Printable View
My 2006 Nissan Xterra is nearing the end and either a Tundra Double Cab or Tacoma Double Cab will likely be replacing it.
What sort of "real world" fuel mileage are you seeing (assuming stock"ish" tires, etc.)?
Folks find the Tacoma Double Cab roomy enough for gear storage and occasional passengers?
Any other relevant info that might not be immediately obvious after a brief test drive would be appreciated.
Dad just got into a 2015 Tundra crew cab 4x4, the back seat is larger than a Camry, the fuel economy on the highway is better than his 2005 Tundra was with the 4.7L engine but this is a 5.3L I think. He 460km or so on $55 this past weekend, he said his range estimator said he had another 200km to go, he is very happy so far but only has had it for a month or so, it is not a small truck.
I have a 2010 Tacoma. Very, very happy with it. Back seat has ample room for 2 guys.
When I bought it I wasn't interested in a full size truck. I've had them and wanted to try a midsize.
Mid size is great for handling and parking etc. But losing the full size bed in the back - I miss.
I would love a full size Tundra.
Last week I read an article about North American vehicles related to maintence costs.
The Toyotas rated No. 1 followed by Fiat (volkswagon) and Kia. (yes Kia)
At the bottom was GMC and Dodge.
Got a 2016 Tacoma Double cab. Tundras are too big unless you tow all the time or need to carry a family of six the dog and a fifth wheel trailer.
Attachment 35971
Attachment 35972
Attachment 35973
Any questions?
As for gear...If it don't all fit in the truck I take this.
Attachment 35974
Attachment 35975
It's got some ground clearance.
Funny I've been considering a Tacoma as well. I've been stopping guys I see climbing out of them and asking questions. No bad reveiws yet.
I had a 2005 Tacoma and retired that one and got a 2016 new edition.
I loved the 4.0 in the 2005. It wasn't great in gas but did ok. I don't speed around so it got decent mileage. The 2016 has a new motor with more hp but less torque. I notice it a bit when I tow but it is nicer to drive as a daily. The 2016 has a 6 speed transmission. I find it changes heard more often for efficiency on hills or under load. The 2016 if I'm up north I will get 10/100 but I'm the city about 12/100 but usually less. Like I said I don't speed around and typically 110km is my max on 400's. Both trucks if you start going over 120 you will notice a dip in gas.
The 2005 was plenty roomy. I'm 6'3" 250lb. We had four big dude, 2 aluminum boats, and all the gear to go with it going down some of the goat trails in Gowganda no problem. The 2016 i find a bit more cramped. I still fit ok but you can tell that the cabin is small as well as the back seat. I think this might have to do with the dash design and the airbags everywhere.
I'm still very happy with both. I can't fit a full size in my garage and I like the nimble mid size to go down atv and goat trails. I have no regrets. As a truck I miss my 2005 but as a daily driver I love my 2016.
My 2012 KIA Optima with 270,000 plus KM on it has been virtually maintenance free except for oil/filter changes and a couple of sets of tires. Still waiting for them to put out a mid-size truck.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roper
I had a 1998 Tacoma that I put near 400,000km on before the frame recall bought it back off me. I had the 4 banger in it and loved it for everything but towing (which I do maybe 3 or 4 times a year - a boat or the ice hut).
I got into a 2008 Tundra Double Cab SR5 4.7L with 6.5' box. I don't like towing a trailer so I didn't want to give up the box room by going to a crew cab. My yamaha atv fits in the 6.5 with the tailgate closed. My snowmachine fits in with very little track needing to hang off the tailgate.
I commute about 35km of highway and 5km of city 5 days a week and I average 14-15L/100. I'm pretty easy on the pedal, but I do have a set of BFG KO2s mounted a couple sizes above stock.
I'm 6' tall. I am much more comfortable in the Tundra than I was in the Tacoma. I often tell people who ask the difference is the Tundra cab is like chair height seats while the Taco cab feels like a car interior - your feet and legs are way out in front of you. Maybe the newer Tacos are different, I haven't sat in a Taco newer than 2010.
Not sure if you've got kids but I have a rear facing child seat behind the passenger seat. It doesn't leave a pile of room for the passenger so my wife is looking forward to turning the seat around as soon as safe to do so for the little fella.
For what it's worth if you're buying brand new I just saw the new 2018 Tundra and it is sweet. With mine at 10 years old and 270,000km it sure is tempting, but mine is still running strong and doesn't owe me a penny.
MB
Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk
You regear to the right rear end ratio for your tires and you'll get the fuel mileage and power back. You would have had 255/65R18 or 275/65R18 for stock, so what are you running now?Quote:
Originally Posted by mbhunter
I took 255s off and running 275s now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowwalker
Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk
I think the stock ratio is 4.10 or at least it was in my 2000 with an automatic.Quote:
Originally Posted by mbhunter
A new set of 4.27( front and rear) will give your truck back It's pep..
You did but a 4X4 not the 2wd right?
my dad got the 2015 tacoma full cab. he loves it. mileage is great. we usually avg out to 11L/100km which is impressive for a 5 liter. so far he put about 60,000km and no complains
Yes it's 4x and I don't really notice the difference. Maybe if I was towing regularly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowwalker
Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk
You would notice a small increase in fuel mileage on a long highway trip with your truck being geared just a little bit higher then stock. As for stop and go slow speed city driving, you probably don't spend enough time in high gear to notice any lack of torque since your not towing.Quote:
Originally Posted by mbhunter
[QUOTE=mbhunter;1041145]
I commute about 35km of highway and 5km of city 5 days a week and I average 14-15L/100. I'm pretty easy on the pedal, but I do have a set of BFG KO2s mounted a couple sizes above stock.
Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk[/QUOTE
Oh my god, that's downright horrible, I almost went for a Taco 2 years ago but the gas mileage put me off. I can tow a 6 x 10 enclosed cargo trailer loaded with ATV, gas, water and a pile of camping gear for a week and still get under 12l/100km. 3.0 Ecodiesel running empty has got as low as 7.1 on a longer highway trip.
[QUOTE=Fisherman;1041892]He is geared( with his 275/65R18 tires) higher then stock. Needs to regear to 4.27 gears from the stock 255/65R18 and 4.10 gears to fix That. But It's his truck..Quote:
Originally Posted by mbhunter
Spoken like a true Dodge man! For a minute there I thought we were comparing Tacomas and Tundras.
By your specs it costs me about $8 more per tank to drive a Toyota over a Dodge.... tough sell.
:D just having fun. Thanks for your input on the Ecodiesel. I've heard some good things so far on that engine.
Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk
Those Toyotas are thirsty.....I get 11L/100km on my hemi... :)
Another vote for the Ram :)
Why is your hemi so bad on fuel? My Tacoma with a trailer and three people only gets as bad as 12L/100km. With no trailer and just running on the highway it down to 7 or 8 per 100km.Quote:
Originally Posted by kokes
On a side note. Lots of people that I talk to can't tell a Tacoma from a Tundra even when they are side by side. I think this confusion does not help when comparing trucks. It's not just toyota, some people can only tell if the truck is a Ford, Dodge, or Chevy. They have no idea that you have "Mid Size", "Full Size", F150, 1500, F250, 2500, and so on.
Toyota is not your only option. I looked at them 3 years ago and settled on the Colorado. More bang for the buck, the 3.6 L has been great on gas and with its 7,000 lbs capacity it tows my 24 feet Sportsmen camper with ease.
There will be a new Ford Ranger to look at next year as well if GM is not to your liking.
Attachment 36116