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?



  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,788
    Anybody have access to the S.A.E. (Society of Automotive Engineers) definition of truck categories? Surely, somewhere there must be clear cut set of perimeters, which "officially" define what is a "full-size" truck.

    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.

  • obyoneobyone Posts: 8,054
    Good luck on your quest to find the definition of a full size truck.


    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.....
  • bamatundrabamatundra Posts: 1,583
    I was not insulting Quad, I was just politely asking him to think before he posts.

    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!
  • but I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) the T100 was built to compete with the Dakota, not the 1/2 ton full size American pickups. I bought my T100 without any illusions of it being a "full size truck", be it size or power. Engine options aside (I'm not beating this dead horse anymore) the T100 is just right for me. It's payload rivals most other 1/2 ton trucks, but when it's parked next to a Ram, F150, or Silverado it's as plain as day, The T is an intermediate sized truck, 4x8 sheet of plywood between the wheel wells or not.
    Oh, and I'm not even going to try to touch the Tundra debate!!! You all can sort that one out.
    Take care all,
  • >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.<

    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.
  • bamatundrabamatundra Posts: 1,583
    Maybe someday Chev will come out with a 1/2 ton to compete with the Tundra. The truck they have out now is mediocre at best. If Chev would:

    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.
  • obyoneobyone Posts: 8,054
    All seven points that Bama has brought up has been discussed over and over and over. I still fail to see the point that Bama is trying to make. Something just isn't being understood. Tundra is a wannabe full size. Unless they redesign the bed, wheelbase, pumpkin, and overall size of it, it will remain at best a midsized truck. What is it that you don't understand Bama?

    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.
  • bamatundrabamatundra Posts: 1,583
    "Now I understand why the topics go in ciricles."

    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!
  • obyoneobyone Posts: 8,054
    although its true...the Dakota is bigger than yours....lmao
  • bamatundrabamatundra Posts: 1,583
    Let's say the size of the truck is relative to the amount of time it stays in the shop. What is your Lemonado - a matchbox? FOUR MONTHS in the shop!
  • obyoneobyone Posts: 8,054
    However, your truck still isn't full sized....maybe a Pinto? MUAHAHAHA!!

    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.
  • sonjaabsonjaab Posts: 1,057
    Were (are) classified as standard size
    by the US Govt. (EPA)
  • bamatundrabamatundra Posts: 1,583
    The F150 and Dodge Ram are also classified as standard size. What is your point?
  • bamatundrabamatundra Posts: 1,583
    I forgot to mention- the Shakerado is also standard size.
  • This useless topic should be iced.
  • I agree!

    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!

  • tavgradtavgrad Posts: 201
    joeltrane, quadrunner both of you are wrong.
    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.
  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,788
    Yeah, is there any way to weed out idiots.

    Sorry, but after what happened in New York and at the Pentagon today, these stupid arguments really seem quite insignificant.

  • No, the topic probably should not be "iced". However, it just gets a little frustrating to read the same old stuff over and over...and over. I don't know about the non Toyota topics, but it seems like every Toyota topic ultimately deteriorates to the same back and forth comments (read flames) until the people who may actually have something level headed and open minded to say don't even want to bother. And I don't blame them.
    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.
  • tavgradtavgrad 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.
  • 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 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?

  • tavgradtavgrad 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.
  • 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 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.

  • rshollandrsholland 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?

  • tavgradtavgrad 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.
  • 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.
  • 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,
This discussion has been closed.