Tundra vs F150

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dalko43

Explorer
The point about the tcase was Toyota trying to cater to the old school crowd while the underpinnings of the design still rely on current tech....it was a observation about design intent.
Just about everything in modern cars is electric...but the fact that Toyota offers a traditional transfer case with part-time 4Hi and 4Low is unique, and still old school, compared to most other OEM's who offer automatic transfer cases or no transfer cases at all.

Is it a problem in the real world? Does the F150 larger front diff make a difference? Do the older Tundras w/smaller rear diffs have issues? Do the more reliable landcruiers, used in more extreme environments have issues with their smaller rear diffs, which happen to be smaller than the F150 as well? Does the fact that the raptor uses the F150 platform (with it's 450 hp and 510 ft-lbs of torque and and 35's) outline the robustness of the platform? How about the Rangers use of the same F150 10 spd trans? I don't have any of these answers but know what the trucks are rated for and how they perform....everything else is armchair engineering.
Not a problem...just an observation. The Tundra uses more robust components than the F-150 despite being rated for lower towing and payload capabilities. BTW, the Raptor definitely sees significant changes in terms of frame, suspension and overall chassis design over the base F-150.


Maybe Toyota built the car engine with HD components? What we do know is Ford upgraded the 2.3 for Hi-Po use and/or Truck use for a purpose. We know the sort of #'s it can put out and have a direct line from Ford on why they did what they did. That's the difference, it speaks to design intent. No different than a small block Chev being designed as a car engine and re-designed / bolstered for truck use.

On all accounts, the Tacoma used an off the shelf engine, originally designed for a mid-size SUV for fuel economy. To me (or several of us), that doesn't speak to the Toyota brand image nor it's heritage and the performance is sub-par.....again TO ME. I'm sure it will last a long time, but the Toyota lineage of using over-built, robust, global engine design is getting thinner and thinner by the day.
You can pretty up the language however you want...the fact is that Ford also uses car-based engines in its trucks. Arguably, the low-end torque of the ecoboost offers tangible advantages in a truck platform, as well as some disadvantages. FWIW, Toyota does also make some changes to the 3.5l it puts into the Tacoma.
 
Last edited:

Dalko43

Explorer
Yet somehow, with those tiny front brakes the F150 manages to have a shorter stopping distance than the all mighty Tundra. It's also rated to tow and haul more than the all mighty Tundra... While getting better fuel economy and having a much higher safety rating. Perhaps Toyota used larger parts as a marketing ploy to snare people who completely ignore real world performance numbers... or perhaps they are made out of inferior materials using outdated manufacturing techniques. Either way, the F150 is rated to do more than the all mighty Tundra.
The f-150 is lighter, which no doubt plays a role in braking performance. It is rated to tow and haul more, but it most definitely doesn't get better mpg while doing so and some of its chassis components are arguably inferior to those on the Tundra.

Ratings are great on paper. The relevant question is how well a F-150 will hold up if it is being worked to its max ratings day-in-day-out. We won't know until we see some more mileage accumulated.


As for the transmission, transfer case, and cooling system... I fail to see a problem. There is no shortage of low 13 second F150s (mine being one of them) doing "full boost" launches in 4 high. There is also no shortage of RV parks with F150s that are towing travel trailers and having zero problems.

Sounds like you are just bitter at the fact that the Toyota Tundra is nothing special when compared to the best selling truck in America. It does nothing better, cost more, and only impresses those who stopped paying attention to vehicles a decade ago.
I'm not bitter. I just think some people fail to realize that there is a reliability trade-off for newer and "better" tech. The F-150 sells well because most 1/2 ton owners drive around with an empty bed and care more about comfortable seats and ride quality and 0-60 times over longterm durability. The F-150 has essentially become a fashion statement for many people who like trucks but have no real need for them. Kudo's to Ford for its marketing strategies...but that sure as hell doesn't mean the F-150 is the most capable 1/2 ton on the market.
 
Last edited:

bkg

Explorer
What do you mean Toyota offers an old school transfer case?? Nothing old school about it. It’s as much electric as any other mfg.

I’m starting to wonder where you get your data. Lol
 
Last edited:

Jnich77

Director of Adventure Management Operations
Not a problem...just an observation. The Tundra uses more robust components than the F-150 despite being rated for lower towing and payload capabilities. BTW, the Raptor definitely sees significant changes in terms of frame, suspension and overall chassis design over the base F-150.




You can pretty up the language however you want...the fact is that Ford also uses car-based engines in its trucks. Arguably, the low-end torque of the ecoboost offers tangible advantages in a truck platform, as well as some disadvantages. FWIW, Toyota does also make some changes to the 3.5l it puts into the Tacoma.

A part being physically larger in no way means that it's more robust, it simply means that its larger.

As for the Raptor, it still shares the same brakes, transmission, ring/pinion gears, and 99% of the motor (turbos and pistons are different) with the F150 line.

As for the motor in the Ranger, I'm guessing you have put forth exactly zero effort to see how it differs from the Mustang.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bkg

Jnich77

Director of Adventure Management Operations
The f-150 is lighter, which no doubt plays a role in braking performance. It is rated to tow and haul more, but it most definitely doesn't get better mpg while doing so and some of its chassis components are arguably inferior to those on the Tundra.

Ratings are great on paper. The relevant question is how well a F-150 will hold up if it is being worked to its max ratings day-in-day-out. We won't know until we see some more mileage accumulated.




I'm not bitter. I just think some people fail to realize that there is a reliability trade-off for newer and "better" tech. The F-150 sells well because most 1/2 ton owners drive around with an empty bed and care more about comfortable seats and ride quality and 0-60 times over longterm durability. The F-150 has essentially become a fashion statement for many people who like trucks but have no real need for them. Kudo's to Ford for its marketing strategies...but that sure as hell doesn't mean the F-150 is the most capable 1/2 ton on the market.

My F150 gets better gas mileage than either Tundra that I owned... It doesn't matter if its empty or towing.
 

Neosapian

Member
Round and round we go....

...On all accounts, the Tacoma used an off the shelf engine, originally designed for a mid-size SUV for fuel economy. To me (or several of us), that doesn't speak to the Toyota brand image nor it's heritage and the performance is sub-par.....again TO ME. I'm sure it will last a long time, but the Toyota lineage of using over-built, robust, global engine design is getting thinner and thinner by the day.
... Yet somehow, with those tiny front brakes the F150 manages to have a shorter stopping distance than the all mighty Tundra. It's also rated to tow and haul more than the all mighty Tundra... While getting better fuel economy and having a much higher safety rating.

...There is no shortage of low 13 second F150s (mine being one of them) doing "full boost" launches in 4 high. There is also no shortage of RV parks with F150s that are towing travel trailers and having zero problems.

Sounds like you are just bitter at the fact that the Toyota Tundra is nothing special when compared to the best selling truck in America. It does nothing better, cost more, and only impresses those who stopped paying attention to vehicles a decade ago.

It seems to me as though @nickw and @Jnich77 have reasonable and objective arguments. There is another valid position - held primarily by those who already own a Tundra - that don't care about the Tundra's maximum rated capabilities, its value proposition or its competitiveness in the marketplace. They turn a blind eye to these things and even go as far as deny the validity of competing manufacture's performance claims. Their perspective is that nothing else matters, as long as it has a 'Yota badge. I sympathize with this argument as well.

I fear the next Tundra will just be a minor face lift with some additional interior tech amenities that were cool 5 years ago. Maybe some extra decals for the TRD trim and maybe a remap that’ll squeeze an extra half mile per gallon out of the 5.7. If it aint broken, don't fix it, I guess...
 

peekay

Adventurer
people are just going round and round in circles. Here's my take -- there's a nuke heading to California. You have to drive down to southern Baja California within 24 hours. There's a 2010 Tundra and a 2010 F-150 in front of you -- both with equal miles. You don't know either of their histories and how reliable they've been. Which do you take?
 

Tex68w

Beach Bum
I can't believe that this thread is still active lol. The bottom line is that the Tundra is outdated and soon to get a facelift, hopefully it's a worthy one but knowing how Toyota operates I am sure that it'll leave most wishing for more. The argument that the majority of F-150's aren't worked and Tundra's are to a higher degree is laughable. The most I ever see out of a Tundra is a habitat or some kayaks in the back, it has somehow become the Toyota go to for those who once had Tacoma's and 4Runners and think that they've graduated or had a revelation in regards to the size and power of the Tundra lol. The Tundra is not God's gift to the half-ton world, it is not leaps and bounds ahead of their mid-size segment and short of their price point and presumed Toyota badge reliability, they aren't flying off the lot either. We can go over the reasons why but this horse has long been dead and there's nothing left to beat.

Ford has a marketing machine in regards to their trucks and their sales numbers for the better part of the last half century backs up their claims. They dominate fleet sales and their year-end incentives are hard to match. Like it or not, it is the half-ton truck to have and likely always will be. You can argue the reasoning behind it and most claims are true to some degree, but it doesn't change the facts or the numbers.

I love my Toyota's just as much as I love my Ford's, but I would never take a Toyota truck over a Ford equivalent. Presumed reliability doesn't factor here for myself, it's all about the performance numbers and the aftermarket for me. That said, I have no use for a compact or half-ton truck these days. My last five trucks and all of those that I purchase in the future will always be HD and I'll likely stick to diesel as long as they keep offering them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top