Tundra vs F150

[Dalko43]

I never said that the Tundra was a bad vehicle, it's a fantastic truck but even with some slight face lifts over the last 12-13 years it's still the same truck at it's core. I laugh at the brakes always being a so-called selling point, they aren't and it needs the large fuel tank when it gets 11-13 mpg's. But in another year we will get the new Tundra and I am sure that it will have a lot of improvements, hopefully fuel economy, interior design/layout, and tech are the main segments.

The new Tundra is the same fundamental vehicle as the one that came out in 2007; I agree. So what's your point? What does the Tundra sorely need in order to "keep up" with the newer 1/2 tons? Other than a rear locker and another gear or two in the transmission, I'm not sure what you think is lacking in the Tundra. Fuel economy differences between the Tundra and its competition isn't as great as some on here make it out to be; fuelly and 3rd-party testing proves that. Interior design and tech? You compare the interiors of a new F-150 and new Tundra, they look pretty dang similar....I just think some people like to parrot the "it's old" criticism without taking any time to think it through.

I really don't care if you like or dislike the Tundra. But if you're going to say it's old, maybe take the time to explain why that is a bad thing. If the truck still satisfies owner expectations, is the design's age really all that important? People still buy LC 70's in droves, despite it being fundamentally unchanged for the last decade or two.

In regards to the Tacoma, we all know that the 3rd Gen has been the most polarizing and the biggest disappointment yet. I have never heard more bitching about a drive train in recent years as I have about the 3.5L in the Tacoma. There are tons of documented buyers unloading their truck due to their disgust of the motor and tranny alone.

The engine isn't great, but it does work reliably enough. The rest of the platform is pretty vetted and proven at this point. It's hard for me to consider something a "disappointment" or believe the hype on massive owner turnover's when the truck is selling like hotcakes. Yeah, it's not perfect, not by a long stretch, but it obviously competes well enough in the market that it's dominating the sales charts and maintains very good resale value (best in class actually).

That said, if the Ranger isn't a complete bust I am sure that in time it will eclipse the Tacoma in sales once again, sheer volume alone will make sure of it.

So your proof that the Tacoma is a "disappointment" is that Ranger sales will likely eclipse it's sales? Well that's speculation on your part, but keep in mind that the whole reason Ford stopped selling that truck in North American in the first place was because they got drummed out of the midsized market segment, namely by Toyota.

really? why is it Toyota fans completely dismiss even the other evidence in this very thread???? C'mon... at least try to pretend to be objective.

I'm not dismissive of the faults Toyota has had in years past; I acknowledge them. But why is it that you have to go as far back as 30 years to find an example of a Toyota engine that had poor reliability (which is a debatable topic unto itself), whereas you need only look back 5-8 years to find examples of unreliable Ford engines?

Really? You can't think of ONE example? How about fuel mileage? Tacomas get worse gas mileage than other brands full-size truck lines. Not to mention the screw up with the new transmission in the Tacoma. The Tundra on the other hand is lucky to see 15 mpg while Ford, RAM, and GM are all around the 22 mark with diesel options capable of closer to 30 mpg.

Fuel economy? Well if we go by calculated averages, instead of big fish tales from biased owners, the new Tacoma does in fact get better fuel economy than most in the 1/2 ton segment (minus some of the diesel offerings). The only gasoline 1/2 ton that even comes close is the F-150 w/ 2.7l ecoboost. But to suggest that all or even many of the gasoline 1/2 tons have found some magical way to get better mpg's than gasoline midsized trucks is wishful thinking on your part.

And by the way, none of the gasoline 1/2 tons are averaging anything close to 22 mpg in real world driving. The Tundra isn't very efficient; the other 1/2 tons are only slightly better.

Toyota has realiability. That's what keeps people coming back. But lets not act like every other manufacturer's product is garbage when it comes to reliability as well. There are plenty of older domestic trucks on the market with hundreds of thousands of miles.

I never said that everything outside of Toyota was "garbage." But let's not pretend that everyone is on equal footing when it comes to reliability and longevity. You need only take the briefest of strolls through the NHTSA or CarComplaints website to see how all the brands compare in terms of recalls, TSB's, and consumer complaints. The data is out there and easily accessible...I think some people just refuse to open their eyes and read it.

 

[docwatson]

So your proof that the Tacoma is a "disappointment" is that Ranger sales will likely eclipse it's sales? Well that's speculation on your part, but keep in mind that the whole reason Ford stopped selling that truck in North American in the first place was because they got drummed out of the midsized market segment, namely by Toyota.

I think the Ranger is a great example of a vehicle that stopped keeping with market demands and got left by the wayside.

The great news is that in the next year or so we will see a redesigned Tundra, rumored to sport a 3.5TT, and an updated F150 and then we can start this discussion all over.

 

[Dalko43]

I think the Ranger is a great example of a vehicle that stopped keeping with market demands and got left by the wayside.

Well I guess that is the exact discrepancy I am addressing.

People criticize the Tundra for being "old" or the new Tacoma for being a "disappointment," and yet both vehicles have grown their sales over the last few years.

The last version of the Ranger (prior to the reintroduction) went largely unchanged for over a decade and it was literally pushed out of the midsized market.

Market demands dictate what the OEM's will do; if people are still willing to buy Tacoma's and Tundra's, dated or unimpressive as they might be, then Toyota has no reason to make drastic changes or rush through product development.

 

[docwatson]

I think a portion of that growth can be attributed to more buyers moving toward SUVs and trucks in generally. The Frontier has had its strongest three years of sales and was released when GW Bush was reelected. So the market in general is favorable for the Tundra, whether it could have grabbed a greater market share during that growth if it had been refreshed, we will never know.

But newer doesn't always equal better. That's just a perception.

 

[bkg]

People complaining about referencing a 24 year old engine are the some folks refuse to acknowledge toyota’s Recent issues as “nuh-uh!!! That doesn’t count! That’s different!” Let’s try to be at least somewhat intellectually honest, mkay?

 

[bkg]

People criticize the Tundra for being "old" or the new Tacoma for being a "disappointment," and yet both vehicles have grown their sales over the last few years.

The last version of the Ranger (prior to the reintroduction) went largely unchanged for over a decade and it was literally pushed out of the midsized market.

These two paragraphs are the perfect example of fanboyism.... than you for summarizing.

 

[Deleted member 9101]

But newer doesn't always equal better. That's just a perception.

I have owned three generations of F150s and both generations of Tundra. The newer trucks always out preformed their predecessors.

 

[FJR Colorado]

Even though I would not own a Ford, I thought their announcement about a diesel F150 was a positive development and bought a bunch of Ford stock. It turned out to be a dud too...

 

[IdaSHO]

Even though I would not own a Ford, I thought their announcement about a diesel F150 was a positive development and bought a bunch of Ford stock. It turned out to be a dud too...

Uh.... buy stock in a business like Ford for long term gains, not short term hype/speculation

Unless you are a day trader.....

 

[FJR Colorado]

Uh.... buy stock in a business like Ford for long term gains, not short term hype/speculation

Unless you are a day trader.....

Who said it was some sort of short-term play?

Have you seen what Ford stock looks like since 1999? (hint: it is down about 75%)

 

[Dalko43]

I think a portion of that growth can be attributed to more buyers moving toward SUVs and trucks in generally. The Frontier has had its strongest three years of sales and was released when GW Bush was reelected. So the market in general is favorable for the Tundra, whether it could have grabbed a greater market share during that growth if it had been refreshed, we will never know.

I think that trend is a factor in the sales growth for all brands of trucks and SUV's, not just Toyota.

My point is both the Tacoma and the Tundra have shown sales growth over the last few years (more so for the former than for the latter). Despite what some on here claim, Toyota isn't under any financial pressure to revamp or update its offerings because people are still willing to buy their products in great enough numbers.

That's not to say that I don't think there is any room for improvement with either vehicle...there always is. But to suggest that either vehicle is severely lagging the competition in terms of performance and capability is just indicative of bandwagon thinking. People see some online journalist comment about the Tundra's "age factor" and they regurgitate that statement as if it has any meaning.

I'm not arguing that the Tundra isn't old or that the Tacoma isn't a bit underwhelming in the engine department...I am arguing that, despite those factors, both vehicles compete well enough against everything else within their respective market segments. People want to sit here and pretend that something like the F-150 has revolutionized the 1/2 ton market...it hasn't. It's somewhat lighter, slightly more efficient, and has slightly more refined tech...it's still a gasoline 1/2 ton, with all the same pro's and con's and it's certainly not a giant leap forward over Toyota's design by any stretch of the imagination.

These two paragraphs are the perfect example of fanboyism.... than you for summarizing.

Refer to what I said above.

I'm not the type who will argue that Toyota vehicles don't have any faults...they have plenty. I also don't how you can casually throw around the "fanboy" label when you and your fellow Ford owners are coming into a Toyota section of the forum to lecture everyone on how the Tundra is an outdated and overrated pickup truck.

 

[bkg]

I'm not the type who will argue that Toyota vehicles don't have any faults...they have plenty. I also don't how you can casually throw around the "fanboy" label when you and your fellow Ford owners are coming into a Toyota section of the forum to lecture everyone on how the Tundra is an outdated and overrated pickup truck.

I own 4 Toyotas, dude... Two Tacoma's and two 4Runners. And one Ford. As I've stated previously, I've owned 4 1st Gen Tundra's and 3 Second Gen Tundras, the last being a 2015 CM... I'm fairly well versed in Toyotas, Tundra's especially, so I think i am somewhat able to make side by side comparisons to my F350. I'm not sure that many of the "Tundra's are better because they are old and Ford sucks" folks can make the same "I've owned both" statements.

My point about your previous post is that you fault Ford for not keeping up re: Ranger and yet don't fault Toyota at all for using the same "business" model with the Tundra. Sure, overall sales are up - across all truck markets. People don't seem to be taking that into account.

There seems to be a sever lack of objectivity amongst many Toyota owners (and Ford owners, and Ram owners, and GM owners.... ), especially in this thread.

 

[Dalko43]

My point about your previous post is that you fault Ford for not keeping up re: Ranger and yet don't fault Toyota at all for using the same "business" model with the Tundra. Sure, overall sales are up - across all truck markets. People don't seem to be taking that into account.

If you actually read the whole comment, what I was demonstrating by making that comparison is that the Tundra is obviously still relevant and desired in today's market, despite its age, whereas the Ranger was most definitely not well received at the end of its previous production run.

My point is that age is not the sole determining factor in how a vehicle performs or fares in the market or on the road. Some people are willing to buy older vehicles, likely because there are other advantages (perceived or real) which make up for the age.

 

[IdaSHO]

Who said it was some sort of short-term play?

Have you seen what Ford stock looks like since 1999? (hint: it is down about 75%)

You did yourself, claiming you picked up stock simply because of a new motor.
That's a short term play.

And yes, I'm well aware of Ford stock. I'm also aware that it isn't all about how it looks on the graph.
I've had a bit of Ford stock for 15+ years. With Ford, its all about dividends. Its a high yield dividend stock.

 

[docwatson]

I think that trend is a factor in the sales growth for all brands of trucks and SUV's, not just Toyota.

My point is both the Tacoma and the Tundra have shown sales growth over the last few years (more so for the former than for the latter). Despite what some on here claim, Toyota isn't under any financial pressure to revamp or update its offerings because people are still willing to buy their products in great enough numbers.

I agree so let's not sit here and act like the Tundra sales are growing because of what it is. Its sales are growing because just about all SUV and truck sales are growing.

Toyota isn't under the financial pressure because they offer a diverse model lineup and have ROW platforms. All their eggs aren't in one basket if you will. If Ford screws up the F150, well then FJR's stock will take a real beating.