😂 That made me laugh my a$& off.

 

it may be a good truck, but that front (hideous) shows it's just 'trying' (too hard) to fit in with gm/ford/dodge, but offers no innovation that i can see.

 

Why is Toyota so stuck on the hybrid idea? I have an RX 450h & it’s by no means stellar on fuel for its size. I’m not against hybrids, but the cost difference can buy a lot of fuel. This is really baffling, when GM can squeeze 27 mpg out of a 455 HP 6.2 V8 WITHOUT cylinder deactivation! This gets back into the aerodynamics of the front end. The front of the Tundra doesn’t need to look like a snowplow, it needs to be functional & reliable. Screw all that macho crap. Build me a nice looking, reliable pickup & I’ll buy it. It’s not rocket science. Buying a car or truck is an emotional experience & Toyota has completely missed that. Think about the most gorgeous vehicle you’ve ever seen. It probably wasn’t the most functional or reliable vehicle, but people bought it because they loved the look. That is how marketing works.

 

whats getting 27mpg with the 6.2 V8?

 

I got a great irl laugh out of this! Thanks lol!

I really think it looks like a cheap futuristic forklift, like something out of the Deus Ex game series. Off putting in the extreme without even looking at the lack of real engine options

 

Chevy trucks on the highway
Corvettes being stupid
Camaros being driven normally
You know.....basically anything you can option it in?

 

Is there more than one 6.2 at Chevy? I'm looking at their web site (Silverado) to learn more and it states that the 6.2 V8 has "Dynamic Fuel Management" which is a cylinder deactivation system. Maybe I'm looking at the wrong one as it says it has 420 hp. EPA ratings seem to be 16 city, 20 hwy, 17 combined.

 

Our Camaro SS! Hell, it gets 20 mpg around town!

 

Yes, there is the truck engine, the Corvette engine & the Camaro engine. The two cars have more HP & the trucks have more torque. My Camaro doesn’t have cylinder deactivation because it’s a 6 speed manual. The mpg on the trucks is decently better than the Tundra with a smaller engine. The trucks just get horrible mpg because they are heavy & not aerodynamic whatsoever.

 

Because it’s a cheaper way of getting better fuel economy for Toyota


Your 6.2 numbers are way off

 

Hey....don't laugh. With what we've been seeing lately from Toyota (and, for that matter, some other vehicle-makers), this kind of nonsense will soon be a distinct possibility.

 

Chevy trucks do not get anywhere near 27 mpg highway with the 6.2. 6.2 Silverado makes 15/20, 6.2 Sierra is 15/19. The diesel is 27 mpg

Bringing in the corvette and camaro in this is a pointless comparison in a discussion about far heavier and less aerodynamic trucks.

 

One would think that is the next LX, but I cannot be certain even if parts of the design have been officially leaked (rear lightbar). I haven't asked anyone else yet, but the Tundra and 2023 Sequoia are supposed to be launching only weeks apart. Tundra in January and Sequoia in dealers right after. Does it debut at Los Angeles International Auto Show, like the previous truck in November 2007? Maybe it does.

 

Good news....at least as of now, the L.A. Show is still on this year, despite the pandemic. Tickets for it are on sale now...although I would assume that, if you wanted to go, you, could get free passes, like I do for the D.C. Auto Show.

https://laautoshow.com

 

I never said the trucks are getting 27 mpg - that’s something you created. The point of my comparison is more aerodynamic = better mpg. Trucks are heavier & made for hauling & towing, so naturally, mpgs will be lower. If manufacturers want to increase the fuel mileage on their trucks, they need to stop the foolish shovel nose box on wheels & actually put function into their designs. Oddly, the diesel is way ahead of the gasoline engines in mpg. I would own one, if not for the emissions maintenance nightmare that almost all of them experience now.