The f150 did better
Tundra vs F150
- Thread starter rrflyer
- Start date
- Status
That top pic is after the cab was cut for patient extrication. The second truck was hit by a semi at 40 plus mph. Id say they both did great
toylandcruiser
Expedition Leader
Todd780
OverCamper
Those are 37's with a 2" level?2" in the front is all the lift you need (plus some trimming). There is no decrease in articulation and the ride certainly won't be "rougher" due to tire size. A regear will fix any other "problems". Larger tires are the best way to gain ground clearance.
37s look about right on a Tundra IMO...
Far from a troll. The explain how over time it did worse at the exact same test it at one time did good at. Others improving shouldn’t effect the outcome of the tundra.
The scores are relative. If the best score is a 100, and the Tundra gets a 100 in 2009, then what does a truck that scored better get? 106? They cap the best at a given value and rate the rest relative to that performance.
Just because you win 14 games every year doesn’t mean you get to go to the bowl every year.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
rruff
Explorer
No, that's no lift at all. He claims no rub on the street, but sometimes offroad. Swaybar was removed plus some simple plastic and skidplate trimming. Don't know if he trimmed the body mount.
The "secret" is to use rims that have slightly less offset than stock. Those rims above have +50mm offset, vs stock +60. I have fat 35s on mine with +25 offset (also no lift). I had to remove flaps, trim the skidplate and some plastic, and cut the body mount, but the swaybar is fine and it doesn't rub anytime. You can fit 37s with +25 offset and little lift, just need to be a little more aggressive with the trimming.
Todd780
OverCamper
I'll have to see if I can find a pic of yours on 35's. No level or anything, hey? Interesting.
rruff
Explorer
I'll save you the trouble... 
www.tundratalk.net
Big fat tires (325/65r18); no lift 2016 SR DC Long 4x4
www.tundratalk.net
D
Deleted member 9101
Guest
I have owned 4 F150's (1990, 1991, 1997, 2017) and have had two as work trucks (2013,2015). All of them were every bit as reliable as the 2 Tundras (2002, 2012) I owned.
The nice thing about the Fords is they have a damn near indestructible 10 speed and can be rated to tow and haul more than the Tundra could ever be rated for, plus it has better brakes. The aluminum body means zero rust issues and the aftermarket support is insane.
The 5.0/2.7/3.5 are widely supported by performance parts manufacturers.... not so much with the Tundras 5.7.
The nice thing about the Fords is they have a damn near indestructible 10 speed and can be rated to tow and haul more than the Tundra could ever be rated for, plus it has better brakes. The aluminum body means zero rust issues and the aftermarket support is insane.
The 5.0/2.7/3.5 are widely supported by performance parts manufacturers.... not so much with the Tundras 5.7.
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 9101
Guest
The 3.5 will flat out destroy any V8 1/2 ton when it comes to power. I have had both in work trucks and the 5.slow doesn't begin to compare to the 3.5 when it comes to pulling power.
toylandcruiser
Expedition Leader
So if 100 is perfect and the tundra scored 100. It’s perfect. Just because something scored a 106 doesn’t mean the score of 100 is less than what it was.
toylandcruiser
Expedition Leader
You’re not either. If the test is exactly the same. The truck shouldn’t perform worse. So if it
Was safe 3 years ago I’m not all of a sudden going to die in an accident because another truck does better.
rruff
Explorer
These days it's expected that you can slam into a concrete wall at 70mph (because you were texting and ran off the road) and walk away unscathed. Anything less is unacceptable...
Like most official testing, the manufacturers learn to design vehicles specifically to perform for the test. That doesn't necessarily mean they are better in the real world though.
- Status