2022 Tundra

I think the hybrid a lot heavier than the non. I bet that has something to do with it.

 

this is all preliminary , but ya I agree, not to impressed so far, especially since I bet the hydrid option will be 3-4K more easy.

 

But it will be so expensive.

 

So for those interested, I looked up the weight on the stock falkwn tires that come stock on the trd pro and off-road versions- 64.5 lbs each. Assuming epa ratings are with these tires, upgrading to a bigger tire shouldn’t have a huge impact on fuel economy- my 35x12.50x17 toyo at3’s weight 70lbe. The old stock tires weighted something pathetic like 40lbs so you could definitely feel any tire size increase in the pants and in the wallet at the gas pump.

also for those fellow chrome haters, found this site- https://www.colorxlabs.com/products/color-match-wrap-vehicle-wrap-that-matches-oem-paint-color

couple hundred bucks for a roll and a few hundred for pro installation to cover up all the chrome- cheaper than new grills and mirror/ handles/ etc

 

There is no replacement for displacement....... That saying still holds true today.

 

I suggested that a month or so ago. I'd be all over that!

 

Someone should break the news to the airline industry.

 

I get it, these trucks arent made to be drag raced, but 0-60 times are good measure of performance. I saw that the hybrid system adds 600lbs, and from back in my motorcycle racing years every 8lbs equals 1 hp, so that extra 600lbs equals about 75rwhp. Im disappointed that the current 5.7 has faster times 0-60 than the higher powered new engine configurations.

 

I do prefer reliability to all out performance, but damn they coulda done better.

 

I have a Les Paul Studio this color. So nice.

 

That's what i'll order in long bed with tow package.

 

On a pre-production vehicle, not broken in yet, and Andre probably in a hurry because of having limited time with the vehicle - so only one or two passes to test. Not to mention we've seen better times by other reviewers.

Many folks forget that these are pre-production prototypes, so the acceleration might be off, the mpg's will be wonky, and the payload may not even be accurate* because of de-rating the GVWR because, again, pre-production prototypes.

* I've compared the numbers shown by several reviewers in videos and they don't always match the documentation we've seen in this thread, especially the spec sheet that's publicly available from Toyota.
And before you tell me "the production vehicles are always less payload that the website" ... go check the manuals for the existing Tundras. Find the chart that includes adjustments for the moonroof, tow package, and 36 gallon fuel tank, and the numbers are exactly what is on the payload sticker. 1185 for a Platinum Crew cab 4x4 with moon roof, tow package, and 36 gallon fuel tank. (And that's the confusion, those options became standard in 2016, so it's impossible to find a truck that has payload that matches the un-adjusted numbers in the charts.) So I have every reason to believe Toyota knows how much the truck is supposed to weigh. /rant

 

It's called forced induction.

 

I sure hope the afterlife makes more sense than all of this. Holy shit, I've had enough.

 

Im hoping that it will be better on the production trucks. Im sure all this testing will help them discover weak points in the fuel mapping, and transmission shifting, etc... id personally like to see high 5s for the hybrid and low 6s for the non hybrid, to me that would be acceptable.

 

I’m hoping for low 5s, but I’ll take high 5s.

 

I doubt the stock falkens weigh near as much as the ones you would buy. Even tho they are the same model and size. From what I understand, automakers will have the tire co make a certain tire to their own ( Toyota’s) specs. They are probably lighter for mpg and for a softer ride. It may even be c or d rated LT, while the aftermarket are all e rated. I think it’s that way with the raptors and the bfgs. I’ve been known to be wrong a time or two tho.

 

Lol...The 2021 0-60 in the SR-5 Crewmax is 6.4.....Soo...the truck is slower...who would have thought after losing 2 cylinders.

 

I definitely expected better with more hp/tq. I expected times close to the f150, maybe slightly slower.

 

I dunno if this is a cry for help or an opportunity for me to drop one of my favorite snarky comments....

 

A few reviewers stuck a device to the windshield and got mid-7s from several Tundras.

That's slower than my current 15 year old truck, and just to be sure I wasn't imagining things, I checked the reviews from when my truck's new model was released to journalists in late 2003...
They were getting high 6's even on the 4x4 Crew Cab, engine also not broken in yet.

Doesn't the 5.7 Tundra run mid 6's?

I guess with an open diff and no AWD you don't want to push your luck.....

 

More photoshop time!
Chaps, I present an Army Green SR5 TRD Off Road with a *COLOR MATCHED* grille surround that I photoshopped! I also blacked out the chrome Toyota emblem of the front.


original photo from @trd.jon:



EDIT: So apparently you guys can't see the photos attached
I'm making a second post (same thing as this post)
Link: https://www.tundras.com/threads/2022-tundra.76839/page-615#post-2455480

 

Pic doesnt show

 

My vote is snark devoid of sexism. You’re running out of toes to dip in that pool.

 

Let's hear it.

 

Most of the articles I read and on the forms say it’s the same like in this one. The difference comes when you get the diesel over to 7.3 gas. The article you have is a diesel. Somebody went through a part number by part number to confirm and said everything‘s the same between a 7.3 250/350 tremor. But I guess Ford would be the only one that truly knows.

https://www.motortrend.com/news/2001-2020-ford-f-250-f-350-super-duty-tremor-first-drive/

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxT_ivMTQXc