Rented & Tested an '08 Tacoma in the real world working environment warning (long)

[Basic Toy]

I rented and worked a 4x4 DC, Short bed ’08 Tacoma today, otherwise putting it through the paces of my daily life. I’ve been annoying most of you for the last two months with asking stupid questions about different configurations of the Tacoma. Since this truck is a work tool and a weekend warrior for me I want to make sure I get the exact truck I need hence why I’ve rented an ’08 Tundra 5.7L, ’08.5 Titan Crew w/ 7ft box and an ’08 Tacoma DC and borrowed an ’08 Frontier Crew Cab, long bed prior to purchasing, I highly recommend renting vehicle before you by it if applicable, but on to my review.

First off I currently own an ’07 RC Tacoma (5-Lug) it’s a great truck but not fantastic. The bench seat is as comfortable to deal with all day as stadium bleachers. Also the cab is perfect for a worker in my industry but not the boss no room for putting tools or files etc.. So I’ve decided since I teach classes for servicing & maintaining swimming pools in my area I need a full crew cab, an Access cab will not suffice, nor will a King Cab. Out of all the rigs I’ve driven the ’08.5 Titan is the most comfortable and best value and can be had at some $10K off the sticker. It fails in the fuel economy factor, and I found the Tundra to feel over power assisted in the steering and somewhat light feeling by comparison to the Tundra, also the best economy I could get after working that truck for a day was 14.7 mpg and about 14.2 in the Titan. Both of those trucks immediately axed off my short list based on fuel economy alone although I would really like the space of a 7ft box.

Since this is a Tacoma forum I will get to the meat & potatoes. I was surprised that I actually got as much stuff in the short box as I did. All the stuff I’ve loaded in the box equals about 600 lbs +/-. The 4x4 6-lug for some reason sags down more than my 5-lug and I can’t figure out why as it seems like there’s twice the ride height or suspension travel. Not a fair comparison as my 5-lug has X-Runner wheels & tires but the 4x4 DC I rented felt like the Queen Mary cornering and entering freeway on & off-ramps but I blame that mostly on the Grand-Sucks. I also noticed quite a bit of bump-steer, I notice a very subtle amount in my 5-lug but at least 3x’s more in the DC , truck has 3K miles on it so not sure if it is a problem or inherent with the configuration. Power from the 4.0, spectacular, unfortunately this is the only area the Tacoma shines in for me. Mash the pedal un loaded and the truck gives you what feels like bottomless torque. I still can’t figure out why the Tacoma feels more powerful than the Frontier with less Hp & Tq figures.

Things I was not to happy with, the Tacoma seems to dive and squat a lot with a load. I don’t notice this with the 5-lug but that may be because it’s lower to the ground? The suspension feels like it’s got less than 1” of travel, hitting the bump stops with just 600 lbs in the box?? I know this has been fixed on some of the latest ‘08’s due to the recall but still? I also can’t figure out why this truck has a vibration at 68 mph In the steering wheel? Could be alignment or tire out of balance, but the truck I rented had just 3K miles on it. The visibility out of the rear glass is abysmal thanks to the huge rear headrests, the glass surround appears smaller or narrower than the Frontier. I’m not to cool with how I cant slide anything under the rear seats without them in the folded position. My rental Tacoma had the velour SR5 beige interior and I could not find a comfortable position all day, the lower cushion and high floor make me feel like I’m sitting on the floor with my legs out? This has been a trait inherent with Toyota SUV’s & compact/ mid-sized trucks since the 1980’s. In the Tacoma’s defense the last Sport & X-Runner seats I sat in were 10X’s better and more supportive but then I lose the flip down feature as a work spot.

Summary of cons…

ØWeak rear suspension
ØAbysmal Brake effort when loaded
ØTepid handling loaded or unloaded, mostly an issue when loaded
ØHigh floor and bad seating position coupled with to soft of seat in general
ØPoor OEM tires
ØEngine is loud at times
ØTransmission hunts while slowing down a hill, could be normal though?
ØWeak tie down and poor bed rail system design but that’s a beaten dead horse



Summary of pros

ØMore than adequate power in any situation, passing etc…
ØCavernous rear seating area, great for tool boxes and file, misc..
ØGreat eye point and commanding view although compromise for handling & control
ØBest MPG of tested trucks 19.8!!! Better than my 2.7L with same load WTH?
Ø Easy to park and negotiate in a tight spot


Verdict after driving all of the trucks aforementioned I’m going to pickup an ’08 Nissan Frontier SE CC/ Longbed. With moon roof. I don’t feel the higher price point of the Tacoma is worth it even though I’m a die hard Toyota guy have owned four Tacomas in the past. The Tacoma was not a bad truck but going in to this with an open mind and I’m not a Nissan guy, yet my father has owned four Maximas with flawless reliability, I just don’t feel the Tacoma is as high and mighty as the general pubic perceives it to be. Again this thread was not intended as a bashing Tacoma discussion but a members real world cross examination against a varied group of trucks in a real working environment. I think it would be ideal for a homeowner but falls a bit short in a working environment.






Rented Truck



Rented Truck Bed


My Current 07 RC


Current RC Bed


-Ryan

[Basic Toy]

I cant emphasized enough and didn't highlight as much as I could have about how more efficient the 4.0L is than the 2.7L with the same load. I can get 26-27 mpg out of my 2.7L unloaded, but it's never unloaded. Loaded up and worked the best I get is 18.6-19.4 and every now and a gray moon 20 mpg if I'm light on chemicals that week. I loaded the 4.0L DC 4x4 up with maximum weight and ran the A/C all day, mixed driving hills, stop and go got 19.8!! I can live with that!. Anyone on the fence about getting a 4-Cyl thinking the gas millage will be better if you don't use the truck for work it will but if you use a truck for a truck and have it loaded 90% of the time the 4.0L gets the same if not better while giving you much more get up and go!

-Ryan

[05Moose]

FYI, the reason the Tacoma feels more powerful than the Frontier is because Nissan had to make the engine produce more power and torque to handle the extra weight of the vehicle. So, you don't really get to use any of that extra power in the Frontier.

[2 tacomas]

The rear-leaf TSB would eliminate the rear squat (at least w/ 600 lbs in the bed) and improve handling (i.e. less body roll at high speed cornering). If MPG's are one of your most important factors, the Fronty is going to be a disappointment for you.....the 4.0L in the Fronty doesn't do as well on MPG's as the Tacoma. Just do a search on clubfrontier and you will find plenty of info. You would have to get a TRD equipped Tacoma to get the seats you want (along with better shocks, tires, and stiffer suspension) and either TRD package adds a decent chunk of change to the final price of the truck.

It sounds like you have done your research and if you think the Fronty is the best choice for your work truck then get it.

Hope the Fronty works out for ya!

[Sony]

There is a TSB for the rear leafs in order to increase weight capacity. Also I don't know where you're getting this crappy brake performance stuff from?!? The Tacoma has the best braking capabilities of any of the midsized pickups at 70mph - 0mph in 121 feet.

It's your money but w/e.

[Basic Toy]

Originally Posted by Sony

There is a TSB for the rear leafs in order to increase weight capacity. Also I don't know where you're getting this crappy brake performance stuff from?!? The Tacoma has the best braking capabilities of any of the midsized pickups at 70mph - 0mph in 121 feet.

It's your money but w/e.

Theres no doubt the Tacoma can stop well, in fact I had a blackout a week a ago while driving for the first time in my life and my 5-lug saved my life. I looked up and traffic was at a stand still and I had to slam the brakes and was safely able to brake and steer around the Astro van that had stopped directly in front of me and did it in very short order. The Tacoma & myself walked away un scathed.

What I noticed in the DC Tacoma 4x4 was that there is a tremendous amount of dive and understeer when braking into a turn or in some circumstances, again mostly noticed with a load in the bed. I feel that if I had to brake and steer I might throw the rig into a roll it probably wont, but it feels like a boat in the water. I know I'm in a vehicle with very narrow tires with a tall sidewall and higher ground clearance but IMO it's not a very secure feeling.

I'm praying for impeccable reliability with the Nissan, I don't personally know anyone thats had bad luck with one. Also I'm going to miss the coveted "High Re-sale" of a Toyota down the road and the having a "Bad-Arse" truck status but drive ability, control with a load, a beefier bed rack system, lower starting price point and deeper discount is hard to pass up.

Believe me if I were buying a truck for pleasure and was going to lift & mod etc a DC/ LB/ 4x4 would be ideal. But stock for stock in a working environment the Nissan is a better tool. MPG differences between a Frontier & Tacoma are parasitic. I was willing to go to a full size if I could squeeze at least 16-15 ish from the Tundra/ Titan but no dice even driving like I had an egg under the go pedal, so the difference in MPG between a Frontier/ Tacoma isn't a big enough argument.

-Ryan

[slimcubby]

I see your a fellow pool man... I added a leaf in my truck (wheelers) to compensate for the lack of strength. Also you carry a ton of conditioner do you use a lot of it with your pools? Maybe some tips you can share lol. Oh also this may sound stupid but i just learned at the western pool and spa show that if you have your empty bottles upside down that can be a $500 fine.

[Snizirch]

Have you test drove a Tacoma with a TRD package? That should solve some of your problems. As for the tie downs, with what you carry it might be better just to get a topper like a few of the members here on the forum. I really think you would be better off looking at a TRD Tacoma wether it be a Prerunner or 4x4. The prerunner would be the cheaper option if you don't need 4wd.

I test drove a Frontier and to be honest the Tacoma rides much better. Granted I have a Access Cab, TRD Off Road with 4WD. I also felt that my interior when compared to the Frontier I drove was much nicer and seemed to be better thought out for what i was looking for. Toyota's for the most part are bullet proof and I have yet to be stranded on the side of the road with a Toyota. Plus I think the Frontier is just plain ugly compared to the Tacoma. Just my 2 cents.

[viper-2]

Originally Posted by Basic Toy

I cant emphasized enough and didn't highlight as much as I could have about how more efficient the 4.0L is than the 2.7L with the same load. I can get 26-27 mpg out of my 2.7L unloaded, but it's never unloaded. Loaded up and worked the best I get is 18.6-19.4 and every now and a gray moon 20 mpg if I'm light on chemicals that week. I loaded the 4.0L DC 4x4 up with maximum weight and ran the A/C all day, mixed driving hills, stop and go got 19.8!! I can live with that!. Anyone on the fence about getting a 4-Cyl thinking the gas millage will be better if you don't use the truck for work it will but if you use a truck for a truck and have it loaded 90% of the time the 4.0L gets the same if not better while giving you much more get up and go!

-Ryan

I'm glad I went with the 2.7. I disagree with your (unofficial) findings about the 2.7. I am amazed how people measure their gas mileage...19.8 my ass. Glad you are going with the Frontier...does this mean you will not be hanging around here now?

[Basic Toy]

Originally Posted by viper-2

I'm glad I went with the 2.7. I disagree with your (unofficial) findings about the 2.7. I am amazed how people measure their gas mileage...19.8 my ass. Glad you are going with the Frontier...does this mean you will not be hanging around here now?

Yeah still hanging around, I'm keeping my RC as I've got a new guy working for me so I will need to keep it. I'm not sure what you mean my unofficial and measuring gas? I probably go through more gas in one month than you all year, I've got the simple math down to science divide miles driven by gallons pumped in the tank not to hard unless I'm missing something?. Loaded as pictured in the aforementioned post my 2.7L RC will only pull off 18-20 mpg at best mixed driving, I do a lot of stop & go hills and around town. The 2.7 really works to keep pace loaded up as described earlier unless there was a huge difference with the meter when I was pumping fuel, I still put about the same $65 of fuel in that rental that I do in my 2.7L and calculated out 19.8, but seriously believe what you want to, obviously the V6 doesn't have to work nearly as hard to keep pace thus more efficient. My point was if your a Pool Guy, Plumber, Pest control business, currier service, deliver etc.... you will benefit more from a 4.0L V6 if you are the typical "5-Lug" driver retired riding around by yourself with a poodle on your lap the truck will get 26-27 all day long.

-Ryan

[Snizirch]

Originally Posted by Basic Toy

I cant emphasized enough and didn't highlight as much as I could have about how more efficient the 4.0L is than the 2.7L with the same load. I can get 26-27 mpg out of my 2.7L unloaded, but it's never unloaded. Loaded up and worked the best I get is 18.6-19.4 and every now and a gray moon 20 mpg if I'm light on chemicals that week. I loaded the 4.0L DC 4x4 up with maximum weight and ran the A/C all day, mixed driving hills, stop and go got 19.8!! I can live with that!. Anyone on the fence about getting a 4-Cyl thinking the gas millage will be better if you don't use the truck for work it will but if you use a truck for a truck and have it loaded 90% of the time the 4.0L gets the same if not better while giving you much more get up and go!

-Ryan

Your figures are fine. I have an 08 AC Off Road and I get about 19.9 mpg. Most of my driving is highway. That is why my mpg is above the average for the vehicle, which according to the window sticker is about 18mpg. Your figures do make since because when I was in college i worked at a pool as a lifeguard and chemicals containers are every bit of 20 lbs or more....not counting big containers of chlorine we had to fill our 5 hoppers with. So I can see how the 2.7L had to work more and suffered mpg due to the weight....some people assume that just because they haven't achieved the same figures themselves means that it is impossible for anyone else to do so....kind of a sad way to approach things....

[viper-2]

>>>Yeah still hanging around, I'm keeping my RC as I've got a new guy working for me so I will need to keep it. I'm not sure what you mean my unofficial and measuring gas? I probably go through more gas in one month than you all year,

Perhaps true, perhaps not. Not sure what difference this would make though.


>>>I've got the simple math down to science divide miles driven by gallons pumped in the tank not to hard unless I'm missing something?.


To a science? This is not really true is it? Even if you were being totally as accurate as you possibly could with your "science" you would have stated a range (i.e. 17-19.8 avg MPG) since there is no way you could get 19.8 consistently. There are too many variables including terrain, weather conditions, Manual or auto, driver inconsistency and much more. So saying "to a science" is a huge stretch at best. When I look upon the myriad of MPG posts on this board and Tacoma world no one with a V6 gets consistent 19+. You will get some agreeing with you but that's all Psychological because people lock in a high number when they hear it. If Toyota knew the truck would get that as a high average they would have stated so under the new EPA guidelines.



>>>Loaded as pictured in the aforementioned post my 2.7L RC will only pull off 18-20 mpg at best mixed driving, I do a lot of stop & go hills and around town. The 2.7 really works to keep pace loaded up as described earlier unless there was a huge difference with the meter when I was pumping fuel, I still put about the same $65 of fuel in that rental that I do in my 2.7L and calculated out 19.8, but seriously believe what you want to, obviously the V6 doesn't have to work nearly as hard to keep pace thus more efficient.


I am not challenging the inefficiency of YOUR 2.7. I don't know how well you take care of your truck and how YOU drive. I have an Access cab 2.7 and I get better MPG than your findings on a bad week of commuting in stop and go traffic. There is most likely something inconsistent with your driving skills or your maintenance skills. Either way, there is something wrong.




>>>My point was if your a Pool Guy, Plumber, Pest control business, currier service, deliver etc.... you will benefit more from a 4.0L V6 if you are the typical "5-Lug" driver retired riding around by yourself with a poodle on your lap the truck will get 26-27 all day long.

Well you got me here, I am not retired, do not have a poodle & I do not drive a 5 lug.


Lastly, I realize some of this is vastly subjective. This is your opinion and why I am singling out the MPG statement as well. Below is my response to your "opinions:"

Summary of cons…

ØWeak rear suspension

True, but after the FREE TSB which I obtained this was no longer the case.



ØAbysmal Brake effort when loaded

Maybe my trim line is different but I have no issues with my braking even when towing my 2,000 lb camper.




ØTepid handling loaded or unloaded, mostly an issue when loaded

Man this one makes me shake my head. I test drove the Frontier and the thing wiggled all over the place! I owed a Nissan pickup for 6 years and it wasn't like that but the new ones absolutely suck! I went back to the dealership with that as my main complaint. I never tried it while loaded mind you, this was in the 4-6 cyliner XE and LE respectively.


ØHigh floor and bad seating position coupled with to soft of seat in general

I remember hearing this comment in Consumer reports. So I thought...let me go try sitting in some other pickups to see. With the comparable exception of the Dodge Ram 1500 I felt way high enough in the Tacoma. I have the SR5 seats and do long trips and find no problem in them at all (meaning no stress, sores or fatigue) on my 1000 mile trips back home twice per year. I do admit the TRD seats are firmer and tighter though. But to say bad seating position is not my experience at all and not a noticeable difference with the Nissan in my opinion. Of course I do have a 3" lift and larger tires...so maybe my height has improved. But I remember it never being a problem.




ØPoor OEM tires

I never had a problem with my Dunlop Granteks although many have shown dismay with them. I now have Michelin LTX M/S's & now it is different. The Dunlops were softer. I didn't have an issue with them except I wanted larger tires. I put only 5,000 miles on them...they didn't look cool if that's what we're going by. Again, I know a lot of guys have had serious complaints about the stock tires, so I can understand that. The SE Crew cab Nissans come with The BFG Radial Long Trail T/A. On Tirerack.com they get better reviews than the Dunlops on mine but comparable to the tires that come on the TRD Tacomas. So this is subjective if you compare those two.


ØEngine is loud at times

Don't have the V6 so I don't know. My 4 is quiet as hell. But I have't really heard much about engine noise from the 6...I hear a lot about wind noise from the windshield. Maybe I just don't keep up with this aspect enough.


ØTransmission hunts while slowing down a hill, could be normal though?

I have a manual so I have no comment here. I have heard this before.


ØWeak tie down and poor bed rail system design but that’s a beaten dead horse

I haven't hauled anything that has given me a problem, so I don't know my rail system limits. It has been fine for what I need it for (general holding down moderate items and lawn equipment, funriture etc...). But when I looked at the Nissans rail system it looked much the same. Not sure if it is. I just checked a Frontier forum and there are only a few comments and complaints about the rail system...but nothing major.

PS-The Frontier is a cool truck...just drove one again yesterday.

[dtacow]

No offense, but most people on this site know about the issues that you speak of, because many have been beaten to death.




I mean the truck you rented is probably the same as what 70% of the people on this site have (although many people get the TRD). If I were looking at a truck for work, I'd look at the frame and suspension. Yeah the sagging can be fixed with a TSB. That said, good luck with your Frontier, I'm sure it will be a good truck.

[Snizirch]

Wow....I'd say someone never paid any attention in school. YOU obviously have no clue how to post mathematical results. The formula that he is using to calculate his mpg is what one would consider a basic or algebraic formula.

You are adding variables which if were to be taken into account, would make the above formula need a calculus formula. Not to mention physics would have to be taken into account along with thermodynamics due to combustion of the fuel and other variables which to be honest, could not be measured without complicated equipment.

Said equipment costs more than you could even imagine, IF you wanted to have the accuracy and precision that would be needed to test all the different variables you were spouting off in your above post. NOBODY on this forum has the capital and the time needed to post their mpg with an error less than 5%. Five percent is what the scientific and mathematical communities’ consider acceptable results.

Secondly if he wanted to post his mpg correctly it would not be 17-19.8 average mpg. If he posted at all, it should be his average with the SD noted. He could do what I do and keep a fluctuating average. This allows him to see what his average was the previous week and then see how his driving the new week affected gas mileage. His equation that he could use can be a simple algebra equation with a summation. (sum of miles driven)/(sum of gallons used). If you use a table you could have your average posted in a row under the miles and gallons so quick reference could be made to see how the average varied from week to week. THIS is very simple and anyone can do this in Excel.

Lastly, the man is NOT writing an article for f@cking Scientific America about Toyota’s six cylinder VVT-i engine and its fuel efficiency. His figures are quite valid and are acceptable for the use in this forum. It amazes me how much ignorance and the blatant disrespect I have seen by a few people on this forum toward others. Quit being so critical of other peoples postings when you yourself have made many mistaken comments in yours.

[viper-2]

Originally Posted by Snizirch

Wow....I'd say someone never paid any attention in school. YOU obviously have no clue how to post mathematical results. The formula that he is using to calculate his mpg is what one would consider a basic or algebraic formula.

You are adding variables which if were to be taken into account, would make the above formula need a calculus formula. Not to mention physics would have to be taken into account along with thermodynamics due to combustion of the fuel and other variables which to be honest, could not be measured without complicated equipment.

Said equipment costs more than you could even imagine, IF you wanted to have the accuracy and precision that would be needed to test all the different variables you were spouting off in your above post. NOBODY on this forum has the capital and the time needed to post their mpg with an error less than 5%. Five percent is what the scientific and mathematical communities’ consider acceptable results.

Secondly if he wanted to post his mpg correctly it would not be 17-19.8 average mpg. If he posted at all, it should be his average with the SD noted. He could do what I do and keep a fluctuating average. This allows him to see what his average was the previous week and then see how his driving the new week affected gas mileage. His equation that he could use can be a simple algebra equation with a summation. (sum of miles driven)/(sum of gallons used). If you use a table you could have your average posted in a row under the miles and gallons so quick reference could be made to see how the average varied from week to week. THIS is very simple and anyone can do this in Excel.

Lastly, the man is NOT writing an article for f@cking Scientific America about Toyota’s six cylinder VVT-i engine and its fuel efficiency. His figures are quite valid and are acceptable for the use in this forum. It amazes me how much ignorance and the blatant disrespect I have seen by a few people on this forum toward others. Quit being so critical of other peoples postings when you yourself have made many mistaken comments in yours.

First of all I am certain he is a big boy and can speak for himself. I realize you wish to jump in because that's what you most likely do with men. You are the type I would swat aside like a little boy during a real conversation with an adult.

But FU with your "quit being critical" comment. This is a forum and it is meant to be critical and speak opinions. He came on here with his stats and I am challenging, it is not personal towards him. But I think he knows that, it is you who feels slighted because you want to believe you know better than those "guys with all the equipment." Fact is that Consumer reports already DID this and they report that the 6 cyl Tacoma get's 17MPG overall!!! (I'm holding it in my hand April 2008 issue page 73). Also, the VAST majority of people (the only way we can determine any kind of realism) on these and other Taco boards report 16 to 19 mpg.

He also stated he had it down to a SCIENCE.

So before you go off defending others first see if they NEED defending and second get your facts straight and LEARN how to spell!