IS THE TOYOTA TACOMA’S SALES LEAD UNTOUCHABLE?

Auto makers cannot afford to become complacent in such a competitive market place. Toyota will need to stay ahead of its competitors if it wants to remain king of the mid size truck market.

 

It's very possible except I think a tuned 2.7 L makes more sense weight wise in a Ranger. The 3.5 L Ecoboost in in the Explorer now to compete with the Grand Cherokee folks that have to have a HO engine in their MILF wagon. It also allows Ford to advertise their tow rating on the Explorer as being trailer capable without much stress. If Jeep releases their truck with a V8 that would likely drive Ford to use the 3.5 L in some version of the Ranger later on.

Keep in mind the competition in this class is still using engines that barely make 270 ft lbs of torque. A 2.7 L Ecoboost creams a 5.3 L GM V8 in most real world tests. It'll absolutely have it's way sexually with anything on the market right now in a mid sized truck.

 

Toyota always had a more complex engine then the Chevy. They have been using double overhead cams with 4 valves per cylinder for years. While Chevy has been using a overhead valve design with 2 valves per cylinder.

 

Being that they are using a Global Platform for the Ranger a Manual is already in use so there really would be no extra costs

 

You may be right, and they'll do a High Output 2.7L to match up with the High Output 3.5 in the Raptor. But I agree that whatever motors Ford puts in it, they'll be class leaders in terms of power and efficiency from the get-go. Those little turbo Eco's are pretty quick.

 

My point exactly. Toyota doesn't use "old and reliable" technology. They are chasing cost effiency with the 2GR in the Tacoma, both from a fuel economy stand point and a manufacturing standpoint. Toyota's company line that they are avoiding turbo engines due to reliability has no truth to it. It's just an excuse to keep selling what will make them the most money right now, an existing complex engine design.

 

Simply carrying two parts in a factory where one will do adds cost. Different suppliers, unique shipping and handling, etc etc. This is what has killed the manual in most of the half ton and larger trucks.

Again, I could see it on the base model but likely that's about it. Toyota is fairly unique in offering a manual on their top end trims. If you want that you'll probably have the option between Toyota or Jeep.

 

I should post the scathing reply I got from Lethbridge Toyota after I posted a negative review on the CH-R. They had a test drive day where you could borrow one for a couple of hours so I tried it. Compared to the turbo H-RV and Juke, or even the NA Mazda CX-3, it felt under powered. Combined with a massive amount of over steer from the FWD the thing is complete garbage. However, it has a Toyota badge on it and the dealer is toting the line that it's a simpler car than the competitions offerings so it will last longer. I guess whatever floats their boat.

 

Toyota has already lost a huge portion of the market and it's likely to lose more with the Ranger and new Frontier coming. Nothing is certain.

 

They won't do this because they don't want to cannibalize sales from their darling F-150.

 

One problem I have with Toyota is the pace they use to update vehicles. The last Tacoma, current Tundra, 4Runner and Sequoia all should have been redone way sooner. The new Camry has 2 more powerful engines without Turbos. I think they will be putting the 4 cylinder in more vehicles as time comes along. They also have a 4 cylinder Turbo at Lexus. There is no reason why they can't drop that engine into some of Toyotas cars.

 

Thing is though they won't cannibalise sales. The trick to the new midsized trucks is that they are the same price as the full sized trucks. This is why GM is showing much higher net sales across all truck brands since the release of the Colorado. The mid sized class is really only now for folks who don't want a full sized truck but still want a truck. Surprisingly they will pay the same price. While Ford won't put the 3.5 L Ecoboost in the Ranger I see no reason for them not to put the 2.7 L engine into their version of the mini Raptor.

In all likelihood I think most people here are agreed no matter what you may or may not know. Likely the Ranger will get the 3.3 L NA and 2.3 L Ecoboost engines to start with a Diesel likely as well.

 

The ridgeline has a negative slope, thus stating its sales are declining, not showing strength I would think.

But yet they are still selling them by the handfuls. I hope they keep pushing the price of the 2nd gens up, it will help the 3rd gen models eventually.

 

Oh I know, they have the technology, they just refuse to use it on some models until they lose sales apparently. To be frank they have their loyal fan base so I'm not sure that will ever change.

 

The shape looks different than the international verion. I think it looks great. Pair it with a 350+ hp ecoboost, and I think there is a serious contender here

 

The HR-V doesn't have a turbo.... did you mean CRV?? That compares to the RAV4 not the CH-R.

Also I think you meant to say the CHR suffers from UNDER steer not over steer.

I fully disagree, I worked for Toyota for many years and currently work for a Honda dealership. I'm disappointed everything is moving to turbos. To me turbochargers are great for performance vehicles but I think the only reason to use them in commuter cars is for CAFE standards and EPA regulations. If it was up to the free market I don't think you'd see a turbocharged CRV like you do now.

Pretty hard to disagree with the fact that turbocharged engines are inherently less reliable than NA counterparts. You're adding a ton of extra points of failure, according to Murphy's law (which is commonly misunderstood and is actually an engineering term) that alone makes them less reliable. For the first 100k miles I don't think you'll see much difference in NA vs Turbo engine reliability, but once you get between 100-200k miles turbocharged engines will present many problems you simply won't have to deal with on an NA engine.

I've had a ton of turbo cars and I love them all: MKIII Supra, MK4 GTI, Legacy GT, WRX, TDI sportwagen, and an Audi A4. Took many of those well into the 100k+ mile range and have dealt with everything from turbo seal failures, spool play, intercooler failures, blowby, HPFP issues, leaks galore, decreased compression compared to NA counter parts with similar miles, etc etc etc. I've worked for Subaru, Toyota, and Honda and get to see all sorts of cars in service to compare.

I think Toyota is being smart and conservative by trying all other available options before relying on turbocharging to meet regulatory standards.

 

if they make a off road edition of the ranger that looks like a mini raptor that would be the tits

 

Toyota has never been the type of company that gets into a specs or powertrain war with its competition.

Toyota's logic is if we use the same engine and transmission throughout the generation lifecycle, it will be reliable and the resale value will be high.

Changing the powertrain and transmission in the middle of the generation cycle affects resale value and the uncertainty that the new powertrain will be reliable. With so many issues the 3rd gen tacomas had early on you would think Toyota might want to change the powertrain during the mid cycle refresh model year in 2020 but Toyota rarely changes powertrain in the middle of a generation cycle and they don't care if their competition looks better on paper.

I wish toyota would change this mindset.

 

[/QUOTE]
On the HR-V note that's interesting. We drove one when we were looking at small SUVs and it didn't seem to be missing much power. It wasn't fast but it was merge lane worthy so to speak. We drove most of the compact and sub compact class SUV's. We ended up buying a Ford Escape and we have been very happy with it so far. My favorites for driving in the class were the Juke, Mazda's, and the Ford Escape. The Nissan Rouge felt complete gutless and the Juke was too small (I owned one a few years back. The Mazda's both had very low roofs.

I found the C-HR loved to drive it's nose into a turn and throw the back end out if you tried to drive it aggressively. I know FWD usually means under steer from the torque but Toyota messed something up royally in the front end of that car. Bottom line it should of received AWD and a better engine.

 

They won't change that mindset and hopefully they stop waiting 10 years before redesigns on their Trucks.