mmarshall - excellent review as always. Although I haven't driven one, I did take a good look over several models at a trade show and had very similar impressions to yours.

In fairness the top selling F-150 doesn't offer these things either, they're offered instead on the 'super duty' model range (F-250, F-350, etc.).

Interesting. One thing I've been super impressed with on both the F-150 and my new Explorer are the brakes. Ford apparently had a lot of complaints about brake feel in the past and attempted to rectify it starting with the current F-150 and their SUVs benefiting from there. I really think it's about perfect on my two vehicles.

F-150 is somewhat similar, perhaps due in part on ours at least due to the torquier 3.73 rear end which is better for towing but is going to make it launch harder in normal driving too.

I don't know of other trucks having this, not do I think it's important to be honest.

Could you elaborate on this? On the F-150 (and my Explorer) they're large but light plastic enclosures. I'm not sure if that makes them flimsy in your eyes. Maybe they're designed to break easy because being so big if they were really sturdy they could decapitate someone!?

I agree completely - glad you don't like it either. Toyota has become in love with that crap stuff in many models (including Lexus now).

The plastic side rail covers started with the F-150 I believe and it's a nice touch to cut down on paint scratches if you're hauling stuff like tree branches!

About the lack of a bed-liner - there might be a legitimate reason for that - many long time truck owners know what they want with liners - typically Rhino or Linex which are very different from one another so it's best left to the dealer to arrange or the consumer to get done. The factory couldn't provide a 'dealer installed' liner except for one of those plastic bath tub type deals which SUCK. Personally I think Linex is THE BEST.

That alone will sell a lot of Tundras. The F-150 is very impressively sound proofed (and ours is still as squeak free and tight as the day we bought it) but the engine is still relatively noisy and it still has the ancient 4 speed auto, but that will all change in next year's new model.

Actually it has no history yet. And the domestics do best with trucks, which are generally very reliable. Ford has been known to have transmission problems on older F-150s (usually burn out from towing/hauling) and Chevys have problems with their formerly cheesy interiors kind of falling apart but that's VASTLY improved with the new Silverado.

There's never been a better time for truck buyers, except for gas prices!

Again, major props to Toyota for really stepping up to compete - they have a dead serious contender now unlike the previous wannabe's.

 

[QUOTE=bitkahuna;2519801]Yes, I know. I was referring to the lack of a "Super Duty" diesel dual-rear wheel Tundra that would compete with the F250/350, not the 150. The present Tundra competes very well with a standard F-150.



Weak and spongy brakes seem to be a problem on many large trucks and SUV's, perhaps because of the enormous amount of weight they have to stop. They were especially bad on older, GM full-size, truck-based products, and have only been imprived slightly on the new ones.






Most Toyota products (and most Japanese-designed) vehicles have outside mirror housings that have a strong, solid feel to them, and when you swing them back and forth ( on the ones that are not rigidly attached to the body, of course), they snap into place with a solid-feeling "thunk". It is really hard to describe it in words...you have to experience it in tactile sensations and feel.
Many domestically-designed vehicles don't have that solid feel to the mirror housings....the plastic is noticeably thinner, lighter in feel, doesn't feel as strongly locked in place when you swivel and snap it, and the lighter plastic is more suceptable to cracks and other damage from flying stones road debris.
The new Tundra's mirrors, to me at least, felt more like those on domestic trucks and less like those on other Toyotas.

Now, of course, my comments would not apply to the extra-wide side mirrors used for visibility when large trailers are being towed....they are a different creature altogether, and usually have longmetal rods holding them on.






I don't know if they still do it, but, for a while, Dodge was applying the spray-on bed liner at the factory on all new pickups. This, to an extent, gives you the best of both worlds.....paint protection for the bed without the typical problems of slide-in liners......water and dirt becoming trapped underneath them and leading to corrosion.
Another excellent solution ( and I give your company, Ford a lot of credit for this) is the all-plastic beds found on some Ford products such as the Explorer Sport-Trac (a close friend of mine has a Sport-Trac). The plastic used for these beds is thick and strong enough to carry the same weight that metal would, and doesn't dent, corrode, chip off paint, rust, or have any of the other typical problems that traditional sheet-steel beds do.




I was referring to past Toyota truck reliability...clearly the best on the market, except for the bed-rust problems of the 1980's. The new Tundra, despite some junk trim and hardware, is likely to continue that better-than-average truck reliability record, especially with its Lexus-quality drivetrain.

 

Great review as always, mmarshall! I've been casting envious eyes on a 4-door pickup for a few months and have decided to wait a year or two until the most recent upheavals in the market begin to settle out. The technology that revolutionized automobiles only a few years ago, computers, telematics, etc, has found its way into these little haulers. Better yet, there are some real comfort considerations being built into this new generation of trucks - a welcome change for those of us who suffered through the '80's and '90's with tinny quality and a spine-cracking ride. And rust - oh, yes the monster who never sleeps.

Things are getting decidedly better in pickup land - and Toyota just raised the bar. The Double Cab is going to be popular thanks to it's full-length bed. For those who can live with a bit less acreage out back, the CrewMax configuration offers even more cabin space aft, with reclining rear seats (achieved by scooting the seat bottoms forward) for those of us who use such a vehicle as a mobile office. Of course, you have to be able to live with a short bed and the attendant parking considerations of all of that real estate between the axles, but the compromise is a good one.

New Tundra CrewMax Limiteds are flying off the lots down here in pickup country. Since introduction, dealers can't seem to keep them in stock. As a Luxo-truck, the Tundra is a huge hit with the urban cowboys - it remains to be seen if it will receive such wide acceptance among the lunchbucket crowd that actually make a living with their pickups. They're probably going to be a tougher sell.

Anticipating a hit, Toyota has opened a second Tundra plant in San Antonio, which should boost their capacity to 200,000 units per year - and if early sales are any indicator, they may need it. Will its sales beat the mighty F-150? Not likely. This is truck country down here, the largest pickup market in the nation - and between the real cowboys and the poseurs, a "furrin" pickup is not likely to find its way to the top of the pyramid soon. Ford and Chevy are safe - at least for now, but Dodge may be in for a real bar fight for #3 . . .

 

I still can't get over the fact that the Tundra actually has a far cheaper interior than the competition from both Ford and GM. How funny is that?

I like the 5.7L V8 in the Tundra, and the 6-speed auto, but if I was spending as much on a truck as the one that you reviewed, I'd be in a GMC Sierra Denali... no question.

 

I fully agree that the interior trim in this truck, especially at 41K, is lacking, but I think at least part of the reason, as I mentined above, is that the engineers put so much into the drivetrain and general refinement that there wasn't a whole lot left over in the development budget for cosmetic stuff.

 

Hmm... maybe, but Toyota still seems to have cut some corners here and there. Their frame design still doesn't appear up to spec. They still use c-channels rather than fully boxed frame rails and cross sections. They also, IIRC, use bolt-through cross members in some areas, rather than weld-through. And the otherall size of the rails and members is obviously thinner and lighter.

Is Toyota using hydroforming on this new frame design? GM has been since 99 MY, Dodge since 02, and Ford since 04... I haven't heard anything about Nissan or Toyota, though.

 

The specific Tundra I looked at was rated to tow 10,300 lbs. which is roughly the same as equivalent-size and equipped F-150s and Silverados. Even with with proper hitches and extra cooling packages for the transmission and engine, you can't tow that kind of load with a second-class ladder-frame. And a C-Channel frame doesn't necessarily mean flimsiness, either, if you use carbon-case-hardened steel alloy....which, of course, is not cheap. Few substances on this planet are stronger than carbon-case-hardened steel.....perhaps exceeded only by diamonds themselves. That is why building engineers use it to build steel-reinforced concrete skyscraper frames.

Hydroforming? Can't say. The literature that comes with the truck did not specifically mention it.

 

Next review on my list, BTW, by specific request.....BMW X5 4.8L

 

Let's not open up this can of worms. Many heavy duty frames, with far superior capabilities than the F150 or GMT-900 frame use C-channel, as well as bolted cross members. With welded cross members, there is a risk the weld can crack and welds unlike bolted members don't have any "give" or flexibility. A fully boxed frame can also snap if put under great pressure or stress, while a C-channel frame would simply bend instead of snap.

To fully compare frames, you need to know the steel gauge and strength, steel thickness, and have actual engineering data on each frame to know which one is "better".

 

The frame of the truck is very rarely the limiting factor in towing, as evidenced by the fact that the bigger the motor and the shorter the rear end ratio, the more the truck is able to tow. If the frame was the limiting factor than the tow rating would "max out" at some point up the line of bigger motors and shorter gearing - much like you'll see with, say, a GS300 vs a GS400 - yes the GS400 motor should tow with quite a bit more ease, but the unibody structure is the same on both and neither car is cut out to haul big loads.

Also, what is "carbon-case-hardened steel alloy"? A quick google search provides exactly zero results for that exact term. Removing the word "alloy" but adding the word "Tundra" provides only one hit and it's not at all relevant. Where did you read this term? Do you have a reference/link? Especially to the strength only being exceeded by diamond itself? "Stronger" is a pretty wide open/generic word - there's a lot more to the performance of the metal used in a frame than just "strength".

Tungsten Carbide is among the closest metals I'm aware of in terms of strength near that of a diamond, but it would probably make a terrible choice for metal in a frame because even ignoring its extreme expense, it's also very prone to traumatic fracturing from sudden sharp impact at particular frequencies (kinda like diamonds can be, too, by the way, which is why "strength" is, like I said, very subjective).


The inherent weakness of a c-channel design in a ladder frame can be overcome by other factors (like hydroforming, which is what the GMT-800 trucks did - they did still have some c-channels, but hydroformed at that... now they'd fully hydroformed and fully boxed)... but you have to admit - when the Tundra throws up pictures of their big brake rotors next to the smallest of their four main competitors - they're just asking for somebody to bust them out on where their truck is "smaller" - and a smaller less beefed up frame sure would get the attention of truck guys. Granted the proper design and material might be able to partially compensate for that, but then again bigger rotors don't necessarily outperform smaller rotors, either...

 

LOL. A can of worms? As much as the Tundra commercials have been advertising half-truths here recently, I'd say pointing out areas where the Tundra is behind the competition is completely fair game, even if it's possible that they compensated for it in ways that aren't publicly published.

Yes, any frame needs to be designed to 'give' some, while rebounding predictably. It's known as the natural resonant frequency of a ladder frame - which affects its performance in torsional and bending rigidity.

Any halfway decent engineering job should be able to allow the added rigidity of a fully boxed frame rail frame from being able to give enough under stress to keep from cracking. To my knowledge ladder frames are still far from actually reaching that point. You don't want a frame to give very much, generally speaking, you want the suspension to give, the body mounts to give, and in the case of an accident, the body itself.

 

Sorry, Threxx.....I probably could have defined the term or described it a little better. Case hardening is an old term that is not used much today, but the meaning is basically the same as mixing pig iron in steel mills with carbon at extremety high temperatures to produce carbon-steel, one of the strongest substances known to man. Precisely how much carbon added and under what circumstances determines just how hard the new metal gets. I'm not a metallurgist, nor have I worked in a steel mill, so I don't know all the details. And, of course, it takes some carbon to produce raw steel in the first place, even before it is then "carbon" hardened.

Anyhow, the main issue here, regardless of construction details, is that the Tundra frames are not made out of chewing gum...like the F-150, Silverado, Titan, and Ram, they are designed for the load they carry.

 

Toyota could have only NOT done the fully boxed frame throughout for one reason: cost. Steel is expensive. And Toyota no doubt felt their other major improvements would carry them forward with enough consumers to meet their production capacity, and they're probably right.

A non-boxed frame *can* warp/twist/bend a bit more easily under repeated heavy towing or even bed loads, and this might lead to creaks, squeaks, alignment issues, or worse, even if being visually apparent that the truck is 'sagging' or bent in some way. But I'm NOT saying the Tundra will have any of these problems because I'm sure they tested the crap out of it.

This is more one of those 'check box' issues these days for people into design specs - which most buyers aren't. Sure they want to know bed capacity and towing capacity, HP, TQ, etc., but honestly if you think you're going to tow 10,000lbs often (like a huge boat), then get a bigger truck, probably with a diesel.

 

"half truths"? Are you referring to the GM dealer letter which claims the Tundra in the "see saw" commercial is towing only 5000lbs? It's already been proven the trailer being towed in the commercial is 10,000lbs, not 5000lbs.

Let me say that major sections of roller coasters and bridges are all built bolted together.

Bolting is not any worse than welding. Each one has it's uses, and properly done, both should hold up well.

Again, how is the Tundra's frame "behind" the competition? You haven't shown anything specific to indicate that.

We don't know the tensile strength, steel gauge, or steel thickness of the Tundra's frame, in comparison to the GMT-900 frame or F150 frame. Without this knowledge, it's meaningless to compare which frame is better.

C-channel is not inferior to fully boxed, because otherwise heavy duty trucks would not be using C-channel frames.

 

We don't know that though. Toyota's engineers could have decided to go with a mixed design (fully boxed front, reinforced C-channel middle, c-channel end) instead of simply a fully boxed frame. Besides, we can't compare the cost of the Tundra frame without knowing the exact amount of steel used. For example, the Tundra's frame might be thicker in places than the GMT-900 frame, making it more expensive. Hydroforming tends to make steel thinner, and generally thinner steel is used in fully boxed designs compared to c-channel designs.