What Do You Think of the 2020 Titan?

[Cpl_Punishment]

3 hours ago, Nanotech Environmental said:

To me it's interesting that Nissan is at least trying. I considered the prev gen Titan, as well as the Tundra before I bought my current Sierra(2017)

However, here are some of the issues for me- cost when new, getting parts at a reasonable price, aftermarket support and fuel econ. With the big 3 you can get any wear items cheap, due to the volume of trucks made. There is also lots of aftermarket goodies avail for them.
The Tundra is like paying for 2 trucks due to its up front cost and horrible fuel econ. Toyota should be embarrassed at the shitty mileage their trucks get.
The Nissan seemed nice, but expensive and I didn't want to pay a fortune for brakes etc, because I could only get parts at the dealer. I knew that there wouldn't be near as much aftermarket support either, because it's a low volume truck. 
It's all good because my Sierra has been a really good truck.

My Tundra was $10k less than a T1 LT, which would have had most of the features I wanted, and $20k less than an Elevation, which would have had all the features I wanted. If I burn 8 L/100 km more in the Tundra than a Sierra, I still break even with the LT after 10 years and with the Elevation after 25 at $1 CAD/ litre. 

 

I think you're right that Tundras used to be more expensive but they're doing a better job of dropping prices and offering deals lately.

[Nanotech Environmental]

29 minutes ago, Cpl_Punishment said:

My Tundra was $10k less than a T1 LT, which would have had most of the features I wanted, and $20k less than an Elevation, which would have had all the features I wanted. If I burn 8 L/100 km more in the Tundra than a Sierra, I still break even with the LT after 10 years and with the Elevation after 25 at $1 CAD/ litre. 

 

I think you're right that Tundras used to be more expensive but they're doing a better job of dropping prices and offering deals lately.

When I bought my 2017, the Tundras were ~13k more for a similar truck to my Sierra. Timing does play a role when buying, for sure, when it comes to incentives etc.
The Tundras also were essentially the same truck as when they came out in 07.
They are factory rated at 14+ l/100km HWY, but I haven't met any owners that can meet that. Most owners seem to get 18-20 and higher & their overall average is in the 20's. (this is on the 5.7 4x4's).
When I did the math over 300,000 km, the difference was quite an eye opener. My lifetime on my GMC is about 11.2-12 average, incl winter/summer/city/hwy/trailering etc.
They are pretty reliable (more or less), from what I can gather, but I can replace a lot of parts on mine before I get close to the lifetime cost of the Tundra.

[Mandalorian]

4 hours ago, Nanotech Environmental said:

When I bought my 2017, the Tundras were ~13k more for a similar truck to my Sierra. Timing does play a role when buying, for sure, when it comes to incentives etc.
The Tundras also were essentially the same truck as when they came out in 07.
They are factory rated at 14+ l/100km HWY, but I haven't met any owners that can meet that. Most owners seem to get 18-20 and higher & their overall average is in the 20's. (this is on the 5.7 4x4's).
When I did the math over 300,000 km, the difference was quite an eye opener. My lifetime on my GMC is about 11.2-12 average, incl winter/summer/city/hwy/trailering etc.
They are pretty reliable (more or less), from what I can gather, but I can replace a lot of parts on mine before I get close to the lifetime cost of the Tundra.

 

Pricing really depends on the configuration. Lower trim Tundras are more expensive than comparable GM/Ford, but higher trim Tundras are cheaper than comparable GM/Ford. Tundras top out at something like $54k USD while F-150 Limiteds and Sierra Denalis are pushing $70k loaded up.

[Dunn]

10 hours ago, Cpl_Punishment said:

       My Tundra was $10k less than a T1 LT, which would have had most of the features I wanted, and $20k less than an Elevation, which would have had all the features I wanted. If I burn 8 L/100 km more in the Tundra than a Sierra, I still break even with the LT after 10 years and with the Elevation after 25 at $1 CAD/ litre. 

 

I think you're right that Tundras used to be more expensive but they're doing a better job of dropping prices and offering deals lately.

 yeah when I bought my T1 Toyota wasnt doing anything and I went back to dealer I purchased my last 2 tundras from....they were by far the expensive out of all...this is in so cal. 

if you got 10k off sticker you did very well from toyota

[Pinnacle]

Ya its ok, its too bad they spent years co developing the awesome 5L Cummins and then completely ****ed up the design of the truck they put it into, and sold almost nothing.  They have just as many issues as the current GMs from what Ive seen and Ive worked for most of the manufacturers. Trannys were horrendous.  Cummins need to take that motor and sell it to another manufacturer it cant just be discontinued its great. 

[Colossus]

Yup.  Cummins is not going to be an option after this year I hear. 

[Colossus]

I guarantee they would have sold more if it wasn't so ugly. 

[truck_newbie]

23 hours ago, Nanotech Environmental said:

When I bought my 2017, the Tundras were ~13k more for a similar truck to my Sierra. Timing does play a role when buying, for sure, when it comes to incentives etc.
The Tundras also were essentially the same truck as when they came out in 07.
They are factory rated at 14+ l/100km HWY, but I haven't met any owners that can meet that. Most owners seem to get 18-20 and higher & their overall average is in the 20's. (this is on the 5.7 4x4's).
When I did the math over 300,000 km, the difference was quite an eye opener. My lifetime on my GMC is about 11.2-12 average, incl winter/summer/city/hwy/trailering etc.
They are pretty reliable (more or less), from what I can gather, but I can replace a lot of parts on mine before I get close to the lifetime cost of the Tundra.

Tundras are quite interesting, I see a lot of them around. I like the new face-lifted models, just wish they had updated the drive train and interior along with it. They have essentially been selling the same truck for over 10 years based solely on reliability. Only Toyota can get away with that. 

 

In this day and age of multiple recalls from pretty much all the big players, it makes sense why people put a premium on the Tundra's reliability and are still willing to pay those prices for an old design. I for one am interested to see what the next gen Tundra will bring to the competition. 

[Nanotech Environmental]

2 hours ago, truck_newbie said:

Tundras are quite interesting, I see a lot of them around. I like the new face-lifted models, just wish they had updated the drive train and interior along with it. They have essentially been selling the same truck for over 10 years based solely on reliability. Only Toyota can get away with that. 

 

In this day and age of multiple recalls from pretty much all the big players, it makes sense why people put a premium on the Tundra's reliability and are still willing to pay those prices for an old design. I for one am interested to see what the next gen Tundra will bring to the competition. 

One advantage to customer & mfr, having the same vehicle made for years on end is that they are easy to make and easy to get parts for. GM used to be like that in the 60 to the mid 80's. A brake caliper from 1968 was often the same one 10-12 yrs later. Powertrains & chassis didn't change much and were quite modular; you could mix and match quite a bit.  I liked that about those vehicles. 
I really think that yota really needs to really step it up regarding fuel mileage though.

[Colossus]

4 hours ago, truck_newbie said:

Tundras are quite interesting, I see a lot of them around. I like the new face-lifted models, just wish they had updated the drive train and interior along with it. They have essentially been selling the same truck for over 10 years based solely on reliability. Only Toyota can get away with that. 

 

In this day and age of multiple recalls from pretty much all the big players, it makes sense why people put a premium on the Tundra's reliability and are still willing to pay those prices for an old design. I for one am interested to see what the next gen Tundra will bring to the competition. 

Agreed.  I hate Crapota because of the way Crapota America corporate treated a loved one of mine 15 years ago in a warranty situation, but I know they make good trucks.  They are just.. boring to me. 

[wizard4878]

I considered the 2019 Titan.  Test drive, haggled with sales, the whole nine yards, but to get the same options that my sierra slt has, it was about $5000 more.  It drove and rode very comparable, maybe a little stiffer than the gmc,  but the fuel mileage, going completely off the computer estimated reading on the dash, was about 7 mpg less that the 5.3 driving on the exact same route.  Also one thing I have always loved about the GM products is that their heated seats have the option to only heat the back and not the entire seat.  Nobody else that I have seen offers this, at least in a truck, I may be the only one who cares about this, but its something I want...

I also liked the looks of the gmc better.

[Pinnacle]

14 hours ago, truck_newbie said:

Tundras are quite interesting, I see a lot of them around. I like the new face-lifted models, just wish they had updated the drive train and interior along with it. They have essentially been selling the same truck for over 10 years based solely on reliability. Only Toyota can get away with that. 

 

In this day and age of multiple recalls from pretty much all the big players, it makes sense why people put a premium on the Tundra's reliability and are still willing to pay those prices for an old design. I for one am interested to see what the next gen Tundra will bring to the competition. 

And they should never change that power train because its the best around, that company gets it.  

[Dunn]

3 hours ago, wizard4878 said:

I considered the 2019 Titan.  Test drive, haggled with sales, the whole nine yards, but to get the same options that my sierra slt has, it was about $5000 more.  It drove and rode very comparable, maybe a little stiffer than the gmc,  but the fuel mileage, going completely off the computer estimated reading on the dash, was about 7 mpg less that the 5.3 driving on the exact same route.  Also one thing I have always loved about the GM products is that their heated seats have the option to only heat the back and not the entire seat.  Nobody else that I have seen offers this, at least in a truck, I may be the only one who cares about this, but its something I want...

I also liked the looks of the gmc better.

for me to buy one the deal would have to be insane...Nissan gotta give them more for less, and their is nothing the salesman can do to rebut your argument over the price!

[NWI Denali]

7 hours ago, Pinnacle said:

And they should never change that power train because its the best around, that company gets it.  

Using some rough numbers, the difference in fuel cost at say, 13mpg avg vs 17 mpg avg over 100k miles @$3/gallon, is $5400. $5400 bucks can pay for quite a few engine repairs if needed.

[Cpl_Punishment]

On 3/20/2020 at 7:13 PM, Pinnacle said:

Ya its ok, its too bad they spent years co developing the awesome 5L Cummins and then completely ****ed up the design of the truck they put it into, and sold almost nothing.  They have just as many issues as the current GMs from what Ive seen and Ive worked for most of the manufacturers. Trannys were horrendous.  Cummins need to take that motor and sell it to another manufacturer it cant just be discontinued its great. 

From what I read, that Cummins wasn't awesome. Always going into limp mode and drinking DEF like there was no tomorrow.