Tundra vs F150

[Deleted member 9101]

uh no ..
View attachment 512241

The importance of payload capacity is even greater as soon hook up a trailer.

 

[Dalko43]

Payload is a lot more important for an expo rig than towing ability, at least for most folks here. That by itself rules out the Tundra for most camper options, even the lightweight ones, where the F150 can handle them. Still don't understand your fascination with the size of the diff, it has nothing to do with this conversation, both are adequate on each rig and never pose strength issues.

Doesn't the LC200 have a higher GVWR than a Tundra? It has a 9.5" axle out back...there goes your theory, but you should probably fact check that.

It's an engineered system, maybe Toyota is more conservative, maybe it's marketing, who knows. We know what the door stickers says though which is all we can hang our hat on unless you wanna backwards engineer the vehicle.

Actually the payloads of the extended and regular cab Tundra's are perfectly suited for carrying light campers.
Payload is important, and it's also important that OEM's upgrade the important components in order to handle that added payload. To my knowledge, Ford doesn't do anything to the high-GVWR F-150 outside of slightly modifying the frame and retuning the suspension. Same brakes, same axles, same overall chassis and driveline components as the base F-150.

As for the rear diff size, that plays a huge role in determining a vehicle's longevity for longterm towing/hauling applications. The 10.4" rear differential on the Tundra is bigger, by a wide margin, than anything being used on the other 1/2 tons, despite the fact those other 1/2 tons have higher tow ratings.

The LC 200 has a higher GVWR because it weighs more than the Tundra. The payloads are roughly the same (certain variants of the Tundra have more than the LC200's 1500lb payload). More importantly, the LC200's tow rating is far less than that of the Tundra's, which reinforces my point that rear diff size plays a role in that engineering equation.

Like others have pointed out, your missing some key elements and need to understand drive ratios. True the Tundra has 4.30's in the diffs, but it has a 1st gear ratio of 3.33 which equates to drive ratio in 1st gear of 14.3. The F150 has 3.73's with 1st gear ratio of 4.7, drive ratio is 17.1, which is pretty damn low for an Automatic truck and based on what your are insinuating, would actually mean the F150 is geared (no pun intended) for towing more than the Tundra. Much more to the equation that just drive ratios though....

You're looking only at the first gear. Look and compare the 2nd through 6th gears. The Tundra's power delivery w/ the 4.30 gearing is well-regarded. Does the 3.5l ecoboost slightly edge out the Tundra's 5.7l v8 in terms of power delivery at various RPM's in certain gears? Yes, probably, which makes sense given that the ecoboost produces far more low-end torque.

However, I'd be interested in seeing a direct comparison of Ford's 5.0l V8 and the other OEM's V8's to the Tundra's 5.7l V8. The former are known for being notoriously under-geared (focused more on mpg's than power delivery) compared to the Tundra, despite producing similar torque curves and being rated to pull heavier loads.

 

[Todd780]

Notice, the arguments are now Ford vs Tundra. Chevy is no longer relevant.

Also noticed Tundra vs Ram 1500 or Titan articles don't really seem to appear much if at all.

 

[nickw]

Actually the payloads of the extended and regular cab Tundra's are perfectly suited for carrying light campers.
Payload is important, and it's also important that OEM's upgrade the important components in order to handle that added payload. To my knowledge, Ford doesn't do anything to the high-GVWR F-150 outside of slightly modifying the frame and retuning the suspension. Same brakes, same axles, same overall chassis and driveline components as the base F-150.

As for the rear diff size, that plays a huge role in determining a vehicle's longevity for longterm towing/hauling applications. The 10.4" rear differential on the Tundra is bigger, by a wide margin, than anything being used on the other 1/2 tons, despite the fact those other 1/2 tons have higher tow ratings.

The LC 200 has a higher GVWR because it weighs more than the Tundra. The payloads are roughly the same (certain variants of the Tundra have more than the LC200's 1500lb payload). More importantly, the LC200's tow rating is far less than that of the Tundra's, which reinforces my point that rear diff size plays a role in that engineering equation.




You're looking only at the first gear. Look and compare the 2nd through 6th gears. The Tundra's power delivery w/ the 4.30 gearing is well-regarded. Does the 3.5l ecoboost slightly edge out the Tundra's 5.7l v8 in terms of power delivery at various RPM's in certain gears? Yes, probably, which makes sense given that the ecoboost produces far more low-end torque.

However, I'd be interested in seeing a direct comparison of Ford's 5.0l V8 and the other OEM's V8's to the Tundra's 5.7l V8. The former are known for being notoriously under-geared (focused more on mpg's than power delivery) compared to the Tundra, despite producing similar torque curves and being rated to pull heavier loads.

They do make changes, they upsize the rear diff in the F150HD.

Longevity and durability are different. To the point, I don't think anybody would argue that a LC200 (or any landcruiser) is a very robust well sorted platform, they have smaller diffs than a Tundra and longevity does not suffer even loaded down, which was my point. I'll still argue load carrying is a key metric over towing for 90% of expedition rigs used off piste. Diff size does play a role....go look at an 1 ton truck or better yet a semi truck, diffs are massive, but I don't think it's a limiter in reliability or durability given the context of what is being discussed.

I used first because 2nd through 6th or in the case of the Ford 10th, doesn't help your cause since the Ford has more gears to work with and can obviously be limited in top gear by de-selecting OD to be kept at the desired RPM.

 

[Todd780]

They are both good trucks and plenty capable. No complaints with my F-150. It's been a good truck so far, no issues what so ever.

That being said, I'm 80% sure it'll be replaced by a Tundra when the time comes because I'm hoping to keep the next truck for a long time and in my own mind I have more confidence that the Toyota will last longer.

I see lots of different Toyota's with 300,000 + miles for sale in the classifieds. Tacomas, Tundras, Camry's, 4Runners, Corollas... Fords, not so much.

 

[nickw]

It's fascinating to me that folks in the US see Ford (or any domestic) as a sub-par brand, but overseas in places like Asia or Australia, the Fords like the Rangers hold very high esteem. The Rangers in Aus and Nzl get rated every bit as good as the holy Hiluxes and have very good market share and seem to be growing. Given their long history with Toyotas like the Hilux and Landcruiser, you'd think they'd be the first ones to eschew a unreliable vehicle...like the Ford. Granted, we don't get the same Ford's they do, but we also don't get the same Toyota's either....at least not anymore (Landcruisers aside).

I think in general Toyotas are more reliable for the simple fact they use old tech and are, in general, more simple.

I've had several rigs over the years, no major issues with any of them despite the naysayers, several of them new and/or driven by me for most of their life, bought into a couple higher mileage ones.
2001 Audi A4; 140,000+ miles
2016 Audi allroad; 50,000+ miles
2018 Audi SQ5; 20,000+ miles
2012 VW TDI; 60,000+ miles
1978 FJ40; 140,000 or 40,000, not sure
2001 Tacoma; 140,000 + miles
1995 Z71 Chevy 1/2 Ton; 100,000 + miles
1996 F150; 100,000+ miles
1994 Ranger; 90,000+ miles
2001 Ranger; 75,000+ miles

The two biggest issues with all of those, we'll exclude the FJ40 since it was "vintage" and had all sorts of maintenance requirements even though it was a PRIMO example, was the Ranger (transmissions) and the Tacoma (rear axle). The rear axle in the Taco had the rear locker go out, Toyota wouldn't touch fixing it, they wanted to replace the entire axle @ $2500+. ZERO issues with any of the Audis.

Put me in the "meh" category when selecting for reliability, buy a good example and/or newer rig, don't exceed manuf payload ratings, maintain it and don't overthink out 1st world problems of looking at Axle size, pinion diameter and all the other stupid &$*# we focus on.

 

[Deleted member 9101]

Diff size does play a role....go look at an 1 ton truck or better yet a semi truck, diffs are massive, but I don't think it's a limiter in reliability or durability given the context of what is being discussed.

Well... I know for a fact that the rear diff on the F150 (9.75") is damn near indestructible. I have seen 600+hp trucks at the track launch over and over for years on a 100% stock rear end. In fact, I have seen countless trucks do "full boost" launches in 4 hi and the drive train doesn't flinch.

I towed ~10,000 pounds behind my two previous F150 work trucks and had a bed full of gear for about 20,000 miles a year and neither had a problem. It was enough weight that my current work truck got speced as a 3/4 ton for safety reasons.

In the late 90's I had a 450 hp mustang with a 100 shot and I ran 10" wide slicks on a 9" rear end and it never gave me a problem. Metallurgy, tolerances, and build quality play a bigger factor in rear end durability than the size.

 

[Dalko43]

They do make changes, they upsize the rear diff in the F150HD.

What are the different differential sizes offered?

Longevity and durability are different. To the point, I don't think anybody would argue that a LC200 (or any landcruiser) is a very robust well sorted platform, they have smaller diffs than a Tundra and longevity does not suffer even loaded down, which was my point. I'll still argue load carrying is a key metric over towing for 90% of expedition rigs used off piste. Diff size does play a role....go look at an 1 ton truck or better yet a semi truck, diffs are massive, but I don't think it's a limiter in reliability or durability given the context of what is being discussed.

I wasn't implying that the LC 200 is lacking in durability due to its smaller diff size. However, towing a bunch of weight on a trailer arguably exerts different sort of stresses on a vehicle compared to simply hauling a bunch of weight in the back. Bigger differentials and axles are preferred for towing not simply because they offer more "load carrying" capacity but also because they can better withstand the stresses (especially the heat) associated with towing.

Thus the Tundra, which is rated to tow more than the LC 200, has a bigger differential. And it's telling that other 1/2 tons, despite having higher tow ratings, rely on smaller differentials....that was my point.

It's fascinating to me that folks in the US see Ford (or any domestic) as a sub-par brand, but overseas in places like Asia or Australia, the Fords like the Rangers hold very high esteem. The Rangers in Aus and Nzl get rated every bit as good as the holy Hiluxes and have very good market share and seem to be growing. Given their long history with Toyotas like the Hilux and Landcruiser, you'd think they'd be the first ones to eschew a unreliable vehicle...like the Ford. Granted, we don't get the same Ford's they do, but we also don't get the same Toyota's either....at least not anymore (Landcruisers aside).

I think in general Toyotas are more reliable for the simple fact they use old tech and are, in general, more simple.

I've had several rigs over the years, no major issues with any of them despite the naysayers, several of them new and/or driven by me for most of their life, bought into a couple higher mileage ones.
2001 Audi A4; 140,000+ miles
2016 Audi allroad; 50,000+ miles
2018 Audi SQ5; 20,000+ miles
2012 VW TDI; 60,000+ miles
1978 FJ40; 140,000 or 40,000, not sure
2001 Tacoma; 140,000 + miles
1995 Z71 Chevy 1/2 Ton; 100,000 + miles
1996 F150; 100,000+ miles
1994 Ranger; 90,000+ miles
2001 Ranger; 75,000+ miles

The two biggest issues with all of those, we'll exclude the FJ40 since it was "vintage" and had all sorts of maintenance requirements even though it was a PRIMO example, was the Ranger (transmissions) and the Tacoma (rear axle). The rear axle in the Taco had the rear locker go out, Toyota wouldn't touch fixing it, they wanted to replace the entire axle @ $2500+. ZERO issues with any of the Audis.

Put me in the "meh" category when selecting for reliability, buy a good example and/or newer rig, don't exceed manuf payload ratings, maintain it and don't overthink out 1st world problems of looking at Axle size, pinion diameter and all the other stupid &$*# we focus on.

Well firstly, your personal experiences aren't necessarily representative of the general population's. So just because you had a problem with brand X or good luck with brand y, doesn't mean that is reflective of a larger trend.

Secondly, the Ford Ranger is highly valued in other countries because that vehicle was specifically designed and built to withstand the conditions encountered in those countries...the same can't necessarily be said for some of Ford's other vehicles, to include its F-150 (which doesn't really sell well outside of North America). And as far as I've heard from the overseas gossip, the Ford Ranger still has some inherent issues/weaknesses, just like any other vehicle.

And thirdly, if you think Audi makes the most reliable vehicles, try owning them for longer. They're not bad vehicles per se, but just like with the other German brands, they generally require more $ to keep them running over the long term.

Edit: And for the record, we do in fact get some of the same Toyota's as the Aussies do (LC/LX, 4runner/FJ/Prado/GX). And even those vehicles that aren't necessarily identical to overseas vehicles (Tacoma, Tundra) still share a lot of the same core components and engines. More so than probably any other company here in North America, Toyota does in fact leverage its global technologies and platforms.

 

[battleaxe]

If you think the Tundra is slow... You probably bought a diesel one ton and chipped it, threw low pro MT's on crappy wheels, and wear white sunglasses.

I mean seriously... If you want something fast, buy a goddamn racecar.

 

[Deleted member 9101]

If you think the Tundra is slow... You probably bought a diesel one ton and chipped it, threw low pro MT's on crappy wheels, and wear white sunglasses.

I mean seriously... If you want something fast, buy a goddamn racecar.

Wow... childish insults and assumptions.

(For the record the Tundra is slow)

 

[toylandcruiser]

Wow... childish insults and assumptions.

(For the record the Tundra is slow)

I mean it’s not really that slow.

 

[F350joe]

If you think the Tundra is slow... You probably bought a diesel one ton and chipped it, threw low pro MT's on crappy wheels, and wear white sunglasses.

I mean seriously... If you want something fast, buy a goddamn racecar.

If you don’t think a tundra is slow, you probably drive an overloaded Tacoma with an RTT on the roof, trasharoo on the tailgate, and use your skootle as a spare. Or drive an even slower landcruiser. Which is fine, just stay to the right where you belong.

Both are good trucks and will do whatever you need them to do, the Toyota will just do it slower and with worse MPG.

 

[tacollie]

My Tundra easily cruisers 80 even over Colorado passes. Infact our overloaded 100 series would cruise 80 through Colorado passes. That is as long as you keep fuel in them. Any Ecoboost leaving me behind isn't getting better milage. If you're working the tundra hard enough to be stuck in the right lane you need a HD truck.

 

[Dalko43]

My Tundra easily cruisers 80 even over Colorado passes. Infact our overloaded 100 series would cruise 80 through Colorado passes. That is as long as you keep fuel in them. Any Ecoboost leaving me behind isn't getting better milage. If you're working the tundra hard enough to be stuck in the right lane you need a HD truck.

Keeping fuel in the tank will be an issue for either truck quite honestly, especially if you're working or modifying them. Powerful gasoline engines in big trucks tend to suck down fuel at the rapid rate...that's just the way things are.

The ecoboost has great torque delivery, but the notion that it has somehow cracked the code on how to make a gasoline-engine truck both powerful and fuel efficient is a bit far-fetched.

 

[battleaxe]

Slow is a very subjective thing here, if you're comparing apples to apples.

Any of the gas V8 Trucks in the last 10 years have not felt slow to me personally. A first gen Toyota is painfully slow...

The MPG differences have been beaten to death. I think if you're really trying to say the Tundra is bad on gas, you're a bit delusional, because all the V8 gassers are bad on gas.



*Edited because I'm in a bad mood, and shouldn't be taking it out on other people...