Toyota Tundra

[mustang]

[quote=Ray Eklund;609985]

This is a Toyota Tundra forum. Go and make your exaggerations of your current brand on another forum. Your statements will not change my mind as to what products are superior in my experiences.

Holy cow I thought this was a Airstream Forum.

[mustang]

Another thing I would like to point out is ... If you have to ask if it will Tow It? then you must be questioning it also... I have never been in that position, and I love my Super Duty

[macninja]

Originally Posted by dpandorf

You should have gone to the manufacturers website to get your facts correct. As a Ford owner I checked the F-150 Ford sight and see you're incorrect about wheelbase lengths.

You can buy an F-150 Supercrew 4x4 with a 151" wheelbase. Last time I checked that's more than the Toyota Tundra's 145.7".

Thanks for the tip, but my facts are correct. I deliberately picked a model and configuration which seems to be pretty common. You're not going to find too many long-bed, double cab trucks with payload packages on dealer lots in any brand.

I checked Ford's site as well, and you can actually get an F-150 with a 163" wheelbase, just like you can get a Tundra with a 164.6" wheelbase. (Huh... Still longer than the F-150.) Please don't accuse me of not doing my homework unless you first do your own.

Originally Posted by dpandorf

Now let's talk about capacities and the reason I could not justify buying a Jap truck.

I think your use of the phrase "Jap truck" is indication enough of why you wouldn't buy one.

Originally Posted by dpandorf

You're Toyota Tundra has a max payload capability of 1580 lbs.

Yep.

Originally Posted by dpandorf

I tried finding the actual GVWR and hitch weight on that new 28' Flying Cloud but couldn't find it on the Airstream website.

Neither can I, and it's frustrating! Get us some info, Airstream!

Originally Posted by dpandorf

So I used the Ocean Breeze 28'. It looks to me like the hitch weighs around 800 lbs.

1580
- 800
780

26.5 gallons of fuel = 230 pounds

Slight correction -- it only holds 20 gallons of gas. The capacities listed on the website are UK gallons. I actually called Toyota to find out what was up, and that was their explanation.

Originally Posted by dpandorf

You are now down to 550 pounds.

How many people are going to be in the truck? I have a family of 4 and a 50 pound dog with a topper that weighs 180 pounds.

Only two of us and a 50 lb. dog. And we travel light. I'm confident we can come in under the limit, but I see your point.

Doesn't a weight distribution hitch reduce the effective tongue weight? What's the percentage there?

Originally Posted by dpandorf

That works out to be 730 pounds. I have now exceeded the Toyota Tundra's maximum payload capacity and we haven't put a thing in the bed of the truck except the dog. Haven't even included a 30 pound bag of food, his kennel or any of the other things that make traveling with your Airstream a pleasure.

Your needs are different from mine. The Tundra isn't a good choice for you, and I don't recommend you buy one.

Originally Posted by dpandorf

I plan on buying two Honda E2000s and the combined weight is another 94 pounds plus a 10 gallon gas can is another 86 pounds.

I'll probably get a couple of those, too. They put me closer to my limit, but still not over it. And I can probably buy gas wherever we're going.

Originally Posted by dpandorf

Now let's look at the F-150. The SuperCrew 4x4 has a payload capacity of 1630 lbs or SuperCrew 4x2 with 1750 lbs. However, if you need payload capacity you can get an F-150 with up to 3080 pounds. Not even an option for the Tundra.

When did we get on to 4x4s? I guess it doesn't matter, but for the record, Toyota has a payload package available as well.

Also, when I build an F-150 SuperCrew Long Bed, the max payload package (which is apparently standard with a Long Bed) is only listed at 2700 lbs.

Originally Posted by dpandorf

As you can plainly see the F-150 has more real truck hauling options but what is really apparent about any of the 1/2 ton trucks as compared to the 3/4 ton trucks is REAL TRUCK capability in payload capacities.

And the last time I checked Toyota doesn't make one.

What I plainly see is two very capable 1/2 ton trucks. Each can be configured differently, and when you make an effort to compare as close to identical vehicles as possible, they come out pretty damn close. (I'm not sure what you're calling "real truck hauling options" -- It seems to me that the two are nearly identical in terms of capabilities.)

And again, I say who's talking about 3/4 ton trucks? We're talking about Toyota Tundras, a 1/2 ton truck. You can't compare the capabilities of a 1/2 ton truck to a 3/4 ton.

Is the F-150 a 3/4 ton truck? What the hell is a 3/4 ton truck vs. a 1/2 ton truck, anyway? Is it payload capacity? In that case, they're both 3/4 ton trucks. (1500 lbs. == 3/4 of a ton.) It's not vehicle base weight, since they all weigh well over that. It's obviously not towing capacity, since most of them tow well over 4 tons.

Anyway, this has been an interesting discussion. I'm still not convinced that the Tundra is any worse than any of the domestics in terms of actual statistics. As someone else has said, you're going to tow with what you're comfortable with, and if that means someone wants a F-350 Super Duty for a 25' trailer, then so be it. It's their money and gas bill.

[macninja]

Originally Posted by SteveH

Damn right...tried and true, works good, lasts a long time!

Apparently so... That's why the Mustang still has a solid rear axle and can't keep up with European performance cars on anything with curves. American stubbornness at it's finest!

Originally Posted by SteveH

Yep, and I still say, and it can't be denied, the NET profit from the sale of the vehicle goes to Japan.

We're going to have to just disagree on that point. I'm talking about all the ancillary things that go on around the vehicle, but if you want to just talk about the initial sale of the vehicle to the US subsidiary or dealer, then yes, you're right.

Originally Posted by SteveH

Well, it tells me that Toyota engineering is substandard.

And Ford will leave vehicles on the street that they KNOW are substandardly engineered (Early 90's Crown Vic), viewing the potential loss of life due to shoddy engineering as cheaper than redesigning their product. Again, an example of stubbornness and hubris that does no one any good.

Originally Posted by SteveH

How about this fact: We took a little "trip" this summer with our truck, 23' Airstream in tow for a month, 30 days to be exact, to Alaska and back, and drove 11,079 miles over roads you would not even believe, and all without one single incident. Not even a hint of a problem at all with the truck. The trailer, however, is another story....roads were so rough the medicine cabinet fell off the wall and broke into several pieces. The microwave oven which rode all the way to the Yukon mounted atop the refrigirator with Velcro from San Antonio, bounced off and broke on the floor. Texas has no such roads, but they do in Alaska. The only thing that happened to the truck was a chip in the windshield from flying gravel....hardly the fault of the truck.

Now, that's a FACT! When your TOYota makes such a trip successfully, come and tell me about it.

I'd love to make that trip... I hope my Airstream holds up better than yours did. I have no doubt that a Toyota would be more than capable of handling just such a trip.

(Again, the juvenile digs -- "TOYota" instead of Toyota -- speak volumes about your willingness to even consider the Tundra, and your preconceived notions about it.)

[mustang]

Hey Steve H how was that trip to Alaska?? I always wanted to go up and see the Northern Lights. Teenage kid and job doesnt allow it yet. My freinds Mom and Dad went up, they told simmular stories rough roads ect. Broke out a few windows on there Airstream..

[mustang]

Hey Mac why drag me into your JAP CRAP whinning I have a solid back axles because I can and I will. Like I have said in the past Chain um up. hell I will even hook to my Airstream first. Hu Also I am more of a straight line kinda guy (DragRacing)I will leave drifting for the kids

[Gene]

The 28' 2008 Safari has a hitch weight of 830 lbs, I presume the '09 Flying Cloud is the same.

The Tundra gas tank holds 26.4 gallons. Imperial gallons once used in the UK were 5 quarts and thus a Tundra would hold a bit over 21 Imperial gallons.

When I was investigating the Tundra, I am pretty sure I saw somewhere in the company literature that they took into account a full gas tank and maybe even coolant when they stated the payload. So you can add that several hundred pounds back to payload. I can't remember where I read it so I can't give you a citation. Depending which model you buy, payload ranges from 1350 to 2065.

Yes, a weight distributing hitch shifts some of the weight back to the trailer axles (maybe about 1/3) and the rest forward to both axles of the truck. Somewhere on a thread about hitches are formulae for computing the exact numbers. If I understand it correctly, that would lower the effective tongue weight of the 28' Safari to something less than 600 lbs.

In have owned 6 Toyotas, 3 pickups and 3 SUV's (which are trucks with a different body). Hardly anything goes wrong with them and some of them never had even one thing wrong with them. They do anything I ask of them. Each succeeding model is better than the last. I can remember owing 2 US trucks and 2 US cars. The '56 Mercury was my first car and it was probably no worse built than anything in those days. My '72 Chevy pickup was a really basic truck and quite good though it sure used a ton of gas. I had a mid 70's International 3/4 ton that was undoubtedly the worst thing I ever owned, but I got it cheap 2nd hand. The '85 Olds Toronado I inherited in '95 with 21,000 miles was a piece of junk. The company that made that '72 Chevy seemed to be completely different by '85. Yesterday GM recalled a million vehicles, including trucks, because of possible fires.

If some of you can't accept that Toyota builds good trucks, so be it. If you want to insult a whole nation, mustang (i.e., "Jap Crap"), I suggest to keep it to yourself and not post on the Forum. Personally I find some of your remarks offensive.

Gene

[mustang]

I think this page should be removed I will stick up for my self when dragged into this mess, I dont care how many toyotas youve owned Gene.

[mustang]

I copied this from another thread

[2airishuman]

Originally Posted by CrawfordGene

The 28' 2008 Safari has a hitch weight of 830 lbs, I presume the '09 Flying Cloud is the same...Yes, a weight distributing hitch shifts some of the weight back... If I understand it correctly, that would lower the effective tongue weight of the 28' Safari to something less than 600 lbs...

disclaimer....i'm not picking on you gene, but only addressing the facts offered in your post.

the published tongue mass on the company website is an ESTIMATE only ...

and doesn't include lpgas (another 60-80lbs) or trailer options or the effect from FLUIDs and cargo...

or the HITCH APPARATUS weight

and may not include the spare tire (since the tire used to be an option and only recently became standard)...

so is that "830 lbs" from company data or an owner who has WEIGHED the 28 model in question LOADED?

sorry but w/d equipment DOES NOT change the tongue mass.

"effective tongue weight" is a made up notion, that begs definition and acknowledgement...

from the engineers who rate trucks, make hitches and receivers and trailers frames or trailers...

i've not seen ANY of those folks use or endorse (or even explain) that terminology...

one does NOT GAIN payload capacity or alter real tongue weight using w/d gear...

infact w/d gear INCREASES the stress and LOAD parameters at the receiver/hitch...

this stress/load/force can be increased as much as 500-1500 lbs ABOVE the actual tongue weight....

in order to redistribute axle loading...

so we should not accept or believe in any way, shape or form, that w/d gear lowers tongue weight, because it doesn't.

payload IS payload and tongue mass IS whatever it is.

axle weights (all off them) and tv weight + trailer weight add UP to the SAME TOTAL...

we've had folks occasionally suggest/hope they can increase or alter or discount the tongue mass...

in marginal situations (or with frankly the ratings setups) using w/d gear...

it ain't so.
_____________________

the o.p. was looking for reports from folks towing a newer 31 with the new 'yota...

i see none, and would not try that combo, for exactly the reasons dpandorf has laid out.

'ninja stirred d pot (without any actual facts, but preaching 'bout others misusing them...pot-kettle-black) imo...

he is years or a long time from buying any 'stream but right now likes 25s...

the 25s go fine with the RATING on the new halftondra, JUST BARELY or following the 80% notion.

BUT he wants to buy a truck in advance that he's sure will tow WHATEVER 'stream ultimately selected. right?

following that logic...

suggests the need to buy a 3/4 or 1 ton truck, just in case u opt for a 30/slide, 34 or 34/slide or pan america 'stream...

now back to the silly brand, country and 'mine is better' stuff...

cheers
2air'

[dpandorf]

Just wanted to know from those that are towing with the Tundra, are you still running the Passenger rated tires that come with the truck or buying LT rated tires after the fact?

Just didn't see LT tires as an option on the Toyota website.

[tetstream]

I going to guess here, but I suppose the 31' a/s weighs in at 6000 lbs ('cause my little 19' is about 4100 lbs). And the Tundra weighs about the same or less, right.

Why would anyone want to have an equal mass pushing them from behind that is only under the power of momentum and has no steering control ??

( I skimmed this thread , so if the true weights are in there, my apologies. But you get my drift)

I owned a 2003 Tundra for 3 years. From about month 3, I found it to be under rated. It had trouble doing light work, and I only pulled a 12' tanden axle cargo trailer with it. The suspension was soft, and it went thru brakes. Plus, it only got 12 mpg, with no load. I was disappointed but suffered with it for 3 years.

I would never want to pull even my 19' with it. I prefer to be heavy in the TV department. Better safe than sorry, and no white knucke driving.

Wife and I went for a 3 nighter last weekend and I commented to her that I sure was glad to have the heavy truck. SHe is too. It handles beautifully. We had to navigate about 30 miles of twisty two laner with no or little shoulder, and it was no sweat, literally.

Besides, my Duramax gets 16 mpg in town, and that's a daily weight of 7500 lbs.

Get a 3/4 ton truck, whatever brand. You won't be sorry. Diesel is great.

[2airishuman]

Originally Posted by tetstream

I going to guess here, but I suppose the 31' a/s weighs in at 6000 lbs...

thats close for a 10-15 year old unit.

new 31s are 7050 dry, with a 2950 carry capacity, so 10,000lbs max.

that's a LOT of trailer.

the rest of your post is a good report of what works for you.

seldom is too much truck an issue WHILE towing.

cheers
2air'

[macninja]

Originally Posted by 2airishuman

'ninja stirred d pot (without any actual facts, but preaching 'bout others misusing them...pot-kettle-black) imo...

he is years or a long time from buying any 'stream but right now likes 25s...

2air -- You're obviously well respected and an old hand around here, and I value your input re: the hitch weights and WD equipment.

However, I take exception to your statement that I offered no facts. Like Mustang, I reserve the right to defend myself, and when several others were throwing around things like "shortwheelbase, lightweight.." and so on, I actually provided numbers that illustrated that the trucks were very similar.

Also, I'm (I assume it's me you're referring to) hardly "years from buying any 'stream." We got our truck in anticipation of a purchase within the next few months, if all goes to plan. And I like the Flying Cloud 28s, although the 25s aren't bad, either.

I'll freely admit that I don't have the experience towing Airstreams that you and many others here do, but I know uninformed statements when I hear them, and it's unfair to others who might be reading this thread to let them go unchallenged.

Not all of us have the resources to have a separate TV from our daily driver, and I'd venture a guess that MOST of us don't want to be dealing with a HD truck for our daily driver. That makes it really important that we cut through the "mine's better" and "Jap Crap WHINING" BS and talk about actual facts and capabilities, not just busting on something because of its manufacturer's home country.

[macninja]

Originally Posted by tetstream

I owned a 2003 Tundra for 3 years. From about month 3, I found it to be under rated. It had trouble doing light work, and I only pulled a 12' tanden axle cargo trailer with it. The suspension was soft, and it went thru brakes. Plus, it only got 12 mpg, with no load. I was disappointed but suffered with it for 3 years.

The 2008 Tundra is completely new, MUCH LARGER, and a more powerful truck.

[Toothpuller]

Traded in 2008 Tundra 5.7 4x4 for 2008 GMC Sierra 2500 4x4 Duramax Diesel, Allison Tranny. No comparison, Toyota makes a great reliable vehicle, just not capable of pulling the stated tow capacity. The payload should be VERY carefully looked at; my insurance will not cover our truck or unit if we are 75% or greater of stated payload and towing capacity. The Toyota looked like it was about to drag on the ground and we felt like our ride was on a pogo stick. The Sierra is more truck and of course a 3/4 ton. Has stronger springs, hard ware and is in my opinion a truck Toyota will never be able to produce for the same price. I am a huge Toyota advocate, have had five prior Toyotas, however the new generation Tundra is a total let down, not to mention our local Toyota dealers have a "we have the vehicle and you will pay what ever we ask" attitude. GMC was much easier to deal with and Onstar and XM are awesome as well. We still have a 2004 Land Cruiser, but I would never tow the AS with that. Engine, trans just not up to it and the wheel base is too short to safely tow. I could go on and on, we live in large hill, small mountain area with many graded climbs, the Sierra can and does do these very easily.

[Toothpuller]

PS - I use my HD 3/4 ton for daily driving, it handles the same as the tundra, in fact, I feel it handles better and it is very comfortable.

[2airishuman]

Originally Posted by macninja

... I take exception to your statement that I offered no facts...

'ninja...

didn't post u offered no facts.

i suggested you stirred the pot, without facts.

reporting correct wheelbase info, published towing specs and so on can be done without stirring.

no one wins with the political babble, the nationalist rants or name calling.

perhaps the suggestions that others get their facts right was simple enthusiasm,

but it does invite others to nit pik at your offerings. do you really want that?

defend what ever u like or just pass over it and the irrelevant/offensive post soon gets buried.

often the best reply to ANY incredibly dumb, misinformed or totally wacked post (or poster) is nothing.

the blank spots and no-replies are often LOUDER than arguing non-facts.

there are SEVERAL other threads here on the many virtues of the 'yota.

perhaps u wanna read them and add your experience where the debate isn't so OFF TOPIC.

here are 3, but search the key term in the "TITLES ONLY" and lots of recent/useful threads will be found.

http://www.airforums.com/forums/f463...dra-36040.html

http://www.airforums.com/forums/f463...0-a-36718.html

http://www.airforums.com/forums/f463...dra-20576.html

Originally Posted by macninja

Anyway, we're years from buying an Airstream yet, but I'm already planning for it by researching which ones we might want so that when the time comes to replace our car I can buy a truck that will tow the Airstream we will ultimately wind up owning...

my reference to timing and size selection is yours, just one year ago.

if the search for a stream has moved ahead, GREAT!

we can soon welcome you to the owner collective.

so it would appear you already HAVE the truck?

i looked excitedly at the 'yotas when the new model appeared.

with friends that have connections to the brand i wanted one.

but driving, inspecting bits, looking at the spring stack, receiver attachements, rear diff, frame and so on, curbed the enthusiasm.

i also didn't care for the interior fit/finish on the early models (the newest ones are much nicer) or the bed size on the largest cab models...

it's an adequate entry in the full 1/2 market, those suggesting it's more like a 3/4 are smoking rope.

those are just PERSONAL opinions, if ne1s keeping score.

the 05 diesel ford (my 1st non german/asian/italian/french/swede vehicle) is just SO MUCH better for the task of towing.

yes that's just another personal view, based on 60k towing with it, and with a "me in a ford?" mindset...

so tell us all about your 'yota love and just ignore the haters.

get the biggest heaviest 'stream on your wish list and tow the hell out of it...

then share the pictures, performance, pleasure and party shots...

we LOVE seeing silver roll behind any mule.

cheers
2air'

[mustang]

I hate my name being dragged into this (macninja). I keep deleting this thread, and it keeps comeing back in my email and I click it forgetting where it has gone. (south). With out the risk of repeating my self. I tested alot of vehicles before I made my choice. GMC, Ford and Mopar.Where what I narrowed it down to. Something about keeping my fleet uniformed is what I like. Ford has a great trailer tow package. Truely complete. The original thread was a gentelman inquireing about a tundra and a 31 foot Airstream if I remeber. 1/2 ton trucks are very capable to a point. I have a 31 foot airstream. I have towed it with a 1/2 ton truck. My 3/4 is a world of differance. Simply stated. I tried not to slander anyone with this statement if I did, I appologize. But I would not give advise that I wouldnt apply to myself, or my family.

[RLS]

my insurance will not cover our truck or unit if we are 75% or greater of stated payload and towing capacity.

Now that's a very interesting statement! Got my attention. Guess I need to go find my policy and do some reading. I would hate to think what problems that could cause a whole bunch of RV'ers.