3rd Gen V8

I guess as long as its on paper it must be true. Real world numbers don't matter anymore.

 

TT V6 with a 6 speed short throw manual trans

 

Real world numbers only matter to the people paying for them. The EPA doesn't care about reality as long as they get to keep their power.

 

Governments only goal is to retain power and grow its power and profits.

 

Now that's not a bad idea. I'd still rather have it in a V8, but I like your thinking.

 

In what single catagory is either the 2.5 or 3.0 Tundra more capable than the competition?

I cross shopped the Tundra and F150 and bought the Tundra due to expected reliability and lower cost to purchase and own. I don't know of anything that makes them more capable. It's clearly not towing or payload.

 

Good morning and happy Saturday! I appreciate your response! I bought my tundra because I wanted to, based on my capability and reliability needs. Thank you and have a great weekend!

 

I asked because I'm genuinely wondering what the competitive advantage of the 3rd gen Tundra is vs. the competition. I'm waiting for someone to tell me expected reliability. I hope that turns out to be the case.

 

"base twin-turbo 3.5L V6 produces 389 horsepower and 479 lb-ft of torque. For comparison, the old 5.7L V8 produced 381 horsepower and 401 lb-ft of torque"

What does everyone have against horsepower and torque? The new V6tt makes more power than the old V8 and does it more efficiently, why hate it? Modern technology has improved the combustion engine with no need for huge displacement. Just look at fourmula one engines, 1.6 liter V6 that puts out more than 1000hp. A 1966 Shelby Gt350 came with a 225hp V8 that would not be able to keep up with a modern 4 cylinder turbo WRX.

 

Most of the concerns I see relate to whether the TT will need more maintenance and repair. Some will mention the V8 "rumble" or other nonsense (to me).

I drove the new Tundra and prefer the ride and performance over the old model. But the 2.5 gen was already eclipsed by all the other truck makers. I just still don't see what sets the new Tundra apart from the other brands at this point.

 

Nobody is complaining that there's better HP and torque, but 8 more HP and 78 lb-ft isn't worth the added cost for most people. It is better, but it's not exactly leaps and bounds. The efficiency is nice, but could be partially gained through a retune and 10 speed transmission tacked onto a V8.

Comparing professional racecar tech is silly. Compared to your average car/truck buyer those racecars have an unlimited budget for maintenance. If you want to pay for my engine to be torn town and rebuilt for peak performance every week, then I'm all about a tiny motor screaming it's head off. It's beyond an apples to oranges level of terrible comparisons.

Using this logic why aren't we all just in EVs? Way more power and torque than a V anything. Oh, right, it's not comparable because cost is a huge mitigating factor. You get me a powerplant that competes on EVERY metric and then I'm open to it. I need the same range, same quick fill up, same tow capacity, same cold/hot weather starting ability, same ease of personal maintenance, same ability to off road/tackle big snow drifts, etc. and it all needs to cost $40K-$42K like my Tundra did. It isn't possible, and until it is you can't legitimately fault anyone who doesn't want whatever the latest greatest thing is.

 

Not comparing race cars to everyday drivers, was trying to state how turbo control management technology has evolved from previous V12 versions of the formula one engine to modern V6. Think I might have left out the v12 part.

Not sure what you meant by the EV statement, nobody's talking about that. EV is great and all but I need quicker fill ups, longer range and better value also.

This V6 vs. V8 debate just seems like old school fighting new school.

 

good question. Don't really know, think it's all about brand loyalty/preference??

I drove a F150, a sierra and a Ram but liked the Tundra best.

 

I’d rather have a flat 6 diesel option

 

Hopefully, those same people will have the same feeling 300k miles from now.....I'm doubtful they will. Even if it does end up with the same reputation for longevity, who wants to drive a truck that ugly for that long?

 

Not sure if there are any single metric capabilities that are better than the competitors. But my 2018 fit my capability requirements. In addition, I have had Toyota trucks my entire life for 8+ year stretches. My pops still has his 2007 Tundra and it has nearly 400k miles on it. My 08 Tacoma had 300k miles on it when I traded it in. I’m a big fan of the reliability of Toyota’s trucks…. And it meets MY capability requirements.

 

Turbo management tech has evolved, but to make a small displacement compete with or outperform a larger displacement usually means an increase in maintenance and higher octane fuels to get the power and efficiency. Not saying the performance isn't better, but only looking at that metric while ignoring the big picture of overall lifespan and cost is not going to give you an accurate comparison. Why not do a simpler supercharger or turbo build on a larger displacement for similar gains? There is a performance ceiling to everything, and in general that ceiling goes up with a larger displacement. You're comparing a brand new TTV6 to a 12+ year old NA V8, and your beating it by 8 HP, 78 lb-ft, and 3-5 MPG at a cost of about $10,000 additional cost. It's just a trade that many are unwilling to make, or simply cannot afford.

The EV statement was taking the logic of "newer and more efficient in a single dimension means it must be better" to its eventual conclusion. It's the end line progression of the "it's got more power and is more efficient" angle you are coming from. If you want to go more slowly then the next step would be "Why not embrace the hybrid V6? It's got more power and torque and is more efficient than the TTV6." Well, again, cost. It's a metric that has to be accounted for in average vehicles. The big picture matters, and singling out one or two strong points where one beats the other isn't going to account for the whole picture.

 

I'll take an ugly truck that outperforms a pretty truck every single time.

 

I'm happy for you

 

Agreed. But I’ll take the most reliable truck regardless of looks every single time. And the 2nd gen Tundra is objectively the most reliable truck you can get. The higher resale value than everyone else is a real world testament to how much longer they last on average after the warranty vs everyone else, whether they’re used within their stated limits or not.

Until it stops meeting my needs, I’m sticking with it. And I’ll most likely replace it with a 3rd gen in several years. I think it will be a great truck once the release and QC issues are ironed out. I know some people don’t like the looks. I could not care less. It’s a tool. Judge it on its utility.

 

I'm leaning toward waiting on the 4cyl twin turbo hybrid Tacoma. Sell the trailer and get a motorhome to pull it!

 

Value. In comparing to GMC. An Fully loaded SR5 is priced the same as a mid-optioned 5.3 sierra evolution. The Toyota is nicer to drive. More powerful. With more options.

 

NA V8 vs turbo V6, or NA V6 vs turbo I4 I think it's tailpipe emissions EPA requirements that are driving the changes. Two less cylinders I guess means a 25% reduction in tailpipe emissions. Tailpipe emissions add up in urban areas, if you've lived in places like Denver, SLC, Grand Junction you can see the Brown Cloud that hovers over them, you can smell it.

I'm a selfish kind of guy so I'll stay with our 4.7l's and 5.7l. I rationalize doing so because most of our travel is way out West in non-urban areas and don't want the complexity of a turbo. When we lived in San Diego the CARB standards only applied to urban areas, we moved to Julian and it was much relaxed.

Trains add a lot to dirty air in urban areas, those locomotives pump out a lot of diesel emissions. We'll see what happens in the future trying to clean things up.

 

Thanks for the reply but value is not a capability. The Silverado 6.2L LT has 420hp while I believe the Tundra has 389hp? But the Tundra does best the Silverado 5.3L at only 355hp. It looks like the LT trail Boss starts at $54k. Not sure if that comes with the 6.2L at that price. I thought fully loaded SR5's were close to $60k?

Nicer to drive is also not a capability and very subjective. But a very valid reason to pick one vehicle over another if that is your perception.

 

You asked category and the capability to price is value.

 

Comparing trims and price is a quagmire to debate. Bottom line is you can buy another 1/2 ton with more hp and torque and higher payload and towing ratings in equivalent trim for equal or less money. So why buy the Tundra?

 

It’s real world decisions though. How can you ignore trim and price? Which truck can I get for equal or less? A 6.2 in any GM crew max 4x4 is 60k start plus packages and options (ordered before GMC remodel). My SR5 advanced package w/bed liner was $56 out the door. Go price out ford, ram and either GM. You can get more stats from the big 3 if you pay for it but at a comparable price range the tundra was the top for me.

 

GM is out for me. It's payload is only a couple hundred more than the Tundra and you get a tiny gas tank which is useless when towing. I will definitely compare to the F150 trim and price. But if price is equivalent F150 wins capability hands down.

In past years I would give Toyota a big plus for expected reliability but not if I bought today. It could still be better, just too early to tell.

 

Yep. These things are directly related.

 

Fair. I hated the Ford’s body roll and ride compared to the Tundra.