Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Toyota Tacoma TRD package

lonesomeduvlonesomeduv Posts: 50
edited March 2014 in Toyota
What exactly is this supposed to be? The salesman insisted it was stiffer than the regular suspension but I drove both and much preferred the regular (I like a firm ride).

I know nothing about off-road racing, but I found the TRD to be incredibly mushy on the street, to the point that it made the engine feel sluggish. Is it just me? Do I just not know what I'm supposed to be looking for?
«1

Comments

  • ryanbabryanbab Posts: 7,240
    from the toyota website

    Option Packages
    TRD Off-Road Package

    Off-road-tuned suspension with Bilstein®2 high-pressure gas shocks and progressive-rate springs
    P265/70R16 BFGoodrich tires on 16" 5-spoke aluminum alloy wheels3
    Locking rear differential4
    Black fender flares3, 5
    TRD graphics
  • eagle63eagle63 Posts: 599
    What are you currently driving? I used to drive a dodge ram and to me the TRD feels firm, yet very comfortable comparitively speaking. I don't think I've ever heard someone describe the TRD setup as being mushy, however....
  • Well, I'm currently driving a Nissan Maxima SE, but I'm getting ready to trade it in on a truck. I used to have a Ford Bronco II, but that doesn't count.

    I've driven a Ranger, Mazda B-4000 "Dual Sport", Ford F-150, and a Tacoma with and without the TRD. I really did not like the TRD, which kinda surprised me since the salesman kept insisting the TRD was firmer. The TRD just felt mushy to me, while the others didn't. I'm just wondering if maybe I'm missing something. Like I said, off-roading isn't really my deal so I just may not be used to that kind of ride.

    I guess I should just count myself lucky that I truly don't like a $1200 option (or whatever it is)!
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    Is the locking differential. That is what makes it an off-road truck. That truck went up against the Hummer, the Land Rover, and Wrangler in a magazine comparo. The tacoma beat all of em. They stated that it was solely because of the electric locker. It will take you lots more places than a truck without it will go. Trust me. I was skeptic too. But couldn't do without the locker these days. Any more questions?
  • tbundertbunder Posts: 580
    i dont know if you know this or not, but you can get the locking differential WITHOUT getting the TRD package. you're more likely to have a less common truck if you DON'T get the TRD. they're all over these days. they once were few and far between, but as common as any off-road pkg'd truck now a days. it really is a good off-road pkg. however. it really is just some bilstein shocks and the locker. a set of 4 bilstein shocks and an automatic lock-right locker can be had for $600 if you really wanted to save some cash. good luck.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    Thing I was told about TRD when I was buying my truck was that (told by ttora guys) if you are gonna do any sort of mods to your truck, like give it a suspension lift, then TRD is not needed. You can get the locker separately from TRD package, as well as tires.
    If you gonna put a suspension lift, the rear shocks will be too short, so you'll have to replace Bilsteins anyway. And if you go with bigger wheels, the alum rims will hold a 32x11.5x15, but not as comfortably. Obviously, a 33x12.5x15 will not fit on stock rims. So it really depends. I have a TRD truck, and will hold off on any mods for a while, but in the mean time it performs very well for me offroad. I can't go places guys with lifts and 32-33" tires can, but I can go elsewhere.
  • smgillessmgilles Posts: 252
    Guys: he said he DOESN'T really off-road, that is why he was glad the TRD option didn't appeal to him.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    yes. Now that I read his message...
    TRD is supposed to be stiffer. I thought it was hwen I was testdriving.
    Heh.....you can just put Tohiko shocks on it, you'll get a stiff ride of your life. THat was one big flop that Toyota did this year at the 4x4 competition.
  • tistevetisteve Posts: 142
    If that TRD was softer riding than the regular, it must have had super flat tires (might explain the poor acceleration). I have owned both, a '97 4x4 ext w/o TRD and I now have a '99 4x4 ext cab with the TRD. Huge difference. I thought the regular suspension was way too soft. It floated and wallowed over major dips in the road, off road it would get into a bouncing pattern that would have it bottom out too much.

    I don't do any major off roading, but I like the handling of the TRD a lot better, it corners like a sports car (well, almost) where as my non-TRD I had to really watch going into the corners.
    But I will say the TRD can be too harsh on bad roads. I wish it had adjustable shocks to soften it up a bit for everyday driving and then tighten it up for the trails.

    When discussing the TRD pricing please remember that it also includes the nice 31" x 10.5" Goodyear Wranglers and the aluminium rims. Yes you can get those w/o the TRD, but I believe it is an $800 upgrade(?). So really, you're only paying about $400-$600 for the stiffer springs, leafs, shocks, locker and fender flares (and don't forget the cool sticker ;)

    I like that I have a pretty decent stock off roader with out having to do a lot of mods, but I agree if you're gonna tweak out all that stuff anyway, don't get the package because you'll be taking it all off.
  • tbundertbunder Posts: 580
    the new TRD's now come with 16" wheels, and 265/70/16 tires. no more 31x10.50/15.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    I wish that TRD came with 31s instead of 265s. 31s are especially made for offroading, got more resin and traction. 265s arent that great for offroad. But oh well. 31s don't look that great on a stock truck, they stick out too much, make it look like a low-rider.
  • tbundertbunder Posts: 580
    why are you contradicting yourself? first you want the 31's, then you say they don't look that good. care to clear that one up?

    actually, 31's don't stick out any more than the 265's. the 265 is actually .2 inches wider than the 31x10.50. do you know what you are talking about? the only place that the two tires are the same size is the height. both are 30.7 inches tall. last time i looked, a ZR2 or an FX4 (only two trucks left that come with this size stock) didn't look like a "low-rider". you drunk tonight?
  • Flat tires! That would explain a lot. It did in fact feel like driving on super flat tires.

    I don't recall the tires appearing flat, but I didn't check because you would assume a brand new truck sitting on the lot would have reasonably proper tire pressure. But who knows? Something didn't add up, maybe that was it.

    Thanks!
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    There's a tradeoff between good looks and functionality here. On an otherwise stock Tacoma, 31s are a lot more potent than 265s. And I'm wrong again, they stick out more on a non-TRD. I caught a glimpse of them at the last wrench-a-thon in San Antonio on another guys' truck, and I just checked the pic again, he's got a non-TRD Taco with alum. rims (which you can get easily). Fender flares on the TRD version cover up the tires.
    Oh well, so 31s on TRD fit fine. I'm not drunk, just tired. And just thinking that that guy had a TRD, which he doesnt. Still, pretty damn potent truck offroad. He takes that truck places others are afraid to go.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    I actually prefer to keep my tires at 32/30 psi front and back. The specs say 26/29 or somewhere in that neighbourhood. When I air down to 18-20 to wheel, thats when the ride gets mushy :)
  • tbundertbunder Posts: 580
    you're still not makin sense. you said earlier that you wish you had them, then you say they look dumb and stick out too far. and also, yeah you can get aluminum wheels, but whenever you do, i believe you get the flares, they just don't come on TRD's. i saw some new tacoma's yesterday with the steel wheels, and they too had flares. like i said, the 265 would stick out further, since they are a wider tire. and i wouldn't necessarily call the 31 a better off-road tire. only advantage it has is a taller sidewall.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    31s stick out on non-TRD tires. And yes, you're right, with any rims on Taco you get them. I think it's actually illegal to drive with tires sticking out beyond fender flares by several inches, ttora guys were caught with those before.

    31s stick out too far on trucks with no fender flares. Thats what the guy I'm talking about has on his truck. And his truck does look like a lowrider. I'd have to ask him waht he did to his fender flares, probably lost them somewhere. He almost lost his bumper last time.
    But I do wish I could get my hands on them. On my truck, they don't stick out. And I could use a better tire for offroad. 265s aren't really meant for offroad use.
  • First, the 265/75 tires are theoretically about .1" narrower than the 31 x 10.5 (because 265 mm = 10.4 in.). The actual widths will vary a little bit by tire and manufacturer, but the 31 x 10.5's should be just a bit wider.

    Second, the differences in how much the tires protrude is probably due to the difference in the wheels (backspacing). Aftermarket wheels tend to put the centerline of the tire farther outboard than the OEM wheels, it seems.
  • tbundertbunder Posts: 580
    we're NOT talking about 265/75, but 265/70. the 265/75 is a whole different ballgame. a lot taller (an inch) than both the 31x10.50 and 265/70. maybe you mis-typed. maybe you're right on your ratio analysis regarding the 265/75, but not the 265/70. the "75" means that it is 5% taller on the sidewall in proportion to the width (265). check out bfg's site, it gives a breakdown on all their tire sizes, metric to inches. and we're also talking about stock rims/wheels, not aftermarket which are often the culprit on wrong backspacing. so many people think you can just throw a set of rims on a truck, wrongo. when that does happen, it looks totally retarded. a '94-'01 ram with really wide and not tall enough tires with no flares comes to mind. looks like a truck riding on something. totally out of proportion.

    scorpio- thank you for explaining yourself. a 31 without flares looks really retarded, and is the epitome of the ram scenario i listed above. just remember that you would have to locate some pre '01 toyota aluminum rims to fit the ACTUAL 31's. that, or some base 15" steel rims to use specifically for off-road use. at least that way you wouldn't have to worry about scuffing them on rocks or what not. they'd probably be cheap too i'd assume.
  • Yeah, the 265/70 have about 1" less in height. 265 is 265, though, so they both are the same width, and very close to the 31 x 10.5. I guess what you guys must be talking about is how the tire height looks in proportion to the width. Given the same (OEM) wheels, I just can't understand why the same width tire would stick out any more - must just look that way if one tire is squattier then the other.
  • tbundertbunder Posts: 580
    but the 265/75 is an inch taller than the 31x10.50. the 265/70/16 is .2 wider than a 31x10.50. so yeah i agree that it should stick out more. i think what scorpio is talking about though is when these tires are on trucks with nothing over them, ie. a flare to fool the eye.

    also, that 16" 265/70 has a smaller sidewall as compared to the 31 incher, which in turn makes it look slimmer since it doesn't have all that rubber sticking out on the sidewall. whereas the 31" tall tire looks fatter and maybe shorter. more rubber showing may make it look like it's sticking out.
  • eagle63eagle63 Posts: 599
    You're arguing over millimeters. there's no difference between 31x10.5's and 265/75's. One is measured using the metric system, the other is standard. The only way the sidewall is going to be thicker is if it's an LT tire instead of a P tire. (LT = light truck, P = passenger)
    I would be surprised if anyone could tell the difference in height between a 265/75 and a 265/70 unless they had both tires back to back.
    Also, as wheeldog said it varies by manufacturer. I have 31 x 10.5" BFG KO's on my explorer and I think the actual width is something like 10.3". And the height is 30.7."
  • More of tbunder's misinformation:

    6 of 22 lonesomeduv...... by tbunder Feb 05, 2002 (10:28 pm)
    i dont know if you know this or not, but you can get the locking differential WITHOUT getting the TRD package. you're more likely to have a less common truck if you DON'T get the TRD. they're all over these days. they once were few and far between, but as common as any off-road pkg'd truck now a days. it really is a good off-road pkg. however. it really is just some bilstein shocks and the locker. a set of 4 bilstein shocks and an automatic lock-right locker can be had for $600 if you really wanted to save some cash. good luck.

    Not quite, tbundy. A lot of hard science goes into building an awesome suspension. Simply slapping on a set of Bilsteins isn't going to do the trick. As for Tacoma TRDs being all over now - wasn't it you who kept spouting the Ranger is superior because they're the #1 seller? So does that mean the more Tacoma TRDs there are, the more superior they will be?!
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    If a locker and 4 Bilsteins can be had for $600, and TRD package is $1200 (or in that neighbourhood), then you are sort of screwed, because fender flares and wheels would be $600, which they arent. 4 Bilsteins and a locker on Toyota are $300, locker being $280 as a separate option. So you can have locker with Bilsteins for far less than $600. TRD locker seems to perform pretty good.
  • cheap, then why can't Ford put one on their FX4? Oh yeah, they need to fix their exploding axles/diffs first!
  • tbundertbunder Posts: 580
    put a part on a truck, that even though without it, it will still outsell your tacoma by over 100,000 units? why is it that the tacoma can't even come close to the ranger's sales numbers? that IS the ultimate question. you guys all say toyota is superior and everyone knows this. if so, why doesn't it sell like it's supposedly built? pluto??????........
  • That's easy. People like you (as well as myself at one time which is why my wife drives a Ford) are willing to get a little less and save a few bucks. You know this is true but seem to be unwilling to accept the fact. Same reason people buy a Camaro rather than a Vette or a Porsche. Is a Camaro as good as a Corvette because they sell a lot more Camaros? When I got my first Camaro Z28 in 1979, the Corvette was only about 2K more. The Camaro sold like crazy while the "superior" performing Vette sold in far lower numbers.
  • tbundertbunder Posts: 580
    a little less? allknowing, you're smarter than that (aren't you?). how can one get a little less, when ford offers so much more for so much less? i think you have it backwards. the ONLY thing toyota has over ford in options, is a locking rear diff. and with the money saved buying a ranger, that could be had very easily and with a lot of cash still left over. a camaro/vette/porsche analogy is ludicrous. those cars aren't even close to being in the same class. however, tacoma and ranger are. and when over 100000 people seem to want to "get a little less" with rangers as compared to tacomas, the vehicle speaks for itself. people simply want it because they know it has proven itself over the last 15 years as being #1. even when it didn't have the 207 horse SOHC 4.0, it wooped the tacoma by the thousands. it virtually has no competition, and ford knows this. maybe that's why they could care less to put a locker on it. why? that would just cost more. people buy it without it, so why bother? your little dream of tacoma being so much better than ranger, and these hundreds of thousands of people who choose ranger over tacoma, being in your mind, somehow too naive to figure out that there is this black sheep of a truck out there lurking in the distance is just that, a dream.

    even when ranger sales declined this year, they wooped the tacoma at the showroom. what's it gonna take? about $3500 off the msrp, that would be a start. and maybe some thicker doors and some better build quality on the rear of the cabs. some real skidplates. perhaps a re-freshed interior with no '80's materials. maybe actually being able to get abs, not to even mention getting it standard like rangers. these little things are what most buyers want, the reason ranger outsells tacoma. oh yeah, the deeper bed and more towing capacity. i could continue all night. yeah, you can bring up the recalls, (the whole 1 in '01), but the fact is simple. people think the ranger is the better truck, and they prove that year in and year out at the dealer's showroom floors. 'nuff said.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    kg11 brought up a good point. How does it feel when you are constantly getting screwed by Ford, when they can build Lincoln so that it doesnt have fuel system leaks (Escape)? Ford seems to be getting rich off you guys by giving you a half-finished product (whether it's a design defect or a manufacturing defect of great magnitude..the 1 blown tranny on a DC Tacoma doesnt even come close to 20K Escapes with leaking fuel system)
    That doesnt exactly happen in the Toyota vs. Lexus.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    Be careful what you wish for.......thicker doors? Then Ranger is going to be lighter than Tacoma, and what? Can we then start saying that "Why don't they make Rangers out of real steel, and not tin"?
    Btw, I'm still waiting for that msg. # where you said you provided me with a link to Camry defects (nevermind the fact that I've already read them, but you said I was stupid enough not to read the msg. So where is it?)

    As for bestseller Ranger: call it Toyota business strategy. It's easier to be the underdog, and make it through the tough times without having to layoff 30K people. The strategy makes sense: don't flood the market with the product, but keep the demand a little up. You spoke of TRD being on every other Tacoma out there, so it wasnt "unique" anymore. If you are so concerned about unique, what a hell are you doing driving a Ranger?
  • When stating "a little less" I was referring to quality. I own a Toyota and a Ford and I think the Ford is a great truck but it honestly isn't to the quality level of the Toyota. You're welcome to your opinion, however, you have no supporting evidence (other than your own opinion) to support your claim that people choose the Ford because it's a better truck. I think it's mainly price. I like Ford a lot but my repeated experience has supported the higher quality level of Toyota and Nissan. I'm sure that everyone has not had the same experience as me but I think that the odds are in my favor.
  • tbundertbunder Posts: 580
    doesn't happen to toyota or lexus? aren't you the one who posted the recall info on that crappy I-4 engine in the tacoma vs. ranger thread?. i didn't exactly read the article (could care less), but it doesn't exactly sound like that engine was built right (design defect?? omg, toyota? nah!!!) and toyota evidently didn't want to stand behind it. please remove your foot bud. oh, but how could this happen to toyota? with cover ups like this, its no wonder they have a reputation for reliability. when something does come up, they try like heck to worm their way out of it and not stand behind it. at least ford steps up to the plate and backs its customers. they bought me two sets of tires, no questions asked. oh, im not driving a ranger anymore my man. one vehicle family at the moment.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    But yeah, it might get another recall. Either design defect or quality problem, no question about it, however, it's rather hard to track them since this sludge problem affects engines after good milage (in most cases). Ford also tries to wiggle out of problems. Thats why the "suggested tire pressure" recall is there, prior to the tire recall. Could have saved few more people if they went ahead and recalled the tires instead of telling people to pump up the pressure.
    I'm not trying to say that Toyota is perfect. It just seems heck of a lot better than the Ford alternative.
  • Ranger is better because of sales debate??? So the better car always has higher sales numbers? Tbunder, only you would be gullible enough to believe that (after all, you bought what you thought was a locker equipped Ranger!!!). Seriously, I bet Chevy sold more Vegas in the 1970s in the US than Toyota sold Corollas. So, by extension, the Vega was the better car? PULEEEZE...everybody recognizes the Vega for the automotive disaster it was. Same can be said for Pintos and Pacers. Maybe more of those were sold than Toyotas, but would that make them better?

    I'm not saying the Ranger is an automotive disaster; rather, I'm just giving examples of "more sold = better" is not true.

    BUT, I still have a question. If Toyotas are over-rated and over-priced, why does everybody keep saying "My Ford IS AS GOOD as your Toyota?" Or "My Chevy IS AS GOOD as your Toyota." Or "My Dodge IS AS GOOD as your Toyota." Sorry, but I don't hear the Toyota folks saying their Toyota IS AS GOOD as a Ford, Chevy or Dodge.

    Just how did Toyota become the benchmark to which everything else is compared?
  • 2k1trd2k1trd Posts: 301
    will never change the fact that the Tacoma is a better built vehicle than the Ranger period.Just today i was working on a 97 Ranger 2wd with 45k on it and the left front radius arm bushings were worn out and caused the vehicle to pull left while braking due to the caster changing when the arm would move towards the rear.Now this is just one example of how you just don't have these kind of problems with Toyota products due to build quality.
  • tbundertbunder Posts: 580
    sk1trd- you really can't base that situation you're talking about on the ranger in general and say that all rangers do that, or have that problem. are you saying that never has there been any toyotas with a problem at 45k miles? i can vouch for ranger here, my dad still has an '88 ranger 4x4 4-cyl., and never has he had any steering components or any other drivetrain problems. it now has over 200K miles on it. that truck you talked about may have been abused, who knows. forgive my callousness, but if you conclude that all rangers are not well built just because of that problem, you are very naive.

    ive heard numerous problems with these newer tacoma trucks. seems they leak around body components and inside soaking the carpet, they emit squeaks from the engines, dashes are coming apart, complaints on very thin doors, very uncomfortable seats, and i also read about an exploding transmission.(to read the list or reviews, visit the rangerIII forum and look for the link to this list.) do i conclude that all toyotas are like this as you did with the ranger? no. but the quality isn't as you guys would like to believe. it may be good, but so was my ranger bud. i drove a tacoma about two months ago. it was nice, but not as nice as my ranger inside. the dash was old fashioned, and it didn't even have a cd changer or abs. it was a tight truck, but no tighter than my ranger, or my previous explorer for that matter. ill admit they're nice and for the most part pretty solid, but for the premium it takes to get into one, id take the ranger any day. easier to get parts for, and less expensive to operate. and with the ford, i know that when it gets up there in mileage, i won't have an engine issue with sludge buildup like some toyota owners are experiencing as we speak.

    pluto- that sales thing and the more standard horsepower are still bothering you, ain't they?
    also, care to comment on the new toyota "bulletproof" engine problem that scorpio so bravely made us aware of? did they put that engine in your beloved corolla?
    oh yeah, the focus is now the most mass produced car in the world. re-check your facts bud. it is also the worlds best selling car too. the corolla is nice, but can't compete with the focus worldwide on the sales floor.
  • tbundertbunder Posts: 580
    pluto, here's how good your little 5 years or 60,000 miles powertrain warranty is. and as far as toyota customer service is concerned? you got $8000 lying around? and you guys talk about toyota quality? i had previously ignored the link, but out of curiosity, i read it. toyota was in my mind, equal to nissan or ford. now, they're right there with dodge and chrysler. PLUTO- read this and hope you didn't change your own oil or take it to any other place than the dealer.


    http://www.autonews.com/news.cms?newsId=1534


    2k1trd- LMAO. toyota quality? yep, sure. id much rather replace a bushing than a whole engine.

  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    I guess 7 recalls for it in 2000 speak for themselves, don't they?
    tbunder, where did you hear of numerous problems with Tacoma trucks? Is that the same as "I've heard of problems with transmissions" when you read one message here about tranny that failed? Gimme a link where I might read about this rattling dash and soaking carpets.
    And for more standard horsepower.....it's not bothering me, at least. Pluto will tell you that a factory warrantied charger will spank any of your Rangers anywhere. I'm just gonna laugh and think "Yeah, look at them. Toyota's dominated them for 6 years with the V6, and Ford is being stupid by sticking a new engine into Ranger every 2 years, trying to beat it".
    The 3.4L in Tacoma seems to work no problem. There are people who get up into 100K+ with a charger without engine problems. Sienna just got out of luck. But dealers are being pricks for charging to put it back together. Nothing that a lawyer can't take care of, though.
  • tbundertbunder Posts: 580
    hehe, that supercharger is what it takes to beat ranger horsepower. for $3000, a ranger owner could also put one on and make even more power than tacoma with a s/c. apples to apples. and it does also have a warranty. and to top it off, the ranger will still be around $3000 less after the s/c than a tacoma with its s/c. also, you know what? before the SOHC 4.0, the old 4.0 was down on power to the 3.4, 30 horse, but IT STILL HAD MORE TORQUE. so to say that the 3.4 beat it for years, that is a lie. the thing that really matters in trucks is torque after all, and the old pushrod 4.0 still had more of it than your wimpy 3.4. not to mention the ranger has always spanked the tacoma at the sales thingy. hasn't it?

    its too bad your little toyota quality is fastly falling down hill. you know as well as i do that this is a potentially crippling blow to your 'american' company's reputation. those two engines are the lifeline of toyota's products. how would you like to have your toyota sitting in the shop since july of '01 just praying for the day your lease expires? wow, that toyota customer service is killer, eh? i wonder what it feels like making payments on a car that won't run because at 31K miles, it froze up. hehe.
  • tbundertbunder Posts: 580
    scorpio- a recall sometimes really isn't a bad thing. it means that the company is recalling it and fixing under their expense. at least ford does this, toyota is trying to "skip the country" on this sludge thing. how many FX4 rangers had problems? 800 or so? you don't see ford saying, "well its your fault for popping the clutch" or something like that. they're paying for it. let's see toyota recall all these engines with sludge freeze-ups and step up to the plate and admit fault. then you can throw your focus argument into the ring. before that, you're really not helping your debate. also, as you say, the first year of a vehicle is always bad. that was focus' first year. no excuse, but under your philosophy, it makes sense. just like the new camry's recalls?
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    don't mean a thing. You ought to learn that by now. Just because 10000 people jump off a cliff, are you gonna do it too? Charger or no charger, the fact alone that it'll be under Toyota warranry is enough.
    If you are gonna push your point of view through, then Nissan quickly falls out of picture here, because their "210 hp supercharged V6" is a joke without the charger (in fact it's a joke with it too). Torque wise: duh. Ranger has .6L more displacement, sure it'll give more torque. However, what I fail to understand (I simply don't know) is how Ranger puts out an engine that has roughly 16% more displacement and produces under 10% more hp and torque. Isuzu V6 thats put in Rodeo makes 210hp.
    As for you making weird statements about "crippling blow" and me making payments....it's not a crippling blow. Life will go on. People will continue to buy Toyotas. People have to be STUPID enough to let their car sit in a shop since July '01 waiting for lease to expire. Get a lawyer, get to court. Thats what lawyers do. Most of them would jump at the opportunity.
    I wonder what it feels like to make payments on a truck that runs on tires that explode under you...what does it feel like? :)
    As for "how many": 3500 out of 3M something. Toyota is not recalling all the engines.
    As far as Focus goes: 7 recalls in first year? 5 on Escape. It's not called "Quality #1". It's more like "Beta customers #1". Let the customers sort out the bugs in our product. 1-2 recalls are reasonable. 5 is stupid. 7 is unacceptable.
    I'm admitting that Toyota may have screwed up with the engines. And even that some of those people have a legitimate reason to be pissed off. But it seems that those people arent dealing with the situation as it should be dealt with. That lady with Sienna has been out on the net whining about it for ages, or so I heard. For all I know, I'm set to treat my trucks' engine with care: synthetic oil, good filters, engine cleaners. 5 days a week I'm a stop'n'go driver, and only get some good highway ride on weekends. So I'm going to take care of the truck accordingly. It would be stupid to make the company pay for the drivers mistakes. You can't expect Ford to replace your frontend if you rearend someone at a light because you were talking on a cellphone and werent paying attention, can you? I'm not defending the way Toyota is handling the situation, it's rather sad how the press release said "Well, our engines are perfect, it's your god damn fault" :), but there's some truth to both sides of the story.
  • tbundertbunder Posts: 580
    wouldn't know how it feels to drive on tires that explode. ford bought me a set for my explorer and a set for my ranger. they didn't try to weasel their way out of it like toyota is doing now. again, you're downplaying the whole toyota problem. you yourself have always bragged on toyotas loyalty and reliability. now that a problem is brimming, you're saying it may not be their fault? whatever dude.

    a warranty is a warranty. backed by toyota or backed by paxton or vortech. on a ranger or tacoma, it will be covered. so what's your point on that one? also, the nissan isn't in this argument. im sure it is a bulletproof engine. ive heard stories of the 3.3 going into the 400000 mile range, and no head gaskets leaking either. but remember, it is charged at the factory, you don't have to tear down or modify an otherwise perfect engine to have a charger. it is built with it. and for the same price as a regular 3.4, you can have the more power and torque that the nissan s/c offers as compared to a regular 3.4 tacoma.

    as far as the numbers go on this toyota engine problem, it's early. im sure when the public hears of toyota finally admitting they knew they had a problem, a whole lot more customers will come forward with claims.

    but pluto says that toyota is known for its benchmark quality- is this it? can't even build a 4-cylinder engine to exceed 40K miles? please.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    Ford did try to weasel out of tire replacements: thats why the "recommended tire pressure" recall is there. Only when faced with the extreme reality did they recall tires.
    I'm not trying to downplay the problem. There hasnt been a recall yet. We'll see what happens. If Toyota admits the engine problem, so be it.
    Nissan engine was not designed as a charged engine. It was made as naturally-aspirated 3.3L. Thats what is in Frontier, only the Xterra and Frontier S/C have a charger sitting on top of it. Same thing really as the TRD charger: can order it from factory, have it covered under warranty.
    Toyota can build an engine to last. If they couldnt, none of the 96 tacos would be on the road today. Nor 97s or 98s. There are people with 99s that have 80K+ miles on them (on ttora board), they are still running. So there seems to be some other factor present here, otherwise all the engines would fail. So far there are no 3.3M pissed off customers, only about 3500.
  • eagle63eagle63 Posts: 599
    "a recall sometimes really isn't a bad thing"

    -wow. I'm writing this one down in the quote book....
  • tbundertbunder Posts: 580
    scorpio- you cannot order it from the factory with a s/c on tacoma. never has a tacoma been built by toyota with a s/c on it. it has to be installed by someone after it is built and delivered to the dealer. it is not an open option you can check when ordering one.

    eagle- when a company recalls a product, this means they have proven knowledge that there is a problem with it. when recalled, this means they will fix it at their expense. toyota is not doing this. they are putting all the blame on the customers and acting like its their fault and they could really care less. at least with the focus recalls, ford took care of the problem. so to be so sarcastic about this, is just your immaturity coming out i guess. most of the time, recalls only affect a certain amount of vehicles at a time. so it could be worse, and it may be better. depends on number of vehicles affected. but at least under a recall, the manufacturer pays for it. toyota won't step up and admit fault here. it sure is pitiful. love that toyota quality though. NOT!
  • The TRD supercharger is a option that you can order on your vehicle. Yes it will be installed by the dealer, however, many American cars do the same with items like air conditioning which is often installed by the dealer rather than from the factory.

    As for the sludge problem, time will tell if Toyota is playing games with customers or if the customer is at fault. While you praise Ford in their handling of recalls though, keep in mind that they only replaced all of the Firestone tires when the Federal Government began to consider taking them to court to force then to take action. I got refunded for mine but only after almost a year after I had replaced them because of the news of the problem. The Explorer SOHC 4.0 cam and timing chain problem was another issue that Ford ignored for several years, charging customers thousands to replace engines before the numbers with problems became too great and they had to take action.

    It will be interesting to see if this sludge issue is really a problem and, if so, what action Toyota takes. If Toyota is in the wrong, I'll gladly join with you in condemning the company.
  • tbundertbunder Posts: 580
    id like to know exactly how many people order cars and then have a/c installed on them when they get there (why would they do this when a/c is so easily available except with toyota which makes it an option on most vehicles.). you could probably count on one hand. id say that more than 99% of all american cars come with a/c as standard equipment. and those that don't have it, didn't want it in the first place. bad analogy. but to order a s/c on a tacoma, it is NOT an option you can check. you can go to the parts dept. and order it, but that's all. don't believe me? call your toyota dealer and find out. if it isn't in the brochure, toyota hardly offers it. just like abs. try finding a tacoma with this on it, even though it says its available in the brochure. a s/c? yep, for a very premium price. and some strange guy putting it on your brand new truck. no thx bud.

    you must have not did the firestone refund thingy correct. i had a refund directly from ford within 3 weeks. the ranger i had? had the full price of my new BFG's ten days after i took the old tires to the dealer i bought my truck at. the cool thing with the explorer's refunded tires is i saved the receipt just in case ford did recall them. and they did. but not from pressure from the gov't. they did it on their own behalf. only after ford did recall all of them, firestone recalled them all. that's why i praise ford so much, they stepped up and put new tires on every vehicle with firestones. and then, firestone finally recalls them, after ford already paid for most of them.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    Manufacturer is not supposed to have 7 recalls on a vehicle. That shows just how much they can't build vehicles. I'm in software industry. If my company was releasing its product, and then having 7 patches for it because customers started calling and saying "Hey, this thing doesnt work and you said it would", where would my company be now? Down in the drain. Whether its a new product or just an upgrade, everything is tested in and out to make sure that no bugs are released to customers. Apparently, Ford doesnt think so. Neither does Toyota. That rattle in the dash......great. You are having a great time looking for messages like that and then going "Ha-ha, Toyota sucks, your dash rattles. Ford is #1". You're like a little kid. Grow up, will ya? It all looks suspisions how that message suggenly got posted, but I'm not gonna suggest anything.
    Toyota will gladly install a charger on your engine. Wanna know why? Because the margin of profit for that job is immense.

    As for Ford and tires.....please, don't try to make Ford look like an angel on earth. They did try to tell people that it was their fault for blowing up tires, because tire pressure wasnt high enough, did nt they?
  • eagle63eagle63 Posts: 599
    "when recalled, this means they will fix it at their expense. toyota is not doing this. they are putting all the blame on the customers and acting like its their fault and they could really care less."

    -so let me get this straight, you've taken a random story you heard on Edmunds and are using it to make the generalization that Toyota never takes care of their customers?? Has your never ending quest to find fault with Toyota forced you to sink to this?
    I think it's great that you're a Ford fan. Since you seem to like recalls so much, they should keep to happy for many years to come....
  • No you missed my point in both cases. First, on an item like air conditioning, even if it was ordered on a new vehicle it is not always installed at the factory. Your blessed company Ford, for example, has had this policy in the past. In the 80's even vehicles that were special ordered from Ford had the AC installed by the dealer rather than the factory in some cases. My local dealer told me that Ford did that on certain vehicles but didn't give me a good explanation on why. Aside from that, the point was that if you special order a Tacoma with a super charger, it will be installed at delivery.

    As far as the Firestone tires, remember that Ford's first recall only included a limited dot code group of tires, even though accidents and deaths had occurred with all Firestone Wilderness tires. I replaced my wife's tires almost a year before Ford acknowledged the fact that all of these tires presented a problem. In fact, I suppose you could say that many died as a result of Ford NOT accepting responsibility for the entire scope of the problem. I may also add that you need to do a bit more homework before you erroneously state that Government pressure didn't push Ford into recalling all of the tires because that's beyond speculation and a hard fact. I suppose Ford could have fought the Government in court, however, with the almost weekly fatal accidents happening at the time, I'm sure that Ford's lawyers saw no hope of winning the case.
This discussion has been closed.