Hankook Debuts Tweel-Like Airless I-Flex Tire

We like our comparison tests to come to definitive conclusions, but that didn't happen with this one. Instead, in pitting the all-new 2022 Toyota Tundra against the bestselling Ford F-150, it came down to weighing the details. For example: One of these pickup trucks has a better engine, the other a better transmission. One has a better-looking interior; the other offers better functionality. Even the back seat factors into the equation: One has a better seat, the other smarter floor storage. We did manage to pick a winner, but only by the slimmest of margins. If you were to purchase the truck we deemed the lesser of the two, we certainly wouldn't say you bought the wrong one.But enough preamble, let's meet our players. For this particular test, we decided to sample workaday, lower-trim versions of these full-size trucks. Both featured crew cabs, short boxes, and four-wheel drive. Toyota sent along a 2022 Tundra Limited equipped with the TRD Off-Road package and a handful of other useful stand-alone options that added up to a $60,188 sticker. Ford supplied an F-150 XLT, the truck's one-up-from-the-bottom trim, which was priced at $58,575 and fitted with two key options—Ford's Max Trailer Tow package and the 3.5-liter EcoBoost twin-turbo V-6. (The truck Ford sent was a 2021, but the 2022 F-150 is functionally identical.)Tundra vs. F-150: A Closer Look, Outside and InAt first glance, the Ford F-150 is the slightly better-looking truck in our eyes. It appears relaxed and sure of itself, whereas the Tundra is styled like it has something to prove. Although we appreciate the creases in its sheetmetal, we can't avert our gaze from the Tundra's giant, gaping grille, which reminds us of a jet plane missing its nose cone. Out back, the Tundra's vertical taillights don't seem to be as integrated into the truck's overall design. That said, when it comes to the details, the Toyota appears more modern, with sequential LED turn signals where the lower-spec Ford makes do with incandescent bulbs. It's controversial to be sure, but the Tundra is definitely a product of the new decade, while the new-for-2021 F-150 could be 10 years old.It's a similar story inside. The Tundra's interior is more modern in execution, with its massive 14.0-inch infotainment screen (optional), handsomely sculpted vents, and wide piano-key switches (a good idea lifted from General Motors). The F-150's stereo, A/C, and steering wheel controls, with their dials and plastic buttons, look old-fashioned by comparison, but they're arguably easier to use. The F-150's interior has its share of cheap plastics, though the bulk of its dashboard appears to be built of higher-quality materials than the Tundra employs. Even the upholstery is a draw: Some of our testers thought the F-150's two-tone cloth was way more attractive and comfortable than the Tundra's faux leather. Others said Toyota's Sof-Tex is more upscale and wondered what possessed Ford to put cloth seats in a $58,575 truck.Both trucks feature giant center touchscreen infotainment interfaces, but the Toyota's is gianter—and although that's great for Apple CarPlay, we were surprised the Tundra only lets you display one system (audio, phone, navigation, settings) at a time, whereas the Ford will show, say, your tunes and a map simultaneously.We found the back seats to be roomy in both the F-150 and the Tundra, with lots of legroom and easy access through big doors, and both offer two types of USB ports (A and C) and a 120-volt outlet. The Tundra has the (marginally) more comfortable seat, with a longer bottom cushion that provides better thigh support and a more relaxed backrest angle. But with the seat bottoms folded up, the F-150's flat floor and fold-away storage bins (a $215 option) made it far more useful and flexible than the Tundra, which has a sizable transmission hump and hard, fixed plastic binnacles.Tundra vs. F-150: The DriveBoth of our test trucks were powered by twin-turbo V-6 engines—a 3.5-liter unit for the F-150 and a 3.4 for the Tundra (though Toyota's sales literature says otherwise). Note, however, that the EcoBoost engine is a $2,595 option in the Ford; standard power is a 3.3-liter non-turbo V-6 with half as much torque. The Toyota, meanwhile, gets twin-turbo power as standard. (Both the Tundra and F-150 are available with an optional hybrid powertrain, but only Ford offers a V-8.)The F-150 provides a lot of go for the extra dough. Although its 400 hp and 500 lb-ft of torque bests the Toyota by only 11 hp and 21 lb-ft, the aluminum-bodied F-150 weighs a quarter-ton less than the Tundra. In addition, both come standard with a 3.31:1 rear axle, but our Ford test truck came with no-cost optional 3.55:1 gearing, which the Tundra doesn't offer. All of the above gave the F-150 a serious speed advantage: We clocked the Ford from 0 to 60 mph in 5.3 seconds, which is almost a full second quicker than the Tundra. And Ford's EPA fuel economy numbers measure 1 mpg better in city, highway, and combined measurements. Out on the open road, the Ford felt like the more powerful truck, and it delivered slightly better fuel economy during our testing.But that doesn't necessarily mean the Ford's powertrain is a far superior choice. The 2022 Tundra's 10-speed automatic transmission proved to be the better actor, shifting up and down promptly and smoothly. On one narrow, hilly section of our test route, the Tundra knew intuitively which gear to pick; prodding the F-150's accelerator on the same stretch resulted in a delay and a lurch while it tried to find the right ratio.Tundra vs. F-150: Ride and HandlingThe suspension is one area where Ford pulled definitively ahead. Neither of these pickup trucks will ever be mistaken for an old-school Lincoln Town Car, but the F-150 provided a smoother ride, while the Tundra felt jittery even over moderate bumps. When the pavement got slightly worse, the Tundra's ride got a lot worse, deteriorating much more quickly than the F-150's ride quality. This was somewhat surprising, given the Toyota's rear coil springs and lower payload rating relative to the leaf-sprung Ford.The Ford's steering felt light and a bit numb, making the truck easy, if not exactly enjoyable, to maneuver. But it steered better than the Tundra, which felt less precise and wandered more on the highway. Both trucks have adaptive cruise control with lane centering, and although the Ford guided itself accurately, the Tundra had a harder time staying centered, an experience shared by its human drivers. Keep in mind that our test Tundra came with the $3,085 TRD Off-Road package featuring stiffer shocks and softer all-terrain tires. Without this package, the Toyota might well have had better ride and steering qualities.Tundra vs. F-150: Getting Into BedUnlike the F-150, the Tundra doesn't have a spray-in bedliner, but it doesn't need one: The Tundra's bed is a plastic composite, which is virtually indestructible. There's nothing wrong with a metal bed like the Ford's, but it's eventually going to show the dents and scars of hard use. That won't be the case with the Tundra. Both trucks have tie-downs in the bed walls; the Ford's are fixed, while the Tundra offers both fixed and movable points.Our Tundra test truck had a $385 power package that included 400-watt outlets in the bed and a Qi wireless phone charger in the cab, which our F-150 lacked. Ford offers 400-watt plugs for $290, but our truck came instead with the $995 ProPower Onboard package capable of 2,000 watts. The Toyota also had a retractable tailgate step, but evetesn with it deployed, our shorter testers faced a steep climb into the bed. Speaking of steep, that little step costs a whopping $399. Unlike the Toyota, our F-150 didn't come with any tailgate assistance features as equipped. Ford does offer a quality tailgate step of its own for the F-150, but it's only included as part of the $695 power tailgate package, which was missing from our truck. (Perhaps it was a good thing given what we discovered in our last full-size pickup comparison.)Tundra vs. F-150: Towing and HaulingIn terms of truck capabilities, Ford is the clear winner. Our Tundra, as equipped, had a maximum payload of 1,740 pounds and a towing capacity of 11,120 pounds. The Ford, meanwhile, offered a 2,100-pound payload capacity and, with its Max Trailering package, a towing capacity of 13,900 pounds. But even with a lesser trailering package, the F-150 would still out-tow the Tundra by 180 pounds. Capacity and skill are separate things, though. We've always found the F-150 to be a stable towing platform, and the Tundra proved just as competent at hauling our high-profile two-horse trailer.We're big fans of Ford's optional Pro Trailer Backup Assist system, and we were eager to try Toyota's version, called Straight Path Assist. The key difference between the two is that the F-150 allows the driver to steer the trailer in reverse with a dial on the dashboard, but the Tundra only keeps the trailer going straight. With Straight Path Assist, once you get the trailer pointed where you want it, you can let go of the wheel and the Tundra will steer itself in an attempt to keep the trailer going in the same direction. The Tundra did a pretty good job of keeping the trailer going straight, but really, that's only half the battle—getting the trailer pointed in the right direction is the real struggle for novice trailer-backers. Ford's system (as well as Ram's Trailer Reverse Steering) alleviates 95 percent of the anxiety of backing up a trailer; the Toyota, maybe 50 percent. We're baffled as to why Toyota didn't build a complete trailer-backing solution.Let's Pick a Winner Already!We suspected from our first test loop that this was going to be a close competition, and we weren't disappointed. Toyota clearly benchmarked the bestselling F-150 when developing its new Tundra, and it followed very closely in the Ford's tire tracks.But in the end, the Ford managed to stay out front, if only by a bumper length or two. The F-150 is the better and more comfortable truck to drive (though a Tundra with the non-TRD suspension might be able to close that gap). The Ford's interior is marginally nicer and easier to use, and the F-150's back seat, though not quite as comfortable as the Toyota's, offers more flexibility for carrying other-than-human cargo. We like the Tundra's tough composite bed, but the Ford carries a lot more cargo. Both trucks are competent tow vehicles, but the Ford has more capacity and a better trailer-backing system. And although the Tundra has more modern styling details, the F-150 has a look we think will age better—indeed, it already seems to be doing so.Toyota fans might be disappointed to learn that the new Tundra generation is short of class-leading; in our estimation, that title still belongs to the Ram 1500. But in the full-size pickup field, where breaking into the Chevy-Ford-Ram triumvirate is a near-impossible task, playing follow the leader is perhaps the smartest move—and the 2022 Toyota Tundra is definitely following the Ford F-150 very, very closely.Second Place: 2022 Toyota Tundra LimitedPros:Powerful twin-turbo engine comes standardDurable composite bedComfortable back seatCons:Bumpy ride with TRD packageHalf-baked trailer-backing systemGiant center screen not used to its best advantageFirst Place: 2021 Ford F-150 XLTPros:Comfortable, if not exactly thrilling, to driveBroad choice of powertrains and axle ratiosHigh payload and towing capacity when properly equippedCons:Uncomfortable back seatRough-shifting transmissionCloth seats and incandescent bulbs? In a $60K truck?POWERTRAIN/CHASSIS 2021 Ford F-150 XLT 4x4 Specifications 2022 Toyota Tundra Limited TRD Offroad 4x4 Specifications DRIVETRAIN LAYOUT Front-engine, 4WD Front-engine, 4WD ENGINE TYPE Twin-turbo port- and direct-injected DOHC 24-valve 60-degree V-6, alum block/heads Twin-turbo port- and direct-injected DOHC 24-valve 60-degree V-6, alum block/heads DISPLACEMENT 3,497 cc/213.4 cu in 3,445 cc/210.2 cu in COMPRESSION RATIO 10.5:1 10.4:1 POWER (SAE NET) 400 hp @ 6,000 rpm 389 hp @ 5,200 rpm TORQUE (SAE NET) 500 lb-ft @ 3,100 rpm 479 lb-ft @ 2,400 rpm REDLINE 6,250 rpm 5,800 rpm WEIGHT TO POWER 13.4 lb/hp 15.0 lb/hp TRANSMISSION 10-speed automatic 10-speed automatic AXLE/FINAL-DRIVE/LOW RATIO 3.55:1/2.26:1/2.64:1 3.31:1/2.02:1/2.64:1 SUSPENSION, FRONT; REAR Control arms, coil springs, anti-roll bar; live axle, leaf springs Control arms, coil springs, anti-roll bar; live axle, coil springs, anti-roll bar STEERING RATIO 17.4:1 16.9:1 TURNS LOCK-TO-LOCK 3.2 3.3 BRAKES, F; R 13.8-in vented disc; 13.8-in vented disc 13.9-in vented disc; 13.6-in vented disc WHEELS 8.5 x 20-in cast aluminum 8.5 x 20-in cast aluminum TIRES 275/60R20 115T Pirelli Scorpion ATR (M+S) 265/60R20 112H Falken Wildpeak A/T AT3WA (M+S) DIMENSIONS WHEELBASE 145.1 in 145.7 in TRACK, F/R 67.9/68.3 in 68.4/68.4 in LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT 231.7 x 79.9 x 77.2 in 233.6 x 80.2 x 78.0 in GROUND CLEARANCE 9.4 in 9.4 in APPRCH/DEPART ANGLE 24.6/25.4 deg 21.0/24.0 deg TURNING CIRCLE 47.8 ft 48.6 ft CURB WEIGHT (DIST F/R) 5,345 lb (58/42%) 5,820 lb (57/43%) SEATING CAPACITY 5 5 HEADROOM, F/R 40.8/40.4 in 41.0/38.5 in LEGROOM, F/R 43.9/43.6 in 41.2/41.6 in SHOULDER ROOM, F/R 66.7/66.0 in 65.0/62.4 in PICKUP BOX L x W x H 78.9 x 65.2 x 21.4 in 65.6 x 58.7 x 20.9 in CARGO BOX VOLUME 62.3 cu ft 48.8 cu ft WIDTH BET WHEELHOUSES 50.6 in 48.7 in CARGO LIFT-OVER HEIGHT 35.0 in 34.6 in PAYLOAD CAPACITY 2,100 lb 1,740 lb TOWING CAPACITY 13,900 lb 11,120 lb TEST DATA ACCELERATION TO MPH 0-30 1.8 sec 2.0 sec 0-40 2.9 3.3 0-50 4.0 4.6 0-60 5.3 6.2 0-70 6.9 8.1 0-80 8.9 10.3 0-90 11.2 13.1 0-100 13.9 16.2 PASSING, 45-65 MPH 2.6 3.2 QUARTER MILE 13.9 sec @ 99.9 mph 14.7 sec @ 95.3 mph BRAKING, 60-0 MPH 126 ft 135 ft LATERAL ACCELERATION 0.76 g (avg) 0.72 g (avg) MT FIGURE EIGHT 28.0 sec @ 0.62 g (avg) 28.5 sec @ 0.59 g (avg) TOP-GEAR REVS @ 60 MPH 1,450 rpm* 1,700 rpm CONSUMER INFO BASE PRICE $45,850 $56,680 PRICE AS TESTED $59,520 $60,188 AIRBAGS 8: Dual front, front side, f/r curtain, front knee 8: Dual front, front side, f/r curtain, front knee BASIC WARRANTY 3 yrs/36,000 miles 3 yrs/36,000 miles POWERTRAIN WARRANTY 5 yrs/60,000 miles 5 yrs/60,000 miles ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE 5 yrs/60,000 miles 2 yrs/25,000 miles FUEL CAPACITY 36.0 gal 32.2 gal EPA CITY/HWY/COMB ECON 18/23/20 mpg 17/22/19 mpg EPA RANGE, COMB 720 mi 612 mi RECOMMENDED FUEL Unleaded regular Unleaded regular ON SALE Now Now *Truck will not select 10th gear at 60; 1,800 in eighth is the natural powertrain condition at this speed. Show All

The dance we do as hot-rodders typically goes like this: We find a classic car, strip it down to the bare body, and then rebuild it to suit our own, often modernized vision. With a pro touring- or restomod-type build, that includes adding a high-power modern EFI engine, modern brakes (often with ABS on the nicer builds), and amenities like air conditioning and a rockin' audio system. In essence, the classic lines of the old body are kept, and the newest performance and cruising technology is grafted to it. It's time-consuming and expensive, but it gives us the look we want along with modern performance.But what if you did it the other way around? This would be where you took a modern performance car and added body panels to replicate the classic lines. This isn't a new idea, but to be honest we haven't loved the results in the past. The problem is that modern cars have modern dimensions and structures that don't always play nice with the lines of our classics. This is especially true around the windshield and A-pillars. For example, we remember a company that was trying to make a C5 Corvette look like a vintage C2 'Vette, but the windshield area just killed it since the C5's A-pillars were way too swept back for aerodynamics. It just looked wrong. We had yet to see one of these retrofied modern muscle cars done where the proportions were right, or at least close enough to still look good.That was until we spied the builds from eXoMod Creations. It was their C68 CARBON build (a clever code for 1968 Charger) and it actually looked like a vintage Dodge Charger! Now, we're not saying it's an exact copy, but it certainly captures the soul of a '68-'70 Charger that's been given a 21st-Century makeover. You get all the modern performance and tech of a new Dodge Hellcat (707 hp) or even a Hellcat Redeye (807 hp) with the vintage vibe of its '60s-era ancestor. They are also currently offering the C69 CARBON, which is reskinned in carbon fiber to look like a 1969 Charger.eXoMod Creations owes a thank you to Dodge for making this possible. You see, the C68 CARBON Charger is exactly the same length as a bone-stock 1968 Charger. It also has the exact same wheelbase! Add in that the windshield rake isn't nearly as extreme as some cars, such as Camaros and Corvettes, and you end up with proportions that are close enough to work. One area that changes, though, is the car's width, since the eXoMod C68 CARBON is a true widebody. This is done with the quarter-panels and fenders instead of the fender flares used on a modern widebody Dodge. The result of all this body-swap voodoo is a modern Dodge Hellcat that has the look of a vintage Charger, with the right proportions so that your eye doesn't dismiss it all as some sort of bait-and-switch deal.As they said in that old Ginsu knife infomercial, "But wait—there's more!" You see, the new vintage-shaped body panels aren't stamped-steel, they're carbon-fiber. This means the new retro-modern Mopar is 400 pounds lighter than a factory Hellcat Challenger! The weight loss is akin to free horsepower for an already stupid-fast car. Oh, and the body panel swap retains Dodge's powertrain warranty.The interior of the eXoMod cars stays pretty stock with the exception of better, Italian leather for the seats. All the high-tech options found on a new Hellcat are still there, so you have heated and cooled seats, launch control, and safety stuff like airbags and backup sensors.eXoMod isn't stopping with Chargers. Other classic Mopars are getting the reskinned-in-carbon treatment as well. The D71 is styled after the 1971 Dodge Demon, and we have to say the rendering looks kickass. This ride, limited to just 25 vehicles, should be done around the summer of 2023. Like all the eXoMod cars there are tons of color, wheel, and trim options.Want something wilder? How about a Hellcat reskinned to look like a 1969 Charger Daytona? Yep, big nose, big carbon-fiber wing, and tons of attitude. They are currently building this Daytona and hope to have it on display at November's MCACN event in Chicago. All the eXoMod conversions roll on high-end Forgeline wheels. Even these rollers, which look like vintage steelies, are in fact 20-inch billet Forgeline wheels!Now this isn't an inexpensive proposition, but what is these days? Consider the cost of taking a 1968 Charger and building it into everything the 2022 Hellcat is. All the comfort, all the power, all the modern suspension parts, flush-mounted glass, and latest technology. A build like that would be hundreds of thousands and take an eternity to get done. eXoMod can convert your existing Challenger (all the way back to a 2011 R/T model year) for $275K and have it built, painted, and on the road in around 8 weeks! They also sell complete cars, customized to your tastes, starting at $400K for the 707-hp Hellcat or $450K for the 807-hp Redeye!For us mere mortals, nearly half a million bucks falls into fantasy land, but you could easily spend that much, and more than likely more, adding all the Hellcat guts and carbon fiber to a vintage Mopar, and still not end up with a car capable of reliably making cross-country drives. This car drives like a new Hellcat because, in essence, it is a new Hellcat. In short, this is just another way to skin the proverbial feline; a way to get those classic-car lines we love along with the modern kickass performance we've become accustomed to. To window-shop or place an order, click on over to www.exomodcarbon.com. If you're at the 2022 SEMA show in Vegas, look for booth 24995 in the Hot Rod Alley, where a new purple car that's just being finished up will be on display.Watch! Roadkill's General Mayhem Gets UpgradedIs the '68 Dodge Charger the "best car" like David Freiburger says? Maybe, but the General Mayhem is definitely one of the most iconic Roadkill cars. Watch as Roadkill Garage hosts Freiburger and Steve Dulcich give it tons of body upgrades and engine-saving modifications before hitting the road for proper break-in procedures—aka burnouts! Sign up for a tree trial to MotorTrend+ and start watching every episode of Roadkill Garage today! Video created by Little Dot Studios.

A 2022 Toyota GR86 owner is apparently being punished for posting a photo of their car drifting at a testing and tuning event. The GR86 suffered an engine failure, allegedly due to oil starvation—a relatively common and known issue on this model—but the owner was rejected under the Toyota warranty after the photo of the car drifting turned up in the automaker's investigation. Evidently, Toyota initially rejected the warranty claim because of evidence the car was driven at an off-street event, which seems ridiculous considering the encouraging nature of the model's marketing materials.The story comes from Blake Alvarado on Facebook posting to the SCCA Official Members group, whose GR86 suffered its engine failure after just 13,770 miles on the road and two oil changes. Alvarado says a post-failure engine teardown revealed grey sealant material in the oil pickup, an issue that is now being tracked in a spreadsheet by GR86.org, which currently lists five suspected instances of the issue causing engine failure, not including similar claims dating back all the way to 2013, as Alvarado says.But, Toyota wouldn't know firsthand about the cause of Alvarado's engine failure, as he says the assigned field technician never checked the engine in determining his warranty claim. Here's what happened, according to the Facebook post: "Instead either he or someone at the dealer looked me up on social media. They showed me a photo of me taken at a local Test & Tune event (untimed, non-competition) in late March (I was testing different setups and playing around with tire pressures. This was the only time the car was driven in the way the photo shows). They also showed me an onboard video of me driving in someone else's white GR86 (mine is Black)."Based on this "evidence," his warranty claim was denied and Alvarado was instead quoted an $11,000 repair estimate, or told he had to remove his car from the dealership. His attempt to negotiate with the dealer's service manager was denied, so Alvarado had the car towed to a Subaru specialty shop where he was quoted $7,000 for a low-mileage engine replacement.The real kicker in this situation is Toyota's own marketing materials. As Alvarado points out, Toyota's marketing frequently mentions the GR86 being "track tested," and even let new owners sign up for a complimentary NASA track day as a promotion, which is used for the Toyota Supra, as well. MotorTrend reached out to Toyota, and a spokesperson provided the following response:"Toyota takes its customer concerns seriously.  We work hard to deliver a rewarding ownership experience, and we stand behind the quality of our products. A vehicle's warranty excludes damages from activities such as misuse, improper maintenance, or modifications. Toyota is currently looking into the case you referenced and will continue to work with the customer directly on this issue. As always, we encourage customers who experience any issues with their vehicle to contact their authorized Toyota dealer or call the Toyota Brand Engagement Center (1-800-331-4331) when a dealer is not able to resolve a matter."Alvarado urges other enthusiasts to be wary about posting photos and videos of their warranty-covered cars out of extra precaution, as you never know how an automaker is going to respond to vehicles being driven in any manner other than daily duty.But Wait, There's More!Update, August 4, 2022: Speaking to The Drive, Alvarado has confirmed that Toyota's executive office reached out to him after all of the social media coverage of his blown engine and has ultimately decided to cover the issue under warranty. The Drive reports a Toyota representative said Alvarado and others should be able "to use the vehicle at future autocross and track day events without putting [the] warranty in jeopardy.