KBB Ranks Tundra Second To Last In 2010 Truck Comparison
While there are some caveats given, Kelly Blue Book’s 2010 truck comparison placed the Tundra 4th overall behind the F-150 (1st), Ram 1500 (2nd), and Chevy-GMC 1500 (3rd), with the Titan coming in last (5th). While it’s not very clear as to how the scoring system works or how exactly the Tundra comes in 4th, here are the criteria used by KBB and how each truck was ranked in their comparison:
|Exterior Styling||Interior Styling||Driving Dynamics||Value||Safety||Crash Test Ratings||Score||Final Ranking|
According to KBB.com, the Tundra’s main shortcoming is that it is “Not as configurable as the domestics.” While it’s certainly not surprising to see the Tundra dinged for offering fewer versions of the truck – Toyota simply doesn’t compete with Ford, GM, or Ram when it comes to Toyota’s very limited new vehicle ordering process – it’s a little odd to see this listed as the main shortcoming of a vehicle. After all, if a particular individual was perfectly content with one of the Tundra’s standard configurations, the Tundra would then have no “main” shortcomings.
It’s also odd to see “exterior styling” carry an equal weight in a comparison like this. Something so subjective really has no business in a comparison. Even the Tundra’s looks were 2nd best, so what? Who among us wouldn’t drive the ugliest truck in the world if it did the job we needed? Even though ride and handling feel are a little objective as well, there are some real-world implications. Looks? They shouldn’t matter to anyone.
Areas where the Tundra is admittedly weak:
- Ride – Compared to the Ram, all other half-ton trucks ride pretty poorly. Compared to the newest F-150, the Tundra’s ride is a step behind. Compared to the newer GM trucks? It depends on the suspension package the truck comes with.
- Handling feel – Put the trucks on a skidpad, and there’s not a lot of difference in their abilities. However, the Tundra’s steering feel is very “Toyota-esque”, which is to say it’s a little vague.
Areas where the Tundra is strong:
- Safety – KBB’s comparison has the Tundra tied for 1st place in their safety rating, yet for some inexplicable reason they have the Tundra listed 5th in crash test ratings. If you look at the IIHS ratings for 2010 pickups, as well as NHTSA ratings, it’s hard to understand how KBB came to the conclusion the Tundra’s crash test results were the worst of the bunch. Perhaps it’s because the 2010 Regular Cab Tundra only gets 4 stars from NHTSA in driver’s side tests?
- Engine and Transmission – The Tundra’s 6-speed transmission is consistently hailed as the best available in the class, and KBB supports this saying that one of the Tundra’s strengths is a “powerful, smooth powertrain.”
- Brakes – The Tundra still has the largest front and rear disc brakes in it’s class, despite the design being older than Ford’s F-150, GM’s trucks, or the Ram. KBB didn’t compare the braking power of the trucks (at least, if they did, they didn’t publish their findings).
- Towing ability – While the F-150’s integrated trailer brake controller and towing stability control system are best in class, the Tundra’s strong powertrain and big brakes offer excellent performance while towing. Larger brakes are more resistant to fade, and considering how much most reviewer’s like the Tundra’s power it should be at or near the top of the list in this category. Unfortunately, KBB didn’t compare towing either.
- Resale value – Toyota resale value has taken a hit in the last few months, but it has historically been significantly better than other models. KBB didn’t include resale in their comparison.
KBB’s comparison says that, even though the Tundra comes in 4th, it’s “one of the four worth considering.” While the Tundra definitely isn’t head and shoulders above the competition like it was 3 years ago, it’s still a very good truck. The good news is that, all things being equal, almost all of the half-ton trucks on the market today are very, very good.
Filed Under: Auto News