Learn me thread - Pre 2007 Tundra and Post 2005 Tacomas

Title says it all, I don't want a full size but I like the V8 in the Tundra.

So Learn me oh great GRM.

EDIT: Any real world fuel economy numbers would be great too.

This thread is relevant to my interests

Prepare yourself for rust comments.

I know the Tundra. Solid truck, I had one with 170k on it and it felt new. There was a rework in 2001 or so that led to taller bed sides, variable valve timing and a more sophisticated transmission. I don't think they do any better economy-wise, however.

I really liked my 2000 model, I only sold it because I needed something that would pull a two-car trailer.

One thing about them - they always struck me as trucks designed by a car company. The interior of a Ram is full of hard-learned tweaks that make it a better work truck, the Tundra doesn't have that background. They also specify weirdly low air pressures.

Not much to know on the engine, it's pretty bulletproof if not terribly powerful. Timing belt/water pump. For pre-07 Tundras check for frame rust (mostly on the 03-04s, IIRC, there was a recall), because they can get gnarly.

I think the stronger 5-speed automatic replaced the 4-speed in 2005 (or at least it did in the Sequoia), so that is more desirable.

I bought my 2005 Tacoma new in late 2004. I've got about 110k on it. I've replaced the front wheel bearings, shocks and an O2 sensor. No other issues. I use it to plow and pull my car trailer.

Early 2005+ Tacomas have a weak tailgate. Some collapsed while loading motorcycles. Many were replaced under warranty or reinforced with a kit that's no longer available. I made my own reinforcements with aluminum angle and have never had a problem with motorcycles.

I'd buy another.

I had an 02 Tundra V8. Absolutely loved everything about it besides MPG. I averaged 14.7 in mixed (mostly hwy) driving. Drove and rode like a car, even with Bilstein coilovers on it. Clamshell doors were kinda awkward when I was getting car seats and stuff out of it in tight parking spots.

Only problems I had with it were failing O2 sensors around 80K miles.

Had a 2007 Taco DC for about a year. I loved everything about that truck. Plenty of room inside, easy to drive, and it can get out of its own way fairly easily. I towed a 6x12 uhaul enclosed loaded with furniture once and it did just fine, even up and down hills at freeway speeds.

Fil has a ~2000 tundra 4x4 standard cab he bought new, and has about 150k miles on it. He's a trapper, commercial waterman and a goat farmer. The truck has not had an easy life!

The interior looks delicate, yet after years of muddy boots, swamp muck, entrails,and god knows what else, it still looks clean and unstained. Right down to the velour seats and door panels. It's just not possible.

The drivetrain has never skipped a beat. One exhaust manifold did crack. It's pulled several tons trough the mountains without trouble, roughly sea level. 4x4 has never given any trouble.

Consistently gets about 18 mpg.

The tailgate is flimsy and so is the bed. But, they continue to work, and haven't rusted out.

Frame has nominal rust issues. Essentially none, but there is some surface rust. Kinda amazing since the truck is regularly dunked in salt water.

Throttle response off idle is my only dislike, and it's a strong one. The truck nearly explodes off idle, making slow speed maneuvering difficult, especially when finessing is necessary.

Bed sides are high, making it difficult to toss things over the sides. This is true for almost all trucks, starting roughly 2000. Not a tundra specific complaint.

For him, it's basically been an absolutely great truck.

I sat in a 05 Access Cab Tundra Yesterday, back seats are useless past the age of 9 (6 if you are as big as my kid)

Keep the info coming.

I like the Tundra for the ability to sit 6 but the Tacos are much easier to find.

If this fails I will just find an F150 with the 4.6. I know thier issues.

And you are right the 4.7 in the Tundra motivates it very well.

I can tell you that when you go to sell one, every question will be about the timing belt change interval. Must be an interference engine or something. Easy service to perform. Also, the starter is under the intake manifold and is a pain to access.

I put people in the back of mine occasionally - it's an around-town setup for sure. Nothing like the crew cab in the Dodge.

I'm going to guess foxtrapper's FIL has a 2001+, the bed sides are much higher. High enough that you can put two tires stacked on top of each other underneath a cover, the earlier ones weren't quite tall enough for that I like tall bed sides because I tend to access the bed via this cool flip-down door in the back

The trucks you speak of are negligible in size-difference to any 1996+ newer domestic full size AND lack the capabilities a full size provide. On top of that, they get the same, if not worse mpg.

So I don't care if you don't want the full size. This is the internet and my opinion, so Imma shove it in your face Bozilla, where are you??! I need backup asap!

I replaced mine with a Dodge 2500. There's a significant size difference. I live in a truck town so it's not a problem, but it's always interesting when I bring the Dodge to Denver or, even worse, Ottawa.

Keith Tanner wrote: I replaced mine with a Dodge 2500. There's a significant size difference. I live in a truck town so it's not a problem, but it's always interesting when I bring the Dodge to Denver or, even worse, Ottawa.

Uh... usually people equate fullsize with 1/2 ton. Yes, the 3/4 and 1 tons are huge, that sort of goes without saying

Around here, a 1/2 ton is a "cute little truck"

I can say, thanks to my job and it's company trucks, I can say without a doubt there is a significant difference in the size of a domestic 1/2 ton and the midsize trucks here. Try to park them in Houston or New Orleans. Try. You smack the mirrors off of the truck next to you.

8" in girth is huge when you just don't have clearance.

It isn't that I have anything against a full size and like I said if I these won't fit my needs I can always go F-150. I just prefer a little smaller.

Went and sat in a 4 door 2006 Taco. Looks like it had a new frame in under it.

I don't have a need for the 4x4 I honestly think I would be happier with a locking rear diff...

You may have intended it this way, but there are two different "pre-2007" Tundras, the access cab and double cab. I have seen folks state, "I don't want one of them 2007+ Tundras cause they are too big--I want an earlier DC. Well, the earlier DC is actually LONGER than the newer style and only 1/2" narrower. It is the AC only that is more Tacoma sized. The 5.7 engine in the newer Tundras use a timing chain; the earlier engines use a belt. Due to having a 6-speed, the real world MPG difference is negligible between an older Tundra and a newer one.

Length isn't as big a concern as width. I like the size of the new Tacoma. Plenty capable and they hold their value well.

I'm pretty sure that the 2005+ Tacoma has a timing chain.

Pops has an '00 or '01, I can't remember which. V8, any way.

As above, it rides like a tall car, the engine is great. Other than frame rust, it's been pretty good to him. It went 300,000km and then I found out he had never had the timing belt changed. Changed that real quick.

One leaf failed in the leaf pack. Apparently more common on Tacomas. We had a local truck shop replace the failed leaf.

----> Parking brake pivots (and thus, self-adjusters) are awful, and are a frequent service item. Stay on top of them so they don't rust solid.

----> The truck EATS front brakes.

Last brake service, I did the TSB brake upgrade with newer style calipers and pads ('05+? Can't remember). It has needed rotors every time we do brakes.

Pops' brake issue might be compounded because:

1) He doesn't use the parking brake, so the back brakes don't self-adjust, leaving the fronts to do everything.

2) He loads a camper on it that IS the GVW of the truck, then pumps up helper air bags so it will sit level and not smack the frame. This makes the load-sensing proportioning valve say "there's nothing to see here; no need to send more pressure to ~these~ brakes, thank you anyways," leaving the fronts to do everything.

Not sure what the fix is, other than a couple more leafs added in the back to increase capacity (and make it ride more like a truck).

It got 11mpg pulling my Locost 7 on a u-haul trailer. Currently getting less than that hauling his freight-train size camper across Canada.

Huh, interesting on the fuel economy. Granddaddy had a 454 'Burban that would get 12 mpg.

It got 12 without a trailer...
It got 12 with a trailer...
It got 12 up hill...
It got 12 down a hill...

It will not get better in a house.
It did not get worse with a mouse.
It liked 12 mpg, yes it did.
12 MPG that's all it did.

I used to see around 10 when towing a single car 16' enclosed trailer, and 18 in unloaded day-to-day. That's a 2000 model.

I was once towing in convoy with a 2003 (? - the VVT one) across Kansas. I had my enclosed trailer with a Miata, he had an open trailer with a Miata. I think we had a significant headwind - it was Kansas, after all. I was seeing 10 mpg, he was 13.

In reply to Keith Tanner:

Taco or Tundra?

Tundra vs Tundra, sorry. Both V8s. I looked at the new Taco in 2006 or so, but found the dash was very intrusive into cabin volume and overall figured the Tundra was a better truck for my needs. I was right.

I only have experience with the V6 Tundra's. Those were garbage that sucked gas worse than a 454 'burb. I once got 14mpg unloaded into a headwind coming back from Ft Wayne. Rode like ass, drive like poo and had the absolute WORST seat I've ever been in.