Mike Sweers Interview on Truck Trend

0 Flares 0 Flares ×

Just as an FYI – we wanted to make sure all Tundra fans see the Mike Sweers, Chief Engineer Tundra and Tacoma, interview over at Truck Trend. Click here for the link.

Filed Under: TundraHeadquarters.com

RSSComments (34)

Leave a Reply | Trackback URL

  1. GoBig says:

    I was glad to see Mike offer an explanation for the engine carry over. He basically went with the if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it line. Although he may be right, that the big three are playing catch up, one should never rest on their laurels. Always strive to improve.

    I watched an interview the Detroit Free Press did with a Toyota marking guy at the Detroit Auto show. When asked if the new Tundra would offer locking differentials, the Toyota guy started looking around the dash for a switch before concluding the answer was no.

    Having an engineer answer questions rather than a marketing rep, seems to result in more straight forward, and honest answers.

    P.S. Mike: I’m still waiting to see a double cab.

    • LJC says:

      “I watched an interview the Detroit Free Press did with a Toyota marking guy at the Detroit Auto show. When asked if the new Tundra would offer locking differentials, the Toyota guy started looking around the dash for a switch before concluding the answer was no.”

      A marketing guy not knowing that answer of the cuff is lame and can explain why I “complain” about most of the Tundra commercials. Grrrrrrrrrrrrr…….

    • Tim Esterdahl says:

      Right on about marketing reps should NOT answer questions. Oh the stories I could tell from various events I have been too.


  2. AD says:

    I like how he is spinning the fact that they didn’t really do anything by making it seem like it was not needed. He conveniently leaves out direct injection variable valve lift. He still doesn’t mention any chassis changes like high strength steel for a lighter and stronger chassis which could allow a softer rear suspension.

    I am going to be blunt for Mr. Sweers since you are a master spin doctor.

    Sir is the 5.7L iforce more advanced than the Ecoboost yes or no?

    Sir are you familiar with the Nissan VK56VD yes or no please?

    Sir if you are not familiar with that engine let me explain that engine to you and other readers it is a 32-valve, DOHC, Direct Injection Gasoline (DIG) aluminum-alloy V8 and features Nissan’s advanced VVEL (Variable Valve Event & Lift System).

    Now sir can you say the 5.7L iforce is more advanced than that yes or no please?

    Now sir why did you not add some of those technologies the VK56VD has that you don’t have to the 5.7L iforce to raise the bar?

    Sir can you tell me why your more sophisticated 4.6L V8 has less power and worse fuel economy than the GM 5.3L V8?

    Sir can you please explain to us that in a time where the market is moving from 6-speed automatics to 8-speeds why are you still with a 6-speed with no mention of going past that?

    Sir are you aware that NA V6 pickups are now a growing market yes or no please?

    So can you tell me sir why your V6 doesn’t have either 300 hp or lb ft like the others in class when you have the second largest displacement?

    Sir can you tell me why your V6 still has a 5-speed auto when everybody else in class who offers a V6 has at least a 6-speed auto?

    Can you tell me why V6 has the worst gas mpg in class?

    Sir I appreciate your powertrain sophistication and advancement that came in 07 but what have you done for me lately?

    Sir is the 3rd Gen Tundra for the most part the 2nd Gen Tundra platform with cosmetic interior and exterior changes?

    Sir lastly what would you say to someone who says your powertrain and chassis is one of the oldest in class and that alone is a reason for change as it may be stale?

    • Tim Esterdahl says:


      That is one impressive comment! And you bring up solid points. All I will say about Mr. Sweers is that if he thought the engine was crap, I believe he would have changed it. As someone who has heard and watched him speak, I believe that is his character.

      A note on EcoBoost in trucks. Do you know who cares about that engine? Ford. You know who doesn’t? Every other person I talk to. Look, in cars, GM uses turbos so does VW and probably others I am forgetting. In a truck? Other reps and reporters just smirk and giggle. The Ram rep, for one, said to me why would we put expensive turbochargers in our truck when we get better fuel economy and towing without the gimmick? A valid point for me.


      • AD says:

        I don’t want an Ecoboost either so I don’t blame anybody who doesn’t but Toyota didn’t corner the market in sophisticated powertrains in fact some have even more sophisticated powertrains so that is no excuse. Which is the whole point I am trying to make. The 381hp/401lb ft 5.7L iforce and tranny is far from crap but that doesn’t mean it should go 7+ years the same way with no sign of advancement in power and FE. When he described the powertrain architecture that has been the same since its debut in 07 and compared it to everybody else this is what he did http://www.urbandictionary.com.....id=6302103. Once again what have you done for me lately Mr. Sweers?

        • Tim Esterdahl says:

          LOL! Playing Dusty. Love it!

          And yes I agree. When I get a chance to talk to him again, I will craft some questions about FE. Horsepower? Idk. I’m thinking FE is more important at the moment.


          • AD says:

            That is my whole point since when did powertrain sophistication get work done or have fun? That job is done by hp/lb ft so I don’t care about how sophisticated you are I care about results and Sir I do know the difference between a OHV and DOHC. The whole number of valves and variable valve timing comment means he is talking about GM since he wants to talk about GM lets do so and we cut the spin doctoring 4.3L V6 VS 4.0L V6 GM has more hp, lb ft and better fuel economy same with 5.3L V8 VS 4.6L V8 and when the fuel economy numbers are released the same results will be for the 6.2L V8 VS 5.7L V8. Congratulations Mr. Sweers when I cut the spin doctoring that is what you are left with.

            When pickups goes to a new generations they usually debut best in class in something hp, lb ft, FE loaded and unloaded, 0-60 loaded and unloaded, tow rating or payload and the 3rd Gen Tundra will not have any of those things. I know someone is going to bring up SAE J2807 which is a valid point but guess what isn’t help Toyota yet or hurt the big 3 yet so according to sales it doesn’t matter to consumers that much. If interior is your thing a poll would show Ram 1500 would still beat you and most people have said your new interior like it came out of an F-Series pickup. Sir the best question is what did you hope to achieve with the 3rd Gen Tundra because I don’t see it? I saw what you wanted to achieve with the 2nd Gen Tundra and it was magnificent http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uH_qnCCBY0.

    • Larry says:

      “is the 5.7 iforce more advanced then the ecoboost”

      Of course not, is the ecoboost more advanced then then an old 5.9 cummins turbo diesel? No way and I will take the Cummins without even thinking about it.

      People need to ask relevant questions. If people keep demanding an answer to the “senator, yes or no, do you still kick your dog” question what answers can they expect. We are now at the point where we have nothing but a marketing show and a bunch of checkoff lists which mean nothing.

      Any discussions about towing standards above 10000 pound for light 1/2 tons trucks is pointless. Heavy towing is not the domain of a light truck. I wouldn’t even consider towing loads like that with a light pickup.

      I agree that direct injection is a valid question and I’m sure it’s on the way.

      I will also agree that the iforce is a very good engine which was ahead of the competition.

      It is my view that the attitude of, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it is a very good one. Test, test, test and make major advances not little steps just to advertise we have more power etc then GM/Ford/RAM.

      Would we rather have Toyota rush to give us junk just to say the have it? NO!

      It doesn’t need sophistication, it needs to work, be durable, and get reasonable MPG for the cost. Like he said the iforce gets 15 MPG and so do all the others.

      I still hold my view that the ecoboost motors will start to explode up around 150,000 miles. I HOPE I AM WRONG but, it’s Fords job to prove it. Remember they had a hard enough time just keeping spark plugs from flying out of the motor and now they ask me to trust their high tech twin turbo motors. Not with my hard earned money.

  3. AD says:

    Also notice in the question TT: Some have complained that there’s very little change to the new Tundra.

    All he did was a spin job and talk about the competition and never answered the question or mention the important mechanical changes that make it a all new 3rd gen Tundra?

    Read more: http://www.trucktrend.com/feat.....z2YCv9Gv3f

    • Tim Esterdahl says:

      Here is my takeaway. What did Sweers bitch about so much with regards to the Gen 2 that they promoted him?

      You know, if I knew these excellent comments were going to come through, I might have written a full article. I’m glad you guys are like me, you see a story like this and then you weigh in!


  4. LJC says:

    @AD: I’ll take the Tundra’s proven reliability, durability, dependability, safety, and resale over the competition. To accomplish this, it takes time. The competition cannot say that.

    If sophistication provides a small improvement in mileage, I’ll pass and as a matter of fact I did. We all know how it is NOT working out with the EB.

    Finally, there’s one more trait the Tundra has that the others don’t: It’s posted mileage figures and towing capacity are proven by legitimate third parties. While talking about legitimate third parties, the Tundra has won JD Powers and Associates for the most dependable large pickup truck 7 times in a row. Here’s another list of awards: http://www.toyota.com/tundra/awards.html

    No spinning as far as I’m concerned, just the facts.

    • Tim Esterdahl says:


      I think you essentially nailed Toyota’s sale pitch. For me they are saying, “Yep, our competition is offering a bunch of new features and gadgets to get more MPG and HP. We have looked at them, but reliability, durability and dependability is our motto. We’ll pass on the fancy do-dads and focus on the other shortcomings our of truck – the interior.”

      Is it a little spin that avoids the perceived consumer shortcomings of the powertrain among customers, sure. Will it work, who knows. 🙂


      • AD says:

        That can be their sales pitch but we all know its not the reason right? The big reasons are the 5.7L iforce is found in low volume sales vehicles to Toyota and Toyota has not updated any of the V8 engines yet and they certainly won’t start with the one for the Tundra.#newenginefamily

        Lets start off first with the Nissan VK56VD as it closely resembles the 5.7L iforce if you stripped away direct injection and variable valve lift. Not fancy little tricks are they. Lets say those give you 1cty/1hwy that would be 15/19 mpg

        Now lets look at gearing shall we everybody wants to focus only on the 4.30 axle ratio well you know what Ford with a 3.73 axle ratio and 6-speed auto and Ram with a 3.92 axle ratio and 8 speed auto are geared lower than our 4.30 axle ratio and 6-speed auto. So that 4.30 axle ratio isn’t the be all end all is it. So with an 8-speed auto one can assume Tundra would actually be geared lower than it is now with better fuel economy. Now some only gain 1city/1-2hwy going from 6-8 but wait Tundra could than dial back the axle ratio to 3.55 standard and 3.73 Tow package. Just dialing back the axle ratio could net you 1hwy so we are possibly looking at 1cty/2-3hwy gains.

        In case you all didn’t know the 2013 5.7L Ram 4×2 with Active Air, Cylinder Deactivation, Grille Shutters and an 8-speed auto is rated at 15/22 mpg and 15/21 mpg in 4×4 http://www.trucktrend.com/feat.....d_v_8_mpg/. So it would appear if Toyota had actually given you something (Not Fancy little tricks) you would have more power than Ram 1500 along with equal if not better fuel economy. I honestly can say with those change D4S, Valvematic, 8-speed auto, taller axle ratio and retuned exhaust 401hp/421lb ft @ 3400 rpm with 15cty/22hwy using no little tricks. An actual reason for a guy who owns a 2nd gen Tundra to trade for a 3rd gen Tundra and an answer to the question Mr. Sweers what have you done for me lately.

        By the way in case some of you don’t go to non Toyota websites like car and driver or motor trend your Proven slogan= carryover powertrain which means to most people “same old boring Toyota” to everybody else. #worknotgoona

        • Tim Esterdahl says:


          Love the hash tags! I’m not going to argue with your point of view since I think it is a valid one. However, I will say this. I think you and a LOT of others are getting caught up in the new features that have come to the full-size truck market. This is completely understandable since we have sorts of new engines, transmissions and suspensions that seemingly promise all sort of new MPG and HP.

          The truth is that the Ram 1500 has the most of these features. It won truck of the year NOT because it is the best truck,but because it has so many new features, Journalists were smitten with new do-dads and buttons.

          I, for one, have been reading and researching full-size trucks on manufacture sites, news sites as well as forums (Ford, Ram, GM and Toyota). I think the consensus is that it is too early to really see how the landscape will unfold. The Ram 1500 with its new transmission, suspension and interior is grabbing a LOT of attention, but I am already reading complaints about quality.

          Look, the only truck that has come to market that I find to be impressive is the new GM twins. Getting 22 MPG in a full-size V-8 is really impressive. I finally got a chance to sit in one yesterday at a dealer (they were locked in Detroit). I thought the interior was a big improvement, enough to make me buy one – nope. I understand the AFM (cylinder deactivation) has either people loving it or nervous about it in the GM twins. I’m hoping to get an extended test drive of one to decide for myself.

          In the end, it is an exciting time for the full-size truck market. However, when I start doing some comparisons between trucks that have all the new features versus Toyota that doesn’t, I’m not sold that the Tundra is light-years behind.


          • AD says:

            The new 2014 2wd 5.3L with 16/23 is good but its not the end as GM will add an 8-speed http://www.autoguide.com/auto-.....irmed.html. Lets say on the 2015 2wd 5.3L could be rated at 17/24, As we know PUTC did test and the new pickups can return EPA fuel economy. The new 420hp/450lb ft 6.2L as Mark William predicts 16/22 is to much for as I think 15/21-22 because the going from the 4.3L V6 to the 5.3L V8 is a 2cty/1hwy difference for a 1 liter and 2 cylinders http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2.....r-v-8.html. This is before the 8-speed auto arrives as then it could become 16/22. Mr. Sweers would be better off finding someone else to pick on than GM because having variable valve timing longer and more valves isn’t the be all end all when you look at the results which he conveniently neglected to mention.

            I am not asking Toyota to change it all as Ford and Ram want to do that I am just demanding Toyota at least live up to Moving Forward which is what GM did with the new EcoTec3 and appears Nissan is as well.

          • Larry says:

            I’m not sure about this cylinder deactivation idea or in other words variable displacement.

            We still have all the inertial loses with the connecting rod and piston mass having to change direction on each compression/exhaust cycle. I am just not going to buy into the marketing PR of a working truck getting 20 MPG. The Ram and Ford numbers are a joke. So they can cruise the highway in Kansas with a tail wind of 20 MPH, who is kidding who? My trucks need to start and stop, go into the wind and go up the 15 mile grade of I80 to my home.

            The cylinder shutdown isn’t that much more then EGR which removes a certain amount of O2 from each compression stroke allowing us to cut the injector duration.

            In many cases it just makes sense to live with a lower power engine and deal with having to go slower up that long grade when towing the boat 10 times a year. 300 HP,,,,,,, lower power,,,,,,, only able to go 60 up an 8 percent grade, what a sacrifice.

            The modern engines are so powerful, it’s ridiculous to keep pushing the power up. We already have plenty. The new big diesels from Cummins and Ford are closing in on 1000 foot pounds of torque. When will they stop? Are they going to keep upping the power until they match the 1700 which is in the big 15L heavy long haul trucks? Does is make sense to have enough power to tow a track hoe down the high way at 75 and be able to pass another vehicle going 80? Many are losing sight of the big picture. Will it be Ford, GM or Ram who finally reaches the highest engine output before we all call a truce to the quest for “we are the most powerful”. We should give out an award for the first to hit 900 and call it quits.

            Look at the little Tacoma 4 cylinder, 5 speed manual. That truck doesn’t need to be fixed. It works and runs longer then just about anything made. I know of a construction company which has a few for light work. They thought it would be an inexpensive solution in helping to get more miles out of their heavier expensive trucks. The idea was to have the right truck for the work load. It would be cheaper to burn out the little Tacomas. Strange thing, they didn’t burn out. They just keep on working and the company is buying more of them and reducing the number of 3/4 ton trucks at every turn. Lower costs, better profits, now there is an idea.

            On the subject of differentials, it seems the simplest thing to do would be to have it a dealer installed option. I can understand some wanting them. I live at about 8000 feet where we get 25 feet of snow each winter starting in Sept ending in June. The roads to my house are 23 percent in a few places. I have plain open differentials on my truck and never have any trouble. I don’t go off road at all. Just many miles of bad dirt roads. I just have no need for limited slip drive systems. Besides, what’s the point of limited slip differentials when we can just run better snows instead of all season highway treads which aren’t worth a damn on steep snow covered hills positraction of not. Years back I worked for a computer company with an office in Oakland CA. The parking lot was filled with big full time 4WD trucks and suvs. I bet most saw nothing but California freeways. I wonder how many had limited slip differentials?

            A lot of Tundra owners are missing the boat. They should be happy Toyota is not throwing spark plugs out of the heads. How can we make the engine better,,,,,, I know we will reduce the number of threads in the cylinder head. Not sure why but lets do it anyway and we can say we have a new redesigned aluminum alloy heads. The modern Tundra has had a huge evolution since the first T100 4 cylinder came out in 1993. No reason to think that will not continue. I really want to get a newer truck but, my 1994 T100 is so good it might live longer then me. I never replace anything which is still doing it’s job and doesn’t need repairs. The fact my T100 is so tough is what is making me look to the Tundra. I put less faith in things like new turbos and more into past results. GM burned me big time back in the 70s and I will never go back unless every other truck manufactures goes chapter 11 and I have no other option. Toyota will keep my business as long as what they sell me keeps working. I could care less if the Tundra is not as powerful as an F150 ecoboost. There is nothing in my past history with Toyota which suggests my next Toyota will require 2000 dollar repair bills because they need to pull the heads when the plugs break off. I have had mechanics tell me to stay away from several models. Tundra is not one of them Ford F150 5.0 V8 is and the plugs are not the only reason. Oil flow to the VVT cam phasors is another.

            Tundra owners, be happy the pace of development is a bit slower.

          • Tim Esterdahl says:


            I’ll be quick and to the point. The feature I like on the new GM trucks is that it is basically a four cylinder and when it needs the power, it becomes a V-8. And yes I do wonder, as others do, if there is any issue when say you are towing/passing/carrying a heavy load and need to accelerate in an emergency. Does the system react as fast as needed to give you the power? I’m waiting to drive one and speak with a rep about this issue.

            As you have stated many times, we don’t always need to tow 5, 7, 9k lbs all the time. I like the idea, the truck can be fuel efficient when it needs to be and robust and powerful when it needs to be.

            I’m also curious on real-world testing. The PUTC’s review with the 22 mpg V-8 5.3L (I believe) was really, really impressive considering the Tundra gets 18. For me, 1 to 2 mpg … not a deal breaker. But, 4 mpg? That is a significant difference IMHO.

            I did sit in one yesterday and was less impressed with the interior than I thought I would be. I’m curious how it drives, but hate wasting salesman’s time.


  5. LJC says:

    And the Tundra is the ONLY truck that can truthfully boast that motto–except no backward compatible selectable eLocker, maybe if I complain enough Sweers will add it, look where it got him 🙂

    And yes, I did make a post on the TT site directly at him asking about one.

  6. Mickey says:

    Sir can you please explain to us that in a time where the market is moving from 6-speed automatics to 8-speeds why are you still with a 6-speed with no mention of going past that?
    Only Dodge moved on that one.

    Sir is the 5.7L iforce more advanced than the Ecoboost yes or no?
    I don’t want a turbo charged truck so why bother with an ecoboost.

    Sir lastly what would you say to someone who says your powertrain and chassis is one of the oldest in class and that alone is a reason for change as it may be stale?

    Why hasn’t the rest go to the “J” standards they all agreed upon? Is it that Toyota would be on top with this stale frame? Maybe he knows more than you.

    Sir I appreciate your powertrain sophistication and advancement that came in 07 but what have you done for me lately?

    Why change something that is known to work. What have you done lately but complain. What I’m saying you maybe part of the many not the few likes what was done. I personally like the new design and I like the 5.7 with the 6 speed. Only thing that would make it better is an 8 speed tranny. I get over 20mpg since 07 in my 07 CM. It’s in the way you use it. Way too many complain about mpg’s constantly step into it and then complain when they do it. One thing I do hope they put in next year is a selectable elocker.

    • AD says:

      That is why the brand your loyal too wont be competitive with that attitude. Just keep settling for nothing and that is what they will give you. As for your 20 mpg unsubstantiated claim im guessing you were going downhill and not for that long if is true at all. Here is known fact people thought EPA overrated FE not underrated FE but PUTC shows the newer trucks can get EPA fuel economy.

      • Mickey says:

        AD just look at my sticker btw claims 20mpg. Nope no downhill. Just know how to drive the truck. It’s easily done just because you can’t do it doesn’t mean no one else can. If I can get 17mpg in the mountains of WV/VA and NC doing 75-80mph getting 20mpg isn’t rocket science in what you have to do. Like most you don’t want to slow down to achieve it.

        • AD says:

          The best EPA rating isn’t 20hwy it is 14cty/18hwy 2wd http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg.....8;id=23936 and 13cty/17hwy for 4wd http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg.....8;id=23937 so I don’t know what is on your window sticker but that is not this trucks rating you are some how managing more mpg than what is rated. That would either be some kind of hypermiling or inaccurate. The only Tundra rated for 20mpg hwy are the 10+ 4.6L V8 http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg.....8;id=26457 and the 11+ 4.0L V6 http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg.....8;id=30882. Mr. Sweers does need to explain how the 4.6L V8 and 4.0L V6 have the same 20 hwy FE rating.

          • Mickey says:

            Can’t download sticker to show you. It’s not allowed on this website. I have an 07 CM Limited 5.7. I have 160422 miles on it. I do a lot of traveling in this truck. Over 120k in just hwy miles. Weather and terrain have a lot to do with mpg’s. I live in Florida. It’s a 4×2 with Bridgestone Duelers street tires. I use 44psi in the tires. If you do 60mph I would get 20+mpg on the hwy. I’m not in a hurry to go anywhere. I leave earlier enough so I can just cruise and enjoy the ride. I’m not lifted just stock. The only so call mods for engine is an AFE Stage II CAI and Borla Pro XS Complete duels. The reason I say don’t fool with the engine is one trip of mine from Jacksonville to West Palm Beach and back got me 24.9mpg doing 55mph through the trip. I used premium Shell gas also. Premium didn’t make that much of a difference per price. I still get one tank a month to clean out everything. The only issued I had on that trip was people don’t care to do 55mph. I had many fingers and other fine words and gestures on that trip. I was determined to see what this truck can do. My worst mpg’s was a trip to New Orleans when I drove crazy 80+ mph to rush to see mom before she passed away. I got 15.6mpg. In city which I don’t do a lot I get 17mpg. Even my trip in the mountains of WV, VA, and NC doing 75-80mph I got 17mpg. It’s in the matter of your foot control. Knowing how to drive period. I was an instructor for the “Smith Driving School” where I use to work. Being it was an advance driving school it gave me the knowledge from what was taught there to put it towards my daily driving. I use to work with heavy trucks and to have the guys and girls drive it sensible to save money for the company. It saves wear and tear on a vehicle besides saving gas/diesel. I changed my brake pads at 130,000 miles and still had pad enough to go pass 150k miles. It’s in the way you drive add weather, terrain, A/T vs Street tires, 4×2 vs 4×4, lifted or not. That’s where mpg’s go. If you go with a negative you will get negative mpg’s.

  7. ricqik says:

    That is a disappointing interview from sweers. Basically he’s saying take it your leave it.

    • Tim Esterdahl says:


      Yep, you’re right in that. It seems Toyota Tundra fans are either with him or against him based on comments I have read. I’m not really sure what to make of it. I have been on Ram and Ford forums lately and I haven’t heard a lot of compliments on the new features of those trucks. It is an interesting time in full-size trucks.


  8. DJ says:

    Interesting, I can see it both ways. Yes the 5.7 is a great, powerful, reliable engine, so why mess with it? At the same time competitors are all offering something new, whether it be V-6 turbos, direct injection, upped horsepower, better MPG, etc etc. So it can be viewed as smart and or lazy on this guys part.
    At the end of the day, I see it as lazy. I have absolutely no reason to upgrade to a 2014. A new grill and new dash only mask the same truck that I drive. If they get off their behinds and add some technology to the 5.7 in the next few years, then maybe I buy a new truck. Until then, get with the times Toyota. And while you’re at it, next time be original like the 2nd Gen Tundra, don’t give us a new Tundra with an F-150 dash and gaudy huge grill. It’s 2013, I know a V-8 truck can get better than 14mpg combined.

    • AD says:

      That is my point I am not saying the 5.7L and the rest of the drivetrain is crap but Toyota could have and should have done more this truck is basically what you already have.

      The only difference is Mr. Sweers does something that bothers me as he will http://www.urbandictionary.com.....%20raining. He compares his powertrain a DOHC to a OHV and say see how much more sophisticated we are never mind its a OHV it is supposed to be simpler and if that is not bad enough he neglects to mention some of the tech that the less sophisticated OHV has that he does not like Direct injection and a higher compression ratio. He also does not give the results hp/lb ft and FE of the engines he is comparing his too. Direct injection and a higher compression ratio are not fancy tricks but good engineering http://blogs.howstuffworks.com.....rid-drive/ as trucks benefit greatly from those things as a turbo diesel pickup engines are direct injected high compression engines which is why they are better for towing. The last remaining thing the 2nd gen Tundra was best in class was FE towing and now GM has that http://special-reports.pickupt.....drive.html.

      I do not want a twin turbo gas V6 as I know that may be fine for a V8 replacement in a car but if you work those turbos say bye to FE and towing will work those turbos which is why GM said this about their direct injected higher compression OHV engines “We believe these are the most technologically advanced engines ever offered in light-duty pickups, and they are 100 percent truck – specifically designed for the way customers use trucks in the real world,” said Jordan Lee, Small Block chief engineer and program manager http://media.gm.com/media/us/e.....gines.html. I also know that a diesel may not be practical for Toyota to put into a 1/2 ton due to engine cost would make it low volume. That does not mean Toyota shouldn’t do some great engineering and add direct injection, valvematic, higher compression ratio, 8-speed auto with taller axle ratios and front axle disconnect (the reason why GM and now Ram don’t loose a mpg city on 4×4 trucks.) I would love a e-locker option as well. I don’t want fancy tricks just solid powertrain advancement. Some high strength steel chassis and softer suspension advancement would have satisfied me as well. I need them to offer something as the company that did this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uH_qnCCBY0 I know is capable of greatness. Just to let everybody know I am just being fair as I went by 5.3L LOL on PUTC because I though GM went to long with the old powertrain and it was unacceptable for a company like GM who sells so many truck but I would be a hypocrite if I gave Toyota a pass so if I have to hear it from upset Toyota guys I don’t mind.

      I don’t really care for the new exterior or interior but I really didn’t care for the current one either and I still bought it plus beauty is in the eye of the beholder so no not a big problem to me.

      • Larry says:


        Lots of very good points you are bringing up.

        I have one question. If direct injection comes with higher compression rations, don’t we lose the ability to run with low octain fuel?

        If I am required to run more expensive fuel I would prefer a larger non-turbo engine which can run on 85 fuel.

        I have never thought to look into what the Ford twin turbo V6 requires for octane. I have been on record as saying the small high rev, high power, turbo gas motor is a bad idea for heavy work when compared to the variable timed, cylinder deactivation of the RAM and GM motors. To me more power running slower is better long term.

        As for this topic. I actually like the idea that Toyota is going slow. They may seem behind the curve but, the R&D must be under way. If not they will pay with lost sales with in 2 model years. I’m sure new stuff is on the way. I too wonder why direct injection has not ben announced. Doesn’t seem like a big move.

  9. gordich says:

    Great discussion! Maybe these new pickups should be named “Ego Boost” etc.
    Still loving the 2010 DC 4X4 with the 4.6l, 315 h.p. and usually over 20mph in 4X2.
    40,000 HARD miles and still the only question: Should I change the oil in 10,000 mile intervals, or a bit sooner?

    • Tim Esterdahl says:


      I agree, love the discussion too. I’m just sitting back and letting it unfold.

      On the oil question, it is probably personal preference, but when in doubt, I would change it.


    • Mickey says:

      Gordich look at the dipstick. Look at the oil. If before 10k miles and the oil is dark I would change it. If it’s still a light brown type color go for 10k.

  10. gordich says:

    Just foolin’ guys… Like, this is my biggest problem with the Tundra, when to change the oil…get it?

0 Flares Twitter 0 Facebook 0 Google+ 0 Email -- 0 Flares ×