Re: GM Dealer Challenges the Toyota Tundra's Ads... AS BULL

Page 1 of 8  
wrote:


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 03:13:38 GMT, "C. E. White"
No where near as despective as some of detriots tow ratings. I am not pro toyota here but Detriot uses no science with its ratings and Ford inflated their max 1/2 ton ratings because of Yota but the facts are it does not have near the power than the yota does. If you do the math and factor is axle ratio, rated torque and RPM, and transmision ratios, the Yota beats them all is actal drawbar or pulling power. It takes power to move the load, not a inflated rating. Be glad there is a Toyota because Detriot will be forced to improve their trucks against it and consumers will get a better product in the end. Toyota has their act together with the new Tundra with a 5.7 and a 6 speed and they even spaced the tranny ratios properly to best apply power to load (you can hit torque peak in the first three gears by 58 MPH in it at 24, 41 and 58 MPH respecably vs 32 ,54 and 85 MPH for Ford, 39, 65 and 96 MPH for GM 6.0 Vortec max and 33, 60 and 99 MPH for Dodge Hemi. Not only does the Toyota have more usable and effective gearing to get load moving, it also has more torque as well to apply to those gears so it is simple physics here. The Yota has the greatest mechanical advantage over the load via gearing and availble power so it will pull a load better than any of them. Kinda a like comparing a small guy with a pry bar against a big guy with a bigger pry bar try to move something. The Yota has the bigger guy (more torque) and the longer bar (better effective gearing) so the end result is quite predicable before you even hitch it up to a load. The scary part is that the Yota actaully has more true towing/pulling power to move a load than all new gas powered 3/4 and 1 ton trucks if you do the math since GM no longer has the 8.1 and the Hemi is no tow king. A Ford V10 would be the only one to likley meet of exceed it. (we are talking actual towing power that can be aplied to load not weather it is a 1/2 ton or 3/4 ton chassis) Given the math behind the new Tndra, if they go into the 3/4 and 1 ton market Detriot better get their act together because if Yota can make a 1/2 ton that can pull that hard just think of what they could do with a 3/4 ton or bigger. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

It is not the going that bothers me, it is the stopping....
If I wanted to tow a heavy load, I would go for an F250/F350. They also have a six speed transmission. Ford/GM/Dodge all have 3/4 and 1 ton trucks for people that actually need to tow 10,000 lbs. Toyota is not trying to create that distinction i.e., they don't have a separate Tundra HD model to compete with the F350/350 or Silverado HD. If you want to compare the Tundra to other trucks capable of towing heavy loads, then I contend you must compare it to the heavy duty pick-ups from Ford, GM, and Dodge. And if you want to limit your discussion to big "gas" engines, then here are the engine comparisons:
Tundra - 5.7L V-8 - 381 hp @ 5600 rpm 401 lb.-ft. @ 3600 rpm F250 - 6.8L V-10 - 362 hp @ 4750 rpm 457 lb. -ft @ 3250 rpm Silverado HD2500 6.0L V-8 - 367 hp @ 5500 rpm 375 lb. - ft @ 4300 rpm Dodge 2500 - 345 hp @ 5400 rpm 375 lb. - ft @ 4200 rpm
For towing I would contend that torque is more important that horsepower -especially horsepower at 5600 rpm. Which engine would you rather have to tow a heavy load? The one with 401 lb.-ft of torque at 3600 rpm, or the one with 457 lb.- ft of torque at 3250 rpm? F250s also have a six speed automatic transmission and offer a variety of rear gear ratios? So if you wanted to tow a heavy load, which truck would be the better choice?
As an aside - I run a small farm and raise cattle (I sell around 20 claves a year to the feeder calf market). I can't justify owning a HD truck and cattle trailer for my 1 or 2 trips to the sale a year, so I hire one of my neighbors to do it for me. He has a fifth wheel cattle trailer that can haul 20 to 25 calves at a time (figure around 9,000 lbs of cattle + the trailer). Until this year he has always used an F250 with a diesel to pull the trailer. When he moved some cattle for me earlier this year, he had a new F350. I assumed it was a diesel. I was curious how the "new" powerstroke diesel performed compared to the older versions. I started asking him about the truck and he was very positive. Said it pulled really well and that he really liked the engine except the fuel economy was not as good. This confused me because I though the new diesels were supposed to be better. When I mentioned this, he just laughed. He explained he didn't get a diesel. His new truck had a 5.4L V-8. He said it had plenty of power and towing the trailer was not a problem at all. It was his opinion than even the V-10 was overkill and the expensive diesel option was completely unnecessary.
Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
One more thing - The list price for a stripped F250 V-10 six speed automatic is less than the price for a stripped Tundra 5.7L V-8 six speed automatic even before the $3000 rebate on the F250 is figured in.
Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Maxwell House is cheaper than edible coffee.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"JoeSpareBedroom" ...

LOL.
Now, come on - Ford trucks are pretty good. I'd consider one if I were in the market for a truck.
Natalie
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I generally avoid companies who've previously sold me products that were intentionally made defective. I violated my rule once with Ford. I won't do it a second time unless they give me the product for free, and pay me a hefty aggravation bonus any time it had what I considered to be a stupid problem. $1000.00 per incident would be about right.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So Toyota has never sold a defective product? How about the thousands of prior model Tundras with bad ball joints? Or with piston slap prone engines?
Just a quick Google of "Toyota Tundra recall" got over 600,000 hits. Here are a few references from just the first page of hits:
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/toyota_tundra_engine.html http://ezinearticles.com/?Toyota-Tundra-Recall:-New-Trucks-Brakes-Break&idG569 http://www.autoblog.com/2006/08/08/toyota-facing-anothertundra-recall / http://www.lemonauto.com/complaints/toyota/toyota_tundra.htm http://www.internetautoguide.com/auto-recalls/09-int/2000/toyota/tundra/index.html http://www.autobuyguide.com/2005/12-aut/toyota/tundra/recalls/index.html
I am not saying that this proves the Tundra is a "bad" truck. But I don't think it is fair for people to claim Tundras have extraordinarily high quality either. And before you ask, a Google search for "Ford F250 Recall" got around 123,00 hits. It is hard to do a valid comparison of the number of recalls for the two trucks because NHTSA often mixes all Ford SD recalls together, but then reports some only by a particular model, but I'll try (only safety recalls counted). Information is from NHTSA:
Toyota Tundra Recalls -
1999 Tundra - 1 Recall - 70717 Vehicles, Trailer Hitches (includes multiple years) 2000 Tundra - 4 Recalls - 70717 Vehicles, Trailer Hitches (includes multiple years) - 61944 Vehicles, Exterior Lighting (includes multiple years / accessory lighting) - 3593 Vehicles, Exterior Lighting (includes multiple years / accessory lighting) - 16472 Vehicles, Exterior Lighting 2001 Tundra - 2 Recalls - 61944 Vehicles, Exterior Lighting (includes multiple years / accessory lighting) - 3593 Vehicles, Exterior Lighting (includes multiple years / accessory lighting) 2002 Tundra - 3 Recalls - 61944 Vehicles, Exterior Lighting (includes multiple years / accessory lighting) - 3593 Vehicles, Exterior Lighting (includes multiple years / accessory lighting) - 768379 Vehicles, Lower Ball Joints (includes multiple years) 2003 Tundra - 4 Recalls - 61944 Vehicles, Exterior Lighting (includes multiple years / accessory lighting) - 3593 Vehicles, Exterior Lighting (includes multiple years / accessory lighting) - 768379 Vehicles, Lower Ball Joints (includes multiple years) - 156111 Vehicles, Air Bag Deactivation Switch (includes multiple years) 2004 Tundra - 7 Recalls - 61944 Vehicles, Exterior Lighting (includes multiple years / accessory lighting) - 3593 Vehicles, Exterior Lighting (includes multiple years / accessory lighting) - 27176 Vehicles, Exterior Lighting (includes multiple years / accessory lighting) - 768379 Vehicles, Lower Ball Joints (includes multiple years) - 156111 Vehicles, Air Bag Deactivation Switch (includes multiple years) - 5726 Vehicle, Exhaust System (includes multiple years, this is the problem where the exhaust melts the brake line) - 533124 Vehicles, Lower Ball Joints (includes multiple years, this is a separate recall from the other ball joint recall) 2005 Tundra - 5 Recalls - 27176 Vehicles, Exterior Lighting (includes multiple years / accessory lighting) - 156111 Vehicles, Air Bag Deactivation Switch (includes multiple years) - 533124 Vehicles, Lower Ball Joints (includes multiple years, this is a separate recall from the other ball joint recall) - 5726 Vehicles, Exhaust System (includes multiple years, this is the problem where the exhaust melts the brake line) - 2527 Vehicles, Air Bags 2006 Tundra - 2 Recalls - 27176 Vehicles, Exterior Lighting (includes multiple years / accessory lighting) - 533124 Vehicles, Lower Ball Joints (includes multiple years, this is a separate recall from the other ball joint recall)
Ford F250 Recalls -
1999 F250 - 5 Recalls (including recall that affect all SDs) - 61944 Vehicles, Exterior Lighting (includes multiple years / accessory lighting) - 58640 Vehicles, Fuel Filter (aftermarket filter, not Ford) - 10537 Vehicles, Vehicle Speed Control - includes F350/F450/etc (includes multiple years) - 3500 Vehicles, Vehicle Speed Control (cable) - includes F350/F450/etc - 19187 Vehicles, Vehicle Speed Control - includes F350/F450/etc 2000 F250 - 4 Recall (including recalls that affect all SDs) - 61944 Vehicles, Exterior Lighting (includes multiple years / accessory lighting) - 8100 Vehicles, Brake Pedal - includes F350/F450/etc - 12850 Vehicles, Brake Light Switch - includes F350/F450/etc - 10537 Vehicles, Vehicle Speed Control - includes F350/F450/etc (includes multiple years) 2001 F250 - 2 Recalls (including recalls that affect all SDs) - 61944 Vehicles, Exterior Lighting (includes multiple years / accessory lighting) - 185 Vehicles, Fuel Filler Pipe - includes F350/F450/etc 2002 F250 - 3 Recalls - 27176 Vehicles, Exterior Lighting (includes multiple years / accessory lighting) - 14616 Vehicles, Exterior Lighting (includes multiple years / accessory lighting) - 1200000 Vehicles, Vehicle Speed Control - includes F150/Expedition/F350/F450/etc (includes multiple years) 2003 F250 - 5 Recalls - 61944 Vehicles, Exterior Lighting (includes multiple years / accessory lighting) - 27176 Vehicles, Exterior Lighting (includes multiple years / accessory lighting) - 14616 Vehicles, Exterior Lighting (includes multiple years / accessory lighting) - 83687 Vehicles, Battery - 155584 Vehicles, Vehicle Speed Control - includes F350/F450/etc (includes multiple years) 2004 F250 - 2 Recalls - 61944 Vehicles, Exterior Lighting (includes multiple years / accessory lighting) - 180104 Vehicles, Wiring (includes multiple years) 2005 F250 - 2 Recalls - 450 Vehicles, Air Brakes (this is not actually an F250 recall since they don't have air brakes) - 180104 Vehicles, Wiring (includes multiple years) - 78675 Vehicles, Fuel Lines 2006 F250 - 2 Recalls - 450 Vehicles, Air Brakes (this is not actually an F250 recall since they don't have air brakes) - 34296 Vehicles, Tires (not really a Ford Recall - Continental recalled the tires)
I think if you look over the list, I do not think you can claim that Toyota Tundras are special when it comes to defects compared to an F250. I was amused by how many recalls aren't really Toyota's or Ford's "fault." What is it with all the exterior lighting recalls? Are dealers festooning these trucks with illegal lights?
Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Every product has a defect now and then. However, you apparently missed the word "INTENTIONAL". Tell me you saw it, and what you thought about the presence of the word in my comment.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

VW had a slick one, back before digital sp/odometers the same little plastic gear failed early for over 20 years. ;-)

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

VW? Burned and learned. Just like with Ford.
But at least the VW was fun to drive. It really did have fahrvergneugen. And it was a van.
JSB, which defect was that?
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


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

Well you will have to clarify what you consider an "intentional" defect. I am sure no manufacturer includes "intentional defect." The statement itself is an oxymoron.
Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I wondered when you'd nibble on the bait.
I have an acquaintance whose job it is to install & calibrate CNC machining equipment, and train the personnel who will use it. His company sells to the Detroit-3, Toyota, and others. I once asked him why not-very-old Chrysler mini-vans stink like a 30 year old car. His response: Chrysler makes a conscious choice to program larger tolerances for manufacturing the engines and crucial parts. He said it's quite frustrating to be told to program CNC equipment to create far less quality than it's capable of. When he's working at a Toyota plant, things are different. He's got a handful of Japanese engineers following him around, checking on his work, and making sure the equipment is tweaked to its maximum capabilities. His Chrysler experience is similar to the routine at Ford & GM.
His explanation was a response to a comment of mine, as a Chrysler mini-van pulled into the parking lot of a lodge where we were both staying with our families: "I wonder how someone goes about ruining an engine so quickly. That van's gotta be what....3 years old?"
So, that's intentional. Engineers at the D-3 make a ***CONSCIOUS CHOICE*** to build a sloppy product. They tell my friend "Program the thing per our instructions". They are hesitant to explain why.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Couldnt have anything to do with the fact that the engine in the mini van is a peiece of shit Mitsubishi V-6, Nah couldn't be that.
Whitelightning
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Could be. Still intentional. Anything that's easy to prevent, but isn't, is intentional.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Different engineers have different specs for parts. The fact that your friend is asked to program it differently for different companies proves nothing. The "worst" engine in a Chrysler minivan is the Japanese built 3.0L Mitsubishi V-6. I suppose the Japanese screw that up for Chrysler on purpose.
Engineers design parts to a spec for a reason. Making parts meet an unnecessarily tight spec costs money. Without more information about what the tolerances were and why your story is just more BS.
This story is the sort of crap that drives me crazy. You are claiming a normal manufacturing process is an intentional defect. It isn't. Every decision to built parts to a particular tolerance is an intentional decision. Engineer makes trade-offs everyday. I can't imagine they want to explain their decisions to a guy that is supposed to program a machine for them.
Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Whatever you say, shmexpert.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

Good comeback.
It's the bean counters, not the engineers. It's a flaw, maybe, but not intentional.
Rob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No. It's intentional, Rob. When a company's got at least 30 years' of data to learn from, and they ignore it, it's intentional.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You don't get it. Some tolerances are important, some aren't. Requiring excessively tight tolerances is bad engineering. If the machine could hold a +/- 0.001" tolerance as cheaply as it could hold a +/-0.005" then it would be set to the tighter tolerance. If can't do it as cheaply, and a 0.005" tolerance is acceptable for the application, then it will be set for a 0.005" tolerance. Chrysler is not "deliberately" specifying wide tolerance to make crappy cars. They may be specifying looser tolerances to reduce manufacturing costs, but without actual facts, it is hard to know what is going on and I seriously doubt looser tolerances is why the particular Chrysler vehicle in your story "stunk." It is very easy to specify tight tolerances and design crap, and have loose tolerances and have a good machine.
Ed
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.