The Japanese manufacturers that have decided to compete in the full-size pickup category face quite a challenge. Nissan is selling the Titan in very limited numbers and its future doesn't look good. Meanwhile, Toyota's second-generation Tundra (we'll forget about the T100) is getting better with age, but still can't match the domestics' sales figures.
Is the problem the vehicle itself, or is Toyota victim of the 'buy American' syndrome? Maybe it’s a bit of both. Actually, the Tundra is well-conceived (and built in Texas, too), but one thing it can't match is GM, Chrysler and Ford's model range and endless trims and options. For now.
What that means: for light and medium duties, the Tundra can handle it. For heavy duties or specific needs, the Toyota might not be up to the task, because unlike the competition, it doesn’t offer several powertrain, axle ratio, transmission and other mechanical choices. Building the Tundra’s spec sheets on Auto123.com is a walk in the park for our data entry team compared to domestic-brand pickups.
For 2010, the Tundra gets some changes, the most significant being the new base engine. The 32-valve, 4.6-litre V8 develops 310 horsepower and 327 lb-ft of torque and is mated to a smooth-shifting 6-speed automatic; that’s 34 more ponies and one more gear than last year’s base powertrain. By the way, it hustles to 100 km/h in 7.5 seconds.
While performance is up, fuel economy isn’t; our average of 15.2 L/100 km is acceptable by pickup-truck standards, although the 4.6L should normally be more fuel-efficient than the old 4.7L. Unlike GM and Ram, the Tundra doesn’t offer a V6-engined model for those who seek to lower their fuel bills.
Other upgrades for 2010 include new bumpers, grille and taillights. You’d be hard-pressed to notice these changes, but the Tundra obviously keeps its massive bulldog face, which some like and some don’t. Some say it looks a little too much like the Ram. Still, on a personal note, I like it.
 |
| Our Tundra can haul 1,255 lbs (565 kg) in its cargo bed and tow up to 8,300 lbs (3,760 kg). |
Is the problem the vehicle itself, or is Toyota victim of the 'buy American' syndrome? Maybe it’s a bit of both. Actually, the Tundra is well-conceived (and built in Texas, too), but one thing it can't match is GM, Chrysler and Ford's model range and endless trims and options. For now.
What that means: for light and medium duties, the Tundra can handle it. For heavy duties or specific needs, the Toyota might not be up to the task, because unlike the competition, it doesn’t offer several powertrain, axle ratio, transmission and other mechanical choices. Building the Tundra’s spec sheets on Auto123.com is a walk in the park for our data entry team compared to domestic-brand pickups.
For 2010, the Tundra gets some changes, the most significant being the new base engine. The 32-valve, 4.6-litre V8 develops 310 horsepower and 327 lb-ft of torque and is mated to a smooth-shifting 6-speed automatic; that’s 34 more ponies and one more gear than last year’s base powertrain. By the way, it hustles to 100 km/h in 7.5 seconds.
While performance is up, fuel economy isn’t; our average of 15.2 L/100 km is acceptable by pickup-truck standards, although the 4.6L should normally be more fuel-efficient than the old 4.7L. Unlike GM and Ram, the Tundra doesn’t offer a V6-engined model for those who seek to lower their fuel bills.
Other upgrades for 2010 include new bumpers, grille and taillights. You’d be hard-pressed to notice these changes, but the Tundra obviously keeps its massive bulldog face, which some like and some don’t. Some say it looks a little too much like the Ram. Still, on a personal note, I like it.
 |
| The 32-valve, 4.6-litre V8 develops 310 horsepower and 327 lb-ft of torque. |