2009 Tundra vs. 2009 F150 – Part Three- Ride, Handling, and Comfort
Jason Lancaster | Jan 30, 2009 | Comments 44
Here’s the third and final portion of our 2009 Tundra vs 2009 F150 comparison, where we compare ride, handing, and comfort, and announce a winner. Make sure to read part one, a mechanical comparison, and part two, comparing features and pricing, before reading the overall results.
RIDE:
For 2009, Ford added six inches of length to the F150’s leaf springs to enhance both capacity and ride quality. Ford seems to have emphasized compliance in this suspension – driving off the highway and onto a gravel access road we couldn’t feel any difference in terms of noise, vibrations, bumps or jerks. Frustrated, we slowed to a crawl and found erosion ruts at the road’s edge before we felt any difference in the ride quality. Even then, the difference didn’t come in the form of any perceptible bounce.
The Tundra gives you more feel for the road with a stiffer suspension tuning, but that better feel results in a few more bumps and jolts. Still, for a truck, the ride is excellent. Neither of these vehicles will impersonate the ride you get in a new Lincoln Towncar, but the F150 is just a little closer.
Winner: F150, but if you’re partial to a stiffer suspension (and we are) the Tundra gives you a nicer truck driving experience.
HANDLING:
Both trucks have rack and pinion steering with power assist and are loaded with all the traction control software you need to keep you on the road. Slalom tests and g-force measurements aside, our simplified definition of handling is: Can you drive it in civilization as if it didn’t have a significantly larger wheel base than a normal car? Both passed that test. The only hesitation was caused by the Tundra’s fall-away front fenders, but this disappearing act is more mental than physical.
Edmunds.com did its much more legitimate slalom test on the Tundra and post-2009 F-150. The new F-150 carries more weight, but has no radical changes to the suspension, with the exception of the six extra inches on the rear leaf springs. Using that test as any sort of proof of agility and handling isn’t entirely valid, but it’s all we’ve got. The F-150 executed the course at 55.1 mph, the Tundra at 54.9 mph which proves the post-2009 F-150 is 0.2 mph more agile and precise. Pickuptrucks.com came up with very similar results in their slalom test, with the F150 finishing only slightly ahead of the Tundra in a race-like performance.
Winner: This is another draw. Say what you will about the F150’s slightly superior racing performance, but both trucks felt solid, quick, and agile…kind of like a bull in a china shop. These are trucks, plain and simple, and no one is racing them. Ties always go to the older design, so Tundra wins.
COMFORT:
This is a tough section of the comparison since comfort parameters are entirely relative and subjective. Absolute comfort can really only be judged after hours of continuous driving and perhaps the most rigorous test is when those hours are spent in stop-and-go urban traffic. Still, in our short test, both trucks were comfortable and quiet. Any idiosyncrasies have more to do with the driver than the truck design and none were significant. We weren’t crazy about some of the dash features in the Tundra, but we like the louder engine note of the Tundra. The Ford feels a tad more solid, but, again, not sure that’s an element of comfort in the strictest sense.
Edmunds.com did interior decibel tests on the Tundra and our post-’09 Ford. The Tundra hit higher decibels on acceleration but was quieter overall. However, the differences were hardly significant.
Winner: This is likely another draw…but the F150’s solid feel, larger number of cool new interior options (like Ford’s SYNC) system, and the new Platinum package (with luxury to the nines) compel us to give Ford the edge here.
OVERALL COMPARISON WINNER:
IT’S A TIE. These two trucks are awfully close. While the Tundra has a clear advantage in power and pricing, the F150 offers more features, more refinement, and just as much capability. There’s no downside to choosing either one of these trucks, and as much as it pains us to admit it, the F150 matches the Tundra in most ways. Were it not for the Tundra’s superior power-plant and resale value, the F150 would have won.
Yet there are a lot of items to be aware of when you go to buy one of these trucks. If you’re looking for the maximum tow rating on the F150, you’ll need to opt for the 3.73 LS axle package (which is a $2300 option on the XLT SuperCab we configured). Take this $2300 option off, and the F150 becomes a little less expensive…and also loses the towing crown (the regular tow package is topped out at about 9700lbs). If you opt for the Ford SFE package, you’ll get class leading fuel economy, but you’ll also hand the payload and towing advantages over to the Tundra (not to mention most SFE F150s won’t have the top luxury features that give the Ford the win in the comfort and features categories). Bottom line – configurations will determine the winner.
Our advice here is to go look at both trucks, figure out what you really need, and then make your own head-to-head assessment. For many buyers, the Tundra’s better overall value (more features are standard, better resale value, better capability in the standard package) will outweigh the F150’s superior comforts and features…and for many others the F150’s larger variety of options and luxury options will make the choice seem like a no-brainer.
We struggled with this comparison a little because the F150 tries to be all things to all people, but only in a few very narrow ways is the F150 clearly better. The Tundra offers big advantages in some areas, but many buyers likely won’t find them as great. While we’re quite certain that our comparison will be criticized by the Ford faithful for glossing over some of the new F150’s advantages, we’re also sure that many Tundra owners will criticize us for failing to emphasive the Tundra’s game-changing power advantage, superior resale, Toyota quality, etc. Our freelancer who assisted us with this comparison, Dan Murphy, said it best: “The winner here is anyone who is lucky enough to be able to own one of these trucks.”
Filed Under: Toyota Tundra Reviews and Comparisons
I’m going to have to agree with the results based on detail given. They seem comparably close. I almost bought a Ford when shopping for a truck. But I just can’t beat the fact that foreign automobiles have a better track record when it comes to reliability that I had to go with my gut feeling in the end and never made it off the Toyota lot to even go check on Nissan. Texas has some silly law that only ONE weekend day a dealership can conduct business and Fred Haas is smart being one of the few in N. Houston that sells on Sunday instead of Saturday. Great review!
TXT that’s called being lucky at the right place and time. Again great review. Like mention ford die hards won’t accept it. I know it’s terrible for them but face it, it is what it is. Ford didn’t even come to a thought much less GM. What’s not mentioned in the reviews is how you’re treated at the dealer when you keep going back for the same problem and it never gets fixed. I will go look at the new F-150 at the same time I go look at the Challenger R/T this weekend.
A good article that I believe offers a fair evaluation of both trucks. One area that is important to the consumer though, is reliability and after-care. Ford has shown that it will hide fatal flaws (built-in leaky window that allows water to fry the electronics, blowing spark plugs and leaky rear windows) These faults are manufactured errors but Ford refuses to do anything about it. Meanwhile Toyota seems to care about the consumer and after-care (they recalled rusting frames and fixed/replaced). For more, visit http://www.fordf150news.wordpress.com
TXTee and Mickey – Thanks. The review took a lot of time – mostly because we were trying to decide the best approach. If we emphasized utility – and skipped the plethora of cool features and options on the F150 – the Tundra came out ahead. The Ford won vice-versa. It’s going to come down to individual needs…but having said all that the superior performance and the price/resale advantage is substantial. It still seems like an easy choice to me.
I agree, excellent review. And I sell Toyotas. Must be the tone of the article, but it’s balanced and goes by the numbers. Some of the sections, like towing, are a bit off balance – like the fact that any of the 5.7 Tundras (which 85% of customers choose) will tow 10,000 lbs, even in the CrewMax. The F-150, on the other hand, requires quite a bit of jiggerypokery to get to that tow rating; really, who’s gonna pick the lumber wagon ride and 2wd to get the extra 3000 lbs of towing? At that point just go for the 1 ton diesel. But hats off to the 3000 lb payload, that’s a hell of a number.
Kudos for pointing out the resale advantage. It frustrates me how customers look at a vehicle as a commodity. The purchase price is only the first number you look at; maintenance and repairs, and then resale value matter even more.
Nathan – Good points as well. The Ford’s tow rating is excellent, but only if you buy the big rear axle, the heavy-duty towing package, etc. The Ford offers so many different configurations it’s very difficult to tie it down to a firm set of characteristics. That is the reason that it’s difficult to accurately compare.
Why does it pain you to admit the F150 matches the toyota in most ways? Is it because you expected it to out do the toyota in most ways and your pained that it only matches it? If so, i’m glad your proud and supportive of your American products and express your pain of concern. Very patriotic.
Matthew the review was quite fair and why is it you Ford die hards find it hard to believe. It’s the same o same o with you people. What took you over 100 years in making a truck and in little as 7 years Toyota has matched and surpass your truck. I understand being pissed off but you need to direct that at your manufacturer.
Here we go with the patriotic thing again…..shall we stir up the manufacturing locaiton, etc.?
Matthew – It pains us to admit that the Tundra and the F150 are equal in most ways because we’re big fans of the Tundra and we think it’s the best truck there is. As for your comments about us being “un-patriotic,” I’d like to repeat what you’re saying so I understand: “That guy doesn’t like the truck that I like – he’s un-American!” Do I have it down? By the way, if the F150 we tested was made in Mexico (as many F150’s are), does that make it OK for us to feel “pain” as you say we shouldn’t?
So you guys admit you’re biased towards the Tundra. The F-150 was better and that pains you guys, so you guys write they are “equal”. Without your biased opinion, the Ford would have won.
Believe it or not, a vehicle assembled in Mexico/Canada from the big 3 provide more American jobs than a vehicle assembled in the US from any of the Japanese companies. You can look it up if you don’t believe me.
Me personally, I would rather help an American company than a foreign company. Especially from Japan. They have much more pride than us. Get this fact: number of American vehicles sold in Japan is so low, the official statistic is 0%. Other than Apple, I can’t think of an outside company that sells decent over there. Its against the law to have a factory or build anything over there that isn’t a Japanese company, yet they can do what they want here.
ICUH8N – Please don’t confuse our personal feelings and our judgment – you spec out an F150 and a comparable Tundra, and I’ll show you that the Tundra ties or beats the F150 in 5 of the categories we used to compare the two. As for your comment “believe it or not, a vehicle assembled in Mexico/Canada from the big 3 provide more American jobs than a vehicle assembled in the US from any of the Japanese companies,” I absolutely categorically don’t believe it. Where can I “look it up” as you say?
ICUH8N the review was quite fair and why is it you Ford die hards find it hard to believe. It
My sentiments exactly! They have more pride, hence build a more stable and reliable vehicle. I honestly don’t care whose wallet I line as long as the lining in mine isn’t worn out. It was made to sound like supporting Toyota is supporting terrorism. People want the most value for their money. American or not….strip it down to what it does and I want quality above anything else. If someone sold me a Ford for a dollar, I’d take it but know it was going to cost more than that in the long run.
Well said TXTee.
I’m a diehard ford guy but I think the Tundra is a very nice truck (even if it’s not to my own taste). It’s a shame that none of the imports make a serious duty truck. As for Toyota matching Ford in 7 years feel free to tie up to my F250 with the Tundra and we’ll see who wins.
Nice! I see the Tundra or something similar soon to get in line with the 250…..as long as the market bounces back soon.
we in the service(military), maintains non-american engines, drives non-american vehicles, uses non-american products to PROTECT our land. Your tax money by the way.
Figures you try to hook up to a truck that’s not in your class F250. Not bright at all. Afraid to admit it.
F250 – I agree – it’s a shame that Toyota pulled back from offering an HD version of the Tundra (or even just a diesel version of the light-duty model). As for hooking up a 250 to a Tundra, I don’t think they should be compared.
Please note and take this with a grain of salt – I have a 5.7l 07′ Tundra, and I actually do REAL work with it with regualar 3000lb payloads, and with some assistance from air springs, it performs most admirably. It rides like a Camry – soft, quiet, smooth, but it DOES FLEX because of the frame and it’s design and the suspension IS VERY SOFT, which is why people buy Toyota’s in the first place. The one fact many die hard domestic guys are forgetting here is that this is a 1/2 TON TRUCK (with a 1 ton axle), but it’s not a diesel, not a 3/4, not a 1 ton…..So don’t compare apples to oranges. A half ton axle is a Dana 44 like the Nissan Titan, Dana 60 is 3/4 ton, Dana 80 and Corporate 14 bolt is 1 ton, which is a hair larger than the Toyota 10.5″, and with the weights I push, it’ll show when you’re axleshafts look helical…
I’m not saying that the Tundra is designed to compete with (or should be compared to) the 3/4 ton and up trucks from the domestic manufacturers but that while it may/may not be better than the 1/2 domestic models it’s not enough truck to meet everyone’s needs. I’ve used a 1/2 trucks (Ram 1500 w/5.7 Hemi and F150 w/5.0) to tow cars cross country and it just didn’t feel good to me. Hence I moved up to a F250 with the PSD and it feels so much better towing (plus the mpg is better). I may have to borrow my friends truck (07 Tundra) for a test drive.
Oh and Mickey. The only time I offer to tie up to a 1/2 truck (regardless of make) is when the owner is a mouthy tool. Most of them realize their mistake at that point. Just throwing the tie up out as an example of the different capabilities of the trucks.
TXTee, Mickey… You guys had the reliability debate 10-15 years ago, but not anymore. Doesnt really matter what you buy today, majority of vehicles are pretty reliable. Just stick to your resale argument, that works better.
Dank… You’re the 1st to say the new Tundra’s ride is soft, and then to say thats why people buy them? Read the article again, even the biased admin couldnt take that the new Ford had a nicer ride that he said stiffer rides are better anyways.
I can’t wait to see what you guys say about the new Ram. I can already see it. “It rides and handles better than the Tundra, but we like stiff rides and who buys trucks for handling anyways? These aren’t sports cars.”
ICUH8N Good try but Reliability is still there for Toyota and for others to try to emulate. I know it’s hard for you to understand how some people rate a truck. Some find it a soft ride and others find it a hard ride. That’s a personal feeling and it’s subjective to all readers because everyone might not see it that way. As for your Ford you have to get passed the looks of that grill to even get into it. That grill is hideous. As for the Ram I don’t see it available in a couple of years. With no support what worth will it be.
F250 no one was being mouthy about your F250. No mistake at all here except the one you did. So you don’t go against your own class you go against a class lower than yours. Now we see how you are. This must make you feel better. Now we know why you couldn’t get the job done with a regular F-150 or a Ram 1500. No towing power. Sorry you had to waste money on those two before you got what you need to tow. You know the 7 years was meant against your F-150 which you stated couldn’t tow against the Tundra. Thanks for helping others see the issue here.
I never questioned Toyota’s reliability. I know they are reliable vehicles. Just stating that you guys had that argument won 10+ years ago, everyone makes a reliable vehicle nowadays… Just stick to your resale value argument.
Mickey. I didn’t say that the F150 or Ram didn’t have the towing power just that I didn’t like how it felt. You throw a loaded two car trailer on the Tundra and it won’t really feel that good either. I’ll go against my own class no problem (My statement was regarding people who believe their truck is the greatest one in the world and can do anything better than everyone elses.). My example is that while the Tundra may have/have not matched the F150 that doesn’t mean that it has matched Ford itself. The F350 tows 16000 lbs. The Tundra won’t do that so it shows a facet of the truck community that it hasn’t matched. Plus the F150 I had was a 95 4×2 automatic regular cab so it wasn’t really setup for serious towing. Once again that I think the Tundra is a nice truck but it doesn’t meet everyone’s needs.
Dank, I call BS with this comment. “The one fact many die hard domestic guys are forgetting here is that this is a 1/2 TON TRUCK (with a 1 ton axle), but it
All Domestics stated above is inregards to 3/4 and above. When Trucktrend had the issue stating the Tundra is a better tow vehicle than the 3/4 and above class is ignorant, I beleive some people honestly thought that. But heres the thing Guys like Dank and everyone else think all this stuff about I have a one ton axle and all this power, but the 3/4 Ford has a 5.4l, Dodge 5.7l and Chevy a 6.0l. The Tundra has more power than all the base engines but these vehicle with a higher Curb weight by 2000lbs can still tow more than a Tundra so it is not the engine holding back the domestics. The domestics where holding them selfs back, if the consumer was buying them then why change. Toyota forced them to improve. Hats off to them. I truly beleive that the HP and TQ numbers is BS. I look at them but they dont hold to much weight, every manufacture uses thier own standard of coming up with the numbers. Some have the alternator and AC Compressor installed when testing some do not. I beleive in the way them put the power to the ground, as in the performance. I will test drive the same vehicle with the same engine and different axle ratios to see what is better from my veiw point. I want takeoff speed and if that means 4.10 is the way to go I undertand I will eat more gas and have a lower top speed. I want merge speed and power for towing. I have had a Tundra as a rental for a job site for 2 weeks and it is in no way equivlant to a 3/4 ton. Granted it is a nice vehicle for light work but is in no way a heavyduty truck. Its like saying a Aveo is a sports car.
——
Now the resale issue. The new superduty F-series was ranked as a higher resale value than the Tundra with the Ridgeline coming in first. Ford has matched Toyotas quailty.
——
Heres a link to clearify the bed bounce issue to help those who have problems. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/EP0579183.html The Tundra has a trapezoidal suspension system on the rear axle. This link should help.
—–
Im not against the Tundra if anything it has pushed the domestics out of a rut that they where not being pushed to due further R&D to improve the capiblities of the 1/2T models. In the future I can see all 1/2 tons raising the bar and forcing the 3/4, 1, 1 1/2 ton classes to raise the bar also. Keep going, everyone (consumers) is going to gain from this. Keep pushing the bar.
Sorry H8N but reliability nowadays is not a tie or a guarantee so I WILL continue to stress that argument and not just resale value. Every manufacturer does NOT make a reliable vehicle. I consider reliable not having major service before a 5-yr note is paid in full. Not the case with many F-150s my friends have or Chevys either. Trannies going out for everyday commuters is not reliability speaking to me…….
My 5 year old Ram has been flawless. My ’98 Mustang GT was flawless for the 6 years I had that too. I guess I just got lucky.
You what is not reliable, PEOPLE. A vehicle is a machine made by a person. The machine is only as reliable as the person who made it. If it fails take it up with the engineer that made it, or the guy who assemblied it on a Monday. Everyone has there own issue’s Toyota included. If anything how can you say Toyota has a reliable truck when they have only made a Full size for since 2000. Thats if you call the first generation a full-size.
—–
The below comment is from the same company who ranked the Tundra as 2008 TRUCK OF THE YEAR!!
—–
“At the 20,000-mile service, the maintenance crew at ******** informed us the front brakes were in need of repair, so they replaced the front brake pads and machined the rotors for $249.99. During that service, they also replaced the worn Bridgestone Dueler H/Ts with a fresh set of Michelin LTX A/S tires for $712.92, including mounting and balance.”
—–
Read the article for yourself. Its under their long term review. If this is quailty and reliablty for a group of people evaluating theis truck who is hauling sport bikes and mattress. They are using it as the average person would.
—
So is this quality?? Make a full size truck at domestics production numbers for over a decade then you can talk about qaulity. Or better yet have a set of tires and brake pads last longer than 20,000 miles.
Will that’s a testimonial like I will give you. Now I’m at 50,350 miles and I have Bridgestone duelers and all four have 6/32 thread life left. Not one flat in any tire. Balanced once at 25,000 miles with a front end alignment. Brakes are good for another 10,000 miles. So what’s the difference? I have a 18.5 ft boat I go fishing with. I also have that fame 1st year model that supposed to have bugs but I don’t. Now you think a magazine will come interview me and see the truck and check out my maintenance at the dealers to see everything? Now Will tell me did R&D test the chevy 4×4 this year to give them the award for the second time? If you look at the individual tests the Chevy 4×2 didn’t win the contest either in 2007 but it was given to them. Will another item FLEET SALES…is why you mass produce a product. Did I mention layoffs of FULL TIME WORKERS…. What makes C&D better then Motor Trend or J. D. Powers or visa versa. True People are the blame about being reliable. How many do preventive maintenance? Then expect nothing to go wrong and when it does the statement comes out this Chevy is crap. This Ford is the worst I’ve ever had etc. for all vehicles.
Will250 – Brakes and tires aren’t related one little bit to reliability. I’m thinking that the people at Motor Trend go through a lot of tires and brake pads…what do you think? My guess is that they couldn’t keep their foot out of it. It’s definitely atypical.
Im not agreeing or disagreeing with any of you. There is not one vehicle out there that is perfect. The whole reiablilty that I staed before was for all the guys who think Toyota is the best. NO ONES THE BEST!! Its all about consumer preference, if a guy likes Toyota great and so on for Ford, Chevy, Dodge, Kia and so forth. I drive what I drive because it suits my needs, and it doesnt matter what I drive. I will by anything from a DEAWOO to a BMW, depends on what I like. No brand loyalty. I just wanted to point out for everyone (no brand specific) that they all have issues. Motortrend may have focused on the Tires and Brakes because thats all they know and my have a alot more worn or it was a dealer looking to make a quick buck on someone took their word for it. Bad alignment does not happen over night!! Neither does bad brakes!! Point of the matter is everyone needs to lookin their own circle before casting stones and point out failures of others!
Cant we all get along and push the manufactures to make better trucks across the board.
Will250 – I agree – let’s stop all this fussin’ and feudin’. 🙂 Thanks for commenting.
I think their should be a 2010 and 2011 comparison. Maybe someone can explain this to me. How can a vehicle with so many issues get so many recommendations. The Tundra has frame issues, VVT, electronic, along with others. I understand every vehicle will have issue but frame rust is not something you can just so to the autoparts store and fix. Then there is people who are buying new Tundra’s driving them under a thousand miles and having the engine tore down. How do company, sites, reports and so on find it ok to report that they are better than any other? Is there a time and mileage cut off for the quality and dependability ranking? Like 5 years 100k miles? When I buy a truck especially when they are now close to 40k I drive them till the tires fall off. Not the frame dropping the spare either on a 2003 Tundra. Case in point I have a project truck that is a 74 Chevy 1/2 ton step side. My grandfather bought it new. I would drive it anywhere. That is dependable! so could someone explain how they rank vehicles, it seems to have holes in it.
Buckshot you said it best “Project Truck” so how is that dependable?
My apologies, I was looking for a intelligent answer to how the system works! Not someone who is questioning the dependability of a 1974, Apparently some people don’t know what a restoration is. You know when they are replacing the spare tire support on 2000 through what 2003 Tundra’s because they have rusted off, that is a restoration. Right, they a restoring it to original condition. Or are they not, so if you want to compare dependability of a 1974 and a 2010 with VVT engine light issues go ahead. Have fun doing it.
Buckshot my apologies. I thought this thread was about a comparison between a F-150 and a Tundra not a project truck or GM product. There’s your intelligent answer. You’re on the wrong thread talking about rust and VVTI issues. As for your complaint about how can a truck with so many issues get a recommendation. The same as a truck that isn’t even looked at and get truck of the year award. When you answer that one then you have what you’re looking for. Don’t you think if a truck went 100k miles that it did it’s job?
Is their anyone else out their with some common sense that can understand a comparison? “Don’t you think if a truck went 100k miles that it did it’s job?” Sounds a little hypocrite when Tundra owners are throwing fits when their 03 frame, yhea 2003 is falling apart and Toyota won’t buy them back or give them 150% of KBB value. I understand someone here is extremely jealous, its ok! You still confused about those junkie Delco radios I read about. So now they are not so Junk when Toyota helped make them right. Didn’t someone own a 06 Silveraldo? Was it a hepping POS. But wait that was the GM in bed with Toyota time period. Didn’t the taillights fall off, that was a Toyota design, goes with the spare tire! So with the fact someone has no credibility and is no more than a sore loser. How can it be a Tie for the Ford and Tundra when the ford does not have any of the MAJOR issue of the Toyota?
Spare tires falling off.
VVT Rebuilds, after customers are getting a whopping 900 miles out of a new truck. Still laughing at owners I see on the road.
Recalls, recalls, recalls.
The quality of the product to begin with. If a 2003 is losing part of its frame (LOL) how is that quality?
If you can not get more than 900 miles with out overhaul how is that relibility?
–
Just by noticing the brands of Trucks you pass on the road it is very obvious that Ford owns the truck market. Maybe they has less power and torque, smaller rotors, but at least they can drive them and don’t have to stop to pickup their spare! Just think what some Tundra owner have to forward too, more years of issues! Like the Frame rust, when did they find out about that? Did they know of the Tundra frame rust when they where making the 07 Tundra? Did anyone else notice Mr Toyoda in front of Congress saying his name is on every vehicle? We if they can even spell his name right do you think they can produce a automobile. Toyoda, Toyota?
Buckshot – Why ask questions you already seem to have an answer for?
i’ve owned 2 rams, a 2005 with 4.7ltr and a 2008 with a hemi and i loved them both. after having the hemi, i wish my 2005 had it because id def still have the truck today, best looking truck in years in my opinion. i then purchased a 2008 tundra and i’m very impressed with the power and features. i’m on the fence with the looks, the side profile of the tundra is not as impressive as say the side profile of an f150 (fx4, GREAT LOOKING TRUCK). i do like the “snub nose” of the tundra and it looks great from a straight on view point. the stance can be a little better on the tundra, stance is everything in my opinion. i do not do alot of towing at all, but the tundra feels like a very capable truck compared to my friend’s f150. i never had any problems with my rams other than some rattles in the dash. i don’t have any with my toyota. each company makes a good truck, shouldn’t make a difference what brand it is.