ebritt Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 (edited) Motor Trend test results Chevy 13" front disk brakes and 11 1/2 rear drums Tundra 13.9 front disk and 13.6 rear disk Chevy 60 to 0 stopping 133 feet Tundra 60 to 0 stopping 133 feet? WTF Bigger brakes and the puny Chevy stopped exactly the same?!?! What did I tell you guys about those brakes last week? Edited March 6, 2007 by ebritt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MGallun Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 (edited) Motor Trend test results Chevy 13" front disk brakes and 11 1/2 rear drums Tundra 13.9 front disk and 13.6 rear disk Chevy 60 to 0 stopping 133 feet Tundra 60 to 0 stopping 133 feet? WTF Bigger brakes and the puny Chevy stopped exactly the same?!?! What did I tell you guys about those brakes last week? was this test done at same time... did they do more than 1 test? interesting considering the toyota has 4 wheel discs and they are bigger.. i ask about time of test, as alot of these dumb mags compare 0-60 and 1/4 times for cars with tests done at different times... sometimes they do it all together, but not normally.. kinda reminds me of the fastest production truck thingy a few years ago, where the lightning was fastest, then next year the dodge barely out ran it.. thing that gets me in that test is, ford did thiers in july or august... dodge did theirs in march.. lol.. test as sametime and see what happens. Edited March 6, 2007 by MGallun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kalu Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 (edited) Motor Trend test results Chevy 13" front disk brakes and 11 1/2 rear drums Tundra 13.9 front disk and 13.6 rear disk Chevy 60 to 0 stopping 133 feet Tundra 60 to 0 stopping 133 feet? WTF Bigger brakes and the puny Chevy stopped exactly the same?!?! What did I tell you guys about those brakes last week? This is what I found in popular mechanics. Unloaded Toyota 60-0 139.86' #1 Chevy 60-0 147.27' #4 Nissan 60-0 144.07' #3 Ford 60-0 143.09' #2 Dodge 60-0 193.37' This sucks Loaded 60-0 Ford 123.46 #1 Toyota 141.16 #2 Nissan 144.3 #3 Chevy 152.14 (ouch) #4 Dodge 172.04 (double ouch) yep, you gussed it. Ford tied Toyota in lateral G 0.7 Dodge .67G Chevy .67G Nissan .69G Ford also took #1 spot at 39.6 in slalom and #1 spot on double lane change at 47.8mph Slalom Toyota 38.9 #3 Chevy 37.6 #4 Nissan 37.1 #5 Dodge 39.1 #2 Edited March 6, 2007 by kalu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MGallun Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 This is what I found in popular mechanics. Unloaded Toyota 60-0 139.86' #1 Chevy 60-0 147.27' #4 Nissan 60-0 144.07' #3 Ford 60-0 143.09' #2 Dodge 60-0 193.37' This sucks Loaded 60-0 Ford 123.46 #1 Toyota 141.16 #2 Nissan 144.3 #3 Chevy 152.14 (ouch) #4 Dodge 172.04 (double ouch) yep, you gussed it. Ford tied Toyota in lateral G 0.7 Dodge .67G Chevy .67G Nissan .69G Ford also took #1 spot at 39.6 in slalom and #1 spot on double lane change at 47.8mph Toyota 38.9 #3 Chevy 37.6 #4 Nissan 37.1 #5 Dodge 39.1 #2 lol, so much for them toyota big ole disc brakes and that 381hp engine lol.. i think toyota has done a GM thingy with thier truck, eh, lets make it go fast in straight line! forget the rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kalu Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 (edited) lol, so much for them toyota big ole disc brakes and that 381hp engine lol.. i think toyota has done a GM thingy with thier truck, eh, lets make it go fast in straight line! forget the rest. If it weren't for the 300hp motor ( dead last in HP) Popular Mechanics may have picked the 150 as #1. Besides Nissan running a 3.35 gear, Fords 3.73, Toyota 4.30, Chevy 4.10 and Dodge3.92, no wonder the Toyota is quick. Edited March 6, 2007 by kalu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ford-boy Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 You can get away with the 4.30 to 1 when you have a 6 speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kalu Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 You can get away with the 4.30 to 1 when you have a 6 speed. Hope the P-415 (09 F-150) six speed works out. Need a new motor also.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MGallun Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 If it weren't for the 300hp motor ( dead last in HP) Popular Mechanics may have picked the 150 as #1. Besides Nissan running a 3.35 gear, Fords 3.73, Toyota 4.30, Chevy 4.10 and Dodge3.92, no wonder the Toyota is quick. bet a lightning would still smoke it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bravestar Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 If it weren't for the 300hp motor ( dead last in HP) Popular Mechanics may have picked the 150 as #1. Besides Nissan running a 3.35 gear, Fords 3.73, Toyota 4.30, Chevy 4.10 and Dodge3.92, no wonder the Toyota is quick. I gotta tell ya, I like horsepower as much as the next guy but it is that terrible four speed automatic that is holding the 300 horse engine back. Go and drive a new Expedition and you would swear it had at least 350 horse V-8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 (edited) I love that the F150 stopping distance is 20' better WITH a load (and, considering the weight, an incredible 123'). Gee. Which one of these trucks was designed to do real work in the real world? Don't knock Ford's "cook book" for the F-Series short. It has consistently delivered the most suitable work truck in the biz. Edited March 7, 2007 by RichardJensen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MGallun Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 (edited) I love that the F150 stopping distance is 20' better WITH a load (and, considering the weight, an incredible 123'). Gee. Which one of these trucks was designed to do real work in the real world? Don't knock Ford's "cook book" for the F-Series short. It has consistently delivered the most suitable work truck in the biz. ya, but the normal american public see 381hp 401tq... sure it makes 81 more hp, but that much more suited for say, lets drive like a race truck! tq is only 36 more, and they both produce them at high 3000k rpms... the ford has no issue towing, only thing better about the yota in my eyes is the 6 speed.. when is the new engine and tranny coming for f150? on sale next year right? i hope.. or a quick fix of at least a 6speed is needed i thinks.. the f150 is all around a better truck, hell if they had a engine with better numbers and the 6speed tranny the new yota would be like it has always been, a afterthought.. heck, f150 looks 10 times better too... new yota looks terrible. Edited March 7, 2007 by MGallun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 ya, but the normal american public see 381hp 401tq... Matters more what pickup buyers see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kalu Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 ya, but the normal american public see 381hp 401tq... sure it makes 81 more hp, but that much more suited for say, lets drive like a race truck! tq is only 36 more, and they both produce them at high 3000k rpms... the ford has no issue towing, only thing better about the yota in my eyes is the 6 speed.. when is the new engine and tranny coming for f150? on sale next year right? i hope.. or a quick fix of at least a 6speed is needed i thinks.. the f150 is all around a better truck, hell if they had a engine with better numbers and the 6speed tranny the new yota would be like it has always been, a afterthought.. heck, f150 looks 10 times better too... new yota looks terrible. We don't start building the 09 F-150 untill mid 08. Would be nice though to at least see the 6-speed in the current 08 model due to be bilt mid 07, gives them time to tweek it before the new 09 model. I think the major change will be from the front end to the A-Post, doors are the same as now except all 3 models will use the super cab front (long) door, no second door on reg cab, and maybe different character lines. Seven lug wheels also, my guess even bigger brakes and larger springs. Also think you will see a much more user friendly box with intigrated compartments and better tie downs like the nissan, as well as the Super-Duty tailgate step.Bigger tail lights also are planned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kalu Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 Heard another rumour on the Toyota 5.7. Wont be able to get this motor for another few months, heard they can't get the 14/18 mpg out of it, hmm, 5.7 381hp 401lb-ft lightning fast , thats to bad if true.... NOT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenp77 Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 Heard another rumour on the Toyota 5.7. Wont be able to get this motor for another few months, heard they can't get the 14/18 mpg out of it, hmm, 5.7 381hp 401lb-ft lightning fast , thats to bad if true.... NOT!Think that is just a rumor my toyo/ford dealer has 4 with the 5.7L!! On your other post do you think ford will lower the bed rail height and have you heard is the 6.2 a go for sure????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 Matters more what pickup buyers see. that matters even more now. With recreational buyers leaving the segment, that leaves actual truck buyers behind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebritt Posted March 7, 2007 Author Share Posted March 7, 2007 (edited) My point was that with the Toyota having the BIG brakes it is strange that the GM stopped the same with the puny "antiques". I thought this truck was "changing everything"? Also I saw an ad for Ford that has a step and handrail built into the tailgate, if is tough enough to hold up I think that is very convenient. What say you? Edited March 7, 2007 by ebritt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJB Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 There's more to brakes than just the rotor size. Calipers play a large role in braking performance; could be why the Yoda isn't as good as it's specs would lead people to believe. Got a sneaking suspicion that this truck was built around a bunch of bragging rights numbers instead of reality. Too bad a lot of saps will buy into the numbers game... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blueblood Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 Don't forget about pad material, that makes a huge difference as well. I thought the 09 F-150 was all new? I was hoping we'd see changes to the boring slab sides as well?? I just pray that they don't just do a hackjob and give it the fugly Super duty grill and headlight combo, looks may notmatter in the heavy duty classes, but they sure do in the light duty class!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bec5150 Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 The rotor size is going to give you more metal to dissipate heat which would give the rotor more durability. As these tests indicate, it may not give you any additional performance. If you are at the maximum traction of the tires in these tests, bigger brakes aren't gonna do much to improve your stopping distance anyway. Both my Honda and Ford have required the rotors be turned before 50K miles which, in my mind, is BS. The Taurus we had prior to the Honda was simply driven with warped rotors since it seemed I could never keep them true. Meanwhile, the vehicles before that, a Dodge, Subaru, Nissan, Chevy, Toyota, and Pontiac, never gave me any rotor trouble. Perhaps this bigger rotor thing ain't all bad, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebritt Posted March 7, 2007 Author Share Posted March 7, 2007 (edited) The rotor size is going to give you more metal to dissipate heat which would give the rotor more durability. As these tests indicate, it may not give you any additional performance. If you are at the maximum traction of the tires in these tests, bigger brakes aren't gonna do much to improve your stopping distance anyway. Both my Honda and Ford have required the rotors be turned before 50K miles which, in my mind, is BS. The Taurus we had prior to the Honda was simply driven with warped rotors since it seemed I could never keep them true. Meanwhile, the vehicles before that, a Dodge, Subaru, Nissan, Chevy, Toyota, and Pontiac, never gave me any rotor trouble. Perhaps this bigger rotor thing ain't all bad, eh? Just being bigger diameter dont mean jack Bec. When the diameter is less than an inch difference, all things being equal, not much a performance gain. Look at the Tundra commercial closely, youl notice that the contact surface is nearly identical in width. Also if the venting and pad material are not any better , no performance gain. also have to look at the line pressure and any anti-lock or other electronic control systems involved. Look at the test results up top again. The Chevy had smaller front rotors and rear drums opposed to rear disk. The Tundra should have trashed the chevy. So what gives? And don't go blaming the testors because I'm sure they have done this more times than you have. Also the Ford have a better stop fully loaded than the Tundra. So this truck aint changing jack shit. The have pulled their head out of their ass from the last decade of crap T100/Tundra just long enough to get some fresh air and yell a little bit. Wait till the next gen of domestics come out and super-trash the Tundra. Edited March 7, 2007 by ebritt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MGallun Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 Just being bigger diameter dont mean jack Bec.When the diameter is less than an inch difference, all things being equal, not much a performance gain. Look at the Tundra commercial closely, youl notice that the contact surface is nearly identical in width. Also if the venting and pad material are not any better , no performance gain. also have to look at the line pressure and any anti-lock or other electronic control systems involved. Look at the test results up top again. The Chevy had smaller front rotors and rear drums opposed to rear disk. The Tundra should have trashed the chevy. So what gives? And don't go blaming the testors because I'm sure they have done this more times than you have. Also the Ford have a better stop fully loaded than the Tundra. So this truck aint changing jack shit. The have pulled their head out of their ass from the last decade of crap T100/Tundra just long enough to get some fresh air and yell a little bit. Wait till the next gen of domestics come out and super-trash the Tundra. well the GM and Dodge are new.. at least GM, not sure about dodge.. and they arent doing crap... just wait till the new F150 comes it.. spank thier ass time again.. they (GM, Dodge, Yota) are happy they are getting better reviews with thier new trucks compared to a 3 year old one.. problem is, thier new stuff barely beats the 3 year old.. muhhahha, they gonna get bitch slapped when the new one comes out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PolarBear Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Matters more what pickup buyers see. Exactly! And what we're hearing on the showroom floor is: 1) Consumers are unimpressed with the Tundra's styling. 2) They are :o at the sticker prices 3) The big motor is only available in conjunction with some very expensive option and trim packages, pushing the prices north of $40K for a 4WD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANTAUS Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Not enoguh engines.... LINK-Autoweek.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brendan 4x4 Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 This is what I found in popular mechanics.Unloaded Ford 60-0 143.09' #2 Loaded 60-0 Ford 123.46 #1 How does the ford stop 20' shorter when LOADED??? Common' now, Wake up People... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts