kmfvfr wrote: rsh_757...gotta admit...the 2008 Armada looks the business....and I am not lying. Hope it does better than my coworkers 2006...or the other that has the Infiniti....
My 2006 is awesome. Flawless?, no. I have one beef......I think the plastic scratches too easily. But let's be honest....push come to shove, it's a truck. If I really wanted "luxury", I would have bought a Cadillac STS. The 2008 Titans and Armadas have upgraded interior plastics and styling.
-2006 Nissan Armada LE 4x4
-2007 Coachmen 19FLB SE
-2007 Regal 1900 w/ 4.3 EFI Volvo
Supercharged wrote: 4-in-a-fiver and my statments make the same amount of since.
kmfvfr wrote: rsh_757...gotta admit...the 2008 Armada looks the business....and I am not lying. Hope it does better than my coworkers 2006...or the other that has the Infiniti....
My 2006 is awesome. Flawless?, no. I have one beef......I think the plastic scratches too easily. But let's be honest....push come to shove, it's a truck. If I really wanted "luxury", I would have bought a Cadillac STS. The 2008 Titans and Armadas have upgraded interior plastics and styling.
That is true...it does look different. I just have two guys I work with that have had trouble....but they still love them.
Armada- Brakes had to be replaced all around, including rotors...but we all know about that. Plus the power rear door broke a couple of times.
Infiniti-same brake problem. I rode in it the other day...rattles pretty bad. Could be his driving habits...who knows.
I do like the 2008 though...wife is not getting anything...probably EVER!!! They seem to want a new car every year...or am I wrong??
Quote: Actually, the sweet spot is 1800-2200 rpm. Been there done that many times.
Well, with a small and light trailer on level ground it is
I don't know; I only haul about 7,000 lbs
You guys make it sound like every suv and truck has to revolve around camping trailers. I've have always viewed it as able to tug an object with so so force. In the case of these halftons with 10k+ tow rating, it simply means they can pull a 10k concrete block requiring 10k of force.
PSDExcursion wrote: Fast, Yet Fuel-Efficient — for a Big Truck
Although the Sequoia SR5's standard engine is the familiar 4.7-liter V8 rated at 276 horsepower and 314 pound-feet of torque, it's expected that 90 percent of buyers will choose the 5.7-liter V8 introduced by the new Tundra pickup. The new V8 is optional for the SR5 and standard for other 2008 Toyota Sequoias.
We can't argue with that choice. Not only does the 5.7-liter have impressive specs — 381 hp at 5,600 rpm and 401 lb-ft at 3,600 rpm — it manages to help disguise the second-generation Sequoia's massive weight gain, some 500-600 pounds (depending on the trim level). This big V8 and its six-speed automatic transmission add only 50 more pounds over the 4.7-liter and its five-speed auto.
Toyota claims a two-wheel-drive Sequoia 5.7 will hit 60 mph in 7 seconds flat. After driving around in a fully loaded, four-wheel-drive Platinum model, we believe it. Low-end engine torque is abundant, and passing maneuvers come and go in an instant. Exhaust tuning is quieter for the Sequoia than the Tundra, and it leaves you with the impression that the big V8 isn't even breaking a sweat.
Plus, the six-speed automatic always seems to be on its game with gear selection, something we noticed even while towing a 24-foot boat. We scarcely noticed the load, though with a gross combined weight of 12,565 pounds (against a 17,280-pound GCWR) and flat roads with a speed limit of 55 mph, this wasn't an extreme test.
Wow, how did Edmunds not point out that every feature that is new for the 2008 Seqouia was already available on the 2008 Armada? Sure looks a lot like my Armada in a lot of places. You know what? It still looks like that Toyota wants to use a CD changer instead of just automatically recording any new CD's that are loaded like the Armada so they can all be accessed digitally without bringing them. Hmm.. oh that one is probably available but I just couldn't find it. Same thing with the multi-user type memory for seat, mirror and pedal positioning. I'm sure that one is there too though. Or maybe the guys at Toyota just didn't want to copy EVERYTHING from the 2008 Armada.
So just HOW is it changing the rules? It's 0-60 time is gonna need to be a little better than 7.0 seconds to do that.
just want to point a couple differences between your armarda and the sequoia.
armada: Less HP and Torque, 5 speed auto and 3:357 gears(nissan lists a lower final with tow package but nothing speciffic).
Sequoia: more pwr and torque, 6 speed auto and 4:30 gears. with the gearing and extra over drive it is very easy to keep the 5.7 in its sweet spot.
Honestly i dont care for the looks of either one...
Ahh... so the Nissan must be underpowered then? The torque is what? 16 lbs. less? Bottom line is how does it move the car? The way the transmission works with both cars is completely different. You state like every other Tundra owner your gear ratio like it means the world when really it is about how it is matched up with the transmission. It isn't as simple as things used to be with a manual and final ratio, those numbers aren't even comparable anymore the way transmissions work.
I have been behind the wheel of a new Tundra, with a trailer+camry, I have also been behind the wheel of the DW's Armada hooked to an enclosed trailer with a Honda + Tool chest inside. You wouldn't be able to tell the difference in gearing or power AT ALL. I don't seem to recall an issue with the "sweet spot" in towing, but really I bet the Titan guys can elaborate a little more on that. We'll touch on the other stuff in a moment. Also, don't misunderstand me, I think the new Toyota is really cool, but is it really worth an extra 8000.00 in MSRP to have less options (I have done the math) just so you can say you have 381hp, 401# torque and 4.30 gears? Because in the big picture, it doesn't really mean that much. If it means you can tow your trailer or not, then your trailer is too big for either one.
so maybe you should have the gears in your dodge changed to 3:357 ratio ...better on gas. I really think you need to check some facts as you dont seem to put any research behind what you are saying.
Have a good holiday.
I don't "seem" to do any research? Or did you mean I didn't explain to you how transmission gearing works backed by links and documentation? How long have you been a Dodge transplant again? maybe you can back up all your "facts" about how crummy the Dodge 1500 rear-end is with documentation. I have seen your contributions of knowledge in that area with no fact checking.
Great stuff coming from someone who has never owned or towed with an Armada and really, please leave my underpowered, weak 4.10, 11.5 AAM, Dodge out of it, pick on a truck of your own's limitations and stick with pointing out all the plus points of the Sequoia and how Toyota is "changing all the rules". Maybe you don't get it, I can appreciate the Toyota, like I have said over and over again. Every one of these full size rigs are so nice these days, but to hear how it is some sort pioneer vehicle is like listening to a lie. I mean honestly, can you see the point? What makes it deserving of that kind of review when another vehicle of the same caliber had all those things available and more before?
2008 Cougar 310SRX 5th Wheel
2005 Dodge Ram 2500 QC 4x4 CTD
2008 Nissan Armada LE
I agree right up to the $8,000 MSRP higher for a Tundra vs. Titan. Throwing discounts and all aside, I just went to the Nissan website and built a Titan...Pro-4X...which is similiar to the TRD Tundra I have. Mine is not 4WD, but without adding a thing in options, The Titan rang in at mid $34K....but the option packages added another 3-4K on top of that to be in line with what my Tundra has....so drop the 4WD (which you can't get a off road tuned suspension on a Titan 2wd) and I think we match up pretty good head to head.
As far as towing...I could care less between the two....as I was going to buy a Titan had the Tundra not came out. I also was going to buy a Dodge CTD....but figured it was not necessary for my needs....plus if the wife wants a bigger trailer now, SHE can buy a truck....
I'm done now....
Look, I didn't mean to use that 8k figure between the Titan and Tundra, I actually used true MSRP for the Armada and Sequoia. If I did earlier in the post, I apologize. I have the sticker for mine, it has every single option you can get in an Armada, end of story + two extra sets of wireless headphones and the Winter floor mats (WOW those things stink like rubber so bad I wont put them in yet) I paid 42,700. How much do you think Toyota will negotiate and rebate from the new Sequoia? This is what I was referring to when I asked if the extra ponies were worth it.
First off, a Sequoia can't even be configured to have every option the Armada does, not even Platinum, but you can start there and get close. When complete, you are over 60k per the Toyota site in my zip code. Even when I shopped SUV's the 2007 Limited that was MILES away from the Armada literally had a higher sticker. Toyota isn't in the dealing business very much, Nissan is/was.
The brake rotors are new for this year also and if I remember right, the swept area of the new discs are in line with the 2007 Tundra. So the concerns about the previous year's brake issues are pointless.
The brake rotors are new for this year also and if I remember right, the swept area of the new discs are in line with the 2007 Tundra. So the concerns about the previous year's brake issues are pointless.
Not debating your comment, it's just a related thought.
Wouldn't braking be better when applied closer to the outer diameter than it is towards the middle regardless of swept area. Isn't that why performane brake are larger because of where the contact area is, closer to the outer edge. The one closer to the middle even with more swept area will require more pressure to acheive the same as the outer one.
PSDExcursion wrote: Fast, Yet Fuel-Efficient — for a Big Truck
Although the Sequoia SR5's standard engine is the familiar 4.7-liter V8 rated at 276 horsepower and 314 pound-feet of torque, it's expected that 90 percent of buyers will choose the 5.7-liter V8 introduced by the new Tundra pickup. The new V8 is optional for the SR5 and standard for other 2008 Toyota Sequoias.
We can't argue with that choice. Not only does the 5.7-liter have impressive specs — 381 hp at 5,600 rpm and 401 lb-ft at 3,600 rpm — it manages to help disguise the second-generation Sequoia's massive weight gain, some 500-600 pounds (depending on the trim level). This big V8 and its six-speed automatic transmission add only 50 more pounds over the 4.7-liter and its five-speed auto.
Toyota claims a two-wheel-drive Sequoia 5.7 will hit 60 mph in 7 seconds flat. After driving around in a fully loaded, four-wheel-drive Platinum model, we believe it. Low-end engine torque is abundant, and passing maneuvers come and go in an instant. Exhaust tuning is quieter for the Sequoia than the Tundra, and it leaves you with the impression that the big V8 isn't even breaking a sweat.
Plus, the six-speed automatic always seems to be on its game with gear selection, something we noticed even while towing a 24-foot boat. We scarcely noticed the load, though with a gross combined weight of 12,565 pounds (against a 17,280-pound GCWR) and flat roads with a speed limit of 55 mph, this wasn't an extreme test.
Wow, how did Edmunds not point out that every feature that is new for the 2008 Seqouia was already available on the 2008 Armada? Sure looks a lot like my Armada in a lot of places. You know what? It still looks like that Toyota wants to use a CD changer instead of just automatically recording any new CD's that are loaded like the Armada so they can all be accessed digitally without bringing them. Hmm.. oh that one is probably available but I just couldn't find it. Same thing with the multi-user type memory for seat, mirror and pedal positioning. I'm sure that one is there too though. Or maybe the guys at Toyota just didn't want to copy EVERYTHING from the 2008 Armada.
So just HOW is it changing the rules? It's 0-60 time is gonna need to be a little better than 7.0 seconds to do that.
just want to point a couple differences between your armarda and the sequoia.
armada: Less HP and Torque, 5 speed auto and 3:357 gears(nissan lists a lower final with tow package but nothing speciffic).
Sequoia: more pwr and torque, 6 speed auto and 4:30 gears. with the gearing and extra over drive it is very easy to keep the 5.7 in its sweet spot.
Honestly i dont care for the looks of either one...
Ahh... so the Nissan must be underpowered then? The torque is what? 16 lbs. less? Bottom line is how does it move the car? The way the transmission works with both cars is completely different. You state like every other Tundra owner your gear ratio like it means the world when really it is about how it is matched up with the transmission. It isn't as simple as things used to be with a manual and final ratio, those numbers aren't even comparable anymore the way transmissions work.
I have been behind the wheel of a new Tundra, with a trailer+camry, I have also been behind the wheel of the DW's Armada hooked to an enclosed trailer with a Honda + Tool chest inside. You wouldn't be able to tell the difference in gearing or power AT ALL. I don't seem to recall an issue with the "sweet spot" in towing, but really I bet the Titan guys can elaborate a little more on that. We'll touch on the other stuff in a moment. Also, don't misunderstand me, I think the new Toyota is really cool, but is it really worth an extra 8000.00 in MSRP to have less options (I have done the math) just so you can say you have 381hp, 401# torque and 4.30 gears? Because in the big picture, it doesn't really mean that much. If it means you can tow your trailer or not, then your trailer is too big for either one.
so maybe you should have the gears in your dodge changed to 3:357 ratio ...better on gas. I really think you need to check some facts as you dont seem to put any research behind what you are saying.
Have a good holiday.
I don't "seem" to do any research? Or did you mean I didn't explain to you how transmission gearing works backed by links and documentation? How long have you been a Dodge transplant again? maybe you can back up all your "facts" about how crummy the Dodge 1500 rear-end is with documentation. I have seen your contributions of knowledge in that area with no fact checking.
Great stuff coming from someone who has never owned or towed with an Armada and really, please leave my underpowered, weak 4.10, 11.5 AAM, Dodge out of it, pick on a truck of your own's limitations and stick with pointing out all the plus points of the Sequoia and how Toyota is "changing all the rules". Maybe you don't get it, I can appreciate the Toyota, like I have said over and over again. Every one of these full size rigs are so nice these days, but to hear how it is some sort pioneer vehicle is like listening to a lie. I mean honestly, can you see the point? What makes it deserving of that kind of review when another vehicle of the same caliber had all those things available and more before?
I cant even start to debate with such a person of high knowledge as yourself, i can only go by my past experience's with my previous 4 dodges. If you would like i can see if i still have the service slips from my previous 05.
I never said toyota is better then the nissan, just tried to point out a couple different aspects. I think after 4 years of mechanical engineering followed up with 4 more in software i can figure out how having a lower final drive ratio would provide more torque to the rear wheels.
2007 Toyota Tundra Sr5 DC 4x4 8'bed 5.7 tow package 4:30 gears
2007 Keystone Outback Sydney 32BHDS
2006 HD Street Glide
1997 Yamaha YZF1000r
1995 Honda CR500r
YOU CAN'T COMPARE THE NISSANS FINAL DRIVE RATIO WITH OTHER MANUFACTURERS RATIOS!!!!
REPEAT AFTER ME...
YOU CAN'T COMPARE THE NISSANS FINAL DRIVE RATIO WITH OTHER MANUFACTURERS RATIOS!!!!
NISSAN DOES A HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF THE REDUCTION IN THE TRANSMISSION COMPARED TO OTHER MANUFACTURERS.
The Armada/Titan tow package 3.357 ratio is approximately equal to a conventionally-thought of 4.10 ratio. The earth does not revolve around a 1:1 4th transmission gear.
Offline
