Ford F-150 ad knocks Toyota Tundra...but not by name

I routinely run with the camper shell, all the tools, parts and equipment on board......normally around 1100 lbs in my '05 Tundra. Its rated for a gross payload of 2000lbs, and net payload of 1500lbs(3/4 ton). Its used as an HVAC service truck. Its almost 2 years old and has 60,000 miles on it, and has far exceded all of my expectations. What you describe, is what I am running right now(minus the suspension upgrade)

Ford may knock Toyota. And, Ford may have a better-looking truck. But Toyota is beating the pants off of Ford in terms of sales and reliability. I don't want to see Ford go bankrupt because the next time the Toyota dealer won't cut a good deal with me, I'll have another half-way decent choice (Ford is #2 on my list). I think Dodge Ram is the best-looking truck on the market, but my buying selection is based on other (more important) factors. Safety has a lot to do with the material between the driver's ears.

You just have to take your time. The current crop of product testers (at the car mags) has spent 20 years brainwashing people to think 250 hp is not enough for a family sedan, and 350 is not enough for a pickup. It's just stupid. Don't listen to 'em.

very true.... think about the big trucks... Peterbuilts are running 530 hp, pulling tractor/trailer rigs with an 80,000lb payload, while in my Tundra, I have *only* 245 hp to pull my tundra with a 2,000lb gross payload, and a trailer carrying up to a 5,000lb payload.

while I agree the public has been brain washed, your comparing apples to oranges. That big rig has over 1450 pound foot of torque. When I started driving we thought

250 HP was a huge engine, then the 300 hps came out, followed by Cummin's Big Cam 350, and we were pulling 80,000 gross back then as well, more if you were pulling over size over weight. When I was in the service we were pulling M88 tank recovery vehicles behind a diesel V-8 Mack powered M123 series. a whopping 200hp to pull a track vehicle that weighed 70 tons. When the A3 mod came out it got a 300 hp V-8 Cummins. One unit I was in actually had a reo gas powered one, a whopping 160hp. The common engine size in todays trucks is the 410-450 hp Detroit series 60, or same hp Cummins ISM. The big engines areseldomg found in company trucks, the owner ops with money to burn by the big engines. They are faster, but the fuel economy drops like a rock. The cummins and detroits at "tuned" to 435 hp get on average 6.8 mpg. Those 500 hp plus 1650 pound foot of torque engines drop to 6.4 mpg and then only if driven with a light foot. Doesnt sound like much of a difference till you start consider 150,000 miles a year, then it adds up fast.

Whitelightning

I had an '85 with a 22R / 4 speed manual, and I agree. The current Tacoma is much bigger and more powerful. I have a closely geared 6 speed manual, which gets the load moving nicely and allows for proper combos at almost any speed and hill combo. The weight and length of my Access Cab help the overall handling compared to previous generations.

I've never driven a Tundra, so sorry I can't help with that.

When I've needed larger capacity on a daily basis, I've skipped right over full size pickups, and especially the incredibly lame Big-3 hi-cube vans, in favor of 14' Mitsubishi turbo diesel hi-cubes. They were reliable, efficient, and handled great. Sprinters are good, too, but I know you want an open bed.

Did you ever think of something like a 10-12' flatbed on a Mitsubishi cabover? I used to get very attractive deals, complete with a warranty, on 4 year olds from my local Ryder regional depot. Some are even available with 4WD!

When I started driving a family sedan could have 300 plus HP easily and there was no exhaust emissions and they ran.You could order a Pontiac family sedan with a 421 trpower which was arguably the most powerfully engine ever put in a stock street car. My cousin had one in a Catalinia with a 4 speed and 4.10 gears and that car was down right scarey at times and did not really hook up until 3 gear because the tires could not handle the torque applied to them in first and second. (people that did not drive then really do not know about some of the brutes that detriot made back then. Back then a 220 HP diesel OTR rig was considered kinda top end and there was still a lot of gas OTR rigs around too. Diesel OTR rigs overtook gas ones in HP in later

70's. When you play the torque number, all is not as it seems because 1400 ft lbs of torque at 1400 RPM does same work or makes same HP as 700 ft lbs at 2800 RPM or 350 ft lbs at 5600 RPM. It is all in how you gear it to the load. There was a time that a gas powered triaxle dump truck with a 427 was the truck to have for several years. I drove one for a while in college and they did a fine job. Without doubt a diesel in such a truck could get better MPG but they could not compete HP wise at that time.

----------------- TheSnoMan.com

In the gasoline era, it would have been perfectly normal for a semi to have

100 hp. They managed to get where they needed to go. GMC made semi's with 4-71's in them. I'm not sure how much power that is, but it's not much.

I have a measly Ford 302 automatic with 185 hp. The truck weighs 5000, the payload is about 1600 or so. The allowed trailer weight is a lot, like

7000. I only tow about 5000 with mine. It's extremely safe, because the truck is long and heavy, but it takes me a long time to get up to full crashing speed.

I've looked long and hard at the Fuso line. Very nice! I've never owned a

100% commercial vehicle, though, so I'm worried that I'd be in for a lot of unpleasant surprises! Certainly, services are going to be more.

What k> Did you ever think of something like a 10-12' flatbed on a Mitsubishi

I haven't had one for a few years, but the examples I had typically at least doubled the fuel mileage of the gas hi-cubes they replaced.

I'm sure the body choice would make a sizable difference in mileage, with a flat or open body doing much better than a comparable box.

Ford still sell far more trucks than Toyota, so I can't see how you can say "Toyota is beating the pants off of Ford in terms of sales." And despite all the jawing, the various surveys tend to indicate there is very little difference in reliability between Ford and Toyota Trucks. Toyota is preceived to be a little better, but the actual difference is prbably very slight, so I can't agree that "Toyota is beating the pants off of Ford in terms of reliability" either.

Well I've tried twice to cut a deal with a Toyota dealer for a farm truck. So far, no deal. I am driving a Nissan Frontier now. Maybe next time.

Ed

If there is very little difference (between Toyota and Ford) in repair records, then I guess Consumer Report surveys must be wrong? Is (F)ound (O)n the (R)oad (D)ead real or a joke?

Have you looked at Ford's stock lately? It is in the "worst pick" category right now. Toyota is not doing as well as expected either. The USA is in a slowing economy. China and Germany are doing exceptionally well, but that can (and probably will) change.

Right now ? Several years ago I bought some at about $ 27 and it started dropping. Now Ford stock is about $ 8.

Yes. You'd think Ford is currently a good buy, but it's future is not certain. Personally, I'd think any vehicle manufacture would be a good buy if they are putting out more fuel-efficient vehicles. Gasoline at $4.50 is outrageous, so truck sales are down.

Wrong? Define wrong. The CR survey is what it is - a non-scientific popularity contest. They only collect data from their own readers, and then only the readers that wish to reply. The information they collected is based on what the respondent think is important. They don't tell you what the little circles really mean. Is one problem in a year on average enough to get an average rating, or a poor rating, or a good rating? According to CR, an 2WD F150 is around 2-5% better "average." They didn't rate a Tundra becasue they didn't have enough replies to calculate the Predicted Reliability Ratings. However, they still showed lots of little red circles (excellent) on the road test page. Does this seem reasonable? They don't have enough data to calcualte an average, but they declare the reliability excellent. Hmmmm Poorly collected data + poorly reported data = ?

I can only go my personal experiences. My Father owned nothing but Ford trucks for 50 years. In all that time I think the biggest single expense was a failed clutch in a 1967 F100 (I blew it out). Last year I traded my 14 year old F150 for a Nissan Frontier. After a year with the Frontier, I wish I could get the old F150 back. I didn't buy a current F150 because the things are jacked up to the point that they are useless for someone that needs to pull stuff out of the bed. I tried to buy a Tundra or a Tacoma from Toyota, but the local dealers are a crooked bunch of lying snakes. They quote you one price but then start piling on ridiculous charges when you try to complete the deal. There is no way a Toyota truck is good enough to make up for the a$%^holes that sell them. Now that they have tried to out Ford, Ford and made the Tundra a cartoon cutout truck, I wouldn't even consider one. The Tacoma is still a good size though. Maybe in a year or so when I am finally fed up with the Frontier I'll try Toyota dealers further away. Surely they can't all be crooks.

Ed

Well, maybe "wrong" could be misleading. I know that using statistics can be a dangerous thing. The Hondas and Toyotas generally show good reliability scores and below for Chrysler and Ford for many years. General Motors looks about average. Assuming these ratings were true, there is still the risk of purchasing a "lemon" no matter which brand is selected.

When dealing with salesmen I like to say "Give me this vehicle for $xxxxxx, out the door," with xxxxxx being the price I know the dealer paid plus a few hundred profit. When dealing you can't be des pirate, and resist attachment to the vehicle. If you use emotion when buying, you lose lots of buying power. Knowing what the dealer paid (plus kickbacks) is knowledge and buying power.