New Tundra 5.7L = 401 lb-ft
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,650
From: Indianapolis, IN
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.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 10,285
From: Albany, NY
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.
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.
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.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,327
From: Hartford, CT
Heres a review from Edmunds I didnt see posted.
http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpconta...ticleId=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.
http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpconta...ticleId=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.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 393
From: Houston Tx
Heres a review from Edmunds I didnt see posted.
http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpconta...ticleId=119089
http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpconta...ticleId=119089
1/4 = 14.8@93.7
Wow! And that's for the double cab 4x4. What'll the regular cab 2wd do?
Registered User
Joined: Sep 1998
Posts: 4,320
From: Memphis
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,650
From: Indianapolis, IN
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?
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 *** for a truck that big...
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,650
From: Indianapolis, IN
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.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,400
From: Michigan's left coast
Numbers ain't everything, but they're rather important to many buyers - the car companies have conditioned consumers to think that way.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
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.
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.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 538
Registered User
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 538