Full-size pickup trucks may be a uniquely American thing, but as someone who has lived my entire life in the United States, it’s a vehicle whose immense popularity I’ve never understood. Obviously I’m not the only one, as most of the rest of the world has never quite grasped the full-size pickup truck’s appeal either, something evidenced by non-American, mainly Japanese automakers’ attempts at creating one. Although more recent efforts from Honda, Nissan, and Toyota have been marginally successful in the U.S., this wasn’t always the case. Enter the 1992-1998 Toyota T100, America’s least commercially-successful Japanese “full-size” pickup truck.
Although I’m clearly not the best guide to stereotypical “American” things — I’ve never eaten a hamburger (gasp!), I don’t watch football, I detest country music — hear me out on why I simply can’t comprehend the full-size pickup’s appeal and popularity, for after all it’s by far the best-selling type of vehicle in the U.S. each year. Don’t get me wrong, as utilitarian commercial vehicles, the full-size pickup is a jack of all trades, offering an immense amount of utility, cargo and towing capacity in a package able to withstand a lot of abuse.
The part I don’t get, is why so Americans who will rarely if ever utilize full-size pickups for these purposes, continue purchasing them — and ever highly-optioned ones — as their daily drivers. As one who has driven and ridden in numerous full-size pickups over the years, I don’t find them particularly comfortable, they’re difficult to get up into and out of, their interiors suffer from horrible ergonomics, and above all, they’re especially difficult to maneuver and park because of their sheer size and poor weight distribution.
Recent years have seen full-size pickups follow the same trajectory as full-size SUVs: predominately purchased for their “king of the road” levels of size, visibility, and road isolation. Joining the full-size SUV in taking the place of once-popular full-size sedans and coupes, the full-size pickup is now commonly found with luxurious amenities and numerous “rough-and-tough” costume jewelry appearance packages (i.e. Trail Boss, King Ranch, Longhorn) that rival 1970s and 1980s Broughams in their levels of gaudiness.
Yet 25 years ago, pickup trucks were seen more respectably for the utilitarian work vehicles they were meant to be, and primarily bought for this reason. Regardless of their purpose, image, need to prove something or whatnot, full-size pickups then were a highly-lucrative segment then just as they are now. High on life, sales, profits, popularity and especially reputation, Toyota only saw it logical to break into this burgeoning full-size pickup market in the United States. Called T100, Toyota’s first “full-size” pickup truck debuted as a 1993 model.
In theory, a full-size pickup truck from Toyota in the early-1990s sounded like a recipe for success. However, in practice the T100 was a commercial failure, never selling more than 40,000 units in a single year when some Big Three competitors were selling upwards of 700,000. The reason being? It’s a rather simple one, but a big one: the T100 was too small.
Smaller in external length, height, and width than full-size pickups from the Big Three, the latter in particular made seating three full-size adults across the T100 regular cab’s standard front bench seat a rather tight affair. More crucial was the fact that the T100 lacked availability of an extended-length cab at its launch, limiting its passenger capacity to 3, or 2.75 depending on how you view it. Thankfully, the T100 boasted a standard 8×4 bed with its regular cab configuration, though this dropped to a 6.3-foot bed with the extended-length “Xtracab” that arrived in 1995. With the Xtracab, passenger capacity was at least increased to a maximum of 6, with the rear jump seats and available 60/40 front bench seat.
Unfortunately, the T100 was also grossly underpowered for its class. No V8 engine, a hallmark of full-size American pickups, was ever offered throughout its run, and the 3.0-litre V6 that was standard at its introduction made only 150 horsepower and 180 lb-ft torque — less than the six cylinders offered by Chevrolet, Dodge, Ford, and GMC. Furthermore, before the eventual addition of a more competitive 3.4-litre V6 making 190 horsepower and 220 lb-ft torque, as basically a slap in the face, Toyota downgraded the T100’s standard engine to a 2.7-litre inline-4.
Where the T100 excelled was in its refinement. In typical Toyota fashion for the era, the T100 boasted an interior of impeccable material and build quality that was vastly superior to anything in pickups from the Big Three. Toyota engineers also took considerable efforts to make the T100 a large truck whose handling and ride quality was more like that of a compact pickup, and even car-like. For the compact pickup driver who desired something a bit bigger or the car owner switching to their first truck, this was a good thing. Unfortunately, it was just something that few pickup buyers prioritized.
Toyota executives and product planners in Japan had a hard time understanding the needs and wants of American full-size pickup buyers, and the T100 made this clear. For years, Toyota had built the global successes of its passenger cars on the principal of efficiency — efficiency in space, efficiency in fuel consumption, efficiency in manufacturing practices — but the full-size pickup industry in the U.S. has never been one that prioritizes efficiency. Things like size, power, roomy interiors, towing capability, and often tough looks have always been the key motives of American pickup buyers, and for most, the T100 lacked adequacy in any of these.
There’s also another important point to raise, in that full-size pickup buyers are among the most loyal of all vehicle buyers. Try pitching a Chevrolet Silverado to a Ford F-150 owner (or vice-versa) and you’ll know what I mean… it’s like trying to get a Coca-Cola drinker to switch to Pepsi, or more fittingly, a Bud Light drinker to switch to Sapporo. For lack of sounding over-nationalistic, full-size pickup trucks are a uniquely American thing, and more so than any other vehicle, one associated with conservative American patriotism. Whether or not it was its intent, Toyota was careful not to step on the toes of established American full-size pickups with the T100, as it was the first international effort at a large pickup truck to enter the North American market.
No matter what way one slices and dices it, the Toyota T100 was not a very successful vehicle. Annual sales saw their highest levels in 1995 and 1996, with just over 37,000 units sold in each, respectively. Toyota sold a total of 141,531 of the Japanese-produced T100 in U.S over six model years (1993-1998), while its primary competitors sold multiple times that figure in any one of those same given years. Toyota would replace the T100 with the larger, V8-capable, and North American-produced Tundra in 1999. Although Toyota found greater success in the process, sales of its Tundra, as well as any other Japanese full-size pickup have never amounted to anything comparable to those of trucks from the Big Three in this very uniquely American segment.
Photographed in Hanson, Massachusetts – October 2019
The T100 is likely forgotten by many. I too have never understood the popularity of the full sized pickup. It’s amazing that the Ford F-series has remained number one in sales since 1977.
A full size pickup makes sense If use it for work or live in a place like Wyoming, but I would never consider owning a pickup bigger than a 1990’s Ford Ranger or Dodge Dakota, so the T100, which was slightly bigger than those midsize trucks seemed to me destined for success.
Back in the early ‘90’s when I lived in Seattle I would borrow a friend’s ‘80s Datsun/Nissan 720 King Cab or my housemate’s ‘91 Toyota Hilux, both those vehicles were functional and enjoyable to drive. I’ve never understood how Japanese pickups keep growing bigger and the smaller American trucks all disappeared from the market.
The T100 and the Dakota had almost identical dimensions.
You could get the Dakota with a 318.
The early compact pickups are often referred to as “death traps” here at CC. They had to grow bigger to pass government and insurance industry crash tests. Further growth in size is due to market research of what new vehicle buyers want, accurate or not.
I bought my first pickup in 1977, a Dodge W150 Power Wagon. I loved driving it, I hated all the problems it had, they were endless. After 4 years of that, I went back to a car, and then in 1982 bought an almost trouble free K5 Blazer, basically a 1500 pickup with a back roof on it. It was, by far, the most trouble free vehicle I’ve ever had. After about 14 years of cars and SUVs, I went back to a full sized pickup with my 2000 GMC Sierra. After it was wrecked, I traded it for a new 2003 Ram 1500, which I loved. It had one single issue in the almost 5 years and 64,000 miles I put on it, covered under warranty. My only complaints about them was the bad fuel economy, and it was hard to park at times. On long trips, they were awesome, super comfortable and the author saying the ergonomics are bad on them is crazy to me, it’s hard to see what could be improved! Maybe the materials, but they all seem to hold up pretty well. My Ram had 2 dogs on the back seat most of the time and the only wear was a little seat belt clawing and the hair was everywhere. I went through a couple of those roller tape things getting it all cleaned out every spring. I got hurt and I had to go to a car, but I saw the Ram until late last year, it had rusting on the bed wheel openings but looked OK and seemed to run well.
I had two friends, both gone now, who bought T100’s when they first came out. One loved it, but wanted more power, the other one hated it’s “Lack of guts” and as soon as it got it mostly paid off, he traded it for an F150. His love of older Toyota cars sucked him in, but he soon panned on making it go away. I drove it and wasn’t impressed at all. The one who loved it didn’t love it until the end either, as it rusted up almost instantly and by the time it was paid off in 4 years, it had major frame rusting issues and I don’t remember what Toyota ended up doing to compensate him.
In 1980, an Australian couple moved in next door. They endlessly goofed on my (Horrible) Dodge Macho Power Wagon. It was a terrible POS, but when it was running, it was a lot of loud fun. One day, an F150 appeared in their driveway. I wanted to hear the story of how it got there, and he said he borrowed a friend’s Chevy to haul some mulch and “I suddenly understood!”, and almost immediately started looking. By the time I moved away, the F150 was still there, along with an early 80’s Bronco his wife drove. I recently got into contact with them and as of a month or so ago, they are driving an ’18 Ram 1500 and a Jeep Grand Cherokee. And both are US citizens now.
Great write-up. You hit the nail on the head that these T100s were just too small for traditional truck buyers. The powertrains were also too small and weak for what most pickup owners wanted. I also agree that pickup buyers tend to be very conservative and extremely brand loyal. Even here in Canada where patriotism doesn’t really come into play, people still have strong bias against a pickup that is not made by a American brand. I still hear this today if someone looks at a Toyota or Nissan truck.
Even the next generation Tundra missed the mark. Almost immediately the press called them 7/8’s scale pickups. They had smaller cabs, shallow cargo boxes and just didn’t live up to the expectations of most pickup buyers.
“The part I don’t get, is why so Americans who will rarely if ever utilize full-size pickups for these purposes, continue purchasing them — and ever highly-optioned ones — as their daily drivers. As one who has driven and ridden in numerous full-size pickups over the years, I don’t find them particularly comfortable, they’re difficult to get up into and out of, their interiors suffer from horrible ergonomics, and above all, they’re especially difficult to maneuver and park because of their sheer size and poor weight distribution.”
What I don’t understand is how people that don’t like or have desire to own a pickup can’t see the appeal. As has been said on here before, they are pretty much the Swiss army knives of vehicles. They are capable of carrying a family in comfort, hauling trailers, hauling large amount of items and physically large and heavy items. While subjective, most people find modern pickups more comfortable than the typical modern car. Even contractors that use them now typically buy the extended cabs and crew cabs with shorter boxes to increase there usability beyond purely commercial.
For people that have families, that own homes (and like to do home projects), and that have outdoorsy type hobbies, pickups are a great fit into there lives. Yes there are drawbacks of poor fuel economy and the large size, but for most that own these vehicles, they are outweighed by there many benefits.
That said, I am sure part of the appeal for many is that pickups are in style. The macho style seems to be popular these days and has resulted in some of the garish designs as of late. But unlike past trends, such as the Brougham Coupes of the 70s, at least pickups are very practical vehicles.
I don’t own one, and am skeptical of the popularity here for various reasons, but even I can see the appeal. A 4-door short-bed full sizer is a fine family sedan with oodles of power, very quiet road manners, insane passenger space, a honkin’ big trunk, and surprisingly good handling in their current iterations. The interiors have largely stunk for the price, a B-segment compact econobox stretched to 2.5X its size, with a toupee of leather here and there if you’re lucky, but otherwise they are impressive vehicles. The Ram seems to have turned a big corner on my interior complaint.
I’m still left wondering though, what is it about the USA that makes huge trucks so popular as personal vehicles? Plenty of people in, say, France, South Korea, or Australia also have kids, own homes, and have outdoorsy hobbies, yet they don’t drive big pickups. The vast expanses of land you need to cover to get places in the States is often held up as a reason for this, but fails to explain it. I live in the suburbs where typical driving distances are short, yet full-size pickup trucks are still everywhere.
I drive a VW Golf which for me is the ultimate Swiss army knife car – small enough to be easy to park and fuel efficient, roomy enough for kids or friends, and have a big hatchback and folding rear and front passenger seats for carrying lots of stuff. The higher-end Golfs are as full-featured as a luxury car; the GTI and R models are as fun to drive as a sports car. I’ve done many home renovation projects (interior only) that involved new cabinets, appliances, and plumbing fixtures and the Golf swallowed them up as easily. It would be a different story for exterior work that involved bricks and mulch, but even then I’d prefer a cargo van to a pickup; protection from rain, snow, and theft is often crucial, and the ability to walk back and forth between the front seats and cargo area is convenient as well.
Our infrastructure here in the US accommodates full size trucks with minimal hassle and gas is cheap. That is not the case in France or South Korea. Vans do not offer the same towing or rough/off road ability.
If you are carrying bricks and mulch you really don’t want a van and you don’t want to be able to walk to your load. You want that stuff on the other side of a wall to keep yourself safe from a shifting load and the smell too.
I think both Phil and Scoutdude nailed the fact that there cultural differences. No one is saying you can’t make it work with another type of vehicle, but sometimes a pickup just works better than others for an individuals needs. Vans are a good alternative but don’t work for everyone. I wouldn’t want to use a van that I owned to carry mulch, concrete blocks/bricks, firewood or greasy old car parts.
For those who do landscaping work, yardwork and gardening, the open box of pickup is very useful. In my area, outdoor hobbies like hunting, fishing, camping, all are made easier with a pickup that can trek to isolated roads, and carry dirty, wet equipment and animals, Then of course there is hauling 4 wheelers and snowmobiles, both very popular past times. For people like me that live in snowy rural areas, a 4×4 truck is invaluable, and in my experience the most capable vehicles in really poor winter conditions.
Yeah the open bed is key when you want to go get mulch, topsoil, rock or gravel. Head to the material supply yard, cross the scale, unfurl the load handler and the guy dumps your material and you are back across the scale and on your way home before you’d have your cart loaded at the Home Depot with less than 1/4 the material that will cost as much or more.
Of course with the pickup if you do want to keep your cargo dry and locked you can add a canopy or hard cover while still keeping the dirty or smelly stuff outside of the passenger compartment.
Plenty of people in Australia use dual-cab Japanese pickups for their family vehicle, often with 4WD. An American pickup would be too large for our congested cities, our small parking spaces and (perhaps most importantly) use way too much fuel. While they are sold here in small numbers, you need to be rich to afford to run one, and it probably would not be an everyday driver.
The desire for ‘big everything’ just doesn’t figure in the Australian psyche, at least not when it comes to automobiles. Most of us are content with something just big enough to do the job.
I also own a VW Golf (in the US) and I’m a confirmed hatchback fan (on my 3rd one, only owned VW hatchbacks in manual since 1981 as my only car).
Nevertheless, I can see the utility in owning a pickup for “messy” or “bulky” loads, or a minivan for people “loads” when needed. I think for me though what matters is what I use the vehicle for “most”. The Golf isn’t as roomy as a pickup or Van, but it can easily be converted to handle most loads, and I have a small trailer I can use when I need more space (though obviously I can’t tow much weight on it with the Golf). I seldom carry more than 1 passenger, so the back seat room isn’t a big deal (the Golf is tighter than midsize for back seat but front seat is fine). In the “normal for me” configuration, the Golf rides very nicely (like a car) and is pretty quiet (a sedan would be quieter but at expense of storage configuration).
I can rent a truck at Home Depot for the day if I need to….and the city I live in has gotten huge since I moved here 37 years ago, so parking space is becoming a premium, and I don’t really like to try to find parking space large enough for full sized pickup or van here. Sure, there are quieter highway vehicles than the Golf, but it works for most of my trips (my Golf has been to both coasts but I don’t often drive it across country).
The main thing I have to wean myself off of is the manual transmission…partly due to being in a big city now, and partly due to age (few people, especially in my family, now drive standard)…and I’ve been incapacitated medically a couple of times such that for brief times I could have used an automatic…but I’m still in the state of postponement, not looking forward to that aspect of my next car (I tend to keep cars a long time, but my current car is almost 20 years old).
The other thing I miss is a bench seat…being in a city where you can get hemmed in on one side or the other by errant parked vehicles, would like to be able to enter from either door….a pickup would be nice for this.
“ For people that have families, that own homes (and like to do home projects), and that have outdoorsy type hobbies, pickups are a great fit into there (sic) lives. ”
The guy who had the parking spot next to mine at the office drove a Ford Excursion SUV to work every day. (For our European and Australian friends who may not be familiar with it, an Excursion is (was) a small apartment block on wheels.)
His excuse was that he needed the space when the grandkids came to visit…which was about twice a year.
I used to play a game for a while driving to work here in Dallas: how many pickup trucks could I count in my 15 minute commute that didn’t have anything in the bed, before I saw one (without company signage) that did. Usually I could get up to 60 or 70 before I gave up, and eventually I just gave up trying. Like my co-worker, if these guys put something in the bed of the truck once a year their purchase was justified.
Regardless of whether you agree with another’s vehicle choice or think that pickups are overkill, my point is that many people buy these vehicles because they do appreciate and sometimes use their capabilities. Of course if a family owns a pickup, it will likely be put into commuter duty and run empty. How many minivans, which only get marginally better fuel economy than a modern pickup, are also commuting empty?
BTW, it’s much appreciated on you added [SIC] entry on your quotation of my words. I will work harder on my correcting my typos. 🙂
HaHa, that’s sic!
Here’s another game you can play: Go to a car lot and try to find a used truck that is in pristine condition. Few people haul during their commute. How did you even see into the bed? How many cars did you see with a full complement of passengers? What is the point of paying the premium an Italian car commands over more basic, reliable, and economical options?
I get so tired of people demanding justification for what other people drive. Especially on this site which celebrates the variety to be found on American roads. Unless you live in a city apartment and use public transportation, you probably don’t have a leg to stand on.
Phil, I agree 100%. When it’s my money, I justify nothing to anyone. Here, on a car forum it’s a friendly discussion among like minded people who enjoy similar hobbies.
Did you know one can put nearly 1,000 pounds of bagged Portland cement in the bed of a crew cab F-150, close the bed cover, and nobody is the wiser? I’ve done it several times. The same also applies to mulch, sand, rock, etc. So the uninformed think I’m in an empty pickup.
Oh, and dump trucks run empty half the time by their very nature.
As one who has never wasted his time on football, has not listened to country music in a quarter century, but does eat beef, let me offer a few thoughts, in no particular order….
– How much could one of these pull? Quite a few people use their pickups as a tug boat. Was the T-100, down on power from the competition but in a smaller package, rated to pull as much?
– With the market at that time having the compact Ranger/Tacoma/S-10, then the mid-sized Dakota before entering full-sized territory, was the T-100 viewed as a mid-sized being foisted off as a full-sized? It would be interesting to see the dimensions of a T-100 versus that of a comparable equipped and bodied Dakota.
– These came across, even at the time, as a pickup designed by those who did not understand the appeal. It appeared as a “well, let’s throw our hat in the ring and see what happens” sort of thing – whether true or not. The inclusion of a four-cylinder option likely made sense to a few but it was a counterproductive move as Brendan noted.
– Pickups are as much an urban versus rural thing in the United States and, let’s be brutally honest, those of us who live here are very aware of it for a variety of reasons. Of course people in urban areas have less need for a pickup. Those of us in more rural areas find them to be the vehicular version of a pocketknife, capable of many things and incapable of very few.
– If a person is going to spend $35k to $40k on a vehicle, many find it more pragmatic to get something versatile. So a pickup for $40k is a more versatile and pragmatic choice than is, say, a BMW or Lexus or Audi or etc., etc.
– Outdoor activities consist of more than canoeing and hiking. While I’ve never done so, in this part of the world deer season is a bigger event than is Christmas. So if I go hunting on my back 40 (although a know several in which the “back 40” is more like the “back 400″) or even somewhere else, do I really care to haul that deer carcass back home in my Sienna? My RAV-4? My Supra? Nope. And while the T-100 would work great for this purpose, please see my other points above.
– Physical size. No, I’m talking about the driver/owner and not about them being obese. There is a cross-section of the country that consists of tall, big-boned people. My Uncle Ron, my mom’s younger brother, is 6’8” tall, is built like a mountain, and is around 280 pounds. He cannot fit in just anything and he’s not alone. He fits into a pickup beautifully and, right now, that’s all he owns.
If the Australian couple nrd515 mentions can see the appeal, it’s simply a matter of being open-minded and partaking enough to find it.
Definitely. Though I view it as being similar to how Toyota’s larger sedans (Corona, Cressida) were viewed in the 1970s. In both cases, Toyota learned from their mis-steps and came back with much stronger products in subsequent generations. Some car companies make the same mistakes repeatedly; Toyota, much to its credit, doesn’t.
Excellent point. If shopping for a new pickup, Toyota is one of the two brands I’d be shopping, Ford being the other.
“It would be interesting to see the dimensions of a T-100 versus that of a comparable equipped and bodied Dakota.”
They were quite similar. T-100 vs. first-gen Dakota, regular cab/8′ or extended cab/6.5′ for the Dakota, 6.25′ for the T-100:
Wheelbase: 122″ vs. 124/131″
Length: 209″ vs. 204/211″ (later models 207/214″)
Width: 75″ vs. 69″
Height was more variable depending on powertrain, but went up to 71.5″ on the Toyota or 68.5″ on the Dodge.
Powertrain aside, it looks to me as though Toyota designed the T100 for America’s needs, not for America’s wants, aspirations, and dreams.
Pete, I have to respectfully disagree. Few want something that is too small for many jobs, had nothing but one configuration initially, and costs more. I’m not sure how that would meet up with the needs of anyone, anywhere.
I can hardly see how one could make the argument that it was too small when it was no smaller than the compact pickups like the S10 and Ranger which sold well in the 90’s.
Probably one of Toyota’s big missteps with the T100 was to try to suggest that it was in the same league as the American full-sizers, which meant that everyone took one look at it and immediately dismissed it as some kind of joke. If they had marketed it as a slightly larger compact truck they might have had more success.
Nobody at GM or Ford was attempting to market an S10 or Ranger as being more than they were. An S10 or Ranger also serves a different purpose than does a full-sized (1/2 ton or heavier) pickup. As you say, the T-100 was a slightly larger compact, thus my statement about them being too small for many jobs. 🙂
I hear that quite often about the Honda Ridgeline. From people who don’t own trucks. For those that do, the shortcomings are obvious in both instances.
“I’ve never eaten a hamburger (gasp!), I don’t watch football, I detest country music.”
I like a good hamburger, but I’m in total agreement on the other two.
I like the T100 as well, it looks right-sized for my uses. A true 4-door 6-foot bed version of this would be very appealing, with the 4.0 V6 or 4.6 V8. I wonder how close the current Tacoma is to that? Now I’m going to go have to check dimensions…
But I suspect you’re right about the brand loyalty. The current Tundra was everything the ‘Murica cadre said they wanted in a truck back in 2007 and it went just about nowhere. With a reception like that, can’t blame them for not redesigning it since then. Culture is hard to change.
Limited building capacity has figured into that decision too I’m sure
Though initially competitive on paper, the Tundra cost significantly more in the real world because Toyota doesn’t offer the same incentives. Nor have they ever offered nearly as many configurations or much in the way of working fleet models.
Another upvote from a former long-time pickup owner. Only in my case, I’ve never owned anything larger than a Dodge Dakota short cab/long bed, usually sticking with club cab/standard bed S-10’s and Rangers. Because I’ve never needed anything bigger, and, quite frankly, don’t like driving the behemoths that pass for a current full-size pickup truck.
And then I compound that apostasy by realizing that a minivan minus the second and third row of seats is more practical, more useful, more comfortable and slightly better on fuel economy. And once my current Kia Sedona wears out, my next primary choice is going to be a Ram C/V. Of which I’ve already owned one back in the days that it was called a Dodge Caravan C/V.
Obviously I have no problems with my self image. Doesn’t even bother me to own a 125-150cc scooter for commuting.
No, I don’t tow massive loads. The most towing capacity I’ll need is for a 5×8 open trailer with a 500lb motorcycle on it. For the rare occasion that I’ll tow a motorcycle anywhere (having just come back from a joyous 1500 mile ride to Daytona Beach for Biketoberfest).
Americans are insanely image crazy, and God help you if the image you project isn’t up to your self-expectations. Which, to me, is the only viable explanation for the massive popularity of SUV’s when a minivan makes way more sense, four door 4×4 pickups that almost need a stool to climb in (in factory settings) for people that never go-off road or drive thru horrible snowfalls, and the almost complete unwillingness to own sub-500cc motorcycles when the rider has less than a year’s experience and spends his time wobbling down the road.
Gotta look good. Gotta look like something way beyond the personal reality.
And while I immediately bring up the more extreme moments, it filters down in the market. I still remember the disappointment of trading a very well liked 1996 S-10 club cab, 2WD, 3.8 V-6 pickup that was comfortable and very useful (plus easy to load and unload a motorcycle onto the bed), for a 2006 Ford Ranger, same exact setup . . . . . . only for some reason, by this point, Ford felt it necessary to jack the floor four inches higher off the road by that point. Which really made it nice (yes, I’m being sarcastic) getting a terminally ill, wheelchair and walker using wife, in and out. Guess we gotta made the base model more butch, or at least less wimpy.
Which really made me appreciate my first generation Scion xB.
x2 about that minivan with the 2nd and 3rd row seats folded down or removed. I did tons of hauling in a Sienna Limited AWD which was vastly more comfortable to drive (and park) than any full-size pickup I’ve ever driven. I wouldn’t want to carry bricks, mulch, or deer carcasses around in it, but for the home remodeling work I did it was ideal. Perfect for Home Depot or Ikea runs and Craigslist finds. For this type of work, where most of the items are clean and/or boxed up, the softly padded and carpeted environs of a minivan cargo area are preferable to the hard steel of a pickup box, and the low loading floor and sliding side doors (with remote opening) couldn’t be any more convenient.
Syke, the entry height for my van is greater than for my 4×4 crew cab pickup.
Just wanting to make sure we are all on the same page. 🙂
Didn’t PN say once that the T100 was the only pickup he’d consider replacing the 1966 F150 with?
However I think parts might still be available for the F150 long after the T100 supply is gone.
One of our welding shop suppliers had a T100 years ago, it was a great size for a commercial vehicle and it took an incredible amount of abuse, we were impressed at how tough it was.
I’m really impressed at how Brendan can go through life without eating a hamburger. Most are not great but there are a few really yummy ones out there, just sayin’
Paul’s Ford is an F100, but, I get your point.
I need my weekly fix of a Harvey’s hamburger, or the world is just not right. As for football, I do watch weekly, but only when ‘my team’ is playing.
I’m a huge Toyota fan and have had a spat of Tacomas and older pickups (and a few Nissan D21 Hardbodies for fun).
All I can say that hasn’t been said is WOW, a T-100 in Mass. that hasn’t failed inspection for rust? Or were these pictures taken in 2004?
It actually did have a Reject sticker.
I’m surprised no one has mentioned what might be one of the main reasons why the T100 didn’t take off in the marketplace: Price.
When these arrived in the US with four-cylinder and V6 engines, the out-the-door prices were in line with those of the full-sized competition’s V6 and V8 offerings. Discounts? Forget about it.
Between these being built in Japan (and subject to the 25% “chicken tax”), and the general practice of Toyota dealers not discounting in those days, there wasn’t much room for negotiation, either. And as I recall, these were not all that plentiful on dealer lots; I’m not sure if it was due to production capacity on Toyota’s part, or the last days of Japan’s Voluntary Export Restraint, which ended in 1994.
Also a very valid point. This definitely did factor into the T100’s failure when compared to American full-size pickups.
Bob McCurry, formerly known as a vice-president at Chrysler, joined Toyota in 1978 and, although his praises are widely sung (most notably as the inventor of the rebate during the 1975 Super Bowl halftime), I wonder about his input on the Toyota T-100. The claim is that he was responsible for the later, enlarged Tundra with available V8 power, but I wonder. He simply had to have a huge input on the design of the T-100, as well, but because it was such a failure in the marketplace, it’s not mentioned. Here’s a link to his history:
https://www.autonews.com/article/20061120/SUB/61117031/bob-mccurry-s-life-in-the-trenches
Regardless, I’m not so sure the T-100’s Achilles Heel was so much smaller size and lack of power as it was simply price. The T-100 was sparse (but high quality) and pricey for what you got. For the price of a smaller, low-option T-100, it was possible to buy a well-loaded, big, V8-powered, full-size Ford or Chevy. I vividly recall how discounts on the T-100 were non-existent throughout its entire run. You really had to want one to fork over the dough. As mentioned in the article, Ford and Chevy truck owners are a loyal bunch, and when you’re trying to break into that kind of market with a smaller truck at a higher price, well, it just isn’t happening.
It’s a real shame because, to me, the T-100 was otherwise ‘just right’, even with the smallish engine selection (including the 2.7L four). It was just too expensive.
Looks like we were thinking alike, at exactly the same time (see my comment, above).
The Ergonomics of a full size pickup are much better than most vehicles on the road today and that along with their interior room is why they are popular. CAFE took away true full size cars and today’s 1/2 ton crew cab is the next best thing. Once you put a locking hard cover you have a nice big trunk too.
I also don’t get your comment that they are hard to maneuver due to their poor weight distribution. As far as parking them goes the typical 1/2 crew cab with the 5.5′ bed or extended cab with 6.5′ bed is easier to park than many cars thanks to the fact that the front wheels will turn a sharper angle than most FWD vehicles and you can actually see the corners of the vehicle.
Every single modern pickup I’ve driven I feel like I’m in a car made for giants. I can’t reach anything in the center stack from the driver’s seat.
Unloaded pickups have much less weight over the rear axle than say, a comparably sized SUV. Even in mildly slick conditions, they fishtail very easily. I’ve also experienced a drastic “shuddering” sensation in most that I’ve driven and rode in over bumps.
I’ve got to wonder what modern truck you’ve been in. The weight distribution of the most common configuration the 1/2 ton crew cab 5.5′ bed 4×4 isn’t anywhere as bad as you think. The worst configuration is about 58/42 on the recent F-150’s. Compare that to the closest thing to the traditional full size car, the Charger and you’ll find it is 53/47 in its best configuration with the V6. So as long as you have decent tires and don’t get crazy with the throttle they don’t fishtail easily. Also at least on the Fords and Chevys you can get a transfer case that includes automatic 4wd and on the Ford it is a gas and go system not a slip then grip set up. So the harder you press the throttle the greater the duty cycle on the front axle clutch. Yeah your mpg will suffer a bit if you leave it in that mode all the time.
Personally I can reach all the controls in our F-150 and F-250, now I do admit that in the Super Duty I can’t unlock the passenger door buckled in the driver’s seat but I can in the smaller Jelly Bean. If they were used as daily drivers I’d get a trim level that has power door locks, remote and keyless entry, instead of XLs.
Among what I’ve driven includes current and previous generation F-150s, current gen F-250, most recent and previous generation Silverado 1500 and 2500, an older Silverado, previous generation Sierra, current and previous generation Ram, and an old Ranger.
We dealt with a lot of full-size pickup trades and sold a lot of pre-owned ones while I was at Land Rover. Some were obviously worse than others, but my impressions I laid out have been a common impression I’ve had in all of them. The full-size pickup just isn’t the vehicle for me 🙂
Well you are lumping a wide range of vehicles together and making a very broad generalization about all of them. Yes 3/4 ton trucks do not ride well when empty and neither do the old compact trucks. Much of that is due to the fact that their payload capactiy represents a larger portion of their curb weight. Short of air suspension you’ve got to make that trade off if you want a vehicle that can carry a ton or two.
However to use that to say that all pickups have the same problems is stretching it. The trucks that people around here buy the most of are the 1/2 ton crew cab 5.5′ bed versions that ride and handle much better than their 3/4 ton brethren.
I know my F150 (super cab 4×4 6.5′) feels like a luxury-sport car compared to the F250 (crew cab 4×4 8.5′).
The other problem that modern trucks suffer from, particularly the 3/4 ton and up is the damn requirement for TPMS and the fact that many are direct reading. Back in the day we adjusted our tire pressures for the load at hand. Unfortunately if you do that on modern vehicles, w/o reprogramming the computer, you have warnings going off unless you run around on tires that are over inflated for running around empty or lightly loaded.
For that reason I reprogrammed my van since I usually only use about 1/3 of its ~3,000 lb payload. Ride, handling and traction is much improved running them at what it proper for that loading. When I have stuck a ton or more in it I do air up, just like I do with the pickups which are old enough to not have TPMS.
I also love the ergonomics of pickups. At a long legged and fit 6’3″, there are damn few vehicles I am comfortable in these days. The visibility is also very good, relative to most modern cars, thanks to the large windows and high seating position. Your feet aren’t splayed out in front of you with your knees rubbing against the side of a console. The controls are large and easy to operate even with gloves on. Three car seats can easily fit across the back seat and the doors open wide for good access. The build materials are typically chosen for durability rather than what they feel like when you caress them.
When I read Brendan’s comments on ergonomics, I wondered if the height of the driver has something to do with his opinion. I’ve only seen him in photos, so I have no idea of his actual size; I just know that my 6’1” frame doesn’t find pickups to be an ergonomic nightmare.
@BuzzDog, most certainly! I am of smaller stature, 5’6″, 125 lbs, and I have somewhat long legs for my height, all which definitely play a large part.
Just being able to reach almost anything in the center stack of full-size pickups is difficult, not only because it is so far away, but because of the vast real estate, buttons and controls are generally placed far apart from each other. Getting a comfortable seating and steering wheel position is another story 🙂
Oh, I am just as small as you. ( when I started working on GM trucks, I used to be 120lbs but given their awfully unhealthy food, I am 129lbs now to my great displeasure since the fat concentrates around certain areas too much )
GM HD trucks are way too big for me to use in a reasonable way. ( and certain areas of mine get pinched when I get out due to the excessive height ) and I am the smallest person among truck engineers ( mostly are males far larger than me. a girl around my age is larger by a margin too )
Still, I prefer to drive full size sedans since they are roomy and lower ride is easy to get in and out for me. But I may have to reserve them for historical status in the coming years.
Regarding height playing a factor, for me the ergonomics of most cars today is poor due to the low roof lines. If I adjust the seat so there is room for me and I have good sight lines, ie all the way down, back and somewhat reclined, the far side of the center stack requires a stretch. I don’t have to recline the seat to see well out the windows on pickups and as such everything is well within reach.
I’m a former owner of a 1997 T100 (4wd 3.4V6, automatic) with the XtraCab. I owned it from 2014-16, from about 170K to 190K miles, and sold it because I was planning a six week long road trip and wanted something newer, more comfortable and perhaps more economical. The thought of sitting in that sagged out 60/40 bench for hundreds of miles a day was not appealing, so I bought a nearly-new Tacoma and never looked back. Until I started missing the T100’s roomy bed. And it’s more basic design, and the fact that it was already scratched and old, but still ran flawlessly. And rode and handled about as well as my new TRD Tacoma after new shocks, tie rod ends and ball joints. In both cases, not really car-like.
As someone who has seen American car owners migrate from Cutlass Salons and Country Squires, to Camry’s and minivans, not to mention to Civics and Kia Souls, I’m surprised the T100 wasn’t more popular. The 3.slow was a poor choice for the truck’s launch, but the 3.4 was fine and the payload and tow rating were equal or better than most full-size US half tons. Build quality of the truck was excellent, and resale value remains high for what is considered by some to be the peak Toyota truck: made in Japan, more load capacity than a Hilux, more economical than a Tundra. I see many every day in my town, including my old truck which has been slightly upgraded and seems well maintained by its new owner.
Oh, I do like hamburgers, some country music, but absolutely don’t get (US) football.
When I was in Myrtle Beach the other week I was talking to some guy in the elevator and he asked me in complete seriousness:
“Oh, you’re Canadian. So what college football team do you follow then?”
“Uhh, none of them?”
Most folks don’t understand the car business. They think success is all about large sales or share numbers, and success for a new competitor in a given segment means it should sell as well (or close to) as the exiting established ones. It doesn’t work that way, because production capacity is the critical aspect. Before you build and sell a new vehicle, you have to build the production capacity, at great expense.
Toyota certainly didn’t have the capacity in Japan to build the T100 in any significant volumes. So they priced it relatively high so they could accomplish their two goals: make a profit and offer a product to existing Toyota customers. In the case of the T100, there were hundreds of thousands of very happy and loyal Toyota compact pickup owners out there, some of them who wanted or needed a bigger truck and might otherwise go to the big 3.
The T100 was never intended to make any meaningful dent in existing Big 3 pickup owners.
It was essentially the same thing with the Previa: offer a Toyota minivan to existing owners so they didn’t need to buy one from the Big 3.
The same reality is still the case (as it has been all these years): the current Tundra is totally capacity-constrained, given that it’s built in San Antonio alongside the Tacoma, and the combine production of the two is limited by the factory size. It has been running 24/7 forever, and is of course very profitable. And Toyota has actually favored the Tacoma there, as it was more important (and profitable) for them to protect the Tacoma’s leading position than to increase Tundra sales at its expense. Now that Toyota has opened a new Tacoma line in Mexico, they may be able to increase Tundra production finally. If Toyota wanted to increase tundra sales, all they would have to do is increase the incentives. And a new tundra is in the works for next year.
The big 3 have numerous plants churning out their various pickup models. Toyota doesn’t. So they’re a niche player, and quite happy to be so, as it is still a very profitable segment for them. And the Tundra has the highest resale of any pickup.
If you lived on the West Coast, all of Toyota’s strategy would be more obvious, as there’s a lot of folks who have bought nothing but Japanse cars and trucks for decades now, and aren’t about to change. They buy Tundras if the need a big truck. They loved the smaller Tundra/T100, and some of them bought the big Tundra reluctantly, as the smaller ones were quite capable of doing what was needed of them, and were definitely handier to drive in traffic.
Tundras will always be the gold standard for these loyal buyers, and its high resale value attests to that.
No, Toyota has no intention or ability to take on the Big three in pickups, and it never had it. And it’s not likely to in the foreseeable future. So constantly pointing out that the t100/Tundra was a commercial failure (same goes for the Previa) is missing the point.
The point of the auto business is to make profits, by fully utilizing the production facilities that exist. Toyota generally does that better than anybody, which explains why it’s the world’s most profitable (and valuable) automaker. Now that’s real “commercial success”.
Very good points, and I think Toyota tried hard not to position the T100 as a full-size pickup competitor. Whether the target market was existing Toyota owners, or folks who thought and F-150 was too ponderous for their needs, there was definitely a specific niche they were chasing.
But still, the sales figures were disappointing, and well below Toyota’s projections. In 1992, Toyota projected 50,000-60,000 annual US sales. From the figures Brendan provided here, an average of 23,500 were sold annually over 6 model years. So it appears that Toyota did misjudge the marketplace here, even given their niche mindset.
Clearly the original T100 underperformed. I was commenting more on the general and overall history of the T100/Tundra to date. Folks perpetually assume the Tundra’s low volume is because Toyota can’t sell more. They can’t build more; not yet, anyway.
The original T100 was severely hampered by lack of an extended cab. That was a huge and inexcusable mistake, and the same one that took down the Jeep Commanche. They clearly didn’t learn from Jeep’s lesson. Americans wanted extended cabs on everything except strictly work/fleet trucks. And the T100 was never going to succeed with the fleets.
The lack of an extended cab was a much bigger mistake than it being smaller, which was by design and necessity, as Toyota didn’t have the drive trains or other components readily at hand to build a full size truck. The lack of a bigger engine was also a severe limiting factor.
My point is that it was a very limited failure, inasmuch as Toyota didn’t exactly build a giant new factory to take on the Big Three with pickups. It was a limited foray, with not much downside. The drivetrain and other components were all already being used in other vehicles. And they learned from their mistake.
IIRC, the last generation of “undersized” Tundra sold fairly well, and had established a decent niche as a somewhat smaller truck, but with V8 power by then. In fact, IIRC, the new full-size Tundra didn’t sell all that much better. My point is that by that time, the compact Tundra had established a quite successful and profitable niche for itself. But with the Tacoma becoming larger, and the market clearly showing a preference for larger trucks, a bigger Tundra was probably inevitable.
Good point about the extended cab. I’ve never NOT owned a pickup without one (or double cab), and my first pickup was a 1981 Datsun King Cab. There’s a lot of “ifs” in whether I would have kept my T100 rather than getting my newer Tacoma, but lack of easy access in the XtraCab (front doors only) to the roomy back seat was a major factor. Recently I saw a unicorn first-gen Tundra, 4WD AccessCab (with rear doors) with V6 and 5 speed manual; that is a very appealing configuration which I think might be almost perfect for someone who doesn’t tow or haul heavy loads across mountain passes regularly.
Once the T-100 was available with extended cab, my father bought one to replace his extended cab Ranger. He was not after a full size truck, but a comfortable commuter that could do a few household chores as well. He liked Toyota cars, so this was a natural choice for him, not mainstream American truck buyers. It was durable enough that when he passed it on to my newly licensed kid, she could not break it, as much as she tried.
I am also not the typical personal truck buyer, as I have only owned regular cabs, including a 1st gen Tundra in fleet white. They do exist here in LA doing real work, but probably not in other parts of the country.
You could almost substitute “Odyssey” for “T100”: there are a lot of similarities between these two “first-gens”.
Hey JB, you and I were reading each other’s minds. (see my comment below.)
We had this discussion on the Sienna too. Clearly Toyota was not aiming for massive sales numbers on either vehicle. But. They were certainly aiming for better numbers than they actually got.
Sometimes it is better to sell some vehicles with profit in a small number, than selling them in large volume at loss.
Only Big three can manage to sell product at a high number at significant loss ( their business model usually has an awkwardly high break even point, sometimes almost unachievable ) Sometimes in GM’s case, the better it sells, the more loss can incur.
It is very unique for any business.
Let me distill why the initial T100 was not a success: it was not its size, but the lack of a proper mix of body styles and powertrains. If the T100 had what its successor, the identical-sized gen1 Tundra had (V8, multiple cab/bed options), it undoubtedly would have readily met its initial sales targets or better. Offering only a long bed, regular cab truck was a huge mistake. It was a work truck, at a time when everything was moving away from that, and the Big 3 dominated fleet sales for work trucks.
The compact gen1 Tundra sold just fine, at its production capacity. And the larger gen2 Tundra didn’t materially improve on that, so it wasn’t size that hurt the initial T100.
Excellent write-up, as always. Toyota had heretofore built international-sized trucks; it had no experience making stuff that would satisfy the full-size American truck class. On top of that, the T100 was built in Japan, and was probably subject to the Chicken Tax, driving prices up further.
That said, I’m not sure they were trying to be in the full-size class, really.
It seems as though Toyota has since decided to let its American operations manage the development and engineering of the subsequent Tundra and Sequoia, which are American-focused and American-built.
” it’s like trying to get a Coca-Cola drinker to switch to Pepsi, or more fittingly, a Bud Light drinker to switch to Sapporo. ”
Great line and a very good metaphor!
I wonder if part of the problem is that Toyota (like all Asian companies of the time) had trouble internalizing what “big” really meant. The T-100 reminds me a lot of the original Honda Odyssey. It was a big minivan by Japanese standards, and was an excellent vehicle besides. But plopped in among the US competition, it was small, underpowered and relatively expensive.
Honda and Toyota learned their minivan lessons well. The pickup market, though, remains protected via tariffs. There is no way an imported pickup will be competitive on price. And perhaps the Asian companies see the value in leaving one segment of the US market completely alone so as to minimize the kinds of political backlash they were getting in the 80s.
Also, American pickup buyers tend to be the most conservative automotive consumers out there. I do not mean conservative in a political sense (though there’s certainly some of that too) but in the sense of having an appreciation for the traditional. There are few things more traditional than an American pickup. For all the high tech, it is still a front engine driving rear wheels, a body bolted to a frame and lots of room for stretching out.
After years of carrying brush, leaves, windfall, and other organic debris in my small station wagon (PT Cruiser) I decided a pickup made sense, especially after I retired and didn’t have long commutes into and around the NY metropolitan area.
No matter how much I cleaned and vacuumed after dump trips, there was always a maze of spider webs around the driver’s seat when I got into the Cruiser the next workday morning (and by definition, a lot of spiders).
I don’t like spiders. I try not to harm them, but I don’t like them.
I asked my mechanic (who drove a RAM double cab pickup and previously had a F150) what truck he recommended, and he said Toyota.
Period.
The resulting DCLB Tacoma is a tad long (18.5 feet) but it is surprisingly easy to park if the spot is barely large enough (thank you back up camera), has a gentle and quiet ride (it is NOT a TRD model), and is great in the snow (even when unloaded).
It’s bad on gas mileage, it wasn’t inexpensive, and there was little flexibility on the price, but I expected that. It is a Toyota.
If I was looking for a truck in the 1990s, I would have probably bought a new T-100. Because it is a Toyota.
I not longer eat hamburgers (or any meat) and I’ve never watched football. As for country music, IMHO some country music is better than other country music.
I’m certainly not in the mainstream, but I come from a certain segment of Americans that instead of a jack-of-all-trades, keeps a small fleet of fully-depreciated vehicles around for specialized tasks. An early-’90s manual 4WD Cherokee for offroad/snow/light towing, an early ’70s manual 2WD 8′ box Ford pickup for larger/heavier hauling, an early 2000s full-size RWD sedan (Panther) for long highway trips, and a FWD manual econobox for the daily commute. All four vehicles cost me less to buy and insure than one brand-new ANYTHING, and I don’t get bored driving one vehicle all the time.
I’m similar though my (Hybrid) FWD commuter is newer and not fully depreciated and the F250 isn’t quite there yet, but the SUV and Panthers are. And yeah I don’t get bored of what I’m driving. Mon and Wed I commuted in the Hybrid while Tue and Today the SUV got put into duty for the cargo capacity and tonight we took the Marauder out for dinner.
My dad bought one of the first ones in 1993, a white base model with the black grille and bumper and drove it until 2006. He sold it to a Toyota mechanic after the gas tank started rusting. No idea what happened to it after that.
I wouldn’t necessarily call these a failure or even a disappointment. As was stated above, huge sales numbers aren’t indicative of much, really. These established that a market for bigger than compact import pickups (well, non D3 anyway) does exist. Up until the current platform, the T-100/Tundra really competed on the Dakota’s level. A small V8 is what this platform really needed all along. The 3.0 was just barely adequate in the compact pickups and completely gutless in anything bigger. I don’t know about the 3.4 but V6 doesn’t inspire confidence.
I tried out a T-100 when I was pickup shopping in the 90’s. It seemed competent enough, but it wasn’t calling to me at all. And I don’t remember the interior being any nicer than the American trucks.
I wonder if it were marketed as a Toyota Tacoma T100’s if it would have gotten more acceptance. It would have been presented as a super sized Tacoma instead of a deflated F150.
The T100 predates the Tacoma by 2 years.
I think these comments are spot in. Toyota was not planning to go tow to toe (ha!) with the big three with this T100. They wanted to make a versatile high-quality pick up truck for their small niche market. In some ways I feel like all of the Japanese companies are doing that. Think of Subaru and the Baja that they did in the mid 2000s. Those things were never going to compete with a Tacoma or anything else for that matter. But for the few people that bought them they were the perfect size for their needs and to this day they come in higher residual values. And someways today’s Honda ridgeline is kind of the same idea. Small to midsize pickup truck that is designed for their base – Small to midsize pickup truck that is designed for the “gentlemanly driver”. Let’s face it. If gas was $7 or $8 a gallon a lot of truck drivers would use them less and purchase other commuter vehicles. But you have to admire their ability to do a lot of jobs. If you had to get one vehicle to do it all – a pickup wouldn’t be a bad choice.
Small, expensive, and less powerful than the competition. It was a losing combination. “Build quality that was vastly superior…”. Yeah, not so much. Two of the most highly regarded classic American trucks were being produced at this time, and one, the Chevy, used excellent interior materials. In fact, I recently test drove a 1991 Z71 with 200k miles on it and was absolutely blown away by the quality of the velour seats. Toyota may have bested GMs dash quality (and definitely dash ergos), but had nothing on the rest of the interior. That all changed in 95 when GM changed the interior and at the same time swapped to vortec heads. Across the way was Ford, selling the 7th gen f150. While the quality of the interior materials were not up to par with the Chevy, it did have better ergos and also mature, well engineered drive trains.
This was not a compelling effort. It was a solid effort for someone that wanted a better Dodge Dakota at full-sized truck prices.
F450s Humvees etc I dont find all that big, ok a humvee is max width but I’m used to that so its no big deal, Aisian pickups ride horribly,(we have terrible roads) so I for one dont see the appeal of being bounced about by my personal ride I can cope with it in an empty truck though an air ride seat takes any real shocks out, though for work runabouts I try to avoid the Rangers we have and choose a car if something is available, currently my get to the depot weapon is a Holden Calais GMHs idea of a luxury ride, though its hardly an improvement, honestly its awfull to ride in they ruined it by fitting 17 inch alloy wheels and low profile tyres but they pay me to drive it and supply the fuel, F100s and Chevys were assembled in OZ years ago and sold in NZ though in fairly small numbers now they are back along with the Ram selection but the prices are gigantic a well equipped Ram starts at over 100k a cheap and nasty little version around 80k and yes there are quite a few around Ford raptors are here Ive seen a few and regular Ford pickups are in evidence, I saw a chevy with those square pattern running lights last night, in the Skyliners town too, actually there are some nice classics around his burg but he keeps quiet about them, I followed a vast Lincoln up Shakespear street this afternoon it went to a tyre service probably a local car.
I was seriously looking for one of these as a home knockaround/son vehicle last year, and saw one that may have fit the bill – but T100s are expensive in the used market, indicating they’ve risen in relative value likely due to the refinement and reliability of these vintage Toyotas (which was why I was interested, TBH). I ended up getting the ubiquitous Ranger of around this vintage because the price was right and it was in great shape.
IIRC, the product/option mix, at least in the later years, was limited, a “feast or famine” setup. You could only get the V6 in extra-cab 4WD – which is fine as far as that goes, and the 4-cylinder only in regular cab 2WD; no mixing. A 2WD V6 or 4-cylinder extra-cab would have helped sales quite a bit, but it wasn’t allowed.
Comparing 90’s truck offerings, Toyota created a tweener that was probably closer to an upsized Dodge Dakota, which some called mid-size, more than anything else. The first gen Dakota didn’t exactly light up the sales charts either. The 1997 second gen Dakota found some magic with its new style, and really hit it out of the park with its four-door quad cab when sales skyrocketed to over 177,000 in 2000. But those numbers still slid precipitously in ensuing years; like the T100, all the way to zero.
Truck buyers wanted Rangers and S10s in the sub full-size space. Ironically, Toyota came to own much of this segment years later with the Tacoma, competing with Nissan’s Frontier. Like sedans, the Big Three abandoned this segment for several years.
The tweener category was a niche market Americans didn’t take to in those years. Throw in issues with price, limited body styles and engine choices and the T100’s size just didn’t fit anyone.
My ’96 4WD V6 SR5 was an awesome truck
I own a 1997 T100 and I love it. I also own a 2005 Explorer, 1995 Bronco, 1972 Bronco and a 2000 F350 Dually…I won’t list the rest. You get the point. I like vehicles and when I find a great bargain, I buy it. That said, I think the authors point is that the T100 is more refined and 99% as capable as the dumb American big three options. And “mericans” are stupid. He/she can’t seem to understand how someone would drive something so big and silly. Well the answer is simply; we all drive something that makes us feel good. Yep including me and you. Including you mister Author. Ask yourself or your husband, do you really need to go any faster than 70MPH? Faster than that is illegal in most places. But my T100 will go over 100MPH. And so will your Subaru. Do you really need an automatic transmission or air conditioning or vanity mirrors or 190 HP or shiny paint or cushy seats or a heater or carpet? No you don’t you’re just a smug curmudgeon that likes to be sanctimonious. The people who purchase big SUVs and Pickups don’t need them either. Go eat your kale sandwich while sitting on your couch that was delivered by a meat eating neanderthal. The reason that you do not understand Pickups, football, hamburgers and country music is because of your contempt for them. If you actually took the time to consider them, you could come to an informed conclusion.
I know this is an old post but.
I just bought a 2023 Toyota Tundra, that talks yo me and says good morning, rear windows automatically go down.
I have went through many trucks , Fords, Chevys , Dodge.
And just recently, painted my 97 extra cab T100.
It’s in showroom condition. I can cruise at 95 mph. With the coldest air conditioner ever.
Its outlasted all the trucks on this cattle ranch.
Everyday I drive it. People offer to buy it.
More than what it’s worth.
By far the best truck ever.with the most room, and this truck will be around long after I’m gone.
Sorry to allyou city slickers
Still driving a 95 T100 4wd long bed. It’s a weekend vehicle now, up to 178.000 miles with no problem. Obviously, the American driver wants super size and are willing to sacrifice 9mpg to take the stance. The T100 had no chance because it couldn’t pull 10,000 pounds, couldn’t squeal the tires, and couldn’t hold 6 adults. I was sitting at a busy intersection the other day watching cars zoom through. About 80% had a single driver and probably 70% were gigantic SUV’s or full size trucks. It is probably why the Japanese automakers couldn’t figure out why people would want a vehicle that is 3x bigger than they need.
I drove a 94 4 cyl T100 for years for work ( I’m a stonemason). It was the best truck I’ve ever had and I put well over 300,000 miles on it. Sadly I traded it for a Tundra a couple of years ago and have wished I could get it back. Modern trucks must be built for something but it’s not for working, compared to the T100 the Tundra is backbreaking to load and unload with it’s high bed and siderails and they seem to get higher every year. A v8 engine may be needed for towing but it’s a waste of gas for everyday work.