PDA

View Full Version : 2007 Toyota Tundra - be afraid, Detroit... be very afraid!


Valentine One Radar Detector

Eric
04-19-2007, 10:38 AM
No one thought much of the first Lexus LS sedan.

Remember?

"Japanese" and "luxury car" could not even be uttered in the same sentence -- at least, not without a smirk. Today, BMW, Mercedes-Benz and Audi have learned the hard way to think otherwise.

Tomorrow, Ford, GM and Chrysler might have to, also -- when it comes to full-size trucks.

Up until now, Detroit has not been challenged much on this front -- even though they've lost ground in just about every other market segment. The Ford-F-series is (and has long been) the best-selling large pick-up; behind it is the Chevy Silverado 1500. The only other import truck that could even qualify as "full-size" is Nissan's Titan -- and it has been handicapped by limited body/bed/trim configurations -- rendering it no real threat to Detroit's absolute dominance of the full-size truck market.

Now Toyota has made it clear it's going for the jugular -- with a brand-new Tundra that one-ups everything Detroit has on the field -- size-wise, power-wise and features-wise.

For starters, the new Tundra's standard engine -- a 236 horsepower 4 liter V-6 -- is almost as muscular as the F-trucks's optional 4.6 liter V-8 (248 hp), while its step-up 4.7 liter V-8 (the previous Tundra's biggest engine), at 271-hp, easily outmuscles the F-truck's optional 4.6 liter V-8 -- and isn't too far off the pace of the F-150's biggest available engine, a 5.4 liter V-8 offering a so-so 300 hp. But the Tundra's got one more round in the clip -- a brand-new 5.7 liter V-8 packing a thunderous 381 horses. Do the math: That's 81 more hp than the F-150's strongest available gas V-8.

The Tundra simply kicks the F-truck in the head when it comes to power -- and acceleration, too. It rushes forward like a muscle truck, while the F-150 feels like it's got a load of cement blocks in the bed, even when it's ordered with the 5.4 engine (and even when the bed is, in fact, empty). The Toyota also beats it on towing and payload -- with a 10,800 lb. rating vs. the F-truck's formerly class-leading 10,500 lb. rating. You'll also get a six-speed transmission with the mighty Toyota V-8 -- vs. a frankly outdated four-speed automatic in the Ford. Those extra gears allow for tighter spacing between gears, for smoother acceleration -- and not-bad fuel economy (given what we're talking about here). EPA gives the Tundra (with the 5.7 V-8 and 2WD) a city/highway rating of 16-20 mpg. That's actually better than the 5.4-equipped 2WD F-150 (EPA rated at 15 mpg city, 19 on the highway) despite the Tundra's having 81 horsepower more under its hood.

Chevy's just-redesigned Silverado 1500 is much improved -- especially its beautifully finished interior. But in standard form, the Silverado's even weaker than the base F-truck, with just a 195-hp, 4.3 liter V-6 to bring to the table. That's 40-something horses less than the Tundra's standard engine -- a deficit that's hard to ignore.

The Silverado's step-up 4.8 liter Vortec V-8, at 295-hp, is stronger than the Tundra's 4.7 liter V-8 -- but the Chevy's next two optional V-8s (a 315-hp 5.3 liter V-8 and, at the very top of the list, a 6 liter, 367-hp Vortec V-8) still don't outgun the Toyota's 5.7 liter mill. Nor does the Chevy out-tow the Toyota; like the Ford, its max rated capacity is 10,500 lbs. And like the Ford, the Chevy doesn't offer a six-speed transmission -- or even a five-speed, for that matter. Result? The Silverado's fuel economy -- even with the smaller 5.3 V-8 -- is only 16 city/22 highway.

Over at the Dodge store. you'll find a base Ram 1500 comes equipped with a 3.7 liter, 215-hp V-6, with the step-up 4.7 liter V-8 offering 235-hp. Even the once-mighty 5.7 liter Hemi -- with a mere 345 hp on tap -- seems a little swishy compared with the pushing four-hundred-horses Tundra. And the Hemi's a pig at the pump -- slurping fuel like a '70 Hemi 'Cuda at the rate of 15 mpg in town, 19 mpg on the highway.

Oinkl!

But at least you can get a five-speed automatic with the Dodge. On the other hand, the Ram's max tow rating -- 8,500 lbs. -- isn't even in the same ballpark as the Tundra's near-11,000 pound rating.

See where this is headed?

The Tundra is also the first Japanese pick-up that matches the Big Three trucks when it comes to available bodystyles and bed length options -- offering regular cab, double cab and CrewMax four door cab styles, with five-foot, 6.5 foot and 8-foot bed lengths. Trim lines runs from the base DX (a "work truck") all the way tthrough sporty SR5 and top-of-the-line Limiteds. Prices start at $22,290 and run to $41,850 and up for a 4WD CrewMax Limited with all the bells and whistles.

And there are lots of both.

Available equipment includes a rear-view back-up camera built into the overhead console, electroluminescent gauges, power-retractable mirrors, GPS, 10-speaker JBL stereo rig, 20-inch rims, Bluetooth wireless hook-up -- and a TRD Off-Road group that adds BIlstein shocks, BF Goodrich M/S-rated knobby tires, HD suspension, skid plates -- the works.

But even the base DX comes with climate control AC, 18-inch wheels, traction and stability control, side-impact and curtain airbags and a CD-playing stereo -- along with that impressively strong standard engine (which also comes with a five-speed automatic and stout 3.90 rear axle ratio).

The truck's outsize personality makes it seem bigger than its competitors, too. Only the Ram comes off as similarly aggressive -- but as the stats reveal, it's unfortunately more show than go.

But its sheer overkill massiveness may turn out to be the Tundra's only vulnerability. Even a big guy can feel kind of small driving this monster. I took our garbage cans up to the dumpster and felt 12-years-old trying to get them out of the Tundra's bed. And I'm six-feet-three. The walls are so high, you almost need a step stool to see what's in there; my normally adventurous Black Lab wouldn't even try to leap up onto the tailgate. The interior's so huge that the shifter console is off-center -- so the driver can reach it without arm extenders. A pot roast would fit in the center console. You could rent out the door pockets to migrant laborers. And on a purely practical level, maneuvering it into parking spaces can be difficult -- even for skilled drivers. It will take up every inch of your garage -- and make your McMansion seem small.

Even by today's out-sized standards, the Tundra is an absolutely huge vehicle that may overwhelm some folks. Especially the faux cowboys and suburban types who have glommed onto large pick-ups as a totem of their affluence -- and expression of their egos.

But then again, the absolutely dominating power it offers -- from the standard engine all the way to its top dog 5.7 liter thumper -- along with the fact that it's the first ever Japanese truck to offer the same panoply of bed and boy configurations, features, etc. as the Detroit-brand stuff -- makes it a safe bet that history's about to repeat itself. People who really need trucks -- and big power -- are about to fall in love.

Five years hence, no one's going to be snickering about "Japanese trucks" anymore, either.

END

chiph
04-19-2007, 12:19 PM
There was never any technical reason for the Japanese to not built large trucks. They just chose not to.

And if anyone from Detroit ever said "They're not able to", this ought to prove them wrong.

Chip H.

Eric
04-19-2007, 02:02 PM
There was never any technical reason for the Japanese to not built large trucks. They just chose not to.

And if anyone from Detroit ever said "They're not able to", this ought to prove them wrong.

Chip H.



Agreed.. they're whistling past the graveyard if they take that line...!

Eric
04-19-2007, 02:04 PM
There was never any technical reason for the Japanese to not built large trucks. They just chose not to.

And if anyone from Detroit ever said "They're not able to", this ought to prove them wrong.

Chip H.



Agreed.. they're whistling past the graveyard if they take that line...!

swamprat
04-20-2007, 09:27 PM
We ain't just whistling dixie.

Eric
04-21-2007, 09:10 AM
We ain't just whistling dixie.


I happened to have a Chevy 2500 after the Tundra... felt sluggish, didn't steer as precisely as the Toyota. Things are going to get hard, soon....

mrblanche
04-21-2007, 10:24 AM
In my personal opinion, the nicest thing about the Tundra is it's very pretty rear axle, which looks great under hot rods. Didn't notice that, did you?

Eric
04-21-2007, 12:37 PM
In my personal opinion, the nicest thing about the Tundra is it's very pretty rear axle, which looks great under hot rods. Didn't notice that, did you?


No... but I did admire the "multi-boxed" frame; have you seen that?

mrblanche
04-21-2007, 06:12 PM
Nope. Guess we're even.

The rear axle is gently tapered, like the old Buicks were.

Eric
04-21-2007, 07:15 PM
Nope. Guess we're even.

The rear axle is gently tapered, like the old Buicks were.


I'll see whether Toyota has any images of the axle available on the media site - and I'll post 'em if I do!

XRocketman1967
06-12-2007, 09:46 PM
Not so fast.... ???
Tundra Recall Could Cost Toyota

Toyota's latest quality issues could lead to a recall of the brand-new Tundra pickup.
Some owners of V-8 Tundras have reported camshaft failures in their trucks. Toyota told the Detroit News that it had logged 20 such complaints. The problem could affect as many as 30,000 Tundras built at assembly plants in Indiana and Texas.
Toyota had planned to sell 200,000 Tundras in the truck's first year as a part of an aggressive expansion plan in the United States. The company has opened a new San Antonio plant to assemble the truck; has expanded an Alabama engine plant to supply to factory; and has also started construction on plants in Ontario and Mississippi as it tries to match demand for its vehicles.
The Texas plant had suffered cost overruns before it opened late last year. The News also reports the Tundra had failed to match Ford's F-150 and Dodge's Ram in frontal crash test scores.

Eric
06-13-2007, 08:04 AM
Not so fast.... ???
Tundra Recall Could Cost Toyota

Toyota's latest quality issues could lead to a recall of the brand-new Tundra pickup.
Some owners of V-8 Tundras have reported camshaft failures in their trucks. Toyota told the Detroit News that it had logged 20 such complaints. The problem could affect as many as 30,000 Tundras built at assembly plants in Indiana and Texas.
Toyota had planned to sell 200,000 Tundras in the truck's first year as a part of an aggressive expansion plan in the United States. The company has opened a new San Antonio plant to assemble the truck; has expanded an Alabama engine plant to supply to factory; and has also started construction on plants in Ontario and Mississippi as it tries to match demand for its vehicles.
The Texas plant had suffered cost overruns before it opened late last year. The News also reports the Tundra had failed to match Ford's F-150 and Dodge's Ram in frontal crash test scores.





You may be right.. and I may have missed this one. I based my opinion on the usualy tendency of Americans to love bigger/stronger/more ostentatious to anything else.

Also, the Toyota doesn't have 2500 or 3500 levels (as the domestics do) nor a diesel for true HD work...

XRocketman1967
06-13-2007, 09:35 AM
You may be right.. and I may have missed this one. I based my opinion on the usualy tendency of Americans to love bigger/stronger/more ostentatious to anything else.

Except when it comes to women......at least that's my taste....... ;D :P

XRocketman1967
06-13-2007, 05:51 PM
http://www.nissanusa.com/pdf/titanaward/titan_popmag.pdf

Fear the Titan ;D

XRocketman1967
06-14-2007, 06:24 PM
2007 Toyota Tundra
Tundra tows with the best of ?em but doesn?t turn domestic heads

By PHIL FLORADAY

You?ve surely seen the war for half-ton-towing bragging rights on dozens of prime-time commercials by now. It all started back at the 2006 Chicago auto show, when Toyota promised a towing capacity of at least 10,000 pounds for its 2007 half-ton Tundra.

All 5.7-liter-powered Tundra models are rated to tow more than many of the gasoline-powered V8 three-quarter-ton Dodge Rams and Ford Super Duties (all heavy GM trucks can tow more than the Tundra). But don?t expect owners of heavy-duty trucks to trade down. Most people want a diesel for regular towing in the 10,000-pound range. Currently, no half-ton offers a diesel.

What does this mega tow rating mean? You?ll never even notice a typical trailer behind a 2007 Tundra. We hauled an old Toyota Hilux out for a long four-wheeling weekend. It was a fitting load for the Tundra and amazing to see how Toyota trucks have grown since the Hilux was introduced.

Our trailer weighs about 5000 pounds loaded, and it doesn?t affect the Tundra one bit. Leaving most other vehicles in your wake is easy. Mash the gas, and you?ll be checking the mirrors to be sure the trailer is still attached. We don?t condone speeding with a loaded trailer, but it?s very possible, even uphill. Credit the 4.30 axle gears, six-speed automatic and a healthy 401 lb-ft of torque. Only the GMC Denali, with its 6.2-liter V8, offers more power.

You will notice a trailer, however, if your Tundra has the optional off-road suspension package. There is noticeable sag with 500 pounds of tongue weight, much more than with our long-term Suburban, and its air-ride suspension showed under the same load. Unlike the F-150 and the Silverado, there is no heavy-duty suspension package available.

The problem we found with the Tundra is that domestic pickup owners don?t even notice it. There were almost a dozen other tow vehicles in our campground, and nobody stopped by to check out the Tundra.

The Tundra tows well, returns a respectable 11.4 mpg while doing so and has plenty of power in reserve. These traits are impressive but won?t make much difference until the Toyota folks figure out how to change the brand?s perception in the eyes of domestic truck owners. If you?re able to look past the badge, the Tundra is a solid choice in the full-size segment. It?ll tow, haul and drive at the top of the class, but sales are still hovering near the bottom.

Eric
06-15-2007, 08:30 AM
I'd bet on Toyota burning the midnight oil to get it right; unlike GM and Ford, Toyota will not rest until success has been achieved...

XRocketman1967
06-15-2007, 08:36 AM
With that mentality(Toyota)makes me wonder why Japan lost in WWII and why we won.

mrblanche
06-15-2007, 08:41 AM
With that mentality(Toyota)makes me wonder why Japan lost in WWII and why we won.


Some would say the difference in natural resources (mainly oil and metal). In fact, the attack on Pearl Harbor was precipitated by the US cutting off the shipping of scrap metal to Japan.

Eric
06-15-2007, 08:42 AM
With that mentality(Toyota)makes me wonder why Japan lost in WWII and why we won.


As in the cas of Germany - it was simply a question of numbers; we outproduced them.

The Russians won World War II in Europe; we just picked up the pieces.

XRocketman1967
06-15-2007, 08:50 AM
Very true and now look who is still our enemy......Russia.
Should have listen to George S. Patton when he said in the movie 'Patton', 'While we are here in Russia why not make friends with the Germans and kick a$$ the Russian. We are going to have to fight them anyway one day'....

mrblanche
06-15-2007, 08:55 AM
The Russians won World War II in Europe; we just picked up the pieces.


The Russians were almost completely stalled on the Eastern Front. Without a Southern Front, and then the Western Front, the Germans may well have eventually defeated Russia, or at least negotiated them into a permanent stalemate.

XRocketman1967
06-15-2007, 08:59 AM
The Russians won World War II in Europe; we just picked up the pieces.


The Russians were almost completely stalled on the Eastern Front. Without a Southern Front, and then the Western Front, the Germans may well have eventually defeated Russia, or at least negotiated them into a permanent stalemate.


But the Germans(some high ranking German Generals) were tired of the war and wanted Hitler out(hence the attempt on his life) and then negotiate a peace with the US and Britain.

Eric
06-15-2007, 09:11 AM
The Russians bled the Germans white; it was attrition that sealed the doom of Nazi Germany.

The endless supply of men and material - not the quality of either - is what exhausted the Reich, ultimately.

Now, I agree that a stalemate or negotiated settlement could have happened had Russia not had the backing of the US and Britain.

As an aside: The failure of the Germans to develop a long range heavy "Uralbomber" is considered by many to have been one of the key reasons why Germany lost the war.

XRocketman1967
06-15-2007, 09:14 AM
The Russians bled the Germans white; it was attrition that sealed the doom of Nazi Germany.

The endless supply of men and material - not the quality of either - is what exhausted the Reich, ultimately.

Now, I agree that a stalemate or negotiated settlement could have happened had Russia not had the backing of the US and Britain.



Oh so true.
And as they say, and the rest is history.

Eric
06-15-2007, 09:21 AM
Probably Hitler's greatest failure/weakness as a warlord was his soft spot for the English. He very much sought an accommodation with the Brits - and could not comprehend their adamant refusal to come to terms. He considered Englad beaten in 1940 - with only Churchill (and Churchill's hope of aid from either the Soviet Union or America) standing in the way of peace. His decision not to eradicate the Dunkirk pocket, not to launch Sea Lion (the cross-channel invasion) can be attributed to his hope for some rapprochement with the English - just as the invasion of the Soviet Union was intended primarily to force the English to come to the table.

Had anyone other than Churchill been PM, history could have turned out very differently...

Of course, after the war, Winnie is supposed to have quipped that the Allies "killed the wrong pig."

XRocketman1967
06-15-2007, 09:34 AM
He also liked Polish sausage and French wine but the Brits weren't about to turn over their English Stout to Hitler..... ;D

Eric
06-15-2007, 09:54 AM
He also liked Polish sausage and French wine but the Brits weren't about to turn over their English Stout to Hitler..... ;D


Actually, Hitler was a vegetarian and virtual tee-totaler who rarely drank!

mrblanche
06-15-2007, 10:09 AM
As an aside: The failure of the Germans to develop a long range heavy "Uralbomber" is considered by many to have been one of the key reasons why Germany lost the war.


Maybe. But if you stop and think what bombing New York would have done to the U.S. war effort, you may understand why there are those who say that our bombing of Germany was not as productive as we like to think, and didn't really affect the war's outcome that much.

Eric
06-15-2007, 10:15 AM
As an aside: The failure of the Germans to develop a long range heavy "Uralbomber" is considered by many to have been one of the key reasons why Germany lost the war.


Maybe. But if you stop and think what bombing New York would have done to the U.S. war effort, you may understand why there are those who say that our bombing of Germany was not as productive as we like to think, and didn't really affect the war's outcome that much.


That's true; Speer actually managed to increase war production at the height of the bombing....

XRocketman1967
06-15-2007, 10:49 AM
He also liked Polish sausage and French wine but the Brits weren't about to turn over their English Stout to Hitler..... ;D


Actually, Hitler was a vegetarian and virtual tee-totaler who rarely drank!


I meant that as a 'tongue and cheek' statement as for his desire when he invaded Poland and France.

mrblanche
06-15-2007, 10:52 AM
The invasion of Poland was his finger in the eye to Russia, and his invasion of France was largely to punish them for WWI. We forget history at our own peril!

Eric
06-15-2007, 01:46 PM
The invasion of Poland was his finger in the eye to Russia, and his invasion of France was largely to punish them for WWI. We forget history at our own peril!


How do you get that?

Germany and Soviet Russia signed a non-aggression pact with a protocol under which Poland was divided between them. Russia was as much an aggressor as Germany - and they both profited from the arrangement.

You're right about France - note that Hitler had the very same railway car used for the German surrender in WWI brought out of mothballs for the occasion of the armistice in WWII.

mrblanche
06-15-2007, 04:42 PM
And I have been in that very railway car.

Poland has had a very unhappy history, having been independent very little of its life.

AlmostFamous
06-15-2007, 09:15 PM
http://www.nissanusa.com/pdf/titanaward/titan_popmag.pdf

Fear the Titan ;D



The Titan turned out to be the biggest load of crap ever to come out of Japan. It was funny back in 2004 when the Titan made its official debut. The media basically crowned it as the second coming. It was suppose to be the truck that took the American truck market by storm. Japan's first truck to make a huge dent in that automotive segment. It sells around 70,000 units a year. Maybe 2% of the truck market.


Here's the facts. This is all you have to read to realize that Nissan screwed up big time. 40 pages worth of broken rear diffs:

http://www.titantalk.com/forums/tit...lures-only.html


29 pages worth of brake failures.

http://www.titantalk.com/forums/tit...ecall-info.html


It's just a very bad vehicle. An embarrassment. Interior of the truck is a disgrace. More cheap plastics than a mid 90's Chevy Cavalier. Gas mileage is the worst in the 1/2 ton market. Truck is loud and obnoxious. Very sloppy road manners, feels like your driving an 80's era truck. The brakes not only suck, they will fail by the time you hit 10,000 miles. It's also common for Titan owners to have gone through 3 rear-ends. Just a horrible truck all the way around.

AlmostFamous
06-15-2007, 09:59 PM
There was never any technical reason for the Japanese to not built large trucks. They just chose not to.

And if anyone from Detroit ever said "They're not able to", this ought to prove them wrong.

Chip H.



Agreed.. they're whistling past the graveyard if they take that line...!



Personally, I would definitely go with the proven GM truck. It may have less horsepower but not by much. The 6.0L Vortec produces 367hp and is only a $1100 option. So it's not far off Toyota's peak horsepower rating. The Vortec 6.0L is based on the LSx series of engines and is as reliable as they get. More importantly it gets better MPG and tows more. Also, the Silverado/Sierra get better gas mileage across the board when compared to other Tundra's configurations. Which points to why the Tundra has such big brakes, its heavy. It's at least 500lb heavier than all of the competition. And the GM trucks still slightly outbreaks the Tundra with smaller breaks. Plus GM wins hands down with it's interior. The Tundra's interior feels cheap and unrefined. Lots of cheap looking plastic everywhere. With a horrible looking gauge and center stack. It doesn't even come close to the Silverado/Sierra.

This Tundra is on its 3rd strike. A multitude of issues keep it from becoming any threat in any form to the Detroit trucks. Already, problems are arising with this generation Tundra. Just as with the previous generation Tundra with the multiple recalls and recurring problems with the faulty ball joints, warped rotors ever 10k miles, etc...

While this truck does offer more horsepower than any of Ford's, or Dodge's, or GM's offerings besides the 6.2L in the top model, who will buy this? The average price difference along similar based vehicles is around a $4000 dollar premium. Toyota is quoted to believe people will pay for a higher quality of vehicle. While the horsepower is greater, first ask yourself why do you need it? Torque is the most important power rating on a truck. How much torque and at what RPM's. The market is in 4 major segments, People using the trucks to tow large loads for work, people towing things for themselves(boats, trailers, etc.), people who like to gun it, and the everyday guy.

A contractor will need the extra power, however he will also need a strong truck. He's looking to haul a lot and tow a lot. A 1/2 ton frame will not handle the needs of most contractors. Also the new Tundra has an inferior hauling load.

The everyday guy who hauls his boat regularly or his camper needs extra power. However, just because this truck has more horsepower doesn't mean it can tow anymore! It's not worth the extra $4-5,000 and uncertainty of an unknown truck.

The everyday guy who wants to drive his truck back and forth to work. What does he need his vehicle for? Safe transportation and the occasional zoom to pass a guy on the freeway. This guy has driven Ford, Chevy, or Dodge for his entire life. His father drove the same truck brand for all of his life. These people are the extreme of brand loyalty. Their Chevy's, Dodge's and Ford's have 200,000+ miles. There is no way they will switch to a foreign brand vehicle that costs more and one they've never driven in their life.

This leaves one market segment, the segment i like to think of as only 10% large. This is the high school guys with dad's pocket book that only look at the 380 hp rating and the biased against American, import buyer wanting a change from a car/suv. These are the guys who have the extra money to spend and are willing to take a risk. These are the Nissan Titan buyers, all 70,000 annual sales of them.

In the end the Tundra has awesome horsepower for a 1/2 ton and is the best effort so far by a Japanese company into the 1/2 truck market. But with this power comes a hefty price tag. Your going to hit the $40k price tag if you want all 380 horses. You can get the Sierra Denali with 400+ horsepower around that price. With that kind of price tag, they have also priced themselves into the 3/4 diesel market. A diesel that gets better gas mileage and tons more power, there's no comparison. The diesel wins every time. Don't forget, Toyota is going to be way off of their projected 200,000 sales. They are only on track to sell maybe 150,000. That's right, Toyota has already started the incentives games to try to raise sells. I guess this is Toyota's response to only selling 61,113 Tundra's since the end of May. This is also combined with 2002-06 Tundra sales sold in the beginning of the year as well.

As i said before, the fact Toyota is a company with a pretty bad 1/2 truck history and an extremly higher priced vehicle speaks volumes. I just don't see this Tundra being anymore successful than the 2 previous generation of Tundra's that were suppose to change the ballgame with the truck market.

Eric
06-17-2007, 09:17 AM
All your points are well-taken; the only thing I'd say in response is that Toyota (and Honda) were in a similar position with their passenger cars circa 1972. The learn from their mistakes and aggressively improve their product - and do so quickly. They won't sit on their hands and leave the Tundra as is for three years. I'd bet on a major mid-cycle change and, in five years' time, that they have begun to successfully penetrate the light truck market... .