2002 Toyota Tundra Sr5 from North America - Comments

Four-wheel drive differential went out, and was immediately replaced by Toyota.

Hit a deer doing 70 and airbags didn't go off. (explain that one)

Runs perfect with no problems.

Premium sound is perfect.

Lots of power and a lot of show and go.

Good, gas mileage and great performance.

These Toyota yuppies, as usual can't even name one part of their mighty Tundra that is better than the domestic. All they can say is that it's Quality because everyone else says it. Well, here's a comment I wrote for some other "know-all, know nothin'" from the 2004 Silverado section who wouldn't even know how to change the oil in a truck let alone how one is assembled. I figured if that yuppie needed it, this one in these comments could use this wake up call, too.

--------------------------------

(For the comment about the Tundra being infinitely better than an F150)

Leave it to a Yuppie to try and make an argument about a truck's structure when he knows nothing about how a truck works.

Tell me. Is the Tundra's little, thin frame superior to the F150's thick, fully boxed frame?

Is the Tundra's three or four thin cross-members superior to the F150's large and bulky cross-members which are welded through the sides of the frame rail? (This ensures that there is very little frame twist and flex. These trucks are solid over bumps.)

Is the Tundra's three 2.5" leaf springs superior to the F150's 3.0" wide leaf springs which can come between 3 or more amounts of springs per assembly?

Is the Tundra's skinny little front control arms superior to the F150's bulky, re-enforced control arms?

Is the Tundra's axle shafts (which are about the size of an average thumb) superior to the F150's axle shafts (which are about the size of an average wrist)?

Is the Tundra's "silky smoooooooth" engine with its aluminum components superior to the F150's cast iron engines?

Oh, but of course the Tundra rides smooooooooth. Whooooopee!

Oh, but of course the interior is soooooo pretty and luxerious. Whooooopee!

Yeah, that's what hard workers like Farmer's, construction workers, and contractors are all looking for when shopping for a truck: a smooth ride and a comfortable interior. Heaven knows they're not all looking for a heavy metal machine that can handle lots of abuse. Who needs that?

Now is the Tundra infinitely better? It sure isn't when people actually try to do work with them.

Is the Tundra superior when the bed is sitting on the axles due to just a few boards laying in the back?

I live in a farming community, and I never see a Tundra on a farm. There was one freak exception where I saw a Tundra pulling a wagon, with round bails of hay stacked on it, on the highway. Of course the old domestics could do that every single day and never need maintenance; but I'm not sure how long the smoooooooooooooooth Tundra could do that before its thin metal finally gives.

I drive an F150 for a living. It is a full sized truck with the eight foot bed and only a 4.2L V6. I drive this vehicle hard five days a week and it rarely gives me trouble. It currently has 255,000 miles and counting. It puts in 200 miles a day, 1000 miles a week and never fails to start.

How many Tundra's have made it to that many miles? I'm sure there are some out there, but many of them haven't been around long enough to have put the miles in. Either ways, that doesn't take away from the fact that there are multitudes of domestics with miles and miles on them. So the stereotypes are not fair.

------------------------------------------

I am sick and tired of you little import worshippers always bashing the honest worker who actually knows what work it. This idiotic and misleading hype is costing me money as my job involves domestic vehicles. Everyone falls for this baloney and then they just yap all day about how their overpriced plastic truck is so tough when they couldn't even walk away from a wreck if it wasn't loaded down with air bags.

Talk is cheap and useless. Take your hype-driven Tundra, park it next to a RAM, F-150, or Silverado; get out of the truck, get on your knees, and look at what is under the Tundra and what is holding it together and compare it to that of a domestic's structure. There's not even half the metal. I've seen Tundra's in body shops being worked on, I've seen 4-Runners in the same places being worked on. The frames are smaller than the rails used to hold my bed mattress.

I drive an F-150 for a living and I own a 78' C20. I've seen their suspension components and their frame rails. There's atleast double if not triple the metal. The Ford frame is not as broadly stretched as the C20's, but it is fully boxed. The C20 has thicker metal and is broader, but isn't fully boxed. They each have their strenghs, but one thing is certain, they both have much more metal than a Tundra.

Here's a lesson for you clueless city-slickers, the frame is the spine of the vehicle and the suspension is the foundation. If you do not have a solid frame or suspension, then everything else is useless. What difference does it make how reliable your engine is when the frame would break in half with any real load on top of it? What's difference does your shiny dash and many cup-holders make if any medium sized load makes your bed sit on the axles?

Japan does not understand what real, farm or construction work is, and since you pampered yuppies also don't know what real work is, you all make a nice team.

As for the rest of us who may need a real tank-of-a-machine at some point in time, we will stick to our domestics because they have been re-enforcing them this way for decades. These are tried and true body configurations. If they weren't, why would Toyota and Nissan copy the design.

The Tundra is similar in setup, they just shave off any metal they can get away with, and yet charge you more to buy it. It's not my fault if you fall for it, but it still hurts me because our legendary American companies are being taken over by this joke that wouldn't stand a chance if put to any test.

As I have said in another comment, the day of the farmer is over and the invasion of the yuppies is upon us. Do you know why the Chevy c/k series trucks were so popular in the past? Because there were lots of farmers in the past who could do lots of work with them and not have any trouble out of them. Behold, thousands of these old trucks are still on the road, even after all of those years of work.

If there were near as many hard workers in this country today, the Tundra wouldn't stand a chance. No one would even give it the time of day. It just won't cut it when it comes to hard work. There just simply isn't enough metal to withstand the abuse.

My father used my C20 to haul 4000lbs of tobacco years ago. That's not in a trailer, that's on the bed. It didn't even squat to the axles with two tons of payload, and it's a 3/4 ton truck. Can your Tundra do that? Try it and see how long it takes before the cute little frame rails break in half and the leaf springs snap.

How many of you use your Tundra to plow snow? Hardly any, if any? Why? Because the tiny little front control arms would bow out if they had to endure the weight of a 500 to 1000lb snow blade. The little fluffy things are just made big enough to withstand the weight of the partly-aluminum engine and whatever else comes on the thing from the factory.

The stock suspension on the front of my C20 is so heavy it would take two people to pull the whole assembly out. The control arms are ridiculously bulky and made of very heavy steel. The coils are huge and heavy-duty and the metal mount that holds the whole assembly together is just simply HUGE! It looks like its got as much metal as the 5.7l 350 in it.

Now, what little emotionally-driven slander are you import yuppies going to launch at me now? Are you going to just call me a "big, mean, stinky-face?" Now that you have nothing to argue? I defy anyone to point out to me what chunk of metal on their Tundra is heavier duty and larger in comparison to any of the big three's equivalent. I don't want to hear the "spin" about quality. Quality is a word that, now days, is thrown all over the place and stomped into the ground. It has lost its meaning.

Maybe that's why Tundra's last for so long, besides the fact that no one would ever do any abusive work with one. The vehicle is so light and "un"-re-enforced that the engine has no real work cut out for it, so it never breaks down. Maybe that's why there are supposedly so many domestics sitting on the side of the road. They were abused and abused and abused until finally one day, - oh my gosh - something broke on them. Well, at least the parts will be cheaper to afford.

If the Tundra, being built as it is, was introduced as a full size truck in the 60's or 70's, it would have gone no where. Maybe a hippie would buy one because - you know - they don't work, therefore the truck wouldn't either. But all of the farmers from back then either A: wouldn't give it the time of day or B: would be very disappointed at how fast it broke when it was being used to haul something.

If you're going to blast the domestics, you better do your homework, first. There is physically nothing to back your rantings, just hype-driven "spin". I am sick of it. So name a part of the Tundra that is built stronger. Not smoother or prettier, but STRONGER!

I know:

The axle shafts and axle housings aren't stronger.

The leaf springs aren't stronger.

The control arms and coils aren't stronger.

The frame rails and cross-members aren't stronger.

The sheet metal isn't even stronger, especially the bed - there's only one layer of metal to the bedsides. There's not even an inner wall. How would a heavy load of rocks or wood keep from busting the sides out?

I would imagine that the leaf spring brackets and shackles aren't stronger.

The drive shaft isn't stronger.

The bumpers are not stronger.

The hitches are not stronger.

So where's all of this quality you people keep blow-harding about? It certainly isn't in the metal. Maybe, it's in the seat covers. Okay, you all can have that one.

I guess if any of you don't like this, you can always request a deletion of this comment-as this wouldn't be the first time someone tried to delete one of my informative comments. I guess they are the ones that just can't handle it. Anyone mad? Good. Now you know how I feel when I see one of my companies being unfairly bashed.

(This is the writer of 19:26) Thank you for proving my point. You say it better than I can. Are you listening boys and girls? The Tundra wasn't made for actually hauling a half ton of payload. It was made for light duty stuff.

That's what I've been trying to say all along. That's why no one should be bragging about their Tundra. Your engine is superior to Chevy and Ford because it is never put through any abuse, so it will last longer. Not to mention the fact that the Tundra weighs roughly 400lbs less than any of the bottom of the barrel domestic equivalents (more proof of the lack of metal).

Also, where exactly was I wrong about the side-by-side comparison? You couldn't name one part. As I said before, I defy you to name one part of the Tundra that is better re-enforced or a heavier duty part when compared to a domestic. What part of the Chevy engine or Ford engine is inferior to the Tundra engine?

Is it the rockers? The pistons? The piston sleeves? The cam shaft? The valves? The oil pump? The block? The valve covers? The cam lobes? The crank-shaft? Do you even know what half of these parts are? Are you sure you even know how an engine works?

I am not comparing it to an F-250 or RAM 2500. I am talking about the F-150, the Silverado 1500, and the RAM 1500.

I see quite a few of those class of trucks moving now plows.

As for Chevy making things that are worthless, I could take my 29 year old "worthless" Chevy and fold your Tundra into an accordion. Why? A little magical substance called steel. How much would your quality truck be worth then? There would be chunks of quality all over the place.

You have proven my point to all of the other readers. I would imagine you never even look under your truck. I've spent a lot of time on my Chevy trying to restore it to a newer condition, it is three decades old and has had a long life of abuse and neglect. Yet the "low quality" engine still fires right up. I've seen just about every bolt and piece of this truck. I know its structure quite thoroughly. I know what it takes to be a heavy-duty work machine. The Tundra hasn't got a clue.

Call me foolish all you want, the metal is what it is. The skinny-ness of your Tundra is what it is regardless of what words you speak about it. Curse my truck and its 100 year old maker. I've seen what it's been put through over the years and yet it still sits in my driveway and is used weekly. It has nothing left to prove.

Tell me, where will your Tundra be in thirty years. I doubt it will be in any driveway, unless a dog is living in it.

Uh-ho! Are you going to boast about a lot of highway miles, now? Well, five days a week I watch the trip odometer on my F-150 count up to 200+ miles on my round trip delivering parts to body shops. The odometer is at 256,000 miles and counting. This little V-6 has been abused and driven to death having to move a 5000lb chassis and whatever parts are in the back. Yet I can still burn the back tires off of it (if I want), and it fires up for me time after time.

I don't care if you like your Tundra. To each his own. But every time I see a Tundra owner (without being provoked) start bashing a domestic in their review or in their comment, I will be there with my two cents. I know what I'm talking about. I've seen these domestic trucks getting treated mercilessly and keep right on going.

So even though the Tundra is made of skinny parts, the workers at the plant do a good job putting the skinny parts together? Well good for them. Maybe they do. What good is it when the parts themselves are poorly made and re-enforced? They can build them as well as they want. The best assembled Tundra on Earth is still going to be made of skinny and flimsy parts. So I take that form of quality as a grain of sand.

If your Tundra makes you happy and serves your purpose, good for you. You shouldn't have had to pay so much for it and you should be getting a better MPG out of your "superior" engine since the chassis is lighter. But please understand, the domestics were made to endure a harder life, so they don't need to be bashed. If you don't like them, then don't buy one. That's what I will be doing to the foreign trucks. Just quit insulting peoples' work machines.

I think we all agree light usage buy the Toyota... bring home a bag of mulch and couple pieces of drywall. Durability and no compromises or pampering buy a GM, Ford or Chrysler full size truck and immediately do everything a truck is ever designed for in one trip. Why buy a truck to start with if you have a moments hesitation to use it? I cannot see the point in a part of the time truck... You can do the exact same with any sedan whether import or domestic buy a set of plain roof racks and a have the trunk and a piece of rope to tie it down with that theory. You will be frugal, save insurance and have a light payload.

(Writer of comment 19:26) "What flimsy parts?" You mean the little skinny frame rails that aren't even half of Dodge or Chevy, and not even 1/3 in size to the F150?

Those are the flimsy parts I am talking about. You know why your Tundra can off road so well? It's light and has a spongy suspension. So with no load in the back it can flutter like a little butterfly across bumps. There's no weight or stiffness so there's no impact.

Try putting 1000lbs or 1500lbs of weight in the back and go flying across those bumps and see how long it takes before the frame starts twisting and flexing because of the scrawny cross members. The skeleton is simply smaller. That's it. Ford has a fully boxed frame rail, the Tundra flat out doesn't. Look underneath the thing, it's not fully boxed.

The C20 has thicker metal in the frame than many trucks do today. (Of course the Ford Super-duty series or any diesel truck has it beat. I've seen F series trucks with half-inch thick frame rails.) It wouldn't fall apart across bumpy terrain because it is heavy duty. That's why it is a C20 and not a C10. Everything is extra re-enforced for abuse.

I also know this because I and my father have taken this truck across fields with loads in the back and the truck just bounces along. It actually rides better with a load because the extra weight dampens the nine leaf springs over each back wheel. I once accidentally dropped the thing off of an embankment that I couldn't see in a field because of tall grass. The sudden drop just about threw me against the ceiling, but the truck was not affected.

What a pathetic argument to say that your tailgate still closes smoothly. Whoopeeeee. It's a tailgate. If you ever stacked a 2000 pound pile of maple wood in the back of your Tundra or sat two round bails of hay in the bed, your tailgate would be shaped like a "V". Not just that, but my F-150's (with 256,000 miles) tailgate shuts good, too. (As if that really matters. You really got me there.)

Oh yeah? Well my bumper is still pretty on my truck after 100,000 miles, so clearly that proves that it is superior. LOL!

Once again, no one is able to name a part of the Tundra that is larger or bulkier or able to do more work than any of the domestics. All you say is, "my tailgate still closes" and "my four-wheel drive still engages smooooooooothly." Even better, you just say, "nuh-huh! You're wrong. It's not flimsy. Really it isn't."

How many times can I say this. On my job, I go to body shops and I see Tundra's sitting on lifts being repaired from a wreck. I've gotten a good look at the frame. I've also seen Fords and Chevy sitting on lifts being repaired from wrecks, too. The quantity of metal underneath is dramatically different. To argue this without looking for yourself is ridiculous. Just saying, "nuh-huh" will not make your frame bigger.

Not only that, but you say, "My Tundra will be around forever. Longer than your Chevy."

Did Ms. Cleo tell you that? Because the last time I checked, the oldest Tundra is only eight years old. My C20 has a 29th birthday coming up this summer. So I don't have to predict the future, because the future is already here for this truck.

All you can say is, "my Tundra WILL last blah, blah, blah." You don't know that. Until it's 29th or 30th birthday comes in the year 2028, 2029, or later, you can't tell me diddly.

All of you say that the Tundra has already proven the test of time over Chevy and Ford. Chevy and Ford (and Dodge) have all proven that they are indeed capable of making a product that will last for decades. That's why I drive one that is older than I, and that's why I pass dozens of them on the road.

There's not even a decade old Tundra on this planet, yet. (Except maybe the concept model) How can you say that when time has not elapsed long enough to fully verify that? Don't get me wrong. I'm sure many of them will be around for years to come - as long as they are driven like a car or just driven through mud and not used to haul or pull anything extreme.

There's not even a 4.7L V8 Toyota engine that's made it to that age and still fires. Didn't they just come out with that engine a few year ago? There are Chevy 350's and 305's all over the place from the 60's, 70's, 80's, and of course the 90's and today. There are Ford 5.0L I-6's, 5.4L V-8's, and 4.6L V-8's that have been around longer than 10 years still on the road. If you're going to say that your Tundra will last a long time, please wait until that date arrives before you say it.

That's why I don't have to say my C20 WILL last a long time. It already has lasted a long time. It is a fact now, not just some hopeful fantasy in my head. The thing is older than the hills and I just drove it home from work today. There's no opinion to that. It's simply THAT old and still runs. (That is why there is a sticker on the air filter box that says Manufactured 1978.)

The most major engine problems that thing has ever had has either been due to a clogged fuel filter, a failing fuel pump, or bad spark plugs. The transmission has NEVER had a single problem. It has proven itself. It has reached the finish line and has nothing left to prove. It, indeed, has stood the test of time.

I never said that a Toyota engine wouldn't keep on running. I have an Accord, and it has a good engine in it. But I'm not going to start bashing the Impala or some domestic car and say they're all junk because my Accord is good.

---"My vehicle is the best because I say so. Since I drive one, it is automatically superior."---Whatever.

That's what causes all of this bickering and why I get so motivated to write all of these comments. I know that there are Chevy cars out there with 200,000 and 300,000 miles on them. I've seen them and have known other people who have driven them and are still driving them. I also know that there a foreign cars out there with the same miles.

Just because a domestic lasts a long time, doesn't mean a foreign vehicle won't and vise versa. You can simply report how pleased you are with your Tundra without running down other peoples' trucks.

You Tundra lovers started this. If you are going to bash my choice of companies for no reason, than I'm going to give you a whole list of reason as to why the Tundra isn't as good of a truck as the others. I have listed those reasons from my own account of seeing these components with my own eyes. Not just some "Nuh-huh" opinionated rant.

Toyota's do make good off roading vehicles. Why? Mainly because the light weight allows it to sit on the mud or whatever you're crossing without sinking in and getting stuck. Of course it might go better than an 8000lb F250. The F250 would just sink because of its horrendous weight. To buy a truck for off-roading is just for simple fun. That's not for utility.

My C20 is a two-wheel drive only. It doesn't need the front wheels to be engaged because no one is going to pull a wagon with tobacco through a swamp. Why pay the extra money when you are buying the truck for work. It goes right over what it needs to go over. That's nothing to criticize because every truck made has a simpler level 4x2 system for a basic work machine. Who needs the bells and whistles?

Save some money. That 1,000 dollars has served my father and paid for itself many times with this truck - as opposed to paying 30,000 dollars for one that's not even used for work, nor can it be.

There are C20's with the 4x4 drive-train. No they wouldn't shift too smoothly into four wheel drive because in 1978, any four wheel drive had an extra gear shift on the floor that engaged the front wheels and even changed the gearing range.

No company had come up with the convenience of pushing a button or switch for 4x4 at that time, not even Toyota. That's like bragging because your truck has air bags and mine doesn't. No vehicle had that technology in 1978. (Of course with these recent Toyota recalls, I doubt your air bags would do you much good seeing as how they're known to not deploy in a wreck. Good luck there.)

If you want some extra proof for the frame rail issue. Go to Toyota. com and watch the slow motion video clip of a Tundra in a crash-test hitting a wall at only 40 mph. The whole front end (bumper, frame, suspension, engine, and all) crumples flat against the firewall and the wheels just fall off. At 40 MPH? Come on. No truck should fold inward that easily. I could understand the frame being warped a little, but to just crumple like a pop can. Good grief.

Oh, but of course, it gets a five star crash-test rating. Yeah, the whole truck folds into a cocoon around you at 40 mph. A unibody car should do that, but a pickup truck should simply not do that, that easily. No one with serious work needs is going to want something that squashes like that. Heaven forbid you have to push anything.

I've been to junkyards to pick up wheels or other salvage parts and I've seen F-150's and old Chevy's that were probably in head-on collisions. Even though the fenders, hood, and everything else on the front was destroyed, the bumper and frame still sticks out at the front end. Even if the bumper was gashed in half, it still wasn't flat against the firewall. The frame still looked like it was there. No real frame made very rugged and heavy duty is going to fold like that.

That's why the new F-150 has such great crash-test ratings. The fully boxed frame (having four walls, not three) just won't give in under impact very easily.

You all can drive your Tundra if you like. I really don't care, but I'm going to take the safer route and stick with something that won't fold into a giant ball around me if I wreck. Good luck. Be sure to keep a hack-saw with you so you can get out. (Yes I've heard about breaking points in newer Chevy frames that don't hold up very well in wrecks either. I don't really like that, and I hope they have improved that.)

Either ways, you can say whatever you want. The Tundra is still made lighter and is not a superior truck because it can't pull or haul as much as the domestics, or as much as the Titan for that matter. (Maybe with the new Tundra coming out, those numbers will change a little. Now you'll have to pay EVEN MORE for a foreign truck that just now manages to really compete with the others.)

If all else fails, you can just click your ruby slippers together and say, "There's no truck like a Tundra. There's no truck like a Tundra." and maybe the steel fairy will bless it with more steel.

(I am the writer of 19:26) The reason I keep bringing up the OLD vehicles is simply that. They're old. These people who have new Tundra's have already reached the conclusion that their trucks are, beyond a shadow of a doubt, going to last a very long time and have already surpassed the long life of these old domestics.

They might just do that, some here or there, but no one can prove that. They say that because they like their truck so deeply that all competition to it is inferior. That is kind of strange. I could hate my C20 and never want to touch another, but it is still old and on the road. It has been around to prove that the old design done by Chevrolet was indeed capable of holding up for all of these years.

The Tundra, whether it is capable or not, has not finished the test. It is still young. When the year 2028 comes, if they still are driving their Tundra, then they can put in a review saying how it has held up so long. Until a Tundra reaches that age, it is not able to be proven that it will indeed last longer.

Also by presenting all of the old domestics on the road, I demonstrate the simple point that these truck companies have the potential to make trucks that will hold up. If their new designs are not as good for whatever reason, how hard would it be for them to just go back into their archives and revive one of those old tried and true structures? Chrysler did it with the Charger. Ford did it with the Mustang. Chevrolet will be doing it with the Camaro/future Impala.

If their modern day quality has slipped that bad, then shame on them for letting their guard down. They've been doing this longer than the Japanese, so the tides can turn anytime they really want them to. I hope that these troubled times for GM and Ford teach them to keep on their toes and to not let their guard down for a second. Also, they shouldn't rely on their SUV's to carry their profit so much.

Either ways, Chevy, Ford, and Dodge have been putting ample amounts of metal in their frames for almost half a century now, and as far as I can tell, they are putting more now than ever. Especially with the new F-150 having a tall, boxed frame rail and the cross-members protruding through the sides of the frame and welded solidly into place. If I'm not mistaken, Dodge may have gone to using fully boxed frames on their designs, too. (Don't hold me to that, I'm not 100% sure.)

The reason I make remarks about the owners of Tundra's not knowing anything about their trucks is the simple fact that they cannot just open their eyes and see that the components that make up their truck is simply not physically the same size in proportion or weight to that of a domestic. Yet, the Tundra and its owners try to act like it can just stomp holes through the domestic when the metal just simply isn't there.

I can pass an F-150 or Silverado on the road and by noticing under the front of the vehicle, I can see how thick the front control arms are on these trucks. Then I can pass a Tundra and easily see that the control arms are clearly thinner and smaller. If I really want good detail, I can just squat down and look under them in a parking lot (as I have done) and the same applies. I've got eyes and I can see. It's not that hard to look at two objects at the same distance and determine which one is bigger.

I can't imagine anyone paying that much money for their vehicle and being totally oblivious to the size of its structure and not making a comparison to the others.

I guess I just have an eye for small details like that.

Here's how things work: just because an F-150's frame is physically larger does not mean that it is stronger. A solid piece of rod will bend easier than a hollow pipe of the same size, yet the rod is solid and the pipe is hollow. It's the same principles of engineering used when building a bridge: simply adding more metal everywhere will NOT make a stronger bridge, nor will it make a stronger truck frame. Same goes for the suspension. A Tundra is a more rigid, stronger, better engineered truck than any F-150. It is a shame to mention it in the same sentence as a Toyota truck. The Tundra will prove to be the tougher, longer lasting, MUCH longer running truck than any F-150, just as their earlier compact Trucks and Tacoma's have already clearly done. They also embarrass Ford when it comes to the metal on the body panels and how they are reinforced, (notice a Ford's loose, floppy quarter panels after a few years, and notice the Toyota's, which will have no flex, and will rock the truck when you pull on them without giving, like a Ford does). Toyotas are better trucks.

Ford's flimsy panels??? Have any of you ever seen the short video on "The Truth About Trucks"? In the video it compared the new F-150, Nissan Titan, Chevrolet Silverado 1500, Dodge Ram 1500, and the new Toyota Tundra. In this video they did a small test, in which each vehicle was driven over the meanest piece of pavement on the planet, at 35 MPH. It contained large swells and bumps up to 1.5 feet high. The Toyota Tundra did the worse, with significant flex in the bed, quarter panels, cabin doors, and best of all was the tail pipes were so unsettled that they bounced up and hit the underside of the truck with significant force. The next worse in line was the Nissan Titan, which started out fine, but got to a level as bad as the Tundra, minus the exhaust issues. And next up we had the Chevrolet Silverado 1500, which did fine for a truck, with a lot of flex, but no where near the ammount as the foreigners. The Dodge Ram 1500 came in second, proving remarkably rigid and right, but the flex in the rear was moderate. And, of course, the Ford F-150 came in first, with very very very minimal flex in the body or chassis. The exhaust remained settled and didn't budge the slightest bit. The body of the truck remained strait and poised, and the suspension did an excellent job of hiding the monsterous bumps under the truck.

Commment 13:58 is another example of a hot headed Toyota fan who's facts aren't even facts! You cannot tell a single person that the Tundra will prove superior to any other truck on the market because IT HASN'T YET!!! How many times must a person tell you, YOU CANNOT SAY SOMETHING WILL HAPPEN UNTIL IT HAS HAPPENED! And your solid peice of metal vs. pipe fact is out the window, because the F-150's frame isn't solid, its pipe-like, like you said. So, you pretty much proved yourself wrong in that statement. Nice try, come again later.

I agree that people claiming how long-lasting and reliable a brand new Toyota is are driven more by emotion than by any facts. My 1985 Dodge Ramcharger with 255,000 miles has already stood the test of time, and proves that Dodge has a history of making rugged vehicles. When your Toyota gets to be 20 years old and has over 200,000 miles then you can talk about what a reliable, long-lasting vehicle it is. Don't tell us this hype about "This Toyota is the greatest because it will easily go 300,000 miles!" and meanwhile you only have 500 miles on it. You look foolish. This commentary about how your Toyota is so great because the tailgate still closes smoothly after a year is silly and sad. Is this really your defining criteria for quality? Is that the best you can offer? Do you honestly think that means something?

Sorry, the Tundra IS superior, just like it was yesterday and will be tomorrow. I could cite the many, many auto magazines, and the studies by Edmunds and CNN, (yes, the news channel) that rated Toyota the very best in a series of categories such as build quality, future resale value, reliability, etc.

The F-150 never even made the list, except for being #8 in a list of the 10 WORST trucks as far as losing their value over the years; of course because they fall apart easily and are not worth much after a 5 or 6 years. Sorry about the bad news, but facts are facts.

Ford isn't selling much and not doing well, and Toyota's jump off the lot without a sales pitch. Wonder why? They've proven over the years to be the best, and people know it and are buying.

I own my own business and (like almost all small businesses that use small trucks) drive Rangers. They are less expensive to buy, ride smoother, cost FAR LESS on maintenance and will go 300,000 miles with virtually no required repairs other than routine servicing (which, incidentally, is much cheaper than on the less reliable Tacomas). Now what was that about Tacomas being more rugged and LONGER LASTING??? AS usual, not a shred of proof.

My money goes on proven vehicles with a history of reliability and quality. That ISN'T Toyota. I don't call faulty brakes, non-inflating airbags, sticking accelerators, defective transmissions, peeling paint and engines that fail at 34,000 miles (see Corolla reviews) "quality". Even the bias Consumer Reports gives Ranger an equal reliability rating to Tacoma.

(This is the writer of the notorious comment 19:26) Thank you guys so much for adding your two cents. I knew if my testimony about time telling the proof in the domestics wasn't enough, then surely someone else could pitch in and help me with their experiences.

Speaking of rods, aren't rods what are used to hold the wheels of a RAV4 on? Instead of pipe like the Escape and Tribute? So you really need to give your advice to Toyota and especially Lexus.

I was delivering parts to a shop one day when I saw one of those glorified Highlanders (the Lexus Version) sitting on a lift with the rear wheels removed. I approached it and much to my surprise, what was holding these rugged wheels to such an expensive and rugged luxury SUV? Tiny little finger sized rods, about three of them and a coil-around-strut assembly. That was just about it. Yet you'll pay 40,000 dollars for one of these, brand-new. Oh well.

Speaking of pipes, wouldn't a fully boxed frame be closer to a pipe than a frame with an opening on one side? Woops, there goes your argument right out the window.

Actually adding more metal will make it stronger if the extra metal is used to make the walls of the frame rail thicker and to add an extra wall for rigidity. Not only that, but take a measuring tape and measure the height and the width of the Tundra frame rail and then measure the height and width of any other frame rail especially the F-150's. The Tundra frame rail will fit inside of any of the domestics rail and the Titan's rail as well.

That's what I meant when I say that the Chevy and Ford both have a broader frame. The bend of the metal goes farther. You could just about wrap your hand around a Tundra frame rail. Your hand wouldn't come even close with any other.

Now, take the lower dimensions of the rail, add the lesser thickness of the rail, and throw in the fact that it also isn't fully boxed, then you will see why the frame is lesser to any competition. Less metal in all directions and in all concepts. The only way it could be as good or better would be if the metal was Titanium. Of course for what you pay for a Tundra, you would just about think that there is Titanium in it somewhere.

I also saw the "Truth About Trucks" video on the web. The Tundra looked like it was going to fly apart in the road test. You could see dips and buckles forming in the bedside that were so severe, the gas cap cover flew open on its own. The bed is bolted straight to the frame, so for the bed to flop and twist so badly would demonstrate that the frame was flopping and twisting that badly.

A better part of the video would be when the host was showing sample cut-out slices of the frame rail (each an inch thick slice cut out of the frame). He showed the Dodge and Chevy and how they were about the same. Not fully boxed, but still broad and thick enough to not be criticized very much. He also show the Titan's, it was about the same. Then he pulled out the Tundra's and started laughing. Like I said, you could have stuck the sample inside of all of the other samples. Of course then he pulled out the F-150 and it was taller, wider, as thick as the Chevy, Dodge, or Nissan, and to top it all off, it was fully boxed. Not hard to decide an easy victory there. Throw in the fact that the cross-members are welded through the rail and you really have a stiff structure.

The same thing happened when the host showed the control arms that were removed from the frames. Chevy and Dodge had big, bulky steel arms and the Titan's was just slightly smaller. Then he pulled out the Tundra's and started laughing again. The control arm was skinny and not very re-enforced at all. Then he showed the F-150's. It was made of cast aluminum (lighter for better handling), even though it was aluminum, it still was a larger chunk of metal that was very bulky in size and had enough re-enforcement.

If the Tundra (in your view) is still the best in spite of all these differences, then I'm sorry to hear that. Oh well, I'm not too sorry. I'm not the sucker that paid thousands of dollars more for something that has hundreds of pounds less metal. It's really your loss, not mine. As long as you don't spend my money in that way, it really doesn't hurt me at all.

As for Chevy's and Ford's having more problems, neither of mine have been very troublesome at all (regardless of everyone else's experiences) so that mixed with the fact that these bigger, heavier trucks are less expensive to pay for puts me in a better place financially.

Also, you still haven't named a part of the Tundra that is actually heavier and more re-enforced, instead you just try to make excuses for it having less. Of course I would, too if I paid more and got less.

Oh yeah, and the beds aren't even close to being as re-enforced as the competition. If you will ever take the time to look under your plastic bed-liner, you will see that the bed-side is just the outer layer of metal.

The domestic beds have an inner wall to endure the load and the outer wall for looks and stream-lining. Toyota on the other hand, just has the outer wall which has to endure any load that is inside of the bed. (As if there is ever any real load inside of their beds anyways. Just mattresses and lawn-mowers.) If a Tundra was ever used to haul two large round bails of hey, the sides would just collapse and the hay bails would go rolling off the side and take out whomever so happened to be in the way.

I guess if you ever get pinned inside of your Tundra after rear-ending a car at 40 mph, you can tell the paramedics what a great deal you got on your "truck" while they use the jaws of life to get you out.

P.S: Every time you end your comment in "my truck is better" it just shows your lack of evidence on your argument and also drives home the argument that your comments are emotionally driven.

P.S (2) : Also, just because Chevy and Ford are not selling as many trucks and SUV's doesn't always mean that they are troublesome, it means that gas has gotten so expensive that no one can afford to still pay for the gas in their bigger V-8 engines. Didn't anyone notice that all of Ford and GM's real troubles emerged when gas went to 3.00 dollars a gallon? The F-150 is still the most sold vehicle on Earth.

Not only that, if the Tundra's sales go up a littler here and there, that doesn't mean that GM and Ford have worsened, it means that more and more people are ignorant enough to just listen to the hype, instead of having their own spine and making their own assessment for themselves.

Just like sheep who will line up and will jump, one after the other, off of a cliff to their deaths just because the one in front of them did it; people will just say, "Toyota is better. Toyota is better." because "supposedly" everyone else says it.

That's why you say that their engines are better and that's common knowledge. That's funny, it seems to me that all of the big three are capable of making more powerful engines that can perform at the very least just as well and, at the same time, pull more than any of the foreign engines.

Then you can't name what component or configuration in the engine that is better, you just say that their precision is better in making them. Really? If the domestic's precision in their engines is so horrible, why do they run for thirty years? Why has my 29 year old 5.7L 350, that has been literally put through hell all of its life, never had a single over-haul in all of its life? If it's so awful, why does it still fire up and still manage to move its 5000+lb chassis without a problem?

Why don't people just quit listening to the hype, assess the situation and weigh the existing facts for themselves and reach their own conclusion?

If one of you are going to make another comment after this one, will you please name what part of your truck is made stronger using descriptions, not "it's my truck so it's built better" rhetoric? Also, name what component(s) in the engine is/are made more precise and yet as heavy-duty, instead of, "it's my engine, so it is made with more precision" rhetoric.

Also, you still are ranting that your truck will last longer than the domestics. With the measuring bar pushed all the way up to 30 and 40 years, it's going to be a long time before that can actually be proven. Tell Ms. Cleo I said, "Hi" the next time you see her for one of your visions of the future.

A friend told me about this site. I thought I'd share my experience with the Tundra. In 2002 after driving a 1992 GMC Sierra for 136,000 trouble free miles I bought a 4.7 automatic Tundra extended cab. In the first 6 months it was in the shop 5 times. Most of the problems were minor, and Toyota was great about taking care of them. At 24,000 miles the transmission started shifting very hard. It took 3 more trips to the dealer to correct that. I also began to notice how "tinny" the truck felt compared to my GMC. It had a lighter, less solid feel. It was also not as powerful and it was a hassle pulling my large boat. Finally, in June of 2005 I decided I'd had enough and test drove a new Ford F-150. There was NO COMPARISON!! The F-150 is without a doubt the smoothest, quietest and most solid truck I have ever driven. I traded the Tundra then and there and don't have a second of regret. In 22,000 miles the F-150 has performed FLAWLESSLY. I'm an F-150 man from now on!!

(It's me again - you know - the 19:26 writer guy)

Please don't try and use CNN as any kind of source to prove a Tundra's strength. What would a bunch of yuppies that work for CNN know about any kind of work truck? Name one time in any of those reporters' lives they ever had to do any real exhausting work, let alone put a truck through exhausting work. They, like everyone else, listen to the hype (which is what drives the Tundra's value up) or use their own "yuppified" opinion to decide which truck is better.

Speaking of opinion, I have said this a hundred times about magazines: Motor Trend and any other magazines that do these tests are written by opinionated yuppies that, just like the CNN staff, wouldn't know what real hard work is, nor would they have ever used any vehicle for hard work.

The Tundra will place last in any hauling or pulling contest with the other full size entry-level trucks; and it will still get declared the winner. Why? Because of the praise of its smooth, refined ride, its silky "sthmooooooooooooooooooooooooth" engine, and its "pwitty wittle interwior".

As I have said before, "Yeah! THAT'S really what any real worker is looking for in a truck." Forget all of that steel, heavy-duty suspension, hardened frame, heavy-duty engine, re-enforced drive-train (from engine, to transmission, drive-shaft, and axles) and all of that. That doesn't matter in a truck. What matters is how nice and cozy the interior feels and how soft and fluffy the suspension handles.

Yes everyone, it's true. The pretty interior, the squishy leaf springs, the light-weight front control arms, and the "sthilkeeeee sthmooooooooth" engine is what moves the load. Yes, those are the attributes you should be looking for in a "tough" truck. Yep, sure is.

Oh yeah. Today after I got back from putting yet another 200 miles on my F-150 delivery truck, (300,000 miles, here I come) I noticed a Tundra had been traded in and placed on the lot. I went over to it and squatted down at the back wheel to re-check my analysis since it had been a while since I had paid any attention to a Tundra.

Sure enough, the frame (though not as thin as I thought) is still a thinner sheet of metal, the fold of the frame is only about half of my C20 or my F-150 (let alone the new F-150) in width, and the fold of the frame is about one or two inches less in height to my C20 or my F-150. Do I need to say it again?

The leaf springs (as I had remembered) were not as wide as the C20 and definitely not as wide as the 3.0" wide leaf springs on my F-150. Also, each spring was by far skinnier in thickness than either of my trucks. However, this Tundra did have a fourth leaf spring. I guess someone paid the extra few thousand dollars (on top of its ridiculously high price) for the T (u) RD package upgrade and got an extra leaf spring. Wow. What a deal. Still not nine leaves like my 3/4 ton C20.

The axle housing was definitely not as large in circumference as the F-150 and even smaller compared to the C20 (heavy-duty axles and housing). This would mean that the axle shafts are smaller, too.

Anyone want to make anymore excuses for this inadequacy of metal?

As if the physical specs weren't enough, the Silver Creek Shoot-out really demonstrated what all these short-comings in re-enforcement resulted in when put through the motions. Like I have said, "Talk is cheap and useless." I guess your words don't have magical powers after all.

Does anyone notice that the opposition is running out of defense?

First they say that the Tundra is simply just as strong or stronger...Wrong.

Then they say that it may not be able to haul as much, but it can still withstand more abuse...Wrong.

Then they say, Okay, maybe it has less metal, but that doesn't matter because it is still just as strong. More metal doesn't make the others stronger (pipe vs. rod)..........Wrong.

Now they just say, well the (oh so trustworthy) media says the truck is better and the (notoriously bias) magazines say the truck is better, so it must be better.

Can anyone guess what the answer is? Say it with me children.

WRONG!

What's your next excuse? I'm eager with anticipation.

Toyota trucks are still worlds better than Fords. Sorry to be repetitive, but I'm just stating the facts again.

I wish we'd had Toyota's on our farm, would've saved some of the guys in my family some headaches. But then again, most of them have realized this fact and gone ahead and bought Toyota trucks. Seems to me that they do the same work as they used to, but don't have to work on Fords and Chevy's anymore. And your idea of what a "reasonable" person would think carries no weight with me. And your endless argument about 'frames' is pointless. You could load either truck with lead bricks until the tires, shocks, and spring were all broken, and either frame would do the job without flinching. When your Ford breaks down soon, you can sit there and look at your precious frame until the sun goes down; I'll still be driving a truck that runs.

Uhh...has anyone looked at all the little blue frownie faces in the Tundra reviews?? Obviously some Tundra owners aren't exactly jumping for joy over their trucks "high quality". As for real work trucks, the Tundra isn't one.