Talk:Toyota Tundra

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

T-150[edit]

Were any of these sold as the T-150? I thought it was changed before production examples were sold. —Morven 06:04, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Answer - No. Ford threatened to sue while Toyota was showing the Tundra as the T-150. This was before the Tundra was ever sold in 1999. --Beastmaster 03:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Size/Success[edit]

Any chance the article can be modified to eliminate the disparaging comments about the Tundra being 'too small'? If I and the other half a million people who bought one wanted to buy the biggest pickup on the market, we would have. The Princeton, Indiana plant was only designed to build 100,000 trucks a year, anyway, and I look at the Tundra as a success. User:Demiller74

Whether or not the truck was a SUCCESS is irrelevant. The truck was always classified as a full-size truck, but noticably smaller than every other full-size truck, therefore making it "too small" to be seriously considered as one.

Well, that's a closed-minded statement. My full-size van is considered a light truck, yet is just as big as a full-size truck. Does that make it too big? Just because the Tundra is a little smaller physically doesn't mean it's any less of a truck. It still has the towing capacity and strength of any other heavy-duty truck, and the newer ones have some damn nice features (I wish I had a 6-speed...) Ahanix1989 05:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "Size" issue.: Many people I have talked to , including Toyota truck dealers say that many customers like the 1st Generation size and looks and feel better than the new massively huge models of Tundra's. One Dealer told me he would rather use his 2005 Tundra to tow around his 4 horse, Horse trailer than the newer massive model, which he also owns. He states that it is more of a pleasure to drive the 2004 - 2005 model. Also when I look on Craigslist I find the used 04/05's selling for as much or more than the newer hugemongous models. Yes people are buying the newest ones, because that is all that is available, if you want brand new. Cornbinderbob (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Explaination of edit[edit]

I removed the second generation and changed the third to the second. The 2004 refresh was not a new generation. Bok269 21:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TundraSolutions.com[edit]

The mentioning of TundraSolutions.com and the letter advising them to stop using the Tundra name is irrelevant to this article.

there are thousands of sites dedicated to providing service and information for Toyota vehicles, the fact that one broke a law doing so is un-notable. I removed said mentions and will remove any future submissions of TundraSolutions.com to this page unless it becomes notable.

Wikipedia is a dedicated place for global events and views. Small, insignificant instances in history are best left to another page, not products themselves. For instance, if it becomes known that Toyota has cracked down on many, many small time deals, and then it becomes controversial or just that widespread, it would deserve mention on the Toyota page, but still not this page.Scryer_360 18:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits[edit]

I changed a reference to the 2x4 Tundra to read 4x2. A 2x4 is a piece of wood. Trucks are four wheeled vehicles drive BY two (or four) wheels, hence 4x2 (or 4x4). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.151.102.30 (talk) 16:06, 4 June 2007

Edititing Defective Models[edit]

"Starting in May 2007, reports came to light of a number of camshaft failures in the new 5.7 liter engines. These necessitated entire engine replacement which has since raised questions of long term reliability of the new engine as most of the affected trucks were only months old at the time of the failures. Toyota states that around 20 Tundra's have this problem.[1]."

This is a malicioius spread of misinformation. There is no source either, as it has been removed from detroitnews webpage. I'm removing the entry until a working source is located —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.118.198.208 (talk) 08:50, 5 September 2007

Camshaft Failures[edit]

I do think that there should be some mention of camshaft failures, becuase this was considered to be a big deal in the truck community. I do agree that the way it was originally stated was not exactly NPOV, but I'm sure you see my point. I'm going to try to add a camshaft failure section written in NPOV with a source. Bostonbruins 00:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sales Chart[edit]

the sales chart is now fixed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.118.160.37 (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consumer Reports no longer recommending the 4X4 models[edit]

"As a result of these early camshaft problems and other issues such as bed and tailgate failures, transmission flaws, etc., as of October 19 2007, Consumer Reports (which initially recommended the Tundra) does not currently recommend the 4X4 Tundra until these durability issues have been addressed. The 4x4 Tundra is predicted to have below average durability; however the 4x2 version is still recommended."

Consumer Reports ranks the Tundra 2nd to the Chevy Avalanche regardless of drivetrain configuration. The 4x4 is not recommended due to reliablity issues, however this is not relevant to the overall rating. I have corrected this error.

There is no source for the paragraph. While CR is no longer recommending 4X4 because of reliablity concerns the reasons listed are false. I'm removing that section because there is no need for the spread of misinformation for those looking at the Toyota Tundra section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.118.160.37 (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be updated[edit]

The info on consumer reports here is inaccurate and out of date. The recent consumer reports shows the Tundra as the top truck for reliability, with the 2WD tundra topping the list. The 4x4 Tundra is the top 4x4 Pickup for reliability, and sits second overall. If I get the copy of the consumer reports I will update this information Caprice 96 (talk) 15:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Assessment[edit]

I rated this article "Start" as it meets the description: "The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a key element." The article lacks references in many areas, and does not flow well. It reads as a collection of disjoint information and the formating is poor with lots of white space. Many of the images and charts are valuable and the history is useful, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prosecreator (talk • contribs) 15:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel Words Tag[edit]

someone added a weasel words tag to the page without citing a single reason why it has been tagged. I cannot find any examples either.

I removed the tag until an explanation can be found, it is against wikipedia policy to add tags without stating a reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. jones999 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that is untrue. Anyone who believes there is a problem with the article is free to add a tag. They don't have to justify it on the talk page, although in potentially grey areas like "weasel words", it would have been a good idea for them to do so. Quick examples of weasel words that I can see are "reports claim to say it is a full-size pickup" (which is also grammatically incorrect), and "Domestic truck aficionados still derided it" (which should be deleted). Also please add new messages to the end of talk pages, not the top (I moved this to the end) and sign your messages using four tildes (~). Somno (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sales figures[edit]

I found a number of problems in this section(s). First off, there are two tables - one for months over a limited number of years and one for all the production years. Do we need both? Similarly, there are two section headings 'Sales figures'. Second, very few of these sales figures have any references. Third, the second paragraph starts with 'Currently' but does not state which year it is talking about. I would guess that it is 2007 or 2008 due to the large number of statements about that period but I'm only guessing. Similar for the comment about July is also missing the year. My gut reaction is to rip out the second and third paragraphs - leaving only the single table with most of the first paragraph. Comments?  Stepho  (talk) 08:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the new 2014 Tundra really the third generation?[edit]

My father, an insurance salesman (also a Toyota expert) says that the 2014 Tundra (released at the 2013 Chicago Auto Show) is really just a refreshed second generation. Really, the body is very similar, the headlights are really the same but just a little bit uglier, and the grille is a little bigger. Sure, the interior is redesigned, but the Mercedes-Benz G-Class just had its interior redesigned and it's not under a new generation, and it also has new running lights.

Thanks, Andrew Niklawski — Preceding unsigned comment added by NiklawskiMSTM (talk • contribs) 20:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I tried to delete it when it was first added. Others kept adding it back in, so I at least formatted it properly and said that it doesn't really arrive until Sept. 2013 (originally it sounded like it was on sale in Feb 2013). We don't really know if it is a facelift or a new generation. And the American marketing machine doesn't help "OMG! OMG! ALL NEW!!!" I took a punt on new gen simply becuase the dimensions were considerably bigger but that wa really only my guess (WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH). We won't know until it comes out and we can see if the model code jumps up (usually it jumps by 10 or 20 for a new gen). I prefer to simple delete the whole section as WP:CRYSTALBALL gazing.  Stepho  talk  22:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The 2014 model is a refresh. There are interior and exterior design changes, but everything else is identical to the 2013 model so it is NOT a third generation. Illegal Operation (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so now we have opposite views with no proof from either side and no proof likely to be forthcoming until another 6 months in Sept 2013. I will just delete the new section until we have proof of a new model in order to avoid original research and crystal ball gazing. Thanks.  Stepho  talk  22:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am proposing that the 2014 model be put under a facelift sub-section for now since that's what all the information available is pointing to. If new information comes along then we'll update it. Illegal Operation (talk) 08:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done It took me a bit of time to get around to it but it's now part of the 'Model year changes' subsection for the second gen.  Stepho  talk  11:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More than a Facelift[edit]

The 2014 Tundra should at least have its own subsection. It may not have been a full redesign, but it was more than a face lift. The truck has new sheet metal from the cowl forward and the box has all new sheet metal. The bumpers, lights, grille, wheels are all new. The interior is completely new. There are new trim levels introduced, such as the 1794 edition. The regular cab short box (6.5') model is not longer in production. The suspension has been revised to provide softer spring rates. In short, this is far more than a face lift and it should be clarified as such. Caprice 96 (talk) 15:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a thorough facelift, but still a facelift. What does Toyota say? What about the model codes? From what I can tell, a 2WD Tundra 5.7 LWB reg cab (for example) has been USK51 before and after the facelift. By Toyota's usual habits, it would have been changed to USK61 if it was indeed a new generation in their eyes. This from a quick internet search. Cheers,  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well I updated the section a bit, but it needs more work. It still needs the info on the TRD pro models. A facelift is exactly that, refreshed front (and sometime rear) styling. The 2012 Tacoma would be an example of a face lift. This is more of a refresh than a facelift since so much of the truck was changed, but the overall chassis and body structure are largely carry-over. Caprice 96 (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Tundra "pulled" the self propelled dolly with the space shuttle on it?[edit]

How is this anything other than an ad for Tundra? This should be removed IMO.BrianAlex (talk) 16:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can change it to "a Tundra guided the self propelled dolly with the space shuttle on it". It got media coverage and forms only a small part of the whole article. Can't see any real harm.  Stepho  talk  23:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently most of the trip was done on self-propelled, remote-controlled dollies but the bridge crossing was done with a lightweight, non-motorized dolly pulled by the Tundra.  Stepho  talk  03:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Toyota Tundra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Toyota Tundra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Toyota Tundra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Removed those 2 - The Yahoo one wasn't archived back enough and pressroom.toyota brings up nothing so have removed those 2 from the article. –Davey2010Talk 23:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TRD Rock Warrior Pic[edit]

The pic shown with the caption "Toyota Tundra Rock Warrior edition" is clearly not a Rock Warrior packaged Tundra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8803:3C04:2100:7D47:7C75:75AE:93A9 (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you're right. The Rock Warrior is supposed to have a body coloured grille. How about the pic to the right?  Stepho  talk  22:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1st Gen Missing Info[edit]

The section on first generation is missing payload and towing capacity.

68.186.104.201 (talk) 18:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you know the figures (and have references to back them up), then please feel free to add them in.  Stepho  talk  18:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid Transmission Error[edit]

The information panel for the XK70 generation listed: "10-speed Aisin AWRHM50 "Multi Stage Electronically controlled CVT Hybrid System" automatic" ... which is incorrect. The hybrid system in the Tundra is not even similar to the LS 500h system. It is not the AWRHM50 power-split hybrid; it will be the same AWR10L65 as the non-hybrid, with an added parallel motor-generator. There is no reference given to support the incorrect claim - it must be an erroneous assumption of a contributor. brian|bp 18:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

3rd gen is 3.5 not 3.4[edit]

There is a error according to Toyota the engine is a 3.5 liter engine not a 3.4 liter engine so the engine displacement is wrong https://pressroom.toyota.com/absolute-powerhouse-next-generation-2022-toyota-tundra/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lunacats (talk • contribs) 10:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The engine size is 3,444 cc - making it a 3.4 L engine even though Toyota markets it as a 3.5 L engine. WP:UNITS says we use the true displacement (with suitable rounding) rather than the marketing figure. This agreement was originally formed around a discussion of the so-called 5.0 Mustang which actually contained a 4.9 L engine.  Stepho  talk  20:34, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trailhunter[edit]

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the Trailhunter described in this video? https://www.foxnews.com/auto/toyota-extreme-trailhunter-off-road-truck and https://www.toyota.com/upcoming-vehicles/trailhunter/ Ssalava42 (talk) 01:22, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP is a volunteer organisation. This means that you are allowed to add the info yourself. Don't worry about mistakes, we'll double check it and help out if needed. If not sure how to do something, then copy something similar from elsewhere in the article and modify it.  Stepho  talk  01:38, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Power-split hybrid[edit]

What's our sourcing that the i-Force Max is a power-split hybrid? I've seen sources call it a series (which makes since given its layout), but it seems more like a true parallel hybrid to me. I can't see it being a power-split. I suspect that may have just been a carryover from other Toyota hybrids which are power-splits. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 17:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Toyota_Tundra&oldid=1201760670"