Car and Driver Comparison: 2016 Tacoma v. 2016 Colorado

I did quote you, look below The quote I talking to.

Dont talk about vehicles built for offroad having enclosed brakes because absolutely best vehicle ever build for offroad is fj80 and that comes with discs. Wich is my point and I have not seen anybody ever complain about having discs and offroading.
Unless you think your 4runner with ifs and Tacoma with ifs on the front was build as dedicated to offroading ?

 

"If your brake system is capable of locking up the tires, it is sufficient."
Well, that's not what test and accident reports have shown us. Stopping with control is just as important as stopping. If all tires, all of the time always traveled on the same surface, locking all the wheels at the same time might be sufficient. As soon as the locked wheels hit a patch of snow, or the soft shoulder by a road or even just a wet spot that other tires don't hit, directional stability canbe completely lost and like a plane in a spin, you have lost all steerage and the car starts to spin. Loss of steerage is as big a problem while stopping then just stopping distance. If you could stop instantaneously, it would not be a factor. Lock wheels have no steerage whatsoever and once control is lost, it is nearly impossible to regain.

 

I think your truck ALSO needs sharks with laser beams.

So, FYI, no, rear discs on the Tacoma would NOT have made it stop sooner. That's not how that works. That's not how any of this works.

Look up friction sometime. Then look up tire composition. Then look up weight transfer and vehicle dynamics. Then look up ABS. Then look up the benefits of disc brakes over drums and you will see that heat dissipation from a single test (braking event) on a rear axle is irrelevant.

I don't care if the drums are there for a reason...but I am glad that if I ever have to service my rear drums that they will be a helluva lot cheaper to overhaul than a disc setup would be. Drum+cylinder+part kit << disc + caliper + pin kit. And I know that if I do boil my brake fluid it will be the front brakes (disc) that failed, and if the back drums lock up the ABS will cycle as designed.

IME I've spent the most time fixing rear brake problems on cars that had rear discs. 2009 Suburban...rear DISC went kaput at 55000. BMW m3...rear disc wore out before fronts (heavy racing use). Ford sierra rear emergency (disc) frozen from rust. Drums on my first taco only needed parts kit from gunky/rust adjustment screw @100000. 73 FJ40, once around all four corners with drums for good measure, about 50 bucks a wheel. 78 FJ40, front discs wore out over $200 per side with disc and caliper...stayed on original rear drum setup never worn out. 95 Caprice, again, rear disc problems with uneven pad wear from rusty pins..

 

Even though an FJ80 has discs and is excellent off road is NOT A TRUCK and spends most of it's time on road it make that confession just like Riversdo. Tacoma is built on the theme of a light rear end desert runner for off roaders . And regardless of whom you hang around with, off road is not dirt road. Trucks used in off road situations are better off with drum brakes that are protected. You don't believe Toyota ?

 

The Colorado is the heavier truck and in this one test with all the variables involved, stopped only 2 feet slower. Let's see what happens from 60 mph or better yet with a 3k gvw trailer with no brakes. That's when the joke drums got exposed on my 06 Tacoma V6 and it'll be the same story with the 2016.

 

If you do the physics of weight transfer you will see that you would need the vast majority of the weight behind the rear axle before you would need to consider the repeated brake applications needing the benefit of disc brakes. I think even loading any pickup up to full GVWR with load in the back is not enough to stop the weight transfer to the front.

 

I went offroading in the winter once and the disk brakes were so cold they pretty much didn't work. They would *clack clack clack* as they grabbed and let go... It was miserable. I road the whole trail with a hand on my e-brake to control the rear brakes which were still working very well.

As far as the argument between disk and drums, this is stupid. Disk is a better design but it all comes down to how the brakes are designed and how big they are. How many cars use non vented disk brakes with single piston calipers in their "upgraded" packages? Do you know they actually perform worse than the drum brakes they "upgrade"?

 

This argument is so silly. I had a vw jetta with rear discs that I put 100k on before replacing the pads and rotars, and I could have went longer. If you have problems with rear discs its not because they are discs its because they were poorly manufactured or not taken care of. Please explain why the tacoma is the only pick up left with drums on it? Its because drums are superior to discs? No its because of cost and cost alone. Sure maybe a commercial vehicle has drums, maybe an 18 wheeler has drums. Want to know why? Because people buying them are running a business and want to spend as least as possible. Drums work, no one is debating that, but in basically every possible way discs surpass drums in everything except cost effectiveness.

 

How do you know it was your rear brakes that failed and not your fronts?

 

Correct. I understand too that in big rigs, only 30lbs of air pressure a used to apply drum brake shoes as opposed to discswhich need much greater pressure . Drum brakes have greater braking surface area. The brake handle by the driver now, especially during roll back on steep hills, being able to brake the large rear drums which now have much of the braking load, would be a advantage.

 

Ah,but they are. People ARE debating that drums don't work.

Taco206 posited that a rear disc braked tacoma would have stopped sooner all else being equal??? How does a wheel that's braked at the exact point of maximum traction be more at that very same point of maximum traction? If it's not then that is a problem with your brake proportioning valve, not a flaw in drum versus disc.

Discs on the rear of a passenger vehicle not intending to race are huge overkill and unnecessary expense. I just makes people feel good that their grocery getter is like that Corvette or M3 over 'thar'.

And considering heat capacity, just like disc brakes get larger for more heat capacity, the same capacity increases and improvements can be made to drum brakes as well. Size and drum composition/cooling treatments can be applied just the same.

 

I dont belive seatbelt bracket Mike, Japaneese Eng put disc brakes all around on both 4runner and Land Cruiser. And stock FZJ80 was better offroader than 4runner and Tacoma after most of modifications.
But this is totally on the side of the logical inconsistency in you saying that you had problems with rear discs on 4runner due to mud. Therefore you think drums are better because you think they are better protected from mud. (and neither is true)
Thats my point, that point is that your 4runner statement is bs.
Hey but I could be wrong, can you go to pirate4x4 and find me all those people swapping their buggies to drums ?
How many threads you can find?

Here is pirate4x4 link to brake bible, I sugest reading that all way to end.
Maybe seatbelt bracket Mike does the same
http://www.pirate4x4.com/tech/billavista/Brakes/

 

I dont think anyone is arguing that they work. The point is that discs work better. The majority of passenger cars and pick ups have discs on them for that reason. I dont want slotted and drilled brembo brakes on my truck but I would like a simple disc brake on a 35k truck, I dont think thats too much to ask. Maybe toyota should put drums on the tundra too since it doesnt have weight in the bed.

 

Yes they are. People are not understanding that there is a difference between applications on the front, steering axle and the rear axle. Front axles, heck yes disc's all the way because slight differences in pull from left to right are easily seen, and 90% of the braking work, and heat, are generated there. But the rear axle brakes are so lazy and underutilized, discs are completely unnecessary, considering the increased cost and complexity. You just end up with rusty pins that never get exercised and pads that wear screwy, discs that get rust shadows from water exposure that never get a good clamp down to scrub them off that end up warping or causing a thickness runout....

So many undereducated American consumers have been bellyaching for them for so long the OEM's figured out that they could offer it as a perceived advantage over the competition. And tis why we need sharks with laser beams.

 

Apparently disc brakes can stop sooner
watch this bendix test, Same trucks, same weights same tires side by side for the same surface.
Now if you would be so kind to explain why discs stop faster every time...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v57K1WW41K8

 

Nope. Not till you provide me the list of cars from the 80s' with rear discs. Yep, still waiting. I didn't forget. We both know you don't want to answer that one.

Your "next" change-of-subject please.

 

I gave you example of 83 Mercedes since you said there were none.
Now explain to me above test or you can't

 

One car is not a list, nor is it a majority. I did not say none. You said a majority. So I will wait.

Quick, go edit your posts....

 

So in that theory the reason the tundra, dodge ram, ford F150, nissan frontier, ect ect have rear discs is because we are under educated consumers?

 

You can wait all you want, you said there were none in 80's and I gave you an example.
You now asking for a full list in hopes of having some argument here, good for you, You were right about education levels ... I can see you were the one left behind .
But I get it your post about discs brakes not stoppign faster was BS and you now getting upset..