2014 Tundra

[madmax718]

I would just like if everyone compared half tons, and not the 3/4 and 1 ton offerings.

Solid fronts are not available on any GM offering 1 ton and under. Ford and dodge only offer SFA on 3/4 and 1 ton models.

I passed through a dealer looking at a 2010 when they were new- the toyota felt.. huge. Back seat was huge. Really spacious. I dont know about the mechanics of it.

Ford said no to diesel... probably to push their eco boost.
Toyota said no to diesel... dunno why.
GM.. Still not quite on board either- pushing their 5.3 v8 motor with cylinder deactivation (which works pretty flawlessly in a suburban I rented, 2012 model). It might be even better now.
Dodge has their 3.6 v6 pushing 25mpg (in 2wd). Their diesel will be 30, and the same in the jeep grand cherokee CRD.

If you like Toyotas, then get one. But as far as their platform is now, there's kinda behind the times.

 

[Clutch]

If you like Toyotas, then get one. But as far as their platform is now, there's kinda behind the times.

I wish they wouldn't of tried to compete with the Big 3, what made them great was when they were doing their own thing, they started to get off track around 2005...some may argue earlier than that. Perhaps when they abandoned the HiLux in favor for the Tacoma in the year 1995.5 in the American market.

 

[Kaisen]

Kaisin, I appreciate a good respectful debate, so I'll argue my points as time allows over the coming days. I do feel there is tons of misinformation floating around... so with a little patience, I hope to show that the 2nd generation Tundra is well built truck that can dish it out and take it.

No one said the Tundra wasn't a well built truck that couldn't dish it out or take it. Simply, overall it's no BETTER at dishing it out and taking it than other 2014 half ton trucks. I'm very well versed in the current trucks, so it will be interesting to read your dissertation on how the Tundra is overbuilt in a way that has proven to be better (capability, capacity, reliability).

 

[1 Bored Clerk]

None of its competition has a solid front axle??? Why would that make the tundra better...
I doubt toyota will ever make a Tundra HD...

It feels like the Big 3 have built their reputations on their HD trucks...and people probably buy the 1/2 tons because they realize they don't need the HD capacity but like the 'tough' reputation. Toyota has never had an HD offering and I think they would sell more 1/2 tons if they were to compete with the Big 3 with an honest HD version. Not to mention that Toyota has the capability to build a fantastic HD truck and would take sales there too. It's a branding issue. It's another 'failed' attempt from Toyota to make a 'real' full-size truck. Just like the T100 and Gen 1 Tundra. (which are both great trucks, btw). If Ford never built F250/350 class trucks, and GMC/Toyota/Dodge did, I'm sure Ford would have the same problem trying to break into the big truck market. I just don't think you can succeed (in the US market) in the 1/2 ton class without being successful in the HD class.

 

[sourdough]

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2012/02/2012-jd-power-report-has-surprises.html

 

[AxleIke]

Huh. Well, I disagree with a lot of what's been said here.

I like it. The restyle looks really good to me.

I also disagree with the "Toyota shouldn't have tried to go american" and stayed in the mini truck market. One of the things I like the most about the Tundra is the ROOM. Pickup bed (albeit small) with a large enough back seat for 3 adults of medium stature or kids who are far enough back they can't kick your seat? Yes please.

I come from over 20 years spent in a first gen 4runner. It was purchased when I was 5 years old by my father, and he passed it down to me eventually. We took that first gen all over the western US from CA to NM, CO, UT, MT, ID, WY, AZ, NV etc... on many week long camping trips. Never let us down, but DAMN was it the most uncomfortable ride.

Both as a child in the minuscule back seat and as an adult in the uncomfortable and hard to sustain driver position of the front seat, that truck was hard to sit in for longer than a 3 hour stretch. And forget about getting anywhere quick with 5 people + a dog loaded for 7 days in the back country.

And, DD wise, it was not that great. It had AC, but creature comforts were not there.

I now own a 3rd gen, and while it is far more comfy to ride in, it is no Tundra. Still has a funky seating position that is uncomfy after a few hours, and just isn't amazing for room, though it is bigger.

So, no, I don't think Toyota went off the rails with the Tundra and Taco platforms. IMO, bigger in this case is better.

I do think the tundra's motor needs some work on fuel economy. Not that Toyota truck motors have ever been ALL that impressive from fuel mileage, I would expect them to do better than the Big 3, not worse.

From what I've seen from those who've disassembled tundras, they are a 1 ton truck with a 1/2 ton frame. I know why they did that too. Warranty. Warranty claims KILL a dealership's bottom line, and by selling the truck as 1/2 ton, but building it to near 1 ton specs (excepting the chassis), they have a bullet proof truck so to speak. While the truck will not have any issues doing 1/2 ton duty, they can void the warranty if the truck breaks doing anything over that.

Anyway, put me on the list for in favor of the new changes, and the platform as a whole. Cheers! :beer:

 

[Kaisen]

From what I've seen from those who've disassembled tundras, they are a 1 ton truck with a 1/2 ton frame.

What makes a 1 ton truck different from a 3/4 ton truck, different from a 1/2 ton truck? Why is a Ford F350 a 1 ton truck, but a Ford F250 is not?
The things that the industry considers a 1 ton truck simply aren't present in the 1/2 ton Tundra.
I really would like to see or hear from those who've disassembled Tundras for their evidence that "they are 1 ton trucks with a 1/2 ton frame".

I know why they did that too. Warranty. Warranty claims KILL a dealership's bottom line, and by selling the truck as 1/2 ton, but building it to near 1 ton specs (excepting the chassis), they have a bullet proof truck so to speak. While the truck will not have any issues doing 1/2 ton duty, they can void the warranty if the truck breaks doing anything over that.

Factory warranty has nothing to do with the dealership's bottom line. Can you find any data that confirms Toyota has lower warranty expense for the Tundra than GMC's warranty expense for the Sierra? Or Ford's warranty expense for the F150? Is the Tundra a bulletproof truck (so to speak)? Are the GM, Ford, or Dodge bulletproof trucks? Just trying to get your sense of what bulletproof means. Because Tundras fail at the same rate, over time, as Fords or GMs that are equipped similarly. Specifically, a Ford F150 SuperCrew 5.0L XLT 4x4, a GMC Sierra 1500 Crew Cab SLE 5.3L 4x4, and a Toyota Tundra Crew Max 4.6L 4x4 have proven to have similar durability measured by 'things gone wrong' over time. Ram has really come a long way in a short time, but it's been a short run (so far).

 

[Clutch]

What makes a 1 ton truck different from a 3/4 ton truck, different from a 1/2 ton truck? Why is a Ford F350 a 1 ton truck, but a Ford F250 is not?

What does define it, I might ask. Seems like the 3/4 ton truck capacities of the 70's and 80's are now what the half tons are capable of. not only has toyota
become bloated...so has the rest

Toyota did have a 1 ton mini truck available here.

 

[Kaisen]

What does define it, I might ask. Seems like the 3/4 ton truck capacities of the 70's and 80's are now what the half tons are capable of. not only has toyota
become bloated...so has the rest

Toyota did have a 1 ton mini truck available here.

That's a good question. Which is why I asked the guy who said the current Tundra is a 1 ton with a 1/2 ton frame.

The industry now defines single rear wheel pickups with over 10,000 lbs GVWR as a 1 ton. Anything over 8,600 lbs GVWR is a heavy duty 3/4 ton.
Start with tire load ratings, move to spring ratings, then to front and rear axle weight ratings, then to frame weight ratings. It's rated by weakest link in the chain.
Theoretically, it could be a half ton and still have a 12,000 lb axle rating (GAWR) if only one of the springs, tires, and frame ratings were less than 8,600 lbs.
Its up to the manufacturers to come up with the weight ratings. There are guidelines, but it's still their sign-off.
CAFE (EPA), DOT/NHTSA and other government regulations apply differently to the different weight classes as well. Ever wonder why a 3/4 ton doesn't have any fuel economy ratings on the window sticker?

That little Toyota in the video had a 2,655 lb payload rating. More than a ton. And that's how it worked back then. (Modern '1 tons' can have payload ratings well over 6,500 lbs). But with no airbags, crash safety structures, emissions, electronics, creature comforts, NVH goals, or size comfort (Americans have super-sized since then) they really didn't weigh as much. Which left more for payload.

We now judge trucks on their ability to TOW more than we do their ability to HAUL, for whatever reason, for better or worse.

 

[washington taco]

I noticed last night in the ARB catalog they list axle diameter size for the Tundra and the F series Fords. The Tundra was just slightly smaller than the F250/350 size axle and same for the ring and pinion. The F150 was much smaller than the Tundra same for the ring and pinion. This validates some of what bjowett was saying, kind of a light 3/4 ton.

The look of the 2014 Tundra is no better on the outside than the 2013 IMHO. The interior is far better looking though.

My real hope is that they dont screw up the next Tacoma. I like the full size trucks but they are ment for BIG jobs and wont work on the trail very well.

Both the Tundra and Tacoma could use a payload upgrade. For the Tundra around 1900 lbs and the Tacoma around 1500.

 

[Kaisen]

I noticed last night in the ARB catalog they list axle diameter size for the Tundra and the F series Fords. The Tundra was just slightly smaller than the F250/350 size axle and same for the ring and pinion. The F150 was much smaller than the Tundra same for the ring and pinion. This validates some of what bjowett was saying, kind of a light 3/4 ton.

Does ring gear diameter size determine the strength of a truck? Is it a phallic "size matters" kind of thing?

Toyota's choice had more to do with the transmission.

Let's compare:

Toyota 6 speed automatic with 4.30:1 gear
1st 3.333 x 4.30 = 14.33
2nd 1.960 x 4.30 = 8.43
3rd 1.353 x 4.30 = 5.82
4th 1.000 x 4.30 = 4.30
5th 0.728 x 4.30 = 3.13
6th 0.588 x 4.30 = 2.53

Ford 6 speed automatic with 3.73 gear
1st 4.17 x 3.73 = 15.55
2nd 2.34 x 3.73 = 8.73
3rd 1.52 x 3.73 = 5.67
4th 1.14 x 3.73 = 4.25
5th 0.86 x 3.73 = 3.21
6th 0.69 x 3.73 = 2.57

Note that even with a 'smaller' gear (3.73 vs 4.30) the Ford still has more torque multiplication in the first two gears to get loads moving, or control off-road crawl
Toyota chose physically smaller gearsets in their transmission, choosing to make up for it with the 'final' gear ratio at the axles.

But a 4.30 has to be physically larger to maintain its strength. In other words, a 9" 3.73 ring gear is just as strong as a 10.5" 4.30 ring gear

Why is that?

A 3.73 will have better gear mesh than a 4.30, more teeth on the pinion. The only way for it to be equal is to go up in ring gear diameter.
Think of it this way, on 3.73 you will have more teeth spreading the torque load than you would on a 4.30 because the 4.30 needs less teeth to spin the diff/ring gear slower.

Pinion strength has to do with is the length of the moment arm created by the size of the pinion. For a given torque input to the pinion: the smaller the pinion, the smaller the moment arm, this requires the force on the gear teeth to be greater in order to transmit said torque. Like a lever, try to move 500lbs with a short lever and try it with a long lever. Which is easier?

Whereas on the ring gear the moment arm is constant, the only change is the ring gear thickness. However, it transmits its torque through the frictional forces between it and the carrier. So, ring thickness isn't thought to be as much a detriment to strength as pinion size. Because of this the higher (lower numerically) you go the stronger it will be, up to a certain point of course.

But because Toyota chose such a small first and second gear set in the transmission, they couldn't have gotten away with a 3.73 (or 2.73, 3.08, 3.42, etc of other half ton pickups). The big ring gear became necessary, yet no stronger overall.

Yet, I'm sure all of you will still argue that Toyota's larger ring diameter is somehow 1 ton overbuild in a 1/2 ton truck, and soooo much stronger than the other choices.

 

[daveyboy]

If the 2014's Borg Warner transfer case is a "marginal POS" and was done to save a buck or two, then doesn't that say something about Toyota? Either Toyota decided it was a better TC, or they penny pinched.

I was purposely using outlandish language to try and illustrate that neither you nor I have any idea why Toyota made the change. Your original post implied that because Toyota changed the TC, they obviously knew it was sub-par and the new one is better. It could be the opposite. One could use that exact same logic about 8.1L engines in Suburbans--they must have been really crummy--even GM knows this and finally killed them off and now uses the superior 6.0L... .

 

[Kaisen]

I was purposely using outlandish language to try and illustrate that neither you nor I have any idea why Toyota made the change. Your original post implied that because Toyota changed the TC, they obviously knew it was sub-par and the new one is better. It could be the opposite. One could use that exact same logic about 8.1L engines in Suburbans--they must have been really crummy--even GM knows this and finally killed them off and now uses the superior 6.0L... .

The engine analogy would be more like Toyota switched to Ford engines

 

[washington taco]

Does ring gear diameter size determine the strength of a truck? Is it a phallic "size matters" kind of thing?

Toyota's choice had more to do with the transmission.

Let's compare:

Toyota 6 speed automatic with 4.30:1 gear
1st 3.333 x 4.30 = 14.33
2nd 1.960 x 4.30 = 8.43
3rd 1.353 x 4.30 = 5.82
4th 1.000 x 4.30 = 4.30
5th 0.728 x 4.30 = 3.13
6th 0.588 x 4.30 = 2.53

Ford 6 speed automatic with 3.73 gear
1st 4.17 x 3.73 = 15.55
2nd 2.34 x 3.73 = 8.73
3rd 1.52 x 3.73 = 5.67
4th 1.14 x 3.73 = 4.25
5th 0.86 x 3.73 = 3.21
6th 0.69 x 3.73 = 2.57

Note that even with a 'smaller' gear (3.73 vs 4.30) the Ford still has more torque multiplication in the first two gears to get loads moving, or control off-road crawl
Toyota chose physically smaller gearsets in their transmission, choosing to make up for it with the 'final' gear ratio at the axles.

But a 4.30 has to be physically larger to maintain its strength. In other words, a 9" 3.73 ring gear is just as strong as a 10.5" 4.30 ring gear

Why is that?

A 3.73 will have better gear mesh than a 4.30, more teeth on the pinion. The only way for it to be equal is to go up in ring gear diameter.
Think of it this way, on 3.73 you will have more teeth spreading the torque load than you would on a 4.30 because the 4.30 needs less teeth to spin the diff/ring gear slower.

Pinion strength has to do with is the length of the moment arm created by the size of the pinion. For a given torque input to the pinion: the smaller the pinion, the smaller the moment arm, this requires the force on the gear teeth to be greater in order to transmit said torque. Like a lever, try to move 500lbs with a short lever and try it with a long lever. Which is easier?

Whereas on the ring gear the moment arm is constant, the only change is the ring gear thickness. However, it transmits its torque through the frictional forces between it and the carrier. So, ring thickness isn't thought to be as much a detriment to strength as pinion size. Because of this the higher (lower numerically) you go the stronger it will be, up to a certain point of course.

But because Toyota chose such a small first and second gear set in the transmission, they couldn't have gotten away with a 3.73 (or 2.73, 3.08, 3.42, etc of other half ton pickups). The big ring gear became necessary, yet no stronger overall.

Yet, I'm sure all of you will still argue that Toyota's larger ring diameter is somehow 1 ton overbuild in a 1/2 ton truck, and soooo much stronger than the other choices.

Kaisen you know way more math than I do and what you stated makes perfect sense.

While I was going to school I worked for http://www.markwilliams.com/ and size always mattered. The higher the HP the bigger everything got.

 

[Clutch]

My real hope is that they dont screw up the next Tacoma.

If the Tundra and 4Runner are any inkling, the future doesn't look bright for the Tacoma...

..start buying up 1st gens. For $30-40K you can buy 2 or 3 used 1st gen Tacos...

Never let us down, but DAMN was it the most uncomfortable ride.


And, DD wise, it was not that great. It had AC, but creature comforts were not there.

I now own a 3rd gen, and while it is far more comfy to ride in, it is no Tundra. Still has a funky seating position that is uncomfy after a few hours, and just isn't amazing for room, though it is bigger.

So, no, I don't think Toyota went off the rails with the Tundra and Taco platforms. IMO, bigger in this case is better.

Think you summed up why trucks in general have gotten soft...Americans for the most part have gotten soft. I never could quite understand luxury trucks.