Heavy Duty Toyota Tundra may not happen
Click the Tundra for a high res gallery suitable for wallpaper
The new Toyota Tundra has not had a particularly smooth launch so far this year, and that could play into future plans for the full-size truck. There have been complaints about the quality of the interior materials, the lack of a fully boxed section frame, and basic design lapses like the bolt heads in the bed that stick up too high. It's now being reported that plans for the heavy duty version for the Tundra are now on hold inside Toyota. The HD pickup hasn't been canceled but it's not approved at this point, according to Toyota Motor Sales VP Bob Carter. Nissan has reportedly canceled its plans to create heavy duty version of the Titan earlier this year. One could speculate that the combination of high gas prices and other Tundra issues (like the camshaft matter) could cause Toyota to do the same, but Toyota has so much invested in the Tundra already (in terms of money and pride), we can easily see them addressing the aforementioned issues down the road, perhaps after a mid-cycle enhancement, and then revisiting the now-in-limbo HD version.
[Source: Wards Auto World}
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Brian Dreggors 12:13PM (6/13/2007)
It would be smart for Toyota to stay out of the HD market anyway and further concentrate on making the quarter-ton Tundra right. HD sales are only lucurative for proven players and the investment needed to deliver a superior product is likely not worth it at all compared to using the same finances for other lucrative vehicles (Toyota crossover, for example).
Reply
Mr. Oak 12:20PM (6/13/2007)
Awwww poor Toyota, I feel so bad for them, NOT.
Reply
rob 3:54PM (6/13/2007)
what a whiny fanboy. wah wah wah.
Mr. Oak 3:59PM (6/13/2007)
Who's whining? they built the crappy truck. I am not a truck lover, and owned 4 Toyotas in the past. They are not as good as they used to be. Their quality has suffered as a result of them trying to be number one. They deserve everything that they get.
Don't Believe the HYPE!!
Matt 12:23PM (6/13/2007)
There goes GM again, what with their shitty build quality!
Reply
rob 4:08PM (6/13/2007)
there you go again, with your stupid comments...
as a friend once said, don't be an idiot, and buy yourself a brain, matt.
Tyo 12:25PM (6/13/2007)
DOHC = NOT FOR A TRUCK
Reply
NoSpin 1:57PM (6/13/2007)
Says who based on what? Both the Titan and the Tundra deliver more low end torque than ANY of the domestic offerings. Peak numbers don't mean crap. Chevy and Dodge are both very deficient in that department. Ford with their SOHC offering currently bests them both. Low end torque is what moves trailers.
In a comparison on edmunds inside line, the silverado got the worst fuel economy in the test versus the Titan and the Tundra.
Heck, the Titan is so advanced it actually lifts throttle between shifts for an automatic transmission. This not only saves the clutch packs in the tranny, but also keeps things nice and smooth.
If you are going to make a statement, at least try to back it up instead of sounding like some ignorant redneck.
I don't necessarily care for Nissan or Toyota, but those engines are fairly nice. Now they just need to change the rest of the truck.
The Other Bob 1:24AM (6/14/2007)
nospin:
For calling yourself "nospin", you sure do make a lot of stuff up.
"Both the Titan and the Tundra deliver more low end torque than ANY of the domestic offerings..."
Err wrong.
"In a comparison on edmunds inside line, the silverado got the worst fuel economy..."
Didn't you mean the the Sivvarado has the best fuel economy? The titan is the worst in its class. The Toyota, worse than Chevy.
"Heck, the Titan is so advanced it actually lifts throttle between shifts for an automatic transmission."
Along with every other automatic equipped car on the market.
"If you are going to make a statement, at least try to back it up instead of sounding like some ignorant redneck."
Right back at ya.
MikeW 4:15PM (6/13/2007)
DOC [overhead is one world] engines are fine.
Toyota claims 90+% from 2400-5500 from the 5.7V8.
You plug that into a 6 speed automatic that has a 5.7:1 ratio spread. and they have a 4.1 or optional 4.3 axle ratio.
The nissan V8 isn't as good as the toyota, it doesn't have a variable length intake manifold, or variable exhaust valve timing. 317hp@5200, 385ft-lbs@3400
Ford (300hp@5000, 365ft-lbs@3750) claims 80+% but less than 300ft-lbs at 1000 rpm from the 5.4 (thanks charge motion control flaps). 90% from ~2500-4500. But they don't have a 6 speed auto, or even 5 speed. VCT isn't as effective as VVT, but it does help.
The Hemi is odd. In the LX cars it is claimed to make 340hp@5000, 390ft-lbs@4000-on mid-grade fuel (dual exhaust and a straight forward intake) In the Ram 1500 it makes 345hp@5400 375ft-lbs@4200 (it has to have a different cam-more duration- to make up for the single exhaust and the difficult intake http://www.popularhotrodding.com/tech/0403phr_chrysler_hemi_57_liter_345ci_engine_review/photo_14.html# ) in RamHD is makes 330hp@4800 375ft-lbs@? (same cam as the LX? regular fuel? Chrysler doesn't explain itself)
The GM 5.3 traded some low end for decent top end. (for being a pushrod mono valve crossplane crank V8) 320hp@5200, 340ft-lbs@4200. GM should ditch the cylinder shutoff, and pickup VCT and the 6L80, and call it a day.
smartmlp 6:14PM (6/13/2007)
@MikeW
Um, being a Pushrod V8 has nothing to do with torque curve, its all about stroke and cams. The 6.0 vortec max takes advantage of Variable valve timing AND active fuel management.
Also, the Hemi is a pushrod motor, and yes im talking about the modern Hemi.
Pouya 8:39PM (6/13/2007)
@ MikeW
"DOC [overhead is one world] "
I don't know what "overhead is one world means," :p but the correct acronym is actually DOHC even though overheard is one word. (see, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOHC; http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=DOHC&btnG=Search)
rob 12:39PM (6/13/2007)
hahaha...how telling it is that one of the google ads for this post offers a "copy of a stunning poster of witty author Ann Coulter!"
with all the idiots like mr. oak on here, i'm sure that ad will do very very well...
Reply
Brian Dreggors 12:56PM (6/13/2007)
Wow, Rob, that had nothing to do with anything. OMGZORZ!
Matt 12:51PM (6/13/2007)
Go away troll, nobody likes you. Not even your own parents. :(
Mr. Oak 2:03PM (6/13/2007)
Hey no fair, why am I an idiot? I didn't say anything bad about that piece of shit truck.
rob 3:59PM (6/13/2007)
sounds like you're the troll GM-HATER
and mr. oak = sounds likes an idiot, walks like an idiot, talks like an idiot = idiot.
bmoredlj 12:41PM (6/13/2007)
I believe the Tundra's minor shortcomings are a product of inexperience in the full-size segment rather than pure arrogance. To be fair, none of the full-size trucks are perfect
If interior quality is enhanced and trucklike issues like the frame, bolt, and camshaft are addressed in a refresh of the truck, the Tundra will be a far better machine, and speak volumes about the company's willingness to respond to customer feedback with real improvements.
I doubt all the problems will be fixed, but considering Toyota is so far in the black, this is no time to be miserly and spare expense, as they apparently have done in their American operations.
I wonder if a pushrod engine wouldn't have been a better choice?
Reply
Shift head 1:06PM (6/13/2007)
This is simply a bottom-line decision. Toyota is NOT going to just jump into every segment and niche to be a participant, when there may not be money to be made. Toyota is making the billions it is making because they have built their segments successfully. Ford and GM used to be able to be in every segment because they had a huge % of the market. Now they are hurting and closing plants. As much as I am NOT a Toyota fan, these guys know how to make money.
Reply
Tyo 12:54PM (6/13/2007)
Anyone know when the last time toyota built a pushrod V8 was? Im no expert on their older products, just wondering.
Reply