The midsize truck discussion thread

I'm pretty sure the only reason people buy Tacos is because they didn't cross shop.

We had a 1993 Toyota PU(2.4L, 4x4, 5spd) that was a fantastic truck. Very basic, did everything well and ran like a top until the transmission crossmember rusted out. I've since driven all three generations of Taco and none of them hold a candle to the pure utilitarian perfection of that 93 PU. Is the 3rd gen quieter? Better stereo? Sure. Does the 3rd gen go better offroad? Fit into small places? Have better driver controls and feel? Absolutely not. I drove my 96 cherokee back to back with my landlord's 2016 TRD Sport and I got to tell you, the Jeep did better in the snow and felt more stable on the highway.

When shopping for a new truck/SUV for myself I was down to JL/JT/Bronco/Taco. I am very happy with my choice of the JT Mojave. The controls feel much better, the truck is more stable(thanks LWB), I've got a manual transfer case, and the back seat feels better as a full sized human. Only downside is the bed length.

My FIL has a 2012 Tacoma (reg cab, 4cyl, auto, 4WD).  I've liked literally every Toyota I've driven except for that one.  The seating position is awful (low seat, high floor), and I'm just not a fan of the way it drives.  My '94 GMT400 K1500 drove light-years better, and was more comfortable.  My BIL has a Frontier of the same vintage and I prefer that over the Tacoma.  My FIL also had a late 90s Frontier reg cab, manual, 4x4 that I loved.

I've never driven a V6 extended/quad cab version of the Tacoma, so I can't issue a final verdict, but I haven't been impressed so far. 

Tacomas are super popular around here. It's pretty well THE vehicle for young tradesmen and many offroader wanabees. As someone who has spent his life around trucks, I don't mind the harshness of them, and the two that I've had were pretty well bulletproof. But unless you need a "true" truck, the Ridgeline is a lot nicer place to spend time in. I find the Rubicons intriguing, but they are mighty long, and I'd like to shrink the footprint of my next vehicle.

buzzboy said:

I'm pretty sure the only reason people buy Tacos is because they didn't cross shop.

I cross-shopped a lot on paper, but it was the only test drive I did. My needs were something that could get reasonable mileage, tow an Elise, tow a kart trailer, and carry a young family of four on long drives. I really like the Santa Cruz, but my wife nixed it on looks alone, and no manual option. Gladiator reviews universally hated its tow manners, and, since I couldn't tow anything during a test drive, I had to just assume those reviews were accurate. I didn't want a 'real' truck like an F150 or Silverado for a few reasons, size being the biggest (no pun intended). I also wanted a manual; I prefer towing with a manual because of less slipping and less hunting (supporting evidence: automatics get an extra cooler when equipped with the tow package). I can downshift before it needs to, so it is ready on time, and I much prefer that. The '23 Tacoma reviews also tended to hate the automatic's calibration. 

Given that I am also on the compact side (5'10", 150lb), I am glad I don't have anything bigger than the Tacoma. It also fits inside the garage, which is nice here in the south during the summer.  The extra 5" of the gladiator would not be easy. Style-wise, I prefer the Tacoma and Gladiator to the Ranger. The Colorado with the offroad package looks cool, but its tow and payload are worse than the Tacoma offroad trim. Also, no manual. 

After towing with mine now and living with it for a year, I've gotten fully used to how the engine likes to be ran, and it has worked great for my use case. If I were to replace it with anything, I'd strongly consider a 2nd gen manual, V6 Cayenne. Higher payload and tow ratings, slightly more power, better brakes. It says a lot though that I would still get another V6 manual. I replaced an E91 manual with the Tacoma, and the fuel cost has been about the same since the slightly worse mpg of the Tacoma is offset by the cheaper grade of gas. Biggest reason I didn't just get a Cayenne in the first place is that values have exploded to pretty close to the Tacoma, and I was tired of dealing with a high-miles German car given the bout of issues I had to fix on the E91. Now that that has worn off a bit, I'd probably jump on one if I found the perfect spec. 

In reply to cyow5 :

What is reverse like in the newer ones?  I had a 2013 Double Cab 6MT and reverse was not good for trailer use.   The gearing selected made the minimum speed you could do with the clutch full out about 10mph.  Which is a problem when backing a 6500lb trailer.   I would always put the truck in 4Low to minimize clutch wear but then turning felt like you where abusing the drivetrain because the diff's didn't like tight cornering in 4L on concrete.  

I ended up only keeping the Tacoma for about 18 months from new for many of the reasons people have discussed.  It just wasn't a great place to spend time. That said I only paid $1500 to own it for those 18months because of strong resale so..  I can't stay mad at it

nocones said:

In reply to cyow5 :

What is reverse like in the newer ones?  I had a 2013 Double Cab 6MT and reverse was not good for trailer use.   The gearing selected made the minimum speed you could do with the clutch full out about 10mph.  Which is a problem when backing a 6500lb trailer.   I would always put the truck in 4Low to minimize clutch wear but then turning felt like you where abusing the drivetrain because the diff's didn't like tight cornering in 4L on concrete. 

Reverse is way too high on the 3rd gen's as well. There's a 3rd party harness you can purchase that allows low range, 2WD mode for backing up trailers. I have one sitting in a box but I'm waiting to see how it tows before I go through the installation headache.

I was following the perfect midsize truck down the road today: Excellent ratio of bed volume to overall mass, low enough stance to make loading easy, reliable .... It's called the T100. Replaced by a truck whose first generation had similar attributes, but which has puffed into the same degree of bloat that domestic full-size pickups have. 

nocones said:

In reply to cyow5 :

What is reverse like in the newer ones?  I had a 2013 Double Cab 6MT and reverse was not good for trailer use.   The gearing selected made the minimum speed you could do with the clutch full out about 10mph.  Which is a problem when backing a 6500lb trailer.   I would always put the truck in 4Low to minimize clutch wear but then turning felt like you where abusing the drivetrain because the diff's didn't like tight cornering in 4L on concrete.  

I ended up only keeping the Tacoma for about 18 months from new for many of the reasons people have discussed.  It just wasn't a great place to spend time. That said I only paid $1500 to own it for those 18months because of strong resale so..  I can't stay mad at it

Yeah, you definitely don't want 4WD on concrete. I've read that about reverse and the 2LO wiring harness, but I've not felt the need yet. It certainly could have gotten a higher ratio, but, even in LO, you'd still have to feather the clutch most of the time. My driveway is very flat, and track paddocks are all flat by design. The kart track is gravel and has some incline to it, but I've been just fine with 2HI or very rarely 4HI. My tow usage is also payload limited, not tow weight. For karting, once I get my enclosed trailer to replace the current open one, I'll be maxing out payload because of the family, gear, water, and snacks on top of the tongue weight. Tracking, it is just me in the truck, so the 4,500 trailer, car, and tools is all I'll need, so, for my personal use cases, I don't think I'll be reversing 6,500lbs, and that makes a difference.   

I have had rentals of all the midsized recently.  The Nissan is the most basic and trucky. My butt didn't fit the seats well. But otherwise a solid machine. 
 

Tacoma was fine. I had a 1986 and loved my old Toyota truck. I didn't love the seating position. I must be getting old.  I do not understand the price premium of this thing over the others. Makes no sense. 
 

Chevy I liked the best for just driving around.  Was quiet and the 3.6 seemed to pull well. 
 

ford ranger  was probably what I'll buy when I'm done with my f150.  The engine trans combo is good and I felt like it fit better in the cab. 
 

thank you for coming to my ted talk. 
 

I'll say my 2.7 f150 gets 24mpg on my commute so I'm not sure why I'd want a smaller rig besides the ease of use parking.  

I was talking about the Maverick and its 4WD/AWD system, and was lamenting that it could be better. I was then struck by an idea: Do they not make them better because they think that a Maverick that is really capable off-road might steal sales away from the Ranger and F-150?