Tundra vs F150

[bkg]

They might be small, but there are differences nonetheless between the different 3.5l v6 applications. As far as durability, Toyota is widely recognized for engineering their base engines and designs for durability. So why do they need to engineer even more for the Tacoma application? The base 4.0l v6 and 5.7l v8 were at one point offered with factory-designed and factory-warrantied supercharger kits...no reinforcing or mechanical changes required for the base engine.

The 2.3l ecoboost in the Ranger might have been reinforced for truck duties...does that necessarily mean it's a more HD engine than the 3.5l v6? I concede the torque discrepancy between the two is quite obvious...the durability discrepancy isn't. Both are car engines...that's the bottom line.

False... neither factory designed nor warrantied. They were all build/designed by Magnusson and warrantied *ONLY* if installed by a dealer.

And many... many of said engines had major issues, especially in the 3.4, due to fueling problems. And note also, Toyota stopped offering them years ago.

Based on the fact that the F-150's chassis is no more robust than the Tundra's chassis. And Based on the fact that at 9k lbs and beyond, any of the current 1/2 tons, perhaps excepting the Nissan Titan XD, just aren't that great at towing and handling heavy loads. Ford made the bare minimum amount of changes to the F-150 HD to allow for that "higher" towing/payload rating. It might have 3/4 ton-like towing and payload ratings, but its underlying chassis is still very much a 1/2 ton in terms of design.

You keep saying stuff like this but never back it up.... proof points, please.

Really? And yet the Tundra with bigger brakes for some reason does have a problem with stopping heavy trailers?

Bigger isn't always better if not well tuned. I guess since the F150 has 6 lugs instead of 5, by your definition, it's better....

 

[docwatson]

You keep saying stuff like this but never back it up.... proof points, please.

According to Ford's brochure it ups the rear axle from the Super 8.8" to a 9.75", upgraded springs and "heavy-duty aluminum wheels" w/ LT C-rated tires. I can't find anything about a change to the frame.

I think the main trick is change the GVWR from ~7000 (or less) to 7850 lbs, which you could theoretically do if you made similar tweaks to the Tundra. Having the factory do it certainly has its advantages.

Page 44 of this brochure is my source.

Toyota obviously thinks it needs more lug nuts as Tundra test mules have 6 lug wheels on them #biggerisbetter

 

[Deleted member 9101]

According to Ford's brochure it ups the rear axle from the Super 8.8" to a 9.75", upgraded springs and "heavy-duty aluminum wheels" w/ LT C-rated tires. I can't find anything about a change to the frame.

I think the main trick is change the GVWR from ~7000 (or less) to 7850 lbs, which you could theoretically do if you made similar tweaks to the Tundra. Having the factory do it certainly has its advantages.

Page 44 of this brochure is my source.

Toyota obviously thinks it needs more lug nuts as Tundra test mules have 6 lug wheels on them #biggerisbetter

There are 4 frames for the F150:

The regular frame
The HDPP frame
The HDPP + max tow
Raptor

The difference between the first three is the thickness of the metal.

 

[docwatson]

You knew this all along? I just read 44 pages of a brochure for a truck I never want to own because I was genuinely curious.

Why wouldn't they include that info anywhere in a giant brochure filled with minutiae about everything other aspect?

 

[Deleted member 9101]

The 2.3l ecoboost in the Ranger might have been reinforced for truck duties...does that necessarily mean it's a more HD engine than the 3.5l v6? I concede the torque discrepancy between the two is quite obvious...the durability discrepancy isn't. Both are car engines...that's the bottom line.




Based on the fact that the F-150's chassis is no more robust than the Tundra's chassis. And Based on the fact that at 9k lbs and beyond, any of the current 1/2 tons, perhaps excepting the Nissan Titan XD, just aren't that great at towing and handling heavy loads. Ford made the bare minimum amount of changes to the F-150 HD to allow for that "higher" towing/payload rating. It might have 3/4 ton-like towing and payload ratings, but its underlying chassis is still very much a 1/2 ton in terms of design.




Really? And yet the Tundra with bigger brakes for some reason does have a problem with stopping heavy trailers?

1. You keep making these claims about the F150... Yet you seem to be lacking in the proof department. I have owned both and had 2 F150s as work trucks. Can you speak from the same experience, I'm guessing the answer is no.

2. The Tundra has a longer 60-0 stopping distance than the F150. As someone who has owned and towed with both trucks, I can say with absolute certainty that the size of the rotor is irrelevant, the F150 has better brakes. I never once said that the Tundra has a problem stopping, rather the F150 does it in a shorter distance. In fact, all I have said about every difference between the two is that the F150 is better, I never once said that the Tundra was subpar. The Tundra was a great truck when the second gen came out, now its just average when compared to newer designs.

3. The motor in the Ranger has a forged crank, rods, and pistons. The block is extremely dense and the cylinder walls are very hard. The head bolts are spaced very close together and the cooling and oiling systems are phenomenal. I'm guessing that you have zero first hand experience with them and have never once contact a company like Brew City Boost to see exactly what those motors are capable of. There is no shortage of modified Mustang that are beat on as daily drivers and have zero issues. Im fact, I know of one running low 11s in the 1/4 and the guy drives it to work Monday-Friday.

4. When it comes down to it, a small army of engineers and lawyers felt confident enough to sign off on the capabilities of the F150, I'll take my personal experience and their willingness to accept liability over your "word" any day.

 

[Christian P.]

This may be a good timing to read this thread.

https://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/threads/reminder-expo-rules.207416/

 

[calicamper]

1. You keep making these claims aboit the F150... You seem to be lacking in the proof department.

2. The Tundra has a longer 60-0 stopping distance than the F159. As someone who has owned and towed with both trucks, I can say with absolute certainty that the size of the rotor is irrelevant.

Yeah my Land cruiser rotors were tiny. And all the Toyota nuts worship that thing like its a god. The down side was pads that could be at wear bars in 8000 miles.

 

[Deleted member 9101]

Yeah my Land cruiser rotors were tiny. And all the Toyota nuts worship that thing like its a god. The down side was pads that could be at wear bars in 8000 miles.

The 1st gen tundra is no different. Their front brakes are sad and even the "updated" calipers were a joke.

 

[calicamper]

The 1st gen tundra is no different. Their front brakes are sad and even the "updated" calipers were a joke.

Still better than the LC as in big improvement lol. Yeah not super impressed with the 06 brakes but they are ok for light use. Also not impressed with Toyotas rear drive lines. I had a replacement built for my Sequoia the original was junk. Its even a bigger issue for the longer tundras.

 

[FJR Colorado]

I am so glad that a guy with a 2WD living at sea level is here to advise me just how wrong my truck choice has been for the last 22 years.

I'm not even sure where he gets the time in-between all the metallurgical testing he does on truck beds ;-)

 

[bkg]

The 1st gen tundra is no different. Their front brakes are sad and even the "updated" calipers were a joke.

very true. Frozen Rotors/Hawk pads were a huge difference from stock.

 

[Deleted member 9101]

I am so glad that a guy with a 2WD living at sea level is here to advise me just how wrong my truck choice has been for the last 22 years.

I'm not even sure where he gets the time in-between all the metallurgical testing he does on truck beds ;-)

I'll assume that's as dig at me...and I shall counter with a question: when did I say your choices were wrong?

 

[Deleted member 9101]

very true. Frozen Rotors/Hawk pads were a huge difference from stock.

I ended up doing some fab work on mine and running larger rotors off of a 4 Runner. Between that and the "upgraded" calipers, it was tolerable. There is a swap where you can run a different master cylinder and get better performance, but I sold it before I got around to it.

 

[Deleted member 9101]

This may be a good timing to read this thread.

https://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/threads/reminder-expo-rules.207416/

Ya know what... I'm done with this topic. No matter how many facts are presented, the opposing side does nothing but cry "maAuh rotOrs are bigGgaH... Mauh ring gEar B roUnDer... ToYota bE da BesT!!"

 

[bkg]

I ended up doing some fab work on mine and running larger rotors off of a 4 Runner. Between that and the "upgraded" calipers, it was tolerable. There is a swap where you can run a different master cylinder and get better performance, but I sold it before I got around to it.

I think Scotty at Addicted Offroad had a write up about the 4th gen 4Runner sport rotors, somewhere. Is that similar to what you did?