Last Friday Edmunds.com announced their recommended vehicles for 2010, and two Toyota trucks made the list: the Tundra and the Tacoma. Alongside, Edmunds also recommended the Ram 1500 and the Nissan Frontier. Here’s a breakdown of their truck recommendations.

Edmunds compact truck recommendations are the Nissan Frontier and the Toyota Tacoma

Edmunds Recommended Compact Trucks

The Frontier and the Tacoma are fairly obvious recommendations. Not only are they the best selling models, they also offer the widest range of configurations, the best safety and performance ratings, great reliability, and excellent resale value.

Ford’s Ranger is not recommended by Edmunds, but it’s a decent truck that sells very nicely. Edmunds doesn’t like the Ranger – the interior is much smaller than the Tacoma or the Frontier, the ride and handling aren’t competitive, and it doesn’t offer a lot of features. Frankly, the Ranger is an older design that Ford intends to cancel soon, which is likely the reason that Edmunds doesn’t consider it.

The Chevy Colorado/GMC Canyon and the “Ram” Dakota are the other notable compact truck models on the market. Edmunds panned the Dakota as an expensive truck with a very cheap feel, where as the GM trucks are knocked for subpar fit and finish.

It’s important to note that Edmunds doesn’t give the Dakota or the Colorado/Canyon credit for offering V8 engines. Their rationale seems to be that compact truck buyers don’t need a V8 – if they did, they would opt for a full-size. Considering how expensive a V8 powered compact pickup is, this rationale makes some sense.

Edmunds recommends the Tundra for 2010, knocking off the F150 which was recommended in 2009

Edmunds Recommended Full-Size Trucks

The Ram and the Tundra share Edmunds recommendation for 2010, which is bad news for the F150 (which the Tundra replaced). As far as the Ram is concerned, Edmunds really likes the Ram 1500’s refinement. They cite the Ram’s excellent ride (a result of the Ram’s coil spring rear suspension) and luxurious interior as their favorite features.

As for the Tundra, Edmunds really likes the Tundra’s new 4.6L V8:

The Toyota Tundra finds itself back on our recommended list thanks to a new-for-2010 midgrade 4.6-liter V8 that represents an excellent alternative for those who don’t really need the prodigious power of the top-dog 5.7-liter V8. The Tundra’s large cabins, quality construction, comfortable driving position and massive towing capacity add up to a smart choice

This is high praise for the Tundra, but a bit confusing. First and foremost, the note about “massive towing capacity” doesn’t jive with the praise for the 4.6. The most one can tow with the 4.6L V8 is 9,000 lbs – and that’s only if you buy the 4×2 regular cab with the standard bed. While the 5.7 offers excellent to capacity on all models, other models from GM and Ford are rated to tow more. Despite these inconsistencies, it seems the Edmunds likes the overall value offered by the 2010 Tundra.

Last year, Edmunds liked the F150 because it offered a full range of fancy features as well as excellent towing capability. None of this has changed – the F150 still offers a full range of fancy features and excellent towing, so it’s like that the Tundra knocked off the F150 because of an improved safety rating (which is not mentioned but would explain the change).

Frankly, in our minds, the Tundra should have knocked off the Ram. While the Ram’s refinements are wonderful, it’s an expensive truck that simply doesn’t have the capabilities of trucks from Ford, Toyota, or GM. In any case, when it comes to half-tons, GM, Ram, Ford, Toyota, and Nissan all offer an excellent product.

Related Posts:

• 2009 Tundra vs 2009 Ford F150 Comparison
• 2008 Tundra vs 2009 Dodge Ram Comparison
• 2007 Tundra vs 2007 Sierra/Silverado Comparison

What do you think: Should Edmunds have recommended the F150 instead of the Ram for 2010?

Have you read our Toyota Tundra towing guide?

Many hard-core “greenies” long for the extinction of the pickup truck. These people view pickups as an anachronism – a hold-over from a time when Americans actually worked for a living. If you’re reading this blog you already know, but here it is again:

Pickup trucks aren’t going away. High gas prices won’t end the American love affair with pickups because people buy trucks for a reason – they need em.’

The Most Eco-friendly half-ton truck engines.

Now that we’ve got that out of the way, what about the “greenies” who need a pickup but want one that’s eco-friendly? Some would say that there’s no such thing, but we disagree. Using federal fuel economy and carbon footprint data provided by the EPA, we’ve put together a list of the most eco-friendly pickup trucks.

Before we give you the rankings, here’s the methodology:

• We’re looking at more than just total carbon footprint – aka the total tons of carbon a vehicle produces. While the total footprint figure is important, it’s important to qualify the total footprint against the power of the vehicle.

• We did not use any manufacturer towing figures because we believe all half-ton tow ratings are inflated. We didn’t use payload ratings because they’re just as dependent of suspension as they are on engine power. We kept it simple and looked at SAE standard torque, horsepower, and published displacement only.

• All of our footprint numbers are based on the annual EPA data for the 4×4 versions of the trucks…we wanted to maximize the total carbon footprint number of every vehicle.

• We ignored E85 because most people don’t use it. We also ignored V6’s because very few people buy them in a half-ton truck.

If you think our methodology is flawed, feel free to publish your own article. We’re making some arbitrary choices here to try and get these numbers under control – deal with it.

Here’s the total annual carbon footprint data (sorted by annual CO2 output):

Keep in mind that the annual carbon footprint numbers are a simple calculation. The EPA uses their average fuel economy rating and average annual miles driven to calculate the number of barrels of oil used.

Here are the results in terms of efficiency – peak horsepower per ton of carbon, peak torque per ton of carbon, and tons of carbon per liter of engine displacement:

First Place Overall: Dodge Ram 5.7

The Dodge 5.7 is the best compromise between power and carbon efficiency.

The Dodge Ram with the 5.7 is one of the most powerful engines on the truck market, yet the EPA annual carbon footprint is less than the Tundra 5.7, Titan 5.6, and Silverado 6.2 (despite very similar HP and TQ numbers). It might sound crazy, but the HEMI might be the best compromise between power and low carbon output.

Second Place: How about a three way tie?

The Silverado 5.3, F150 4.6 3V, and new Tundra 4.6 are all powerful V8’s with solid performance and the lowest carbon output in the group. Unless you need maximum power, any one of these truck engines will suit you just fine.

Third Place: Chevy Silverado Hybrid

Ya, that’s right, the hybrid came in third. Considering that the Ram (which is substantially more powerful) produces the same amount of carbon on an annual basis, there’s no way the Silverado Hybrid could rank first. Since all the engines in second place produce less carbon annually and have similar power, the hybrid is the obvious third choice.

This is yet another example of marketing getting in the way of science. Chevy’s own 5.3 (based largely on 1960’s pushrod technology) nearly matches the Hybrid 6.0 in terms of horsepower and torque per ton of carbon. What’s the point of the hybrid?

Least Eco-Friendly Half-Ton Engine: Of all the V8s, Ford’s soon-to-be-discontinued 4.6L with 2 valves per cylinder has the least efficient HP and TQ per ton of CO2 numbers. It’s also the least efficient in terms of tons of CO2 per liter of displacement. Ford’s getting rid of that engine to make room for the new EcoBoost, which will likely rock these ratings.

Bottom Line: Give Dodge credit – they integrated a number of fuel-saving technologies into their most powerful engine, and the result is a truck that is environmentally efficient – at least as far as trucks are concerned.

Have you read our Toyota Tundra towing guide?

Car and Driver gave a nice review of the new 4.6L engine in the 2010 Tundra. Basically, C&D likes the engine for what it is – an adequately powerful and efficient V8.

Car and Driver reviews the 2010 Tundra 4.6L V8

The review mentions some nice things about the engine and the Tundra in general too:

• “the mid-grade Tundra motor boasts impressive fuel economy, too—the company estimates up to 15 city/20 highway mpg is possible, which places it among the best base V-8s of its competitors and even better than the Tundra V-6“
• “yet it is perfectly adequate, allowing one to scoot around town with reasonable gusto” [Who says 'gusto' in a car review?]
• “seem rather well-suited to the suh-moooooth operation and Lexus-like quietness of the 4.6. Seriously, you could drive through a library in this thing and not get shushed” [This isn't always good if you're looking for some exhaust sounds.]

Here’s the only negative comment that caught our eye (NOTE: Car and Driver tested the SR5 model):

• “The buttons and knobs are still cartoonishly huge…[the interior is nice]…so long as you’re used to being surrounded by hard plastic and sitting on seats upholstered more like the chairs in your dentist’s waiting room“

It’s worth noting that this is exactly what auto reviewers used to say about domestic products. Considering that Toyota is taking a lot of flack for “vanilla” styling, the writing might be on the wall here – time to upgrade the interior, Toyota.

SO, here it is: Attention Toyota interior engineers. Check out the interior in the Ram and the F150 and you won’t have to think twice about what to do next.

Still, overall, a good review of a great truck. Nice to see that the 2010 Tundra still rates with mainstream media.

Have you read our Toyota Tundra towing guide?

Here’s a new one – Motor Trend’s recent 2009 F150 vs 2009 Toyota Tundra comparison found that the Tundra had the following advantages:

• The Tundra handled better.
• The Tundra had more visibility.
• The Tundra had more room.
• The Tundra had more power.
• The Tundra was a better towing rig both up and down the hill.
• The Tundra was less expensive.

The winner? Why the F150 of course! I’m not making any of this up folks – all of that info was in the article.

Here are some quotes for you:

“It takes time to appreciate the F-150; the more days and weeks you spend with it, the more tools appear in its Leatherman arsenal. Easier to read instruments. A flat rear floor. The integrated trailer controller with sway mitigation. The tailgate step. The optional 36-gallon gas tank. And on and on and on. The F-150 is the more three-dimensional truck.”

Fair enough – everyone is entitled to their opinion. As we said in our own F150 vs Tundra comparison, the better of the two trucks will depend on what you’re looking for. Some people will choose the Tundra’s superior power, some will choose the tailgate step and 36 gallon tank.

“Some of the Tundra’s additional interior space derives from its notably cab-forward, stubby-hood profile, a bulldog attribute that’s been a turnoff among truck aficionados…”

That might be the best explanation I’ve ever heard as to why some people think the Tundra is ugly. I don’t feel that way of course, but I suppose someone could. Question: Don’t big rigs have cab-forward stubby-hood designs?

“Power is a big deal in truckland, and here the Toyota has a major muscle edge, producing 381 horses, 401 pound-feet of torque, and a lot more crispness from its 5.7-liter V-8 than does the F-150’s 5.4-liter, which trails with a paltry 310 horses and 365 pound-feet. The result was a Ford spank-fest at the track, the Tundra hitting 60 mph in a scalding 6.5 seconds against the F-150’s lukewarm 8.1. And there seemed to be no Ford upside at the pump, either, the F-150 fumbling its theoretical EPA mileage edge (14/18 city/highway to the Tundra’s 13/17) as both yielded an identical 16.2 mpg along our trip. Double drat.”

We all know that the F150 is underpowerwed, but this just goes to show that every comparison test will achieve different fuel economy results. It certainly does cast a little doubt on the Ford videos claiming that the F150 will drive farther on one tank of gas though, doesn’t it?

“Dropping the Tundra’s transmission into manual mode automatically dumps two gears (if you’re in fifth or sixth when you do so), but at that point you have the option of choosing any of the six ratios. By contrast, the Ford offers only D321, and going from D to 3 slowed it down more than I wanted, so controlling descent requires either shifting back and forth between D and 3 or tapping the brakes every so often…”

An interesting observation that I hadn’t read before – good work Motor Trend.

The bottom line here – as we said in our own F150 vs Tundra comparison results, these two trucks are basically tied. Motor Trend seems to be saying that the Tundra is better in most measurable ways, but the F150 has a more refined design.

Thoughts?

Have you read our Toyota Tundra towing guide?

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.”

Have you read our Toyota Tundra towing guide?

Here’s part two of our 2009 Tundra vs. 2009 F150 comparison. This time, the focus is on the features and pricing of the two trucks. Read part one, the mechanical comparison.

INTERIOR:

Ford re-designed the interior of the 2009 F-150, and while it maintains a solid, uncomplicated truck aura, the finishes are improved, as is space in the SuperCrew (engineered with a flat floor for better storage) once the seats are flipped up. The headroom in the Ford SuperCab and CrewCab is slightly larger than the Tundra, the legroom slightly less. Both trucks offer a variety of nifty options and features, but the coolest options for the F150 are the Tool Link that uses Radio Frequency Identification so you can run inventory on the tools you’re carrying from the front seat, and the handy variety of steps available to get in and out (be it in and out of the cab or the bed).

The Tundra’s dash and interior finishes aren’t great: modern and clean, but not really on the same par with top-of-the-line luxury rivals. The smaller, recessed gauges on the dash disappear once you put on your sunglasses, and some of the center stack controls can be hard to reach. Seats are comfortable, however, visibility is great, and storage is superb. This is one of those nebulous areas where personal taste comes in. If your truck interior is doomed to dust, your seats covered with dirt, dog spit and spilled coffee, who really cares what it looked like in the dealer’s lot.

Tundra makes selection simpler with only the basic model in three cab and two bed configurations and the SR5 and Limited packages.

Winner: Storage goes to the Tundra, comfort is a tie, and luxury goes to the F150. If you throw in the cool features on the new F150, you have to give it the win, but if you don’t care about (or buy) these features, then…did we mention this comparison is close? Read below to see who won.

EXTERIOR:

Ford built toughness into the frame of the ’09 F-150; they also injected serious testosterone into the front end and sheer mass of the truck. You’ve got a choice of 13 colors and an equal number of interior upholstery and colors and wheel choices (most linked to specific trim lines). There’s also a good selection of cargo management options.

Tundra has all the functional equipment for storage, fewer (but not by much) choices of paint and interior. Since Ford (as well as Dodge) are playing catch-up with Toyota on both performance and functionality, there’s nothing you can’t do with the Tundra. In terms of looks, it’s all personal preference, but we like the Tundra’s looks better…but who buys a truck based on looks?

Winner: After a lot of debate, we decided to split the results between interior and exterior. Tundra will win one of these categories, and F150 the other. Which is which will depend on you – most of these features, options, and designs come down to personal preference and need.

SAFETY:

These trucks both offer a full suite of airbags, electronic safety systems, and excellent safety testing results. The F150’s 5 star government crash test ratings supercede the Tundra’s 4 star government crash test results. HOWEVER, the IIHS (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety) tested the Tundra last year and declared it a “Top Pick”, something that the new F150 matched a year later. The Tundra’s better braking system should be considered here as well – avoiding an accident is a safety feature as well.

The temptation to grant the F150 the win here is strong, after all, it did perform better in the government crash test. Still, the fact remains that in all other ways (and in the IIHS safety test) the two trucks perform nearly identically and share the same safety features. The Tundra’s slightly better braking performance compensates for the F150’s better crash test results, especially considering the government front crash test ratings are based upon a highly unrealistic “full head-on crash” that’s unlikely to occur in the real world.

Winner: Yawn – it’s another tie. Give the F150 credit for doing better in the government’s crash tests, but give the Tundra credit for stopping faster and offering all of these safety features two years ago.

PRICING:

Comparing two common builds – an XLT SuperCab F150 5.4L 4×4 and an SR5 DoubleCab Tundra 5.7L 4×4 – the price difference was pretty small. The XLT came with a partially “free” chrome package that sort of skewed the comparison. If Ford would allow us to configure the vehicle more cleanly, the prices would have come out closer. Still, the Ford, at $35,820 was only slightly more than a very similar Tundra at $34,387. It should be noted that an exact feature-to-feature price comparison isn’t feasible, so the take-away should be that the pricing between the two trucks is very close.

As far as incentives go, the 08′ Tundra offers $4,000 in rebates, and once the remaining units are cleared off the lots, Toyota will likely up the 2009 Tundra rebate from $1500 to something more closely matching the $3000 rebate currently available on the F150. As always, incentives are a moving target, but it’s resonable to assume that the F150 and the Tundra will be competing with each other in terms of dollars as well.

Yet the up front price is only half the story. Both Kelley Blue Book and Edmunds.com have found the Tundra to have the highest resale value of any truck. What’s worse, Edmunds listed the F150 as having one of the 10 worst resale values of all pickups. To be fair, the distinction isn’t as profound as it sounds…but it’s definitely not good. This is one of the other areas that the Tundra clearly outperforms the F150.

Winner: Tundra. Prices are comparable, but the Tundra’s superior resale value makes buying a Tundra less of a money-losing proposition.

The third and final part of our comparison is coming up on Friday – don’t forget to subscribe to our free email newsletter to find out who won.

Have you read our Toyota Tundra towing guide?

Ford insiders often acknowledge that the F150 is the heart and soul of the company, and for good reason. The F-Series pickup is the best selling vehicle in the USA, and one of the best selling vehicles in the world for the last 20 years or so. The F150 is ubiquitous, as American as apple pie, and it arguably sets the standard in the world of full-size pickups.

In other words, the new 2009 F150 is stiff competition for the Tundra. After a delayed F150 launch and a big Ford advertising blitz, it’s time to put the Tundra and the F150 side by side. This comparison will officially expand on and replace our preliminary comparison of the Tundra and the new 2009 F150 (which was completed back in January 2008). We’ll use the same comparison formula we used back in our 2007 Tundra vs 2007 F150 comparison, and we’ve also reached out to freelancer Dan Murphy to help reduce the perception of bias. Without further delay, let the showdown begin!

ENGINE:

2009 will be a tough year to be a Ford guy if your sense of self-worth is placed entirely on horsepower ratings. The new top of the line F-150 is powered by the old 5.4-liter, 24-valve V-8. Ford’s engineers managed to coax 20 more hp out of the 2009 5.4 as well as boost torque about 10%, mostly as a result of engine control system tweaks, a new straight-through exhaust system, and open-valve injection. The other F-150 engine choices are the old 4.6-liter, 2-valve engine mated to a 4-speed transmission (248 hp, 294 lb/ft. of torque) and a new-to-the-F150 4.6-liter, 3-valve with the new 6-speed tranny (292 hp., 320 lb./ft. torque). The best F150 fuel economy (15/21) is available on an F150 with the SFE package that we’ve previously reviewed.

Since most Tundra buyers opt for the 5.7, and since most of Ford’s towing and payload figures are based on a 5.4, we’re going to ignore comparing the Toyota 4.7 and the Ford 4.6 (which are surprisingly similar).

The Tundra 5.7L is a rocket compared to the F150, with power readily available through the power curve. There’s really no getting around it, the Tundra goes. The 5.7-liter V-8 rates 381 hp and 401 lb/ft. of torque and you can feel it even weaving through city traffic. Toyota is a half-step ahead in the performance technology department with a sophisticated variable 32-valve Timing system and Acoustically Controlled Induction, but the “tech gap” between the F150 and the Tundra is narrower than ever. Ford is expected to release a version of their turbocharged direct injection 3.5L “EcoBoost” V6 in the F150 next year, and at that time Ford will likely take the engine technology lead. The new EcoBoost might not be for every truck owner, but with more than 300hp and better than 20mpg, it’s going to be a great option for truck owners that don’t need a lot of power.

In any case, the bottom line here is the Tundra’s tremendous power advantage. Ford fanatics will likely argue about the 5.4L’s usable torque, but the fact remains the Tundra 5.7 outguns the F150 5.4 by a large margin. Fuel economy figures between the two engines are close as well – the Tundra 5.7 4×4 is EPA rated at 13/17, the F150 5.4 4×4 is 14/18.

Winner: Tundra, by a pretty clear margin. This is one of the only areas that the Tundra clearly outperformed the new 2009 F150.

TRANSMISSION:

Rather than waste time pondering the slight differences between the Ford and Toyota 6 speed transmissions, we’re going to cut to the chase. Both the six-speed transmissions from Ford and Toyota drive very nicely, shift smoothly and intelligently, and offer many of the same options and features.

Winner: It’s a tie, and by rule ties go to the older design (it’s only fair). Tundra wins.

BRAKES:

In our unofficial “butt dyno” tests, we found both the F150 and the Tundra to be solid stopping trucks. The Ford stopped in a straight line, with no grabbing or fading and nice pedal feel. Ditto for the Tundra. Both the Tundra and the F150 feature a 4-wheel disc ABS system, with dual piston calipers, ventilated rotors, and Electronic Brake Force Distribution. Based on feel, it’s too close to call.

The Tundra’s rotors are nearly an inch bigger than Ford’s for better heat dissipation, especially under loads. PickupTrucks.com managed to complete a definitive series of performance tests, including a series of braking tests for the 2009 Tundra and F150. In these tests, the Tundra performed slightly better, stopping in about 10 fewer feet than the F150.

Winner: Realistically, the difference in braking performance between these two trucks is small. The Tundra’s better braking performance in the PickupTrucks.com tests, as well as the larger rotors, gives the Tundra the edge.

FRAME:

While we have absolutely no proof, we can’t help but feel that Toyota made a mis-step in designing the frame on the Tundra. The F150’s fully boxed, hydroformed frame with through-welded cross members seems like the best way to go, and considering the fact that Dodge and GM both use fully boxed frames for their trucks, it’s a mystery as to why Toyota chose to go with a different design.

Winner: F150. A fully boxed frame makes more sense, not to mention the Tundra bed-bounce problem that some Tundra owners experience.

PAYLOAD:

Ford’s marketing team won a victory, of sorts, when they announced that the 2009 F150 can haul as much as 3,030 lbs, which is nearly 1,000 lbs more than the Tundra (and most of the other half-tons on the market). While it seems like a huge advantage, it should be noted that ONLY the regular cab 4×2 with the 5.4 and a special “heavy duty payload” package can haul 3,000lbs. The rest of the F150 line-up has payload ratings that are much closer to the Tundra, with a 2009 Super Cab F150 5.4 4×4 hauling 1,680 lbs and the 2009 Tundra DoubleCab 5.7 4×4 hauling 1,580 lbs. Anyone else think it’s odd that it’s exactly 100 lbs difference? Ford’s marketing team, can you hear us?

Still, credit should be given where credit is due. If you’re looking for a 4×2 reg cab 5.4 with an expensive and rough-riding suspension package that can haul 3000 lbs, than the F150 is the best option available. Otherwise, these payload ratings are a wash.

Winner: Ford, but by the slimmest of margins.

TOWING:

The F-150’s max tow rating tops out at 11,300 lbs, and unlike the payload rating you don’t have to buy a work truck to tow the max load – the F150 SuperCab and SuperCrew 5.4 are rated at the max. Since the Tundra’s top tow ratings on comparable models are about 1,000 lbs less, the F150 has the advantage. The integrated tow brake controller and the new trailer sway control systems are highly regarded as well, building the F150’s towing advantage further.

Still, before we hand this category to the F150, it should be noted that the Tundra was deemed a better overall towing vehicle in the PickupTrucks.com hill climb towing test. If you combine the Tundra’s braking advantage here, you could easily make the case the two trucks are equal in this regard. Like many things, the differences between these two trucks are small.

Winner: Ford by a slight margin, but the integrated brake controller and trailer sway control systems widen that margin somewhat.

Next up, the 2009 Tundra vs 2009 F150 – Part Two – Features and Pricing. Check back soon!

Have you read our Toyota Tundra towing guide?

Despite the “perfect storm of economic issues” cited by Eric Ibara, director, market valuation for Kelley Blue Book, the Toyota Tundra was declared to be have the best resale value of any full-size truck model for 2009.

If you were looking for one more reason to buy a 2009 Tundra (in addition to a great engine, spectacular tow rating, safety, top-rated reliability, and Toyota quality, there you have it.

Read all about 2009’s best resale value awards on KBB.com.

Have you read our Toyota Tundra towing guide?

The third and final installment of our 2008 Tundra 2009 Dodge Ram 1500 comparison compares the ride, handling, and comfort of the two trucks. If you haven’t read part one – Mechnicals – or part two – Features and Pricing – then you might want to take a look.

RIDE:

We have to insert our caveats here. Both vehicles were tested empty. Also, it’s important to remember the most subjective judgments concern ride, handling and comfort.

The Ram rides like a car. Indeed, that was Dodge’s goal with the rear suspension re-design. Gone are the rear leaf springs, in come multi-link coils. The goal is to deliver a smooth, even ride empty or loaded – it works. You literally can’t feel the road on civilized city streets.

On the other hand, you can feel the road in the Tundra. That’s not a negative in our view – if you value a good ride, you probably shouldn’t be buying a truck in the first place. Our freelancer conducted “The Murphy Slalom Test,” which resulted in a stiffer feel (which Dan liked). Still, there’s no denying the Ram 1500 rides better than the Tundra (at least empty).

Winner: Credit should be given where credit is due. The Ram’s coil rear suspension results in a great ride.

HANDLING:

You can hardly separate the two in this category. Both have rack and pinion steering and handling/stability software to keep you out of trouble. Both have ample power in reserve and accurate, finely-tuned transmissions. The more defined front corners on the Ram helped maneuvering in tight parking lots. We really didn’t push either far enough to get any tire squeal, rebounds, or hops. The feel in both was solid and precise.

Slalom test data (which is nearly worthless in terms of real-world daily truck use) from Edmunds.com give the Tundra the narrowest edge over the Ram, despite the Ram’s softer rear suspension. The 07′ Tundra finished the slalom at 54.9 mph with a ‘good’ handling rating, the 09′ Ram 1500 finished the slalom at 54.6 mph with an ‘average’ handling rating.

Winner: Tundra. For all but the most extreme driving, the Ram and the Tundra are equal in the handling departments. Ties always go to the older truck.

COMFORT:

We’ll start with what both do well, then see how we can pick them apart. Both are as quiet as little mice, no wind noise, no vibrations or rattles.You are more aware of the engine in the Tundra, but that’s not a bad thing. The seats are great, leg position is comfortable, everything is ergonomically right on. All the basic controls are intuitive, though you may need to study the owner’s manual to figure out all the high-tech gadgetry – especially if you’re trading up from an older vehicle.

The back seat in the new Ram is spectacular – plenty of room. However, aside from leg room (the Tundra has about 6″ more) the Ram Crew Cab matches up to the Tundra in terms of shoulder, hip, and headroom and it feels better too (the stadium seating in the Ram helps a lot with the feel). The back seat comfort level in the Ram is just a bit less than the front buckets, but it should stand up to a road trip test for most adults. The door widths in both front and back alleviate some of the awkwardness of climbing up into either.

The Tundra lacks the level of refinement found in the Ram. The ergonomics in the Tundra are good, but Ram is just a little bit better (our testers, a 5′10″ 200 lbs male, a 6′4″ 250lbs male, and a 5′7″ 110 lbs female) all agreed the Ram was just a little more comfy. Of course, this category is a little subjective. We suggest you sit in both trucks (front and back) and make up your own mind.

Winner: Based on the average family buyer, the Ram is the winner.

OVERALL COMPARISON WINNER:

While it won’t surprise many people that have visited this blog for the first time (after all, it’s called ‘Tundra Headquarters’), we found the Tundra to be a better truck in a few critical ways – engine, transmission, towing, and pricing. However, the Ram won out in terms of ride, comfort, interior and exterior features, and a better frame. The remaining categories – payload, braking, safety, and handling – were basically a tie so they all went to the Tundra (the older design always wins a tie). When you do the math, the Tundra won 8-5, but it was really a much closer competition than the math indicates.

The truth is, you can’t go wrong with either truck. While the Tundra’s marked advantage in terms of towing and pricing will make the decision to buy a Tundra easy for many truck buyers, the Ram’s superior ride, interior, and comfort will also sway many buyers to the Ram.

Bottom Line: If you’re looking for a truck that does everything well – but doesn’t do everything perfectly – than the 2008 Toyota Tundra (a jack of all trades, master of many) is your vehicle. On the other hand, if you don’t need much in terms of towing and price isn’t really a concern, a case can definitely be made for the 2009 Ram 1500 (not quite as capable as the Tundra, but certainly more luxurious).

Let the accusations of bias (and the complaints that our comparison didn’t match some other comparison) begin!!

Have you read our Toyota Tundra towing guide?

The second part of our 2008 Tundra vs 2009 Dodge Ram 1500 comparison will compare the relative costs of the two trucks and available features for both. If you haven’t already read part one of our 2009 Dodge Ram Tundra comparison – Mechanicals – you might want to.

INTERIOR:

The Ram Laramie cab is exquisite – wood grain, everything within easy reach and the peripheral vision is perfect. There’s a full-on vehicle information center between the speedometer and tach that shows temperature, miles to empty, odometer, and the radio station ID. Controls on the steering wheel let you scroll up and down for even more info. It’s got Bluetooth technology, stores photos, playlists, maps and, oh yeah, there’s the GPS with turn-by-turn guidance in three languages.  The storage alternatives are mind boggling: double-decker glove compartment (wonder where they got that idea?), nooks and crannies everywhere. The roomy center console opens to a tray, then opens even more to a bottomless pit. There are storage compartments in the Crew Cab back floor with plastic liners so you can empty out the crumbs or use it as an ice chest.

Our test Tundra (an SR5) didn’t have the luxurious finishes of the Ram. The smaller recessed gauges disappear as soon as you put on sun glasses and the stereo system controls, while within easy reach, lie just outside comfortable peripheral vision. It’s more difficult to determine exactly where the front of the truck ends too (for drivers new to the Tundra), but it’s definitely something you’ll get used to. Still, our freelance contributor Dan Murhpy found it a bit disconcerting pulling out of a crowded lot. The Tundra has many of the same storage and technology features (except for Dodge’s UConnect system, which is amazing as well), but Dodge’s top quality interior is excellent. Dodge is even offering heated rear seats in the top-end Laramie edition. It’s gimmicky, but if you’re looking to one-up your fellow truck owners, it’s a good feature to buy.

Winner: Ram. Before Daimler sold off Chrylser, they must have transferred some of the interior designers from Mercedes over to Dodge. It’s that good. UConnect is just icing on the cake.

EXTERIOR:

The new Ram offers many of the same options and features as the Tundra, as well as quite a few different color and trim options that Toyota simply can’t match. The new Ram Box, for example, is a smart feature that seems obvious. We also appreciate the Ram’s standard dual exhaust. However, the devil is in the details. The Ram doesn’t offer an aggressive rear end standard – you have to pay $375 extra for a taller 3.92 rear with “anti-spin” technology. Toyota’s electronic LSD 4.30 rear is standard. Same goes for a heavy-duty hitch – Dodge charges an extra $335 for that feature while Toyota offers it standard. Finally, and perhaps most amazingly, the new 2009 Ram doesn’t come standard with a transfer case shield or tow hooks! That’s another $130.

The new Ram looks great too – Dodge certainly knows how to design a good looking truck.

Winner: The Ram but it’s very close to a tie. The new Ram Box feature is cool and the standard dual exhaust just makes sense, however, if you don’t want to pay for the Ram Box (about $2k) then the Toyota matches up perfectly well.

SAFETY:

The Ram has certainly improved – electronic stability control, anti-lock brakes, and side curtain and side airbags are now standard. The Ram also includes trailer sway control as a standard feature, a nice bonus. Testing has yet to be completed, but there’s no reason to suspect that the Ram won’t be able to match the Tundra’s combination of a 4-star NHTSA frontal crash test rating and the Tundra’s status as an IIHS “2008 Top Safety Pick”.

WInner: Tie – and ties always go to the older design. The Tundra’s combination of solid crash test results and accident avoidance equipment set the standard.

PRICING:

Comparing two common builds – an SLT Quad Cab 4×4 HEMI with an SR5 Doublecab 4×4 5.7, the Tundra is about $1000 less expensive MSRP to MSRP ($33,265 v. $32,209). However, as of this month (November 2008), the Tundra’s 0% interest rate clobbers the Dodge’s paltry $1750 in incentives.

Just as importantly, Edmunds.com found the 2008 Tundra to have the highest residual/resale value of any half-ton truck. Dodge’s gimmicky “lifetime” powertrain warranty (with more fine print than a credit card agreement) has done little to boost resale values and should be considered a minor advantage.

Winner: The Tundra, by about $5k when you factor in a lower up-front price, zero-percent financing, and a higher resale value. The cost benefits of the Tundra are pronounced (to say the least).

The third and final part of our comparison – 2008 Tundra vs 2009 Dodge Ram Part Three – Ride, Handling, and Comfort is due out next week. Check back Monday!

Have you read our Toyota Tundra towing guide?