(first posted 8/3/2014) I’ve given it some thought over the years, and there’s only one truck that I’ve seriously considered as a theoretical replacement for my F-100, and this is it, and not just because its name is so similar. In fact, the T-100 is almost a perfect update on the Ford, with the benefits of modern technology. Don’t laugh, but I’ll take mine with the 2.7 liter four cylinder. It’s got more horsepower (150) than the Ford (129), and a pretty healthy dose of torque. It’s not like I’m planning on pulling 7,000 pound trailers down the road. Oh wait; I actually have done that with the Ford…
The thing about big new trucks is that you pretty much have to use a trailer for hauling materials that some of us like to still put into beds. But landscapers (and others like me) like a low bed for placing materials, often need to back into tight spaces, or just don’t care to pull around a second bed on wheels. And the T-100 was pretty much the last full-size bed truck to not sit on stilts. It’s old-school Toyota rugged and simple, has that full-sized bed and can fit three in the cab. These trucks are very popular around here with professional landscapers, who try real hard to work them to death, but rarely succeed.
And it gets up to 25 mpg with the four. Just the thing to keep operating and maintenance costs low. That explains why the resale value on these trucks are still holding up. Decent ones are almost impossible to come by.
Well, I doubt Toyota is going to bring back the T-100, but sooner or later hopefully someone’s going to see the hole in the market for a full size bed that’s reasonably low to the ground and married to a mid-sized cab big enough for a tall guy. A torquey four cylinder, gas or diesel, and we’re good to go. Well, I’m not holding my breath, and my old Ford isn’t exactly getting worried yet.
One hell of a good truck, despite the complaining at the time that it didn’t have a V-8. I believe there was quite a bit of feedback from the dealers when Toyota was designing the current big pickup that, “if it didn’t offer a V-8, don’t bother”.
For me, the equivalent was the first (flat grille) and second (slightly more aerodynamic nose) Dodge Dakota. Had one of each during the 1990’s and ran Syke’s Sutlery out of the them. Really wanted to get a third generation (the one that looks like a junior version of the ’95-up Ram), but my wife wanted a smaller pickup, thus the S-10. Still consider the third generation Dakota one of the most attractive pickups made.
Dodge lost it big time with the fourth generation Dakota. Too big, too ugly, and it had none of the appeal of its predecessors.
Like you, I want a pickup that doesn’t have leather, isn’t a Cadillac in disguise, doesn’t freak me out if I get it dirty, doesn’t need a stool to get into the truck or access the bed, and will actually do work. I’m still trying to figure out the 4″ raise in the floor between my ’96 S-10 and the current ’03 Ranger XLT. Both two wheel drive, so why did the Ranger have to ape a serious off-roader? It made entry and exit for my invalid wife a real joy.
Dodge lost it big time with the fourth generation Dakota. Too big, too ugly, and it had none of the appeal of its predecessors.
Couldn’t agree more. I had a third gen Dakota and loved the styling, never wanted a fourth gen as they.. killed it. That said it’s biggest downside was the tiny (Quad Cab) and hard to access bed (4×4). I have an easier time accessing the middle of the bed in my 4×4 F-150 than I did in that truck.
I could gush a lot about that truck (the power! the ride!) but it was highly impractical.
I’m with both of you on pickup choice. I still shake my head at the thought that my ’99 F-150 XLT is somewhat “loaded” for the year, but the equipment now would basically equal a basic F-150 XL.
You don’t need a V8 engine, unless you’re planning to use it for heavy duty work, like towing a heavy trailer. Sometimes a V6 engine is perfect, or a 4 cylinder, depending on how much power can be delivered.
Hear hear. Granted, I love the sound and grunt of my V8 (4.6!) but for every day driving I’d almost prefer my old ’93 F-150 with the 300 six. That was a great in-town truck due to the torque, and a great work truck due to the same. Heck, overall it was just plain a good truck period.
Of course now there’s the “EcoBoost” which from what I hear from everyone gets the same, or worse!, mileage than the 5.0 V8. I do hear good things about the 3.7, though.. those are awfully tempting as would be the new Ram light duty diesel if it had some years of reliability behind it.
It’s all relative I guess, but the size of loads people are towing regularly now are just staggering. Our neighbor’s kids came home the other day with a new camper they were towing behind their Tahoe that I definitely wouldn’t tow with my F-150 – and I have a tow package and Load Range “E” LT tires. They have low profile 20 in ridiculous tires and man was that Tahoe ever squatting. I’m sure it was rated for the load as they bought the camper from a dealer, and the engine is easily up to it – but man.
I also cringe at the new Dodge 3500 and Ford F450’s that are rated for 30,000 pounds. Yikes.
I agree. Sometimes just a Ford F150 is enough truck for the job. Nobody needs an F450.
There you go again telling us what we “need”. Are you going to tell a loyal Subaru owner in Houston or SoCal that they don’t “need” an Outback or Forester or WRX because they’re AWD? Or perhaps you’ll tell the owner of a ZR1 that they don’t “need” a Corvette because the speed limit is only 70. Or maybe you’ll tell someone in Missouri or New Jersey or Oregon that they don’t need a Prius because gas prices are relatively low.
The trailer almost certainly is beyond the safe operating range of the Tahoe with the 20″ tires and wheels. Just because they bought it from a dealer does not meant that it is a safe combination in any stretch of the imagination. Go to a Les Schwab and they’ll gladly put wheels rated for 1250 lbs each on a vehicle who’s curb weight is 5000lbs so the front wheels are overloaded before a thing is put in the truck.
I couldn’t agree more on the Dakota. I had a new ’99 V6 5 speed short bed regular cab that was a wonderful truck. I drove it for 4 years and 189K miles. At the time my job took me all over the state at about 200 miles a day. I didn’t haul much in it but when I did it was more than adequate for anything I wanted it to carry. It was very trouble free also. If I remember correctly I had to replace a sensor . Other than that the only thing that gave me trouble was the catalytic converter. The dealer had me take it to a local muffler shop to replace the first one with a factory unit. Shortly before I sold it I had to have the same shop replace that one with an aftermarket one. The shop owner told me that they did a lot of those for Dodge and that the aftermarket one was better, but Chrysler wouldn’t let him install it under warranty.
It was also very comfortable to ride in. My wife sure missed the passenger seat when I sold it. I was not crazy about the fuel mileage, but other than that it was a great truck. I am surprised at how many of these are starting to show up around here. Just yesterday our minister came by to show me the 2001 extended cab that he had just bought. He was originally looking for a full size truck but followed the advice of a friend of mine and settled on the Dakota. I told him he would love it.
As to the Toyota, I remember when the first Tundra came out there were a lot of them around here since the first factory they were built in was only 40 miles away. Most seem to have disappeared. I always thought it was a sensible size not unlike a Dakota. Then they had to upsize it and make it look like some Tonka truck. Now it is just an ugly Ram/F250/Silverado wannabe.
I’ve always thought that the T100 was about the perfect size.
My dad had a white 93, replaced it with an 06 tacoma after the gas tank rusted out.
That truck, right there, would be just about perfect. Exactly how it is – and hopefully it has a 4 cylinder.
Pure pickup. I wish Ford would offer an F-150 just like that, manual trans with the basic V6 and vinyl everything. Make it 2wd with a e-locker for the winter and under $20k.. I can dream, right?
I agree. Trucks today have so much “bling”, it’s just silly. Whatever happened to the good old utility truck?
“Whatever happened to the good old utility truck?”
Try Chevy/GMC, Ford, Ram, Toyota or Nissan work truck, if available. My brother-in law has a bare-bones 2013 GMC Sierra:
Rubber flooring.
V6. Does have automatic tranny & power windows.
AM FM radio. No CD player!
Black grille.
Long bed, standard cab.
No locking key Fob. Must use the key or press the button!
That’s it. Perfect. Drives and rides very nice, but it’s huge!
If one wants a 4×4, manual transmission “plain old work truck,” a Dodge Ram 2500 is your only option, and only with a diesel. Pricing *starts* right at $43,000.
When I see a truck like this, I think of quoting Lynne, “Everyone laughs until they ask you to help them move.” I like that this truck doesn’t have hood scoops, vents or trim graphics. It is just a plain work truck with a nice long bed. Although, the interior does look a lot like a 1994 Caprice NYC Taxi but if it does the job, T-O-Y-O-T-A!
Perfect. 48 inches of space in the bed, between the wheels…and the top of the bed is below shoulder level for a standing male of average height.
I am liking the size of that cabin. My little ’97 S10 is just a little cramped.
i too had once considered one of these as a practical bare bones truck. what ultimately dissuaded me was the one star frontal crash test ratings. iirc they were among the worst vehicles tested
I remember when the T100 first premiered. I remember thinking “finally! Toyota has something to compete with the Ford Ranger, if not the F150. I’ve always preferred it over the Tundra that replaced it. The only thing I didn’t like about the T-100 was its choice of engines that were offered. I would’ve liked to have seen a turbo diesel engine offered as an option.
The Ford ranger is just as small as the small Toyota pickups, The T-100 has a full size bed.
I used to drive a 1994 Ranger XL at my job (I was driving it 3-4 hours each day) and I wouldn’t have traded one of my Toyotas for a Ranger/Mazda of any year! The bed was just as small and and the quality certainly didn’t match!
The Ranger at my job was a 4cyl but a friend of mine used to own a newer 2003 B-4000 version with the V6 and I spent plenty of time driving it too!
And I owned two 4cyl Toyotas and still own two V6 Toyotas and while their size is similar, their quality isn’t. The Ford/Mazda reminds me of a Ford Tempo and they are boring to drive!
Now about the T-100, it shared it’s engines with the small Toyota pickups but it has a much larger body and it really is a light duty full size pickup just like the F-150 with the 6 cylinder…
I could’t agree more with the assessment of today’s jumbo pickups. Back in my fleet manager days I actually looked at trying T-100s, but Toyota isn’t in the business of selling to fleets and the numbers just didn’t work.
You could actually get a pickup with a reasonable bed height up until the current generation of domestics came along. Late ’90s/early ’00s half ton 4×2 trucks weren’t bad. My company truck was an ’04 Silverado 1500 regular cab 4×2 and I had no trouble using it for actual work. It had the “hose out” interior with vinyl seats and rubber floor mat and was still comfortable. It wasn’t a practical 3 person cab though. I had a lot of 2001 F-150s similarly equipped and they worked well also. All were V-6 automatics and running costs were pretty reasonable.
To me a truck is a work tool, it’s going to get dinged up and scratched and I’m going to track mud and dirt inside. My current truck is a 2010 Sierra 4×4, way fancier than I would normally spec, but I paid less for it new than I paid for a stripper ’99 4×2 new.
I fell guilty every time another battle scar appears, but it’s here to serve me not the other way around. These old T-100s seem to have been designed with that thought in mind, and now one of the worst offenders in the “truck bloat” category is the current Tundra.
I’d keep the old ’66 now that you’ve given it a 10 year lease on life with new tires and a tune up!
When I was a boy, that’s what pickup trucks were, basic utility vehicles. If you wanted creature comforts, you had to either order them for yourself, or you did some work for yourself. My dad had a 1978 Toyota pickup truck. It had a 2.2 litre 20R 4 cylinder gasoline engine that delivered 90-95hp and 120-122 lbs-ft. of torque. It was mated to a 5spd manual shifting transmission. It doesn’t seem like much by today’s standards, but it was perfect for what we used it for. I loved driving it. 🙂 I miss driving it. 🙁
That’s exactly what a friend of mine did 5 years ago.
He replaced his 1979 Ford F-100 Custom with a 1993 T-100 DX 4×4.
He still has the T-100. And I still have two 1993 Toyota pickups but mine are the smaller ones.
I got my Son a Mechanic’s job in a small equipments repair shop , John the owner bought one of these T-100’s and it was great .
It took a terrible beating in stride .
They no longer sell light duty pickups like this simply because no one wants to buy them new .
That ’66 Ford is good to go , when the cab dies , just replace it ~ I’m doing this to my ’69 Chevrolet C/10 step side Shop Truck right now .
-Nate
What do you mean “no one”? I’d buy one if I were in the market to buy a truck. I’d want mine to be small enough to be economical, yet rugged enough to withstand anything that’s needed. 🙂
I think Nate’s definition of “no one” more accurately translates to:
“Not enough potential customers to be worth tooling up for a pickup in that class. And those who really are interested are cheap bastards who’ll buy their truck used. So, no justification.”
The key word in Nate’s post was NEW. When ever I see the people who are crying that there is no choice in small pickups I always ask them the same thing “when was the last time you bought a NEW compact pickup?” The majority of the time the person either doesn’t answer the question or says never, they buy a used truck. The mfg doesn’t care one bit about the people who claim they want a small pickup that only buy them used.
So yeah there are a few people out there who would buy a compact pickup but the 27 that would buy a small truck with enough options to make it profitable isn’t enough to justify making them.
Just so ~
40 years ago there were still Farmers and Fleets that mostly bought base model 6 cylinder trucks new , the Municipal and Military Fleets were the first who began mass purchasing the automatic 6 cylinder trucks , ” idiot trucks ” so anyone could drive them .
And of course , us ” Thrifty ” (means : CHEAP) types who never buy new would of course snap them up in droves when sold off in VGC after 5 years or so , regardless of mileage because a well maintained rig easily lasts 200,00 miles and most Fleet rigs are dumped well before 100,000 .
I _could_ afford a brandy new rig but decided to instead inve$t le$$ $ into rebuilding my old ’69 1/2 tonner , it’ll easily outlast me and I don’t care if it’s old and slow , I need transport not a racing truck .
I’ve only ever bought two new vehicles , both are Motocycles .
-Nate
Yep, not enough profit in it, regardless of how many of us would love one. Even if we were willing to buy them new, they wouldn’t make enough money on them to make it worth their while.
I really want a new iPod, but Apple found that most people were using their phones, so they are gone.
Weren’t these built by some other Japanese manufacturer, contracted by Toyota?
A subsidiary, Hino, built them from 1993 to 1995.
The newer base model Tacoma is pretty much the same thing, but with a smaller bed.
I’m 5’6″ tall and find the beds of the new trucks impossible to reach into. The truck manufacturers aren’t going to offer a decent sized truck again until after the next energy crisis like they did in the 70s with cars. Real people don’t need a $50K truck with backup cameras, gold plated bed rails and genuine moleskin steering wheels. Remember the basic W/T. Whatever the hell happened? Even the ’97 F-150s look small now.
Amen to that. I was in the local Chevy dealer getting the oil changed on my Firebird and I wondered out to the show room and there was this highly optioned 4×4 pickup truck and the sticker price was about $65,000 before taxes and all that other happy horse crap. If I bought one of thees it would never leave my driveway let alone be used to haul crap.
Where is the simple work pickup?? I can understand having power windows and keyless entry(in reality power windows are no longer a luxury and more as the cheapest of the cheap cars offer them and it is probably cheaper to offer all the cars with PW then to stop the line at the factory to switch over to a truck with hand cranks) but leather in a work truck???
“Well, I doubt Toyota is going to bring back the T-100,”
Why would they ever consider bringing it back? The current Tacoma is so bloated it could take the place of the T100.
Which is very sad as Toyota had a good thing with its compact Tacoma. I saw a first gen Tacoma at a stop light a few weeks ago and it looked perfect for those folks that simply needed a truck to haul small loads. It was not too small so as to not be able to hold anything but not too big that you can never park it anywhere. It was not to high and not to low.
Yea I would take a T100 with a stick shift.
It’s unforgivable what they’ve done to the pickup truck. Not everyone needs a full-sized truck, and yet that’s what companies are offering, in place of the compact truck. Anyone who can’t, or refuse to appreciate what they currently have, is an idiot. If you need a full-sized Ford F350, a Chevy/GMC C/K 3500, or a Dodge Ram D3500, and you’re able to use it for your needs, more power to you. Awesome! But not everyone needs that much truck. Sometimes you just need a small truck, like a Ford Ranger, Dodge Dakota, Toyota Tacoma. And car makers need to provide customers with something to suit their needs and wants. That means a Tundra for those who need a Tundra, a Tacoma for those who need a Tacoma, and something smaller for those who need something smaller. And they should also provide more engine choices to suit customer’s needs.
I agree, but there’s one problem. The difference in initial cost as well as operating costs are not large enough to justify accepting a smaller truck for a lot of people.
Right now I’m in “pre buy” mode to replace my 2010 Sierra with 235,000 km. I’ve narrowed my choices to Ford or Toyota for a variety of reasons. This is my work vehicle and due to a promotion my needs have recently changed. Instead of 70,000 km a year it’ll now be more like 15 or 20,000. So whatever I buy now will likely carry me into retirement in 5 years or so. I don’t need to tow heavy trailers any more so I can get by with a Tacoma, which my wife also favours as she doesn’t like driving large vehicles.
Problem is, I can get a nice F-150 5 litre with everything the Tacoma has for about 5 grand less once the cash on the hood is factored in. Mileage is similar and my experience with the current generation of F-150s tells me I can expect few problems for at least 300,000 km. I’m working on the Toyota dealer and if he can get a little closer we may have a deal but most folks would just grab the F-150 even if it is way bigger than they really need.
I had the same problem when I was a fleet manager. Smaller trucks should cost less, and some like the Ranger did, but it needs to be enough of a gap to make it worth while. These days there’s not enough gap between the small trucks and a full size half ton to convince many buyers to accept the smaller unit.
It’ll be interesting to see where this all goes in the next few years.
It’s crazy that a bigger truck would cost less than a smaller truck.
No it isn’t crazy that the bigger truck would cost less than a smaller truck when they barely sell any small trucks. The savings on materials is pretty small but the materials are a small part of the cost of producing a vehicle. The labor to build, design, test and certify the vehicle isn’t really dependent on the size of the vehicle. Since the design, testing and certification is a significant portion of the cost of a building a vehicle what it comes down to is how many units you can spread that cost over. Since people haven’t bought small trucks in any significant number for over a decade they have to charge more for the small truck to just break even.
You echo the conundrum that all car manufacturers have always had, Eric – it costs nearly as much to make a small car as a large one, but customers aren’t willing to pay “nearly as much” for a small car.
Perhaps someday I will buy a pickup truck. Thing is I am torn between a T-100 4X4 stick shift and a mid-1990s Dodge Ram 2500 Cummins 4X4 stick shift. The Toyotas are simple, honest, and reliable plus they look nice. The Dodge has good looks and a legendary Diesel.
Take the Toyota. Trust me on this.
Well who am I to argue with a mechanic.
Sounds like he’s tired and old from working on too many Dodge trucks.
I’ve driven enough Toyotas to agree with you. I’ve never owned anything else.
The Dodge diesel has a fantastic drivetrain and absolutely junky everything else. My coworker just bought a 1998 Dodge 3/4T 4×4 with 5-speed manual trans. The frame rails are so flimsy in the front that they make a kit to keep the outboard end of the steering box Pittman arm shaft from moving sideways. Do your due diligence.
Ultimate truck is that drivetrain in a ’87-’96 Ford pickup IMO, AKA ‘Fummins’
I see this exact truck almost daily as it is usually parked near our studio.
In even better news, a friend of one of my bands recently bought an extended cab 5-speed T-100 and we’ve been using it for gigs. It has considerable (cosmetic only) body damage on the drivers side which kept the cost way down. And hot damn if we can’t fix six people in the cab and all our band gear in the back. I’ve driven us to Agrarian Ales in Coburg a few times and it is a superb rig, with well over 200,000 miles on the dock.
I was always attracted to these. My preference would be king cab, 4cyl, manual trannie. Have the 3.0 in my truck now and am not particularly impressed. Not any for sale when I was looking hard.
A T100 with a turbo diesel would be ideal for nearly any purpose.
Great trucks that go forever. Perfect if what you need is a work hauler that’s good on gas and low on repair costs. The downside is finding one in good shape at this point. And the rare one that is will be expensive. The price for a base Titan and a base Frontier 4 cylinder with only AC and Stereo options were very close, but the dealership would give thousands off the Titan price, not so with the hard to get and in demand base Frontier. The Frontier King (extended) cab has a basically useless back seat, while the Titan King cab is roomy enough for real size people, although I wouldn’t to go on a road trip with full size adults in the back. Smaller children would be fine. The Titan works for me because it is comfortable on long trips and the 6ft 7 inch bed, along with the rear cab with fold up seats, is large enough to carry anything I need. The single cab limits the use of the a truck a lot. As far as gas mileage goes, I use a small 4 cylinder Jetta for around town use. The one drawback, and it is a big one, is the high riding bed, even in 2wd form. I just keep the mileage down on the Titan, use it when I want to road trip or need to haul a load or do yard cleanup or whatever. To me it makes more sense to daily drive a 4 cyl car and enjoy a big, smooth riding and powerful truck that I can carry passengers in when I want to. Of course, going this route requires 2 vehicles, but most people with a single cab truck would have a second vehicle anyway.
You don’t see many of these in MI because of the salt. Of course you don’t see many 66 Fords either, except at car shows.
Here is a picture of my ’97 that I have owned since ’99. It’s by far the best vehicle that I’ve owned. Over the years other vehicles have come and gone but this one I will not let go.
What a nice color combination. And a truck without jewelry, great. I often see those rims on Land Cruisers here.
Sweet looking truck. I would prefer this any day over the Tundra that replaced it.
To Mark P: I’m talking about practicality here. While a Corvette may be fun to drive, you can’t carry much with it, except for a few bags of groceries, or a golf bag, if that. Sometimes a person needs to carry more than that. It’s not my decision to make what a person needs or wants. If he’s happy with his Subaru Forester, awesome! I drive a Toyota Corolla, and I intend to drive it until the engine breaks, and then I may buy another Corolla, or perhaps a Subaru Impreza. I’m just saying that some people need more, some people need less. If you don’t like what I’m saying, then don’t respond.
I had a Tacoma 4×4 that I had 50 k miles when bought used. I put over 90k miles on it with no problems what so ever… except maybe a blown light bulb. It also had the 2.7 and could easily pull my dad’s 20+ foot pontoon boat around at highway speeds. I was even able to pass cars on two lane roads. This was before everybody decided that they need a 3/4 ton or larger, crew cab, 4×4, turbo-diesel to tow a jetski. How times have changed…
My 2003 Tundra is the best truck i’ve ever owned…basic, simple and comfortable. 200k miles, and still drives like new.
….And another clean truck, I mean its looks.
Thanks. Considering the adventures we’ve had, it deserves a COAL write-up.
This is the same as the mythical brown diesel stationwagon that every car blogger says they would buy. The fact that is being overlooked by most of the commenters is this: you are not typical truck buyers! When they sold the T100 it was pretty much a sales bust in comparison with US truck sales by the big three. The Ranger was a simple, inexpensive and ‘right-sized’ truck and it sold well until the early 2000’s when it started to fall off badly in sales.
Most truck buyers are not hard core truck USERS who value function over form. Most are making a statement with their vehicle and want something that looks tougher than the next guy’s truck. In this day and age that means massive and high off the ground.
If a company came out with a T100 style truck they would not make enough sales to make up for the tooling. A close equivalent to the base-model T100 would be a new F150 XL longbed single cab with the 3.7 V6. How many of those do you see that are not part of a fleet? How much profit do you think Ford makes on each of those compared with the loaded XLT Crewcab?
What a great simple truck. Even the first gen Tundra is a great choice.
The featured truck isn’t a 1993 BTW. It’s either a 1994 4cyl, a 1995 4cyl or a 1995 V6.
It has a LED high-mount stop light which was introduced in the ’94 model and so was the airbag.
And in 1993, you couldn’t get the 2.7 4cyl or the all vinyl bench… The 3VZE V6 and cloth bench seat were standard that year.
In 1994, the all-vinyl bench and vinyl floor covering was exclusive to the new base 2wd 4cyl model. The other DX and SR5 models in both 2wd and 2wd versions had the 3.0L V6 and cloth seats as standard. Cloth seats were also offered on the base model but at an extra cost.
in 1995, the vinyl seat and floor covering was still standard on the base model only. And the base model was now offered with the 3.4L V6 and a manual transmission. The automatic transmission was also offered that year on the base model but only on the 4 cyl version.
The pictures don’t show the passenger side well enough to tell if it has a passenger side mirror or not but it shouldn’t as a passenger side mirror wasn’t available with the vinyl interior. Strangely, it was standard on all the 1993 T-100 models but not available on the 1994-95 base models unless you ordered the upgrade interior package on the 4 cylinder model. This package included a clock, the floor carpeting and cloth seat from the DX-V6 model which the featured truck lack.
The base 1995 V6 model couldn’t even get that upgraded interior, a passenger side rearview mirror but that’s what the DX got as standard along with the V6…
It is a shame that Toyota has no interest in marketing anything like this in the U.S. anymore.
Trivia: The T-100 and first generation Tundra were (well) built by Hino.
I’ve written about my T100 before, and included it in my one-episode COAL. https://www.curbsideclassic.com/cars-of-a-lifetime/my-cars-of-a-lifetime-43-years-of-mostly-mundane-motoring/
It was good, very good, and I sometimes miss it. It would probably be a fine alternative to Paul’s F100, but by modern standards it’s a pretty dated platform, even with the newer 3.4 V6. What hasn’t become less appealing with age, though, is its size: adequate cab space and a true full size bed. The facts that it was available through the end of its life with a manual transmission, and was always made with high quality in Japan, are also pretty nice, come to think of it.
Perhaps it’s fortunate that they didn’t offer the V6 formost years of the T100, as the 3.0 V6 availible before 1996 was a chronic head-gasket eater! And coupling it to the available automatic made it a thirsty slug as well. All fixed with the 3.4 in ’96.
My brother’s 94 4-Runner is an example. Bought used in 2000, the head gasket had been replaced by Toyota under recall for the PO. It blew again several years later and Toyota refused my brother a second ‘bite-from-the apple’!
My brother now has two 4-cylinder, 5-speed Gen-1 Tacomas, and they have been pretty bullet-proof, with over 200K on both.
And this is my ’96 base model. Perhaps a bit too basic as I added a decent audio system, the cap, and air-conditioning.
Happy Motoring, Mark
One these lives down my street in sharp contrast to his neighbor’s Chevrolet bro-dozers. It’s obvious which one is the serious work truck and what;s odd is that at first glance I thought the T100 was a Tacoma and had to take a second look sinc emodern Tacomas have become more midsized than compact.