2016 Taco

[LandCruiser]

The current 4Runner engine specs:

270 hp @ 5600 rpm; 278 lb.-ft. @ 4400

Too bad it is down a little on torque and power peaks are a bit higher in RPM -- not what you want for a truck engine.

On the other hand, if it improves fuel economy that would be welcome. Also, the 6-speed transmission might make up for some of the performance loss due to lower low-rpm power.

Whipping the shit out of the engine to get the max torque is never something you want in a truck. I see that Toyota, once proudly claiming 80% of torque available under 2000 rpm, has decided to go bugger all with that idea.

I'm still very interested in this, since I'll need a second vehicle to keep and register in Alabama when I take my 4Runner to Colorado...

 

[NoDak]

well we have a allocation request in for a double cab sport with the FP option in blazing blue with grey interior (that exterior color only allows grey interior).

added mud flaps, exhaust tip, paint protection film, black tube steps (they have R6 option called predator steps).

hopefully they let us know soon when the projected date of arrival is since we are first on the list.

 

[LandCruiser]

well we have a allocation request in for a double cab sport with the FP option in blazing blue with grey interior (that exterior color only allows grey interior).

added mud flaps, exhaust tip, paint protection film, black tube steps (they have R6 option called predator steps).

hopefully they let us know soon when the projected date of arrival is since we are first on the list.

I'm guessing at least 6 months before you can option them they way you want and not have them cost close to 35-40k.

 

[NoDak]

for the warden it doesn't really matter, she only puts about 6-7k a year at most on the truck and it keeps her happy and out of my 4Runner.

this will probably be our last one for her since it will pretty much be perfect.

2006 taco was silver, she wasn't too happy with that color

2012 taco was blue but in 2012 they remove the SWB color, she wasn't happy then either. also she fell in love with the exterior shiny looks but I balked at the interior. guess what, 1 year later, she wasn't happy with the interior

2016 looks to be a melding of all her wants and my requirements.

did a quick general lookup on trade in amount and it looks like it only cost us about 2k a year to have this Tacoma from what we paid for it. we should get about 5-8k on trade in credit for what we owe and what the trade in amount I am expecting.

 

[TRDSmokedU]

From the video it still looks like an open C frame. Can anyone advise?

 

[M1911]

From the video it still looks like an open C frame. Can anyone advise?

Yes, I believe it is still an open C-section frame.

 

[BlackWorksInc]

[MENTION=1032]NoDak[/MENTION]

We haven't gotten any for PDI at the dealership yet (I believe they'll be on the lot later in Q3/Q4 of this year if I remember right), nor do I have any body repair manuals on TIS to compare frame measurements with. Did you get a chance to peek at the frame? Does it look like a J120/J150 copy/derivative? I'm curious, because honestly it looks like the sheetmetal was more massaged than reworked (enough to claim "all-new")

[MENTION=6872]M1911[/MENTION] I still don't understand why they don't just box the frames on the Tacoma and Tundra, it seems silly to have a weaker frame for a truck... Particularly in the Tacoma's case since it is basically an elongated J120/J150 platform which IS boxed on all other applications.

 

[TRDSmokedU]

The debate of boxed frame vs. open C has been going on for years. I thought that Toyota was moving to modular platform to include trucks. I figured we would see modular frame for all trucks and SUVs which are all boxed in other parts of the world. For some reason, the tundra and Tacoma use a C frame.

Although the Tundra frame is really good, the perception is it's weak. Mike Sweers said the tundra frame actually cost them more to make than simply boxing the frame; however, all other manufactures are using a boxed frame to include Nissan. As a matter of fact, the F-150, Silverado, and RAM 1/2 tons all used a c channel in the 90 and early 2000s. All have since moved to a boxed frame. Here the GM rep calls the Ford weak for having a c frame. What he failed to mention is GM trucks 2010 or older are weak too because they used the same frame.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXF1O1vwe3c

It's hard to call a c frame weak since all major semis and commercial vehicles use an open C. The Ford super duties do as well. I am sure the type of metal, thickness of metal etc. are all part of the equation. I think it makes more sense to box the frames.

 

[BlackWorksInc]

The debate of boxed frame vs. open C has been going on for years. I thought that Toyota was moving to modular platform to include trucks. I figured we would see modular frame for all trucks and SUVs which are all boxed in other parts of the world. For some reason, the tundra and Tacoma use a C frame.

Although the Tundra frame is really good, the perception is it's weak. Mike Sweers said the tundra frame actually cost them more to make than simply boxing the frame; however, all other manufactures are using a boxed frame to include Nissan. As a matter of fact, the F-150, Silverado, and RAM 1/2 tons all used a c channel in the 90 and early 2000s. All have since moved to a boxed frame. Here the GM rep calls the Ford weak for having a c frame. What he failed to mention is GM trucks 2010 or older are weak too because they used the same frame.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXF1O1vwe3c

It's hard to call a c frame weak since all major semis and commercial vehicles use an open C. The Ford super duties do as well. I am sure the type of metal, thickness of metal etc. are all part of the equation. I think it makes more sense to box the frames.

It just seems like from an engineering/physics standpoint a box would be a much stronger load bearing structure than a C-Channel?

Perhaps [MENTION=66316]1engineer[/MENTION] can enlighten us with pretty colorful charts and graphcs?

 

[M1911]

It just seems like from an engineering/physics standpoint a box would be a much stronger load bearing structure than a C-Channel?

That depends upon which direction. In terms of bending from vertical loads, the second web would provide very little additional strength -- the main resistance to bending would be the upper and lower plates.

In terms of twisting and side loads, a boxed shape would be stronger.

Of course, it has been about 30 years since I took structural design, and I was a civil engineer, not a mechanical engineer...

 

[1engineer]

It just seems like from an engineering/physics standpoint a box would be a much stronger load bearing structure than a C-Channel?

Perhaps [MENTION=66316]1engineer[/MENTION] can enlighten us with pretty colorful charts and graphcs?

No charts but I will explain a bit. Shape is important but it is only one of many things to consider when designing a structural member. In your discussions above you are talking boxe versus C shape right? Are you assuming that the material type, thickness, manufacturing process and design is the same? It's easy to design a stiffer C structure than a box shape if you make it thicker or out of a better material or you manufacture it with a better process. Now given all that how stiff should it really be for a pickup truck? SUV's need to be stiffer because of the body structure. Trucks have two structures, the bed and cab that move independent of each other.

Basically what I'm saying is that to debate the shape without knowing anything about the type, thickness and design parameters of the frame is a waste of time. Plus we all know the strongest shape is a tube lol. Who uses a tube? Only every race vehicle right?

Even comparing frames from the same company is useless unless you know everything about it.

 

[BlackWorksInc]

No charts but I will explain a bit. Shape is important but it is only one of many things to consider when designing a structural member. In your discussions above you are talking boxe versus C shape right? Are you assuming that the material type, thickness, manufacturing process and design is the same? It's easy to design a stiffer C structure than a box shape if you make it thicker or out of a better material or you manufacture it with a better process. Now given all that how stiff should it really be for a pickup truck? SUV's need to be stiffer because of the body structure. Trucks have two structures, the bed and cab that move independent of each other.

Basically what I'm saying is that to debate the shape without knowing anything about the type, thickness and design parameters of the frame is a waste of time. Plus we all know the strongest shape is a tube lol. Who uses a tube? Only every race vehicle right?

Even comparing frames from the same company is useless unless you know everything about it.

Oh god... is this going to end up being another rant about how the internet is a series of tubes? lol

 

[LandCruiser]

Oh god... is this going to end up being another rant about how the internet is a series of tubes? lol

Held together with magnets.

I think the C and boxed frame argument for trucks is mostly bullshit.

It gives Dennis Leary something to rant about when he's telling you that TORQUE IS WHAT OPENS YOUR BEER, while Sam Elliot is rambling about Ram Trucks--I swear to God his voice sounds like being dragged down a gravel road.

 

[NoDak]

@NoDak

We haven't gotten any for PDI at the dealership yet (I believe they'll be on the lot later in Q3/Q4 of this year if I remember right), nor do I have any body repair manuals on TIS to compare frame measurements with. Did you get a chance to peek at the frame? Does it look like a J120/J150 copy/derivative? I'm curious, because honestly it looks like the sheetmetal was more massaged than reworked (enough to claim "all-new")

that is not my video, it was picked up from Tacoma world. I am just filtering the 99% crap from over there cause its a cluster fvck shite storm over there in the 3rd gen forums.

 

[NoDak]

lastest update :

specs/info all the juicy bits are embargoed until Aug-17.


should be able to get HP, Torque, MPG, Pricing then.

 

[NoDak]

from Tacoma world : https://www.tacomaworld.com/threads/all-known-2016-configuration-photos.382935/page-8#post-10573568


.

 

[NoDak]

updated fleet color codes :


.

 

[NoDak]

crawl control and using the go-pro mount to record.

 

[GHARP57]

do you work for Toyota [MENTION=1032]NoDak[/MENTION] or just in the know?

 

[AZ gal]

Wdh

lastest update :

specs/info all the juicy bits are embargoed until Aug-17.


should be able to get HP, Torque, MPG, Pricing then.

Any idea whether you can use a WDH on the 2016 taco? I can't find anywhere on the Toyota site where it is addressed but I've read that on many of the newer model 4 runners/Tacomas the factory recommends against them. Thanks.