Car and Driver Comparison: 2016 Tacoma v. 2016 Colorado

True, but the idea is to make the nail gun reliable. So you have efficiency and a better product paired with the same reliability.

 

because there are a lot of people who drive these things for hauling people and not for use as a truck.

 

Ugg, 8.1 0-60 is dirt freaking slow. That sucks, it shoulda been at least a full second quicker.

 

This is at least part of the reason for the questionable review, TacoBella. The very same thing happens when new guns are being reviewed by gun magazines. Perfect example is Glock. Nobody can make a creditable argument that Glock doesn't make great guns at great price points. But, compared to other gun manufacturers, Glock almost never advertises in major gun magazines, and almost never get fair reviews in these magazines. Yet, people keep buying Glocks and Tacomas as fast as they can produce them. The market will be heard.

 

Didn't your daddy tell you to lick it before you stick it.

 

My 2006 X-Runner was 6.9 I believe. Sure miss that truck.

 

Yeah, he just didn't clarify what to lick or where to stick it. Instructions unclear, licked toes and stuck it in ear.

 

Slow and steady.

 

I hear you man. I guess my message was unclear. Toyota still seems to reluctant to put in 20 year old tech in their products that should be proven by now.

Funny they play all conservative but still charge a premium for their vehicles.

 

And I'm betting they used the TRD OR for the test. I want to see the road handling specs of the Sport.

 

At the end of the day they are very close in comparison. Except one thing:reliability and resale. Chevy has never really been any good in those categories. Two examples. Friend of mine bought a Sierra earlier this year, loaded paid 53k for it AFTER 12k off msrp. Killer deal. Thought about trading up for a Denali and found out his truck is now only worth 41k. That's huge. Example two my girlfriend wants a new 4Runner. She currently has a 2012 Chevy Equinox. Paid 23 k for it brand new, it's now only worth 11. My 2008 Honda Civic was only 20 and is still worth 15-16k. Sure American trucks look and sound nice, but they're just not nearly as reliable or researched as the Japanese are

 

One thing aI am disappointed in is the 8.1 sec to 60. The old 4.0 in 0to60 findings was consistently a half second quicker. That indicates it does have better low end torque even with the six speed. I would liked to have seen the 4Runner motor with direct in jection...some of those numbers would be better...with the same economy. Toyota made a mistake with the mill IMHO by trying to compete with the Colorado on their terms with a more car like motor. The 4.0 IMHO, could be tuned up with 20 to 30 more lbs feet of torque over othe Colorado and nearly equal HP. This freak'n 3.5 will prove to be the biggest disappointment included making the trans hunt more.....bring back the 4.0 with dual vvt and direct injection.

 

Funny half of tacoma owners would give a left nut for a hilux which has been years behind the taco in tech. The reason: it's tough as nails and reliable. People buy tacomas because they are reliable.

They don't need to change what works because a bunch of wannabe truck owners want a leatherlectric car-truck. They will continue to sell trucks at a premium price because they are tough as nails and reliable. If people want the latest and greatest, they can buy the tech and buy it again in 3/5 years with a $5-10k trade-in GM.

 

You must be new here. Tacomas though durable are far from "tough as nails". Hilux yes but Americans don't use trucks like the rest of the world, hence why people flock to the tech loaded up King Ranch Laramie and Denali editions of the big 3.

 

This^ $39k for a truck that is essentially the same with borrowed parts that likely don't cost Toyota much more in production.

 

So which mid-size sold here is more durable than the tacoma? 'Tough as nails' is relative in this context.

Not new to toyota trucks btw (long before tacoma). My point was that they have made their name through reliability and durability. Tacoma owners have happily given up the tech-loaded trucks for reliability. If people want whatever "more tech", then they should just buy that and stay away from the taco, but toyota hopefully won't screw up the tacoma for the rest of us because people want a car-truck. I am confident the market will support the new taco just fine in spite of apparently being 20 years behind in tech.

The big three have had decades to compete in the reliability dept and continue to stumble because that is not their priority. Reliability comes from being conservative.

 

Growing up I was always under the belief that most of what made a Tacoma so successful was that it was reliable, simple, economic and affordable. Now it isn't quite so economic compared to the rest of the competition, and it isn't so affordable. It charges you what other companies charge for vehicles with much more equipment and performance. So while people continue to buy it in droves, it isn't really the value and cost effective option it once was.

 

I work in a GM bodyshop and I would never ever buy a GM

 

I agree on the affordability end. I paid 13000 for my '95 4x2 T100 1 ton brand new. However the rest of the cars and trucks have also gotten out of hand. Lots of people routinely pay near 50k for a vehicle nowadays. Sad world.