Toyota Commercial Teases Consumers

Toyota commercial II

A new commercial from Toyota seems to imply we'll be seeing something new. From the looks of it — and viewers only get brief glimpses — there might be a new look or trim package headed our way. The commercial ran during a recent Supercross event and has us thinking there must be some kind of tie-in, given the entire ad emphasized dust and dirt. We're guessing it could be an off-road package for possibly three different vehicles. contacted Toyota, and spokesmen flatly stated they cannot confirm or deny any knowledge of a new option package or new vehicle from Toyota. The ad showed a blacked-out front grille with writing on it, similar to what we saw on the FJ Cruiser Final Edition. Maybe it means Toyota is changing how it wants to identify vehicles; clearly one vehicle is a new Tundra.

Since the vehicles in the commercial are running through the desert like wild horses, we're hoping the package offers more than just a face-lift and new stickers. Fingers crossed for a new Toyota Racing Development package or Baja Edition.



If you pause the video at the end it looks like it is a 4 runner, Tundra, and Tacoma. I'm guessing a TRD PRO option package. Since it is on three of the vehicles I'm guessing it's just stickers, trim pieces, and upgraded shocks over the standard TRD off road version. Maybe a front electronic locking diff?


Im guessing some sort of Raptor competitor?

Will be a beefed up TRD offroad package, but not at quit to the Raptor level.

Yep, about time Toyota came out with their Raptor killer.

I wonder if Toyota ever noticed the TRD acronym isn't the most pleasant (TuRD)?

A V8 option would be nice, but Toyota hasn't been marketing what their owners would like for quite a while.

I like how they copied Ford with the Toyota lettering across the grill similar to the Ford lettering on the Raptor.

Toyota hasn't released a reflash for the TRD supercharger on the 14 Tundra’s and the supercharger for the 4Runner has not been released either. Lots of rumors going around that this package will have the supercharger as an option.

The package will probably be similar to the FJ spec ed, with a mild lift from the TRD coils. I bet the Tundra has a more aggressive suspension package than the Taco or 4Runner will get.
Maybe an e-locker on the Tundra also, I bet some Land Cruiser off road features trickle down to the Tundra like Toyota did for the Trail 4Runners.

Nice! I know it is good marketing to keep people in suspense, but I hate when companies tease us like that and give us very little info. Just like Ford letting us see what the next F-150 will look like, but not giving us any specs on the powertrain. Kudos to Toyota for making a new off road package and noticing that not all buyers like so much chrome on their trucks. GM needs to do something similar in their Z-71 package. Ram does a good job in their Sport package, but does not offer any specially tuned shocks or any kind of locking differentials(only limited slip) which is a turn off for off road enthusiasts. All the makes besides Ram offer some form of locking differential (automatic or E-Locker) in their half ton off road packages even Nissan. I really wish Ram would take notice and fix this.

It's a shame Ford already has the name "Flex." That would be an awesome name for Toyota.

Lipstick on pigs.....

Saw more toyota info posted today,1/22

Would look good if they just got rid of that snout on top of the grill.

There are three vehicles, one is an suv and two are trucks. You can see one of them is definitely a Tundra with a Raptor-style grille. Looks like one of the others is the tacoma with a raptor-style grille. I agree it's a beefed up off-road package for toyota but won't be to the raptor level. It was only a matter of time before someone tried to copy the raptor.

If you keep hitting pause, you can clearly see that there is a current gen Tundra, Tacoma, and 4Runner -- each in red with blackout grills.

In short, Toyota is merely introducing a new option package for three existing models.

I wouldn't say they copied Ford. Toyota was putting their name on the grill decades ago.

When you say Flex are you telling us something Toyota hasn't?

When you bring up stiffness can you tell me what is the harm or damage of not being rigid as the engineers at Ford don't say they will just tell you they are stiffer in the frame section.

Why oh why must your screenshots ALWAYS have the play button?

Not only does it get in the way I've lost count of the times I've clicked thinking it was going to play.

My fj cruiser must be a copy of a raptor. I admit it does have the brand name on the grille. It also has round wheels and tires just like a raptor.

@AD I wonder how Toyota will spin it when they finally switch to a fully-boxed frame? "We have used a new patented technology called QuadroupleFlexBoxTech, which offers complete rigidity for handling and off-road with enough flexibility (so we don't sound inconsistent)" I'm guessing it will be something like that.

It will be just like Dodge knocking Ford and Dodge for using DEF and then switching to it.
It will be just like GM knocking Ford for using heated steering wheels and man steps, then adopting the same things on their own trucks.

wow definitely a 4 runner tacoma and tundra..... and i have heard NOTHING about it at all! i'll be doin some digging now.

It's a new get-stuck-while-you-drive accelerator pedal carefully disguised with dust so this oversized irresponsive corporation can deny it better after more people are killed.

Sorry, but nothing about the commercials "tease" me, I could care less about what Toyota is doing with their trucks.
It's interesting how there's so much going on in the truck world right now, yet Toyota is rarely mentioned, and rightly so. My feeling is that they're just putting in minimal effort to stay in the game.

Toyota needs 2 new trucks but a new trim package is hopefully a step in the right direction.

@Lou BC
Agreed, I don't see how a trim package will accomplish much, I mean there will always be the die hard Toyota guys that will only buy Toyota trucks, but other than that there are just so many better options out there.

Lets put it this way, if I was in the market to buy a new truck and could get any truck I wanted (the models that will be around ~1 year from now), here would be my top 10 picks in order of preference:
1. Ram 3500 Cummins/Aisin
2. Ram 2500 6.4l Hemi
3. Ram 3.0l Ecodiesel
4. Nissan 5.0l Cummins
5. F150 2.7l Ecoboost
6. GMC Sierra 1500 6.2l
7. GMC Canyon 2.8 duramax
8. Silverado 1500 4.3l
9. Nissan Frontier 4.0l
10. F150 3.5l Ecoboost

There you have it, my list of "top truck choices". I would be willing to bet if others came up with the same kind of list, Toyota would be at or near the bottom, or even off the list like mine. I mean there is just so much going on with trucks, it would be a shame not to get one of the "exciting" trucks.

@ hemi monster

its hilarious to me that your number 1 choice has a TOYOTA TRANSMISSION!!! LOL LOL

They finally selected a transmission for the Cummins that will work and Toyota built it, but yeah your right they dont have anything worth buying LOL LOL LOL Toyota........ winning

@Hemi lol, interesting how Toyota's truck division, Hino uses Allison transmissions. Why don't they use Aisin transmissions? My understanding is that the Aisin is an improvement over the 68RFE, but is still no match for the Allison 1000, which has been overtaken by the 6R140, which is rated at 1400 lb-fts for max input torque.

@hemi lol
What I find most ironic is that Toyota has the means and components (i.e. Aisin tranny, Hino) to offer a HD diesel Tundra, yet they don't. No one can figure it out. Like I mentioned earlier, they don't take the truck market seriously so Ram benefits from it all. Btw, I'm sure Ram could strike a deal with Allison if they wanted to.

I agree with Hemi Monster. I appreciate toyota's reputation for reliability, but a toyota wouldn't be on my top ten list of trucks. Actually I think it would be dead last for me when considering the major brands. Just boring vehicles with a foreign looking design. Not much really exciting or original to offer and always overpriced. I think for the money I'd rather take my chances with Ram again, even after having lots of problems with my current truck. I think most people I know feel the same way about toyota. They definitely need to offer something completely new to catch my attention. More than just some off-road package.

The Tundra used to score #1 in JD Power Ratings but now it isn't in the Top 4. That may be due to the competition improving, who knows.

I do understand the sentiment of Beebe and others. In 2010 the F150 rated slightly under the Tundra for durability. I went with the F150 because they actually offered the options and configuration I wanted and it was 8K cheaper. The truck I purchased has a 12K discount and Tundra only 4K.

As far as I'm concerned, the Tundra wasn't worth 8K more than the one I purchased.

The Tacoma is a solid truck but it needs a serious upgrade. Full sized trucks with V8's and Turbo engines match the V6 for mpg and have way more power.

@HEMI MONSTER - I don't want or need a HD.
The Sierra/Silverado Duramax or 6.0 trucks do have the best durability ratings. I wouldn't own a 6.0 powered truck. I don't like the engine's power characteristics and the transmission behaves like the 6.2 Chevy on the Ike Gauntlet video.

My brother goes through a new truck every few years and likes the Ram HD better than the Chevy. His company won't buy diesels due to the extra cost and short lifespans. He hasn't had a Ford in a while. His company did buy a 100 or so F150 reg cab 1/2 ton 4x4's with the EB3.5. I am going to pester him to keep me abreast of how well they hold up.

To be announced in the great Chicago auto show!!!

"I'm sure Ram could strike a deal with Allison if they wanted to."

It wouldn't be "ram" striking any deals, it would be fiat. Get it right.

In the case of the Tundra, this seems to be a replacement for their Rock Warrior package, but that one avoided the TRD moniker, as it came on otherwise lower trim levels. I would love to see that continue and extend to the Tacoma and 4Runner. 2014 is the last model year for the FJ Cruiser, so there is room for a off-road capable 4Runner at a lower price point than the current Trail model. Same goes for the Tacoma. What I would hope for:
Base model trim with
+1 size tires
1 1/2" lift
Reservoir Shocks
Helical gear style LSD
Rubber Floor

I didn't like the new Tundra when I first saw it, but it is growing on me, and I applaud Toyota for taking some risk with the syling, at least it doesn't look like a giant box like the Chevy trucks. I also think The Tundra is the most comfortable truck at least for front leg room and seat comfort, and the Steering wheel telescopes something that the Ram does not do.

HEY ALEX! Mr. Ford guy how ya doin?

Just an FYI NOONE but a Die hard Ford fan such as yourself would EVER think the Torqshift 6r140 is even on the same playing field as the Allison 1000 OR the Aisin 68RC.

@Hemi LOL, it's clear that you don't know what you're talking about. Go and talk to a few diesel specialists and ask them about how they would rate those transmissions. Also, just look up their max torque ratings. The 6R140 is rated at 1400 lb-ft, the Allison 1000 max torque is 800 lb-ft. Ummm hello 800 vs 1400??? Keep your head buried in the sand dude, you're obviously happier there. ;)

From Hino's (Toyota) website: "Allison Transmission are standard on all conventional Hino Trucks and offer a fully automatic six-speed transmission that provides smooth, seamless full-power shifts to put engine power to the ground in the most fuel efficient way."

Where's Toyota's own Aisin? Mind you, they don't use the Allison 1000 either. These are the real Allison transmissions. 2500, 3000, and 3500 RDS.

Ford talks about the rigidity of a fully-boxed frame. I'll grant it offers a lot of strength through the middle of the truck, but unless you're overloading the bed is it really necessary?

Toyota talks about the flexibility of using their C-channel frame while emphasizing that at either end, where the weight really rides, it's fully boxed. Interestingly, by losing several square feet of steel, the C-channel frame is also lighter. So what really are the advantages or disadvantages of the different styles?

I can see advantages both ways and Ford has emphasized a supposed disadvantage of the C-channel. However, is that really a disadvantage? I don't think so. It depends on how that flexibility is used and controlled. On-road, that flex can help absorb bumps from potholes so that the ride in the cabin is smoother while permitting stronger components in the suspension for load bearing--whether it be on-board or towed. As such, the Toyota may be able to carry more cargo than the equivalent-rated Ford. Off road, that flexibility makes rock crawling a little better because the wheels tend to stay in contact with the surface longer than a rigid frame without having to go to the same extremes in suspension travel. The drawbacks? It does appear more likely the frame will be more susceptible to damage in a collision which could impact passenger safety. On the other hand...

Ford has emphasized the rigidity of their frame as a demonstration of strength. Boxed is stronger simply due to more metal BUT with more rigidity you achieve a level of brittleness which could see a Ford frame literally break under a situation where Toyota's would simply bend. Using higher strength steel means the boxed frame will be even MORE brittle, which raises the question as to whether it's strong enough. How many of us have heard about the Ford Raptor's bent frames after only relatively mild jumping in the desert? How many have heard how, when that Raptor made a record leap, it destroyed itself on landing? Is that more rigid frame REALLY stronger? Could it be possible that its real strength only appears under certain circumstances--such as on-road only under heavier loads?

Too many questions and not enough answers. Personally, I think it comes down to what the buyer really needs from his truck.

@RoadWhale, there is no advantage to a flexible frame. (They all have some flex by the way). None of these trucks have 100% rigidity. The suspension is meant to do the absorption, not the frame! If the frame flexes, then the body is taking on those stresses. That is not good. That's what the GM video showed happening to the Ford Super Duty The Super Duty needs a fully-boxed frame for some off-road abuse. Semis use c-channels because they are not supposed to go off-road, so all wheels will take the stresses equally. But when you go on rough terrain, the frame will twist and the body will have to handle some of that twisting. The body isn't designed to twist with the frame. It will dent and become misaligned. So what if you're not taking it off-road? A more rigid frame will allow better handling on corners, because those stresses are also uneven. So sports cars are supposed to have a rigid chassis too. If you have ever driven a 2001 Volvo C70 convertible, you would know what I am talking about. You want a rigid frame and really good articulation in the suspension for off-road, not a flexible frame. Just like a modified Jeep Rubicon (which has a fully-boxed frame by the way). Toyota's claim that a flexible frame is better because it will smooth out the ride over bumps is just hogwash. It certainly didn't help any here

@RoadWhale, also these two sentences you wrote are contradictory:

"With more rigidity you achieve a level of brittleness which could see a Ford frame literally break under a situation where Toyota's would simply bend."

"How many of us have heard about the Ford Raptor's bent frames after only relatively mild jumping in the desert?"

Nice references Alex, but you didn't really disprove my points.

First off, I'm not trying to say any one system is better than another for all purposes; obviously, they're not. What you did emphasize in the '11 video of Ford vs Chevy is that at least for THAT model, the Ford frame was not rigid enough. I, for one, would not like to see my tailgate buckle like that.

On the other hand, the Ford video exaggerated the flexible frame's disadvantage--on really rough roads at road speeds the frame makes the back end hop around too much. Now personally, I wouldn't be driving that fast in that specific circumstance due to relative loss of control. HOWEVER, it also made it quite obvious that it was at least trying to keep all four wheels on the ground despite the conditions while the cockpit view certainly didn't show any extremes in ride conditions. As you, yourself just stated, "Semis use c-channels because they are not supposed to go off-road, so all wheels will take the stresses equally." At lower speeds it really seems the Toyota has the advantage and I believe that despite the Chevy rigidity test, the Toyota would have still passed the tailgate test portion through its flexibility.

It's a matter of sensible driving under extreme conditions while still being USABLE under those extreme conditions. Ford fails where Toyota and GM might succeed, yet Ford succeeds where GM and Toyota might fail. Your second video failed to compare the Ford with the GM, where its wheel hop and uncontrollability were in many ways worse than Toyota's while showing quite a bit more harsh ride in the cabin.

Lets hope they do something about gas mileage.

I'm not got waste gas driving around the desert at $4 a gallon and if I'm not gonna do that I might has well just buy the base rwd model.

It's going to take more than just a cool new body style and plastic accoutrements to sell me one.

@Alex: While I do agree that they seem contradictory, would the Toyota frame have held that bend after the same jump? to me it only emphasizes just how weak that fully-boxed frame really is, ESPECIALLY when compared to the Chevy twist test you previously linked.

Again, I'm not saying one is better than the other under all circumstances. As a non-fan of full-sized trucks, I'm willing to look at all aspects to determine where each ones' advantages really lie.

The extremes I typically drive in are extremes of weather, not terrain. I currently have a JK Wrangler to handle the weather while my F-150 (1990) is almost strictly for open-bed load carrying. As such, while I don't need a full-sized truck, I still want to see their strengths and weaknesses.

Ford's strengths really appear to be centered around racing with now an emphasis on fuel economy with a limited product line. Oddly, in almost every racing venue Ford's trucks are a thin-shell body over a purpose-built tubular frame. While they may use Ford engines and suspension parts (not always), there's very little of the street-legal Ford in them. Of course, this is true of the other brands as well.

As for off-road, Ford appears to have focused so much on off-road racing that their once-renouned off-roader, the Bronco, no longer exists, leaving the category almost exclusively to the Jeep Wrangler and its other Jeep siblings. Fortunately for Ford, with Jeep's takeover by Chrysler, Jeep no longer produces a pickup truck. On the other hand, when comparing trucks to trucks off road, it seems the Toyota has a slight advantage in low-speed conditions, followed by GM.

I might point out that even I stated on another board that given the current circumstances across all brands of full-sized trucks, Ford would be my choice for two reasons: The extended cab kept the clamshell doors, unlike Ram and GM, and; I wouldn't need to buy a high-end model to get the particular option set I really want without going too overboard. However, when taking size into account, even the Ford loses to Toyota's Tacoma (clamshell doors but underpowered L-4) and GM's C-twins (clamshell doors with what appears to be a decent L-4). I'll personally be taking a closer look at the '15 models of each of these when they finally hit the showrooms. Meanwhile, I like the Colorado's look over the Canyon and the Tacoma.

@MaXx Where is gas $4 per gallon? National average is about 3.35 for unleaded 10E...

Ford's have the worst bed bounce period, every Ford I see with my own eyes going down the highway has the bed bouncing up and down going down the road.

@RoadWhale, the Super Duty does NOT have a fully-boxed frame. It's the same frame they had from 1999, strengthened a little bit. So that's what happens to the body when the frame flexes too much. In the case of the Chevy vs Ford, the Chevy frame is fully-boxed, but the Ford is not. The Chevy frame is less prone to bending. In the case of the F150 vs Tundra, the F150 is fully-boxed, but the Tundra is not. If you are wondering, the Super Duty frame is stronger than the F150, but the F150 frame is more rigid. Yep stupid! Ford hasn't upgraded the Super Duty to fully-boxed yet, as Toyota proudly points out. But I am sure they will when they switch to a new platform. Then Toyota will shut up. They will also shut up when they switch to their own fully-boxed frame. So will all the Toyota fans.

Your two sentences are contradictory because you said the Ford F150 frame would snap, but the Tundra frame would "simply bend." Then you gave an example of the F150 frame bending. So which is it? Will it snap, or bend? It obviously bends like you stated. As Ford's new frame is even stronger than the previous generation, it would be interesting to see how a new Raptor would do with the jumps. I personally do not really care for the Raptor to be honest, but it should be a good way to prove the capability of the frame.

The only advantages to a c-channel frame are up-fitting and costs. Land Rover has been using fully-boxed frames and aluminum bodies for decades!

@RoadWhale, I agree Ford should bring back the Bronco (based on Super Duty) and Ram should bring back the RamCharger (based on 2500). If these things are to be made for off-road, then SWB is where its at! The Power Wagon is too long for any real off-road. In all honesty, a Rubicon diesel with a lift kit would be ideal. :)

No, Alex; I said 'could', not 'would'. Learn how to read. Because of that, my statement was not fully contradictory because the Raptor's damage is well-recorded in not one, but two different instances. Meanwhile, we've not heard of any similar damage on Toyotas.

Also, you make a flat-out statement based on no data at all: "Ford hasn't upgraded the Super Duty to fully-boxed yet, as Toyota proudly points out. But I am sure they will when they switch to a new platform. Then Toyota will shut up. They will also shut up when they switch to their own fully-boxed frame. So will all the Toyota fans." You also made a statement attempting to contradict my own, where I clearly stated that I am no fan of ANY full sized truck. What I've been doing here is attempting to maintain a completely agnostic review.

Please show me where Toyota has ever mentioned that they intend to go to a fully-boxed frame. Please show me where Ford has stated they will go 'fully boxed' with their Super Duty. As yet I haven't seen it from either manufacturer, though it seems possible that Ford will extend that into the SD. Then again, if the SD is never intended for true off-road work, they may not and keep what they have--only made lighter in weight by use of stronger, more brittle steels. Certainly the Toyota Tundra proved it could pull a heavy load with its flexible frame, so it's not like a rigid frame is absolutely necessary, after all. Sure, the other trucks COULD do it, and the Top Gear (US) team did something vaguely similar in their most recent season--though they did risk an aircraft to do it. (I do believe I have a slight advantage here, because I know what it takes to tow an aircraft safely.) All three trucks used had no trouble towing the bird through their little rallycross course. I can only hope the plane was already slated for the scrapyard when they performed that particular stunt.

Hey smarty pants, you said the F150 frame would "literally break" then you said the Tundra would "simply bend" then you said the F150 Raptor frames "bent." Then in your next post, you admitted "While I do agree that they seem contradictory..." Then in your last post you said "my statement was not fully contradictory." Gosh would you make up your friggen mind? You have the audacity to lecture me on my ability to read and accuse me of saying that you're a Toyota fan, when I simply referenced Toyota fans (making a general comment). You might want to go back and reread that, I never said you were a Toyota fan.

Just about every manufacturer in the world that has been down the c-channel road. It's not exactly revolutionary! Do you think Ford, GM, Ram, Land Rover, and Jeep (who have all used c-channels in the past, and now use fully-boxed) are just missing out on all the goodness? The Merc G Wagon is also fully-boxed! I'm also not the slightest bit interested in those towing stunts. Frame rigidity is irrelevant in that. The VW Touareg SUV pulled a 747, which weighs about 3 times what the space shuttle weighs. That's with a monocoque chassis! So does that mean monocoque chassis is the best? We know that any of the pickups can pull planes and shuttles, so it's actually quite boring. It proves nothing. I think TFL Truck's Ike Gauntlet is more interesting, in which weight stays the same, and top speed is the variable and the measure of the capability.

The comments to this entry are closed.