3rd Gen Tacoma for towing - manual vs. automatic?

dstefan

Well-known member
Can't speak to MT, but the AT/Tranny combo diff Gear Ratio in the 3rd Gen Tacomas is reputed to really need re-gearing to function well loaded, modified, or towing. I’ve driven, but not owned a stock 3rd gen and it was noticeably anemic compared to my 2nd in terms of performance.

Nitro Gear, who is hardly unbiased -- but regardless, used to have a pretty good article on their website about why. There’s also plenty of posts on Tacoma world about it too.
 

Martinjmpr

Wiffleball Batter
Just came across this which I think gives a good illustration of the challenges of trying to tow even a smaller trailer with a MT Tacoma:


Although the trailer he has is bigger than the one we have now, it's within the ballpark of the trailer we'd like to move up to. I was particularly concerned about his inability to pull the trailer out of a campsite that had a slight uphill slope, possibly due to trailer brakes lagging and preventing him from moving forward.

I think at this point I have to throw in the towel on getting an MT Tacoma as a tow vehicle. I'll post up in the "general vehicle" thread with more possible choices but the Taco was only on my list because of the ability to have a manual transmission. Without a MT option, I think the Taco has to drop lower on my list just based on it having the least power of all the current mid-size trucks.
 

calicamper

Expedition Leader
Just came across this which I think gives a good illustration of the challenges of trying to tow even a smaller trailer with a MT Tacoma:


Although the trailer he has is bigger than the one we have now, it's within the ballpark of the trailer we'd like to move up to. I was particularly concerned about his inability to pull the trailer out of a campsite that had a slight uphill slope, possibly due to trailer brakes lagging and preventing him from moving forward.

I think at this point I have to throw in the towel on getting an MT Tacoma as a tow vehicle. I'll post up in the "general vehicle" thread with more possible choices but the Taco was only on my list because of the ability to have a manual transmission. Without a MT option, I think the Taco has to drop lower on my list just based on it having the least power of all the current mid-size trucks.
Add that having more than 8gears forward and lower ratio options in other options is a big plus especially towing trailers. This is where the Rangers running gear is honestly pretty nice. Sadly the tiny fuel tank kinda stinks. But 10spd with the 3.73 rear end is big boy truck stuff 👍
 

Martinjmpr

Wiffleball Batter
Add that having more than 8gears forward and lower ratio options in other options is a big plus especially towing trailers. This is where the Rangers running gear is honestly pretty nice. Sadly the tiny fuel tank kinda stinks. But 10spd with the 3.73 rear end is big boy truck stuff 👍

Yes, I'm starting to come around a bit on the Ranger. The requirement for premium gas is an annoying additional expense, and the tiny fuel tank is infuriating but otherwise the Ranger seems to be a good platform.

It's frustrating to me that half ton trucks have become so enormous. Why? They don't need to be, and I'm not sure what's driving the "arms race" of full size trucks. Take a look at full size trucks from 30 or 40 years ago and they weren't as big as ours are now.

This is particularly true with regards to WIDTH. I don't understand why they made the F-150 so wide, it makes it more difficult to park than it should be. Ditto for the 145" wheelbase. They could easily have chopped 6 inches off the cab size and still have a cavernous cab space.

What's funny is that when I drove a Suburban, people would say "Suburban? Wow that's a gigantic vehicle!" and yet, the Suburban was noticeably smaller than my F-150. It was shorter (with a 133" wheelbase), narrower and much easier to park. And yet, I never felt like it was "too small" for me.

And with all that, I could STILL carry a 4x8 sheet of plywood in the back of the 'Burb with the hatch closed!

I wish SOMEBODY would make a truck with the "footprint" of the 1st Generation Tundra and Sequoia. Those trucks were, IMO, the "goldilocks" size: Not too big, not too small, just right.
 

calicamper

Expedition Leader
Yes, I'm starting to come around a bit on the Ranger. The requirement for premium gas is an annoying additional expense, and the tiny fuel tank is infuriating but otherwise the Ranger seems to be a good platform.

It's frustrating to me that half ton trucks have become so enormous. Why? They don't need to be, and I'm not sure what's driving the "arms race" of full size trucks. Take a look at full size trucks from 30 or 40 years ago and they weren't as big as ours are now.

This is particularly true with regards to WIDTH. I don't understand why they made the F-150 so wide, it makes it more difficult to park than it should be. Ditto for the 145" wheelbase. They could easily have chopped 6 inches off the cab size and still have a cavernous cab space.

What's funny is that when I drove a Suburban, people would say "Suburban? Wow that's a gigantic vehicle!" and yet, the Suburban was noticeably smaller than my F-150. It was shorter (with a 133" wheelbase), narrower and much easier to park. And yet, I never felt like it was "too small" for me.

And with all that, I could STILL carry a 4x8 sheet of plywood in the back of the 'Burb with the hatch closed!

I wish SOMEBODY would make a truck with the "footprint" of the 1st Generation Tundra and Sequoia. Those trucks were, IMO, the "goldilocks" size: Not too big, not too small, just right.
No doubt they have gotten bigger. It’s definitely an effect of the 1/2 ton trucks becoming safe enough, comfortable enough and efficient enough to be a family daily hauler vs just the work vehicle etc. Add passenger room, safety features, weight capacity capabilities and basically the law of physics push them wider, longer etc. Not going to lie my Expedition feels like a big powerful sedan vs my old 4runner which got up on two wheels more than once during a butt puckering highway event dodging an accident in progress. The Expedition is down right sports car material compared to that old 4runner. Off road? Mehh I take the Expedition into the ssme stuff I did with the 4runner which isn’t anything serious regarding offroading but its more than 99% of owners ever do anyway 😆. Yeah the mid sized stuff is narrower and fits between trees etc that my wide Expedition cant. But thats not my use or problem so no biggie. No kids in the house I still think I’d stick with the Expedition and my utility trailer for truck needs. I had a Ranger a very long time ago put 190,000 miles on it. Loved it but don’t miss it either😆.
 

phsycle

Adventurer
I wish SOMEBODY would make a truck with the "footprint" of the 1st Generation Tundra and Sequoia. Those trucks were, IMO, the "goldilocks" size: Not too big, not too small, just right.

Some think there is this perfect vehicle that exists. Tows great, fits down trails, big and comfortable inside, but easy to park. Can do the Rubicon and gets 40mpg. 600hp and reliable as a hammer.

1st Gen Tundra isn’t a perfect truck. Towing with the 4.7 (in my old 100 and GX), it had a lot left to be desired. Especially up steep mountain passes. If I were looking to tow a big 4K lb wind sail, it’s not the truck I’d pick.

By the way, the 1G Tundra vs F150:
Same width
1.5” shorter
5” shorter wheelbase
 

plainjaneFJC

Deplorable
Some think there is this perfect vehicle that exists. Tows great, fits down trails, big and comfortable inside, but easy to park. Can do the Rubicon and gets 40mpg. 600hp and reliable as a hammer.

1st Gen Tundra isn’t a perfect truck. Towing with the 4.7 (in my old 100 and GX), it had a lot left to be desired. Especially up steep mountain passes. If I were looking to tow a big 4K lb wind sail, it’s not the truck I’d pick.

By the way, the 1G Tundra vs F150:
Same width
1.5” shorter
5” shorter wheelbase
 

MotoDave

Explorer
I wish SOMEBODY would make a truck with the "footprint" of the 1st Generation Tundra and Sequoia. Those trucks were, IMO, the "goldilocks" size: Not too big, not too small, just right.

Your comment made me think of the V8 dodge dakotas. I always thought those (and the durangos) were a good size, a little bigger than the very small 1st gen tacomas/frontier but not 1.2 ton size.

I think the new tacoma is basically the size of the 1st gen Tundra.

edit: Ugh I feel old - just looked it up and they stopped selling the dakota in 2011. I'd have guessed it was more recent.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
188,182
Messages
2,903,467
Members
229,665
Latest member
SANelson
Top