U.S. Tacoma versus Kenyan Hilux

[keezer37]

Thanks for the comparison. I won't hold my breath on seeing anything rugged coming out of a marriage of the Hilux and Tacoma. Sure don't see any trends in that direction. Seems trucks are becoming more and more metrosexual these days.

I hope we see the Ranger here. I think there is room in the market for it. But it would come down to owner serviceability for me. I can take my Tacoma apart and have the detailed service manuals to put it back together. And the Ranger? Can I get it's service manuals? Is it engineered to be a service center queen? This is my concern with vehicles in general going forward. Engineering them to create a greater revenue stream for the dealer service centers. Not for me.
When they pry the wrench out of my cold dead hands.

 

[bjowett]

Toyota now builds many of the "lifetime parts" much less expensively on the USA models, the frame is the best example of it. What imeadiately comes out of it is the not as good as it should be ride quality. That also plays into the plastic bed, many of them crack in normal driving situations.... not from impact or overloading, but the flexing chassis pushing the plastic past its limits. As far as I know, there are 2 TSB from Toyota concerning cracks in the bed of certain models.

 

[daveyboy]

Toyota now builds many of the "lifetime parts" much less expensively on the USA models, the frame is the best example of it. What imeadiately comes out of it is the not as good as it should be ride quality. That also plays into the plastic bed, many of them crack in normal driving situations.... not from impact or overloading, but the flexing chassis pushing the plastic past its limits. As far as I know, there are 2 TSB from Toyota concerning cracks in the bed of certain models.

Do you think that the "triple tech" frame/c-channel in the Tundra/Tacoma is purely due to cost?

I can't imagine that it costs that much more for a boxed frame and all of their SUVs use a boxed frame.

There has to be another reason... .

 

[4xdog]

I just don't have the problem others do with C-channel vs boxed frame sections.

My old 1981 Toyota pickup, with a nice fully-boxed frame, had significant perforating corrosion around the rear spring hangers when I moved it on (after 28 years!). I gotta think the design was part of that.

I'm perfectly happy to have a C-channel on my 2001 Tacoma DC, and after Toyota's extended service program rust treatment a few years ago, I'm quite confident the frame will outlast me. I work the truck, but don't punish it by any means. C-channel suits my needs perfectly -- a well-designed truck for my needs, except for the engine (smile).

Don

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

That also plays into the plastic bed, many of them crack in normal driving situations.... not from impact or overloading, but the flexing chassis pushing the plastic past its limits.

Documentation? I've seen a few genuine cases of cracking, but no more than the cases I've seen of metal beds developing fatigue cracks. I'd be willing to bet the plastic (actually a fiber-reinforced resin) can flex far more than steel without damage if indeed the chassis is torquing that much.

 

[Clutch]

Jonathan what is the lever(?) in the middle just above the climate control dials? Is it the Fresh/Recycled air vent? Also, is there any difference with the AC, I have read that the HiLux doesn't cool as well as the Tacoma. Is that just a rumor?

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

Kermit, yes - that's the fresh/recirculate lever.

Can't comment on the Hilux AC, as this one didn't have any. I can't imagine Toyota would supply Australia or Namibia with inferior AC though . . .

 

[Dave Bennett]

Toyota now builds many of the "lifetime parts" much less expensively on the USA models, the frame is the best example of it. What imeadiately comes out of it is the not as good as it should be ride quality. That also plays into the plastic bed, many of them crack in normal driving situations.... not from impact or overloading, but the flexing chassis pushing the plastic past its limits. As far as I know, there are 2 TSB from Toyota concerning cracks in the bed of certain models.

I've had my composite bed since 2005. Driven the truck as hard as anyone. Modified it too. No cracks

YMMV.

 

[Dave Bennett]

I just don't have the problem others do with C-channel vs boxed frame sections.

My old 1981 Toyota pickup, with a nice fully-boxed frame, had significant perforating corrosion around the rear spring hangers when I moved it on (after 28 years!). I gotta think the design was part of that.

Agreed.

 

[Dave Bennett]

Just read through the article, great read and spot on

 

[TangoBlue]

Agreed; thanks Jonathan. I've been curious about a comparison of the 2 for awhile.

Now the question remains... skinny tires vs. wide tires? Which performs better...

 

[Clutch]

Agreed; thanks Jonathan. I've been curious about a comparison of the 2 for awhile.

Now the question remains... skinny tires vs. wide tires? Which performs better...

Split the difference, skinny on the front and fat on the rear....all Ed Roth style.


Jonathan, I believe Containerized was saying the HiLux's AC wasn't as good, but I could be mistaken.

Thanks! Enjoy reading your article....much better writer than I am, I just kinda throw words at the page.

 

[SirCampalot]

I'm noticing 5-lugs... did they go with the bigger 14mm studs/5x150 of the landcruiser?

 

[summerprophet]

Ranger Vs Tacoma

I am astonished at the support for Rangers on this thread.

I have owned a 1980 Toyota Truck, a 1989 Ford Ranger, 1999 4runner and a 2000 Tundra.

Ford makes a great product with the F150, but the Rangers are Dire. Simple things such as changing the starter or alternator are all day tasks. Even cheating, by removing the engine mounts and transmission mounts and putting a jack under the engine while jumping on the front bumper still turn the job into hours in what should be a 10 minute fix.

I am not sure if the new model has jumped up to the "midsize" of the modern tacoma, but from my experience Rangers are NOT up to Toyota quality and relaibilty.

I am sure both are nice, driving off the lot, but compare the service records at 200,000 and I am pretty sure the toyota would be a pretty easy choice.

 

[Clutch]

Ford makes a great product with the F150, but the Rangers are Dire. Simple things such as changing the starter or alternator are all day tasks. Even cheating, by removing the engine mounts and transmission mounts and putting a jack under the engine while jumping on the front bumper still turn the job into hours in what should be a 10 minute fix.

.

Not talking about the old Ranger, the World Ranger is completely new, doesn't share not even a screw with the old. Not sure why they call it the
"World Ranger" when it isn't available Worldwide. Wish we got here. Read the Australian reviews, many are very impressed.

http://www.caradvice.com.au/138988/ford-ranger-review/




Sorry that we a straying from the HiLux/Tacoma comparison Jonathan....you did bring the Ranger up though. I did see a HiAce driving down Broadway last night
since we are talking about what vehicles we can't get here...