Interesting test........

[DOHCmarauder]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4287668.html


Shows a few things:

Ford's top powertrain is still a dog.

Testers are idiots.....the Tundra's stability/traction control is 100% able to be turned off.

More idiotic they didn't choose GM's top drivetrain........but it was interesting the most powerful truck got better MPG than the 5.3.


They rated the Dodge high even with the incredibly wimpy tow rating.


I wonder if the Toy had GM's great faux wood, an easily installed (and better) aftermarket NAV system (I personally want the Pioneer AVICZ2)and the morons learned how to turn off the VSC/TC, if it would have scored higher???


Of course, the performance numbers are more than enough to realize I picked the right truck......for ME!!

 

[godblessmud]

Comparing 1/4 mile and 0-60 times when all trucks have gearing ranging from 3.36-3.55 vs another with 4.30... F*** that "comparison"!

 

[DOHCmarauder]

Comparing 1/4 mile and 0-60 times when all trucks have gearing ranging from 3.36-3.55 vs another with 4.30... F*** that "comparison"!

Both the Ford and GM have very similar overall gearing when the transmissions ratios are factored in.


The Toyota has a 4.3 rear axle, first gear of 3.33, for a total launch gear ratio of 14.319

The Ford would normally have a 3.55 rear axle (I'm assuming that is a common ratio) and a first gear of 4.17, for a total launch ratio of 14.804 (Where did they get a 3.40 axle ratio for the test Ford?)

The Ford, with equal size tires, should have a STRONGER first gear response with equal power.

6th gear in the Toyota is .56, for a total cruise ratio of 2.408.

6th gear in the Ford is .69, for a total cruise ratio of 2.4495.

The Ford has a shorter first gear than the Toyota, and a very slightly longer 6th gear (call 6th gear the same, really), with a 3.55 axle in the Ford and a 4.30 in the Toyota.

You end up with the SAME ratios in the Ford...so worrying about the Ford's taller rear ratio is silly, since the ratios in the transmission effectively make it the same as the Toyota's with a 4.3 axle ratio in the latter.

 

[polarbear]

4.30 gears have been history on 1/2T's for quite awhile- gotta go 3/4T to get anything close to that.

I'm not sure they were that far off.

1. Tundra- great powertrain, so-so truck. Know a guy in Florida that autocrosses one (hey, it tows his Z06 to events)- stability control can be turned off, but it comes right back on after a bit. PITA, with a mind of it's own.

2. Chebbie. Best handling and fuel mileage, mid pack everywhere else. Yep... but the 6.2 would change both the powertrain and fuel mileage ratings. The Silverado is a great truck, IMO, because it's balanced- no major vices, outstanding build quality, decent price. Kinda the Camry of pickups- now there's high irony.

3. Nissan. I would've found something else for third place. Like the Dodge- which will replace the Titan in Nissan's lineup shortly.

2. Dodge. Haven't driven the new one, can't comment.

1. Ford- polar opposite of the Tundra. Stellar truck, average at best powertrain.

Good explanation of axle ratio's Jack!

 

[john112deere]

I gotta say...I'm not impressed with their test reporting.

That being said, I never quite got the HP race in pickups in recent years. I know a little bit about driving underpowered vehicles (case-in-point: my buddies 5.3 Tahoe merges into traffic better than my Ranger- towing more than said Ranger weighs) and maybe I'm just used to it, but in my experience marginal brakes or suspension are much more significant issues than power when hauling heavy. Going back a few years, Ford 1/2T were pretty hard to beat for this, IMO (even if the 5.4 is kinda slow and thirsty compared to the competition).

*Here I go talking about making the thing work hard again. I know, I know...people buy CC 1/2Ts primarily as cars.

 

[DOHCmarauder]

4.30 gears have been history on 1/2T's for quite awhile- gotta go 3/4T to get anything close to that.

I'm not sure they were that far off.

1. Tundra- great powertrain, so-so truck. Know a guy in Florida that autocrosses one (hey, it tows his Z06 to events)- stability control can be turned off, but it comes right back on after a bit. PITA, with a mind of it's own.

2. Chebbie. Best handling and fuel mileage, mid pack everywhere else. Yep... but the 6.2 would change both the powertrain and fuel mileage ratings. The Silverado is a great truck, IMO, because it's balanced- no major vices, outstanding build quality, decent price. Kinda the Camry of pickups- now there's high irony.

3. Nissan. I would've found something else for third place. Like the Dodge- which will replace the Titan in Nissan's lineup shortly.

2. Dodge. Haven't driven the new one, can't comment.

1. Ford- polar opposite of the Tundra. Stellar truck, average at best powertrain.

Good explanation of axle ratio's Jack!

What's hilarious about your Tundra opinion is that it is in fact the exact opposite. It is probably the most truck of the 1/2 tons. I mean, c'mon; complaining about the quality of the plastics??? What a joke.
The reason the others were ahead in this particular test is they were deemed more car like.


BTW, I defeat my T/C-VSC regularly and have NEVER had it come back on; only when re-started does it reset automatically.
The Tundra has always had the lowest DB's and smoothest ride before this Ford won a few category's.


Your comment concerning MPG supremecy was kinda shot in the foot according to this test.....the much more powerful Tundra had better numbers and I guarantee you that 1-2 MPH advantage in a slalom would be made up with the T/C turned off on the Tundra.


Bought my Tundra for its towing ability......highest or near highest numbers with the power to YANK trailers up grades.

Smooth quiet ride when empty.

Huge rear seat area on the Crew cab......the rear seats actually recline.

The totally flat floor on the Ford is kinda cool, though......but it makes a crossmember incredibly low.

Still the biggest brakes in the segment....(notice the test numbers when a load is applied during braking tests....that's a more real world test than INITIAL stops) when will Ford learn???


Ford did great with a lot of gizmos and features.....a lot of stuff I add to my truck to personalize it anyway.....but I'm incredibly disappointed at the performance numbers.....AGAIN!!!


Ernie, one thing I didn't see you comment on is, is the prices.

$46,000 for a CHEVY with the small motor???

 

[DOHCmarauder]

I gotta say...I'm not impressed with their test reporting.

That being said, I never quite got the HP race in pickups in recent years. I know a little bit about driving underpowered vehicles (case-in-point: my buddies 5.3 Tahoe merges into traffic better than my Ranger- towing more than said Ranger weighs) and maybe I'm just used to it, but in my experience marginal brakes or suspension are much more significant issues than power when hauling heavy. Going back a few years, Ford 1/2T were pretty hard to beat for this, IMO (even if the 5.4 is kinda slow and thirsty compared to the competition).

*Here I go talking about making the thing work hard again. I know, I know...people buy CC 1/2Ts primarily as cars.

Here's the thing:

Yes, the 5.4 or even GM's 5.3 will do everything the Tundra will do but at a slower pace.

It's the difference between going up a grade (like Baker grade between Vegas and L.A) in the semi-truck lane or being actually able to accelerate while pulling 7,000 pounds.

It is a 100% subjective viewpoint if it's important or not....to me it is.


On the other hand, if great faux wood is important; then the GM kicks butt....if the best factory electronic entertainment system is important, it seems the Ford has set the bar.

But I can always add carbon fiber or wood overlays to my dash and the aftermarket electronics are better IMHO.....can't add 100HP as easily.

 

[john112deere]

It is a 100% subjective viewpoint if it's important or not....to me it is.

Yep, it is. Most of my experience with loaded vehicles is either urban or relatively flat open highway; consequently most of the less-than-pleasant experiences that color my viewpoint are braking and stability related.

I still think if you're reviewing and ranking pickups, one of the tests should be how terrifying it is to drive through a busy urban area close to max payload, and the results should be reported, even if they're not heavily weighted in the final rankings.

 

[DOHCmarauder]

Yep, it is. Most of my experience with loaded vehicles is either urban or relatively flat open highway; consequently most of the less-than-pleasant experiences that color my viewpoint are braking and stability related.

I still think if you're reviewing and ranking pickups, one of the tests should be how terrifying it is to drive through a busy urban area close to max payload, and the results should be reported, even if they're not heavily weighted in the final rankings.

Agreed, if you ever get the chance to drive a new 5.7 Tundra while pulling 7,000+ pounds, please do it; It's incredibly impressive.

This is an actual comparison:

When going to the lake, we hook up the 23' boat with BBC to the Tundra.
The V10 Crew cab gets to pull the Sea Doos.

My son and I squared up at the start of a grade going to Lake Powell.
The trucks were neck and neck up to about 80MPH....the Ford's GCVW was aprox. 10,500 pounds; The Tundra's was close to 12,000 pounds!!!

They both got about 11MPG.

The Super Duty brakes are absolute garbage.....they did upgrade in '05 but they're still smaller than the 1/2 ton's Tundra's!!!


Towing my Mustang to Stockton, Ca. this week to have some sub-frame work done.

Have a choice between driving the F-250 or the Tundra.....guess which I'm taking??

Just thought I'd throw the last one in there.....RIP, Lucky

 

[polarbear]

A few interesting tidbits.

1. Yes, observed Toyota fuel mileage was .2 better than the Chebbie. Odd, since EPA shows a 3 mpg spread. I'm gonna blame driver here. Actually, 17 for the Chevy is about right- but NFW can a 'Yota 5.7 come close to that. We've taken two in trade recently, and crappy mileage has been a consistent complaint.

2. Towing rating was identical for the Toyota and the Chebbie- 9500 lbs in each case.

3. I have no idea how that Chevy stickered for $46K. I've got a new '09 LTZ 4X4 Crew sitting on the lot with a MSRP of $42,400, and it's got everything but Nav (20's, Roof, etc).

4. Yeah, you can put faux wood on the dash- but you can't restyle the wultizer elements of the rest of it.

And lastly- who the hell buys a V10 gasser SD to tow a trailer?

http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/pm-truck-comparison-1008.gif

 

[TexasNomad]

Why did ford make the truck so heavy is there a reason for it??

 

[john112deere]

Probably to add strength/stiffness.

Making the frame and suspension components out of thicker steel, for instance, will improve stiffness at the expense of weight.

 

[DOHCmarauder]

A few interesting tidbits.

1. Yes, observed Toyota fuel mileage was .2 better than the Chebbie. Odd, since EPA shows a 3 mpg spread. I'm gonna blame driver here. Actually, 17 for the Chevy is about right- but NFW can a 'Yota 5.7 come close to that. We've taken two in trade recently, and crappy mileage has been a consistent complaint.]

IF, and that's a HUGE IF, you can keep your right foot out of the Tundra, I'd bet the farm it would match the 5.3's mileage......with a .56 6th gear, the thing LOAFS at LEGAL highway speeds.

I'm sure this test represents this and not idiots like me driving 80+ MPH.

2. Towing rating was identical for the Toyota and the Chebbie- 9500 lbs in each case. ]

Again, it's not WHAT it's rated for, it's HOW it handles those loads....besides, the Toyota is rated at 10,100, not 9,500.

3. I have no idea how that Chevy stickered for $46K. I've got a new '09 LTZ 4X4 Crew sitting on the lot with a MSRP of $42,400, and it's got everything but Nav (20's, Roof, etc).]

I'm sure nav. adds a couple G's to that price.

4. Yeah, you can put faux wood on the dash- but you can't restyle the wultizer elements of the rest of it.

Purely subjective......I do like the looks of a Sierra overall compared to a Tundra, (you already know that) but GM had nothing for $30,000 that could touch a nicely equipped CrewMax 4WD performancewise in '07.

And lastly- who the hell buys a V10 gasser SD to tow a trailer? .

Besides saving over $6,000 in initial cost (less in '01) you'll be surprised how little of a performance difference there is between the PSD and V10.


The 6.0L GM gasser did well also until loaded up a grade.






http://www.pickuptrucks.com/html/2007/shootout/hdshootout1.html

 

[DOHCmarauder]

Probably to add strength/stiffness.

Making the frame and suspension components out of thicker steel, for instance, will improve stiffness at the expense of weight.

Actually, Ford supposedly REDUCED thickness in the frame for '09 as a weight saving measure.

 

[polarbear]

IF, and that's a HUGE IF, you can keep your right foot out of the Tundra, I'd bet the farm it would match the 5.3's mileage......with a .56 6th gear, the thing LOAFS at LEGAL highway speeds.

I'm sure this test represents this and not idiots like me driving 80+ MPH.

I'd take that bet. My '07 would knock down 20-22 mpg @ 70-73 mph empty. 5.3, Auto 4X4, 3.72 gears, 20's. 17ish overall was about right.




Again, it's not WHAT it's rated for, it's HOW it handles those loads....besides, the Toyota is rated at 10,100, not 9,500.

Correct- my bad.


I'm sure nav. adds a couple G's to that price.

So does the 6.2, which these trucks have. I'm thinking there's a regional power pac discount that isn't showing up on the tested truck. In any event, it just seemed a tad high. I've got a new '09 D-Max crew 4X4 with a $47K MSRP fer chrissakes.


Purely subjective......I do like the looks of a Sierra overall compared to a Tundra, (you already know that) but GM had nothing for $30,000 that could touch a nicely equipped CrewMax 4WD performancewise in '07.

Not much to comment on there- you know my thoughts already.

Besides saving over $6,000 in initial cost (less in '01) you'll be surprised how little of a performance difference there is between the PSD and V10.

No- I'd be stunned, not surprised. Actually, I know the V10 is stronger than many folks think (especially with 4.30 gears), but it's no match for a 6.0 either- especially at altitude.


The 6.0L GM gasser did well also until loaded up a grade.

Same story- pulls fine on the flats, but runs out of breath on the first hill. No fair there, because the D-max will run away and hide from a 6.0 in almost any scenerio. problem is the $8,000 upcharge for the d-Max/Allison.






http://www.pickuptrucks.com/html/2007/shootout/hdshootout1.html

comments in blue