When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Edit - I should note that the Tundra SR5's 'as tested' price was $10k less than the XLT's, which, if you're buying on spec, could be a big differentiator when it comes to being 'recommended'.
I think this is an important component. Others in the thread saying they'd have to pay more for a similarly equipped Tundra baffle me. I find Tundras to be very well optioned for the price point. My buddy picked up a loaded Tundra Platinum for the same price I paid for my 501A Lariat, and I got a smoking deal on my truck.
:shrug:
Either way both are good trucks. I've owned both. Gas mileage kills it for me with the 5.7 in the Tundra. Great motor but a total pig. My only major complaints with the F150 are the door latches, the wind noise and some body panel fitment. It's a truck so the latches and fitment kind of get a pass. The wind noise is a serious bother though.
I mainly base it on my experience. It seemed like nothing for an older Tacoma or Tundra to go 200,000+ miles without any issue at all. There was a Tundra that went a million miles with minimal issues as well. When you watch the news, you usually see these terrorist groups driving old Toyotas in crazy conditions.
I have actually seen a few Hondas and Subarus which have 200k+ miles on them and the owner reported no major issues. I can't say that I have saw an American car with 200k miles on it--I am sure they exist. I just haven't saw one and I would be surprised if they were as common as the Japanese cars.
We don't have a lot of information on these newer engines but Ford and GM both held their own with some of their trucks at 200k miles.
To me, it looks like something is missing (see image below):
It looks fairly reliable according to their current ratings...maybe there's something that hasn't been updated as of yet.
Unfortunately, though, when you have recall investigations into vehicles for brake failures that are vastly similar to recalls for previous years, that does not look good for Ford. It doesn't matter how much everyone tries to deny it, there are serious quality control issues with these vehicles. Toyota has them too, but to a lesser degree. It would help if Ford took a greater interest in standing by their products as well...at the end of the day, these ratings on CR are survey based. How many customers would have overlooked certain issues with their vehicles if they didn't have to fight Ford tooth and nail to fix them? We're seriously considering selling ours at the moment because of the brake failure issue and the response to it so far. As mentioned in another thread, a friend of ours owns an F-150, same year...and had his master cylinder go out. The dealer replaced it then told him that it was still going to need to come in for the recall since the part they put in wasn't the part that's going to be available for the recall. WTF? So despite him almost getting into an accident and potentially seriously injuring/killing himself or others, they still installed a faulty part because Ford refuses to get off their *** to address the problem?
See it's stuff like that that makes Ford inferior to the companies that get the best ratings. Every car has its issues, but the best ones have those issues fixed and owners go on their merry way. The issues we've had with ours...none of them have been fixed. Not a single one. What does that say? When I respond to my CR survey...you can bet that since those issues haven't been fixed, I'm going to bring them up.
I should also say that after further reading, the cause for the downgrade is body hardware and body integrity issues....according to CR. The one thing Ford doesn't want, however; is a downgrade due to Sync 3...and it received a worse than average rating for 2016...the whole reason Sync 3 exists is to fix the PR problem they had with MFT.
I mainly base it on my experience. It seemed like nothing for an older Tacoma or Tundra to go 200,000+ miles without any issue at all. There was a Tundra that went a million miles with minimal issues as well. When you watch the news, you usually see these terrorist groups driving old Toyotas in crazy conditions.
I have actually seen a few Hondas and Subarus which have 200k+ miles on them and the owner reported no major issues. I can't say that I have saw an American car with 200k miles on it--I am sure they exist. I just haven't saw one and I would be surprised if they were as common as the Japanese cars.
We don't have a lot of information on these newer engines but Ford and GM both held their own with some of their trucks at 200k miles.
My 01 Sequoia has 197,000 miles. I need more tow capacity so I am trading it in on a F150.
NOPE, don't use them for anything. If you look at their ratings for a product then go read reviews about 80% of the time CR is way off. I canceled my subscription also after too many discrepancies and not much good info in the magazine anymore.
Ford is installing defective parts on purpose. It is a conspiracy. Yes Donald.
There is not a replacement part that solves the problem available as I understand it. So, they are putting in the parts they have, and telling people they will get the new part when it is available. Of course, the owner of the vehicle doesn't have to drive it if they don't want to.
Last I checked, CR doesn't read recall info. They note the CONSUMERS' ratings in their determination.
My 2010 Ford Fusion Hybrid has had one recall, for the floor mats, which I declined to do. My 2013 F-150 has had zero, and only has had oil changes.
No car company is perfect. None respond well when there are major problems with a vehicle. Even fewer respond well when a consumer gets all in their face.
CR's reliability ratings are typically more in line than other ratings agencies whether it be Wards or JD Power. It's their reviews that don't add up. I think I was reading that the 0-60 as tested on an EB model F-150 was 7 seconds? No way. People forget that there is a context difference between most publications. CR is good for reliability information...while JD Powers is good for screening QC issues on new vehicles, while C&D gives a good performance review but completely leave out the rest. I typically use multiple resources when doing my research to find patterns or anomalies and make my own judgement call based on that information. Quite honestly, the most useful tool I had at my disposal was this site. Typically, it doesn't steer me wrong...except for in the case of buying this truck.
10-25-2016, 11:23 AM
