nickw
Adventurer
Not sure I'd consider them "fools" if they are getting rich "making the world a better place"
Comparison shopping: Colorado, Gladiator, Tacoma
- Thread starter spectre6000
- Start date
Todd780
OverCamper
Can you elaborate on your reasons for crossing it off? Seating position?
jadmt
ignore button user
Seats were not nearly as comfortable as my JKURR and seating position was off for me (I am 5'10" normal build) it just did not do a thing for me. You know how usually when you first drive a new rig you think dang I want this but I was never that way. It was more like how you feel when you get tired of your present rig even tho it is still in great shape. I was also disappointed in the acceleration. I have 35's on my jeep and it still feels snappier. If I were getting a Toyota it would be Tundra over the Tacoma. I see jeep is offering a $50 gift card to test drive a JT so probably need to collect on that.
Todd780
OverCamper
Yeah, I've read about the seating issue a few times. Was just wondering if you found the same with the new ones. I'm sure it's been 7 years since I've sat in a Tacoma.Seats were not nearly as comfortable as my JKURR and seating position was off for me (I am 5'10" normal build) it just did not do a thing for me. You know how usually when you first drive a new rig you think dang I want this but I was never that way. It was more like how you feel when you get tired of your present rig even tho it is still in great shape. I was also disappointed in the acceleration. I have 35's on my jeep and it still feels snappier. If I were getting a Toyota it would be Tundra over the Tacoma. I see jeep is offering a $50 gift card to test drive a JT so probably need to collect on that.
Eh...give it time. Compared to when these new emissions systems first came out (circa 2007), these modern ones are relatively refined and reliable. There will be further improvement down the road. Based on the needs of the trucking industry alone, the big OEM's and engine makers will have a reason to innovate and offer better designs.
No its not. The only sedans that are getting mpg's anything close to that are diesels or hybrids. The gasoline (to include turbo's) are not getting that kind of mpg in the realword....or quite honestly not even in the fantasy world.
It's a great offroad pickup...the engine doesn't belong in a truck and the seating position is a bit awkward for me. It also has a bit of a truck-bro following...which I'm not interested in being associated with.
It's a good truck, but Toyota could certainly improve it for the next generation. Payload needs to be higher too...which goes back to the engine not being great for truck purposes.
spectre6000
Observer
Among the three contenders, the Gladiator had the best seats, IIRC. That could be colored by the fact that I drive my wife's JKUR often enough that it was familiar. The Tacoma seats were the worst by a long shot, and I'm short at 5'6" and not at all overweight.
I might have made an interesting observations this past week. I've had occasion to drive down to the flats several times over the past few weeks. I've been actively taking note of the current generation (what could be bought new on a lot) mid-size trucks I see on the road. Out of curiosity/boredom, I thought it'd be interesting to count them and compare to recently reported sales figures wherein the Tacoma is the #1 best seller, Colorado #2 by about half, and the Gladiator is too new to have any meaningful representation. I've seen maybe a half dozen Gladiators all told in the wild at all, above mentioned time frame notwithstanding. I've seen maybe 4 Rangers now (not part of the discussion really, but I saw them). The Tacoma/Colorado ratio is about what you'd expect save for one very noticeable caveat: down in the suburbs (aka, the "flats" mentioned above) Tacomas are everywhere. As you get closer and into the mountains, the Colorados seem to represent a much greater percentage on the road. I don't know what to make of that exactly, and the data is super slim. I haven't explored the suburbs exhaustively in terms of mid-size truck concentrations any more than I have up here, so it could be a factor of the specific suburbs I was in (I'm thinking income level disparity). That would be super difficult to quantify on the open road though, because mountains are a very broad spectrum of incomes from very very high dollar homes down to shacks you're surprised are occupied. A case for differing use cases could much more easily be made since we have much more varied and severe weather up here. We also live daily in the terrain (to greater or lesser degrees) the suburban folks fantasize about taking their trucks. We're much more likely to use our trucks as tools than just drive them around or exclusively for off roading... I don't know. The data is slim and new, so it's just conjecture. Thought I'd mention it.
One thing I haven't been able to do that I would like to is see the ratio of NA to some form of turbo. That would essentially be diesel Colorados and Rangers in the forced induction camp, and everyone else NA. With the altitude we're dealing with, I'm down 20% of my air density and thus oxygen per stroke in my driveway compared to people down at sea level. Forced induction erases that deficiency, and the gains are worth the cost of admission. It's easy to tell the Rangers from the rest, but it's difficult to tell a gas Colorado from a diesel Colorado at 60 mph net or more around a tight bend...
I might have made an interesting observations this past week. I've had occasion to drive down to the flats several times over the past few weeks. I've been actively taking note of the current generation (what could be bought new on a lot) mid-size trucks I see on the road. Out of curiosity/boredom, I thought it'd be interesting to count them and compare to recently reported sales figures wherein the Tacoma is the #1 best seller, Colorado #2 by about half, and the Gladiator is too new to have any meaningful representation. I've seen maybe a half dozen Gladiators all told in the wild at all, above mentioned time frame notwithstanding. I've seen maybe 4 Rangers now (not part of the discussion really, but I saw them). The Tacoma/Colorado ratio is about what you'd expect save for one very noticeable caveat: down in the suburbs (aka, the "flats" mentioned above) Tacomas are everywhere. As you get closer and into the mountains, the Colorados seem to represent a much greater percentage on the road. I don't know what to make of that exactly, and the data is super slim. I haven't explored the suburbs exhaustively in terms of mid-size truck concentrations any more than I have up here, so it could be a factor of the specific suburbs I was in (I'm thinking income level disparity). That would be super difficult to quantify on the open road though, because mountains are a very broad spectrum of incomes from very very high dollar homes down to shacks you're surprised are occupied. A case for differing use cases could much more easily be made since we have much more varied and severe weather up here. We also live daily in the terrain (to greater or lesser degrees) the suburban folks fantasize about taking their trucks. We're much more likely to use our trucks as tools than just drive them around or exclusively for off roading... I don't know. The data is slim and new, so it's just conjecture. Thought I'd mention it.
One thing I haven't been able to do that I would like to is see the ratio of NA to some form of turbo. That would essentially be diesel Colorados and Rangers in the forced induction camp, and everyone else NA. With the altitude we're dealing with, I'm down 20% of my air density and thus oxygen per stroke in my driveway compared to people down at sea level. Forced induction erases that deficiency, and the gains are worth the cost of admission. It's easy to tell the Rangers from the rest, but it's difficult to tell a gas Colorado from a diesel Colorado at 60 mph net or more around a tight bend...
tacollie
Glamper
I think you are overthinking the Tacoma to Colorado ratio. Most people don't put as much thought into a vehicle purchase as you are. I think Tacomas are the most common midsize because of Toyotas reputation. Everyone I know with a 3rd gen Tacoma only looked at 3rd Tacomas because their last Tacoma never let them down. Everyone one else I know with a midsize truck cross shopped and bought a diesel Colorado. Granted, the people I know are a very small sample but I think it's accurate. There aren't that many rangers and gladiators because they are so new. We live in Colorado so by this time next year gladiators will be as common as sprinters ?
Or house is at 6100 feet. It's the lowest place I have ever lived so I can appreciate the forced induction on mid side trucks with small displacement motors. Our Tacomas pulled a lot of passes at 3500+ rpms. We have a diesel VW and I am over diesel. Where we live diesels require emissions testing every two years.
Or house is at 6100 feet. It's the lowest place I have ever lived so I can appreciate the forced induction on mid side trucks with small displacement motors. Our Tacomas pulled a lot of passes at 3500+ rpms. We have a diesel VW and I am over diesel. Where we live diesels require emissions testing every two years.
ExplorerTom
Explorer
I think you’re seeing so many Tacos because for the longest time, the Taco was basically the only mid-sized truck on the market. Sure there was the Colorado/Canyon but until the recent gen, I’ve hardly seen them in traffic. I could speculate as to why, but it would just be speculation. There was the Nissan Frontier, but if you’re going to buy a brand new truck with 10 year old technology and styling, might as well buy a Taco to get that perceived quality that everyone likes to talk about. When the Ranger was in production prior to 2011, it was the king of the US midsize market- for its entire run. Will the Ranger regain its place at the top with the new release? Hard to say but it should give the Taco a good run and Toyota better up their game and bring the styling into at least the early 21st century.
chadwicksavage
Adventurer
Frankly, I looked at Frontiers online for over an hour today after reading that destination frontier article. Payload sits at 1360 for a crew cab SV, right between the taco and the ranger for a crew cab and while the interior styling sucks, we're gonna throw ram mounts all over it anyway so who cares? Brand new (at least around me) it's 25k. so 5k less than a used taco and 12k less than a new ranger/taco/colorado. 12k goes a long way on an interior upgrade and some suspension work.
I will say the new ranger has something to it though. I see it and think "12k might be worth it." Cleaner lines, more aggressive styling, no need for interior upgrades really, no flat floor under the backseat and only folds forward 40% sucks a little.
I see you're in Colorado and that might explain the difference but I see them here in SE TN all the time. They seem to be favored among mudding farm boys who couldn't afford a full size chevy. Nothing remotely "overland" or "expedition" like - all muddy beat up old colorados with baja bars. It's a shame really. Keeps me from looking at them for the same reason Dalko above doesn't want to be associated with the toyota bro crowd. Even though the new z71 long bed has something like 1800 lbs of payload in a crew cab configuration which outdoes the ranger significantly.
spectre6000
Observer
This is accurate.
Same here (Jefferson County). It's been a while since I had a diesel, but IIRC, it's opacity and super easy to pass.
I was only counting current models. There are definitely more older Tacomas because they practically were the market for years. If I'm only looking at brand new (or indistinguishable from brand new) trucks, that's where the observations are based.
2006 U.S Pickup Truck Sales Figures By Model (With Rankings)
Automotive Sales Data and Statistics
www.goodcarbadcar.net
Your point about the old Ranger being at the top brings up a point, though I'm not sure your numbers are accurate. Going back pre-discontinuation, the Ranger was discontinued in 2012. Going back to 2005 (arbitrary year just back enough for some numbers), the Tacoma essentially doubled Ranger sales every year until it was discontinued. The Ford F-Series is, the best selling truck in the US. That only makes sense once you realize they're counting all f150/250/350/etc. under the same column. Looking at the same dataset, GM had 9 different truck models sold in 2005, all were accounted for separately, and totaled up trounce the F-Series. It sorta goes back to the following...
What the majority of people do may, or may not, have any bearing on the quality of the thing. Chili's comes to mind here. Similarly, the quality of those people may, or may not, have any bearing on the quality of the thing. BMW comes to mind here. I avoided buying a BMW for years because of the distinct ****************** vibe. Then when I needed something cheap and fun, but new enough to have safety features after my accident I'm glad I found a good BMW. That extends to the stereotype of mid-size Chevy trucks as fleet vehicles. Pretty stripped down, and thoroughly abused. Obviously, that's more about fleet trucks than Colorados, but they're sort of one and the same from a reputation perspective. That said, I intend to get my truck in white so that I have maximum availability of pre-paint matched parts from all the fleet trucks (and because no non-metallic capital-C Colors are available for similarly practical reasons).
One of the things I liked most about air cooled VWs was that they were classless. In my club, we had truck drivers, engineers, a surgeon, and I guess I was an business executive at the time. People will have their ideas and opinions of what kind of people drive what kind of car, and to some extent those stereotypes can hold water. Mayhap one way to establish character is to break the mold of the stereotype for the platform... For instance, a Porsche with a lift and knobby tires is an immediate character bomb by the very act of its existence. If a truck is firmly established as a redneck beater or an unloved fleet tool, then shows up as a serious off road ************... It's not at all in the same class, but definitely in the same direction.
Then there's the element of specific individual and application. If VW were to come out with a truly viable and faithful revamp of the 50s/60s bus, I'd have a hard time not putting one in my garage, because I have a history with and affinity for buses. There will obviously be a hard minivan stigma, but all bus pilots know a bus isn't a van, it's a bus. If you want to get really technical, it's a station wagon. If I didn't want load/cab separation, I'd probably be looking at vans before I'd get too serious about an SUV.
Last edited:
ExplorerTom
Explorer
Huh- I guess my numbers were way off on the Ranger.
spectre6000
Observer
I was going to point you to coloradofans.org, but I see you've already found it.
jadmt
ignore button user
so today I looked at a Gladiator Rubicon launch edition and a basic Rubicon edition and a ZR2 Bison edition back to back. The launch edition had every option and was $62K+, the standard gladiator rubicon was actually under $50K and the ZR2 Bison was diesel and $54K. The launch edition was freaking awesome and if I win the lotto would have one in a minute. The ZR2 was nice but not any where worth close to $54K and the Gladiator rubicon seemed a much better value than either.