Lighter pickups coming soon- but geez have they gotten fat!

[taco]

I say 75hp per 1500lbs is good.
I drive 130mile round trip a day.so Fe is good but it is all backcountry 2 lane roads that arnt well maintained. Usually no scraping in the winter, so 4x4 is needed and that is y it is stupid around here to buy a 2wd. I have had to use 4wd about a dozen times this year so far.

Ruggedness is the main reason the area is populated by trucks.

[autoteach]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

The 22R is 2366 cc per the manual, so the difference between calling it a 2.3L or 2.4L is kinda splitting hairs.

The engine numbers are historic, upgrades of the basic R series engine design: Toyota R engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, here I go splitting hairs... would you constitute a 302 ford as a 4.9 liter? You could, but that is not the way anyone in the functioning automotive world does it.


As for others comments on the taco, I believe they did have a turbo version of the 22re. I was never looking for an over-powered truck, it just wasnt helpful that as soon as you loaded anything in it you couldnt merge with traffic at a reasonable speed (or at least it took a full foot of throttle to get there). Even 25 more hp would have made a big difference. Altogether, the new Tacoma could never have done some of the things that my 1989 could, and my 1989 could do all the things a new one can (as far as usefulness is concerned). I can say this about the newer trucks, working on them sucks. You need a topside creeper to work under the hood to avoid damaging the shoulder high fenders and grill.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by autoteach

Well, here I go splitting hairs... would you constitute a 302 ford as a 4.9 liter?

I dunno... what's that in cc?

I was never looking for an over-powered truck, it just wasnt helpful that as soon as you loaded anything in it you couldnt merge with traffic at a reasonable speed...

Maybe it's expectations. I don't think mine has any problem with performance, but then I expect it to take longer to accelerate - and to stop! - when it's got a heavy load. But I have the feeling that some people expect their trucks to do sub-8 second 0-60s while pulling a 10,000 lbs trailer, something that really PO's the horses, or the people following that load that you really didn't tie down as well as you'd thought :-)

[autoteach]

4948cc's. Lets just put it this way, a 22RE is referred to as a 2.4 liter, plain and simple. As I told you when I first mentioned it, its for your good when ordering parts and the such, but you can call it a 2.3 as you like and be corrected, questioned, or otherwise.

As for unreasonable expectations, unloaded the truck accelerated as fast as I ever wanted it to. Brakes were NOT an issue, as it had some of the best brakes ever put on a truck prior to this last decade (four piston nissin calipers up front, if I remember correctly). It stopped like a sports car and went like a, well, horse and buggy. It was the one truck that all my friends have unbelievable memories of, even the big truck guys still revere it as a fundamentally the best truck they ever knew. I remember driving it back into a gulch to pull out a quad that I stuck with a farmer friend, and he had no clue what to say when we got back. He must have spent an hour trying to figure out how it did what it did. I driven a 2wd ford ranger (98?) with the 2.3L and it was not even in the same league, not even close. I have been disappointed with my current vehicle, the horribly capable chevy blazer (s-10). I have driven many other small trucks and its been hard to find that same small truck purposefulness, usefulness, and quality.

[JasonG]

^ Same with my brothers yota.
Water and mud coming through the doors and it keeps going.
We've had a number of beater pick ups over the years but keep going back to the old Toyotas.

Had one that got more deer one season than the rifle did, had to jump a ditch to nail one, but it was in season !

[UFO]

I am an engineer and 2366cc translates to 2.4 liters, not 2.3. Two significant digits dictates you must round up the 66cc to 100cc. You can still call it a 2.37 liter ...

[Frank Lee]

Fascinating

[Clev]

Originally Posted by TheEnemy

To get the 4 door with 6.5' bed the ford is only available in a V8 automatic 13/19 mpg @ $31k

To get the 4 door Nissan with 6.5' bed V6, auto only mpg not listed, guessing 15/20 @ $27k

Base model V6 F150 vs Base model I4 Frontier get about the same mileage figures.

Sounds like you want the Tacoma double-cab long bed, then. 4.0L, 5-speed auto, 6,300 lb. towing with the trailer package, 17/21 mpg and MSRP of $24.4k.

Originally Posted by jamesqf

But I have the feeling that some people expect their trucks to do sub-8 second 0-60s while pulling a 10,000 lbs trailer

The truck magazines are all starting to add the "0-60 hauling a 10,000 pound trailer" test to their truck comparos, so expect this phenomenon to get worse.

[sid]

I driven a 2wd ford ranger (98?) with the 2.3L and it was not even in the same league,

The modern Ford 2.3 L is a much different and better animal than the 1990's/early 2000's 2.3 L. I feel my 2.3 L four cylinder performs as well, if not better, than my old 3.0 L six. My new 2.3 L definitely has much better FE. There is a reason Ford discontinued the 3.0 L six.

As I said earlier, I feel the performance of my new 2.3 L Ranger is as good, but with better FE, than my old 1985 Toyota with the 22R engine. I can only dream how much better yet both the performance and FE of the Ranger would be if it only were the same size and weight of my 1985 Toyota (2010 Ranger 3200 lb., 1985 Toyota 2700 lb.). Which gets us back to the original topic . . .

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by autoteach

4948cc's. Lets just put it this way, a 22RE is referred to as a 2.4 liter, plain and simple.

Yeah, I'd call 4948 cc a 4.9L engine - and when looking up parts (not that I've ever had to look up anything but filters for this truck) it's just the 4 cylinder.

But I think you're skipping over my original point, which is that the Toyota engine, whatever you want to call it, and the 2.3L engine in the Ford Ranger, whatever it is in CC, are pretty close to the same size, and the Toyota engine provides all the power I need to haul stuff - specially when I put the transfer case in low range :-)