I found this somewhat amusing. I dont know how much is real considering the source, but I will have to watch the commercials again.


http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46488



Lou Kaltenstein
President
Gene Norris Buick-GMC Trucks Inc./Norris Auto Group
18170 Bagley Rd
Middleburg Hts., Ohio 44130

There has been a lot of talk about Toyota Tundra's new ads and how
impressive they are. Here are some myths about their spots that I
have found and that should be refuted. Also, they are offering a
"IVC" type program on Tundra to help with sales.

I would guess all of you have seen the ad where the Tundra pulls a
trailer up a steep grade (a 'see-saw'), and then barrels down hill and
locks the brakes up just before the end of the ramp. Many of you have
commented on how well done the spot is visually. However, here are
the actual facts to share with people:

1. The V.O. at the beginning of the spot says...."It's tough
pushing 10,000 lbs up a steep grade". Myth: Toyota would like the
audience to believe the trailer is 10,000 lbs. Fact: It's a 5,000 lb
truck pulling a 5,000 lb trailer. A little slight of hand? You bet.

2. Then, on the way down the grade, the camera zooms in on the
brakes as the vehicles comes to a screeching halt just prior to the
end of ramp. Next time you see the ad....look for the 'mice type'.
It indicates the trailer is equipped with electric brakes.
Fact....the electric brakes stop the trailer -- not the truck. A
little slight of hand? You bet.

3. And why does Toyota have bigger brake pads? They need
them....their truck is heavier. Stopping distance between our truck
and theirs is virtually identical. And why does Toyota have a 6 speed
transmission? To improve their fuel economy....which is still 2 mpg
less than ours.

4. And don't forget....their big V8 has one axle ratio -- a
4.3. Suck fuel much? Our trucks offer several axle options to
optimize towing and fuel economy. Bottom line: OUR TRUCK IS BETTER!
Spread the word.......we can all make a difference.

I used to produce tv commercials and I'm surprised on these that there aren't more of what we refer to as 'legal supers' at the bottom of some of the scenes. Technically, if there is anything that a car can't do or has been modified, it has to be legally explained or it doesn't get on the air. Toyota is pushing the envelope, I see (IMG:style_emoticons/default/s10.gif)

I don't care what GM says. Of course teh trailer has its own brakes, they are not denying it, but the truck still performs. The brakes are bigger, yes, which means they dissipate heat better, therefore not warping the rotors as all chevy trucks do with time.

Sorry GM but you need to come up with something better than that.

But the stopping distance is almost the same, which means the Toyota needs those bigger brakes to stop it, which means they are not running cooler than the smaller brakes on the Chevy.

So again, the trailer stopped the truck, not the other way around. I could of put a truck up there with no brakes and the trailer could of pretty much stopped it.

Do you honestly believe that the trailer stopped the truck instead of the truck stopping the trailer (with the aid of the trailer's brakes).
Sounds to me like GM knows Toyota has them whooped, and they will use any smoke and mirrors campaign to discredit the new Tundra.
10,000 pounds is 10,000 pounds, no matter how you look at it the Tundra stopped that weight.
Perhaps next you would like to explain how the Tundra outdoes the Silverado in terms of horsepower with a smaller engine.
Dont try to post a BS GM smear campaign and try to pass it off as an unbiased report.

I would like to see them on a dyno before I believe toyotas numbers. Gm has underrated hp on the 3rd gen small block since 97 by about 20-30 hp.


Yes the trailer did the grunt work in stopping the truck. I guess you never worked on tractor trailers?

Again the truck only pulled an extra 5,000. I would bet my bottom dollar that GMs has a higher payload and a better torque curve. Hmm maybe toyotas hp numbers are inflated.

Im sure almost every car maker has done this once in awhile. THe ads job is to make it's products sell and good ads do that truthful or not. It's been going on for a very long time.

I would say that the Tundra ads are not BS. The reason I say that is because at the beginning of the ads it says in fine print on the bottom of the screen, "actual demonstration".
Its a lot more believable than the GM ad where the new Silverado HD is being used as the engine on the train and is pulling dozens of Silverados.
Lets not even get into GM's claim of, "longest-lasting trucks on the road". That one still makes me laugh.

The ls series engines are the most advanced/durable v8 designs ever. I know you like japanese cars, so you think pushrod motors are caveman technology, but the v8 that powers the trucks is the same style v8 that powers my SS, that I have beat on for almost 90,000 miles and would click off high 12's with a catback exhaust....still to this day and tops out at about 160....in a 3,400lb car....but oh its only rated at 320hp. LOL. Thats on the inferior 98 block design too. Your going to tell me that its not dependable? You son have no idea what your talking about. Plus the 4l80e is a monster of a trans in itself.

just because it says actually demonstraition at the bottom doesnt mean they cant fib a little here and there. Do you think Chevy was trying to get you to belive their truck could power a train???? Or maybe the Corvette can really fly??

so you mean to tell me that the Silverado can do the same without trailer brakes??

No, nor did I or GM ever say this. However, in the commercial they are to have you belive that the truck stopped both itself and the trailer. Which is not the case, and you would have likely never known had I not told you.

Same thing with the 10,000lbs. You would of never know it was a 5,000 pound load, had I never told you. Sure the truck and the payload came in at 10k so technically it moved that much weight, but they are to have you believe its 10,000lbs in the truck, again which you would of likely never known had I not told you. Its deceptive at best.

Most advanced? Get real. OHV engines with 2-valve heads went out in the early '80s. Dual overhead cams, 4-valve cylinder heads, variable valve timing; now THAT is state of the art.
I wont say that GM's engines arent dependable, but longest lasting trucks on the road? Im not buying it. I know way too many people with GM trucks who are replacing waterpumps and alternators once a year and who go through intake gaskets like they are going out of style.
GM's truck last a good 150,000 miles before major stuff starts to fail, but I know many people with older Toyotas that have 300,000-400,000 miles on them and have had no major parts fail.
I know you are a GM guy and youd like to believe that pushrod motors can still compete, but the fact is that they are inferior. Overhead cams engines are much more efficient (you get more power per cubic inch with overhead cams) than pushrod engines and because OHC engines have fewer moving parts you have less of a chance of a mechanical failure with the engine.

See, I know how to read. I do know that the truck cannot possibly pull 10k uphill since the reviews talk about a max of maybe 9k tops, and that includes the silverado BTW.

I guess you mised the c6 z06. Surely that car cant compete. Or maybe, maybe the c5r thats been destroying the Le Mans series...running against superior motors, as you would call it.

Year Finish Class Car Drivers
2000 3rd GTS Corvette C5-R Pilgrim/Collins/Freon
4th GTS Corvette C5-R Fellows/Kneifel/Bell
2001 1st GTS Corvette C5-R Fellows/O'Connell/Pruett
2nd GTS Corvette C5-R Pilgrim/Collins/Freon
2002 1st GTS Corvette C5-R Fellows/O'Connell/Gavin
2nd GTS Corvette C5-R Pilgrim/Collins/Freon
2003 2nd GTS Corvette C5-R Gavin/Collins/Pilgrim
3rd GTS Corvette C5-R Fellows/O'Connell/Freon
2004 1st GTS Corvette C5-R Gavin/Beretta/Magnussen
2nd GTS Corvette C5-R Fellows/O'Connell/Papis
2005 1st GT1 Corvette C6.R Gavin/Beretta/Magnussen
2nd GT1 Corvette C6.R Fellows/O'Connell/Papis
2006 1st GT1 Corvette C6.R Gavin/Beretta/Magnussen
7th GT1 Corvette C6.R Fellows/O'Connell/Papis

hmm all those wins on a stupid pushrod motor. No way couldnt be. Hello, its not 1980 anymore, and this isnt your daddies small block. I guess its inferior.

As for your intake gasket quote....well thats a flat out lie. Nothing more nothing less. 3rd gen small block motors run nothing like the 1st or even second gen motors. They dont have an intake gasket. They have 8 seperate rubber gaskets that seals the manifold to the heads intake ports only. No coolant flows through the intake and there is no seal to blow out. So thats a lie on your part. Thank you though. But I guess toyota never needs a new water pump or alternator....which would seem funny, cause most auto part stores carry them for all companies as they are usually in high demand.

"Overhead cams engines are much more efficient (you get more power per cubic inch with overhead cams) than pushrod engines and because OHC engines have fewer moving parts you have less of a chance of a mechanical failure with the engine."

There may be less moving parts, but the chance for catastrophic engine failure are way higher on OHC motors. I over reved the motor on my 98 (went from 4th to 2nd gear on highway) and I limped the car home. Then I checked the pushrods and found 4 bent ones. Changed them out the motor was good as new again. If I did that to a ohc motor it woud of been bye bye motor. As for your more power from OHC well sure it may squeak an extra hp by not having pushrods, but than again its got a loooonnng timing chain to make up for it, and when it comes down to it Im pretty sure CR, displacement, and cam specs determine hp more than ohc or pushrods, but than again what would chevy know, I mean they only beat every car but 1 at the nuremberg track in Germany....for a fraction of the cost of its competitors. you can look that up if you like, I believe R&T did that article.

again its not 1980. Here you might learn something. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_LS_engine#LS1

Oh, and it won a couple awards for being an inferior motor. 97 &99. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward's_10_Best_Engines

For the record GM has 19 motors on the list and toyota has 8.

If pushrod motors are so great, how come almost all sportscars use overhead cam engines? I guess the whole rest of the industry doesnt have clue and GM knows it all.......NOT!
Seriously dude, give it a rest. You arent fooling anyone.

I like how I present you with facts, and you come back and basicly say "pushrod motors suck" when the z06 is the biggest bang for the buck ever, and is smoking lambos, ferreris, A/M, and porsches on the street and at the track.

You said they are inferior, I provided proof of how they are not. And called you out on being a liar about them failing, and thats your best response is "other companies dont do it so it must suck". Only mazda is using a wankel engine, does that suck. I mean no one else uses it.

Intresting note. Toyota recommends 87 octane for their tundra, which has a 10.2:1 CR. Good luck making those hp claims or fuel economy claims on anything less than 93 octane. Dont think they mentioned that in their ads.

The tundra got beat out by a smaller engine with lower hp that somehow has a higher payload and 4k cheaper. Then it won truck of the year.

Has to be the first time a domestic beat an import.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/trucks...ndra/index.html

Hold on now, not so fast. You need to read the whole article and look at the comments that the testers made. You cant just page ahead and read who won. Lets use a few quotes from this article you linked to:






Yes, the Chevy won, but they based that upon the price. Id much rathar pay a little more for something that I know is better. Saving money at purchase time doesnt mean much when you know you've settled for 2nd best. Look at this quote:




I never said that they "suck", I just said they arent the best available technology. GM's pushrod V8s are good motors, but they are still dated technology. You dont get the same horsepower per cubic inch with pushrod motors that you would get with an overhead cam motor.

Again, I never said they "suck". About me lying about them failing, I guess a few of my friends who are replacing intake gaskets on their 350 Silverados, Tahoes and Subarbans every couple of years are liars too. Not to mention my 3 friends who are mechanics at Chevy dealers and make their living replacing intake gaskets on GM V8s are liars too.

Rotary motors are great when they run right, but they are very tempermental, very short-life motors. If Mazda could ever make a rotary that would run 200,000 miles without breaking down all the time it would be a great thing, but it hasnt happened yet.

"Yes, the Chevy won, but they based that upon the price. Id much rathar pay a little more for something that I know is better. Saving money at purchase time doesnt mean much when you know you've settled for 2nd best. Look at this quote"

Well the article says Toyota is second best. You should bring that up with them.

You could also compare that to a 6.0 silverado or prehaps the diesel version. If youd rather pay a little more. And then be sure you didnt get second best.