13th Sep 2007, 08:05

Boy have you got your facts mixed up! Everything you stated holds true AGAINST the Tundra. Need we resurrect the post 19:36, I believe, from the previous Tundra review with over 500 comments?

Or how about "the truth about trucks" video.

13th Sep 2007, 10:05

Oh.. I wouldn't know about NOT seeing Tundras on the work site. I actually used to be a salesman at a contractor supply center. I did this job for around 5 years. When the Tundra came out, you wouldn't believe how many contractors of ours bought them.

If you still see more Fords and Chevys at the job site, again this is mostly due to the fact that Tundras have only been manufactured for 5 or 6 years. Not long in comparison to the almost 100 years that Ford or Chevy have had to make theirs. You would think that with that many years of experience, these two would have figured out how to make a modern and reliable truck.

The Chevy truck I looked at was a fully loaded Chevy with all the trimmings. I think the biggest joke of all was when I put my finger through the grille and gave it a little tug. The grille was made out of flimsy, flexible plastic. Not that there's anything wrong with plastic, but seriously - this was the same plastic I'd imagine flower pots being made out of. Sort of rubbery. The story went for the rest of the truck.

If you've only looked at Chevys, then perhaps you don't really know any better and think that having flimsy plastic hardware on a giant truck is A-OK. I was not impressed with the build quality at all. Seemed like your typical GM product complete with a healthy supply of cheap creaky plastic inside and out. That and just an absolute mess of an engine, complete with sloppily laid out wiring and hoses.

As far as seeing housewives driving Tundras, well I can say that perhaps 75% of all full sized trucks I see on the road aren't being used for work. More like big burly dudes in the suburbs pulling their little trailers full of 4-wheelers and other toys on weekends. To be honest, the idea of having a full sized truck for non other than driving is totally ridiculous, yet I did read some report that mentioned that 70% of all people who buy them do exactly that.

I can guarantee that I use my little Tacoma for way more real work than some of the bozos driving these 15 MPG gas-guzzling wannabe trucks out there anyday. Most of these full sized trucks are just grocery getters and nothing else. Either that or they're bought with a thin excuse to do "work" - like haul an equally useless 5th wheel travel camper. Everyone complains about high gas prices, yet they go out and buy massive trucks and SUVs.

In regards to quality... well ANY car will last 3 years. Ever hear anyone brag about a 3 year old car? " Hey, my car is a whopping 3 YEARS old and it still runs!" But we're not talking 3 years. We're talking about whether a Buick will last 10-12 years or more and go at least 200k. I seriously doubt it. How about make a serious report? I can bet you anything that if there was a real long term survey, those Buicks, Chevys. and other piece of crap cars would fall right off the list after 4-5 years. Don't deny it. You know it's true.

13th Sep 2007, 14:58

All Honda vehicles are Honda Odysseys. In that note too, I have seen more with over 200,000 miles than I have seen a Chrysler vehicle. Everyone brings the Odyssey in, but fails to mention that a Windstar, Venture, or Caravan has more problems.

13th Sep 2007, 16:47

05:38 Yeah, okay. A Honda minivan burning up transmissions. Even the kids that run the Civics around at 8000 rpm rarely have transmission troubles. Try using a Dodge like that; after about an hour it'll be spewing out every kind of fluid that it contains, and you'll be shopping for a new engine, transmission, and gears. Please. Just because Dodge was German-owned for a while doesn't mean they learned anything about how to engineer a car so it isn't a piece of garbage.

13th Sep 2007, 19:10

I once had a new stock Dodge Challenger RT 340 Six Pack 4 speed and drove it very hard without a complaint. Also to run a tuner Civic as you described has a tremendous amount of money under the hood and they still can blow motors. I have a co worker that removed his supercharger and just blew his Civic Turbo up recently... anyway want to stay on topic? The new domestics are simply superior in all respects in my opinion to the current imports in stock form. I consider the drivetrains very suspect.

14th Sep 2007, 07:38

Yes, obviously Toyota cars are so great that CNN-Money includes them on their "Used Cars to Avoid" list because of the Toyota engine sludging problem.

And surely everybody on this site talking about blown transmissions on their Honda must be lying, right? And not just Honda, but Lexus, too -- read about the RX330, for starters! The Toyota and Honda apologists are funny in trying to cover that up.

They even try to gloss over the fact that Buick, Lincoln, Cadillac, and Mercury continue to be rated higher in quality than Toyota or Honda, even after the cars are three years old, which is close to when most people would be thinking about trading a car in, anyway.

I don't know why somebody would brag about driving a 10-year old Civic -- that's nothing to be proud of.

14th Sep 2007, 10:14

My friend owns a Tundra and between the engine sludging problems and the almost daily recalls, he has hardly had the chance to use it! Meanwhile my professional grade 1988 GMC half-ton continues to perform flawlessly.

15th Sep 2007, 07:36

10:14:

Here are the facts about Toyota's 'massive' engine sludge problem with the Tundra: As of July of this year, there were TWENTY engine failures reported. That's all. TWENTY. And Toyota replaced the entire engine.

Why don't you mention the THREE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY THOUSAND Grand Cherokees that were just recalled recently? Did that one slip by you? I guess all your attention was focused on the 20 Tundras which are already back on the road with a brand new engine.

Here's another fact: the Tundra is a better truck than anything Ford, GM, or any other manufacturer has yet dreamed about making, and Toyota is the highest quality manufacturer of cars and trucks anywhere on the planet. I'm sure your '88 GMC, has had many repairs done to it.

15th Sep 2007, 20:38

It's a fact that this is your opinion driven by hatred of domestics. You're sure the GMC has had many repairs done to it because of your blind hatred of American products. You don't know anything about this man's truck.

Woooooow, great argument, once again. Look at all of the technical specifications the commenter used to "prove" why Toyota's are better. "They're better because I like them and Ford's are crap because I don't like them." Wow, what infalibillity! How are Toyota's the highest quality?

I suppose they're higher quality because...

They have thinner frame rails.

They have smaller frame rails in width.

They have smaller frame rails in height.

They have fewer cross-members holding the frame together.

The cross-members that they do have, have holes cut all across them.

They have smaller and weaker front control arms.

They have smaller and weaker hub carriers.

They have lighter and weaker material engines (aluminum)

They have thinner and smaller leaf springs.

They use car transmissions in their smaller trucks, and put six speeds in their bigger trucks so there's more gears to tear up.

They have smaller axle shafts.

They have smaller axle housings.

They have thinner bumpers.

They can't pull as much, and are not used to pull as much.

They can't handle payloads beyond 600 pounds without squatting to the ground (small leaf springs)

Yep, they're definitely better.

The domestics are crap because...

They have thicker frame rails.

They have wider frame rails.

They have taller frame rails.

They have heavier duty control arms.

They have heavier duty hub carriers.

They have thicker leaf springs, and Ford's are.5 inches wider.

They have bigger axle shafts.

They have bigger axle housings.

They have many more cross-members. Most cross-members are large pipe-shaped box rails that are welded to the frame rails - Ford welds on both the inside and outside of their fully boxed frame.

They have engines made of extremely hard, heavy, and heat tolerant metal (cast iron)

They have heavier duty transmissions.

They can handle at least 2000-3000 pounds in their bed without squatting all the way down.

They can pull multiple tons and have been used for this purpose for decades.

They have heavier and thicker bumpers.

They can be used to do very heavy work and still run on original drive trains for 30 years.

Yep, they're junk alright. I am very confident that the person with 88 GMC has had to replace nothing on their drivetrain. My Chevy is 10 years older (78) and has everything original underneath the sheet metal and was used to do strenuous work most of its life, even pulling six tons or hauling two tons. It never failed my father and got him through hard times.

I swear this site is the twilight zone. Up is down, black is white, aluminum is tougher than cast iron, and trucks are tougher because they have less steel in their chassis. Tacoma's are real trucks because they can barely pull 3,500 pounds and domestics are wanna-be trucks because they can only pull 10,000 to 12,000 pounds. I guess semi-trucks are really crappy trucks because they have triple the steel in their frames and can only pull 50,000 pounds?