New 2007 Tundra falls short in crash test ratings

Looks like in their effort to have the biggest and most powerful truck, Toyota missed their mark on safety. The Tundra was rated the lowest of all full size trucks in frontal crash test ratings.

http://www.pickuptruck.com/html/news/tundranhtsa.html

Although it's not shown in the comparative graphs, the 2007 Nissan Titan (http://www.pickuptruck.com/html/2007/nissan/titan/07titanguide.html) was given a five star frontal crash test rating for driver safety and four stars for passenger safety. The same score was achieved in both King Cab and Crew Cab versions.
In what may turn out to be a significant marketing and sales blow to the biggest vehicle launch (http://www.pickuptruck.com/html/news/tundramktgcmpgn02020701.html) in Toyota's history, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA (http://www.safercar.gov/)) has released its frontal impact crash test ratings for the new 2007 Tundra (http://www.pickuptruck.com/html/2007/toyota/tundra/07tundraguide.html) full size pickup - only four out of five stars for driver and passenger safety. NHTSA tested the Regular and Double Cab versions of the Tundra, with the same four star results.
In the same test, the all new 2007 Chevrolet Silverado (http://www.pickuptruck.com/html/2007/chevrolet/silverado/07silveradoguide.html) scored five out of five stars, matching the same five star scores previously earned by the current Ford F-150 (http://www.pickuptruck.com/html/2007/ford/f150/07f150guide.html) and Dodge Ram 1500 pickups for driver and front passenger safety in a frontal impact.

1) Base models being priced $2,000 more than comparable domestic truck. . . .

2) Lower fuel economy relative to the new GM offerings. . . .

3) $1000-$1500 rebates on base model trucks, already. . . .

4) Lowest crash test rating of any full sized truck. . . . .

It's not shaping up to be well executed launch of a critical vehicle for Toyota. That being said, 4-stars still isn't bad.

It's not shaping up to be well executed launch of a critical vehicle for Toyota. That being said, 4-stars still isn't bad.[/quote]

That's what another guy at work and I were talking about earlier. I think March sales #'s will be a telling sign of what this truck is going to do.

1) Base models being priced $2,000 more than comparable domestic truck. . . .

2) Lower fuel economy relative to the new GM offerings. . . .

3) $1000-$1500 rebates on base model trucks, already. . . .

4) Lowest crash test rating of any full sized truck. . . . .

It's not shaping up to be well executed launch of a critical vehicle for Toyota. That being said, 4-stars still isn't bad.

I agree; 4 out of 5 star isn't bad. Now if it were 3 or lower I would be worried. As for pricing, the base Tundra with a V6 is way overpriced at 22+ grand. I mean when you are trying to penetrate a market that the domestics already rules, you try to price your truck lower than the competition by a grand or two and not the other way around. The March sales figure would be a good indication as to how the truck is selling. Although my dealer was telling me that the 5.7L engine is in pretty good demand

I completely agree, 4 out of 5 is a very good rating. The 99-07 classic Silverados only had a 4 star for driver and 3 star for passenger. GM really stepped up to the plate finally for safety.

What's disappointing in the new Tundra is that the previous gen Tundras (if I'm remembering correctly) were 5 star rated trucks.

Also, the Titan, Ram, and F-150 are all 5 star rated and have been out for several years now.

Also, like has been stated, they want to compete with the big boys, they need to meet or exceed ALL criteria to take market share. Last months sales #'s did not look promising. We'll have to see what March sales and future sales #'s hold.

I completely agree, 4 out of 5 is a very good rating. The 99-07 classic Silverados only had a 4 star for driver and 3 star for passenger. GM really stepped up to the plate finally for safety.

What's disappointing in the new Tundra is that the previous gen Tundras (if I'm remembering correctly) were 5 star rated trucks.

Also, the Titan, Ram, and F-150 are all 5 star rated and have been out for several years now.

Also, like has been stated, they want to compete with the big boys, they need to meet or exceed ALL criteria to take market share. Last months sales #'s did not look promising. We'll have to see what March sales and future sales #'s hold.

Video: 2007 Toyota Tundra NHTSA Frontal Crash Test (http://youtube.com/watch?v=857xu87ItkY)

The video shows that the front frame is too strong, which is also indicate in its chest deceleration scores. Tundra will destroy anything on the road. :D

http://www.pickuptruck.com/IMAGES/news/nhtsa/07nhthsaregcab.gif

1) Base models being priced $2,000 more than comparable domestic truck. . . .

2) Lower fuel economy relative to the new GM offerings. . . .

3) $1000-$1500 rebates on base model trucks, already. . . .

4) Lowest crash test rating of any full sized truck. . . . .

It's not shaping up to be well executed launch of a critical vehicle for Toyota. That being said, 4-stars still isn't bad.

I dont know the fuel economy thing has been a bit vague, since most "real-world" tests conducted by Car & Driver, Edmunds, or Motortrend are showing that the Silverado is most likely to get lower than their stated fuel economy, while the Toyota is consistently getting pretty close to its ratings. Considering that it is offering the most powerful engine, i would say that it leads the bunch.
I guess we will have to wait until both Trucks are retested using the new EPA tests coming out for 2008 since maybe the current test favors the DOD on the GM engines.

While the Tundra base truck pricing has been a controversial topic maybe they are tryin to prevent it from stealing sales from the Tacoma, and offering rebates from the begining is not a bad strategy becuz the Truck market is known for the rebates, all it does is bring the pricing down to the competition, while still letting Toyota take the same profit. Good Idea

5 is great......... but when did 4 become bad toyota will fix this

I have to disagree with all of you: 4 stars at NHTSA is nothing short of terrible. There are vehicles in that test that score perfect 5's while Euroncap shows that they are death traps on wheels (the worst example being the latest Chevrolet Aveo). For Toyota to fail at safety for one of the most significant vehicles that it launches in the largest marked is almost unbelievable. Toyota knows exactly how these tests are conducted. There is simply no excuse. The front crumbles way too little so the impact is hard for the occupants - and the vehicle that it might hit in an accident.

I'm disappointed.

Video: 2007 Toyota Tundra NHTSA Frontal Crash Test (http://youtube.com/watch?v=857xu87ItkY)

The video shows that the front frame is too strong, which is also indicate in its chest deceleration scores. Tundra will destroy anything on the road. :D

http://www.pickuptruck.com/IMAGES/news/nhtsa/07nhthsaregcab.gif


I agree with the frame being too strong. If you look at the Silverado and F150's front ends they're completely crushed.

Toyota will fix this, and if you look at the photos, the front truck has held up pretty well, so it could have to do with the dummy hitting a C pillar or airbag related.

I have to disagree with all of you: 4 stars at NHTSA is nothing short of terrible. There are vehicles in that test that score perfect 5's while Euroncap shows that they are death traps on wheels (the worst example being the latest Chevrolet Aveo). For Toyota to fail at safety for one of the most significant vehicles that it launches in the largest marked is almost unbelievable. Toyota knows exactly how these tests are conducted. There is simply no excuse. The front crumbles way too little so the impact is hard for the occupants - and the vehicle that it might hit in an accident.

I'm disappointed.


Let's wait to see the tougher IIHS offset front crash, which is similar to Euroncap front crash test. The last gen Tundra got 4 stars only in NHTSA test, but got Great in IIHS crash test. For comparison, the last gen Silverado got poor in IIHS test, but got 4stars in NHTSA test.

Actually, many latest German models may get 5stars in Eurocap front crash test, but got 4 stars in NHTSA front crash test.

What's disappointing in the new Tundra is that the previous gen Tundras (if I'm remembering correctly) were 5 star rated trucks.


That's not entirely correct. At its debut in fall of 1999, the Tundra scored a mediocre 3 star rating. After 2 or 3 years it jumped to 4 stars, then at its mid-cycle refresh in 2005, it garnered a 4 star driver rating, 5 star passenger rating, and 5 star side impact rating. The rollover rating was 3 stars for the years tested.

I find it interesting that the Tacoma, with the same type of "Triple-Tech" frame design, fares better than the Tundra with an all around 5 star rating and IIHS best pick. The engineers are probably working overtime right now.

That's not entirely correct. At its debut in fall of 1999, the Tundra scored a mediocre 3 star rating. After 2 or 3 years it jumped to 4 stars, then at its mid-cycle refresh in 2005, it garnered a 4 star driver rating, 5 star passenger rating, and 5 star side impact rating. The rollover rating was 3 stars for the years tested.

I find it interesting that the Tacoma, with the same type of "Triple-Tech" frame design, fares better than the Tundra with an all around 5 star rating and IIHS best pick. The engineers are probably working overtime right now.

Hey, I was close :D

As for pricing, the base Tundra with a V6 is way overpriced at 22+ grand. I mean when you are trying to penetrate a market that the domestics already rules, you try to price your truck lower than the competition by a grand or two and not the other way around.

yeah they don't know what they're doing, right? the camry is overpriced compared to the domestics, for example, and its not working out them either, nobody's buying them :rolleyes:

yeah they don't know what they're doing, right? the camry is overpriced compared to the domestics, for example, and its not working out them either, nobody's buying them :rolleyes:

You can't compare car sales to truck sales. Truck buyers are different than car buyers. They are a lot more likely to be brand loyal. That is a fact. Toyota's job is to peel off some of these pro domestic buyers into Tundra buyers. Otherwise Toyota won't be selling 200K trucks a year. You don't do that by pricing your base V6 powered truck at 22 + grand when you can buy a Silevardo with the 4.8 L 290 HP engine for around 20k. If you want to buy the somewhat antiquated 4.3 L Silverado, I regularly see them advertised at 15K.

http://www.autoblog.com/2007/03/20/toyota-curious-about-tundras-four-star-showing-in-crash-test/ Interesting. I guess we will see what happens.

http://www.autoblog.com/2007/03/20/toyota-curious-about-tundras-four-star-showing-in-crash-test/ Interesting. I guess we will see what happens.

Ya, I was guessing the same thing, Toyota uses the same or better testing standards as the NHTSA for the new models cuming and they have clearly stated that they expect the New Tundra would excel in crash tests so I don't know what's going on.:ugh3:

Its a conspiracy people, the NHTSA (US Government) wants to bring down Toyota because they know pickups are what's keeping the U.S automakers alive. So they are using this opportunity to give a bad name for the Tundra.:eek:

The engineers are probably working overtime right now.

Looks like it is not necessary.

http://www.pickuptruck.com/IMAGES/news/nhtsa/07nhthsaregcab.gif

Head injury: 476/486, below 5% chance of seriously injury (<10% 5stars)

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/ncap/graphics/Head.gif


Chest injury: 47/46, just below the 10% line if you doom-in to see it. :) (<10% 5stars)

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/ncap/graphics/Chest.gif

^ Still higher than the previous Tundra. New models should improve.

More on the conspiracy angle here:

http://tundrablog.com/trucks/news/tundra-only-received-four-stars-from-nhtsa-24/

One unanswered question is what vehicles did they really test? The NHTSA site reports that both the regular cab model and the extended cab model (probably the double cab) had a vehicle curb weight of 5,203 lbs. This is weird because both models shouldn’t weigh the same and

* the 4×2 base model of the regular cab weighs only 4,610 lbs while the 4×4 regular cab long bed with the 5.7L V8 weighs 5,175 lbs.
* The base 4×2 double cab weighs 4,930 lbs and the 4×4 double cab long bed with the 5.7L V8 weighs 5,645 lbs.

Conspiracy?

The Tundra did marginally worse and barely missed the 5 star rating (looks like the only category that precluded the 5 star rating was the chest deceleration), yet some here think this constitutes a conspiracy!!!!!

The Tundra performed the worse (barely), and Toyota will fix it. . . .that's it. Let's not make this out to be more than it is. . . . .

How may people are dieing in head on collisions in pickups anyways?
The majority of pickup fatalities(46%) occurr in rollovers not head-ons. Toyota leads the competion where it counts in safety with electonic stability control and side curtain airbags standard an ALL models. ESC has been found to reduce single-vehicle fatal crash involvement risk by 56 percent and could reduce the risk of rolling over by as much as 80 percent. Side curtain airbags also help fatality risk in rollovers. The numbers show the Tundra will have the lowest fatality rate of all pickups

I hope yall are joking about the conspiracy thing right?

Looks like it is not necessary.

http://www.pickuptruck.com/IMAGES/news/nhtsa/07nhthsaregcab.gif

Head injury: 476/486, below 5% chance of seriously injury (<10% 5stars)

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/ncap/graphics/Head.gif


Chest injury: 47/46, just below the 10% line if you doom-in to see it. :) (<10% 5stars)

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/ncap/graphics/Chest.gif


:thumbup: :D

Ya, I was guessing the same thing, Toyota uses the same or better testing standards as the NHTSA for the new models cuming and they have clearly stated that they expect the New Tundra would excel in crash tests so I don't know what's going on.:ugh3:

Its a conspiracy people, the NHTSA (US Government) wants to bring down Toyota because they know pickups are what's keeping the U.S automakers alive. So they are using this opportunity to give a bad name for the Tundra.:eek:

So much for relevant, cogent discussion.
Care to share your alien abduction experiences and bigfoot sightings while you're at it?

Considering what a setback this represents, especially when a five-star rating was fully expected, the folks in Nagoya are working overtime right now to fix this blunder.

So much for relevant, cogent discussion.
Care to share your alien abduction experiences and bigfoot sightings while you're at it?

Considering what a setback this represents, especially when a five-star rating was fully expected, the folks in Nagoya are working overtime right now to fix this blunder.


Didn't you read the first paragraph?:)

good ratings or not, like truck buyers gonna give a shit about this.

yeah they don't know what they're doing, right? the camry is overpriced compared to the domestics, for example, and its not working out them either, nobody's buying them :rolleyes:

Huge difference. And if you don't understand why then I would suggest you spend some time researching the issue before entangling yourself in a pointless debate. You might want to start with March sales figures for the Tundra. Toyota made some key mistakes here, many of which aren't small. Can they be fixed? Of course. But the real issue is wether Toyota understands what is wrong. The T100 and previous gen Tundra were supposed to be Toyota's learning curve with the new Tundra being the pay off. Despite this the new Tundra arguably doesn't fare any better overall than Nissan's Titan, which that brands first foray into the full size truck market.

Major problems.

1: The look is all wrong for the market. In an attempt to capture the domed-hood, tough-truck look Dodge and Ford execute so well they ended up combining the worst characteristics of Japanese truck aesthetics and the power-dome hood concept. And as this is a segment where looks matter quite a bit this is no small error.

2: Nothing about the Tundra really sets it apart from the crowd. This truck is not really an innovator and tries to beat Ford and GM at their own game. Playing by Ford and GM's rules in one of the few markets where they actually execute very well seem likely an obviously bad idea. What makes this worse is that Toyota made it easy for Ford and GM to meet or surpass them in the areas where Toyota did execute well by taking this approach.

3: Certain features which are trendy at the moment are lacking in the Tundra. One example is the lack of a fully boxed frame. Toyota and Toyota loyalists may argue that the Tundra is as good or better than anything else in it's class in this respect, and that Toyota went a different route because it happened to be the best way to execute this area of the truck. But the public's perception is that fully boxed is better and that makes this strategy a mistake.

In fact this is the one area where Toyota failed that truly surprises me. I don't expect Toyota to understand full-size trucks in the same way that GM and Ford do as yet since they have relatively little experience here. But Toyota has thrived over the years partially because of their understanding of the importance of perception. For them to miss the boat here seems odd in the extreme and a bit disconcerting. Frankly I am beginning to wonder if Toyota needs to nab a defector, or several, from Ford or GM's full size truck programs before they truly get this right.

Trucks dont have to follow the safety standards of cars, who cares if they dont do good in a crash test, id only get worried if i hit another large truck, pretty sure the new tundra will still be able to handle your average civic hitting it

The majority of pickup fatalies are rollovers and the Tundra leads the competition in this most important area of safety with standard stability control on all models/trim. Some of the competition does not have a "b" pillar in extended cab models(Silverado) and it's very doubtful this kind of configuration is as safe as the Tundra's "b" pillar config relative to a side impact.

Oh my gosh, the Tundra got 4 out of 5 stars, STOP THE WORLD! Since when is a strong frame a bad thing in a truck?
I see things havent changed much around here in my absence. The GM fanboys are still trying to discredit and bash Toyota every chance they get.

Oh my gosh, the Tundra got 4 out of 5 stars, STOP THE WORLD! Since when is a strong frame a bad thing in a truck?
I see things havent changed much around here in my absence. The GM fanboys are still trying to discredit and bash Toyota every chance they get.
I can appreciate your frustration over opportunists using this to take a shot at Toyota. But to be honest it is an oversight and the strong frame argument doesn't wash. In a previous position I worked with Toyota, GM, and Ford...I even spent a little time rubbing elbows with the guys from Volvo. And I can tell you that you can build a ridiculously 'strong' frame that will do it's job and buckle up nicely in a frontal impact if designed correctly. The concepts of strength and rigidity have become increasingly complex as manufacturer seek to make vehicle as safe as possible while continually improving performance and NVH characteristics. Volvo is very, very good at this, but then they don't build body on frame pickups which likely makes their task a pood bit easier.

If it gives you some solace GM's new full size twins are anything but standouts despite the press oohing and aahing more than the audience of an infomercial. GM made no major advancements in any area truth be told with these trucks proving to be little more than aneveolutuonary improvement on existing GM truck philosophy. This is a bit strange for a product that isn't typically seen as the class leader. Even so, in the short term, this should work out fine if GM simply wants to maintain their position in the full size pickup heirarchy. But the competition isn't standing still and GM's fate ten years from now hinges on what Ford does with their new truck, which appears to be making rather large leaps in every area. Add the addition of Toyota as a true player in the full-size market to this and GM may have a problem.

Put plainly GM laid down a bunt with thir new trucks, and in the face of new competition from Toyota and a soon to debut F150 that looks like it is swinging for the fences this probably wasn't a very good idea.

Oh my gosh, the Tundra got 4 out of 5 stars, STOP THE WORLD! Since when is a strong frame a bad thing in a truck?
I see things havent changed much around here in my absence. The GM fanboys are still trying to discredit and bash Toyota every chance they get.

You tell em how it is bud! Preach it! :lol:

I can appreciate your frustration over opportunists using this to take a shot at Toyota. But to be honest it is an oversight and the strong frame argument doesn't wash. In a previous position I worked with Toyota, GM, and Ford...I even spent a little time rubbing elbows with the guys from Volvo. And I can tell you that you can build a ridiculously 'strong' frame that will do it's job and buckle up nicely in a frontal impact if designed correctly. The concepts of strength and rigidity have become increasingly complex as manufacturer seek to make vehicle as safe as possible while continually improving performance and NVH characteristics. Volvo is very, very good at this, but then they don't build body on frame pickups which likely makes their task a pood bit easier.

I appreciate the intelligent, insightfull, well thought-out post. To be fair though, how can you expect a truck that needs a solid frame so that it can haul heavy loads to absorb enough energy to get the same safety rating as a passenger car?
You just cant compare the ridgidity of a truck to that of a passenger car. IMO, you have to give up some energy absorbtion in order to get the strength that you need in a truck.
I do agree with you about GM's new trucks. Obviously GM hasnt learned from the past that they cant rest on their laurels.

I appreciate the intelligent, insightfull, well thought-out post. To be fair though, how can you expect a truck that needs a solid frame so that it can haul heavy loads to absorb enough energy to get the same safety rating as a passenger car?
You just cant compare the ridgidity of a truck to that of a passenger car. IMO, you have to give up some energy absorbtion in order to get the strength that you need in a truck.
I do agree with you about GM's new trucks. Obviously GM hasnt learned from the past that they cant rest on their laurels.

It isn't easy. And from what little I know on the subject you are correct that the rigors a full size pickup encounters make the task even tougher. But 'strength' is a complex idea, and how that strength manifests itself matters too. The strength of the front portion of the frame relative to the rest of the frame structure, how and where the frame experiences deformation in am impact, where the force of the impact is channeled to in the vehicle, and other factors like vehicle weight combine to determine how things happen when metal meets metal, and each of these has the potential to make a huge difference in how well a vehicle does in this respect.

For now Toyota has given up some bragging rights to the domestics in this area and Ford and GM are going to take advantage of this as any auto maker would. But 4 stars still isn't bad and Toyota is certainly already on a mission to find out what they need to change to make this vehicle get five stars. The sooner they can get there the better.

Huge difference. And if you don't understand why then I would suggest you spend some time researching the issue before entangling yourself in a pointless debate. You might want to start with March sales figures for the Tundra. Toyota made some key mistakes here, many of which aren't small. Can they be fixed? Of course. But the real issue is wether Toyota understands what is wrong. The T100 and previous gen Tundra were supposed to be Toyota's learning curve with the new Tundra being the pay off. Despite this the new Tundra arguably doesn't fare any better overall than Nissan's Titan, which that brands first foray into the full size truck market.

Major problems.

1: The look is all wrong for the market. In an attempt to capture the domed-hood, tough-truck look Dodge and Ford execute so well they ended up combining the worst characteristics of Japanese truck aesthetics and the power-dome hood concept. And as this is a segment where looks matter quite a bit this is no small error.

2: Nothing about the Tundra really sets it apart from the crowd. This truck is not really an innovator and tries to beat Ford and GM at their own game. Playing by Ford and GM's rules in one of the few markets where they actually execute very well seem likely an obviously bad idea. What makes this worse is that Toyota made it easy for Ford and GM to meet or surpass them in the areas where Toyota did execute well by taking this approach.

3: Certain features which are trendy at the moment are lacking in the Tundra. One example is the lack of a fully boxed frame. Toyota and Toyota loyalists may argue that the Tundra is as good or better than anything else in it's class in this respect, and that Toyota went a different route because it happened to be the best way to execute this area of the truck. But the public's perception is that fully boxed is better and that makes this strategy a mistake.

In fact this is the one area where Toyota failed that truly surprises me. I don't expect Toyota to understand full-size trucks in the same way that GM and Ford do as yet since they have relatively little experience here. But Toyota has thrived over the years partially because of their understanding of the importance of perception. For them to miss the boat here seems odd in the extreme and a bit disconcerting. Frankly I am beginning to wonder if Toyota needs to nab a defector, or several, from Ford or GM's full size truck programs before they truly get this right.

Response to the above points:

1. The look is objective. The ONLY people that are saying they don't like the look of the truck are the enthusiasts on other manufacturer websites. Chevy_luvr@yahoo.com will always love Chevy no matter what, same with Ford and Dodge. Just because you personally don't like it, doesn't mean a couple of hundred thousand other people won't.

2. Not really an innovator? This is where you lose your credibility in the discussion. Segment-leading HP and torque, a 6-speed automatic transmission, not to mention bigger brake discs, 4 pistons per caliper on the front brakes, outboard staggered rear shocks, 4-wheel disc with rear sealed drums for parking brake, and

3. the triple tech frame. Just because a Ford commercial with Toby Keith says go fully boxed doesn't mean he's right. Hey Toby, if fully boxed is so strong, then why are F-250 and F-350 trucks using C-channel frames??? Toyota's is boxed up front where needed, lipped C channel in the middle, and C in the back. The C's keep the truck lighter and give the frame a little flex when needed for off-road ride comfort.

Put plainly GM laid down a bunt with thir new trucks, and in the face of new competition from Toyota and a soon to debut F150 that looks like it is swinging for the fences this probably wasn't a very good idea.

GM basically took the GMT-800 and fixed the one major gripe people had about it --- the interior. If that's a "bunt", so be it, but you could easily argue that GM's trucks were going to look like a "bunt" because they had a lot less work to do compared to Toyota's Tundra.

Response to the above points:

1. The look is objective. The ONLY people that are saying they don't like the look of the truck are the enthusiasts on other manufacturer websites. Chevy_luvr@yahoo.com will always love Chevy no matter what, same with Ford and Dodge. Just because you personally don't like it, doesn't mean a couple of hundred thousand other people won't.
Actually looks are subjective, and to a degree they are. But beauty isn't this great mystery where stylists can only hope to hit the mark through dumb luck. Generally speaking Teri Hatcher is considered to be a looker and Rosie O'Donnell isn't. Going back to the looks being subjective argument some will disagree, but most wont.

That said, the problem with the Tundra isn't so much that it is ugly, but rather that it is just a bit odd. The new Ford Super Duty isn't winning any beauty contests, but it looks appropriate for what it is and seems to have an appeal because of it. My personal take on the subject aside nearly instantaneous rebates, to the tune of 3k in some instances, and besting last years sales numbers by only 1k units does not indicate an overwhelmingly positive public response.

2. Not really an innovator? This is where you lose your credibility in the discussion. Segment-leading HP and torque, a 6-speed automatic transmission, not to mention bigger brake discs, 4 pistons per caliper on the front brakes, outboard staggered rear shocks, 4-wheel disc with rear sealed drums for parking brake, and the triple tech frame. Just because a Ford commercial with Toby Keith says go fully boxed doesn't mean he's right. Hey Toby, if fully boxed is so strong, then why are F-250 and F-350 trucks using C-channel frames??? Toyota's is boxed up front where needed, lipped C channel in the middle, and C in the back. The C's keep the truck lighter and give the frame a little flex when needed for off-road ride comfort.
Actually, this is where you prove that you don't understand what went wrong any better than Toyota does. More power, more gears in the tranny, bigger brakes, and a new idea of how to build a better truck frame are innovative? Not really, they're just more of what GM and Ford have been doing for years now. Truly being innovative means implementing something another auto maker cannot easily match, and isn't prepared to match for that matter, if they so choose. Examples?

Lets use the F-250 you cite above. Ford's Tow Command system is a good example, their upcoming TDi V8 is another. It is taking years for the competition to offer anything in response to Tow Command, and the only large truck manufacturer who might have a near future answer to Ford's upcoming smaller TDi V8 for use in the F250 and F150 is GM....and that will take at least two years if GM is lucky.

The new Tundra provides Toyota a basis from which they can improve and potentially play at the same level which GM and Ford do. But they aren't there yet.


GM basically took the GMT-800 and fixed the one major gripe people had about it --- the interior. If that's a "bunt", so be it, but you could easily argue that GM's trucks were going to look like a "bunt" because they had a lot less work to do compared to Toyota's Tundra.
To take the approach that GM has with a cash-infused competitor entering the field and Ford looking for blood with the next F150 (a new V8, a class first turbo-diesel V8, and a twin turbo V6.....that ain't a bunt) seems odd at best and terribly ill-advised at worst. There is nothing wrong with the new GM twins, but there is nothing especially compelling about them either. If there wasn't a trace of family resemblence I would never believe this is the same company that introduced the GMT400's twenty years ago. GM will regret these trucks before their lifespan is through.

who runs the tests is what i want to know? not saying this is whats going on but ive seen the way most of the " i love my domestic truck" people have been acting to the tundra, maybe they just knocked a star off to make the truck seem bad...

who runs the tests is what i want to know? not saying this is whats going on but ive seen the way most of the " i love my domestic truck" people have been acting to the tundra, maybe they just knocked a star off to make the truck seem bad...

Oh yes, come on with the conspiracies. What other one can we come up with?? There's got to be one about the Avalon's quality perception, and one about the oil sludge issue too. Hummmm, what could we blame that stuff on.....:lol:

To take the approach that GM has with a cash-infused competitor entering the field and Ford looking for blood with the next F150 (a new V8, a class first turbo-diesel V8, and a twin turbo V6.....that ain't a bunt) seems odd at best and terribly ill-advised at worst.

I have not heard about the twin turbo 6 for truck use, but the diesel V8 becoming available in half ton models is no big secret....in fact, GM has also shown off a smaller diesel V8 which will also find its way into the 900's, word is by 2009.

http://media.gm.com/servlet/GatewayServlet?target=http://image.emerald.gm.com/gmnews/viewpressreldetail.do?domain=38&docid=28147

Let's be honest, the reason Ford is developing an all-new V8 (code name Hurricane) is because they really NEED to. The Triton line, including the 5.4 has fallen to the back of the pack for top of the line motors.

I have not heard about the twin turbo 6 for truck use, but the diesel V8 becoming available in half ton models is no big secret....in fact, GM has also shown off a smaller diesel V8 which will also find its way into the 900's, word is by 2009.

http://media.gm.com/servlet/GatewayServlet?target=http://image.emerald.gm.com/gmnews/viewpressreldetail.do?domain=38&docid=28147

Let's be honest, the reason Ford is developing an all-new V8 (code name Hurricane) is because they really NEED to. The Triton line, including the 5.4 has fallen to the back of the pack for top of the line motors.


I was well aware of GM's light-duty turbo-diesel plans before your post. And while I appreciate optimism as much as the next guy even the GM generated press release you point to states that this engine will debut sometime after 2009 and not by 2009 as you indicate in your post. Take into account the fact that they are talking in terms of calender year here and this means that the earliest you can expect this to debut is sometime during the 2010 calender year which transaltes into the 2011 model year. Of course this assumes that GM means 2010 since 'after 2009' is pretty vague....and of course then we have to assume that GM can meet their somewhat optimistic, self-imposed time-table for this mill.

Also, if you read my post in full, I stated that the earliest GM could have such an engine in their trucks would be 2 years after the Ford TDi V8 debuts. Since Fords TDi V8 is set to debut sometime in the 2009MY at the latest, and aince we know from GM's own press release that the earliest we can realistically expect a GM rival will be in the 2011MY, I fail to see the inconsistency. In fact I'm giving GM the benefit of the doubt here and assuming that they will hit their target while Ford might miss their to come up with a gap as short as two years.

As for gasoline powered engines. Ford's new V8 is no longer referred to as Hurricane as that tag was replaced with the Boss moniker. Some recent rumours say that may be changed yet again, although this appears unlikely for several reasons. As for Ford needing a new V8 to compete with the largest offerings from Ford, GM, Dodge, Toyota, and Nissan .....I didn't state otherwise. But your post indicates that you believe Ford is simply looking for parity with the larger V8 engine offerings from GM and other rivals. And by appeances this seems to be what GM was thinking not so long ago as well. But, as GM apparently now knows this was a mistaker with info leaked by those close to the program indicating power numbers that will be best in class by some margin.

Verification that this is actually the case? Rumours indicate that GM may have entered something of a mad scramble of late to push forward upgrades to their own engine lineup. Some may try to discount this but if you see ripples in the water it's because somebody is making waves somewhere. Also, the upcoming twin turbo V6 slated for duty in the next F150 is already know to produce a minimum of 350hp and 375lb-ft tq in production trim. This may not seem signfiicant until you consider that this engine is meant as a mileage leading alternative to the upcoming Boss V8 engines and will slot below both Boss V8's in the power heirarchy.

Like I said before, GM will regret these new GMT's before all is said and done.

......Like I said before, GM will regret these new GMT's before all is said and done.

Your post seems fair enough. I never meant to imply that Ford's new motors are intended to "just catch up" with the competition. But I would expect a new Ford motor coming in the next F150 to be at least as powerful as the current 5.7 Tundra, if not moreso.

You also seem to make somewhat of an assumption that the GMT-900 must stand still in all this. Mid-cycle powertrain upgrades are among the easiest to implement. While I was completely disappointed that the 900s debuted with the old 4 speed auto in the lower end models, GM is working quickly to ramp up their new 6 speed transmission.

In closing, many reviews say the GMT-900 is the current benchmark for pickups. You can't ask for much more than that. Perhaps if the 6.0 made 15 more HP to trump the Toyota 5.7 you'd be more impressed. Then again, the new Sierra Denali is the first truck to offer 400 HP. And no one complains about the venerable 5.3, the engine that powers the majority of GM trucks sold. They gave it a modest increase in power and fuel economy. So I just don't see powertrains as being a problem.

Of course the new F150 will be the new benchmark. That's what happens when things are new.

But guys, we cannot say the Tundra is a benchmark. It is not, it is only an improvement for Toyota to make a better truck. Toyota shouldn't be seen as a competitor but an option for those who do not need a fully capable truck. 4 out of 5 stars still isn't bad and you will still live.

GM and Ford do make a better truck because they have experience in the full-size market. Toyota is going to get there sooner or later with the next generation after this one.

Actually, this is where you prove that you don't understand what went wrong any better than Toyota does. More power, more gears in the tranny, bigger brakes, and a new idea of how to build a better truck frame are innovative? Not really, they're just more of what GM and Ford have been doing for years now. Truly being innovative means implementing something another auto maker cannot easily match, and isn't prepared to match for that matter, if they so choose.


If Ford and GM have been doing this for years, why don't they have this stuff in their 1/2 ton pickups?

As for the Tow Command on the F-250, I imagine Toyota will offer something when they bring a 3/4, 1-ton, and diesel truck to market in the next 2-3 years. Ford and GM had a 50 year head-start.

As for the issue of rebates, Toyota clearly did miss the boat on the base cab trucks. The cheap work truck isn't so cheap at $23,000, so that's the main reason for the $2-3K rebates.

But a 5.7L 4x4 double cab short bed truck is a hard find. Most dealerships, including here in Kentucky, are on a wait list for that or any Crew Max.

Not every configuration is kicking butt, but the key ones are. And from what I hear, Toyota is planning to change how the dealers preference and order the truck to keep up with what Ford and GM dealers do.

But your characterization that this was a total miss is far from the truth.

If Ford and GM have been doing this for years, why don't they have this stuff in their 1/2 ton pickups?

And now you are missing the point too. More hp, more tq, bigger brakes, more gears in the transmission......all of these are a part of the full-size game of one-upmanship Ford and GM have been playing in ernest for decades. The problem with relying on these to give you an advantage is that they have a very low life expectancy in that respect and don't really do anything to differentiate you from the competition. In essence they make you king for a day.

Don't get me wrong, you have to play this game to seriously contend in this marekt. but you have to do something else as well, and preferably it needs to be something that truly sets you apart.

As for the Tow Command on the F-250, I imagine Toyota will offer something when they bring a 3/4, 1-ton, and diesel truck to market in the next 2-3 years. Ford and GM had a 50 year head-start.

They may indeed offer something similar. But again, the issue with Tow Command is that the system was truly ground breaking when it debuted and made everybody say 'why didn't we think of that'. What about the new Tundra really makes you stop and wonder why everybody isn't doing it? Realistically, not much.

As for the issue of rebates, Toyota clearly did miss the boat on the base cab trucks. The cheap work truck isn't so cheap at $23,000, so that's the main reason for the $2-3K rebates. But a 5.7L 4x4 double cab short bed truck is a hard find. Most dealerships, including here in Kentucky, are on a wait list for that or any Crew Max.

To be fair product mix is hurting Toyota right now, and once that issue is resolved things will improve somewhat. But frankly part of the reason the mix is off is due to the fact that a lot of the customers Toyota thought they might swayu in the work truck market weren't. And a lot of the folks buying those Tundra double cabs are repeat Toyota customers upgrading to the newest thing. While earning repeat business is a good thing the above scenario isn't what Toyota wants, and certainly doesn't bode well given the fact that numbers aren't much better than last year. What happens when the repeat customer surge dies? At this rate I geneuinely expect all Tundra's to have rebates equal to what the base trucks do now within a year, and for base trucks to double current rebate levels.

Not every configuration is kicking butt, but the key ones are. And from what I hear, Toyota is planning to change how the dealers preference and order the truck to keep up with what Ford and GM dealers do.

This is a good idea.

But your characterization that this was a total miss is far from the truth.

It is an evolutionary step in the right direction, and in some ways is very compelling, But a few key areas are conspiring to hurt this truck badly. A face-lift, a lower msrp, and the addition of something truly innovative like a TDi V8 would do wonders for Toyota's Tundra.