By on December 18, 2014

2015NAIAS_Toyota_Tacoma_Teaser2

You saw part of its backside. Now, behold the façade that is the 2016 Toyota Tacoma.

Just like before, Toyota didn’t say anything about the third-gen pickup, other than when it would turn up at the 2015 Detroit Auto Show: January 12, 12:50 p.m. Eastern.

As previously stated, the Tacoma is the king of the mid-size hill, but its third incarnation will be facing two new upstarts in addition to the aging Nissan Frontier: the Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

79 Comments on “Detroit 2015: Toyota Teases New Tacoma Again...”


  • avatar
    petezeiss

    The opera bouffe of these cravenly overworked “reveals” for the most ho-hum of sheet metal and plastic updates gives me great Funny.

  • avatar
    Lie2me

    Don’t get too excited here are some spy shots of the complete truck…

    http://image.automobilemag.com/f/81366323+q100+re0/2016-toyota-tacoma-spied-2.jpg

  • avatar
    Vulpine

    It looks like its grown–two sizes too large.
    More direct competition to the Colorado, but seemingly leaving Nissan alone in the “smaller” pickup truck department.

    • 0 avatar
      OldandSlow

      Yep, you’re looking at about 18 feet of length for the extended cab version.

      I’ve seen a couple of 2015 Colorados on the road. They are good looking trucks – which also looks to be an 18 footer on the extended cab version.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        Oh, I admit the Colorado is a good looking truck–it’s just too big. It could shrink about 20% and probably be much, MUCH more popular.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          It’d be MUCH more popular with YOU! The rest of North America thinks bigger. OEMs are correct here. And those that do want a classically small pickup are usually shopping for a used truck, not new, anyways.

          I want a smaller Mustang GT, in the 3,000 lbs range, or less. But I’m not crazy enough to hope or demand a new one like that. This isn’t 1982.

          Learn the word “resto-mod”. You build an old Datsun or Hard Body to your specific needs and wishes, best of the old and new, and likely for MUCH less cash than the new trucks you HATE so much.

          Other than that, you sound like the crazy old guy, “You Kids get OFF my Lawn!!!”

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Open your eyes, Denver; the American OEMs can’t keep growing their trucks forever. We’ve already seen a lot of commentary AND articles about the possibility of bringing South American-sized trucks into the States just in the many truck threads–not even considering the number of people who don’t pay attention to sites like this (or even know about them). Just because YOU and so many others think they won’t succeed doesn’t make it an established fact–only an established opinion.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Actually, DM, no. I am just e Pluribus Unum: One among many. Based on the percentage of pro vs con commentary in this thread alone, roughly 20%-30% of the trucking community alone would like to see smaller AMERICAN trucks on the road–smaller than decades-old full-sized trucks.

            And Resto-Mod is useless if all you can buy in the first place are rusted-out junkers. Owners of decent ones don’t want to let go of them.

          • 0 avatar
            ect

            Huh? “E pluribis unum” means “out of many, one”.

            I thought all American knew that

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            While your translation may be more exact, it is NOT the one implied by the use of the phrase in America.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            “One from many” or “out of many, one” meaning united as in United States. Not “one among many” that wouldn’t make any sense

          • 0 avatar
            ect

            Vulpine, you’re completely wrong.

            Didn’t you ever take a civics class? Or American history?

            See:

            http://greatseal.com/mottoes/unum.html

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            A restomodded ’80s/early ’90s Toyota pickup would absolutely be the shiznit, but would be way more expensive (if done remotely right) than a new truck. Custom work costs a lot of money.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Vulpine’s quest to explore the depths of stupid will never cease. A tireless voyager on the seas of dumb.

            It shouldn’t be necessary to explain to an American that it is a reference to thirteen former colonies uniting to become one country (hence, “the United States.”)

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Basically all you’ve done is proven my point–that I am not alone in my desire for a significantly smaller pickup truck. You’ve just redefined it without changing it.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            Have you ever been employed as a political spin-doctor? If not, you missed your calling

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Vulpine – We’ve offered you every alternative/solution, but at some point you’re gonna have to accept it like a man and move on. Or move to Venezuela..

            But I’d love to have a ’75 -’79 Sasquatch. That’s the Ford Courier with a 4X4 conversion. I got an extra 2.3 Turbo (SVO) engine I’ve been hording for the occasion. They didn’t come with 2.3s but the Ranger did. So I have all those years of trans and transfer cases to play with.

            So are you alive at all? You ever turned a wrench before? Built something with your hands???

            You do have to do your home work, but rust-free pickups are plentiful and relatively cheap in the southern states to CA. Shipping is $500 to $1,000, to anywhere in the US.

            So stop your sniveling and excuses. Do something about it.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            No, Denver, you have NOT offered me every alternative/solution; said alternative/solution simply does not exist here in the US… yet. I got rid of my old F-150 because it was simply too big and too thirsty for my daily or even weekly needs. That truck carried a full load in the bed a total of 10 times in three years! And even then except when I was carrying those big, plastic event tables the load never even came up to the rails. The thing was simply too big and too clumsy for any form of everyday use even discounting its poor in-town fuel mileage. And no load ever made the back end sag on its springs even enough to level the truck as it sat–it always had a nose-down attitude on rather light rear springs (five leaves). How many more ways can I tell you that I simply don’t need a truck THAT BIG?
            But I do need a truck. There are times still when I may need to carry those tables (as an extreme). There are times when I need to carry lumber, bricks, stone, dirt and yes, mulch. There are times I need to carry old electronics and appliances to the recyclers or cases of bottled water and other drinks to a charity event–more than what would fit SAFELY in the back of a compact SUV (any sudden braking would send them sliding forward into the back of the driver’s seat at a minimum–even discounting any spillage should such accident cause the breakage of containers. There are simply things a small truck can do better than a small SUV without having to be the size of two of those same SUVs.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Then your chosen alternative is no alternative, since OEMs may never custom build you, the Vulpine Special. If you want to make yourself miserable till then, enjoy that!

            But you’re crazy if you think OEMs are going to listen to blogger’s desires. Their research is based on reality. Or they’d all sell brown compact diesel station wagons with a manual trans.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Who said I want “custom built”, Denver? I said I want showroom stock a vehicle that is readily available just south of the border by both GM and FCA. If they’re that close, why can’t they just go ahead and bring it on in?

            Personally, I think they’re far closer to doing it than you want to admit. There’s been enough noise and enough articles about these vehicles on websites the OEMs almost certainly follow for them to know there IS a demand, despite your desire to believe otherwise.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Even if said trucks exist in Mexico, it’s still easier said than done. And not worth it for a few Vulpii.

            I’d be cheaper for OEM to relocate the Vulpii to Mexico…

            A blogger’s wish list may not pan out in actual sales, or meet minimal sales. That’s the trap OEMs won’t fall in.

            A blogger may have 30+ cars or concepts that he’s pushing for, of which they may not buy ANY of, when it came time to put his money where his mouth is. Or keypad is.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Look up the history of the Red Fox in the Americas, Denver. You’re simply not going to be able to move one or two and expect them to remain what they were. They’ll take over your land and supplant what you thought couldn’t be moved. I am one fox among many and you’re just going to have to get used to our presence. We’re not going away, no matter how hard you try.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            No doubt you’re not going away. But mini-trucks did. Gone for good. If you want to live in the past, go ahead.

            We’ve all moved on. So did OEMs. Isuzu, Mitsu, Mazda, VW, Subaru, Toyota, Nissan/Datsun, GM, Dodge and Ford, sold mini-trucks in the US at one time, and they all ran away from the market screaming! Remaining midsize are far from “mini”.

            There’s still want and desire for custom molester vans, I’m sure. But if you and a dozen other bloggers want a new one, don’t expect OEMs to fall all over themselves to meet the “need”. You’ll have to build your own.

            Why is this such a hard concept for you to grasp? OEMs follow the money, nothing else.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            “OEMs follow the money, nothing else.”
            And that’s exactly why you’re fooling yourself if you think those OEMs are going to ignore a potential gold mine. The first one or two brands to bring in a Montana or Ram 700-sized truck are going to find a gold mine waiting to be tapped simply because there is nothing available in that size.
            Those same OEMs ignored the minivan–until they couldn’t.
            Those same OEMs ignored the crossover–until they couldn’t.
            So what makes you think that they don’t know there’s a market simply waiting to be tapped?
            They’ve grown the full-sized pickup grossly out of the market in both size and price.
            They’ve grown the mid-sized pickup grossly out of the market in size–which is why their sales are so poor. A smaller truck at the same entry price as a base Frontier would probably wipe out the existing mid-sized pickup market. Even the new Colorado would fall to the Montana.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            “Isuzu, Mitsu, Mazda, VW, Subaru, Toyota, Nissan/Datsun, GM, Dodge and Ford, sold mini-trucks in the US at one time, and they all ran away from the market screaming! ”

            Now we have a change in meaning. It would a given with exception of Subaru, actually sold a Brazil like unibody Mini Truck, The rest sold Midsizers or in VW’s case a Cab Chassis variant of their Van.
            Still Toyota, Nissan, GM and possibly FCA are selling Midsizers

    • 0 avatar
      petezeiss

      My thoughts exactly. It would’ve been full-size in the ’80s & ’90s.
      Nissan’s looking like a shoe-in if I get another pickup, ’cause any new vehicle *has* to fit in my garage.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        With you commenting on the 18-foot length, Pete, I gather you’d rather see a 15-foot extended cab version–about where I’d like to see them go. As an on-road truck you don’t need 7″ of ground clearance and you certainly don’t need a gigantic, high-torque, high-horsepower engine either. 150-200 horses would be more than enough (even my ’90 full size only had 200 horses) and you could probably get by with 125-150 horses with the right gearing.

        • 0 avatar
          petezeiss

          Yep, except I wants my ground clearance.

        • 0 avatar
          Lie2me

          I think FCA is the only one who “get’s it” with the Ram 700. Whether we “get it” is to be seen…

          http://www.camionesram.com.mx/700/2015/img/innovacion/caracteristicas/intro.jpg

          • 0 avatar
            petezeiss

            Me likee!

            With the tailgate down and plenty of tie-downs I would fear no garage sale.

            And good for windrows, too, with Blizzaks and junk in the trunk.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Now, now Lies. GM has one too.
            http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2010/09/2011-chevrolet-montana-debuts-in-south-america-.html

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            That picture is 5 years old, so not happening. The Ram 700 has a better chance

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Sheesh, so picky! Ok, here’s a 2014:

            http://www.autossegredos.com.br/2013/07/24/chevrolet-montana-2014-chegara-sem-mudanca-visual/

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            I like the Colorado and Tacoma but make them smaller?

            That isn’t going to work in the USA and Canada. I doubt it would work in Mexico or the rest of the globe.

            The “globals” have gained some size. With that being said, it is highly unlikely that they will morph into our fullsizers.

            I’m sure that Fiat could import the Strada and call it a Ram 700 but it would sell in smaller numbers than even the fiat 500.

            Nope – these “small” trucks are sized for their target audience and they aren’t going to spend billions to keep Vulpine and 5,000 others happy. (or am I being overly optimistic?)

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Lou, I think even you know better than that. The Tacoma and the Frontier carry about 10% of the pickup market in the US today and I am pretty certain (without running an express opinion poll) that smaller truck than those could probably pull 10% all by themselves without pulling more than one or two percent from the larger trucks; the vast majority of buyers would be coming out of the smaller sized SUV/CUV markets.

            The simple fact is that the small trucks are extremely popular in Europe and South America and the United States does have areas in which a smaller-sized truck would be extremely convenient as a true utility vehicle. Go to the electronics store sometime and watch somebody trying to fit their brand-new TV in their CUV. Watch them go to a greenhouse and try to fit a tree in their SUV. And yes, for all the facetious hilarity it gets, even tree mulch, potting soils and stone can be carried more easily and with less mess in the bed of a small truck than in the back of an equally small SUV/CUV. Truck of all sizes have their purposes and this is certainly NOT a One Size Fits All market; there will always be those who simply prefer having a smaller vehicle for those smaller jobs.

            Almost no car in the US is less than five feet wide, so a small truck would be no less than five feet wide and as such capable of carrying a sheet of plywood in the bed–albeit not necessarily flat Even now the Tacoma and the Frontier have pockets in the bed designed to use a piece of 2×4 at either end as a shelf to hold a 4×8 sheet of drywall/plywood flat over the wheel wells; it’s not rocket science. If compact SUVs have become so popular, why can’t compact pickup trucks also be popular?

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @Vulpine – my comment is based on the difference between what one wants and what will sell.
            We are convinced that “supersizeme” is the best way.

            But if I looked at just what I want – I wouldn’t want a truck smaller than the current Colorado or Tacoma. I had an ’84 Ranger reg cab long box 4×4 for 6 years. I liked it but would never want something that small again.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            I don’t think anyone really knows “what will sell” until it is actually attempted. I just know that too many people currently not owning or driving pickup trucks do so due to the fact that they simply are too big. I live in a semi-rural county where pickup trucks are very common and yet its surprising how many of the old S-10s and Rangers are on the road while every time I go to the bank I hear someone (not myself) commenting that they’re buying a small CUV/SUV because no trucks are small enough. One of these people is a teller, sitting behind the glass, who doesn’t look like she’d even consider a truck of any size.

            I still question the HUGE market of smaller CUVs/SUVs coming out of virtually nowhere while minivans have essentially died–as well as many other, larger, vehicles.

        • 0 avatar
          anti121hero

          The most perfectly proportioned full size was the early nineties f series to me. For compact, I like 80s rangers and s10s. Dakotas used to be a great midsized in the nineties. Now it seems the “compact” trucks are about the size of the aforementioned f series. (No numbers to quote but I’d like to find out). Even SUVS have jumped to enormous sizes. My original grand cherokee seems small compared to a lot of modern CUVS. My regular cherokee looks absolutely tiny, although it is lifted. I prefer the small trucks as you do though.

  • avatar
    VW16v

    Bottom line. Will toyota be able to get 27mpg hwy in the new tacoma. If not, the Colorado/Canyon wins. Right now, the 4cyl tacoma gets less mpg hwy then a v8 ford or gm full size pickup. Just shameful.

    • 0 avatar
      Halftruth

      I hear this often here on TTAC. I won’t believe it until I see real world numbers.
      I average 21 in my ’12 Tacoma (4×4) in mixed driving and I know a couple of friends with F150s that dont get near that. What gives? Please enlighten me.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        I would imagine it’s all in how you drive it. With those big engines in today’s full-sized trucks, it seems they can’t help playing around with all that power.

      • 0 avatar
        anti121hero

        My 94 f150 got 19 mpg

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          19.5mpg on the highway at 65mph in a 1990 F-150 5.0EFI. In town mileage barely broke 10.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            The best I ever got with my 1990 F250 reg cab 4×4 with 5.0 was 16 mpg US highway. That was with bigger tires, push bar and some other aftermarket gear.

            My considerably bigger F150 Supercrew 4×4 with notoriously thirsty 5.4 gets 20.5 mpg US on highway with family and gear on board.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            My ’84 2.8 litre V6 Ranger got around 25 highway. My 1990 5.0 F250 got 16 at best.
            The 1990 had 195 hp.
            My 2010 F150 SuperCrew 4×4 has that 1990 of mine beat in every metric. 105 more hp is more quiet, more safe, and rides much better. I tend to average 20.5 mpg highway with my F150. Those are all USA mpg converted numbers.

      • 0 avatar
        VW16v

        My uncle in Florida has a 2013 2wd tacoma 4cyl with the 4spd auto. He barely get 20mpg hwy in the truck. Maybe it’s the ac always being on. But, I would think toyota would be able make an ac system that does not drain the power that much and would cause it to loose 3 mpg on the hwy. He averages about 19 due to about 85% hwy driving. I also know of some people that have a 4door tacoma with a the v6. They average about 17mpg. I guess if you really baby your truck and not use the ac you can get 21mpg. For a comparison, my neighbor has a new Silverado with the 5.3L. He can get 24 -25 mpg hwy and he is averaging 20mpg combined hwy/city.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      On a test drive of the ’14 model Tacoma with 5-speed, I found it was due to an underpowered engine and poor gearing. A smaller engine alone is not enough to improve fuel mileage; it has to have the power to move it efficiently. Had the transmission been geared lower across the board OR a slightly higher final drive ratio might have made a huge difference in its economy.

      • 0 avatar
        Halftruth

        V, you are correct. The gearing is not great and 2nd gear is not a great low speed rolling gear. It is too tall and 1st is locked out until you are dead stopped. I don’t believe for a minute that a full size anything gets better mpg than a 4 cyl TT. No way no how. Bigger engine, bigger tires and more weight overall. The EPA numbers may be hopeful but real world, anything with a V8 won’t break 17, SUVs included. Yes, it may be underpowered but it is consistent and mpgs are really not that bad for a 4×4. Prove me wrong, I am listening!

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          @HalfTruth – As we’ve seen with the aluminum F-150, weight hardly impacts mpg. Midsize pickups are pigs b/c their engines are too small for their given applications, unless we’re talking base stripper 2wds. Of course we’re not.

          Undersizing an engine means gearing has to be extra aggressive and the engine pushed harder. Obviously that’s gonna kill FE. There’s no FREE lunch, especially with trucks made and bought to perform “truck” tasks.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            I figured this out a long time ago with my only ventures into 4 cylinder engines back in the 80s. 4 bangers running at top revs trying to move a mountain of steel will get about the same mpg as a 6 cylinder moving the same mountain effortlessly. I’ve driven only 6s and 8s ever since

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Right, we’re only fooling ourselves, now that midsize trucks are fullsize in weight, wind resistance, etc. Without V8s or TTV6s midsizers, you can expect fullsize mpg, or worse. Commonsense.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Well whaddaya know, DM agrees with me on something! (Both on modern mid-sizers AND why the older ones don’t work as well as they should.)

          • 0 avatar
            Carlson Fan

            A guy worked I with had bought a brand new compact ’94 4×4 extra cab Toyota PU w/5sp stick. Identical truck to my ’93 sans the V6. Of course he asked me what kind of mileage I got with mine and when I told him his replay was “ship!”. There was absolutely no MPG gain in that particular model truck with the 4 banger over the V6. I bought mine to tow, so the 4 banger was never an option. Even the V6 was a little disappointing power wise in the that department.

            And sticks suck in trucks, especially when towing. Give me auto or give me death!…LOL

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @DEnverMike – we have seen with the aluminum F150 that a weight diet only yields maybe 10% improvement in mpg.
            If the small trucks were to have comparable engines to the 1/2 tons they should be at least 10% better than the best 1/2 tons since they are lighter.

            People buy the smaller truck because they want a smaller truck.

            I’m not sure why so much cognitive dissonance exists around that simple fact.

            MPG and cost play a role but in this case size does matter the most.

  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    It looks like it’s hungry for cookies.

  • avatar
    crtfour

    I thought that grille looked familiar. It’s very similar to the 2015 Outback.

  • avatar
    gtemnykh

    Everyone (particularly Toyota) is making it harder and harder to integrate aftermarket steel bumpers, what with the huge droopy grilles. Just look at a 2014+ 4Runner or the latest Tundra. More of an observation that a real factor that is affecting their sales.

    I have really grown to appreciate the combination of chromed steel bumpers with a small flexible unpainted plastic piece underneath on my 4Runner. My old Mazda had quite a few battle scars from busting through frozen piles of snow, which scratch the heck out of painted plastic bumpers, and plastic flexing cracks the paint. The downside is worrying about the steel parts of the bumper rusting from the inside out (as they often do). Nothing a coat of Fluid Film on the backside of the bumper can’t fix!

  • avatar
    Kato

    From the spy shot link Lie2me provided it looks too big and too ugly. Looks like it will be almost as ugly as the 4-Runner. Disappointing.

  • avatar
    Hummer

    Really, the one thing I found ugly about the truck they make worse?
    Plastic bumpers, stop it, they look terrible. The GMT900 Tahoes and 3 piece Silverado bumpers already looked clapped out with that integrated crap. It looks good for about 3-4 years, on a car or CUV no one cares because it’s going in the junkyard by age 12, trucks and SUVs actually stay on the road and this does nothing but hurt the value of the newer trucks.

  • avatar
    NoGoYo

    Who do I have to kill to get a Toyota truck with Toyota block script in the grille instead of the oval thing, outside of a special edition I’ve literally never seen in person?

  • avatar
    JEFFSHADOW

    Looks like it might be Japanese. Dr. Oldsmobile does not buy Japanese.
    End of story; see “Unbroken”.

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    Spam bot ate my post. It looks like a mini-me Tundra. Why would anyone want to copy that snout?

  • avatar
    NoGoYo

    Spam bot ate my post about wanting the TOYOTA block script on the grille instead of the oval.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • ras815: Despite it having absolutely none of the requirements he is looking for, you could at LEAST have spelled the...
  • ttacgreg: I am a Prius owner, and since vaccination I’ve been having plenty of intimate good times. Question...
  • ToolGuy: Engine from Hungary, transmission from Mexico, convertible top system from Austria. Assembled in Poland. So...
  • ttacgreg: I love my 2016 Prius. It really is a remarkable machine even if it is odd looking. Beauty is only skin deep.
  • ttacgreg: Pizza grease might work.

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber