sargranny

The Ford Tested was 2004 2WD Super Cab; I believe that was a model change year (The pre 2004 trucks were abysmal) The Tundra Tested was 2007 Dbl cab (pre 2007 trucks were still good) -so both were basically extended cab models - though I think the dbl cab in the Tundra is a bit bigger. There are no "extra cost" safety options for the Tundra. All of the safety offerengs on the Tundra are standard. The scope of the article was the insurance crash test ratings. Nothing more nothing less. I am not sure how the other topics relate and why you would consider it a stroke off. They were simply reporting independant crash test results used by the insurance industry. I am not convinced that Ford Motor Company does any better at putting safety first than anyone else. How many people died in Pintos and Explorers before they were forced to make changes? I was aware of the Tundra issues when I bought - most vehicles have problems in the first production year. I have had no issues with my truck, built in August. There were PLENTY of recalls on my Explorer, BTW-most of which I heard of on the news long before getting a notice from Ford. I would have considered a Ford if there was one out there that met MY specifications as a customer and there was not. I have been basically happy with my past two Fords. I even wrote letters to Ford and called customer support to see if waiting for 2008 would do that. I am still watching to see what Ford will do with the lighter pick up (Ranger Replacement) that is why I watch this forum {And I still have the Explorer} - I am still hoping for small common rail diesel compact truck that gets kick ass fuel economy and can tow up to 5,000lbs which is all I need. I have posted earlier that Mihindra is supposed to be coming in with one in 2009 but I have concerns about safety in an Indian truck- What about the hydraulic hybrid Ford was working on? That could be interesting etc because city mileage with braking and starting sucks in any truck. I know is a Ford Forum, I just responding to factual inaccurracies in the thread. Just as people buying Tundras need to be aware of stated issues, (bed bounce, tailgate, transmissions (now seems to be resolved), people buying Fords need to be aware of the crash results and lack of safety options for the current models. Everybody gains when you get past the brand loyalty and look objectively at what the competition is doing better and what they are doing worse and push for improvements. I found this link (not comparing vehicles) and it has some good general safety informaiton http://www.suvsafety.info/carguide.html

Ok, I realize the F150 has a bit bigger payload but when I look at specififications I honestly don't see the difference as dramatic as you report. You are right I don't need to carry heavy loads in the truck, but a truck is still the most practical solution for my application. My Tundra has a 1625 payload. The corresponding F150 has a 1760 payload. Both well exceed "half ton" http://www.fordvehicles.com/trucks/f150/features/specs/ and I don't really understand the tow chart. It looks like 4x4 with shorter [145"] wheelbase (better for offroad) does not have the tow capacity the tundra has. Am I reading this right? A 4x4 with 145 inch wheelbase and a 5.4l engine can only tow 9600 lbs but I am stuck with a fixed axle ratio? (I have tow haul mode which changes the ratio for towing vs. regular driving and 10100 lb tow rating) http://www.fordvehicles.com/trucks/f150/features/specs/ If I wanted more than a light truck or was regularly towing, I would have looked at the Super Crew with a Diesel Engine anyway. The Tundra is only a light truck-it is not competition for the Super Crew and 2500 series trucks. If I was regularly hauling plywood I would go for an 8' bed which would be hell offroad and get much worse fuel economy. The comparisons on the Ford site pit the Ford 5.4 liter against the Tundra 4.7 liter even though the 5.7 liter engine waaaay outsells the 4.7 (and does come with bucket seats, btw) . Not comparing apples and apples. Back to the safety testing - no it is not all complete. Yes the F150 will fail the side impact test and it did poorly on the rear impact test. I have been hit from behind several times by idiots who don't see the damned red light I am sitting at. I have not had a frontal collision and hope to never have one. I agree the driver test for the F150 is slightly better than for the driver in the Tundra but the passnger test is better in the Tundra. I will trade the broken femur for side airbags and stability control.

I don't know what it takes to qualify as a "real truck customer" Look I don't give a hoot about the Tundra bashing shit, I just wanted a good truck for on and off road for hauling search and rescue dogs and gear, camping, and for pulling a boat. I know plenty of folks doing the same thing with F-150s and 1st gen Tundras, Tacomas, and Silverados and the 1gen Tundra crowd sold me (realizing gen 2 was a gamble). I guess hauling horse trailers and working a farm (one of my references) is not real truck user either. So I am not sure what a "real truck customer" really is and don't really care if you think I am not one I would like to know the "qualifications" one needs to be a "real" truck customer. Not a troll, just reading the responses and wanted to respond to this one. I still have and drive my Explorer around town and like to keep up on the news. My identity is not tied up in the truck I drive; it is simply a truck. NHTSA is one particular frontal impact test. IIHS is another set of tests from all angles. It is more information for the consumer. You folks bash news when it is anti-Ford and embrace it when it is anti-Toyota. .

I joined this Forum because I was open to buying my third Ford but wound up buying the Tundra in part because Ford did not come with the safety options I wanted, 5 star rating notwithstanding. I was happy with the Fords on which I had put many years, was also happy with the Toyotas I grew up with and learned to drive on. My Tundra gets excellent fuel economy, it does not bounce all over the place, is awesome offroad with seamless shifting, and I have been all over my tailgate many times with no issues, and I have had no transmission problems (actually everything has been right) in my first 2500 miles. I know everyone over here bashes them but Ford was not interested in what I wanted in a vehicle, which was REALLY a small safe truck that gets great fuel economy. So I went for a big truck that has everything else I wanted and good fuel economy for its size (I am getting 19-20 on the highway, honest.) Ford has a long history of sweeping major safety issues under the rug and to be honest, safety does not seem to be a priority. I have looked at all the wrecked Tundra pictures and the thing that impresses me is that the passenger compartment seems to fare pretty well. My ford Explorer served (and is still serving) me well even though it did eat O2 sensors and brake rotors, and had a cracked head at 50K as well as numerous recall repairs. It is at 210K. When I look at the picture from the IIHS, it seems to confirm my decision. They are interested in the truth from an actuarial basis ( real life claims / insurance rates) BTW, there IS more testing than just the best of ONE and Ford did not fare too well with rear impact http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=70

This thread is sickening. These kids died because they were stupid and hit a much larger truck. It is simple physics. You would have had the same results in the Focus. Real live flesh and blood people are dead and young lives cut short. I don't care how you cut it, that is a tragedy in any book.

My 96 Explorer XLT 4WD with 208K has been replaced with a new pickup truck as I am not so sure I want to be putting interstate miles on it - Don't really want to be on the interstate when the transmission goes as I understand it will be without warning. Keeping it for an around town errand car as it is easier to navigate in parking lots than the truck and who cares if a buggy runs into it - it has already lost one battle with a hitching post. So, I plan on running till it dies. Brakes, tires, and shocks are good having all been replaced in the past few years. A little oil leaking around the head gasket. Burning a little oil but not much - I don't need to add between changes. I figure I should get it out and open it up every once in awhile - I know around town driving is harder on a vehicle than highway miles. Suggestions for how much would be good and figure I will do oil changes more frequent (like every 3 months) since the mileage will be way down. Any other suggestions? I am not inclined to replace the transmission or engine when they go. Thanks.

But the thing is they DO have competetive 4WD trucks in the rest of the world. FORD sells one. They ARE making fuel efficient SUVs how different is a small truck? If I am stuck with indecent fuel economy, I would buy a full size V8 before a V6 as I know quite a few people who get better highway with them than the V6. I know several folks who are quite happy with the Silverado...................... it is just hard for me to understand why Ford Can make a truck and sell it in England and Australia and not sell it over here. And why we can't have a small truck that does better on the highway than the big trucks.

I like your mid-box door - that is creative. My dogs give you two paws up. You COULD have some space to work with for storage that way too. My Explorer has the rear seats removed and a platform built for dog crates - there is a LOT of storage room under the platform behind the front seat to the deck of the SUV compartment. Storage *could* be built into that space. The only issue with the dogs is all that glass and heating as well as having to go off with my vehicle wide open when dogs are in their crates. Wasn't the Explorer built on the Ranger Platform? I know I rented a ranger once (around 2000) and it was very very similar to my 96 Explorer

OK so I don't have a subscription to consumer reports - I have sure read a lot that common rail diesels are doing well. I know a straight old fashioned diesel did not have the zing a gas vehicle did but that turbo diesels did. I drove an old Volvol 240D Wagon for years - got decent fuel economy and that was on old design / no turbo - main issue was parts availablility for repairs. Yes, I did learn to drive like a trucker and came to appreciate the high speed downhill runs and being in the right line with flashers going up mountain grades......................

OK, so I really want a small fuel efficent truck - offroad capability but good fuel economy. The full size truck is Waaaay to big for my needs as I cannot access the bed without using a tire step and that is a hassle. The current midsize trucks don't get better fuel economy than the big trucks. The Ranger "Thunder" sold abroad "sounds like" what I want. Don't need frills or fancy music/radio systems. Need something that can go offroad but not a crazy offroad toy truck. I do haul search dogs so I drive on a lot of dirt roads, fields, clearcuts, etc. I have seen 2wd vehicles get stuck and have had to cart other people and dogs in my Explorer when we are in such an area so I really think some 4WD is reasonable in this case. Slick red mud is really slick and I have come back from training with it all over my hood and windshield and up to my windows. I also drive a lot of highway miles with the dogs. The Explorer has worked well in that regard but trucks really do seem to work better for working dogs. I hate having to leave my car wide open if I have to leave them for any period of time - and trucks are cooler temperature wise no matter what you do (Unless you leave the engine and A/C running) Would like a comfortable seat, bed tie downs, capability to use ladder rack, and interior that can be cleaned of red mud and seats that would last. We drive em till they drop and have never discarded a car with less than 200K. Good safety ratings. Good Rollover resistance. Good ground clearance. Maybe there is not a market demand for such a truck? I know hunters haul ATVs now so maybe the midsize is more appropriate for them..........A mid size Ford would work for me if I can meet the requirements and at least get 30-35mpg on the highway. For such a truck I would wait a few years. I have been pleased with my 96 Explorer (which has around 210K) and my 88 Escort (which died at 240K but was just getting to the point where it needed a new clutch - pretty good for a manual tranny, eh?) . Next year and Inidan Company, Mahindra, is supposed to market what I am looking for and it is supposed to get 39mpg. I understand that emissions requirements in the US may present hurdles that ........ I would rather buy an American Vehicle made by Americans but........one that meets my needs is the most important criteria.

I am a woman - a mother of 2 and a grandmother of 2, and I am not sure what you mean by "comfort" - I am looking for durability, reliability, something easy to clean inside, and something that will go offroad but still have good fuel economy on the highway. Really what I want is leather or durable vinyl seats just because cloth ones always get nasty and go south eventually and I tend to get 10 years and 200K + on any vehicle I own. And I often get in the truck with mud all over me. The other thing I want is SAFETY - I am old enough to realize that nimble driving skills can't get you out of everything and my grandkids are precious cargo to me. Not looking to climb rocks or do crazy stuff and would rather not have a truck that is marketed to the kid crowd because it drags up insurance rates, but I regularly drive on dirt roads, up powerline clearcuts, across fields, and in mud near lakes. I have seen enough 2WD vehicles get stuck to want to stay with 4WD. The durotorq diesel or some other turbo diesel sounds great to me. A 4 door vehicle with a back seat would be nice cause of the kids.

I would give my eye teeth for a simple 4x4 small truck with good fuel economy and ground clearance Something I can haul dogs in and go down dirt roads and across fields; maybe haul a jon boat. You know a small TRUCK. Simple, durable, affordable, functional. I don't want or need a full size truck; at 5'6" I have to jump on a tire to reach into the bed of any of the new big trucks anyway. Why go small when the little ones don't get any better mpg than the big ones. I don't want a monster truck and I am tired of hauling wet dogs in my SUV. I would buy another Ford - my '96 Explorer has 210K and still going strong but I know the transmission won't last forever, then its the engine but there is nothing available that I want to buy. I can tell you if I am stuck buying a big truck, I would go Silverado before F150 - but would buy the right Ranger if I could get it. Come on Ford - something like the Ford Ranger Thunder - sell it over HERE in the US.