Tundra Expierences

[GT.....O?]

I'm planning on buying a new truck soon. Unfortunetly my tacoma got written off.

Im looking for personal preferences, between a tundra and a f-150. Reliability, actual fuel economy, what you liked or didnt like.

I previously owned a 2003 Duramax, which i liked because it was very spaceous, interior was nice and it wasnt too bad for fuel economy.

While I liked the tacoma, the interior felt very cheap, and my sled barely fit in the back (ski stance wider then the wheel wells) and had 2 feet hanging off.

I like the look of the new tundras, which apparently have a strong pull. The interiors look nice, spaceous, and comfortable. Not extremely concerned with fuel economy but i do allot of trips up to edmonton.

Ive never really been a fan of fords until recently when they stepped it up a bit. But they tend to be a little cheaper

Which would you choose and why?

I know everyone will say go drive them, and I have but im still undecided..

[Skrilla]

I would take the F150, especially if you went with the new eco boost motor, a few of the operators I know have them and speak very highly about the power & economy. Also the Ford interior is quite nice, and the back seat room is huge.

just my $0.02

[ddduke]

Don't know what you're going to use it for but the Tundra is probably one of the weakest work trucks in its class.

I watched all those tests they ran saying it can accelerate faster with trailers and full load which is completely untrue. Took one for a 24hr test drive and first thing I did was put 2000lb in the box, suspension sunk so bad that I almost didnt want to drive it. Then I hitched up a 16ft cargo trailer and towed with it which was a total nightmare, so gutless and barely made it up hill.

Tried an F150, handled my tests no problem. Ended up getting an Ford.

Now im currently driving a dodge which is worse then the tundra.

[CMW403]

I would take the new F-150 ecoboost hands down. That thing gets INSANE gas mileage for a truck and its fun to drive! You can even get a sticker that says "Got Boost?"!! (partially serious).

[AE92_TreunoSC]

I'm a total import guy with 10 toyotas under my belt and I would go with a new 5.0 F150 over a Tundra any day.

Tundra's are really expensive, not that durable or robust like the old toyotas and they aren't at the top of power curve anymore.

I say test drive them both and see which feels better.

Tundra isnt a bad choice by any means, I would just make sure to get a top end model so it holds its resale strong like all toyotas.

[GT.....O?]

I've got a budget of 26 grand, so that puts the ecoboost model out of the equation.

[78si]

I love my tundra.. I tow with it all the time, and it has tons of power. The tundra has a few different engine options. My 5.7 is pretty impressive, but definitely not a 3/4 diesel.

[GT.....O?]

Originally posted by ddduke
Don't know what you're going to use it for but the Tundra is probably one of the weakest work trucks in its class.

I watched all those tests they ran saying it can accelerate faster with trailers and full load which is completely untrue. Took one for a 24hr test drive and first thing I did was put 2000lb in the box, suspension sunk so bad that I almost didnt want to drive it. Then I hitched up a 16ft cargo trailer and towed with it which was a total nightmare, so gutless and barely made it up hill.

Tried an F150, handled my tests no problem. Ended up getting an Ford.

Now im currently driving a dodge which is worse then the tundra.

Did you test the 4.7 or 5.7 L engine?

[craigcd]

Residual value is better on the Tundra long term IMO.

[ddduke]

Originally posted by GT.....O?


Did you test the 4.7 or 5.7 L engine?

limited 5.7

[TunerF1]

Do it up! I have a few buddies with these and they love them!

http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/227440_162766673788169_158885240842979_426541_6417602_n.jpg

[78si]

You tube "trd supercharged tundra"
:love:

[CMW403]

Originally posted by TunerF1
Do it up! I have a few buddies with these and they love them!

http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/227440_162766673788169_158885240842979_426541_6417602_n.jpg


Originally posted by GT.....O?
I've got a budget of 26 grand,

That's not gonna work.

[TunerF1]

^^ Illustrating the potential of the vehicle isnt going to work?

[ExtraSlow]

For a budget of 26g, I think you'd be best with an F150.
You can get a 2010 F150 SuperCrew 4x4 for around 23k according to Kijiji today. That truck would have the proven 5.4l engine and the updated 6 speed transmission.

If you don't need the 4 doors or 4x4 that opens up your choices considerably, even into brand new trucks.

[CMW403]

Originally posted by TunerF1
^^ Illustrating the potential of the vehicle isnt going to work?

:rofl:

What good is "illustrating the potential" when he's got a budget of 26k?

Would you go to the dealership and test drive a 2012 911 Turbo when you've got the budget for a 99' Boxter? That doesn't help him out at all hahaha

[ddduke]

Originally posted by CMW403


:rofl:

What good is "illustrating the potential" when he's got a budget of 26k?

Would you go to the dealership and test drive a 2012 911 Turbo when you've got the budget for a 99' Boxter? That doesn't help him out at all hahaha

I'm assuming what he means is that LATER on down the road he can start modifying. So for now, buy the truck and start the mods later.

So, if he buys a stock one it has the POTENTIAL to look like the one posted later one down the road.

Your comparison of Porsches is bullshit, you're comparing 2 different models when you should be comparing 2 of the same models; one modified and one stock. Which can potentially spike your interest knowing what your stock truck could eventually be like.

[msommers]

The potential is there for any vehicle and while that Tundra looks pretty badass, I doubt anyone would use that as a work truck to haul sleds. I also wonder if that truck above has seen anything but pavement... :rofl:

There was talk on here before of the eco boost engine not being as great as it originally claimed but that could be internet exaggeration which is common. Maybe look into that more.

The Duramax engine is a fantastic engine. I'm stil a firm believer that domestic companies make better trucks than foreign.

[Cooked Rice]

Ford if it's going to see any hauling, towing, and work. Frames are beefier, sheet metal is thicker and stronger, paint finish is more durable etc. And this is coming from a Toyota owner.

[78si]

Not mine..

http://calgary.kijiji.ca/c-cars-vehicles-cars-trucks-2008-Toyota-Tundra-4X4-RCSB-W0QQAdIdZ355383730
:burnout:

[Cos]

.

[luxor]

Originally posted by Cooked Rice
Ford if it's going to see any hauling, towing, and work. Frames are beefier, sheet metal is thicker and stronger, paint finish is more durable etc. And this is coming from a Toyota owner.

Show me some proof that says Tundra's sheet metals are thinner and paint finish less durable. Ford has shitty paint.

Their frames are beefier because they are full boxed frames, whereas the tundra uses open C's at the rear. Yet the Tundra can tow/haul just as much. You don't think the engineers who designed the frames didn't look at boxed alternatives? Obviously it isn't needed in most cases to justify the extra weight and cost. You are going to argue the frame isn't stiff now? Well it's a truck and it doesn't need all that stiffness so it can corner almost as good as a uni-body frames car. So show me some proof because you make bullshit claims. I would take the Tundra any day, work truck or not. If you are going for a beater truck that you don't care about then get the Ford. I had a Ford and hated it.

[rx7_turbo2]

I'm on my second Tundra. I put 130k on the last one in 3 years. Both have been 5.7l TRD models. It gets used everyday for work, I'm an electrical contractor. It carry's a constant load of at least 2000lbs, copper wire spools, tool rack, ladders, tools etc. The idea the bed sagged from that weight is fucking laughable, whoever said that is delusional lol :rolleyes:. I'm in and out of it a hundred times a day slamming doors, tailgates generally being pretty rough on it. As a work truck? The 2008 held up just fine, I expect the 2011 to be the same.

I also know no less than 4 other people who own basically the same truck. Two of the guys pull trailers that are actually a fair bit heavier than the truck is rated for without any modifications except heavier duty tires. The same dip shit that said the suspension sagged from 2000lbs said it couldn't haul a 16' cargo trailer? It couldn't get up hills? It's got 381hp and 400tq it does just fine lol.

Listen I'm not saying the Tundra is the best of all time, run out and buy one. It's just some of what was posted in this thread is complete nonsense. I know a few people with the new F150 and all of them have been very happy with them as well.

[luxor]

Originally posted by rx7_turbo2

Listen I'm not saying the Tundra is the best of all time, run out and buy one. It's just some of what was posted in this thread is complete nonsense. I know a few people with the new F150 and all of them have been very happy with them as well.

:werd:

It's no surprise that the big 3 truck makers were all breaking a sweat when the new Tundra was introduced in 2007. For once they actually had a fourth competitor that they couldn't beat.

[Cos]

.

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by luxor


:werd:

It's no surprise that the big 3 truck makers were all breaking a sweat when the new Tundra was introduced in 2007. For once they actually had a fourth competitor that they couldn't beat.

Ya I'm not sure the big 3 are all that worried Toyota is gonna take a whole lot of market share, but that's not the point. For the average dude in need of a "Full Size" but not heavy duty truck the Tundra is a more than viable option.

I ride dirt bikes as well, and I ride a KTM, same deal there, guys with Yamaha's, Suzuki's, Honda's, Kawi's shit all over the orange bikes for years, for all kinds of reasons, some reasonable and some bogus. The longer the KTM's are around the more and more "normal" and accepted they have become. The Tundra will be the same.

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by Cos
The tundra was miles ahead when it came out (in it's new generation). Problem now is that they havent refreshed them where as the F150 and Sierra is on its second or third generation.

I used to LOVE the tacoma. I went to drive one a month ago and just hated it. Toyota really needed to upgrade them about 3/4 years ago instead of waiting.

I agree with that. The Tacoma we have here is ancient! Even if we don't get the diesel option why don't we get this truck?

http://www.zercustoms.com/news/images/Toyota/th1/2012-Toyota-Hilux-1.jpg

[corsvette]

Originally posted by Cos
The tundra was miles ahead when it came out (in it's new generation). Problem now is that they havent refreshed them where as the F150 and Sierra is on its second or third generation.

I used to LOVE the tacoma. I went to drive one a month ago and just hated it. Toyota really needed to upgrade them about 3/4 years ago instead of waiting.

Tundra was introduced the same year as the new GM's and a few years after the Ford, the Dodge got a minor refresh in 06. There have been a few tidbit rumours saying Toyota may not redesign it due to slow sales, it never came near the projected sales goals.

My cousin in the US had a 08 crewmax, it was a blast to drive, the engine is a real gem. He did have a ton of transmission issues with it, but he did tow with alot, and lives in Washington where it's very hilly. He has a 2011 F150 5.0 now and just loves it, says it has the power of the Yota but with way better fuel economy.

Tundra is also one of the dirty dozen! (#12 of the biggest flops of the last decade)
http://autos.aol.com/gallery/decade-worst-cars/
:poosie:

[Cos]

.

[YamaLube]

Instead of buying brand new, buy a 2009 or 2010 low mileage used. For your budget you will get into a much better truck. I have an 09 with the 5.4, gets good mileage, and pulls great.

My brother has a platinum ecoboost, we pulled our trailers to nordegg and got the same mileage pulling. Thing with the ecoboost, when the turbo's are spinning the burn the fuel as bad as any engine.

As for the toyota question, there is no doubt the tundra was the truck to have in 2007, but things have changed. Right now I would buy a ford over the toyota any day of the week. For a first "real" truck effort it was a good one. The next generation truck from toyota will be a beast though, so ford gm and dodge had better make hay while the sun is shinning, cause I predict the next toyota will be a world beater.....

[Stunt66]

Originally posted by rx7_turbo2
I'm on my second Tundra. I put 130k on the last one in 3 years. Both have been 5.7l TRD models. It gets used everyday for work, I'm an electrical contractor. It carry's a constant load of at least 2000lbs, copper wire spools, tool rack, ladders, tools etc. The idea the bed sagged from that weight is fucking laughable, whoever said that is delusional lol :rolleyes:. I'm in and out of it a hundred times a day slamming doors, tailgates generally being pretty rough on it. As a work truck? The 2008 held up just fine, I expect the 2011 to be the same.

I also know no less than 4 other people who own basically the same truck. Two of the guys pull trailers that are actually a fair bit heavier than the truck is rated for without any modifications except heavier duty tires. The same dip shit that said the suspension sagged from 2000lbs said it couldn't haul a 16' cargo trailer? It couldn't get up hills? It's got 381hp and 400tq it does just fine lol.

Listen I'm not saying the Tundra is the best of all time, run out and buy one. It's just some of what was posted in this thread is complete nonsense. I know a few people with the new F150 and all of them have been very happy with them as well.

2000lbs in the bed will make any 1/2 ton sag like a mofo, I dont know if the TRD suspension can handle more but theres no way a stock 1/2 ton can put 2000lbs in the bed without looking silly.

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by YamaLube
The next generation truck from toyota will be a beast though, so ford gm and dodge had better make hay while the sun is shinning, cause I predict the next toyota will be a world beater.....

I'm not sure we're gonna see another full size from Toyota. As was mentioned the sales were just not there. They will be a little gun shy about spending the money and having another go of it. I think Toyota thought they were gonna put a bigger dent in the sales of Tundra's to commercial outfits, trades people etc, it just didn't happen. The marketing of the Tundra hurt as well. The marketing campaign set all these expectations that the truck would never live up to through no fault of its own. The truck market in North America is weird, on the personal side people tend to over buy, they buy way more truck than they need, how many guys have you seen in this city with F350, and Dodge 3500/4500's that never do anything but daily driving?

As I said if you understand what the Tundra was designed to do, and you use it within those limitations then I've found it to be a great truck. Just don't expect it to do what a 3/4 or 1 ton truck from the competition can do.

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by Stunt66


2000lbs in the bed will make any 1/2 ton sag like a mofo, I dont know if the TRD suspension can handle more but theres no way a stock 1/2 ton can put 2000lbs in the bed without looking silly.

We have to define bed sag I suppose. I envisioned the truck riding on the stops when it was first described, and how that weight is distributed also comes into the equation. The weight in my truck is fairly well distributed, with the tool rack and wire spools as far forward in the bed as possible. The canopy and rack also distribute the weight of the ladders and other equipment I sometimes put up there. Having said that there are times when in addition to being fully loaded I also hang a 250lb dirtbike off a rack that slides into the receiver. When I do that I do notice some sag, but it's nothing that's ever concerned me. In the effort of disclosure I also run a 3" lift.

[78si]

Which lift did you install? What size tires do you run?





Originally posted by rx7_turbo2


We have to define bed sag I suppose. I envisioned the truck riding on the stops when it was first described, and how that weight is distributed also comes into the equation. The weight in my truck is fairly well distributed, with the tool rack and wire spools as far forward in the bed as possible. The canopy and rack also distribute the weight of the ladders and other equipment I sometimes put up there. Having said that there are times when in addition to being fully loaded I also hang a 250lb dirtbike off a rack that slides into the receiver. When I do that I do notice some sag, but it's nothing that's ever concerned me. In the effort of disclosure I also run a 3" lift.

[rx7_turbo2]

3" front 1 1\2" rear. Stock tires. Getting a little off topic though.

[black300]

F150's are amazing, very smooth lots of power, nice interior.

If your going to get a Tundra make sure you get the 5.7 and NOT the 4.7, they have no pull and lack power. I would get a crew cab aswell.

[ddduke]

Originally posted by rx7_turbo2

I also know no less than 4 other people who own basically the same truck. Two of the guys pull trailers that are actually a fair bit heavier than the truck is rated for without any modifications except heavier duty tires. The same dip shit that said the suspension sagged from 2000lbs said it couldn't haul a 16' cargo trailer? It couldn't get up hills? It's got 381hp and 400tq it does just fine lol.

Listen I'm not saying the Tundra is the best of all time, run out and buy one. It's just some of what was posted in this thread is complete nonsense. I know a few people with the new F150 and all of them have been very happy with them as well.

The truck could make it up hills, it was just struggling and the lack of power was very obvious. You own a Tundra, ofcourse you're going to say it's a great work truck. I did a direct comparison of the two and the f150 did way better.

I was a little bit light in my other post. It was between 2300lb and 2550lb. When I put one of my pallets in the back of the truck it dropped like crazy, when I did the same to the Ford it was just fine. I also swear the braking time doubled once it was loaded down, unlike the ford which only got a bit worse.

If you'd like to put your money where your mouth is then I'll bet you $100 that what I said about the suspension sagging like crazy with 2300-2500lbs in the box is true. You can come to my yard, we can weigh a pallet, load it with my tractor and take before and after shots, we can also compare the before and after to a f150 and a ram 1500 (I have both at work).

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by ddduke


The truck could make it up hills, it was just struggling and the lack of power was very obvious. You own a Tundra, of course you're going to say it's a great work truck.

Yes I'm a Toyota Fanboy :rolleyes: Hardly. Look at my username to see where my true Fanboyism resides. Lack of power? As mentioned the Tundra is 381hp, whats the Ford F150 you drove rated at? Again correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that the Ford has less HP with a bit more Tq. Seems strange that the Tundra would struggle so badly when the Ford didn't.


I was a little bit light in my other post. It was between 2300lb and 2550lb. When I put one of my pallets in the back of the truck it dropped like crazy, when I did the same to the Ford it was just fine. I also swear the braking time doubled once it was loaded down, unlike the ford which only got a bit worse.

2550lbs is different than 2000lbs. I can't argue what your saying though, if you did the test and that was the result then great. However again I will mention that the weight you're putting in the back of the Tunrdra exceedes what it was designed and rated to do. Not really a fair test. I mean I could say my motorcycle is a piece of shit too because it can't tow my cargo trailer right?


If you'd like to put your money where your mouth is then I'll bet you $100 that what I said about the suspension sagging like crazy with 2300-2500lbs in the box is true. You can come to my yard, we can weigh a pallet, load it with my tractor and take before and after shots, we can also compare the before and after to a f150 and a ram 1500 (I have both at work).

But what you said wasn't true now was it? You said 2000lbs now you want to increase that weight by 15-20%? Listen I said about 4 times now. I think the new Ford's are outstanding trucks! I like the new Rams as well. The Tundra is an old outdated truck from 2007 that is in need of a complete re-design. However if you plan on using the Tundra within it's designed restrictions, you'll probably find as I have that they are very capable and reliable trucks.

[CanmoreOrLess]

If depreciation and reliability matters, you ought to look at this portion of an article, link at end.

Feature: Reliable cars that depreciate the least

So which vehicles are likely to be the most trouble-free and bring in the best price at trade-in time? We took the 17 vehicle category winners in the Canadian Black BookÕs 2012 Best Retained Value Awards: these are 2008 model year vehicles that retained the highest percentage of their original MSRP after four years; and Automotive Lease GuideÕs annual Canadian Residual Value Awards top three vehicle winners in 19 vehicle categories: these vehicles are forecast to retain the highest percentage of their MSRP after a three-year period for luxury vehicles, and four years for mainstream vehicles.

We cross-referenced them with the top three winners in each of the 14 vehicle categories surveyed by J.D. Power and Associates in their 2012 U.S. Vehicle Dependability Study. J.D. PowerÕs survey measures problems experienced during the past 12 months by original owners of three-year-old (2009 model-year) vehicles.

We also cross-referenced them with Consumer ReportsÕ list of recommended vehicles. To earn a ÒRecommendedÓ designation, CRÕs vehicles must have performed well in CRÕs tests, have average or better reliability, and, if crash-tested, provide good overall crash protection based on CRÕs composite of insurance-industry and government crash tests. As well, they must not have tipped up in the government rollover test.

Interestingly there were only three vehicles on the Canadian Black BookÕs best retained value list that matched J.D. PowerÕs most reliable vehicles list: the Toyota Avalon, Toyota Tundra, and Honda Odyssey. The Canadian Black Book list had more in common with Consumer ReportsÕ recommended list, where common winners included the Dodge Challenger R/T, Honda Fit, Honda Accord, Lexus LS, Toyota Avalon, Toyota Tundra, Toyota Sequoia, Toyota Tacoma, Subaru Outback and Volkswagen Rabbit (Golf).

When comparing Automotive Lease GuideÕs best residual value winners with J.D. PowerÕs most reliable vehicleÕs list, there were four vehicles in common: Honda Odyssey, Toyota Tundra, Toyota Camry and Honda CR-V. ALGÕs list, when compared with Consumer ReportÕs recommended vehicles, produced a longer list: Audi A3, Honda CR-V, Infiniti EX35, Mazda CX-9, Nissan Maxima, Subaru WRX and STi, Subaru Outback, Toyota Tacoma, Toyota Tundra, and Volkswagen Rabbit (Golf).

Excluding the duplicates, thatÕs a total of 19 vehicles that have been judged to have the excellent resale values and a high standard of reliability. Interestingly, there was only one vehicle common to all four surveys: the full-size Toyota Tundra pickup truck, which incidentally, is built in San Antonio, Texas!

http://www.autos.ca/auto-articles/feature-the-most-reliable-cars-that-depreciate-the-least