Ok hear me out. My 2000 has 200k miles on it but runs great. I get a consistent 12.5 mpg. I love it, but I really don't need the capabilities it offers. I can trade it plus 2-3k in cash for a 2006 Tundra double cab 4wd, TRD, leather, etc with 115k miles. These tundras seem to be averaging 15-17 mpg on fuelly. Same engine obviously, but it has the 5 sPeed, and my 100 has the 4 sPeed. Obviously all the belts, hoses, etc will be 6 years newer. I'm leaning toward making the trade, but I really do love my 100. I used to have a truck, and I do miss the bed on occasion.
Opinions on possible trade
- Thread starter sacmaster
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
I think you should make the trade. That is what you wanted to hear, right?
It's not like you're going from an 80 to a 100 and are considering the merits of each. You're talking about two totally different vehicles. One is an SUV, the other is a pickup truck. Both great vehicles for doing what they were built to do, but you're comparing apples to oranges.
It's not like you're going from an 80 to a 100 and are considering the merits of each. You're talking about two totally different vehicles. One is an SUV, the other is a pickup truck. Both great vehicles for doing what they were built to do, but you're comparing apples to oranges.
- Thread starter
- #3
That's actually not what I'm just looking to hear. I don't know much about Tundras other than they share an engine. I'm looking more for information as to their durability/longevity compared to the 100. As I said, I love my 100.
Who will offer you that trade? That's a great deal I'd take it.
You're saying you love the 100 but don't really need it.
You like the MPG's better on the truck.
You like the 5spd better than the 4spd (as most do)
It's 6 years newer
I agree, a truck bed is nice....and you miss it.
Sorry if I read that wrong. It sounded to me like you already had your mind made up. You came to the 100 section, what exactly were you looking to hear? I wasn't trying to sound snappy. I think if you want/need a truck, with a truck bed, like the MPG's better, can get a vehicle with 85k less miles, and really don't have much use for a large SUV......what's so hard about that decision? You're talking large dollar purchases here. What's financially better for you? What's more practical for you right now? You already seemed to have answered those questions for yourself.
For me, I'd rather have a 100. But, I don't have the concerns that you stated above. If I did, I would get a Tundra. Are you financially able to own both? If so, that's even better. If not, then I think you should make the trade.
- Thread starter
- #7
Ok so the reasoning stated in my first post was a bit more emotional than logical. The point is, I was hoping others who have more knowledge of tundras when compared with 100s than I do would give their input as to the pros and cons of the tundra in comparison. I realize its not designed to drive across Africa, but will it typically go 250k miles without major repairs? If money didn't matter, I wouldn't be contemplating trading a 13 year old vehicle for a 7 year old one.
Don't base your decision on the MPG. I don't think you'll see much of a difference. My brother-in-law has a nice late model Tundra and gets just a bit better gas mileage than I do.
This is his first Toyota (after years of fords and chevies) and he goes on and on about the quality.
Comes down to if you want a great slightly older SUV or a great slightly newer truck.
Good Luck.
This is his first Toyota (after years of fords and chevies) and he goes on and on about the quality.
Comes down to if you want a great slightly older SUV or a great slightly newer truck.
Good Luck.
I averaged 14 in my 05 tundra. Check for a cold start whining noise. Sign of the air pump going out. Cost around 2k to fix. Its only heard for the first 20 seconds or so on cold start ups.
Not the same engine. The internals are very different. Forged vs. cast.
Keep the 100.
Keep the 100.
Love my hundy. The tundra will feel like a step down but it will be worth it. I wouldn't count on a noticeable mileage improvement, although you will probably see some improvement, neither are "good" mpg vehicles. In the end you are swapping a piss poor mpg rig for a poor mpg rig, at best.
Tranny is not going to be your saving grace to hang your hat on. I went from a 2011 tundra rock warrior with 5.7 and 6 speed and I honestly don't miss it much. My 4 speed hundy is almost as smooth and although I could get to 70mph a lot faster in the tundra, my hundy rides just as good at 70+ mph.
$11k for a trade isn't bad for a 200k hundy, but if I were you I would try for a 2007+ tundra, which is a far better truck with the 5.7 6 speed. In the end, that 5.7 gets about what the hundy gets as far as mpg though. The sub-2007 tundras are great rigs but I swore off the column shift years ago.
Sent from my iPhone using IH8MUD
Tranny is not going to be your saving grace to hang your hat on. I went from a 2011 tundra rock warrior with 5.7 and 6 speed and I honestly don't miss it much. My 4 speed hundy is almost as smooth and although I could get to 70mph a lot faster in the tundra, my hundy rides just as good at 70+ mph.
$11k for a trade isn't bad for a 200k hundy, but if I were you I would try for a 2007+ tundra, which is a far better truck with the 5.7 6 speed. In the end, that 5.7 gets about what the hundy gets as far as mpg though. The sub-2007 tundras are great rigs but I swore off the column shift years ago.
Sent from my iPhone using IH8MUD
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2004
- Threads
- 194
- Messages
- 2,933
- Location
- Emporia, KS
- Website
- www.tornadoalleycruisers.org
I have both a 2010 Tundra and a 2000 100. Seems like you are comparing two Toyotas, but that's where the similarity stops. I'd take either vehicle, depending on the expected use. I drive my Tundra for work, and my 100 on the weekends or for play. They have nearly identical miles on the odometer, but the 100 seems to be a much better built vehicle, even being 10 years older. My mileage is about the same between the two. I've towed my 40 behind both with no problems. I wouldn't load up the back of the 100 with leaves or wood in the fall, but it is sure nice to throw suit cases back there on a trip, which isn't so nice in the Tundra.
So to answer your question, I cannot. Decide what you want to use it for, and base your decision on that.
Sent from my iPad using IH8MUD
So to answer your question, I cannot. Decide what you want to use it for, and base your decision on that.
Sent from my iPad using IH8MUD
Go for a long test drive in the Tundra before you make a decision. Coming from the 100-series cruiser, you might be disappointed in the Tundra's huge turning radius, uncomfortable seats, poor visibility from the driver's seat, etc. Just a few things to look out for...
I know I would rather have the 'cruiser, but thats just me. I love the heated leather seats, tight turning radius, good visibility, and full time 4 wd in the 'cruiser. I think the tundra does not have a center differential, and that combined with poor visibility out the back and over the hood, make it difficult to manuver in tight spaces when the 4wd is engaged.
The tundra is a big pick-up truck; the 'cruiser is a luxury SUV.
If you need a big pick-up truck, get the Tundra.
If you do not need a big pick-up truck, i'd say the 'cruiser is superior in every way.
If you are hung up on fuel economy, then get a prius.
Really, I don't think youll save much on gas driving the Tundra vs. the Land Cruiser.
my.02.
I know I would rather have the 'cruiser, but thats just me. I love the heated leather seats, tight turning radius, good visibility, and full time 4 wd in the 'cruiser. I think the tundra does not have a center differential, and that combined with poor visibility out the back and over the hood, make it difficult to manuver in tight spaces when the 4wd is engaged.
The tundra is a big pick-up truck; the 'cruiser is a luxury SUV.
If you need a big pick-up truck, get the Tundra.
If you do not need a big pick-up truck, i'd say the 'cruiser is superior in every way.
If you are hung up on fuel economy, then get a prius.
Really, I don't think youll save much on gas driving the Tundra vs. the Land Cruiser.
my.02.
- Thread starter
- #17
Really appreciate all the input. Went and looked over the Tundra pretty closely today and decided to stick with the 100. For one thing, the "leather" advertised ended up being vinyl, which I don't necessarily mind, but it was essentially a work truck. Bench seat, beat up bed, etc. I'm too spoiled to give up my comfy, adjustable, heated seats. Plus, it still needed the timing belt done at 115k, so no telling what other maintenance has been neglected. May still make the jump at some point, if the right truck comes along. I live out in the country, so a bed would be useful.
What about a dropping a few grand and getting little beater truck?
I had an 06 Tundra Crew Cab 4wd SR5 with aftermarket leather. Leased it new for 3 years. Replaced it with a 3/4 ton truck and didn't look back.
The 1st gen Tundra was a light half ton for towing or hauling any weight. If you only need the bed to haul light stuff, it's fine. I'd you plan on towing a 6,000 lb trailer, it stinks. The VVTi and 5 speed trans were nice, but not an enormous improvement from the 2001 Sequoia we came out of. Nether towed our 5500# travel trailer that well. (upgraded to a much bigger trailer and thus the 3/4 ton truck now). The added HP made no noticable difference, it was the trans that helped a bit with the 2nd/3rd gear spacing for towing.
The Tundra does not have the same build quality that the 100 has. I remember brand new, complaining that some of the oval switches 4WD/Hazard/Rear Bed Light) on the dash didn't match.......one was off-black, the others were gloss black. No MPG readout, which my Sequoia had. Not sure of the condition of both rigs, but my new Tundra was nothing utterly spectacular. My 2005 lx470 is certainly much nicer and better built (this is comparing my then-new Tundra to my current 111k LX470). The double cab tundra is also a bit awkward, both in visible proportion and huuuuge turning radius, lousy visibility, etc. MPG was nothing spectacular, I remember high-ish teens on hwy (17-18?) which is nothing vastly superior to my Hundy. Driver's seat was a PITA to get adjusted to a moderately comfortable position.
I had problems with front suspension on my Tundra (TSB or recall, I can't remember which, something to do with an assembly-line defect), tensioner pulley squealing that took them 2x to fix, and a couple of strange drivetrain noises the dealer never sorted out before I turned it in (obnoxious creak every time you put it in gear). I bought the 3/4 ton to replace it about 6 months before the lease ran out. The Tundra sat in the driveway, undriven, for the last 6 months before I washed it and turned it in. I knew I had unused miles on it but didn't care enough to drive it. I don't miss it. Fwiw we enjoyed the Sequoia a whole lot more as it was proportioned a whole lot better and was much easier for my wife to drive and park.
You need to drive that DC for a weekend before you decide to give your Hundy up, for sure.
Ymmv, perhaps that helps a bit.
The 1st gen Tundra was a light half ton for towing or hauling any weight. If you only need the bed to haul light stuff, it's fine. I'd you plan on towing a 6,000 lb trailer, it stinks. The VVTi and 5 speed trans were nice, but not an enormous improvement from the 2001 Sequoia we came out of. Nether towed our 5500# travel trailer that well. (upgraded to a much bigger trailer and thus the 3/4 ton truck now). The added HP made no noticable difference, it was the trans that helped a bit with the 2nd/3rd gear spacing for towing.
The Tundra does not have the same build quality that the 100 has. I remember brand new, complaining that some of the oval switches 4WD/Hazard/Rear Bed Light) on the dash didn't match.......one was off-black, the others were gloss black. No MPG readout, which my Sequoia had. Not sure of the condition of both rigs, but my new Tundra was nothing utterly spectacular. My 2005 lx470 is certainly much nicer and better built (this is comparing my then-new Tundra to my current 111k LX470). The double cab tundra is also a bit awkward, both in visible proportion and huuuuge turning radius, lousy visibility, etc. MPG was nothing spectacular, I remember high-ish teens on hwy (17-18?) which is nothing vastly superior to my Hundy. Driver's seat was a PITA to get adjusted to a moderately comfortable position.
I had problems with front suspension on my Tundra (TSB or recall, I can't remember which, something to do with an assembly-line defect), tensioner pulley squealing that took them 2x to fix, and a couple of strange drivetrain noises the dealer never sorted out before I turned it in (obnoxious creak every time you put it in gear). I bought the 3/4 ton to replace it about 6 months before the lease ran out. The Tundra sat in the driveway, undriven, for the last 6 months before I washed it and turned it in. I knew I had unused miles on it but didn't care enough to drive it. I don't miss it. Fwiw we enjoyed the Sequoia a whole lot more as it was proportioned a whole lot better and was much easier for my wife to drive and park.
You need to drive that DC for a weekend before you decide to give your Hundy up, for sure.
Ymmv, perhaps that helps a bit.
Last edited: