2014 Toyota Tundra: First Drive

Tundra front tow II

Although it's been a long time coming — approximately seven years since the last generation's introduction — the 2014 Tundra is not the major redesign many expected. Even Toyota is calling this a "minor" change, emphasizing that the 2014 Tundra has a new exterior look with many interior improvements specifically designed to resonate more strongly with loyal Toyota customers than to conquer new buyers.

Some may question, and rightfully so, why Toyota is simply offering what is essentially a midmodel refresh when all the other full-size half-ton players have a much more aggressive strategy when attacking this recovering — and growing — segment. So let's provide some context.

When Toyota first announced its intentions in 2003 to build a full-size truck plant in San Antonio, the original cost estimates were less than $1 billion — a hefty investment to be sure, although maybe not a bad price for a state-of-the-art production facility with supplier production plants on site. At the time, the full-size pickup truck market was well above 2 million units per year.

Not long after Toyota started construction of the new facility, estimates climbed to $1.4 billion as changes were made. By the time the plant was finished 2006 and both full-size Tundras and midsize Tacomas were rolling off the line (in 2010--it's the only plant in the world that makes both large and small pickups), the total investment costs for the Texas plant were just over $2 billion — more than double what Japanese leadership agreed to at the beginning of the process.

Then the economy fell off a cliff, and Tundra sales were cut by more than half in just two years.

That kind of financial punch to the stomach for a conservative corporation like Toyota leaves an impression with executives who typically have long memories. By the time the Tundra was ready for its third-generation updates, it was difficult for the U.S. engineering and design team to get the money necessary for a full revamp of the pickup, especially at a time when the U.S. economy was showing just small regional gains in growth.

From our point of view, this is the most logical explanation why the 2014 Tundra didn't get any chassis, powertrain or other advanced performance enhancements; the U.S. team was given a limited pile of cash to work with and upgrades had to be prioritized. Clearly, the loudest voices (we'll assume from customers) complained about how the second-gen Tundra looked, inside and out.

Before we dive into the changes on the third-gen Tundra, we want to make clear there are no powertrain changes (it still offers three DOHC engines: a 4.0-liter V-6, a 4.6-liter V-8 and a 5.7-liter V-8), no wheelbase or bed length changes (still three each) and no cab configuration changes (still regular, double cab and CrewMax). Toyota tells us that each of these areas will see changes in the future, but these 2014 updates focus on three key areas: exterior, interior and a small amount of suspension tuning.

Exterior Design

Tundra front wht II

The most obvious changes to the new Tundra were primarily motivated by customer clinics, which described the second-generation Tundra as too round and dull ("bubbly"), looking a bit bloated. That made the solution pretty simple: sharpen up the front and rear lines with tight angles to make it more aggressive looking. The result is a taller and wider front grille for each of the five trim packages (SR, SR5, Limited, Platinum and 1794 Edition), each with their own muscular and blocked look.

The taller headlights are now a simpler and cleaner-looking single bulb design; the front grille has been reshaped with trapezoidal cuts at the bottom corners (like the Ram?); and the bigger inner grille slots have a chiseled, billetlike look that changes slightly between the five trims. Additionally, both the front and rear bumpers have a new three-piece design (two outers and a beefier center section) that will also allow for more trim-level distinction, as well as making it easier to repair.

The Southern California design team also gave the side of the truck a more substantial look with the help of side-cut fender flares incorporated into the quarter-panel stamped steel. Around back, there are new taillights and a newly designed tailgate that includes an integrated spoiler and a branding-iron-like Tundra name stamped into the lower-right face. Interestingly, in order to squeeze out every possible extra tenth of a mile per gallon (without significant weight reduction), Toyota engineers have incorporated several "vortex generators" into the side mirrors and on the taillights in an attempt to smooth out turbulent air as it moves around the truck at speed. These little plastic fins are supposed to create low-pressures zones at the side of the truck; this added pressure, in addition to reducing wind friction, is also supposed to smooth and stabilize the ride and handling of the truck. Maybe that's not such a big deal when running near maximum payload, but when driving a pickup empty — which most of us do the majority of the time) — we appreciate the attention to this small detail.

There are no changes to any of the three bed choices (8-foot, 6.5-foot or 5.5-foot) in the form of added storage, bed access or tie-down technology. The same drop-in bedliners and cargo rail systems are still an option across all lineups.

Interior Design

Tundra Int II

Inside the cabin is where the new Tundra offers more significant changes. The entire gauge cluster and center stack has been redesigned and configured, and it's a huge improvement. Gone are the barrel-type gauge readouts in favor of the more conventional (among pickups) open-face dials that offer large engine rpm and speedometer readouts, with smaller crankcase, engine coolant, fuel and battery status gauges at each corner. Additionally, all 2014 Tundras offer a center LCD information screen (between the two main gauges) that allows drivers to scroll through other safety, engine and fuel economy data via a steering-wheel button.

The new layout is much simpler to use and easier to see, and it provides more information than ever before, a vast improvement over the second-gen layouts.

Regarding the new center stack, gone is the "split-use" strategy that made it difficult for the driver to reach the climate and radio controls. The entire grouping of dash controls has now been moved almost 3 inches closer to the driver, allowing a more comfortable reach, and the knob labels and the number of buttons have been simplified as well.

The interior designers did a great job of creating little cutouts in the dash and center console, providing tons of small niches and slots to hold phones, wallets, maps, keys or anything else small in size. In addition, the doors now offer a multitiered storage area strategy. The center console is about 10 percent larger.

Tundra gauges 2 II

SR — Tundra's designated Work Truck Package — and SR5 models will offer a 40/20/40 bench or bucket seats, with CrewMax cabs (available for SR5 and standard for Limited, Platinum and 1794 Edition) offered with redesigned front bucket seats. A big change for CrewMax buyers will be the loss of sliding adjustable rear seats; instead the cab will offer seatbacks mounted to the cab wall at a good angle, allowing the seat bottoms to flip up (similar to all the crew-cab competitors in the segment), allowing for more storage capacity. In fact, where the old seatbacks had to flip forward to lie flat, this new setup lowers the load-in height through the rear doors by more than 11 inches. Oddly, the CrewMax floor height has a big bump under the seats that is not present in the double-cab model, limiting a flatter floor by a small amount. We expect that to be addressed when the chassis and frame get its next update.

Drive Impressions

Tundra camper tow II

With most of the changes to the new Tundra in the cosmetic sphere, you'd think the truck would drive exactly like the 2013 model, but it does not. Thankfully, Toyota engineers took the opportunity to make some front and rear spring rate tweaks, as well as some small steering tuning changes. Both offer solid results.

During our time driving different versions of the 2014 truck over several Pennsylvania highway and broken-pavement routes, we were struck with the noticeable stability improvements and tighter handling. We didn't have a chance to drive any of the trucks with a payload, so we can't comment about how this truck copes with heavier loads. According to the chief engineer, there was a lot of work done in how the rear leaf springs respond to road irregularities, specifically during rebound duties. After taking a harsh hit, the springs seem to do a much better job smoothing the road feel and keeping the empty rear end under control. That makes for a more comfortable ride with less of the rear bounce or shudder we've felt in the past with various Tundras.

We also appreciated that Tundra engineers have reworked the front coil spring rates, as well as the speed and flow of the steering box. The results are not life-changing but the quicker response feel and better on-center hold (constant wheel corrections are no longer needed when driving down smooth, straight roads) makes the driving feel a touch more relaxing. Again, it's a small thing but we hugely appreciate that Toyota tried to do something here.

We did get to tow with four different 5.7-liter V-8 Tundras (SR5, Limited, Platinum and 1794 Edition), each with a well-loaded trailer. The trailer weights (we were told) sat between 7,500 and 9,000 pounds, and each pickup had the appropriate weight-distributing hitch. Although no mechanical changes have been made and no max payload, towing or gross vehicle weight rating numbers have changed from 2013 to 2014, we have to say the 2014 Tundras seemed to mysteriously feel more confident and easier to maneuver (could be in the updated steering but we're pretty sure the vortex generators were a nonissue).

Tundra mud II

Tundra still uses those ugly slide-out (and small) squared-off towing mirrors, but we liked the more confident feeling we had behind the wheel. We couldn't put a finger on whether that's because of the new interior, small steering changes or the fact we've always liked the power and sound of the Toyota 5.7-liter V-8. According to the Toyota engineers, they've touched nothing related to the towing strategy of the 2014 pickup.

We also got the chance to drive a few Toyota Racing Development versions of the new Tundra through a rather muddy off-road course. The trail included several deep-water crossings, off-angle log traversing, steep and slippery hill climbs, and a tight, deeply rutted two-track through a densely wooded area. The 2014 Tundra does have a new transfer case from BorgWarner (similar to the Ford F-150's), which gives it a slight gearing advantage with a 2.64:1 low-range ratio when compared to the previous Japanese transfer case.

(Since BorgWarner is a U.S. company, this will help the Tundra improve its U.S. content percentage. Toyota calculates this new truck to have 75 percent U.S.-sourced content.)

Along with the new transfer case, Toyota has located a new four-wheel-drive dial within easy right-hand reach of the driver, so switching from 2WD to 4WD High range can now be done in excess of 60 mph (not something easily done with the previous chain-drive T-case).

We found the TRD Off-Road Package (an option for both SR5 and Limited models) to handle the nasty terrain with great skill and composure. We can't say the new exterior or interior designs allowed for any increase in visibility, but we did find it much easier to electronically slip into both 4WD Low and High range. Our favorite feature in the TRD package is the brand-new, exclusively designed Michelin all-terrain tires. We're told these are the only off-road tires Michelin makes, and it won't sell them to anyone except Toyota for use on the 18-inch TRD-packaged Tundras. That's a huge shame, because these tires offer a great on-road feel and have little of the on-road noise typically associated with off-road tires, especially since they have aggressive side lugs. Our guess is this tire will make it to other performance-oriented four-wheel-drive vehicles in Toyota's lineup as well.

Bottom Line

Tundra group 1 II

We didn't mention the San Antonio plant fiasco in order to give Toyota an excuse for pulling up so short on this third-generation Tundra, but we think it's an important fact to keep in mind. It makes a decision like the one GM made to invest in the 2014 Silverado even more impressive. There had to have been dozens, if not hundreds, of places along the decision-making process where money could have been taken away or reduced. But GM didn't hold back on the Silverado revise.

We know there are more things to be done with the Tundra. What's encouraging is that Toyota knows that, too.

Our bottom line about the 2014 Tundra: It deserves a closer look, despite its shortcomings. We hope we've shed enough light on this new truck to make you want to give it a closer look. Although it doesn't offer as much as we would have liked, the details and small changes make us optimistic about what will happen for Tundra down the road. Look for more details about pricing in the next few weeks, as well as more on- and off-road performance when we get a truck to test.

For a closer look at the new trim packages of the 2014 Tundra, go to our Facebook page

Toyota Tundra 1794 Edition Interior

Tundra 1794 Int II

2014 Toyota Tundra (and Tacoma) Chief Engineer Mike Sweers

Tundra Mike Sweers II

2014 Toyota Tundra SR5 TRD Double Cab

Tundra SR5 side II

Redesigned 2014 Tundra center-stack with next-gen Entune

Tundra centerstack II

CrewMax rear seats flip up like competitors in segment

Tundra CrewMax seat II

New front grille with 3-piece bumper on SR5 Tundra

Tundra nose SR5 II



bring on the 4.5L turbo diesel V8 from the Global Landcruiser line or GTFO Toyota...

@ Mark Williams
Any dedicated off road pkgs or Rock Warrior pkgs or models with no Chrome?

Tires exclusive to a certain brand isn't a new thing. The tires on the Raptor are supposed to be slightly different than the standard BFG's.

@ Cubic Inch - what a dufus. You need a truck to attract girls?
Cubic inch or perhaps inch is all you got.
What's with the "hemi is best" because it is what is used in Top Fuel? Chrysler fanboys almost always bring that one up.
Rules say that is all you are allowed to use.

You must be a troll because you'd be too retarded to use a computer if you actually believed what you do.

@ Tyler, Do a little research about top fuel engines.



Chrysler engineer Keith Black made the first all aluminum HEMI block based off the 426 HEMI.

Toyota has VVT on both the intake & exhaust camshafts.
It doesn't matter if they are hydraulically actuated, or electrically they do the same thing.

VCT is when you have only 1 camshaft. The timing of the single camshaft can be adjusted, but it is inferior than VVT because the overlap volume is fixed.

"Ti-VCT" is just Ford non-sense marketing.

@ AD

You CLEARLY dont understand VVT technology if you "think" the Hemi version is better. school time.

An OHV engine has one central camshaft with all intake and exhaust lobes on it in a fixed manner. if i advance the intake timing i advance exhaust as well. this is one of many differences. ever heard of valve overlap? you would notice a race car "loping" at idle? this is because it is set up this way to breathe better at high RPM promoting more HP but idles like crap which would be unacceptable by todays standards.

the DOHC design that Toyota uses can advance the intake cam up to 30 degrees from top dead center OR retard the timing that mucy all the while it can advance the exhaust cam 15 degrees or retard it that much SEPERATLEY of each other, MEANING i can advance the intake timing and retard exhaust timing if the need is there or the reverse. the Toyota version is 100 TIMES more flexible and advanced. the Engine ALSO has ACIS or Accoustically Controlled Induction System which funnels the air down long tapering intake tubes which help promote low end torque (_another reason the i-force makes full torque hundreds of RPM LOWER than the hemi) and can adjust at higher RPM to DOUBLE the volume of air going into the intake. This was ALL STANDARD EQUIPMENT on the 2007 model. This is why before your ram got an outsorced transmission with 2 more speeds since Ram cant build one correctly themselves that the tundra laid the ram to waste everytime they matched up.

Funny Car teams, which arrived on the scene in
1965, were initially more reluctant to switch to the
Hemi because of the fan appeal associated with
running the same brand engine as the body style.
Chevrolet diehards like Bruce Larson and Kelly
Chadwick always ran big-block Chevy engines in their
Camaros or Vegas. But when the most popular
Chevrolet hero on the match race trail, “Jungle Jim”
Liberman, switched to a Chrysler Hemi in 1969, most
other teams followed.

SVT Raptor called and they want their wheels back lol.

Since the powertrain of the Tundra was competitive already in every way except unloaded fuel economy, it seems like the updates have addressed most of the other issues that knocked the Tundra back in the comparison test. So buyers will weigh the proven reliability of the 2014 Toyota against the ability to get over 20 mpg commuting in one of the updated big 3 half tons.

I'm glad I'm not in the market. It would be a tough decision. The Ecoboost, in spite of the issues that Ford haters like to magnify, is the most proven of the three. My experience with Chrysler transmissions suggests the new 8-speed is a hand grenade that won't make it to 100,000 miles, and who knows how quality control is going for Government Motors? They have to cut costs somewhere.

But once the bugs are worked out it sure will be nice to have a truck with big towing capability and great mileage.

Toyota could have, and should have, done better. The ride improvements-great. The interior improvements-good. The exterior styling, ah, it just is not that important to me.

My 2010 DC is a good truck. But I do not like 11 mpg in town (if I am using a/c.) It just is excessive. Also, could they not have put a 6 speed behind the V-6 and maybe tweaked the engine to get a little more mpg? Could they not come up with some innovative storage solutions for the bed? How about a standard bed step? I like Tundras but it just looks like they gave up on it and the big pickup market. It is really a missed opprtunity.

At least it has good ground clearance, none of that low hanging crap in the front like on the domestics to get hung up on things.

@hemi lol

I thank you for the "school time" but please educate us all on how their is no difference between what I asked for Dual VVT-iE and the Tundra's Dual VVT-i. As it would appear that the other UR engines offer Dual VVT-iE which is Dual VVT-i but with enhanced cam timing over Dual VVT-i applications. "The benefit of the electric actuation is enhanced response and accuracy at low engine speeds and at lower temperatures. as well as a greater total range of adjustment. The combination of these factors allows more precise control, resulting in an improvement of both fuel economy, engine output and emissions performance." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VVT-i#Valvematic

Also sir you can get Dual VVT-iE with ACIS http://www.lexus.co.nz/Models/LS/LS600HL/Technical+Specifications.htm. As it appears Toyota does not do what the big 3 do and put their most advanced powertrains in their luxury vehicles and pickups they only put them in luxury vehicles. While the Supercharged 3ur engine and 6-speed auto I have is far from garbage the truth is the other members of the UR engine family used by Lexus are more advanced with Dual VVT-iE, D4-S higher compression ratio and Aisin 8-speed auto. I am not a Ram owner nor am I a Toyota Salesman or Toyota fan boy just someone who loves his 2010 Supercharged Tundra. If your mad at someone try autoblog who was far more harsh than me or try Toyota who for money reasons like I said before today did not go far enough with tech they already have and have been using in other applications. Also now we know their will be no hybrid Tundra either.

I think we will see further updates in the next few years to to the powertrain to increase fuel efficiancy, Toyota just didn't have the doe to do it all at once.

It seems most of the comments weren't constructive in any way shape or form on this Tundra.

You know, fanboi's, if you want people to consider the product you like then look at 'marketing' to your target audience, just writing inaccurate and unsubstantiated blogs I've just read will influence someone to buy a Tundra.

Looking at the style of your writing tells me your intellect and income would be quite low, so most couldn't afford a 10 year old second hand pickup let alone a Tundra like the one in the photo.

The comments show you have no insight and are very bigoted/biased.

Just that alone will turn some off of a future Big 3 pickup.

Toyota have made very reliable vehicles for a very long time. They didn't become one of the worlds largest vehicle manufacturers by not considering what they produce.

If you have read my past blogs you will realise I'm not a Toyota fan, but this truck will be competitive against any of the competition.

By the way Ford fans, did you know your beloved Eco Boost started out in a FWD Mazda in 2007?

It was not so long ago, there were Toyota fanbois here remarking about the few Changes the GM twins have made, same frame, body looks the same yada yada yada, But now theis is the flag they have to wave? I will admit one thing though the Tundra does look better, it is exactly like they said, "less bubbly looking", and the grill is not that great in chrome or gray, but when matched to the color of the body is alright, and the interior? well all it is missing is a blue oval on the steering wheel it looks so much like a F-150, which is not bad at all, but I do not think I would pay the kind of money they are going to ask for the (1794) edition, as the leather looks orange to me, but I will have to see in in a showroom first, but paying so much for a truck is not my idea of a way to spend my money! That and I can not keep getting back to the frame?

The powertrain/performance was already competitive so they didn't need changes?

Usually someone says competitive when they know they are lacking and need to make up an excuse.

In the 13 LD shootout:

Toyota 4th on the hill climb

Toyota 5th in fuel economy (a full 5 mpg less from the top)

(If you want fuel economy: V6 fuel econ on Tundra is 3 hwy mpg less than Ford, 4 less than Chevy, 5 less than Ram)

Braking: Toyota 6th in braking (dead last)

Other than the exterior and interior changes, the the '14 Tundra doesn't seem to do much else.

Tundra scored last in exterior and interior in the 2013 shootout so that was more of a requirement to keep its own buyers than an upgrade to get new buyers.

"I'd like to file a police report. Someone stole all the dashboards form out of our entire fleet of F150s!"


P.S. I don't like the looks of the tundra. They are dead last compared to the big 3. That is enough for me to not buy one for 45,000. :))

Jesse, all the trucks in that test were so close other then fuel economy, anybody could have did those tests and come out with a different order every time. I don't think Pickuptrucks.com uses professional drivers like the big car magazines, I may be wrong but I see differant results which is fine they are results that the average driver will see, but they need to compare them to the same type of tests.

I agree with Hemi V8. The interior/exterior on the Tundra came in last in the shootout, and it is still comes in last now after the changes.

If you could order an F-150 or Silverado with a Tundra powertrain (and brakes while you're at it) a lot of people would take it hands down.

If you could order a Tundra with any of the big three powertrains the only one that would rate a 2nd glance is the Hemi with the 8 speed.

It's that good. Anyone who just says competitive hasn't driven one.

@HEMI V8 - as if you'd buy anything other than a Fiat.

@HEMI V8 and pubic inch,
The current engines used in Top Fuel and Funny Cars have nothing to do with Fiat/Chrysler.

As has been pointed out previously on this site, the Australian McGee overhead cam V8 was homolgated out of Top Fuel by the NHRA because it was beating the Keith Black engines. Keith Black engines were uncompetitive, because so many Keith Black's were racing and not many McGee engines I suppose it was an economic decision, as well as a we can't have someone else do better.

It's the same attitude that is displayed many times on this site. That is the attitude that is killing off progress.

Mopar or any other form of Fiat/Chrysler has nothing to do with current Top Fuel engines.

What you are saying is all Ram and Chev pickups are actually Fords. Why? Because they all started out with the Model T.


Hemi lol

Look at the torque curves on the Ford website and then stop the dumb comments about the iforce being better then the hemi.

I don't hold a grudge against the Tundra though I may never invest in one, but I have to add that if the loyalist for this pickup would have to wait 7 years for an update, at least have one new engine option available for them to go with along with the mild exterior update, good Horsepower will always be at the top of the list but but why no improved Fuel Economy?

@Big Al, Fords were built buy the Dodge brothers.
Dodge manufactured every part of the Ford car except for the buckboard wooden seats and the rubber tires.


@AD Your response makes no sense. Time for pre-school

BMW introduced a new Inline6 engine, the M50, and then upgraded it to M50tu (technical update). Part of the upgrades were two position adjustable intake valve timing.
It would retard timing at idle & low speeds, advance in the mid-range of ~1500-4500, and then re-retard the timing in the high end 4500-6500.
The valve timing was entirely engine speed dependent. It worked for the Germans, and how they drive.

Toyota was late to the VVT party by a few years, and to cover up the fact that VVT implementation moved on past just purely speed dependent advance/retard, their marketing came up with VVT-i, i-being for 'intelligence'.
When Toyota implemented their helically splined intake pulley VVT, everyone else was also taking into consideration drive/overrun, fuel tank/evap purge, engine temperature, etc.

So, range of VVT phaser authority? Minimal difference-if any, so a move to the more expensive electric actuator isn't going to happen.
Response time has been reduced via variable displacement engine oil pumps, and camshaft torsional assist mechanism.
and the move to '20' weight oil, for better cold engine performance.

Toyota's D4-S injection system is somewhat outdated.
Valvematic would be nice, if Toyota would have developed it for the corporate 94mm cylinder bore.

@Big Al, Top Fuel engines from the 50's 60's and into the 70's were Chrysler Hemi engines on NITRO. When Chrysler stopped building the 426 Hemi in 1971. In 1974 is when keith black a Chrysler engineer started building aluminium versions of the same design.(Chrysler's were cast iron) The same design used in today's Top fuel engines. The 426 Hemi dominated Nascar which it was built to compete so nascar banned it. It continued dominating drag racing. It still does today.

Top Fuel Dragsters: The fastest-accelerating vehicles in the world, these are the most recognizable of all drag race cars. The 25-foot-long landlocked missiles can cover the quarter-mile in 4.4 seconds at speeds faster than 335 mph. The engine of choice is an aluminum version of the famous Chrysler Hemi. The supercharged, fuel-injected nitromethane-burning engines produce an estimated 10,000 horsepower.

@Demi V8
It appears you are incorrect on your assumption that the Dodge Brothers built the first Model T pickup.

The Dodge Brothers did build components for Ford at the time, but not pickups. So, it seems all Rams are Fiats according to your deductive abilities.

Fiat 1500 pickup, I suppose a goat that the Fiat pickup uses as mascot is appropriate for the vehicle. Or is it a sheep, like its fanboi's or are you goats?

There might be a slight chance that Allpar could be biased in its journalism/content towards Fiat products.

You make it so easy, mate.


@Hemi V8
Considering the Dodge Brothers started out as component manufacturers for Ford, how much 'Dodge' was in their first vehicles?

They would have been very Ford in all aspects of mass production and design.

@Big Al, Are you licking those toads again? Here is the info you posted. Thanks. The Dodge Brothers built the first automobile with their name on it in 1914 as a 1915 model. Previously the brothers had built all the mechanical parts for the first 500,000 Ford Model T cars. The Dodge Brothers were well known and highly respected in the automotive industry because of the work they had done for Ford, Oldsmobile, and other leading auto manufacturers.


@Hemi V8
Component manufacturing isn't building an automobile.

Really, Hemi V7, whow. So Getrag, Dana, ZF, Bosh, Cummins, and on and on, etc are the real vehicle manufacturers?

That's essentially what Dodge was, they copied. So Dodge were almost counterfeiters.

You are on deluded dude, no wonder you can't find a job.

@Little albert, Let me re-post so you can let this soak in.

Dodge manufactured every part of the Ford car except for the buckboard wooden seats and the rubber tires.

Why do people bother with the HEMI TROLL! Let the troll be. It's funny to laugh, grown ASS man acting like a lil bitch!

How desperate can the Hemi trolls be to act like children on an article about Tundra. Are they afraid of Toyota?

●They shouldn't have copied ford on the dash, Toyota aimed low with this
move and could've made something better.

●I think it would look better wIth a body colored grill. (To downplay that big ugly chrome thing)

●Toyota should make room under the back seat, to store stuff.

●That tan leather looks good.


Now sir who I have never met or heard of who has a problem with me can you please retard your anger so we can have a civil conversation. I would say after your first sentence your point was lost with me please try again. If I am wrong I would like to learn something and as always please show where you got your info from please so I know it is correct. Also I am curious as to what you think they should do.

bigalfrom ohz: get off your high horse will ya! as far a drag racing goes, yes the powers that be said to use the Hemi based engine, for one big reason, TO MAKE THE FIELD OF PLAY FAIR and the cost reasonable, and from what I can find out, the wonderful engine from your home land was great, and very expensive! at the time and the manf. could not have kept up with the sport at the #'s needed, so that in and of itself is good enough for me, if it was the other way around, I would agree with that also, with all that said, are the engines still being used in the strips down under still? or do the sale rules apply down there also? as I am not that big a fan of going in a straight lane, even at those speeds, but to wait around all day for a 4 sec ride, is not my idea of fun.

Toyota just has an interesting problem for the main target market in truck buyers. They started out with a design that was offbeat and off balance and seemed to just settle for what they had. Then when they had a chance to start with a little white paper they just seemed to say - ah shucks - lets just work with that theme and - let 'er rip. The big center of the truck market just rejected it. And the mechanics were just not outstanding anywhere to keep ones mind off the off-beatness of the thing. So here they are with the 2 billion investment and missed mostly again. I understand Toyota faithful looking kinda sideways and talking themselves into it. But most truck buyers are NOT going to cross shop them to make any difference.
Toyota is stuck with it. Just no big reason to gain in sales.

Funny to see the same stupid Hemi Top Fuel argument surface again.
The "hemi" 5.7 is based on a Porsche design NOT the "hemi" from Chrysler's past.

Only a bleating sheep er goat fanboy would believe the PR.

"The natural course of engineering evolution has moved Chrysler's hero powerplant far from its Porsche roots and severed all ties to the Hemi's of yore. Even though it isn't a genuine hemi, this engine still packs a powerful punch as a marketing ploy."

Key words:
- its Porsche roots
- severed all ties to the Hemi's of yore
- it isn't a genuine hemi
- it isn't a genuine hemi

********** a marketing ploy***************


It was expensive because it was made redundant when it was realised that it was competitive.

As for fair play. Everyone is equal and all of that Equity and Diversity stuff. Why have something better?

Sandman, racing is about competition, which drives developement. Wouldn't it be nice to see an overhead twin cam in a top fueller? Not an engine one generation in front of a flat head? We are in the 21st Century now.

saying the dash of the tundra looks like an f150 is a JOKE! how do you presume? first of all the dash of the tundra is made wiht much better quality materials, 2nd the ford has no leather on the dash. the ONLY similarity is round vents, dont believe me? google a photo of both, you'll see. if i-pads didnt suck so bad i would copy a link to each to prove my point.

@ AD

my venting toward you was the difference of your claim that the hemi vvt is somehow the same as dual vvt-i when they are nothing alike. yes lexus has vvt-ie. IF toyota put this into a Tundra everyone would bitch that it was overpriced and it doesnt change things enough for the price difference..... its true tho.

Chrysler FirePower Hemi
The infamous Gen II Chrysler Hemi is an engine that needs no introduction. Whether it was in NASCAR, NHRA Top Fuel, or at the local dragstrip, everyone was trying to chase down the big, bad Hemi. Interestingly, Chrysler dabbled with hemispherical combustion chambers 13 years before the 426 Hemi debuted in '64. Launched in 1951, the Gen I Hemi produced 180 hp from its 331 ci of displacement. By 1951 standards, that was pretty darned stout. Consequently, the significance of this engine is rather obvious. Without a Gen I Hemi, there would be no Gen II Hemi.

Not only did Chrysler beat Ford and GM to the OHV punch by several years, Mopar's first OHV engine design boasted trick hemispherical cylinder heads. Building upon expertise it earned while developing aircraft engines during WWII, Chrysler achieved this unique cylinder head architecture by placing the intake and exhaust valves on opposing sides of the combustion chambers. The primary benefits of this setup was that it allowed for a straighter path from the back of the intake port to the manifold, and created extra space for larger valves. Actuating the valves in a Hemi chamber with an in-block camshaft required titling the pushrods at extreme angles, but Chrysler was able to make this arrangement run reliably. The 331 was bored and stroked to 354 ci in 1956, and produced an impressive 355 hp in its top trim level. Chrysler then upped the ante with a raised-deck block in '57, which allowed increasing the stroke even more for a total of 392 ci. The dimensions of this tall-deck block were quite imposing, with a 4.562-inch bore spacing, and a 10.870-inch deck height. The 10.0:1 version of the 392 was rated at 345 hp, and proved very popular with drag racers. A fuel-injected 392 was offered in the Chrysler 300, which churned out 390 hp.

The Gen I Hemi wasn't marketed as a Hemi, and Chrysler dubbed it the FirePower V-8. Chrysler abandoned the Hemi cylinder head architecture in 1958 when production of the Gen I Hemi ended. It was replaced by more traditional and cheaper-to-produce wedge cylinder heads that were introduced along with the new B-series big-block platform that same year. Perhaps recognizing the promise of these hemispherical heads many years later, Chrysler revived the design with the launch of the Gen II 426 Hemi.

That said, the Hemi story doesn't end there. Before the Gen I Hemi was dropped in favor of the B-series wedge motor, Chrysler manufactured a line of "semi-Hemi" V-8s from '55 to '58 called the Spitfire for consumers who didn't want to pony up for the FirePower engine. They used the same 331 and 354ci short-block assemblies as the Gen I Hemi, but were topped with polysphere cylinder heads and a conventional inline valvetrain. The polysphere heads got their name from combustion chambers that resembled two half spheres, and the most potent 354ci variant checked in at 310 hp. Chrysler also produced a 301ci small-bore version of this engine for entry-level vehicles.

"Not only did Chrysler beat Ford and GM to the OHV punch by several years, Mopar's first OHV engine design boasted trick hemispherical cylinder heads."

Lou, What is the Hemi ploy? The valves are in the same location in the modern 5.7 Hemi. The air flows straight through. Wedge engine does a u turn. Get it?

The things most important to me are the 5.7 and the SR5 trim. Hopefully, they'll still have them both when I trade my 2011 for a 4-door 4X4, late next year for a 2015 Tundra.

Other than that, impressions are purely subjective and as far as I am concerned the Tundra remains at the top of my list because I have already owned a Silverado and F150 in the past.

I completely agree with others who have written that the Tundra is not for them because the Tundra is not for everyone.

In the first place, Toyota prices the Tundra way above F150, Silverado and RAM and in the second place Toyota knows and understands Tundra buyers and markets the Tundra to the demographic that does not want an F150, Silverado or RAM.

That is pretty slick since every Tundra sale, no matter how humble, is at the expense of either an F150, Silverado or RAM sale.

Lou, Their are two kinds of people.Those who had Hemi's and those who wanted hemi's.


@Lou, Is it a real Hemi? That was the cry nearly 10 years ago when the daring engineers at Chrysler slapped the sacred slur on the valve covers of their new V8 engine and unceremoniously dropped it into a truck. The trolls on the Web were so busy complaining that they overlooked what has to be the best mass-production cylinder head Mother has ever produced. Now, after corporate bloodbaths, government meddling, and bratwurst in the company cafeteria, the Hemi is really getting good. Especially the heads. Let’s take a look.


@Jeff, That thing got a Hemi?


@TRX/Hemi/Dodge nut swingers

That is cute you all are posting about the 60's NHRA teams and their set ups, but if you pay attention we are talking about current Top Fuel motors which are not Chrysler motors in any way shape or form. Please give me some hard proof how Chrysler has a hand in producing the current top fuel motors.

Maybe this will shut you two (or ten) numb nuts up...


Some quotes from the article "As everyone knows, the engines currently used in pro fuel drag racing are very loosely based on the 426 Chrysler Hemi. While it has its roots in that design, in truth, a modern T/F engine shares noparts and almost nothing in principle or practice with the original '64-'71 Mopar production engine. While some bolt holes can be found in the same locations as in the original 426 Hemi block, that's about it."

"While the original 426ci Hemi used a 4.250-inch bore and 3.750-inch stroke, Kalitta Motorsports runs a 4.1875-inch bore and 4.500-inch stroke for 496 ci, nuzzling right up against NHRA's 500ci displacement limit for Funny Car and Top Fuel."

So what, you are able to put maybe four bolts on to hold the head to a top fuel motor? LOL. Are you guys finally done claiming this is a Chrysler/Dodge motor? Seriously, do a little research or follow atleast a little bit of motorsports and you would know this!

The comments to this entry are closed.