By on September 16, 2014

2015_Toyota_TRDPro_Tundra_007

After its makeover for the 2014 model year, the 2015 Toyota Tundra has gained a few more tricks up its sleeve, beginning by going all in on V8 firepower and losing the V6 due to the latter’s take rate of less than 5 percent.

Under the bonnet awaits two potential powerplants for Tundra owners: the 4.6-liter i-Force V8 delivering 310 horsepower and 327 lb-ft of torque, and the 5.7-liter i-Force V8 offering 381 horses and 401 lb-ft of torque; the latter can be had as either gasoline-only or in Flex Fuel configuration. The power is delivered through a six-speed electronic automatic to either rear or all four wheels.

Towing capacity is 10,500 pounds in 4×2 regular-cab configuration, and is compliant with SAE J2807. Additionally, trailer control is made easier through the Tundra’s Trailer Sway Control, part of the truck’s overall vehicle stability system.

Those wanting to live out their Ivan “Ironman” Stewart fantasies can do so through the new-for-2015 TRD Pro package, which brings the 5.7-liter V8 together with 18-inch black alloys wearing exclusive Michelin off-road rubber, dual exhaust, skid plate and upgraded suspension components.

Other features available for 2015 include: spray-in bed liner, rear under-seat tray storage in double cab models, standard backup camera with blind-spot and rear cross-traffic monitoring systems, and the Entune infotainment system.

Pricing for the 2015 Tundra starts at $29,020 MSRP for the base SR 4×2 regular cab model, while no word has been said thus far regarding the TRD Pro model. That said, PickupTrucks.com has published a price list for the majority of the models on sale for the 2015 model year.

2015 Toyota Tundra MSRP Price Sheet

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

102 Comments on “Toyota Tundra Goes Pro, Loses V6 Entirely For 2015...”


  • avatar
    87 Morgan

    Six speed auto? Only two gas guzzling options available?

    So this is there way of saying we understand that our big truck is five years old the day it is made available to the buying public.

    It seems from what I have been reading the other two Ford and Dodge are trying to go the other way. Smaller motors with more gears. I am not sure GM has a plan that has been made public yet.

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      GM has been working on a 10(?)-speed auto with Ford, to be put in their next refresh.

      As for Toyota, it seems that this is all in preparation for something. Remember that Ford dropped its V6 after 2008, soldiering on with the dependable-but-outdated 4.6 and 5.4 V8s until the engine refresh in 2011. I don’t know if this is gonna be the same situation with the Tundra, with all-new engines coming out sometime within the next 3-4 years, but it certainly seems reminiscent of Ford.

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      Why does GM need smaller motors, a 10 speed would set the 5.3 to 24 maybe even 25mpg. And put the 6.2 up to 23 maybe 24MPG.

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        The 6.2 will only get 23 mpg if you drop it off a cliff, and maybe not even then. Transmissions can keep an engine in the efficient part of the rev range but they’re not magic.

        • 0 avatar
          Hummer

          Corvette has no problem at 30, that engines basically idling in 4 cyclinders.

          I’d be highly surprised if GM couldn’t get the 6.2 trucks mileage up 1-2 maybe 3 MPG.

          Besides the point of more gears is better MPG, its certainly not for the feel.

          A 6.2, as a 3.1L 4 cyclinder is going to do much better pulling a truck than the 5.3s 2.65L 4 cyclinder.
          Easier to pull means less RPM and thus better MPG.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            In the Corvette that engine is pushing less than half the frontal area through the air that it has to in a truck.

            I’ll believe a 23 mpg 6.2 truck, even with aggressively used DOD/AFM, when I see it. That’s a big jump from where they are today with the 6-speed.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            That’s 2 mpg difference.

            The current 6.2 with 6 speed is getting 21.

          • 0 avatar
            mik101

            Seems to me too many folks here aren’t realizing that more gears doesn’t automatically mean a much bigger ratio spread. That is what is going to matter for highway cruising.
            Take the new Honda fit moving from a 5spd manual to 6spd manual but the gear spread is actually identical. The extra gear is just there to increase performance (keeping the engine in its power sweet spot). It also doesn’t seem to occur to a lot of folks that if an engine is already cruising at it’s most efficient RPM a wider ratio spread may end up just lugging it. There are a lot of other variables than just the number of gears.

          • 0 avatar
            Dan

            “Seems to me too many folks here aren’t realizing that more gears doesn’t automatically mean a much bigger ratio spread. That is what is going to matter for highway cruising.”

            Yes, but the highway number that matters for sales purposes comes from the EPA treadmill which in no way resembles steady state cruising. More gears are great there – see the 8 speed Ram picking up 2 mpg highway vs the old 5 speed despite having exactly the same top gear.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        @Hummer – the only way the 10 speed will improve highway mpg is if it transmits power to the ground more efficiently. High gear in the 10 speed isn’t going to be appreciably different than any current 6 0r 8 speed. The mpg gains should come from city driving and towing/hauling where the extra gears will keep the engine in a better part of the power band.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    Those 1794s are sweet, but this truck seems to be getting uglier as time goes on.

  • avatar
    eggsalad

    I had no idea they still made a regular cab. I bet the take rate on THAT is <5%, but they still make it.

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      Everyone who has ever made a regular cab full-size still makes a regular cab full-size, mostly for fleet sales.
      I think it’s worth noting that Toyota is the only one besides Ford who offers an extended cab model with an 8′ bed. (GM ended theirs with the last of the 900s, and Ram canned it at the end of the last body style too. Nissan made one, but only for, like, two years.) A lot of SuperCab 8′ bed F-150s are sold with the Heavy Duty Payload Package, and are sold to guys pulling campers, but Toyota has no such package, so I think they just do it to try and pick up some F-250 fleet sales. I have no idea what the take rate is on those, but I’ll bet it’s in the single digits.

      • 0 avatar
        eggsalad

        I see RAM/Chevy/Ford fleet-level strippos all the time. With a fleet discount, I think you can buy them all day long for not much over $20k.

        Toyota is not well-known for discounting. At a base price of $29k, how can they compete in fleet sales? They obviously don’t, at least not around here, because I can’t think of the last time I saw one.

        Aha, I just figured out why. The way Toyota does distribution, an SR trim (base model), regular cab, 4×2, is simply not available in the Las Vegas area. Certain vehicles (or trims/options) are not sold in certain regions.

        So if I wanted a basic Tundra, I’d have to go shopping in another region. I have no idea why Toyota does this, but it’s the way they choose to do business.

        • 0 avatar
          bumpy ii

          IIRC it’s a legacy of Toyota’s region-based distributors set up back in the old days when they imported everything. The distributor decides what they can or can’t sell in their region.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            Which made sense then. Now that a lot of products (most importantly in this case, the Tundra itself) are made in the U.S., it’s an unnecessary relic.

    • 0 avatar
      stuki

      No reg cab standard bed anymore. A bit surprised by this, since they are very popular for offroad/Baja builds. Tundra also has by far the most behind the seats storage in their reg cabs. Meaning, less reason to get a longer cab unless you haul people.

      Compared to a coil sprung Ram, the light, short reg cab Tundras drive like someone flat out forgot to include a suspension at all. Not having a HD line, I suspect Toyota is kind of doing a ‘tweener, which may explain why the only people buying them are the ones who also need a V8.

  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    There’s something very solid-state-implication about putting those letters across the front rather than the symbol. It works for me. They should definitely do it on the Land Cruiser.

  • avatar
    IHateCars

    They really should’ve beefed up the tire type & sizing for the “Pro” package….but that’s easily accomplished in the aftermarket. Other than that, I like it!

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    Poseurs aside, a V6 has no place in a fullsize truck. Not if you’re serious about using the truck for what it was built for. A least Toyota has the ballz say it. And tell CAFE where to stick it. And the Sierra Club!

    A V8 option in a midsize truck would be excellent. That’s the only way it’d consider a midsize pickup, fully loaded.

    • 0 avatar
      VoGo

      45% of F-150 buyers are poseurs who aren’t serious about using a truck for what it was built for. Really?

      When are people going to figure out that cylinder count is not correlated with penis size?

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        Read my mind, although from what I know about “EcoBoost” the fuel economy isn’t much to write home about vs the 5.0.

        • 0 avatar
          CoastieLenn

          The base 3.7L has a pretty decent take rate, too though. It’s available in fully loaded XLT trim so you don’t have to suffer with base model woes in order to save fuel. Sure, if you step up to higher trim levels, the NA V6 goes away.

          I, myself am inches away from pulling the trigger on a loaded XLT with the 3.7L V6. Why not a V8 or the EB V6? I need a bed for mulch, lumber and the likes. I have no need to tow. If someone thinks that makes me “not need a truck for what it was built for” than so be it. Let me load mulch and soil into your sedan’s trunk space? Didn’t think so.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            For fleet purchases, the normal 3.7 is fine. They save $1,000 and care not about much else.

            I’m an extreme cheapskate too, except I’m keeping mine indefinitely. I know the V8 will outlast the truck itself with absolutely no issues along the way.

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            @CoastieLen:

            You’re buying an expensive, new full size pickup truck in order to haul garden mulch?

            Serious question, btw.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            @DW

            Didn’t there used to be this other kind of truck which would fit the bill better?

          • 0 avatar
            matador

            You’re getting a new F-150 for Home Depot runs?

            Ford has a truck for you. It’s the 1996 F150 XL Longbed 4.9L I6 edition.

            —————-

            I see nothing wrong with a V6 for work. I’d rather have the V8, though.

            And, I have hauled mulch and soil in the trunk of an Impala. It can be done.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            You know, for $20, Home Depot will lend you their pickup. It would take a LOT of HD runs to add up to the price of a new pickup.

          • 0 avatar

            These take rates are a tricky business. Toyota sells _more_ Lexus IS 250 than 350. But when Nissan tries that with G25, the result is an object failure. Same market, very similar cars, but… I would not be surprised if Tundra simply cannot re-create what’s going on with F150 and v6s (and EcoBoosts), even Toyota had the engines. Their sales are much smaller and buyer composition is different.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          @28-Cars-Later – I drove a F150 supercrew Ecoboost for 9 days last winter. It was on par with my 5.4 powered F150 for fuel consumption but I drove it like I stole it for most of those 9 days.

      • 0 avatar
        Hummer

        Vogo, your the one that brung up some supposed phallic issue.
        I can put a motorcycle engine in a car, doesn’t mean it should be there, and there’s no phallic issue with wanting more.

        And yes I can make a healthy assumption most of those buyers aren’t towing. While there’s nothing wrong with that, it still isn’t a suitable engine as I’ve found from owners in doing actual work.

        • 0 avatar
          VoGo

          Adding cylinders, but keeping displacement equal, adds some power, but at the expense of fuel economy and complexity.

          Which suggests that a 4.2L V6 is pretty equivalent to a 4.0L V8 in terms of power and economy. So how is the V8 superior?

          What explains why cylinder count such a big deal to a certain part of the population – is it just education levels?

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            In general V8s are more reliable, as you know a V6 isn’t naturally balanced and must be counter balanced.

            Having similar power ratings between two similar displacement engines with differing cyclinder counts, in this case the V8 shines because its under less power, and tend to have the torque low.
            Obviously your going to give me a scenario that supports your side, I could give a scenario where a V8 is more efficient per cubic inch/liter than a smaller engine.

            Pretty poor etiquette to see anyone who disagrees with you as “lesser”.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Penis size? Education level?

            Sorry to disappoint but, an engine needs to be proper sized for it’s application. Otherwise you’re just fooling yourself.

            A hard working Moped engine can power a Harley with enough power adders, just fine. Or so it seems. But it’s not just that it wouldn’t make the right “manly” sounds. Or penile extension.

            End of day, nothing has come close to matching a V8’s long term reliability and longevity.

            So if a V8 makes the right noises, icing on the cake.

            Work a V6 hard, long term, then come talk to me.

            Most pickup truck sales can be swayed by V6 power figures and mpg. They make the call based on what they know and advertised.

            And most pickup buys are by chicks and or highly influenced by. I forgive them if they don’t know any better.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            Mike,
            I asked about cylinder count, not displacement. They are different.

            And how does a young chicken get a high enough FICO to finance a new pickup?

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            Mike-

            Since when is a V6 not a proper engine for a full sized truck? Between the late 90s and 2013, my family company has had over 35 full size, or larger, pick up trucks. They have mostly been refridgerator white, Ford or Chevy regular cab trucks with an 8 foot bed and a V6. Never in my years of driving these work trucks did I think that a V6 is ill suited for use in a truck. There was also no noticable difference in powertrain longevity between V8s and V6s.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Someone with an F&I background should field this one. FCA financed a RAM for a 695 friend of mine a few months back. Perhaps we’ve lowered the standard vs 5-10 years ago?

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @VoGo – A V6 is not anywhere equivalent to a V8, even if displacement crosses over at some point.

            A huge V6 would get worse mpg than the same displacement V8, but without the benefits. So what would be the point?

            Why deny the real thing? Why go to all the trouble of trying to replicate the smooth effortless power of a simple V8 with a V6 plus gizmos and gadgets? Just to end up with similar mpg?

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @bball – If you’re talking base strippers that don’t do much hard work, yeah a V6 is fine.

            If they did hard work, you’d be looking a 3/4 tons plus.

            But fleets don’t want V8s in smallish pickups employees will drive. I can barely keep my foot out of my stripper (extra cab) with a V8.

            I’m not saying V6 fullsize pickups will be a reliability nightmare, but you can’t beat the V8’s history. Never mind turbos, V6s like to eat head gaskets and timing chains. Engine long blocks haven’t really changed over the decades.

            But how long is your company really keeping trucks around? 200K miles plus?

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            DenverMike, you’ve got it backwards. At the same displacement the engine with fewer cylinders will be more efficient, as it will suffer less friction and pumping loss. That’s the big reason we’re seeing a drive toward engines with fewer cylinders, and why you don’t see any 2.5L V6s or 4.0L V8s in cars anymore.

            It’s also worth mentioning that one of the most durable, abuse-resistant engines in truck history is the Ford 300 I6. If durability were the only thing to care about I’d take a 300 over any Ford V8 of the era. Another engine with a great durability record is the old GM 4.3 V6. The jury is still out on the latest generation of sixes, but I haven’t heard of any chronic troubles with the Ford 3.7, and it’s been working in fleet service now for three years.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            ” one of the most durable, abuse-resistant engines in truck history is the Ford 300 I6″

            Yes sir, remember it well! Long stroke, slow-turning, stump-pulling, low-end torque that would send shivers and shudders through the truck in first gear under load.

            Never faltered, never failed. And because of its architecture you could not feel or hear it idling.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            Well no, you don’t tow two skid steers with a V6 F150. We had a beat to hell 9th gen F-350 with ye olde 460 for towing (I was not going to pay the Powerstroke premium). I would also purchase used V8 E-series step vans on a regular basis.

            I would say that the V6 trucks did hard work, not as much towing though. Carrying machines, tools, concrete and more is not exactly an easy life. No matter what engine, everything was pretty clapped out before 200K miles. Unless it was a Dodge. Then I would have gotten rid of it before 150K miles because of transmission issues.

          • 0 avatar
            Sigivald

            “DenverMike, you’ve got it backwards. At the same displacement the engine with fewer cylinders will be more efficient, as it will suffer less friction and pumping loss. That’s the big reason we’re seeing a drive toward engines with fewer cylinders, and why you don’t see any 2.5L V6s or 4.0L V8s in cars anymore.”

            Ding!

            This is also one reason road tractors uniformly have very large (10-16 liter) straight sixes, not V8s or V10s or V12s.

            (The V6 is perfectly workable in Light Truck sizes, as opposed to Heavy Truck sizes.)

          • 0 avatar

            “That’s the big reason … why you don’t see any 2.5L V6s or 4.0L V8s in cars anymore.”

            Except that you totally do, well as long as Lexus IS 250 is considered a car. They even updated that v6 for the new generation in 2014.

        • 0 avatar
          CoastieLenn

          @deadweight- Only sort of.

          I’m buying a full sized pickup truck because as a homeowner, I frequently have a need for a truck bed. Borrowing my neighbor’s is getting a bit frequent. I’m also buying a full sized pickup because I *want* one. Having owned two full sizers in the past, the feeling of driving a truck is something that (in my opinion) can’t be replicated by an SUV or sedan.

          There is also the unfortunate fabricaion that some people fall into- the “I’ll get all the bells and whistles and only use a fraction of them!” mindset, that I’ll avoid. I know I don’t *need* a full size truck for what I want/need to do so therefore I will not equip it as such. I’m going 2wd without a V8 or two snails. People can do what they want with thier money, I’m using mine more wisely.

          I don’t like the Toyota Tacoma and the Canyon/Colorado twins won’t interest me until we get a diesel… and even then, the jury is out. The Frontier is the exact same as it was back in 2005 and even back then, it wasn’t that great of a truck.

          The full size trucks these days are negligably more costly than the new midsizers. Just like the arguements listed above about getting a V6 when you can get a V8, why settle on a midsizer than I’m not happy with when I can get a full sizer that isn’t much more expensive?

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      I would agree but impose the limit of “No V6s” to only include Gas engines, and V6/4s under 4 liters.

      I’d take a 6 liter i6. Especially in diesel flavor.

      But I can understand a V6 price leader for work trucks and such.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      @dal20402 – 4 liter V8s were less than ideal or efficient. V8s in the 5 liter range, for light vehicle applications ARE ideal and efficient. Now picture a V6 in the 5 liter range. My thoughts exactly!

      A V6 in the 4 liter range should get much, much better mpg that the V8, given the same 5 to 10,000 lbs load. In theory anyways. And should offer same reliability/longevity. In theory anyways.

      In a lot of way, the straight 6s were the greatest engines ever. Then came emissions and CAFE.

      • 0 avatar
        CoreyDL

        @DenverMike

        Are you sure that idea works? I can think of one vehicle which got both engine sizes you speak.

        2009 4.0L V6 Pathfinder
        2009 5.6L V8 Pathfinder

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          @CoreyDL – We should be looking at vastly different mpg. Why not?

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            14 / 20
            13 / 18

            So not really.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Weren’t you a little surprised how poorly the V6 did vs the V8, given the same application? Astonished? Flabbergasted? Bewildered???

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            I was just thinking they both did poorly.

            My parents have not been happy with their 4.0L, and I don’t hear much good about the 5.6 as applied in the Titan. Or QX56.

            But either way those numbers aren’t impressive, and there isn’t much difference between 6 and 8!

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            “and I don’t hear much good about the 5.6 as applied in the Titan. Or QX56.”

            The 5.6L is the only redeeming quality of the Titan/Armada/QX56. They move out very strongly, but the applications net very poor fuel economy for the segment. When they came out about a decade ago, they were competitive vehicles (save for quality issues), but since then the world of trucks has changed 5x over and they’ve stood still.

            Well, the QX56 managed to change from a rather stately Japanese Escalade to a hideous rolling cracken of a vehicle, but that’s about it for major changes to that line.

    • 0 avatar
      mkirk

      The proper engine for a fullsize pickup is neither a V6 nor a V8…IT IS AN INLINE 6 AS GOD INTENDED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • 0 avatar
        davefromcalgary

        Preach!

      • 0 avatar
        matador

        If you never want to go on the highway, the Inline-6 is a great engine!

        My Ford 300 will tow a lot of weight. Slowly.

        My Chevrolet 305 is much, much, much better at 65 MPH. The 300 feels strained, and the 305 is only doing a slow jog.

        Both types of engines have their places. But, in todays world, I couldn’t see a straight-6 selling too well.

      • 0 avatar
        wstarvingteacher

        Tend to agree with mkirk. Had the Ford 4.9. But the heir is a chev 4.3. I owned both and found the 4.3 did just (almost) as well. Btw Denver M. I worked both hard for quite a while and that included towing moderate (1.5 tons) payloads. Also ran a couple 350 chevs for quite a spell. Never missed them when they were gone but I’m sure the oil companies did. The cube van got 8mpg and the pickups got around 13. Both sixes got around 20. Houston metropoliton area and surrounding county. All types of driving for AC service.

        • 0 avatar
          matador

          I’ve never used a 4.3L Chevrolet. I’ve run both the 305 and 350, and for Ford have used the 300, 351W, and the 5.4 Triton.

          The 300 would get worse fuel mileage than the 305, and the 305 would just seem to work better on the highway.

          For power and grunt, the 5.4 Triton wiped the floor with the 300. You had to run at a higher RPM, but it worked, and would return similar fuel economy.

          I’ve never owned a 4.6L or 4.2L Triton, but I did drive a company truck with the 4.6 for a few months. It was a lot smoother on the road than the 300. The fuel mileage was about the same.

          The Triton is of course a newer engine, but that’s the point. The 300 was great for the times. But, the times have moved on.

          I still run a 300, and it’s a reliable engine. There’s nothing too special about it, though. I’d rather have the V8.

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            I’ve owned vehicles with all of the above and out of that group of 90’s truck motors, I liked the Vortec 5.7L (350) the best. I had one in a ’97 Suburban. I have a 5.4L Ford now and the Vortec 5.7L pretty well wipes the floor with it in terms of power while netting the same fuel economy.

            My first pickup was an ’87 F150 with the MPI fuel injected 4.9L (300) I6 and a 4 speed manual trans. It was OK as a tractor engine in a no frills pickup, but it was outclassed by every modern engine that followed it. It got acceptable fuel economy around town and on country roads, but no better on the highway than in town. Durable engine, but nothing to wish for otherwise.

  • avatar
    CoastieLenn

    FINALLY someone is competing with Ford for the most intrusively large grille logo/badging/branding!

    God that’s hideous.

  • avatar
    highdesertcat

    Yippee! Maybe for 2016 Tundra will offer 390 cubic inches, or maybe even 426 cubic inches as an optional third V8. Oh! Whatta Feelin’!

    • 0 avatar
      thelaine

      Agreed HDC. Gimme Toyota reliability the biggest V8 they offer.

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        thelaine, I was worried that for 2016 Toyota would have been forced to drop the 5.7L because of CAFE and EPA mandates.

        I had the 4.6L-class V8 in my wife’s 1992 TownCar, with factory Dual exhausts, and it strained going up the mountain with that transmission just a huntin’ and a-peckin’, searching for the right gear to match the load.

        And in 1988 I opted for the optional 350 in my new Silverado and I am very glad that I did because the standard 305 was not only a dog, but a dead dog in the same terrain. Plus that locking/unlocking Torque-converter could drive someone crazy as it compensated for the lack of power in the 305.

        I am a proponent of “There’s no replacement for displacement.”

        Frankly, I had nightmares that if Tundra dropped the 5.7L I would have to step back down to a 2016 F250 with the biggest V8 Ford offers. And I really didn’t want to repeat the Ford nightmare I went through 2006-2011.

  • avatar
    30-mile fetch

    Toyota really effed up the front end styling of this truck. Forced the plasti-chrome grille to crawl up onto the hood like some creature hauling itself out of a lagoon. I really hate the ever-growing size and flashiness of full-size grilles, and this one takes the cake. The previous truck was quite handsome, but the interior was sorely lacking. This interior looks nice but now the front end would force me to always approach it from the rear.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      30-mile fetch, beauty is in the eye of the beholder…….

      • 0 avatar
        30-mile fetch

        I suppose so, but this eye and this beholder are thoroughly offended. Really, it is only the front fascia that gets me, the rest of the truck is attractive enough.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          30-mile fetch, I completely understand what you wrote and your sentiment, because I thought both my 1988 Silverado and 2006 F150 were butt-ugly.

          Then again, I didn’t buy them for their looks.

          When I went shopping for a 2010 Tundra 5.7 I had to get past those looks as well. Once past the looks I began to see the finer things that separate this truck from the rest, and the rest is history.

          And the layout on the inside of my 2011 Tundra I bought is very ergonomic, but strangely alien to what I had been accustomed to. My wife doesn’t like to drive my Tundra. She, too, thinks it’s ugly on the outside and the inside. Strangely unloved, Tundra is by many.

          Regardless, when it comes trading time for that 2016 Tundra 5.7 at the end of next year, I’ll just have to suck it up and deal with whatever looks the Tundra is blessed with at that time.

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    While our competitors give you fewer cylinders we given you MORE!

    Let’s see perky little Jill (dealership receptionist) in the Toyota commercials try to sell that. ;)

  • avatar
    kmoney

    Still wish they would finally put the Hino diesel option they have been toying with for the last 6-7 years into actual production, or at least give us the 4.0L D4D engine available in the prado/landcruiser in other markets. Toyota doesn’t seem like the kind of company that would compete in the torque wars with other diesels, but I would trust them more than any other to make something reliable, fuel-efficient, and long-lived than any other maker.

  • avatar
    Mandalorian

    Love it! Fleet/buisness buyers who are fuel misers will be misers in general and buy the discounted American trucks. The Tundra is more of a civilian truck.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    Toyota don’t require the 4 litre V6 in the future.

    I bet this is the last Taco to use it as well. The Colorado V6 helped with that.

    The Tundra doesn’t require it as well. The next Tundra will be a quasi HD. The i Force V8 will be the small offering and the V8 Cummins will be the supreme engine.

    I read the thread regarding the perceived advantages of a V8 are. Well again it was the war of little d!cks. I say little d!cks because the logic is childish and ill considered.

    Most pickups haul air and a single driver. The excuse that maybe one day you might tow a 6 000lb trailer or something in many cases is a wank.

    A modern V6 will develop more power and torque than the V8s of only a few years ago. Yet those trucks of a few years ago seemed to be okay.

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      A modern V8 will develop more power and Torque than a V8 of just a few years ago… And the V6 as well.

      You people must be really scared of fullsizers if your argument against them is always pertaining to male anatomy. Do they make you shrivel? I’m not getting the connection.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    Why does the “Small D!ck! Small D!ck!! Small Dick!!! crowd alway compares the modern V6 to Reagan Era V8s? Ever heard of modern V8s?

    And the torque may compare on paper, but V8 torque comes on sooner and stays on longer. You heard of torque curve?

  • avatar
    Dan

    I’ve read a couple of articles that claimed a 38 gallon fuel tank for 2015, but no mention in this press release. No mention on the Toyota website that I can see, either.

    The pint sized tank in the current model is a glaring oversight. 20 gallons until the light comes on means an awful lot of pit stops in a truck this big.

    Now that my Durango plans have come to nought this one’s in the running for my next car. A Valdez sized tank would make it a lot easier to live with 15 mpg.

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      I didn’t see that, that’s really good news.

      I would probably be able to look past the OHC engine if they would just strengthen the frame, Toyotas really starting to interest me.

      Strengthen that frame to 1500HD or better and I would take a serious look.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    Real trucks have a diesel engine.

    Gasoline or this talk of displacement is the talk of sedans.

    I do bet the Cummins diesel Tundra will outperform the 5.7 in all areas of performance, including FE.

    Why do you need a V8, when there are many 4 cylinder diesels out there that can move as much weight, more reliably, cheaper and with less effort.

    Come on…..this is the 21st Century. Lot’s of you guys talk like it was back in the 50s.

    Displacement has a replacement. Forced induction. It is here to stay.

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      That may be the lamest thing you’ve ever said.

      Forced induction replacing displacement? Do you happen to own a Honda with a loud exhaust?

      Everything can be turboed, it doesn’t replace displacement because the larger the engine turboed the more power yet. Do you believe only small engines benefit from turbos?

      The cummins diesel Tundra IS a V8.
      I would certainly hope a diesel V8 with a turbo could out do a N/A gasser V8.
      Real trucks sell, small diesel trucks have failed everytime in the US. No one buys a truck to be fuel efficient, does Toyota not sell the Prius in Australia? Tesla the model S? You must have a poor selection of cars if you have to buy trucks to have something fuel efficient.

      • 0 avatar
        RHD

        That occurred to me, too – the replacement for displacement is the turbocharger, at least to the engineers designing new vehicles. That’s not America’s traditional style, what with our fuel taxes being so low in comparison to other countries.

  • avatar
    rustyra24

    The Raptor look alike grille is a nice touch.

Read all comments

Recent Comments

  • JimZ: Not only that, but two or three shades of blue just on the dash!
  • Pete Zaitcev: Renegade is not based on Panda.
  • mjg82: I only know these from watching bonus rounds of Classic Concentration with Alex Trebek on YouTube
  • dal20402: This should be good for a few more wrecks every winter on the way up to or down from the ski hills.
  • ToolGuy: “I have no intention of flying to China” Had a conversation out at the mailbox the other day...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Timothy Cain
  • Matthew Guy
  • Ronnie Schreiber
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Chris Tonn
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth