1. Welcome to Tundras.com!

    You are currently viewing as a guest! To get full-access, you need to register for a FREE account.

    As a registered member, you’ll be able to:
    • Participate in all Tundra discussion topics
    • Transfer over your build thread from a different forum to this one
    • Communicate privately with other Tundra owners from around the world
    • Post your own photos in our Members Gallery
    • Access all special features of the site

How does Tundra compare to the current F150?

Discussion in '2.5 Gen Tundras (2014-2021)' started by Cabinetman, Aug 22, 2019.

  1. Aug 25, 2019 at 3:48 AM
    #91
    Cabinetman

    Cabinetman [OP] New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2019
    Member:
    #34996
    Messages:
    32
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    Kevin
    I’ve got some feelers out with a couple of Ford sales guys I know as well as with the dealer where I bought my 4Runner. I plan to drive them both this week with the intention of buying a new truck by Friday.

    On a side note, will any of the remote start solutions that work with the 2019 work on the 2020? I’m assuming the push button start basically just replaces the key with everything else remaining the same. I did confirm with my sales guy that the 2020 Tundra does have the app based system that lets you check fuel level, lock/unlock doors remotely, etc... However, factory remote start is still not an option. This seems odd to me considering all the other full size options offer it.
     
  2. Aug 25, 2019 at 8:00 AM
    #92
    UpSteer32

    UpSteer32 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2018
    Member:
    #16530
    Messages:
    169
    Gender:
    Male
    I'd be surprised if a Tundra got much worse in the same conditions. Turbo-charged gasoline engines really don't retain their efficiency advantage when doing work.

    Fuelly is quite honestly the only unbiased, semi-scientific mpg survey out there...it's not perfect, but it's certainly a lot more reliable than the myopic big fish tales that come from internet forums. Moreover isn't Ford currently being sued for misrepresenting its mpg numbers on certain vehicles (to include the ecboost F-150)?

    A 3 mpg difference does amount to ~$500 per year, which might be a lot some people. But I'm also being quite generous to the Tundra's competitors by using 3 mpg. The 3.5l ecoboost F-150 has a fuelly average of 16 mpg. The 5.7l v8 Tundra has a fuelly average of 14 mpg. That's a 2 mpg difference, and mind you that's after Ford has used all of its tricks to enhance the mpg #'s (light-weight aluminum body, 10 speed transmission, air dams). The difference between the Tundra and Ram and GM 1/2 tons is about the same or less.

    No one is apologizing for the Tundra's subpar efficiency, but the other 1/2 tons aren't nearly as efficient as the hype would lead you to believe.


    Final drive ratio tells you what kind of horsepower and torque numbers are being delivered to the wheels. I'm sure the 3.5l ecboost delivers better low-end torque and no one should be surprised by that. But have you actually compared to the to-the-wheel hp and torque numbers of the Tundra's 5.7l to those of its v8 competitors? I'd be very surprised if the Tundra doesn't come out on top in that comparison. For all of its deficiencies, a lot of people (even critics) have noted how the 5.7l Tundra is geared towards torque delivery and towing, more so than the other v8 1/2 tons.

    I don't have a problem with pushrod v8's...they're great engines for torque. But let's be real here: people, even some on this forum, love to criticize the Tundra for its "ancient" and "thirsty" gasoline v8. That 5.7l v8, for as dated as it is, is a far more refined and advanced design than the pushrod v8's used by most of the Tundra's v8 competitors.

    Also, are you really going to pretend that 5.7l Hemi or GM pushrods are in any way more reliable than Toyota's 5.7l DOHC v8?

    Bigger front brakes.
    Bigger ring gear.
    More robust tow hitch component.
    I'm sure if someone ever did a side-by-side tear down of the Tundra's and F-150's powertrain components (engine, transmission, transfer case), we'd find a continuation of that theme.

    Toyota gives its Tundra to ranchers for 100k miles of hard work and uses it tow a space shuttle. When have we ever seen Ford, GM or Ram do something similar with their 1/2 ton trucks? Are we really going to pretend that the other OEM's have the same amount of faith in their designs?
     
  3. Aug 25, 2019 at 8:21 AM
    #93
    Stig

    Stig New Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2016
    Member:
    #3475
    Messages:
    952
  4. Aug 25, 2019 at 8:36 AM
    #94
    hey smell this

    hey smell this New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2019
    Member:
    #27202
    Messages:
    120
    Gender:
    Male
    Houston
    Vehicle:
    2016 Tundra TSS
  5. Aug 25, 2019 at 8:36 AM
    #95
    UpSteer32

    UpSteer32 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2018
    Member:
    #16530
    Messages:
    169
    Gender:
    Male
    A lot of Toyota fanboys on that forum (the LandCruiser has a section dedicated all to itself)...but then again, there are a lot of Ford fanboys on that forum too. According to the latter, Ford can do no evil and the 6.0l, 6.4l Powerstroke and early ecoboost woes never happened.

    So I'm not sure what that thread will prove.
     
    glynndavid likes this.
  6. Aug 25, 2019 at 8:39 AM
    #96
    Stig

    Stig New Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2016
    Member:
    #3475
    Messages:
    952
    That thread proves exactly what you pointed out regarding fanboys. That thread eventually got locked.
     
  7. Aug 25, 2019 at 8:48 AM
    #97
    knoxville36

    knoxville36 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2018
    Member:
    #23098
    Messages:
    1,426
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    Mike
    Knoxville, TN
    Vehicle:
    2024 GMC Sierra 1500 Elevation w/3.0 Duramax
    Let's talk about mileage some more and just from a financial stand point if mileage really matters. I can buy a loaded Ford King Ranch or Platinum for $65k with the Ford Ecoboost and $65k might be a stretch compared to what 2 people I know paid. I can get a loaded Toyota for $50k.


    Lets say in 2 years I drive 30,000 miles in both trucks. I average 17 in the 3.5 ecoboost, and 14 in the Toyota. The ecoboost will use 1,764 gallons compared to the Toyota's 2,142 gallons over 2 years. After 2 years. At $2.50/gallon, you are in the hole $870 after 2 years for fuel.

    Let's say you are the type that likes to trade out every 2 years.

    Regardless of what major publications and statistics say, at least around here Toyota trade in is a completely different level.

    My Platinum would probably fetch a trade in value of $35k for a 2 year truck in good condition with 30k mikes.

    A 2 year old Ford Platinum of King Ranch can be bought for same price as a Toyota Platinum, so I am going to be nice when I say the King Ranch will get you $38k trade in.

    On my Toyota I took a$15k hit on depreciation plus the $807 in increased fuel cost, so I am in it for $15,807.

    The Ford I paid $65k for I just got $38 trade in and took a $27k hit on depreciation. I hate to say it but my numbers are about dead on as I looked and made a spreadsheet of many Ford King Ranch's and Toyota's and charted this over 6 months before I bought the Toyota.

    In 2 years, I am $11,193 ahead in the Tundra even if I am getting 3 MPG less.

    From a financial standpoint, which is the better buy. Maybe not the best exercise but as a CFO and CPA with all due respect, I am pretty damn close on this exercise.

    Trust me, I looked for every excuse in the world to get a Ford King Ranch, at the end of the day as a money man I could not do it.

    I saved $15k by getting the Platinum.

    Then I see the president of our company who got his King Ranch this past winter and the frustrations with a new truck in the shop for 6 weeks with it shutting off on the highway, driveline vibrations, etc....

    I made a very wise decision and made a dumb decision by us By the savings to buy a Honda Talon 1000r side by side, haha.

    90% of buyers do no research and just walk in and get what they like. If I was one of those, the Big 3 would win every time!
     
  8. Aug 25, 2019 at 9:12 AM
    #98
    belanger9

    belanger9 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2018
    Member:
    #13326
    Messages:
    1,489
    Gender:
    Male
    Edmonton, AB
    Vehicle:
    2016 TRD Off Road Inferno
    A bunch
    I'm curious how those numbers would work out at 5, 7, and 10 years out - assuming no major breakdowns and maintenance is equal. I know many here will say the no major breakdowns in a Ford is a fallacy, but from my experience Ford reliability is about 80% compared to Tundra reliability in the 95% range, assuming proper maintenance is followed.
     
  9. Aug 25, 2019 at 9:24 AM
    #99
    knoxville36

    knoxville36 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2018
    Member:
    #23098
    Messages:
    1,426
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    Mike
    Knoxville, TN
    Vehicle:
    2024 GMC Sierra 1500 Elevation w/3.0 Duramax
    Admittedly, in 10 years the numbers get smaller and closer in the Fords favor. I did looked at that, but do not have that information in front of me.

    Something to the extent of in 10 years I would sell my Toyota for $20k and Ford the same or a little less. Not saying $20k is the number, but you get the gist.

    You just take an absolute hammering with Ram and Ford in the first 3 years or so if you buy new. Chevy is a little bit better but not by much in my opinion.

    Maintenance is a whole another subject that I can post on.....

    At work we have about 24 trucks split evenly between GMC and Ford. Our Site superintendent all drive GMC Denali 1500 with the 6.2l, then we have about 6 2500 and 3500 with the Duramax and Allison combo.

    In our other division, we have 4 f-150 and 8 F-250 and F-350's. We track absolutely every penny to the vehicle level and have our own maintenance department. Some are under warranty and all trucks are anywhere from 1 month old to 10 years old. It is mind blowing how much the Fords have cost us over the past 3.5 years. Not saying GM is a saint either though.....
     
  10. Aug 25, 2019 at 9:26 AM
    #100
    Winning8

    Winning8 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2019
    Member:
    #32819
    Messages:
    1,986
    Gender:
    Male
    Da Bay Area
    Vehicle:
    2019 MGM DC 4x4 SR5
    Mumba 18x9 ET 12, BFG KO2, FOX suspension, diamond back HD cover w/ rack, LED head & fog light bulb, TRD rear sway bar, timbren enhancement, RAS helper spring, avs auto shade, Carhartt front seat cover, bench seat cover
    Ford is good as long as you don't buy their first year major change
     
  11. Aug 25, 2019 at 9:27 AM
    #101
    UpSteer32

    UpSteer32 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2018
    Member:
    #16530
    Messages:
    169
    Gender:
    Male

    Yep.

    I'm always quite amazed that some people will harp on the fuel cost discrepancy between say a Tundra and F-150 ecoboost: at most, we're talking about a $500 difference on an annual basis (and that is with extremely favorable mpg estimates for the F-150). But those same people seem to totally ignore how that fuel cost discrepancy is totally negated by the major depreciation hit that F-150, Ram and GM owners will take in the first 2-3 years of ownership.

    Now, you could run that same exercise by comparing the purchase of a 30k-40k used Tundra to a used F-150 with comparable mileage. Perhaps the depreciation advantage for the Tundra isn't as substantial in that example, but I'd also have no interest in picking up a used F-150 that is about lose its warranty. And for me, that is the real test of ownership: would I be willing to the own the truck for 5-8 years out of warranty? I've had no issues with any of the Toyota's that I've owned out of warranty...routine maintenance and parts replacements? Sure. But those vehicles never broke down or failed to perform what I asked of them. The Tundra has my vote of confidence in that test...the F-150, Silverado and Ram 1500, not so much.
     
    Viking likes this.
  12. Aug 25, 2019 at 9:32 AM
    #102
    shellshock

    shellshock Guy who drives a lot

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2018
    Member:
    #18748
    Messages:
    816
    Gender:
    Male
    Iowa
    Vehicle:
    2019 TRD PRO
    My tundra spanks my buddies f150 in all the categories you mentioned. Plus his f150 has been in the shop 10+ times after crossing 90,000 miles.

    I’m at 450+ miles when the light comes on, and that’s with my camper which adds some drag.

    Zero complaints with the tundra.
     
  13. Aug 25, 2019 at 9:42 AM
    #103
    knoxville36

    knoxville36 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2018
    Member:
    #23098
    Messages:
    1,426
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    Mike
    Knoxville, TN
    Vehicle:
    2024 GMC Sierra 1500 Elevation w/3.0 Duramax
    I would actually agree with this. Admittedly we have a 2010 Ford F-450 that I forgot about at work and it has about 427,000 miles on it and absolutely nothing wrong. The not routine maintenance done and is beyond solid. The chances of getting a lemon or bad vehicle is much increased with a Ford.

    It is sort of like Cracker Barrell.... you get a really good and hot breakfast 1 out of 4 times. When it is good it is good!!!! You keep going back because you are hoping for that one time when it was great is repeated!!! Seems like Ford owners are just like this and still holding on to that 89 F-150 their Daddy had and was great!!!
     
  14. Aug 25, 2019 at 9:53 AM
    #104
    knoxville36

    knoxville36 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2018
    Member:
    #23098
    Messages:
    1,426
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    Mike
    Knoxville, TN
    Vehicle:
    2024 GMC Sierra 1500 Elevation w/3.0 Duramax
    You would be correct on this. At the time I knew I was buying a higher end truck so I was comparing the brands highest model. If you start looking at more base models it is a different story. Base model trucks from Toyota are more than base models from others. There are so many options with the big 3 it makes it hard to compare. Fords run from $27k is o $75k. Toyota basically goes from $35k to $50k. It can be hard to compare.....


    I have been a GM/Chevy guy my whole life and have always had very good luck with my Silverado. I have owned 5 of them and my first was a 1988 2500. They were always reliable but this go around I did a ton of research and that is what brought me to this site and made Tundra.
     
  15. Aug 25, 2019 at 10:11 AM
    #105
    captainnemojr

    captainnemojr New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2018
    Member:
    #17423
    Messages:
    174
    Gender:
    Male
    Texas
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tundra 1794 4x4
    I've owned two F-150s and a Tundra.

    2012 Lariat Ecoboost - ride was pretty good and even better when I added 5100s in the rear. This was my first truck and coming from a 2010 4Runner it was a pleasant surprise. The 4Runner had no power. Why they didn't put the V8 from the GX as an option I don't know, and this was pre-supercharger days that they now have for it. I also have a 99 F150 ranch truck that is definitely a truck. Power was good and played around with some tuners to make it really go. Had 1st gen Sync nav which I liked. But it suffered from the dreaded condensation issue that caused a misfire/limp mode on I-10 while passing an 18-wheeler in Florida in damp conditions. This was WITH an aftermarket intercooler. This happened right around 50k miles, so I traded the truck.

    2013 Lariat 5.0L - traded the ecoboost for the mighty 5.0. Got same gas mileage as ecoboost. Sync MyFordTouch sucked. I had 5100s on all 4 corners, and it rode great. Really liked having the Elocker in the back. Other than the seat wearing out a little on driver's side no real issues until about 95k miles. Fuse controlling the fuel pump melted causing me to be stranded on the road. Luckily I was close to home. The fuse was one of those small blade type fuses. The fix was a fuse relocation kit that included a beefier square fuse. It was a TSB but not a recall, and luckily I was still in my 100k warranty.

    2018 Tundra 1794 - traded the 2013 F150 truck because almost out of warranty and went to Toyota strictly for reliability and price (I do enjoy the look also especially with KO2s). The new 2018 F150s looked awesome and I knew that it had things the Tundra didn't like better MPG, Elocker, Sync 3, etc. But the Tundra was over $10k cheaper, and had pretty good options. Plus with two previous negative F150 experiences I decided to switch. Plus the fact I've had Toyota/Lexus products in the past, I knew they were good vehicles. Yes the nav sucks, so I switched to a Kenwood DNX996XR. I also installed the TRD swaybars. I've purchased an Auburn LSD to install at a latter date. Yes the MPG sucks, but it's not much worse than my Ford. It probably does't help I have a heavy foot sometimes, and it's a truck. At least it takes regular gas. I don't know why anyone would run 87 in a turbocharged engine, and around here 93 is 60 cents more a gallon.

    I refuse to buy Dodge or a GM so I don't have experience with those, but I know people are happy with them. Yes, I agree these trucks and the Sequoia need a refresh badly. But hell this 13 model year old engine and transmission still gets great power, and it can still tow good enough for my needs. Having 4.30 gears gets that power to the ground.

    But I agree with a post earlier. If you are planning on trading 3-5 years anyway and truck is under warranty it really doesn't matter. I plan on keeping mine a while, and I really enjoy my truck and am glad I purchased it.
     
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2019
    UpSteer32 likes this.
  16. Aug 25, 2019 at 10:41 AM
    #106
    RisingSons

    RisingSons New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2018
    Member:
    #20646
    Messages:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    Vehicle:
    2020 TRD Pro
    Indeed. And you can buy a new 2019 Tundra 4WD in either the Platinum or 1794 trim for $43-45k right now. So, that tilts the numbers even more toward Toyota’s favor.
     
  17. Aug 25, 2019 at 11:19 AM
    #107
    Lightning_Lad

    Lightning_Lad New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2018
    Member:
    #23376
    Messages:
    307
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    Tom
    Orange CA
    Vehicle:
    2017 Silver Sky Platinum Pro
    Line x Bed liner Trifold Tonneau cover TRD PRO Dual exhaust TRD PRO sway bar TRD PRO air intake TRD PRO suspension TRD PRO LED 2019 Headlight conversion TRD 2020 Wireless charging tray TRD shift knob TRD PRO Grille TRD red anodized dust caps (+25 hp per wheel) Matt black mirror caps and door handles Tesla style Headunit KTJO 4x4 tail gate pop n lock upgrade Driver side grab handle Viper Remote start Viper alarm system 18” Method NV’s 33.5” Toyo R/T ESP Long box underseat storage 3M ceramic tint
    The way I see it, the 2007 Tundra blew the doors off Ram, Chevy, Ford from 2006 - 2014.
    The Mid cycle refresh just wasn’t enough to stay ahead of the 1/2 ton pack. It kept up in terms of power and mpg but that’s about it.
    2015-2019 ALL other competitors beat the Tundra in terms of comfort, finish, interior, special editions, off reading technology etc.

    As for current F-150

    A limited F-150 (top trim with High output Rappy engine) Loaded is about $75k. It’s not a truck anymore. It’s a luxury limo.
    GMC Denali/ high country - same story. Even base work truck trim F-150’s are getting more expensive. Toyota’s are still somewhat cheap compared to the others in the market.

    We’re back to where we were in 2005/2006. We’re behind the F-150 and all the others. I love my Tunny and hope the 2022 re-design IS a game changer not another re-fresh. Not because I want it to be...because it needs to be!
     
  18. Aug 25, 2019 at 11:58 AM
    #108
    Cabinetman

    Cabinetman [OP] New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2019
    Member:
    #34996
    Messages:
    32
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    Kevin
    I think the Ford numbers are off. I can buy a $67k msrp Platinum for $58k or less. The 2020 Tundra Platinum I’m looking at has a $55k msrp and I can buying for $48.9k or better.

    I’m not saying you point isn’t valid. The cost to own the Ford will be higher.
     
  19. Aug 25, 2019 at 12:18 PM
    #109
    SIMPLYTHETRUTH

    SIMPLYTHETRUTH THE ALBINO RHINO

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2019
    Member:
    #33982
    Messages:
    164
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    Mike
    PA
    Vehicle:
    2020 Cement TRD
    S&B Cold Air Intake, Recon light bar, Rough Country light bar, Cali ditch lights, aFe throttle spacer,
    Everyday we all give money away to the rich people. Also the truck runs better with 92.
     
  20. Aug 25, 2019 at 1:42 PM
    #110
    knoxville36

    knoxville36 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2018
    Member:
    #23098
    Messages:
    1,426
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    Mike
    Knoxville, TN
    Vehicle:
    2024 GMC Sierra 1500 Elevation w/3.0 Duramax
    You probably are right and I hope you are. The 2 people I know that bought the Platinum and King Ranch were well north of you. However, they did not shop much and bought local. They have plenty of money and I do not think they cared to be honest.

    If you never do any research and just went and test drove a Ford they are impressive. Sounds like in your situation it might not matter and Ford is the way to go.
     
  21. Aug 25, 2019 at 2:27 PM
    #111
    ColoradoTJ

    ColoradoTJ Certified tow LEO Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2016
    Member:
    #2766
    Messages:
    35,629
    Gender:
    Male
    Colorado
    Vehicle:
    LML 3500HD
    Calibrated Power 5 Tune pack, Allison 1000 tune, PPE deep trans pan, Cold/Hot CAC pipes, Banks CAI, PCV reroute, resonator delete, S&B 62 gal fuel tank, B&W GN hitch
    @UpSteer32

    ColoradoTJ said:
    My truck calculates fuel economy within .5 mpg from hand calculations. This past weekend I was towing 9K in the mountains for over 300 miles and the truck said 13.8 and I hand calculated 13.7. I'm good with that.
    I'd be surprised if a Tundra got much worse in the same conditions. Turbo-charged gasoline engines really don't retain their efficiency advantage when doing work.

    So I was talking about how close the onboard fuel calculations were on my truck (my tundra was pretty good as well). Since you brought it up, no way in hell is a Tundra going to achieve 13.7 mpg towing 9000 lbs in Colorado mountains doing 65-75 mph. Sorry man, I owned one. The best we could hope for is maybe 9 mpg, and that is with Celine Dion singing a love song on the radio, strong tail wind, and a little white lie.
    Totally agree with the turbo comment. One has to have serious throttle discipline to get good fuel economy numbers, and on small engines...good luck. This is why the EB gets really crappy mpg when towing. It will pass everything on a mountain side, except a fuel station. This is where Toyota hybrid will really make the difference in this department.


    ColoradoTJ said:
    You do realize 2-3 mpg is pretty substantial costs right? In my area, that's 578.00 per year in fuel costs alone on a 15,000 annual mileage. To be honest, "some" trucks get more than 3 mpg better. Fuelly is ok. How do you know the conditions, empty, towing, city, highway, margin of error when filling out the information (I screwed this up plenty, and why I no longer use the app). You don't, period. My fuelly shows a overall 14.8 mpg for the past 36K miles, most of what were towing or work. Now if someone on Fuelly sees this, should they be concerned? No, you buy 1 ton diesels to pull and work. So 11-14 mpg while working is good for me...but empty it can get some darn good economy.
    Fuelly is quite honestly the only unbiased, semi-scientific mpg survey out there...it's not perfect, but it's certainly a lot more reliable than the myopic big fish tales that come from internet forums. Moreover isn't Ford currently being sued for misrepresenting its mpg numbers on certain vehicles (to include the ecboost F-150)?

    A 3 mpg difference does amount to ~$500 per year, which might be a lot some people. But I'm also being quite generous to the Tundra's competitors by using 3 mpg. The 3.5l ecoboost F-150 has a fuelly average of 16 mpg. The 5.7l v8 Tundra has a fuelly average of 14 mpg. That's a 2 mpg difference, and mind you that's after Ford has used all of its tricks to enhance the mpg #'s (light-weight aluminum body, 10 speed transmission, air dams). The difference between the Tundra and Ram and GM 1/2 tons is about the same or less.

    No one is apologizing for the Tundra's subpar efficiency, but the other 1/2 tons aren't nearly as efficient as the hype would lead you to believe.

    Manual entry is very flawed. Fuelly also doesn't sectionalize location, drive train stats (some are 2wd/some4wd with no selection on either to compare), and a few other little tidbits. We can agree to disagree on this. Fuelly lost me today on a Sierra 1500 limited (never made), Good luck finding a 2.7L EB F-150, and many other quirks.

    Ford and all the other manufacturers doesn't use "tricks", this is called technology. A 10 speed transmission and lighter body panels, and air damns for wind resistance are not tricks. 2 mpg is still....better. What are you going to say when the 2021 Tundra comes out and spanks all the competition with 30 mpg? Oh, yeah...technology.



    ColoradoTJ said:
    The Tundra does not use lower gearing. The Tundra does in fact use a lower gear ratio, but uses higher gears in the transmission (the whole reason for the 4.30 gears in the axle). Final drive ratio is where the performance is, and hate to tell you, Toyota is not the lowest.
    Final drive ratio tells you what kind of horsepower and torque numbers are being delivered to the wheels. I'm sure the 3.5l ecboost delivers better low-end torque and no one should be surprised by that. But have you actually compared to the to-the-wheel hp and torque numbers of the Tundra's 5.7l to those of its v8 competitors? I'd be very surprised if the Tundra doesn't come out on top in that comparison. For all of its deficiencies, a lot of people (even critics) have noted how the 5.7l Tundra is geared towards torque delivery and towing, more so than the other v8 1/2 tons.

    The Tundra tows very well, even with a very aged design. It's simple and works. HP/TQ numbers are a good indication of how something will perform, but also how the delivery to the ground (and how efficient this delivery is) matters a lot.

    Ford 6 spd vs 10 spd


    ford6vs10.jpg

    Tundra.jpg



    ColoradoTJ said:
    Push rod engines are far more reliable than overhead cam engines...and less moving parts.
    I don't have a problem with pushrod v8's...they're great engines for torque. But let's be real here: people, even some on this forum, love to criticize the Tundra for its "ancient" and "thirsty" gasoline v8. That 5.7l v8, for as dated as it is, is a far more refined and advanced design than the pushrod v8's used by most of the Tundra's v8 competitors.

    Also, are you really going to pretend that 5.7l Hemi or GM pushrods are in any way more reliable than Toyota's 5.7l DOHC v8?

    Even Toyota doesn't use a dual overhead cam when it matters. (racing and reliability for NASCAR/Trophy Trucks..etc) The GM LS, LT, LT4 motors are very documented as being the bad boys to install and tune.

    I'll just leave this here for you.


    camry.jpg

    ColoradoTJ said:
    What beefier chassis components? Tundra does not have the beefiest rear axle, brakes, or frame.
    Bigger front brakes.
    Bigger ring gear.
    More robust tow hitch component.
    I'm sure if someone ever did a side-by-side tear down of the Tundra's and F-150's powertrain components (engine, transmission, transfer case), we'd find a continuation of that theme.

    Toyota gives its Tundra to ranchers for 100k miles of hard work and uses it tow a space shuttle. When have we ever seen Ford, GM or Ram do something similar with their 1/2 ton trucks? Are we really going to pretend that the other OEM's have the same amount of faith in their designs?

    I will have to eat some crow here. I thought the Nissan XD had a bigger ring gear. It doesn't. Toyota wins the ring gear size, which really doesn't matter in this segment of light duty trucks.
    Ford 9.75 (dana 60 size ring gear), rear locker
    Nissan XD 9.84 but large axle tubes and bigger everything else. Rear Locker
    GM 9.76 Locking differential
    Ram 9.25 Who cares?

    Everything other than the Ram is pretty beefy. To put in perspective, I run a Dana 60 front axle in my rock crawler, with competition compound 40" tires with not ring/pinion failures...ever.

    Cool thing is Loren Healy uses a Tundra 10.5 rear axle (custom modified) for Ultra4 Racing in his car. That's pretty awesome.

    healy.jpg

    Brakes:
    Titan XD 14.2/14.4"
    Ford 13.8/13.7"
    Tundra 13.8/13.6"

    A Class IV hitch is a Class IV hitch. Nothing special here.

    The frames speak for themselves, and don't be retarded and bring up Raptor frames. They were designed to bend if abused...in the first gen Raptors. Most others have fully boxed frames and the box doesn't contact the cab when offroading. Ask any of the go fast guys on here and what they have done to the rear frame to stabilize the rear.

    So Toyota gave a rancher a truck. I'm actually surprised you didn't bring up the space shuttle too.

    Totally practical....





    Here's a gem...and a lie.

     
    SIMPLYTHETRUTH likes this.
  22. Aug 25, 2019 at 3:32 PM
    #112
    UpSteer32

    UpSteer32 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2018
    Member:
    #16530
    Messages:
    169
    Gender:
    Male
    Manual entry is inherently the most accurate way to determine your real-life mpg. Miles driven/gallons consumed....you can't get much more accurate than that.

    As for the lack of location, 2wd vs 4wd, ect....It's not perfect, but it gives us a general overview of what owners are getting for each of these trucks.



    Well, they kind of are tricks in that they offer advantages in exchange for disadvantages:
    The aluminum body panels reduce weight, but they're also a PITA to repair.
    The 10-speed transmission might enhance the F-150's mpg, but it remains to be seen how reliable that transmission will be for long term towing.
    The air dam's reduce approach angles; Ford is all too happy to take on that disadvantage for the sake of efficiency, whereas Toyota seems more willing to maintain the vehicle's offroad prowess in exchange for a mpg or two on the highway.


    Okay, where is the comparison of horsepower and torque for the 5.0l F-150 and the 5.7l Tundra? Final gearing is important because it helps us understand how much torque & horsepower is actually being delivered in the different gears. The 3.5l ecoboost is a torque monster even compared to the 5.7l Tundra, and I would never argue otherwise. But I've also never heard of anyone complain about a lack of horsepower and torque when comparing the 5.7l Tundra to the v8's used by other 1/2 tons. The 4.30 gearing has a lot do with that.


    1) Aren't the NASCAR cars required to have pushrod v8's, as per the organizations regulations?
    and
    2) Why are we comparing race-oriented engines to the street going ones? Different end use and ultimately different design parameters.

    FYI, Toyota has used its stock 5.7l v8 for plenty of Baja-style events and races. It's also used worldwide in many of Toyota's 4x4's. That engine is most definitely vetted and proven at this point.


    Titan XD isn't really a 1/2 ton.

    C-channel frames work fine...Super Duty's used to employ C-channel frames for the longest time. I certainly wouldn't mind if Toyota boxed the frame for the next gen, but the Tundra's C-channel frame is certainly robust.

    I'd encourage you to look at how the tow hitch is actually attached to the frame for both F-150 and Tundra...Tundra's attachment method seems a bit more robust in my view.

    Ring gear size & construction matters a lot when towing heavy for long periods of time.

    Ford finally made front brakes that are comparable in size to the Tundra's...For the longest time, the F-150 had smaller front brakes despite having a higher tow rating.

    And for as gimmicky as a Ranch truck or space shuttle tow might seem, it still does inspire some confidence in the engineering of the Tundra. Again, I ask: how often do we see the big 3 OEM's do that with their stock 1/2 tons?
     
  23. Aug 25, 2019 at 4:35 PM
    #113
    belanger9

    belanger9 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2018
    Member:
    #13326
    Messages:
    1,489
    Gender:
    Male
    Edmonton, AB
    Vehicle:
    2016 TRD Off Road Inferno
    A bunch
    You're timing is impeccable with this question and this thread - Ford just did it with an electric powertrain with 1.2 million pounds. And while the powertrain may be experimental it sure looked to be a standard F150 for the rest. So if you're going to disregard what Ford just did, then you better disregard the space shuttle pull as well since. And as a little aside GM just pulled and STOPPED a yacht gantry with a weight of 250k lbs with their new HD platform.
     
    ColoradoTJ likes this.
  24. Aug 25, 2019 at 4:59 PM
    #114
    Devcom

    Devcom Miles per Gallon? More like Smiles per Gallon!!

    Joined:
    May 26, 2018
    Member:
    #15622
    Messages:
    473
    Gender:
    Male
    Vehicle:
    2018 Blazing Blue Tundra Double Cab SR5 5.7L 4x4
    That was with a pure electric engine pulling that weight. I think he was keeping it in a gas engine comparison. If not your point is valid.
     
    UpSteer32 likes this.
  25. Aug 25, 2019 at 5:22 PM
    #115
    mini2

    mini2 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2019
    Member:
    #34626
    Messages:
    36
    Gender:
    Male
    I drove an F150 as a company truck for about a year, an XLT crew cab model. The truck drives amazingly smooth. The Ford engineers should be given a gold medal for their efforts because they found that magic carpet ride in a full size truck. Even though its a full size truck it drives like a smaller vehicle.

    If your contemplating buying one you may want to wait until next year when the 2021 next generation arrives. I just wish Ford would spend more time on QA at the end of the assembly line. They punch F150’s out like widgets. I read that a new one rolls off the assembly line every 52 seconds. Fit and finish is definitely behind Toyota. For kicks and giggles I checked out a New SuperCab Raptor the other week. The passenger side door panel alignment between the rear half door and passenger door was atrocious. They are also having issues with failing cam phasers on the Eco Junk engines. If your truck is past the warranty period it’s a $4-5K repair.
     
    ColoradoTJ likes this.
  26. Aug 25, 2019 at 6:24 PM
    #116
    PJR202

    PJR202 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2019
    Member:
    #32421
    Messages:
    396
    Gender:
    Male
    Because Toyota doesn't offer those trim levels. Any maker can keep out-maxing everyone, but to compare a 65-70k "maxed out" truck to another maker's top offering at 50k doesnt make sense. Compare the 50k to the 50k. Tundra Limited to F150 XLT, Sierra SLT (Not the 6.2 either), Silverado LTZ, and whatever Ram has, etc.

    If OP's budget is a 65-70k truck and he intends to spend it all, he shouldn't be looking at a Tundra anyway.
     
  27. Aug 25, 2019 at 6:25 PM
    #117
    ColoradoTJ

    ColoradoTJ Certified tow LEO Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2016
    Member:
    #2766
    Messages:
    35,629
    Gender:
    Male
    Colorado
    Vehicle:
    LML 3500HD
    Calibrated Power 5 Tune pack, Allison 1000 tune, PPE deep trans pan, Cold/Hot CAC pipes, Banks CAI, PCV reroute, resonator delete, S&B 62 gal fuel tank, B&W GN hitch
    Have no idea man. Maybe they just spend time engineering and selling 9x the trucks. Who knows.
     
  28. Aug 25, 2019 at 6:28 PM
    #118
    ColoradoTJ

    ColoradoTJ Certified tow LEO Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2016
    Member:
    #2766
    Messages:
    35,629
    Gender:
    Male
    Colorado
    Vehicle:
    LML 3500HD
    Calibrated Power 5 Tune pack, Allison 1000 tune, PPE deep trans pan, Cold/Hot CAC pipes, Banks CAI, PCV reroute, resonator delete, S&B 62 gal fuel tank, B&W GN hitch
    Hey now...Don't let facts and bullshit get in the way dammit! Only the Tundra could pull (not tow) the space shuttle.
     
  29. Aug 25, 2019 at 6:33 PM
    #119
    ColoradoTJ

    ColoradoTJ Certified tow LEO Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2016
    Member:
    #2766
    Messages:
    35,629
    Gender:
    Male
    Colorado
    Vehicle:
    LML 3500HD
    Calibrated Power 5 Tune pack, Allison 1000 tune, PPE deep trans pan, Cold/Hot CAC pipes, Banks CAI, PCV reroute, resonator delete, S&B 62 gal fuel tank, B&W GN hitch
    Toyota offers plenty of trim levels. SR/SR5/SR5 Plus/Limited/Pro/Platinum/1794.
     
  30. Aug 25, 2019 at 6:40 PM
    #120
    gdiep

    gdiep I like cookies

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2016
    Member:
    #4540
    Messages:
    1,011
    Gender:
    Male
    Syracuse, New York
    Vehicle:
    2014 Red Tundra CM SR5
    Tundras are great trucks. But if they aren’t behind the competition in many ways, then why is a whole new redesign coming for 2021 MY? We can love our trucks and admit that it’s time that Tundras take another step forward.
     
    lawrenceb and ColoradoTJ like this.

Products Discussed in

To Top