A test most people have been anticipating for quite some time. I'll give you the finishing order and highs/lows.
5th place: Ford F-150 FX4 4X4 Supercrew - 172 points
Highs: Limo space back in the crew compartment, plush interior details, throne-like front buckets.
Lows: Shaky steering column, weak engine, torpid handling, heavy understeer when the going gets brisk.
Verdict: Plush inside, not much load space behind: think passenger truck.
4th place: Dodge Ram 1500 Sport 4X4 Quad Cab - 184 points
Highs: Control-tower view from the seat, quick-reflex engine, clever paraphernalia places in the cab.
Lows: Need an elevator for boarding, quivery structure, KMart-cheap interior plastic.
Verdict: Excellent storage and tie-down details make this a trucker's truck.
3rd place: Toyota Tundra 4X4 Double Cab - 193 points
Highs: Major horsepower, supportive front buckets, slick slide-out mirrors, off-road chassis muscles.
Lows: Front tow loops down in the mud, intrusive stability control, understeer when you push.
Verdict: The muscle truck--no bully will kick sand in this Tundra's face.
2nd place: Nissan Titan SE 4X4 - 199 points
Highs: Snorty engine, quick steering, neutral balance in the twisties, perfectly damped tailgate hinges.
Lows: Squeaky-flexy over the rough stuff, exhaust roar never stops, jumpy throttle, short cargo bed.
Verdict: A lovable puppy of a truck, fun despite its imperfections.
1st place: Chevrolet Silverado 1500 LTZ 4X4 Crew Cab - 207 points
Highs: Tightly responsive steering and brakes, rigid body structure, American-luxo interior styling, plush ride.
Lows: Cheesy mirrors, low and vulnerable plastic spoiler, wind noise, cockpit storage bins lack imagination.
Verdict: A sweet-driving pickup that's big on action, light on serious-hauler details.
Let me know if you want any of the other details - I'll try to type them up for those who request them.
Wow, the Tundra barely made the podium.
I admit I am surprised to see the Silverado in first, doesn't seem like a huge leap forward to me but I guess that isn't needed at this point. I am also surprised to see the Titan in second, other than the F-150 it was the oldest truck there.
I'm most surprised to find the Titan in second place. I guess Nissan really did have a credible first effort in the full-size segment. :ohyeah:
I always thought the Titan was a good truck, and I also think the new GM full-sizers are the nicest trucks on the market, and a huge step forward from the old ones.
LOL!
The only two comments more asinine than this one:
Quote
4th place: Dodge Ram 1500 Sport 4X4 Quad Cab - 184 points
Verdict: Excellent storage and tie-down details make this a trucker's truck.
Are this one:
Quote
1st place: Chevrolet Silverado 1500 LTZ 4X4 Crew Cab - 207 points
Lows: Cheesy mirrors, low and vulnerable plastic spoiler, wind noise, cockpit storage bins lack imagination.
And this one,?
especially for the winner:
Quote
1st place: Chevrolet Silverado 1500 LTZ 4X4 Crew Cab - 207 points
Verdict: A sweet-driving pickup that's big on action, light on serious-hauler details.
Wow, way to go C&D.
Wow, I don't care if my storage bins lack imagination.. .as long as they hold stuff.
Well, after reading many of these reviews I would look at them all. No one truck seems to be a standout in all areas.
Yeah, "lack of storage bin imagination" is probably not something I'd care about. As long as I have storage, I don't need it to be "imaginative" or "creative." :lol:
I did not expect the Silverado to have a higher payload rating than the Tundra. Somewhat surprised there. The Chevy was one mpg behind the Tundra in C&D's testing, but it looks like all of the trucks were pretty evenly matched when it came to fuel economy. Also, for all of the commercials we've seen touting the Tundra's massive brakes, how is it that the Silverado handily out-stopped the Toyota?
You already got your april C&D? What's in this issue?
I got my C&D yesterday. Also GRM, and I bought yet another book by Brock Yates, Against Death and Time.
They road-tested the Audi R8 and pitted it against the 911 in a somewhat informal test. To say the least, they gushed over the Audi. I can't say that I blame them - gorgeous styling, blazingly fast (4.0 seconds 0-60), neutral handling, insane grip, all-weather capability, Audi interior, etc. If I didn't love this thing before, I certainly love it now. I need one.
They also did a comparo with the new G35 and a BMW 328i. Other than that, there are a few insignificant Short Takes (Nissan Altima Hyrid, Chrysler Sebring Limited, Ford Expedition EL) and the usual miscellaneous details about the auto industry.
Quote from: VetteZ06 on February 25, 2007, 09:43:21 PM
Yeah, "lack of storage bin imagination" is probably not something I'd care about. As long as I have storage, I don't need it to be "imaginative" or "creative." :lol:
I did not expect the Silverado to have a higher payload rating than the Tundra. Somewhat surprised there. The Chevy was one mpg behind the Tundra in C&D's testing, but it looks like all of the trucks were pretty evenly matched when it came to fuel economy. Also, for all of the commercials we've seen touting the Tundra's massive brakes, how is it that the Silverado handily out-stopped the Toyota?
In Popular Mechanics' test, the Tundra bested the Silverado in braking both loaded and unloaded (by about 10 feet).
I wonder, then, what the difference was here.
Quote from: Raghavan on February 25, 2007, 06:53:58 PM
Wow, I don't care if my storage bins lack imagination.. .as long as they hold stuff.
I haven't read the article but maybe they mean they just weren't very imaginative with making unusable spaces into storage bins like underneath the back seat, under the front middle seat (if it had one), etc. The Ram has by far the most and biggest storage bins of any full size truck I have seen and that's why they praised it in that category. I went and took a look at a 2007 Ram when my truck was in for servicing and it's like I keep getting dissapointed all over again every time I look at the interior. The dash is definitely subpar compared to my 2005. I have never seen a vehicle get a cheaper interior in the redesigned vehicle then the one it replaced. Whenever I argue on here that my truck's dash is just fine as is, it is. But the one that replaced it sucks.
Overall, what I take from the results and conclusions (obviously haven't read it yet) is that they are all great trucks and it pretty much comes down to personal preference. It's the one automotive category that you can't go wrong with any choice.
:ohyeah:
Overall those are good rankings by C&D. After having recently driven the top three, and driving the F150 a while ago, that is how I would rank them too. The Tundra has great specs and great power, and looks to be the winner on paper, but for some reason it all just doesn't come together as well as the Silverado. The Titan is also a great truck, and was probably the best half-ton on the road since it's introduction - but nobody seemed to notice. The F-150 is to trucks what the Camry is to cars - always middle of the pack to last of the pack in comparos, competent in all areas but not the best in anything - but always the best seller (and always MotorTrends ____ of the year).
Quote from: SagRacer on February 26, 2007, 08:46:30 AM
:ohyeah:
Overall those are good rankings by C&D.? After having recently driven the top three, and driving the F150 a while ago, that is how I would rank them too.? The Tundra has great specs and great power, and looks to be the winner on paper, but for some reason it all just doesn't come together as well as the Silverado.? The Titan is also a great truck, and was probably the best half-ton on the road since it's introduction - but nobody seemed to notice.? The F-150 is to trucks what the Camry is to cars - always middle of the pack to last of the pack in comparos, competent in all areas but not the best in anything - but always the best seller (and always MotorTrends ____ of the year).?
Best interior...by far. But I agree, that's about it.
Another note - the Silverado took top honors in the fit and finish category, besting the Tundra and (I believe) the F-150 by a point (I think it got 9 out of 10).
I've heard some complaints, mainly from Toyota fans/buyers, that the new Tundra's interior is uncharacteristically cheap. I haven't personally taken a look at it yet, but it's interesting to note that the Americans are setting the standard for interior quality and materials usage (with the Ram being the exception).
The Tundra isn't especially high quality.
I still really like the F-150, if only it wasn't so weak in the power department.
If I was in the market to get a new truck I would be getting the 2008 F-250.? None of the new 1/2 tons really do it for me.
I was in the new Tundra just last week. It was the Limited 5.7L model. In general I just don't grok the pod gauges that many automakes are using these days.
I will gladly give up some interior poshness (but I didn't see a lack of it in the Limited - in an absolute sense) for superior mechanicals in a truck. I have to admit that I'm not much of a judge of interiors as a whole, but I am a big critic of gauages. I don' t like pods.
Quote from: HEMI666 on February 26, 2007, 10:51:27 AM
If I was in the market to get a new truck I would be getting the 2008 F-250. None of the new 1/2 tons really do it for me.
I like the F150 and Titan. All the others are meh. I really like the Ram too but it's getting outdated. How many MPG do you get in yours?
Quote from: TheIntrepid on February 26, 2007, 11:37:33 AM
I like the F150 and Titan. All the others are meh. I really like the Ram too but it's getting outdated. How many MPG do you get in yours?
The Ram was brand new for 2006, how is that outdated? I get 13/18, although if I do the speed limit on the highway I get around 20 mpg.
Quote from: HEMI666 on February 26, 2007, 12:04:46 PM
The Ram was brand new for 2006, how is that outdated?
It was hardly brand new for 2006. Modified mechanicals (but the same basic platform and unchanged engines) and a facelift hardly make it a brand new design.
Quote from: ifcar on February 26, 2007, 02:34:48 PM
It was hardly brand new for 2006. Modified mechanicals (but the same basic platform and unchanged engines) and a facelift hardly make it a brand new design.
Don't judge a book by it's cover. New frame, new front suspension, new interior, and revised sheetmetal from the A-pillars forward. Sounds like a brand new truck to me.
Quote from: HEMI666 on February 26, 2007, 02:48:54 PM
Don't judge a book by it's cover. New frame, new front suspension, new interior, and revised sheetmetal from the A-pillars forward. Sounds like a brand new truck to me.
Modifications to the platform, modifications to the interior (same basics), modifications to the sheetmetal (and only on the front end), no engine changes.
Sounds like a midlife update to me.
Quote from: ifcar on February 26, 2007, 02:52:15 PM
Modifications to the platform, modifications to the interior (same basics), modifications to the sheetmetal (and only on the front end), no engine changes.
Sounds like a midlife update to me.
It is a new frame, not a modified frame. All interior panels and dash are brand new. The front suspension is completely new (torsion bar vs. strut).
Quote from Motor Trend:
Dodge engineers were well aware that model-year 2006 marked a new frontal crash-test requirement for trucks and that new rear-impact crash regulations would be coming soon after. They knew one solution would be to tack on enough parts to pass muster; however, the answer that made more sense was to put a new frame under the Ram 1500 and, while they were at it, keep the truck competitive by giving it a huge list of improvements. By the time they were done, the refreshed Ram was nearly all-new, only four years after the Ram was completely redone.Still sounds like a new trucks to me.
It was a new truck Ifcar.
If they have to boast about the front suspension being completely new, I'll assume the rear isn't. The dash may be restyled, but the fundamentals of the interior are unchanged (the seats and the components that you can't see, like HVAC). They changed the front-end styling, didn't touch the rest.
The engines are carry-overs. The exterior has a mild facelift. The interior is restyled, but not really changed. There are modifications under the skin, but not even everything there is fully new.
"All-new" means that everything is new, not that a things have been changed here and there.
The second generation Ram debuted in 2003. No automaker, especially a domestic one, is going to replace a model after only three years.
As such, the Ram is still in its second generation. If it were an all-new truck, it'd be into its fourth generation.
The current Ram is a thoroughly re-worked mid-model update.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 26, 2007, 04:40:02 PM
The second generation Ram debuted in 2003. No automaker, especially a domestic one, is going to replace a model after only three years.
As such, the Ram is still in its second generation. If it were an all-new truck, it'd be into its fourth generation.
The current Ram is a thoroughly re-worked mid-model update.
2002, not 2003. And even counting the 06 as part of the 02's generation, there are three Ram generations.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c6/Ram-pickup.jpg/250px-Ram-pickup.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1d/DodgeRamPickup.jpg/250px-DodgeRamPickup.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/06-07_Dodge_Ram_1500.jpg/250px-06-07_Dodge_Ram_1500.jpg)
My bad on the 2002 vs. 2003.
Having been an owner of two of them, the '72 - '92 Dodge truck model years were all of the same generation.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 26, 2007, 04:55:22 PM
My bad on the 2002 vs. 2003.
Having been an owner of two of them, the '72 - '92 Dodge truck model years were all of the same generation.
Three generations, just going by trucks called Ram
1st: 81-93
2nd: 94-01
3rd: 02-present
Quote from: ifcar on February 26, 2007, 03:52:37 PM
"All-new" means that everything is new, not that a things have been changed here and there.
Using that definition there has never been an all-new Camry, Accord, Impala, etc....
I think when car-makers make an "all-new" claim the level of "all-new" is really "substanially new." I am not a BMW engineer, but I seriously doubt the E90 3-series is really "all-new" compared to the E46. Its probably somewhere between 50-75% new, like most new models.
If they don't even change the exterior beyond a front-end facelift, or the interior beyond the styling, or the engines at all, it certainly isn't "all new" whatever other changes are. Even if we accept 50% change as the standard (judged based on what?) I doubt the Ram would make the cut.
Quote from: ifcar on February 26, 2007, 05:09:13 PM
If they don't even change the exterior beyond a front-end facelift, or the interior beyond the styling, or the engines at all, it certainly isn't "all new" whatever other changes are. Even if we accept 50% change as the standard (judged based on what?) I doubt the Ram would make the cut.
So cars have to have all-new powertrains to be new?
Was the E60 5-series new when it debuted with almost an entirely carried over engine lineup?
I think you answered your own question, and proved Hemi right. You or I can't possibly know if something is really all-new or not. Just because two companents looks like they are similar doesn't mean they are.
You can tell that the exterior is unchanged except for a front end restyling. You can tell that the interior is restyled but fundamentally unchanged. You can tell that the engines are carry-overs. Dodge has not claimed to have given it a complete under-the-skin do-over or they would have said so rather than listing the various things that were changed.
Each one of those things is not decisive, but the combination is.
What I meant with the question of what the percent of change means is not how those uninvolved with the design would know what exact changes were made, but how to judge the percent changed. Is it number of parts? Number of more general systems? Or something else?
Just because the body looks like it didn't change much doesn't mean it's a mid model update. The frame and suspension are all new, and so is the dash and all interior panels. Using your definition the 1994 Mustang was not all-new even though it is considered all new. There has also never been an all new Explorer either I guess.
Quote from: HEMI666 on February 26, 2007, 05:23:28 PM
Just because the body looks like it didn't change much doesn't mean it's a mid model update. The frame and suspension are all new, and so is the dash and all interior panels. Using your definition the 1994 Mustang was not all-new even though it is considered all new. There has also never been an all new Explorer either I guess.
Frame and FRONT suspension are new. Appearance pieces of the interior are restyled, but the interior is largely carry-over.
I'm just less inclined to call any redesign "all new". Was the 2000 or 2008 Taurus all-new, or the 2004 Freestar, or the 2006 Explorer, or the or the 2005 or 2008 Focus? (Don't mean to pick on Ford, but they do this frequently.)
I expect the 2008 F-150 and Titan updates will be far more comparable to the 2006 Ram than were the 2007 Silverado/Sierra and Tundra.
When I think of "brand new," I think of something like the new Silverado versus the old Silverado, or the new Mustang versus the old (ancient?) Mustang. The Ram may have received some pretty thorough updating, but I really don't consider it to be "brand new" by any means.
I thought it was pretty much an accepted fact that it went through an MCE (mid-cycle enhancement). :huh:
So you're saying that there was no all-new Mustang from 1979 until 2005? Whatever.
Quote from: HEMI666 on February 26, 2007, 08:53:34 PM
So you're saying that there was no all-new Mustang from 1979 until 2005?? Whatever.
Nope- in fact there has never been an all-new vehicle since Og of the forest people first sliced a tree trunk thin enough for him to push a stick through the middle of it and roll down a hill while balancing on the stick.
Quote from: ifcar on February 26, 2007, 03:52:37 PM
If they have to boast about the front suspension being completely new, I'll assume the rear isn't. The dash may be restyled, but the fundamentals of the interior are unchanged (the seats and the components that you can't see, like HVAC). They changed the front-end styling, didn't touch the rest.
The engines are carry-overs. The exterior has a mild facelift. The interior is restyled, but not really changed. There are modifications under the skin, but not even everything there is fully new.
"All-new" means that everything is new, not that a things have been changed here and there.
Then there are very few all new cars. Just for an example, the '05 Lexus GS had carried over engines so I guess it wasn't really new either.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on February 26, 2007, 09:16:07 PM
Nope- in fact there has never been an all-new vehicle since Og of the forest people first sliced a tree trunk thin enough for him to push a stick through the middle of it and roll down a hill while balancing on the stick.
Not an all new Ford anyway.
Quote from: HEMI666 on February 26, 2007, 08:53:34 PM
So you're saying that there was no all-new Mustang from 1979 until 2005? Whatever.
They were all on the Fox platform, were they not?
Quote from: TBR on February 26, 2007, 10:20:50 PM
Then there are very few all new cars. Just for an example, the '05 Lexus GS had carried over engines so I guess it wasn't really new either.
As I said: "Each one of those things [that I listed] is not decisive, but the combination is."
Quote from: ifcar on February 27, 2007, 04:26:54 AM
They were all on the Fox platform, were they not?
The 94-2004 cars were on the SN95 platform...a thouroughly reworked Fox platform.
Quote from: ifcar on February 27, 2007, 04:27:28 AM
As I said: "Each one of those things [that I listed] is not decisive, but the combination is."
So I guess if the body doesn't change very much but the most important parts do (frame and suspension) then it's not a new truck because it still looks the same.
Quote from: HEMI666 on February 27, 2007, 06:37:48 AM
So I guess if the body doesn't change very much but the most important parts do (frame and suspension) then it's not a new truck because it still looks the same.
It's "revised" because so much wasn't changed.
You guys have an uncanny ability to argue semantics for an absolutely obscene amount of time...
Quote from: SagRacer on February 26, 2007, 08:46:30 AM
:ohyeah:
Overall those are good rankings by C&D.? After having recently driven the top three, and driving the F150 a while ago, that is how I would rank them too.? The Tundra has great specs and great power, and looks to be the winner on paper, but for some reason it all just doesn't come together as well as the Silverado.? The Titan is also a great truck, and was probably the best half-ton on the road since it's introduction - but nobody seemed to notice.? The F-150 is to trucks what the Camry is to cars - always middle of the pack to last of the pack in comparos, competent in all areas but not the best in anything - but always the best seller (and always MotorTrends ____ of the year).?
When the current F-150 debuted it was easily the best truck on the market.
The new F-150 comes out next year, it will be again. Add more power, set the standard for styling standard (again) and the F-150 will be OK. The full-size pick up truck market is relatively small if you're counting models, and there's almost always a new truck coming out duing any given year.
The Nissan is usualy an afterthought because it comes in so few flavours: two cab styles, one engine and transmission. It's primarily a "driver's" truck with a quick 0-60 time and decent handling, so it's no surprise C&D thinks so highly of it. Shitty, crap interior though, and they had a major problem with the rear-ends overheating when towing. Don't know if they fixed that or not.
-FordSVT-
Quote from: ifcar on February 27, 2007, 04:27:28 AM
As I said: "Each one of those things [that I listed] is not decisive, but the combination is."
Didn't see that there was a second page until I had already replied.
Quote from: FordSVT on February 27, 2007, 07:17:04 AM
When the current F-150 debuted it was easily the best truck on the market.
The new F-150 comes out next year, it will be again. Add more power, set the standard for styling standard (again) and the F-150 will be OK. The full-size pick up truck market is relatively small if you're counting models, and there's almost always a new truck coming out duing any given year.
The Nissan is usualy an afterthought because it comes in so few flavours: two cab styles, one engine and transmission. It's primarily a "driver's" truck with a quick 0-60 time and decent handling, so it's no surprise C&D thinks so highly of it. Shitty, crap interior though, and they had a major problem with the rear-ends overheating when towing. Don't know if they fixed that or not.
-FordSVT-
Nissan did the smart thing with the cab and bed configurations, they needed to minimilize their investment so they went for the high profit, high volume configurations. I suspect we will see more options for the redesign.
Additionally, the Titan's interior is not crappy. No it is not of the same quality as that of the F-150, but up until 2007 it was towards the head of the pack for quality and is still one of the best ergonomically. The 2008 model should have both an improved interior and at least one extra configuration (crew cab "long" bed), I just hope they put a better diff in (I admit that is a problem).
Quote from: VetteZ06 on February 25, 2007, 02:48:16 PM
5th place: Ford F-150 FX4 4X4 Supercrew - 172 points
heavy understeer when the going gets brisk.
3rd place: Toyota Tundra 4X4 Double Cab - 193 points
intrusive stability control, understeer when you push.
Haha only C&D could test a bunch of fullsize trucks and complain about understeer and intrusive stability control at the limit.
I'm surprised how well Titan did. I'm also surprised how far down the F150 fell, considering it was on C&D's 10 best.
Quote from: 565 on February 27, 2007, 03:37:19 PM
I'm also surprised how far down the F150 fell, considering it was on C&D's 10 best.
The 5Best truck criteria look at the entire line, and the F-150 has a wide range of versions. However, a comparison test only looks at the one version. A truck with one version could win a comparison test against comparable vehicles, but not win the overall Best Truck award. And the Silverado knocked the F-150 off of 5Best for 2007.
They did talk a lot about driving characteristics, but each one of these trucks is very capable if you're looking to tow/haul/do other truck stuff.
I'm anxious to see if the Silverado's upcoming 6-speed tranny will eliminate one of the primary complaints about GM's new trucks.
In addition, Motor Trend also did a truck comparison this month between the Silverado and Tundra. The Chevy came out on top. I don't think it was equipped with the 6.0-liter V-8, either.
Going back on the generation thing, did you know that we're on the third gen Viper right now? 1992-95 was the first one, then when the GTS came out in 1996, they reworked so much of the car that it actually wasn't really that close to the original model. Then Hau Tai Tang's redesign in 2003 was the third gen, and finally, the 2008 will be the 4th gen, believe it or not.
Back on topic, the Chevy was a Vortec 6000, the Ram had the Hemi, the Ford was the 5.4 liter V8, the Nissan was the 5.6 and the Toyota was the 5.7 liter model.
When C&D gives such props to a Chevy truck, that gets my attention.
Quote from: VetteZ06 on February 27, 2007, 05:22:24 PM
They did talk a lot about driving characteristics, but each one of these trucks is very capable if you're looking to tow/haul/do other truck stuff.
I'm anxious to see if the Silverado's upcoming 6-speed tranny will eliminate one of the primary complaints about GM's new trucks.
In addition, Motor Trend also did a truck comparison this month between the Silverado and Tundra. The Chevy came out on top. I don't think it was equipped with the 6.0-liter V-8, either.
Let your heart be at ease, the 6spd is a wonderful unit. ;)
Roy, are Titan's still having a lot of diff problems?
I finally received my issue. And I had to laugh a bit at this...
They marked down the Tundra big-time for rear seat space. Quite relevant considering that all trucks were crew cabs, but the Tundra was an extended cab.
They also gave major props to the Silverado for handling, but it was the only truck outfitted with 20" rims and street-biased, low profile tires.
They liked the Chevy better than the Toyota, it's their opinion, it can be different than yours, time to move on.
Really man, you need to stop taking this truck so personally. Did your mother design the Tundra or something?
-FordSVT-
Quote from: GoCougs on March 07, 2007, 08:26:49 PM
I finally received my issue. And I had to laugh a bit at this...
They marked down the Tundra big-time for rear seat space. Quite relevant considering that all trucks were crew cabs, but the Tundra was an extended cab.
They also gave major props to the Silverado for handling, but it was the only truck outfitted with 20" rims and street-biased, low profile tires.
The Tundra isn't an extended cab, no more so than the Ram Quad Cab is. Time to take off the Toyota tinted glasses please.
Quote from: TBR on March 08, 2007, 08:04:40 AM
The Tundra isn't an extended cab, no more so than the Ram Quad Cab is. Time to take off the Toyota tinted glasses please.
Exactly. The Tundra double cab and the Ram Quad Cabs are still Crew Cabs.
Crew Max should've been tested, as that is what has been done in other tests in other publications (when testing other trucks' crew cab configurations, that is). Crying foul because the Crew Max is huge is incongruent.
Quote from: GoCougs on March 08, 2007, 08:21:59 AM
Crew Max should've been tested, as that is what has been done in other tests in other publications (when testing other trucks' crew cab configurations, that is). Crying foul because the Crew Max is huge is incongruent.
The Crew Max and the Mega Cab are major overkill. Despite these being the biggest crew cabs both Toyota and Doge make, doesn't make the double cab and quad cab any less of a crew cab.
Quote from: GoCougs on March 08, 2007, 08:21:59 AM
Crew Max should've been tested, as that is what has been done in other tests in other publications (when testing other trucks' crew cab configurations, that is). Crying foul because the Crew Max is huge is incongruent.
That probably wouldn't have helped its case outside of the rear seat space issue.
Continue being a blindly baised idiot Cougs, we're all used to it. No one complained when the Ram Quad Cab was compared against the crew cab F-150, Titan, etc and that was the exact same situation. And, I am sure the Tundra got bonus points for its larger rear bed.
Quote from: TBR on March 08, 2007, 05:02:01 PM
Continue being a blindly baised idiot Cougs, we're all used to it. No one complained when the Ram Quad Cab was compared against the crew cab F-150, Titan, etc and that was the exact same situation. And, I am sure the Tundra got bonus points for its larger rear bed.
Fear and Loathing in Las Tundra claims another victim...
(Your post could've done without the first sentence.)
What is so great about it? Evidently it doesn't drive that great, is stupidly fast (and I mean that as a bad thing, these aren't sports cars), is expensive, and is ugly. I wanted to like it, but I can't.
I don't see anyone complaining that the Mega Cab wasn't tested, that the Titan was a 2007 model instead of an updated 2008, or that they complained about the size of the F-150's bed even though it is available with a longer one. No comparision test is going to be perfect in everyone's eyes, they just have to get as close as they can.
Also, I wouldn't be shocked to see a Mega Cab v. Crewmax test in the future.
The Tundra is big, it's powerful, it handles well, and generally has top-notch specifications. But the Silverado is much more comfortable and refined, and nicer inside; just a more pleasant daily-use vehicle. The Titan is pretty similar to the Tundra in most ways (when they have comparable versions) and sells for significantly less.
Quote from: TBR on March 08, 2007, 05:02:01 PM
Continue being a blindly baised idiot Cougs, we're all used to it. No one complained when the Ram Quad Cab was compared against the crew cab F-150, Titan, etc and that was the exact same situation. And, I am sure the Tundra got bonus points for its larger rear bed.
Can't you just check the "ginormous rear bed" box on the F-150 options list if you want to put a small car back there? I've seen some F-150s with some looooong-ass boxes. And I mean, isn't that the point? Isn't that part of the reason why Ford and GM have been so successful with their trucks? They come in so many configurations
anyone can find what they're looking for.
-FordSVT-