The NTHSA web site has a customer complaint section that shows about 100 complaints for the 2000 Silverado and about 10 for the 2000 Tundra. This is roughly equal to their sales numbers. There are several duplicates for the Silverado, and one for the Tundra, and there are probably some other meaningless listings in those totals. The Silverado vibration problem is clearly included, but there are now two posts on the Tundra for air bag failure during an accident. So I guess Tundra owners don't need to worry about spending time in the service bays, just if they will walk away from an accident. Hey, if my truck has a vibration problem (which so far it doesn't), I can try to get it fixed or I can replace it.
if you read my post, i did not say that the FRAME does not experience torsion. i said i don't see how the CROSS MEMBERS get torqued that much. don't get me wrong, i'm NOT saying they don't. i'm just waiting for someone to explain to me how they do. my initial supposition was that for cross members to experience torsion, opposite sides of the frame would have to twist in opposite directions - a condition that i can't envision happening on a normal basis. note: i could be wrong, it's happened before...this is a question i'm asking...
look rob, like i said before i'm not going to change your mind and you're not going to change mine - at least not the way you're going about it. but, reference this whole cross-member issue, i've got to ask the same question bigsnag did. where did this all come from initially? did a frame fail or something, and you're just posting your suspicions as to why it did? lastly, i've already admitted that i'm not a mechanical engineer, and that i'm simply asking for more details on this issue. i do not profess knowledge on this subject, only hypotheses. instead of focusing on people like me, i think you should continue this debate with someone far more intelligent on the subject than i am. take cdean for example. he's patiently explaining things for all of us to learn and you're patiently ignoring him simply to harass someone like me...
Thanks for the comments. I like the idea of a patch vs. plug. Sounds safer. Brings up a good topic. Anyone have an opinion on tire sevice plans that cover lifetime flat repair, alignment, rotation and balance(cost vs. benefit)
You are going to replace the shocks on your Z71 because they are too soft????? When I was doing my shopping I like the suspension and shocks of the Z71 much better then the 2wd models and I didn't want a 4wd truck. I came very close to getting a Z71 just because of the shocks and extra sway bar. Glad to hear you have no problems. Sorry to hear Quad has problems. I am very picky when I spend Xthousand dollars on a vehicle and I feel your pain Quad and anybody else who has problems. Even if they are minor they still tend to tork me off. Well a little over 10K on my Tundra and no problems yet. So far it is living up to the Toyota reputation for fit and finish and seems to get stronger every day. Mileage is getting slightly better. Have seen over 20 on the highway. Truck feels as tight as the day I picked it up. I have to say too, the back seat is not that bad. I am about 5'11" 220 lbs and I can ride back there with another person for short hops with no problem. It is not nearly as comfortable as the Silverado but no worse then the RAMS or Fords I have been in. Like werking said. It was the best truck for my needs and the $$ was right.
shocks aren't a major problem. big thing is, i just want to try something different to see how it feels. plus, i got a great deal on these shocks...50% off on a set of 4 bilsteins. not through a dealer...a friend who upgraded to a different truck that the shocks wouldn't work on. so...i'm gonna give it a shot. if it's too firm, i'll just switch back. again, if this is the biggest "problem" (if you can call it that) i'll be ecstatic.
I thought one of the upgrades on the Z71 package was that the shocks are Bilsteins? I am not sure because I am not a GM owner but I think I read that in one of the brochures. It may be worth your while to check before you start changing out shocks.
Suppose the front left tire goes down in a hole, the entire right frame rail will remain pretty much motionless, however, the front left frame will want to drop off into the hole, therefore there will be torque between the two frame rails, with the crossmember being the piece between that is getting "torqued". Imagine looking at this scenario from beside the truck on the drivers side. Imagine the frame only. The far rail (passenger side) will remain motionless, but the near frame will want to rotate counterclockwise as the tire goes down into the hole. Can you imagine how the crossmember in between the frame rails can be "torqued" now? Keep in mind that I'm not saying there is a problem with the crossmember. I doubt that there is. However, weakness in that area of the design could be at fault for some of the new Chevy's troubles (back glasses leaking air, various rattles and creaks, etc.)
Im sure they switched because of $$$. Never really heard anything about why they switched. The ones on my truck arent bad much better ride then my dads 2000 blazer and 92 S-10 (my old truck)
yeah, i understand that. what's hard for me is to imagine that that amount of torque is really "significant" or "worthy of doing damage". i understood that part from david6's early post...just not sure i buy it. still not sure i do. who knows?
like you and i both brought up earlier, i'd still like to know the origin of this particular discussion...
yep, like ryan said, they're tenneco's now. i knew that from the start. it's not a major issue, the back end just tends to "float" sometimes. tim'll pop on here sooner or later and tell me i should have gotten a 2500. other point to consider is this is the first vehicle i've had of this size, so maybe it just takes getting used to. like i said earlier, these bilsteins are coming at a great price, and i'm not throwing the tenneco's out. so...if i don't like them, or if they don't make that much of a difference, i'll have the tenneco's to put back on. we'll see...
Bigsnag, the only way that one member would be in any significant torque from that is if there were no other connecting members (axles) and the frame rails were totally pivoting on that crossmember like a spindle.
I would say springs take 98% of the deflection in the situation you described.
Does anyone know anything about the 5.8 Ford engine,I was at a Ford dealer and they had a really nice 96 Eddie bauer Bronco it had the 5.8 auto in it with only 41000 miles,I've looked at it twice and I am thinking of purchasing any good or bad comments about this truck.
The 5.8l is a 351. That engine is a known gas hog and the power output is only adequate at best. I have never heard anybad things about them mechanically though. I wouldnt expect more than 13 mpg with the 5.8. BTW they do make a ghreat marine engine I have one in my jet boat and it develops a little over 310 Hp @ 4500 rpm. To bad they couldn't get that in a truck.
Some times flex is better than rigid. On a agricultural tractor for export to Europe, more hand rails are required than on the US version. One particular rail on a very expensive tractor was breaking the brackets that held it on in thirty hours in the field. The first sugestion from the engineering department was to double the size of the bracket. The new man (my son) ran a finite element analysis on the structure and found the double size bracket would last thirty three hours. He proposed using an iso-mount (rubber) at a specific one of the four mounting points. The projected life on analysis was in excess of fifteen thousand hours (the limit of that analysis). This was two years ago, and none have failed in the field since the fix was implemented. Incidentally, my son is an ASE certified automotive technician from the time he worked for me, and ANSI certified for soldering aircraft electrical parts from a co-op job during college. The man who hired him was also a mechanic before he was an engineer. I wish more engineers in auto companies had mechanic in their background, things might be easier to work on.
cdean: No doubt probably 90% is taken up by the spring, but the more flexible the frame is,the more the fram will take part of that hole.
werking: If not for the crossmembers the two fram rails would work indepenent of each other and have significant amounts of torsion, so the crossmembers are important.
I had that 351 combo in my '96 F-150. I think it's a very sturdy engine and agree that it's not easy on gas. Considering how you like to tinker and your penchant for performance the 302/351 engine is just about equal to the venerable Chevy small block for aftermarket parts, both in availability and price. You can add pulleys, exhaust, intake, heads, Throttle bodies etc. The '96 runs a mass air system and responds well to performance upgrades. 300 + horsepower is easy and relatively cheap. Two of my friends run Broncos, a'93 and a '95. The '93 has 120,000 miles with normal wear things going; I just did fuel injectors which were $100 over the internet and had a howling ring and pinion done for about $600. The '95 has almost 180,000 miles!!! Except for religious fluid changes is running flawless with nothing major EVER being replaced.
Greetings from the desert, my friends. Hope you are all enjoying your pickups, whatever they may be. I've been driving a GM 2500 longbed 4x4 and a Toyota 2700 (equivalent of nissan's crew cab).
Quad: That extra setting on the A/C ain't helping, it's too freakin' hot here!
Last time I was here 5 months ago, it was all new Dodge trucks and the Toyotas. Now it's all new GMC trucks and the Toyotas. Next it will be all new Ford trucks and the Toyotas. The Air Force contract alternates between the big 3. The Toyotas were bought for us by the Emirates.
Reactions: Love the firm ride of a 4x4 3/4 ton. Lots of people would complain about it being too stiff, but I like it. The interior still has the impression of being cheap. Plastic is plastic, but the way it's moulded and put together makes a big difference. The GMC looks good from a distance. Up close the ill fitting head and tail light assemblies bug me. There is lots of gap around them. The seats are comfortable, but a little too soft for my taste. Two minor complaints sitting in the passenger seat. The position of the glovebox makes it hard to open (it hits my shins) and the heater/AC plenum is in the way of my feet. The engine seems quiet and smooth. There is the same small vibration at idle that seems to be present on all the new trucks I've driven. It may be the product of a lean setting used to achieve LEV status. I like the inside door handles. The lack of rear slider is still bothersome. The armrest is better shaped and more comfortable than my truck, but gets very hot and sticky (it's vinyl). I wouldn't spend my money on one, but I don't mind driving it for free. Now that they are slashing prices (thank God) on the Tundra I think it's the best deal (quality and price) going right now.
thanks for the insight. i've never driven a tundra, except for a test drive when i was looking to buy. so, i was interested to see what your opinion was. where you at now, saudi?
I don't think Robbie is test driving 2500 4x4's. I think he said his brother has one, a sort of clunker for hauling used cars they resell. Maybe I'm wrong.
Has anyone else seen the new Tundra commercial where it shows a young couple (mid-20's) bragging about how much they love their Tundra. The guy is gushing all over the place on how powerful the Tundra V8 is. Then they show him at the campground. Is the Tundra pulling a boat? no. Is the Tundra pulling a Travel Trailer? no. The only thing in the back of the truck is 2 dogs.
Yeah, I need a half ton pickup with a V8 to haul my dogs around.
With advertising like that, no wonder Toyota has a image problem appearing as tough and powerful as the big 3.
Come on Toyota, if you want to prove how tough your trucks are, at least show them working in your commercials. From the looks of the commercial, they are trying to appeal to the suburbanite who once in a while gets out to play with their truck. This approach makes the truck look like a plaything, not a workhorse.
What do you Toyota drivers think about a commercial like this? Do you like it, or do you think Toyota is going down the wrong advertising path?
Showed a toyota driving around a construction site next to a huge dump truck. A little extreme you cant compare any half ton truck to a dump truck 5 times its size.
Also you ever notice chevy does commercials of trucks hauling stuff (cows in back, hay) or pulling things (ford out of the mud and snow)
Also ford commericals
New one comes to mind the crew cab commerical with the volunteer firemen. Truck is actually working.
Dodge just shows a red truck every time not huge advertising with them.
Chevy & ford work horse commercials Toyota - tonka truck (literally from last yrs commercial) commercials dodge - i dont know what to think of theirs.
frank12 I think the advertising is on target for where they are trying to market the truck. The market for occaisional use, light duty is huge. The fact that it is not a full size truck may actually work out to its advantage.
ryanbab I think Dodge has been very conservative in thier advetising with nothing to brag about since the 4 doors. I think they are holding back to make a BIG splash with the new 2002 redesigned model.
I didnt say there was anything wrong with dodges commericals just they are kinda blah. I mean a red truck on a platform all the time. AT least show it in action you know driving down a street or something.
Dodge and Toyota have the wrong idea. Everyone buys a truck with the intention of using it - pulling, hauling, etc, but few actually get used. Chevy and Ford are #2&1 and there advertising is on mark - others should take note...
How do you know this? I have 2 coworkers who bought very nice F250's and use it as a daily driver. The most work I've seen the trucks put to use was when we went camping.
Sometimes people buy things because they want it, not need it.
That's what think is saying. People buy stuff because they want it and make bogus justifications for their purchase. They envision themselves pulling huge trailers or hauling tons of stuff but in reality those uses rarely occur.
I am currently awaiting a Toyota Sequoia for Fall delivery. However I was wondering if anyone has had any experience with Toyota doing a dealer/factory order? I have always in the past ordered my vehicles to my exact specifications/color. However, I haven't found a Toyota dealer willing to do this. They say get what comes or wait it out for what you want. I've checked other boards and this seems to be the same with Honda also.
I just wanted to know if anyone has been able to order with Toyota (any model) like the big three?
i've heard the same things about honda and toyota. you're not worth building a vehicle for. you pick from what's on the lot, or move on. that's a shame if you ask me...
Comments
- Tim
No Vibs or any probs with my Silverado..
- Tim
kyle
kyle
kyle
Ryan
Ryan
like you and i both brought up earlier, i'd still like to know the origin of this particular discussion...
kyle
kyle
Ryan
the only way that one member would be in any significant torque from that is if there were no other connecting members (axles) and the frame rails were totally pivoting on that crossmember like a spindle.
I would say springs take 98% of the deflection in the situation you described.
I love mine. Wouldn't trade it for 2 Silverado's or a dozen Dodge Rams!
BTW they do make a ghreat marine engine I have one in my jet boat and it develops a little over 310 Hp @ 4500 rpm. To bad they couldn't get that in a truck.
Harry
werking: If not for the crossmembers the two fram rails would work indepenent of each other and have significant amounts of torsion, so the crossmembers are important.
Considering how you like to tinker and your penchant for performance the 302/351 engine is just about equal to the venerable Chevy small block for aftermarket parts, both in availability and price. You can add pulleys, exhaust, intake, heads, Throttle bodies etc. The '96 runs a mass air system and responds well to performance upgrades. 300 + horsepower is easy and relatively cheap.
Two of my friends run Broncos, a'93 and a '95. The '93 has 120,000 miles with normal wear things going; I just did fuel injectors which were $100 over the internet and had a howling ring and pinion done for about $600. The '95 has almost 180,000 miles!!! Except for religious fluid changes is running flawless with nothing major EVER being replaced.
I think they're great motors/trucks.
Thanks for the information.
Quad:
That extra setting on the A/C ain't helping, it's too freakin' hot here!
kyle
Reactions: Love the firm ride of a 4x4 3/4 ton. Lots of people would complain about it being too stiff, but I like it. The interior still has the impression of being cheap. Plastic is plastic, but the way it's moulded and put together makes a big difference. The GMC looks good from a distance. Up close the ill fitting head and tail light assemblies bug me. There is lots of gap around them. The seats are comfortable, but a little too soft for my taste. Two minor complaints sitting in the passenger seat. The position of the glovebox makes it hard to open (it hits my shins) and the heater/AC plenum is in the way of my feet. The engine seems quiet and smooth. There is the same small vibration at idle that seems to be present on all the new trucks I've driven. It may be the product of a lean setting used to achieve LEV status. I like the inside door handles. The lack of rear slider is still bothersome. The armrest is better shaped and more comfortable than my truck, but gets very hot and sticky (it's vinyl). I wouldn't spend my money on one, but I don't mind driving it for free. Now that they are slashing prices (thank God) on the Tundra I think it's the best deal (quality and price) going right now.
kyle
kyle
I don't think Robbie is test driving 2500 4x4's. I think he said his brother has one, a sort of clunker for hauling used cars they resell. Maybe I'm wrong.
Is the Tundra pulling a boat? no.
Is the Tundra pulling a Travel Trailer? no.
The only thing in the back of the truck is 2 dogs.
Yeah, I need a half ton pickup with a V8 to haul my dogs around.
With advertising like that, no wonder Toyota has a image problem appearing as tough and powerful as the big 3.
Come on Toyota, if you want to prove how tough your trucks are, at least show them working in your commercials. From the looks of the commercial, they are trying to appeal to the suburbanite who once in a while gets out to play with their truck. This approach makes the truck look like a plaything, not a workhorse.
What do you Toyota drivers think about a commercial like this? Do you like it, or do you think Toyota is going down the wrong advertising path?
Also you ever notice chevy does commercials of trucks hauling stuff (cows in back, hay) or pulling things (ford out of the mud and snow)
Also ford commericals
New one comes to mind the crew cab commerical with the volunteer firemen. Truck is actually working.
Dodge just shows a red truck every time not huge advertising with them.
Chevy & ford work horse commercials
Toyota - tonka truck (literally from last yrs commercial) commercials
dodge - i dont know what to think of theirs.
Ryan
ryanbab I think Dodge has been very conservative in thier advetising with nothing to brag about since the 4 doors. I think they are holding back to make a BIG splash with the new 2002 redesigned model.
Ryan
Sometimes people buy things because they want it, not need it.
- Tim
- Tim
delivery. However I was wondering if anyone has
had any experience with Toyota doing a
dealer/factory order? I have always in the past
ordered my vehicles to my exact
specifications/color. However, I haven't found a
Toyota dealer willing to do this. They say get
what comes or wait it out for what you want. I've
checked other boards and this seems to be the same
with Honda also.
I just wanted to know if anyone has been able to
order with Toyota (any model) like the big three?
jbowell - I think that the Toyota dealers are letting YOU know what they think of your possible business.....SUCKER!
kyle