3rd Gen Concerns

What I'm saying is that Tacoma/Toyota has an established name plate. Ridgeline didn't. It's harder for new name plate vehicles to break into the market. Brand recognition is a major part of sales.

There was also a lot of confusion among the average consumer as to whether Honda targeted the Ridgeline at the Tacoma or at city folk with full sized trucks. That didn't help Honda at all when people came in comparing the Ridgeline to any full size.

 

You can put a full shear of plywood on the floor of the bed in a ridgeline. Although I don't think you would want to drive the ridgeline on a real ....er....ridgeline.

If the make the new one more like a truck is supposed to be they could grab a piece of the market. Very innovative, yet homely. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Back to the op....my biggest dissapointment would be not getting one in Sept or october

 

Sheers or Shears said the 16 will not come with full disk brakes. Why do we need disks anyway? A drum will lock up in the back but the abs won't let it lock up anyway. Rears locking up is a liability problem for Toyota.

 

Most of Toyota's other products have 4 wheel disc brakes, and I wish my Tacoma did too, but It's not a deal breaker. Drums work.

 

Basically how I feel.

 

Just because he said it back in January doesn't mean it won't happen. I bet a number of changes happened since then. Disc brakes are better. Refer to my last post. The Colorado has rear discs that are bigger than the fronts, that's crazy. OK, so the Colorado already smokes the 2nd gen in stopping power and distance. The 3rd gen will most definitely be heavier than the second gen so it may have an even longer stopping distance than the 2nd gen.

Do you actually think Toyota will let that happen? In such an important category as braking? That is near the top of the priority list no doubt. Disc brakes WILL happen because drums cannot hang with the pack. That's not an opinion, that's a fact.

 

It could be just as likely that they go with even larger discs up front. If you stuck the Tundra brake system up front and re-proportioned everything properly the 2016 would stop faster than the heavier Colorado

 

I hope you are right.

 

I like how people are judging the stopping distances of a truck that no one has actually driven yet.

 

I bet it stops... Well as long as the ABS doesn't kick in.

 

Please, share the rest of the facts with us.

 

I believe the 3rd gen is supposed to be slightly less heavy than the 2nd gen.

 

Disk brakes all around would be nice. But not necessarily a deal breaker for me either. Reliability is......

That being said, I am waiting to see some colorado 4 banger diesel stats. I'm not buying one, but it may be a package in the future for toyota. I know they said no, but the tundra is getting one. Knowing toyota it wouldn't happen till the Chevy proves its ability to sell.

Wait, what is this thread?

 

Well I certainly don't want more drag, and can already see over all the small cars. Maybe you should try a phone book?

Because the forces applied to the frame in that area are in a different direction.
In the rear section of the frame, the forces are applied along the plane of the side rail.
Up closer to the front where the frame curves inward toward the engine, force is applied in several directions.

You might want to take your own advice, because you got the frame part wrong. You also got a lot more wrong that I will address below....

Your "source" drank the koolade. He also doesn't seem to understand the meaning of the word "several", since those reasons add up to just two.
1) Drum brakes tend not to get wet in the first place, unless you cut the back cover plate off them.
2) Riding your brakes while going down a hill may lead to brake fade, but you're also driving wrong and should be kicked off the road. Downshift.
3) There isn't nearly as much heat TO dissipate (when operated correctly) from REAR drum brakes, since the braking is done predominantly by the front brakes.

You've obviously never looked inside a drum brake. There are MANY more parts, and they contain far more material.
Also, the "parking" brake issue is no different on a drum brake than on a disk brake, since the parking brake is cable operated. It is a whole second operating mechanism in the brake that is responsible for the parking brake.

It may be that in the past, before there were rules about having a second braking system capable of stopping a vehicle (the reality is that it isn't actually a "parking" brake, it is an emergency brake. Vehicles with A/T have a "parking" brake in the transmission that locks the drive shaft. It only really doubles as a parking brake for M/T) that this brake may have used the same set of cables and levers as the main brakes, but rules forbid that now. Plus, the main brakes are HYDRAULIC. Adding a cable operated backup necessarily requires adding the mechanism for that cable to work on.

 

^Yup.

Almost all medium and heavy duty trucks use C-channel frames. It's not that a fully boxed frame isn't nice, but it's not necessary on a mid sized truck.

Too much is being made of the rear drums. The Tacoma will likely stop even faster than the Colorado because it is lighter.

 

Exactly!
This picture *should* be enough to put the c-channel issue to rest:
http://valleychrome.com/site/vcp_files/uploads/2014/05/vp-160001-Rear-Frame-cover.jpg

Not just that, but there is a lot more to stopping performance than simply bigger brakes = faster stopping. Weight.... yes, but even more, weight distribution. On top of that, stomping on the brakes harder has the same impact as having bigger brakes. There is also a problem where brakes get too big, or too exposed. A previous vehicle I had, had 4-wheel disk brakes. It didn't stop very well, and its rear brakes really didn't last very long -- not because of excess wear, but because the brake disk was exposed more to road salt than a front disk or a drum, and the oversized nature of that brake meant that there wasn't enough pressure from the shoe to actually clean off light rust.

The back brakes on a Tacoma are already proportioned differently than a front. Less pressure goes there. Putting too much stopping force on the back can cause them to lock up prematurely, which can either spin you out, or set your ABS into a fit and further reduce brake effectiveness. This is especially a problem on an unloaded pickup, which is quite light in the rear. Hit the brakes, weight shifts forward, and even further lightens up the rear. Those back wheels really can't handle much braking at all.

 

The 2009 frame was new. This is just slightly revised. Not new.

Huh? 2TR-FE is the same engine. 5-speed R155 is the same transmission. Ok, they change up the gas guzzler. Lets call this "updated".

Not really. There is no functional change, just adjustments to the shape of the stamp.

Interior is irrelevant.

The sunroof is nice, but that is a new *feature*, not a new truck. The rest of those are gimmicks, and mostly annoying.

 

Haha I couldn't disagree with you more here.

New Engine to the Tacoma. Still waiting on numbers but I fully expect 270+hp 260+tq. Anything less will be a disappointment, but still an improvement. All at better gas mileage.

6sp Transmission

New Look is still a new look

Interior is a huge component to some, including myself. I won't be wrangling my cattle on the daily.

Sunroof is nice and certainly a nice new feature.