From: SnoMan on 31 Mar 2007 20:21 On 1 Apr 2007 00:11:17 GMT, PerfectReign <perfectreign(a)xr4ti.cotse.net> wrote: >Who *does* build their own? Ford uses Navistar IIRC, Dodge uses Cummins >and GM uses Duramax, which was a joint venture with Joe Izusu. This is quite true but a Toyota HD pickup would likely sell better against US one with a US engine vs one designed and built by Toyota because if it was built in US and had a US motor too it would be a lot harder for Detriot to try to wave the flag and call it a import vs "amercain" detriot trucks that use imported parts. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com
From: owl on 31 Mar 2007 20:57 "C. E. White" <cewhite(a)mindspring.com> wrote in message news:GCEOh.17698$tD2.10404(a)newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net... > 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 ? http://forums.treemedia.com/fb/showthread.php?t=224
From: C. E. White on 31 Mar 2007 23:15 "owl" <owl_1971_noSpam_(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:o_GdnSpR05DpnpLbnZ2dnUVZ_sGqnZ2d(a)comcast.com... > > "C. E. White" <cewhite(a)mindspring.com> wrote in message > news:GCEOh.17698$tD2.10404(a)newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net... >> 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 ? They are getting 300 hp from 4.6L. Isn't that good enough? They have 4 valve heads for the modular engine but if they are meeting their horsepower targets with the 3 valve heads, why go to the extra cost? > There is no place in my garage for pushrod based engines. There is in mine if a Corvette is wrapped around it. I think it foolish to say you won't consider a pushrod engine. Most current Ford engines are overhead cam. The only exceptions are the 4.2L and the 3.0L V-6 truck engines. I think GM has done great things with push rod engines. It is hard to beat the Corvette engine in terms of horsepower per lb and horsepoer per cubic inch of space occupied under the hood. > I also know the differences in a 4 piston caliper on the front brake > rotors. And what does this mean? Do you think that four piston calipers work significantly better than 2 piston sliding caliper brakes? I've had cars with four piston brakes and not seen any advantage. Despite Toyota's hype, their truck doesn't stop any better than the competitor's trucks. So what is the advantage? > Is the 4.2 liter v6 used on the new F150 the same as this 4.2 ? > > http://forums.treemedia.com/fb/showthread.php?t=224 Same basic engine. But if you notice, all the "problem vehicles" were 97 and 98 models. If you think Ford is unique in having head gasket problems do some research on Toyota v6 head gasket failure - http://www.cargurus.com/Cars/RatingDetail-r1346-View.html http://yotarepair.com/breakingnews.html http://www.tundrasolutions.com/forums/4runner/32512-4runner-head-gasket-recall/ http://www.epinions.com/auto-review-2080-3CD9EB2-390F9EA8-prod1 http://www.complaints.com/november2001/complaintoftheday.november27.11.htm Ed
From: Jeff DeWitt on 1 Apr 2007 10:45 SnoMan wrote: > On 1 Apr 2007 00:11:17 GMT, PerfectReign > <perfectreign(a)xr4ti.cotse.net> wrote: > > >>Who *does* build their own? Ford uses Navistar IIRC, Dodge uses Cummins >>and GM uses Duramax, which was a joint venture with Joe Izusu. > > > This is quite true but a Toyota HD pickup would likely sell better > against US one with a US engine vs one designed and built by Toyota > because if it was built in US and had a US motor too it would be a lot > harder for Detriot to try to wave the flag and call it a import vs > "amercain" detriot trucks that use imported parts. > ----------------- > TheSnoMan.com I don't know, there are a lot of people (like me) who just aren't going to buy a Japanese truck. Doesn't matter where it was designed and built if it says "Toyota" it's a Japanese truck. That being said if I have the choice between say a Ford made in Mexico or a Chebby made in the US, I'd go with the Chebby, even though I'd really rather have a Ford. (actually I want a new Studebaker!). Jeff DeWitt
From: Leythos on 1 Apr 2007 11:05
On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 10:45:51 -0400, Jeff DeWitt wrote: > > I don't know, there are a lot of people (like me) who just aren't going to > buy a Japanese truck. Doesn't matter where it was designed and built if > it says "Toyota" it's a Japanese truck. > > That being said if I have the choice between say a Ford made in Mexico or > a Chebby made in the US, I'd go with the Chebby, even though I'd really > rather have a Ford. For the last 20 years I've bought American, as a matter of principal, and because I wanted the horse power that I get from American vehicles. Two days ago I bought my first foreign vehicle - a Toyota 4Runner Limited. To me, while it doesn't have the HP that my other vehicles had, it has one thing they never had - 22.9MPG based on how I drive it. Almost every vehicle I've driven for the last 20 years has got between 12 and 15MPG on highway, less based on city and my lead foot.... I looked at other SUV/Truck's from American dealers (No, I would never consider a Ford - I won't buy from them, ever), but the Lexus has a couple nice SUV, but too much money. The Chevy has a couple nice SUV types, but they are huge and get bad MPG. The Nissan didn't appeal to me. The Audi's looked Ok, but too much money... To be honest, I wanted a FJ, but after I found out it requires Premium gas, and those dang little passenger entry doors.... I still want the FJ, but the 4Runner Limited was the next best option for me. Sadly, I think that we're going to buy another one for my wife, she's going to trade in her Town and Country (fully loaded) this summer for a fully loaded 4Runner Limited or a Rav4 Limited. Going through all of the online data, performance reviews (not just HP), the reliability, the stats, the Toyota vehicles in this class seem to just outshine the American vehicles. Where the American vendors lost me was as follows: 1) Quality - Overall. I've had vehicles that requred 4 rear-ends, 3 transmissions, many computers, new drive shafts, breaks that failed completely 4 or 5 times while driving, leaking gas tanks, etc... All on vehicles less than a year old and with less than 5K on them. 2) MPG - none of my vehicles have ever got MORE than 15MPG on the highway. 3) Attitude - Their sales people are as bad as Insurance sales people. Their service managers are like working with the maffia most times, always deny and then only do what is obvious. Don't get me wrong, most of my vehicles have been between $28K and $35K in price before we talked them down to a reasonable amount of profit, but, I've experienced MAJOR problems with every American vehicle I've owned, all my life. While I may find the same with Toyota, I'm willing to take the chance and hope that it will be different, since I know it won't be different with another American car. -- Leythos spam999free(a)rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address) |