Tundra vs F150

[bkg]

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?

nope... but other mfg's did at the time. So now you're citing "new technologies" as a good thing... BTW - my 2015 was promised to have a brake controller... IT finally arrived in... 2017 or 2018? 38 gallon tank arrived in 2017? Adjustable headlights were available in 07.

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?

If there were improvements to the underlying platform, I promise that I would acknowledge. But there haven't been any, outside of correcting issues like cam oiling, etc.

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.

What does it tell me about other OEM's priorities? What does it tell me about Toyota 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.

I'm stating the Tundra hasn't fundamentally changed since 2007. I am also stating that it makes no logical sense for someone to spend new-truck-money on a package that hasn't changed in 12 years.

As for "less robust" components... that is somewhat subjective. I'm not at all a fan of the Tundra's frame... the Tundra's transmission (tow-haul mode isn't well programmed)… and other areas. But to say that other mfg's are only providing less robust components is a hard argument to stick to unless all components are compared, including Toyota's weak areas.

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.

"over-built 1/2 tons on the market"... Maybe by ring gear and rotor size... but beyond that, i'd challenge that statement.

Again... why would someone buy a 1987 chevy when it's nearly identical to a 1973 chevy c/k truck? That's the question i'm asking the Toyota fans as well... those same fans who insist that older is better...

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.

As long as people are willing to look at Toyota with as critical an eye, then fine. I think people gloss over Toyota's issues while pointing fingers at other MFG's lesser issues (frame rust, broken motor mounts (Tacoma), cam oiling issues (early 5.7)… ******** happens. Toyota is not immune. And I bet a number of "Toyota is better because it's older" folks will buy a redesigned Tundra citing its improvements over current model. [/quote]

 

[Dalko43]

nope... but other mfg's did at the time. So now you're citing "new technologies" as a good thing... BTW - my 2015 was promised to have a brake controller... IT finally arrived in... 2017 or 2018? 38 gallon tank arrived in 2017? Adjustable headlights were available in 07.

A lot of those features were offered starting in 2016, which quite honestly is line with how the rest of the 1/2 ton market was progressing at that point. Some of the other OEM's still don't offer the above features (38 gallon tank, adjustable headlights). So you're going to complain that the Tundra was too slow to offer these features, but give a pass to those more "modern" OEM's which still lack some of those features?

If there were improvements to the underlying platform, I promise that I would acknowledge. But there haven't been any, outside of correcting issues like cam oiling, etc.

Well I'm sure a total platform revamp is right around the corner, but again I ask: what changes is the Toyota platform in dire need of? The truck seems to work well, and last for a while, in its current form. In my mind, a rear locker is the only obvious platform component that is missing.

I'm stating the Tundra hasn't fundamentally changed since 2007. I am also stating that it makes no logical sense for someone to spend new-truck-money on a package that hasn't changed in 12 years.

Well that entire topic is subjective, but the idea that the Tundra is a bad buy is laughable. Tundra's can be had for a good price, especially with the SR5 and Limited Trims (easily under $50k if you know how to shop). Moreover, they hold their value well compared to other 1/2 tons, which is a testament to how much the market values the Tundra, despite its age.

It seems odd that you're going to criticize the Tundra as a bad buy, but then ignore the fact that $60k-$70k F-150's are the new norm...those vehicles encounter massive depreciation in the first few years of ownership.

As for "less robust" components... that is somewhat subjective. I'm not at all a fan of the Tundra's frame... the Tundra's transmission (tow-haul mode isn't well programmed)… and other areas. But to say that other mfg's are only providing less robust components is a hard argument to stick to unless all components are compared, including Toyota's weak areas.

"over-built 1/2 tons on the market"... Maybe by ring gear and rotor size... but beyond that, i'd challenge that statement.

I'd challenge you to go look at the underlying chassis components (powertrain, transmission, driveline, axles, brakes). For all of its superior tow and payload ratings, the F-150's construction and components aren't of the same quality as that of the Tundra's.

Differential size, tow-hitch, brakes are all part of the engineering equation when it comes to assigning tow and payload numbers...oddly enough those components on the F-150, despite being "newer" and rated "higher," are inferior in construction and size compared to what's on the Tundra.

Toyota takes the time to disassemble million-mile Tundra's and abused ranch trucks to evaluate their components and find ways to improve the design....Oddly enough, I hardly ever see the other OEM's doing that with their 1/2 tons.


So complain all you want that the Tundra is old. It is a well-designed and robust truck, even by modern standards. 10 years from now, go look and see how a Tundra is holding up and what kind of resale value its fetching and compare that to the F-150. The analytics have already been done on the older generations, and they showed the Tundra fared better.

I'm obviously not saying that there isn't any room for improvement, but to simply write off the Tundra because it's old is a amateurish way to analyze these trucks. Durability, cost of ownership (which takes resale value into account), and robustness are more important to me than the latest and greatest in tech features and lightweight body construction.

 

[toylandcruiser]

A lot of those features were offered starting in 2016, which quite honestly is line with how the rest of the 1/2 ton market was progressing at that point. Some of the other OEM's still don't offer the above features (38 gallon tank, adjustable headlights). So you're going to complain that the Tundra was too slow to offer these features, but give a pass to those more "modern" OEM's which still lack some of those features?




Well I'm sure a total platform revamp is right around the corner, but again I ask: what changes is the Toyota platform in dire need of? The truck seems to work well, and last for a while, in its current form. In my mind, a rear locker is the only obvious platform component that is missing.





Well that entire topic is subjective, but the idea that the Tundra is a bad buy is laughable. Tundra's can be had for a good price, especially with the SR5 and Limited Trims (easily under $50k if you know how to shop). Moreover, they hold their value well compared to other 1/2 tons, which is a testament to how much the market values the Tundra, despite its age.

It seems odd that you're going to criticize the Tundra as a bad buy, but then ignore the fact that $60k-$70k F-150's are the new norm...those vehicles encounter massive depreciation in the first few years of ownership.




I'd challenge you to go look at the underlying chassis components (powertrain, transmission, driveline, axles, brakes). For all of its superior tow and payload ratings, the F-150's construction and components aren't of the same quality as that of the Tundra's.

Differential size, tow-hitch, brakes are all part of the engineering equation when it comes to assigning tow and payload numbers...oddly enough those components on the F-150, despite being "newer" and rated "higher," are inferior in construction and size compared to what's on the Tundra.

Toyota takes the time to disassemble million-mile Tundra's and abused ranch trucks to evaluate their components and find ways to improve the design....Oddly enough, I hardly ever see the other OEM's doing that with their 1/2 tons.


So complain all you want that the Tundra is old. It is a well-designed and robust truck, even by modern standards. 10 years from now, go look and see how a Tundra is holding up and what kind of resale value its fetching and compare that to the F-150. The analytics have already been done on the older generations, and they showed the Tundra fared better.

I'm obviously not saying that there isn't any room for improvement, but to simply write off the Tundra because it's old is a amateurish way to analyze these trucks. Durability, cost of ownership (which takes resale value into account), and robustness are more important to me than the latest and greatest in tech features and lightweight body construction.

His history of disgust for the tundra is well documented. He more trolls these threads than helps

 

[bkg]

Well that entire topic is subjective, but the idea that the Tundra is a bad buy is laughable. Tundra's can be had for a good price, especially with the SR5 and Limited Trims (easily under $50k if you know how to shop). Moreover, they hold their value well compared to other 1/2 tons, which is a testament to how much the market values the Tundra, despite its age.

It seems odd that you're going to criticize the Tundra as a bad buy, but then ignore the fact that $60k-$70k F-150's are the new norm...those vehicles encounter massive depreciation in the first few years of ownership.

I haven't said the Tundra is bad... I've simply stated it's essentially the same truck as it was in 2007...

I'd challenge you to go look at the underlying chassis components (powertrain, transmission, driveline, axles, brakes). For all of its superior tow and payload ratings, the F-150's construction and components aren't of the same quality as that of the Tundra's.

Differential size, tow-hitch, brakes are all part of the engineering equation when it comes to assigning tow and payload numbers...oddly enough those components on the F-150, despite being "newer" and rated "higher," are inferior in construction and size compared to what's on the Tundra.

isn't that a contradiction? If rating is based on component strength, shouldn't the other 1/2 tons have lower ratings (if they use inferior components).

Toyota takes the time to disassemble million-mile Tundra's and abused ranch trucks to evaluate their components and find ways to improve the design....Oddly enough, I hardly ever see the other OEM's doing that with their 1/2 tons.

Toyota did that to one truck, IIRC. I don't know if any others have, beyond Ford tearing into the 3.5 ecoboost, live, after it's baja 1000(?) race.

So complain all you want that the Tundra is old. It is a well-designed and robust truck, even by modern standards. 10 years from now, go look and see how a Tundra is holding up and what kind of resale value its fetching and compare that to the F-150. The analytics have already been done on the older generations, and they showed the Tundra fared better.

Toyota has great resale... much is earned, much is emotional. It also varies across geographies. I was offered $3k less on trade on my f350 than I paid 2.5 years ago. Darned good retention of perceived value. Shoot, my 4runner will sell for more than I sold my 96 for 15 years ago... crazy what inflation will do.

Pointing out that the Tundra is old is simply fact. That people call it selling feature and seek it out is what I question.

I'm obviously not saying that there isn't any room for improvement, but to simply write off the Tundra because it's old is a amateurish way to analyze these trucks. Durability, cost of ownership (which takes resale value into account), and robustness are more important to me than the latest and greatest in tech features and lightweight body construction.

There is plenty of room for improvement - for the Tundra, my Ford, my JK, my Tacoma's and my wife's 4runner. I think that the MFG's have invested more in improving vehicles than Toyota has in the Tundra. Does that mean the Tundra was just that far ahead when it launched in 2007? Quite possibly. It's subjective.

 

[bkg]

His history of disgust for the tundra is well documented. He more trolls these threads than helps

Disgust? I've owned 7 Tundra (4 first gen, 3 second gen)… I prefer to think of my opinions as experiential in nature.

 

[Dalko43]

isn't that a contradiction? If rating is based on component strength, shouldn't the other 1/2 tons have lower ratings (if they use inferior components).

The point I'm making is that those other 1/2 ton trucks, have brakes, axles, rear differentials, trailer hitches and gearing that are the same or, in some cases, inferior to those of the Tundra, despite having higher tow and payload ratings. The other OEM's are of the mind to push for higher ratings with less engineering changes, while Toyota over-engineers but keeps their tow/payload ratings conservative...very different mindsets between the two groups.

I think you ought to compare what's going underneath these trucks with a visual inspection....ratings, numbers and journalist small talk only give a very small representation of the engineering that went into these trucks, and often the OEM's ratings are heavily influenced by marketing and brand pride.

Toyota did that to one truck, IIRC. I don't know if any others have, beyond Ford tearing into the 3.5 ecoboost, live, after it's baja 1000(?) race.

They've done it with more than one truck: Million-mile Tundra, and a truck they loaned for 100k miles to a Texas ranch (which evidently is a common practice with their QDR division).

What's interesting about Baja is that Toyota pretty much races their Tundra's and Tacoma's in factory form; obviously the suspension is changed up, but the underlying platform is the same as what us consumers buy from the dealerships. Whereas Ford pretty much rebuilt the F-150 from the ground-up to make it Baja-ready (Raptor).

I'm not saying the F-150 is junk, but its quite obvious one company puts a bit more emphasis on durability and longevity than the other.

Toyota has great resale... much is earned, much is emotional. It also varies across geographies. I was offered $3k less on trade on my f350 than I paid 2.5 years ago. Darned good retention of perceived value. Shoot, my 4runner will sell for more than I sold my 96 for 15 years ago... crazy what inflation will do.

Pointing out that the Tundra is old is simply fact. That people call it selling feature and seek it out is what I question.

Well firstly, a Super Duty (as with most 3/4 and 1 tons) will retain its value better than most other pickups simply because of the engineering that goes into that vehicle....not at all comparable to the depreciation trends that F-150's and most other 1/2 tons go through. There are exceptions of course ($80k King Ranch super-luxury F-250's), but a lower trim, diesel 3/4 or 1 ton generally does very well on the used market.

Secondly, no one is arguing that the Tundra isn't old; rather I was pointing out that its age certainly hasn't caused the truck to perform any worse on the road, offroad or in the transactional markets. They work well and they sell well. The latter point is important, and directly counters this view of yours that the Tundra is somehow a "bad buy." Some of that may in fact be attributed to market hype and consumer emotions, but then again those factors arguably influence Ford, GM and FCA consumers equally as much, if not more so. Some of that is no doubt attributed to the truck just being a solid performer and being priced and sold as per the market demands.

 

[toylandcruiser]

Disgust? I've owned 7 Tundra (4 first gen, 3 second gen)… I prefer to think of my opinions as experiential in nature.

You keep buying them but yet you keep down talking them. Interesting.

 

[Buliwyf]

They can't be that good if you've gone through seven of them.

I get much of my Ford advice from guys with just one 20 year old truck. That's more impressive to me. And possibly why I'm so biased against 1/2 tons.

 

[Trikebubble]

Secondly, no one is arguing that the Tundra isn't old; rather I was pointing out that its age certainly has caused the truck to perform any worse on the road, offroad or in the transactional markets. They work well and they sell well. The latter point is important, and directly counters this view of yours that the Tundra is somehow a "bad buy." Some of that may in fact be attributed to market hype and consumer emotions, but then again those factors arguably influence Ford, GM and FCA consumers equally as much, if not more so. Some of that is no doubt attributed to the truck just being a solid performer and being priced and sold as per the market demands.

I find it interesting that the same qualities ("old", tried-true, proven reliability) that drew me (and many others) to purchase a Tundra for extended lifetime of use are both the same reasons why their seems to be so much anti-Tundra fanboy opinions on them as well as the exact reasons why people are always so ga-ga must-have for old Land Cruisers et all. Every day you hear people complain because the newest technology in their newest vehicle isn't working as they feel it should, or their seatbelts are catching on fire, and pining for "something more simple that just gets the job done without complaining"..... and here I am in my Tundra thinking, yeah I made the right buying choice.

 

[Dalko43]

I find it interesting that the same qualities ("old", tried-true, proven reliability) that drew me (and many others) to purchase a Tundra for extended lifetime of use are both the same reasons why their seems to be so much anti-Tundra fanboy opinions on them as well as the exact reasons why people are always so ga-ga must-have for old Land Cruisers et all. Every day you hear people complain because the newest technology in their newest vehicle isn't working as they feel it should, or their seatbelts are catching on fire, and pining for "something more simple that just gets the job done without complaining"..... and here I am in my Tundra thinking, yeah I made the right buying choice.

Typo in my post which you referenced: meant to say "hasn't caused" instead of "has caused."

That aside, I agree with the above. The Tundra is relying on an old platform at this point; some people see that as a huge negative while others see it as a positive.

And again, I'll point out that the Tundra w/ its thirsty v8 gets lambasted for being a dinosaur, but yet no one seems to mind that GM and FCA are still putting pushrod v8's into their 1/2 tons, or that all 3 (FCA, GM, Ford) continue to increase their claimed ratings despite relying upon chassis and driveline components that are similar or inferior to what the lowly Tundra uses. There are too many truckbuyers nowadays who have a superficial understanding and appreciation of what's going on underneath the body panels of these trucks.

 

[peekay]

I am also stating that it makes no logical sense for someone to spend new-truck-money on a package that hasn't changed in 12 years.

Unless you're saying that you want new, just for newness sake, your statement doesn't make any logical sense. Most of us do not care if a truck design is 2, 5, or 10 years old -- as long as it: 1) still works well; and/or 2) it's better than or equal to the competition. The age of the design, in of itself, is really irrelevant to many of us. For example, how old is the wheel? Probably thousands of years. Do I care if it's an old design? Nope, because it works well and nothing is really better. Similarly, I seem to recall that the Ford Superduty cab didn't change for a really really long time. I once had a '99 F250 and I think the basic design was around for well over 10 years and candidly to me, the new ones just look like an updated version to me. But I never complained that it was an "old" design. It was a beautiful and classic design when it debuted and remained so for that whole time (especially compared to those ugly GMs!).

Using the metrics above, the Tundra is still highly competitive to the F150, et al-- and certainly not as disadvantaged as the reviews and many forum posters claim. If the competition developed 450ft lb torque engines, with 200,000 mile reliability, while getting 28mpg on the highway, and costing $45k for a 4wd crewcab, nicely loaded, then I'm all for it. But so far, the difference isn't that great. Even the cosmetic improvements of the competition aren't as great as I expected.

 

[peekay]

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.

Those magazines and websites need change to justify their existence. They make their living off splitting hairs.

 

[Dougnuts]

Using the metrics above, the Tundra is still highly competitive to the F150, et al-- and certainly not as disadvantaged as the reviews and many forum posters claim. If the competition developed 450ft lb torque engines, with 200,000 mile reliability, while getting 28mpg on the highway, and costing $45k for a 4wd crewcab, nicely loaded, then I'm all for it. But so far, the difference isn't that great. Even the cosmetic improvements of the competition aren't as great as I expected.

My F150 with max tow package hits all of your list except highway mileage. Computer says I get about 23, in good conditions, on the highway. If I actually did the math, I’d guess I’m probably getting 21.

Regarding a post above, about some people seeing the age of the Tundra as a negative and some as a positive, in the end they are both right. I bought my Outback with the flat 6 because it was a tried and true design at the time, but I bought my 2018 F150 because of the Gen2 3.5TT, 10-speed, payload, aluminum body, electronic rear locker, price, fuel economy, massive torque, aftermarket and the fact that they sell so well, most any issue will have a solution available.

 

[Buliwyf]

What size are the wheelwells on the new Tundra's? That's been a problem in the past. I believe my F250's wheelwells are 42" across.

 

[tacollie]

What size are the wheelwells on the new Tundra's? That's been a problem in the past. I believe my F250's wheelwells are 42" across.

If you want 42" any 1/2 ton is wrong. Guys are show horning 35" in Tundras and f150 but I consider that the limit before it gets impractical. Just my opinion.