Originally Posted by SMIGGS

So let me get this straight..you wondering why the extra power in the Tundra is beneficial and yet you state that you got the 6.0L over the 5.3L because of more power to tow your boat? I think you answered your own guestion. As for the extra power, if I'm towing or hauling and sort of weight in the bed of the truck, if I have more "git up and go" without having to put the go pedal thru the floorboard, how is that not beneficial?



Wow, if I had a dollar for everytime I heard this excuse for the underpowered F-150 vs the Tundra I could probably buy another one by now.



So the quote your benefical power statement....

How is having 500lbs more of payload benefical?

Originally Posted by Vmax2007

Wow Smiggs, you spun that one so fast, you even made me dizzy!!!

Did I not state that BOTH of these trucks have more than sufficient power for a 1/2 ton truck? (6.0 vs 5.7). I simply want to know what the HUGE benefit of 14 HP is when were comparing 367hp to 381hp in a 1/2 ton truck??? Power for towing is beneficial, not for streetlight racing. And it's not like the 6.0 in my truck is some sloth either, it does 0-60 in 7.2 secs, not exactly slow for a 5000 lb truck. It has PLENTY of power and acceleration even while towing. I never have to "floor" my truck to merge, pass or anything else.

500 lbs less payload in the payload comparison is 25% (1500 vs 2000).
14 hp less in the power comparison is 4%.

Originally Posted by SMIGGS

My problem with this whole situation is how people can rip on something without knowing anything about it.

Do you have any experiences with the new Tundra? Have you driven one? Have you towed/hauled with one? I have test drove one and it was impressed. It isn't the nicest looking truck on the outside or inside but asthectics are totally dependant on the individual.

My point is don't knock it until you have tried it. It's just ignorant to state the Tundra or any truck for that matter is a "POS" without any real experinces to back anything up. Please no "my buddy, or this guy I know" stories.

Bottom line is that all 1/2 ton trucks are very capable of doing what they were designed to do. Some better than others.

p.s. I'm positive your truck is very capable, you don't hear me ragging on your truck because I don't like GMC. Which I don't by the way, but I'm sure they build a damn fine truck.

Originally Posted by Vmax2007

No, you seemed to have strayed from your own question. You asked why I chose the 6.0 over the 5.3. I simply answered by saying, to me, truck power is meant for towing/hauling, not streetlight racing. So, 0-60 times mean nothing to me. I have MORE than enough power, torque, acceleration and overall capability than any 1/2 ton needs. As does the Tundra. I never said otherwise. So, tell me again how the extra power in the Tundra is beneficial? (other than your precious 0-60 times, which BTW is only 0.7 secs better than my 6.0, not exactly a huge difference since how often do you actually floor it from 0-60 anyway?)

If I want to race, I would buy a car like your Mustang or a Corvette, not a 5000 lb truck that will still get smoked by most non-econobox cars on the road.

Oh, and regarding payload, my Crewcab is rated at 2010 lbs, go look up what a Crewmax is rated at....yep, you read it right...about 500lbs less!!! 1495 lbs LTD 5.7 V8 and 1515 lbs for 5.7 V8

Originally Posted by Vmax2007

And how would you know what I know and have driven, tested, researched, etc?

As a matter of fact, I have driven one and crawled under one, researched them, etc. You think I would spend 40K on a truck without knowing something about it and it's competition? Maybe some people do, I don't. I spent a good hour inspecting the frame at the local Auto show in Feb. Toyota had a very nice display showing everyone how *****ty their frame was built and even coined a term "TripleTech" to sell it to unsuspecting Toyoyo fans. Nice rivets!!!

I was impressed with the power, that's it!! The rest was unimpressive. cheap interior, even the door handle felt chincy. Exposed bolt heads in the bed...WTF??? GM hasn't had those since 1988 (or even longer maybe?).

Originally Posted by DOHCmarauder

You're starting to run in circles here........I SAID the 0-60 is an objective way to measure power. It may not be important to you, but it may be to some.

Using your reasoning, you would have been just fine with the 5.3....but you wanted the better trans; the 6 speed in the Toy only comes with the 5.7. Yes, actually the 5.3 would have been fine, since my boat only weighs about 3500 lbs and my next boat probably won't exceed 5000 lbs. But I believe in alot of service factor since I drive my trucks for 7-10 yrs. And yes, I wanted the entire pkg.

So if I say that I like the 5.7 in the Toy because it actually gets better economy than your 6.0, has a 6 speed transmission and NOT mention the power; would that make you happy??? What exactly does the 5.7 Crewmax get for city mpg? I doubt it gets any better than 14.1 (I have not taken any freeway trips to determine actual hwy mileage yet). 6 spd, ok I will give you that if you really want it. But I am perfectly happy with my very smooth 4 spd.

BTW..I never criticized the drivetrain in the Tundra, I said it was a good one all along. I have simply been defending the GM drivetrain because I believe it's just as good.


Score 1 for the payload on the GMC..........have you noticed the tow rating difference in Crew Cabs???


Close to over 2,000 pounds in favor of the Toy........Now, considering you use your 1/2 ton for TOWING and not for payload, wouldn't it make sense to get the truck with the higher TOW rating??........ouch again.

Yep, as a matter of fact I have. The GM Crewcab 4x4 with the 6.0 NHT Max trailering pkg has a max towing of 10,500 lbs. The Crewmax 4x4 has a max towing cap of 10,100 lbs. GM wins by 400 lbs!!! You really should check your numbers before making claims. Where did you come with 2000 lbs in favor of Toyota? Oh, maybe with 3.73 gears? But that's not "Apples to Apples", now is it?


Here's some of yours and people like yours reasoning when a stat doesn't go your way:


"Who cares about payload............if I wanted payload I'd buy a 1 ton dually!!!"


We can go back and forth forever.....I actually don't like GM because of a bad experience with an '87 3/4 ton. .......my Fords for the most part have done well but are not flawless.
The bottom line is your hatred for Toy is unfounded....they are partners with your beloved GM in many ventures, they employ Americans to build the Tundra and some of the profits they garner are thrown right back into the U.S. economy..............please find me the last NEW U.S. factory GM/Ford has built here. (it could very well backfire on me because I honestly don't know).

I'd rather not get into the "American vs Foreign" debate here as I am tired of that debate. But GM and Ford both have a heck of alot more plants in the US than Toyota does and they employ a heck of alot more Americans. Bottom line is that buying American supports our economy alot more than buying Toyota. Period!


The Tundra is a "bold" step.....I think GM's answer(or vice versa because I think GM came out first) is a great truck numbers wise also.....Ford has some catching up to do.

I'm not in the marlket for a truck......but if I were, my experience with GM and that .7 seconds would lead me to Toy. HOWEVER, and I'm surprised this hasn't been brought up yet, I don't think I'd pay too much more for that .7 seconds.

But you will, and how can you base your opinion on a 20 year old bad experience? Those 87's have nothing in common with today's vehicles. Completely different trucks designed by different engineers (most likely) with completely different technologies.

GM just now started with rebates/financing on the '07's...should be interesting to see if Toy responds with MORE incentives. (even though I haven't seen anything on the Crew Max yet)

Originally Posted by SMIGGS

So by guaking at the Tundra at a car show and taking it for a ride I can easily see how you think it's a POS.

Did you tow with it, haul anything in the bed of the truck? Do you know how the frame handles under stress?

I don't know about you, but you can hardly make any frame asumptions here just by looking at one for an hour.

Originally Posted by Vmax2007

I am sure the frame can handle the stress just fine. (even though it has less payload cap). You obviously do not understand the real advantages of the FBF. So, let's just forget it and you can continue believing it's a great "TripleTech" frame, ok? I have explained it enough and even posted a link to a video about it, I am done. You want to know details, google it. I did much more than just look at it for an hour. Oh and BTW, I am an ME, so I do know what I am looking at a little better than most people do.

Originally Posted by SMIGGS

Well elaborate more what "more than just looking at it" you actually did? I'm curious, it seems your story gets more detailed ( or changes ) when I ask you what experience you have with the Tundra.

And seeing you're an ME, your insight on your findings on "how *****ty their frame was built" will go along way to convince me and I'm sure others here.
I'm not going to "google" anything on this, you seem to have everything wrapped up.

Originally Posted by Vmax2007

I researched it on the internet, just like I suggested you do. And by that I don't mean websites like Youtube and biased magazine sites. I actually found unbiased info and even read a lengthy thesis on things such as Torque Management (no, not part of this debate, but just making a point, so don't try to spin it). There is alot of good info on the net if you know where to look.

Yes, I am an ME, but I do not believe an engineering background is required to see that riveting in stamped steel crossmembers is "lower quality" (nice way of saying *****-ty) than boxed/tubular crossmembers that are welded in through both sides of the boxed main rails. I also can see right past the so-called "TripleTech" term Toyota came up with to sell this inferior design knowing it would be scrutinized due to it's 2 main competitors' (as well as Nissan's) superior FBF designs. They obviously were more interested in spending their time and money on the drivetrain knowing most people will put more emphasis on that than a well designed frame. Well, GM and Ford don't have to pick and choose when they build a truck, they have been building and refining these trucks for decades.

Originally Posted by DOHCmarauder

Bill, the '08 Titan ad is on constantly on nearly every network. (we had this same debate about ads when the Titan was offroading to the song "Ironman" by Ozzy Osbourne.....the one where the Titan front bumper was slamming against the body on every bounce.....you were also surprised when I showed you the rebates/financing on the Titans.....you need to take breaks from FTE )

Originally Posted by DOHCmarauder

Are you sure the 4WD crew cab maintains the 10,500 towing??? Yep, go look it up, it'sright on their website www.gmc.com


Of course I cannot find it now, but I thought I read where max tow ratings on GM was like on the Fords.....add CC it subracts....add 4WD it subtracts....add 18" wheels it subracts. The tested 6.0L Chevy in the C&D test had a max tow rating of 8,500 pounds. Yep, with the 3.73 gears (NO NHT pkg) Like mine.


So let's say we all agree that the Toy frame comes in second....even though it'll do it's intended job just fine. Depends on how you define "intended job". If all you care about is it not breaking, then yes, if you add in performance and longevity without chassis squeeks and rattles, then time will tell.

Does the Toy's +1" ring and pinion have an advantage?? Only if GM's smaller ones prove to be a weak link and have problems, then yes, I suppose it does. BTW, mine has the 9.5" Ring gear. Speaking of rear ends, where is the option for a Rear Locker on the Tundra?

Does the Toy's bigger 4 piston brakes hold any advantage??? Only if it stops better, which I have seen test results swing both ways between Toy and GM, havene't seen Fords, so can't speak for Ford here. And if these brakes are so "big", I still have not heard a good reason why Toyota REQUIRES (or no warranty) ALL trailers over 1000 lbs to have it's own brakes, GMs recommendation is 2000 lbs. Kinda ironic after that "seesaw" ad huh?

Just curious.

M.E.??? Yet you give no weight to the 5 star rating that Toy received for the HIGHER speed crash test..........did we forget how the previous F-150 scored??? They all were equal in that test, what's to compare? And if the results were opposite between the 2 tests, would the NHTSA tests then become the better test? I'd bet so. Typical Toyoyo spin again. And why would we compare previous gen trucks?


Hydroformed frames..........I read in another post you said Ford came out with it???

Actually it was GM with the intro of the "Truck"....'99(??) True, but only the front rails were Hydroformed, I believe most of them are now. And actually it was in 1989, my 89 GMC had hydroformed front rails. Off topic, but I also love how Dodge introduced hydroforming about 10 years after GM did and had the nads to brag about it as being "innovative"....LOL


Oh, and a lot of them bent being cinched down on the rail cars. (the ones that didn't bend were being bought back by GM for pinging or piston slap)

BS, show me proof of this nonsense!!! Do you know anything about "Piston Slap" and what causes it and what effects it has? I didn't think so, again, go learn something..type in "Piston Slap" into your Google search box and you will find lots of info on it. And again, Toyota, (inc Tundra) also has Piston Slap history. Nice try though.

There are a lot of reasons I don't care for GM....not just my ownership.

As far as being patriotic, all I see is Ford/GM continue to outsource while I continue to see many foreign makes set up here.

Not going there....I do have a preference for buying domestic over Foreign, but that has nothing to do with my dislike of Toyota, I also hate Dodge and they are American. Different topic.


If it means anything to you........the cam thang is a huge black eye for Toy, regardless of how they handle it. Yes, it is, and they better hope this is the end of any major issues with this truck, or it will suffer the same fate as the T100. I actually hope it doesn't, the one thing the tundra is good for is keeping the domestics on top of things.

All I want is Ford to respond to the Toy numbers (and to a lesser extent GM and Nissans numbers) that would nake me happy.

Originally Posted by NumberDummy

I guess mebbe I oughtta watch other channels besides the: History; History International; Military; TCM; C-Span 2 and 3; and PBS. Oh, and they don't play Ozzie on 91.5 classical music station KUSC, either. I wouldn't know Ozzie Osbourne from Ozzie Nelson. But I do know who the Three B's and "The Five" are in Classical Music History, do you?


What the heck is an ME? I'm married to a PE, and she has an MBA, two MS's, and a BS.

Originally Posted by Vmax2007

Ford will be just fine.