From: Steve on
Ashton Crusher wrote:

> Is it really that bad? What have been the reliability problems? I
> only know one person who owns a Tundra and he seems to like it. I
> know several people with the Tacoma? the smaller one and they all
> like them.

They're far from horrible, but there have been brake and front
suspension problems. Not the kind of thing you want to see in a "tough"
vehicle from the allegedly (self proclaimed anyway) best carmaker in the
world.
From: C. E. White on

"Ashton Crusher" <demi(a)moore.net> wrote in message
news:rug2e5pkshla9ugm0ng3480i4f2ev02r9a(a)4ax.com...
> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:54:53 -0500, Steve <no(a)spam.thanks> wrote:
>
>>
>>And where's the surprise here?
>>
>>
>>A massively over-bulked pickup introduced at the start of a gas
>>price
>>spike. With no 3/4 or one-ton option to appeal to contractors. With
>>no
>>diesel option to appeal to farmers, moving companies, RV-towing
>>retirees, or other mid-sized hauling operations. With an immediate
>>record of reliability problems guaranteed to scare away cautious,
>>bottom-line oriented, data-driven fleet buyers who don't buy into
>>the
>>Japanese reliability mythos as readily as consumers.
>>
>>It was a condo-dweller's weekend Home Depot run truck (or city
>>poseur
>>truck to be blunt) introduced at the VERY instant in time when the
>>demand for city poseur trucks was guaranteed to tank.
>
>
> Is it really that bad? What have been the reliability problems? I
> only know one person who owns a Tundra and he seems to like it. I
> know several people with the Tacoma? the smaller one and they all
> like them.

The smaller Tundra was a much better vehicle. The new huge Tundra is a
bad copy of a Silverado that incorporates as many bad Ford and Dodge
ideas as they could tack on. Billions wasted.

Ed


From: Steve on
C. E. White wrote:

> The smaller Tundra was a much better vehicle. The new huge Tundra is a
> bad copy of a Silverado that incorporates as many bad Ford and Dodge
> ideas as they could tack on. Billions wasted.
>

There ARE no bad Dodge ideas... well, in trucks anyway. :-p


From: C. E. White on

"Steve" <no(a)spam.thanks> wrote in message
news:BJqdnbH-aJFHYHjXnZ2dnUVZ_hdi4p2d(a)texas.net...
> C. E. White wrote:
>
>> The smaller Tundra was a much better vehicle. The new huge Tundra is a
>> bad copy of a Silverado that incorporates as many bad Ford and Dodge
>> ideas as they could tack on. Billions wasted.
>>
>
> There ARE no bad Dodge ideas... well, in trucks anyway. :-p

I guess we will see about the current model. I have to wonder about the coil
spring rear end. GMC tried that decades ago and it was not exactly a sucess.
In theory it should be just fine, but as I recall, when you overloaded a GMC
with the coil spring rear suspension, you often wrecked the springs. And if
you were on dirt a lot, the shock would fail, and since coils don't have the
same sort of inherent damping as leaf springs, the rear end would start
bouuncing all over the place. I can still remeber watching the beds of GMCs
with worn out shocks bouncing down the road like someone bouncing a
basketball. I suppose shocks are better now, but I still susspect for a
vehicle like a pickup that has to carry radically different loads in the
bed, leaf springs are a better deal.

My only close experience with Dodge trucks are the ones my nearest neighbor
owned. He had two in the 1990's, both with the Cummins Diesel. He liked them
both, but both had transmission problems (one got a new transmisison and
that failed too). He is happier with his current Chevy Duramax, but he is
not opposed to buying a new Dodge. It seems to me that Dodges are attractive
to the "mavericks," that is people who want to appear to be different (even
if they really are just the same). I can't really think of any reason not to
buy a Dodge, I just can't think of a reason to buy one either.

Ed

From: M. Balmer on

No, just bad Dodge trucks. Like the worst on the market. Total garbage.


>
> There ARE no bad Dodge ideas... well, in trucks anyway. :-p
>
>