95.5-2004 Tacomas & 96-2002 4Runners 4th gen pickups and 3rd gen 4Runners

1999 Taco Prospective Purchase: MT vs AT

Old Jan 31, 2023 | 09:19 AM
  #1  
thook's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,656
Likes: 16
From: NW Ark on wooded ten acres...Ozarks at large!
1999 Taco Prospective Purchase: MT vs AT

I've been looking for used Tacos and ran across a '99 with virtually all I'm looking for in a small work truck. However, I've never owned a Toyota truck this generation. It has the 2.7L with an auto tranny. How does it compare to the 5spd MT in terms of performance/gearing, fuel economy, and reliability? Thanks!!!
Reply
Old Jan 31, 2023 | 11:44 AM
  #2  
fierohink's Avatar
Registered User
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,436
Likes: 95
From: Frederick, MD
If given the opportunity, I would always pick the manual transmission. I tow a lot, and a lot of times I tow HEAVY stuff. I like having direct hearing instead of hydraulic couplings.
Reply
Old Jan 31, 2023 | 11:51 AM
  #3  
83's Avatar
83
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 4,591
Likes: 126
From: Montana
Sometimes, especially with old used trucks, you've got to take what you can get. My ideal would be exactly what I've got: 3.4L with a manual tranny. But I'd be willing to settle for about anything in good shape and well maintained, depending on what I'm going to use it for. Like fierohink says, if you're going to tow, you're going want the 3.4, and the manual tranny is sure nice.
Reply
Old Feb 1, 2023 | 07:26 AM
  #4  
thook's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,656
Likes: 16
From: NW Ark on wooded ten acres...Ozarks at large!
I already have 5.9L Dodge Ram for heavy towing. But, it sucks on gas, so it's all gets used for. My bigger focal point with getting a Tacoma is overall fuel economy, really, and the option to occasionally tow..... hence leaning towards the 2.7L. And, that '99 is super nice with a custom/one-off camper shell. But, I do wonder also about the AT. For instance, I drove a '92 4runner with an A340H for a lot of years. It kinda sucked in that it had a hard time with staying in 4th gear even unloaded. Seemed kind of tall. Moreover, the drop down from 4th to 3rd was quite abrupt even on mild hills and didn't use cruise control very much because of that. I just wondered if the AT's in these 2.7L Tacomas might be like that. (Then again, maybe the 3vze was just simply underpowered...haha)

Keeping options open, I'm also looking at '97 Tacoma regular cab with 3.4L and 5spd. It's in a little rougher shape and no camper shell, but it's half the price of that '99. I'm told the mpg's are less than 20 avg., so that's a bit of a deterrent

Last edited by thook; Feb 1, 2023 at 11:09 AM.
Reply
Old Feb 2, 2023 | 11:38 AM
  #5  
83's Avatar
83
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 4,591
Likes: 126
From: Montana
Sorry I've got zero experience with auto trannys.

The 3.0 was definitely underpowered.

Yes, the gas mileage is underwhelming on all these trucks. I've never done better than 19mpg highway.
Reply
Old Feb 12, 2023 | 05:56 AM
  #6  
Old83@pincher's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 221
Likes: 37
From: Where Prairie meets Mountians
Well I may be a day or two late here but my experience with the 2.7 and 5sp MT is that you'll be disappointed with the performance of the AT with that engine. My guess is it would be hunting for the right gear quite a bit in hilly terrain.

Manual mileage is about 25mpg imperial (about 21 US). I've had as high as 28mpg imperial (23US) and as low as 18mpg imperial (15 US).
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
dgb9902
95.5-2004 Tacomas & 96-2002 4Runners
3
May 25, 2005 03:38 PM
Ilovemountains
95.5-2004 Tacomas & 96-2002 4Runners
1
Oct 1, 2004 05:43 PM
goldnrod24
95.5-2004 Tacomas & 96-2002 4Runners
5
Aug 24, 2004 09:53 AM
BrainyBlonde
95.5-2004 Tacomas & 96-2002 4Runners
25
Sep 17, 2003 07:30 PM


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:51 AM.