Find Reviews by Make:
49 Comments on “Toyota Tundra Superbowl Ad: And It Burns, Burns, Burns...”
Read all comments
Latest Car Reviews view all
Latest Product Reviews view all
Recent Comments
- Lou_BC: @Carlson Fan – My ’68 has 2.75:1 rear end. It buries the speedo needle. It came stock with the...
- theflyersfan: Inside the Chicago Loop and up Lakeshore Drive rivals any great city in the world. The beauty of the...
- A Scientist: When I was a teenager in the mid 90’s you could have one of these rolling s-boxes for a case of...
- Mike Beranek: You should expand your knowledge base, clearly it’s insufficient. The race isn’t in...
- Mike Beranek: ^^THIS^^ Chicago is FOX’s whipping boy because it makes Illinois a progressive bastion in the...
Car Reviews By Make view all
New Car Research
Who We Are
- Tim Healey
Managing Editor - Matt Posky
News and Social Media Contributor - Timothy Cain
Sales Analyst - Murilee Martin
Junkyard Finds Author - Matthew Guy
Contributor - Chris Tonn
Contributor
- Adam Tonge
- Bozi Tatarevic
- Corey Lewis
- Jo Borras
- Mark Baruth
- Ronnie Schreiber
When I watched that for the first time, I had my computer’s sound muted.
So immeadiately the Canyonero song was playing inside my head.
That’s one way to Jump the Shark.
Absolutely silly.
“Mr. Deep-Voiced somewhat Southern-sounding manly-man” is narrating patently silly shite.
Tells you about the competition (and I mean you, Chevy and Dodge)when it is a major selling point that “our transmission won’t burn itself up with normal truck-type use.”
Toyota must be getting nervous. The Tundra has had so many teething troubles like paint coming off the rear quarter panals, snapping camshafts, timing belts instead of chains on the 4.7 liter V8’s, transmission issues, transfer case burn ups, the famous buckling tailgates after the bed is used to transport heavy itmes and last but not least the goofy two dashes in one that puts some controls out of the drivers reach. Burning in a junk yard is a good place for this pretend pickup truck.
I was confused by this one. I guess if you were a forest fire fighter it might make sense, but it got a general Whiskey Tango Foxtrot at my house.
I’m sure the ad execs were taken by the Pillar of Fire image, but I don’t have any idea what it meant in relation to a Tundra.
ponchoman49 :
I can assure you the Tundra’s real. Drove one myself. Saw dozens at the dealer.
Anyone who underestimates their enemy is setting themselves up for a fall. “Who’d want to drive one of those little shitboxes?” History repeats.
I now realize that this ad is a great metaphor for the “recreational truck buyer” market.
Upwards spiral, lots of smoke and fire sales, then nowhere to go from there.
LOL, that ad is aimed directly at me. Poseur manly workers that don’t like getting their hands dirty. The doctor, white collar cohort.
“Do I look tough and manly in the truck, because my truck can tow a big thingy up a flaming ramp”?
Plus my wife liked the ad and thinks I look good in the Tundra. Easier than working out to look good.
In the ad, didn’t they mention that it was 275F outside the truck? How did the person inside _not_die_ ?
I guess the fire is supposed to be an attempt to recreate and go beyond the extreme temperature conditions one might find on a crowded Houston interstate in early August. Of course its much more show than any real test. Heat rises and the truck is always below and fairly well shielded from the flames, and with the few seconds its beneath the flames there isn’t time to create much of , if any, temperature rise.
@ Robert Farago History repeats itself?I don’t think so.The Tundra is as close as any Japanese firm has come to building a real truck.Close,but no cigar!I think the sale figures might reflect that eh?
Stupid question: How effective would the transmission cooler be in this instance considering the truck isn’t moving very fast and the air temperature is 240F in the fire tunnel?
I assume there has to be some movement of air (cooler than the transmission) through the radiator in order to accomplish some kind of proper heat exchange.
mikey :
And the original U.S. spec Toyota cars WERE shitboxes. Toyota has nothing but time, well, and money, to devote to their trucks. A highly profitable segment as and when it recovers.
I’ll take your word that they’ve missed the mark with the new Tundra. But I think you’ll admit they’re getting closer.
He who laughs last…
My first thought after seeing this ad was, “Okay, so how does it do if they back it down the ramp through the fire?”
@Robert Farago The domestic industry is still here.Albeit after C.P.R and a govt I.V and other life support.The Silverado/F150/Ram do dominate the full size market.Is Toyota willing to wait for the domestics to totally vanish?Or will they come to grips,with the fact that they made a rare mistake?You might just see that Texas plant convert to something else.Toyota might just as well go back to building small trucks.Let the people that know what thier doing build the REAL trucks.
The Tundra is as close as any Japanese firm has come to building a real truck.
Well, yes and no.
It’s as close as they’ve come to building a half-ton truck for the North American market. They’re competitive with Ford, GM and Chrysler, and they’ve been getting more competitive with each successive generation. Through Hino, they make some very serious heavy equipment. If Hino can be competitive (and they are), and since the Tacoma certainly is, the Tundra is just a step away.
The Crown sucked when it first hit these shores, too. Today no one making a mid-size sedan can afford to laugh at the Camry. It would be a very serious mistake to laugh off the Tundra, especially backed as it is by a company that plans ten or more years down the road and has comparatively deep pockets.
The domestics must not get trapped into thinking that because the Tundra isn’t class-leading now, it will never be, or because they’ve a loyal customer base that they always will. GM and Ford haven’t a lot of money, and Chrysler is not necessarily long for this world. When the market picks up, Toyota is going to be in a much healthier position.
mikey:
The domestic industry (as you call it) is bankrupt. All of them. Ford, Chrysler, GM– their liabilities are larger than their assets. They’re like Wile E. Coyote, hovering in mid-air, about to realize that they’re headed for a POOF on the canyon floor a mile below.
The Tundra is not a bad truck, especially in V8 guise. If you needed a full-size pickup, you could do better (perhaps). But you wouldn’t regret the decision.
[Remember: it’s often what happens after a defect that’s most important to the ownership experience.]
This REAL truck thing gets on my nerves. What EXACTLY disqualifies the Tundra from that category? Seriously. Not to take anything away from the domestics’ PUs, but what doesn’t the Tundra do that makes it a “pretend” pickup truck?
A list would be nice.
Forget the truck, what I want to know is how much Toyota spent building that steel ziggurat. And was it built just for this commercial, to be torn down after filming? Maybe it was built at a testing facility and became useful for stress-testing brakes as well as drive trains.
Apparently the truck-cum-trailer had to back all the way down after reaching the top. That’d be tricky. Or maybe the helicopter helped out.
In my market, the Tundra has the second highest market share – and coming from a Chevrolet dealer (me) thats a big deal. Whether you like the truck or not, there is no doubt that on the coasts this thing is for real and has displaced the Silverado as the 2nd best selling truck. We’re in Central Florida and this thing is kicking ass.
Granted, its had the strongest incentives of the F, Sil, and Ram almost every month its been on the market, but to take 2nd place in a HUGE truck market like Orlando is no small feat.
That said, the diminishment of the truck market is what has people saying its a failure, but you can’t just look at raw numbers because its all about share. And according to share, this thing is a big success in almost all of the SET markets, and a good number of normal Toyota ones.
@Robert Farago I think ponchoman 49 in his post of 08:30 has a nice list.What makes it a pretend truck?How many times has it been repeated here at TTAC that the Malibu is not quite a Camry?I rented Malibu for a week in Florida.My wife and I both loved it,perfect car.The Toyota crowd say “its ok but its not a Toyota” based on S.F.A.
I talk to a lot of truck people.I’m not a truck person myself.The general consensus is “its ok but its not an F150 or a Silverado.
Now as far a old Wile E.Coyote goes,we should all be so lucky.Old Wile always seemed to survive somehow.He managed to pick himself up and fight another day.
So we can we bash Toyonda for making huge gas guzzling trucks?
And some posters on this site think that the new Dodge Ram ad is silly……….
To the rest of the world, a Toyota is a “real truck.” Think of the Hilux/Tacoma and the Land Cruiser. They apparently misread the American market and misaimed their engineering efforts as a result. If Toyota decides to stay in this market, they clearly have the ability to match the Domestic’s offerings, with staying power that the Domestic’s don’t have.
BDB :
Fire at will. Just don’t flame the website, its authors or fellow commentators.
You’re good to go! But remember: the rest of TTAC’s B&B won’t surrender an inch of truth for hyperbole.
I’d be scared if I were the domestics, too. The Japanese will “get” trucks if they keep at it long enough. Similar to what they did with minivans. They used to be jokes next to Chrysler’s, but now the Sienna and Odyssey are miles ahead.
@ SkiD666 : Stupid question: How effective would the transmission cooler be in this instance considering the truck isn’t moving very fast and the air temperature is 240F in the fire tunnel?
Considering the moderate amount of work accomplished by pulling the trailer up that short ramp – and that the truck was almost certainly “cold” when it started the climb – the little bit of time spent in the 250F ambient air probably had little effect on the transmission temps.
A much more interesting, but less visually entertaining, test would be to yank that trailer up a Colorado mountain pass on a warm summer day with the A/C cranked up. A half-hour of WOT at 50 MPH in thin air has a way of revealing the strengths and weaknesses of a cooling system.
The Tundra has the best powertrain of the four. Dodge and Chevy are close…but Ford has a LONG way to go to catch up.
RF is right. Toyota has everything they need to make a great truck…and the Tundra is a very good first start.
Those Ford ads…I mean, Ford videos where the Tundra bed is bouncing all over the place…who cares? How many people who buy trucks are speeding down a dry creek bed? It is a useless test.
I guess there is an audience out there that this type of macho posturing reaches – just like the Bruckheimer films. Strikes me as a lame repeat of previous Tundra commercials that try way too hard to show us how tough they are. All of the manufacturers have their own version of it – fire stunts, cliff edges, Sam Elliott gravel, anvils, plenty of cowboy hats and manly things to show us that we too can have a piece of that. Now though, we’re asking a piece of what – 12 MPG? $800 a month payments for something that most probably only really use the capabilities of maybe a couple of times a month, if that?
These trucks aren’t really meant to tow 10,000 lbs even if they say that they can. If you need to frequently do that then you’d be in a diesel. Unless you just want the cowboy hat and torn t-shirt and visions of driving through fire.
“gentlemen I have a great idea, Lets build this giant swirly BBQ burner thingy, drive the truck up it and Whammo! FLAMES!! It’s guaranteed to prove a real-world point!”
We recently got our first Tundra truck to work alongside several GMC’s and one pathetic F-250.
The Tundra kicks ass as a daily work truck…it gets the most usage because everyone at my workplace wants to sign it out. After 18 months and 140,000 kilometers the total expenses for this truck are one set of tires along with scheduled oil changes every 7000 km. The truck has stayed tight…no squeaks or mystery rattles (unlike the GMC’s and the Ford which generate a new noise with every 10 degrees of temperature change)
Engine is a powerhouse and build quality is top notch. If GM and Ford aren’t worried about the Tundra they should be.
@RF
Quote: The Tundra is not a bad truck, especially in V8 guise. If you needed a full-size pickup, you could do better (perhaps). But you wouldn’t regret the decision.
[Remember: it’s often what happens after a defect that’s most important to the ownership experience.]
I think you’re still making the same mistake that most people are here: thinking the domestics haven’t changed either. The new Tundra’s recent reliability has been below both the F-series and the GM trucks. Once that issue occurs, you have to deal with the dealership – and Toyota’s customer service ratings don’t outpace Ford or GM by that much any more. Customer satisfaction rates at Toyota are falling, and it looks like satisfaction with the Tundra may be even lower than the brand overall.
I would argue that suggests your experience after a defect is the same, and you are less likely to get a defect from a Ford and maybe equally from a GM (I’ll leave Chrysler out of this… maybe if we ignore it completely it will go away).
Quote 2:This REAL truck thing gets on my nerves. What EXACTLY disqualifies the Tundra from that category? Seriously. Not to take anything away from the domestics’ PUs, but what doesn’t the Tundra do that makes it a “pretend” pickup truck?
A list would be nice.
I think the terminology here is wrong, but the sentiment is correct. The Tundra is a real truck. It was, one year ago, competitive with anything in the industry. One year later, though, it is not the top of the heap, but still competitive.
The problem is it isn’t proven as a real truck. What do I mean by that? Let’s start with the Camry/Fusion/Malibu.
The Fusion’s reliability data from CR is better than the Camry – has been every year since launch. It executes everything pretty well. The Malibu is even better than the Fusion as far as execution and initial quality has been very good. Why aren’t they real Camry competitors in a lot of people’s eyes? Why aren’t they one of the real family sedans? Because they haven’t proven that they will serve their users as effectively as the Camry has for two decades. It doesn’t matter what data exists out there. They aren’t the real family sedans.
Truck buyers who use their pickups for something other than show have specific demands that go far beyond the quality of the radio knob. The ability to take a beating repeatedly is very important. The T-100 sucked. The old Tundras were average. The new Tundra is riding on that legacy – not its own merits. And frankly, after a series of issues with the new Tundra, how can you expect most truck users to believe it has evolved into something capable of handling their beating? And you can’t deny Toyota has had quality problems – it’s been documented everywhere.
And while some might (rightfully) say the pre-2010 Fusion isn’t a Camry because there are details here and there that aren’t competitive, I can make the same argument with the Tundra against the F-150 – the new F-150 seems better than the Tundra at everything except drag racing.
And while the 2010 Tundra may be what Toyota should have come out with to start (there are several improvements buried in there), the 2011 F-150 will have all-new engines in early 2010 and the GMTs are theoretically getting an update for 2011. The domestics are moving like they haven’t before – which means it will take Toyota even longer to prove it can compete.
Aluminum tranny? That’s a bit misleading I think. While making a case out of the stuff is fine, as it is light and conducts heat very well. You’d be pretty stupid to make any moving parts out of it though.
Plus it’s not like it provides any inherent benefits in terms of heat resistance. Although it might be a challenge to push the temperature above the 500 degrees or so where you get creep.
Yes Toyota is in a better financial position then the Detroit three. But here is the spin. If this is the best Toyota can do, then no thanks. A truck with a C frame. Are they serious?
I don’t know how the domestics are making the kind of cars and trucks they are lately, but they are doing it with little or no cash. Look at the new products from Ford and GM. All I can say is Wow!
Drive a Camry then a Malibu. Hell, drive a Aveo then a Yaris. Toyota is getting out engineered. The Tundra isn’t in the same league as the domestics. Maybe this is why they have a small cash reserve. They are now cutting corners. How the worm has turned!
So those who wish to celebrate Toyota’s cash reserve; I hope they start using it. Their products have went cold.
If this is the best Toyota can do, then no thanks. A truck with a C frame. Are they serious?
The Tundra has a few shortcomings: higher price, unproven durability, odd details and a tough launch.
This “C-Frame” crap can stop, though, any time it wants to. You know what other truck has an unboxed frame? The Ford Super-Duties.
Drive a Camry then a Malibu. Hell, drive a Aveo then a Yaris.
The Camry and Malibu are about on an even footing. The Camry is a little softer, roomier but somewhat quicker and about as fuel efficient. About the same applies to the Corolla and Cobalt: they’re pretty close, but the Corolla is newer and holds a slight advantage. Both cars show that GM isn’t phoning it in anymore.
The Yaris and Aveo? Are you kidding? Look, I don’t like the Yaris much, but it’s a well-engineered little car that crashes well for it’s size, handles decently, is packages exceptionally well and gets better mileage than anything that isn’t a hybrid or Smart.
The Aveo is a sad little thing that exists to fill a price point in the lineup. Other than being very slightly larger and somewhat cheaper than the Yaris, it does everything else worse, and gets terrible mileage while doing so. Don’t make excuses for a car that was engineered to be second-rate.
Toyota is getting out engineered. The Tundra isn’t in the same league as the domestics.
Are you sure you’re not talking about the T-100 or previous Tundra, because most reviews would disagree with you. The general opinion seems to be that it depends on the reviewer, and that the four half-tons are more or less a wash, though the new F-150 is probably the best overall.
The attitude you’re showing seems one of willful blindness. It’s also the attitude that sank the American makes’ chances in the car market, and will tank them in the truck market if they’re not very careful.
It’s good to see Ford, GM and even Chrysler still fighting in the truck market, because hopefully it means they’ve learned. They’re also going to have to apply that same persistence to their cars, because the process of winning back car buyers will take some time and Toyota absolutely will not let up.
@psarhjinian
The Tundra has a few shortcomings: higher price, unproven durability, odd details and a tough launch.
You are making my point. With the resources and capital Toyota has, I find it odd that they cannot bring a stronger truck to this market. A truck isn’t as complicated as a car to build, so why the shortcomings?
Dash69 :
Help me here folks. I’m not a PU guy.
I’m working from ponchoman’s list, then.
1, paint coming off the rear quarter panel
2. snapping camshafts
3. timing belts instead of chains on the 4.7 liter V8’s
4. transmission issues
5. transfer case burn ups
6. the famous buckling tailgates
What’s your take on these issues? Are these problems significantly worse than the D2.8’s offerings? Do the problems make the Tundra “not a real pickup”?
RF,
Pickup guys, like Panther, Volvo and old Merc fans, have a different take on reliability than your average buyer. They don’t seem to place as much emphasis on, say, fuel pumps, power window regulators, trim or early brake wear. The “little things”, the absence of which defines Camry ownership, doesn’t matter to them.
They care about frame robustness, whether an engine will blow a rod, or a suspension piece will crack. They care about the theoretical reliability of a platform and how cheap and easy it is to fix, which is not what your mom (well, my mom) wants in a commuter shoe. It’s not better or worse, just different. Normal car buyers don’t load their cars with tons of stuff, or hop curbs, and thusly don’t care about the virtues of body-on-frame construction or paleolithic suspension.
There’s a lot of misunderstanding as a result. I know a few people with F-150s and Sierras and yes, little stuff buggers up more often than on a Corolla. But they don’t care.
Toyota has to prove itself here. The problem domestic marques and their fans have is that they’re confusing “haven’t” with “can’t”. Denial ain’t a river in Egypt.
@psarhjinian:
Someone correct me if I’m wrong on this, but this is how it was explained to me:
The way the c-frame benefits the Super Duty is much different than how it affects the Tundra. Imagine it this way. The nominal stength of a Super Duty’s frame and suspension is much greater than the Tundra. Much, MUCH stronger. In the Super Duty’s case, the c-frame allows the Super Duty to flex a little under extreme loads in tough conditions while allowing the driver to maintain some control. C-frame design is not uncommon on most MD and HD trucks.
However, in a truck like the Tundra or F-150 or others, the nominal strength of the frame is much less. That allows the truck to flex quite a bit already. If you fully-box the frame, you gain some control over that flex and allow the driver to keep better control when he is carrying the loads that light-duties typically carry. The c-frame, which allows the Super Duty to flex some, lets the Tundra flex too much. From a durability perspective, if you aren’t doing a lot of off-road, heavy-payload work, the Tundra will be just fine. It’s not a mistake that all half-tons (including Nissan, I believe) have fully-boxed frames and their HD’s have c-frames.
That’s just one example of why Toyota doesn’t quite get pick-ups.
RobertSD
Is this an actual observed phenomenon in the Tundra, or is it a theoretical extrapolation from the fact that it has a C-frame? Given that Toyota makes smaller pickups of legendary durability, I find it hard to believe that they’d be unaware of this sort of issue.
Toyota is not perceived as a serious truck because it play only in the “half ton” arena. Chevy, Ford and Dodge play theri (and dominate) as well. But they also offer heavy duty alternatives with products like Allison, Duramax, Cummins,Dana, Arvin Meritor etc. Toyota does not.
Mark my words: Toyota will dominate this area in 20 years. They will throw unlimited cash at it, assign hundreds of the best engineers in Asia, market the hell out of it, and just plain grind away until they get it. That’s what they do. It’s why Toyota wins every time. Just wait until Hyundai enters the truck market.
Please remember that the people who designed the Tacoma did not design the Tundra. And it is both a theoretical extrapolation and some valid questioning. Some of the Ford demonstrations – although somewhat superficial – exhibit the type of problem that you might face in a Toyota while carrying loads and over rough surfaces. I wouldn’t consider those hard evidence, but Ford designs those test for a reason – not just to beat other trucks at pointless tests.
From a durability perspective, if you aren’t doing a lot of off-road, heavy-payload work, the Tundra will be just fine. It’s not a mistake that all half-tons (including Nissan, I believe) have fully-boxed frames and their HD’s have c-frames.
All Ford F150’s before 2004 have long C channel frames, following a small box section under the engine. If they have been falling apart because of it under heavy work it is new to me.
What those old F150’s did was fold up in the new, harsher, frontal impact tests, and after that Ford changed the frame design.
Toyota’s marketing department should set a date with Volkswagen’s trebuchet and go for a ride.
As I understand it, the original design goal was to cost effectively create something purely from Land Cruiser hence the drive train. I don’t believe Land Cruiser sales hit the mark they needed to create a combined Tundra/Land Cruiser plant, nor did the conditions require it eventually.
Toyota will keep refining it for sure, it will gain market share.
When fuel prices rise, they’re ready with a superb 24mpg 479ft/pd 4.5L V8 twin turbo diesel.
Like it or hate it, I’m really curious to see if the 2010 model addresses the issues of the current model. Toyota’s been known for fixing known problems for new model years… let’s see if they’ve still got it.
Toyota is not perceived as a serious truck because it play only in the “half ton” arena. Chevy, Ford and Dodge play theri (and dominate) as well. But they also offer heavy duty alternatives with products like Allison, Duramax, Cummins,Dana, Arvin Meritor etc. Toyota does not.
You do know that Hino is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Toyota, right?
Someone correct me if I’m wrong on this, but this is how it was explained to me:
I think you’re right.
My point, originally, was that these talking points (“not a fully boxed frame” and so forth) are just that: talking points. What you’ve done—and it’s good and important that you did—is qualify why, rather than just discount the truck based on the frame design.
That’s like laughing off the Corvette because it’s a pushrod with a leaf spring: uninformed (or to be impolite: stupid).
I don’t think the Tundra’s the best entry in the segment, but I’ve seen some pretty juvenile points that I think either need to be expanded on, or written off altogether.
Is this an actual observed phenomenon in the Tundra, or is it a theoretical extrapolation from the fact that it has a C-frame? Given that Toyota makes smaller pickups of legendary durability, I find it hard to believe that they’d be unaware of this sort of issue.
Again, what someone defines are durable depends on their point of view. Since I don’t do anything that would require a fully-boxed frame, my concept of “durable” is “starts every time, doesn’t break, doesn’t eat brake discs/headlamps/oil/etc excessively”.
Someone hauling trailers or bedfulls of bricks might not care about power window regulators as much as whether or not the frame will warp or the engine/transmission won’t overheat.
The guys driving chain-gun-equipped HiLuxes through deserts in Chad have a somewhat different definition than either of the above: it’s ok if the windows don’t roll down, the frame flexes or it can’t tow a horse trailer, but the truck can’t leave them stranded in the Sahara at noon or fail to move when you’re on the losing side of a gun battle.