Tundra vs F150

[tacollie]

This thread is funny. They are both good trucks. Drive both and buy the one you like. Or buy the one you can get better price on.

To the people saying the Tundra is slow. What situation are you in where it isn't fast enough? Not once have I longed for more power and I have a heavy foot.

Dont forget, you can get the F150 with the HD Payload package which puts it heads and shoulders above the Tundra from a payload & towing perspective. Also 36 gallon tank which is nice for an expo rig. I like the Tundra and have had good luck with Toyota's in the past, but I'd get a HD F150 w/3.5 EB and call it a day.

F150 (Supercrew 4x4 long bed); Tow = 11,500 lbs, Payload = 2,690
Tundra (Crew); Tow = 8800, Payload = 1520

Quite the difference!

Tudra can tow 10200 and has a 38 gallon tank. But if your towing that regularly they are both the wrong truck.

 

[Todd780]

This thread is funny. They are both good trucks. Drive both and buy the one you like. Or buy the one you can get better price on.

Tudra can tow 10200 and has a 38 gallon tank. But if your towing that regularly they are both the wrong truck.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Buliwyf]

So how does Ford do stellar on the crash tests but in the real world, this happens? I don't think I'd want my truck coming apart like this.

View attachment 510595


View attachment 510596

View attachment 510597

View attachment 510598

Also, the extended cab fords don't do quite as well as the crew cab fords.

That's cute. Then don't hit a guy wire at 90mph or roll the truck two dozen times at similar speeds. Do you think a Tundra would have fair'd better?

Anecdotal at best. That's like saying Tundra's are no good in coastal states because:

 

[Todd780]

That's cute. Then don't hit a guy wire at 90mph or roll the truck two dozen times at similar speeds. Do you think a Tundra would have fair'd better?

Anecdotal at best. That's like saying Tundra's are no good in coastal states because:

Huh. I thought maybe that was just James Bonds new ride.

 

[bkg]

I bought a Tundra for the reliability and because it was "dated".

But... why buy a new Tundra when you can buy a 2007 and have essentially the same vehicle? I think that's the point of the "dated" comments. If people want a "dated" vehicle, all the power to them. But it seems odd to spend $50k on a new-12-year-old truck... in that context, "dated" is an appropriate term.

 

[rruff]

But... why buy a new Tundra when you can buy a 2007 and have essentially the same vehicle?

Because it will be old and worn out? And if it isn't it will not be cheap because Tundras don't depreciate.

What important improvements have been made to light trucks that you'd be missing out on by buying a 12 year old design? Frankly I wish it was a more dated. My '86 pickup is modern enough.

BTW, I paid $31.2k for mine new, 2.5 years ago. Yes I know you can pay a lot more for higher trim and such, but the stuff that costs more isn't 12 years old either.

 

[nickw]

This thread is funny. They are both good trucks. Drive both and buy the one you like. Or buy the one you can get better price on.

To the people saying the Tundra is slow. What situation are you in where it isn't fast enough? Not once have I longed for more power and I have a heavy foot.


Tudra can tow 10200 and has a 38 gallon tank. But if your towing that regularly they are both the wrong truck.

If considering a camper the F150 is the clear winner, nothing to do with my perception, just the facts.

Toyota documentation shows 8800 for a CrewMax 4x4 in a non base trim. I picked something that was comparable to the F150. The "base" SR5 4x4 looks like it can tow more. I'm guessing you are looking at a 2wd long bed.

 

[bkg]

Because it will be old and worn out? And if it isn't it will not be cheap because Tundras don't depreciate.

What important improvements have been made to light trucks that you'd be missing out on by buying a 12 year old design? Frankly I wish it was a more dated. My '86 pickup is modern enough.

BTW, I paid $31.2k for mine new, 2.5 years ago. Yes I know you can pay a lot more for higher trim and such, but the stuff that costs more isn't 12 years old either.

Tundra's do appreciate. And "old and worn out" isn't a phrase you're allowed to use in reference to Toyota.

Bear in mind, you are not the average consumer....

 

[tacollie]

If considering a camper the F150 is the clear winner, nothing to do with my perception, just the facts.

Toyota documentation shows 8800 for a CrewMax 4x4 in a non base trim. I picked something that was comparable to the F150. The "base" SR5 4x4 looks like it can tow more. I'm guessing you are looking at a 2wd long bed.

View attachment 510847

I never looked at the Platinum package because I don't want that crap. Also, they lowered the tow numbers and I didn't realize it. My 08 double cab 4wd is 10300. I didn't look at the new numbers because I was buying used.

 

[Dalko43]

Can someone with a lot of money and time simply buy both trucks and give them a good long term test. Please!!!

Well just for the record, there have been long term tests of sorts (reliability and resale value). The Tundra has consistently been a top performer in both categories according to any number of media and auto analyst groups.

The F-150 isn't a bad truck.
The Tundra isn't indestructible.

Test-drive both, and figure out which one you like. Average mpg's between the two won't be vastly different (fuelly and real-world owner results confirm that). The Tundra is a more reliable vehicle, but the F-150 certainly isn't a mass-produced lemon; enough of them are running on the road to prove that. The F-150 HD is rated for higher payload and towing, but keep in mind that the underlying truck is pretty much the same (same powertrain, axles, brakes) as the base-GVWR F-150. 10k lbs seems like a reasonable cap for 1/2 ton towing; anything much beyond that and you might as well look at 3/4 tons. Interior trims and options aren't all that different either, even though all the car review sites seem to think that the Tundra's interior is grossly dated and spartan. Compare a Platinum or Limited Tunrda to a high trim F-150; there isn't a huge difference.

In my mind, the Tundra is a truck person's truck while the F-150 is a truck for people who want car-like amenities and ride in a truck platform. They are very similar vehicles but with slightly different demographics.

F-150 3.5l ecoboost is very fast. But:
1) The Tundra's 5.7l v8, while not as fast as the ecoboost, certainly isn't slow compared to other trucks
and
2) If you're the type of person who judge's a truck's worthiness by its stoplight speed, then you're probably the type whose wants trump needs. 0-60 times mean jack squat for truck and 4x4 applications. Torque delivery, and offroad capabilities and traction mean a whole lot more; the Tundra's low-end torque is definitely there.

So I guess the moral of all that is: if you're totally focused on outright speed and the latest in car technology, get the F-150. If you want a reliable truck that can haul, tow and handle itself well offroad, get either.

 

[Buliwyf]

i wouldn't tow haul more than 7500# with either. 250/350 starts to become a far better choice right around there.

 

[peekay]

But... why buy a new Tundra when you can buy a 2007 and have essentially the same vehicle? I think that's the point of the "dated" comments. If people want a "dated" vehicle, all the power to them. But it seems odd to spend $50k on a new-12-year-old truck... in that context, "dated" is an appropriate term.

Have you seen a 2007 Tundra compared to a 2015+ Tundra? It's a substantial difference, both interior and exterior. The exteriors of the 2015+ Tundras look just as modern as the F150, or even brand new Dodge. The inside of the Dodge is substantially better than the Tundra, but the F150 is only marginally better.

New isn't necessarily better, particularly when you're talking about drivertrain and engine.

 

[Dalko43]

Have you seen a 2007 Tundra compared to a 2015+ Tundra? It's a substantial difference, both interior and exterior. The exteriors of the 2015+ Tundras look just as modern as the F150, or even brand new Dodge. The inside of the Dodge is substantially better than the Tundra, but the F150 is only marginally better.

New isn't necessarily better, particularly when you're talking about drivertrain and engine.

Yeah, I agree. I just don't get why so many "complain" about the Tundra's supposed inferiority due to old and stale technology.

1) The refreshed Tundra's interior isn't vastly different in terms of tech/features and build quality compared to the other brands. In fact, I think the Tundra's overall build quality still edges out that of the other 1/2 tons in some aspects.

2) The 5.7l iForce v8 has been around for a while. So too have the 5.7l Hemi, 5.0l Coyote V8 and the LS family of engines. In fact, I think it's weird that all the car media outlets (most of whom have no business doing truck reviews) like to criticize the Tundra for its "outdated" v8 engine, but don't levy that same criticism against 2 other OEM's who are still putting pushrod v8's into their 1/2 tons.

 

[bkg]

Have you seen a 2007 Tundra compared to a 2015+ Tundra? It's a substantial difference, both interior and exterior. The exteriors of the 2015+ Tundras look just as modern as the F150, or even brand new Dodge. The inside of the Dodge is substantially better than the Tundra, but the F150 is only marginally better.

New isn't necessarily better, particularly when you're talking about drivertrain and engine.

I’ve owned an 09, 11 and 15 crewmax.

In 10, Toyota mixed the sliding/reclining rear seat. In 14, the rear seat offers no accessibility to any storage behind the seat. They also mixed the trans temp gauge.

The new dash is nicer, but less functional. The “new sheet metal” is minor. Entire is almost as bad as the uConnect in my JK.

Other than minor changes to the sheet metal and interior, it’s a 2007 truck.

Nissan has the same problem with its Frontier. Toyota Sequoia is virtually unchanged since 2008. Chevy got away with it for nearly as long with their 73-87 c/k series.

People arguing newer isn’t better but then spending $50k on a “new” 12 year old truck is just confusing to me. And then marking that as a buying reason... dunno... seems odd. Makes me want to ask people why they don’t drive older vehicles... or why they bought that “all new” Tundra in 2007 instead of arguing that Toyota shouldn’t have redesigned the “proven” Tundra platform, newer not being better and all that.

Bottom line - it’s arguing both sides of the same coin. Drive both, decide what fits your lifestyle, needs, budget better instead of getting caught up in brand fanboy-ism.

 

[Dalko43]

I’ve owned an 09, 11 and 15 crewmax.

In 10, Toyota mixed the sliding/reclining rear seat. In 14, the rear seat offers no accessibility to any storage behind the seat. They also mixed the trans temp gauge.

The new dash is nicer, but less functional. The “new sheet metal” is minor. Entire is almost as bad as the uConnect in my JK.

Other than minor changes to the sheet metal and interior, it’s a 2007 truck.

Nissan has the same problem with its Frontier. Toyota Sequoia is virtually unchanged since 2008. Chevy got away with it for nearly as long with their 73-87 c/k series.

People arguing newer isn’t better but then spending $50k on a “new” 12 year old truck is just confusing to me. And then marking that as a buying reason... dunno... seems odd. Makes me want to ask people why they don’t drive older vehicles... or why they bought that “all new” Tundra in 2007 instead of arguing that Toyota shouldn’t have redesigned the “proven” Tundra platform, newer not being better and all that.

Did the 2007 have: center-screen backup camera, smart braking technology, blind-spot monitoring, 38 gallon tank, integrated trailer-brake controller, adjustable headlights, heated & leather seats?

The underlying platform is old, but I do think you're refusing to acknowledge that improvements/changes have been made to it. Heck, some of the more "modern" 1/2 tons still lack some of those features. Moreover, what about the truck (chassis, powertrain) is truly lacking as compared to the other 1/2 tons? Is the Tundra's v8 any less capable than the v8's being put out by other OEM's? Is the Tundra's chassis any less capable in 4x4 applications?

Up until the arrival of the most Ram 1500 generation, the Tundra had the biggest front brakes. It still has the biggest rear differential in the segment and the lowest gearing, even though other OEM's advertise higher towing ratings...that should tell you something about the other OEM's priorities.

So here you are complaining that the Tundra is too "old." So then illustrate how that age factor translates into tangible disadvantages for the Tundra. Other than a rear locker and maybe another gear in the transmission, what does the Tundra need in order to stay competitive with the other 1/2 tons? And explain to me why other OEM's are still relying on less robust components for their 1/2 tons which have higher GVWR's compared to that of the Tundra.

You don't have to spend $50k on a brand new Tundra; they are heavily incentivized, which makes their ownership even more appealing. The Tundra is old at this point, but it is arguably still one of the most over-built 1/2 tons on the market, and certainly the one with the best reputation for reliability. That truck also holds its value well. Those are the reasons people still flock to Toyota dealerships to buy them.

Just because something is old doesn't mean its irrelevant and incapable.
And just because something is brand new doesn't mean its better.

A lot of the truck technologies that were marketed as 'brand new' and the 'future of the market' only several years ago have now become someone's headache on the used market....the early generation ecoboost engines are prime examples of that.