mtn said:I personally would be paying a good, trusted mechanic to give that Tundra a good going over as a pre-purchase inspection, and planning on buying it.
Chris WAS the good, trusted mechanic who checked out my Sequoia up near him before I bought it lol...
Chris: the things to look at on the Tundra are the same things :)
I've got a 2007 Tundra, same SR5 package, but 2WD but with the 4.7 unfortunately. Same truck, just a smaller engine. I use it as my DD (not that I really DD anymore) and tow pig with a standard 20 foot car hauler. Just turned 120k on the odo. In general it's been pretty much bullet proof, although I should have found one with the 5.7. The 4.7 just isn't quite enough engine if you tow anywhere other than the flats.
The interior, body, etc have held up great. The SR5 will be low optioned just like mine, it's pretty non-frills, which to me just means less expensive stuff to break. I regularly get people telling me they are shocked it's 14 years old. The only upgrades I put on where a new head unit for bluetooth and back-up cam, a TRD rear sway (makes a world of difference) and tow mirrors that match what is on the link you provided.
The only thing I've done beyond normal maintenance (you will cuss the engineers the first time you drop the skid pan to pull the oil filter) is: went to Power Stop Towing rotors pads, installed the Hewitt Secondary Air Pump Bypass kit (had a stuck SAP valve putting the truck into limp mode), and put in a used carbon canister under the bed that was tossing an emissions code.
You didn't list what you tow, but typically it's not HP or Torque that's the problem with the 5.7, it's payload capacity, which is the limiting factor to towing with a Tundra, if you are going to stay within the stickered limits for payload. It's not impressive.
golfduke said:I honestly think you already know the answer. Facts-
- You trust Toyota more than GM as a brand, personally.
- You have a bad taste in your mouth with your current 'devil'.
- You will be anxious/leery/edgy any time you tow with said current 'devil', because you know how it hath scorned you in the past.
If I were in your shoes in the above circumstances, I'd be buying the Tundra. Even if it's a somewhat basketcase, it can't be a ton worse than the one that's already bitten you. Peace of mind sometimes requires a change of scenery.
This is exactly my Sister's family's situation. They had a GMT800 "heavy half" with the 6.0L and 4L80E. They towed their 32' travel trailer with it. I have to preface this with the fact that neither my sister nor her husband have any vehicle knowledge at all, so they tend to defer maintenance out of ignorance. They're the type of people who drive something until things go very wrong and then find the most dubious ways of fixing it.
A quick story to drive that point home... they have a Ford Windstar with a bazillion miles on it. It had an oil leak that they didn't realize (despite the multiple oil stains on their driveway). One day the "low oil level" light came on. The next day it was gone, so they assumed that the oil fairy visited and they never checked the oil. Turns out, the dash bulb burnt out. They kept driving it (and my BIL actually slipped on some of the oil in the driveway and had to get surgery on his knee). He called me one day to say that it overheated and died and it had been making this tapping sound for a few days. Facepalm.
So when they decided to part ways with that Silverado and were considering a Tundra, I fully supported it, but I also told them - with a bit of subterfuge/psychology - that they needed to take advantage of Toyota dealers' free multi-point inspection service and to call me with questions after those appointments. They bought the Tundra which makes me happy that they have a vehicle with a better reliability history, but I can only hope that I've set them on a path of actually maintaining things.
They are already the type of people who go to the garage for oil changes, so my hope is that they have fewer repair issues by suggesting they go somewhere who will try to sell them something and then calling me to ask if it's actually needed.
Long story short.... if you're looking at ditching the Silverado, pull the trigger on the Tundra. If you were towing 12k, I might have a different suggestion, but a car trailer? Tundra. One of the things about this comparison is that your Silverado might have $500 repairs every year. Even if the Tundra had $5000 repairs ever ten years, that wins for me even though it's a financial equivalent. Having 10 years of not needing repairs is better than the 10x downtime.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ said:In reply to golfduke :
You pretty much nailed it- the thing stopping me is a solid helping of "what if I've fixed everything that's going to break for the next 50k miles and I'm throwing that away" which nobody really can answer.
Nobody can answer that as you said. I'm convinced a couple vehicles I got rid of were at that point, but honestly there comes a time when it doesn't even matter because you want to move on.
I feel like with most full-size pickup trucks from the last 20 years or so, the work they require will fall into three categories:
- routine maintenance, which all of them will need in somewhat equal proportions;
- failures that are well-documented on the internet for your particular vehicle and you basically just have to accept, because they may repeat themselves;
- failures that are effectively random old-vehicle failures, and once you fix them you'll probably never have to deal with them again
Looking at these together, I tend to stay in the category of "devil you know" if I'm in a good quality vehicle to begin with, because only one of the three categories is specific to the vehicle itself. Getting rid of something older/higher miles for something newer/lower miles is almost always a good choice if the math works in your favor. I've owned a lot of Toyota vehicles and I've been happy with all of them but IMO they didn't fail any more or less frequently than the GM or Ford trucks I've owned.
The other factor is how much you want a "perfect" truck and how hard you're willing to work for it. With proper maintenance I feel like the drivetrains on most recent full-size trucks are bulletproof from a practical sense, but lots of little stuff breaks as they get older. My 2013 F-150 has a broken rear-window defrost and kloogy heater blend doors, and it will probably just stay that way because both of those are PITA jobs , the inconveniences are minor, and the failures are likely to repeat.
In reply to ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ :
There is no magic brand that 250,000 miles later is all still good. ( well my Chevy was). But even a loyal Chevy owner admits not all trucks are the same. Granted I worked the Devil out of mine and had it haul home a house. At times hauling 4000 pounds of granite in a 1/2 ton pickup. Other time hauling so much lumber the front tires barely stayed on the ground if I leaned forward. ( I'm not kidding).
55,000 board feet of timber. I don't know how many tons of stone. 
Plus it lasted until the rust ate the sheet metal off and in that whole time I only spent $1000 fixing things. ( never left me stranded.) 371,000 miles. 20 years. I paid $20,000 for it new so it cost me $1000 a year to own.
tires lasted between 65,000- 85,000 miles never had it aligned. Original, well nearly everything. Brakes were replaced. Around 130,000 miles, one water pump, Set of intake gaskets, one alternator and one fuel pump.
03Panther said:In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :
Although I am aware you know this, you neglected to remind him of the difference in the way a 1/2 ton and that 3/4 ton tows
Power to pull is only about a 1/3 of the story. It's gotta be able to manage the load, and stop it as well.
HP and TQ peaks matter less than "power under the curve" so to speak (something you also know well!)
But it sounds like the lighter truck would tow his needs, so I'm no help in his decision.
One data point: I talked with a fishing guide who has one of these - tows a 21 foot Ranger Deep V (621), with a 325 or 350 hanging off the back. Estimated towing weight, including the 4-5 batteries, kicker, gas, etc., is about 5400. He absolutely loved the Tundra. Towing with it every day in the soft water season.
In reply to mtn :
Not sure what the relevance to my comments are, but you are correct in that a tundra will tow light loads (and 5400lbs is a relatively light load)
My 04 Tundra was a single cab plain work truck. It was rated to tow 6000 lbs OR 1000 lbs in the bed. But not both. I regularly towed 6400 (with weight distribution hitch and sway control) and 1100lbs in the truck! Towed better than my 99 Dodge 1/2 ton, (with exact same load) including through WV mountains... while getting 5 mpg better - towing or empty!
In reply to wake74 :
Having only had a 3.4 tundra, I've no hands on knowledge of the two V8s. The V6 punched way above its class though, so I always assumed the 4.7 would also. From the little I've heard, there is a significant mpg price to be paid for a little more power. For as well as the 3.4 pulled in the mountains, overloaded, the 5.7 should way overpower the chassis capacity.
I guess I have a to be a bit of a naysayer on the Tundra, but maybe I just drove a weak one. It was a 2013ish Platinum, all the options, crew cab. Never drove it empty, just with dirt bikes in the back and a bunch of stuff inside. Nice place to spend time, but the seats were super wide, hard, and flat (I'm also scrawny, but my GMT400s and GMT800 seats are much more comfortable for hours on end) and it wanted to be over 3500 rpm all the time to make any power - felt a lot like a 5.3 LS. It felt extremely overgeared (could barely use 6th unloaded) and there was a gap between two gears (maybe 3rd and 4th) that felt awkward and made it hunt between the two a lot in the mountains. With the TRD exhaust, it did sound great though, and the powertrain felt very polished and never flubbed a shift or anything. Maybe my expectations were just too high, after hearing friends who own them talk about how strong the powertrain is. I actually popped the hood to be sure it wasn't the 4.7 and someone had just stuck badges to it. It did have slightly larger wheels and tires, but not enough that I think it would make a huge difference.
Gas mileage was also really bad, something like 12-13 mpg mostly on the highway.
My chevies felt rather old (interior, noise, etc) after getting back in them, but overall I really prefer the way they drive.
03Panther said:In reply to wake74 :
Having only had a 3.4 tundra, I've no hands on knowledge of the two V8s. The V6 punched way above its class though, so I always assumed the 4.7 would also. From the little I've heard, there is a significant mpg price to be paid for a little more power. For as well as the 3.4 pulled in the mountains, overloaded, the 5.7 should way overpower the chassis capacity.
I had a T100 that had the 3.4 V6 and used that including smaller trailers for years. The 4.7L is plenty 99% of the time. Before I sold the E36, and went with the much lighter FF race car, I figure I was towing 7,500 lbs with it loaded. Almost all of it in the 20 ft enclosed trailer, minimal weight in the back. It's gets me to the track and back perfectly fine to all the east coast tracks. When I tow with a buddy and his F350 (with a much bigger trailer) I can't keep up with him on the 2 lane hills north of CMP, and I lose him on the uphill on ramps onto I95 if we are going to RRR or Daytona. It tows fine at 65 or 70 but getting there takes a bit longer with the 4.7 than the 5.7. Going up over the Appalachians to pick up the FF in Cincinnati, I also found myself needing a bit more engine up the long inclines.
Note, it has never bothered me enough that I want to go eat $50 or $60k to replace it with the 5.7. I can patiently wait the extra 10 seconds it takes me to get to speed for that kind of money. With the miles I put on it, it will probably outlast me.
03Panther said:In reply to mtn :
Not sure what the relevance to my comments are, but you are correct in that a tundra will tow light loads (and 5400lbs is a relatively light load)
My 04 Tundra was a single cab plain work truck. It was rated to tow 6000 lbs OR 1000 lbs in the bed. But not both. I regularly towed 6400 (with weight distribution hitch and sway control) and 1100lbs in the truck! Towed better than my 99 Dodge 1/2 ton, (with exact same load) including through WV mountains... while getting 5 mpg better - towing or empty!
The 5.7 Tundra is a whole new ballgame vs. the 4.7. My 4.7 Sequoia towed "ok" (usually around 5.5k lbs racecar on trailer and a lot of gear). But you still had to do a lot of dropping down on long up-grades, for sure. My current 5.7 Sequoia tows that weight effortlessly and rarely needs to downshift. Also the "tow mode" holds gears to higher RPMs which is nice. More importantly, it has INFINITELY better brakes than the 4.7 did. The 5.7 Sequoia/Tundra brakes are really big (in that you can't really fit any wheels smaller than 18" or certain 17s.
The 5.7 gets about the same towing MPGs as the 4.7 did.....about 11 for both of them towing 5-6k. Both of them got about 17 in general highway driving without a trailer (but both have roof racks and an awning and Load Range E tires, which all hurt MPGs.
In reply to wake74 :
Thanks. I appreciate the clear answers.
In reply to irish44j (Forum Supporter) :
Good to hear from someone with both.
I've only had experience with the 04-06 or so tundra, before they made it bulky , heavier, and less aerodynamic. My V6 was towing over weight, got 13 mpg towing across I64 through WV mountains, and shifted WAY less than the 99 Dodge it replaced! I typ. got 19 - 20 empty. A friend with a 05 4.7 was towing a 31' 5th wheel, and got a bout what you did. Ran into a guy with the 06 body (traded in a 05 4.7, with good mpg) that had the big 5.7. Said it was the worst mistake he ever made! MPG was ALOT worse... would go like gang busters, but did not tow better, and he couldn't afford the fuel stops. Just one guys experience, though.
I mean, maybe my 5.7 is 1mpg worse than the 4.7 towing, IDK. Hardly worried about whether I'm getting 9mpg or 12mpg, in the grand scheme of things. I mean, if a guy can't afford fuel stops, maybe he shouldn't be buying expensive Toyota pickups lol.
The 5.7 sequoia is far superior to the 4.7 in every tangible way in terms of towing. Pulls much better, stops MUCH better, and transmission is so much smoother, not to mention better handling and stability (of course, it's 1000 lbs heavier...). That said, I also have heard people who say "the 5.7 doesn't pull harder than the 4.7" and I can't see how that's possible. I think becuase the 5.7 trucks are more refined overall, they don't "seem" as powerful when you're driving them (and also I think people expect them to pull like diesels or something, IDK).
I've driven to the same rallycross venues for years with both the 4.7 and 5.7, which includes several very large uphill mountain roads (both long grades and steep/twisty parts). I can tell you with certainty, the 4.7 struggled heavily in these areas, and I often dropped 2 gears (occasionally 3) to keep up speed. The 5.7 I occaionsally drop down 1 gear for the same places. It's not like going from a 4.7 to a diesel, but it's a substantial upgrade.
Also mine has a TRD intake/filter box so maybe it sounds meaner ;)
Now, not all that translates directly to the Tundra, of course - Tundra has the rear leafs and solid axle (vs. coils and IRS in the 2nd gen sequioas). And I'm not sure how they compare in weight. And maybe they have different tuning for the 5.7 over the years? Mine is a '10.
irish44j (Forum Supporter) said:The 5.7 Tundra is a whole new ballgame vs. the 4.7. My 4.7 Sequoia towed "ok" (usually around 5.5k lbs racecar on trailer and a lot of gear). But you still had to do a lot of dropping down on long up-grades, for sure. My current 5.7 Sequoia tows that weight effortlessly and rarely needs to downshift. Also the "tow mode" holds gears to higher RPMs which is nice. More importantly, it has INFINITELY better brakes than the 4.7 did. The 5.7 Sequoia/Tundra brakes are really big (in that you can't really fit any wheels smaller than 18" or certain 17s.
Are you sure the 4.7 Tundra and the 5.7 have different braking packages? I was under the impression they were the same. I poked around on Rock Auto and it looks like for my second gen 2007 the 4.7 and 5.7 have the same part numbers for brakes. Would be curious, as I thought the chassis were identical with the exception of the drivetrain.
The 4.7 Sequoia of 2007 does different braking part numbers. The 5.7 Sequoia seems to have the same part numbers as the Tundra 4.7 and 5.7. Interesting. One of the few cars I regret selling was my Sequoia. I loved it.
In reply to wake74 :
I was not aware that the 4.7 ever came in the big bloated body. I was also surprised when I ran into the guy with the 06 with the 5.7; that's how we started talking in the first place!
I know my 04 did not lack in brakes. My electric brakes were marginal at best, on the overweight rig, and was not in dangerous territory. You do have to know that adding weight will lengthen stopping distances, but a LONG way from unsafe.
Again, no experience with the newer bloated body's, and no desire to (aware that the american public with the buying power does not agree with me)
wake74 said:irish44j (Forum Supporter) said:The 5.7 Tundra is a whole new ballgame vs. the 4.7. My 4.7 Sequoia towed "ok" (usually around 5.5k lbs racecar on trailer and a lot of gear). But you still had to do a lot of dropping down on long up-grades, for sure. My current 5.7 Sequoia tows that weight effortlessly and rarely needs to downshift. Also the "tow mode" holds gears to higher RPMs which is nice. More importantly, it has INFINITELY better brakes than the 4.7 did. The 5.7 Sequoia/Tundra brakes are really big (in that you can't really fit any wheels smaller than 18" or certain 17s.Are you sure the 4.7 Tundra and the 5.7 have different braking packages? I was under the impression they were the same. I poked around on Rock Auto and it looks like for my second gen 2007 the 4.7 and 5.7 have the same part numbers for brakes. Would be curious, as I thought the chassis were identical with the exception of the drivetrain.
The 4.7 Sequoia of 2007 does different braking part numbers. The 5.7 Sequoia seems to have the same part numbers as the Tundra 4.7 and 5.7. Interesting. One of the few cars I regret selling was my Sequoia. I loved it.
When I say 4.7, I'm referring to the 1st Generation (pre-2007) vehicles. Didn't think about the fact that someone would actually buy the bigger/heavier 2nd-gen Tundra/Sequoia with the 4.7 in it. I sure wouldn't.....
The brakes on my Gen1 (2005) were "ok," I didn't say they were dangerous. But the ones on the 2nd gen vehicles are substantially and noticeably better.
2007 Sequoia was still first generation. They made the changeover a year later with the Sequoia compared to the Tundra. 2008 was the first year for the "bloated body" Sequoia.
irish44j (Forum Supporter) said:I mean, maybe my 5.7 is 1mpg worse than the 4.7 towing, IDK. Hardly worried about whether I'm getting 9mpg or 12mpg, in the grand scheme of things.
9 to 12 is a HUGH difference if towing a lot. I put 60K miles a year... on the trailer wheels for those few years. I assure you cost of ownership is a lot different that cost of purchase. Semi fleets are proud when they can increase mpg by 0.5 mpg. And most fleet owners have a lot more money to spend than I.
I'm glad you've had good mileage from your 5.7. I've never driven one. But the few I've been around did not have that same luck. For the guys that love there big bodied tundras, the poor mpg has been the main complaint I've heard.
Gas mileage is just bad. I am not sure there is much if any savings with the smaller V8 towing vs the larger one particularly when towing. I would not be surprised if it's worse. That combined with the small tank in my 07, range between fill ups is not good. I probably get 8ish towing and don't drive enough anymore around town to even bother looking at it.
Roebling is 325 miles from my house and I can just make it on one stop and it's all highway Range is that bad with the small V8 and the small tank. On a plus bladder storage is never an issue
I usually tow in S4 as the small V8 in the 07 doesn't have tow haul even though mine has the tow package with tranny cooler. A quirk of the 07 as it was a transition year between the first and second gens.
Irish - I didn't realize the Sequoia swapped to the larger style a year later than the Tundra. I would swap my Tundra for a similar condition / mileage sequoia in an instant.
In reply to wake74 :
The bad mpg is more on line from what I've heard, but it's only the one smaller body; and then several lifted / off-road tires on a 4x4 that never leave pavement, so no surprise there!
Not sure why a 5.7 in a bigger heavy less aerodynamic tundra would get better mpg and tow way better than the 5.7 in a 06, but one can never predict stuff like that!
The one 05 4.7 towing to much I knew of was getting about as good a mileage as my 3.4, but a sample of one ain't real scientific!
My friend has a Crew Cab Tundra with the 5.7, has a 4" lift on it and big tires. He loaned it to me for a week after I had ankle surgery and couldn't use my MT cars. I got 11mpg in it, unloaded! The gas mileage of it was stunningly bad, like obscenely bad.
It was a nice truck, but *huge*, like I was scared to park it in tighter parking lots.
In reply to docwyte :
I realize it's not a clutch but 4" lift and bad ankle don't sound like the perfect combination either. Ha.
I suppose with some good running boards, you might be able to gently climb up and down.
03Panther said:irish44j (Forum Supporter) said:I mean, maybe my 5.7 is 1mpg worse than the 4.7 towing, IDK. Hardly worried about whether I'm getting 9mpg or 12mpg, in the grand scheme of things.
9 to 12 is a HUGH difference if towing a lot. I put 60K miles a year... on the trailer wheels for those few years. I assure you cost of ownership is a lot different that cost of purchase. Semi fleets are proud when they can increase mpg by 0.5 mpg. And most fleet owners have a lot more money to spend than I.
I'm glad you've had good mileage from your 5.7. I've never driven one. But the few I've been around did not have that same luck. For the guys that love there big bodied tundras, the poor mpg has been the main complaint I've heard.
well yeah, for someone towing huge miles, of course it makes a difference. Pretty sure Chris (the OP) isn't towing 60k miles per year though....
In the end, I *can* easily improve my towing (and non-towing) MPGs +2 by simply not hauling ass. The Sequoia/Tundra mileage sweet-spot (on stock tires) is around 62mph on the highway, for fuel economy. Go 67,. or 75 and it drops substantially.
Unfortunately for me, I like to tow at like 75-80 whenever possible, and like to maintain those speeds up hills and stuff.....so I know exactly why my mileage is not great (I just don't really care...I can either spend $200 going slow, or $220 going fast...)
But I only tow maybe 3-4k miles per year, so it's not an issue. If I was a commercial hauler, that would be an entirely different story.
In reply to irish44j (Forum Supporter) :
We've gone way off topic from the OPs question. I have no experience with a newer tundra, but every one but you seems to gets bad mpg with the 5.7
I think the OP will be fine with either.
You'll need to log in to post.
