Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Ford, Chevy, or Toyota

According to the GM site the 1500 extended cab is available with the 6-1/2' box.

http://www.gm.ca/gm/english/vehicles/gmc/sierra/options

72"+ box is a requirement.

Right now, it's between the Ford F-150 Lariat, the Chevy/GMC Silverado/Sierra LTZ, or the Tundra DoubleCab; all three 4x4.

The deal maker/breakers will be price, on-road comfort, and package options, and likely in that order, since there ain't a bad pick in the trio.

Two of my priorities were reliability history and resale value,both of which were in Toyota's favor.

For a great truck, low maintenance, and the highest resale value .......

TOYOTA

I'm currently running a 2002 Silverado 4wd extended cab with the 5.3 and 3.73 gears in the off road package, plus limited slip rear end. Got aprox 90K on the truck. I average 17MPG unless I'm towing my boat (4500lbs) which lowers it to 12MPG. I've had the water pump changed, the catalytic converters disintegrated internally which was covered under warrantee. I replaced the front shocks and the brakes all around a couple of weeks ago.

Are they offering you the employee discount on the GM in your area?

Edited to add: If ya want extreme comfort get the six way electric adjustable heated seats. Mine are leather, not sure if their available in cloth.

5.3 Liter V8. jorge

The Chevy/GMC will get the best mileage and last a long time. The Toyota may have the most American-made parts. I've bought Fords before and likely will again, but they are inferior to the GM's. If you can get them cheap enough...

I bought a Ford.

I won't buy another.

Don't fall for the GM fuel management propaganda.Unless you are driving at a constant speed,on flat ground,with no wind gusts,it does very little to improve fuel mileage.If you drive in hilly terrain or are passing a lot,it really doesn't help at all.Edmunds has a great truck comparison on their site.The 6.0 liter GMC had one of the highest EPA ratings,yet in actual driving it finished the farthest from that EPA rating,and delivered less fuel economy than the 5.7 Tundra.

As for the 5.3 GM,I owned two of them,and they only delivered about 1 mpg more than the much more powerful 5.7 Toyota.A friends 2007 5.3 with the fuel management system only delivers about 1 mpg more than mine did,and only if driven fairly easy.


http://blogs.trucktrend.com/6202409...t-and-nissan-in-half-ton-test/index.html

Before you decide, watch these:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lrk6vsb77xk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Uc4Ksz3nHM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfZDtC9kjVk

ALL vehicle manufactures have to follow testing protocol mandated by CAFE. The MPG information posted on the vehicle stickers are the exact results from those tests.

Highway results are measured at 55MPH.

Nice anecdotal proof. That's certainly a large data pool to draw from. As to the Edmunds review. So a vehicle that in their review cost $4000 more, won, wow, who'd a thunk it? BTW Edmunds isn't much of an authority on trucks and SUV's.

In real life, the Toyota 5.7 litre will seldom be within 1 or 2 MPG of a GM 5.3 litre, all things being equal. You will also pay more, all things being equal and you are stuck with one ugly truck.

Even without the options that were on the test truck,all Tundras with the 5.7 has the same engine, transmission,brakes,steering,interior room,and build quality as the test truck,so the performance won't be different.



Apparently you missed the fact that I have actually owned two GMs with the 5.3 and now own a Tundra with the 5.7.That is real life.All three trucks were 1/2 ton 4x4s,and were used in the same way,by the same owner,and the highway mileage only differed by about 1 mpg.Several friends of mine own either the GM 5.3 or the Tundra 5.7,and their fuel mileage is very close to mine with both vehicles,with the 5.3 doing at most 2mpg more.We all live in an area that has some hilly terrain,and the two lane highway is very busy,so the GM fuel management system is of no real value in these conditions.

If its gas mileage you want you'd better go with the Chevy. My '08 Z71 gets 88 mpg. At least thats what the readout says when coasting downhill. Real life wise it gets 15 in town and almost 19 on the road without a load.

As I recall you were trying to compare a 1999 GM to a 2007 Toyota you owned. Apples to oranges. I had a 2000 GMC regular cab with the smaller 4.8 litre and it got worse gas mileage than the two more recent 5.3 litre larger GMC's I've owned.

Technology, even in the last 4 years has improved on gas mileage. You might as well compare a 2007 GMC to a 1999 Toyota.



Now we get to some truth. Your conditions certainly affect how well GM's fuel management system will shine. In fact your conditions affect the potential for HWY mileage, period. My GMC's have all gotten their best HWY mileage at around 60-65 MPG. If you don't have the opportunity to do real Highway driving, then your anecdotal evidence is affected by your individual circumstances.

When you claim "Don't fall for the GM fuel management propaganda" and in reality aren't operating in an environment where that system can show it's full potential, it's silly to makes claims that it doesn't work well.

Where does the profit go?????

Our company runs the new Tundra, one F-150, and a few Z-71's. Here's my take on it: Tundra X cab 4x4--a solid truck, well built, thin sheet metal as it gets dinged up easier than the others, avg 14.6mpg and will get around 18 on the hwy. F150 is my father's 2wd King Ranch with 260,000 miles on it. All he's done is replace several sets of brakes, routine maintenance, and an alternator. It gets about 17mpg on the hwy. The Z-71's, including my crew cab have proven reliable so far. I have 29k on mine, have averaged 17.3 mpg, and get right at 20 mpg cruising down the hwy. I've never been in a more comfortable truck, although the Tundra's are very comfy also.

I've had good and not so good luck with all makes through the years, and it's too early to predict reliability on the new Tundra. They didn't have too good of a start as they had multiple problems but seem to have them lined out now. Time will tell. My son's z-71 has 151k and never been in the shop.

I also owned a 2004 GMC with the 5.3 engine as I previously posted,but you obviously missed.The mileage was virtually identical to that of the the 1999 since there were no significant changes made to the 5.3 engine from 1999 until 2007.

A friend who I work with owns a 2007 GMC with the 5.3 fuel management system.We hunt together and fish together and four of us often take his truck and mine since our other two friends have mid sized trucks.We travel together(same speed and conditions),and when we compare our fuel mileage,his truck only produces at most 2 mpg more than my Tundra.



We are driving under highway conditions at speeds of around 70mph,but we often have to pass slower trucks and we do have some hilly terrain(not mountains,but not flat either.We do use cruise control,but it is rarely on for more than 10 minutes at a time without having to pass a truck or go up or down a hill.



The only place that the fuel management system can show it's full potential is on a flat wide open section of road,where there are no hills,no crosswinds,and no passing is required.In other words,not in the majority of driving situations for most people.



Let's see,we have the Tundra at 18mpg highway vs the GM at 20mpg highway for a difference of two mpg as I previously posted.

The American Workers are paid,the American parts suppliers are paid,the Utilities and maintenance for the facilities are paid to American companies,and the rest goes to Toyota.

Now lets look at GM.A good many of their trucks are made in Canada,so wages go to Canadian workers,Maintenance and Utilities to Canadian companies,and the profit to GM Canada.
Then we have the Chevy Avalanche which is made in Mexico.Wages go to Mexican workers,maintenance and utilities are paid to Mexican companies,and the profits go to GM.

Then we have Dodge who also manufactures trucks in Mexico,pays wages to Mexicans,and maintenance and utilities to Mexicans.

The profits in many cases go to wealthy shareholders,not to the average person,and I could care less whose wealthy people get the profits if local people make money as well.

We have GM and Ford who are closing plants or moving them outside of the USA and Canada,and laying off workers.We also have Toyota who is building more plants in the USA and is employing more local workers.Which benefits the average American more?

Can't argue with the points you made about who is more "american", but Toyota is hardly looking to build more plants in the US that build Tundras. They're getting it handed to them in the truck market just like Ford and GM.