Tundra vs. Chevy

[Eric102]

I find this hard to believe. Maybe just acceleration but when pulling a heavy load the weight of the tow vehicle plays a factor. With 3/4 ton trucks weighing roughly 2k more and offering heavier components all the way around its just not comparable. I have towed with several half tons (not Tundra though) and they can't touch either the chevy or Fords 3/4 ton offerings. Maybe your comparing a 15-30 year old 3/4 truck.

Sent from my iPhone using TractorByNet

Yep, it was an 88 4x4 HD F250 long bed diesel which I used for towing the boat up to the time I got the Tundra, so about 19 years old when I gladly retired it.

Definitely an apples to oranges comparison since the Ford was the HD version with 10 bolt hubs, big brakes and heavy suspension. That's why I was surprised by how well the Tundra did when I first got it. The Ford was always a white knuckles driving experience when towing on the freeways, passing semis would blow me all over the place where as the Tundra is rock solid even with the shorter wheelbase and bed. The diesel was badly underpowered also and combined with the 3 speed auto it was not happy going up any sort of incline with the 9000 lb boat. I think it had about 1/2 the torque, HP and gears the Tundra has.

And of course being a Ford, "Fix Or Replace Daily"

 

[Diamondpilot]

I think there were issues with the first generation of AFM engines, but the later ones have been fine. Granted, I only put 8000 miles on my 2014 Sierra 1500 when it came time for the first oil change, but it didn't consume a drop of oil in that time -- I would have been annoyed if it did, as none of my modern cars have ever needed oil between changes. So far AFM has been great, and surely contributes to the 19-20mpg I average in mixed driving and 22-23mpg I see on trips. The engine spends a lot of time loafing in 4-cyl mode when cruising. The biggest difference between your 2013 and 2015 is that there was a significant model refresh in that time -- even a 2015 1500 model would be a night and day difference to your 2013. The previous generation was pretty mediocre in my opinion (I wouldn't have bought one). So whether it was a 1500 or 2500 is less of an impact now or then. I don't see any difference in build quality between 1500 and HD models nowadays; as of the 2014 refresh (HD models came a year later) they start with the same basic design, body, interior, etc -- all the stuff that the driver touches and perceives quality from. The real differences are deeper and below the skin -- frame, chassis, suspension, engine, trans, etc. The 1500 and HD models even share the same plants (last I knew, three plants were building GM trucks, one was 1500 only, one did 1500 and HD, and one did 1500 and overflow).

We're having issues with 2014 trucks with 60,000 miles on the clock.

Chris

 

[Diamondpilot]

I find this hard to believe. Maybe just acceleration but when pulling a heavy load the weight of the tow vehicle plays a factor. With 3/4 ton trucks weighing roughly 2k more and offering heavier components all the way around its just not comparable. I have towed with several half tons (not Tundra though) and they can't touch either the chevy or Fords 3/4 ton offerings. Maybe your comparing a 15-30 year old 3/4 truck. Sent from my iPhone using TractorByNet

I will put my 2012 EcoBoost against my old 99 F350 any day of the week in every way other than payload. That includes towing a 10,000# trailer, stopping that trailer, accelerating from 0 to 60 mph with that trailer, passing someone from 60 to say 75 mph, and over control and stability of the load.

Chris

 

[Rustyiron]

3 pages and still no "brand war's" :thumbsup:
Very nice read!!

 

[Fordman1981]

My 1500 was assembled in Mexico. My 2500 was assembled in Ft. Wayne, IN ( other 2500 plant is in Flint, MI ). I liked the 2500 was assembled in Ft. Wayne only because I had a '98 2500 that also was done there and I really liked that pickup. I wasn't much concerned about my 1500 being assembled in Mexico. I long grew past that. When I ordered my 2013 Freightliner semi truck tractor, they were building in N.C and Mexico. The dealer didn't say anything, but later after it came in, he mentioned that they were keeping their fingers crossed it would be assembled in Mexico. That's right! Reason, they have more issue with trucks assembled in N.C. Well, true to form, it took the dealer 2 extra weeks to correct problems with my truck, and it was assembled in N.C. I have no clue if those guys at the plant were too concerned with going fishing, meeting at Hooters after work, or what, but they sure were not paying attention to their job. Missing brackets, extra parts for dealer final assembly all in disarray in the component box, etc. I use my pickups to haul more than tow. And the 1500 just wasn't the ticket. The 2500 is vastly better, especially off road. But just in handling and overall experience, I much prefer the 2500 to the 1500. The 1500, to me, seemed like a car on steroids. Kinda like they had a 4 door El Camino in mind. That was the first 1/2 ton I had gotten since owning a '66 Chevy C-10 in the early 70's. I don't ever see a 1/2 ton in my future again. Either way, the L96 6.0L in my 2500 has a long track record of being a reliable, strong, long lasting motor. Lots of internal design features that carried over from what GM learned in its racing side and Corvette side. The 2015 2500 6.0L totally blew the snot out of the 2015 Ram 2500 6.4L on the Ike Gauntlet test pull by almost a minute and a half up that mountain, and the 6.0 2500 had 300 more lb loaded on it (both were loaded to maximum GCWR). The Ram 6.4L had 60 more HP and 50 more lb of torque and an 8 speed. So it goes to show, that numbers on a glossy brochure don't always equate to real world performance.

Just want to point out ram does not have an 8 speed in the HD trucks.

 

[TomSeller]

I will put my 2012 EcoBoost against my old 99 F350 any day of the week in every way other than payload. That includes towing a 10,000# trailer, stopping that trailer, accelerating from 0 to 60 mph with that trailer, passing someone from 60 to say 75 mph, and over control and stability of the load.

Chris

How about making it to 400K miles without significant mechanical issues? Just curious.

 

[TomSeller]

Yep, it was an 88 4x4 HD F250 long bed diesel which I used for towing the boat up to the time I got the Tundra, so about 19 years old when I gladly retired it.
Definitely an apples to oranges comparison since the Ford was the HD version with 10 bolt hubs, big brakes and heavy suspension.

Yes a 1988 of any brand would be apples to oranges to a new Tundra. Glad you like your new truck, they are nice.

 

[sixdogs]

How about making it to 400K miles without significant mechanical issues? Just curious.

I remember the olden days of the 1960's and '70's when people traded at 65,000 to 75,000 miles because that's when they started to fall apart. Few trucks ever reached 85,000 or so and if you said a truck--any truck--would last a few hundred thousand miles you would have been laughed out of the room.

 

[Turbys_1700]

I remember the olden days of the 1960's and '70's when people traded at 65,000 to 75,000 miles because that's when they started to fall apart. Few trucks ever reached 85,000 or so and if you said a truck--any truck--would last a few hundred thousand miles you would have been laughed out of the room.

I just bought a truck with 92K miles on it. Don't want to spend the coin on new. I really appreciate all the input from everyone on here that is buying new trucks and comparing them to different models. In 10 years when I buy one of them with 90K miles I'll know which one is better.lol

 

[Diamondpilot]

How about making it to 400K miles without significant mechanical issues? Just curious.

400K is a pipe dream for 99.9% of the vehicles on the road. Rust being the biggest killer.

I know 2 people with vehicles with over 250,000 miles and both are gas.

This was a selling point 25 years ago when gas motors made 100,000 miles on average but today 300,000 or more is reality.

Chris