Which truck

[Dalko43]

The key with the Ecoboost seem to be regular oil changes(5000 or less miles) and don't baby them. Get em hot. It the people who use them as grocery getters(which is a lot of people) and drive them 3 miles a day that seem to have issues.

I'm really not understanding that logic. If anything, lighter usage patterns should prolong the life of the turbo/ecoboost engines. Anyhow, the OEM should design the engine & overall platform to account for the typical consumer driving habit. For the average 1/2 ton owner in the US, that entails getting groceries and occasionally throwing a load in bed.


Back to topic: OP hasn't specified, but it sounds like he has a budget. So a brand new anything is probably not relevant (unless the OP provides feedback to the contrary).

A moderately used Tundra can be had a for a good deal. I think the 2014's and newer are more likely to get the 38 gallon tank - which is a must for the Tundra. Fuel bill won't be fun to deal with - everything else should be a cake-walk (assuming good maintenance intervals). I wouldn't bother with a used F-150 much over 70k-80k. There are engine problems with some generations of the 3.5l ecoboost (as alluded to in previous posts), but more importantly I just don't see the F-150's overall platform holding up that well much beyond the 100k mile mark.

The usual suspects will probably show up to disagree with that, but the resale values and longterm reliability studies do reflect that trend.
Tacoma is great unloaded for around-town driving and escapes to the offroad park. That truck loses itself when you throw a load on it, and really isn't comfortable IMO. Mpg advantage of the Tacoma goes out the window once you start putting it to work. The Tundra is the better option of the two, given the OP's intended use.

 

[Deleted member 9101]

I e never been into them, just more stuff to go bad.

I haven't found anyone yet who has put any real miles on the ford turbo. Everyone seems to love them though.

I just don't think anyone can touch toyotas reliability, but I'll drive a ford and see.

My father has ~140k on his 3.5 Navigator and its been flawless. 90% of those miles are towing a travel trailer.

My 2.7 F150 has ~63k and hasn't given me any problems ( its also modified and spends time on the track)

My brothers 3.5 HO F150 is at ~ 70k and he hasn't had a single problem. He's also pushing 550 RWHP and runs it pretty hard.

We had 10-11 3.5 F150s in out fleet at work and they were all reliable.

FHP has been replacing their Tahoe fleet with 3.5 F150s and they have fewer problems than the Tahoes. The Troopers love them.

If you were to look at any F150 forum or Facebook group you'll find no shortage of "high mileage" EcoBoost trucks. There is a 2.7 out there with 400k on it and it's doing just fine.

As for "more stuff to go bad" thats simply not true. Either EcoBoost has fewer parts than a naturally aspirated V8. ;-)

 

[Deleted member 9101]

The key with the Ecoboost seem to be regular oil changes(5000 or less miles) and don't baby them. Get em hot. It the people who use them as grocery getters(which is a lot of people) and drive them 3 miles a day that seem to have issues.

Nailed it!!! 5k oil changes are a big deal with the 3.5. It's really hard on oil. The 2.7 seems to be more forgiving (I still change mine st 5k though, along with cleaning all 3 MAP sensors)

 

[Deleted member 9101]

I just don't think anyone can touch toyotas reliability, but I'll drive a ford and see.

The Tundra cost more to buy, more to insure (thanks to the archaic crash test ratings), and uses quite a bit more fuel. Even if the F150 is a little less reliable... The grotesque amount of fuel the Tundra requires to do the same job makes it more expensive to own.

 

[rruff]

The grotesque amount of fuel the Tundra requires to do the same job makes it more expensive to own.

I couldn't find a similarly spec'd F150 for what I paid ($31.2k in 2016). Edmunds disagrees with you on "cost to own"... Tundra is the cheapest full size to own... despite higher fuel and insurance costs. Granted that's only a 5 year cycle, but less reliable vehicles get more annoying to own as they get older. If you drive a lot of miles the MPG savings could swing things in your favor, though. I thought you were blowing smoke about the insurance, but there is a small difference. Still, insurance is apparently cheap where I live.

 

[Dalko43]

I e never been into them, just more stuff to go bad.

I haven't found anyone yet who has put any real miles on the ford turbo. Everyone seems to love them though.

I just don't think anyone can touch toyotas reliability, but I'll drive a ford and see.

My advice - don't test drive a brand new F-150. Test drive one with at least 90k-100k miles on it; then rinse-repeat & compare to a Tundra with similar mileage.

Getting to 50k-60k miles is not a big deal (especially if we're talk mostly pavement). It's when you start talking about +100k miles of varied use (towing, 4wd/offroad, winter climates) that the truly reliable platforms begin to distinguish themselves from the less-than-optimal ones.

 

[Deleted member 9101]

I couldn't find a similarly spec'd F150 for what I paid ($31.2k in 2016). Edmunds disagrees with you on "cost to own"... Tundra is the cheapest full size to own... despite higher fuel and insurance costs. Granted that's only a 5 year cycle, but less reliable vehicles get more annoying to own as they get older. If you drive a lot of miles the MPG savings could swing things in your favor, though. I thought you were blowing smoke about the insurance, but there is a small difference. Still, insurance is apparently cheap where I live.

My F150 gets 6-8 MPG better than either of my Tundras ever did. I get 20-21 MPG in traffic and 23-24 MPG at 70 MPH and 26-27 MPG at 65, neither of my Tundras could get that high if they were going down hill with a tail wind..lol. (I got ~1MPG more before I leveled it, changed the gears from 3.15 to 3.55, and larger tires) I typically drive 20-30k a year, unless I have to replace an engine or tranny every couple of years... The Tundra will never be cheaper for me...haha.

The insurance difference is due to crash test ratings (the F150s is higher) and the fact that the F150 is cheaper to repair. Ford designed the truck to be easy to disassemble and replace body panels. In an hour you can replace a bed side and don't have to do any welding.

Whilst I enjoyed both of my Tundras, they simply cost to much per mile to drive. Between commuting, road trips, towing, hauling, and test and tune night at the local track my lifetime average is 20.7MPG. My last Tundras average was in the 14s. The annual difference is more than enough to pay for the insurance for my truck, my wifes car, and still have money left over to tacos. ;-)

 

[Watt maker]

The Tundra cost more to buy, more to insure (thanks to the archaic crash test ratings), and uses quite a bit more fuel. Even if the F150 is a little less reliable... The grotesque amount of fuel the Tundra requires to do the same job makes it more expensive to own.

Actually, here in NM the tundra is cheaper to insure by about $300 per year. The F-series remains the most stolen vehicle here along with a higher incidence rate and is supposedly more expensive to repair/replace. This is exactly what my insurance agent showed me when I needed a truck back in 2017. My tundra with 34” tires gets the same, or even slightly better mpg, than my f150 ecoboost did with 33” tall tires. Really no difference in cost there. I do 5k oil changes but my ecoboost really needed 3k oil changes due to a fuel dilution issue that never really was corrected.

 

[Deleted member 9101]

Actually, here in NM the tundra is cheaper to insure by about $300 per year. The F-series remains the most stolen vehicle here along with a higher incidence rate and is supposedly more expensive to repair/replace. This is exactly what my insurance agent showed me when I needed a truck back in 2017. My tundra with 34” tires gets the same, or even slightly better mpg, than my f150 ecoboost did with 33” tall tires. Really no difference in cost there. I do 5k oil changes but my ecoboost really needed 3k oil changes due to a fuel dilution issue that never really was corrected.

If your Tundra gets the same mpg as your F150...you definitely had a problem...lol.

Also, any shop that charges more to repair an F150 is probably not properly equipped or trained to repair it in the first place.

 

[Watt maker]

If your Tundra gets the same mpg as your F150...you definitely had a problem...lol.

16.5 mpg running 75-80 on the freeway, 13.5 mpg in all city driving, and 10 mpg towing or grand design trailer. My f150 definitely had some issues but a coworker of mine had the same mpg experience. As soon as you go from the paper thin OEM tires to a good all terrain or mud terrain tire, it drastically changes the mpg on the ecoboost. You can have eco or boost but not both at the same time apparently. Actually, the last 5k that I owned the f150, mpg was down to 10.5 along with reduced power, so definitely something wrong there but I couldn’t convince ford to work on it to find what was wrong.

 

[Deleted member 9101]

16.5 mpg running 75-80 on the freeway, 13.5 mpg in all city driving, and 10 mpg towing or grand design trailer. My f150 definitely had some issues but a coworker of mine had the same mpg experience. As soon as you go from the paper thin OEM tires to a good all terrain or mud terrain tire, it drastically changes the mpg on the ecoboost. You can have eco or boost but not both at the same time apparently. Actually, the last 5k that I owned the f150, mpg was down to 10.5 along with reduced power, so definitely something wrong there but I couldn’t convince ford to work on it to find what was wrong.

Yeah... Something was definitely wrong with yours man.

You are correct though...you either have "Eco" or "Boost" and more HP requires more fuel.

 

[rruff]

16.5 mpg running 75-80 on the freeway, 13.5 mpg in all city driving, and 10 mpg towing or grand design trailer.

I average ~17 in all driving with fat 35s, but I figure for comparison purposes it's best to look at Fuelly stats (lots of anecdotes instead of just one), and that gives:

Tundra: 14 mpg
F150: 3.5 Eco or 5.0 both 16 mpg, 2.7 Eco 18.5 mpg. That 2.7 has really good specs for performance and MPG.

 

[calicamper]

Hi all

I'm looking for advice on a newer truck for making the cross country trip hunting every year. Sometimes I get lucky and make a couple trips.

I've had a 2012 tacoma 4x4 trd for a while and have made the trip a few times in it. There's only been me and a friend so far driving from Virginia to Colorado and arizona. But many more trips are on the horizon. Caribou way up north in 2022 hopefully.

Last year we used a 7cuft freezer to keep the meat ran by a small Genny.

The fact is, the taco isn't cutting it, but will still drive and keep for my son when he starts driving.

The freezer became our go to and takes up a lot of bed space.

I was hell bent on getting an 06 tundra crew cab, but they seem few and far between with low miles.

So what say you?

It must be 4x4, preferably with a locker or lsd, crew cab, min 6' bed.

And reliability is paramount obviously

Is 18-20mpg doable?

Sounds like a FX4 package F150 to me

 

[Deleted member 9101]

That 2.7 has really good specs for performance and MPG.

The 2.7 shocks a lot of people. They are pretty potent stock, modified they can be flat out nasty (mine is somewhere inbetween, for now )

What I find hilarious is the TFL test where they put an 8k camper behing a 2.7, 3.5, and 5.0 F150 and the 2.7 had the fastest 0-60 time.

 

[calicamper]

I e never been into them, just more stuff to go bad.

I haven't found anyone yet who has put any real miles on the ford turbo. Everyone seems to love them though.

I just don't think anyone can touch toyotas reliability, but I'll drive a ford and see.

Lots and lots of F150 eco boosts in fleet trucks with 250,000 + miles treated terribly and still doing fine.

Every Toyota I have come across all have major bearing failures around 330,000- 360,000 miles. GM trucks and Ford trucks all easily run into 300,000+ miles also. I’ve spent 27 yrs in Toyotas and they all had costly repairs they weren’t magically superior thats for sure. I drive two Fords now both have been great. My mid 2019 Expedition has the 3.5 and it’s obvious Ford has quietly been tweaking and updating the 3.5. Mine has a cast Aluminum oil pan. Not the plastic pan found on earlier 2019’s which was a total unexpected surprise on my part.

Run mild hybrid A/T tires like the BFG Advantage Sport , you don’t take a hit on mileage and still get a bump in durability and more aggressive tread than a highway tire?