2013 Tundra vs 2013 Ford

[TSO]

Google "area under the curve" and get back to me.

My F250 has 4:30's. Did yours so we are comparing apples to apples? If it didn't, I could almost understand what you are saying. I have driven some 3:73 F250's with the V10 and it makes a big difference.

Didn't get a chance to Google that yet. Mine has 4.10 gears. I have no pRoblem with the v10, it does just fine. Numbers on paper are what they are ... but, from personal experience, driving both, that 5.7L feels more powerful, and is definitely more efficient overall. To be fair, one positive of the v10 is that it is known to be a generally trouble free and long lasting engine (commercial engine used in commercial trucks and motorhomes).

 

[jejeosborne]

You are not comparing vehicles relevant to this thread. Ford doesn't put that engine and transmission in a 2013 F150. The engine changes that took place in 2011 are drastically different.

Have you owned both? I have. The Toyota 5.7 was 381hp/401tq, with a smooth 6spd tranny & 4.30's.

Once you own and tow with both, then you can question my credibility.

Incorrect, the 2013 Tundra uses the same drivetrain as it did in 2010. So when I speak of that vehicle and my experience with it, it is relevant when the thread began with that vehicle as half of the equation.

What did I say that is incorrect? Your list of vehicles you have owned doesn't include a 5.0 liter or ecoboost Ford. You said that you have owned both. Looks like you are trying to compare the V10 F250 to the Toyota 5.7 liter. Am I missing a piece to the puzzle?

 

[JMER817]

What did I say that is incorrect? Your list of vehicles you have owned doesn't include a 5.0 liter or ecoboost Ford. You said that you have owned both. Looks like you are trying to compare the V10 F250 to the Toyota 5.7 liter. Am I missing a piece to the puzzle?

And a decade difference in years

 

[TSO]

What did I say that is incorrect? Your list of vehicles you have owned doesn't include a 5.0 liter or ecoboost Ford. You said that you have owned both. Looks like you are trying to compare the V10 F250 to the Toyota 5.7 liter. Am I missing a piece to the puzzle?

I'm trying to analyze the characteristics of the Tundra as a tow vehicle (half of this equation), and I'm comparing it to what I have experience with. The point of this thread was to compare a Tundra to a F150 as a tow vehicle. I'm describing my experience of using a Tundra as a tow vehicle. Because my current tow vehicle is an F250, that's what I have available to compare to. If anything, it's even more helpful because, and I don't think anyone would debate this, the F250 with v10 is a much better tow vehicle than an F150, regardless of the engine.

Use common sense, you can figure it out.

 

[94BULLITT]

I worked on a 2008 Tundra earlier this week. There were some parts of that truck that were like a 3/4 ton truck and then there were some parts of it that were like a compact truck. It wasn't a bad truck but I thought it felt a little cheaper than a F-150.

 

[jejeosborne]

Didn't get a chance to Google that yet. Mine has 4.10 gears. I have no pRoblem with the v10, it does just fine. Numbers on paper are what they are ... but, from personal experience, driving both, that 5.7L feels more powerful, and is definitely more efficient overall. To be fair, one positive of the v10 is that it is known to be a generally trouble free and long lasting engine (commercial engine used in commercial trucks and motorhomes).

I'm trying to analyze the characteristics of the Tundra as a tow vehicle (half of this equation), and I'm comparing it to what I have experience with. The point of this thread was to compare a Tundra to a F150 as a tow vehicle. I'm describing my experience of using a Tundra as a tow vehicle. Because my current tow vehicle is an F250, that's what I have available to compare to. If anything, it's even more helpful because, and I don't think anyone would debate this, the F250 with v10 is a much better tow vehicle than an F150, regardless of the engine.

Use common sense, you can figure it out.

Here is the area under the curve that was mentioned. I know you earlier mentioned some concern for taxing a turbo charged V6 but it has out performed the toyota powertrain in every towing test I have read. Even using common sense, I am not sure how to compare that to the F250. The F250 has about 50 percent higher tow ratings so I would guess it to be superior. I agree the tundra has an awesome powertrain and is probably more reliable but performace and towing capability I would consider it pretty much equal to the F150.

 

[TSO]

Here is the area under the curve that was mentioned. I know you earlier mentioned some concern for taxing a turbo charged V6 but it has out performed the toyota powertrain in every towing test I have read. Even using common sense, I am not sure how to compare that to the F250. The F250 has about 50 percent higher tow ratings so I would guess it to be superior. I agree the tundra has an awesome powertrain and is probably more reliable but performace and towing capability I would consider it pretty much equal to the F150.

I've never even seen a towing test between the two. I've been out of the loop since about 2011, just as the EB's were coming out, as I shifted my research and attention to tractors. I have never driven an EB. All I can attest to are the experiences I have had.

 

[Diamondpilot]

I've never even seen a towing test between the two. I've been out of the loop since about 2011, just as the EB's were coming out, as I shifted my research and attention to tractors. I have never driven an EB. All I can attest to are the experiences I have had.

Driving a EB is like driving a early 2000's diesel 3/4 ton. I had a 2007 F150 and our 2011 EB is half again more truck.

Chris

 

[DeereMann]

The torque chart above shows exactly why I choose the 5.7L Hemi, considering I had the Chevy 5.3L dog motor. Look at how far you gotta rev that thing to get any torque out of it. What a pig! :yuck:

The Hemi takes care of me, as I tow moderate loads sporadically. For those towing heavy loads more frequently, I would think the arguement for diesel becomes stronger because the Ford EB fuel consumption should drop quite a bit, seeing as it is still a stoicheometric gasoline engine, right?

I guess I still don't see the case for the EB engine - much more expensive than the naturally aspirated V8s, so would not buy for light/moderate towing. Poorer fuel mileage than diesel for heavy towing, and debatable durability?

:confused3:

 

[Kyle_in_Tex]

My buddy just traded his 2012 EB in on a new Tundra because the intercooler kept leaking. He likes the truck but not the mileage.

 

[jejeosborne]

The torque chart above shows exactly why I choose the 5.7L Hemi, considering I had the Chevy 5.3L dog motor. Look at how far you gotta rev that thing to get any torque out of it. What a pig! :yuck:

The Hemi takes care of me, as I tow moderate loads sporadically. For those towing heavy loads more frequently, I would think the arguement for diesel becomes stronger because the Ford EB fuel consumption should drop quite a bit, seeing as it is still a stoicheometric gasoline engine, right?

I guess I still don't see the case for the EB engine - much more expensive than the naturally aspirated V8s, so would not buy for light/moderate towing. Poorer fuel mileage than diesel for heavy towing, and debatable durability?

:confused3:

That torque curve is why I purchased the ecoboost. I liked the ram too but the low payload numbers wouldn't work with my trailer and family on camping trips. The ecoboost was cheaper than the 6.2 liter it replaces so it isn't more expensive.

 

[jejeosborne]

My buddy just traded his 2012 EB in on a new Tundra because the intercooler kept leaking. He likes the truck but not the mileage.

Are you sure it was leaking. That doesn't sound reasonable. He might be one who experienced the condensation issues. A leak would be an easy fix.

 

[DeereMann]

That torque curve is why I purchased the ecoboost. I liked the ram too but the low payload numbers wouldn't work with my trailer and family on camping trips. The ecoboost was cheaper than the 6.2 liter it replaces so it isn't more expensive.

That is interesting. I wonder why Ram payload is low? I've seen lots of discussion about this, along with much speculation, but not many facts.

How does the ecoboost perform for you? Are there durability / reliability concerns with such a highly boosted engine & twin turbos/wastegates?

 

[TSO]

Don't forget, you also have to burn premium fuel in the EB to reach those numbers you're talking about.

 

[DeereMann]

I checked my truck over lunch period.....it is rated for 1250-1530 pound payload, 5000 pound towing. It is a 2012 Ram 1500 crew cab with 5.7L Hemi engine, 4x4.

That's good enough for me, I usually pull a 3,000 pound trailer (weight of trailer & load).

Obviously anyone wanting commercial-weight towing would need more vehicle.

 

[jejeosborne]

Don't forget, you also have to burn premium fuel in the EB to reach those numbers you're talking about.

FALSE!
Ecoboost makes stated power on 87 octane.

 

[TSO]

FALSE!
Ecoboost makes stated power on 87 octane.

Are you sure? I could've sworn, back when I cared to read about it, that 365hp/420tq was advertised on high octane fuel only...

 

[jejeosborne]

That is interesting. I wonder why Ram payload is low? I've seen lots of discussion about this, along with much speculation, but not many facts.

How does the ecoboost perform for you? Are there durability / reliability concerns with such a highly boosted engine & twin turbos/wastegates?

As far as the rams low payload, what do you mean by speculation and not many facts? These are numbers easily seen on any truck door sticker or published values from the manufacturer. It is a fact that Ram has the lowest payload compared to every other truck in the half ton segment.

My truck just turned 30,000 miles and so far no issues (Knock on wood). I have no reason to believe there to be a durability issue. Still selling like hotcakes with some reaching high mileage by now.

I checked my truck over lunch period.....it is rated for 1250-1530 pound payload, 5000 pound towing. It is a 2012 Ram 1500 crew cab with 5.7L Hemi engine, 4x4.

That's good enough for me, I usually pull a 3,000 pound trailer (weight of trailer & load).

Obviously anyone wanting commercial-weight towing would need more vehicle.

Your payload is a single value that is found on a sticker on your door. I would bet it would be rated to tow more than 5000 lbs but that depends on the gears your truck has. My truck does NOT have the heavy duty payload option and it's sticker is 1835 lbs payload. With you only towing 3000 lbs, probably a non issue. I tow a trailer with 900 lbs tongue weight and a 600 lb 4-wheeler in the bed on occasion and need the payload capacity.

 

[jejeosborne]

Are you sure? I could've sworn, back when I cared to read about it, that 365hp/420tq was advertised on high octane fuel only...

Actually I am quite certain. In fact I have read burning premium adds 20 HP. I would be interested if you did find it different.

 

[94BULLITT]

Actually I am quite certain. In fact I have read burning premium adds 20 HP. I would be interested if you did find it different.

The 5.0 jumps to 375hp on E85.