Official 2022 Tundra 3rd Gen Thread

There's entire threads dedicated to that silly debate, hell, I think there's an entire FORUM dedicated to it and it's finally quieted down. It makes the tow hooks thing look like a blink so thanks for starting that up again! Hopefully the ember it is won't turn into a blaze here again. The manufacturer says when the generation has officially changed but many feel the 2014 freshen up warranted a generation so the unofficial nickname is 2.5 and the 2022 is officially 3.

 

my def of value is being able to pull my trailer that weighs over 4000 pounds , more payload, durability, reliability, extra cargo space not only in the bed but also in the cab, yes the 30mpg is attractive and the $33,000 price tag is on point. But those are not features that should make it the sole winner of Truck of the Year 2022.

 

Probably been discussed somewhere, but what makes the Pro wider? Is it just slightly wider fender flares or do they actually have different fenders?

 

I am confused are you saying the:
2000-2002 = 1st Generation
2003-2006 = 2nd Generation
2007-2009 = 3rd Generation
2010-2013 = 4th Generation
2014-2018 = 5th Generation
2019-2021 = 6th Generation
2022-……….= 7th Generation

 

Please see post #3740.

 

Lol

 

Its the offset. And i think its only just barely. I think i read its only like .1 or .2 of an inch over width, or something like that. Looks like they did just enough to have an excuse to put the marker lights in the grill and tailgate for looks i guess. The raptor and the trx have them for a reason with the long travel suspension and wide fenders. Ther're more like 6" wider.
In the tundra pro, you run the risk of looking like one of those guys that put the raptor marker lights on a regular F150

 

Track on the PRO is 1" wider and I believe that is due to the offset on the PRO wheels. The fender flares on the PRO are also wider and that makes up the 1.4" difference over the others.

 

I was thinking that the pro was the 80.2 and the no pros were below. I stand corrected then.

 

are the wheels different for the Pro and the TRD OR package I thought they were the same with the P285/65R18 Falken wildpeak tires . Is the marker light thingy the law of the land ? If the wheels are not the same and i put P285/65R18 on a non TRD PRO do I need to install the fancy marker lights and can I get them to change color…….. u know for safety…and even though I am old as fart dust chicks might dig it !

 

grill still needs color match, dont like the dark chrome or the surround.

 

why cant you just take that off or swap it out? I was going to do the same with blueprint if I get one. I dont like all the colors they use, dont like the gloss black wheel flares , the grill , the surround, or the tailgate peice so that all has to go. But there are other models with color match to harvest from

 

If turbos are a possible issue than the 3.0 diesel is a problem too (they aren't for either vehicle once the supplier issues are fixed for Toyota). Drive the 5.3 and you'll be in for a surprise coming from the Hemi. 5.3 has torque but is a dog at highway speed compared to the 5.7. 6.2 is the better choice for GM, it's worth the extra money to try to get into one if everything else on the GM satisfies you.

Like most have said - go test drive one. Most stuff online focuses on the negative (doesn't matter what forum, website, etc.) and can get you pretty down. I personally like the new gen, it is better than my 2016, but the question is whether it is a big enough improvement to warrant selling mine - ATM I don't think so, but I've yet to test drive it.

 

I agree. I think the marker light thing is cheesy when done by anything other than the Raptor since it's the OG. At least the TRX tried to be a little different with theirs. Now if Toyota would do an integrated roof rack in a mid-travel Pro version with the marker lights integrated into the roof rack?...We would have something more unique, and useful.

 

The only one I mind is the grille surround.

 

Sure, you want the TRAC 'feature' off, that pretty much useless 'feature' that cuts engine power. That's what I was getting at saying old school. Downright dangerous sometimes if one is trying to accelerate through a snowy intersection and the truck bogs down. "VSC OFF" button is a great thing for 2HI and 4HI. 4LO it's disabled automatically.

You're correct, many people don't know about the nannies, how they operate, when they operate. Took me a while to figure them out when I went from a barebones '98 Taco to a '12 Taco. Hell, just a month ago I didn't think to hit VSC OFF making a u-turn on a two lane knowing full well I'd have two wheels in the ditch. Sure enough, truck bogged down with traffic bearing down on me. That was in 4HI and a bit too close for comfort.

 

So what?

The testing TFL Truck did had other categories, and spanned multiple truck sizes. Just because a Ford Maverick doesn’t meet your needs, doesn’t mean it is not 2022’s best new truck overall for what it offers for the money, and what it means for the pickup truck market.

Your argument if it can be called that is simply not taking into account that individual specific needs aren’t a metric in that testing. No one watching that video who tows a 20,000lb livestock trailer and needs a 1 ton would consider a Tundra the best truck either.

Lastly even if the contest were all about 1/2 ton 4X4’s the Tundra would be dead last in the value for the money category. Features per dollar is not a strong suit for the new Tundra.

 

Thanks for the responses to my thoughts above. Will keep looking around while I wait for a Tundra test drive. In the meantime a truck is coming for me with a refundable deposit so no harm in taking it slow.
Good thoughts on the Chev from everyone as well - I can see the 5.3 from a hemi would seem sluggish but not sure going up in engine size these days is the way to go either, not for my usage profile. In the end cost factors as well and the Tundra has nice features in the SR Sport compared to other brands. I bought a stupid boat so I throw way too much $$ at that.

 

Your individual needs and definition of value aren’t factored into TFL’s testing on this one. Obviously when trucks from different classes are in the running, raw numbers for payload and towing are not going to be apples to apples.

Even viewed within the 1/2 ton segment the Tundra isn’t standing out in any single category. Sure as hell not on value for the money if that is factored in. It’s not a standout in the 1/2 ton segment, at least not in any single area.

The Ford Maverick on the other hand is basically reviving the mini-truck class of trucks, with good capabilities for the size, and a lot of bang for the buck.

Is the Tundra a better pickup than a Ford Maverick? Sure if you can afford one, but so is every other 1/2 ton on the market, and every 1 ton is even better still if raw power and capacity is your only metric.

 

Sure reliability is nice, and Toyota is good at making reliable cars and trucks. That doesn’t factor in to most journalist evaluations of new cars and trucks. They don’t have them long enough to form any opinion.

Frankly most of the people on this forum don’t seem to keep their trucks long enough to form an opinion either, but that’s just an unsolicited observation…

For the majority of new car and truck buyers as long as a vehicle runs reliably for 5 years they don’t care. At the end of that period they’re trading in regardless.

 

Hey I agree, but the testing metrics of most automotive journalism outlets don’t factor reliability. On a new model I don’t think reliability can be factored in because there is no data.

 

I just don't get how they can directly compare them, they're completely different classes of vehicles. It's like comparing a Camry and a Lamborghini. If you're trying to break it down to value for 99% of the use most people will do very basic Corollas or the like will win hands down. It's not like the Tundra is way over priced for its class, option out an F150 and you're in a similar price range.

 

We don’t know that the $60K Tundra will last any longer than a $30K Maverick at this point.

There is no data. There is no guarantee from either manufacturer aside from the warranty.

What we do know is how much stuff you get and how much the product costs. So value is a factor.

Once there is significant reliability data to be had, reliability can, and should be, factored in as actual data not supposition.

 

Problem with this is that by the time you get significant reliability data (5 years) the other manufacturers put out a new generation and say it's all been improved, old reliability stats are meaningless. Toyota is the only brand to keep their trucks the same to have proper reliability data.

So for the new generations (or vehicles) we either say everyone buying them are guinea pigs or run with previous generation or similar vehicle data. So for the Tundra we have to go with the previous Tundra and other Toyota vehicles - which shows very good reliability, or at worst if there's a problem under warranty its a no hassle repair. Compare that to the Maverick and Ford's history and it's pretty spotty at best.

 

Not true, problems pop up and get reported pretty quickly. Within the first year or two we will be well aware of common problems in any given make and model.

 

Based on previous performance I would too, but until the new truck proves to be trouble free for a year or two I won’t factor reliability into a purchase decision.

 

or to put it another way, you can infer the probability of reliability from previous track records and do a comparison between makers but it doesn't matter because you shouldn't buy the first year of anything.

 

That would work for you, but the national average time people keep new cars is 71 months (around 6 years). So that would not be the best thing from a value only standpoint for the average american new car buyer.

For the Average buyer, paying the toyota tax is not really that beneficial, where Toyotas really shine in my mind is when you need a good reliable used car...especially a lower cost high mileage one....Thats where they come into their own in the market. Any one that mentions buying a used car to me I just say, pick whatever toyota you want and go with it....don't even look at the others.

 

Yep.

Now if organizations like car magazines, TFL, Consumer Reports etc wanted to track long term reliability across brands and factor that into a likely reliability score that would be fair.

For that matter I would love to see manufacturer response to known issues factored in, as well as warranty support, dealer service standards, and the whole package. Does a manufacturer acknowledge a problem and make it right by customers, and fix it? Do they bury their heads in the sand and refuse to make changes? Does the manufacturer make an effort to cover warranty claims as much as possible or try to weasel out of them? What are the standards for service experience? Do customers get loaners per manufacturer policy etc?

That shit is pretty important for ownership experience but no one seems to factor it in when comparison testing cars and trucks.

We can grumble about results but the group doing the rating has their metrics, and sometimes they’re not the same ones you or I would use.

 

Agreed, they like to give value by comparing gadgets, I like to compare value by how well is it going to work for the money. If Toyota is spending their money to give me a transmission that will make it 500,000 miles instead of giving me massaging seats, I'm good with that. Toyota also holds better resale value so that should also be incorporated. The previous gen Tundra was the cheapest truck to own despite being a gas hog and costing just as much. That is value not the fact that you can get a ball tickler on the Ford. But that's why we have choices many of us that buy Toyotas agree that the value comes in the quality of the truck whereas a lot of the Ford owners believe the value comes from gadgets that will really never get used.