2022 Tundra compared to 300 series

[Climbingnut]

So I get what everyone is saying about market stuff, and I don’t disagree. That’s not why I keep pressing things. What I’d like to know is HOW they could put IRS on a TNGA-F platform designed for a rear 5 link with a live axle and coils. I’m not a mechanical engineer, but I cannot see how it would be the same platform if the rear end of it uses a completely different suspension, and likely also different crossmembers to allow for a 3rd row that folds into the body. Might as well use the Sienna “platform” and throw a diff under the rear . All joking aside, I know there are some folks on this forum far more in the know than I and who could explain this. Anyone care to chime in on the HOW as opposed to the WHY?

 

[FJ73Texas]

You have to look at it from "body on frame" perspective for TNGA-F. People seem to be saying a Sienna or Corolla will share the same (or close to) specs as the Tundra. That is not the case and is just not physically possible and the Sienna/Corolla doesn't use a frame.

Not everything Toyota offers is "body on frame" but anything that is will share the same frame with slight modifications between Tundra/Sequoia/LC/Tacoma/etc.....

 

[desmocruiser]

I’m not saying it is, just that with using the TNGA platform essentially means a that what separates one model from another on the same chassis is not the chassis or drivetrain, but the body itself. Given all the work that goes into producing and engineering a chassis to be a platform for multiple vehicles, I could see how the sequoia could go live axle in the rear if it indeed uses the same TNGA chassis as the tundra and LC300. Otherwise, I don’t see how it can be the same TNGA chassis if the rear end is for a completely different suspension. It would be akin to using the same chassis for a RAV 4 and also the myriad of variations of the Hilux/Tacoma/4Runner/Fortuner, etc.

I’d love to know if the sequoia will indeed use the same chassis as the Tundra and LC300.

A design intention of the TNGA platform will use common components/elements and take into consideration the utilization of various drivetrains, configurations etc. by making the underpinning modular so they only have ~6 or so instead of 100+ worldwide.

 

[Canyonero]

We can agree the 300 was not designed for the US market (really the 200 wasn't either, we just got lucky for 14 years) there is too much investment in areas most of us will never utilize. The very large majority of 200 series owners, including me, never push their 200 anywhere near their limits and history has proven very few people were willing to buy one new unless they just really like Land Cruisers.

The majority of 2020/2021 200 series owners are new to Land Cruiser ownership because the press started longingly chirping about how cool they are as they were heading out of the US and didn't want to miss out on an opportunity to own the most talked and written about vehicle of the past year......they will own them and either figure out how great they are in their own way or something else will become more popular and discussed and they will move to the next "cool" thing.

I'm not sure I agree on the 'not designed for the US market' part about the 200. G Wagons aren't designed for the US market either if you mean their owners don't take them off-road (and they don't know what a locker even is), yet there's a waiting list to get a G Wagon. Same could be said for a Jeep Rubicon - 90% never see more than a fire road, and those owners don't understand what their vehicle was designed for and they don't use it for that purpose. They sell in very large numbers.

Since the 200 Series mission is actually driving unpaved roads while pulling a trailer for 25 years without breaking, America's roads seem like a pretty good stomping ground. The truth is, Toyota just never put any effort into selling the 200. It was styled bland, never kept up to date (even by Toyota standards) with technology, never marketed as being what it is. Had they done these things, they'd have sold units.

I'm not here to tell the largest OEM how to sell units, but I'm also at least mildly annoyed that Toyota pisses on its customers and tells them it's raining. Toyota was well aware there is a large and growing contingent of Land Cruiser (200 in particular) enthusiasts in the US. They know about LCDC. They don't care.

I think Toyota is a company that struggles mightily with its own identity. They are comfortable on the one hand, being known for exceptional QDR and moving millions of units based on that reputation. On the other hand, they are somewhat uncomfortable being the generic "appliance brand" of automobiles. So they make these token moves into the sports car world or the off-road world. They never take a big step in any direction. They never try to dominate an "exciting" market. They are never going to give us a Raptor or a TRX or a Hellcat or a Tesla. It seems to work for them, but they are not an enthusiast brand, IMO.

3/4 of my current fleet are Toyotas, so they are clearly doing something right!

 

[desmocruiser]

I'm not sure I agree on the 'not designed for the US market' part about the 200. G Wagons aren't designed for the US market either if you mean their owners don't take them off-road (and they don't know what a locker even is), yet there's a waiting list to get a G Wagon. Same could be said for a Jeep Rubicon - 90% never see more than a fire road, and those owners don't understand what their vehicle was designed for and they don't use it for that purpose. They sell in very large numbers.

Since the 200 Series mission is actually driving unpaved roads while pulling a trailer for 25 years without breaking, America's roads seem like a pretty good stomping ground. The truth is, Toyota just never put any effort into selling the 200. It was styled bland, never kept up to date (even by Toyota standards) with technology, never marketed as being what it is. Had they done these things, they'd have sold units.

I'm not here to tell the largest OEM how to sell units, but I'm also at least mildly annoyed that Toyota pisses on its customers and tells them it's raining. Toyota was well aware there is a large and growing contingent of Land Cruiser (200 in particular) enthusiasts in the US. They know about LCDC. They don't care.

I think Toyota is a company that struggles mightily with its own identity. They are comfortable on the one hand, being known for exceptional QDR and moving millions of units based on that reputation. On the other hand, they are somewhat uncomfortable being the generic "appliance brand" of automobiles. So they make these token moves into the sports car world or the off-road world. They never take a big step in any direction. They never try to dominate an "exciting" market. They are never going to give us a Raptor or a TRX or a Hellcat or a Tesla. It seems to work for them, but they are not an enthusiast brand, IMO.

3/4 of my current fleet are Toyotas, so they are clearly doing something right!

Exactly, I agree. If the 200 series was designed to drive on dirt roads pulling a trailer, they were not designed for the US market. That accurately describes the market they were designed, the Middle East, Australia, etc. The vast majority of US buyers are driving to the office, kids to school, soccer, vacation on paved roads etc. and aren't willing to pay top $ for a vanilla styled, low mpg, little to no tech, bad third row seat etc. SUV despite it being the best built most capable!

As far as the G wagon goes MB spends the same amount advertising it as Toyota did the Land Cruiser, very little to zero and the G Wagon has outsold the LC by a good margin the past 5 years! Maybe if the Kardashians had driven 200 series the 300 series would have made it to the US!

Glad you enjoyed LCDC it is great to hear about 200 series hit the trails and sounded like a cool event with not so good weather. I hoped to make it, but too many other obligations, maybe next year!

 

[FJ73Texas]

I didn't know the US market was void of dirt roads and trailer pulling. I need to check and make sure I still live in the US or maybe Texas is like a market of its own. Just giving you a hard time. I get what you are saying.

 

[desmocruiser]

I didn't know the US market was void of dirt roads and trailer pulling. I need to check and make sure I still live in the US or maybe Texas is like a market of its own.

We got plenty, at least West of the Mississippi, but most are still
Optional!

Just aren't many people spending $100k on a Land Cruiser to do it, we would rather have F350's, 3500's etc. for that much cash!

 

[m4hk33]

To be competitive to the new Tahoe/Yukon it should be adopting IRS, it makes much more room for third row seating and cargo and Toyota is the vehicle selling business and this is a huge segment of the market they have missed for years.

Some thoughts,

I think the the Tahoe/Yukon are sell significantly more units in the US for a few reasons.

Shorter development cycles, Americans love new stuff, From 1000 dollar smart phones to eating tens of thousands of dollars in depreciation on new vehicles, Americans just love trading in perfectly serviceable stuff for the latest edition with blue tooth 3.0, wireless charging, a display that's an inch or two large or any other number of gimmicks.

While I personally appreciate Toyotas approach to reliability, since the last significant change to the Tundra/Sequioa in 2008, GM is now on their 3rd generation of of the platform even before toyota can launch their next gen platform, Bottom line, people are blowing 70k on a vehicle with a decade old tech package

In regards to the cargo, third row seating, We have new Yukons as work vehicles and honestly, they have never had usable 3rd row seating for adults. They are great for 4 adults with a decent amount of gear, but anything more and they suck.

If Toyota wants to compete in the large SUV and Truck market, they need to either have shorter development cycles, or do something that the big three do not. I think the one area in which they do have the ability to sell really well is if they basically approach the segment as if was the 4 runner. The 4 runner is successful because it can complete against Jeep as well doing outdoor stuff and offers more storage space.

The should market it is a larger 4 runner/tacoma, Americans love the idea of outdoor adventures, and can be sold quite easily on the concept,

 

[m4hk33]

So I get what everyone is saying about market stuff, and I don’t disagree. That’s not why I keep pressing things. What I’d like to know is HOW they could put IRS on a TNGA-F platform designed for a rear 5 link with a live axle and coils. I’m not a mechanical engineer, but I cannot see how it would be the same platform if the rear end of it uses a completely different suspension, and likely also different crossmembers to allow for a 3rd row that folds into the body. Might as well use the Sienna “platform” and throw a diff under the rear . All joking aside, I know there are some folks on this forum far more in the know than I and who could explain this. Anyone care to chime in on the HOW as opposed to the WHY?

I mean we put a man on the moon 60 years ago, so anything is possible, but, if they wanted a IRS they would not chosen to use the TNGA platform. They would of given it its own platform like they did with the LC for 40 years.

The Sequoia is locked into TNGA, just like the LC and Tundra. Take a look at the Tundra, and LC, Give it a different grill and headlight package in the front, a differnt tailgate/light combo in the rear, and thats the next Sequoia.

 

[m4hk33]

We got plenty, at least West of the Mississippi, but most are still
Optional!

Just aren't many people spending $100k on a Land Cruiser to do it, we would rather have F350's, 3500's etc. for that much cash!

I think the loaded 2500/3500's are closer in worth to being $100k vehicles than the Landcruiser, in every other market, the LC 200 is a $60k vehicle, but Toyota adds leather and poof 40k premium in the US. LC's are incredible vehicles, unfortunately in no respects are they 100k vehicles and people see this. For example, the 2500's have heavier frames, stronger suspension, bigger engines, the latest technology. Those are significant enhancements to a $60K base Vehicle. Also add in that many of these 2500's can be deprecated on ones taxes for work, its almost an easy choice, especially if one is going to spend 8 hours a day jumping into and out of three truck.

 

[m4hk33]

Something else that i just stumbled on that was interesting that i see complicating things for Tundra sales is that GM is bringing out a ZR2/AT4X package that is essentially doing the same thing that everybody else is doing by offer a trim with front and rear lockers, off road racing type suspension version of crawl control and it going to be available on both the 1500 and 2500 levels.

I've driven the GM 6.6 around the middle east for the last year or its a solid engine and I honestly like my 2021. So while somebody like me really was excited about the Tundra getting closer in pedigree to the design of the LC, The a diesel 2500 with lockers, lift, and 1000lb diesel is incredibly interesting.

I really like the direction that Toyota is going but damn guys, help me give you my money.

 

[JohnPW]

Something else that i just stumbled on that was interesting that i see complicating things for Tundra sales is that GM is bringing out a ZR2/AT4X package that is essentially doing the same thing that everybody else is doing by offer a trim with front and rear lockers, off road racing type suspension version of crawl control and it going to be available on both the 1500 and 2500 levels.

I've driven the GM 6.6 around the middle east for the last year or its a solid engine and I honestly like my 2021. So while somebody like me really was excited about the Tundra getting closer in pedigree to the design of the LC, The a diesel 2500 with lockers, lift, and 1000lb diesel is incredibly interesting.

I really like the direction that Toyota is going but damn guys, help me give you my money.

I’ve posted this before but IMO Toyota trucks and SUV’s have never compared well on dollars for features. Which is why most of them haven’t sold as well as GM Ford or Jeep competitors. The old CJ7’s came with a small block V8, the comparable FJ40 was so underpowered. I bought a new Ford Explorer in 1991, it was so much nicer for the money than an 80 series LC. The GM, Ford and now the Ram pickups have features and power that Toyota will never match. Current model Tahoe and Ford Expedition are so far ahead of the current Sequoia. Toyota has never been, and probably will never be, ahead of rivals on features and luxury for the dollar.

You don’t buy Toyota because of features, or even capability. You buy Toyota for reliability. My 86 Jeep Wrangler was a piece of crap. I replaced every compnent of the AC on my 91 Explorer at least twice. My Tahoe was a rattling bucket of bolts at 10 years 150k miles. Meanwhile my 2009 and 2011 Lexus vehicles drive like new. My 2016 LC should last forever. Comparing features is kind of silly…you either value Toyota quality, reliability and longevity or you don’t. If you trade vehicles often I don’t know why you would buy a Toyota.

 

[04UZJ100]

Something else that i just stumbled on that was interesting that i see complicating things for Tundra sales is that GM is bringing out a ZR2/AT4X package that is essentially doing the same thing that everybody else is doing by offer a trim with front and rear lockers, off road racing type suspension version of crawl control and it going to be available on both the 1500 and 2500 levels.

I've driven the GM 6.6 around the middle east for the last year or its a solid engine and I honestly like my 2021. So while somebody like me really was excited about the Tundra getting closer in pedigree to the design of the LC, The a diesel 2500 with lockers, lift, and 1000lb diesel is incredibly interesting.

I really like the direction that Toyota is going but damn guys, help me give you my money.

Meh. One look underneath and you realize how chintzy GM and American Trucks really are.

 

[m4hk33]

I’ve posted this before but IMO Toyota trucks and SUV’s have never compared well on dollars for features. Which is why most of them haven’t sold as well as GM Ford or Jeep competitors. The old CJ7’s came with a small block V8, the comparable FJ40 was so underpowered. I bought a new Ford Explorer in 1991, it was so much nicer for the money than an 80 series LC. The GM, Ford and now the Ram pickups have features and power that Toyota will never match. Current model Tahoe and Ford Expedition are so far ahead of the current Sequoia. Toyota has never been, and probably will never be, ahead of rivals on features and luxury for the dollar.

You don’t buy Toyota because of features, or even capability. You buy Toyota for reliability. My 86 Jeep Wrangler was a piece of crap. I replaced every compnent of the AC on my 91 Explorer at least twice. My Tahoe was a rattling bucket of bolts at 10 years 150k miles. Meanwhile my 2009 and 2011 Lexus vehicles drive like new. My 2016 LC should last forever. Comparing features is kind of silly…you either value Toyota quality, reliability and longevity or you don’t. If you trade vehicles often I don’t know why you would buy a Toyota.

I don't disagree with any of this, As sombody who has had a couple Full size GM's and as well as a LC and a Sequioa, this is 100 percent the reason that I moved away from GM into Toyota. With that being said, I think that vehicles across the board are getting really good. Would I considering a Full size Gm to be as reliable as your typical toyota truck or SUV, not quite, but, after spending the 5 years driving GM 2500's and yukons in the middle east, they hold up far better than expected in one of the most inhospitable places on the planet.

So I think the value proposition for buying a toyota remains the same, offering best in class reliability and durability, and personally I think that counts for a lot. For now, I am currently waiting to see what toyota brings to the table, The Tundra looks decent, but LX and Sequioa are really still years out at this point.

 

[m4hk33]

Meh. One look underneath and you realize how chintzy GM and American Trucks really are.

Traditionally, I don't disagree, but i am not sure how accuracte this is with the current generation of vehicles.

 

[04UZJ100]

Traditionally, I don't disagree, but i am not sure how accuracte this is with the current generation of vehicles.

Current Gen? Have you looked at a GM front suspension? Looks bare bones. 200 is far beefier and more HD (weight bearing capacity aside)

 

[Climbingnut]

I mean we put a man on the moon 60 years ago, so anything is possible, but, if they wanted a IRS they would not chosen to use the TNGA platform. They would of given it its own platform like they did with the LC for 40 years.

The Sequoia is locked into TNGA, just like the LC and Tundra. Take a look at the Tundra, and LC, Give it a different grill and headlight package in the front, a differnt tailgate/light combo in the rear, and thats the next Sequoia.

This is what I’m getting at. I’m not saying Toyota isn’t going IRS on the Sequoia, but I don’t think they will use the TNGA-F chassis. Perhaps they’ll call it TNGA-G or something. I get what @desmocruiser is saying by making the platform modular so you have say various fronts and rears, and depending on the vehicle you’re making, you connect the appropriate piece, but that would still make it a different chassis. Kind of like when Ford went modular with their V6 and V8 motors. The V6 used all the same accessories the V8 used, and was essentially the V8 minus 2 cylinders in design, cylinder size and everything else. That didn’t mean it was the same motor though. A modular chassis platform to my understanding would mean that the TNGA-F used for the LC300 and new Tundra would be the same in say the front of the Sequoia, but the chassis would probably not be labeled TNGA-F, but as I said above, the last letter would likely be changed to suit the rear of the chassis change to work with IRS.

 

[desmocruiser]

All really good points!

I am not certain the how much would be required to change the rear to an IRS from live axle, just betting Toyota has already considered that in the initIal modular design to simply change the rear section which they can do within the TNGA platform and it still remain in that TNGA family. It is my understanding they currently use the same platform family/designation to accommodate AWD, FWD, and RWD configurations and vary wheelbase by as much as 15” based on it’s modular capability. I think some confuse platform with frame interchangeability which I don’t think is a accurate here.

My opinion is that the Tundra and the 300 series Land Cruiser will share plenty and the Tundra will be a robust improvement, but I am not convinced it will be a 300 series with a bed. There will be certain components that keep a Land Cruiser a Land Cruiser and keep the Tundra in a more reasonable price range and the same can likely be said for the Sequoia in the future.

 

[Climbingnut]

All really good points!

I am not certain the how much would be required to change the rear to an IRS from live axle, just betting Toyota has already considered that in the initIal modular design to simply change the rear section which they can do within the TNGA platform and it still remain in that TNGA family. It is my understanding they currently use the same platform family/designation to accommodate AWD, FWD, and RWD configurations and vary wheelbase by as much as 15” based on it’s modular capability. I think some confuse platform with frame interchangeability which I don’t think is a accurate here.

I may be alone in this, but I’d love to see the engineering behind how they can use the same platform for AWD, FWD and RWD configurations. The feat of engineering to include that many configurations is mighty impressive IMO.

 

[m4hk33]

All really good points!

I am not certain the how much would be required to change the rear to an IRS from live axle, just betting Toyota has already considered that in the initIal modular design to simply change the rear section which they can do within the TNGA platform and it still remain in that TNGA family. It is my understanding they currently use the same platform family/designation to accommodate AWD, FWD, and RWD configurations and vary wheelbase by as much as 15” based on it’s modular capability. I think some confuse platform with frame interchangeability which I don’t think is a accurate here.

My opinion is that the Tundra and the 300 series Land Cruiser will share plenty and the Tundra will be a robust improvement, but I am not convinced it will be a 300 series with a bed. There will be certain components that keep a Land Cruiser a Land Cruiser and keep the Tundra in a more reasonable price range and the same can likely be said for the Sequoia in the future.

Agree,

But just remember that outside of the US, the LC, is in the same price range as Tundra, and Sequoia. Considering the modular nature of the platform, one could make an argument that the 300 series shares more in common with the new tundra and sequoia than the 200 series. The question is will be is how good is the new LC going to be when its a platform SUV vs when it was a purpose engineered from the ground up. In many respects, things do get better as tech progresses.