Mike Sweers Interview - He wanted a Diesel Tundra (and to keep the 5.7 as an option)

No doubt my driving style had something to do with it. I always seem to get better mileage than most with vehicles. That Fuelly average is about the average I got pulling a heavy trailer. Empty, never under 15.

 

Exorbitant is subjective. Just using the quick googling screen grab below for reference you are looking at a price difference of $7925, between a 1/2 ton and the cheapest 3/4. That's a 25% price increase from the 1/2 ton, and that is best case scenario. You'd have to find the completely stripped down HD truck to start with, and they just aren't common. If you do find it, it's not going to be good for anything but a work truck. That's a single cab bare bones truck. $40K for a minimalist vehicle is pretty damn expensive, IMO.

 

Well you do get more than 25% of the capability and in most cases reliability and longevity of wear parts in an HD. Ford lower trims are pretty stripped down but Rams Tradesmen trim is not as stripped down.. And I do believe the cheapest entry price on HD trucks is Chevy. Comparing with Tundras and matching trim levels as best as possible I bet you can get closer than you think.

A Ram Crew Cab 4x4 6'4 bed Tradesman without adding anything else rings up 48,190 and they are actually on the lot at that price, a few hundred more if you want the bigger screen in the dash. Ram will let you order it exactly the way you want it. This gets you about 14,760 lbs Towing and 3,230 lbs payload.

Tundra SR5 Crew Cab 4x4 adding no additional packages rings up $46,505 since toyota won't let you order a truck spec'd this way, good luck finding that truck.

As each manufacturer refines their HD trucks powertrains, interiors and frankly comfort, while at the same time the midsize market is coming into its own rapidly with capability and economy/cost it feels like the 1/2 ton market is being squeezed in the middle. The 1/2 ton market is not going anywhere anytime soon, but it does seem kinda lost somewhere when you look at capability, cost etc. Maybe the 1/2 ton category will be where the big EV truck battle will be waged, although I think the midsize is better suited for that.

 

I sure hope the halfton category sticks around because if all the suburban hockey dads move up from 1500s to HDs, goodbye decent trucks.

 

True, we do need a category for them for sure!....I do wish Toyota would build an HD gasser, it would be nice to have an HD gasser that was more recreation focused (thats what they do to their trucks now) and potential toyota reliability behind it. An HD overland type truck that can tow a heavy toy hauler and truck camper off road would be nice, and I believe would be a hit, especially with the number of people moving up from half ton and midsize to HD gassers for that purpose. Something that competes with the Ford 2500 Tremor with toyota build quality (or used to be depending on who you ask) would be nice to see.

 

a superduty comes standard with a 6.2L though. If there was a 6.2L in the F150 I bet it would be a $3-4000 option over the base 3.3. When they actually had the 6.2L in the F150 in 2011-2014 I think they were more expensive than the 3.5L Ecoboost.

 

Again, exorbitant is subjective, and the fact that a 1/2 ton costs very close to a 3/4 ton was the exact point I was making.

You're also just a bit low on the Ram's price.

 

The new Colorado/Canyon with the 2.7L Turbo making 310hp/430 tq is looking very awesome. I am genuinely excited. I really hope Ford responds with the 2.7 ecoboost on the 2023 Ranger, and hopefully Toyota will have something decent for the next gen Tacoma, whenever that is.

I would consider getting rid of a half ton for the Colorado.

 

Does anyone put their HD engines in their 1/2 tons? You can go with a V8 in the F150 though.

 

No, Ford kinda did with the 6.2L for a while but it was also tuned for higher HP than the Superduty. The normal F150 got the same 6.2L as the raptor had.

All I am saying is the base prices are not really apples to apples. If you are actually purchasing a 3.3L F150 then you don't need an HD anyways. Its not until you get into the 3.5L or 5.0 that its comparable in terms of any cross over in capability.

A crew cab 4x4 F250 is like 1700 lbs more than a crew cab 4x4 F150 3.5L though. Its physically made of 1/3 more stuff so it should be more expensive just on materials alone.

 

I think Chevy also offers a Silverado 1500 with a 6.2.

 

I really think that with the unibody minitrucks like the Maverick and Santa Cruz there is going to be a tightening of the pickup tiers. I think the minis will start to move into the niche currently filled by the midsize (around town capable and appealing to those that don't have to have a full size), and the price and capability of the midsize is rapidly closing on 1/2 ton territory. This is happening while the 1/2 ton cannot approach the HD capability. I see the 1/2 ton market being squeezed out of existence if nothing changes.

That's exactly the point I was making. The price of the far less capable truck is being pushed to the point of 1/2 tons being a bad option. It's the exact reason I'm not in a Colorado, Ranger, or Tacoma right now. I was shopping them because I don't "need" a full size truck, but the price was only off by a couple thousand dollars. Why not pay just a wee bit more and get the more capable 1/2 ton? Same is going to apply to half tons; why not pay just a bit more and get more truck? They are being priced into the same exorbitant levels as an HD.

 

Sure do, and it's at the same exorbitant cost as an HD.

 

I've stopped wishing for that because the HD Tundra I want would be based on the 2/2.5 gen Tundra. If you're going to build it based on the 3rd Gen, don't bother.

 

That started life as a Corvette motor, not a HD truck motor.

 

I agree. The 2.7L Colorado is effectively a half ton now. Just a bit smaller. Its literally the same engine as the Silverado, same transmission, I assume the same t-case, and I would guess the rear axle must be similar too.

And it weighs almost the same too. 4600 lbs for a CC short bed Colorado vs, what, 4900 lbs for a silverado.

 

Yeah even when the displacements were the same, the 1500's use aluminum blocks vs the HD's iron blocks. They havent share motors since maybe the early 2000's, if then.

 

Two things:
If the Toyota wasn't in Tow+, it wasn't at its most powerful(fastest) setting.

I'd rather own a slower Toyota than a faster Ford.

 

Tow doesn't actually boost power. With the pedal to the floor there shouldn't be any difference.

Bet you'd rather have a faster Toyota than a slow one, even more! It's embarrassing how that Powerboost just surged away; wasn't close. And the Toyota has better specs. Something strange going on, but I don't expect TFL to sift through all the nannies and computer controlled BS to see if they can fix it either...

 

I don’t think the 1500’s use aluminum blocks either….. (edit)…just looked it up and the L87 is an aluminum block after all.

For the record the 6.2L has never been available in the 2500 or 3500. The gas V8 was the 6.0L, and now the 6.6L. It does lack port injection to supplement the direct injection so at some point the valves will carbon up.

 

This is, to me, an expected result. Fords have always been faster, but that comes with being less well-built, which translates to reduced longevity, which translates to lower resale value (special/rare packages/trims notwithstanding) and higher warranty costs. Toyota has never tuned their trucks for performance off the line or in the 1/4 mile.

Embarrassing to me: cam phaser issues that are still there after warranty work, a clunky and erratic 10-speed when GM’s doesn’t seem to have the same issues (note: they designed it together), persistent computer glitches, spending insane amounts of money in warranty work, losing the highest % of class action lawsuits, etc.

Not saying Toyota doesn’t have things they should be embarrassed about, but given their design/engineering philosophy that has been there all along, I just don’t think losing a drag race to a Ford is it.

 

Not sure about that... I think the Tundra was faster than the Fords until recently. A couple drag races, Tundra vs EB F150, both stock:

2012:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zERBbv_VHhs

2016:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9KRRaqFMRo

 

Which lacks port injection? The 6.2 or the 6.6 or both?

 

Both as far as I could determine.

 

I thought I heard the 6.6 got port injection but maybe that was just wishful thinking. Lots of talk about catch cans on the GM forums.

 

Direct injection per this source:

https://poweredsolutions.gm.com/products/l8t-engine/

 

GM seems to have a better handle of DI here is a thread I found about a 5.3 with 117k no catch can and mostly stock. https://www.performancetrucks.net/f...dup-pic-117k-miles-inside-intake-also-552370/

This isn't a truck but on the Camaro6 forums there are guys posting their V8s have been decent as well high up in mileage so if GM does the same with the 6.6 in the HDs should be pretty good for a while assuming the same strategies are in place there for the 6.6 DI.

Those are mostly stock engines though.

 

Its been mentioned here that if Sweers could have kept the 5.7 then Toyota would have had to have gone to displacement on demand DoD for that engine for fuel economy (EPA).

My sons GMC work truck has the 5.3 Liter with Active Fuel Management.

Active Fuel Management (formerly known as displacement on demand (DoD)) is a trademarked name for the automobile variable displacement technology from General Motors. It allows a V6 or V8 engine to "turn off" half of the cylinders under light-load conditions to improve fuel economy.

He can get 9.0 Liters/100 kms. 26 mpg.

I know someone that has had the lifter issue with that engine.
Here is good video of a truck with that engine and the lifter issue.

https://youtu.be/fnsFjwpf-zo?t=348

Seems to be a pretty large repair to fix this ! (Labor)

Now you could say how many people buying these new trucks are going to put on 140k miles before turning over the truck, but...

From pickuptrucktalk

The GM lifter problems seem to be most prevalent in the L84 5.3-V-8 and L87 6.2-liter EcoTec3 V-8 engines with build dates between September 2020 and March 2021. These engines are the newer variable displacement design, which uses DFM rather than the older AFM system. The vehicles seem to be failing with less than 10,000 miles on the odometer.

https://pickuptrucktalk.com/2021/12/are-there-new-problems-with-gm-v-8-engine-lifters-lurking/

So for these new Tundras, is a Toyota V6 with twin turbos not going to be easier to repair in parts/labor fix ?