Howdy, Stranger!

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





What if the Toyota T100 had a V8 from day 1 back in 1993?

natureboy1natureboy1 Posts: 55
edited March 8 in Toyota
Would it still have been a failure?
«13

Comments

  • Not if Toyota had put the 278HP Lexus DOHC engine in it. In 1993 the Lexus did 150 mph with this engine....
  • Same place as the Tundra is now-optionless and undersized.
  • eagle63eagle63 Posts: 599
    I've never really understood this argument. The tundra isn't that small. Seriously, what's the difference in size? a few inches?
  • obyoneobyone Posts: 8,065
    Dodge markets their Dakota which is almost identical in dimensions as the Tundra as a midsize. Ahhhh, but what do we know......
  • Overall width of the T100 & Tundra is 75.2"
    Overall length(with bumper) of T100 is 209.1"
    Overall length(with bumper) of Tundra is 217.5"

    At first glance the Tundra "looks" alot bigger because it is longer, and it sits higher(comes with bigger wheels/tires than the T100 did).

    IMO they're both noticably bigger than a Dakota (dimension wise not engine wise).

    Actually, I think Toyota referred to the T100 as an intermediate size truck. But obyone's right.. they call the Tundra full sized and it's not that much bigger(dimension wise) than a T100.

    hillhound is also correct. Truck buyers who are used to having American trucks find the Toyota options/configurations limited. Toyota decides what they are going to offer and that's it...take it or leave it. Unfortunately for the T100, many buyers said 'leave it'. They(Toyota) are also doing this with the Tundra. Personally, I wouldn't buy a Tundra unless I could get a 2wd, reg cab, v-8 with a stick. But I don't think they'll make it anytime soon.

    What you do get with a Toyota is their reputation for reliability and longevity. I can't speak for dealer service as I haven't had to take my T100 back for anything. Not one problem in 50,000+ miles. I'm planning to get at least 200,000 out of her.

    But to offer an opinion on the original question posted. What if Toyota put a v-8 in the T100?? At 3320 lbs. you'd have one bada$$ "intermediate sized" truck, which is what the Dakota is.

    Take care all,
    jab
  • well said on all points!
  • I had a 93 T100 and it was a great truck. Looked great, drove great, and the quality far exceeded my bought new 1999 Toyota Tacoma. The only gripe I had was the engine. For as long as I have been a fan of the T100, I have always tried to find the answer to that mysterious question - Why didn't Toyota drop a V8 in the T100 from day one?

    There were many different answers from many different sources. A 1993 issue of Four Wheeler Magazine pitted the then new T100 against the redesigned Ford Ranger and the 195 horsepower V6 Sonoma (the only trucks that were classified as "new" or had experienced "significant" changes that year). Here we have a 150 horsepower almost fullsize T100 with an embarassing 180 ft/lbs of torque against a 195 horse compact Sonoma (and something like 260 ft/lbs) and a 160 horse (225 or so ft/lbs) compact Ranger... Draw your own conclusions about the performance department. In any case, to get to my point, the editors of the magazine claimed that Toyota's resonse to why noe V8 or even bigger engine, was that one would not fit. The engine compartment was constructed too small (for apparent noise restrictions) to accomadate a big V8 motor. Sound like a good excuse to you?

    Others have claimed that Toyota didn't want to make too much of an impact with the T100 and "startle" the big 3 who might send Toyota with its T100s back over seas. This is one argument I never understood. Toyota intimdated by the Big 3? What exactly were the big three going to do? What were the big 3 going to do differently if the T100 had a V8? OK...

    And the famous Toyota "reason" was that they were trying to offer a intermediate size truck with compact costs and handling... Well the T100 wasn't cheap to either buy or maintain its thirst for gas, and with only 150 horses at its introduction it really wasn't going to handle like any compact.

    If not a V8, then what I have always wondered is why Toyota didn't drop in the Landcruiser's big 4.5 liter 1-6? With 212 horses and 275 ft/lbs of torque this would have been a nice T100 motor back in 1993. How many base V8s put out 212 horses back in 1993. Not many. Exotic motor or not, this should have been the least that Toyota should have offered. It would even be a great base motor in the Tundra today.

    One other thing... I cannot even fanthom Toyota not putting a V8 in the Tundra after their experience with the T100, but apparently many at Toyota were not convinced the truck required it! It took a meeting with American Toyota dealers to finally convince them that they needed a V8, and as one dealer stated if the new truck did not have a V8 they may as well pack up and go home. Well it got the V8 and the Tundra has been a success. We don't even hear or see the word T100 from Toyota anymore...

    Besides this power thing, I always liked the T100. It had superior build quality, was beyond reliable and looked great with that eight foot bed. I don't know how many times I hauled into a gas station or parking lot and had people compliment me on my truck. Many even offered to buy it (and this truck was next to stock looking). The only gripe I ever had was its power. My 1999 Tacoma would simply destroy it on the highway. I did a few modifications to the old 3.0 liter such as a larger exhaust, performance plus and a K&N, but like joeltrane said a V8 engine would have been just too sweet. Even the old Landcruiser 1-6 would have made this truck haul [non-permissible content removed]. Unfortunately we'll never know....
  • obyoneobyone Posts: 8,065
    I didn't know they had a production V8 in 1993. If they were pushing to get the T100 to market, it would explain the lack of a V8. It also says that Toyota either didn't do their homework or expected loyalists to follow no matter what.
  • bamatundrabamatundra Posts: 1,583
    Was available in the LandCruiser since 1992.

    I think the reason it was not put in the T100 was that it would make an already expensive vehicle even more expensive. The T100 was produced in Japan.

    When Toyota started producing the Tundra in the US, they saved enough money that they could put a V8 in the Tundra and still have it be competitively priced with the Big3.
  • Obyone & bamatundra make good points. I didn't think of whether Toyota had a v-8 ready in 1993 or the added cost of a truck that was already kind of expensive.

    My main gripe in 1996 was that I could not get the base truck with the bigger 3.4 liter engine. And in 2001 you can't get a base Tundra with a v-8. I think what we're talking about here are choices. I mean, compared to the T100, the Tundra has been a HUGE success. And I think that's due to the availability of a large engine. I also feel that more options would mean alot more sales for Toyota.

    Don't get me wrong, I love my T100 and will keep it until they pry my cold, dead fingers from the steering wheel. I guess with brand loyalty you have to weigh the pros and cons of the "brand" that you are loyal to, if that makes any sense. I know that my T will last a long time and frankly I think it's one of the better looking trucks on the road (just my personal opinion guys). And although it's somewhat underpowered it will carry a ton of bricks and it's rated to tow 4000 lbs. (I don't own anything that weighs 4000 lbs so I'll have to take thier word for it).

    So the question remains, what would've become of the T100 if it started out with a v-8?? I don't know. How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie roll tootsie pop.....the world will never know.

    Also, great topic guys! I rarely visit boards where people are talking about the T100. Thanx for the opportunity to b.s. about Toyota's red-headed step child oops...I mean my T100.

    Take care all,
    jab
  • Toyota never "had" a V8 in its lineup until 1999. The engine was conceived and designed for the Tundra, but was ironically added to the redesigned Landcruiser in 1999. I believe it was in 1992 that the Landcruiser got the 4.5 liter
    1-6.
  • Toyota did have the Lexus V8... The same Lexus V8 that would be transformed andf altered into the 4.7 liter Tundra motor...
  • In 1996 I would have gladly paid extra for a massive I-6. Looking back I don't think another 20 bucks a month would have broken me.

    jab
  • seeligseelig Posts: 590
    want a V-8 in a midsize truck anyways.........seems that the purpose of a midsize like the T-100 or Tundra would be economical with a V-6, which is the reason for not buying a fullsize. it's a well known fact that fullsize truck builders offer various powerplants to suit ones needs, and toyota never considered their T-100 or tundra a fullsize.
    people i know with a T-100 are quite happy with them and don't consider the tundra with it's pricey sticker to be much more than what they already own, and the fuel mileage is much worse on the tundra.
  • You have a valid point. With my truck being so light, a 3.4 would move it along nicely and get decent milage to boot. My main gripe, however is that the reg cab, 2wd, long bed T's were never produced with the 3.4 (not in '96 anyway), wasn't even an option.

    Like I stated earlier, I'm happy with the 2.7 now that it's all said and done. The truck meets my needs and I get around 25 mpg on the highway. It's nice not to have to fill up every four to five days with the gas prices so high(although they are coming down some in certain areas). Plus, it's paid for!
    L8R,
    jab
  • You can get the Tundra V8 in a regular cab long bed if you opt for 4WD.
  • The 3.4 came in regualr cab in 95 only.
  • Yes, I realize that the Tundra can be had with a reg cab & v-8 if you go with 4 wheel drive. But that model is an Sr5, more bells and whistles than I would want to pay for. Just a thought.

    Also, never have had nor do I want/need 4 wheel drive(just personal preference).

    Take care,
    jab
  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,661
    I think most people will agree that what separates a mid size pickup from a full size pickup, is that a full size model can fit a 4'x8' sheet of paneling—between the bed wheel wells, and flat on the floor. No mid size truck can do that. Both the T100 and Tundra can do that.

    Frankly, I think the T100 and Tundra are sized just about right.

    Bob
  • I don't think a mid size buyer decides between Dakota and Tundra based on a $7 sheet of plywood. Regardless, Toyota had to raise the bed up on spacers to gain clearance between the wheel wells. But this makes the bed depth shallow. Now if people agreed you have to fit a tool box under a tonneau, you'd think that was arbitrary, as I do about the 48 inch sheet of plywood. As it is, the Tundra has a tail gate lift over height as bad as any full size domestic, but with less cu/ft of volume.

    You can make the argument that Dakota is full size too, since it's even closer in size to the full-size-Tundra than Tundra is to a big 3 domestic. Dodge doesn't make that claim however, because they have the Ram. Both are sized about right for their intended buyer.
  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,661
    If it can't hold a 4'x8' flat on the floor, it's not full-size. Period. The Dakota can't, therefore it's not full-size.

    The "4'x8' flat-on-the-floor standard" is the unofficial (official?) line of demarcation between full-size and everything else.

    Bob
  • jcmdiejcmdie Posts: 595
    If the bed were 6" deep but could handle a 4 X 8 sheet flat, would it be full sized? I think not. The problem is there realy is not a good way to determine this and until recently there was no raeson to question what was full size. Personally I consider the Tundra in the same class with the Dakota whatever that may be. The Dakota and Tundra are certainly larger and more capable than the full sized trucks of the 60s and early 70s.
  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,661
    who are considering a pickup, would consider the width between the bed wheelwells as to whether it's full size or not. If it can't handle—flat on the floor—a 48" wide piece of paneling, it's not full size. This has long been the established standard which separates full-size pickups from compact or mid-size pickups.

    Every time the T100/Tundra is listed (officially via the government, etc.), it is always referred to as a full-size truck. Every time the Dakota is listed, it's always listed as a mid-size pickup.

    Now consumers, like yourself, may call it whaever you like. It's still a full-size truck according to the regulating authorities.

    Bob
  • bamatundrabamatundra Posts: 1,583
    Don't pay too much attention to the Tundra wannabees. They got stuck with mediocre (at best) trucks and they want to make them seem more important. Their typical line:

    "Mah truck is biggern' yourn"

    Who cares if the bed on a Shakerado is 2" deeper?

    Is a 2 ton flatbed truck not "full size"? Uh,Oh - it has 0" bed depth - we better call it "compact"

    These Tundra wannabees are hilarious!
  • obyoneobyone Posts: 8,065
    I agree with you on your assesment regarding the Dakota and the Tundra not being full sized. Toyota fooled them again. First with the T100 and now by making the bed wide enough but not deep enough so the full size wannabe Toyota owners can say...the 4x8 fits in the bed between the wells and therefore its full size.....NOT!! They still haven't understood, but that's ok cause they are the ones that paid for a full sized truck and got a mid sized truck.....LMAO!!
  • obyoneobyone Posts: 8,065
    pumpkin on the Tundra and you'll know where it came from....lol
  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,661
    It can fit 4'x8' paneling like domestic 1/2 tons. It's got a payload that equals, if not betters, many domestic 1/2 tons.

    As they say: "If it walks like duck, and if it quakes like duck..."

    There are many very happy Tundra owners out there... and you say: "they don't get it?" It obviously does what they need it to do. I say they get it just fine. They're just less concerned with "image" than you are. They bought it for what they need it for, and it does the job.

    Bob
  • Dakota can be full size too, using the Tundra criteria. Dakota has higher max payload, more cargo bed volume, a deeper bed, a longer (short) bed. They are within 210 lbs GVWR, a couple inches on length and wheelbase, and closer to each other on max towing than to other full size trucks.

    Seems to me, the 48 inch piece of plywood is arbitrarily being used to exclude the Dakota, when it actually has the most in common.
  • bamatundrabamatundra Posts: 1,583
    Since the Shakerado 1/4 ton will only tow 5000lb standard - I would say it is closer to the Dakota.

    Chev used to know how to build trucks. What happened?

    A 2 ton flatbed has 0 cargo volume. Does this mean a Tacoma is more "full size" than a 2 ton flat bed?

    Quad - you are not making a lot of sense here. Go put your thinking cap on first - then post.
  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,661
    will have a bed that's truly "plywood-friendly," like all full-size pickups do. All they have to do is widen it a few inches, and it's a done deal.

    Then (and only then), I think we all can agree that these two vehicles could be called full-size-lite trucks.

    Bob
«13
This discussion has been closed.