Tundra & Dakota-Midsize comparables?

tgr1

Having driven both Tundra Access and Dakota Quad
cabs. They strike me as very comparable in many
ways, from same engine size and performance, to
overall exterior and interior size. Of course,
they have their differences, but of all the pickups
being offered out there, they are the only
"midsize" offerings. Maybe a new official category
should be created by those in the biz.

scape2

YES!! finally. The Tundra is much more comparable to the Dakota. When looking at dimensions of interior the Tundra doesn't even compare to the full size trucks from Ford/Dodge/GM. The Dakota has a new player in town. I am curious to see how this room goes.
The V8's are quiet comparable, along with the V6's offered.

trucks4me

That Dakota wheelbase is over 3in more than that tindra now. The tindra uses leftover parts, like the trannie from that t100 and the transfer case from the tacoma now! Better compare would be that tindra up against the S10 or Ranger. Even then, the metal on them limited ones is as thin as tin! Good luck on this one now!

rwellbaum2

Hey rube,
Did your nurse fall asleep and let you sneak onto the computer again?

rs_petty

The Tundra Access to a Dakota Club is not even close in size. I shopped them and the Dakota is just too small for my needs. The Crew Cab could be a different story, but width makes a big difference in the overall feel of the two models. I'm waiting to see one at the auto show this winter, but it wasn't available when I needed a new truck. I think the Tundra has sized itself in between the Dakota and the big 3. Nice size all around.

tgr1

rs petty: The quad cab is a different story. The rear seat area is larger, by far, in the Dakota-more headroom (3") and legroom (6"!) than a Tundra. As for the hiproom, the Tundra is 2 inches wider in front, 1 inch smaller in rear.
Exterior: Dakota is 4" wider, Tundra 2" longer and 2" taller. These are pretty close in my book. The tradeoff the Dakota makes for the larger rear seats is a 13" shorter bed. For me, the 6" of extra rear legroom is worth the shorter bed, because it means the difference between hauling kids, or adults (comfortably).

scape2

Don't know alot about these two trucks. How do the V8's and V6's stack up in HP/Torque? What abot rearends?

rs_petty

Here are some measurements (1st column is Quad Dakota, 2d is Tundra Access) I got from MS Carpoint comparison. Probably closer on paper than I realized. A couple of measurements I would question though like the Tundra's rear shoulder room. But when you pull up next to a Dakota there is a pretty significant size difference to my eye, about the same as when I'm next to a big 3. I think I'd have to sit in them back2back for sure.


Front Headroom 39.8 in. 40.3 in.
Rear Headroom 38.4 in. 37 in.
Front Legroom 41.9 in. 41.5 in.
Rear Legroom 36 in. 29.6 in.
Front Shoulder Room 58.1 in. 62.4 in.
Rear Shoulder Room 57.4 in. 41.7 in.
Front Hip Room 56.7 in. 59.3 in.
Rear Hip Room 57.1 in. 56.6 in
Wheelbase 131 in. 128.3 in.
Track Front 60.5 in. 66.2 in.
Track Rear 61.5 in. 64.9 in.
Length 215.1 in. 217.5 in.
Width 71.6 in. 75.2 in.
Height 66.3 in. 70.7 in.
Ground Clearance 8.4 in. 10.6 in.

scape2

Toyota takes its ground clearance from the fron diffs, this is quite a misleading number.
Wow, they are quiet comparable. Now lets see some Tundra owners respond.

smcpherr

I was beginning to get into an argument in the Tacoma vs. Ranger room about full size trucks, so thought I'd quit talking about it there and bring
it in here...

(my last post...)
One last thought, and I'll let this die. As I
have said, the Dakota and Tundra are very similar
vehicles, yet the Tundra is labeled a full size
truck and the Dakota is not. I read somewhere that the Dakota beat the Tundra in some comparison test, I forget where but I think I saw it in the
Welcome Toyota Tundra topic. I also have heard
that the Dakota is undergoing serious engine
overhaul and will soon come out with a wicked 5.9L
V8. The Dakota is a very nice truck and is
continually improving. Maybe Toyota made the
Tundra a full size so it wouldn't have to be
compared to the Dakota. The Tundra certainly
competes with the full size trucks well, but maybe
they just didn't want to compete with the Dakota?
Who knows. This is probably a topic better suited
for other rooms...

So what you so you guys think? A few mods here
and there when they hear that Dakota is beefing up, and suddenly they are in the full size category, and don't have to compete with the Dakota. I'm not saying that Toyota has made a bad truck, but maybe they see the Dakota a tougher challenge than the full size trucks. The Tundra does excel in categories I usually think compact trucks are better at than full size trucks.

jcmdie

I think that the Dakota/Tundra comparison is right on target. They both perform well. The tundra could stand to learn from the Dakota about rear seat room and styling.

quadrunner500

When it comes to styling, the Dakota is the best looking sport truck out there, my opinion of course.

The Dakota doesn't pretend to be something it's not, arrives with a lower price, offers more of the same benefits the Tundra claims to offer in the full size segment, ride, handling and comfort. 2000 Pickup Truck of the Year. I'm impressed.

cwirth

I also like the styling of the Dakota. That was my second choice to the Tundra. The Dakota is similar in size to the Tundra but it lacks the 4 doors with a suitable bed. Sure you can get the 4 doors Quad Cab but the bed is only 5.5'. That is unacceptable. Also Chrysler products have known problems with the transmissions. I know, I had one go out at 57k miles. The new V8 engine and transmission are from the Jeep Grand Cherokee which I heard are starting to have problems.

Overall I am very glad I made the decision to spend the extra $3000 to get the Tundra over the Dakota even though it is the Truck of the Year.

tgr1

I drove both, and ordered a quad dakota. The grand cherokee is only having 4 wheel drive related issues, from what ive seen, and it shares no 4 wheel drive components with the dodge. Ill take my chances with the new 4 speed auto. My current dodge truck has had no problems in 3 years.
Besides the rear seating, I also like the fact the dakota will be much easier to modify with aftermarket accesories and performance upgrades.
The Tundra is a fine truck, and will probably be more reliable in the long haul, but you can buy a lemon anywhere. For the $2,000-3,000 price difference, that'll more than pay for a good aftermarket warranty up to 100,000 miles, as well as lots of upgrades.

rrichf

Wait a minute! How can there be a 2 FOOT difference in rear shoulder room between the two vehicles?

mturqueza

I think the Dakota is the best looking truck out there. I would buy the Dakota over the Tundra just by looks. However, I know first hand the reliability of the Dakota. This truck is a piece of junk. Hopefully the "new" owners -Mercedez Benz will upgrade this truck.

Let us not forget that the Dodge/Chrysler cars are no longer owned by an American company. I would consider this company as a foreign car company. The more educated you are, the more you know what is more important to our economy. If you look at where the car is made-Tundra for example, it is made in Indiana. Some cars with badges of Ford,Chevy,Dodge are not made in the US. I would rather put the money in our workers rather than the workers in Mexico/Canada. After reading some post, it is unfortunate to see so many uninformed people out there. We are bitching about jobs leaving our country and when a foreign company put jobs here, and create jobs for us, we [non-permissible content removed] about their products.

quadrunner500

I guess I am more educated than you because when I looked at the Tundra, the domestic content sticker read 51% Japan, 49% other.

The Big three all have more than 51% domestic, US content. Not saying it's a perfect system, but in a global economy, this is how we draw the line between domestic and imports.

By the way, the foreign company that put the Jobs in, Toyota, received $240 million subsidy from the good folks of Indiana. GM also has manufacturing plants in Indiana. I think you are being a little bit charitable is your assessment of the Toy company. Think about this next time you are feeling more informed, rather "enlightened" than the rest.

By the way, Daimler Chrysler apparently has upgraded the "junk," good enough to take Four Wheeler Magazine Pickup Truck of The Year honors.

scape2

I work for a Japanese company. And don't get me wrong, I like it they treat me well, pay fair, fair raises and compensation. I also know the kind of tax breaks they received along with where their manufacturing equipment came from, Japan. Not one machine is made in the U.S. So when people say hey, they build that car in Ohio, it makes me cringe, they don't know the whole story.
The Tundra is a fine truck, Toyota did their homework. But they didn't pass the test. They keep trying to compare this truck with the lower levels offered by GM/Ford/Dodge. Many are now starting to see how the tests are flawed. The Tundra caused an intial stir but their sales are leveling off, quickly.
How do the V8's of Dakota and Tundra stack up? Torque/HP curves, ect...

tavisg

here's something to ponder.

the tundra is to compete heavily with the big 3, right? what if they make a flare-side model?

tgr1

Imagine a dually Tundra, with an 8' bed- it'll never happen. Or how about a v-10 diesel and 10,000lb.+ tow capacity for that matter. Its NOT a full sized truck. It may marginally compare with the "small" full sizers, but thats it. The "big" big three can be optioned out so you hardly recognize them anymore. BTW, all Dakotas are made in Michigan, on a line that they also use to assemble some of the Rams, or so I read somewhere.

trucks4me

That would be a good one now. A dooley tin toy runnin that tacoma trannie and transfer case now! That not be all that tindra sharin with the taco either! How bout them taco door handles and trim pieces now? Wonder how many more parts that
"full size" tindra be sharin with the taco? In a few years that factory be comin out with an all new one again, sayin that it now be a full sizer! T100 all over again. Good luck on this one now!

moparmad

What the heck is that guy smoking!!!!!I have owned a Dakota,not a Ford Mousetang like this boy.And if it wasn't for liking the extra room in my fullsize I would still own a Dakota.After 130,000 miles my Dakota's total repair bills were 70$ for a muffler!Thats it nothing else.My Dad owned a Dakota and he never had to fix ANYTHING on it.The term Junk might apply to my Uncles Ford and it's six,yeah count 'em,six rearends he went through.But I am not gonna belittle Ford because I know one truck does not define the other million made.

scape2

Extremely good point about one truck not defining the thousands of others made. Dakota is a good truck in its own class. I still believe the Tundra is its competition.

trucks4me

I agree some what, but with tundra sharin so many parts, includin drivetrain parts, with the tacoma, I still think it be closer to the mini size than the mid size. It be about the same as a S10 or Ranger, except for that V8. It is amazin that the tacoma and tundra share so many trim and drivetrain parts, yet that factory says it is an all new "full size" one. If Chevy drop a V8 into that S10, would that make the S10 a "full size" truck? I dont think so. Good luck on this one now!

cwirth

Hey Rube:

There is no way that the Tundra is the same size and the S10 or Ranger. I recently sold a Ranger and they are NOT even close. Come on now Chevy man. So who care that the Tundra shares the same parts as the Tacoma. If the Silverado has the same battery as the S10 does that make the Silverado a mini truck? Wake up, the Tundra is a superior truck, full sized or not.

98_svt_cobra

To what? The Tundra can easily be out-classed by the big three trucks. You like speed get a Dakota R/T or F150 Lightning, need towing capacity any full size but the Tundra, styling maters to ya? Ford, GM, and Dodge all have a unique look except the Tundra a blatant copy of the F150. About the only way to call the Tundra superior would be if you said it was superior to a t-100.

trucks4me

Were not talkin batteries on this one here. The tundra and tacoma share drivetrain parts like that transfer case/trannie and rearend pumpkin.
They also share a whole bunch of trim parts and metal sections like that cab pan. This the fact on them ones, that tundra be a whole lot closer to a mini than most even can begin to relize now. Slap a V8 in a Ranger or S10, then look out now, ya got the same thing as one of them limited ones. Good luck on this one now!

good_guy

of a full size pickup? Is there a standard in which to follow? I am not really going to debate if the Tundra is full sized or not. I used to think that its the payload but a Tacoma PreRunner is stressed for more payload than an F-150 (19xx lbs vs 17xx lbs) but nobody dares call it a full size. Even the towing capacity is very blurry. A manual tranny 3.08 4.2l SC F-150 has only a ton to pull but it is no compact. Is it the sheet of plywood? If so, that makes the Tundra and the T-100 full size (I got that from a post here somewhere). Personally, I do think that for my needs, the Tundra is too small. I need a truck with a deep bed, and Tundras, hell any Toyota, has a bed that babies can wade through. What makes a full size a full size?

Leo dC

swobig

on interior dimensions. I can't remember who classifies them (EPA??), but I know in cars the line between full size, mid-size, and compacts is sometimes real fuzzy. Personally I don't pay much attention to what anybody classifies these trucks, but I do believe Dakota and Tundra are comparable. If Toy had some HD trucks (or more capable to compare to the big 3) they may have an argument, but they don't...

606zpx

I think you miss the point. Most people dont need alot of speed, or alot of towing, or a ton of room. As far as styling goes that is purely a matter of opinion; I agree that the Tundra is similiar in appearance to the F150, but it is far from a blatant copy.
Most people need a reasonable towing vehicle, and the Tundra has essentially the same towing capacity as the Silverado, F150, and Dodge when matched with midsize V8 powertrains. As far as speed is concerned, it is just as fast, if not faster than the other three (although any difference could be made up by a good driver I suppose). I agree, if you want a fast truck...get a lightning or R/T, the lightning even has a decent towing capacity but those 18"tires will break the bank.
Where the Toyota excels is far quieter cabin, more carlike handling and interior ergonomics, and a slick, quick, RELIABLE powertrain.
Dodge's new 4.7L is great but they are long overdue on updating the 5.2 and 5.9. The ford 5.4L is smooth but I've owned a couple Fords and the reliablity and dealer service sucked. The Chevy 4.8, 5.3, and 6.0L motors are great.
Some may view the Tundra slightly shorter length (by 10-12") as advantage when it comes to parking, etc.

BESIDES, if styling and speed mattered to you, you wouldve bought a Camaro SS or Trans Am Ram-air. (Just messing with ya!!)
606

trucks4me

It is true that them toys have the shortest length and wheelbase (some 16 inch shorter than Chevrolet), but the toy has the biggest turn radius than them big3! This caused by a turn ratio of 18:1 compared to 14:1 for them big3 ones. So much for that parkin lot advantage. Good luck on this one now!

cwirth

Rube;

The fact that the Tundra is 10-12" short DOES make it better than the Big 3 in parking. The turning radius is no big deal. So once, again the Toyota is back to being on top.

tgr1

Tundra is a decent truck, but its all strictly personal preference whether its better than any other. The Tundra and Dakota are most comparable, and performance is similar. The Dakota quad cab turn circle is 2.5' less than Tundra, does that put it on top? As for styling-purely a personal decision. I love the Dakota. I think its the nicest looking of all the trucks, whereas the Tundra is a F-150 knockoff, both inside and out. Toyota simply copied the best selling truck, but you cant blame them. Their Lexus rips off Mercedes too, they have a long history of copying the industry leaders.

trucks4me

The Truck of the Year be that Dakota followed up by the Chevrolet, tundra was at bottom. What did they have to tell on them limited tundra?

Here it is:

Last year T100 in new clothing...
Interior appears flimsy...
Handling is sacrificed...
Pricey at close to 30k...
Misses the mark set by the big3...
Looks similar to a F150...
Tiny Tacoma door handles...
Appears to be a mid-size truck...

Guess some beside me dont think that tundra be on top of nothin. Good luck on this one now!

moparmad

I think the point being missed by some Toymota guys is that Toymota's big deal about the Tundra was that it is faster than the big three's fullsize trucks.They try to make believe that it is superior in the quarter because it's new V8 is so awesome,when in reality they are comparing a 4200 pound truck to three 5000 pound trucks and calling it equal.If Toymota wanted to impress us they would pick on a truck of equal weight,namely the Dakota with either V8 they care to choose.
I'm getting tired of people first saying power isn't everything in a truck,then say isn't Toymota great because the Tundra runs a 17.02 in the quarter. Another point people miss is that the 360 was originally released in 1973,but this adds up to a time proven reliable engine.All you guys with your spankin' new power plants ever think that maybe you should feel like a lab rat.Further the Dakota is availabe with the 4.7 V8 in other configurations that are quite capable of all kinds of hauling,and towing.And the quadcab can be had with the mighty(yes I said mighty)360.Also the late model 318 Dakota's are still around used and plenty capable of nearly anything a fullsize half ton can do.As far as parking goes if you can't park a fullsize,you won't be any better with a Tundra or Dakota,if you can't drive you can't drive,and two feet of turning radius won't make a squat of difference.
Ok now maybe I'm wrong for valuing things like,ride and handling,and the comfort of the cab and seats,and the ability to do what I need done without taxing the truck to the limit,and power and reliability,cost and resale value,over things like turning radius,two hundredths of a second in the quarter mile,and wheelbase.
I did not mention styling here because that is just personal choice,my opinion is that the Ford F150 is ugly,the Toymota Tundra is even uglier,and the Chevy is just blah(not good not bad,no personality to the style),I love the Dodge styling on the Ram and Dakota,but I also realize just as many people hate it.

scape2

Toyota missed the mark again with the Tundra. All the initial hype has died down now and the true facts are starting to roll in around the net.
The Big 3 had SET THE STANDARD for a full size truck and Toyota is single handidly trying to change it. Well, they failed. And I love when Tundra owners also try to also justify the Tundra's inadequate size/engines/suspensions/payloads/interior dimensions and so on...

brucec35

If you want a clue as to what is reliable and what isn't...check these message boards. I own a Ram and a Tundra, and just sold a F-150. The Ford was fine through 30K miles. The Tundra is fine but it only has 4500 miles. The Ram I wouldn't trust on a vacation trip because I don't feel like getting stranded. My previous Toyotas all had good reliability records.

I considered a 4x4 Dakota, but after reading post after post of "problems" I decided to give up on Chrysler products. Check the Ram and Dakota topics. They speak for themselves. Great looks, mediocre quality at best. Atrocious dealer network.

606zpx

Truckin magazine is only worried about how the truck looks lowered, whether or not you can put on a billet grill and other nonfunctional things like that. They don't actually look at a truck from the standpoint of off road capability, towing capacity, or other functional parameters. I read that entire article and found that it was almost entirely subjective. If you wanna read a better article read the 4wheeler magazine article. Though it was beat by the Dakota Quad Cab I still thing it was fairly objective. I do agree that the Dakota and Tundra or appropriately compared---somewhat similiar sizes, same engine size, etc. Please note that the Tundra has a much higher payload capacity and tows over 1000 more pounds than the Dakota. Despite all that the Dakota is a great truck.
Clearly the Tundra is NOT comparable to the compact pickups offered by chevy, dodge, etc
606

606zpx

I had a 87 Dodge Ramcharger with the 318 and one thing I liked was the cheap and available parts. Even though the truck is not fast and guzzles gas it will haul like a champ. I just got tired of fixing everything. There is definitely something to be said for established engines.

cwirth

Tundra has won the 'Truck of the Year' award from
"Motor Trend" magazine and '4x4 Truck of the Year' from "4-Wheel & Off Road" magazine. Sure am glad I decided on the Tundra!

trucks4me

That tell from Truckin not had much to do with lowerin one down and such. Them tells were more on general stuff, like cheesy interior and flimsy parts and such. Best read this one for yourself.
Good luck on this one now!

tgr1

Who cares which mag names which truck their best. I buy a vehicle based on my criteria, not some writers. Obviously, all of the trucks win awards, from time to time, from various mags and such, especially when the truck is newly redesigned. So what. I know what I want, and I also buy based on looks, as most of us do, and I know what I like there too, and its not what somebody else tells me looks better.

tgr1

Most people also consider their loyalties when buying, though I dont know why. Must be something about human nature. For certain, none of these big companies really deserve our loyalty, because they don't really care for us. They are in it for profit, pure and simple. If they can keep us loyal and happy without it costing them much, its gravy. Im sure lots of people ignore facts, opinion, and all sorts of info contrary to their mindset when it comes to loyalty. The manufacturers know well that most people develop loyalties, and they court young buyers. Most people will also keep those loyalties until that first lemon comes along. Then, theres hell to pay for that piece of junk!

tgr1

I was a chevy guy as a kid, and up until I married, because my father was. Then I bought a Ford, on a whim. The worst car, by far, I ever owned. I made my wife swear to kick me in the rear if I EVER considered buying another Ford again. I buy Dodge now, had 4 in a row, but needless to say, some of the Fords have caught my eye. But loyalty is a funny thing. Ill keep driving Dodge until I get that lemon. For now I love em.

606zpx

I did read the article and you are right. If you look at the rest of their magazine, as I know you have, then you obviously saw what I am referring to. Enough about that, though.
I am really curious about one thing.....I've been following the posts on this forum as well as tundratoys and homejack.com. You have a specific dislike of the tundra and are biased to the chevy. Why is this? It just seems that you are unusually interested in a truck that you dont even own (I guess). If you are satisfied with your chev why do you waste time with this?

606zpx

I completely agree with you for the most part. I have ordered a Tundra and am waiting for deliv. I am not concerned about whether or not it wins truck of the year, best truck, or whatever. Before I ordered the truck I read the magazines to make sure all of them werent calling toyotas new offering a dog. Going out for test rides with the salesman in tow I didnt find any glaring flaws, which is why I like to see under more extensive testing (by magazines) that they didnt turn up any either.
I am buying the truck for personal use and light duty work and sometimes towing my heavy boat. I dont wanna be trading this thing in after a couple years because it wont stay out of the shop. I too had a Ford and that thing was a piece of crap. In all honesty, if Fomoco had stood behind their product I mightve even considered buying again. I am pretty much gonna be loyal to whatever is reliable. If only Honda made a fullsize pickup I would buy it in a heartbeat (my accord has been great!!).
606

moparmad

I have had many,many mopars and have never been left stranded by them,have never had a lemon,and will actually go so far as to say,They all have been damn good ,reliable machines.Maybe I would have the same luck with Fords,Chevies or Toymota's.But my Mopar's have never let me down,even if one does I probably wouldn't say they're all junk until I got a couple bad in a row.Many people don't realize that Dodge converted many Ford and Chevy guys with the styling on the Ram and Dakota,you cannot double your share in the truck market any other way.When they did this they got a double edged sword,because once the new shine wears off the truck these Ford and Chevy guys start to crave a Ford or Chevy.Then every little tiny thing they can find wrong with thier trucks they will,so they can come someplace like this and complain about the piece of crap Dodge they got.You will all deny it but I know this happens because I know I would do it.Not purposely even, but I know eventually I would.Yes brand loyalty is stupid I will be the first to admit,but I can't help it it's just the way I am.But I think something more stupid than brand loyalty is buying a new truck just because a magazine says it's great.I have driven Fords and Chevys,and continue to buy Dodges.But I buy the Dodge after driving everything that catches my eye and making a decision based on my own likes and dislikes,not some magazine editors.Brand loyalty plays a part,but only a part.
One other point I would like to make about magazine tests.How many truly devoted car and truck people can say that they are not biased towards one brand at all,very few.Do you actually think someone who has devoted his life to the subject will not have any bias.It only takes the one writing the story to slant the whole piece.
Another good example is the test here in Edmunds(Ram vs F150 vs Chevy).They start out saying that none of the testers drive trucks and none of them like trucks,then try to convince us this is better because they will have no brand loyalty.It never occured to many who read it that maybe the best guy to give advice on buying a truck isn't a guy who doesn't drive trucks,doesn't like trucks,and probably doesn't know much about trucks(like a compact car running into your rearend of a truck should not mess up the truck so bad it's untestable)

trucks4me

Dont own no trucks no more, too old to drive now. Dont know them tundratoys or homejack handles now. Maybe you referrin to Franklin, but he be locked down at the moment. Got nothin for or against any of them truck brands, just callin it the way I see it now. Good luck on this one now!

eusasc

Well spoken.

rwellbaum2

606zpx has a great point. You haven't just stated your opinion. You've made it a personal campaign to bad-mouth the Tundra. Half your statements are false. For example, the Tundra and Tacoma use the same cab parts. This is especially absurd! How could two trucks that are 10 inches different in width use the same formed sheetmetal parts? Also, if your too old to drive, then why do you care anyway? My guess is your either a warped frustrated old man, with nothing better to do, or even worse....a chevy dealer!

rlholm

Come on guys...