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

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: 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.


Variable intake runners have been in use since at least the 90's, that's not new tech. As I mentioned to hatt, MDS has been around for at least 12 years, again, not new. The ZF 8 speed transmission has also been around for quite some time and has been put behind the 707HP Hellcat mill, if there were durability issues with it, they would be discovered in that application.

Saying MDS is a gimmick because its purpose is for fuel economy benefits is a slippery slope.
- Fuel Injection was also designed for this purpose
- Port injection, as an improvement to TBI increase efficiency yet again
- Direct injection, the latest incarnation has been more problematic than MDS could ever hope to be
- Oxygen sensors instead of running on base table, and then wide-band oxygen sensors
- Lean-burn ECM programming
- Electronic throttle bodies
- Variable camshaft timing

How far are we going to go with this? [censored], we were chasing fuel economy with lean-burn carbs back in the 1970's, EGR is also intended to aide in fuel economy.

It's a gimmick if its actual impact is far less than claimed and primarily serves as marketing malarky, MDS doesn't fall into that category, IMHO, it actually does yield significant improvements in fuel economy and that's why my DD gets reasonable gas mileage while making 470HP out of a 6.4L V8.

Radiator shutters that vary with speed? That's more of a gimmick here, IMHO, as the benefit will be nary zero, but the added complexity and potential for issues? Significant.

 

[hatt]

A lot of the stuff you list has been perfected over many generations and was basically universal in application. That's not the same as some of this newer tech. I happily passed on the Ecoboost engines for the much more mature Coyote.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: hatt
A lot of the stuff you list has been perfected over many generations and was basically universal in application. That's not the same as some of this newer tech. I happily passed on the Ecoboost engines for the much more mature Coyote.


Some of? Sure, but you were specifically talking about MDS, which originally appeared in commercial application in 1981, unfortunately electronics weren't quite quick enough at that time to make it as seamless as it is now. But MDS as a concept dates back to the early 1900's, it isn't "new" and has been improved through the various evolutions of the LSx and HEMI platforms. Of course there is Honda's version too, but it appears to be more trouble-prone and isn't on a pushrod engine.

As I noted, we had a 2006 Charger with MDS, which is now a 12-year old version of this tech. It worked great. I've owned two MDS 6.4's since then, we have several MDS 5.7's at work, none have had any issues. I'd be far more concerned about the exhaust manifold studs rotting out and the resulting manifold leaks that happen on a Dodge truck than any issues with the MDS system, based on our experience with them.

 

[AZjeff]

Originally Posted By: maxdustington
Originally Posted By: AZjeff
Tundra fans probably hope not for as long as possible. Are these smaller displacement but more highly stressed turbo engines built that much better that they really have the same life expectancy as the 5.3, 5.7, 5.0 N/A V8s? It's true that most trucks aren't worked like a truck but even in day to day unloaded driving they have to be working harder to some degree.


Toyota supremacist zombie.


Who me? Pretty good crack you must be smoking. The RAV is my wife's pick, I seem to be driving a 2016 Silverado. Every Tundra driver I've ever talked to loves his truck with the only complaint being the poor gas mileage but they're willing to put up with it. I wanted to try a used Tundra but the Toyota Tax was more than I could justify. Try again Homer.

 

[hatt]

MDS has never been close to universal. Not even the with one brand. Are 6.0 LSx engines MDS? Clearly it's not a no brainier tech like port injection/etc is/was.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: hatt
MDS has never been close to universal. Not even the with one brand. Are 6.0 LSx engines MDS? Clearly it's not a no brainier tech like port injection/etc.


It's relatively universal on a pushrod engine, the only one I see Chrysler not putting it on is the forced-induction Hellcat engine, which, due to the drag of the blower, is likely why.

There are far more variants of VVT/VCT than there are MDS, some that aren't even remotely similar to others.

Port injection is a no-brainer tech? I'm guessing you are willfully forgetting all the various incarnations over the years, let me refresh your memory with a small sample of some of the stuff available only a few years ago, and keep in mind, this isn't even mentioning TBI and the variants of that.

- Honda's PGM-FI with a couple of injectors slapped in the intake manifold
- GM's "spider" setup
- GM's split-port injection
- Ford's speed-density batch-fire injection setup
- Ford's SEFI speed-density injection setup
- Ford's SEFI MAF injection setup

EFI is no more "universal" than MDS. There were various systems, several designed by Bosch, in collaboration with Ford, for example, which, were markedly different from the stuff GM and the Japanese were bringing to market.

Even now, my HEMI is speed density, whilst my Expedition was MAF.

You always see variation manufacturer-to-manufacturer, there's different oil pumps and types, variable displacement water pumps versus the traditional kinds, heck, it wasn't that long ago that there was a migration from distributor-driven oil pumps to crank-driven ones.

When a tech remains relatively unchanged through multiple engine evolutions, like Chrysler's MDS has for the HEMI family, I generally conclude that that is a mature technology at that point. If they were doing massive changes to it, then we'd have something to talk about, but they aren't, so we don't.

 

[hatt]

Obviously GM had some concerns or it would have been on every new LSx engine. I have no idea what Mopar is doing. I wouldn't buy anything they're selling. Maybe they figured it out.

 

[nickaluch]

Sad part is by me my friends pickups carry a occasional bag of lawn fertilizer that's about it.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: hatt
Obviously GM had some concerns or it would have been on every new LSx engine. I have no idea what Mopar is doing. I wouldn't buy anything they're selling. Maybe they figured it out.


Or there are simply applications where GM hasn't found it to be of benefit.

If you have, by your own admission, no idea what a company is doing, then doesn't it seem a bit presumptuous to universally condemn a technology they are using when your knowledge of said technology is clearly deficient?

As to not buying anything they are selling, other than a less-than-subtle pot-shot at those who do, I'm not sure what that has to do with this discussion? Qualifying your ignorance as to their products and technology?

 

[CKN]

This is BITOG-things that have been around for years now (such as AFM,CVT's etc.) are still considered "new tech" on here.


The phobia on here for ANYTHING new and modern on this forum is unbelievable.


And Crown Vics rule the day...doesn't that say everything????????

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: CKN
This is BITOG-things that have been around for years now (such as AFM,CVT's etc.) are still considered "new tech" on here.


The phobia on here for ANYTHING new and modern on this forum is unbelievable.


And Crown Vics rule the day...doesn't that say everything????????



One of the few times I agree with you.

 

[supton]

Originally Posted By: CKN
The phobia on here for ANYTHING new and modern on this forum is unbelievable.


Some of us don't like paying for things twice. First to buy, then to fix when it turns out to be a problem child. AFM, MDS, DI might all be good now--but a few years ago either they hadn't proven themselves or had proven themselves to be problematic. As OVERKILL pointed out, once it's been in the field for a few years without changes, it's proven tech.

And it's not even just new tech. Significant platform changes, or even just a new motor, can be problematic until the teething pains are over with. I prefer to let enthusiasts fix those bugs for me.

 

[Kestas]

Too much needless brand bickering -- lock time.