2005 Tundra with 165k, Thoughts?

[Galvi5]

Buy it! I purchased my 2008 with 169k and just flipped 200k. No issues! I am on my third timing belt and second water pump (changed because the manual said so!). Other than usual wear and tear, the thing is a beast. It is one thirsty mother though! I am not a logger but like to get out there and use it as it is intended. Hunting, fishing, BLM/USFS roads and some technical 2-track. It's all good. Can you tell I like mine??!!

 

[Galvi5]

Mine did not have any rust though. Doh!

 

[rruff]

He is asking $13800. Reasonable? Too many miles?

Bought my new Tundra with 8 miles for $31,200. All the used ones seemed over priced.

 

[donrafa7]

They hold their value quite well. Depreciation is the biggest loss of money known to man, literally. a used 10k tundra will sell for 5-6 k in 5 years. A new 30k tundra will sell for 20k or less in 5 years. You have to facor in repairs, etc. Financially speaking a used reliable truck is always the better choice. But if you can afford it and want to make yourself happy a new 30k tundra is nice. A 50k TRD pro is a waste of money

 

[hoptroll]

Thanks for all of the input, I will factor all of this in when looking again!

 

[rruff]

But if you can afford it and want to make yourself happy a new 30k tundra is nice. A 50k TRD pro is a waste of money

For me it was mostly about long term reliability, which I hope will be better with a new vehicle whose design hasn't been altered appreciably since 2007.

Your TRD Pro comment brings to mind another consideration. If you happen to buy a used vehicle that is modded the way you want, there can be a substantial cost savings there.

 

[PHeller]

One thing I'm noticing is that if you compare prices of the 01-07 Tundra to the 07+ Tundra, you almost get more for your money going with the newer truck.

I've seen 07 Tundras selling for $12,000 with 180,000 miles, and 06 Tundras selling for the same price with the same miles.

Is one more preferable for a 4-person Expedition Vehicle over the other? I don't need a huge lift, huge bumpers or any of that, but understated wheels with proper aggressive offset and a comfortable rear seat (in the crew cab) with a 6' bed.

 

[rruff]

Is one more preferable for a 4-person Expedition Vehicle over the other? I don't need a huge lift, huge bumpers or any of that, but understated wheels with proper aggressive offset and a comfortable rear seat (in the crew cab) with a 6' bed.

The older Tundra is nearly the same size as the current Tacoma, so that might be a reason why they are popular. The newer Tundra is definitely a big truck. Even the DC has a decent rear seat, and the Crew's is massive. The bed in a Crew will be 5.5'. DCs are 6.5' or 8.1'.

 

[Ryanmb21]

2006 tundra double cab
Width 79.7
Height 75
Length 230.1

2016 tundra double cab
Width 79.9
Height 76.4
Length 228.9

 

[AaronK]

2006 tundra double cab
Width 79.7
Height 75
Length 230.1

2016 tundra double cab
Width 79.9
Height 76.4
Length 228.9

yup, the new ones look a lot bigger but they're really not.

Sent from my OnePlus One using Tapatalk.

 

[rruff]

Doh! I know I looked this up not that long ago but now I can't find stats on the Gen 1 that are any different. The Gen 2s have a much larger and more powerful engine but most dimensions aren't much bigger (except weight). Really surprising that dimensions are that similar. I parked next to one last week and it seemed smaller. Plus all the buzz when the Gen2s came out was that the Tundra was finally a real full size.

If you want an 8' bed in a Double Cab, you need to get a Gen2. Plus if you want the roomy rear seat you need to get a Gen2 Crewmax. But otherwise not a lot of difference.

https://www.edmunds.com/toyota/tundra/2005/double-cab/review/
https://www.edmunds.com/toyota/tundra/2017/crewmax-cab/#edm-entry-build

 

[XJLI]

2006 tundra double cab
Width 79.7
Height 75
Length 230.1

2016 tundra double cab
Width 79.9
Height 76.4
Length 228.9

Well, color me surprised.

For reference:

2016 Taco Double Cab TRD
width 75.5
height 70.6
length (short bed) 212.3

2004 Tundra access cab
width 75.2
height 70.5
length 218.3

 

[PHeller]

One thing that interested me about the 1st Gen Tundra Double Cab was that it has an enormous (ok maybe "satisfactory") rear seat (37.5" legroom) and a 6'2" bed. That's alot of rear seat for what today would look like a "mid-size" truck in terms of overall dimensions. It weighs 4800lbs, which is comparable with the new aluminum F150, which is good because it was only rated for 271hp.

The 07+ 2nd Gen Tundra Double Cab has 34.7" of legroom and 6'5" bed. This actually looks less competitive on paper as most newer crew cab trucks have somewhere between 38" and 41" of rear seat legroom, but not all allow you to get the Crew Cab with a 6' bed. In fact, the 07+ Double Cab Tundra only has an additional 2" of legroom over a DC Tacoma (which is 12" shorter and 1100lbs lighter). It does however gain considerable power increases with the newer 5.7l V8, making 381hp.

Since I'll be running a Leer DCC or Workmate Lifetime which I intend to sleep in, I've gotta have the 6' bed, and I'd really appreciate a rear seat that normal adults can be comfortable in. I have no interest in the Crew Max for this reason, I want a 6' bed, nothing shorter, nothing longer (by more than a few inches, at least).

I've never sat in the back of either generation of Tundra Double Cab. Do the newer 07+ DC Tundra models have features in the 34.7" rear seat that makes them more comfortable than the older 37.5" 01-06 DC Tundra, despite less legroom overall?

 

[rruff]

I've never sat in the back of either generation of Tundra Double Cab. Do the newer 07+ DC Tundra models have features in the 34.7" rear seat that makes them more comfortable than the older 37.5" 01-06 DC Tundra, despite less legroom overall?

There's more shoulder and hip room in the Gen2 DC, but it's also 1.5" down on head room. I'm 6' and with the front seat adjusted to where I like it, I still have enough knee room in the back seat (don't need to splay my knees), and head room as well. The position is pretty upright, and the rear seats don't seem to be as well cushioned as the front. Don't know what the Gen1 seats are like.

Are you planning to have large adults in the back for long trips?

 

[PHeller]

Are you planning to have large adults in the back for long trips?

Yes. When most of our family and friends come to visit we like to show them our beautiful state (Arizona) including areas that require some offroading. We've actually had some friends visit and we all crammed into my wife's Honda Fit, which she doesn't want to give up due to its incredible daily utility in a tiny package, but we couldn't really go to the places we wanted, nor were we exactly comfortable for the 4 hour drive back from Zion.

People keep telling me "just get a bigger truck" or "just get an SUV" but I think those options are stupid as 95% of the time it's just the wife and I, and we really enjoy sleeping in the bed of the truck. No USA available SUV offers enough headroom for two adults to sleep inside comfortably and carry necessary gear. It's the reason that I really like the idea of using a tall camper shell/canopy/topper. A 4x4 Econoline would probably be more expensive than my budget. A lifted AstroVan with a 4x4 conversion would probably be cheaper than even a 1st Gen Tundra, but I hate working on vans. With kiddos on the way, we might not be camping in the truck bed as much, but rear seat room will become even more important, as we currently don't have any way of hauling 4 adults and a babyseat at the same time.

I also don't have room for 3 vehicles. We want a daily driver (the Fit) and a vehicle that suits both the needs of a hardsided sleep-inside 4x4 vehicle under $14k, and can haul 4 adults in relative comfort. I don't want anything with a 8' bed, nor do I want anything less than 6' bed. Most SUV's aren't comfortable to sleep in unless they are very long (Suburban) or tall (Montero), but both options have compromises over just getting a Tundra with a big cap.