range Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 LOL, C&D ripped Toyota a new one after living with a Toyota Tacoma in a long term test. The Toyota was unloved by the staff. The Toyota had to be flat bedded to a Toyota dealer after the brakes required pumping to get them to release after braking. But the brake problems didn't end there. Throughout the dutation of the entire long term test, the brakes were spongy and performed poorly. The Tacoma also handled and rode poorly and had a gigantic 44 foot turning diameter. The staff did not like to drive it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 And they actually reported it. Props to C&D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANTAUS Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 One good deed, doesn't fix years are rediculous reporting... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atomcat68 Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 Look at the Camry in the 6 way car test in the same issue. They didn't like that either. They even slammed it for the poor int. quality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebritt Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 One can only hope that the truth will come to the surface and people will see that the imports are no better than domestics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim kakouris Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 crawl around under a toyota and check out the very unsubstantial control arms, sway bars, shock mounts, etc. i've always wondered how on earth the things stay together! but they do, EXCEPT! that approach is taken with the full size truck, too. and c&d's longterm test is riddled with complaints about the creaky structure and moans and groans from the chassis...precisely the symptoms i would have expected in the passenger cars, but i was wrong. obviously, the passenger cars get away with the minimalist approach very well, but not the trucks. people complain about the weight of the new full size ford, dodge, and gm trucks. i think we can point to this article as evidence the maybe the big 2.5 are not so out of line, because after years of REAL WORK (when trucks are actually used for work!) they still hold together. i was quite miffed the other day when reading autoblog's article about the new super duty's. all of the comments from the peanut gallery were derrogatory, saying that noone needs trucks like that. there were a few comments pointing out that nothing gets built without heavy duty trucks to help with the job...and someone actually mentioned that all we need are ridgeline-like trucks. holy crap, people are so blind.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrjones944 Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 I looked online for the article but I couldnt find it. Does anybody have a link to their long term testing of the truck? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebritt Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 crawl around under a toyota and check out the very unsubstantial control arms, sway bars, shock mounts, etc. i've always wondered how on earth the things stay together! but they do, EXCEPT! that approach is taken with the full size truck, too. and c&d's longterm test is riddled with complaints about the creaky structure and moans and groans from the chassis...precisely the symptoms i would have expected in the passenger cars, but i was wrong. obviously, the passenger cars get away with the minimalist approach very well, but not the trucks. people complain about the weight of the new full size ford, dodge, and gm trucks. i think we can point to this article as evidence the maybe the big 2.5 are not so out of line, because after years of REAL WORK (when trucks are actually used for work!) they still hold together. i was quite miffed the other day when reading autoblog's article about the new super duty's. all of the comments from the peanut gallery were derrogatory, saying that noone needs trucks like that. there were a few comments pointing out that nothing gets built without heavy duty trucks to help with the job...and someone actually mentioned that all we need are ridgeline-like trucks. holy crap, people are so blind.... People can be so retarded Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJB Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 (edited) crawl around under a toyota and check out the very unsubstantial control arms, sway bars, shock mounts, etc. i've always wondered how on earth the things stay together! but they do, EXCEPT! that approach is taken with the full size truck, too. and c&d's longterm test is riddled with complaints about the creaky structure and moans and groans from the chassis...precisely the symptoms i would have expected in the passenger cars, but i was wrong. obviously, the passenger cars get away with the minimalist approach very well, but not the trucks. people complain about the weight of the new full size ford, dodge, and gm trucks. i think we can point to this article as evidence the maybe the big 2.5 are not so out of line, because after years of REAL WORK (when trucks are actually used for work!) they still hold together. i was quite miffed the other day when reading autoblog's article about the new super duty's. all of the comments from the peanut gallery were derrogatory, saying that noone needs trucks like that. there were a few comments pointing out that nothing gets built without heavy duty trucks to help with the job...and someone actually mentioned that all we need are ridgeline-like trucks. holy crap, people are so blind.... Huge difference in where you live & what you do with a truck as to what you expect or require in the vehicle. The bulk of the population lives in the cities, and the average consumer doesn't even have a clue as to what working a truck is all about. Send them to a construction site or a farm and they might change their tune...! They might not think a Ridgeline is up to the task after seeing what a real truck does during it's lifetime...! Edited January 6, 2007 by DJB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackHorse Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 (edited) I always thought it was a mistake to make the Tacoma bigger. It's almost a full size truck now. I read the C&D article on it as well. I haven't had the opportunity to drive one, but I did own a Tacoma years back when they were a smaller truck. I actually liked it because for just running around town it was fine. It had the 4 cylinder engine, but the PreRunner off road package. It got decent mileage but didn't like interstate runs too much. It was just a fun to drive truck. When they got bigger I didn't much care for them, it kind of took the small truck driveability away. I'm not surprised they are having issues with it. Edited January 6, 2007 by BlackHorse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMBoring25 Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 (edited) i was quite miffed the other day when reading autoblog's article about the new super duty's. all of the comments from the peanut gallery were derrogatory, saying that noone needs trucks like that. there were a few comments pointing out that nothing gets built without heavy duty trucks to help with the job...and someone actually mentioned that all we need are ridgeline-like trucks. holy crap, people are so blind.... If they were arguing gas mileage, which I'm sure they were, that's hilarious, because some models of the Super Duty get BETTER mileage than the Ridgeline. Edited January 6, 2007 by IMBoring25 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebritt Posted January 7, 2007 Share Posted January 7, 2007 If they were arguing gas mileage, which I'm sure they were, that's hilarious, because some models of the Super Duty get BETTER mileage than the Ridgeline. The Honda crowd will ignore facts like that always. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bec5150 Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 The Honda crowd will ignore facts like that always. Just for the record, if you can find any statement by me regarding the Ridgeline that has stated anything other than the fact that it's a POS, I'll throw you my next paycheck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackHorse Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 Oh it's not all bad bec5150. The dual action tailgate it kind of cool, maybe the big 3 should do something like that. The storage bin in the bed is a nice touch as well. But the gas mileage is pretty lousy and it doesn't measure up from a pure toughness point of view with Ford and the others. It truly is a "light duty" truck. I wouldn't subject it to much more than camping trips and hauling home a couple bags of quick crete. It's not worth much more than that and the price tag on them is on up there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bec5150 Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 I just wanted to squelch yet another attempt by my fellow penalty boxer at trying to label people. I don't call it a Honda thing as I think these plastic four door crew cab "not trucks' like the Avalanche, Sportrac, and, of course, the Ridgeline, are crap. Too much money that try to compromise between truck and SUV and are unsuited to do either job at an acceptable level. For my money, I would bypass one of these and get a Ranger PLUS an Escape. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPBroncoBoy Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 I have a 2005 Tacoma Prerunner Reg Cab with 4 cyl and 5 speed. The brake issue, I don't have my pedal is firm but not too firm and it stops great but the creaking issue I do have and I gets kind of annoying when going over bumps in the road or speed bumps. My reg cab turns great I think but it has a short wheelbase however, but 44ft is pretty for that class of truck. At the time I bought it I liked the seats better it had slightly better mileage than the ranger and I couldn't find a 5 speed. Of the cars my family owned Fords and toyota's the only one that we have had absolutely zero problems with was my dads 93 f-150. I just don't like the way the ranger looked, also I wish ford would tone down the emblems, I don't need a giant ford oval on the steering wheel, I know it's a ford. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebritt Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 I just wanted to squelch yet another attempt by my fellow penalty boxer at trying to label people. I don't call it a Honda thing as I think these plastic four door crew cab "not trucks' like the Avalanche, Sportrac, and, of course, the Ridgeline, are crap. Too much money that try to compromise between truck and SUV and are unsuited to do either job at an acceptable level. For my money, I would bypass one of these and get a Ranger PLUS an Escape.If I would have meant you inparticular I would have said so. I was talking about those out there, and you know they are out there that beleive anything by Honda is the most wonderful thing on earth.I agree with you on the Avalnche. It is fugly. The sport track is full frame with a tiny almost useless bed, but their is a small group that would find it useful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bec5150 Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 I have a 2005 Tacoma Prerunner Reg Cab with 4 cyl and 5 speed. The brake issue, I don't have my pedal is firm but not too firm and it stops great but the creaking issue I do have and I gets kind of annoying when going over bumps in the road or speed bumps. My reg cab turns great I think but it has a short wheelbase however, but 44ft is pretty for that class of truck. At the time I bought it I liked the seats better it had slightly better mileage than the ranger and I couldn't find a 5 speed. Of the cars my family owned Fords and toyota's the only one that we have had absolutely zero problems with was my dads 93 f-150. I just don't like the way the ranger looked, also I wish ford would tone down the emblems, I don't need a giant ford oval on the steering wheel, I know it's a ford. I don't get it. The 4cyl/5speed version of the Ranger does better on gas than the Toyota 4cyl and has since 2001. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
630land Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 People that "know it all" but really don't, think some brands are better based on how interior parts "feel" and 'size of body gaps'. That is not the true test of quality!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
06StangAwesomecar Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 LOL, C&D ripped Toyota a new one after living with a Toyota Tacoma in a long term test. The Toyota was unloved by the staff. The Toyota had to be flat bedded to a Toyota dealer after the brakes required pumping to get them to release after braking. But the brake problems didn't end there. Throughout the dutation of the entire long term test, the brakes were spongy and performed poorly. The Tacoma also handled and rode poorly and had a gigantic 44 foot turning diameter. The staff did not like to drive it. Is there a link to this??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.