Home Forums Gear Hunting Trucks and Four-Wheel Drives Toyota guy vs. Ford man vs. chev man

You don't have to run 92 octane with a low compression engine. I figured you knew that. Mebbe I'm giving you too much credit. It still shoots another one of your claims down.

Be well. I'll let someone else have fun with you. I hope you win your bench racing division this year. The season is winding down.

they recommend it. Its better to use anyways. I had a low compression 71 skylark witha 350 and it deff. ran better with 91 octane.

As for me a racer. Not even close, parted both 71 skylarks and a 53 ford.

Im looking for my dream car, 1964 skylark covert. and/or a 66-67 buick GS.

Longbob-You might as well give up,and stop wasting your time.He either doesn't appear to comprehend,or simply won't admit the difference between brake horsepower quoted in the 1960 to 1970 era compared to the net horsepower as rated today.It's no use even trying to educate him because he is so closed minded that he won't learn.To top it off,he is so stubborn that he won't admit that he is wrong even if you prove it to him.

so how does toyota dyno their motors? exhaust mans. off with no exhaust? Bet if you were to put a ota on a dyno you'd find that you are not even getting that 381 horses at the wheels.

Since you don't know the answer to that question,you obviously have no clue as to the current SAE horsepower rating standard..Below is a link that might help.It explains why the pre 1972 ratings were so much higher than the 1972 and later ratings.Common sense will also tell you that if you have a 1971 or older engine with 350 rated horsepower,and compare it to a current engine with an SAE rated net horsepower of 350,the newer engine will actually produce much more power in the vehicle.

http://neptune.spacebears.com/opine/horsepwr.html



Again you show your great lack of knowledge on the subject.All SAE net ratings are taken at the flywheel not at the rear wheels.This was also the case with pre 1972 engines including Buick.If you researched a bit more on the topic before posting,you wouldn't make yourself look so foolish.

Were I had a problem with the story is basically your friend claimed the gas mileage and there is no way verify such a claim because of the format we're participating in. I've run into this before. A co-worker swears his truck gets 28 MPG on the highway. I say there is no way and he is seriously exaggerating. His next move to validate his claim is he wants to bet me a $100. I tell him "ok, but here is how we are going to do the math and I'll be in the truck to verify the results." He doesn't want to bet anymore. (grin)

Terry

I agree with you on the HP rating. It is nice to know there are still some guys in here (you) who know enough about things to make an intelligent converstation. It would be nice to have some place we can go where we didn't have to deal with so many idiots. One guys says: 'a Tundra couldn't pull 500 lbs. of oil, and only got 13 mps.' Well gas mileage depends on a lot of things, and my motorcycle could pull 500 lbs. And he wants us to believe a truck with a V8 engine won't move 500 lbs. Tells us a lot about a person. Then there is the idiot who doesn't think a Tundra will be able to move/plow snow. Well, first off, they were just introduced in early spring. Haven't even been around for their first full winter. Plus, who in their right mind would think a truck with as much weight, and more HP wouldn't be able to plow snow, when less powerful trucks (Dodge,Chevy,GMC,ford) have been doing it for years. That isn't coming from a very reasonable, objective, open mind. Of course mivhntr has showed us proof he's not to smart. Every time he opens is childish mouth he tells the world what a stupid punk he is.

Yep the Toys are too small to plow snow effectively, but the way my driveway is set up it's what I've always used. driveway is almost a 1/4 mile now. It eats up clutches though cause of how I have to push it off the edge, lots of backing up and going forward again.

I've owned brand new Chevy's, Fords (never a Dodge) and used Toys, i'm not brand loyal to much, but Toys earned it from me.

and you're right they are grocery getters, I took my old 87 Toy (before it got totaled when a lady t-boned me) places that one of the big 3 wouldn't fit or would bog down because of the weight to hunt with. Plus driving it up the haul road every year for about 8-10 years back in the day when "road" was a loose term to describe that drive.

I'm eventually going to buy a used standard cab model and put a full size plow on it and not even register it, just keep it on the place for pushing snow in winter.

but the Toyotas have served me well above and beyond what they were designed to do.

I'm as patriotic as the next guy, but the jap engineers have blown our boys outa the water or how they assemble them or something.

Talk to lots of folks up here and AKCub is correct this is hard country on vehicles, the oldest stuff around still running are old Toy trucks and Subaru station wagon thingys. They may not be glamorous, but they are the Timex's of the auto world.

Too many folks have to take the big 3 back in right away to fix chit that shoulda been right in the first place.

It's a slam dunk imo&e, perhaps YMMV.

but truthfully if you can't realize Toy has consistently made a better product than the big 3 for the last 25 years or so tells me your either full of chit or got your head somewhere looking for where the chit comes from. (grin)

btw along with my Toys I always keep a GMC 3/4 ton around as well, have had good luck with them, but they ain't no Toyota.

Guys, I'm a Toyota owner and a Z-71 owner and I've had great luck with both. My question is, how do you explain the huge increase in recalls lately by Toyota? Is it a big concern, or just one of those inevitable things? I'm really just curious, as I'm impressed with the new Tundra, and equally impressed with the new Z-71. By the way, my Tundra has 171,000, and my '01 Z-71 has 153,000....both with routine brake changes only.

I own a 2007 Tundra,and to date there have been no recalls on this truck.


On the other hand,my previous four trucks were all made by GM.I received no recalls on any of them,but there were some problems that were so widespread,that recalls should have happened.Instead GM simply chose to replace the parts until the warranty expired.Perhaps Toyota is just more concerned about actually fixing problems that crop up.

yep news to me too, but I'm looking forward to when I need to make my next truck purchase.

Am thinking by the time it's time to get rid of the 02 GMC, Toyota will have a 3/4 ton on the market, if they can maintain the reliability of the little trucks in application to their big trucks, odds are they'll get more of my loot.

GM liable to be on strike anyway. (grin)

I'd also agree that Toyota is good about recalls to fix problems, can't say the big 3 is as concerned about service and customer satisfaction. I had two recalls for my 93 toy truck, head gaskets and a steering arm. I'm suprised I didn't blow the head gasket when I towed a massively overloaded 14' trailer from CA to AK. I did burn a valve in the engine due to not adjusting them when I should have, at 140k miles, but when I pulled the top end, the bottom end looked great, certainly good for another 100k miles.

I too hear about all these Toyota recalls. I'm on my 3rd Toyota truck, (97 T100, 01 Tundra, 07 Tundra) and have never received any recall notices on any of them. I did hear about a Tundra reall in about 02 dealing something with brakes, but it didn't involve my vehicle. My wife is on her 3rd Camry too, and no recalls on them either. But, there are tons of recalls out there all the time. A lot more than folks realize. I also heard talk of Toyota coming out with a diesel made by Caterpillar. Don't know if there is anything to it, but I'll bet that would spark the interest of many if they came out with a 3/4 ton diesel. Maybe in a dual wheel job too???? We'll see!!!

I agree! Pushing snow proves WHAT about a truck????? Or does it tell us more about the driver??? It sure is hard on the front-ends and transmission.

hunter01, brilliant observation.

RECALL: 2004-2006 Toyota Tundra
NHTSA Campaign Number: 07V013000 www.nhtsa.dot.gov

Manufacturer TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC.
Recall Date: JAN 18, 2007
Potential Number Of Units Affected: 533124

Description SUSPENSION:FRONT:CONTROL ARM:LOWER BALL JOINT
Summary ON CERTAIN TRUCKS AND MINI VANS, DUE TO POSSIBLE IMPROPER FINISHING OF THE FRONT SUSPENSION LOWER BALL JOINT, SOME BALL JOINTS MAY EXPERIENCE AN INCIDENTAL DETERIORATION OF THE INTERNAL LUBRICATION. THIS MAY CAUSE THE BALL JOINT TO WEAR AND LOOSEN PREMATURELY, WHICH COULD RESULT IN INCREASED STEERING EFFORT, REDUCED VEHICLE SELF-CENTERING, AND NOISE IN THE FRONT SUSPENSION.
Consequence IN EXTREME CASES, IF THE VEHICLE IS CONTINUOUSLY OPERATED IN THIS CONDITION, THE LOWER BALL JOINT MAY SEPARATE FROM THE KNUCKLE AND COULD CAUSE A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL.
Remedy DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE FRONT SUSPENSION LOWER BALL JOINTS. THE RECALL BEGAN ON FEBRUARY 28, 2007. OWNERS MAY CONTACT TOYOTA AT 1-800-331-4331.



The name calling really hurts too. BTW, still giving head to the Toyota guys? MI VHNTR

From the link posted in the previous post.(Before it was edited)



Wow!20 engines out of 30,000 produced at that point.And since May,no more reports of failures despite the fact that the total number of 5.7 engines produced now exceeds 50,000.That adds up to a failure rate of .04%,and that rate is continuing to decline with each new engine built.
And let us consider how Toyota dealt with the situation.Complete new engines were flown out to replace each of the affected engines.To further compensate the owners of these trucks,most if not all were given extended warranty at no charge.
When GM had the soft cam lobes in the 1980s,they replaced only the defective camshafts and did not offer any extended warranty at no charge.
When the side mounted fuel tanks on GM trucks turned out to be fire hazzards,in collisions,GM chose to pay off the lawsuits rather than recall the vehicles.

http://www.autosafetyexpert.com/def...php&pagetitle=FUEL%20TANK%20-%20FIRE

From that link.

Nothing like some embellishment to the story to make Toyota look better. The link sure doesn't tell the story that is so erroneously stated above. There's no sense in letting the truth get in the way of a good story though.
A few more Tundra recalls too. MI VHNTR


http://www.lemonauto.com/complaints/toyota/toyota_tundra.htm

From your own link.







As stated,Toyota did track the problem,to determine if more engines were affected,but the link makes no mention of any further failures.
As I correctly posted,20 engines failed.As I also posted,Toyota is replacing the complete engines in each case where a cam fails.So would you now care to point out the error in my post.
As was also stated in the article,Toyota found the problem and corrected it very quickly.

I notice that you had no response to GM letting people burn instead of recalling the trucks affected by the dangerous fuel tank placement.Ford had a similar fuel tank design problem as does Jeep as is stated at the same link.

There's no mention in the article that I posted about new engines being flown in for customers with failed engines. Rather, this is what the article said: "One Toyota dealer service technician who declined to be identified says Toyota asked him to ship overnight a defective engine to its V-8 engine plant in Alabama."
Nor is there any statement of fact about free extended warranty listed in the article. Creative writing 101? Or a lack of reading comprehension? Either way, it's not in the link that I have posted. MI VHNTR

PS You also forgot this little tidbit of information from the article: "Toyota's top executives repeatedly have stated their concern that Toyota is growing too quickly to keep quality at past high levels." Quality problems at Toyota? Who would have ever dreamed of it?

Would you care to point out where I stated that all of my information came from your link?Or did your suspicious nature just ASSume that?The information posted about the extended warranty came from the Tundra Solutions Forums where people actually reported the cam failures and how Toyota dealt with the situation.

http://www.tundrasolutions.com/forums/tundra/98232-broken-camshaft-new-2007-what-do-13/

From that link.Post 191



As for Air freighting in new engines.

http://www.autoblog.com/2007/05/29/aw-snap-no-really-20-tundra-camshafts-have-snapped/

From that link


I am still waiting for you to show the errors in my previous post.