Apologies for earlier slight-everyone's opinion is valid here. I'm not defending Tundras, if you read my earlier post about "performance" aspects of a truck you'd know that hauling and towing aren't the only thing on my list of "musts" for a truck. If this board is Big 3 vs. Toyota, then as a Dakota owner, theoretically I don't even belong here...(Dakota is midsized=Little 3?). However, the Tundra does meet one of my requirements for paying the penalty of V8 gas mileage-it hauls [non-permissible content removed]. The way I see it, trucks built for hauling or towing only should come with large displacement, gas-sippin' 6 cylinder motors. That's a "work" truck. (The old Ford 4.9 inline 6 comes to mind..) If you're gonna spend $25k-$35k on a fancy V8 truck with creature comforts, and get stuck with 16-20 mpg on the freeway, then that truck better kick some serious butt in it's vehicle class. If it don't, then someone got ripped off. Just my opinion...again, my apologies for sounding off. -quark
what's the story behind the handle ratboy3. Scottdale, AZ isn't that where Ping golf clubs is headquarted? Heard of some awesome courses out that ways too.
I've worked on many construction sites some with 1,000's of workers.What ? did you ask.As for the brand of vehicles they are mainly big 3 with a lot of rangers and dakota's.I've yet to see a Tundra on any site I've been on or even one that looked liked it was used for work driving on the road.The most popular truck that I've seen on any site is the F150 Supercab 4x4 offroad flareside,it also happens to be the best looking, just my opinion.But I also see a lot of Z71's and a lot of Dodges.
Toyota dealership in my area and I asked to drive the new TUNDRA.
I will say one thing, after seeing it parked next to my 1997 GMC 2500 shortbed, it's a toy!!!
I have a 6 1/2 foot bed ( I haul cement board not plywood, the length is 6 foot or smaller )so I don't have to have the 8 foot bed. I looked at the suspension and it too is a toy, now I do have a 3/4 ton but my father has a 1995 Silverado 1/2 ton and it doesn,t compare to that truck either.
I took it for a ride, it was smooth I will say that, but as far as GRUNT, better than the 5.0 chevy as good as the 5.7 chevy , but in my opinion not even close to the new 5.3V8 and the 6.0V8. I have the 7.4V8 in my GMC and that kicks them all to the curb for torque as HP.
Toyota needs to beef up the truck if they want to be considered for anything other than a YUPPY- MOBILE!!!!!
and I do agree that the back seat needs a serious redesign. even in my GMC my 3 kids are comfy in that Tundra they were SQUISHED...
I'll agree the GM rear seat is big (for an extended cab); it's got as much room as the the Nissan Crew Cab rear seat. Great for kids, but not quite enough room for adults, and not enough angle on the seatback to be useful for long trips. Question: On your 7.4V8, what's the HP and torque ratings? Of course, it should have more horsepower than smaller displacement engines. Do you happen to know what all that power equates to in 0-60 mph times? What about lateral acceleration (i.e. skidpad numbers for your truck)? If it isn't faster or handle as well as the Tundra, then guess who'll be "kicked to the curb" out on the highway??? I don't own a Tundra, but it's the only production truck other than the R/T Dakota (and the Lightning, which isn't really a truck) that can run with my QuadCab in pure stock form. Having all that torque on command is nice for towing, but is unnecessary for hauling. Makes for a nice exhaust note, but doesn't stop the average under 8 second car from watching you disappear in the rear view......I've yet to see a F250, GM2500, or Ram2500 series truck that can get out of it's own way. Of course, some here on this board don't think that "performance" has anything to do with speed or handling (i.e. "liveability")...if you're gonna have to live with less than 20 mpg, at least get your money's worth in a vehicle that "moves".
Im 6'3 about 180 pds. I could ride in my ext cab (silverado) for a long period of time it is very nice back there. I dont plan on it but people will and i know they will be quite comfy
John Elway Toyota advertised a regular cab V8 4x4 Tundra for $22,300. I thought, why not go check one out? I'm open minded, right?
Sure enough, they had several, all equipped identically, same price. That's less than I paid for my LS regular cab Silverado, but isn't equipped the same either, lacking power windows, CD player, rear slider, keyless remote/alarm, door locks etc. Has steel wheels and cruise control. No hitch.
Generally, my opinion hasn't changed about Tundra. It looks full size from the front, but once inside, it seems hardly bigger than a Tacoma or S10. The seats are thin. Had no complaint about the clock location. It still drives nice, had 3 miles on the odometer, excellent steering feel, a bit bouncy, quiet, but no more so than mine. At idle, seemed a bit noisier. The air conditioner definitely doesn't blow air with the same force as mine. The sheet metal on the bed seems very thin. It almost looked dented, even new. And what's up with those pan head torx screws? Do they hold the bed to the frame? The bed is shallow, but higher up than mine, so the wheel wells seem small. The label states US/Canada 35%, Japan 50%. Curiously, the Avalon on the show room floor was 20% Japan, 80% US/Canada, and looked like an Olds Aurora on the inside...hated it!
The Tundra drives nice, had a low price. All in all, a truck I could live with, but not worth giving my Silverado up for. They offered $17,000 in trade, I paid about 25,400 for the Silverado, now has almost 30,000 miles.
Honestly, I was really happy to get back into my own truck. It feels much bigger and more comfortable. If you currently own a full size domestic, I think you will come away with the same impression.
As for the sales experience...they have a bunch of kids coming up....the service department seems staffed with kids too, a bit worrisome. And teen kids drooling over the Celica with poppa in tow.
have routinely put my 2 kid in my back seat for a 10 hr. trip to WI. One is 10 the other is 2 (carseat) and there very comfortable. The QuadCab Dakota we looked at had more room, but the Silverado is more truck and only cost about $1500 more - worth it to me. I've sat in the back of my father-in-law's for more than an hour without a problem and I could probably do it in a Tundra, but it would be cramped...
runs this shindig, please explain to me why the tundra is offerd in the short box only version. why do the big 3 offer a long bed and not just the golf bag size bed that the tundra is equipped with? i mean if toyota was really intending the truck to be for work and not just for play, would'nt they benefit from offering a long bed like the bigboys do? i had a '99 tacoma and only see a 2 inch difference in length in the tundra's bed. i know the latter is wider but what if a guy needs a longer bed?
Do you know what the specs are for your Truck? Not saying it's slower until I see the numbers. Can't match you in available torque, but I'll hazard a guess I've got a better power/weight ratio. Of course, it's all BS unless we're out on the road. I guess we could go for pink slips-wait, neither of us want the other's vehicle.......guess it's just chest-beating for now.
We will put the max tow load behind yours..(since it is the baddest Mo fo for towing) and the same behind mine...(since it can't get out of it's own way...should be a piece of cake for the Tindra?..right?)
Only available in short box....only a 1/2 ton..(if you wanna call it that)...no 3/4 or 1 tons..no diesel or DRW...
...cuz them tundras got them yuppys be thinkin' them be full sized trucks!...truth of the matter is..the tundra = less truck for more buck! Good luck on this one now!!
you asked for skidpad rating etc. a while back. Do you really toss that truck around like that? I can see you having a point about acceleration, but skidpad? Trucks sit too high for that stuff...
First off the Lightning has a 800# payload that as you said is more limited by the tires than anything else. The Lightning also has a 5000# towing capacity which is right there with all the 1/2 tons base towing capacity.
If your #'s are correct on the quad's F/R weight ratio what happens when you load the the thing? Wouldn't you be all out of wack in a nose up attitude? So wouldn't a truck biased toward handling well empty suffer when loaded?
My only thought on all this is you appreciate your truck for what it does for you, it may not work for others. Much like a Lightning would work for some and not for you. Or how about some Chevy owner saying his truck's better than yours 'cause it tows or hauls more and you don't really have a truck? Just a thought before we rip other people's choices.
290 HP rated at about 3800-4000 rpm and the torque comes in at around 415-420 lbs at 2800 rpm. These figures are from memory and could be off a little on the rpm.
As far as all the specifics on the skid pad, I'm in my 30's now and if I want to go fast and pull g's on the pad I'll invest in a vette or camaro or trans-am. Trucks for me are for work, not racing some 18-20 year old in a car.
The only thing I care about is carrying weight, and pulling weight and being able to do it at 70 mph , up hills with the AC on and not have to worry about whether my truck is up to the task or if it can carry the load.
I have some advice for the guys or gals in the eight second cars, you won't beat me for the first 250 ft. and by then I have already cut you off, see BIGGER IS ALWAYS BETTER, especially when my 265 75 tires are at your door mirror.
See how it works???
As far as my vehicle moving, go drive a 3/4 ton with the 7.4 and I think you would be quite surprised as to how fast a REAL TRUCK can move down the highway.
I agree, those things will smoke off the line and you can cut the next guy off! Skidpad - not for me - seems dumb in a truck meant for other things, but if that's what you like to do so be it. I have bigger tires (285's) and I'm sure my skidpad rating would suck, but I don't peel the tires off when stomping on it like I used to. Straight ahead acceleration is fairly important, but would be surprised if anyone here (beside you Quark) cares about skidpad. Just my opionion though, hey if you put 255 55's on your skidpad would probably be even better, if they make them...
Mod- Your point is well taken, I'll refrain from negative comments (after this post-see below.) I stand corrected on the Lightning specs. As far as weight ratio causing problems...with 30 rolls of sod last weekend I didnt notice a problem. I don't know how much weight it was, but I do see that the small bed on the Quad is centered on the rear axle, so maybe that reduces any "nose up" problems. MrMilk- Perhaps you should read the post above this one. Surprisingly, there are people that do care about handling and acceleration over 20 years old. I suspect their sex lives didn't end at 20, either. I've found that when most people are presented with a tough question to answer, they run for the shelter of a response like, "I'm not into that anymore", or "it isn't important to me." "That's not what a truck is for" comments fall into this category. It's called denial. Your need for the "biggest" truck suggests an insecurity problem. We'll let you and your therapist work that one out. Just keep repeating "bigger is better" each time a Dakota with 4.7l hands your head to you, I'm sure it'll be comforting. The triviality and pedantic nature of your comments make you sound like the young one, here..(oops, don't want to leave out Tim..) Ah, nevermind, your comments are valid. I've zinged a few here on the board also, and admit it's fun, too. Swo- Thanks for the intelligent comment. Maybe I am the only one on the board who cares about handling in the corners. That's OK. As a matter of fact, I bought the Quad for it's handling and power. I do use it to transport family, haul, and tow the boat, (why else would I need a truck) OK, listen closely now. The QUAD IS NOT VERY SUITED FOR HEAVY TOWING OR HAULING. You can't have it all. When I step up to a 5000+ lb boat (got my eye on the 24' Trophy) the Quad will get the boot. EGAD! I'll probably break family tradition and buy a GM/Chevy...(swallowing while I think about being disinherited and divorced) Got to admit it, they are the best vehicles suited for the task, and that includes efficiency (mpg). Since the new models have corrected past deficiencies, for sheer truck value, they're hard to beat. -quark
I had a 99 lightning and there is nothing that comes close to it as fas as performance it will smoke an R/T or SST,it does have an 800lb payload and can tow 5000lbs.Popular mechanics rated it as the 13th fastest production vehicle made and that was against the vipers,porsche's and ferrarri's.I now have an F250 XLT 4x4 Supercab w/5.4 and 3.73 LS,I have installed a superchip which elimanates factory shift points, speed governer and provides more power throughout the whole powerband and not just the high end with that I installed a gibson split rear dual exhaust and elimanated the factory air intake and installed a K&N fipk.I probably have close to 310 HP and 400 lbs tourque,I can chirp the tires from 1st to 2nd if I choose to.It will eat your 4.7 for breakfast along with a couple of Tundras for lunch.And I can still tow 8200lbs and have a 3/4 ton truck.
I was reading my old truck trend (apr 2000) and they did the article for "motor trends truck of the yr". We all know what truck this is but why did they use a Reg cab long bed 4x4??? Has anyone seen one of these??? I havent all the tundras i have seen are ext cabs. Oh well. What will be truck of the yr next yr???
My predictions 2001 - ? 2002 - Dodge Ram 2003 - New Nissan full size
QUARK you will not be disappointed with a gm truck trust me. It will do all you ask. Very comfortable (overall not just seats and room) to drive. Im very happy with mine and most people are.
SURVEY
Yesterday at work (menards lumberyard) seen countless number of newer (97- up) fords, 1 gmc sierra 2000, 1 brand new dodge, 1 silverado, and no toyotas of any kind. The rest were all older junk fords chevys and dodges (junk i mean rusty and old like early 80's). This was from working at 8am till 6 pm.
"MY TRUCKS FASTER THAN YOURS" um who cares. If you want speed why dont you buy a car then? Thats more of a problem than needing something that is bigger than something else.
Acting like little kidds. To settle this go to a track and race then quit the talking and turn it into some action. You can talk till your blue in the face about speed. Just like in basketball all the people talking trash its useless if you dont do anything about it
attack you in this forum, is there something wrong with your security, did you get picked on in school??? Do you drive a midsize truck because a full size requires you getting blocks for the pedals?????
Hey I have a question, how is the gas mileage on your Quadcab?? Is that why you want a 1993 Festiva?? or is that going to be your first car and you are out driving DADDY's quadcab on the weekends??
ANYWAY!!!!!
If I purchased a Big and Powerful GMC it's not for some insecurity reason, it's the right truck for the job I need it to do, or are you that stupid that you can't realize that each truck and persons individual choices are for specific reasons???
ALSO!!!
I think you are hung up on the therapist kick because you need one yourself.
I would zing you more but the BOSS might not like it and the mighty delete key is king.
and bigger is better, just ask your significant other.
I don't care about you or what you have to say,but I will say this I spent $26,000 on my truck added $640 worth of mods and its still cheaper(cost wise) and better than any Tundra on the road with the options I have.
LESSON: "I've found that when most people are presented with a tough question to answer, they run for the shelter of a response like, "I'm not into that anymore", or "it isn't important to me." "That's not what a truck is for" comments fall into this category. It's called denial."
EXAMPLES: Denial: "The QUAD IS NOT VERY SUITED FOR HEAVY TOWING OR HAULING. You can't have it all."
Acceptance: "I'll probably break family tradition and buy a GM/Chevy...Got to admit it, they are the best vehicles suited for the task, and that includes efficiency (mpg)."
Lightning- Gee, an 800 lb payload capacity equals a Neon. Nuff said. Anyone can mod their truck, for a lot less...anyway, if it's such a good truck, why trade it for a last-generation Ford SuperCab (assuming you don't mean SuperDuty...can't be, since you paid $26k) Guess you needed more payload or towing..Hey! The Ranger can carry 1850 lbs and tow 6050 with an equalizing hitch...! It don't matter how much $$ you dump into your SuperCab, it aint gonna handle like a 2wd Dakota. 310 horses in wimpy, given the weight of your vehicle. The old (pre 1999) 5.4l motor ain't no great shakes, and it's about 2.0l too small to even think of pulling the SuperCab's weight on par with the Dakota. Your truck's weighs the same (or more) as the Navigator, right? Look at the specs on that vehicle, then talk some smack. Maybe with some 4:11's or 4:88's...(top speed=70 mph)Put a 500 HP/500 torque motor into your truck, maybe..(course, your handling will be worse than stock.) Didn't you know I was talking about STOCK vehicles? Just to educate you, the R/T Dakota is SLOWER than my truck (7.4 0-60 vs R/T's 7.7), so "whipping" an R/T (it didn't happen) don't buy you squat.. MrMilk- I was tongue-in-cheek rattling your cage-didn't you read my last sentence in my response to you? I gave you your props but you missed it anyway...and your statement about need/suitability of task is correct, to each his own. I'll apologize for attacking you, but I felt your tone in the earlier post was a little disrespectful. Like I already said, I've zinged a few here, just for fun, but felt stupid later, so I'm trying to knock it off and stay on topic...everyone's got something to contribute. Gas mileage is averaging about 18 mpg. I can milk 20-21 out of by staying under 65 mph, but who does that on CA freeways? My other vehicle is a 2000 Mustang GT...so the Festiva (or other beater) is to lessen the effect of 40,000 miles per year driving I do. (110 mile round trip daily commute) I'm 6'0", 195...so pedals really aren't my style. With the oldest of my 4 sons being 26 and my youngest 17, you might figure out I'm no kid. I had my friendly CA CHP (brother) clock me at 131 mph in my R/T Neon before I traded it for the truck, and my Mustang will do about 145 mph, so as far as speed is concerned...well, who's got the most recent experience? Please don't BS me about your WS-6, 'vette, or Viper that you drive daily, and how you hate Fords....and Dodges. Back to topic: Who's best at What in stock form: (pure opinion) Big 3: GM: Best value for heavy towing, heavy hauling. Comfort is improved, as is quality. Either you hate or love the new sheetmetal. Full QuadCab coming.... Ford: Coming up, but trailing GM in engine technology. Solid and reliable, if a little dull. A hair less than GM in towing and hauling. Dodge: New engines coming, could be good. Quality issues remain. Can tow with GM, but rear end and tranny problems are a worry. Mid-sized 4: Tundra: Needs suspension/engine/cab options to be a true full-size. Swift, sure handling truck. A little pricey. Potential to grow. Dakota: Sheetmetal getting outdated. Fastest, best-handling of all production trucks, save the limited edition Lightning. Some hit and miss quality issues. New 4.7l/multi-speed tranny performs well, but jury's out on lasting quality/reliability. Ranger: Needs a V8 option to challenge S-10, Tundra, and Dakota. Smallest of the mid-sized. New 4.0 205HP V6 will help-Reg Cab with a 5-speed/3:55 rear might crack 8 seconds 0-60. Reliable, popular truck. SporTrak? Needs some ooomph and a real bed. Is it a Ranger, an Explorer, or what? One thing, it's expensive AND slow. Nissan: 3.3l a dog. CrewCab nice, but no more rear room than the GM full-size extended cab. CC bed kinda small, stereo sucks, 18 mpg horrible considering displacement. New motor(s)coming... Tacoma: Nice in off-road form. Expensive, and a little cramped and slow. Stylin' with monster tires. Good mpg. (Bracing myself for responses by adjusting pedal blocks, counseling wife on size inadequacies, and scheduling psychiatric appointment for this week....) -quark
Of course we're all entitled to our opinions but some times a few facts will make you look less silly. 1st) there was a light duty F250 based on the 150 sheet metal much like what GM is doing now and what everyone did in the past. this was before the Super Duty took over all 250 designations. This is what Barlitz has. Considering my Crew Cab, 4x4 ,V10, 5speed, XLT, short bed invoiced for under 29,000 I don't think 26 was to far off.
2nd) Ford trailing GM in engine technology????? How does a 5.4L OHC motor with more torque trail a 5.3 pushrod motor? I really respect the LS1 based GM motors but Ford is in no way "trailing GM in engine technology" Do you include your OHC 4.7 as being behind in technology?
3rd opinion) G.M. for heavy hauling!!!!LOL!!!!! There is no comparo to the 3/4 ton and 1 ton Ford and Dodge unless you want the lame duck C/K which is just about done or wait for the new 8.1 or Isuzu diesel so that comment really showed your lack of CURRENT truck trends.
I know you weren't addressing me about speed but I have a 100 mph tunnel boat and a '97 Cobra for that rush. Also have a 600cc dirt bike for the desert blast. Just not the same thing towing your boat or other heavy load at 100 mph so that's not what my truck's for.
I guess all I'm asking as with the original Lightning comments just check some facts before engaging keyboard. Thanx
I guess I'll have to disagree with you on the best for heavy towing/hauling. I think the majority of people agree with me (check sales numbers for 3/4 and 1 ton trucks) that Ford wins this hands down. If you want a daily driver with car-like features and comforts then maybe the Chevy. The Ford's are bigger heavier trucks. No room for debate about that. I wouldn't say that Ford engine technology is behind GM's either. I think it is the other way around. If you want to talk about over-rating engines and marketing ability, then Chevy wins. There are even some Chevy guys, on this board, who will admit that the new 5.3's are probably a little over-rated, especially in light of numerous independent dyno reports that showed they don't put out near what they should. I'll admit, I'm a little biased towards Ford, but not necessarily against Chevy. I just think that right now Ford still has the best "Truck-like" trucks.
no hard feelings, I have already been down the DELETE key road with MRS. M., our front porch philosopher, as I state in my profile we can have fun with this, debate the issues and facts and leave personal insults out of it.
If we disagree on the facts that is one thing, if we disagree on it for personal reasons , well then like you said " to each his own "
I think GM and Ford are pretty much on par with engine technology. GM was ahead, but in '99 Ford stepped up to the plate, making the new v10 and 5.4 finally pull more power than the 4 year old 7.4 and 5.7.
5.3 vs 5.4 Ford designed for low end horsepower. GM designed for a wide power band. Almost from idle to redline. Ford designed for great pulling torque. so going down the highway Ford holds speed better than GM. But the GM has the power on tap when passing or pulling that long hill, where other engines run out of breath.
then there's the 6.0. no one has answer for that. Power close to that of a big block, much better mileage, while being a midsize. I think that shows some impressive engine tech. v10 is up there with 7.4 and 8.1.
GM's 4.8 is comparable to Tundra's 4.7 and DC's 4.7. Ford's 4.6 doesn't really match up to those at all. i think this class of engine, Toyota has the most power title.
So i give Ford and GM the shared title in engine technology. Toyota shows the ability with the 4.7, but thats all they offer. DC will step to the plate in 2 years, and we're waiting.
Mod- I don't feel silly.... 1) the old SuperCab F250 was based on the F-150 chassis, but had much heavier axles, suspension, and frame. Nuff said. If he traded a '99 Lightning, did he get a new 1998 SuperCab? Wasn't that before the 5.4l was upgraded? 2) OHC motors are great; but you'll find lots of argument for/against old/new motors. Anyway, I was referring to GM's new line of motors, 4.8, 5.3, 6.0, 8.0, and so on. Ford's "incrementalist" approach to adding a few HP to the same motor every couple years doesn't win me over, and I've been a Ford guy for a long time. Why didn't the 5.4L come with 260/300 HP originally? Why did the 4.6l motor evolve from 210HP, to 220HP, to 240HP, and (in the 'stang) 260HP? Right now, with intake and head changes, the 4.6l can put out 360-380 HP, and 350 lbs of torque. Why wait? The 5.4l should've initially put out 300 HP, not 240 HP. What's it capable of now? 3) This was my opinion, based on cost/vs performance. I think you'd have to compare each to each, i.e., F150 to GM's 1500, F250 to the 2500, etc. I don't expect to be taken as an authority, nor do I have to be right all the time. I'm not an "expert" truck guy; just here to learn from y'all and share views. MrMilk- Owned a Festiva way back when. Bought it so I wouldn't have to drive my 1989 5.0 notchback daily. (Like that happened...) Anyway, it was a surprising reliable, economical car. Looking now for a beater to commute 40,000 a year in, and save new 2000 Quad and 2000 Mustang GT from rackin' up the miles. More likely, I'll pick up a 1995 Neon 5-speed, replace the head gasket, throw some tires on it, and blast to and from work in it.
Quark, I disagree that Ford has used incremental increases in their engines. I think they were genuine engineering dev and improvements. When the 5.4 was first introduced (later '96?) it was not a very powerful engine. It came to the market already 40 HP behind GM. And it got terrible mileage. But they made major changes to the intake system, giving it longer intake runners and changing the nature of the filter system and changed the head design (which is the same thing GM did in '96) and suddenly their engines were producing similar power to GM.
I don't think Ford is 'just pushing buttons'. They are developing the engines as they determine are the best for longevity and performance, which is why you don't get the 300 hp version the first year.
Same way with GM. the 5.3 first year was 315 ft lbs and 275 hp. the very next year, they discovered a different cam profile, that upped the torque to 325, upped horsepower to 285, and increased the low end torque level, and improved mileage by a hair.
GM 5.3 first yr was 270 jumped 15hp 4.8 was 255 and is now 270
Sorry to be so critical but i thought i would add in the 4.8 too. Your right though they do make developments they just dont do one small tiny thing to up the hp. Time goes into the change.
I think I take posts more literally than most. I just assume when someone posts something it's what they meant.
In post #97 you said, "Why trade it for a LAST GENERATION Ford super cab(assuming you don't mean Super Duty......can't be since you paid 26k)
Quark, all the info is right here at your finger tips!!!! In '99 you could get an F-250 based on the NEW F-150 with a 260 horse 5.4 OR the F-250 Super Duty. You keep "debating" with non valid facts. 'nuff said.
Your point on Ford being incrementalist in their use of horsepower I will agree on and it pisses me off too. Especially since I'm a Mustang fan and it really affects me against GM F bodies. I will say that a major manufacturer will not blow their wad right away unless they need to play catch up where it counts; in sales. Until the F series or for that matter the Mustang is challenged for sales leadership I think we'll always see the little steps so as to make people want to upgrade every couple years.
Cdean, I see where we differ on terminology. You say technology and I say it's tuning. I've always considered the basic layout the technology, ie; OHC, fuel injection etc. The different ways to tune intakes, fuel curves, compression, exhaust etc. I've always thought was tuning. That's why I've always said Ford had the more current technology with their OHC motor. I do see where you're coming from. I still say the OHC is more modern and is a more "tunable" design and in the very near future it will be standard in most makes. I saw in a Baja race report that the top Chevy team is using the GM inline 6 and it's a DOHC 4 valve motor!!!!
If you like the toyota tundra, great. The bottom line is sales! The Ford, Chevy & Dodge all outsell the tundra by huge numbers & that's a fact!
If toyota owners like their (over priced, under powered & cramped) tundras....good for them! The real test is the wallet....putting down your own money for the truck that you want. It's pretty clear that a lot of people would rather lease or buy a real "Full Sized" truck.
I stand corrected on the correct configuration of the 1999 F250. However, with 260 HP, and in stock form, in cannot touch the Quad in terms of handling and performance. We're comparing apples to oranges here, since the F250's main strength is payload and hauling; the Quad's is people-carrying and mid-sized truck tasks. As I stated before, I don't have to be dead-on right about everything, nor do I see this as a debate. This is an opinion board, not a reference for truck facts and figures. I surely wouldn't make a purchase decision based on what I read here, would you? Truth be told, if we all could afford it, wouldn't there be many, many vehicles in our driveways, with each chosen to meet a narrow range of tasks? I guess I'd keep the Dakota for all around use, an M-coupe for sheer driving fun, an F-350 to pull the family cruiser and RV, a Viper just to piss off the neigbors, an old Toyota 4wd for the Rubicon, and a Festiva when I needed an economy car. Oh well.....
Mod, I see the difference in terminology between us. Still, Ford's incremental changes may be tuning, but they are major engineered changes. They didn't have the combustion 'technology', or know-how 4 years ago, but they figured out a different head port, figured out a different intake, different cam profile, to get to where they are now. So they were slowly figuring out how to figure out the design.
Although I can see reason to 'hold back', to create future sales, but the 'tuning' they did in subsequent years was a result of technological advancement.
Basically, I'm saying they simply could NOT get 260 hp out of the 5.4 until this year.
rdve80 - regarding the J.D. Powers bias, why would buyers of one brand expect more initial quality than buyers of a different brand?
You said "If Tundra buyers put a higher importance on quality/reliability than say Dodge buyers, then they will also tend to give higher ratings on the survey."
That's not true. The survey ranks complaints, not positive findings. If Tundra buyers put a higher importance on quality, then they will be more likely to give a POOR rating if something goes wrong. If different buyers really do have different expectations, then Tundra is at a DISadvantage in JD Powers under the scenario you describe. Think of it this way, if both trucks have a poorly installed fog light switch the tundra owner will really get upset and remember when he pushed the switch thru the dash, whereas the Dodge owner might shrug his shoulders (if for some strange reason quality is less important) when the button falls inside the dash.
My point is J.D. Powers has a POTENTIAL bias, but not a very likely bias to account for the Tundra being a false positive initial quality award winner.
Comments
-quark
Have a great day!
Sorry for being off topic...
A Significant Advantage
Wheelbase/Length Neither
Overall Width Tundra
Horsepower/Torque Dakota
Bed Capacity Neither
Payload Dakota
GCWR Tundra
GVWR Neither
Towing Neither
Curb Weight Neither
If it Walks like a Duck and Quacks like a Duck... and the manufacture CALLS it a Goose... you have to compare it to other Ducks!
I will say one thing, after seeing it parked next to my 1997 GMC 2500 shortbed, it's a toy!!!
I have a 6 1/2 foot bed ( I haul cement board not plywood, the length is 6 foot or smaller )so I don't have to have the 8 foot bed. I looked at the suspension and it too is a toy, now I do have a 3/4 ton but my father has a 1995 Silverado 1/2 ton and it doesn,t compare to that truck either.
I took it for a ride, it was smooth I will say that, but as far as GRUNT, better than the 5.0 chevy as good as the 5.7 chevy , but in my opinion not even close to the new 5.3V8 and the 6.0V8. I have the 7.4V8 in my GMC and that kicks them all to the curb for torque as HP.
Toyota needs to beef up the truck if they want to be considered for anything other than a YUPPY- MOBILE!!!!!
and I do agree that the back seat needs a serious redesign. even in my GMC my 3 kids are comfy in that Tundra they were SQUISHED...
Go back to the drawing board there TOYOTA!!!!
Nissan Crew Cab rear seat. Great for kids, but not quite enough room for adults, and not enough angle on the seatback to be useful for long trips.
Question: On your 7.4V8, what's the HP and torque ratings? Of course, it should have more horsepower than smaller displacement engines. Do you happen to know what all that power equates to in 0-60 mph times? What about lateral acceleration (i.e. skidpad numbers for your truck)? If it isn't faster or handle as well as the Tundra, then guess who'll be "kicked to the curb" out on the highway??? I don't own a Tundra, but it's the only production truck other than the R/T Dakota (and the Lightning, which isn't really a truck) that can run with my QuadCab in pure stock form. Having all that torque on command is nice for towing, but is unnecessary for hauling. Makes for a nice exhaust note, but doesn't stop the average under 8 second car from watching you disappear in the rear view......I've yet to see a F250, GM2500, or Ram2500 series truck that can get out of it's own way. Of course, some here on this board don't think that "performance" has anything to do with speed or handling (i.e. "liveability")...if you're gonna have to live with less than 20 mpg, at least get your money's worth in a vehicle that "moves".
Ryan
Sure enough, they had several, all equipped identically, same price. That's less than I paid for my LS regular cab Silverado, but isn't equipped the same either, lacking power windows, CD player, rear slider, keyless remote/alarm, door locks etc. Has steel wheels and cruise control. No hitch.
Generally, my opinion hasn't changed about Tundra. It looks full size from the front, but once inside, it seems hardly bigger than a Tacoma or S10. The seats are thin. Had no complaint about the clock location. It still drives nice, had 3 miles on the odometer, excellent steering feel, a bit bouncy, quiet, but no more so than mine. At idle, seemed a bit noisier. The air conditioner definitely doesn't blow air with the same force as mine. The sheet metal on the bed seems very thin. It almost looked dented, even new. And what's up with those pan head torx screws? Do they hold the bed to the frame? The bed is shallow, but higher up than mine, so the wheel wells seem small. The label states US/Canada 35%, Japan 50%. Curiously, the Avalon on the show room floor was 20% Japan, 80% US/Canada, and looked like an Olds Aurora on the inside...hated it!
The Tundra drives nice, had a low price. All in all, a truck I could live with, but not worth giving my Silverado up for. They offered $17,000 in trade, I paid about 25,400 for the Silverado, now has almost 30,000 miles.
Honestly, I was really happy to get back into my own truck. It feels much bigger and more comfortable. If you currently own a full size domestic, I think you will come away with the same impression.
As for the sales experience...they have a bunch of kids coming up....the service department seems staffed with kids too, a bit worrisome. And teen kids drooling over the Celica with poppa in tow.
Free coffee a nice touch.
..if you could catch up that is...
- Tim
- Tim
The handle ratboy3 is part my initials.
tundra is offerd in the short box only version.
why do the big 3 offer a long bed and not just
the golf bag size bed that the tundra is equipped
with? i mean if toyota was really intending the
truck to be for work and not just for play,
would'nt they benefit from offering a long bed
like the bigboys do? i had a '99 tacoma and only
see a 2 inch difference in length in the tundra's
bed. i know the latter is wider but what if a guy
needs a longer bed?
...red
Not saying it's slower until I see the numbers.
Can't match you in available torque, but I'll hazard a guess I've got a better power/weight ratio. Of course, it's all BS unless we're out on the road.
I guess we could go for pink slips-wait, neither of us want the other's vehicle.......guess it's just chest-beating for now.
We will put the max tow load behind yours..(since it is the baddest Mo fo for towing) and the same behind mine...(since it can't get out of it's own way...should be a piece of cake for the Tindra?..right?)
Only available in short box....only a 1/2 ton..(if you wanna call it that)...no 3/4 or 1 tons..no diesel or DRW...
WOW...what a truck!
- Tim
or they'll run and tell meredith. remember what
happened to you no who?
BTW is the tundra gonna survive? word on the
street is that it's sales are steadily declining?
...red
Good luck on this one now!!
....someone has to take over...
LOL
- Tim
problems a' settin' in now too.
GOOD LUCK ON THEESE ONE TOO!
...red
p.s. was'nt tellin you nuttin either.
GOOD LUCK ON THAT ONE ALSO!
http://community.webtv.net/truckforce/USTF
First off the Lightning has a 800# payload that as you said is more limited by the tires than anything else. The Lightning also has a 5000# towing capacity which is right there with all the 1/2 tons base towing capacity.
If your #'s are correct on the quad's F/R weight ratio what happens when you load the the thing? Wouldn't you be all out of wack in a nose up attitude? So wouldn't a truck biased toward handling well empty suffer when loaded?
My only thought on all this is you appreciate your truck for what it does for you, it may not work for others. Much like a Lightning would work for some and not for you. Or how about some Chevy owner saying his truck's better than yours 'cause it tows or hauls more and you don't really have a truck? Just a thought before we rip other people's choices.
As far as all the specifics on the skid pad, I'm in my 30's now and if I want to go fast and pull g's on the pad I'll invest in a vette or camaro or trans-am. Trucks for me are for work, not racing some 18-20 year old in a car.
The only thing I care about is carrying weight, and pulling weight and being able to do it at 70 mph , up hills with the AC on and not have to worry about whether my truck is up to the task or if it can carry the load.
I have some advice for the guys or gals in the eight second cars, you won't beat me for the first 250 ft. and by then I have already cut you off, see BIGGER IS ALWAYS BETTER, especially when my 265 75 tires are at your door mirror.
See how it works???
As far as my vehicle moving, go drive a 3/4 ton with the 7.4 and I think you would be quite surprised as to how fast a REAL TRUCK can move down the highway.
LOL
The Milk Man!
Your point is well taken, I'll refrain from negative comments (after this post-see below.)
I stand corrected on the Lightning specs.
As far as weight ratio causing problems...with 30 rolls of sod last weekend I didnt notice a problem. I don't know how much weight it was, but I do see that the small bed on the Quad is centered on the rear axle, so maybe that reduces any "nose up" problems.
MrMilk-
Perhaps you should read the post above this one.
Surprisingly, there are people that do care about handling and acceleration over 20 years old. I suspect their sex lives didn't end at 20, either.
I've found that when most people are presented with a tough question to answer, they run for the shelter of a response like, "I'm not into that anymore", or "it isn't important to me." "That's not what a truck is for" comments fall into this category. It's called denial. Your need for the "biggest" truck suggests an insecurity problem. We'll let you and your therapist work that one out. Just keep repeating "bigger is better" each time a Dakota with 4.7l hands your head to you, I'm sure it'll be comforting. The triviality and pedantic nature of your comments make you sound like the young one, here..(oops, don't want to leave out Tim..) Ah, nevermind, your comments are valid. I've zinged a few here on the board also, and admit it's fun, too.
Swo-
Thanks for the intelligent comment. Maybe I am the only one on the board who cares about handling in the corners. That's OK. As a matter of fact, I bought the Quad for it's handling and power. I do use it to transport family, haul, and tow the boat, (why else would I need a truck) OK, listen closely now. The QUAD IS NOT VERY SUITED FOR HEAVY TOWING OR HAULING. You can't have it all. When I step up to a 5000+ lb boat (got my eye on the 24' Trophy) the Quad will get the boot. EGAD! I'll probably break family tradition and buy a GM/Chevy...(swallowing while I think about being disinherited and divorced) Got to admit it, they are the best vehicles suited for the task, and that includes efficiency (mpg). Since the new models have corrected past deficiencies, for sheer truck value, they're hard to beat.
-quark
- Tim
My predictions
2001 - ?
2002 - Dodge Ram
2003 - New Nissan full size
QUARK you will not be disappointed with a gm truck trust me. It will do all you ask. Very comfortable (overall not just seats and room) to drive. Im very happy with mine and most people are.
SURVEY
Yesterday at work (menards lumberyard)
seen countless number of newer (97- up) fords, 1 gmc sierra 2000, 1 brand new dodge, 1 silverado, and no toyotas of any kind. The rest were all older junk fords chevys and dodges (junk i mean rusty and old like early 80's). This was from working at 8am till 6 pm.
Ryan
Acting like little kidds. To settle this go to a track and race then quit the talking and turn it into some action. You can talk till your blue in the face about speed. Just like in basketball all the people talking trash its useless if you dont do anything about it
Ryan
LOL
- Tim
Hey I have a question, how is the gas mileage on your Quadcab?? Is that why you want a 1993 Festiva?? or is that going to be your first car and you are out driving DADDY's quadcab on the weekends??
ANYWAY!!!!!
If I purchased a Big and Powerful GMC it's not for some insecurity reason, it's the right truck for the job I need it to do, or are you that stupid that you can't realize that each truck and persons individual choices are for specific reasons???
ALSO!!!
I think you are hung up on the therapist kick because you need one yourself.
I would zing you more but the BOSS might not like it and the mighty delete key is king.
and bigger is better, just ask your significant other.
LOL
Woah man MR Milk went off CHILL MAN!!! Its alright
Ryan
"I've found that when most people are presented
with a tough question to answer, they run for the
shelter of a response like, "I'm not into that
anymore", or "it isn't important to me." "That's
not what a truck is for" comments fall into this
category. It's called denial."
EXAMPLES:
Denial:
"The QUAD IS NOT VERY SUITED FOR HEAVY TOWING
OR HAULING. You can't have it all."
Acceptance:
"I'll probably break family tradition and buy a GM/Chevy...Got to admit it, they are the best vehicles suited for the task, and that includes efficiency (mpg)."
CLASS DISMISSED
zing zing!!! LOL
kyle
It don't matter how much $$ you dump into your SuperCab, it aint gonna handle like a 2wd Dakota. 310 horses in wimpy, given the weight of your vehicle. The old (pre 1999) 5.4l motor ain't no great shakes, and it's about 2.0l too small to even think of pulling the SuperCab's weight on par with the Dakota. Your truck's weighs the same (or more) as the Navigator, right? Look at the specs on that vehicle, then talk some smack. Maybe with some 4:11's or 4:88's...(top speed=70 mph)Put a 500 HP/500 torque motor into your truck, maybe..(course, your handling will be worse than stock.) Didn't you know I was talking about STOCK vehicles? Just to educate you, the R/T Dakota is SLOWER than my truck (7.4 0-60 vs R/T's 7.7), so "whipping" an R/T (it didn't happen) don't buy you squat..
MrMilk-
I was tongue-in-cheek rattling your cage-didn't you read my last sentence in my response to you? I gave you your props but you missed it anyway...and your statement about need/suitability of task is correct, to each his own. I'll apologize for attacking you, but I felt your tone in the earlier post was a little disrespectful. Like I already said, I've zinged a few here, just for fun, but felt stupid later, so I'm trying to knock it off and stay on topic...everyone's got something to contribute.
Gas mileage is averaging about 18 mpg. I can milk 20-21 out of by staying under 65 mph, but who does that on CA freeways? My other vehicle is a 2000 Mustang GT...so the Festiva (or other beater) is to lessen the effect of 40,000 miles per year driving I do. (110 mile round trip daily commute) I'm 6'0", 195...so pedals really aren't my style. With the oldest of my 4 sons being 26 and my youngest 17, you might figure out I'm no kid.
I had my friendly CA CHP (brother) clock me at 131 mph in my R/T Neon before I traded it for the truck, and my Mustang will do about 145 mph, so as far as speed is concerned...well, who's got the most recent experience? Please don't BS me about your WS-6, 'vette, or Viper that you drive daily, and how you hate Fords....and Dodges.
Back to topic:
Who's best at What in stock form: (pure opinion)
Big 3:
GM: Best value for heavy towing, heavy hauling. Comfort is improved, as is quality. Either you hate or love the new sheetmetal. Full QuadCab coming....
Ford: Coming up, but trailing GM in engine technology. Solid and reliable, if a little dull. A hair less than GM in towing and hauling.
Dodge: New engines coming, could be good. Quality issues remain. Can tow with GM, but rear end and tranny problems are a worry.
Mid-sized 4:
Tundra: Needs suspension/engine/cab options to be a true full-size. Swift, sure handling truck. A little pricey. Potential to grow.
Dakota: Sheetmetal getting outdated. Fastest, best-handling of all production trucks, save the limited edition Lightning. Some hit and miss quality issues. New 4.7l/multi-speed tranny performs well, but jury's out on lasting quality/reliability.
Ranger: Needs a V8 option to challenge S-10, Tundra, and Dakota. Smallest of the mid-sized. New 4.0 205HP V6 will help-Reg Cab with a 5-speed/3:55 rear might crack 8 seconds 0-60. Reliable, popular truck. SporTrak? Needs some ooomph and a real bed. Is it a Ranger, an Explorer, or what? One thing, it's expensive AND slow.
Nissan: 3.3l a dog. CrewCab nice, but no more rear room than the GM full-size extended cab. CC bed kinda small, stereo sucks, 18 mpg horrible considering displacement. New motor(s)coming...
Tacoma: Nice in off-road form. Expensive, and a little cramped and slow. Stylin' with monster tires. Good mpg.
(Bracing myself for responses by adjusting pedal blocks, counseling wife on size inadequacies, and scheduling psychiatric appointment for this week....)
-quark
2nd) Ford trailing GM in engine technology????? How does a 5.4L OHC motor with more torque trail a 5.3 pushrod motor? I really respect the LS1 based GM motors but Ford is in no way "trailing GM in engine technology" Do you include your OHC 4.7 as being behind in technology?
3rd opinion) G.M. for heavy hauling!!!!LOL!!!!! There is no comparo to the 3/4 ton and 1 ton Ford and Dodge unless you want the lame duck C/K which is just about done or wait for the new 8.1 or Isuzu diesel so that comment really showed your lack of CURRENT truck trends.
I know you weren't addressing me about speed but I have a 100 mph tunnel boat and a '97 Cobra for that rush. Also have a 600cc dirt bike for the desert blast. Just not the same thing towing your boat or other heavy load at 100 mph so that's not what my truck's for.
I guess all I'm asking as with the original Lightning comments just check some facts before engaging keyboard. Thanx
I wouldn't say that Ford engine technology is behind GM's either. I think it is the other way around. If you want to talk about over-rating engines and marketing ability, then Chevy wins. There are even some Chevy guys, on this board, who will admit that the new 5.3's are probably a little over-rated, especially in light of numerous independent dyno reports that showed they don't put out near what they should. I'll admit, I'm a little biased towards Ford, but not necessarily against Chevy. I just think that right now Ford still has the best "Truck-like" trucks.
If we disagree on the facts that is one thing, if we disagree on it for personal reasons , well then like you said " to each his own "
By the way, why would you want a festiva????
LOL
The Milk Man
Ryan
Dean
5.3 vs 5.4 Ford designed for low end horsepower. GM designed for a wide power band. Almost from idle to redline. Ford designed for great pulling torque. so going down the highway Ford holds speed better than GM. But the GM has the power on tap when passing or pulling that long hill, where other engines run out of breath.
then there's the 6.0. no one has answer for that. Power close to that of a big block, much better mileage, while being a midsize. I think that shows some impressive engine tech. v10 is up there with 7.4 and 8.1.
GM's 4.8 is comparable to Tundra's 4.7 and DC's 4.7. Ford's 4.6 doesn't really match up to those at all. i think this class of engine, Toyota has the most power title.
So i give Ford and GM the shared title in engine technology. Toyota shows the ability with the 4.7, but thats all they offer. DC will step to the plate in 2 years, and we're waiting.
1) the old SuperCab F250 was based on the F-150 chassis, but had much heavier axles, suspension, and frame. Nuff said. If he traded a '99 Lightning, did he get a new 1998 SuperCab? Wasn't that before the 5.4l was upgraded?
2) OHC motors are great; but you'll find lots of argument for/against old/new motors. Anyway, I was referring to GM's new line of motors, 4.8, 5.3, 6.0, 8.0, and so on. Ford's "incrementalist" approach to adding a few HP to the same motor every couple years doesn't win me over, and I've been a Ford guy for a long time. Why didn't the 5.4L come with 260/300 HP originally? Why did the 4.6l motor evolve from 210HP, to 220HP, to 240HP, and (in the 'stang) 260HP? Right now, with intake and head changes, the 4.6l can put out 360-380 HP, and 350 lbs of torque. Why wait? The 5.4l should've initially put out 300 HP, not 240 HP. What's it capable of now?
3) This was my opinion, based on cost/vs performance. I think you'd have to compare each to each, i.e., F150 to GM's 1500, F250 to the 2500, etc. I don't expect to be taken as an authority, nor do I have to be right all the time.
I'm not an "expert" truck guy; just here to learn from y'all and share views.
MrMilk- Owned a Festiva way back when. Bought it so I wouldn't have to drive my 1989 5.0 notchback daily. (Like that happened...) Anyway, it was a surprising reliable, economical car. Looking now for a beater to commute 40,000 a year in, and save new 2000 Quad and 2000 Mustang GT from rackin' up the miles. More likely, I'll pick up a 1995 Neon 5-speed, replace the head gasket, throw some tires on it, and blast to and from work in it.
I don't think Ford is 'just pushing buttons'. They are developing the engines as they determine are the best for longevity and performance, which is why you don't get the 300 hp version the first year.
Same way with GM. the 5.3 first year was 315 ft lbs and 275 hp. the very next year, they discovered a different cam profile, that upped the torque to 325, upped horsepower to 285, and increased the low end torque level, and improved mileage by a hair.
GM 5.3 first yr was 270 jumped 15hp
4.8 was 255 and is now 270
Sorry to be so critical but i thought i would add in the 4.8 too. Your right though they do make developments they just dont do one small tiny thing to up the hp. Time goes into the change.
Ryan
In post #97 you said, "Why trade it for a LAST GENERATION Ford super cab(assuming you don't mean Super Duty......can't be since you paid 26k)
Quark, all the info is right here at your finger tips!!!! In '99 you could get an F-250 based on the NEW F-150 with a 260 horse 5.4 OR the F-250 Super Duty. You keep "debating" with non valid facts. 'nuff said.
Your point on Ford being incrementalist in their use of horsepower I will agree on and it pisses me off too. Especially since I'm a Mustang fan and it really affects me against GM F bodies. I will say that a major manufacturer will not blow their wad right away unless they need to play catch up where it counts; in sales. Until the F series or for that matter the Mustang is challenged for sales leadership I think we'll always see the little steps so as to make people want to upgrade every couple years.
Cdean, I see where we differ on terminology. You say technology and I say it's tuning. I've always considered the basic layout the technology, ie; OHC, fuel injection etc. The different ways to tune intakes, fuel curves, compression, exhaust etc. I've always thought was tuning. That's why I've always said Ford had the more current technology with their OHC motor. I do see where you're coming from. I still say the OHC is more modern and is a more "tunable" design and in the very near future it will be standard in most makes. I saw in a Baja race report that the top Chevy team is using the GM inline 6 and it's a DOHC 4 valve motor!!!!
If toyota owners like their (over priced, under powered & cramped) tundras....good for them! The real test is the wallet....putting down your own money for the truck that you want. It's pretty clear that a lot of people would rather lease or buy a real "Full Sized" truck.
Although I can see reason to 'hold back', to create future sales, but the 'tuning' they did in subsequent years was a result of technological advancement.
Basically, I'm saying they simply could NOT get 260 hp out of the 5.4 until this year.
rdve80 - regarding the J.D. Powers bias, why would buyers of one brand expect more initial quality than buyers of a different brand?
You said "If Tundra buyers put a higher importance on quality/reliability than say Dodge buyers, then they will also tend to give higher ratings on the survey."
That's not true. The survey ranks complaints, not positive findings. If Tundra buyers put a higher importance on quality, then they will be more likely to give a POOR rating if something goes wrong. If different buyers really do have different expectations, then Tundra is at a DISadvantage in JD Powers under the scenario you describe. Think of it this way, if both trucks have a poorly installed fog light switch the tundra owner will really get upset and remember when he pushed the switch thru the dash, whereas the Dodge owner might shrug his shoulders (if for some strange reason quality is less important) when the button falls inside the dash.
My point is J.D. Powers has a POTENTIAL bias, but not a very likely bias to account for the Tundra being a false positive initial quality award winner.