Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Half-ton Pickups - The full field

12467

Comments

  • anythingbuttoyanythingbuttoy Member Posts: 102
    Tundra outsold Sierra for ONE MONTH..July. How about the other months and YTD? Oh, and FYI, the Sierra and Silvy are the same truck (aka GMT900's). So, did Tundra's outsell Red Silvy's? Same difference.

    Direct comparison? Did you not read the details of this comparison? 5.3 with 3.73's is "direct comparison" to 5.7 with 4.30's? Um, Ok, whatever you say. If they wanted to be fair, why didn't they choose to compare the 6.0 with 4.10's. that would be closer to a direct comparison. Right?
  • drfilldrfill Member Posts: 2,484
    http://www.thetorquereport.com/2007/08/breaking_news_toyotas_tundra_i.html

    Explain this away.

    DrFill
  • motownusamotownusa Member Posts: 836
    Your overpowered lawnmower couldn't keep with a Titan. I am sure you are in love with your DODGE but seriously you are making yourself a laughing stock with your outlandish comments.
  • obyoneobyone Member Posts: 7,841
    Some Statistician? Right. More like a mod over at pickuptruck.com. Cmon fill you can do better than that.
  • anythingbuttoyanythingbuttoy Member Posts: 102
    Here are the August sales and YTD sales:

    Ford F-Series
    481,146 -11.9% YTD
    August 2007: 69,220
    August 2006: 76,804

    Chevrolet Silverado
    425,379 -2.2% YTD
    August 2007: 67,486
    August 2006: 51,185

    Dodge Ram
    246,878 -1.0% YTD
    August 2007: 32,309
    August 2006: 34,177

    GMC Sierra
    138,759 -2.4% YTD
    August 2007: 23,574
    August 2006: 17,564

    Toyota Tundra
    124,909 +57.5% YTD
    August 2007: 18,919
    August 2006: 11,173

    Consider it "explained away"...
  • drfilldrfill Member Posts: 2,484
    Someone didn't read the link.

    DrFill
  • anythingbuttoyanythingbuttoy Member Posts: 102
    Sure I did, what's your point? That GMC's sales include the complete line? Big deal, since when is offering a FULL line of real trucks a bad thing? OK, so add up the 1/2 ton Tundra sales to all of the HD Tundra sales and then compare...oh wait, nevermind.

    Sorry dude, but comparing the measly 150-200K Tundra's to the Big 3's sales numbers is a lost cause. The big 3 sell more trucks in one month than Toyota sells Tundra's in an entire year. Face it, until Toyota offers more than 1 half ton with a choice of 3 engines, it is not even in the same game as the big 3.
  • drfilldrfill Member Posts: 2,484
    Sure I did, what's your point? That GMC's sales include the complete line?

    No.

    It had nothing to do with the HD's, those were factored out. The problem is adding in the previous 2006 1/2 ton version sales, which at this point seems like the preferred version. The Sierra's numbers are inflated. :surprise:

    The new Tundra is outselling the new Sierra.

    And the Sierra was out for months before the Tundra got here. Sierra was fully ramped-up, and should've steamrolled the fledgling Tundra! Where's the word-of-mouth? Where's the momentum?

    Where's the love? :confuse:

    It's at your local Toyota store! :blush:

    DrFill
  • anythingbuttoyanythingbuttoy Member Posts: 102
    You have no numbers to back that up, so it is purely speculation on your part. Oh, and let's say it is (which it isn't), who cares!!!??? The Sierra's and Silvy's are the SAME TRUCK...hence the name "GMT900". To split off the sales number is just a spin to make the Tundra's look better. Ford has been doing it for years too. The bottom line is, aside from cosmetic sheet metal and trim variances, they are identical and share all of the same components, are assembled on the same line using the same equipment. You could literally take a Silvy apart and a Sierra apart, mix up the parts randomly, and reassemble them. So, again, I ask you, does the Tundra also outsell red Silvy's too?

    What truck do you think a Sierra buyer would have bought if the Sierra was not available? Which truck do you think a Silvy buyer would have bought if a Silvy was not available? I rest my case.

    Let's talk sales numbers when Toyota sells as many 1/2 tons as GM/F/D and at least has more than one 1/2 ton truck in their line-up. Bringing a Tundra into the American truck segment is like a little league baseball player bringing his ball and glove to a MLB game and asking if he can play too. :P
  • anythingbuttoyanythingbuttoy Member Posts: 102
    Do you know the meaning of the word "estimated"? Maybe you need to re-read the article YOU posted. Oh, and I have heard that Toyota counts sales based on production, not actual sales to end user. The big 3 don't count a sale until it's actually sold to a customer, not a dealer. So, now figure out how many Tundra's are sitting on the lots and subtract that from their sales total, then compare again.
  • 12ozcurls12ozcurls Member Posts: 65
    yeah people are gettin snowed. you always hear about the tests and the awards but u never hear about the problems..or the criminal investigations... wonder why that is? Guess nobody is perfect eh?

    http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/01/toyota_sludge_settlement.html

    http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/10/toyota_quality.html

    http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/07/toyota_recalls_reax.html

    http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/07/toyota_recall_probe.html

    http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/07/toyota_recalls.html
  • anythingbuttoyanythingbuttoy Member Posts: 102
    I love this quote by Toyota's President:

    "We view GM as a great entity, from which we have a lot to learn," Watanabe said, adding Toyota wanted to maintain its 22-year-old, California-based car assembly plant which it operates with GM. "We want to keep this relationship going."
  • etothexdxetothexdx Member Posts: 5
    I have a 4.0 v6 2006 SR5 Tundra. Each time I start the truck it takes the oil pressure guage almost 6 seconds before it will register. In other words, after I start the engine, the guage reads zero pressure for about 6 seconds then it will shoot up to about midway. Has anyone else had this experience?
  • etothexdxetothexdx Member Posts: 5
    I have a 4.0 v6 2006 SR5 Tundra. Each time I start the truck it takes the oil pressure guage almost 6 seconds before it will register. In other words, after I start the engine, the guage reads zero pressure for about 6 seconds then it will shoot up to about midway. Has anyone else had this experience?
  • etothexdxetothexdx Member Posts: 5
    Perhaps one should do some research on the benefits of box-steel frames. Dodge has been doing this for some time and now the new Tundra has it as well. In short, it reduces flex thereby giving a more rigid structure. Do you guys remember the old unibody (frameless) cars like the AMC Rambler? That was one sweet ride.
  • obyoneobyone Member Posts: 7,841
    Sir are you inferring that the current new '07+ Tundras have fully boxed steel frames? I beg to differ.
  • anythingbuttoyanythingbuttoy Member Posts: 102
    Perhaps one should do some research on the benefits of box-steel frames. Dodge has been doing this for some time and now the new Tundra has it as well. In short, it reduces flex thereby giving a more rigid structure. Do you guys remember the old unibody (frameless) cars like the AMC Rambler? That was one sweet ride.

    Perhaps you should practice what you preach, the new Tundra's do NOT have a fully boxed frame, they have the "TripleTech" (haha) frame. Boxed up front, and c-channel the rest of the way back (cab area is reinforced C). They also do not use hydroforming in their mfg process. Oh, and they chose to rivet the non-boxed crossmembers in. Nice!!!
  • obyoneobyone Member Posts: 7,841
    the bolts they use......
  • etothexdxetothexdx Member Posts: 5
    Thanks for the clarification. It is not fully boxed.
  • drfilldrfill Member Posts: 2,484
    The bolts are smaller, but they use twice as many bolts as Ford does for their tow assembly.

    DrFill
  • anythingbuttoyanythingbuttoy Member Posts: 102
    That's because it mates along the frame rails for about 3 feet on each side. Why? Because the frame rails are so much weaker and the hitch needs more area to mount to prevent the frame rails from bending. C'mon DrFill, you already made a fool of yourself defending the guage issue, are you sure you want to make a bigger fool of yourself defending the TripleTech frame design?
  • drfilldrfill Member Posts: 2,484
    After the last 3 days, I could never keep up with you. :surprise:

    DrFill
  • KCRamKCRam Member Posts: 3,516
    You've probably noticed I have renamed this discussion from Tundra vs Ram since comparisons have been spreading to all the half-tons. So all 6 full-size brands are now represented and fair game. I'll be mergin some other discussions in here as well, so don't panic if posts seem a little out of whack.

    kcram - Pickups Host
  • gotoyotagotoyota Member Posts: 280
    "If CR is not biased, then explain to me why they did the towing comparison between the Silvy and the Tundra the way they did. They equipped the Tundra with the top engine/drivetrain config (5.7, 6 spd, 4.30 rear end) and compared it to a Silvy with the 5.3 liter and a 3.73 rear end. Yeah, that is "Apples to Apples" isn't it? Face it, the ONLY people who do not agree that CR is asian biased is the asian fans.

    CR is a joke, they should stick to rating Washers and Dryers and Toasters and leave the Automobiles to people who know something about them. They do NOT just report on what people say, they conduct their own tests and have no clue what they are doing.

    The rest of your post just illustrates how "brainwashed" you are about Toyota supremity. Talk about "laughable"!!! Go drink some more of that Kool-Aid."

    Hmmm... Mr. buttoy, I guess you are saying that the whole world is wrong and you are the authority? Okay, well before you get too confident here, just remember that Toyota is the most studied and emulated car company in the world. If a fully boxed frame is the most important thing in the world to you, it doesn't matter to me. Go ahead and buy a Silvy and have a great life if that's what makes you happy. My bad experience with GM and Ford, and the experience of others in my family with their American cars, has led me to my disposition and the respect I have for Toyota. I have owned and currently own other brands as well - hardly brainwashed as you would like to think. Of the three cars I currently own, only one is a Toyota, so don't pat yourself so hard on the back. I think there are a lot of good brands out there and obviously don't just buy Toyota's because they are Toyota's, but I do think Toyota deserves its reputation as the benchmark for quality. Enjoy the Cool Aid, and by the way, it's "supremecy," not "supremity." That isn't even a word.
  • anythingbuttoyanythingbuttoy Member Posts: 102
    OK, if you have had bad experiences with GM and Ford, or whoever, I have no problem with you changing your loyalty. I would do the same. But do not assume just because you had these experiences, that everyone else has too. Personally, I have never had a bad experience with any domestics in my entire lifetime. And I have been driving for 26 years. My loyalty is not blind or inherited or anything of the sort. It is solely based on my personal experience, which has been nearly perfect. What urks me more than anything is when someone has a bad experience with a car(s) and right away assumes the entire corporation makes junk. I will also admit that Toyota has helped force the domestics to improve their quality due to competitiveness, especially in the late 70's through the early 90's. Mostly in the car market though, because they really have never offered a full sized truck until now and the domestics have always made great trucks (can't say the same about the cars though). But today I think a person has an equal chance of getting a good car and/or a lemon as I believe the quality has pretty much leveled off. Basically, you can get a cherry or a lemon no matter what brand you buy and your chances of getting a lemon are not any less buying a Toyota. Automotive technology has leveled off in today's mfg industry, plain and simple. They all use the same methodologies and technologies and engineers bounce around from corp to corp. I am NOT saying that all companies make the same overall quality vehicles however, some cut corners where they should not on such things as build quality. That is where I think the Tundra lacks, Toyota placed their focus on the engine/tranny and safety features, but cut corners just about everywhere else because they knew most people buying half-tons put HP and 0-60 times at the forefront and will overlook such things as fully boxed frames and quality fit-n-finish. The interior in the Tundra is a joke IMO, as is the overall build quality. Just look at the panel gaps for an example of shoddy fit-n-finish as compared to the GMT900's. But I understand that Toyota had to cut some corners since this is a brand new undertaking, in a brand new plant, with brand new everything, including people. As it is, they are already higher priced than the competition and have less features and lack alot of technology the domestics are incorporating i.e Hydroformed fully boxed frames.
  • gotoyotagotoyota Member Posts: 280
    It's good to hear sound reasoning prevailing again. I agree that the new GMT900's are put together nicely... as for the Tundra, I only casually looked at one a while back when I was buying the wife's new Sienna Limited, and didn't notice anything shoddy about the way it was put together, just the hard plastic where the Silvy has soft stuff. I prefer the soft, it feels more upscale. But as I said, I am gun shy, after nothing but bad with my previous GM's.... It just seems like flushing my hard earned money down the drain, and it will take a little while for GM to prove itself to me. Just for the record, I have never owned one of the domestic trucks... although I have spent a fair amount of time driving them, having previously worked for a company whose business was building high performance electronics for Duramax, Cummins and Powerstroke. I have said before, I loved every minute behind the wheel in those trucks, their power potential is almost limitless... but there again is the difference between myself and someone who buys a truck for work - for me, the utility is important, but probably second to the fun-to-drive quotient. I'd rather just drive a car, but find that I need a truck often enough that I am considering buying one. I wanted to buy a Duramax at one point because I really love the engine, but every one of them that we had had something falling apart on it. I don't want another bad car. In just the last year, I've known three different poeple who's late model GM trucks have blown trannys. So when I hear about that and think of my own bad luck with them, yeah, I get a pretty bad allergic reaction to the thought of spending any more money on one. The real clincher is my wifes grandfather spent his entire working career at GM. That's all they have ever owned. Needless to say, we avoid car discussions at family parties. I think you make some good points, and I would at least test drive a Silvy before buying anything, just for comparison, but I have to say, this is the first time in my 19 years of driving that I have ever heard a GM guy criticize the fit/finish of ANY other car make. That says something about how far GM has come along, I suppose, but I find it hard to believe the Tundra's fit and finish is bad. The hard plastic may not be as rich as is should be, but in my recollection, nothing fit poorly on the one I looked at. If it really does have issues with fit/finish, then I would hope and expect that it's a bug associated with ramping up on a new model.
  • drfilldrfill Member Posts: 2,484
    The '06 Silverado had the worst interior ever put into a vehicle, unless you count the '98 C/Ks.

    The new Silvys interiors are posh compared to the Tundra, but, surprise, surprise, nobody cares, as sales fall for the new Silvy, while they soar for the more utilitarian Tundra.

    The last Tundra was very quiet and car-like, and no stampedes were seen at Toyota lots. Nobody cares.

    381HP, with 0% available, might be good for people. You can do a lot worse. :blush:

    DrFill
  • anythingbuttoyanythingbuttoy Member Posts: 102
    Fill, fill, fill...I have said this before and I'll say it again, try to stay with me here, I'll type VERY slowly for you, ok?

    Yes, the Silvy sales are down compared to last year, do you know/understand why? Let me explain..again. With high gas prices and a very poor/down housing and construction market, builders are not buying new trucks, they are making due with what they have. This affects the domestics because MOST real work trucks are from the Big 3. This does not affect Toyota because construction workers and other "real" truck buyers do not buy Tundra's. Sorry, but it's a fact.
    Now, as to why the Tundra's sales (as a percentage) are up...Because it's replacing a mid-sized wannabe that everyone agreed was less than capable as a full sized truck. Toyota fans finally have a full sized truck to buy. Of course they are going to pounce. Let's see if this can be sustained. I am betting it won't. Once the hype wears off and the people waiting for this new Tundra have theirs, sales will level off and will hover around 200K. Still a tiny little league player in a big league game.
    So, you continue to beleive that the reason the 1st gen Tundra was a flop was due to being "car-like" and "quiet" and not due to capability. Sure, most people put capability first, but they DO care about about build quality and fit-n-finish too. I can only imagine what you would be saying if the Silvy's interior was made of cheap painted plastic with poor ergonomics and the Tundra had the nicer interior. I am betting you would be singing a different tune, right? The bottom line is the GMT900's are just as capable as the Tundra, have better build quality/fit-n-finish, nicer interior, more features, better ride, more options/configs, get better gas mileage and all for a lower price.

    Nobody cares? LOL, nice try!!! I do, and from reading all of the forums, so do most people. "Utilitarian" Tundra...again, LOL, is that why I have yet to see one with a company badge/sign on it or on ANY construction sites? Face it, 95% of Tundra's are driveway queens that make Home Depot runs and streetlight race back home with fertilizer and plants in the bed. But in a sense you are correct, Toyota fans who buy this truck for it's 0-60 times can overlook it's inferiorities.
    Oh, what was wrong with the GMT800's interiors? And isn't a bit hypocritical to put down the 06 Silvy interior and then turn around and say "nobody cares"? Or is it that nobody cares about the crappy Tundra interior only?
  • drfilldrfill Member Posts: 2,484
    I think way too quickly for that.

    But you need this explained, again.

    GM has MILLIONS of truck owners. THE biggest customer base ever for a redesigned truck! Sell them a new truck! :mad:

    The Tundra has the same market disadvanatges the Silvy does, probably more, as they've missed the market twice already.

    With the millions thrown into the design of this truck, the market, and the need to keep Toyota in it's place, the GENERAL has FAILED! :sick:

    You can spin it eight different ways, make any excuse you want. And you will! :blush:

    There are holes in GM's marketing, design, and power. Toyota is driving a Tundra through those holes. :)

    When Toyota is the only full-size truck gaining share, that says a lot about the job the domestics have done protecting their turf, and making better trucks.

    Losing 2-3% a year, on a brand-new truck is UNACCEPTABLE!! The time for EXCUSES has passed. They missed something, and they know it.

    You may not know it yet, but...... :surprise:

    DrFill
  • anythingbuttoyanythingbuttoy Member Posts: 102
    Maybe I need it explained again..I ain't buyin that load of.....

    "Sell them a new truck"? Why? They already have a great one. :P

    Toyota has the same market disadvantages huh? Go to your local construction sites and tell me the ratio of Tundra's to Domestics, then tell me the Tundra suffers equally to a down construction market. C'mon Fill, a little common sense please.

    Toyota is still and always will be "in their place". That "place" is 5th. With a fraction of total sales as compared to the Big 3 and still no HD's or Diesels. Just ONE truck with 3 engine choices.
  • drfilldrfill Member Posts: 2,484
    "Sell them a new truck"? Why? They already have a great one.

    Think there's a problem, when the truck they have is better than the truck you just made? :surprise:

    DrFill
  • 12ozcurls12ozcurls Member Posts: 65
    so did i hear someone say the Tundra frame is still riveted together? Isn't that like almost 20 year old technology? Isn't that what the '88-'98 Chevy/GMC had? Geeze, even the '99-'06 GMT800's had welded through cross members in their frame even though it wasn't fully boxed. Come to think of it, Toyota uses the same 350 size engine Chevy used to use, with a couple of extra valves. So let me get this straight, basically all they did was copy an american pickup, added a couple of extra valves, trans cogs, and 4.30 gears? Well that doesnt seem inovative at all. I wonder what all the hype is about.
  • fueledupfueledup Member Posts: 64
    lets face it there isn't a truck on this planet that properly fills the need. the tundra and titan are advanced in techno. categories. but as far as a tough truck there both a joke. ford and chevy pretend to make advances but continue to take a step backwards. the dodge megacab in size is the only truck that truly satisfies. mileage sucks in all of the above. Ford like we really need a diesel with more horsepower. just design a diesel that gets 15mpg in stop and go traffic and at least 20mpg on the hwy when going 85mph. enough of those fake pie in the sky great milage post by all of you who (can't handle the truth pickup owners that) wont face reality. the big three and the little two has us by the b's. we try to argue which one truck really fills the need but in truth they all come up short on purpose so we continue our futile search for the holy grail with our short time on this planet.
  • drfilldrfill Member Posts: 2,484
    What all the hype is about is Toyota is making trucks, full-size trucks, that make people buy. In a down market! :surprise:

    Read a paper, or something. :confuse:

    The frame is alot like a 2005 Ford HD. Not a bad truck to emulate. Unless you're calling that truck a joke?

    DrFill
  • drfilldrfill Member Posts: 2,484
    .....the tundra and titan are advanced in techno. categories. but as far as a tough truck there both a joke.

    I can think of about a dozen Domestic execs who aren't laughing anymore. :P

    DrFill
  • anythingbuttoyanythingbuttoy Member Posts: 102
    "The frame is alot like a 2005 Ford HD."

    ROFLMFAO!!!! DrFill, you should be a comedian!! That was a good one!!!

    Hey Doc, I think you are seeing an extra zero in the Tundra's sales numbers. They are on pace to sell 200,000...not 2,000,000. From listening to you, one would think they sell 2 million/yr. 200K Doc, that's about 1/5 (or 20%) of the GMT900 sales.
  • drfilldrfill Member Posts: 2,484
    Look it up. Please! ;)

    Do something besides provide dim rhetoric. At least try to keep up.

    DrFill
  • anythingbuttoyanythingbuttoy Member Posts: 102
    Yes, you did. I don't need to look it up to know that any HD frame, which is capable of twice the payload of the Tundra has a much beefier frame. Taller profile, heavier wall, etc, etc. Go ahead, prove me wrong, I challenge you.

    Yeah, they are similar alright, they are both made from steel and formed into a C...LOL You crack me up dude.

    So, Mr Toyota, tell me why the Tundra has such wimpy payload numbers. Suspension? Frame? Or is Toyota Sandbagging? LOL
  • gotoyotagotoyota Member Posts: 280
    GM, Ford and Chrysler execs all said the same things you are saying back in the 60's, 70's and 80's, and even in the 90's. Toyota was the least of their worries back then. It doesn't matter if Hyundai starts making half tons with V6 engines - to dismiss as a non-threat is utter foolishness and is exactly the kind of thinking that got Detroit into the trouble it's in now. Don't kid yourself into thinking no-one at the big three is staying up at night evaluating and re-thinking their strategy against the girly Tundra. They have learned their lessons from losing market share to cars like the Camry and Accord, and know that in order to stay viable they can't repeat the same foolishness of the past. Just because you have such strong opinions about the superiority of the GMT900 over the Tundra, that doesn't make you right about everything you are saying. No reputable source has said anything about the Tudra being less capable than any other half ton, and if fact, it has proven to be a formidable competitor - yet a few of you guys in this forum won't even acknowledge it as a legitimate player. Even the GMT900's purportedly better fuel economy is suspect - real world testing shows their mileage to be much less than the mfr claims. And if I were you, I wouldn't bet the farm against a beefier, Diesel Tundra either, because Toyota will build it if the demand is there. Toyota is a quiet company - they don't make things public until they are ready and they do not want to appear as though they are directly competing with the Big Three on their holy ground. By the way, who says people don't buy the Tundra for work? Where are you getting your info? As for me, I will gain confidence in GM's ability to build a car or truck the right way when I start seeing at least 99% of their newer (less than 5 yrs old) cars and trucks on the road with all the lights working, windows not being held up with duct tape, and interiors that aren't warped from the sun. Sure the GMT900's interior looks nice now, but any objective and rational person has to wonder how it's going to hold up over time, because all of their interiors in the past have been terrible. The Tundra's interior looks a bit stark in comparison, but it's a safe bet that it's solidly built, and will hold up well over time because that's the way Toyota's have been for decades. Just because GM finally puts a nice interior in the GMT900 after years of cheap, misaligned plasticky interiors, it doesn't convince me overnight that they have completely changed their ways. Their MO in the past has always been to make it look good enough to move off the lot - who cares after that... Why should I think they haven't just found more clever packaging that will still peel away and warp and smell bad after a few summers?
  • gotoyotagotoyota Member Posts: 280
    Funny, I've been looking for expert reviews to corroborate the complaints voiced so often by a few cowboys in this here forum, and all I can find is good stuff. How can this be?
    http://www.automotive.com/2007/43/toyota/tundra/reviews/driving-impressions/inde- x.html

    http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2007/02/carscom_faceoff.html

    http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2007/08/06/057372.html

    http://www.trucktrend.com/roadtests/suv/163_0704_fullsize_truck_comparison

    Before the GM guys start pointing out that the Silvy was handicapped by the 5.3L engine in a couple of the tests, it still has to make due with 2 fewer gears and still doesn't do as well in real world fuel economy. The 6.0 certainly wouldn't be more economical than the 5.3L. And strangely, no one is complaining about the C-channel rear frame on the Tundra. Looks to me like both are pretty dang good trucks, which is good news for everyone. Even the "biased" folks at CR rated the Silvy a top pick, second to the Tundra, of course :P But that won't matter in this crowd, I just think it's fun to point it out.
  • obyoneobyone Member Posts: 7,841
    I wouldn't consider the folks at CR to be biased. I think uninformed would be a better description. I will give the Tundra this....I'd buy it in a heartbeat any day of the week over a Ridgeline..... :P
  • anythingbuttoyanythingbuttoy Member Posts: 102
    "Sure the GMT900's interior looks nice now, but any objective and rational person has to wonder how it's going to hold up over time, because all of their interiors in the past have been terrible. The Tundra's interior looks a bit stark in comparison, but it's a safe bet that it's solidly built, and will hold up well over time because that's the way Toyota's have been for decades. Just because GM finally puts a nice interior in the GMT900 after years of cheap, misaligned plasticky interiors, it doesn't convince me overnight that they have completely changed their ways."

    Um, you may want to check out the several threads over at TS about the complaints about the Tundra's painted interior plastic rubbing off from normal wiping and even from a driver's knee after one long trip. I owned my last GM truck for 8 years and the dash and interior looked as good as it did on day 1. My bet would be on the GMT900's, their colors are dyed right into the plastic/vinyl.

    http://www.tundrasolutions.com/forums/tundra/110309-has-this-happened-to-your-da- - - - - sh/

    http://www.tundrasolutions.com/forums/tundra/110530-dash-problems-see-this/

    http://www.tundrasolutions.com/forums/tundra/110056-dash-rattle/

    http://www.tundrasolutions.com/forums/tundra/107567-grey-int-paint-comes-off-eas- - ily/

    Here is an excerpt from a post by a new Tundra buyer over at TS:

    "However i did find some irritating things, the radio didn't pickup any stations, the antenna was tight, but still only got a few stations and it sounded like crap. The truck didn't have remote start which sucks. Every piece of the truck just feels cheap. The dash vibrates over bumps, the doors bow out when you shut the door, also is very hard to shut, the tailgate sounds like an aluminum can, and all the interior compartments just were flimsy and cheaply made. The hitch reciever was also way too large for my hitch and it rattled like crazy. I know it's a very large truck, but the thing handles horridly. I can't believe i haven't read about this on the forum or any review, but while cornering at any speed the steering is horridly sloppy. Literally a quarter of a turn worth of slack in the steering while taking curves at any speed. As stated elsewhere the gauges while cool were horrible visibility wise while driving, "but was nice cause g/f couldn't see the speedo and gripe while driving" Another thing the exhaust sounds odd, more of a clatter/whine, than the rumble of my GM. Honestly i wish i could keep them both which i probably will, being as my dad is gonna keep his denali also"
  • 1offroader1offroader Member Posts: 208
    I'm not sure why the CR people can't get better mpg, but I got 18.2 on a 350 mile trip before the engine (6.0L) was even broken in. And that's at a constant 70 mph (cruise control on, a/c on about 30%, only 100 lbs. of gear in the back), not 65 mph as many tests are done. It was also before I installed a tonneau, which might help with mpg. The AFM really works, I could see it toggle on and off. I challenge any other full size p/u to do better, or even as well. I find the combination of power and mileage astonishing in the Silverado, though I'd still like a small v-8 diesel w/250 hp and an honest 25 mpg. I'd buy that in a heartbeat.

    Just this past weekend, I drove to the mtns. pulling a small trailer (approx. 3,000 lbs.), 60-65 mph. Lots of mtn. roads, steep grades. Only got 14.7 mpg overall, but still I can't complain. I noticed the AFM didn't go into the 4 cyl. mode as often, but it did when the hwy. was flat and there was no head wind.

    No complaints here. Oh, and also, a 6 sp. does NOT guarantee any better fuel economy than a 4 sp. trans. What matters is the final drive ratio, which can be lower, higher, or the same between a 4 sp. and 6 sp. trans depending on final drive trans. gearing and the rear diff. gearing.

    1offroader
  • drfilldrfill Member Posts: 2,484
    A Chevy going 60 MPH in 3rd, and a Tundra going 60MPH in 5th will get the same economy.

    I HOPE you're not tellin' me that.

    I HOPE..... :lemon:

    DrFill
  • 1offroader1offroader Member Posts: 208
    OK, fill, let's try this again. We understand you're just a salesman, and a Toyota salesman at that, but I'll make this simple enough for even you to understand. And I will use small-ish words whenever possible, OK? And, I will even try to stay out of the realm of mechanical engineering, just for you. Fair enuf?

    MPG is determined by final drive ratio, all else being equal. Final drive ratio is determined by the final gear ratio of the trans X the rear diff gear ratio.

    So, for example, IF the trucks have the same trans ratios and rear diff ratios, the remaining factors would be engine displacement, engine efficiency, body aerodynamics, vehicle weight, etc.

    Both the Tundra and Silverado have overdrive final trans ratios. I don't know what they are for either vehicle. My guess is you don't either, and you sell one of them. You may know the rear diff ratios offered in the Tundra because it's in the brochure, which as a salesman you're supposed to be familiar with. The rear diff on my Silverado is 3.73:1. That means that for every time the driveshaft turns 3.73 revolutions, the wheels turn once. (Ask a mechanic what the "driveshaft" is, since I promised you I wouldn't go into the icky mechanical engineering stuff).

    I posted what I have recently gotten in real mpg numbers (18.2 empty, 14.7 towing). I note with some curiosity that Tundra owners don't do much braggin' about their mpg, but I do, because it amazes me considering the power and weight of the vehicle, esp. compared to what trucks were getting just a few years ago. I owned a 1992 Toyota 4wd v-6 (3.0L) that could barely get 19 mpg on a good day with a tailwind. My 1985 4wd Toyota (2.4L 4 cyl.) would occasionally get 20 mpg, if it was feeling good on that day. Both of those trucks were downright feeble compared to my Silverado, and not half as capable.

    I have absolutely no idea what your post means about 3rd in the Chevy vs. 5th in the Tundra. The comparison means zip, because those are not the final gears that most people drive in. Most normal people (this may exclude you but I'm just being honest) do their hwy. driving in 4th (Chevy) and 6th (Tundra). So those are the only numbers that are directly comparable and have any meaning. Got it? Lesson over.

    1offroader
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    You are right offroader, the final ratios are what matters. It wouldn't matter if the chevy had a 2 speed transmission and the toyota had a 20 speed trans. If the final ratios are the same and all other factors equal, they would roughly get the same milage.

    On a side note at 67mph, I get 10.5mpg with my Armada towing 10,000 lbs with the A/C on.

    -mike
  • gotoyotagotoyota Member Posts: 280
    Good, good. We are making progress. I might be able to work with you, obyone ;) The Ridgeline IS a girl truck. BUT, sorry, can't buy that the CR guys are the uninformed ones ... and the guys here in the forum are the experts :blush: Ha! We are all just a bunch of folks with opinions - AND BIAS.
  • gotoyotagotoyota Member Posts: 280
    Nobody cares? LOL, nice try!!! I do, and from reading all of the forums, so do most people. "Utilitarian"

    Most people? To me, it sounds like a few very noisy people.

    Tundra...again, LOL, is that why I have yet to see one with a company badge/sign on it or on ANY construction sites?

    Ahem... I would say at least half of the Tundras I have seen over the last few days (since I've been watching) DO have a business name on the side. AND, one major builder who's HQ is right off the freeway on my way to work has been changing out their fleet of various Ford and Chevy HD's to white Tundra's. At first they had one... now they have 4. Go figure. Only a few Ford SD's remain to represent the BIG3 in their parking lot.

    Face it, 95% of Tundra's are driveway queens that make Home Depot runs and streetlight race back home with fertilizer and plants in the bed.

    And your point is... there's something wrong with that? :P

    But in a sense you are correct, Toyota fans who buy this truck for it's 0-60 times can overlook it's inferiorities.

    What inferiorities are you talking about? The C-channel frame? I don't think that argument is holding up based on what the real truck experts are saying. If it truly was inferior, nobody would even use the words Tundra and Benchmark in the same sentence, as they have.

    Oh, what was wrong with the GMT800's interiors?

    How about cheap plastic on the dash and door panels and way too many seams, none of which aligned (I'm surprised you even have to ask, as often as you praise the "fit-n-finish" of its successor) in a purposeful fashion, or how about the generic GM parts bin door pulls (painted chrome in the very pricey Escalade) or the generic GM parts bin pieces used for HVAC etc.? Dude, c'mon, it sucked compared to pretty much everything else... Although it did have probably the most comfortable ride of all its competitors - I'll give it that. But quality it wasn't.
  • gotoyotagotoyota Member Posts: 280
    No complaints here. Oh, and also, a 6 sp. does NOT guarantee any better fuel economy than a 4 sp. trans. What matters is the final drive ratio, which can be lower, higher, or the same between a 4 sp. and 6 sp. trans depending on final drive trans. gearing and the rear diff. gearing.

    Not true. More cogs helps to ensure that the engine stays at optimum efficiency more of the time, thereby reducing the need for more throttle input while waiting to achieve RPM nirvana. Other factors come into play as well, such as the availability of the power and the engine speed at which peak torque is achieved. If the torque peak is reached at a higher RPM in one vehicle versus another, the one in which peak torque is reached earlier will tend to get better fuel economy. The Tundra has a broader torque curve than Chevy's 6.0 and more gears, and I'll bet it has no trouble achieving at least 18 mpg on the highway. ;)
  • gotoyotagotoyota Member Posts: 280
    "However i did find some irritating things, the radio didn't pickup any stations, the antenna was tight, but still only got a few stations and it sounded like crap. The truck didn't have remote start which sucks. Every piece of the truck just feels cheap. The dash vibrates over bumps, the doors bow out when you shut the door, also is very hard to shut, the tailgate sounds like an aluminum can, and all the interior compartments just were flimsy and cheaply made. The hitch reciever was also way too large for my hitch and it rattled like crazy. I know it's a very large truck, but the thing handles horridly. I can't believe i haven't read about this on the forum or any review, but while cornering at any speed the steering is horridly sloppy. Literally a quarter of a turn worth of slack in the steering while taking curves at any speed. As stated elsewhere the gauges while cool were horrible visibility wise while driving, "but was nice cause g/f couldn't see the speedo and gripe while driving" Another thing the exhaust sounds odd, more of a clatter/whine, than the rumble of my GM. Honestly i wish i could keep them both which i probably will, being as my dad is gonna keep his denali also"

    You're buyin' this? You love it because it reinforces what you would like to think. The first thing I think when I read this is that it completely contradicts everything else I have read about the Tundra and everything I have personally known about Toyota's in general. In my readings I find that it has the sportiest handling of all trucks and has a high quality feel to all of its parts - even the hard plastic dash. No Toyota I have ever driven or looked at on a showroom floor has had anything even remotely tinny about it, but quite to the contrary, has been notably solid and really, almost over-engineered. Toyota is anything but dumb or short-sighted and they have spent a lot of $$ making sure the new Tundra is ready to play with Detroit. The guy is either a fake or just plain ignorant. Also with regard to the silver paint rubbing off, I'm curious to see this as my wifes new Sienna Limited has some silver trim on the dash at knee level, and it's a quality piece. It appears that the silver mixed in with the plastic, not painted on. but it is at least a very high quality piece, even if it turns out to be painted. I can say that it doesn't even have a single scratch on it today, in spite of my wife's big purse smacking into it every time she drives it, or my daughter throwing her metal framed backpack at it when riding to school. I would think if it can withstand this, it ought to be able to hold up at least as well to a knee covered in jeans. Again, I have not examined the Tundra up close... just find it curious to have so many contradictions to traditional Toyota quality popping up -only in the forums...
This discussion has been closed.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles