Is the Tacoma enough truck?

[Clutch]

I've read your posts for a long time Clutch and my $0.02 is you're as ideal a candidate for the #vanlife as anyone I can think of. I dunno why you constantly circle jerk about trucks and 'Nests and all of it. A high roof van or pop top, 4wd if you could swing it, would fit your use perfectly.

There is this...but they aren't exactly cheap. Do believe you're better leasing a diesel Sprinter than owning it outright. Trying to decide if buying outright and running them into the ground until they are worthless or is leasing better. You're going to loose money either way...

My buddy from LA has one, was up here 2 years ago visiting and riding mountian bikes. Being able to change into the cycling clown suit in the van at the trail head sure was nice. He leases his too...said no way he would want to own it, just turn it back in for another before it starts giving you trouble.

Drives so much better than those gawd awful E-Series Ford vans too...

 

[toylandcruiser]

I don't either. I loved my 1991 but knowing now what I do I would have 100% put a 1GR into it. Zero question. Other than the disappointment on the lack of a pilot bearing and alloy throwout sleeve in the RA62 and the electronic shift t-case I really do like the drivetrain of my Tacoma. It's still a truck engine, good torque and low RPM power but has no trouble holding a freeway speed.

The 4.0 I like...the new 3.5 wasn't impressed. They made the truck slower, and still gets crappy gas mileage...c'mon Toyota!

I'd of course like that but just offering a D-4D in a Tacoma would suffice for me.

That would work for me...in the size of a 1st Gen would be even better. 30 mpg easy peazy. Smaller is better for running trails as everyone is saying...

Yeah, I guess. They made markets for reliable, simple, affordable vehicles and that's still their reputation. But they slowly drifted away from that in North America in actual vehicles.

Don't think the new Toyotas are as well built as people think. Legend has over taken reality.

5 years ago, wouldn't even look at a Ford, but now....

The new truck is faster 0-60 than the old truck

 

[bkg]

So not only the fuel economy is so-so, you have little power to boot! Not that I need a ton a power, but if the engine is soft, it should be getting better fuel consumption.

The Tacoma really isn't all that small either. The track is only 2" narrower on each side compared to a F150. Not sure why guys are convinced it is a small vehicle. They aren't anymore.

one of the reasons Ford gave for shuttering the Ranger plant in St. Paul, MN... the Ranger was only about 10% smaller than the f150...

 

[Clutch]

The new truck is faster 0-60 than the old truck

At minute 4:30...2nd gen clearly is faster. 1st gen beats it by a nose...

 

[DaveInDenver]

Trying to decide if buying outright and running them into the ground until they are worthless or is leasing better. You're going to loose money either way...

I can't say with any evidence but my intuition is that (1) you're going to lose money no matter what and (b) owning is better than renting or leasing over time. A vehicle is not an investment. The money you spend is for the convenience weighed against alternatives.

A lease would make sense from a cash flow aspect, it doesn't tie up capital in a depreciating asset. If you use the cash for other things that work better for you then go for it. But straight across even a lease with good terms still must cost something for the service. Then I think for a term longer than a few years ownership wins out. I mean, if you highly value a new car every 3 years then leases work in comparison. But beyond 3 years then ownership means you're sitting on a paid off car while still getting the utility.

If a Sprinter is so problematic that owning one can't be financially justified I'd personally pass.

 

[Clutch]

one of the reasons Ford gave for shuttering the Ranger plant in St. Paul, MN... the Ranger was only about 10% smaller than the f150...

Yeah...the "new" midsizes don't make much sense. All these guy pleading their case that they are so much smaller....don't know about you, but I don't see it. Really no gains with them over a 1/2 ton. You loose a bit actually. down on power, less mpg, and less capacity...plus cost the same or even more than a 1/2. Not to say I don't like them...but at the end of the day they don't make much sense on the calculator or driving them.

If you really want something to run trails...buy a UTV, ATV, or Bike. Can only afford one vehilce? Buy a RCSB 1/2 ton...you can pick those up in the low $20's...dirt cheap by today's standards...as the cheapest Toyota Tacoma is closer to $30K now...

 

[toylandcruiser]

The new truck is faster 0-60 than the old truck

At minute 4:30...2nd gen clearly is faster. 1st gen beats it by a nose...

The new one will do 6.5 to 7 0-60

 

[Clutch]

I can't say with any evidence but my intuition is that (1) you're going to lose money no matter what and (b) owning is better than renting or leasing over time. A vehicle is not an investment. The money you spend is for the convenience weighed against alternatives.

A lease would make sense from a cash flow aspect, it doesn't tie up capital in a depreciating asset. If you use the cash for other things that work better for you then go for it. But straight across even a lease with good terms still must cost something for the service. Then I think for a term longer than a few years ownership wins out. I mean, if you highly value a new car every 3 years then leases work in comparison. But beyond 3 years then ownership means you're sitting on a paid off car while still getting the utility.

If a Sprinter is so problematic that owning one can't be financially justified I'd personally pass.

I can't make a lease work on my calculator.

For the percentage of the time I would actually use the Sprinter, as I mentioned. Nice for changing clothes at the trail head, and camping. Maybe 10% of the time? Is it worth $600+/month for that convenience? More than that if you average in the money owed at signing. They'll probably nail you at turn in too. Haven't checked what it would cost to insure it either.

The old beater Tacoma averages me $200/month to run it before fueling. That is what it cost me for repairs/insurance over the course of year and before fuel.

 

[DaveInDenver]

Yeah...the "new" midsizes don't make much sense. All these guy pleading their case that they are so much smaller....don't know about you, but I don't see it.

It's not scientific, but even the 2nd gen Tacoma is still smaller than a full size. My garage faces an alley and I can still turn in and park my truck, get out inside the garage. It's more snug than it would have been in my '91 was (although I think my Tacoma turns tighter) but the doors on a full size are just longer enough that with her car in there too I wouldn't be able to get out.

I guess what I'd call it is the "mid" size probably pushes the limits on what you can still call a small truck. The older trucks really were compact and I liked that. But, as I keep saying, Americans seem to want even a truck that can tow their crap and manufacturers are trying to find the balance.

one of the reasons Ford gave for shuttering the Ranger plant in St. Paul, MN... the Ranger was only about 10% smaller than the f150...

Bearing in mind that this was, what, 8 years ago now. The F150 is bigger so the old Ranger would have looked a lot smaller in comparison. That's really the problem. I'd consider a full size from 10 years ago against my Taco, they were closer in size. But in the reality of 2018 a Ranger/Colorado/Tacoma/Frontier are still smaller relatively than a F150/Silverado/Tundra.

I would consider an F150 sized truck from 2002 or a 1st gen Tundra against my 2008 Tacoma. But when comparing you have do straight across. A 2018 Tacoma is smaller than a 2018 Tundra.

 

[phsycle]

At minute 4:30...2nd gen clearly is faster. 1st gen beats it by a nose...

I put zero weight on those fellas. Good for some laughs, but as far as legitimate data, that channel is worthless. I mean, Gold Mine Hill? Ike Gauntlet? What does that really prove anyway? Just a goofy city slicker, over-the-hill headbanger, and a Russian putting on a show.

 

[phsycle]

It's not scientific, but even the 2nd gen Tacoma is still smaller than a full size. My garage faces an alley and I can still turn in and park my truck, get out inside the garage. It's more snug than it would have been in my '91 was (although I think my Tacoma turns tighter) but the doors on a full size are just longer enough that with her car in there too I wouldn't be able to get out.

I guess what I'd call it is the "mid" size probably pushes the limits on what you can still call a small truck. The older trucks really were compact and I liked that. But, as I keep saying, Americans seem to want even a truck that can tow their crap and manufacturers are trying to find the balance.

Bearing in mind that this was, what, 8 years ago now. The F150 is bigger so the old Ranger would have looked a lot smaller in comparison. That's really the problem. I'd consider a full size from 10 years ago against my Taco, they were closer in size. But in the reality of 2018 a Ranger/Colorado/Tacoma/Frontier are still smaller relatively than a F150/Silverado/Tundra.

I would consider an F150 sized truck from 2002 or a 1st gen Tundra against my 2008 Tacoma. But when comparing you have do straight across. A 2018 Tacoma is smaller than a 2018 Tundra.

Yup, there are several places where I had to do a 3pt turn in the fullsize, but the Tacoma makes it. Parking spots where it would be a squeeze, Tacoma fits right in.

Numbers play tricks in your head. Some people think an inch or two of extra leg room in the back seat doesn't amount to much. On paper, no, it doesn't. In reality, it's huge.

 

[Clutch]

It's not scientific, but even the 2nd gen Tacoma is still smaller than a full size. My garage faces an alley and I can still turn in and park my truck, get out inside the garage. It's more snug than it would have been in my '91 was (although I think my Tacoma turns tighter) but the doors on a full size are just longer enough that with her car in there too I wouldn't be able to get out.

I guess what I'd call it is the "mid" size probably pushes the limits on what you can still call a small truck. The older trucks really were compact and I liked that. But, as I keep saying, Americans seem to want even a truck that can tow their crap and manufacturers are trying to find the balance.

I don't have the problem of trying to fit it in a tight garage or the city dwellers. I am also looking at value, what you can get for your dollars. The F150 seems like a better all around value to me.

As you have been telling me Dave, get the F150 and be done with it.

Midsizes are the fullsizes of yore.

 

[Clutch]

I put zero weight on those fellas. Good for some laughs, but as far as legitimate data, that channel is worthless. I mean, Gold Mine Hill? Ike Gauntlet? What does that really prove anyway? Just a goofy city slicker, over-the-hill headbanger, and a Russian putting on a show.

Well so do I....they don't even seem like "truck people" me. Don't think any of them have ever worked a hard [physical labor job] day in their life.

Was looking for a size comparison...and that is what I found.

 

[phsycle]

I don't have the problem of trying to fit it in a tight garage or the city dwellers. I am also looking at value, what you can get for your dollars. The F150 seems like a better all around value to me.

As you have been telling me Dave, get the F150 and be done with it.

Midsizes are the fullsizes of yore.

A friend of mine has a 2005 Tundra AC he bought new. Still loves it. Size is about the same as my DCSB, but a bit wider. That's a nice truck. I could own something like that, but the DC with the 6' bed is too big for me. But suffers the same flaw as the current Tundra.

F150, nice truck. Get a bare bones fleet model deal and be done with it. As long as you're ok with an auto

 

[Clutch]

A friend of mine has a 2005 Tundra AC he bought new. Still loves it. Size is about the same as my DCSB, but a bit wider. That's a nice truck. I could own something like that, but the DC with the 6' bed is too big for me. But suffers the same flaw as the current Tundra.

F150, nice truck. Get a bare bones fleet model deal and be done with it. As long as you're ok with an auto

Ya know...those new shiftable autos aren't that bad (did I just say that out loud!?)

Have been looking at the F150 XLT Sports...(did I just say THAT outloud!!??) They really aren't that much more than an XL.

https://www.mhautoranch.com/new/For...falls-id-7635a4aa0a0e0adf706162df98df1da8.htm