GM Dealer Challenges the Toyota Tundra's Ads... AS BULL
in [Toyota]
|
From: 80 Knight on 1 Apr 2007 11:10 "Jeff DeWitt" <JeffDeWitt(a)nc.rr.com> wrote in message news:460fc5a5$0$17185$4c368faf(a)roadrunner.com... > 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!). You couldn't possibly pay me enough to own a Toyota car or truck. I've never liked them. As for my truck of choice, I would take the Silverado. Then again, seeing how we build them, I may be biased ;-)
From: SnoMan on 1 Apr 2007 19:26 On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 16:57:32 -0400, Jeffrey DeWitt <JeffDeWitt(a)nc.rr.com> wrote: >My Jeep IS a Jeep, not like a Compass or even the current Wrangler with >it's minivan engine. I did not say your Jeep was not more Jeep than new ones. I have been around Jeeps since late 50's and when AMC bought them in early 70's it was the best thing that ever happen to Jeep in modern times because they refined the drivetrain and gave the Jeep a more stable foundation and under AMC the highly sucessfull mini Cherokee was born in 84 (there was a full sized one that was discontinued in 83). AMC bulit good sturdy motors that were never appreciated by many. Chyrsler is running Jeep into the ground and the best thing that could happen to Jeep today would be to get away from Chyrsler. Dated or not is was a mistake to kill the sturdy proven Cherokee and replace it with the Liberty. They should have kept Cherokee as a base entry vehicle and bastardized the grand instead. > >I think GM is finally learning the lesson about quality and is turning >the corner, Ford and Occupied Chrysler still have a way to go. I do not think GM has learned anything yet really. Just look at a 2007 Chevy P/U as what appears to be a beefy bumper in front of each front wheel is merely chome plated plastic that will fail with a mild impact with anything much more than a emtpy paper bag when at speed (just wait until they start busting them off in snow drifts. Rest assured with each new model GM finds a way to built them cheaper because labors costs is killing them. The new 6 speed auto (6L80) being used in new HD P/U's with 6.0 takes about 65% less man hours (about 270 bucks less man hour wise) to assemble because it modular design can be assembled by a robot but the bad thing about this design and assemble is that there is no "drive" gear in it (it has no 1 to 1 ratio that can be selected) because of the componud modular design and it remains to be seen hhow this will pan out in tim is HD usage.(it is either in a underdrive or overdrive mode with no direct drive possible as it compounds/selects different planetaries to get its six speeds with no direct main shaft availble for 1 to 1 drive) The sturdy Ally and the new Toyota 6 speed auto still have a 1 to 1 drive ratio availble. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com
From: owl on 1 Apr 2007 20:06 "C. E. White" <cewhite3(a)mindspring.com> wrote in message news:NtFPh.22207$oV.19591(a)attbi_s21... > > "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? 4 valve design has been arround for too long not to use. That is unless you don't think the consumer deserves it. Also, is the 4.2 L ford engine a 90 degree V6, Is that an indication of a lower red line ? The 4.6 for the Ford truck is the same pushrod 2-valve. The mustang engines are still pushrod design. Is there a Ford V8 with 4 valve design ? How about variable valve timing ? > > > 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. OH ? Corvette V8 6.0 L 16 valve OHV 400hp-6000rpm 400ft-lbs-4400rpm Tundra V8 5.7 L 32 valve DOHC 381hp-5600rpm 401ft-lbs-3600rpm Lexus V8 4.6 L 32 valve DOHC 380hp-6400rpm 367ft-lbs-4100rpm Similar numbers out of less displacement. This would suggest the Corvette would benefit greatly from an updated valvetrain design. According to the mustang engine specs .. all 3 engines have hydraulic lifters hence not DOHC. So add the 5.4 L to the list of the pushrod engines. > > > 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? That's easy with pistons on both side of the rotor, more even, and responsive pressure can be applied on more braking surface area without having to float the caliper. It also contributes to capacity for greater braking surface area. I'd say there is NO hype in prefering 4 piston over 2. > > > 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 Yep I'm well aware all manufacutrers have had issues with gasket recalls. What about cruise control systems that burn your car and house down ?
From: owl on 1 Apr 2007 21:37 "David M" <NOSPAM(a)nospam.com> wrote in message news:46105255$0$4939$4c368faf(a)roadrunner.com... > On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 18:06:57 -0600, owl rearranged some electrons to form: > > > > According to the mustang engine specs .. all 3 engines have hydraulic > > lifters hence not DOHC. > > So add the 5.4 L to the list of the pushrod engines. > > Wrong. The Ford 5.4L modular engine is an overhead cam engine. Yeah ? http://www.fordvehicles.com/cars/mustang/features/specs/index.asp says for the 5.4 L valve lifters Hydraulic with Roller Finger Followers > > > -- > David M (dmacchiarolo) > http://home.triad.rr.com/redsled > T/S 53 > sled351 Linux 2.4.18-14 has been up 2:26 1 user >
From: Ray O on 1 Apr 2007 21:45
"owl" <owl_1971_noSpam_(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:tvydnWe6oPj0w43bnZ2dnUVZ_veinZ2d(a)comcast.com... > > "David M" <NOSPAM(a)nospam.com> wrote in message > news:46105255$0$4939$4c368faf(a)roadrunner.com... >> On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 18:06:57 -0600, owl rearranged some electrons to >> form: >> >> >> > According to the mustang engine specs .. all 3 engines have hydraulic >> > lifters hence not DOHC. >> > So add the 5.4 L to the list of the pushrod engines. >> >> Wrong. The Ford 5.4L modular engine is an overhead cam engine. > > Yeah ? > http://www.fordvehicles.com/cars/mustang/features/specs/index.asp > > says for the 5.4 L valve lifters Hydraulic with Roller Finger Followers > > >> >> >> -- >> David M (dmacchiarolo) >> http://home.triad.rr.com/redsled >> T/S 53 >> sled351 Linux 2.4.18-14 has been up 2:26 1 user >> > > According the info from the link provided above, the 4.0 L has a single overhead cam, the 4.6 L has overhead valves (pushrods) and the 5.4 L has double overhead cam. It is possible for an overhead cam engine to use hydraulic lifters. -- Ray O (correct punctuation to reply) |