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

[Dalko43]

Serve up excuses? LOL. You are one making excuses for why the Colorado can't stop shorter then the Tacoma even though it has more street oriented tires and "better" rear brakes.

Greater attempt to innovate? LOL. Yeah...rear disc brakes are so innovating. Yet this innovative new truck can't even out perform the "unimproved" truck. Why does Toyota need to redefined the segment? Toyota already have what the segment wants. When you constantly have to radically change your design, that means your design wasn't effective in the first place.

Disc brakes are better than drums at heat dissipation only. That's it.

Yes...let's call a spade a spade. The Tacoma's brake system is as good or better than the "innovative" Colorado's. It doesn't matter what the specs says, all that should matter is how it performs both short term and long term.

My experience with the previous Tacoma ATRAC system is that it is superior to other automaker's offroad traction control system except for Landrover's, which I think the Tacoma's is almost as good. No problems with the drum brakes either. Doesn't seem like there's much internet chatter regarding the rear drum brakes be detrimental to the ATRAC system.

I'm not making excuses for the Colorado....I don't know nor do I care to make a claim on whether or not the Colorado is better than the Tacoma....and quite frankly I'm getting pretty tired of arguing about brakes.

My only point was that comparing brake test results between 2 different vehicles does not necessarily validate one braking system over the other (in terms of drum vs disk)...a point which you seem to be missing for the third time in a row. And that disk brakes are generally considered to be a superior design...but you don't seem willing to concede that point either...despite their overwhelming use among most modern cars.

In terms of Chevy's attempts to innovate, I did also bring up several valid points about the Colorado's use of a boxed frame and diesel engine, which stands in direct contrast to what Toyota has done, or not done, with the Tacoma. I even gave you a very detailed response on how frame design factors into offroad use.

But you seem more interested in talking about drum brakes...

 

[Ryanmb21]

Didn't the montero win Dakar with its unibody?

 

[Clutch]

the C channel/boxed frame debate has been discussed multiple times and I think that's why nobody is really commenting on it. As for the brakes, I do think that the stopping distance is a good indicator of the braking system. By system, I am including the front brakes, the booster, the master, the rear brakes, the pads, the tires, the proportioning valve, etc...In that regard, the Toyota would appear to have superior braking with older rear tech. For the record, my drums on my Taco have had a flawless 120K so far.

I have gotten you beat, 285K on the shoes...unfortunately I had to replace them only because they became contaminated from a leaky axle seal, otherwise plenty of material left.

Failed bearing caused the leak...still at a 285K think that is pretty good. Truck now has 310K miles on it. Little rough around the edges, but still running strong. Original engine, trans and clutch...

That is what Toyota has, a damn good reputation. The Colorado might very well be a damn good truck, but it will take many years to build that kind of reputation.

 

[bkg]

Hoping the aftermarket wises hp soon and I can get a disk to drum conversion for my tundra.... Fingers crossed....

 

[bkg]

I have gotten you beat, 285K on the shoes...unfortunately I had to replace them only because they became contaminated from a leaky axle seal, otherwise plenty of material left.

Failed bearing caused the leak...still at a 285K think that is pretty good. Truck now has 310K miles on it. Little rough around the edges, but still running strong. Original engine, trans and clutch...

That is what Toyota has, a damn good reputation. The Colorado might very well be a damn good truck, but it will take many years to build that kind of reputation.

If pure getting that much from rear consumables... I have to challenge correct adjustment...

 

[Clutch]

Didn't the montero win Dakar with its unibody?

Nothing wrong with unibodies.

Jeep XJ was/is a great offroad platform...other than being a Jeep. Buddy of mine at the time had one with darn near the same mileage as my Tacoma, his was falling apart, mine was tight...and still is.

 

[Clutch]

If pure getting that much from rear consumables... I have to challenge correct adjustment...

I check every tire rotation, which is every other oil change, oil changes are at 2500 miles. I am little OCD about maintenance.

Like I said, still on the original clutch too...it is about about how you treat them and driving style. Don't beat on it, it will last. The Trooper only has 116K on it, great vehicle as well...even though we really baby that thing, the trans is acting up, figures it is a GM trans, and an auto. I have great distain towards autos. I haven't had many autos over the years...none of them seem to last very long.

 

[moonshiner]

I'm not making excuses for the Colorado....I don't know nor do I care to make a claim on whether or not the Colorado is better than the Tacoma....and quite frankly I'm getting pretty tired of arguing about brakes.

My only point was that comparing brake test results between 2 different vehicles does not necessarily validate one braking system over the other (in terms of drum vs disk)...a point which you seem to be missing for the third time in a row. And that disk brakes are generally considered to be a superior design...but you don't seem willing to concede that point either...despite their overwhelming use among most modern cars.

In terms of Chevy's attempts to innovate, I did also bring up several valid points about the Colorado's use of a boxed frame and diesel engine, which stands in direct contrast to what Toyota has done, or not done, with the Tacoma. I even gave you a very detailed response on how frame design factors into offroad use.

But you seem more interested in talking about drum brakes...

So you're saying that performance doesn't matter. Just specs. So two competing trucks have different braking system and one stops shorter but it's braking system is inferior because it doesn't have what you considered to be the superior system? Makes a lot sense. I sure GM said that their truck doesn't need to stop as good as the Tacoma because their truck is going to have rear disk brakes and a fully boxed frame and whole bunch of other different stuff so people are going to say they don't really compete with each since they are so different.

You keep saying that disc are superior, but provide no concrete proof. And superior in what aspect? Stopping power? I've concede that disc are better at heat dissipation, but in this application drum brakes handle the relatively little heat that's generate just fine.

In regards to fully boxed frame posts, you state that "the principle, as I understand it, is to build a frame to be as rigid as possible so as to allow the suspension, not the frame, to conform and work with whatever terrain is being encountered." Yet you dismiss unibody construction. Fact: unibody construction is a magnitude greater than any type of BOF in terms of stiffness. A BOF can never be as stiff as a unibody due to geometry. The ladder frame is only in a single flat plane (technically it isn't but in comparison to a unibody structure and for the sake of simplicity, it is). Whereas a unibody structure has a much taller section so to speak. Think of a can and a foot long flat bar. The can is very stiff for it's weight. The flat bar can be bent with your bare hands. But which one can take more punishment?

The point of that long paragraph is that too many people confused stiffness and weight. Yes. A box frame is stiffer than a C-channel frame. But a box frame is not stronger. That's why I said that if you really want stiffness, go unibody. But a BOF can take more abuse/overloading because it can flex without permanent damage. Stiffer also does not mean it'll perform better offroad. Unimog have a very flexible frame. Tacoma is more capable offroad than the fully boxed Colorado. So a more flexible frame is not a detriment to offroad capability. Is one better than the other? Depends on which marketing department you listen to. But both have their pros and cons and one is not better than the other overall. Just depends on what your design goals are.

 

[RoyJ]

Moonshiner, nothing sparks a debate like boxed vs C-channel frames, in fact, I was heavily involved in a debate a month ago about the new F350.

First of all, I'd like to say you brought up a LOT of good points, and I agree with most of them. Many people confuse stiffness with strength, and even strength itself can be categorized in many ways (evenly distributed vs concentrated stress, impact loads, fatigue, etc.). Yes, the stiffest chassis are all unibody, and the stiffest of all being carbon fiber monocoque - which would be very poor for off road type use.

A flexible c-channel CAN be made extremely strong, but without engineering specs we do not know. Namingly, we need to know two things - the yield strength of the steel, and the section modulus. A lot of people simply points to HD semi trucks and say: look how strong they are, and that's all c-channel. True, but few people realize they use up to 120,000 psi steel, with enormous section modulus, both of which are absent on light trucks.

I don't know what Toyota uses, but up to 2015, Ford only uses 36,000 psi steel, identical to their 1966 F250! The GM 2500/3500s uses 60,000 psi steel, and combined with their section modulus, has better bending STRENGTH (not just stiffness) than some F550s (which is obviously much higher than F350s). Anyone have the PSI and SM specs for 2016 Tacoma vs Colorado?

While I agree a flexible frame ITSELF would fair much better in off road impact and torsion loads, because of more "give", we have to consider the bodies that are mounted to it - do they like flex? Most often than not, the answer is no. Unless they're specifically designed for it (like the Unimog, I'll get to that later), a cab or bed with camper will experience significant stress if the frame twists under torsion. The amount of torsion displacement is usually much higher than what the body mounts allow, and therefore the cab along with its dashboard, trim pieces, and even seat mounts are forced to twist with the frame/cab. Over time, this can cause a lot of squeaks and groans, or in the case of big truck campers, permanent wood frame damage.

How does the Unimog get away with it? Two major designs that I can see (a Mog engineer can probably provide more): 1) the bed uses a 3 point mounting system, with the rigid double mount at the torsion free region (rear bumper), pivot at the high torsion region (front of bed); and 2) highly CONTROLLED frame twist. If you look at the region under both the cab and bed, you'll see heavy use of welded tubular cross-members, which are the stiffest cross members you can design. Therefore, a Mog does NOT flex at the localized cab and bed region. Instead, the frame is forced to flex right at the pivoting bed mount, exactly where you want it to flex:

I'm not trying to say the Tacoma or the Colorado is better; we don't know until we have more engineering data. What I am trying to say, is both STRENGTH and RIGIDITY is equally important, in different ways.

 

[Dalko43]

You keep saying that disc are superior, but provide no concrete proof. And superior in what aspect? Stopping power? I've concede that disc are better at heat dissipation, but in this application drum brakes handle the relatively little heat that's generate just fine.

The superior heat dissipation of disk brakes should be proof enough, especially because heat dissipation is still a relevant factor to offroad and work use....but of course, you've never had a problem with your drum brakes, so that must mean that drum brakes are just as good as disk brakes, right?

Again, I think you're drawing a false conclusion, but I'll leave it at that.

In regards to fully boxed frame posts, you state that "the principle, as I understand it, is to build a frame to be as rigid as possible so as to allow the suspension, not the frame, to conform and work with whatever terrain is being encountered." Yet you dismiss unibody construction. Fact: unibody construction is a magnitude greater than any type of BOF in terms of stiffness. A BOF can never be as stiff as a unibody due to geometry. The ladder frame is only in a single flat plane (technically it isn't but in comparison to a unibody structure and for the sake of simplicity, it is). Whereas a unibody structure has a much taller section so to speak. Think of a can and a foot long flat bar. The can is very stiff for it's weight. The flat bar can be bent with your bare hands. But which one can take more punishment?

You should quote my full post in the future. If you go back and read what I wrote, you'll see that I did address unibody construction and I brought up how no one, maybe with the exception of Land Rover (depending on how you view their integrated-body-on-frame) has made a unibody for dedicated work and/or offroad use. Theoretically, such a design is possible, but I've yet to see it implemented....my suspicion is that the added weight needed to keep the whole body rigid enough to sustain all kinds of loads and stresses would counteract the weight reduction most manufacturers are striving for....but we'll see what the future brings.

The point of that long paragraph is that too many people confused stiffness and weight. Yes. A box frame is stiffer than a C-channel frame. But a box frame is not stronger.

You're right...the strength of a frame will depend partly upon the materials that were used to construct it. A boxed frame and c channel of the same quality metal will have the same strength material, but the box frame will be stiffer. Which is desired in most offroad and work vehicles. In most designs, the suspension is what is supposed to be conforming to the terrain, not the frame. Frame twist will of course happen, but the idea is to mitigate it as much as possible....do you really think warping and twisting the frame repeatedly is good for the metal?

That's why I said that if you really want stiffness, go unibody. But a BOF can take more abuse/overloading because it can flex without permanent damage. Stiffer also does not mean it'll perform better offroad. Unimog have a very flexible frame.

I already addressed the unibody issue. They aren't really any that were designed for offroad use...and no the Jeep Cherokee doesn't count - it wasn't designed for the type of punishment most offroaders subject it to, which is why many have had to put body reinforcement kits on it....go figure.

I had a feeling that you might bring this up. The unimog is an exception to the norm in that it does, by design, have quite a bit of flex in its frame. It also has flexible mounting points for many of its parts, like the engine, and a chassis and suspension that was built specifically to accommodate large amounts of frame twist, which is part of the reason why it is relatively expensive despite its fairly basic and utilitarian setup. Not a straight apples to apples comparison, especially relative to the Tacoma which has none of those special features....but I'm sure that won't stop you from making that comparison anyways.

And I would still argue that you're a lot more likely to see a warped or cracked frame with the Unimog's c channel frame, than you are with the G-wagon's boxed frame. A quick overview of the unimog:

http://www.fourwheeler.com/project-vehicles/21479-1980-mercedes-unimog/

Tacoma is more capable offroad than the fully boxed Colorado.

Well at least you're being upfront about your bias.

So a more flexible frame is not a detriment to offroad capability. Is one better than the other? Depends on which marketing department you listen to. But both have their pros and cons and one is not better than the other overall. Just depends on what your design goals are.

In most cases, a flexible frame is a detriment. Unless you have a specially tuned chassis and flexible mounting points for equipment all throughout the frame, frame twist is something most offroad/work vehicles try to mitigate or minimize. Besides the fact that body panels become misaligned and components may start to come loose, the suspension is supposed to be doing the majority of the flexing and twisting, not the frame. This is a fairly well-known tenet of utility vehicle design....I'm not sure why I have to explain it over and over again.

Again, I ask you, why does Toyota then not make the 4runner, Land Cruiser Prado (same platform as the 4runner), Landcruiser 200, Landcruiser 70 with c channel construction? If added frame rigidity is not important, why did Toyota use fully boxed frames on its flagship offroad/utility SUV's?

 

[Dalko43]

By the way, here is a pretty thorough discussion of this whole issue by Jonathan Hanson (the former executive editor of Overland Journal) from Exploring Overland:

http://www.exploringoverland.com/overland-tech-travel/2015/8/26/thinking-outside-the-box

 

[Clutch]

By the way, here is a pretty thorough discussion of this whole issue by Jonathan Hanson (the former executive editor of Overland Journal) from Exploring Overland:

http://www.exploringoverland.com/overland-tech-travel/2015/8/26/thinking-outside-the-box

Really think Mr Hanson should of bought a F150. He doesn't seem too happy with the new Tacoma, The little Toyota sure isn't what it used to be that is for sure. It has evolved into a very light duty recreation truck....probably ok for 99% of the American buyers. You just can't load it up like its' brother the HiLux. Simply different markets.

 

[moonshiner]

By the way, here is a pretty thorough discussion of this whole issue by Jonathan Hanson (the former executive editor of Overland Journal) from Exploring Overland:

http://www.exploringoverland.com/overland-tech-travel/2015/8/26/thinking-outside-the-box

umm...that guy doesn't even know that 1st gen Tacoma and 1st gen Tundra had c-channel frames. He said that Toyota starting using c-channel frames in the 2nd gen.

 

[moonshiner]

The superior heat dissipation of disk brakes should be proof enough, especially because heat dissipation is still a relevant factor to offroad and work use....but of course, you've never had a problem with your drum brakes, so that must mean that drum brakes are just as good as disk brakes, right?

Again, I think you're drawing a false conclusion, but I'll leave it at that.




You should quote my full post in the future. If you go back and read what I wrote, you'll see that I did address unibody construction and I brought up how no one, maybe with the exception of Land Rover (depending on how you view their integrated-body-on-frame) has made a unibody for dedicated work and/or offroad use. Theoretically, such a design is possible, but I've yet to see it implemented....my suspicion is that the added weight needed to keep the whole body rigid enough to sustain all kinds of loads and stresses would counteract the weight reduction most manufacturers are striving for....but we'll see what the future brings.



You're right...the strength of a frame will depend partly upon the materials that were used to construct it. A boxed frame and c channel of the same quality metal will have the same strength material, but the box frame will be stiffer. Which is desired in most offroad and work vehicles. In most designs, the suspension is what is supposed to be conforming to the terrain, not the frame. Frame twist will of course happen, but the idea is to mitigate it as much as possible....do you really think warping and twisting the frame repeatedly is good for the metal?



I already addressed the unibody issue. They aren't really any that were designed for offroad use...and no the Jeep Cherokee doesn't count - it wasn't designed for the type of punishment most offroaders subject it to, which is why many have had to put body reinforcement kits on it....go figure.

I had a feeling that you might bring this up. The unimog is an exception to the norm in that it does, by design, have quite a bit of flex in its frame. It also has flexible mounting points for many of its parts, like the engine, and a chassis and suspension that was built specifically to accommodate large amounts of frame twist, which is part of the reason why it is relatively expensive despite its fairly basic and utilitarian setup. Not a straight apples to apples comparison, especially relative to the Tacoma which has none of those special features....but I'm sure that won't stop you from making that comparison anyways.

And I would still argue that you're a lot more likely to see a warped or cracked frame with the Unimog's c channel frame, than you are with the G-wagon's boxed frame. A quick overview of the unimog:

http://www.fourwheeler.com/project-vehicles/21479-1980-mercedes-unimog/



Well at least you're being upfront about your bias.



In most cases, a flexible frame is a detriment. Unless you have a specially tuned chassis and flexible mounting points for equipment all throughout the frame, frame twist is something most offroad/work vehicles try to mitigate or minimize. Besides the fact that body panels become misaligned and components may start to come loose, the suspension is supposed to be doing the majority of the flexing and twisting, not the frame. This is a fairly well-known tenet of utility vehicle design....I'm not sure why I have to explain it over and over again.

Again, I ask you, why does Toyota then not make the 4runner, Land Cruiser Prado (same platform as the 4runner), Landcruiser 200, Landcruiser 70 with c channel construction? If added frame rigidity is not important, why did Toyota use fully boxed frames on its flagship offroad/utility SUV's?

For this application, drums brakes works just as good as disc. The drums more than capable of dealing with the heat that is generated in this application. You keep hammering Toyota for using drums, but their system works and works better than the more expensive system from GM. Of course you would never admit that. You just keep making excuses for the Colorado performance.

You still think that unibody is not as rigid as a BOF? You keep saying that you need a rigid chassis for work and offroad use and that making a unibody rigid enough would incur too much weight. You just don't get it. A unibody is way more rigid than ANY BOF can ever dream of. I've already explained why and RoyJ also pointed it out, but that concept just flew over your head. If you want a stiff chassis, unibody is the way to go. This will probably fly over you head again though.

If you think that Land Rover's integrated-body-on-frame is a unibody, then you don't really know much about chassis and just regurgitating what the marketing department is feeding you. Land Rover's integrated-body-on-frame is a BOF plain and simple. It has a separate frame with a body bolted on to it. That's the very definition of Body-On-Frame (BOF). But you apparently fell for their marketing which makes since you're a spec sheet and marketing type.

The real reason BOF is better for work/offroad use is because they are FLEXIBLE. Since the body is just mounted on the frame with bolts and rubber bushings, the stresses that body have to handle are less than what the frame has to handle. The big thick frame will take more of the pounding and it can twist and bend more than than the body and not be permanently damaged. Yes, flex will happen no matter what you do, that's why as RoyJ stated, the stiffest type of chassis (a unibody made of carbon fiber) is not suitable for offroad use because it can;t flex without permanent damage.

If you really think that a Colorado is more capable offroad than a Tacoma out of the box, then...I don't know what to say. Go buy a Colorado Trailboss and try to follow a stock Tacoma TRD Offroad and see if you can keep up.

Go drive a 10 year old Tacoma with it's flexible frame and go drive a 10 year old Colorado with its fully boxed frame. My money is on the Tacoma having less squeak and rattles and feel tighter than that Colorado which has a stiffer frame. People have been running/offroading c-channel Tacoma's for nearly 20 years and the frame has not been a detriment to the vehicle's performance save for rust, which wasn't a design issue but a manufacturing issue.

Maybe you should ask Toyota why they use a box frame for their SUV but not their US market pickups. I sure they have a long list of reasons for using one type of construction versus another.

 

[Dalko43]

umm...that guy doesn't even know that 1st gen Tacoma and 1st gen Tundra had c-channel frames. He said that Toyota starting using c-channel frames in the 2nd gen.

I'm thinking he was referring to the earlier T100 and Hilux pickups which were the pickups which predated the Tacoma and Tundra respectively here in America.

Anyways, you're totally ignoring the point he was making: That Toyota had refrained from using C channels in their earlier truck frames, while the American companies had used c channels claiming that the additional twist was a good thing....now it seems the roles have reversed, as most of the full-sized domestic pickups (with the exception of the F250) offer fully boxed frames, while Toyota offers the Tundra and Tacoma with c channeling, because more twist is supposedly a good thing.