Visit our Popular Forums

Westfalia · 10-17-2008, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrawfordGene

I have read the newest diesels are very complex to reduce pollution and they are difficult to maintain. Is that true? Maintenance on a diesel is more than a gas engine anyway.

Yes, this can be true. While there should be little change in regular maintenance the new systems have EGRs than are introducing soot into the intake and turbo, requiring cleaning and turbo replacements (read=WARRANTY). On the Dodge side, Changes in ECM software are helping reduce this problem by keeping the EGR closed when at idle to reduce this contamination. Running with a load or towing helps prevent this. These new trucks also use a DPF, or diesel particulate filter to capture soots particles and exhaust gas byproducts and re-burn them much like a catalytic converter re-burns exhaust gasses on a gasser. The end result is a truck that DOES NOT SMOKE. I have yet to see a puff from mine, nor do I have a sooty tail pipe. The downside is that this takes heat to make the systems work and this is accomplished by adding more fuel to up the EGTs. It can really hit your fuel economy if you end up constantly going into regen for the DPF.

SteveH · 10-17-2008, 08:03 AM

In the past I have dissed the Toyota Tundra as being nothing more than another 1/2 ton pickup, and then I taked with a unit member that tows a 34 Footer with a Toyota...no problems he says.

So then, I went to the Toyota site and started looking at their specs....the Tundra with the towing package is rated to tow 10,000 pounds. It does it with two things that I would consider unique to pickups in America. The first is a 4.3:1 rearend ratio, and the other is a six speed automatic transmission. This thing is really setup to tow.

However, I still think they're ugly!

Gene · 10-17-2008, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveH

However, I still think they're ugly!

I try not to look at the front end. I park it in front of the house with the front end facing away. I drive it behind the front end, so I don't see it. I mostly look at the rest of the truck which looks just like any other pickup.

When you open the hood, it seems like 1/3 of the engine is behind the leading edge of the windshield. It isn't quite that far, but they've positioned things to maximize space in the cab while setting the engine further back and this not having another foot or two in overall length. It makes sense to me, but it is kinda ugly, maybe because we're not used to the front end of a truck looking snub nosed.

They've been rounding off the fenders of trucks for a while now and at first that looked strange. I've gotten used to it and now those square front ends look ugly. I'm hoping to get used to the Tundra since I figure I'll be owning it for a long time (unless the stock market rebounds sooner and I get impatient and just have to have a new truck).

Gene

BillTex · 10-17-2008, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed Emerick

As an update, I have had my Tundra since August now, I like it and it pulls just fine. JUST LIKE A GM half ton with a 5.7. Thats apples to apples.

Yeah, but...there's Macouin apples and there's Fuji apples...

Wayward · 10-17-2008, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Journalist

Aftermarket Porsche Cayenne gears cost nearly as much as a good used HD pickup.

wow - I'd have to reconsider that cost equation is that case

Ed Emerick · 10-18-2008, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillTex

Yeah, but...there's Macouin apples and there's Fuji apples...

This Apple was grown in Indiana...............

Msmoto · 10-18-2008, 07:49 AM

Thanks all.... my Cayenne has lot's of torque and will easily pull the load. Unfortunately, the power is from about 2200-4500 rpm. This means it runs in 5th gear up hills into a headwind. Also it is adding about 5 - 8 lbs of turbo boost. Without a trailer it will accelerate from 0 - 100 mph in about 12 - 13 seconds... and 1 gallon of Premium! While changing the final drive ratio is an interesting option, I think the comment about the cost is inaccurate. To change the final drive ratio on a Porsche Cayenne would cost about the same as a new tractor which would tow nearly 35,000 lbs. >$100,000.

All of this discussion is fun and I enjoy it fully. I also appreciate our varied opinions. One of my girlfriends keeps telling me to get a Ford or I will be sorry. I keep telling her that as a woman over 65 years old, I am going to get what I want, and the seats and color are important. They will all pull trailers if you get a big enough truck.

So, once I buy one, I will report back and will most likely see some of you on the road. Or... in the paddock at Road America, VIR, Road Atlanta, etc. Mine will be the Airstream with the Porsche logo on the tail...

Silvertwinkie · 10-18-2008, 08:32 AM

I'm sure I posted this somewhere, maybe even way back on this thread, but since the thread has Toyota, Ford and Chevy being asked.....here are a few videos to consider as you purchase tow vehicles....being a GM man myself, I was a bit unhappy to see GMs showing, but clearly, I was not at all expecting to see Toyota's showing...clearly food for thought:

YouTube - Ford F150 vs Toyota Tundra - Frame Strength

YouTube - Ford F150 vs Chevy vs Toyota - Bed Bounce

Gene · 10-18-2008, 09:23 AM

In the frame strength video, the speaker refers to "our" Ford frame, so it sounds like he works for Ford, or the outfit that did the tests was hired by Ford. Note also that there was no comparison with Dodge or GM, so if they used the same test, maybe those frames would deflect less than Ford's. In the "bed bounce" video, no Dodge.

I haven't a clue what these tests prove, if anything. Any testing should be done by an independent company. If those tests are accurate (a big "if"), perhaps a frame that flexes more has a good purpose.

I know my Tundra rides fine with or without a trailer. The way the American companies are doing, there may only be Toyotas and maybe General-Ford Motors some day (Chrysler completely swallowed or owned by Hyundai or Tata).

Gene

Silvertwinkie · 10-18-2008, 10:52 AM

Though I agree, the bottom line is 3 vehicles went through the same tests. I have personally seen the Toyota offerings on the pothole riddled roads here in northern IL. I saw a Toyota pickup do the exact same thing on a series of bumps and potholes on a piece of road near the house. I then took my dad's 2000 2500 Silverado and followed behind my brother driving it on the same road. The results were identical to that of the video. The GM had some flex, but significantly less than what I saw on that Toyota. Regardless of who did the test, it would appear to me there is some merit in what is in the linked videos.

Gene · 10-18-2008, 11:41 AM

Maybe (probably) I wasn't clear. Flex maybe good. A rigid object will not absorb shock the same way a frlexible object will. Maybe flex helps hold the road better, or makes the contents not bounce as much. There's too much flex, not enough or just right depending on the goal of the manufacturer. I don't know the answer. I expect there are different answers depending what kind of ride you want a truck to have. All these companies test these things to achieve a certain goal. Ford wants one kind, GM another, etc.

Gene

purman · 10-18-2008, 01:14 PM

Either way,,, As I said before the TEST is Crap.... Your just looking at a frame.... and putting weight on it... You need the rest of the truck to be an accurate test... And who in there right mind would drive over big bumps like that at that speed with a trailer or without....>><<

Yes the frame bends and it is flexible... But I'm with Gene. I rather it flex than stay ridgid and bounce the crud out of everything....

Silvertwinkie · 10-18-2008, 02:57 PM

I respectfully disagree on both counts. Obviously folks who own Toyotas will most likely feel that way.

Flex in the back end in this manner is NOT considered a good thing, and how could it be? Frames moving drivers to passenger side and back good flex? If it can flex that much just going over bumps.... How can you simply dismiss the test so quickly? Clearly there are rough roads and of course going off road. I'm not saying it has to be like one solid piece of steel, heck the GM truck didn't do as well as the Ford and I'm not happy about that, but as I said before, I saw a Toyota pickup do the same thing, went back to the same street and took a Silverado on the same road.....mirrored the test.

Now if you are comfortable towing heavy trailer with that much flex, more power to you, but the test IMHO is valid, I duplicated it in some small way and I can't see that much flex being such a good thing....maybe when it comes to semis with 12 tons and such, but for our applications, I can't see the side to side flex being beneficial in any way....sorry Toyota owners.

purman · 10-18-2008, 03:24 PM

Your welcome to your opinion Silvertwinkie.... IF you hate Toyota that much just say so..... But back to my point..

WHO WOULD DRIVE THAT FAST OVER BUMPS THAT BIG WITH A TRAILER OR WITHOUT ONE.

AN IDIOT or someone who doesn't like their truck...

I have 2 Toyota's, '75 dodge 3/4 ton, Jaguar and a Jeep, I've towed with my Father in laws '07 3/4 ton dodge and still prefer my Sequoia for towing my AS...

Better ride, more room for the family, and plenty of power, and no frame twisting as I don't go over bumps like that at 35+ mph.....

Until you tow with one, which I guess you haven't, I find it funny your making an assumption on two skewed tests...

I wouldn't worry about you truck flexing at all... Unless you like to drive fast over bumps and I'm guessing you don't.... I did in my '85 blazer but that was to get air, and I was young and a little more reckless....

Until I here about a frame snapping on a Toyota I'm not worrying about it...

PS you still need a whole truck for an accurate test. It's like testing a house strength with just the framing up... It's not as strong as when the whole house is done... Same with a Truck or SUV...

purman · 10-18-2008, 03:59 PM

I just got done reading the first few pages of this tread again...

Silvertwinkie and others feel The Tundra isn't a good TV.. But it seems everyone who has one thinks it is....

It's Not a 3/4 ton diesel and doesn't claim to be.... If you want a diesel you will have to go with one of the American 3 well Toyota is made in America too.. Different topic...

IF you feel safer in a 3/4 ton or 1 ton then get it, and be happy, I'm happy with what I have, Wish I could tow with a truck but I need the room for family and the Suburban just isn't reliable as toyota... "mine and others opinions" I do know Suburban owners who have had no problems but more that have....

I found it funny, someone said Ford is the #1 selling truck in the world... They must not travel abroad much... I go to England and Europe about every other summer as we have family there... Don't see many Ford trucks, in fact I can't ever remember seeing one in England at all.. People don't drive trucks around over there... Only builders and then there just small 1/2 ton trucks... Gas is to expensive over there...

A Diesel motor will out perform a gas motor in towing there is no arguing that point

So why compare a Tundra to a 3/4 ton Diesel and why Trash the Tundra if you have never towed with one.. Everyone who does seems to like it....

Now When Toyota builds a 3/4 ton Diesel Ford will no longer be #1

ROBERT CROSS · 10-18-2008, 04:07 PM

The Tundra may very well be a wonderful TV, and built in the USA.

To each their own.

I have a long memory.....Sorry.

purman · 10-18-2008, 04:11 PM

I remember they had a 1 ton in the 80's our Friend in Trinidad has one... not a very big bed on it, I laughed when he said it was a one ton but it really was.... two wheel drive to boot..... Don't even know if you could put a ton of stuff in the back it's so small...

Silvertwinkie · 10-18-2008, 04:40 PM

Jason, I never said what you claim I've said. I have said many times over Toyota is a good truck and useful to a point as is any vehicle. If you recall the GM truck didn't fair the best either. I'm not taking it personally and I have a GM truck. Bottom line the reality is what it is. I offer the info to the masses to interpret the way they'd like, but please don't read or misquote me. The Toyota is a useful vehicle and I was about as shocked as anyone to see the results. In a free society one picks what they feel is best. Others may not agree. I think if we keep it accurate and constructive no one's feelings get hurt.

I don't know about you Jason, but roads here in Illinois are not all that great. Maybe in your neck of the woods there are no washboard roads or roads in need of serious repair. We have them here and if I can duplicate what's in the video, it does raise the question, which I think is relevant to the conversation. Identical to the test in the videos? Not exactly, but enough were I can take a truck to test and get the same results....and it's not a test track, it's a public road around here...and my point was that you don't have to drive fast to see this phenomenon. Just cross a rough railroad track and you can see it in a much smaller form.

It's true Detroit has been lazy and that they are now reaping what they sew....but just for the record, Toyota too isn't doing all that hot in the truck arena either. To me, Toyota's issues seemed to start when they started building here....same with Honda. I have no ax to grind with either...offer my opinion and let folks make their own decision and draw their own conclusions.

Gene · 10-18-2008, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silvertwinkie

I don't know about you Jason, but roads here in Illinois are not all that great.

To me, Toyota's issues seemed to start when they started building here....same with Honda.

Roads in Colorado are as bad or worse.

There has been a decline in quality in Toyotas. I think expansion has been too fast. The service dept. of the Toyota dealer nearby says it's the (American?) suppliers of the small, cheap stuff that are doing a bad job. Eight or ten years ago, our Toyotas were flawless. By 2002, a few things went wrong on the '02's. The 2006 had 2 or 3 minor problems. The '07 Tundra—a button on the dashboard sticks. So, a serious quality decline (by Toyota standards).

The oil filter on the 5.7 L engine is very hard to change. They went back to a cartridge filter on the '08 and the service guy says it's even harder to get to. He thinks they hired some out of work Chrysler engineers to design the oil filter (this dealership sells Chryslers too). I'm not making that up. Every time I change the oil and filter, I want to buy another brand.

I wish Detroit would get its act together. They've had decades to do so and ignored what they had to do. It's sad. I didn't mind fixing cars when I was a lot younger—it was a lot more sensible to buy an older car and keep it going. I'm too old for that now plus my wife wouldn't let my buy anything but new cars. I want a vehicle that never breaks, especially when I'm thousands of miles from home and hundreds of miles from a dealer.

Gene

purman · 10-18-2008, 05:40 PM

Ok, I'm fine with that, And don't mean to put words in you mouth, but I have questions???

what does the test show... If we test all the trucks over the past say 20 years will they do it too.... Aren't frames suppose to be better and stronger today than years past??? What are the consequences of frame flex??? If you have a trailer on the back is it going to do the same thing....?? These test don't mean a whole lot... At least to me... no matter what truck it is...

First test... Weight on a frame.. With blocks under it... Not realistic... You have a rear end and suspension to help distribute that weight... This Test doesn't mean a hole lot unless you have your truck on blocks with a tailer attached... then your frame might bend..

Back to the other test. What does it mean? Will your frame go out of alignment? Brake in half? what...??? Have any frames broken or bent? I haven't heard anything "doesn't mean it hasn't happened..."

Who did the Test and why? Should be the first question... like Gene said the guy says "our ford"... It Seems to me FORD put this video out. and just said look at this... Well what does it mean.... NOTHING... they don't give any information about what it means...
So the ford doesn't flex as much... big whop!!!

And it was on youtube.. good place to watch fun videos, and get propaganda out to the masses.. Not saying the video is Propaganda, but it seems to try and scare people with out giving answers to what the information means....

Tell me what the information means and then it will mean something..... I've said this from the beginning.... Give me a realistic frame test and tell me what it means....