I am a die hard Ford guy and have driven both the Ecoboost and the 5.0 and loved them both. If I had to choose I would get the FX4 in crew cab with Ecoboost, even though the test numbers between both engines seem very close. My question is why does Ford not put the 5.7 Tundra in their tests? A friend of mine has a new SR5 5.7 club cab and I can personally say that motor is a beast as well. Would the 5.7 Tundra out pull the Ford motors in say the Davis Dam incline test? Thoughts...........

 

Probably, they are geared lower. a 4.30 gear I think. Even the old 4.7L was pretty quick, I just couldn't stand to be seen in such an ugly truck.
Most of those test are rigged in the favor of the brand doing the test.
Remember the old washboard test where all of the beds flopped around except the F150? Hogwash, because I see them on the road all of the time and the beds do the same dance as the others when hitting a decent bump in the road. Truth is, if they didn't flex, they would crack. Just like and airplane wing.
Useless fact: You can bend the tip of a Boeing 747 wing 29ft before the wing will break.
I got to looking on their website. Ic comparing to the FX4 that you mentioned, The Crewmax Tundra Limited with the 5.7L, 6-speed auto and tow package with 4.30 gears is only rated to tow 9000lbs.
The std cab equipped the same can tow 10,100lbs.
I thing that the weaker chassis, brakes and differential are the deciding factor. The 381hp/401lb/ft engine isn't holding it back.
I would feel much safer in the F150 than I would the TRD for sure.

 

I looked at Tundras also when I got my F-150 a few months ago, as I came from a Tacoma. The problem is that the Tundra has a ridiculously low payload, really not more than the Tacoma. It is similar to the "normal" F-150, with the difference that Toyota is not offering a HD payload option like Ford does.
So really, in terms of camping with the Tundra towing a travel trailer, the Tundra can't do much if you want to stay within the limits.
Basically, the Tundra's TT towing capacity (and that of the non HD payload or max tow F-150) is really limited by the low payload, not the engine capabilities.

But to be honest, if you don't tow a travel trailer or haul much, or if you don't care about going over the stated limits (which you shouldn't IMO), then I think the Tundra is a nice truck as well. I think the interior looks much nicer in the F-150, and so does the exterior. But that is relative. In terms of resale, I am sure the Toyota would have the edge. I'd still pick my F-150 HD payload any day.
And yes, I agree with LxMan. Those brand sponsored "tests" are just a pile or garbage; all of them, not only Ford's.

 

4x4 Tundra's come with 4.30 axles. The 5.7L engine and six speed are a dynamic duo but are still noncompetitive with a similarly equipped 6.2L or ecoboost F-150 and 3.73 gears.

 

I 3rd the notion that manufacture's rigg tests in favor of their vehicles...Evidence has been proven of this in the past when a manufacture claims to be the best at something, but then when the test is conducted at a later date by a none bias 3rd party their claims fall short.

As already stated, Ford's not the only one guilty of the misrepresentation of of information.

As far as the F-150 vs Tundra subject go's...Its really hard to say...I suspect the Toyota 5.7L will outperform the Ford 5.0L as it rightfully should considering the 5.0L technically compete's with Toyota's 4.6L V8. Though I've actually seen 5.0L's run neck and neck with 5.7L Tundra's.

I suspect the 6.2L and Ecoboost would either be right with or slightly ahead of the Tundra, but the gearing advantage the Toyota has might put it in the lead regaurdless. And the 5.7L is no slouch...I've only had the chance to drive one once a few years ago, but at that time 2008 I beleive it was, there was no other 1/2 ton that could run with it.

 

But again Ford continues to outsmart the competition. With a wider variety of engines and gear ratios, Ford builds a truck for everyone.

Toyota could change the transmission gearing a little, offer a 3.73 or 4.10 like Ford and build a stiffer truck and be able to pull as much as any F-150 and achieve the MPG's unloaded as well. But the chose to go all brawn and no brain on this one.

 

Agreed. That's why I drive a Ford today. There really was no other option.

 

I don't believe any of the Big 3 would want to give Toyota credibility by comparing to them in any type of test used for marketing....that would clearly state they see them as a direct competitor rather than a kid in the man's world of trucks.

 

LOL, that could be it also. I did like my Tacoma though, I have to say.
I am not much of a "fan boy" for any brand though, they all have their pluses and minuses.

 

Aside from being Ugly Ford has decided to stay away from the Tundra in mileage and towing tests. I wonder why?

Ford right now has the benefit of a much newer build with all the bells and whistles. Toyota doesn't sell very many Tundra's to really even care that much about a new build. That said 2014 is supposedly going to see a newly designed(back to a more standard design they say)

Recalls and being ugly etc., theTundra although outdated still has a better long term reliability rating and drivetrain by a long ways and a company that doesn't deny warranty claims like Ford.

 

When the full size Tundra came out, and was beating everyone in horsepower, a friend bought one. He towed a trailer into the mountains that he had towed before with his old Chevy. Really liked the power, and bragged about it "walking up the hill".

After coming down the mountain, he had to take it to the dealer for brakes. Burnt up the brakes on his trailer as well. The Tundra had all of the great power, but could not handle the load.

 

Personally, [I]I like the snub-nose look of the Tundras and the 5.7L is appealing. I would like to see a two-tone paint option. Ram has some nice two-tone paint options but, I am not a Dodge fan even though they offer a stout and proven 5.7L too. I really like the Double Cab Tundra with normal door handles. And, they have a nice pewter color as well. Tundra guys do complain about thier paint scrathing and chipping easily however, my F250 seems to be in the same catagory. I have to believe that they all are chimpsing on paint these days. Give me a 5.7L anyday though. Ford doesn't offer a 6.2L in anything below 50 grand and crewmax, IE: car. Tundra guys also complain about very limited aftermarket options unlike F150s. Let's say you use it primarily as a work truck w/o towing a camper, Tundra would most definatley be on my list to compare although they do apparenlty get no better MPG than my F250. But, they probablly still offer a plow option unlike the F150. I like the look of Tundras. I do not care for the nose of Rams however. And, I don't think I could ever get over the durability rep of Dodge. JMO. Price relative to everything mind you. I do like the Ram bed storage compretments though, very good idea there! Almost no need for a tool box perhaps? Opinions on Ram and Tundras w/o the built-in Ford bias appreciated. Any hands-on experience? I had an 06' Dakota crewmax - no complants and very quick litle truck, even towed a dual wheel trailer and a small excavator. Put a magnaflow on it and sounded awsome. But, my uncle had a similiar Dakota and hated it, he bought a F150 and would never go back to Dodge - that bad I guess.

 

the 4.30 gears are a marketing gimic.

You have to look at the overall effective gear ratios. I gaurente that toyota runs taller gears in the transmission, which they step back down in the rear end. This is good, because you can build a lighter duty transmission that will handle the same power as a heavier built transmission with lower gears. Transmitting the power via hi speed low torque is easer on equipment vs, running low speed high torque. So they run a higher drive shaft speed, and step it back down at the rear end.

And they get to say we have 4.30 gears to boot, and most people buy that crap. I dont claim to know what the overall effective ratio is, but i would bet money its not any deaper than a ford with 3.73.

 

I looked up the transmission's final gear ratio for the F-150 and the Tundra. Looks like a Ford with 3.66 gearing would be turning the same rear axle speed as the Tundra with it's 4.30 gears.

The Toyota brochure proudly states how the wide ratio of their transmission negates the need for the buyer to have to ponder over which rear diff to order. They make it simple by not having any such choices.

Certainly a stroke of marketing genius!

 

Why doesn't Ford compare themselves to the Tundra? Simple. The Tundra doesn't sell enough to be considered a competitor.

82,908 Tundras were sold in 2011.

By comparison:
Ram 151,754
Chevy 332,105
Ford 358,762