2016 Order Dates

Yep, I think you are right. I misunderstood the point you were making.

Just to be clear - it is still not 100% clear how many 2015s will be sitting around to buy once the 2016s start to roll off the truck. I don't seem to be seeing a consistent message on when exactly the 2016s will show up. However, hopefully (more to the point of what you discuss below) we will at least know a lot more about the 2016 while there still are 2015s around to purchase even if the 2016s come to the lot late.

I agree about the lack of definite knowledge being an issue, especially if those parameters are critical to your decision. However, if you are already happy with the 4.0 V6 numbers as it stands then that probably isn't relevant to you if the upcoming 3.5 improves upon those numbers. But I get your point, people buying now are buying "blind" in the sense that they don't know for sure if the new truck is suddenly going to be 4 MPG better or have much more useful TQ in some way. If they react negatively to the little information they have without waiting for further information that might be very positive then that is probably poor decision making.

Thanks for clarifying - I agree with some reservations outlined below. In general getting one's panties in a twist and cutting your nose off to spite your face isn't sensible. I guess I didn't really think people would say "eff you Toyota and your ugly new grill, I'm headed to the dealer with my check book right this second to get a 2015." I don't think that way so I assume others don't either - but you are right, there is definitely that vibe in a lot of posts reacting to the 2016.

Ah, this clarifies more - thank you. Your objection is most directed at seeing the new 2016, reacting negatively without full information and then buying a 2015 because something pissed you off about the 2016. That is different from the points I was making about deciding you want a 2015 even though the 2016 is announced. The difference is a bit nuanced and I missed it when responding to your original post.

However, I will point out one refinement of your argument. It really isn't "all details are released" that matters. It is "all details relevant to the buyer are released" that matters. Not all details are relevant to all buyers. So in fairness a buyer who only cares about aesthetics could in fact make their decision based only on what we know about the 2016 right now. And there are definitely people on this forum who seem to care about aesthetics over everything else. They aren't going to care at all if the 2016 is 5 MPG more efficient, has 20% more HP and 10% more TQ. If they think it is ugly then they don't want it. You or I might not understand that approach to choosing a vehicle - personally I take function over form in almost all cases - but the reality is plenty of people buy vehicles based strongly on aesthetics.

I was in a somewhat similar situation of only needing partial information to make a decision - though the decision was nearly a foregone conclusion. I knew I was almost certainly buying a 2015 soon, but it seemed silly to put the order in until at least a first look at the 2016 in case it suddenly had something important to me the 2015 lacked. For me the primary information I needed was:

• How soon would the new model be available?
• Has it gotten significantly larger?
• Has the payload increased significantly?

Well on the first day with the first Q&A the answers were already in my hands. It would just barely be available in time for me, so it was at least a possibility to consider. It hadn't really gotten larger at all, so again I'd still consider it (I didn't want anything larger). They didn't give hard numbers but in the Q&A it was clear that any increase in payload would probably not be huge and was mostly coming from weight savings in the body and frame construction. So that didn't give me any real motivation to wait for the 2016. For the features I cared about the 2016 was just about the same as a 2015 and for me build schedule was pretty important so "bird in the hand" was the route to go.

But the point is I did specifically wait for the 2016 announcement as that was some information for my decision and it turned out for me while it wasn't complete information for the 2016 it was more than sufficient information. And I was happy to have waited a little bit to get that additional information.

To extend the point further, for many people here even waiting for the 2016s to hit the lot is still too early. They won't want to commit to a 3rd gen until some TW members have been driving them for awhile.

So I think it is difficult to define any arbitrary point at which universally there is or isn't enough information about the 2016 for people to make a decision.

Not trying to drift too far from your point here, but I want to point out it is possible for someone driven strongly by aesthetics or some other parameter to see the 2016 and just say right then "nope" even if they don't know any of the performance numbers. I agree, in most cases that probably isn't a very sound way to evaluate a vehicle - but is possible for it to be rational and self consistent.

To circle back to the quoted text from your post. You are asserting (I think) that if you evaluate the 2016 at all you must have already rejected the benefits of 10 years experience with a 2015. That is sound logic at the start, but I believe you made it too absolute. There are trade offs in all decisions and parameters. One parameter need not be a "show stopper" but rather can be evaluated against others. Hence, a position stated by some which is valid in my opinion is "the 2016 isn't different enough for me to accept the risk of dealing with the first year of a new generation". Inherent in that statement is a weighing of what is new and desirable on the 2016 (within the restrictions of whatever is known about the 2016 at that point) compared to the advantages of a proven platform. It isn't a black or white decision necessarily at all. Much in the same what a nearly die hard manual transmission user who needs horsepower can come to the Tacoma table and say "Boy I really don't like that 6 speed MT and would rather have the 5 speed MT on the 4 cyl but I really do need the V6" and in the end conclude that they are getting a V6 AT despite almost always driving an MT. We don't have a continuum of options, we have discrete options, but the variety of discrete options interact to form a complex decision making process that can look silly if we assume black or white decision making.

Fair point.

Well put, I agree. In my particular case it was the former. You are right in the majority of cases it is probably the later.

Yep, misunderstood your post and effectively responded to an unintentional straw man.

It does, and thanks for taking the time to respond so clearly.

 

^^^ omg a constructive conversation about the 3rd gen

 

Refreshing to see a well thought out discussion between two members of this forum discussed in a courteous and thoughtful manner. Kudos to Chopper and DVexile.

 

x222222222

No reason for anything else. Especially when most of it's a guessing
game right now and those specs being argued about haven't even
been released to the public.

 

Actually the biggest kudos go to Chopper, because I was unnecessarily sarcastic and he was consistently polite.

 

^ thanks to you both, I find it refreshing.

 

Yes! I am glad we are on the same page now. And I do agree with all of your points. You're correct about my argument now. DVexile, I really appreciate you taking the time to sift through my post and give a thoughtful response rather than being terse. And yes, you are correct about "all information pertinent to the buyer". Although you and I don't see everything that way (Form vs function) there are plenty who do. Even though I'm pretty much in agreement I want to cover all of your points, I think it is a bit rude not to once someone taken that much time to write the post - A belief you've already displayed with my post

You're right, it is not clear how many new 2015s will be on the lot when the 2016s come out, and that goes back to what I said about option 2 infringing upon option 1 and option 1 being your "One in the hand". That is a circumstance I wouldn't want to find myself in as it could easily be a lose lose. Buy the 2015 and then decide the 2016 was worth it after a couple of years, or buy the 2016 so you can have a new truck and risk not being happy in it and wanting a 2015. Luckily I'm not in that boat as I won't be buying anything for at least a few years.

I'm glad you've seen the posts I was referring to about buying a 2015 in spite of the 2016, else you might not know where I was coming from with that. No, it isn't how you, I, or hopefully any mature buyer would act, but it is how many responded. I even read a couple posts saying, "I wish I didn't just buy my 2015..."

Back to form vs function, you're right, most people could care less about the numbers and just want the looks. I have only one thing to add to that which is the common circumstance that many buyers don't like the redesign when it first comes out, and it grows on 99% of them over time and they begin to like it. The same thing happened with the 2nd gen, and everyone loves them now. Even the 2012s! So I think if one is put off by aesthetics, they need to take into consideration that they won't always feel that way, but 1) It's hard to correct or even be aware of a mistake while you're making it and 2) Most buyers probably don't want to wait until it grows on them. However, Toyota has been known to "tweak" redesigns after just 1-2 years, and I hope that happens to the 2016.

That is interesting that the payload won't be increased... But I first want to say it should be the exact size of the 2nd gen plus 4 inches of length to me some sort of crash standard. So many have predicted this engine will have close to 300HP and 300TQ, and wouldn't that increase the payload at least a little? I have also heard at the Detroit auto show interviews that Toyota said the MPG increase would be small. So with minimal payload gains and minimal MPG gains, I'm beginning to get a little worried. Hopefully they are just saying those things to prevent hyping it up too much so we will be satisfied with the final numbers, because I see no reason the 2016 shouldn't rival the GM twins as far as fuel efficiency goes.

Good point about the parameters, it's funny you mention that because I actually wanted a 6MT with my V6 but because of the poor reviews of it (and other reasons) I am sticking with my 5AT and would love for the 5MT from the 1TR to be available for the 1GR (beefed up of course, an advantage of the A750 transmission is that it was supposedly built for a V8 so it can handle our 1GR with no problem) and one thing I am looking for in the 3rd gen is a Toyota-quality manual transmission. You're right, I did make it a little too absolute. I should start making all my posts with preparation to start a long winded debate! (Which anyone should do anyway)

Great post, DVexile. +1.

 

I just read the posts after yours, DVexile. Thanks everyone for the kind responses! And DVexile, honestly I knew I had to wait until I got a chance to go home, sit down, and think about the post before I made a response. That is because I know my first reaction is to reply with something smart-ass or sarcastic, and that is nothing personal, but a product of us always having to be in the "defensive mode" on forums or becoming accustomed to being attacked for a post rather than two members having intellectual discussion. So I had to give myself time to respond coherently rather than reacting in the moment - that's a Light side of the Force practice

And if it were someone else, I may not have responded how I did but I have dealt with you before and I know you're not hotheaded or catty, but rather intelligent, logical, and open to discussion. For example, that MPG thread... OP called you a hater, I disagreed. I understood where you were coming from.

I'd like to point out that DVexile had every opportunity to respond to my post in a way that would have still made me look bad, and this is because with such a well thought out post by him, my initial 2-line post is easily looked over and anyone reading your argument may immediately "Takes a side"

All you would have had to do is reply tersely with something demeaning or saying I was "digging a hole for myself and should stop" and that would have rendered my long post useless to my defense. It's similar to something only being worth what someone else is willing to pay for it - by considering my argument and admitting we had a misunderstanding you granted credit to my post. Thanks for that. I really hope you stick around TW and continue to post like you do.

 

That extended front porch on the 2016 Tacoma looks a little worrisome. I think it will still be the best stock offroader, though.

 

wow those are some long posts... people are really passionate about the 15-16. I guess... hope y'all work it out and excellent grammar and use of verbiage. Impressive for a thread

 

I know, as much as I like them I wouldn't mind if we digressed - I can't keep up with DV!

I'm not as passionate about the trucks as much as I wanted to straighten things out and get my name back to good shape. Lol

 

Hurray! I see you now instead of my ugly straw man

Yep, there were even some honest folks coming back just a few days after the intro who hated the design at first saying "you know what, it has grown on me and now I like it". Design and aesthetics is something I know I just don't understand so I try to ignore it when making decisions. Any opinion I have about it is likely to change at some point anyway!

Yes, the width and track are the same - the nose got a little bit longer and the tail hardly at all. That was all fine with me.

What I interpreted from the Q&A - and this could have been a wrong interpretation my part - was that the GVWR would probably stay almost exactly the same but the curb weight might be a little bit lower which would result in a minor increase in payload.

Even if the engine has more power and torque near as I can tell payload is almost never a function of the engine. For instance you can tow another 6500 lbs with the V6 if you want to but you've only got a bit more than a 1000lb payload. So the engine is clearly capable of a lot more than the GVWR.

It is never really defined what the limiting factor is - but my understanding is it often an axle, diff, suspension component or simply the handling of the vehicle.

Again, while the brakes seem a likely limiting factor you can tow a 1000 lb trailer without brakes on it - so it seems that isn't limiting the payload and GVWR either.

The Tacomas clearly have crappy rear leaf springs. So I think that is everyone's best guess at the most limiting component. And people seem to run very heavy Tacomas just fine once they replace the rear leafs. My half baked theory is that since most people run Tacomas empty as daily drivers that if Toyota put a stronger leaf back there with a higher spring rate the ride would be crap for most folks. And this is in fact what happens when people run a Dakar or All Pro Expedition with no load. So maybe Toyota is a little trapped in preserving the typical ride and providing a rear suspension that would increase the payload. Complete supposition on my part, probably entirely wrong. But it was the explanation I made up for myself when the 2016 came out looking nearly identical to the 2015 with what appears nearly the same suspension components and they indicated little change in payload or GVWR.

Sorry - rambling on. I spent a lot of time looking at payload and GVWR when I was planning my build and it appears like a very opaque process by which the GVWR is specified and no way to really know how you might "improve it" (of course legally there is no such thing as improving it, though from a practical stand point in many cases you probably can with the right upgrades).

One person's "small" MPG increase is another person's "significant". I couldn't conclude anything from what they've said so far other than it will be some unknown amount higher.

My wife and I both love MTs but for a variety of reasons as well I got an AT on my Tacoma and a few years back an AT on a Forester as well. Still got a MT on a Civic at least!

I have to remind myself not to post after getting out of bad traffic. One of my still unachieved life goals is to not get annoyed and become obnoxious when exposed to lots of traffic when driving. And it affects me for like an hour afterward if I don't pay attention and spend a moment to "decompress" after getting out of the car.

So I'll just try to remember to lock the computer for an hour after commuting

Thanks for the pleasant conversation.

 

Yes, I'm new here and was beginning to think everyone posting was mentally disabled.

 

Okay all, here's the update I promised.

Had a chat with the Autonation inventory manager today. Awesome dude. The worksheet we did up is still top of the pile (I'm #1!), but the moment the official specs on the 2016 drop we will do a new a new build sheet based on the actual configuration.

The big news is that they're not expecting to be able to enter the allocations into the computer until mid-May, give or take a week. Also, we're in the Gulf States region, which has its own unique order, inventory, and parts system. They do special configurations (i.e. Texas edition) and after-factory upgrades like replacement leather, seats, nerf bars or steps, bed covers, and graphics. Things may be different in other regions.

Now for news on the 2015s. Anyone hoping to get a discount on a 2015 will die of old age first. They had 20+Tundras on the lot, but only 3 Tacos. No discounts. They did have a 2012 for sale...for almost regular price.

As soon as I get spec sheets and all that jazz, I'll scan it and post it up for everyone else.

Good luck in your hunts. The wait will be worth it.

 

Nice. So we *should* know colors and options as well I would imagine?

 

Thought the same when I joined, still do many times;
the back and forth middle school mentality gets real old very quickly.

Great info man!

 

The quality conversation that has evolved in this thread is a shocking, but very refreshing surprise.

 

That's what Brian said. Another salesman there thinks that he'll see it in the ordering computer before it hits the dealer web sites. Because there will still be 2015s within inventory, those will be what is searchable. Again, this is by region, and they only know what happens in Gulf States. Here, a Toyota site search shows ANY truck that meets those specs within the distribution region. A search could show an available truck for me in Houston, Dallas, or even New Orleans, even though I'm in Austin.

They still don't know packages, colors, or what the new definitions are within each trim line...yet. They definitely don't have horsepower or empegee numbers yet.

 

Southeast Toyota has the same setup. We can use the dealers search site to see all incoming and available vehicles at SET dealerships. However they don't tell you where they are unless they are at the dealer's site that you're searching from.

 

Oh c'mon. Where's the passion for the product. What, are we withholding comment on a new model of Tacoma? Haven't we been down that road before? Maybe it's going to be an old fashioned sludge monster Camry. Should I chance it and buy one? Just a wild guess. The 7GR is going to be a shit kicker. Bet my left nut on it.