[AutoGuide.com]

Capable, at a cost
by Stephen Elmer

Pickup trucks are an intrinsic part of American culture. More than just a tool, trucks have become a cultural icon in the United States, which may be one of the biggest disadvantages that plagues Toyota’s half-ton pickup truck, the Tundra.

Image was working against the truck from day one, and Toyota is doing its best to pick up every little bit of American heritage it can scrounge. About 75 percent of the Tundra’s parts are sourced from American companies. They are then shipped to San Antonio, TX where they are assembled at a plant that makes sure to hire veterans, and is built on land that was originally an old-west ranch that was founded in 1794, which is not coincidentally the namesake for Toyota’s new luxury 1794 Edition trim.

If American heritage could be bought, Toyota would be the first Japanese company to take out its credit card.

Unfortunately, many overlook the Tundra because of its badge, but this truck, especially the 2014 Tundra, is definitely a contender in the half-ton segment.

SAME OLD ENGINES

Powertrains remain untouched for the 2014 model year, with Toyota claiming that customers haven’t been relaying the need for any updates. At the bottom of the range, you can get an antiquated 4.0-liter V6 good for 270 hp and 278 lb-ft of torque, paired with an equally old five-speed automatic transmission. Next is a 4.6-liter V8 that makes 310 hp and 327 lb-ft, hooked up to a six-speed automatic. Topping the lineup, and also the volume seller is a 5.7-liter V8 good for 381 hp and 401 lb-ft of peak torque. It’s also, arguably, the only truly competitive engine.

Read the complete 2014 Toyota Tundra Review at AutoGuide.com

2014 Toyota Tundra Review - YouTube

 

[Breathing Borla]

13 mpg,

ouch.

 

[testerdahl]

How the heck did he get 13 mpg? I drove the same conditions he did and got way better in the 2013. If they are identical engines, then WTF?

 

[Breathing Borla]

I would guess that it was mixed driving with a heavy foot. If I got my foot in my 2010 limited DC 5.7 4x4, i would see 12-13 as well. if I took it real easy and crusied on the highway uner 75 i would see more like 17.

I think that's pretty typical for the heavier tundra models, with the occasional person who gets better or worse depending on conditions and driving

the sticker estimates now a days are actually pretty darn accurate. my tundra got the 13/17 for the most part and my Ram gets the 15/21 for the most part.

the kicker is do you kick the 381 hp tundra or the 395 hp Ram in the butt big time? then they will suck some fuel for sure no matter what.

fact is, Toyota fell further behind not doing anything with the MPG of this truck as the others are getting better and better. Mike Sweers is mistaken by keep saying the others are not getting what they say. The auto manufactures don't make the MPG estimates. My tundra got what was on the sticker and so does my Ram.

EPA changed the test a while back and it's now pretty darn close to real life....

 

[testerdahl]

I would guess that it was mixed driving with a heavy foot. If I got my foot in my 2010 limited DC 5.7 4x4, i would see 12-13 as well. if I took it real easy and crusied on the highway uner 75 i would see more like 17.

I think that's pretty typical for the heavier tundra models, with the occasional person who gets better or worse depending on conditions and driving

the sticker estimates now a days are actually pretty darn accurate. my tundra got the 13/17 for the most part and my Ram gets the 15/21 for the most part.

the kicker is do you kick the 381 hp tundra or the 395 hp Ram in the butt big time? then they will suck some fuel for sure no matter what.

fact is, Toyota fell further behind not doing anything with the MPG of this truck as the others are getting better and better. Mike Sweers is mistaken by keep saying the others are not getting what they say. The auto manufactures don't make the MPG estimates. My tundra got what was on the sticker and so does my Ram.

EPA changed the test a while back and it's now pretty darn close to real life....

I agree that Sweers is no longer accurate about comparing FE. I think at one time he did, but not any longer.

My point is how do you drive a truck a mere 50 miles while "testing" it out (heavy foot) then rail on the FE.

Look a long term test with driving like a normal person and it gets 12-13 alright then, you can *****.

A short-term press event - no way can you say that. I have been to those events NOBODY drives the vehicles like they should or how they would normally perform.

He has his view on the rest of the truck and I will have mine when I get a chance. But the big deal he makes about FE is what I am calling him out on here and if we ever meet in person.

Tim


Sent from AutoGuide.com App

 

[Breathing Borla]

I tend to agree, 50 miles isn't much of a sample size, especially when your probably hammering on it.

but it's so fun to drop the hammer on these 5.7s, LOL

 

[Breathing Borla]

I picked this up over at PUTC, they have the production specs up.

I guess the guy did get what was on the sticker for city, probably the style he encoutnered for the 50 miles. Maybe he does have the right to *****

the official MPG

13 city, 17 highway, 15 mixed. BOOOOO

http://blogs.cars.com/files/2014-tundra-product-information.pdf

 

[Puffnstuff]

Toyota needs to step up their game with direct injection engines and standard flex fuel capability. I will confess that this is the first 2nd gen that I really like and finally Toyota gets a normal instrument cluster instead of that retarded deep dish setup.