Hilldweller
SE Expedition Society
I read a rumor of a turbo on it for truck use.
And they've also got the 2.4L multi-air (turbo?) rumors floating. There's a tuner getting 360 hp from a 1.4L multi-air turbo already; sick.
Size matters, part 3
- Thread starter haven
- Start date
And they've also got the 2.4L multi-air (turbo?) rumors floating. There's a tuner getting 360 hp from a 1.4L multi-air turbo already; sick.
KaiserM715
Adventurer
As a side note, the Super Cab Raptor has a wheelbase of 133", just 5.5" longer than the Tacoma.
Good comparison haven.
I disagree. I think comparing a regular cab full size to an extended cab mini is just about perfect. Both give space for gear in the cab of the truck. Both are about the same length with very similar turining circles. The full size gives the main occupants vertical room, whereas the Tacoma has very limited legroom but allows you to lean the seat back farther. The Tacoma can carry two more people for very short distances in the back, where as the Ram can carry three across in comfort.
I used to own a regular cab Tacoma. I am now shopping for another truck, and I am trying to decide between just this, a full size regular cab or an extended cab Tacoma. I really want the extra room in the cab of either of those options. I also owned a JK Rubicon, though not the unlimited.
A regular cab Tacoma is so small (in the cab) as to not really be comparable to anything else. The seat is practically on the floor with your legs out in front of you, as opposed to under you like they should be in a truck. And no way to lean the seat back. It does get tiring after while.
And the extended cab full size trucks have just grown into full behemoths. Too large and ungainly for tight trail use. Granted a regular cab full size is only usable on tight trails if you do not mind a little pin striping of the paint down the sides.
Also, contrary to everyone's opinion, I haven't had good luck with Toyota reliability. My Tacoma I had really wasn't very reliable. Towards the end I was fixing on it about once every two week, with a laundry list of problems that ended up unresolved. Couple of other Toyota products (cars) I have had in the 50k mile range were just starting to get a few niggling little issues and requiring spare parts to stay on the road.
Also gas mileage in my old Tacoma sucked. It was pretty much what other people at the time were getting with big full size rigs, so the advantages of the small and maneuverable truck were starting to wear thin.
Actually what I have seen over the years is that as the vehicles get wider, so do the trails. Through improvements and such.
Anyway, Here is a little table I made comparing some of the vehicles on my shortlist, the ones applicable to this discussion anyway.
Requirements: Newer to be reliable. My daily driver in the winter. Able to either haul home improvement projects or haul a trailer with those projects on them. Enough room for two people to comfortably go camping in Colorado for a week at a time. Maybe enough room for a dog or a kid someday in the future. Havens information contained more details, like payload area size and capacity. But this one is in easy to read table format.
. . . . . . . . . . . .09 Jeep . .08 Toy. . .2009. . . .2008 Ford .2007 Toyota
. . . . . . . . . . . .Wrangler. .Tacoma. . .Ram . . . .F150. . . .Tundra
. . . . . . . . . . . .Rubicon . .V6 4x4. . .V8 4WD. . .V8 4WD. . .V8 4WD
. . . . . . . . . . . .4 Door. . .X-Cab . . .Reg Cab . .Reg Cab . .Reg Cab
. . . . .Width (in) . . 73.9 . . . 74.6 . . . 79.4 . . . 78.9 . . . 79.9
. .Front Track (in) . . 61.9 . . . 63.0 . . . 68.1 . . . 67.0 . . . 67.9
. . Rear Track (in) . . 61.9 . . . 63.4 . . . 67.5 . . . 67.0 . . . 67.9
. . . . Length (in) . .184.4 . . .208.1 . . .209.0 . . .211.1 . . .209.8
. . .Wheelbase (in) . .116 . . . .127.8 . . .120.0 . . .126.0 . . .126.8
Grnd Clearance (in) . . 10.1 . . . .9.4 . . . .7.7 . . . .8.7 . . . 10.8
. Curb Weight (lbs) . .4419. . . .3965. . . .4893. . . .4960. . . .5100
Turning Cirlce (ft) . . 41.2 . . . 40.7 . . . 39.5 . . . 41.8 . . . 39.2
.Approach Angle (°) . . 44.4 . . . 35.0 . . . 19.3 . . . 25.1 . . . 28.0
Departure Angle (°) . . 40.5 . . . 26.0 . . . 24.4 . . . 26.0 . . . 27.0
. . .City/Hwy (mpg) . . 15/19. . . 15/18. . . 13/18. . . 13/17. . . 13/17
. . .Combined (mpg) . . 16 . . . . 16 . . . . 15 . . . . 14 . . . . 14
I'd love to see more discussions of this type of stuff. I'd also love to see some pictures of regular cab full size trucks out there on the trails.
I disagree. I think comparing a regular cab full size to an extended cab mini is just about perfect. Both give space for gear in the cab of the truck. Both are about the same length with very similar turining circles. The full size gives the main occupants vertical room, whereas the Tacoma has very limited legroom but allows you to lean the seat back farther. The Tacoma can carry two more people for very short distances in the back, where as the Ram can carry three across in comfort.
I used to own a regular cab Tacoma. I am now shopping for another truck, and I am trying to decide between just this, a full size regular cab or an extended cab Tacoma. I really want the extra room in the cab of either of those options. I also owned a JK Rubicon, though not the unlimited.
A regular cab Tacoma is so small (in the cab) as to not really be comparable to anything else. The seat is practically on the floor with your legs out in front of you, as opposed to under you like they should be in a truck. And no way to lean the seat back. It does get tiring after while.
And the extended cab full size trucks have just grown into full behemoths. Too large and ungainly for tight trail use. Granted a regular cab full size is only usable on tight trails if you do not mind a little pin striping of the paint down the sides.
Also, contrary to everyone's opinion, I haven't had good luck with Toyota reliability. My Tacoma I had really wasn't very reliable. Towards the end I was fixing on it about once every two week, with a laundry list of problems that ended up unresolved. Couple of other Toyota products (cars) I have had in the 50k mile range were just starting to get a few niggling little issues and requiring spare parts to stay on the road.
Also gas mileage in my old Tacoma sucked. It was pretty much what other people at the time were getting with big full size rigs, so the advantages of the small and maneuverable truck were starting to wear thin.
Actually what I have seen over the years is that as the vehicles get wider, so do the trails. Through improvements and such.
Anyway, Here is a little table I made comparing some of the vehicles on my shortlist, the ones applicable to this discussion anyway.
Requirements: Newer to be reliable. My daily driver in the winter. Able to either haul home improvement projects or haul a trailer with those projects on them. Enough room for two people to comfortably go camping in Colorado for a week at a time. Maybe enough room for a dog or a kid someday in the future. Havens information contained more details, like payload area size and capacity. But this one is in easy to read table format.
. . . . . . . . . . . .09 Jeep . .08 Toy. . .2009. . . .2008 Ford .2007 Toyota
. . . . . . . . . . . .Wrangler. .Tacoma. . .Ram . . . .F150. . . .Tundra
. . . . . . . . . . . .Rubicon . .V6 4x4. . .V8 4WD. . .V8 4WD. . .V8 4WD
. . . . . . . . . . . .4 Door. . .X-Cab . . .Reg Cab . .Reg Cab . .Reg Cab
. . . . .Width (in) . . 73.9 . . . 74.6 . . . 79.4 . . . 78.9 . . . 79.9
. .Front Track (in) . . 61.9 . . . 63.0 . . . 68.1 . . . 67.0 . . . 67.9
. . Rear Track (in) . . 61.9 . . . 63.4 . . . 67.5 . . . 67.0 . . . 67.9
. . . . Length (in) . .184.4 . . .208.1 . . .209.0 . . .211.1 . . .209.8
. . .Wheelbase (in) . .116 . . . .127.8 . . .120.0 . . .126.0 . . .126.8
Grnd Clearance (in) . . 10.1 . . . .9.4 . . . .7.7 . . . .8.7 . . . 10.8
. Curb Weight (lbs) . .4419. . . .3965. . . .4893. . . .4960. . . .5100
Turning Cirlce (ft) . . 41.2 . . . 40.7 . . . 39.5 . . . 41.8 . . . 39.2
.Approach Angle (°) . . 44.4 . . . 35.0 . . . 19.3 . . . 25.1 . . . 28.0
Departure Angle (°) . . 40.5 . . . 26.0 . . . 24.4 . . . 26.0 . . . 27.0
. . .City/Hwy (mpg) . . 15/19. . . 15/18. . . 13/18. . . 13/17. . . 13/17
. . .Combined (mpg) . . 16 . . . . 16 . . . . 15 . . . . 14 . . . . 14
I'd love to see more discussions of this type of stuff. I'd also love to see some pictures of regular cab full size trucks out there on the trails.
Metcalf
Expedition Leader
For me your good ol' regular cab longbed pickup is a good compromise for your typical 'traveling' style expedition work. If you want it to bridge over into what I would call 'technical exploration' where you are going to try to get out on a difficult trail ( Rubicon, Dusy Ershim, etc ) than it is too big.
My dodge does everything but your typical 'extreme' wheeling well. It will do more off road than I let it also, but I still drive it daily. It did Fins and Things in Moab without much issue. The downsides are that the hood is HARD to see over and the departure angle needs some work. The wheelbase is tolerable. I think the biggest limitation besides over-hood visibility is the departure angle.
Personally for what I WANT to do my dodge is too big. I do love the 20mpg Cummins, 5-spd granny transmission, all gear NP205 T-case, D60 front with real wheel bearings and locking hubs, and the D70 rear end with a decent limited slip. Can it be improved on? Sure! I just need a shrink ray to make it about 3/4's the overall size
I'm leaning pretty hard towards something based on the 4-door JK platform. I think it is one of the overall best 'size' vehicles on the market if you want more off road capability. Wheelbase is decent but not overkill. Departure angle is probably the best on the market in that size vehicle. It is big enough to sleep inside. The body width is deceiving because a lot of the figures list to the outside of the flares....which are 4" or so outside the main part of the body.
This is basically what I want to build.....
I think for ME this would be the perfect compromise. Big enough to do a LOT of different things but small enough to do a LOT more things that a 'truck' size vehicle.
My dodge does everything but your typical 'extreme' wheeling well. It will do more off road than I let it also, but I still drive it daily. It did Fins and Things in Moab without much issue. The downsides are that the hood is HARD to see over and the departure angle needs some work. The wheelbase is tolerable. I think the biggest limitation besides over-hood visibility is the departure angle.
Personally for what I WANT to do my dodge is too big. I do love the 20mpg Cummins, 5-spd granny transmission, all gear NP205 T-case, D60 front with real wheel bearings and locking hubs, and the D70 rear end with a decent limited slip. Can it be improved on? Sure! I just need a shrink ray to make it about 3/4's the overall size
I'm leaning pretty hard towards something based on the 4-door JK platform. I think it is one of the overall best 'size' vehicles on the market if you want more off road capability. Wheelbase is decent but not overkill. Departure angle is probably the best on the market in that size vehicle. It is big enough to sleep inside. The body width is deceiving because a lot of the figures list to the outside of the flares....which are 4" or so outside the main part of the body.
This is basically what I want to build.....
I think for ME this would be the perfect compromise. Big enough to do a LOT of different things but small enough to do a LOT more things that a 'truck' size vehicle.
To bring this all back up, These are stock width trucks, stock wheels and tires. Anyone measure what their trucks measure with the wheels and tires they run on the trail? I hate to post it, but my F350 with 37's is 87 inches rubber to rubber (may be 86, but rounded up to be certain)
24HOURSOFNEVADA
Expedition Leader
Our F-250's/F-350's are three inches wider than my 100 series Land Cruiser and that's all side mirrors, 79.9 vs 76.6. They just look big. the O.P. just likes to stir **** with everything non 4Runner. And by O.P. I don't mean Haven.