Buzz Bomb

Member
May 9, 2000
706
0
We are having a hell of a time with cars. My dads Chevy Silverado is grenading and he's gonna get rid of it soon. So far it's needed new brakes, new distributer, and new tires. Plus, the power steering was leaking and we needed to replace that. Now the fuel pump is blowing fuses left and right. We've gone through at least 10 this week! Now that we got that straightened out, my dad is going to get rid of the thing as soon as he can. He thinks he wants a Tundra. How are these? We've heard good things about them, but I just wanna hear from some actual owners to see what they think. Anybody?
 

BunduBasher

Boodoo-Bash-eRRR
LIFETIME SPONSOR
Feb 9, 2000
2,450
2
OT

You could try the support vehicles forum.

From what I hear the Tundra is a great truck, I am considering getting the quad cab for myself.

Mind you, my brother just checked out the new avalanche and this looks to be one great truck !
 

yarbonwick

Sponsoring Member
Mar 7, 2000
674
0
Tundra safety

If it's up there with the priorities check this out.

Video
 
Last edited:

mtngoat

LIFETIME SPONSOR
Jun 12, 2000
314
0
Great video Yarb.

Consumer Reports rates the Tundra its top truck. They also gave poor reliability rankings to the GM trucks. My experience is that their reliability calls are accurate. Much as I like the GM trucks (especially the upcoming Isuzu-diesel), I'd pass. Problem is I was considering a Ford.

Hard to go worng with Toyota, but their small truck ratings fell when they were assembled in the U.S. Still surpassed by the Ford Ranger, according to CR.
 

G. Gearloose

Pigment of ur imagination
Jul 24, 2000
709
0
Ditto

I concur what Kali says,
I think the new GM's are great value and smartly made. CR will always say a toy is more reliable than a domestic, even before new models can post data, that makes their opinion worth less IMO. Its really splitting hairs nowadays what service events constitutes 'reliability' too.
 

mtngoat

LIFETIME SPONSOR
Jun 12, 2000
314
0
CR is the only "consumer information" source covering a wide variety of consumer products, that doesn't take "ad" money from product makers. Their data is based on the real-world and comparative experience of many consumers and their products. I can't say they're never wrong, but it's hard to form any reasonable argument of the integrity and results of their data gathering and reporting.

I always read, but don't always follow their advice. I've had three Jeep GCs, which they consider one of the worst vehicles for reliability. I just like the looks and performance of the GC. But, I lease them and turn them in around the warranty expiration.

BTW, CR doesn't subjectively favor foreign makes. They down-graded small toyota trucks following their US assembly. They currently report the Ranger as the best made small truck. If you've ever read their reports or filled out their surveys, you'll find they very sensibly organize "repair" areas to report reliability.

No question reliability can be shored up by good maintenance, but nowadays, most vehicles are designed for low-maintenance and high reliability. Some deliver, some don't--according to owner surveys.

I think the best thing CR has done with vehicles is to establish a comparative "performance metric" that induces makers to build better vehicles. Their last auto issue examined reliability trends and found that reliabilty among most makers has improved substantially.
 

DoubleTrouble

Member
May 26, 2000
138
0
Buzz Bomb's Siverado speaks for itself - It's grenading so C/S can't be that wrong.

With respect to choosing between a Tundra and an Avalanche I'm probably still inclined to the Tundra. As Buzz Bomb explained their Silverado is packing-in so replacing it essentially with a Silverado in disguise may not be such a good thing. I like the looks of the Avalanche and the midgate is fantastic but the ergonomics are still 80's and backward. The F150 Crew-Cab is still my favorite and has a much better reliability rating than Chevy or Dodge - Now if Ford or Toyota can catch up on the midgate idea.......
 

cp380sx

Member
Jan 12, 2001
274
0
My Chevy truck just turned 235,000 miles. I have put 200,000 of those miles on myself. The truck has been bulletproof.

Cameron
 

HiG4s

~SPONSOR~
Mar 7, 2001
1,311
0
I currently own a 2001 Silverado that I got 6 months ago and I recommend it highly. But for most people the Toyota would be better. I have owned several different brands over the years and found that most of the problems I have encounted with domesic brands revlove around all the high tech accessories. The trucks I have had with all the power options and factory stereo upgrades are the ones I've had trouble with. My current Silverado it the base model, the only options are V8, air, and posi. I even have the manual trans. I also get 19 to 21 mpg with it. I did look at the Tundra and if it was available with manual on the V8 I might have got one. I hate automatic transmissions, just a personal thing.
Also has anyone checked out the new truck crash ratings. Tundra got the best rating overall, GM second, but only the GM trucks got a good rating in all 4 injury measurments. Tundra got good rating on 3 of the injury catagories. And I personally dicount the bumper rating as it stems from the amount of property damage to the truck which has little to do with passenger safety.
http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/summary_lgpickup.htm
 
Last edited:

BunduBasher

Boodoo-Bash-eRRR
LIFETIME SPONSOR
Feb 9, 2000
2,450
2
Fab 150

Those are some serious statistics there, looks like if you own a F150, you may just come out with minimal chest and foot injuries :eek: you may need a new head though :think
 

KXRider

Member
Nov 10, 1999
52
0
I got a Chevy Silvarado extended cab 4x4 Z71 off road about 8 months ago and have over 12,000 miles on it with no problems at all. It has the roomiest cab, 285 hp, pulls our box trailer with ease and the ride is outstanding. While I am sure the Toyota is a good vehicle, I can not compare the two since I made the decision to never buy another foreign automobile again back in 1981. Just curious what year and how many miles are on your Dad's Chevy truck?
 

yarbonwick

Sponsoring Member
Mar 7, 2000
674
0
Re: Fab 150

Originally posted by BunduBasher
Those are some serious statistics there, looks like if you own a F150, you may just come out with minimal chest and foot injuries :eek: you may need a new head though :think

Bunda if you have the speed you need to check out the video I placed above. It will scare the living crap out of you if you own a new F150.
 

DoubleTrouble

Member
May 26, 2000
138
0
The stats are impressive but the video is even more so - OK, scratch the F150 from my list and bring me the Tundra.

AL, (Bundu), the stats may give you your legs and chest but there is not much left of the F150 or Ram in the tests on video - The Tundra did amazingly well !
 

bwalker

LIFETIME SPONSOR
Jan 10, 2000
839
0
I say the show the clip was taken from and all of the vehicles tested except the toyota faired pretty poorly. I am not sure how valid the test was however since it involed running a truck into a concrete wall. In the real world all of the trucks would have faired better by virtue of stiff steal frame trucks have. In a accident with a car tell me which vehicle would far worse a truck or a unibody car.
 

yarbonwick

Sponsoring Member
Mar 7, 2000
674
0
I see what you are saying Bwalker. By pure virtue of ramming into another vehicle and both doing the crunching, there would be more forces released and not distributed to the drivers. I don't have to go to AI school to figure that one. However, I believe in surpassing the standards. And being able to handle a concrete bearer and still not having the forces exerted to the driver, by electronic measurement of the crash dummies, just think about how well you would fair by the result of a onset crash. Which BTW happens a hell of lot more times than the other manufactures would lead you to believe- 8,465 times angled and 6,653 head-on in 1999.

Mind you I don't have a Tundra. I am gambling with the Dodge Dakota I have. T-bone crashes, though considerably lower, are what concern me the most though. None of the modern technology to have a higher survivable rate help though when 2/3's of all fatalities in motor vehicles in 1999 were unrestrained.
 

mtngoat

LIFETIME SPONSOR
Jun 12, 2000
314
0
Originally posted by bwalker
In the real world all of the trucks would have faired better by virtue of stiff steal frame trucks have. In a accident with a car tell me which vehicle would far worse a truck or a unibody car.

I figure modern "unit" construction would fare better than "steel frame" (between vehicles of similar weight) since it's designed to "crumple" and absorb energy, instead of transmitting energy to passengers. Also, a lot of new unit designs send the motor underneath the passenger compartment on impact.
 

bwalker

LIFETIME SPONSOR
Jan 10, 2000
839
0
You are right when if the accident involves hitting a stationary object. When you have a accident involving two differently designed vehicles( unibody vs. steel ladder frame) the results would be much different. The uni will always come out on the short end of a accident with a truck.
 
Last edited:

dirt bike dave

Sponsoring Member
May 3, 2000
5,349
3
In the real world, common sense says there is a very strong correllation between vehicle weight and occupant survivability. More weight = More safe. However, when hitting a stationary, immovable object at an angle, more weight is BAD, as greater energy is at work to tear the vehicle apart.

The Ford test involved a newer Supercab and the small back doors came unlatched, which in all likelihood significantly reduced the structural integrity of the cab. Non-Supercabs and pre-99 Supercabs would not have this problem. And Ford was dinged heavily for airbags that were slow to go off. Could be be related to newer, less powerful airbags resulting from lawsuits about older, more explosive airbags injuring people.

To Ford truck owners (I have a '99 F150 SuperCab): Let's quit the panic! The new body style has been on the road since '97 and has been a HUGE seller. There is tons of real world data out there - data which was available long before the video and test. The proof is in the real world, not on TV - the vehicles are NOT death traps.
 

BunduBasher

Boodoo-Bash-eRRR
LIFETIME SPONSOR
Feb 9, 2000
2,450
2
We have a winner

Just tested the Tundra vs the New Avalanche side by side this weekend, the Tundra has a great engine and will make a very good utility truck, not much creature comforts, this is all truck. However the new Avalanche is a winner, it is very roomy, enough space for 5 to 6 people, the new mid gate concept is fantastic, and it has a very smooth powerful drive. It may cost 6 g's more but in my book it is probably worth every cent.

Alan
 

DoubleTrouble

Member
May 26, 2000
138
0
Bundu is right the Avalanche is a winner as you can get two dirt bikes/quad on the back with the midgate lowered. It's a true SUV and pretty far removed from a utilitarian truck - The Avalanche will tow more than the Tundra too. However, with the midgate lowered, access to the cab is fairly easy and will make easy pickings for someone wanting a nice new truck and a couple of dirt bikes.

After testing the Avalanche and the Tundra side by side this it what I found. The Tundra is a truck, make no mistake, with a peach of a V8 engine. The extended cab is not much cop as it does not offer much space at the back and steals length from the bin. It could probably tow your boat, horse or a small trailer no problem but is not up to heavy duty work. It is a nice truck though. The Avalanche on the other hand is spacious and roomy and pretty well appointed. The ergonomics are not as good as the F150, though and with the rear seats folded the F150 Super Crew offers a virtually flat surface area whereas the Avalanche is exposed with hard edges protruding from the folded seat - Not a great place to put your dog. How weather proof the cab is with the midgate up only time will tell. With the midgate down expect to come out second in the rain. The Tundra seemed far more surefooted as the Avalanche tended to drift quite easily - To sensitive power steering or Z66 tire package ? Both only come with automatic transmissions.

Conclusion: If you need a truck now you can't go wrong with the Tundra as it is virtually bug-free. If you can wait a while. I'd hang on for the Avalanche and get the first-year bugs ironed out.
 

GlennP

Member
Jun 6, 2000
311
0
If you wan't something you can drive out of the dealers lot and never have to return, buy the Tundra. Great, powerfull, bulletproof truck. I had enough of the quality problems and recalls with my Chevy and Ford, and the Ram owners I know would never buy another. Actually DNS three races last year due to Ford Ranger breakdowns. The back of the Tundra is tight, but so are all the extended cabs. I bet there will be a crew cab Tundra soon. I love Euro bikes, but the Jap truck is the way to go.
 

zcookie49

Seven OUT!
Dec 21, 2000
860
0
Consumer reports Sucks!

CR is biased to foreign vehicles, no doubt.....Whoever posted that maintenace per individual owner is the key. These are all hi - tech machines now a days. ... Granted, Toyota is known for quality, and you pay for that stereotype, whether you get it or not... Chevy HD truck was 2001 motor trend truck of year, not that it means alot, I'm sure someone will flame this by saying they were paid to do this, but it was a pretty plush field, and these are only opinions... Chevy and Ford have been the kings of Full size trucks, and Dodge makes a pretty decent one out there in the RAM.... I had a jeep grand cherokee and put 200,000 miles, and only had to do minor things like a water pump, struts, etc, ... these are maintenance items, besides that, pretty good truck, that consumer reports bashed....
************************
the Avalanche is pretty decent, but I am holding out another year, I like the CHevy Silverado/ Fox racing concept truck... go to foxracing.com or chevy.com under trucks.. this truck is all that if they build it... Since GM bought out Hummer, expect to see more aggressive look from the trucks, and that is what the FOX concept chevy has.. but it probably wont come out tho.. I will wait, check out the Avalanche reports and silverados...I must say that the Tundra has come a long way since first intro, it was scoffed for having a wimpy v6 then... From what I have heard, Chevy and Toyota chewed the fat in designing the Tundra V8.... You wont go wrong with either one of the trucks, as long as you do the proper maintenance and can afford either one, the silverado can come in over 30 different variations...
 

BunduBasher

Boodoo-Bash-eRRR
LIFETIME SPONSOR
Feb 9, 2000
2,450
2
Love is blind !!

People say my DRZ with the 4.7 gal IMS tank is ugly, methinks it quite appealing, the same for the Avalanche, it is one beautifly ugly baby ... I want one .... in yellow ... withe Babewatch stickers :p
 

Buzz Bomb

Member
May 9, 2000
706
0
Just to answer the above question, the truck my dad owns is a '98 Chevy Silverado. It's only got 40,000 miles on it, and the problems have been occurring since new.
 


Top Bottom