1996 vs 2008

hello,

i am looking at two different used trucks. a 1996 tacoma with a 3.4 v6 180000k miles and a 2008 TRD sport 190000k miles.they are both 5 speed stick shift. i am looking at this truck because I have an off grid property that is reached by a jeep track. there are three tight switch backs and a larger truck would not make the turns. I drove a friends 2001 tacoma 4 cylinder up there and it made it but it was pretty maxed out on power, so that is why I am looking at trucks with a v6. I am looking for insight and opinions. let me know if you need any more info. thank you.

 

Unless there is a significant price difference between the two I would go with the 2008. Much newer vehicle with similar mileage. Both trucks are excellent off-road and supremely reliable. Both proven platforms, but the 2nd gen v6 does have more torque and hp. Main thing to check for with both trucks would be the frame condition. The drivetrains on these vehicles are usually pretty solid.

 

the 1996 is 9,600 comes with an extra set of tires and wheels, though i feel like he is asking too much,idk. the 2008 is 13k but it sounds like the guy is willing to haggle.

 

Again, the frame would be the bigger question. 1st gens (and some second gens) are known to have frame issues.

 

thank you for the insight !

 

1st gen = best gen

I honestly wouldn't look at a particular truck's ability to negotiate 1 or 2 specific tight turns as to which truck is "better". They are entirely different trucks, especially when they're used.

Pick a truck on how well you think it'll make that ONE turn, and that will more than likely compromise performance in some other way that you may not have considered. If I picked a truck based on tight turning radius, I would have a jeep or a Sami.

The 2nd gens are generally bigger (which is one reason I prefer 1st gens), but if I had to ONLY choose between those two, it would more depend on maintenance records of each truck, and their specific condition.

Also, the 08 has MORE miles and is 12 years newer. Do the math, that's almost twice as many miles per year. If that good or bad depends entirely on how well it was cared for.

It's not just a 1st gen and "some" 2nd gen thing. It's any vehicle that lives where they salt the roads. I see 3rd gens with rusty frames.

 

In this case we're not talking about normal rust from the rust belt. We're talking about advanced rusting to the point of needing frames replaced within only a few years because they've been compromised. This is accelerated even more by being in the rust belt. So yes, we are talking about mainly 1st and early 2nd gens which sometimes required frame replacement (or buyback) within only a couple of years of ownership.

The campaign was extended to 2017 models. When I took mine in, I asked them about it. They advised that around 2009 their lot was full of relatively trucks they had to purchase back from customers for this reason. The trucks were then sent to the crusher because it was easier than replacing the frames. They said it has been a long time since they've seen newer Tacomas in need of frame replacement. I have yet to hear of a 3rd gen needing frame replacement from rust. That's not to say it won't happen, but the issue is not the same as it was with the 1st gens and early 2nd gens.

 

Of course the oldest vehicles have the most issues with rust. They've had the most time for rust to take hold and grow. But give it time. When they replaced the 1st gen frames, they gave people the EXACT same frame - in other words they didn't "fix" anything. The 2nd/3rd gen recall proves this as well. I doubt the 4th gens will be any different.

If this were an issue that 's simply "accelerated" by the road brine, then my frame that has had bare metal on the frame for well over a decade would be a pile of scaly rust, and yet there's more surface rust on the scrap metal I left outside in the rain for a few weeks than there is on my frame.


This is CAUSED by the road brine, not accelerated by it.

There's a reason you generally don't see vehicles more than a few years old (that aren't complete rust buckets) in those regions. Ford, Chevy, Honda, everyone has "issues" with swiss cheese metal in the rust belt (or coastal) regions. For some it's the frames, others it's body panels or brake lines, for others it's all of the above. The reason is because it's simply far to expensive to "rust proof" every vehicle sold world wide for an issue that is highly regional.

 

My coworker had a 2020 Silverado with more frame rust than my 2017 Tacoma. You're missing it though. We're not talking about the NORMAL rust caused by living in the rust belt. We're talking about frames that needed REPLACING within only a couple of years and it wasn't exactly uncommon. This being accelerated in the rust belt and still occurred in areas outside of it.

Yes the oldest vehicles have more rust than the newer ones. However this issue didn't come up today, it came up years ago when said older vehicles were only a couple of years old. Toyota began correcting and monitoring the issue over the years and around 2016 they began applying CRC at the factory. My 2017 was one of them as indicated by the dealership when I brought mine in for the campaign inspection. Like they said (and many other threads on here have led me to believe) it has been a while since this was a regular issue on such new vehicles.

 

You are literally the first person I've seen that's claimed the frame replacements happen outside the rust belt. That's just not a thing unless the vehicle spent a good portion of its life in a rust belt area or on the coast.

 

Poor wording on my part. I was referring to rust in general. "This condition is unrelated to and separate from normal surface rust which is commonly found on metallic surfaces after some years of usage and/or exposure to the environment." This quote is directly from the recall campaign paperwork from Toyota.

 

just fyi if the 2nd gen is a TRD Sport with a v6, it should have a 6 speed manual trans not a 5 speed.

I have a hard time believing the 4cyl was maxing out power going up trails unless its loaded down with weight and huge tires...were you in 4lo or 4hi? With the manual trans trucks you really should be in 4lo for most any kind of hill climbing off-road, the gearing just isn't there in 4hi and you can end up with the pedal to floor only going a few MPH/stalling out. You'll have the same thing happen with the v6 if you use 4hi trying to climb up inclines.