2nd Dec 2009, 14:50
How about trading in a Tundra for a nicer new GM Silverado? Will that work for you?
2nd Dec 2009, 17:59
"How about trading in a Tundra for a nicer new GM Silverado? Will that work for you?."
Well, this is a Tacoma review to begin with. But since you're asking, why would you EVER do that? GM's are known for serious issues. Just a few days ago I saw a Chevy Cavalier broken down on the highway, I also saw that the tow truck being used to bring it to a repair shop was a Chevy. However, the tow truck had its hood open with a red flag tied the antenna just like the Cavalier it came to rescue. It was unfortunate to see that the owners of the Cavalier were having such bad luck, but I couldn't help but smile when I saw that tow truck in need of a tow.
2nd Dec 2009, 18:07
Well I would agree that a Silverado (and the Ford F series) are better full-size trucks than the Tundra, but I would also have to say that the Tacoma is a better mid-size than any of the domestic mid-size trucks.
3rd Dec 2009, 14:31
Why? The Silverado has a better ride, handling, towing, better load capacity, far better warranty, and lower cost of ownership over 5 years. I did not need faster light to light acceleration, so I liked all the other reasons and far better warranty with GM. I then wrote out my check. No issues. If I were buying a little truck, the Tacoma would be test driven as well.
3rd Dec 2009, 19:40
"Well, this is a Tacoma review to begin with. But since you're asking, why would you EVER do that? GM's are known for serious issues."
It took me half and hour to stop laughing and type a reply to this HILARIOUS comment!!! GM's are known for SERIOUS ISSUES??? I guess all the Tacomas that BROKE IN HALF and were bought back by Toyota just had a "minor issue"???
4th Dec 2009, 12:05
Seems a simple matter of offering a standard 100000 mile warranty and would not cost a dime from the import mfr as quality is so great, correct? Offer it anyway, not say it's not needed. That's a way out. I buy, and no warranty left quickly induces us to shop elsewhere. We had drive train issues.
5th Dec 2009, 00:07
Excellent point. If imports don't break down, why are they afraid to offer a decent warranty. We've never seen a sensible reply to that question.
5th Dec 2009, 11:46
Here's one for you. How about warranties are a marketing campaign to begin with? Why do you think Ford and GM started offering their huge warranties right after they began to have trouble? To bring in more sales of course. It has nothing to do with confidence in their products. Not to mention the fact that the imports invented the 100,000 mile warranty anyways (Hyundai's is the best in the biz.) And Honda's 5 year, 60,000 mile warranty is the exact same as GM's 5 year, 100,000 mile warranty. The national driving average is 12,000 miles a year, 5 times 12 is 60. They should run out at the same time. GM's 100,000 mile warranty is simply an inflated number to attract more customers. The extra 40,000 miles will help you only if you drive 20,000 miles a year or more, which most people don't.
5th Dec 2009, 12:07
And the hollow camshafts I've had to replace in many Silverado's were pretty minor as well. I thought those trucks would make a nice lawn ornament, as having a frame but no engine is just as useless as having an engine with no frame.
5th Dec 2009, 12:13
You know what I would like to see? A truck made with a Ford frame and rear end, but a Toyota engine and transmission. This would be an invincible combination. Ford frames are the best in the business and Toyota engines are completely bullet proof. As long as you could keep GM out of that mix, I think that thing would be awesome.
6th Dec 2009, 10:17
Actually, we're STILL waiting for an answer to this. If it was a marketing ploy (and ALL warranties are) and the cars DO break down before 100,000 miles, then manufacturers could not afford to offer them. Obviously GM has confidence to offer 100,000 mile warranties even if it IS a "marketing ploy". Why can't Honda and Toyota??
6th Dec 2009, 11:03
Financial reasons. GM, Ford, Toyota, Honda, whoever it is, they are hell-bent on profits. Some are more sensible about their finances (Honda, Toyota) and other get themselves into trouble with it (Ford, GM, Chrysler.)
The Big 3 are playing catch-up with the Japanese with every car they build, there is about a $2500 deficit on every car the Big 3 builds, which is the main reason for lower quality (cut-corners building methods. Every manufacturer is different. Ford builds crappy transmissions, GM deplorable interiors, and Chrysler, everything else.) and the outsourcing of jobs.