2015/2016 New 3rd gen Tacoma Debut in Detriot

[bkg]

There's something to this probably. But to me the Tacoma frame question is really about the overall truck being cheapened. The 79-95 truck was fully boxed from tip to stern and the material was thicker throughout. Was it necessary in a mini truck? Nope. But the Hilux was a world truck that was often used commercially, so it was (and remains) more stout.

What really bugs me isn't that so much, because I don't have an issue with a C-channel frame (which are easier to keep clean for one) and even making it appropriate to the intended use, but that they continue to do such a poor job of finishing them. They must have used a better steel and better paint, even after 24 years of winters and a couple of times welding to it my '91 frame looks about as bad as a few year old Tacoma. The '91 is falling apart around the frame, body panels have been stresses and seams are starting to spread. This is on a frame that is generally acknowledged to be pretty stiff. Body shops hate trying to straighten old Toyota frames. Which doesn't bode well for a body that's now bolted to an even more flexible frame in the Tacoma.

Thing is nobody seems to care about the backbone of their truck, I guess it's because they don't expect 20+ year service lives from them. I'm chasing down surface rust and will be painting my '08 frame this spring because I do expect this to last a while.

Agreed. This is why so many people are begging foe the hilux, IMHO...

 

[toylandcruiser]

There's something to this probably. But to me the Tacoma frame question is really about the overall truck being cheapened. The 79-95 truck was fully boxed from tip to stern and the material was thicker throughout. Was it necessary in a mini truck? Nope. But the Hilux was a world truck that was often used commercially, so it was (and remains) more stout.

What really bugs me isn't that so much, because I don't have an issue with a C-channel frame (which are easier to keep clean for one) and even making it appropriate to the intended use, but that they continue to do such a poor job of finishing them. They must have used a better steel and better paint, even after 24 years of winters and a couple of times welding to it my '91 frame looks about as bad as a few year old Tacoma. The '91 is falling apart around the frame, body panels have been stresses and seams are starting to spread. This is on a frame that is generally acknowledged to be pretty stiff. Body shops hate trying to straighten old Toyota frames. Which doesn't bode well for a body that's now bolted to an even more flexible frame in the Tacoma.

Thing is fairly few seem to care about the backbone of their truck, I guess it's because they don't expect 20+ year service lives from them. I'm chasing down surface rust and will be painting my '08 frame this spring because I do expect this to last a while.

That's just Japanese quality vs american garbage .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tinfish]

The early photos of the blue truck look terrible to me, but I really like the tan access cab. I'm sorry to see the five speed manual go away for the 2.7, but from a business perspective I am sure it makes sense. At least they are keeping one manual option -- I had guessed that the manual would disappear entirely. I was expecting bigger changes that this and some real surprises; this looks more like tweaks to what they clearly feel is a winning formula.

Overall I don't see anything particularly negative but also nothing so compelling as to make me want to replace my current Tacoma, either.

 

[DaJudge]

Toyota needs to fire everyone in their design department!

 

[speedtre]

Relying on poor frame to make up for poor suspension design is not ideal. And relying on aftermarket to fix oem is also less than ideal.

I predict more dented cabs.... Toyota needs to step up.

Toyota doesn't care....in the USA for every person that buys a truck to use like a truck (on road or off) there are 10 people who want to drive a truck to the mall and pickup groceries and all they care about is how it looks, how comfy it is, and all the "cool gadgets" it has....that is the reality, no matter how much we don't like it.

In the rest of the world people who buy a truck value FUNCTION more than anything else and hence Toyota builds/sells them a Hilux. The fact that Toyota invests so much money in building/selling America a LESS COMPETENT TRUCK than what it sells the rest of the world speaks to American values when it comes to vehicles....sad but true. /rant off

 

[DaveInDenver]

That's just Japanese quality vs american garbage .

LOL. What would be interesting to know is how the 92-95 trucks held up. I've never really believed the country of origin mattered (other than /maybe/ Dana not taking as much care as one would expect making Toyota frames), it's the design and dedication to making a decent product. Also, it's important to mention that the early trucks and 1st gen Taco frame have a way of trapping stuff at the elbow in front of the fixed leaf spring bracket and rusting badly. That is where 79-95 frames can fail. So having an open 'C' there keeps debris from collecting and is an improvement. Seriously, if only they would put better paint and some rustproofing that lasts on the Tacoma frame.

 

[Larry]

One example of the perfect chain of stupidity to break a modern high strength steel boxed frame that are supposed to be stronger than an anvil. Extreme cold under pretty extreme pressure = snap like a crisp carrot stick.

NSFW Warning….mute your speakers!

 

[toylandcruiser]

LOL. What would be interesting to know is how the 92-95 trucks held up. I've never really believed the country of origin mattered (other than /maybe/ Dana not taking as much care as one would expect making Toyota frames), it's the design and dedication to making a decent product. Also, it's important to mention that the early trucks and 1st gen Taco frame have a way of trapping stuff at the elbow in front of the fixed leaf spring bracket and rusting badly. That is where 79-95 frames can fail. So having an open 'C' there keeps debris from collecting and is an improvement. Seriously, if only they would put better paint and some rustproofing that lasts on the Tacoma frame.

It was just a poke is all. I agree with everything you said.
Here we see some guys running the rubicon and one guy has a camper in his bed. The video is full of bent cabs from the bed hitting it as a result of "weak c channel." Wait no it's not. Zero bent cabs

http://youtu.be/GmdmR8W5Kk4




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Martinjmpr]

Diesels and history...

I think there's one other aspect to the reluctance for Toyota and others to bring small diesel trucks to the US market: They did so back in the early 80's and those diesels really sucked. They were slow, inefficient, noisy, smoky and generally damaged the reputation of the companies that brought them over. Can't remember if Toyota was one of the ones that brought over a small diesel but I know Mitsubishi, Isuzu, and Mazda did and I'm pretty sure Nissan did, too. There was even a diesel Ford Ranger for a while, not sure what kind of diesel it had (I'm assuming a Mazda since Ford has had a relationship with Mazda for decades.)
.
"Once bitten, twice shy:" I think the marketing people are probably convinced that Americans generally don't want small diesels the way Europeans do. Yes, VW and Audi have had some success in the US with small diesels but that's a niche market and there's just not enough advantage for Toyota to want to take the risk (besides which, Toyota already owns the "compact truck" market, so it's not like they have to try to draw customers away from their competition. For all intents and purposes, they have no competition.)

 

[Clutch]

LOL. What would be interesting to know is how the 92-95 trucks held up. I've never really believed the country of origin mattered (other than /maybe/ Dana not taking as much care as one would expect making Toyota frames), it's the design and dedication to making a decent product. Also, it's important to mention that the early trucks and 1st gen Taco frame have a way of trapping stuff at the elbow in front of the fixed leaf spring bracket and rusting badly. That is where 79-95 frames can fail. So having an open 'C' there keeps debris from collecting and is an improvement. Seriously, if only they would put better paint and some rustproofing that lasts on the Tacoma frame.

It always depends where you live too, while yes Toyota (dana) should of done a better job, mine being a native AZ vehicle the frame still looks great. The '85 4Runner I bought with 50K miles on it and owned for a couple years before I moved from PA to AZ, the body and spring hangers were already getting rot on it. The '76 F250 I had, the frame eventually rusted so bad, it broke in half. That truck had some serious body work done to it over the years. New bed, new body mounts...floor boards replaced, and so on.

It just isn't Toyota...why you don't see many old cars in the rust belt, they simply rot away. While in AZ it is common to see old vehicles still on the road. And I am talking cars and trucks from the 40-50's on up.

 

[DaveInDenver]

Yeah, Arizona doesn't count w.r.t. rust.

 

[austintaco]

If you listen to what the speaker in the debut says, I believe he's telling us that the Tacoma will not get a diesel, ever. I am referring to the comparison he does with the Tundra. He states that though they may share design aspects on the exterior, they are two completely different trucks with different purposes. If you drank every time he said "adventure", you would have been plastered by the end of the intro. It seems that is where they want the Tacoma to go. It's not a solution to a small towing rig. It's not the truck you buy if you want to haul large loads on the weekend. It's the camping, road trip, trail duty surf truck. The good news is that probably means it won't grow in size and maybe the Tundra will get a diesel option if that's what you are lusting for. Just my opinion

 

[Clutch]

Yeah, Arizona doesn't count w.r.t. rust.

It is a little moister here in ID, I am going to have a hit a couple spots with paint that I am seeing in the spring. Thank goodness they don't use salt here.

Now that I think of it, that Ford was only 12 years old when I got it. My dad bought it new...it didn't make it 20 years before the frame totally failed. And we helped it a lot over those years. It had 4 paint jobs including the paint it came with. And those were burly thick walled steel trucks.

Toys rust a little faster since the metal was thinner.

 

[DaveInDenver]

Diesel in the context of adventure makes sense to me, they don't care about spending hours just off idle. I don't know how the new engine types will handle this but gasoline engines consume a terrific amount of fuel in low range and a measurement of MPG is less useful than hours. That's why I would like the option.

 

[p nut]

There's something to this probably. But to me the Tacoma frame question is really about the overall truck being cheapened. The 79-95 truck was fully boxed from tip to stern and the material was thicker throughout. Was it necessary in a mini truck? Nope. But the Hilux was a world truck that was often used commercially, so it was (and remains) more stout. It was nice not having to think twice about using the truck, though. Never really worried about dumping a front loader bucket full of dirt or sand in the back. Of course it would not do this on a daily basis, but it was never any worse for wear when I did.

What really bugs me isn't that so much, because I don't have an issue with a C-channel frame (which are easier to keep clean for one) and even making it appropriate to the intended use, but that they continue to do such a poor job of finishing them. They must have used a better steel and better paint, even after 24 years of winters and a couple of times welding to it my '91 frame looks about as bad as a few year old Tacoma. The '91 is falling apart around the frame, body panels have been stresses and seams are starting to spread. This is on a frame that is generally acknowledged to be pretty stiff. Body shops hate trying to straighten old Toyota frames. Which doesn't bode well for a body that's now bolted to an even more flexible frame in the Tacoma. Or maybe not, maybe the stiffness is bad for the body. That's a possibility I hadn't really considered.

Thing is fairly few seem to care about the backbone of their truck, I guess it's because they don't expect 20+ year service lives from them. I'm chasing down surface rust and will be painting my '08 frame this spring because I do expect this to last a while. Plus I guess I'll be buying a trailer, which is now apparently a necessity with modern trucks that can't be used as trucks.

Agreed. This is why so many people are begging foe the hilux, IMHO...

But what I get from DiD's post is that it's not the DESIGN that's the problem--it's the quality of finish. "So many people" think stiffness = better. More stout = better. Simply not the case. Just like anything in life, a good balance is key. My old '99 and '01 Tacoma's did just fine hauling a cubic yard of topsoil, too many moving days (for neighbors/friends), filled to the hilt with family camping gear, many bails of hay, etc. Frame flex just wasn't an issue, nor the strength/integrity of the frame. In fact, I'm wondering if a little more flexible frame might have HELPED to keep the cab structure of DiD's truck in tact better. The frame may have absorbed more of the impact and transferred less of it to the body--like on a rigid vs suspended bicycle.

But all this is moot. Toyota will stick to C-channel frames. Just hope the quality control is now up to par.