I have to agree with the posters who are disappointed in the recent Car and Driver (and Motor Trend) reviews of the pickups. The Tundra did seem to do better on most of the objective tests, other than in rear cab space and bed volume, which are obviously smaller. Some of their quotes were ridiculous. "Tundra needs more torque" ? Why? It sprints faster than any other unloaded, and more than holds its own loaded down. Why ask for more torque on this truck, when the bigger Ford is slower and they don't mention it as needing more torque? I subscribe to both of them, and over the years I've come to suspect that advertising dollars have a lot to do with how their comparisons turn out, despite their understandable protests to the contrary. Haivng owned each of the truck brands reviewed in the last several years, I notice how far off they are on some points, and I can't understand why, till I remember they're a business first and foremost. I suspect that when the Tundra kept winning comparisons early on, they got a few angry calls from the Big 3 honchos, with the resulting realization that they would eventually lose ad revenue if things didn't change. Just Picture Rodney Dangerfield shoving $20 in the golf referee's hand saying "keep it fair, keep it fair" and you have to understand that there's no way they would continually alienate the majority of their advertisers. I think they just try to mix it up so everybody wins now and then, and nobody pulls their ad campaigns. Read the comparos for information, but test drive them yourself to see how they really perform.