2017 GM twins beat the pants off Tacoma

One question...how many 11 year old G.M. pickups are there running around compared to 11 year old Toyota pickups? Just curious...

 

Before anyone says performance numbers don't matter - they kinda do in real life. Think merging onto a freeway, or accelerating to get out of harms way. It matters.

I personally don't think the performance on the 3.5 is bad, but like any other car/truck I drive. Wish there was just a little more.

 

Yeah in 8 years you can trade your Tacoma in for 3 colorados.

 

I don't have any hard objective numbers, but everytime I visit the midwest/TX/SouthEast I see plenty of old GM/Ford trucks....

The Tacomas/Tundras out numbering the Domestics I only see are in coastal areas...

 

The 2017 Sienna with the 296 HP will be pretty quick as well (relatively speaking)

 

Personally speaking, I prefer the 17 Taco I own now to the 16 Canyon I traded because I like a vehicle that won't stall 5 times in 8 mos, driver's window that will go up and down without hesitation when needed, the radio screen won't go black every so often, etc. I could go on, but suffice it to say, if the twins are a little faster, great. At least I know the Tacos work.

 

That's it, no more Toyotas until this is fixed!

I will say other than longer (and maybe short) term reliability, I think GM has really got their shit together since we the people wrote them a check.

If GM can end planned obsolescence as a sales driver they may get themselves positioned well and end up getibg more than just a few other manufactures buyers.

 

I would guess a LOT more due simply to the number of GMs sold vs Tacomas, probably close to a 5-1 ratio

 

Then let's say percentage wise of total sales, are there more 11 year old Toyota pickups still running then G.M. or Fords? I wonder how someone could check those figures? It MUST be out there somewhere...registration numbers, maybe?

 

i love bench racers using speed and/or power as the only metric(s) for how "good" or "fun" a vehicle is.

i'll take my "underpowered" FRS over probably 90% of "fast" cars any day. Theres one thing that mashing the pedal cant do is give me a big fat grin on my face just simply by sitting in the seat, because "feels" of a car is just as important of a factor.(or more)

 

To help identify which vehicles currently on the road tend to last the longest, the data miners at the used-car site iSeeCars.com analyzed a sample of no less than 12 million vehicles from the 1981 model year and later to determine which have rung up the most miles on their respective odometers. As it stands, pickups and truck-based SUVs dominate the “longest lasting” list, placing 10 out of the top 10 models among all vehicle types.

Heavy-duty models from Ford, Chevrolet and GMC were the highest-ranking pickup trucks, with full-size SUVs from Toyota, Ford, and Chevy also placing among the top models. Six percent of Ford F-250 Super Duty pickups – the top performing model among all used vehicles – were found to still be on the road after running for more than 200,000 miles. Six of the top 10 models on the list are from General Motors GM -0.23% and two each are built by Ford and Toyota. Neither Nissan nor FCA placed any trucks among the top-ranked vehicles.

1. FORD F250 SUPER DUTY

2. CHEVY SILVERADO 2500 HD

3. TOYOTA 4 RUNNER

4. FORD EXPEDITION

5. CHEVY SUBURBAN

6. TOYOTA SEQUOIA

7. GMC SIERRA 2500 HD

8. CHEVROLET TAHOE

9. GMC YUKON XL

10. GMC YUKON


source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jimgorz...st-lasting-used-trucks-and-suvs/#6684fb163857

 

Yeah but all those Colorados won't have running engines.

 

I don't think anyone is alluding that speed is the only metric that matters.

If you drive an FRS, you must know about power to weight ratio balance. Meaning, if you add 150 hp to your FRS, it will probably become frustrating to drive and easily over power the chassis. But say, you sprinkle in another 10-15 HP. That would probably make the car just a tad more enjoyable while retaining the outstanding merits of the car (it's handling)

IMO, and this is just my opinion. If they moved the 3.5 powerband slightly lower, while flattening the torque curve, it would make the truck much better to drive. Don't need more power, just a power delivery tweak if you will.

 

BTW, the Colorado Diesel can't hit 60 MPH in a quarter mile loaded.

 

Posts are better with data...

https://www.0-60specs.com/chevrolet-colorado-0-60-times/

https://www.0-60specs.com/toyota-tacoma-0-60-times/

https://www.tacomaworld.com/threads/2gr-fks-in-tacoma-is-not-slow-data.402121/

It appears that new 8A tranny makes the Colorado faster? Interesting, based on one sample at least.

 

Neither can the 2.7L Tacoma

 

While your response is much more reasonable than some others in here, I dont mind pushing my right foot just a tad down to get power delivery.

Maybe I've always driven low torque and power band cars higher so it doesnt bother me much.

and I would sometimes love 150hp more in the FRS just because of FI noises. I miss having a turbo car. and having a combination of both power AND handing (good chassis, etc) is always nice.

 

Yeah but the 2.7 costs half as much as the diesel

 

low RPM torque is important for trucks because of it's hauling capability. No one wants to wind out a motor going down the interstate with a full load.

 

Yep. And here's how they are reported over at http://www.zeroto60times.com/