Bland and with a very generic Toyota SUV corporate look.

You'll need that 38 gallon tank cuz it's mileage is horrible!

The Cummins V8 diesel would fit perfect. I think that rocking sales of the coming Nissan Titan with the same engine will be a trigger for the same option in Tundra

This is the most traditional truck in the half ton class. Big v8, tall, most ground clearance in the class, no low hanging skirts, 4.30 gears, 10.5" ring gear, and top package is $13,000 cheaper than the big 3.

Now biggest gas tank in the class (I see some super duty trucks with 26 gallon tanks), and the trailer brake controller (finally). IMO, I don't care about mpgs, I have a commuter vehicle for that, this would be my choice for a 1/2 ton pickup.

The $13k premium saved on luxury trims (1794/Platinum vs the big 3 will buy a lot of gas.

I wonder how hard it would be to retrofit the fuel tank to an older Tundra. I think it is appalling for any pickup to only have a 26 gallon tank. Would love this tank on my Tundra.

Was hoping to see an 8-speed tranny at the very least of the changes.I'm betting the 2018 models will see major changes,and will be looking to trade my 2007 in on another Tundra!!

Seems funny that we complain (me too) about "small" fuel tanks when in the 70s & 80s, 16 gallon tanks were common place.

Who buys a pickup truck for mileage?.

T snowhound - Who doesn't buy a pickup truck for mileage? Just because someone needs a truck doesn't mean they want to waste all their money at the gas station.

John - You state how much you can save over the top trim, which can buy a lot of gas, yet you have a separate vehicle. A separate vehicle (which for comparable luxury is far more than that $13k you state) and then you have to pay separate plates, insurance and maintenance. How in the world can you save money like this? Simple answer, you can't. There are a lot of people that need trucks, but don't work them every day. In which case it is still FAR more economical to have one truck that gets good gas mileage and eliminate the extra vehicles.

Why care about MPG??? It doesn't matter if you use your truck as the all around family hauler, weekend warrior truck or your weekday office to and from your work sites....The MPG is money out of your pocket. Its a business truck...why should I care. MPG is money out of the company pocket. If its a smaller company or you are a subcontractor, a $100 per month difference in fuel costs is $1200 per year. That's more Christmas presents I can buy for my kids. That's a new set of tires or airfare for the family vacation. Saying you don't care about MPG usually means you are lost in your own rhetoric about what your testosterone filled rant is on what a pickup truck "should" be. Everyone else who has to balance expenses love the most fuel efficient truck that does the same work because it costs less money to drive and means it costs less to haul the family, go camping, go off-roading, make money doing work because every project has those surprise runs to the box stores for parts, etc.

My last one came with Bilstein shocks and first thing I did was take them off and put a set of Rancho's on. Road much better on road and thru pastures....

"My last one came with Bilstein shocks and first thing I did was take them off and put a set of Rancho's on. Road much better on road and thru pastures...."

Hope you saved the Bilsteins. Those Ranchos will be blown before you hit 20k miles. First thing most people who get Ranchos do is dump them for Bilsteins. LOL

@Frank Martin

Honest question, how much are you driving per month where you see a difference of $100 at the pump?

By my calculations an increase of 2 MPG at $2.80 per gallon equals a difference of 2.5 cents per mile when comparing 14 MPG and 16 MPG.

I use those numbers based on the city MPG for my truck. Using the highway MPG (18 vs 20) the difference per mile goes down to 2 cents.

Using those numbers you would have to drive 4,000 city miles per month or 5,000 highway miles per month to see a $100 difference.

What kind of work trucks would do this?

Doesn't Toyota own Hino which manufactures diesel engines? Why don't they just develop one for the tundra? Also, I wonder how the Ram fans feel about not being the only pickup with a Cummins anymore.

"Hope you saved the Bilsteins. Those Ranchos will be blown before you hit 20k miles. First thing most people who get Ranchos do is dump them for Bilsteins. LOL"

Nope threw the Bilsteins in the dumpster, Rancho's lasted about 100,000 miles before I bought a another set. Would rather spend $200 on a good set of shocks every 100,000 miles then get beat to death all the time....and I am not kidding

They had the trailer brake controller and 38 gallon tank on the option list for 2014 on nada guides.com then they disappeared.

Toyota, put a diesel in your trucks.

@ Murican
We got the best design in diesel engines, inline cummins!
Not just the name

I hope you can get the TRD PRO pkg. with the upper trim levels. Not the TRD Off Road Pkg.

Wow, 2016 model and it still looks the 2007 model....

The largest standard tank on a GM truck is 26 gallons, you can find it in the fine print on the brochure. My 2014 F150 6.2 has a 35 gallon standard. My 2009 F150 4x2 5.4 has the 26 gallon tank. When towing and your getting 8 to 10 MPG you need the bigger tank or your stopping every 150 miles for fuel.

I still believe the Toyota 5.7 V8 and the 6 speed auto along with the 4.30 rear end gear has the best over all performance and drive ability of any gas half ton. I have not driven the new GM 6.2 with 8 speed thou.

Fords 5.0 as well as the 3.5 ecoboost according to PUTC v8 light duty and annual physical tests get the best mpg's towing. 1 mpg better then the premium gas required 6.2 gm. The ram hemi and the Toyota get the worst mpg's unloaded and can't break into double digit mpg's while towing. But the Toyota is better looking and way more reliable then the ram. I think the ram requires 89 octane though while the Toyota can run regular gas

nice rig, but i'm considering the titan with the diesel. gonna test drive one as soon as they come out.

@'Murican
Japanese Diesel engines, including the Isuzu designed Duramax, are not known for torque and power. Reliability ,lightweight , fuel economy , yes

The smallest Hino would be a 7.5 litre thing. The 5.9 Cummins which was jointly designed by Fiat Powertrain, now IVECO and Cummins, would be a lot better, having the horsepower and torque of the European units. IVECO and Cummins have both 6.7 litre versions. The IVECO/CNH version used in Agricultural machinery

@ scott, dont always believe the tests hype on towing with these trucks or not towing for that matter. I can tell you, towing with a 09 Ram and the hemi, I consistantly got 10.2 hand calculated and that was with my 6500lb travel trailer(known weight as I weighed both truck and trailer), its more in the set up when towing to achieve better MPG's than it is just saying said engine cant get double digits, sure they can and do every day.

The toyota is a nice truck for sure

@Robert Ryan "Japanese diesel engines, including the Isuzu designed Duramax, are not known for torque and power." Have you ever driven or towed with a Duramax? The current 6.7 Cummins cannot touch it with 100lb ft. more torque, when equipped with similar gearing. At 860+ lbs. I would not call it light weight.

I have not spent a lot of time in the newer Toyotas. But I think they should dispose of the huge center console and free up some space.

@ Scott Um no the ecobust didn't get the best towing mpg in the annual physical test. Both eco bust score the lowest.

http://special-reports.pickuptrucks.com/2015/01/2015-annual-physical-fuel-economy.html

The 5.0L did score better though in the light duty v8 test which it should of since the GM trucks were 6.2L

http://special-reports.pickuptrucks.com/2015/01/2015-light-duty-v-8-challenge-fuel-economy.html

Scott is just a blow hard Ford salesman. The only reason PUTC doesn't ban his @$$ is because he's drunk on the koolaide. Scott does have a lot in common with Ford. You can't trust their payload numbers. You can't trust their MPG ratings. You can't trust Scott's statements.

Boring......

@johnny doe. When cross referenced the annual physical PUTC hooked to 6800 lbs to the 3.5 ecoboost instead of the lower 4200lbs trailer weight the rest of the v6's pulled for the test..... It has the * Behind the 3.5 mpg table to lead you to the bottom notation stating 6800lbs. The reason was to have the 3.5 eco pull weights of the v8 to make a direct comparison to the 6700 lb weight the v8's used in there test. 3.5 ecoboost got 11.1 mpg pulling 6800lbs. Pulling 6700 lbs the 5.0 got 11 mpg's, the 6.2 Chevy got 10.2 mpg, the 6.2 gmc got 10mpg the ram hemi got 9.7 mpg and the tundra got 9.1 mpg.

@hemi v8
Very nice constructive informative comment as usual by you. Just proves what I spoke is true and you know it and all you have is personal attacks in response.

@HK
@Frank Martin

Honest question, how much are you driving per month where you see a difference of $100 at the pump?

By my calculations an increase of 2 MPG at $2.80 per gallon equals a difference of 2.5 cents per mile when comparing 14 MPG and 16 MPG.

I use those numbers based on the city MPG for my truck. Using the highway MPG (18 vs 20) the difference per mile goes down to 2 cents.

Using those numbers you would have to drive 4,000 city miles per month or 5,000 highway miles per month to see a $100 difference.

What kind of work trucks would do this?

More than you think. my bro in law owns his own construction co and he averages 50-60K miles a year on his truck
Small owners have to do the bidding, get supplies, tools, rentals, pull permits, go to bank, all on several jobs going at once.
He switched from 6.0 gas to a duramax and loves it. mpg better and tows anything he need to.

the turbo charged motors tow way better than non turbo charged ones. Its like driving with the brakes on once you try a turbo. i dont care what i get for mileage i like going fast towing i pull by cars going 90 mph with ease. ill take what i like. you can have what you like. but to put one down for your own reasons is just stupid. give it up!

To bad Mitsubishi does not make a truck, we could buy theirs since they finally apologized for the way they treated US POW's during WW II, unlike other Japanese companies

Sorry Scott but no where in the annual physical PUTC test does it say that the ecoboost trucks pulled more weight then the other trucks.

"Because we planned to have six trucks for our fuel-economy test day, we scheduled five stops to allow for driver changes to make sure we equalized any single-driver (good or bad) habits and weight. Since we wanted to test the fuel efficiency of each of these powertrain combinations over the same route when towing a decent load, we contacted our friends at Imperial Trailers and got three identically sized and weighted double-axle three-stall Logan Coach horse trailers. Each of the three trailers weighed 4,200 pounds. In the name of full disclosure, we weighed each trailer and found we needed to add a few bags of rock salt to two of the trailers, so our heaviest trailer became our standard weight.

With three trailers and six trucks we were able to make two complete drive loops of our test loop in a single day, driving each truck over the route once empty and once again with a trailer in tow. Once we made our first loop, we swapped the trailers onto the three pickups that had just run the route empty, and we were on our way. By the end of the day we had both empty and loaded fuel-economy numbers for our trucks."

http://special-reports.pickuptrucks.com/2015/01/2015-annual-physical-fuel-economy.html

Toyota...building the ugliest vehicles on the road since 2003.

One ugly truck on the outside , the original year 2009 I think didn't look bad, but the update they gave it is horrible.

@johnny doe. In the "overview" tab of the annual physical test it states the following.

Finally, in the name of full disclosure, due to a complicated set of timing circumstances, the F-150 2.7-liter EcoBoost loaded acceleration and braking data was collected with 1,240 pounds of payload in the bed, whereas the F-150 3.5-liter EcoBoost was track-tested (loaded numbers only) with 1,080 pounds of payload — the same amount of weight all the other V-6s carried during testing. Also, during our Davis Dam testing, the F-150 2.7-liter EcoBoost pulled the lighter 4,200-pound Logan horse trailer, whereas the F-150 3.5-liter EcoBoost was tested with the heavier 6,800-pound horse trailer, just like the V-8s in our Light-Duty Challenge pulled.

http://special-reports.pickuptrucks.com/2015/01/2015-annual-physical-overview.html

Also there is an * behind the 3.5 Eco total mpg listed in the towing mpg graph. Just below that towing mpg graph it states the * denotes the 3.5 ecoboost pulled 6800 lbs.

Argue all you want but I'm correct and you are wrong.

Scott sorry I did miss that info, my bad your right. Shh don't tell no one since I'm just a crazied GM fan boy. Chucky cheesy will have a hay day now opps.

@Dave--I had a Mitsubishi Mighty Max pickup for over 14 years, great little truck and I had 200k on the odometer.

Johnny doe
No prob. I won't tell anyone. I actually like gm's, just prefer fords. I'm just here to plumb up and correct those ram guys.... Hard to believe those hemi guys actually believe they get better mpg's then a ecoboost. Some how they are satisfied with worse in class performance and mpg's from there gas motors.

Just look what happened when they put the 6.4 hemi up against the 6.0 Chevy on TFLtruck gauntlet!!!!

This is sad.

Toyota is still humping the same basic truck they were selling almost 10 years ago. New lipstick every few years but the same truck.

Toyota could decide to get serious but they're waiting for Nissan to push them into last place when the new Titans come out. Mistake.

The pickup market is poised to do very well if there's any kind of economic uptick during the next couple of years and Toyota will be behind the curve when it hits.

@Scott, if I gave a $#!+ about fuel economy in my truck it sure as hell wouldn't be an Eco burst. It would be the class leading Ram. :-)

I hope there is more to the 2016 model than this. Over the past 15 years I have owned 2 tundras. Both the first model years the redesigns and I am ready for the next generations. Unless they come out with a diesel or serious update I will happily continue driving my current trick - point being - no new sale for Toyota.

Toyota makes great trucks. In my 15 years of ownership of the Tundra and two Land Cruisers all I have done is oil, brakes and tires.

Japanese Diesel engines, including the Isuzu designed Duramax, are not known for torque and power.
Posted by: Robert Ryan |

/QUOTE
No torque huh?

http://youtu.be/Zu1htKJSRLE

That is a great looking vehicle and unlike the crappy domestics and Italian trucks it will actually last 300,000 miles.

@HEMI V8

The only thing the turd Ram is leading the class in is most breakdowns.

@mark49
The Duramax is not a engine that can be used as a true HD engine.
You can get a 6.7 litre Volvo, that has 400hp and 975lbs ft of torque, that can be placed in a F650 equivalent Truck without being downrated
Cummins was designed as a heavy cycle engine, the Duramax was not.
Isuzu make heavy cycle 7.7 and 9.8litre engines heavy cycle engines, they do not sell the Duramax outside NA
When the Duramax was placed in the now defunct GM Medium Duties it was downrated to 300hp and 500lbs ft of torque, for longevity

Toyota needs to step up to the plate here and give this truck a modern 7-8sp transmission. They had the current 6-sp since '07 and with the 4.30 rear gears ratio, fuel economy is miserable. An 8-sp would improve mpg numbers and boost performance while keeping it competitive with the big gun 6.2L 8-sp in the GM twins and the 1QX80 sourced VK56VD 7sp in the next gen gas Titan.