2007 Tundra continues gas-hog trend

The Tacoma is no longer a compact truck and now the Tundra is getting a
size boost and a 5.7L V8. It's unlikely gas mileage will improve vs the
"underpowered?" 4.7L V8. I think this is a run at the Nissan Titan for
size and showmanship, not pragmatism. Shallow buyers think they need to
have a bigger engine than the next guy. Why can't intelligence prevail
in truck marketing instead of insecurity?

I'm tired of ads showing grease-blackened laborers among steam clouds
who supposedly can't do their job without "extreme" capacity. How did
they manage last year or ten years ago? Trucks in decades past were
downright rickety. Somehow, things got done without a 10,000 lb. towing
capacity in the average work vehicle. Most big material drops at
construction sites are brought in on commercial flatbeds. The current
Tundra is fine for most buyers and has been so since 2000. Most of this
power hype is marketing. Many trucks are bought for style, with pimped
wheels and pristine paint. You don't need 300+ HP to visit the local
steakhouse. A rack increases bulk capacity of any truck. You can rent a
trailer for rare, extreme loads.

Gas prices will continue to rise (with ups and downs) due to peaking of
global oil production. Global warming is real and serious, despite "Man
can do no wrong" propaganda that rewrites evidence. Lower gas mileage
means more CO2 emissions and is a step in the wrong direction. EPA
figures are overstated and the 2007 Tundra may get about 15 MPG
average. The Nissan Titan (5.9L) only gets about 14 MPG per
[url]www.edmunds.com/advice/fueleconomy/articles/105503/article.html[/url].

Americans are finally seeing that it doesn't make sense (on many
levels) to waste fuel. Toyota, creator of the Prius, seems at odds with
itself in the truck line. They should at least offer a diesel in the
Tundra. The practical demographic for super-sized trucks is overstated
and the ego demographic should shrink as fuel prices rise. Please wise
up, Toyota, and all truck buyers who feed this trend. Many of us would
like a quality truck that isn't a gas hog, but our options keep getting
limited. Maybe they will _downsize_ the fat-ass Tacoma next time
around. It would be an industry first!

Ed

Ed Warner wrote:[color=blue]
> The Tacoma is no longer a compact truck and now the Tundra is getting a
> size boost and a 5.7L V8. It's unlikely gas mileage will improve vs the
> "underpowered?" 4.7L V8. I think this is a run at the Nissan Titan for
> size and showmanship, not pragmatism. Shallow buyers think they need to
> have a bigger engine than the next guy. Why can't intelligence prevail
> in truck marketing instead of insecurity?
>
> I'm tired of ads showing grease-blackened laborers among steam clouds
> who supposedly can't do their job without "extreme" capacity. How did
> they manage last year or ten years ago? Trucks in decades past were
> downright rickety. Somehow, things got done without a 10,000 lb. towing
> capacity in the average work vehicle. Most big material drops at
> construction sites are brought in on commercial flatbeds. The current
> Tundra is fine for most buyers and has been so since 2000. Most of this
> power hype is marketing. Many trucks are bought for style, with pimped
> wheels and pristine paint. You don't need 300+ HP to visit the local
> steakhouse. A rack increases bulk capacity of any truck. You can rent a
> trailer for rare, extreme loads.
>
> Gas prices will continue to rise (with ups and downs) due to peaking of
> global oil production. Global warming is real and serious, despite "Man
> can do no wrong" propaganda that rewrites evidence. Lower gas mileage
> means more CO2 emissions and is a step in the wrong direction. EPA
> figures are overstated and the 2007 Tundra may get about 15 MPG
> average. The Nissan Titan (5.9L) only gets about 14 MPG per
> [url]www.edmunds.com/advice/fueleconomy/articles/105503/article.html[/url].
>
> Americans are finally seeing that it doesn't make sense (on many
> levels) to waste fuel. Toyota, creator of the Prius, seems at odds with
> itself in the truck line. They should at least offer a diesel in the
> Tundra. The practical demographic for super-sized trucks is overstated
> and the ego demographic should shrink as fuel prices rise. Please wise
> up, Toyota, and all truck buyers who feed this trend. Many of us would
> like a quality truck that isn't a gas hog, but our options keep getting
> limited. Maybe they will _downsize_ the fat-ass Tacoma next time
> around. It would be an industry first!
>
> Ed
>[/color]

[url]http://hernandoccc.blogspot.com/2006/07/true-reason-for-global-warming.html[/url]

Dante

Dante wrote:
[color=blue]
> [url]http://hernandoccc.blogspot.com/2006/07/true-reason-for-global-warming.html[/url][/color]

Yes, you're just the sort of simpleton who needs more HP every year.
Marketers can really work an ignorant crowd.

Ed

"Ed Warner" <KMMzosLm7k@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1159897680.360103.319630@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...[color=blue]
> The Tacoma is no longer a compact truck and now the Tundra is getting a
> size boost and a 5.7L V8. It's unlikely gas mileage will improve vs the
> "underpowered?" 4.7L V8. I think this is a run at the Nissan Titan for
> size and showmanship, not pragmatism. Shallow buyers think they need to
> have a bigger engine than the next guy. Why can't intelligence prevail
> in truck marketing instead of insecurity?
>
> I'm tired of ads showing grease-blackened laborers among steam clouds
> who supposedly can't do their job without "extreme" capacity. How did
> they manage last year or ten years ago? Trucks in decades past were
> downright rickety. Somehow, things got done without a 10,000 lb. towing
> capacity in the average work vehicle. Most big material drops at
> construction sites are brought in on commercial flatbeds. The current
> Tundra is fine for most buyers and has been so since 2000. Most of this
> power hype is marketing. Many trucks are bought for style, with pimped
> wheels and pristine paint. You don't need 300+ HP to visit the local
> steakhouse. A rack increases bulk capacity of any truck. You can rent a
> trailer for rare, extreme loads.
>
> Gas prices will continue to rise (with ups and downs) due to peaking of
> global oil production. Global warming is real and serious, despite "Man
> can do no wrong" propaganda that rewrites evidence. Lower gas mileage
> means more CO2 emissions and is a step in the wrong direction. EPA
> figures are overstated and the 2007 Tundra may get about 15 MPG
> average. The Nissan Titan (5.9L) only gets about 14 MPG per
> [url]www.edmunds.com/advice/fueleconomy/articles/105503/article.html[/url].
>
> Americans are finally seeing that it doesn't make sense (on many
> levels) to waste fuel. Toyota, creator of the Prius, seems at odds with
> itself in the truck line. They should at least offer a diesel in the
> Tundra. The practical demographic for super-sized trucks is overstated
> and the ego demographic should shrink as fuel prices rise. Please wise
> up, Toyota, and all truck buyers who feed this trend. Many of us would
> like a quality truck that isn't a gas hog, but our options keep getting
> limited. Maybe they will _downsize_ the fat-ass Tacoma next time
> around. It would be an industry first![/color]

When I bought my Tundra, I could have had a crew cab, V-8, 4x4, with a
slush-o-matic, and leather seats at an obscene price, but opted instead for
the V-6, 2wd, regular cab, with manual gear box. FWIW, its supposed to do
8.5 sec 0-60, but thats not why I bought this truck.
I bought it for a 3/4 ton work truck, put a camper shell on it, loaded it
down with tools and equipment, and occasionally tow a trailer with it. It
has all the creature comforts that I need(A/C, cloth seat, and CD player),
and is comfortable to drive. I don't mind that I average 18 mpg with it
either(the customer pays for *everything*).
I think that if more folks bought vehicles to fit their *NEEDS* and not just
for status symbols, we would be a lot better off.

Get a life...maybe a job.

Ed Warner wrote:[color=blue]
> Dante wrote:
>[color=green]
>> [url]http://hernandoccc.blogspot.com/2006/07/true-reason-for-global-warming.html[/url][/color]
>
> Yes, you're just the sort of simpleton who needs more HP every year.
> Marketers can really work an ignorant crowd.
>
> Ed
>[/color]

"Noon-Air" <Noon-Air@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:T4adnR43g5_ucr_YnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@comcast.com...
[color=blue]
> I think that if more folks bought vehicles to fit their *NEEDS* and not
> just for status symbols, we would be a lot better off.[/color]

That would probably chop the truck & SUV market by two thirds. Perfect.

Noon-Air wrote:
[color=blue]
> When I bought my Tundra, I could have had a crew cab, V-8, 4x4, with a
> slush-o-matic, and leather seats at an obscene price, but opted instead for
> the V-6, 2wd, regular cab, with manual gear box. FWIW, its supposed to do
> 8.5 sec 0-60, but thats not why I bought this truck.
> I bought it for a 3/4 ton work truck, put a camper shell on it, loaded it
> down with tools and equipment, and occasionally tow a trailer with it. It
> has all the creature comforts that I need(A/C, cloth seat, and CD player),
> and is comfortable to drive. I don't mind that I average 18 mpg with it
> either(the customer pays for *everything*).
> I think that if more folks bought vehicles to fit their *NEEDS* and not just
> for status symbols, we would be a lot better off.[/color]

I couldn't agree more. The culture of ego and excess has worn out its
welcome in many areas.

Ed

Hey... it's not your job to tell me what I should or should not buy.
Believe me... I don't take your "simple minded; tree hugging; savior of
the three toed spotted frog" dribble into account when I go to buy a
truck! Sorry!!

Ed Warner wrote:[color=blue]
> Earl H8rton wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Get a life...maybe a job.[/color]
>
> Simple audience, I see. "Al Gore caused global warming." Guzzle away
> like the morons you are.
>
> Ed
>[/color]

One point to bring out with the Tacoma. If you compare the fuel economy
specs between a 4 cyl. extra cab 4x4, manual transmission. The older design
2004 model was 18 city, 21 highway. The newer upsized '06 model is rated at
19 city, 23 highway. I heard this was achieved by cutting weight, such as
with the composite bed. Strangely enough, the new model's max payload
dropped from 1630 lbs. to 1480 lbs.


"Ed Warner" <KMMzosLm7k@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1159897680.360103.319630@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...[color=blue]
> The Tacoma is no longer a compact truck and now the Tundra is getting a
> size boost and a 5.7L V8. It's unlikely gas mileage will improve vs the
> "underpowered?" 4.7L V8. I think this is a run at the Nissan Titan for
> size and showmanship, not pragmatism. Shallow buyers think they need to
> have a bigger engine than the next guy. Why can't intelligence prevail
> in truck marketing instead of insecurity?
>
> I'm tired of ads showing grease-blackened laborers among steam clouds
> who supposedly can't do their job without "extreme" capacity. How did
> they manage last year or ten years ago? Trucks in decades past were
> downright rickety. Somehow, things got done without a 10,000 lb. towing
> capacity in the average work vehicle. Most big material drops at
> construction sites are brought in on commercial flatbeds. The current
> Tundra is fine for most buyers and has been so since 2000. Most of this
> power hype is marketing. Many trucks are bought for style, with pimped
> wheels and pristine paint. You don't need 300+ HP to visit the local
> steakhouse. A rack increases bulk capacity of any truck. You can rent a
> trailer for rare, extreme loads.
>
> Gas prices will continue to rise (with ups and downs) due to peaking of
> global oil production. Global warming is real and serious, despite "Man
> can do no wrong" propaganda that rewrites evidence. Lower gas mileage
> means more CO2 emissions and is a step in the wrong direction. EPA
> figures are overstated and the 2007 Tundra may get about 15 MPG
> average. The Nissan Titan (5.9L) only gets about 14 MPG per
> [url]www.edmunds.com/advice/fueleconomy/articles/105503/article.html[/url].
>
> Americans are finally seeing that it doesn't make sense (on many
> levels) to waste fuel. Toyota, creator of the Prius, seems at odds with
> itself in the truck line. They should at least offer a diesel in the
> Tundra. The practical demographic for super-sized trucks is overstated
> and the ego demographic should shrink as fuel prices rise. Please wise
> up, Toyota, and all truck buyers who feed this trend. Many of us would
> like a quality truck that isn't a gas hog, but our options keep getting
> limited. Maybe they will _downsize_ the fat-ass Tacoma next time
> around. It would be an industry first!
>
> Ed
>[/color]

On 3 Oct 2006 10:48:00 -0700, "Ed Warner" <KMMzosLm7k@yahoo.com>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>The Tacoma is no longer a compact truck and now the Tundra is getting a
>size boost and a 5.7L V8. It's unlikely gas mileage will improve vs the
>"underpowered?" 4.7L V8. I think this is a run at the Nissan Titan for
>size and showmanship, not pragmatism. Shallow buyers think they need to
>have a bigger engine than the next guy. Why can't intelligence prevail
>in truck marketing instead of insecurity?
>
>I'm tired of ads showing grease-blackened laborers among steam clouds
>who supposedly can't do their job without "extreme" capacity. How did
>they manage last year or ten years ago? Trucks in decades past were
>downright rickety. Somehow, things got done without a 10,000 lb. towing
>capacity in the average work vehicle. Most big material drops at
>construction sites are brought in on commercial flatbeds. The current
>Tundra is fine for most buyers and has been so since 2000. Most of this
>power hype is marketing. Many trucks are bought for style, with pimped
>wheels and pristine paint. You don't need 300+ HP to visit the local
>steakhouse. A rack increases bulk capacity of any truck. You can rent a
>trailer for rare, extreme loads.
>
>Gas prices will continue to rise (with ups and downs) due to peaking of
>global oil production. Global warming is real and serious, despite "Man
>can do no wrong" propaganda that rewrites evidence. Lower gas mileage
>means more CO2 emissions and is a step in the wrong direction. EPA
>figures are overstated and the 2007 Tundra may get about 15 MPG
>average. The Nissan Titan (5.9L) only gets about 14 MPG per
>[url]www.edmunds.com/advice/fueleconomy/articles/105503/article.html[/url].
>
>Americans are finally seeing that it doesn't make sense (on many
>levels) to waste fuel. Toyota, creator of the Prius, seems at odds with
>itself in the truck line. They should at least offer a diesel in the
>Tundra. The practical demographic for super-sized trucks is overstated
>and the ego demographic should shrink as fuel prices rise. Please wise
>up, Toyota, and all truck buyers who feed this trend. Many of us would
>like a quality truck that isn't a gas hog, but our options keep getting
>limited. Maybe they will _downsize_ the fat-ass Tacoma next time
>around. It would be an industry first!
>
>Ed[/color]

For the most part, need isn't a factor and gas mileage isn't a
consideration to certain people. There must be 20 4WD Suburbans
in my neighborhood. Most are heavy duty with towing hitch receivers.
Most don't use them for tow vehicles, the furthest off road they get
is their own driveway and I've never seen one evey half full of
people. Some people just have to have the largest, most powerfull,
most trendy,etc. Hummers seem to be replacing some of them - very
trendy.

Skip

"Skip" <skipfromla@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:87c6i212c4rukg1hdhhgdofparbrlfp1gi@4ax.com...
[color=blue]
> For the most part, need isn't a factor and gas mileage isn't a
> consideration to certain people. There must be 20 4WD Suburbans
> in my neighborhood. Most are heavy duty with towing hitch receivers.
> Most don't use them for tow vehicles, the furthest off road they get
> is their own driveway and I've never seen one evey half full of
> people. Some people just have to have the largest, most powerfull,
> most trendy,etc. Hummers seem to be replacing some of them - very
> trendy.
>
> Skip
>[/color]

The most popular fable I hear from people like that is "I need the ground
clearance for when there's 2 feet of snow on the ground". That's a crock of
shit, because first of all, this city and county have the most efficient
snow plowing system imaginable, and second, most of these soccer mommies
would never leave the house with that much snow on the roads.

"Jeff Olsen" <handywired@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1159937918.118043.263570@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...[color=blue]
>
> Noon-Air wrote:[color=green]
>> When I bought my Tundra, I could have had a crew cab, V-8, 4x4, with a
>> slush-o-matic, and leather seats at an obscene price, but opted instead
>> for
>> the V-6, 2wd, regular cab, with manual gear box. FWIW, its supposed to do
>> 8.5 sec 0-60, but thats not why I bought this truck.
>> I bought it for a 3/4 ton work truck, put a camper shell on it, loaded it
>> down with tools and equipment, and occasionally tow a trailer with it. It
>> has all the creature comforts that I need(A/C, cloth seat, and CD
>> player),
>> and is comfortable to drive. I don't mind that I average 18 mpg with it
>> either(the customer pays for *everything*).
>> I think that if more folks bought vehicles to fit their *NEEDS* and not
>> just
>> for status symbols, we would be a lot better off.[/color]
>
> That's funny, because I get 17.2 all-around average with my V8 Tundra
> Access Cab![/color]

Run it loaded with 1000lbs of camper shell/parts/tools/equipment in it all
the time, and tell me what it does.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
[color=blue]
> The most popular fable I hear from people like that is "I need the ground
> clearance for when there's 2 feet of snow on the ground". That's a crock of
> shit, because first of all, this city and county have the most efficient
> snow plowing system imaginable, and second, most of these soccer mommies
> would never leave the house with that much snow on the roads.[/color]

That's true, but in your obvious distaste for those of us who own
Tundra's, please do keep in mind that there ARE some people who just
plain need, and use, a truck. Personally, I do need the clearance,
etc. I've gotten my '06 Tundra stuck twice in the first year of owning
it, and I was NOT recreationally wheelin'. I just live out in the
woods and use it as a truck. Since we are not made of money, most of
us, compromises must be made and you end up with a Tundra that gets
used for a significant amount of non-truck stuff, too.

-jeff

"Jeff Olsen" <handywired@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1159982860.195910.13460@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...[color=blue]
>
> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>[color=green]
>> The most popular fable I hear from people like that is "I need the ground
>> clearance for when there's 2 feet of snow on the ground". That's a crock
>> of
>> shit, because first of all, this city and county have the most efficient
>> snow plowing system imaginable, and second, most of these soccer mommies
>> would never leave the house with that much snow on the roads.[/color]
>
> That's true, but in your obvious distaste for those of us who own
> Tundra's, please do keep in mind that there ARE some people who just
> plain need, and use, a truck. Personally, I do need the clearance,
> etc. I've gotten my '06 Tundra stuck twice in the first year of owning
> it, and I was NOT recreationally wheelin'. I just live out in the
> woods and use it as a truck. Since we are not made of money, most of
> us, compromises must be made and you end up with a Tundra that gets
> used for a significant amount of non-truck stuff, too.
>
> -jeff
>[/color]

I have no distaste as you describe. I have problems with people who buy
gigantic vehicles and never use them for anything but driving to work. They
never tow, never put anything but groceries in the bed, never have more than
one passenger. You know what I mean.

Noon-Air wrote:[color=blue]
> "Jeff Olsen" <handywired@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:1159937918.118043.263570@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...[color=green]
> >
> > Noon-Air wrote:[color=darkred]
> >> When I bought my Tundra, I could have had a crew cab, V-8, 4x4, with a
> >> slush-o-matic, and leather seats at an obscene price, but opted instead
> >> for
> >> the V-6, 2wd, regular cab, with manual gear box. I don't mind that I average 18 mpg with it
> >> either[/color][/color][/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
> > That's funny, because I get 17.2 all-around average with my V8 Tundra
> > Access Cab![/color]
>
> Run it loaded with 1000lbs of camper shell/parts/tools/equipment in it all
> the time, and tell me what it does.[/color]

I bet it wouldn't be a whole lot different.

Not trying to start a fight, just think it's a little silly to use 18
mpg as some sort of bragging point in this debate! 2 mpg this way or
that way is irrelevant to the planet, if that's your point, and to your
wallet too.

What I wish is that Toyota offered, in the US market, a car you can get
in Europe. It's one of those sort of minivan/wagon crosses, like a
bigger Prius sort of. Seats up to 7 people, and gets 45.6 combined
MPG! Has a small turbo-diesel engine.

-jeff

-jeff