Tundra bed length conundrum

I picked the double cab because I needed the bed space. I feel like the Tundra double cab has a good amount of space compared to the big 3 but if I could have got a crewmax with a 6.5ft bed I probably would have.

 

All my family/friends are under 6' tall for the most part, hell most of them are 5'2" to 5'10", I think one buddy is like 6'3". My brother in law fits in the back of the double cab Tundra just fine, he's about 5'9" and 220lbs. I think his thighs are bigger round than my head, dude was state heavy weight wrestling champion back in high school.

 

I messaged Toyota in 2016 and asked about this and why they don’t offer the 6.5 on the CM and this is what they said

“ Thank you for your recent correspondence.

We would like to take this opportunity to advise that at this time, the short bed (66.7 inches) is the only option for all 2016 Tundra 4 X 4 Crewmax models.

We would like to take this opportunity to explain that market trends are closely studied to give us a better idea of what vehicles and options are in demand. Then, based on our findings, our Product Planning department is able to choose those vehicles and options that best suit the needs of the buying public. We recognize, of course, that these choices may not meet the needs and fulfill the desires of all potential customers.

However, we have noted your comments regarding the short box being the only option for the 2016 Tundra 4 X4 Crewmax models, and have forwarded them to our Product Planning department for their information and future consideration. We are always interested in customer comments since they are most helpful in improving our products. In fact, most changes and features in Toyota vehicles are customer-driven.

Thank you for taking the time to write to us and allowing us the opportunity to comment.

Sincerely,

Shelly Ranger
Customer Assistance Centre
Toyota Canada Inc. “

 

This is one of the 2 key reasons I am having such a difficult decision what to buy. I very badly want a tundra but I want the bigger cab with a 6.5 ft bed. All the big 3 US brands offer it. I had it on my 2014 Ram 1500 limited. Crew cab with 6.5 ft bed. It was perfect. It looked more proportional. I don’t like the way that short box looks on such a big cab on the tundra.

 

Super-annoying for me also.
Based on the reported reliability data, there was no way I'd buy a GM, Ram, or Ford truck (how far Chevy has fallen, my 1994 had great reliability).
Not infrequently, I carry 3 and sometimes 4 adults on 1+ hr drives, and the extra cab space won out for me. Also a lot of cab room with 2nd row seats folded up, if it's cargo you don't want in an open bed (eg, groceries when its raining outside).
If only Toyota had made the bed a measly 6-inches longer, the truck would qualify for accelerated business depreciation in USA (IRS section "179"). Seems unlikely wheelbase & drive train would have had to change ... an extra 6" behind the rear axle seem very minor.

 

I’m in complete agreement on that. The extra length is minor.

As a matter of fact when I bought my 2014 Ram 1500 I parked it right next to my friends 2011 Ram 1500. His was a QUAD CAB 6 1/2 ft bed. Mine was a CREW CAB 6 1/2 bed. There was barely a noticeable difference in length. Not even a foot.
In reality, I don’t think the longer bed is as important as it used to be. When I had the Ram there were lots of times I wish my bed was longer. But I’m getting older and I don’t use the truck the same way I used to. For example, when I need to get work done at my house I don’t do it myself anymore. I hire someone to do it. So I don’t need to lug sheets of plywood or sheet rock around anymore. That being said, I still much prefer the look of the longer bed with the bigger cab. It just looks more “balanced” I guess for lack of a better word. But I still like the bigger cab. I have a pretty big dog that I like to take places with me and she would appreciate the larger space in the rear. That storage box in the double cab kind of gets in the way also. Section 179 is definitely also a factor. That’s a big one. I need all the business deductions I can get these days.

 

I bought the double cab and unless you're over 6ft tall and heavy set the back of the double cab has plenty of space. People mention worrying about their kids having room, but I have many fond memories of cramming in the back of old 80 and 90s minivans for 18 hour road trips. I would have killed to be in the back of a DC. Who knows what the next gen toyota configs will be, I plan on sticking with the DC for many years to come.

 

All cab and no bed makes for a pretty useless truck.

 

The next gen looks like it's going to have a 6.5 ft bed option for the CM.

 

No not quite, Crewmax with 8 foot bed....Id jump all over that.

 

I agree it would have been a nice option, but if the CrewMax SR5 (with only the bucket seats / 48 gallon tank) has a payload capacity of 1265, if they put a longer frame and longer bed, your instead be complaining about how useless your full size truck is as you can only carry 5 people and a small dog and be at your MAX payload.

oddly enough, i was looking at the payloads of Rams and if you get the 2500 you'll see its up to 4k lbs payload...however, you add the mega cab, 4x4, and the diesel and you're down to 1700lbs. Better than the tundra, but not that impressive for a turbo diesel big boy...consider that when you see those guys towing / hauling.

 

This is why most guys go gas 2500 or diesel 3500. Some older diesel 2500s have lower payload than 1500s.

 

Yes but, you might not enjoy driving it. My previous F250 Super Duty was a 1999 Extended Cab with an 8" bed. Every time I had to make a U turn or park in a lot heading straight in, I swore I was going to get rid of it. So when my wife was blindsided squarely in the right front at an intersection and the frame was knocked 1/2" out of square, I figured she actually did me a huge favor.

I have two vehicles right now. They are a 2006 F250 Super Duty extended cab with a 6-1/2' bed and a wheelbase of approximately 145". That's almost identical to my 2021 Tundra Double Cab. However, there is a huge difference in the steering characteristics of the two. When I leave my doctor's office, I turn right onto a 6 lane divided road with about a 2 car wide median. The actual left turning lane occupies about half the width of the median. I have to make a U turn within about 500' of entering the road or, go a mile or more before another U turn opportunity. With the F250, I have to watch traffic closely going in my direction because in order to make my U turn without scrubbing my right front tire on the far curb, I must first be able to move to my right about 3' into traffic before attempting my turn.

My Double Cab will make that same U turn without the initial move to the right into traffic, then complete the U turn without even entering the far right lane on the opposite side of the road. The steering geometry is obviously quite different between these two vehicles although the specs show them with almost the same turning radius. BTW, I have personally seen a Crew Cab Tundra with the 6.5" bed. I assumed someone had stretched the frame. Recently online, someone was trying to sell a custom Tundra with tandem axles. I would hate to try driving that baby through some South Florida sugar sand. But if it can be done, someone, somewhere will try it. I would guess Toyota has given your idea more thought than any of us would think.

 

I looked through some posts and don't this anywhere. Are the frames different? I assumed they were all the same length, so if you want an extra 12" in the crewmax, you get a small bed, and if you want an extra 12" in the bed, you get less space in the cab (double cab). If they were to build a crewmax with a 6.5 bed, then they would to change the overall frame/wheelbase.

This is one of the reasons why in the late 90s that F150s had a double cab with a normal bed and then a 4 door cab with a smaller bed, same length/frame.. It wasn't until you moved up to the Super duties is where you'd get more options because they were just totally different beasts all together.

So all in all, I think it was a monetary move on Toyota's part to just do more with the same frame...I could be wrong.

 

ever sat in the fold out seats of a 92 ford ranger?

 

correct. same frame, different body/bed config.
Same frame for the CM, DC short bed and RC long bed.
Short frame for the RC short bed and long frame for the DC long bed.

 

Also, Ford 250s have solid front axles. The turning radius on a Tundra is way tighter. A DC long bed as a little longer than a CM 6.5' bed would be. I've had 2 DCLBs and never had an issue driving, parking, U-turning, navigating parking lots, getting gas, etc.

 

Except that they already have the longer frame for the DCLB.

 

I don't remember the details because it was a long time ago, but I remember looking into whether or not they could use the DCLB frame for a CM/6.5 config and it it was just a hair off. I wanna say the frame was a little longer and the rear axle didn't line up.
Basically, Toyota would have to make a whole separate frame for the CM/6.5 config. And we know Toyota wouldn't do that.
However, don't they have the crew cab/6.5 for the '22 and up models?

 

That's goofy.

Yeah, the 3rd Gen has it. If I were to sell my truck for a CC std box, it's going to be for something that has more than 3000 lbs of payload, though.