Welcome back! Today we’re looking at two vehicles that don’t have much in common except similar prices and similar odometer readings. Which one has enough life left in it to be worth it? That will be up to you.
We started this short week out yesterday with a pair of front-wheel-drive V6s, and I knew from the start it wasn’t a particularly fair comparison. Wagons and manuals both pull in lots of votes, and when you combine them into one car, whatever else is there doesn’t have much of a chance.
I’m kind of torn, myself. The Passat wagon would undoubtedly be the better car to drive, but it’s about one era of VW too new to be of any interest to me. I’d rather have a Quantum Syncro wagon than an early Passat. The Eagle Premier is a more intriguing car, but I imagine it’s not very exciting to drive. So for a conversation piece, I’d take the Premier, but for a toy that can double as a weekend stuff hauler, the VW wins.
We’ve looked at a lot of clean, low-mileage cars in the past on here, but the prevailing wisdom is that a car can have too few miles on it. Parts age, whether they’re in use or not, and a car that has been sitting around doing nothing is less likely to have had its maintenance kept up. High miles mean that someone used the hell out of a car, but also that they did what was needed to put those miles there, or else it wouldn’t still be running. These two fall into that category; let’s check them out.
2003 Toyota Tundra – $3,900
Engine/drivetrain: 3.4-liter dual overhead cam V6, five-speed manual, RWD
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Odometer reading: 238,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives great
Toyota conquered the small truck market in America by building nearly-indestructible little beasts of burden, but the full-size truck market was still dominated by American brands. Toyota’s first attempt to crack into that market was the almost-full-size T100, which sold well to Toyota fans but hardly put a dent in Ford, Chevy, and Dodge’s bottom lines. Its second attempt, the Tundra, has had more of an impact, but it’s still not nearly as common as its competitors, especially in long-bed work-truck form like this.
This is a base-model Tundra, with a single cab, a bench seat, and a 3.4 liter V6 engine mated to a five-speed manual. This engine has a good reputation for reliability and durability, like many Toyota engines, and it’s no surprise that this one runs like a top at well over 200,000 miles. It has a new clutch, and the air conditioning works, always a nice bonus on an old work truck like this.
Most Tundras you see are either extended-cab or crew-cab trucks, with shortened beds to make room for extra passenger capacity. But this one has a full eight-foot-long bed, just like other full-size trucks. The ability to carry standard 4×8 foot sheets of building materials may not seem important – unless you’ve ever needed to do it. Being able to close the tailgate with a stack of plywood or sheetrock in the bed is a really useful trick.
Someone, somewhere along the way, went to a lot of trouble (and expense) to apply those flames to this truck; they’re painted on. And on the side where they’re intact, they look pretty cool. Sadly, parts of them have been obliterated by a rattle-can repair job. My guess is that this truck started out as someone’s toy, then got pressed into service as a work vehicle by a second or third owner, and the damage just piled on.
2009 Mazda 3 Grand Touring – $3,700
Engine/drivetrain: 2.3-liter dual overhead cam inline 4, five-speed manual, FWD
Location: San Francisco, CA
Odometer reading: 237,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives great
The Mazda 3 (I can’t bring myself to type it as “Mazda3” with no space; it looks wrong) was the replacement for the 323/Familia/Protege range and a continuation of the blurring of lines between Mazda and Ford’s small cars. Honestly, I can’t keep who designed what straight, but I suppose it doesn’t really matter. It’s a good little car, and that’s enough for our purposes here.
This is the fancy “Grand Touring” version of the 3, powered by a 2.3-liter version of Mazda’s MZR four-cylinder, which was called the Duratec by Ford. It’s a durable and reliable engine; this one with 237,000 miles on it is not at all uncommon. We don’t get a whole lot of details about its condition beyond “runs excellent” and “passed smog,” but that’s a good place to start.
It has a pretty flashy interior for a 3, with heated leather seats and a bunch of other toys. There’s a cheap seat cover on the driver’s seat; with this many miles, I imagine it’s pretty worn under there. The rest of the interior looks good, though; my guess is that this car was used for commuting almost exclusively, so only one seat was ever really used.
And it’s a hatchback, which is the good-looking variant of the 3. The sedan was always a little gawky-looking. It’s nice and clean outside, and since it’s a California car, I wouldn’t expect the rust troubles that plague Mazdas in other climates.
Both vehicles have good reputations for lasting a long time, but nothing lasts forever. I think, and I imagine at least some of you will agree, that the asking prices are a little steep for cars with such high mileage. But as I have said before, I don’t set the prices; I just report ’em. Just for fun, though, let’s play a little game in the comments. Pick the vehicle you want, and post your best offer for it, based on its condition.
(Image credits: Craigslist sellers)
Years ago, I had the pleasure of running a number of Mazda3s on the track at Skip Barber (RIP) … and they were cracking little cars, eager and fun to drive.
For that, we’ll take the 3.
I like that adjective, cracking. Reminds me of Wallace and Gromit.
I’m way too un-interesting to opt for that particular truck, so give me the useful commuter.
Mazda3 because of its wagon-like structure…but I found it completely authentic that an old, beat up Toyota Tundra from LA had a bottle of Perrier sparkling water in the Groin Puncher section of the truck.
I would love to find a Cheap, in good condition Truck like this.. The Mazda is excellent, but I have a 2013 in the driveway.
Nice, we really liked having one. Does yours have an issue shifting from 2nd to 3rd where the throttle hangs a little, making it hard to get into 3rd? Our 2007 did, and it ate the 3rd gear syncros. (Also had the stuck-rings oil consumption issue, but some snakeoil seemed to fix that.)
I am not noticing that it has any issues, but of course, I don’t drive it often. It’s the car my wife drives, and my Son took to college. It’s only has about 105K on it. It’s going to need brakes again and some suspension work likely, but wife doesn’t want another car payment, so we’ll likely keep it.
It runs and has modern crash safety, why replace it? Brakes should be super easy.
How’d you fix the stuck rings oil consumption issue? I’ve got a 2009 MZ5 with the 2.3L engine, and that thing burns oil…
Auto-RX. I ordered a 3-pack but only used 2 bottles. Oil consumption got a lot better, but I sold the car right after that.
Not sure what to do with the third bottle, I don’t have a squeaky snake.
Thanks
Truck over a car any day.
I love that era of Mazda and how well they drive but there are already 2 hatchbacks in my driveway and I’d actually use the truck for truck things so it gets my vote.
I was all set to go for the Tundra, but that 3 is just so clean, they’re all Rust holes with wheels on em here in the rustbelt. I always really liked this generation, leased a 2010 for a few years and was very happy with it; plus its cheaper so that’s where my money goes.
I could use the truck in my unpaid position as general gopher and maintenance man for my wife’s store. 2.5k cash. That’s 2k plus 500 in Toyota tax imo.
I’ll take the Mazda3 for $2700, Ken.
I’d take the Tundra, do a rattle can paint job, and sell it for double back here in the rust belt.
As someone who daily drives a current-gen manual Mazda 3, it gets my vote hands down. Mazda’s 4 cylinders and manual transmissions have been some of the best in the business for years now.
Although the Mazda is nice, those things are rust magnets so the flamey Tundra gets my vote.
I like both of these, but that Tundra is a great deal. I would consider it if it was on my side of the country.
Gimme that Tundra and I’ll find all kinds of uses for it. I already have a Mazda hatchback, and fitting 8 foot long materials in it requires some questionable loading practices.
I’m kinda sorta in the market for an old man pickup just like the Tundra, so it gets my vote!
Little known fact, but the Mazda 3 can haul 45 cases of liquor in it.
This particular Tundra is a wee bit too trashy for me. Though based on anecdotal evidence, they rot out before anything mechanical kills them. It probably has a lot of life left in it, but alas, I’ll take the good to go Mazda. I’ve always wanted a 3 hatch, but somehow I never ended up in one.
This is also the best generation of all the 3’s. The second gen doesn’t look as good (though I’m not a hater of the smiley Mazdas like many are), and the interior got cheapened. The third is also a winner, but I prefer the more practical-looking proportions of the first.
My neighbor had a similar ’03 Tundra, and Toyota replaced the frame at no cost to him under that corrosion program. He told me the job costed out @ 13K.
Corrosion issues aside, I’ve always like the T-100 and Gen 1 Tundras. I’m looking at a 2018 Tundra right now, but @ 13 MPG city and almost 30K price (118K miles) I’m just a little hesitant.
The fact that the truck has a bottle of Perrier tucked in there adds some class to it. Makes me think less work truck and more failing artist truck.
Just got another dog, or would maybe have voted Toyota. But even with a bench seat the Tundra may be too small to transport the mutts.
Always liked the Mazda3.
And it looks pretty decent, and newer.
Mazda for the win here.
Having put 96k miles on a similar 06 Mazda3, I can tell you the Ford influence made itself known, but it was overall a well made vehicle. The front engine mount (#3 I think) is prone to failure, so I’d check that out, as well as the suspension condition.
Fold the rear seat down and it’d make a good second vehicle for hauling my muddy bike around.
Need me a sheetrock and junk hauler. Eight foot bed seals the deal.
That Mazda 3 is a nice looking package. And I already know how to work on it since I own a 2010 Mazda 5. The 5’s 2.3L engine has 165k on the clock and I’ve had to do nothing to it except oil changes. However, it eats steering, suspension and brake components. I’ve had to replace that stuff 2 or 3 times already. I suspect the 5 uses a lot of the same parts as the 3 but should have been beefed up for the larger vehicle. It doesn’t help that we load it pretty hard with our family of 5 and large dog.
Fellow MZ5 owner (2009), can confirm, mine is also hard on suspension & tires.
Mazda. If the Tundra was a bit less beat up I might consider it, but I had a friend with a nearly identical Mazda3 and it was a nice, utilitarian car that was also pretty fun to drive, so it wins by default for me.
I’ll take the 3 especially as it’s the pre-ugly version. Don’t like the redesign with the wonky back. Nothing wrong with little windows instead of a weird solid back pillar design feature that I can’t remember the name. Sorry Adrian.
I would barely fit in that truck, and certainly wouldn’t be comfortable for more than a quick trip. Needs extra-cab.
Are you 7 feet tall then? My dad had a first gen Tundra and they are the same size inside and out as a F-150 of that era. I don’t think you would have a problem fitting in it.
Nope. The first regular-cab that was comfortable was the late 90’s Ford blob trucks, because they have 6-12 inches of extra length on the back of the cab. This Toyota doesn’t have much of anything behind the seat.
Not far enough back + not reclined enough = uncomfortable.