By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
From a topic on comparing the Tundra with the Big3 half-tons........
"They shouldn't be compared in the first place.
Tundra was created to give an alternative to anyone, that dosen't use the truck so much for work, but rather for commuting to work.
Pickup trucks are getting more fashionable than ever before, and Tundra is targeting the customers, whom are looking for something that has the handling of a passanger car, but could be also used like truck for ocasional trips to Home Depot.
A typical Tundra owner couldn't care less, if his truck couldn't haul a heavy load from a construction site, because that isn't the purpose he got it for.
A "big three" owner on the other hand would argue that truck is meant for work,and couldn't care less for Tundra's refined smoothness and handling capabilities."
True words, in my opinion.
Roger that one! LMFAO!
------Turd 150-----Tundra
0-60-----9.1---------8.0
0-60
w/1k lb--10.7--------8.27
1/4------16.8--------16.2
1/4
w/1k lb--17.7--------16.7
60-0-----140---------125
60-0
load-----140---------139
Slalom---54.8 mph----56.8 mph
Towing---7000 lbs----7100 lbs
Tundra wins in every obejctive compsrison over the Turd 150 5.4 :-P
This discussion is about the Toyota 3/4 with Big Block V8, let's stick to that. Posts that are off-topic or violate the member agreement will be taken down.
Back to the trucks!
PF Flyer
Host
Pickups & News & Views Message Boards
1) If I gave 3 truck buyers $30K and each chose different trucks, which engines would they get for the money? That's right - the 4.7, 5.4 and 5.3L. For the same price range you get more displacement w/Ford and GM
2) Toyota knew what they were competing against with their 4.7L - right again, the 5.4 and 5.3, NOT the 4.6 and 4.8.
So even though displacement differs, they are ALL still apples! That said, how do I rate the engines? Toy, GM and Ford in that order.
The Toy emgine is fully capable of everything I need it to do (including towing), and it's by far the smoothest and most quiet. The mpg numbers are too close to even argue, although I think Toyota should find a way to get a few more miles from a tank.
The GM engine is torquey and relatively smooth, not bad. The Ford has enough power and torque, but it absolutely roars, and just doesn't feel nearly as well mated to the drive components as Toyota.
Now, if Toyota builds a 3/4 ton, I would assume it to be marketed as a work truck. They'd have to come up with a bigger engine (or tweak the 4.7L up to around 275-300 horse/340+ torque at low rpm.
Bob
" 1) If I gave 3 truck buyers $30K and each chose different trucks, which engines would they get for the money? That's right - the 4.7, 5.4 and 5.3L. For the same price range you get more displacement w/Ford and GM
2) Toyota knew what they were competing against with their 4.7L - right again, the 5.4 and 5.3, NOT the 4.6 and 4.8. "
First off I agree that anyone looking for a truck from different manufacturers, would want to see their top of line models within reason. Yet I'm not here to dispute that. Is it Tundra's fault that Chev and Ford didn't put as much effort into the 4.6/4.8s ??? Very true that they geared the 4.7 with the 5.3/5.4 in sight, since 4.7 would be top of line.
I'm talking about comparing the ENGINES not the options, top of line status, etc etc. If you came in here and said the Tundra 6.0 beat the pants off GMs 5.3 and Fords 5.4 I'd have the same argument, regardless of where each truck fell in the grand scheme of marketing (bottom/top of line)
It's probably not fair to compare the 4.7 Tundra's options or other items that are geared for top of line, to the 4.6/4.8. Obviously because the 4.6/4.8 aren't top of line and aren't equipped to match a top of line Tundra or any other top of line for that matter. The engines however are chunks of metal, they have a specific displacement and design. Their performance has little if nothing to do with options, pricing, or anything else that would be affected by model status (top/bottom of line). An engine should be able to be compared to a similar engine period.
I'm talking about looking at these engines as if I was a engineer/technician in a shop, for purpose of engine performance statistics. Not as if I was a buyer looking at which offers best options and so on for the money, because then you're right you can't compare the 4.6,4.8, with the 4.7 . Thats the difference.
Any truth to this "rumor"
It depends on what you want the truck to do.
If your main concern is Max towing or performance compare the largest engine offered. DUH
If you care more about MPG look at the most efficient engine offered. DUH
The idea that just because Toyota only offeres a 4.7 we must compare the smaller GM and Ford V8 is totally wrong. Since when do companies play fair. The idea is to beat the competition. DUH
If a company can offer a 10L engine that gets 25 MPG and is rated at 450HP and 400 Foot pounds would we say - gee the competition only has a 5L engine that gets 15 MPG 200 HP its not fair to compare the two. Only the weak are afraid to go up against the best the competition has to offer..
I have a few pairs of catepillar shoes/boots and they are built like tanks.
"The idea that just because Toyota only offeres a 4.7 we must compare the smaller GM and Ford V8 is totally wrong. Since when do companies play fair. The idea is to beat the competition. DUH "
That's the silliest thing I've heard all week. If a company has to cheat to win, then why would I want anything from them. Of course the object is to beat the competition, but thats what engineers, design, testing are for DUH. If a company isn't competent enough to win that battle in the production/manufacturing process, I suppose tilting the comparisons is all thats left.
If you're gonna ramble off options and pricing and all the gimmick stuff then I agree, top of lines should fare against top of lines. Even still, you cant expect bigger things from a smaller product, no matter what it is. This isn't so hard of a concept here though. You take Toys 4.7, GMs 4.8 and Fords 4.6 and run some numbers from them. That means on a similar rear end, trans., etc. etc. . Will this ever get done if it hasn't, probably not.
The point being that the word "compare" usually refers to similar items. So to all the geniuses here, what's similar about a 4.7L motor and 2 other that are at LEAST a half liter larger DUH ??? Does anyone realistically expect the smaller motor to out tow/haul the others, regardless of who has what motor ???
The Tundra is NOT a grunt for huge loads. It wasn't designed to be. So to add insult to injury, theres a few knuckleheads who think its even fairer to compare unsimilar engines/stats. If the other 2 engines in question performed similarly to Toys. 4.7, it wouldn't be such a big deal would it. This isn't to say Toy would or wouldn't have the numbers advantage for eng. performance. Mod threw out a few figures, but I don't have any other numbers and thorough tests have probably never been done.
Why it's important ... well it reallty isn't until you get someone in here who wants to point out that the 4.7 lost in such and such categories to the 5.3/5.4 .
I think you have em backwards
So by playing fair and doing a comparison with the smaller GM V8 versus the largest offered Toy V8, the GM1500 still whups the Tundra in work performance. We don't even need to start talking again about how bad GM's larger V8 outclasses the iforce v8.
So the Tundra with a 4.7 beats the Silverado 4.8 in a drag race. Big deal. If that's all that's important for you in a truck then the Tundra is a perfect choice. Just make sure you don't unknowingly drag race a 5.3L!! LOL!
BTW-My personal preferences are that I don't race other vehicles or buy a truck based on it's speed. If you like your truck fast more power to you. No offense, but I just don't understand why since if speed is so important you can buy a nice fuel-efficient $20,000 mid range sports car that will blow the doors off of every every stock pickup save dedicated "fast" pickups like the lightning.
However if I do the same for the Toyota Tundra, and order a bare bones truck I get the 3.4 6 cylinder engine.
Perhaps if the discussion is going to measure trucks on their base models, the comparison should be on the GM 4.8, Ford 4.6 and the Toyota 3.4 base engines.
As for grunt work, if I needed to pick up a ton of landscaping rocks, I would choose Ford, because it's got the payload to do it. I'd have to take two trips in the Tundra. Actually, that's a trick question - I don't think 2,000 lbs. of rock will all fit in any of the pickup beds!!
As for towing, how often to you people in this forum tow 7 or 8,000 lbs.? Come on now, a horse trailer, boat, camper, etc. only nets out to 3-5,000 lbs. maybe. Anybody really using a Tundra/F-150/1500 for a third wheel or cattle trailer?
As for the CAT diesel in a Yota - tell me more about CAT, cause I thought they only made plants for loaders, shovels and earth movers.
Picture this - Man goes into a Ford or Chevy dealer and says. I just got done testing a Tundra - performance is important to me, but gee it would not be fair to test a bigger V8. Do you have any trucks with small engines in them?
I have not looked up the exact $$ - but I would bet the additional cost to upgrade engines from V6 to a V8 (5.3 Chevy, 5.4 Ford, 4.7 Toy) are all within a few hundred $.
I hope the news about the Toyota 5.4L is true - lets keep raising the bar - it makes all trucks better. The Sequoia I test drove last year was a dog it needs a larger engine.
kip
You stated, "I'm talking about looking at these engines as if I was a engineer/technician in a shop, for purpose of engine performance statistics. Not as if I was a buyer looking at which offers best options and so on for the money, because then you're right you can't compare the 4.6,4.8, with the 4.7 . Thats the difference."
Well if I was an engineer, the first thing I would notice about the hypothetical engine comparo would be that you want to compare a 32 valve OHC engine to a 16 valve pushrod engine and a 16v ohc engine all of essentially the same displacement. My first thought would be, well duh of course the 32 valve engine is going to absolutely kill the 16v motors. Imagine my suprise when I found out the lowest tech pushrod v8 came through with the most HP 275 to 245. I would have retest figuring I did something wrong. Alas, in the end, I would have to shake my head and say for all the technology and money poured into that 4.7L it sure just doesn't deliver what it should. And worse yet, it sucks up more gas.
In the end your hypothetical engine comparo is pointless and stupid. Nobody buys just the engine, they buy the whole truck, and compare the whole truck to other whole trucks. When people do that they buy the biggest and most powerful engine available in overwhelming numbers.
Lets compare those apples.
Can you tell me what stocks to buy too, cause you must be the richest man in the world being able to predict the future and all.
kip
Lets try this again, ME PERSONALLY, I will take the certain comparison results which may be affected by having a smaller 4.7 engine with a grain of salt. I worked in an engine shop and when we tested engines, we used different engine makes of similar displacement, and ran them through a standard/universal drivetrain mock-up. This was done to establish ratings for the engine with no variables in the further drivetrain. Of course the different engine designs played a role in ultimate HP/torque, but certainly not as biased as running a 4cyl. vs a V8.
My point all along is you cant expect a 4.7 to be put in the very same Ford 5.4/GM 5.3 trucks and get the same test results. If it comes close then great, but it can't be expected. Regardless of whether or not anyone agrees with this, it is still my opinion, and makes mechanical sense.
Very true that in addition to different engine displacements, the valvetrain designs and so on will affect performance. Nobody told GM/Ford that they couldn't use DOHC or 4 valve technology. If everyone used the same setup, then a 5L GM engine would be almost exact same as Ford, Dodge, Toyota, and so on. The design of the engine is what sets different engines apart. However, there is no question that a 2L 4 cyl. is not going to overpower a 6L V8. Maybe you think otherwise, but to me its a matter of physics.
It's not all that hard of an idea here. Should the 5.4 hit ground soon, we will compare the 1/2 tons. Since you guys are all so confident with the 5.3/5.4s, they should blow the doors right off Toys. future 5.4L. No reason for Toy to even show up really, it will always be inferior to the domestics in toughness wont it ???
Then we can have this same arguement all over again. You can whine because it is not "fair", and Chevy can smile because it offers better performance and gas mileage.
kip
It is just that its workload capacities are more limited than anything from the big three.
The point I have been trying to make in a roundabout way is that some people posting here keep trying to profess that the will outtow, out haul, outwork, etc. anything from the big three. It is simply not true.
I think the Tundra is a great truck, and it would actually work very well for me as I don't need a lot of working capacity. However, the things that keep me from owning one are, 1) back seat is too small for my 3 kids (same problem with the Ford, unless I looked at the supercrew), 2) No manual tranny available with a V8, Chevy offered a manual with the 4.8L in 99.
Toyota does make a good truck, so do GM and Ford. I just get tired of hearing that the Tundra can do everything a truck can do better than everyone else. It can't, it does some things better, and some worse. In the end personal needs should decide.
But the 32 valve OHC (along with drum brakes) is exactly one of the reasons I DON'T want a Tundra. I'm intimately aware of the benefits from years of riding (and wrenching) on Japanese multi cylinder crotch rockets.
To set the valve lash on Tundra, you don't have threaded adjusters, but shims under buckets that have to be changed out. Doing so requires camshaft removal. Put another way...99% of owners will put off or omit doing this hassle. It's going to have an adverse affect on longevity of the top end, and result in well stocked grave yards of Tundra parts in a few years.
Toyota doesn't do this to make a better truck engine. Truck owners want simple reliability, not unnecessary complexity that has no long term benefit. We all know that 4 valves per cylinder breaths better at all rpms. Ford has been making 32 valve OHC V8 engines, but isn't putting them in trucks. Why? Toyota does because that's their small engine know-how. They don't build them any other way. But it's not the best for a truck, when it's simpler and more reliable to get the same result with a few more cubic inches, and a few less valves, hydraulic lifters and no maintenance.
There's never been any difficulty in achieving high horsepower from simple pushrod designs. Combining high hp and small displacement is another matter. The fact that so many high performance engines use 4 valves per cylinder and OHCs in racing is because of size, packaging, aerodynamic, rules-making concerns. Top fuelers don't need them. Neither do Nascar stock cars and trucks, which probably account for more miles of engine longevity than most other forms of motor sports.
For me...I just don't want to adjust any more valves than I already do now, whether be motorcycles, ATVs or generators. I'm just trying to keep everything running, not make a career in small engine repair. It's one thing to have a bike put up on a stand for the winter, awaiting parts, putting in pistons, stroker kits etc, and to adjust the valves when putting short lived motors back together. I don't want the same thing for my truck, which I may need for picking up those very parts.
I hope that EPA (or whoever) doesn't get in the act and we all end up with 150 HP 6 bangers in our HD trucks!
Quad, I think you share a similar feeling that I do here. It's fun to work on engines,bikes, etc. as long as they're secondary projects !!! I personally don't enjoy performing engine/drivetrain overhauls on the truck that I need on a daily basis. The whole hobby of working on cars suddenly finds a way NOT to be fun at that point lol.
Also, no way would I want to try to persuade a domestic owner to go foreign or even vice versa. It's been said in here many times ... certain trucks work better for certain people. I personally believe the current Tundra to be a good truck for people who 1) don't have to haul family around, 2) need a light work truck / Home Depot etc., 3) for those of us that wouldn't be hauling a 10,000 lb. trailer or carrying 40 bags of concrete.
In Toyota over the years, I've come accustomed to smoothness, reliability, and a overall good quality. Many others share this experience. I'm hoping they can incorporate these things into a true work truck one day and bring their best game to the table.
I also have a hard time believing that the Tundra out hauls/tows the other 1/2 tons. Reason being that first off the Tundra still isn't viewed as a grunt by many. More so though, the trucks it's compared to are significantly larger to start with, so Tundra is already at a struggle to even MATCH the figures of the Big3. The suspension/brakes etc. are still questionable to some. I believe a possible 5.4 will be more on the level of true 1/2 tons. The current 4.7 is a fine motor I'm sure and I leave comments up to those who own.
I happen to like Chev/Ford trucks as well. Not a big Dodge fan but never have been. To the guys that are happy with their GMs/F-series, more power to them. I don't think they quite yet boast as much reliability as the imports, but certainly highly regarded as Americans' choice for work trucks.
kip
In this day of modern, low maintenance engines the Tundra is much more expensive to maintain during its first 100,000 miles.
Interesting that if a particular motor is quicker, it's bad because the powerband is too high(chevy) but when the motor that makes the most torque at the lowest RPM (Ford) is not as quick as the Tundra, that's also bad.
I sure hope that EMT is more representative of the Toyota owners here than the other fellow that doesn't know his Toyota motor requires valve adjustments.
I certainly like the truck and for me not having a family or hauling huge things it will work just fine. I might just have to wait until the 2003s come out, we'll see. I'm a truck lover of all types. Roomate has a 96 Rado out front and I think the truck looks sharp, very capable of performing work. It's important to keep an open mind about all trucks ya know. Each offers something unique.
I haven't been able to tear a 4.7 apart yet but I like the design for most part. Over the years I've always been impressed with the interior of Toy engines. Very clean looking after high mileage, parts usually quite smooth which is a good reason why the engines are quiet and smooth running. I'm not expecting the 4.7 to out-perform the other 1/2 tons, but given its good design I feel it's certainly possible.
Even Edmunds said the Sierra was the most problematic long-term vehicle they ever tested and predicted the owner would be "taken to the cleaners" once the warranty ran out. Predicted long-term reliability and related ownership cost is most definitely in the Toyota's favor.
Hardly a maintenance headache.
BTW, no engine knock either.
Perhaps, Edmunds had one of the few lemons, not necessarily a typical example. It was only one vehicle out of several hundred thousand. Kind of hard to make a sweeping generalization based on that.
Well, no. The best combination is a truck that does well in the quarter mile and also has good low-end torque. The Furd is underpowered. The Chev is peaky. The Tundra is the best compromise.
"I sure hope that EMT is more representative of the Toyota owners here than the other fellow that doesn't know his Toyota motor requires valve adjustments"
When did I (or anyone) say this? Hallucinating again?
On the other hand, Toyota REQUIRES expensive, major service during 100,000 miles. The shimmed valve adjustment and timing belt should be done by a dealer.
Toyotas have excellent reputations, and the Tundra seems to uphold this. But, again, in this day of 100,000 mile tune ups and no adjustments, the Tundra is behind.
I have nothing against Tundras or Toys in general or I wouldn't have been driving them for 30 years.I come here and post FACTS about your truck that you should want to know ,and you call me a liar and "chevy boy" as if that means I never serviced one of my Toyotas.
I don't care if YOU drive your truck without the required maintanence ,BUT you need to quit telling other Tundra owners thier truck runs on water and sh*ts gold before some poor sap believes you and ruins a good truck with bad advice.
kip
Its been a wonderful 2 yrs and many more to come
What's all this about? The Tundra has a lower tow-rating than the GM 5.3L and is out-accelerated by it empty and with a 1000lb load in the bed 0-60 AND 1/4 mile. Ford's 5.4L has been used succesfully in 3/4 and 1 ton pickups for years so don't even go there.
Perhaps you mistyped and meant to say "The Tundra is the most compromised of the fullsize half-tons"!!!!!