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.