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

[Dalko43]

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.

See this is the problem with trying to have an honest conversation about cars with brand loyalists...the fan boy syndrome comes out and the argument devolves to petty back-and-forth. As I said earlier, I'm not defending or apologizing for the Colorado's performance, braking or otherwise. I'm not even saying the Colorado is better than the Tacoma or vice vesa..in fact it was you that claimed the Tacoma was better than the Colorado offroad.

All I said was Chevy was trying to innovate while Toyota was producing a new pickup that bears some striking similarities to the Tacoma it has been producing for the last 10 years.

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.

I never said unibody wasn't as stiff as BOF, rather I said that current unibody designs have not been made applicable to offroad or work use the same way BOF designs are. I acknowledge frame twist is part of the reason for having a BOF. But most offroad and utility vehicle designs attempt to minimize frame twist in order to preserve the body, keep components in place, and let the suspension do the work. RoyJ actually brought up a lot of these finer points and also explained why the Unimog's flexible frame and design was very different from most other BOF setups.

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.

I said as much that Land Rover's design wasn't a true unibody design...my only point in bringing that up was to show that car companies have yet to embrace a pure unibody design for true offroad use.

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.

I think you're looking for a strawman argument here...I never said BOF designs seek to eliminate flex, rather I said they seek to mitigate it...that's why most heavy duty and many of the full-sized pickups have fully boxed frames, and that's why a Land Rover Defender or Toyota Land Cruiser have fully boxed as well. Construction material aside, a more rigid frame, like a fully boxed one, will do a better job of reducing stress experienced by the vehicle's body and components....these are all points that your friend RoyJ brought up.

Notice, I didn't say the boxed frame eliminates twist and flex, I said that it reduces it.

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.

And the fan boy syndrome kicks in yet again...

Have you even driven the Colorado extensively or are you just making these claims because of your adherence to the 'Toyota kicks butt no matter what' ideology?

For your own context, I own a 2011 4runner, and love the hell out of it. I think it's very capable vehicle, even in stock form. But that doesn't mean I can't point out issues or flaws, with the vehicle or the brand as a whole.

Besides, my main point in making these comments wasn't to trash-talk the Tacoma. I've readily acknowledged it is a solid performer. Rather it was to discuss Toyota's overall branding and strategy when it comes to making new vehicles...I'd be more than happy to have a civilized discussion with you on that topic, so long as you take a break from making myopic comments.

 

[Clutch]

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.

1st gen had a "mostly" boxed frame, from under the bed was c-channel....now I think just the firewall forward is boxed.

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.

Yep that is it.

Its' too bad that we don't get the HiLux chassis...oh well it is what it is. The Tacoma isn't really use for work applications here in the States anyways, like the HiLux is overseas.

 

[Pilat]

Forget it, Dalko. Nuance is something quite a lot of people fail to see, much less understand.

 

[moonshiner]

See this is the problem with trying to have an honest conversation about cars with brand loyalists...the fan boy syndrome comes out and the argument devolves to petty back-and-forth. As I said earlier, I'm not defending or apologizing for the Colorado's performance, braking or otherwise. I'm not even saying the Colorado is better than the Tacoma or vice vesa..in fact it was you that claimed the Tacoma was better than the Colorado offroad.

All I said was Chevy was trying to innovate while Toyota was producing a new pickup that bears some striking similarities to the Tacoma it has been producing for the last 10 years.



I never said unibody wasn't as stiff as BOF, rather I said that current unibody designs have not been made applicable to offroad or work use the same way BOF designs are. I acknowledge frame twist is part of the reason for having a BOF. But most offroad and utility vehicle designs attempt to minimize frame twist in order to preserve the body, keep components in place, and let the suspension do the work. RoyJ actually brought up a lot of these finer points and also explained why the Unimog's flexible frame and design was very different from most other BOF setups.



I said as much that Land Rover's design wasn't a true unibody design...my only point in bringing that up was to show that car companies have yet to embrace a pure unibody design for true offroad use.



I think you're looking for a strawman argument here...I never said BOF designs seek to eliminate flex, rather I said they seek to mitigate it...that's why most heavy duty and many of the full-sized pickups have fully boxed frames, and that's why a Land Rover Defender or Toyota Land Cruiser have fully boxed as well. Construction material aside, a more rigid frame, like a fully boxed one, will do a better job of reducing stress experienced by the vehicle's body and components....these are all points that your friend RoyJ brought up.

Notice, I didn't say the boxed frame eliminates twist and flex, I said that it reduces it.



And the fan boy syndrome kicks in yet again...

Have you even driven the Colorado extensively or are you just making these claims because of your adherence to the 'Toyota kicks butt no matter what' ideology?

For your own context, I own a 2011 4runner, and love the hell out of it. I think it's very capable vehicle, even in stock form. But that doesn't mean I can't point out issues or flaws, with the vehicle or the brand as a whole.

Besides, my main point in making these comments wasn't to trash-talk the Tacoma. I've readily acknowledged it is a solid performer. Rather it was to discuss Toyota's overall branding and strategy when it comes to making new vehicles...I'd be more than happy to have a civilized discussion with you on that topic, so long as you take a break from making myopic comments.

There you go, always resorting to the "Fan Boy" comment when you can't refute my comment. My point was that Toyota doesn't need a rear disc brake setup when a cheaper setup functions just as well or better than the competitions more expensive system. How is that fanboyism?

So you think disc brakes, fully boxed frames and diesel engines are innovative? Hey welcome to 1900. You do know that all of those were around at that time right?

If you have to drastically change your design and go back to the drawing board every couple years, that probably means that your original design didn't work too well.

No. You said that to make a unibody rigid enough for work/offroad duty would conflict with weight savings of a unibody. These are your words: "...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..." This would imply that the unibody is not rigid enough. But the fact is that the basic unibody structure is already much stiffer than a BOF (doesn't matter if it's a c-channel or boxed section). It doesn't need any extra weight to be stiffer than a BOF. This is a fact that is hard for you to grasp for some reason.

I don't think you understand why BOF are typically selected for truck/offroad duty. You keep saying box frames are used to reduce flex but then dismiss a unibody because it takes too much weight to make it rigid enough for truck/offroad duty.

If you want to minimize/mitigate (those are the words you use) frame twists you would want as stiff a chassis as you can get would you not?

But most manufactures don't use a unibody because you need some give/compliance in the main structure for truck/offroad duty. BOF are typically used because the body can be partially isolated from the frame that is taking the majority of the loads imposed on it.

You've never said the Land Rover integrated-body-on-frame was a BOF. You are the one always referring to it when talking about unibodies made for offroad use. Land Rover does make a "pure" unibody design to go offroad, but it's not the LR4.

I'm making the claim that the Colorado is less capability out of the box because I've seen one fail to ascend a 20 degree RTI ramp. It's air dam was about get ripped off so driver backed down when he realized he was about to cause some damage to his truck if he kept going and it probably would have taken front bumper cover with it since there were at least 20 screws holding that air dam to the bumper. We crawled under and looked and the screw heads come from the top so we didn't try to remove the air dam.

You want to talk about Toyot's strategy? It's pretty simple. The Tacoma's formula works and works very well. We'll just update a few things that needs updating. The competition meanwhile have to go back to the drawing board every few year.

 

[moonshiner]

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.

No. He specifically refered to the 1st gen Tacoma. Maybe you should read the articles you linked. And a more flexible frame hasn't hurt the Tacoma. 10 year old Tacomas still have less squeak and rattles than 10 year old fully boxed Colorados.

 

[I Leak Oil]

Rear brakes perform about 30% or so of the braking. Drums are more than adequate for this application. However, I do find it odd they are still using them. I would think discs would be less expensive, especially if they are already using the same parts elsewhere.

Does anyone know if there is a swap available?

 

[Dalko43]

There you go, always resorting to the "Fan Boy" comment when you can't refute my comment. My point was that Toyota doesn't need a rear disc brake setup when a cheaper setup functions just as well or better than the competitions more expensive system. How is that fanboyism?

Disk brakes are the new norm; Toyota hasn't put them on the Tacoma's rear...enough said. I'm done talking about brakes..

I'm accusing you of fanboyism because you seem to think the world of the Tacoma, but think there is nothing worth discussing regarding the Colorado.

So you think disc brakes, fully boxed frames and diesel engines are innovative? Hey welcome to 1900. You do know that all of those were around at that time right?

An inline 4, EPA-compliant diesel that produces 369lb-ft in a mid-sized truck is innovative for the American market IMHO...I don't see anyone else trying that right now.

A boxed frame on a mid-sized, IFS American truck is also innovative for this market...again, I don't see many others, if any, doing this.

Your reference to 1900 is a joke. The engines, components, designs of today are quite a bit more advanced than they were from over a century ago, despite the fundamental similarities they share. By that same logic, I guess we should also ignore any potential innovation in the Tesla cars since the first electric road vehicle was invented in the 1830's?

No. You said that to make a unibody rigid enough for work/offroad duty would conflict with weight savings of a unibody. These are your words: "...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..." This would imply that the unibody is not rigid enough. But the fact is that the basic unibody structure is already much stiffer than a BOF (doesn't matter if it's a c-channel or boxed section). It doesn't need any extra weight to be stiffer than a BOF. This is a fact that is hard for you to grasp for some reason.

Instead of speculating what I was implying, why not discuss what I said. I said most unibody designs are not built to withstand the kinds of stresses and loads they would experience during prolonged offroading and work use. Yes, they are more stiff than any BOF setup....the relevant question though is are they capable of maintaining their rigidity and structural integrity when used/abused the same way BOF trucks and SUV's are?

I would argue they are not, otherwise you would have seen most of the utility and work-oriented trucks and SUV's transition to that design by now.

I don't think you understand why BOF are typically selected for truck/offroad duty. You keep saying box frames are used to reduce flex but then dismiss a unibody because it takes too much weight to make it rigid enough for truck/offroad duty.

If you want to minimize/mitigate (those are the words you use) frame twists you would want as stiff a chassis as you can get would you not?

The simple answer is: you have a BOF to have some amount of flex and give, but you don't want too much flex for all the reasons that I and RoyJ brought up.

The longer answer is: Ideally speaking, it's the suspension, not your metal frame, which should be doing most of the flexing, twisting, contorting, ect.
Ideally speaking, it would be best if the frame didn't flex at all, and the suspension did 100% of the work in rough terrain. But that's not realistic, so BOF designs accept a compromise of sorts and allow some measure frame twist or flex...it's a necessary evil as twisting a piece of metal is not good for its structural integrity. The fully boxed frame, in my humble but obviously controversial opinion, provides the best compromise in that it does, by it's nature, allow some degree of flex, but still offers the greatest rigidity, for a BOF setup.

You are the one always referring to it when talking about unibodies made for offroad use. Land Rover does make a "pure" unibody design to go offroad, but it's not the LR4.

Yeah, I'm aware of Land Rover's unibody offroaders and Jeeps, and others. No one's saying that they're not capable in their own right, but to say they can compete with LR4 or a traditional Defender or Land Cruiser is opening up yet another subjective discussion with you that I have no interest in having.

I'm making the claim that the Colorado is less capability out of the box because I've seen one fail to ascend a 20 degree RTI ramp. It's air dam was about get ripped off so driver backed down when he realized he was about to cause some damage to his truck if he kept going and it probably would have taken front bumper cover with it since there were at least 20 screws holding that air dam to the bumper. We crawled under and looked and the screw heads come from the top so we didn't try to remove the air dam.

So all because of a plastic air dam that could probably come off with a few simple tools, you're going to proclaim that the Tacoma is the better offroader?

There are probably a lot of other aspects (4wd, engine torque, traction control, ect.) that merit analysis and comparison before you make that kind of judgement....this is exactly why I was suggesting fan boy syndrome in some of my earlier comments.

You want to talk about Toyot's strategy? It's pretty simple. The Tacoma's formula works and works very well. We'll just update a few things that needs updating. The competition meanwhile have to go back to the drawing board every few year.

See this is the type of discussion I was trying to have. I agree Toyota's strategy is to keep things simple...and I'm making the point that when you have other companies trying to present new ideas/concepts (like a diesel in a mid-sized American pickup), the 'keep it simple' strategy may not work.

 

[Clutch]

Rear brakes perform about 30% or so of the braking. Drums are more than adequate for this application. However, I do find it odd they are still using them. I would think discs would be less expensive, especially if they are already using the same parts elsewhere.

Does anyone know if there is a swap available?

Tundra Racing has a kit: http://sosperformance.com/rbck.htm has a parking brake too, which some kits don't have.

 

[calicamper]

Power Lumbar on passenger side? Tacoma offered
With that yet? Some of us fan boys aren't spring chickens any more.

 

[Clutch]

Power Lumbar on passenger side? Tacoma offered
With that yet? Some of us fan boys aren't spring chickens any more.

Yeah, there are a couple few things are disappointing with the new Tacoma. Part of my "problem" is, I have been driving these trucks for 25 years now, when I jump in a Toyota...I feel at home...all of the controls are where they "should" be, my hands naturally fall upon them. With the Chevy and Ford....I feel lost. While mostly likely the GM and Ferd, are going to be good trucks. The Tacoma just feels "right"....getting set in my ways the older I get...change is bad! :ylsmoke:

 

[Dalko43]

Power Lumbar on passenger side? Tacoma offered
With that yet? Some of us fan boys aren't spring chickens any more.

When I mentioned "fan boy," I wasn't referring to you....but all the same, my apologies if I offended you.

Now I need to go drive my 4runner for an hour to make up for all of my transgressions against the brand.

 

[forty2]

Part of my "problem" is, I have been driving these trucks for 25 years now, when I jump in a Toyota...I feel at home...all of the controls are where they "should" be, my hands naturally fall upon them. With the Chevy and Ford....I feel lost.

On that note, how about that handbrake? I'm curious how long it's going to take before I stop reaching for the dash brake that isn't there.

 

[Clutch]

On that note, how about that handbrake? I'm curious how long it's going to take before I stop reaching for the dash brake that isn't there.

The hand brake is finally where it is supposed to be.


some of the 2nd gens had a foot parking brake, that is just so wrong...(can't recall which years though)

 

[moonshiner]

Disk brakes are the new norm; Toyota hasn't put them on the Tacoma's rear...enough said. I'm done talking about brakes..

I'm accusing you of fanboyism because you seem to think the world of the Tacoma, but think there is nothing worth discussing regarding the Colorado.




An inline 4, EPA-compliant diesel that produces 369lb-ft in a mid-sized truck is innovative for the American market IMHO...I don't see anyone else trying that right now.

A boxed frame on a mid-sized, IFS American truck is also innovative for this market...again, I don't see many others, if any, doing this.

Your reference to 1900 is a joke. The engines, components, designs of today are quite a bit more advanced than they were from over a century ago, despite the fundamental similarities they share. By that same logic, I guess we should also ignore any potential innovation in the Tesla cars since the first electric road vehicle was invented in the 1830's?



Instead of speculating what I was implying, why not discuss what I said. I said most unibody designs are not built to withstand the kinds of stresses and loads they would experience during prolonged offroading and work use. Yes, they are more stiff than any BOF setup....the relevant question though is are they capable of maintaining their rigidity and structural integrity when used/abused the same way BOF trucks and SUV's are?

I would argue they are not, otherwise you would have seen most of the utility and work-oriented trucks and SUV's transition to that design by now.



The simple answer is: you have a BOF to have some amount of flex and give, but you don't want too much flex for all the reasons that I and RoyJ brought up.

The longer answer is: Ideally speaking, it's the suspension, not your metal frame, which should be doing most of the flexing, twisting, contorting, ect.
Ideally speaking, it would be best if the frame didn't flex at all, and the suspension did 100% of the work in rough terrain. But that's not realistic, so BOF designs accept a compromise of sorts and allow some measure frame twist or flex...it's a necessary evil as twisting a piece of metal is not good for its structural integrity. The fully boxed frame, in my humble but obviously controversial opinion, provides the best compromise in that it does, by it's nature, allow some degree of flex, but still offers the greatest rigidity, for a BOF setup.




Yeah, I'm aware of Land Rover's unibody offroaders and Jeeps, and others. No one's saying that they're not capable in their own right, but to say they can compete with LR4 or a traditional Defender or Land Cruiser is opening up yet another subjective discussion with you that I have no interest in having.




So all because of a plastic air dam that could probably come off with a few simple tools, you're going to proclaim that the Tacoma is the better offroader?

There are probably a lot of other aspects (4wd, engine torque, traction control, ect.) that merit analysis and comparison before you make that kind of judgement....this is exactly why I was suggesting fan boy syndrome in some of my earlier comments.




See this is the type of discussion I was trying to have. I agree Toyota's strategy is to keep things simple...and I'm making the point that when you have other companies trying to present new ideas/concepts (like a diesel in a mid-sized American pickup), the 'keep it simple' strategy may not work.

Since all the new kids are doing it, Toyota should just put disc brakes on the back too. That's reason enough right there. Engineering data to justify design choices are for nerds. Wow.

I seem to think the world of the Tacoma? Show me where did I say that? Talk about speculating...how ironic.

Yes. Electric cars are not new. They were the norm before gasoline. Hybrids are not new. Toyota didn't invent it. I think you don't understand the definition of innovation. There's nothing new that Chevy is doing. A boxed frame mid-sized IFS American pickup? GM and Dodge did this back in the mid-2000s. Nissan Frontier is still doing this.

Funny how you fail to bold the word rigid. I shouldn't have said imply since you explicitly said unibodies would need addition weight to keep the whole body rigid enough to sustain all kinds of loads and stresses. So no speculating needed anyone's part. A unibody will maintain it's rigidity. The stiffness doesn't change with loading. The issue is that you can only bend/twist a unibody so far before something fractures, usually without much warning. When you see unibody deform, it's probably already yielded permanently. If you push a BOF too far, there will usually be quite a bit of frame flex before yielding.

You seem to be contradicting yourself. Which is it? Do you want some flex or do you want no flex at all? If you want no flex at all, as you explicitly stated, then why wouldn't you want an unibody made from carbon fiber. It is super stiff and will have very little flex. This would be as close to your explicit ideal as anything currently. But the general consensus is that a carbon fiber monocoque is not ideal for offroad/truck duty.

The difference in stiffness between boxed section frame and a c-channel frame is very small compare to the difference in stiffness between an unibody and a boxed section frame. So it is not a true compromises since it gives up a lot more stiffness to the unibody structure than it gains from the c-channel frame.

Well, why don't you go and try to remove that air dam and then get back to me? Then tell us how to get to screws that comes from the top. It looked like you had to remove quite a few parts before you can get to them. We took one look and said "******. That ain't a five minute job." Like I said. Out of the box, the Tacoma is more capable. It was only a 20 degrees ramp. A lot of CUV could probably climb that. Is this still fanboyism? Or more like facts.

Keep things simple? Umm...the last time I looked, the 2gr-fks is pretty damn complex. It's more like Toyota likes things to be proven and to work in the field and not just on paper. That strategy seems to be working for them just fine by the looks of their financial books.

 

[forty2]

The hand brake is finally where it is supposed to be.


some of the 2nd gens had a foot parking brake, that is just so wrong...(can't recall which years though)

Just the slushboxes. Proper three pedal setup always had a dash brake (until now).