The Tacoma is still available and still excellent but the Tacomas they built in the mid 90s are still in very high demand. My point in bringing them up is that they had a full lineup of truly excellent vehicles. The new ones are great pickups but they are expensive and like everything else awfully bloated.
In the 90s you could get an all wheel drive turbocharged Celica or a twin turbocharged Supra or the lightweight MR2 which was also available with a turbo. All of those cars were still as reliable as you would expect from Toyota but weren't simple appliances to get from A to B.
In the years since then Toyota has completely forgotten how to build an interesting car and has lost sight of what "car people" find appealing about cars. Toyotas aren't bad at all, the company just forgot about a bunch of the really cool stuff they used to do and I am disappointed about that because I think they could still do a lot of it.
If Dodge can build the Hellcat and Chevy can build the ZR-1 why can't Toyota build a proper Supra? I guess Lexus had the house-on-wheels LF-A but that's not going to fill the gap left by the Celica, Supra and MR2.
I've often wondered the same. I remember my doctor in the 90s had a Supra. But I've felt for a while now that the heydays of interesting cars are over. Where I'm at, most people aren't buying new cars like we were back then. I'm ok with Toyota's lineup because I just want the best possible chances at low to no maintenance. Excitement post 9/11 just means no WW3. But they could use a jolt for sure, they at least need the Supra though the 86 is a nice gesture. I don't understand what you mean by Tacomas being expensive or 'bloated'. The price seems about right and reasonable to me for a 4x4 pickup compared to their competition.
Totally agreed. The Tacoma is bloated and expensive relative to its older siblings but not it's current day competition. More of a commment on all vehicles getting bigger and having more buttons added over the years. Time will tell but I don't think a 2017 Tacoma will hold up as well after 20 years as a 1997 Tacoma. That's not necessarily a bad thing either I just distrust all the gadgets from a long-term reliability standpoint.
Ah yeah, I understand now. Yeah I've always been a rollup windows sort of buyer myself. I drive a standard transmission right now, which is pretty unpopular with the smartphone drivers who need that hand to drive while looking down. Pretty tough to get rollup window level of technology anymore. The one thing I do insist on is no useless tied down screen/navigation system, AM/FM only with real buttons. One of these[0] with my iPhone is about as good as it gets for navigation.
Tacomas have gotten a little more pumped up over time.. I just want the most efficient small truck I can get (that isn't from GM, whom I've dealt with their corporate a couple times and no thanks to further purchases). Truck designs can stop impressing the rednecks with the taller, bigger trucks and make something with a much lower tailgate height so that I can actually use the truck. I'm not interested in it to be a cool guy, interested in gas efficient truck that I can use to get stuff done and pull a reasonable size trailer.
It's odd as a technical person to say I prefer less technology in many cases but it's true. There's a level of sensibility, what's really needed and what works most reliably.
So much this. When I was in college I worked for a farmer as an equipment mechanic. He had a 1999 Chevrolet Silverado 2500. It had plenty of power, traction and ground clearance to get around the farm with enough cargo space for a replacement tractor tire and enough towing capacity to pull a 20' trailer down the freeway. All while carrying all of our tools.
It did all of this with a bed that was low enough to reach into from the side without climbing on anything and with a tailgate low enough I could load relatively heavy items without the need of a lift or a second set of arms.
I look at the new F-150 with the ladder in the tailgate and I think that's completely missing the point.
Interesting. I was from a rural area and worked on a farm as well. Now I'm a city-boy(!) trying to get ahead and failing at that.
The Chevys were always good about not sitting too high. I haven't looked at the new ones other than the diesel Colorado, nice setup shame I'll never own one. I would need a substantial pile of rebates to buy Chevy/Ford/Ram anyway. That's the Achilles' heel of the Fords and the ladder is really hilarious. I've heard bad things about the aluminum beds too from dealers.
Their whole thing about "military grade aluminum" makes me laugh every time. I associate it with the quote about the Saturn V being 2 million parts made by the lowest bidder on a government contract.
I don't want military grade anything. I want something that will last me 20 years without hesitation.
I remember lusting after the twin turbo Supra back in my teens. "Porsche performance at a Toyota price" is the quote from a car magazine I remember (Car & Driver maybe?) Never actually drove one, but maybe I'll include them on the list for my next car.
In the 90s you could get an all wheel drive turbocharged Celica or a twin turbocharged Supra or the lightweight MR2 which was also available with a turbo. All of those cars were still as reliable as you would expect from Toyota but weren't simple appliances to get from A to B.
In the years since then Toyota has completely forgotten how to build an interesting car and has lost sight of what "car people" find appealing about cars. Toyotas aren't bad at all, the company just forgot about a bunch of the really cool stuff they used to do and I am disappointed about that because I think they could still do a lot of it.
If Dodge can build the Hellcat and Chevy can build the ZR-1 why can't Toyota build a proper Supra? I guess Lexus had the house-on-wheels LF-A but that's not going to fill the gap left by the Celica, Supra and MR2.