First Drive Tacoma SR5 Test Drive
- Thread starter Beninbeta
- Start date
Good video. I especially like the hill test and your comments on powertrain. When I drove it, I thought the base powertrain was going to be fine for a lot of people and MUCH better than the prior-gen. I have to admit I've been surprised at the "underpowered" comments I keep seeing. I'm like, underpowered?? Did you drive the prior gen? That was a dud! LOL
Beninbeta
Well-known member
Thanks Tim! I think an interesting video for you might be what's enough power? 100000 hp every car can do 0-60 in 1.5 secs? Every manufacturer can't have the most hp/torque, payload, towing.... It's about what you need, want, and spec wars are not winnable.
I've come to the conclusion some commenters want to pay midsize truck prices ($40k) for a full-size truck space with the fuel economy and towing power of a diesel and the acceleration of an EV. Basically, yeah, a unicorn.
Beninbeta
Well-known member
I agree! I think part of this issue is the drastic increase in vehicle prices in that last 3-4 years. It's hitting people pretty hard and that is unfortunate. So people expect more for the additional money. On the other side of the coin, using the Taco as an example. The Gen 3 Safety features included on the Toyotas are expensive, and something people don't think about or place as much value on. But they are quite good on the new Taco. In all of the other trucks I've driven, those features are not quite as good, and often require you to buy a much more expensive package.
Not me. I want a pretty basic truck with heated seats/wheel, some good towing features, and a powerful engine. Basically a cheaper "volume seller" truck with a good motor for towing. But manufacturers are happy to bankrupt you if you want the good engine.
Why can't I get a diesel in a Chevy LT? Why can't I get a 6.2 in an LT? Why couldn't I get an EcoDiesel in a Big Horn? Why can't I get a H/O in a new Big Horn?
And on an on.
(Canadian, availability might be somewhat different in US)
I've made the underpowered comment because compared to the Colorado/Canyon it's significantly down on power while being noisier and more expensive.
Beninbeta
Well-known member
In the past 6-8 months I have driven
- 23 Frontier
- 23 Ford Ranger
- 23 Tacoma
- 23 Chevy Colorado
- 23 GMC Canyon
- 23 Jeep Gladiator
- 24 Toyota Tacoma
Fightnfire
Moderator
That's where I have been coming from as well. A lot of reviewers are comparing it to the 3rd gen which was a known disaster, a miss, of a drivetrain. Go back to the second gen Tacoma's 4.0 V6, that's where the real comparison should be. A 2012 Tacoma could do 0-60 in 6.9 seconds. The best number I've seen on camera for the 2024 is 8.1ish, Texas Trucks said they got 7.5 off camera. In the TFL video the base colorado, slowed down on a lift and bigger tires, walked away easily from the 2024 Tacoma.
I get the argument that "I don't need the fastest 0-60 in a truck." I don't really disagree in theory with that notion. But it strikes a similar chord when talking about MPG and you get the "If you care about MPG you shouldn't have bought a truck" argument which as also always irked me.
There is a simple formula for price and value that everybody does in their head to some degree when deciding to purchase. At SEVERAL thousand dollars more I'm struggling to see the true value added. The tech seems to be down (it is on towing for sure), the HP/Torque is down, the interior noise is down against other manu's base trucks. Toyota will get a win for reliability but should they? The Tundra has it's issues as did the 3rd gen Tacoma and this is an all new drivetrain for the Tacoma.
As we compare these new trucks, which is a big part of the reason were all here, there are going to be hits and misses. I have yet to see many Tacoma hits, putting aside the general overhwleming excitement for a new Tacoma, considering price unless of course we consider some of the fixes to what made the truck not so great for some in previous years. (Seating position, basic ergos) The disco sway is for sure it a hit ... but how much do you have to spend to get it? ($1,200 is the answer which makes the truck $46,600) ($39,270 for a Trail Boss with cruise control, no heated seats to match the TRD OR)
$7,330 more. For less towing. Less HP/Torque. Better MPG it looks like, that's good. But I can waste a lot of gas for over 7k. (at $3.50 a gallon it would take WELL over 100k miles to make that up figuring 22mpg for the taco and 17 for the Colorado.)
Beninbeta
Well-known member
I get your point, and I'm not trying to be a jerk here or anything, but...
Let's say I really want LED headlights, and full safety (adaptive cruise, lane keep/centering, blind spot monitoring) and a manual rear locker?
Trailboss $41,000---> nope can't all of those get those features there
Z71 $46000--> closer, but no rear locker
Zr2--> $51,000 Yup has all of that, if you can get one. 16 mpg. Better offroad? Probably
Taco Off-road: $43,000. Yup has all of that.
Ford Ranger XLT: $43,000. Yup has all of that, non-FX4 package too. You just can't get one yet.
Frontier Pro4X: $42,000 Yup has all of that.
LED headlights, if they even one time help me see a deer before I'd hit it, priceless
Safety features, if they even once keep me from getting into an accident, priceless.
Manual Rear Locker, I'd rather be able activate it before I need it, but the G80 is pretty good for sure.
Value is in the eye of beholder, my friend. I'd much rather be alive and in good health than have a truck with more horsepower or a slightly quieter cabin. In this scenario,
I'd say Chevy really missed the boat with not offering LEDs on the Trailboss. Ford and Toyota have them standard across the lineup and that's a good thing from my point of view.
Last edited:
Fightnfire
Moderator
The value and safety of LED headlights is a huge ongoing debate, they're brighter but not necessarily better. My wifes 2020 Expedition with standard headlights throws light further down the road than my LED's. Mine look much brighter but they don't throw as far. This also doesn't take into consideraton the safety of others as LED's look to be causing more wrecks, some head-on, than traditional lights. (Reported my many sources) I wanted them on my truck because they looked great and were the new feature I thought had great benefits, when I get into her vehicle I much prefer the softer longer throw.
From Consumer reports:
But in our headlight tests, we've seen that neither LED nor HID low-beam headlights consistently illuminate more of the road ahead than halogens do. The poorer performers among all headlight types don't reach the 300-foot mark. The result is that drivers traveling at 60 mph or faster will "overdrive" their headlights, meaning they're going faster than the lights can illuminate the road ahead, giving the driver little time to stop. The Escalade we tested in 2015 was able to illuminate signs on our headlight test course as far as 400 feet ahead.
"We've found that with LEDs and HIDs, manufacturers are having a hard time balancing casting enough light down the road without causing glare to oncoming drivers because of their intensity," says Stockburger. "Many oncoming drivers mistakenly think an oncoming vehicle has its high beams on, when in reality the car just has LEDs or HIDs." This is particularly a problem with oncoming SUVs, because their headlights are positioned higher up on the body than on a car.
Fightnfire
Moderator
In the end you want what you want, I'm not arguing the merits of your personal decision. Just showing mine. Everybody should drive what makes them happy and what they can afford.
Beninbeta
Well-known member
2015 is a while ago. I love the, quote, but always include the source links too.
Also I have had 4 different vehicles with LEDs since 2017 and I'd never go back.
April 2020 Cars.com:
"The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety rates headlights based on the distance that they illuminate the road as a vehicle travels straight and on curves. IIHS says that on a straight road, low-beam headlights rated good (the top rating) illuminate the right side of the road at least 325 feet. Headlights rated poor (the lowest) light 220 feet or less.
IIHS says LEDs generally perform better in its tests, but the organization has rated some halogen headlights higher than some LEDs. Some halogens have been rated acceptable (the second-highest), and some LED headlights as marginal (second-lowest) and even poor. However, only LEDs have earned good ratings.
"
Also I have had 4 different vehicles with LEDs since 2017 and I'd never go back.
April 2020 Cars.com:
"The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety rates headlights based on the distance that they illuminate the road as a vehicle travels straight and on curves. IIHS says that on a straight road, low-beam headlights rated good (the top rating) illuminate the right side of the road at least 325 feet. Headlights rated poor (the lowest) light 220 feet or less.
IIHS says LEDs generally perform better in its tests, but the organization has rated some halogen headlights higher than some LEDs. Some halogens have been rated acceptable (the second-highest), and some LED headlights as marginal (second-lowest) and even poor. However, only LEDs have earned good ratings.
"
Beninbeta
Well-known member
100% agree with that and it's what I have been saying for like 150 posts I think! LOL
Fightnfire
Moderator
This was the CR article, as for LED safety hundreds of articles on that topic.
Beninbeta
Well-known member
We could probably each find 100 articles on each side of that, it's one of those issues.
It's funny reading comments on what people think these trucks or even cars should do or have. Every time one is released, I'm amazed with what they can do now compared to my first driving years back in the eighties. When we had little power and even less mpg.
which did you like best? I am wondering if the frontier is the smarter way to go for less problems with the engine in the long run....
Beninbeta
Well-known member
I actually created a whole table for myself on different items with notes for after I drove them.
But I'll try to summarize
The first one I drove was the Frontier. I immediately liked it. Very comfortable, smooth and solid throttle response. It had all the features I was looking for as well. The main issue was the 360 camera/infotainment being hard to see in bright light and cameras being of low quality.
If I had to buy a used Truck it probably would have been the Ranger. It was the most comfortable, and pretty much everything from the prior Gens missed some of things I really wanted in a truck. LED headlights, 360 camera for offroad, electronic/manual locking rear diff and bed power.
Of the new Gens, I really like the Colorado and it is less expensive than the Canyon, but you do have to get to the Zr2 for all of the features I wanted. I thought on road the GMs both felt very big and the Canyon was difficult for me to get into at 5'8, not a big deal as you get bigger tires and a lift out of the box as well. What has swayed me away from those two are the issues, though they may be fixed now, with the infotainment updates stranding people with a dead battery, having the digital display go blank (no speedo) and the rear camera no woring. I'm a tech person and that just felt like something that shouldn't happen with a good software team. I really like Android Automotive as a system otherwise, but there is a greater chance that GM could turn that in to a required subscription system than with some of the other manufacturers right now.
I can't comment on the new Ranger, but I don't love the vertical screen in those either, I have used that in rentals and while the screen is large the part for CarPlay/AA is pretty small in comparison generally. But it's probably a great truck as well.
The Gladiator was a clear, take me off-road please truck. It actually road well on the hwy. I was in a Willy's for my test drive and that may have had some bearing, but the seats for me were really not comfortable and the road noise was pretty high in that trim. Then you have the really old design and tech inside. It just wasn't for me.
That left the new Taco, from the get go I like the new look, infotainment, off-road features and I liked all of that in Gen3 too. I didn't like the engine/transmission in the 3rd gen the brakes, seating position and for sure not the interior. I took an extended off-road trip in on this fall so I became pretty familiar with it. When people were able to drive then new one and basically sang the praises of the updates, that's where we put our money. After driving it, all the issues I had with Gen 3 were addressed for me. Much more comfortable, way better interior/tech, and the engine and transmission are more than adequate for me coming from the Tucson. So that's what were picking up in a couple of weeks.
That all being said, I don't think you can go wrong with any of them. Just be sure to drive them and try to take them on the same drive for at least 20 mins each, even that is scary short for a $40-$60k investment. If anything makes me envious of Tim's job it's that he gets to spend a week with a vehicle. That would be awesome as try before you buy kind of thing.
I hope that helps!