Thoughts about the (lack of) low-end power complaints

I have always owned a full size GM truck and a Toyota truck (pre Tacoma and tacomas) at the same time. Both have had there problems but the GMs seem to wear out and have rattles and loose parts and broken parts as they age. My Toyotas all seem to break in and almost get more a solid the longer I drive them although there always seems to be more tsbs early in there life.

 

I mean the price of walking outside and feeling the dark, empty pit where your soul used to be when you realize you've given $30,000 to Government Motors and have to drive a "..well, it's ALMOST as good as a Tacoma" for the next X years.

Oh, sure, there's a metric here or a specific number there where you can go all "HAH! BEAT THE TOYOTA!" but overall...well, that's like being happy your oozing genital warts are excellent protection from catching the clap.

I'll stick with the Taco, thanks

 

Almost as good? So more HP, more Torque, More Payload, More Towing, More warranty, more MPG all for a less expensive purchase price and way less expensive cost of ownership over its' lifetime is "almost as good?"

 

I know this isn't an MPG thread, but seeing it was listed above, Ill post my results for those interested... Only about 400 miles so far, but enough to get through 1 full tank of gas and start the second tank... It is a TRD/OR 4x4 4 dr.
Average is right at 18.8.... This has been 350 highway miles and 50 in town miles and driven VERY easy.... Dealer said not to exceed 4000 rpms for the first few tankful's is a good break-in rule. I have not been over 3000rpms yet, so this is about as much as I can baby this truck to maximize fuel consumption....
Not sure who the hell at Toyota tested the mpgs on my configuration and got 18-24 but Id like to give them a awift kick in the ass!!!!!! Love the truck, but if I knew it wasn't an improvement at all over the 15's, I would have saved 5 grand and got the 15.

 

And GM was forced by the Gov. to do the buyout.. They didn't want to take the money in the first place. Then when they had to, they tried to pay it back and the Gov. wouldn't accept it.
Im not a GM fan but I did look at them prior to buying the 16' Taco. My bro works there and Father retired from there so I get a GM family discount, but even with the discount, my price for 15' Chevy 1500 LT quad cab/4x4 was 33,500. Same price as I paid for the TRDO OR 4x4 quad and the Chevy was the LT version with NO features at all... Their very basic work truck... It was a no brainer for me.

 

There's definitely an improvement with the manual 6-speed. At 800 miles mine is about 22.1 including about 40% in town. Long, multi-day roadtrip tomorrow and now able to use the full revs, so we'll see how that goes.

 

*shrug*

I use mine as a light truck. It has plenty of HP and torque as it sits. I don't even need the V6, much less the diesel. If it were THAT important for towing and torque, I wouldn't be driving a minitruck, I'd be talking about a Tundra or an F series or some other fullsize pickup. But I don't.

See, to me, build quality and reliability ARE worth more. The insurance is cheaper, and as it stands, I'd stick with the Taco even if I were buying new now (which I'm not, cause the A-holes discontinued the regular cab)

 

Based on all these manual reviews and my love for manuals in general, I think I would go manual if I decide on the Tacoma. That limits me to the DCSB though right?

 

Reliability and build quality are both unknowns for both options at this point in time. But yeah, if all you want is a small, regular cab basic light duty truck, you are better off buying a used Tacoma reg cab or a full size reg cab w/ one of the better V6 options that you can get for a great price and still get solid MPGs.

 

True that - I'd have loved to have the 7545 but they only built the 7543 which many of us have. Probably just the first round to get the dealers populated with trucks. Easier to build 500 of the exact same configuration and get the production line running without a hitch.... maybe there will be a next run and they will build a bunch of the 7545 options.. I saw a sheet somewhere that had all those numbers and projected production ... 7545 was there but at 0%. My dealer told me that they are just building them and sending out to dealers, and dealers have no input as to what they receive.

 

Let us not forget the maintenance cost between a gas vs. diesel motor. My experience is diesel has higher cost to maintain.

 

I know what you're saying, although the diesel Colorado is still going to be more expensive.

If this was Chevy 10-15 years ago, I'd consider it. Today I will not buy anything from the big 3. The only vehicle I would seriously consider is the new F-150, but it wouldn't fit 99% of my needs.

If Toyota put a diesel in the 3rd gen I'd buy one in a heartbeat, I won't buy a diesel Chevy simply because it's a Chevy

 

You're comparing the Toyota's city mileage to the Chevy's highway mileage. The Chevy is seeing 27.1 mpg in real world testing with the diesel. Look it up. Let's say the Tacoma is seeing an average of 20 from the fuel economy thread. That puts total cost for 200k miles between the two at:

Tacoma-$23,900 (at $2.39 a gallon)
Colorado-$20,295 (at $2.75 a gallon.)

So there's a ~$3,500 difference over 200k miles. When comparing the cost of the diesel upgrade over the auto it's nearly a wash. When comparing to a similarly equipped Tacoma the Chevy will cost $3k more.

How do you expect reliability on that Chevy to be after 60k miles? 100k miles?

There are plenty of Toyota's running around with over 200k on them and no major issues.

What's going to ACTUALLY be more expensive in the long run? My 0.02

 

Ok your numbers are jacked up. The additional cost of the diesel motor put a Z71 Colorado right at about 37-39k. Factor in likely rebates which is the norm for GM and you probably will be able to get one for 35k. Still less than most full size TRD OR Tacomas. So the price bump only makes it equal to a Tacoma. Your fuel costs are off too. Along with the averages. I put the 17 mpg for Tacoma as the average of what people on here are saying they are getting. Most professional reviews from TFT and others say they averaged around 30mpg on the Colorado diesel. Official numbers aren't out yet. Let's be conservative and drop it to 28 mpg. Let's try this again:

According to http://www.fuelly.com/car/toyota/tacoma the 2015 averages 18.1. Let's say this 2016 gets 18.5...
Here are the prices for fuel too... http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/gasdiesel/

Tacoma @ 18.5 mpg @ gas cost of $2.27 a gallon for 200k miles = $24,540
Colorado @ 28 mpg @ diesel cost of @2.53 a gallon for 200k miles = $18,071

Colorado still is $6,500 less in that department.
As for reliability... This is a diesel. This diesel overseas has a great reputation as does diesel as a whole. All diesels are known to easily run 300,000-400,000 miles easily.

 

I was going by fuel in my area. YMMV when it comes to calculating that. Even when you ran your numbers again you didn't get an insane amount like the first time you tried.

I'm getting my '16 DCSB TRD OR for around 36k OTD. That's with 6% PA sales tax. The diesel in the Colorado will cost more than a gas Tacoma. I guarantee it.

I don't doubt that the engine in the Chevy will do just fine, but I bet the rest of the truck will fall apart around it, just like others I know with full size GM diesels.

We can go back and forth crunching numbers for days, but I'm certain the Chevy will still cost more in the long run due to it being a piece of shit Chevy. My family has owned older Chevy's and they've been good to us, but for the last 10 or so years they've been producing junk. That's why I switched to Toyota. If you trust GM enough to buy something new from them then that's on you

 

Well I went with real world Tacoma fuel averages the first time. I also went with what all the Colorado testers have said they have averaged as well for that. For fuel costs, I have read a few articles saying gas will pass up diesel on fuel prices soon so I was just being fair by keeping the price even in gas vs fuel. So if all those things work out that way as predicted at this time, it will be much more than that $6,500 difference.

 

Yeah it's hard to get good numbers when these trucks are so new and who knows what fuel prices will be 10-15 years from now when these trucks hit 200k. I'm still stickin with my Yota though.

 

The drivetrain is quite irrelevant - unless you're concerned about the absolute numbers. In which case, unless you're me, they do not matter - with your non-relevant 2nd-Gen, your environment, your driving habits will have completely different results.
The comment was about relative numbers driving lightly vs. driving heavily.

 

Let's not forget that the Colorado isn't getting it's EPA estimates.
Has anyone here (I didn't read each post) mentioned that the MT has lower gearing? That should make for some nice acceleration.

 

You can always drive the auto like a manual.