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

 

Comments

@Lee
When I look at those graphs you posted, HEMI has 2x more torque than Ecoboost at 1000 Rpm. Case is closed.

@Lou
What numbers for torque do you see at 1000 Rpm at graphs you posted ?
I see 300 for HEMI and 150 for ecoboost.
I drive mostly at 1500 Rpm . From 1100 to 2000 loaded bed.
From 1000 -1500 Rpm is low end for me.

@Lee
What numbers for torque do you see at 1000 Rpm at graphs you posted ?
I see 300 for HEMI and 150 for ecoboost.
I drive mostly at 1500 Rpm . From 1100 to 2000 loaded bed.
From 1000 -1500 Rpm is low end for me.

@Lee

Here are a couple dynojet results from K&N. Not a perfect comparison, but close enough to show that the Hemi can certainly outpower the ecoboost:

http://www.knfilters.com/dynocharts/63-2583_dyno.pdf

http://www.knfilters.com/dynocharts/63-1561_dyno.pdf

The PUTC article you linked to was flawed, they point out in the text of it that it was flawed, and that was probably what guaranteed Mike Levine his current job at Ford. Here is the original article where they dyno'd them side by side:

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2011/04/what-were-testing-this-week-2011-ford-f-150-ecoboost-35-liter-v-6.html

THAT is what you will typically see when you dyno a V8 alongside an ecoboost. They spent an entire day optimizing all sorts of conditions to get the absolute best peak numbers from the ecoboost in the article you linked to, then threw the Coyote on as an afterthought. What a joke. Spend a day optimizing for the Coyote and compare the two and you're basically back to the first article.

All of the ridiculous 0-60 and such times posted in car magazines for ecoboost F150s are brake launched, which is certainly an option but not something many will do in the real world. Its about as realistic as all of the hoops Ram people jump through to get their Hemis to perform maximally - something like disable ESC, turn on Tow/Haul, turn on 4WD, etc.

I don't really care what other people choose to drive. I'm glad that there are factory turbocharged engines out there now for those that prefer them. Outside of a few situations I don't see any advantage to them, and see a substantial number of disadvantages. If low sulfur fuel allows gasoline engines to run lean that could change the entire situation dramatically.

I also have an *extreme* dislike for Ford's marketing and for the ridiculous EPA numbers their trucks post that are essentially unattainable in the real world.

@Lee
You forget one thing. I have 8 cylinder , much bigger engine, so I have lower Rpm than 6 cylinder , more torque from idle and I accelerate normally. Not slow, not racing.
My idle is 600 Rpm, so 1000 -1100 is something I accelerate normally. 1500 Rpm is pretty good acceleration, when I an in hurry.
What's your idle ?
My tires are 275/60 R20.

Sorry I miss read that . I didn't see right part of that graph.
It is roughly 80 Hp and 310 ft-lb

You cannot stay at 1,000 while accelerating in your truck. You cannot stay at 1,500 while accelerating in your truck. You cannot continuously stay at ANY rpm while accelerating in your truck.

"Hemi has even ,more torque at 1500 Rpm than Ecoboost, going by your graphs you posted. "

Posted by: Lee | Jan 27, 2015 12:08:27 AM

I can stay at 1100 Rpm and accelerate day and night any time from 0 to 50 km /h, because my converter is not locked if you like it or not. I can duplicate this anytime. Go and try it with 5.7 HEMI and 5 speed trany.

And yes HEMI has more torque at 1100 and 1500 Rpm than ecoboost by charts you posted.


I can stay at 1100 Rpm and accelerate day and night any time from 0 to 50 km /h, because my converter is not locked if you like it or not."

No, you can't with your truck. It is literally impossible and it has nothing to do with your torque converter. When I say it is literally impossible, I mean the actual mechanisms of your truck will not allow you to stay at 1,100 while accelerating from 0 to 50 km/h.

Posted by: Lee | Jan 27, 2015 12:45:37 AM

Hahaha, I just did and will do that tomorrow again.

Yeah, like how you "knew" that the Hemi makes 260 hp and 319 lb-ft at 1100

It was an honest mistake and I corrected myself.
I am leaving shortly with my truck and let you know about that speed I ca reach at 1100 Rpm, but it doesn't matter, because HEMI has more torque than ecoboost from idle (600 Rpm) to 1100 Rpm.

That's what I call low end torque. You can call it low Rpm torque, but you have to left word "end" out of it for your ecoboost, because 1500 Rpm is not low end, just low for V6.

2016 Tacoma is not new. How did this conversion get so far off topic. Turbos on tiny engines is not a good idea, sorry Ford.
Again.... no disc brakes, no frame fix, worse no definitive performance numbers.
Toyota takes Tacoma cheerleaders for granted. This thing is old technology and needs to go. Combine GM twins and Toyota will see numbers crashing if the Frontier lives up to it's hype.

2016 Tacoma is not new. How did this conversion get so far off topic. Turbos on tiny engines is not a good idea, sorry Ford.
Again.... no disc brakes, no frame fix, worse no definitive performance numbers.
Toyota takes Tacoma cheerleaders for granted. This thing is old technology and needs to go. Combine GM twins and Toyota will see numbers crashing if the Frontier lives up to it's hype.

@Lee
I just estimated everything from the graph you posted. I didn't calculate anything. I also made another honest mistake. I thought I was driving at 1100 Rpm yesterday, but couldn't replicate that, so it must have been different dial position and I don't really care about it.
Here is a question. Which engine makes more torque from 600 to 1100 Rpm. HEMI 5.7 or ecoboost.

The question remains. Which engine makes more torque from idle 600 to 1100 Rpm. HEMI 5.7 or ecoboost. We all know answer.
HEMI 5.7.



Stay tuned. I will also answer how you are incorrect when you say your truck goes from 0 to 50 kmh while staying at 1,100 rpm the whole way.

Posted by: Lee | Jan 27, 2015 4:52:33 PM

You don't have to. I said already I made another honest mistake and must have seen different dial position when driving.

We all know how we call that missing ecoboost torque from idle 600Rpm to 1100 Rpm. Turbolag.
Stay tuned for Lee to explain how good and useful this missing torque is for your driving habits.

@lee

I think you are wasting your time trying to explain it to him.

If he couldn't understand the dyno thing or how torque is used to measure horsepower then I doubt he is able to understand gears.

I think he knows he is wrong and is just jerking you along trying to change the subject to something that is more favorable to him so he can think he is winning even though it is at something that is worthless.

@Lee
That's it?
Where is that low end ecoboost torque from idle 600 to 1100 Rpm?

Cool . Don't forget to spool your turbo to beat HEMI like every test I read. LOL.

@Lee
Don't forget to turbo off MDS to get rid of that throttle lag.
I don't have any throttle lag and I don't need any turbo, but you have turbolag.
5.7 HEMI beats ecoboost without turbo spooling day and night. There is your low end dyno. Same thing happens at high end Rpm. Ecoboost is running out of breath .

"The 3.5 was designed to replace the 6.2."


Absolutely a false statement.

The EB 3.5 liter was designed to replace the 5.4 and be an upgrade over the new 5.0. It was designed for the 90/10 crowd, those that run around empty 90% of the time and use their trucks for work 10% of the time. The engine is designed to have excellent fuel economy when unloaded yet have massive amounts of capability and performance when needed.
Under the above duty cycle the EB 3.5 was designed to survive 150k+

The 6.2 liter on the other hand was designed as a HD engine that was designed to be heavily loaded 90%+ of the time if required. It's usable duty cycle was designed to be 250K+. Its stretch goal is to replace the 6.8l V10, which will occur after it receives DI and a upcoming transmission.


The point is the EB 3.5 l was never meant to tow large loads and get excellent fuel economy while doing so.

You cannot stay at 1,000 while accelerating in your truck. You cannot stay at 1,500 while accelerating in your truck. You cannot continuously stay at ANY rpm while accelerating in your truck.

"Hemi has even ,more torque at 1500 Rpm than Ecoboost, going by your graphs you posted. "

Posted by: Lee | Jan 27, 2015 12:08:27 AM

I can stay at 1100 Rpm and accelerate day and night any time from 0 to 50 km /h, because my converter is not locked if you like it or not. I can duplicate this anytime. Go and try it with 5.7 HEMI and 5 speed trany.

And yes HEMI has more torque at 1100 and 1500 Rpm than ecoboost by charts you posted.


The above comments are useless: except for 0-3MPH a modern transmission is not going to deliberately run a motor at 1000-1500 RPM. It's going to use 1st gear to get into its powerband as quickly as possible and the torque converter is going to allow a certain level of slip to occur to enable it to build enough torque and not stall while getting there. So for 99.5+ percent of the time the argument of who makes more torque below 1500 RPM is a numbers game with no usable benefit...

We're talking about a truck not a tugboat people.

@Lee
I would be happy if you stay with ford, but no, you like your engine choice so much and you buy a RAM.

Awww, are you mad that I bought a Ram?

You act as if by me choosing to buy a Ram that I am somehow agreeing with you that that are better than Ford or GM. Sorry to burst you bubble, but I am not. 

I am mad you bought a RAM. You don't deserve the best truck on the planet.
You burst your bubble, not mine. I didn't switch to ford and never will.

@Lee
I am not criticizing your choice, you bought the best truck which can drag me across Canada.
The only funny thing in here is, that you bought one of the most expensive high end RAM. You burst my buble, that you prefer ford after those years of arguing with me. You are right about that.
But you burst my bubble in a good way. It just wasn't expected from you. I really enjoy it now.


@Lee

If my needs would have stayed at towing 9,500 lbs then I would have probably gotten a new 2015 F150 or continued using the one I have. 

You were thinking of buying new F 150 even your first one was just 2 years old? And you are telling me, you were happy with your first one and there is nothing wrong with that truck?
Right. I bet you blow the turbos or something else, that's why you were thinking about new one.

There is nothing to get over it for me, because as you noticed I drive RAM already. You still suffering posttraumatic stress , that you had to leave Ford and buy RAM, but you'll make it. You bought a better truck. .

@Lou BC 
The Ram 5.7 had 90hp and 200 lb/ft at 2,200. 
I find it funny that my 5.4 has more HP and Torque than the semi Hemi

LOL.

@Lee
You got over your ford . You bought RAM, like I did.
Enjoy.

@Lee
Yes you do.

@Lou
Not just us, but every manufacturer and engineer knows about this.
Even your beloved ford. You have chosen to ignore it.
Google it.

@lee

I could not have said that better myself.

I think anyone reading the comments can clearly see that he does not know what he is talking about.

I think the other guy is right and he is just trying to get to you because a logical person would have stopped by now.

How can someone who has never owned a modern turbocharged vehicle built in the last 5-10 years educate others about modern turbocharged engines?

Because I did.

I had 2L turbodiesel with common rail from VW with variable vane geometry controlled by ecm depends on load speed and Rpm to increase gases speed from low engine Rpm and decrease speed at high engine Rpm to eliminate turbolag and not over spin the turbo. Please look it up, how this Turbo is working.
Much more sophisticated turbo than your ecoboost simple small unit without any controls.
I was driving this minivan for over 2 years before I moved to Canada 14 years ago.
So yes, I have an experience with much more sophisticated turbo than you do.

Variable-geometry turbochargers (VGTs), (also known as variable nozzle turbines/VNTs), are a family of turbochargers, usually designed to allow the effective aspect ratio (A:R) of the turbo to be altered as conditions change. This is done because optimum aspect ratio at low engine speeds is very different from that at high engine speeds. If the aspect ratio is too large, the turbo will fail to create boost at low speeds; if the aspect ratio is too small, the turbo will choke the engine at high speeds, leading to high exhaust manifold pressures, high pumping losses, and ultimately lower power output. By altering the geometry of the turbine housing as the engine accelerates, the turbo's aspect ratio can be maintained at its optimum. Because of this, VGTs have a minimal amount of lag, have a low boost threshold, and are very efficient at higher engine speeds. VGTs do not require a wastegate.

VGTs tend to be much more common on diesel engines as the lower exhaust temperatures mean they are less prone to failure. The few early gasoline-engine VGTs required significant pre-charge cooling to extend the turbocharger life to reasonable levels, but advances in material technology has improved their resistance to the high temperatures of gasoline engine exhaust and they have started to appear increasingly in, e.g., gasoline-engined sports cars.

Your ecoboost turbo is a cheap joke compare to the turbo I was driving 14 years ago.

@Lee
Watch this and educate yourself. Look at the graph at the bottom right Rpm and Boost. Ecoboost has fixed turbo optimized for some Rpm. Compare it with VGT I had 14 years ago . Ecoboost turbo is much cheaper and simple , not as much efficient as VGT. It has more turbolag than VGT and runs out of breath sooner than VGT.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdjsNPeCLQs

@Lee
The 2007 Porsche 911 Turbo has twin VGT (they call it VNT) turbochargers on its 3.6-liter horizontally-opposed six cylinder gasoline engine.

I was driving Honda Legend 2L V 6 with VGT looong time ago. Incredible car.

The one of the reason you don't see VGT in trucks or some other cars is , because the exhaust gas of gasoline engines could reach up to 950°C, versus 700-800°C in diesel engines. Ordinary materials and constructions are difficult to withstand such temperature reliably. 

Variable vanes are made of a special heat-resisting alloy, Inconel. It's very expensive compare to Ecoboost simple turbo without variable geometry, which is again much more expensive.
Yeah, it's not needed for ford owners, because they don't know better and compromise must be made, but if I could choose a turbo, it would definitely be a VGT. 2 of them. You can keep your fake turbo.


@Lee
"Really ?"
Yes, really. VGTs are only used in single turbo setups to reduce lag since there is only ONE TURBO. If you have a twin turbo setup then you do not need a VGT.
The Ecoboost 3.5L uses a parallel twin turbo set up which does not require a VGT since it is using more than one turbo.

Posted by: Lee | Jan 29, 2015 1:26:52 AM

That's false statement. Ecoboost would run even better with less turbo lag and wouldn't run out of the breath if 2 VGT's are used like Porsche 911 rurbo has instead of 2 small simple turbos . One VGT is much more expensive than 2 small simple ones, so it wouldn't be economical for ford to produce truck with this high end technology for masses. And of course many people don't know better, so it's good enough, bud doesn't mean it's best solution.

Last I checked they were real. Well, really enough to make more power that your Hemi at 1,200 to 4,000 rpm. Anything above or below that is of little concern to me.
Posted by: Lee | Jan 29, 2015 2:58:24 AM

Ecoboost doesn't make more power at 4000 Rpm than HEMI.

Ecoboost doesn't have turbolag, pulls like freight train, doesn't run out of the breath and will last for ever. Or at least what any Naturally Aspirated V8.

LOL.

On the other note, I don't see a future with small turbo engines, but Chrysler V8 and Fiat expertise with Multiair (Atkinson cycle).
Deadly combo. Gloves are off. I can't wait for future fight. Hopefully GM can pull something from the hat. Nissan and Toyota as well.
Exciting times.
Posted by: Beast | Apr 26, 2014 1:01:05 PM

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2014/04/2015-ford-f-150-engineers-create-a-new-frame.html

So Toyota followed Atkinson cycle engine for their trucks already. I am waiting for Chrysler to pull 5L V8 Multiair from their hat soon.
I did pretty good prediction almost one year ago.

The subject is Toyota is going with Atkinson cycle engine.

"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."

I keep on subject. You better keep on subject. I was driving Honda Legend 2L with VGT.
What gasoline engine did you drive with VGT .
HEMI needs Multiair, but it won't be HEMI anymore and I don't care as long as it's more efficient and has more torque and power.

Those other questions you might have you better address to ford engineers. I don't really care what ford is doing. You sound like their PR department head

@Lee
I just agreed with Toyota engineers. Reread my comments.
If you wanna talk about engines don't mix it with transmission and several hundred pounds lighter aluminium body.
Talk strictly just about engine.
You didn't drive any gasoline engine with VGT.
Ecoboost doesn't make more power at 4000 Rpm than HEMI.
HEMI power goes still up after 4000 Rpm and Ecoboost down.
Everything has been said already.
I am out.

@Lee
You didn't drive any gasoline engine with VGT.
Ecoboost doesn't make more power at 4000 Rpm than HEMI. 
HEMI power goes still up after 4000 Rpm and Ecoboost down.
Everything has been said already. 

I have been waiting for 3 yrs to upgrade my older Tacoma. Now that I see this one, I don't know if I will do it. I think it is ugly and the insides look cheap. I really hated the Big Lips on the front grill, It is like a huge cat fish or something The dash looks like a throw back to the 80s and is not impressive. I guess I should have gone else where 3 yrs ago, I am not impressed. I will wait for my final decision until I can do a hands on and visually see if it as I have said, ugly and cheap looking or if it looks better in 3D. Oh well it isn't like it is the only one out there.

Testing the new Hilux in Australia, will come out late 2015. Looks different to the Tacoma
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a186/RobRyan7/imagejpg1_zps03e2e8d9.jpg

@Lee
You didn't drive any gasoline engine with VGT. You don't have any real experience with them.
Ecoboost doesn't make more power at 4000 Rpm than HEMI , so your turbo is not real , like you said you checked, , but fake.
HEMI power goes still up after 4000 Rpm and Ecoboost down.
I can run my engine on any Rpm I want, not what ford is going to dictate to me ,to not to run out of the breath.
Don't forget to update your fake V8 melody for your speakers to listen, so you can feel like real me.

Don't forget to tell Ram to update the Hemi with Multiair so maybe it will have a chance against the 3.5L Ecoboost.
Posted by: Lee | Jan 30, 2015 8:37:59 AM

Ecoboost doesn't have a chance against HEMI without turbo spooling. It makes more power from idle to 1200Rpm and more power from 4000 Rpm up than ecoboost.
You don't know what you missing, because you didn't drive gasoline VGT. Ford installed fake cheap turbos in your truck with fake noise.
I never used any other fuel than Regular 87 in my first HEMI in Durango and second HEMI in RAM.
Maybe you should stop reading too many Ford catalogs and get some real life experience how V8 sounds and works without turbo spooling.

@Lee
Don't forget to tell the HEMI driver to get you 3 seconds to spool your turbos to overcome turbo lag when you going to race him.LOL.
You bought a right truck if you want to race from 0 to 60 with turbo spooling.
Your truck is already out of business waiting for some offroad project.
Let me know , when you drive some VGT gasoline engine to get some real turbo experience, until then, listen to the V8 music.

Toyota often chooses reliability over dominating performance. They will stick with engines and transmissions longer than their competitors even in markets they dominate. The lexus gs still has 6 speed auto even when others have more speeds. In the past have done R&D and refinement in house instead of using the showroom and your money. Less of the Service advisors saying "Yup, they all do that".
Rear Drums last longer and there parking brakes systems are more reliable easier to fix and less expensive to fix. On my fleet of vehicles drums last 3 times as long.
When GM first put rear discs on the truck they were fraut with problems. That probably why the reversed the choice til they had a more reliable system. If discs were so superior then why don't 18 wheelers have discs on all axles?

Toyota,

Please pass on solo direct injection (combo ok?)-it's potentially very problematic in the long run. CVT trannys are a huge mistake too for the same reason. Also, pass on turbos and super charges! Your 3.5 liter is a gem and should get world class mpg. Better solve your cold start rattle too in the 4 bangers!

Also, make the crew cab extra comfy/roomy in the back, keep the weight down with ultra high strength steel if it's cost effective and make the seats & interior more like a durable sports sedan. Deflation is here to stay, so those with a lower price will win too-base truck should be 20k!
I'm looking hard at your 2016 crew cab with 2.7 liter AT, 2wd. I hope the new 6sp tranny is robust and dialed in. I plan to use the truck for occasional gardening/light duty and to drive a taller, safer rig with exc resale. 26-28 MPG highway sticker would be cool to see in this config on highway. Better be aero and closer to 3500lbs.
Thanks, Mr practical Engineer

Note: The Chevy is too heavy, uses DI at ultra high 11.3 to 1+ ratio and too expensive for brand. Good lookers though! Nissan has a chance if they listen to above feedback. Folks are using trucks as dailey drivers

I have over 200,000 miles on my 2005 Tacoma 4x4 and the rear drum brakes haven't been touched. I also tow a lot. This is a non issue.

New paint color options do not make a completely new Tacoma. Very disappointing 2016 news. Toyota thinks buyers are stupid. No discs......and the list goes on.

The drum brake argument is only by those that have no idea. Tacomas have ALWAYS had better braking than other small pick ups including those with rear disks. Most have no idea Tacomas have 4 piston front brakes, where ALL the brake force is needed and where most of a pickups weight is. Too much brake power in the back where there is no weight is NOT good. Besides, drums shield more dirt and mud when off roading,which is the best reason to buy a Tacoma!

The turbo arguement here is extremely dated. BMW's N55 engine(as well as most modern turbos) has the turbo spooling at 1200 rpm and is producing most of its stock 300 ft. lb. of torque at that point as well. The huge benefit of turbos is for few hundred bucks, you can tune the engine with major power increase. The N55 i.e. after tune and a K&N goes from 300 hp & 300 ft.lb. to 400 hp & 450 ft.lb.!

Also, if you are arguing for 30+ mpg in a pickup truck, YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE WRONG VEHICLE!!!!!!

I'm an original owner of a 2006 Tacoma TRD Sport with 142 K mi. The like my truck and would likely buy another. After driving the truck for 9 years, I have realized the need for many improvements. It appears the new 2016 Tacoma has addressed most, if not all, of those needs. The updates will help the Tacoma compete with other makes, but I wonder if they didn't go far enough with innovations. However, a smart truck shopper would place a major emphasis on long term durability and reliability, which Toyota leads with the Tacoma. Considering the future of any vehicle will be fuel economy, I hope Toyota made huge improvements with the Tacoma.

I agree I would like to see disc on the rear but Toyota still stop as short as the ones with disc brakes and you never have to replace them short of 200k. Plus they an help fuel economy by having less drag. Drums do fade when wet but my 05 has had no such issues yet. Turbo? Not on a gas truck
Premium fuel cost overrides any fuel economy and the power is not designed for the work a truck does. Give me a smooth torque for a truck.

Rear drum brakes is a joke!! Innovate Toyota, the brakes on the Tacoma are my biggest complaint for the truck. I have an 2002 with 248k miles and still runs great but the brakes are horrendous! I do more brake jobs on this vehicle than any other, it doesn't have the stopping power needed for its size. Disc brakes all around is superior by all accounts, undeniable and indisputable!



The comments to this entry are closed.