When will Toyota do to the Tundra, what the big 3 did

[PeterPolyol]

Originally Posted By: SatinSilver
Originally Posted By: PeterPolyol
Toyota's cafe satisfaction comes from a large amount of purchased credits from other businesses. They're not doing it honestly, if that's what you're suggesting

I see your Toyota thread was locked up:

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4748513/Taxpayers_pay_$220M_for_Toyota#Post4748513


What kind of a wizard of perception and relevance are you?

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: PeterPolyol
Toyota's cafe satisfaction comes from a large amount of purchased credits from other businesses. They're not doing it honestly, if that's what you're suggesting

Quite the claim, particularly since you're talking about the company that sells more hybrid vehicles than any other.

Got any credible sources to back up your claim?

 

[PeterPolyol]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
the company that sells more hybrid vehicles than any other.

Got any credible sources to back up your claim?

I know, right??! The company that sells more hybrids and underpowered, 1990's-engined chintz boxes worldwide sucks so bad, that they need to buy credits from Tesla et al just to meet CAFE. How bad is that? GM, Ford, Honda and others all buy credits, but sell far less hybrids and chintzboxes than Toyota. Are Toyotas gas guzzling models really that bad? Seems like it...

 

[E365]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
There's no incentive to do what you propose: expensive new engineering tech for better MPG.

Toyota sells a ton of good MPG cars, so their CAFE is high.

The domestics sell a ton of pickups and have to use every trick to get those vehicles to achieve decent MPG so that they can meet CAFE.

I bought a Tundra specifically because it eschews the gimmickry that the domestics have piled into their trucks. I simply don't trust that all that tech will be reliable.

Give me a simple V-8, in a reliable truck. That's what I want, and, I think I'm not alone.


Well that’s the first time I’ve heard a GM small block or Hemi referred to as “gimmicky” and having “all that tech”.

 

[edwardh1]

bring back the Datsun 210, but with a modern engine- why are trucks so big????

 

[eljefino]

Originally Posted By: edwardh1
bring back the Datsun 210, but with a modern engine- why are trucks so big????


The bigger the footprint, the lower the CAFE target.

Look at a Corolla even, it grew huge but it's mostly bumper scoops and other plastic chintzy stuff tacked on the far exterior corners.

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/10/how-cafe-killed-compact-trucks-and-station-wagons/

In 2006, CAFE altered the formula for its 2011 fuel economy targets, by calculating a vehicle’s “footprint”, which is the vehicle’s wheelbase multiplied by its wheel track. The footprint is expressed in square feet, and calculating this value is probably the most transparent part of the regulations. Fuel economy targets are a function of a vehicle’s footprint; the smaller the footprint, the tougher the standards are. A car such as the Honda Fit, with its footprint of 40 square feet, has to achieve 61 mpg CAFE, or 43 mpg IRL by 2025 to comply with regulations. At the opposite end of the spectrum, a full-size truck like the Ford F-150, with a footprint of 75 square feet, only needs to hit 30 mpg CAFE, or 23 mpg IRL, by the same timeframe.

 

[maxdustington]

Originally Posted By: Muskieteer
If you think toyota trucks were tough in the 80's and 90's then you should check out the current gen. Toughest and most reliable around. Still the best bang for your buck when all things are considered.


If that were the case you would see them as the #1 choice in North America for commercial vehicles. When you see them as work trucks, they are pavement queens driven by supervisors.

Definitely not bang for buck, you can tell American manufacturers are a lot more competitive. Toyota's engine selction on full sized still lacks a 4 cyl or diesel option. You pay for the name at purchase and at the pump.

They do not take any chances to sell more vehicles here, that is why the North American Toyota trucks are watered down compared to international models.

Hilux and T100 are awesome trucks, but that was 20 years ago now. It is ok to admit the American trucks sold in North America are better than the North American Toyota trucks at doing truck things.

 

[Zee09]

But they are still toys. Seriously.

 

[MNgopher]

Originally Posted By: NH73
But as those smaller displacement engines, for one, you have run on premium gas to get the rated hp and torque, and you have to drive like a grandpa just to get the good mpg's. Otherwise, they hardly do better than a V8. The word on the street is from guys that buy pickups to constantly pull and haul heavy is that the V8's just make better mpg's and the turbos give out early for then. But they do perform good. I think GM has it going good for them in shutting off cylinders.


No on requiring premium to develop the rated Hp and Torque for the Ford Ecoboosts in the F150. (Other vehicles yes, but the F150's are rated on regular gas).

Per fuelly, the 2.7 ecoboost regularly out performs the V8 in the fuel mileage department. The 3.5 is less so. And yes, if you always tow, the V8 may deliver better fuel economy, but deliver its power differently and loses more power at altitude.

Where are all the stories of turbos failing left and right? I'd love to see them...

 

[MNgopher]

I'm not here to denigrate the Tundra in any way. It is what it is, as are the trucks from the other 3. They all have their strengths and weaknesses.

As to the Tundra, I didn't buy one because it felt like I would be buying the exact same 12 year old truck I was trying to replace. For some that's a plus. For me, it wasn't worth buying a truck that felt a decade old when I bought it... And got the same fuel mileage to boot.

I also didn't buy a ram for the fuel mileage reason. The truck was decent enough, but again no improvement in fuel mileage over what I owned before.

The GM trucks got better fuel mileage, had a transmission and pedal feel I didn't like, and that was that.

I bought one of those "gimmicky" trucks, enjoy my 19 MPG average driving it in the exact same use as my old V8 truck delivered 14.25 mpg, and is in every way a nicer truck to drive and live with day to day. I also don't cringe nearly as much as pump prices rise again... I've had no warranty issues, and its 2.7 liters tow circles around my old truck.

I'm not saying my choice works for everyone, but if you want a truck that feels like a older truck, than the Tundra may be the right choice for you... Just glad there are other choices out there...

 

[Zee09]

Originally Posted By: MNgopher
I'm not here to denigrate the Tundra in any way. It is what it is, as are the trucks from the other 3. They all have their strengths and weaknesses.

As to the Tundra, I didn't buy one because it felt like I would be buying the exact same 12 year old truck I was trying to replace. For some that's a plus. For me, it wasn't worth buying a truck that felt a decade old when I bought it... And got the same fuel mileage to boot.

I also didn't buy a ram for the fuel mileage reason. The truck was decent enough, but again no improvement in fuel mileage over what I owned before.

The GM trucks got better fuel mileage, had a transmission and pedal feel I didn't like, and that was that.

I bought one of those "gimmicky" trucks, enjoy my 19 MPG average driving it in the exact same use as my old V8 truck delivered 14.25 mpg, and is in every way a nicer truck to drive and live with day to day. I also don't cringe nearly as much as pump prices rise again... I've had no warranty issues, and its 2.7 liters tow circles around my old truck.

I'm not saying my choice works for everyone, but if you want a truck that feels like a older truck, than the Tundra may be the right choice for you... Just glad there are other choices out there...



That is what it is all about.
You buy what suits you.
I shop hard and have no brand loyalty.
Can I live with this or not is my bottom line.

 

[NH73]

Originally Posted By: MNgopher
Originally Posted By: NH73
But as those smaller displacement engines, for one, you have run on premium gas to get the rated hp and torque, and you have to drive like a grandpa just to get the good mpg's. Otherwise, they hardly do better than a V8. The word on the street is from guys that buy pickups to constantly pull and haul heavy is that the V8's just make better mpg's and the turbos give out early for then. But they do perform good. I think GM has it going good for them in shutting off cylinders.


No on requiring premium to develop the rated Hp and Torque for the Ford Ecoboosts in the F150. (Other vehicles yes, but the F150's are rated on regular gas).

Per fuelly, the 2.7 ecoboost regularly out performs the V8 in the fuel mileage department. The 3.5 is less so. And yes, if you always tow, the V8 may deliver better fuel economy, but deliver its power differently and loses more power at altitude.

Where are all the stories of turbos failing left and right? I'd love to see them...

Alright, I concede. I just looked at the specs. and no where was premium fuel even mentioned or recommended. I know with some of Ford's ecoboost in other vehicles they do require or recommend use of premium fuel. At 19 mpg, that is great. For me, that may something worth considering. as far as those turbos giving out, I have heard it through family, friends, and co-workers, so I really don't have a source to back up.

 

[Hall]

Originally Posted By: Cup of Joe
It's coming soon by Toyota standards.

I say that because I have shopped New tundra's and asked specifically when a redesign is expected and Toyota is using a research company to gather data on what Toyota owners would like to see in a new truck.


In this case, "soon" may be 3-5 years out if they're only now starting to collect data on customer wishes.

 

[Hall]

In the case of Toyota, with their Prius, Corolla, and Camry getting relatively good MPG, they can sacrifice some with their Tundras. They only sell ~200k a year compared to Ford selling what, 800k to a million F-150s ? All those F-150s impact Ford's fleet CAFE numbers, don't they ? And for a full-size truck, at least with the 2.7L Ecoboost, it gets pretty [censored] good MPG (on paper).

I did see a funny video done by a Ford dealership where they went around their shop asking their mechanics which F-150 they would pick (engine) if one was given to them. As I recall, every one of them said "V8". Maybe one of them said one of the Ecoboost engines but I can't remember for sure now. I'm sure Ford wouldn't approve of that video !

 

[cb_13]

I laugh about that dealership video every time I see it. The lube techs saying that the v8 pulls better than the 3.5 gtdi obviously have not drove one. My '12
F150 with a 3.5 is the strongest pulling half ton I've owned and I've had plenty of V8's. The low end torque of the 3.5 is something I really like. Not everyone
will be as thrilled with it as I am. To some putting loud exhaust on is more important and the 3.5 sounds horrible with loud exhaust.

As far as reliability, anything can fail and sure turbos are something else that could go out. The truth of it is though that turbos are not new tech. At the dealership I work for we have seen minimal turbo issues from the 3.5 F150's. Actually overall we still do more engine work on the previous generation 5.4 3v and traded in 5.3's with AFM.

 

[Vern_in_IL]

People do not buy trucks for the MPG..... you buy for off road (the Tacoma, Nissan also) cargo and towing your boat.

 

[hatt]

Originally Posted By: E365
Originally Posted By: Astro14
There's no incentive to do what you propose: expensive new engineering tech for better MPG.

Toyota sells a ton of good MPG cars, so their CAFE is high.

The domestics sell a ton of pickups and have to use every trick to get those vehicles to achieve decent MPG so that they can meet CAFE.

I bought a Tundra specifically because it eschews the gimmickry that the domestics have piled into their trucks. I simply don't trust that all that tech will be reliable.

Give me a simple V-8, in a reliable truck. That's what I want, and, I think I'm not alone.


Well that’s the first time I’ve heard a GM small block or Hemi referred to as “gimmicky” and having “all that tech”.
Displacement on demand(or whatever it's called)? Plenty of people hace problems with that.

 

[double vanos]

Turbos give out early? News to me. My ‘11 F150 EB is at 117k miles still sporting the same turbos it came with. Maybe I should swap them out as preventative maintenance, just in case.



Not.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: E365
Originally Posted By: Astro14
There's no incentive to do what you propose: expensive new engineering tech for better MPG.

Toyota sells a ton of good MPG cars, so their CAFE is high.

The domestics sell a ton of pickups and have to use every trick to get those vehicles to achieve decent MPG so that they can meet CAFE.

I bought a Tundra specifically because it eschews the gimmickry that the domestics have piled into their trucks. I simply don't trust that all that tech will be reliable.

Give me a simple V-8, in a reliable truck. That's what I want, and, I think I'm not alone.


Well that’s the first time I’ve heard a GM small block or Hemi referred to as “gimmicky” and having “all that tech”.


Both have cylinder deactivation. (At least in the 1/2 ton models, comparable to the Tundra).

That's a gimmick.

And a tech solution purely for fuel economy.

I don't care to discover the long term durability of those systems first hand.

Add in these "features":
Push button eight speed transmission
Radiator shutters that vary with speed
Variable intake runners
Twin turbo V-6s
Air ride

I like the Hemi. I've owned several SBCs. I don't mind the aluminum body parts, and I'm not afraid of tech (with a twin turbo V-12 that has active suspension).

But the new crop of the Big 3 1/2 ton pickups are riddled with new features and tech that has yet to be proven. The Tundra's V-8 is straight forward and sounds great when you rev it up. The 1794 interior is more simple and more elegant than the domestic competition. The truck itself is old school under the skin.

And that's what I really wanted - simple and reliable.

I don't care about the MPG.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: E365
Originally Posted By: Astro14
There's no incentive to do what you propose: expensive new engineering tech for better MPG.

Toyota sells a ton of good MPG cars, so their CAFE is high.

The domestics sell a ton of pickups and have to use every trick to get those vehicles to achieve decent MPG so that they can meet CAFE.

I bought a Tundra specifically because it eschews the gimmickry that the domestics have piled into their trucks. I simply don't trust that all that tech will be reliable.

Give me a simple V-8, in a reliable truck. That's what I want, and, I think I'm not alone.


Well that’s the first time I’ve heard a GM small block or Hemi referred to as “gimmicky” and having “all that tech”.
Displacement on demand(or whatever it's called)? Plenty of people hace problems with that.


The vast majority are problem-free however, and I believe GM has had more issues (oil consumption) than Chrysler in that respect. Our '06 Charger had MDS, it was problem-free, these things are not new, they've been around for more than a decade.

Toyota has had plenty of their own issues, like their massive sludge saga, frames rotting out from beneath their trucks...etc. Choosing MDS as the hill to die on, particularly given that it generally hasn't been problematic, seems ridiculous. Comically, about the worst MDS system I'm aware of, has been Honda's