2nd Generation Tundra: 4.6 vs 5.7 advice

toylandcruiser

Expedition Leader
I agree with you on the 3/4 ton recommendation. I got rid of our 15 crew max for an f350 and will never go back. Toyota, imho, is being left in the dust by the other mfg’s

Toyota has always been a very conservative company. That’s what I like about them. They make a product and they are very good at it. Changing they’re stuff every couple years is not conducive to reliability. Hell everyone thinks the 350 was such a reliable engine and Cheney made it for what 50 years?
 

tennesseewj

Observer
Yes, 100% agree. Sorry, I read it as a 2,200lb camper trailer. I retract the Tacoma suggestion. However, I will also say the Tundra is not up to the task either. Unless you go single-cab, no Tundra I've seen has the payload to accommodate a 2k lb camper (that doesn't even include passengers).
-
You need a 3/4 ton.
Yikes, I made the same mistake. I read "pop-up camper" and assumed trailer.

That payload is 3/4 or 1 ton territory

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
 

cmgraves

Observer
Thanks for everyone's thoughts. Yes, you have sold me on the 5.7l if I did go with the 2nd generation. The reason I considered the 4.6l was I expected majority of our travels would be with a topper and sleeping platform on weekend trips throughout Vancouver island (we are currently reside for the next 3 years). and with that travel, the gas mileage would be better. But as someone did mention, the resale value, and if I need the power, it will be there, and the savings with gas will be pennies in comparison.

As for going 3/4 ton / 1 ton, no plan for that if I went with a lightweight popup camper. This is manly that this setup has been done for a major overland travel, with zero issues, and I would also feel comfortable with the same setup:

http://www.wanderthewest.com/forum/...milner-with-2014-tundra-driving-to-argentina/

Regardless, the first question has been answered, if I got a 2nd gen tundra, it will spring for the 5.7l. But now I am having second thoughts on the 2nd gen as a 1 gen (2006 tundra) double cab, limited model, just came available for $11,000, which is $8-12,000 cheaper than the 2nd gen. The caveat, it does have 200k miles on it. But the way I am looking at it, with that $10,000 in savings, can pay for a lot of upgrades, repairs, and I would purchase a flippac and build a kitchen in the back and have a solid adventure vehicle. The best part, have money to go on adventures.

So, thinks for everyone advice. I will however be sticking with the tundra. the question: spend the extra money and go with the 2nd gen, or go for a 1st gen, with high mileage and save some money?


and ideally, if it all works out, do this setup for 3 years; wife finishes school, sell truck, and buy a crew cab Provan Tiger and travel for 6 months. But first, need to buy a truck. Traveling with a family of 4, a dog, and camping equipment, in an impreza wagon just not working anymore.
 

Kpack

Adventurer
Let me tell you my experience with getting a high-mileage 1st Gen Tundra. Be prepared to spend a lot in repairs. Mine is a 2005 Limited, bought at 170K miles. Things that had to be done since I bought it a little over two years ago: timing belt and water pump and radiator (~$1200), replace front differential (grenaded, ~$1200), head gasket repair and replace leaking manifolds (~$1500), replace front wheel bearings (~$500), replace LBJ's and tie rods (~$500), replace all worn out suspension components including coilovers and UCA's (~$1200...with nicer stuff of course).

I love my truck but at these high miles a lot of stuff is starting to fail, needing replacement. Components just wear out. On the plus side I now have a truck with lots of new parts that should last for a while. Of course there are going to be other things that fail....I'm expecting to have to do some work to the driveline eventually (carrier bearing or U-joints) and possibly will need to replace CV axles in the future as well.

-Kevin
 

rruff

Explorer
But now I am having second thoughts on the 2nd gen as a 1 gen (2006 tundra) double cab, limited model, just came available for $11,000, which is $8-12,000 cheaper than the 2nd gen. The caveat, it does have 200k miles on it.

I wouldn't unless you are a good mechanic and don't mind doing the work. Or, it's in very cherry condition.

When I was looking at Tundras I couldn't find anything I liked with <100k miles on it for <$20k. I bought new one for $31.2k OTD. Figured I might as well pay the extra so I get to enjoy its most reliable years, and also know where it's been. Probably be the last vehicle I will own.
 

phsycle

Adventurer
...As for going 3/4 ton / 1 ton, no plan for that if I went with a lightweight popup camper. This is manly that this setup has been done for a major overland travel, with zero issues, and I would also feel comfortable with the same setup:

http://www.wanderthewest.com/forum/...milner-with-2014-tundra-driving-to-argentina/
.

Because one guy has the set up and no (immediate) issues have popped up in measly 16k miles of travel, that's enough justification? Sure, people overload their vehicles all the time. Look at any builds on this forum. More goes into GVWR than stiffer springs (the guy in the article even admits this). You cannot increase the GVWR on the Tundra without some serious mods. If you can't do that, you need a 3/4 or 1 ton. I would in no way compromise the safety of my family or others on the road because you saw one guy on the internet do it.
.
Now if you are thinking Flippac, there should be no issues there. I would support going this route 1000% over the Hallmark.
 

phsycle

Adventurer
Always wondered... can it even be done w/o some sort of state inspection? And maybe some waiver of liability towards the MFG?

I've actually seen "fleet" trucks driving around with 10k lb GVWR stamped right on the side of the truck. One was a normal looking F150. I don't know what it entails to get that done, though. But can't be cheap. But at that point, why not just buy an F350 from the getgo?
 

rruff

Explorer
Because one guy has the set up and no (immediate) issues have popped up in measly 16k miles of travel, that's enough justification? You cannot increase the GVWR on the Tundra without some serious mods.

The Tundras have been out since 2007 with the same design. Plenty of people have gone 200k miles with a big camper.

My tiny '86 Toyota pickup has a payload rating as high as my Tundra. Seriously. The Tundra is literally 2x the weight and 3x the power, but the payload rating is the same. I guarantee my Tundra is many times safer hauling the same load. Whatever goes into the rating it isn't safety.
 

phsycle

Adventurer
The Tundras have been out since 2007 with the same design. Plenty of people have gone 200k miles with a big camper.

My tiny '86 Toyota pickup has a payload rating as high as my Tundra. Seriously. The Tundra is literally 2x the weight and 3x the power, but the payload rating is the same. I guarantee my Tundra is many times safer hauling the same load. Whatever goes into the rating it isn't safety.

Old Toyota pickups were work horses. They were ACTUALLY rated at 1,500-2k lb payload. They are built on some heavy duty frames (fully boxed).
.
It's a different truck. Why do you think it was given the same payload rating, if it in fact is safer? Do you think Toyota WANTS to market it with a lower payload? Highly doubtful. I do realize people have overloaded their trucks. Sure, most have probably survived ok. Then again, the vast majority of people who drive drunk make it home safe as well. Whether you choose to follow the law, is up to you. Just be prepped to pay the consequences.
 

bkg

Explorer
The Tundras have been out since 2007 with the same design. Plenty of people have gone 200k miles with a big camper.

My tiny '86 Toyota pickup has a payload rating as high as my Tundra. Seriously. The Tundra is literally 2x the weight and 3x the power, but the payload rating is the same. I guarantee my Tundra is many times safer hauling the same load. Whatever goes into the rating it isn't safety.

maybe, maybe not. I question the 200K miles on a gen2 with a big camper, but who cares... at the end of the day, safety is key in both the loading of the vehicle and the CYA in the event that an accident occurs. Rear end someone and they find out you're overloaded? Check the fine print of that insurance paperwork.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but the reality is that people overload their vehicles w/o consideration of the ramifications that could result.
 

Clutch

<---Pass

rruff

Explorer
Old Toyota pickups were work horses. They were ACTUALLY rated at 1,500-2k lb payload. They are built on some heavy duty frames (fully boxed).

HD frames are usually open C, like the Tundra. Granted, I'd prefer a boxed frame for better torsional stiffness, but there is nothing "low payload" about open C.

Why do you think it was given the same payload rating, if it in fact is safer?

Like I said, the small truck is *obviously* less safe with a load. It isn't even in the same neighborhood. Braking and handling are atrocious with a 1500 lb camper, while the Tundra barely notices. Speaking of atrocious braking and handling, all those big trucks and motorhomes on the road are a good example. Or anyone pulling a big trailer. They are way worse than a Tundra with a reasonable camper.

So the bottom line is, the GVWR can't be about safety and make a bit of sense.

Do you think Toyota WANTS to market it with a lower payload? Highly doubtful. I do realize people have overloaded their trucks. Sure, most have probably survived ok. Then again, the vast majority of people who drive drunk make it home safe as well. Whether you choose to follow the law, is up to you. Just be prepped to pay the consequences.

Suspension and tire upgrades will take care any safety aspects of the 1/2 ton. All the 1/2 tons are designed to be used as cars, first and foremost. They have soft suspension and usually low load street tires, and regular rear axles. 3/4 and 1 ton trucks have stiffer suspension, full float axles, and usually a little beef in the brakes and frame as well, since the manufacturers expect them to be loaded and worked hard. Primarily pulling trailers, that's what most of them do.

I've never heard of a private owner being over GVWR a reasonable amount having any legal issues whatsoever. Have you? I suspect there is no legal requirement. If there is, no one ever checks. If you get in an accident however, I bet you'd have a tough time suing Toyota for it if you were over GVWR. And Toyota will deny warranty claims also, if they know that you've been over GVWR.
 

ulyist

New member
To the OP, have you expanded your search to Alberta, assuming you’re kijijing there are way more trucks here. Flight, fuel and hotel might be worth the difference. Oh and lots of 3/4 and 1 ton trucks from 10 years back don’t really have that great of a payload either. My 2006 Dodge 3500 SRW is only able to carry something like 2300 lbs after its got a full tank. And my brothers 2007 tundra with the 4.7 got worse mileage then the dirty dodge hahaha, gas is 20% cheaper then diesel right now so that’s a mute point. Enjoy what ever you buy! Hopefully the next gen tundras have better payload.
 

Dalko43

Explorer
HD frames are usually open C, like the Tundra. Granted, I'd prefer a boxed frame for better torsional stiffness, but there is nothing "low payload" about open C.

Except that the Tundra's frame isn't really "HD" and all the so-called HD pickup trucks do in fact have boxed frames (Ford was the last holdout on that).

A lot of fig bigs and semi trailers do still use c-channels, but I suspect those trucks are being used and driven differently from something like a Ram 2500. Just carrying payload over a flat road, I don't have a problem with either construction method. Carrying payload over a rough 4wd track, I'd prefer the boxed frame any day of the week.


Like I said, the small truck is *obviously* less safe with a load. It isn't even in the same neighborhood. Braking and handling are atrocious with a 1500 lb camper, while the Tundra barely notices. Speaking of atrocious braking and handling, all those big trucks and motorhomes on the road are a good example. Or anyone pulling a big trailer. They are way worse than a Tundra with a reasonable camper.

Most of the "big trucks" come with far more robust braking, exhaust brakes and integrated trailer brakes relative to a Tundra. The Tundra seems adequate for moderate loads, but 3/4 ton's and up seem better suited to such duties.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
185,527
Messages
2,875,534
Members
224,922
Latest member
Randy Towles
Top