Tundra vs F150

[calicamper]

The LC and LX might get driven around as urban soccer mom rigs (at least during their first ownership period) but they are sure as hell much more durable and longer lasting than the GM and Ford SUV's which engage in soccer mom duty. That's why Toyota SUV's sell so well on the used market, despite being gas pigs.

Trueish except this 4 time Toyota owner has no interest in having another over priced gas pig. Grandpas Suburban had 280,000 miles on it when we sold it for far more than scrap value. It only ever got brakes, plugs and fluids.

My dads pile of junk 1999 Explorer has 240,000 miles on it and is now being driven by a teen family member. Its only had brake pads, spark plugs and fluids.

I have actually never owned any of my Toyotas beyond 180,000 and 20yrs of age because all of them had expensive stuff to fix. On a cost to own and longevity the domestics in my family have handily out performed my Toyotas. Especially in cost to own and need for major maintenance.

My 06 Sequoia has been the best Toyota yet but it still is beat on service costs.

So after 25yrs of Toyotas and paying for them this Toyota guy has no interest in anything Toyota has today. My next wagon will probably be a domestic something. And the bonus will be if I buy new I won’t have a dealer sales staff tell me “we don’t negotiate our prices” lol. Yeah our Yota dealers are that bad. Lol

 

[nickw]

Well I'm certainly willing to admit that Toyota has been resting on its laurels to some degree...I'd like to see updated engines and improvements to some of Toyota's older designs (the Tundra in particular). But I also don't think Toyota's current vehicles are at much of a disadvantage, if at all, when it comes to offering reliability and utilitarian performance. Is the Tundra the most refined and innovative 1/2 on the market? Not by a long shot. But it lasts for a long time and will handle abuse and high work loads very well...that's what most Toyota owners want out of their vehicles.

I'm also no fan of the Tacoma's 3.5l v6...I'm sure it does well from an efficiency standpoint, but the torque delivery is lacking. It is derived from a car design, but then again so are the Colorado's 3.6l v6 and the Ranger's inline 4 ecoboost, neither of which get substantially better mpg's in the real world. I think the Colorado and Ranger have of the advantage of offering much more torquey engine options (GM's 2.8l diesel and Ranger's ecoboost). That advantage aside, the underlying platforms are no better than the Tacoma for offroad work and all-around utility. Arguably, the Tacoma is more offroad focused in its base form, whereas Ford and GM have to significantly modify their designs to provide better performance.

GX and LC's do have fancy bits here and there, but those technologies are usually heavily vetted before being incorporated. LC's KDSS adds complexity, but it's been put through its paces by plenty of owners and has proven to be a fairly robust system.

Toyota's legendary 22RE was based on the prior generation car designs like the 20R and models leading up to that one, so it's a common practice. What sets the Ranger apart from the Tacoma is it uses the 2.3 architecture from the "high performance" model with upgraded / forged internals and can withstand significant abuse. Unlike what we see in the Tacoma, which is simply the off the shelf midsize suv/car engine....which isn't to say it's bad or not reliable, but does point to the softening of their design intent for the vehicle.

They do play games too, like the manual tcases offered in the 4RT or FJC....manual lever, great, the front ADD is still all electronic so it's still heavily reliant on electronics and CPU's. Caters a bit to the old school crowd, but still fundamentally an electronic system.

I agree the Ford/Chev are no better offroad, but they are also not any worse.....and they have other advantages.

I still don't see a Tundra being any more robust or workable than a F150 HD. Do you have any specifications that point in the opposite direction?

 

[Dalko43]

Toyota's legendary 22RE was based on the prior generation car designs like the 20R and models leading up to that one, so it's a common practice. What sets the Ranger apart from the Tacoma is it uses the 2.3 architecture from the "high performance" model with upgraded / forged internals and can withstand significant abuse. Unlike what we see in the Tacoma, which is simply the off the shelf midsize suv/car engine....which isn't to say it's bad or not reliable, but does point to the softening of their design intent for the vehicle.

To my understanding, there were some tweaks Toyota made to the 3.5l v6, especially in terms of its fueling and injection strategies. That aside, Toyota's use of a global engine design is hardly different from what Ford did with its inline 4 ecoboost...you can talk about how it was derived from a "performance" model, but the fact remains Ford used a car-based engine for its Ranger, just like Toyota.

They do play games too, like the manual tcases offered in the 4RT or FJC....manual lever, great, the front ADD is still all electronic so it's still heavily reliant on electronics and CPU's. Caters a bit to the old school crowd, but still fundamentally an electronic system.

This is nothing new. Ford and Ram have the same sort of T-case designs in their 3/4 tons. Newer vehicles have more electronics...you're just stating the obvious.

I agree the Ford/Chev are no better offroad, but they are also not any worse.....and they have other advantages.

In stock form, they tend to be worse offroad: less ground clearance, lower departure/approach angles, rear shock mounts that stick below the rear diff housing, less articulation. There's an obvious difference in design intent between a SR5 Tacoma and base Colorado and Ranger.

I still don't see a Tundra being any more robust or workable than a F150 HD. Do you have any specifications that point in the opposite direction?

That F-150 HD still has smaller front brakes, a smaller rear diff, and less beefy tow hitch component compared to the Tundra....and there are subjective arguments to be made about some of the other components (transmission, transfer case, cooling components). Ford's "HD" ratings, while SAE compliant, are mostly for marketing purposes. If you want to tow much over 10k lbs on a regular basis, you're much better off going with a 3/4 ton.

 

[bkg]

Same shock mounting that Toyota has used since the 2ng gen taco.

“Worse” offroad? Meh. The ZR2 has more offroad thought out into it than the Trd pro sticker package. At least the zr2 can be had with some real truck tires.

Similar for the ranger.. especially the upcoming raptor version.

 

[calicamper]

The 2.3 Ford is using in the Ranger and 2020 Explorer (which by the way is nearly identical in size to the 1st gen Sequoia) got some major component reworking and beefing up compared to the Focus RS version. Not to mention it has diesel like torque starting at 1200rpm. The Toyota 3.6 you flog like a rented mule anytime you have a load in the Tacoma or Highlander to get things moving. The GM 3.6 is not great also more car like needing to be flogged to get power but it’s better on power than the Yota Camry engine. I would like a 2.3 plugin hybrid with 400lbs torque and 390hp. Ranger would crush every performance statistic.

 

[Deleted member 9101]

The 2.3 Ford is using in the Ranger and 2020 Explorer (which by the way is nearly identical in size to the 1st gen Sequoia) got some major component reworking and beefing up compared to the Focus RS version. Not to mention it has diesel like torque starting at 1200rpm. The Toyota 3.6 you flog like a rented mule anytime you have a load in the Tacoma or Highlander to get things moving. The GM 3.6 is not great also more car like needing to be flogged to get power but it’s better on power than the Yota Camry engine. I would like a 2.3 plugin hybrid with 400lbs torque and 390hp. Ranger would crush every performance statistic.

A Ranger with a good tune and down pipe would be a nasty animal. Even stock they have zero frying the tires.

 

[calicamper]

A Ranger with a good tune and down pipe would be a nasty animal. Even stock they have zero frying the tires.

TFL just did a basic review/ commercial for the first Ranger tune kit. Nothing crazy 100% stock and the tuned drag strip run was way different than the stock run.

 

[bernardbarbour]

Here's my 2007 Tundra in Volcano National Park Cotopaxi Ecuador. I drove from Florida to Argentina in 2017- 2018. Started my trip with over 235,00 on the clock at that time. Finished the trip with not even a "check engine" light never. Thanks my 02. Cheers!

 

[Deleted member 9101]

TFL just did a basic review/ commercial for the first Ranger tune kit. Nothing crazy 100% stock and the tuned drag strip run was way different than the stock run.

Wait until Brew City Boost gets ahold of one and gets serious, they will easily hit 500 hp at the rear wheels on 93 octane.

When I tuned my 2.7 it made a drastic difference in power and shifting.

 

[Dalko43]

Same shock mounting that Toyota has used since the 2ng gen taco.

“Worse” offroad? Meh. The ZR2 has more offroad thought out into it than the Trd pro sticker package. At least the zr2 can be had with some real truck tires.

Similar for the ranger.. especially the upcoming raptor version.

The Tacoma's shock mount location doesn't need to change; it's off to the side of the axle (close to the tires) so it has little to no impact on your ability to go over rocky terrain. Ford and GM tend to have the shocks mounted closer to the center of the axle, which affects your practical ground clearance.

The ZR2 is without a doubt, a more offroad-capable machine vs the TRD Pro, mostly due to the front mechanical locker. My point is, GM and Ford have to implement serious design changes and upgrades to make their base models more offroad-worthy...Toyota just does some slight tweaks to their already competent base designs. It's apple to oranges in terms of intent.

The 2.3 Ford is using in the Ranger and 2020 Explorer (which by the way is nearly identical in size to the 1st gen Sequoia) got some major component reworking and beefing up compared to the Focus RS version. Not to mention it has diesel like torque starting at 1200rpm. The Toyota 3.6 you flog like a rented mule anytime you have a load in the Tacoma or Highlander to get things moving. The GM 3.6 is not great also more car like needing to be flogged to get power but it’s better on power than the Yota Camry engine. I would like a 2.3 plugin hybrid with 400lbs torque and 390hp. Ranger would crush every performance statistic.

You can call it whatever you want...it's a car-derived design, just like Toyota's 3.5l v6. I'm definitely not a fan of Toyota's 3.5l. But I also don't think the Ranger's inline 4 ecoboost will be much of a game-changer...the torque is there, but the range and efficiency won't be drastically different from the rest of the segment in the real world. If I wanted a gasoline engine for tuning and bragging rights, I'd get the Ranger. If i wanted a torquey and efficient towing or hauling machine, the GM 2.8l diesel is a lot more appealing. Ultimately, while both of those engine options have their allure, people want a complete and reliable package....which is why the Tacoma still dominates the sales charts, in spite of its shortcomings.

 

[rruff]

To make matters worse, Toyota charges you more for yesterdays truck.

I would have paid extra for a larger version of the mid-80s pickup.

 

[rruff]

The Toyota 3.6 you flog like a rented mule anytime you have a load in the Tacoma or Highlander to get things moving.

It is pretty sad that the Tacoma benefits greatly from a regear even before you load it or add bigger tires.

 

[nickw]

To my understanding, there were some tweaks Toyota made to the 3.5l v6, especially in terms of its fueling and injection strategies. That aside, Toyota's use of a global engine design is hardly different from what Ford did with its inline 4 ecoboost...you can talk about how it was derived from a "performance" model, but the fact remains Ford used a car-based engine for its Ranger, just like Toyota.




This is nothing new. Ford and Ram have the same sort of T-case designs in their 3/4 tons. Newer vehicles have more electronics...you're just stating the obvious.



In stock form, they tend to be worse offroad: less ground clearance, lower departure/approach angles, rear shock mounts that stick below the rear diff housing, less articulation. There's an obvious difference in design intent between a SR5 Tacoma and base Colorado and Ranger.



That F-150 HD still has smaller front brakes, a smaller rear diff, and less beefy tow hitch component compared to the Tundra....and there are subjective arguments to be made about some of the other components (transmission, transfer case, cooling components). Ford's "HD" ratings, while SAE compliant, are mostly for marketing purposes. If you want to tow much over 10k lbs on a regular basis, you're much better off going with a 3/4 ton.

Round and round we go....

The point about the tcase was Toyota trying to cater to the old school crowd while the underpinnings of the design still rely on current tech....it was a observation about design intent.

Is it a problem in the real world? Does the F150 larger front diff make a difference? Do the older Tundras w/smaller rear diffs have issues? Do the more reliable landcruiers, used in more extreme environments have issues with their smaller rear diffs, which happen to be smaller than the F150 as well? Does the fact that the raptor uses the F150 platform (with it's 450 hp and 510 ft-lbs of torque and and 35's) outline the robustness of the platform? How about the Rangers use of the same F150 10 spd trans? I don't have any of these answers but know what the trucks are rated for and how they perform....everything else is armchair engineering.

Maybe Toyota built the car engine with HD components? What we do know is Ford upgraded the 2.3 for Hi-Po use and/or Truck use for a purpose. We know the sort of #'s it can put out and have a direct line from Ford on why they did what they did. That's the difference, it speaks to design intent. No different than a small block Chev being designed as a car engine and re-designed / bolstered for truck use.

On all accounts, the Tacoma used an off the shelf engine, originally designed for a mid-size SUV for fuel economy. To me (or several of us), that doesn't speak to the Toyota brand image nor it's heritage and the performance is sub-par.....again TO ME. I'm sure it will last a long time, but the Toyota lineage of using over-built, robust, global engine design is getting thinner and thinner by the day.

 

[calicamper]

Round and round we go....

The point about the tcase was Toyota trying to cater to the old school crowd while the underpinnings of the design still rely on current tech....it was a observation about design intent.

Is it a problem in the real world? Does the F150 larger front diff make a difference? Do the older Tundras w/smaller rear diffs have issues? Do the more reliable landcruiers, used in more extreme environments have issues with their smaller rear diffs, which happen to be smaller than the F150 as well? Does the fact that the raptor uses the F150 platform (with it's 450 hp and 510 ft-lbs of torque and and 35's) outline the robustness of the platform? How about the Rangers use of the same F150 10 spd trans? I don't have any of these answers but know what the trucks are rated for and how they perform....everything else is armchair engineering.

Maybe Toyota built the car engine with HD components? What we do know is Ford upgraded the 2.3 for Hi-Po use and/or Truck use for a purpose. We know the sort of #'s it can put out and have a direct line from Ford on why they did what they did. That's the difference, it speaks to design intent. No different than a small block Chev being designed as a car engine and re-designed / bolstered for truck use.

On all accounts, the Tacoma used an off the shelf engine, originally designed for a mid-size SUV for fuel economy. To me (or several of us), that doesn't speak to the Toyota brand image nor it's heritage and the performance is sub-par.....again TO ME. I'm sure it will last a long time, but the Toyota lineage of using over-built, robust, global engine design is getting thinner and thinner by the day.

I think my biggest issue with the engine option is the lack of grunt where it matters. Then you list all the other stuff like cab fit seat position, mileage, drum brakes, light payload early 2000’s transmission then look at the price and its just brand perception people are buying. Given the other options are soo much better in so many ways and are even competitive on price.

 

[Deleted member 9101]

That F-150 HD still has smaller front brakes, a smaller rear diff, and less beefy tow hitch component compared to the Tundra....and there are subjective arguments to be made about some of the other components (transmission, transfer case, cooling components).

Yet somehow, with those tiny front brakes the F150 manages to have a shorter stopping distance than the all mighty Tundra. It's also rated to tow and haul more than the all mighty Tundra... While getting better fuel economy and having a much higher safety rating. Perhaps Toyota used larger parts as a marketing ploy to snare people who completely ignore real world performance numbers... or perhaps they are made out of inferior materials using outdated manufacturing techniques. Either way, the F150 is rated to do more than the all mighty Tundra.


As for the transmission, transfer case, and cooling system... I fail to see a problem. There is no shortage of low 13 second F150s (mine being one of them) doing "full boost" launches in 4 high. There is also no shortage of RV parks with F150s that are towing travel trailers and having zero problems.

Sounds like you are just bitter at the fact that the Toyota Tundra is nothing special when compared to the best selling truck in America. It does nothing better, cost more, and only impresses those who stopped paying attention to vehicles a decade ago.