Tundra vs F150

Status
Not open for further replies.

calicamper

Expedition Leader
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?
Neither.
You hijack a bush plane and go north.
 

peekay

Adventurer
The bottom line is that the Tundra is outdated and soon to get a facelift...
I think your analysis is reasonable. But the whole Tundra is "outdated" thing is bizarre to me. I keep reading about it -- so much so that when I bought my last truck, I skipped the Toyota and went straight to the Ford F-150. I was about to walk home with the Ford when I decided to give the Tundra one look before pulling the trigger on the Ford. But when I saw and drove the Tundra, I became really confused -- what exactly is so outdated about the Tundra?

Interior wise -- the Ford was slightly better on the dash, etc., but 2018+ Tundras are pretty close -- certainly not enough to be considered outdated. I suppose the infotainment disaster that is Toyota's Entune is outdated, but overall, the dash quality was pretty close to Ford. By constrast, the seats on a SR5 are superior to the Ford XLT trim -- better materials and the rear seats didn't look so thin and cheap looking.

Engine wise -- on paper, the 3.5 Ecoboost and 5.0 Coyote seemed fantastic. Great power and mpgs. In practice, the engines were underwhelming to me. Given the hp and torque numbers, I expected some monstrous power with the 3.5, and while I have no doubt it will smoke the Tundra 5.7 in a 1/4 mile race, during the freeway test drive, it really didn't seem like 75 more HP and 70 more lbs of torque than the Tundra. The 5.0 felt the same as the Tundra. I was expecting the difference between my old Tacoma 4.0 and Tundra 5.7 -- which is quite noticeable. Perhaps the Tundras are geared lower? Again, I have no doubt if you raced them side by side with the 5.7, they will win. But I don't drive pedal to the metal from light to light, and the real world difference is less than I imagined. As far as MPGs are concerned, the Tundra is a gas hog. But it seems like the Ecoboost, while better, is not nearly as great as the specs. Supposedly, there's some class action lawsuit going around about Ford overstating the MPG numbers. So again, on balance the Tundra didn't seem that outdated.

Transmission wise - 6spd v. 10 spd. I candidly don't really care how many speeds - as long as it translates into real world advantages. As stated above, the advantages of the Ford are there, but not nearly as much as one would think if you only relied on magazine articles and forums repeatedly stating the Tundra is outdated, a dinosaur, etc. I feel like this whole outdated thing is repeated without much thought and real life experience.

Or perhaps I have a different definition of outdated. When I drive my Honda Clarity, I do feel that the Tundra, the F150, Dodge Ram, etc., are outdated dinosaurs. I pay the equivalent of $1.40/gallon of gas, to go 45 miles on pure electric. When I run out of electric, it becomes like a gas hybrid Prius and I get about 40mpgs. The acceleration is more than adequate -- I think 0-60 is around 8 seconds. The inside is as big as an Accord but as nice as an Acura, and the driver assist capabilities are amazing. While it's not able to self-drive, on freeways, I can hit the lane keep assist and it will keep the car in between lanes. In stop/go traffic, I can have it track the car in front of me, and accelerate and brake by itself. If I'm zoning out on the freeway and don't notice right away that the cars in front are slowing down, it will detect it and immediately flash "brake." If I don't brake, it will then apply the brakes. My Tundra supposedly has a similar system, but from my experience, it is generations behind the Clarity. I'll be the first in line if some manufacturer creates a truck as advanced as my Clarity -- but like you, I won't hold my breath for Toyota being the first!
 

Dalko43

Explorer
A part being physically larger in no way means that it's more robust, it simply means that its larger.
Not always, but for example in the case of brakes, bigger 4 piston calipers with bigger braking surfaces usually equate to better brake performance and longevity. The F-150 is rated to tow more but does so with smaller brakes...just food for thought.

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.
I'm sure there are small differences. FWIW, there are also small differences between the Tacoma's 3.5l and the 3.5l used in other Toyota/Lexus platforms....The underlying design is fundamentally same. The same holds true for the Ranger's ecoboost.


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...
There are a lot of things Toyota does which I don't turn a blind eye too. I'd like to see more torquey and more efficient engines offered in their midsized offerings. I'd like to see higher payload ratings across their truck lineup. Apple Carplay should have been made standard several years ago. Lots of areas I think Toyota could improve upon.

But longevity and durability aren't among those shortfalls. When the current gen F-150 is ten years old, how will it be holding up? What will it sell for? The answers to those questions don't really matter to a lot of F-150 owners...in years past, Ford, and the other big 2, didn't have a good track record for long term reliability with their 1/2 tons, and to some degree, their 3/4 tons. Maybe that will change going forward. But until that is proven, Toyota owners will continue to buy Tundra's and Tacoma's, in spite of their shortcomings.
 

Jnich77

Director of Adventure Management Operations
I think your analysis is reasonable. But the whole Tundra is "outdated" thing is bizarre to me. I keep reading about it -- so much so that when I bought my last truck, I skipped the Toyota and went straight to the Ford F-150. I was about to walk home with the Ford when I decided to give the Tundra one look before pulling the trigger on the Ford. But when I saw and drove the Tundra, I became really confused -- what exactly is so outdated about the Tundra?

Interior wise -- the Ford was slightly better on the dash, etc., but 2018+ Tundras are pretty close -- certainly not enough to be considered outdated. I suppose the infotainment disaster that is Toyota's Entune is outdated, but overall, the dash quality was pretty close to Ford. By constrast, the seats on a SR5 are superior to the Ford XLT trim -- better materials and the rear seats didn't look so thin and cheap looking.

Engine wise -- on paper, the 3.5 Ecoboost and 5.0 Coyote seemed fantastic. Great power and mpgs. In practice, the engines were underwhelming to me. Given the hp and torque numbers, I expected some monstrous power with the 3.5, and while I have no doubt it will smoke the Tundra 5.7 in a 1/4 mile race, during the freeway test drive, it really didn't seem like 75 more HP and 70 more lbs of torque than the Tundra. The 5.0 felt the same as the Tundra. I was expecting the difference between my old Tacoma 4.0 and Tundra 5.7 -- which is quite noticeable. Perhaps the Tundras are geared lower? Again, I have no doubt if you raced them side by side with the 5.7, they will win. But I don't drive pedal to the metal from light to light, and the real world difference is less than I imagined. As far as MPGs are concerned, the Tundra is a gas hog. But it seems like the Ecoboost, while better, is not nearly as great as the specs. Supposedly, there's some class action lawsuit going around about Ford overstating the MPG numbers. So again, on balance the Tundra didn't seem that outdated.

Transmission wise - 6spd v. 10 spd. I candidly don't really care how many speeds - as long as it translates into real world advantages. As stated above, the advantages of the Ford are there, but not nearly as much as one would think if you only relied on magazine articles and forums repeatedly stating the Tundra is outdated, a dinosaur, etc. I feel like this whole outdated thing is repeated without much thought and real life experience.

Or perhaps I have a different definition of outdated. When I drive my Honda Clarity, I do feel that the Tundra, the F150, Dodge Ram, etc., are outdated dinosaurs. I pay the equivalent of $1.40/gallon of gas, to go 45 miles on pure electric. When I run out of electric, it becomes like a gas hybrid Prius and I get about 40mpgs. The acceleration is more than adequate -- I think 0-60 is around 8 seconds. The inside is as big as an Accord but as nice as an Acura, and the driver assist capabilities are amazing. While it's not able to self-drive, on freeways, I can hit the lane keep assist and it will keep the car in between lanes. In stop/go traffic, I can have it track the car in front of me, and accelerate and brake by itself. If I'm zoning out on the freeway and don't notice right away that the cars in front are slowing down, it will detect it and immediately flash "brake." If I don't brake, it will then apply the brakes. My Tundra supposedly has a similar system, but from my experience, it is generations behind the Clarity. I'll be the first in line if some manufacturer creates a truck as advanced as my Clarity -- but like you, I won't hold my breath for Toyota being the first!
1. Learn how to disable the advance track and then do a full boost launch with a 3.5, your opinion of it will change instantly.

2. Where the 3.5 truly shines is while pulling. It will hands down out perform the Tundra, with ease.
 

Dalko43

Explorer
2. Where the 3.5 truly shines is while pulling. It will hands down out perform the Tundra, with ease.
What do you mean by outperform? It's faster? Pulling what weights and over what distance?

Too many people analyze trucks and 4x4's with a sports-car mentality (drag times, paper stats, ect.).

Does either (F-150 or Tundra) get the job done in the short run?
Does either work reliably over the long run?

The answers to those questions are far more important than are answers to whether or not the truck's engine can be tuned or how fast it can go up a hill....at least for overland-oriented truck owners.
 

Boatbuilder79

Active member
I am glad to see this thread is still going.

Comparing the tundra and f150 is kinda like comparing apples to water mellons.

I think the f150 is more comparable to the first gen tundra or the Tacoma. It is a light duty half ton truck that is good for pulling a camper or a boat on the weekend.

The current tundra is more like a lightweight 3/4 ton like what you would get in the 90s.

I realize that comparing the mighty f150 to a Tacoma might hurt some feelings so flame away.
 

Regcabguy

Expedition Leader
I feel the F-150 is much roomier than the Tundra. I'm 6'4" and I have to duck my head to get in. Not so with the Ford. The super high beltline and small side windows doesn't work for me either on the Toyota.
You probably don't want to tow with either and expect any fuel economy.
In Yosemite a Canadian was complaining about getting 6-8 mpg in his Tundra pulling a 22' trailer from home. I don't know if the F-150 would yield any more.
 
In Yosemite a Canadian was complaining about getting 6-8 mpg in his Tundra pulling a 22' trailer from home. I don't know if the F-150 would yield any more.
It wouldn't. That sounds about right to me. (I have an F-150 and tow with it) I think MPG....or GPM in this case would be a wash between the two trucks.
 

bkg

Explorer
I am glad to see this thread is still going.

Comparing the tundra and f150 is kinda like comparing apples to water mellons.

I think the f150 is more comparable to the first gen tundra or the Tacoma. It is a light duty half ton truck that is good for pulling a camper or a boat on the weekend.

The current tundra is more like a lightweight 3/4 ton like what you would get in the 90s.


I realize that comparing the mighty f150 to a Tacoma might hurt some feelings so flame away.
could you elaborate? I'm curious. There are certainly some areas where the Tundra has "bigger" components, but I think that goes both directions. It's an interesting comment that you made, so it could b
 

Boatbuilder79

Active member
could you elaborate? I'm curious. There are certainly some areas where the Tundra has "bigger" components, but I think that goes both directions. It's an interesting comment that you made, so it could b
Ford increased the payload on the f150 by making it lighter.

They made the frame stiffer by using a larger cross section but made it thinner to save weight.

They got increased efficiency and it can tow a big boat but it would be really easy to tear up.

Of course you can tear the Toyota up pretty easy too so is the little bit of durability worth the extra weight.
 

Jnich77

Director of Adventure Management Operations
I am glad to see this thread is still going.

Comparing the tundra and f150 is kinda like comparing apples to water mellons.

I think the f150 is more comparable to the first gen tundra or the Tacoma. It is a light duty half ton truck that is good for pulling a camper or a boat on the weekend.

The current tundra is more like a lightweight 3/4 ton like what you would get in the 90s.

I realize that comparing the mighty f150 to a Tacoma might hurt some feelings so flame away.

Funny... The Tundra is rated to tow and hall less than the F150. In fact, the F150 can be equipped to tow and haul what 1990's 3/4 ton trucks were rated for.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top