Archive for April, 2007
Tundra v. Ram — Part III: Ride, Handling, and Comfort
This is the third and final part of our comparison series Toyota Tundra v. Dodge Ram. In this segment, we’re going to compare the two trucks in terms of ride, handling, and comfort. Just like before, we’re focused on the aspects of the trucks that are most important to a typical non-commercial user. As always, any comments (good or otherwise) are welcome.
RIDE:
The last major redesign of the Dodge Ram was in the 2002 model year. That makes it the oldest design on the road — Nissan and Ford debuted a new design in 04, Chevy and Toyota in 07. Despite the Ram’s age, we think it rides OK for a truck. However, the tendency of the truck to shake and shimmy after bumps and the feeling the suspension is “bottoming out” after potholes and other severe road imperfections makes this the worst riding half ton you can buy. Please understand — ride quality is relative. If you’re currently driving a slammed import racer with 20″ wheels, the ride in the Dodge Ram would feel like you were floating on a magic carpet! Conversely, anyone driving a big old luxury car would think the Ram rode like a wagon (a powerwagon to be precise…get it?)
Like we’ve said before, ride quality shouldn’t be a reason to buy one truck over another in our minds (after all, you get used to it), but the ride quality of the Ram 1500 is definitely worse than the Tundra.
WINNER: Tundra.
HANDLING:
The Tundra and the Dodge share a lot of the same designs, and we think this is no accident. In fact, we’re pretty sure after looking at these two trucks side by side that Toyota is trying to take away a lot of Dodge’s business. With Chrysler (the parent company of Dodge) up for sale and possible disassembly, we think that Toyota has a good strategy. Both trucks have rack and pinion steering setups, and both have a very similar “feel”. The Toyota’s power assist feels stronger than the Dodge, and neither truck seems particularly on center when driving in a straight line. The problem with comparing ride and handling is that it’s very subjective. Luckily, statistics are available.
First of all, we’ve said this before but we think it bears repeating. Skid pad numbers, while very interesting, are very hard to relate to the real-world use of a pickup. After all, the skid pad measures the point at which the suspension (and the tires) begin to give in a high-speed turn. This is a very important number to know if you’re going to race your new truck at Daytona, but it doesn’t seem to have a real-world equivalent in day-to-day truck ownership. So we’re going to ignore skidpad.
There is data that professional vehicle testers collect that we think is important in terms of determining handling prowess, and that’s the slalom test. The slalom is of course a test measuring how fast a vehicle can travel thru a cone course without losing control. According to Edmunds.com, a 2002 Dodge Ram QuadCab SLT 2wd hit 57.1 mph on the slalom course. The most recent test of a Tundra was a 2007 DoubleCab Limited 4×4, which hit 54.9 mph. To us, that’s pretty close to even — after all, the Dodge is a 2wd that is lighter and lower to the ground than the 4×4 Tundra. Edmunds also stated in their notes that the speed of the Tundra thru the slalom would have been higher if they could have figured out how to shut off the stability control system.
WINNER: Tie. Dodge wins any tie by default due to the older design of the truck.
COMFORT:
We understand that a lot of people out their think the “comfort” comparison is pointless…after all, you’re buying a truck right? If you wanted to be comfortable, you’d get a nice luxury car. We understand this point of view, but we’d like to say that a lot of trucks today are as comfortable as a nice luxury car. Somehow, a lot of vehicle manufacturers figured out how to make a utilitarian vehicle that’s as comfortable as your favorite easy chair. Except for Dodge.
The Ram is unbelievably less comfortable than the Tundra — it’s like night and day. The seats in the Ram are an instant lower back ache — the Tundra is comfortable for hours at a time. The Ram offers no lateral support, the Tundra is ample. Additionally, the Ram’s “SLT plus” interior doesn’t come close to the Tundra Limited’s quality or appearance. The Ram looks dated and the materials seem inferior. We like the interior look and the feel of the Tundra over the Ram by a large margin.
In terms of interior noise, the Tundra is definitely quieter cruising at 70mph or at idle, but we think the Ram might be a little quieter under full throttle. Unfortunately, we couldn’t find any stats to confirm this for our two test trucks. In our minds, interior noise can be compensated for by a turn of the radio volume knob. Speaking of stereo’s, neither is especially better than the other in terms of sound quality. We do like the look and feel of the Tundra’s stock system over the Ram’s, not to mention the standard Bluetooth in the Toyota.
Often times when comparing vehicles, you have to look for minor differences to make a judgement about the vehicles themselves. In the case of the Tundra’s comfort compared to the Ram, that is not the case at all. The Tundra is CLEARLY superior in terms of comfort. Like we’ve said before, comfort isn’t really a good reason to buy one truck over another, but if it is, go ahead and rule out the Ram.
WINNER: Toyota Tundra. By a lot.
OVERALL COMPARISON WINNER:
The powertrains of the Ram and Tundra are both pretty stout, with the Ram 1500 HEMI being one of the faster more powerful half-tons on the road. While we like the feel of the HEMI and it is certainly fun to drive, the Tundra’s superior performance combined with the horror stories we’ve heard about HEMI fuel economy (not to mention our own experience) makes the Tundra the clear winner. Tundra also outperforms the Ram in towing, hauling, ownership cost, feature content, ride, and comfort. In fact, were it not for the Ram’s good looks, safety rating, and surprisingly decent handling this comparison would have been a clean sweep.
The Tundra is superior to the Ram in just about every measurable way, but that really shouldn’t come as a surprise. Toyota’s truck is a newer design, and has the benefit of a lot more technology. We can’t wait to see how the new Ram (due out as a 2009 model in about a year) will compare.
Keep checking back here at www.tundraheadquarters.com for more comparisons, product evaluations, and Tundra Info.
Popularity: 5%
Tundra v. Ram — Part II: Features and Pricing
The second part of our Tundra v. Ram comparison will evaluate the relative cost of the two trucks and compare the features of both. We’re only going to highlight the features that are unique and non-commercial. In other words, something the “common man” would want and buy. Finally, features that are similar will only be compared if the difference between them is significant.
INTERIOR:
While the Ram is an older design, it’s not without its charms. Much like the Tundra, the Ram’s interior is pretty straightforward. Simple, easy to use knobs and buttons dominate. We like the standard stain resistant cloth, and we think the UConnect Bluetooth system and DVD-based Navigation system are both great options that show Dodge’s commitment to offering a top of the line vehicle, even if it is a fairly basic truck. We do hate the seats though. The front seats are uncomfortable, without much back or lateral support. The rear seats in the QuadCab are cramped and much too small for an adult to ride comfortably. The Ram hasn’t seen a major redesign in six years, and it really shows here.
The Tundra offers many of the same features found in the Ram, but the Tundra’s interior is nicer and more utilitarian than the Ram. The dual glove boxes, console filing cabinet, standard Bluetooth integration, and larger dimensions all create a better work environment in the Tundra than in the Ram. We also think the materials are nicer. Finally, the Tundra’s seats are MUCH more comfortable.
WINNER: Tundra. More comfortable seats, nicer, more modern interior with more features, better quality materials.
EXTERIOR:
Like all the domestics, the Dodge Ram offers more choices in terms of exterior features. Different wheels, two-tone color schemes, moonroof, power-sliding rear window, etc., can all be had in lots of different trim levels. The Tundra usually offers these features in only one or two different configurations. Also, like all the domestics, the Ram can be factory ordered with nearly anything you would want. These are both aspects of the Dodge that we really appreciate. We also like Ram’s TRX4 off-road package and the cool-as-hell option of MOPAR power retracting step bars. The Ram offers a few chrome option groups on the new truck too, something the Toyota doesn’t have available.
We wish that the Tundra offered power retracting step bars (too cool) and more exterior option choices (like chrome packages, more wheel choices, color schemes, etc.), but the available TRD off-road package is equivalent to Ram’s TRX4 and we don’t know how long it would be until we broke the power step bars, so maybe it’s OK that Tundra doesn’t have them. Besting the Ram, the Tundra comes standard with a limited slip differential, 18″ wheels on the SR5 (as opposed to 17″ on the SLT), and a host of other features that the Ram doesn’t offer. For example: front and rear sonar (Ram has no sonar-like feature), back-up camera, tail-gate assist, extending tow mirrors, integrated hitch, and 12 speaker stereo, just to name a few.
BTW, the Ram is a great-looking truck. Dodge came up with an eye-catching original exterior design that looks great even though it’s older than all of its competitors.
WINNER: Tundra. The Ram is long in the tooth, and it shows when it comes to the lack of features available. In Dodge’s defense, when the Ram was last redesigned the standard for a full-featured truck was quite a bit lower. If looks were a reason to buy a truck (which they’re not), we would give the Ram serious consideration. Our “logical side” says the Ram just doesn’t quite cut it in terms of features and optional equipment and to stop staring.
SAFETY:
The Tundra’s safety systems are second to none, with all the following features standard: side airbags, electronic stability control, electronic brake force distribution, 4-wheel ABS, traction control, and advanced side-curtain and front airbag electronics. While the Ram offers some of these things as options, the list of features that Toyota offers STANDARD dwarfs the Ram.
In terms of crash test ratings, the Ram has a slight edge — 5 stars v. the Tundra’s 4 stars. However, as we’ve said before, crash test ratings aren’t important if you don’t crash your vehicle in the first place. The Tundra has a variety of systems that help keep the vehicle on the road, and they are all standard equipment. In Dodge’s defense, if you purchase a Ram with both side air bag protection and electronic stability control you’re going to have close to the same accident avoidance capabilities of the Tundra and better crash worthiness.
WINNER: While the Ram offers many of the same safety features, they are not standard equipment. Tundra’s lower crash test rating is offset by better overall standard protection. We called it a tie (because we wouldn’t buy a Ram without the safety options), and ties always go to the older design. Ram wins.
PRICING:
The Toyota Tundra DoubleCab SR5 5.7L Short Box 4×4 has an MSRP of $31,805. A Dodge Ram 1500 QuadCab SLT 5.7L Short Box 4×4 has an MSRP of $31,465. If you compensate for the lack of equipment on the Dodge by adding stability control, Bluetooth wireless, limited slip differential, and side curtain airbags, the Ram’s MSRP grows to $33,465. Thus, MSRP to MSRP, the Tundra is about $1,600 less expensive.
MSRP to MSRP is deceptive because the Ram usually has a substantial rebate. As of this writing, $5000 customer cash was available on the Ram and only $2000 was available on the Tundra. Doing the math, the Tundra is about $1500 more than the Ram in a common configuration, not accounting for standard features on the Tundra that aren’t available on the Ram (like tailgate assist, dual glove boxes, bigger interior, etc.).
Dealer discounts aren’t considered because they’re so different based on each transaction, but ultimately the Tundra will still end up being more expensive (on average).
The Tundra’s higher initial expense is compensated for by higher than average resale value — estimated to be 8-10% higher than a comparable Dodge. If the Dodge is worth half of MSRP in 3 years, the Tundra would be worth about $1500 more and the cost difference between the two evaporates. If you factor in Ram’s lower than average reliability (Consumer Reports and JD Power) and a warranty that’s less than the Tundra (the Dodge doesn’t offer any additional coverage over the standard 3yr/36k mile policy), the costs of owning a Ram become higher in the long run.
WINNER: Ram’s lower initial price is offset by lower than average reliability, shorter warranty, and lower resale value. The Tundra, expected to be very reliable and to have high resale value (like all of Toyota’s products) is clearly the better financial choice.
The final stage of our comparison, Tundra v. Ram — Part III: Ride, Handling, and Comfort, is up next.
Popularity: 2%
Tundra v. Ram — Part I: Mechanicals
For our second comparison, we’re going to evaluate the Dodge Ram and the Toyota Tundra to see which truck is best. While we’re not going to evaluate EVERYTHING, we are going to compare the key components and highlight any distinct differences between the two trucks. As always, we encourage you to leave your comments (supportive or otherwise) about our review.
Let the showdown begin!
ENGINE:
There are four engines available in a 2007 Dodge Ram 1500. A 3.7L V6 (typically found in a fleet or work truck), a 4.7L V8 Flex-Fuel, a 4.7L V8 Magnum, and a 5.7L HEMI. The HEMI, in addition to being one of the most powerful V8’s on the road, has a cylinder deactivation feature that shuts off half of the cylinders as driving conditions allow, reducing fuel consumption and improving overall fuel economy. Kudos to Dodge for incorporating this feature into their engine. Dodge also offers a flex-fuel engine, but we don’t think it’s much of a selling point. Because most people in the US have limited access to the flex-fuel “E85″, and because it is often times much more expensive than regular gasoline, the benefit of owning a flex-fuel engine is small.
Toyota offers a 4.0L V6, a 4.7L V8, and a 5.7L V8 — very similar displacements to those found in the Dodge Ram. But the similarities stop their — while all Tundra motors feature DOHC design and variable valve timing, the Ram’s engines are all pushrod designs (circa 1960)(CORRECTION: Dodge’s 4.7 V8 and 3.7 V6 are SOHC, only the HEMI is pushrod) that are incapable of the levels of performance and efficiency found in any of the Tundra’s engines when similar displacements are compared. Because of the dramatic engine technology differences (DOHC v. SOHC or Pushrod), the Ram is at a distinct disadvantage when compared with the Tundra.
The HEMI has quite a bit of power…345hp and 375 ft-lbs of torque, making it comparable to the Tundra 5.7L with 381hp and 401 ft-lbs of torque. We like the feel and the power of the HEMI. Because of it’s older push-rod design, it does very well on the low-end of the RPM range and that translates to decent off-the-line performance. While the new Tundra is definitely faster, the HEMI is very respectable.
The HEMI’s biggest downside when compared to the Tundra is fuel economy. EPA rating on an 07 HEMI Quadcab SLT is 14 mpg city and 18 mpg highway, but we must say this is GROSSLY overestimated. Based on personal experience, it can be difficult for this truck to average 12 mpg with the HEMI engine. Obviously fuel economy is affected by a lot of factors including fuel quality, driving habits, altitude and climate, etc., but it’s clear to us based on other reviews, posts we’ve read in forums, and first-hand knowledge, the HEMI loves to consume fuel at an alarming rate. This is a big downside to the HEMI. Assuming a new Tundra averages 16 mpg (we’ve seen higher) and a new Ram 12 mpg (we’ve seen lower), the Ram will cost 30% more to fuel. Even if you give the HEMI the benefit of the doubt in terms of fuel economy, it is still less powerful, making the winner in this category easy to choose.
WINNER: Toyota. Decent performance makes the HEMI worthy of recognition, but that recognition is overshadowed by poor fuel economy as a result of the old push-rod engine design.
TRANSMISSION:
The Dodge Ram is unique in that it is the only truck on the market to offer a 6 speed manual transmission with a V8 in a half-ton. Unfortunately, this manual transmission is only available with the 4.7L V8, making it a feature that most people won’t choose. With the HEMI, the only transmission available is a 5 speed automatic. The Tundra also offers only one transmission choice with it’s most powerful engine, a 6-speed automatic with the 5.7L. When it comes to transmissions, more speeds are better. Combine the Tundra’s extra gear with a tow rating that’s more than 2000 lbs higher, and it’s clear that the Tundra’s transmission is superior.
WINNER: Toyota. Six speeds are better than five, and the higher tow rating indicates the Tundra’s transmission is stronger.
BRAKES:
Both the Ram and the Tundra offer 4-wheel disc brakes, but that’s the end of the similarities. The Tundra has 4-wheel ABS, the Ram only rear wheel ABS (unless you purchase a MegaCab or upgrade the system for $$, then you’ll have 4-wheel ABS). Also, the Tundra’s rotors are all ventilated while the Ram has ventilated rotors in the front only. Some may argue that because the front brakes are responsible for 90% of a vehicle’s stopping power, the rear rotors don’t need ventilation. While we agree that is true, we don’t understand why the Dodge’s rear rotors are larger than the front (13.9 inch solid rotors rear, 13.4 inch ventilated rotors up front) but not ventilated. Both trucks also offer electronic brake force distribution.
Taking the specs and setting them aside for the moment, measured stopping distances are fairly similar. A 2004 Ram QuadCab SLT 4×4 stopped from 60mph in 135.6 feet (empty). The most recent test of a similarly equipped DoubleCab Tundra Limited 4×4 stopped from 60mph in 131 feet (empty).
WINNER: Toyota by a mile. While the Ram and Tundra basically tied in terms of stopping distance, we think the lack of 4 wheel ABS, smaller diameter front rotors, and non-ventilated rear rotors will result in brake fade while towing, hauling, or during long trips. Toyota’s superior components win out here.
FRAME:
Tundra’s partially boxed frame is still a question mark when compared to the competition. While Dodge offers a head -to-toe fully boxed frame, it also has fewer cross-members than the Tundra. Without knowing the moments of both frames it’s hard to say which is stronger but we’re willing to bet the Ram’s frame is tougher. However, because the Tundra is built by arguably the most successful car company in the world, we’re inclined to give Toyota the benefit of the doubt here. For the record, we think the Tundra should have a fully-boxed frame to better measure-up to the domestics.
WINNER: Dodge. Fully boxed frame is better than partially boxed frame, even if the partially boxed frame is built by industry stalwart Toyota.
PAYLOAD:
Toyota and Dodge have similar payload ratings in the DoubleCab 4×4 & QuadCab 4×4 configurations. Toyota’s max payload is 1,580 lbs, the Dodge 1,500 lbs. While both trucks are available in a configuration with a higher maximum payload rating we don’t think the max numbers are going to matter to anyone who isn’t a commercial user. For a typical daily driver, payload capacity is only half of the issue. Payload accessibility and utility are just as important, and we think the Tundra edges out the Dodge.
For starters, the Tundra has a tailgate assist feature that makes opening and closing the tailgate easy — even if your hands are full. Second of all, Tundra’s cargo box is deeper, increasing the amount of “stuff” you can fit in the back. Third, the Tundra is rated higher. In defense of the Ram, we really like the Dodge’s “Activgate” cargo management system — if this system was a standard feature the Ram would have beat the Tundra out in this category.
WINNER: Tundra, but it’s too close to matter. Like we’ve said in the past, for a lot of truck buyers, payload rating isn’t a huge concern.
TOWING:
When a truck has a stronger, more powerful engine, it will typically pull more than a truck with a less powerful engine. That couldn’t be more true when comparing the max tow ratings of the the Dodge Ram and the Toyota Tundra. The Tundra is listed as having a max tow rating of 10,800 lbs, the Ram 1500 only 8,750 lbs — of course, these are for the work versions of these trucks. When the typical “average joe” versions of the trucks are compared (say a DoubleCab 4×4 to a QuadCab 4×4, both with the big V8’s), the difference is the same. The Tundra pulls 10,300 lbs in this configuration, the Ram 8,500 lbs. While the Ram’s rating certainly puts it on par with other trucks in the segment, the Tundra wins by almost 2,000 lbs.
WINNER: Tundra.
In conclusion, we like the Ram’s mechanicals a lot. For starters, the HEMI is a powerful engine that gets up and goes. We like that Dodge offers a 6-speed manual with it’s smaller V8, and we like the fully-boxed frame. However, Tundra is more powerful, a better tower, and it’s a more sophisticated design than the Ram. We think the Dodge has a severe shortcoming in terms of fuel economy…we’ve seen the HEMI get as low as 8 mpg before (lead foot, it’s true) but 8 mpg is unacceptable under ANY circumstances.
Check back for the second part of this comparison, Tundra v. Ram — Part II: Features and Pricing.
Popularity: 10%
Tundra drops CD Player, adds recycled wire instead
Over the last few days, a couple of articles have caught my eye. The first describes a new kind of wire coating that has debuted on the new Toyota Tundra. The second article reports that Toyota is considering reducing features in the new Tundra in order to be more cost-competitive with the domestics. Seems like the problem is obvious to me…
First, the new wire coating. Developed by Delphi, the new wire coating has a thickness equivalent to two (2) pieces of paper. The material being used isn’t the standard PVC, but a new material derived mostly from recycled plastic. The big benefit to this new material is that it requires much less of it to sufficiently coat a wire, reducing the size and weight of the wiring in the vehicle. Also, because it’s created from recycled plastics, it’s better for the environment. Pretty slick stuff.
Knowing Toyota, this is probably a change they’ll make to all of their vehicles over the next few years. Toyota is committed to making the best vehicle on the road, and this new material will help both reduce weight and help the environment. You can read the Delphi press release for more info.
As for the second article, the words “jaw-dropping” come to mind. A little background: for years, we’ve read about domestic auto manufacturers removing standard features from their vehicles in order to cut costs. Manufacturers call it a “product realignment”, but what that really means is that the same vehicle is going to have less equipment than it did before but still cost the same. This practice was so wide-spread in the late 90’s that it received the moniker “decontenting”.
Imagine my shock when I read that the leading automotive company in the world, Toyota, was considering re-evaluating the standard options in the new Tundra. The VP of Operations for Toyota USA was quoted as saying “Unfortunately, we may have put a little too much content into it.” What the hell is going on??
The Toyota Tundra has so many nice features standard that it really gives it a leg up on the competition. The stability control system, the limited-slip differential, the 4.10 gears, the side curtain airbags, and even the CD player were all listed as “extra” equipment that might be eliminated. Who’d want to buy a truck without any of these options?
Fleet buyers. They don’t care about equipment, just the bottom line. So, because Toyota is having to offer rebates to move their lower-end trucks (which they’re building in order to hit 200k units this year), they’re thinking about reducing the standard equipment to lower their costs. This sounds EXACTLY like Detroit to me.
Build too many vehicles, offer rebates when they’re not selling fast enough, and then start to reduce equipment to get the money back.
Here’s a question…What if you took the space-age wire covering off the all the wires and just used good old PVC? How much would that save?
Popularity: 1%
