School me on trucks with manual transmissions

[GPP33]

Some quick googling:

2013 model year -- the automatics are rated to tow a bit more than the manuals:
http://www.ramtrucks.com/en/towing_g...wing.Specs.pdf

Apparently the manual trans Cummins is rated at 350 hp/660 tq, the automatic Cummins at 370/800:
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...t-drive-review

I didn't realize the torque was that far off. I know there's always some slight difference due to torque curve adjustments to work with a torque converter but 140 ft-lbs seems like a long way.

[Swine]

Another point to the OP, If you're buying used I'd look at the older body style Tundra with the 4.7L V8 like mine. Mine's an '06, first year of the five speed auto and last year you could get a four door with a six foot bed. It's not much bigger than the new tacos but with gobs more power and room for a small MPG tradeoff. Not saying it's good on gas by any stretch but neither is a taco. Also these truck can generally be had cheaper than a comparable Taco.

I was looking to buy a Taco and came to the above conclusions and never looked back. Haven't had to do shit to this truck.

The new Tundras with the 5.7 are a different ballgame however.

QFT. The Tacos hold their value ridiculously well, to the point that I don't think it makes sense to buy one, but you might be flush and that is a non-issue. I'd spring for the bigger truck that gets almost the same mileage. And, to address your original post, yes, you want a truck. There are so many useful things you can do with one that you simply can't with an SUV/Crossover. Having a large space that is separated from the interior comes in handy way more than you think. The '06 Tundras were money, my buddy is pushing 300k on his and has never had a major issue.

FWIW, I've only owned Chevys and Fords; at this point I think they are just as bulletproof. Every vehicle has its quirks and issues (I think around '08 - '09 there was a batch of Tundras that were cracking frames ). '04-'08 Fords have valve burnout, tricky spark plug issues, and eat ball joints (and the stock LS rear-end blows dick). Half-ton Chevys, at least in the early to mid 2000's, didn't have great (Auto) trannys.

I put 185K on an '01 Chevy 1500, two major repairs were rebuilding the Auto tranny and fixing the fuel pump. So far I have 140K on my '05 F150, had valve issues (probably caused by bad gas) that blew out the catalytic convertor, and my stock LS rear end shit the bed, other than that only normal repairs on both (I never should have sold the Chevy, that thing was doing just fine). My buddy regularly runs F150's to 250K in his fleet with very few issues (2 wheel drive work trucks though, although his employees tend to rag them pretty hard).

And to the original question, I really don't think Auto vs. Manual is a big deal anymore, I'd look at all the other factors before making that priority no. 1

Oh, hey rog, blow me.

[Theo-san]

looking far ahead and paying extra close attention when shit is sketch is a far better way to roll than relying on rubber. winter tires do help fer sure, but that is often the problem. they are relied on too heavily. and on icy roads they aren't that much better unless you run studs.

rog

That's exactly why I run wheels with no tires, skis with no edges, and shoes with no soles. Better to not rely on those stupid things. Sure, they do give more traction - but you really don't NEED them... I don't want to become reliant on something silly like that when I can just as easily do without.

[DeathVan]

I have a Tacoma with a stick, my buddy has the same truck in Auto.

I do not like driving his truck at all (neither does he fwiw), regardless if on the highway or a gnarly old logging road.
-feels soft and is always unnecessarily up shifting

It doesn't sound like you haul a boat or tow anything, so Stick it to it

[icelanticskier]

page 3

you guys are too much fun!

rog

[akokskis]

Whoa, lots to digest here.

First off, not to worry, (and sorry, Rog ), for I will be getting a set of snow tires for whatever vehicle I end up with. Got a set of blizzaks last year for my audi (mind you, 2wd) and I was simply amazed at the difference it made in snow/slush/slop/etc. Totally worth their weight in gold. Having some fun with the slip slidding around is all good until you end up off the road in the middle of fucking nowhere, VT, when it's -10` with no people or cell service around. Although I've avoided such an experience thus far, I can't imagine it being any fun.

I won't be towing boats or anything really, although long range plan might have me buying a sled in ~3-5 years. Even so, I'd imagine I could fit that into the bed of the truck if I needed to, or just tow it and not have great performance. But I don't think I'd be using it a whole lot thought, so I'm not too concerned on that front.



So I guess what I'm generally reading here is that there really isn't going to be much of a difference in real performance (at least that I would notice) of the truck in a stick vs auto. Stick kinda sucks in town, but is going to be better in the the mts, etc. Stick will give better control, maybe mileage as well... Do the clutches in these cars really last as long as I've heard they do?

I guess I'll look into some older used tacos & tundras, but with my total lack of any auto knowledge, I'm a bit apprehensive about buying used - wouldn't want to end up with a vehicle with any serious issues, etc, that I certainly wouldn't catch on to. It does sound like these are both effectively indestructible though, so I suppose that's a positive.

[XXX-er]

looking far ahead and paying extra close attention when shit is sketch is a far better way to roll than relying on rubber.

rog

uh rog I think what is really going on here is you are a cheap bastard ...too cheap to buy snow tires

[volklpowdermaniac]

i drive, text, sometimes eat, and chew/spit while driving a stick shift "truck". stay the fuck out of my bubble.

[Flexon Phil]

I prefer sticks but I'd rather drive a most automatics drive better than a bad ski and most trucks have bad sticks, they are trucks and well, they can drive like trucks. No way are you going to get the performance enjoyment out of a Taco that you got out of your A3. You will not drive a Taco, you will operate it.

[icelanticskier]

uh rog I think what is really going on here is you are a cheap bastard ...too cheap to buy snow tires

you are good. however, I do not buy what I do not need. that's not being cheap.

rog

[icelanticskier]

so akok, why do you need a truck again?

took a drive in a highlander the other day. sweet rig with a bunch of room. super reliable and you can keep everything inside. change in it, sleep in it, and it drives nicer than most trucks. sounds like these guys on here that laugh at vehicles like my crv may have manhood issues. I don't drive a vehicle or a ski for image or cuz it's the cool thing to have like many folks contributing on TGR. fuck that. I drive what works for me. drive what works for you. go drive a bunch of vehicles and report back.

rog

[akokskis]

so akok, why do you need a truck again?

Meh, I don't - I'll be the first to admit that. What I do need is a vehicle with 4x4, some good ground clearance and enough room to sleep in and keep lots of gear in (yes, I'd be getting a cap were I to get a truck). I'd like a stick, as I've always driven one and generally enjoy it, but it's by no means a necessity. Of course neither is being able to drive into the mountains when it dumps 18"... oh wait, yes that is

A truck seems to fit the bill, and won't run me quite as much as a comparable SUV (I think? haven't fully done the research on that one), and were I to get a taco, would hold some serious value through the years.

[XXX-er]

I gotta have somewhere^^ to put the chain saw that I don't really need either, cum on ... yer a cheap fucker

false economy cuz a trip to the ditch can cost you lots of $$$ AND maybe someones life

[icelanticskier]

you only ditch it if you are driving poorly.

rog

[XXX-er]

Ya but what about other people who hit you, and you couldn't avoid them ?

And it snot one thing going wrong that badly fucks you up its when 2 or 3 things go wrong simultaneously

up here even some stupid person in a sunfire would use studded snows because its just what one does

Sorry rog but now everyone has you pegged as a cheap metro sexual

[jamesp]

A truck seems to fit the bill, and won't run me quite as much as a comparable SUV (I think? haven't fully done the research on that one), and were I to get a taco, would hold some serious value through the years.

if you want a med-high clearance 4wd that is big enough to hold bike/ski shit for a weekend then a truck is cheapest option.
Tacoma & 4runner are more expensive & worse mileage than many other full size trucks, ditto Wrangler, Forester is too small, the Nissan thing (xtera?) gets bag mileage. What other options are there?

[ts01]

found an 05' crv 5 speed (very rare), pulled the larger of the 2 rear seats and the thing is as good as a small 4wd van that gets 28mpg and is GREAT in the snow with just all season radials. i never understood buying snow tires for an awd vehicle. waste of money imo.

Belated threadjack, sorry, but Rog, how do you get 28 mpg on that vehicle? I have the same generation CRV with a 5-spd stick (it's an 02 but same model essentially) and get +/- 23. Best ever was 24 mpg on a long highway drive holding at or below 65. But normal stop-and-go or highway over 70, it's 22-23, and loaded with ski racks, can be under 22.
And my experience seems much more in line with aggregated results on fuelly.com -- see https://www.fuelly.com/car/honda/cr-v/2005. Even though fuelly doesn't break down btwn auto / manual, the auto has higher gearing at the top end so highway mileage can be as good or better with the auto - when I'm cruising at highway speeds its fairly high rpm.

Don't disagree it's a great winter vehicle and hauler, cheap and reliable. But a bit mystified at your mpg - f there's some mileage trick other than driving 45mph please share.

[/threadjack]

[El Chupacabra]

if you want a med-high clearance 4wd that is big enough to hold bike/ski shit for a weekend then a truck is cheapest option.
Tacoma & 4runner are more expensive & worse mileage than many other full size trucks, ditto Wrangler, Forester is too small, the Nissan thing (xtera?) gets bag mileage. What other options are there?

My 4th generation 4Runner gets about 18-19 mpg, combined, with a roof rack, 255/75 tires, and leveling kit. Mrs. C. 's former 2005 4-door Tacoma got about 19-20, totally stock. Her current 2010 Xterra gets about the same, with roof rack. We drive up and down a steep highway daily to our house - not much level freeway cruising.

[jamesp]

My 4th generation 4Runner gets about 18-19 mpg, combined, with a roof rack, 255/75 tires, and leveling kit. Mrs. C. 's former 2005 4-door Tacoma got about 19-20, totally stock. Her current 2010 Xterra gets about the same, with roof rack. We drive up and down a steep highway daily to our house - not much level freeway cruising.

My F150 cost at least $10k less than a Tacoma (Canada prices), has more room than your Tacoma, & gets 20mpg & that's with the 5l v8 & a tall cap on the back (the eco boost engine gets better mileage). Edit this is driving on winding mountain roads, I don't drive on many flat wide freeways either.

Trucks, despite their unwieldy size, get the same mileage & cost less, $10k buys a lot of gas...

[icelanticskier]

Sorry rog but now everyone has you pegged as a cheap metro sexual

people can think what they want. and i don't live by "what if's"

i had a license in nh for 15 years and never had insurance cuz it's legal to drive uninsured if yer vehicle's paid for. "what if" i hit someone? i didn't. and think of all the money i saved over 15 years. that's not cheap, that's smart

if a metro sexual is someone that works on skis and bikes in flip flops for a living and surfs/skis/bikes every day, doesn't ever have to wear "nice" clothes, and drives a smart economical purposeful vehicle, then yup, that be me.

rog

[icelanticskier]

Belated threadjack, sorry, but Rog, how do you get 28 mpg on that vehicle? I have the same generation CRV with a 5-spd stick (it's an 02 but same model essentially) and get +/- 23. Best ever was 24 mpg on a long highway drive holding at or below 65. But normal stop-and-go or highway over 70, it's 22-23, and loaded with ski racks, can be under 22.
And my experience seems much more in line with aggregated results on fuelly.com -- see https://www.fuelly.com/car/honda/cr-v/2005. Even though fuelly doesn't break down btwn auto / manual, the auto has higher gearing at the top end so highway mileage can be as good or better with the auto - when I'm cruising at highway speeds its fairly high rpm.

Don't disagree it's a great winter vehicle and hauler, cheap and reliable. But a bit mystified at your mpg - f there's some mileage trick other than driving 45mph please share.

[/threadjack]

actually yers is 1st generation i'm pretty sure and is a bit more "truck" like. my body style ran from 03-06. a bit more aero. i have never had a roof rack of any kind. since i've owned it 25-29 has been consistently the range. mostly 27/28 to a tank. i don't drive aggressively at all and poke through my gears as i'm never in that much of a hurry. i drive a mix of highway and town, but probably 75% highway. everyone drives differently. that could be the big difference. been very happy with the mileage

killer little hauler. i cut/split/transport all of my firewood that i heat my home with. throw a tarp in, go to the log yard, load 600+ lbs at a time in it with chainsaw and it's works great. got over 3 chord with it this year. set for winter

rog

[miahw2828]

absolutely loved having a stick on my '94 4runner that I had until about a year ago

now drive an '05 F-150 auto and haven't ever thought "man, i wish this was stick"...that's not to say it isn't sluggish, 'cause it is

[El Chupacabra]

My F150 cost at least $10k less than a Tacoma (Canada prices), has more room than your Tacoma, & gets 20mpg & that's with the 5l v8 & a tall cap on the back (the eco boost engine gets better mileage). Edit this is driving on winding mountain roads, I don't drive on many flat wide freeways either.

Trucks, despite their unwieldy size, get the same mileage & cost less, $10k buys a lot of gas...

We sold the Tacoma several years ago. Doesn't matter to me what you, or anyone else here drives. I was just offering up some mpg #s vehicles we have, or had, as a point of reference.

When we were shopping for a replacement AWD/4WD vehicle for Mrs. C. earlier this year, about the highest mpg you can get (U.S.), on a $30K-or-less (new) vehicle, is about 28-30 -- Honda CRV and Mazda CX5. Mrs. C. liked the Xterra best. YMMV.

(I know that some Subarus claim 34ish mpg. We were avoiding Subaru, based on overall poor experience with the last Subaru, which only got about 24mpg anyway.)

[LightRanger]

My F150 cost at least $10k less than a Tacoma (Canada prices), has more room than your Tacoma, & gets 20mpg & that's with the 5l v8 & a tall cap on the back (the eco boost engine gets better mileage). Edit this is driving on winding mountain roads, I don't drive on many flat wide freeways either.

Trucks, despite their unwieldy size, get the same mileage & cost less, $10k buys a lot of gas...

No disagreement regarding Tacos vs. full-sized and there not being much of a mileage difference for a significant size/capacity bump, but Toyotas are cheaper in the US than Canadia. A new Tacoma with good options will run you upper 20s or so. An F-150 with similar options would be $33-34k or more, USD.

[jamesp]

ok yeah I wondered that. Taco's are closer to $40k here, whilst there are pretty big factory rebates on Ford/GM/Dodge trucks which bring down closer to $30k, depending on options.
I shopped round Ford/Dodge/GM/Jeep & Toyo dealers, & really only got the F150 because it was the cheapest. Bonus was the mileage was marginally better than others also. I wouldn't have got a big truck if I lived in the city either, but there are only 2 sets of traffic lights in my town.