Toyota Tundra Discussion Forum banner
1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
143 Posts
Hi all,

I hope all this isn't TMI, but I've never actually bothered to introduce myself on a forum before, in the "New Members" area, prior to just posting. However, I saw that it was mandatory here, so here goes--and to the Mods, please remember, you asked for it, with the mandatory requirement for new members to do an introduction! J/k[ :D


[[How I Gave Up on Fords, Ruled Out Dodges and Came to Be Seeking a Tundra:

[I'm a diehard Ford guy, and a huge fan of Fords unparalleled "Big Six," i.e., their 300 cu. in./4.9L inline, OHV, "straight six," which Ford (thoughtlessly, IMO) killed, as it wouldn't fit under the "aerohood" of the redesigned, 1997 F-150.

The "Big Six"--1964-1996. May it R.I.P., and also live on, rivaling all gasoline engines in durability, as my father's own, company truck's Big Six went on to surpass 400,000 miles with the second (or third?) owner, at last report. And it was powering a 1973 F-250, with 8' box which, one night, hauled bulldozer tracks so heavy the headlights were pointed at the trees, despite the fact that the truck came with the extra, heavy-duty OEM "overload springs." And 400,000 miles is almost into Cummins Diesel 5.9L territory, durability-wise....


For many years, the Big Six powered UPS's Brown Step Vans---and I believe some of these are still in service to this day--you can hear their distinct "straight six" acoustic signature (sort of like a low "moan," as opposed to a V8's "choppier" sound), if you listen for it. The 240 cu. in. and 300 cu. in. are the same block--the 300 was just stroked to get the extra cubes.

It may surprise some to learn that, for a number of years, the Big Six's 300 cubic inches actually put out more torque than Ford's own 302/5.0L V8. That actually shouldn't be surprising, given the long stroke (relative to a V8) of any inline, six cylinder engine. But what is surprising is just how hard, long and uncomplainingly the 300 cu. in./4.9L will just PULL. I know, as I've towed my boat plenty of times.

And in 10 years, the truck only stranded me once, when the fiber, camshaft gear, stripped. But since I got the truck for all of $500., as an ex-landscaper's vehicle, in sorry neglect (only firing on 4 cylinders when I drove it home, the night I bought it) and barely put any money into it in those 10 years (plugs, brakes, O/F, driveshaft carrier bearing, and $150. for the camshaft gear), getting 16-17mpg, with an 8' box (it had the Mazda M4OS manual trans in it, and 3.55 rear gears), I have nothing but praise for it. When I let it go, it had 170,000 (hard) miles on it, would cruise comfortably at 75mph all day, and simply needed a clutch. It was the rust that made it not worth fixing, sadly....

Did I mention I only paid $500. for this 1988 F-150, back in the late '90's? LOL

Below is a Wikipedia link, for anyone who's interested in this engine, but immediately below is my favorite quote from this wiki article:

"Also during the late sixties and early seventies, the 300 was used in larger vehicles such as dump trucks, many weighing into the 15,000–20,000 pound (7,000–9,000 kg) range. These 300s were equipped with a higher flow HD (Heavy Duty) exhaust manifold and forged crankshafts and rods since the engines were going to be constantly working in the 3000–4000 rpm range. These rare, yet effective manifolds had a much higher exhaust flow rate due to the fact that many of these engines would spend hours at 3000 RPMs or more. Due to their straightforward and high flowing design, enthusiasts often seek these manifolds out due to the ease in which they allow turbochargers to be retrofitted to the engine."

Scroll down to the "Fourth Generation" hyperlink, in the wiki-page linked below, to see the part about the 240/300 cu. in. "Big Six" I'm raving about:

Ford straight-six engine
LINK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_straight-six_engine#Fourth_generation

I'm told that the 240 cu. in. version was also popular in certain dirt-track racing cars, but I have not researched that yet....



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A Funny Story About How Forgiving the Big Six Is:

One problem Ford's "Big Six" did have was shaking their (single barrel) carburetors loose--it happened to my father's 1973 F-250 at least once (bought new) and to my (very abused) 1981 F-100, described below. I swear this is a true story, but do not have pics--this was before smartphones. :eek:

When I bought my 1981 F-100, with yet another "Big Six" (prior to my 1988 F-150), it wouldn't idle. The clutch was slipping so bad I could barely drive it home, there was no reverse, and the brake pedal kept going to the floor, with almost no brakes. I fixed all that and drove it for years.

The funny part was, before I bought the truck the Big Six wouldn't idle because the bolts holding the carb down HAD FALLEN OUT--and it STILL RAN! Just wouldn't idle. It had long ago swallowed the carb base gasket, and polished the aluminum plate on top of the manifold to a nice shine--i.e., it had been driving WITH THE CARB LOOSE FOR A LONG TIME. The only thing keeping the carb over the manifold were the various hoses/air cleaner snorkel/tube, and it was only "in the neighborhood" of the intake manifold, obviously, as it had done the polishing mentioned.

Before buying the truck for $300., I actually picked up the carb, while holding the engine at a high idle, via the carb linkage, to show the owner how effed-up it was, that there were no bolts holding the carb down! I think that little demonstration brought the price down from the $750. or whatever the ridiculous amount was he wanted at the time (in roughly 1995 or 1996). I think it stalled when I did this, or I set it back down real quick--can't remember.

But that's the forgiving nature of the Big Six, in a nutshell, IMO....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>



Why I'm Considering a Tundra:
In addition to having great luck with our three Toyota cars (see signature) I am fed up with Ford.
When Ford started using their Modular V-8 (which include their "Triton" V-8's and V-10's), there were many problems with the spark plgus BLOWING OUT OF THE HEADS.


Ford's Spit-Out Spark Plugs Hit Mechanics in their Wallets
Company Covers Up Problem, Lets Consumers, Mechanics Pick Up the Tab:
https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/05/ford_techs_spark_plugs.html


And this is not just "internet news," as I have a close friend who has personally had four (4!) different episodes of this problem! (At $400. per hole....)

And there is yet another problem that I don't fully understand, with Ford's plugs, where they (for a time) were using a two-piece plug that (somehow) breaks when the owner goes to do the plug change at the recommended, 100K service interval. As I say, the details escape me, but IIRC, the plug's porcelain breaks, and this, somehow, results in a very difficult plug-extraction. Again, no recall (to my knowledge).

In fact, an entire cottage industry of vendors, offering repair products and/or mobile, onsite repair services, has sprung up to address the "plug-spitting out" problem, which has never been subject to a recall, to my knowledge--and typically costs $400.--per plug-thread repair.



Why I Ruled Out Dodge:
With the advent of the "CAN bus" system of using single wires to do "multiplexing", i.e., to carry multiple signals from the various ECU's and sensors in modern vehicles, on a single wire, to save $ on copper wiring, Dodge started having problems.

Here is a Wiki on CAN bus, generally, for anyone interested:
CAN bus:
"A Controller Area Network (CAN bus) is a robust vehicle bus standard designed to allow microcontrollers and devices to communicate with each other in applications without a host computer. It is a message-based protocol, designed originally for multiplex electrical wiring within automobiles to save on copper, but is also used in many other contexts."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAN_bus

Dodge, however, has had many problems with their TIPM (Totally Integrated Power Module) system, which can start with something as simple as a single highbeam light not working, but then, later on, has resulted in engine shutdown while driving, no starts, and a host of other problems I have no interest in dealing with.

I don't know, but I assume, Toyota is also using CAN bus systems, as was Mercedes-Benz, when I worked there.

Here is an brief article discussing Chrysler's TIPM problems but first, a brief excerpt from the article:

One owner told the New York Times that his wife would walk outside in the morning to find their Town & Country minivan with the windows rolled down, the radio blaring, and the fan on, all with no key in the ignition.
This Expensive Part Has Hundreds Of Chrysler Owners Fuming
LINK: https://jalopnik.com/this-expensive-part-has-hundreds-of-chrysler-owners-fum-1628115596


From my reading on Dodge forums, I've seen where owners have paid $1,000., and up to $1,300., to get a new TIPM installed. There is a class action for some Chrysler Group (FCA) vehicles but, to my knowledge, even though Dodge pickups also have this TIPM problem, so far, there is no class action or recall for failed/failing TIPM's on Dodge pickups.

So, I took a look at Tundra's, given our successes with Toyota's cars.

Sunday, I drove a 3rd Gen., 5.7L Double Cab, and put a deposit down on it. I'm currently researching a few issues, as the truck is too wide to fit in the space we have. Toyota's official information lists the Overall Width as 79.9", but we measured it, carefully, using a long straightedge and a level, and found that, even with the mirrors FOLDED, the truck is actually 83" inches wide. (I've attached the pdf. that, again, appears to be directly from Toyota, but contains the mis-stated width. Hard to believe, I know, but I can read a tape measure--at least on a good day--LOL.

Anyway, with the 4.3 diff gearing, I could not believe how hard that truck accelerated! I know the 0-60mph time is listed as 6.9 seconds (which, itself, is impressive for a vehicle that can tow 9,800lbs, and is 4x4), but my "butt dyno" felt like the truck was ripping off the 0-60mph more like the Mustang I rented, recently, with a 0-60mph time of 4.5 seconds! And it gets LOUD when you step on the loud pedal. (I'm juvenile that way, and I admit it.) :laugh:

So, all that, plus Tundra's repeated, industry-beating ratings in J.D. Power's reliability comparisons, makes me eager to join the legions of (apparently) happy Tundra owners.


Thanks all. I'm happy to be here, and hoping this Tundra deal comes through for me.

ToyotasForever
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,076 Posts
YEP, THAT WAS TMI!!! No telling how long it was before the editing by "Big D". :blahblah::blahblah::blahblah::hyper::hyper:

Welcome to TT...if Tundra don't turn your wheels, then you are a hoopless case. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: riccnick

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,183 Posts
Welcome to Tundra Talk. TMI? I don't know. But it was a hell of an introduction. If one calculates how long it took to type. And then to edit. Holy schmoly.

Hope you love the Tundra as much as I do my 2017 double cab, 5.7 liter, 4X4, Super White. Nothing but Toyotas for me since 1985 and each has been wonderful to own, run and maintain.

Oh. And thanks @SteveD.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
15,631 Posts
Ok, I read most of it. Welcome!

We used to have a E350 Powerstroke diesel with the 7.3. it was a box van, I know, its not the straight six gasser. but this truck was soo abused and overworked. when we sold it it had over 300k miles and the guy who has it now is still beating on it with 500k miles on it.

that being said, i'd still never buy a ford. they dont make em like they used to.

Congrats on the Tundra, you'll love the power and reliability. Swap in a performance muffler and you'll be even happier every time you hit the skinny pedal.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,631 Posts
My father had an 87 F150 with the 300, 3spd auto and 3.55 axle. Good power, could handle weight and towing. Only problem was at highway speeds it worked really hard. Top speed when new was about 90 mph and it took a while to get there.
He replaced that truck with a 1990 f150 with a 302 and 4spd auto. The 300 towed much better.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,185 Posts
Anyway, with the 4.3 diff gearing, I could not believe how hard that truck accelerated! I know the 0-60mph time is listed as 6.9 seconds (which, itself, is impressive for a vehicle that can tow 9,800lbs, and is 4x4), but my "butt dyno" felt like the truck was ripping off the 0-60mph more like the Mustang I rented, recently, with a 0-60mph time of 4.5 seconds! And it gets LOUD when you step on the loud pedal. (I'm juvenile that way, and I admit it.) :laugh:

So, all that, plus Tundra's repeated, industry-beating ratings in J.D. Power's reliability comparisons, makes me eager to join the legions of (apparently) happy Tundra owners.
When I test drove trucks I was kinda surprised at how much more powerful the Tundra seemed, since I'd read reviews that said how fast the Ford and GM models were. The reason is because I was looking at cheaper "base" models which had lower output V8s, while the only engine I could get in my SR was the 5.7. The big 3 require you to purchase expensive upgrade packages if you want the "good" engines with the high tow ratings.

FYI, Consumer Reports rates the Tundra 5/5 for reliability. Ford and GM are 2/5. Dodge is 1/5. Resale value isn't close either.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
75 Posts
Wow! Congrats on the Tundra!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
I will say, I JUST got my Tundra, love it. I HAD a 2011 Charger, that developed an engine misfire out of no where. Dealership started throwing parts at it using my wallet to fund the expedition. After reading your post, I am wondering if it comes back to a canbus issue making it difficult to lock down.
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top