Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Welcome Toyota Tundra - IV
This topic is a continuation of Topic 1275....
Welcome Toyota Tundra - III. Please continue
these discussions here.
Welcome Toyota Tundra - III. Please continue
these discussions here.
Tagged:
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
The Kenwood sounds better, too.
I have asked this question at a couple dealerships, but of course since the salesmen wanted me to buy right now, they were pretty evasive about what might be added in future model years (even though they couldn’t get me a 2000 Tundra because they were in high demand so I would have to pay full price, blah, blah, blah).
This option would solve the problem for those in the previous posts who are annoyed because they can’t get a limited slip differential on a Tundra. In fact LSDs are now old technology compared to traction control systems. For those upset that a "computer is driving the car", let’s face it, computers control lots of systems in modern vehicles from ABS to fuel injection, you just think you’re driving the car. Basic traction control redirects power to a wheel with traction, for example when you start up on ice. Advanced traction control systems work at driving speeds, and do let you drive the car, they just sense through throttle and steering positions when the car is not going where you are telling it to due to loss of traction and give it a split second nudge back to where it should be through the brakes or throttle. Reviewers write that they could hardly tell when the system was active, so it’s not like the computer takes over the vehicle and drives you to the 7-Eleven when you wanted to go to Safeway. You can also shut the system off completely. From my POV, I learned to drive on ice and snow where the year was 8 months of winter and 4 more months of bad sledding. I know how to drive on ice and snow, but a system like TC is a bonus and a no brainer. A split second adjustment beats being a macho-man in the ditch.
I have decided on a Tundra, but not this year. I’m ordering a sedan this year and the Tundra will be next year. I like the Tundra’s ride, the power, the quietness, the handling and maneuverability. I like the F-150 too, the regular cab and short box is a sharp looking truck, but it’s Big 3. Two friends have 150s and love them. I have test driven both and I don’t understand the comments about Tundra’s small interior - when you look at the dimensions in Edmunds, front legroom, headroom and width are all within an inch of the 150. I’m over 6 feet tall with wide shoulders and there was plenty of comfortable room in the Tundra.
So can anyone tell me what may be added to the 2001-plus Tundras? Traction control? Side airbags? Regular cab with a short box even? That would be an even nicer truck
Hint: Mud is much more slippery and treacherous than snow/ice.
I don't think traction control is worthwhile, unless it is on a Camaro, Mustang or Corvette.
In a 4x4 or front wheel drive car, you don't need traction control for snow and ice.
You can't stop any faster with 4x4 or traction control. That should be the more important consideration.
Hint: The pedal on the right is the one that gets you into trouble. The pedal on the left is the one that gets you out.
No limited slip will last very long under heavy use, especially without oil changes which most people won't do. Eaton, Auburn, you name it, they almost all use some type of wearing clutch. Besides, no LSD of ANY brand or design will work like a real locker. Detroit, Toyota elctric or the old cable type, ARB, or Lock-rite spanks the LSD. Since it is an option, they didn't "leave anything out" for the price illusion on their other trucks, they just know that most people don't buy them. You're right that it should be something you can order if you want though.
Also, anyone have ideas/information about 2001 Tundras, such as: are diesel's going to be available? what about a 5 speed for the V-8?
I wonder if they are going to stay in the extreme light duty realm or if they will continue market expansion into the heavy duty full size trucks.
They have done a great job with 4 and 6 banger trucks over the years, but they have intentionally stayed in that market without venturing into the full size area until the Tundra. Anyone heard or would take a guess if the Tundra is all they will have to offer in a full size truck for the next 10 years or do they have plans to compete with the full size domestic trucks in the future?
It should be interesting to see how things unfold in the future.
This feature is supposed to be available as an option on the Sequoia this fall as well. I don't think Toyota wants to let the price go any higher on the Tundra but I have been wrong once or twice before in my life.
towing - i believe tundra has the most towing in the 1/2ton class?
bed size - how much bigger are the short beds on the domestic 3? remember, lets compare apples to apples, want a long bed, buy a ford/chevy/gmc/dodge
engine - i believe the tundra is the fastest pickup? Correct - yes it is faster than the 5.4L triton, checked it out 4 times past weekend with my friend - by a carlength at 50mph.
rear seat - temporary accommodation for most - have kids,if they cant fit - they need to buy their own cars/trucks and live by themselves, right?!
what else about size - if you cant fit, its too bad, then you have to settle for something else. I'm 6'1" 200lbs and the truck cabin makes me feel small. While im no giant i tend to reflect the size of the average human.
Toyota has done well - but seriously, you cant even compare the three domestics to the tundra.
Toyota Tundra is not the leader in towing. It's tow "rating" is 7,500 lbs, but they won't put more than a class 3, 5,000 lbs. tow hitch on it. I am not sure what all the 1/2 ton big threes ratings are, but I know the GM is over 8,000 lbs. The other two are at least that, maybe more depending on engine and transmission you choose.
I don't know the exact bed dimesion differences, never checked. I just know the Tundra's is smaller, both in width and depth.
The Tundra is faster, but it is also much lighter in weight due to ligher materials used in it's design. Also, if you load the Tundra up, it carries it's load and climbs the hills slower and with less ease than the heavier weighted big three trucks. To me an unloaded truck's speed is pretty irrelevant for a truck.
The back cabin room is one of the truck markets biggest complaint of the Tundra, much like everyone scoffed the GM for being late on four doors. The smaller rear cabin was more of a let down because people really thought that with an access cab of four doors and exterior door handles like a crew cab, they would have made it bigger.
Can't compare the Tundra with the big three domestics...why not? Toyota is. Toyota made a quality vehicle. They always have made a reliable truck, but now they claim to have a real contender with the big three full size, but it's not really a true full size if you compare it with the big three dimensions.
-ford is 7000# with triton 5.4L - unless my memory fails.
-tundra towing is 7200# with V8,7100# with 4x4 V8
-where's this info coming from:
"if you load the Tundra up, it
carries it's load and climbs the hills slower and
with less ease than the heavier weighted big three
trucks." - if its lighter and more powerful,how can it be slower - as i understand it this is exactly where the tundra excells?!?!?! basic physics, right? :-)
- lighter = good, stronger = good (have a look underneath a tundra and take a close look at the frame, its all one piece,but most important its a much more elaborate frame than any of the domestics.
- back cabin, if its important its important - cant argue with personal needs/wants. i just like to have the extra interior room for my hunting gear etc.
Im not brand loyal - if anybody would have made a better truck for me i would have gotten it.
If you look at chevy and ford 1/2 ton factory hitches they are class III (same specs as I described above).
bud light dude--I would like to know where you got your info about the tundra not doing well up hills, etc. That is the first and only time Ive heard that.
By the way, Consumer Reports did an acceleration test between Dodge Ram 5.9, Ford 5.4 and Chevy 5.3 as well as the Tundra of course. All were towing 6500 lbs and the test was 0-60 mph. Tundra=25 secs, Chevy=25 secs, Ford=24 or 27 secs (cant quite remember), Dodge was a good bit slower (but cant remember the exact number).
You can criticize Consumer's Reports but this was an entirely objective test.
The Chevy clearly offers much more rear room than the tundra, but from my impression of the Dodge and Ford they were little or no better.
Personally, I'm done with buying Big 3 products, whether they be trucks or cars. I've had a few too many bad experiences with them. Expecting my Tundra anyday now, Rube, I'll take you for a drive if you want to experience quality for once.
The test was actually conduted using 7000 lbs but was 0-60 as I stated above. Tundra 25 secs, Silverado 25 secs, f 150 27 secs, Ram 33 secs. Another error of mine was the size of the Dodge engine which was actually 5.2. The chevy was indeed 5.3 and ford 5.4.
They listed the payload capacities as follows (keep in mind that these are as closely equipped as possible) Tundra 1340 lbs, Chevy 1465 lbs, Ford 1290 lbs, Dodge 1265 lbs.
Towing capacities as follows Tundra 7100, Chevy 7500, Ford 7700, Dodge 7200.
You can draw all kinds of conclusions about the above data....but most would agree that the numbers I have outlined above are very comparable for the above trucks.
The Tundra is any where from 200-550 lbs lighter that the other trucks, but this is what you would expect with a truck measuring 6-10 inches shorter than the others.(Tundra 218", chevy 228, ford 226, dodge 224). Width was average of 4 inches less than the others.
Hope this helps clarify matters.....Again, this is all objective data.
You are not correct about the frame. The Silverado's frame is rated at a much higher strength per square than the Tundra. The Silverado is the very first Hydroformed truck frames and is rated the highest of any 1/2 ton truck made. My Silverado was toasted by a 55-60 mph rear end collision. The frame was only very slightly bent. The frame specialist said that if there wasn't so much damage elsewhere from other hits (panels and cab), then the truck's frame could have been left as is and still would not have even prematurely worn out tires from misalignment. They of course would not have left it, but that is just how rigid the frames of the new Silverados are. The Tundra's is not weak by any means, but not the strongest.
1,536 lbs. That is a huge difference from what you quote and a significant difference to the Tundra's weight.
Your stats show the Tundra and Silverado the same in your tow comparison. I do not have the stats in front of me and little time to gather them for this post, but I have seen many different ones. They all show the Tundra faster unloaded, but no where near the same with an equal load in the bed or by trailer. The Tundra is close in payload (cargo carrying), but the speed with a trailer is way less. As you know towing is much more torque and work dependant than payload. The Tundra's shorter wheel base helps with it's payload capacity.
The rated tow capacity of my Silverado is 8,100 lbs. That is plastered on about every test done and marketing brochure GM puts out. There is not a full size 1/2 ton domestic that does not have a 8000 or better tow rating, but it all depends on whether it is 2wd or 4wd, rear gear ratios, tires, etc. My understanding is that the Tundra only has one configuration available for it's max 7,500 tow capacity rating, so I disagree here also.
Your assumption is logical. With the Tundra being less weight, shorter wheel based, etc. it should have much higher test results than it has gotten, but it doesn't. With a load, the Tundra isn't as impressive as unloaded.
It's a great truck, reliable as any, stylish, etc. but if they built this truck to be a strong full size competitor, in my opinion, it has some rework to go through and a few more years of refinement to truly compete.
FRAME "stiffest under any current full-size pickup"
Rear gear ratio on the 4x4tundra = 3.909, looks like an ideal towing rear to me..
Now the distressing part of the Tundra to me, this is only my 2 cents.
1) Poor fuel mileage. Wow I expected to see the Tundra post better numbers then it is. My fuel mileage with my 5.3 Silverado is great compared to the Tundra. Highway mileage averages 19.3+MPG
2)Poor Back Seat design/Space I don't want to start the debate again but you have to admit the Silverado beats it hands down.
3) Tow Hitch, or lack of Why can't I get a LTD with a port installed tow hitch. The story about the EPA sounds fishy to me. If I'm buying a truck I want a hitch installed and not have to go back door to get one.
4) Dash. Poor dash layout on. (my opinion)
5) Lack of options. I would expect that the top of the line LTD would have seat heaters, etc. to be up to speed with the competition.
To some it up I'll use a bit of Toyota's own slogan with a little truth added. "Tundra, we're off to a great start, but we havn't gone far enough....."
To their credit, I'm sure they'll make the necessary changes and when they do I'm pretty positive I'll be driving one. Don't get me wrong, I love my Silverado and GM motors, but as a consumer I'm not going to pay 30+K for junk and be happy about being told they don't know what's the matter with it, or that is NORMAL for a truck.
I agree that the Tundra is much better designed for off-roading. The Tundra clearly has an advantage there and if my need for a truck was more for offroad, I would buy the Tundra hands down, except for the fact that it has no locking differential. That really hurts it's advantage for offroad in the other areas. What on earth was Toyota thinking?!
I feel you are incorrect about the Silverado only being used to pull bass boats. This is highly untrue. All the big three are used, even 1/2 tons, for heavy work on the job site and also for heavy use on farms, personal businesses, etc. Yeah, in addition to all that, I also use my Silverado to pull a Javelin Bass Boat for tournaments. Out of all the competition out there, most bass fishermen prefer the towing of their GM trucks than any other.
Don't let Rue2blue cause heated discussion here. I don't agree with his posts. I too like facts, but facts can often be polluted by opinions and become less factual. Consumer reports is the most non-factual and opinionated magazine report I have ever read, but it seems that is the magazine everyone claims to be the most reflective of fact. I wish consumer reports would go under. They do nobody any good at all.
You know you have a good truck. The only thing that separates your truck from any other is need and preference. Why buy into all the bashing?
I enjoy comparing trucks intelligently and without heated brand debates.
If the others get to you, complain to the board. Immature retaliation will only get you more bashing, furthering the polluted topics.
Actually that is a tough question. I don't know enough about crash physics to give an educated answer on either one. I have read numerous places that the Tundra has the stiffest frame but that to mean means the truck will be fine while I will be dead as it will transmit the force to me. The Silverado is said to have one of the best crumple zone setups out there and that is what saves lives. A lot of cars out there that look the worst might actually have saved the drivers life because the car took the energy of the crash and that is what is important.
Right now I would say Silverado just because of the afore mentioned crumple zone design and the real world story of the guy, I am sorry I forget who, was in the accident with the Silverado. Was it BLD? I tend to like real world evidence over anything else and I have none on the Tundra. My gut tells me it will be just as safe but again I have no real world experiences to back this up.
Sorry about the book. Question just kind of intriged me. Then again the kinda person I am I would be so depressed that my ride was trashed after a 65 mph crash that I would probably want to be in a coma. Just kidding.
But oh do I love my Tundra so much more than anything else I have ever had. I pray I never get any real world crash exp. with her.
Sorry about the typos and such in my posts I tend to write this stuff quickly and off the cuff. I actually am reasonably "edumacated".
Tell me then, why do you think we can put the hitch on the SR5. There is no difference in the trucks except for 40 pounds worth fender flares on the standard equipment.
This is the same governmental agency that prevents us from selling V6 Camrys with CA emissions but lets us sell 4 cylinders with it to non CA residents. That's right, I can't sell a car with better than required emissions and it is our glorious federal government that does this.
I feel safer already.
But oh do I love my Tundra so much more than anything else I have ever had. I pray I never get any real world crash exp. with her.
Sorry about the typos and such in my posts I tend to write this stuff quickly and off the cuff. I actually am reasonably "edumacated".
I don't know if this helps anybody.
That logic dictates that you should be in a Mack truck over either Silverado or Tundra. That is obvious.
As far a Tundra/Silverado crash is concerned, the mass difference at that speed(65) almost is negligible. What I'm trying to say is that if you hit a brick wall at that speed the extra mass will not give you any significant saftey over the other (a mack would). E.g. would you rather have someone 200 lbs tackling you or 205 lbs? You would still be tackled with almost identical forces.
What seperates the two is crumple zones.
I personally have no information on crumple zone tests, but to imply that the Silverado is safer in this case is not quite accurate. Several crach tests (offset and direct) show that size, of relatively similar massed vehicles, has no inherent advantage. Safety design is most critical factor.
Let me know you has the better crash tests!
color!
anyway, for those of youthat are interested you can see preliminary results for the tundra through a link on the edmunds site-homepage-safety etc....
i dont know how the silverado did..
-By the way- has anyone got a k&N filter in the tundra yet - curious about increased performance& fuel economy.
Samir
If I buy a Tundra, one of the reasons will be that it is a bit smaller and lighter, not to mention the other many reasons.
Driver: Silverado and Tundra both rated 4 stars
Front seat passenger Silverado 5 stars, Tundra 3 stars.
This was on the Microsoft home page last week, I do not remember who did the test (government or insurance institute)
I also do not understand why the passenger came out better in the Silverado and worse in the Tundra (when compared to the driver)
What fits my bill is a truck thats not as small as a Dakota, not as cumbersome as a Ram or F-150, drives like a fine sedan in the city, is competent off-road, can haul my dogs and a trailer when I go hunting and camping, one I can use it for the heavy jobs, and one that comes from a company with an excellent reputation for quality and standing behind their products.
If I was hauling fifth-wheel, or needing a six-pack/crew cab I'd pick the ford or dodge or Chevy, but what suits my weekly commuter / weekend outdoors needs is the Tundra. It's not perfect for everyone but it suits me to a T.
Just my .02 cents worth.
By the way my Tundra has been excellent overall. Hope you enjoy whatever you buy!!
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/testing/ncap/
By the way, the only thing shakin' around here is you. I have over 17,500 miles on my Tundra and it is excellent, not a shake, ever. I know I shouldn't respond to your comments but I am sorry I can't help it. I really enjoy reading the posts at Edmunds but your presence here really bothers me. If it takes a long time for Edmunds to catch up to you again, if they ever do, then I will be gone forever. So bug off.
Hang in there, Rube. I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds you entertaining.