Four Wheeler Magazine Evaluates Tundra 4.6 For 2010 Truck of the Year
Jason Lancaster | Feb 19, 2010 | Comments 37
This year’s “Four Wheeler Magazine Pickup Truck of the Year” award competition was between the 2010 Tundra 4.6, the Ram 2500 Mega Cab, the Ram Power Wagon, and Ford’s F-150 Raptor. Surprisingly, Four Wheeler magazine’s trail-oriented award did NOT go to the Raptor [which, by the way, is an awesome truck]. Instead, Four Wheeler magazine chose the 3/4-ton Power Wagon as their favorite trail truck of 2010.
Four Wheeler magazine 2010 Truck of the Year Competition
While the Tundra earned fourth place, Four Wheeler magazine did point out that the competition wasn’t quite equal. The Tundra was the least powerful and least expensive truck in the group, and it was the only truck missing an off-road package (sort of essential for these off-road tests, but not available on a 4.6 Tundra). The rules of the comparison aren’t necessarily meant to create an apples-to-apples comparison, so it’s hard to find fault with any of the results. It’s highly unlikely anyone has all four of these trucks on their shopping list. Still, if you’re looking at a new Tundra, you might find some of their observations interesting.
Performance
The Tundra’s 4.6L continues to get good reviews – quite a few reviews have found the small V8 to be surprisingly powerful:
“Leading the field to 60 mph was the lightest truck with the smallest engine, as the 5,385-pound Tundra hit the mark in 8.62 seconds, while crossing the line after a quarter mile in 16.84 seconds at 84.98 mph…The 4.6L feels great, I am not missing the power of the 5.7L.”
In terms of braking, it was quite a shock read that the 7,500 lbs Ram 2500 Mega Cab had a slightly better 60-0 stopping distance than the 5,400 lbs Tundra.
“Surprisingly, it wasn’t the lightweight Tundra that won the braking honors; it was the heaviest truck in the test, the 7,495-pound Mega Cab that defied known physics to come to a complete stop from 60 mph in only 143.33 feet. The Tundra came close by doing the same in 144.35 feet.”
Dodge’s engineers deserve credit on that one for sure.
Fuel Economy
It’s expected that the Tundra would have the best fuel economy rating when compared to a dedicated off-road machine and much heavier HD trucks, but the fact that the Tundra achieved decent fuel economy despite “aggressive testing” is noteworthy.
“For those of you who need a helping of fuel economy with your pickup, nothing in the test came close to the 15.09 mpg average that the Tundra delivered, despite our incredibly aggressive testing procedures. In fact, the Tundra’s best tank was 17.3 mpg, the highest single tank in the test. The Raptor had the next best tank at 16.32 mpg, but averaged 12.07 mpg in a test in which it was flogged mercilessly.”
Imagine what the Tundra 4.6 will get when it isn’t being flogged mercilessly.
Four Wheeler’s Highs and Lows
The Tundra’s Highs
- 4.6 has power comparable to the 5.7
- Smooth ride
- Fuel economy
- Highest ground clearance in test
- Great price
The Tundra’s Lows
- Drab, dated interior
- Overly sensitive throttle for off-road use
- Lacking “personality” compared to the Power Wagon, Diesel 2500, and F-150 Raptor
If you’re reading carefully, you likely noted that the Tundra has more ground clearance than a new Raptor. All things considered, it’s really not that big of a deal that the Tundra has a little more room underneath than the Raptor…but it might be fun to point that out to the next Raptor owner you see. As for the “personality” comment, we suspect that a more expensive and comparably equipped Tundra with the 5.7 would have been more inspiring. There’s also something to be said for the inspiration that comes with spending $6-$20k dollars less for a truck that handled all tests adquately.
The real controversy of these results, however, is that the SVT F-150 Raptor wasn’t the clear winner. Of all the trucks, the Raptor is the truest off-road machine, yet Four Wheeler knocked it for lacking power. What do you think – did Ford get robbed here, or was the Power Wagon the best truck?
You can read the full comparison here.
Filed Under: Tundra News
stats don’t lie, the ford raptor was darn near last in all 3 categories you mentioned, but the Ram PW was worst in 2 of the 3 categories, how come they won the award then? Was there other categories besides fuel mpg, braking, and acceleration? Also, why were there 2 Dodge’s and no GM products in the testing, especially since one of dodge’s trucks was a 3/4 ton truck, seems Four Wheeler favored Dodge probably because Dodge gave Four Wheeler money for advertising, etc. more than the rest? I find all these magazine reviews biased and not very beneficial for me when deciding to purchase ‘an off-road’ truck or for that matter any truck I want. The true only way to decide is to go to all 4 mfgs. and test ride for 50 miles or more each truck and even ask (toyota dealer did it for me when the new 07 tundra came out) to keep the truck over the weekend off the lot to run it a lot to decide which truck you want. I put on over 500 miles on their new 2007 tundra (demo model for test rides) that weekend and only averaged 13.5 mpg mostly hwy. but I was running 70 mph most of that trip and beat the snot out of it at every stop light smoking them all off the line luckily with no speeding tickets and no tires left. I would hate to be the one buying that 07′ tundra after the weekend trip I took with it.
mk – The rules of Four Wheeler’s competition are that the competitors should be all new or substantially updated trucks, hence the odd mix. I don’t think the order is too important – this isn’t really a “fair” comparo – but I’m mystified as to why the Raptor didn’t win. It’s got to be the best off-road vehicle of the bunch.
Jason-I don’t understand how mpg, braking (60-0) and accleration apply to true off-roading. I haven’t done any off-roading for years but as far as I remember going 60 mph under those road conditions is not only crazy but darn near impossible. Also, did they do the mpg in 4X4 low and or a combination? Its my understanding true off-roaders need to change truck gearing to accomodate the terrain. Maybe the catagories should have been based on torque, suspension, and clearance. I do agree the Raptor is a good looking truck!
After reading the entire article, the road test is the one catagory that is measurable. Off-road test are purely subjective and according to the article most of the drivers preferred the Raptor. The Tundra they used isn’t packaged to compete with the other trucks, so once again here’s an award that is purely subjective. If we were to take votes, I would have picked the Raptor for this award.
Ditto on the comments mentioned above me. Except I don’t care for the Ford’s looks. Also I’m not into offroad so I will stay on the sideline. It does seem that the 4.6 can handle itself pretty good even if it’s not equipped.
Well since no one agrees why doesn’t someone arrange to get all similar vehicles and complete a more conclusive test?
One question, did the Tundra last longer than 36 hours or 92 miles before the check engine light came on???
Get over it MJB. Toyota isn’t the only one that has issue on a new vehicle. They will fix your truck and extend your warranty.
This was interesting. I own a 2010 4×4 Tundra DC 4.6L and i have driven my friend’s Ford Raptor. The Raptor definitely wins the “style and character” catagory. It is very capable in the mud but was more designed for baja style running. All we have here in Mississippi is mud. I still have those Michellin street factory tires so i haven’t ventured too far off the beaten path but I strongly feel, with equel tires, I can hang with the Raptor. Ragarding baja running, I’ll concede that one. I don’t have the TRD package either. The Powerwagon has a solid front axle so I would consider it to be the best off roader currently out there. I don’t see what braking and acceleration has to do with offroading. I do agree with the pro/con accessment of the Tundra. My Tundra was 12k less than the raptor and the powerwagon cost something like 50k reasonably dressed. To make the Tundra a better mud-wagon, it needs to be better balanced weightwise front to back and the throttle needs more feel and less sensitive. Now here’s my contraversial statement, I strongly feel my old 1995 stock z-71 could have hung will all of them in the mud.
But, Jason, You are correct. This test is not fair and the results would be subjective no matter which 4×4’s were compared. The current test, the powerwagon is the best choice. but, if you’re going to compare apples to apples and let Dodge and Ford bring their best athelete, then the tundra should have been a 5.7 Rock Warrior.
I really like the Raptor, a lot. I like the Powerwagon too, i owned one back in the 80’s and the new one should easily prove its offroad ability and heritage. I chose my Tundra based on a balanced need of a “occasional” use offroader but more for work and fuel economy. I feel i made the best choice. I could have bought the Rock Warrior but it just didn’t fit me current needs. The 4.6 4×4 Tundra DC was, in my opinion, an excellect compromise that should yeild the best results in the different catagories that I needed in a truck. Just my 2cents and only my opinion. Peaceout.
I think the raptor is a stock f-150 in disguise. You would think ground clearance is more beneficial in ‘off road’ than acceleration and fuel economy? Yah, if you want to spend 10 grand more to get the dodge or raptor to gain basically nothing to make anyone feel happy, go for it. I’ll take that extra 10K if I wanted to in my pocket and make the tundra modded with aftermarket parts since mfg. parts are usually overpriced and underdeliver to be the best off road vehicle on the planet bar none.
Why are they gonna fix my truck and extend the warranty? It is NOT broken? Danny, when are you going to Jump that Tundra like you can a Raptor? Please record I wanna see this! Seems like the Raptor is a real threat, no one will stop talking about it, or is it jealousy? MK good job, you may wanna do some more research before you say the Raptor is a stock 150 and it isn’t always about ground clearance, ever heard of suspension travel? Yhea the powerwagon and Raptor both have it, not so much on Tundra. Plus why buy aftermarket if you can buy already assembled? So did it last longer than 92 miles?? LMAO
I can vouch that the Raptor is a real deal baja machine. wide does not begin to cover what this thing is. and the shocks are beastly. The owner was using it to haul potted plants back to his house. Kinda made me think of a linebacker in a tutu
Jason, I guess it’s true…. we sure get alot of people who are actually scared of what the Tundra has. That’s why they are here just to try and make a mockery of the Tundra. Yeah you can call them a troll but it seems unique that they come back for more and they come out of the woodwork. Yes MJB I put you in that category with Hexmate, Anonymous/medic94 and others.
The Ford is going to drop the new 5.0 in the F-150. It should produce compareable numbers to the Toyota 5.7. GEnts, we may have an honest to god contender. Looks like someone at Ford took their testicular fortitude shot and is going to give the best selling truck some not getting your butt handed to you power. Will I be trading my truck in….HA HAHAHA HA HA ..no. BUt I am very glad that SOMEONE is actually going to step up to the plate and say “Yea, we can do that too”. YEa, you can get the 6.2 from Goverment MOtors but it is a very special option. Ford is putting it in the normal trucks…not the pink leather and spandex package. Congrats FORD, welcome to the adult table.
Rich – Point taken. I think they did the braking and acceleration tests just to give everyone a sense of the relative performance. Still, you’re right – they don’t impact off-road performance too much by themselves. Good point on the article too about the drivers. I certainly think the Raptor should have won.
Danny – I think the 5.7 Rock Warrior would have been a better competitor, but in my opinion there’s no shame in competing with the 4.6…and I know you feel the same way. I’d take the most expensive truck in the test, sell it, and then use the cash to deck-out a very nice 07 or 08 Tundra.
The owner (of a Raptor) was using it to haul potted plants back to his house. Kinda made me think of a linebacker in a tutu. J.D. was it like a 2wd Tundra with a TRD offroad package then to top it off its lifted? 5.0 or 6.2, which one is Ford gonna use? The 6.2l is being installed in the Raptor and Superduty to take the place of the 5.4l. I think they will use the 6.2l in the rest of the F-150 line before the 5.0l.
“Danny, when are you going to Jump that Tundra like you can a Raptor? Please record I wanna see this! Seems like the Raptor is a real threat, no one will stop talking about it, or is it jealousy? ”
To mjb; wow, i guess you can’t read. What i said was that i would concede the baja running stuff. Furthermore, i said i like the Raptor. Even furthermore, my buddy bought his Raptor before i bought my Tundra. Jealous?? no. Real threat?? to what? The Raptor has a purpose in life as well as the Tundra. I have a purpose in life but we’re not sure about you. It’s all subjective anyway. Jeez, i give praise to a Ford and all i get is some stupid BS from some halfwit. Go figure. I guess you got a edumakation in stead of education. You’re going to bash me for agreeing with you? That makes you dumb as a rock…ooops! That’s a Chevy (sorry my chevy faithfuls). So you actually read my post and have managed to totally come up with some off the wall crackhead junk like that? No wonder why the Tundra faithful laugh at you guys when you open your pie-hole. Oh, at least i’ve driven a Raptor. I guess you’ll have to wait until a scale model of one comes out so you can play with one (i meant the truck). Also, if by some chance i’m out mudding with my friend with the Raptor, and he has to pull me out or vise versa, there won’t be any anomosity. We’ve been friends since high school and that’s what friends do. You look out for one another and we really don’t care what you’re driving. And, mjb, when you’re reading this post, pleeeeeese read all the lines and read it several times if you need to. Infact, I’ll spell it out for you ” I L-i-ke t-h-e R-a-p-t-o-r”.
I respect your point of view. Please respect mine and interpret it correctly.
Peaceout!
Jason, i agree, i have no shame.
mjb, i appologize for my previous post. It was a lil’ extreme but you drew 1st blood on a neutral party.
Danny that was well put. We do get alot of these naysayers here and to them what they like or maybe got is the best. Persoanlly I don’t do offroad unless it’s to launch my boat. So the Raptor is a waste to me. It’s probably a great truck for the baja but that’s not my thing so I won’t care about it. Like everone else we can’t see where this mag comes up with their results and most will say the raptor should have won. Each mag has their own agenda so you have to read between the lines. I don’t care what mags state is the best. I go with what I like and is set for me. I go with customer service and where they treat you right.
You guys are full of it saying you don’t care what mags say! Remember intellichoice or how about Consumer Reports? Some seemed to really care what they said! I truly believe they all have their pros and cons, more cons for some.
The 6.2 will be a limited option group while the 5.0 will the the standard v-8….but this is all hear say.
I care about what mags say. IF we didn’t …it would not be a topic.
Danny – “The Raptor has a purpose in life as well as the Tundra. I have a purpose in life but we’re not sure about you.” – Classic. LOL funny. I like the Raptor too.
Tranger – I don’t know for sure (Justin is a guy who frequently comments here, and he’s a F-150 guru), but I’ve read that the 6.2 “will be limited to only niche F-150 models and the Super Duty line.” You can read more here: http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2.....-f150.html
Anonymous comments are hard to take seriously, especially when they harp on something that’s simply not correct.
i WONDER WHEN THE tUNDRA WILL BE RECALLED. lmao
Well, for the most part, it was a great comparison. The Tundra seemed to shine, even with its non-TRD pkg and 4.6L. Would have liked to see the 5.7L Rock Warrior as well, since it would have been a much closer and more interesting outcome. Also would have liked to see the Raptor with the 6.2L (411hp/434lb-ft) over the 5.4L. But clearly the Ford still needs some larger or better brakes! And regarding the mpgs, I’m wondering how the use of the “off-road mode” impacted this area since it is a much more aggressive tune. Then again with the off-road mode and 6.2L, who knows what the mpgs would have been then (might be scary bad). Now I didn’t conduct any of the tests (of course), so I can’t say why or how the Power Wagon won, other than what is stated in the article. But from what I know about the vehicles (specs, style and other rags reviews), I would have selected the Raptor, but that may just be my bias showing through.
****
Now for those who believe the Raptor is simply a stock F-150, you may want to read the following. This truck clearly is not stock, as SVT has made many significant changes for off-road durability and capability. On the saving $ aspect. You can save $10K and trick out the truck as you like, but you won’t have the auto manufacturer’s warranty you receive when buying a truck new, just in case anything fails.
http://media.ford.com/article_.....e_id=30839
****
Now on Fords power plants. Currently the 6.2L is only slated for the 2011 model Super Duty, along with the new 6.7L Scorpion PSD (goodbye Navistar). Which a magazine I just received from Ford, states the ’11 SD’s will come with the 6.2L (V8), 6.8L (V10) or the 6.7L (V8 Diesel), meaning no more 5.4L in the SD’s. Otherwise the only confirmation of the 6.2L going into the F150 is in the Raptor. Much speculation has been made about the 6.2L being dropped in your everyday F150, but no confirmation from any Ford sources. On the outside chance, you may see an F150 Harley Davidson or other limited production F150’s receive the 6.2L, but not for mass quantities. Having the 6.2L in all F150’s could impact Ford too negatively in the CAFE ratings. Now the current motors slated for the F150 in the near future are the 3.7L (305hp/280lb-ft) and 5.0L (412hp/390lb-ft), which are being dropped into the Mustang currently. Of course those numbers above are for the Mustang, so expect the hp/lb-ft to flip flop when they receive a truck tune. Also, there is word that the F150 may receive the 3.5L EcoBoost motor, similar to what is currently in the new Taraus SHO.
Fords selling more Raptors than they expected too!
http://www.autoblog.com/2010/0.....lar-color/
This Raptor sounds mean!
http://www.autoblog.com/2010/0.....aptor-500/
Easyrider look in the mail…. You have been recalled……
easyrider – Weren’t you the guy trolling this site for a date last week?
Justin – Great info. Thank you. You and I discussed the Hurricane a long time ago and I remember thinking it wouldn’t be developed because of CAFE…but I didn’t realize it would be the eventual replacement for the V-10. Good work. I officially stand corrected! 🙂
Jason: Wow, well thanks! In the summer of ’08 when gas prices went crazy, Ford did shelve the 6.2L for a while, or that’s at least what I heard. I’m glad it’s back on track, just need to see what type of fuel ratings it truly gets in both SD and 1/2 ton classes. Now I do hope it makes it to more F150’s than just limited edition models, but from what I’ve heard about the 5.0L Coyote, it should compete well enough with the other makes larger displacement 1/2 ton motors. But again, we’ll simply have to wait and see. Feels like by the time Ford actually releases these motors, the other makes will be releasing newer and more powerful motors themselves.
Justin – I think the big motors are already in the trucks for the most part. Aside from the 6.2 Ford that is set to debut, Ram isn’t going bigger than 5.7 (at least I haven’t heard anything), GM isn’t going bigger than the 6.2, and Toyota and Nissan definitely aren’t going bigger than 5.7 and 5.6 respectively. I think Ford’s done a great job of being ahead of the curve when it comes to engines. They deserve a gold star for getting smaller in light of all of the regulations we’re seeing, and I predict everyone else will scramble to put similar technology in their own trucks (including Toyota).
##
Do you think a King Ranch Crew could be had with a 6.2 at some point? That seems like a good way for Ford to make a little profit, especially if production is limited. I agree on the Harley 6.2 as well – I think that will be a truck worth owning.
Jason: I’m sure most manufacturers are at or near their displacement limit in regards to 1/2 ton trucks. But as you stated, they more than likely will implement many of the features Ford has installed on the Coyote (5.0L). Now I wouldn’t say Ford has been ahead of the curve with their motors, but have always been around the middle of the pack. Simply look at how long they’ve had the modulars on the road, starting back in the early/mid 90’s with the Crown Vic. They sure got some life out of that family and it should have more than paid for itself by now. They must move on now with the technology advancements to improve mpgs and power to keep up with the constantly changing fuel mileage guidelines (CAFE) and the competition.
****
Everything’s speculation currently on which models would possibly get the 6.2L, well other than the Raptor. Of course I think it may boil down to cost, power and mpgs. How much better fuel mileage will the Coyote bring home compared to the Hurricane? Right now I’m hearing rave reviews of the mpgs for the 5.0L with its Mustang tune. How drastically will this difference between the 5.0/6.2 play into their CAFE rating? Will the 6.2L be cost effective with only being dropped in the Raptor and SD form? What will be the final power difference between the two motors? Right now we know the 6.2L in the Raptor and SD’s produce 411hp/434lb-ft, but it has a ton more potential and ability from the word I receive. The truck version of the 5.0L is being guesstimated at roughly 370-390hp/390-410lb-ft, depending on how aggressive a tune they install at final production and depending on the source used. So will consumers be willing to break the back for roughly an extra 21-41hp/24-44lb-ft? As well as what will be the cost to upgrade from the 5.0 to the 6.2?
****
My opinion, I think a limited number of KR’s, Harley’s and Platinum editions should be produced with the 6.2L.
Justin – Makes sense to me. I think your question about the profitability of the 6.2 is an interesting one. PickupTrucks.com is reporting that GM believes diesel engines will decrease in popularity in the near term because of emissions concerns. If that’s the case, than the profit outlook on the 6.2 is good. I’d like nothing more than to see some more rational diesel emissions standards, but I doubt that would ever happen. When will America learn? Diesel is the best power train for pickups – they burn less fuel and performance is usually better when compared to a similar sized gas motor. If it weren’t for the outrageous emissions standards, most U.S. pickup trucks would be diesels…just like they are everywhere else in the world.
Ford is currently taking orders for the Raptor 6.2L, which is a $3K upgrade. So a base model Raptor with no frills and the 6.2L runs just over $41K. While the base no frills Raptor with the 5.4L starts at just over $38K.
Justin – $3k for the 6.2 sounds like highway robbery to me! LOL! Good for Ford I suppose…
Thought i’d update ya’ll on my 2010 dc tundra 4×4 4.6L. So far everything has been fine except the MPG. My 1st fill-up was 11.5mpg and my 2nd tank was 10.98mpg. These are actual figures and not the computer’s calculation. These numbers suck but still better than my old Z-71 which avereaged 7.5mpg. Now, i must do a lil’ explaining for these all around low figures. These are almost all city miles and most trips are less than 2 miles round trip. With the cold tempertures, these trucks are never getting a chance to warm up and be at proper operating temps. Also, i swear, it seems like theres a stop sign on every corner in this town. These bad figures also hold true on our chevy HHR too. It’s suppose to get 22 city and 30 hwy. It’s actual figures are 16 city and 32 highway. I have yet to get a chance to take the Tundra on a highway run to calculate its highway mpg. Eventhough i only owned the 08 tundra 2wd 5.7L for a short period of time, its city mileage was slightly better under the same conditions. The only reason i can come up with for this deviation is, possibly the 2008 5.7L should be considered “broken” in and the 2010 4.6L still being considered a “fresh” block.
danny – thanks! Those numbers aren’t great, but I think you’ve zeroed in on why. The short trips will kill the gas mileage, not to mention the cold weather. Compared to your old truck, it’s a huge improvement, so I guess you got *that* goin’ for ya…(LOL – channeling Bill Murray)