2014 Toyota Tundra Takes on Labrador: Part 2
By Howard J. Elmer
As you remember from Part 1, my Montreal colleague Eric Descarries, myself and two cameramen were traversing the Trans-Labrador Highway in a 2014 Toyota Tundra 1794 Edition and similar (almost mechanically identical) 2007 Tundra with 70,000 miles already on the odometer. Before we continue the journey, let's detour to some history regarding long-distance roadways.
The Alaska-Canadian Highway, also known as the Alcan Highway, on North America's northwest coast was built during World War II to ship war materials through Canada and across Alaska so they could be safely shipped across the Bering Sea to the Trans-Siberian Railway to war fronts in Eastern Europe.
The Trans-Labrador Highway has a similar story. Construction began in 1943 at the U.S. Air Force base at Goose Bay in what was then Quebec. At that time there was no road across the area that would become the province of Newfoundland and Labrador in 1949. Everything landed by ship at the end of a 200-mile-long fjord that slices inland from the north Atlantic, which is solid ice nine months a year. That inaccessibility gave birth to the Trans-Labrador Highway.
While the Alcan was built in less than two years, the Trans-Labrador took more than three decades to complete. The first section — through Quebec from the St. Lawrence River — got a real push when iron ore was discovered in eastern Labrador.
Fuel Consumption
Our quest to cover the length of the Trans-Labrador was being done in the two pickup trucks along with a 24-foot trailer; we alternated towing duties between the two vehicles. The trailer acted as a portable storage unit for all our gear: a Yamaha snowmobile, extra parts, gas cans, video equipment, tires and luggage. The extra fuel this combination consumed became a problem as we entered the more remote areas of the highway where fuel stops can be 150 to 250 miles apart. So we always had an extra 15 gallons of fuel in the trailer.
At Labrador City we were already a thousand miles from Toronto, so we had a good handle on the fuel economy. Our average, at that point, was between 14 and 16 mpg. That number puts Toyota's V-8 on par with Ford's and Ram's V-8s.
The EPA lists the trucks at 13/17/15 mpg city/highway/combined. Since both trucks had the 5.7-liter V-8 engine, the old truck gave us the same fuel economy as the 2014 model with or without the trailer.
While towing though, the trailer sucked an extra 7 to 9 mpg off the top. No wonder we ran through fuel so quickly. That's also why every Toyota owner we ran into in Labrador pleaded with us to convince Toyota to offer a larger fuel tank. Labrador isn't called the Big Land for nothing.
The Tundra's fuel tank is 26.4 gallons. Ford offers the largest tank at 36 gallons, while Ram will sell a 1500 with a 32-gallon tank. Chevrolet, like Toyota, only offers a single 26-gallon tank, less than ideal in remote areas we were traveling through. Thankfully, we've heard some rumors that Toyota will offer a larger tank option in the next year or two.
Weather Woes
The Trans-Labrador Highway runs east-west, and each year construction and upgrading continues. Running from Labrador City to Churchill Falls, we found mostly pavement with short 5- to 10-mile interruptions of gravel. During this leg the most challenging aspect of the drive was the weather. While we had left a balmy springlike Toronto three days earlier, we were now back into full-blown winter with temperatures dropping to well below zero and dumping snow — lots of snow. When we pulled into our overnight stop in Churchill Falls we were reminded of just how far north we really were. The sign in our rooms read, "Please don't clean game in your room."
The only reason people live in Churchill Falls is because they work at the second largest hydroelectric dam in the world. For us, it was a stop for fuel and sleep, and a place to use our cellphones. It's here that I got a call from the Newfoundland and Labrador ferry service. It was not good news. Ice had jammed the Strait of Belle Isle (aka Labrador Straits), and the Royal Canadian Navy icebreaker was not available for our crossing to Newfoundland.
When I asked when the ferry would be running again, I was told: "When she's good and ready to give up the straits." In this part of the world you can make plans, but Mother Nature trumps all.
Talking to the locals at breakfast it became apparent that spring ferry delays were common, and there was no point in getting anxious. The guy at the next table leaned into me and asked, "Plan B boy — you got a Plan B don't ya?"
Ah, no we didn't.
We packed up and pushed on westward to Goose Bay hoping the ice would break up in the next day or two.
Plan B Emerges
This 179-mile stretch of the Trans-Labrador is rougher because you cross a mountain range and the amount of gravel road increases. When we arrived in Goose Bay we had done about 75 percent of the highway and decided that if the ferry still wasn't running the following day we'd head back to Toronto. Well, the next day came and the woman at the ferry office told me to stop calling her — she'd call me. (The next time she called me to advise us about the ferry, I was already home.)
A storm blew in and we hunkered down in the hotel planning our next move. With the ferry no longer an option, we decided to go for it — we hadn't driven this far just to turn back.
While the highway had been a mix of pavement and gravel to this point, the last leg from Goose Bay to Red Bay was all gravel, ruts and frozen, slushy dirt.
This is the newest section of the road, open only since 2011. Known as the south coast section of the Trans-Labrador, it is 400 miles of the most gnarly, potholed, mud-bogged road we have ever encountered. And while we assume someday it will be paved, it was an absolute torture in a pickup and the perfect test for the vehicles we brought here.
To make things more interesting, the temperature suddenly shot up into the high 30s, speeding up the melt of the rather dramatic snowdrifts. Now we had ourselves a test. What was a solid ice road started to thaw at an alarming rate. How bad the roads were was brought home to us by our own transit. On the first day the frost was still in the road, so we mostly dealt with surface water. On the second day, running back to Goose Bay, the mud was already 6 to 10 inches deep in places and water-filled potholes were more than 18 inches deep. On the morning of the third day, pulling out of Goose Bay and passing the entry to the south coast road, a large emergency sign flashed "ROAD CLOSED" at anyone dumb enough to attempt the run.
As you can see in our photos, we left the trailer behind in Goose Bay. We were spooked by locals who kept telling us that there was no chance our trailer — with its 6 inches of ground clearance — would make it. So we unhitched the dead weight and left it behind in the care of a local hotel. We didn't doubt the locals' advice, and by this point only half the lights on the trailer worked — we'd torn out the wires at the back and the high marker lights had simply shaken themselves to death.
Until now both trucks had remained on the road, staying out of trouble and negating our use of the tow straps, jacks and tools we brought along for emergencies. That changed when a ditch swallowed up the passenger-side wheels of the 2014 Tundra. (We're pretty sure the Toyota engineers never factored in this kind of situation when designing the truck.) We later learned that in the spring plows push the snow banks way out over the ditches so the water won't run onto the road. Unfortunately this creates a wide, very solid-looking section of groomed snow sitting over a hidden 10-foot ditch. I went to make a U-turn and the truck went down into the ravine like the Titanic.
To its credit the truck was nearly able to climb out by itself, but the more we tried, the deeper the wheels sank until it was in danger of tipping onto its side.
Thankfully the recovery hooks on the front of the Tundra are easy to access. A quick tug from the 2007 model in its four-wheel-drive low-range setting had all four wheels of the 2014 model back on the road without damaging either truck.
We made it to Red Bay on the Atlantic Coast, and it was a welcome sight. A patch of ocean blue mixed with bobbing ice. While this should have been the end, it now simply marked the halfway point. We stopped just long enough to shoot some photos and then we began the 1,770-mile slog back to Toronto.
Return Trip
In total, the trip took 10 days to complete and saw us cover more than 3,600 miles.
A curious sight on the highway in this area was the speed limit sign: 70 kilometers per hour (about 45 mph) is the suggestion. This on a road where you see another vehicle once an hour — perhaps. I mention this because when we decided to do the whole trip to Red Bay and back, we also knew we had only one extra day to play with. Everyone in our crew had commitments waiting. A leisurely drive was not in the cards. So we drove (as I wish I could every day) as fast as the road would allow; sometimes that was 20 mph, and at other times it was 90 mph. As a result, this punishing pace and pounding finally netted our first, and only, malfunction.
During the last leg the 4-High symbol in the center gauge of the '07 starting flashing along with the antilock braking system and traction control lights. Nothing seemed wrong until we discovered that the transfer case would no longer shift into four-wheel drive when asked. We did some preliminary checks of the fuses and relays, but couldn't locate the problem.
Later we learned that we had cracked the housing on the front-wheel ABS sensor — it was repaired at a glass shop with some high-strength glue and zip ties.
Thankfully the '07 traversed the south shore road just fine in two-wheel-drive mode. However, without the vehicle stability control working it was tiring to constantly steer to counteract the tendency for the back end to step out as the front end pushed mud. Meanwhile, in the 2014, the VSC would occasionally cut power and apply brakes to keep the truck going in a straight line. While I've found this annoying on normal roads, with hour after hour at high speeds on the challenging Trans-Labrador the VSC took the pressure off the driver as it nipped any oversteer conditions before they turned into a nasty slide.
Once the vehicles were fully repaired, we turned southwest, bound for home. We ran down the road back into Quebec, where the highway improved as a layer of new (much colder) snow filled in many of the potholes. We then spent three sleep-deprived days covering the same ground that took us five days on the trip out. The last push was 17 straight hours from Baie-Comeau, Quebec, to Toronto.
This is a trip we won't soon forget — in fact, it might be a while before I make fun of a manufacturer's off-road test track again.
To see more photos and several videos they made along the way, click here.
Cars.com photos by Howard J. Elmer
Comments
A great PR stunt!
The roads are all clear (not even a pot hole) - a mini cooper can do better!
Good luck with the rumor of a bigger gas tank. Heard the same thing about the ITBC. Didn't happen. Chevy lied about the gas tank too.
It just came to me why Chevy can't put a bigger gas tank in their truck. If they can't install a little DEF tank correctly, then how would they install a 30+ gal. gas tank. Got to figure out the little things first before moving on to bigger projects.
This truck still baffles me... Worst MPG of the bunch and no available rear locker. Also, for a truck this wide, you have to go all the way to a platinum trim level to get power fold mirrors. This generation just seems halfway done. Toyota was getting there with the last tundra and had a good starting point. Heck.. i don't mind the power train carryover but all in all, they really didn't do anything outside of sheet metal and interior. Throw in DI, MDS, 8 speed... something to make it interesting.
With the 26 gallon tank the Cummins Tundra will have a much improved range.
Good story and adventure, maybe a little to cold.
@David Robertson: April 2nd is NOT June 16th. The roads very probably have been re-graded by now to fill those potholes the trucks found. If you ask me, that's a sign of a country that actually tries to take care of even its worst roads.
I've thought about adding the Transferflow 46 gallon tank to my Tundra, but I wish there was something smaller such as a ~30-36 gallon tank. That's a lot of added weight to keep that 46 gallon tank full, and I've heard issues of condensation and moisture when you don't keep tanks full regularly (I think there was an article on here actually).
My 2500HD (regular cab long bed) has the ~36 (I think) tank and it’s nice to be able to get the extra miles without having to fill up lugging a trailer
Nice story guys. It would be interesting to have a fleet of trucks doing that trek. Ford, Ram, GMC, Toyota and Nissan. Now that would be a better test than taking the trucks to a track to find their 1/4 mile time:)
Here's a crazy, crazy, CRAZY idea. ..
Since two of the issues deal with fuel range and driving into a ditch, why not use your popular website to ask Toyota to improve fuel economy so one could make it to the destination and back on 1 tank? And why not also ask toyota to trim down the size so that you dont need as much road and therefore find yourself in a ditch? Ive been in my fair share of ditches in my tundra too. Twice this year alone in fact.
These are two reason why I have no reason to trade my generation 1 tundra for the current one. They've only made the truck worse. Worse on fuel economy and wider than necessary.
It used to be that you bought a truck to give you the freedom to get out and explore places that cars couldn't go. But more often than not, lately, it seems like cars have the clear advantage. You can do a lot more exploring in a car that gets 40-50 mpg on the highway (I just did Atlanta to Miami in a car on 1fillup in a vw passat.- unbelievable range) and is nimble enough to negotiate narrow roads and city parking.
Every day I come to this site in the hopes I will see an article that gives me some glimmer of promise for advancing trucks and every day I'm disappointed that things are only going backwards. The news here doesn't make me want to buy a truck.... it makes me want to buy a freaking volkswagen. Maybe well see the amarok some day. But I doubt it. I'll keep checking in to putc to see!
Interesting the fuel economy of that truck, especially when you mention the drop in MPG when towing. My EB recently netted me 20.6MPG on a freeway run to get a trailer. Pulling a 10,800 pound toy hauler with four adults and a loaded bed netted me 9.8 MPG which is still better than the 7 mpg you were getting with a much lighter trailer. And I was towing in Utah which isn't exactly flat and at freeway speeds.
So, better unloaded and loaded fuel economy along with a broader torque curve which makes towing easier all the way around? Oh, and let's not forget more capacity than the Tundra in the first place. And a locking rear-diff (which has saved my bacon more than once)? I'll keep my EcoBoost.
Nice article though. Those are tough conditions for any truck. Kind of sounds like driving in the Uintah basin's oil fields in the winter.
All of you guys complaining about the no E-Locker and adding D4S, VVT-IE with an 8-speed are driving me nuts but not for the reason you think. It is annoying because you don't say anything could not be found on Tundra forum. Toyota knows this and are unwilling for financial reasons to make the changes. That is why Mike Sweers comes out and says their is no demand for those features or he wil try and trick you into thinking his powertrains must be better just simply because they are 32 valve DOHC engines when GM's 16 valve OHV engines get better FE, HP and lb ft but he won't mention that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vIzz0TiXU0 and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qK6WJQPLDzI. You guys are beating a dead horse. Toyota's spin doctor Mike Sweers will refute your claim.
The Tundra needs a locker bad. My friend has a Rock Warrior with the 285 BFG all terrians and my Ram has the factory highway tread crapyears and a limited slip. We drag race in the snow from a dead start or while moving and he's never beaten me in a dozen tries. His computer shuts down his power or puts on the brakes at the first sign of wheel spin. It's the worst 4wd truck I have ever driven. If I had the same tires that he did I'd have to wait a week for him to catch up. A lot of people talk bad about LS but I think they work great. It is always engaged except when turning corners. I hated the G80 in my Chevy, always going in or out and banging.
As someone above said it is a PR stunt. Just like pulling the space shuttle. Toyota does PR stunts to show you something is capable and that's why they are not changing it even if it out preformed in the way the competition does it. Another example would be Tundra Deconstructed as it showed 14,000lbs r so didn't break the frame. Yes a high strength, fully boxed rolled formed steel frame GM on the 14's+ and 15+ F10 could weigh less or about even with the Tundra's frame. Open c does help with cyclic loading but I don't think that is something you have to worry about in LD segment. I would go fully boxed today. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNeLQmE1s0M
Its comical to me all the negative comments here about the tundra. always makes me chuckle to see stupid comments like (fredtheman) s friend who doesnt know how to turn on the auto lsd and turn off the trac system on the tundra. its one stupid button........ I would leave your dodge in the snow drift EVERYTIME we started off..... 2wd 4wd whatever.... Peoples lack of learning how their 40k plus rigs work is not a problem of the manufacturer, just the uneducated (about the product) person driving it. maybe this is part the dealerships problem with product training or just peoples inability to retain new info about a vehicle. either way its funny to me..... I also enjoyed the guy who was pulling his 10800lb trailer with an ecoboost getting 9.8mpg on a highway and they were on rutted roads and gravel on mountain terrain...... PUTC's OWN TEST of the ecoboost showed an average of less than 8mpg towing 9k....... towing 8k with my tundra doing 80 with 22's and AT tires i was still averaging 11.3 which is much better than your 9.8 claim... how fast were you going? 65-70? and power claims of torque curve LOL LOL theres a REASON noone has done a towing test of tundra (like equipped) to an ecoboost because the puny v6 loses everytime.... sure if you put a junk tire tundra against a loaded one the ecoboost will fair well but apples to apples it gets whipped by the tundra's 5.7... hate on haters lol
At Hemi lol. This was with the TC off, but it automatically kicks back on at 30mph. Just a little wheel spin makes the speedo hit 30 mph or more and TC comes back on. The Rams TC stays off and only the stability control comes back on at 45 mph. Drop back to 40 mph and stability control kicks back off. Don't even have to press the button again unlike the Tundra. The Tundra is very capable, but the electronics ruin the truck. You can still go anywhere in the Tundra, but not as fast as the other trucks. Prove it to yourself against your buddy's Chevy, Ford, or Ram.
Left one thing out. Auto LSD was on while we were playing around. He cured his problem later by installing ARB's front and rear. Expensive but boy do they work good.
@ Fredtheman hemi lol is a toyota salesman and a troll who talks out his you know what.
@Hemi lol have you gotten your truck reprogramed for the non stock wheels? that can affect your speedo and odometer if the truck is not reprogramed for the tire diamiter, and your odometer would read that you had gone farther than you had. and yes a stock tundra gets better towing MPG than an ecoboost according to the 2013 light duty shootout. but most people who buy half ton trucks tow only on occasions, people who regularly tow that weight get HDs. The ecoboost is designed to be a fuel efficent commuter family truck that can tow on weekends if driven like the average drive 15,000 a year it would be safe to guess that the truck probably drives at least 10-12000 miles every year without a trailer and a few weekends with a boat, atv, snomobiel or travle trailer, the rest of the time its being driven like a sedan as is nearly every halfton truck and probably half the HD trucks out there. Ford even advertised the engine as such v8 towing power when you need it and v6 economy when you dont. There is a reason that more people buy 3.5l v6 trucks than buy 5.7l tundras it suites their needs better, Ford and GM both offer 6.2l engines that out perform the Tundra, but GM still will sell more 5.3s cause thats the right balance of power and fuel economy that the NA consumer wants in their light duty truck. Its also funy that durring the light duty challenge the ecoboost beat the tundra to 60 in all the senarios. infact the only thing the tundra did better than the ecoboost f150 was unloaded autocross, and towing MPG. it must be no fun owning such a dissapointing truck, it got schooled by a more advanced 3.5l twin turbo.
@ Fredtheman
Traction control on a tundra does not come back on in a tundra unless your in 4x4. in 4x4 it does at 30ish. The reason for it going back to safety on is simply for safety sake. the average consumer hasnt a clue how any of it works.
@ carilloskis
its pretty funny how you say i talk out my you know what and the fact is i already pointed out the reasons for the discrepancy in the shootout being from the shitty tires on the tundra. the Ford 6.2 does not outperform the tundra either..... in ANYWAY except advertised HP and Torque...... but the duramax has been busting the "more powerful" powerstokes butt for years so maybe ford stretches those numbers a bit..... Its so funny that a 3rd party (top Gear) that arguably the (non-driver) Rutledge Wood driving a Tundra beat Tanner Foust the professional driver driving the ecoboost........... but hey your the smart one that knows so much... you must have a much better profession than I..... since i'm just a dumb car salesman lol.
Fact of the matter is the Tundra tows better than every gas variation out there period. it also rides MUCH better than every 3/4 ton on the market yet tows like one. so your right the "majority" of society believes what commercials tell them over and over which is why ford does so well. the people that actually educate themselves about what they want your finding more and more of them buying Tundras.
Finally just for the record, the 3.5 ecoboost is more complicated than the tundras 5.7. But i suppose since your so smart you would know that ford basically copied the dual variable valve timing that was standard on the 5.7 4 years before the ecoboost came out..... OH but then the Toyota is more sophisticated..... wow how did that happen???
Hemi lol - thou protest to much. Sales numbers do not lie, but salespeople do.
I am sure the Tundra is a fine vehicle. I have heard they are hard at work developing a Mans model and will release it once they have cleared the multi millions of recalls Toyota is dealing with. Lighten up Francis, Sergeant Hulka has got your back lol . But seriously every Tundra owners I have pulled out of the ditch or snow bank has thanked me, they are a polite bunch.
FORD enters- FORD wins.
I simply don't understand why anybody would pay $8000 to $12,000 MORE for a Tundra than any of the big 3 American Pickup's ?
Can anybody give me just ONE reason why its worth more than a Chevy, Ram or a Ford?
Tom#3 8-12 grand more? Where did you get that from? No the rebates aren't as big but the sticker prices are much lower. You can get a limited crew cab 4x4 sticker for 44K, same truck on the domesics stickers for 50K.
@Tom#3
One reason is easy, they like it. As an example although I bought my 2010 new if someone else had owned my Supercharged 2010 and traded it in I would buy that used before I would by an Ecoboost, 6.2L or Hemi. Another reason is some people are Toyota guys. I try to be fair but not make excuses for the Tundra's short comings. I try to address problems that actually annoy Tundra owners. The thing is the 2014 Tundra may not be worth buying to guys like me who have a 2010 with low miles. The 2014 mechanically is probably 90% of the 2013 with all major components staying the same. The fact remains that so far the 3rd Gen Tundra is how the 2nd Gen Tundra should have ended. The 2nd Gen Tundra mid cycle refresh was in 2010 and that should be when Toyota should have debut the 2014 but due to the global economy and Toyota's market share that refresh didn't go as far as it should. The 3rd Gen Tundra should be addressing the powertrain 4.0L V6 and 4.6L V8 power and FE and the 5.7L V8's FE. An 8-speed auto is needed more than any other 1/2 ton to address those low axle ratios that hurt hwy fuel economy on all 3 engines. They also should have been addressing the chassis for a better ride and less weight.
@Hemi LOL
Those are the tires that toyota thinks will bring out the best all around perfromance in the tundra if they thought the Goodyear wranglers SAs that the domestics had would help the tundra they would have put them on, the auto makers dont have exclusive deals with one tire manufacture so to say that it came down to tires is stupid. go to a ford lot and you will see what I mean you'll see f150s with perrellis , BFGs and Goodyears, you'll see super duties with michilins and goodyears.
I have not watched the american top gear, but can assum based on the fact that i watched every episode of the UK version with Jeremy Clarkson, Richard Hammond and James May, that they did not conduct a scientific test and the results where more a result of luck than anything else. While entertining it does not provide much in the way of consumer advice (i learned that i should not invest into turning a reliant robin into a reusable space shuttle) unless they had the stig drive them around the same track then the resluts are worthless. this web site as do many others do actual scientific test to determine the best vehicle based on results that they share and normally use the sme drivers for all the speed / auto cross tests.
Your just upset that the only thing the Tundra is truly better in any meaning full way than an f150 ecoboost is in MPG towing 8500lbs where it gets .9 miles per gallon better, if you towed that much on a regular basis then the case might be in toyotas favor but the ecobooost gets 4.1MPG better than the toyota empty. For the tundra to pay off at the pump for every mile you drive empty youd need to be driving 4.5 miles towing 8500lbs and if you ar hauling that much all the time your better off with an HD truck other wise your 1/2ton will wear out faster. As most half ton owners dont tow 8500lbs on a daily or even regular basis the ecoboost makes more sense than the tundra.
In my prefession i have been incharge of managing and mainting a fleet of 1400 vehicles from sedans all the way up to apcs but 80% of our vehicles are pickup trucks 1/2ton through 1 ton weing used in abusive environments by people who dont care about a vehicle as they dont own them. we look at the total life time cost of the vehicles we buy, and we have a large variety hyundi, Ford, Chevy, Dogdge/Ram, international,freighliner, CAT, MB, hyster. We look at vehicles that are affordable, efficent, cheap to maintain and reliable.
The tundra does not tow like a 3/4 ton truck, beacuse its not rated to tow that wieght. you try to take a tundra through a scale with a trailer that needs a 3/4 ton to tow it you will get fined most 3/4 tons can tow around 2000lbs more than the tundra 2wd regular cab 5.7 and even more with a fith wheel and will do it better than any halfton. While no HD is as fast as a tundra or anyhalf ton for that matter, they are set up to take abuse dayin and day out.
on the dual variable valve timing ford had it on the 5.4l triton in 2003 when the 3v tritons hit the lots as an 04 modle year i think the 5.7l iforce was copying the 5.4l triton. LOL
"The new 5.4 also is the first Ford modular V-8 to use variable cam timing. Ford claims it’s the industry’s first mass application of dual-equal variable cam timing, where the intake and exhaust valve timing shifts together. "
http://www.pickuptrucks.com/html/autoshows/naias2003/ford/f1505.html
@carilloskis
Thanks for proving my point. If they used the J2807 method for towing those 3/4 ton gas models wouldnt fair so well....... the Tie rods on a tundra are bigger than the all three of the 3/4 ton producers, among many many other items such as brakes, calipers, rear diff, and cooling systems....... you deal with cheap i deal with quality... if you actually spent on quality you would find the overall cost is actually cheaper to own in the long run.. what you meant to say is there is more tax write offs for the crappier product for maintenance costs......
The point about the Tires is PUTC got a MUCH cheaper model of the tundra than the other trucks in the test. do that test again with the michelin AT2's the new TRD off road package sports the results would be much different.... .how scientific can you get when just smashing the throttle on the trucks..... if your auto lsd is on in the tundra the launch is very much different than with it in all safety on mode (just starting it up)
And finally, single vvt engine or a single camshaft per side engine changing timing Toyota used many years before that. heck they had DOHC with vvt on intake in 94 on the lexus sc400...... The Tundra's engine can advance/retard the intake cam 30 degrees either direction and 15 degrees either direction on the exhaust camshaft SEPERATE of each other..... totally different ballgame all together..... This is the reason at 401lb. ft. that 5.7 I-force outdoes the 3.5 twin screw's 420lb. ft. DESPITE the fords steeper gearing. Salesman i may be but almost 20 years building custom vehicles means i know a thing or two as well. If you truly knew as much as you claim OR if you ever actually stopped to really learn about the inner workings of a Tundra your comments would be very different. This is fact no matter which way you want to twist it. good day
@Hemi Lol they said what they did to test zero to sixty times and they treated all the trucks the same during that test . that is a sicentific experiment to see which gets to 60 the fastest. Just cause its bigger doesnt make it better, the tundra had the wordt stoping distance of all the trucks during the 2013 shoot out infact every other half ton truck with 1200lbs in the bed stopped shorter than an empty tundra, or is that the tires fault? there are diffrent grades of steel that need diffrent thicknesses to be just as strong, think about it if you made a tie rod out of wood it would have to be massive to have the same strenght as one of plastic or steel. the efficency of items such as cooling systems is more important than size.
How does the tundra outdo the 3.5 twin screw? every independent test from pickuptrucks.com, TFLTruck etc. shows ecoboosts destroying tundras in prefromance
And yes i spend my mony on quality items that have a lower cost to run, like my guns , tools, fruniture, electronics etc. I own a Raptor because its a quality vehicle that has to handle the abuse that i throw at it, i doubt a tundra would hold up to what i do with my raptor, I will sign a diffrent tune if toyota gives me a tundra to drive around in the same manner and if it holds up then ill be impressed, but my truck works great at 73k hard miles and it is paid for.
As far as engin tech is concerened this is the enjine in my dads 93 taurrus
The SHO V6 was a high-tech and revolutionary design when it debuted in 1988. Displacing 3.0 L (2986 cc/182 cu in), it was an iron block, aluminum head 24-valve DOHC engine with an innovative variable length intake manifold.
Why can't everybody who likes pickups get along, enjoy what they have in common and appreciate that differences to suite our individual preferences.
Marketers always put their product strengths against others weaknesses, it's intentional to avoid direct comparison - and why a large part of the pro auto journalism trade makes money on compare and shootouts... they attempt the impossible in declaring the apple better than the orange.
Big 3 sells more than Toyota, numbers don't lie, must be better BS is just that, BS! What about selling more makes anything better when marketers (the ultimate salespeople) who know nothing and care less of quality are the ones convincing the hurd to buy another.... what about cheap or even free makes something right or better. They all have a purpose, strengths and weaknesses... and we all prefer different things. my buddy likes chrome, I like blacked out... we both have nice trucks.
You see, there is no end to numbers... and apples are not oranges... none are ever 'better', only different. better suited to a person or purpose perhaps, but not overall. The sooner we all get that and get along, the sooner we will benefit from others have and know.
I have friends with all other brands of truck, we all know what we have that is better and what others have better. Some don't care my whole back Window opens, rear seat slides and reclines, and tailgate is damped/assisted... others love it and wish they had it. Do I wish I had a better ride and bigger tank - yes. We all compromise on somethings, we are all different, and so are our trucks.
Take pride in your ride, whatever it is and stop hating on others that take pride in theirs because it different. Would you want all of us driving the same exact truck as you?
You can like stuff without committing to it, nothing wrong with appreciating ones neighbor while married to another eh...
Howard J. Elmer is supposed to be the guy that does the Canadian Truck King challenge.
Funny to see the Tundra in the ditch - typical city slicker "never driven in the north" mistake.
When winter roads are plowed graders "wing" the snow out to the side. When things are frozen solid you can often get away with driving onto the crust of snow BUT when things start to melt this crust will not support the weight of a vehicle.
Do not go close to the edge of the road because you do not know where the edge really is.
Howard Elmer
It is really nice to see real and unbiased reporting on the Tundra. If anyone has really taken the time to watch all the videos you guys made; they would notice a couple of very interesting points.
A used 2007 Tundra with 70,000 miles made the full trip too with only an ABS connector coming lose. And there are lot of Tundra’s up there at work in the fields as revealed in your video report. Pretty much all the Super Duty’s of that age have long since bitten the dust.
Thanks again for the honest reporting.
A locking diff would have helped the truck get out easily without assistance. Toyota should be embarassed that the Tundra was stuck in such a situation. It was barely off the road! Geez Toyota. Just cancel the Tundra and build a bunch of minivans if the traction assist is so weak. No longer considering the Tundra as a half ton 4x4 alternative.
@Coolhand223 - wrong, I've seen that sort of thing multiple times. Even a PowerWagon with front and rear locking diffs would not get out of that. The truck is totally hung up on the axles and frame.
The comments to this entry are closed.