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

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 17:57:22 -0700, owl rearranged some electrons to form:

>> I see Toyota has another new Tundra ad on TV. Like the others it is >> deceptive, if not actually factually incorrect. They line up all the major >> full size pick-ups and do a side by side 0 to 60 to 0 run. They tell you >> which Tundra they are running (5.7L engine), but don't provide details of >> the other trucks (hopefully they all have the best 0-60 set-up). The > Tundra >> clearly wins. This is fine. Irrelevant, but fine - people who actually > NEED >> trucks don't do a lot of WOT 0-60 runs. I have no problem with a clear >> demonstration of the Tundra's superior acceleration since I don't really > do >> much drag racing with my pick-up. What bugs me was the announcers final >> statement - something to the effect that it stopped 30 feet shorter than > the >> competition. While this is true when you consider the distance from the >> start of the 0 to 60 to 0 run, the way the line was phrased could be >> interpreted to mean that the Tundra's stopping distance from 60 was 30 > feet >> shorter than the competitions. It wasn't. Most of the 30 feet was gained >> during the acceleration phase. So while the commercial was factually > correct >> it was carefully worded so as to encourage people to believe something > that >> was not actually demonstrated. In their 2007 Full Size Pick-up Road >> Comparison Test, Edmunds.com recorded the 5.7 Double Cab Tundras stopping >> distance from 60 as 131 feet. A similar Silverado managed 139 feet. A >> similar Titan stopped from 60 in 127 feet. In the recent Car and Driver > 2007 >> pick-up comparison test, the 70-0 results were F150 - 200 feet, Dodge > 1500 - >> 196 feet, Tundra - 197 feet, Nissan Titian 200 feet, Silverado - 187 feet. >> So despite the attempt to make it seem as if the Tundra had exceptional >> brakes, they are in fact typical of the class. But if you want to drag > race >> your Tundra, it is first rate. Too bad it is a fourth rate work truck. >> >> Ed >> >> > > When I buy a new vehicle I place priority in the engineering behind the > engine. > > The engine is used to a greater extent of it's fullest potential more than > any other part of the truck. > > This means I prefer engine design consistent with 2007 instead of 1957. > > I want engines that produce high power and torque for their displacement, > while their fuel consumption and emissions stay low. > I don't care who produces these cars I will buy them. > I seem to remember Ford himself talking about how they had to make a new > focus on fuel economy technology. > Tell me why the new Mustang has only graduated to 3 valves ? > > There is no place in my garage for pushrod based engines. > > I also know the differences in a 4 piston caliper on the front brake rotors. > > Is the 4.2 liter v6 used on the new F150 the same as this 4.2 ? > >
formatting link

It appears that only 1999 or earlier engines were affected.

Reply to
David M
Loading thread data ...

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.