Talk:Toyota Tundra
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of Wikipedia Project Automobiles, a collective approach to creating a comprehensive guide to the world of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you are encouraged to visit the project page, where you can contribute to the discussion. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale. | |
Contents |
[edit] Sales Chart
the sales chart is now fixed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.118.160.37 (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
|
This article is within the scope of Wikipedia Project Automobiles, a collective approach to creating a comprehensive guide to the world of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you are encouraged to visit the project page, where you can contribute to the discussion. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale. | |
[edit] Camshaft Failures
I do think that there should be some mention of camshaft failures, becuase this was considered to be a big deal in the truck community. I do agree that the way it was originally stated was not exactly NPOV, but I'm sure you see my point. I'm going to try to add a camshaft failure section written in NPOV with a source. Bostonbruins 00:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Consumer Reports no longer recommending the 4X4 models
"As a result of these early camshaft problems and other issues such as bed and tailgate failures, transmission flaws, etc., as of October 19 2007, Consumer Reports (which initially recommended the Tundra) does not currently recommend the 4X4 Tundra until these durability issues have been addressed. The 4x4 Tundra is predicted to have below average durability; however the 4x2 version is still recommended."
Consumer Reports ranks the Tundra 2nd to the Chevy Avalanche regardless of drivetrain configuration. The 4x4 is not recommended due to reliablity issues, however this is not relevant to the overall rating. I have corrected this error.
There is no source for the paragraph. While CR is no longer recommending 4X4 because of reliablity concerns the reasons listed are false. I'm removing that section because there is no need for the spread of misinformation for those looking at the Toyota Tundra section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.118.160.37 (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edititing Defective Models
"Starting in May 2007, reports came to light of a number of camshaft failures in the new 5.7 liter engines. These necessitated entire engine replacement which has since raised questions of long term reliability of the new engine as most of the affected trucks were only months old at the time of the failures. Toyota states that around 20 Tundra's have this problem.[1]."
This is a malicioius spread of misinformation. There is no source either, as it has been removed from detroitnews webpage. I'm removing the entry until a working source is located
[edit] T-150
Were any of these sold as the T-150? I thought it was changed before production examples were sold. —Morven 06:04, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
-
- Answer - No. Ford threatened to sue while Toyota was showing the Tundra as the T-150. This was before the Tundra was ever sold in 1999. --Beastmaster 03:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Size/Success
Any chance the article can be modified to eliminate the disparaging comments about the Tundra being 'too small'? If I and the other half a million people who bought one wanted to buy the biggest pickup on the market, we would have. The Princeton, Indiana plant was only designed to build 100,000 trucks a year, anyway, and I look at the Tundra as a success. User:Demiller74
Whether or not the truck was a SUCCESS is irrelevant. The truck was always classified as a full-size truck, but noticably smaller than every other full-size truck, therefore making it "too small" to be seriously considered as one.
- Well, that's a closed-minded statement. My full-size van is considered a light truck, yet is just as big as a full-size truck. Does that make it too big? Just because the Tundra is a little smaller physically doesn't mean it's any less of a truck. It still has the towing capacity and strength of any other heavy-duty truck, and the newer ones have some damn nice features (I wish I had a 6-speed...) Ahanix1989 05:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Explaination of edit
I removed the second generation and changed the third to the second. The 2004 refresh was not a new generation. Bok269 21:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] TundraSolutions.com
The mentioning of TundraSolutions.com and the letter advising them to stop using the Tundra name is irrelevant to this article.
there are thousands of sites dedicated to providing service and information for Toyota vehicles, the fact that one broke a law doing so is un-notable. I removed said mentions and will remove any future submissions of TundraSolutions.com to this page unless it becomes notable.
Wikipedia is a dedicated place for global events and views. Small, insignificant instances in history are best left to another page, not products themselves. For instance, if it becomes known that Toyota has cracked down on many, many small time deals, and then it becomes controversial or just that widespread, it would deserve mention on the Toyota page, but still not this page.Scryer_360 18:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Edits
I changed a reference to the 2x4 Tundra to read 4x2. A 2x4 is a piece of wood. Trucks are four wheeled vehicles drive BY two (or four) wheels, hence 4x2 (or 4x4).
[edit] Quality Assessment
I rated this article "Start" as it meets the description: "The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a key element." The article lacks references in many areas, and does not flow well. It reads as a collection of disjoint information and the formating is poor with lots of white space. Many of the images and charts are valuable and the history is useful, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prosecreator (talk • contribs) 15:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
