Unpopular opinion: The current Tundra interior is better than everyone else's.

Bottom line.... a DC is safer to haul kids around....................just sayin.........

 

And an F150 is safer than the DC........ just sayin.....

 

They are making the same number of A pillars per vehicle as before, so no, I don't think there is any added cost to that aside from retooling the drivers side mold. Whoever or whatever is tasked with making the A pillars is still making the same number of them; it's just that they pick up a different tool (mold for 2014+) to make the Tundra driver's side A pillar.
It would seem to me, they have the same costs (labor, supervisory, energy consumption, regulatory) for the pillar (as every truck still has two pillar trim pieces), and lower costs in all the aforementioned areas for the handle (which is the part they made 100,000 fewer of each year).

Yeah we can google all day and find tons of handles made out of plastic that are cheaper than this one. Those handles are not made by Toyota, and they don't retail for $70.54. I highly doubt that this steel-reinforced beast of a handle cost $1 to make:





There are at least 5 pieces to it that I can see (3 plastic, 2 steel). It feels like there might be more steel in there, but I'm not sure. I don't want to cut it open to inspect it further, lol. It feels fairly hefty in the hand, but I don't have a postal scale to weigh it with. Toyota designed it to repeatedly withstand Tundra drivers (up to what, 300-lb?) yanking themselves up into their seats without failure. By the way, when is the last time you've heard of one of these failing?

And just to show the difference between the pillar pieces, here's what the A pillar trim looks like with the handle:

It is more complex than my stock A pillar and is reinforced with steel as well at the handle mounting locations. Toyota's retail price on that piece is $161.19. Interestingly enough, it feels to weigh substantially less than the handle, yet it costs more. Reasonable conclusion: there must be costs associated with producing these parts other than materials costs.

I still think they spent relatively little to save a lot, and the IIHS test results don't show any correlation to removing the driver's grab handle. All head/neck results were at the highest rating from 2010 on.

Fully agreed!

 

You can't just retool a mold. A completely new mold has to be produced. Because both handles are being produced you would need a second line of production for the new item.

I ripped the handle off my Ram 2500 when my kneecap slid to the side and my knee buckled. Those handles do not support the weight a of a driver. They assist in entry. Don't believe me? Go out, open your door, grab that handle with both hands, and lift your legs. You'll tear it off your truck. *DON"T DO THIS, AND IF YOU DO IT"S NOT MY FAULT! I AM NOT PAYING FOR YOUR BROKEN HANDLE OR BROKEN ASS*

Yes, there is more cost, but the labor, and other things will happen regardless of the design. The only relevant change is the cost of the actual materials for the handle itself.

Correct, they maintained the rating, and that was the purpose. The tests got more stringent and they adapted an old design to not take a hit. The goal wasn't to increase the rating, it was just to offset where the newer standards would have dropped the rating.

 

Fuk F-150's......ha! I'm simply comparing how the "Tundra" DC has consistently done better year over year in safety tests than the Crew Max. And yet...folks seem to prefer the CM over the DC to haul kids around for that extra space.......

 

On the note of the interior, the first 5 minutes or so are all about the interior. I agree with 90% of this review.

https://youtu.be/crxw_0RTmfg

 

Yes, by retooling, I meant producing a new mold. It appears you're coming dangerously close to shifting your argument from making a new mold to making an entirely new production line...I don't think that immediately follows for this one interior part.

Of course that would happen in a Ram. And a substantial amount of one's bodyweight is applied to the handle when pulling oneself up into the truck. I don't mean it supports all 300lb of a 300lb man, but it was designed to work for assisting very heavy people into the truck. Not a simple, weak, or cheap handle.

If these parts cost almost nothing to make and the main cost factor (and therefore only savings) is the cost of materials, then the heavier part that had more material in it would cost more. But it doesn't. The handle feels to weigh substantially more than the A pillar, yet its suggested retail price from Toyota is less than 50% of the A pillar. Thus, there are other costs associated with producing these parts besides material.

They're still making both A pillars, just making one less badass, complicated, definitely-cost-more-than-a-few-bucks-to-produce handles for each of the 800,000+ plus trucks they've built since 2014.

IIHS.org also disagrees with you: "The Toyota Tundra CrewMax was redesigned for the 2007 model year. Beginning with 2010 models, the driver and passenger frontal airbags and front seat belts were modified and knee airbags for the driver and front passenger were added. [This is where we see the improvement in head/neck areas on the moderate overlap frontal crash] Beginning with 2014 models, the side curtain airbags were lengthened and reprogrammed to deploy in small overlap and moderate overlap frontal crashes to improve occupant protection."

So, according to the testing authority themselves, it wasn't the deletion of the driver's side grab handle that improved occupant protection. It was the reprogramming and lengthening of both side curtain airbags. Passenger side kept the grab handle. The drivers side lost it. Yet, they both improved occupant protection. Thus, the handle is irrelevant to the improvement made.

 

Not at all what I am saying. I'm saying that with both being produced simultaneously you would need two lines running.

Again, not saying they cost nothing to make. I'm saying the material cost savings of the plastic are low, and that the deletion of the handle is only saving the materials of the handle. All other production costs of labor, shipping, etc. should theoretically be the same with or without the handle. The difference is going to be the cost of the plastic pellets and the couple of steel washers/plates for the handle.

They aren't giving a detailed breakdown of everything, and they are noting the root cause. It's entirely possible that the lengthening and reprogramming of the side curtain airbags would have provided the protection needed and the handle might have been able to stay with no ill effects. To find out for sure would have required testing. What is known for certain is that the dummies did hit their heads, and that this would not be good for scores. In typical fashion, overkill was employed. Bags redesigned and the offending handle removed.

Pic from IIHS

 

Examples of data not included in the summary:

2013 truck



2014 Truck





Both those above are from the moderate overlap, because there wasn't a Small Overlap until 2014. These are it's numbers.

 

I think I remember you saying that's a 2019 truck on the passenger side, right? I don't find it reasonable to assume that this test result on the passenger side of the truck is a clue leading us to why they deleted the driver's side grab handle 5 years prior, especially since

• (1) there is no mention or note of a head/grab handle collision on the driver's side at all, let alone prior to 2014, and
• (2) Toyota chose not to delete the passenger side handle in 2020 following this noted passenger head/grab handle collision in 2019.

Furthermore, passenger head/neck injuries, like all head/neck injuries for the Tundra since 2010, retain their rating of "Good" despite this passenger dummy apparently glancing off the grab handle in 2019. If that connection were in any way likely to cause an injury, it would not have such a drastically low HIC.

Yes, that is before they reprogrammed and lengthened the side curtain air bags on both sides of the truck.

Yes, that is after they reprogrammed and lengthened the side curtain air bags on both sides of the truck.

Yep. Notice that in the 2014+ driver's side small overlap, the Head Injury Criterion, which measures the likelihood of trauma to the skull or brain, despite no grab handle and "no contact" is higher than the HIC for the 2019 passenger dummy that actually hit his head on the grab handle, shown here:


That a grab handle is mentioned 5 years later on the passenger side of the truck following a connection with a lower likelihood of head injury does not seem like a very strong reason to infer the drivers side grab handle deletion as the reason for Toyota improving their front occupant protection in 2014, especially since IIHS said expressly why that is, leaving out any mention of a drivers side grab handle deletion.

 

Correct, the image and note is from the passenger side, as the test in which it occurred did not exist when the truck had a driver side handle.

1. This is a strong point for the conclusions you are drawing, BUT the test where this happens wasn't used on pre 2014 trucks.
2. The passenger doesn't have a steering wheel and the airbag to divert them toward the handle in the same way the driver does. This might play a role in Toyota's decision. Also, there will ALWAYS be a driver, but it's not uncommon for a vehicle to run more than 50% of it's life with no passenger. Is it possible that the passenger side has less of an impact to scoring? IDK.

The IIHS doesn't surprise manufacturers with new tests. They give them notice, and manufacturers adjust and design as they see fit. The reason there is no mention of the handle and it's issues is because the small overlap barrier test wasn't done on any of the 2007-2013 Tundras. So, if in 2012 or 2013 IIHS said "we are going to to introduce this new test" Toyota could have checked it, possibly tested it, and made decisions before it was implemented to help maintain their safety rating. If this were the case, then the IIHS would never publish anything about the handle because it was never an issue in an official test.

The airbag redesign is definitely part of the redesign to preserve a safety rating, but the handle dropped at the exact same time the airbags were done. Coincidence? I tend to doubt most coincidences.

My thoughts and speculative question:

1. Perhaps the true root cause of the handle deletion was to accommodate the longer and reprogrammed side curtain airbags to better function with the steering wheel airbag?
2. Maybe the handle and the steering wheel in conjunction would potentially cause deployment issues with the new bags, but because the passenger side has no wheel it could keep it's handle?

Again, speculation, but it's fun to discuss. Thank you for the back and forth and intelligent challenges. It's making me rethink and analyze things that I otherwise may have not considered.

 

Yes, they added the small overlap tests in 2014. Following your logic in point 2, do you see any other way at all where safety is compromised because there is a lower rate of occupants when a Tundra is moving down the road but always a driver? Also, in the test data you posted from 2013 and 2014 in your previous response, it seems like you are assuming the change to “no contact” in 2014 means because of no grab handle. But from reading through tests, it seems contact is defined as hitting anything in the interior other than an airbag.

But again I think maintaining the safety rating is due to what IIHS said it was due to.

I think the same way you do regarding coincidences. That's why I see it as part of the simplification of the interior, just one of multiple interior features they deleted in the 2014 model year. It's just part of the refresh; they revamped the interior and exterior at the same time they deleted multiple interior features.

Or would you argue that all of the cosmetic changes and interior deletions in 2014 were really done in the name of safety?

1. I'm not inclined to infer that based on everything I've seen and read.
2. The handle doesn't interfere with the side curtain or steering wheel airbag deployment at all. The SCA comes straight down the side, along the window and door (like a curtain), and the steering wheel airbag appears to be well out in front of it. The handle is mounted above it (refer to the pic I posted last night of the A pillar with the handle removed. You can see the airbag peeking through).
And thank you! Again, I totally agree. Fun times. If you ever come to Nashville, I'd buy you a beer or whatever your drink of choice is.

Edit to add: did we just have a robust, civil debate online?!?! A true unicorn moment.

 

I used to wonder why people got the driver side grab handle installed, then decided to get it to see what the fuss was about. When it was first installed I never used it for several months, and still don't use it alot, but if I'm on a trail and have to park to go take a piss, or have my truck parked on some rough terrain, it definitely helps me get into the truck.

 

Good to know, I’ll start using it to get my fat ass up in my truck lol

 

I tend to think it's a bit of both. I think that they opted to simplify with the refresh to help keep costs down, but that they were also pushing to keep as much of their "safe and reliable" reputation intact as possible. When it comes to corporate decisions they are seldom made for just one reason. Unless that reason is stupidity. That one does a lot all on it's own.

Really gonna dive down a rabbit hole here. Put on your tinfoil hat.

Safety and money saving are both viable, and likely causes for the change. I think we can both see the potential merits there. What hasn't been mentioned here is the long game. Toyota knew the Tundra was aging. The refresh would keep it going for a bit, but it was a bandaid, not a solution. So, looking to the future of the Tundra badge, they strip out some features. Yeah, some people will howl, but the age of the design and the sales mean they can afford to take a hit for a few years on it if needed. This way, they can bring back some of those lost features, and people will be excited all over again by things they've had before. Just look at the 2022 thread. People were PUMPED about the grab handle coming back. What if the little storage pockets in the doors come back too? People's heads will explode.

I was just pondering on potential reasonings for the change. Watching the crash test more closely, you are correct that they don't seem to interfere, but if there were a handle you can see that it is at least possible that it would have protruded between the two bags in the same way the passenger side does.

On all of this, I really just enjoy the lively debate and being able to play devil's advocate. Approaching things from all sides usually helps when trying to get an idea about things. It helps me to be more open minded and approach things in ways that I might otherwise gloss over. We, meaning people, generally view enough of a situation to draw a conclusion we find satisfactory in our own perspective, and then we stop thinking about it.

I appreciate and share the beverage sentiment. Not only did we have a robust and civil debate online, we can agree to disagree if needed and both enjoy it! It's a Unicorn under a double rainbow farting glitter moment!

 

I agree that the goals for the 2014 model year were increased safety and redesign for increased sales/profits. I just think it's pretty clear the handle deletion fits into the latter rather than the former. IIHS spells out exactly what earned Toyota improved occupant protection in 2014, and the handle deletion wasn't mentioned at all. Then 5 years later, IIHS noted the passenger dummy's head glanced the handle on the other side of the truck. They also noted an extremely low likelihood of head injury resulting from this contact, and Toyota kept that handle. Money saving speculation aside, this seals the deal for me.

I think we do have consumer feedback to thank for lots of the things deleted (storage, folding rear seat, etc). I would say whatever features come back are probably the result of the same kinds of feedback. It has to be a fairly eye-rolling exercise for Toyota when they get "wHy DiD yOu GeT rId Of ThAt, I UsEd It AlL tHe TiMe!!" from surveyed consumers for features that didn't previously poll well. It's a fine line trying to please everyone when so many consumers have different ideas of what factory features they really need and what they could live without AND when the way people use their trucks changes over time as well.

That "for a bit" that you mention is 8 model years ('14 through '21). I don't think the main point was to delete some features and then bring them back 8 years down the road. Look at how much scorn is about to be heaped upon Toyota if/when it is discovered the new Tundra comes with a factory ext trans cooler. Rather, deleting lesser utilized features is how you increase profit margins over a long generation term without doing what the domestics do: adding new, unreliable features to increase sales every few years and managing all the problems/recalls that come with them.

Seems to me Toyota deleted simple interior things that save a relatively small amount of money per truck multiplied by over 100k trucks per year. How many recall/repair costs does deleting simple interior features generate? I think it's pretty clear that this adds zero costs of those kinds for Toyota (unlike the domestics adding rushed, problematic features). Stuff like this is how Toyota is the most profitable automaker in the world.

Yeah, it doesn't seem to interfere. And maybe there is a possibility a driver's side handle could protrude the same way. But I think the steering wheel airbag (it's well out in front of the dash and has to decelerate the driver's head before contact is made with the steering wheel) and side curtain air bags would keep that from happening.

Agreed. Much appreciated as well.