I have not driven a Tundra yet, but I will admit it looks like a well built machine with a very nice engine. Just want you boys to know I mean no disrespect
I know of a guy who used his Hypertech Power Programming to just raise the speed/ rev limiters and shift points(to see what the stock power peak of the 5.3 really is) and was still making great power at near 6000 rpm. Those who have posted dyno numbers here seem to show the engine running out of breath before getting to the stock shift point. I could be wrong, and again, I mean no disrespect. if the shift points on the 4.7 could be raised you may see similar results so it could just be a wash. only one way to know for sure! I also need to keep in mind that in any given 'equally equiped' model the Tundra has about a 600 to 700 pound weight advantage which is worth alot.
I remember test driving two Ford F-150's before I bought my Tundra; I drove one with the 4.6l engine and one with the 5.4l engine. I don't know if it was the gearing but the 5.4l didn't feel any faster than the 4.6l engine. Acura-Bossman - Toyota Camry's have been in rental fleets for years. I remember in the early 90s, when I was working for a car rental company, we had Camry's and Corolla's in our rental fleet. I wouldn't worry about that affecting resale value. You are correct though; the big 3 sell hundreds of thousands of their sedans as fleet vehicles-way way way more than Toyota does. My experience in car rental with the Toyotas was one of my main reasons for choosing the Toyota Tundra. The Toyota's were NEVER in the shop, can't say the same for the Fords, Chevys or Dogdes in our fleets.
BTW-I would NOT buy a vehicle that has been used as a rental. They tend to be driven hard and required maintenance can be spotty.
Owning both a 2000 Tundra V8 SR5 2wd and a Silverado Z71 reg cab with the 5.3L, I think I can weigh in with some OBJECTIVE points on the two trucks' power. The Tundra delivers the power very smoothly, without a lot of fuss. The Silverado may or may not nip it in a drag race, but it makes a lot more racket doing it, and the shifting of the tranny sometimes gets confused when applying that power in real world situations. (street starts, for example) But anything less than .3 seconds difference in a 0-60 sprint isn't discernable anyway. And, to paraphrase Jeff Foxworthy, "if you race your pickup truck, YOU MIGHT BE A REDNECK". My '98 BMW 540i sport does 0-60 in 5.9 seconds and has a skidpad number of about .85. The Tundra and Silverado hit 60mph in maybe 8 seconds and might rate .71 on the skidpad, plus they have about a tenth of the road feel or stability of the BMW. I'd feel silly arguing about the racing aspects of a pickup. Buy a car if you want to zip around out there. What I find much more important is how it FEELS when accelerating. Both do just fine, but I have to say the Tundra feels more sporty and connected to the road. The Silverado rides smoother, which is really saying something, since it's a 4x4, and the Tundra is already a nice quiet riding truck. I find the Tundra's braking more controlled and sure than the Silverado's, also. It also requires far less pedal and wheel input than the Silverado, which may buy you a split second advantage in a panic stop. I prefer the seating position in the Silverado, since I'm pretty big, but the Tundra isn't bad, just different. Overall, they're both great trucks. But as far as engines go, the nice 5300 V8 doesn't come close to the Tundra's 4.7L in terms of refinement and driving satisfaction for me. Buy whichever one suits your needs the best.
I have to agree with the posters who are disappointed in the recent Car and Driver (and Motor Trend) reviews of the pickups. The Tundra did seem to do better on most of the objective tests, other than in rear cab space and bed volume, which are obviously smaller. Some of their quotes were ridiculous. "Tundra needs more torque" ? Why? It sprints faster than any other unloaded, and more than holds its own loaded down. Why ask for more torque on this truck, when the bigger Ford is slower and they don't mention it as needing more torque? I subscribe to both of them, and over the years I've come to suspect that advertising dollars have a lot to do with how their comparisons turn out, despite their understandable protests to the contrary. Haivng owned each of the truck brands reviewed in the last several years, I notice how far off they are on some points, and I can't understand why, till I remember they're a business first and foremost. I suspect that when the Tundra kept winning comparisons early on, they got a few angry calls from the Big 3 honchos, with the resulting realization that they would eventually lose ad revenue if things didn't change. Just Picture Rodney Dangerfield shoving $20 in the golf referee's hand saying "keep it fair, keep it fair" and you have to understand that there's no way they would continually alienate the majority of their advertisers. I think they just try to mix it up so everybody wins now and then, and nobody pulls their ad campaigns. Read the comparos for information, but test drive them yourself to see how they really perform.
After looking closely at the C & D data something is very wrong with the Tundra final 1/4 mile speed and time. The tundra did 0-80 mph in 14.9 seconds which kicked all of the other trucks butt at that speed. Then the quarter mile time was clocked at 16.7 at 83 mph. C & D are you telling me the tundra could only go 3 mph faster in almost 2 seconds, what did they do put the brakes on before the quarter mile was up. I believe the final time was 15.7 and the 16.7 was a misprint. Anyone have any contacts at C & D to see if they can check their data again. Something very suspicious here.
And now I read that horse crap rating system on the last page where the actual testing I guess gets thrown out the window. The Dodge ties for first in only 4 catagories and the Tundra wins or ties for first in 9 catagories and the Dodge wins. This has to be the most irresponsible article I have ever looked at on a comparision of vehicles. I will not ever buy a C & D magazine again. Absolutely dumbfounded they would let that go to print.
I read the C&D article yesterday, added up all thier figures, looked at their results and wondered why they even waisted their time and the readers time posting all those numbers when their decision was to be completely different from the stats. If they would have left all the stats out and just said that they personally preferred the Dodge, I could have lived with that as some people like mold, pain and suffering. Just don't write an artical showing me that 1 + 1 = 2 then tell me that in their opinion it's really 3. Although I guess anyone dumb enough to buy a Dodge over a Toyota or Chevy probably has a lifetime subscription and probably buy's any trash these guys deliver.
didnt you guys know about C&D's "affinity" for dodge chrysler? Let me tell a brief story. One time I went with a friend to a ride and drive put on by C&D and Skip Barber Racing School. (same Skip Barber who owns some dodge chrysler dealerships) They were putting the toyota camry and honda accord up against a Dodge Stratos. The honda and toyota models were stripped down base models, while the stratos was optioned to the hilt. All the while when we drove the cars, the Skip Barber instructors would say things like, "Isnt the dodge much better handling than the honda?" Didnt you notice the cavitation in the power steering pump of the honda?"
This ride and drive was supposed to be unbiased, but was clearly tilted. By the way, the honda smoked the competition in every category during the drive. After that day, ive never taken the opionion of C&D seriously.
C & D hosed the SC430 also in the same magazine, on a much smaller scale than the truck comparision. The SC430 won about everything mechanically but "We didn't care for the styling of it" . I emailed them 3 days ago and have not had a response back yet, probably won't either.
Re: INTERESTING TUNDRA ARTICLE...
Linear Mode
