2022 Tundra

Land cruiser 300 front end. Why Toyota did you jack up the tundra front so bad? A little bit bigger light plus hood bulge and this would of been a killer look for the truck.

 

I hope the redesigned Sequoia looks more like this... It's probably where I will end up

 

Agreed, look at the smooth lines, nicely integrated bumper and overall cohesive design language. Few tweaks for truck duty and that would be an acceptable look. Clearly, the LC300 is already being well received whereas the new Tundra is love it or hate it. I do hope the next gen 4 runner and possibly Tacoma adopt that design strategy but I suspect that won't be the case...

 

That's what all the payload people on this forum say.

If I ever hurt someone over payload towing my trailer with my family packed in, it'll be because I did a shitty job of towing that day. I've had terrible towing experiences and it was all user error. Can't blame the truck and more often than not, it was the Tundra that got us out of it.

 

Agreed... Toyota used to be the most boring vehicles on the road, now some of their designs just seem extreme for extreme sake as long as they aren't boring

 

so just to be clear. If I load my truck at 100# under max payload everything’s perfect. But if I run 100# over everyone’s life is in danger and the truck will fall apart? Idk I think there’s a lot of tacomas with 3k# in the back driving around that would say that’s a pretty un experienced thing to say.

 

Yes. That's exactly what I meant. Fiery deaths and doom will ensue if you exceed your ratings by an ounce or more.

Sarcastic hyperbole aside, the actual point is that there is a limit to what vehicles can safely do. No one on this forum knows what that magic number is. Is it 500 lbs. over the rating? 1000? 3000? Who is better suited to give a recommendation on what that limit is; the people who designed it or the people who buy it? Both want to be safe, and everyone knows there is a point at which a vehicle suffers in various aspects due to the weight. If the payload rating was the actual absolute limit the vehicle could tolerate without immediate catastrophic failure, then your suggested risk level would/could be correct. Because they use buffers to account for obvious overloading that is going to happen we are generally safe going over a bit. If we don't care what the manufacturer says about it, what number do we use?


So, serious questions for you:

1. If the payload rating is only a suggestion and doesn't matter, at what weight is it really too much?
2. How is that determined?
3. What is the weight limit that YOU won't cross and why was that number selected over the manufacturer's number?

 

Seems to me that he has tried to explain the rational for what determines these limits and most seem to deflect on that due to their crude and argumentative nature of not truly understanding what determines these ratings. I don't think it was mentioned anywhere that 100# over and the sky is falling. I will tell you if I was following a Tacoma with 3k# in the back I would say he's a complete moron and I wouldn't want to be on the same FWY as him. It's the people that always think they "know better" are the ones that end up killing somebody. If that said Tacoma were to get in a wreck or lose control of his vehicle the lawsuit he would face for damages would be pretty alarming. Glad I assume 95% of people in this thread don't try and get a CDL anytime soon.....

 

I already have mine.

 

Probably why your one of the few trying to explain simple towing rationale to the payload whiners

 

The power in bed is just enough to possibly charge a drill battery or your iPhone. It is nowhere in the same league as Ford‘s on board power. Let’s talk about a turbo charged V6 engine that we all know it’s going to have problems down the line. Then one more thing what is it? Oh yeah the price tag. I would guess we’re talking mid to high $70,000 range but we will see. Who will be first?

 

Toyota has been making many turbos engines in other markets for a long time. Just saying...


I could careless as I still have my 2007 5.7 liter Crewmax Limited 4x4 with 50,xxx miles on the clock.



O.S.T.

 

Idk I saw that SR5 with towing mirrors, so I know the tow mirrors are in the towing package, not trim lvl

 

I just can't get over the lack of rear heated and cooled seats on the Pro... or (I think) the lack of thigh support/extension for the driver seat. I mean, I get it, it's not the 'luxury' trim, but for the presumably high price point it will be at, come on. :/

 

87 octane not premium it's been confirmed by Toyota

 

Ford says the same thing with a little asterisk that then notes that best performance requires premium. It's pretty much SOP for turbo vehicles to run on mid, but you need premium for the best/advertised numbers. Did Toyota say they get the advertised numbers with 87 and that premium offers no benefit? (I've not really been following their releases.)

 

I'm holding out for the Lexus pick-up. I hear it'll have a V8 and the front will be so hideous it will look good.

 

Yes confirmed by Toyota that you can run 87 octane and get the advertised numbers, if you run 93 probably will gain more like the Land cruiser did when they Dyno with 93 octane..

 

The chief engineer said that the stated performance numbers are with 87 octane.

 

Well that's awesome. Way cool that Toyota isn't trying to play the same f**k f**k games as other manufacturers. Kinda like how the Supra actually makes the numbers advertised when somebody put it on a dyno. Almost like Toyota isn't overpromising.

 

I wanna see why will intake exhaust with a tune do to the tt v6

 

To be fair that's BMW and every single turbo engine BMW putting out now a days crushes their numbers. The new M3's are putting out nearly 15-20% above their reported figures. I have the same B58 engine from the supra in my 340i and a simple tune was 500hp/tq and still got almost 30mpg. I hope the V35 has this much promise!

 

I don't want to derail this thread any more than it has been, but damn do I love the new Supra. I want one, but I'm not that rich.

 

Me too! I just wish it had back seats, 2 seaters don't work for me anymore. I was secretly hoping that engine would make it in the Tundra! Could you believe what all the V8 naysayers would be doing? You stuck a turbocharged, non V8, AND BMW sourced engine in the Tundra. There were be mass chaos until they seen 500-600hp and tq just from bolt ons all.day.long, that engine has become the modern 2JZ.

With that much TQ I bet the payload rating would go past 1-ton dually territory too!!!!

 

I already regret posting this, but the people who designed it also say it can tow 12k. Toyota claims it can safely tow that much. However, it seems most people are adamantly against that much in a 1/2 ton. So why even listen to any #s Toyota claims?

 

If my truck is sitting on the bump stops using the truck like a truck I get stronger springs. And then if I’m uncomfortable with how close to the bump stops those new HD springs are letting my truck sag? I stop adding weight. Idk what that number is.

 

Here's a thought I had today indicating Toyota is super close to giving a tow rating not even possible with their payload #s.

Wise towing standards stipulate that tongue weight should be approximately 10% of trailer weight.

So a 12k trailer would wisely be at 1,200lb tongue load applied to truck, leaving 200lbs for a driver and nothing else if you have 1,400lbs on your door sticker.

No family, no tools, not a bed cap, no extra weight.

How many people will be able to comply with that?

 

Non what so ever, people like to push their luck, Test the limit, cause we know better…