2014 Toyota Tundra to Debut in Chicago

2014 Tundra_Double_Cab II

Toyota has announced (in one of the shortest press releases in history) that the 2014 Tundra will debut at the 2013 Chicago Auto Show. The media will get its first look at the Tundra at 9 a.m. CST on Feb. 7; the public show is open from Feb. 9 to 18. Toyota will also broadcast the reveal via the internet with a live web-feed. To read the press release, click here

Although Toyota does use the word "new" within the press release, it also identifies the 2014 Tundra as a "redesigned" model as well, which makes us curious about how significant the changes will be. Of course it's all semantics, but it has happened in the past that manufacturers use words like "redesigned" when they really mean updated or simply refreshed.    

We suspect it's possible Toyota will release more information as we get closer to the reveal date. We'll have more information to come regarding the new Tundra reveal, as well. Stay tuned. 



Toyota and the rest better LOOK OUT if Ford follows through with their their Atlas concept. One bad ass looking truck w/o a doubt.

Hey Toyota (and yes, I do own a 2012' Tundra LTD and love it) but just release all pics/details on the new Tundra. What's with all of this mamby pamby stuff???


That website also lists the drag of the 2011 Tundra .27. Which means that isn't exactly a creditable source.


Show me a Toyota source that says it has a .37 and then I might beleive it.

As for the rest of your list of segment exclusive items, it is really sad that you believe that just because yota has a different name for the technologies, doesn't mean turdra is the only truck that has it, or that the turdra system performs the best.

Now get a life and realize that the turdra is not even close to being the best in class, and this refresh isn't going to change anything. sales will continue to be horrible

Unfortunately the Tundra is a truly lightweight product - its frame is a durability disaster with three separate and distinct frame construction styles welded together - it is not fully boxed and is designed in such a way that it will sag with use because the transitions are just under the cab for the three types of the build.Since we've already had three iterations of this product we can only conclude that Toyota is unable to build a world class full-sized truck and the new version will be just as underwhelming (and overhyped) as the last one. Toyota best just take Chevrolets and rebadge them - both companies build awful trucks that aren't even competitive anymore (even considering new models).

What did the Shutters, air suspention, electric steering, frame weight loss do for the 2013 Ram? Absolutely noda in terms of Gas mileage the 2013 V8 gets exactly the same mileage at the 2012. Only the new eight speed will boost mileage which the numbers arn't out yet, but the V8/8 speed Jeep is only getting 21.

As a Toyota employee, I've towed MANY times with a 2007 5.7liter Tundra for dealer trades. While never wanting for more power with the 5.7/6sp a/t combo, the range is pathetic. With the 26 gallon tank, we're talking 200 miles at 65-70mph (70mph speed limit on I-90 in Eastern Washington), pretty 'SCARY' in rural and mountainous regions in the western USA. So...Toyota, PLEASE..PLEASE..include a 35gallon tank (like the f-150) on the 6.5 & 8ft bed. Also, DIRECT INJECTION across the board (how much longer can we take a 'backseat' to Hyundai in 'modern' engine technology). Finally...What the HELL happened to the Hino diesel concept from the SEMA show a few years ago. When I worked in the sales dept from 2007-2009, I received a couple "when's the diesel coming' inquiries WEEKLY! Multiply that inquiry, with how many Toyota sales persons in the USA..? Just saying, you've underestimated the 3/4-1 ton demographic. They're NOT all a bunch of uneducated, redneck, domestic 'only' buyers!!

@ rules

you simply must not have looked under an f250 in the last 14 years. THEY HAVE THE SAME TYPE OF FRAME u simpleton. furthermore the reinforced C under the cab of the Tundra runs the entire length of the cab where the super duty is only 2 ft long of the transitional reinforced section.

HERE IS A QUESTION FOR EVERYONE...................................

If a box frame rigid as a 5" thick sheet of steel is such a good idea then WHY IS THERE A SPACE BETWEEN THE CAB AND BED????? you may as well build an Avalanche for ALL trucks. COMPLIANCE is the term people, the frame is supposed to be this way. If the frame is too rigid it will shake, rattle, and fracture apart period end of discussion. Dont believe me you say? Look out your window next time your on a plane, the wings are compliant so they dont break. a Boeing 747 that weighs 800,000lbs that FLIES THROUGH THE AIR has a wing that is approx. 45 ft. long AND will flex 26 FT. UP AND DOWN!!!!!!!!! and a skyscraper will sway several FEET back and forth.

WIsh I could even afford one last month went to look at a tacoma w the off road package out the door it was 36 grand,really?! What are the dealers and mfgs smoking?I cant even afford there lower model I dont even want I4 becaue I tow and do landscaping,off roading and that will be useless to me.

@ dave

you should look at a TRD Off Road or TRD Sport OR an SR-5 with out package EJ which is the JBL with Entune and Nav and the price would be around 31,500 or 32,000. Plus Tax and title of course, but not 36,000 more like 33,000. No one else makes one any cheaper either. You could get a 4.6 Tundra 4x4 for around or less than the same money with rebates ect.

hemilol: now you want to campare skyscrapers wth picpups? what are you smoking? and if your suspension is set up correctly, your frame will not shake apart, and even the most rigid boxed frames do flex, just not like the noodle frame in the tundra! like in the youtube vid, the Ford F-150 frame flexed a small amount and the tundras frame flexed about 4 times a much as a percentage!!! sooner or latter all p/u frames will be boxed, and will all flex, but just enough to not be brittle, and in doing so the enginers will have a better platform upon which their trucks will be able to perform, you realy will have a turd when your precious tundra goes to a boxed frame, and I can't wait to hear what you have to say then, but yours will be so full of rot by then.........it will still run like mad, but will be getting lighter and lighter as the miles go on.....

hemi lol

This guys a virgin ill bet anything!

hemi lol
yeah the suspension will hop, I was talking the frame flex under acceleration. The viper doesn't bend into a banana when you floor it. dumbass!

Rather have a Toyota than a DOA Dodge anyday. Toyota transmissions don't blow out on the highway and leave you limping home in 2nd gear like a DAMN DODGE CRAM will!

I had a Ram once, never had a tranny problem even when I through it in Park doing 25 MPH. Stupid I know but I was young and had a stuck accelerator and stopped traffic in front of me. should have just turned it off.

and yet Toyota settled for how many hundreds of millions for vehicles accelerating out of control? (it's over 1 billion) toyota can blow me! i will never drive one!!


YES i compared the two. you obviously have ZERO clue about engineering. answer this without your lame assumptions, WHY does Ford have a frame constructed in the same exact manner as Toyota on the trucks they are SERIOUS about?

@ rules and turdra junk

children seriously? So i set you straight and the only thing you can come back with is im a virgin and a viper reference that had NOTHING to do with anything i said at all. Go back to your call of duty game or whatever you kids do nowadays.

PS toyotas sales are so horrible that they are within 40,000 units of outselling Ram. 293k including 1500,2500,3500,4500,5500 VS. Toyota 250k including just Tacoma and Tundra


While I would love an HD version or a diesel, I would guess that a hybrid drivetrain is more likely (but even that is doubtful).

As long as it doesn't get a review like the new Ram 1500 did, I'll be happy:


"In a ... world where cars didn’t exist, what would individuals of subpar testosterone levels and only moderate abilities drive? ...These folks would want trucks as light and economical, as “carlike” as possible. They’d be looking for El Caminos. Or Honda Ridgelines. For 2013, the Ram 1500 has been updated to make it more attractive to such people."


Toyota recalls 7.43 million cars.


@ the idiot above ^^^^^^^^^ not a single vehicle has caught fire and burned. just smoke AND might i add that this is so uncommon and silly to worry about. Toyota is being cautious. they are recalling all that have that switch in them to make sure the dielectric grease is properly applied and in most cases it IS FINE, just some that need regreased.

Its gonna be sweet justice when they unveil this truck and the 5.7 gets the same or better fuel economy than that goofy overcomplicated ecoboost. i just cant wait to see how bad this truck beats up on the competition this time. in 2007 it was hilarious how bad that truck busted the competitions butt and i look for nothing less this time.

Toyota to Pay Record $17.35 Million Fine for Delaying Recall.

For the fourth time, Toyota has agreed to pay a fine to settle allegations by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that the automaker delayed a safety recall.

In a news release Tuesday morning, the safety agency said Toyota would pay $17.35 million, the maximum allowed by law.

Motorweek had a long term Tundra 5.7 way back when it first came out and they averaged over 17 MPG, thats better then the ecoboost. I think the ecoboost is a fade that will pass. None of the other manufacturers have followed suite, and once the new V8's from GM, and Dodges 8 speed Hemi come out matching and beeting the Ecoboost MPG, nobody is going to buy it and Ford will have to actually focus on their 5.0 which is being held back so that it didn't outdo the eco.

Motorweek? Years ago in the 80's and early 90's they were pretty good but that was only because there they were the only car review show on tv and there was no internet.

These are the only tests for the Tundra from Motorweek:

It says nothing on fuel economy or testing. Motorweek is like an elementary school teacher, no matter how bad a vehicle is, they won't ever say anything to hurt someone's feelings. They are known for their "non-opinion" experts. For straight up reviews and testing, you have to go elsewhere.

Perhaps you mean Motor Trend/Truck Trend.

Long Term update #1:
13.7 mpg

Long Term update #2:
13.8 mpg

Long Term update #3:
14 mpg


Mark Williams said the Tundra should be outlawed!

Of course, one downside to a big engine in a big truck is big fuel consumption-so far, the Tundra is failing to average 14.0 mpg and, as Mark Williams observes, "I wish the tank were bigger, because on my last fill-up the computer readout told me my range was only 293 miles. It should be outlawed for a vehicle to have less than a 350- or 400-mile range, even if it's only getting 14 mpg."

I can't wait to gt rid of my Dodge Cram. The seats are crap, the tranny was junk before I had to rebuild i. The parts I have had to replace over the years is longer than I can recall fully (compressor, radiator, power window motors, door lock mechanisms, a-pillar grips, ashtray, cup holders, sun visors, tilt wheel levers, stalks, power steering boots, headliner, seals, etc., etc., etc.).

I was once happy with and proud of my truck. Now it is a money and repair pit. Only good thing about it anymore is I paid it off early. But I can't wait to replace it. I just know Dodge won't see me at their door again.

"I wish the tank were bigger, because on my last fill-up the computer readout told me my range was only 293 miles. It should be outlawed for a vehicle to have less than a 350- or 400-mile range, even if it's only getting 14 mpg."

Math is hard. The Tundra has a 26 gallon tank. At 14mpg, the range is 364 miles. At 13.8 mpg, the range is 359.

What should be outlawed are complete morons that can't master 2nd grade math. Idiots.

Are you calling Toyota or Mark Williams the idiot? Your 359 range is calculated at completely empty. How good is that?

If you fill up at less than a quarter tank it will be in the 293 range between fillups. After all if you are going up a steep hill, you don't want the fuel sloshing away from the pump and starving it, or running out of fuel.

One of the hills i regularly tow up is about 25 miles long and i drop to about 4 mpg while climbing it (mind you i am doin 50mph) next trip up i'll try droppin to 35 mph (2nd) see if it helps the economy.

The light is not overly premature when under those kinda conditions, and being outta gas in the middle of nowhere is no longer just a matter of inconvienience.


The Tundra 26 gallon tank is technically a 21 gallon tank. You need to leave about 4 gallons in it to function properly.

21 g x 14 mpg = 294 gallon range

If they added a 36 gallon tank, subtract 4 gallon reserve =

31 gallons x 14 = 434 gallon range.

Huge difference.

"Are you calling Toyota or Mark Williams the idiot? Your 359 range is calculated at completely empty. How good is that?"

I'm calling anyone that can't take the size of their tank and their mpg and figure out a range an idiot. Yes, 359 is the range so I know I have to get to a gas station before then.
What do you mean "How good is that?" It's exactly what it is - the range.

"The Tundra 26 gallon tank is technically a 21 gallon tank. You need to leave about 4 gallons in it to function properly."

No, a 26 gallon tank is technically a 26 gallon tank. If you run it dry, like I have, you will put 26 gallons back into this tank. Coming up with arbitrary numbers like 4 gallons to have it "function properly" does nothing to figure out the range and only adds to the confusion like that entire thread you linked to. Toyota added a very premature "Empty" light and range to their computer. If you freak out and feel like you have to fill up with 5-6 gallons left in the tank, fine. But that doesn't change the fact that you can go another 80 - 100 miles or so.

"One of the hills i regularly tow up is about 25 miles long and i drop to about 4 mpg while climbing it... The light is not overly premature when under those kinda conditions, and being outta gas in the middle of nowhere is no longer just a matter of inconvienience."

Then you're mpg is changing and you need to recalculate the range... If you're regularly towing a hill like you mention above, you probably know your overall mpg during this trip.

Regardless, I really hope Toyota adds a larger tank in this next release.

Mark Williams also disliked the interior...

Not so handy are the dash-mounted radio controls, whose far reach, says copy editor James Dryden, is "waaaaay over there and hardly user-friendly."

Truck Trend editor Mark Williams concurs with Dryden-"Makes for an awkward reach to change radio stations or media modes"-and also notes that the Tundra's myriad cubbies are arguably overabundant: "All the storage compartments are nice, but at what point do a bunch of little closets that don't get used become a waste of space?"


Good question!

"Mark Williams also disliked the interior..."

Please, go on....

"Williams, not entirely smitten with the Toyota's interior, does appreciate its robust powertrain: "I'm still impressed with the guts of this 5.7-liter engine, and the six-speed automatic is a strong player, making the Tundra fun to drive around town, especially when downshifting-quick and smooth is the only way to describe rowing up or down through the gears."

So, yes, there are buyers that are swayed by the positioning of radio nobs and too many cubbies (LMFAO). And then there are those who buy trucks based on the powertrain and how well the truck actually performs. @RamHQ, which one are you?

Here is another installment from Mark Williams' greatest hits:

The recent launch of the new Tundra hasn't been without a few "hiccups." Several months ago, an early run of camshafts in the 5.7-liter V-8 were failing. Toyota tells us it tracked down all the affected parts to a specific batch and has since made the corrections to the design. No failures have been reported since. More recently, there've been reports of shudder in the transmission under certain low-speed conditions, which dealers have traced to an issue with the torque converter. Toyota says these reports were isolated and have also been resolved. Then, the new Tundra took a bit of a hit when Consumer Reports identified some issues with the 4x4 models that kept them from getting their highest ranking. Toyota is working with CR and still investigating the sources but it may be due to something as small as a sticky actuator. Finally, there's been chatter on the Web about some tailgate reports that Toyota is in the process of tracking down. Many such stories are bound to spread like wildfire, given the lightning-rod effect this new truck is having with truck enthusiasts, and the speed with which an Internet item can travel.

What does all this mean to the new-truck buyer? Probably not a whole lot, but it does speak volumes to how difficult it is mapping out an ambitious plan of attack on a new market, especially when considering this is the biggest segment in the U.S. auto industry -- and has been for more than 30 years. No question there's a lot riding on this and whether Toyota fully succeeds (and some argue that just getting to this point is a huge success for the manufacturer) or completely flops


Was the Tundra a flop? Fastforward 5 years and I say it has been a sales flop.

196,555[citation needed]

137,249[citation needed]

79,385[citation needed]




The next gen may get it back on course. But I have to disagree with others who say bring in a HD truck. The Tundra could flop even worse if they offered a HD.

I am excited for the Tundra. I think I am their target market, upper middle, like the bells and whistles, only would use it to pick up hay, transport the ATV and light towing. Historically I am a buyer of reliable brands and distrust american manufacturers after being burned a couple times. I like ht Dodge but it has never done well in safety tests and I have always heard it has a great engine but the rest of it falls apart.

Before everyone jumps in and says I am not a true truck owner because it is a recreational truck for me, keep in mind Ford is trying desperately to get me with the high margin King Ranch, platinum and now limited models. GMC and Chevy are also abandoning their interiors to attract more dollars and better margin. I have owned cars (not trucks) from Ford and Chevy and I can tell you the bad reputation they have from poor quality still lingers today and is justified. They made junk cars and put lip stick on old engineering (aka the popular Chevy Cavalier). The Chevy and Ford owners remind me of Harley owners. Everyone knows Harleys are pain in the rear end to own, but they have the most loyal customers who enjoys maintenancing them. It is a marketing phenomena.

@Tom - loyalty is an interesting phenomenon. The Harley analogy is a good one. Harley has improved their reliability markedly and so have the USA badged auto makers. They have approached the foreign badged brands in quality but in most cases have not surpassed them.

I've always liked Toyota trucks. I think they're good looking, engineered right and reliable. I know it's opinion, but I can't stand the round gauges in the current Tundras. I think the interior needs a major redo.

My dos centavos:
Toyota needs to address (in this order):
1. Efficiency (Direct injection/8spd trans)
2. Features (Trailer brake controller/XM radio/better nav)
3. Styling (More bold please)
4. Capability (towing/payload)

I think the interior needs a refresh pretty bad, but I hope they keep it nice and simple, like it is now....

In the end the Toyota fans will be ecstatic with what ever changes are introduced. The Toyota haters will say that it's "no big deal" even if it flies. I'll buy the new Tundra later this year simply because I've owned enough junk [Ford, Chevy, Dodge] in my lifetime. I want something that's reliable [Owner of 2 Tundras and 2 Tacomas and 0 problems]

The comments to this entry are closed.