Toyota's new Tundra strikes fear among Big 3

toyotafanfan
04-12-2007, 11:18 AM
An actual fair review on Toyota from the Detroit News


Toyota's new Tundra strikes fear among Big 3, but it's not perfect http://info.detnews.com/autosconsumer/autoreviews/index.cfm?id=25219

Nearly everyone in Detroit resents the 2007 Toyota Tundra.
Big Three executives wring their hands over its arrival and critique every square inch. Metro Detroiters, the most car-educated population in the world, spend hours berating it on the Internet. Even before they see it up close or drive it, everyone wants to weigh in on it.
Combining Toyota Motor Corp.'s years of success, American carmakers' floundering sales and a fear of the unknown, it's as if Chicken Little has come home to roost in the Motor City.
http://info.detnews.com/dn/pix/folios/morephotos.gif (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:getautosgallery%28%2707toyotatundracrewmax%27 %29) And the 2007 Toyota Tundra packs plenty to scare the bejesus out of the American pickup makers: The second-generation Tundra is the best truck Toyota Motor Corp. has ever built.
It's big, it's powerful, and it promises more potency than a Viagra commercial: Bigger brakes, bigger gears and a bigger body must mean it's a bigger truck.
All told, Toyota intends to sell 200,000 Tundras this year, the most ever by a foreign company in the United States.
The Tundra, while good, isn't perfect and still needs to improve in some areas to stack up against Detroit's best.
Unlike its underpowered predecessor, which lacked size and variety, the new Tundra comes in 31 variations: Toyota offers three engines, three cab styles, three trim levels and an assortment of bed configurations. While a huge leap for Toyota, it falls short of the choices available from the Big Three pickups. General Motors, for example, also offers a number of suspension packages. The Tundra has only one heavy-duty suspension.
However, the independent double wishbone front suspension and rear leaf springs, both with nitrogen gas shocks, provided an excellent ride on the SR5 4x4 Double Cab I tested for a week. I hardly ever noticed a bump, even near my home in Gibraltar, a small town renowned for boating and railroad crossings.
Truck flies but gulps gas
Equipped with Toyota's all-new 381-horsepower 5.7-liter i-Force V-8, the truck flies. This aluminum block engine, which will make its way into other Toyota products, such as the 2008 Lexus LX 570 SUV, creates 401-pound-feet of torque. The power provides excellent acceleration off the line and the six-speed transmission is velvety smooth when passing on the highway.
The sheer size makes tight turns a little difficult, but driving this beast was much more fun than I anticipated. The rack-and-pinion steering is crisp and clean. It's effortless to maneuver and precise. Point it in the right direction and the Tundra gets there quickly and quietly. Wind and engine noise was nearly nonexistent and road noise from the standard 18-inch tires is nil. Libraries are louder than this brute idling.
However, all that power comes with a price: While Toyota says the engine, which can tow up to 10,800 pounds, should get 18 miles per gallon on the highway, I was never able to average more than 15.8 mpg, according to the truck's readout. Around town, I managed 12.7 mpg, despite an EPA number of 14 mpg city driving.
Part of my low city mileage could be attributed to aggressive driving. Between the engine's power and the truck's intimidating size, I always felt like the biggest dog in the pack and drove accordingly.
Two smaller engines are available for the Tundra: A 4-liter V-6 and a 4.7-liter V-8, which push 236 and 271 horses, respectively. Both come with five-speed automatic transmissions and provide moderately better gas mileage than the 5.7-liter engine. The biggest engine can tow up to 10,800 pounds.
It's big -- maybe too big
Toyota increased the Tundra's length, height, wheelbase and width. Measuring 6 feet, 3 inches tall, up to 19 feet long and 6 feet, 10 inches wide, the Tundra wouldn't squeeze into my garage.
Its front end conveys its massive size. A sculpted hood, huge thee-bar grille and oversized vented bumper combine some of the best looks of the American trucks. There's some Dodge Ram in the hood folds, some Ford F-150 in the grille and some Chevy Silverado in the bumper. The elements piece together nicely, especially with the oversized headlights that wrap around the front corner.
It looks good, but it's hardly original.
From the side, the Tundra looks disproportionate, especially when equipped with an extra long bed or largest cab. The front end looks too short and the four-door CrewMax cab looks too big. In fairness, this is not just a Toyota problem. Ford, Dodge and Chevy all have similar profiles -- victims of equating virility to cab length.
Perhaps one of the most innovative features on the truck's exterior is the tailgate. A mechanism allows the tailgate to fall slowly when opening. Just pop the latch, let go and watch it softly plop open. It's also easy to lift. Ride with the tailgate down and it won't pop up and bang in place every time you drive over a subcompact.
A clean, functional interior
The Tundra's interior is simple, clean and oversized. The center console alone can serve as an office (there's a spot for hanging folders), a serving tray (room for a Big Gulp) and a reception desk (drop your cell phone just about anywhere. However, don't let it fall into the passenger's foot well -- you won't be able to reach it from the driver's seat.
The center stack, auto talk for the place where the radio goes and other items stacked around it, was designed to use while wearing work gloves. I tried it, and it works. The knobs are big and chunky, easy to use and everything is within reach. While the center of the dash was well laid out, the instrument gauges behind the wheel were pushed too deeply into the dash, making them harder to read, especially during the day. At night, they looked fine.
Inside there are lots of helpful little features: Two 12-volt power outlets, a second glove box on the dash, storage nooks along the doors and map pockets on the back. Everything feels nicely organized and thoughtfully constructed. The second-row seats fold up or down, depending on your needs. While it's nice, I never felt at home in the Tundra. Its interior felt clinical and devoid of personality. It's functional, but not inspiring.
A base model Tundra starts at $22,935, including $645 shipping, and moves into the low $40,000s for a top-of-the-line model. The Tundra offers a lot of choices for the money, though its starting price is higher than some of the competition. A base model F-150 starts at $19,000 and a base model Chevy is even less. Toyota says its truck is competitively priced because it provides so much additional content, especially when comparing equally equipped more expensive models.
Don't underestimate this truck. The Tundra is not likely to fail, especially with the billions Toyota has invested in its trucking future, such as the new Tundra factory in San Antonio, Texas.
The 2007 Tundra may not have hit all eight cylinders, but it creates a strong foundation, and perseverance plays to Toyota's strong suit.
The sky hasn't fallen since the Tundra arrived, but this Toyota will continue to improve in the years to come.
Scott Burgess is the auto critic for The Detroit News. He can be reached at (313) 223-3217 or sburgess@detnews.com.

http://info.detnews.com/pix/folios/dot.gif

05MonteSSSC
04-12-2007, 11:22 AM
An actual fair review on Toyota from the Detroit News

Toyota's new Tundra strikes fear among Big 3, but it's not perfect http://info.detnews.com/pix/folios/dot.gif


So where in the article does it show that any of the big 3 are afraid? I must have missed that part....:rolleyes:

andy82481
04-12-2007, 11:38 AM
So where in the article does it show that any of the big 3 are afraid? I must have missed that part....:rolleyes:

The Detroit 3 are definitely concerned if not afraid. I think GM would be ok, I am more worried about FORD, DODGE and NISSAN.

05MonteSSSC
04-12-2007, 11:44 AM
I will definitely agree they are concerned, but I think fear would be an overstatement. :)

toyotafanfan
04-12-2007, 11:57 AM
So where in the article does it show that any of the big 3 are afraid? I must have missed that part....:rolleyes:

Hey its Detriot new's headline, not mine.

fan

05MonteSSSC
04-12-2007, 01:01 PM
Yah, just saw that. I always get a kick outta the media's doom and gloom headlines. :)

Z28Wilson
04-12-2007, 01:27 PM
Of course they're going to be concerned. I'd be more fearful for GM/Ford/Dodge trucks if they weren't concerned about the new Tundra.

syr74
04-12-2007, 02:34 PM
Concerned. Of course they are, or at least they should be. Fearful? Perhaps before the current truck debuted and everybody was left wondering what seriously cash-endowed Toyota might roll out. But that seems extremely unlikely now that they have seen it and the market's reaction to it..

SILVERadoTACOMA
04-12-2007, 04:00 PM
GM's finally fighting back?

Let’s start with the Sierra Denali’s power and drivetrain. There’s been considerable gnashing of teeth from domestic pickup fans because Toyota’s remade 2007 Tundra was the first and only half-ton to offer a six-speed automatic gearbox and the most powerful gas engine in a standard duty pickup. The small block 5.7-liter iForce DOHC V8 engine in the Tundra is rated at 381 horsepower and 401 lb-feet of torque. But Tundra’s brief reign as power king is over, because the Sierra Denali checks the Tundra’s tranny with its 6L80E six-speed shifter and checkmates the iForce with GM’s mighty Corvette-inspired 6.2-liter L92 Vortec V8. The quasi big block pounds out 403 horsepower and 417 lb-feet of torque. The L92 and 6L80E are GMC exclusives this year but all GM light duty pickups will start to replace their four-speed 4L80E transmissions with the 6L80E in the 2008 model year, as build capacity increases. The Vortec meets other iForce powertrain advances head-on to also offer variable valve timing (another Sierra Denali first for a pickups with pushrod engines) for both the intake and exhaust valve timing. VVT helps bump up torque on the low end and horsepower on the high end. More on this later.
Now, let’s give these figures some perspective through a virtual drag contest against the Toyota. Edmunds.com timed (http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FullTests/articleId=119089) a 2007 Toyota Tundra Double Cab 4x4 with the 5.7-liter iForce with almost identical results. For both trucks the quarter mile and 0 to 60 times are the same, but the Sierra Denali finished .2 miles per hour faster than the 93.7-mph scored by the Tundra. Where it gets interesting is that the Denali is geared for better fuel economy targets while the Tundra is geared for better towing performance. The Denali’s final drive ratio is a stocky 3.42:1, to help push up its CAFE scores, but the 6L80E’s broad range compensates by using an extremely low 4.03 first gear and VVT to ensure quick starts off the line. The tested Tundra had a much lower 4.1 rear axle ratio, as it was optionally equipped with a trailering package to tow a hefty 10,400-lbs - 1,700-lbs more than the Denali - and it used a 3.33 first gear for launch. One final consideration, the Denali ran the track shod with 20-inch chromed dubs while the Edmunds Tundra used 18-inch wheels.

Huge drawback.... I'd be willing to bet this baby comes in at 45K +

http://www.pickuptruck.com/html/2007/gmc/sierra/roadtest/page1.html

gear_head
04-12-2007, 04:23 PM
The Denali's ratings are based off of premium fuel not 87 octane. This is typically 20 hp advantage in an engine of this size/power. Not to mention the EPA mileage is based of of premium fuel and 10% greater cost of fuel is 10% less mpg compared ot 87 octane.

SILVERadoTACOMA
04-12-2007, 04:33 PM
The Denali's ratings are based off of premium fuel not 87 octane. This is typically 20 hp advantage in an engine of this size/power. Not to mention the EPA mileage is based of of premium fuel and 10% greater cost of fuel is 10% less mpg compared ot 87 octane.
I don't think so, unless you know something I don't.

I searched on the Denali website and could not find anything that indicated that the engine must be run on premium. Typically, if anything other than 87 is required, there will be an asteric next to the HP and TQ numbers. I couldn't find anything like that on the Denali site.

According to the site, msrp should be between 39-42K

syr74
04-12-2007, 04:51 PM
I don't think so, unless you know something I don't.

I searched on the Denali website and could not find anything that indicated that the engine must be run on premium. Typically, if anything other than 87 is required, there will be an asteric next to the HP and TQ numbers. I couldn't find anything like that on the Denali site.

According to the site, msrp should be between 39-42K

IIRC the epa and hp figures for the GM engine are obtained on premium even though the engine only requires regular. If you don't run premium the computer will simply retard the timing a few degrees, etc so you don't get detonation. The engine will run just fine like this, but then the hp and epa figures no longer apply. Also, it is my understanding that Toyota does the same with some of their engines but I couldn't tell you if the Tundra's V8 is among them.

SILVERadoTACOMA
04-12-2007, 05:21 PM
Learn something new everyday!

:D

gear_head
04-12-2007, 06:20 PM
IIRC the epa and hp figures for the GM engine are obtained on premium even though the engine only requires regular. If you don't run premium the computer will simply retard the timing a few degrees, etc so you don't get detonation. The engine will run just fine like this, but then the hp and epa figures no longer apply. Also, it is my understanding that Toyota does the same with some of their engines but I couldn't tell you if the Tundra's V8 is among them.

The Tundra's 5.7 power and mileage ratings are derived from 87 octane which is specified as the recommended fuel. If the Denali's 6.2L in it's current configuration would have been designed for 87 octane as the recommended fuel, one could assume a 20 horsepower/torque loss and a rating around 383hp 397tq. This 20 horsepower/torque is assumed because of the difference between GM's LQ4 and LQ9 6.0L engines. The LQ9 being essentially the same engine but with higher compression to utilize the "premium fuel recommended but not required" spec. and 20 more hp and tq.

ECHOKnight2000
04-12-2007, 07:59 PM
I don't know if you guys seen the commercials, they've been out for awhile but Ford came out with one similar to Toyota's truck ads, at least in principle, comparing one competitors features to another, like the one stating the full boxed frame vs non-fully boxed frame-something along those lines. So that's one indication they are worried, but I don't think like to the point of panic (at least for the truck market-at this point at least). Yes the new Tundra will strike a cord among its competitors like any other new product in the auto market but I think overall the domestics aren't too worried, just keeping an eye out and see how the Tundra does regarless if the sales dwarf what the domestics put out, which I know it does anyway.:thumbup:

TravisAe86
04-15-2007, 05:22 PM
lets see honda bulid a REAL truck...lol vtec 5.8 liter 10,000rpm

plane
04-18-2007, 10:45 PM
The Denali's ratings are based off of premium fuel not 87 octane. This is typically 20 hp advantage in an engine of this size/power. Not to mention the EPA mileage is based of of premium fuel and 10% greater cost of fuel is 10% less mpg compared ot 87 octane.

This article seems to be in conflict with what you've posted:

http://www.radartest.com/article_2.asp?articleid=100561

The author even put the truck through the 1/4 mile, ran 15's and with virtually no difference between 87 and Premium.


Where does Toyota provide SAE-certified torque and hp numbers? Or is that even available?

http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/2007/HPT%20Library/Gen%20IV/Gen%20IV%20Truck/2007_6200_L92_Sierra_Denali_SAE.pdf

Toysrme
04-18-2007, 11:11 PM
All figures are corrected to current SAE standards. Engine brake dynos done to the new SAE standard are in every Toyota engine's data sheet in the repair manual.





Power figures must now be run on the recommended fuel. If an engine is sold as preffered to run 87 octane. It will be rated at 87 octane. This is also why a 3.5L 2gr-fe in a Camry makes 268hp, while the identical engine in an ES 350 makes 272bhp.

A 20 horsepower differance is nice bullshit, even on 8 cylinders. That tells you the tuning of the engine is piss-fucking-poor, or that it is being SEVERLY knock limited - to the extint an engine would never make it out the door in the first place, for fears of massive warranty claims.

plane
04-20-2007, 01:42 AM
All figures are corrected to current SAE standards. Engine brake dynos done to the new SAE standard are in every Toyota engine's data sheet in the repair manual.

Hidden away on your desktop? Under a half-eaten ham sandwich? :)
Come on. Posting that information on the web would be much better.




Power figures must now be run on the recommended fuel. If an engine is sold as preffered to run 87 octane. It will be rated at 87 octane. This is also why a 3.5L 2gr-fe in a Camry makes 268hp, while the identical engine in an ES 350 makes 272bhp.

GM recommends 87 octane for the 6.2L. The SAE test results are based on 87 octane gasoline.


A 20 horsepower differance is nice bullshit, even on 8 cylinders. That tells you the tuning of the engine is piss-fucking-poor, or that it is being SEVERLY knock limited - to the extint an engine would never make it out the door in the first place, for fears of massive warranty claims.

Where did you come up with a 20 horsepower difference? It sure looked like 15.48 versus 15.68 in the 1/4 mile in that article, which would mean no difference between 87 and 91 octane gas.

gear_head
04-20-2007, 08:35 AM
Where did you come up with a 20 horsepower difference? It sure looked like 15.48 versus 15.68 in the 1/4 mile in that article, which would mean no difference between 87 and 91 octane gas.

The Denali lost 1.8 miles per hour in the quarter mile mph trap speed on 87 octane. Trap speed is an indicator of horsepower. Here is a horsepower calculator using knowns of vehicle weight and it's quarter mile trap speed. http://www.speedworldmotorplex.com/calc.htm


Denali(87 octane) - 90mph, 5886lbs(incl 180lb driver) = 335 hp at the rear wheels
Denali(91 octane) - 91.8mph, 5886lbs(inc 180 lb driver) = 355 hp at the rear wheels
A 20 rear wheel horsepower/24 flywheel horsepower loss from using 87 octane.
Still not convinced? Look at GM's LQ4 and LQ9 6.0l engines, they are 20 hp apart with the LQ9 having higher compression and a premium fuel recomendation. The engines are mechanically the same except for pistons - compression ratio.

Comparing the Tundra(Edmunds test) and Denali(Trucktrend test)...
The Tundra had a 93.7 mph trap speed for the Edmund' test. Test altitude list at 1121 ft above sea level.
Tundra 93.7 mph, 5817lbs(w/driver) = 373hp at rear wheels

The Denali had a 93.9 mph trap speed for Trucktrend's test.
Old Bridge Township Park Raceway in New Jersey is listed at 60 ft above sea level.
Denali 93.9 mph, 5886 lbs(w/driver) = 380 at rear wheels

The Tundra was tested 1061 feet higher altitude than the Denali. This is a 12 hp disadvantage for the Tundra. Tundra's rear wheel horsepower is 385 adjusted for altitude.
That would put the Tundra's rear wheel horsepower at 385 - on 87 octane.
12 hp would also give the Tundra a higher trap speed - on 87 octane

Altitude HP loss formula
(elevation(ft) x .03 x hp)/1000

The Denali in the Trucktrend test most likely had more advantageous(cooler) temperatures being tested in late March in NJ.

All new engines are rated at the new SAE standard. Certification - 3rd party witness is optional. After seeing the Silverado in the Edmunds test perform like it had 60 less horsepower(4 sec delay) than it's SAE Certified rating, your horsepower Certification argument does not hold too much weight.

Toysrme
04-20-2007, 01:10 PM
Hidden away on your desktop? Under a half-eaten ham sandwich? :)
Come on. Posting that information on the web would be much better.
Or you could get off your lazy ass and get it yourself lol!
Where did you come up with a 20 horsepower difference? It sure looked like 15.48 versus 15.68 in the 1/4 mile in that article, which would mean no difference between 87 and 91 octane gas.
See gearhead's previous post.

Car_Lover
05-17-2007, 04:48 AM
Do they, well that's great news. I think that Toyota can keep up with competitors with the Tundra.


______________
Caloy
Download Parkinson Cowan manuals (http://www.manualshark.org/b/parkinson-cowan-16/)

andy82481
05-18-2007, 08:52 AM
Wow I thought GM fanboys would trump the 6.2L engine as their ace. Doesnt look like much of an advantage for me. Looks like those 400 Horses have gotten a bit lazy or GM is overrating the 6.2L engine's power output