My understanding is the new tacomas(2004+) are mid size pick-up truck. and pre 2004 Tacomas are compact pick-up trucks. Am I correct? Are the new Tacomas considered compact as well? Because to me, the newer(2004+) Tacomas look a little big to be considered a compact..
Thanks alot in advance.
The size changed with the '05.
Oh. sorry. with corrections: are 2005+ Tacomas considered mid-sized pick-up trucks or is it still considered compact pick-up trucks?
Thanks alot > On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 21:57:04 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net wrote: >
I would call the 2005+ Tacoma a mid size. When looking around at the dealers, I saw a Taco right next to an '06 Tundra and they look fairly close, but of course the Tundra is still larger. The differences will be more obvious again with upcoming release of the new full size Tundra. It makes you wonder if Toyota may have screwed up by upsizing both pickups with the recent gas prices. The two slightly smaller than average trucks may have been a distinguishing point in their product line which will now be lost.
By whose standards?
From the 2006 Consumer Reports cars report, the Tacoma is a "Compact", the Tundra is a "Full-sized" truck.
The EPA fuel mileage guide makes no distinction between the two.
Insurance companies may have different opinions.
jim menning
Yep to that last part. Bigger and bigger still.
Given the time necessary to engineer a new platform, I'm guessing that the much larger 2005+ Tacomas were probably conceived before the global fuel scenario was full appreciated.
I feel lucky. I've got an '00 Prerunner (4x2) with the 2.7/4cylinder powerplant. While I feel like even this truck is so long (nearly 18', close to a Dodge Grand Caravan), it still manages respectable fuel mileage (wish there'd been an option for a stick).
Likewise but somewhat OT, I bet Subaru engineers are kicking themselves in the crotch over the fact that their entire lineup is AWD since around 1995 (?). Any of those smaller sedans/hatchbacks/wagons would still get good to excellent mileage as front-wheel only, but now only have modest mileage at best.
Bottom line: I like the aesthetics of the new Toyota line, but I'm glad I have one of the "old" compact trucks.
I haven't researched the fuel economy numbers for the new Tacoma vs old, but one dealer told me that the 4 cyl. city/highway is actually 1-2 MPG better on the '05+ because of the weight shaved due to the composite bed. I doubt that will be the case with the new Tundra, especially with the 5.7L engine. There is suppposed to be 2 or 3 engines in the option list though so we'll see.
That's 2005+.
By JD Power & Associates standards.
-- Mike Harris Austin, TX
They classify it as a "mid-size".
I have a 2005 Tacoma regular cab with the 2.7L 4CYL engine. I get between
20-25 MPG depending on the situation. Looking at the smaller 2004 and earlier with the 2.7L I notice that the MPG is about rated the same. I know the 2005 is about 250LBS heavier than a comparable earlier model. I am very pleased with this pickup. It is approaching 2 years and it has given no trouble. It feels solid and I am impressed with the integrity of the build.MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.