New Tundra 5.7L = 401 lb-ft

According to the (annoying) Tundra commercial that just aired during the Jets/Patriots game, the new Tundra V8 will make 401 lb-ft of torque. It didn't say horsepower numbers.

"For years, half ton V8s made less than 380 lb-ft of torque..."

They also made a deal of "for decades, many half ton trucks came with 4 speed automatic transmissions, but you wanted a six speed auto"...

I hope the Vortec Max gets a mild boost to match this new 5.7L, and the six speed auto needs to proliferate, soon. I will say that the six speed auto they showed for the Tundra was weird looking. It looked very long, though that may be just because the main body was a little thin or something.

:shrug:

Anyone else catch that commercial?

Yes, I have been watching the new Toyota commercials. They continue to be annoying.

It didn't say horsepower numbers.

They said 381hp at the unveiling today. That's a lot more than anyone else right now. I think that's what the Lightning had. I bet the reg cab hauls some ass.

Well, the Vortec Max has 367 hp, so 381 isn't "a lot" more, at least in my book.

Vortec = 367 hp, 375 lb-ft, but with a 4 speed auto. The 6.2L (in the Sierra Denali) has 380 hp and 400+ lb-ft, along with a six speed auto.

Can you get the Max in a 1/2 ton?

It sounds like a nice engine.

Can anyone here just swallow their pride and admit that???

I think it is a hideous truck. But, it has a nice engine available. Much as the Titan is a hideous truck with a nice engine.

You can bet that this engine will only be available on very limited configurations. The fuel economy numbers will be too low to just stick it in anything. This will be the "new" fuel economy numbers also............ so it will look even worse.

Can you get the Max in a 1/2 ton?Yes. I think it is not available in regular cabs, but extended and crews get it.

Also, I just found this (press release for the "CrewMax", which is the Tundra version of Dodge's Mega Cab)...

The 2007 Tundra offers three levels of power. In Regular and Double Cab models, a standard 4.0-liter V6 produces 236 horsepower at 5,200 rpm and a healthy 266 lb.-ft. of peak torque at 4,000 rpm. The mid-grade option for these models – and standard for the CrewMax models – is an enhanced version of the proven Tundra's 4.7-liter i-Force V8 producing 271 horsepower at 5,400 rpm and 313 lb.-ft. of peak torque at 3,400 rpm.

Tundra models equipped with the 4.0-liter engine will have city/highway fuel economy ratings of 17/20 mpg. Tundra 4x2 and 4x4 models equipped with the 4.7-liter engine will both have city/highway fuel economy ratings of 15/18 mpg.

Both the V6 and the i-Force 4.7 V8 feature DOHC 4-valve cylinder heads and Variable Valve Timing with intelligence (VVT-i) for responsive power across the engine's operating range. Both engines are teamed exclusively with a five-speed automatic transmission that offers greater flexibility than competitors' four-speed automatics.

Updated flex lock-up torque converter control enhances transmission response and efficiency. For added driver control, the Tundra five-speed automatic features uphill / downhill shift logic. All Tundra models feature sequential shift as standard equipment.

i-Force 5.7 – A Force to be Reckoned With

The Tundra's trump card under the hood is an all-new 5.7-liter i-Force V8 that is available in every model configuration. Specifically designed for full-size pickup applications, the i-Force 5.7 uses a long-stroke configuration (stroke dimension of 4.02 in. is more than the bore width of 3.70 in.). As a result, in addition to its impressive 381 horsepower at 5,600 rpm, the i-Force 5.7 unleashes 401 lb.-ft of peak torque at 3,600 rpm.

Tundra 4x2 and 4x4 models equipped with the 5.7-liter engine will have city/highway fuel economy ratings of 16/20 mpg and 14/18 mpg, respectively.

Awesome. While the 5.7L does have a slight power/torque advantage, even with its six speed auto it fares worse (or no better) than the small block Vortec Max with a 4 speed auto. :lol:

The 4.7L gets its ass handed to it. 271 hp/313 lbft vs 315/338 for the 5.3. Even though "both engines [V6 and 4.7L V8] are teamed exclusively with a five-speed automatic transmission that offers greater flexibility than competitors' four-speed automatics",they still offer basically equal or poorer fuel economy compared to the small block backed by a 4 speed auto...

I have a feeling these new Tundras are HEAVY. Keep in mind these are (or should be) the current fuel economy standards, since this is an '07 model (mysteriously being launched after Jan 1, '07, so they'll be eligible for MT's "Truck of the Year" next year...:blah: ). I think only 2008 MY vehicles will be rated against the new standards, which is why, for example, the new Malibu numbers seem a little low.

:cool:

It sounds like a nice engine.

Can anyone here just swallow their pride and admit that???

I think it is a hideous truck. But, it has a nice engine available. Much as the Titan is a hideous truck with a nice engine.

You can bet that this engine will only be available on very limited configurations. The fuel economy numbers will be too low to just stick it in anything. This will be the "new" fuel economy numbers also............ so it will look even worse.Yeah, we can "swallow our pride". I'm sure it is a nice engine. I'm glad to see that it's power and torque advantage is almost nil, however, and even with two more gears in the gear box, it has basically no fuel economy advantage (1 mpg better in 2wd, 1 mpg worse in 4x4) than the 6.0L small block with comparable output.

Just 'cause Ford doesn't currently have an engine that can stack up doesn't mean you should cave in and tell us GM fans to drink the Toyota Kool Aid...

;) :p

By the way, per the press release I quoted above, the 5.7L is apparently going to be available in all cab configurations (though I bet it will be a lot easier to find 4.7L in the reg cab models on dealer lots).

^^ What he said...

Toyota has gone from not even being in the game to leading the pack with this introduction. That had best better be respected by fans and detractors alike.

Toyota has gone from not even being in the game to leading the pack with this introduction. That had best better be respected by fans and detractors alike.Leading the pack in terms of power/torque output, sure. And that is respected, no question. It will certainly give them some marketing power.

I'm just glad to see that them finally joining the power/torque output game did not come accompanied by class leading fuel economy. I mean, after all, Toyota is the "green company" that wants to save the world and feed the starving Africans... ;)

Nice to see them be a little hypocritical, but few will notice or care.

There has been a current Tundra (2006 model) commercial running where I live, where some jackass shows off an air nailer and talks about how technology has moved on (relative to a hammer), and "isn't it time to evolve?" He talks about the 4.7L V8 making "gobs" of power, but without sucking down fuel like some other V8s" (never mind that it is bested in power output by everyone, while offering subpar/competitive fuel economy numbers). But again, by not being specific, Toyota can make it sound good, even though it is basically a lie, as it does suck down fuel as quickly as the the competing V8s (unless they are considering the 8.1L big block as a competitor...)

381 hp/401 lb-ft is nothing to sneer at, in a half ton or otherwise. Again, I'm just glad to see that Toyota didn't pull off some miracle, as many think they are capable of, and make those numbers along with a 25 mpg fuel economy rating. This even with a six speed automatic...

:)

While I certainly don't disagree with some of the negative things you guys are saying about the Tundra, it still amazes me how overwhelmingly one-sided some people can see things. When the competitor is the class-leader, it's "not by much" or "not for long" or "not really true anyway if you think about it like..."

But man, if the badges were swapped and GM had the 6-speed auto, 381hp/401tq 5.7L V8 available in all configurations (including standard cab), I think you guys would be gloating to no end.

And comparing the 4.7 to the 5.3? Why not the 4.8? Sounds more like an even comparison to me. Then of course let's ignore the base engine choice comparison altogether, for conveniences' sake.;)

The only thing Toyota has apparently done wrong here is not offered a 4th engine option between their 4.7 and 5.7... but why? I'd say most people would be perfectly content choosing between the two, and the cost of adding another choice in there would likely far outweigh the benefits.

But whatever... I don't even like the new Tundra that much. The interior looks stupid to me and I'm hung up on interiors so if I don't like the interior the rest of the truck is meaningless to me. I just almost continue to be amazed at the 1-sided ignorance that some spread around this forum...
I know some of you like to call me 1-sided as well. But I'm not. I just play the role on THIS forum because hardly anybody else does.

While I certainly don't disagree with some of the negative things you guys are saying about the Tundra, it still amazes me how overwhelmingly one-sided some people can see things. When the competitor is the class-leader, it's "not by much" or "not for long" or "not really true anyway if you think about it like..."

But man, if the badges were swapped and GM had the 6-speed auto, 381hp/401tq 5.7L V8 available in all configurations (including standard cab), I think you guys would be gloating to no end.Sure, we'd be bragging about that engine and transmission (we do, in fact, in the Escalade, Sierra Denali, etc.). Again, my main point of excitement is that the fuel economy numbers for "green" Toyota are simply nothing to get excited about, AT ALL. I was sort of expecting/fearing that the 5.7L would have class leading power (after all, they are swinging for the fence with this new truck, monstrosity styling aside). But I was expecting/fearing that would be the case along with a few mpg advantage in fuel economy (like the Camry has, for example). That's what I'm happiest about. And comparing the 4.7 to the 5.3? Why not the 4.8? Sounds more like an even comparison to me. Then of course let's ignore the base engine choice comparison altogether, for conveniences' sake.;)

The only thing Toyota has apparently done wrong here is not offered a 4th engine option between their 4.7 and 5.7... but why? I'd say most people would be perfectly content choosing between the two, and the cost of adding another choice in there would likely far outweigh the benefits.The 5.3 is a perfectly reasonable comparison to the 4.7. Both are mainstream, middle of the road, high volume engines. But even against the 4.8L, the 4.7L doesn't really shine (-24 hp, +8 lbft, -1 or 2 mpg for the 4.7 vs. the 4.8). As for the "base" engines, it is true that the Tundra V6 offers a notable power advantage over the 4.3L. Both of those are only available in limited configurations, though. The Silverado only has the six in "WT" trim. The Tundra apparently only offers the V6 in regular cab, 4x2 configuration, according to Toyota's website. So if you get anything other than a basic WT Silverado, you get the 295hp/305 lbft 4.8L, which smothers the Tundra V6 in power and is nearly its equal in fuel economy and offers a power and fuel economy advantage over the 4.7L as well. But whatever... I don't even like the new Tundra that much. The interior looks stupid to me and I'm hung up on interiors so if I don't like the interior the rest of the truck is meaningless to me. I just almost continue to be amazed at the 1-sided ignorance that some spread around this forum...
I know some of you like to call me 1-sided as well. But I'm not. I just play the role on THIS forum because hardly anybody else does.Well, we can agree that the interior looks stupid. As for "one sided ignorance", what was ignorant about my post (if you were referring to me)? Did I say something not factual about the Tundra powertrain? And how is it OK for you to call us one sided, then claim that you are, but only on here. How do you know whether or not I (or any of us) don't play the devil's advocate role when discussing these topics outside of cz28.com? Say, with coworkers, or family/friends, or on other boards? Evidently only you can be fair and balanced by offering up the Toyota view here (like Nashville does with Nissan) while not being one sided elsewhere...

:think:

I'm not claiming that the Tundra isn't a formidable product. Indeed, even if it were absolutely second class, like the 2006- Tundra, it would still move some metal based on the Toyota name (and its unprecedented rise over the last 5-10 years) alone. And in this case, while I think the exterior and interior styling are simply not in the same class as many of the full sizers, that is purely subjective. On a technical level, there is no question that Toyota has come prepared this time.

Sounds like it will definitely test a few loyalties.

The 5.3 is a perfectly reasonable comparison to the 4.7.
OK how do the sales volumes of the 5.3 to the 6.0 look? I'm gonna guess that the 5.3 is the top selling engine. But I could be wrong - that's why I'm asking.

Now how does Toyota expect the sales volume of the 5.7 to stack to the 4.7? I'm gonna guess that the 5.7 will sell better, or if not, it will at least sell a substantially higher ratio when compared to the 6.0 to 5.3 sales ratio.

Thus, if that is correct, the 5.3 is actually GM's mainstream engine. The 6.0 is a premium engine only available in certain configs. The 5.7 is the Tundra's mainstream engine and is available in all configs. The 4.8 and 4.3 are GM's lesser engine options with the sole intention of catching budget shoppers and such. Same for Toyota's 4.7 and 4.0.

Now again let me state the above is not being stated as fact. It's simply the way I see things panning out in my head. I haven't see sales figures or predicted sales figures, I haven't talked to either company's engineers or marketing people - it's just how things look from here.

Granted I still think the 6.0 is about 95% comparable to the 5.7 with the exception of the fact that it's not available in standard cab configs, and the 5.7 is. But my main stipulation is to me it seems the 4.7 and 4.8 are in the shadows and will sell less because of it.


As for "one sided ignorance", what was ignorant about my post (if you were referring to me)? Did I say something not factual about the Tundra powertrain?
Nope, you just chose to word things in such a manner as to lean the facts as much as possible toward GM. And it's not just you or even necessarily you (as I've actually heard you concede you dislike a few GM products and concede you like a few Toyota products)... that comment was really just directed toward the fact that this forum never seems to change. And please don't give me the "this is a GM forum, what do you expect" line. I've seen plenty of forums that, while still biased toward the car/brand the forum is about, have far more balanced perspectives on tap.


And how is it OK for you to call us one sided, then claim that you are, but only on here.
I'm not one-sided in the least on here. I simply choose to (typically) not repeat the things that have already been said, and guess what things have, 99.9% of the time already been said? That's right... the anti-foreign comments.;)

How do you know whether or not I (or any of us) don't play the devil's advocate role when discussing these topics outside of cz28.com? Say, with coworkers, or family/friends, or on other boards?
I don't know that, but I do know, here, the vast majority of people in these threads rarely if ever even take the effort of conceding that the competition might make a cool/nice/decent product. I have a habit of playing devil's advocate on most any heavily biased forum - that includes me getting labeled as a pro-GM anti-lexus "!@#%^!@" on the Lexus forums by quite a few members, too.;). If you or anyone else here play's the devil's advocate on other forums or with friends and family - why is this forum the exception? Is this forum the "support group" where people gather amminution and confidence by feeding off of each other's pats on the back, so that you can venture out into the real world and then... bring up negative points to friends, family, and other forums that are pro-GM? To me, that makes very little sense and sounds pretty doubtful.:shrug:

Evidently only you can be fair and balanced by offering up the Toyota view here (like Nashville does with Nissan) while not being one sided elsewhere...
Again, the only time I make a concerted effort of being fair and balanced in a thread is when others have been as well - then I will give my full honest opinion of the pros and cons of the vehicle. But when I think the Tundra's interior is ugly yet 30 other people before me have already said that - what's the point in repeating it. Instead I just say 'but have you guys considered (insert _______ here)?"

And in this case, while I think the exterior and interior styling are simply not in the same class as many of the full sizers, that is purely subjective.
Yep, very subjective. I think some of the Tundra configs look goofy on the outside, and some look pretty good. Generally the bigger 4-door 4x4s look better with the giant grill. The plain basic work trucks with flat sheet metal and no flair look stupid with the giant grill sticking out. And the interior would look good if they had let either one of the two interior design teams it appears they decided to 'split down the middle' of the dash, take over the entire design. But together, well, I don't like it in the H1 Hummer, either.


On a technical level, there is no question that Toyota has come prepared this time.
I'd definitely agree based on what I've seen so far. Though even still, I think based on what I've seen so far, I'd rather have the Sierra - maybe the Sierra Denali, or the Escalade EXT.:) Though the only giant caveat there is resale value, which scares me on GM products sometimes.

Nice engine and it seems to make great power but it does nothing for the Tundras ugly looks!

hey there goes that whatever other than truck update as Ford scrambles to reinvent the next F series truck os they can try and compete. Funny thing is they had a 5.4 in 2000 that laid down 385 hp/385tq with 4 valves and no VVT.

Funny thing is they had a 5.4 in 2000 that laid down 385 hp/385tq with 4 valves and no VVT.

In the Cobra R? Wasn't it also physically large, heavy, and very rough around the edges (acceptable in a race car like the Cobra R, not in a truck, though)

As a bonus feature I'd guess it was probably pretty expensive to build.:p

In the Cobra R? Wasn't it also physically large, heavy, and very rough around the edges (acceptable in a race car like the Cobra R, not in a truck, though)

As a bonus feature I'd guess it was probably pretty expensive to build.:p


Okay, so its only peak numbers, but the heads are there and with some VVT luv you could take the edge off. Granted a good block can be worth some serious power (maybe on the order of 30 or so HP), but its all in the heads y'know. Hell I guess Ford could trump them all and just shove the GT500 motor in there, nobody batts an eye at 50k+ trucks anymore.

It sounds like a nice engine.

Can anyone here just swallow their pride and admit that???


Some will, some won't.

Some will, some won't.

I one who will....great numbers out of that V8 :)
Im not to big on the looks, but a new design tends to grow on me with time..

I one who will....great numbers out of that V8 :)

I agree.

Yeah, we can "swallow our pride". I'm sure it is a nice engine. I'm glad to see that it's power and torque advantage is almost nil, however, and even with two more gears in the gear box, it has basically no fuel economy advantage (1 mpg better in 2wd, 1 mpg worse in 4x4) than the 6.0L small block with comparable output.

Just 'cause Ford doesn't currently have an engine that can stack up doesn't mean you should cave in and tell us GM fans to drink the Toyota Kool Aid...

;) :p

By the way, per the press release I quoted above, the 5.7L is apparently going to be available in all cab configurations (though I bet it will be a lot easier to find 4.7L in the reg cab models on dealer lots).

First off, where in hell did I say ANYTHING about Ford here??? I think we all know the engines that Ford has available to it at this time.

Next, I call a truck hideous............... but with a nice engine................. and I'm drinking the Toyota koolaid??? Allrightythen.

Just admit that the truck offers a few things that the GMT900's don't. It is also behind in a few areas. Its not that difficult.............. and noones manhood is threatened.

Maybe I missed this.............. but is the 6.0 with 380hp available on every configuration of Silverado??? Maybe its just me, but I thought it was only available on the Denali (someone please correct me if I am wrong............ so many engines, so many configurations).

PS, when everyone was debating the cylinder deactivation that was offered on the 5.3............... 1 mpg was a big deal.............. and now its not. Just one more of those things that make you go Hmmmmm..............

A truck with as much torque as my GTO :eek: ;)

The new Tundra will outperform everything. I just hope GM doesn't rely on customer loyalty to keep bringing in their sales.

A truck with as much torque as my GTO :eek: ;)

Makes ya wonder what they have cooking up in the sports car melting pot?

Makes ya wonder what they have cooking up in the sports car melting pot? probably something about as visually exciting as a camry coupe, then again if it was fitted with that 5.7 truck engine and was RWD, one might be able to stomach the inevitable blandness.

http://www.sportruck.com/news/2007-GMC-Sierra-Denali/title-big.jpg

403 hp @ 5700 rpm 417 ft-lbs. @ 4300 rpm, 87 octane, six-speed transmission


Toyota did well but looks like GM already has an answer. That Tundra is ugly as hell though. I am at a loss of words about the interior.

Imports have always made great power with their V6's in recent years. All they had to do is slap on 2 more cylinders and step right in the middle of the pickup wars, and did.

GM V8s are in a class of their own. Now it seems, so are Toyota's... :D the two 'classes' now go toe-to-toe. I still prefer the simplicity, power, lightness and fuel economy of the OHV V8 but you have to give Toyota credit for declaring their intentions with 5.7L of V8 muscle and 6 spd auto. It kinda puts Ford's 4.6, 5.4L efforts to shame, dunnit?

http://www.sportruck.com/news/2007-GMC-Sierra-Denali/title-big.jpg

403 hp @ 5700 rpm 417 ft-lbs. @ 4300 rpm, 87 octane, six-speed transmission


Toyota did well but looks like GM already has an answer. That Tundra is ugly as hell though. I am at a loss of words about the interior.

What if the Tundra was cheaper, and was able to pull more, accerate faster while pulling more, etc?

What if the Tundra was cheaper, and was able to pull more, accerate faster while pulling more, etc?

I dunno, what if?

Now how does Toyota expect the sales volume of the 5.7 to stack to the 4.7? I'm gonna guess that the 5.7 will sell better, or if not, it will at least sell a substantially higher ratio when compared to the 6.0 to 5.3 sales ratio.

Actually Threxx I am going to guess that the 4.7 will be the volume engine, at least for the 1st year. Toyota cannot allow ANY room for recalls or powertrain problems in the new Tundra, especially true for the top of the line powertrain that they are building their image on. I would expect that the 4.7 will be the only V8 available for quite a while so that Toyota can be sure all of the bugs are out of the other parts of the truck before they launch the 5.7. What will sell better and be more popular remains to be seen and the above is simply my opinion but it does make sense.

Longer-term, CAFE will dictate powertrain mix more so than anything else.

I dunno, what if?

I think his question was rhetorical because the Tundra is far cheaper than the Sierra Denali and likely tows more and accelerates faster when in those cheaper (and lighter) configs.

I'm having flashbacks to the Silverado SS that used to get out accelerated, out towed, and out everything else'd by a Hemi Ram with a 23k sticker price, while it was wearing a 40k sticker price and only came more or less fully loaded, heavy as hell.

Granted at least this go round the 6.0 with a bit less power is still available in the 1/2-tons without all of the glitz and glamor, but I think the point was it doesn't make sense to compare a special V8 only found in the absolute top of the line fully loaded truck, to a competitor's V8 found in every variant of their truck... unless of course the buyer in question WANTS to go completely fully loaded no matter who's truck he goes with.

Toyota will be no threat. The only people who buy them will be current Toyota truck buyers upgrading. Look what happened with the Nissan. Great power, import reputation but crappy sales. Honda even worse because it wasn't even a real truck. GM sells more trucks in a month than Nissan can sell in a year. Truck buyers are the most brand loyal of any vehicle type. Toyota might be a great product but watch how many large construction companies, farmers etc. buy them. They will continue to buy their Fords, Chevy's and Dodges.

First off, where in hell did I say ANYTHING about Ford here??? I think we all know the engines that Ford has available to it at this time.

Next, I call a truck hideous............... but with a nice engine................. and I'm drinking the Toyota koolaid??? Allrightythen.

Just admit that the truck offers a few things that the GMT900's don't. It is also behind in a few areas. Its not that difficult.............. and noones manhood is threatened.

Maybe I missed this.............. but is the 6.0 with 380hp available on every configuration of Silverado??? Maybe its just me, but I thought it was only available on the Denali (someone please correct me if I am wrong............ so many engines, so many configurations).

PS, when everyone was debating the cylinder deactivation that was offered on the 5.3............... 1 mpg was a big deal.............. and now its not. Just one more of those things that make you go Hmmmmm..............Fine then. What exactly was the cause of you saying, at the very beginning of the thread, that "it sounds like a nice engine. Can anyone here just swallow their pride and admit that?" All I had done was post about the new torque rating, since I had seen the commercial for the first time. I then said that I hope the Vortec Max gets a mild bump in output (since 367/375 is a bit behind 381/401), and that the six speed auto gets proliferated down the lineup (currently only available with the 4 speed auto, which is partially why I'm surprised that the GM product does basically as well on fuel economy). Right now, the six speed auto is only in the Denali with the 6.2L V8 (basically the powertrain from the Escalade lineup).

No one had (or still has, really) blasted the new Toyota engine. No question it makes impressive power and torque, about what I expected. It is a formidable engine, and I (and others) have said as much. But your very first post was to ask if anyone can just swallow their pride and admit it, as though we'd been laughing it off the whole time. I only teasingly brought up Ford because, well, you are known for being a supporter of Ford (which is fine by me). Given that truck engines are one area in which Ford is quite simply behind, I was jokingly implying that you were too quick to bow down to the Toyota engine simply because Ford doesn't have a gas V8 anywhere near 370-380 hp. :) No, I don't really think you are a Toyota Kool Aid drinker... ;)

My basic take on it is this:

5.7L = impressive new engine, but not at all at a surprising level. It has a marketable but not overly significant advantage in power/torque over the 6.0L small block at this point. Which is why I said I hope the Max gets a little bump (or the 6.2L becomes available everywhere in its place).

6 speed auto = definite advantage, for the time being. Which is why I said the GM six speed needs to spread, and soon.

Fuel economy isn't that impressive, especially from the "green" leader, and with a brand new, "high tech" DOHC V8 and with a new six speed auto. It is certainly appropriate fuel economy for a full size pickup, but I had feared and half expected a truck with a 380 hp engine and a 2 or 3 mpg advantage over the competition. So the basic dead heat (and actually, if you look at all of the powertrain options, I think the GM trucks actually have an advantage overall in fuel economy) is a nice surprise. You'd have to think that at some point, if they want to push the big trucks toward a bigger slice of the market, people will start to catch on that Toyota isn't the benevolent green machine that they are too often perceived to be; they are a full line auto manufacturer, just like GM and Ford.

:)

Toyota will be no threat. The only people who buy them will be current Toyota truck buyers upgrading.

That's not true at all. It's not even debatable. This new Toyota WILL eat some of the 'big 2.5' market share, without even a hint of a question.

The question is - how much will it eat? Just a little? Or will it take a chunk out?

I think with Toyotas forcasted market share increase...actually large share increase, they are planning on taking a lot of truck sales from GM and Ford.

Anyplace to find a breakdown and specs on this engine?

Anyplace to find a breakdown and specs on this engine?

From the Toyota press release that we have posted on Autoblog (http://www.autoblog.com/2007/01/07/detroit-auto-show-toyota-unveils-tundra-crewmax/):


i-Force 5.7 – A Force to be Reckoned With
The Tundra's trump card under the hood is an all-new 5.7-liter i-Force V8 that is available in every model configuration. Specifically designed for full-size pickup applications, the i-Force 5.7 uses a long-stroke configuration (stroke dimension of 4.02 in. is more than the bore width of 3.70 in.). As a result, in addition to its impressive 381 horsepower at 5,600 rpm, the i-Force 5.7 unleashes 401 lb.-ft of peak torque at 3,600 rpm.

Tundra 4x2 and 4x4 models equipped with the 5.7-liter engine will have city/highway fuel economy ratings of 16/20 mpg and 14/18 mpg, respectively.

The i-Force 5.7 V8 uses aluminum for the cylinder block and DOHC heads. This engine's more advanced Dual VVT-i controls valve timing and overlap on both the intake and exhaust valves, which also helps optimize power, fuel efficiency and emissions.

On all Tundra engines, the Acoustic Control Induction System (ACIS) uses butterfly valves inside intake manifold to switch the length of the intake tract in two stages, based on rpm and throttle angle, to improve torque across the engine speed range. Tubular stainless steel headers flow into a full stainless steel exhaust system with laser-welded, high-capacity mufflers for optimal efficiency and a commanding, powerful sound.

The i-Force 5.7 and 4.7 share a crank-hold electronic starter control that uses a "twist and release" ignition switch. The ECM controls the starter relay to prevent failed starts and "grinding" on a re-start attempt. Both the 5.7- and 4.7-liter Tundra engines meet the Ultra-Low Emissions Vehicle, or ULEV II, emissions certification.

The i-Force 5.7 is teamed exclusively with a new six-speed automatic transmission, which is only slightly larger than the five-speed automatic. Shift logic adapts the transmission's shift maps to driver input.

Both Tundra transmissions use new Toyota "WS" (world-standard) fluid with a flat viscosity/temperature curve (cold viscosity is close to warm viscosity). This fluid reduces friction and wear, enables faster vehicle warm-up, and never needs to be replaced.

Next year, select 2009 Tundra models equipped with the 5.7-liter V8 will offer flexible fuel capability with E85 ethanol.


It's interesting that a bore of only 3.7" (hardly any larger than Ford's Mod motor) is being used; that ultimately will limit the power output, even with 4-valve heads. GM always has the option of punching out the GenIV (of course as evidenced by the LS7).

For now, though, Toyota has shown the willingness and ability to be a serious player. I curiously await the reaction of the market.

What octane fuel does the 5.7 use? Glaring ommision from all the releases.

What octane fuel does the 5.7 use? Glaring ommision from all the releases.That is a good question. I checked Toyota's website. According to the specs page, it requires 87 octane or higher.

BTW, www.toyota.com (http://www.toyota.com/) has the new Tundra info now.

Not bad, I guess I should switch sides now..................NOT! Anyone think they will see ANY, bad press, for producing such gas-guzzlers!

http://www.sportruck.com/news/2007-GMC-Sierra-Denali/title-big.jpg

403 hp @ 5700 rpm 417 ft-lbs. @ 4300 rpm, 87 octane, six-speed transmission


Toyota did well but looks like GM already has an answer. That Tundra is ugly as hell though. I am at a loss of words about the interior.

That is a much nicer truck.

The Toyota is ugly inside and out. Tundra Interiors look cheap compared to GM and Ford in higher end trucks, they layout looks bad too.

GMC Sierra is my favorite truck on the market now. Probably the best truck engine on the market is the DoD 5.3L from GM. Best mix of performance and economy and price, I can't wait until it gets mated to a 6 speed automatic though. No one will want a gas pig when $3 gas comes back

A quick scan of the specs on Toyota's website shows that the curb weights listed for the Tundra are indeed heavier than the equivalent truck in the GMT900 line. Anywhere from 100-300 lbs difference, depending on the configuration. That partially explains why the fuel economy isn't any better than the 900's, even with the five and six speed auto vs. the four speed auto.

Next year, select 2009 Tundra models equipped with the 5.7-liter V8 will offer flexible fuel capability with E85 ethanol.

What other Toyota trucks and SUV's are flex capable?

I'm having flashbacks to the Silverado SS that used to get out accelerated, out towed, and out everything else'd by a Hemi Ram with a 23k sticker price, while it was wearing a 40k sticker price and only came more or less fully loaded, heavy as hell.

Granted at least this go round the 6.0 with a bit less power is still available in the 1/2-tons without all of the glitz and glamor, but I think the point was it doesn't make sense to compare a special V8 only found in the absolute top of the line fully loaded truck, to a competitor's V8 found in every variant of their truck... unless of course the buyer in question WANTS to go completely fully loaded no matter who's truck he goes with.

More people that spend $40K plus are going to want an engine like the 5.7L or 6.2L the guys/companies that buy work truck are usually happy with the V6 or small V8. They don't need/want Corvette power or the higher insurance or gas prices that come with that.

The 5.7L is a non issue really. GM has the 6.2L that is more powerful plus the 6.0L VortecMAX that can be tuned closer to LS2 levels of HP. Dodge has the 6.1L 425HP Hemi coming soon and the regular Hemi is 375ft-lbs. Ford is the only one really behind in the HP war, but the 6.2L Hurricane is back on and should be around in 2008/9

Once $3+ gas comes back around (and it will) sales of these 400tq+ trucks will be the first to go.

Heres a review from Edmunds I didnt see posted.
http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpcontainers/do/vdp/articleId=119089/pageNumber=1?synpartner=edmunds&pageurl=www.edmunds.com/new/2006/toyota/tundra/100597377/roadtestarticle.html&articleId=119089

Minus the interior, I like the truck. Both this and the GM trucks make the Ford, Nissan and Dodge competition look weak. Not that I'm in the market, but if I was this new Tundra would be the first full size Japanese truck that I'd ever really consider.

Heres a review from Edmunds I didnt see posted.
http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpcontainers/do/vdp/articleId=119089/pageNumber=1?synpartner=edmunds&pageurl=www.edmunds.com/new/2006/toyota/tundra/100597377/roadtestarticle.html&articleId=119089


0-60 = 6.3
1/4 = 14.8@93.7

Wow! And that's for the double cab 4x4. What'll the regular cab 2wd do?

0-60 = 6.3
1/4 = 14.8@93.7

Wow! And that's for the double cab 4x4. What'll the regular cab 2wd do?

I'm gonna guess if it can get traction, it'll be pretty near stock lightning times.

0-60 = 6.3
1/4 = 14.8@93.7

Wow! And that's for the double cab 4x4. What'll the regular cab 2wd do?Seriously. :eek:

That sounds like more than 380 hp. I guess that is where the gearing is helping... But that is quicker than an Escalade (similar weight, 403 hp, 417 lbft, six speed auto).

I've seen mid-sixes from the Escalade, but Edmunds only managed a 7.5 from the Caddy. A check of another road test shows that they got a 7.9 from the 367 hp Vortec Max, in a truck of similar weight. So -14 hp and 2 less gears causes a 1.6 second longer 0-60? :think:

One other thing I've noticed is that it seems like 321 rwhp is a little high, because I think when I've seen dyno runs of pickups, the losses tend to be more than a standard 15-18% that a car would have. Trucks have beefier driveline components, longer, heavier driveshafts. But who knows...

either way, underrated or not, 0-60 in 6.3 is hauling ass for a truck that big...

GM V8s are in a mild state of tune. It's easy to gain an additional 50bhp and improved torque across the range from a GM 5.7L V8 while also improving fuel economy. The Toyota on the other hand, won't be so tune friendly I'm predicting.

But are power/torque specs really all that important for trucks or is the realworld towability more a tangible measure? I don't know, just asking. :D

But are power/torque specs really all that important for trucks or is the realworld towability more a tangible measure? I don't know, just asking. :DI'm sure the Tundra will tow just fine with that kind of power/torque and the gearing advantage.

Both trucks can tow over 10000 lbs with their optional tow packages, but I'd guess that the Tundra will accelerate a bit more quickly with a trailer (since it is quicker without one).

This engine is a formidible adversary indeed.

But are power/torque specs really all that important for trucks or is the realworld towability more a tangible measure? I don't know, just asking. :D

The "wimpy" 255 HP Vortec 350 in my truck offers enough power to do anything I need to do with it, but I doubt that it'd be competitive in today's market.

Numbers ain't everything, but they're rather important to many buyers - the car companies have conditioned consumers to think that way.

I'm sure the Tundra will tow just fine with that kind of power/torque and the gearing advantage.

Both trucks can tow over 10000 lbs with their optional tow packages, but I'd guess that the Tundra will accelerate a bit more quickly with a trailer (since it is quicker without one).

This engine is a formidible adversary indeed.


Agree.

GM V8s have held their own against Ford's OHC/DOHC V8s.... will the Toyota challenge be any different? Time will tell.

I'll be interested to see power under the curve. The peak numbers only show so much.

Duramax FTW

Growing pains....

http://www.jalopnik.com/cars/assets/resources/2006/09/2007-Toyota-Tundra-Double-C.jpg

A regular Texas hoe down....

http://www.jalopnik.com/photogallery/TexasTundra/621998

http://www.jalopnik.com/photogallery/TexasTundra/621801

http://www.jalopnik.com/photogallery/TexasTundra/621849

Well for anyone who's worried that Toyota may have one upped GM just read this: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/trucks/112_0701_2007_toyota_tundra

Here's the important part:

The Conclusion
What follows, then, is a comforting revelation. For years, GM, Ford and Chrysler have deserved criticism for improving their cars and trucks without making them good enough. They tend to target "current models" and then the benchmarked foreign automaker trumps them by getting a much-improved, all-new model on the market about the same time. They were chasing the last Camry without thinking about how much better the new Camry would be.

Toyota does the same thing. That's the revelation. The second-generation Tundra is finally in the hunt, just as the new Saturn Aura is a credible competitor for the new Camry.

Is it as good, or better, than the class-leading Chevy Silverado? An early drive, without the chance to compare them side-by-side indicates that Toyota has been chasing the last Silverado (and the current Ford F-150 and Dodge Ram, which each have less than two more years of shelf-life).

Finally, the Tundra is big enough to run in this pack. Toyota designers have gone out of their way to make the truck look even a bit bigger than its competition. The new V-8 is as smooth and powerful as the best of its competitors. The ride and handling is, for the most part, competitive. The interior falls short - perhaps the last thing over which you'd expect Toyota to stumble. It's a relief to find that Toyota is human, that it didn't perfectly pull off the threat of a serious, big truck for a segment that the Big Three still own. It will be an even greater relief to the Big Three.

IMHO the motor and trans in the new Tundra are nice but that's where the "nice" ends...The exterior is horrible looking and the interior is even worse...

Well for anyone who's worried that Toyota may have one upped GM just read this: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/trucks/112_0701_2007_toyota_tundra

Here's the important part:

The Conclusion
What follows, then, is a comforting revelation. For years, GM, Ford and Chrysler have deserved criticism for improving their cars and trucks without making them good enough. They tend to target "current models" and then the benchmarked foreign automaker trumps them by getting a much-improved, all-new model on the market about the same time. They were chasing the last Camry without thinking about how much better the new Camry would be.

Toyota does the same thing. That's the revelation. The second-generation Tundra is finally in the hunt, just as the new Saturn Aura is a credible competitor for the new Camry.

Is it as good, or better, than the class-leading Chevy Silverado? An early drive, without the chance to compare them side-by-side indicates that Toyota has been chasing the last Silverado (and the current Ford F-150 and Dodge Ram, which each have less than two more years of shelf-life).

Finally, the Tundra is big enough to run in this pack. Toyota designers have gone out of their way to make the truck look even a bit bigger than its competition. The new V-8 is as smooth and powerful as the best of its competitors. The ride and handling is, for the most part, competitive. The interior falls short - perhaps the last thing over which you'd expect Toyota to stumble. It's a relief to find that Toyota is human, that it didn't perfectly pull off the threat of a serious, big truck for a segment that the Big Three still own. It will be an even greater relief to the Big Three.

IMHO the motor and trans in the new Tundra are nice but that's where the "nice" ends...The exterior is horrible looking and the interior is even worse...
Motortrend doesn't know anything. Haven't you learned that by now? :p

The truck market is the last stronghold of American manufacturers.
Hmmm, I wonder how messed up it'd be if our military prefered Toyotas over GM/Ford trucks...

note: I try to citicize so they improve their trucks and other vehicles, but at this point, GM/Ford are gonna need an onset of nationalism if they hope to take the reins from Toyota.

I am a BIG GM fan but if Tundra eats into F-series sales then it's only a matter of time before Toyota also bite into GMT-900 sales.... which is why I'm hoping Toyota fail dismally to gain a footing in the truck market. But Toyota don't fail too often when it comes to challenging big league players.

I hope Lutz is right when he says Tundra will mainly contest sales with Nissan.