Car and Driver Comparison: 2016 Tacoma v. 2016 Colorado

"Value" is subjective

Buying a Full Size is like Buying an Minivan instead of an SUV...Either you need the extra space or you don't
Price is insignificant. I will never understand the "could have bought a full size for the money" logic. Apples and oranges. I will gladly pay more for less when less is what I want.

I don't want to deal with the size of a Tundra, F150 or Sierra. Sure anyone who pays $35K for a midsize could have a full size. But people buy what they want. I see no value in a truck that's too big, a PIA to park with a bed I will never need all of. My neighbor just bought a Ford F250 Diesel. Thing is a monster. I would not want it at any price.

 

You're debating about a difference in one mpg, when a set of tires and inflation could easily make that and greater difference. With winter tires, my mpg becasue of weather and tires drops at least 2 mpg overall. We have people complain about thier mileage when come to find out, they have mods that easily make a difference. My summers are all seasons.

 

Toyota has said they are discontinuing their S/C kit for even the 2nd gen Tacomas. When they're gone they're gone. Just FYI. Cant remember where I saw this

 

I think you have to be careful. As far as large commercial vehicles are concerned, including dump trucks, drums on the rear are the order of the day. It's the pick up truck that uses disc brakes.

 

Gee.. everyone that recently acquired a 2015 is 'Glad' they didn't get a 2016! LMAO!!
I wouldn't expect to hear any different, even if it wasn't true!!

Personally, I won't buy any new design the first year out, but that's just me.

 

There is always a way to get one even if is used .....

 

I personally don't care about how Car and Driver Rates the Tacoma because People buy them for all different reasons. Honestly the only real turnoff I see on the new ones are the price. My 2nd Gen sr5 4x4 cost $30K even which at that price point the only other compatibles were the Frontier, Xterra, Wrangler and some of the bare bones f150's, gm full size and rams. Now at $38K they're in the 4Runner and Tundra area as well as some very well equipped F-150s and Chevys and not to mention the Colorado. It will be interesting to see if at this price consumers will go bigger for the same price.

 

I thought it was kind of a given that we were discussing pick up trucks and not commercial trucks or dump trucks.

 

Welcome to TW

 

Lol seriously, only here would someone point out that dump trucks and commercial trucks use drums. Yea they also use air brakes too. Which also isnt relevant to the fact that the tacoma is basically the only pick up left with drums on it.

 

No my point is that your statement that you needed to repalce 4runner rear discs because of mud is BS.
You wrote:

My point is if there was problem with mud and disc brakes than you would have destroyed fronts first. So I dont know why you changed rear brakes but it was not due to mud. Hence why I called your statement BS.
Unless you changed because drum portion of parking brake got filled with mud and they were dragging.
I have LC and mud nor sand has no effect on discs since they are open and as soon as mud dries it falls out. Now regarding brakign distance. Here is side by side test Bendix did for 18 wheelers.

Disc brakes way better
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v57K1WW41K8

 

Agreed. The shear time & effort many here put into trolling and shit talking
daily for months and months is mind numbing.

 

Whats that? A DRUM BRAKE STOPPED QUICKER THAN A DISC BRAKE? WOW.

 

You are stretching things again and saying what I did not say. I said, I drove each thought mudd. Where did I say it was due to the mud ???? But I will say it now. The drum brakes on a Tacoma are better able to cope with off road conditons then disc brakes are and that includes mud.

The dump trucks I used, just by their shear nature lived in dirt and mud. All tractors that I have ever owned or used, NEVER had exposed brakes. They were encased. Are discs superior in stopping....sure, but you are absoluly wrong stating that exposed disc brakes can take the environmental abuse that a specialized drum can, many of which are cast and very sturdy.

Off roading, I have damaged rotors and shields that needed repair. and have never need repair to rear drums. Your discussion of 4 Runners having discs as an off road vehicle is a false issue...land Cruisers and 4 Runners are primarily road not off road vehicles with most of their time spent on road. The same for Tacos. More people "say" they use them off road and the engineers responded with drums on the rear.

It's always a trade off and Toyota is making it, not only to avoid two sets of brakes on the rear, but because drum brakes are tougher.....but contrary to what you think...THEY ARE NOT CHEAPER. They are cheaper then two sets of brakes.

You want to find out which is tougher. Put your car on a jack, take the wheel off and kick the cr onto the ground and watch what happens to the disc brake system.

 

No, one truck stoppd quicker than another. Put disc brakes on the tacoma and it would stop even quicker. I know if you own a tacoma with drum brakes you want to make yourself feel like the drums are there for a reason besides that it cost toyota less money but in reality cost is the only reason for drums and in due time toyota will upgrade them to discs.

 

That sucks.. But I noticed they didn't have a lifespan category. Which vehicle will last longer. Tacoma for sure.

 

My point is if you sayign discs are problem for offroading than your front discs should really be a big problem.. Are they ?
I have not seen a single person here that came and complained about damage to front discs from offroading (not talkign about wear or warping)
Tacoma has front discs right ? So if you saying that drums are better are you replacing front discs due to offroading ? That was my point with 4runner too.
I have yet to replace any of my vehicles discs due to offroading, but I replaced plenty drums that got mud inside and got scored to crap.
So if your replacing rear disc are you are replacing fronts even more often ? Due to what damage to discs or pads (not talking about wear)

 

That's not necessarily true. A very small part of the braking force going forward is done by the rear brakes. They are more for directional stability. A poorly designed and executed disc brake is no better and can be worse then a well designed and executed drum brake. Don't confuse the brakes. Drum brakes are not less expensive to make then discs. But, when the braking force is not a big issue, they avoid having two sets of brakes on the rear because I discs make very poor emergency brakes where drums are much better. That and. be more important some times.

 

There isn't a vehicle built in the last 3 decades that can't get the ABS to activate when braking hard. If your brake system is capable of locking up the tires, it's sufficient. Braking distance is a function of tires, suspension geometry, and vehicle mass/mass distribution alone.

Drum vs. disc, rotor diameter, single vs. multi-piston, etc. affect things like pedal feel, fade resistance, durability, etc., but they don't affect stopping distance in a one-off braking distance test. Do a dozen 70-0 mph braking distance tests consecutively and they will matter a lot, but no decent driver drives like that.

 

Either quote me accurately, or say nothing. I am saying drum brakes made for off roading can be made more durably. This can be done because so much on road braking force is required by the fronts where the sacrifice in braking fade can not be safely or economically. Locking up the rear brakes is very easy or do by any vehicle at any time going forward, whether it be discs or drums...it doesn't take great force. So easy is it, that early brake pressure monitoring systems were primarily on the rear for directional stability. It's an engineering trade off for customers who say they go off road, more then most other privately owned vehicles. Vehicles that "live " off road, usually have enclosed braking system.