Car and Driver Comparison: 2016 Tacoma v. 2016 Colorado

Don't understand your "nope" it's AWD?
The Rav locks the center diffenrtial so at low speeds, it tries to behaves like a truck based 4 wd with equal power to the rear.

We know both have limitations with the power train orientation which prevent them from being as effective...but where did the "no it's AWD" ...heck, my 4 Runner had AWD....it could lock and had a low range also. When a car is in AWD, it has huge limitations, but when it attempts to lock those out, it mitigates much of them for better low end torque distribution.

 

I think VW flushed everyones hopes of that happening soon right down the toilet with their debacle.

Turbos can give great power down low without significant lag if they are sized right on a gas engine. Take an F150 Ecoboost for a spin. It pulls harder than the 6.2 L GM off the line!

 

You said the Pilot has a 4WD option. It doesn't. The manufacturer offers an AWD system. They clearly state that it is AWD. It has it's own advantages and disadvantages. Yes, modern AWD can "lock up" much like the G80 can lock up by using clutches. However, those things break fast when abused.

 

Renault means Nissan with more French, which is more fail. jks

 

I wonder if they are tuned differently though.

and if they are a complete copy of the others.
It could be the same block and then all different internals. or even differently tuned.

the 2JZ GE and 2JZ GTE was the same case. the GTE had way stronger internals and was tuned more when it was paired with the turbos.
and at the same time, how they put the power they make down is different. They aren't using the same differential or transmission.

Just because the engine is the same isn't always a bad thing. If the entire truck was based off the Sienna I could see your point.

 

Wut. I'm not sure what you are talking about here.

 

I know, I hate that it's a Renault. My parents actually had a Renault in the late 80's when there were some over here in the states... I don't remember it being a terrible car but I was 5 and liked everything with wheels

 

ya but the ECO is twin turboed. totally different application, very reason for a twin is to fight lag (if set up staged)

Besides I work with a few guys that have the eco, its fast off the line, but attach a trailer and its terrible and ford has had a lot of problems with the turbos on that truck. should've used garret lol.

 

I owned a Nissan Juke for a while . Renault designed the engine and it was very peppy for it's displacement.

 

sorry forgot to quote, I was referring to the post someone made about how the new taco uses the sienna engine.

it was from BlueT

 

THAT THING IS SO DAMN UGLY. omg
what on earth was nissan thinking with those headlights.

 

I'd disagree with that. The very purpose of the Ecoboost is towing and sometimes I feel I should of bought one instead of our 5.0 L. Gobs of low end torque that get you off the line great. With the wrong rear end though they do guzzle the gas especially towing.

Use synthetic oil on a 5K interval and the turbo issues disappear. At least that's been my experience with them on the fleet side.

 

It's ugly but it drives like an AWD go cart. They are extremely fun little CUV's/cars. The look grows on you. I miss my Juke sometimes, I think if my Tacoma can last 10 years I might buy another one once everything else is paid off

 

interesting, I heard many issue with them.

Regardless, if it comes to towing, I'll take a straight 6 cummins over anything lol.

Its actually sad no one really uses the straights anymore. such balanced, torquey motors.

 

oh I wont argue that at all, I've seen them go, especially the Juke R. honestly I even like the back end. but those head lights omg. every other aspect of it is actualy pretty nice for a CUV.

 

I think it's a matter of when they bring the Ranger back, not if. And like I said before they might just call it the F-100 so the sales will figure into the F-series. Much like the full size van market, for a while Ford thought that the Econoline van was the best thing out there for the tradesmen while Mercedes was wasting their time with the pathetic Sprinter. Then they jumped into the market very quickly with their Transit and look who's the top dog in the commercial van market now. When the Ranger comes back with the 2.7L ecoboost the Colorado and Tacoma van motor powered powder puffs will be toast.

 

LOL. Once you get into the 3/4 tons forget about the 3.5 L Ecoboost. You are talking 450 ft lbs of torque versus 800 ft lbs at 2500 rpm lol. The 5.0 L Ecoboost could make things interesting in the 3/4 ton class in a few years though. I think Ford had a video floating around of one showing over 700 ft lbs of torque off the crank of one of the test engines

Straights take up too much room laterally. They died off because the V8 is cheaper and produced better power in the same space, just not at the low end.

 

Honestly, if you ask around, all of the 5.3 L GM, 5.7 L Hemi, and 3.5 L Ecoboost trucks have a few lemons. We've just had good luck with Fords where I work.

 

not a fair comparison.

It all depends what you need the van for.
I know a few guys that use the sprinter over a van for the reason, way more cargo space. I know a few guys that do gutters and prefer it because they can keep the full set up in the sprinter and also work in it. Can't really stand up in a transit.

For service guys though the transit is way better.

 

Yeah, if the Ecoboost 2.7 L comes in a Ranger. I'll be putting my deposit down on an FX4 .

Real rear locker, fully boxed frame, Ecoboost engine... That truck would be sweet!