Used Tundra?

evildky wrote: The bed of my 04 chevy didn't rust, it just dented every time you looked at it. I have a problem with an automaker that would use metal so thin in the bed of a truck? I didn't have that problem with any of my US built "foreign" trucks. Then there were all the mechanical issues that plagued the chevy. I prefer my trouble free, merkin made, jap trucks.

Dad's 03 finally spit the trans at 187k. and by that, I mean it started to slip in 2nd/3rd. The starter died at 198k. The only other issues he's had were brakes, one wheel bearing and tires since he purchased it with 41k miles in Nov of '06. 158k miles in 7 years, 4 months.

My 06 has needed nothing but tires in it's 79k miles since we purchased it in July of 06. Wife destroyed 2 general's and I finally got to replace them at 39k with some Kumho KL51's. Boss's 01 'burb is now at 332k miles, original trans and on it's 3rd waterpump (second was a cheap-o parts house replacement that lasted 2 years).

None of them have suffered severe rust, catastrophic failures or anything above normal wear/tear of 20+k a year driving.

evildky wrote: I have a problem with an automaker that would use metal so thin in the bed of a truck?

Um... good for you? Dented sheet metal doesn't stop you from using a truck (once again). Also, I have no idea what you are talking about... having worked with (and currently having in the family a 04 with 600,000kms on it), the sheet metal is definitely not "flimsy". If you hit sheetmetal anything hard enough, it'll dent lol.

evildky wrote: I didn't have that problem with any of my US built "foreign" trucks. Then there were all the mechanical issues that plagued the chevy. I prefer my trouble free, merkin made, jap trucks.

Once again, mechanical issues are definitely bad, but plenty of mechanical issues don't stop you from USING the truck. And your anecdotal evidence of your issues does not in anyway, shape, or form negate the thousands of replaced frames on tundras lol.

No one is trying to negate the frames that Toyota replaced. In the past 20 years, I have owned and driven 4 trucks as my daily work truck. A 90 Nissan Hardbody SEV6 4x4, 99 Nissan Frontier SEV6 4x4, then I decided I needed a full size so I bought a 04 Chevy Z71 4x4, when the heads cracked I got a 2010 Tundra 4x4. All of the trucks were used in the same manner, to haul and tow the same things. The chevy was the most softly sprung, sagged the most when hauling (I actually added helper airbags to the Chevy)and the bed aged the poorest and most quickly (it speaks to the quality, one could make the same argument about the frames on the toyotas). The 90 hardbody got new ball joints, timing belt and waterpump during the 125k miles I put on that truck. The 99 Frontier, had a hose clamp fail (weird) in the 100k miles I put on it. The chevy had the dash display replaced, the stereo, the transfer case control switch, transfer case control module, encoder motor, wheel bearing, steering rack and right at 100k the heads cracked, GM has TSB about the head cracking issue but it happens outside of warranty and they blame a supplier (castech) mine were corporate heads. The tundra so far only 60k miles but most of the problems I had with the chevy happened before 60k miles.

Mathematically, the Hardbody was the cheapest o own due to the lower initial cost of having bought that one used. The Chevy could be cheaper to own than the Tundra if you own it only for the duration of the warranty. The Toyota holds it value better in the long run but it starts with the highest purchase price, the Chevy can be bought substantially cheaper and if you get rid of it before the mechanical issues start costing you and the depreciation curve starts to nose dive I think it could be the cheaper vehicle to own. Has chevy quality gotten better? Has Toyota figure out how to make frames that don't rust in half?

Oh, and you referenced your mileage in km so you are likely a canuck and we can all blame Canada.

Well there's your problem. GM has a monstrous catalog to build the truck you need. You bought an off-road package (which will be softer sprung to go, wait for it, off road). You gotta buy the truck you need, not the one that looks nicest!

That's something most import truck to domestic's don't get. Nissan/Toyota have a fairly limited selection on setup. GM/Ford/Dodge are damn near limitless. It takes a completely different buying process.

HiTempguy wrote: Dented sheet metal doesn't stop you from using a truck (once again).

If the bed is so delicate you have to be careful how you use it though, that is a problem.

Being able to accidentally collapse the front bed rail by squeezing with your bare hands for example.

Or having the bed rip, letting a bolted in stake just tear out for another example.

foxtrapper wrote: Being able to accidentally collapse the front bed rail by squeezing with your bare hands for example.

I'm waving the flag on that one. My Tundra certainly wasn't built like that.

I was about to post a Toyota defending reply, then I saw that I'd be arguing about Pickup trucks with Bobzilla. No thanks.

They're all good trucks. They all rust. They all get lousy gas mileage (17 with the 1988 3/4 Chevy, 22 with the 02 Tundra, both highway) The Toyota rust really isn't that bad, mostly the internet making a much bigger deal of it than it is. Ours is entirely rust free other than where it was hit.

mtn wrote: I was about to post a Toyota defending reply, then I saw that I'd be arguing about Pickup trucks with Bobzilla. No thanks. They're all good trucks. They all rust. They all get lousy gas mileage (17 with the 1988 3/4 Chevy, 22 with the 02 Tundra, both highway) The Toyota rust really isn't that bad, mostly the internet making a much bigger deal of it than it is. Ours is entirely rust free other than where it was hit.

And here we area again comparing apples and oranges. 3/4T work truck, or a 3/4 scale "full size" truck. My 89 and 93 fullsize GM's were mid-20's highway. The delivery Toyota trucks I used were 16 highway on a good day. That's a huge difference. Dad's V8 92 fullsize (5.7, Ext cab long bed 2wd) was a consistent 19mpg highway truck until the head gasket popped. Truck had 54k miles on it when he bought it in 2005. Obviously it had sat a long time. That body was so clean too. Interior looked new. no rust. It was actually a pleasure yanking that engine because everything actually came loose!

Oh, also... He should have gotten a Ridgeline. Best damn pickup truck out there.

Bobzilla wrote:

mtn wrote: I was about to post a Toyota defending reply, then I saw that I'd be arguing about Pickup trucks with Bobzilla. No thanks. They're all good trucks. They all rust. They all get lousy gas mileage (17 with the 1988 3/4 Chevy, 22 with the 02 Tundra, both highway) The Toyota rust really isn't that bad, mostly the internet making a much bigger deal of it than it is. Ours is entirely rust free other than where it was hit.

And here we area again comparing apples and oranges. 3/4T work truck, or a 3/4 scale "full size" truck. My 89 and 93 fullsize GM's were mid-20's highway. The delivery Toyota trucks I used were 16 highway on a good day. That's a huge difference. Dad's V8 92 fullsize (5.7, Ext cab long bed 2wd) was a consistent 19mpg highway truck until the head gasket popped. Truck had 54k miles on it when he bought it in 2005. Obviously it had sat a long time. That body was so clean too. Interior looked new. no rust. It was actually a pleasure yanking that engine because everything actually came loose!

Both 2wd, both held 2 people comfortably and 2 in semi-comfort (although the Tundra has much better ingress/egress), both had a V8, and both with enough towing capacity to tow a Cadillac on a trailer...

And the 3/4 was not a work truck, FWIW. Thing was loaded. If you're going to call me out on apples and oranges, call it on the 13 year difference in them.

I figured the 13 year difference and 2 generations of trucks seperating them was self evident. A 3/4 ton truck is just that, a TRUCK. Period. Heavier springs, bigger differentials, beefier trans etc. That 3/4 ton likely had athe Turbo 400 non-OD trans in it which accounts for hte huge difference in fuel economy.

mtn wrote: Oh, also... He should have gotten a Ridgeline. Ugliest damn pickup trucklet out there.

That we can agree on!

Bobzilla wrote: I figured the 13 year difference and 2 generations of trucks seperating them was self evident. A 3/4 ton truck is just that, a TRUCK. Period. Heavier springs, bigger differentials, beefier trans etc. That 3/4 ton likely had athe Turbo 400 non-OD trans in it which accounts for hte huge difference in fuel economy.

It was 2wd, 350, and while I don't know what transmission exactly, I know that it had OD.

I've found the Toyota rust to be fascinatingly inconsistent. The closest to semi-consistency I've found is the 4x4 models rusting faster and worse than the 2wd models. But that's no hard and fast rule.

Let's see, between the wife, me and the father-in-law, we've had 8 Toyota trucks over the years.

Two 70's hilux 2wd 3/4 ton models. One fine, the other thoroughly rotted. Both saw regular saltwater.

Three 86 1-ton 2wd's, None badly rusted. One regularly saw saltwater.

One 86 4x4. Rusted badly.

One 97 T100 4x4. Starting to show semi-serious rust on the chassis.

One 2000 Tundra 4x4. Spotless. Semi-regularly sees saltwater.

Keith Tanner wrote: I'm waving the flag on that one. My Tundra certainly wasn't built like that.

Glad for you yours wasn't. Father in law's was. He crushed the rail the first time. I crushed it the second time. He squeezed to to pull something into position I think. I squeezed it just to squeeze, because I didn't believe his story either. I didn't even squeeze it very hard. It collapsed so quickly and easily the damage was done before I could stop.

His bed regularly takes attention to keep it in a bed like shape. The tops are easily pulled up getting into the bed over the side. The inner flange has to regularly be reshaped to help support the top.

And, like I said, a bolted in post ripped the bed being pulled up (by a goat I think).

Oddly, the sides are great. I don't think there's a dent on either side.

His tailgate got smashed backing into a loading dock or such with it down. That might not be the gate being weak though. His truck is darn jumpy off idle, so it's easy to accidentally slam into something trying to inch up on it.

8? Is that all? Geesh... .you need to try harder! 15 GM trucks jsut between myself and my father.

72 4-spd (3-spd with granny)350 long bed, 73 250/TH400, 80 250/3spd manual, 83 1T dually 6.2, 84 burb 6.2, 88rclb 305/700R4, 89 4.3/5spd rcsb, 91 eclb 5.7/700R, 92 G20 5.7/700R, 93 ECSB 4.3/5spd,, 97 tahoe 5.7/700r 4wd, 98 G1500 5.7/700R, 00 Sonoma 2.2/5-spd, 03 1500 5.3/4L60 ECSB, 06 1500 CCSB

Wow... 10 fullsizes, 2 vans, a burb, a hoe and an s-dime. holy hell. I think we may have a problem. lol

I've never seen such Tundra bashing, and I've owned my 2003 4x4 Access Cab for 4 years now. Had a front right brake caliper seize. Other than that no issues. Towed a 6-7000 pound trailer across the country with no trailer brakes. changed the timing belt at 120k miles, looked like new, so did the water pump. Motor loves to rev. My only complaint is that 2nd gear is too tall. Roosting around the sand dunes, it revs out a little quick in 1st and runs out of power in 2nd.

Excellent off roader with a small lift and 33" tires

Petrolburner wrote: I've never seen such Tundra bashing

You must be reading a different thread. I don't see bashing. I see a lot of guys quite happy with their tundras, but not pretending they are better than they actually are.

foxtrapper wrote:

Petrolburner wrote: I've never seen such Tundra bashing

You must be reading a different thread. I don't see bashing. I see a lot of guys quite happy with their tundras, but not pretending they are better than they actually are.

To many toyota loyalists, if it's not 100% perfect praise about their absolute awesomeness than it's "bashing" to them. I've seen it with Honda fanboi's, Hyundai fanbois and many others. It's nothing new. Whatever you do, don't ever say anything negative abot "x-brand" or you're a hatin' basher.

Hell, it might as well be a political thread.

One thing I've found about trucks - as soon as you buy one, people will tell you how much it sucks and how it's going to break. Loyalties are STRONG. Doesn't happen with cars the same way.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go make fun of my brother-in-law's new Ford Ecoboost...

In reply to Bobzilla:

Umm sorta like you going on and on about how amazing chevs are then...gotcha.

Ok, bashing probably wasn't the right adjective, and I confess to not reading every single post in its entirety. I am biased afterall. The pile of frames was something I've never seen before. I thought the recall was just for the rear crossmember. Mine wasn't rusted so they just sprayed an anti-rust coating on it instead of replacing it. I'm still pretty happy with the truck although if I had to do a lot more towing of heavy stuff I'd get something else.

kevlarcorolla wrote: In reply to Bobzilla: Umm sorta like you going on and on about how amazing chevs are then...gotcha.

You're obviously not reading what I actually write then.

evildky wrote: No one is trying to negate the frames that Toyota replaced. In the past 20 years, I have owned and driven 4 trucks as my daily work truck. A 90 Nissan Hardbody SEV6 4x4, 99 Nissan Frontier SEV6 4x4, then I decided I needed a full size so I bought a 04 Chevy Z71 4x4, when the heads cracked I got a 2010 Tundra 4x4. All of the trucks were used in the same manner, to haul and tow the same things. The chevy was the most softly sprung, sagged the most when hauling (I actually added helper airbags to the Chevy)and the bed aged the poorest and most quickly (it speaks to the quality, one could make the same argument about the frames on the toyotas). The 90 hardbody got new ball joints, timing belt and waterpump during the 125k miles I put on that truck. The 99 Frontier, had a hose clamp fail (weird) in the 100k miles I put on it. The chevy had the dash display replaced, the stereo, the transfer case control switch, transfer case control module, encoder motor, wheel bearing, steering rack and right at 100k the heads cracked, GM has TSB about the head cracking issue but it happens outside of warranty and they blame a supplier (castech) mine were corporate heads. The tundra so far only 60k miles but most of the problems I had with the chevy happened before 60k miles. Mathematically, the Hardbody was the cheapest o own due to the lower initial cost of having bought that one used. The Chevy could be cheaper to own than the Tundra if you own it only for the duration of the warranty. The Toyota holds it value better in the long run but it starts with the highest purchase price, the Chevy can be bought substantially cheaper and if you get rid of it before the mechanical issues start costing you and the depreciation curve starts to nose dive I think it could be the cheaper vehicle to own. Has chevy quality gotten better? Has Toyota figure out how to make frames that don't rust in half? Oh, and you referenced your mileage in km so you are likely a canuck and we can all blame Canada.

Actually I bought the Z71 because it felt far less squishy and tippy than the standard model, I know it had the bilstein shocks I have no idea if the sway bars or springs were different from the standard model. And the Tundra, is a TRD Rock Warrior, meaning it too has bilsteins and I again have no idea if the springs and bars are any different but again I bought it because it feels a lot less squishy and tippy than the standard model. The Titan FWIW felt far stiffer than the Tundra but the model I wanted was out of production at the time.

I refuse to buy 4wd trucks so I can't personally compare models of 4wd's. I don't ever have the need for a 4wd. Now 2wd's... I have put a few miles on them over the years.