Fixed for ya. In my eyes, over the past few years, Nissan has joined BMW and Honda as one of their darling brands. Of course, it sort of makes sense. Those companies make cars that have a slight (or pronounced) inclination toward enthusiasts. So, they are more likely to pick trucks that have driving dynamics they like (not just power). Of course, that doesn't mean they are the best source to go to when deciding what truck to buy, if one is buying it with priorities besides steering and handling/braking feel in mind. That is what it seems like. Hell, even Motor Trend said they thought the Tundra was aiming at the GMT800 instead of anticipating the GMT900 when they designed the Tundra, in terms of dynamics AND the interior execution, IIRC. I thought they were just BS-ing, talking up the Silverado b/c they picked it for TOTY and all that, but when comparison test time comes, they'd pick the Tundra and heap its praises. And perhaps MT still will do that (MT is pretty much a bunch of jokers, imo). But with more and more of these comments coming from various sources, maybe Toyota really did only make an adequate truck (but with a kickass toplevel powertrain). That I'll agree with, for sure. In a test where the F150 finishes last, and the well-styled (and updated chassis, I thought) Ram is 5th, there are clearly no bad trucks out there.

Still, GM, PUT THE 6.2L / SIX SPEED AUTO IN ACROSS THE BOARD, PLEASE. Thx.

 

The Silverado tested had the 6.0L, the best engine you can get (in anything besides the Denali). Perhaps GM will put the 6.2L in the regular trucks soon, but I won't hold my breath.

Weights go like this:

Titan: 5470
Silverado: 5582
Ram: 5645
Tundra: 5680
F-150: 5761

 

A 4s delay to PE mode would have an impact on torque, definitely. An AFR of 12.5 (mixture at which max torque is attained) is definitely more favorable for performance than an AFR of 14.63 (Stoich - most efficient burn rate at part throttle). A richer mixture implies more timing could be had. More timing equates to more torque... I can see that GM's tuning of the V8 is limp, at best.

If fuel consumption is important to V8 truck owners, GM's V8 has always delivered exceptional fuel economy. A DOHC V8 has usually been more thirsty - if Ford's V8 is any guide - due to the additonal parts which undergo greater friction... so I'm still keen to learn if Toyota's performance advantage comes at the expense of a fuel penalty?

 

It's a more powerful, more complex motor in a truck that weighs a bit more than the Silverado. I have to imagine it suffers a fuel economy penalty. So far early indications I believe are around 14 mpg in real world mixed driving with the 5.7 Tundra.

I do wish GM would get a little more agressive with the tune. I can't imagine fuel economy would be hurt that bad. Then again, if you can market the truck as having 367 HP and getting 20 mpg, all the better. The guys who are interested in more power know what they can do.

 

The new Titan commercial makes me chuckle everytime I see it. The truck is trenching through the mud with Black Sabbaith plaing in the background. You can literally see every panel on the front of the truck slamming up against one another...

 

Interesting... this is the first comparison test I've seen where the new Tundra didn't come in first place. I have no idea what the Titan is doing in second place, though - that truck was just obsolete in most ways before it even came out, a few years back... only exception being the power train.

 

Have you ever seen the rear diff on the *** p/u's? It's very small. Does anyone know how the rear ends hold up on those?

 

Did you ever see the ring gear commercial on the Tundra recently?

 

Stopped by the Toyota dealership yesterday and on the 2wd models, they showed fuel economy being 14 city and 20 hwy on the 5.7L and 14 city and 18hwy on the 4.7L.

What is GM, 14 city 20hwy on the 6.0?

 

I read an article where Toyota's US arm wanted a more reasonable sticker, but head office basically said that because they went so far over budget on their new Texas factory, they needed to increase their prices to recover.

 

From my understanding the ring gear on the Tundra is like a 10". Not small at all. Yoda has a nice powertrain in this new truck. Their interior looks like crap though. You guys need to go see them in person. No excuse for the interior.

 

What!!! How can this be? An automotive magazine that, according to many here, is a leasing conspirator and participant in the vast automotive press conspiracy against all things domestic and especially against all things GM?

Is this the same Car&Driver that is consistently accused of bias, unreasonable testing parameters and equally worthless testing results?

Were they off their medication when the picked the Silverado as the winner?

Oh wait…I forgot; the vast conspiracy issue only applies when C&D (or any other publication) says something unfavorable to GM…as long as they say the “right” thing they are a top-notch, authoritative publication!

 

Yes, this is the same Car and Driver.

The presence of a bias does not mean that in every single case, the outcome will be in the direction of the bias. There is no question in my mind, as someone who has read C/D for many many years, they have a penchant for BMWs, Hondas, and Nissans (and generally imported cars in general). It's practically in the DNA of the magazine itself; it can be traced back to the early editors and the timing of the magazine's development (back when there were lots of little British/European sports cars, and the American makes were focused on family sedans and such).

When they had their 50th anniversary issue in 2005, they had a several page spread that gave some highlights and such for most of the years dating back to the magazine's birth. I found it quite telling as to the leanings of the editors.

 

I know...I'm just taking the opportunity to poke a little fun...seems only fair considering how many times I've been beaten-up when I've dared to quote a stat or a story from C&D that someone here didn't want to hear!

 

You're just happy Nissan beat Toyota.