>
>Gary, I don't think Toyota cares whether you resent the comparison, but
>that is their target market.
I wouldn't expect them to care, and I did say I don't know about the
Tundra.. but unless they REALLY fixed some serious issues with the T100, I
don't think it can haul with the big boys. And I think their actual market
will be Toyota loyalists who have outgrown the mini-truck market... I don't
think there will be a mass-migration from the big 3...
>The Tundra is not a T100, you can read all about the Tundra on the Toyota
>web site.
I prefer to hear from 3rd parties about vehicles.. it's like having the fox
watch the hen house... of course they're going to say their truck is better
than anything else on the road.. I don't blindly trust the Dodge website,
either... they're a corporation.. in business to make money, not friends.
>
>Personally, I don't think a RAM 1500 is any more of a truck than my Dakota.
I never wanted to make this thread into a Dak vs Ram thread... they're both
GREAT trucks in their own right... but they are quite different- Ram has a
solid front axle, while the Dak has IFS... The drivetrain is otherwise
similar, although the Ram has a 9.25" rear and Dana 44 front standard, while
I believe the Dak is 8.25" and Dana 35- main reason for that, though is that
the Ram is heavier- If you want to win a drag race, there's no arguement-
but if you want space, there's no argument either... When I'm passing I wish
I had some more power/weight ratio, but when I load it up, I love my truck.
> It is a little bigger, less fuel efficient and slower. A V8 4x4 Ram 1500
>Clubcab has the same payload as my V8 4x4 Dak clubcab and the Ram is rated
>to tow about 1,500 lbs more.
It's less fuel efficient and slower because it's bigger and heavier- and
they're both rated at 1/2 ton trucks, so why wouldn't their payload be
similar... I had an '84 Nissan before my first Ram... it's payload was also
1500#... does that make it no less of a truck than a Dak or a Ram? It is
when you're over 6' tall!!! when I bought my first Ram, I went to the
dealer wanting a '97 Daktoa... but at the time I could get into a '96 Ram
1500 CC for less money- and I have gotten too used to the space.. when I had
to upgrade to a 4x4, I looked at a Dak again, but it would be too cramped
with myself, my wife and child... that rear seat is real small.. while
we're on the subject of space.. let's not forget that the 1500 engine
compartment is EXACTLY the same size as the 2500/3500 with the V10 or the
Cummins Diesel.. you can crawl in there with the engine!
>It's not build any heavier and many of the parts are interchangeable
It's not built any heavier? then why is my truck about 1000# heavier than a
Dakota 4x4 CC?... and I can't live without the 4 doors now that I've got
them... I know the Dakota has a Quad cab coming out next year... but a 5 1/2
foot bed? I can't live with that... (I could before, but haul too much 4x8
sheets of just about anything that comes in that size... and towing a
trailer for that is just too inconvient) Which brings up one small issue I
have with the Dak... the distance between the wheel wells is less than 48"
(44 I think) which makes it real difficult to haul 4x8 sheets in the first
place... a Ram has 50" between the wheel wells. Max payload weight isn't
everything... you can't haul it if it doesn't fit!
and don't even start with me about looks.. the Tundra is no better looking
than the T100.. maybe that's why I can't get past the T100's problems when I
look at it.. also, anyone notice you can't get the V8 with a 5-speed?
>
>There is no-one blinder than he who refuses to see.
I don't refuse to see, all I was saying in my orginal is that TOYota has to
do an awful lot to overcome the T100 in my eyes...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:15:10 EDT