I'm looking for my next tow vehicle/daily and a tundra with the 5.7 fits the bill well, seemingly. are there any years to avoid or problems to look out for? currently looking at a 2017 Tundra limited with 80k, does $29k seem like a reasonable price? I'm currently only looking at Crew Max models, because i don't think an adult would be comfortable in the back of the double cab for more than an hour or so. Is that accurate?
I have a 2017 Tundra double cab that I bought new. Go sit in one, then get in the back and sit "behind yourself". You will find you have lots of space. I've had normal sized adults in the back for 8 hour trips with no issues. The bonus is that you get a more usable box than you do with a crew cab. I use mine almost exclusively for towing our travel trailer, which it does with ease. The built-in trailer brake controller even plays nice with the ABS, which came in handy once... So far, it has been completely reliable, with only scheduled maintenance. My only complaint is the appalling fuel consumption, but I suspect that's more of a pickup issue than a Tundra issue. The Tundras are very popular around here, more common than the GM or Fiat trucks. I'd buy another without batting an eye, if I was ever to go for another pickup.
I have a 2017 with the full size crew cab. I've owned it for since 2019 and have put over 60k miles on it. My only complaint is also the fuel mileage. But other than that I really like it.
I had a 2008 with the 5.7 v8 and 6 speed automatic. Great truck and powerful drive train. Approximately 400 hp and 400 torque.
Problem areas:
-water pumps $1-1.5k to replace
- coolant valley cover leaks and needs to be resealed $1-1.5k
- exhaust manifold cracks -about another $1k to replace 1
-there was some sort of issue with the air pump thing for emissions but that didn't fail on me
There were another couple of semi common issues but I no longer remember them. Google the tundra forums for more
I bought my truck with about 150k from the original owner and owned it for about 3-4 years putting 5k miles a year on it. Engine is difficult to work on compared to my 2001 gmt800 but it drove and towed very competently. Much better truck in that respect but the gmt900 is probably comparable. All the repairs above included labor as I didn't want to wrench on that engine. Too complex for my skill level and patience.
I had a 2010 sequoia which is a tundra frame and drivetrain. It just got totaled at 298k form a rear end hit.
I had it for just over 100k and only had to put an a/c compressor and front pads and rotors on it. I did both myself.
With Goodyear defenders it drove really well, like so well we took it on road trips rather than my wife's gx460.
Gas mileage sucks.
I will say part of the reason mine was totaled is the the accident caused enough of a jolt to kill the starter, and it's buried in the intake...
I liked mine a lot, but it probably says something that I'm not replacing it with another. Going to the gas station all the time is sort of lame.
Seems everyone is in agreement about the pro's and cons. Luckily my commute is about 3 miles right now so not a huge concern on the mpg and I can drive my girlfriends Honda fit if needed
I had a new 04. 3.4 v6. Toughest 1/2 ton truck I've owned (and I'm an old school truck guy) Also the most dependable. Out towed my 99 Dodge 1500 318 (5.2)
better gas mileage empty, or towing the exact same 7000 lb (yes, over both's ratings) load of HD in back, and airstream behind it.
Don't care for any of the changes since '06, so probably no real help. But I do miss mine, and the hold their value better, it seems.
At work (sawmill) we have about 5 of the second generations, plus one that was bought out by a leaving employee, and 1 Sequoias (plus one left this past summer). All very reliable to high km's with very few issues (I coordinate the heavy duty shop). A mechanic was complaining about the relative difficulty of replacing an alternator or starter at over 300,000 kms and I asked him how many he's had to do, it was the first one, on any of them. Nearly all of the problems I can think of that we've had with them are related to them spending a lot of time offroad by the woodlans crew, then normal wear and tear.
Highly recommended for resale value and reliability, but as stated, their fuel economy isn't the best.
Friend has a crew max one. It's HUGE. I think someone 7' tall could fit in the back seat, seriously. A double cab will work fine for adults. Same motor as my Land Cruiser, which also gets abysmal gas mileage.
I bought a crew max because at 6'5", I could comfortably sit behind myself for long trips. With two child seats in the back, I could comfortably take a shift was watching the kids while sitting in the middle seat.
The sr5 and other low trim levels without sunroofs have significantly more headroom. I found the double cab to be tight in the back. Gas mileage is terrible. There was a mid cycle refresh around 2016 that includes active cruise control and some safety stuff that is worth it.
I called my 04 long bed a 7/8 sized heavy half ton 100% of what would fit in my "full size" 1500 dodge, would also fit. The 3.4 would move anything that would fit, and got great mileage. The 4.7 had more power, and still decent mpg. So the powers that be, replaced it with a gas hog.
I've got the active cruise control on my 18 Land Cruiser and it does work really well.
The active cruise is super nice.
The powertrain is very good.
The fuel mileage is terrible.
It would be worth a cross-shop of F150s for comparable dollars/mileage/trim since a 3.5 Ecoboost has comparable power and about double the fuel economy when empty. I know you said 3 mile commute but it gets long filling up a 12 MPG tank everywhere you go. The F150 does have a lower gross towing than the Tundra if you are towing big stuff or want some headroom.
If fuel economy is legit no concern I would cross shop gas Super Dutys and Chevy 2500/3500. Based on the stated desire to have a tow vehicle and YOLO MPG, a proper 3/4 or 1 ton would be the best option since even the lowest rated tow package is quite a ways above the best Tundra.
Couldn't find a comparably priced 3.5 ecoboost near me, just the 2.7. Cross shopped the F250 but it's a bit more spendy and probably too much truck for me in the foreseeable future. My current f150 gets about 15mpg so I know how that goes at least
Wow, do the Tundras really only get 12mpg? I'm in the middle of a long trip with my family in my 6.2L gas F-250 crew cab. With 4 of us and the truck completely packed with our stuff, we're getting 16.2mpg going 77mph through the Appalachians.
In reply to ShinnyGroove (Forum Supporter) :
I don't know why, but this Toyota 5.7 gets truly horrid gas mileage. I had my friends Tundra for a week and got 11mpg out of it. Granted his has a 4" lift and huge wheels/tires but they don't do a whole lot better stock. My Land Cruiser with the same motor gets 13-14mpg. I had a Rental Chevy Tahoe for over a month, it got 20-21mpg. I assume it had the 5.3 LS, but still, similar sized vehicle, etc and 50% better mpg?!
My Land Cruiser comes with a V8 turbo diesel everywhere else in the world but North America. Less HP (except for me since I'm at altitude, it'd make the same amount here) but +200ft lbs of torque and TWICE the gas mileage as the gasser motor I have. Those rigs also could be equipped with a second +11 gallon fuel tank for better range. I'm still pretty frosty with Toyota's decision to A: Not bring over that turbo diesel motor and B: Not equip every gas Land Cruiser here with the secondary fuel tank. If I'm getting 13mpg, it'd be nice to have a second gas tank for better range.
I understand not bringing over the turbo diesel in the Land Cruiser, they sold so few of them in America. What Toyota needed to do was make that motor an option for the Tundra. They would've sold a TON of diesel Tundra's and then that motor might've also made it into the Land Cruiser.
ShinnyGroove (Forum Supporter) said:Wow, do the Tundras really only get 12mpg? I'm in the middle of a long trip with my family in my 6.2L gas F-250 crew cab. With 4 of us and the truck completely packed with our stuff, we're getting 16.2mpg going 77mph through the Appalachians.
I've got a '21 Tundra CrewMax. 5.7, 4x4. Over the course of 67,000 miles I am averaging a touch over 15.5 MPG. At 80-85MPH on the highway my truck typically returns 18.1 MPG. So, not great mileage but much better than 12.
2017 SR5 extra cab 4 x 4 empty does 16 mpg, towing it drops to 10.
3.5 Crew Cab 4x4
https://www.cars.com/vehicledetail/7ae6d9e1-b6cd-4de8-844b-549489a4f230/
Lariat even!
https://www.cars.com/vehicledetail/d9431bc9-8728-4861-b2c7-56f7de99401b/
If I was a gamblin' man...
https://www.cars.com/vehicledetail/d91c1d2a-c781-4238-8475-621b56e9e117/
The new Tundy's may do better, but the ones in the OP's year range are sows. But they do run so nice and smooth.
I guess the other thing about the ecoboost is that owning a twin turbo truck off warranty frightens me a little, maybe I'm just a Luddite. They would definitely be my choice if I were buying new. Have been considering the 5.0 f150, though
The 5.0s make similar power but get a little worse MPG especially empty/unloaded. The 3.5 Ecoboost is faster if that matters to you.
I cant tell you that the ecoboosts wont give you problems but I can tell you whatever issues they have are relatively rare and very well documented.
After having my Land Cruiser with a 5.7 and now an F150 with a 3.5TT, I would definitely get the 3.5TT over a 5.0/5.7 for a truck that is primarily used as a car which is my use case.
ShinnyGroove (Forum Supporter) said:Wow, do the Tundras really only get 12mpg? I'm in the middle of a long trip with my family in my 6.2L gas F-250 crew cab. With 4 of us and the truck completely packed with our stuff, we're getting 16.2mpg going 77mph through the Appalachians.
That seems low. I have a 2010 Sequoia (same 5.7) that probably weighs more than a tundra, plus a ton of gear I carry, with +1 size Load range E BFG all-terrains (heavy as hell), plus an 8-foot roof rack, 7-foot cargo box up there, and two Pelican boxes (not aero!)....and I still pretty consistently get around 15-16 on highway trips if I'm on cruise around 70.
I get a solid 12 when I'm towing the racecar (5k including trailer).
Anyone getting 12mpg on a Tundra not towing, and not driving like a madman or in city stop-and-go must have something else wrong with it.
docwyte said:In reply to ShinnyGroove (Forum Supporter) :
I don't know why, but this Toyota 5.7 gets truly horrid gas mileage. I had my friends Tundra for a week and got 11mpg out of it. Granted his has a 4" lift and huge wheels/tires but they don't do a whole lot better stock.
if he has huge tires:
1) tires play a giant role in MPGs, especially if they're large/heavy, aggressive offroad trades, and/or he's doing any stop and go.
2) the trip computer thinks he's going less miles than he actually is, since it's counting revolutions and his giant tires rotate less times per mile. So divide his MPGs by the %larger than stock his tires are to get real mpgs.
No, they're pretty lousy stock. But mine in stock trim with highway all-terrains usually got around 17-18 on the highway. Went down a lot when I changed to bigger A/Ts (and roof stuff).
In reply to irish44j (Forum Supporter) :
Best I've seen in my Land Cruiser is 16mpg. That was a 6 hour highway drive with the cruise control set at 80mph. Speed limit was 75mph. I guess if I'd set the cruise at 70mph I might've gotten 18mpg?
docwyte said:In reply to irish44j (Forum Supporter) :
Best I've seen in my Land Cruiser is 16mpg. That was a 6 hour highway drive with the cruise control set at 80mph. Speed limit was 75mph. I guess if I'd set the cruise at 70mph I might've gotten 18mpg?
Lol. Idk Even when I posted that, as if you dont know those things haha. Not paying attention to who I was replying to :)
Isn't your Land cruiser full-time all-wheel drive though?
You'll need to log in to post.
