Toyota Serves Up Small Upgrades for 2020 Tundra TRD Pro: Video

2018 Toyota Tundra Exterior

Pickup truck news dominates the 2019 Chicago Auto Show, which runs through Monday. It's a show heavy on heavy-duty truck reveals along with buzz about mild updates to the 2020 Toyota Tacoma. Not to be left out, the full-size Toyota Tundra TRD Pro also showcased a few minor changes and upgrades for the 2020 model year; we took advantage of our time at the auto show to get a closer look in the video below.

Related: More 2019 Chicago Auto Show Coverage

For 2020, the Tundra will get keyless entry and push-button start for the TRD Pro trim level, which brings remote start capability to the aging half ton. This addition is a long time coming, since competitors have offered these features for several years.

Another welcome change since the current-generation Tundra was refreshed in 2014 is the addition on the TRD Pro of a larger 8-inch color touchscreen to control the climate, audio and navigation systems. A premium JBL premium sound system is now available for the Tundra TRD Pro, too. The new touchscreen brings Apple CarPlay and Android Auto smartphone integration.

Another significant, value-packed change for the 2020 Tundra is that the TRD Pro can be had in double-cab or CrewMax configurations. Previously, the popular TRD Pro was offered with the largest — and most expensive — CrewMax cab. We're told the double-cab model will offer a significant discount.

The 2020 Tundra TRD Pro will go on sale in late summer, with pricing announce shortly before.

More From PickupTrucks.com

Cars.com photos by Christian Lantry

 

 

Comments

Mike Sweers, you are destroying Toyota trucks. Good job.

Mike Sweers, all it takes is for someone like you to ruin the Toyota brand!!!

Another great PUTC commentary and video. During the last few months I've taken fuller notice of the really grim coverage that pickups get in most other media.

Some sources are what I call brand-wh*res and other suffer simply from the lack of qualified talent. When I'm reading Mark W's stuff I can be confident that he's speaking from a perspective of a guy who keeps up on the subject matter and actually seems to like trucks.

That kind of familiarity should be the table-stakes for journalism of this sort but it's amazing how often I see a "truck" story on other sites written by guys who don't even own trucks. They universally pan trucks, and the guys who own 'em, for being "too big" or (ugh) not fitting in a garage. I saw a story today where the reviewer wasn't even an American. @%&*!

Anyway keep up the great work PUTC

Gas mileage sucks. I'll never bother putting a Toyota in the running.

I really like the rugged looks of this truck. Still looks good for its age

But powertrain needs updated, along with cheap plastic interior.

I think this is mistyped or you used the wrong words, but the Tundra has had factory remote start as an option since 2007. This is the first time it is getting push button start.

"For 2020, the Tundra will get keyless entry and push-button start for the TRD Pro trim level, which brings remote start capability to the aging half ton"

Also how can you write an article about the 2020 Tundra, focus majority of your article on the TRD Pro trim, and use a generic SR5 Tundra as the picture instead of the TRD PRO?

I think this is mistyped or you used the wrong words, but the Tundra has had factory remote start as an option since 2007. This is the first time it is getting push button start.

"For 2020, the Tundra will get keyless entry and push-button start for the TRD Pro trim level, which brings remote start capability to the aging half ton"

Also how can you write an article about the 2020 Tundra, focus majority of your article on the TRD Pro trim, and use a generic SR5 Tundra as the picture instead of the TRD PRO?

@ Don,

Is that all you care about is fuel mileage like with most sheeple in this nation called liberals?

You want fuel mileage, buy a car and stop ruining the truck market with your liberal nonsense!

@ oxi

Come on man. When the competition has bigger engines and higher HP/TQ. along with more gears amd gets way better FE than the Tundra ya.....u need to update.

The three tundras in the family never got better than 16 mpgs. Heck my 97 chevy 5.0L still averages 16.5mpgs on the highway.

This interior, though dated, looks nicer than the awful mess in the new GM full size trucks

This interior, though dated, looks nicer than the awful mess in the new GM full size trucks...Posted by: papajim | Feb 13, 2019

FAKE papa

@papajim

I agree wholeheartedly with your positive comments about Mark Williams and PUTC! What a great resource this website is, and I have always thought Mark does an excellent job of not showing bias! I wish we had this sort of non-biased coverage in other media. I have been coming to this website, for around 15 years, and it has always been one of my favorite websites to visit! Keep up the great work PUTC!

I kept reading about a full re-design of the Tundra for 2020, what happened? I for one, thought the 2007 Tundra was actually quite competitive...I know they have changed the grill a couple of times since 2007 and added a couple of new exterior colors, and maybe they changed the dash too, oh and I think they increased the size of the touch screen by an inch? I think it would be good for the full-sized truck market to have a more competitive Tundra in the mix. Yes, I know and agree it is reliable, but it isn't very competitive by most any other measure.

@Mark Williams
Toyota's Hilux is going to do the seemingly impossible and outsell the ENTIRE GM line up in Australia. Gives you an idea of the appalling state of GM here.Even Ford is relatively better. Sad times for what was an icon in Australia
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-12/bill-shorten-inflicted-a-historic-humiliation-on-scott-morrison/10805252

@ Mark Williams....wrong article
Here it is and it is pretty grim reading
https://www.whichcar.com.au/news/toyota-hilux-on-target-to-outsell-entire-holden-range

@ Mark Williams
I agree you do a pretty good job reporting the current US Pickup news, another site that also specialises in Pickups is very very good.
Unfortunately another blog that has a more Generic approach to its subjects is pretty awful. It was the one that said you had two change the front wheels on the Ranger to change the oil!!!

Come on Toy. Not saying you gotta bring it like Fiat or Ford, but you could at least catch up to GM and stop trying to stay even with the Titan in this market.

I always visit this website, almost every other day. I like looking at the pictures of the new trucks and reading the description of features, and technical details. Very interesting content.

Agree the Tundra could stand a serious update but it is about one of the most durable and reliable full size trucks you can buy. I wonder if Toyota has questioned whether it is worth it to try to design an all new truck after Nissan's new Titan. Very hard to get loyal GM, Ford, and Ram truck owners to switch.

@Jeff s

Well said, I agree 100%.

@Jeff S

Not true. I’ve been driving Fords and GMs for years, finally tried a Tundra, I prefer them by a long shot.

As for Ram, I couldn’t fit into my wife’s clothes well enough to be caught driving one of them lol.

@ TNTGMC,

So if they all jump of a cliff, you will definitely follow them!

How come Johnny gets whip cream on his ice cream, I want whip cream too!!!

Really, just because one company does something, all others have to follow? Toyota typically charts their own course with not only the Tundra but the Tacoma. Hence why the Tacoma (and Frontier) are still around and were never cut from production, hmmm...

Toyota must be doing something right and folks are still buying them unlike Nissan where they are cutting production. Remember Toyota has a Tacoma factory going online soon, yep, another whole factory so they can free up capacity for the Tundra when it gets updated soon.


Toyota knows what they are doing, hence still the best ran auto giant the world has ever known.

@Brad--You are in the minority. I am glad you like your Tundra and it is serving you well, but most truck owners are very loyal to their brand. I know individuals that have always bought Ford trucks and would never even look at another brand even though it might be better and the same is true with many Chevy truck owners. I doubt most Ram owners want to fit in their wife's clothes. The Ram is a nice truck my only reservation is past issues with reliability.

Jeff S thinks Brad is "in the minority."

Let that sink in.

Jeff is one of the ten (or so) people in the whole US who will admit to moving from the very prosperous state of Texas aka the Republic of Texas, to the Socialist Republic of Kentucky---aka The Worker's Paradise---a state most sensible people cannot get away from fast enough.

Sometimes you just have to let people talk...

@papajim--There you go again with the insults. Are you saying that you a Chevrolet truck fan boy would consider buying a Toyota truck? This I got to see. You bash all other brands. At least I am not bashing Brad's choice. As for KY I moved there at the time because I was given a house and land and at the time Houston was going through a major recession during the mid to late 80's. I got a job and have done well. Anymore insults go ahead. At least I am working which is more than you can say.

@papajim--Soon you will be buying Chinese made Silverados. Oh I forgot GM uses mostly Chinese parts so in a sense Silverados are Chinese. Better a Toyota made in Texas with US parts than a Silverado made with Chinese parts. On top of that GM borrowed money from the US taxpayers and payed it back with TARP money. How much more socialist can you get. Bailed out with taxpayer money and repaid the loan with taxpayer money. Like to hear what oxi's opinion is on Government Motors.

@oxi--Agree Toyota is much better run than GM. The taxpayers did not have to bail out Toyota. Also Toyota doesn't have to sell off pieces of themselves to manipulate their stock price and earnings per share. Toyota plans for the long term and GM liquidates itself for short term gain. Guess which one will be around in 20 or 30 years?

@ Oxi

I totally agree with the heads who are running the company. I am not a fan of what GM is doing.

I'm just talking about the truck in general. It's needs updated to address the terrible fuel economy and performance of their ancient power-trains and cheap plastic interiors. They are Gawd awful!

I noticed how you didn't answer on those questions.

@ Oxi

I totally agree with the heads who are running the company. I am not a fan of what GM is doing.

I'm just talking about the truck in general. It's needs updated to address the terrible fuel economy and performance of their ancient power-trains and cheap plastic interiors. They are Gawd awful!

I noticed how you didn't answer on those questions.

It's almost embarrassing to read some of the financially illiterate crap I hear on this comments page.

Here's a news flash: Executives at large corporations are paid by the Board of Directors to do a job and follow orders.

If they refuse, or cannot fulfill the board's directives, they get shown the door. What part of that is hard to understand?

The present CEO at GM is a 30 year employee at the company and is very conscious of the direction the board has chosen for running (saving?) the company, and optimizing shareholder value.

Most companies in the auto industry today have too much manufacturing capacity. It is a long term problem across the industry.

Which one of you financial geniuses can correctly explain HOW they got into that situation (too much capacity)?

@TNTGMC--I like the GM products better than I like their leadership. I wouldn't have brought up the bailout except papajim goes on and on about my living in Kentucky and about owning an Isuzu made in a GM factory. Papajim decided to get into name calling. He looks for opportunities to call KY names. He called KY socialist but he is so hypocritical that he won't admit that GM was not any better with their taking taxpayer money. I moved to KY at the time to get a job after going thru a major economic downturn in Houston. Never thought I would leave Texas but sometimes you have to do what you have to do and I needed a job. Much easier for papajim to arm chair critique especially when he has no skin in the game. He is full of it.

Agree I had good ownership experiences with my 4 GM products but I do not approve of what Barra and company are doing with GM and I don't like the GM selling Chinese made Buicks in the US and soon to be Chinese made flag ship Cadillac sedan. If they are going to do that then be honest about it and pass the savings off to the customer instead of fattening Barra and Cos. wallets.

@Jeff

Why do GM and the rest of the industry suffer from excess capacity? Hint: It's not because Ford and GM bought operations in the EU...

Never thought I would leave Texas but sometimes you have to do what you have to do and I needed a job---Jeff S

So, let me make sure I understand...Texas probably the biggest job-producing state in the entire US during the last 30 years, with the possible exception of California---and YOU LEFT TEXAS to find a job in Kentucky, which is one of the two or three least productive states in the whole damn country.

C'mon. Is that a joke?

@papajim--I totally understand what you are saying but GM has no end game as to how they are going to grow. Some of the talk coming from GM is to make Cadillac the electric car and suv brand which is the current flavor of the month at Cadillac after chasing BMW customers and latte bars. Buick still exists in the US because the Chinese buy Buicks. GM has allowed Buick to languish. Either do something with Buick or make it a Chinese exclusive because Buick is no longer Buick. You could take the same Buicks and rebadge them as nicer Chevies. If the strategy is to sell off what your competitors or willing to buy and close the rest over a period of time then Barra and the Board are successful. They will get a nice golden parachute and then move on to the next target.

@papa

Texas suffered a severe economic downturn in the 1980's due to an oil bust. While much of the rest of the country did exceedingly well economically in the 1980's following the 1982 recession, Texas did not.

not talking about the 80s. I referred to the last 30 years.

Texas at one time had an economy that was overly dependent on a single commodity---oil. Since 1990 there have only been brief spells where Texas wasn't one of the leading states in the US in most key metrics, including job creation.

@papajim--So let me understand you seem to be an expert about all industry and believe you know everything but you don't know anything about the oil bust of the 80's and the near collapse of the oil industry due to over capacity. Try being one of three hundred laid off in a single day and carrying your personal items home in a box. I worked part time for several years waiting for things to get better. Since you probably are so perfect and have never had to start over you don't have any idea what it is like to start over. I did and it took me years but I was successful. I will admit I am not perfect and many times going thru hard times makes you stronger. Maybe I made a mistake telling you this since you will go on and on about this using it as a battering ram on me. I am not ashamed of this because I was able to start over. If that is how you get your jollies then you are a pathetic human.

@papajim--And yes I am talking about the 80's but this is typical of your twisting things around. I was raised in Texas and the last thing I wanted to do was leave but I did and Kentucky is not as backward as you imagine. There are people who live in Kentucky that actually work and pay taxes and I might live in Kentucky but I work in Cincinnati, OH. You do know that Northern KY is across the Ohio River from KY and people who live in Northern KY commute to Cincinnati. Did you also know that CVG (the Cincinnati airport) is located in Northern KY. Before you claim to know anything about Kentucky at least use google. You have heard of Amazon haven't you? Google Amazon and CVG.

Northern KY is across the Ohio River from Cincinnati, OH. You have heard of Cincinnati OH? Have you heard of Proctor and Gamble? You have heard of GE Aviation and their jet engine plant in Evandale? Google is full of all kinds of information if you care to use it.

@papajim--30 plus years ago was the 80's. Do the math.

@papajim--I totally understand what you are saying
Posted by: Jeffrey D. SproulS | Feb 15, 2019

You sure as hell don't sound like it. Let me spell it out.

Of all people you're the guy that loves going-on about Edward Deming. Deming showed the world's manufacturers that you can use LESS capacity to make MORE stuff without sacrificing quality.

Due to ideas like Kaizen and Lean Manufacturing and Deming Principles, the owner of an asset like a big manufacturing plant can create efficiencies and reduce costs while increasing throughput. Eli Goldratt preached about that too. Because of this, a plant having a capacity of X can be improved to increase its capacity to X plus. When this happens the result is greater capacity (without building more shop floor space).

During the post war years Ford GM and Chrysler all operated on the idea that you increased shop floor space if you wanted to out-produce your competitors.

During the 1990s the US dollar was so strong that American auto makers bought plants (and entire companies) which actually accelerated their increases in excess capacity.

Is capacity bad? Not unless you have too much---even efficient operations can still be a drag on profits if you're forced to maintain more capacity than you need.

Nobody in Detroit wants to admit they're over capacity. They all are.

I thought this stuff wasn't that hard to grasp.

@papajim--Again you are not comprehending what I wrote. GM needed to cut production of less profitable vehicle but GM does not have an end game to grow. GM is banking on China but China is not doing so great for GM. Lackluster products and mismanagement at Cadillac and Buick are not helping GM to grow. GM also needs a person at the head who actually has a passion for vehicles and wants their vehicles to be better than the competition. Cost cutting by closing plants and selling off assets is not the only action that is needed you actually have to make a product that buyers want more than your competitors products or you will lose. Growing up Cadillac was a brand that my parents and their generation aspired to one day own. Cadillac is now a shell of what they were and what made Cadillac great is now gone. Now those highly paid GM officers have decided that going all electric will save the brand. Buick was just one rung below Cadillac on the ladder and GM has managed to let it languish. No extra products to cut from Buick without it going out of existence. Chevrolet has a lot more potential and it is the breadwinner. Screw up and its finished. GM has gotten GMC right by making it a more premium brand. Even the GMC marketing especially the TV commercials are much better and more to the point than the pathetic Chevy "Real People" ads and "Is That a Buick". My answer is no that is a Buick in name only but it is a tarted up Chevy with a higher price.

Be efficient and reduce costs but have a product that customers actually desire and want to buy over the competitors. All the discounts and rebates cannot make up for mediocre products that are soon forgotten. With the exception of Corvette, the body on frame GM suvs, and the Denali trimmed Sierras GM doesn't really have a product that makes you got have it. GM even screwed up the Camaro. I am not a Mopar fan but they make some products that I actually lust after. I have to admit that even though I don't need or want a larger vehicle I actually like the Challenger, Charger, and the Ram trucks. These are actually vehicles that you take notice of and will take a second look at.. GM has for the most lost this. Even Toyota has added a little more bazaz to the Camry and Corollas which are for the most part bland appliance like vehicles that people buy because they are reliable.

Cost cutting by closing plants and selling off assets is not the only action that is needed you actually have to make a product that buyers want

@Jeff

Would you care to guess how many MILLIONS of cars/trucks/suvs GM sold last year? You talk about that company like it's a taco stand or something.

Companies the size of GM do NOT pursue 'growth' strategies, except under extraordinary circumstances---GM is presently pursuing a strategy of market dominance, and cost control, not growth. So is every other carmaker.

The companies that are most passionate about growth are the firms in software and technology that want to create new inventions and double their revenues in the next two or three years.

That ain't GM, Ford or any other automaker I can think of.

This is not to say that companies don't occasionally reinvent themselves, but nobody in the auto industry (except Ford) talks seriously about moving away from autos to an entirely new field. Ford's insistence on this is a reflection of how desperate they are.

The Tundra doesn’t sell like the Tacoma so any radical change is a huge gamble. See Honda and Nissan.
The Tundra was an excellent performer at debut, but the domestic truck machine is a monster. Toyota expected conquest sales, but really aside from the folks that would entertain one, there wasn’t much market. Nissan jumped the shark with their new Titan and now they have a lackluster seller, even with a diesel. Toyota is right to slowly work the Tundra, but the 1/2 ton market is passing them by and they aren’t even in the same sport as the 3/4 ton market.
Toyota has a dilemma-take Money away known profit sources to improve a moderatly selling truck, or let it languish, checker cab style.
If I were them, I’d revamp and go for class leading.
Unfortunately the 5.7 is a small-bore, long stroke engine, that doesn’t lend itself to growth. 103 mm bore is where it’s at, but that’s an entirely new casting design. Toyota won’t go that radical.

Some good comments. The only things I might add.

Toyota's could not have had worse luck when they brought-out the full sizes Tundra (late 2006 IIRC). Within a few months the US was headed into the perfect storm economically. One year later the market was headed into free fall.

Two years later all sales of consumer products were having their worst seasons in fifty years. Nothing Toyota did designing the Tundra could have predicted or accounted for a deep recession.

RE: the 5.7 If Toyota is serious about trucks they need an engine that's more like the NASCAR motor Kyle Busch drives---pushrods, cam in block, basic fuel injection and advanced engine electronics.

The twin cam DOHC engine design is great for a roadster or a lavish convertible, but in a truck you're almost never revving the engine into the RPM range north of 5000 RPM, which is where the 32 valve design really starts to flex its muscles.

In my humble opinion all Toyota needs to do to corner the market is up the HP and towing capacity of the Tundra and Tacoma.

@papajim--Again you completely miss the point. GM is seriously considering making Cadillac an all electric vehicle company. You mentioned Ford and one of your criticisms is the money they are spending on an electric program. Guess what GM is considering the same but it will be Cadillac. So are you saying that GM not plan to grow in the future? Again if the plan is to shrink the company enough to where it can become a takeover target or eventually liquidate and then distribute the assets then I would agree with you. It is not always bad to wind a company down especially if that company is losing market share and their in a field where there is lots of competition. I would say if that is the strategy then take Buick and make it a Chinese exclusive product or sell it to the Chinese when it is still worth something. The number of models Buick will offer will eventually be three so they are well on their way to winding Buick down. The only thing Buick is good for in the US is an outlet to sell GMC trucks which are more profitable. Either do something with Cadillac besides what GM has been doing or just get rid of Cadillac. Pair GM down to Chevy with the main emphasis on trucks, crossovers, and suvs and actually make a truck that is desirable. Build Chevrolet up enough and it will be worth enough to be sold and then distribute the proceeds or continue to run Chevrolet the way it has been run and then liquidate it for whatever you can get There comes a point where you either s**t or get off the pot. Either you grow the sales or you wind the operations down. GM doesn't just need to make vehicles but whatever they do they need to do something different.

If GM wants to just pursue cost cutting then offer vehicles that are less expensive than the competition. The only problem with this is that this has been tried before with companies eventually going out of business. GM needs to have some plan for growth. No growth is not an answer for any company because no growth will eventually lead to losing more market share. If you believe that no growth is a good strategy then why are you so concerned that GM remain No 1 in truck sales. Wouldn't be be better according to your strategy to continue to close some more assembly plants and just concentrate on the higher dollar more premium truck and suv models? If Ram is planning on growing their truck sales which seems to be what Ram is doing then just let Ram become the No 2 truck manufacturer and cut some more costs. Make just enough trucks that will sell with little or no discount. GM could save a whole lot of production costs and trim more plants. Maybe GM could get down half the plants they currently have to make trucks and suvs.



The comments to this entry are closed.

// Adobe DTM Launch Code