2015/2016 New 3rd gen Tacoma Debut in Detriot

[austintaco]

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.

I'm not saying that there is not a use for it, but it seemed that it was important enough for Toyota to make the distinction between the two trucks that I don't foresee a diesel in the future. I do foresee Toyota working on their gassers to give the end user as much or close to the same benefit as a diesel. Your point is about idling is one I have never thought of, and is valid. However, we are still a small segment in their overall sales.

 

[calicamper]

My understanding of flex vs cab life regarding falling apart is that more flex the less life you get out of the cab given flex works all things attached ie the cab etc and over enough cycles you get stuff breaking and coming apart in the cab. The stiffer frame ie less flex the less working of the cab and the longer the cab lasts. Flex tweaks everything from door gaskets, to latches to dash fit etc etc. Enough cycles you get stuff wearing out or simply breaking etc. For hard core off road flex is a critical component to keeping wheels on the ground however long life and extreme trail capability are not two things that typically go hand in hand.

 

[Clutch]

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

For my personal rig, I wanted smaller than the construction vehicles we used..why I went to Toyotas 25 years ago. What is funny all the guys boasting about their fullsize capacities...when even they are too small for what we did. Fullsize truck and a 8' bed was about useless. Where our box van and the 2.5 ton dump you could fit all of the parts for an inground steel panel pool in the back of.

Since I have a topper on the Taco 100% of the time anyways...Any moderately sized loads that I need to move I have a 1 ton trailer, that or I'll just have it delivered. Sure there are times the little Taco is busting at the seems with the gear in adventure mode, but moving some of it to the trailer takes care of that.

 

[moonshiner]

If stiffer = better, than the Honda Ridgeline and the Hyundai concept pickup should be your next truck. Unibodies are several times stiffer than any body on frame vehicle.

Everything is a compromise. C-channel/I-beams are more efficient for load carrying (vertical bending) but more flexible in torsion. Boxed sections are stiffer torsionally, but requires more material to achieve the same vertical bending strength.

 

[2025 deleted member]

What is the reason they are all boxed? I just sold a 20111 Chevy 3500 cab chassis and it was c-channel. Like previous posters have said above its just bragging rights. C-channel is fine, as long as its stout enough to do its intended purpose.

Poor comparison. There is a reason nearly every other truck is boxed - lets not make excuses for Toyota in that. I'm as big a Toyota guy as any, but I can't stand when people make excuses for poor design.

 

[toylandcruiser]

My understanding of flex vs cab life regarding falling apart is that more flex the less life you get out of the cab given flex works all things attached ie the cab etc and over enough cycles you get stuff breaking and coming apart in the cab. The stiffer frame ie less flex the less working of the cab and the longer the cab lasts. Flex tweaks everything from door gaskets, to latches to dash fit etc etc. Enough cycles you get stuff wearing out or simply breaking etc. For hard core off road flex is a critical component to keeping wheels on the ground however long life and extreme trail capability are not two things that typically go hand in hand.

It's all about engineering. If it's engineered correctly, the flex will not affect anything.

Wanna see frame flex look at this 404 chassis. Once again it's designed to be like this. The trucks frame will do this its whole life and not be an issue because it's engineered good



Also here's a video

http://youtu.be/0OxmHJWuy3c




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Clutch]

It's all about engineering. If it's engineered correctly, the flex will not affect anything.

"Engineered" flex is a good thing

 

[calicamper]

Frame flex is all fine till someone complains about their cab being a rattle trap and gets annoyed by all the rattles and racket caused by interior bits all being loose or binding up etc. Same goes for any typical car the more flex you have in the structure the more likely your going to have lots of rattling interior bits etc.

Not saying flex is bad simply pointing out there is a reason why some people would not want a flexible frame and there is a good reason people would want a flexible frame but typically you cannot have both rattle and tight interior and a flexible frame its sorta like oil and water they just don't happen together.

My guess is that Toyota has enough engineering investment capability to play the middle ground where they get enough frame flex to make the rig pretty capable at keeping all four corners on the ground and get an acceptable level of interior bits durability etc. However! A person expecting rattle free Lexus interior would probably find the Tacoma rattles and such unacceptable.

GM seems to be really really big on the whole triple sealed doors quiet interiors business with their light duty trucks the boxed frame on the new Canyon and Colorado probably plays some role in keeping the whole cab racket / durability rattle free etc over time. The folks who are bashing the trucks down the trail probably won't care much if they get a little rattle developing some place but nearly EVERY ONE else driving the trucks to the grocery store and grandmas house will complain about it being a POS if it rattles and has interior trim pieces squeaking and binding etc.

 

[calicamper]

The good news is there seems to be enough of both options out there and done to a level of decent quality you can pick which one is best for your need. If your big into trail work your probably going to be more happy with a flexible frame. If all your use is pavement with very occasional dirt road use then perhaps the stiffer boxed frame is a better approach. If your packing near max payload on any vehicle be it C channel or boxed your still working with the max rated capacity numbers which the vehicle was designed to support in a safe working manner except all of us know that your suspension parts will probably need to be beefed up to retain good ground clearance and decent handling given folks who are packing near max payload on a regular basis will not find the head lights pointed to the sky and dragging bumpers over humps in the road an every acceptable option vs say the very occasional city guy hauling a load to the dump which case he can deal with it for a very short trip and be done with it etc.

 

[Clutch]

What is the reason they are all boxed? I just sold a 20111 Chevy 3500 cab chassis and it was c-channel. Like previous posters have said above its just bragging rights. C-channel is fine, as long as its stout enough to do its intended purpose.

Medium duty trucks are C-Channel.

 

[DaveInDenver]

Toyota does build Hino trucks, so they know about large trucks. I don't have any doubt of this. I also think the Tacoma frame is fine for it's intended duty. That they seemed to have dialed back the use to be less rugged isn't a statement that the frame isn't up to the purpose. I trust that it's fine. However the statement about the ride quality is I think wrong. One thing about the stiff frame on my old truck is that I can tell you when the shocks are bad or when I have a light load, the back end bounces around and the whole truck oscillates down the road. There is a legitimate reason to engineer in some compliance and with the advancements in finite element analysis it's getting much better. Aircraft wings, buildings and bridge, nothing can really be super rigid and still keep standing.

 

[DVexile]

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.

So the new V6 is direct injection (actually it is both direct and multi-port). Of course we don't know any specifics for this particular engine, but one of the benefits of direct injection is that it can greatly reduce fuel consumption at idle and low loads. In fact direct injection engines can run ultra-lean in idle with ratios of 65:1 (as opposed to the nominal 14.7:1). So modern gasoline technology allows for significantly lower idle fuel consumption than engines of just a few years past. As to how good the new Tacoma V6 will be in idle that remains to be seen. First person who gets one please hook up a scan gauge

 

[Larry]

It's all about engineering. If it's engineered correctly, the flex will not affect anything.

Wanna see frame flex look at this 404 chassis. Once again it's designed to be like this. The trucks frame will do this its whole life and not be an issue because it's engineered good


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly, back in the days pretty much all of the manufacturers touted their flexy c-channel frames as being designed to flex. Look up some old Ford, Dodge and GM marketing Youtube videos from the 40's through 80s' and see those old trucks flexing like crazy….and they will do it for life with no harm done. Outside of the big 3, Jeep was pretty much alone with being one of firsts with boxed frames in the J-series truck and Wagoneer in the early 60's. As mentioned before, fully boxed frames came to be to help with ride quality for people that buy trucks that should be driving cars.

My ole '78 c-channel frame K truck is a frame flexy beast but she sure is sure footed! Pretty much all trucks up until the last 18 years or so have flexy frame just like this and the body mounts were designed to handle it. The funny thing is you don't see the retired old c-channel trucks in the junk yard because of frame failures. (in case anybody is wondering, NO...the camper does not touch the roof even under hard flex)

 

[nickw]

Cruisers

Not that it is directly relevant....but I remember to talk about the old FJ40 frames and why there were riveted rather than welded. Apparently the rivets allowed some minor flex in the frame (fully boxed mind you) which was better for longevity and would not crack welds, FWIW.

 

[Clutch]

I remember when Honda came out with Aluminum framed dirt bikes...they were horridly stiff. They have since engineered some flex into them. I still prefer a steel framed bike over an aluminum one, at least in the dirt when the speeds are relatively slow, compared to street bikes...where steel frames are waaay too flexy at 150 mph....