Motor Trend Truck of the Year: Why Chevy Won & Toyota Lost (Analysis)

I will save you guys some time and some popcorn. Let's analyze.

EDIT: For clarity, I am not disputing or arguing who should have won the award. This is an analysis to understand the decision and poke holes in MT's arguments for or against both Colorado or Tacoma.

QUESTION: Why did Motor Trend (MT) pick the Colorado for TOTY? I am going to debate TacomaWorld (TW) vs MT myself using google.
(Note, all numbers quoted are for the Colorado Z71 4wd & Tacoma TRD OR 4x4 variants in the test.)
ANSWER: 'cuz diesel is smooth.
WHY? Here we go...

1. Engineering
MT Subjective: Colorado drives light, more like a crossover. Tacoma drives "old school and truckish"
MT Objective Tests:
- Lateral Accel: 0.72 g (Co) vs 0.71 g (Taco)
- MT Figure 8: 29.7 sec @ 0.53 g (Co) vs 28.9 sec @ 0.58 g (Taco)**
- 60-0 MPH Braking: 130 ft (Co) vs 125 ft (Taco)**
- Zero to 60 mph: 9.5 sec (Co) vs 7.1 sec (Taco)**
- Zero to 60 mph towing 3,000lbs: 16.0 sec (Co) vs 13.6 sec (Taco)**
- Zero to 60 mph towing max load: [unknown] (Co) vs 22.9 sec (Taco, 6.4K lbs)
- Quarter mile accel: 16.9 at 78.9 mph (Co) vs 15.4 sec @ 91.2 mph (Taco)**
- Quarter mile accel towing 3,000 lbs: 20.3 sec @ 66.4 mph (Co) vs 19.8 sec @ 72.6 mph (Taco)**
- Quarter mile accel towing max load: 23.8 sec @ 56.9 mph (Co, 7.6K lbs) vs 23.8 sec @ 61.2 mph (Taco, 6.4K Lbs)
- Davis Dam "Frustration": 11.6 sec, 1,019 ft (Co) vs 7.0 sec, 616 ft (Taco)**
TW Rebuttal: "Colorado is a shitty car thing, Tacoma is a better truck" **Also 4wd to 4x4, the Taco stops in a shorter distance, accelerates faster (even with a load), and is faster on a Figure 8. Taco rocked the Colorado on the Dam.
Supporting MT View: If a truck can be engineered to do all the "truck things" you want, while having more dynamic and stable handling for on-ramps during your grocery trips, isn't that a good thing?
TW Counter-Counter Point: This improved Colorado feel probably comes at the cost of ground clearance and off-road capability. Also did you see the 4x4 Taco did better in braking, zero to sixty, and the Figure 8? Tacoma won most the objective measures except Lateral Accel & max tow. The Tacoma pulls shit more quickly, but can't pull as much as the Colorado.
Conclusion: MT cherry-picked stats to support their subjective notes. Yet, an entirely reasonable assessment for much of the non-hardcore off-road mid-size truck market. It is a narrow win for the Colorado based on subjective feel: doesn't go as fast, but does it smoothly. The agenda is likely a shot at Toyota for using a carryover suspension and not innovating to vastly improve ride-feel while maintaining their off-road credibility. Choose the Taco if you need the extra ground clearance and don't mind a "truckish" ride, while noting the Taco might feel harsher/work harder and flop around more. But, it will stop quicker and accelerate faster with a load.
My Summary: The Tacoma lost because it downshifts.

2. Efficiency
MT Subjective: Colorado uses less fluid to make go.
MT Objective:
- Real MPG City/Hwy/Comb: 25.5/29.3/27.1 (Co) vs 15.8/21.8/18.1 (Taco)
TW Rebuttal: Apples to Dollars, depending on vehicle configuration, the diesel may not be worth it...
- MPG Cost Example:
-- 15,000 miles driven per year
-- Today's average national prices ($2.466 Diesel and $2.145 Gas, per http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_gnd_dcus_nus_w.htm)
-- At 27.1 mpg (Colorado combined) vs 18.1 mpg (Tacoma combined)
-- That is 553.5 gal/year (Co) vs 828.7 gal/year (Taco)
-- Which costs $1364/yr (Co) vs $1778/yr (Taco)
-- Colorado costs -$413 less per year to drive in that scenario, wow.
-- BUT...
-- As tested price of $47,425 (Co) vs $38,315 (Taco) means Colorado costs $9,110 more upfront (as tested config)
-- Which would take ~22 YEARS to pay off the difference.
Supporting MT View: If you drive a crap ton of miles per year or buy a base-model truck with few options, the math for diesel may work out in your favor.
TW Counter-Counter Point: You can make a "win" argument for any config here based on extreme usage scenarios or a getting a good deal. The diesel is going to cost you more unless you keep the Colorado FOREVER, get a killer sales deal, or drive a fuck ton of miles per year.
My Summary: MT's Value perspective is narrow and skewed to focus ONLY on the MPG number. Don't buy diesel for value. The fact that Atkinson-cyle capes are ignored for the Tacoma tells me Toyota isn't getting the efficiency they need out of the 2GR in a heavy midsize truck. Sadface. Tacoma lost because the MPG number is smaller, even if the value math doesn't work out.

3. Value
My Summary: Did the math, see #2 above. You can probably config something for your usage scenario, but for a person shopping the Tacoma TRD OR 4x4 DCSB, the Colorado Z71 with Diesel is far more expensive, honey crisps to jonagolds. MT may have good reason here, but they didn't prove to me what I get for the extra $9,110 in a Z71 vs the Taco.

4. Safety
MT Subjective: MT feels safe in a Colorado...I guess?
MT Objective: The Colorado also has six airbags, stability control with rollover mitigation, hill start assist, and hill descent control (Z71). IIHS tested Colorado as "Good".
TW Rebuttal: Tacoma has 8 airbags, TRAC/A-TRAC stability control (cannot verify a rollover mitigation feature), hill start assist (HAC), hill descent offroad via CRAWL, and also Smart Stop Tech.
Supporting MT View: Colorado does have lane departure warning and forward collision warning. Neat.
TW Counter-Counter Point: Tacoma also has BSM, RCTA and parking sonar. Because MT's comparison was skosh on details, I have no idea if the Colorado has that stuff. Tacoma did slightly better in rollover testing by NHTSA, see here:
- http://www.safercar.gov/Vehicle+Sho...Newer+Vehicles/Vehicle-Detail?vehicleId=10130
- http://www.safercar.gov/Vehicle+Sho...Newer+Vehicles/Vehicle-Detail?vehicleId=10281
My Summary: Lame, non-detailed comparison by MT here. Total ballwash. They might as well have left this section out.

5. Design
MT Subjective: They like the Colorado exterior better. They like Tacoma's interior better, but praise Colorado ergonomics.
MT Objective Measures:
- Colorado has active grill shutters (cool), aluminum hood, deep bed, corner step bumper
TW Rebuttal: Taco has excellent aerodynamic numbers/coefficient of drag improvements, bed depth difference is an inch, MT said the interior is "Lexus-ish" and praised the infotainment system (pretty sure that is rare).
My Summary: Sounds like this section was a wash or tie to me.

5. Intended Function
Here MT heaps praise on fuel efficiency, configuration options, and some electronic tidbits (like 4G). Their summary is the truck did well, but most of their accolades go to the powertrain and diesel fuel economy. Meh.

MY OVERALL CONCLUSION:
Tacoma is a better as-tested value in this case, and performs objectively better on almost every assessment. But why did it lose?

I think the Tacoma lost because Toyota didn't pull off best-in-class fuel economy, and because the automatic transmission has to work hard and shift a lot to get the truck to perform, which makes the truck feel less composed than the torquey diesel and pollutes user perception of the performance numbers. MT wasn't very convincing on the other differences, and the cherry-picking of objective numbers tells me it was "feel" that won it for them. I could easily write a counterpoint article using their data saying "TACOMA CRUSHES NEW CHEVY DIESEL IN TOWING TESTS!".

Basically, Colorado got the win for the ballsy move of bringing a diesel to the segment while Toyota only pulled off a solid, but not revolutionary upgrade to the Tacoma. I don't disparage MT for their decision, but they make it seem like a slam dunk, and that doesn't add up to me based on their comments and tests.

EDIT 2: To clarify my point again, I think this choice *DOES* align with MT's stated intent of the test: they reward a well-executed shake-up or improvement to a market. Bringing a diesel to the mid-sized game certainly qualifies. My critique here is not in defense of Tacoma, it is in defense of readers who don't take the time to notice the lack of depth expressed by MT in the write-up.

 

GM may also advertise in MT more than Toyota.

 

You nailed it! I bought the Taco for Truck Performance, not that of a Crossover. In the end we will see the difference in Reliability and Resale Values. Great job of measuring the comparisons.

 

I love the commercial for forward collision warning. FORWARD, open up your fucking eyes and learn to drive, that's all the warning you need

 

The Colorado won due to it being a new design from the previous "generation". Not only that, but it's back from the dead.

 

I had ordered a '16 GMC Canyon Nightfall that I ended up backing out of in favor a '16 TRD Sport 4x4.

My decision was almost entirely based on (hoped for) reliability. After decades of Acura, Honda, and Lexus ownership I didn't want to worry about spending time in the shop.

A comparison like that done by MT can not predict reliability. If I was writing for MT I'd probably choose a vehicle other than the TRD OR, but would come to the same conclusion.

If I had went simply on verifiable attributes the Canyon/Colorado would win every time for anyone who stays mostly on road.

 

What surprised me most was the dominance of the Tacoma in acceleration and pulling numbers, which didn't get a lot of commentary by MotorTrend. I really wonder if a manual tranny would change the result - rather than gear hunting, they would have been in control.

 

Probably apples and oranges here, but have you even driven a hilux diesel? Better have some open road if you wanna pass someone. I'm sorry MT, there is no better all around truck out there than a Tacoma.

 

Dollars talk. It's pretty damn simple.

GM pays MT more than Toyota (ads).

In no way are these tests impartial, the fact some people still believe they are just let's them know it works on us.

 

Yes, yes I have. But it's was a 5 spd turbocharged with an intercooler that mounts on top of the engine under the functional sport hood scoop.

 

I agree. While not stated, that is the biggest single difference in the 'editorial' POV.

OTOH, MT became an irrelevant magazine several years ago. I prefer Hot Rod.

 

A detailed thread on why the Tacoma should have won on a Tacoma forum for an award the forum says doesn't matter but they argue about anyway, oh yeah

BTW, it isn't money. Proved on another thread numerous late model GM models (including the halo Z06 and bread and butter Silverado) lost comparison tests, why wouldn't their money have bought those wins? So with that logic any Toyota win we should just chalk up to money as well? Was the Tacoma win in 05 and Tundra win in 08 because of money as well? See where your logic is failed?

It wasn't all just in the numbers, it was feel as well. The diesel is heavy and slower (the figure 8, acceleration also plays a hand) and can feel better than the numbers show. Ergonomics isn't how pretty something is either... This will be fun to read later though, I bet it will be 10 pages by dinner time CST.

Tyler

 

I never said the Tacoma should have won.

I was merely seeking to understand the comparison decision in detail and pointed out differences that either support, or don't support the conclusion. You are reading to see typical TW bullshit when I was pointedly attempting to avoid that.

 

You need to learn to read...

 

I don't think he even read my post. Just scanned a few key words and made sweeping assumptions about my intent and point.

 

Great write up!

 

Outstanding breakdown.

 

90% of the people who click on this thread wont read the whole thing, they will just assume another fan boy.

 

"Wurds make things hard." (Sips Brawndo)