MotorTrend Year-Long TRD PRO review

Here is CR's take on the new Tundra, again. I think it's all very sober fair take on it.

The new Tundra marks the first thorough redesign of Toyota’s full-sized pickup in 15 years. During that time, the Tundra fell markedly behind the sales-leading domestic truck brands in terms of capability, technology, and innovations, as the “Big 3” (Ford, General Motors, and Ram) made several redesigns.

The Tundra is powerful, quick, and roomy, and an improvement over its predecessor. But it hasn’t made any big gains compared to its competitors in terms of handling, fuel economy, or storage innovations. Instead, it’s now merely on a par with its rivals rather than a step above them. After testing it, we feel that the Tundra doesn’t “out-truck” its rivals.

Toyota did hit a home run, however, with the silky-smooth powertrain. The all-new 389-horsepower, 3.4-liter twin-turbocharged V6—which replaces the previous V8—has tons of power in any gear and at any rpm, capable of catapulting the truck forward with ease. It produces a hearty 479 lb.-ft. of torque, which explains its prodigious low-end pulling power. The new 10-speed automatic transmission is fantastic, upshifting more imperceptibly than many luxury cars. Most downshifts can be felt a bit, but that's typical among full-sized trucks. At our test track, the Tundra zipped from 0 to 60 mph in 6.3 seconds, making it the quickest full-sized pickup.

But at 17 mpg overall, the Tundra is no match for the 19 mpg overall that the Ford F-150 manages with its most common engine—the 2.7-liter turbo V6. Also, unlike most full-sized pickups, the Tundra isn’t available with automatic 4WD, which means the driver will need to remember to shift the truck into 4WD themselves in slippery conditions—and then shift it back into rear-wheel drive when the road clears.

Toyota offers the Tundra with a hybrid powertrain, but, similar to the Ford F-150 PowerBoost hybrid, this one is designed for more performance, not necessarily much better fuel economy. Called the iForce Max, the hybrid uses essentially the same twin-turbocharged V6 as the standard iForce twin-turbo V6, but adds an electric motor that is sandwiched between the engine and transmission. Horsepower increases to 437, and torque gets boosted to 583 lb.-ft.

Of the numerous advancements Toyota made with the new truck, one of the biggest changes is a switch to a rear suspension with coil springs, replacing the leaf springs that are used on most full-sized pickups. A similar swap more than a decade ago made for a much more comfortable ride in the Ram 1500, but the Tundra’s ride is now merely tolerable—it still exhibits the rear-end jiggle on rougher roads that plagues most pickups. It also remains clumsy through corners, with slow, overly light steering that gives the front end a ponderous feel. Still, it proved secure during our on-track handling tests, posting a similar speed through our avoidance maneuver to other full-sized pickups. We were disappointed by the Tundra’s stopping distances, which are on the long side even among full-sized pickups.

We like the cabin’s robust and rugged design, with plenty of large buttons, robust rocker switches, and an oversized volume knob. While we were impressed by the interior furnishings of the upper-level 1794 Edition we rented from Toyota, we were much less enthused with the mainstream SR5 model we purchased. It has a very plasticky, work-truck feel to it, with cheap steering-wheel stalks and numerous rough edges on trim panels. The huge touch-screen infotainment system is easy to navigate, but it’s a long reach to the right side of the display for the driver, and the system can be slow to boot up when you first turn the vehicle on.

As you’d expect, our tested crew cab’s interior is super roomy. The front seats are wide, reasonably comfortable, and should suit a variety of body types, though their flat shape offers little lateral support through turns. There’s plenty of headroom, a well-placed left footrest, nicely-padded armrests, and good space for the driver’s right knee in spite of the wide center console. The rear seat is also plenty spacious, with loads of knee room, good headroom, and decent leg support. As with most trucks, the seatback is fairly upright, but it has just enough of a rake to make it comfortable on longer drives. The power retractable rear window is a unique and handy feature.

In terms of truck duties, the Tundra doesn’t cede anything to the competition. Maximum tow capacity is 12,000 pounds (note: the more common Tundra trims have a rating of just over 11,000 pounds), with a max payload of 1,940 pounds. The spray-on bedliner is made of dent- and corrosion-resistant composite material that promises durability. The tailgate is easy to open and close, and can be opened simply by pressing a button on the key fob. Handy tie-downs, power outlets, and lights on the sides of the bed also help.

Forward collision warning, automatic emergency braking with pedestrian and cyclist detection, lane departure warning, adaptive cruise control, and a rear-seat reminder system come standard on every Tundra. Blind spot warning and rear cross traffic warning are unavailable on the base SR trim, optional on the SR5, and standard on the Limited and higher.

 

Totally fair comment. Here are the current reliability scores for a 2023.

F-150 48
Ram 39
Tundra 37
Silverado 23
GMC 23

I would expect these to trend upwards for Tundra and the others to stay about the same. The prior generation easily crushed the Big 3 in in long term reliability towards the end of its production. They did have a long time to get it right!

 

As usual, you bring up good points. Crazy to have known you for this long!

 

The new gadget comfort guys always want the latest and greatest but I have heard more folks say "why don't they make that model (insert car/truck/suv) anymore, it was the best I have owned". Toyota actually does this with very long runs of production nearly making them perfect yet get panned for being outdated.

 

No truer statement. Have a 19 Roush and its a beast and it check off all my boxes for "Need for Speed". That said, very tough to beat a vette.

 

So I actually did read the article. While honest about a few things, I think it ignored 97% of pickup truck ownership realities and focused on a few whining complaints. Perhaps the battle for truck superiority is waged in that last three percent, but, as noted, those complaints were compared to an out-of-category vehicle and no mentions were made fo the actual competitors.

They praise the auto manufacturer for ditching the V8 (a crowd favorite) in favor of a TTV6 (not so crowd pleasing), then complain that it doesn't get amazing fuel economy pushing a big heavy brick down the road. Complaining about fuel economy is just silly, IMO. They noted that they could best the EPA numbers and achieve 23 MPG, but only averaged 15 MPG. The best fuel economy mod is the driver, so essential they are complaining that they are not fuel efficient drivers.

Still on the subject of the drivetrain, they erroneously claim the the Raptor is "significantly more capable and powerful". Capability is, I suppose, somewhat subjective, so talking about offload prowess, the Raptor is more capable (as it should be and as note, isn't in the same category as the pro). From payload and towing, payload is about the same (it's a 1/2 ton, after all) but I still think the Pro edges it out, while the pro has significantly more towing capacity than the Raptor. Empirically, the Raptor bests the tundra by 11 HP, while being bested in the torque department by 79 Lb-ft. 11 HP sounds pretty negligible - that's about 2%; 79 lb-ft of torque is more significant - 15%. So I suppose their use of the work "significant" is either "significantly nit-picked" or "significantly subjective based on their somewhat a-typical pickup truck use case".

Moving on, their next big complaint was the "horrendous turning circle" that caused them great issue while traversing the starbucks drive thru. Hmm. Ok. I do value a good turning radius and my Gen2 tundra turning radius is phenomenal, IMO. My Gen2 sequoia is even better and turns stupid tight (due to it's shorter wheelbase). I've driven all of one singular gen3 and didn't take any issue with the turning radius. So maybe, MABYE they have a point there.

Next on the list was the Pro suspension. I also can't speak to the pro suspension, but the Gen3 suspension seemed improved compared to the Gen2 stock ride. They also make no note of trying to resolve any suspension issues or even tire pressures - tires being a component of the suspension. And, again, suspension is subjective. If they are expecting a raptor-esque ride, they are missing the biggest point made earlier in the thread about the the mismatched comparison: the raptor is a desert toy that can do truck things while the Pro is a truck that can do desert things. Hence the increased tow capacity.

Tires were also a complaint. I'll give them that 100%. The Toyota-spec'd Falkens aren't good. Neither were the Toyota-spec'd BFG's that came on my tundra. So I replaced them with a some quality tires as soon as the factory tires wore out. This is pretty common with many OE spec'd tires and most vehicle buyers that own the vehicle longer than a year or two understand and accept - even embrace - it. So why replace the tires with the same junk tires and complain they also wore out early? Sounds like the journalists naivety or poor choices. I've made them before. Most have.

Overall, it glossed over the important aspects of a pickup truck - the ability to tow and haul with confidence, safely and reliably - and was even more lackluster than their impressions of the Pro suspension. They did give us two or three sentences, admitting that the tundra pulled their razor on a trailer to the desert like it wasn't even there. But that's it. No elaboration on towing or hauling prowess, just that it did it.

I'll admit, I'm somewhat biased against MotorTrend and general consider their journalistic and entertainment endeavors bummfodder. The brand has, IMO, gone downhill over the last four or five years. Instead of giving automotive enthusiasts a popular voice that chooses the direction of the company and types of articles presented, MT has tried to shove their ideas of what the automotive world should be down enthusiasts throats. I very much enjoyed many seasons of MT's original series and magazines for years; but they have run them in to the ground, changed them for the worse, or flat out deleted them from their repertoire. They've canned or coerced long time stalwarts who don't fall in line with whatever it is they are trying push (EV's anyone? Nah, EV's for EVERYONE...). I don't think I've watched an episode of anything on MTOnDemand for 6 months. It's just not worth watching or reading any more. It's almost like their production material is handed to them from the highest bidder..

OK, ok, I'll end the MT rant. But I'm just being honest about the lens through which I view MotorTrend.

 

Motor Trend, like a lot of print media, is dying. I think their tv channel died and they are going all digital. They seem to be doing anything they can to survive.

 

Any truck with a set of Fox coilovers and some mediocre A/T tires can be a truck and do desert things. That's the problem I think.

 

You too?