10th Apr 2008, 21:03

The comparison between the build quality of the old Tacoma and the old Dakota reminded me of my experience with my Dakota. I was hit head-on by a 10-year-old Tacoma while driving my 5-year-old Dakota. The Tacoma was completely destroyed. It could not even be moved at all and had to be hauled away. Even the frame buckled.

My Dakota had a broken headlight, smashed grille and buckled hood and left fender. It did not have a busted radiator and still started and drove just fine after the crash. I think that's a very strong argument for Dodge's much better build quality and sturdier materials.

I can't imagine that a truck built that much sturdier than a Tacoma would not also be much better off road, though I never took mine off road.

10th Apr 2008, 22:51

11:05 Well, you see, my belief/opinion is not just belief/opinion, it is fact and reality. Apparently you somehow miss the part where I explain how the Dodge fell apart, was inefficient, and is therefore inferior to the Toyota? Not quite sure how you chalk this up as 'opinion' when it is clearly fact.

These things happened; as usual in reality, a Toyota outshone a domestic in every aspect of design and build quality.

I simply gave the Dodge the little credit that it deserved; it ran up to 115,000 miles. So what? That's very few miles, at least to a repeat Toyota owner. Maybe that's impressive for a Dodge, but after owning Toyota's, I don't even blink when 100,000 rolls over. It's nothing.

You know, you prove me right. You said, if someone is looking for a good used car, look to the Toyota. That is absolutely right. If you want something that is older, yet still solid and reliable, stay away from the domestics and look to the imports. Thanks for proving my point.

12th Apr 2008, 06:57

21:03 In a head on collision, your Dodge didn't even have a broken radiator, yet the Tacoma was completely destroyed and immobile with a bent frame? I don't believe it for a second.

Were both trucks stock? Did they sit at the same height?

And another thing, Toyota trucks are nothing less than famous for their off road performance. A Dakota isn't even in the same category off road and isn't even worthy to be compared to any of Toyota's small trucks, on the road, and especially not off the road.

12th Apr 2008, 07:22

The Dodge that was commented upon ran great till 115,000 miles and was totaled. It stands to reason it would have been driven further.

I can highly recommend the Dakota even further. I have over 170,000 on my 2001 Dakota V8 Extended cab company vehicle. The company is keeping company vehicles longer than in the past, but that is dependent on repairs. We have company vehicles and some on car allowances in 2008.

The engine on my vehicle is extremely powerful and it is fun to drive. The suspension is tight; I have recently added oversize street tires which has improved handling.

Since it is not mine I am impartial. I am very impressed overall with the durability and performance with the V8 engine. My coworker with 220,000 miles on his drives his from Delaware to New England; the furthest distance of his territory on a regular basis. We also carry heavy equipment in the rear (has a cap) and these have been ideal vehicles for work.

The only thing I would change is the color (I hate dark green), but that is a minor comment. Again company vehicles you call it as it is... no payment, insurance or gas. If they stink you say it how it is. We zealously maintain vehicles and do not neglect them; overall I have been very impressed.

If I am given a new Tundra at some point as a possibility, it would be interesting to see how it would last in cold northern winters; 150,000 mile plus start stop many times a day. If so I will update on here.

12th Apr 2008, 08:18

22:51... Tundra... Has any other major truck manufacturer ever had to replace an entire motor?

No fully boxed frame, a tailgate that will fold under the weight of an ATV, suspension issues, driveline issues, transmission issues, camshaft issues, only 158 pound-feet of torque at 1500 RPM and more recalls on the horizon.

Sorry I'll pass on all of this... the only Toyota truck I would consider is a very old used one, but definitely nothing current. I don't want an old truck however... so I bought a new GM without these issues to worry about and a far superior warranty.

12th Apr 2008, 10:23

08:18 Toyota replaced the entire engine because of a camshaft defect that had nothing to do with them, or their engineering. By replacing the entire motor, they ensured the customer's piece of mind, whereas GM or Ford would have just taken a brand new motor apart and pieced and patched it back together in a hurry probably causing further issues. Toyota had the decency to do it right.

Maybe if the Big 3 backed up their product in this way, or built a good product in the first place, people wouldn't have been flocking to Toyota and other imports by the many thousands over the past decade.

And don't even try to say that Toyota has had a fraction of as many problems as any of the Big 3, because they absolutely have not.

12th Apr 2008, 11:14

08:18 Well, I hate to tell you, but your new GM, if you keep it, will one day start to fall apart just like GM's always do, and that's to say far sooner than they should. The Toyota you should have bought will continue to run long after that flawlessly, as Toyota's are know to do.

12th Apr 2008, 12:10

Yes, the Tundra is a bit short on quality and reliability. In all fairness, the Tacoma is a very good truck and is rated almost as reliable as the Ford Ranger. However, it is nowhere near as ruggedly built, as no Japanese trucks use the strong frame members domestics use. I've seen a number of accidents involving Japanese trucks (especially smaller models) where they were just totally destroyed by hitting a virtually undamaged domestic car or truck. This doesn't indicate that they are better built. On the contrary, it validates the claims that their structural members are weaker than those used on comparable domestics.

12th Apr 2008, 12:59

With regard to comment 21:03, the collision was a slightly offset hit with the driver's sides being slightly more heavily damaged than the passenger sides.

Both the Tacoma and Dakota were stock two-wheel drives, and sat at approximately the same ride heights.

The front frame rails on the Tacoma buckled sideways, disconnecting the transmission linkage and apparently ripping an engine mount loose, allowing the engine to drop on one side. The Tacoma's radiator DID NOT appear to be busted, as I saw no steam or leaking coolant.

My Dakota sustained sheet metal damage to the driver's side fender and hood, and the grille and driver's side headlight were smashed out. It did, however, start and run just fine and showed no frame warpage whatsoever.

Due to the Dakota's age, and the fact that both air bags had deployed, it was subsequently written off as a total loss and the Tacoma driver's insurance company paid me 66% of the purchase price of a new truck.

I felt sorry for the young driver of the Tacoma, as he had no collision insurance to cover his loss (which, of course, was total as well).