Thinking of trading in my 18 Taco for a full-size

Tundra is junk just like the Tacoma. 50k for a basic ass amenities. Lol! And I own a Tacoma (sucks too because I wanted to love it) there are just too many quirks and my complaints are like everyone else’s

 

If it's a full size for towing and working I would get a F150 with a 5.0litre engine crew cab 4x4 2013 or newer lowest milage possible. It's a beast, is still great offroad and a reliable combo. Tacoma's are great for Roof top tents, exploring, travelling offroad while not towing and running lite. That's why I have a Tacoma but towing or rolling with anything heavier going with a F150 5.0L.
Helped my buddy negotiate this one, he has quads, motorcycles and a camper on the back and gets about the same mpgs when loaded as my Tacoma does with the RTT fully loaded for exploring.

 

You're making A LOT of assumptions in your comparisons. You’re also ignoring different gear ratios, which is revealing...

 

Good for you....the average F-150 owner IS NOT getting 19.2 mpg in the city.

The math is quite simple, so is the reading comprehension, though you seem to have a hard time grasping what I'm saying:

The 3.5l v6 ecoboost (which is the engine most directly comparable to the Tundra 5.7lv8) ONLY GETS 16 mpg on average. The 5.7lv8 Tundra on average gets 14 mpg. Therefore the difference between the two most powerful engines for either truck is only 2 mpg. 16-14=2.

Maybe both that 8.8" rear differential and the different frames are stout. My point still holds true: the Tundra is rated for lower payload/tow ratings but still has larger and more robust components than does the F-150 (including brakes, rear differential, and tow hitch). So even if the F-150 is of a stout design, the Tundra is arguably more robust in certain aspects.

Lol....whereas before Toyota's reliance on older components/designs was counted as a negative, the F-150's reliance on what is basically an old midsized-spec'd rear differential is just fine?

Differential size isn't everything. But Toyota designs a lot more overkill into their trucks compared to other companies, at least as it pertains to midsized and 1/2 tons.

• The base F-150's rear 8.8" differential is on par with what Toyota puts into its Tacoma's and 4runners (8.8" rear differential BTW).
• The Tundra uses axles, differentials, brakes, tow hitches that are on par, arguably more robust in some cases, compared to what the high-GVWR F-150 uses....but that F-150 is rated for much higher towing and payload limits. Explain to me how that works.

If you get away from stupid 0-60 times and body updates, the actual underpinnings of both trucks (F-150 and Tundra) are actually very similar, with the Tundra actually having more robust components (as previously mentioned). But because Ford rates its F-150 to tow more, that means the truck is better built and more capable?

I'm really beginning to wonder how much time some of you have spent underneath these trucks.

 

Do you realize that the 2.7 V6 Ecoboost has the same torque output as that Coyote 5.0 V8? Last I read, Ford was cutting back on the production of V8's in the F150 do to lack of market demand. Im a believer in a V8 for a full truck myself but it looks like there going to be gradually phased out over th next say 10 years in the 1/2 tons.

 

Whats crazy is that in 10 years we probably will see the phase out of Gas engines entirely, might be the last generation or 2 of old school combustion coming up. If the 2021 Tundra goes hybrid, Then we are starting to see the shift for sure

 

Tundra SX package also has no chrome, is completely debated and has color matched bumpers, grille and has debadged TRD Pro alloy wheels in black.

 

10 years seems optimistic to me, but I would say 30 years, I could see that happening (but even that may be optimistic). US has too much invested in oil.

 

Your right. I like those but think it only comes in a dbl cab and not the crewmax

 

The Tundra SX Package

- color keyed bumpers and grille
- debadged from factory
- Black alloy wheels based off outgoing TRD Pro wheels

 

The biggest limiting factor in a switch to electric vehicles might be the local neighbourhood electric grid which won't be capable of supporting entire regions plugging into 240v every evening. And it doesn't really matter what the source of power is, because the wiring can't handle the load. Also I wouldn't want to be driving a EV any distance when it is -18C/0F or colder.

 

A poor mans sport package. Similiar to the Ram 1500 with express package I had. I like it. I actually could have got one of those for $1500 less tham my tacoma

 

I'll try to comprehend what you're stating here even though I'm borderline-illiterate:

The F150 3.5L twin turbo V6, with 470 lb.ft. of torque and slightly better MPG than the Tundra naturally aspirated V8 with 401 lb.ft. of torque, is the engine most directly comparable to the Tundra 5.7L V8. NOT the F150 5.0L naturally aspirated V8 with 400 lb.ft. of torque that also gets slightly better MPG than the Tundra V8.

The Ford 8.8" differential, even though its use in motorsports is well-documented and it's also in the Shelby Mustang GT500 with 760 horsepower and 625 lb.ft. of torque (and covered by the factory powertrain warranty, by the way), is only on par with the differentials of a different design and manufacturer but similarly-sized ring gear, used in midsize Toyota trucks that are below the 300 mark on horsepower and torque. Well, the 4th gen V8 4Runner and the Lexus GX 470/460 probably use the same differentials and they have a face-peeling 329 lb.ft. of torque. You win again, darn it.

The Tundra uses larger and more robust components than the F150, yet it has lower payload and tow ratings. Perhaps Toyota keeps its true capabilities secret in a zany reverse-marketing strategy, because they want to sell fewer full-size pickups than any of their competitors other than Nissan?

I see the pattern here. You make an assumption, someone presents evidence that your assumption is incorrect, then you retort with that same assumption again. I'm just a meager real mechanic in real life, but if I watch some youtube videos first I can probably somehow get myself underneath the regular-ass GVWR F150 sitting in my driveway right now and measure some components. Then you can do the same on your Tundra and we will compare and contrast, just for fun!

 

For uses thicker steel in a fully boxed frame. Toyota still uses the same open C-channel frame from 2007.

One would assume that simple physics would indicate that the ford frame is significantly stronger than the Toyota which would lead to better payloads and durability. Then there was the whole Toyota frame rust recall thing. Not that reliable it would seem.

 

What model years did Toyota have a rust recall thing?

 

So if they dropped #700 from the tundra with aluminum body work, would the payload go up by #700lb and MPG go up by 2?

 

Well firstly, the F-150 5.0l v8 gets about the same mpg as the 3.5l ecoboost in realworld combined averages. IMHO, the F-150's mpg "advantage" has less to do with engine technology and more to do with light weight construction and higher gearing.
Secondly, even when comparing the 5.7l Tundra to the 3.5l ecoboost F-150, the average mpg difference only amounts to 2 mpg (not 4 mpg).
I'm not arguing that the 3.5l ecoboost doesn't get better mpg; I'm saying the degree of separation isn't as big as some here make it out to be.

What Mustang GT500 comes from the factory with 760HP and 625lb-ft? Are you referring to actual OEM components and specs or are you cherry-picking aftermarket vehicle applications? Because there is a big difference between the two.

You can talk up Ford's 8.8" rear differential all you want; the fact is that it is used on the Ranger and the F-150 (likely as a cost-saving method for Ford) and its not nearly as special as you make it out to be. They can be found on the used market for next to nothing and they've been around for over 20 years. Someone might use them for high-horsepower applications and it might be robust enough to handle some of that abuse. The 10.5" rear end on the Tundra is arguably more robust, and the fact that Toyota uses that rear end with all of its 5.7l Tundra's speaks volumes about the the company's design approach as compared to other companies.

Or perhaps Toyota prefers to over-engineer its vehicles for a given payload/towing benchmark.
Ford increases its payload and towing beyond what the Tundra is rated for, but those high-GVWR vehicles are still using components that are similar, in some cases inferior, to what the Tundra uses. While I'd love to see the Tundra's payload rating increase a bit, I feel a lot more comfortable with that sort of design versus those designs that Ford, GM and FCA put out. And based off of used market trends, I'm not alone in that preference.

You're presenting very little in the way of "evidence." You evidently think the F-150 is a much more capable, and ultimately better, vehicle compared to the Tundra. I prefer the Tundra because it is over-engineered in some aspects (which oddly enough you haven't done much to dispute). People can pick what they want for a truck.

Just don't kid yourself into thinking that the F-150 is light years ahead of the Tundra in terms of construction and engineering. Other than aluminum body and some fancy tech gadgets and amenities, it's got absolutely nothing special going on with its design and construction. If you'd like to take a break from telling anecdotal stories about the motorsport application of the 8.8", please go ahead and provide some specific examples of how the F-150 is a vastly superior and different design compared to that of the Tundra...you are a "real mechanic" after all.

Ford used C-channels frames for the longest time in its Super Duty lineup...I never heard of any major reliability issues with those frames nor did I hear many complaints from the Ford fanboys. There are million mile Tundra's out there...if the C-channel frame truly were a weakpoint, we'd know about it by now.

 

I’ve noticed that most of your posts are like this. So just curious as to why you drive a Toyota?

I’ll tell you the overwhelming reason why I do: reliability

 

I believe the argument someone was making that I replied to was that a Ford frames were weaker and/or tundras were just as strong. I was merely pointing out that a boxed frame is much more rigid and stronger than a C-Channel

 

Greater rigidity does not necessarily equate to greater strength.

C-channel frames can be engineered to handle heavier payloads (refer to my Super Duty example), but they will flex more. Some people say that additional flex is bad, some (like Toyota's engineers) say that the flex helps with articulation in rough terrain.

Personally, I prefer fully boxed frames, but I wouldn't let the C-channel frame of the Tundra, or Tacoma, hold me back from making a purchase. The frames will generally outlast the bodies they are attached to.