Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Toyota 3/4 Ton with Big Block V-8

145791012

Comments

  • bamatundrabamatundra Member Posts: 1,583
    I agree with you, but the only market that the Big2 dominates is the large trucks. Guess which market Toyota is going after. I only hope that the big2 can step up to the plate.
  • quadrunner500quadrunner500 Member Posts: 2,721
    What's pathetic, is toymota hasn't produced a single 1 ton Super-Wee! But already, they have a big block, and a diesel, and a crew cab, and long bed! LMAO! Doesn't anybody want the 3/8 ton mini-wee?

    Looks to me like legions of tindra owners are ready to unload when they do!
  • hillhoundhillhound Member Posts: 537
    from tundrasolutions.com:

    "Embarassing weight capacity
    Geez. I'm all red faced today. Went to the local tile shop to pick up my 450 sq.ft. of ceramic tile with 3 bags of grout. Their forklift put it in the back of my Tundra. And the Tundra sank to its knees. I had to have em take it out and then deliver it later. Just doesn't seem right. I mean, how much could it have weighed?"

    "Tundra Towing
    I've been trying to follow another discussion regarding the use of overdrive and attempting also to apply this discussion to towing. Here's my problem: I'm about to take possession of a 2500# sailboat on a ~1000# trailer. My initial move of this unit will be ~125 miles (inland Mass. to RI coast for launch). The instruction book for the Tundra seems to say no more than 45 MPH, and also seems to say take it out of overdrive. Can anyone tell me if I've read these instructions correctly, and should operate the vehicle in this manner? I've got a 2002 4WD V-8 and automatic. Any insights, experiences, war stories will be helpful."

    This 45 mph Tundra towing speed limit in the owner's manual keeps popping up in various forums. The other posters who answered him told him they exceed that limit regularly but failed to say if their manuals had the same info. And I think (and I could be wrong) 450 sqft of tile would weigh between 1300lbs and 1800lbs depending on the thickness. Truck Trend (June 2001 issue) definitely bottomed their test 4wd Tundra out with 1350lbs of cargo.

    Toyota needs to get that 3/4 ton Tundra on the market soon for those folks who insist on working Toyotas, otherwise some suburbanite is going to overload a Tundra at Home Depot and hurt themself or a bystander!!LOL!
  • modvptnlmodvptnl Member Posts: 1,352
    "Toyota needs to get that 3/4 ton Tundra on the market soon for those folks who insist on working Toyotas, otherwise some suburbanite is going to overload a Tundra at Home Depot and hurt themself or a bystander!!LOL!"

    Don't you mean, "overload a tundra at the grocery store"????

    Don't pick on tundras, blama has had 2 bicycles in his and it didn't even warp the rotors.
  • ryanbabryanbab Member Posts: 7,240
    "suburbanite is going to overload a Tundra at Home Depot "

    Funny you mention this. I seen it happen at menards today. Reg cab long bed base tundra. Loaded a pallet of some boxes (dont know exactly what it was). Guy had to make two trips (he took half a pallet each time) cause when they put the pallet in the rear went down and the front went up.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Member Posts: 897
    Is something that Toyota does to limit themselves from stupid lawsuits that could otherwise come up..like the hot coffee lawsuits.
    UHaul trailers have 45mph speed limit signs painted on the fender flares. That did not stop me from pulling a 6x12 behind my old Blazer at 80mph without any problems. Of course, if the trailer tipped over, UHaul would have said it was my fault for exceeding the trailer speed limit. So take that 45mph number from Tundra manual with the grain of salt. It's just there to protect the company from stupid customers, just like all other "Caution:" statements on many other products.
  • twowheelertwowheeler Member Posts: 89
    the speed limit for towing?
  • quadrunner500quadrunner500 Member Posts: 2,721
    Ford, GM and DC must be dancing with the devil, risking HUGE class action lawsuits from affected owners, NOT warned of this 45+ mph towing PERIL!

    ROFLMAO!!!
  • hillhoundhillhound Member Posts: 537
    I got curious after reading that info about Toyota's supposed 45mph towing speed limit. I don't have a Tundra owner's manual but I went through my 2001 Silverado manual (which is the same manual for 1500s,2500s and 3500s) and I can't find it mentioning not exceeding a certain speed while towing.

    It does say not to tow at all until you've gone 500mi, then not to exceed 50mph for the first 500mi that you tow a-I guess to let the drivetrain break in. Also, it says that with an auto tranny it IS safe to tow in OD but that you may tow in 3rd if the tranny shifts too often. Recommends towing in 4th gear only for the manual shifter.

    When towing with my 1500 I use the tow/haul button and keep itin OD-this seems to help the tranny stay in 3rd gear longer on hills and cuts down on alot of the shifting in/out of OD.

    My last truck was Ram 1500 and I don't remember the manual saying anything about a tow speed limit. To be honest, I can understand Toyota's liability concerns, but 45mph sounds slow. Maybe 65mph would look more better. From the outside looking in, 45mph makes it sound like Toyota has no confidence in their product's capabilities!
  • ndahi12ndahi12 Member Posts: 235
    It is really getting ridiculous. The level of insecurity that Chevy owners display is beyond belief. It is just a damned truck. Why all the hostility? Have you guys got nothing else to do with your time than to bash a truck that has only sold 250,000 units as of OCT 2001?

    You guys do not own a Tundra, but you do your best to misrepresent the truck. Amazing. I have an owner's manual and there is no mention of towing at 45 or less.

    I also carried an 800 lb load and it barely made the rear of the truck dip.

    I tow for approx 300 miles round trip and the truck hauls [non-permissible content removed]. I tow a 4000 lb trailer/car at speeds of 75-80 mph. The truck pulls the trialer up the steep grapevine hills in CA with no problems. I tow in 3rd gear in the hills and in overdrive on the straights. The truck has no problems towing the load at all.

    I average 15 mpg for the past 5000 miles with towing included. Currently I have 5700 miles and the truck has not seen the dealer's lift. I haver NO brake problems at all. I only have the drive shaft bind which even chevy trucks have.

    So let me compare my ownership experience for the past 5700 miles to that of Obyone. His truck was at the dealer for 4 months. My truck has not seen the dealer and most likely will not.

    And yet Obyone has the audacity to come here and flame the Tundra. Have you no shame? You have no credibility what-so-ever. You admit that your truck was at the dealer for 4 month in the spand of one year, yet you want to talk trash.

    You guys need to stop acting like boys and start acting like men.
  • obyoneobyone Member Posts: 7,841
    you never answered my question. Do the tundras come with forged pistons? hahahahahahahahahahaha!!
  • ndahi12ndahi12 Member Posts: 235
    I think not. Your just an Internet TROLL. You have no credibility and you have no shame to boot. You keep bashing the Tundra even though your truck have had a lot more problems than mine in less than one year of ownership.
  • obyoneobyone Member Posts: 7,841
    Your name calling proves my point. Frustrated? Must be cause your intelligence is showing? doh!!
  • kg11kg11 Member Posts: 530
    When he started talking about towing at 75-80 with a vehicle that the MANUFACTURER recomends a top speed of 45.

    kip
  • bamatundrabamatundra Member Posts: 1,583
    Now they are saying that their Shakerados out-tow the Tundra. Their source of info? Their OWNER'S MANUAL! BWAHAHAHHAHA!

    Truck Trend compared the Shakerado and the Tundra when towing 5000lb and preferred the Tundra. I guess the didn't read the Chebby owners manual.

    Truck World towed a 4500lb boat with the Tundra and said that they had to keep checking their rear view mirrors to see if anything was back there. Darn - that's not what the Chebby owner's manual said!

    Trailer Life towed 6500lb through the Sierra Nevadas in mid summer and said that the Tundra towed as capably as any of the Big3 pickups and rode much better. Gee - they must not have read the manuals.

    Automobile Magazine towed 6500lb with the Tundra during their long term test and said that it did it very capably. They also had ZERO problems with their Tundra during the 36000 miles they drove it.

    Motor Trend had zero warranty repairs during their long term test of the Tundra.

    Oby - on the other hand can only brag about the 6ft of ground clearance his junk Shakerado has while it is on the service lift. This is the Chev boys poster girl? Wow!
  • hillhoundhillhound Member Posts: 537
    Since you're so fond of quoting this article from Truck Trend I thought I "enlighten" everyone by actually posting a link to the 2001 article. As you'll soon see, Bama is only good at informing us of "certain parts" of the article LOL!! Enjoy-it's a good comprehensive comaprison that details each truck's strong and weak points:


    http://www.trucktrend.com/editorial/article.jsp?viewtype=text&id=30178

  • xyz71xyz71 Member Posts: 179
    I read most of it - seems like a fair comparison.

    I would not quote from it to show either truck was a clear winner.

    I would rather use my own opinion - I test drove both trucks. Maybe next time I will buy the Toyota - but for now I wanted a real full size.

    I am not against Toyota - I have owned several - and would buy another one - in a few years my daughter will be driving -a 2 wheel drive 4-runner may be the perfect first "car". Sits up high so she can see, handles OK, is a little bit underpowered (Toyota tradition) and had good crash ratings.
  • ndahi12ndahi12 Member Posts: 235
    To *ME* the Tundra has forged pistons. In *MY* mind the issue is settled. I called Toyota and got my answer and that is that. You can have markings on a forged psiton as well as a cast pistons. Have you checked the FORGED TE37 Volk rims lately? They do have stamping marks on them and they are forged. How do I know I own four of them. I also own a set of cast rims and these have stamping marks as well. The stamping marks are not an indicator of forged or cast psitons.

    As for you, well you never learn your lesson. Having owned a lemon Chevy that spent 4 months out of a year ast the dealer, you would still go out and buy another. Now that is a sure sign of lack of common sense and supreme presence of out right stupidity.
  • ndahi12ndahi12 Member Posts: 235
    in The latest from C&D the Tundra wins in almost all the objective testing categories.

    0-30 laden and unladen Tundra
    0-60 Laden andf unladen Tundra
    0-80 Laden and unladen Tundra
    1/4 mile laden and unladen Tundra
    5-60 Tundra
    30-50 Tundra
    50-70 Tundra
    70-0 Tundra
    Skidpad Dodge

    Also if you add all the subjective ratings on page 88 the tundra get 87, chevy 83, dodge 82 and Ford 76.

    So the only category that the Tundra lost was the skidpad and that was due to the 20 inch and 275 tires that the Dodge had. So after almost 2.5 years in production the Tundra still kicks the [non-permissible content removed] of the competition in all the performance categories.

    Now the Chev boys will start screaming about the fact that the Chevy had a 4.8 L engine and not the big 5.4. LMAO.
  • obyoneobyone Member Posts: 7,841
    Sorry chevy doesn't have one. doh!! Stick to your Toyota since its offered with only one v8 it should be simple to remember exactly what mini size the motor is.

    The topic is a 3/4 ton Tundra. I guess everyone's speculating cause were still waiting for Toyota to build a full size 1/2 ton much less a 3/4 ton. Then again if you go by the books, Tundra has to only be able to haul 1500# to be considered a 3/4 ton. Wouldn't be surprised if they did just that. Oh and course add a new badge saying 3/4 ton.

    So in your mind the pistons are forged? No one knows for sure? What's up with that? Info that hard to find out? Your source was far from reliable. You should have asked your source what's the size of the v8 that comes in the tundra...if he said 5.4, you would have known that he didn't know what he was talking about. Ya know!!
  • losangelesemtlosangelesemt Member Posts: 279
    Thanks to Hilly for posting the truck trend link. I suppose maybe next year, the Playboy funds will go to truck mags instead ... hmmm. That is the first time I was able to read the article. Bama and others have been well known to spout out many facts, and until now with regards to Truck Trend, I personally wasn't able to verify them.

    After reading the truck trend review, I have no idea how the Chev boys have the guts to come in a Toyota thread and try to expose the Tundra's weak points, when it seems the Chevs are FULL of em themselves. I just had a few other Dodge/Ford/Nissan owners read that comparison, and they were 100% unanimous that the advantage was with Tundra.

    Heres yet one more thing. The Tundra was noted to be lacking the tow power of Rado, as well as suspension uncertainty under heavy payloads. Well like the summary states, I agree that the Chev may be a better truck for working since it appears to handle loads a little better. You have to remember though, the test used the 5.3L Chev eng. vs Toys. 4.7L. I think if you placed a similar 5.3L in the Tundra, the lack of towing ability wouldn't be so lacking anymore.

    Like Bama says, the Tundra stopped loaded in shorter distance than the Rado empty. Yet the GM guys will knock the Tundra's brakes. Tundra hasd also been knocked for its lack of off road capability. Seems pretty clear to me it handled just fine, in addition to providing a non teeth jarring ride. Take a look at the end report card, and notice how the Rado fell short in almost ALL categories.

    Sure this is only one mag., but I've seen a few others and I'm not getting the impression that the Rado is better truck. Given the reliability from GM to get a knocker and the usual overall poor quality, I think you'd have to be a nut to discount the Tundra in the 1/2 ton market.

    The Tundra is still not considered a workhorse and rightfully so. For many of the posters in these threads looking for workhorses, I myself would have to say the Big3 hold the advantage. Bottom line is they make bigger trucks, capable of bigger things. For the purpose the Tundra serves, it seems to do just fine. One would only hope any future 3/4 or 1 ton Toys would continue Toyota tradition of making a smooth running, reliable product, with the important addition of being a grunt. When that day comes, lets see who rules the truck market.
  • sonjaabsonjaab Member Posts: 1,057
    jUMP on over to www.toyota solutions.com
    Seems the toy V-8 has a cold start
    knock too............
    Gee..I guess I shouldn"t post that one
    here..But [non-permissible content removed] for tat fellas......Geo
  • losangelesemtlosangelesemt Member Posts: 279
    There have been Toy owners who have reported a cold start knock for a FEW seconds. Only difference is, the GM junk knocks cold AND warm, and a lot longer than a few seconds. After all, there is a whole topic delegated to GM engine knock. Not to mention, half the GM owners have had to call GM and get extended warranties just to cover their arses because they have that sinking feeling in their stomach, that given time, GM will come through in the clutch and break down on em.
  • ndahi12ndahi12 Member Posts: 235
    The Tundra knock happens ONLY when cold and it lasts a few seconds on COLD days. In SoCal I do not even hear it. The Chevy knocks when Hot and Cold and under load. Not so for the majority of Tundras.

    There are two things that might account for the Tundra start up clatter:

    1. Toyota uses forged pistons. Forged pistons are more temperature sensitive than hypereutectic pistons. when the engine is stated in the morning the pistons are cold and they expand. that cuase a bit a of the rattle that you hear. It is a downside of using forged pistons from what I have read. But the forged pistons are much stronger than the hypereutectic pistons.

    2. Toyota might have used pistons with short skirts. These psitons are better for emissions. The Tundra is an ULEV. The only 1/2 ton truck that can make that claim. These short skirt pistons have the downside of rattling until they are warm as well.

    I have read about a lot of ex-taco owners who had the same cold clatter that tundra owners have and their trucks have clattered all the way to 200K miles when they sold them.
  • ndahi12ndahi12 Member Posts: 235
    The Tundra is the only 1/2 ton PU to claim the following when it was introduced:

    1. DOHC engine.
    2. ULEV engine.
    3. Pre-tensioners on seat belts
    4. Rack and pinion stearing.
    5. 4 pod front disc brakes with rear drums that stop shorter than Chev/Ford/Dodge.
    6. Rear seat head rest.
    7. Standard tranny cooler.
    8. Drive by wire.
    9. Coil on plug system with no distributor.

    Maybe the Chev boys can tell us about the Rado innovations when it was introduced!!!
  • modvptnlmodvptnl Member Posts: 1,352
    Rear drums???


    distributorless ignition that Ford's had since '97


    Tranny cooler??? Name one automatic equipped vehicle that doesn't have one.


    DOHC....WOW!!! The pushrod 5.3 still has near 40 more RWHP.


    Please explain how a short skirt piston reduces emissions. I try to learn new things everyday.


    Oh yea, ULEV. according to this http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/air/ms/lev2001list.html


    You're FOS!!!

    Looks to me like GM and ford are quite a bit ahead in LEV and ULEV than toy. Man, toy must not care about the environment!!!

  • hillhoundhillhound Member Posts: 537
    Get real! It took them 3 years to offer something other than an open rear differential! LMAO!! Rear seat head rests and "standard" tranny oil coolers ain't exactly ground-breaking technology there ndahi!!

    GM comes up with equipment like Auto 4wd, hydrofomed frames, standard antilock brakes on all pickups, tow-haul programming, Onstar, engine hour meter etc and you brag because Toymota put pre-tensioners on seat belts LOL!!

    Hehe..I suppose when they do make a 3/4-ton pickup you'll say they invented that too!! Look guys-I'm not really trashing the Tundra here, but I'm laughing hard at a few guys' half-@ssed attempts to make it sound like Toyota "invented" the pickup and revolutionized things.

    Here's a few things Toyota will be up against when they build the 3/4 or 1 ton. These are common items that are available on current 3/4 and 1 ton pickups:
    1. Power take offs
    2. Big-block gas engine
    3. Diesel engine
    4. Club cab with fullsize beds
    5. Trannys with grade braking and 6sp manual trannys
    6. Plow packages
    7. Auxillary batteries
    8. Suspension upgrades for overcab campers
    9. Dual alternators
    10. Auxilliary idle rpm control
    11. Solid front axles
    12. Dual wheel rear axles

    Before someone gets all flustered keep in mind I'm not saying Toyota can't do these things, I'm just reminding you that despite the Tundra's high quality they're still way behind in equipment (in my opinion) on 1/2 tons, let alone heavier trucks.
  • quadrunner500quadrunner500 Member Posts: 2,721
    Chevy markets the Avalanche to the trendy set chasing fads and innovation, which I'm afraid includes your toymota. Full size truck buyers want something simple and hard working. Enjoy the rear seat head rests! LMAO!
  • ndahi12ndahi12 Member Posts: 235
    The cry baby chevy boys are out in full force.

    I like the way you guys like to compare a 1/2 ton to a 3/4 ton. What happened to apples to apples comparison? Oh yeah let us bring in the 3/4 and 1 ton PU so we can score some points LMAO.

    Now comparing 1/2 ton to 1/2 ton here is what we have:

    You need a tow option package to get a tranny cooler with the chevy. It is STANDARD on the Tundra.

    No comment on the seat belt pre-tensioners so i guess you concede that.

    No comment on the rack and pinion steering, another concession.

    No comment on the ULEV another concession.

    No comment on the DOHC, yet anther concession. Still using pushrods with 5.3 L displacement so you can simply match the 4.7 L in the Tundra.

    No comment on the drive by wire. I guess Chevy is still using that cable, eh???

    No rear head rest. This way you can smash your head into the rear window in abrupt take offs. Yikes, I can feel the bumps on your heads, LMFAO.

    No FOUR PISTON caliper front brakes that stop shorter than the big 3 trucks even with drum rear brakes. LMAO
  • hillhoundhillhound Member Posts: 537
    You're embarrasing yourself. Silverados have rear-seat headrests. At least the Chevy has enough leg room in the rear seat so you don't end up with your knee up your nose in a hard braking situation like you would in the Tundra!!

    The 5.3 doesn't MATCH the 4.7-it spanks it in hp, torque and loaded and unloaded acceleration. So keep the DOHC junk. I like plain old displacement for a truck engine, but that's just me.

    Rack and pinion steering? Keep it too. Here's what Edmunds had to say about the Tundra's junk steering system: "When performing skidpad testing, we found that the Toyota understeered heavily. The slow steering required lots of steering input while driving the truck in the slalom test." (from the 2000 fullsize truck test). According to the Truck Trend article, handling of the Tundra suffers even worse under load.

    I don't even know (or care) what "seat-belt pretensioners" are and maybe you can enlighten us by telling us WTF the intricate benefits of "wire controls" are LOL!!

    And ndahi-the reason I mentioned, not compared like you erroneously claim, 3/4 and 1 ton trucks in a post about 1/2 tons...well take a look at the title of the thread!!LMAO! Here's what it says:

    "Toyota 3/4 Ton with Big Block V-8"

    Understand now?
  • ryanbabryanbab Member Posts: 7,240
    "The Tundra is the only 1/2 ton PU to claim the following when it was introduced:"

    1. DOHC engine.
    2. ULEV engine.
    3. Pre-tensioners on seat belts
    4. Rack and pinion stearing.
    5. 4 pod front disc brakes with rear drums that stop shorter than Chev/Ford/Dodge.
    6. Rear seat head rest.
    7. Standard tranny cooler.
    8. Drive by wire.
    9. Coil on plug system with no distributor.

    Chevy trucks had rack and pinion on their 2wd trucks, 4 wheel disk, rear seat head rest

    Oh yea ND you forgot to put APRIL FOOLS after your post #326
  • modvptnlmodvptnl Member Posts: 1,352
    Are you blind.....or just a liar???


    If you read post #327 a lot was addressed. Either you or this site;

     http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/air/ms/lev2001list.html


    is FOS. The toy V8 is NOT LEV much less ULEV.


    BTW, I know of no automatic trans equipped car/truck that does not have a trans cooler. Now if you MEANT to say auxiliary cooler.....


    Still want to learn how short skirt pistons aid in emissions. I always thought it was a clearance issue for longer rods....but, hey, what do I know.

  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Member Posts: 9,372
    Let's back off the namecalling...


    Agree to disagree about the trucks and MOVE ON




    PF Flyer

    Host

    Pickups & News & Views Message Boards

  • ndahi12ndahi12 Member Posts: 235
    check these links


    From newspress.com


    V8 engine delivers adequate performance, ULEV rating, stability features


    The Sequoia is powered by a 240-horsepower version of the Tundra pickup V8, a modern, 4.7-liter engine with dual overhead camshafts and four-valves per cylinder. Matched to a four-speed automatic transmission, this engine provides good acceleration and steady highway cruising at the speed limit. While some people may want a bit more torque or towing capacity, the Sequoia will certainly satisfy the performance needs of most of its buyers.


    Though mileage is not great (14/17 miles per gallon in city/highway driving on four-wheel drive models), the Sequoia engine is the first Toyota SUV engine to be EPA-certified as an ultra-low emission vehicle (ULEV).


    from technofile.com


    Toyota and Ford appear to be going in opposite directions with their handsome new entries. Toyota's Sequoia - based on the company's Tundra pickup - is BIG, while the Ford Escape is much more diminutive. Sequoia, Toyota's first truck to be certified as "an ultra low emission vehicle" (ULEV) shares Tundra's V8 engine and power train, taking 240 horses off the road with you.


    http://www.deepgreenonline.com/toyota_000927.htm


    The Toyota Sequoia

    September 27, 2000

    Toyota’s Ultra-Low-Emission Sequoias Debut in Indiana

    Toyota's first Sequoia rolled off the assembly line today in Princeton, Indiana, to mark the beginning of production for the all new, full-sized sport utility vehicle. The Sequoia model is being built alongside the Toyota Tundra pickup at Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Indiana (TMMI), which is the exclusive manufacturer of both the Sequoia and the Tundra pickup truck, currently has combined capacity to produce 150,000 units each year. With production of the Sequoia, Toyota fills an important market segment for a full-size sport utility between its high-volume, mid-size 4Runner and the low-volume premium-brand Land Cruiser, though the Sequoia is significantly larger and roomier than the Cruiser.


    A “Green Monster” with Safety Features

    The Sequoia features the same 4.7-liter "i-Force" V8 engine that powers the Tundra model – an engine that produces 240 horsepower, produces 315 pounds of torque, and is the first Toyota truck engine to be EPA-certified as ULEV, or ultra-low-emission. By comparison, Sequoia's ULEV engine produces 40 percent fewer non-methane organic gases (NMOG) than the Ford Expedition's 2000 LEV V8 engine.


    And the Sequoia is as big as its name suggests. Sequoia's overall length, width, height and wheelbase ---as well as its interior volume dimensions--- are larger than those of Chevrolet Tahoe and nearly identical to those of Expedition. Its third seat and rear cargo area are more spacious than both, and its ground clearance---at more than 11 inches--- is significantly higher than both. Sequoia transports eight passengers in three rows of seating, and Toyota promises that these passengers will be transported safely. Sequoia is the first Toyota truck to feature curtain-shield side air bags and it also features three-way seat belts at all eight passenger positions.


    A Bold Move in Branding

    Sequoia sempervirens is the name of the coniferous redwood trees that grow mostly in coastal California and can reach heights of 360 feet. The tree’s wood is extremely durable and commercially important. According to Don Esmond, group vice president and general manager of Toyota North America, "Sequoia is a significant vehicle for Toyota. It deserved a significant name...Like its namesake, Sequoia stands tall, an icon of strength and longevity. It is a name that reflects Toyota's commitment to meeting customers needs, while continuing its pursuit of cleaner, more fuel-efficient engines.”


    Toyota has long needed an SUV model that could fit the market segment void between its 4Runner and Land Cruiser models to compete head-to-head with the popular SUV models of Ford and GM. Toyota’s ability to combine the SUV aspects of spaciousness and power with an EPA-certified ultra-low-emission engine and fill that niche is frankly a work of genius. Naming this vehicle after one of the most recognizable icons of America’s natural resources is equally bold. And the timing of the Sequoia’s first roll-out from Toyota’s Indiana plant adds the element of luck to the company’s genius and boldness as the backlash grows against Ford’s popular Explorer SUV.


    The Greening of Toyota

    Toyota employs more than 30,000 people in North America, including about 20,000 at its manufacturing plants in California, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, West Virginia, and Ontario and British Columbia in Canada. With the debut of the Indiana-built Sequoia and the Canadian-built Lexus RX 300 debut, Toyota produces nine vehicles in North America: Avalon, Camry, Corolla, Lexus RX 300, Sequoia, Sienna, Solara, Tacoma and Tundra.


    While some skeptics might accuse the company of environmental gimmickry to keep selling SUVs, Toyota has made great strides in improving the environmental performance of its North American operations. On August 1, 2000, Toyota Motor Manufacturing North America, Inc. announced that it was challenging its North American-based suppliers to adopt environmental standards specified in Toyota’s "Green Supplier Guidelines: Leadership in Environmental Performance" guidelines. Those guidelines extended the company's environmental commitment beyond its own direct processes to its entire supply chain. As part of the Toyota Supplier Environmental Program, approximately 500 suppliers who provide parts, materials and components directly or indirectly to Toyota are required to complete one or more of the company’s initiatives, to include obtaining ISO 14001 certification; complying with Toyota’s chemical ban list; and implementing Toyota’s Hazardous Materials Transportation Management System


    As part of its environmental commitment, Toyota Motor Corporation maintains a worldwide Earth Charter, which was first established in 1992. The Charter reinforces Toyota's goal of being the global environmental leader in both product and manufacturing process, and the Charter has served as a vehicle to help Toyota embrace the concept of environmental management systems. By the end of 2000, all of Toyota's North American manufacturing plants and facilities will be ISO 14001 certified.


    So who is the liar now? You Chevy guys sure like to distort facts :-P

  • ndahi12ndahi12 Member Posts: 235
    The Sierra was the worst ever long term tester that Edmunds had. That says volumes about how bad the Chev products are. Professional Grade my A**
  • modvptnlmodvptnl Member Posts: 1,352
    Your own link says the SEQUOIA is the first ULEV V8 from toy. NOT THE TUNDRA!! DOHHHHHHHH!!!.

    " Sequoia, Toyota's first truck to be certified as "an ultra low emission vehicle" (ULEV) shares Tundra's V8 engine and power train, taking 240 horses off the road with you."

    "The Sequoia features the same 4.7-liter "i-Force" V8 engine that powers the Tundra model – an engine that produces 240 horsepower, produces 315 pounds of torque, and is the first Toyota truck engine to be EPA-certified as ULEV, or ultra-low-emission. By comparison, Sequoia's ULEV engine produces 40 percent fewer non-methane organic gases (NMOG) than the Ford Expedition's 2000 LEV V8 engine."

    would you like a bigger shovel to bury yourself????

    Still waiting on your short piston skirt/low emissions explanation.
  • obyoneobyone Member Posts: 7,841
    Customer service says "oh yeah you have forged pistons"...and it becomes gospel. DOH!! Even Bama couldn't take that one. SHEEESH!!
  • catamcatam Member Posts: 331
    Since this discussion should be about work trucks, but has degraded into a comparison of half ton trucks, here is what I have to say.

    If you read the truck trend article carefully they point out that for comparison under load they loaded each truck to 75% of its rated capacity, for the Toyota this worked out to be 27 bags of rock or 1350lbs total, for the Chev it was 32 bags or 1600lbs.
    In their review of the Chevy when loaded the testers noted that the load was sufficient to smooth out the harsh ride present when unloaded.
    In the review of the Toyota here is a quote, "Once loaded with 27 bags of rock for the hauling test, the Toyota pulled a Jekyll/Hyde handling trick: Its rear springs nearly flattened out, leaving it with a nose-high, desert prerunner stance, and practically riding the bump stopped during the entire loop.

    The new running attitude also took its toll on the steering, which was slow to respond to input and a handful to drive, the front end searching for direction and the rear bobbling all over the road. Comparing apples to apples, we’d say Toyota’s payload rating is optimistic, while the Chevy’s is pessimistic. If you plan on hauling large loads in the Tundra’s bed, we’d suggest a set of helper springs."
    This also applied to the braking tests, so the Chev was stopping more weight.

    I am not saying the Toyota is a bad truck, quite the contrary, if you are buying a truck for a daily driver with occasional weekend light work the Toyota is a good choice.

    But for those defending the Toyota please stop trying to tell us it can out work/tow anything from the big 3.

    Another couple of points, first I owned a my Silverado never had any "knock", but Chevy blames the knock on piston slap caused by short piston skirts.
    You defend this problem in the Toyota but flame it in the Chevy.

    BTW, my Chevy was in for warr repair once in the 28,000 mi that I owned it. That was to replace the right rear window, that was misaligned and allowing road noise.

    Also, stating the Tundra's V8 is ULEV because the Sequioas is is wrong. Here is why the V8 in the Tundra is rated at 245HP while the one in the Seq is rated at 240. My guess is that the Tundra is minus some emission control equipment to obtain those extra few ponies.

    Distributor less ignition systems have been around since the early 90s. Chev Silverado went to coil on cyinder ignition in 99 before the Tundra was introduced. Ford had it before that.
    As somebody else pointed out rack and pinion steering has been on the GM 2wd trucks since 99.
  • ndahi12ndahi12 Member Posts: 235
    The Tundra and Sequoia share the smae power plant. The CA Tundra is rated at 240 hp like the Sequoia. both power plants are produced at the same factory in Japan and are assembled in the same factory in Indiana. You are a modron alright, only take out the "d" :-P

    here let me repeat the paragragh:

    The Sequoia features the SAME 4.7-liter "i-Force" V8 engine that powers the Tundra model – an engine that produces 240 horsepower, produces 315 pounds of torque, and is the first Toyota truck engine to be EPA-certified as ULEV, or ultra-low-emission. By comparison, Sequoia's ULEV engine produces 40 percent fewer non-methane organic gases (NMOG) than the Ford Expedition's 2000 LEV V8 engine.

    What does SAME mean to you? The same engine.
  • losangelesemtlosangelesemt Member Posts: 279
    I think anyone in here who claims Toyota will out-tow/haul the Big3 is living in a fantasy world. If we're just talking 1/2 ton to 1/2 ton, well there might be a possibility. You have to remember that the Truck Trend 1/2 ton test used the Chevs 5.3L to Toys. 4.7L. Im not sure how much towing difference the 600cc's would make. At least it would close the gap some and maybe we'd get a better idea of what the 2 were capable of.

    Second point being that the Rado outweighs the Tundra by at least 200 lbs. I believe. If the Tundra were to put the 200 pounds into the rear suspension and related components, maybe the truck wouldn't quite flatten out as much. Of course with that said, there's no telling if the extra vehicle weight would adversly affect Tundra's tow/payload ablity.

    Toyota doesn't make anything to play with the other monsters on road. Tundra is rated for 1/2 ton and should be compared as such. This goes for both sides of the discussion. It would be nice to see T.T., C&D, J.D. and others do the tests with similarly equipped engines and so on. This isn't always possible. I for one though, wouldn't be going out of my way to recommend a Tundra to anyone looking for a workhorse. I feel its capable but certainly not always superior.
  • modvptnlmodvptnl Member Posts: 1,352
    Here is your original babble;

    #326 of 342 Tundra innovations by ndahi12 Mar 31, 2002 (09:11 pm)
    The Tundra is the only 1/2 ton PU to claim the following when it was introduced:

    1. DOHC engine.
    2. ULEV engine.
    3. Pre-tensioners on seat belts
    4. Rack and pinion stearing.
    5. 4 pod front disc brakes with rear drums that stop shorter than Chev/Ford/Dodge.
    6. Rear seat head rest.
    7. Standard tranny cooler.
    8. Drive by wire.
    9. Coil on plug system with no distributor

    I realize that English is your second (or third?) language .............but;
    explain to me how IN YOUR OWN LINKS/POSTS it claims the sequoia is the FIRST toy to be ULEV when you're claiming the tundra was 2 years ago?

    If the California tundra/sequoia 4.7 is ULEV NOW how can you claim the tundra was when first introduced?

    Still waiting on what piston skirt/emissions have to do with each other.

    It's very obvious that the high school "degree" you got was worthless.
  • ndahi12ndahi12 Member Posts: 235
    You do not lisren do you!!! The Tundra that I have is ULEV it has CA emissions and that is why it is rated at 240 hp just like the Sequoia. Even when it was introduced in 2000 the Tundra had 240 hp only. Only the CA Tundra is rated ULEV, not all the Tundras. Is that clear Modron w/o a d :-P
  • ndahi12ndahi12 Member Posts: 235
    here is your answer


    The Vortec 8100’s added displacement (from 7.4 to 8.1 ltrs) comes from a stroke increase of 0.37-inches (9.4 mms). New pistons are shorter in both deck height and skirt length to minimize heat build up. A Teflon™ coating reduces friction. An especially short (.2-inch/5-mm) top ring land and a full-radius top ring design improve combustion efficiency and diminish exhaust emissions. Engineering tests reveal that specific fuel consumption--fuel used per unit of power produced--is lower by four percent in comparison with the previous Big Block V8.


    http://www.media.gm.com/product/gmc/01gmc/yukon/xl/


    Ironically it is about the GM engine, something you should know about

  • lariat1lariat1 Member Posts: 461
    This is interesting. If the Tundra is a ULEV it is not listed here.


    http://www.greenercars.com/byclass4.html#PST


    As a matter of fact the V8 is not even listed in any vehicle.

  • lariat1lariat1 Member Posts: 461
    This is interesting. If the Tundra is a ULEV it is not listed here.


    http://www.greenercars.com/byclass4.html#PST


    As a matter of fact the V8 is not even listed in any vehicle.

  • lariat1lariat1 Member Posts: 461
    I found a listing for the Tundra V8. According to this site it is a LEV the same as the Dodge ram, F-150 and GM trucks.


    http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/air/ms/01ldlevs.pdf

  • modvptnlmodvptnl Member Posts: 1,352
    You post links that continuously make you look like an [non-permissible content removed].

    I'll try it more slowly for the impaired.....The tundra was not introduced with an ULEV like you erroneously stated. The sequoia was the first toy V8 to be ULEV according to your OWN LINK!!!! Even if the tundra sequoia V8 is the same NOW(please pay attention) this would be the first ULEV V8 from toy in a truck.....NOT YOUR 2000 or when the tundra was introduced. Now let's say that your own links are wrong AND the link I provided was wrong. You never made a distinction to Ca. only tundras being ULEV until now. Keep back pedaling.

    Now to your other post that proves you're wacked. "An especially short top ring land....and a full radius top ring...." is what contributes to lower emissions. NOT THE PISTON SKIRT YOU DWEEB. Do you even read what you link? Or do like to prove yourself wrong. I'm curious now as to if you know what a "full radius top ring" is. Can't wait for you to find a link for that!!!

    I'll explain the short skirt to you since you seem to be clueless and misunderstand almost every link you read. The short skirt is probably a necessity because of extra clearance needed at BDC because of the increased stroke.

    You are sooo clueless you may be the only one on this board that doesn't realize I don't own a GM!!!
  • ndahi12ndahi12 Member Posts: 235
    You do not seem to listen. The Tundra was introduced as an ULEV in CALIFORNIA. That is the model that I have. how many times do I have to repeat that for you??

    The Tundra in CA has three Cats and not two like the rest of the Tundras in other parts of the US. In that sense it has the same emission arrangement that the Sequoia has. That makes the CA Tundra a ULEV truck. Got it But then again you are a modron w/o a "d" :-P
  • kg11kg11 Member Posts: 530
    My dad's '56 Kaiser had an OHC on the I6 .45 years is a long time to wait to put'em on a V8.

    kip
This discussion has been closed.