DeMello's review of the 2016 Tacoma.

Just to clarify on the Torq comments. The reason I feel torq is important even over HP sometimes is when we modify the vehicles, which most here do. It add's weight and resistance to the truck. The torq makes those mods feel less taxing. And having that HP at higher RPM's is fine to save fuel but if you are always in those higher RPM's to move the extra weight your mileage goes down. So for a stock truck not carrying a load or towing a trailer or anything it "can" get better mileage but it's minimal IMO. Perfect example for me is our 2005 4runner with almost the same exact modifications as our 2015 4runner. We drove them both to Ouray CO. The 2015 may have gotten 1mpg better if that. actually the 2015 wasn't even loaded down, where the 2005 was very loaded. I believe our 2015 got 15mpg last summer and our 2005 got 14mpg over the whole trip. And the 4.7 had a way better feeling getting up the hills and passes on the way there.

I could be wrong though, time will tell once we lift this Taco and take it on some trips. The first trip we are planning aside from some day runs will be TDS next year. We will take all 3 vehicles to that.

 

I don't disagree with your statements. However, I would bet most Tacoma owners do not participate on truck forums. Toyota is going to build to satisfy the majority that do not mod the vehicle.

 

Oh I'm fully aware of that. BUT Toyota knows that the "enthusiast" help sell their trucks. When joe dad goes to the dealership to buy a truck, he knows his wife won't let him touch it till the kids graduate high school but it's that "idea" that he has the same cool truck he see's other people drive. Toyota is fully aware of the impact the enthusiast has on their products. It's part of the reason why they had the FJC trail teams when that vehicle came out. It's the reason why they sponsor your bigger off road events. It's not something they can calculate on paper or really put a number to it. But they know it's there, that's why we got to see the 2016 at The texas jamboree and they have helped sponsor the FJ summit for the last 9 years. But that being said, they have a responsibility to make the car not only appeal to us but work for the masses.

I really think the Torq thing or engine thing, how ever you want to say it is simply an answer to the CAFE restrictions and cost. I believe this 3.5 is the same one found in the Camry v6 and the Avalon. I guess it was re-tuned a little bit but the same. It's a fine line they have to walk, I do have my concerns that this time they may have fell a little bit on the side of the consumer and less of the enthusiast. But Toyota knows that their followers are loyal and unless the other makers come out with something better I wouldn't think they have much to worry about.

 

I like torque as much as the next person, but is the above really logical? To make power it takes fuel and O2. If we focus on torque at lower RPM's, you'll always be tapping into; less dependent upon the RPMs. At least when you tune for power at the higher RPM, you can stay in a mode that yields better MPG when desired. This is presuming that either situation is tune efficiently.

 

I understand what you are saying, but the "you'll always be tapping into low end torque" concept doesn't account for throttle usage (amount of work demanded at the given RPM which changes the required input of fuel and O2). Am I crazy?

 

One would think that. I believe that's the current model Toyota is going with. I'm not basing my mileage off what works on paper, just what I've seen over the years. Toyota's have always been relatively high rev'ers in comparison to American brands, so that's nothing new. I think we just saw a slight shift for a while to match torq. With a heavy vehicle I've found that a "bigger" engine works less to move the mass as a smaller engine. my 99 Tacoma with a 3.4 solid axle swap 4:88 gears, supercharged yadda yadda was lucky to see 10mpg on the freeway. For obvious reasons. I actually got better milage towing it behind my diesel back then. That little engine had to work it's tail off to push all that weight around. In comparison, I believe (could be wrong) Wyatt (the beast 2005 tacoma build) gets closer to 12-13?

 

First of all, nice review @JDEMELLO.. But the rough idle issue has popped up for quite a few folks. I took mine to the dealership and I was told no codes or anything were popping up, but noted it and acknowledged that it indeed was abnormal. I hope folks who are experiencing this do take time to report this issue..

 

Mine is pretty noticeable. You can feel it in the seat and steering wheel.

 

Why is this a sticky?

 

My wife just took delivery of a fully optioned 2016 Tacoma TRD Off Road 4x4 with a SnugTop Xtravision shell replacing her 2014 Tacoma TRD.

Our wilderness ranch located in SE Arizona's desert mountains is pretty unforgiving. Can't tow like our Ram 3500 4x4 but crawling around the ranch offroad the redesigned Tacoma really shines!

Quality vehicle in every respect.

 

Do you mind sharing a picture and brief review of your Snugtop? I'm just now beginning to explore the idea of a cap and that looks like a very nice piece of equipment. Thanks!

 

SnugTop builds an excellent fit and finish shell.

Color matched perfectly.

 

Why is this a sticky

 

My 2016 ORTRD has the same idle issue. I wouldn't call it a rough idle so much as it is just set too low. I am going to take a wild guess here and believe it was set this low to reduce fuel consumption. I have tried things like turning the AC compressor on to see if that helps but generally speaking it has made no change at all. Whatever the reason that this exists it is quite annoying.

 

Vendor Courtesy

 

I also have noticed the rough idle as well. It doesn't do it all the time for me.....I only have 350 miles on the truck so far, so I haven't nailed down the set of conditions where it does it.

 

Yeah I'm not sure what's up with that. I just put local gas in, as I picked mine up in CO so I'll see if that helps.

That is clean.

I have no idea, I didn't do it.

 

The window lines of the Snugtop really compliment the Tacoma, IMO.

 

I'm new to the forum and have a 4x2 Limited and automatic transmission. I don't have any interest in off road, but I do need a truck to pick up a few bales of hay every few weeks. The Tacoma allowed me to trade in a 2013 Highlander and get rid of a 1998 F150. I'm getting about 21.5 MPG, with most of it on Interstate highways. I live about 30 miles out of San Antonio, so I drive it about 60 miles a day. I only have two gripes with it. I'm getting old and appreciate a few creature comforts, so I'm disappointed that it doesn't have power seats. I'm also a little irritated that I have to turn on the ECT every time I start the engine. I'm used to Toyotas that have an ECT, but the others have had a switch that stays in the "On" position until you turn it off. This one resets every time the ignition is turned off. I've found that the engine feels gutless if the ECT is not turned on. I've found I will sometimes spin the tires because I press the pedal normally and it seems to hardly move. I end up pressing harder than I should and spin the tires. If I remember to turn on the ECT as soon as I start it, the truck is much more responsive. I don't see any appreciable difference in gas mileage, as I'm over 65 on the interstate most of the time.

I do have a question that perhaps should be a separate thread. My wife and I are both past retirement age and we both have knee problems. My wife had to have a knee replacement about two years ago. The vehicle I purchased already had the tube steps installed. They are an inch or two too high off the ground for her to reach the step easily. In addition to the knee problems, she is also only five feet tall. Does anyone know if the standard running board is any closer to the ground? If it is, I'll sell the tube steps and get a standard running board.