D
Deleted member 9101
Guest
I want to see the Godzilla Super Duty
I can't wait to see one shoehorned into a lighter vehicle and running 10psi of boost
Tundra vs F150
- Thread starter rrflyer
- Start date
- Status
I can't wait to see one shoehorned into a lighter vehicle and running 10psi of boost
You're coming up with reasons that have emotional merit rather than logical merit.
Tundra's C-channel frame vs F-150's boxed...is the C-channel really going to inhibit performance or longevity? Million mile Tundra's and space-shuttle tow rigs prove the answer is no. Moreover, when the Ford Super Duty was using C-channel frames (which wasn't so long ago) I heard plenty of Ford fanboys talking about how it was the beez neez....but now all of a sudden its a weak point? Funny how that works.
Better fuel economy? Based on the average mpg's for both vehicles, the difference isn't great. And when you load down both vehicles with heavy payloads or tow rigs (which is a frequent occurrence in the overland world), the differences all but disappear.
Same powertrain as Raptor. Yeah, okay...oddly enough Ford decided to revamp the Raptor's frame for Baja events. With the exception of the suspension, Toyota doesn't change anything with the Tundra to race it in those types of events.
Frames were a big deal, because they caused premature failures of the vehicle. Toytoa's saving grace was that they took care of all the frames, no questions asked.
All those other issues you mentioned (3.0 headgaskets, gen 2 tacoma motor mounts, gen 3 oiling issues) are not big deals; arguably, you're over-exaggerating the seriousness of some of them.
The 6.0l Powerstroke, and the 6.4l which followed it, had big problems because they had a propensity to fail only a few years into ownership. We know it's a big deal because of all the incidents reported on the NHTSA's website and because these issues have spawned a cottage industry which revolves around attempting to address and fix these issues (since Ford never offered true factory fixes).
Likewise, the early ecoboost engines have a propensity for failure because of a slew of issues (direct injection, turbo's, timing chains, oil pan fractures). Again, we know these are big deals because they have been reported on the NHTSA website and because Ford has actually made revisions to the ecoboost engine over the years in response to some of these issues. But for those early buyers who got the direct injection only ecoboost engines, there is no fix....they will eventually have to have their intake valves cleaned (which is fairly costly).
So yeah, every brand has its issues. But to compare a few random 95-era 3.0l's w/ head gasket issues to a whole batches of 6.0l's Powerstroke's or 3.5l ecoboost's prematurely crapping themselves is demonstrative of shoddy logic. Ford screwed over a whole bunch of owners with poorly-designed engines, and whereas Toyota made good on its one major slip-up by replacing frames, Ford never offered true fixes for some of these issues. Not apples to apples...not even close.
Are you familiar with the 6.0l? Are you familiar with the 6.4l which followed it? Because if you were, you wouldn't be asking that question.
XJLI
Adventurer
What is really bothering everyone still posting about this? Maybe you guys should talk to someone. These are all machines. They will all fail, somehow, eventually. We fix it, or don't, but otherwise get over it.
Buy what you like. Buy what you think will get you more likes on IG. Buy what your wife thinks is better. Buy something because thats all you can afford. Who cares.
Buy what you like. Buy what you think will get you more likes on IG. Buy what your wife thinks is better. Buy something because thats all you can afford. Who cares.
bkg
Explorer
Just curious if you read what you write before you post it. I'm thinking you don't.
6.0 headgaskets big deal. 3.0 headgaskets that had to be done 1, 2 sometimes 3 times.... not serious. hahahaha... y'all crack me up.
Headgaskets also had to be done on the 80 series' inline 6; it was considered routine maintenance since it was an item that would require attention over the longterm. Not quite the same thing as a brand new 6.4 or 6.0l powerstroke failing 1-2 years into ownership...at least not in my view, but maybe you Ford owners have different expectations than I do.
Also, I find it funny that you have to dig back into the archives and compare a 34 year-old Toyota engine to an 11 year old Ford engine.
bkg
Explorer
I wasn't the one that brought up the 6.0. But since you're hung up on it, why are you worried about an engine that Ford hasn't used in over a decade? And since when did a (Toyota) head gasket become a wear item?
But fine... early 5.7 valvetrain issues were prevalent... but those also don't count?
The whole "Toyota is better than Ford because Ford has more issues because we refuse to recognize that Toyota has just as many issues" fanboy approach is kind of worn out.
toylandcruiser
Expedition Leader
bkg
Explorer
Early 5.7's had cam/valve train issues. Was resolved in 07-8, IIRC.
F350joe
Well-known member
Tundra doesn’t even offer a diesel. At least ford tried and now has a nice diesel motor with the 6.7, same with dodge, Chevy, Nissan, and soon Jeep. All of which do everything the tundra does but with more power and MPG. They don’t even really compare. I doubt anyone who is looking at a full size diesel even considers tundra.
toylandcruiser
Expedition Leader
I mean I did. So you’re comparing 3/4 ton trucks to a 1/2 ton and claiming they are better because of a diesel? You’re silly. Toyota makes diesels. Probably the best diesels in the world second to maybe Mercedes.
toylandcruiser
Expedition Leader
toylandcruiser
Expedition Leader
Why don’t you guys go troll the same thread on the f150 board?
That’s a straw man argument
- Status