OT and long, 2007 Tundra

Page 2 of 3  


I can get 32 square bales of Bermuda on my Toyota one ton with a 7 foot bed. I could get another 8 bales if I stack one more course. I have to take turns pretty slow if i go for 40. 32 is not so bad as it is only 1500 pounds of hay or so. How many bales to others get on their trucks?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Where do you live that you are able to find/have a Toyota one ton?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Leon wrote:

Toyota sold a 7 1/2 foot bed, one ton pickup 'till ~ 1991 in the US.
The original "extra cab" was built on the long bed chassis using a standard bed. Nowadays, I think the current Access Cab Tacoma, with a 7 1/2' bed, and 3 liter turbo diesel, on the Double Cab long bed chassis would be cool. They sell it outside the US as the "Hilux"
Toyota loves to confuse people with the current Tacoma. The double cab "long" bed is actually the 6.3' bed used on every other Tacoma. The "short" bed double cab is an ultra short 5 footer, built on the Acces cab frame.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I gotcha now. IIRC some of those older truck did look pretty stiff and HD. I guess the confusion for me was that the trucks were still relatively small on "cargo space" rather than cargo weight capacity. IIRC I remember seeing a dually back then. I think that the T100 which evolved into the Tundra simply had the benefit of room more so than weight capacity.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 03:42:10 GMT, "Leon"

First concept is this. Toyota called a truck that carried a ton a one ton. US makers call a vehicle that can carry a ton a 1/2 ton. The US manufacturer's current one ton can carry over 2.5 tons.
US. 1987 model that has a 5500 pound gvw and weighed less than 3,000 pounds empty. It came with 8 ply rated tires. Mine came with a 4 cylinder engine. The one ton had bigger brakes, bigger rear end, and heavier springs. I ordered the towing package so it had larger radiator and a different rear end ratio. The truck is rather bumpy empty but pretty ok with 500 pounds or more in the back. It was rated to tow 5,000 pounds. It did not set any acceleration records when towing a horse and trailer but it did keep up with the 18 wheelers crossing the pass in Tennessee. I guess they imported the truck for a few more years and some had the V6.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I see. Thanks. Also, I do see that a certain version and option of the 07 Tundra with the big V8 can be had with the payload capacity of just over 2000#'s.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jim Behning wrote:

One!
That's all I need when the wife's classroom guinea pig needs a refill.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mike Marlow wrote:

My Toyota pickups have never had more than a 6'3" box, and I've never had problems carrying 8' goods. Most small trucks and aftermarket liners) have notches for 2x6's in the bed so sheets will sit on the wheel wells.
When I think of my '85 Toyota vs. my '05, I can't believe they still call them "small" trucks. <G>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

LOL, Park next to an 07 Tundra. I recall in recent years when the Nissan Titan looked big. Not any more.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Leon wrote:

Welcome to the cult. <G>
I have a current-version Tacoma which suits my needs. Out of curiosity, I took an '07 Tundra for a ride, and what a truck!
Enjoy it, and good luck!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I actually liked the looks of the 06 more than the 07 in the beginning. The car show in Houston did no justice to the truck. So far I am impressed and perhaps the blaaa American branded trucks will sit up and take notice.

Thank you sir.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Well, I filled the tank on the new Tundra Friday night, 296 miles on the odometer and a 26.4 gallon tank. The needle was very close to "E" however the warning light had not yet come on. I will say that the gas gauge needle on the 07 Tundra moves fast and immediately off of the "F" mark. I was thinking 10-12 mpg for in town driving. I was hoping for more. The 97 Silverado, 5.0 was and getting an average of 13 mpg in town.
The pump clicked off at 19.2 gallons. I thought it shut off prematurely and I squeezed the lever once more, it shut off again at 19.4 gallons. I new that this was looking pretty good. Apparently with the needle "almost" on "E" I still have 7 gallons of gas.
So, 19.4 gallons to go 296 miles in town on the first tank of gas. That's 15.25 mpg... ;~)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Leon wrote:

With 381 HP, and far from broken in, that is fantastic!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Our '06 Landcrusier (4.7 V8) is about in that range with full-time AWD.
--
NuWave Dave in Houston



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:24:20 GMT, "Leon"

Be careful you don't break that egg between your foot and the gas pedal. :~)
Frank
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

LOL.... Yeah, with age, I have become a bit more light footed. What's the darn hurry. Having been in the automotive industry most of my professional career I am well aware of the first tank results.
1. It's new, you driver easier and naturally get better gas mileage. 2. It's new, the engine is tighter and as it breaks in it will naturally get better gas mileage. 3. It's new, the on board computer control's a lot of how the vehicles performs during the first few thousand break-in miles, mileage will probably get better.
4. It's not so new any more, the engine has loosened up and the computer has adjusted to the higher mileage and gas mileage improves. 5. It's not so new any more, No more babying, put the pedal to the metal, gas mileage ain't what it usta be.
Fortunately I have been in the "baby the petal" mode on the older truck since gas prices started going towards "what the market would bare".
Then again, that first tank did have a few demonstrations of "a bit more" than moderate accelerations. ;~)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:> Be careful you don't break that egg between your foot and the gas

Nyuck, nyuck.
One might can squeeze an additional mpg out of that new truck by going with synthetic lubricants though I do recommend a thorough break-in with conventional mineral oil. I did two each 4,000 mile stints when my '01 PowerStroke was new; 4,000 with the factory oil and 4,000 with Castrol (or somesuch). At 8,000 I moved it to Amsoil 15w40 HD Diesel/Marine. I put about 30k a year on it, the biggest majority being highway miles between Houston and the San Antonio area. Most always getting 16.5 - 16.75 mpg. Me thinks the switch was too soon. Suddenly, around 160k my fuel mileage jumped a whole mpg. Me thinks I may actually have retarded break-in and that the engine has just now loosened up. I'm pushing 164k now. Whatever, I'm not complaining. And, I have an eight foot bed behind a four-door crew cab. Gawd it's a long truck.
--
NuWave Dave in Houston



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I am considering using a snthetic for the first time in this truck. The new vehicle engines use such light viscosity oils these days I want maximum protection against oil break down. I really do not drive this vehicle too much and oil changes are usually 1 to 2 times a year at 3,000 mile intervals. I wonder how a synthetic would do compaired to regular oil in holding up for 6 months at a time with few miles.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Leon wrote:

The synthetics do not oxidize as readily and thus do not form acids as readily. They will better than mineral oils.
Bill
--
I'm not not at the above address.
http://nmwoodworks.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Thanks Bill, those were my suspicions. I believe I'll go that route. And for that same reason I think I will also stay from the synthetic blends.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.