My reasoning, more or less, is that these were two trucks, and the Ram was the better truck. The Tundra, while nice and a bit more comfortable, felt like it was trying too hard to be a lifted Camry with a bed on the back. Sure, today’s truck is vastly more upscale than anything back in the “old days”, but Tundra was trying to be too many things.

And remember, when you read articles from us here at Automoblog or in your favorite magazine, they are still a subjective article. You’ll have different options of the same vehicle simply because one writer has a different perspective than the other.

Second, my review was written with respect to the fact that these were vehicles provided to me at different times by each manufacturers. Yes, they are not totally matched spec for spec. However, regardless of a smaller engine size in the Tundra and the optional off-road package (of which some features like the LSD are also on the Tundra), I kept it as fair as possible by focusing on the attributes of both vehicles both on- and off-road, their interior package, and overall usability. I do admit that I am not a huge truck fan/aficiando and make no attempt to be an expert, but I attempted what I thought would be the best article for our base of readers.

Finally, all of your “Proven” marks are noted, but a vehicle that may be able to tow more or has a faster sprint to 60 mph does not mean it is the better vehicle as a whole. There are A LOT more variables that were taken into consideration. If this was a test of pure power/towing capabilities, it may be different. But this article is to encompass both vehicle as a whole. Hence my comment on the poor location of the radio controls. They may be on the wheel, but those are suppose to be secondary to the primary controls and those were less than optimal.

I hope this makes more sense to you Zach.

Sure your gonna call this a fair test?… Please author respond and tell me how you think this was a fair test!