Am i reading this correctly? 2016 taco still has rear drum brakes...

[Martinjmpr]

With regard to longevity, i.e. which vehicle will make it to 200k without any major problems, or 300k or more (any more 100K+ is a given. My DD is a 96 Mazda B2300 A/K/A Ford Ranger with 152k on it and I hardly do anything to take care of it) I wonder how significant this is to a NEW vehicle buyer?
.
Somewhere, somebody's got a statistic that shows how long, on average, and how many miles a new vehicle buyer keeps a vehicle. I'd venture a guess that most new vehicle buyers probably don't even keep their vehicles to 100k, in fact I'd guess 3 - 5 years and 60 - 80k is probably the norm.
.
And if you think about it, why should a manufacturer care about anybody EXCEPT the new vehicle buyer? After all, he's the only one who put money in the manufacturer's pocket. As I've often said on this forum, I like Toyota but Toyota doesn't have any reason to like me. The first and last time Toyota Motor Company got any money from me was in 1985 when I bought a new Hilux. I've owned 3 other 'Yotas since then but since I bought them used, Toyota, Inc, never profited one dime from that.
.
Of course it's true that people are more likely to buy a new vehicle if they think they'll do well on resale when they sell it, so in that sense Toyota's legendary longevity and reliability is an asset that helps sell vehicles, but really only up to a certain point. By the time any modern vehicle has 160K miles on it, it's probably on at least owner no. 4. So any money that Toyota spends to try and make a vehicle last 300k miles is probably not money well spent, since the number of customers who buy new and actually expect to keep a vehicle that long are a microscopic minority.
.
To put it another way, what is the benefit of having a capability, whether it's the capability of towing a 12,000lb trailer, or the capability of going 300,000 miles without any problems, if the buyer never intends to use that capability?

 

[Martinjmpr]

As far as the drum brakes go, others have said it: Toyota is a pretty conservative company and seems to apply the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" philosophy here.
.
Toyota is king of the mid-sized truck market, not because they're better, but because most of the competitors have quit the field. And you have to wonder why that is.
.
I think it's similar to the Wrangler. Die-hard enthusiasts want to believe there's a huge market for a Wrangler competitor in the US/North American auto market but the people who actually make a living selling cars don't think so.
.
I wonder if it could be the same with mid sized trucks? That there's just not enough "market share" out there for it to be worth competing over? With "compact" trucks getting bigger, more expensive, more complex and more fuel-thirsty, the big truck manufacturers figured that if they just cut the less profitable compact lines out they could focus on making the full-size trucks more competitive, and there's a lot more "market" (and PROFIT!) for full-sized trucks than there is for compact.
.
Yes, GM has dipped their toes back into the compact truck market with the imported Colorado, so they obviously see some potential there. But how much? I wonder what the production numbers of the Colorado/Canyon will be compared to the Silverado/Sierra line? Meanwhile Ford and Dodge seem to be doubling down on making their full sized half tons more economical which pretty much negates the one benefit of a compact truck, i.e. its fuel economy.
.
I'd even go so far as to say that the reason most mid-sized BOF SUVs (the Blazer, the Xterra, the Pathfinder, the Explorer) have either disappeared or morphed into unibody crossovers has been because the crew-cab "sport truck" has moved into this market niche. In that sense, the Tacoma really isn't even a truck, it's a less expensive 4runner with an open bed. That makes the low payload numbers easier to understand because these vehicles aren't "Trucks" in the sense that they are work vehicles, these are play toys, grocery getters and daily drivers.

 

[Dalko43]

To put it another way, what is the benefit of having a capability, whether it's the capability of towing a 12,000lb trailer, or the capability of going 300,000 miles without any problems, if the buyer never intends to use that capability?

To put it another way, VW, Audi, Jaguar/Land Rover, BMW, Jeep have all put diesels in sedans or tame crossover 'SUV's.' The one place no car company has put them is in the BOF SUV market (which at this point includes only the 4runner and the Wrangler). Some of the lighter pickups have started to get diesels (Colorado and Ram EcoDiesel) but Toyota has still held off on the Tacoma.

I agree that most car buyers dont care about tow capabilities, engine life, or torque curves (all of the attributes that stand out for a diesel), but I also don't think most car buyers need a 4runner or Tacoma...they're fairly basic and spartan, with mediocre fuel economy and ride quality, ect. Most car buyers don't need a body on frame construction, A/T tires, transfer case with 4wd, locking rear diff's. They would be much happier with a comfortable and fuel efficient crossover or sedan. Most people who do buy wranglers, tacomas and 4runners do so because they want and like those types of vehicles. A diesel engine is just another option that many BOF truck/SUV owners would enjoy owning, or at least have the option of owning, for all the reasons listed previously (towing, fuel economy, torque). Again, it's arguable whether or not most buyers would really need a diesel engine, but there are certainly a lot of truck/SUV owners who want that engine type (more so than what you would find in the luxury sedan/crossover market). If diesels were to have any relevance in the car market, it would be in a 4runner or Tacoma or Wrangler, not in a Audi sedan or Jeep Grand Cherokee.

IMO, Toyota and Jeep are shooting themselves in the foot by not putting diesels in their BOF offerings....it's the one market niche (other than full-sized work trucks) where diesels would actually stand a chance of selling in high amounts.

 

[calicamper]

You can run it to 300k miles, no doubt, but let's be honest, it's going to take some work and there is a greater potential for issues with that amount of usage....that is one area where diesels do have an advantage. 200k-250k miles is generally the mark where you need to do major maintenance or a full rework of gas engines.


A a well-optioned diesel Colorado (in the Z71 package with many of the offroad goodies) is about $39k.

A well-optioned TRD Tacoma is about $36k.

I think Chevy knows exactly what they're doing with the Colorado and its pricing...they're looking to steal consumers from the mid-sized pickup market (which Toyota has had a near monopoly on up until now). We'll see how the Colorado fares in the long term, but so far it looks to be a competitive alternative to Toyota's 10 year old Tacoma.

I have a snowball chances in hell of getting a Taco with wifes approval. Interior comfort would be an instant deal breaker for her. On the other hand the mileage and interior in the Diesel Canyon would be an easy sell.

As for the comments about 300,000 miles? We have more Domestic brand vehicles pushing 300k in our family than we do Toyotas and 90% of the family owns a toyota of some kind. Any decent auto maker builds vehicles that can 300k with correct care. I like Toyotas have had three since the 90's but todays toyotas are not special or magically better than the other options out there today.

 

[Clutch]

I have a snowball chances in hell of getting a Taco with wifes approval. Interior comfort would be an instant deal breaker for her. On the other hand the mileage and interior in the Diesel Canyon would be an easy sell.

The better 3/4's turned her nose up at the Colorado/Canyon...she was" said "no manual trans!? what is up with that!?" She is real easy to please...give her manual trans and a 4WD truck, doesn't need much more.

Slim pickens in the manual trans department these days...even from Toyota

As for the comments about 300,000 miles? We have more Domestic brand vehicles pushing 300k in our family than we do Toyotas and 90% of the family owns a toyota of some kind. Any decent auto maker builds vehicles that can 300k with correct care. I like Toyotas have had three since the 90's but todays toyotas are not special or magically better than the other options out there today.

Yeah, I am sure there are plenty of fine vehicles out there...I have owned Toyotas for 25 years now, they have treated me extremely well, why stray now? The Tacoma isn't magical...it is vanilla...I am ok with vanilla.

 

[Mrknowitall]

Those drum brakes at the top of this post are to blame for the low GVW, btw. The 4Runner and Lexus GX both have a higher GVW- and rear disks.

 

[calicamper]

I have a snowball chances in hell of getting a Taco with wifes approval. Interior comfort would be an instant deal breaker for her. On the other hand the mileage and interior in the Diesel Canyon would be an easy sell.

The better 3/4's turned her nose up at the Colorado/Canyon...she was" said "no manual trans!? what is up with that!?" She is real easy to please...give her manual trans and a 4WD truck, doen't need much more.

Slim pickens in the manual trans department...even from Toyota



Yeah, I am sure there are plenty of fine vehicles out there...I have owned Toyotas for 25 years now, they have treated me extremely well, why stray now? The Tacoma isn't magical...it is vanilla...I am ok with vanilla.

We were 100% manuals till 2004 when we added a cherry 93 Land Cruiser to the fleet. We just replaced the wifes 2001 1.8t 5spd with a far far superior commuter machine. 2016 Fusion Titanium, Energy Hybrid. Trust me the wife doesn't miss her 5spd as she takes the HOV lane posting 87mpg averages. If we get another manual we'll do it right and get a German high powered 2dr sports car. ;-) her words not mine.

 

[goodtimes]

Somewhere, somebody's got a statistic that shows how long, on average, and how many miles a new vehicle buyer keeps a vehicle. I'd venture a guess that most new vehicle buyers probably don't even keep their vehicles to 100k, in fact I'd guess 3 - 5 years and 60 - 80k is probably the norm.

I read a while back (last year????) that with the recession, the average new vehicle ownership period had stretched out to somewhere between 7 and 8 years. Granted, that's a really generalized number - and it's been quite a while since I read it, so it may not be as accurate today.

And if you think about it, why should a manufacturer care about anybody EXCEPT the new vehicle buyer?

While that is true, a manufacturers reputation - largely built on the reliability & resale value of their older vehicles - is a massive part of what drives people to the showrooms. So, in that respect, they do (or, they "should") care about buyers of used vehicles.

 

[mrothwell]

As far as the drum brakes go, others have said it: Toyota is a pretty conservative company and seems to apply the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" philosophy here.

People have said this repeatedly on here, and it bugs me because I don't think its true. Toyota has repeatedly made class-leading vehicles that had extremely innovative, groundbreaking, uncommon features. Look at the Prius for example. It isn't the most sporting car out there, but it gets double the gas mileage of anything else, and the freaking things never break. Look at the original mid-90s RAV4, they basically invented the crossover SUV market with an odd raised hatchback. The 2005 Tacoma was the best truck on the market when it was introduced, having a revolutionary all-new aluminum V6, class-leading fuel economy, class-leading light weight, and an innovative composite bed. I love Toyota as a company, but this new Tacoma is a poor effort. They have no idea what their customers want, so they're trying to change as little as possible to avoid screwing it up. What they should be doing is innovating, learning about what their core customers ACTUALLY do with their vehicles, and making changes to improve the product.

 

[Clutch]

I have a snowball chances in hell of getting a Taco with wifes approval. Interior comfort would be an instant deal breaker for her. On the other hand the mileage and interior in the Diesel Canyon would be an easy sell.

We were 100% manuals till 2004 when we added a cherry 93 Land Cruiser to the fleet. We just replaced the wifes 2001 1.8t 5spd with a far far superior commuter machine. 2016 Fusion Titanium, Energy Hybrid. Trust me the wife doesn't miss her 5spd as she takes the HOV lane posting 87mpg averages. If we get another manual we'll do it right and get a German high powered 2dr sports car. ;-) her words not mine.

Her commute is 1 mile. Her current vehicle is an auto, and she hates it. Asked if all the new trucks are targeted at men with manginas... ha ha! She likes trucks, and like me can't stand cars as they are rather useless...even our SUV is mostly unusable...the dog isn't allowed in it, I am not allowed to eat in it...or haul sticks of steel stock, bags concrete...LAME.

We chose not to live in a big city...or have wrenched commutes, mine is only 30 minutes, but being self employed I can arrange my schedule to miss what little traffic we have here.


I think Chevy nailed the body style of the Colorado...too bad no manual trans or I would give it a try.

 

[Martinjmpr]

Look at the Prius for example. It isn't the most sporting car out there, but it gets double the gas mileage of anything else, and the freaking things never break.

.
Yes, look at the Prius - introduced AFTER the Honda Insight hit the market as the first mass-market hybrid.
.
Toyota was also the 2nd company to introduce a 4wd mini-truck to the US market. The Chevy LUV (which was actually made by Isuzu) was first.
.
That's kind of the point, I think: Toyota is probably watching to see how the Diesel Colorado does. If it does well they may start figuring out how to put a diesel in the Tacoma, but if it fails in the Colorado they won't waste their money trying to bring a small diesel to the states.
.

They have no idea what their customers want, so they're trying to change as little as possible to avoid screwing it up. What they should be doing is innovating, learning about what their core customers ACTUALLY do with their vehicles, and making changes to improve the product.

.
As long as Toyota is selling every Tacoma they make, and at premium prices (at least from what I read here on forums like this) why should they change? If customers start flocking to the New! Improved! Colorado then Toyota may step up their game but right now they OWN the mid-sized truck market, why should they spend a bunch of money upgrading unless they need to in order to capture sales from a competitor?
.
Having said all that, it is puzzling why Toyota continues to use drums when just about everyone else in the auto industry has switched to rear discs. You have to figure that the cost savings of having drum brakes on the rear axle is pretty minimal. What do you think it would add, maybe $200 - $300 to the cost of each vehicle? And if you factor in economies of scale (which Toyota should have lots of) it would probably get even smaller.

 

[cationmoted]

Those drum brakes at the top of this post are to blame for the low GVW, btw. The 4Runner and Lexus GX both have a higher GVW- and rear disks.

and a fully boxed frame*

 

[Box Rocket]

While I get that there is plenty for people to gripe about if they want to, the fact is the Tacoma sells well. It sells well because it works. It's still one of the vehicles with the highest resale value out there. My 1st gen Tacoma with a smaller motor (smaller than the new Tacoma) and drum brakes was a fantastic truck. While the new Tacoma may not have all the bells and whistles and latest and greatest tech in every part of the vehicle it is still priced reasonably for what you're getting IMO. I don't quite understand why several here are complaining about the payload. Sure that's partly to do with brakes but it's also partly due to suspension. My guess is that nobody on this forum if they owned one would be leaving the suspension in stock form. Aftermarket suspensions are going to have better load capacity. It was the same way with the older ones.

Also, I think the market for 'midsize' trucks will actually grow looking forward. As EPA regulations in the US get more strict and manufacturers are trying to find ways to improve fuel economy with things like Eco-Tech motors etc, it just makes sense to have a smaller,lighter weight pickup that can get better fuel economy than a heavier full size. And the midsized trucks of today are much bigger than the minitrucks of the 80's and 90's. The new Tacoma is essentially the size of the 1st Gen Tundras. There will always be a huge demand in the US for full size pickups, but I see the mid-size market getting bigger. I think the Colorado is evidence of that. GM sees that there is market share to be had in the segment.

I would like to see all the same stuff you guys are complaining about it missing, don't get me wrong, but it would likely price it beyond what the market would be willing to pay for a mid-size pickup. Even with all of these 'shortcomings' the Tacoma has consistently been a top seller for the masses, and even in the 'core' group like everyone here it continues to be one of the most sought after platforms for offroad use, whether its "overlanding", trail running, prerunning, even rock crawling to a lesser degree. So back to my original point Toyota is still making the best mid-size pickup on the market IMO, and the consumers are telling the same story by the numbers of these trucks on the road.

 

[austintaco]

My turn to beat the dead horse. Poor thing. When Toyota introduced us to the 2016 the spokesperson said in the release video from whatever auto show the Tacoma made its debut that the Tacoma was for acitivity and the Tundra was geared for work. Take a look at the features they did put on the Tacoma. A go pro mount? really? However, look at the TV ads for the Tacoma. Its very X games oriented with dirt bikes and trucks speeding across the terrain. Remember the ads from the 80's and 90's with a guy hauling some lumber or dirt? That's not the new Tacoma, or at least its not what Toyota wants to advertise it as. Toyota has gone a different direction with the truck and a diesel is not in the mix. If my 03 gets totaled tomorrow and I had to buy a new truck, not used, I would be at the Toyota dealership working a deal. The Colorado? Ha. Maybe it's the reincarnation of the 80's diesel Hilux, but Chevy has about 20 years of unreliability to make up for before the Colorado gets even close. OK, I beat the crap out of that dead horse.

 

[calicamper]

Jeep cant make em fast enough. Toyota is simply going after the percieved "Active" life style. The 4runner and Taco are Toyotas products targeting that market. I'm not a GM guy never owned one. But the recent GMs in the family are proving to be pretty good. My Toyota hasnt been any better than the GM products. Interior isnt anything to write home about, the GM interior has held up better.