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?
natureboy1
Member Posts: 55
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
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
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....
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.
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
1-6.
jab
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.
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
Also, never have had nor do I want/need 4 wheel drive(just personal preference).
Take care,
jab
Frankly, I think the T100 and Tundra are sized just about right.
Bob
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.
The "4'x8' flat-on-the-floor standard" is the unofficial (official?) line of demarcation between full-size and everything else.
Bob
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
"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!
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
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.
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.
Then (and only then), I think we all can agree that these two vehicles could be called full-size-lite trucks.
Bob
GVW is one category, but that's only part of the picture. There must be a set of "physical dimensions" that must be met in order to qualify.
Bob
Quad
Seems to me that you've struck one of Bama's nerves....
Quad - you are not making a lot of sense here. Go put your thinking cap on first - then post.
Just because you don't agree with what Quad has stated, by the way which I happen to agree with Quad, doesn't meant you should insult him. BTW, I've forwarded your post to PF_flyer. Just to let you know.....
What happened to the post where you called another poster "IGNORANT". Man! He must have really gotten to you!
Did you delete it to cover your tracks (i.e. Coward) or did PF_flyer delete it for you!
Oh, and I'm not even going to try to touch the Tundra debate!!! You all can sort that one out.
Take care all,
jab
Perhaps. Dakota remains a user friendly mid size truck about equally capable to Tundra in most respects, better accommodations for people, not quite as good for a piece of plywood, mid size price, strong sales, no identity crisis.
1. Give it 3" more ground clearance. Nobody wants to take a Chev "low rider" off road.
2. Give it 40% more powertrain warranty.
3. Give it decent brakes. (The Tundra stops quicker loaded with 1350lb than the Wimperado does empty)
4. Give it a ton more standard tow rating. (The Tundra will tow 7200lb standard - the Wimperado only 5000) Truck Trend preferred the Tundra over the Shakerado for towing.
5. Give it more legroom. The Tundra has more front seat legroom than the Shakerado.
6. Lose the cheapo "Fisher-Price" interior.
7. Restyle it. The 70's look is out. Maybe someone should inform Chev.
For now, I hesitate to consider the Shakerado "mid size" let alone "full-size" I think it should be compared to a Ranger. In my opinion a Ranger is a more capable truck.
8.
If any truck needs restyling, its the Tundra. Talk about boring. Looks like a Tacoma with too much chrome. Not to mention the uncomfortable back seats. Has Toyota done the ultimate snow job? DOH!!
Good luck on this one now.
And just what new information have you added, Oby?
Oh, Yeah - "Mah truck is biggern yourn - YEE HAW!"
I'll bet that Lemonado of yours looks pretty small when it is in its usual position on top of the lift in the service department. Its been in the shop FOUR MONTHS? Man!
Parked next to a Tundra today and boy can you tell the difference. Really should park it next to a Taco...that was it can "LOOK" full sized.
by the US Govt. (EPA)
It's unfortunate that certain individuals use almost any topic (and for some, any opportunity to post)as a means to take shots at or flame someone else, or what they drive, or what they type, etc...... You know who you are!
This topic ran it's course days ago. Are you there pf flyer???
P.S. Some of the regulars here need to grow up!
jab
Topics should not be iced. The usual chevy vs. toyota bashers should be banned off out of townhall. just like you said, they take an opportunity to play games where others are here to learn and share.
Getting information on a toyota truck is pointless around here.
PF flyer, you know i'm right. I said this in another topic that you froze, and they just hopped on another toyota related topic.
Sorry, but after what happened in New York and at the Pentagon today, these stupid arguments really seem quite insignificant.
Bob
C'mon guys...we all come here because we have a common interest, so quit the foolishness already.
To our host...I appreciate the time it takes to monitor a site like this, but you are the only one who can step in.
Before I get flamed to death, I just want to say to the repeat flamers(no flame intended),that my truck is smaller than yours, it doesn't tow as much as yours, it doesn't sit as high as yours, it didn't sell as well as yours, and it's probably not as quick as yours. Know what...I'll live!
Oh, and to keep on topic I'll say it again. At 3320 lbs., a T100 with a V-8 would have been a bada$$ intermediate size truck.
L8R,
jab