(partially) new Tundra coming?

dstefan

Active member
Even though you made the post, and should therefore be the one to include your sources, suggesting that the Tundra nd/or Camry are unreliable is beyond ridiculous. Using JD Power (which is not great, but I'm not paying for Consumer Reports to anti-troll here) from 2021 to 2011, the Camry was above the Hyundai/Kia cars all but two years, and won their award three times.

Additionally, the Tundra won the JD Power award in 2020 and 2019.

Snip quote:
" Also, according to the past 15 years of J.D. Power awards, the Toyota Tundra has won (edited for misspelling) the most awards, defeating competitors multiple times."
Tundra also won the the 2021 IQS (Initial Quality Study) for 1/2 ton trucks that just released. Since I worked for JD Power for 10 years (not the auto division), I’ll say that you need to be sure which study you’re looking at. IQS is new vehicles in year of release, so cant judge long term reliability problems. They do a vehicle dependability study of cars/trucks that have been out 3 years also. Tundras have carried that frequently in its category too. Dont think they do any longer term reliability.

There’s two websites, which I have forgotten/lost, that rates reliability based on problems found in used vehicles going to auction, and one that rates on NHTSA problems by year. Both rate the Tundra higher than the domestics as has Consumer reports.

That said, the 07 first year 2nd gen Tundras had some issues IIRC, as did the 05 and 06 Tacomas as well as the 16s third gens. My 09 Tacoma that I loved had its tranny replaced at 1500 miles for an un diagnosable whine and was rock solid after that with a couple minor AC issues (Phoenix is hard on ACs!).

I did a LOT of research and comparisons before I bought my 2021 Tundra in Dec 20 knowing the feature set of the 22s would be better, but for my needs the old tried and true platform was better for me in the final analysis, as was the timing. Of course, I have a little FOMO on seeing the new feature set, which seems excellent (though sorta ugly).

Horses for courses and YMMV!
 

utherjorge

Observer
the new Tundra is ugly, overstyled, overly complex, fails in a number of key categories, will no doubt be less reliable, and will do nothing but increase the value of the 2nd gens.

Typical Toyota moves here. Nothing new.

You have a trillion dollar car company, a blank slate, and this is what you do?!

But look at the size of that screen!
yeah, this nonsense was already covered previously, before the admin stepped in, so a whole lot of nope
 

plainjaneFJC

Goofball
the new Tundra is ugly, overstyled, overly complex, fails in a number of key categories, will no doubt be less reliable, and will do nothing but increase the value of the 2nd gens.

Typical Toyota moves here. Nothing new.

You have a trillion dollar car company, a blank slate, and this is what you do?!

But look at the size of that screen!
I think it will be reliable, if it had round wheel wells and 35s it would be a hit.
 

calicamper

Expedition Leader
Maybe Ford can reverse engineer that engine and make a eco boost that will last, mine has turned into a turd.
Have come across several delivery vans running the 3.5 with over 250,000😳. Thinking its doing pretty well, but parts quality issues have plagued all the auto makers. I bet parts suppliers even the good ones are turning out batches of junk every few weeks to bump their bottom line.
 

utherjorge

Observer
Two points, in no particular order:

First, I absolutely adore Scott Brady's article on the splash page about the new Tundra, for one reason. There were a billion articles the other day when it came out, and they were all shenanigans about being all-new, and spouting praise, and so on. Fine. However, Brady and one other article that I have seen go beyond the cliche and come to a more significant point. For Brady, it's that the new Tundra is essentially the global LC...and he brought the receipts as he did so. Whether you care for LCs, or the new LC (we won't get), that connection is a big one, and so I've narrowed down what I'm buying in a year or so. The Tundra is on my list for sure now.

Additionally, I'd like to think that I'm generally decent at teh interwebz. I mod some stuff, do some other stuff, and work online with regularity. I have reallllly looked (not this week, but in the past) to see what sort of flaws exist with the EcoBoost line. I always see the ghost of rumors about stuff, but nothing that suggests that the line of motors has any significant problems. In that sense, it sounds like the whole line might end up the sort of legendary motor that can be trusted.

In no order, I'm thinking of 22Rs, 1UZs, SBC, and so on. I had a Pentastar until recently, and I have always seen nothing but great things about that motor...though perhaps it's not a "truck" motor, and doesn't have enough power for Jeepers to love. I've got something with a 2UZ, and with my little Amigo's motor at 200k, I've been considering a 1UZ, SBC, or other domestic motor that matches the bellhousing. Are people swapping Ecos into other companies' rigs? If so...perhaps the Eco line will be similarly legendary.

I have complete and total faith in Toyota engine designs and am confident at this time that the LC and Tundra's mill will hold up. The world won't accept anything less.
 

Grassland

Well-known member
Was there an ETA on fuel economy ratings?
Not that 6000# trucks are going to ever be stellar, but multiple more gears and likely increased aero has to be doing some favors.
 

rruff

Explorer
According to Fuelly, the Ford F150 with 3.5L TT averages 16 mpg vs 14 for the old Tundra. I'd expect something along those lines; ~2 mpg, 15% improvement.

The 2.7L TT in the Ford averages >18 mpg; about the same as the Tacoma, but with a lot more power. Probably Toyota is more focused on high HP numbers for the Tundra, though I would have preferred performance more like the 2.7L Ford.
 

phsycle

Adventurer
According to Fuelly, the Ford F150 with 3.5L TT averages 16 mpg vs 14 for the old Tundra. I'd expect something along those lines; ~2 mpg, 15% improvement.

The 2.7L TT in the Ford averages >18 mpg; about the same as the Tacoma, but with a lot more power. Probably Toyota is more focused on high HP numbers for the Tundra, though I would have preferred performance more like the 2.7L Ford.
I do wonder if Toyota will do something similar in the engine line up with the 4.6 now gone in the Tundra. I had a 2.7 and it was a fantastic motor. In many ways, I feel that would be a better match for the tundra than the 3.5.
 

plainjaneFJC

Goofball
Have come across several delivery vans running the 3.5 with over 250,000😳. Thinking its doing pretty well, but parts quality issues have plagued all the auto makers. I bet parts suppliers even the good ones are turning out batches of junk every few weeks to bump their bottom line.
I really like my truck, just upset it needed heads and turbos at 50k miles. Luckily it was under warranty, just makes me nervous to keep it long term
 
Top