22nd Jan 2009, 09:54

Why don't you guys just compare the Tundra's rated capacities to the 1500 or F150 capacities? Really how much a truck squats under a load is hardly conclusive (a little humiliating perhaps). Nor does it matter if the frame is big. The real issue is rated capacity.

"That also means the MORE material/steel you use, such as with a BOX FRAME verses a C FRAME, the more tensile force you will be able to apply to a frame before it breaks or gets bent out of shape".

True, assuming that the steel is exactly the same.

"My truck will do anything yours will on the road, getting better gas mileage all the way".

Really? My old 2000 Tundra didn't get very good mileage. It got about 15mpg day in and day out. It would get about 17.5mpg on the highway -- does yours do better? Most newer (larger and more powerful) do at least as well. My father in law has a 2006 F150 that gets 20+ on the highway.

11th Jun 2009, 08:22

I hauled 60 50lb bags of river rock in my little 2005 Tacoma.

Yes I was running with the rear axle right to the bump stop, and yes I drove only 6 miles up a 8 % grade and down a poorly maintained dirt road in the middle of summer, in a southern California desert on a 90+ degree daym and I would not recommend any one do that, but I did it and nothing failed, and also I drove that truck across country 3000 miles loaded a 1/5 inch off the bump stops for 7 days without problems during that trip, or since that trip.

3000 pounds of river rock and maybe 1400-1600 pounds of tools; not bad for an aluminum V6 and for a C frame and three leaved rear springs rated for much less weight haha. Poor domestic lovers, some will just never learn what us toy lovers already realize. The quality of toys is working harder than meant while lasting three hundred times as long as domestics.

11th Jun 2009, 20:11

Yes, you are quite lucky that you didn't blow up that little piece of crap. I guess your story is meant to sound extremely impressive, or something. It isn't. Apparently you've never lived on a farm, where Ford, Chevy, and Dodge pickups are used as tractors to pull fully loaded wagons and farm equipment up and down hills, through mud, on dirt tracks, through the woods, day in and day out, year after year, in weather from 20 below to over 100 in stifling humidity.

11th Jun 2009, 22:41

Our Ford company trucks (Rangers and F-150's) routinely last 300,000+ miles without a problem. The October 2007 issue of Consumer Reports featured a Ford truck with 488,000 miles on it with no problems. I'm still waiting to see your 90,000,000 mile Tundra featured in Ripley's Believe it or Not. Something tells me I'll be waiting a VERY long time.

12th Jun 2009, 14:29

One bucket load of sand dropped my old work truck, a 2006 Tundra SR5, to the axles.

A year later, and a new company truck - a 2006 F150 XLT, a load of sand only squatted the rear end about 3 inches.

Tundra is so much stronger!

12th Jun 2009, 16:51

That reminds me of the story about walking three miles to school and back every day, uphill both ways, through blizzards, hurricanes & floods.

Now I know what became of those school kids - they must've moved to farms and bought Ford, Chevy & Dodge trucks.

13th Jun 2009, 19:05

Oh, yes. Your Toyota is so much more rugged than any other truck out there, and nobody could possibly do the things you do with yours. Right. Just keep telling yourself that if you have to.

13th Jun 2009, 22:28

You guys are funny. You think the true test of a truck is a little bit of towing or a load in the bed. My car can haul stuff if I want. Try following my off road club around a while in a Ford or a Dodge. Or, even more funny, a Chevy. There are very few. Why? The suspension falls apart, you get the radiator a little muddy and they overheat... they fall apart. The ones that hold up under REAL abuse are the Toyota's; revving all day long at 4000 rpm or better in low range 4wd and bouncing over the rocks, twisting and tweaking them. The Fords and Chevy's fall apart just like the cheap pieces of under-engineered JUNK that we all know them to be.

14th Jun 2009, 10:17

How many ride in the mud or climb rocks, and what's the point? I can take dirt bikes out and crap them up. How many use their truck beds and tow however long distances severe applications. I do consistently. I do not get the mud bit at all.

14th Jun 2009, 22:28

I seldom took my Rangers off-roading because I don't like getting my vehicles dirty and beat up. One of the very few times I did a friend with me had trouble and I had to tow his truck home for him. It was a Tacoma. I've been stranded twice in Toyota products. I've never been stranded in a domestic. Domestic cars and trucks are made of thicker, more rugged materials and the build processes used by the Big Three result in much rugged overall vehicles. This is a fact. No amount of rants will change it, nor will any amount of ranting alter the fact that Ford is rated higher in reliability than Toyota. Get used to it.

Ford is outselling Toyota 2 to 1 now, and the Fusion and F-150 are outselling EVERYTHING. Unfounded rants have no effect. Real world experience does. Tundra and Titan were, are and always will be jokes in the full-size truck field, and the silly Ridgeline is not even a real truck. Japanese companies cannot build real trucks.

15th Jun 2009, 00:55

That's funny, where I come from it's the exact opposite when we're out wheelin'. The few Toyotas that go with us always break down every time out. It never fails.

15th Jun 2009, 14:29

Granted, mudding IS fun, however after a few times I saw how nearly IMPOSSIBLE it is to get all that mud out of every nook and cranny underneath the trucks. I decided that taking something I paid a lot of money for off road just wasn't a financially responsible thing to do. An ATV or a bike costs much less and are just as much fun.

15th Jun 2009, 15:39

Also suck water straight into the intake and bye bye motor. What's the point crapping up a mint new truck riding in mud.

17th Jun 2009, 16:57

I'm a mechanic and also happen to have a very strong background in physics. I totally disagree with this statement. it offers not a shred of verifiable, objective evidence to back up the claim. It's just another "It's better because I say so" comment.

I'd highly recommend viewing the 2007 video of the comparison between the Ford F-150, Dodge Ram, Chevy Silverado and Tundra. Note the Tundra is the only one flexing on the bumps, with body panels flapping in the breeze like paper. Also, it might help to compare the TINY size of the Tundra's vital parts, such as frame components and axle shafts, etc. to the thick, robust materials used on ALL domestics (not just the F-150).

True, Toyota DID greatly improve some of these shortcomings in 2008 (by copying some of Fords frame design) but overall the Tundra still comes up short. There is no reliable evidence to support a claim that the Tundra is mechanically superior to ANY domestic. On the contrary, there is a history of bad brakes, bad suspension, bad steering, sludging issues, and that all-time favorite of mine, the bad camshafts that were (according to import fans) installed "without Toyota's knowledge".

I still laugh at the idea of evil domestic car makers slipping into the Toyota factory dressed in all black in the dead of night and sneaking those "bad" cams into all those Tundra engines, then slipping away silently into the darkness.