5 Things Overlooked on the 2016 Toyota Tacoma

17 Tacoma Lim 1 II

By Tim Esterdahl

The new 2016 Toyota Tacoma grabbed a lot of attention when it was unveiled at the 2015 North American International Auto Show in Detroit (see our video). Sure, there are many changes to the new midsize leader, but there are other details that haven't received much attention. Here are five items we want to make sure you don't miss.


1. Rear Drum Brakes

IMG_0548 II

Truck buyers and journalists love to hear about new styling, powertrains and technology, yet the nitty-gritty maintenance items are often overlooked. For example, while the new 2015 Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon got disc brakes all around, Toyota opted to keep using drum brakes on the rear of its 2016 Tacoma, but the decision is not without logic.

The reason has to do with trade-offs, according to Toyota Tacoma chief engineer Mike Sweers. Toyota improved the drums brakes with a new vacuum booster and a new antilock braking system to improve how the brakes feel, reduce fade and improve stopping distance.

"Based on these changes and the proven durability of our braking system, the disc/drum was determined to meet all of our criterial for on- and off-road performance and maintain proper brake surface temperatures," he said. "Bottom line is that disc/drum or disc/disc setup will give you similar performance and stopping distance based on system cooling and/or temperature buildup. Disc brakes provide better cooling and reduced mass over drum systems. Drums provide less exposed braking surface and less brake vibration due to braking surface flatness [rotor warping] concerns resulting from overheating of surface."


2. Qi Wireless Charging

19 Tacoma Lim 2 II

Another overlooked feature available in the new Tacoma is Qi wireless charging. Simply put, this system will wirelessly charge your smartphone by setting it on top of a charging pad. This pad resides under a storage tray in front of the cupholders. If you have a Qi-enabled smartphone, you can charge it by simply setting it down.

This may not seem like a big deal to the truck guy who only wants a bare-essentials cabin and truck, yet it is a great convenience for the tech-savvy owner.


3. GoPro Camera Mount

19 Tacoma Lim 2a II

During the past several years, we have witnessed a boom in the use of video cameras. From police cruisers using dash-mounted cameras to off-road junkies sharing videos of hitting the trail and everything in between, GoPro cameras have become a must for some. But they present a challenge: Mounting them on a vehicle can be a struggle, and suction-cup attachment systems sometimes give out.

The new Tacoma solves this problem with a unique GoPro camera mount next to the rearview mirror. While this standard feature will be overlooked by many Tacoma owners, it is a smart innovation for those who use it.


4. Driveline Vibration Update

23 Tacoma Tan 3 II

For years the Toyota Tacoma has been plagued by a persistent driveline vibration. This vibration occurs when driving at speeds of 15 to 25 mph and causes the truck to feel like it has a shimmy. Even more maddening than the shimmy is the fact it doesn't equally affect all trucks. A service manager we spoke with a few months ago said you could drive a variety of Tacoma trucks on his lot and each one would have a different degree of shimmy.

Service managers and owners have created all sorts of remedies to the problem, and Toyota has had an ongoing technical service bulletin stretching back to 2005 models. This service bulletin offers a variety of remedies to the problem, including installing a foam pad behind the steering wheel cover.

We asked Sweers if the problem was resolved in the 2016 model. "Completely gone," Sweers said. "If you can find it, I'll buy you dinner."

But what caused the problem in the first place? Sweers said it was a combination of angles and manufacturing tolerances. He said the new truck has a completely new differential with new spring sets and corresponding angles. This basically changed the driveshaft angle, which resolved the problem.


5. No Turbo?

20 Tacoma Lim 4 II

Diesel seems to be the buzzword these days. While Toyota has so far avoided using a diesel, we wondered why not a turbocharged engine? This engine is not new to Toyota. Toyota's luxury brand uses a new turbocharged engine in the new Lexus NX SUV, and Toyota announced at the 2013 Tokyo Motor Show that it was looking to add more of these engines to the lineup.

"The problem with turbos is that they are great for giving you power, but we haven't seen the fuel economy," Sweers said. "Until we can have a lean-burning turbo, the fuel economy isn't there. Where our competitors are running a lot of turbos, in our testing we can't find the fuel economy [benefit]. The biggest issue with the turbo is to keep the turbo and the catalyst cool you have to dump more fuel into it, so your fuel ratio is high. Honestly, driving some of the turbos that are out there, I drive a Tundra crew cab every day and I see better fuel economy in that than I did in my competitor's turbo. Sure, it gives you great power and there are great turbo engines out there, but on a daily driver, not so much benefit for the cost to the consumer."

Sweers did add that Toyota is always looking toward the future and if something changes, it will look closely at adding turbo engines to its lineup.

Cars.com photos by Evan Sears


2016_Toyota_Tacoma_TRD_OffRoad_003 II



He is right about turbo gasoline engines. There is no lean running turbo.It has turbo lag, which is unacceptable responsiveness for sport car and unacceptable responsiveness for off road.

Turbo gasoline is good for one thing. To impress friends or PUTC readers , how small engine beats larger naturally aspirated one in straight line racing. You have to spool it up though. Every test does it. It would lose without spooling up otherwise.

What I like about turbos is their effect on when torque comes in. Early. They greatly improve drivability. Toyota's defense of drum brakes is totally bogus. Discs are better by all metrics except cost.

Toyota should have put discs on all four corners (like the tundra) and they should really take another look at the speedo/ tach layout. Way too busy and cheap looking.


What I like about turbos is their effect on when torque comes in. Early. They greatly improve drivability.

Posted by: Bob | Jan 24, 2015 9:55:17 AM

Not as early as large naturally aspirated one.
Large Naturally aspirated engine has more torque on idle, than small turbo gasoline engine. That's what you need for offroading to improve drivability.


Consider the fuel mileage a Tacoma with a gasoline, 6 speed, turbo, 1.8 liter would get cruising at a steady 65-70 mph on the highway. That engine would still have good acceleration for city and suburban stop/go driving, but would really excel on the highway, assuming you care about FE. Cheap gas has changed that topic quite bit lately.

Drum brakes? Fighter planes in WW2 had better technology than that. Toyota's representative is whistling Dixie. Maybe he can explain why Toyota and Lexus put discs on all four corners of a Land Cruiser or even a Highlander.

Lame responses.

@papa jim

I don't care about FE. Where is power, there is no FE.
All the engines are great in these days. I like predictable responsiveness of Large Naturally Aspirated one at any RPM, right from the idle.


You may have a valid point for off roading. But that's it. These auto companies cater to the masses. 99% of people don't off road. For everyday driving, turbos are better. Turbo lag is virtually non existent with my Ecoboost.

A turbo 1.8L engine would be an atrocious choice in a Tacoma. Are we talking something like the VW TSI turbo4? Yes at *very* light cruise on the highway it may return slightly better fuel economy. As soon as you try to accelerate even the smallest bit it will start drinking substantially more fuel than either other engine choice in the Tacoma, while barely providing better performance than a modern NA I4 (the current I4 in the tacoma is crap).

Turbos can slightly reduce throttling losses in very low load driving situations. Everywhere else drink substantially more fuel. The reason is simple.

1.) Heat from exhaust gasses bleed through the compressor and add heat to compressed air.
2.) Compressing air is not perfectly efficient, so some energy that is meant to compress actually just heats the compressed air.
3.) Gasoline, when heated too much, will combust without spark.
4.) Gasoline engines have a 3 way catalyst which requires operation near fuel:air stoichiometry. ~1:14.
5.) Because gasoline engines cannot simply run the turbo hard and keep huge amounts of air in the engine to keep things cool the way a diesel does, they must go the other way and squirt more fuel into the engine which vaporizes but does not combust (not enough air for combustion) which effectively cools the combustion chamber.
6.) Running rich like this *dramatically* increases fuel consumption.

In short, until you do away with the 3 way catalyst, or possibly introduce new fuel, gasoline engines are not going to be able to run lean and therefore when too hot *must* run rich. And with that they really suck fuel.

The drums would be better offroad, less mud intrusion with drums than an open disc. The front does the majority of the braking anyways, so I'm sure the rear discs made a minor impact on braking distances during their testing.

It is also cheaper to incorporate the parking brake into the drum brakes than discs. I know the parking brakes on many disc vehicles I've driven are lackluster.

Did he really claim that the tundra gets better fuel economy than "my competitors turbo"(the ecoboost)? Sorry but I don't think the tundra beats the fuel economy of ANY other half ton pickup turbo or not. Right now chevy and ram both have plans to release a V6 turbo charged direct injection engine comparable to the ecoboost. What do the big three know about turbos that toyota doesn't?

The Tacoma is the most significant "new" truck at the show.

About 98% new bumper to bumper; unfortunately the automotive press has not really noticed it, other than Tim's reporting.

The power train is 100% new and this new engine design has not been used in any truck for the USA market before. It has already made the so called "new" GM mid-size twins "very dated".

It will interesting to see just what it brings to the table and we should all know in just a few more months.

@Mileage Man
They should introduce ceramics engine without any cooling to greatly increase thermal efficiency and FE, I was reading 30 years ago. Or turbine - generator - supercapacitors . This could be modular and installed in any car, any position and configuration.I would love to sound my truck like F35.
Naah, too expensive. Let's enjoy what we have right now.


I would guess the industry will trend toward more and more electric drive setups. We are at the point where mild hybrids are starting to make sense - in every vehicle. Not the stupid belt start generator nonsense that GM tried coming out with a few years ago but an electric motor integrated into the transmission. It will depend on battery technology, but its getting close. Sadly supercapacitors are nowhere near production ready (like 10+ years out) and even turbines as range extenders for all electric vehicles are lacking. If liquid pistons rotary engine actually works that may serve better as a range extender anyway.

That said, when it comes to trucks, I think the only real chance of anything electric showing up would be if Honda were to put a drivetrain similar to the RLX hybrid into the upcoming Ridgeline (very long shot). Chrysler's V6's (both gas and diesel) are winning the fuel economy game right now, and we will see what Chrysler does with their pentastar upgrade early next year. The rumors I hear are revised main/con rod bearings and reduced piston skirt size, along with a DI system resulting in an upping of the compression ratio. That should result in a slight bump to their already good V6 mileage. I also keep getting told that the 3.6L pentastar is getting dumped in most (all?) applications in favor of the 3.2L. That would require some sort of forced induction if they want to use it in the trucks. A 3.2L with a p.d. supercharger would be an interesting engine to see in a truck. Lots of fun, probably not the best choice but lots of fun.

What I would really like to see is a new V8, smaller displacement than the current hemi, cam in block, with multiair 2. A modern 5.0L MA2 pushrod V8 would offer a fantastic combination of performance and fuel economy. Likewise with slightly improved valve timing and a little friction reduction work the LV3 and L83 from GM could really rule the roost. Finally, if the low sulpur gas phase in set for 2016 or 2017 (I can't remember which) allows gasoline engines to run lean without poisoning the catalysts Ford's ecoboosts will be killer. Its an exciting time for automotive development.

Toyota's logic regarding drum brakes is sound and they've no doubt made this choice knowing they would get just the kind of criticism they are receiving from some here.

GM went back to rear drums for the Silverado and Sierra half ton trucks for a while - the 2011 models for example had rear drums standard in most models. At the time as I recall they cited a very similar rationale to what Toyota is saying today for this new Tacoma. GM did subsequently decide to return to disc/disc for their latest models. My guess is that if you could get someone at GM who is truly knowledgeable on the matter and could speak candidly about it, you would hear that the change back to rear discs was made primarily to avoid criticism of the use of drums and not for performance or durability reasons.

Drums are a perfectly good and possibly even superior choice for this application but unfortunately Toyota will take some heat for it. Their competitors will benefit from the perceptions of consumers that discs are better, without really knowing in full how the two would compare in this application. In a sense I think Toyota deserves credit for doing this - making a choice that they surely knew would be misunderstood - but I wonder if it won't actually end up hurting sales of the Tacoma slightly.

The choice to eschew turbocharging is similarly interesting. Ford has gone with the Ecotec engines but GM has stuck with the old standby pushrod V8's and is delivering competitive if not superior performance and fuel economy with those engines. I wonder if the Ford turbo V6's are proving to give the same long term durability as we've come to expect from the proven old V8's. I have a Silverado with 220,000 miles and the 5.3 continues to run perfectly. I've driven the Fords with Ecotec and like them but wonder if those engines will run for the same length of time without requiring overhaul or turbo repair.

"Where our competitors are running....in our testing we can't find the fuel economy [benefit]." - Sweers stuck on stupid.

PUTC 2013 LD Challenge:
F-150 EcoBoost 22.3 mpg
Tundra 18.2 mpg

PUTC 2015 LD V8 Challenge:
Silverado 19.8 mpg
F-150 17.3 mpg
Ram 16.4 mpg
Tundra 14.4 mpg

It's all nice and good, but Large Naturally aspirated engine has more torque on idle, than small turbo gasoline engine. Everything else starts from there.

@Mileage Man 

Exciting times indeed.

Re: Disc Drum BS

If you really think that drums are superior show me the last time a Nascar Cup race had a single car in the show without disc brakes...

Or you can go to a Mercedes BMW or Audi dealership and count the number of new models on the blacktop with drum brakes (hint: you won't need a calculator for that exercise).

You will only find drums on the cheapest import coupes and sedans today-- there's a reason for that. You will NOT find drums on any of the world's leading trucks, cars, or motorcycles and there's a reason for that too.


Your lecture about air/fuel ratio's and heat in the combustion chamber is lame.

Those principles have been fully understood by designers and engineers in Detroit and elsewhere for decades. Electronically controlled ignition and fuel systems can manage that issue entirely.

By the way, my only truck is a late model V8. I love V8s.

I was saying that Toyota missed a chance to be game-changer by skipping the turbo. And a small displacement turbo gas engine would be all you need to move a Tacoma around pretty smartly.

Toyota went cheap by using the V6 as the upgrade engine in place of a turbo 4.

They build millions of 24 valve V6 engines and probably have whole plants dedicated to producing them.

After waiting ten years to see what Toyota would do next they disappointed a lot of people with this latest bit of lipstick on the Tacoma.

"No Turbo?" that's the wrong question... The question should be "No Diesel?" big big mistake Toyota! and PUTC not looking for that answer. If they would care about reliability and FE, nothing beats diesels. And the story going like "While Toyota has so far avoided using a diesel..." it's 100% false, in US is true but all over the world they sell like hot cakes diesel powered cars and trucks. And the fetish with FE is getting disgusting, it's customer problem how much money they want to spend on fuel but government hidden agendas behind Climate fairy tales seems to kill common sense. There is No Pick Oil or Climate crisis, so people get over it and stop believing politically driven science. Al Gore, Obama and all these guys are sounding the Climate alarm and not the real scientists. They got some of the scientists behind them because the funding comes from government and you better agree with what it wants to hear, is as simple as that. Now, since the market and reality catches-up with their lies, see gas prices, they'll raise taxes on it to get you back on track with their agenda. We are a bunch of pushovers accepting to be told what we want...
2014 the warmest year? not so fast:
Not only that but FE of a car is not telling the entire story of how green a car is. In fact a Jeep Wrangler is way greener than a Prius, why? The answer is here:
And if you want to go through the complete 458 pages study report:
So if you truly want to be on the "Green" side better stay away from the gimmicks like hybrids and electric vehicles.

@papa jim
I didn't lecture anybody. It's to bad, that PR department input has more value, than engineers in some companies.
I like what FCA is doing lately. They have balls to produce Hellcat.
Pure engineering.
Some others do this.


Disk drum, whats it matter? Toyota will outsell GM 2 to 1 in the mid size class in 2015. In 2016 it will be closer to 2.5 to 1.

@Phil in Texas GM engines are called EcoTech not Ford's.

I personal like drum brakes better. They last a lot longer and its a lot harder to warp a drum then it is a disk. In the long run Drum brakes are cheaper, which is good for guys that work their trucks or use their trucks like truck like I do.

Yes, I said what I like and what don't.
That's what this forum is for. You can express yourself what do you like and what don't instead of talking about me.

my 08 Silverado has drum brakes in the back and they work just fine stoping the truck,,still all original too,,after all these years
go figure..
Discs brakes in the back WILL rust and fail sooner if you drive in mud or water often..

Yes but did they fix the seats??? Even a Corolla has height adjustment.

Your nerves must be numb if you think that turbo trucks don't have lag. I've driven eb F150's and you can definitely feel the lag when giving it gas to go. The reason the eb F150 does so well in these comparison test is because they are power boosted before take off. Punch it at idle or while cruising without power boosting and you can definitely feel the lag before the boost fully spools. The eb F150 would be nearly dead last in every performance test if it wasn't power boosted first.

Large trucks all use drum brakes. Disc brakes suck. They always warp and shimmy.

i respect toyota for their reliability. the price for that reliability is detuned powertrains and hesitancy to make change. performance is mediocre and fuel economy is average to poor. i doubt these changes would have ever happened had it not been for the reintroduction of colorado/canyon twins. too conservative for me.

PUTC.... Please, please do a comparison test of a 6.4 hemi 2500, and a 2015 f150 3.5 ecoboost. Towing 11,000 lbs, fuel economy, and such. I know there not the same class but it would be a great comparison to see if 3/4 ton classification is even needed anymore, as well as generate a ton of views

What about front legroom? Equal to or greater than previous generation?

I'm all for drum brakes, my truck has 346,000 miles on it and I don't even remember the last time I serviced them. Not the same story with the front discs.
I wonder if the new Tacoma addressed the frame rust issue that plagued the lately models.
And also I'm more curious about the rear leg room in the double cab, really cramped the ongoing model...

I am happy I don't have to do any throttle tuning with my Naturally Aspirated V8 HEMI to pull right from the idle.

Throttle mapping has nothing to do with turbo lag. Turbo lag is still there. You would need electric turbocharger to get rid of it.
If you say you don't have turbo lag at your turbo engine, you have no idea, how Naturally Aspirated V8 engine responds to your pedal.


At one time the Tacoma was a good mini pickup but since 2005 the quality has gotten worse every passing year.
Instead of correcting the problems on the last year model the new model came up with new problems.
Every new year of the Tacoma they cheapened something new.
The Tacoma is priced in a way where you can't pick and choose options you want , you're forced to a more expensive model.
The front seats are so low its like you're sitting on the floor, the access cab isn't fit for a human to sit there.
Its a terrible cold weather truck where it takes 20 miles or 30 mins of warm up time for the weak heater to throw heat and in the summer the ac is worthless. It always has a grinding noise along with a vibration feel to it.

Its a generic truck with a luxury price tag


Its NOT the turbo giving you that low end power and quick acceleration its the transmission shift pattern programed different so it stays in a lower gear longer.
If you would drive BOTH the eco-boost and the 5.0 you would understand.
I have manual select shift so if I took my F-150 - 5.0 and run it 2500 RPM in 3rd gear I would blow your eco-boost off the road.

A blind man can feel the different transmission shift pattern between the 5.0 and the eco-boost
yea, I know its the same transmission, but the shift pattern is programed different.

hate to tell you this but everybody is having problems with their eco-boost when the mileage piles up, but the warranty will pay for it, but if your warranty is running out and you don't have the extended esp warranty if I was you I would get rid of it now.

Nothing new about the 2016 Tacoma, its the same truck, they just added makeup to it.
Everybody makes fun of me cause I'm a man that wears makeup, it highlights my blue eyes and covers up the blackheads on my nose.
Women do notice me, how I know is they do a double-take is look, look away and look at me again!
I got ahead in life using my good looks as an advantage but at the same time I figured out how gulliable and dumb people are thinking you're better and smarter just by your looks.
Same thing they are doing with the Tacoma, the ONLY reason you like it is because it looks good on the outside!

"The Tacoma is priced in a way where you can't pick and choose options you want , you're forced to a more expensive model."

You know, you could say that about every brand and every model currently on the market; they ALL force you to up-buy to get the options you really want while getting other options you simply don't want.

Let's go back to the A la Carte method of ordering. Ford has obviously proven that it is again economically feasible with its huge selection of variants of F-150 running on the same assembly line.

Drum brakes are obsolete.
They have poor response, which makes EBD electronic brake-force distribution performance inferior.
The response time makes the job of ESP more difficult (which means Toyota's programming will be full-on Nanny)

Where is the 8 speed automatic?

Get those drum brakes full of water while off roading and see how good they work. Don't hit the brakes hard more than once or you will see how bad they fade. 1950's technology. I'll stick with discs.

@Fred thank you.

Could not have said it better myself. Drum brakes are sort of like using conventional motor oil. If we didn't have synthetic oils, we'd be just fine with conventional lubes.

Same with drums--if disc brakes had never been invented we'd be fine with drums. Same deal.

Disc brakes and synthetic oils are major advancements that were developed more than fifty years ago to improve the quality, safety and durability of the vehicle.

Amazing the things that some of my fellow commenters will say when they are backed up.

Tim E. is the editor at TacomaHQ/TundraHQ so he is towing the line for Toyota's Sweers with no critical thinking involved.

No rear disc brakes is a deal breaker for me. Rear drums are the reason the Tacoma pedal has a mushy non linear feel, the shoes have to travel further than the pads and require more fluid to be moved to actuate them.

Best in class stopping= not much in the class to compare with= no need to improve the product=sounds like Henry Ford when every other manufacturer had switched to hydraulic brakes and fords retained rod actuated brakes into the mid 1930's.

Drum brakes may be great for semis where the drums are not shrouded from air flow by the wheels as much as on cars and light trucks and an unlimited supply of air can keep the shoes in contact with the expanding drums over a larger range of movement but even new tractors come with disc brakes up front.

Every vehicle that I have driven with 4 wheel discs has better pedal feel and noticeably better seat of the pants stopping power than previous disc drum combinations. I live on a gravel road and have never had any more incidents of rocks lodging in between the rotor and backing plate on the rear than on the fronts. ABS takes care of any braking imbalance between the front and rear.

Disc brakes are much simpler to replace pads than replacing shoes on drums. There are too many variables to consider to be able to say that drum brakes have more swept area than discs.

One thing that is for certain is that as a drum brake heats up during braking events the diameter of the drum expands requiring more fluid to be moved to keep the shoes in contact with the drum. This causes the pedal to go down. The master cylinder may or may not be able to meet this increased volume and may bottom out. Then you have severely restricted braking.

Disc brakes also expand with braking heat, both in diameter and thickness causing increased pad pressure as the coefficient of friction decreases due to the heat. Disc brake pads and caliper are open to air flow dissipating heat faster than drum shoes that are enclosed by both the drum and the backing plate.

Four wheel drum brakes were the standard when I was learning to drive and my first two cars were so equipped. Both could accelerate very nicely, neither could stop as well. I'll be waiting for discs on all four corners of the "new" Tacoma and a much improved brake pedal feel.

I'll also add that I'm not sure I applaud Sweers' reasoning for wireless charging and a GoPro mount. Everyone stops. Not everyone has a wireless charging phone setup or a GoPro. Especially before an ITBC in the Tundra. Wake up Toyota.

I believe toyota claims around 80 percent of stopping power on pickups comes from the front. Back brakes aren't really that important that drum brakes work fine..... I would prefer disk all the way around and if they used the same pads and size front to back.

Turbos require intelligent driving. I am glad my manufacturer gives me that option.

Its funny, if you look at an objective source like K&N, and look at their dyno results. You will see that a 5.7L Hemi puts more torque across essentially the entire curve than the 3.5L ecoboost. At best the ecoboost may have the slightest of advantages from 3000-3500 rpms. You might like the way Ford has programmed the ecoboost to drive, but in raw engine performance the current 3.5L ecoboost comes up lacking compared to the Hemi (and probably the Coyote as well). Ram torque manages the beejezus out of their trucks, in large part due to the massive amount of torque the hemi makes at low RPMs. At the end of the day it really doesn't matter what you drive, forced induction is a great way to make a smaller displacement engine have similar performance to a larger displacement engine while drinking substantially more fuel and possessing increased points of failure. Forced induction gives major gains at altitude and for boy racers that want to up the boost and fuel injection to have a "race" truck the cheapest and fastest way possible.


I prefer the drum brakes I've changed mine I think once in 300,000 Km

Low end isn't 1500rpm.

Low end is from idle to around 1500rpm.

Turbo lag is real and it is a disadvantage of all engines that are boosted, even diesel. Volvo are working on a electric supercharger to compensate for off idle conditions and low end torque so they can run higher gear ratios, again saving more fuel.

Variable inlet vanes have reduced some turbo lag.

One of the prime reason I bought the BT50 with the 3.2 over the VW is the VW has a two litre diesel which is boosted significantly in comparison to the 3.2.

So, off idle the BT50 is great. The engines both are within 10% of each other for power and torque. The VW is more economical as well by several mpg. But, after driving both I chose the larger diesel for when I off road or tow.

But again gas turbo engines require fuel for cooling, diesels don't. Diesel run a lot cooler than a gas engine.

This cooler running allows for more reliable operation as well.

Also, you figure regarding the torque of the EcoBoost look good until you see the fuel used to develop all of those ftlbs.

The 3.5 was designed to replace the 6.2. But it can't because of it's poor FE under load.

I do agree with the Toyota comment regarding FE from a turbo gas engine.

The 3.5 going into the Tacoma will be quite good on fuel, it might even better the Colorado.

BOOO! Drum brakes.

The interesting thing to me is that the Nissan Frontier has for years had rear disc brakes, a full boxed frame and more V6HP than the Taco but guess what... Almost no one cares. The Taco still outsells it 5 to 1. They are both well made and about the same in size, refinement, capabilities, price, people just forget about the Frontier.

GMs size, its advertising budget, the press reviews, and the refinement of their pretend trucks will help against the Taco but just being honest NOT being the best pretend truck out there hasn't really hurt Taco sales for a long time now.

Im not saying Toyota should sit on its butt as this market is now going to be contested and while I don't think wireless charging matters brakes and frames do.

The comments to this entry are closed.