2016 has rear drum brakes...

I remember some of the dodge and chevy doing that.

They would glue it to the shoe.
With the dodge most were found to be autos ..
Most the stick guys used the E brake and it had to do with use.
If not used they would just peel off. I remember some talk about going back to rivets but don't know if they did. I always worried about mine but never a problem.

 

Thing is that usually when you go up ratios to help with towing, you end up with a truck with a terrible fuel economy. This is why my company no longer runs the Tundra. The 4.10 in the rear gives excellent performance as you describe, but at the cost of 13 mpg IRL mileage. From what I've read most reviewers find the Colorado tows OK, but still not nearly as well as a half ton. If you're going to consider blowing your money on a Diesel Colorado, you would be much better off with a more capable full sized at likely the same cost.

New engine, new transmission, reinforced frame, new interior, and likely new other things.... I think they did a great job bringing this truck into the new midsized era. Not everyone needs rear discs to be happy .

 

Mr. Sweers has a very neutral rationale for the lack of rear discs. You guys may have read this in the other thread but it is worth posting here considering the number one thing on the list is the lack of rear discs.

Again, rear drums work, and for the Tacoma have been doing a fine job for years (decades actually). Progress is not a bad thing in the automobile industry, sometimes I applaud it, though I'm not sure I applaud Sweers' reasoning for wireless charging and a GoPro mount. Everyone stops. Not everyone has a wireless charging phone setup or a GoPro.

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2015/01/5-things-overlooked-on-the-2016-toyota-tacoma.html

 

This was a post a while back in this thread but I felt the need to interject. All 1996 and newer Cadillac cars have rear disk with a rear disk parking brake. During the 20+ years I worked for GM, we never had a problem with the parking brakes on these vehicles. Rear pads and rotors usually outlasted the first set of front pads by a good bit. It's not a bad design at all actually.

 

Anything to rationalize cheap components on an expensive vehicle. There seem to be a lot of people in denial that disc brakes are plainly superior to drums.

 

What annoys me on my '11 is the groaning they make as I stop from slow speeds. The TSB replacement had no effect on this noise.
Agreed:

 

Road racing? What about using it as a pickup truck? It's meant to carry a lot of weight in back. Why would anyone assume that's it's never going to have weight in the rear? Some people use their truck to, you know, haul heavy stuff. Drum brakes on a truck this expensive is just plain cheap.

 

GM put drum brakes on there last generation of Sierra and Silverado trucks because of issues they were having with rear discs. Semi's also use drum brakes to stop. Drums can stop a ton of weight, actually a bit more than discs because they have a larger contact area than discs. Drums have problems dissipating heat and that is what I think you're trying to get at, which I don't find to be a problem in my Tacoma when I tow.

While I totally agree that using rear drums was a decision on Toyota's part to save a few pennies I'm also sure that they did so because upgrading to drums had negligible effect on the stopping differences or performance of the brakes on the Tacoma. There are advantages to both systems. I've mentioned a few things I REALLY like about rear drums, so I could care less about getting rear discs.

 

This is how I think of this thread.

 

I read that "we figure people will still buy this truck even if we stick with drum brakes, so why bother putting discs"

 

That is kind of what I got out of it.....

 

With that line of thinking we could have even better if they went to disks as Toyota is better than the rest....

 

The GM reversal has bothered me for awhile so I was just searching the Google and most of what I read points more to saving money over performance issues. And GM actually kept discs on 2500 and up. The 1500 got drums unless you got the trailer/tow package, then GM gave you discs because of the obvious advantage in towing regarding heat.

GM either figured out how to manufacture discs cheaper, figured out how to balance out performance between the rear and the front, or got super scared they were losing their market share of sales because they are all discs again.

And as stated, semis use drums or discs. European big rigs (if you can call them that) are majority discs. Americans are like 70/30, maybe 60/40 mostly drums.

I think Toyota is not afraid of losing any significant number of sales over disc brakes. They have had little to no competition and it still looks like that in the upcoming years. They could switch to drums on the front at this point and people would still pony up $30,000+.

 

That is why most areas in the states have a spot to turn out when the drum brakes fail or spots to turn out when they overheat and let them cool down so they function like they should.

 

We already went through this. It's a circular arguement with Semi's. Yes disc brakes are big in Europe, but the terrain is often worse and they need the discs to stay cool on repeated short descents. If you do overheat a rotor though you can have a catastrophic failure, possibly taking out an air line and leaving you with somewhere around 50% of your brakes (the loss of the primary or secondary brakes). American long haul companies have been very shy about adopting more trucks with disc brakes because it means more inspections and maintenance than drum brakes, which costs $$$.

GM had discs on all of that generation of truck for the first year and then went back. I had both the service manager at Davis GMC in Lethbridge and McDonald Chev in Taber tell me they had nothing but issues with the rear discs in those trucks on the 1500's. Rocks were the issue. The guard was designed poorly and people were chewing up the rear rotors in under 10K. That sounds like a maintenance issue to me...

My exwifes 2010 GMC Sierra 1500 SLE had the upgraded appearance package and the tow package, yet it had drum rear brakes.... and they worked fine.... no mushy feel.... even with a pallet of glyphosate in the back... which weighs more than I want to say.

Even on our Fords and Dodges we've had summer students chew up rear rotors because of rocks from thousands of kilometers of gravel driving.

Anyways, this thread started being silly a while ago. Yes the new Tacoma has rear drum brakes. Are they the Cats Meow? No. Will they make the Tacoma a better vehicle? No, it can't tow/haul enough for that anyways. Would they be nice for looks? Yes. Should disc brakes on the rear be the determining factor for buying a truck? I think that's sort of a silly question .

 

My line of thinking as well, hence the 2.75 gen instead of a true 3rd gen LOL

 

I've had a 88 S10, 92 S10, 03 s10, 05 Colorado and now my 12 Tacoma all with drums brakes. I had zero issues with there brakes and experienced long service intervals, 04 Silverado had disc in the rear and nothing but issues with them, I had it at the dealer many times while under warranty for it. I don't understand why the huge fuss of drums being used again? Tacoma has already proven it was first in class for stopping and could continue the trend with the improvements they made to the braking systems.