Toyota tough.......not

Got to say it does not matter what brand you have, if you don't take care of them you have what we see here.

I just happen to own one of those indestructible Toyota diesel pickups that Top Gear tried to kill and failed. It's an '84, makes the yellow one at the beginning of this thread look pristine and it gets driven almost daily. Bed is rotting away, frame has scab plates in areas because the frame is boxed and rusts from the inside out and until the frame rot was noticed, I had no problems hooking up a 5000 lb trailer to it and going wherever I needed to go. 21 lbs of boost gives it plenty of hp/torque to go down the road and a brake controller helps get everything stopped. Empty, I pulled Vail Pass (11,000 feet) in Colorado at 70 mph. Great little trucks, dirt simple and after 270,000 miles, still 100% reliable. Just did a 1400 mile road trip last week. But I sure do get a lot grief from co-workers for driving such a clapped out truck. I think this is it's last summer before I pull the engine and put it in something else.

Adam

ol' grouch wrote:

RobertRyan wrote:

Valhalla360 wrote:
My take: the driving force was likely the MPG and range of a small diesel not that the toyota was intrinsically more capable. Dodge just came out with thier small diesel for a 1/2 ton, so there were no comparable.

A big 1 ton, long bed 4 door is a lousy off road vehicle but makes a real nice tow vehilce which is much more relevant to this site

Actually would be very wrong, basically Toyota is extremely reliable, yes the small diesel is FE, it is more capable. That is why it sells roughly 650-700,000 Hiluxes outside NA, take out Europe generally as a market they sell very few Pickups there.
Dodge is now Ram and the basic payload is terrible for the VMotori 3litre diesel
Right US 1 tons are terrible Off Road, I/2 tons not much better

My 2001 Ram 2500 can handle 1 ton loads just fine as it has the heavy duty chassis. It's also been great off road for the last 5 years I've owned it. I don't really need roads, just areas without big trees. However, Chrysler Corp. did wimp the trucks out after 2002. My truck was also a commercial farm truck originally. I've also got a 1997 F-250 diesel witch rides like a Cadillac compared with the dodge. It also gets twice the fuel mileage.

These handle 1tonne (2,200lb) loads just fine, but they are vastly more capable Off Road, so I agree with Valhalla on that score.
From an Australian Road Test

RobertRyan wrote:

Valhalla360 wrote:
My take: the driving force was likely the MPG and range of a small diesel not that the toyota was intrinsically more capable. Dodge just came out with thier small diesel for a 1/2 ton, so there were no comparable.

A big 1 ton, long bed 4 door is a lousy off road vehicle but makes a real nice tow vehilce which is much more relevant to this site

Actually would be very wrong, basically Toyota is extremely reliable, yes the small diesel is FE, it is more capable. That is why it sells roughly 650-700,000 Hiluxes outside NA, take out Europe generally as a market they sell very few Pickups there.
Dodge is now Ram and the basic payload is terrible for the VMotori 3litre diesel
Right US 1 tons are terrible Off Road, I/2 tons not much better

My 2001 Ram 2500 can handle 1 ton loads just fine as it has the heavy duty chassis. It's also been great off road for the last 5 years I've owned it. I don't really need roads, just areas without big trees. However, Chrysler Corp. did wimp the trucks out after 2002. My truck was also a commercial farm truck originally. I've also got a 1997 F-250 diesel witch rides like a Cadillac compared with the dodge. It also gets twice the fuel mileage.

Valhalla360 wrote:
My take: the driving force was likely the MPG and range of a small diesel not that the toyota was intrinsically more capable. Dodge just came out with thier small diesel for a 1/2 ton, so there were no comparable.

A big 1 ton, long bed 4 door is a lousy off road vehicle but makes a real nice tow vehilce which is much more relevant to this site

Actually would be very wrong, basically Toyota is extremely reliable, yes the small diesel is FE, it is more capable. That is why it sells roughly 650-700,000 Hiluxes outside NA, take out Europe generally as a market they sell very few Pickups there.
Dodge is now Ram and the basic payload is terrible for the VMotori 3litre diesel
Right US 1 tons are terrible Off Road, I/2 tons not much better

RobertRyan wrote:

valhalla360 wrote:

RobertRyan wrote:
Vehicle of choice crossing the Artic and just recently the Antartic, which is colder

And it has absolutely nothing to do with a stock truck.

With the amount of work they put into it, you could take an old Yugo and do the same thing.

No. but they had the option of choosing a U.S. HD Pickup or the Hilux, Hilux won out easily for the expedition

Their version of an F350

Why Not Use a Full-Size Pickup?
Grimsson said Arctic looked at larger trucks, but larger vehicles would need still bigger tires to get the flotation needed. Plus, trucks like the Ford F-150, which Arctic considered, don't come with a diesel engine. This creates a logistical problem since there are limited places to get gasoline.

Another factor working against newer vehicles is testing them at extreme temperatures. With a new Ford pickup, for example, Arctic would have to start with shorter routes that have support stations in case things break. These routes would also need air-support options to have parts delivered.

Finally, since Arctic has lots of experience with the Hilux it has a collection of spare parts to fix things on the go. Instead of going larger, Arctic created a 6x6 Hilux to handle Iceland's and Antarctica's challenging terrain and conditions.

Pickup Trucks .com Artic Trucks

My take: the driving force was likely the MPG and range of a small diesel not that the toyota was intrinsically more capable. Dodge just came out with thier small diesel for a 1/2 ton, so there were no comparable.

A big 1 ton, long bed 4 door is a lousy off road vehicle but makes a real nice tow vehilce which is much more relevant to this site.

RinconVTR wrote:

Hannibal wrote:
Thirty year old Toyota with a NY tag still running? That speaks pretty highly of Toyota.

Absolutely. I think this post backfired on the OP!

Agree!! A 30 yr old truck still being driven and from "up north" in the snow and salt? Heck, he just made a great commercial for Toyota....making fun of someone's truck and it may be the only vehicle they have to get around in...sad..

valhalla360 wrote:

RobertRyan wrote:
Vehicle of choice crossing the Artic and just recently the Antartic, which is colder

And it has absolutely nothing to do with a stock truck.

With the amount of work they put into it, you could take an old Yugo and do the same thing.

No. but they had the option of choosing a U.S. HD Pickup or the Hilux, Hilux won out easily for the expedition

Their version of an F350

Why Not Use a Full-Size Pickup?
Grimsson said Arctic looked at larger trucks, but larger vehicles would need still bigger tires to get the flotation needed. Plus, trucks like the Ford F-150, which Arctic considered, don't come with a diesel engine. This creates a logistical problem since there are limited places to get gasoline.

Another factor working against newer vehicles is testing them at extreme temperatures. With a new Ford pickup, for example, Arctic would have to start with shorter routes that have support stations in case things break. These routes would also need air-support options to have parts delivered.

Finally, since Arctic has lots of experience with the Hilux it has a collection of spare parts to fix things on the go. Instead of going larger, Arctic created a 6x6 Hilux to handle Iceland's and Antarctica's challenging terrain and conditions.

Pickup Trucks .com Artic Trucks

RobertRyan wrote:
Vehicle of choice crossing the Artic and just recently the Antartic, which is colder

And it has absolutely nothing to do with a stock truck.

With the amount of work they put into it, you could take an old Yugo and do the same thing.

Vehicle of choice crossing the Artic and just recently the Antartic, which is colder