2GR-FKS in Tacoma is not slow (data)

Me ? Ha ha , you're the one who wants to "burn rubber. "

 

Aahhh, to be young again......

 

Well I'll answer the man's simple question about the torque/performance of the new 3.5 drivetrain.

@TacoJonn yes. It has enough torque to break loose if you put the hammer down. At least with traction control disabled and ECT on.

Not that I care to do it and obviously can't recommend it.

 

Holy shit. No, I don't want to burn rubber. I am too old for that. I am genuinely curious if the auto can burn rubber because it felt like a friggin Geo Metro with a fat man strapped to the roof when I tested one. I never burn rubber but it's nice to know the power is there if I ever wanted to. JimJustJum thinks he pretty clever though. Pat yourself on the back.

 

What do you mean I think I'm pretty clever? There must be a misunderstanding here. Either on your end or mine but I was definitely not trying to be condescending in any way.

You asked if it could burn rubber. A legitimate question as far as I'm concerned, and one I asked myself for exactly the same reason. After all, the 2nd gen has a good deal of torque and this is an entirely new drivetrain. Then @Dagosa basically seemed to infer that you were the type to actually rev the engine and drop it into neutral so he replied basically that it would ruin your transmission. He didn't seem to answer your question, so I clarified, then Dagosa made another comment that didn't answer your question, so I answered your question.

I'm not trying to be clever or make fun of you in any way, man. You asked something I consider a valid question, and instead of getting an answer, you got the run around.

And if it was my bit about not recommending it that made it seem like I was being condescending or something, I didn't mean it that way at all. We get all types on these forums, so I legitimately thought it was important to point out that just burning rubber for fun isn't something I'd recommend. For crying out loud, we get people on here that are trying to lock their rear diff and go down the highway or don't even know how to check their oil or swap a fuse. I don't really know your age, knowledge, or experience base so I thought I'd at least make it clear that I'd not recommend it.

Once again, I apologize if I somehow came across as insulting. That was not my intention at all.

 

Thanks for clarifying. I am really just genuinely curious if it is capable or not. Tires are too expensive to do that. haha

 

Lol, I learned long ago that no good deed ever goes unpunished

 

First post updated with numbers from the Peterson's 4WD test.

Of note, while the tested 0-60 MPH result was different, the delta between the Chevy Z71 Diesel and the Taco OR was ~2.2-2.4 seconds in both Peterson's and Motortrend. Meaning, if you extrapolate via "differences" to the GM gas models, the Tacoma may be either a tie or 0.5 sec faster than a Colorado gas model 0-60 MPH. Not splitting hairs, just means (I think) that they (gas models) are all within spitting distance of each other based on this.

Doesn't matter for anything, but it's interesting to me.

 

You can't extrapolate a Chevy Diesel to the Gas. Let me make this real easy for you to understand the Chevy & Taco are about the same weight, but the Chevy has 305HP which equals faster.

 

Wow,what the hell dude? I am using comparison of differences between similar models across different tests to provide a measure of validation of other results.

Edit: Took out my anger.

 

I was going to say something about..more HP means better 0-60 times but didn't. The older 4.0 was close to the Colorado according to 0-60 times posted on line and it had only 237 HP and one less gear. Torque diffenerce and where it is used is as important for low end acceleration which much of 0-60 times are.
The higher HP of the Colorado comes at a higher RPM and with a flatter torque curve for a Taco , it's very possible for the times to be close...of even better for the Taco. Though, eveything I read indicates the Colorado is a,little quicker, it doesn't seem to be by much and is not directly attributed to the Hp. IMHO, your extrapolation sounds reasonable.

 

Gearing in both the transmission and rear diff plays a huge role in acceleration as well...

 

first post updated with data from TFL Truck's IKE test.

 

hahahah I'm sorry but common bud....

You're suggesting that sales demand and owner-appreciation of full sized diesel trucks is based on 0-60 times and their ability to be faster from a stop than economy cars. Your initial hesitation in posting was correct. You are wrong in lot of ways, and especially in both a philosophical sense and literal sense. The 2016 Toyota Corolla is a full second slower than the slowest diesel listed above @ 10.5seconds.

 

I did a 2nd test drive of the auto last night and made sure to follow the advice of owners on this forum. I gave it more pedal from a dead stop and it actually felt pretty dang good. Revs high but it feels like it's in its element when it revs high. No rocket from 0-60 but it had ample power.

 

Think intermediate diesel truck....not full size. Or course that requires you to read the whole post....... Ha ha.

 

Gotcha, my bad, you're totally right. That changes everything.

 

Jmo ,
I just sold my 2006 F250 diesel, 345 hp auto running cetane on fill up which put me at 14 - 16 mpg
Punch the peddle and you could see the fuel gage go from full to mt as fast as you wanted
I will be so happy when my MGM DCSB OR arrives next month and seeing mpg improve

 

Just to reinforce some of your ideas, I drive a diesel tractor and diesel dump while my neighbors have diesel plow trucks. While not under heavy carrying load, the gas engine trucks have a distinct advantage in acceleration. But, while each is carrying a hefty weight, there is no comparison. Diesel trucks in comparable vehicles tend to accelerate much better. So, if you are a very frequent trailer hauler, or load your vehicle down with people or gear, it is "safer" IMO, to have a diesel if acceleration is important .

 

Yes you are right