Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Toyota Tundra Problems



  • ndahi12ndahi12 Posts: 235
    I overstated the need to use the parking brake. *I* use it EVERY time I park. Growing up in a monutainous country taught me that. It is safe to use it every time. It puts less stress on your tranny to use the parking brake every time. And it resets your brake bias when you use it on the Tundra.

    I use mine everytime I park, where ever I park.

    Just use the damned thing. Why do you think it was put in the truck in the first place? If it was not an integral part of any vehicle, it would have been made an option!!!!!
  • ndahi12ndahi12 Posts: 235
    Here are some facts to ponder:

    Fact 1: The Tundra stops in a shorter distance than the Chevy in whatever magazine that did the test.

    Fact 2: The Tundra has been number one in intial quality with JD Power and recommended by CR for two years in a row and the Rado has not.

    Fact 3: There are more TSBs and recalls year to year for the Rado than the Tundra, a lot more.

    Fact 4: In its displacement class the Tundra out accelerates and out handles the Rado in any of the standard tests that mags run.

    Fact 5: The Tundra has better resale value than the rado.

    Fact 6: The Rado has more cabinet room, bed space, and tows more than the Tundra.

    Fact 7: The Tundra is the only 1/2 ton truck that is SOLELY built in the US
  • bamatundrabamatundra Posts: 1,583
    Last I checked some Shakerados are built in Canada. All Ava-lose-my-lunches are built in Mexico. If you ask most Canadians or Mexicans they will say that they do not consider their country part of the US (yet).
  • f1julesf1jules Posts: 288
    I don't use the parking brake when I'm parked on a level surface-like my garage for example. When I first bought the truck I guess I used to use it more because for the past 10 years I owned a stick shift car and I always used the parking brake. I find myself using it on the truck when I am out but when I pull in the garage I don't set it. It's a habit that I'm falling out of I guess.

    You're right though, you should use it because that's what its there for.
  • I was here to talk about Tundras, but since you insist on talking about GMs, I'll respond to your "facts to ponder":

    1. The Tundra weighs less. It should stop in a shorter distance.
    2. That's true. I never disputed it.
    3. There are a heck of alot more of "my" truck manufactured and sold yearly with a higher variety of options/eqipment. Only stands to reason there are more TSBs issued! Toyota only started offering something other than a open rear-diff this year.
    4. Again; It's a smaller and lighter truck and should handle and accelerate good. On the other hand-every article I've read pans the Tundra's handling while it's loaded due to it's lighter(?) suspension. See the Truck Trend article of Tundra vs. Silverado from last summer.
    5. Maybe short term. Long-term remains to be seen.
    6. Yes, but most folks who tow with their Tundra are happy with it's performance.
    7. Who cares? My goal was to buy the best performing 1/2 ton in it's class and that's why I got a GM 1500. It out-hauls/tows, out-accelerates loaded and empty and has more cab and bed space than any other 1/2 ton on the market at the time. While I do prefer American brand vehicles, I would buy another brand if it's what I really wanted.
  • "i hope you never hit a pothole or rough area on the road when you are braking because if you do more than likely you will be in for a thrill'

    Actually, I hit potholes regularly-it's hard not to where I live and I assume the thrill you're hinting at is the anti-lock brakes kicking in? LOL! That "twanging" noise was unnerving at first but the brakes on my Silverado never fail me, even after two seasons of driving on icy roads. The truck always tracks straight as an arrow if I stomp the brakes in a low traction situation. Honestly, while the Tundra has the shortest stopping distance, the brakes on these GM 1500s are excellent and they work great under load or empty.

    Strangely enough, after I replaced the stock Firestones with a new set of BFGs ATs, I hardly ever have the antilock system kick in. Maybe the stock tires are not highly compatable with the ABS??
  • I don't know if you've already checked or not, but I know a few people who went to and got their trucks for exactly invoice. They also said that cars directs invoice was lower than the invoices that dealers were using. I could do without the 10 hour charade of insulting each other at the sales desk otherwise known as buying a car, good luck.
  • ndahi12ndahi12 Posts: 235
    1. I do NOT care why the Tundra stops in a shorter distance, the FACT that it does is enough for me. That FACT you cannot and will not be able to dispute.

    2. I love that excuse. There are more Rados on the road, therefore you should expect more recalls and TSBs. What a cope out!!! Is that all you can muster. Maybe there also should be more recalls TSBs on the Camry since there are more of them out there than the Malibu??? What kind of logic is that??? The sad thing is that the 1999 Rado was a redesign while the Tundra was totally new and the Tundra still had less TSBs/recalls than the Rado. Very sad indeed.

    3. I already admitted that the stock shocks suck. Put HD Bilestins on and the Tundra will run circles around the Rado loaded or unloaded.

    4. Short term, long term, mid term and between terms, The Tundra has better resale value than the Rado. End of story. Stop making excuses. Look up Auto Trader and find how the tundra holds its value better than the Rado.

    5. I agree, I am very happy with the way my tundra tows. I tow 4000 lbs and I drive 75-80 mph when I tow. I have the AC on and I am in OD on the flats. I also use cruise control.

    6. There are many yahoos out there who think that by buying a Rado they are being patriotic. What a crock?
  • Well i'm glad to hear that theres still a good amount of guys out there not experiencing huge brake problems with truck. Eases my mind a little I suppose. I think using the parking brake couple times a month might just be a decent idea.

    I think Alan brings up some good points, and helps realize that many trucks are going thru similar brake problems. Not to mention that we're not exactly talking about stopping Yugos or Tercels here. I think in time we'll find better materials to construct brake components from, and make the systems more efficient in general. Sure come a long ways from the old days though.
  • ndahi12ndahi12 Posts: 235
    While I do not have data to back it up, I would say that those that are experiencing brake problems on their 2000 Tundra are a very small minority.
  • bamatundrabamatundra Posts: 1,583
    I forgot to put my emergency brake on today. Oh, no! - I forgot to put it on this month!

    Come to think of it - I can count on one hand the number of times I have used my emergency brake in the past two years.

    My brakes still amaze me. I realize that I am driving a 4500lb vehicle and I still can't believe how well the brakes work.

    I have not had my Tundra in the shop once. I will have to eventually get my seat belt retractor looked at - it is getting slow at retracting my belt.

    I have the ABS option. Tundras have a superior 4channel ABS. Chev cheaped out with two channels on their ABS and they must have got their disks off of a Chevette.

    I have heard that with ABS equipped Tundras there is no proportioning valve.
  • Glad to hear the brakes are still ok EVEN without using parking brake much. One would hope the brakes as well as rest of truck would be fine without having to perform daily rituals on it. Just make sure you dont get too froggy with it and end up out there workin a forein one in dem dere fields.
  • When you say so readily that "There are many yahoos out there who think that by buying a Rado they are being patriotic. What a crock?"

    Remember this; There are just as many blubbering morons out there (and a few on this forum) who stupidly label all domestic trucks as junk. If you think buying a domestically manufactured Toyota or any other brand truck gives you the upper hand in patriotism (and it sounds like you do since you bragged about it up in post 535) you need to go learn what the word "patriotism" means. Why'd you even bring this issue up Ndahi?? And remember if you resond to this, you made it an issue, not me.

    And slow down. It's not real safe to go 80mph with a 4000 lb trailer on any 1/2 ton pickup even if yours does stop a whole six feet shorter and is worth an extra $700 on the used car lot. LOL!!
  • f1julesf1jules Posts: 288
    "label all domestic trucks as junk"

    I for one did not label all domestic trucks as junk, just the GM brands. It's just a plain and simple fact I'm stating.

    2000 Tundra trade-in value: $14,842 retail: $18,015

    2000 rado trade-in: $13,642 retail: $16,312

    This is for similarly equiped vehicles. So, that's a $1,200 difference trade-in and a $1,700 difference on retail value. The difference will increase with age also.
  • hutch7hutch7 Posts: 88
    You forgot to add Ford to your "junkbox", my '97
    F-150 needed a new engine at 38,000! Not to mention new doors, new steering box, new roof rails name it! My 15% smaller Tundra has been flawless and I've never looked back...except maybe to see the 'rado in my mirror!
  • xyz71xyz71 Posts: 179
    So using your example the Chevy has held 83.6% of MSRP - Tundra 82.3%. I think this gives the resale advantage to Chevy not Toyota.
  • f1julesf1jules Posts: 288
    I don't know where you get your numbers from. I just looked up the MSRP on a similarly equipped Tundra and rado. Tundra: $25,050 rado: $25,731. That works out to 72% of MSRP for the Tundra and 63% for the chev.

    Factor in all the trips to the dealership and the out of warranty repairs if you keep the rado for more than 2 years and there is no contest.

    I think I see what you were getting at though. The retail figure I quoted above is not the original MSRP. This is the price a dealership would try to sell the used vehicle for. It has nothing to do with MSRP. When you trade a vehicle in you negotiate a fair price based on condition of the vehicle and you try to get as close to the retail price as you can. As you can see, there isn't as much room to go up on the chev as there is on the Tundra.
  • When you say "I for one did not label all domestic trucks as junk, just the GM brands. It's just a plain and simple fact I'm stating."

    Do you really believe that? You've always been one of the more well-spoken and rational Tundra guys around here and I'm suprised to hear that from you.

    A guy I worked with had a nightmare quality experience with a 5-speed Tacoma a few years ago. Toyota could'nt fix it and he traded it for another brand, but I don't think that means all Tacomas are junk.

    Does the Tundra's warping brakes, cold-start clatter and thin sheet metal and cheap paint classify it as "junk"? Ndahi already said his could not haul well without new shocks, and the last Motor Trend article rated the Tundra's V8 engine the poorest for hauling/towing in the four-member 1/2 ton class comparison in that issue. How about this poor guy:jimedwards Feb 15, 2002 4:14pm. Edmunds and Truck Trend's tests both show GM's 5.3L 1500s outaccelerate the Tundra empty and loaded!

    Dang sure do have to overlook alot of stuff with the Tundra to call any other truck junk and keep a straight face!!

    I don't think Tundras are "junk" at all. They have strong and weak points just like any other truck. The reason I get a kick out of posting this stuff is that *SOME* of you guys think the Tundra is 100% bulletproof compared to other makes.

    And hey...with that trade in value data: Maybe you're right, I don't know. Personally, I don't see how anyone is going to prove it one way or another and here's why. There are so many factors involved it's virtually impossible to consider them all. Vehicle condition, the owner's negotiating skills, options, geographical location (eg..4wds are worth more in certain areas), what the used truck is being traded in on, even color! I'm guessing you can support the argument either way depending where you source the numbers from.

    This should be good F1. You're one of the few guys on here who will agrue points intelligently without name-calling and personal slurs, so I'm always pleased when you weigh in. Let's hear it...
  • xyz71xyz71 Posts: 179
    I misread your post -
  • ak4x4ak4x4 Posts: 126
    And everyone thinks my "Knockarado" is a bad truck. Man this lady was going anbot 30MPH and hit the brakes to late. T-Boned a Honda Civic. Tundra faired up good for the type of collision. But I guess this can happen no matter what you drive. BTW Up here I am seeing alot of Tundra owners wanting to put plows on. They can't do it on the Tundra. They seem to get peed off and go buy a ford or 2500. If Toyota wants to stay in the game of full-size P-ups then a plow prep package is a must. Also, what is the difference in size between the T-100 and the Tundra?? Seems like if they put the V8I in the T-100 it would have made a great truck!
This discussion has been closed.