Taco owners poll for body style.

Be reminded that Toyota controls what and how many a particular configuration of Taco is made.

 

It's a good question, and the answer is that I don't like having to worry about an extended body line and extra glass due to the high number of tight tree squeezes we have on trails like the Dusy/Ershim and the Rubicon, as well as tight rock structures that are common to places such as the Hammers. Once I get my cab past an overhanging tree (such as the right-hand drop-off around a tree after Lake Camp, Dusy/Ershim) or I'm quite off-camber and have to very carefully idle past protruding rock faces (squeeze between two cab-height rocks just before Cell Phone Tree; former top of Walker Hill before it was filled in; vertical ledge on the driver's side going around Soup Bowl; etc, Rubicon Trail), I really don't care what happens next. The top of the bedrail is both plastic and replaceable. I'd far rather have tree rash and sap on the bed rail than dents, paint damage, and broken rear windows of a 4Runner. This is precisely why I didn't want a Double Cab: Because at that point I might as well have just gotten a 4R.

Yes sir I need a bed because I am very active with vehicle recovery and work close with my local forest service on trail maintenance projects.

Consider the following two images. This is when I loaded up for a wheel'n trip to Moab using my same recovery kits as I've organized to fit neatly in the bed of my Triple Case 1981 Hilux Rock Crawler:





So not only do I have more bed space in the Tacoma than compared to my shortbed Hilux, but this is even without using still this space:



For reference, here is what my Hilux has looked like loaded down for a trip through the Rubicon (this picture is from the top of Cadillac Hill):



The 3rd gen Tacoma is dimensionally the same size as a 1st gen Tundra and my model has a wheelbase 20% longer than my Hilux. These trucks are freak'n huge. The way I see it, Toyota is going in the wrong direction: Now that the Tacoma has become a full-size vehicle according to turn of the century standards, they need to bring back the simple, lightweight minitruck. For example, the tree squeeze in the center of the Big Sluice, Rubicon trail, is very difficult (my Hilux slips right through), and on both trips through the trail I have yet to attempt the rock overhang before the Springs Campground (my Hilux drives straight through).

My point is that the Tacoma, due to how large it is, has so much more storage space compared to what I'm used to that giving up 6" does not affect me. I was originally going to remove closer to a foot but decided on only 6" due to aesthetics.

I hope this answered some of your questions!





I didn't get a chance to run Dusy last year so my supply of pictures is scarce, but I'll be on it multiple times this year and am already curious how it's going to do regarding two specific tree squeezes that give full-size vehicles issues. For example, the 3rd gen Taco is only 2" shy per side from the width of a 1970s Chevy Blazer. This means my Tacoma is already wider around obstacles than those old boat anchor American trucks which I find simply insane...

Regards,
BigMike

ps. TOYOTA STOP YANKING US AROUND AND PLEASE BRING US THE 70-SERIES LAND CRUISER ALREADY!

 

Yup, sure did. Same reason I like a truck. I like that the bed is seperate so if I get some body damage off road, it's isolated and won't impact things like closing the rear door. Also, like the fact that there is no glass for branches to take out like you said.

I see what you did there, the pics make more sense: you put a short bed on the frame. I THOUGHT you cut down a long bed into a short bed. Thought, DAMN, he got those lines clean.

 

I have the access cab. It took me years to get use to the extended cab. I'll never care for the look of the 4 door.