By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Silverado 113.6
tundra 86.3
------------------
27.3 CF (cubic feet)
Silverado +27.3 CF bigger than tundra.
Ratio of 27.3 too tundras total of 86.3 = 32%
Bama said this now:
This is a good one! Hicksrme giving a grade
school math lecture. Too bad Rs_petty was right!
The correct answer is actually 24.9%
lmeyer1 gave this tell back at bama:
bamatundra you've got the math wrong. According to your math, I only have 50% more. But in fact 50% more than 50 cents is 75 cents. In other words, if I actually had what you had (50) plus half that amount again, or 50% more, I'd have 75 cents. Forgot to add that trucksrme is therefore correct. 113.6 is 31.6% larger than 86.3.
bama admits too it:
Good Point. I was using the larger vehicle as the
reference - a fallacy.
Now bama tryin too blow smoke like it never happened again. This be the ways of the yuppie, ya cant be trustin em on nothin now. How do ya know that yuppie be strechin that truth? They be movin them lips, that be how. Good luck on this one now!
You almost answered my 3rd question on EPA class size. They do classify the Silverado as a Full size truck, and the Tundra as a Standard truck.
Now be honest - wouldn't you rather have (in your Tundra) the larger more comfortable back seat that is in the Silverado?
You are correct to state "Them Big 3 ones are 25 - 32% larger then them Tundras"
You have also been posting "Them Tundra are 25% too 32% smaller than them big3 ones." This is incorrect.
The correct answer is actually "Them Tundra are 20% too 25% smaller than them big3 ones."
This math is apparently way out of your league. Z71 realized your error and posted a correction. He did not point out your original error.
Again - Better check your numbers before you
bash. You are not the math wiz that you think you are.
Obviously - cab volume is very important to Chevy owners. I understand that. But there are tradeoffs - it makes the truck longer, wider turning radius, longer wheelbase, heavier, and less maneuverable.
The front seat in my Tundra is huge! It is larger than any sedan that I can recall riding in. I cannot believe anyone saying that the front seat does not have enough room. I occasionally carry adult size passengers in the rear seat of my Tundra. I have not ever heard a complaint. If they don't like the comfort of my truck - they can walk or hitch a ride in a sedan (ingrates).
Hell, I did a cross-country trip in the back seat of a 70's model Toyota Corolla. My Tundra rear seat is huge in comparison. I guess it all depends on your point of reference. Passenger comfort is not a big concern to me. My daughters both prefer to ride in the truck.
I wanted full size capability. The Tundra payload capacity is slightly higher than the Silverado. The Silverado has 800 lbs. more towing capacity but you have to go to 4.1 gearing to get there. The Tundra has better off-road capability. The Tundra has better brakes.
I am not saying that the Tundra is the only truck for everyone. Any truck is a compromise. It all depends on what is important to you. Enjoy your truck (whatever the brand).
My definition would be the ones they put on the Silverado. 4 wheel abs disc brakes. You'll understand better when you go in to have those antique drums re-lined, or adjusted.
But if your definition is stopping distance, Truck Trend had the following numbers:
60-0, unloaded:
Silverado 133 ft
Tundra 127 ft
60-0 with 1000# payload:
Silverado 135 ft
Tundra 141 ft
Silverado has the better transition from empty to loaded. Silverado also weighed more and had smaller tires in the test. So brakes are a slam dunk for Silverado.
But if you are looking for a better definition, look no further than what the toy company puts on the land cruiser, or sequoia. Hint...they're not drums.
I agree that the Silverado has 4 Wheel ABS. Is this the same Chevy ABS system that has an NHTSA safety recall out on it? If you choose to ignore the fact that Chevy delivers non-functional anti-lock brakes, the Tundra still out brakes it. Read the Motor Trend article.
Hauling:
The Tundra Access Cab 4X4 is rated to tow 1532lbs. www.carpoint.com
The Silverado extended cab 3 door 4X4 is rated to haul 1480 lbs. http://www.trucktrend.com/feb99/4x4/4x4_f.html
The Chevy that Motor Trend compared used Limited slip... it still lost.
Towing: If you want a tow package on a Chevy, you must order an automatic transmission, a firm ride, or Z71 suspension, a towing package, and a tow hitch. $1500.
To equip a Tundra 4X4 extended cab V8 to tow 7100 lbs. , you just add a Class IV tow hitch,($100 aftermarket) and a wiring harness ($25 aftermarket).
If you choose the Chevy 4.1 gearing(gulp) it still only outtows the Tundra by 800lbs.
As far as the "real springs" are concerned - why do these "real springs" need to be upgraded to tow anything? The Tundra uses stock springs to tow 7200 lbs.
An honest mistake on your part, I'm sure.
Put 700 pounds into the bed of tindra, hunkers down and squats like a peeing puppy. Cleanup in aisle 2 !
Using your carpoint link, they state Chevy max towing is 9400 lbs. More than a "tun" more fun, because Tundra has tacoma pumpkin down 'undra.
Everyone knows here that F-150 is better in every single category than ANY other truck in any class. I have the facts right here if anyone is here to argue.. And don't give me this more HP horse dung from them Chevy's cause F-150 uses it's less HP to it's advantage in better gas mileage and is still quicker and tow's more and lasts longer..
Tundra is a compact pickup.. In fact I saw a Tundra and Tacoma next to eachother and the Tacoma was a bit bigger in height at least.. The Tacoma made the Tundra look like a 4x2
F-150 is the truck of trucks..
Bigsnag, calm down there big fella. We can't be calling everyone Zbad now!!!!!!LOL!!
That Dodge isn't so bad either. Maybe we should pit the Tundra against the Dakota. They are more similar in size. Wait! The Dakota RT would blow the doors, even those small ones in back, clean off. Where does this put the Tundra, oh yeah, reliable, or was that reliably behind the competition.
I still wouldn't mind having the Chevy back seat but I don't think I would want the added length. I have said it before the perfect truck would be Toyota Reliability and refinement, Chevy Powertrain, Ford Capability, Daimler Sheister Styling and a Hyundai Warrantee. Unfortunitely that ain't going to happen. So for me it is all Tundra no contest. None of the other trucks come close to meeting all of my needs as well as the Tundra.
I'm sorry you chose the Tee-yota but I think that's fine if that's what you need, but it just can't win the stat war.
The only thing better about them Tee-yota's are the powertrain warranty, but you don't need it with them here Ford's because I have had mine for 150,000 miles and never even changed the oil and it runs like a fine tuned machine.
Will it really outrun the Dakota? Motor Trend has it slightly quicker than the Toyota. I know a lot of this may have to do with gearing, tire size, and other variances. Since you own them both I take your word. Nice V-8, had a ls400, bought new for about the price they are getting for the fully loaded 4x4 trucks. (Had one of the very first ones out in 1990) Now that was a yuppie car. It was really nice when people didn't know what it was. I bought it because it was the best car I'd ever driven. Loved the engine. It got to be a pain when when it became a status symbol.
To those a bit higher on the food chain.
Ford makes a damn good truck. They sell well, are pretty reliable and and come in every configuration known to man. Were I to have needed an end all be all work truck Ford Superduty was it. I did not and can only afford to drive one vehicle and that vehicle has to do it all for me. The Tundra fits that bill perfectly. As for Ford gas mileage, you would be hard pressed to convince me that the average Triton engine gets better mileage then my 4.7. Fords never seem to get the EPA estimates much less better. I am not saying it can't happen but I would bet you out of 20 trucks only two or so would pull it off. That aside I like Fords especially the flareside 150s in 4X4 with the upgraded Rims. Very nice looking truck and no denying she is tall.
The R/T was and it a sweet looking truck though. Tires were a bit pricey.
By The way I also had some slight airbox work done on my R/T because bone stock the airflow is horrible on the Daks.
I realize Toyota is probably just going for the personal use market and probably just needed something to base a large cheaper SUV on but it would be nice to see the Tundra be offered in more configurations over the years. Maybe a beefed up "Work Truck" and something along the lines of the lightning or R/T. I have read that SC Tundras were in the works and were blowing the doors off of lightnings but they were afraid of quality issues and driveability issues and therefore they will not in the foreseable future release a SC for the Tundra. Hey this is just rumor I repectfully ask that every Ford Lighting, Dakota R/T Silverado SS wanting, driving fanatic not jump all over me for this. I just calls them as I see them or hear them.
I think the Vette also has the Lighning beat in towing capacity!! LOL But the Ford has a larger bed.
Check the trap speeds, too. The lightning will be under 100 mph, right around 96-97. The vette will be about 106-108. With the ET's so close and the trap speed so far apart, the vette will have to catch up. The slow trap speed on the lightning is due to the fact that, when compared to the vette, it has the aerodynamics of a box.
But...on the http://www.ls1.com site, there are scads of stock, or nearly stock F-bodys posting 12 second time slips. Click on "12 second club." Some have only a tire change, maybe slicks, or a K&N, Hypertech+ thermostat etc. Getting into the high 12s is not a big deal, tires can be enough. Please check out for yourself. I was challenged about this before, and I found many examples which I posted before. Due diligence is now your responsibility. And while I'm on the subject, you can say basically the same thing about the Ford Pony cars. It's not impossible to beat the times the magazines post, especially since they use fifth wheel timing equipment, not a true 1/4 mile run.
I totally agree about the make-up of the run, Lightning quicker out of the hole, muscle car making it up at the traps.
But...when I looked at the "12 second club" there were several in bone stock cars.
Please don't make me angry by not looking. You won't like me when I'm angry. - David Banner.
1. You said the Ford Flareside 4x4 F-150 is snappy looking (That's the one I got)
2. The Ford is, if anything, less buck.
3. The 5.4 beats it in HP and Torque I reckon
4. Engine is smoother and quiter
5. Ride be better
6. Hauls more
7. Tows more
8. Way better gas mileage
9. Bigger
10. Tighter turning radius
11. Backseat much better and not upright
12. Reliability is at least equaled according
to Consumer Reports
Why would you pay more money for a smaller truck?? Just curious why folks be choosing them Tundra's now?
3. But not always in acceleration, depends on the rear axle ratio
4. Yeah right!
5. Bull poop!
6. ?
7. ?
8. Yeah right!
10. Not!
12. The Ford came in second for J.D. Powers Quality Study
2) Way wrong at least in my neck of the woods.
my loaded Tundra Limited 2wd with all the
bells and whistles was 27 out the door. I am
afraid the Ford Lariats similarly equipped
were a bit more here. Ford Does not
deal in my area.
3) Yes but Tundra engine has the same or better
overall performance.
4) Triton engines are nowhere near as smooth
and quiet as the Tundra 4.7. That is point
that is actually my only real complaint with
the Fords. I just don't like the way they
sound or feel. They always "feel" labored
to me. I am not saying they are
underpowered but they feel that way to me.
actually all the Ford engines feel that way to
me except the Mustang Cobra and the V6 SVT
Contour. Just personal pref.
5) The ride is ok in a Ford but personally I
think the Silverado is a better riding truck
and my Tundra rides better than most cars.
6) Yes it does haul more and if I had a hauling
service I would have probably bought a Ford.
I do not. I use my truck for work or towing
as the needs arise, not on an everyday basis.
I have always said if you are going to get a
work truck to get a Ford.
7) See above.
8) What the hell are you smoking. The 4.6 Triton
has been known to be gas hog by everybody I
know who owns them. The 5.4 is the same way.
As I have said traditionally I have found that
Chevys get better mileage then the sticker,
Fords get worse and Dodge's gets much worse.
My Yota has turned an average of 16ish with
98% of my driving being 7 mile, around town,
rush hour short trips. On the highway I have
recently seen as high as 22 at 75-80. It is
a truck though a MPG here or there really
doesn't matter to me. The only truck out
there that seems to be getting impressive
mileage is the 5.3 GMs. I have seen them get
as high as 25 on a highway trip. Admittedly
3.42 rear, 2wd etc.
9) Bigger is fine if that is what you want. My
Tundra has a very nice ride height, handles
great, looks sharp and will haul all the
plywood my little heart desires. I can park
easier, drive easier, perform emergency moves
easier and so on not to mention the Tundra
size makes it a superior 4x4 offroad machine.
I have had nobody complain about the backseat
and the Tundra being smaller has an excuse for
it's back seat. The Ford being larger....What
exactly is Fords excuse for that God awful
back seat.
10) I do not have the numbers in front of me so I
will defer to your Turning radius argument.
I would be willing to test this though, as
real world maneverability goes to the Tundra.
Fords handle horribly compared to the Tundra.
Again this my seat o the pants meter here and
thats what counts since I am paying the bills.
11) See number 9. Ford should have a better back
seat then it does given its size. I have had
no complaints about the back seat of my Tundra
and I frequently have riders back there.
Would I drive for 3 hours with people back
there...no. I hope you would not force
somebody to spend 3 hours in the back of your
Ford. For that matter do you have anybody
that would want to spend 3 hours with you
period?
12) Who knows how reliable the Tundra will be?
For all I know it could fall apart next month.
Have I ever trashed Ford's reliability...No.
I have trashed Chevy's quality control and
reliability as of late because it seems to
truely have suffered. My Tundra has 9000
miles on it and is nothing short of flawless.
Mileage gets better every day, still put
together tightly and not so much as a paint
chip. I am banking on Toyota's reputation
for reliability and the fact that they back
that up with a better powertrain warr. Time
will have to tell.
So we have learned that I did not pay more for a smaller truck, have found it to be extremely reliable in the short time I have owned it, have found the engine to be nothing short of spectacular in its smoothness, throttle response and band of usable power, have found the gas mileage to be more than adequate for a truck and in short have found it to be the perfect compromise of all the vehicles I would like to own rolled up into one nice package. It works when I need it too, it runs fast when I want it to, it sounds good, it is very very comfortable and smooth and it has a very nice design. Did Toyota copy alot of what Ford had pioneered. Yep. It is pretty obvious. Did they make it better. Yep when it comes to an everyday personal use pickup they sure did. Were they wrong to copy Ford. Hell no Ford is the sales leader. They make a hell of a truck and certainly 30 some million people can't be wrong about that. Toyota just made a truck to penetrate and dominate the most popular part of the pickup market right now, the personal use family pickup.
Why did you choose a Ford? Why did somebody else choose a Chevy? Why did another person go Dodge? Simple they are either well informed educated consumers who did their own research and homework and bought the best truck for their needs and are extremely happy with their choice or they a brand loyal morons who have no idea the disservice they are doing to themselves, their country and all of us by purchasing crap just because of the logo on the hood. They are just giving that manufacturer a license to build crap.
I sincerely hope you really like your Ford and enjoy it. Buyers remorse is a horrible feeling. you spend more time trashing other peoples rides and not enough time enjoying yours. I don't have time to find every little nitpicky problem with the Big 3 as I am too busy driving the truck I love. Go out and drive and enjoy those truck people.
No one in that entire topic has posted any mpg above 21. The only people who got that did it on PART of one tank = possiblity of significant error. I won't argue that Chevy's get the best mileage, but Ford is a very close second. Toyota is third and Dodge, well, I think it's gallons per mile with them.
Now before anyone slams me, I'm not necessarily saying that it didn't get 24.8 mpg. I'm just saying that there are a lot of variables in calculating gas mileage and those variables can contribute significantly to calculated mpg, especially when considering only one tank of gas. 17.5 is about right on, right in the middle of 20 for highway 15 for city.
Bill
So how has your Silverado been treating you. Have you been plagued by any of the vib problems? I too would like to see a more powerful Tundra but then I would like to see a more powerful anything. Hell I can't wait for the new Ford engines that should be pushing a little over 300 HP. I guess I just a typical car geek. I want one of each really.
Also, what's the deal with GM and Isuzu? GM makes Isuzu vehicles? If so, how long, and do they make the entire vehicle or just parts for them? Isn't Isuzu a Japanese company?