2011 Toyota Trucks Will Meet New Towing Standards

Tundra-1-560
Words and Photos by Mark Williams for PickupTrucks.com

For truck enthusiasts who watch tow ratings like their favorite football teams’ scores, there’s a change coming.

It’s no secret that each manufacturer has its own way of testing the maximum towing capacity of its pickup trucks; the gamesmanship over the years is well-documented. To level the playing field, the Society of Automotive Engineers decided a few years ago to form a task force to determine which procedures and regulations should be instituted to make sure each automaker gives the consumer the most accurate — and comparable — tow rating.

The idea is to make sure each manufacturer uses the same testing procedures so the consumer can get the best and most accurate information. To date, there is only a proposed standard, called J2807, that is still in formal deliberations; however, with all the manufacturers currently involved, there is something of a “gentlemen’s agreement” that the 2013 model year will be the target date to have these processes and procedures in place across the board.

But some are adopting these guidelines early. That’s why Toyota invited us out for a day of towing (at maximum capacities) to let us know that all of its 2011 models already comply with J2807. Of note, many of the new tow ratings on identically equipped vehicles from the previous year have gone down, in some cases considerably.

Toyota-ratings-1-560

This is largely because the new SAE procedures are quite thorough and exhausting, and they include a rather challenging handling requirement that many automakers had not considered. The end result for truck buyers is that from one year to the next, they might see some changes in the maximum tow ratings of their favorite pickups (usually down, but possibly in some cases up). And it may not mean the vehicle has changed in any way, just that it is being tested more thoroughly than before.

An important issue to keep in mind, especially in the next several years, is that an SAE-rated vehicle cannot necessarily be compared to one that is not SAE rated because the two ratings are likely to be calculated with two different methods. This is similar to the situation we had a few years ago when the EPA changed its testing procedures to determine fuel economy, or when the EPA changed how engine horsepower was calculated.

Any change in methodology will make direct comparisons difficult, if not impossible, but the tow rating issue is complicated by the fact that the full procedural changeover for every manufacturer may not be complete for one or two model years. In the meantime, pay special attention as to whether the pickup truck you are interested in buying is SAE-rated or not.

PickupTrucks.com readers should be familiar with the wars over maximum towing capacity that have heated up over the past 10 years in the half-ton and heavy-duty arenas. Ford, GM and Ram have magically upped their rating numbers at different points with seemingly little or no changes to a specific frame or suspension. Also, they’ve all been guilty of using their maximum towing numbers — which typically relate to a very specific low-volume vehicle — to gain some type of advertising advantage when every knowledgeable truck enthusiast knew the numbers applied only to a specific model and not across the lineup.

Label-1-560

That is partly why SAE finally stepped in to try to standardize the testing and rating procedures, making sure a truck-to-truck comparison can be done. Every cab and powertrain combination, including some of the more popular option packages, will need to be tested for ratings. The ultimate benefit is for the consumer, as automakers will be forced to play (or tow) on an equal basis, with more transparency.

In Toyota’s case, the tow rating of most of the vehicles tested went down a proportional amount across the lineup — for Tundra, about 400 pounds. In other cases, especially with midsize and large SUVs, the drop in towing capacity was closer to 100 or 200 pounds.

Be aware of the coming changes and know that some manufacturers may try to embellish their ratings in the next year or two before they start testing with the new standards. Here is a brief, but not thorough or exhaustive, description of some of the J2807 testing procedures:

1) A vehicle must be able to pull a trailer of a designated weight (and shape) up a Davis Dam simulation at a minimum speed of 40 mph in ambient temperatures of 101 degrees with the maximum air conditioning turned on at the full fan setting. The run must be done several times, and there must be and no overheating, no puking and no trouble codes.

Tacoma-1-560

2) All trailers must adhere to the same specifications as set forth by the J2807 procedures. They must be boxed with a flat face of a specified height and width.

3) On a level road, the vehicle and trailer combination must be able to accelerate from zero to 30 mph in less than 12 seconds, zero to 60 mph in 30 seconds, and run 40-60 mph in less than 18 seconds.

4) A vehicle and trailer must be able to launch a minimum distance of 16 feet from a stop up a 12-percent grade five times in five minutes, measured both in Drive and Reverse.

5) A vehicle and trailer combination must be able to stay in control and in its original lane when panic stopping from 80 mph. In those cases where the combination cannot attain that speed, the vehicle’s upper limit will suffice.

6) The vehicle and trailer combination must be able to perform the necessary low-speed turning circle test with the minimum of understeer or trailer push.

7) For trailers weighing less than 3,000 pounds, the vehicle must be able to stop the combination (without trailer brakes) in 35 feet or less. If the trailer is more than 3,000 pounds, the distance is 80 feet.

8) The parking brake on the towing vehicle must be able to hold the trailer (without trailer brakes) pointed up and down a 12-percent grade.

Comments

how the heck did we go from adhering to new towing standards to tundra bashing? wow....... just wow..... r peeps that insecure about their choice that they have to belittle another.... just to feel "a little" bit better about their conscience. incredible!!!!!!!!!!

@Mike Levine/Mark Williams; Line 1 where it says "and there must be and no overheating" Did something get left out? Thanks, hope they do it with them all, even though my truck will lose alot of it's RATED towing. (545 RFE) I sure didn't buy mine to to 9800 pounds! I only need to tow 5,000 to 6,000, (ok, maybe 6,500 if I was to buy a travell trailer!) People in all brands need to keep it real. Maybe they will run tests on payload next?

@trucklover - you must suffer miserably every day because you go to work building the substandard, inferior products that you despise so much.
No wonder Toyota quality is slipping. Twits like you are building them.

Hard to believe a word you've said.

By the way - Ford's SuperDuty has the same frame design as the Tundra.

A fully boxed frame has a greater risk of trapping dirt and moisture. I've owned and worked at restoring several 60's cars with "boxed" frames. Rust can be a big problem.

Paper thin sheet metal - I thought GM/Chev had that end of the market covered.

@uh huh

Same crap happens everytime a Toyota story gets posted.
Same old complaints.
Same old stupid comments.

Back on topic - I welcome the new tow rating guidelines.
Problem is - they are just guidelines.
Manufacturer's can chose to ignore them.
These standards should be law.

I do not think that there should be any 1/2 tons legally allowed to tow more than 10,000 lb. Even that number seems high to me.
8,000 lb maximum makes more sense.

@ Jason L - I'm not slagging the Chrysler Hemi. Just pointing out that Dodge does not own the exclusive rights to the hemispherical (hemi) head design. I was also pointing out that some engines are dominant more because of rules.
The 426 hemi and its precursors are great engines.
A '70 - '71 426 hemi Cuda convertible is one of my dream cars, along with the '56 Corvette, '64 Fairlane 427 Thunderbolt, a '69 Mustang Mach 1 429 SCJ Fastback, and the ultimate - a '66 427 SC Shelby/AC Cobra.

@Lou; Ford had 429 Hemi, never was quite the contender though as the 426, in Nascar or NHRA. Fastest NHRA super stockers!

@ Lou I know you weren`t bashing, just adding some info I thought people might find interesting. Allpar is a great resource for Mopar fans. I wonder if similar sites exist for other brands.

@ hemi lol You are right about more valves being better. The Hemi advantage is really in relation to other pushrod engines as I belive that all OHC engines have thier valves aranged side to side. The reason the Hemi uses 2 plugs (they are conventional, not platnum hence the 50k kms change interval) is because the hemi combustion chamber doesn`t allow for the best mix of air and fuel. Most chambers have a wedge shape which allows for a better chance for the air/fuel to mix. If they didn`t run two plugs they would have to increase the size of the cat converters which would hurt power and efficiency, so 2 plugs is a better solution for the manufacturer and the customer. There is no such thing as a perfect engine, there is always compromise, this is the nature of the beast when making the hemi meet emmisions standards. When you keep your attitude in check like you did on your last post, your posts are a pleasure to read. It can be hard to do sometimes with all the morons who bash. I usually learn something from most of your posts, thanks.

Out of all this bashing and brand loyal mediocrity slingin on here, the last few comments, with the exception of trucklover, are more informative and more to the point of pickup trucks than the previous dribble littered throughout the topic in the posts. Good job to those of you, you know who you are.

Jordan L, good info sir. I like the Hemi and SB Chevy better than the triton in my F150 simply due to the OHV design. More power to Dodge and GM if they can keep their engines simple and offer superb power in a simple, light, and efficient package. While Ford offers a superb truck, I cannot STAND working on the Triton engine in my F150, half the motor is under the dash. Other than that, I like the long stroke the triton 5.4L has, I take off with traffic without touching even 2K rpms on the tach and only having 3.55 gearing, 4 speed trans, and 285/75/16 tires on the truck. The down fall is the truck is slower than the rest, and FE deprived. It's been paid for since I bought it though, so no biggie. :)

IMHO, the simpler, the better. That's why I like the Cummins Diesel better than the Duramax or Powerstroke, I like simple and the inline configuration makes the Cummins simple. I looked at a Co-Worker's 2011 Superduty powerstroke and the motor is so crammed in there, I could not possibly see how repairs are going to be completed without breaking the bank. That is also the reason I don't get all out of wits about the electronic junk the trucks come with, the more the bigger chance of it breaking and having to be repaired.

@ Jordan L - you are correct that there is no perfect engine and everything is a compromise. Valve size and placement are major compromises. Variable valve timing exists partially to compensate for that. Same goes for engines with variable length intake runners. There is an intake velocity that is optimal for power and fuel economy at different RPM. You need a certain amount of turbulance to mix fuel and air but too much turbulence causes problems. Laminar flow is a concern where the fuel will be contained in a separate layer without any mixing.
Direct injection is an excellent development as it removes some of those factors related to delivering a homogeneous mixture of air/fuel. It also helps remove detonation from the challenge of optimal power and fuel economy (another compromise).
MDS probably would work better if one could mechanically disconnect the "dead" pistons from the engine or basically run 2 inline V4's and shut down 1 set when not needed.
I suspect Ford's EB 3.5 is another way to address engine size and efficiency. let the engine run like a small V6 at low load and then make it perfom like a big V8 with full boost and fuel supply.
Engines are very complex and they will continue to get even more complex.

It is nice to read informed opinions on the topic as opposed to the preponderance of mindless brand bashing.

Sorry, loyal Toyota lovers. I believe everything the Toyota employee said and more.

To back him up, I will turn to the words from the king of pickup trucks AND former Toyota owner, Mike Levine:

"I'm not saying the Tundra has a lack of ability. I'm saying it's not on par in many areas compared to current trucks."

Latest quality issue for Toyota? See this week's Automotive News about a new TSB covering 2007-10 Tundras: http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100726/OEM01/307269948

"Tundra unloaded ride quality is materially worse than in other trucks. Besides my own experience, I'm sure you've read the owner threads on TundraSolutions.com."

"GM also offered stability control on its trucks in 2007: http://www.pickuptrucks.com/html/2007/gm/comparison/page5.html"

"I also wrote several times that the 2009 Ram LD and HD trucks didn't offer integrated trailer brake controllers that year, when GM and Ford did. Ram fixed that missing feature one year later for 2010."

"Toyota should have added an integrated trailer brake controller by 2009. Now, we won't see an ITBC until 2012 at the earliest."

"I'm not sure how you measure "catching up" but beyond an excellent powertrain, the 2nd gen Tundra has been a laggard. Three years in and it still doesn't offer an integrated trailer brake controller. Trailer sway control for 2011 will only brake the truck's wheels, not the trailer's too. GM and Ford beat Tundra's fuel economy."

"I'll mention some quality issues too: cracked tailgates, rear driveline, unloaded ride quality. In 2010 JD Power Quality Survey, Tundra quality problems jumped from 88 problems per 100 vehicles to 100 problems."

"I hope Toyota gets the engineering and features right in the next Tundra. I'll be the first to stand up and applaud."

Read more from Mike Levin, the king of pickup trucks, in the following post and comments section here here:
http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2010/07/sources-say-toyota-is-sticking-with-the-tundra-designing-next-gen-half-ton.html#comments

You can disbelieve Mike Levine and the Toyota employee and owner threads on the Toyota forums, but sometimes you have to face the facts. One more quality issue Mike forgot to mention, the "mysterious dents" phenomenon. The GM bodies have been joked about lately for their "paper thin" bodies, but the Tundra takes the cake in that department. The Tundra dents when you lean on them and mysterious dents and cracks appear out of nowhere on the doors and beds, even when new. Read the Toyota forums and educate yourself.

@ Red 4x4 Glad to be of service. Speaking of the crammed engine bay of the SD, to do alot of the major work the cab is removed from the truck to access the engine. A friends brother worked for a cable company and they gave him a new 6.0l PS for work. It was an early one that had a lot of problems. In the first year the cab had come off so many times that the whole truck squeeked and rattled all the time. The labour to do the heads on a PS is somewhere around 40 hrs. A cummins is around 6-7.

@ Lou Having the ``dead `` piston rotate with the engine doesn`t hurt efficiency too much because both valves close trapping air inside the cylinder. The energy lost from compressing the air is gained back on the down stroke (minus friction) because the trapped air acts like a spring. Problem is MDS only works on low load or decel conditions because it puts the engine slightly out of balance.

I am not going to bash Toyota at all. I just wonder if this was done as some kind of PR stunt or something they plan on using in their advertising. I really don't see this new standard happening in 2013 at all, to much riding on the line for the automakers.

@ jordan

back at ya. i get flustered sometimes with the mindless bashing that it sets me off too and then i retort back. i learn from your posts too ;)


@ Dave

its funny how you quote a TSB. see unlike the other manufacturers toyota will investigate and correct a problem no matter how few of people experience a problem. Other manufacturers (i dont need to name names, you all know who they are) will DENY DENY and stand by. UNLESS the government forces them to "recall" something.

Next you mention vehicle stability control? seriously? Gm's stabilitrak is NOTHING close to the VSC in the Tundra. that truck didnt even have 4 wheel indepently controlled abs, so with a 3 channel abs system it could in NO WAY be nearly as effective as toyota's Bosch built system. matter of FACT, toyota's system was SO advanced in 2007 that "trailer sway control" was a bi-product of the VSC system! so ford and GM were 2 years behind on that system. Also, we should add that Toyota's rear suspension is "Proactive" in design against sway, the rear leaf springs are toed out which creates a trapezoidal shape to stop axle walk "trailer sway" before it ever happened. Toyota just doesnt believe they need to "advertise" a system they designed to make the truck work the way it should. (ford does that for everyone). Your integrated trailer brakes are installed on about 10% (my best guess) of half ton trucks, so your trailer sway is NO different and mostly LESS effective unless than toyota's unless you opted for that addition. Most people use a specific style of controller based on their needs and an integrated system isnt always the best answer. (if so they should make it standard right?)

Next dave you mention fuel economy? WAKE UP!!!!!! if you buy a Ford with the Heavy tow package so that its matched to toyota's 5.7 package thats on 90% of their trucks the Tundra's fuel economy is the same or better. same with GM's 6.2 and the Hemi 5.7 with 3.92 or 4.10 gears. oh, the Tundra gets this economy while sportin a 4.30 gear set too! I'll bet you if you go to your local Ford store you CANT FIND ONE TRUCK WITH A 3.15 gear and if you did you aint towin with it, so you really arent in the need for a truck. same with dodge's 3.23 and Gm's 3.08. They DO NOT get better Fuel economy unless you just listen to Howie Long and Mike Rowe and never get the "Facts".

Next, JD POWER? RIGHT!!!!!!!! everyone look that one up PLEASE!

http://www.jdpower.com/advertising-awards/multipleAwards.aspx?id=175&company=Toyota

Its funny that JD Power and associates named the Tundra "The Most Dependable Full Size Truck" not once BUT THE LAST FIVE YEARS IN A ROW! but you claim they all break and fall apart and rust......... stop it i've personally owned 2 and never an issue.

Now the guy above that claimed he was a toyota employee? HAHAHAHA, if that were true he would know the frame on the Tundra cost 40% more, thats right 40% MORE THAN THE F150 BOX FRAME. why? its a better design for long term use, so much so that ford uses it on their Super Duty and Dodge uses it on Ram 3500 Cab and Chassis and larger and GM on its Top kick and Kodiak models.

and finally Mysterious dents? your REACHHHHHHING. there is a 19 year old that claimed on one site he had a couple dents he didnt see on a "USED TRUCK" he bought. your just reaching bud, maybe you should consider this...... IF the Tundra has a "weak" frame, and "thinner" steel on the body then answer this question: WHY is it that package for package, apples to apples comparison the Tundra is "HEAVIER" in curb weight than EVERY OTHER HALF TON?? my truck weighs in at 5705lbs. (platinum) heres a link to kbb showing you the FACTS that the Tundra is the heaviest

http://www.kbb.com/compare-cars/specs/2011-ford-f150-supercrew-cab-358573-vs-2011-toyota-tundra-crewmax-358051-vs-2010-dodge-ram-1500-crew-cab-261814?ghostid=358371

i rest my case.

Looks like I struck a nerve with Lou. Judging by all of his posts he is obviously a self proclaimed no-it-all expert on everything automotive. Those of us who work for a manufacturer can see what goes on with vehicle design and manufacturing which my comments simply reflect. Before you go assuming that I build cars which I don't get your facts straight. Yes I work for Toyota but that doesn't mean that I work in production. That would be a similar assumption saying that a person who works at a hospital is a Doctor. Before you go calling someone a Twit maybe think that that person may be more knowledgeable than you on the described subjects which I can gaurantee to you is the case. Just because you've restored some old donkeys from the sixties doesn't make you a genious. Maybe try using your eyes and your fingers a little more and absorb some people's comments instead of feeling compelled to comment on pretty much everyone's topics. You must have a lot of time on your hands. Get a life.

@ trucklover

I'll have to say the same for you then. you write as if you know something about the tundra (which obviously you dont). whatever position you "claim" you hold at toyota you CLEARLY have ZERO clue about Toyota's R&D, Engineering, or Manufacturing process. your either A. new B. Janitor or C. you dont work for toyota. I bet C. Your post at the top of this page makes it clear you have no clue about the manufacturer and you just like to start crap. Lou is CORRECT about box frames, and here's another fact about them. a "box" frame if overloaded will kink, a triple tech style frame WONT. Simply put this is why Heavy Truck Manufacturers build frames in a triple tech fashion and not a box. Just because something is rigid doesnt mean its durable nor strong. i can say one thing for sure, you are DEFINATELY not in engineering LOL.

@HEMILOL; So you're saying you don't think a Ram 4x4 Hemi won't get over it's EPA est 18 MPG highway?? Or the 3.21 4x2 ones will do no better than yours? There are plenty online that do, oh but wait, you're gonna tell us that those are people online (just like me reading whatever you claim your truck does...online) If you look there are 4x4 Rams getting 19-20+ MPG, real MPG. Hand calculated. A person can get good mileage with the 265/70 17s and 3.21s (not 3.23s, like my old Dart has) TRUE it won't be the a real good heavy hauler, the 8 speed of the future will fix alot of that. A good 6 speed would. But the point is, it will not be close if your truck and a Ram with 3.21s ran down the road at 75 mph...Or even a 4x4 with the 3.55s. You would be stopping for gas WAAAAAAY before the Ram., And, no, not just what your readout from the (optimistic) computer says you are getting when you reset it at 78 mph. Also have to wonder, you still have the Bridgestone tires?

@trucklover
- Change your name to fanboi truck lover.
- Any time some twit spews BS, it hits a nerve with me regardless of brand.
- You comment on "my life" and free time but complain that we are making assumptions about your "position" at Toyota.
I have a job that allows considerable free time.
Ain't it great being a well educated, well paid know it all. You incorrectly spelled it "no-it-all'.
What is a "genious"? Don't critique someone if your grammar is not up to par.
Here is an exerpt from the "Urban Dictionary:
"It is often the case that idiots describe themselves as 'genious' but are ironically ignorant to the fact that the word is spelt 'genius' - much to the amusement of us intelligent people."
I read your threads and the "no-it-all" term applies to you very well.
- I own a 2010 F150 Supercrew. I love it, but if I decided my needs would be best met by a Tundra, or Ram, or Titan: that is what I would buy. I might consider a GM product once they pay us taxpayers back or their post IPO share value provides a worthwhile return on our "investment".

@ Dave - you must of spent a considerable amount of time mining data.
I could easily come up with negative information on any brand.
You mention JD Power data. I have some questions for you.

- Please provide the links to the posts you quoted. (Information taken out of context is useless)

- What is JD Power's industry average for pickups?

-Is the Tundra above or below the industry average?

- What are the ratings for each brand of HD pickup?

- How do recalls affect the data?

- How does negative publicity affect the data?

- Looking at current models, what are the trends?
Please list or explain with links.

- What inside information do you have concerning Mike Levine's past ownership?

- What is the incidence of cracked or bent tailgates?
Please list by brand.

- What is the incidence of mysterious dents?
Please list by brand.

- What is the incidence of driveline problems?
Please list by brand.

Same goes for trucklover - as a brilliant Toyota employee, you should have absolutely no problem providing data, links, attachments to prove your point.

@ Shawn - good point.
Toyota has been hit hard for being slow to respond to alleged problems.
Being first to accept a new standard could be their way of trying to set things right.

@Lou, Not sure what point ya iz trying ta make, but thanks fo' commenting.

I agree wiff Mike Levine'scomments. No disrespect ta Toyota owners, but da Tundras iz wack!

I know some peeps like ta smoke crack, but dey don' wants crack in dey pickup.

you know das right!


@ tom trx4x4

Tom your misreading my post i think. what i'm trying to say is that if you take a dodge with 3.92's with heavy tow package, a ford with heavy tow package 4.10's or the new 6.2 with 3.73's, and a GM with max tow 6.2 with 4.10's and a tundra with 5.7 with 4.30's the tundra will get as good or better than those trucks. I would be a fool to say that it gets what a dodge with 3.21's gets. that would be an apples to oranges comparison. my point in all of it was to simply show that 90% or better of your truck buyer wouldnt want 3.21's, 3.08's, or 3.15 gears. they just use that as a fuel economy advertisement. And then turn around and say they tow the most.......... those are 2 different trucks but Joe public that doesnt know better will believe both exist on the same pickup. That was my point, i hope i explained it better this time lol sometimes i dont explain in a way for everyone to understand.....

@ uh huh - great links. I agree 100% with Mark Polk. Thanks for contributing positive information to this thread. It is a welcome sight.

@hemi lol; the 3.92 Rams will get more than the epa est 18 mpg highway. just like you say your truck gets more...some of them say 19 mpg (4x4) on the window sticker But that's weird, as that is seen on one TRX4, oops, excuse me, Outdoorsman, same truck. Sure there are others, that's just my dealership. Same heavy AT tires I'll be switching out soon! (most likely for Firestone Destination ATs 265/70. Do you have the Bridgestones??

yes i have bridgestone dueler alenza's. 275/55R20. i will be switching to my AT's for winter in a week or two. i have a same size set of Nitto Terra Grapplers. i personally believe that most trucks will achieve a lil higher than the epa posted numbers simply because the epa is much tougher on the standards now.
what tires you runnin?

DIETY,

You are the reason I work on my own truck, I don't trust it to people with IQ's under 45.

While the Toyota HATERS out there continue to bash the Tundra because they must fear it, the Tacoma is left quiet for good reason.

The Tacoma is the safest in class, sets the standard in class and is the top seller because of all the configurations. It is also the best off-roader in class and most likely the best off-roader among the majority of the heavy tank full-size pickups.

Heck the U.S. military SOCOM is still buying them to up armor for missions overseas!

The Tacoma is the ONLY pickup on Kelley Blue Book's Top 10 of retaining value for resale. THE ONLY PICKUP!

Keep fearing and bashing the Tundra, us Tacoma owner's will continue to drive the best small pickup out there and enjoy their resale value for another one!

@hemi lol; Wrangler AT/S's, 275/70R17. I guess they are a tough tire, with a bit more load capacity then a 265/70, and .7" taller, but I don't think I'd miss the .35" more ground clearance, the poor braking (see TRX4 @ Edmunds) and I bet the Firestones 265s will get just as good traction, so what if I gain 40 rpm @75? The Bridgestone Alenzas I'm thinking are really a street pattern? Good mileage. My friend got the Bridgestone 255/70/18s (?) I think on his 4x4 dbl cab, tires like that, a person needs 4x4!

@ tomtrx4

most similar size tires i wouldnt worry much about extra ground clearance either. you'll make up for that with bite IMO. the wrangler i've always heard is a real decent tire, i've never owned a set myself though.

the Alenza is more of a street pattern. its listed as an H/T. it has an A traction B wear rating. overall its a GREAT TIRE! when it gets a little long in the tooth its sloppy in snow and mud. For mild use its probably the best i've ever owned. the Dueler AT is a decent all terrain tire but the Nitto Terra Grapplers are simply AMAZING with deep snow grip and the mud that i have encountered. they are like a 50k tire i think. they are kinda pricey in a 20, but on a 17 they may not be too bad.

@hemi lol: I know what you mean though about the Chevy 5.3 4wd, can be had with 3.08s, and tiny tires, I think they rate it at 6,000 pounds would be closer to 4,500 Maybe 5,000! Have to see what it does on this test! Matter of fact, I think it is rated higher than a Hemi with 3.21s and 33" tires! I've heard of some towing in the 6s with 3.21s, not what I would do, not economical, not good on the drivetrain, not much there to slow you down...and slow going. No doubts about the Terra Grapplers, just not enough snow in my neck of the woods for them!

@ tomtrx4

yeah i dont agree with towing that much with small gears like the dodge 3.21, fords 3.15 or gm's 3.08. just TOO much stress on engine and trans. i firmly believe your better in the long run to burn a lil extra fuel and not stress the engine so much. as most of "US" truck guys would say, i didnt buy it because it gets great gas mileage, if i wanted that i would buy an econobox.

I'm right on the line of having enough snow for the Terra Grapplers but they are fun! lol

Lou. So you bought a 20010 f150 Supercrew but boast about the Tundra. Am I missing something here?

@trucklover - quote "Am I missing something here?"
Yes -
you are missing an unbiased opinion.
you are missing the ability to sound like a rational person.
I am not brand loyal.
I have my favorites - when it comes to 1/2 tons the F150 is my favorite because it was the best 1/2 ton feature for feature, and for quality and reliability. Ford is also a solid company. I got a great year end deal - 25% off of MSRP.

It's only weakness (according to rivals)was a lack of motor options.
If I would of bought a 2011 - I probably would of got the 5.0 as I don't need anything more powerful.

Did you read my reply to Dave? I'll answer some of my questions for you and Dave.
Here is the link if you do not believe me.

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2010/06/avalanche-frontier-sierra-top-jd-power-and-associates-2010-quality-study/comments/page/2/

The industry average for initial quality problems is 109 per 100 vehicles.

In 2009 Ford and Toyota were tied for first place at 88 per 100.

In 2010 the Tundra dropped to 100 per 100. That is still above the industry average.

Recalls will increase the problems per 100 vehicles.

Look at HD truck data:
Ford HD drop 92 to 102
Silverado HD drop 104 to 107
Sierra HD drop 112 to 122
Ram HD drop 113 to 151

Does that mean all of the HD's are piles of crap?
If you apply Dave's logic - that means they are.

Funny how guys slag the Ford HD for being unreliable and it rates higher than the competition.

I do not like GM as a corporation. These statistics show that GM does not have their affairs in order as the Sierra and Silverado are made on the same assembly line but have different ratings.

The majority of people I know own a Toyota product of some kind. No one has had any major problems. I know a few guys who work the crap out of their Tundras. No problems. The worse problem I've heard for a Tundra out of all my friends and associates is a leaking waterpump gasket and a dead battery on a 4 year old truck.

I know guys who own every brand. It's rare to hear of any major problems with any of them.


Having actually read all your posts and having driven F150 all of my life, I can only tell you guys this:

The 2010 Tundra Limited 5.7 I own is simply the best truck I have ever owned. Bar none! I test drove the 2009 F150 Lariat and the 2009 Tundra 5.7 DoubleCab SR5, and the difference was like night and day. When I had to drive home in my old F150 after the test drives, I knew what I was going to buy next, and it was not an F150.

I'll trade this Tundra I own now in 2015 at which time I will be 68 years old. I'll consider F150 again at that time. If it is better than the Tundra at that time, I'll buy another F150. If not, I'll buy another Tundra.

I suspect that by 2015 Ford will be wholly owned by Toyota and the F150 and the Tundra will have morphed into the Tundra150 by then. Even with all the money Ford is making today, they aren't making enough money to stay in business unless they move to China, India, Brazil, Mexico and Russia.

trucklover: he also owns a 2010 Toyota Sienna. He bought that before the F150. So he has to show "spurious loyalty" to Toyota to show everyone he made the right choice.

Customers may repurchase a brand due to situational constraints (such as vendor lock-in), a lack of viable alternatives, or out of convenience.[2] Such loyalty is referred to as "spurious loyalty".

This is also called include split loyalty or shifting loyalty.


# Split Loyals - loyal to two or three brands.
# Shifting Loyals - moving from one brand to another.

trucklover: Lou also owns a 2010 Toyota Sienna. He and his wife bought that 2010 Toyota Sienna before the F-150.

It has been suggested that loyalty includes some degree of pre-dispositional commitment toward a brand. Brand loyalty is viewed as multidimensional construct. It is determined by several distinct psychological processes and it entails multivariate measurements. Customers' perceived value, brand trust, customers' satisfaction, repeat purchase behaviour, and commitment are found to be the key influencing factors of brand loyalty.

Lou seems to be happy with the F-150. It will be interesting to see if they are more towards being a hard-core loyal and stay in the Toyota family when it comes time for trade-in the 2010 Toyota Sienna, or if they shift that loyalty towards Ford (or another maker) since they have many new products than they did a few years ago and quality is on the rise. If that happens, Lou would be referred to as a shifting-loyalist or split loyal.

To back him up, I will turn to the words from the king of pickup trucks AND former Toyota owner, Mike Levine:

"I'm not saying the Tundra has a lack of ability. I'm saying it's not on par in many areas compared to current trucks."

Latest quality issue for Toyota? See this week's Automotive News about a new TSB covering 2007-10 Tundras: http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100726/OEM01/307269948

"Tundra unloaded ride quality is materially worse than in other trucks. Besides my own experience, I'm sure you've read the owner threads on TundraSolutions.com."

"GM also offered stability control on its trucks in 2007: http://www.pickuptrucks.com/html/2007/gm/comparison/page5.html"

"I also wrote several times that the 2009 Ram LD and HD trucks didn't offer integrated trailer brake controllers that year, when GM and Ford did. Ram fixed that missing feature one year later for 2010."

"Toyota should have added an integrated trailer brake controller by 2009. Now, we won't see an ITBC until 2012 at the earliest."

"I'm not sure how you measure "catching up" but beyond an excellent powertrain, the 2nd gen Tundra has been a laggard. Three years in and it still doesn't offer an integrated trailer brake controller. Trailer sway control for 2011 will only brake the truck's wheels, not the trailer's too. GM and Ford beat Tundra's fuel economy."

"I'll mention some quality issues too: cracked tailgates, rear driveline, unloaded ride quality. In 2010 JD Power Quality Survey, Tundra quality problems jumped from 88 problems per 100 vehicles to 100 problems."

"I hope Toyota gets the engineering and features right in the next Tundra. I'll be the first to stand up and applaud."

Read more from Mike Levine, the king of pickup trucks, in the following post and comments section here here:
http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2010/07/sources-say-toyota-is-sticking-with-the-tundra-designing-next-gen-half-ton.html#comments

++++

Nice job, Mike. I agree with what you 100%, Mike, on what you are saying about the Tundra. And thanks Dave for the link.


Lou,
Your missing the point. Us Ford owners for the most part understand the problems with Fords. We choose to accept it because the whole package is the best.

The fun is pointing out the flaws in the Tundra because the owners and Toyota loyalists (you included at times) in that camp swear that their truck is problem free.. and well.. those tail gates.. those were isolated cases..never "heard" any complaints of anything....and they caught the camshaft breakage very early... and the driveline never heard of anything and so on and so on and and.......

We Ford guys know when our stuff smells. Toy guys think their stuff doesn't stink ever. It's ok to admit the Tundra is the worst full size even if you own a Toyota Sienna. It is OK to admit that. In a few years or less you'll probably won't even own the Sienna anymore. I see another Ford in your future.

Dave, Fred & Alex, Very well put. I was waiting for "issues" like this to start appearing on the Toy. The way that "Tripletech" frame flexes those body panels, damage was sure to follow. I love getting behind a Tundra in traffic just so I can watch those frames flex and twist every time it hits the smallest bump, makes for some fine entertainment.

@Dave

Are you one of those Toyota haters? I see people buying Toyota's all the time and that just makes you flipping mad!

I bought the SR5 which comes with smaller tires. Top of the line Tacoma's kill the Nissan stock.

Bigger tires? Society equates bigger tires as being 35" and larger, like the mudding tires and tall pickups in the air. I run a comfortable tire size that fits the bill daily driving but gives me the added ground clearance and traction abilities off-road.

35" and larger means the more useless the pickup on the street. I can still run a 33" tire, have over 12" of wheel travel and not jeopardize my payload. I have plenty of suspension options for that but when you get above 35", it is all about lift to make way for those larger tires.

Lift does not give you shyt off-road except more ground clearance but good luck with your suspension and braking and gearing.

Good luck running a full-size with let's say 36" tires as a daily driver and how long its brakes, suspension and drivetrain last...

For my purposes, this Taco fits my bill. I build mine as an overland off-roader. It will spend the majority of its time on the street but I hit trails and take trips often during the middle part of the year and winters are harsh up here likewise.

As an overlander it will not be terribly far from stock and nor should it be.

I have a 6 foot bed that I can pack with survival gear or as I call it strategic survival gear for ourselves and the truck. To counter all the weight in the bed I have Budbuilt skid plates up front underneath, that is about 80 lbs. of skid plates for the ultimate protection from the front to the rear yoke of the tranny. The front bumper I have with lighter weight skid plates is also about 80 lbs. yet stronger than the factory aluminum one.

Winch is in the future plans up front to further counter weight in the bed while wheeling. I am designing a mounting and plug in system to remove day to day driving and bolt it in for the trails and trips.

The rear bumper is 5 times the weight of the factory chrome one and it is a swing door type where I mount my full-size spare tire, hi-lift jack, shovel and ax right now. This keeps the bed at full use and the spare tire up and away from underneath.

Just so you know I moved my entire 1,500 sq. foot house with this pickup. My excuse was to break in the clutch which I did. Many trips but I got it done from the full size couch, beds washer and dryer down to the countless other large pieces of furniture. This little Taco hauled the entire house and kitchen sink!

I plan NO trailer pulling with this rig. It is an overlander off-roader. Trailers slow the vehicle down, weaken it and limit its abilities.

I am also a storm spotter for the National Weather Service. I specialize in night time storm tracking and I have ran across things at night from blown down trees, flash floods and other debris. Stuff the local Sheriff in their useless sedans can not overcome as well as the firetrucks and ambualnces. If a tornado blows through, I will be the first on the scene since I will be the one tracking it on the ground for the NWS and relaying its location for the NWS and local authorities.

Yes different uses of different pickups but when they claim off-roading, you are entering the domain I have vast experiance with from trail riding, mudding all the way to Baja racing and even short course racing.

So when I see FX4 or Z71 off-road on full-size pickups. I tend to question its abilities off-road. I am sure it will do fine on someplaces off-road or better yet for farm duty and construction but the tougher trails and off-road situations I have seen and been thru, no way in hell unless you mod the shyt out of it.

Too much weight with such little ground clearance is my first observation. I call it the sinking effect. My classic example is the 302 powered full-size Bronco with 36" tires during my mudding days. He went through the ruts first and hung is twin I-beam front while my little 22R powered Toyota with smaller 35" tires floated right over those ruts.

Sure I had 17" of front ground clearance and the rear axle sat 14" above the ground. The guy just didn't get it. No matter how big and tall your rig is and no matter if you had 800 hp, the lack of proper ground clearance for his Broncos weight is what killed him. My rig was light weight and literally floated over the ruts with little effort.

That is why Jeeps and Toyota type trail rigs do so well off-road. Shorter wheelbases, solid ground clearance for their weight stock and when you mod them even better numbers to hit the trails and crawl over obstacles.

And Toyota pickups have a reputation for being tough little pickups the world over.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/14/why-rebel-groups-love-the-toyota-hilux.html

@ dave

You crack me up, can you not read english? of course NOONE vehicle is without flaws, noone ever claimed the Tundra was either. I have to show you time and time again why your posts are false to defend your stupid comments about the tundra which you know and understand NOTHING about. so READ THIS COMMENT THIS TIME. JD Power and associates named the "TUNDRA" the MOST DEPENDABLE FULL SIZE TRUCK FIVE YEARS IN A ROW, they didnt say that about the f150.

you know its funny when i work with those trucks EVERY DAY and i dont see these problems you speak of. and dont try to say toyota avoids them, there is NO manufacturer in the WORLD that comes close to toyota in stepping up to fix a fault in its product. they recalled 813,000 tacomas from 95-2000 because of a frame rust issue and PAID them 1.5 TIMES KBB RETAIL value to BUY THEM BACK! Since i know what you will try to say next i'll clear that up too. those frames were made by DANA corp. they also build stuff for Rangers and S10's too. Funny i've never heard of either of those manufacturers looking to make that right with their customers, yet i've seen MANY of those frames rusted so bad they have broken in TWO! if you went to your local ford or gm dealer and complained of a rusty frame on a 15 year old truck THEY WOULD LAUGH IN YOUR FACE, but toyota paid their customers 14,000 for their 98 club cab 4x4 with 128,000 miles on it. That sir is customer service. THAT IS WHY PEOPLE GO BACK TO TOYOTA AGAIN AND AGAIN.

Its machinery, its not a matter of IF but WHEN it will break. It simply matters HOW the manufacturer handles a customer when it does. In this dept. Toyota is in a class of its own.....

@ Franco - interesting theory. You've been watching too many cop shows on TV.
You are basing your theory on the assumption that I am a Toyota loyalist and the Ford F150 purchase was an aberration.
You, Dave, and trucklover are confused by the fact that I own a Ford but defend Toyota.
Sorry to mess up your simple view of the universe.
I used to buy based more on a price point. The best deal determined my purchase.
I've matured in my views and prefer to apply the process of "critical thinking".
Common sense has a tendency to steer people wrong and emotion (when it comes to vehicles) is a dangerous filter to use.
@Franco
@Dave
Franco, I'm not sure where you are coming from but the underlying insinuation is that I'm a Toyota fanboi.
In a truck guy sort of way - both of you are guilty of discrimination and prejudice.
Why?
Prejudice refers to an unsubstantiated negative prejudgement of individuals or groups, usually because of ethnicity, religion or race (see racism), but it could be based on any quality, including gender, age, physical appearance or disability.
(BUT IT CAN BE BASED ON ANY QUALITY)
Discrimination is the exclusion of individuals or groups from full participation in society because of prejudice.
Toyota Trucks and Toyota guys get hammered the hardest on this site. (FITS THE DEFINITION OF DISCRIMINATION).
To quote Dave - "the owners and Toyota loyalists (you included at times).
To quote Franco - "trucklover: he also owns a 2010 Toyota Sienna."
One who does this attempts to minimize or trivialize another point of view by attaching labels.

To paraphrase: "Don't pay attention to Lou, or Hemi LOL, or Oxi. They are fanboi's and the poor fools cannot see that their brand is crap".
There are guys from every brand group that will refuse to admit to problems or flaws in their chosen brand.
Why are Toyota loyalists any worse than Ford loyalists?
@ Dave - quote "Your missing the point. Us Ford owners for the most part understand the problems with Fords. We choose to accept it because the whole package is the best."
BITTER IRONY - your quote is the exact reason you deride Toyota owners and loyalists.
I do not accept problems on any vehicle because of loyalty.
I accept problems on a vehicle because (for the lack of a better term) "sh-t happens".

@ Franco - interesting theory. You've been watching too many cop shows on TV.
You are basing your theory on the assumption that I am a Toyota loyalist and the Ford F150 purchase was an aberration.
You, Dave, and trucklover are confused by the fact that I own a Ford but defend Toyota.
Sorry to mess up your simple view of the universe.
I used to buy based more on a price point. The best deal determined my purchase.
I've matured in my views and prefer to apply the process of "critical thinking".
Common sense has a tendency to steer people wrong and emotion (when it comes to vehicles) is a dangerous filter to use.
@Franco
@Dave
Franco, I'm not sure where you are coming from but the underlying insinuation is that I'm a Toyota fanboi.
In a truck guy sort of way - both of you are guilty of discrimination and prejudice.
Why?
Prejudice refers to an unsubstantiated negative prejudgement of individuals or groups, usually because of ethnicity, religion or race (see racism), but it could be based on any quality, including gender, age, physical appearance or disability.
(BUT IT CAN BE BASED ON ANY QUALITY)
Discrimination is the exclusion of individuals or groups from full participation in society because of prejudice.
Toyota Trucks and Toyota guys get hammered the hardest on this site. (FITS THE DEFINITION OF DISCRIMINATION).
To quote Dave - "the owners and Toyota loyalists (you included at times).
To quote Franco - "trucklover: he also owns a 2010 Toyota Sienna."
One who does this attempts to minimize or trivialize another point of view by attaching labels.

To paraphrase: "Don't pay attention to Lou, or Hemi LOL, or Oxi. They are fanboi's and the poor fools cannot see that their brand is crap".
There are guys from every brand group that will refuse to admit to problems or flaws in their chosen brand.
Why are Toyota loyalists any worse than Ford loyalists?
@ Dave - quote "Your missing the point. Us Ford owners for the most part understand the problems with Fords. We choose to accept it because the whole package is the best."
BITTER IRONY - your quote is the exact reason you deride Toyota owners and loyalists.
I do not accept problems on any vehicle because of loyalty.
I accept problems on a vehicle because (for the lack of a better term) "sh-t happens".

Franco - quoting wikipedia does not impress me!

SAE J2807 has been "approved" since 2009:
http://auto.ihs.com/news/2009/sae-towing-standard-041609.htm


It was finalized and published in September of this year.
This notification is to inform you that document: J2807_201009 - Performance Requirements for Determining Tow-Vehicle Gross Combination Weight Rating and Trailer Weight Rating has been published.

Visit http://works.sae.org if you would like additional details. \n \nTo purchase this document, visit http://www.sae.org/technical/standards/J2807_201009

iirc, this j2807 was something all manufacture got together to agree on a standard. how come no one is adhering to this new standard except toyota? is it bcuz others will drop significantly? such as the f150's 11,300lbs max. I expect the ram to stay the same or increase a little. imo, seeing how good trucks r now-a-days, i believe the limiting factor would be engine power. the tundra didn't have no prob meeting those standards, from what i can see, the drop in max towing looks to be ddeduction of the required weight thats now included in the test. was just 150lbs for driver, now it includes other things.

Ben,
Your link does not state was finalized. It says "SAE International approved SAE J2807". As was said earlier and confirmed by Mike Levine, "To date, there is only a proposed standard, called J2807, that is still in formal deliberations."

Here is an great post about the tacoma from out special forces overseas.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?57724-Toyota-A-Stan-and-special-forces

Our company also provide towing service
we also have new standards regarding towing services. It is the name of trust.
http://towingqueens.com/

we also have a towing services. Our company also provide towing service
Towing Queens
http://towingqueens.com/



The comments to this entry are closed.