Base model vs fully loaded truck

Originally Posted by supton
If you had bought all those, would you have kept them, or had them for a while and flipped as the years passed?


If I'd bought one it would have precluded me buying another until I sold something else. My wife follows the lead of Mike Valentine's wife and limits me to 22 wheels on the ground- right now it's composed of four cars and one motorcycle. If I wanted another bike I'd either have to sell the current bike or else one of the cars- of course if I flipped a car I could then have three bikes.
 
If you like Tacomas you just buy a new one. Find a dealer willing to discount and pay the price. They hold value too well to consider used. Get a 2020, they improved the seat finally, and enjoy. A double cab Tacoma 4x4 is probably the safest automotive purchase financially speaking. It wont break and it will lose the least amount of value. You can take care of it and drive it forever so do not compromise on little things that might influence todays price 10% or so.
 
MORE truck for LESS $$$ is a Nissan Frontier, 05 to 10 had auto tranny-cooler issues after that all good or get a stick as i did!! although trucks hold value, the more you spend the more you loose, so only get what you need unless you got $$$ to throw away, a nice preowned can save $$$$
 
Last edited:
Is this going to be your usual ride or are the other vehicles in your sit at your disposal for DD duty?
—— I would never consider a base model for a DD.

If this is going to be a workhorse, utilitarian vehicle, I'd have no problem going base model IF you want to keep a long time.

Mid-range or loaded if you plan on dumping it as early you're dumping your Outback...

//

Real advice: keep the Outback and save money.
 
I bought a base Reg cab F-150. Even the lowly XL has more toys than I want to play with while driving. And it has power everything that I needed to be happy. I put in a set of $799 leather seats covers. Tinted the rear and side windows to 35%. No carpet so I put a full coverage WeatherTech across-the-hump floor mats. Put on running boards myself. I have $25K in it total, new. It has averaged 21.5 MPG in 19,000 miles. The last ten fillups have averaged 22.6 MPG. Less short trips now that I have retired. No more 3 mile slog back and forth to work.

It will GLH if you rev it, (4100 lbs-290 Hp) but torquey down low for around town driving. The six-speed auto seems to grab the right gear 95% of the time. The other 5% is when it downshifts one too many. At 80 MPH it is only turning 2200 RPM. With the 7000 rpm redline, that means the truck will top 240 mph.
grin.gif
The 3.3L na V-6 has used no oil. Heck, it even comes with fake engine noise, when you get above 3K rpm. It won a stoplight contest with a 4 cyl Porsche Cayman with about 240hp.

This truck was purchased to replace a 2008 Tacoma A/C 2.7L 5 speed. The Toyota was uber dependable and Uber boring and Uber slow. It handled well, used no oil, and all of the usual Toyota attributes. Two years into the F-150 I would say I prefer the Ford, mostly because it is more fun to drive. The F-150 has a double wishbone front suspension and just steers wonderfully above 30 mph. The steering is overboosted below that speed. With 210 lbs of sand tubes in the bed to balance the truck, it is enjoyable to drive in the twisties. It doesn't even mind quick switchbacks, which I discovered on a trip to the Colorado rockies.

Now the not so good. The Ford service at my dealer sucks. Don't ever go to my dealer except for warranty work, I go to a Quick Lane that is close to me and I am in and out in 30 min. Sorry, my climbing under the car days is over. Plus this has all the panels that need removed. My only other complaint is the truckish ride. The ride is actually good until you hit the big one. Ooops, forgot that it is slow to warm up to operating temp.

YMMV
 
I have heard many times that the 3.5 V6 gets the same fuel economy as the 2.7 4-cyl so I don't understand why anyone would get the 2.7 anymore. They are both very reliable and the V6 makes more power and more capable hauling/towing.

Also the new V6 is not as brawny as the old 4.0 for hauling/towing, makes no sense why they even bothered...
 
Take your time and do some long test drives . I had a 2006 4x4 x cab 2.7 Tacoma .I gave it to my son and he still has it . I really enjoyed the truck.
 
Originally Posted by MCompact
Likewise, I've never heard someone say, "I wish I'd bought a vehicle with a less powerful engine."
Buy what you want- not what you need. Life is too short to drive boring cars. Or trucks.


While no one ever says that they wish they bought something less powerful, they do end up complaining about the money they spend on gas. Which means they probably should have bought a more fuel efficient vehicle. Probably not going to be a factor for a few years.

Technically for many purchases, they are a want not a need. I think one comeback for one luxury department store when someone said they didn't need something was that they don't sell anything there that anyone needs.
 
Originally Posted by Wolf359

While no one ever says that they wish they bought something less powerful, they do end up complaining about the money they spend on gas. Which means they probably should have bought a more fuel efficient vehicle. Probably not going to be a factor for a few years.

Technically for many purchases, they are a want not a need. I think one comeback for one luxury department store when someone said they didn't need something was that they don't sell anything there that anyone needs.


In my experience the difference in running costs between the practical choice and the entertaining choice has never been consequential enough to cause me to settle for less performance than I wanted.
And literally, YMMV.
 
The full size trucks offer a lot for the money if you keep the bling down. Very pleased with my bone stock 3.7L F-150 owned since new in 2012. It's too big (ungainly if you ask me) and much more capable than this Joe Suburbanite will ever need. Not much of a criticism.

Has more hp than Steve McQueen's Mustang or Magnum PI's Ferrari, and over time, 90K miles, suburban mpg has increased to 20+

Since 2012, all of them have gotten even more powerful with better mpg.

The full size segment has been much more hotly competitive longer than the mid-size segment and it shows.

It cost about as much as a Honda Civic when I bought it and has slightly better resale value. That's an argument in favor of new if you ask me. That's even more of a factor with the Taco. I'd be reluctant to pay the initial price premium, but that's just me. If you like the car, the difference is probably not all that material.

I'd check out the Bill Luke Chrysler website to get an idea of what real world prices are like these days and go shopping.
 
Ye gods. $29,000 for a base-model 4-cylinder COMPACT truck. Ye. Gods.

The Tacoma is a stupid vehicle. Stupid-big, stupid-tall, stupid-small bed...90% the price of a fullsize truck, yet half as capable.
 
Originally Posted by MCompact
Originally Posted by Wolf359

While no one ever says that they wish they bought something less powerful, they do end up complaining about the money they spend on gas. Which means they probably should have bought a more fuel efficient vehicle. Probably not going to be a factor for a few years.

Technically for many purchases, they are a want not a need. I think one comeback for one luxury department store when someone said they didn't need something was that they don't sell anything there that anyone needs.


In my experience the difference in running costs between the practical choice and the entertaining choice has never been consequential enough to cause me to settle for less performance than I wanted.
And literally, YMMV.


Far be it for me to talk someone out of getting something loaded. I like the options. It's even better if someone else buys it and you get to buy it used. That's why used cars are much easier to sell if they're loaded than base model cars. Many used car guides don't even really value some of the options that the new car buyer has to pay for, mostly they just go by mileage and condition, not options.
 
Originally Posted by Jarlaxle
Ye gods. $29,000 for a base-model 4-cylinder COMPACT truck. Ye. Gods.

The Tacoma is a stupid vehicle. Stupid-big, stupid-tall, stupid-small bed...90% the price of a fullsize truck, yet half as capable.


And they are absolutle terrible vehicles. Poorly engineered and performing. At least they used to be.

then the rust.

Let's put that thing up on the lift for a tire rotation and oil change and lube.
Uhh, Oops. You will need a FRAME rotation pretty soon also.

Like, Today?.

[Linked Image]
 
Last edited:
I hate it when that happens … should of removed all the sandbags loaded in there to make it drivable …
 
Originally Posted by MCompact
Originally Posted by Wolf359

While no one ever says that they wish they bought something less powerful, they do end up complaining about the money they spend on gas. Which means they probably should have bought a more fuel efficient vehicle. Probably not going to be a factor for a few years.

Technically for many purchases, they are a want not a need. I think one comeback for one luxury department store when someone said they didn't need something was that they don't sell anything there that anyone needs.


In my experience the difference in running costs between the practical choice and the entertaining choice has never been consequential enough to cause me to settle for less performance than I wanted.
And literally, YMMV.


I used to drive a Jeep with a HEMI in it. Average was about 16.5mpg on my daily commute. It required 89 octane. On road trips, I averaged about 18mpg. Since switching to a CX5, and later a CX5 turbo, I truly do notice that road trips to see friends cost less (1500 miles in Jeep = $139 using 89 octane vs, $114 in my CX5 using 91 and 93 octane). If I decide to run 87 in the CX5, which it's tuned to do interchangeably, that's $83. $83 vs $139 is a decent gap.

Then consider that I drive about 3K miles per month, and the jeep averaged 16.5 while my CX5 averages 26.6 for its lifetime, and that's $236 using premium in my CX5 and $338 using mid-grade in my Jeep. Using regular, my CX5 would ding me for $173, or almost HALF what the Jeep cost to operate. Saving $150/mo would make 1.5 extra house payment per year for me.

By driving a turbo CX5>Jeep w/HEMI and using the recommended fuel in each, I can literally pay my house off 7 years sooner!

Wild...

But yes, YMMV for SURE! I am just making the point that oh, yeah! It can matter big time!

Difference in 0-80 between the two vehicles was less than 1 second, in favor of the Jeep.


*Gasoline prices from AAA site.
**https://www.mortgagecalculator.org/calculators/what-if-i-pay-more-calculator.php#top
***mpg from actual experience with said vehicles
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by ARCOgraphite
Originally Posted by Jarlaxle
Ye gods. $29,000 for a base-model 4-cylinder COMPACT truck. Ye. Gods.

The Tacoma is a stupid vehicle. Stupid-big, stupid-tall, stupid-small bed...90% the price of a fullsize truck, yet half as capable.


And they are absolutle terrible vehicles. Poorly engineered and performing. At least they used to be.

then the rust.

Let's put that thing up on the lift for a tire rotation and oil change and lube.
Uhh, Oops. You will need a FRAME rotation pretty soon also.

Like, Today?.

[Linked Image]




Yep, DANA CORP produced a bunch of improperly made frames for Toyota. Toyota won a $25,000,000 judgement against DANA CORP, and bought back trucks or replaced frames. Meanwhile, my neighbors Mercury Mountaineer (Ford Explorer) from the same era, had it's frame rot away. No such consideration from Ford for it's swiss-cheese frames. The Ford Explorer was in the top six spots of vehicles scrapped under the 'cash-for-clunkers' debacle.
 
Originally Posted by ARCOgraphite
New Taco 4 cyl Access Cab


Supposedly $25768, but that's only if you quality for the rebates/incentives and then a $599 "doc fee" that gets added on, among other fees in the fine print.

If you could actually get that Tacoma for under $26K +TTL, that's a great deal for a yota like this.

As much as I think I'd love a Toyota, my money has always gone to where I believe I get more vehicle for the money. Like said above, you could buy a 2019 Nissan Frontier crew cab 4x4 with under 20K miles on it for $24K, or a 2018-19 Ram 1500 quad or crew 4x4. Both of those trucks will get about the same fuel economy as the 2.7L Tacoma as well.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Elkins45
What base model 4x4 truck would you buy?
5 6 7
Replies
128
Views
6K
super20dan
A
Ford 3.5 EB w/ timing rattle - buy or walk?
2
Replies
29
Views
3K
cb_13
Delta
Traded The Camry...
Replies
17
Views
1K
chrlsful
redhat
Traded in two vehicles, and bought a new truck
2
Replies
38
Views
4K
spasm3
A
  • Locked
Upgrading to a more efficient truck
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
6K
surfstar
Back
Top