The truth about the new Toyota Tundra

[CMNTMXR81]

Ok, I know we've all seen those Toyota commercials touting the virtues of this new "wonder truck" and how it's the sh*t compared to domestic trucks. Well, I don't know if any of you have attended the auto show circuit, much like here in Chicago.

 

Well if you haven't had the opportunity, let me help you here. You see, much like their bold commercials, their display at this years' Chicago Auto Show is quite the chest beating seranade. The mistake they made was putting the "guts" of the truck (like you see on the one commercial) out on display. This was a BAD thing Toyota!!

 

Now, to the untrained consumer, wooed in buy Toyota's brilliant marketing, they wouldn't notice any of these things to the trained eye.

 

1) The frame. The Tundra's frame is basic GM late 1970 early 1980's technology. It utilizes the standard issue "C" channel frame. Then from the front rail to midway under the passenger section, they "box" it (like GM did) with another "C" section welded in. To top off this stout (haha) frame, All the crossmembers are stamped steel (some very thin stamped steel to boot) that are butt welded to the frame rails. Wholly sh*t! This thing has to flex like a flag in the wind.

 

By comparison, as you know, GM, then Dodge and now Ford, use HYDROFORMING! The frame is a "boxed" hydroformed rail from the front bumper to rear bumper, with integral hydroformed crossmembers. No welding, no joints, and not made of "stamped steel".

 

So, which frame do you really want under your rig?

 

That commercial with them showing the class 3 hitch and how the Toyota's is soo much bigger, IT HAS TO BE in order to support and distribute that load weight that is being placed on the non-boxed rails. GM, ford, Dodge don't need such a beefy hitch because their frames are substantially stronger in this area and can handle the load better! No need to add a bigger, heavier hitch to do it!

 

By this time I had an external GM training employee come over and start taking pictures. He was kind enough to talk to me.

 

2) You know that commercial about the brakes and how their's are soo much bigger? Well, the two rotors being used are actually a Chevy S-10 and ford Ranger set of rotors. They aren't even a Toyota rotor according to him! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!

 

But to add technical difference. For the Tundra's "larger" rotor, they actually have less braking surface than the smaller GM rotor. That's right, those big 13.9" rotors only have 1.75" of actual braking surface. A smaller GM rotor has a full 2" of braking surface on it's rotor.

 

The tundra also makes use of 4 small piston calipers. In a sports car, this is typically good. But sports cars don't have heavy trailers and load shifts behind them. Trucks do. GM for example uses two piston calipers, but LARGE two piston calipers. This allows for more consistent and equal braking force/pressure applied to the pad, then to the rotor vs. a small 4 piston setup.

 

So, which brakes do you really want under your rig?

 

3) That huge 10" ring gear. Now in all my years of working on cars and trucks, I can only count on one hand, the number of ring and pinion gears that have been sheered. Those that I can count, were in high power, high performance, racing situations. Say, a high RPM, hard launching, of a 1,500 horsepower Pro-stock bracket racer. Not a pickup truck! Rears break, yes. But it's rarely EVER the ring and pinion! So all Toyota has done is add unnessecary weight to the vehicle by making it bigger.

 

4) Two piece driveshaft. They claim it is "More fuel efficient while maintaining the same strength as a one piece driveshaft". I fail to see this despite their claim of a 30% weight reduction! Rotational mass between a single piece and two piece is so slight, how can one even measure it? As to strength, How can you put a joint at a midpoint of the shaft and expect it to be as strong as a single piece. That center U-joint or slip joint is a weak link and will be the first to give under stress between a steel front section and aluminum in the rear. If the joint doesn't give way, then the aluminum will! Who puts aluminum in a work truck? I could understand if you had a long chassis and had to make it a two piece for flexibility of the drivetrain, but really!

 

I'll keep the single piece STEEL driveshaft in my rig!

 

I would like to see a dyno sheet of the 5.7L I-Force V8 before I tear into that one.

 

On to the vehicle itself.

 

The exterior once you get away from the front end is freaking UGLY! It's side flanks remind me of the new FJ (which I think gets top honors along with two of Toyota's, Scion's in the ugliest vehicle on the road award). The interior is small (I had a couple of Toyota owners behind me remarking about how small it was and how limited space was in back!) and it was too plasticky and very 1980's in terms of interior quality level. The coloring on the bezels of the gauge pods is painted on and is reminiscent of any 1970's GM vehicle in terms finish quality. If you sit in any current Silverado or even ford, this truck feels utterly spartan, outdated by a good 10 years, cold, and boring!

 

But unfortunately Toyota's brilliant marketing campaign will have many of these put onto the road by uneducated consumers!!

[s-ten]

Good post, nice to see some first hand information on the new Tundra. I absolutly hate the advertisments that Toyota has been doing to promote the new Tundra, they are basing it off the idea that bigger is ALWAYS better in a truck, and some people are going to buy into it. As far as the interiors, I have read that they are not that great in space, amenities, or fit and finish. Nice to see what I was hoping that was true in the truck world is still true.

 

GM>Toyota

 

[CMNTMXR81]

Yea, I thought the big 3 might have a problem in the half ton market by these commercials. But when I saw the truck and it's frame on display, I almost fell off the display laughing!

[Wingnut]

I think it will sell well to Toyota enthusiasts and smattering of others...But really...It's too damn ugly for most folks.

[RyanbabZ71]

Didnt make it to the chicago autoshow this yr hopefully my brother will send some pics

 

Good post I like how in one of their commericals they talk about tow haul mode iin their trucks DUH gm had that how many yrs ago??? haha

[pm26]

The local Toyota dealer in my area has one of these trucks displayed outside the dealership, close to the main road, so everybody can see it. The truck has all kinds of posters stuck to it, advertising its superiority over other trucks.

[drumset5994]

I saw the display in detroit...i even have it in photos somewhere...i'll have to dig it up. A defenite joke.

[plainvanilla]

Ok, I know we've all seen those Toyota commercials touting the virtues of this new "wonder truck" and how it's the sh*t compared to domestic trucks. Well, I don't know if any of you have attended the auto show circuit, much like here in Chicago.

 

Well if you haven't had the opportunity, let me help you here. You see, much like their bold commercials, their display at this years' Chicago Auto Show is quite the chest beating seranade. The mistake they made was putting the "guts" of the truck (like you see on the one commercial) out on display. This was a BAD thing Toyota!!

 

Now, to the untrained consumer, wooed in buy Toyota's brilliant marketing, they wouldn't notice any of these things to the trained eye.

 

1) The frame. The Tundra's frame is basic GM late 1970 early 1980's technology. It utilizes the standard issue "C" channel frame. Then from the front rail to midway under the passenger section, they "box" it (like GM did) with another "C" section welded in. To top off this stout (haha) frame, All the crossmembers are stamped steel (some very thin stamped steel to boot) that are butt welded to the frame rails. Wholly sh*t! This thing has to flex like a flag in the wind.

 

By comparison, as you know, GM, then Dodge and now Ford, use HYDROFORMING! The frame is a "boxed" hydroformed rail from the front bumper to rear bumper, with integral hydroformed crossmembers. No welding, no joints, and not made of "stamped steel".

 

So, which frame do you really want under your rig?

 

That commercial with them showing the class 3 hitch and how the Toyota's is soo much bigger, IT HAS TO BE in order to support and distribute that load weight that is being placed on the non-boxed rails. GM, ford, Dodge don't need such a beefy hitch because their frames are substantially stronger in this area and can handle the load better! No need to add a bigger, heavier hitch to do it!

 

By this time I had an external GM training employee come over and start taking pictures. He was kind enough to talk to me.

 

2) You know that commercial about the brakes and how their's are soo much bigger? Well, the two rotors being used are actually a Chevy S-10 and ford Ranger set of rotors. They aren't even a Toyota rotor according to him! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!

 

But to add technical difference. For the Tundra's "larger" rotor, they actually have less braking surface than the smaller GM rotor. That's right, those big 13.9" rotors only have 1.75" of actual braking surface. A smaller GM rotor has a full 2" of braking surface on it's rotor.

 

The tundra also makes use of 4 small piston calipers. In a sports car, this is typically good. But sports cars don't have heavy trailers and load shifts behind them. Trucks do. GM for example uses two piston calipers, but LARGE two piston calipers. This allows for more consistent and equal braking force/pressure applied to the pad, then to the rotor vs. a small 4 piston setup.

 

So, which brakes do you really want under your rig?

 

3) That huge 10" ring gear. Now in all my years of working on cars and trucks, I can only count on one hand, the number of ring and pinion gears that have been sheered. Those that I can count, were in high power, high performance, racing situations. Say, a high RPM, hard launching, of a 1,500 horsepower Pro-stock bracket racer. Not a pickup truck! Rears break, yes. But it's rarely EVER the ring and pinion! So all Toyota has done is add unnessecary weight to the vehicle by making it bigger.

 

4) Two piece driveshaft. They claim it is "More fuel efficient while maintaining the same strength as a one piece driveshaft". I fail to see this despite their claim of a 30% weight reduction! Rotational mass between a single piece and two piece is so slight, how can one even measure it? As to strength, How can you put a joint at a midpoint of the shaft and expect it to be as strong as a single piece. That center U-joint or slip joint is a weak link and will be the first to give under stress between a steel front section and aluminum in the rear. If the joint doesn't give way, then the aluminum will! Who puts aluminum in a work truck? I could understand if you had a long chassis and had to make it a two piece for flexibility of the drivetrain, but really!

 

I'll keep the single piece STEEL driveshaft in my rig!

 

I would like to see a dyno sheet of the 5.7L I-Force V8 before I tear into that one.

 

On to the vehicle itself.

 

The exterior once you get away from the front end is freaking UGLY! It's side flanks remind me of the new FJ (which I think gets top honors along with two of Toyota's, Scion's in the ugliest vehicle on the road award). The interior is small (I had a couple of Toyota owners behind me remarking about how small it was and how limited space was in back!) and it was too plasticky and very 1980's in terms of interior quality level. The coloring on the bezels of the gauge pods is painted on and is reminiscent of any 1970's GM vehicle in terms finish quality. If you sit in any current Silverado or even ford, this truck feels utterly spartan, outdated by a good 10 years, cold, and boring!

 

But unfortunately Toyota's brilliant marketing campaign will have many of these put onto the road by uneducated consumers!!

 

 

Not to mention

 

• Higher sticker price

   

• Lower MPG than the GM V-8

   

• No Such thing as On Star

   

• No such thing as XM radio

   

• Radio that looks like a 1985 Casio watch

   

• Toyota only offers 1 V8, GM offers 4

   

• GM beats them on Max HP and Torque

   

• They don't have a HD offering

   

• No 170 degree Ext Cab rear door now on GMC

   

 

They claim better re-sell value, well they better be higher than GM because they cost about 3-5 thousand dollars more for a comparable truck to start with.

[67ChevyRedneck]

I'd like to add a few observations.

 

I looked at them in person. A 4x4 5.7L crew cab stickered at 37,500 on our local Toyota lot.

 

They also had a REGULAR cab 4x4 5.7L truck.... ready for this one? 31,000!!!

 

Toyota has stated that they "PURPOSELY" left "large gaps" in the body panels to look more "rugged."

 

What the hell? GM and others have been getting ripped apart for years for having "large gaps."

 

What's the REAL reason the Tundra has large gaps? Body lean, body roll, and flexing. The frame is not stiff enough for Toyota to have a truck with small gaps.

 

Funny, Toyota takes their weak frame design, large gaps, say it was on purpose, and advertise it as "rugged."

 

Two piece drive shafts and carrier bearings were used on GM trucks in the 60's until I think '72. These two piece drive shafts are problematic.

 

I expect Toyota to have a lot of TSB's if not recalls, on this set up, especially if people actually USE their truck.

 

 

Still, a great attempt for Toyota. Especially in the "balls" department.

[Zane]

oh what the hell, lets sticky this for a day or so to make sure everyone sees it.

[TravelinSierra]

I have a feeling Toyota will run itself down to the ground trying to please the American society with their trucks. I imagine it will be much later before they get the Full-Size truck formula down to the molecular (just had to use this term, lol) level and actually sell their trucks right.

[ZZ327]

anybody notice how they go balls out saying the HP is 381 and TQ is 401. the TQ comes in full at 3300RPM. not bad. The dyno sheet I saw yesterday in 4 wheeler magazine says it doesnt make 381 HP until the redline at 6600RPM!! did I read that wrong?

 

why do they not advertise this?!

[RyanbabZ71]

hmmm have seen countless 07 new style trucks on the road and only 1 toyota and it was on a test drive (pulled up next to me at the gas station).

[SilveradoLAX7]

hmmm have seen countless 07 new style trucks on the road and only 1 toyota and it was on a test drive (pulled up next to me at the gas station).

dito. I was surprised to see all the new GMs on the road in the Dallas/ft Worth area (all Chevy, yet to see a GMC for some reason). Saw my first toy in a Wal-Mart parking lot. Reinforced my theory that regardless of specs, these things are UGLY!

 

Good post, with support of argument.

-Jay

[67ChevyRedneck]

Toyota is also proud of the fact that you can drive the truck with "work gloves" on. WOHOOOO. I guess I better go buy one

 

If they were so concerned with ergonomics they really missed the "BIG" picture.

 

They tried so hard to make the truck big, they forgot to make if functional. I'm 5'8 and consider myself to be average (and actually taller) than a lot of the guys I worked with when I was a geotechnician "in the field." One of the things I love about the Silverado (even the 4x4's) is that you can reach over the bedside and reach into the truckbed. The new tundra? Not a chance. I could hardly see over the the bedsides into the bed on a 2wd. The tailgate is also really high too. Don't take my word for it, got take a peek at 'em. Who wants to crawl over the bedsides and jump up on the bumper just to get something out of the bed?