New Tacoma to be shown in Detroit

Are you responding to something or are you just saying that as general advice?

It's SO similar!

Gas being cheap has nothing to do with it, they do need to step it up. But 17 is pretty low for a manny tranny 2 wheel

 

I was about to buy a 2015...glad I saw the news. Now waiting to see what the 2016 Tacoma brings. And I agree, they will use the current frame (maybe with some slight mods) for savings... I am really looking forward to a better/more efficient engine and some body updates with some modern improvements. The location of the tow electrical connector, the Tacoma across the tailgate...all tha looks great! TRD 4x4 for me please, hurry up Toyota! Jan 12 can't come fast enough.

A friend just bought a 2015 this last Friday. I don't care if it is a 10 year old design, it still looks great.

 

And you would likely get 15 (or less) in an F150. Sounds like you see a lot of stoplights and a heavy full size truck gets savaged in that sort of driving. The Tacoma is still a good deal lighter than any full size in similar configuration.

 

For some reason I get about 17 mpg whether I am on the highway or in town. And I'm not particularly lead footed either.

Yes, I also I wonder if the Ford Ecoboost trucks perform as well as they say in real world driving?

I love my Taco and wouldn't trade it for an F-150, just saying that Toyota can and should do better when it comes to fuel economy.

 

I don't know what ford does as far as mpg testing with epa but both my mom's ecoboost explorer and dads f150 get 2-3 miles less than what they are rated for.

 

Ford has to use and publish the same mpg test methods as all the other manus.
What I've read is that the EPA mileage test is usually a bit optimistic compared to real world driving.

What's important though, is that they all use the same methodology so we can make comparisons.

 

In Canada the fuel ratings are way off, they are much more strict with testing methods in the US.

 

Didn't toyota and honda have law suits against them for false mpg ratings?

 

1) Ford has been busted using incorrect over road drag adjustment factors in several of their vehicles in the past few years.
2) It is called teaching to the test. You set your AT shift patterns and boost thresholds to keep the truck out of boost at the acceleration rates that are specified on the test. That returns a great result on the test, but not so good when you deviate from those tests in the real world. Consumer Reports has covered this pretty extensively where the Ecoboost vehicles tend to get the same mileage as the competitors despite having higher EPA ratings.
3) Ford particularly likes to play the final drive game. They offer a 2.7 gear on a model that they pretty much don't stock so they can advertise those high fuel economy numbers. You technically can get it, but good luck finding one on a lot and the performance sucks because it has super tall gearing.

 

Ford and Hyundai have recently. I think Toyota did back in the mid 00s when the U.S. was still using the old EPA cycles that had the Prius at 61 mpg city.

 

This was the best body style for the Tundra so far IMO. Hopefully the new Tacoma will have more rear seat room like in the 1st gen tundra.

 

Good info Quentin!

 

I hope they come out with a hybrid version.

 

Yeah more seat room would be nice, but with a similar frame, where is the space? The bed can't get any smaller and if the engine bay gets any shorter we'll have it looking like it ran into a brick wall like the Tundra.

 

A hybrid truck? Just buy a Prius.

 

A hybrid would be like if Oz and Francis got married?

 

You do realize the ecoboost 2.7 just came out for 2015 model year. As of today, you can't drive off the lot any 2015 MY F-150's, regardless of engine/trim package.

 

I would prefer a truck bed. They have a hybrid v6 in the high lander so they have the tech. I know this may be a shock to people but not everyone wants a locked 4x4 truck. I just need something to haul stuff in its bed and get me around. A small 4 cyl hybrid taco would be perfect.

 

I wasn't talking about the new truck. This is based on the 2014 truck. I was talking about the tall rear gear that you could get for some of the engines not the engine displacement. The tallest configuration is what they use for their "advertising numbers" when Dennis Leary is yapping at you at the commercial break of an NFL game. I misspoke, though, Ford offered a 3.31, 3.55, and 3.73 on their turbo V6 trucks. But that is my point. They can claim 350hp and 22mpg and it isn't lying. But, with what was the heaviest truck in the segment and those tall gears, that 350hp isn't going to feel like 350hp. With the 3.73 gears, and F150 drinks gas but is pretty quick. That is my basic point of all of this. You can make the numbers say what you want and advertise whatever you like.

I'd love to see Consumer Reports do a test of how the gear ratios change the EPA rating and how it changes the numbers on their own fuel economy test and performance tests. It would be a neat study to see what you are really trading off for the sake of fuel economy when playing the gear ratio game.

Edit: now I'm seeing that they offered a 3.15 gear, too. Jesus, how the hell are you supposed to decide what ratio to get?!

 

The new Tacoma should be as capable as the Tundras in the mid 2000's. That isn't a truck growing outside of it's class, it's progress. Engine technologies have improved. Today's mid-sized trucks should be able to do what full-sized trucks used to do.