At least that was the bullseye for the new Tacoma X-runner. And with nearly 280lb/ft of torque and a 6 speed close ratio manual transmission it looks mighty tempting. Don't think the Ford Lighting has any chance when autocrossing/roadcoursing since the X-runner pulls .9g's right out the box...I wonder what the rear setup is on the X-runner, the unveiling video hinted at a coil springs in the rear....hmmm

http://www.customtacos.com/new...shtml

http://www.toyota.com/vehicles....html

Vracer111, who might see an X-runner as his future 'racecar'...

 

You're comparing a truck to a sports car?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by El Pollo Diablo &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">You're comparing a truck to a sports car?

</TD></TR></TABLE>
yep... it appears that way.

the X-Runner's road-holding ability was measured by an electronic accelerometer in excess of 0.9 g's of lateral acceleration. That's not only significantly better than any truck on the market, it repeatedly performed better than many sports cars, including the new Nissan 350-Z.

excerpt from http://www.toyota.com/about/ne....html

Sounds like it'll be a pretty cool truck... especially with the optional TRD Supercharger

 

Look at his Avatar!! I would say yes.

I'm a startling example of similar but exactly opposite backwards thinking.

I have a car for a truck, namely a 1995 Caprice Wagon, which is as close to a truck as you can get, without actually being one. My tow vehicle.

J

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Xian &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
yep... it appears that way.

the X-Runner's road-holding ability was measured by an electronic accelerometer in excess of 0.9 g's of lateral acceleration. That's not only significantly better than any truck on the market, it repeatedly performed better than many sports cars, including the new Nissan 350-Z.

excerpt from http://www.toyota.com/about/ne....html

Sounds like it'll be a pretty cool truck... especially with the optional TRD Supercharger </TD></TR></TABLE>


yah...sounds like a marketing drivel...

doesn't say if that's a sustained g-figure, or what tires were used...or what diameter circle was used for testing....pretty usless figure...

pretty funny that people buy into it though...

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Jon Nelson &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
I have a car for a truck, namely a 1995 Caprice Wagon, which is as close to a truck as you can get, without actually being one. My tow vehicle.

J</TD></TR></TABLE>

You're not the only one....

'95 9c1 Caprice = my tow vehicle

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by El Pollo Diablo &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">


yah...sounds like a marketing drivel...

doesn't say if that's a sustained g-figure, or what tires were used...or what diameter circle was used for testing....pretty usless figure...

pretty funny that people buy into it though...

</TD></TR></TABLE>
pretty funny how defensive some people sound...

FWIW, where is it written that a truck can't handle well? I understand that the CG is higher and that a solid rear axle can be a limitation but where is it written (or proven for that matter) that a truck can't handle well? I'm not trying to say that I'd rather have a truck over a sports car or that it's easier to make a truck handle as well as a sports car... just saying that it could happen.

Guess only time will tell whether or not it does happen...

oh, BTW, I have no intentions of buying a "sport" truck. It doesn't fit in with my goal of getting a tow vehicle for the tachcrap and turning it into a track-*****. That of course doesn't mean that I can't be excited for someone else who has possibly found a new "toy"

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Xian &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
pretty funny how defensive some people sound...

FWIW, where is it written that a truck can't handle well? I understand that the CG is higher and that a solid rear axle can be a limitation but where is it written (or proven for that matter) that a truck can't handle well? I'm not trying to say that I'd rather have a truck over a sports car or that it's easier to make a truck handle as well as a sports car... just saying that it could happen.

Guess only time will tell whether or not it does happen...

oh, BTW, I have no intentions of buying a "sport" truck. It doesn't fit in with my goal of getting a tow vehicle for the tachcrap and turning it into a track-*****. That of course doesn't mean that I can't be excited for someone else who has possibly found a new "toy" </TD></TR></TABLE>

I'm not saying that this truck can't handle well...but there is no way in hell it's going to handles as well as a 350Z...that's all...

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by El Pollo Diablo &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

I'm not saying that this truck can't handle well...but there is no way in hell it's going to handles as well as a 350Z...that's all...

</TD></TR></TABLE>
nah, the 350Z will almost certainly out perform it in transitions... steady state cornering the truck may be able to hold it's own depennding on how it's equipped when it reaches the showroom...

I think it's an interesting idea for Toyota and, personally, I'm glad to see them coming out with some more entertaining vehicles lately. Wonder if the Tacoma X will have any real towing capacity?

 

That is one ugly truck.. only thing it needs is an airbrushed mural on the tailgate, Brahma bull sticker on the doors, and the Virgn Mary hanging from the rear view mirror.

 

the real question is how close are the two in weight?

 

There is no question.. thats a big-body truck.. Its definetly a kick *** truck but in no comparison to a 350z.. the question is: "which would you have?"

 

holy fugly-truck batman!

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by El Pollo Diablo &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">doesn't say if that's a sustained g-figure, or what tires were used...or what diameter circle was used for testing....pretty usless figure...</TD></TR></TABLE>
I was thinking the exact same thing. Gforce spikes are always far higher than sustainable gforce loads.

 

Pulls better skidpad numbers than most M cars ever have.

But it doesn't pull better skidpad numbers than the G35 Sedan.

I wonder which of all these handles the best?

 

Not sure on if the .9g steady state or not. The unveiling video on Toyota's website just mentions that the 350Z was the performance benchmark for the X-runner (whatever that means). Though I imagine it probably is steady state handling - will know for sure what the X-runner can do when Car and Driver does what they do best...

As far as the Chevy wagons go, I learned to drive in an '84 Caprice wagon.....3tons of fun with a 305... That car was fun for a large vehicle.

Vracer111, who is positive his Tacoma gets at least .9g steady state... then again it's not stock. Transient response is great in the slolams too...zoom-zoom-zoom (what's this - over half the CS miatas [8 out of 15] at the February Houston SCCA event were having a harder time on course than my Tacoma? ... )

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Vracer111 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">As far as the Chevy wagons go, I learned to drive in an '84 Caprice wagon.....3tons of fun with a 305... That car was fun for a large </TD></TR></TABLE>
werd! My first was a 81 Caprice Classic. My friends would always comment "you dont really like to use the brakes much do you?"
I usually replied, "no, it wastes gas"

 

i love the idea of trucks that are fun to drive but come on take all that crappy bodywork off of it

might be a fun tow vehicle if it can tow 5000lbs.


ps. still slower than my tow vehicle

 

sport trucks are stupid.

you can either excell at utility (as trucks do), or excell at performance (as sports cars do). you can't have exceptional amounts of both. kinda like the traction circle concept. in order for a truck to perform well, you must give up some of the utility and vice versa. but of course everybody knows this, so i'll stop talking.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by tnord &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">sport trucks are stupid.

you can either excell at utility (as trucks do), or excell at performance (as sports cars do). you can't have exceptional amounts of both. kinda like the traction circle concept. in order for a truck to perform well, you must give up some of the utility and vice versa. but of course everybody knows this, so i'll stop talking.</TD></TR></TABLE>

You're definitely right, but for the average joe, that compromise may just be perfect. Not everyone can afford 2 cars... Just my 2c.

 

That is one aggressively ugly truck.

Cracks me up that Toyota makes all these bland looking cars, but when they build an ugly vehicle, it's never just plain ugly. They go over the top with it and make it so ugly that I actually respect it for it's ugliness. I wonder if they inherited a bunch of Pontiac engineers... All hail the mighty Aztec.

 

good luck staying in those seats at .9g's

 

It really looks nice, I like it. I think it looks better then the chevy Xtream. Just wheat tell TRD slaps on a supercharger, then its going to go SVT hunting

 

Looks like something that's only to be sold in New Jersey.