What to do?

[Clutch]

Maybe not "gave up," but rather they've gotten complacent, especially with the Tacoma. The new one is basically the same basic design they've been using for over a decade now, the big difference is that they're using a crossover derived 3.5l V6 (I question whether that is a step forward or a step backwards for truck uses) instead of the the 4.0L v6. Meanwhile you've got Chevy putting out a diesel Colorado and a Ford Ranger (with a rumored diesel option) right around the corner.

Think we are saying the same thing just using different wordage. gave up, complacent, resting on laurels, etc. The rest of their vehicle lineup keeps on advancing. Their US trucks have become stale, they do sell every last one of them, why they haven't invested much into them is my guess. Not sure how much longer that will last with the midsize market heating up again.

The diesel Colorado looks good on paper and real world accounts, prices are becoming reasonable. Seeing them in the low $30K's. Hopefully the diesel scandals don't kill these things before they get off the ground. We are finally getting small diesels, the government might just ruin it.

 

[Dalko43]

No, I was talking about the N/A 3.5L, not TT. I understand weight and aero issues of trucks. I'm not comparing trucks to sedans. My point was, comparing a FULL SIZE V6 (F150) to a mid-size V6 (Tacoma), Toyota still falls behind. Even F150/Silverado/Ram V8's compared to Tundra, they are WAAAY behind in MPG. They've all got brick like aerodynamics and similar weight/size. They can't even match, let alone come close to the competition? They're doing well in this arena in the small passenger vehicles. Hope that R&D makes it up to the trucks.

I think you might be over-rating what the other trucks are getting in terms of mpg. Most the domestic V8 fullsize trucks return pretty much the same mpg as what the Tundra gets. And that Ford V6 (3.7L) is rated for 21 highway 16 city (real world results show it a bit lower than that):
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=34535&id=34254&id=33958&id=34536

Manufacturers might be able to squeeze out an mpg here and there with continued optimization, but for the most part I don't think there is much efficiency left to squeeze out of these designs, at least not in their current forms.

 

[Clutch]

That's pretty good mileage with the camper (although I've got to take that 1 sample with a grain of salt). I'm sure they get great mileage, but again, not enough to offset the diesel cost of acquisition and operation. We've been over it. yadda yadda

I dunno, I am finding them the same price as V6 Tacomas. Probably a wash in the end, all that torque would be nice for hauling a camper.

Here is one below $32K. Chevy will budge on price, Toyota won't.

http://www.jimtrenaryunion.com/Vehi...Long_Box_4_Wheel_Drive_LT-Union-MO/2862097503

I can't find a Tacoma V6 much below $30K...but there are some Chevy V6's out there below $24K (posted this earlier), definitely the better buy than the diesel. Do think gas is better if you're going to keep it long term.


http://www.libertyvillechevrolet.co...lorado-4wd_wt-libertyville-60048-il/14714144/

 

[p nut]

I think you might be over-rating what the other trucks are getting in terms of mpg. Most the domestic V8 fullsize trucks return pretty much the same mpg as what the Tundra gets. And that Ford V6 (3.7L) is rated for 21 highway 16 city (real world results show it a bit lower than that):
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=34535&id=34254&id=33958&id=34536

Manufacturers might be able to squeeze out an mpg here and there with continued optimization, but for the most part I don't think there is much efficiency left to squeeze out of these designs, at least not in their current forms.

I updated with 2016 models: https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=37049&id=36810&id=37050&id=36598

The new 2015+ N/A V6's are 3.5 with 6-sp transmission (going to 3.3L in 2018, I believe, with 10-sp transmissions, which should improve the MPG even more). Looks like they do better than the old V6's, and better than the new 3.5L Tacoma's.
_
As for domestic V8's, both Ford and Ram V8's get much better MPG. By that site's own calculation, cost to run the Ford on an annual basis is 10% cheaper and 20% for the Ram. Having said that, I don't value those MPG figures, as it includes city miles. Too many variables there. Highway MPG is what I'd focus on. I have yet to see a Tundra get anything close to 20MPG. Yet domestics do it quite easily. My father's Tahoe gets 22MPG. That's a heavy beast, too (fully loaded LTZ). Plenty of folks with 5.0 Coyote and 5.7 Hemi get that as well. Part of confusion is that all of these manufacturers have same access to talent (engineers, designers, etc). Toyota is a big time player and could probably recruit any top level talent, but can't come up with something a bit more efficient?

 

[Clutch]

Toyota is a big time player and could probably recruit any top level talent, but can't come up with something a bit more efficient?

Why buy the cow, when they get the milk for free. :ylsmoke:

 

[p nut]

I dunno, I am finding them the same price as V6 Tacomas. Probably a wash in the end, all that torque would be nice for hauling a camper.

Here is one below $32K. Chevy will budge on price, Toyota won't.

http://www.jimtrenaryunion.com/Vehi...Long_Box_4_Wheel_Drive_LT-Union-MO/2862097503

I can't find a Tacoma V6 much below $30K...but there are some Chevy V6's out there below $24K (posted this earlier), definitely the better buy than the diesel. Do think gas is better if you're going to keep it long term.


http://www.libertyvillechevrolet.co...lorado-4wd_wt-libertyville-60048-il/14714144/

Those are some good buys, actually. Didn't know they were that "cheap". I'd imagine gas counterparts are cheaper still.
_
Just looked up the curb weight: https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=chevy+colorado+diesel+curb+weight
If that is right (4,200 lbs), then with the GVWR listed at 6,200lbs......2k lb payload???

 

[Clutch]

Those are some good buys, actually. Didn't know they were that "cheap". I'd imagine gas counterparts are cheaper still.
_
Just looked up the curb weight: https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=chevy+colorado+diesel+curb+weight
If that is right (4,200 lbs), then with the GVWR listed at 6,200lbs......2k lb payload???

Thought those might be "fishing" internet deals only, but the local dealer had some very similar. I went down and spoke to a salesman, and asked if that was the no BS deal...he said yep. (those trucks are now gone)

Google is saying payload is closer to 1370-1630. Not great, but not horrible either. Some half tons are nearly the same, touch better than the Tacoma. I could live with it. Could live with the gas mileage of the V6 too.

I see they have a automatic locker, but no e-locker, wonder if anyone makes one yet? With all the snow and ice we have been having, have been using my locker an awful lot.

It has been on and off like this for a couple weeks: https://www.facebook.com/PriestLake/videos/1561443057206947/


EDIT: Looks like Eaton is supplying the lockers for the ZR2, betcha you can get it directly from them. http://gmauthority.com/blog/2016/12...hevrolet-colorado-zr2s-elocker-differentials/

 

[p nut]

I haven't driven a Chevy with the auto locker (they've got them for 1500's as well), but I'm not a fan of the concept. I'd rather have full-time on or selectable (much more prefer selectable).
_
Payload wise, I could live with that as well. Well, in fact, that's what I've got (~1,500lbs). I want more, but if I'm honest with myself, that is plenty.
_
Just took a quick peek at some of the gas Colorados for sale on the net. Can't find anything for under $30k... That's surprising they've got the diesel priced for so cheap. It's a $5k+ upgrade from the V6.

 

[2025 deleted member]

People say auto lockers work because they have one and no one wants to call their own stuff junk. I've had auto lockers in 3 different trucks and they were all a joke IMO.

 

[p nut]

People say auto lockers work because they have one and no one wants to call their own stuff junk. I've had auto lockers in 3 different trucks and they were all a joke IMO.

Funny. But they're better than nothing, I'd guess. Better than having a wheel spinning in the air going nowhere.

 

[Dalko43]

The new 2015+ N/A V6's are 3.5 with 6-sp transmission (going to 3.3L in 2018, I believe, with 10-sp transmissions, which should improve the MPG even more). Looks like they do better than the old V6's, and better than the new 3.5L Tacoma's.

Yeah, the newer v6's do get slightly better mpg as you add more gears and fancy gadgets also help in that effort (cylinder deactivation, turbo's, ect.) but we're quickly approaching the point where there will be limited returns for updating those kinds of engines. I forgot where I saw the article about this topic, but it was an auto engineer who essentially wrote that there is limited performance and efficiency to wring out of these modern gasoline engines, and that if big gains are desired (which they likely will be due to the current regulatory environment) car-makers will have to switch to different power setups: hybrid, electric, CNG, turbo-diesel.

As for domestic V8's, both Ford and Ram V8's get much better MPG. By that site's own calculation, cost to run the Ford on an annual basis is 10% cheaper and 20% for the Ram. Having said that, I don't value those MPG figures, as it includes city miles. Too many variables there. Highway MPG is what I'd focus on. I have yet to see a Tundra get anything close to 20MPG. Yet domestics do it quite easily. My father's Tahoe gets 22MPG. That's a heavy beast, too (fully loaded LTZ). Plenty of folks with 5.0 Coyote and 5.7 Hemi get that as well. Part of confusion is that all of these manufacturers have same access to talent (engineers, designers, etc). Toyota is a big time player and could probably recruit any top level talent, but can't come up with something a bit more efficient?

Again, I'm not sure where you're getting that info, that or you're comparing apples to oranges. The 2016 V8's get 13/19 and 14/19 in the Ram and Ford respectively: https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=36810&id=36546&id=37052
That's not all that different from what the Tundra is rated at: 13/17. I've never heard of someone getting 22mpg with either of those domestic V8's; maybe if the driver was going 60mph, without stopping and no headwind...on a slight downhill. It might be possible, but it's definitely not normal.

The optional v6's are rated for better mpg because, well, they're v6's, so there is no point in comparing them to the Tundra's V8....though I highly doubt they maintain those kinds of mpg numbers in real-world driving.

I brought up Toyota's mpg, but the fact is it's not just Toyota...pretty much all BOF trucks have the same issue when it comes to gasoline engines and it's partly the reason why I'm glad to see more diesel options in upcoming models.

 

[p nut]

Yeah, the newer v6's do get slightly better mpg as you add more gears and fancy gadgets also help in that effort (cylinder deactivation, turbo's, ect.) but we're quickly approaching the point where there will be limited returns for updating those kinds of engines. I forgot where I saw the article about this topic, but it was an auto engineer who essentially wrote that there is limited performance and efficiency to wring out of these modern gasoline engines, and that if big gains are desired (which they likely will be due to the current regulatory environment) car-makers will have to switch to different power setups: hybrid, electric, CNG, turbo-diesel...

I don't know if we've reached the point of dim returns, but anything that helps in engine efficiency is a good thing. But I do agree on advancements in alternative power source is a good thing as well. So far, they've all got their drawbacks. Gas is still in the lead, for my uses. Speaking of that, I'm especially interested in alt sources (cleaner), as smog here in the winter time is horrid. Air quality rivals LA and other major cities in the US during that time (and worse at times).

...Again, I'm not sure where you're getting that info, that or you're comparing apples to oranges. The 2016 V8's get 13/19 and 14/19 in the Ram and Ford respectively: https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=36810&id=36546&id=37052
That's not all that different from what the Tundra is rated at: 13/17. I've never heard of someone getting 22mpg with either of those domestic V8's; maybe if the driver was going 60mph, without stopping and no headwind...on a slight downhill. It might be possible, but it's definitely not normal...

My info is obtained from first hand experience from friend/family/company trucks (not that that has a lot of weight...). Tests on the net seem to back it up as well. Here is a test from Edmunds on a 5.0 F150. They netted close to 20MPG.
https://www.edmunds.com/ford/f-150/...my-test-27-liter-ecoboost-vs-50-liter-v8.html

Edmunds also says that they got 16.6 MPG with the Tundra. (4.3 gearing probably hurts them here).
https://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/top-10/fuel-economy-for-2015-full-size-4wd-trucks.html

I don't know how credible those results are, but it seems like they've at least eliminated most variables by conducting that test in a more or less controlled environment.
_
Again, I drove my father's 4WD Tahoe (5.3L V8)--600 mile trip, 4 adults, 2 kids loaded with cargo, going 65-75MPH (avg of 70mph most of the way), and we were at 22mpg. I haven't seen a single test for the Tundra getting anything close to that. Have you? Three Tundra 5.7's I've been around for a while have never broken 17mpg, and typically average 15-16mpg (hwy). A friend also has a GX460 getting 12-13mpg avg, and 16mpg highway (I know, different engine and FT 4WD, but thought I'd throw it in). Again, small sample size, but that's what I've seen.
_
BTW: The link you posted--You've got a HD Payload pkg picked out for the F150. Regular F150 (comparable to the Tundra) comes in at 15/21.
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=36810&id=36546&id=37052&id=37050

 

[Clutch]

I haven't driven a Chevy with the auto locker (they've got them for 1500's as well), but I'm not a fan of the concept. I'd rather have full-time on or selectable (much more prefer selectable).

Never driven an auto locker either...funny I have had my truck going on 15 years, rarely, rarely used the locker. Now in Idaho, used it more in the last 6 weeks, than the 12.5 years it was in AZ.

Could always do poor man's locker, and drag the brakes...one good thing for the Chevy not having a manual trans. That method is kinda a pain in the ******** with a stick.
_

Payload wise, I could live with that as well. Well, in fact, that's what I've got (~1,500lbs). I want more, but if I'm honest with myself, that is plenty.

Believe mine is 1500 lbs on paper, might be a little more than that physically with my OME HD's. Though I try not to load more than 800 lbs in the bed. I am thinking the GM with a 1500# payload it should be able to handle a FWC shell model. I would toss one on my truck. but I don't have enough power to haul that and the moto trailer. It struggles with the Wildernest + gear, climbing passes.
_

Just took a quick peek at some of the gas Colorados for sale on the net. Can't find anything for under $30k... That's surprising they've got the diesel priced for so cheap. It's a $5k+ upgrade from the V6.

I am looking on cars.com. Punch in 4WD, V6, <$25K. Most are what I am interested in the extra cab long beds. Not those family guy crew cabs. The only sub $30K V6 Tacoma was a SR CC stumpy bed...and it was $29,899...or something like that. All of the ACLB V6's (the configuration I like) are $32K plus.

 

[p nut]

FWC shells are 900-1000 lbs, it says. I'm guessing with cargo, gear, etc., you're another 200lbs? That would max it out with passengers. Then adding on the trailer on top of that..... I personally wouldn't be comfortable without 2k lb payload in that scenario. They look pretty cool, though. Any reason to go with that instead of the Flippac/Wildernest (can't remember) you've been using?

 

[Clutch]

FWC shells are 900-1000 lbs, it says. I'm guessing with cargo, gear, etc., you're another 200lbs? That would max it out with passengers. Then adding on the trailer on top of that..... I personally wouldn't be comfortable without 2k lb payload in that scenario. They look pretty cool, though. Any reason to go with that instead of the Flippac/Wildernest (can't remember) you've been using?

Was looking at the Finch model a while back...thought it was around 550 lbs? Just checked their site...doesn't look like it is available anymore....well shoot, looks like that idea is kiboshed. Wanted something that was better in the rain, snow, and colder temps.

Looks like FWC prices have gone up quite a bit too, used to be able to get a shell for $8K...now they are $12K. Whew! Darn near $40K for the Woolrich Edition...those are some expensive pillows! Funny I recently put plaid sheets and pillows in my Wildernest for $30!


EDIT: Found some specs.. the Finch is now called Swift is 500-650lbs. http://www.fwcjh.com/shell-c1eoz