Toyota Tundra, Honda Ridgeline, or Nissan Titan, which would you rather have? (SUVs, brakes)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Tundra and Titan are full size...Ridgeline is not...for my purposes, only the Ridgeline makes sense...for a real truck person? toss up between the Titan and Tundra although Tundra should be more reliable and Titan should be a better value
People often choose Toyota because of the name, not because of experience with them.
Wrong. Experience is precisely what keeps them coming back.
Even Consumer Reports gives the Tundra a mediocre rating in their road test. It scored a 63 compared to 79-81 for all the others. It was dinged for:
Lows
Lacks the refinement, quietness, and ride comfort of the more-modern competition
Limited array of build configurations, compared to the domestics
Feels bulky to drive, even for a truck
Which I think is funny. IMO it rides too nice (mushy) and is quieter than any other vehicle me or my wife has owned. Apparently the truck market is being ruled by the metrosexuals who want trucks to ride like luxury sedans and have all the latest gadgtets. Many of the drivetrain components are borrowed from other vehicles and are heavier duty than the other half tons, which is why it's road test score is similar to domestic 3/4 tons (which scored from 53-60 in this test).
But even with the poor road test rating it won the overall. Why? Outstanding reliability and value. It scored a 5/5 for reliability vs 2/5 for Ford and GM, and a 1/5 for Dodge. It also depreciates less than the others. 5 year depreciation on KBB was $16k after 5 years vs $21k for the Ford Ecoboost.
It had the best acceleration (easily trouncing the 3.5l twin turbo Ford), and highest tow rating. My impression when test driving trucks was that the Tundra seemed to have the most "go" by a noticeable margin. And it has the same 5.7l V8 and 6 speed auto that has been in them for 11 years now.
They didn't ding it for fuel mileage because in their direct comparison it scored within 1 MPG of the others. 15 mpg vs 16 mpg for Ford, GM, and Nissan. Dodge was also 15 mpg.
Wrong. Experience is precisely what keeps them coming back.
Even Consumer Reports gives the Tundra a mediocre rating in their road test. It scored a 63 compared to 79-81 for all the others. It was dinged for:
Lows
Lacks the refinement, quietness, and ride comfort of the more-modern competition Limited array of build configurations, compared to the domestics Feels bulky to drive, even for a truck
Which I think is funny. IMO it rides too nice (mushy) and is quieter than any other vehicle me or my wife has owned. Apparently the truck market is being ruled by the metrosexuals who want trucks to ride like luxury sedans and have all the latest gadgtets. Many of the drivetrain components are borrowed from other vehicles and are heavier duty than the other half tons, which is why it's road test score is similar to domestic 3/4 tons (which scored from 53-60 in this test).
But even with the poor road test rating it won the overall. Why? Outstanding reliability and value. It scored a 5/5 for reliability vs 2/5 for Ford and GM, and a 1/5 for Dodge. It also depreciates less than the others. 5 year depreciation on KBB was $16k after 5 years vs $21k for the Ford Ecoboost.
It had the best acceleration (easily trouncing the 3.5l twin turbo Ford), and highest tow rating. My impression when test driving trucks was that the Tundra seemed to have the most "go" by a noticeable margin. And it has the same 5.7l V8 and 6 speed auto that has been in them for 11 years now.
They didn't ding it for fuel mileage because in their direct comparison it scored within 1 MPG of the others. 15 mpg vs 16 mpg for Ford, GM, and Nissan. Dodge was also 15 mpg.
So did only that 1 test pose Tundra as the winner?
I have owned countless Toyotas. Experience is exactly why I'll never own another. For every person who has a good experience you'll find just as many who don't. Granted, people's needs are different so those who don't use the truck as a workhorse like some of us may not have a problem with it.
The Tundra is not built with parts any more heavy duty than it's counterparts. You'll have to substantiate that claim. You'll also have to work a little harder on the claim that it has a larger payload/towing capacity, similar mpg ratings, and better 0-60 times. Every review I can find states completely the opposite. To include the MPG rating.
I see Tundras and Tacomas with over 300k miles on them frequently, and on their original powertrains. Most domestics I see with those miles are usually on their second or third transmission by then. My 2002 Tundra has had a TRD supercharger since new and now has 197k miles, nothing new except a water pump and radiator.
I have a 2012 Toyota Sequoia with 130,000 miles on it which is the SUV version of the Tundra. I drive a lot so I needed something reliable. So far no problems or complaints.
Give it some time.... my Titan interior was falling apart by 100k miles and I baby my vehicles. Nissan really dropped the ball on the Titan by using really cheap components. The engine ran great, so no complaints there and the transmission was well built.
But between constantly blown wheel seals (design flaw where there is no check valve in some of the rear axles), intermittent power problems (chaffed ignition wiring that would sometimes short and cause the truck not to start), a very flimsy and plastic bed that would buckle under medium weight, paint failures, etc.. the truck just wasn't up to par with even Dodge.
As much as I wanted to like and keep the truck I just couldn't justify the quality issues. I've had less gremlins in my Ram than I had in my Titan. 10 years ago I'd have never even fathomed that. The 5.6L Titan is pretty powerful though so I'll give it that. It's also extremely thirsty. The best mpg I ever managed out of the truck was 13 on the highway.
I take this is not the new 2nd gen Titan? They are night and day.
So did only that 1 test pose Tundra as the winner?
The Tundra was a huge loser in the "road test". It only won the overall because it included reliability reports from thousands of owners, and resale value.
Load rating is determined by the weakest link. If you equip street tires and soft springs, then it won't be high. The Tundra has a beefier 4L gearbox (from a Landcruiser) and rear diff, and bigger brakes (18"+ wheels required), than other half tons. At least that was the case in the past.
My previous experience with Toyota was putting 240k seriously abusive (many offroad) miles on a '84 truck with nothing but an oil pressure sender, fuel pump, timing chain, brake pads, and clutch needing attention.
The Tundra was a huge loser in the "road test". It only won the overall because it included reliability reports from thousands of owners, and resale value.
Load rating is determined by the weakest link. If you equip street tires and soft springs, then it won't be high. The Tundra has a beefier 4L gearbox (from a Landcruiser) and rear diff, and bigger brakes (18"+ wheels required), than other half tons. At least that was the case in the past.
My previous experience with Toyota was putting 240k seriously abusive (many offroad) miles on a '84 truck with nothing but an oil pressure sender, fuel pump, timing chain, brake pads, and clutch needing attention.
At one point I had the axle specs from all of the full size truck offerings. At least until 2016 the Tundra had one of the smallest rear axles available in a full sized truck. The only smaller axle was on the Titan (which is a variation of a Dana 40). Brakes are very similar. Most full sized trucks are being equipped with 18-20" wheels to fit larger rotors since the mass of the trucks have increased. They're fairly even in that regard. There is no evidence that the Tundra has beefed up components that outperform components in similar full sized trucks. And it is certainly not on par with any 3/4 ton trucks that you made mention of earlier (I own one).
The Tundra rear diff isn't even an LSD. There is no option for one (unless the 2018 model offers it up now) which has been a big complaint for people who need it. Again, this is fine for people that don't need it but there's nothing there to be able to try to make it better. It's not horrific, but it isn't miles above any other either. It's at or below average.
You also mention street tires and soft springs. The softest spring offering right now is on the new Ram that switched to a fully independent suspension. The rest still maintain a leaf sprung rear suspension and most come with load range E tires so there is nothing to compare there either. Tow ratings are published for everyone in various configurations so there really isn't an "IF" scenario to consider.
The old Toyota trucks are not what we are discussing. I also had an 84 and yes, it ran forever. But it isn't the same as a Tundra by far. Again it sounds like I am knocking on a Tundra and really I'm not. I just don't think that it should be held on a pedestal as being better simply because it's made by Toyota. Their quality has suffered in the past decade (plenty of research to back this up on the web) to the point that we personally will never allow another in our driveway. YMMV.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
