12th Jan 2007, 19:12

16:44 what is your comments on the Toyota video above? Why not comment on that first...

13th Jan 2007, 04:59

I just watched that ridiculous video. It shows nothing! It's CLEARLY an attempt by Ford to justify why somebody should buy one of their pieces of crap. Why even mention that video? It's biased completely towards Ford. And to the guy who likes to list internal engine components; you still haven't told me why YOU think a Ford engine is better put together than a Toyota, (it isn't, but I'm sure your answer will be interesting to read). Maybe I should have had a camcorder with me when I used to seriously off road and filmed all of the S-10's, Rangers, and Dakota's that I left behind broken down in the woods after they TRIED to follow me. It all boils down to this: whatever Ford truck anyone reading this is driving right now will need an engine rebuild or a transmission long before my Toyota will.

13th Jan 2007, 05:11

My buddies and I found it particularly funny how the Tundra was clearly the worst of the group on the Silver Creek test grounds in the video. We had a real good laugh over the extreme frame flexing, the fuel door flapping, and the exhaust sytem slapping against the rear box panel. What a piece of junk the Tundra is. If you own one, you better stick to hauling groceries with it. Let the domestics do the real work in this country.

13th Jan 2007, 06:49

4:59...if you have vision you saw something. How can terrain be biased? How about seeing an independent crash test into a barrier for safest vehicles? In a crash test would it be unbiased to have a Toyota barrier and then a Ford barrier? Probably not if your vehicle crashed into a large box full of bubble wrap and then a Ford into a concrete wall.

13th Jan 2007, 07:24

04:59, even if a Tundra's motor is superior, what good is a better motor that's dropped between the split halves of a crappy frame?

Normally, I take studies that are released between competitors with a grain of salt. I kept in mind the whole time that this video was made by Ford. But it still seemed objective enough to make a point. I mean, what, if there wasn't truth to it, wouldn't the other manufacturers sued them over libel by now? What they showed was plain and concrete by dissecting the trucks as well as testing them. Are you Toyota fans going to tell us that Ford risked a legal suit by doctoring up all the components that were removed from the truck? Get real. The depth of you and your cohorts' brainwashing is unbelievable if you can't wrap your mind around the plain and simple evidence in that video. It's okay to be frustrated because you paid more for a truck that has less of everything: steel, structural integrity, ruggedness and overall truck-like capabilities, but there's no need to stay in denial when it's finally clear that you may not be right. Grow up.

If nothing else, remember what I said earlier: why on earth would Ford release a video of this if they have something to hide?

13th Jan 2007, 09:12

<<Name one time in any of those reporters' lives they ever had to do any real exhausting work, let alone put a truck through exhausting work>>

I see, so now domestic trucks are only used for "exhausting" work. HMMMM, then you'll have to explain to me how I see a ton of them with ONE occupant during rush hour all the time, heading to and from office parks with white collar jobs.

13th Jan 2007, 09:29

Oh Mr. 16:58, you had to go open that flood gate, did you? Let me inform you on some of the statistics and numbers with Ford and the reviews on this site.

First of all, there are currently 404 F-150 reviews and only 73 Tundra reviews. Now why would you suppose there would be more negative Ford reviews when there are 331 more reviews than the Tundra? Hhhhmmmmm. Does the law of probability mean anything?

Also, as far as "all of these F-150's being junk": From the 98 through the 05 F-150 reviews, there are 77 reviews where the reviewer would buy another Ford, 26 reviews where the reviewer wouldn't buy another Ford, and 15 that could go either way. According to this site, that means there are three times as many happy Ford drivers as there are dis-satisfied Ford drivers.

Here are some statistics:

Did you know that in 2006, Ford sold over 912,000 F-150's?

How many Tundra's did Toyota sell?

Maybe there are more lemon F-150's than lemon Tundra's because there are more F-150's than Tundra's-period.

If the F-150 is so junky and worthless, why has it outsold all other pickups for 28 consecutive years? (8 of those years, the Tundra has been in production)

Since 1948, 28,000,000 F-150's have been sold around the world since that model was first produced. If the Tundra is going to over take these "junky" Fords, where are the 28,000,000 Tundra's to show this? Where are all of these Tundra sales?

Why is it that (from where I come from) for every Tundra I see being driven, I see probably 10 F-150's being driven?

Why is that just about every company that uses fleet vehicles, chooses F-150's, F-250's, and Ranger's? Maybe once a week I will see a Tacoma or Tundra being used as a fleet vehicle.

Why is it that, before the gas price surge, Ford had the highest customer return rate of any company?

Why is it that there are more F-Series trucks with 250,000+ miles on them on the road that any other truck? (As I drive proof of this daily.)

As you can see, I don't think the rest of the world has had as bad of an experience with their F-150's as these people may have. Otherwise, these staggering numbers wouldn't keep growing each year.

Oh yeah, I'm not being paid a single red-cent to write any of these.

13th Jan 2007, 15:06

If you guys actually towed 10% of the weight you claim to with an F-150, it would last about 5,000 miles before the engine and transmission were scrap; F-150's have enough trouble getting down the road empty. In reality, I've probably hauled more gravel in my Toyota than you guys ranting and raving about how much you dreamt up that your Ford can haul. Sorry, WRONG again. Toyota's are STILL better, despite the fact that you guys don't like them.

13th Jan 2007, 16:23

Oh yeah, your Toyota hauls soooooo much gravel. I bet with those skinny little leaf springs, your five-gallon bucket full of gravel probably had the bed sitting on the axles. I saw a Tundra hauling about 10 or 15 boards and it was squatted down like a low-rider. A silky smooth low-rider, that is.

Of course, there were a few times I saw F-150's sitting on their axles. The first time would be when my dad used his old one to haul about 3000 or 4000 lbs of tobacco bails over a 60 mile distance in its bed. The second time would have been when I passed an F-150 that had a whole entire tree trunk (probably 100 years old) cut in half and both pieces stacked in the bed.

Gravel? Whoopee. That may seem like a lot to a city-slicker who's used to hauling lawn-mowers and mattresses, but to anyone raised on a farm, gravel would be a walk in the park.

Why don't you try and haul a 2000 pound load of green maple wood or something that is a real challenge, like my family's domestics have done?

I bet you think mulch is a big, scary load, too. Or even worse, drywall!