11-25-2008, 12:45 PM
I'm with Pete on this one as well. It seems to me that for many years, the vast majority of people were willing to pay for a vehicle with marginal fuel economy to haul people around and have a truck bed "just in case" they needed one. I bought my truck to use it as a truck and it rarely gets driven as a people-hauler. That is why I have a car.
The softness of the Tundra astounds me in comparison to the other trucks in this test, but to me it says that Toyota is doing what it does best, catering to 95% of the market, and that is why they sell so much shit. Most of their cars are soul-less lumps of metal that are utilitiarian and offer no enjoyment to their existence aside from minimal maintenance costs and high dependability, but that is what people want. The tundra is no exception, IMO, and they have built something that is comfortable to multiple passengers, CAN haul stuff, and will last a long time, at the sacrifice of being able to put an elephant in the bed. I hate their products, but the business model is almost flawless...
The softness of the Tundra astounds me in comparison to the other trucks in this test, but to me it says that Toyota is doing what it does best, catering to 95% of the market, and that is why they sell so much shit. Most of their cars are soul-less lumps of metal that are utilitiarian and offer no enjoyment to their existence aside from minimal maintenance costs and high dependability, but that is what people want. The tundra is no exception, IMO, and they have built something that is comfortable to multiple passengers, CAN haul stuff, and will last a long time, at the sacrifice of being able to put an elephant in the bed. I hate their products, but the business model is almost flawless...