9th Nov 2006, 17:37

I would love to know where the one Toyota owner gets his statistics. Most of the trucks I know belong to people who make some form of living with them and make full use of them... if I want a pleasure vehicle I would rather drive a sedan than bounce around.

4th Jan 2007, 16:25

I read somewhere that something like 80% of pickup truck owners just use it as a commuter vehicle, not as a work truck. So that 90% is pretty accurate.

4th Jan 2007, 18:29

Who on Earth compares the ability of a truck (a work machine) on how fast it accelerates? Did anyone ever stop to think that maybe the reason a Toyota can accelerate other trucks is because it is lighter? It has less metal in the frame, cross-members, transmission, axles, rotors, and oh yeah - it's aluminum (car) engine. That's not an advantage for a truck.

Soft and fluffy doesn't move the load. Heavy and rough does. That's like saying, "My tractor can only pull 20,000lbs and my Tundra can pull 7,000lbs; but sense the Tundra can go faster than 20mph, it's the superior work machine.

Oh yeah, and those domestic engines may break down more because they (1) are actually used for work sometimes and (2) are made with heavier parts for work (like cast iron) - which will wear out faster, but is necessary for any real work to be done.

Diesel engines are the top of the line engines for hard work. They are always made of cast iron. However, they do have to be maintained or they will break down on you because heavy parts for heavy work will wear out faster. Does that mean that your "silky smooth" aluminum engine is the superior work engine? Silky smooth doesn't move the load, either.

All the trucks mentioned against the Tacoma, were all 5,000+lbs trucks. There's not a Tacoma on Earth that weighs 5,000 lbs. I drive an F150 with the 8ft bed (very long machine) but it only has a 4.2L V6. Tacoma's out run me all the time. Does that mean they are superior to my F150 even though it can haul a few thousand lbs in its bed and its engine, despite the over-sized load of the truck, has 255,000 miles on it and still runs 200+ mile trips everyday?

Here's a good test for you, take your Tacoma, hitch an 8,000lb load behind it and hitch the same load behind the F150 with the 5.4l triton or the Ram with the 5.7l hemi and see how fast each one is able to run from 0 to 60 with the load attached. I'm pretty sure the Tacoma won't be bringing home any golden metals. Neither would its older brother, the Tundra.

Car magazines will test each of the base full size trucks and the Tundra will come in last in both pulling and hauling, yet it will still be declared the winner because its ride is refined and it has a pretty interior. What a bunch for wimpy magazine editors. Heaven knows, the necessity of a pickup truck is to have a smooth ride and lots of cup holders.

The domestic trucks have been winning for years because their trucks do what trucks are supposed to do. The only thing that's changed is the idiotic standards of today that are used to determine what makes a truck-a truck. Any truck looks reliable if it's never put through any real test.

Oh yeah, and if you think Toyota's really going to have the others when the new Tundra comes out, don't hold your breath.

First of all, it will still be judged by smoothness and shiny dashes as to what makes it superior.

Secondly, if you've even seen the frame from the bottom, the frame bends outwards at the cab instead of running parallel. There are hardly any cross-members, and the ones that it does have are poorly attached. They look hinged instead of welded or riveted. (Those nice flexible, unstable frames don't handle heavy weight too well, but at least it's refined. LOL.)

Thirdly, there are still only three leaf springs on the back end - so it will still squat to the ground when it does any work. Someone needs to tell Toyota that 3/4 ton trucks have to have more than three leaf springs on them. (By the way, if your truck sits on its axles when loaded down, it wasn't made to handle the load and that is not considered handling the load well.)

Fourth, as usual there's plastic cladding all over the front end of the vehicle which shows that it is not prepared to handle any real work. Any real truck simply has a clean cut metal bumper on the front end.

Fifth, as usual the front control arms are puny and not re-enforced. I'm sure that also contributes to the refined ride. That probably explains why no Tundra has a snow plow on the front of it.

But oh well, if you want to pay more money for less metal, be my guest.

8th Jan 2007, 10:16

I wrote the first post here. If I needed a larger truck, I'd buy a larger truck. My '06 Tacoma is all the truck I need. The Tacoma is a COMPACT pickup. Constantly comparing them to full size or huge diesel pickups is like comparing apples to oranges.

I'm retired, and bought the Taco to haul or tow moderate loads. More than that, I bought it for it's off road ability. Taco's have been praised for years by 4-wheel magazines for their toughness off road. I have taken Toyota 4-wheelers on roads in central Oregon that make the moon look smooth.

As far as it's aluminum engine, I believe the aviation industry has been using high strength aluminum alloy engines for decades. More domestics are using aluminum heads all the time, and I believe you will see more and more all aluminum engines in the future. My Tacoma 4.0L six generates 236 hp while a Ford 4.0 bangs 210 hp and Chevy's 4.3 V-6 bangs only about 195hp, and a Dodge3.7 puts out around 215. Now, you notice boys and girls that I am comparing similar engines. I am not comparing my V-6 with Goliath diesels or V-10's or 8,s that I know have more horsepower. If you are still working for a living and need a big truck, buy the brand of your choice. If you just need a compact to haul wood or tow a small boat, gets good mileage, rides decent on the highway, and kicks butt off road, the Tacoma is a good choice.

8th Jan 2007, 20:24

The reason I was comparing the Tacoma to the full sized trucks (with the 8000lb load pulling contest) was because people in the earlier comments were making the comparison. They were bragging that the Tacoma could run with the big V-8's when the V-8's are each having to move a heavier chassis. That's why I also compared it to my work F-150. The F-150 has a 4.2L engine while the Tacoma has a 4.0L engine. They are almost the same size, but the F-150 weighs an extra 1000lbs+. This is nothing to brag about. To me, a truck's highlights is its pulling and hauling numbers. Not its horsepower numbers. That's not the purpose of really any truck. Also, one of the previous comments is right on when mentioning torque numbers instead of horsepower numbers. A V-8 gas can put out over 300hp, but some turbo diesels can only put out 200+hp. But the diesels put out 500+ lb feet of torque while the V-8's may only get 300 to 400 lb feet of torque. Either ways, the diesels will pull way more than the gas due to the torque and the long stroke of the crankshaft. Horsepower is more of a performance measurement while pound-feet of torque is more of a work measurement. To me, the work measurement is more significant in a truck or SUV. The 4.3L Chevy engine only puts out 190 to 220 horsepower, but it will put out over 300 lb feet of torque. They are strong engines. To be exact, they are a 350 V-8 minus two pistons. They have the same sized pistons.