Quote:

I'm just reading the article now, and my jaw almost dropped when I saw the '07 in the middle of the pack. I've been reading C&D for many years, and highly respect this publication for reviews. The last few years they've tested trucks, and do a nice job reviewing them as well. They brought in some contractors to sum up the trucks to give a fair point of view to avoid the "but it's a car mag" complaint. I'll chime in more as I read all the articles. But so far, here's the results:



5th: F150 FX4 4x4 Supercrew

4th: Ram 1500 Sport 4x4 Quad Cab

3rd: Tundra 4x4 DC (yes, I'm not sure they used a DC and not a CrewMax)

2nd: Nissan Titan SE 4x4

1st: Silverado 1500 LTZ 4x4 Crew Cab



Ford Highs: Limo space back in the crew compartment, plush interior details, throne-like front bucket seats.

Ford Lows: Shaky steering column, weak engine, torpid handling, heavy understeer when the going gets brisk.

Verdict: Plush inside, not much load space behind: Think Passenger Truck.



Ram Highs: Control-tower view from the seat, quick-reflex engine, clever paraphernalia places in the cab.

Ram Lows: Need an elevator for boarding, quivery structure, Kmart-cheap interior plastic.

Verdict: Exellent storage and tie-down details make this a trucker's truck.



Tundra Highs: Major horsepower, supportive front buckets, slick slide-out mirrors, off-road chassis muscles.

Tundra Lows: Front tow loops down in the mud, intrusive stability control, major understeer when you push.

Verdict: The muscle truck - no bully will kick sand in this Tundra's face.



Titan Highs: Snorty engine, quick steering, neutral balance in the twisties, perfectly damped tailgate hinges.

Titan Lows: Squeaky-flexy over the rough stuff, exhaust roar never s<myspace>top</myspace>s, jumpy throttle, short cargo bed.

Verdict: A lovable puppy of a truck, fun despite its imperfections.



Silverado Highs: Tightly responsive steering and brakes, rigid body structure, American-luxo interior styling, plush ride.

Lows: Cheesy mirrors, low and vulnerable plastic spoiler, wind noise, cockpit storage bins lack imagination.

Verdict: A sweet-driving pickup that's big on action, light on serious-hauler details.



Final point tally:

Silverado - 207

Titan - 199

Tundra - 193

Ram - 184

F-150 - 172



Quarter mile times: 0-60 times:

Silverado: 15.8 @ 89 mph Silverado: 7.4

Ram: 16.2 @ 86 mph Ram: 7.9

F-150: 16.7 @ 83 mph F-150: 8.8

Titan: 15.6 @ 89 mph Titan: 7.0

Tundra: 14.9 @ 94 mph Tundra: 6.1



0-60 times:

Silverado: 7.4

Ram: 7.9

F-150: 8.8

Titan: 7.0

Tundra: 6.1



Fuel (mpg) city/hwy/500 miles average

Silverado: 15/19/12

Ram: 14/18/12

F-150: 14/18/13

Titan: 13/18/13

Tundra: 14/18/13



Braking 70-0 feet:

Silverado: 187

Ram: 196

F-150: 200

Titan: 200

Tundra: 197



Price as tested:

Silverado: $43,054

Ram: $43,130

F-150: $40,650

Titan: $39,005

Tundra: $44,500



Curb LB:

Silverado: 5582

Ram: 5645

F-150: 5761

Titan: 5470

Tundra: 5680



Payload LB:

Silverado: 1418

Ram: 1055

F-150: 1439

Titan: 1052

Tundra: 1120



Ground clearance:

Silverado: 9.0

Ram: 7.3

F-150: 8.1

Titan: 11.36

Tundra: 10.4

Yeah, I saw th results, but didn't know who did the test. The Chevy Seems REALLY polished, and the titan Finishing before the Tundra? Wow...



But look at the Tundra..its a beast as far as power and speed go, also 3 way tie for fuel economy.



And The Chevy ran away with the win with 8 points..it wasn't even close.

I'd still put the new tundra infront of the titan.

This is great for GM. Considering a lot of consumers base their automotive purchasing decisions off of magazines, which I'd never do, but thats me. And Chevy walked away with this one without even breaking a sweat, which I totally expected, just not from C&D. Good work GM!



But my question is, as anti-GM as C&D is, how long do you guys think it took them to admit that GM hit a home run here and was clearly the better truck by a long shot?



And one more question. In the new Tundra ad, they boast about how kick ass the brakes are on the new Tundra, but if you look at the 70-0 braking in feet, the Silverado s<myspace><myspace>top</myspace></myspace&g t;ped in 187 feet and it took the Tundra 197 feet. Hell, even the Ram was a 196 feet, and the other two were both 200. Why boast so much about something on your vehicle if its not even close to being best in class?

HEAVYWEIGHT wrote:

This is great for GM. Considering a lot of consumers base their automotive purchasing decisions off of magazines, which I'd never do, but thats me. And Chevy walked away with this one without even breaking a sweat, which I totally expected, just not from C&D. Good work GM!



But my question is, as anti-GM as C&D is, how long do you guys think it took them to admit that GM hit a home run here and was clearly the better truck by a long shot?



And one more question. In the new Tundra ad, they boast about how kick ass the brakes are on the new Tundra, but if you look at the 70-0 braking in feet, the Silverado s<myspace><myspace><myspace><myspace>top </myspace></myspace></myspace></myspace> ped in 187 feet and it took the Tundra 197 feet. Hell, even the Ram was a 196 feet, and the other two were both 200. Why boast so much about something on your vehicle if its not even close to being best in class?

C&D aren't Anti GM, and its stupid to think so. Claim journalist have no integrity just because what they publish is not in agree with you is down <myspace><myspace>right</myspace></myspace&g t; ignorant. While having a short s<myspace><myspace>top</myspace></myspace&g t;ping distance is important, I wonder whose brakes stand up to fade the best?

That's great that their truck did good in this test, but they are still getting a lot of things wrong. The past 10 or so years they have been too dependent on their trucks to hold their company together. Huge trucks are starting to die off as a trend now, meaning the people who will be buying them now are people that actually use them for what they are made for, instead of using them as stylish trophies to commute in.



Everyone knows that GM has always made a good truck, that is nothing new. Now all GM needs to do is make their entire lineup as <myspace><myspace>top</myspace></myspace> notch as their truck, rather than depending on a single platform alone to keep them alive. If they keep clinging to the hope of just selling trucks to support themselves, then they are in trouble.

S.A.M. wrote:

HEAVYWEIGHT wrote:

This is great for GM. Considering a lot of consumers base their automotive purchasing decisions off of magazines, which I'd never do, but thats me. And Chevy walked away with this one without even breaking a sweat, which I totally expected, just not from C&D. Good work GM!



But my question is, as anti-GM as C&D is, how long do you guys think it took them to admit that GM hit a home run here and was clearly the better truck by a long shot?



And one more question. In the new Tundra ad, they boast about how kick ass the brakes are on the new Tundra, but if you look at the 70-0 braking in feet, the Silverado s<myspace><myspace><myspace><myspace>< ;myspace><myspace>top</myspace></myspace>&l t;/myspace></myspace></myspace></myspace>ped in 187 feet and it took the Tundra 197 feet. Hell, even the Ram was a 196 feet, and the other two were both 200. Why boast so much about something on your vehicle if its not even close to being best in class?

C&D aren't Anti GM, and its stupid to think so. Claim journalist have no integrity just because what they publish is not in agree with you is down <myspace><myspace><myspace><myspace>right </myspace></myspace></myspace></myspace> ignorant. While having a short s<myspace><myspace><myspace><myspace>top </myspace></myspace></myspace></myspace> ping distance is important, I wonder whose brakes stand up to fade the best?

You have your opinion and I have mine. I as well as many others feel as C&D, R&T and others favor Japanese brands. Read the magazines. And being a person such as myself that spends a large amount of time in a variety of automobiles ranging from Chevy to Mercedes Benz, GMC to Honda, etc., I feel as if many magazines are very bias. Like I said, I'm in a variety of cars everyday, and these magazines take their reports way overboard, and half the time, are plain wrong. Im not ignorant for thinking how I do, thats my opinion and thats how I feel. My 8 month old nephew car analyze cars better then some of these clowns do.

Duane. wrote:

That's great that their truck did good in this test, but they are still getting a lot of things wrong. The past 10 or so years they have been too dependent on their trucks to hold their company together. Huge trucks are starting to die off as a trend now, meaning the people who will be buying them now are people that actually use them for what they are made for, instead of using them as stylish trophies to commute in.



Everyone knows that GM has always made a good truck, that is nothing new. Now all GM needs to do is make their entire lineup as <myspace><myspace><myspace><myspace>top&l t;/myspace></myspace></myspace></myspace> notch as their truck, rather than depending on a single platform alone to keep them alive. If they keep clinging to the hope of just selling trucks to support themselves, then they are in trouble.

Well, when your in the <myspace><myspace>position</myspace></myspac e> that GM is in(a turn around), a company can only take on one segment at a time. If that segment succeeds, then you put all your focus on the next segment so you come out with a stunning product that will be successful enough to move onto the next segment.



With Nissan recently entering the full-size market and now Toyota, I have to say that the truck wars are only just beginning. I have heard from GM insiders that GM will release a new engine to outperform the engines in both the Titan and Tundra for the 2008 model year.

Well obviously their whole truck dependency hasn't been doing too good for them. Just look at what happened to them in the last few years and how they have have to sever tens of thousands of employees and shut down factory after factory.



There may be a truck war, but any company that expects a truck platform alone to keep them alive in today's world is in trouble. Especially with the world's fun little petro crisis that is in the works.

HEAVYWEIGHT wrote:

S.A.M. wrote:

HEAVYWEIGHT wrote:

This is great for GM. Considering a lot of consumers base their automotive purchasing decisions off of magazines, which I'd never do, but thats me. And Chevy walked away with this one without even breaking a sweat, which I totally expected, just not from C&D. Good work GM!



But my question is, as anti-GM as C&D is, how long do you guys think it took them to admit that GM hit a home run here and was clearly the better truck by a long shot?



And one more question. In the new Tundra ad, they boast about how kick ass the brakes are on the new Tundra, but if you look at the 70-0 braking in feet, the Silverado s<myspace><myspace><myspace><myspace>< ;myspace><myspace><myspace><myspace>top< /myspace></myspace></myspace></myspace></ myspace></myspace></myspace></myspace>ped in 187 feet and it took the Tundra 197 feet. Hell, even the Ram was a 196 feet, and the other two were both 200. Why boast so much about something on your vehicle if its not even close to being best in class?

C&D aren't Anti GM, and its stupid to think so. Claim journalist have no integrity just because what they publish is not in agree with you is down <myspace><myspace><myspace><myspace><m yspace><myspace>right</myspace></myspace></mys pace></myspace></myspace></myspace> ignorant. While having a short s<myspace><myspace><myspace><myspace>< ;myspace><myspace>top</myspace></myspace>&l t;/myspace></myspace></myspace></myspace>pin g distance is important, I wonder whose brakes stand up to fade the best?

You have your opinion and I have mine. I as well as many others feel as C&D, R&T and others favor Japanese brands. Read the magazines. And being a person such as myself that spends a large amount of time in a variety of automobiles ranging from Chevy to Mercedes Benz, GMC to Honda, etc., I feel as if many magazines are very bias. Like I said, I'm in a variety of cars everyday, and these magazines take their reports way overboard, and half the time, are plain wrong. Im not ignorant for thinking how I do, thats my opinion and thats how I feel. My 8 month old nephew car analyze cars better then some of these clowns do.

Again, with the Bitching. You are Not objective, don't pretend to be.

Duane. wrote:

Well obviously their whole truck dependency hasn't been doing too good for them. Just look at what happened to them in the last few years and how they have have to sever tens of thousands of employees and shut down factory after factory.



There may be a truck war, but any company that expects a truck platform alone to keep them alive in today's world is in trouble. Especially with the world's fun little petro crisis that is in the works.

Im talking now. Im not talking a few years back. Thats ancient history. Since the new Silverado and GMT-900s. They put all their focus into those for sometime. Once they start seeing some real success(which they already are), the focus will go to fixing another segment.

HEAVYWEIGHT wrote:

Duane. wrote:

Well obviously their whole truck dependency hasn't been doing too good for them. Just look at what happened to them in the last few years and how they have have to sever tens of thousands of employees and shut down factory after factory.



There may be a truck war, but any company that expects a truck platform alone to keep them alive in today's world is in trouble. Especially with the world's fun little petro crisis that is in the works.

Im talking now. Im not talking a few years back. Thats ancient history. Since the new Silverado and GMT-900s. They put all their focus into those for sometime. Once they start seeing some real success(which they already are), the focus will go to fixing another segment.

Like the new G6 and Aura? Good one.

S.A.M. wrote:

HEAVYWEIGHT wrote:

S.A.M. wrote:

HEAVYWEIGHT wrote:

This is great for GM. Considering a lot of consumers base their automotive purchasing decisions off of magazines, which I'd never do, but thats me. And Chevy walked away with this one without even breaking a sweat, which I totally expected, just not from C&D. Good work GM!



But my question is, as anti-GM as C&D is, how long do you guys think it took them to admit that GM hit a home run here and was clearly the better truck by a long shot?



And one more question. In the new Tundra ad, they boast about how kick ass the brakes are on the new Tundra, but if you look at the 70-0 braking in feet, the Silverado s<myspace><myspace><myspace><myspace>< ;myspace><myspace><myspace><myspace><mys pace><myspace>top</myspace></myspace></myspa ce></myspace></myspace></myspace></myspace ></myspace></myspace></myspace>ped in 187 feet and it took the Tundra 197 feet. Hell, even the Ram was a 196 feet, and the other two were both 200. Why boast so much about something on your vehicle if its not even close to being best in class?

C&D aren't Anti GM, and its stupid to think so. Claim journalist have no integrity just because what they publish is not in agree with you is down <myspace><myspace><myspace><myspace><m yspace><myspace><myspace><myspace>right</myspa ce></myspace></myspace></myspace></myspace ></myspace></myspace></myspace> ignorant. While having a short s<myspace><myspace><myspace><myspace>< ;myspace><myspace><myspace><myspace>top< /myspace></myspace></myspace></myspace></ myspace></myspace></myspace></myspace>ping distance is important, I wonder whose brakes stand up to fade the best?

You have your opinion and I have mine. I as well as many others feel as C&D, R&T and others favor Japanese brands. Read the magazines. And being a person such as myself that spends a large amount of time in a variety of automobiles ranging from Chevy to Mercedes Benz, GMC to Honda, etc., I feel as if many magazines are very bias. Like I said, I'm in a variety of cars everyday, and these magazines take their reports way overboard, and half the time, are plain wrong. Im not ignorant for thinking how I do, thats my opinion and thats how I feel. My 8 month old nephew car analyze cars better then some of these clowns do.

Again, with the Bitching. You are Not objective, don't pretend to be.

What the fuck is your purpose in these forums? Whose bitching? Is that your automatic reply for when you have nothing intelligent to say? Heres an idea: don't post again unless you are actually contributing to the discussion at hand. If you can't have a discussion in a forum without intentionally sounding like a fucking moron and trying to start a flame war, then you don't belong here. You would be of much more worth in the Import section with your fellow ignoramuses.

HEAVYWEIGHT wrote:

S.A.M. wrote:

HEAVYWEIGHT wrote:

S.A.M. wrote:

HEAVYWEIGHT wrote:

This is great for GM. Considering a lot of consumers base their automotive purchasing decisions off of magazines, which I'd never do, but thats me. And Chevy walked away with this one without even breaking a sweat, which I totally expected, just not from C&D. Good work GM!



But my question is, as anti-GM as C&D is, how long do you guys think it took them to admit that GM hit a home run here and was clearly the better truck by a long shot?



And one more question. In the new Tundra ad, they boast about how kick ass the brakes are on the new Tundra, but if you look at the 70-0 braking in feet, the Silverado s<myspace><myspace><myspace><myspace>< ;myspace><myspace><myspace><myspace><mys pace><myspace><myspace><myspace>top</myspace ></myspace></myspace></myspace></myspace ></myspace></myspace></myspace></myspace ></myspace></myspace></myspace>ped in 187 feet and it took the Tundra 197 feet. Hell, even the Ram was a 196 feet, and the other two were both 200. Why boast so much about something on your vehicle if its not even close to being best in class?

C&D aren't Anti GM, and its stupid to think so. Claim journalist have no integrity just because what they publish is not in agree with you is down <myspace><myspace><myspace><myspace><m yspace><myspace><myspace><myspace><myspace> <myspace>right</myspace></myspace></myspace& gt;</myspace></myspace></myspace></myspace& gt;</myspace></myspace></myspace> ignorant. While having a short s<myspace><myspace><myspace><myspace>< ;myspace><myspace><myspace><myspace><mys pace><myspace>top</myspace></myspace></myspa ce></myspace></myspace></myspace></myspace ></myspace></myspace></myspace>ping distance is important, I wonder whose brakes stand up to fade the best?

You have your opinion and I have mine. I as well as many others feel as C&D, R&T and others favor Japanese brands. Read the magazines. And being a person such as myself that spends a large amount of time in a variety of automobiles ranging from Chevy to Mercedes Benz, GMC to Honda, etc., I feel as if many magazines are very bias. Like I said, I'm in a variety of cars everyday, and these magazines take their reports way overboard, and half the time, are plain wrong. Im not ignorant for thinking how I do, thats my opinion and thats how I feel. My 8 month old nephew car analyze cars better then some of these clowns do.

Again, with the Bitching. You are Not objective, don't pretend to be.

What the fuck is your purpose in these forums? Whose bitching? Is that your automatic reply for when you have nothing intelligent to say? Heres an idea: don't post again unless you are actually contributing to the discussion at hand. If you can't have a discussion in a forum without intentionally sounding like a fucking moron and trying to start a flame war, then you don't belong here. You would be of much more worth in the Import section with your fellow ignoramuses.

Again, I'd like to point at Detroits lost Profits, and failing cars. What turnaround? I also like How when your favorite X wins a comparison, The publisher of xYz Is no longer bais, and they got it <myspace><myspace>right</myspace></myspace&g t;. You're a fan boy, and you are NOT objective. Period.

S.A.M. can you tell the future?