Tundra 5.7 vs F150 EcoBoost

[TouringDan]

Kelvin

I love my Tundra, but if I had to choose between a 2010 Tundra with 25k miles and questionable care, and a new F150 eco boost for similar money, I would take the eco boost in a heart beat.

Decisions, decisions. Happy hunting for both the TV and the Airstream.

Dan

[aftermath]

Yeah, what Dan said. Buying used is always a bit iffy. It sounds like the salesman is playing you to jump into a new truck. The one you looked at was "close" to the price of the used one.....but.....it didn't have the tow package. I am sure he will be more than willing to help you out with that.

Read more about the Eco boost. I understand that it is great when empty but the mileage drops off when towing. If I was using my truck as a daily driver I would look into the Ford. I think that when you compare towing efficiencies they are pretty close.

Keep looking and try to find one from a private seller.

[Steve & Mary]

I am Ford all the way. Love the F-250, new Boss 302, 08 Bullitt Mustang, 1970 Boss 302 and 1971 Boss 351. Sorry....didn't mean to get carried away. I'm sure Yota's are also fine. Just never had one :-)

[xrocket]

BTW ... On the truck needing to sit outside in Texas, well, that's exactly where mine sits year round. White or silver will make a vast difference over black or very dark colors in appearance, plastics and rubber based components over a few years time not to mention internal (heat) temperatures during the hot months. That works equally for Fords as well as Toyotas.

Also note, the Tundras are built in San Antonio ... and that's Texas!

[Phrunes]

Originally Posted by aftermath

I don't agree with this statement..at..all. Not trying to start a brand war, I agree with many who said that both choices the OP mentioned will work fine for his purposes. Finding a decent slightly used Toyota Tundra for under 20K is going to be very difficult. Not as many Toys out there to start with.

Ford makes fine trucks and they make millions of them. They offer an option for everyone and because of that, they sell lots of trucks. The F 150 line alone has so many options it makes my head spin. But, when it comes to reliability, I don't think they have much on Toyota. JMHO

I've abused my 2004 f150 scab over the past 130,000 miles and have done nothing more than use royal purple. Knock wood. When I tow my boat its at the max tow rating, when I haul rock its overloaded, when I take it off-road I beat it up, I run oversized tires without a regear in the ring and pinion, and it is up the rpm range. I have pulled stumps, my stuck bronco, a dilapidated shed down and many other don't dos...nothing more than fluid changes. That IS reliability...oh, and my previous vehicle? A Toyota. Fine truck, but no better on the reliability spectrum.

[tpi]

I towed an 25' Safari with an '11 Tundra 5.7. The truck simply worked very well with the trailer. Much less porpoising than I experienced with my '99 F250. Very direct precise steering.

I moved to a C class motorhome and the sloppy handling took some getting used to after the Tundra and Airstream. I highly recommend the Tundra for towing an Airstream 25.

[Phrunes]

Originally Posted by tpi

I towed an 25' Safari with an '11 Tundra 5.7. The truck simply worked very well with the trailer. Much less porpoising than I experienced with my '99 F250. Very direct precise steering.

I moved to a C class motorhome and the sloppy handling took some getting used to after the Tundra and Airstream. I highly recommend the Tundra for towing an Airstream 25.

You can't really compare a 1999 model truck to a 2011. Yes, in 99 the 250s still had solid axle setup and a simple rack. Nowadays they feature a very precise ifs front-end with coilovers....a whole different animal. I like them both, but the previous poster commented on reliability and I disagree with him. The real comparison in this thread should be like for like, fact is that the Tundra is a 1/2 ton truck and they don't make a 3/4 ton. So its Tundra vs. F150...specifically ecoboost. Is anyone brave enough to compare the Tundra 5.7 to the Ford 6.2 F150? Smiles. As far as normally aspirated vs turbocharged reliability...think Ford 7.1 turbodiesel...500,000 miles is not unheard of...turbos are no longer an issue with new bearing materials and intercoolers. The ecoboost engineers did their homework in the right area...the block.

[tpi]

The point I'm making is the Tundra is an excellent match for a 25 Airstream. Perhaps more than the sum of two parts. I'm generally not that enthusiastic about two items I no longer own. But the synergy of the Tundra and the Airstream was really quite exceptional. It did not porpoise. This is info which can't be obtained without a truck trailer test drive. I feel it is important to pass that info on to someone considering a 25 Airstream and Tundra.

FWIW I'm not anti Ford. I own E450 based motorhome. I own Ford stock. I'm considering a Mustang GT.

[srpuywa]

correction - the crew max rear seats do not fold up like the silverado

[Phrunes]

Originally Posted by tpi

The point I'm making is the Tundra is an excellent match for a 25 Airstream. Perhaps more than the sum of two parts. I'm generally not that enthusiastic about two items I no longer own. But the synergy of the Tundra and the Airstream was really quite exceptional. It did not porpoise. This is info which can't be obtained without a truck trailer test drive. I feel it is important to pass that info on to someone considering a 25 Airstream and Tundra.

FWIW I'm not anti Ford. I own E450 based motorhome. I own Ford stock. I'm considering a Mustang GT.

I gotcha. I'll bet that mustang will pull the ole AS.

[KJRitchie]

I found a couple of private party sellers nearby with 2007 Tundra Double Cab 8' bed and a 2008 Tundra Doublecab 6 ft bed, $15k to $16.5k. The 2008 has a color coordinated tonneau cover that flips up from the front the 2007 has a bed liner. The miles are similar 89k and 92k. If they are both well maintained I shouldn't worry about these mileage figures should I? I've looked at the Tundra maintenance manual and unlike like my Toyota 4.7L V8 which requires new timing belts every 90k miles or 9 years the 5.7L doesn't

What about the 5.0L Ford V8 F150 Supercrew for towing? The new 2012 are several thousand cheaper with this size engine compared to the Ecoboost. Again, I want to match it with a 25 floor plan. The towing capacity isn't as much with the 5.0L, 8000lbs with the 3.53 axles, payload is still a little higher than the Tundra 1790 vs 1650. I bet the fuel consumption will be about the same for all three pulling a 25, 10mpg to 12mpg?
Maybe I don't need an Ecoboost?

Thanks again for everyones thoughts.

Kelvin

[DKB_SATX]

Originally Posted by KJRitchie

I found a couple of private party sellers nearby with 2007 Tundra Double Cab 8' bed and a 2008 Tundra Doublecab 6 ft bed, $15k to $16.5k. The 2008 has a color coordinated tonneau cover that flips up from the front the 2007 has a bed liner. The miles are similar 89k and 92k. If they are both well maintained I shouldn't worry about these mileage figures should I? I've looked at the Tundra maintenance manual and unlike like my Toyota 4.7L V8 which requires new timing belts every 90k miles or 9 years the 5.7L doesn't

What about the 5.0L Ford V8 F150 Supercrew for towing? The new 2012 are several thousand cheaper with this size engine compared to the Ecoboost. Again, I want to match it with a 25 floor plan. The towing capacity isn't as much with the 5.0L, 8000lbs with the 3.53 axles, payload is still a little higher than the Tundra 1790 vs 1650. I bet the fuel consumption will be about the same for all three pulling a 25, 10mpg to 12mpg?
Maybe I don't need an Ecoboost?

Thanks again for everyones thoughts.

Kelvin

Re: the private-party Tundras: If they're properly maintained I wouldn't worry about that mileage. It's pretty much the average for a daily-use vehicle in the Metroplex.

Re: the 5.0: I think a 5.0 with the 3.73 differential would do fine around here. The Ecoboost would have a huge advantage at altitude, but if you're spending most of your time within 4 hours of DFW there won't be enough altitude available to make that apparent.

The Ecoboost will be the torquier choice at lower RPM, I'm guessing the 5.0 will need the spurs put to it just like my 5.4 does to pull up a significant grade, though you'll have the advantage of a much better transmission than my 2007's 4R75W. The 5.0 will make enough power if you're willing to rev it, but lots of people are squeamish about that.

You mentioned a "3.53" rear axle... if you meant the 3.55, I'd recommend sticking with the 3.73, especially for the 5.0. With the new 6-speed, overdrive will still get you a nice relaxed engine RPM even with the 3.73 diff, and you'll have that better ratio to get things rolling in the lower gears.

[Phrunes]

Check the torque figures for the 5.0, should be ok. Back in the 80s my dad towed a 35 ft cimaron fifthwheel with his 302 equipped f150...got a little slow in the Sierras, and Rockies but otherwise towed it just fine. A 25 ft AS weighs significantly less. Torque and gearing are your best allies for towing.

[Bruce B]

Originally Posted by DKB_SATX

.....though you'll have the advantage of a much better transmission than my 2007's 4R75W.

Yes, the six speed transmission in the 09 and newer F-150's has huge impact on the way these trucks feel. I drove a 4 speed version and was surprised at how different it felt.
Bruce

[aftermath]

The Tundra 5.7 will tow a 25 ft. Airstream easily. It has plenty of HP and torque. I know this because I am towing my 25 FB and have taken it all through the west over the Rockies as well as the Cascades. I don't have to slow way down on the passes and have been averaging a tad over 11 mpg while trying to keep it between 60 and 65.

The problem with the Tundra is, like all half ton pickups, the carrying capacity. You can overload one of these in a hurry so think about how you camp and how much stuff you typically bring with you. Ford does have an advantage here as you can get one with beefed up suspensions, turbocharged engines, different bed lengths and many other options. The Tundra has some choices but not as many.

I have an '08 with just over 50K on it. I will still be driving it when it has 90K but I know the history of mine. Buying used with 89k will always be a bit of a gamble. You just never know how it was taken care of. Your salesman might say it was owned by a little old lady who only drove it to church on Sundays........

[adwriter73]

I didn't read all the posts, so I apologize if this was mentioned already.

I know two people with the Ford EcoBoost who have had issues with the intercooler. The problem appears in high humidity areas. Apparently moisture accumulates in there and causes the engine not to start. Not bashing the F-150, but I'm not sure the EcoBoost has been effectively proven to be reliable. I have an '11 F-150 with the 5.0 V8 and it tows well. I've noticed some strange sway and instability (which I've posted before), but I've gotten used to it and it may or may not have anything to do with the truck.

[Bruce B]

Originally Posted by adwriter73

I didn't read all the posts, so I apologize if this was mentioned already.

I know two people with the Ford EcoBoost who have had issues with the intercooler. The problem appears in high humidity areas. Apparently moisture accumulates in there and causes the engine not to start. Not bashing the F-150, but I'm not sure the EcoBoost has been effectively proven to be reliable. I have an '11 F-150 with the 5.0 V8 and it tows well. I've noticed some strange sway and instability (which I've posted before), but I've gotten used to it and it may or may not have anything to do with the truck.

I am not certain this issue should be placed in the reliability table but rather in the annoyance table. My understanding is that the fix is out and people who have the issue are getting replacement intercoolers as supply allows.

I have not driven an EcoBoost yet as I do not need an excuse to buy a new vehicle but I too am watching the forums with interest. I have spent many many hours repairing and maintaining aluminum engine turbo engines and so far I see nothing to make me nervous but i remain open minded on the subject.
Bruce

[Phrunes]

Originally Posted by Bruce B

I am not certain this issue should be placed in the reliability table but rather in the annoyance table. My understanding is that the fix is out and people who have the issue are getting replacement intercoolers as supply allows.

I have not driven an EcoBoost yet as I do not need an excuse to buy a new vehicle but I too am watching the forums with interest. I have spent many many hours repairing and maintaining aluminum engine turbo engines and so far I see nothing to make me nervous but i remain open minded on the subject.
Bruce

Kinda off topic, but I've owned three tbird turbo coupes and one Mustang SVO in my lifetime and those engines could take a severe beating. Ford definitely knows their way around the turbocharged engine landscape.

[KJRitchie]

Originally Posted by DKB_SATX

You mentioned a "3.53" rear axle... if you meant the 3.55, I'd recommend sticking with the 3.73, especially for the 5.0. With the new 6-speed, overdrive will still get you a nice relaxed engine RPM even with the 3.73 diff, and you'll have that better ratio to get things rolling in the lower gears.

So far looking at 2013 Supercrews on line with the 5.0L V8 they seem to only have the 3.31 axles. The 2013 Ford towing guide shows 8000lbs with either the 3.55 of 3.31. I think you have to special order an F150 to get the 3.73 axle around here. Then I might as well see about the Max Towing and Max Payload options. Might be over my financial comfort zone. You can find plenty of 2013 Ecoboost on the lots here with 3.55. Haven't seen one yet with 3.73 but maybe those are the $50k model

Kelvin

[undl8r]

I have owned a Tundra (w/ 4.7), 4Runner (w/ 4.7), Ranger, F150 CC 4x4 w/ 5.4L, F150 2WD reg cab w/ 4.2L. F250 CC 4x4 w/ Diesel, and now have a Dodge RAM 2500 4x4 Reg Cab w/ 5.7L.

The Ford trucks, hands down, had better fit and finish, interior materials, design, reliability, drive, and overall sturdiness. My F150 was a 1998 and I got a 2002 Tundra - much worse. I abused the living crap out of my F150 4x4 (think off road jumping - i was much stupider and younger then) and not a single glitch, nothing - just oil changes. The Tundra did feel a little lighter/nimbler but it felt more like a Ranger (yes it was previous model). I looked at the new Tundra a few years ago and went with the F150 (a second time). The Tundra's interior, etc. was just too cheap and not ergonomically friendly. Also, both my Toy had issues - I did some off roading with them BUT NOTHING LIKE THE F150. My 4Runner snapped its front axle and Tundra had a few electrical gremlins (might have been b/c Toy dealer installed the Toy aftermarket alarm). I put over 100K on the F150 4x4 and never been to the dealer, besides PM. A friend bought his F150 the sometime (98), still has it with 260K miles and the only repairs he's had is new front brake rotors/pads, radio, and had to replace a small part in the heater (all at over 150K).

The vehicle I wish I still had (for my 2000 31' Excella) is the '05 F250 SD 4x4. This truck was insane (got it with an extra HD/work/off road package from the factory). B/c I live at high elevation, I could actually leave a base Porsche Boxter or BMW 330 from 10-70MPH - very funny to see their faces when a truck that they could drive under out accelerates their german sports cars. (again, prob more so b/c i was at high elevation).

I picked up a low mileage dodge ram 2500 from a GSA auction and while not a bad truck, it's def no Ford or Toy. (good bit of surface rust everywhere, notorious valve spring problems, etc).

There is a reason that Toy Tundra sales haven't lived up to expectations and haven't even made a dent in the Big 3 sales.

Hope this helps.