my 2cents;

Being someone that works outside in the mud and snow and hauls machines and products from the farm to the grocery store, etc...i dont see anything wrong with a quality build pickup that has alot of power to do the job right. hauling a tractor (vs driving it = efficiency) means that large breaks are better than small breaks, especially said if u are infront of me in ur prius and ur slam on the breaks because a squirrl just jumped out of the woods...

toyota builds (in my opinion) the finest lineup of cars on the planet. i dont see why they shouldnt be able to build the finest truck lineup on the planet.

personally, i think this is a blind potshot at a business that has shown to be responsive to its customers needs, far and away better than any other auto company on the planet.

i agree. people who buy full-size pickups aim for power in towing etc. that's not to say that pickups aren't oversold in this country to people who don't need them, but aiming for the treehugger crowd is not an effective advertising method for selling full-size trucks.

that being said, i wish toyota would advertise even half as much for its smaller more fuel efficient trucks like the tacoma.

Nothing wrong with a good pickup, but there's something wrong with marketing it to suburbanites and trying to convince them that they need it when they clearly don't.

Yeah, don't knock 'em for that truck. Most people who buy trucks like that actually use them. It's not a vanity truck like a hummer or a land-rover. Granted, there are poseurs out there who buy these, but be careful throwing stones amigo!

Um what do you think as subsidized the Prius all these years? Truck and SUV sales. There is a lot more profit on every truck or SUV sale then any Camary or other car. Toyota didn't taint it's brand. You finally took off your blinders and realized Toyota sold trucks and SUV's as well.

To Toyota's favor, they do seem to market the truck as a work truck and not just a big thing you need to go to the mall. The adds I see for the Tundra all seem very work truck focused.

I imagine the emphasis on the Tundra is an effort to double their niches. If they can start to gobble up truck revenues from the big american companies they already beat at cars then they can secure that #1 seat.

Brian,

Great points, however I see far too many of these in places where they serve no real purpose, other then inflate some poor self image. I believe there are industries, and people that have jobs in those industries where such a vehicle is needed.

However I believe that all that ad money could have been better used to make the truck hybrid and reduce on its emitted CO2. Or perhaps make all the mechanical parts, and electronic parts less weight and volume. Save on CO2 that way.

I live in an area of the U.S. where some vehicles just aren't efficient for several months a year. I still see some of the vehicles as ego boosters. Your vehicle can't truck it in this weather, join the bus system and keep the old vehicle for the rest of the year.

If people need a truck for working on the farm or construction sites, they'll look for trucks at the dealership, look for trucks in consumer reports and look them up online.

All this marketing is an attempt to convince normal people that they will need trucks.

Do not fool yourselves... Toyota sells and markets to environmentally conscious consumers just as much as it does to people with other priorities. They are in the business of making money, and enterprise wide, the hybrid market is just one slice. Look at Toyota's top sellers from this link:
http://www.blueovalnews.com/plugins/p2_news/printarticle.php?p2_articleid=135

You can draw all sorts of conclusions, but I get ~47000 fuel efficient sales, which is about 1/3rd of their sales. Notice how about half of their sales are from light trucks.

I'm not trying to prove anything conclusive, but just because they sell efficient cars, doesn't mean they wouldn't be pleased as punch to steal F-150 sales from ford with their Tundra. Toyota (nor just about anyone in the auto industry) does not operate with a core goal of selling environmentally-friendly products.

Lloyd alter will taint any credibility as a journalist if he continues to fail to think things through before writing. Construction people need trucks to haul the supplies for building things-- like wind turbines and biofuel refineries.

You've got to be kidding me! Another example of TreeHugger going off the deep end. Corporations are always to blame and the consumers they sell to are innocent. Consumers are the tail that wags the dog, not the other way around. Toyota is responding consumer's desire for trucks, not trying to create that market. If you are going to buy a truck, they want you to buy theirs.

The Tundra is still smaller than the full-sized domestics. It always has been. And at least they have the option of a smaller motor, unlike Nissan's new entry which has a 350cid motor STANDARD. WAY too much motor for 90% of people.

The big problem in the light truck industry is a lack of any small diesels (so you can run biodiesel). The smallest truck you can get a diesel in is the Dodge Ram 2500 which is still forking gi-normous.

Look, this is just business.

The biggest seller in the North American car market (the largest market in the world) is the Chevy full sized pickup, the #2 seller is the Ford F-150 full size pick up.

Toyota wants a slice of that.

Would you expect a car company, or any other business, to say, "No-no. No thank you, We don't want billions of dollars more."

Shareholder revolt would be a gross understatement.

I agree, this is business plain and simple. I am a treehugger and support most environmental movements and most articles here on treehugger.

But if environmental movements are to be taken seriously treehuggers need to stop blaming businesses and globalization for the problems of consumers.

If a few dingbats decide to buy a truck because they have a problem with their manhood, then go after them. To reiterate what has already been said, the trucks appear to be marketed to those who have a real use for them.

Andrew, the point of the $100 million is the following:

The Tundra campaign, the carmaker’s largest ever, is expected to cost more than $100 million, although officials would not be more specific. More than half of that budget is earmarked for hundreds of local events throughout the country aimed at giving truck buyers who might not wander into a Toyota dealership a closer look at the Tundra.

They are going after a type of buyer who won't just walk into a Toyota dealership or get his ideas from CU. They are trying to get to traditional Big Three truck buyers and they need to buy their way into that mind space.

Toyota is an automobile manufacturer, not Greenpeace. They, with Honda, are ahead of the industry as far as the environment goes, and I have every expectation they will continue to be for the foreseeable future.

But that doesn't mean they are going to leave money on the table by unilaterally giving up important markets. Hopefully, they will transition their Tundra drivers to hybrids, and if they do I'm sure it will be before anybody else. Time will tell.

Certainly Toyota is just doing good business but too often good business has a bad outcome. When maximising shareholder profits conflicts with looking after the planet should we just throw up our hands and say that's just the way it is?

Shareholder activism and corporate social responsibility have yielded some good results but are we just trying to fix a system that is irretrievably broken and will lead us to environmental ruin?

As you can tell I don't have many answers.

I appreciate Lloyd's generously offering his assesment on what sort of vehicle other people do or don't need. However, I wonder why someone buying a light truck is accused of doing so merely to boost their ego, yet, presumably, someone buying an overpriced compact hybrid car (subsidised by light truck and SUV sales), immune to the same criticism? A "smug alert" indeed.

chevy and ford make hybrid pick-ups/ SUVs
funny that the "leader" in hydrids can't
i dont care if its smaller or they just want a slice of the pie, or we made them do it bla, bla, bla
it call marketing
they will push what ever sells for the the most money, make it sexy, cool and convince us we need it.
their happy, big oils happy, and Americans can drive around thinking their tough because the TV told them they would be.

if those stock listed companies are unable to really strive for sustainability they should not be praised as being part of the solution. there is no sustainable way of absolute profitmaximizing.
maximizing self-interest is unsustainable regardless of whom is doing it. whether it might be consumers who try to get the most stuff possible out of their money, whether it might be shareholders who solely seek for highest rents or whether it might be managers who solely maximize profits for getting highest premiums.

there are companies and consumers who put green production and fair working conditions above their self-interest and are frugal with what is enough.

but stock listed companies seem unable to become frugal. so what we need are global environmental and social minimum standards as well as a prohibition of advertising for products that damage public goods when used/sold on large scale. this seems to me the best way to protect people and planet from the outcomes of companies short-term self-interests.
if companies really want to act sustainable they should at least support those standards. i don´t know what toyota does in this respect but a lot of large companies are the strongest reason for those standards being not on the way yet.

I read that Toyota loses money on every Prius it sells. If Toyota charged what it should for a Prius they wouldn't sell, they would be discontinued, and Toyota would not have the reputation it has for environmental friendliness. If they discontinued it maybe someone would make a film named "Who Killed the Hybrid?".

I'll bet that the market for work trucks is a very small portion of the total market for pickups. If the Tundra were aimed at the work truck market it wouldn't be so beautiful and luxurious. The work truck market is plenty well served without the Tundra.

The Neanderthals will love it and rush to it's defense.
It's puzzling that someone would read Treehugger and own a gas guzzler like a Tundra. That's not very sincere. It's sort of like the biodiesel limousine service that serves McMansion dwellers with Hummers in the driveway.

Also, arn't ford and GM's trucks more efficient than toyotas?

Again, the Prius would not be if it were not for truck and suv sales to sustain it's development and sales. Last year the prius line posted profit for the first time.

Toyota makes most of its profits from car sales (even in the US, though there trucks account for a bit more). The Prius would be just fine without trucks.

Many good comments here, as an auto industry follower let me clear some things up.

1) The Tundra is no longer a bit smaller than the "big 3" tricks. That is the old model, the new one is just as big.

2) The MPG numbers given for the Tundra are worse than the more powerful Chevy counterpart. Chevy has cyl. shutdown when the power isn't needed so that helps (they also have it on some 6 cyl cars (for those that think GM is in the stone age suprise) , Honda also has such a system), Toyota doesn't have that yet.

3) Toyota is attempting to be number 1 in as many areas of the automotive world as it can. They might be greener than others but don't kid yourselves that is only one part of their market.

4) Toyota talked about having a hybrid full size truck about 2 years ago but now is talking about E85 for 2009 and no hybrid talk. I think a diesel would be a better approach but they probably don't have a V8 diesel in the company for light duty use. Frankly except for start/stop and launch assist a hybrid truck that needs to tow 10,000 Lbs. up a hill is a dumb idea anyway. One thing that makes a hybrid more efficent is being able to downsize the engine but that's not posible here because you need full engine power to get up that hill.

5) Yes people seeking validation of their manhood or whatever will probably be some of the customers for this truck. Wouldn't be me but then I don't buy things I don't need. If I needed a truck I guess I would look at all of them and pick the best one.

A Hummer (any hummer) should be discussed in this fashion. It serves NO purpose. It is a 3/4 ton suburban with a different body and worse gas mileage. It does not have the towing capability of a suburban or the interior room. The Tundra is a different vehicle entirely. If everyone will do the research, the Tundra gets better real world mileage than even the Chevrolet hybrid Silverado. There are some (lots) of people who need a pickup. Lots of people have jobs or hobbies that require a pickup. I am a single male who only needs ONE automobile. I also need a pickup for my work AND hobbies. Why would I buy the most basic pickup with the abilities that I need and another more fuel efficient car??? Why can I not own a pickup with luxury amenities and only own 1 car. People are tired of purchasing American trucks that have bad quality and even worse resale. Trucks are so expensive anyway. A true hybrid (prius) with the durability and size for a pickup would cost too much for most working class people. All we can do is continue developing the technology to make it feasible.

Since when are bigger brakes a bad thing??? Also, if people look into things a bit closer a pickup owner that tows with a large engine gets MUCH better mpg than a truck with a small engine. Not to mention the extra stress (expense) associated with overworking the small engine. The efficiency of a pickup is relative to the use. Put a 6500lb trailer behind a Tacoma with 4.0l and the same trailer behind the Tundra with 5.7 and see which has the better economy. No, not everybody tows a 6500lb trailer, I do.

GM's out of the stone age?! Why haven't they adopted the simple, widely used miracle of DOHC and/or intelligent variable valve timing? Toyota certainly has employed this remarkable fuel-saving technology, something rarely seen on a full-sized truck. Personally, I don't think the whole cylinder deactivation is that great. It produces almost 50% more harmful emissions when running half than when running all eight. There is a difference between engine efficiency and fuel-consumption; shutting off fuel supply does not make an engine more efficient. As long as GM is still bouncing those sixteen pushrods, I will consider them lost in the early 1900's.

Toyota gets way too much credit for being an eco-friendly company. They are in the business of maximizing shareholder profits, not saving the planet. The Tundra is less powerful and less fuel efficient than chevy/gmc pickups. How eco-friendly is that?

Toyota has received this eco-friendly image through the hybrid car, which at this point is nothing more than a marketing move. What many may not realize is that many experts, including a doctor of enivornmental science here at Purdue University, will tell you that the net effect on the environment from a hybrid car is worse than a traditional car. Why? Let me count the reasons:

1. Massive amounts of pollution created by nickel metal hydride battery production (please click the link below for more on this. it truly is amazing the amount of pollution this generates)
2. the pollution created by shipping nickel from canada to china, where it is processed into nickel foam
3. the pollution created by shipping the nickel foam from china to japan, where battery production is completed
4. the pollution created by shipping the finished car from Japan to the US or elsewhere.
5. the battery itself is toxic waste once the battery is no longer functional or the vehicle is disposed of.

Funny I should read this today, as earlier I stumbled upon an article that explains how bad a Prius is for the environment. Take a look: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=417227&in_page_id=1770

Toyota's hybrids (and all hybrids made by other manufacturers) are nothing more than PR machines. They afford Toyota and other companies the good graces and $$$$ of people who want to help the environment without actually delivering a car that helps the environment. The introduction of hybrids thusfar has been completely motivated by the desire for green.... and by green I mean money.

If you want to see a car that is really innovative and has a shot of actually doing a lot for the environment, check out the Chevy Volt concept. The Volt uses a lithium ion battery. Not only do these batteries have a longer life span, but they create less pollution during production than nickel metal hydride batteries. The Volt can run run for about 40 miles on pure electricity and then uses a small combustion turbo charged engine to recharge the battery. Using the combustion engine, the Volt gets approx 50 mpg. So if you drive 40 miles a day, you never use gas. if you drive 60 miles a day, you get the equivalent of 150 mpg. Pretty cool. The Volt also can use E85 ethanol for ridiculously high miles per gallon of petrolium (something like 500 mpg). The problem right now is that a lithium ion battery large enough to power this car is incredibly expensive. Makes me wish the US govt was throwing money at subsidising battery research instead of giving tax credits to hybrid owners.

Some might say that GM will never build this car because they have no commitment to the environment. Well, they may not have a commitment to the environment, but they do have a commitment to making money. And making a car that gets 3 digit MPG would definately give GM a huge PR boost, securing them a name that stands for innovation and social responsibility. And that will make GM money.

Save the planet and screw the hybrids!

Ive got a 2008 Tundra Double Cab. I've got the 4.7 V8, and the truck is rather plain. I love my truck. I chose Toyota because I want the truck to LAST! What good does a big expensive truck do if you cant depend on it. I have a co-worker whom owns a GMC with the fuel shutoff. We get the same fuel economy on the highway.

My family needs a truck. We need something to haul our quad, mower, and supplies from time to time to fix work fixing up our house. Not to mention, what's not to love about a plain ol' pickup. And no I'm not worried about gas, I have a 2003 Hyundai elantra. This 4cyl 5spd car gets me up to 41mpg on the highway!!! (usually 35-39) Not to mention it has been pretty reliable as it is my primary vehicle.

It all boils down to this... This truck is no less efficient, luxurious, or powerfull than any other pickup out there. But it is bigger next to my Uncles Titan and the F-150 that I test drove. :-)

You dont like the truck, fine, stay in the hatchback.
Some people need a truck. Trucks aren't the only thing out there sucking down fuel like there's no tomorrow. Do you own a sports car? Do you fly? Not to mention, that gas saver of a car is less and less efficient the more unnecessary driving you do. The people that need trucks are going to buy them, plain and simple.