Toyota Tundra Discussion Forum banner

141 - 157 of 157 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,168 Posts
Discussion Starter #141
And then Toyota says, we're going to design more of a vehicle that is "eye candy" as a daily drive
If trucks get any more stupid in design, I might have to make my own vehicle... The silly tall hood is the worst offense, and the new GMs are the worst of the worst. If Toyota makes the 3rd gen more like the 1st, I might consider it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
155 Posts
Now with Toyota going to court to fight fuel economy standards for their trucks (which already have the worst crash protection of any truck being sold today) I will be buying something else from a company that does not put profits over people and the environment.

Toyota is a bit strange with their opposition to electric vehicles and providing better fuel economy and crash protection as compared to the Korean and US companies that are innovating.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,826 Posts
bye bye

kinda odd your complaining about them not updating the truck in a thread about the entirely new truck they are coming out with.

and for companies profits come first, just the way it is, its not like GM, Ford, or Ram, or Nissan do anything different that Toyota, in fact, Toyota is the most green auto company there is IMO since you mentioned the environment
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
303 Posts
Now with Toyota going to court to fight fuel economy standards for their trucks (which already have the worst crash protection of any truck being sold today) I will be buying something else from a company that does not put profits over people and the environment.

Toyota is a bit strange with their opposition to electric vehicles and providing better fuel economy and crash protection as compared to the Korean and US companies that are innovating.
Opposition to electric vehicles? Who has more hybrids than anyone else? Good luck finding a company that puts people and the environment over profits. That company doesnt exist, they would go out of business.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
125 Posts
Waiting here to see what Toyota comes up with for their gen 4 Tundra. "IF" tow capacity, hitch capacity, Fuel economy...don't improve, I'll have to Jump Ship. I have looked at the F-250's (gas) and the God Ugly Chevy 2500's
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,826 Posts
Waiting here to see what Toyota comes up with for their gen 4 Tundra. "IF" tow capacity, hitch capacity, Fuel economy...don't improve, I'll have to Jump Ship. I have looked at the F-250's (gas) and the God Ugly Chevy 2500's
if you're looking at 3/4 ton trucks, I'll save you the suspense, the new tundra will not replace a 3/4 ton truck.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
Just theorizing, what would you guys think about this for a powertrain:
Plug in hybrid WITH the same 5.7 V8

The prius plug in and the upcoming Rav4 plug in (reveal is this coming wednesday) have up to 30 miles on electric only range. This allows driving around town and commuting to and from work for most people on just electric alone. The Tundra could probably fit a bigger battery. The gas would be there for towing, long distance, etc, since charging infrastructure for longer trips isn't quite there yet for most areas.

It would let you have the cool-sounding V8 and power, plus dramatically reduced fuel consumption.

Give me that, and an updated interior, and I'd be happy. I can't see anyone complaining too much if that was the configuration. Though my bets are still on a normal hybrid + V6 as the initial release, with the normal V8 as a separate option on lower trims.

I guess we'll see, hopefully in January/February timeframe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,720 Posts
Just theorizing, what would you guys think about this for a powertrain:
Plug in hybrid WITH the same 5.7 V8

The prius plug in and the upcoming Rav4 plug in (reveal is this coming wednesday) have up to 30 miles on electric only range. This allows driving around town and commuting to and from work for most people on just electric alone. The Tundra could probably fit a bigger battery. The gas would be there for towing, long distance, etc, since charging infrastructure for longer trips isn't quite there yet for most areas.

It would let you have the cool-sounding V8 and power, plus dramatically reduced fuel consumption.

Give me that, and an updated interior, and I'd be happy. I can't see anyone complaining too much if that was the configuration. Though my bets are still on a normal hybrid + V6 as the initial release, with the normal V8 as a separate option on lower trims.

I guess we'll see, hopefully in January/February timeframe.
Extra weight of EV batteries would drop the payload to like....600# ....lol
I don't follow the EV technology, but wonder if anyone has ever done a plug-in-EV, but with a baby genset that tops up the battery to get them 100-300 miles incase they are far from a gas station. :dunno:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
125 Posts
Just theorizing, what would you guys think about this for a powertrain:
Plug in hybrid WITH the same 5.7 V8

The prius plug in and the upcoming Rav4 plug in (reveal is this coming wednesday) have up to 30 miles on electric only range. This allows driving around town and commuting to and from work for most people on just electric alone. The Tundra could probably fit a bigger battery. The gas would be there for towing, long distance, etc, since charging infrastructure for longer trips isn't quite there yet for most areas.

It would let you have the cool-sounding V8 and power, plus dramatically reduced fuel consumption.

Give me that, and an updated interior, and I'd be happy. I can't see anyone complaining too much if that was the configuration. Though my bets are still on a normal hybrid + V6 as the initial release, with the normal V8 as a separate option on lower trims.

I guess we'll see, hopefully in January/February timeframe.
In theory that would work in my situation, "only" if the present towing capacity is slightly increased. As far as towing in a gen 3 double cab. You can tow 9900 lbs, max hitch weight of 980 lbs and a payload in the 1400's. If they could bump it up to say 11,000 towing, 1200 max hitch and say 1800 payload, I would deal with that. Still a little under the "Big 3" half ton numbers, but an improvement from what it has been for like the last 10 years. Now the $1,000,000 questions, adding the hybrid component #1 adding take much more weight it takes away from the "non-hybrid" fuel economy, #2 cost $$$$ are we looking at a $50k+ half ton trucks. #3 with a combined hybrid / gas, will the reliability suffer?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
75 Posts
In theory that would work in my situation, "only" if the present towing capacity is slightly increased. As far as towing in a gen 3 double cab. You can tow 9900 lbs, max hitch weight of 980 lbs and a payload in the 1400's. If they could bump it up to say 11,000 towing, 1200 max hitch and say 1800 payload, I would deal with that. Still a little under the "Big 3" half ton numbers, but an improvement from what it has been for like the last 10 years. Now the $1,000,000 questions, adding the hybrid component #1 adding take much more weight it takes away from the "non-hybrid" fuel economy, #2 cost $$$$ are we looking at a $50k+ half ton trucks. #3 with a combined hybrid / gas, will the reliability suffer?
I don't know, I traded the Tundra for an '18 Silverado which has similar tow ratings as the '15 Tundra. The Tundra was definitely a more robust truck and pulling either of my 5500# to 9500# (loaded) car hauler. I simply couldn't justify the mileage as I drive back and forth to our cabin in MT 3-4 times per year. The Tundra had more torque, more solid suspension, and less gizmos which I liked. The new truck simply gets better mileage and I don't have to stop as often for fuel. The trip is already 14 hours doing the speed limits. Pulling a trailer getting 14 mpg vs 9 just makes sense for my situation. I miss my Tundra though, especially when it comes to power. Oh, the Chevy doesn't kick out of cruise control going up hills either, it just grabs gears and keeps on pulling. Hated that about the Tundras. I know, little gripe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
I hope they skip the silly hybrid crap and just concentrate on improving several areas.

Number one is the fuel mileage, that's got to improve period, my 2016 Tundra is awful with the 15 mpg. I traded my 2014 Camry for a 2018 specifically because of the improved fuel mileage with the dynamic force engine and eight speed transmission. The 2018 gets 6 mpg better than the 2014 so I know it's possible, I'll routinely get 42mpg on the highway in the 2018. Improving the Tundra's mileage by 6 mpg would make me trade for one instantly. The problems with a hybrid are that it adds complexity, expense, and weight. The rumored 3.5L V6 twin turbo from the lexus LS500 puts out more power than the current 5.7L while being rated at 29 mpg highway in the car. That engine in the Tundra tuned to run on 87 octane with 400 hp, a 10 spd transmission and 22 or so mpg would be a huge improvement. Because it has turbos it would tow better because you wouldn't have to rev the heck out of it to make power like you do the current 5.7. Unlike many here I'm not the least bit scared of turbos, properly engineered they last the life of the engine and they improve the towing experience immensely. I've got an old 99 dodge cummins with 400K miles on it and the turbo has never been touched, they're not the problem that some people think. I hope that engine ends up the replacement for the 5.7. I'd be perfectly happy with a turbo V6 that bests the normally aspirated V8 performance. Having had several turbocharged vehicles I prefer driving them, the power band is broader so they give more torque at lower rpms.

Number two is a better frame, my 2016 has too much flexing and bed bounce, that should have been fixed years ago.

The rest is standard updating stuff. Fix the entertainment suite, it's user unfriendly and sucks currently. There's no way I'd buy a Toyota with Navigation, it's too user unfriendly and I just end up using my Iphone so I can actually figure out where I'm going. Give us a real bed size with the Crewmax. Give it better payload and towing numbers.

I really hope you don't have to buy a hybrid version to get decent mileage out of it. If they want to make a hybrid for the California greenies then do it but don't make it the main setup, give us that actually use our trucks as trucks a good engine/transmission combo with great mileage and towing numbers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,168 Posts
Discussion Starter #152
The rumored 3.5L V6 twin turbo from the lexus LS500 puts out more power than the current 5.7L while being rated at 29 mpg highway in the car. That engine in the Tundra tuned to run on 87 octane with 400 hp, a 10 spd transmission and 22 or so mpg would be a huge improvement.
The 3.5 Eco in the F150 is < 2mpg better than the 5.7l Tundra. And that is with the 10spd. I don't expect a similar engine in the Tundra to do any better. And, I also don't expect a new Tundra to have any "new" breakthrough engine. It's a niche product for Toyota and will remain that way. If Toyota is putting a 3.5l turbo in the Lexus or LC, then a derivative of that would make sense. Same for the transmission.

A stiffer frame would certainly make sense. A coil spring rear as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
The 3.5 Eco in the F150 is < 2mpg better than the 5.7l Tundra. And that is with the 10spd. I don't expect a similar engine in the Tundra to do any better.
That's incorrect. The 2020 EPA numbers for the Ford 3.5 ecoboost in a 4x4 are 22 Hwy/18 combined/16 City. The numbers for a Tundra 4x4 are 17 Hwy/14 combined/13 City.


That's 5 mpg better for the Ford than the Tundra on the highway which is where I do 99% of my driving. Real world favors the Ford more in my experience comparing my Tundra to a friend's Ecoboost Ford, his actually beats the EPA estimates while my Tundra gets a little less.

The Tundra may be a niche product for Toyota but that's no excuse for them to not build something that'll compete, otherwise buyers patience will run out. They've let the Tundra languish far too long and they either need to make it competitive or cancel it all together. If they don't show me something good with the redesign I'll move to another maker and take my chances, my neighbor has a 2019 Chevy sitting in his carport where his 2017 Tundra once sat. I asked him the reason for trading and he simply said "fuel mileage".

I traded a 2014 Camry for a 2018 and picked up 6 mpg. That's because of a redesigned engine incorporating direct injection, a higher compression ratio, electric power steering & water pump, variable displacement oil pump, eight speed transmission, and a bunch of other stuff I'm sure. The 2014 and 2018 essentially weigh the same so there is plenty of efficiency to be had with a modern engine design coupled with a better transmission. They can apply that technology to the Tundra and achieve significant fuel savings I'm sure. I'm not remotely interested in gimmicks like a hybrid. I don't want to pay the extra money for it, deal with the batteries and complicated electronics, the extra weight, or the chance that all the gee whiz stuff will leave me stranded five miles from the nearest person. Maybe it'll win virtue signaling points with the California environmental activist crowd but I don't care about pleasing Greta Thunberg, I just want to buy a pickup, not make a statement.

I see plenty of people on these forums say "it's a truck, you shouldn't buy a truck if fuel economy matters to you". I have to assume those comments come from the crowd that drive their trucks 5 miles to the mall and back. I live in the country on a farm, I typically drive 40,000+ miles a year and a lot of it needs to be in a truck for practical reasons, fuel economy matters a LOT to me as it does to anybody that actually uses a truck as a truck is meant to be used. A 5 mpg improvement in fuel economy is a several thousand dollar savings every year, it IS enough to make someone like me pick a different brand if Toyota won't seriously address their abysmal fuel mileage on the Tundra.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,168 Posts
Discussion Starter #154
That's 5 mpg better for the Ford than the Tundra on the highway which is where I do 99% of my driving. Real world favors the Ford more in my experience comparing my Tundra to a friend's Ecoboost Ford, his actually beats the EPA estimates while my Tundra gets a little less.
In the real world the Tundra averages 14mpg, the 3.5l F150 a little under 16mpg.

The Big3 like to game the EPA numbers, but Toyota apparently doesn't bother.

If they don't show me something good with the redesign I'll move to another maker and take my chances, my neighbor has a 2019 Chevy sitting in his carport where his 2017 Tundra once sat. I asked him the reason for trading and he simply said "fuel mileage".
That's hilarious! The MPG difference is a pittance when you look at overall cost. The Tundra is the cheapest full size truck to own (due to stellar resale value), plus you get the added bonus of wasting less time in the shop. And if you want to burn less gas to "save the planet" or some other nonsense, then drive a Prius for godsakes!

I traded a 2014 Camry for a 2018 and picked up 6 mpg. That's because of a redesigned engine incorporating direct injection, a higher compression ratio, electric power steering & water pump, variable displacement oil pump, eight speed transmission, and a bunch of other stuff I'm sure. The 2014 and 2018 essentially weigh the same so there is plenty of efficiency to be had with a modern engine design coupled with a better transmission. They can apply that technology to the Tundra and achieve significant fuel savings I'm sure.
And... I hope they do. A better refined V8 would be my pick for an upgrade vs turbos or hybrids as well. They wouldn't improve 6 mpg... maybe 3. But it's good to remember that the Camry has much higher sales (making R&D on that model more affordable) and competes in overseas markets where the price of gas actually matters. The Tundra is only sold here, and gas is cheap. There is only so much development they can do ($$$ invested) before it's counter productive. Unfortunately a big truck doesn't cross-breed very well with other vehicles they sell. It's just how it is. But they'll be 15 years into this model before we see a new version, so ya... I think a major upgrade every 15 years isn't too much to ask...? Frankly I think they've done a decent job of modestly updating it while keeping cost in check. When I was buying 3 years ago I test drove other trucks and I think I made a very informed decision and the Tundra came out on top. It isn't going to satisfy everybody, but for people who value reliability and low cost of ownership, it's still a winner.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
That's hilarious! The MPG difference is a pittance when you look at overall cost. The Tundra is the cheapest full size truck to own (due to stellar resale value), plus you get the added bonus of wasting less time in the shop. And if you want to burn less gas to "save the planet" or some other nonsense, then drive a Prius for godsakes!
I can assure you that it is NOT a pittance of overall cost. In 1998 I bought a new dodge 2500 diesel, that truck is now my farm truck and has 395,000 miles on it. It has averaged 20 mpg since I bought it. Assuming the average cost of diesel since I bought it has been $2.10 that works out to $41,475 I've spent on diesel fuel. I paid $23,500 for the truck new so I've spent almost twice as much on fuel as I did for the truck itself. Do you call that a pittance?

If you're a suburb dweller that has a pickup that spends more time being washed while sitting in the driveway then it'll be a pittance, for those of us that actually use our trucks like trucks it's a big deal. Ask any OTR truck owner/operator if they think MPG is hilarious or a pittance, those guys would sell their kids for an extra half a mile per gallon.

Thanks for the advice on the car but I already thought of that. I don't have a Prius but do have a Camry for running around. As I said I traded my 2014 for a 2018 because of the mileage difference, before that I had a 2005 Camry. I don't care about resale value, my vehicles are worth almost nothing when I get rid of them. My Dodge has 395,000 miles on it now, my 2005 Camry had 299,700 when I drove it into the dealer and traded it on the 2014, the Honda Civic before that had 280,000 when I got rid of it. It has nothing to do with saving the planet but rather saving my wallet, and extra 5 mpg out of a truck would save me $1800 a year, that's not a pittance to me. If the sole use of your truck is to sit there while you shine the wheels then no, the gas mileage probably doesn't matter. Some of us actually use our trucks though and the Tundra's crap mileage makes it hard to stay loyal to them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,168 Posts
Discussion Starter #156
The "pittance" is based on a normal person driving 15k miles a year, and keeping the vehicle for 10 years. I haven't done the math on 40k miles/yr (which is definitely a fringe user). But you are going to be spending a lot on insurance, maintenance, repairs, etc even if you keep the truck forever. I care about depreciation even more if I keep the vehicle until it's dead because low depreciation happens for a reason... a lack of costly and annoying repairs.

Toyota doesn't make trucks for my specific needs either. No one does. I have to pick from what is available... which mostly caters to people who drive a truck around town because it's big and manly and makes them feel better about themselves.

What do you use your truck for?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
125 Posts
I hope they skip the silly hybrid crap and just concentrate on improving several areas.

Number one is the fuel mileage, that's got to improve period, my 2016 Tundra is awful with the 15 mpg. I traded my 2014 Camry for a 2018 specifically because of the improved fuel mileage with the dynamic force engine and eight speed transmission. The 2018 gets 6 mpg better than the 2014 so I know it's possible, I'll routinely get 42mpg on the highway in the 2018. Improving the Tundra's mileage by 6 mpg would make me trade for one instantly. The problems with a hybrid are that it adds complexity, expense, and weight. The rumored 3.5L V6 twin turbo from the lexus LS500 puts out more power than the current 5.7L while being rated at 29 mpg highway in the car. That engine in the Tundra tuned to run on 87 octane with 400 hp, a 10 spd transmission and 22 or so mpg would be a huge improvement. Because it has turbos it would tow better because you wouldn't have to rev the heck out of it to make power like you do the current 5.7. Unlike many here I'm not the least bit scared of turbos, properly engineered they last the life of the engine and they improve the towing experience immensely. I've got an old 99 dodge cummins with 400K miles on it and the turbo has never been touched, they're not the problem that some people think. I hope that engine ends up the replacement for the 5.7. I'd be perfectly happy with a turbo V6 that bests the normally aspirated V8 performance. Having had several turbocharged vehicles I prefer driving them, the power band is broader so they give more torque at lower rpms.

Number two is a better frame, my 2016 has too much flexing and bed bounce, that should have been fixed years ago.

The rest is standard updating stuff. Fix the entertainment suite, it's user unfriendly and sucks currently. There's no way I'd buy a Toyota with Navigation, it's too user unfriendly and I just end up using my Iphone so I can actually figure out where I'm going. Give us a real bed size with the Crewmax. Give it better payload and towing numbers.

I really hope you don't have to buy a hybrid version to get decent mileage out of it. If they want to make a hybrid for the California greenies then do it but don't make it the main setup, give us that actually use our trucks as trucks a good engine/transmission combo with great mileage and towing numbers.
As far as towing with a Eco-boost Ford, I have heard the RPM's are up there and the MPG's are in the 6-7 range when towing the 8000-10k RV. My Tundra towing a 8000 RV, I get 9.5 MPG and on the flat, stay in OD at 1750 RPM's (driving in the 60-62 mph range). Non-towing I get 19-20.5 highway. ( under 65 mph). City driving a get anywhere from 13-15.


880724


An earlier post where I said "I test drove a F-250 and Chevy 2500" the respond-er said don't expect "ANY" Tundra to ever be in that 3/4 ton arena. I fully know that, I'm just asking Mike Sweers (Head Engineer) please catch up with the Big 3 in 1/2 ton towing and payload capacity. Add in a either a Ackinson Cycle ignition or a direct spark ignition, maybe an 8 speed tranny, start / stop technology, fully boxed frame.

If Toyota does what GM did with the 2020 3/4 ton front end design, I'll be highly nauseous...If I had to "re-think" my 2014 Tundra purchase again 6 years later, it would be the same truck, same color. Started out pull a little smaller RV the first 4 years including a 14k Alaska trip.

880725
 
141 - 157 of 157 Posts
Top