Toyota Tundra Forums banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,669 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
With all this talk circulating about Ford's TT V6 and how some maroooon's complaining about how HUUUGE 6.2L's is compared to the diminitive 5.7:rolleyes: and others' talking how DOHC is so superior, let's discuss!!!


I try to buy what I like or feel is the best for ME at that time.

In '07, the Tundra did it for me. HOWEVER, even though not a GM fan, the "archaic" 6.2L Denali motor was EVERY bit as impressive as the I-force......you just couldn't get it in anything but a $50K truck. That, of course, has changed now.

So, who gives a rat's arse how the end result is achieved??

Did 3 extra cams and 16 extra valves make up for 500CC??? Or turn it around to they needed .5L extra to make up for the DOHC 4 valve heads.

Ford's 6.2L uses OHC......but only 1 cam per side, and only 2 valves per hole. Again, if the numbers are there; who cares how it's done???

Ford's TT V6 is another way..........if it's built correctly with the right parts, 350/350 should be easily attainable with plenty of longevity; I GUARANTEE plenty of forged pieces and lots of good coatings everywhere. [on a side note, it will NOT be the 400/400 numbers that are being circulated as tuned for truck use, but it will be an EZ tune away from those numbers if one wishes]

Two small turbos should spool quickly giving plenty of low end grunt.

If there's one manufacturer with their head in the sand, it is Toyota. I have a friend who is also my tuner; he was recently hired by Shelby to develop the new GT-350.

He can get on the phone with Ford and decipher codes/ECM's etc. Same with GM. Toy does not want us messing with their tunes and I wonder why (discuss)

It would be INSANE to see a TRD blown I-force put out the numbers a basically stock 5.4L Mustang GT-500 motor puts out with just a tune. We are at an ez 600HP + (550 at the wheels in ours with a tune, pulley CAI) But Toy is holding us back........why???

I know we (car guys) are the minority as far as who buys these things, but as much as I LOVE my Tundra, when the 100K warranty is used up in another 3 years or so I will not get another one unless they again leap frog the comp. like they did in '07.


Fire away boys!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
916 Posts
I guess I am with you. I'm not a tuner, I'm not gonna spend the money to get more out of my truck.... but I do wonder why Toyota uses such intricate and expensive parts sometimes. I'm not an gear head.... but why can GM make a 6.2 that isn't nearly as complicated and gets the same kind of HP, torque and mileage? The AIP is a well known issue.... why is it so freaking inexpensive? Why does Toyota feel the need to do some exotic engineering to get the same result?

I am a Ford guy, but I bought the Tundra because it was vastly superior to anything that was comparable at the time. Ford didn't have an engine that could compete. I hate GM and wouldn't buy one anyways... but the only BIG V-8 in a half ton was $50K. Never really a Dodge fan, but I was concerned with tow rating and mileage. To get a comparable Dodge truck was a couple grand more. This is how I settled on Toyota. If the TT V6 proves succesful, I might consider that as my new truck down the road.

Toyota, at the end of the day my money goes to the vehicle that meets my needs for the lowest price. I want quality.... but why in the world does the AIP cost $4000? The engine is nice, but I can't afford to replace it out of warranty, same thing with the transmission. I love my truck, I really do.... but does Toyota really need to use such complicated and expensive parts???
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
918 Posts
I wonder how far the horsepower race will go with half-tons. This is all anybody seems to care about now that we have our 5.7, Chevy has the 6.2, and Ford is coming to market with the new V6 and the 5.0. Numbers, peak hp numbers, peak torque numbers, 0-60, quarter mile, etc..

I drive a nearly 6000 pound half ton 4wd Crew cab truck that obliterates most other trucks up to the quarter mile and will hang with alot of mainstream sports sedans in a straight line up to 100 mph without breaking a sweat. Had I chosen a double cab it would claw it's way to 60 in what, 6.4, 6.5? Insane if you think about it. Most shoot-outs mention the competition just being 'good enough' with a load behind them while the Tundra says 'that all ya got?' I'm not saying I don't want it or don't like it, but I don't need more.

I'll take my 381 hp and 400 pounds of torque and 4:30 gearing and be satisfied knowing I don't do any worse off for fuel mileage than the 300 hp motors from the competition. It no longer bothers me if GM has certain limited production half-tons that will beat me by a few ticks or if Ford is on the way with something that will be competetive numbers-wise. I want to hear what else we're gonna start working on. What else on these trucks can be redesigned to be stronger yet lighter. How can we build them to be more durable and reliable. What parts can be simplified to work just as well with fewer failures. Maybe show me some more specialty vehicles like the raptor, with genuine dedicated off-road packages that are more than a sticker, shocks, and one extra skid plate. Maybe even do something to bust through this 'payload plateau' we've hit, where the rated payload spread between my 95 Ranger 4 cylinder, my 04 4.7 liter V8 Dakota Quad Cab, and my 09 5.7 Crewmax is only about 200 pounds.

But no, now that one or two other motors are popping up in the 400 hp range I don't feel Toyota should have any particular urgency to go back to the drawing board and come out with a 450 horsepower naturally aspirated motor or a street-trim half ton that out runs corvettes. There are other areas where truck-makers would be better-off investing r&d money. If I want to do 0-60 in less than 6 seconds and the quartermile in 14 I will probably go buy something that will do it on less motor so it can get 25 mpg on the way home.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,669 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Good stuff so far!!

Mr. Harris, I hear you but I only ask that a King Of The Hill version at least be offered.

I understand there are many out there that "good enough" is.....well, good enough. Heck, if it weren't, they would never sell any Fords.:D

See, I'm the sucker that buys the Cobra version, the Shelby version, the Lightning.

Want to add a TRD blower BAD, but I may only have the truck another 3 years.


Mr. spoon said it best: Toy went to a lot of trouble building a monster mill that has so much un-tapped potential it's sickening.

I "think" Ford has matched our CrewMax......which was beyond dominate in Toy's favor in '07.

GM has the matching drivetrain in the crews now......still think the cab space is inferior.

I'm not knocking Toy, just hoping that they aren't discouraged and feel the need to leave well enough alone.
 

·
Preferred Dealer
Joined
·
1,170 Posts
The Tundra's transmission and transfer case are at the rated continuous duty limit with the TRD Supercharger. We will NEVER see any of the big 3 take their stock everyday 1/2 ton truck and offer to bolt on 550 lb/ft of torque and keep the warranty. They build 3/4 and 1 ton vehicles for those power levels. If Toyota had not become greedy in recent times, we would have boxed frames, filtered air for the the AIP, and better corrosion protection. The hard parts are still mostly there, though...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,669 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
The Tundra's transmission and transfer case are at the rated continuous duty limit with the TRD Supercharger. We will NEVER see any of the big 3 take their stock everyday 1/2 ton truck and offer to bolt on 550 lb/ft of torque and keep the warranty. They build 3/4 and 1 ton vehicles for those power levels. If Toyota had not become greedy in recent times, we would have boxed frames, filtered air for the the AIP, and better corrosion protection. The hard parts are still mostly there, though...

Do you mean never see it "again"???

The 1/2 ton Lightning 4R100 was basically the same unit used in V10 and PSD applications.

(I know the L "only" had 450#'s torque, but the PSD was in that 550 range)

Dodge did a 1/2 ton automatic crew version of the V10 that had an auto. Not sure of the "rating"

NOBODY, (not even an edumacated engineer...;)) can tell me that the Tundra's frame is cheaper to build than a FBF.


Anyhoo, it still doesn't adress Toy's reluctance to support the aftermarket like the others.
 

·
The M.F.I.C.
Joined
·
3,762 Posts
Well, consider this: The Lexus LS460 (4.6L based off the 5.7L) pushes 380hp/367tq --- but in the Tundra the 4.6L only pushes 310 & 330'ish??? Of course, the Lexus has an 8-speed tranny...

I think this 5.7L can easily be tweaked/tuned to run 430hp... maybe that'll be the next step? I know the Lexus uses direct-injection & whatever else they did to get those numbers out of the 4.6L, I don't have a clue... But it seems obvious then that the 5.7 has gobs more potential.

For now I love this truck. It's the best truck I've ever owned... and STILL the best available 1/2 ton for MY use, which is 1)Family Hauler 2)Once-a-week Home Depot trips 3)Light towing 4)Going fast :cool:

If/When Ford puts the bigger motors in the F-150, it'll be a toss-up between that & the Tundra in my book, but I'd still take the Tundra as I really like the looks, and it hasn't failed me once
 

·
Preferred Dealer
Joined
·
1,170 Posts
Exactly my point. Ford did not use the everyday 1/2 ton transmission (EO4D?), they installed a version of their heavy duty 3/4 ton transmision to deal with the torque. The Tundra already has a transmission that can deal with that torque. I know nothing about the Dodge, but it's probably fair to say the transmission was upgraded to run behind the V10.

C channel frames are less expensive to build. They are quick to assemble... remember, time costs money, too. :D

Also, I am not saying other makes suck. If goes, I like it... I'm a total gear head. It's just that the 2nd gen Tundra is Land Cruiser based. The Land Cruiser is Toyota's HD no BS world vehicle. Just as they always have been, the components are usually oversized and of high quality, perfect, no, but very good. In 2007, Toyota seriously kicked up the 1/2 ton notch. We are just starting to see the US companies match it... in some ways.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,669 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Exactly my point. Ford did not use the everyday 1/2 ton transmission (EO4D?), they installed a version of their heavy duty 3/4 ton transmision to deal with the torque. The Tundra already has a transmission that can deal with that torque. I know nothing about the Dodge, but it's probably fair to say the transmission was upgraded to run behind the V10.

C channel frames are less expensive to build. They are quick to assemble... remember, time costs money, too. :D

Also, I am not saying other makes suck. If goes, I like it... I'm a total gear head. It's just that the 2nd gen Tundra is Land Cruiser based. The Land Cruiser is Toyota's HD no BS world vehicle. Just as they always have been, the components are usually oversized and of high quality, perfect, no, but very good. In 2007, Toyota seriously kicked up the 1/2 ton notch. We are just starting to see the US companies match it... in some ways.


"C channel frames are less expensive to build. They are quick to assemble... remember, time costs money, too. :D"


I know I'm not telling you anything you don't already know........BUT, the Tundra is NOT just a "C-channel" frame.

The front is boxed like every other light duty truck in the indudtry.....(1/2 ton-1 ton) but after that the Tundra uses two separate C-channels that are riveted together for the next 1/3 of the frame..........your "time costs money" statement is EXACTLY what I'm referring to when I say the Toy's 3 separate frame sections with one being double walled cannot be any cheaper to manufacture than 1 continous piece of hydroformed boxed section of steel.


Just an FYI, not that you care about Ford nomenclature, but the later transmissions use the 1st number for number of gears....a four speed would be (4), not sure what the R stands for, and the last numbers are the model/size of the trans.

I think they had 4R55 for Rangers, 4R70's for the big sedans and 150's (later to be a 4R75) and then the big boy 4R100.

Not sure what the latest "torqueshift" is called, sure it starts with a 5 or 6 depending on the year.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,669 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Well, consider this: The Lexus LS460 (4.6L based off the 5.7L) pushes 380hp/367tq --- but in the Tundra the 4.6L only pushes 310 & 330'ish??? Of course, the Lexus has an 8-speed tranny...

I think this 5.7L can easily be tweaked/tuned to run 430hp... maybe that'll be the next step? I know the Lexus uses direct-injection & whatever else they did to get those numbers out of the 4.6L, I don't have a clue... But it seems obvious then that the 5.7 has gobs more potential.

For now I love this truck. It's the best truck I've ever owned... and STILL the best available 1/2 ton for MY use, which is 1)Family Hauler 2)Once-a-week Home Depot trips 3)Light towing 4)Going fast :cool:

If/When Ford puts the bigger motors in the F-150, it'll be a toss-up between that & the Tundra in my book, but I'd still take the Tundra as I really like the looks, and it hasn't failed me once

DI would/could put Toy ahead of these silly power wars for a couple more years...:cool:


With the blacked out Ford front end, (like Seadragon's truck) I think it looks better than my Tundra......but I really need to color match my front end, I HATE all that chrome.


I need to actually sit in a Ford's rear crew cab......who knows, maybe we still got them trumped in the comfort department!!!

One thing I'd like to see (don't know if it's possible) is somehow combine our reclining rear seats with a way to lay them down to make a flat storage area.........I think the dogs would like that better!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
138 Posts
HOWEVER, even though not a GM fan, the "archaic" 6.2L Denali motor was EVERY bit as impressive as the I-force......you just couldn't get it in anything but a $50K truck. That, of course, has changed now.
Oh yeah? Try finding one in a Chevrolet CC. I went to 3 different dealerships to test drive one a few weeks back, and nobody had one on the lot. I was pissed. Told the last dealership that I see nothing but Chevrolet commercials touting the HP/TQ that the 6.2L offers, and yet nobody has one...:confused: So much for their flagship pickup...


I drove the 6.2L in the new 2011 F250. Very unimpressive to say the least. I guess they are trying to keep HD buyers in the more expensive diesel (6.7L was quite impressive).

I dont know that I would like the TT V6 in a pickup anyways. Ford claims V8 performance with v6 economy with their new ecoboost motors. Compare it to any other comparable product from another manufacturer and it's more like V8 performance with V8 fuel economy. So what do you actually benefit from that technology? The Ecoboost is not deserving of all of the accolades IMO.

And honestly, I looked at the F150's recently. Everything is there but the powerplant, fantastic truck. CC AND 6.5' bed is nice. However, I dont see the changes they are making for the powerplants are gonna put it on par with the Tundra. The 6.2L is only going to be available in the Raptor or Super Duty's. Just like Time4Change says, the TTV6 isnt going to be nearly as good as what everyone is saying. Maybe the 5.0? I think it might have what it takes in truck form. Time will tell.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,487 Posts
How was the 6.2 not any good in the SD? I've heard that thing is impressive and just as much so as the V10 in there.

I will be looking at all trucks next time around. Ford for their motors and previous experiences, GMC for their 5.3 and looks, no Chevy, and no Dodge either

-rockstate
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,669 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Oh yeah? Try finding one in a Chevrolet CC. I went to 3 different dealerships to test drive one a few weeks back, and nobody had one on the lot. I was pissed. Told the last dealership that I see nothing but Chevrolet commercials touting the HP/TQ that the 6.2L offers, and yet nobody has one...:confused: So much for their flagship pickup....
I haven't checked availability, and I certainly agree you need to drive one before ordering. I just remember in '07 really liking the Denali's powertrain.

The Tundra kicked it's arse in cab size, real 4WD, rear A/C vents and a few other important to me details. I suppose since the rear cab size is still the same, the Tundra would still have an advantage over the GM's for ME.



I drove the 6.2L in the new 2011 F250. Very unimpressive to say the least. I guess they are trying to keep HD buyers in the more expensive diesel (6.7L was quite impressive)..
I need to drive them.........the problem may be the 250 is easily 1,000+ heavier than the 150, that'll certainly affect seat of the pants performance.




I dont know that I would like the TT V6 in a pickup anyways. Ford claims V8 performance with v6 economy with their new ecoboost motors. Compare it to any other comparable product from another manufacturer and it's more like V8 performance with V8 fuel economy. So what do you actually benefit from that technology? The Ecoboost is not deserving of all of the accolades IMO..
You're 100% correct..........it takes fuel to make power. I'm guessing where the true MPG benefits will start to shine is at steady state no/low load cruising. Then the smaller displacement motor SHOULD sip less fuel. I still want to sample one!!!


And honestly, I looked at the F150's recently. Everything is there but the powerplant, fantastic truck. CC AND 6.5' bed is nice. However, I dont see the changes they are making for the powerplants are gonna put it on par with the Tundra. The 6.2L is only going to be available in the Raptor or Super Duty's. Just like Time4Change says, the TTV6 isnt going to be nearly as good as what everyone is saying. Maybe the 5.0? I think it might have what it takes in truck form. Time will tell.
Is the 6.2L not being available in the "regular" 150's official??? I know it's not available now, but I was hoping once production ramped up it would be available across the board.
 

·
NASH
Joined
·
3,634 Posts
I understand where you are coming from after my recent truck purchase.

For gas motors, I believe the 5.7 in the Tundra is still the best powertrain package to date. (this includes the 6.2s from GM and Ford). The GM requires premium fuel to meet its numbers and it is not very flat when it comes to its power curve. The Ford 6.2 isn't getting mileage that's good in the Raptors either.

Both motors should put out more power than they do. The 6.2 from Ford is unacceptable in its base form in the Superduty. Should be in the 425-430 HP range at least when you compare to what Dodge and Toyota can do with 5.7Ls.

What would I buy today? That's tough. The Ford is a better truck in every way except for the 5.4. If I didn't tow, I'd buy the Ford. Since I tow, the Toyota would get the nod. The 6.2 evens the playing field some, but I bet the Toyota will get better mileage than the 6.2 will in towing applications. Its yet to be seen b/c Ford is too scared to put that motor in the F-150 that people actually buy (not the Raptor).

As for the 6.2 in the Superduty? Its nothing special. Nothing at all. Its better than the 5.4, but worse than the 6.8. In this application, Ford laid a bunt if you ask me.

I like high tech, but it comes at a price. Look at the modern diesels (I own one). Gone are the days of cheap power with rock solid reliability.


I just rambled a lot. The powertrain package is what I look at and Toyota's 5.7+6AT+4.30 is still the best....if they fix the AIP issue.

If I had to buy today, knowing what I know now about the AIP, I'd buy the Ford. GM doesn't get the nod b/c of premium fuel, small cab, and questionable longevity.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,669 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
I understand where you are coming from after my recent truck purchase.

For gas motors, I believe the 5.7 in the Tundra is still the best powertrain package to date. (this includes the 6.2s from GM and Ford). The GM requires premium fuel to meet its numbers and it is not very flat when it comes to its power curve. The Ford 6.2 isn't getting mileage that's good in the Raptors either.

Both motors should put out more power than they do. The 6.2 from Ford is unacceptable in its base form in the Superduty. Should be in the 425-430 HP range at least when you compare to what Dodge and Toyota can do with 5.7Ls..

My quick calcs come out to Ford and Toy's motors come out right at 66+- HP/L.



What would I buy today? That's tough. The Ford is a better truck in every way except for the 5.4. If I didn't tow, I'd buy the Ford. Since I tow, the Toyota would get the nod. The 6.2 evens the playing field some, but I bet the Toyota will get better mileage than the 6.2 will in towing applications. Its yet to be seen b/c Ford is too scared to put that motor in the F-150 that people actually buy (not the Raptor)..



I haven't checked the latest specs that so overwhelmingly favored the Toy in '07:

Brakes/rear end gear.

On paper, the Ford "could" catch up in the powertrain dept and everyone's raving about the flat floor in the crew.

For ME, I'm not that impressed with all the gadgets that Ford has over the Tundra.
I'd rather choose the aftermarket for my stereo needs. (at least concerning Toy's choices)

Other than the powertrain (which we 100% agree on at the moment) what are some of things the Ford is better than the Toy





As for the 6.2 in the Superduty? Its nothing special. Nothing at all. Its better than the 5.4, but worse than the 6.8. In this application, Ford laid a bunt if you ask me.

I like high tech, but it comes at a price. Look at the modern diesels (I own one). Gone are the days of cheap power with rock solid reliability..

Gotta drive one myself, so far the reviews here haven't been that impressive.



I just rambled a lot. The powertrain package is what I look at and Toyota's 5.7+6AT+4.30 is still the best....if they fix the AIP issue.

If I had to buy today, knowing what I know now about the AIP, I'd buy the Ford. GM doesn't get the nod b/c of premium fuel, small cab, and questionable longevity.


Agree concerning the GM...........and I know the AIP is causing a lot of concern, but I can give a laundry list of potential Ford problems concerning the 5.4 at least.

The funny part is how the WWW can cause panic. I've owned maybe a dozen MOD motors and have never had a spark plug problem......but according to the web, they launch plugs like popcorn.


Same with the Tundra......in nearly 50K miles, I've done the front diff and that's it. By reading this site, you'd think the Tundra was the 2nd coming of the Vega!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
138 Posts
How was the 6.2 not any good in the SD? I've heard that thing is impressive and just as much so as the V10 in there.

I will be looking at all trucks next time around. Ford for their motors and previous experiences, GMC for their 5.3 and looks, no Chevy, and no Dodge either

-rockstate
Who have you heard it from, the truck mags/ford touters? Why on earth they would replace a torquey V10 for that 6.2L that makes peak torque at 4500 rpm's is beyond me. It felt like the specs state - no low end torque. The transmission was a clunky POS behind the 6.2L (But felt fine behind the 6.7L, is it a different tranny?), and the mpg was pathetic at best. So they traded low end torque and fuel economy for very little top end. It's nowhere near the engine what the 6.8 V10 was.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top