By on January 3, 2018

2018 Toyota Tundra 1794 Edition, Image: Steph Willems/TTAC

2018 Toyota Tundra Platinum 4x4 1794 Edition

5.7-liter DOHC V8 (381 horsepower @ 5,600 rpm; 401 lb-ft @ 3,600 rpm)

Six-speed automatic, four-wheel drive

13 city / 17 highway / 14 combined (EPA Rating, U.S. MPG)

18.0 city / 14.2 highway / 16.3 combined (NRCan Rating, L/100km)

13.2 mpg [17.8 L/100 km] (Observed)

Base Price: $32,415 (U.S) / $41,475 (Canada)

As Tested: $51,445 (U.S.) / $62,802.50 (Canada)

Prices include $1,295 destination charge in the United States and $1,912.50 for freight, PDI, and A/C tax in Canada.

Taking stock of my leather- and suede-trimmed surroundings, the first thought to cross my mind after settling into the top-spec 2018 Toyota Tundra tester was, “I can think of an easy way to save $500.”

That’s the extra coin you’ll pony up for the 1794 Edition package Toyota Canada tacked on to this range-topping, root beer-colored pickup. (“Smoked Mesquite” for all you color swatch fans.) To my left and right, and even straight ahead, pale, butterscotch-colored leather sprung up on the dash and doors, complemented — if you can use that word — by faux woodgrain so shiny, you’d swear a shoulder check might reveal the presence of an opera window.

It’s 180 degrees from subtle, and perhaps the same distance from tasteful. Below my feet, embossed 1794 Edition floor mats called attention to the founding of JLC Ranch, home to Toyota Motor Manufacturing Texas. Round brass studs glistened on either side of my shoes, bearing an uncanny resemblance to the base of a centerfire rifle cartridge.

My second thought, once America’s oldest full-size pickup got underway, was: “Haven’t these buyers ever visited a Ford dealer?”

2018 Toyota Tundra 1794 Edition, Image" Steph Willems/TTAC

Apparently not. In the U.S. pickup segment, no one stands by their brand quite like Toyota owners. A 2016 Edmunds customer loyalty study found a combined 70 percent of new Toyota Tundra and Tacoma buyers are repeat customers. One badge is enough in their lives, it seems.

[Get new and used Toyota Tundra pricing here!]

Which would explain how the current-generation Tundra, introduced in George W. Bush’s final term and refreshed in 2014, not only keeps its sales base, but has even seen its annual volume grow. I guess the more Tacomas the automaker churns out, the greater likelihood of a midsize owner feeling a hankering for a full-size model. And that would-be Tundra buyer, more likely than not, will hoof it right past the Ford, Chevrolet, GMC, Ram, and Nissan lot to get his or her mitts on one.

Whatever makes you happy. Still, were a Tundra buyer to stop by a Ford dealer, they’d come face to face-to-face with this particular truck’s main rival: the F-150 King Ranch. Like the King Ranch, Ram 1500 Laramie Longhorn, and Chevrolet Silverado High Country, the Tundra 1794 Edition — a standalone trim in the U.S. and a Platinum-trim option package in Canada — is a pickup sold with J.R. Ewing in mind.

All the luxury, all the panache, but in this case, not all the refinement, nor all the content.

2018 Toyota Tundra 1794 Edition, Image: Steph Willems/TTAC

Unfortunately for Toyota, all the visual glitz in the world can’t cover up the model’s advanced age. Beneath the relatively unadorned body (going the 1794 route adds badging and a silver front bumper section instead of stock matte black) lies a truck that traces its roots to 2007. Its 5.7-liter V8, free of the turbocharging and direct injection that’s steadily creeping into once-utilitarian vehicles, idles noisily. A steady thrum permeates the suede-swaddled cabin under tepid acceleration.

In day-to-day use, unburdened by a payload, the truck rolls like the Costa Concordia in mid-turn. Existing damping can’t stop it from tap-dancing over ruts (20-inch wheels lend no assistance), with frost-heaved country roads adding quite a bit of bounce to the pickup’s step. Sure, it’s a truck, but its rivals hide the fact better.

Not helping the situation is numb, vague steering that’s an extra half-turn lock to lock compared to a King Ranch. The tradeoff is a turning circle that’s 7.1 feet shorter than the Ford. Still, sharper steering and a heavier on-center feel would rein in the truck’s tendency to wander and do wonders for roadability.

2018 Toyota Tundra 1794 Edition, Image: Steph Willems/TTAC

At least the body didn’t add any squeaks or rattles to the existing engine roar and the added din from this tester’s snow tires — a welcome discovery, as an untraceable plastic chirping drove me nuts in an otherwise hushed King Ranch. Regardless, NVH isn’t hard to find. The six-speed transmission makes its shifts felt. Stopped with the tranny in drive, the brake pedal pulsates vigorously, as if goading the driver into easing off and letting those 381 ponies gallop. I soon made a habit of bumping the shifter into neutral just to curb the sensation.

Dare I say it, an electronic start/stop system would have been preferable — and not just to quell vibrations at stoplights. Over a week of mixed driving that included a fair number of romps through the countryside, the added drag of winter rubber conspired with an outdated powertrain to create a fuel bill capable of sending the ExxonMobil CEO’s grandchildren through college. Average consumption? A 13.2 mile-per-gallon chugfest.

Of course, weight plays a major role in the Tundra’s Texas-sized thirst. Untouched by development dollars earmarked for lightweighting, this particular Tundra tips the scales at 5,677 pounds — some 809 pounds heavier than an aluminium-bodied F-150 in a similar spec.

2018 Toyota Tundra 1794 Edition

None of this is to say the Tundra’s a slouch when the situation calls for more power. The 5.7-liter churns out 401 lb-ft of torque, 1 lb-ft more than the F-150’s 5.0-liter V8 and 18 lb-ft more than the 5.3-liter V8 found in the Silverado and Sierra, so performance isn’t obliterated by the added heft. It just seems that Toyota’s leaving the fuel-sipping tech bag unopened until the next-gen model arrives.

That model, likely due out for 2019, should add a few items Tundra drivers now go without. Items like a lane-holding system, a 360-degree camera, a larger multimedia screen, automatic emergency braking, keyless entry and push-button ignition, multiple rear seat plug-in points, and more accessible front seat connections. Android Auto and Apple CarPlay are only found on the sides of milk cartons in the Tundra.

It’s also odd that signing off on a $62,800 (CAD) Tundra doesn’t automatically deliver a running board — as a 6’4″ man, clambering into the lofty cabin didn’t cause too much embarrassment, but anyone shorter than 6 feet will surely need the assistance of a ($625 U.S./$780 CAD) side step. And why a grab handle for every occupant but the driver? Is this some sort of “are you man enough” challenge?

2018 Toyota Tundra 1794 Edition, Image: Steph Willems/TTAC

Still, there’s no arguing the Tundra isn’t right-sized. Legroom abounds, especially in the rear. Comfort levels are decent. In the near absence of those all-important plug-ins, the one-piece, fully retractable rear window could serve as a useful distraction for the kiddies. Ever play Eye Spy out the back? Your time’s limited, so the game’s even more challenging. Break those digital chains! On a personal note, having seen the 2019 Silverado and Ram 1500, the acres of horizontal chrome spread across the Tundra’s face is something Toyota might want to consider keeping around for the next generation.

Front-end styling isn’t going in a direction I like.

We might not all agree on the styling direction of the latest Detroit Three and Nissan offerings, and yes, we might roll our eyes at the ever-increasing levels of opulence, but those fresh-faced youngsters show this 11-year-old what’s needed to play in the big leagues. If Toyota can check the same boxes, the Tundra’s future is bright. The brand loyalty’s already there.

For now, the Tundra reminds me more of my great-granddad’s Belgian cavalry horse than any prize-winning stud. The oldest, slowest horse in the outfit, it unfailingly arrived at the battle dead last. Unlike the Tundra, however, this made it the most sought-after horse in the regiment.

2018 Toyota Tundra 1794 Edition

[Images: © 2017 Steph Willems/The Truth About Cars]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

94 Comments on “2018 Toyota Tundra Platinum 4×4 1794 Edition Review – Bloodbath in Ranch Country...”


  • avatar
    30-mile fetch

    I’m guessing brand loyalty is also a reason this model didn’t sell nearly as well at the Big 3 back in W’s waning days when it wasn’t outdated relative to the competition. Brand loyalty runs deep in this segment and it may be harder to pry someone out of their Ford truck than it is to pry someone out of their Camry.

    Regardless, this thing needs both an update and an identity. The Tacoma has an identity. The Tundra is aping the American manufacturers in butch bravado, Texas-pandering nonsense, and a generation-old F150 dashboard but isn’t following them down the road of serious R&D budgets, and it shows in a truck that looks like a Big3 entrant but falls behind on a number of specs and characteristics that I imagine a truck buyer would notice.

    • 0 avatar

      Toyota has the quality advantage over Ford. Heck, most of the world’s top carmakers have a quality advantage over Ford. The Tundra’s interior makes the F-150’s interior looks like something from Fisher price.

      Ford – what a disgrace!!

  • avatar
    gtem

    I think this tarted up tester is definitely NOT the Tundra to buy. For my money it’d be an SR5 truck with the TRD package (skid plates, shocks and mild AT tires with decent looking alloys). Much more palatable price tag, one that will retain a shocking amount of its original amount as time goes on. It’s undeniable that these are thirsty rigs. I think what the review misses is the practical things the Tundra does well: crew cab seatback angle is IMO the most comfortable for adults on long trips, the 7.1 ft shorter turning circle is huge. Right off the lot you can take a Tundra offroad and not worry about ripping the front airdam off or installing sketchy aftermarket leveling kits that can be leveraged to deny warranty suspension work. 4.30 gears on most trims and the big V8 mean that most Tundras are very good towing rigs, not just more specialized/configured trims (but the folks that don’t want to tow pay the fuel penalty for that gearing/motor). All of that aside, the biggest factor has got to be the stupendously trouble-free reputation this generation of Tundra has built. There simply isn’t much that has gone wrong on these things, even early-build ’07 trucks. At least some of that heft is in the form of various components (steering, suspension, 4wd hardware) that is overbuilt/oversized for a half-ton. Jittery ride is a stiffer leaf-pack that doesn’t squat as much with a load in the back (despite whatever crazy payload ratings Ford gives their F150).

    Having said all that, it’s undeniable that Toyota feels less pressure to invest in fuel efficiency gains in the Tundra when their fleet of US vehicles is slanted more towards more efficient lighter passenger vehicles (compared to domestic automakers that sell mostly half ton+ trucks). I’m sure the incoming Tundra will have a deep plastic airdam and some other FE-focused compromises.

    • 0 avatar
      crtfour

      Well said and I think it shows why these still sell well. I personally have never warmed up to the 2014 restyle and my pick would be an earlier Rock Warrior edition.

    • 0 avatar
      Carrera

      When I went to my local carshow 2 months ago I had a chance to sit in all the full size trucks and give them a personal assessment. I thought the Tundra had the most interior room particularly the back seat. By far, the most comfortable black seat of them all. But that’s where the good stops. The Tundra’s interior felt cheap built with cheap silver colored plastic. The doors felt light and closed with very little authority. Felt as bad as a cheap Nissan. And this was the same model mentioned in the article. The SR5 didn’t offend as much but it was nothing exciting.
      The most impressive interior I thought was found in the Ram Laramie Limited. That looked like the Rolls Royce of pickups. Very impressive attention to interior detail. Doors as solid as bank vault doors, when they closed my ears popped. Interior materials seemed very rich and of great quality. The biggest Ram let down was the back seat. Weird bottom shape for the rear middle passenger which makes the Rams back seat good for only two large males and a 7-8 year old child. An adult won’t fit in the middle. Very weird, and a big let down. If you’re getting it as a 2+2 Ram won’t disappoint. Also, the angle of the back seat not very good. The Tundra back seat angle was heavenly. Also three large adults…and a 7 year old would fit in the Tundra back seat. Tundra’s back seat was freakish , in a good way.
      Chevy and GMC…nothing exciting or memorable. A bit crappy all around. The Nissan Titan full sizer felt better inside.
      Now the F150 seemed to be a happy medium. The King Ranch F150 was almost as nice as the Laramie Limited…almost. The back seat was more comfortable for sure than the Ram, but not as heavenly as the Tundra.
      The doors felt solid, a close second to a Ram. This was just my personal analysis of their insides. I haven’t driven any of the above models, I am not getting into which one tows more…etc..etc.
      Also, as a disclaimer I’ve never owned a full size truck of any brand so I don’t have any Calvin photos peeing on the other brand.

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        I had a chance to drive the new half-ton Titan recently and I don’t get what everyone on here hates about it so much.

      • 0 avatar
        cdotson

        Your observation about Ram’s back seat is particularly astute. The floor/seat bottom in back hasn’t changed one iota since my 2002 quad cab was built. My 9yo daughter (admittedly in the 95% height for age) as been complaining about the center rear seat for years, and my truck has been the third vehicle in the family for over three years. My son’s finally old enough for a high-back booster and he can buckle himself so he’ll likely get pushed to the middle this camping season.

        The Mega Cab Rams have a different rear floor and seat bottom without these hassles. The kids’ complaints echo in my mind as we contemplate a replacement truck.

      • 0 avatar
        SSJeep

        @Carrera @Gtem – I owned one of these new in 2009 and loved it. The 5.7l 32 valve V8 purred like a kitten. The back seat was enormous and not only reclined, but also slid back and forth! There were all kinds of useful compartments and pockets in the cab for pens, laptops, change, anything you could think of. The adjustable headlights were like the eyes of God himself on a dark night. The 4wd was unstoppable. And it just barely fit in a standard garage.

        I drove the same one in 2016 and hated it. The same motor seemed highly dated compared to the 5.7l in my Grand Cherokee. Toyota bean counters removed all of the cool pockets, compartments, and interior features and basically cheaped out the interior entirely. The back seats no longer slid back and forth! I would have never believed it, but Toyota has actually made the Tundra WORSE over time – they didnt even leave well enough alone!

    • 0 avatar
      superslif

      Also well said. Having had three 4Runners (90′, 99′, & 05′) I wanted the reliability of a Toyota as I use mine (14′ Tundra Limited) as a tow vehicle for my travel trailer. I’ll 100% agree the Tundra is behind everyone else as far as power-train and stated tow capacity. We do a lot of long distance RVing trips (Alaska 14k round trip, Yellowstone 5k round trip…)

      Tell me if I’m not understanding something. Bought a new travel trailer (28.5″) which doesn’t sound like much, but it is very heavy at the hitch (840 lbs dry). The Tundra is only rated at 980 lbs. tongue limit. My 2005 4Runner was 1120 lbs. How could my old 4Runner have a higher rating?

  • avatar
    ponchoman49

    I know 3 co-workers that owned earlier 2007-2009 versions of these. None of them currently own one and have all switched over to GMC and Ford for there pickup truck purchases. I was a little surprised by this but apparently the reliability just wasn’t that good on those early year models.

    • 0 avatar
      gtem

      “but apparently the reliability just wasn’t that good on those early year models.”

      It was certainly better than any other half ton of those same years.

      • 0 avatar
        Jack Baruth

        CHOCOLATE CAMSHAFTS

        • 0 avatar
          gtem

          You referring to this?

          https://www.autoblog.com/2007/05/29/aw-snap-no-really-20-tundra-camshafts-have-snapped/

          It really did end up being just some absolute vanishingly small amount of motors. Unlike, say, Ford truck cam phasers which they’ve struggled with since the first Mod motors in ’97 right up to present day. Ram “Hemi tick” and Chevy AFM issues… No, if there’s one thing that’s done right on the Toyota it’s the powertrain/drivetrain.

      • 0 avatar
        jim brewer

        Probably not a material difference, truth be told, which is why a generally satisfied owner of one might switch over to another based on price, or a fairly trivial difference in a feature. I expect they lost some customers from earlier generations simply because the machine had an expensive-to-replace timing belt that the competition did not.

        • 0 avatar
          SSJeep

          It was not uncommon for earlier years of this generation Tundra to grenade the engine around 150k miles due to camshaft failures. Then again, the early VCM GM V8s also grenaded due to carbon buildup. I guess every automaker has their faults…

          But only Toyota had the gall to charge the owner $20000.00 for a new 5.7l engine.

    • 0 avatar
      superslif

      Both of my younger brothers have Rams & 150’s. Both spend a lot of time in “The Shop”. I don’t know how many times my brother’s F-150 (2012) has been towed in the last two years. I just got off the phone with him earlier today, yet again in the shop. The other bro has gone thru 3 Rams all having had major mechanical issues (tranny’s, turbo’s, spinals, steering boxes, rear-ends..and front suspensions….

      I just don’t get it….

  • avatar
    TwoBelugas

    There is a guy down my street who bought a used one of these(paper plates from a non Toyota dealership gave it away). The most load he has in it has been two bicycles in it, so I’m sure he will tell me how reliable it is being used at the same severity as a Camry.

  • avatar
    carguy

    Is there a law that states that every truck makes must have at least on Texas themed edition?

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    The room in the cab is unreal but how much do you actually need? My SuperCrew is more than adequat especially in the back as my sons both clear the 5’11” mark at 14 and 16.
    There are several big killers for me besides appearance when I consider a Tundra:
    1. You can’t get a 6.5 box in a crewcab. WTF? Even Chevy and Ram now offer that configuration.
    2. Cost. You can get any of the domestic trucks on sale with more content. In my town the “Big 3” are offering 9-12k. if I drive south 2 1/2 hours a small Ford dealer with a ton of inventory is offering 12k on lower trim F150’s and 15k off on King Ranch.

    • 0 avatar
      30-mile fetch

      I view the huge back cabin of all full-sizers as the covered storage you don’t get with an open bed.

      • 0 avatar
        S2k Chris

        My BIL’s brother has one of these, and said the Supercab is awesome for putting kids in car seats, because when it’s cold/raining/snowing, you can get in the back in front of the car seats and buckle them in because of all the leg room. I can see that being useful, having spent lots of time getting my back soaked hunched over trying to buckle my kid in the back of a TSX.

  • avatar
    MBella

    Wasn’t this truck criticized for it’s fuel economy even in 2007. It seemed that during development Toyota felt that full size truck buyers don’t care about fuel economy. They released this truck right around the time they did start caring.

    Another thing I don’t understand is the lease pricing. The lease payment on a Tundra comparable to to my Silverado was just about double. This on a dated truck that has very low depreciation. I just don’t understand it. They sell these on brand alone.

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    These are our generation’s “designer edition” days and these are our Mark V, Eldorado, Thunderbird, Cordoba, Monte Carlo, et. al.

    I for one welcome our high riding overlords.

  • avatar
    Lightspeed

    A Texas Tie-Oat-ah just seems forced, like the way Stephen Harper looked at the Calgary Stampede (and that dude was from Calgary!). I’m sure it’s a good truck generally, but I’ve yet to see one with a welding rig in the back.

  • avatar
    Sub-600

    Ah, yes, Japan in the 1790’s. Samurai taming the West while fighting off hostile natives so that settlers could gain a purchase in this brave, new frontier. This truck captures that spirit with luxury and panache. Check, please!

  • avatar
    cgjeep

    “this particular Tundra tips the scales at 5,677 pounds — some 809 pounds heavier than an aluminium-bodied F-150 in a similar spec”

    Wow my 4Runner is 4,700 pounds, that makes it heavier than an F150. What does Toyoata do to make them so heavy. How much does a fully boxed frame add vs c channel?

    I was up in Maine this past fall and was surprised by the number of Tundras I saw on the road. I expected all the Subarus but the percentage of trucks that we Tundras really stood out.

    I too like a truck that actually has some ground clearance. I don’t need it to go boulder hopping but my idea of offroad isn’t manicured lawns. So If I were PU Truck shopping it would be this or a 2500 and a 2500 is way overkill for what I need.

    • 0 avatar
      gtem

      It’s certainly not the sheetmetal on the new 4Runners that makes them heavy, man that is some wafer-thin stuff! An aluminum 4Runner with thicker metal would actually be really cool. Make it with aluminum bumpers to boot (like the ARB aluminum ones) so it’s winch and trail ready. In all seriousness it must be the stronger metal that makes up the body and frame, and all of the extra interior goodies. Looking underneath, my ’96 has a frame that looks almost the same, but with obviously thicker sheetmetal (just by pressing in on it) on door panels and the hood, etc. But that ’96 weighs in at a welterweight 3750lb! That’s with all the 4wd hardware and a cast iron block V6.

  • avatar
    VW4motion

    Crash test ratings on the Tundra are subpar compared to other 1/2 ton options. Sad to say the least.

    http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/toyota/tundra-crew-cab-pickup

  • avatar
    Eric the Red

    A good friend of mine had an older Tundra that he bought new. Why he loved it I don’t know. It had horrible gas mileage. He once told me about towing a camper into a wind and getting about 8 mpg. And the bed had practically rusted off of it. The bolts holding the bed on didn’t look like they were holding any metal at all. You could look right through the bed to the ground.
    BUT he just bought a new Tundra.
    I am a Ford truck owner so didn’t want to push my views too hard, but can’t understand why he did it again.
    It is nice on the inside but really all new vehicles seem nice these days.

  • avatar
    BlythBros

    “complimented — if you can use that word” you can use that word, but not here. Complemented would make more sense. Heh.

  • avatar
    wintermutt

    How does one ID a biased truck review? Simple – figure out what the best feature of a vehicle is. If the reviewer fails to even mention it, the reviewer is biased. By far the best feature of any Tundra, and the primary reason for the brand loyalty is reliability. Everyone in the USA knows this – even the (once) “big three” truck owners know this. To fail to mention this in a review means that not only is the reviewer biased, but that in all probability the entire review is suspect.

    • 0 avatar
      No Nickname Required

      Reliability is incredibly hard to quantify and therefore is, in my opinion, completely irrelevant in a review of any new vehicle. Furthermore, I don’t think the “Toyota is more reliable than X brand” mantra is necessarily true today as it was 15 or 20 years ago.

    • 0 avatar
      MR2turbo4evr

      I stopped taking this review seriously when the 5.7L V8 was described as noisy idling and the 6 speed automatic as hard shifting. I’m not a huge fan of the Tundra, but come on now.

      • 0 avatar
        Steph Willems

        I’m assuming you’re hard of hearing, then. Can I help it that it idled noisily? And I never said the 6-speed shifted harshly; it felt old and was not an invisible presence like some automatics.

      • 0 avatar
        Bazza

        It forces you to question whether he actually drove the truck. The 5.7/6AT combo is very smooth, even when cold and under significant load.

        “NVH isn’t hard to find. The six-speed transmission makes its shifts felt. Stopped with the tranny in drive, the brake pedal pulsates vigorously, as if goading the driver into easing off and letting those 381 ponies gallop. I soon made a habit of bumping the shifter into neutral just to curb the sensation.”

        None of that is objectively correct, and had that been the experience during my test drive (it wasn’t), I would’ve walked. Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmm…

    • 0 avatar
      Steph Willems

      You’re right. The long-term reliability experienced over a week driving a new vehicle is definitely something readers need to hear about.

      • 0 avatar
        gtem

        In the sense of comparing it to the competition and its historic merits, yes, reliability is indeed worth discussing/mentioning. Don’t tell me you haven’t read a typical Tundra or Tacoma review where that isn’t a big point that gets brought up. No need for snark.

        • 0 avatar
          rentonben

          At one point Toyota made a fundamentally more reliable product.

          Now days, it’s just baby-boomers repeating this past observation – I know two Toyota owners that claim their Toyota vehicles are the paragon of reliability – and yet one of them had a steering knuckle failure and the other had to swap out the exhaust system.

          But somehow these old people still claim that their gas guzzling, crash unworthy, and dowdy Toyotas are still a quality product.

          • 0 avatar
            gtem

            “and yet one of them had a steering knuckle failure and the other had to swap out the exhaust system.”

            What age did this happen at? And how exactly does a steering knuckle fail? No one claimed they’re made of some kind of alien-technology that makes them invincible and impervious to wear, but they have a statistically confirmed track record of besting other car makers, to this day.

      • 0 avatar
        formula m

        My girlfriends 2013 Ram Hemi is sitting in her parents garage this week waiting for the air suspension to warm up and function so we can take it into the Honda dealer to pick up her ‘18 CRV on Saturday. We made the deal last Saturday but the delivery date is backed up a week because of the amount of sales last month. We parked the truck in the driveway on last Saturday night after just getting the appraisal done and the suspension dropped the truck to the bumpstops and is stuck there. The original reason for trading it was the 18.5liters per/100km it was getting along with the fact the ignition/transmission problems where it takes 15+ attempts to start the truck sealed it’s fate with us. We are keeping my older ‘03 Toyota Highlander Limited 4WD because it is far more reliable, nicer to drive and more efficient. I would love to keep the full-size truck as my driver but it is falling apart after only 128,000kms.

        None of this is a priority for a pickup truck buyer.

        “Items like a lane-holding system, a 360-degree camera, a larger multimedia screen, automatic emergency braking, keyless entry and push-button ignition, multiple rear seat plug-in points, and more accessible front seat connections. Android Auto and Apple CarPlay are only found on the sides of milk cartons in the Tundra.”

        • 0 avatar
          BrianL

          “None of this is a priority for a pickup truck buyer.”

          “Items like a lane-holding system, a 360-degree camera, a larger multimedia screen, automatic emergency braking, keyless entry and push-button ignition, multiple rear seat plug-in points, and more accessible front seat connections. Android Auto and Apple CarPlay are only found on the sides of milk cartons in the Tundra.”

          Where trucks are status in parts of the country, people like their creature comforts. Most trucks sold aren’t work trucks. In fact, this 1794 model in the review isn’t what people would consider for a work truck. It has too much content. But, for people who want a Lariat or King Ranch from Ford (or higher trim for that matter), Denali, High Country, Laramie, or whatever Nissan has, not having all of these features listed make it DOA for those buyers who buy these trucks that sticker for 60k. Toyota has left its BOF vehicles wither on the vine. The 4Runner, Tundra, and Sequoia are all horribly lacking on modern technology for vehicles. Toyota has even stated that it is looking to get a better engine into the Tacoma because they blew that too. And seriously, the rear seat in the Tacoma is laughable. Toyota has fallen seriously behind here.

        • 0 avatar
          SSJeep

          “Items like a lane-holding system, a 360-degree camera, a larger multimedia screen, automatic emergency braking, keyless entry and push-button ignition, multiple rear seat plug-in points, and more accessible front seat connections. Android Auto and Apple CarPlay are only found on the sides of milk cartons in the Tundra.”

          All of these are important to buyers, even those buying a half ton pickup. While some of them are superfluous, like push-button ignition and CarPlay, other features like autonomous braking, blind spot alerts, and lane departure warnings should be standard. Especially on a vehicle that weighs 5000lbs+ and presents some visibility challenges.

    • 0 avatar
      87 Morgan

      When you mention reliability, are you speaking for all the Tundra owners that had to wait in line to get their entire truck attached to a new frame because the old one rotted out prematurely?

      This reliability argument is false, and is easy to spot. If the ‘big 3’ were/are that bad, why do they sell so effing many of them compared to the Tundra?
      The Toyota interior, same with the Sequoia, is awful when compared to any of the other offerings. The gray plastic dials look like the came off a Tonka toy, the ‘leather’ seats look and feel plastic.

      I have mentioned previous, the abysmal FE for the 5.7 is outrageous in 2018. I was driving F350’s in the early 90’s with stake body piston dumps on them and getting 13 mpg albeit empty with a 460 CID under the hood. Once they were loaded with wood and towing a wood chipper all bets were off, 7-8 mpg was the norm. Toyota can’t figure out how to get better than that in a half ton 28 years later?

      • 0 avatar
        PrincipalDan

        Trucks are the only thing the Big 3 do right. Malign a Malibu or Fusion all you want, say that you can’t understand why anyone would pick an Escape over a RAV4, but railing against the GM/Ford/Ram trucks doesn’t hold any water.

      • 0 avatar
        gtem

        Yes the Dana frame fiasco on the gen 1 trucks (and Tacomas) cannot be ignored. Toyota owned up to it and paid for a ton of replacements at incredible cost to themselves.

        But the 07+ trucks stand above the competition IMO both in terms of ruggedness as a function of the overbuilt nature of various components (axles, t-case, steering/suspension, brakes), things like rust proofing on the sheetmetal (and hopefully frame this time around), and overall reliability in terms of powertrain, electrical, body, etc. And yes they do have some chintzy interiors, particularly the pre ’14 trucks.

        But as an overall package (fuel economy, features, price, performance) the domestics all offer compelling packages. That durability/reliability gap is small enough for most consumers to be overlooked in favor of the other factors, and that’s entirely understandable.

        That’s my take on it.

    • 0 avatar
      superslif

      Yes, one of anyone’s reason to buy should be brand loyalty and reliability. Some people might lease a truck for 2-3 years and don’t care about reliability. I for one “highly value” longer term (3-8 years) reliability as I use my Tundra as a tow vehicle for my RV, and don’t want to get caught 1000 miles from home in a pickle (break down).

  • avatar
    RHD

    The 1794 designation comes from…

    “How many gallons of gas will this Dodge/Ford/Chevy copycat take to travel
    23,680 miles?”

  • avatar
    johnhowington

    So bottom line, the tundra is not the value proposition it used to be.

    • 0 avatar
      VW4motion

      Overpriced so so pickup for the brainwashed toyoder junky.
      J.R. Ewing edition is probably the most accurate statement about this truck.

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        It’s a little more involved than being a “brainwashed toyoder junky.” I did not start out as a “toyoder junky.” But that’s all I drive now. Most reliable brand, Toyota!

        I’ve owned a 2011 SR5 Longbed and a 2016 SR5-Plus 4-dr 4×4 and I switched to Tundra only AFTER having owned a Silverado, F150 and RAM 2500 Cummins. Those were junk, and need not apply when I buy a new pickup truck.

        IOW, I had the rest, and now choose to drive the best. The Tundra may be dated these days but that is only after Tundra set the bar to a new high with their 2007 model that featured a magnificent all-aluminum DOHC 32-valve 5.7L V8, 10.5″ ring gear, 6-speed automatic and huge floating-caliper disc brakes. The others didn’t have that.

        The others adopted those same features since then, a most sincere form of flattery of the Tundra design.

        The 1794 is a luxo barge. I haven’t decided which level trim I will buy next, after having two SR5 models, but whatever I buy next will have to have that 5.7L, 4-drs and be a 4×4. That works for me.

        ” And that would-be Tundra buyer, more likely than not, will hoof it right past the Ford, Chevrolet, GMC, Ram, and Nissan lot to get his or her mitts on one”… applies to me, because I have owned the others and both my Tundra pickups were trouble free, and the best ownership experience of the whole pickup truck lot.

        I’m glad I ran across this review.

        • 0 avatar
          Dave M.

          HDC – Folks who haven’t been frustrated by their car’s lack of reliability and drank the Toyota/Honda Koolaid won’t get it. After 2 faulty new domestic products, I drank the Koolaid over 30 years ago. We ventured off the ranch only once 8 years ago for a Ford Edge and regretted it.

          Is Toyota miles ahead like they used to be? No thank God, the others have made strides. But if reliability is your priority, Toyota is always a safe bet.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Dave M., I still scoot around in my Japan- built 1989 Camry V6 daily driver. And it runs great.

            It’s been parked since the week before Thanksgiving but today I jumped it with the battery from our Sequoia and, lo and behold, the Camry started right up!

            Unbelievable!

            Toyota’s got my vote. Oh, what a feelin’!

            It all boils down to individual ownership experience.

            The only great experience I had with the domestics were with my wife’s 2012 Grand Cherokee Overland Summit V6 and my son’s 2012 Grand Cherokee SRT8.

            Both are still daily drivers to this very day for my grand daughter and her husband in Surprise, AZ.

            Then again, both Grand Cherokees were really Daimler-Benz engineered, not Chrysler engineered. Just imported from Detroit. Now each with over 150K miles on the clock.

            I’ll buy another Toyota, if I ever have a need to buy a new half-ton truck again.

            My wife and I spend a lot of time outside of the US, so that affects my buying decision. No sense in parking a new truck while I’m away.

        • 0 avatar
          crtfour

          I was the same way and then in 1999 I unexpectedly ran across a nice 1997 T100 extra cab 4×4 which I bought and still have today. Since then I have stuck with Toyota trucks and haven’t looked back. The Chevrolet trucks that I’ve had were good, but the Toyota’s have been SO good that why take a chance?

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            crtfour, I’ve got a buddy who still rattles around in his early-nineties Tacoma V6 manual.

            So far only the exhaust manifold bracket broke and the AC was rebuilt several times. In the high-desert heat of NM ACs will wear out in all vehicles because of constant use.

            It ain’t much to look at because the paint is all blistered away but it gets him everywhere he needs to go, for cheap.

            (His wife drives the Avalon which they both use for long roadtrips.)

      • 0 avatar
        gtem

        An apparent serial VW owner giving people a hard time for buying a reliable/high-resale Toyota is some kind of new level of “anti-humor” as the kids call it these days.

        • 0 avatar
          krhodes1

          My “unreliable” BMW has been more reliable than my Mother’s Prius-V over similar age and mileage. YMMV.

          There just isn’t much in it these days – as has been widely noted, the least reliable vehicle you can buy today is on par with the most reliable from 25 years ago. How reliable do you need the thing to be?? There seem to be plenty of reasons to not buy a Tundra, and only one reason to buy one that may not even be statistically relevant. And even if you get the price premium back at resale time (maybe, maybe not), you still paid interest, sales tax, and in Maine, annual excise tax on that premium.

          • 0 avatar

            “the least reliable vehicle you can buy today is on par with the most reliable from 25 years ago”

            Only because they didn’t sell Fiats here in 1993.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            “There seem to be plenty of reasons to not buy a Tundra, and only one reason to buy one that may not even be statistically relevant.”

            I agree.

            Buying a Tundra is a deeply personal thing. People who buy Tundra do so because they shun Ford, GM, RAM and Nissan, each for their own reasons.

            People who buy Tundra not only have to pay substantially more for that privilege but they also get chastised by the owners of the lesser brands.

            Tundra will never outsell Ford, GM or RAM, but those who choose to buy Tundra do so because they feel a calling.

            Rolls Royce and Bentley aren’t for everyone. Similarly, Tundra isn’t for everyone. I’m surprised Tundra continues to sell even with a decade-old design.

            I was leery at first when I bought my 2011 Tundra. I was determined when I bought my 2016 Tundra.

            I’ll be determined to buy Tundra if I buy another one.

          • 0 avatar
            NormSV650

            Prices are similar for a new Tundra SR5 and a Denali 2500 today and 10 years ago for the same SR5 and Denali at 120,000 miles. No more financial choice based on residuals.

          • 0 avatar
            ToddAtlasF1

            “‘the least reliable vehicle you can buy today is on par with the most reliable from 25 years ago’

            Only because they didn’t sell Fiats here in 1993.”

            I think you have that exactly backwards. Besides, 1993 was 25 years ago. The most reliable vehicle you could buy was a Toyota or Lexus that was about as value engineered as a 1985 Mercedes-Benz. They were rather more reliable than the best of today; just look at Lexus’ JD Power scores of the era.

  • avatar
    marmot

    I just read about the transmission problems in recent F-150s, and about how the transmissions which have been fixed aren’t actually fixed. When you buy a Tundra you don’t have to worry about a potential nightmare like this. Hopefully the 2019 Tundras will pass the NHTSA crash and headlight tests. I’m betting they will.

  • avatar
    marmot

    And I ask again: does anyone know why Toyota can’t or won’t fix whatever problems the Tacoma has that result in it being the most troublesome model Toyota makes, according to Consumer Reports?

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      My youngest son in Brownsville, TX, bought a new 2016 Tacoma 4dr 4×4 and he has not experienced any problems with it.

      I am aware of Consumer Reports’ rating for the new Tacoma, but I don’t know anyone who regrets buying their new Tacoma. And the new Tacoma is enormously popular in the Great Southwest of America.

      Lots of them on the roads here.

      • 0 avatar
        marmot

        Thank you HDC, that’s good info. BTW I’m a Valley boy myself, but haven’t lived there in 50 years.

        • 0 avatar

          A single quality and geographical anecdote is not good info, and it wasn’t the answer to the question you asked.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Corey Lewis, maybe not every new Tacoma owner is experiencing the problems that CR has based their rating on.

            I never claimed that my comment was meant as “good info”.

            My comment was submitted because my son owns a new Tacoma but has not experienced ANY problems with it during his daily driving routine over the past 2 years.

  • avatar
    Null Set

    The Citroen DS is more common on the streets of LA than this TuRD.

  • avatar
    Flipper35

    My mother in law’s husband (the Jeep dumper) had an early model of this gen Tundra. Left him stranded twice. Had the Cherokee (yes, he went to an FCA product for better reliability, how’s that for irony) and now a Colorado. He gave the Jeep to my MiL because he wanted a pickup again.

    On a personal note, they are too ugly and I would take my chances with a domestic if I needed a pickup. The beds are all too high to be used for grocery runs. Someone would have to get in the truck bed to hand them out.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    Besides, Ford, GM, Ram dealers start in with a bunch of complicated questions. What engine and axle ratio, payload package or no, plus towing or off road.

    With the Tundra it’s all decided for you with a one truck fits all approach, covering all the bases. I suspect it’s the reason for such lousy fuel economy, a symptom of a super aggressive gearing, just in case of hard work.

  • avatar

    By the by, that horrible faux wood trim is totally unacceptable, and would’ve been in 2007 as well. It’s not even the same shade between the dash and the wheel.

    • 0 avatar
      PrincipalDan

      Makes me nostalgic for my 1987 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme Brougham, acres of fake wood and no less than three Oldsmobile rocket logos on the dash, lest you forget what you were driving.

  • avatar

    It won’t be long until Toyota and the other Asian manufacturers surpass the F-150. Remember, what happened with the Camry. The Camry basically put the Fusion and 200 out of business.

    Jim Hackett looks to be a real moron. Ford is crap.

  • avatar

    SIXTY GRAND? ABSURD

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Jeff S: Do we really need 300 mph especially in an urban area? A third of that would be plenty for most drivers. I...
  • Master Baiter: The newest of my three vehicles is “connected” and it suffers from the same type of...
  • 3SpeedAutomatic: Some of us are just “analog” and enjoy the pleasure of turning dials and pressing...
  • ABC-2000: Just got 2021 CX-5 GT, it came with connected service complimentary for 3 years and cellular data for 3...
  • dwford: Here’s a connected car question: My car has Onstar. I don’t pay for the service, but since I did...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber