I think the 2005 Tacomas are unnecessarily large, homelier than the previous models and a sad example of materialistic bloat. The formerly thrifty Japanese have become too enamored of our wasteful trends.
They could have just restyled the bodies & suspensions, keeping the same size & weight, and added the same (or existing smaller displacement 3.4 V6) vvt engine(s), maintaining greater agility and a notable boost in MPG instead of barely breaking even. Isn't that the smart thing to do with dwindling oil supplies and rising costs? I know a lot of you don't care, but you'll regret it in the future when a physical oil shock hits and you can't whine about not drilling ANWR for a year's worth of crude.
What is it with the bigger is always better and give me more power every year mentality? People got along fine with the light-footed compact models for over 2 decades. Now, we've only got a choice between full-size Tundras and bulky Tabloatas. Who among the public voted that these trucks "had" to become mid-size? Not me. Are people really carrying so much more crap around that it makes a difference in utility? 've always found a way to transport things in my 1997 Tacoma, and it more empty than full most of the time, as are most non-business trucks.
The 2005's extra 4" or 5" of body width can be a liability when you want to squeeze past a car to make a shortcut, or scrape through tight brush on a trail without tearing up the paint. The longer wheelbase also subtracts from off-road ability. The hood is much higher, reducing forward visibility and the thing looks clumsy from various angles. The bulging fenders, especially the sloping rear ones, look more decorative than stylish and serve to make the truck even more heifer-like.
I hope they get smart and shrink these cows back down when fuel efficiency is finally taken seriously and big enough is good enough.
Ron