Car and Driver Comparison: 2016 Tacoma v. 2016 Colorado

2005 Tacoma Double Cab 4x4 Long Bed from C&D

0-60mph 6.9 seconds

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...uble-cab-4x4-v-6-long-bed-long-term-road-test

And that's with the most heavy configuration.

That's why people are bitching now.

 

Gotta keep it equal man, adding every accessory to the Chevy sure makes it look one sided. Nav, bose, Z71 AC 4x4 with v6 and tow pack (everything else is an accessory such as floor mats, gear on, ect) comes to 35,170. Not sure how you got to 39 with out adding interior and exterior protection packages, bed accessories, and so forth. The Toyota comes to 35,980 and there really aren't any accessories shown on their site yet.

Can you get a rear sliding window and defroster? The site says nav and JBL are only available on the Double cab, is that correct?

Keep it apples to apples though, never looks good when someone tries to fib the numbers in their favor...

Tyler

 

So Toyota is basically the Apple of automakers

 

If you put a 5,000lb boat on the back you will see a major difference in stopping power with rear discs.

 

Now that everybody has showed their cards and seen how the trucks have been reviewed. Nissan has no excuse if the new Frontier isn't much better than both the Taco and GM twins.

 

I can not believe that anyone still treats these "comparisons" seriously... All these "tests" starting from selecting what to test in and ending with open bias and subjectiveness are designed to select the "right winner". It is a different form of advertisement. That is all!

If it is on TV or in the media it DOES NOT automatically mean that it is honest or true. Grow up people!

 

We're really over-thinking it at this point, huh?! LOL

Has there been any real footage of a Colorado or Canyon off-roading? I think the Taco is the clear winner there....other than that, I'm sure all three of these are pretty similar (as far as overall quality) when it comes down to it.

People, including me, are bashing GM's reliability, but come to think of it, I see 40 year old Caddy's on the road...they seem as reliable as hell.

 

I agree with you that every person has their own prejudices and these testers/ Car and Driver are no different. But I think they do a pretty good job with these tests and they push them in a way that you can't do at a dealer test drive. Especially when compared to Consumer Reports who think the Honda Ridgeline is the greatest thing since sliced bread. But year take them for what they are and if your in the market for one of these trucks test them yourself.

 

C&D, Motor Trend, etc. are heavily biased toward performance with little to no regard for reliability. It is their job. They are reviewers of what they currently have in front of them and what bells and whistles it has. Speed, torque, gizmos and leather are the focus. I think they did a fair enough comparison with their standards, but you have to keep their standards in mind (I think MT gave the '15 taco 2/5 stars.)

If you look at their historically high-ranked cars, they aren't all that great in the long-term quality. Here are the most wins by model(any category) since 1983 by C&D:
1 Honda Accord 29
2 BMW 3-Series 22
3 Chevrolet Corvette 15
4 Mazda Miata 14
4 Porsche Boxster 14
5 Honda Prelude 10
5 Volkswagen GTI 10
6 Acura Integra and RSX 8
6 Ford Mustang 8
7 Ford Focus 7
7 Ford Taurus 7
7 Honda Fit 7
7 Honda Odyssey 7
7 Nissan 300ZX 7
8 BMW 5-Series 6
8 Honda Civic 6
8 Honda Pilot 6
I am glad I don't buy based on car mag reviews. Honda Accord may be the only reliable car on there, though some are performance kings.

 

it wouldn't matter what they did there would be people with this opinion. it's a significant change and hardly 2.5. personally i would not even remotely consider a gm product at this moment... it will take them years of building a solid mid-sized truck before that could potentially happen.

 

What you do not know when you see that 40 yo Caddy on the road is how much does it cost to keep it on the road.

I have my own horror stories about GM (had two of their vehicles), but sharing them is pointless. A vehicle reliability is a statistical animal. You have a chance of buying a lemon from Toyota and you have a chance of buying a long lasting Chevrolet. It is just the probability of these events is small. And it is up to you to decide if you want to gamble with your own money.

 

No...not true. When you start towing weight equal to or greater then the weight of the vehicle, you had better have functioning trailer brakes. Disc over drum in the back of the truck are superfluous with this kind of weight.

 

I'll start by saying that I just ordered a 2016 tacoma but I also don't think that they are that far off with the comparison. for what they are comparing the GM twins do seem to beat the tacoma and I really don't have a problem with GM reliability (have had multiple GM cars and trucks with over 100k miles without any major issues and I'm a member of corvette forums with may owners with c5's and c6's with very high mileage...some over 200k). I do however feel that GM missed the mark with these 2 midsize trucks, they are nice looking inside and out but not sporty at all, they have a rake to them, don't come in manual trans/4wd and don't do well off road. The tacoma may not have the exact on road manners that car and driver was looking for but it is just perfect for what it's owners are looking for. It reminds me of the wrangler that I am trading in (JK unlimited), does not test well for all of those parameters but is an awesome truck for its owners (I love it and would have kept it if not for the lack of pick up bed).

 

It is for a soccer mom.

 

Exactly why I never buy a new car that has been test driven.

 

It's not as if testing the brakes can damage the truck...?!

 

I usually never buy the car I test drive cause I'm pretty hard on them.
But slamming on the brakes isn't going to damage the truck.

 

Depends on what you think "damage the truck" means. Part of the break in on new vehicles typically involves not hitting the breaks hard for a pre-determined amount of time. Like 500 miles or so I believe.

 

To me, that's the point (engine, brakes, whatever)....folks on test drives don't honor the break-in limitations.

 

I test drove a double cab, long bed SR5 today. First, I'll echo what others have: the fit and finish is impressive. Definitely felt better put together than either the Canyon or Colorado. It also didn't feel as "big", either. The seat fits me pretty well...I am 5'7", with a longer upper torso. No sunroof in this, but it looked like I had a good 3 or 4+ inches of head room, and I wasn't struggling to see over the hood. It was akin to me looking over the hood of my Mustang. The rear seats were comfortable for me, very much, in fact. Of course, my legs are shorter than most people's. The engine compartment is roomy: there is far more room between the engine and supporting components than in other vehicles today.

The big thing that I wanted to say is this: I do see what people are talking about the "gear hunting" that occurs with acceleration. The comparison to the Colorado and Canyon, though, is this: they do exactly the same thing. My biggest complaints with the two of them is this very thing: the transmission seems to hunt at times for where it wants to be. So, to me, this is not either a positive or negative for either side: it is a draw. They both do it. I echo what others said, that it seems like the truck is more responsive in ECT mode. However, the truck did seem a bit more responsive at the first tap of the gas than the twins. Here is hoping that the truck eventually "learns" what you want it to do, as others have said.

Overall, I am still going to buy my Tacoma. It simply fits what I want better than the Canyon and Colorado. Having never owned Chevy, GMC, or Toyota, nor even owned a truck before...I thought that I would at least have a somewhat less biased opinion on this than a loyal Toyota fan.