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
Go to an auto site and price a Silverado LT, Ford F-150 Lariat, Tundra Limited, and Dodge Ram SLT, you'll see that the Toyota is very competitive.
-------------------------------------------------
pricewise tundra may be "competetive". which is sick, cuz you don't get near the truck. i can't talk to the lariat and ram, cuz i haven't checked them out yet. but the silverado LT comes standard with the 5.3 L engine that simply blows the tundra out of the water. here are the applicable stats (straight from edmunds). i'm not even going to talk about interior room cuz that wouldn't be fair.
"top of the line" silverado 1500 ext cab, LT
msrp: $31,750
max cargo: 1779 lb
max towing: 9400 lb
gas mileage: 15/18
"top of the line" tundra, access cab 4wd, limited
msrp: $28,430
max cargo: 1406 lb
max towing: 7100 lb
gas mileage: 14/17
better gas mileage and 2300 extra pounds trailering capacity. hmmm, yeah, that's an extra ton and then some. as for the extra $3k on the price tag, i think that can be chalked up to the 6-way power, 2 memory, heated, leather seats standard in the silverado, which, if deleted for the comparable cloth seats in the tundra limited, make the price difference fairly negligible. which brings us back to the fact that, for the same price, you get much LESS truck with the tundra.
next, tundra backers will cry out how much more reliable their trucks are/will be. we won't know for sure whether that's true or not for at least a year. and, as i've stated before, we may never be able to truly compare reliability for the simple fact that you're comparing apples and oranges. there will be many fewer tundras sold in the u.s. than each of the big three, because people buying the tundra want an suv that they can do a little work with. people buying the big three want a truck that they know they can use regularly as a work truck, yet still as an suv if they want to. the ratio of people owning tundras and using them as work trucks will always be less than those who own the big three and use them as work trucks. the big three make many variations of 1/2 ton pickups for many different jobs. toyota makes few variations of tundras because they were designed to hit on the suv crowd. tundra is not a full-size truck, and has a long way to go before it will be. i say again - group it with the dakota and nissan frontier...where it belongs. damn...i oughta start publishing this stuff in hardback...it's so long.
kyle
As for that price compare, that tundra limited should be gettin the compare to the Silverado LS not the LT.
Good luck on this one now!
silverado won the battle of the big three.
i have a question for you, do you think now that toyota has claimed to build a "full-size truck" people will start saying "the big four"? i'm kinda doubting it...wonder why???
kyle
1) it's not a work truck (engine's too small, not enough variations for different jobs/uses)
2) it's not a full sized truck (no matter what they call it, should be compared to dakota)
3) you pay more for less (as much as the top-of-the-line chevy's without the performance specs)
4) clinging to reliability reports from consumer reports holds no water (tundra hasn't been in production long enough to deem it anything but a new product)
sure we take digs at it like, nobody's going to start including toyota and call truck manufacturers "the big four", but that's just to get you guys worked up - which is fun. boil it down to the facts and you still don't have a leg to stand on. tundra is a pickup truck that is produced and targeted for the yuppy, up-scale, "i want to show my lexus driving friends my red-neck, tough-guy side by getting a pick-up, but i don't want to sacrifice the comfort of my bmw either..." crowd. comparing it to the ford, dodge, or chevy full-size lines of pick-ups is an insult to the big three...
kyle
kyle
and Cousin went to test one (Toyota Tundra), but
that dealer did refuse to let em put the haul too
it."
But Bobby Joe had said that Franklin was his Grand
Son. How does that make him your cousin? Unless
.... (kinda makes you go: hmmmm)
kind of makes you go hmmmmmmm...yuck!
What kind of haul in the phrase "squeal like a pig"
quite frankly, my motives are simple. to use you folks as a source of entertainment and comic relief. i love sitting at my desk each day imagining you with your eyes closed, hands clasped together saying, "i wish i had a full-size truck. i wish i had a full-size truck. i wish i had a full-size truck..."
rooster:
you talked about some things that i think many people consider when buying a four-wheel drive/work truck. step-in height, acceleration, ride quality "that [you] would consider to challenge a Cadillac", easier to park, tightest turning radius, less sheetmetal to clean, and cooler colors. ask anyone on here and i think you'll find these items top their list of discriminating factors as well - NOT.
how can you say that dakota should be classed with the s-10 and ranger? the only spec that tundra wins when compared to dakota is hauling capacity (by 900 lbs) and the dakota is sporting a v6, while the tundra has the v8. dakota is physically bigger than tundra. so, no, i wouldn't consider putting dakota back with s-10 and ranger, i would pit tundra vs. dakota as the only two currently in the mid-sized class.
as for the tundra 4.7L V8 hanging with the chevy 5.3L V8, i don't think so. the chevy's specs for hauling/payloading/towing all outperform the tundra. if you're talking racing, you're getting the wrong kind of vehicle. also, you mentioned "doesn't take up half the road and then some, will have more clearance in parking garages". the toy is actually a little wider and taller than the silverado, oh by the way. the turning radius is only 3 feet better than the 'rado, which can be attributed to the 15" longer wheelbase, and 10" overall length increase on the 'rado. if you're going to comment on these vehicles, at least do it honestly. for your info: my basis for the comparison today were the tundra access cab 4wd limited and the silverado 1500 ext cab 4wd. all my info is from edmunds.
tundra can join dodge as a proud member of "the middle two." how's that?
by the way, you say you haven't bought a truck yet. go with the silverado. the discriminating factors you cited will not disappoint you with the silverado. but the first time you sit at a stop light in your new tundra, and a silverado pulls up next to you, you're going to do your best to dust him off the line. you know why? because you'll FEEL inferior. and he'll prob'ly just cruise off the line without ever having noticed you. because he'll know he's driving the best full-size truck (out of three available) on the road today. and he won't even notice you're there.
kyle
I rest my case.....
Is the answer you are looking for "who cares?"
Now this will be entertainment and comic relief.
Regarding your quote that the "dakota is physically bigger than tundra". Comparing 4x4 extended cabs, the dak is smaller in length, width, height, weight, clearance, front headroom, front shoulder space, and front hip room.
Trucks are falling into categories such as "full size", "mid-size", or "compact" with decreasing frequency. If you take exception to Toyota calling their truck full size, then compare it to the Dakota.
I am completely satisfied with my Tundra, actually could not be happier. I have not had the first problem with it and it fits my needs perfectly. If I had a need to tow loads in excess of 6000+ pounds on a regular basis, I would have went with a Ford F250, not a Silverado. But with the 3/4 ton, I would have sacrificed the smooth, quite, and sporty ride of the Tundra.
Alan
frankly, i'd be embarrassed to be seen in a tundra. the reason you feel inferior is the same reason you folks come in here bragging about consumer reports "we like trucks the more they're like our cars" rating the tundra so high on reliability when there's no way to accurately gauge that. now you want to hedge by saying,
"Trucks are falling into categories such as "full size", "mid-size", or "compact" with decreasing frequency."
that's you "i really wish i had a big truck" tundra folks who want to say that. i will compare the tundra to the dakota, it's the only similar truck out there.....
kyle
About the Tundra beating the Silverado's 5.3L, I was talking about performance, as in racing, only. Now I don't know if it could take a '00 with the increased hp of the 5.3L Vortec, but I know it took the '99's in a dragrace. As for which can tow more, I will never find that out myself. I will never find out which can pull the maximum amount of weight, and which can get it up to speed the quickest, cause I won't put a truck through that, not mine at least!
You validate a good point with the above statement. The big three owners buy their trucks to haul and tow the most they can. Most big three owners make the "work" capability the highest priority. This is what makes the big three trucks "still" the superior truck for what a truck is purposed for.
The only real arguement the Tundra owners keep bringing up is this crap of reliability advantage.
When a Tundra tows as much, hauls as much, and does it as often or more often, with a so-called reliability advantage, THEN and ONLY THEN, will I consider the Tundra a true full size competitor.
Yeah, reliability is a factor in any persons truck purchase. However, we all know that these trucks, when used as they are intended, are going to break. Laws of Physics can be relied on. If the Tundra doesn't serve the purpose that the buyer needs, who cares how reliable it is?
I would rather go through 3 engines and 3 transmissions to 1 each on a Tundra. I know the big three has a truck for every purpose and ALL of them are much more capable than a Tundra.
I just happen to be lucky. The Silverado happens to be more capable AND reliable.....:)
i'm surprised to hear you'll put a four-wheeler in the bed of your truck. aren't you scared you might scratch the paint back there? god forbid you might use it as a pickup truck.
kyle
If your excuse was the 1999 Chevy was a first year model, you should be ready to jump at the chance to bet against the 2000 Tundras.
Do you really believe that Tundra owners feel they made a mistake with their purchase more frequently than Chevy owners?
If so, lets bet.
i didn't dignify that offer with a response because there's no way to accurately measure who's pleased or disappointed with their purchase unless you work for jd power and associates or something. like i said before, i'm not able to speak for others, my truck has been flawless. additionally, it's an exercise in futility to do a reliability survey when the vehicles haven't even been on the road for a year.
anyways, i'm sure it would not take you very long to poll the ten guys who have purchased tundras to see if they're pleased. it might take you slightly longer to poll the well over 10,000 newer model silverado owners out there.
do i think tundra owners feel they made a mistake with their purchase more frequently than chevy owners? i don't believe that's what i said. i believe what i said was that you'd feel inferior at a stop light next to a truck from the big three. slight difference yes...but the answer to the other question hinges on whether or not your truck was built on a day after the workers' favorite team lost, or on a monday, or anything else. that is something that any brand of vehicle is subject to...
kyle
JD Powers does a study on initial quality every year. Sample size is the same for each truck. If you've bought a truck recently you may have gotten their survey. I did in 1998. They ask how satisfied you are, etc. It is not an objective study, but that doesn't matter. What Kyle has been saying is that Tundra owners are more likely to regret their purchase than Chevy owners. Proving which truck is better, is exceedingly difficult or impossible; documenting the prevalence of opinions, such as "I like my truck", is very straight forward and JD Powers does it for us.
I'm not blind, I realize that Chevy's have a lot of advantages and are nice trucks. If someone could guarantee that I wouldn't get one of those Monday morning trucks I would have considered it.
As far as the Dodge comment, I don't regret buying that truck (other than the lack of 4 doors). It was a JD Powers initial quality winner (suprise!). I had it for 50k miles and it was almost flawless.
For what it's worth, I've been paying attention in the tundrasolutions forum, and I have yet to hear about a Tundra owner that does not like their truck. Even the ones that have problems still wouldn't part with it, no matter what.
rooster:
i know that's what a bedliner is for. in your earlier post you said you would never strain your truck. you sound like the kind of person who would buy a truck and never use it for its intended purpose: work.
rationalization of tundra owners:
1. i got my truck because it beats others in a drag race
2. i got my truck because, even though it's a new model, consumer reports says it's reliable so it must be so.
3. tow or haul? is that important in a pickup? i'll just get my dad's best friend's brother to bring his dodge ram 3500 cummins turbo-diesel if i want to haul anything more than 3,000 pounds
4. i got my truck cuz it rides much like a caddy.
i just don't get the logic
sigh...
kyle
kyle
Most people that were caught with the new model trauma's, GM bought back all the vehicles they couldn't fix and most got pretty darn close to what the put out for the truck and within a few weeks.
Ask those people what kind of truck they now drive. Almost all of them bought a newer model Silverado! Hmmmmmmmm!
My parents are leasing a '98 Chevy K1500 4x4 Extended Z71 with the 5.7L engine. We all know that this engine puts out 255 hp @4600 rpm and 330 ft-lbs of torque @2800 rpms. Now the new Silverado's 5.3L engine puts out 285 hp @5200 rpm and 325 ft-lbs torque @4000 rpm. Now, would the 5.7L engine be better at pulling and getting the trailer up to speed? Would the 5.3L have to run higher rpms to get the weight rolling?
All my parents ever pull is a few times a year they pull 4-5 fourwheelers on the double axle trailer. All together, the weight is about 4000 pounds, figured very high. It pulls this no problem. At least once a year, it has to pull that weight about 250 miles or so. The second thing they pull is a tractor to the tractor pulls twice a year. The tractor weighs 4 ton, plus the trailer. It pulls that good also, just have to give it time to get it up to speed. That is basically all they ever tow with it, all the rest of the time the truck is used as a car, for going to work and going to the store and getting groceries and stuff. Now the Tundra is rated to tow more than my parent's truck. I'm sure when they rate the towing capacity, they rate it based on how much weight the brakes can handle, and not on towing power. And I think that's what a lot of people need a truck for, is to haul or tow things occasionally. And the rest of the time they use it as just transportation. Now who wouldn't want a carlike ride when you're going to the grocery store? Fact is, if I needed a farm truck, I would get a heavy duty one, probably one of those cool GM Heavy Duties with the Duramax diesel. But I wouldn't buy a Tundra to pull full chopper wagons and loads of hay.
interesting note #2: one of the toyota truck salesmen came over when i parked my 'rado next to the tundra and he had a big smile on his face. told me when he bought his new truck he did the same thing. he drives a '99 silverado.
imagine that...
kyle
Oh and incidentally, I don't care - I don't own Tundra, Silverado or F150 and I don't read CR.
Did not mean to jump on anyone. Does not specify
only a few trucks but ones with certain engines
etc.
Of the 5 defects 1 was a tire, 1 was paint and the other three were of the same truck -- due to the rigging of the doors (an easy adjustment).