F150 vs Tundra

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Can anyone tell me the number of engine/driveline/trim/capacity variants that exist under the catch basket of "F-series", vs number of variants in the Tundra?

Does f series include 150, 250, the superduties and hf trucks up to 550 or wherever the chassis and can grows to the next kind of nearly tractor trailer type truck?

Does toyota even make a 3/4 ton?



F-150, F-250, F-350, F-450 and F-550. Though IIRC, the F-150 sales account for something like 4/5ths of the total.

And no, Toyota doesn't make a pick-up that is more than a half-ton.

 

[Oldswagon]

It's interesting to me that the OP asks a question re Tundra vs F-150. Then one of the few guys who actually owns one of these trucks, a Tundra owner, chimes in. Now this guy has his truck as part of his name, because he owns one, like many other user names around here. Yet his opinion is immediately dismissed as too biased. Yet, without naming names, there are some well-known biased individuals for Ford (who may not even own a late model F-150), that no one seems to comment on. Now, there is nothing wrong with being biased, but let’s be fair to both sides.

Point is, I was in this debate a while back with myself, on which fullsize truck to buy. Now, if I were the OP, I'd want to hear from the guy who actually owns one of these trucks. Of course the guy who owns the Tundra will be biased towards it, that's what he bought. If he didn't like it the best, WHY on earth would he buy it? The same applies to the F-150 owners.

What gets me, is that this board is full of supposedly well informed car enthusiasts, yet we end up with posts like this that turn into arguments that I left back on the school grounds years ago. We have people that automatically post F-150 is better, yet don't own one, offer any reason, and dismiss another vehicle as “no good”, yet have no experience with it either. Is this good debate??

I tried both, and did my own educated research, and the Tundra fit my bill. I am a stickler for long term reliability and durability, and my conclusion was this was the best truck for me. The F-150 is a great truck, and I don’t need to knock it to justify my decision. Your conclusion may vary, but I am disappointed that there is such poor information and debate on this site (which is why I don't often post anymore).

And FYI, this is the FIRST Toyota product I have owned, after primarily Domestic branded vehicles (I still own a Ford currently that I will NEVER sell).

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Oldswagon
It's interesting to me that the OP asks a question re Tundra vs F-150. Then one of the few guys who actually owns one of these trucks, a Tundra owner, chimes in. Now this guy has his truck as part of his name, because he owns one, like many other user names around here. Yet his opinion is immediately dismissed as too biased. Yet, without naming names, there are some well-known biased individuals for Ford (who may not even own a late model F-150), that no one seems to comment on. Now, there is nothing wrong with being biased, but let’s be fair to both sides.

Point is, I was in this debate a while back with myself, on which fullsize truck to buy. Now, if I were the OP, I'd want to hear from the guy who actually owns one of these trucks. Of course the guy who owns the Tundra will be biased towards it, that's what he bought. If he didn't like it the best, WHY on earth would he buy it? The same applies to the F-150 owners.

What gets me, is that this board is full of supposedly well informed car enthusiasts, yet we end up with posts like this that turn into arguments that I left back on the school grounds years ago. We have people that automatically post F-150 is better, yet don't own one, offer any reason, and dismiss another vehicle as “no good”, yet have no experience with it either. Is this good debate??

I tried both, and did my own educated research, and the Tundra fit my bill. I am a stickler for long term reliability and durability, and my conclusion was this was the best truck for me. The F-150 is a great truck, and I don’t need to knock it to justify my decision. Your conclusion may vary, but I am disappointed that there is such poor information and debate on this site (which is why I don't often post anymore).

And FYI, this is the FIRST Toyota product I have owned, after primarily Domestic branded vehicles (I still own a Ford currently that I will NEVER sell).


We have two 2011 F-150's at work. One is an Ecoboost, the other a 5.0L. Both are FX4's. I've spent a great deal of seat time in the 5.0L truck, and that's what my recommendation is based on. Our current fleet is a number of F-150's, a number of 1500 RAM's with the HEMI and one GMC that is getting pretty rough. We recently had some smaller Nissan trucks, but they were replaced with Dodge's.

I harbour no ill will for the Tundra. My uncle owns the previous generation (the one that looked like a Ford product inside) and it is a good truck that he's been very happy with. I've spent a number of hours in it and I have no complaints about it other than it not being the spunkiest thing in the world.

My personal gripe was based with how the one Tundra owner misrepresented the F-150. Stating it was less American than the Tundra, implied it had a Chinese transmission...etc. Had he simply stated that when he was looking at the Tundra, it seemed to be the best option for his use and that he's been happy with it, I wouldn't have said anything.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Can anyone tell me the number of engine/driveline/trim/capacity variants that exist under the catch basket of "F-series", vs number of variants in the Tundra?

Does f series include 150, 250, the superduties and hf trucks up to 550 or wherever the chassis and can grows to the next kind of nearly tractor trailer type truck?

Does toyota even make a 3/4 ton?



F-150, F-250, F-350, F-450 and F-550. Though IIRC, the F-150 sales account for something like 4/5ths of the total.

And no, Toyota doesn't make a pick-up that is more than a half-ton.


Wow,m thats a huge number of different platforms that have fairly unique design elements associated with their payload and design capacities. Plus all the engine/trans/driveline versions... It myst be 20+ different versions versus one 2wd and one 4wd!

 

[97f150]

Originally Posted By: DavesTundra
Originally Posted By: 97f150
Originally Posted By: Smokescreen
For what its worth, you will never find a Tundra in the oil industry in any capacity in the Alberta region. They simply do not last according to the workers (my brother is one of them) as the suspension, frame quickly shows fault. I can only report what I hear and see, so have no further comment.


Same experience here in the oilfields in Fourchon. Ford is king here, followed closely by Dodge and if you look hard enough you will see a GM product or 2


What kind of trucks do you see out there, I mean, which models of Ford and Dodge?


Mostly the ¾ and 1 ton flavor that Toyota chooses not to compete against.

 

[rjundi]

My parents have a 2000 Tundra 4wd now with 95,000 miles.

It required a frame(Toyota's dime) and only tires,brakes otherwise. NOTHING else has broken. Honestly textbook Toyota ownership people perceive for them.

During the frame replacement for $1000 they did cat back exhaust and shocks since no labor involved. They also did timing belt since motor was exposed. Lastly it did loose a fuel door for reasons unknown.

Beyond reliable for a 12 year old truck. Nothing is broken on the interior and everything works quite well.

I find it to be a lot quieter(daily driver) vs same vintage trucks even up to mid 2000's I have ridden in.

New one seems big in everything to be big. But Ford has that to a degree too. I can say little about it.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: 97f150
Originally Posted By: Smokescreen
For what its worth, you will never find a Tundra in the oil industry in any capacity in the Alberta region. They simply do not last according to the workers (my brother is one of them) as the suspension, frame quickly shows fault. I can only report what I hear and see, so have no further comment.


Same experience here in the oilfields in Fourchon. Ford is king here, followed closely by Dodge and if you look hard enough you will see a GM product or 2


They are all 3 pretty well represented in the oilfields here. Lots of Rams, lots of Silverado HDs and lots of F-Super-Duties... few Sierra HDs. But then again they are overwhelmingly 3/4 and 1-ton. Not 1/2 tons like the Tundra and F-150.

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL


....And no, Toyota doesn't make a pick-up that is more than a half-ton.


They did.

You can still rent them at U-Haul

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: rjundi
My parents have a 2000 Tundra 4wd now with 95,000 miles.

It required a frame(Toyota's dime) and only tires,brakes otherwise. NOTHING else has broken. Honestly textbook Toyota ownership people perceive for them.

During the frame replacement for $1000 they did cat back exhaust and shocks since no labor involved. They also did timing belt since motor was exposed. Lastly it did loose a fuel door for reasons unknown.

Beyond reliable for a 12 year old truck. Nothing is broken on the interior and everything works quite well.

I find it to be a lot quieter(daily driver) vs same vintage trucks even up to mid 2000's I have ridden in.

New one seems big in everything to be big. But Ford has that to a degree too. I can say little about it.


I don't know how beyond reliable and requiring a frame can be used in the same post

"Oh no sir, this truck has been the epitome of reliability! The only thing it has needed other than routine maintenance is a new frame" LMAO!!

Just some good natured ribbing but you surely can see the humour in this, no?

 

[DavesTundra]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: rjundi
My parents have a 2000 Tundra 4wd now with 95,000 miles.

It required a frame(Toyota's dime) and only tires,brakes otherwise. NOTHING else has broken. Honestly textbook Toyota ownership people perceive for them.

During the frame replacement for $1000 they did cat back exhaust and shocks since no labor involved. They also did timing belt since motor was exposed. Lastly it did loose a fuel door for reasons unknown.

Beyond reliable for a 12 year old truck. Nothing is broken on the interior and everything works quite well.

I find it to be a lot quieter(daily driver) vs same vintage trucks even up to mid 2000's I have ridden in.

New one seems big in everything to be big. But Ford has that to a degree too. I can say little about it.


I don't know how beyond reliable and requiring a frame can be used in the same post

"Oh no sir, this truck has been the epitome of reliability! The only thing it has needed other than routine maintenance is a new frame" LMAO!!

Just some good natured ribbing but you surely can see the humour in this, no?


I remember reading that Toyota screwed something up on the first gen frames, maybe only a select few years of the first gen, and yea they would replace it if it was affected. Atleast they made right on that.

 

[DavesTundra]

Originally Posted By: 97f150
Originally Posted By: DavesTundra
Originally Posted By: 97f150
Originally Posted By: Smokescreen
For what its worth, you will never find a Tundra in the oil industry in any capacity in the Alberta region. They simply do not last according to the workers (my brother is one of them) as the suspension, frame quickly shows fault. I can only report what I hear and see, so have no further comment.


Same experience here in the oilfields in Fourchon. Ford is king here, followed closely by Dodge and if you look hard enough you will see a GM product or 2


What kind of trucks do you see out there, I mean, which models of Ford and Dodge?


Mostly the ¾ and 1 ton flavor that Toyota chooses not to compete against.


I figured they would be rockin' the 3/4 and full ton trucks out there.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: DavesTundra
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: rjundi
My parents have a 2000 Tundra 4wd now with 95,000 miles.

It required a frame(Toyota's dime) and only tires,brakes otherwise. NOTHING else has broken. Honestly textbook Toyota ownership people perceive for them.

During the frame replacement for $1000 they did cat back exhaust and shocks since no labor involved. They also did timing belt since motor was exposed. Lastly it did loose a fuel door for reasons unknown.

Beyond reliable for a 12 year old truck. Nothing is broken on the interior and everything works quite well.

I find it to be a lot quieter(daily driver) vs same vintage trucks even up to mid 2000's I have ridden in.

New one seems big in everything to be big. But Ford has that to a degree too. I can say little about it.


I don't know how beyond reliable and requiring a frame can be used in the same post

"Oh no sir, this truck has been the epitome of reliability! The only thing it has needed other than routine maintenance is a new frame" LMAO!!

Just some good natured ribbing but you surely can see the humour in this, no?


I remember reading that Toyota screwed something up on the first gen frames, maybe only a select few years of the first gen, and yea they would replace it if it was affected. Atleast they made right on that.


I think you are right. It was the Tacoma that had the serious frame issues IIRC.

 

[rjundi]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: rjundi
My parents have a 2000 Tundra 4wd now with 95,000 miles.

It required a frame(Toyota's dime) and only tires,brakes otherwise. NOTHING else has broken. Honestly textbook Toyota ownership people perceive for them.

During the frame replacement for $1000 they did cat back exhaust and shocks since no labor involved. They also did timing belt since motor was exposed. Lastly it did loose a fuel door for reasons unknown.

Beyond reliable for a 12 year old truck. Nothing is broken on the interior and everything works quite well.

I find it to be a lot quieter(daily driver) vs same vintage trucks even up to mid 2000's I have ridden in.

New one seems big in everything to be big. But Ford has that to a degree too. I can say little about it.


I don't know how beyond reliable and requiring a frame can be used in the same post

"Oh no sir, this truck has been the epitome of reliability! The only thing it has needed other than routine maintenance is a new frame" LMAO!!

Just some good natured ribbing but you surely can see the humour in this, no?


I have never considered frame reliability. Agree it is funny. As it does not effect the vehicle starting/repairs etc.

Toyota gave my mother a loaner 2011 Tundra for 2.5 months and took care of the problem while it was in queue to get done. It could not pass state inspection. I thought it would come back with issues, rattles, squeaks etc.

Shut your speakers off(awful music) but this 2.5 min version of what happened if interested: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Af0geuORNo

The good thing my mom's was at the end of pack and dedicated tech had at least 20-30 swaps up his sleeve before doing my mum's.

 

[Hokiefyd]

I don't consider frame rust to be poor reliability. It's simply the nature of the beast (body-on-frame vehicle); if you have a section that gets rusty, you can't just graft in a new section.

It's not unlike, say, the 3rd generation Chrysler minivans. They are very well known for rusting the upper strut towers. Those strut towers are structural pieces of the vehicle. If there was no fix for them, the entire vehicle would be condemned. But there is a fix, and the repair can be made to an otherwise reliable vehicle and keep it running well into the future.

I look at any body-on-frame vehicle the same way. From my recollection, the entire frame doesn't simply dissolve; a certain section or sections develop a lot of corrosion to due to any number of factors (design, manufacturing, whatever). But there is no approved repair to cut out the old section of frame and graft in a new one; the entire frame has to be replaced. So it ends up being a big job, but it's very likely WAY overkill relative to the part that was actually affected by the corrosion.

 

[hattaresguy]

Frame rust is a very big deal when it happens on a few year old truck, were not talking about 25 year old trucks here.

The American manufactures can figure it out, Toyota might have with the new ones but who knows they are not old enough yet.

 

[rjundi]

Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Frame rust is a very big deal when it happens on a few year old truck, were not talking about 25 year old trucks here.

The American manufactures can figure it out, Toyota might have with the new ones but who knows they are not old enough yet.


Not sure what happened. The frame supplier Dana(also Ford's) did pay a settlement to Toyota for $25M for frame repairs.

 

[DavesTundra]

Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Frame rust is a very big deal when it happens on a few year old truck, were not talking about 25 year old trucks here.

The American manufactures can figure it out, Toyota might have with the new ones but who knows they are not old enough yet.


the 2nd gen Tundra has been around since 2007 so it has been more than a few years time for frame rust issues to become visible.

 

[kb01]

My company's fleet is a mix of F-150s and Tundras. They all get a lot of use and abuse (they spend 99% of the time in the coal fields) and IMHO, they perform comparably, and are equally comfortable for a tall man. In terms of reliability or capability, I've never noticed a difference.

I think it just comes down to preference, if you're used to a Ford, the Tundra is just annoying and uncomfortable and vice versa.

The only advantage I really can think of either way is that the F-150 is such a common work vehicle in the coal industry, that aftermarket and replacement parts are readily available, and local 4x4 shops can get one configured for coal use very quickly. Repair parts are also generally available in remote areas.

 

[01rangerxl]

Originally Posted By: kb01

The only advantage I really can think of either way is that the F-150 is such a common work vehicle in the coal industry, that aftermarket and replacement parts are readily available, and local 4x4 shops can get one configured for coal use very quickly. Repair parts are also generally available in remote areas.


Yeah, I had to detail an F-150 that had been used in a coal mine or some kind of coal operation. There was a solid inch of coal dust on the floor and all of the rags turned black. I can't imagine how the air filter looked.