2022 Tundra

I dare you to fill out the form asking for info on the 2022.

 

I average right about 16 MPG in my Tundra with slightly larger tires. Better than that if I don't break 70 mph, but I've always been lucky on MPG. Every vehicle I've owned I have beat the EPA estimates, hand calculated or in dash computer.

Anyway, I don't want to turn this into an MPG thread. This is meant for wild speculation about the unreleased 2022!

 

@Cpl_Punishment what if that's all it took to unveil all the secrets we desire

 

My speculation is that it will be a bunch of compromises. Comprised 4.30 rear axle, for improved fuel consumption. Compromised displacement for improved fuel mileage with no significant savings because of premium fuel required or recommended. Increased payload compromised by lighter truck with aluminum parts.

I sincerely hope that I'm wrong and it gets the Payload of aTitan XD, the efficiency of 3.0 Duramax, and runs on regular unleaded without any compromise. If it does that, I'll probable go get one because of the flexibility that it will give me. I think that was the Truck marketplace back in 2007, and that is why we got the Tundra. But the marketplace has shifted, as have trucks. More and more full size cabs and short beds because it has replaced the full size sedan as the choice for family hauler.

I think this will be the market Toyota goes after. I see it on this forum all the time. Many appreciate the the Tundra for the very capable half ton that it is, but so many want "more tech", "more options", "better fuel economy", "more Payload". Well sure we all want all those things too. But some of us don't want it at the price of all the compromises. Makes me fear my next Truck will be a 3/4 to Ford or GM. Oh man, that'll suck.

 

I was just down is SW Florida two days ago. If I'd known about this, I would've driven by and asked in person.

 

I don't really have those worries because I have no intention of getting rid of my current truck for a very long time. I can understand the trepidation for those that are in the market though. I wouldn't be surprised to see a premium fuel requirement like you said, because the MPG improvements are never about saving the consumer money. They are all about pleasing the guberment overlords. If MPG goes up the overlords are pleased, and the consumers will just have to deal with it.

 

It would be great. But I don't need a dealership in Florida emailing and calling me asking when I'm coming down to buy a truck from them.

 

Did you know that it would take 60 new trucks to emit the same emissions as 1 pick up from as early as 1988 ? They’ve come a long way with emissions . As far as the barn door , have you actually looked at the front end of the new Silverado?

 

I drive 75-80

 

"Normal" drivng is relative.

 

Yes. Not mistaking for a Prius.

 

That's a face only a mother could love!

 

I was referring to the 1500 . Where they have the vents on both sides of the front to give the air somewhere to go as opposed to just pushing the air

 

Half tons have a ton of little aerodynamic devices. Chevy uses those ducts to redirect the air around the tires and clean up the airflow on the side to reduce drag. I think it's Ram that has/had shutters behind the grille to close off the gaping front end when the truck didn't need airflow. Using an HD to talk about aerodynamics is silly since a)EPA doesn't rate them so a couple MPG doesn't matter and b)diesel engines are MASSIVE and need a huge front end. I haven't looked inside a new DT Ram but I'm guessing there's not much room to make the front end smaller - whether it's the engine or the radiator there's just not much they can do to make the front ends smaller. Absolutely the new Tundra will have A LOT of aerodynamic engineering input, but that's been happening for a decade or more. It'll be interesting to see what Toyota comes up with.

 

Yes the Ram has the active grill shutters . Maybe that’s why Toyota is going with the V6 exclusively so they can make the front lower .

 

A V6 would be good to allow for a shorter front section, in the DS Ram the Hemi is pushed way back but then intrudes into the cab creating a big bump in the passenger footwell. As far as height I could see it being worse actually, depending on how the turbos are mounted. I haven't looked at the Ford 5.0 and 3.5 back to back but think the 5.0 might actually have more space in the engine bay.

 

Short term, yes. Long term, no.

 

I disagree. But maybe long, long, long term yes agreed. But only because of the turbo. 200k or more miles the Tacoma wins. But I digress, I'm still buying the Ranger before the Toyota. Just a better vehicle overall and great aftermarket support

 

Hey Guys,

I was wondering if based off the recent photos if it is possible to determine if the new Tundra will be smaller than the current gen?

Yes, no, too soon to say?

I am really hoping they shrink it down a tad.

Thank your your insight

 

Doesn't look smaller in any of the camo'ed pics. I read somewhere that the EPA based MPG requirements off of wheelbase, so all the tiny trucks disappeared. If it has the wheel base of a Honda accord it would have to match the MPG requirements of that class. This is death to the tiny Rangers and such of the past.

Now, I read that somewhere on the internet, so I don't know how true it is.

Overall, I would doubt it slimming down much. It's meant to compete with the other 1500 trucks out there, so it is likely to be similarly sized.

 

That was my impression as well looking at the camo pictures. Bummer!

 

Highly doubt it, having a bed smaller than 5'6" would kill sales (heck not having a 6'6" bed with the CM looses a few sales), and interior space needs to be maximized now so anything smaller length and width than the current Crewmax would be an issue among many, so that just leaves the front engine area than can be reduced. Going to a V6 could allow them to reduce the front length but then that negatively affects aerodynamics and front crash test ratings. So all said and done going smaller is highly unlikely. It's more likely to see a longer truck (6.5' bed on the CM) than to see a shorter one.

 

Yup. Only way to go smaller is to go midsize. They have to keep the full size competitive with others, and it'd be hard to match tow and payload in a smaller package.

 

Footprint does matter as does hybridization of engines for which there are mpg incentives. This is why there will almost certainly be a hybrid in the Tundra's near future and it is not likely to get smaller. If anything, I would say the Tacoma is likely to get bigger because of CAFE advantages. For this reason, the reliable 5.7L mated to reliable 6 speed with 4.30 rear gear ratio is likely to go away.

It's really quite an uninteresting read. Essentially way back in 2010 the government anticipated that by model year 2025 there would be an estimated increased cost of purchae, $1,700 per vehicle, for having to pay for the increased technology. But, if the person paid cash and kept the vehicle for it's lifetime they would recapture $4,400 in fuel savings over the life (10 years) of the vehicle.

Of course these "scientists" working for the government woefully underestimated the cost of technology and woefully overestimated the cost savings associated with this technology. Quite surprising, since the politicians (and scientists) were blessed with the psychic powers to see this far into the future relative to vehicle development and costs. I'm sure they also took into account the effects of the 2020 world pandemic in their calculations.

 

Luckily (for them) Toyota designs the taco to fit everyone except for you, thats why they are still class leading in sales. Its a good thing the experts at tacoworld and here arent designing trucks or toyota would be selling piles of garbage with name plates such as “ranger” and “colorado” on them.

 

While I agree the Taco is better than the Ranger, this premise is a little flawed. By this logic, the F150, Silverado, and Ram are vastly superior to the Tundra because they all sell multiple times the annual volume of the Tundra. Just because PC's outsell MACs, doesn't mean they have a better product.

 

At 6'4" I wish I could fit into a midsize. I have heard that the GM trucks are pretty roomy, but I cant bring myself to buy a GM.

Guess I should stop holding out for the new Tundra and get a used current gen.

 

Saw some Dakar on YouTube with the Hilux running a sweet screaming 5l v8...

 

I just find it ludicrous when people pretend toyota makes such an inferior product in the taco yet it somehow dominates its market segment despite fierce competition. Its like people get themselves hyped up to believe if a product doesnt work for them, it must be crap.

 

Your entitled to your opinion. Have a close look at a Ranger and see a fit panel problem between the hood and the fender. If they can't get the Ranger hood to fit properly no way I would trust the rest of the truck.

The Ranger advantages over the Tundra are a bigger cab, better seats and a more responsive motor. Tacoma is better off road (better articulation), better reliability and a better resale value.