Is the 1G Taco really more reliable than newer trucks?

On the one hand, they're much more basic than newer vehicles, with much less electronic complexity.

But on the other hand, metallurgy and machining have improved, with the newer trucks not having as many issues with frame rot (AFAIK anyway), and also they don't require constant valve adjustments and "tune-ups" since AFAIK they have hydraulic lifters and have no fuel filters to get clogged, etc.

You just don't hear about engines like the 2TR-FE needing head gaskets every 150k or needing to be rebuilt every so often. Seems like 300k isn't even impressive anymore.

Still, I don't know if newer trucks will take the same abuse as the old stuff just because Toyota's were so dead nuts simple back then.

Just for the sake of argument, if they were sold new today would the 1G Taco still be considered ultra-reliable by modern standards? Not saying it wouldn't, this question has just been bothering me lately.

 

Yes the first gen is super reliable

 

I bought mine new in 2004. Besides the normal maintenance...batteries, tires, oil, timing belt etc, it's never had 1 problem in 18 years. Pretty hard to beat that.

 

you only need to adjust the valves every 100k

 

On the 2.7? I’ve heard everywhere from 15k to 200k

 

Yea but is it more reliable than the 2nd and 3rd gens with the 2tr and 2gr I wonder. Not to mention stuff like the Rivian RT-1 (obviously no engine maintenance on that).

It just seems like hardly anyone can be bothered maintaining ICE vehicles anymore except enthusiasts. Everyone just drives until something breaks and maybe does an occasional oil change if they feel like it.

 

It all comes down to what you think is reliable . The best set up would be sell and buy new before the warranty expires .

I think my 86 pick up is even more simple then the 2000 Tacoma.

I can not talk about 2.7 I have never seen any in person

Then I no longer drive over a 1000 miles a week. Now maybe 40 a month.

 

Well I'd say reliable means it functions as it's supposed to for the most amount of time without having to be under the knife for one thing or another.

I think there's a distinction between durability and reliability. For example your 86 will probably take a lot more abuse than a 3rd gen Tacoma, but back in the day vehicles weren't really expected to go more than 150k miles on the original drivetrain. Toyotas often did anyway just because they were overbuilding them so much trying to corner the market.

Also the 22re had issues with oil consumption, timing chains and head gaskets even when they were new(ish). You rarely find a 2TR-FE than has a dead cylinder pr needs an overhaul under 300k, given the same amount of maintenance.

 

I can't say with certainty but I believe the service manual says "check valve clearance " every 35k miles. The design of the 1st gen valvetrain is such that the exhaust valves will tighten over time and burn out. I've had 3 separate 3rz motors (the 2.7) and all 3 were over 200k. 2 of the 3 had burnt valves. I don't know the state of the 3rd motor case the head is still attached to the block but with the low compression in cyl 1, my money is on a burnt valve lol


As to your question, I enjoy the kind of intellectual consideration this sort of question creates....



Hands down no question, the metallurgy and construction is going to be safer on a current truck in an accident. Comparing basic amenities, a 3rd gen is unbelievably more plush than our 1st gen vehicles.

The kicker comes in with customization and longevity. Boiling it down to its most basic components, IMO, our trucks will last longer IF appropriate maintenance is completed. Over the course of history it's been proven, fewer moving parts always equals longer lifespan... with the caveat that moving parts get lubricants and non-moving parts remain torqued tight. I've worked with numerous industrial machines older than WW2 that are just as accurate as the day they were manufactured so long as lubricants were lubricating and rigid parts were solid.

Back to the trucks, same concept applies, with a similar caveat.. because it's older, it needs maintenance more frequently to maintain longevity. Keep up with that maintenance and you'll get an ungodly amount of miles with little effort. Because it's simpler, it's more readily acceptable to customization. The layman is more readily capable of serious modifications with an older vehicle compared to new.




I could continue to go on.... but all that being said, I'd never give up my first gen and will willingly accept discomfort in driving vs modern amenities

 

Maybe makes sense for a Jeep or something? What’s the point of a Toyota if you don’t keep it for a while? Warranty =/= reliability. Under your proposed scheme, you take the depreciation hit over and over again, and never stop making payments.

I drive a Honda and a Toyota (got both used). Haven’t had a payment in over 7 years.

 

Short answer
YES
See below for more

 

Howdy neighbor!

I had a '92 pickup with the 22re, no problems with oil consumption. The timing chains in those were fine, it was the plastic guides that would wear out and sometimes break apart. I changed mine at 130K and the guide was really worn.

Those were super simple vehicles. I have a '77 Celica project car, and the drivetrain is very similar. I think the clutch cylinder is even the same part number, lol. Toyotas get a bad rap for seeming "out of date," but their formula is to try and use common, proven parts and not change a lot at once. Until a completely new platform. Quite a bit changed for the 1st gen Tacoma, but it's still basically the same design at a high level. New engines and drivetrain, coilover front suspension, and slightly larger size were the biggest differences. Another size jump and engine/drivetrain update for the 2nd gen. The 3rd gen really only got some cosmetic changes and a different engine/transmission. And, the amount of electronics has grown year over year. This by itself increases the opportunity for a failure.

As for what is more reliable, a 1st gen with 300K on it or a 3rd gen with 10K on it? Likely the 3rd gen. Both with zero miles? I'd take the 1st gen. But outside of the electronics, I'd say the major parts (engine/drivetrain) throughout the years have similar reliability.

 

If it's not there it can't break, so yes.

 

Sooooo, from a financial perspective, lets say I purchased a 200k+ miles 1st gen for ~$7k, then need to sink an additional $5k (or more) in for repairs due to bad maintenance. Some would say that's stupid and they wouldn't be wrong. Why spend so much money on a truck that you couldn't get a return on your investment on? Well, no vehicle will earn a return on investment. If that sunk money gets it fresh to last at least another 10 years with proper maintenance going forward, I'd argue that its a more sound investment than junking it and financing a new $40k vehicle.

Then again, if a $40k+ 3rd gen is what you want, then that's what you want and nothing wrong with that. Others would rather sink money in a 1st gen to keep it going, and it should do just that for a good while. No one knows the long term reliability of a vehicle until the time has past and we can see if they're still on the road or not.

 

I have only ever had one vehicle payment in 1976 . I have you beat by a few years.

I paid cash for all the others my newest vehicle is my $400.00 2000 Tacoma .

Some people need that peace mind is making payments worth it I sure have no idea.

One person I know buys a new Toyota 4x4 every 3 years even worse trades in to the dealer .

Mechanical things break would not newer have less chance of things breaking .

It comes down to how you define being reliable

 

I agree wholeheartedly on the financial aspect…cars are essentially never a wise “investment”, as they lose value over time. I think the major caveat to driving and maintaining an older vehicle is safety. Improvements in safety tech are proven to save lives.

 

Ha! I was born in 1979…you have me beat by a wide margin. Newer doesn’t always mean less chance of failure. The chances of a defect revealing itself are highest when something as complex as a vehicle is new, however that hurdle is probably cleared after a few years of ownership in many cases.

 

Yea those old pickups had their quirks and flaws, but they were crazy overbuilt for their size. In fact the 1G Tacoma almost seems "underbuilt" by comparison. The frame is way weaker and more prone to rot for one thing. And the front end also holds up a lot better on the Hilux. You don't have to change out ball joints and rack and pinion bushings every 100k on those. Granted the Tacoma is lighter and maybe more fun on trails, but other than the engine and transmissions the quality isn't up there with the Hilux and Land Cruiser. Keep in mind this is from what I've seen and YMMV

That being said I'd buy another single cab first gen in a heartbeat if I could find one with a clean frame. Light weight and short wheelbase are the most important factors for capability on trails IME.

 

I don't disagree with anything you said, but you could make the argument that the higher maintenance needs of the first gen make it less reliable. Toyota was still figuring out some of their quirks with Al heads and Iron blocks, as well as the best head gasket and valvertrain design. And then there were all the vacuum lines and EGR crap on 90s vehicles: probably won't keep it off the road, but still it's annoying.

I mean let's just say you could buy a 96 3RZ or 2014 2TR-FE new from the factory. I wonder which one would have the greater ease of maintenance.

 

It’s worth thinking about how well they age in this discussion too. I think we’re finding a lot of nice older vehicles that were reliable when they were new are aging poorly. For example, vehicles with vacuum actuated hvac blend doors tend to develop expensive leaks over time. I’m really curious how a lot of the newer vehicles will fare with all of their electrically actuated gadgetry. I do know that the crank windows and mechanical cable hvac controls work just as well now as they were when new on mine.