Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

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

2»

Comments

  • tavgradtavgrad Member Posts: 201
    The LExus 4.0 V8 would have even been great back then. With my 3.4, I can STILL whizz in and out of traffic with ease...Just imagine if it had the V8 in there. It would have blown the old dakota away and gave the older full sizers (in stantard for) a nice challenge.
    A neighbor of mine asked to help him with a home depot run last month. He has a full sized 93 gmc with the V6. His truck has had an alternator problem for the past 3 weeks now. HE was re-paving his porch, so bags and bags of cement, 20 cinder blocks, 2 plants, and wire was put into my t100 and it all fit). AS we were heading back to his house, he complimented on how smooth the ride was. His truck, when loaded like that, grunts. He uses his pickup as a workhorse, too.

    Yes, the interior is smaller than the gmc, but the T100 served the purpose.

    I'm getting sentimental that i have to let my T100 go next month. I've furnished my home, went on many off road excursions, and commuted more than 60K miles in it. And all on just 2 tune ups.

    This is going off subject again, but you know, most of these posts are based on OPINIONS. The My truck is bigger than your truck, mid size this, full size that. They are ALL Opinions. The SAE classified the Tundra as full size. That's a fact. BEcause of the payload and GVW, it Tundra is classified as a half ton. That is a fact. Tundra is marketed to compete with the full size big 2 1/2. That is a fact. You Chevy owners are arguing with the WRONG people.
  • quadrunner500quadrunner500 Member Posts: 2,721
    I'm afraid you are just expressing opinion also, not fact. We've asked for that SAE document before, never produced...

    As far as "1/2 ton," that's just as nebulous as full size, definition-wise. A 1/2 ton is 1000 lbs. What's the significance of this for trucks?

    I agree with you, the Tundra is mis-marketed to compete with full size trucks from big 3, because at this time, Toyota doesn't have a truck that competes directly. Even Motor Trend magazine, cited many times by Tundra lovers for towing, off-road comparisons etc., states in Sept. 2001 issue that Tundra is NOT full size.

    Tundra is closer in dimensions to Dakota in length, wheelbase, cargo bed volume than it is to the other big trucks. Those are the facts. So call it what you like, buy what you need, but if having full size capability is really the goal, you should just buy a full size truck!

    I think it's a shame Tundra lovers can't come to grips with the size issue. It domintates every single Tundra topic, even when the thread starts out on a completely different subject, like V8 engines in the T100, goes full circle right back to "my Tundra is full size, never mind the facts!"

    That's why this topic should be shut down like the others.
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    The Tundra is about the size of many so-called full-size pickups of 10 - 20 years ago. Today's Dodge Ram 1500, Ford F-150, and Chevy Silverado are much larger than similar versions offered 20 years ago. The Tundra is about the same physical size as those vehicles. Would you not call those older trucks full-size?

    Bob
  • tavgradtavgrad Member Posts: 201
    i apologize for even starting this AGAIN. I am here because i have a T100.

    I will be buying a full sized truck next month. i have outgrown my INTERMEDIATE T100. That is my opinion. The tundra was the first choice, gmc sierra second. Tundra has better quality and a better reputation of reliability. It also looks better. Those are my opinions. It is more than what my T100 is. That is my opinion. What steered me away was the rear seating, which is not much smaller than ford. That is my opinion.

    Bob, i also agree with you. All pickups prior to 1994 were not as large as they are now. That is also my opinion.

    Dakota is narrower in width, shorter in height than the tundra. The tundra is narrower in width and shorter in length than the chevy, ford and dodge full sizers. All four "full sizers" are about the same height. Those are my opinions.

    Full size is being able to stuff lots of heavy things in the bed, tow a large boat and still being able to bring along 4 large people. The T100 can't do it. That's all the full size i need and that is still my opinion.
  • quadrunner500quadrunner500 Member Posts: 2,721
    I'd just call them "older trucks," not diminishing them in any way, but you can't honestly compare a $30,000 Tundra to a $1500 truck from another decade.

    My opinion, is let this size issue go away.
    The big 3 trucks are bigger, and there's simply no disputing this.
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    the automotive industry, and most consumers (except Quad); it's the ability to carry 4'x8' paneling, flat on the bed floor between the wheel wells, and not stacked above the well wells, as in double-tier loading. Pickups are, by definition, first and foremost cargo haulers, and people haulers only second.

    There is some overlap between the mid-size Dakota and the Tundra, in terms of GVW, and payload; but the Tundra clearly has a more cargo friendly bed.

    Quad- I'm not talking costs; I'm talking physical size and capability. The older (full-size) trucks are about the same size as the Tundra.

    Bob
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    Quad, if you want to call the Tundra a mid-size, then by all means, be my guest. You'll be at odds with the automotive industry, and most customers. But, hey... you can take them on, can't you?

    Now, is there any "meaningful" discussion to be had?

    Bob
  • tavgradtavgrad Member Posts: 201
    "My opinion, is let this size issue go away.
    The big 3 trucks are bigger, and there's simply no disputing this. "
    I am not disputing. I never said that the tundra was the same size as the big 2 1/2.
    You are right. Why me continue? I'm selling my T100, not considering a tundra. Case closed.

    I just came back from lunch. Bob, darn it, you are right! Just was behind a tundra and right next to it was a real old ford. Same height and width. And Bob, this topic is pretty much finished, i'm afraid. T100 is no more and v8 was not considered. Case also closed here.
  • hillhoundhillhound Member Posts: 537
    The fact that it's a little smaller is not a slam on the truck. Noone who owns a Tundra seems to miss the larger ext cab and bed so why worry? I agree with Quad when he said "The big 3 trucks are bigger, and there's simply no disputing this", but I don't think that's a bad thing for most people. Most of the Tundra's I've seen have the beds covered with tonneau or soft covers anyway.
  • joeltranejoeltrane Member Posts: 25
    I think brand loyalty seems to go a long way. And I doubt anyone here who buys a vehicle goes in blind. A person has to weigh the pros and cons of what they are buying and then enjoy the vehicle. It's not worth getting a "complex" because someone tried to get a "rise" out of you(not you personally, but in general).
    I think most people buy the vehicle that meets their needs within the choices offered by the company that they favor(some offer way more choices than others).
    Besides(now I'm way off topic), there is something much more important that I think we're all pi$$ed off about(300,000,000 of us).
    Take care all,
    jab
  • bamatundrabamatundra Member Posts: 1,583
    I would reconsider your choice to buy a Chev. You are going from the T100 which has the highest quality and reliability in full size pickups to the worst(Chev). That seems to me to be too large a price to pay for a slightly larger back seat. It is all a matter of priorities, but I think that you would tire of seeing the inside of the Chev service department continuously.

    If you already owned a Chev, I would say go right ahead because you have very low expectations anyway. After owning a T100, you would be very disappointed.

    Since you already have a Toyota T100 truck you are satisfied with, I would suggest that the Tundra would be ideal for you. Toyota took an already excellent truck and made it better.

    If you are carrying kids, you should also consider the safety factor. The Chev has marginal crashworthiness according to the IIHS. The Tundra has the best. When you are carrying your children - this is a very important consideration.

    The Chev also has very weak brakes. The Tundra loaded with 1350 lb outbrakes the empty Chev. Brakes are a very important component of safety.
  • quadrunner500quadrunner500 Member Posts: 2,721
    Please ice this useless topic!
  • bamatundrabamatundra Member Posts: 1,583
    I think that as long as posts stay on topic, this is a very useful forum. I would say that if anything, the previous post is more on topic than the Chev owners who come to this topic and debate whether the T100 or Tundra are full size. You might as well debate the number of angels on the head of a pin.

    I would suggest that if you don't like this forum, you go to a different forum you like. No one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to read or post here.

    This is a free world after all. Have a nice day.
  • ryanbabryanbab Member Posts: 7,240
    GUYS

    Are trucks really that important now?
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    The Tundra is just a full-size-lite. I never disputed that it was as large as current "full-size" trucks. In the past 10 years or so, the full size domestic pickup truck has just gotten larger, that's all.

    But larger is not necessarily better. Consider the following:

    When Ford introduced their larger current generation F-150 back in '97, it had the same gvw as the outgoing model. But because the vehicle was larger and heavier than the old model, the payload was substantially less.

    The same happened when Ford introduced the current Super-Duty models. The F-250SD and the old F-250HD have the same gvw, but the new (larger and heavier) F-250SD has a lower payload rating. I hardly call that progress.

    I think Toyota's approach, that is offering a reasonable (not the largest—but reasonable) sized truck with all the associated work capability of a "traditional" 1/2 ton is very smart. It offers a lower curb weight and a comparable gvw, and as a result, you get as good—if not better payload than other "larger" vehicles in the same class. To me that's smart design and engineering.

    Bob
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    We all know that the Expedition is based upon the F-150, and that the Tahoe is based upon the Silverado, and that the Sequoia is based upon the Tundra, and finally that the Durango is based upon the Dakota.

    Anybody here think that the Sequoia is mid-sized, and more comparable to the Durango, than it is to the Expedition or Tahoe?

    Bob
  • ryanbabryanbab Member Posts: 7,240
    "Tahoe is based upon the Silverado"

    NO ITS NOT

    Front end looks the same but the chassis is different
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    It, like all the other SUVs, share many components, especially from the front seat to the front bumper, with their pickup brothers. No, I didn't say or suggest that they were exactly the same, but you can't deny that there isn't a very close "family" relationship.

    Bob
  • bamatundrabamatundra Member Posts: 1,583
    If PF froze every topic every time a single post was off topic, there wouldn't be any topics on Town Hall.

    The T100 was a great truck. It did not do well in the market because it was too expensive and did not offer a V8. It is currently ranked by J.D. Power as the most dependable full size pickup. The Tundra continues this tradition.

    I think that if the T100 had originally come with a V8 - it would still have evolved into a truck similar to the Tundra. The Tundra has heavier duty frame, suspension and brakes which enable it to take full advantage of the additional capability which a V8 allows.
  • tavgradtavgrad Member Posts: 201
    i am not considering the chevy or gmc at all. Chevy and GMC full size trucks are fitted for people who want just mass and power. It "looks good" because of the mass and power. I want a good looking truck too, and chevy/gmc ain't it.
    Like I said, the tundra was my first choice. That is why i'm still soliciting any tundra related topic to see if there is any new news (before they get frozen).
    I have 192K miles on my T, with only two tune-ups. ALtered slightly with a 1" lift and 33"s. I have two people interested in it right now. When I get home, we'll see who make a better offer. I am going to miss that truck.
    I will make my complete decision first of next month.
  • lbthedoglbthedog Member Posts: 198
    The T 100 was junk. Didn't matter what motor was in it. I really don't know how the Toyota reputation has gained such strength, the T 100s I have dealt with constantly blew head gaskets, broke springs and started to rust at an early age. Buy the GM stuff, Toyota lovers just can't admit to the world they've been suckered in.
  • tavgradtavgrad Member Posts: 201
    and GM does not do the same?
    i had my T100 for nearly six years, and all I had was a fuel pump problem, and new clutch. Toyotas are not unbreakable or indestructible. The break down just like all of them do.

    as i said, i'm not considering GM pickups at all because of cheap interior and outdated styling. It's all about the LOOKS. (They FINALLY got it right with the midsized SUVs.) dodge is on the list because of the volumptuous muscular look, and toyota tundra has it, too (kinda). SUpercrew is another option, because it has many options and the interior ain't cheesy. i'm not suckered into hype or brands. Kia can have a full sizer, and if it looks good, i'll put that on my list too!! I want what i want because I worked damned hard for it.

    the T100 was not the best by a long shot. It was for people who wanted a little more room INSIDE the cab without going to a full size. a V8 would be icing on the cake. it performed no better than the compact pickup, because of the engine. But if had enough room to put a V8 in there.

    and lbdog, i do like the new gm midsize suv a lot. Next year, i'll be trading in my suv for the envoy when it gets the extended versions next spring.
  • natureboy1natureboy1 Member Posts: 55
    I had a 1993 T100 and rust was the last thing you would have seen on my truck.

    Rust may have been a problem for such Japanese companies as Toyota in the past (pre-1990 models) but starting with the redesigned 1989 truck, rust was no more common on Toyota trucks than on any other vehicle (perhaps even less so).

    Get with the times my friend...

    Valid argument 15 years ago... But not anymore...
  • lbthedoglbthedog Member Posts: 198
    Go back to post 62 to find total garbage, you want to read trash, there it is. Find any "truth" there? Seems that it's fair to attack any big three product. Lots of credibilty around here? I doubt it.
  • tundradudetundradude Member Posts: 588
    "The T 100 was junk. Didn't matter what motor was in it."

    If the T-100 was junk, how come mine only had one problem in 85,000 miles? Another thing, the 2.7 was and still is an awesome engine.

    Only a Toyota-basher would label it was junk as well as the uniformed.

    I heavily defend my T-100 because not only did it handle well in terms of reliability and hauling mutiple things (durability), but it protected me through five accidents.
  • plutoniousplutonious Member Posts: 799
    I know how you feel. Some other Toyota bashers said my Dad's 1975 Corolla was crap. The only thing it required, besides routine maintenance, was a new headgasket at 220K miles.

    Funny how these same people neglected to mention Chevy's competition at the time, the Vega. Or how about the Maverick? Automotive disasters by comparison!
  • plutoniousplutonious Member Posts: 799
    Why all the hype of Chevy having a bigger bed than the Tundra? I've seen tons of step-side Chevys out there. I don't know the exact dimensions, but a step-side Chevy is sure to have WAY less bed space than a Tundra. So now a step-side Chevy isn't full size either, right?

    Guess it just shows a lot of the Chevy guys don't haul much stuff, and never intended to.

    And I really can't recall the last time I saw an extended cab Chevy with passengers in the back, despite the truck having so much more room back there. My guess would be people who are going to actually have passengers back there would have bought a crew-cab.

    Funny how these guys tout their least-used features of their trucks everytime they get into a debate with the Toyota guys.

    Let's face it, the huge majority of people out there use their trucks for personal/recreational use and daily commuting. And dare I say it, the Tundra does this better than the others.
  • joeltranejoeltrane Member Posts: 25
    Blown head gaskets, broken springs and rust??
    Just curious, how many T100's have you dealt with?
    I'll admit that there are a percentage of Tacoma owners who've had leaf pack problems, and the drivers side of my T100 does sag a little(and yea, it bothers me), but I'm looking to fix it. And as far as rust, I don't think I've seen a truck lately(any make or model)that's rusting as you suggest a T100 does. Natureboy1 is right. 15-20 years ago alot of trucks(all makes) looked like rust buckets. Trust me, I had a '76 Dodge 1/2 ton and then a '82(if I remember right) 3/4 ton GMC and rust was a problem on both of them. Good trucks all around though.
    I not trying to crack wise, but it would seem that Toyota Mechanics would be the only people "constantly" dealing with blown HG's on the T100. And anyone who owned a T100 with a HG problem got it fixed for free. Also, the HG problem was for a bunch of 3.0's and some 3.4's, but not any of the 4 cylinders. By the way, Toyota fours are how they got such a strong reputation for quality and reliability.
    Take care all,
    jab
  • ryanbabryanbab Member Posts: 7,240
    "my T100 does sag a little(and yea, it bothers me), but I'm looking to fix it."

    Have you looked into air bags or add a leafs?
  • joeltranejoeltrane Member Posts: 25
    Actually, when I first noticed the sag on the rear driver's side, it was pretty pronounced(approx. 3/4"-1")with a full tank of gas. I bought a set of Hellwig EZ 550 helpers and installed one on the low side. The truck sits pretty level now when the gas tank is less than half full. But I haven't totally solved the problem yet. Air bags are a good idea, but I feel I need to do a little more research first(i.e. how often will I need to top off the pressure in the driver's side air bag). I was also thinking of a full helper spring on the low side in hopes that a full tank of gas would keep me level(I'd rather keep the tank full than try to keep it below half). Ultimately, I'd like to get the truck to a spring shop and have the driver's side springs re-arched if that's possible.
    Thanx for the post and suggestions.
    L8R,
    jab
  • ryanbabryanbab Member Posts: 7,240
    A delivery driver where i worked has a 2500 (3/4 ton) chevy van. He bought a new trailer and instead of having to buy a new van he took the springs off and took it to a spring shop. The rearched them and added 1 or two leafs to it also. Now it is rated at 1 ton. Made the rear end sit up pretty high
  • oldharryoldharry Member Posts: 413
    yesterday, the Lexus dealer's parts delivery brought me some lower ball joints for an LS 400 in it. With the territory they cover delivering parts, it has to have a lot of miles on it. The driver was just leaving as I came back from a test drive, and my wife had paid for the parts so I didn't get to ask the driver about it. I'll bet they put over fifty thousand a year on it.

    Harry
This discussion has been closed.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles