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.



Anyone else catch that commercial?

 

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

 

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 ***.

 

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.

 

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.

The 4.7L gets its *** 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.

 

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...



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.

 

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.

 

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. 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. 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...



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.

 

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.


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.


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.

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.

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)?"

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.


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.