Tundra's first drive

Chris97K1500 · January 7, 2007

5.7L with 6 speed auto, 381hp and 401ft/lbs. http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti...E/70105005/1057

I'm impressed with the numbers and 6spd, General, you should have put the 6.2 and 6spd as the VortecMax! Toyota will get press for this! Chris

Schmids5.3l · January 23, 2007

Sounds like the average consumer reports

direct quote:

every Tundra buyer has the option of installing a 5.7-liter, 381-hp, 401-lb-ft V8 hooked to a six-speed automatic transmission. That tops GM’s bread-and-butter 6.0-liter V8 by 14 hp and 26 lb-ft (though the GMC Sierra Denali’s 6.2-liter V8 is more powerful); it isn’t even worth talking about how far the other competitors are behind.

WOAH, 14hp and 26lbft, man they ARE ahead of the competeition, its not even worth talking about, this thing blows the 6L max out of the water!!!

NoHemi4me · January 23, 2007

Sounds like the average consumer reports

direct quote:

every Tundra buyer has the option of installing a 5.7-liter, 381-hp, 401-lb-ft V8 hooked to a six-speed automatic transmission. That tops GM’s bread-and-butter 6.0-liter V8 by 14 hp and 26 lb-ft (though the GMC Sierra Denali’s 6.2-liter V8 is more powerful); it isn’t even worth talking about how far the other competitors are behind.

WOAH, 14hp and 26lbft, man they ARE ahead of the competeition, its not even worth talking about, this thing blows the 6L max out of the water!!!

On the dyno, the where the power curve is shown the Tundra really DOES BLOW THE the 6.0L Vortec out of the water by a huge margin. We're talking 50-60 wheel hp throughout the powerband. The Tundra 5.7 also got 14.9mpg average vs. 12.2mpg for the Vortec 6L.

bosro · January 25, 2007

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drive...1/pageId=118239

Interesting read.

Seems GM sorta messed up the tune of the 6L.

The Tundra 5.7L sounds pretty impressive,gonna have to take one for a rip when they show up!!

Too bad about the looks of the Tundra.......

asilverblazer · January 26, 2007

That dyno chart is only about 5 seconds worth of dyno chart. Torque management is the reason for the numbers being so low. If you pedal the Silverado for a longer amount of time which any time I floor my truck its usually for a good reason and for a lot longer than 4 seconds. In any case the horsepower torque spread isn't as radical as the chart shows, which is very limited circumstance.

67ChevyRedneck · January 26, 2007

Sounds like the average consumer reports

direct quote:

every Tundra buyer has the option of installing a 5.7-liter, 381-hp, 401-lb-ft V8 hooked to a six-speed automatic transmission. That tops GM’s bread-and-butter 6.0-liter V8 by 14 hp and 26 lb-ft (though the GMC Sierra Denali’s 6.2-liter V8 is more powerful); it isn’t even worth talking about how far the other competitors are behind.

WOAH, 14hp and 26lbft, man they ARE ahead of the competeition, its not even worth talking about, this thing blows the 6L max out of the water!!!

The 6.0L is not GM's bread and butter motor, the 5.3L is. In the HD's it's the Duramax. In a half ton, the 5.3 far outsells the 6.0L.

bosro · January 26, 2007

That dyno chart is only about 5 seconds worth of dyno chart. Torque management is the reason for the numbers being so low. If you pedal the Silverado for a longer amount of time which any time I floor my truck its usually for a good reason and for a lot longer than 4 seconds. In any case the horsepower torque spread isn't as radical as the chart shows, which is very limited circumstance.

By the looks of the dyno chart the 6L makes about 190Hp @ 4000RPM.

The Tundra(and Titan for that matter) are making approx 240Hp.

That seems like alot to me!!!

My current truck does'nt see 5500RPM much,towing or not so I don't really see how the 6L(without PCM changes ) can be as good as I'd like it to be.Most of my towing in 3rd is @ about 3000RPM,downshifts RPM's maybe to 4500.I can't imagine having to rev to 5000+ for any length of time.

Once it up-shifts does the engine fall flat???

This is all a bit baffling to me,can't understand why they would do this from the factory!

I have not taken one for a test drive yet,simply because supply here is very low for all the 07's but almost non-existant for the 6L.

Till then I am just confused!!

david.mciver · February 15, 2007

For me trucks are less about horse power and more about torque. It would be intresting to see a similiar chart of the torque curve on the bottom end of the band for the same 3. I know the Toyota is a 4 valve engine so I suspect the torque is not as good down low as the GM product. Not sure what type of valve train the Nissan has?

ChrisNJ · February 15, 2007

Sounds like the average consumer reports

direct quote:

every Tundra buyer has the option of installing a 5.7-liter, 381-hp, 401-lb-ft V8 hooked to a six-speed automatic transmission. That tops GM’s bread-and-butter 6.0-liter V8 by 14 hp and 26 lb-ft (though the GMC Sierra Denali’s 6.2-liter V8 is more powerful); it isn’t even worth talking about how far the other competitors are behind.

WOAH, 14hp and 26lbft, man they ARE ahead of the competeition, its not even worth talking about, this thing blows the 6L max out of the water!!!

Acutally toyota's 401 ft-lbs is at 3500rpm, gm's 376 is at 5500. I'd call that significant, with or without graphs and charts. they also can spread that torque over 6sp, again significant. wether you and i like it or not, toyota has up'd the anti big-time on small blocks, and can do so with their VVT-dual cam. gm's only chance to compete with a single cam is with displacement. the 6.2 helps and is comparable to toyota's 5.7, but we can't get it in our normal 1500's. IF gm wants to play, they will have to put the 6.2/6sp in our 1500's. I don't think they will, at least for a long time, because they think only the Denali's and Escelades deserve it, while they get smoked by toyota.

2004GMC1500CC · February 15, 2007

Sounds like the average consumer reports

direct quote:

every Tundra buyer has the option of installing a 5.7-liter, 381-hp, 401-lb-ft V8 hooked to a six-speed automatic transmission. That tops GM’s bread-and-butter 6.0-liter V8 by 14 hp and 26 lb-ft (though the GMC Sierra Denali’s 6.2-liter V8 is more powerful); it isn’t even worth talking about how far the other competitors are behind.

WOAH, 14hp and 26lbft, man they ARE ahead of the competeition, its not even worth talking about, this thing blows the 6L max out of the water!!!

Acutally toyota's 401 ft-lbs is at 3500rpm, gm's 376 is at 5500. I'd call that significant, with or without graphs and charts. they also can spread that torque over 6sp, again significant. wether you and i like it or not, toyota has up'd the anti big-time on small blocks, and can do so with their VVT-dual cam. gm's only chance to compete with a single cam is with displacement. the 6.2 helps and is comparable to toyota's 5.7, but we can't get it in our normal 1500's. IF gm wants to play, they will have to put the 6.2/6sp in our 1500's. I don't think they will, at least for a long time, because they think only the Denali's and Escelades deserve it, while they get smoked by toyota.

There's alot more to a truck than articles and numbers. Before I bought mine I was convinced I buying either the Nissan or the Ford crew cabs. After driving them both my wife convinced me to drive the GMC. We bought the GMC, and have no regrets.

Chestah · February 16, 2007

I saw a new Tundra on the road today, it was a white extended cab. That is the first once I've seen, oddly enough, I saw it right in front of a line of new Silverados at a Chevy dealership.

silveradoHO · February 17, 2007

I think the new Tundra is pretty bad a$$. Hopefully it will move GM to upgrade the 1500 with a 6.2 soon. Also the extra gears would be nice. I have a 4Runner with the 5speed auto, and it really makes a big difference.

Bruce03Silverado · February 20, 2007

Sounds like the average consumer reports

direct quote:

every Tundra buyer has the option of installing a 5.7-liter, 381-hp, 401-lb-ft V8 hooked to a six-speed automatic transmission. That tops GM’s bread-and-butter 6.0-liter V8 by 14 hp and 26 lb-ft (though the GMC Sierra Denali’s 6.2-liter V8 is more powerful); it isn’t even worth talking about how far the other competitors are behind.

WOAH, 14hp and 26lbft, man they ARE ahead of the competeition, its not even worth talking about, this thing blows the 6L max out of the water!!!

Acutally toyota's 401 ft-lbs is at 3500rpm, gm's 376 is at 5500. I'd call that significant, with or without graphs and charts. they also can spread that torque over 6sp, again significant. wether you and i like it or not, toyota has up'd the anti big-time on small blocks, and can do so with their VVT-dual cam. gm's only chance to compete with a single cam is with displacement. the 6.2 helps and is comparable to toyota's 5.7, but we can't get it in our normal 1500's. IF gm wants to play, they will have to put the 6.2/6sp in our 1500's. I don't think they will, at least for a long time, because they think only the Denali's and Escelades deserve it, while they get smoked by toyota.

It doesn't matter what kind of numbers a truck puts down if it looks like A$$!! It's got to be the most God Aweful looking truck I have ever seen!! It doesn't matter what they do they still won't be able to make a dent in the domestic truck market share. GM, Ford and Doge truck owners are some of the most loyal vehicle owners out there!! They may be able to keep the market share they have, but in my opinion I don't see them taking GM, Ford or Dodge owners away from their trucks.

OUMike · February 24, 2007

I personally don't care if the Tundra is 100 more hp. I believe that in the long run the GM product is a better truck, and I just like the looks a lot better. Chevrolet small blocks are proven to be some of the most depenable longest lasting engines in the world, and thats good enough for me.

I hate how magazines make horsepower out to be the be all end all figure when judging cars. I was a Road and Track subscriber for four years, and they weren't as bad as some but they too were guilty of it.