2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Again, with the GM/Ford/Dodge Catalogs, you can build whatever truck fits your needs. Obviously Edmunds just clicked everybox it could and then, like many, was suprised at their economy. Guess what, go crazy on the power/packages/rearends, economy is gonna suck.
With GM, you can build your 20+mpg truck to do what you need (as in our case). But with Toy and Nissan, you're still stuck with that 15/17mpg beast. . .
P71 wrote:Those are the "normal" Silverado engines (and what I'm hunting as a base for the P71's swap). I'm talking about the VortecMAX optional engine. In the previous-gen truck it was a 6.0L making 390/425 and was available in the SS package or buy itself as the VortecMAX (my neighbor down the street has one in a nondescript light blue color). The new-gen trucks have a 6.2L making 403/430ish? Both engines are basically the LS (LS2 for the 6.0 and LS3 for the 6.2) with truck manifolds, a different tune, and a truck intake.
Gotcha..... but then you're going to be paying more, too. Even in the test that Jensenman put out, the Silverado was the most expensive, and that was with the "milk-grade" V8.
The 4.6 likes to be supercharged and it's still a steaming pile of dog poo too. Cam gears should not fly off, period (listening Ford designer of the V8 SHO?).
93celicaGT2 wrote:P71 wrote:Those are the "normal" Silverado engines (and what I'm hunting as a base for the P71's swap). I'm talking about the VortecMAX optional engine. In the previous-gen truck it was a 6.0L making 390/425 and was available in the SS package or buy itself as the VortecMAX (my neighbor down the street has one in a nondescript light blue color). The new-gen trucks have a 6.2L making 403/430ish? Both engines are basically the LS (LS2 for the 6.0 and LS3 for the 6.2) with truck manifolds, a different tune, and a truck intake.
Gotcha..... but then you're going to be paying more, too. Even in the test that Jensenman put out, the Silverado was the most expensive, and that was with the "milk-grade" V8.
Again. . . . build what you need. Checking every box for a magazine article doesn't show you anything.
Bobzilla wrote:Again, with the GM/Ford/Dodge Catalogs, you can build whatever truck fits your needs. Obviously Edmunds just clicked everybox it could and then, like many, was suprised at their economy. Guess what, go crazy on the power/packages/rearends, economy is gonna suck.
With GM, you can build your 20+mpg truck to do what you need (as in our case). But with Toy and Nissan, you're still stuck with that 15/17mpg beast. . .
Right. No arguments there. But i'd buy the Toyota because i WANT that 15/17 beast. And even in the Toyota's case, one of those articles stated that you have your choice of 34 configurations. That's plenty for me. :D
I mean.... if i'm going to pay $40k for a beast of a truck, i'm not going to be too worried about 2mpg. I would just want the most truck for $40k. I want it to move, i want it to tow and not slow down, i want good brakes, mpg be damned.
Again... that's just me... If the Toyota couldn't do all that, then i'd be looking at some Domestic Dually Diesels, trust me.
Bobzilla wrote:93celicaGT2 wrote:P71 wrote:Those are the "normal" Silverado engines (and what I'm hunting as a base for the P71's swap). I'm talking about the VortecMAX optional engine. In the previous-gen truck it was a 6.0L making 390/425 and was available in the SS package or buy itself as the VortecMAX (my neighbor down the street has one in a nondescript light blue color). The new-gen trucks have a 6.2L making 403/430ish? Both engines are basically the LS (LS2 for the 6.0 and LS3 for the 6.2) with truck manifolds, a different tune, and a truck intake.
Gotcha..... but then you're going to be paying more, too. Even in the test that Jensenman put out, the Silverado was the most expensive, and that was with the "milk-grade" V8.
Again. . . . build what you need. Checking every box for a magazine article doesn't show you anything.
They checked comparable options for the Toyota, too....
If i was shopping for a dedicated work truck to get dirty and do short hauls, i wouldn't be looking at any of these. I'd be looking for a ratty older Silverado, hands down.
For a long distance hauler that i want to be comfy in, i'm perfectly fine with those options.
P71 wrote:The 4.6 likes to be supercharged and it's still a steaming pile of dog poo too. Cam gears should not fly off, period (listening Ford designer of the V8 SHO?).
hahah.... that V8 SHO was a hideous piece of engineering. 
Nothing is safe from recalls and problems the first year they come out... It's why you don't buy 1st year models. (Cough 1992 BMW 325i SCREW YOU!!!)
Long distance hauler to be comfy in? Jeep Grand Wagoneer! 
We paid $23k for our CC Sierra. Itis a fantastmic long distance hauler for us and the two dogs. even after a straight 30 hour stint in it, the seats were supportive and comfy, we were just tired of sitting still that long! We've towed cars, tile, brick, tractors, Dixies and hauled limbs and tables and furniture, helped people move, carried home car parts and whatnot. . .we've averaged 20.9 mpg in the 38k miles we've owned it.
Tell me, why do I need a $40k truck again?
Tundra is way beyond it's first year grace period. It's just a POS truck as a truck. As a car-replacement impress-the-neighbors thing it might be cool, but to actually tow, haul, offroad, and do dirty truck things it is an epic failure and the sales figures show it.
You want to tow? Buy a diesel (Cummins, Duramax). You want to haul? Buy a real longbed with big-block torque. (Chevy, GMC, new Ram). You want a light-duty work truck? Buy the small ones (Ranger, Frontier).
Bobzilla wrote:We paid $23k for our CC Sierra. Itis a fantastmic long distance hauler for us and the two dogs. even after a straight 30 hour stint in it, the seats were supportive and comfy, we were just tired of sitting still that long! We've towed cars, tile, brick, tractors, Dixies and hauled limbs and tables and furniture, helped people move, carried home car parts and whatnot. . .we've averaged 20.9 mpg in the 38k miles we've owned it.
Tell me, why do I need a $40k truck again?
You don't. I don't.
But i sure WANT one.
we got EXACTLY what we wanted. With one exception. . .I wanted the Denali wheels that aren't offered on anything but hte Denali. I currently have 2, so when the tires need replaced I'll find 2 more!
But seriously, V8, auto, 2wd, PW/PDL/Cruise/Tilt/AC/Tint/Towpackage/CD and no leather. seats 6 comfortably, has ample capacity/abilities for half the cost. Why would ANYONE spend $40k on a truck? But then again, I don't understand the whole brand image anyway.
I wouldn't mind having a Duramax diesel truck (that sound you just heard was ignorant snapping into a fetal position!) but it's the only real reason I would consider a GM truck over a Toyota.
Toyota may have had their issues (like everyone) but I have much more confidence in them standing behind their product than I do GM.
Yeah, working with them for 3 years, I don't.
Bobzilla wrote:Yeah, working with them for 3 years, I don't.
I don't really stand behind them, but i'm sure it's for different reasons.
My main reason is that i can count on one hand the number of cars they've made in the last 10 years that even remotely interest me.
Once i don't care about your cars, you're dead to me.
For that matter.... any company i can afford is dead to me.
Toyota has been "dead to me" since they axed the MR2 Spyder. Call me what you will, but I love them.
P71, I was with you right up until the point where you started tearing down Ford's 4.6. I LOVE my car, I LOVE my engine. 230,000 miles on a car I bought for 2 Grand with 55,000 miles on it!
maroon92 wrote:Toyota has been "dead to me" since they axed the MR2 Spyder. Call me what you will, but I love them.
P71, I was with you right up until the point where you started tearing down Ford's 4.6. I LOVE my car, I LOVE my engine. 230,000 miles on a car I bought for 2 Grand with 55,000 miles on it!
No... i'm with you. The axing of the Celica/Mr2 Spyder permanently buried them for me. The Celica and MR2 are two of my favorite cars of ALL time. The MR2 spyder, despite it's "stereotypes" is a brilliant piece of machinery. I dare say i enjoy it more than any miata i've ever driven. There's something to be said for a 140hp motor in a package so perfect that it doesn't feel underpowered.
The only other interesting things they make to me is the Xrunner and Tundra (and i'll never buy either), and the Lexus brand. (probably never buy them either, unless it's an old SC300/400 or a used IS300.)
P71 wrote:It is underpowered. It's slower, tows less, and gets worse MPG's. It also makes less power and less torque than the Chevy from 2005. The 2009 VortecMax 6.2 promises even better performance from the same old pushrods. The Toyota engine also has major engineering faults that have still not been corrected. I say all the same negative stuff about domestic engines that are crap (like the 4.6 SOHC in my P71).
The Tundra is not a competitive truck on any actual level with any of the Big 3 1/2 tons. The only buyers of Tundras are Toyota fans, they have not even remotely dented the actual working truck market. As an actual truck they are a failure.
All that being said, I don't like any of the new truck offerings as I feel they are all way too big. I don't need a bed so high in the air that it takes a ladder to get into. I much prefer the previous generations of trucks.
You are being as adamant and blindly religious as those you are arguing with. The Tundra is a GREAT truck. I personally prefer the GMT 900 interior, but the Tundra tows like a dream, it's ridiculously fast for a truck, and it holds a ton of people and stuff.
In reply to maroon92:
I didn't say it wasn't a reliable engine. But it is an underpowered dog. Ford messed up and the 3V and 4V versions aren't much better. I wish the truth was different, but it's not. That's why I'm going to yank mine for something else. If I was just going to cruise everywhere for the rest of my life I'd keep it though.
The only Tundra I've ever ridden in was horribly uncomfortable (the seats really, really suck) and towed worse than my Nissan Hardbody. It did have a little "pep" but was not fast by any stretch (except maybe against a Ford). It did hold a TON of crap and had a nice looking interior. Wouldn't be a half bad cruiser if they'd change out those ridiculous seats!
P71 wrote:pinchvalve, Domestics never really did small cars well (Gremlin and Pacer notwithstanding
Good point.
DILYSI Dave wrote:P71 wrote:spewed hatred
You are being as adamant and blindly religious as those you are arguing with.
I agree with dave and belive he is just as blind to the data as he acuses the h8'ers to be.. This guy is not a fanboy but THE fANb01 for american vehicles. If Club4ag, nicoclub, or honda-tech had an american counterpart.. This guy is an admin on it..
Jensenman wrote:I wouldn't mind having a Duramax diesel truck (that sound you just heard was ignorant snapping into a fetal position!) but it's the only real reason I would consider a GM truck over a Toyota.
Toyota may have had their issues (like everyone) but I have much more confidence in them standing behind their product than I do GM.
yeah..
I don't blame you this year.. but remember that the duramaxipad is a one trick pony... Why the powerstroke and duramax seem so strong against my engine this year is due to them being non compliant to 2010 emissions. Those engines will be gone this year... Basically they'll have to detune the crap outta them to get them to pass sniffer.
In reply to ignorant:
I'll remember that accusation when I climb into my MAZDA tomorrow. You're insane.
P71 wrote:In reply to ignorant:
I'll remember that accusation when I climb into my MAZDA tomorrow. You're insane.
boss.. I wasn't talking about the exact make and model you are driving. I am talking about your attitude.
lighten the hell up.
