(partially) new Tundra coming?

Dalko43

Explorer
Speaking of... the Tundra being a low volume North America only vehicle, there is no way they are going to invest a lot in R&D. Toyota hasn't even done much with the Tacoma. Anything fancy and high tech is going to be shared with other vehicles, I think. Turbo diesel? Not likely. What else would they put it in? They could have been putting a Hilux diesel in the Tacoma all this time, but even that's too much trouble.

A turbo ~3.5l I could see, since they've had one in other vehicles for awhile, and the Tundra really needs a more modern engine. I wouldn't necessarily expect more engine options; there is only one currently. Probably more gears; but maybe not. New rear suspension like Ram? Maybe a hybrid a few years down the road.
Toyota put a patent down for an emissions technology designed to control excess soot and particulate...there was some news/media discussion a while back. Is that smoking gun proof that a NA Toyota diesel is on the way? No, but it is certainly within the realm of possibilities.

This idea that a turbo-gasoline is going to solve all the current inadequacies of the current Tundra is a misplaced one. Toyota designs the Tundra for durability and longevity. I would expect some use of light-weight materials and a maybe a few extra gears in the transmission...However, I don't see Toyota going all-out the way the domestics have to turn its 1/2 ton into an efficient, car-like, daily driver.

The current v8 Tundra is still selling well among Toyota consumers (or people who want a reliable truck). Unlike with domestic owners who get cranky if they don't see new tech every 3-4 years, Toyota owners are perfectly fine with conservative, but validated, changes.
 

rruff

Explorer
Toyota put a patent down for an emissions technology designed to control excess soot and particulate...there was some news/media discussion a while back. Is that smoking gun proof that a NA Toyota diesel is on the way? No, but it is certainly within the realm of possibilities.
Maybe for overseas? The foreign market for diesels is very robust. Not here.

I don't expect a 3.5l twin turbo to solve much of anything. Ford's gets about the same mpg as their V8. I see it as more of a lower cost way for Toyota to do an engine upgrade and get ~10% boost in mpg (vs upgrading the v8), since they have a similar engine in a Lexus. Like Ford's I expect it will have more low end torque which is nice.
 

Jnich77

Director of Adventure Management Operations
Maybe for overseas? The foreign market for diesels is very robust. Not here.

I don't expect a 3.5l twin turbo to solve much of anything. Ford's gets about the same mpg as their V8. I see it as more of a lower cost way for Toyota to do an engine upgrade and get ~10% boost in mpg (vs upgrading the v8), since they have a similar engine in a Lexus. Like Ford's I expect it will have more low end torque which is nice.

Both of my Tundras barely got 18 mpg at 70 mph (had to baby both of them while accelerating and passing). When it was stock my 2.7 F150 got 24mpg at 70mph with zero effort (leveled, larger tires, 3.55 gears dropped it to 22mpg). At 65 I could get 27-28 mpg.

The 2.7 gets better mpg than my 1st gen Tundra (6 vs 11) ever could while towing a travel trailer and absolutely humiliates it when it comes to pulling power. It also gets 2 mpg more than my 2nd gen Tundra did while towing the same travel trailer and has much better performance.

My agency had a couple of F150s with the 3.5 and the 5.0. They were all 2wd, super crew, XL, 3.55 gears, and loaded similarly. The 3.5 always won when it came to unloaded mpg. Towing the 3.5 would either get the same or 1-2 mpg less than the 5.0.... Buuuut it pulled so much better. The extra power in the lower RPM range of the 3.5 made the 5.0 seen neutered.

Part of the "problem" with he EcoBoost fuel economy is it's so very easy to use the low end power, thus it uses more fuel.
 

Jnich77

Director of Adventure Management Operations

Heres an article/video showing the differences in pulling power between the 3 motors. Stock the 2.7 was 2 seconds faster than the 5.0 in the 1/4 mile while pulling 8600 lbs. And the stock 2.7 was .5 seconds faster than the 5.0 while it was running a tow tune. The stock 2.7 was also a second faster than the stock 3.5.

They tried to launch the 2.7 too hard with the tow tune, had some wheel hop, and it broke the u-joints so a tuned time couldn't be tested.

I know when I load the tow tune in my truck, the 2.7 pulls like a demon possed freight train. It spools the turbos as soon as you look at the gas peddle and they don't let off until you do.
 

rruff

Explorer
The 2.7 is quite a bit better on gas than the 3.5, plus you have 2wd which helps a little. I think the 2.7 is the best engine overall.

I look at Fuelly generally for comparisons of similar vehicles. Too many variables otherwise. Speed and drafting make a big difference. I'm surprised I always get ~18 mpg going down to Alamo and back, even with unfavorable wind, but speeds are lower than on the freeway.

Just checked... on Fuelly the Tundra 5.7 averages ~14, the F150 3.5 Eco is ~16, the 2.7 is ~18.5, and the 5.0 is ~16.
 
Last edited:

Jnich77

Director of Adventure Management Operations
The 2.7 is quite a bit better on gas than the 3.5, plus you have 2wd which helps a little. I think the 2.7 is the best engine overall.

I look at Fuelly generally for comparisons of similar vehicles. Too many variables otherwise. Speed and drafting make a big difference. I'm surprised I always get ~18 mpg going down to Alamo and back, even with unfavorable wind, but speeds are lower than on the freeway.
Haha... Everything is slower in Alamo.
 

Jnich77

Director of Adventure Management Operations
I'm surprised I always get ~18 mpg going down to Alamo and back, even with unfavorable wind, but speeds are lower than on the freeway.
Speed seems to be a major factor in fuel economy with either EcoBoost. If you are on flat ground, set your cruise at what ever the highest speed that you can travel while not making any boost.

Neither motor makes a lot of power on it's own, so if you're not spooling the turbos you are not having to feed 325 or 400 hp.
 

Todd n Natalie

Observer
The extra power in the lower RPM range of the 3.5 made the 5.0 seen neutered.
This is what would make me look at an EcoBoost over the 5.0L if my next truck is an F150.

With the 6 speed and 3:73's my truck can rev quite high (like 3,000 - 4,000 rpm) while towing even on pretty flat roads.

I'm curious to see where my RPM's would be on similar trips with an Eco towing our 5,000 lbs (loaded) 23' holiday trailer.

Power down low plus the addition of a 10 speed might make it an entirely different truck.
 

Jnich77

Director of Adventure Management Operations
I'm curious to see where my RPM's would be on similar trips with an Eco towing our 5,000 lbs (loaded) 23' holiday trailer.

Probably lower. The 3.5 doesn't have to use RPMs to make more power, it just spools the turbos harder.

Now...some times its better to drop a gear and use RPMs rather than boost so you can reduce the engine temp (more boost = more heat). Usually the truck does a good job of managing everything. You just lock out 9th or 10th gear depending on what works best at the time.

From what a few of my buddies have said, the 10 speed makes a nice difference when you are towing. The motor can stay in its powerband and that's always a good thing.

Even the 5.0 does noticeably better with the 10 speed.
 
Last edited:

tacollie

Land traveler
Personally I think the Tundra would be better off with a turbo. Living at over 6000 feet turbos have a lot of benefit. At this point I look at the power band before I look at the mpgs. But I only drive the truck 6000-8000 miles a year.
 

phsycle

Adventurer
I will bet dalko or any other fanboy $1k right now that the next gen Tundra will not be diesel.

Turbo-6 is much much more likely. For a lifestyle truck like the Tundra, it makes even more sense.

By the way, companies file all sorts of patents. Look at all the filings by the big companies. Some are downright silly. But they do so to protect their intellectual property, not necessarily for product implementation.
 
Top