2GR-FKS in Tacoma is not slow (data)

I thought this was interesting. Based on many posts around here I expected the new 3.5L 2GR to be a dog and not pull hard. That does not seem to be the case.



Data pulled from Motor Trend Truck of the Year competition and an older Motor Trend article. Includes GM twins (gas and diesel) and the 2005 Taco and 2015 Taco TRD Pro for comparison. The 2GR is either faster or on par for acceleration tests. Looking forward to see how it does with some more technical tests by other publications, and some testing of the MT. $5 says it's even faster with MT.

EDIT: here's a screen cap of a website with numbers from various magazines over the years. Testing methods must be different (neutral/clutch drop vs already in gear, etc) because these numbers vary widely.

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

--------------------------Peterson's 4wd & Offroad------------------------------------
Additional test data from Peterson's 4-Wheel & Offroad magazine 2016 4x4 of the Year comparison (the Tacoma TRD OR won) http://www.fourwheeler.com/vehicle-reviews/1601-2016-4x4-of-the-year-contenders/:

2016 Chevy Colorado Z71 Diesel
0-60 MPH: 12.35 sec
60-0 Braking: 107.3 ft
Mileage: 21.46 mpg

Jeep Renegade Trailhawk 4x4
0-60 MPH: 10.84 sec
60-0 Braking: 100 ft
Mileage: 20.57 mpg

Land Rover Range Rover TD6
0-60 MPH: 9.77 sec
60-0 Braking: 99.8 ft
Mileage: 23.94 mpg

Mercedes-Benz G-550
0-60 MPH: 7.92 sec
60-0 Braking: 95 ft
Mileage: 12.24 mpg

Mercedes-Benz Sprinter 2500 Crew Van 144-Inch 4x4
0-60 MPH: 14.43 sec
60-0 Braking: 134.7 ft
Mileage: 17.38 mpg

Nissan Titan Titan XD Crew Cab PRO-4X
0-60 MPH: 11.77 sec
60-0 Braking: 109.5 ft
Mileage: 12.54 mpg

RAM Rebel 1500 Crew Cab 4x4
0-60 MPH: 8.31 sec
60-0 Braking: 101 ft
Mileage: 13.3 mpg

2016 Toyota TRD Offroad 4x4 Double Cab AT
0-60 MPH: 10.13 sec
60-0 Braking: 101 ft
Mileage: 17.28 mpg
---------------------------------------------------

---------------------TFL Truck: IKE Gauntlet---------------------------
2015 Canyon: 7:55
2014 Frontier: 8:38 - slower by 43 seconds, takes 9.1% longer to finish
2015 Tacoma: 8:49 - slower by 54 seconds, takes 11.4% longer to finish
2016 Tacoma: 8:05 - slower by 10 seconds, takes 2.1% longer to finish (880 feet behind the Canyon)

2015 Canyon: 3.6 mpg
2014 Frontier: 3.9 mpg - 0.3 mpg better, or 8.3% more efficient
2015 Tacoma: not rated - n/a
2016 Tacoma: 4.5 mpg = 0.9 mpg better, or 25% more efficient
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Probably true, but not the point. Just comparing the twins and the old taco. Anything else will get apples to baguettes quickly. Not sure how many folks cross-shop Accords and mid-size trucks...

 

Diesels R Slow

 

I seriously doubt it takes the 4 liter v6 8.7 seconds to get to 60mph. It even lists the trd pro as 7.7 seconds which should be a slower truck then the regular trd off road due to the extra weight. The validity of all these numbers are questionable.

 

Do you have any other sources you can contribute? I would like to add more data and sources as I have time to paint an accurate picture.

 

What does those have anything to do with the point of this thread?

 

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-toyota-tacoma-first-drive-review

Car and Driver seems to have completely different numbers then Motor Trend. I'm not saying any are right or wrong there's just so many variables that goes into something like acceleration such as elevation, humidity, ethanol percentage of the gas, driver error etc... The best way to test it is to throw out all the reference material and do it yourself. That way you can reduce variables.

 

They only have estimates in that first drive review.

Here's a site I found (YOU HAD ONE JOB, TOM JEFFERSON, ONE JOB) with a bunch of 0-60mph and quarter-mile test times from different places: https://www.0-60specs.com/toyota-tacoma-0-60-times/

The times are indeed all over the map.

 

Different testing conditions like temperature, elevation, etc. all can have a pretty decent effect of all the testing numbers.

 

Jesus, that diesel is not quick.

 

Quentin: "JESUS TAKE THE WHEEL!"
Jesus: "No, truck too slow."

 

181 hp regardless of the torque can't be that quick. All that torque just means that an hour after you get to 60 mph, you don't need to down shift much to keep it there.

 

I may be wrong, but these diesels I think will sell well initially when everyone goes GA GA over the torque numbers. Then, when they sit at a light in a $45k intermediate truck only to have a Corolla leave it in the dust when the light turns green, it will get old fast and the sales will come down to earth.

 

I never thought this truck was slower than my 15.....

 

Do 0-60 times matter? Its a truck!

What about actually taking the truck out on a test drive and getting a feel for the engine/handling/comfort/utility ?

 

Bin lukin fore diss bitch allll daii

 

I like how the new taco is faster than the diesel when towing the same weight. It kinda makes the diesel pointless. Really.

Someone in Motor Trend must have forgotten how to math before choosing the truck of the year.

Ash holes were saying that the Tacoma is new but the same... SMH

 

Always thought the same. Makes me laugh that so many worry about 0-60 times in a p/u truck.

 

My analogy is: Taco has plenty of power, stomp the gas pedal and hold on if you wanna go fast!

I tend to take my time driving a mid-size pickup. Just sayin.. When I hit the trail then I hit the gas, my dog loves getting a bronco ride, wife not so much.

 

You guys argue about the dumbest stuff. Want something fast, don't buy a truck. Or cough up some money for turbos.

If I want fast, I'll grab my other set of keys for my sub 3.5 second 0-60 street car