Who Sold the Most Half-Tons in 2012?

2013 KR 2012 King II
It took a little while, but we finally got our hands on the most up-to-date 2012 model year sales information from R.L. Polk, provider of automotive information about the U.S. and global auto industry.

The sales numbers Polk provided are based on new-vehicle retail registrations for full-size pickup trucks recorded by various states. Readers who follow our monthly sales updates might have noticed that the final December 2012 and year-end numbers (insert link) seem to be slightly off from some of the Polk data; that's because the monthly numbers supplied to us by the manufacturers are the number of deliveries made to U.S. dealerships and not actual sales. As noted, Polk data is based on actual new-vehicle registrations so there is likely to be a small variation between the two numbers. The information below is based on Polk's registration data.

In this first (we'll have more sales reports in the future) 2012 sales chart we've listed all the half-ton pickups sold. The F-150 is the clear winner, outselling the second-place Chevy Silverado 1500 by more than 6,500 units per month. However, if you add the four GM pickups in the category (Silverado, Sierra, Avalanche and Escalade EXT), they outsell Ford as a manufacturer by more than 5,500 units per month.

As to half-ton market share, Ford tops at 34 percent, then Chevy at 27, Ram at 16, GMC at 11 and Tundra at 10.

In our next 2012 sales report, we'll take a look at the three-quarter-ton and one-ton segments to see how they sort out and what percentage of buyers chose the turbodiesel option.

Source: R.L. Polk

2012 Half-ton Sales 2 II

2012 Top 3 Half-ton Sales II



It comes down to whether you believe GM 1/2 ton truck side-show attractions severely cannibalize the Silverado 'main event'. I mean, enough to keep it from beating F-150 sales if the Silverado stood alone.

GM has concluded that repeat Sierra owners are extremely loyal and would refuse to buy Silverados if GMC was killed off. Otherwise, GMC would be gone.

It is true that 23% of displaced Ranger owners traded up to F-150s, so that's a good of a place to start than any. So 157K Sierra sales means approx 36,000 additional Silverados (if the Sierra was killed off). Still not even close to beating the F-150. Double, triple, or quadruple that figure and it's still way off. Add 100% of displaced Avalanche and EXT sales and nope, not enough.

Next year, the Colorado and Canyon will further eat away at the Silverado.

Take a chill pill. Please. Nobody is complaining about anything. Guys are just pointing out that GM sold more half tons than Ford. Everybody can see F150 sold more than Silverado. If you're going to crown somebody, ala F-150 up there with that stupid crown on its roof, lol, then crown GM for being a half ton king as well.
Why would you call it a "problem"? Do you think GM cares how we count them all? They don't. It all goes into one pocket anyways.
As far as GMC goes. They have sold 414K vehicles last year. That's more than Chrysler by over 100K. That's more than Ram by over 100K. Should Chrysler just get rid of Ram then? GM will not get rid of GMC just because Mr. Fordtrucks would like so. It's a very profitable line for them. They make much more money per vehicle on GMCs than Chevrolets. When I was shopping for truck in 09 every comparable Sierra vs Silverado was about 2K more. I went with a Silverado because it was cheaper and because it's a CHEVROLET.

@paul w: "[Tundra] Great engine for riding around but the torque for pulling isn't there.The 5.4 I had before it pulled my trailer alot better."

LOL! Congratulations on being the only person in the entire world that thinks his 5.4 out torqued the Tundra when pulling his trailer!

@paul w: "The brakes may be the biggest in the industry but that doesn't equal stopping ability."

LOL again!

WHAAAA! It's ugly!!!!! WHAAA!!! The fanboisism is strong with this one!

5.4 more torque than the Tundra... LOL. Good job, paul w. Fanboi of the year goes to you.

The facts are in black and white, GM sells the most half tons period end of story. Chevrolet and GMC are two divisions of GM not two different companies like the ford girly crybabby fans like to claim. Ford does sell more trucks than Chevy but not more trucks than GM.

Ford is the first place loser!!!
Chevy SS kicked Ford's rear end at Daytona today as well. GM rules and ford drools.

If the Tundra did not exist, I would have bought a 2011 F150 to replace my 2006 F150. I owned a 1988 Silverado and things have fundamentally not changed since that dinosaur. GM is still using pushrods and the same old tired heavy cast iron boat anchor V8 over the front wheels.

You guys who praise the GM trucks should take a time out and test drive the Tundra, F150 Ecoboost and RAM Pentastar to experience for yourself how much better they handle than a GM truck with that boat anchor weighing down the front end. I'm serious!

The downside is that the Tundra is easily the most expensive truck on the market. Much more expensive than similarly equipped Fords, GMs and RAMs. But you get what you pay for. Why do people choose a King Ranch or a Tundra? Because they can.

I'd rather have the choice than no choice at all, like before Titan and Tundra came on the market. All we had then was the Big Three and they were universally bad. I owned them, I had to keep them running. Even my 2006 F150 had problems.

The industry has accepted that the F150 and the Silverado compete head to head and that the Sierra is a novelty niche item for GMC enthusiasts, you know, like Professional Grade. It's a crock and everyone knows it, but it sells trucks to the fanboys. Good for them. Ford out-tows and outsells all of them.

When I trade my Tundra in 2016, I'll look around at everything that's out there at that time but whatever I buy has got to be as good as my 2011 Tundra 5.7 is now.

Of all the new and used trucks I have owned during my lifetime, my 2011 Tundra 5.7 DC LB 2WD is the best of all of them. No bull!

It doesn't matter to me what a person buys or chooses to drive. What matters to me is what I think is the best truck on the market for me, and the complexity and finesse of the Tundra and Titan engines clearly place them right up there with the Ford Ecoboost and RAM Pentastar, as the most advanced in the industry. GM is nowhere in sight.

But I'm not a V6 man. I gotta have a V8. I owned six cylinder trucks in the past, and I'm never going back to them.

Ford offers 2 V8s in the F-150. I would probably get the 5.0 over the ecoboost. Most tests show its comparable with the Toy 5.7 in real world driving and better on gas. Not hard to get the 444 HP that the Boss has either. I doubt the Toy motor is as advanced as the 5.0.

@ Highdesertcat (1988 Silverado and things have fundamentally not changed since that dinosaur. GM is still using pushrods and the same old tired heavy cast iron boat anchor V8 over the front wheels.)

Lot has changed since 1988. I do believe most of their enigines are made of aluminum atleast my 2011 5.3L is and the 6.0 or 6.2s are aluminum 2007-present. The only cast iron enigne around is the. 4.8L, which won't be around much longer. Ride wise the only thing I kinda hate bout my chevy is the rear leafs are pretty stiff, so if you are on a bumpy road the rear in hops around a little, but any truck with leafs does that emty.

The discrepancy between OEM reported, 2012 calender year new truck sales (to dealers) and R.L. Plok's totals is new truck registrations include those sold (to dealers) during the 2011 calender year and bought by a customer in 2012.

@Brian i think what he was saying was that he liked the way his 5.4l pulled his trailler better, that engine is not going to win any races but it is very confident, there is a reason that the f150 sold very well even with thte 5.4l that so many despise and call slow it does better than the GM 5.3 (yes i have owned both) You have to look at the complete vehicle maybe the tundra is faster but there is alot more involved in pulling a trailer than just power his F150 probably did it alot nicer than the tundra, ie shifted better, rode better etc. alot can be said about transmission shift points and computer controls on the newer trucks. Paul seaid that hi 5.4 pulled better than his tundra, but more than likly the tundra was able to out accelerate the F150 but that's not everything, Also the 5.4 is know for having a pretty solid torque curve


So if GM would to wear the Crown for selling the most half-tons, which truck would get the Crown, after all, there is only one crown that is to be worn. Oh wait, let's put Silverado/Sierra right next to each other and they can split the crown. So which truck would get the crown?

You GM TROLLS are hilarious.

Yeah, well I drove a Tundra and I didn't think it rode so great. I didn't just drive it around the block, I drove 65 miles and my brother in law was in the back. The pogo stick rear end suspension turned me away. Nice powertrain though, and I will say the Tundra has pre 8 speed Rams beat on the transmission, but since I don't go hauling 9,000 pounds, it really wouldn't help me that much. The big thing it would do would offer a lower starting ratio, and a slightly lower cruise rpm. Yes, even with the 4.30 gears compared to my 3.92s.

I didn't drive it hard or in a "sporting" manner on any twisty roads, but this site does some tests of that, although I don't think an autocross is the thing for a full size truck, it does show another Tundra weakpoint.

I will say the Tundras near me have some aggressive tires on some of them, not just the gas mileage tires that are there for consumer reports to do their comparisons with (The Bridgestone street tires). I can just imagine the dispointment their new owners will have with their really aggressive tires and the way off of EPA mileage ratings they will get.

Smooth riding, yeah right!

Are you serious?

johnny doe | Feb 25, 2013 7:27:06 AM, I do understand that GM has implemented evolutionary changes to their engines and automatic transmissions, and that today's GM engines offer better power-to-weight output to the road.

But GM is still lagging far behind the rest of the industry, i.e. Ford and RAM with their innovations. GM is not on par with even the Titan or the Tundra. Just because GM sells a ton of them does not make them a better truck than Titan or Tundra.

The all-aluminum, 32-valve, DOHC, VVT 5.7-liter (350 cubic inch) Tundra engine and the 5.6-liter Titan engine were revolutionary, as was the Tundra 6-speed automatic and HUGE DISC brakes at the corners. GM= evolutionary.

Many people poke fun at the Tundra, but IMO it does everything I need my truck to do, and it does it better, smoother and with more refinement than any of the other trucks I have owned in my lifetime. F150, Silverado1500 and RAM1500 of today don't even come close to the Tundra.

My ideal truck, regardless of brand, would have a 454 cubic inch (7.4-liter) V8 with the refinements of the Tundra. Closest thing is the 6.2 from Ford, but it still rides and handles like a Ford truck, squeaks and all. It will never be as refined and quiet as my Tundra is.

Hey Brian:


LOL! Put 1,000 pounds in the Tundra bed and see how it does! In a word, poor! It was the second most distance gainer, 2nd to the Chevy. I guess you missed that shootout?

The other arguement that comes up is when stopping repeatedly. Come on, they all have 13" rotors nowadays, and they cool pretty good! Both Ram and Ford have 2500s in the case you want a bigger heavier rotor.

I'm waiting for theday they test 1/2 tons at max payload braking.

Did you all see where the Nissan ended up? Yeah, in the back without a load, in the back with a load...so much for Nissan doing much of anything better then Ford and Ram. Although they have good high payload numbers, what good is it if you can't stop as well? Nissan is also the lightest truck.

brian glad you like your tundra mine was a turd.I pull alot from nc to tenn to race .Pulling up the blue ridge mt is tough on any truck but thats where the ford would kick the tundras ass.

The 5.4 will just hunker down and pull.The tundra wanted to jump from gear to gear trying to keep peak power.The ford never did that and just stayed consistant .The ford never hunted gears or jumped from gear to gear like the tundra.

Coming back is the same deal.The ford handled the trailer better stopped better and rode way better pulling the trailer..

Brakes on the tundra were slap wore out ar 18000 miles.The ford went well over 40000

Back seat comfort in the tundra was a joke at best and anyone who has rode in one will tell the same thing.It will shake your insides out.Pull up tundra bed shake on you tube and it shows the same thing.

I fell for the toyota hype but never again.If the tundra is the best truck toyota can offer no wonder they are sitting on dealer lots and my results are not from 07 like yours mine are real life results .
now lets go 2012 .My 5.0 will out tow the tundra all day long.It will out brake it The ford is more refined and rides better 2 to 1.

It looks better and the ford interior makes the tundra look like a bargain from walmart.The new tundra to be released is the same old truck with a even uglier look and still can't match the interior of the ford..

Wait until ford releases a version of the atlas concept next yr and that should pretty muck kill the tundra or any hopes toyota had of making a full sized truck to go against the ford.

My tundra rattled shook and shimmied.Nice motor but thats all I can say good about my tundra experience.

When a 5 yr older truck can out haul out tow and look better doing it with a old 5'4 then a new tundra can that just shows how far ford is ahead of toyota.

never again will i ever own another peace of toyota junk.I was crazy for trying one in the first place I over looked the ugly for supposed better quality and what I got was a ugly under achieving tundra.there is a reason ford has been #1 for 35 straight yrs.

Once again, this shows how the Tundra does with a load. Both Ram and Tundra had 70 series tires, so the folks that want to claim the Ram had better tires for the braking and corning tests, whatever....


@Highdesertcat: Actually, you have a 345.57 which rounds up to a 346 cubic inch. It needs a longer stroke to make its max torque at a lower rpm then a hemi. And more valves. But the torque band still is no wider then the hemi's. About all the hemi has that is more then the Tundra 5.7 is .3 compression. Wow.

It does show what kinda truck you like if your ideal truck would have a 454, which was nothing but a gas sucker. But that shows why you couldn't care for a v-6 pickup. Not everybody has a need for as much torque, and some just want to move something somewhat big. V-6 gas non turbos have their place, it isn't for me tho.

I would post how great the Tundra did in the gas mileage, but who cares when they buy a Tundra?

In all fairness, yeah the Tundra ran really fast in the quarter, and up the 7% grade, like I've said many of times...it's the transmission ratios. That advantage is darn near gone....I say darn near as Ram is taking awhile to get the 8 speed Hemi out. Then it will really put the hurt on the Tundra....Tundra....LOL!

You don't post as Debinder as well do you??

oops just read another 561000 toyotas recalled again today.Yep that toyota refinement is something else

Thats makes the toyota the most recalled co what 5 yrs running.

oh what a feeling ....another recalled toyota!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But I will say it was cool that the Toyota saleman even let me drive the thing (the Tundra) 65 miles.

I test drove two Ford Ecoboosts, one in Republic Missouri, one in Lawton Oklahoma. Both times the salesman told me where to drive. Nothing like avoiding rough roads! "This is our preplained test drive" sums it up!

I put some gas in the Tundra to make up for it.

My brother in law looked into a Tundra, but they didn't want to come down enough, so they lost his business.

I looked at Fords as well, as the 5.4 has a low rpm torque band, but I couldn't find much in the way of a 6.5' bed crew, and I wasn't going to buy any Supercabs. I really didn't like the pre 2011s that didn't have selectshift.

TRX4 Tom | Feb 25, 2013 2:06:00 PM "You don't post as Debinder as well do you??"

No I don't. But I have read his comments before on the MSN Auto boards, the Yahoo Auto boards, Kicking Tires, The Wall Street Journal and others. I always liked his comments and share many of his views on cars and trucks.

In fact, his comments about his Tundra were instrumental in getting me to look at the Tundra in 2010. I ended up buying a 2011 Tundra.

I lost track of the guy, and haven't seen any comments by Mr. Dundett lately.

I am very fond of the big block 454 and its brother, the Olds 455. My wife's dad has a 1973 4X4 Suburban with the 454 and the THM 400. Unstoppable!

I owned two 455s, the first in our 1972 Olds Custom Cruiser, and the second in our 1978 Toronado. Aw, man, those were cars!

Those were the long-distance cruisers we took to Berchtesgaden, Salzburg, Vienna, Holland, Belgium, Switzerland, Italy and on trips throughout Europe.

They were thirsty landyachts and handled just as well, but for an American on long distance trips, there was nothing like them.

And I agree, any truck is a gas sucker. But I have to tell you honestly that I never cared about the price of gas. I believe most people don't. If they did they wouldn't buy what they buy or choose to drive what they choose to drive. We'd all be driving sardine cans on wheels, like the Europeans drive.

With the F150 being the best-selling vehicle in America, and the Silverado in a solid second place in truckdom, that doesn't exactly exudes an air of concern about fuel economy. Maybe a lack thereof.

So the rather poor gas mileage I get with my Tundra is offset by the creature comforts and sheer refinement I have never enjoyed in any of my previous trucks. My first truck was my dad's old hand me down F100 with three on the tree and six under the hood.

BTW, I'm seriously considering stepping up to a new 3/4-ton pickup truck with the biggest mill I can find when I go to trade my Tundra in on a 2016 truck.

If the EPA and the DOT limit the CAFE choices in the half-ton series of trucks, I'll have to move up to something a little heftier because I want that huge engine.

For me, there's no replacement for displacement. I believe I'm not alone in this.

Hey TRX4 Tom:

LOL! Put 1,000 pounds in the Tundra bed and see how it does! In a word, poor!"
You understand that the Ford was a Reg. Cab and the Tundra was a Double Cab in that test, right? Over 500 pound weight difference? Empty, the 500 pound heavier Tundra stopped less than a foot further than the reg cab Ford. Four feet further when loaded? You call that "poor"? Regular cab... lol.

@paul w:
"My 5.0 will out tow the tundra all day long.It will out brake it The ford is more refined and rides better 2 to 1."
Here we go again. First, your 5.4 out torqued and pulled better than the Tundra's 5.7. Now your 5.0 will out tow it. lol.


The Tundra owned all the trucks up that hill, including the 5.0 with it's 500+ pound weight advantage.


0-60, the 500 pound lighter Ford 5.0 beat the Tundra 5.7 by 1/10 of a second and that's only because the testers couldn't keep the Tundra's tires from going up in smoke off the line. lol.


1/4 mile: "What could be seen as a surprise to some was that the heaviest truck in our group [the Tundra], weighing 500+ pounds more than the Ford, finished a close second place with a 15.70-second run at 91.94 mph"

There's simply no way a similarly sized F150 with the 5.0 is going to out haul or out tow the Tundra's 5.7. You can keep trying to convince yourself and others that it and your previous 5.4 can "kick the tundras ass" but these pesky tests prove you wrong.

@TRX4 Tom:
"Once again, this shows how the Tundra does with a load.

Good job, Ram with it's coil-spring rear end.

Now, how did the Tundra do against the others? And especially against the "kick ass" reg cab, 500 pound lighter Ford? Let's see...

"The Toyota was next with 67.34 seconds, followed by the Chevy with 68.03 seconds, then the Nissan with 68.75 seconds. In last place was the Ford at 70.26 seconds."

Oh, that's a shame, the Ford came in last. :(

The Chevy fans like to total combined sales to claim sales superiority but they ignore the 800 lb gorilla in the room. It wasn't all that long ago when Chevy alone NOT COMBINED easily outsold Ford F150 in the 1/2 ton ranks.
What happened?
Why did Chevrolet loose so much ground to Ford?
or did they also loose ground to Ram?

"Those were the long-distance cruisers we took to Berchtesgaden, Salzburg, Vienna, Holland, Belgium, Switzerland, Italy and on trips throughout Europe. "
The Salt Mines under Berchtesgaden were something else. How did the big Olds handle the narrow European secondary roads?

@Brian: Yes, the Ford got it's ass handed to it in that part of the competition, and they should have made it a requirement all trucks be equiped with 4 doors. That isn't just my opinion. But it is a very indirect comparison.

But the Ram beat the Toyota in both of those tests with the weight in the bed. That was a legit comparison. I also said the Ram and Tundra both had 70 series tires, so you would see what I was talking about. The Ram also has less payload (rated) but yet it did better with a payload. I just don't like big payload numbers if the truck can't perform.

The Ford would have done better if it had some 70 or even their 65 series tires, but it would have been a better comparo if they all had their smallest cab 4 door and a v-8. So Ford did have it comming. They did say after the 5.0 ran out of it's gear advantage going up the 7% grade it felt like it was straining!

@Highdesrtcat: My 1st vehicle was a 69 Chevy 4x2 longbed with a 350 and 400THM trans. The 350 smoked like a freigt train, so it got switched out for a non smoking (but gutless) 250 inline 6 from a 73 Nova.

What would have made better since was had I just bought the 1975 Buick 455 from the Electra my stepdad was parting out. I would have had to use the buick trans as well, but my friends with racecars coulda made that Buick work in the Chevy.

I learned how to drive with bigblocks. My stepdads car was another Electra 225 with the 455, and he had a 74 GMC 4x2 worktruck. Both had great torque, but the Buick actually ran fairly effecient. Decnt mileage for such a big boat, and my mom liked the fact she didn't have to put much foot in it to get up those southwest Missouri hills.

That got traded for a Ford van, the biggest one they made, with a 460. More torque yet! More gas yet!

I shoulda went for the 455, pretty sure tho my step dad and my dad would have none of it! When my parents (mom&stepdad and dad and stepma) go in together to buy cars for you and your brother and they are both valued around $750, and we had to fix them up, well you take what you can get. My dad being a 1/2 owner of a body shop could have gave me lots of free stuff, but he always made me work for it. So I would appreciate it. One year it was a door for my birthday. Then if I wanted rocker panels to replace the rusty ones, I paid it. I had to pay/help to replace suspension parts with my stepdad. My dad had some nice wheels on a truck he was selling, I paid and helped move alot of hay.

But I really don't know anybody who doesn't care about how much they spend on gas. If two trucks can do the same job.
I will say the Tundra was way ahead in 2007, now, not at all. But then you can't really evenly compare a 2011 model to a 2000 or so model and expect the same, can you?

Will I sell my 1990 F-150 with 5.0 EFI? Maybe. Maybe not. If someone wants to buy it as an antique (only two years away from that status) survivor, then I may sell. Would I trade it? Yes. My wife wants a new Fiat 500 Abarth.

Where would that leave me as far as a truck is concerned? Hmm. You know, I like that Brute Double Cab conversion done by AEV and by the time I get around to it I could probably choose a light diesel or a Hemi under the hood to up the towing capacity (as if I'll ever need to tow more than 3500 pounds with it). Considering I already have an '08 JK Wrangler as a base, the conversion would cost about $30,000 less than ordering one through my dealership.

sorry slick but the 5'4 will drag the tundra all day long pulling.The tundra has to many gear changes trying to keep it going and the old 5.4 just kept on pulling .The 5.4 also got better mileage doing it and diden't wear the breaks out every 18000 miles.

The 5.0 being smaller still out pulls and out runs the tundra.The ford doesn't jump all over the rd and the chassis doesn't wallow under load.

The ford looks better pulls better the interior is better and you don't have to worry about the ford rusting out before you get it paid for.Accept it son nothing beats a ford truck.

"sorry slick but the 5'4 will drag the tundra all day long pulling"

LOL. Even the die hard Ford guys are laughing at you now.

"Accept it son nothing beats a ford truck."

Ok gramps. Senile much? Why don't you head off to sleep now... Everything will be fine in the morning.

Toyota's own sales results say that Tundra sales are 101, 621 for all of 2012. These numbers are wrong, and Tundra sales are even closer to the Sierra's.

@ TRX4 Tom: "But the Ram beat the Toyota in both of those tests with the weight in the bed. That was a legit comparison."

No argument there. These two were probably the closest matched between all of them. Where did you get the tire information? I didn't see it in the comparison write up.

I did see several mentions of the Tundra being the heaviest of all the trucks. Did you find a weight of the tested Ram?

I do have an issue with the so called "Autocross" test. This would more accurately be called the "Traction Control" test. I really, really wished they would have turned off the nannies and let the trucks do what they would have on their own. That would be an "Autocross" test.

The Tundra's Traction Control is intrusive. I can't compare it to any others but it was alarming to me the first time I was introduced to it.

Still, despite it being called out as overly intrusive by the testers and it being the heaviest of the bunch, the Tundra had the second best times of the loaded and unloaded AutoX tests. It even beat the Ram's time when unloaded. Not bad considering the Ram has a unique purpose built rear end for exactly this type of thing.

@Highdesertcat - Are you sure you're not just trying hard to convince yourself nothing came close to the Tundra? I've driven my mom's '09 Tundra on occasion and it's perfect, but I'm underwhelmed. Actually when the battery died she put a charger on and when it started, it wouldn't come out of Park. It was a fuse, but the Toyota dealer refused to honor the warranty. They said she must have hooked up the charger backwards... What? Not a big deal, but she'll be buying an F-150 next, thanks to Toyota service.

I occasionally drive friend's Silverados and Rams, but spend most of my time in well worn F-150 through F-550 work trucks and they're all squeak and rattle free. They've always been and if I did get a squeak or rattle, it would drive me insane. I don't know what you're hearing or what your trucks have been through, but squeaks and rattles usually come from someone taking apart the dash, door panels, or console etc, and not putting them back right along with broken clips and whatnot.

I don't see what problem you have with pushrod engines as they're light weight and simple, but why do you prefer heavy and complex? 2014 GM V8s are all aluminum, but it does take much more displacement to equal a DOHC. I'm fine with that, and the 6.2 liter should be the base V8 for GM 1/2 tons and bring back the 8.1 as the upgrade, but all aluminum.

Robert Ryan | Feb 25, 2013 5:53:30 PM Yeah, we had to go slow on the narrow German secondary roads, and in the rural villages.

It was even worse when we went to visit my extended family in Portugal. Even tighter there. But the Autobahns and primary roads were actually pretty good for both those big Olds cars we had.

The biggest Euro sedan at the time there was the M-B 280/350/450SEL, and it was 3/4 the length of the stationwagen and 7/8 the length of the Toronado, and not nearly as wide as either of them.

Over the years I had several other cars and motorcycles while there and on several occasions we used the smaller European car to go on day trips, as long as it wasn't very far. We plastered those little tourist stickers all over the rear side quarter window of the stationwagon to show people all the places we visited. Very fond memories of that.

TRX4 Tom | Feb 25, 2013 6:30:08 PM I always look around at everything that's out there before I commit to buying. I don't have a lot of money so I can't afford to make financial mistakes.

And I agree that by today's standards even my 2011 Tundra is dated and getting long in the tooth. But I am most impressed by its engine, transmission, ride, handling qualities and the lack of NVH.

I've owned a lot of trucks over the decades, although only three were bought new, but the Tundra really is the best one I have ever owned.

When I was a young airman, too poor to pay anyone to repair my rides, I had to tool and wrench on them to keep them going.

I'm too old for that now and am getting into the habit of trading for a new vehicle every three to five years. I don't want to settle for something not quite as nice as my Tundra when I trade off this Tundra. Whatever I buy has to be as good, or better, regardless of brand.

But even when I was poor, I never stopped to think about how much gas cost or whether or not I should buy an econobox to move my family around in.

First and foremost my family's comfort and safety mattered to me and so I just put in the gas and didn't worry about how much it cost. That stuck with me, 'cause I don't like to walk.

Fortunately, I never ran out of money to buy gas even when I was poor because my lifestyle at that time did not permit any luxuries like the people of today demand, like HDTV, iPads and iPhones, etc.

Now that I am pushing 67, I still just put in the gas and go. I don't know anyone who has stopped buying gas because they didn't like what it costs, and with my wife and grand daughter both driving 150+ miles roundtrip, four days a week in their respective cars, I go through a lot of gas.

To me the cost of gas, well, it's just part of the cost of living. And I happen to like big, brawny engines. Always have, ever since my dad taught me how to rebuild his Mopar 426 Hemi engines for his dragster.

My dad just passed along his old cars and trucks to his sons, even after I had left home. It's a tradition that we all continue with our kids and grandkids today.

If they don't like what they get from us, they can go and buy their own. Not surprisingly, we've never had anyone complain about the old cars we passed along to our kids.

DenverMike | Feb 25, 2013 10:40:39 PM I think that there is a place for ye olde pushrod engines, but not in the half-ton series. If Ford, Toyota, Titan and RAM can come to market with such technological marvels, I see GM lagging behind. Of course, it will all be a moot point soon.

Ironically, when I trade my current Tundra off for a 2016 truck I may have to step up to the 3/4 ton to get the larger engine. The trend of the industry is to replace the V8 in the half-ton trucks with sophisticated, modern, lightweight V6 engines, like the Ecoboost and Pentastar, to improve the CAFE ratings and comply with EPA and DOT mandates.

I've had many trucks over the decades but I only bought three brand new. And for me the last truck I bought new, the 2011 Tundra, really satisfied what I was looking for in a truck.

I wouldn't know about dealer service since mine has never been back to the dealership for anything. I do all the maintenance myself and it has been problem-free, so far.

When I get ready to buy I will look at everything that's out there, but this time I have a standard I can compare to. And I don't want to have to settle for anything less than what I have now, even though I may have to step up to a 3/4 ton and lose some ride quality.

See son unlike you I actually owned the vehicles.I don't have to save up my lunch money to get a new magazine to read.

I drove and owned my trucks ,My real world experience and the employees I have all drove the trucks in question.

All of them say the same thing the tundra is a turd and the ford is the best. You can read plead cry or soil your pants but the ford is just simply that muck better.

When you get out of school look me up .I always need someone to wash the trucks.

Hey gramps!

I was hoping a good night sleep would help... I guess not. Still babbling incoherently about the ford.

"lunch money", "magazine", "turd", "soil pants", "school"... lol!

@Brian: the window stickers (where it says download Monroney) are posted (well, with the exception of Chevy, whose window sticker looks like it was just typed up) The sticker shows tire sizes, and you can enlarge the pictures to see the name on the tire, and look up the tires on somewhere like tire rack.com, and put in the original equipment. Then it shows the two available tires on the Tundra. In that case it was the Bridgestone Dualer, 255/70 r18. The Ram is easy: If it isn't the offroad 17" tire, and it's a 17" tire, it will be a 265/70 R17, the Good Year Wrangler HP.

Ram can stand to have more tire choices as Tundra and Ford do.

"Still, despite it being called out as overly intrusive by the testers and it being the heaviest of the bunch, the Tundra had the second best times of the loaded and unloaded AutoX tests. It even beat the Ram's time when unloaded. Not bad considering the Ram has a unique purpose built rear end for exactly this type of thing."

What, the Toyota traction control only worked when loaded? If there were a time you might want it most, wouldn't it be with no weight over the rear tires, empty? I have ran up twisty dirt roads that went up hill at the same time, and my traction control came on as well.

As for the Ram being "purpose built" for autocross, I don't buy into that at all. It was made that way for a good ride which it does, after driving that Tundra 65 miles, I couldn't overlook it.

Ford has done good in tests with leaf springs around corners, it's more about spring rate combos and pairing with swaybars, tire choice. I think the Ram 70 series is actually 6 or 7 tenths of an inch wider, but the two Tundra 255/70 R18s are nothing but mileage tires, the Michelin even more so. But I don't guess it helped the Tundra get mileage enough. The base Ram tires do have a slightly higher capacity then the Tundras base tires.

dang son you lay out of school again today. you'll never be able to wash my truck like that.

www.arfc.org/complaints/toyota/tundra/suspension/problem.aspx just in case brian has study hall tomorrow. lol

pregnant women should not ride in a toyota tundra was the best one I saw on the complaints.

oh and of course the tundra brakes warped up and went out quicker then the old gm's. was the second best complaint.

What does "lay out of school" school mean? I don't speak old man gibberish.

@TRX4 Tom

"What, the Toyota traction control only worked when loaded? If there were a time you might want it most, wouldn't it be with no weight over the rear tires, empty?"

I'm not sure what you're getting at here? I'm sure the TC was going off like crazy both loaded and unloaded on the Tundra.

"As for the Ram being "purpose built" for autocross, I don't buy into that at all."

I didn't mean it was purpose built for autocross - I meant it's the only truck of its kind with a coil spring suspension. This setup is far better than leafs for control and handling when things get twisty. I've heard nothing put positive reviews it. I wouldn't want it for maximum hauling or off-roading, but going around corners fast, absolutely.

"Ford has done good in tests with leaf springs around corners"

Except in this comparison where the Ford came in dead last with a load.

I'm actually surprised how well the Tundra did in this test. It was the heaviest out of all the trucks, and managed to come up 2nd loaded or unloaded.

It beat all the other trucks except for the 500 pound lighter Ford when unloaded - even beating the Ram with its fancy suspension and slightly wider tires.

It beat all the other trucks except for the Ram when loaded.

"But I don't guess it helped the Tundra get mileage enough"

LOL. Neither does having the most powerful, heaviest truck of the bunch. Something I don't mind at all!

The most powerful, a Tundra? That's debateable...390 horses vs 381, advatage Ram (395 hp for 2013, that was a 2011) 407 vs 401, Ram, has more torque. Its 410 at a slightly lower rpm 3950 for 2013. Yeah, I know the Tundra maxs its torque at earlier in the rpms, but the hemi is right there with it, and even has a broader powerband.

The Ford lost out when weight was applied cause it had tiny 75 series tires, and along with that (having tiny tires) and less weight, it did good on mileage. But like I say, it shouldn't even be compared. There have been other tests.

I was getting at the fact the Tundra it really (so you say) kicked in the traction control when the weight was on the rear. I would want it more when empty, when the backend is light. But the fact the same systemlet it do barely better then the Ram and others when empty, then with a load, it controlled it so much? The same system was there when it was empty, all I am saying.

I think if thet had made the links longer to the axle, it would allow more travel, that's it's limiting thing for offroading, if it is an issue, I don't go offroading, if I need to go offroad for something, I go. There's adifferance.

As far as max hauling, no the coils wont do it, atleast what other leafs are doing. The truck will atleast do what it is rated to do, and beyound. I have $88 air bags, and she brought back a racecar, and parts, 1600 pound trailer, 7,000 plus total pounds, and no crazy momments. About 33 pounds of air in the bags, and she towed well.

But if you want a nice level load carrying, the air suspension will do. But I think they are leaving something out there if the airbags do not increase payload. What they did was not lower the payload for the coils, it was already low in 2008. They didn't add about 200 pounds into the GVWR when they added the 4x4, meaning some 4x2s and 4x4s of the same configuration have the same GVWR. But the 4x4s have almost 225 pounds of extra driveline.

That, plus the truck has gotten heavier since they initially had the 6700 GVWR, with safety stuff, options....

I will give Tundra credit for a well thought out trans, well spaced gears, plenty of lowend. I haven't heard much bad about their 6 speed. Not sure how it works that you don't change fluid though.

"The most powerful, a Tundra? That's debateable...390 horses vs 381, advatage Ram"

It's not really debatable when the Tundra has beaten the Ram in every single hauling/towing/loaded/unloaded 0-60, 1/4 mile, hill climb comparison test that's ever been done in the history of the world.

Brochure advantage? Ram. Real world advantage? Tundra.

"I will give Tundra credit for a well thought out trans, well spaced gears, plenty of lowend. I haven't heard much bad about their 6 speed."

I think even the most thorough Tundra haters begrudgingly give the Tundra its due here. Well, except for the lunatics on this site cough paul w cough. The truck has its shortcomings but this is not one of them.

"Not sure how it works that you don't change fluid though."

Where did you hear you don't change the fluid??? It's rated to go 100,000 miles before a flush. Sooner if you tow. But the fluid can certainly be changed.

I just noticed this:

Isn't a Ford 5.0 rated @ 14/19? Lol, I will beat your city by 1 mpg, and raise your highway by two, with more torque and power, at a lower rpm!

Lol, same as what a Chevy 5.3 does, and the 5.3 has less power, at a higher rpm!

Lets see, Chevy will do direct injection, maybe to come close to hemi power, but it's brick aero design will not help.


@TRX4 Tom,
New Silverado is more aerodynamic than you think.

the tundra handled well because the frame was twisting under load. You know brian just like the videos they show .Imagine how long that frame will last being twisted like that.Thats why no one ever buys them for work or hauling a trailer.

My 5.0 is getting 16/20 so you lose again.My tundra got 13/16 I have figured out whats wrong though. Your mom picked you up from preschool in a tundra and you had to ride in the back seat.All that bucking and jumping scrambled what little you had going 4 ya.

Its ok you can say it. we already know the tundra sucks.I know from experience you from magazines and thats ok. Most 12 yr olds are like that. Now remember make good grades stay off the wacky weed and really apply yourself and one day you can say do you want fries with that.

Not only do you not understand old man jibberish you're not doing to well on plain old english either lol.

Now I have the new ford atlas to look forward to buying and you're mom has the new/old tundra to look forward too with its ridgeline grill and creased sides of a 10 yr old chevy. The tundra will still have the bed bounce to go along with its copy cat ford interior with the same old 13/16 mileage figures and low geared rear end while the new atlas will proubly be in the 18/24 range with a even lighter and still more dependable truck.

See toyota knows the t 100 sucked.There first generation tundra suffered from growth hormones and the last one evidently was injected with lady ga ga hormones.[you know her right] with the grill and body all screwed up and the frame drooping in the middle.

3 strikes and toyota is out.Don't expect the 4th generation tundra.they have lost so much on these 3 a 4th isn't likely.

Gm should lead over ford they have more sales combined but you get what you pay for and gm trucks last longer then fords and dodge. Thta problably why ford alone has more sales because people go through those trucks like nothing. Plus I see more older gm trucks on the road then older fords and dodges. So Gm is the obvious winner anyways.

@Gregory J: Maybe it is, but I would bet no more aero then the Ram, and the Silverado doesn't LOOK aero, it just looks like a brick on wheels

How much weight does 4x4 versus 4x2 add or should I say really need to subtract from the GVW of a truck?
There is the transfer case that is "sprung" weight. The front axle is unsprung weight. In other words, it isn't being supported by the springs. The extra drive shaft is "sprung" weight at one end and "unsprung" at the other end.
The additional overall mass does add to the inertia that brakes and engine have to contend with.

Post a Comment

Please remember a few rules before posting comments:

  • Try to be civil to your fellow blog readers.
  • Stay on topic. We want to hear your opinions and thoughts, but please only comment about the specified topic in the blog post.
  • Your email will not be shown.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In

Home | Buy or Sell a Truck | News | Special Reports

Powered by Cars.com. By using this site, you agree to our terms of service | © 2017 Cars.com | Privacy Statement | Contact Us