Jump to content

Fullsize P/U Comparison: Toyota vs. Chevy vs. Nissan


Variance

Recommended Posts

Fullsize P/U Comparison: Toyota vs. Chevy vs. Nissan

Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

The 2007 Nissan Titan takes 3rd place in this group, though three years ago it placed 1st in its class with ease. With the introduction of the all-new Silverado and Tundra, the game has simply moved on, and the Titan's traditional character is cast in a harsher light. It has neither the capability of the Tundra nor the comfort of the Silverado, and the road manners of neither.

It's not that the Titan is bad — it's that the other two are so good. The fact that the Titan's range of configurations isn't up to par with the others did not play into our scoring, but is a reality it must contend with in the marketplace.

In the end, it was the Tundra's powertrain, performance and feature content that gave it the edge over the 2nd-place 2007 Chevrolet Silverado. In fact, the Silverado squeaked a minuscule lead over the Tundra in the evaluation portion of our scoring, and was the unanimous choice as the truck we'd most recommend to others for casual use. It's one refined truck, and offers an impressive breadth of talents. But the chasm in performance capability between the Tundra and Silverado simply couldn't be bridged by the Chevy's friendly ride and interior.

It comes down to utility, though, and the 1st-place 2007 Toyota Tundra simply offers more of it. No matter what we threw at it, the Tundra never blinked. It's almost as though Toyota built a 3/4-ton truck and honed it for half-ton duty, such is its unburstable nature. You pay for the Toyota's proficiency with a stiffer ride than the Silverado, but the payoff is the most capable half-ton truck on the market.

Edmunds

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Of the three trucks we tested on the dyno, only the Silverado produced inconsistent results that appeared curiously low across nearly the entire rev range. Most unexpected was a power spike just before redline.

Although the spike resulted in a peak of 297 hp at the wheels — about right for the rated 367 hp at the flywheel, once drivetrain loss is factored in — the Silverado's measured power appeared to be underachieving everywhere else in the rev range.

In fact, the Chevy produces significantly less power than the Titan for the duration of the dyno test until the Chevy finally surpasses the Titan's peak of 291 hp at the wheels.

As it turns out, the explanation boils down to an engine calibration strategy. GM calibrated the 367-hp 6.0-liter V8 to remain in stoichiometric "closed-loop" fuel delivery mode for 4 seconds after the throttle is floored. This fueling strategy helps keep emissions in check (and saves fuel) at the expense of reduced power — about 40 hp less at the peak. Once the driver lifts his right foot from the wide-open throttle position, the 4-second clock resets.

This explains why the Silverado's power is low everywhere on the graph right up to the jump in power right before redline. Corresponding to the expiration of the 4-second window, the jump in power is indicative of the engine switching to open-loop "power enrichment" mode. It is only when operating in this mode that the engine delivers its full rated power.

The Titan averaged 13.7 mpg during its stay with us, with a best tank of 15.1 mpg. Despite its extra grunt and weight, the Tundra averaged 14.4 mpg, with a best tank of 16.9 mpg. EPA estimates are 13 mpg city, 18 mpg highway for the Titan and 14 mpg city, 18 mpg highway for the Tundra.

Since our Silverado is a long-term test truck, we have a larger sample size from which to cull fuel economy data. The picture is not pretty. Over 5,436 miles, the Chevy has averaged 12.7 mpg with a best tank of 14.2 mpg. Of the three trucks, the Silverado's performance is the furthest from its EPA rating of 15 mpg city, 19 mpg highway.

This Chevy V8's fuel-sipping four-cylinder power mode makes the engine seem even sleepier, and it takes a half-beat for all eight cylinders to wake up when you stab the throttle. From our logbook: "The Chevy's soft throttle response is unfortunate. Also, I'm not sure what the numbers say but this one feels by far the slowest."

At the track, our Silverado brings up the rear, trailing the Tundra by nearly a second to 60 mph, although it closed the gap to 0.7 second by the end of the quarter-mile. If you want to learn more about why the Silverado was slower than expected, despite its power ratings of 367 hp and 375 lb-ft of torque, check out our dyno-testing findings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um, you'd have to feel cheated.

The Silverado's L76 6.0L engine has false advertised power, which it only hits with a spike at redline.

Yes, the power is probably in the engine, but the engine management software cripples it.

Gm's own graph of the L76 doesn't show such a dramatic jump.

http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/produ...lverado_SAE.pdf

It would be an easy fix with a software reflash, but then the mpg will probably dive unacceptably.

However, the Silverado being most likely thousands of dollars cheaper than the Tundra, you get what you pay for.

It's worth noting the editors recommend the Silverado over the Tundra, for the Silverado's softer ride and "comfort".

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drive...1/pageId=118458

The Tundra won on performance and utility.

Wow, this is a rare review where the editors preferred a soft ride instead of a sporty ride... reviewers are coming to their senses and facing the reality of bumpy public roads... like Motortrend picking the Camry...

Edited by JT64
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um, you'd have to feel cheated.

The Silverado's L76 6.0L engine has false advertised power, which it only hits with a spike at redline.

it's not false just oddly unavaliable till after 4seconds.

It would be an easy fix with a software reflash, but then the mpg will probably dive unacceptably.

Why do you think that would be any difference unless the driver has a lead foot? I bet it's only there for EPA mpg #'s as so far every GMT-900 tested has missed EPA #

s by a wide margin.

It's worth noting the editors recommend the Silverado over the Tundra, for the Silverado's softer ride and "comfort".

The Tundra was equipped with the TRD off-road package, which uses a different suspension.

Edited by toyoguy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow no crazy uproar about this? I'm actually surprised, or maybe it's too early and people haven't seen it yet. Anyhoo, seems pretty fair. I am shocked to see the dyno chart though and quite disappointed. However, I think I'd take a Sierra over any of these just based on looks alone. Before, I used to think the Silverado look better in the pics but after seeing both in real life, the Sierra does look a lot more "Professional Grade" than the Silvy does.

The Tundra at least is capable now unlike the old one, still can't get over that interior though. As for the Titan it's also still a handsome fierce looking truck on the outside, too bad the inside is so dull.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the end, it was the Tundra's powertrain, performance and feature content that gave it the edge over the 2nd-place 2007 Chevrolet Silverado. In fact, the Silverado squeaked a minuscule lead over the Tundra in the evaluation portion of our scoring, and was the unanimous choice as the truck we'd most recommend to others for casual use. It's one refined truck, and offers an impressive breadth of talents. But the chasm in performance capability between the Tundra and Silverado simply couldn't be bridged by the Chevy's friendly ride and interior.

It sounds like the Silverado lost because it wasn't a good enough performer. Sure, the Tundra performed much better, but trucks aren't used for racing anyways, and 7.2s 0-60 and 15.5 in the 1/4 mile are plenty fast for a truck. I think if the Silverado had the 6-speed it would have been nearly as quick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess we found out what Toyota was doing when they delayed the Tundra launch. Still, GM has never been shy about getting into a horsepower race with anyone, and I don't expect them to play second fiddle to the Tundra (or anyone else) for very long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So... Toyota won...

http://www3.telus.net/sjdj/big%20whoop.wmv

:P:lol:

GM needs to get those six-speeds in fast. At the same time however... this test is comparing the high end models. I'd pay more attention to the test that compares the models with the midline V8's (Toyota's 4.7L vs. GM's 5.3) because that will be the segment that matters.

Edited by Captainbooyah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I drove an '07 Silverado a few months ago at the Tampa Auto Show. It had the 5.3L and felt great.

It seems to boil down to GM deciding to sacrifice that punchy, fuel-guzzling off-the-line power for a little gain in economy while still giving you the full strength when you need it. By retarding a fuel-rich power delivery, you don't waste as much fuel.

Well, guess what, that's admirable and all, but let me decide when to feather the throttle. This is one ix that needs to be 'deprogrammed' immediately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yikes

Posted Image

the Tundra''s 5.7L V8 is too peaky with not enough low end power. No wait that's the Silverado's 6.0L V8

Strange how your curve chart doesn't match ANY of the engines listed in THEIR specs....

Torque is what matters here, and 401 ft lbs is sweet on the Toy.

The GM 6.0 is 360 ft lbs, and they offer optional 450 ftlbs (8.1) and 650 ftlbs on the turbodiesel

The Turdra looks like ass, and is a great truck for a woman, or any one who likes butt-ugly trucks.

Better luck next time.

4.0-liter DOHC EFI V6, 24-valve aluminum block with aluminum alloy head with VVT-i

236 hp @ 5200 rpm

266 lb.-ft. @ 4000 rpm

Bore and stroke: 3.70 x 3.74

Compression ratio: 10.0:1

Displacement: 3956 cc

Ignition system: DIS (Direct)

Emissions: ULEV II

Recommended fuel: 87 octane or higher - -

4.7-liter DOHC EFI V8, 32-valve aluminum block with aluminum alloy head with VVT-i

271 hp @ 5400 rpm

313 lb.-ft. @ 3400 rpm

Bore and stroke: 3.70 x 3.31

Compression ratio: 10.0:1

Displacement: 4664 cc

Ignition system: DIS (Direct)

Emissions: ULEV II

Recommended fuel: 87 octane or higher S S

5.7-liter DOHC EFI V8, 32-valve aluminum block with aluminum alloy head with Dual VVT-i

381 hp @ 5600 rpm

401 lb.-ft. @ 3600 rpm

Bore and stroke: 3.70 x 4.02

Compression ratio: 10.2:1

Displacement: 5663 cc

Ignition system: DIS (Direct)

Emissions: ULEV II

Recommended fuel: 87 octane or higher

Edited by mightymouse
Link to comment
Share on other sites

GM deserved that.

No reason for that 4 speed in there. This is 2007, not the 1980's.

I would be willing to bet that the 6.0 liter with the 6 speed would be every bit as quick as the Tundra.

Throw the Escalade powertrain in there and it's game over for Toyota.

Too bad GM always has to leave something out. They fixed everything else in the Silverado but powertrains took a backseat as a result.

I also would have liked to see a Sierra in the test. Isn't it a few hundred pounds lighter than the Silvy?

Edited by bcs296
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×
×
  • Create New...