Really... why does anyone care about these small differences?
The only thing I've wished for is more power when climbing some steep mountains out west
Believe me, they were NOT comparing apples to apples, NO vehicle test does. They always make sure they skew it enough to come up with the results they are looking for.
I guarantee you pickuptrucks.com was NOT trying to make the Tundra look good.
That test did NOT use a GM 6.2L 6 speed with the 3.73 rear which is the GM tow model. It used a soccer mommy grocery getter against the Tundra tow model. Prove me wrong and I will back down, but I'm betting you can't.
They used the 6.2L 6 speed with a 3.42 rear end. The actual Final Drive Ratio for 1st gear isn't that far off between the two:
Tundra with 4.30: 14.33
GM 6L80E with 3.42: 13.78
This may have hindered the GM's towing acceleration a tiny bit, but should have helped the mileage discrepancy. Which it didn't. Its mileage was the worst out of all the pickups.
Speaking of apples to apples, the GM brought a half liter advantage to the power game and it couldn't out pull the Tundra. This difference is much, much more pronounced than the tiny difference in FDR.
All of his stats are for the 5.3L, not the 6.2L. GM does NOT put the 6.2L in any vehicle with the Z-71 package, ONLY the 5.3L
Uh, no. Those were the results of the GM 6.2 vs. the Toyota 5.7.
Next? How about the braking comparison? Or the Squat test? Or the Extreme Traction Control Test?
How about comparing the size of the rear ring gear? Brake size? Turning radius?
You tell me... I'll be happy to play along.
So where is the Ford 6.2 in your little chart? The chart you posted shows Ford's F150 which had a 5.4 at the time.
LOL. My "little chart"...
You understand that I was replying to "The Texan" who owns a Silverado with the 6.2, right?
Now, where's the Ford 6.2? Why don't you ask Ford? My guess is that they were asking the same question too as the F150 was getting destroyed in every comparison test done at the time.
I guess my 6.2L 400+ HP, 435# torque is a weakling compared to the 5.7L Toyota, according to you....
And also according to pickuptrucks.com that put your 6.2 up against the 5.7:
...plus I get MUCH better mileage than the 5.7 fuel hog.
Your truck tested the worst in mileage. The 5.7 tested the best behind the anemic Ford 5.4.
Wait, there is more! Toyota always in their brochures talks big about being environmentally conscious. What they did was just the opposite. Instead of taking the wings off the shuttle to move it, a shuttle that will never fly again anyway, and replacing the wings when the trip was completed, they cut down trees so the wings could stay on for the entire trip. How much concern for the environment does Toyota really have?
Seriously? Toyota had nothing to do with cutting down the trees. And the wings couldn't be removed without destroying the shuttle. Did you actually read any of the articles written about this?
The California Science Center has agreed to replant twice as many trees along the route from the shuttle's docking place at Los Angeles International Airport to Exposition Park.
Taking the massive shuttle apart would have damaged the delicate tiles that acted as heat sensors.
Inglewood officials see the tree removal as a win-win. The city rids itself of some problematic trees and even gets sidewalks repaired. In total, the California Science Center is expected to spend $500,000 to improve the city's landscape.
Taking the space shuttle apart and transporting it in pieces just wasn't possible because of the way it's covered in heat shield tiles, explains Ken Phillips, curator for aerospace science at the California Science Center, which won a fierce competition last year to get one of NASA's retired shuttles.
"You couldn't take the tail off it," Phillips says. "You can't pull the wings off and do things like we could with other aircraft."
Honestly... There must have been 7 zillion articles written about this that explained all of it.