First Impressions — Better Ride, Touchy Brakes - 2016 Toyota Tacoma Long-Term Road Test

Edmunds.com

First Impressions — Better Ride, Touchy Brakes - 2016 Toyota Tacoma Long-Term Road Test

After driving our 2016 Toyota Tacoma for the first time, I came away impressed with its improved ride quality. Here's why.

Read the full story here

nagant

It is a lot better looking than the Colorado IMO.

daryleason

" [The Toyota Tacoma] feels closer to a full-size truck in this regard, which is no small feat."

You're right about it being no small feet. The "small" (or "mini") trucks became "mid-size" trucks in the early 2000s. Now, the mid-size trucks are nearly as large as full-size trucks from 20 years ago. As the trucks have gotten larger, their wheelbase has increased. Increase the wheelbase, and you increase the weight. Increase the weight, you adjust the suspension, tuning it to ride like you want.

They feel like a full-size truck because they nearly are a full-size. The Colorado is what, a foot shorter than a comparable Silverado? That's not much of a difference, in my opinion. You could actually get a regular cab short bed full size that was smaller than the Mid-size Colorado or Tacoma. Car companies have lost their way when it comes to small affordable trucks.

aspade

That's an absurd exaggeration. The Tacoma is 700 pounds lighter than the aluminum bodied Ford and well over 1000 pounds lighter than the steel trucks in the segment. The Tacoma's GVWR is 300 pounds lighter than the Ram sits empty. The Tacoma's wheelbase is 13-17" shorter, its track is 4-5" narrower, its roof is 6-7" lower than the half ton field. In short, in every physical respect it's absolutely dwarfed.

ab348

Any comments about the seating position? That was always one of the worst features of the previous model. It felt like you were sitting on the floor.

daryleason

@aspade : So, thank you for the stats on the vehicles. But if you'll notice, I said specifically that the mid-size trucks are almost as large as the full-size trucks from 20 years ago. Now, I don't have to time to pull the info on the weights (plus, there's a lot of variables that come into play with weight), but I did have the time to run a quick comparison on sizes between three trucks. I chose to make them all extended cab, shortbed trucks to try and be consistent.

1996 Chevy C1500 VS 2016 Chevy Colorado:
Wheelbase = 131.5 VS 128.3 (3.2 inches difference)
Length = 213.1 VS 210.5 (2.6 inches difference)
Width = 76.8 VS 74.1 (2.7 inches difference)
Height = 73.2 VS 70.1 (3.1 inches difference)

That seems to me to be pretty strong indications of a comparable full-size truck (by standards of 20 years ago).

Now, if you were to compare a 2006 Chevy Colorado VS a 2016 Chevy Colorado:
Wheelbase = 128.3 VS 126 (2.3 inches)
Length = 210.5 VS 207.1 (3.4 inches)
Width = 74.1 VS 68 (6.1 inches)
Height = 70.1 VS 65 (5.1 inches)

Doesn't seem TOO much bigger from a ten year old Mid-size pickup, until you remember than GM marketed the Colorado/Canyon as the largest mid-size you could buy (whether it's true or not, I don't know).

My actual point in my original posts was that the car designers have gotten crazy stupid with their truck dimensions. When they were making huge boats as cars back in the late 60s thru the 70s, no one really seemed to say "wow...that's too big." Now, the car companies are repeating themselves with pickup trucks and SUVs.

nagant

"My actual point in my original posts was that the car designers have gotten crazy stupid with their truck dimensions. When they were making huge boats as cars back in the late 60s thru the 70s, no one really seemed to say "wow...that's too big." Now, the car companies are repeating themselves with pickup trucks and SUVs. "

Ummm there was a huge demand for compact cars during the late 1950s, that is why the Valiant, Falcon and Corvair were introduced for the 1960 model year. Along with Rambler, compact car sales were HUGE for American car makers in the 60s and 70s. Because not everybody wanted a big car. They also made huge cars because there was a market for them. The market follows demand and since Ford sells 3/4 million F150 year after year, I think they know the market......along with GM and Ram. Big SUV sales are decent but compact CUV/SUVs are the hottest thing on the market and mid sizers are the meat of the market.

allthingshonda

Not exactly fair to compare a new truck to one 20 years ago. Buyer expectations and needs have changed and evolved as the trucks have. The new Honda Civic is almost as big as a Honda Accord was 20 years ago. In those 20 years both the Civic and the Colorado have smaller engines that make more power but more fuel efficient than their grandfathers. The Colorado V6 has 100 more horsepower than the 1995 Silverado 5.7 V8 which it allows it to haul and tow as much as or more than the Silverado could 20 years ago. Change is good.

daryleason

Change is good. But what I'm saying is that "mid size" isn't mid size. So when you say "well, it rides almost like a full size truck" that's because it's starting to creep into full size territory. And you're right, all vehicles have grown significantly. I don't have a problem with the vehicles themselves. I have a problem with how they're trying to market them.

daryleason

@nagant : I didn't say that the car companies only made one size of a vehicle. What I'm talking about is that cars get bloated over time. Then the industry does a "readjustment" on the sizes. From the 40s thru the 70s, cars got progressively larger and bloated. Then the fuel crisis hit in the 70s and The Big Three freaked out because the Japanese started importing their smaller, fuel efficient cars. In the 80s, things were sort of "reset" on sizes. Vehicles started having their mass cut way down. Then, in the 2000s, they started growing drastically again. Now, we have Full Size Trucks that take up massive space, but more for styling than necessity. I will give Ford, GM, & Ram credit that they can haul and tow more now than ever before. And the fuel economy isn't bad as a consequence. But my issue is that the car companies say "Oh, we'll call it a mid-size" when really it's not. So looking at it from a different perspective, if they'd REALLY build a mid-size, think of how much better the fuel economy could be with the reduction in weight of the vehicle alone.

allthingshonda

All car companies do extensive market research. Apparently Toyota and GM both concluded that a small regular cab truck like the old S-10 or Toyota truck (it didn't have a name back in the day) is not going to appeal to buyers. Nissan toyed with the idea of making a small truck like they did 20 years ago but decided against it. The cost of the required safety equipment and making the structure strong enough to pass crash tests would price it to close to the bigger and more powerful Tacoma and GM twins.

daryleason

@allthingshonda : I'll buy in on some of what you're saying. Buyers are bad about wanting larger vehicles. But I disagree about the costs of the safety equipment pushing it to being as high as what they currently call a full-size truck. First, there's plenty of really small economy cars that prove the safety equipment can be done on a small vehicle and keep the price down. Second, even the car manufacturers admit that SUVs & pickups are cash-cows for them with extremely high markups. Third, market research can be skewed whichever direction you want it to go. Back when the car companies were investing in small pickups, their demands were huge. In the late 80s thru the early 90s, Ford was batting homeruns on vehicles. The best selling vehicle, period, was the F-150, followed by the Ford Taurus, with the Ranger trailing slightly behind. But after the redesign in 1993, Ford pretty much abandoned the Ranger. Sales started tapering off. So by the time they decided to kill it in 2010, Ranger sales looked like the market had dried up. It only dried up because they stopped doing anything with it.