New Tacoma vs Colorado vs Ranger

[jaywo]

Now that the 3 all new mid-size pickups have been announced, let’s talk.

Tacoma:
- Great look (subjective)
- Reliability is not a big plus for Toyota anymore for me (tons of new tech, new hybrid engine, and the new Tundra got issues)
- 2 distinctive trims: high speed desert running TRD Pro with adjustable 2.5 IBP Fox suspensions (great if you carry more weight) and world’s first fully suspended seats. The Trail-hunter also impresses with 2.5 in Old Man EMU shocks (may be tuned for load in mind, looking forward to the payload), long 6ft bed available on Trailhunter, on board air compressor, sway bar disconnect etc.
- Early tests show improved seating position and room
- 2400W inverter but no word if it works when the truck is off. Game changer if yes. On the new Tundra hybrid it does not work with engine off
- 33in tires but much thiner (265) than the ZR2 and Raptor
- No front locker that both others have
- no memory seats that both others have
- no words on payload for TRD Pro and Trailhunter
- very misleading ground clearance. It’s actually 9.5in and not 11. 11 is the maximum running clearance, and the minimum clearance is 9.5 which is much lower than both the ZR2 and Raptor.
- will be expensive

Ranger:
- Only the raptor is interesting. Strong engine and offroad performance with the live valve foxes, but it’s expensive at 58K (comes fully loaded for that price though)
- no ventilated seats that both the Tacoma and Colorado have.
- Good payload at 1350-1400lbs

Colorado:
- ZR2 is by far the best deal. $48K, and $52K fully loaded with all options for essentially the same thing as the Raptor albeit less horsepower (same torque). Great package overall and good interior and exterior. Dual locker, DSSV shock, etc.
- No Lane centering tech which both the Tacoma and Ranger have
- Bison trim will be officially announced end of May but we already know it features the world’s first on a midsize 35in tires, and hydraulic bump stops. This might be the most capable of the bunch, from the factory but at what price?
- Disappointing payload at 1150lbs

I am in the market to replace the Bronco in the future with one of those. I love the new Taco look, and the exclusive features such as onboard air, swaybar disconnect, etc. I am disappointed at the lack of memory seat, the use of Nihm tech for the battery (horrible old tech) and I worry about pricing. Details I miss to be able to decide:

- Price for the TRD Pro, Trailhunter, and ZR2 Bison
- Payload for the Bison and Tacoma
- Is the 2400W inverter on the new Tacoma working with engine off (to power fridge, etc during the night)
- Comfort and legroom (I am tall)
- Ideally I would love to know which one will fit 35 without extra lift or trimming. The Raptor already does (youtube video from the australian).

I am already eliminating the TRD Pro. The front seat head rest are not adjustable, and looking at semi-tall journalists (6ft) seat in there, their head is already dangerously above the head rest. I don’t even understand how this is legal. Trailhunter and other trims are adjustable.

For me it’s ZR2, Bison, Raptor or Trailhunter. And since the Raptor charges a lot above the ZR2 for essentially just horsepower, it most likely will be ZR2, Bison or Trailhunter.

 

[ChasingOurTrunks]

The TFL video I watched last night on the new Tacomas said something about a 1700+ lbs payload on the base model Taco. That's a solid bump over what Colorado/Ranger offers at first glance, but it's likely/possible it will be much closer to that 1500lbs range or less as the trim goes up; on the other hand they were talking about that payload in reference to a truck with the hybrid option and the 1.9KW battery, which is heavy - so if I spec a Taco Trailhunter without the hybrid driveline, will I be regaining a few hundred pounds of payload? Did that 1700 lbs number mean that hybrid truck, or did it mean that's the max payload of the most stripped, gas-fired version? If it's possible to get even near a ton of payload, that will make the Taco a REALLY good choice for overlanding. But, if that's a sticker-game achieved by playing with the options, it doesn't differentiate the Taco enough from the competition.

I do like the boxed frame on the new Taco and the fact that it shares the bits with the Tundra. If I'm understanding that correctly, does this mean that the Taco shares the same frame as the Tundra? Because the Tundra shares a frame with the LC300, and we know that Toyota won't compromise on durability of the Land Cruiser, which bodes well for the Taco.

The Taco is very compelling with this new model - just need more information confirmed. I'm wanting to back to a wagon so I'm excited for what some of these potential Taco bits might mean for the new 4Runner.

As far as the others, I think the big advantage to the Colorado Zr2 is in suspension, skids, and lockers. Those are relatively easy upgrades, but the payload is really hampered a bit by the cushy DSSV suspension which is great for running at high speeds, but not great at carrying a load. A ZR1 or more "base" Colorado could have ARB lockers, OME suspension, and some decent skids added to it, and you'd preserve some payload (but not a lot - pretty tight margins on some of this stuff).

Ranger is probably the best "global platform" of the bunch so for travel outside NA, that would likely be the best option.

May I ask @jaywo - why no Frontier or Gladiator on your list? I already know why you aren't consider the Honda...because none of us are

 

[MotoDave]

I do like the boxed frame on the new Taco and the fact that it shares the bits with the Tundra. If I'm understanding that correctly, does this mean that the Taco shares the same frame as the Tundra? Because the Tundra shares a frame with the LC300, and we know that Toyota won't compromise on durability of the Land Cruiser, which bodes well for the Taco.

They're all based on the same architecture, that doesn't mean they share a frame. Probably some suspension parts are shared between the Tundra/LC300 and maybe trickle down to the new Tacoma.

I did see in an interview that all but the lowest power versions get a version of the 9.5" rear axle, a good sign that the powertrain has some real durability designed in.

 

[rruff]

I do like the boxed frame on the new Taco and the fact that it shares the bits with the Tundra. If I'm understanding that correctly, does this mean that the Taco shares the same frame as the Tundra?

No, not at all. When I looked into this awhile back, it was mostly a way to do more efficient manufacturing... easier to switch the assembly line for the same platform and such.

I read somewhere that the new Tacoma and Hilux would be near identical, so probably similar to the Ranger for overseas. Most foreign trucks have diesel engines though.

 

[SDDiver5]

Unpopular opinion: I really don't understand the desire for a mid size truck.

They're limited on just about everything a truck is meant to do. With the exception of price, if you step up to a half ton you get better numbers in almost every category. MPG for a half ton is only slightly lower, too.

With that being said, I do like the tech and the offroad awesomeness of what has been coming out I just struggle to understand the hype.

 

[ChasingOurTrunks]

Thanks for clarifying that @MotoDave and @rruff! It’s not a mock against it that it’s not got the LC300 frame of course, but it sure would be nice if it did from a confidence/robustness perspective.

I am also under the impression that the Tundra and the LC300 are similar a la a Suburban and a Silverado — same general bits but one is a wagon the other a truck. Is that correct? I’m not really a Toyota guy especially recently as I’ve paid most of my attention to the Grenadier.

 

[ChasingOurTrunks]

Unpopular opinion: I really don't understand the desire for a mid size truck.

They're limited on just about everything a truck is meant to do. With the exception of price, if you step up to a half ton you get better numbers in almost every category. MPG for a half ton is only slightly lower, too.

With that being said, I do like the tech and the offroad awesomeness of what has been coming out I just struggle to understand the hype.

Yes, kinda, but with caveats.

The full size trucks do have better specs in almost every category, that is true. But in many cases, that’s a marginal improvement - 1900lbs payload vs 1500 lbs payload. Some full size even have less payload than the mid size because of the number of options. MPG and range are both better, as is power, but MPG and Range are easily addressed with more gas and that’s rarely truly necessary in North America — motorbikes do the most remote run in the continent all the time and almost every one has less range than a truck.

So, there are marginal improvements in payload, and the other improvements are there but not necessarily significant. The negatives are weight and size. For an extra few hundred pounds of payload capacity, the full size trucks are often over a thousand pounds heavier or more than their mid-size counterparts as a starting curb weight. Because they are bigger, they fit more stuff and the “better bring the kitchen sink” means that loaded up, they are even more significantly heavier (assuming the mid size is kept in spec; many are not). And the physical footprint is much bigger, which impacts turning and off road performance in the bush, and makes them a bit less easy to drive in populated areas.

I can find a way around most of the issues a mid-size presents — keep things light to stay in payload (400lbs is rather easily found in aluminum vs steel armour, or by taking a backpacker mentality to your kit). Have a way to bring Jerry’s for the occasional time more range is a nice to have. And as far as performance, they all go way faster than the speed limit and get to that limit…eventually — the newer gen ones quite quickly actually. But, I cannot make a full size truck more narrow, and that extra weight can be the difference between sliding off the weakened bank of the mountain road or not. So, I personally weigh the pros and cons of both, and end up preferring the mid size truck for my needs.

If I was going to go full-size, it would either be the f150 with the heavy duty payload package, or I’d skip right past the 1500 series trucks and go for a minimum of a 2500 series. Same relative footprint, but that’s when you start getting seriously impressive payload advantages over the mid size class.

 

[rruff]

I am also under the impression that the Tundra and the LC300 are similar a la a Suburban and a Silverado — same general bits but one is a wagon the other a truck. Is that correct? I’m not really a Toyota guy especially recently as I’ve paid most of my attention to the Grenadier.

The engine and transmission are near-identical, but I don't know about the rest.

They're limited on just about everything a truck is meant to do. With the exception of price, if you step up to a half ton you get better numbers in almost every category. MPG for a half ton is only slightly lower, too.

The new Ranger averages ~20mpg on Fuelly, which is ~20% better than most fullsize, although it's <10% ahead of the 2.7L F150. A little easier to park, to maneuver and switchback, cheaper to own. Marginal benefits though for less space, less hauling, less towing... but would still make sense for many people.

One thing I like about the Ranger is it looks like forward visibility is better, but I might be wrong about that.

 

[rruff]

So, there are marginal improvements in payload, and the other improvements are there but not necessarily significant. The negatives are weight and size. For an extra few hundred pounds of payload capacity, the full size trucks are often over a thousand pounds heavier or more than their mid-size counterparts as a starting curb weight.

The older 4wd mini trucks weighed in the low 3,000lb range! Mid-size vs full is indeed pretty marginal all around.

 

[jaywo]

The TFL video I watched last night on the new Tacomas said something about a 1700+ lbs payload on the base model Taco. That's a solid bump over what Colorado/Ranger offers at first glance, but it's likely/possible it will be much closer to that 1500lbs range or less as the trim goes up; on the other hand they were talking about that payload in reference to a truck with the hybrid option and the 1.9KW battery, which is heavy - so if I spec a Taco Trailhunter without the hybrid driveline, will I be regaining a few hundred pounds of payload? Did that 1700 lbs number mean that hybrid truck, or did it mean that's the max payload of the most stripped, gas-fired version? If it's possible to get even near a ton of payload, that will make the Taco a REALLY good choice for overlanding. But, if that's a sticker-game achieved by playing with the options, it doesn't differentiate the Taco enough from the competition.

I do like the boxed frame on the new Taco and the fact that it shares the bits with the Tundra. If I'm understanding that correctly, does this mean that the Taco shares the same frame as the Tundra? Because the Tundra shares a frame with the LC300, and we know that Toyota won't compromise on durability of the Land Cruiser, which bodes well for the Taco.

The Taco is very compelling with this new model - just need more information confirmed. I'm wanting to back to a wagon so I'm excited for what some of these potential Taco bits might mean for the new 4Runner.

As far as the others, I think the big advantage to the Colorado Zr2 is in suspension, skids, and lockers. Those are relatively easy upgrades, but the payload is really hampered a bit by the cushy DSSV suspension which is great for running at high speeds, but not great at carrying a load. A ZR1 or more "base" Colorado could have ARB lockers, OME suspension, and some decent skids added to it, and you'd preserve some payload (but not a lot - pretty tight margins on some of this stuff).

Ranger is probably the best "global platform" of the bunch so for travel outside NA, that would likely be the best option.

May I ask @jaywo - why no Frontier or Gladiator on your list? I already know why you aren't consider the Honda...because none of us are

Not only it’s not a “solid bump over what the Ranger offers” but it’s less. The new ranger max Payload is 1805 lbs for the base model. the 1700 you refer to is for a base Taco, that’s the max payload for bare bone. So I insist, the TRD Pro / Trailhunter payload is a big question mark.
At this point if the ZR2 had 1500lbs payload I would place an order. For the old ZR2, they make a very cheap kit that includes add-a-leaf and stiffer front spring. That gives you much better load carrying capacity and would be a perfect solution but unfortunately that does not change your “legal” payload.
If the Trailhunter has 1500lbs payload I think I will buy it. 500lbs for the Lone Peak Camper and drawer system, that leaves me 1000lbs for gear and 3 people which is plenty.
My fully loaded Badlands Sasquatch Bronco has 980 lbs of payload. I weighted myself with the RTT and all the gear for a week of camping and we used 100% of the payload. On a Truck I have to take into account that a Lone Peak will be heavier than my RTT, and kid + kid equipment thus why 1500 would be a good number. 1150 from the ZR2 is too low unless I just put extra leaf/stiff spring and drive above the weight which 99% overlanders do in the US.

I would be interested to hear about why you want to move back from a truck to a wagon?

No Frontier because I do not like it, and no Gladiator because it’s overpriced and I don’t like the solid front axle nor the lack of safety and tech. I extensively tested a Wrangler, and I am happy to report that my Bronco is a million time better in so many way I would not trade it for a Wrangler if you paid me.

Unpopular opinion: I really don't understand the desire for a mid size truck.

They're limited on just about everything a truck is meant to do. With the exception of price, if you step up to a half ton you get better numbers in almost every category. MPG for a half ton is only slightly lower, too.

With that being said, I do like the tech and the offroad awesomeness of what has been coming out I just struggle to understand the hype.

It‘s pretty simple. I have a Bronco with RTT + slide/fridge setup. We absolutely love it. However, space is limited in the trunk and with a kid on the way, it just won’t work anymore.
A midsize + a Lone Peak Camper essentially gives us a Bronco with a trunk that’s double the length/volume which is exactly what we need. On top of that it gives us the ability to stand which we can’t with our RTT. and it’s a much better “RTT” than what we have.

Why on earth would I pay more, have worst mpg, have something longer and wider that’s a PITA in town and on narrow trails alike?
I would not buy a full size if you paid me the difference.

 

[ChasingOurTrunks]

Thanks Jaywo for that info on payload! I didn’t realize the Ranger was sporting that much as base, that’s pretty incredible.

My main reason for wagon vs truck is water and dustproofness of my kit. I have my Canyon well sorted to the point where this isn’t a problem; my problem now is actually occasional mold because of the non-moving damp air on the coast where I lived under the cap during the winter, but I fixed that too I think (seems to be solved anyway but next winter will be the test)

However, to get mine sorted meant a truck cap, which I built myself to be as strong and light as I could, but it still chewed into my payload a bit. I have 1550lbs, and I reckon my cap is about 150 lbs, which immediately drops me down into the high end of common decent wagon territory. Specifically I’m keen on the Grenadier, with the Defender a close second because of payload. But, my current Canyon is basically perfect and easily has a few hundred thousand kms left in it (more if I’m willing to spend on the bigger items when they come due), and I can do a lot with my truck for the kind of money that a Gren or Defender will cost, and I can deal with the “mostly sorted” dust/water/mold issue which is truly a minor problem — hardly any gets in.

The wagon however has a waterproof, dustproof box as it comes from the factory. I really enjoy building these as much as using them and so that’s a factor too - it would be fun to build out a wagon. Plus I like the look/shape of wagons marginally better, but that’s largely irrelevant really.

I also have (postponed!) plans for global travel, and for whatever reason I feel like a wagon would be a bit more discreet/“grey man” than an American mid size truck kitted out the way mine is. A wagon with a tent seems to blend in better than a truck with a cap and tent, for whatever reason.

None of these are super good reasons because both trucks and wagons have pros and cons, but I guess nobody said they had to be good anyway, that is why I’m leaning “wagon” for my next rig, but I honestly could go either way. I really like both and third on my list would actually be a Gladiator, but it’s a distant third behind the Gren and ND.

I should add - my reason for leaning to a new vehicle is because of how much safer they are in a crash. That’s the most likely risk for any Overland traveller, and while I’m not sure about the Gren yet, the New Defender can crash horrifically violently and the occupants walk away. It’s a very well designed vehicle from that perspective. You are right about safety in the Gladiator - that is one of my main reasons to put it at a very distant third. I used to have a JK though, and I really do have the Jeep in my heart, so the Gladiator does get a few extra “smiles per mile” points for me.

 

[ChasingOurTrunks]

I just read a bit more on the new Taco on the Expo website.

@jaywo - your point about the trail hunter still being an unknown payload is still the reality, I didn’t see any numbers in the article. But it comes with an impressive bit of kit — if I can get my steel bumpers, skids, and even an air compressor from the factory, I’m OK with a dip in payload as I’d suffer that anyway when I add those things myself.

My question is still what that final number is. Like, if it goes from 1700 to 1400, that’s pretty reasonable for the bumpers, skids, etc. that I appear to be getting and may even be less of a drop as compared to what I would lose by adding those things afterwards myself. But if it goes from 1700 down to sub-1000, it’s playing in the space of Rubicon numbers for payload and loses one of the main advantages of a truck-style overlanding platform - payload. I feel the ZR2/Bison did this a bit which is too bad.

2024 Toyota Tacoma at Overland Expo West - Expedition Portal

The 2024 Tacoma was revealed today at the Toyota booth at the Overland Expo West event, being held in Flagstaff, Arizona

expeditionportal.com

 

[plainjaneFJC]

Agreed, for 60 years I have hated even the half ton, for me "pickup" starts at F250 etc.... otherwise you need to pack like a backpacker, something no Tacoma owner today does.

I overland with TJR and my OSB BOX.... I can tow 2000#, the trailer weighs 1200# empty, letting me pack 800#.... of payload. None of which affects what I put in the Jeep.

Here is my TJR working.. no pickup can do this without wrecking the box.

View attachment 779103

Your jeep has less payload and towing than a midsize truck.

 

[rruff]

My question is still what that final number is. Like, if it goes from 1700 to 1400, that’s pretty reasonable for the bumpers, skids, etc.

If the base 2wd is 1700, then 4wd, tires, wheels, suspension, luxury and other options... along with bumpers, skids, etc... will put you ~1,000 lbs... probably. Just a guess.

An example: The max payload advertised for a 2016 Tundra was 2060 lbs. 2wd short bed, standard cab, no options. Even though mine is the base 4wd trim it's the extra long one, and came with a tow package. The sticker says 1405 lb payload, so 655 lbs less. I know people with well equipped shortbed Crewmaxes with 1100 lb payload.

If you are worried about it, you should really be in a F150 HDPP or a 1 ton. If you aren't worried, I'd suggest getting a cheaper model and upgrading it specifically to carry more load, as the fancy "offroad" trims are overpriced and geared towards a soft and empty street ride.

 

[ChasingOurTrunks]

If the base 2wd is 1700, then 4wd, tires, wheels, suspension, luxury and other options... along with bumpers, skids, etc... will put you ~1,000 lbs... probably. Just a guess.

If you are worried about it, you should really be in a F150 HDPP or a 1 ton. If you aren't worried, I'd suggest getting a cheaper model and upgrading it specifically to carry more load, as the fancy "offroad" trims are overpriced and geared towards a soft and empty street ride.

I agree with you. If I were to build my 3rd choice Gladiator, I’d be wanting to start with a Sport and go from there so I get only the mods that I want and nothing else. I love the robustness of the Rubicon transfer case but for me it is probably superfluous, and at least on the Jk, I think that adds substantial weight to the vehicle (I seem to recall taking mine out. The YouTube video showed a guy doing it on a Sahara and just using his muscles. When I tried it I damn near crushed myself, and if I remember correctly, that’s because of an Aluminum case vs an Iron case on the Rubis. Or I might just be weak as can be and have that in my brain to preserve the myth I tell myself that I’m in “pretty good” shape with these paltry office muscles.)

I would want to do the math though - cost is important but it’s secondary to weight. What features does the off road version of each of these trucks come with, what do they weigh, and what could I get instead in the aftermarket and do myself for a lighter result, and then what would that cost vs the extra cost of the off road packages. Some things are tricky to add afterwards - like a totally different Transfer Case as above, or things like Safari windows on the Grenadier - but things like rock sliders, lockers, and suspension are easy to fine tune in the Rubicon vs Sport example for the needs of my build.

But, trying to find out which mid size truck lets me eat an extra burger at lunch time because it eeks out 20 more lbs than it’s competition gives me stuff to talk about on the internet on a lazy long weekend so there’s that, too!