if the F150 isn't considered a work truck, why does it offer optional payload and gvwr packages? also, why does it offer two V8's? around here, everyone has either an F150 or silverado to do their contracting work. the big bosses drive SD's. the tundra is weak. how can you compare it to the other full-sizers when in reality, it has tacoma underpinnings? i dont feel like it, but please list payload capacities, tow ratings, inside dimensions, etc. make sure you take into account what is available to the average joe when going down the options list. what about that 5.4 anyway? how close is the most powerful engine in tundra to the 5.4 in power/torque? don't want to go there? not surprised. around here anyway, every F150 on the lot has the 5.4 in it, it's only like a $750 option and doesn't get much worse mileage. you always seem to put up a convincing argument, but comparing the tundra to any other domestic full-size, it just doesn't have any validity. helper springs on tundra? i wonder why. what is the payload of a tacoma? hehe
It's funny to see a regular visitor to edmunds start have to resort to non-sequitor comments concerning tantrums, hate mail, etc. That is neither here, nor there, (nor ever happened), and it doesn't belong in a car related discussion. As Sergeant Friday would say, "Just the Facts, Ma'am".
Good for you in seeing that the Ford Diesels are the best work trucks around. I also don't consider any of the base v8's real work trucks either. I didn't know we were arguing that point. After that you seem to miss my point. I never contested that a "base" v8 was a work truck. I was only building on your statements that if the Dodge 4.7l v8 was weak compared to the Tundra v8, then by your logic, the Tacoma is weaker (if crunching numbers) that the Ranger. That line of statements was an attempt to trigger a line of thought in you to think that maybe 2-5% isn't all that much. If it was, then you just conceded your Tacoma was underpowered, which I believe is not the case.
P: "If the Tundra can't fulfill your needs, that doesn't make it a bad truck."
If the Dodge has 2% less horsepower, that doesn't make it a bad truck either. Some people think a Tundra is butt ugly. Others don't, and appreciate it's record of reliability and want the most power(in the base engines). Looking at the sales figures, I can only guess which group is in the majority. That's really the only point I was trying to make.
P: "all the 'problems' you 'see' with myself and Toyota Tundras are simply the result of your skewed perception of reality. There's nothing wrong with Tundras, and you really can't label people as 'instigators lacking respect' simply because they have different opinions."
So you believe I have a skewed perception of reality? Do you still believe you are not lacking in the respect department? I only bring light to that in the hopes that you see how hypocrite it is, and maybe just stick to trucks?
This personal beef is ancient history and you guys need to keep it off of the boards. It comes up in EVERY XXX vs Toyota topic and it never changes. Nobody has changed their mind yet, and I doubt that repeating the beatings is going to get them to this time. If you can't back off of it, the topic will be shut down.
"I was only building on your statements that if the Dodge 4.7l v8 was weak compared to the Tundra v8, then by your logic, the Tacoma is weaker (if crunching numbers) that the Ranger."
>>Then I will take your example a step further and compare your 3.0 Ranger to my 3.4 Tacoma and call it weaker. What's that you say? It's not right to compare trucks that aren't equipped the same? Exactly.
"If the Dodge has 2% less horsepower, that doesn't make it a bad truck either. Some people think a Tundra is butt ugly."
>>The Dodge not only has less horsepower, but it weighs much more and guzzles gas like no tomorrow. Then throw in the undeniable fact Dodge makes the worst transmissions on the market and VIOLA - you have a poor work truck (in my opinion). One more thing - how many work trucks do you see with 20" chrome rims and low-profile tires?
"Looking at the sales figures, I can only guess which group is in the majority."
>>As far as sales figures go, they mean absolutely nothing to me. If there were as many Tundras available for sale as F-150s or Rams and people weren't buying the Tundras, then you might have a point. Fact is Toyota makes Tundras in just one plant with limited production capabilities, and they sell what they make. In comparison, the Big 3 don't sell everything they make and must rely on profit-breaking killer sales incentives (or, as in Dodge's case, lengthened warranties to alleviate justified concerns of poor reliability) to sell. In this case, production capability dictates Tundra sales, not the "worthiness" of the truck, as you would like us to believe.
>>And the majority of people who buy a truck will never use it to their potential. I find it refreshing that there's a realistic segment of the population that looks at some of these trucks and say to themselves "I don't need this huge, gas guzzling thing that's a chore to drive..." Remember how you said we shouldn't place so much importance on our trucks' off-roading capability because most of us will never leave the pavement? Why don't you feel the same way regarding these trucks' towing and hauling abilities? Most people aren't going to use them for towing and hauling, and that's a fact.
"So you believe I have a skewed perception of reality? Do you still believe you are not lacking in the respect department?"
>>YES, I do. And I also believe you either have a severe case of selective amnesia or lack the backbone to acknowledge your actions, especially those relating to the temper tantrums and hate-mail. But at least you learned along the way a thing or two about shock absorbers and posting copyrighted pictures.
>>Respect. Didn't they ever teach you have to give it to receive it?
Ok, pluto, this debate is getting silly. Care to bring out your other persona Yoda, the one who appeared and accused me falsely of copyrighted pictures? That's right, falsely. And what about shock absorbers? You have yet to provide proof that they are a major design flaw in a Ranger. That was just a rediculously long debate about nothing. I said they pose no problem, you said there were a major design issue. It's all a dead and moot issue. All you can say is they hang low on the rear axle. Must be quite a problem for the people "you find refreshing, because they don't want something huge, or to go offroad with".
How's that Limited slip in your Toyota doing, Pluto? You know, the Limited slip differential you said that engages whenever you don't have your locker locked? Or the Limited slip that is available on a Tacoma(not). If you state you have to give respect to receive it, when have you followed your own rule? So I ask you again Pluto, stick to trucks, because this is not a popularity contest, and there will be no winners if this mud slinging continues.
Comparing the 3.4l to a 3.0l, well, why not compare it to the 2.3l? You can bring up all kinds of comparisons, but realistically you are selling one side short. Because an auto manufacturer offers more options than the other, that should not be considered a "unfair". Hopefully someday Toyota will expand it's niche marketing, you know offering trucks that can do work, or just a grocery getter.
Nobody said the F-150 (4.6) makes the perfect work truck. However the new 6.0l Diesel SD would kick butt! Even the 5.4l that is a very popular option throws your point out the window.
While I don't see many "work trucks" with 20 inch rims, I do see plenty of street trucks, and plenty of work trucks. Many people buy trucks just to dress them up, and stock 20" rims may be valuable to them. I personally don't care for that much flash, but others do, and again, the available options only diversify the amount of consumers who will buy the truck. I would say the majority are just daily drivers, but about 20-30% are used for hauling. Maybe 10-15% of street trucks with the flashy rims, lowered suspension, etc. Whatever floats their boat. The only analogy is that each owner will find what meets their needs, and the more options available make it easier to find a truck that meets their needs.
In retrospect, doesn't this all appear to be a Us vs Them debate?
i like how you didn't even reply to anything i said to you. nice flag waving. we all know it's hard to keep up with domestic truck offerings, but you at least could have tried.
regarding those 20" rims on ram 1500's, care to list a comparison against payload and towing between a ram with 20's and a tundra with it's best whatever tires? i'd love to see just how wimpy those 20" rims are and the tires that wrap around them. please, back up your statement with some facts. ill be waiting.
and stooping so low to comparing your 3.4 to a little 3.0 is now your new lowest point. i was surprised to see you had to do that. that's pretty pathetic.
also, still waiting on your comments about the 5.4 against the only engine available in tundra. and the spec comparison between f150 and tundra in the payload and towing departments with the best available equipment.
we know you're squirming, and it's hilarious.
facts man, facts. you started this whole debate. back it up with something other than blanket statements like the 20" tires and wheels on rams being flashy and all that.
Reading your last post, particularly the last paragraph, would lead one to believe you embrace diversity and options when it comes to pick-up trucks. Well, the Tundra only adds to the diversity and options available to consumers, offering people a very reliable and for some, a more practical, refined alternative to the Big 3 offerings, yet you certainly don't embrace it. Why can't you practice what you preach and accept the Tundra as that, instead of constantly comparing it to something it wasn't even designed to compete against and declaring it a failure? How can we ever consider you credible when your actions run contrary to your stated beliefs and intentions?
If Ford offered a truck exactly like the Tundra, you would declare it a glaring success and yet another example of how Ford offers another pick-up option for us.
Your statements about the copyrighted picture debacle are nothing short of pure lunacy, plain and simple. Now I'm accused of having multiple personas? Please, midnight_caballo - I take great pride in proving you wrong, and I wouldn't want to share the spoils with other fictitious members. Numerous times myself and others began to point you to YOUR posts which had copyrighted pictures (only after you made such a stink about mine, of course), only to find said posts had disappeared (a phenomena quite common when it comes to you and your postings...). As always, you simply blamed the moderator for deleting them. Don't you think the moderator would have deleted them on his own when they were first posted, rather than having to be directed to them later by the whistle-blowers??? You just don't add up, midnight_caballo.
The shock absorber debate was an intelligent, technical discussion that went to hell after you were defeated and threw a temper tantrum that was promptly deleted. If the debate was truly "ridiculous and about nothing" why did you take it so seriously? While you deny the temper tantrum took place, why then did other members who witnessed it comment on it?
While you like to point out the limited-slip incident, I find it amusing that out of my hundreds of posts I've made since I've been a member, that's my ONLY mistake you can bring up. At least I didn't go back and delete the post and say I never posted it, or blame the moderator for deleting it, LOL.
I actually think you're a pretty intelligent guy, midnight_caballo, and find it worth my while debating with you. I wouldn't invest the same amount of time and effort in my postings directed at *tbunder,* however, because I think he's a 15 watt bulb not worth the energy consumption to debate with. But you must simply learn to admit mistakes when you make them, and become more tolerant of those whose opinions differ from yours.