Toyota Tundra starting to make inroads with domestic truck buyers

it looks tough even more so then the tundras from previous generations but however I will not trade my GM truck for it. The tundra carries less, has one of the most annoying traction control nannies on the face of the earth and also is even more of a fuel hog than some of the domestic competitors. The big V8 is nice but with the previously mentioned traction control nanny you can't push this engine to its limits. it will be formidable competiton but as far as trading in my GM truck for one I'll pass

Meh, the Tundra tromps on the economy of Ford and Dodge pickups while remaining competetive with the GM twins. If you compare the 5.7 Tundra to the 6.2 Denali, the largest engines available in either and both with six-speed automatic transmissions, the Tundra scores 14 | 18 while the Denali gets 13 | 19. The Tundra boasts a greater towing capacity by over a thousand pounds while the Denali has a better payload, by something like 30 pounds. Plus, the Tundra roars to 60 in just over 6 seconds according to Edmunds, even with that nanny traction control. ;)

So it's not just sports car people who like to get sideways, huh. Damn those nannies!

I liked the one I saw at the auto show, but the well equipped Crew cab had a price in the low 40s. Yikes.

Welcome to world of fancy pickups. :)

Properly equipped, the new Silverado has about 14 less hp (6.0L V8) and tows about 300 lbs less (10,500 lbs). A 4x4 version gets 15/19 while the Tundra gets 14/18. The Silverado does all of this with a 4-speed auto when compared to the Tundra's 6-speed. The Silverado also has a $2k price advantage. Imagine what the Silverado can do with the upcoming 6-speed.
 
Ford's tow rating is already 11,000, which is more than Toyota, and it can be configured to get 3,000 payload, also more than Toyota. Gas mileage is the same. The power difference is offset by the large price difference (almost $3.5k). With the upcoming 5.8L and 6.2L V8's and a possible 4.4L diesel, along with a possible 6-speed auto, the Tundra may have peaked too soon.

When the 1500 Silverado gets that 6-speed automatic, that $2K advantage will disappear.
 
The F-150 with the 3K payload has an 8200 GVW, which is hardly in 1/2-ton range. While it can be had that way, very few are sold.
 
The upcoming F-150 4.4L diesel is based on the diesel Land Rover makes. Toyota just introduced a 4.5L V8 diesel for the Australian Land Cruiser 78, which will likely make its way over here. I expect all the (so-called) 1/2-ton brands to be offering diesels by 2009 or so, not just Ford.

I doubt that advantage will completely disappear. 2 extra gears do not cost $2k. Toyota also priced themselves out of the work truck market, even with rebates.

The 6.0 V8 in the GM twins is equipped with cylinder deactivation, which is partially responsible for its better highway mileage (theoretically). Also, I would imagine (I'm too busy to check) that the Tundra uses more aggressive gearing than the GMs, hence its slightly lower mileage and much quicker acceleration.

Also, I would imagine (I'm too busy to check) that the Tundra uses more aggressive gearing than the GMs, hence its slightly lower mileage and much quicker acceleration.
 
6-speed vs. 4-speed! 2 extra gears on the transmission would nearly irradicate any performance implications while atleast maintaining gas mileage. I'll be interested to see how they match up when the 6-speed comes out.

The Tundra rocks. I love it.
Just that it's a gas guzzling full sized truck.
 
I don't need a fullsized truck, but I'm fine with the price premium, since its luxury interior does deliver, for the price you pay.
 
We should note full sized SUVs, and midsized body-on-frame SUVs suck as much gas, 15 mpg. I don't need to drive either of those either.
But it's an awesome truck for those who need it.

Keep singing about how much better Ford or Chevy trucks are. They used to say the same thing about their cars. It's only a matter of time.

Tejas Toyota in H-Town is selling all it can get.
 
DrFill

"I don't need a fullsized truck, but I'm fine with the price premium, since its luxury interior does deliver, for the price you pay."
Uh, it does? If this is the same interior that's been in ALL the photos of the truck around this site, I'd have to disagree.
 
The exterior has grown on me a little since I first saw it though. I guess that was to be expected. I didn't like the new Silverado a whole lot when I first saw it either. But I still like the Silverado quite a bit better both inside and out, especially in higher trims (duh, same interior in my Avalanche = 100x nicer than the Tundra's).
 
I will say that the few Tundras I've seen around on the roads have a true commanding full-sized truck presence to them, unlike previous generations. So I won't count them out of the market as I used to the older models. But the F-150 and Silverado are still better overall choices for most people, both for value and for function.

ricealot,
 
I'm not saying they are better as a whole. I'm saying for the difference in price. I know which one I would buy. Pricing themselves out of the work truck market was a huge mistake for Toyota. The biggest money to be had is in work trucks.
 
billt9,
 
The new Tundra's interior is nice, but the unbalanced silver accents and poor center console design are very disappointing. You would take this...

 
over this? I'll take the one below

I thought Edmunds Tundra vs Silverado test stated that the 5.7 Tundra actually got better combined gas milage than the (5.3 or 6.0) V8 in the Silverado. I believe it did and it wasnt EPA based milage either.
 
About the photos above... The Toyota interior is ruined by that slab of "aluminum" trim and Im not too fond of each gauge having its own "pod". If Toyota could tone down the "aluminum" and give it a conventional gauge cluster then it would be much better. The F150's interior is nice but its a bit overstyled and it looks smaller comapred to the Toyota.

I'm more concerned about how the interior functions than how it looks. Are the controls easy to use? Do they make sense? Are the gauges easy to read? That's the sort of stuff I base my opinions on.
 
Arguing about the styling of the interior is as silly as saying that green is a better color than orange. It makes no sense. There's no right or wrong here, as it's purely subjective.
 
If the criticism is based on the fact that the interior functions poorly because of reasons A, B, and C, then that's one thing. If, however, the criticism is based strictly upon whether they should have or have not applied an aluminum applique here or there, or the seat fabric pattern, you've got your priorities all mixed up.
 
I've sat in both the Tundra and F-150, and I don't have any serious problems with either truck's interior.

Well, we all know orange is way better than green. ;-)
 
I disagree with you about style, though. I do agree that form should follow function, but that doesn't mean style should be thrown out the window. If pure function sold cars, the Citroen 2CV and the Pontiac Aztek would still be in production.

I've spent over 30 years in the design world and have taught design at a college level at one of America's leading art colleges for over 10 years. So I see "strange" stuff all the time. I'm used to it.
 
My first reaction when I see something new that I don't understand is not to reject it. Rather what I try to do is figure out what the designer had in mind, and then see if the designer achieved those goals successfully. That's how I rate good or bad design. Looking "pretty" has "very little to do with it.
 
I didn't say styling should be thrown out the window. However it's rather low on my list of priorities. If the design is right, you can always style it. If however the design is bad, no matter how much you style it, it still will be bad.
 
As to form follows function? Absolutely, which is why I think most commercial-grade trucks, agricultural equipment, and ATVs are better "designed" than many cars.

Well then Bob, you shouldn't have a problem with folks preferring the Ford / GM interiors to the Tundra's. With the large majority of the center stack controls (radio / HVAC especially) located FAR from the driver, and without facing them more toward the driver to alleviate the situation somewhat, there's a big stretch to use them. That's bad design.
 
Even so, if all other things are equal, styling considerations need to be included. It just so happens that the Ford and GM interiors not only function as well or better than the Toyota interior, they also *look* better.
 
Win-Win. Or lose-lose.
 
(The Toyota does look BIGGER inside though. ;-) )

I think the largeness factor is slightly due to optical illusion. If you look closely, you can see that the picture of the F150 is focused on the driver's set rather than the entire cab, like the picture of the Tundra. Here's a little less garish picture of the F150 interior.
 

Jerry, while I've sat in both cabs (and drove a Tundra for 10 miles or so), I haven't really "studied" how all the controls work, or the cab ergonomics. Therefore I can't comment as to which cab functions better. Having said that, I didn't find any initial "red flag" issues with the Tundra cab. If I had found something glaringly out of whack, I would certainly mention it, but I didn't find that to be the case.
 
One thing I did like about the Tundra is that the transmission has a manual "sport-shift" mode along with a tow/haul mode. Those controls seemed be well thought out and easy to reach.
 
As to you and others preferring Ford or GM cabs? No, I don't have a problem with that.

The Silverado's tow/haul mode is on the end of the shifter. I'm not sure where Ford's tow/haul mode is located.

Okay, on my way back from the dentist today, I stopped by the local Toyota dealer to check out the CrewMax Limited. Here's what I found:
 
• No problem with the ergonomics whatsoever. Most everything is within easy reach, and easy to use.
 
• The center stack and NAV is a bit of a reach, but probably no more so than any other fullsize truck.
 
• Not wild about the shiny black on the dash—but it's certainly no deal-killer
 
• I like the cruise control stalk. It's easy to use and frees up room for more buttons on the steering wheel spokes.
 
• Rear seat area very roomy and very comfortable.
 
• Rear seatback rake adjustment lever hard to use, as it's up on the outside top edge of the seat back—a poor location.
 
• Rear seat back, when folded, doesn't lie perfectly flat. It does, however, have tie-down points.
 
• Payload rating on driver door jam only 1310—pretty poor for a truck this size, but probably on a par with competing models from Dodge, etc.
 
• This truck had 20" tires. The spare, however, is an 18" tire. I prefer to have a matching spare tire.

Toyota isn't alone on that spare tire. It's a standard practice to offer a "budget" "full-sized" spare on pretty much ALL midsized and larger SUVs and trucks built going back for at least the last five years.
 
Payload- Sounds low, but then again, the 4x4 Dodge RAM 1500 long bed has only 1320 pounds of payload capacity (6.5 ft box gets 1500 pounds though). Is this truck you checked out a short box or a long box? If you wish, we could also compare it to the Dodge RAM MegaCab 4x4, but it's payload is actually 1980 pounds!
 
Checking Chevy's web site for the new Silverado's specs, the lowest payload is listed as 1,574 pounds. And that's not for the crew cab 1500 pickup, it's the extended cab long box variant. The crew cab pickup actually shows a 2,010 pound payload capacity (both 4x4's, 2x4's are even higher).
 
Ford's F-150 SuperCrew 4x4 w/4.6l V-8 is rated at only 1300 pounds (again, close), but the top V-8 5.4l (assuming the Toyota you checked out is also equipped with the 5.7l) begins its range at 1500 pounds even for payload. The charts on the Ford website for both fail to differentiate why there are two ratings for each, so I've taking the lower number for both here. (Stylesides used- Flaresides are ~20 pounds lower)
 
So, depending on exactly what bed length, powertrain, and transfer case was in the Toyota you checked out, it may or may not be comparable. Compared to the competitors' weakest trucks with long boxes (subtracting from payload by the increased box / frame weight), it sounds close. But based on the 'Limited' designation, I'm thinking a fair comparison is with the standard / short box variants with the biggest available engines in the crew cab lineups. In that case, not so hot at all!
 
Rear seatback adjustment- This is one thing that impressed me with the new Tundra right from the start. An adjustable seatback on the back seat! I guess the Dodge MegaCab probably has one too, but those are probably the only two.
 
Cruise Control Stalk- if it's like the older model GM vehicles with the "superstalk", it sounds like they're a bit behind the curve. On the other hand, if it's more like the little lever on the Terraza (below and to the right of the steering hub), great!
 
I also wouldn't count on the center stack reach being "probably no more so than any other full size truck" either. Ironically, this is one area where the GM 800 series is actually a bit better than the 900s (at least with the upscale interior like my Av has), and MUCH better than the Tundra's. The center stack actually angles a bit toward the driver in those. I'm not sure if the "work truck" interiors on the new GMs does that or not (haven't looked into any of those on the local lots, and lack time to recheck in images online just now). The Tundra's still appears to be more of a reach than those in my Av (even if mine aren't as good as the 04 Silverado's in terms of reach). Since the Av and new GM uplevel interiors are the same, I'd guess that carries over too..

I don't know about the Terraza's control stalk, as I'm not familiar with that one. I am, however familiar with the old GM cruise control stalk that was part of the turn signal—and that was flat out awful. No, the CC stalk is like that found on other Toyotas, and like that found on my WRX. It's easy to use and very intuitive.
 
The Ram 1500 MegaCab has an 8500 GVW, which is just shy of the Ram 2500HD. So it's hardly a 1/2-ton despite the "1500" name.
 
As to the rear seat back adjustment: I too think this is a great feature, it's just the location of the adjustment lever that needs to be rethought. It's hard to use while being seated. If you adjust it before you sit down, it's not a problem.

The control stalk on the Terraza is dedicated for cruise control operation. It's mounted to the steering wheel hub, just behind the wheel at about a 45 degree angle down and to the right. Perfectly placed for fingertip / thumb operation. It is a push up / pull down to increase / decrease set speed, pull toward you to cancel setup, and includes the On/Off button on it's end (push in to turn on, push again to have it turn off). I'd include a picture, but I'm not sure if or how to do that in blog comments.
 
I understand that the MegaCab is really a 2500 wolf-in-sheep's-clothing. I only mentioned it in the event that you consider it the only real competitor to the Toyota CrewMax (based on cab interior space). I personally consider the standard crew cab pickups to be the main competition. The Toyota certainly has the space issue inside over them, but they all seem to have plenty of room. I guess that could become the make-or-break sticking point when comparing the trucks during a sale, if the buyer in question is more about interior / people space than payload capacity (ie. has at least two 6+ foot tall children with long legs). ;-)