The engine in every Tundra is the same as that in the Sequoia as well as Land Cruiser and Lexus LX570, some of which we have already reviewed here. It’s of course the excellent aluminum DOHC 32 valve “iFORCE” 5.7liter V8 that has been on offer since 2007, and in this case paired with a 6-speed automatic transmission.
Generating 381hp and 401lb-ft of torque it’s a silent engine that comes to life easily and shifts easily throughout its rev range. Just from a power perspective this engine has always easily been competitive with the majority of the competition’s offerings and is nowhere near uncompetitive currently, except perhaps in the realm of fuel economy which we’ll get to later.
I popped the cover off to get a look at what’s underneath it in the above picture. While a generally quiet engine this one was married to a TRD-branded exhaust system that in fact is different than the one in the Sequoia in that it is a true dual-exhaust with the pipes running separately (if next to each other) all the way back through two mufflers and then exiting on opposite sides of the truck through black TRD-etched outlets as compared to the cat-back system in that one.
At idle there’s a nice burble, when on throttle it produces a deep basso profundo rumble and when really on it allows one to note every single power pulse. At first I thought it was loud (and it’s louder than I’d prefer) but overall it suits the character of this trim level well and very likely does free up some more power as well although an exact amount was undefined in Toyota’s literature.
As an aside the TRD catalog is surprisingly vast, there are several exhaust systems available and until recently one could even get a factory supercharger added to their truck complete with the factory warranty through the parts department.
Driving the truck is a very comfortable experience, there is a little bit of a blind spot on the passenger side due to the wide rear pillar, but in traffic the Blind Spot detector takes care of that and when parked at an angle as in a supermarket parking lot the backup camera helps. It loafs along at any speed you’d desire and instantly responds when squeezing the throttle. The off-road oriented tires grip fairly well (for a large pickup) but more than that offer a supple ride with minimal noise. The cab itself is quiet and doesn’t suffer from wind noise either.
On unpaved roads this continues to be the case and the TRD Pro package includes a set of aluminum-bodied FOX-brand shocks, the rears of which offer a piggyback reservoir, and a thick front skidplate. TRD is a moniker used in many different Tundra (and other models) versions but the “Pro” is the top dog. The easiest way to tell is to look at the rear of the bed side, in the Pro it’s stamped into the sides, all others just carry a sticker package back there.
Besides the shocks, skidplate and exhaust, the Tundra also carries a different grille with the Toyota name spelled out harkening back to the legendary Toyota off-roaders from back when, Rigid Industries LED fog lights, 18″ forged BBS aluminum wheels with a set of 275/65-18 Michelin LTX A/T tires (that will likely be swapped out by any serious off-roader), and interior goodies such as the leather seats with embroidery and stitching.
Gas mileage is likely the one area that the Tundra is not as competitive anymore and that’s been the case for a while. It’s rated at 13city, 17highway and 14average. I drove this truck 283 miles which consisted of 150 mainly freeway miles to the Denver area and back, about 100 or so in-town miles here which included a few short freeway blasts and then the balance of around 30 off-highway miles that included a few idling periods, mainly for photos.
Overall the average came out to 14.2 mpg which is pretty much as advertised. I’m not usually overly hard on my cars consistently but could likely improve on that figure by at least ten percent if I really tried. And would if gasoline was over $4/gallon again, as it is it’s barely above $2 a gallon so there’s much less incentive.
On the flipside after producing this powertrain for so long it seems to be dead reliable and the Tundra as a whole tends to be extremely durable as well as enjoying exceptional resale value so a little extra gasoline expense will likely be recouped by repair savings and resale value. The CC effect was in full force as I was seeing Tundras everywhere I turned this week while not usually taking much note of them previously.
While the Tundra line in general starts at $33,675, note that still includes the 5.7l V8 and the 6.5foot bed with the same cab as reviewed. It also includes keyless entry, 7″ touchscreen, Toyota Safety Sense-P driver assistance tech, integrated trailer brake controller, free maintenance plan, automatic limited slip rear diff, and much more – most or all of those items mentioned are at additional cost with most other makes, so just looking at base prices without comparing spec sheets may not provide an accurate comparison.
Of course starting out with the TRD Pro package bumps the price up to a starting level of $48,775 and includes all the TRD stuff I discussed above, Toyota Safety Sense-P (PreCollision System with Pedestrian Detection, Dynamic Radar Cruise Control, Lane Departure Alert, Automatic High Beams), Trailer Brake and Trailer Sway Controls, LED Headlights, 8″ Touchscreen with Navigation, and of course the same engine and transmission as in every Tundra. It also includes stuff like the rear wheelwell liners, another item not even mentioned by Toyota but an extra-cost option with most others.
The 4WD system is an on-demand type with a rotary controller and the truck also includes a tow package with a hitch receiver, 4.30 axle, Heavy Duty battery and alternator as well as a larger 38 gallon fuel tank as standard.
Options on this truck were few, with the spray-on bedliner the largest additional expense at $579, door sill protectors at $70, the black lettering pieces inside the “Tundra” emboss on the tailgate for $99, and a spare tire lock for $75. The Delivery, Processing and Handling fee of $1,595 combines with everything else for an as-tested total of $51,193.
I’m not sure if I’d personally need all of the TRD Pro stuff, but after spending some time on the configurator noodling around, realized that if I was ordering one, it’d likely be a CrewMax 4×4 version with various options at a price that would be competitive with the competition even with their generally more massive discounts.
While clearly Toyota is not looking to serve every potential buyer, if someone is looking for a high quality half-ton pickup in either extended or crew cab format, then a look at what’s included and available on the Tundra would be a very good idea. I’m still firmly of the belief that it’s more Toyota not wanting to try to compete on every possible level with the traditional domestics rather than not having the ability to do so. And the way many if not most half-ton trucks above fleet grade are used today, along with the inherent limitations that Toyota has imposed on itself in order to specialize in a few sub-segments of the market, means that they are focused on those buyers and can absolutely deliver to their needs, the steady sales numbers speak to that.
Thank You to Toyota for offering us this truck for a week along with supplying it with a full tank of gas.
Pages: 1 2
Great review as always, Jim. The full size pickup market is very diverse and it is nice to see a reviewer understand how this older entrant is still competitive in some aspects and can still be appealing to certain buyers. This engine was fairly big news in 2007, IIRC, and did a thorough job of trumping the American V8s of the time. The recession and brand loyalty did an equally thorough job of halting Toyota’s gain in market share after that first year, though. Small wonder they haven’t thrown the necessary bazillions at it to keep up with the Big 3. I believe the upcoming redesign employs the twin turbo V6, and that will be interesting to see.
I don’t have any need for a full size pickup, and so a 5.7L engine that nets 14mpg just doesn’t compute with me. If I ever were to buy one, it would act more as a big sedan replacement and small travel trailer tow vehicle than anything seriously work-oriented or off-road capable. In which case, I’ve grown fond of the 2.7L Ecoboost F150 I’ve been using. It’s fairly nimble and direct for a full sizer, sits lower, has a frankly incredible amount of pop for such a small engine, and is managing 20mpg in unladen mixed highway/rural two-lanes with widely spaced stop lights. Terrible interior quality, though, and the driving position is just slightly off for me.
I am kind of amazed by the fuel mileage – or lack of it. In today’s environment this would not be a top concern, but modern electronic engine management, multi-speed transmissions and all get even big-engine gas trucks up into mileage figures well over this. But if this truck comes without complicating features like cylinder deactivation and transmissions with too many gears that will total the truck in case of failure, maybe it’s a good trade.
Recently I was looking at the domestic parts content for vehicles sold in the US. While it could have been for the 2019 model year, I want to say the Tundra had a higher domestic parts content than Ford, Ram, and particularly GM. While it varies somewhat by trim and engine, the Tundra still seemed to be higher than any. Kudos to Toyota.
With the Toyota versus the Big Three, fuel mileage is the only area where I see the Toyota trailing. However, there is a certain appeal to the relative simplicity of a V8.
When I start shopping for a new pickup, it will undoubtedly come between Ford or Toyota. Both have a lot of merits and both appeal to me more than the other two brands do.
That said, I do have an observation. Toyota’s “Build & Price” section is awful. There is a $5,000 variance in base price for a 2021 Tundra SR5, showing $33,675 in one place but showing $38,415 elsewhere. If this is based upon zip code and local inventory, presenting it as a “Build & Price” is misleading.
I don’t like being critical, but it is what it is. Overall, I think these are fantastic pickups and I enjoyed reading more about it.
My Monroney didn’t break out the content percentages but I believe you are correct.
My B+P version shows the SR5 starting at $35,365 with the SR (no 5) actually higher than that at this time. It does appear to be based on actual current availability, I’m not sure what kind of a radius it uses.
I find Toyota’s site less than helpful myself when it’s not one of the high-volume models and it’s unclear to the casual user what is going on.
I agree that Toyota’s website is frustrating. I wrote in my comment below that we’d been building and pricing Tundras this past weekend, and I’ve run into similar problems as you. And also, dealer inventory is harder to view than with most manufacturers. I’ve noticed that few dealers have pictures of the actual vehicles in stock, and don’t always include what equipment those vehicles are equipped with. I’m surprised that Toyota’s online presence is so poor in this regard.
Excellent review as always Jim. I like these trucks, but I am aware they are outdated. Many customers like me don’t necessarily want or need the latest and greatest though. The chassis dynamics aren’t as good as more modern designs, but they are still great driving vehicles. I think the 5.7L engine is a real gem and other than fuel efficiency is still quite competitive with newer and more complex engines. I like that you pointed out the room in the double cab back seat. When I was shopping for trucks, I wanted a 6.5 foot box and a usable back seat for my kids. The crewcab trucks with a 6.5 box are just too long, about a foot longer than a crewcab with a 5.5 or extended cab with a 6.5 foot box. The Tundra had by far the best rear seat in the “extended cab” type truck. It’s even tolerable even for adults. A few years back I went on a fishing trip with four decent sized guys and my truck was fine for that purpose.
I am surprised on the fuel economy. I know they are not good on fuel, but your MPGs were poor, especially since you got considerably better with the other 5.7L Toyotas you have tested as of late. Was the weather cold during the test period? These trucks tend to be pigs during the cold weather, where they seem to prioritize heating up the catalyst over fuel efficiency. FWIW, my 5.7L 4×4 DC with a 5.7L has a lifetime average of 13.9L / 100 km or 16.9 MPG (US) 20.32 MPG (IMP) over the last 9 years. Full disclosure, it sees a lot of fairly ideal rural and highway use, but that records does include some towing and a lot of very cold weather use. My fuel economy suffers considerably during winter, and seemingly more so than other vehicles I have owned in the past.
Thanks for weighing in, Vince. I was somewhat surprised at the fuel issue myself, I didn’t think it would do really great, but did think/hope it’d be better than what I experienced.
The weather was generally good, no significant rain beyond a few showers, no snow, perhaps a bit cold (mid-30’s to upper 50’s), nothing out of the ordinary, the pictures represent the whole week.
My freeway segment to and around Denver doesn’t include any huge elevation changes (it’s not flat though, it undulates up and down) and is 90% freeway, although those speed limits are at 75mph for over half of it and actual traffic flow is usually a bit faster although I usually run into some traffic, a construction zone or two but again nothing abnormal.
We don’t suffer from excessive traffic here in town, i.e. normal stop signs and red lights, not sitting through multiple cycles.
The dirt portion (a well maintained county road) was at somewhat slower speed and did have various hills etc and the truck did idle at times while taking pictures (I usually take 3-4x as many pictures over a week than I actually use) but generally work quickly while there is some positioning work involving back and forth sometimes due to shadows etc. Still, I wouldn’t consider it excessive and no different really than the LC and Sequoia with the same engine.
And I don’t generally (95% of the miles) drive significantly different than what the mission of the vehicle dictates. – The Hellcat Challenger was obviously driven somewhat differently than the Nissan Versa, the trucks see some full-throttle, and a lot of cruising, just like in real life from someone who plunked down their own money.
Basically I drive the vehicles the same way as I would if I owned them and in fact for the most part they just replace my own while they are here whenever I can make it so, which is the point really if trying to review something for someone who hasn’t experienced one and is a normal user.
I do rely on the vehicle’s computer which is reset when I take delivery (usually by the delivery person but I verify and reset it if needed). Sometimes I need to refuel and if possible I try to verify that to what I actually pump if I refill to full but didn’t need to in this case due to the size of the fuel tank and how far I drove it.
So no, there really wasn’t anything abnormal than perhaps with this being the TRD Pro version it is less aerodynamic at speed than the regular ones are? As you know, a little bit can make a big difference and I can see Toyota being aware of the fuel consumption and optimizing what they can on the regular Tundra with lower rolling resistance tires, underbody air flow management, ride height etc. With a specialty model with a low production quantity that’s a little less important but obviously hurts it overall when someone looks at this review for example and is looking for their own (regular) Tundra. At the end of the day though the results did slot within the EPA guidance.
It was also pretty much brand new with just over 1,000 miles on it when I got it, making it one of the lower mileage testers I’ve had.
Jim I don’t question your methodology or test practices at all. I asked about the weather as I figured there had to be something else at play here. You are right that the TRD Pro version likely affects the aerodynamics, and the tires may also factor in as well. Then there is the green engine not being well broken in yet compared to the other Toyotas you tested. The only other thing I can think of is the MPG computer may not be overly accurate.
I was just surprised how much lower your MPGs were compared to mine. The Tundra is no fuel economy champion, but I’d sill but another in a heart beat.
I didn’t think you were but just wanted to explain the exact parameters. 🙂
Motor Trend’s 2019 Ram 1500 Laramie with ‘eTorque’ mild hybrid returned 15.1 mpg in actual use over a year. I’d rather have the long term dependability of the Toyota V8, paying based on use instead of paying when the warranty ends. I’d also only drive a truck when I have some reason to think a truck would be advantageous. There is a chance that I will grab a V8 Toyota before they’re gone. The tested configuration would be my first choice for a Tundra, but I’m also considering an LC.
Exactly real world Tundra is average for fullsize pickups. I average 17, and can get 20 on the highway.
Jim, excellent review as always.
Pickups are relatively thin on the ground around here, but these are practically invisible. In fact, I can’t remember the last time I saw one. I forgot Toyota still made these, as at least once in a while I still see a Tacoma.
Now I’m curious, where do you live (in the US or Canada I assume) where pickups aren’t common? In my town the Tacoma seems to be one of the most popular vehicles of any type, and Tundra’s are everywhere too. Lots of first-gen Tundra’s still running around, many working trucks.
I’m about 2mi NW of downtown Chicago.
I read this with a great deal of interest since I spent some time this past weekend “building” Tundras online. My wife and I are considering buying a pickup this coming year, largely to enable us to take trips with a trailer (her brother has kindly offered to lend us his 5,000-lb. trailer for vacations).
Of course an issue is that aside from this hypothetical towing, we don’t have a great need for a pickup, aside for things like hauling mulch, etc. (which would be awfully nice). So we’d be putting up with some of the downsides such as fuel economy, maneuverability, etc. in order to get the benefit of having a good tow vehicle. I’m not sure we’ll end up actually making that leap, but it’s awfully enticing.
And the Tundra is our first choice for pickups. Ours would likely be an SR5 4×4 CrewMax with minimal options, and a front bench seat… such a configuration lists for about $43,000. We both like the 5.7 V-8 and 6-spd. transmission, and consider this to be a big plus for the Tundra.
The next obvious step is to go and test drive one, which we may do this coming weekend. Personally I’d love to have one of these trucks, but I’d also love to save $40,000 for some other purpose, so the answer, as usual, isn’t quite clear cut.
Anyway, thanks for this review; I found it interesting and helpful.
I recommend saving about 10-15k by buying a 2-4 year old tundra with lower mileage. I drive a 2015 Crewmax with 90000 miles on it and have never visited a mechanic. These trucks are built to last and the average tundra owner can’t tell the difference between a 2015 and a 2020 other than the newer grill and headlights. The tundra is such a fun and dependable truck to drive, I have no reason or urge to look elsewhere other than the horrible gas mileage which I justify to myself by never paying for repairs.
I considered looking at used vehicles, but it appears that right now (at least where I live) the asking prices for lower-mileage used Tundras are so high that it’s barely worth it. For example, a 3-year-old Tundra SR5 with 30,000 mi. sells for well over $35,000. At those prices, if I can have a new one for just $5,000 or so more, I’d buy new.
This was a good write up. I own a 2019 Tundra that I bought new. I initially was not going to consider the Tundra due to the rated MPG, but when I looked closer at the MPG of the F150 (5.0) and Ram (5.7) with trailer tow packages, that MPG got closer to the Tundra because of the optional lower rear axle ratios (something I wanted for towing in the mountains). You really need to dig in order to find the real MPG of the F150 because they offer three different axle ratio’s not to mention a plethora of engine choices. So the F150 that nets 20MPG does not really compare to the Tundra. It’s a different truck for a different owner.
In addition, the Tundra came standard with all the features I wanted and none that I didn’t. I did not want cylinder deactivation, start stop, automated grill louvers and a constantly shifting 8 or 10 speed transmission. I so much wanted to avoid those features that I briefly considered a 250/2500 – but that is just over kill for me. The features that I did want came standard on the Tundra: V8, low gears, trailer package including brake controller, and a proven reliability record. The Tundra is (soon to be was?) the last of the simple ½ tons.
Lots of Tundras here in Toyotalandia. Dubbed “Growdozers”.
Excellent review, as always. And terrific pictures, as always too.
I love my 2017 TRD PRO double cab. Flawless performance and reliability, great comfort, fast, great off road (in wide open spaces), decent towing, and stands out. I average 17mpg over an oil change interval (5k miles) and can get 20mpg on the highway keeping 65-70 mph. and At 55k miles, I love it more every time I drive it
I love the color of this truck.
I took home this exact same configuration about 2 months ago, and it’s been an incredible truck. Love the size, power, and reliability. Can’t wait to take it more places!
The difference between getting 14 mpg and 17mpg is much more significant than the difference between 17 and 20 mpg.
Yes, gas is cheap today. But it’s kind of beneath Toyota to be so behind in this rather important metric. Think of all the extra CO2 being emitted. Or so it seems….
Toyota is a big picture enterprise, IMO, the best-run auto company in the world. I can only speculate, of course, but I feel they have made a deliberate decision to leave the Tundra largely unchanged. It makes money for them as is. Tooling and design paid for eons ago. The resources spent here are spent in other segments, keeping Toyota always in the top tier of whatever vehicle it is you seek in general, anywhere in the world, and honing Toyota’s edge in hybrids, which really are very fuel-efficient, without range anxiety.
The big truck profits keep the big three “healthy”. And the pandemic has not hurt truck sales. Toyota does not want to be scapegoated as “killing Detroit”, lest the US government target Toyota in particular, and ‘foreign’ automakers in general. So they just cede it to Detroit. They seem to take the Tacoma more seriously, though they let it get a little old, for a while.
That said, I don’t think this Tundra looks quite right–inside or out. I’d rather have a Chevy. I think GM’s trucks are quite robust. And if I wanted to do my small part to curb CO2, I’d get the six-cylinder diesel truck, even though I consider it grossly overpriced (typical of GM–we have something good, let’s charge more for it)
That said, I’m very confident that if I bought a new, or used Tundra, I’d get used to the looks, and would probably be satisfied–or better—with the truck.
In reviewing a pickup, usually a comparison of towing capability versus the competitors is included instead of fawning over the plastic trim parts and the paint color. One thing about Toyota’s off road package that I have always found somewhat amusing is the TRD moniker. It’s too easy to just nickname it “Turd”.
I like to be different…But I’m not convinced I was “fawning” anywhere, I believe I attempted to “explain” both the color and the plastics.
As regards towing, what would be the point anyway? There are too many trim levels, engines, packages etc available on the competitors’ trucks to nail down a towing comparison that’s actually relevant. It also varies within the Tundra lineup depending on actual variant. The minimum is 8,800, the maximum is 10,200 pounds which seems to cover by far the meat of the half-ton market, Toyota doesn’t seem to care to pick up crumbs at either end of the spectrum. Anyone who actually tows will spend five minutes on each manufacturer’s website, spec out their preferred build and see what that tows. And then usually just buy their preferred half-ton off the lot of their local dealer anyway and hope for the best.
The comparative interior quality is in my opinion far more important to most buyers of half-ton trucks as RAM and the rest of the industry has figured out, the majority of comments on new truck posts are usually about how nobody ever sees anyone hauling or towing anything beyond a Harbor Freight trailer loaded with ego, how nice the RAMs are inside (they are), how weak the new GM products are inside (they are still better than most trucks were a decade ago) and how Ford needs to step up their interior game (which they seem to be doing).
I’m glad they still make the double cab with the 8′ box, I’m a fan of that configuration for hauling long objects and the occasional passenger. I do question the wisdom of Toyota’s 60/40 split rear seat. I find having the short piece on the driver’s side more useful since in my truck I leave it folded with a rate on the floor for tools, tie downs and grocery bags, leaving two seats on the right.
Toyota’s battleship grey is an interesting choice, I find it dull looking but striking in a filed of metallic non colors.