Tacoma World Forums

Tacoma World Forums (http://www.tacomaworld.com/forum/)
-   2nd Gen. Tacomas (http://www.tacomaworld.com/forum/2nd-gen-tacomas/)
-   -   2nd gen Taco 4cyl vs Early 90's Nissan PU 4cyl (http://www.tacomaworld.com/forum/2nd-gen-tacomas/210411-2nd-gen-taco-4cyl-vs-early-90s-nissan-pu-4cyl.html)

SLOJAM 03-18-2012 03:31 AM

2nd gen Taco 4cyl vs Early 90's Nissan PU 4cyl
 
Let me preface this by saying that back in the day I owned a 91 Nissan King cab 4cyl auto pick up truck and that was an awesome truck, at least on flat land in South FL at the time. That truck drove smooth, was comfortable, the auto tranny was great (Had OD button), mpg was decent, the power seemed adequate and it had two cool side jump seats in the cab that were actually useful for short trips that folded away. That truck took a beating and hauled everything I put in it with no probs.


I hear a lot of complaints about the 2nd gen Tacos with 4cyl. I hear that the engine is underpowered and lethargic with the auto, the ride is rough, engine is noisy, the access cab is small, the jump seats suck, etc.


For those of you that owned both the early 90's 4cyl Nissan King cab hardbody pickup and the current 2nd gen taco 4cyl, do you find the two comparable at all? I'm leaning towards the base RC taco auto (Absolutely will not get a manual).

I also owned a 2001 frontier 4cyl auto king cab but that truck was terrible, weak power, poor mpg, etc. Only compare the early 90's model truck with the 2nd gen 4cyl taco. IMO, Nissan p/u trucks went to shit after the early 90's hard body model.

I'm only interested in comparing ride quality, power, mpg, hauling ability, and comfort between the two 4cyl auto trucks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dvnP-8IVxM

Crooked Beat 03-18-2012 03:42 PM

I had a 1991 Nissan KC 5 speed 4 cyl.
While that was a great truck, it rusted out too quick. Put 390,000 km or about 240,000 miles on first clutch. Drove it on the wreckers truck. Never leaked oil. Those trucks are still made overseas as NP300 models.

I also had a 1998 which was essentially the same truck, but it was definitely not built as well as the 1991. Engine was the same but not as well built. Leaked oil. I think both had a 2.4 KA engine. But there was a difference. The 1998 model was heavy, the 1991 model was light. A lot of safety features and thicker doors in 1998.

That old 1991 was pretty light and was fast for its day. Nissan trucks lost it after 1997.

When I bought my Taco, I did a hp vs weight calculation vs 1991 Nissan model. Same ratio to 2 decimal places. So if you are happy with 1991, you will be happy with 4 cyl Taco. I am quite happy with my 4 cyl. ride quality is much much better than either Nissan.MPG almost the same. Much more room in Taco. It is a luxury model vs Nissan. Both have same 3500 pound rating for towing. The taco tows my 1000 pound trailer much better than either Nissan.

Rich91710 03-18-2012 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SLOJAM (Post 4757753)
I hear a lot of complaints about the 2nd gen Tacos with 4cyl. I hear that the engine is underpowered and lethargic with the auto, the ride is rough, engine is noisy, the access cab is small, the jump seats suck, etc.

Since you're thinking about an RC, the pathetic rear seats are a non-issue.

Other than that, I've got an '08 RC base and commute 90 miles a day. 80mph on the way in on the morning drive, and 10-45 on the way home.
I'm 6'3", and the cab is more than adequate.. I don't even run the seat all the way back.
Power? It's not a 4.7 Tundra, but it's no slouch. I'm not going to try and tow anything more than a U-Haul with it, but it has NO problem getting up to 70 on an onramp, had no trouble maintaining 80-85 rolling across New Mexico and Texas.
It's not going to win any races, but it has no trouble getting out of it's own way.

Fuel economy has been a pretty consistent 24. I've done as well as 26, and never worse than 22. With a 21 gallon tank, it's got a decent range. I just gassed up and $66 took me over 350 miles.

SLOJAM 03-18-2012 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crooked Beat (Post 4760047)
I had a 1991 Nissan KC 5 speed 4 cyl.
While that was a great truck, it rusted out too quick. Put 390,000 km or about 240,000 miles on first clutch. Drove it on the wreckers truck. Never leaked oil. Those trucks are still made overseas as NP300 models.

I also had a 1998 which was essentially the same truck, but it was definitely not built as well as the 1991. Engine was the same but not as well built. Leaked oil. I think both had a 2.4 KA engine. But there was a difference. The 1998 model was heavy, the 1991 model was light. A lot of safety features and thicker doors in 1998.

That old 1991 was pretty light and was fast for its day. Nissan trucks lost it after 1997.

When I bought my Taco, I did a hp vs weight calculation vs 1991 Nissan model. Same ratio to 2 decimal places. So if you are happy with 1991, you will be happy with 4 cyl Taco. I am quite happy with my 4 cyl. ride quality is much much better than either Nissan.MPG almost the same. Much more room in Taco. It is a luxury model vs Nissan. Both have same 3500 pound rating for towing. The taco tows my 1000 pound trailer much better than either Nissan.

This is the comparison I was looking for. Thank you! I will be definitely getting the 2.4 taco now.

My old Nissan King Cab rusted away too but I hear the tacos have rust issues as well. I'm going to probably getting a used one so I better get one from down south.

SLOJAM 03-18-2012 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich91710 (Post 4760109)
Since you're thinking about an RC, the pathetic rear seats are a non-issue.

Other than that, I've got an '08 RC base and commute 90 miles a day. 80mph on the way in on the morning drive, and 10-45 on the way home.
I'm 6'3", and the cab is more than adequate.. I don't even run the seat all the way back.
Power? It's not a 4.7 Tundra, but it's no slouch. I'm not going to try and tow anything more than a U-Haul with it, but it has NO problem getting up to 70 on an onramp, had no trouble maintaining 80-85 rolling across New Mexico and Texas.
It's not going to win any races, but it has no trouble getting out of it's own way.

Fuel economy has been a pretty consistent 24. I've done as well as 26, and never worse than 22. With a 21 gallon tank, it's got a decent range. I just gassed up and $66 took me over 350 miles.


Awesome to hear! Thanks for the feedback. I will also be getting the auto 2.4 base model. Those mpg numbers you listed are music to my ears. I also like the idea of old skool roll up windows, especially after having replaced two window regulators on my previous vehicle for $500 a pop each. Roll up windows last forever. Totally cost effective.

2011TacomaSR5 03-19-2012 09:29 AM

What's wrong with a manual? I just towed 2580lbs all the way to Mesquite Nevada and back with no complaints, your not going to set any land speed records in a 4 banger, especially towing, but trucks are not sports cars either.

SLOJAM 03-19-2012 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2011TacomaSR5 (Post 4763995)
What's wrong with a manual? I just towed 2580lbs all the way to Mesquite Nevada and back with no complaints, your not going to set any land speed records in a 4 banger, especially towing, but trucks are not sports cars either.

Nothing wrong with a manual. I just hate city shifting with a manual. People say the auto is slow but both trannys have the same 2.7 engine so there is no difference in speed, just the ability to be able to control the gear hold.

rydaniels 03-19-2012 10:07 AM

its a 2.7L 4cyl not 2.4....and my manual 4cyl 4x4 is a bit anemic on steep hills but droping it a gear or 2 and it hums right along

Rich91710 03-19-2012 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SLOJAM (Post 4764146)
I just hate city shifting with a manual.

+1

I drove my '94 over 200k. Thankfully, most of it was highway, but heavy traffic was a bitch, not to mention starting out on a steep hill when the moron behind you gets right on your ass and you end up having to use the handbrake to avoid rolling back into them because heel-toe just doesn't quite cut it.
Quote:

Originally Posted by rydaniels (Post 4764191)
its a 2.7L 4cyl not 2.4.

I think he's shortening "Gen 2 four cylinder" to 2.4... it's like if Microsoft took over Toyota :D
Quote:

...and my manual 4cyl 4x4 is a bit anemic on steep hills but droping it a gear or 2 and it hums right along
In overdrive, of course, but I've never felt my '08 to be anemic at all. I hit some pretty hefty hills on the way to Austin at altitudes up to 5 or 6k and it had no trouble maintaining 80+.

My '94? There were times that I'd have to pull it down to 3rd and hold it on the floor to maintain 60. That 22RE was bulletproof, but it wasn't a racing engine.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:13 PM.