http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...topanel..1.*#6

Very nice truck. GM really is making it worthwhile for people to consider a full sized GM "luxury" truck/SUV this time around.

Though this part is odd:

So the comparable Tundra is 328 pounds heavier, rated at 22 fewer ponies, and still is significantly quicker to 60mph, and quicker in the 1/4-mile too.

 

I think the Tundra is quicker because of the gearing.

Tundra 1st : 3.33. 2nd : 1.960. 3rd : 1.353. 4th : 1.000. 5th : 0.728. 6th : 0.588
Final : 4.10 or 4.30

Denali 1st : 4.02. 2nd : 2.364. 3rd : 1.532. 4th : 1.152. 5th : 0.852. 6th : 0.667
Final : 3.42

 

Could be different testing conditions? Could be the Tundra is underrated? Could be that pesky torque management we all loathe?

EDIT: Ahh yes, could be gearing? (Fuel economy being more of an issue now for GM than straight line speed in a truck that size)

 

While I will agree this is a very nice truck, I am not sure why there is so much emphasis put on "speed" in this segment of the market? And even with that, aren't we talking like tenths here?

 

I asked the same question, but it is about bragging rights. Something probably tells me if the GM trucks were marginally quicker we'd also be quicker to point it out.

 

i took one to prom about a month ago, and i was extremely impressed, i had it for about a day and a half and got to drive it quite a bit. It was quick, smooth, looked amazing, and had all the bells and wistles... definatly a truck i would love to own.

 

Exactly.

The Tundra out performs GM's truck and we have people trying to rationalize it (I'm not referring to those in this thread).

The thing deserves respect.

Remember that other thread where people were jumping in to say "no no! Toyota doesn't have the most power in its class, its those few Denalis" And people argued about the performance of both trucks?
Well, guess Toyota won that argument.

 

Okay, I agree...it is most definitely about "bragging rights", I just don't think that this is the "bragging rights" they should be pushing. I would think in this segment, you would want the "bragging rights" on fuel economy in this day and age.

 

The Tundra wins in that category as well (against the 6.2L in the Denali), and also in towing and payload.

There's not much left for the Denali to brag about, really - except that it looks better (IMO) and had a much nicer interior.

 

FWIW (not trying to make excuses) the Denali in the Edmunds test was rear-drive and the Tundra referrenced is 4-wheel drive. The Edmunds review mentions anything over 1500 rpm launch and the tires just go up in smoke. As the 0-60 and 1/4 times of the Denali were only 0.2 sec behind the Tundra, I would guess a match race between a rear-drive Tundra Crew Cab and a rear-drive Denali (apples to apples) would deliver a virtual dead heat.

I don't see the Denali being very functional for me; I'd be scared I'd get it dirty! That interior looks really, really nice. My point is, I just made a trip to the landfill last weekend in the Silverado; don't think I'd be too comfortable using a Denali for that purpose.

 

I would probably guess that a 2wd Tundra would actually be faster than the 4wd... I'm sorry to say this but it just keeps getting more evident that Toyota really "manned up" when they built this truck. The Tundras are beasts, Look at the size of the rear axle of one!

Although I would think the Denali w/ a 4.30 gear would dominate... but it doesn't so it's still slower

 

Multiply each tranny gear (non-OD) by the final gear and you'll get very close to the same overall ratio, making gearing essentially a non-issue.

 

Tundra does not win payload. According to Edmunds it's 1590 for the Tundra vs. 1719 for the Sierra.

In fact, the one consistant knock against the Tundra even with the glorious 5.7L is the lukewarm payload ratings.

 

I don't know, I think the Tundra still has an advantage there if you get the 4.30's.

Tundra 4.10
13.65 8.03 5.54 4.10
Tundra 4.30
14.31 8.42 5.81 4.30
Denali
13.74 8.08 5.23 3.93

 

This test indicates slightly better times and MPH than edmunds.