Toyota 'Back to the Future' pickup

[haven]

Last November at SEMA, Toyota showed a concept vehicle that combined a current Tacoma body with 80 series Land Cruiser drivetrain, including solid axles. The goal was to re-create the vibe of the great Toyota pickups of the 1980s: four-wheel drive, with a four-speed automatic transmission and a four-cylinder engine. The result is named the "Back to the Future" truck because it looks like Marty McFly's truck in the movie of the same name.

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2009/0...k-toyota-should-bring-back-to-the-future.html

Since we can't buy a vehicle like this from Toyota today, let's talk Scott into building an Expeditions West version of this show vehicle. First, start with a single cab PreRunner (about $16,000). Then convert to solid front drive axle. Add a transfer case, and new driveshafts, drop the steering linkage, and we're done!

I see that All-Pro Offroad makes a SAS kit for the Tacoma. Cost is about $10,000 with Dana 60, ARB locker and adjustable coilover shocks.
http://www.allprooffroad.com/95024runnersas

Anyone know of another source of a SAS kit for current Tacomas? Or nice examples of Tacomas that have been modified in this way?

 

[Skim]

This is my 85 SR5 version of Toyota's Back to the Future version.

 

[cruiseroutfit]

Has anyone actually confirmed it was 80 Series drive train versus say a 70 Series setup? They just look narrower to me and the front control arms were not 80 Series from my memory of laying underneath it. The rear axle was not Land Cruiser, it was a custom built unit as I recall. The article you linked says they took the 'rear suspension' from the 80 Series, but the retro has leafs, the 80 has 5 link/coils? Not sure anyone knows what all they used.

It was a very cool concept, a bit rough but to be expected for a one-off concept. Honestly I don't know that it had much appeal as an 'overland vehicle' while there are the debated benefits of the solid axle... there isn't anything else special about it?

I think this concept had more overland potential





Add a mild suspension setup, bumpers/protection and swap out that Ducati for a KTM 950 Super Enduro and you'd be in business

 

[Skim]

Not to change the topic but how do you guys post pictures in a post ?

I can only seem to post an attachment ? see my above post.

What am I doing wrong ?

 

[cruiseroutfit]

Not to change the topic but how do you guys post pictures in a post ?

I can only seem to post an attachment ? see my above post.

What am I doing wrong ?

The admin settings on ExPo will only allow a link attachment if you do it 'normally'. However you can still link it as a picture...

1. Attach the photos like normal in the "manage attachments" window
2. Close the manage attachments window and before submitting your post or thread, click on the paperclip in the toolbar. It will bring up a drop down list of your current attachments.
3. Use the cursor to select where you want that photo to appear in your text, select that attachment in the menu and select. Repeat for the other attachments.

 

[keezer36]

The new president of Toyota, Akio Toyoda did make comments about getting back to basics, forgoing new gadgets and gizmos and again making vehicles that are thrifty and efficient.
I doubt they'll go this far but I could sure do without all the electronically controlled crap.

I miss my '94 Nissan pickup. No radio, no carpet, not even worthy of a name.

 

[hillbillyjake]

i can remember the back to the fututre truck like it was yesterday. my dad was always a big chevy guy, but that was when i started to really like toyotas. wasn't the back tto future truck an e-cab?

ps, nice truck skim

looked to qiuck, it is an e-cab

 

[Root Moose]

As much as I like that concept I have to wonder how many of them they would sell once the automotive media got a hold of them.

In my opinion it is the automotive media that has killed the solid axle front end used in trucks. They always carp on about how badly solid axle vehicles ride when in reality most regular users would be hard pressed to tell the difference between SFA and IFS.

I would be unable to NOT buy one of those Tacomas I think...

 

[EXP-T100]

SKIM your tuck is well :drool:

as far as a kit for the taco there's: http://www.offroadsolutions.com/suspension.html
to bad they went out to business.

http://www.sky-manufacturing.com/ne...51&PHPSESSID=b20c22884112cd38a81cd245b811c843

Poly Performance: http://www.polyperformance.com/shop/Universal-3-Link-Weld-On-Front-Kit-p-16803.html

you can build a radius arm suspension or even better a "wristed" radius arm suspension for cheap.

 

[Martinjmpr]

In my opinion it is the automotive media that has killed the solid axle front end used in trucks. They always carp on about how badly solid axle vehicles ride when in reality most regular users would be hard pressed to tell the difference between SFA and IFS.

So the automotive media has brainwashed us?

It couldn't be that IFS is actually superior to SFA could it?

Except that it is. Just like EFI is superior to carbs, and electronic ignitions are superior to points. For 99% of the users in 99% of the situations, IFS is superior.

Ever drive a stock SFA vehicle down a washboard road? Not much fun.

I owned an 85 Toyota with a SFA and it had nowhere near the off-road ability of my 04 Tacoma or my 99 4runner both with IFS.

Sorry but the whole SFA-fetish thing is getting a little old. Those people who really want and need SFA can get it, provided they're willing to lay down the cash and/or the time to fabricate it. And the other 99% of us will continue to use our IFS vehicles and be perfectly happy with them.

 

[RHINO]

well if they came out with something more basic and simple with solid front axle reminiscent of the early 80's trucks, i would prefer it. before i got my taco i really weighed the money aspect of building a doublecab out of an '80 longbed. i still would rather have that than the '01 dblecab i have right now.

 

[Life_in_4Lo]

So the automotive media has brainwashed us?

It couldn't be that IFS is actually superior to SFA could it?

Except that it is. Just like EFI is superior to carbs, and electronic ignitions are superior to points. For 99% of the users in 99% of the situations, IFS is superior.

Ever drive a stock SFA vehicle down a washboard road? Not much fun.

I owned an 85 Toyota with a SFA and it had nowhere near the off-road ability of my 04 Tacoma or my 99 4runner both with IFS.

IFS is more comfortable in many situations. It is not "better". Well, let me rephrase that- it depends on what your definition of "better" is.

Not that I disagree on your assesment but can you compare a leaf sprung SFA to a 14 yr newer IFS truck?

IFS has it's place in offroading but I'll keep this discussion to the OEM offerings.

Sorry but the whole SFA-fetish thing is getting a little old. Those people who really want and need SFA can get it, provided they're willing to lay down the cash and/or the time to fabricate it. And the other 99% of us will continue to use our IFS vehicles and be perfectly happy with them.

SFA isn't a fetish, it's an unmet niche in the marketplace. The reason has nothing to do with the superiority of IFS. It has to do with the entire shift of the lt. trucks and suv's in consumers eyes as tall luxury passenger cars.
The focus is on smooth ride, not durability or offroad toughness & capability.

The criteria for what makes a good truck in consumers changed. Better on-road ride, not strength or capability.

SFA is not just for "extreme rockcrawling". SFA is simple, strong and durable.
It follows the KISS philosophy and is going to hold up to punishment much better and longer.

You shouldn't look at it as IFS versus SFA.

You should promote having the choice.

That way, you can choose the right "tool" for your needs.

 

[Redline]

I agree with the Pro live-axle comments. I prefer them most of the time, and think a modern live axle with coil springs rides and handles very well (I don't need to desert race in my 4x4), the Jeep TJ & JK work well. Having said that, I love my 4Runner and the very accurate rack & pinion steering, and wouldn't give up how well it drives to make it a SFA rock crawler.

On Topic-

I like the Toyota pickup concept but do think there is a limited market. Since we are already considering a new Tacoma, I would buy one if they made it with coils in the front over the IFS truck, all things being equal.

 

[Martinjmpr]

Not that I disagree on your assesment but can you compare a leaf sprung SFA to a 14 yr newer IFS truck?

I bought my 85 in 1985 and it was brand new. So I'm comparing a brand-new 1985 Toyota to my relatively-new (bought it in 2007) Tacoma. The Tacoma wins, hands down, in every single category: Comfort, power, off-road ability, etc.

Sure, you might say that a heavily modified 85 could go more places than the stock Tacoma, but then you're not comparing apples-to-apples because putting the same modifications onto the Tacoma would still spank the 85.

SFA isn't a fetish, it's an unmet niche in the marketplace. The reason has nothing to do with the superiority of IFS. It has to do with the entire shift of the lt. trucks and suv's in consumers eyes as tall luxury passenger cars.
The focus is on smooth ride, not durability or offroad toughness & capability.

I disagree with every point here. First of all, it's not an "unmet niche": You can still get SFA in a new vehicle: Dodge and Ford 4x4 trucks from 3/4 ton on up still have the SFA. Jeep Wranglers still have the SFA. So people who really want SFA can get it.

Second, it has nothing to do with the "shift in consumer's eyes." That makes it seem like IFS is something that has been forced on consumers against their will or through trickery. It's not. Consumers - most consumers - want IFS. That's why manufacturers make them.

SFA is not just for "extreme rockcrawling". SFA is simple, strong and durable.
It follows the KISS philosophy and is going to hold up to punishment much better and longer.

Simpler? Yes. More durable? I doubt it. I've never broken or damaged an IFS front end component, probably because I'm not an extreme rock crawler. SFA may be "stronger" in some hypothetical sense but if the average user never gets anywhere close to the limits of either system (and he doesn't) then it's a moot point.

You shouldn't look at it as IFS versus SFA.

You should promote having the choice.

That way, you can choose the right "tool" for your needs.

The automotive business isn't about "choice." It's about money. If manufacturers could make money by making light trucks and SUV's with SFA they would. The reason they don't is because most of the consumers that cross-shop different vehicles would choose an IFS vehicle over the SFA vehicle any day of the week.

Most of the people who dream about SFA vehicles aren't in the market for new vehicles anyway. If Toyota were to make something like the SEMA "Back to the Future Pickup" it would cost in the neighborhood of $40k or more (much more would be my guess.)

Would you really pay $40k for a truck like that? Especially with a 4 cyl engine and an automatic transmission? Toyota would lose their shirts on something like that, and Toyota is a very risk-averse company.

Those few people who really want/need SFA can either buy an old SFA truck and bring it up to newer specs, or they can buy a newer truck and put an SFA suspension on it (last month I saw a Mitsubishi Montero Sport with an SFA conversion on Red Cone in Colorado.) Although neither of these options is cheap, they can both be done for the less than cost of what a manufacturer would have to charge for a new SFA vehicle.

 

[Life_in_4Lo]

I bought my 85 in 1985 and it was brand new. So I'm comparing a brand-new 1985 Toyota to my relatively-new (bought it in 2007) Tacoma. The Tacoma wins, hands down, in every single category: Comfort, power, off-road ability, etc.

Sure, you might say that a heavily modified 85 could go more places than the stock Tacoma, but then you're not comparing apples-to-apples because putting the same modifications onto the Tacoma would still spank the 85.

I wasn't looking at it that way at all. I was looking it at the angle of a coil sprung SFA of equal vintage to a IFS truck.
In any case, I agree that IFS is more comfortable in most situations as I said.

I disagree with every point here. First of all, it's not an "unmet niche": You can still get SFA in a new vehicle: Dodge and Ford 4x4 trucks from 3/4 ton on up still have the SFA. Jeep Wranglers still have the SFA. So people who really want SFA can get it.

Second, it has nothing to do with the "shift in consumer's eyes." That makes it seem like IFS is something that has been forced on consumers against their will or through trickery. It's not. Consumers - most consumers - want IFS. That's why manufacturers make them.

You can't get SFA in many lt truck and suv catagories. Is that even debatable?

How are you interpreting what I'm writing? Let me try to be more clear- I am saying consumers looked at lt trucks and suvs as passenger cars-- not trucks. They want the same characteristics in their lt trucks and suv's as they have in their cars.
That is what drives the change to IFS and IRS on lt trucks and suv's.

Simpler? Yes. More durable? I doubt it. I've never broken or damaged an IFS front end component, probably because I'm not an extreme rock crawler. SFA may be "stronger" in some hypothetical sense but if the average user never gets anywhere close to the limits of either system (and he doesn't) then it's a moot point.

Yes if you don't use a truck beyond lighter use, I agree it's better to have IFS for comfort. That is the logic running the show right now.

I'll add that I think Toyota's truck IFS is pretty solid and good. I think they need to add a SFA midsize truck and suv

The automotive business isn't about "choice." It's about money. If manufacturers could make money by making light trucks and SUV's with SFA they would. The reason they don't is because most of the consumers that cross-shop different vehicles would choose an IFS vehicle over the SFA vehicle any day of the week.

No, most people don't know the difference. They look for the smoothest ride and most car-like vehicle, no matter what makes it that way.
Manufacturers make more money doing this than making a tough, simple, inexpensive truck.

You are correct, the market for a carlike suv and lt truck is much larger. That drives the push to IFS.

Most of the people who dream about SFA vehicles aren't in the market for new vehicles anyway. If Toyota were to make something like the SEMA "Back to the Future Pickup" it would cost in the neighborhood of $40k or more (much more would be my guess.)

Would you really pay $40k for a truck like that? Especially with a 4 cyl engine and an automatic transmission? Toyota would lose their shirts on something like that, and Toyota is a very risk-averse company.

Where do you come up with $40K for a compact or midsize pickup?
SFA or IFS does not make it more expensive. In fact, SFA's simplicity makes it cheaper to make. However, other factors may sway prices but SFA does not make it expensive.

Those few people who really want/need SFA can either buy an old SFA truck and bring it up to newer specs, or they can buy a newer truck and put an SFA suspension on it (last month I saw a Mitsubishi Montero Sport with an SFA conversion on Red Cone in Colorado.) Although neither of these options is cheap, they can both be done for the less than cost of what a manufacturer would have to charge for a new SFA vehicle.

One can debate the market share SFA represents, but the fact Toyota put together a SFA concept to test reaction says something about going back to a simple, functional truck.
I think it's much larger than you think.