Fitdad
 |
|
https://www.motortrend.com/cars/chevrolet/colorado/2019/chevrolet-colorado-ford-ranger-honda-ridgeline-toyota-tacoma-comparison/
Good write up. I’m no GM fan but it seems they got the Colorado right. Ridgeline is a well done vehicle - that being said I have absolutely zero expectations for any kind of tow/haul mode.
Really seems like the Ranger isn’t up to snuff.
And this is just brutal about the Tacoma:
The Toyota Tacoma is the best-selling midsize pickup in the country, but from behind the wheel, it's hard to figure out why. "Toyota wins all the style points," features editor Scott Evans said. "Thank goodness for that because it has a lot of offsetting to do." It's hard to pinpoint just one flaw with the Tacoma because there are so many.
|
Dren
|
|
I agree about the Taco. I always figured it would be my first truck, but after riding in one, I changed my mind.
We have Chevy trucks at work and I'm not a fan although they do the job for work truck stuff. I echo the interior comments about Chevys, they are pretty lackluster. A friend of mine had the older version with the Volvo straight 5. It was a POS. We also have a Dodge at work that isn't bad. The Ram my uncle has is over 10 years old but still drives fine. I also think they're the best looking trucks at the moment.
I am surprised they mentioned the Ridgeline felt worse with 500lbs in it. It surprised me how well it felt pulling my boat along with a bunch of stuff in the back and in the bed. I'm sure I easily had over 500lbs of gear not including the boat. I've mentioned it before, but I got right at 20mpg hauling the boat on a long trip to the boundary waters in MN. My uncle's Ram is lucky to see 12mpg with a similar payload.
|
gofast182
|
|
Jeff had some harsh words for the Taco after the press drive. I was looking for those impressions to cite in another thread but couldn't find them. Something about incongruent powertrain and ride.
|
RMTRADER
|
|
I have spent some time looking over Colorado forums and these trucks are incredibly unreliable.
|
DCR
|
|
After being in a 2018 Tacoma TRD that my buddy has, I'll simply disagree with the review. Out of any truck out there, the Tacoma is the only one I would buy.
|
Dren
|
|
RMTRADER wrote:
I have spent some time looking over Colorado forums and these trucks are incredibly unreliable.
|
The older model my friend had experienced all sorts of electrical gremlins.
|
Fitdad
|
|
DCR wrote:
After being in a 2018 Tacoma TRD that my buddy has, I'll simply disagree with the review. Out of any truck out there, the Tacoma is the only one I would buy.
|
I don’t fit in it. I’ve sat in one for a bit...and as they say in the article:
Unfortunately, even the shortest of us had trouble fitting in the Tacoma's cramped cabin. Finding a comfortable driving position in the rock-hard seats is made difficult by a steering wheel that barely telescopes and a seat that doesn't raise or lower—the latter is probably for the best because even 5-foot-9 Scott reported his hair was brushing the Tacoma's headliner. The back seat is even more cramped—kids or dogs are the only creatures squeezing back here
Which - whatever I guess - but they really screwed up the ergonomics and the geometry of the cab.
|
DCR
|
|
Must be a lot of dwarves in the market judging by the sales numbers.
|
Fitdad
|
|
DCR wrote:
Must be a lot of dwarves in the market judging by the sales numbers.
|
When you read reviews like the MT one it does really make you wonder why some vehicles sell and some don’t.
Clearly the interior size constraints are not a dealbreaker for that many people - but for me it would be a dealbreaker. I also come from the Fit/Odyssey so I’m used to having lots of space inside a car.
|
DCR
|
|
...or you read reviews and understand they are opinions that may or may not reflect reality. My buddy who owns the Tacoma is 6 foot 5 and 280 pounds and he hasn't complained about space.
|
None
|
|
Totally agree about the TACO.
I'm tall and the TACO is impossible to be comfortable in.
|
notyper
|
|
Couple thoughts (although I can't really comment on the ford, haven't even seen one yet).
First I do think Chevy has really nailed the Colorado. It's a bit long in tooth but still does really well. And it's a truck through and through that also happens to be very liveable. It would be nice if the interior was more luxurious, but again, it's a truck first.
Conversely the RL is a really great crossover that also happens to do a pretty good job of handling truck duties 90% of the time.
It's the edge cases where both of these vehicles show their compromises. The Colorado feeling a bit low rent while the RL feels a bit strained.
I won't say much about the taco performance, but I too find the cabin a tight. It's not intolerable, but it's a direct outgrowth of trying to keep the thing compact while retaining a body on frame design. Either the roof goes up 3-5 inches or you'll always feel like you're bringing your knees too close to your chest. You get used to it (just like driving a sports car, etc) but in direct comparison to roomier vehicles it feels wrong.
One other thing I noticed was how slow this particular RL was. In previous tests it was just a hair behind the Colorado but in this test it got crushed. Maybe it's an 87 vs 91 octane issue but I've never seen an RL that slow. I don't know that it would've changed the finishing order, but since most of the complaints seemed directed at Powertrain it would've closed it up some.
SC
|
JeffX
|
|
gofast182 wrote:
Jeff had some harsh words for the Taco after the press drive. I was looking for those impressions to cite in another thread but couldn't find them. Something about incongruent powertrain and ride.
|
These comments?
It appears that their powertrain comments match my own.
Last edited by JeffX on 02-11-2019 17:54
|
TonyEX
|
|
notyper wrote:
Couple thoughts (although I can't really comment on the ford, haven't even seen one yet).
First I do think Chevy has really nailed the Colorado. It's a bit long in tooth but still does really well. And it's a truck through and through that also happens to be very liveable. It would be nice if the interior was more luxurious, but again, it's a truck first.
Conversely the RL is a really great crossover that also happens to do a pretty good job of handling truck duties 90% of the time.
It's the edge cases where both of these vehicles show their compromises. The Colorado feeling a bit low rent while the RL feels a bit strained.
I won't say much about the taco performance, but I too find the cabin a tight. It's not intolerable, but it's a direct outgrowth of trying to keep the thing compact while retaining a body on frame design. Either the roof goes up 3-5 inches or you'll always feel like you're bringing your knees too close to your chest. You get used to it (just like driving a sports car, etc) but in direct comparison to roomier vehicles it feels wrong.
One other thing I noticed was how slow this particular RL was. In previous tests it was just a hair behind the Colorado but in this test it got crushed. Maybe it's an 87 vs 91 octane issue but I've never seen an RL that slow. I don't know that it would've changed the finishing order, but since most of the complaints seemed directed at Powertrain it would've closed it up some.
SC
|
Perhaps they had the ECO switch turned on. It really kills the acceleration.
|
TonyEX
|
|
DCR wrote:
Must be a lot of dwarves in the market judging by the sales numbers.
|
How do you explain Lexus sales then?
|
Grace141
|
|
I haven't sat in a modern Tacoma but the comments here lead me to believe it has the traditional sit on the floor Toyota truck ergonomics. That dates back to the mini-truck Hi-Lux days of the '60s and '70s and their first 4WD trucks were just lifted mini-trucks like the Datsuns and Mazdas. At least in the latter the seats were off the floor enough to feel comfortable with proper access to the controls. Strange enough, the nicest, most reliable mini-truck I've seen from back in the day was one of the Dodge-Mitsubishi Ram D50's from the mid-'80s so there you go.
I sat in a 1G Tundra at our local auto show when it was first launched for 2000 or whenever. and I really wanted to like the truck but it too had the driver's seat much to low to the floor. The fact the Tundras have never seen decent gas mileage hasn't helped either.
If I needed a pickup I'd buy a Silverado but that's been my opinion since the early '70s. If I wanted a Ridgeline I'd probably just buy an Odyssey and have the extra seating available when needed. AWD would be nice though.
|
JeffX
|
|
Grace141 wrote:
I haven't sat in a modern Tacoma but the comments here lead me to believe it has the traditional sit on the floor Toyota truck ergonomics. That dates back to the mini-truck Hi-Lux days of the '60s and '70s and their first 4WD trucks were just lifted mini-trucks like the Datsuns and Mazdas. At least in the latter the seats were off the floor enough to feel comfortable with proper access to the controls. Strange enough, the nicest, most reliable mini-truck I've seen from back in the day was one of the Dodge-Mitsubishi Ram D50's from the mid-'80s so there you go.
I sat in a 1G Tundra at our local auto show when it was first launched for 2000 or whenever. and I really wanted to like the truck but it too had the driver's seat much to low to the floor. The fact the Tundras have never seen decent gas mileage hasn't helped either.
If I needed a pickup I'd buy a Silverado but that's been my opinion since the early '70s. If I wanted a Ridgeline I'd probably just buy an Odyssey and have the extra seating available when needed. AWD would be nice though.
|
yes you sit on the floor with your feet straight out in front of you. And the roof and a-pillar are all right up there in your face and crowding your dome. I don't see how very tall 6'5+ people can comfortably fit in them. Maybe with the seat all the way back, seatback reclined leaving no room for any backseat passengers you could fit but I don't see how it would be comfortable.
My father had a Tundra and I had to drive it from Huntsville to Nashville one time (which isn't even a very long drive) and I thought I was going to need physical therapy for my back to recover. AWFUL, AWFUL seats and seating position.
|
owequitit
|
|
JeffX wrote:
Grace141 wrote:
I haven't sat in a modern Tacoma but the comments here lead me to believe it has the traditional sit on the floor Toyota truck ergonomics. That dates back to the mini-truck Hi-Lux days of the '60s and '70s and their first 4WD trucks were just lifted mini-trucks like the Datsuns and Mazdas. At least in the latter the seats were off the floor enough to feel comfortable with proper access to the controls. Strange enough, the nicest, most reliable mini-truck I've seen from back in the day was one of the Dodge-Mitsubishi Ram D50's from the mid-'80s so there you go.
I sat in a 1G Tundra at our local auto show when it was first launched for 2000 or whenever. and I really wanted to like the truck but it too had the driver's seat much to low to the floor. The fact the Tundras have never seen decent gas mileage hasn't helped either.
If I needed a pickup I'd buy a Silverado but that's been my opinion since the early '70s. If I wanted a Ridgeline I'd probably just buy an Odyssey and have the extra seating available when needed. AWD would be nice though.
|
yes you sit on the floor with your feet straight out in front of you. And the roof and a-pillar are all right up there in your face and crowding your dome. I don't see how very tall 6'5+ people can comfortably fit in them. Maybe with the seat all the way back, seatback reclined leaving no room for any backseat passengers you could fit but I don't see how it would be comfortable.
My father had a Tundra and I had to drive it from Huntsville to Nashville one time (which isn't even a very long drive) and I thought I was going to need physical therapy for my back to recover. AWFUL, AWFUL seats and seating position.
|
One of my good friends just bought a 2017 or 2018 Taco and I didn't really like it, which I thought was weird because my best friend growing up had a 2007 or 2008 Tacoma for a long time and I don't remember that same "sitting on the floor and being crowed by cab" feeling that the new one has. Maybe I am mis-remembering, but it stood out as soon as I sat in the new one.
|
Dren
|
|
TonyEX wrote:
notyper wrote:
One other thing I noticed was how slow this particular RL was. In previous tests it was just a hair behind the Colorado but in this test it got crushed. Maybe it's an 87 vs 91 octane issue but I've never seen an RL that slow. I don't know that it would've changed the finishing order, but since most of the complaints seemed directed at Powertrain it would've closed it up some.
SC
|
Perhaps they had the ECO switch turned on. It really kills the acceleration.
|
That's the only thing I can think of, too. I feed mine the lowest octane fuel and it is quite peppy.
Shawn/Jeff, does the J series respond positively to higher octane fuel?
|
gofast182
|
|
JeffX wrote:
gofast182 wrote:
Jeff had some harsh words for the Taco after the press drive. I was looking for those impressions to cite in another thread but couldn't find them. Something about incongruent powertrain and ride.
|
These comments?
It appears that their powertrain comments match my own.
|
Yep I believe those are the comments!
|
JimmyEats
|
|
I get that different seats can be shaped different and use different foam, so that one is more comfortable than another, but how different can one truck's seating position be from another? Trucks seem to all have basically the same shaped cab.
|
None
|
|
JimmyEats wrote:
I get that different seats can be shaped different and use different foam, so that one is more comfortable than another, but how different can one truck's seating position be from another? Trucks seem to all have basically the same shaped cab.
|
TACO feels like you are sitting on 1" of foam right on the floorboard.
|
whitgo
|
|
I have a Taco (because I wanted a truck with a stick). You get used to it. In fact, you can eventually adjust the seat to where it's comfortable. The lumbar adjustment helps a lot. All that being said, I'd trade the thing this weekend, if the RL offered a manual transmission. (I know, that's a tired, old discussion.)
|
JeffX
|
|
JimmyEats wrote:
I get that different seats can be shaped different and use different foam, so that one is more comfortable than another, but how different can one truck's seating position be from another? Trucks seem to all have basically the same shaped cab.
|
it's the seating position. check the difference in volume between the cabs. The taco's vertical dimension is much shorter than the Ridgeline because the taco's floor is much higher. Ridgeline seats sit higher above the floor.
Tacoma passenger volume: 57.5 100.1 cu ft
Ridgeline passenger volume: 109.7 cu ft
the difference is quite noticeable
EDIT: I had the wrong number for the Tacoma initially. Working on too many things at once.
Last edited by JeffX on 02-12-2019 14:05
|
None
|
|
JeffX wrote:
JimmyEats wrote:
I get that different seats can be shaped different and use different foam, so that one is more comfortable than another, but how different can one truck's seating position be from another? Trucks seem to all have basically the same shaped cab.
|
it's the seating position. check the difference in volume between the cabs. The taco's vertical dimension is much shorter than the Ridgeline because the taco's floor is much higher. Ridgeline seats sit higher above the floor.
Tacoma passenger volume: 57.5 cu ft
Ridgeline passenger volume: 109.7 cu ft
the difference is quite noticeable
|
Are both those numbers for Crewcab.
That puts the Ridgeline at 90% more volume.
|
JeffX
|
|
None wrote:
JeffX wrote:
JimmyEats wrote:
I get that different seats can be shaped different and use different foam, so that one is more comfortable than another, but how different can one truck's seating position be from another? Trucks seem to all have basically the same shaped cab.
|
it's the seating position. check the difference in volume between the cabs. The taco's vertical dimension is much shorter than the Ridgeline because the taco's floor is much higher. Ridgeline seats sit higher above the floor.
Tacoma passenger volume: 57.5 cu ft
Ridgeline passenger volume: 109.7 cu ft
the difference is quite noticeable
|
Are both those numbers for Crewcab.
That puts the Ridgeline at 90% more volume.
|
I pulled the tacoma numbers from here
The Ridgeline numbers are the published numbers in their press kit specs
EDIT: Now that I look at the Toyota spec it doesn't make a lot of sense. Passenger volume "behind front/rear seat". I don't see any other spec showing passenger volume though. Oddly the official specs in the Tacoma press kit doesn't list any volumes at all. It must be registered somewhere.
Last edited by JeffX on 02-12-2019 13:59
|
JeffX
|
|
JeffX wrote:
None wrote:
JeffX wrote:
JimmyEats wrote:
I get that different seats can be shaped different and use different foam, so that one is more comfortable than another, but how different can one truck's seating position be from another? Trucks seem to all have basically the same shaped cab.
|
it's the seating position. check the difference in volume between the cabs. The taco's vertical dimension is much shorter than the Ridgeline because the taco's floor is much higher. Ridgeline seats sit higher above the floor.
Tacoma passenger volume: 57.5 100.1 cu ft
Ridgeline passenger volume: 109.7 cu ft
the difference is quite noticeable
|
Are both those numbers for Crewcab.
That puts the Ridgeline at 90% more volume.
|
I pulled the tacoma numbers from here
The Ridgeline numbers are the published numbers in their press kit specs
EDIT: Now that I look at the Toyota spec it doesn't make a lot of sense. Passenger volume "behind front/rear seat". I don't see any other spec showing passenger volume though. Oddly the official specs in the Tacoma press kit doesn't list any volumes at all. It must be registered somewhere.
|
According to this link, the Tacoma's volume is 100.1 cu ft, so if this is correct it's actually about 9.6 cu. ft smaller inside than the Ridgeline. That's a big difference from my original post. Sorry - I will correct it.
|
Steph01
|
|
DCR wrote:
After being in a 2018 Tacoma TRD that my buddy has, I'll simply disagree with the review. Out of any truck out there, the Tacoma is the only one I would buy.
|
Just a hipster comment wanting to be different on this particular forum. There are two reasons to buy the Tacoma over the Ridgeline. One, the truck is not daily driven (i.e. you work on a farm doing farm stuff) Two, you plan to turn your Tacoma into a bad a$$ crawler with solid front axles etc. With the huge aftermarket support I understand why you would do this. (or maybe a third reason, if I were in a war I would take the Tacoma over the Ridgeline).
My group has a 2017 Tacoma, we use it to tow our quads and jetskis. Maybe 2 trips to Glamis and a couple to Pismo. A couple weeks in the summer to Kern county, things the Ridgeline could easily accomplish (and what a majority of Truck buyers need). Otherwise he hates suffering 330 days of actual living in the truck. Inferior ride quality, gas mileage, handling, braking, safety suite, stereo etc..The thing rides like a ...truck...
Maybe you hate minivans too? Or are you so concerned about image you're able to accept these failures on the truck?
|
superchg2
|
|
Steph01 wrote:
DCR wrote:
After being in a 2018 Tacoma TRD that my buddy has, I'll simply disagree with the review. Out of any truck out there, the Tacoma is the only one I would buy.
|
Just a hipster comment wanting to be different on this particular forum. There are two reasons to buy the Tacoma over the Ridgeline. One, the truck is not daily driven (i.e. you work on a farm doing farm stuff) Two, you plan to turn your Tacoma into a bad a$$ crawler with solid front axles etc. With the huge aftermarket support I understand why you would do this. (or maybe a third reason, if I were in a war I would take the Tacoma over the Ridgeline).
My group has a 2017 Tacoma, we use it to tow our quads and jetskis. Maybe 2 trips to Glamis and a couple to Pismo. A couple weeks in the summer to Kern county, things the Ridgeline could easily accomplish (and what a majority of Truck buyers need). Otherwise he hates suffering 330 days of actual living in the truck. Inferior ride quality, gas mileage, handling, braking, safety suite, stereo etc..The thing rides like a ...truck...
Maybe you hate minivans too? Or are you so concerned about image you're able to accept these failures on the truck?
|
Toyota has not upgraded their truck technology appreciably since when I was selling them... in the 1980's.
|
DCR
|
|
Steph01 wrote:
DCR wrote:
After being in a 2018 Tacoma TRD that my buddy has, I'll simply disagree with the review. Out of any truck out there, the Tacoma is the only one I would buy.
|
Just a hipster comment wanting to be different on this particular forum. There are two reasons to buy the Tacoma over the Ridgeline. One, the truck is not daily driven (i.e. you work on a farm doing farm stuff) Two, you plan to turn your Tacoma into a bad a$$ crawler with solid front axles etc. With the huge aftermarket support I understand why you would do this. (or maybe a third reason, if I were in a war I would take the Tacoma over the Ridgeline).
My group has a 2017 Tacoma, we use it to tow our quads and jetskis. Maybe 2 trips to Glamis and a couple to Pismo. A couple weeks in the summer to Kern county, things the Ridgeline could easily accomplish (and what a majority of Truck buyers need). Otherwise he hates suffering 330 days of actual living in the truck. Inferior ride quality, gas mileage, handling, braking, safety suite, stereo etc..The thing rides like a ...truck...
Maybe you hate minivans too? Or are you so concerned about image you're able to accept these failures on the truck?
|
Hipster...that's fucking hilarious.
|
|
|
|
| |
![[home]](https://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/home.gif){kind=small}
![[rumors and news]](https://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/rumors.gif){kind=small}
![[model release matrix]](https://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/newmodelreleasematrix.gif){kind=small}
![[dealer network]](https://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/dealernet.gif){kind=small}
![[desktop calendar]](https://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/calendar.gif){kind=small}
![[exhaust notes]](https://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/exhaust.gif){kind=small}
![[tov forums]](https://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/forums.gif){kind=small}
![[links]](https://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/links.gif){kind=small}
![[search]](https://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/search.gif){kind=small}
![[sponsors]](https://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/sponsors.gif){kind=small}
![[garage]](https://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/garage.gif){kind=small}
![[login]](https://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/login.gif){kind=small}
