believe that those guys actually crawled out of the back of that truck. You just sort of see them close the doors.:) I sat in the back and I am 6'2" 220lbs and I didn't come close to fitting. I have sat in Dodge, GMC, and Ford and I did fit in all those back seats. The front seat had to be a little further forward than I would want it, but it was doable.
I took my 99 Z71 4X4 off road today - had a great time - still breaking her in so did not get too deep
Saw a Toyota Tundra get stuck -- Ford ranger pulled the Tundra out of the mud - What a joke -- I think the Tundra owner was a virgin off roader - not even sure he had it in 4 wheel drive - he sure did throw up some mud - but only had one rear wheel spinning. His face was as red as a tomato - but his wife/girl friend was the real show - she tried to push his dumb [non-permissible content removed] out of the mud and ended up getting a free mud bath. That Toyota must have a good engine because when he finally hit the pavement he burned $20 worth of rubber off his rear tires.
I had to respond to the Landcruiser lover. I had a Toyota Landcruiser that was a nightmare. i got it brand new and changed the oil every 3000 miles. it had to have its valves done 3 times before 100,000 miles, and had some major problem every time I got 150 miles out of town. It was the most unreliable car I have ever owned.
All Ford, Chevy, and Dodge guys(and girls) should be admired for their loyalty. I can understand bad-mouthing each others' trucks; each has their strengths and weaknesses. I have been looking at a new Dodge 2500 Quadcab 4x4 diesel, but decided not to go that extreme for several reasons I won't get into.
I have driven and considered the Ford F150, but don't want to be like everybody else on the road. I have owned 4 different Toyota's and have been extremely please with each one. That's another reason why I am buying a new Tundra 4x4 Limited.
So, if you don't mind; please stick with the big three...I like having something different than everybody's cousin, brother and sister, etc.,etc.
In some of the earlier comments, different people referred to blown headgaskets from the Toyota V6. One person said it was the 3.4 DOHC V6, but this was acutally the old 3.0 SOHC which ended it's career in '95. The 3.4 V6 is a great engine, but nothing compared to the 4.7 V8!
Mhill5, Obviously, you don't need a Quadcab diesel, because if you did, you wouldn't be able to replace what it does with what the Tundra does.
I think if you read back all the archives, there are some posts regarding head gasket problems on the DOHC units also. I'm pretty sure the 3.4 is not a "great" engine in any case. Great engines don't have those kinds of flaws. Many would be in the scrap yard if the owners had to pay. Some have had them replaced more than once. Toyota generously pays the bill, so the reputation they enjoy is rightly based on customer satisfaction...not reliability.
Have had two LC's and now have a LX 470. Drive 36,000 a year with no problems on either compared with the two suburbans that I have had.Would not dare to keep a GM past the factory warranty. Have a Y2K LX 470 on order.
You want to compare cost of ownership of an LX470 to Suburban? Your cost is probably high with either one based on depreciation, and sales tax. You lease, right?
Just curious, how many lease options give you 36,000 miles a year? It's been a while since I checked into leasing, but most of them limited you to around 12,000 miles a year after which you start paying very expensive milage charges.
All lease options give you 36,000 miles a year if you buy it out at the end. Seems to me you save on sales tax if you lease, since you're not buying. Leasing makes the most sense if you plan on staying with "new."
Hmmm, sounds interesting, I think I'll look into leasing next time. You have to pay sales tax when you buy at the end of the lease right? I would assume though you only pay tax on the buyout price right? Of course here in Texas you only pay sales tax on the difference between the new vehicle and the trade in so I'm not sure if there would be much difference in that case.
I hate to disagree with you, quadrunner, but not all leases will give you 36,000 miles a year. Even if you promise on your first born to buy it at the end, there's no guarantee you're really going to do that. If you want that kind of mileage built into your lease, you're going to have to pay for it. Usually higher monthly payments to make up for the mileage. However, you can sometimes be reimbursed at lease end for mileage you do not use in cases like that.
As far as sales tax, I can't vouch for every state, but here in NJ you pay sales tax on your monthly payment. If you buy at the end of the lease, you pay sales tax on the residual. The only way you save on sales tax is if you lease and don't buy, since you've only paid tax on the depreciation side. If you buy the vehicle instead of leasing, you pay sales tax on the full purchase price up front.
LadyBlue, I think you are absolutely right about the sales tax. I don't lease myself. But as for 36,000 miles a year, I think you just sign a lease for the minimum, say 12,000 miles a year. You make your lease payments, and drive as you normally would. At lease end, you buy the truck. It won't matter how many miles are on it. Usually, it's worth more than the buy out, even with the extra mileage if your vehicle was a good choice. Would only hurt if you wanted to turn it back in at lease end instead of buy. You would have to pay penalty for extra miles.
quadrunner500: Okay, now we're on the same page. I thought you were talking about have a 36,000 per year agreement in your lease contract. That would be extremely costly.
It's true that if you opt to buy at lease end, you don't have to pay for the extra miles. The problem is that you would have to have a crystal ball to predict whether you were surely going to do that. What if the truck turns out to be a dog? You're not going to want to buy it, and turning it in with all those extra miles will kill you. I fully intend to buy my truck at the end of my lease, but I got my dealer to throw in 15,000 per year at no extra cost on my lease, and drop the per-mile overage charge to .10, just in case.
Just reading through here and thought I would add a point about truck reliability:
my brother's 1990 Chevy PU 4.3V6 is now at 240,000 miles and has never had a wrench on the motor. He is a carpenter and keeps it totally loaded at all times. He has gone through a couple clutches, altenator, water pump, and other small items, but the motor and tranny are still perfect.
As for Toyota, my Brother-in-law went through the head gasket ordeal in his V6 truck. After getting it fixed, he had total engine failure shortly thereafter.
Now with that said, am I a firm believer that every Toyota will blow at 60,000 miles or that every Chevy will go 240,000 miles (although my Monte Carlo went 270,000), absolutely not.
Go look at everything out there and buy what will fit your wants/needs. Of course, if its my choice I will look at all the rest and then buy a ford. I admit I like that new Chevy, but where is the other door???
PS. On someone's comment about the new Nissan. I'd rather get an SUV, that bed in the "crew cab" is totally useless. And the space inside barely compares to subcompact car. Why is it that in Mexico they have sold crew cab Nissans for years with a regular bed????? Answer that one.
As for all the other manufacturers planning similar SUV/truck hybrids, forget it.
Ford now has a crew cab F-150 and plans are supposedly in the works for a Ranger crew cab. It's my understanding that the Ranger will not be longer. The bed will be reduced in size to compensate for the extra space required for the crew cab vs the extended cab. I believe Dodge is planning something similar for the Dakota. Those trucks will be pretty close to a SUV/pickup hybrid. There does appear to be a demand for those types of trucks.
Comments
For example, (and I may not remember this exactly right) in an acceleration test, they compared the Tundra 4.7L to a Silverado 4.8L, but then turned around and compared a Tundra 4.7L to a Silverado 5.3L in a braking test. How convenient!
I certainly understand the importance of fitting whatever you get into your garage. I measured mine to be about 240 inches long, and about 80 inches tall. I don't know how "standard" those dimensions are, but most domestic extended cab short bed models would fit. I hung a tennis ball from a string at eye level in front of the windshield to aid in parking.
And in a general sense, I expect the Tundra to be up to Toyotas usual high standards. I think I know what they are capable of. I have put in quite a few miles behind the wheel of the '98 Lexus LS-400 sedan. And while I would never draw a comparison of that vehicle to say, an Impala or Crown Victoria, I think there's probably not 3 decibels difference in the noise level at idle between my Silverado and that Lexus, or the Tundra. And even the Lexus has not been without a few minor problems. Fortunately, it's under warranty because Japanese parts can be very expensive.
Greg Hoppes
Meanwhile, you can get a brand new 350 cu/in chevy long block from the factory for about $1500. Economies of scale.....
I have personal experience to back up my statement about the Landcruiser. Persons in my family own suburbans, expeditions, and a wife of a co-worker had a brand new Landcruiser. I also have seen a couple of older landcruisers, one particularly impressive one was one with over 200,000 miles on it driven by a high school kid with no respect for his machine. that car took a beating i haven't seen any other vehicles hold up to.
The Chevy's and Ford just don't compare up to the Landcruiser. Yes the Landcruiser is & $40K, but compared to $38K for a suburban, $35K for an Expedition. look under the hood, look under the vehicle, look at the axles, the frame, the engine technology...I guarantee you are getting more for you buck with the Landcruiser.
Compared to the big three: the chassis is extremely stiff. The shorter wheelbase makes it very nimble/responsive, yet a little less stable on the highway. Steering feel and response is like a sports sedan, as is braking feel/power. Even the 2wd rides pretty high off the ground. The ride is pretty good, about like the F150. The interior is the most quiet under all conditions, this is quite noticable. Comfort-wise, seats are about the same as the Ford split bench. Not as comfy/supportive as Chevy LS seats. The seat is lower to the floor than the BIG 3. The lack of a limited slip is a real negative. Even the current TRD off-road package omits one...I was spinning that 4.10 geared rear end all over the place during the test drives. The salesman got pissed. The fit/finish and materials are really first rate. I wouldn't jump to say that are that much better than Ford's, but certainly better than GM. Dodge (I currently own a RAM).
In short, my opinion is that, as a daily driver, the Toyota is the most livable and car-like, with great performance/road manners, and a warranty to back up its expected reliability. Under the commercial/severe-duty situations a lot of BIG 3 trucks see, however, the situation would/could be very different, and the smaller size/capacity becomes an issue as well. So, to each his/her own, I guess. As for me, I think I'll buy a Ford next. I'm used to driving/parking big things, and I prefer to buy American when the product is comparable/acceptable. Remember, those Toyota profits are going back to Japan...its only being built in the U.S. to avoid the tariff that the T100 suffered from.
Also agree with Nuwo's assessment of 4.10 axle on GM trucks.
Got two other questions:
I use 4WD (currently without LS) to access remote fishing spots and driving in the snow. I know what LS is, I just don't know if it would be that important to me.
Also, sorry if this is a dumb question, but could the limited slip be installed at a later on? -let the flames begin
Thanks
The Tundra is built in American along with these now and I expect about the same form it. The Japanese Toy's Celica, Landcruiser, 4Runner former Previa and Supra were some of the best if impractical cars I have seen or driven. Be realistic not brainwashed. Ford has Toyota all but beat in the quality dept. I love my 98 Explorer and the afformetioned truck I own and will keep them for a long time. I keep my money at home.
The Expedition was my first Ford in 9 years, I was
very disappointed. I know I took a chance with a first year SUV, but I expected better. I had at least three recalls and 5 other trips to the dealer for warranty items. I did not mind the so much the things going wrong it was the attitude of the Ford dealers. I had to go to four different dealers before I found one that really seemed to care about what he was doing. I never had this with Toyota service. Ford could take a lesson from Toyota in customer service. I have owned 2 F250 4x4 and 7 Toyota's. I am back to Toyota's for both my cars now and will stick to them until either the cars or dealers disappoint me than I will switch. Ford was very disappointing.
Tuck
It seems to me that a 3.55 or a 3.73 may be the optimum axle ratio for acceleration but that a 4.10 or a 4.3 may begin to bog you down a little.
Can someone explain if I'm on track here or completely barking up the wrong tree.
My new Tundra has *3.90* gears in the rear. My pal Jeff's 5.4-liter F-150 XLT has 4.10s. We did a three block drag down by the ocean and I had him by one full length after he got the holeshot off the green light.
In case you're wondering, Jeff is about thirty pounds lighter than I am, so I don't think driver's weight made the difference...
It hardly matters.. If we wanted drag-racers, we'd have bought Corvettes.
On the good side, thank God that neither of us own a GM 4x4 with ABS, or we'd be heading for a recall.
I was a loyal Toyota customer before this - I even waited for two months for the Tundra to come out - I almost put a down payment on one without even seeing one or taking a test drive.
At least ask your Toyota salesman where is the :
1. Locking differential
2. Automatic 4X4 (part time 4x4 is a joke)
3. Keyless entry
4. Power, heated seats for both Driver and passenger
5. Memory seats
6. Full size box
7. 265/75r 16 tires
8. Standard anti lock brakes
9. Automatic head lights
10. Seat belts built into the seats
The Tundra is aimed at more the Dakota buyer than the full size buyer. Also aimed at Tacoma owners who want just a slightly larger truck. Prices are steep for these, but people are paying it which just confuses me??
I remember when the T100 came out and the magazines were all claiming it was the end of Ford/GM/Dodge dominance in the full size truck market. Now again they seem to be chanting the same message. Don't think so. Between Ford/Dodge/GM they offer so many engines and drivetrains and cab configurations that Toyota has a heck of a lot of ground to cover. The Tundra is a nice truck don't get me wrong, but at what price???
Dodge, or, God forbid, Toyota). My two cents worth.
Now as for the undeniable reputation for quality and reliability, I agree that the reputation is there, but not the reliability. If you factor in the typical V6 head gasket repair every 60,000 miles, most would be in the scrap yard by now if not for the fact that Toyota generously picks up the repair tab.
The TYPICAL import truck buyer is not what you would call open minded about truck choices, (be it Ford, Chevy, Dodge, or, God forbid, Toyota).
Vince8-I like the Tundra but I also find it hard to believe that those guys actually crawled out of the back of that truck. You just sort of see them close the doors.:) I sat in the back and I am 6'2" 220lbs and I didn't come close to fitting. I have sat in Dodge, GMC, and Ford and I did fit in all those back seats. The front seat had to be a little further forward than I would want it, but it was doable.
Toyota hauls lots of rice
Dodge hauls lots of crap
Ford hauls even more crap
GM is crap
Saw a Toyota Tundra get stuck -- Ford ranger pulled the Tundra out of the mud - What a joke -- I think the Tundra owner was a virgin off roader - not even sure he had it in 4 wheel drive - he sure did throw up some mud - but only had one rear wheel spinning. His face was as red as a tomato - but his wife/girl friend was the real show - she tried to push his dumb [non-permissible content removed] out of the mud and ended up getting a free mud bath. That Toyota must have a good engine because when he finally hit the pavement he burned $20 worth of rubber off his rear tires.
I have driven and considered the Ford F150, but don't want to be like everybody else on the road.
I have owned 4 different Toyota's and have been extremely please with each one. That's another reason why I am buying a new Tundra 4x4 Limited.
So, if you don't mind; please stick with the big three...I like having something different than everybody's cousin, brother and sister, etc.,etc.
Obviously, you don't need a Quadcab diesel, because if you did, you wouldn't be able to replace what it does with what the Tundra does.
I think if you read back all the archives, there are some posts regarding head gasket problems on the DOHC units also. I'm pretty sure the 3.4 is not a "great" engine in any case. Great engines don't have those kinds of flaws. Many would be in the scrap yard if the owners had to pay. Some have had them replaced more than once. Toyota generously pays the bill, so the reputation they enjoy is rightly based on customer satisfaction...not reliability.
Toyota tells its customers that the problem is fixed every 2 years or so. It never is.
I've heard some rumors of rear main seals blowing on the V8, but they're unconfirmed at this point.
As far as sales tax, I can't vouch for every state, but here in NJ you pay sales tax on your monthly payment. If you buy at the end of the lease, you pay sales tax on the residual. The only way you save on sales tax is if you lease and don't buy, since you've only paid tax on the depreciation side. If you buy the vehicle instead of leasing, you pay sales tax on the full purchase price up front.
You can never cheat the tax man.
ladyblue
Community Leader/SUV Conference
I think you are absolutely right about the sales tax. I don't lease myself. But as for 36,000 miles a year, I think you just sign a lease for the minimum, say 12,000 miles a year. You make your lease payments, and drive as you normally would. At lease end, you buy the truck. It won't matter how many miles are on it. Usually, it's worth more than the buy out, even with the extra mileage if your vehicle was a good choice. Would only hurt if you wanted to turn it back in at lease end instead of buy. You would have to pay penalty for extra miles.
Okay, now we're on the same page. I thought you were talking about have a 36,000 per year agreement in your lease contract. That would be extremely costly.
It's true that if you opt to buy at lease end, you don't have to pay for the extra miles. The problem is that you would have to have a crystal ball to predict whether you were surely going to do that. What if the truck turns out to be a dog? You're not going to want to buy it, and turning it in with all those extra miles will kill you. I fully intend to buy my truck at the end of my lease, but I got my dealer to throw in 15,000 per year at no extra cost on my lease, and drop the per-mile overage charge to .10, just in case.
ladyblue
Community Leader/SUV Conference
my brother's 1990 Chevy PU 4.3V6 is now at 240,000 miles and has never had a wrench on the motor. He is a carpenter and keeps it totally loaded at all times. He has gone through a couple clutches, altenator, water pump, and other small items, but the motor and tranny are still perfect.
As for Toyota, my Brother-in-law went through the head gasket ordeal in his V6 truck. After getting it fixed, he had total engine failure shortly thereafter.
Now with that said, am I a firm believer that every Toyota will blow at 60,000 miles or that every Chevy will go 240,000 miles (although my Monte Carlo went 270,000), absolutely not.
Go look at everything out there and buy what will fit your wants/needs. Of course, if its my choice I will look at all the rest and then buy a ford. I admit I like that new Chevy, but where is the other door???
PS. On someone's comment about the new Nissan. I'd rather get an SUV, that bed in the "crew cab" is totally useless. And the space inside barely compares to subcompact car. Why is it that in Mexico they have sold crew cab Nissans for years with a regular bed????? Answer that one.
As for all the other manufacturers planning similar SUV/truck hybrids, forget it.
Ford now has a crew cab F-150 and plans are supposedly in the works for a Ranger crew cab. It's my understanding that the Ranger will not be longer. The bed will be reduced in size to compensate for the extra space required for the crew cab vs the extended cab. I believe Dodge is planning something similar for the Dakota. Those trucks will be pretty close to a SUV/pickup hybrid. There does appear to be a demand for those types of trucks.