[testerdahl]

As many of you know, I spent the last week in Jackson Hole, WY, at a press preview event for the 2014 Tundra. All week, I will have articles about my experiences. Here is an early, "breaking" news story, I thought you guys would be interested in.

http://www.tundraheadquarters.com/blog/2013/08/25/2014-rock-warrior-dead/

-Tim

 

[JRUSS]

I doubt it will be a true competitor to the Raptor or Ram Runner. It will probably have " special edition" wheels and A/T tires with an extra skid plate and mean looking tickers on the bed. Not that I am a Ford or Dodge fan because I am not the slightest, but both of those companies designed a brand new truck inside, outside, and under the hood. Then once they were a hit (sales-wise) they came out with these " off-road" editions. Toyota will be lucky not to loose their shirt on this new Tundra. All you have to do is look around this forum at all the negative first impressions on the '14 Tundra, and everyday there are more and more posts of former Tundra owners going elsewhere for their new truck. The 07-13 Tundra is a great truck but " What have you done for me lately Toyota?" If Toyota actually comes to market with a true competitor for the Raptor/ Ramrunner they are going to have to come along way on their mainstream offering.

 

[Joe T]

I agree with JRuss.


I don't see Toyota designing an SVT Raptor type of truck. The Rock Warrior had wheels and all terrain tires on it. To get to Raptor territory you have to do what Osidepunker has done and customize it aftermarket.


What Toyota needs to do is put some more technology like direct injection and displacement on demand to get mpg up and redo the carry over double cab rear doors. The double cab rear doors look like they tried to fit 1999 Chevy rear doors onto a 2008 Chevy.

They certainly need to follow Ford and offer some engine options though. The small V8 is kinda like the 305 Chevy of old days, just there 'because' and the V6 needs more power and mpg to win some average buyers over. Definitely needs some MPG because the 5.0 Ford is rated better than it with almost 100 more HP.



Then they can sit back and collect on it. Overall it is a good truck but needs some help.

 

[italiantundra88]

I doubt it will be a true competitor to the Raptor or Ram Runner. It will probably have " special edition" wheels and A/T tires with an extra skid plate and mean looking tickers on the bed. Not that I am a Ford or Dodge fan because I am not the slightest, but both of those companies designed a brand new truck inside, outside, and under the hood. Then once they were a hit (sales-wise) they came out with these " off-road" editions. Toyota will be lucky not to loose their shirt on this new Tundra. All you have to do is look around this forum at all the negative first impressions on the '14 Tundra, and everyday there are more and more posts of former Tundra owners going elsewhere for their new truck. The 07-13 Tundra is a great truck but " What have you done for me lately Toyota?" If Toyota actually comes to market with a true competitor for the Raptor/ Ramrunner they are going to have to come along way on their mainstream offering.

it will probably end up like the newest civics. people dis liked them so much the planned for a new design in 2014. so I either see a one-two year run of the body and engine in that combo and they may come out with a new engine body or both. but this change was a bust by keeping the same engine and tranny. not that its bad by any means

 

[osidepunker]

I think toyota could do it for sure. And it could be cheap and be a true raptor competitor too. All toyota really has to do is tweak the upper control arms and add 2.5 coils front and 2.0s in the rear. Tundra already has enough suspension travel and good geometry. They could even talk to King and try to set themselves apart from Ferd. Toyota might spend $2k to $3k on the parts and offer it as a $5k package.

They could also add KDSS and an e locker and truly have a home run...

Plus all these parts are already proven and there would be little r&d to get them going

 

[planomateo]

This thread is kinda pointless without any details .

 

[Tundra-TSS]

I have the 4.6L in my 2013 CrewMax, and I wouldn't have it any other way. Don't knock it! Still tows about 8000 lbs. It's not wimpy. I thought about what I would get in my next Tundra, and unless they add direct injection and/or cylinder deactivation, I'll go back with the 4.6L. It's as quick as my '07 Nissan Frontier 4.0L and a little quicker than my '10 Honda Ridgeline was. If they drop the 4.6L AND don't improve the 5.7, it's back to the Ridgeline for me. Blah, blah, blah it's not a real truck blah, blah, blah. Same thing Chevy, Ford, and Dodge owners say about the Tundra.

 

[Tundra-TSS]

I think toyota could do it for sure. And it could be cheap and be a true raptor competitor too. All toyota really has to do is tweak the upper control arms and add 2.5 coils front and 2.0s in the rear. Tundra already has enough suspension travel and good geometry. They could even talk to King and try to set themselves apart from Ferd. Toyota might spend $2k to $3k on the parts and offer it as a $5k package.

They could also add KDSS and an e locker and truly have a home run...

Plus all these parts are already proven and there would be little r&d to get them going

I think they would need to beef up the frame, too. The open C-channel frame is awesome for daily normal driving and off-roading, but for serious Raptor style offroading, they need to go ahead and close that C-channel. I think you'd see serious bed and cab damage if you didn't address the C-channel flex and tried to go dune jumping. I'm not an engineer so I'm don't know, but I've seen videos (not the Ford propaganda videos) that show the bed bouncing nearly into contact with the cab. Has anyone on here tried to close the C-channel themselves by welding some heavy gauge steel over the open channel? Making a D-channel?

 

[Joe T]

I have the 4.6L in my 2013 CrewMax, and I wouldn't have it any other way. Don't knock it! Still tows about 8000 lbs. It's not wimpy. I thought about what I would get in my next Tundra, and unless they add direct injection and/or cylinder deactivation, I'll go back with the 4.6L. It's as quick as my '07 Nissan Frontier 4.0L and a little quicker than my '10 Honda Ridgeline was. If they drop the 4.6L AND don't improve the 5.7, it's back to the Ridgeline for me. Blah, blah, blah it's not a real truck blah, blah, blah. Same thing Chevy, Ford, and Dodge owners say about the Tundra.

I see where you are coming from but I do not see you towing 8000 with a honda ridgeline. Even with a halfton you have to option it right to get to that weight.

 

[osidepunker]

I think they would need to beef up the frame, too. The open C-channel frame is awesome for daily normal driving and off-roading, but for serious Raptor style offroading, they need to go ahead and close that C-channel. I think you'd see serious bed and cab damage if you didn't address the C-channel flex and tried to go dune jumping. I'm not an engineer so I'm don't know, but I've seen videos (not the Ford propaganda videos) that show the bed bouncing nearly into contact with the cab. Has anyone on here tried to close the C-channel themselves by welding some heavy gauge steel over the open channel? Making a D-channel?

The frame does not necessarily need to be boxed. Boxed is not always better than C- channel. Read this post by "5.3L LOL" and educate yourself on different frame types (make sure you read all the parts he posted).

Toyota needs to re-engineer the frame in order to address bed bounce. But I hope they keep the C-channel to prevent frame fatigue.

If they made a proper rock warrior then they would have to be careful with the marketing. THAT was fords mistake; not the frame. If you make a raptor, then people will jump it. If you have advertisements showing people mashing on their rigs, then you're gonna have people jump their truck, break something, and then complain to ford because the guys on tv can do it .

So Toyota should just make a proper rock warrior and then show very conservative off roading in the ads. Make the scenery pretty and you're gonna sell trucks. When the word gets out that the tundra really can smash the dirt, then they will sell even more.

 

[Tundra-TSS]

I see where you are coming from but I do not see you towing 8000 with a honda ridgeline. Even with a halfton you have to option it right to get to that weight.

Yes I know you can't tow 8000 lbs with a Ridgeline. 5000 lbs is it's limit. I was just making the point that the 4.6 shouldn't be taken lightly. MY POINT was that if they drop the 4.6 but don't improve fuel economy, then I'm going back to the Ridgeline which got better fuel economy, sacrifice backseat space a bit, and gain a trunk. I LOVE MY TUNDRA! Don't get me wrong! I'm just not going to pay for 13-15 mpg when I can get a 4.6 that does EVERYTHING I need it to do and also return 16-19 mpg. And YES those few mpg make a difference. 19 mpg = 494 miles on a tank (full to empty). 15 mpg = 390. That's 100 miles less. 4 mpg extra make a HUGE deal. So people getting 15 will pay about $21 more to go the same 494 miles at $3.20/gallon. That's like getting a free tank of gas every 4 fill ups. But it doesn't matter because you don't buy a truck for mileage right? That mentality is why the Ford, GM and Ram guys are laughing all the way to the bank.

TOYOTA IF YOU ARE LISTENING GIVE US DIRECT INJECTION!!!!! YOU GAVE SUBARU DIRECT INJECTION!!!

 

[osidepunker]

Yes I know you can't tow 8000 lbs with a Ridgeline. 5000 lbs is it's limit. I was just making the point that the 4.6 shouldn't be taken lightly. MY POINT was that if they drop the 4.6 but don't improve fuel economy, then I'm going back to the Ridgeline which got better fuel economy, sacrifice backseat space a bit, and gain a trunk. I LOVE MY TUNDRA! Don't get me wrong! I'm just not going to pay for 13-15 mpg when I can get a 4.6 that does EVERYTHING I need it to do and also return 16-19 mpg. And YES those few mpg make a difference. 19 mpg = 494 miles on a tank (full to empty). 15 mpg = 390. That's 100 miles less. 4 mpg extra make a HUGE deal. So people getting 15 will pay about $21 more to go the same 494 miles at $3.20/gallon. That's like getting a free tank of gas every 4 fill ups. But it doesn't matter because you don't buy a truck for mileage right? That mentality is why the Ford, GM and Ram guys are laughing all the way to the bank.

Sorry man, not trying to pick a fight but using your own numbers...

15k miles in a year at $3.20/ga at 15mpgs = $3200 annual fuel cost

15k miles in a year at $3.20/ga at 19mpgs = $2526 annual fuel cost

3200 - 2526 = $674; times owning the truck for 5 years = $3,370

I firmly believe that you will lose alot more than $3,370 in DEPRECIATION when you trade in that gas sipping domestic truck...

I would also GLADLY pay the mpg difference for the 5.7 grunt

TOYOTA IF YOU ARE LISTENING GIVE US DIRECT INJECTION!!!!! YOU GAVE SUBARU DIRECT INJECTION!!!

Toyota has DI in a lexus v8. They are waiting to spend the money on proper r&d before they put it in the tundra. They gave DI to Subaru because they want some boi racers to beat on the engines so that toyota can see how durable DI is.

 

[Joe T]

Yeah that fuel mileage depends on how much you drive and what you use the truck for. I don't see a huge use for the 4.7 but I guess some do.


I drive upwards of 5000 miles a month too. I actually could benefit from a more fuel efficient truck and will get one next time. But I don't think the 4.7 does that much better from what I've read, maybe 1 or 2 mpg?

The 4.7 is like the Chevy 305, kinda pointless.

 

[Tundra-TSS]

I just looked on KBB and according to that, the depreciation difference between an '08 with a 4.7 (the 4.6 wasn't available then) and the same specs with a 5.7 is only about $500. SOOOO yeah unless you need to tow 10,000 lbs, the 4.6 is more than enough for most people. It's all about what you WANT, but don't try justifying it. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with wanting more grunt. I think the 5.7 is effing awesome! But, to me the 4.6 is awesome in it's own ways. Smooth power delivery, PLENTY of get up and go, AND better gas mileage. AND according to your figures, I'd come out on top in the end even with DEPRECIATION factored in! THANKS! SO if I subtract the $500 from your figure of $3,370, I come out with $2,870 in the black! YAY ME! LOL j/k

 

[osidepunker]

No I meant compared to a domestic truck with better mpgs, tundra is cheaper. Comparing the 5.7 to the smaller v8, 5.7 is more expensive, but I would gladly pay it

 

[Tundra-TSS]

Ooh I didn't see "domestic". Hahaha my bad. Yeah I hear Rams don't hold value well. I think that is changing though based on how well they get reviewed. Trucks in general hold their values extremely well. I've never been upside down when trading in any pickup. Hell, I traded in a used 2001 Tundra in 2005 that I'd only had for one year... Paid 13500 for it with 60k miles on it. One year later traded it for $13,000! But I've traded in Chevys, Nissans and Hondas. Never been upside down and actually always had pretty equity.


Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App

 

[tundra4ever26]

Toyota got the $$$ and can do anything

 

[DanielAcosta]

Yes I know you can't tow 8000 lbs with a Ridgeline. 5000 lbs is it's limit. I was just making the point that the 4.6 shouldn't be taken lightly. MY POINT was that if they drop the 4.6 but don't improve fuel economy, then I'm going back to the Ridgeline which got better fuel economy, sacrifice backseat space a bit, and gain a trunk. I LOVE MY TUNDRA! Don't get me wrong! I'm just not going to pay for 13-15 mpg when I can get a 4.6 that does EVERYTHING I need it to do and also return 16-19 mpg. And YES those few mpg make a difference. 19 mpg = 494 miles on a tank (full to empty). 15 mpg = 390. That's 100 miles less. 4 mpg extra make a HUGE deal. So people getting 15 will pay about $21 more to go the same 494 miles at $3.20/gallon. That's like getting a free tank of gas every 4 fill ups. But it doesn't matter because you don't buy a truck for mileage right? That mentality is why the Ford, GM and Ram guys are laughing all the way to the bank.

TOYOTA IF YOU ARE LISTENING GIVE US DIRECT INJECTION!!!!! YOU GAVE SUBARU DIRECT INJECTION!!!

I love Hondas but not the Ridgeline, at least not until it gets the newest engine from the MDX that gets almost 30mpg.

EPA and real world of my 14 Sierra trumps the Ridgeline while offering real towing, off-road capability, yada yada.

As far as Tundra goes, the 4.6 is much better than the old 4.7, but I am so glad I had my 5.7 hot rod to enjoy for 7 years. Did it get a little less mileage than the 4.6? Yes, but it was worth it. Am I enjoying 30% better mileage with comparable power on the Sierra? Yes, which was one of the main reasons I made the switch. Better ride and a crew cab with 6.5 foot bed were the others.

 

[Tundra-TSS]

I love Hondas but not the Ridgeline, at least not until it gets the newest engine from the MDX that gets almost 30mpg.

EPA and real world of my 14 Sierra trumps the Ridgeline while offering real towing, off-road capability, yada yada.

As far as Tundra goes, the 4.6 is much better than the old 4.7, but I am so glad I had my 5.7 hot rod to enjoy for 7 years. Did it get a little less mileage than the 4.6? Yes, but it was worth it. Am I enjoying 30% better mileage with comparable power on the Sierra? Yes, which was one of the main reasons I made the switch. Better ride and a crew cab with 6.5 foot bed were the others.

I can agree with that line of logic. I'm more of a "meets my needs" kind of shopper. I was able to get everything I needed and wanted with my Tundra: CrewMax, 2wd, middle of the road V8, leather (a must), satellite radio, SR5 pkg, power windows and stuff, and keyless. Leather, 4.6 v8 and satellite radio were the most important to me. The Tacoma would have done all I need but I wanted the interior room of the CrewMax.


Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App

 

[JRUSS]

Osidepunker- I agree that they "could", Toyota is a company that "could" pretty much do whatever they want and it's the same reason they won't. Your parts list would be a homerun especially with the e-locker, if they ever did do it I hope it includes everything on your list.