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

From the Bridgestone link that I posted:



I didn't consider the 2000 to 2006 Tundra to be a full sized truck,in size,or in power.That is why I didn't buy one until 2007 when it was made much larger,and the power was increased to make it more powerful than the other 1/2 ton trucks.

There is no shortage of GMC trucks on the local dealers lot.I guess that is why they are still dropping prices to try and sell them.And where I live in Northern Alberta ,virtually every family has a pickup,and the average wage is six figures,so the truck market slowdown has not been as great as in many other areas.

I don't think the figures above that we both quoted, include Canadian sales. Also, I don't know for a fact, but if only 4 truck plants were idled from the strike, it may not have included Oshawa which is where your GMC trucks probably come from.

The title is sales figures,not U.S. sales figures.



As you posted,you don't know that for a fact.You are resorting to assumptions with no facts to back them up.

Oh, dear Lord, your argue like a woman. You don't know what "A" means, nor "may" means. I ventured it as an educated guess to explain your alleged overabundance of Sierra's at the local dealership.

Out of curiosity I looked up the dimensions for the 2006 Tundra,and 2004 F-150 1/2 ton extended cabs with standard shortboxes.In this case the Tundra has a 74.7" box and the F-150 has a 78.8" box.

vehicle wheelbase overall length overall width

2006 Tundra 128" 218" 75.2"


2004 ford 144.4" 228" 78.9"


The same size?Not in my opinion.Even the 4" difference in box size in no way accounts for the 16.4" difference in wheel base,or the 10" difference in overall length.

http://www.fordf150.net/specs/04f150.php

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/2006...ab_pickup/1462/specifications/index.html

And now GM uses a 69" box on their extended and crew cabs. Are they now no longer full size trucks? How about regular cabs by Ford and Chevy in 2000, they were smaller than the Tundra Ext cab, are they also no longer full size trucks?

Cabin space and bed length have little to do with whether or not a truck is considered full size.

The new Tundra crew cab is bigger than the Chevy crew cab, they're still both full size trucks. Payload and engines are more applicable. The Tundra had a 4.7 litre I believe which was larger than the standard F-150 V-8 of 2000 and I would be willing to bet there were some 2000 Tundra's with higher payload capacity than some F-150's or Silverados.

Your myth was:



Your statement made no mention of payload or engine output,just "size" and styling.

As Previously posted these are the dimensions that describe the "size" of the trucks.




Myth Busted!

Compare the overall dimensions of the new GM extended cab with the 6-1/2' box to all of the other full sized extended cab trucks with a 6-1/2' box,and they are very similar.Compare the overall dimensions of the GM 1/2 ton crew to the other full sized crew cabs with a similar length box,and they are all very similar.Compare overall dimensions of the regular cab 2000 Ford and GM trucks to other full sized trucks with the same box length and cab style,and they are very similar.
If you compare any of the new full sized pickups with the competitions full sized trucks offering the same box length and cab style,they are all quite similar.That is why they are all considered full sized trucks.

If you compare the overall dimensions of any of the 2000 to 2006 Tundras,to any of the full sized trucks offering a similar cab style and box length,the Tundra is considerably smaller,for the simple reason that it really wasn't a full sized truck.

stubblejumper ... I'm not questioning your sincerity here, so please don't take this the wrong way ... but you are the only example I've ever seen given of this kind of mpg's with a 5.7L 1/2 ton in a 4x4 to boot. I did a google and found a few forums with 2007 Tundra 5.7L and the best anyone listed was 20 mpg. Most were giving 18 to 18.5 mpg highway which is consistent with manufacturer's listing.

Is it possible that a change in tire size or something could be throwing your results off?

At 21 to 22 mpg, I could be persuaded to try a Tundra. I'm also seeing mixed reviews on quality/reliability. Seems like folks are either giving a glowing review, or a polar opposite terrible review. Doesn't instill confidence.

Your measurements are for the 2004 NEW Ford bodystyle, not the 1997-2004 OLD body style, you dipstick.

Ford made both in 2004 just like Chevy made both in 1999. They were transitions years.

The 1997-2004 Ford F-150 Ext Cab was 79.3" width; 138.5" wheelbase and 225" length.

The 2003 Tundra was 79.3" width (identical); 128.3" wheelbase (10 inches less) and 218" length (7 inches less).

Wow yeah, huge difference. Identical width and 3% difference in length.

Keep, doggiepaddling, I won't let you drown.

I am from Canada where we use Imperial gallons,as I plainly posted,and you yourself quoted.An imperial gallon is 20% larger than a US gallon so the mileage numbers are also 20% higher.Therefore 22 miles per Imperial gallon equates to about 18 miles per US gallon.

As to the mileage ratings,Transport Canada lists the highway mileage for the 2007 Tundra at 24 miles per Imperial gallon.As I also mentioned,I drive on busy highways through some rolling hills and above the speed limit,so I don't normally see the 24 miles per Imperial gallon.My best mileage to date was 25 miles per imperial gallon,on a trip across the prairie in Saskatchewan,when I ended up stuck behind a Police cruiser at the speed limit for 150 miles before I finally pulled over because I couldn't stand it any more.

Did not know there was a difference in imperial gallons and US gallons. Thanks for clearing that up. Surprised there is a difference since US measurements are typically the same as British. Learn something new every day.

You posted:



You did not specify the body style ,so I used the 2004 data that I found first.

In any case the earlier style F-150 is only 3" shorter than the later model.That is still 7" longer than the 2000 to 2006 Tundra.



If the above Tundra is really a full sized truck,how about an extended cab truck with a wheelbase of 131.3",an overall length of 218.8" and an engine producing 302hp?

We have a bigger truck with more power,yet I have never seen the 2008 Dakota listed as a full sized truck.Have You?

Below is the window sticker from a Canadian model 2007 Tundra with the 5.7.Notice the estimated mileage.

Foxbat just discovers that he's unknowingly been arguing with his wife on the internet for two days...stay tuned.

Sure I did, the 1997-2004 Ford F-150 IS a body style. You made your 5th mistake in this debate and yet, still can't acknowledge the first.

You have been so busy trying to catch me in a mistake that missed your own mistakes.But I guess your strategy is to quickly change the topic when proven wrong in the hopes that people won't notice.Like comparing sizes,and then when proven wrong switch to payload and engines.

You question my posts about the 5.3 engine only producing 2mpg more than the 5.7 Tundra on the highway,then immediately another poster confirms my numbers.

I use links and actual figures for a reason,because I prefer to provide proof for my statements.

Proof as to the Tundra being more American.
Proof as in Toyota suffering a lower percentage of lost sales this year than Ford,Dodge,or GM.Proof as in the 2000 to 2006 Tundra being smaller than the true full sized trucks including the 1997-2004 f-150.Proof as in the 2008 Dakota being larger and more powerful than the 2000 to 2006 Tundra,yet it is not considered a full size truck,but the 2000 to 2006 Tundra is

Every link that proved my statements right,proved you wrong.
But then you don't post links since you can't find sources that prove your opinions.

I think you're right, my ex wife has evidently found me.

I think we now know why she is the EX wife.