Colorado ZR2 and Tacoma TRD Pro compared

[Dalko43]

Unimogs have c channel frames and they are designed for off-roading than either trucks. Hell every single military truck with the exception of the hmmwv has a c channel frame.

You're right about the Unimog, but that chassis/frame is an exception to the norm and was built to flex and articulate by design. http://trucks.mercedesbenzmena.com/en/special-vehicles/unimog/chassis

It's in a different category all together compared to something like the Tacoma.

 

[b9ev]

I definitely understand that. I just used that as an example as to why it feels that vehicles and other goods are so much more expensive. A teacher in my mom's era would have more buying power than one now.

My wife was a teacher for a few years and it wasn't a good fit for her financially. She advanced and started doing something else. The best way to have more buying power is to improve skills, education, or simply change fields.

Well they didn't advance. A teacher then is the same as a teacher now. A truck then is not the same as a truck now. If I was doing the same thing I was 20 years then I wouldn't be making much more either.

 

[toylandcruiser]

You're right about the Unimog, but that chassis/frame is an exception to the norm and was built to flex and articulate by design. http://trucks.mercedesbenzmena.com/en/special-vehicles/unimog/chassis

It's in a different category all together compared to something like the Tacoma.

And the taco and tundra frame was designed to flex, per the designer.

 

[plainjaneFJC]

I definitely understand that. I just used that as an example as to why it feels that vehicles and other goods are so much more expensive. A teacher in my mom's era would have more buying power than one now.

My wife was a teacher for a few years and it wasn't a good fit for her financially. She advanced and started doing something else. The best way to have more buying power is to improve skills, education, or simply change fields.

Yeah being a teacher is a tough deal. It doesn't pay much, and there really isn't a good way to make it pay more.

 

[plainjaneFJC]

And the taco and tundra frame was designed to flex, per the designer.

I'm not buyin it. Its one of those "after the fact" deals when people start questioning why you did something.

 

[toylandcruiser]

I'm not buyin it. Its one of those "after the fact" deals when people start questioning why you did something.

It's not after the fact.
Why is it ok for something like the unimog but not for a tundra/Tacoma?
This super stiff frame thing is only a fad. The way you guys think, the Colorado frame is stronger than a 2014 f250 or f350. After all they had c channel.
A stiff frame isn't stronger. It's only stiffer.

The hmmwv frame is boxed but it's flexy. The frame on my land cruiser is boxed, but it's flexy. I guess the Colorado frame is stronger than a land cruiser frame.

 

[b9ev]

I am fairly sure that the engineers at the auto companies know what they are doing. C channel or boxed so long as you use the truck as intended there shouldn't be any issues.

Edit: I would like to mention that on occasion my F350 isn't used as intended but I don't worry at all about the frame.

 

[Dvtman]

I will say I'm not badge loyal I've owned various Overland vehicles like Land Rovers Land Cruisers Dodge Cummins and now I will say I'm a proud owner of a ZR2 and it has by far met and exceeded expectations. Regardless of the brand if you are a true Overland enthusiast you should be proud that we finally in the US market have a proper off road diesel,locked and capable vehicle

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[plainjaneFJC]

I am fairly sure that the engineers at the auto companies know what they are doing. C channel or boxed so long as you use the truck as intended there shouldn't be any issues.

Edit: I would like to mention that on occasion my F350 isn't used as intended but I don't worry at all about the frame.

It's not a heavy duty c channel, it's a thin c channel. The tundra seems to be an engineered c channel, the Tacoma is a "ah good enough " c channel.

 

[p nut]

I will say I'm not badge loyal I've owned various Overland vehicles like Land Rovers Land Cruisers Dodge Cummins and now I will say I'm a proud owner of a ZR2 and it has by far met and exceeded expectations. Regardless of the brand if you are a true Overland enthusiast you should be proud that we finally in the US market have a proper off road diesel,locked and capable vehicle

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

How are you liking the ZR2? I haven't seen one personally. Definitely cool trucks. They (meaning Colorado, not ZR2) weren't in the running when I was truck shopping a couple years ago, as I have a family, but for a single-person (or +1) adventure vehicle, it'd be high on the list.

 

[b9ev]

Interesting, I will have to poke my head under a new Tacoma. I suppose it doesn't really matter to me as I wouldn't buy a new Tacoma anyway.

It's not a heavy duty c channel, it's a thin c channel. The tundra seems to be an engineered c channel, the Tacoma is a "ah good enough " c channel.

 

[Dvtman]

How are you liking the ZR2? I haven't seen one personally. Definitely cool trucks. They (meaning Colorado, not ZR2) weren't in the running when I was truck shopping a couple years ago, as I have a family, but for a single-person (or +1) adventure vehicle, it'd be high on the list.

As for right now I have a little over 2800 miles on the ZR2 so it's still kind of a first impression. First off I think the quality of the truck is quite High the exterior paint job and details have been done really well and that goes along with the interior of having nice leather ,stitching, components and switchgear seem to have a nice touch and feel plus the bose's stereo helps. The amazing part really comes down to the suspension on Road it Corners very flat but as soon as there is a small bump or large hit the suspension soaks it like you're in a caddy. So far I've only done around a hundred miles off road in between large articulation and corrugated fire roads it is simply awesome. The drivetrain which I have the 2.8 liter Duramax is in my opinion a good engine I've been getting consistently 21 MPG City and 27 Highway. But it is not a race car it has more than sufficient power but you're not going to be whooping anybody off the line but upgrades will always help after the warranties is off

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[Clutch]

Lol. Many people would disagree and say that personal experience is usually very limited in scope and context compared to group experiences or unbiased studies/surveys.

After owning Toyotas for 26 years, yep Toyota builds a damn fine little truck, makes one a little bias, and that is fine by me. Don't really care what people think or what studies and surveys say. From personal experience really hard to stray to another brand because they have treated so well over the years, and continue to do so. Un-freakin-believable mine still runs so well. You would never know that it is an 18 year old truck has 350K miles on it.

It is like ice cream...chocolate is far superior to vanilla, but I am little bias...

Again, go do some research instead of relying on your subjective feelings. The newer diesels are doing much better in terms of reliability and mpg when it comes to emissions. Go look at NHTSA's site for recalls and TSB's and compare early 2007-20012 models to the later 2013+ models.

2013+ vehicles aren't that old yet. We are only half way into 2017, get back to me in when there is is another 7-12 years on them and we will see how well they faired. Hell, lets see them when they are 18 years old like my current Tacoma.

That said, if you want something like a Hilux, the Colorado is as close to that as you're going to get here in the states: sturdy frame; diesel engine; and high tow rating.

It is indeed close, but as I have been saying, it needs to prove itself, before I spend my hard earned money it. That will take years and years...and I am not getting any younger. And really...I am pretty much over vehicles in general. They are all going to have problems eventually, they are all liabilities. Rather not spend money on any of them, they are an evil necessity. Which one is going to cause me the least amount financial grief?

Honestly sick of talking about vehicles, meh....they are all crap.

 

[Dalko43]

It's not after the fact.
Why is it ok for something like the unimog but not for a tundra/Tacoma?
This super stiff frame thing is only a fad. The way you guys think, the Colorado frame is stronger than a 2014 f250 or f350. After all they had c channel.
A stiff frame isn't stronger. It's only stiffer.

The hmmwv frame is boxed but it's flexy. The frame on my land cruiser is boxed, but it's flexy. I guess the Colorado frame is stronger than a land cruiser frame.

The Tundra/Tacoma are no where close to being in the same ballpark as something like the Unimog when it comes to frame and chassis design. Go read some articles about the Unimog; it's chassis, engine mounting, body mounts, ect. were all designed to accommodate massive frame flex. The Tacaom/Tundra were designed with a c-channel frame, and the engineers just accepted there was going to be a bit more flex inherent to that design.

As for stiff frames being a "fad," that setup has actually become the norm for modern vehicles. All of Toyota's global 4x4 platforms use boxed frames. Just about every BOF SUV or pickup in the North American market uses a boxed frame, including the new 2017 Ford Super Duty. The only North American pickup's/SUV's that I can think of which don't use a boxed frame are the Tacoma and the Tundra/Sequoia.

All frames flex, some to a lesser degree than others. But the general consensus is that you want the suspension to do most of the flexing and articulating while the frame remains mostly rigid. That's why most offroad-focused platforms, like the Land Cruiser, use boxed frames. The Unimog is the exception to that rule, but again it was designed to have a flexy frame/chassis, unlike most other 4x4 platforms.

2013+ vehicles aren't that old yet. We are only half way into 2017, get back to me in when there is is another 7-12 years on them and we will see how well they faired. Hell, lets see them when they are 18 years old like my current Tacoma.

Yep, they're still young, relatively speaking. But I don't think you even know what you're complaining about at this point. You brought up a lot of issues (turbo's, fuel pumps, injectors) that are potential pitfalls for any modern diesel (including the diesel used in your esteemed Hilux). Heck, turbo's are a potential pitfall for gasoline engines as well. The new gasoline engine in the Tacoma is largely unproven in a truck platform. You have to 'wait and see' with any new vehicle design.

But oddly enough, you only seem to vocalize your skepticism when it comes to diesel vehicles.

 

[DaveInDenver]

And the taco and tundra frame was designed to flex, per the designer.

The word he uses is 'compliant', which is to say intentionally softer than a work truck would be otherwise. I liked my old '91, I like my Tacoma (quite a bit honestly). I'm a Toyota fanboy, no argument. But I also acknowledge that the Tacoma has become more about appearance and less about actual utility. Since 1995 it's been targeted to a market that would (and did back in 79-95 era) complain about rigid frames truck ride.

Many people who buy Tacos aren't super serious truck people. Some are using them like cars, a lot are climbers and skiers who just want a reliable truck that can lay down 300,000 miles of dirt roads. So we put stiff suspension on, some plate or box in their frames. It's not necessary strictly speaking, but the frame on the Tacoma is noticeably more flexy than my old truck, there's no question.

I'm also not sure I really care that much anymore, I think my truck rides alright and for 2 years now has done what I've asked, so my old beefs have faded. I'd still buy a Hilux if Toyota offered it but since they don't I just don't see the point to wasting my time wishing.

http://www.automobilemag.com/news/q-a-with-2016-toyota-tacoma-chief-engineer-mike-sweers/

A: Ford has a “One Ford” strategy to sell one product globally, but Toyota keeps the Hilux and Tacoma pickup trucks separate. Why?

S: The Toyota Hilux itself would work. The size is different, it's not as wide as the Tacoma. The other side of it is that it doesn't fit the [U.S.] customer's image of what a Toyota truck should look like. It's a world truck, designed for countries outside North America. It's a great truck, it's a very durable truck, but it doesn't have all the creature comforts of the Tacoma. [The Hilux buyer is] a different customer, it's different demographics, and it's a different product.

A: So, people use the Toyota Tacoma more as a regular daily vehicle versus the Hilux's work focus?

S: Yes, but we pride ourselves on our off-road heritage and capability. The Tacoma is built to do it. We have no qualms saying that the Hilux and Tacoma are brothers as far as the platform. The basic frame design is similar. We [the Tacoma] have a little bit more compliancy in our frame compared to a Hilux. That's mainly to satisfy the ride requirements for the North American customer. The Hilux is a great truck, a great durable truck. Out of that family, we have the 4Runner [SUV]. That's more refined than the Hilux. The essence of our trucks, the roots of our trucks, comes out of Land Cruiser [SUV]. That sets the standards for all our trucks.