Twenty-six summers ago I arrived in San Antonio, Texas. I quickly surmised that the pickup truck was River City residents’ favored mode of transport– preferably with an occupied gun rack. These pickup-driving Hill Country Texans worshiped at the altar of one of two churches: Chevy or Ford. Since those simple days of my youth, the rules of the game have changed. That community, so steeped in American pickup truck tradition, is now the production site for the all-new 2007 Tundra. Question: is Toyota’s big rig good enough to pry the keys out of the hands of F150, Silverado, and Ram-loving Americans?
Toyota’s empire is built on low-risk (i.e. bland) styling. If inoffensiveness is an indicator of success, the Tundra is destined for greatness. Critics have correctly observed that the new Toyota looks a lot like the last generation Ford F-Series, with a tri-ovate ‘T’ embossed on the grille. Everything from the front light clusters and aerodynamic-ish hood to the general proportions smack of Dearborn’s influence.
Not that looking like a Ford pickup truck is such a bad idea. After all, Nissan’s bold Titan tanked. On the other hand, the daring redesign of the Dodge Ram back in ‘93, offering a semi truck inspired front-end, ignited a market penetrating sales explosion from just 100k to 400,000 units in a little over six years. Just sayin’.
The Tundra’s interior is a far cry from the snug, tightly engineered cockpit that typifies Toyotas. In strict accordance with its American competition, the Tundra’s cabin is cavernous– in the Carlsbad sense of the word. In fact, a [hands free] cell phone might come in handy for inter-passenger communication. And one of those top shelf grabbing gizmos could help with tuning the radio and adjusting the HVAC controls.
Our tester’s deeply cushioned seats were covered with [optional] textured cowhide. Depending on the package, the design features a mishmash of contrasting light and dark toned plastics, faux aluminum and an overabundance of fake wood. By froufrou European standards, Tundra’s inner styling is couture désastre. But it ain’t pink, so it’s good to go.
The new Tundra comes in three engine configs. The underpowered 4.0-liter 236 horse V6 EPA’s at 17/20mpg. The entirely adequate 4.7-liter 271hp V8 clocks in at 15/18 mpg. Both of these mills use a five-speed tranny (a cog more than the Silverado). The third option, a free-revving 5.7-liter i-FORCE cast aluminum block V8, musters-up 381hp and 401 ft.-lbs. of tire vaporizing torque. That bad boy– most likely the most popular powerplant– gets a six-speed and sucks fuel at 16/20 mpg.
A 4×4 double cab fitted with the 5.7 skedaddles from nil to 60 in just 6.3 seconds. As insane as that sounds/is, drag times do not do this mechanical jewel justice. As the TV ad testifies, the Tundra blasts through 40 to 80mph with astounding alacrity. It has enough oomph to humiliate HEMI’s, vanquish Vortec’s, trounce Tritons and fell Titans. Thankfully, the Tundra has Texas-sized brakes– you'll need 'em.
To make the beast handle, Toyota deploys standard 18” wheels, low-pressure nitrogen shocks, a coil-spring double wishbone independent front suspension and a multi-leaf live axle rear end– all to ill effect. The Tundra porpoises badly over highway surfaces at middling speeds. The jittery rig is not harsh, but it serves up more action than Anna Nicole Smith (ante-mortem, of course). Through corners, nautical dynamics and howling tires never let you forget that you’re driving a 6’4” tall 5,645lbs truck.
Tundra buyers choose from 31 engine-bed-cabin variations, with payloads ranging from 1410 to 2060 pounds. She’ll tow up to 10,800 pounds. While that’s best in class, there’s not much else about the way the Tundra goes about the basic business of hauling people and stuff that sets it apart. It’s the details that’ll bedevil Detroit.
Inside the cabin, the ‘tween-the-seats console is big enough to lock down a lap-top. The electric [center] rear window and backup camera makes hitching your wagon (and avoiding your little uns) a breeze. The shock absorber in the tailgate protects hinges and humans alike, and closes with a finger. The XXL door handles are glove friendly. The front frame-integrated tow hooks are rugged and ready. And so on.
While none of these features are unique to the Tundra, they prove that ToMoCo finally “gets it.”
In 1981, I bought a plaid shirt with pearl snap buttons and cowboy boots. It was a failed effort to integrate into my new San Antonio home. Likewise, moving to San Antonio and donning western duds won’t make the Tundra acceptable to American pickup truck buyers. The Tundra’s success– and it will be successful– will be fueled by Toyota’s marketplace momentum, their obvious commitment to catering to their buyers’ needs and a reputation for reliability.
113 Comments on “Toyota Tundra Review...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
“their obvious commitment to catering to their buyers’ needs”
Kinda ties in to Robert’s previous editorial. Something that most companies lately… just don’t get.
I don’t currently cover pickups on my price comparison site. I haven’t gotten the sense that large pickup buyers look to the Internet for price comparisons and fuel economy information. And entering pricing data for just one of these complex beasties would take more time and effort than entering everything Honda sells.
But I could be wrong. If you own a large pickup and would like to have such information when shopping for your next one, please let me know.
http://www.truedelta.com/contact.php
On the truck itself, I’m not sure the styling is so bland. People on the sites I visit have been quite critical of the front end. I’m not crazy about the grille myself, especially not the fake opening at the top of it.
On Toyota’s website was a video of how they made the “Seesaw” commercial. toyota is obviously very proud of it. In the background actually doing the work were many Ford trucks. This was pointed out in The St Louis Courier yesterday. Today the video is off Toyota’s website. It was funny to see, about a half a dozen Fords owned by the guys doing the work all loaded up and they bring in a shiny new Toyota amongst them and run it up this ramp. And still, as they are doing this you see the Fords all loaded up on the ground. All of this was edited for the real commercial. Funny as heck to me. I got a good laugh watching the video.
Toyota is spending a hundred MILLION dollars to launch the thing, all in the hopes of selling less than 200,000 trucks. That’s about five grand per customer.
The initial impression of the success or failure of the new Tundra will be judged by the number of ‘em that are sold in the first year or two, not by the profits made (or not). Once the truck is ‘established’ in the marketplace the marketing will no doubt ease off. Press reports of the truck not selling would be much more expensive than overspending on marketing.
Don’t forget that Toyota, if their truck doesn’t make the sales they want, will revise the crap out of it for the next iteration. As an example, the Previa -> old Sienna -> new Sienna minivan evolution.
I’m surprised there’s any styling criticism at all. IMHO, this is simply the best looking full-size pickup EVAR. It’s the only one I’d be caught driving…which brings me to my next point:
There is a whole generation or two out there (let’s call them “X” and “Y”) who believe Toyota can do no wrong. These people have little if any allegiance to domestics. And many of them are getting into travel trailers, boats, and other towables with their growing disposable income. Provided Toyota can speak to the real construction folks, this thing should be a slam dunk.
Besides, it’s only about as big and heavy as the upcoming 2016 VW Golf ;)
So I wonder for sh!ts and giggles if they put one of the newer Ford Trucks working on that Toyota commercial on that ramp for comparison.
I like the ext. styling; it’s the bold aggressive in your face thing that seems to be necessary for these once humble work vehicles. you failed to mention the quality (NOT) of the interior materials. granted i only looked at one truck, it seemed to be a mid level beast with cloth seats but the dash and door panels were that sharp edged flexible crap we know and hate in GM rental cars. and the overall “design” was completely rube goldberg. i was really surprised that the interior, IMO, sucked in comparison to the F150 and probably (haven’t seen yet) the new GM trucks.
While the Toyota badge may not appeal to Chevy and Ford traditionalists, upping the ante in the truck wars will be good for all consumers. What is more troubling is that all truck manufacturers seem more focused on outrageous 0-60 times than getting better fuel economy. That seems to indicate that the ‘recreational’ truck market may not be as dead as first thought. Next they’ll be testing them on the Nurburgring instead of construction sites.
I wish we had a mathematical definition of “bland,” so that we could make a computational evaluation of a design and agree on whether it was “bland” or not.
I wouldn’t describe the truck, or any other Toyota as “bland” but that seems the most popular adjective to Toyota styling.
One man’s bland is another’s “clean,” “liquid,” “smooth,” functional” or even “austere.”
I don’t think Toyota is ‘there’ yet in the full sized truck arena. The new Tundra starts at a higher price point than the domestics, and this may hurt it with the contractors and other small businessmen who only want a stripped down work truck. On the other end of the scale, Toyota (and Nissan) are not offering the super duty trucks that are required for the ‘big job’. This truck does seem competitive in the mid-market ‘urban cowboy’ lifestyle segment, but these are the trendy types who are already moving onto the next big thing as gas prices spike. Also, it must be mentioned that Toyota’s green image is being damaged by vehicles like this, and the environmental activists are noticing. Even with it’s six speed, the Toyota gets worse mileage than the new GMs, and the GMs will soon be adding six speeds and hybrid versions.
If the big 2.5 can do anything well, it’s trucks. Their owners don’t have problems with them, and have little reason to switch. This Toyota seems to be a nice truck, and sales may grow incrementally, but I don’t think they will be dominating this market just yet.
labrat
Good point on the base-level aspect of trucks. If I had a dime for every municipal or construction crew’s stripped-down $15k white F-150, I’d have enough dimes to buy one myself.
labrat: Even with it’s six speed, the Toyota gets worse mileage than the new GMs
Actually, Chevy’s less powerful 6.0L-engined 4X2 Silverado w/extended cab, the most similar configuration to the 5.7L Tundra I tested, gets slightly worse gas mileage @ 15/19, according to the Feds. It does, however, drive much better – free of the jitters that plague the Toyota.
There were Ford Trucks doing all the work because the contracors got a good deal at the fire sale the local dealer was having :)
On the styling IMHO this truck looks like the front end of a Ram, the cab of a Silverado, and the bed of a F 150.
What are your thoughts?
labrat, I agree that Toyota will not ‘dominate’ right off the bat, but it will be a slow and steady rise over time. I agree with Ash that generations X and Y will gradually be having more kids, making more money, taking up more expensive hobbies, and buying more toys for themselves and their kids with which to play. As these generations increase in age, so will the sales of big foreign-badged pickups, because (generally speaking, of course) we are more likely to buy a foreign nameplate than older generations. If I went to work with a new Tundra, or even a Titan, most of the staff would ooo and ahh and want to take a ride. I don’t think anyone would care much or even notice if I bought a new Silverado or F-150.
A couple of quick notes about the Tundra. First, Toyota boasts 75% domestic (US & Canada) content including the engine and transmission. Only 20% of the Tundra is sourced from Japan.
Second, price. Toyota claims that a base Tundra can be had for about $22k. Good luck finding one. Figure on paying a minimum of $26-$28k. A basic double cab with the sweet 5.7L rings in north of $33K. Be prepared to shell out $40 grand for a loaded model.
I think this truck is going to give GM and Ford some major fits. If GM’s CEO’s are not having Tundra nightmares they should be. Especially if Toyota picks up a few big fleet sales to contractors.
The current owners of domestic trucks don’t have problems with them? Uhhhhh – OK. I guess spark plugs shooting out of the heads isn’t a problem then. Or totally dis-functional diesel motors. And on and on.
While fleet buyers like the stripper vehicles, there’s something to be said about the cost of downtime – how much does it hurt for every minute that a truck is not doing what it was bought for. Businesses/govts might find that a Toyota at $23K is a better bargain than a domestic truck at $15. A total cost of ownership thing. In other words, what’s a 150K mile V6 crank window Detroit truck worth at 6 years old? What will the Toyota be worth?
Sid Vicious,
Great point. Although domestic trucks are a relative bright spot for resale value, Toyotas are and always have been through the roof. Compare any similar competing models on the used market, 5, 10, 15 years old: Blazer vs. 4-Runner, Ranger vs. Tacoma, Equinox vs. Highlander, you get the idea. Even the stripper ‘Yotas will be worth a pretty penny years down the road.
Sid Vicious
I’m not sure residual value matter that much to most fleets, but I could be wrong. Aren’t most vehicles like this on operating leases? So we’d have to assume the lessor actually passes along the depreciation savings to the customer, which could definitely make a $22k truck nearly as cheap (monthly lease expense) as a $15k truck over the same 5-year period. The same could go for ownership, but the monthly finance expense would simply be higher, and many fleet buyers are hand-to-mouth and would take the cheaper payment–I’m thinking about local governments, mostly. Private sector fleet buyers may be a little more astute.
Something tells me lessors don’t allow for much planned residual value in a $15k domestic truck after 5 years of hard usage.
Michael Karesh: I’m not crazy about the grille myself, especially not the fake opening at the top of it.
Agreed. Why, oh why, do companies put fake vents on their cars? It looks terrible.
phil: you failed to mention the quality (NOT) of the interior materials
Overall, I found the interior appropriately washable and durable for a work truck. The only glaring deficiencies are the vents, which are really flimsy.
I’m looking at buying a new ranch truck this year, and at this point the two contenders are the GMC Sierra and the Tundra…and to be perfectly honest, the only reason the Tundra is a competitor is because of the new 5.7L & 6-speed tranny. I certainly wouldn’t buy it for the styling, as I think it has perhaps the worst styling of all the full-size trucks – and it looks even worse in person than it does in pictures. What’s up with that cheap piece of black plastic at the top of the grille? It doesn’t look that bad on darker trucks, but on the light-colored trucks it just looks bizarre.
Right now the local dealer has 5 of them in stock, but every single one is an extended-cab shortbed…and since I’m looking for a regular-cab longbed, it might be a while before I make my final decision. One thing I’ve learned so far is that Toyota is using their normal system with option packages, and I’m not sure that’s going to over very well with the customers that actually use their trucks for work. The typical work truck has A/C and cruise, and that’s about it…and the only way to get cruise appears to be to order the SR5 package, just like on the Tacoma. So, this makes an already expensive truck even more expensive, and the price difference might be enough that the Tundra isn’t even an option for some fleet buyers.
Plus, while the mileage is on par with the Titan and F-150, it’s lower than the new GM trucks…and while 2mpg might not seem like a lot, it’s quite a bit when you’re talking about full-size trucks. I’m curious what the new ‘08 ratings will be, but GM’s trucks typically match (or even beat) their highway EPA estimate…so I expect that their highway estimate won’t drop very much with the new ratings. BTW, I’m talking about mileage with the larger of the two available V8s (5.3L GM vs. 5.7L Toyota) – there really isn’t any point to getting the smaller engines, since they don’t get any better mileage. GM has the larger 6L, but that’s available only on a couple configurations and is unlikely to be in a real work truck.
Also, the payload on the Tundra is pretty low…while it’s decent on the regular-cab trucks (2065 lbs.), when you go to the extended-cab it drops quite a bit (to under 1700 lbs). So, that’ll also limit how many folks buy the truck…especially if they tow 5th-wheel trailers. It might be rated to tow over 10,000 pounds, but you’ll never be able to tow that large a 5th-wheel because you’ll exceed the truck’s payload. A 5th-wheel trailer usually has 20% of it’s weight on the tongue, so a 10,000 pound trailer would have a 2,000 pound tongue weight – more than the extended-cab can carry, and even more than the regular-cab (unless the driver weighs less than 65 pounds and has no passengers or gear). To be fair, I should point out that the payload of the GM/Dodge is no higher than that of the Tundra…but you can move up to a 3/4-ton in those brands. The Ford is the exception for half-tons, with a payload about 1000 pounds higher in their longbed models. Toyota’s really pushing the high tow ratings of the Tundra, but in the real world most 10,000 pound trailers are either gooseneck or 5th-wheel…so the payload becomes the limiting factor.
Also, let me be the first to say that the Tundra looks *nothing* like the prevous-generation F-150…I don’t know where people came up with that idea. The advantage of the prev-gen F150 was that it had a low, sloping hood that provided good front visibility…the Tundra has a much higher hood and horrible visibility. They might look somewhat like each other in pictures, but park the two next to each other and you’ll see a drastic difference.
With the Tundra, Toyota has similar problems as the domestics have with some of their cars.
It’s good enough to keep up with the competition, but it doesn’t blow it away. Why should any F150 owner trade his vehicle for a Tundra?
On top of that, image means more to the average truck owner. I mean that’s why they drive one in the first place, hardly any truck is used for work anyway. And Toyota is pretty much the Anti-Christ for a lot of potential truck buyers.
That’s why I don’t think that the Tundra will take off. The points made in the review will definately be enough to attract some additional customers, but it won’t be enough to turn the truck market upside-down.
All the pundits are saying that the Tundra is the death knell for GM and Toyota. But Toyota is only adding about 80K in sales vs. the previous version. And most of that will come from Ram and Titan.
As William pointed out, the Ram added 300K in sales when it came out with the big truck look, and Ford and GM did fine.
The issue for Ford and Chevy is whether Toyota continues to increase sales over time. Long term, that is a problem.
From the fake hood scoop in the grille (in the grille?) to the bisecting line of aluminum on the center stack, the Tundra is ugly inside and out. The interior has the right details, but it looks like its only good for a focus group. I doubt contractors and the like really need that many storage nooks.
But hey, kudos to them for trying. For people who don’t care much for styling will certainly get a kick outta that 5.7L.
So Bill, you think Toyota should have boxed the entire frame like Ford and Chevy? Sounds like it from the review.
…from nil to 60 in just 6.3 seconds. As insane as that sounds/is, drag times do not do this mechanical jewel justice. As the TV ad testifies, the Tundra blasts through 40 to 80mph with astounding alacrity…
This freaks me out. Its one thing to be surrounded by giant vehicles when you’re driving a car. But when the giant vehicles accelerate as fast as a sports car, things get hairy.
I regularly see powerful pickups and SUVs going waay too fast around exit ramps & on twisty roads like Boston’s Storrow Drive. The ante keeps getting upped (I really need to chip my VW…) but these monsters aren’t handling any better as they get quicker and quicker.
Look at the numbers guys. They are only trying to sell 200,000 of these things. That’s a small fraction of the total F-series or GM twins full size offerings. I think they will sell their 200,000 without any real trouble and at a price a lot closer to MSRP than our fire sale,financed to any body with a pulse domestic friends.
Like I said before once, I don’t see the Tundra be a huge succes. Sure, they’ll sell enough of them to make the Big 2.5 hurt a little, but ultimately, I don’t think the Tundra is what Toyota is about.
Besides that, I think the styling is as bland though still ugly as on most Toyotas. Look at the rims for instance, I think they don’t work. It’s like they took some small car rim design and just made it bigger. They look like some plastic wheel caps from the local budget auto parts store…(whatever that’s called in the US).
I’m not so sure about Toyotas image with Gen X and Gen Y mentioned above. Being 21 I figure I belong to Gen X and I don’t like Toyota at all. I never heard any of my friends and younger family members say anything positive about Toyota either. Then again, I can’t imagine someone would because they’re so bland and also, I live in Europe, so it’s entirely possible there are some cultural or market differences that lead Americans towards Toyota…like the BIG 2.5’s performance over there and the absence of a lot of brands/particular cars.
I was at the Canadian International Auto Show last week and had the opportunity to sit in the Tundra and compare it with the latest offerings from Dodge, Ford, GM and Nissan.
The exterior styling is bold and modern, with the wheels shoved far out to the corners, which looks especially futuristic on the extended-cab long-bed version. I don’t know how anyone could call the styling “bland” or “based on the F-150″. The last Tundra was bland and inoffensive. The new one looks serious and mean. Its design is way more in-your-face with a menacing grille that looks like an old Cylon Centurion-meets-ED-209 (from Robocop). Okay, i’m a science-fiction geek.
On the inside, the functionality and ergonomics are fantastic. And i thought the materials used were at least as good, if not better than all of the competitors’ trucks, even GM’s two new interior options on its trucks. It’s clean, spacious and modern.
What’s more, the extended-cab model has a more usable rear seat than any of the others’ quad-cab configurations, with a VERY usable floor space with the back seats folded up.
Toyota means business, and its competitors had better be scared. The new Tundra seems far more sophisticated and heavy-duty than everything else out there in its class. It’ll be interesting to see if they offer a diesel version or an up-rated “heavy duty” variant.
People, people … do some research. First off, the 5.7L equipped Tundras get better fuel economy than the 6.0L equipped GM trucks. No ifs, ands, or buts.
As for finding a new Tundra for 22K, I don’t need any luck. A lot of dealers are selling the truck below MSRP, and many are selling near or at invoice. The bigger question is can you find a 6.0L equipped GM truck for 24K – 25K? Because one can easily get a 5.7L equipped Tundra for that price. Some of you mention that the Tundra does not beat the competition, merely matches it. One really amazing thing for the Tundra is that you can get that 5.7L + 6 speed combo on any configuration. Same can’t be said for GM’s 6.0L, or 6.2L V8. Plus, all 5.7L models are very competitively priced when compared to competing big engine trucks.
As for super-cheap stripper models, Toyota obviously isn’t focusing on that. Most of those sales go to government agencies or fleet group buyers. Very few of those sales go to retail customers. Toyota’s main goal is to change perception among retail customers, namely ranch owners, or F150 owners who also happen to have a Camry. Toyota has also publicly stated they priced the Tundra a bit higher to avoid any potential backlash that they are hurting the Big 3.
Marketing-wise, Toyota is making a huge effort in terms of grassroots marketing. At a lot of rodeos, state fairs, and country concerts, the new Tundra will be appearing. This is the biggest marketing push Toyota has ever done in North America. That is what should be cause for concern for Detroit automakers.
Don’t forget when the Ram redesign hit in the 90s, the truck market was expanding. Now, the market is declining, and with the new Tundra and GM trucks, it will at best stagnate. Likely it will continue to decline, with rising gas prices. Ford has publicly announced more incentives on the F-Series, and there has been a fire sale on the Ram for months. GM may add incentives to their new trucks in order to keep sales up. In a declining market, the Tundra’s gains will come directly from “Detroit 3″ conquest buyers.
On Toyota’s website was a video of how they made the “Seesaw” commercial. toyota is obviously very proud of it. In the background actually doing the work were many Ford trucks. This was pointed out in The St Louis Courier yesterday. Today the video is off Toyota’s website. It was funny to see, about a half a dozen Fords owned by the guys doing the work all loaded up and they bring in a shiny new Toyota amongst them and run it up this ramp. And still, as they are doing this you see the Fords all loaded up on the ground. All of this was edited for the real commercial. Funny as heck to me. I got a good laugh watching the video.
What’s really funny is that the video is still up at http://www.toyota.com plain and clear for all to see , so I’m having trouble figuring out what point you were trying to make.
So Bill, you think Toyota should have boxed the entire frame like Ford and Chevy? Sounds like it from the review.
The GMT-800 frame was not fully boxed, and did that have a jittery ride? I’ve driven the new Tundra myself, and while the ride isn’t a clear class leader, it’s still quite good, especially with some load in the bed, and when towing.
Also nobody mentioned that the Tundra’s frame design may be a hint at future model variations, like an HD model.
Not to go off topic but I have to ask, is this the Bill Montgomery from the Carver? OK, back to trucks!
JJ, yeah I’m sure it’s a very different climate here in the states, but especially in Colorado, where I live. I’m not a truck guy, but most younger people with trucks and SUVs seem to prefer Toyotas and Nissans–they seem to have a sportier image here.
The GMT-800 frame was not fully boxed, and did that have a jittery ride?
Of course it did.
Truck NVH standards were clearly re-written with the latest Ford and Chevy frames.
Sajeev: So Bill, you think Toyota should have boxed the entire frame like Ford and Chevy? Sounds like it from the review.
Yes, Toyota utilizes C-section rear frame members to save weight. This configuration flexes more than F-150 or Silverado, which use fully boxed frames. This is likely to blame for the sub-par ride.
I read another review that dismisses the poor ride as typical of full-sized pickups. I disagree. As soon as I turned in my test vehicle, I made a b-line for the Chevy dealership and drove an ’07 Silverado down some of the same roads that the Tundra handled so poorly. The Chevy’s ride was comparatively flawless.
KixStart:
I wish we had a mathematical definition of “bland,” so that we could make a computational evaluation of a design and agree on whether it was “bland” or not.
I wouldn’t describe the truck, or any other Toyota as “bland” but that seems the most popular adjective to Toyota styling.
One man’s bland is another’s “clean,” “liquid,” “smooth,” functional” or even “austere.”
I’m all for mathematical definitions, but in this case, I think something is bland when you can’t immediately tell what it is. And bland is different from “clean,” “Smooth,” “functional,” etc, although several of these adjectives can apply t o the same vehicle, although I would much less associae austere, functional, or clean with bland than the other adjectives. Nonetheless, of those Toyotas badged “Toyota,” as op to scion or lexus, bland is the first adjective I’d apply.
But Toyota definitely knows how to do other than bland, as evidenced by the xB, which is loaded ewith personality. And the xB is also relatively clean. In fact, one of the reasons a lot of people love the xB styling and hate the Element, despite the similarity in shape, is that the xB is clean, and the element is oh so busy. Pontiac could have designed the element.
Oh, this was an article about trucks? Right. I guess I veered way off topic.
Crash80: Not to go off topic but I have to ask, is this the Bill Montgomery from the Carver?
I don’t know what you are talking about, so I guess not.
First off those hauling and towing numbers are ridiculously low for anybody who wants to use a truck for work. Even though I don’t use my truck as part of my job, I do have occasion to haul compost, lumber, etc. for home projects. I can’t imagine doing this on a regular basis-as you might expect for a contractor’s truck for instance-while being limited to under 1 ton. It doesn’t take many 4×4’s, concrete blocks, etc. before you reach 1 ton. Second, while I am not up on mpg and power numbers for trucks in general, it seems rather odd that the larger more powerful V8 has a lower EPA mileage rating than the base V8. What gives?
I read another review that dismisses the poor ride as typical of full-sized pickups. I disagree. As soon as I turned in my test vehicle, I made a b-line for the Chevy dealership and drove an ’07 Silverado down some of the same roads that the Tundra handled so poorly. The Chevy’s ride was comparatively flawless.
You’re absolutely right, poor ride is a thing of the past. Now its only poor by car standards. :-)
I drove the Chevy and Ford, and its obvious that their big-ass frames were a huge improvement over older models.
Yes, Toyota utilizes C-section rear frame members to save weight. This configuration flexes more than F-150 or Silverado, which use fully boxed frames. This is likely to blame for the sub-par ride.
I read another review that dismisses the poor ride as typical of full-sized pickups. I disagree. As soon as I turned in my test vehicle, I made a b-line for the Chevy dealership and drove an ’07 Silverado down some of the same roads that the Tundra handled so poorly. The Chevy’s ride was comparatively flawless.
I’m interested then to know what your response would be to other reviews of the Tundra out there that said the ride was good, even when the truck was loaded or towing a heavy load.
Most reviews out there, and myself, put the Tundra’s ride quality as 2nd behind the new GM trucks. Certainly, the new Tundra has a better ride than the F150 or the Titan, and both of those are fully boxed.
Lumbergh21: it seems rather odd that the larger more powerful V8 has a lower EPA mileage rating than the base V8. What gives?
An extra cog in the transmission. The 4.7L V8 has a 5-speed gearbox while the 5.7L gets an all-new 6-speed.
Johnson: Realistically, you should be comparing the 5.7L with the GM 5.3L – not the 6.0L. Finding a GM half-ton with the 6.0L is nearly impossible, because most dealers don’t even bother to stock it – because if you’re going to buy that, you might as well just get the 3/4-ton…and the diesel. Plus, as I mentioned, it’s only available on a couple of different configurations. Of the 100+ GM trucks I’ve looked at on lots, I’ve only seen one with the “VortecMAX” package that includes the 6.0L.
Toyota’s predicting their biggest seller will be the 5.7L, and GM’s biggest seller is the 5.3L – so it only makes sense to compare those two engines. The Toyota has a horsepower and torque advantage, and the GM has a mileage advantage…so it all comes down to whether the extra power is worth the extra cost at the pump.
Or, to look at it another way – the best EPA ratings for *any* engine in the Tundra give 15/18 (4wd) and 17/20 (2wd). If you look at the most efficient engine in the GM twins you get 16/20 (4wd 5.3L) and 16/22 (2wd 5.3L) or 17/21 (2wd 4.3L). The GM trucks get better mileage, period. Even the 6.0L is competitive with the 5.7L Tundra – it gets 15/19 in either 2wd or 4wd configuations, which means the 2wd gets slightly worse and the 4wd gets slightly better. In fact, 4wd GMs with the 6.0 V8 actually get better mileage than *any* 4wd Tundra – not just the 5.7L.
I don’t mean to be a pain about this, but the mileage thing is a pretty clear-cut issue – it isn’t something subjective like styling or ride quality. I expected more out of Toyota, especially with the 6-speed auto…but they’re not even beating the numbers GM gets with the old 4-speed.
Johnson: I’m interested then to know what your response would be to other reviews of the Tundra out there that said the ride was good, even when the truck was loaded or towing a heavy load.
Most reviews out there, and myself, put the Tundra’s ride quality as 2nd behind the new GM trucks. Certainly, the new Tundra has a better ride than the F150 or the Titan, and both of those are fully boxed.
Interesting question because I found the ride so surprisingly unrefined. It certainly handled some surfaces at some speeds with Lexus-like smoothness but from 35-55mph over concrete expansion joints it danced and jiggled badly – unforgivably for a vehicle attempting to nearly double its sales in a market dominated by deeply ensconced and accomplished competitors. I would think that any critic willing to overlook this flaw is either very pro-Toyota or has an ulterior motive.
Lest you think that I have an anti-Toyota bias, let me disclose that I formerly owned three Toyota cars and was fully satisfied by them in nearly every respect. I do not own a Tacoma, but I think it is the best small(er) pickup on the market. I also used to drive a ’78 F-250, so I know a thing or two about harsh and unrefined [insert smiley face graphic here].
While getting my wife’s car serviced Saturday I drove one of these…getting past the hideous grille, the rest of the truck was serviceable enough – handling and interior materials up there with the F-150…..
pleasant enough, plus the bonus of Toyota quality….
ash78 and Sid Vicious…
For a car fleet sales, depreciation matters, as it is so poor that you just lease it. (”Company car MR CEO? How about a 6 year lease on an S55 AMG?”)
But on a TRUCK, it doesn’t. You see, a truck you can write off super quick, especially for a small business. The IRS depreciation schedule is wonderfully agressive, putting the value at 0 in a couple of years.
The concept of comparing the ride, handling or other characteristics of two pickups when the beds are empty blows my mind. Frankly, trucks should never be tested empty, as most car magazines do. Please load it up to the max payload and then drive them back to back. Don’t run it through cones like a sports car. Instead, please do tow tests, braking tests and compare the ride both empty and fully loaded. Finally, the 0-60 time is pretty irrelevant when empty too. Please attached a trailer and let me know how it pulls. That’s a more relevant test.
One person here posted a comment that seems to indicate that a tuck would ride better empty. That is definitely not the case as most trucks ride better with a heavy load. If you care about how a truck drives empty, buy a car.
I’d submit that ANY 4-door vehicle rides better with 4 people than just a driver (doubly so for trucks). Not handling, mind you, but ride quality. The rear springs have to be able to allow a huge change in weight from empty to full, while the front springs only experience a slight change, since they’re already carrying most of the weight (and generally have more advanced geometry).
Bob Burns, you have a great point with regard to testing under load. However, most buyers that are concerned with comfort and ride quality drive their trucks for non-commercial purposes. They only load their truck beds on occasional trips to The Home Depot or when pulling a trailer on a vacation. Mostly they drive empty from home to work, their kid’s school and to the grocery store. Since they spend most of their time in Family Car mode that is how I test them.
Some grills are conservative-macho (F-150, Silverado) and some are obnoxious-macho (Ram, Tundra). I wonder how much these buyers identify with and/or factor in the styling with their purchases.
Bob Burns: Excellent points – and from what I’ve seen, often the trucks that drive best when empty drive the worst when loaded or pulling a trailer. The primary reason is that the OEMs use a compliant suspension to get a good ‘empty’ ride, but when you put a load in the bed or attach a trailer they become bouncy and you feel like you’re barely in control. Previous-generation GM trucks were known for this problem – and I’m curious if they’ve fixed it with the current generation.
Problem is, many dealers won’t let the average truck buyer take a new truck home for a day or two so they can hook a trailer up and test it properly…that’s where the “24 hour test drive” thing comes in handy. The local GM dealer has offered to let me have one overnight, but the Toyota dealer doesn’t even want to let me out of their parking lot without a salesman along…and if that doesn’t change, they’re not going to end up selling me a truck. I’ve never bought a new vehicle without a 50+ mile test drive, and I’m not going to start now.