(partially) new Tundra coming?

[jaxyaks]

Might be close. Scott Brady in a recent article states 1885 lb payload for the SR5 TRD 4x4.

2022 Tundra First Drive :: Is This the Best Toyota Truck for Overlanding? - Expedition Portal

We test the newest Toyota Tundra TRD Pro for overlanding off-roading, and backcountry fourwheeling travel.

expeditionportal.com

Key Features:
– F1 Chassis Shared with 300 Series Land Cruiser (and Sequoia to follow)
– Available 437 hp and 583 lb. ft iForce Twin Turbo V6 shared with Land Cruiser 300
– 10-speed Automatic with 4.92:1 First Gear
– 5-Link Coil Sprung Rear Suspension
– Locking Rear Differential
– Available Crawl Control
– Available factory designed and dealer installed 3″ Suspension Lift (will fit 35″ tires without cutting)
– 22 MPG Highway Fuel Economy
– 1,885 Pound Payload Available on SR5 TRD 4WD
– Significant Improvements to On-Road Ride and Handling
– Available CrewMax with 6.5 Foot Bed
– Massive 14″ Display Runs GAIA GPS and other Apple Car Play Enabled Mapping APPs

One of the videos showing the test drives of the 2022 Tundra SR5 with TRD 4x4 OR package showed the payload sticker and it was 1400 or so.

 

[jaxyaks]

Toyota has done the detuned thing in the past. Look at the FJC, 4.7 V8’s in Tundra vs Lexus. Mostly with the tuning with premium required vs regular gas. I doubt that’s the case here with such big difference in numbers. Either way, it’ll still be plenty of power for its intent.

Alex on Autos just did a review of a Limited and noted a 1,400lb payload according to the door sticker.

And I have to laugh at the money maker comment. What company produces a product to lose money? Tundra definitely brings in revenues and adds to the bottom line. Otherwise, investors/shareholders would not be happy and it would be nixed from the line. They’re out to make money. Not lose it.

While the Tundra does make money for Toyota, if all the Tundra sales disappeared from Toyotas' bottom line tomorrow it would be a blip on the radar....If all the F150 sales disappeared from Ford...there would be no more Ford. I think that is the main point behind the Tundra is really not a big deal for Toyota...

 

[phsycle]

Loss-leaders are absolutely a thing. It is a sales & marketing strategy applied to certain products that's been in play for generations. Tundra is such a small piece of Toyota's business, and the truck market in general. Investors at this level are thinking big picture, not in the weeds on one product line.

Ha. Takes me back to business school. Tell me how the tundra would play into this strategy? Doesn’t make much sense to me.

 

[bkg]

Loss-leaders are absolutely a thing. It is a sales & marketing strategy applied to certain products that's been in play for generations. Tundra is such a small piece of Toyota's business, and the truck market in general. Investors at this level are thinking big picture, not in the weeds on one product line.

Tundra isn't a loss leader, though. Doesn't even fit that criteria, IMHO.

 

[skrypj]

Toyota likely detunes via software/ECU controlling engine output. This is a common practice on Ford work models for increased efficiency and longevity. It's generally accomplished via software though some mechanical differences can exist.

They *could* apply it to both, but that doesn't mean they would. Reducing peak power and torque in an engine in favor fuel economy isn't new. I can't say that's what they did... rather it might be just a way to make the SR less desirable and get more $$$ from the buyer. If it does improve MPG and it's all done with software, it would be very nice if you could push a button and select which you prefer.

I also noticed in a video that the fuel tanks are 22 gal and 32 gal, so that's a big downgrade from the current 26 and 38 gal tanks.

But that does not necessarily make it more efficient. How do you produce 405 ft-lbs of torque at 2400 rpm. Well, you have to inject a certain amount of fuel and a certain amount of air.

Both versions of the engine are able to make 405 ft-lbs at 2400 rpm(although one could produce more). If the two are physically the same engine, what would make one more efficient than the other while producing that 405 ft-lbs simply because they limited to torque via programming? My point was, unless the engine is different(different turbos, different compression ratio, different cams, etc), it won't be more efficient. Ford work models are detuned because they are rated on an engine dyno vs a chassis dyno and the emissions requirements are different. They have to run the engines at WOT with the EGR active in the chassis cabs. That is why the powerstroke and godzilla have lower ratings in Chassis cab models. Longevity may be better but it is far from the only reason they are detuned.

If I had to guess, Toyota might be putting a smaller axle or maybe some other different parts in the SR to save weight and costs. Just like they did with the 4.6L V8 in the previous gen, which had a different transmission and rear axle than the 5.7L. And because of that they have had to reduce the power ratings since they don't actually have a different engine to put in it. It's kinda like how Ford puts in the smaller axle, lighter frame and lighter springs into the 2.7L Ecoboost trucks vs the 3.5/5.0 trucks. Otherwise, why would the tow rating be reduced? 348 hp is way more than enough to tow 12000 lbs. We have ram Ecodiesels and Ford Powerstrokes making 250-260 hp with 12000 lb tow rating.

 

[Googlefish]

Any thoughts on whether the 2022 Tundra would be better than previous model for a Four Wheel Camper flatbed? The little that I have been able to read up on seems to be that the weight is borderline for a Tundra.

 

[rruff]

Any thoughts on whether the 2022 Tundra would be better than previous model for a Four Wheel Camper flatbed? The little that I have been able to read up on seems to be that the weight is borderline for a Tundra.

The boxed frame will be better. You be wanting to upgrade tires and rear springs at a minimum.

 

[rruff]

If the two are physically the same engine, what would make one more efficient than the other while producing that 405 ft-lbs simply because they limited to torque via programming?

Seems like valve timing and lift, ignition advance, and boost could be altered? It's possible the engine is different in other ways...

 

[calicamper]

Because the sales volume is significantly less than the Big 3. The margin is probably good on the old Tundra due to few line changes but the sales volume will never eclipse an American auto brand. By contrast, the Big 3 have essentially divested of anything that's not a truck or full size SUV, save for a few examples. This is because Asian autos are more desirable and competitive. Meanwhile, Asian automakers have largely divested of trucks in North America due to competition and lack of profitability. This has been the brand strategy for both sides for the better part of a decade.

Southeastern Asian manufacturers are generally very good at producing sedans and crossovers. American autos are renown for producing trucks. America's truck is the half ton, not the compact.

My Fusion Energi absolutely crushes any plugin C level 4 door in mileage, and interior quality, and huge price invoice difference. Great car. I shopped all of them they were trash! And more expensive. Ford dumped sedans because vehicles are expensive and people rather buy a more Utility multi use vehicle “created by marketing” My sedans all hauled bikes and even towed boats just fine. ??.

 

[calicamper]

But that does not necessarily make it more efficient. How do you produce 405 ft-lbs of torque at 2400 rpm. Well, you have to inject a certain amount of fuel and a certain amount of air.

Both versions of the engine are able to make 405 ft-lbs at 2400 rpm(although one could produce more). If the two are physically the same engine, what would make one more efficient than the other while producing that 405 ft-lbs simply because they limited to torque via programming? My point was, unless the engine is different(different turbos, different compression ratio, different cams, etc), it won't be more efficient. Ford work models are detuned because they are rated on an engine dyno vs a chassis dyno and the emissions requirements are different. They have to run the engines at WOT with the EGR active in the chassis cabs. That is why the powerstroke and godzilla have lower ratings in Chassis cab models. Longevity may be better but it is far from the only reason they are detuned.

If I had to guess, Toyota might be putting a smaller axle or maybe some other different parts in the SR to save weight and costs. Just like they did with the 4.6L V8 in the previous gen, which had a different transmission and rear axle than the 5.7L. And because of that they have had to reduce the power ratings since they don't actually have a different engine to put in it. It's kinda like how Ford puts in the smaller axle, lighter frame and lighter springs into the 2.7L Ecoboost trucks vs the 3.5/5.0 trucks. Otherwise, why would the tow rating be reduced? 348 hp is way more than enough to tow 12000 lbs. We have ram Ecodiesels and Ford Powerstrokes making 250-260 hp with 12000 lb tow rating.

Towing is a heat / cooling challenge more than a HP or stability issue. Smaller displacement high power generates lots of heat at a certain load level think bell curve on heat generation. Its really not a power thing. Its how they generate heat and the limitations in both handling that heat and the cost of materials needed to handle the heat. At a certain point its just cheaper to shift to a larger power plant that runs cooler under the same load , vs using higher cost materials to handle the heat from the smaller power plant.

There’s a reason all these modern smaller displacement trucks have radiators that are bigger than the old Semi’s used yrs ago.

 

[bkg]

Any thoughts on whether the 2022 Tundra would be better than previous model for a Four Wheel Camper flatbed? The little that I have been able to read up on seems to be that the weight is borderline for a Tundra.

Honestly, I think it's too early to tell.

 

[skrypj]

I dont know if anyone saw this but here is a spec sheet:

https://toyota-cms-media.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/2022_Toyota_Tundra_Product_Information_FINAL.pdf

Its a healthy truck. Base curb weight for a 2x4 double cab short bed is 5095 lbs(compared to 4607 for a 2021 F150 supercab 3.5L) and a Crewmax 4x4 6.5' is a chunky 5620-5720 lbs(compared to 4995 for a 2021 F150 screw 6.5' 3.5L). Thats about where the F150 was prior to them going aluminum. My 2014 Supercrew 4x4 6.5' bed Lariat scales at 6140 lbs but the base curb weight for my year was 57xx lbs i think.

So this truck is solidly 500-700 lbs more than the current GM and Ford trucks and probably 350 more than ram.

Max towing on a Crewmax 4x4 is 11170 lbs.

 

[skrypj]

Towing is a heat / cooling challenge more than a HP or stability issue. Smaller displacement high power generates lots of heat at a certain load level think bell curve on heat generation. Its really not a power thing. Its how they generate heat and the limitations in both handling that heat and the cost of materials needed to handle the heat. At a certain point its just cheaper to shift to a larger power plant that runs cooler under the same load , vs using higher cost materials to handle the heat from the smaller power plant.

There’s a reason all these modern smaller displacement trucks have radiators that are bigger than the old Semi’s used yrs ago.

I get all that. My F150 Ecoboost struggles with heat management.

But why would the tow rating on the SR be almost 4000 lbs lower when the engine is approximately the same(or identical except for tuning) as the higher trims? HP and torque are still plenty high enough to keep that 12000 lbs rating. That too me suggests there is hardware differences either in the cooling system or driveline the requires they drop the rating down. Either that or Toyota is simply "punishing" people for not paying more for the higher trims.

 

[rruff]

I dont know if anyone saw this but here is a spec sheet:

https://toyota-cms-media.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/2022_Toyota_Tundra_Product_Information_FINAL.pdf

Great info!

Regarding the SR engine spec, peak HP and TQ are at lower rpms; 2,400 and 2,000:
Horsepower i-FORCE: 389 hp @ 5,200 rpm (SR: 348 hp @ 2,400) i-FORCE MAX: 437 hp @ 5,200 rpm
Torque i-FORCE: 479 lb-ft @ 2,400 rpm (SR: 405 lb-ft @ 2,000) i-FORCE MAX: 583 lb-ft @ 2,400 rpm

Weights are about the same as current I believe. I knew the F150 was light, but didn't realize they GMs were.

 

[calicamper]

I get all that. My F150 Ecoboost struggles with heat management.

But why would the tow rating on the SR be almost 4000 lbs lower when the engine is approximately the same(or identical except for tuning) as the higher trims? HP and torque are still plenty high enough to keep that 12000 lbs rating. That too me suggests there is hardware differences either in the cooling system or driveline the requires they drop the rating down. Either that or Toyota is simply "punishing" people for not paying more for the higher trims.

Probably a little of all that plus the “conservative Toyota trend. Fewer high cost warranty repairs or pissed customers with broken trucks with lower tow ratings.