Vehicle Decision Has Been Made:)

[AndrewM]

Originally Posted by tacomama

No idea why anyone would spend their hard earned money on an inferior product (Canyon/Colorado/Ranger) over a slight difference in MPG.

Savings for 2MPG would be about 1.07cents per km or $1068/100,000km.

[Smoky buck]

Originally Posted by tacomama

No idea why anyone would spend their hard earned money on an inferior product (Canyon/Colorado/Ranger) over a slight difference in MPG.

The suspension, small lift, front and rear lockers, Diesel engine, cut out front end, skid plates, and better fit for being over 6 feet tall made my choice of the ZR2 Colorado over Tacoma pretty easy.

Tacoma fell to a 2nd choice and only major thing I don’t like is how I fit in one. That and my buddies Tacoma can go everywhere my ZR2 can

Base models between the Colorado and Tacoma the Tacoma takes it but comparing the off-road models the ZR2 is way more bang for your buck

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by AndrewM

Savings for 2MPG would be about 1.07cents per km or $1068/100,000km.

And after 100,000 km, the difference in depreciation will be several thousand dollars.

[Cement Bench]

Originally Posted by Smoky buck

The suspension, small lift, front and rear lockers, Diesel engine, cut out front end, skid plates, and better fit for being over 6 feet tall made my choice of the ZR2 Colorado over Tacoma pretty easy.

Tacoma fell to a 2nd choice and only major thing I don’t like is how I fit in one. That and my buddies Tacoma can go everywhere my ZR2 can

Base models between the Colorado and Tacoma the Tacoma takes it but comparing the off-road models the ZR2 is way more bang for your buck

I have a zr2 as well nice trucks. Toyota would be my second choice but no pizzase model.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Smoky buck

The suspension, small lift, front and rear lockers, Diesel engine, cut out front end, skid plates, and better fit for being over 6 feet tall made my choice of the ZR2 Colorado over Tacoma pretty easy.

Tacoma fell to a 2nd choice and only major thing I don’t like is how I fit in one. That and my buddies Tacoma can go everywhere my ZR2 can

Base models between the Colorado and Tacoma the Tacoma takes it but comparing the off-road models the ZR2 is way more bang for your buck

It depends whether you base bang for the buck only on the initial price, or whether you factor in the depreciation, and look at the net cost to own the vehicle for several years.

[AndrewM]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

And after 100,000 km, the difference in depreciation will be several thousand dollars.

Absolutely as long as they start out the same price. But if you drive it to failure that may not matter assuming they both could hit the same amount of km. I was just tossing the number out there for people to reference.

[AndrewM]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

It depends whether you base bang for the buck only on the initial price, or whether you factor in the depreciation, and look at the net cost to own the vehicle for several years.

Don't forget to add in interest as well if you pay more. That can add up in a hurry too depending on the financing.

[Trochu]

Originally Posted by tacomama

No idea why anyone would spend their hard earned money on an inferior product (Canyon/Colorado/Ranger) over a slight difference in MPG.

Not that this will likely help, you seem fairly set, but comparing base models to keep it simple....

Ranger: Base MSRP $30,969
Tacoma:Base MSRP $31,825

Ranger: 4x4
Tacoma: No 4x4

Ranger: 270 hp
Tacoma: 159 hp

Ranger: 310 lb-ft
Tacoma: 180 lb-ft

Ranger: 10 spd auto
Tacoma: 6 spd auto

Ranger: 708 kg payload
Tacoma: 680 kg payload

Ranger: 3,400 kg
Tacoma: 1,590 kg

Ranger: 10.9 l/100 combined
Tacoma: 11.1 l/100 combined

I bolded the more desirable value. The Ranger also has more F/R headroom, more F/R legroom, etc., I could go on. Essentially, in every measurable metric, the Ranger is better.

Don't like facts? Why not take peoples opinion, in a MT review of the Ridgeline, Ranger, Colorado, and Tacoma..... "In last place is the supremely disappointing Toyota Tacoma. The Tacoma is all hat and no cattle; it looks fantastic, but whether you haul air or hay, it's let down by a cramped cabin, narrow bed, grabby brakes, and an engine and transmission that work in tandem about as well as a pack of cats and dogs." Link

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by AndrewM

Absolutely as long as they start out the same price. But if you drive it to failure that may not matter assuming they both could hit the same amount of km. I was just tossing the number out there for people to reference.

If you pay $5000 more for the Tacoma, and five years later, it is worth $7000 more, the Tacoma actually cost less.

[AndrewM]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

If you pay $5000 more for the Tacoma, and five years later, it is worth $7000 more, the Tacoma actually cost less.

Potentially but for most people that's not true. Once you add in interest on that $5000 assuming 6% a year for 5 years that works out to $1500. Assuming 20,000km per year for 5 years and fuel mileage works out to $1068. Maintenance wouldn't come into play if you just keep it for 5 years as you should have warranty.

[Smoky buck]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

It depends whether you base bang for the buck only on the initial price, or whether you factor in the depreciation, and look at the net cost to own the vehicle for several years.

Once I added the mods and extras needed to get the Tacoma TRD to the level of performance of my ZR2 the Tacoma will cost you way more. My buddy has a modified Tacoma and if I remember right he is in it for more then 15k beyond what I paid for my ZR2 and is still lacking options. Personally don’t see myself recouping the 15k+ to make the Tacoma meet my off road standards come resale. This is without debate of maintenance and difference in fuel economy

Off road model wise the ZR2 beats out the TRD. If you need a pavement/farm road truck the Tacoma beats out the Colorado. It all comes down to what your needs are

Now if Toyota had the Hilux in Canada I might be singing a different tune

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Smoky buck

Once I added the mods and extras needed to get the Tacoma TRD to the level of performance of my ZR2 the Tacoma will cost you way more. My buddy has a modified Tacoma and if I remember right he is in it for more then 15k beyond what I paid for my ZR2 and is still lacking options. Personally don’t see myself recouping the 15k+ to make the Tacoma meet my off road standards come resale. This is without debate of maintenance and difference in fuel economy

Off road model wise the ZR2 beats out the TRD. If you need a pavement/farm road truck the Tacoma beats out the Colorado. It all comes down to what your needs are

Now if Toyota had the Hilux in Canada I might be singing a different tune

I wanted a pickup suitable for highway, gravel roads, and fields, trails, some snow and softer ground, not serious off roading. I would never purchase a new $50,000+ truck to beat up at more serious off roading. And one reason for going mid sized is better fuel economy, and the ZR2 is a fuel pig compared to the regular Colorado/Canyon, and even worse than the Tacoma.

[Smoky buck]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

I wanted a pickup suitable for highway, gravel roads, and fields, trails, some snow and softer ground, not serious off roading. I would never purchase a new $50,000+ truck to beat up at more serious off roading. And one reason for going mid sized is better fuel economy, and the ZR2 is a fuel pig compared to the regular Colorado/Canyon, and even worse than the Tacoma.

MPG the ZR2 actually beats the Tacoma with both gas and Diesel engine’s. The diesel definitely does done firsthand comparison

In the end the Tacoma is a good truck and the most important thing is neither of us own a Honda Ridge line

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Smoky buck

MPG the ZR2 actually beats the Tacoma with both gas and Diesel engine’s. The diesel definitely does done firsthand comparison

In the end the Tacoma is a good truck and the most important thing is neither of us own a Honda Ridge line

Not according to the websites and reviews. The gas powered Z-71 uses 9.9l/100km highway, while the ZR2 increases to 13l/100km, for an increase of over 30%. The Tacoma is 10.7l/100km, which isn't as good as the Z-71, but is considerable better than the ZR2.

[Smoky buck]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Not according to the websites and reviews. The gas powered Z-71 uses 9.9l/100km highway, while the ZR2 increases to 13l/100km, for an increase of over 30%. The Tacoma is 10.7l/100km, which isn't as good as the Z-71, but is considerable better than the ZR2.

I should specify I am comparing ZR2 to the TRD sport in which my statement is correct

Yes if you start comparing the ZR2 to a non off road model Tacoma it will sway to the Tacoma. It is like comparing apples to oranges unless you are comparing models built to compete in the same category

[Scott h]

Originally Posted by tacomama

No idea why anyone would spend their hard earned money on an inferior product (Canyon/Colorado/Ranger) over a slight difference in MPG.

Completely agree, but I have to wonder when Toyota will address their mileage.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Smoky buck

I should specify I am comparing ZR2 to the TRD sport in which my statement is correct

Yes if you start comparing the ZR2 to a non off road model Tacoma it will sway to the Tacoma. It is like comparing apples to oranges unless you are comparing models built to compete in the same category

I was comparing the TRD Off Road to the Z-71 and the ZR2. The TRD Off Road does have Bilstein shocks, skid plates, and a locking differential, that make it better for off road, but it isn't lifted, and does not have huge tires, so it doesn't suffer in fuel economy like the ZR2. By the way, the TRD Sport, is the street version. There is also the TRD Pro, with Fox shocks, snorkel etc but even then the highway rating is 11.7l/100km, still 10% better than the ZR2.

[Smoky buck]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

I was comparing the TRD Off Road to the Z-71 and the ZR2. The TRD Off Road does have Bilstein shocks, skid plates, and a locking differential, that make it better for off road, but it isn't lifted, and does not have huge tires, so it doesn't suffer in fuel economy like the ZR2. By the way, the TRD Sport, is the street version. There is also the TRD Pro, with Fox shocks, snorkel etc but even then the highway rating is 11.7l/100km, still 10% better than the ZR2.

Gas ZR2 20mpg Tacoma TRD off road 17.7 mpg is what I am seeing so at the min there is conflicting information out there

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Smoky buck

Gas ZR2 20mpg Tacoma TRD off road 17.7 mpg is what I am seeing so at the min there is conflicting information out there

I used the numbers off of the manufacturers Canadian sites , because the manufacturers use the same standards to arrive at the ratings. I used l/100km, to avoid people confusing US and Imperial gallons.

[Smoky buck]

Regardless Toyota has the better quality gas engine and that is the reason I own a diesel ZR2

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Smoky buck

Regardless Toyota has the better quality gas engine and that is the reason I own a diesel ZR2

I considered a Canyon diesel because a friend has one, and gets around 30mpg highway. But during the recent cold spell, he had dpf issues, and some online research turned up too many issues with the diesel.

[Smoky buck]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

I used the numbers off of the manufacturers Canadian sites , because the manufacturers use the same standards to arrive at the ratings. I used l/100km, to avoid people confusing US and Imperial gallons.

I always check multiple testing reviews because companies have a history of BSing fuel economy

I know my wife’s tundra stock truck is not getting what Toyota claims. Buddies Tacoma trd off road is not meeting Toyota’s claims but it does have 2 inch lift and slightly larger tires that play a roll

My diesel ZR2 is actually getting slightly better The the fuel economy Chevy claims

Don’t know anyone who owns gas ZR2 so no firsthand experience here

[Smoky buck]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

I considered a Canyon diesel because a friend has one, and gets around 30mpg highway. But during the recent cold spell, he had dpf issues, and some online research turned up too many issues with the diesel.

DEF system is a possibility with all diesels these days. Knock on wood mine has been good

[Pixel Shooter]

Feel free to start a new thread. Totally off topic lol