By on February 13, 2014

983587_10151548891138579_994498399_n
WardsAuto reports that the next generation 2016 Toyota Tundra pickup will receive the Cummins 5.0L V8 turbodiesel for 2016, the same engine that will be powering the next Nissan Titan pickup, due for 2015. While Toyota had been working on a diesel engine with Hino, Toyota’s heavy-truck division, the economic crash of 2008 shelved the plans. With new found interest in light diesels and the new Ram EcoDiesel leading the way with favorable reviews and excellent fuel economy, Toyota looks to jump quickly into the light diesel truck market.

The new Cummins 5.0L V8 turbodiesel is confirmed to produce 300 hp and 500 ft lb of torque in the Titan, so we can expect similar numbers for the Toyota. Not only does this engine produce more torque than any gas motor in a light duty pickup, but even tops the Ram EcoDiesel’s 420 ft lb, making it the most powerful torquiest engine offered in any light duty pickup. This is a a strong move for Toyota and Nissan, possibly helping to bridge the gap between their half-ton pickups and Ford, GM and Ram’s heavier duty 3/4-ton pickups; an area where neither manufacturer currently offer a product.

Both Toyota and Nissan would like a larger chunk of the U.S. light truck market, which last year moved over six million trucks through dealer lots. For 2025, CAFE standards push for a fleet target of 54.5 MPG, making a fuel efficient diesel a necessity for Toyota. The Cummins is thought to a stop-gap for Toyota, as they reconsider their in-house diesel engine produced by their heavy-truck arm, Hino Trucks.

The 2008 economic crash was truly a game changer for light duty diesel engines, and we are just now beginning to see the effects.

Toyota had been working with Hino Trucks to produce a diesel engine for the Tundra, and had shown concepts of a 1-ton dually version of their then-new Tundra at the 2007 SEMA show. Plans for a heavy duty Tundra, along with the in-house diesel engine were shelved after the 2008 crash.

Ironically enough, the Cummins 5.0L V8 turbodiesel was originally destined for the Dodge Ram, and this will be the first time a Cummins motor has been sold in a pickup outside of the Ram. The engine was developed while Dodge and Nissan were planning to share a full-size truck chassis, but the ’09 bankruptcy sunk those plans, and Dodge was unhappy with the estimated fuel economy of the 5.0L Cummins. Nissan made the move to keep the engine.

Through Fiat ownership, who also owns VM Motori, the Ram 1500 received the 3.0L V6 turbodiesel  instead of the Cummins 5.0L V8 turbodiesel. The VM Motori 3.0L V6 turbodiesel was also destined for another home, GM. The 3.0L V6 turbodiesel was originally planned for use in the European Cadillac CTS, though GM also shelved its light diesel plans during its ’09 bankruptcy. Fiat and GM were 50/50 partners on VM Motori until September 2013, when Fiat announced GM would sell the remaining 50%.

And that wasn’t the only diesel GM shelved. Some may remember the Duramax 4.5L V8 turbodiesel GM had been brewing for its light trucks. GM was an early proponent for a modern light duty diesel, but it too was a victim of the ’09 bankruptcy. With new pressure from Ram, Toyota, and Nissan, it’s thought GM may dust off the Duramax 4.5L turbodiesel and bring it to market.

Sources say Ford is working on a light duty diesel as well, planning for a 2018 arrival. With new pressure from its competitors, it will be interesting to see if Ford can join the crowd in time.

2015 looks to be an interesting year in light duty pickups. We will see how the new 3.0L EcoDiesel fairs in light truck use, and both Toyota and Nissan should be rolling out their examples. We can only hope the pressure puts GM and Ford to work getting their light diesels ready.

As long as the price on the diesel option remains reasonable, light diesels should do well in half-ton pickups. Diesels offer superior fuel economy to their gas counterparts in nearly all conditions, especially under load. The Ram EcoDiesel is showing incredible (for a pickup) real world fuel economy numbers, with our own Alex Dykes seeing 29 mpg highway, and 24.2 mpg average in his review of the 2013 Ram Ecodiesel. This, along with superior torque figures to their gas counterparts, would give the average buyer a very decent towing option for those who aren’t ready to step up to the heavy duty trucks, with higher prices and substantially noisier heavy duty diesels.

Here’s a little anecdotal story about the Tundra in the lead photo. It is owned by my friend, and is built to be a mobile work shop for a variety of traveling work: From disaster insurance adjustment, to contracted construction work, to race-support at Pikes Peak and other events. It’s a work truck, through and through, with tool storage and 110v power to run electric power tools off of. One of the major reasons he didn’t go with a heavier duty diesel truck is simply because of the noise, “Man, this thing has to idle all the time while I work. Nobody likes to listen to the CLACKCLACKCLACK of a diesel truck. I just needed something quiet, dependable, and with a long bed. I don’t need a big diesel.” And it works admirably, I spent about 2,000 miles in it during our 2013 run at Pikes Peak with Rally Ready Motorsports. The only real fault with the truck was its horrific fuel economy with the 4.7L V8: with the bed cap and a fair payload it returned less than 13.5 mpg on the highway with speeds averaging 70 mph.

Had a light duty option been offered earlier, it would have fit this role perfect. The light duty work truck deserves a good diesel option.

 

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

100 Comments on “Next Generation 2016 Toyota Tundra To Share 5.0L Cummins Turbodiesel with Nissan...”


  • avatar
    zbnutcase

    I would love to see a Tundra based, diesel, dually pickup sold under the Hino name… The Hino name just screams heavy duty

    • 0 avatar
      RobertRyan

      @zbnutcase

      You will never see it. The Hinos sold in the US are converted Conventional versions of their Light and light medium Global trucks. They are built an assembled in Canada.

  • avatar
    schmitt trigger

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but a suitable transmission optimized for a Diesel’s speed/torque curves is also a must? In other words, the powertrain must be integrated.
    Do they have those transmissions available?

    • 0 avatar

      Not necessarily. GM used to package the 4L80 behind its diesels before the duramax, and its ratios worked just fine in that application. Generally, one wants to be careful in selecting the axle ratio for less mechanical advantage in light of the diesel power curve (IIRC, most d-max trucks come with a 3.73).

  • avatar
    Quentin

    “Not only does this engine produce more torque than any gas motor in a light duty pickup, but even tops the Ram EcoDiesel’s 420 ft lb, making it the most powerful engine offered in any light duty pickup.”

    This statement is incorrect. Ft-lb is a measure of torque. Horsepower is a measure of power. The Ford or GM 6.xL V8 gassers will remain the most powerful light duty pickup engine. The Tundra’s 5.7L makes a hearty 81 more HP than this Cummins.

    What do you mean by “next generation” in 2016? 2016 model year or 2016 calendar year? The Tundra just got a very heavy refresh for the 2014 model year. I’d be surprised to see a complete redesign just 2 years after such a heavy refresh.

    • 0 avatar
      alsorl

      The 2014 Tundra was just a body panel and interior change. It still has the same powertrain and floppy/bendable frame of the past Tundra’s.

      • 0 avatar
        Quentin

        I said “heavy refresh”. Powertrains are not tied to the chassis. Ford used carryover powertrains in the current generation F150 before the Coyote, Scorpion, and Ecoboost showed up in the 2nd model year, for example. If they were planning on a diesel, I expect that the current updates to the ’14 Tundra ahead of the firewall were made to accommodate the diesel. They have said that the ’14 Tundra hood is 1.5″ higher than before. Basically, the timing doesn’t make sense to me. I figure they will get 3 (minimum) to 4 years out of the ’14 refresh. That is why the combination of 2016 and “next generation” seemed off to me.

        • 0 avatar
          Kyree S. Williams

          That’s true, although it’s not the best example since the 2009-2014 F-150 is itself fundamentally the same structure as the 2004-2008 F-150 that preceded it. A better example would be the Ram 1500, which—upon its 2009 redesign—still used the 3.7-liter and 5.7-liter engines from the previous generation. The Japanese are also still known for wringing years and years out of their modern engines across multiple generations of cars, though Honda is going through a new “Earth Dreams” phase.

        • 0 avatar
          Phillip Thomas

          And how can we forget the GM LS-truck motors, who saw two generations of GM truck?

          >inb4 Smallblock Chevy for ~50 years

          • 0 avatar
            Kyree S. Williams

            Yep. Truth be told, most manufacturers use engines for several years, which helps to amortize the costs of developing those engines.

            What’s really highlighted by the above comment is the fact that Ford is known for using the same exact bodies and structures on its cars across multiple “generations”. Hopefully they’ll stop doing this, though. We know that the Mustang, F-150 and E-Series are getting redesigned or replaced this year, and once the Edge, MKX, and heavy-duty F-Series trucks get redone, there won’t be any more of the “recycled Ford cars”.

            Oh, but I’ve forgotten all about the 2015 Expedition and Navigator.

            Never mind.

    • 0 avatar
      Phillip Thomas

      You’re playing semantics here.

      434 ft lb of torque for the 6.2 in the F150
      460 ft lb of torque for the 6.2 in the Silverado 1500.
      500 ft lb of torque for the 5.0 diesel in the Titan.

      To quote the Wards article:

      “According to a WardsAuto forecast, the Tundra will get a 5.0L turbodiesel V-8 from engine-maker Cummins, likely when the next-generation Tundra debuts in 2016.”

      • 0 avatar
        Quentin

        I’m not playing with semantics. Power is power and torque is torque. They are completely different measurements. Your line should say that this would be the most torque of any light duty pickup truck engine. You can’t say something is the most “powerful” when you are talking about torque figures.

        • 0 avatar
          alsorl

          It really does not matter how much horsepower vs. Torque is in the tundra. There will have to be a complete overhaul of the frame and transmission. Just watch this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8uglLWLbq8&feature=youtube_gdata_player
          HP may not be the issue with the Tundra.

          • 0 avatar
            OldandSlow

            alsorl – I’ve never seen a rear frame flex like that. Whoah!

          • 0 avatar
            Quentin

            I’m immediately skeptical of any comparison test done by one automaker to show how bad others are. I imagine there were several passes done on all the trucks at a variety of speeds and they picked the speed that made the competition look the worst. Everything has a resonance frequency and suspensions are a basic 2nd order differential equation where it is pretty easy to figure out an input that could get you into that resonance condition. Get the speed right on the other trucks and you could have them mule kicking on the same course. The tundra definitely has less torsional rigidity than the fully boxed trucks, but for the load requirements of a half ton truck, the Tundra’s frame design is fine. All of the domestic heavy duty trucks had C channel designs up until very recently.

          • 0 avatar
            alsorl

            Quentin- Ask anyone that pulls a trailer or RV. It’s a scary thing when pulling with a Tundra. I’d have to say that video and all the other video’s casting issues of the frame are accurate. Why do you think Toyota had to put that commercial out of the Tundra pulling the space shuttle at 3 mph. Sure they will last 300,000 miles. But, maybe because the Tundra is never put to the test of heavy loads like other brands.

          • 0 avatar
            Quentin

            I actually know quite a few people that tow RVs with Tundras thanks to a Toyota plant being local to me. The biggest complaint, hands down, is the fuel mileage that results from the truck revving around 4k to pull up steep inclines. I’ve never heard of anyone complaining the frame is flexy or poorly suited to towing. The shuttle pull was typical truck machismo marketing. I’m not sure what it has to do with this discussion.

          • 0 avatar
            alsorl

            Having more torque in the Tundra may not be a good idea due to the build of the frame. As Phillip Thomas stated, the next generation Tundra is due to come out in 2016. Toyota has a great marketing team. So Toyota coming out with a all new Tundra might have to do with the poor design of the frame, and designing a stiffer chassis will give them real ability to compete with other brands. Including adding a Cummins diesel in the new Tundra.

          • 0 avatar
            84Cressida

            There is NOTHING wrong with the Tundra’s frame. That is Ford marketing BS at its finest. Their very own Super Duty uses a frame similar to the Tundra, so is that truck weak too?

            Your speculation about towing an RV with a Tundra as “scary” is nothing but hearsay.

          • 0 avatar
            alsorl

            @84cressida.. yes there is nothing wrong with the frame if it is used for the weekend trip to Home Depot. I have family that owned and worked at RV dealerships for the past 30 years. The tundra is never recommended for towing anything longer then a 19foot travel trailer. Nor even the smallest 5th wheel. Not only for all the flex in the frame. But for the tragic MPG even without a heavy load. Back in the 80’s Toyota built a small pick duelly that was used for micro mini motor homes. That was a great truck that was built proof.

        • 0 avatar
          Phillip Thomas

          Compromised, fair enough?

          • 0 avatar
            Quentin

            Torquiest is 100% accurate. :)

          • 0 avatar
            naracermcb

            I know ford had that big deal on a boxed frame. Too stiff is not good. Causes stress cracks. This is why ford is switching back to only having the front around the engine boxed and back to a c-channel design. This is the big deal about using steel over aluminum is it being able to flex and return to shape over and over and not losing any strength. All of the half ton trucks use a frame like this. Ford changed it and now they are going right back to it. I work in the oilfield in west texas where it’s dominant of the the big 3 work trucks. But I’ve seen a bunch of tundras with goosenecks and 25′ bumper pulls. Over weight because I’ve hauled the same stuff in our 2500 chevies and half I’m on the edge of combined gvwr. when asking these guys that use them for hotshot trucks they say they’ll never go back. They don’t like the gas milage but they say they pull great and they last. I love our chevy trucks. Ride decent and other than a fuel pump 267k in a gas truck pulling 14-16k loads every day isn’t bad. But when a half ton steps up and does it in a similar fashion something has got to be said about its quality. People jump on these little bandwagons because they favor a domestic brand or something without any knowledge at all on the truck itself. Your family deals in rv. Not pulling stuff with a tundra. I see these trucks used ever day. See people hauling a lot bigger than 19ft and using every bit of that 10k lbs tow capacity. They are fine trucks and will do anything a chevy ford or doge will do. And ride nicer doing it.

      • 0 avatar
        NOPR

        Confusing torque and power is not semantics, especially considering how frequently the two are incorrectly interchanged or totally misunderstood.
        It is completely incorrect to say, “it’s the most powerful engine offered in any light duty pickup” because with only 300hp it certainly isn’t. It has the most torque, but with less power it won’t be able to accelerate as quickly as it’s gasoline competitors.

    • 0 avatar
      jrmason

      Your statement is not totally accurate. Yes, the V8s that are available in the half tons will boast more HP but horsepower does not move a trailer down the road and maintain a constant speed up a steep grade.It takes torque to do these things. To make peak horsepower an engine has to be turning high rpm, kind of misleading because your not making peak horsepower travelling down the road unless your turning 4000+rpm, which isn’t practical by any means. A diesel is making peak torque at cruising speeds, and they will tow any trailer better and more efficiently then any gasser V8 is capable of. I would take a lower horsepower/higher torque engine any day of the week, and pass those 300 HP gassers when they’re stopped at the pump filling up.

    • 0 avatar
      Reicher

      You are also comparing a 3.0 V6 with a 5.0L V8, massive difference…… 5.0L diesel makes it sound like it should be HD but threw the HD powertrain in a standard truck.

  • avatar
    alsorl

    Ram scrapped the Cummins 5.0 for a reason, it was getting poor fuel economy ratings. I’ve read 22 hwy. Ford will have its 2.7L ecoboost in the 2015 F150 that will probably get over 30mpg hwy.
    Putting Nissan’s latest PreRunner concept, the Cummins 3.0L 4cyl diesel in the Titan and Tundra would be a game changer in the light duty truck world.

    • 0 avatar
      Phillip Thomas

      Dodge quoted about 24 mpg at the time, while their goal was 26 mpg highway.

    • 0 avatar
      danio3834

      “Ford will have its 2.7L ecoboost in the 2015 F150 that will probably get over 30mpg hwy.”

      This is very doubtful. The 2.7L doesn’t appear to employ anything new that the 3.5L doesn’t, it’s merely just scaled down 20% for fuel economy. As such, it’s unlikely it’ll see a 20% fuel economy gain over the 3.5L on it’s own. With the weight loss of the new body, I’d venture to guess it’ll end up with a highway rating of ~26 mpg.

  • avatar
    NeilM

    No spell check on Mr. Thomas’s computer? In this article’s first line, remember “i” before “e” except after “c”.

  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    Why get a nice Tundra and put a 20 year-old S10 cap on the back? Awful.

  • avatar
    OldandSlow

    Fascinating. I wonder what this Tundra will cost. $40K plus?

  • avatar

    I’m not seeing how the 5.0 Cummins is a win. Yes, it’s “off the shelf” but this is going to be a torque monster, not a mpg darling. Also, how heavy is this thing going to be? The 3.0 VM Motori and (I’d suppose) the shelved 4.5L D-max were at least designed for light-duty application.

    And, not to be a complete luddite, but does Cummins have any experience with both V engines and meeting light-duty emmissions standards? My understanding is they’re an inline manufacturer only. After the decade-long debacle with Ford/Navistar over the Powerstroke, I’m wary.

    • 0 avatar
      Phillip Thomas

      I’ll be curious to see what it will do with modern transmissions.

      The new “ISV5.0″ appears to be Cummins’ only Vee engine. I thought so, too: http://cumminsengines.com/showcase.aspx

      I’m wary of any first-year motor, regardless who it comes from. It’ll be an interesting next few years.

    • 0 avatar
      Toad

      I agree; the Cummins V8 seems to be more of a medium duty commercial engine than a light duty pickup engine. A smaller engine like the one in the Ram half ton makes more sense; if you want big power step up to the 3/4 ton or higher spec truck.

      I’d like to think that (based on the success of the EcoBoost) light duty truck buyers are smart enough to get swept up in the horsepower wars, but we will see.

      • 0 avatar
        danio3834

        Since neither Nissan nor Toyota offer HD versions of their trucks, I suspect this engine is intended to help them fill that gap a bit without making the full investment in a much smaller market.

        The Cummins 5.0L doesn’t make sense for Ram because they already had an HD with a big power diesel, the LD Ram needed a diesel for the fuel economy more than the power ratings and the 3.0L seems to fit the bill very well.

  • avatar
    RogerB34

    The article doesn’t state if EGR and DPF Cummins.
    If so it will have reliability problems.
    Use MSO2 additive in diesel engines. Common use in EU. Eliminates most of the diesel chatter my experience.

  • avatar
    Kristjan Ambroz

    A bit surprised that Toyota did not choose to fit a version of its own existing V8 diesel (4,5l, as used in the European version of the Landcruiser), which is fully developed and has been in production and operation for some years already. The performance stats are similar to those of the Cummins, too – and it is definitely not a clattery, loud piece of equipment. On the other hand it may well be on the more expensive side, and would need to pass US emissions standards…

    At least one can be sure that Toyota already uses a suitable gearbox for a V8 diesel of that power and torque band (and for a heavy duty application).

    • 0 avatar
      Phillip Thomas

      Wards thinks this engine is a stop-gap. They may be riding on some of the work done by Dodge and Nissan for emissions.

      Plus, just glancing at the stats, it’s considerably down on torque (317 ft lb) compared to even the US gas motors.

      It would make a sweet Tacoma engine, though.

      • 0 avatar
        goldtownpe

        317 ft-lb is with the single turbo. The 200 series Land Cruiser uses the the twin turbo which puts out 479 ft-lb. I also thought that Toyota was going to use this engine too.

      • 0 avatar
        alsorl

        The diesel from the hilux either the 2.5 or 3.0 would be great for the Tacoma. And maybe even Tundra since the 3.0 L 340 Nm equals to over 250 ft lbs of torque. Not everyone that wants a full size truck also wants 400 to 500 ft/lb torque. I truly think Toyota would have a waiting list for a 3 liter 4cyl diesel Tacoma or Tundra.

    • 0 avatar
      OliverTwist

      I was going to mention the current 4,5-litre diesel V8 motor for the European market.

      About four years ago, I took a Land Cruiser 200 series with the aforementioned diesel V8 motor out for a spin in Germany. The smooth and quiet performance surprised me as I drove to 220 km/h (135 mph) on the Autobahn. It was no slouch at all…

      What I recalled the most was roughly 15.000 euro premium over the petrol V8 motor. I supposed this motor was too expensive for the volume leader Tundra, especially the price sensitive Americans.

      • 0 avatar
        Kyree S. Williams

        Well, we aren’t price-sensitive in that we like under-priced, under-engineered cars—which everyone seems to think—but rather that we put our values in different areas. My guess is that cultural differences and the fact that we drive longer commutes mean that we value creature comforts and features above drivetrains, suspension and steering. Also, the advantage of a 4.5-liter diesel versus one of Toyota’s larger gas engines (4.6-liter, 5.0-liter or 5.7-liter) would be lost on our shores.

        Of course, the cost of adding a diesel engine to the Land Cruiser is probably exceeded by the price people pay when they purchase a Lexus LX 570 *instead* of a Land Cruiser…

  • avatar
    areader

    Cummins has lots of experience with V8 engines used in tank, garbage trucks, etc. Even if they didn’t have that experience, Cummins takes a much different approach to testing and reliability than Ford and GM have demonstrated. They can’t afford not to since engines are their only business. They don’t sell style and don’t rely on emotion.

    I don’t know what contractual provisions were with Dodge/Fiat. I’d have thought it was an exclusive deal that locked Cummins in to Dodge. I had a 1990 Dodge Cummins. I had owned a ’75 Dodge PU with the 225 slant six. No way I’d have ever owned another Dodge product after that mess. I talked to a guy in Columbus before buying the ’90 Dodge/Cummins, and he told me that Cummins had approached Ford first, but Ford was afraid that the GM diesel fiasco had ruined the PU diesel potential. If Ford had gone with Cummins, I doubt Dodge would be in the PU business now. Cummins put them back in the game. Ford has repeatedly shown that they don’t test worth a damn. Get it out there and let the customers find the problems for them. Having other brands using Cummins will up the ante for screwups with companies using any other diesel engines. Wish I needed a pickup.

    • 0 avatar
      Scoutdude

      Lets see Ford first offered the International 6.9 in 1983 and Dodge offered the Cummins for the first time in 1989 so I’m not buying that Cummins approached Ford and Ford decided that they were afraid of diesels after the GM diesel fiasco. The reality is that Dodge was caught with their pants down w/o a diesel engine for their pickup so they went shopping and ended up at the Cummins store. I do agree that they would have the following they currently have w/o the Cummins.

      Regarding the Ford 6.0 and it’s numerous problems most of the blame lies with Navistar and indirectly the EPA. When the EPA announced the 2007 and 2010 diesel emissions standards they offered a carrot in the form of credits. For each 2007 compliant engine that was sold before the required date they were supposed to be allowed to sell a 2007 compliant engine after the effective date of the 2010 standards. Navistar rushed it to production w/o proper testing and validation. Of course Ford didn’t complain and started offering it mid model year as they assumed they would get to keep the credits and put off DEF. Of course the engine had numerous problems and Ford stopped payment for engines as Navistar wouldn’t cover warranty work. That led to the divorce which made Navistar quite happy as they walked away with the credits and were able to sell trucks that didn’t require DEF through 2013.

  • avatar
    charlie986532

    Torque and horsepower have to be used to calculate eachother. Torque x RPM = horsepower and what ever. Diesel engine produces peak torque at low RPM thus lower horsepower. Gas engine produces peak torque at higher RPM thus higher horsepower.

    • 0 avatar
      DevilsRotary86

      H(r) = (T(r) * r)/5252

      Where:
      r is RPM
      H(r) is power in horsepower at a given RPM r
      T(r) is torque in ft-lbs at a given RPM r
      5252 is a unit conversion to get horsepower

      Run a search on Google for the dyno charts of your favorite engine. The horsepower and torque lines will ALWAYS cross at about 5252 RPM.

  • avatar
    OliverTwist

    I am bit confused about the ft-lb because I have always thought the proper measurement unit for torque would be lb-ft as used by many car magazines.

    Is there any difference between ft-lb and lb-ft?

    • 0 avatar
      charlie986532

      Ft-lb and Lb-ft are interchangeable.

    • 0 avatar
      Phillip Thomas

      I’ve always seen it interchanged. Torque is a multiplicative formula, anyways.

      If you put ten pounds on the end of a fixed 2′ bar, you have 20 ft lb or lb ft of torque on the fixed end.

      Anyone correct me if I’m wrong.

      • 0 avatar
        danio3834

        When I was in engineering school, I had one teacher who was extremely insistent that we use foot-pounds (ft-lbs) in our calculations. He was so anal about it, he would relentlessly mark the question wrong if a student confused the two terms, regardless if the calculations were correct.

        Pound feet (lb-ft) is commonly used to specify that the force is torque. Most people won’t throw a fit if the terms are used interchangeably.

        • 0 avatar
          davefromcalgary

          You would absolutely have grounds to challenge his marking.

          If I was reviewing someone else’s design and saw m*kN instead of kN*m, aside from a brief, personal “WTF” I wouldn’t think about it twice, as long as the actual calculations were right.

  • avatar
    Mr Imperial

    500 lb-ft torque…It’s interesting that only 10 years ago, the “High Output” 5.9 Cummins I-6 was rated at 555 lb-ft, the GM 6.6 Duramax was at 520 lb-ft, and the 6.0 Ford Powerstroke was at 560 lb-ft.

    All numbers just marginally better than the upcoming 5.0 Cummins. And those engines were for 3/4 ton and above trucks!

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    I think Toyota and Nissan will produce their pickups to be ‘HD’s’, or sort of HD’s.

    They will be rated as a Class 3 truck.

    As for the engine power and torque quoted, they are probably quite incorrect.

    I figure 350hp and at least 600ftlb.

    2018 is the year for change in the HD. The EPA considers the technology transfer from 1/2 ton pickups take at least several years to transfer across to HD’s.

    Are the Titan and Tundra with these diesel going to be Class 2 or Class 3?

    • 0 avatar
      el scotto

      Son, here in The Land of The Free and The Home of The Brave, we call them trucks. Drive them everywhere and anywhere, park them anywhere and everywhere, no special license needed; just the cash to buy one. Class2? Class 3? Nope, buy one of these with a leather interior, a loud stereo and a spec sheet full of options you are going First Class all the way. All chiding aside; Americans use the terms 1/2, 3/4, and full ton. Think F-150, F-250, F-350 for Ford; 1500, 2500, 3500 for Chevy/GMC. I don’t know Ram’s (Dodge’s) nomenclature. Oh it can edge into silliness with Ford offer F-750’s or something silly like that. Anyone, please feel free to correct me if I got the truck nomenclatures wrong. Anyway, you don’t need a special license to drive them; just a big enough check.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        @el scotto
        The land of the free????

        So where are your BT50s, Amaroks, Rangers, etc. That’s right regulated out of a country doesn’t deny you freedom, only if they are banished would that be construed as impinging your freedom.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          @BAF0 – Yes if we didn’t have pickup classes 1500 to 3500 (and up), yeah small trucks would be crazy popular… By default! Like they are in OZ. What else are you going to do? Cry? No, you make the best of a bad situation. And make more trips. Back and forth, back and forth, back and forth… And you give them insane capacity to make up the difference. There’s no US DOT equivalent agency so capacity is totally left up to the OEM’s sense of humor!!!

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        @El svotto
        I guess you simple types don’t realise how your regulatory bodies work.

        Go and educate yourself beyond your one horse town education.

      • 0 avatar
        Scoutdude

        Do you notice anything in the cominality of Ford using 150, 250 to 750 and GM and Dodge using 1500, 2500 ect? That first number represented the class of the truck, at least until the 1/2 ton trucks got so big and heavy and are now class 2a while the 250/2500 trucks are class 2b. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truck_classification

      • 0 avatar
        RobertRyan

        @el scotto
        ” Drive them everywhere and anywhere, park them anywhere and everywhere, no special license needed”

        It is a US vehicle classification, not a LICENCE requirement!! You do not know that then it is a worry.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truck_classification

    • 0 avatar
      Scoutdude

      @ Al, I’m sure they will keep the base Turdra as a class 2a though they may branch into class 2b and 3 too. As far as 2018 being the year “change in HD” sorry but MD and HD trucks started getting their emissions regulated in 2007 and were tightened in 2010 which is why all current MD and HD trucks require DEF just like used in Mercedes cars for example.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        @Scoutdude
        At the moment many of the changes are still voluntary.

        I do envisage the Titan and Tundra will be rated above 8 500lbs GVM.

        That is total laden weight of the pickups.

        I had a great link into the changes on PUTC concerning Medium duty up to articulated and heavy duty trucks.

        I was very interested in the EPA comments that stated that anything above Class 2 or 1/2 ton pickups was regarded as one generation behind and they will give some grace for the technology transfer.

        These heavier trucks will use a system similar to the Euro system of weight or FE/Emission per ton mile.

        I’ll try and find the copy of the post and put the link in here.

        I really like Cummins for the effort they have put into their engines. The Toyota 4.5 V8 diesel (actually Toyota have crap diesels, even though they are very reliable) isn’t that good and Hino engine just weigh too much to drop into the front of a pickup.

  • avatar
    Sigivald

    “The only real fault with the truck was its horrific fuel economy with the 4.7L V8: with the bed cap and a fair payload it returned less than 13.5 mpg on the highway with speeds averaging 70 mph.”

    Jesus. That’s the kind of mileage my F-250 (gas v8, long bed, ex cab) gets, including canopy and a thousand-odd pounds of payload.

    (Admittedly, averaging a bit slower, more like 65, but still…)

    I’m surprised it’s that low, all things considered.

  • avatar
    ajla

    “… possibly helping to bridge the gap between their half-ton pickups and Ford, GM and Ram’s heavier duty 3/4-ton pickups”

    Payload (and the rear axle) in a modern half-ton is the big issue. Not power.

    A diesel V8 is probably going to be heavy enough to make things even worse (this seems to be the case with the EcoDiesel V6 RAM that gives up about 200lbs of payload to the iron block V8 and 400lbs to the Pentastar).

    Honestly, I wish more people that don’t tow over 6000lbs would give the naturally aspirated V6 trucks a chance.

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      I’d give a fullsize V6 a chance(for shits and giggles), but the hell if I’m going to actually be stuck with a V6 engine for however long I own my truck.

      For 2k a V8 is a no brainier.

  • avatar
    Spartan

    There’s a reason you can’t have a production 400 HP Mazda MX-5 and it’s for the same reason you probably shouldn’t buy a 500 ft-lb engine in a Tundra.

    BTW, this engine is complete overkill for a half-ton pickup. I’m sure the tow ratings will be well over 12,000 lbs, but I’m not towing that much with a half-ton anything.

  • avatar

    The Gentleman from Texas has the floor:

    “Texas requests a diesel Suburban. Thank you.”

  • avatar
    Dimwit

    I’m always surprised that Ford never mentions the 4.4L diesel that they canceled just after certification. It was slated for the F150.

    Cummins rep will help both Nissan and Toyota. It will be interesting how robust it is compared to the VM version. Less plastic I hope.

  • avatar
    Scoutdude

    Most diesel engined do not have better fuel economy than many of the gas engines offered in the same vehicle. Yes they have better MPG but the added cost of the fuel means that the gas engine has better fuel economy. Take a look at the new Ram with a 28 MPG for the diesel and up to 26 MPG for the gas V6. You get about a 7.5% increase in MPG but you’ll be stuck with paying 10-20% or more per gallon of fuel depending on the time of the year and where you live. That doesn’t include the cost of DEF which is why for many in the trucking industry the term fluid economy has replaced the term fuel economy.

    As others have mentioned this will not be the most powerful truck since Power and Torque are two different things even though Horsepower is calculated from torque.

    Torque is a measurement of force. Horsepower is the rate of application of that torque and tells you how fast you can do work. So when you go to pull that trailer up a hill assuming the rest of the vehicle is up to the task and matched to the engine the vehicle with the higher horsepower rating will get the combination up the hill faster. Diesels are further hampered by their low rpm redlines since torque can be multiplied while power can’t. So that gas engine can put more torque to the wheels since you can use steeper gears w/o causing the engine to redline.

  • avatar
    Jerome10

    I’m somewhat of a diesel fan. The off the line pep and cruising mpg of this fuel is indeed nice. I’ve got an E90 325d BMW in Germany now. Mainly it is a good compromise on mpg, cost, but it will still early get to 130mph on the autobahn. Still has some I6 feel to it. I like it enough. I’d rather have a gasser now after owning this a few years, but my driving habits make the diesel a better fit for me here.

    Saying that, the diesel obsession I’m seeing in the USA is starting to remind me of hybrids 7-10 years ago. Suddenly diesel is the rage, everyone wants in, and I think unfortunately only a few will truly succeed. If you like the feel of diesel, you want to tow, great. But for most car or truck buyers in the USA, Diesel makes zero sense.

    First the fuel economy gains are easily wiped out by cost to purchase the engine and the cost of the fuel. $2-4k or more for the engine adds a a lot. And when I was home in Idaho at Christmas, diesel was over $1 more per gallon vs even premium gasoline. If I recall, when I lived in Illinois the prices were closer, but I think a good chunk of the country has very expensive diesel.

    Add to it the lumpy idle, higher noise, more limited service stations, generally unenjoyable sound and revving characteristics vs gas, and the fact gas engines are getting extremely efficient themselves… I haven’t done manual calculations but computer says I average about 36mpg in my diesel 3. My mother drives a 535i with the turbo I6 gas now and that thing can get over 30mpg. She had the same E90 3 series I have, but the 330i with the 255hp high power non turbo I6 engine, and that car also could pull 30+mpg. The extra 5mpg (ignoring my financial incentive we have in Germany to buy diesel) is in no way worth it over her 330i. The 330 is just as fast, but sounds amazing, is lighter on its feet, feels like butter, is far quieter, and the car itself feels way more luxurious without the Diesel shake and Rumble.

    I just don’t see diesel in the USA being popular enough. Diesel lovers will buy them. That’s it. The average Joe car buyer will just not go there unless diesel engine option cost and/or fuel costs come way down. There is really no other advantage to having one.

    I’m glad to see there finally being some choice. But a lot of these automakers will be in for some hurt in my opinion. Take rate may spike at first then die big time is my prediction.

  • avatar
    Instant_Karma

    Great, now I’m going to end up seeing “I’d rather be Cumming than Stroking” stickers on the back glass of Nissans and Toyotas too.

  • avatar
    supwechargedtundra

    Well I thought I would come comment here. I own a crew max limited with the TRD supercharger and a 100k mile warranty behind it; 504hp with 550 ft-pds torque along with a heavy foot. In 4wd I have had this truck pulling on a 30 degree angle through a light. In the mountains accelerate up the biggest hills I can find a mountain to 90 mph where most trucks crash and burn trying to maintain 60.

    I have towed my 28 ft chaparral cruiser no issues, had to upgrade to the big brake kit, and again up the same mountain faster than standard truck with no load.

    The trucks current transmission with the 4.10 rearend gears is super solid.

    I would say that when I went to 20 in wheels and a little lower profile tire the truck stabilized better for towing. Still a meaty tire Cooper zeons ltz 285wide.

    And with the 100k mile warranty I couldn’t go wrong. My customized Ford went through 3 transmissions and never again…

    Anyone thinks the tundra isn’t a truck to own, I have to say I have had them all… Fact 13 cars in 18 months and every line of truck was in that, along with most nice cars as well. The tundra is by far the best mid size truck and to offer a diesel I think I would consider trading in my supercharged truck for that tundra diesel.

    It is not for towing your 15000 pd car trailer but 9000 pds with the big brake kit, I did 4k miles in 4 days towing my boat. Up and down mountains, truck is super solid.

    You can’t compare the HD vs MD which I think the balance is going to be in gas efficency.

    And to top it all off I can get 20mpg with light foot. The supercharger idles at 65MPH 1800rpm up most hills without breaking overdrive. When I need to accurate to 80mph to pass a slow chevy, dodge or Ford up a hill, there is absolutely no comparison. Like launching from 0-30 it continues pulling to 100…

    You will most likely see me looking for the first test drive of this new tundra. From there, decide based on various factors if I trade in.

    • 0 avatar
      alsorl

      Yes adding a supercharger to a V8 will help in many ways. I am surprised the toyoda frame held up. But as you pointed out it is not made to pull 15,000 lbs.
      Bottom line it’s still toyoda and for an overall work stuck not much beats a F250 with a power stoke. My uncle owns and operated a landscaping / snow plowing company in Illinois. He has tried a tundra and it did not make it 1 year with out major transmission and suspension issues. He basically says it’s for my aunt to run to the store and for the trips to the lake for pulling a boat or some jet skis. Or put it this way. The tundra is not for someone that actually depends on there truck for actual work.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributing Writers

  • Jack Baruth, United States
  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Vojta Dobes, Czech Republic
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Cameron Aubernon, United States
  • J Emerson, United States