Toyota Tundra see-saw ad

Page 1 of 2  
Motor Trend - June 2007
The New York Times has reported that a senior General Motors executive e-mailed dealers to point out that Toyota may have been a bit too slick
with that slick Tundra "see-saw" advertisement http://snipurl.com/1ky41 - The GM guy claims the 10,000-pounds referred to in the voiceover means the combined weight of truck and trailer, not just the trailer, as implied. And he indicates you have to read the fine print to see the trailer is fitted with electric brakes. Wonder how they got any traction on a steel grating in the first place..
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 17 May 2007 22:03:31 +0200, TT

I'll be waiting here for GM to out do that ad with one of their own featuring a 1/2 ton PU. Complaining doesn't prove that they can do better.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I just did this with my Silverado 1500, but it was on a ice coated steel ramp and not only did I not have a problem, I stopped in a shorter distance. <BG>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Oh yeah? You know that earthquake that hit Thailand? My bad... I didn't realize the tow strap was still anchored to that big rock.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On May 17, 3:26 pm, "Tom Lawrence"

LOL
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TT wrote:

Wouldn't any street legal trailer of that size have to be?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The trailer was only around 5,000 lbs. Even my Frontier claims I can tow 5,000 lbs but Nissan does recommend the use of trailer brakes for any trailer over 1,000 lbs. I've towed a trailer over 5,000lb behind an Expedition with no trailer brakes, but I wouldn't want to try to go down a 45 degree ramp that way.
The whole deceptive Tundra ads debate played out a couple of months back. The see-saw ad is one of a series of misleading/deceptive Tundra ads. Another was the one where they ran the Tundra down a ramp out over a canyon - they masked out the tether used in that one. Or the 0 to 60 to 0 commercial where the voice over implies that the Tundra stopped much shorter than the other trucks. Actually the Tundra has no advantage in terms of stopping distances, but it did accelerate to 60 in a shorter distance, allowing it to start stopping sooner. The commercial was factually correct, but implied something that was not actually true.
Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 18 May 2007 08:16:58 -0400, "C. E. White"

1/2 truck out there regardless of tow ratings. (anything other models are rated to tow, it will pul it harder) Sometimes ads do not really show this. As far as break, once I loast brakes and a 20K plus grain trailer in town near a mill at low speed (about 15 MPH) and it pushed me like I was not even there in slow motion with all 4 tires locked up until it stopped which seemed like for ever. You can tow 5k without brakes as many do but you will not be able to stop it effectively in a hurry, especailly at speed especail with a short wheel based vehicle like a explorer. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
So don't believe everything someone tells you, even if you saw it on TV.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

But it was on TV it HAS to be right! <bg>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But, if it's on TV, or in the paper, or on the news, doesn't it have to be true?
Steve ;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I am still trying to find one of those revolvers that never needs to be reloaded!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

galloping horse 200 yards from your target! <g>
Ron
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
azwiley1 wrote:

I found it.
http://www.wyb.com/lf-0067polish_target_pistol.jpg
--
This explains it ALL!!! He was home schooled and his mommy
made his GES diploma for him out of needle point, to go
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The trailer hauling the load is required under federal law to have its own brakes, having to state so in the fine print is a formality. Toyota did nothing wrong.
The GVWR is the truck, trailer, and the load -- including any load tht is physically in the truck, not just the load that is on the trailer. Toyota did nothing wrong.
Stopping -- gaining traction -- on grating is perhaps the easiest part of the commercial. The grates are on edge, and this offers a very high coeffecient of friction.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
*crosspost removed from Chevy and Ford groups*
Jeff Strickland wrote:

GVWR is the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating. It does not include an allowance for trailer weight other than the load the trailer tongue puts on the tow vehicle. Gross /Combined/ Weight Rating (G*C*WR) would include the total weight of the loaded vehicle and trailer.
If you look at the picture of my certification sticker you will see the GVWR listed (8800 lbs) in the top right corner. Certification sticker:
http://i19.tinypic.com/4px5n2h.jpg
If you compare this weight ticket to my certification sticker you will see that I was under the weight ratings for the front axle, rear axle, and GVWR. The /combined/ weight was 1,940 lbs beyond the 8800 lb GVWR but still completely legal and under all weight ratings. Weight ticket:
http://i16.tinypic.com/4q5tmjd.jpg
--
Ken
alt.autos.dodge.trucks
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

ha ha ha , thats the best laugh I've had in days. The coeffeciant of friction is next to none on them damn things even when dry and brand new. Wet they are a skating rink.
Whitelightning
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Actually you could get better traction on a grating by adding saw teeth on the vertical ends, which are not large enough to be visually detected.
Ron
Whitelightning wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

On the flats side they are slick, but on edge, there are several sharp (not sharp as in knife) edges that are gripping the tire. And, when they make ramps like these, not only are the grates on edge, the edges are spiked to make traction even greater.
I agree completely that a flat metal ramp is slicker than snot, but when the metal is placed on edge, it gains rigidity and traction.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.