New Truck for Hawk: F-150 or Tundra?

[yovik]

Howdy Wanderers,

I'm looking for folks who have real world experience (good and bad) with an F-150 or a Tundra (or both!)

I'm looking for a used truck, in the 2014-2018 range, and have narrowed it down to one of these two vehicles. ( I think)

Our Hawk is currently on a 2008 F150, with the 5.4, and it has almost 190k miles (pictured). The allowable cargo on the current truck is~1700 pounds. I have only added Firestone airbags to the rear end, and they've been great so far. Our current F150 gets 10-12 mpg.

Summed up simply: I'd like a well-priced newer truck that gets better mileage and has a touch more cargo allowance than the current 150.

What do folks think? Any constructive criticism of either of these trucks? Should I consider a GM or....a Dodge or...a...Nissan? [emoji12]

 

[Foy]

At the beginning of June 2018 I purchased a 2015 F150 SuperCrew shortbed 4WD in XLT trim with the 2.7 liter engine which I somewhat derisively referred to as the sewing machine motor. It's the aluminum body model (first year?). Thinking I was just replacing my thoroughly worn out '01 Mazda daily driver with a 4-door truck in which I could safely transport both of my grandchildren and take over lighter-duty gear hauling to and from some family vacation homes, I kept the venerable F350 diesel 4WD.

So fast forward nearly 7 months and the old diesel stands forlorn in the driveway, having had < 1,000 miles of use since June. The 150 has served all of my daily driver needs, scoring 17-19 mpg city driving. On a goodly number of flat Coastal Plain trips to the beach, she's scoring 20-22 mpg with a bed full of tools, power equipment, and odds and ends, running 75-78 mph with the A/C cranked up. I've towed our 2,400 lb popup camper to the Blue Ridge and to Piedmont reservoirs and our 6 x 12' utility trailer fully loaded at 3,000 lbs to both the beach and the Blue Ridge, notching 14.5 to 16 mpg towing.

I am consistently amazed by the acceleration and torque produced by the 2.7 twin turbo sewing machine motor. The 6-speed transmission likely has a lot to do with how well it moves out from a standing start to cruising speed in that it's electronic shift programming keeps the revs in a good range along the torque curve. It holds 6th gear easily when towing on flat ground and toggles effortlessly between 5th and 6th when towing. When you need to nail the throttle on an onramp or to pass on a two-lane, it's a rocket ship.

I don't know the payload specs on mine as I had no inkling of using it as a substitute for the diesel when I bought it. With the tiny lightweight engine and all aluminum body (including the tiny 5.5' short bed), the payload is probably not far off of the payload for the diesel. While shopping I decided on the aluminum body model and the 2.7 so I never drove or looked closely at any 3.5 twin turbo V6s or any 5.0 V8s, nor did I consider the 6.5' bed models (and I don't know if they come with the 2.7).

From what I've browsed through on the F150 Forum, there are some 2016 models built in 2016 which have some sort of internal lubrication problems caused by assembly flaws which have developed quickly and at fairly low miles elapsed, like down in the teens to 20-30,000 miles. The engines start consuming motor oil at such a rate they they seize up before (inattentive, in my opinion) owners notice low pressure idiot light gauge readings or, gasp, check the dang dipstick. But the build date range on those engines is pretty well bracketed and one should be able to avoid ending up with one.

So, here's one testimonial to the virtues of a 2015 F150 powered by the high-tech sewing machine motor. I'm very happy with mine.

Foy

 

[Stray Dog]

I replaced a 2001 f-250 diesel with a 2017 f-150 lariat a year ago. the f-150 is a naturally aspirated v8, 6 1/2 foot bed, crew cab. I added air bags to it and torklift mounts.

the payload is 1900 pounds. the old diesel was 2000. The aluminum makes a huge difference. Ford sez something like 600 pounds lighter than conventional.

My camper is 1300 pounds. Truck carries it very well loaded as it typically is with 2 people and gear.
mileage is 17 to 19 mpg at high elevation. The diesel typically got 13 with the camper. I've done substantially better than that with it unloaded. Power is excellent even in the mountains of Colorado. A previous f-150 I had with a 5.4 v8 didn't do nearly as well at elevation.

I intentionally avoided the two available eco-boosts. I drove them both and the power is really impressive. Reports on them are good and people really like them. I chose not to go that route because I have known several turbo owners forced into major turbo maintenance/repair costs. I understand modern high revving engines but I'm old enough that I'll stick with older technology.

We love the new f-150 and are very happy with the replacement.

I don't have any Tundra experience to compare to... good luck with your decision.

 

[iowahiker]

We have 111,000 miles on our 2013 Ford F-150 5.0 liter V-8 all with the camper on full time. We average 15.6 mpg by the tank fills with the camper, lower 15 mpg's at low altitude and humid, over 16 mpg at high altitude and dry air. We would buy another F-150. The years you are interested in purchasing would be available with the same engine and transmission as ours.

Still on the original brakes, dealer checks them every oil change.

Toyota Tundra will get 1 mpg less because the engine is larger for the same driver and driving conditions.

 

[yovik]

At the beginning of June 2018 I purchased a 2015 F150 SuperCrew shortbed 4WD in XLT trim with the 2.7 liter engine which I somewhat derisively referred to as the sewing machine motor. It's the aluminum body model (first year?). Thinking I was just replacing my thoroughly worn out '01 Mazda daily driver with a 4-door truck in which I could safely transport both of my grandchildren and take over lighter-duty gear hauling to and from some family vacation homes, I kept the venerable F350 diesel 4WD.

So fast forward nearly 7 months and the old diesel stands forlorn in the driveway, having had < 1,000 miles of use since June. The 150 has served all of my daily driver needs, scoring 17-19 mpg city driving. On a goodly number of flat Coastal Plain trips to the beach, she's scoring 20-22 mpg with a bed full of tools, power equipment, and odds and ends, running 75-78 mph with the A/C cranked up. I've towed our 2,400 lb popup camper to the Blue Ridge and to Piedmont reservoirs and our 6 x 12' utility trailer fully loaded at 3,000 lbs to both the beach and the Blue Ridge, notching 14.5 to 16 mpg towing.

I am consistently amazed by the acceleration and torque produced by the 2.7 twin turbo sewing machine motor. The 6-speed transmission likely has a lot to do with how well it moves out from a standing start to cruising speed in that it's electronic shift programming keeps the revs in a good range along the torque curve. It holds 6th gear easily when towing on flat ground and toggles effortlessly between 5th and 6th when towing. When you need to nail the throttle on an onramp or to pass on a two-lane, it's a rocket ship.

I don't know the payload specs on mine as I had no inkling of using it as a substitute for the diesel when I bought it. With the tiny lightweight engine and all aluminum body (including the tiny 5.5' short bed), the payload is probably not far off of the payload for the diesel. While shopping I decided on the aluminum body model and the 2.7 so I never drove or looked closely at any 3.5 twin turbo V6s or any 5.0 V8s, nor did I consider the 6.5' bed models (and I don't know if they come with the 2.7).

From what I've browsed through on the F150 Forum, there are some 2016 models built in 2016 which have some sort of internal lubrication problems caused by assembly flaws which have developed quickly and at fairly low miles elapsed, like down in the teens to 20-30,000 miles. The engines start consuming motor oil at such a rate they they seize up before (inattentive, in my opinion) owners notice low pressure idiot light gauge readings or, gasp, check the dang dipstick. But the build date range on those engines is pretty well bracketed and one should be able to avoid ending up with one.

So, here's one testimonial to the virtues of a 2015 F150 powered by the high-tech sewing machine motor. I'm very happy with mine.

Foy

Thanks a ton!

 

[yovik]

I replaced a 2001 f-250 diesel with a 2017 f-150 lariat a year ago. the f-150 is a naturally aspirated v8, 6 1/2 foot bed, crew cab. I added air bags to it and torklift mounts.

the payload is 1900 pounds. the old diesel was 2000. The aluminum makes a huge difference. Ford sez something like 600 pounds lighter than conventional.

My camper is 1300 pounds. Truck carries it very well loaded as it typically is with 2 people and gear.
mileage is 17 to 19 mpg at high elevation. The diesel typically got 13 with the camper. I've done substantially better than that with it unloaded. Power is excellent even in the mountains of Colorado. A previous f-150 I had with a 5.4 v8 didn't do nearly as well at elevation.

I intentionally avoided the two available eco-boosts. I drove them both and the power is really impressive. Reports on them are good and people really like them. I chose not to go that route because I have known several turbo owners forced into major turbo maintenance/repair costs. I understand modern high revving engines but I'm old enough that I'll stick with older technology.

We love the new f-150 and are very happy with the replacement.

I don't have any Tundra experience to compare to... good luck with your decision.

Thanks for your thoughts! I too wonder about the maintenance of a twin turbo system. Your v8 mileage is impressive, and maybe the v8 should be in the running.

 

[yovik]

We have 111,000 miles on our 2013 Ford F-150 5.0 liter V-8 all with the camper on full time. We average 15.6 mpg by the tank fills with the camper, lower 15 mpg's at low altitude and humid, over 16 mpg at high altitude and dry air. We would buy another F-150. The years you are interested in purchasing would be available with the same engine and transmission as ours.

Still on the original brakes, dealer checks them every oil change.

Toyota Tundra will get 1 mpg less because the engine is larger for the same driver and driving conditions.

Thanks for the input! V8, here we go!

 

[fireball]

I have a 2012 Tundra, 5.7L V8. I've only ever had the camper mounted to it for a limited time, but was seeing ~12mpg in mixed driving.

The F150 will get you much better mileage. I am a huge Toyota fanboy and love the Tundra, however from your original post stating that mileage was a big concern I think the clear nod goes to the Ford.

 

[jrwdlw]

Thanks for the input! V8, here we go!

I had a 2013 F-150 super crew with the 5.0 V8. I could get 18-19 unloaded, going easy on the pedal. Pulling a 2700 lb tent trailer it was about 15.5 mpg. Loved the truck, but the payload is inadequate for a FWC of any size.

 

[jrwdlw]

I have a 2012 Tundra, 5.7L V8. I've only ever had the camper mounted to it for a limited time, but was seeing ~12mpg in mixed driving.

The F150 will get you much better mileage. I am a huge Toyota fanboy and love the Tundra, however from your original post stating that mileage was a big concern I think the clear nod goes to the Ford.

I would agree with Fireball. I have no personal experience, but a couple of friends and relatives all said the mileage is pretty poor with a Tundra.

 

[yovik]

I had a 2013 F-150 super crew with the 5.0 V8. I could get 18-19 unloaded, going easy on the pedal. Pulling a 2700 lb tent trailer it was about 15.5 mpg. Loved the truck, but the payload is inadequate for a FWC of any size.

Do you know the allowable cargo for your 2013? I'm seeing newer number near or over 2000 pounds, which seems adequate.

 

[yovik]

I have a 2012 Tundra, 5.7L V8. I've only ever had the camper mounted to it for a limited time, but was seeing ~12mpg in mixed driving.

The F150 will get you much better mileage. I am a huge Toyota fanboy and love the Tundra, however from your original post stating that mileage was a big concern I think the clear nod goes to the Ford.

Thanks for the perspective. Most of my buddies drive Tundras or Tacomas (each model with popup campers), and I used to be a Nissan (Datsun!) loyalist. The shift to F150 makes me a black sheep in some circles, that's for sure.

 

[JHanson]

As the owner of a 2012 Tacoma, a 1973 Land Cruiser FJ40, and a 1993 Land Cruiser Troopy, I say buy the Ford. All my Toyotas (many besides these) have been superbly reliable, but I think the F150 is a superior design to the Tundra, starting with the Ford's fully boxed chassis compared with the inferior open-channel rear frame on the Tundra.

 

[yovik]

As the owner of a 2012 Tacoma, a 1973 Land Cruiser FJ40, and a 1993 Land Cruiser Troopy, I say buy the Ford. All my Toyotas (many besides these) have been superbly reliable, but I think the F150 is a superior design to the Tundra, starting with the Ford's fully boxed chassis compared with the inferior open-channel rear frame on the Tundra.

Thanks for the input!

 

[Danneskjold]

To echo what everyone else said...get the F150.

I just sold my 2017 Tacoma with 52,000 miles and bought a new 2018 Ford XL Regular Cab 8 Foot Bed and 4x4 with the 3.3 motor for $26k.

On the drive down to pick up my Grandby I was getting 23-24mpg, and I’m getting 17-18 now with the camper on it (better than an unloaded Tundra!) and I couldn’t be happier.

I would have loved to get another Toyota but the Tundra is such a turd it doesn’t make any sense. More expensive than an F150, less payload, older, substantially worse MPG, less customization from factory, etc.

 

[yovik]

To echo what everyone else said...get the F150.

I just sold my 2017 Tacoma with 52,000 miles and bought a new 2018 Ford XL Regular Cab 8 Foot Bed and 4x4 with the 3.3 motor for $26k.

On the drive down to pick up my Grandby I was getting 23-24mpg, and I’m getting 17-18 now with the camper on it (better than an unloaded Tundra!) and I couldn’t be happier.

I would have loved to get another Toyota but the Tundra is such a turd it doesn’t make any sense. More expensive than an F150, less payload, older, substantially worse MPG, less customization from factory, etc.

Thanks for sharing your perspective!

 

[windy]

FWIW I recently purchased a mint, low miles 06 Tundra after test driving a new one. My son just purchased a new f150 ccsb with 5.0.
And he is very happy with it.

I really like the size of the older Tundra and felt that it drove much better than a new one. My son’s f150 gets better mileage than my 06 4.7 V8 but in end I didn’t want to spend $30K+ and reliability were my priorities.

 

[jrwdlw]

Do you know the allowable cargo for your 2013? I'm seeing newer number near or over 2000 pounds, which seems adequate.

That would make sense, because mine was a steel body.

The total capacity according to the Body Builders guide is1700 lbs. The footnotes for that number say, "Load rating represents maximum allowable weight of people, cargo and body equipment and is reduced by optional equipment weight." Add two people and you're down to 1400. My truck had optional equipment, so subtract another 100 to 150, and you're at 1350. Do you want to tow something behind? Subtract the tongue weight. The 1700 can't all be on the rear axle either. The manual says rear GAWR is 3850, and base rear axle weight is 2409. Only 1441 can be carried on the rear, assuming no options. Also, as far as overloading the rear, you need to be aware that the rims are rated for only 2025 pounds each. So, if you put 1641 pounds on the rear, the axle and rims are maxed out. Basically, I decided it was totally inadequate for what I need, although a very nice truck.

 

[yovik]

That would make sense, because mine was a steel body.

The total capacity according to the Body Builders guide is1700 lbs. The footnotes for that number say, "Load rating represents maximum allowable weight of people, cargo and body equipment and is reduced by optional equipment weight." Add two people and you're down to 1400. My truck had optional equipment, so subtract another 100 to 150, and you're at 1350. Do you want to tow something behind? Subtract the tongue weight. The 1700 can't all be on the rear axle either. The manual says rear GAWR is 3850, and base rear axle weight is 2409. Only 1441 can be carried on the rear, assuming no options. Also, as far as overloading the rear, you need to be aware that the rims are rated for only 2025 pounds each. So, if you put 1641 pounds on the rear, the axle and rims are maxed out. Basically, I decided it was totally inadequate for what I need, although a very nice truck.

Thanks for this detail.

 

[Beach]

I would try to find an F150 with the payload package option.