2015/2016 New 3rd gen Tacoma Debut in Detriot

[DVexile]

Weight = lighter frame, lighter bumpers, lighter (i.e. softer) rear springs, etc. = less durability. So you swap out the bumpers, box and reinforce the frame to support the bumpers (and heavy stuff we bolt to them), put on heavier springs to support all the stuff in the bed.

Drivetrain efficiency = lighter components, either lower output or more complicated engines, smaller lower rolling resistance tires etc. = light stuff breaks, complicated engines are harder to fix in the middle of nowhere, low output ones can't hual the load, the OEM tires suck so we replace them.

Mostly agree with everything you've said, though you left out the one of the biggest trade-offs of all - cost. They need to make a truck that will be competitive in the market place. Many of the trade-offs you've outlined above can be improved with the addition of more money. You can make a very efficient, strong and reliable drive train but it will cost you. There are many things that are as strong as but much lighter than steel, but they also cost a whole heck of a lot more than steel.

Consider suspensions, we can spend a lot on a suspension that will greatly improve ride and capability but it will just cost a lot more. The only reason the OEM didn't do this is cost.

Consider after market bumpers, we can put aluminum front and rear bumpers on that weigh just a little more than stock but a whole lot less than the steel versions with 75% of the strength but nearly double the cost.

So really money is often the third variable in all of these trade-offs. One reason we often modify quite a bit from stock, for expedition vehicles there is the desire to trade more performance for more money. Certainly in some cases the trade also effects fuel efficiency, but again even in many of those cases for the exchange of even more money you can retain the fuel efficiency (e.g. aluminum or CF vs. steel).

Lastly, I honestly do not buy the "less reliable engine" or "harder to work on in the field engine" trade off. Anything made within the past twenty years is EFI and totally dependent on an ECU to do anything. And these modern efficient engines are vastly more reliable than the gas guzzlers of the past, both on road and off road. Incremental improvements to MPG by using variable valve timing, direct injection, etc. etc. etc. is essentially a "free lunch" of improved efficiency and reliability at the same time. I've never seen someone do a top end overhaul on the trail after all

I completely agree though, it is a truck, and given it is going to be weighed down and modified quite a bit for off road use with a heavy load my buying decision is not going to be swayed by 20 vs 22 mpg highway!

 

[DaveInDenver]

You mention cost and it's interesting. I was looking at the rate of inflation and what my truck would have cost new in 1991. It's a DLX Pickup, XtraCab, 22R-E, 5-speed, 4WD. Originally came with 225/75R15 Dunlops on steel rims, AM/FM radio, 60/40 split bench, no A/C. I believe it was about $17,000, which would in 2014 money be about $28,500. Assuming a SR5, V6 with power windows, buckets and all of it might have been $21,000 that works out to about $35,000 in today's dollar.

Point is, I don't think Toyota necessarily charges too much. Maybe there's a little bit of an increase in premium, but Toyotas have never been bargain basement priced. That's why Suzuki, Hyundai, etc. ever gained a foothold. They replaced what Toyota and Honda were in the 1960s, cheap imports. As the Japanese brands popularity rose, generally due to reliability and value, their pricing did, too. By the late 1980s Toyota was legendary.

The problem in my view is that what made a Toyota worth the extra money has slowly been declining. I still think they are the best made trucks, but it's not quite as distinct anymore. They have gained a lot of fat and lost a fair amount of their bulletproof nature. A 2nd and 3rd gen Pickup came with a 1-ton frame (at least according to Australian and Japanese road authorities), a very nice 5-speed (either the G-series or W-series) and generally were overbuilt for mini truck and repairable when they did break and wear out.

 

[Clutch]

How great it would be to have leather seats so my pickup truck was more like a BMW 5 series! So glad new trucks don't have all those confusing sticks everywhere, it would distract from Pandora surfing.

Thought it was pretty sad the guy posting about coming off a BMW into a Tacoma, and comparing how similar they are...

...and can't help but think how much I like what Icon is doing.

 

[drsmonkey]

Mostly agree with everything you've said, though you left out the one of the biggest trade-offs of all - cost. They need to make a truck that will be competitive in the market place. Many of the trade-offs you've outlined above can be improved with the addition of more money. You can make a very efficient, strong and reliable drive train but it will cost you. There are many things that are as strong as but much lighter than steel, but they also cost a whole heck of a lot more than steel.

Consider suspensions, we can spend a lot on a suspension that will greatly improve ride and capability but it will just cost a lot more. The only reason the OEM didn't do this is cost.

Consider after market bumpers, we can put aluminum front and rear bumpers on that weigh just a little more than stock but a whole lot less than the steel versions with 75% of the strength but nearly double the cost.

So really money is often the third variable in all of these trade-offs. One reason we often modify quite a bit from stock, for expedition vehicles there is the desire to trade more performance for more money. Certainly in some cases the trade also effects fuel efficiency, but again even in many of those cases for the exchange of even more money you can retain the fuel efficiency (e.g. aluminum or CF vs. steel).

Lastly, I honestly do not buy the "less reliable engine" or "harder to work on in the field engine" trade off. Anything made within the past twenty years is EFI and totally dependent on an ECU to do anything. And these modern efficient engines are vastly more reliable than the gas guzzlers of the past, both on road and off road. Incremental improvements to MPG by using variable valve timing, direct injection, etc. etc. etc. is essentially a "free lunch" of improved efficiency and reliability at the same time. I've never seen someone do a top end overhaul on the trail after all

I completely agree though, it is a truck, and given it is going to be weighed down and modified quite a bit for off road use with a heavy load my buying decision is not going to be swayed by 20 vs 22 mpg highway!

Very good point, didn't think of it because like most I am trapped in my own financial situation. Given unlimited time and money...the things I could do.

Two things that come to mind though. The first is the energy cost of manufacturing. Lifetime energy costs are complicated and rarely considered, but are nice for justifying either driving an old low mileage truck, or buying a new high mileage one. More pertinent here is the energy involved in building the OEM parts, then turning around and replacing them with lightweight parts for mpg. Typically those AL, composite, and titanium parts have a much higher energy input for manufacture. Can't accurately say if the energy cost is ever recouped, but if savings at the pump are an indication...

20-22mpg will not sway mine, or most others here decision either, but 20-30mpg would. Especially when you consider drop in mpg under load. I have driven a lot of 3/4 and 1 ton trucks and vans under many loads, and my gut feeling is that the more powerful the engine (and lower mpg) the less the drop in mpg when loaded down.

I just bought a new Tacoma TRD OR. Once I am done with it I will be luck to get 16-18mpg, and that is fine with me. The problem I have is that my range goes down from barely 400miles to barely 360. Those numbers are from full to dry, in reality I don't like to ever be below 1/4 tank. None of the available options for extending range are very convenient. I hate messing around with external gas tanks, and a custom expanded tank is rare, expensive, and complicated, aux tanks as well.

If a 30mpg diesel was available for the US market it would solve my problems. Weigh it down and percent wise the drop in mpg is less. Range might go from 600miles to 400miles on a 20g tank.

I also don't ever worry about gas price fluctuations. I have to drive almost 25 (of the most beautiful) miles to work, and 25 back. I am going to buy gas, public transportation, carpooling, etc. is not an option. People always whine about gas prices, but always buy gas anyways. My philosophy is that it is what it is, and in US it is cheaper than it should be, so why worry?

On the flip side, manufacturers finally are starting to make vehicles with lower mpg available in the US. This current drop in gas rices has me worried that the average consumer is going to go back to the bigger is better mindset. The few available efficient vehicles will disappear again in the US despite the CAFE requirements. Lets not go into politics though.

 

[DVexile]

Very good point, didn't think of it because like most I am trapped in my own financial situation. Given unlimited time and money...the things I could do.

Yep, and the manufacturers are essentially trapped as well - there is a price that will sell and a price that is just too much for the market.

Two things that come to mind though. The first is the energy cost of manufacturing. Lifetime energy costs are complicated and rarely considered, but are nice for justifying either driving an old low mileage truck, or buying a new high mileage one. More pertinent here is the energy involved in building the OEM parts, then turning around and replacing them with lightweight parts for mpg. Typically those AL, composite, and titanium parts have a much higher energy input for manufacture. Can't accurately say if the energy cost is ever recouped, but if savings at the pump are an indication...

Careful! You are trying to inject rational logic into emissions regulations! Remember the most popular and "successful" recent "environmental" program for autos was the cash-for-clunkers thing in which perfectly working vehicles with hundreds of thousands of miles of service life left were crushed and then stimulus was paid out to buy brand new vehicles with all the associated manufacturing impacts.

20-22mpg will not sway mine, or most others here decision either, but 20-30mpg would. Especially when you consider drop in mpg under load. I have driven a lot of 3/4 and 1 ton trucks and vans under many loads, and my gut feeling is that the more powerful the engine (and lower mpg) the less the drop in mpg when loaded down.

This is the thing recently that is getting more interesting. With all the various technique for essentially adjusting the volume of the engine on the fly (variable valve timing, disabling cylinders and such) we are getting to engines that can have a pretty wide range of efficient load handling. Of course a bigger truck is going just have more gross mass and more mass in the drive train which sets an upper limit. But you can have a large volume engine with high torque and horsepower but not pay as much penalty at the pump when running light.

I just bought a new Tacoma TRD OR. Once I am done with it I will be luck to get 16-18mpg, and that is fine with me. The problem I have is that my range goes down from barely 400miles to barely 360. Those numbers are from full to dry, in reality I don't like to ever be below 1/4 tank. None of the available options for extending range are very convenient. I hate messing around with external gas tanks, and a custom expanded tank is rare, expensive, and complicated, aux tanks as well.

Probably getting my new TRD OR in the next few months myself (got a 1992 22RE at the moment). I've decided to use two Scepter 20L (5 gal) tanks for water and they are the same size as the fuel tanks. So I'll probably go with a single 20L fuel can which for 90% of my trips will just be empty. When I do use something like that I get it into the main tank as soon as I can.

On the flip side, manufacturers finally are starting to make vehicles with lower mpg available in the US. This current drop in gas rices has me worried that the average consumer is going to go back to the bigger is better mindset. The few available efficient vehicles will disappear again in the US despite the CAFE requirements. Lets not go into politics though.

So it is interesting, I just read an article on Europe vs. US vehicle efficiency. Certainly more people drive efficient cars in Europe and so of course there are more options too. But it also turns out that the efficiency testing in Europe is rather bogus (they can test with vehicles that are in special tuned configurations that do not have any resemblance to what is actually sold to consumers). Many of the super high mileage vehicles in Europe that people lust over in fact do not have anywhere near as high an MPG rating when tested to US standards. The new CAFE standards are very challenging to achieve and you can't cheat them the way they do in Europe so I suspect in the next decade we will see at least as efficient if not more efficient vehicles in the US than in Europe.

Anyway, I've dragged the thread way off topic now.

Cheers!

 

[JeffRRC]

I think the red Ford looks better than the new Taco!

 

[Clutch]

People should stop writing about their desire for a transfer case lever, a Diesel engine, and vinyl floors...

Every thread about a new truck on this board since inception is the SAME THING. Get a new take.

Regarding the pictures of the tacoma, I like it, although it's hard to get passed the ugly blue and those wheels.

I kinda like that blue, wrap some 285's around those rims they wouldn't be too bad.

Wouldn't a diesel engine be a "new take" on the Tacoma?

Might even give up my manny trans if they offered paddle shifters.

I could care less about the oil burner, and I can live with out a manual t-case. Vinyl flooring would be nice...since I actually use my truck...and get it dirty.
Thanks to another member alerting me, it was an option for a short stint. IIRC up to 2013. Betcha you can still order it.

 

[thebwlife]

I personally think CNG/LNG is going to take off in the near future, as I don't think the hybrid tech isn't making enough advancement.

My trail rig is a 5th gen 4Runner but my daily driver is a 2013 CNG Bi-Fuel Tahoe

 

[PaintRock]

That Taco sure makes me want a new 4Runner...

 

[Larry]

That Taco sure makes me want a new 4Runner...

x2

 

[Clutch]

x2

I dunno some days I like it, other days I don't.

In Blue it isn't bad.

 

[plainjaneFJC]

MSN Autos is saying the Tacoma is going to have a new 3.5 V6. Has this been discussed?

 

[Clutch]

MSN Autos is saying the Tacoma is going to have a new 3.5 V6. Has this been discussed?

It has been a little on Tacoma World.

Wild speculation is saying the 2.0L Turbo too, for some reason I doubt it. (Would cool if it did)

One interior pictured popped up.

Some photoshopped versions.

 

[Willman]

Photoshop is an art! That looks better! Those wheels are nice.

 

[Clutch]

Photoshop is an art! That looks better! Those wheels are nice.

I am diggin' this version. It is growing on me...