When Towing, Which Makes the Grade?
By G.R. Whale
We borrowed a Chaparral 224 Xtreme from Sun Country Marine (www.suncountrymarine.com), with disc brakes, low-profile tires, and law-enforcement-attracting paint. At about three tons all up, it reflects what any fully loaded half-ton crew cab with the big engine should comfortably handle. Our track-testing circumstances are controlled for everything but weather (and that is corrected), but we do our tow testing out among the gawking tourists, hillclimbing semis, and watchful eye of you-know-who with the air-conditioning set to 72 degrees F.
We are painfully aware these trucks have apples-and-oranges issues, but the auto business being what it was when we put this test together, we were forced to take what they had available. That means the F-150 had towing mirrors--big enough that we could see what was going on behind us--and 18-inch wheels and tires, and the Tundra came with car mirrors, which were only big enough to see what was next to us, and it was shod with 20-inch wheels and tires. We certainly appreciate big mirrors, and prefer to sit well back from them to minimize forward-quarter blind spots, which was a plus for the F-150. For the latter, the telescoping function of the Tundra's steering column was a small plus.
If propulsion is your highest priority, the Tundra has the F-150 covered. It got our towed load to speed significantly more quickly in a battery of acceleration tests. It was prone to spin a tire at flatfoot launches and made quicker work of passing, and also passed at higher speeds. To maintain speed on slight grades, the Tundra frequently added a few hundred rpm (unlocking the torque converter), where the Ford appeared to go straight to the next gear down adding 650-750 indicated rpm in the process. The Ford's shorter overall first- and second-gear ratios weren't enough to overcome the 35-pound-foot/70-horsepower deficit, and the Tundra's shorter third and fourth and added oomph made the difference in midrange climbing.
The Ford felt like it wanted to be in tow/haul mode sooner than the Tundra; the Toyota didn't really need it. We had to floor the Ford a lot with Tow/Haul off, and the Tundra ran at a more relaxed pace with less throttle effort. On sections where both trucks were geared down, the rpm versus speed was similar. Per on-board trip computers, the Tundra managed 7.8 mpg on the towing test and the Ford 7.4. Given the Tundra's higher output, stronger performance, and similar empty economy and weight, it has the more efficient drivetrain when you're using the majority of it. And this was the slowest Tundra I've ever tested.
Neither truck's water- or transmission-fluid temperature gauges show specific temperature numbers on the display, and it takes a little time to find the gauges on the Toyota. None of the gauges appeared to move after initial warmup. Nothing wavered enough to read, but in three-degree-cooler (Fahrenheit) ambient air, the F-150's fan clutch was heard and felt on three separate occasions in clean air, and the Tundra's remained silent. Lacking proprietary details, we can't say why this happens, but it could be that Ford runs a smaller window of operating temperature range or is perhaps more cautious than Toyota in this regard because of the higher towing capacity.
Getting down the hills, the Ford's integrated trailer brake controller will better an aftermarket controller (and be warrantied), but this applies only to electric trailer brakes; some electro-hydraulic trailer brakes are incompatible and boat surge brakes make it irrelevant. Lacking diesel engine exhaust brakes, for gasoline pickups we turned to gearing to control descent speed on mountain grades.
Engaging the Tundra's manual shifter gate automatically drops two gears if you're currently in fifth or sixth, and one gear in second through fourth. A drop from sixth to fourth might be more than you want, but a quick tap gets you back up to fifth, and we managed a miles-long descent in traffic without using the brakes. At an off-ramp, we got down to second for slowing and the firm shift--apparently just shy of the tire-chirping threshold--was just enough to momentarily trigger the surge brakes on the trailer. The Ford's six-speed automatic has no manual gate, but a lever-mounted switch and 3/2/1 positions, so we never felt in control of six individual gears and frequently found ourselves slowing down more (or less) than intended and had to shift up (or tap the brakes) to get it right. This didn't overheat the brakes by any means; it was just busier than the Tundra's transmission.
Factory hardware was more than sufficient on both trucks and the wiring plugs worked as advertised. The only hitch (pardon the pun) is that the plug assembly on the Ford is closer to the safety-chain loop and made larger clips and links trickier to wiggle in. Ford's camera image and usefulness were slightly better than the Tundra's, but light and shadow will have a far bigger effect in hitching ease.
We didn't weigh the boat, only the tongue weight (just under 600 pounds). That dropped the Toyota 1.25 inches in back and lifted the front 0.25 inch, where the higher-load-rated Ford dropped one inch in back and didn't change up front. Since the 7200-pound GVWRs are identical, the heavier Ford carries 80 pounds less payload, but it's worth noting the Toyota has higher GAWR at each end, which makes load distribution less sensitive. The Ford's tires had a higher weight rating; that could be because they were 18s instead of 20s, or because Ford knows pickup owners overload everything.
We weighed both trucks and found the tow ratings optimistic. With an SAE-standard-weight (154-pound) driver on board, the F-150 has 13 pounds left for hitch hardware (with a weight-distributing hitch setup it'll be more), and the Tundra would be 77 pounds over GCWR. At 11,200 pounds rated, Ford pulls 1100 pounds more than Tundra, but I'd really rather have a 3/4-ton for towing five-digit numbers. (For comparison, a crew cab F-250 6.75-foot bed Lariat V-10 automatic is just 2.5 inches longer, 12 percent more MSRP, and needs an extra 15 inches for a U-turn relative to an F-150 SuperCrew with the 6.5-foot bed.)
When towing, the Ford delivered gentler ride motions, as it did empty. It was always controlled, but missed the sharp impact and tail kick of the Tundra. The Ford's steering felt better, but the Toyota's yard-tighter turning circle was handy when maneuvering. However, the Ford was also quieter, which might be the deal-maker on a long trip. As tested, we'd prefer the Toyota for mountain hauls or near max-capacity towing, and the Ford for everything else. We'd gladly trade the Tundra's 20-inch wheels for the proper mirrors, revisit the debate and, for infrequent use as a tow vehicle, throw an F-250 crew cab into the calculations as well.