Why pick 2016 Tacoma DCLB over F150 DC (supercrew)

Already $1k off this quicksand OR at my local dealer.

 

Lol. I guess all those casinoes with their strategies based on statistics are just silly - they could talk to couple of guys and be done with it.. I bet they know a gambler or two.

As for the hefty margines, yeah, that is cute. However they still have to discount full size to the mid size price range in order to sell it. And thus Ranger is gone. And Super Duty is not their bestseller. I would guess something like F150 XLT extended cab (or whatever they call it) is.

Anyways - margin and profit are not the same, but you know it, right?. And the argument here more and more reminds me of a discussion with a Ford dealer. Not suggesting anything, just sharing the feeling .

 

You mean you bought a Tundra for 1500 less than the F150's sticker price. Ford moves way more off sticker though, so that means nothing.

As for the mileage . My wifes 2015 F150 gets around 20 mpg combined. That's 15% better than you Tundra. Over 30K miles a year that's a fair chunk of change saved. Plus I think your being optimistic or using the trip computer. Just about every 3rd party reviewer reports 14 mpg combined with the Tundra and about 19 mpg with the F150.

 

Just to stay on subject. On Saturday went to Coquihalla summit and back -200 Km one way, elevation gain bout 1000 meters. Guys from BC know where it is. Long story short - here is my average (2015 V6 DCLB):

 

Simple, house always wins in the end...or they wouldn't be in business.

"There are lies, damn lies....and statistics..."

Hard to say what their best seller is, since they don't separate the sales figures between the models for the public to see. They sell an awful lot to commercial fleet service, Super Duty might edge out the F150

You must be confusing me with someone else. I said nothing about margins and profit. All I said was, the 1/2 ton is the better buy for the consumer than a midsize. I don't care what the manufacture/dealer makes off of it. I don't see any clear advantage the midsize has, maybe a little smaller, but I am beginning to realize that the guys who yammer on about the size of the Tacoma, may not know how to drive very well.

 

This was one of the big things pushing me away from Toyota. All the problems I've had with them, and now their new model going for $12,000 more than my new 2006 was? (And I bought in Feb 2006, so no year end discounts, sales, or anything else.)

I'll look at Toyota again when Top Gear can do to a Tacoma (or Tundra) what they did to a Hilux and still drive it away.

 

@piercedtiger How's the 3.5EB treating ya? You experienced any of the known problems I've seen on F150 forum? I'm tempted to trade mine in at the end of the year for a 3.5EB. Took one for a spin over the weekend and I was quite impressed.

 

I am one of those yamming guys and perhaps I do not know how to drive at all judging by what some times happening on the roads . But hey, I am just doing it for 25 years and there are places in the neighborhood where I am darn happy to have a narrower truck.

 

Nope! No issues so far! Up just over 5,000 miles so I'll be doing an oil change soon. Figure I'll make sure it's full synthetic for this engine, and follow the 7500 interval if the oil life monitor agrees.

If anything I love this truck more and more! I loved manuals and the 6 speed in the Tacoma at first, but there's a few instances an auto is nice. I get reminded of that every time a tire finds one of the holes in my yard. With the Tacoma it was let the clutch slip to sorta crawl out, or let it out just a little too much and it jumped forward. I'm sure most of that is just "normal" for manuals, but I also think the Tacoma manual tranny could have been better. Also, the torque came on at a higher rpm so it seemed like it was all or nothing sometimes. By comparison, if the F150 gets stopped by a hole, I can slowly push the pedal, watch the RPMs climb, here the turbos spool up, and by 1500 RPM I have all the torque I need to crawl out of the hole at a leisurely, controlled, pace. To me that's CRUCIAL! I can't count the number of times I wanted 2 Low because I needed slow and powerful, but couldn't have 4 Low tearing shit up. Like backing up to my trailer, especially when I couldn't see it so the wife was directing me. Or navigating through the half dozen foot deep holes my dog dug around her tree. Can't have it surging forward into the tree (or pool in the other direction!) trying to get out of a damn hole!

Today I backed my trailer w/tractor into a friend's driveway and couldn't believe how easy it was. (I'm not very experienced with backing a trailer in general, let alone into a narrow driveway lined with ditches while transporting an expensive tractor with a nervous wife riding shotgun on a rather busy road.) I basically just rested the weight of my foot on the gas pedal, crawled back, checked mirrors and camera. I doubt the RPMs were even at 1500, and I still had power to move the 5x10 wood deck trailer and 1500lb tractor like it wasn't there. It boosted my confidence a LOT being able to take it slow, avoid mistakes, and not have to get the RPMS so high that it went too fast. Not juggling the clutch made a big difference too, and clearly not a Tacoma-specific problem, but the power was truly amazing to me. I always had to wind up the Tacoma with this trailer combo, and it was always jerky. Too slow/not enough power, enough power/too fast, back n forth, juggle gas and clutch, there never seemed to be a happy medium with that tranny.

 

Oh, and for what it's worth, I've been hauling wood pallets home for a couple of weeks now. Today I ratcheted one stack down so tight the strap was bending the 1/2 boards. Can anyone do that with the Tacoma track and cleat system?

 

Maybe if the Tacoma stayed small, I would agree with the whole size thing...but it isn't all that small anymore. Fullsize half ton isn't all that much bigger, some say it is an apples to oranges comparison...I dunno, maybe a small apple compared to a slightly larger apple...me thinks.

I dunno, I used to have a 4Runner and a F250 at the same time, and this was back East where the trails are tighter than out here in the West. I put the F250 everywhere the 4Runner went, there were some places the 4Runner couldn't make it where the F250 could (the Ford had a bit more clearance), of course you can stuff 37" tire on the F250, 33" on the 4Runner and that was with a 3" lift.

So it is all relative, ya know.

Maybe the answer is to have both...

 

@Sterdog I know you told us somewhere in this thread, but what did you get in the '15 motor wise? I'm leaning towards the V8 unless they make me a terrific deal on an ecoboost.

 

We bought the 5.0 L V8. Honestly, if driven normally, you get about the same mileage on the 3.5 L Ecoboost as the 5.0 L. However, if you start driving it like a race truck, the 3.5 L Ecoboost loses that fuel economy and drops down to around 17 mpg. The 2.7 L Ecoboost is interesting. I only know one guy with that motor and he swears he gets 23 mpg highway and 18 mpg city. Not sure if that's true though since the only truck we had at work with that motor was shipped out to another location.

 

...Nope as I said the Ford dealers were not dealing as I hoped.....Maybe it was because of the ecoboost I was after....Tundra was my second option and dont regret it....nope not using trip computer......50-50- to 55-45 mix of driving......I know several people with Ford Chevys and Dodges....none get close to 19 combined mpg....highway mileage most get better than the Tundra....combined or just in town about the same....

 

I recommend you check out fuelly or read into some third party reviews. The Tundra lags behind the competition in almost every metric other than the interior. Which makes sense. The Tundra interior is brand new, but the guts are nearly 10 years old. No new engines, transmissions, or other technology. It's basically a truck that was designed to compete with the F150 from 10 years ago, which isn't even close to the truck the F150 is now. The Tundra is known for poor fuel economy and poor performance compared to engines of similar displacement/power.

You are looking through Rose coloured glasses, no offense meant.

 

Figured I could chime in here - I have the 3.5EB supercrew (2014 F150 xlt) and I am still in love with this truck. I have just shy of 40K miles and not one hiccup since I have owned it. I had to have the rotors resurfaced at 28K miles to get rid of some pulsating, but that was covered by the dealer (pretty common complaint in the F150s). Getting roughly 19-21 mpg with a good mix of both city and highway.

Have carried close to 1500 lbs worth of PT decking wood 20 miles or so and the engine just laughed at me the whole time. I can say right now that if this truck was totaled tomorrow, first thing I would do is go buy another.

In all honesty, I wish I stopped playing "it'll do" with the midsize trucks a while ago and just went into the full size.

 

Why would I read any third party reports...I have owned this truck for 2 1/2 years...I put over 34000 miles on on it,I know what mileage it gets ....poor performance ....what a joke..381 hp and 401 torque......yep that is an under performer....My post was not comparing performance ....it more about comparing real life mpg...ie from people I know and also pricing incentives which probably have changed since winter of 2013 when I was looking to buy...

 

My point is that your comments don't line up with the hundreds of third party reviews and fuelly reports say. People come on here to learn truthful information. To be perfectly honest, I'm doing my best not to be rude with this comment but you need to step back. The Tundra is horrendous on gas. Period. If you baby it of course it does better, but then what is the point of that power if you never get to use it.

Yes, at 381 HP and 401 ftlbs the 5.7 L is a joke when it shows so poorly in side by side towing testing. When it came out it was badass, but the GM and Dodge 6.2 L engines and the Ford Ecoboost have left it way back in the dust. Hell, the 5.0 L Ford makes about the same power as the 5.7 L with much less displacement which just goes to show you how old the 5.7 L is now.

 

You might need to step back...I am simply stating what the facts are with my vehicle.....people come on here to get "truthful" infomation...Dont assume somebody is lying just because you dont agree with what is said...I have been around and driven many vehicles in my lifetime and have nothing to lie about and am not partial to any......If this forum is about information,your gripe should be about the pages and pages of BS comments you have to sift thru before you get to a page of useful info...And what is the hp and torque on the 5.0.....

 

385 hp (287 kW) at 5750 rpm 387 lb·ft (525 N·m) at 3850 rpm. Within 3% of the Tundra 5.7 L. The Ford is also a fully Aluminum engine with forged internals. It's quite the engine IMHO for the displacement. The Mustang version makes over 400 ponies and ftlbs of torque, but is tuned towards the high end. The F150 version I quoted has almost double the torque of the Mustang engine down low at 2000 rpms due to a different intake manifold and exhaust manifold.

With a Rouche blower a 5.0 L makes slightly more power than the 5.7 L TRD S/C too, so you can play with both motors for power if you want.

Yeah, let's agree to disagree. I don't mean to come off like a dick, but we had a few Tundra's at work and they were pigs. Ever since I can't endorse them as a great option. I'm somewhat pissed that Toyota has left the Tundra to rot rather than update the internals.