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

[Variance]

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

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

[Cory Wolfe]

Seems fair..ish.

[toyoguy]

yikes

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

[toyoguy]

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.

[regfootball]

we all knew it would be written this way.

don't worry, C/D and M/T will say the same thing. Thank God for popular mechanics. oh wait, toyota will wire them some dough too.

its all offset by the fact the turdra is uglee.

[JT64]

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 January 23, 2007 by JT64

[toyoguy]

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 January 23, 2007 by toyoguy

[deftonesfan867]

The Silverado NEEDS the 6-speed auto....like NOW!

[Dsuupr]

The writers are getting old, hence why the soft ride is becoming more desired.

[97regalGS]

interesting.

proof will be in the annual sales. i'm not convinced loyal chevy owners will be leaving in droves to buy a new Tundra.

now, if I were Nissan........ I'd be worried.

Edited January 23, 2007 by 97regalGS

[Dragon]

where's the F-150 and Ram?

[Robert Hall]

No surprise with the gas mileage results...I wouldn't have expected big, heavy squarish V8 trucks to do any better than 15 mpg or so..

[Intrepidation]

It seems pretty fair. It's GM's own fault for not bolting the 6-speed to it's engine lineup in it's most importnat vehicle. The power delievery seems strange too. Still, I'd choose it over the ugly Tundra any day.

[big blue]

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.

[Satty]

where's the F-150 and Ram?

So old and outclassed they wouldn't hav been a factor. Or they just didn't want to have to pay for the gas for 5 full-size pickups.

[Northstar]

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.

[Satty]

It was slower and got worse fuel economy, paint whatever pretty picture you need, bias or whatever. Plain and simple, the Silvy was outdone under the hood. Get the 6-speed in there and come back for round two.

[CSpec]

Seems pretty accurate. I think the Tundra is a better truck for city/suburb folk.

[z28luvr01]

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.

[AAS]

yikes

Assuming you are showing "hp vs. rpm," could you also show the corresponding torque curves?

[FAPTurbo]

So... Toyota won...

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

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 January 23, 2007 by Captainbooyah

[Flybrian]

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.

[mightymouse]

yikes

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 January 24, 2007 by mightymouse

[Polish_Kris]

its all offset by the fact the turdra is uglee.

Doesn't mean it's a bad truck.

[bcs296]

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 January 24, 2007 by bcs296

[Camino LS6]

GM can outpower the Tundra at will with a trip to its parts bin. Toyota, however, has shot its load as far as powerplants go. A Silverado can be whatever you order it to be, the Tundra is a one-trick pony.

That ignores the fact of Tundra's ugly exterior and bargain basement interior.

Toyota is really trying to play the game this time around, but I doubt Tundra will put a dent in Silverado sales. Chevy knows how to build a truck.

Can't wait to see the battle of the 3/4 and 1 ton trucks - the ones that do the real work.

[Variance]

interesting.

proof will be in the annual sales. i'm not convinced loyal chevy owners will be leaving in droves to buy a new Tundra.

now, if I were Nissan........ I'd be worried.

From what I see, big pickup owners of each brand in general are pretty loyal. The Titan's no exception. Some of the Titan guys sound pretty much like some of the domestic truck guys as far as the Tundra goes.

Besides, I'm waiting to see what Nissan has in store for the Titan at Chicago in 2 weeks. I wouldn't count them out.

[Northstar]

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?

The Sierra is the same weight as the Silverado I would think. Maybe it's slightly less but not a few hundred pounds. They're basically the same truck in different clothing.

I agree with your feelings about the 6-speed, BUT I don't think a truck comparison should be lost because one truck is .7 faster through the quarter mile. Trucks aren't performance vehicles; if that is what the owner sets out to do (buy a high-performance truck) the Silverado would actually be a better starting point. There's a ton of easy bolt-on modifications already developed and proven on the GM V8s, there are none on the Tundra.

From what I see, big pickup owners of each brand in general are pretty loyal. The Titan's no exception. Some of the Titan guys sound pretty much like some of the domestic truck guys as far as the Tundra goes.

Besides, I'm waiting to see what Nissan has in store for the Titan at Chicago in 2 weeks. I wouldn't count them out.

I think it's much too early to tell whether the Titan has a loyal following. It hasn't been on the market for more than 3-4 years. Loyalty is not won over one generation of a vehicle, but multiple generations.

[gmcbob]

I have seen reviews of the 6.2L Denali in C&D (with the new 6 spd. trans) and I think the 0-60 time was 6.2 seconds or something. It was faster than hell, I do remember that.

On that note though, I have absolutely NO idea why GM launched these trucks with that old 4 spd. automatic as standard equipment, especially knowing full well that Toyota was going to come to this fight swinging hard and fast. Very stupid move I think. I guess GM is just banking on the loyalists not jumping ship - which most of them probably won't. But still...they should have made the truck awesome right out of the box in the drive train dept., and they dropped the ball on that, plain and simple.

Oh well.

I owned a 2001 and a 2004 GMC Sierra (the 04 was a Z71) - both had the 4.8L engines, and they were fine. I'm still undecided what my next vehicle will be - I'd love to have a new Camaro when it comes out, or maybe even a 300 hp. CTS, but I really miss my full size trucks. Perhaps a "Texas Edition" GMC Sierra (2wd) with the 5.3L V8 and the 20" wheels would be sweet? Currently I'm driving a 1998 Jimmy (I sold the trucks, long story, I basically became poor from trying to start a small business) and I'm getting awfully sick of it. The interior is falling apart and the old 4.3L V6 is really starting to show it's age. It's paid for though, and I can't bitch too much about that.

sorry = sort of went off on a tangent.

[Flybrian]

I think the main point we can take away from this comparo is that there may be an engineering deficiency or misprioritization in regards to power delivery. With everyone used to American cars and trucks delivering InstaTorque with fuel consumption and refinement be damned, this could be an issue.

[ToniCipriani]

I don't have anything to say about the powertrain, since I find it a bit unfair to compare, actually. The Tundra is preproduction, no indication on this is the luxury model or the worktruck model. The Silverado testes is clearly the worktruck model. Thus there might be a difference in the comparison (e.g. LT vs LTZ trims)

But I do agree with them, the interior of the Tundra is overdone, and the gauges are hard to read.

[K.C.]

Edmunds is very predictable. In every comparison test, the newest vehicle in that class on the market always gets the first place. I have seen this pattern in their scoring for a few years now and they have no credibility with me. The real credibility is with the buyers and I dont think many Chevy, Ford, or Dodge people will be leaving their brands for a Toyota or a Nissan. Brand loyalty is very high in full size trucks and the Toyota is huge and pretty much a newcomer in the market since the past gen Tundras were never really taken seriously by real truck guys. Truck sales are down as well because of gas price fears and, in my opinion, I dont think the Tundra will meet its 200,000 sales target after its first year on the market when interest in the truck tails off.

[JT64]

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

Uh, VEHICLES don't deliver the full power of the ENGINE, it's called drivetrain loss.

The power you get at the tires is much lower than the listed engine power, which is what's available at the crankshaft.

It's the power that actually gets to the tires that matters, not what's initiated at the engine bay.

That's why people test their vehicles on chassis dynamometers, which measures the actual power the VEHICLE puts out.

Comparing power at the wheel is much more truthful than comparing paper numbers in the engine bay.

[Cory Wolfe]

yikes

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

Hmm, that definitely is a concern.

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.

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.

That chart was straight from Edmunds, and *ahem* was from a dyno test. All vehicles have less horsepower at the drive wheels than at the flywheel. A duh.

[Intrepidation]

ANy way you slice it, GM was stupid to not put the 6-speed in at least their top engines. They knew Toyota would, so ommiting it nevertheless was a big mistake. They better fix it soon.

[balthazar]

Some good points above. The one which stands out at me is: if a buyer places performance at a priority, the aftermarket for GM will kill the toyota's performance dead...., but as also stated, the vast majority of truck buyers aren't racing and do not care if another truck is tenths of a second faster. This is vastly overhyped in this segment.

6-speed absence is less so.

[ocnblu]

The GMT 900s were pulled ahead for early production. So, something was sacrificed to do that, but the 4L60E is still an excellent transmission. This fight is not going to be over in these first few months on the market. You can bet both Toyota and GM were looking over their shoulders during the development process, but I have every confidence in my new truck, and GM's unmatched ability in this segment.

I find Toyota's marketing practices for the Tundra to be distastefully predatory, and I find the mention in the first few sentences of every article about this truck of how "American" it is to be distasteful as well... but that's my opinion, I'm just waiting for the parade of recalls on the Atomic Tadpole to start. I'm a very happy and loyal GM truck owner.

[K.C.]

Little boy 'blu has a good point. The GMT 900s are scheduled for upgrades continually for the next couple of years. Toyota does not continually improve their products except during mid cyle redos and full redoes, so the story will change within the next 12 months with GM continually updating these vehicles. I also agree that the six speed is sorely needed. I know the 4-speed is a good transmission, but the 6-speed is going to make these vehicles and improve economy to the levels that no other truck manufacturer can match. Hell, I dont think they can match GM right now with mileage. I am getting about 18 mpg in mixed driving with my Avalanche and thats with the 4-speed. On trips I've gotten as high as 22 mpg. Pretty good for a 2.5 ton vehicle with a big V-8 engine and 320 hp. I dont see Toyota matching that.

[toyoguy]

Assuming you are showing "hp vs. rpm," could you also show the corresponding torque curves?

those were the #'s provided by edmunds dyno test. Toyota power curves in their brochures. This doesn't all really matter since GM forces you to wait 4seconds.

Tundra 5.7L

381 hp @ 5600 rpm

401 lb.-ft. @ 3600 rpm

Silverado 6.0L

367 horsepower @ 5500 rpm

375 lb.-ft. of torque @ 4300 rpm

[balthazar]

Silverado 6.6L

365 HP @ 3200

650 TRQ @ 1600 RPM

[Camino LS6]

Silverado 6.6L

365 HP @ 3200

650 TRQ @ 1600 RPM

I love my Duramax!

[Mr.Krinkle]

Does this mean anything to most truck buyers out there?

GM: Brawn. More than sufficient, in the GM tradition. The popular crew-cab models can tow 10,500 pounds, GM says, more than any current rival. And the crew cab has the highest payload rating of any version, up to 2,039 pounds. To match or beat that among standard-duty models, you'd have to choose rivals' regular-cab models, which have no back seats.

TUNDRA: The big-selling crew- and extended-cab models carry 1,465 to 1,755 pounds. Respectable, but several hundred pounds less than you'd get in similar General Motors trucks

Re: the dyno and the "4 second loop" --is that still present with the tow/haul button engaged? How was this test conducted?

[SingleStylish]

The big MISS in this reporting is that Tow/Haul deprogramms AFM. That's when you need the torque and HP. I am not really THAT concerned but, AFM and T/H make a big difference!!!

[bcs296]

The Sierra is the same weight as the Silverado I would think. Maybe it's slightly less but not a few hundred pounds. They're basically the same truck in different clothing.

I agree with your feelings about the 6-speed, BUT I don't think a truck comparison should be lost because one truck is .7 faster through the quarter mile. Trucks aren't performance vehicles; if that is what the owner sets out to do (buy a high-performance truck) the Silverado would actually be a better starting point. There's a ton of easy bolt-on modifications already developed and proven on the GM V8s, there are none on the Tundra.

Well then you disagree with Edmunds' idea of what makes a better truck because they basically said the Silverado did everything better EXCEPT when it came to performance, where it was obliterated.

As much as that might be a right or wrong evaluation of the two trucks, I knew (and you had to have known also) that Edmunds would do this as will C&D and MT. It's too bad GM doesn't care more about these things. You may say that people don't really care about reviews such as this or that they don't affect sales in the long run but I'm not sure I agree. There are plenty of people out there who think similarly to the testers.

GM aftermarket?

I would guess that MOST truck owners don't modify their trucks.

Even still, it's ridiculous that people should have to go out and spend $2k on mods just to have equivalent performance to the Tundra. And they still aren't going to have a 6 speed.

I'm really getting tired of hearing how great the 4L60E is. It WAS great. I suppose it IS good for a 4 speed. And yes, I have a truck with a 4L60E.

IT'S STILL A 4 SPEED. Welcome to 1980.

Edited January 25, 2007 by bcs296

[z28luvr01]

GM aftermarket?

The LSx-based engines have a HUGE aftermarket. You don't have to look too far to find a company that makes parts for this engine. GM already has a dealer-installed dual exhaust system available for the Silverado. That alone should close the performance gap somewhat.

I would guess that MOST truck owners don't modify their trucks.

Wrong. A good majority of truck owners will do some sort of modification to their trucks. Watch the show "Trucks!" on SpikeTV. It's a huge industry.

Even still, it's ridiculous that people should have to go out and spend $2k on mods just to have equivalent performance to the Tundra. And they still aren't going to have a 6 speed.

Well, if the Tundra's tranny is as reliable as the Camry's, then it's a fair fight - 4spd vs. 4spd.

I'm really getting tired of hearing how great the 4L60E is. It WAS great. I suppose it IS good for a 4 speed. And yes, I have a truck with a 4L60E.

IT'S STILL A 4 SPEED. Welcome to 1980.

The 4spds are on their way out to be replaced by the 6spds across the board. I think the only reason why the Silveado has it now is because the whole GMT900 program was pushed forward last year, and the 6spds can't yet be supplied fast enough. I wouldn't be surprised if the 6spd is offered on all GMT900s by 2008.

[balthazar]

It would be interesting to learn if the truck was tested in Tow/Haul mode (which locks the converter in 2nd thru 5th gears on the Allisons). If you're going to gauge the Silverado's performance capabilities, you need to button off OD & T/H for the best results.

>>"it's ridiculous that people should have to go out and spend $2k on mods just to have equivalent performance to the Tundra."<<

it's ridiculous to think people race trucks. It happens, I realize, but I strongly doubt very many buyers have ever regretted buying Chevy/GMC because another brand is slightly faster (no: not "obliterated"). If they DO care- they don't jump ship- they mod.

[Flybrian]

Who wants to bet the 4-speed shifts smoother than Toyota's 6-speed?

[toyoguy]

Who wants to bet the 4-speed shifts smoother than Toyota's 6-speed?

I will, I've driven the GMT-800 Yukon XL many times, and the tranny wasn't smooth when driven aggressively. I don't know why you'd want to bet that a ancient 4spd shifts comparbably to a completely new 6spd.

The LSx-based engines have a HUGE aftermarket. You don't have to look too far to find a company that makes parts for this engine. GM already has a dealer-installed dual exhaust system available for the Silverado. That alone should close the performance gap somewhat.

TRD offers an exhaust as well.

[Northstar]

TRD offers an exhaust as well.

Even so, you can't argue that there are probably 1000 times as many parts for the Silverado's engine than there are for the Tundra's for those wishing to upgrade performance.

[Flybrian]

I will, I've driven the GMT-800 Yukon XL many times, and the tranny wasn't smooth when driven aggressively. I don't know why you'd want to bet that a ancient 4spd shifts comparbably to a completely new 6spd.

Shift quality has nothing to do with the number of gears.