toylandcruiser
Expedition Leader
If the test is the same then how can a vehicle do worse?
Tundra vs F150
- Thread starter rrflyer
- Start date
- Status
If the test is the same then how can a vehicle do worse?
toylandcruiser
Expedition Leader
Oh yea there is. Who cares it’s 10 years old. Most people have such short attention span now. If a truck isn’t updated every couple years with cool new toys they loose interest.
toylandcruiser
Expedition Leader
I’m sure you did
billiebob
Well-known member
Again, it is not that the Tundra did worse, it is that everyone else improved.
Time to ignore the trolls.
toylandcruiser
Expedition Leader
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.
toylandcruiser
Expedition Leader
I admit to being a toyota fan, having owned 3 of them so far. The tundra 5.7 while a bit slow and outdated is a solid truck. A company I used to work at in north utah had a bunch of them as fleet trucks. Both first gen, and the newer second gen trucks. Those things got beat to piss on the oil rig roads of north utah 24 hours a day all year long. It was a rare day one of those trucks went out into the field when it was not overloaded with people, and 2,000 + pounds of gear. When I first started there I wasent sure about the tundra, but those trucks even abused outlasted any chevy or ford we had, including the 8.1 HD. They take what you throw at them and ask for more. The crew Max really is huge. Our family had one on a lease for a while. Driver was 6,8 and the kids were both over 6 foot in their teen years. Plenty of space for everyone. More recently, I did a long road trip up and down the mountains and rivers of Idaho and Mt running some river shuttles with a 2018 tundra. You barely could tell the weight was back there, the ride was comfortable and I observed 13MPG towing ( including dirt roads and nasty steep mountain passes ) When it comes time to replace my tacoma, the tundra is what I am leaning towards. Ford makes a good product, but the price is steep, and things break. I am OK with a MPG ding and a less sexy truck if it means it will run longer. The Ford 6.7 powerstroke we have at work will pull a redwood up a mountain at 70 with plenty to spare, and has been in and out of the shop a few times before it even hit 50k miles.
I see this comment repeated in every discussion about the F150 v. Tundra and I just don't understand the basis. New, in of itself, is not a positive attribute. There has to be some benefit. I recently was in the market for a new truck to upgrade my Tacoma. I've had 4 Toyota trucks and 3 Priuses so we're a Toyota family.
But when reading all the reviews, I kept seeing the whole Tundra is dated, etc, critique. Based on everything, including the many articles and forum posters who criticized the "dated-ness" of the Tundra, I was focused on F150s. I eventually narrowed it down and was about to buy one -- even though during test drives of the 5.0 Coyote and 3.5 Ecoboost, I was actually a little underwhelmed. The stats are phenomenal but the truck didn't "feel" fast. But I was so sure the Tundra was too old that I was going to buy a F150-- until I decided to test drive the Tundra, just to make sure.
Right there during the test drive, I completely changed my mind. Yes, in a drag race, the Tundra will lose to the F150. But the Tundra feels way torqueer--maybe due to the 4.30s, or maybe due to the growl of the 5.7 V8 (the Ford is pretty silent). And the inside, which was supposedly so dated, was just fine. Yes, the F150 was a bit nicer, but not enough for me to take the reliability risk. The stupid Ford HVAC controls sealed it for me.
The way I see it is that the Ford is probably a good truck and may have as good of reliability as the Tundra. But I highly doubt the reliability will be better and certainly not enough for me to risk about $40k.
rruff
Explorer
My truck doesn't feel fast... unless I stomp on it or put it in "tow-haul" mode. Even then the nannies take a lot of the fun out of having a 400hp engine.
I think it's tough to do a fair comparison of these trucks unless you turn the nannies off, and have the throttle response in some sort of performance (rather than eco) mode. If you do that, then they all haul butt just fine. Hard to complain about any of them.
Watt maker
Active member
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.
Also, the extended cab fords don't do quite as well as the crew cab fords.
Also, the extended cab fords don't do quite as well as the crew cab fords.
codename607
Adventurer
Can someone with a lot of money and time simply buy both trucks and give them a good long term test. Please!!!
Desert Dan
Explorer
I bought a Tundra for the reliability and because it was "dated".
I wanted a V8 rather than a high revving eco boost with turbos etc.
Too bad Toyota doesn't make a 3/4 or 1 Ton for the USA
I wanted a V8 rather than a high revving eco boost with turbos etc.
Too bad Toyota doesn't make a 3/4 or 1 Ton for the USA
nickw
Adventurer
Just to point out, the EcoBoosts are not high revving engines. Relative to a N/A engine like the 5.7, it will sit lower in it's rev range.
IdaSHO
IDACAMPER
A whole lot of unfounded assumptions in this post.
The photos of the first truck have been floating around for a while, with little to zero actual back story.
Until then, everything is an assumption.
The second example looks to be a truck that did its job in a nasty wreck. Regardless of where the cab wound up, it protected its passengers 100%
The same could be said for BOTH trucks. And considering the crash test results of all current 1/2 ton trucks, the F-150 would have likely fared better than ALL of them.
Its all relative. So relative to these F-150s in this example, the crash test results say any other truck (including Tunda) would have fared worse.
Last edited:
- Status