Tacoma vs. Gladiator

Dont think it was the hellcat engine but the 392 6.4 from the scat pack

 

Trust in God. All others must bring data.

I know a few Land Rover owners who may disagree .

 

I just have some professional experience with statistics and thought I’d share some musings. Sorry if I offended.

 

Price.

 

that's not the hellcat.

 

I thought it was minus the blower? So you can drop one on?

 

392 is a 6.4L HEMI, the Hellcat uses a 6.2L HEMI with a supercharger.

 

you can or you can have it done.
I have a 6.4L (392) hemi in my 2015 JKU rubicon. Would like to drive one with a hellcat.

 

This is the way.

 

Awesome! I bet it's a blast to drive!

 

Coworker’s sister just got a 392 XR. He’ll eventually bring it to work one day and I can’t wait to get a ride in it. CANT BELIEVE they aren’t putting this in the Gladiator for the last year of the 392.

 

Stock for Stock:

Tacoma
Looks better
Way cheaper
Smoother ride
Likely more reliable if keeping longer than 5 years

Gladiator
Can be doorless, roofless in nice weahter
More space in back seat
Better engine/transmission out of the box

 

Thanks,
I really enjoy it.
New crate motor with SS long tube headers. Supposed to be 515hp at the crank.

 

I wish I could still buy a four-cylinder wrangler 2 door for like $22,000. That would be the ideal Hawaii ride.

 

Excuse my ignorance here but doesn't the Taco have a boxed/tubular front frame and a "C" shaped rear? Also, he said that "every truck" has a tubular frame. I always thought pickups primarily had C shaped frames and Toyotas boxed/tubular front frame was a selling point and added to its durability.

The biggest issue I have with this comparison is the astounding price difference between the diesel Gladiator and Taco. I've priced out Gladiators to what my Taco cost and you get much less for your $ with the Jeep.

 

The Tacoma is just fully boxed up front under the engine. I believe the Tundra is the same way. Fully boxed frames are indeed stronger, and a selling point.

 

It really depends on the intended use. I had a 2021 Gladiator Rubicon. It was nice but I described it as more Jeep than truck. It was an ok truck but it drove only slightly better than our lifted Wrangler. My primary concern was longevity though. Jeeps are ok but not known for longevity so I got rid of the Gladiator and bought a used high mileage Tacoma to replace my old Land Cruiser 100 series that I missed. It drives much better than the gladiator.

For adventuring, desert and trails, I prefer Toyota. For rocks, Jeep but I prefer the Wrangler wheelbase.

 

My understanding was that Toyota designed the frame that way in the rear to allow for more flex and articulation when offroad. Something the Tacoma competitors like the Colorado and Ranger fall short on.
With it looking like there going with coil spring rear suspension on the 4th gen Tacoma, they will be switching to the new platform design which has a boxed frame. It should allow more flex than the leaf spring design would have.

 

If the frame flexed enough to add significant articulation, the body panels and other things connected to the frame would be at risk of bending and failing. I don’t know of no reason why you would want a frame to have excessive flex like that.

Toyota likely has little interest in improving suspension articulation.

My guess for the primary reason of the hybrid c-frame and box-frame frame design is increased crash safety. The fact that the heavy engine and passengers are in the front might be a factor as well.

 

The RTI between the TRD Pro and ZR2 is negligible; 492 & 489, respectively. The TRD Off Road comes in at 468, while the Gladiator Rubicon comes in at 623. Both Toyotas and the Chevy are nearly the same. I wouldn't say that the Colorado falls short; it's nearly the same score as the TRD Pro.
https://www.jeepgladiatorforum.com/...nd-tacoma-ramp-travel-index-test-score.14898/