23rd Nov 2006, 18:10
I also have a daily driver 2004 Silverado with a V6. Its very basic and yet has been very reliable. The new parts I have bought have been oil filters, oil, a bed Pendaliner, an upgraded aftermarket sound system, a new class 3 hitch, new factory chrome wheels and tires. And wheel locks.. My parts list must speak volumes.
25th Nov 2006, 15:19
I've never heard of anyone having ANY problems with a Silverado in just 2 years, regardless of how many miles they put on them. They're some of the most ruggedly built trucks on the planet.
3rd Dec 2006, 13:50
Obviously the reviewer hasn't tried very hard to sell his Silverado (if he actually owns one, which I doubt). Based on KBB resale values, and taking into consideration the purchase price (NOT the list) in 2004, a Silverado with average mileage should sell for a higher percentage of the purchase price than a comparably equipped Toyota.
20th Dec 2006, 11:04
To compare a full sized Chevrolet or GMC truck to a Toyota truck (ANY Toyota truck) is like comparing a kitten to a mountain lion. Even the highly biased Car and Driver magazine noted in a truck comparison that the Tundra, Toyota's F-150 wannabe, was not a real truck. Looking at the trucks that companies use for their heavy duty hauling needs, you won't find a single "toy" ota in the bunch. For real jobs requiring real trucks no company with any business sense is going to use any truck other than a big, solid, and reliable GM, Ford or Dodge Ram. As for resale value, it's obvious that this reviewer has not tried to sell his truck. A 2 year old Silverado in good condition will easily return a higher percentage of its purchase price than any comparable Toyota.
20th Dec 2006, 17:09
"Even the highly biased Consumer Reports says..." blah, blah, blah. How many times are you going to write that SAME statement? Maybe you think that if you keep saying it, it will come true. Not so. Chevy's and Fords are big, I'll give you that much, but definitely not solid and reliable. Sorry, not true. And to call a Tundra an F-150 wannabe is funny. The Tundra is infinitely better in ever single aspect of it's design and performance. I would not be caught dead in an F-150. How the hell do you categorize a NEW truck as more reliable than another new one? Reliability is a test of time; Toyota has proven their superior quality over the years, and Fords have become a "Found On Road Dead" kind of a joke.
21st Dec 2006, 10:58
It's interesting that the "horribly unreliable" F-150 has (once again) been chosen as the world's best truck. There are far more satisfied F-150 and Silverado owners than there are of all Toyota products combined. As a good friend of mine likes to say of Toyota owners, "Anyone who likes to brag about paying more for less is not exactly the brighterst bulb on the Christmas tree".
21st Dec 2006, 14:25
My parking lot is continually full of Chevrolets, Dodges and Fords... I might see 2 full size Toyotas a week picking up building supplies, block, cement, lumber etc. Why is that?
22nd Dec 2006, 22:42
On December 20th, somebody said when comparing the Tundra to the an F150. "The Tundra is infinitely better in ever single aspect of it's design and performance."
I'd love to see some proof that the Toyota is better in performance. I know someone who owned a Tundra, and the performance from the 4.7 was a joke. I have no doubt that the F150 is faster. And is this even a proven design? How long has Toyota been using this engine? 7 years? Ford has made the #1 truck for decades, Toyota pickups have never been that popular.
23rd Dec 2006, 01:35
I have a 2004 Silverado with many upgrades from my GM dealer off the shelf performance center. All upgrades were actually done right at the dealer. Its no slouch and street legal. I deal with a lot of contractors and when they see my truck they typically go where I bought mine. All I know is my Auto Rewards points keep going up.
23rd Dec 2006, 06:27
There is no way you could not find parts for your Chevy truck. You obviously did not look very hard. And for the Tundra lover out there, your precious Tundra is a joke of a full size truck. How is your puny little V-8? I see you have a second option in V-8's coming for 07. It only took them 8 years of follow the leaders to offer a larger motor. Heck, Dodge has offered a V-8 in the Dakota for years. Nothing like having options, not like a Toyota buyer would know what I mean.
23rd Dec 2006, 18:15
It's funny that even the Japanese-biased Car and Driver regarded the Tundra as unworthy to be put in the same class as the F-150. The Tundra is basically a mediocre mid-sized truck that needs to grow a lot and gain some in the area of style, comfort, reliability and performance. Like most of the Toyota product line, the Tundra is just boring and unexciting. Even if it did last 300,000 miles, like the F-150's, I don't think I could stand the boredom that long.
6th Jan 2007, 13:29
(For the comment about the Tundra being infinitely better than an F150)
Leave it to a Yuppie to try and make an argument about a truck's structure when he knows nothing about how a truck works.
Tell me. Is the Tundra's little, thin frame superior to the F150's thick, fully boxed frame?
Is the Tundra's three or four thin cross-members superior to the F150's large and bulky cross-members which are welded through the sides of the frame rail? (This ensures that there is very little frame twist and flex. These trucks are solid over bumps.)
Is the Tundra's three 2.5" leaf springs superior to the F150's 3.0" wide leaf springs which can come between 3 or more amounts of springs per assembly?
Is the Tundra's skinny little front control arms superior to the F150's bulky, re-enforced control arms?
Is the Tundra's axle shafts (which are about the size of an average thumb) superior to the F150's axle shafts (which are about the size of an average wrist)?
Is the Tundra's "silky smoooooooth" engine with its aluminum components superior to the F150's cast iron engines?
Oh, but of course the Tundra rides smooooooooth. Whooooopee!
Oh, but of course the interior is soooooo pretty and luxerious. Whooooopee!
Yeah, that's what hard workers like Farmer's, construction workers, and contractors are all looking for when shopping for a truck: a smooth ride and a comfortable interior. Heaven knows they're not all looking for a heavy metal machine that can handle lots of abuse. Who needs that?
Now is the Tundra infinitely better? It sure isn't when people actually try to do work with them.
Is the Tundra superior when the bed is sitting on the axles due to just a few boards laying in the back?
I live in a farming community, and I never see a Tundra on a farm. There was one freak exception where I saw a Tundra pulling a wagon, with round bails of hay stacked on it, on the highway. Of course the old domestics could do that every single day and never need maintenance; but I'm not sure how long the smoooooooooooooooth Tundra could do that before its thin metal finally gives.
I drive an F150 for a living. It is a full sized truck with the eight foot bed and only a 4.2L V6. I drive this vehicle hard five days a week and it rarely gives me trouble. It currently has 255,000 miles and counting. It puts in 200 miles a day, 1000 miles a week and never fails to start.
How many Tundra's have made it to that many miles? I'm sure there are some out there, but many of them haven't been around long enough to have put the miles in. Either ways, that doesn't take away from the fact that there are multitudes of domestics with miles and miles on them. So the stereotypes are not fair.