Car & Driver - 2022 Toyota Tundra TRD Pro vs. 2021 Tundra TRD Pro?

They should have kept the 2.5 gen as a classic like ram did just do sr and sr5 trims and were all happy. The cost of the 3rd gen is nuts 53k for a basic sr5 cant buy a de rated power sr even and why they de rated the power is stupid. The price increase on the pro what 20k and we all go is it worth it and the answer is no for me.

 

Ah ok. I misunderstood what you were getting at. I didn't know the competitors had that as well.

 

Had the composite bed in my Tacoma too. The Toyota bed mat worked great, al be it except being able to slide stuff further forward without having to get in the bed. LineX'ing the composite bed is a waste of money, IMO.

 

going off the price of butter and meat in the last year, im right there with you. I curse the government everytime i go to costco. the same tri tip that was 28 bucks was 40+. Eff 'em.

 

That's really saying a lot considering how huge the 2nd gen a-pillars and mirrors are. At least for this short guy, it blocks out entire vehicles at intersection, or pedestrians on the sidewalk

 

My Dad, god rest his soul, said that shortly before canceling his subscription to Car and Driver. If I recall correctly, that was in the mid 90's.

I think Car and Driver was once a pretty decent magazine for people interested in sports cars and racing. They have never understood trucks.

 

^^
I used to have a paper subscription to Car & Driver and Road & Track. never Motortrend, and sometimes I would pick up Off- Road I think it was called, and a few times Truck trend. So when that article showed up in my inbox I had a soft spot sure - but.

As a 2.5 Gen owner i found it interesting that the writer basically drove the new truck to someone he knew with a 2021 Model, and asked for his opinion.
Nothing wrong with that.
Writer also said something in the article that I thought was very interesting.
He used a term that has become very popular during the past two years Real Estate Boom.
FOMO - Fear Of Missing Out

He said that Tom his buddy, had no "FOMO" over the new truck. Interesting.
I also did not know that the 2021 had remote shock reservoirs front and back. the 2022 only in the rear. again interesting.

The 2.5 Tundra was a low production unicorn truck with its triple tech frame, on its own assembly platform.
The business case ($$$) to keep it going like a classic Ram would not allow for it, even they wanted to do it.
To save money and efficiencies they needed to move all trucks and large suvs to the same platform which they did.
JMO

 

No recovery hooks.
Lower ground clearance.
Wider turn radius.
Worse visibility.
Smaller approach angle.
Barely any more payload.

These decisions combine to form a statement. “We built this truck to look cool and drive on or through the specific off-pavement places we show in our ads— wide open perfectly flat dirt roads (no gravel), puddles <2” deep that spray cool looking slow-motion water, and rocks that are painstakingly placed in such a way as to create a generally uniform driving surface. It can also haul a large pumpkin.”

It’s just a bummer that it seems so out of touch with Toyota’s heritage of 1-ton indestructible Hiluxes, triple locked 80s series LCs, and even the 2nd gen Tundra’s outsized capability compared to its ratings (which Toyota bragged about in a series of ranch truck commercials called “Tundra Deconstructed”).

 

Facepalm.

go take your conditions and drive the new one. It’ll be better.
Just reading numbers on paper to arrive to your conclusion is silly

 

Toyota will loose those buyers, who valued Tundra and, thus, kept its demand low (who wants to change a truck that does not break?). Toyota will gain otherwise F-150, Silverado and RAM buyers, in larger quantities. I'll be surprised if the sales numbers won't go up in a year-another.

 

It really depends. I'm taking Tundra to the same off-pavement sites where I've been taking my old Volvo (2.5 liters w/ low pressure turbo). Tundra gets 18.2 MPG using 87 octane, Volvo was 17.2 MPG of 93.

Actually, I carry more gear with me now - long bed allows that, and I creep into Volvo's no-go places. When you got to burn fuel, you got to burn fuel in order to do the same amount of job. Smaller turbo engine only saves fuel when they don't have to work (partial load). When it works hard, bigger N/A engine is often more efficient. That's why doing a truck job results in about same MPG return in new Tundra.

 

I did drive it. The pic is from the drivers seat of the new one top and mine bottom.
I drove it at a local dealer and very familiar with the roads.
I took it down a side street I knew and it needed a 3 point turn where mine is able to turn with no issue.
I drove it without kicking in the turbos, and the truck felt sluggish for the 3.4 liter engine.
Have they changed in the last 6 months?

I have said it before here. All these trucks are now warranty buys. If it was a normal market with trucks available in lots I could be tempted with a Tremor.
I would be interested in the Tundra if they brought in a battery option along with petrol, that was good for 50 miles for in town and in the bush.

 

I agree, the windshield is significantly lower on the 3rd gen compared to the 2nd's.

At what RPM does it take for the turbos to "kick in"? I'm curious.

Have you thought that maybe your findings in power are from butt dyno's? Just like when we were teenagers putting on an aftermarket exhaust and you swear your car just got faster off the line.

I've driven some vehicles that feels a lot quicker than the Tundra but in reality, they're slower. All vehicles drive differently.

 

All turbos are "power on demand", as commanded by engine computer, for the past 25 if not 30 years. It can punch at full torque at as low as 2k RPMs, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Dynamic_Force_engine#V35A But it can cruise at 2k with little to no boost, too. It is really up to a computer to decide when it needs boost.

 

Gotcha. Thanks for the info. I always assumed at all RPM's except for idle, turbos are always providing some sort of boost.

In addition, there's always this tid bit lol

 

Ooooo, very prestigious. That puts it among the ranks of past award winners such as the Ford 5.4 Fightin Triton to receive such honors. Maybe it will even come with that bonus feature of blowing out spark plugs.

 

Just to add it was based on feel.
I don't remember the RPM, I wanted to understand what was needed to get the "heft' moving, without the turbos.
It felt heavy, heavier than an F150.
I gave it some - normal driving like to get to speed on the highway during the drive.
I ended up averaging about 17 L/100 mileage.
That's 13-14 mpg.
I came to the conclusion that for me, for most of the driving that I do - loaded down and hilly terrain - would mean the turbos would be kicking in most of the time.
My 2018 5.7 just loafs along carrying the load in these conditions and gives me 18 mpg.
So that was a hard sell along with a few other things.

 

So what's your point on all of this? There's a vanilla article posted that's not really a good representation of the trucks. But you really like your 2.5 and that's awesome. I don't think anyones going to try and convince you to get a 3rd gen.

 

Lazy turbo is sort of easy an fix, it's just a matter of tweaking fuel maps in the computer. Something not possible in natural aspiration engine. In return, you'll get much worse MPG, because you, well, let the engine eat more fuel.

 

Time will convince. Some day, gen 2 will finally become less reliable than, don't know, new gen 5?

 

I'm sure gen 1 owners all thought the same about gen 2 as well lol

 

I had paper subscriptions to Car & Driver, Motor Trend, and Road & Track for many years. Years when they actually wrote detailed articles about the vehicles they tested...warts and all.
Now they largely write puff pieces and whine about the horrors of a vehicle that only has two heated seat settings.
They ceased being relevant a while ago.

 

Yes, indeed. They were literally laughing at gen2 through the frame holes.

 

3rd gen looks flattened and lowered compared to 2.5 gen.

 

Yeah, Toyota went to what I feel is pretty extreme lengths to make what is a brick of a vehicle more aerodynamic to get every little bit of mileage they could for the EPA rating. This included no tow hooks, which allows the bumper and front air dam to be lower and help aerodynamics. When you put the new truck beside the previous gen the differences can be seen.

 

Dam front end 3rd gen reminds me whale shark cant get out of my heasd.

 

There is this old joke - how old ? - well I am older than the internet but not by much 8^0

A guy goes up to his buddy and says.

"Does your face hurt ?"

The buddy replies back.

"No"

The guy then says back to his buddy.

"Well, it's killing me"

*********************************************
JMO
If someone has a problem with the face, whether he hasn't bought yet, or is an owner already.
I think painting the mustache is an improvement, however.
If the body is a lighter color than black, 8^0 , then the mustache needs to be painted same as the hood color - else the grill doesn't shrink in size.
See pic.

 

I was shocked the first time I walked by one in my neighborhood. The bed belt line is so low compared to my 2014. I really dislike what they did to these trucks.

 

Looking at that picture it looks like they kept the hood the same height but made the roof lower. Proportions are a little funky

 

Rocket plugs were the early 2 valve 5.4s I believe. 04+ 5.4s were the 2-piece plug that’d snap in half when removing it. Ask me how I know