Maybe you should go troll elsewhere, and quit cross posting.
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
>