Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Toyota Tundra VS Ford F-150

1679111218

Comments

  • devil1devil1 Posts: 74
    Anyone out there own a 1999 or 2000 F-150 4x4... if so how do you like it and what problems have you had?
  • devil1devil1 Posts: 74
    Why should I buy a Tundra instead of an F-150, besides the smoothness?
  • dbhulldbhull Posts: 150
    I have a question for the F150 owners. How much difference will I be able to see in a 5.4l with 3:73 gear diff and the same 5.4l with a 3:55 gear.

    I know there was a big difference in power with my Silverado 5.3l w/3:73 and the F150 5.4l with 3:55. My Silverado would leave it in a dust cloud. I have not driven the 5.4l with 3:73 gear yet. Mainly because you can't find one on the lots. They order most of the trucks with a 3:55 gear. The ones they do order with 3:73 go quick. Most people seem to have to order one if they want 3:73 with the 5.4l F150.

    Another question. This can just be anyones perception or educated answer. Why does Ford not offer a 4:10 gear in the F150? I would think that a 4:10 gear in the F150 with 5.4l would pretty much rule the roost in 1/2 ton truck power.

    My perception is that the 5.4l has less umph than the 5.3l, but the 5.3l loses more of its power through the drivetrain than the 5.4l Ford does.

    Any comments?

    I am still considering an F150 Supercab 4X4. Came close, but got cold feet before sighning the papers. Still looking to trade for one though. Anyones input is appreciated.

    I like my Silverado and would most likely buy another one in the future when the bugs are worked out of them. I have just lost some confidence in some nitpicky quality issues.

    Thanks.

    Dan.
  • z71billz71bill Posts: 2,000
    I don't know about the 3.73 Silversdo Vs the 3.55 F-150, but the 4.1 Silverado beats the 3.55 F-150 by 87 feet in the 1/4 mile. I would guess you could cut that in half if you had the 3.73.

    This is per Motor Trend pickup shootout - May 2000
  • 81chevy81chevy Posts: 37
    Well I have some reason's to buy a F150

    More Room
    More Engine Power
    More Payload Capacity
    More Towing Capacity
    Actually Made for work

    Engine was designed for a truck, unlike the Tundra with a lexus engine

    Made by Union Members!
  • rooster9rooster9 Posts: 239
    You and I are in the same boat right now. I am gonna buy a truck also in the near future. What other trucks did you drive? Did you try out the Silverado and Ram or don't you have any interest in either of those? What do you need a truck for? Do you tow a lot, or occasionally? From what I've read on the other forum from people that tow with their Tundra, they are just as capable as the other 1/2 ton pickups at towing. I'm not saying better, but just as good. About that back seat, there was a topic started at www.tundrasolutions.com about that same issue, people wanting more room in the back to hold their baby seats. There solution was to put 1 inch spacers and longer bolts mounting the back seat. It angled the seat more, and was definitely noticable. One thing that I'm not sure of is Ford's 5.4L engine. I have 2 friends that own F-150's, a '97 and a '99. They both have the 4.6L engine. They are both die hard Ford fans, but both say that they would not consider a 5.4L engine because of all the problems they are having with them. Just something to think about.
  • dbhulldbhull Posts: 150
    Thanks for the info Quadrunner500. So you are saying that the Fords HP and Torque was mis-rated or the Chevy HP and Torque was mis-rated?

    I think the 5.4l with 3:55 had good pull, but nothing compared to my 5.3l with 3:73. I do think that if you put a 3:55 with the 5.3l, the 5.4l with the same 3:55 would have more pull. What I am trying to determine here is this....Is there a configuration in the F150 line, i.e. engine, transmission, and rear diff that will give me the same pull power as my Silverado with 5.3l and 3:73 gear. I am pretty impressed with my Silverados pulling power and do not want to go backwards from that. Ford doesn't offer a 4:10 gear and I am suspecting just from my seat o the pants meter, that the Ford needs a lower gear diff to match the Silverados pull power. I know the die hard Ford fans will probably not agree with that statement, but this is my perception from driving both.

    Where do you find the ET times, etc. of each to use in the formulas you provided?

    Thanks.

    Dan.

    Thanks.
  • quadrunner500quadrunner500 Posts: 2,728
    >>>So you are saying that the Fords HP and Torque was mis-rated or the Chevy HP and Torque was mis-rated?<<<

    In a Truck Trend comparison from 02/99, the 5.4L had more hp and torque than the 5.3L at the rear wheels. Chevy peak hp = 182, Ford peak hp = 207. If you plug these rear wheel numbers into the equations, you get 1/4 mile ET's about equal to what the magazine testers measured. The Ford was quicker in the Truck Trend test. This may have changed for 2000. A more recent test of 2000 models had the Chevy faster than Ford. Personally, I don't buy the notion that all the horsepower (on either) is lost through the drivetrain. If it was, the lost hp must be converted to heat, and the drivetrain simply doesn't get that hot.

    >>>I think the 5.4l with 3:55 had good pull, but nothing compared to my 5.3l with 3:73. I do think that if you put a 3:55 with the 5.3l, the 5.4l with the same 3:55 would have more pull.<<<

    I think "pull" is a very good way to describe the effect of rear axle ratios, and agree with you here.

    >>>What I am trying to determine here is this....Is there a configuration in the F150 line, i.e. engine, transmission, and rear diff that will give me the same pull power as my Silverado with 5.3l and 3:73 gear.<<<

    This I don't know. But the seat of the pants "pull" is also affected by the other ratios of the particular gear you are in. If for example, 3rd gear is the same for both trucks, then the difference you feel would be the difference in rear axles gears. But if the rear axle was up by 10%, and 3rd was down by 10%, you have a zero sum gain.

    >>>Where do you find the ET times, etc. of each to use in the formulas you provided?<<<

    Usually, you are using the equations to solve for ET when hp and weight are known. But if you know weight and ET, you can use the equation to solve for hp also.

    Bottom line, the trucks are close enough that seat of the pants impressions are as good as working through these numbers. I don't think the numbers make a definitive case in favor of either.

    Sorry about the long post.
  • devil1devil1 Posts: 74
    Since I am going to buy a 2001 truck, I have time to do research and test drives, and I have done a LOT of research. I originally started looking at the Tundra. I liked it alot but the backseat is small, and it's rather pricey. I then looked at the F-150, and liked it a lot (especially the looks of the flareside 4x4). I have done reliability research on both. The F-150 gets average reviews which is actually above average compared to the other domestic trucks. The Dodges and Chevy's get some horrible reviews.
    Besides the fact that I find the Chevy not as appealing in terms of looks, I didn't bother test driving that or the Dodge because of the horrible reviews. I don't want to spend 30K on something that breaks down alot. I looked at the Dakota Quad Cab, and it is pretty nice in 4x4 form, although the 2WD sits up about as high as a car. Again the reliability scares me away.

    I've heard issues about the F-150's 5.4 reliability problem, too. DOES ANYONE KNOW IF THIS HAS BEEN FIXED??

    I would sure like to know since I like the F-150 the best. However, I haven't tested the 4.6L.

    Have you had exprience with the 4.6 rooster?

    I also, for what it's worth, am going to look at even the Tacoma Double Cab when it comes out unless I buy sooner. I have a wide open mind and prefer Japanese vehicles because of reliability issues, but the Ford F-150 just seems so nice.


    Let me know any suggestions you have.
  • bigsnagbigsnag Posts: 394
    What reliability problem? Piston slap? That was never a reliablility problem, only an annoyance at start-up. It has been fixed. It was very rare to begin with, anyway.
  • barlitzbarlitz Posts: 752
    I have a 99 F250 light duty 4x4 4 door supercab with the 5.4 auto limited slip and 3.73 gears.The truck has a towing capacity of 8200lbs.It has 260HP and 350 lbs Tourque.I have added a K&N fipk along with a Gibson split rear duals and a superchip.I have smoked Z71 regular cabs at light races.With the mods I have added its probably pushing close to 300HP and 390 lbs tourque.The truck I had before this was a 99 lightning which was complete insanity for a truck but to impracticle.There have been some casting problems with the 5.4 headgaskets but they are few and far between and Ford will fix if you have one,I think the problem has been resolved as of 3/99 on the engine build dates.I had a 5.4 in the lightning build date 5/99 and the build date on the F250 is 8/99.No problems what so ever with either truck.keep in mind there are probably over a million 5.4 engines built every year with the F series and expeditions.And in 2003 Ford will have a new 5.4 engine 3 valve instead of the current 5.4 2 valve with 305 hp and 385 lbs tourque along with a V6 deisel engine availible for the F150.
  • dbhulldbhull Posts: 150
    Quadrunner500. Thanks for the time you took to answer my questions. Very much informative and appreciated. I tend to agree with you about the difference between the two trucks in performance. That is why I am having such a hard time in deciding if/what I want to do. It comes down to almost 100% cosmetic preferences, ride, etc. The drivetrains are so close. I do wish they made a 4:10 for the Ford though. Then I would feel even better.

    Barlitz. Thanks for your input as well. It is not hard to spot that you are a bonified and die hard Ford fan. Nothing wrong with that.

    Dan.
  • devil1devil1 Posts: 74
    Do you know if they are going to do a major redesign of the exterior completely of the F-150 soon? I hate buying a car and the next year they change it completely. Then your 1 year old car (or truck) feels five years old.
  • quadrunner500quadrunner500 Posts: 2,728
    I think you raise a good point, but...I think Dan mentioned a Ford SuperCrew. If that's the case, there's virtually no danger in getting burned. That truck is hot, hot, hot.
  • quadrunner500quadrunner500 Posts: 2,728
    No thanks necessary. You took quite a bit of time figuring out those TR55's gapped to 0.52 also. I haven't had a chance yet, but did switch to premium since the weather warmed. It gets rid of the ping, but also knocks a bigger hole in my wallet. So I'm going to put them in soon.
  • dbhulldbhull Posts: 150
    I think people have had varied results using the high test fuel to resolve the ping. I personally found that initially it would help, but then it actually seemed to cause carbon build ups and start pinging even worse. If I went back to regular unleaded and put a bottle of quality gas treatment (amsoil or redline) in with it, it would clean the injectors and top of the pistons, etc. and quit pinging. I have had no problems with ping since those plugs though.

    Dan.
  • barlitzbarlitz Posts: 752
    I'm not sure about the interior but I do know that in 2003 the exterior will get a makeover,you can check out www.f150online.com or www.blueovalnews.com there's a lot of info on those sites.
    dbhull I wouldn't say I'm a true Ford diehard fan I've actually never driven a Chevy or a Dodge pickup.I almost bought a 96 full size Tahoe with the 350 engine in it, 4x4, the thing did haul and drove very nice.But they wanted to much so when I went to Ford they had 3 lightnings they gave me a hell of a trade in and the next thing you know I'm driving around in a Lightning.I will say being an electrician we always had Ford E350 or E250 vans and we abused the hell out of them and they never gave any problems.So thats probably why I like the Ford pickup.
  • lukacslukacs Posts: 23
    Where did you get the "more engine power" and "more payload capacity"? Again, don't make yourself ridiculous by comparing the Tundra with a truck that has a bigger engine. Compare an apple to an apple. What I found at www.edmunds.com and www.carsdirect.com was this:
    Ford F150 Super Cab 4.6L V8 engine
    Max payload capacity: 1,755Lbs
    Power: 220HP
    Toyota Tundra Access Cab 4.7L V8 engine
    Max payload capacity: 1,924Lbs
    Power: 245HP
    "Actually made for work"
    I understand, you are in a Tundra bashing mood and you try to make up all you can against the Tundra. That's fine with me. But when you get serious, what do you think the Tundra was REALLY made for?
  • lukacslukacs Posts: 23
    I can't give you an advice on which truck to choose, but I can tell you this: I have a 2000 Ford Explorer. At 3000 miles the engine developed a diesel sound. I took it in to the dealer and they said the engine had to be replaced. They didn't seem to be surprised at all (after all it already ran 3000 miles, it's time for a new engine). Also, the doors are not painted on the bottom. As I found out this is "normal" on Explorers. I wouldn't even make a big deal of it, but who knows what else is "NORMAL" at Ford. Maybe a new engine every 3000 miles?
    I also have a 1983 Toyota pickup. It has about 200,000 miles on it and never had any serious problem. The way it still runs, I expect at least another 100,000 miles.

    This may not be typical, I'm only telling my personal experiences with those two vehicles.
    I'm not trying to tell you to buy a Tundra instead of the F150. As a matter of fact, I'm encouraging you NOT to buy a Tundra to keep demand down, so I won't have to pay too much when I buy mine.
  • devil1devil1 Posts: 74
    I thank you for your honesty. I am trying to get an unbias opinion here, and I appreciate when someone tells a truthful story. I have heard of people having problems with their Tundras, too. A couple major, but the rest mostly 1st year flaws. ANY vehicle is going to have lemons, but I do notice that Toyota's have consistently been very reliable.
    However, I could buy a Tundra tomorrow and drive for 100K miles with NO problems, and you could buy a Tundra tomorrow from the same place and drive 3K miles and have to replace the engine. The fact is the percentage is in your favor more with the Toyota's than with the Big3's (Especially Chevy or Dodge).

    Now I have to decide if the reliability factor outweighs the Ford's advantages.
  • RoclesRocles Posts: 985
    lukas,

    Compare actual models that identical. I found the Tundra with the 4.7(7738 model) has a 1798 payload. Remember another tidbit of fact: Toyota doesn't have as much options as Ford. The 4.6 that you quote is what? Work/XL/XLT/Lariat? Heavy(Former 250) or light? Toy can't compare-yet.
  • prowlnprowln Posts: 2
    I am new-comer to this site and felt I needed to voice my opinion as well. First of all, who created the 'Tundra VS F150' list? My 1998 F150 Supercab XLT 4.6L, automatic had 48,000 miles on it and thought I might trade/sell for a 4-door pickup (baby # 2 on the way). Since the Toyota T100 was touted in the past against the F150, I thought I would test the new Toyota Tundra (4 doors)because my perception of Toyotas also was they are reliable. After waiting 45 minutes for a salesman on my lunch hour 3 months ago, I finally got a chance to drive the Tundra, 4x2 Limited with the 4.7L. What a major disappointment after driving the Tundra. The size alone convinced me to look back at the F150s. As for reliability, my '98 gave me a few issues to overcome but were handled without dispare at the dealer. Interior room easily out-weighed the issues I had with my '98 F150. Back to the point, the topic for discussion should read 'Tundra VS Dakota' not 'Tundra VS F150" because the Tundra interior room nor pickup bed area are even close the physical size of the F150's interior room and bed area. After test driving the 2000 Dodge and Chevy, my 2001 F150 Deep Wedgewood Blue, Silver accent Supercrew XLT 4x2 5.4L ......should be at the dealer by May 31, 2000. I will keep you posted!
  • lukacslukacs Posts: 23
    The 1,924lbs payload is for the SR5 Access cab 4.7L V8. The 1,798lbs is for the limited, but even that is still higher than ANY of the F150's. I took the time and checked ALL F150's listed on www.edmunds.com. The highest payload rating for ANY of the listed models was 1,780lbs.
  • quadrunner500quadrunner500 Posts: 2,728
    ...in the bed of Tundra, the suspension is down on the frame stops. It sags miserably at far less than the rating. Look at the dinky leaf springs, thin, narrow...doesn't take a rocket scientist. I drove a Tundra with about 700 lbs in the bed. About all you want. Don't do any night driving either, headlights are up in the eyes of traffic.
  • RoclesRocles Posts: 985
    lukas,

    You missed my point. First off, there is the 7700 payload package-option-that would raise bed payload to around 1850 pounds. Second--you would be a damn fool to actually put 1900 pounds in any Toyota. Third: OPTIONS.
    What options you ask? How about a bargain F-250 with the 5.4 that has a 3661 pound rating? 14100 tow? All could be had for less than 19500 dollars and that, my friend, is far cheaper than any Tundra. (Yes, that's with an extended cab for the S-D) Look it up at www.edmunds.com!

    Options....something Toyota doesn't have--...yet.
  • lukacslukacs Posts: 23
    I missed your point? To me it looks like you missed your own point. I thought you wanted to compare similar models and now you are comparing the F250 to the Tundra. The Tundra was meant to compete with the F150. If you need a bigger truck, you can buy the F250. However, would you buy an F150 just because of the availability of the F250?
    You say the 7700 payload package-option would raise bed payload to around 1850 pounds. To me that's still a smaller number than 1924. Why do you think you would be a fool to put that much weight on a Toyota? Do you think a Ford would handle it's max. payload better than a Toyota?
    Please don't give me a trucksrme style answer: "Just look at the size of that pumpkin"
  • cdeancdean Posts: 1,110
    Yes, a Ford would handle 1850 lbs, much better than a Toyota. Toyota simply doesn't have the springs or frame.

    The Tundra is a great truck, but it is about 7/8 of the Big 3. And thats plenty for a lotta truck drivers out there, who never use 20% of their trucks capacity. But if you constantly use that upper 50% of your truck capacity, you'll be happier with the Big 3.
  • prowlnprowln Posts: 2
    My friend, if you would have check the F150 factory brochure for payloads, the F150 Supercrew does have a payload rating of 1900 lbs. Trailer towing capacity of 8000 lbs.
    I had over 2000 lbs in my 98 F150 Supercab (rated at 1550) and the frame stops were just touching the axle housing. I agree with quadrunner500 and cdean, the Tundra is a very light duty pickup. That is evident by the smaller frame and axle housing. As quadrunner500 said about the Tundra, 700 lbs max. It boils down to the confidence felt when driving each truck with it heavy payloads. I felt confident driving my F150 even with 2000 lbs. It probably would not last very long if I did that every day, but I think the manufacture builts that buffer into the design. Ford has been building trucks longer than Toyota. Got to go, my son is up.
  • devil1devil1 Posts: 74

    I've been debating on a Tundra or an F-150 for about 6 months now, and I think I finally (Maybe) made my decision for the F-150. This is why:

    1. I didn't like the interior too much until I saw the Lariat last night which looks nearly identical (Just bigger) than the Tundra. I didn't realize how much Toyota copied the inside.
    2. I like the flareside option that Ford offers.
    3. The truck with the bigger 5.4 engine in a bigger truck still gets the same gas mileage (14/18 Ford vs. 14/17 Tundra)
    4. The backseat is on an 18% decline, so my baby car seat and/or friend will fit much more comfy. Plus I think it's big enough to fit people comfortably. It's very deceiving from the outside.

    The only thing I don't like about the Ford is the fact that the powertrain warranty is only 3 years/36,000 miles, and I have heard some issues with the 5.4 engine.

    The only thing I really liked better about the Tundra was the fact that it is a Toyota. The engine is just a lot smoother and sounds better, and I'm sure the truck will be a little more reliable, but hey you only live once, right? I'm gonna get what I like the best.

    I'm planning on getting a small boat, and I don't haul much, so payload and towing capacity aren't really much of a factor.

    I just hope the Ford holds up good.
  • lukacslukacs Posts: 23
    You guys convinced me. Now I'm gonna buy a Ford.
This discussion has been closed.