General Discussion and BS thread -Safe Haven

You don't have to drop the head unit to put in better speakers, a sub, and a good amp.

 

You can even put in a good sound processor and get better than aftermarket deck sound. All without touching the head unit. It just takes a few special parts. I left the factory head unit in my 2013 but added an amp and speakers. I really like the results.

 

It's a waste of time unless you use something like a JL cleansweep or Audio Control LC7i. Regardless I'd rather get good enough from the factory and leave it alone.

 

Depends on what you are aiming for. I found my sound quality fine without the complicated sound reprocessor but, again, it's all on what you want.

You have very high demands for a midsized truck, no offence . I totally get why you want what you want but it seems like a stiff list for a small truck and more like a carbon copy of the options on a Lexus suv or luxury version of the full sized trucks. Sadly, the limited Tacoma trim sucks compared to those and no one knows what the Denali will bring to the gm or when it's coming.

 

Exactly, because factory head units are terrible. You can increase sound quality simply by replacing a head unit. Then pair that new head unit with new speakers, an amp, a couple truck box subs and bang, awesome audio system. I personally have a parrot asteroid smart head unit which blows away any factory head unit especially once its rooted and tweaked. trying to hook up amps and subs and such to factory head units is possible but a huge pia compared to just replacing the HU and connecting the amps and subs to that. Plus factory connectors make connecting a new HU a breeze. Steering wheel controls are the only part that can sometimes take a little time.

I dont mind buying a truck without stuff I can easily add but I cant add a 6ft bed! Lol

 

You can't beat custom audio. Unless you're like me and don't want to spend a few k on audio when you listen to sports radio a lot

 

Haha it's true. I want a luxurious off-roader that I can DD and have fun with on the weekends... stupid maybe but its what I want. Taco and JK are close but both are lacking on the luxurious front. I'm also considering a T4R... if I could get a T4R with the 5.7 it'd be the ticket no doubt about it but that weak 6 cylinder with a torque converter... blehhh. I'd get a Land Cruiser, LX570, G63, Range Rover etc but I can't afford that shit lol. Raptor maybe but it'd be a financial stretch. At the end of the day the Taco is a damn good deal compared to those things.

 

Lol, yeah.

Honestly I don't find the current V6 underpowered. Then again, I grew up when V8's were barely pushing 300 HP and half tons could weigh 5500 pounds. Now trucks weigh less and have insane power.

 

You could always buy a lariat F150 for not much more money with the 5.0 L in it, which is actually more powerful than the Toyota V8's, and do it up IF a full sized truck would work for you.

 

Sounds like you want a full size I understand that's exactly what you don't want but that's where the creature comforts are. I take it you don't like the Tundra.

 

Yeah, I seriously looked into an F150 after reading through that Taco vs F150 thread. The Lariat 502a would be an awesome truck and with some of the options you can get, plenty luxurious for me. It's a serious contender but I just don't need or want a full size truck honestly. I don't even need a truck at all if I'm being honest but don't think having a bed would be a bad thing. It'll be useful every once in awhile but I don't tow or haul anything on a regular basis. Also, I don't see an F150 being nearly as much fun on the trails as say a Taco, T4R or JK. I dunno man, I dunno

 

I like the Tundras, especially the 5.7 motor. But like the F150, I just don't feel like I need a full size. Problem is I want creature comforts on an offroad platform (that has good aftermarket support) with a big motor doesn't really exist sub $50k new so I'm just gonna have to compromise.

 

IMO, you just described the Tundra, and the Tundra can certainly be had for less than 50K with some options. I don't know how good Ford is offroad nor do I know what it takes for a stock truck to be good offroad but I don't see the F150 being left in the dust by a Tundra or even Tacoma (unless it comes down to space). Before I get flamed I said I don't know what it takes to be a good offroad truck. Let me think.
Suspension
Reliability
Articulation
Ground clearance
TQ/Gears

I think the Tacoma is so renowned offroad because of the support for mods, and the reliability. I don't know how many vehicles can be trusted to run at low speeds and high temps for an extended period of time. That may be a whole nother thread.

What makes you want an offroad truck as your DD? Have you considered a DD and a trail rig?

 

Tundra is big for an offroader but certainly can be done. Smaller/lighter helps a lot on the trails. I guess wanting creature comforts and a big motor while also being small/light is admittedly conflicting but its exactly what I want. The Tundra does come close to fitting my criteria, I'll give you that but I really don't want or need that much truck (primarily with respect to size and weight).

I have considered a DD and a trail rig and if I had a money tree I would get a performance sedan (M3, C63, ISF, S4, etc) as a DD and a trail rig but I can't afford that. The potential DD offroader will already be my second vehicle and I'm not in a position to add a third for now. Plus I don't really need a dedicated trail rig because I don't do it enough to justify one atm but I do want something I can offroad in when the occasion arrises while also being a good DD.

The Jeep Grand Cherokee Overland 4x4 with a Hemi is probably the closest match to my criteria out there but it has a unibody, I worry about the reliability of it and there is limited aftermarket suspension support...although it does come with an adjustable 0-4" air suspension

I dunno I'll figure it out eventually

EDIT: Icon makes a kit for the WK2 now.. hmm

 

Used Mercedes G-wagon?

 

I will let you know... Went last night (dealer closes at 9pm) to test drive a '16 GMC Canyon in SLE All Terrain trim...loved it. This was a V6 since there are no diesel in the lot at this time. We placed a deposit for the same truck we tested (I want it in Cyber Gray instead of Black) but with the Diesel engine... So now we wait...








Now to tell the two Toyota dealers that I will not be buying...they could not find the config I wanted anyway, so...

 

I would advise anyone against buying a diesel made after 2006. This is coming from someone who owned a 2006 diesel and loved it. After 06 is when the ULSD requirement was put in place. All diesels made after 2007 have so much EPA garbage on them that it actually negates the point of having one. I believe the whole vw scandel is due to hybrid manufacturers being upset that diesel cars get better milage and have more power than hybrids. The whole DEF requirements now is probably the biggest joke out of everything. I personally would love a ram 2500 with a cummings in it but the work that is required to remove all the epa garbage just isnt worth the hassel. Also the only reason diesel fuel still costs more than gasoline is because of the ulsd requirements for 15ppm of sulfer, the previous requirement for lsd was 200ppm I believe. So now the refinery needs to refine the fuel a lot more which actually removes some of the fuels energy and some of the lubrication properties. The more complicated refining process also costs more and guess who pays for it. The end user. The epa has ruined American diesels and its a real shame because theres so much potential that just can't be taken advantage of but yet we can pollute like crazy mining the copper needed for hybrid batteries. If a 1.9 liter diesel engine gets 45 miles to the gallon and a 2.0 liter gas engine gets 30. Thats 15 more miles you get out of each gallon, meaning the less fuel you burn, so you should be a able to have a higher pollution rating per mile if you are using less fuel but it doesn't work that way. Both need to have the same rating even though one is more efficient.

 

Here she is LOL.....I'm planning to modify the front end to accept a 2016 grill

 

200ppm is 13 times as much as 15ppm. So unless your old diesel gets 13 times as much miles per gallon, then I don't quite understand your point.

As for those old diesels, I've been behind a few of those cars over the years, and you can actually see the sulfur in the exhaust coming out of the tailpipe. It's pretty awful. Riding behind a vehicle like that is probably as unhealthy as if the person sitting next to me in the car is smoking a cigarette. I'd rather those cars all be off the road.

 

I think you misunderstood the point about the ulsd vs lsd. The ulsd cost more to produce in return costs more to fill your tank. Diesel fuel was always cheaper than gasoline before 2006. I was fine with filling my car with ulsd but my car didnt have a bunch of epa required filters on the exhaust that causes soot build up and require more maintenance. If the only down fall to diesel was having to use ulsd I would be fine with owning another one but the requirements of equipment that needs to be put on the vehicle it self to pass epa requirements is ridiculous now. Basically a 2006 diesel will get better milage and have more power than the exact same vehicle built afterwards due to the extra equipment needed to burn off the extra pollution before it exits the tail pipe.