Toyota Tundra Forums banner

1 - 20 of 27 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Did anyone here see the April, 2002 Car and Driver article (page 74-88) featuring the 4X4 Tundra pitted against the 4X4's of the "Big-3"?? I found the very last page (88) perplexing...according to the numbers, the Tundra kicked-the-living-$hit outta all the other trucks...yet it came in 3rd place??? Here is what the disclaimer read below the numbers...

" The overall rating is not the total of those numbers. Rather, it is an independant judgement (on a 1-to-100 scale) that includes other factors--even personal preferences--not easily categorized."

Are they for real??? The Tundra is a superior truck in every way, AND THE NUMBERS SHOWED IT...but the Ram comes in first because its their "personal preference"??

I just canceled my subscription to C&D!!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,030 Posts
Yes, I agree with you!! The article clearly shows the Tundra is better (except for the small extended cab space), but yet the Chevy and Dodge finished ahead of us!?!?! Another inconsistancy I noticed was that the F-150 and Tundra both had the off-road packages, but they didn't bother getting a Z71 Chevy and the Dodge had the SPORT package because that is the only way you can get the 20" wheels (of course it will handle better). Then, C&D penalized the F-150 and Tundra because of their harsh ride?!?!? What the heck are they smoking over there?????

hockeyfreak
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,030 Posts
This is the paragraph that makes me proud and I quote:

"Toyota offers fewer options than the others, and only one V-8, a 4.7-liter twin-cammer. It's a silky performer with enough punch to match or outrun the others of our group in EVERY acceleration test, INCLUDING the 1000-pound load. In braking, too, the Tundra outperformed...."

Looks like the clear winner to me!

hf
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
230 Posts
I've said it a miillion times......comparisons MUST be DONE ON EQUAL Footing?

They simply aren't comparisons otherwise? This mag I bought for 20 yrs......IT GOT CANCELED this year. I'm sick of BMW winning everything because they prefer BMW? (although a super car).

I would campare apples to apples and oranges to oranges? Even Lemons to Lemons?

But there they go again, comparing Lemons to Tundra's.

Whats disturbs me is they brag about it? Like Accord winning best overall family sedan? The Camry was second last year, went to the VVTI engine improved the car overall and took second this year........ go figure?

Secondly, Honda has two Accords the two door and four door they count both of them in the Accord is best seller list, of course they have two cars against one? DUH.......

Count the Solara then? Hello.......

I like Honda's too!

The IS300 gets put against the BMW 330i not the 325i? Price wise its the 325? If that was the apple then compare them don't pare them.

Well I might be off on a few comments....but to buy a vehicle on editors view.......you would have to be insane. Because of personal preferences......... I like to read several car mags....and read the comparisons from many points of view.......with Consumer Reports the Tundra......ain't the Lemon.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
557 Posts
My take is the writers of these so called Auto/ Truck Mags, and any Product Specific Rag for the matter, are tenured and don't have to worry about our thoughts, and are urged by their Editor & Publisher to "err" on the side of their "Best" paying avertisers ...read Ford, Chevy, Dodge.

Cheers Tundra Heads,
-RH
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
53 Posts
I have to agree with you guys.

Unfortunately, these magazines all depend on advertising for their lives. I haven't seen that issue but I can almost bet there is a large full page spread for the Dodge located somewhere near the article. When I was looking for a new vehicle a few months back, I went to Consumer Reports for their input. I've had good luck with their picks over the years. They said the Tacoma and Tundra were their best picks for pickups, so I looked at them. I wandered into a black Tundra 2 months later and have been very pleased. Funny thing is that if you rip all the advertising out of most magazines, what you end up with is a pamphlet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
85 Posts
Considering all the problems the Tundra has with vibrations and brakes I can just imagine the types of problems the domestics have. Can anyone build a reliable truck? I don't trust any of these magazines, they just promote all the vehicles for the hope of good relations with the ad revenue department.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
53 Posts
Well, they say the overall score is NOT the other scores added up. If you went with the other scores added up, the Tundra would have won. But, we should all keep in mind that the Chevy had the 4.8 motor. It would have been a more interesting comparison if the Chevy had the 5.3 which is what more people would buy against the Tundra. (The 5.3 might have beaten the Tundra in acceleration.)

Sean
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
74 Posts
Whats disturbs me is they brag about it? Like Accord winning best overall family sedan? The Camry was second last year, went to the VVTI engine improved the car overall and took second this year........ go figure?

Secondly, Honda has two Accords the two door and four door they count both of them in the Accord is best seller list, of course they have two cars against one? DUH.......

Count the Solara then? Hello.......


FYI, Toyota does count the Solara as a Camry. That is why they call it a Camry Solara instead of just Solara. They even count the Convertible Solara as a Camry. Thought you should know...

Ive even heard Camry being used at rental car agencies to boost the number to win best selling sedan. I think thats dumb of Toyota as it will cause lower resale value when the rental companies flood the market. Just like Ford did with the Tauras
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
230 Posts
Edmunds.com lists the Camry this way:

4. Toyota Camry — 422,961

So you want seating for five in the guise of a sensible, super-reliable sedan? And a V6 with a manual gearbox? For most Americans, the answer is Camry. This Toyota isn't particularly stimulating to behold — or to drive, unless you get a kit from Toyota Racing Development (TRD) that turns the unassuming sedan into a competent handler. But it performs all the Point-A-to-B tasks acceptably, and if you treat it right, it will never die. Camry is available in CE, LE or XLE trim, and the standard engine is a 136-horsepower 2.2-liter four. You can only pair a manual transmission to it in base CE trim. Our preference, of course, would be to option an LE model with the smooth and creamy 3.0-liter V6 (200 horsepower) and the aforementioned manual gearbox (the XLE model has an autobox default). The current generation of the Camry has been around since 1997, but it has aged well. The interior is dated, but all controls are user-friendly and substantial materials exude quality. Storage is abundant. However, many of our editors find the seats uncomfortable. Another issue with Camrys is that they don't come standard with much. The base CE model comes with a CD player, but you have to buy a value package just to get air conditioning and power windows, door locks and mirrors (Is this the late 1980s?). A redesigned Camry will arrive in 2002, but the current generation has a lot to offer: polite demeanor; outstanding resale value; dependability matched only by Hondas and other Toyotas. No wonder it's the best-selling car on the list.

5. Honda Accord — 404,515

Meet the Camry's chief competitor. Chances are that you went for the Accord if you didn't like the Camry's seats or the local Toyota dealership. If you envision yourself working through the gears of a V6 Accord on your way to the supermarket, then you'll want the Camry — you can't have a V6 and a manual transmission. You can buy an Accord as a coupe or sedan (you can also have a Camry coupe, that is, the Solara, but it has a stiffer suspension and sportier steering, just enough to make it "not quite a Camry"). The sedan offers three trim levels and three engine choices. Base DX trim (sedan only) has a 135-horsepower four-cylinder, while LX and EX models can have one of two VTEC-massaged powerplants: a 150-horsepower version of the DX's 2.3-liter four or a 200-horsepower 3.0-liter V6. The spunky fours have an advantage over the V6 in that you can pair them with one of Honda's slick-shifting manual gearboxes. But it's hard to pass up the soundless refinement of the six. In spite of the appealing powertrain choices, the Accord does little else to appease the adventuresome driver — its steering and suspension simply aren't tuned for spirited driving on backroads. Instead, this Honda earns its keep as a commuter's companion, particularly with its strong brakes, comfortable seats, spacious interior and generous storage space. And each Accord is assembled with quality materials and an exacting hand. This is why an Accord is still pleasing after 100,000 miles. Unfortunately, like the Camrys, base Accords greet buyers with low levels of equipment, which probably accounts for the release of the Accord VP, a DX sedan equipped with a value package that includes an automatic transmission, air conditioning, a CD player, floor mats, fake wood interior accents and special exterior trim. However, a fully loaded EX sedan stickers in the 25s, more than $1,000 less than a Camry XLE that could still use a value package. Reasons to buy an Accord: polite demeanor; outstanding resale value; dependability matched only by Toyotas and other Hondas.

My BAD......but as noted my comments might be off.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
182 Posts
The Chevy 5.3 wouldn't have beaten the Tundra in acceleration....not even close.
Now, if Chev were to abandon pushrods, then the 5.3 might give us a run for our money. But that's not going to happen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
53 Posts
Just about every review I've read puts the Chevy 5.3 a few tenths in front of the 4.7 0-60 especially when the Chevy has the 4.10 rear end. All things being equal or close enough, there's no replacement for displacement.
Sean:)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
69 Posts
Especially in California where we only have 240 hp because of that lousy third power robbing cat! I will believe it and if you got a 4WD, don't even bother racing one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
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 :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
549 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
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.
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Top