Car and Driver Comparison: 2016 Tacoma v. 2016 Colorado

Which Mazda truck was this working on?

 

You have to remember this is in a truck that has to do a lot of ballsy things. Look at the Highlander or Rav4 if you want to compare to Mazda. Mazda doesn't make a truck or a body on frame to compare.

 

I slammed on the brakes during the test drive and I was impressed as well.

 

True. This is like saying the 4 banger in my Corolla gets 38-40 mpg and the 4 banger in the Tacoma only gets 24. There doing something wrong. No. There's just a huge difference in its use.

 

24 highway. 30 is the diesel. In town only you can expect a few mpg's below the low of 19. Both colorado and tacoma have similar mpg ratings for the has engines. Pretty much a toss up. I but into consumer reports and even though they rate the tacoma the lowest of all trucks it is the highest in reliability. They say it is to utilitarian or truck like. Well reliability and truck like is what I like. Try fitting a 1 up tire on the colorado, try off roading with the low approach angles, it's not going to happen. 0-60 is not that big a difference.

Those complaining of low tech make we wonder why qi charging is low tech. As well as the ability to use your phone navigation and see it on your head unit. I know of no other vehicle with this capability.

 

Totally agree which why I bought a Tacoma.

 

That is a thing on the new Tacoma?
That's awesome!

 

Upgrades in technology that make an engine more efficient from a thermodynamic perspective (chemical energy in the fuel to shaft power at the wheels) will provide roughly the same % benefits whether its propelling a sedan, truck, or toaster. The new Tacoma isn't significantly heavier or larger than the old one, so you'd think going from an ancient port-injected lump to an advanced DI engine with Atkinson lobes and 12.5% less displacement coupled to a more efficient transmission with taller gearing would result in some tangible fuel economy improvements.

It's not like the Tacoma got massively more capable in Gen3; the suspension, differentials, wheels, etc are all basically the same as Gen 2. On paper, that engine/trans/aero should have lowered fuel consumption by ~20% based on other vehicles that have made similar improvements (like the Mazda sedans I mentioned).

Then again, Ford's 2.7L DI turbo engine coupled with the weight loss from more aluminum should have yielded massively better fuel economy than competing engines, yet real-world fuel economy is still the same as Chevy's n/a 4.3L V6. Diesel seems to be the only way to get decent fuel economy in a midsize or larger pickup?

 

Just imagine how much better it would preform with discs though.

 

The V6 has improved in mpg, albeit slightly, but it has. Again, Toyota plays it safe. They are not going to spend all their time trying to improve mpg drastically and make the truck drive like a car (That's GM's job). Mike Sweers says over and over, their main concern is reliability and durability.

 

Your right to an extent. Trucks and cars are a different breed. But. For your betterment well use your numbers. 2nd gen 4x2 4.0 avg (according to real world #) about 20 mpg. So by your figures of 20% I should get 24.

 

You (and everyone else with a Gen3) should start a Fuelly account for your truck. A couple snapshots of brief highway jaunts don't tell the story; thousands of fill-ups from hundreds of users on Fuelly do.

 

Regarding the shifting, driving both the Canyon and Colorado netted me a gear-hunting session as well. Why is the Tacoma singled out for that?

 

I'm sure that is exactly what's going on. But considering only hundreds have been sold and most have only filled up a few times. It's gonna be a while. So these pics are all we have for now. But I fully expect to avg about 23 or 24 once I really start using it to commute.

 

How about we just care about how it performs? Lots of cars run disk brakes that are worse than or at best no better than drums but give the manufacturer an incentive to jack up prices for people like you.

PS, Colorado has rear disk brakes. Doesn't seem to be a whole lot better.

 

I feel it's really pronounced in the new V6 especially with the ETC turned off. From the take off under normal exceleration it nearly goes right into a low rev 2nd then short shift 3rd into 4th at about 35mph. So when you give it a little gas it kinda waits to figure out if it needs to drop down or slow accel

 

The twins did the same to me. I'd hit the gas and then wait a second, only after which the engine decided to do something. The real solution to this is going back to direct connect throttle bodies. Having the car try and guess what you want instead of it just doing what your foot does is annoying.

 

or a manual transmission. There is zero lag when in gear

 

I think their benchmark in reliability speaks for itself..

 

The Colorado has a rear locker. A much better one too. It also has way more features you didn't list that the Tacoma doesn't have. 4G wireless, onstar, longer warranty, the rear step bumper (waiting for Tacoma to steal this like they stole the tailgate self lowering feature) and more I am sure.