2018 Toyota Tundra SR5 TRD Sport 4x4 |
5.7-liter V8, DOHC (381 hp @ 5,600 rpm, 401 lb-ft @ 3,600 rpm) Six-speed automatic transmission, four-wheel drive 13 city / 17 highway / 14 combined (EPA Rating, MPG) 15.7 (observed mileage, MPG) Base Price: $38,445 (USD) As Tested: $43,624 Prices include $1,295 freight charge. |
I’d like to think of myself as a reasonably enlightened being. Despite living my entire life in the cultural wasteland known to coastal elites as “flyover country,” I’ve somehow avoided marrying kin and sought to broaden my views on any number of subjects.
However, some of my neighbors are doing their best to keep the stereotypes alive, at least in the automotive realm.
As any self-respecting automotive journalist does when handed the keys to a truck, I headed to the home center to haul things I didn’t want to subject my usual ride to. In this case, bags of mulch. When I handed my receipt for 20 bags of mulch to the young man tasked with loading, he genuinely seemed concerned that the 2018 Toyota Tundra would need at least 10 trips to handle the load, and that even two bags would cause the bumper to drag. Xenophobic jokes like this are getting old.
I wanted to remind the guy that the Tundra was American made, perhaps even more than the Big Three trucks he clearly idolized. I didn’t hang around long enough to find out if he had a Calvin peeing on Ford/Chevy tattoo, or “Don’t Just Dodge It Ram It” emblazoned on the back window of a ratty Dakota, but I figured that engaging in conversation with this mouth breather wouldn’t be worth the fight.
The Tundra may never sell in the numbers the Big Three see, but roughly one out of every twenty full-sized pickups sold in 2017 was a Tundra. There are plenty of folks who found that Toyota’s take on the big truck is right for them.
[Get new and used Toyota Tundra pricing here!]
My week with the Toyota Tundra 4×4 SR5 TRD Sport (if only I were paid by the word, I’d just repeat that model name a few extra times) was not my typical week. Rather than commuting on my usual back roads, I had a long drive across several states to accomplish. I wasn’t hauling much — a suitcase, a cooler, and some camera gear — all of which fit in the locked cab rather than open in the bed.
Indeed, I see so many full-sized trucks hauling nothing but people on long interstate drives that I’m glad I had the opportunity to try it myself. My typical mount for such a drive would be a minivan, or preferably a small efficient car — but I came to realize that the effortless power from the big V8 and the long wheelbase make the Tundra a comfortable interstate cruiser. It’s not plush — the off-road biased suspension transmits road imperfections into the cabin — but it’s still a pleasant drive.
I’d have been happier with a more fuel-efficient powertrain, however. The EPA estimates 17 mpg on the interstate, but my drive (using several tanks of fuel) only netted 15.7 mpg while cruising around 75. Maybe I should have slowed a bit, but the Tundra just feels right at that speed. Wind noise wasn’t bad, though the road noise produced by the big 20-inch wheels and 275-section tires did intrude into the cabin, forcing me to turn up the volume a bit.
On that note (sorry), Toyota, please do something about Entune. Yes, it’s functional, but it’s slow and awkward to use. The seven-inch touchscreen is sluggish to respond to inputs, which left me tapping the screen multiple times for the same attempted maneuver, only to have the first touch register then the subsequent ones, making me work my way backward. Not fun while trying to use navigation when you accidentally get off of the wrong exit in a sketchy part of Chattanooga.
381 horsepower certainly was plenty for my needs — I’d probably have been fine with the four-cylinder found in entry trims of the midsized Tacoma, as little as I was hauling. This crew-cab 4×4 configuration is rated to tow 9,900 pounds, so boat, horse, or race car owners will have no worries yanking their toys.
I was mostly comfortable in the driver’s seat, though I’d have preferred a longer lower seat bolster for thigh support on the highway. I found myself fidgeting a bit toward the end of each fuel tank, trying to work out kinks in my knees. I didn’t haul the kids for very long, but they had plenty of room in the second row. I might not have been so happy in the rear, however, as the seat back is rather upright for my tastes — as is typical in most crew-cab pickups.
I appreciated the hard-wearing cloth interior, as I believe a truck should be for working, not for showing off. I’d rather not be afraid of scratching a plush leather seat with an errant screwdriver in the pocket.
I’m sure I’m in the minority, however, witnessing the ever-escalating lux-truck wars. In that perspective, this well-equipped Tundra seems a relative bargain at $43,624 delivered. It’s not cheap, but for the capabilities it presents, I’d be quite proud to put a Tundra in my driveway.
[Images: © 2018 Chris Tonn/TTAC]
If you look on Toyota’s website that’s not their crewcab, it’ the doublecab. Their “crewmax” crewcab will cost quite a bit closer to 50k in this configuration.
In today’s market the Tundra is hopelessly outdated in engine, transmission, ride quality, hauling, and fuel economy.
With the 4.30 rear end as standard and most of the hardware (axles, brakes, steering and suspension parts) 3/4-ton sized, I’m willing to bet that in real world use the Tundra’s payload and towing capabilities are in no appreciable way worse than the competition, and in many ways a safer long term bet for heavy use. There’s a reason the Tundra clocks in at nearly 1k lbs heavier than an F150. Just take a peek at the front end or something. The F150 control arms are spindly things these days. Granted, for the vast majority of consumers the F150 approach is the way to go, with appreciably better real world fuel economy and they’ll never approach the limits of durability in any case.
Ford ball-joints have been an issue for a long time.
My old F150 needed the ball joints done when it sold it at 120,000 miles. They were original and the guys at the tire shop said they’ve seen them shot with as little as 50,000 miles in these parts (of course once you leave the pavement our rural roads are pretty terrible.)
Not two weeks before that I had been over at my favorite independent mechanic and while I was waiting I heard him explaining to a customer with an 11th generation F150 that they need to have the ball-joints done.
Oh sure, their move to the independent front end (from the ancient but indestructible twin-I-beam and twin-traction beam) yielded premature wearing front ends on all of their trucks and SUVs: ’98+ Rangers, ’95+ Explorers, F150s and Expeditions, Sport-tracs, all known for faster-than-average wearing front ends. Apparently MOOG makes longer lasting replacements. Although in their defense, this first round of independent truck front ends gives plenty of warning as wear gets critical, and they can hang in there long past the point of being worn out. Seeing so many jellybean explorers in rural Mexico with the front wheels with multiple degrees of negative camber drove the point home.
But going back to the Tundra components, looking at that or something like a 200 series Land Cruiser that shares a lot of the same level of over-built-ness, they are freaky-beefy parts. Toyota put it all on durability and used plain old steel, no fancy alloys here or any weight saving efforts. For better or for worse, I think Toyota will be forced to move away from that mindset whether they want to or not, atleast for the US market.
Curious GTEM, do the Front end components on the 200 series require the 60,000 mile total rebuild of the birfield joints that the 80 series did and is the failure mode loss of fluid that can destroy the front axle due to the high pinion design as was the case with the 80 series which was surely more indestructible being that it was a solid axle? The front end maintenance on those Land Cruisers is probably more intensive than just treating the ball joints as a maintenance item.
I’m guessing not since they went to a more conventional CV joint, however the 100 series had issues with cracking A Arms. Also, my 80 series managed to crack it’s frame at the steering box. I was far from alone. Most people I know that have experienced that legendary Land Cruiser reliability have stories closer to Richard Hammond driving that FJ40 across Bolivia than the stories of someone’s Cousin’s Uncle’s Friend’s Dog’s previous owner that got 800,000 miles without ever changing the oil. Overrated vehicles. I owned a 60,62,FJ80, and FZJ80. And lets talk about things like performance, braking, and fuel economy which do matter offroad.
first, I’ve ever heard of needing a 60k “total rebuild” of the 80 series birfields.
You bought an older higher mile 80 series with a questionable history and it required work, cool story bro. That truck’s global reputation for legendary quality and overbuilt nature and redundant engineering is totally just a conspiracy.
Art I would put the 2nd gen Tundra or closely related 200 series’ (as far as front suspension and front frame design) front end durability up against any US half-ton on the market, as well as the rest of the truck (axles, frame, etc), and I’m confident the Toyotas would come out on top.
That’s the point I’ve been making all along. For most buyers, the price you pay in worse fuel economy and not having the latest DI or turbo technology is not worth it on the Tundra. But you’re getting a simple and durable truck with high clearance without silly active grill vents and ground-scraping chin spoilers. You don’t need the special offroad edition to not get it damaged on moderate trails, you don’t need to carefully spec it out for it to excel at towing. It’s just a big brute of a truck that does it all. The downside is if you want to emphasize fuel economy or daily commuter comfort, the Big 3 give you much more configuration options for engine choices, gear rations, option packages, etc.
Yeah man, that 64,000 mile FJ80 was totally worn out. As was the 62 series with 110k on the clock. The other 2, well the 60 was a rustbucket, but strangely was the only one that lived up to the hype. The FZJ80? It is the only one that fits your description.
In fairness, I have heard that the USDM rigs having full time AWD caused the frontend to wear prematurely compared to others (My FZJ80 had also worn out the drive flanges). It was a beast offroad. My friend’s Jeeps broke more often but they were cheaper and easier to fix. There wsas nothing on that truck that was less than 250 bucks to replace. It got a new motor, front end (all but the housing), brake system, and got transmission work and had to have work on the transfercase (though that was Im pretty sure the PO running mismatched tire sizes.
Thing is, at the end of the day none of those rigs “legendary reliability” could touch my 300 inline 6 powered F series rigs nor any of my smallblock TBI GM trucks. They all needed less and all had more miles, in the case of a couple significantly more. So what, you have to do ball joints from time to time. None ever needed a motor.
“Thing is, at the end of the day none of those rigs “legendary reliability” could touch my 300 inline 6 powered F series rigs nor any of my smallblock TBI GM trucks.”
Maybe, but you’ll have a heck of time finding the big-6 or TBI 350 in the Ford and Chevy showrooms these days.
Again Art, your experience sounds like quite a strange anomaly. You’re right, 64k miles is not much at all. But for an 80 series to need a new motor and require transmission work at such low miles, I’m going to have to question the “nut behind the wheel.” The 1FZ sometimes needs a headgasket at higher miles, or that pesky rear coolant crossover pipe worked on, that’s about all that I’ve heard, the average 80 series for sale these days that people are asking silly money for have over 200k. Transmissions on them are also freakishly stout, particularly on the early run of 80s that literally have a transmission used in a small passenger bus. Sorry you had a lot of issues with yours, but it sounds like a really odd case in general.
I thought it was the previous generation of the Tundra that set the record for balljoint issues.
Haha very good point wayneoh, I was going to add that to my long-winded suspension discussion but decided against it and was curious if anyone else would make the comparison. The first gen Toyota truck double wishbone IFS with the “tensioned” balljoint design is indeed an Achilles heel, of a different sort than the Fords. Where the Fords would start to cock the wheels out, make noise, etc at lower mileage, the Toyotas would stay nice and tight and quiet, right up until the knuckle broke free and potentially caused an accident. It’s a relatively small amount of cars that this happened on, and at generally higher mileage, often on lifted trucks. But Toyota did a full recall that would get you new balljoints, it might even still be an active recall. I think it was only Tundras and Sequoias that got a recall, but the 4Runner and 1st gen Tacoma are susceptible as well. Mine on my 4Runner were still tight at 135k but I was paranoid enough to put fresh OEM ones in. My friend at 180k on his ’97 likewise still has the OEM ones in his in fully functional condition with zero play (the factory spec on allowable vertical motion is absolutely minuscule), so he’s left them alone. A third friend with 140k on his truck has left them be as his front end was perfectly tight still.
Google “Tundra ball joint failure”. Certainly not an issue exclusive to the F-150. Perhaps more common due to the sheer number on the road, especially compared to Tundra.
The Tundra is not heavier duty than other half tons, quite the opposite. The frame is weaker, the power train outdated. Its built for show, not go(ing to work).
“The Tundra is not heavier duty than other half tons, quite the opposite. The frame is weaker, the power train outdated. Its built for show, not go(ing to work)”
-citations needed.
Explain to me John how the Tundra isn’t built to “work?” Toyota doesn’t blow refrigerator-white fleet specials out at fire sale prices, sure. But mechanically speaking what makes it less fit?
I’m making the argument that the Toyota has physically larger and stronger components than other half-tons, and has not yet emphasized weight loss for MPG’s sake. Ford is literally thinning out the sheetmetal in their control arms and frames on their new trucks. I’m talking specifics, you are making sweeping claims without much of anything to back it up.
Are Ford truck balljoints those “Life Time” types or the kind that you can grease?
I ask since on Panthers they used that “life time” nonsense, except on fleet models. If you can grease em you should be able to make them last longer.
As for the Tundra, we may as well google the whole “Tundra frame rust” thing, Ford jumped on the hydroform thing some years before Toyota (though to be fair Ford bodies werent super rust proof).
I have a 3/4 ton and have seen the underpins of a Tundra. Its hardware is nowhere near 3/4-ton stuff like the radius arms, 8 lug full floating hubs, solid front and rear axles or in GM’s case, fairly tough IFS on the 2500, proper transmission/differential/transfer case. There is no way the brakes on the Tundra is anywhere near the HD/SD size, not to mention the frame.
Really the only reason why the Tundra is so heavy and outdated is because Toyota is selling a 2007 vehicle in 2018 for 2018 money. Even Nissan has come out with a new Titan and they were the running joke of outdated trucks in the pickup segment.
The 4.30 rear end is just a crutch to cover up the fact that the 32v 5.7 has relatively weak lower end torque and has to rev higher than 12v pushrods, and the 6 speed doesn’t have the ratio spread to cover both stop-and-go and highway driving so the highway mpg suffers.
This.
Perhaps not true 3/4 scale then, but certainly noticeably beefier than a “normal” half ton in terms of things like suspension arms and steering linkages, front axle and rear end.
“The 4.30 rear end is just a crutch to cover up the fact that the 32v 5.7 has relatively weak lower end torque and has to rev higher than 12v pushrods, and the 6 speed doesn’t have the ratio spread to cover both stop-and-go and highway driving so the highway mpg suffers.”
No, the 4.30 rear end is there because the transmission in front of it is geared much taller than the four speeds that the domestics used forever and conventional wisdom regarding rear end ratios is based on. A Tundra with 3.42s would be turning 1270 rpm at 60, which is to say that you probably couldn’t use 6th gear at all other than coasting downhill.
The overall gear ratio with the 4.30s in back works out to the equivalent of a 3.62 axle in my Ford. Which is for all intents and purposes the same as the 3.55 that most 4WD, 6 speed Fords have.
@Dan
This is why competitors have moved on to 8 or even 10 speed transmissions to be able to get over well 20mpg on the highway.
Oddly enough I remember my 1500 turned not much more than 1300 RPM at 60, around 1550 at 70. It cruised at freeway speeds fine. That highlights the problem with Toyota using the DOHC motor for an application where more low end grunt is needed.
Eh, the base price price difference (at least in this lower spec SR5 trim) is only slightly higher than inflation. I found a window sticker for a new 2007 model (similar specs) here;
https://www.flfdaz.com/uploads/4/6/9/1/46915755/2007_toyota_tundra_preso_11-12-16.pdf
Base price for the truck tested is $38,445
The 2007 truck above was $31,160
Inflation on $31,160 from ’07 to ’18 is $37,695.70, a difference of $750
That $750 may just be the delivery charge.
Yes, but the fundamentals of the truck haven’t changed all that much. It is a 10 year old platform that Toyota prices (and discounts) like it is brand new. Toyota hasn’t pivoted the Tundra towards the “well at least it is cheap” market like say the Nissan Frontier or Nissan Titan (before update).
Which, good for Toyota. But reliability and resale value (because of said reliability, real or not) are generally the only reason anyone would ever choose a Tundra now beyond blind Toyota loyalty.
Has Toyota stated when they might invest just a little money in this platform?
Maybe more gears (8? 10?) and adding direct and port injection?
Those simple changes would go a long way toward modernization.
Invest more in a solid fully boxed frame, interior, and engine technology that doesn’t suck gas to make up for engineering? This old tundra is dead to anyone they researches outside of a Toyota dealer.
Toyota is not an engineering company. They design things once, and they do it the stupid-simple way, by overbuilding and countless hours of reliability testing.
Who knows when the next generation of Tundra will come out, and when it does I’d be willing to bet it will consist of only new sheetmetal, interior, and a new engine (like the 3rd gen Tacoma which carries over the chassis from 2005).
Until a new generation is released Toyota does not update their models for anything but that which is absolutely necessary.
20 piddly bags of mulch? Even my 2.3L Lima Ranger makes short work of that, and can still merge onto the highway safely and maintain 65-70 mph no problem. I’ve got to wonder though how much more work it was to load and the unload said bags from the tall bed of a modern 4wd halfton versus the diminutive Ranger. Frankly the only reason I didn’t buy it bulk was because Menards was having a crazy sale on leftover bags from last year’s stock that made it cheaper than the bulk landscaping places.
Sounds crazy but the MSRP price of “only” $43k stands out compared to what most mid-trim domestics seem to ring up at in various reviews. Not sure how much cash that Tundra might have on the hood, I assume proportionally less than the big 3 competition.
MSRP is similar to a loaded up 4×4 F-150 SuperCab STX with the 3.5L V6 (note that is the most expensive/powerful engine available on the F-150 minus Raptor’s tuned engine), which is a close equivalent in equipment levels and features.
The Tundra is not really a bargain at MSRP compared to its domestic peers (if you want that go for the Titan) despite its age, and Toyota throw less rebates on the truck usually. The Tundra very much follows the old school “it’s a Toyota so people will buy it no matter what” mentality.
Hmm maybe I’m not doing it right but I don’t see an option to build an STX+3.5EB, only if you jump up to an XLT. I think you’re right though, they’re content to sell a lot fewer Tundras but seem to stick to their guns more on price. That’s not to say it’s MSRP-only, but there doesn’t seem to be $10k on the hood of a $50k MSRP truck either.
Ford’s build and price site is weird. If you select configure with STX package it automatically equips it with the 2.7 (no matter what you had previously chosen). Add the 3.5L and it automatically deletes the STX package, but you can then re-add the STX. You can also find it by searching dealer inventories (you will have to sort by price to find them easily, because while you can filter by packages like the STX you can’t filter by 2.7 vs 3.5L). The 2.7L is far more common on the STX though, and honestly good enough for most people unless you tow or haul a lot.
Yeah usually if you go to the right materials place it will be 1/4 the price of what it is by the bag at the big box. Bags are for the people to take home in their minivan or Prius, unless you just need 1 or 2.
However in this case I guess I can see the bags since it is a press loaner he might not want to put a shovel in the bed and have to take it back scratched.
I have a 2014 double cab, which is what is pictured here. I’ve hauled two yards of mulch (unbagged) without issue. Frankly it will do whatever standard work you would need it to similar to the others (ford, dodge, chevy, etc). I’ve also had zero repairs or other reliability issues with it. Toyota will continue to struggle with this one though, if it cannot atleast update the mileage, braking, interiors, etc. somewhat more routinely. While I love my Tundra, and it does everything I ask it to; the F-150 is just a much better all around truck.
+1
Finally a truthful tundra owner. Thank you
Agreed on this one – I had a 2009 Tundra 5.7 and loved the truck, but its fuel efficiency was absolutely terrible then, and its even worse now when compared to just about any other truck. The interior was nothing special then, and now the 7″ Entune is just completely ridiculous. The 5.7 kicked out a LOT of twist and still does, but the transmission is notably dated by todays standards.
What really irks me is that my 2008 had all kinds of cool features built into the interior, like a sliding and reclining rear seat, lots of cubbies and compartments for storing pens and change, etc. All of these were removed in recent years as a cost cutting measure. So, while competitors have made their pickup trucks astonishingly good, Toyota has made theirs worse.
I honestly have to wonder what is going on at Toyota nowadays. The Tundra could be updated to take on the big 3 and win more market share, but it isn’t happening. And so the Tundra, Sequoia, Land Cruiser, LX, etc soldier on as they did ten years ago…
@SSJeep, reminds me of how C&D had brought a Sequoia to a recent comparison of large SUV/CUVs and one of their comments was “Sequoia reminds us how terrible Toyota steering once was.”
The reason the kid was bugging you was because you needed help to load 20 bags of mulch. Real men carry mulch in their trench coat pockets.
I am always amused when contemporary auto reviews, like this one, mention infotainment features before horsepower. Clearly, evean as auto/truck enthusiasts, we are smitten with our pocket computers.
Kind of like watching automotive reviews online and sitting through 20 minutes of interior tech before getting to 3 minutes of actual driving…
The only YouTube reviews I can stand to watch are Alex on Autos, Savage Geese, and Redline Reviews. Doug Demuro OTOH… if I realllllly want to know about the car and all of its interior toys I’ll watch but stop when the driving comes.
Demuro has become a bore. His past entries while in Philly and before that were pretty funny, but once he started doing the while “why does ____ cost ______” it’s just all the same with “oh look another easter egg logo in the footwell! oh it drives fine so there”.
Dougs videos quickly become repetitive if you watch many over a short period. It quickly becomes apparent that many of his “quirks” are not actually quirky (found in a lot of cars) or are already well known (i.e. how many times has the fact that the new Ram has a ruler and compass and whatnot under the center console lid been rehashed now?). He also has a tendency to reuse similar jokes.
I only watch them now (up to when he drives them because those are almost never interesting) if I am really interested in the car in question. If you are not interested in the car the video won’t be funny or interesting anymore.
I am always amused when contemporary auto reviews, like this one, mention infotainment features before horsepower. Clearly, even as auto/truck enthusiasts, we are smitten with our electronics.
Hey Toyota, 2008 called to tell you that you’re late.
This truck is sad in so many ways. If one placed the new RAM’side by side with the Tundra TuRD, it would literally look as if a modern pickup (RAM) had pulled up to check out vintage pickupstruck’museum (Tundra TuRD). How can anyone — even gtem (a good bro but wearing blinders when it domes to Toyota’s decline of late) — defend this in terms of interior, transmission, engine, weight, etc etc etc.
It’s frozen in time and advertises Toyota giving up (the why they have done this is interesting; I believe they are sensitive to Guangzhou-Guadalajara Motors GM, Ford and FCA being massively dependent on revenues and profits from pickup trucks, and they don’t want to field a legitimate competition that would rob that important income/profit stream and cause political pressure on itself, despite the Tundra being built in Tejas and having more American made parts than the Guangzhou-Guadalajara Motors (GM) Silverado/Sierra by a wide margin.)
“blinders when it domes to Toyota’s decline of late”
You must not see my pretty consistent and repetitive criticism of their downright cynical cost cutting efforts on things like interior bits of the ’13-’18 gen Rav4s (in laws’ glovebox handle broke at 60k miles on their ’13, replacement available only as a $300 assembly), criticism of the ’18 Camry for an even further interior cheapening and loss of engine refinement, the crappy paint on their modern cars, etc. Believe me no one is more aware of how far they’ve fallen in terms of attention to detail and wanting to blow everyone out of the water with quality.
If I were truck shopping right now with my own money I’d honestly probably end up with an aluminum body F150. But if I really was going to beat the snot out of something for 200k miles, I’d buy a Tundra, oil-undercoat the frame, and call it a day. Not only is the drivetrain/powertrain absolutely solid, but all of the small stuff just doesn’t crap out at anywhere the rate of the big 3 or the Titan. I have too much anecdotal indirect experience (my brother and his friend who are both mechanics in the salt belt) to trust a Ram as far as I could throw it, same goes for any GM truck post-GMT800. The ’09-’14 F150s are starting to rot their cab corners even in Central Indiana, hardly salt-central. So an aluminum body F150 with the 5.0L would be something I’d be into, and I’d just deal with stuff like the rear window slider mechanism crapping out and water leaks from the cab brakelight and other nonsense that Ford can’t seem to figure out for over a decade of doing the same thing (cam phasers seem to elude them as well).
Speaking of Xenophobic remarks, I was tieing some lumber to the top of my TSX Sportwagon and some guy said I shoulf get a pickup truck. Sure a $40g truck would saved me 5 minutes of work here but hardly seems like a deal. Since I still had my Texas plates he then started to make fun of Texas. Are you trying to pick a fight here?
I certainly understand the desire to avoid having a pickup by making a wagon or hatchback do a pickup’s job. I had a hitch mounted on my CTS wagon and bought a Harbor Freight trailer and, for sure, it worked. But it was a real PITA in practice. Parking at the home center, the annoying annual NY trailer registration fee (which, in five years, would exceed the price paid for the trailer), having to store the trailer on my property, the 10-15 minutes spent each time I needed to use it, the worry that I had gotten it wrong and that it would part ways with me at the worst possible moment, all of this was banished when I got a Tacoma. Just being able to hop in, throw whatever in the back and just go is a huge improvement. Is it expensive? Yes. But, at some point, the sheer convenience of it makes it all worth while.
On my next pickup I’m planning to have the following bumper sticker: “The owner of a pickup never has to wait for delivery”.
The key is how often you use it. For me in over a year, only twice have I loaded stuff on the roof. Bonus points for getting the store to cut the plywood for free.
Toyota has found the market foe the Tundra- someone who’s going to buy a Toyota no matter what, and just happens to need a full-size pickup. That describes about 1 in 20 full size truck buyers.
The whole argument for a Toyota (Reliability) is rapidly becoming outnumbered by everything else (Fit and finish, MPG, refusal to innovate, lack of torque, etc)
I keep my cars 20 years, so I’ll still buy them, for now, because reliability trumps all.. But if they don’t start updating things soon (reliably of course), I’ll just deal with the time in the service bay as a smaller and smaller price to pay for something that actually feels 2018, with tech, power, MPG, style, etc to match.
I hear many valid criticisms of the Tundra, but “lack of torque” is a new one. By all accounts Tundras make great tow-rigs. Heavier weight, a stiff leaf pack that resists squat well (and results in a stiffer ride that many bemoan), and they all come with gearing that you have to make sure to spec as a tow-package on most of the other makes. And you pay for all of that with a noticeable MPG penalty in daily driving.
But I don’t disagree that they haven’t been motivated to invest in updating their entry in the segment to increase fuel economy or other aspects. Toyota is still strongly car-centric and sells a lot of hybrids, their fleet average depends much less on trucks than the big 3 who basically entirely exist on truck sales.
I recently drove a 2019 ram back to back with a new tundra. Night and day difference. Is the expected reliability for the Toyota that much better than the ram? I can’t think of any other reason to buy (I guess resale as well)
Outdated engine that gets 13 mpg, C channel frame, and an outdated interior. No thank you. GM, Ford, and Ram destroys the tundra on all levels.
So true. The only reason I checked out this write-up was to validate my opinions…and I was correct and your thoughts dovetail with mine.
Lately, I’ve restricted my truck shopping to just Ram and Ford. I’ve had very good success with both. The new F150 and Ram 1500 were very nice drivers.
This Toyoduh is a third rate truck – just like every GM truck since 1999 and every excuse of a truck Nissan puts out.
There are only two legit truck brands – Ford and Ram – they are the only ones who raise the bar on what trucks are about. The rest of the industry is going after the fickle fools who get better deals.
Despite the whining author’s situation, almost every test of the Toyoduh truck remarks on how old and inefficient it is compared to competitors. While no one would think that this truck can only carry a box of Kleenex, it is not unfair to criticize it for one of the worst frames in the industry – I demand you get under this and check out the three different ways the frame is constructed – all guaranteed to have long term middle sag. Unlike this author, I actually did look at the Toyoduh when it first came out and was shocked at how weak it was made in the center of the vehicle under the cab – part if fully boxed – under the cab isn’t – and the front is yet different from that – with all the junctions meeting just under the cab.
It is an insult to use the racist language of xenophobia to attack those of us who legitimately find Ford and Ram superior to everything made – had you done any research, you would know those are the only two brands that have truck war rooms to keep their vehicles competitive. Toyoduh isn’t any better being made here or if it was made in Japan – it is just a bad truck with old engines and transmissions and made as weak as possible and passed off as a full-sized truck. I’d contend it is barely a 500 pound cargo hauler because it is definitely not made to be a LONG TERM half ton truck.
“all guaranteed to have long term middle sag.”
Are you any sort of engineer to make that assertion?
My old Rangers had C-channel frames and seem fine, most big rigs use c-channel and seem fine, Ford uses c-channel in their HD trucks… better not haul over 500lb in any of those either, eh?
ABFTP/lest we forget:
‘TOYOTA WILL SETTLE TRUCK FRAME RUST SUIT FOR UP TO $3.4 BILLION
Automaker reaches agreement to replace frames on up to 1.5 million trucks
NOVEMBER 14, 2016’
http://autoweek.com/article/recalls/toyota-will-settle-truck-frame-rust-suit-suit-34-billion
Cheese N’ Rice ! My 06 Tacoma SR5 extended cab 4cyl 5 speed manual (23-25 mpg average) cost me 8K with the trade in of my 55k miles 03 Matrix(bought in Feb 02) . Granted the frame rotted out 8 years later , but for no charge they replaced it and springs/brake lines/wiring harnesses etc. for more(a couple of bucks short of 17K for a 21K when new truck)than the truck was worth at the time .
New trucks look more and more like rent one for a couple of days . Especially since my main reason for owning a truck was hauling my motorcyles around(like buying one for cash 200 miles away then pushing it up the ramp and taking it home)is gone with a hip injury and old age. Don’t know why the gas mileage is crap on the cheapest Nissan with roll up windows . I practically got that much on a double cab F150 Toyota gave me for free when they were fixing my truck . Hated to give that one back despite the super short bed !
I don’t get the hate. It’s ‘old’, but why is that so bad? There’s a lot of ‘old’ automotive stuff that I like (LX platform, 3800, B-bodies, V8s).
If you’re looking for a 1/2-ton with lambskin headliner, magnetic shocks, turbo engine, direct injection, stop/start, 30 modes of cylinder deactivation, active grille shutters, 16-inch LCD screen, carbon fiber bed, and all the other latest and greatest technology then the Big3 automakers have got you covered. Personally, that doesn’t sound appealing though.
It truly is an anachronism in the current marketplace. A decent approach angle and a smooth and simple V8 that runs on all cylinders with port injection?
Let me know when an Ecoboost or MDS/AFM truck makes it to a million miles.
http://www.trucktrend.com/how-to/project-trucks/1705-million-mile-tundra-the-tear-down/
To be fair that one had the trusty old cast iron 2UZ (4.7L DOHC V8 with timing belt)
Sure it made it a million miles. But why the F would someone want to be stuck in a tundra for a million miles. Especially at 14 mpg. And that trundra was never used as intended. Probably never held more than 500 lbs in the bed.
“And that trundra was never used as intended. Probably never held more than 500 lbs in the bed.”
Read the article genius, it was a hotshot truck in the oil fields carrying 1500lb+ pallets in the bed regularly. Just take a look at the dented up fenders in the bed.
” A decent approach angle and a smooth and simple V8 that runs on all cylinders with port injection?”
Look at 5.7 Hemi Ram 2500s. No MDS, port injection, and the rest if the truck’s bits are way more overbuilt than a Tundra, probably will last a million miles doing Tundra things. They detuned it for HD work and still gets same HP and torque as the I-force on 16v.
“probably will last a million miles doing Tundra things”
And yet we don’t see them with a million miles. Also, hencho in mexico = non-starter, for me at least. I do like the solid front axle and classic floor shift t-case, and simple powertrain like you mentioned.
Rams are easily the most problematic of ALL trucks coming through the shops I’m familiar with. Stupid electrical issues, you pull up the factory wiring diagrams and they’re not what’s physically inside the truck. And yes even with the solid front axle they still have fast wearing steering and suspension linkages, and broken exhaust studs, etc.
The problem is that the Tundra costs the same as that “1/2-ton with lambskin headliner, magnetic shocks, turbo engine, direct injection, stop/start, 30 modes of cylinder deactivation, active grille shutters, 16-inch LCD screen, carbon fiber bed, and all the other latest and greatest technology.”
Toyota does not price and discount it cheaper to reflect the fact that it is older and has less bells and whistles. Which means if you are only planning on keeping the truck 3-4 years before replacing it and using it as a daily driving family hauler the Tundra is a tough sell. It is not as comfortable or has all the features that many people look for in modern cars, and its gas mileage is terrible even by truck standards (probably the number 1 complaint I hear about the truck).
I’m going to put this out there; the 2019 new gen RAM is going to come in workhorse and luxurious versions, and both will raise the bar by two product cycles versus any of the competition.
The new Silverado/Sierra will already look and feel old-school compared to the new RAM,’and Ford’s going to significantly crank up incentives to try and maintain F Series market share.
That’s how great the incoming RAM is.
It’s a proper tribute to Sergio, and to Ralph Gilles, who is the epitome of the genuine self-made American success story, and one he11 of a righteous bro:
“Ralph Victor Gilles (French pronunciation: [ʒij]; born 14 January 1970) is a Haitian-Canadian-American automobile designer and executive. Gilles was the President and CEO of Chrysler’s SRT brand and Senior Vice President of Design at Chrysler before being promoted to Head of Design for Fiat Chrysler Automobiles in April 2015.
Gilles styled the North American Car of the Year-winning 2005 Chrysler 300 after joining Chrysler in 1992.[1] Gilles also led the design team that created the 2014 SRT Viper.
Background[edit]
Born in New York City to Haitian immigrants, Gilles was raised in Montreal, Quebec.[2]
Gilles was drawing concept vehicles at the age of eight. When he was fourteen years old, his aunt Gisele Mouscardy sent one of his sketches to then Chrysler Chairman Lee Iacocca.[3] A reply came from K. Neil Walling, Chrysler’s design chief at the time, suggesting he attend one of three design schools.[4]
Gilles attended the College for Creative Studies in Detroit, Michigan, and in 2002 received an Executive MBA from Michigan State University.[5] He lives in Oxford, Michigan.[6]”
“[T]he seat back is rather upright for my tastes — as is typical in most crew-cab pickups.”
Aha! You’ve fallen for the trick Dodge hoped you would fall for with the 2002 Ram Quad Cab: thinking that rear-opening doors=crew cab. What you’ve got here is an extended cab, and even when the leg room is decent in an extended cab (1988+ Chevys, 2002+ Rams, 2004+ F-150s, 2007+ Tundras), there’s still nothing that can be done about the bolt-upright seat back.