Hootbro
Well-Known Member
Only Toyota you will find a ZF in is the current Supra that is a shared build with BMW. Everything else they use is either in house or a Aisin derived transmission.Is toyota using the ZF or a proprietary 8sp?
Sponsored
Only Toyota you will find a ZF in is the current Supra that is a shared build with BMW. Everything else they use is either in house or a Aisin derived transmission.Is toyota using the ZF or a proprietary 8sp?
The same argument could be made that 99% of Tacoma owners would be served well in a Ford Maverick but where is the fun in that?I find it insteresting that the big argument for the Gladiator over the Tacoma is the former's ability to rock crawl. That's such a small subset of a subset. Most people will barely run these vehicles on dirt. And so call "overlanders" and "offroaders" rarely ever truly rock crawl. If we were honest, the Tacoma makes a lot more sense than the Gladiator. As we all no, these trucks spends more time on the road anyway. So Tacomas will do just about everything that 99% of potential buyers want and do it better. You get more power, better intererior comforts, higher dependability (real or imagined) bigger screens ( we have peeps setting up ipads cause we dont have a big enough screen for navigation), and even option for a 6 ft bed. Hell, most people never ever take their doors and solid top off anyway. So that too is moot for most potential buyers. If I were to do it again now, it would be a very difficult decision. I'd probably lean toward the Jeep still, and it would be an emotional decision rather than a logical one.
The same argument could be made that 99% of Tacoma owners would be served well in a Ford Maverick but where is the fun in that?
[/QUOTE
I would say a Tacoma is a lot more capable than a Maverick. At that point might as well compare everything to a prius for most people. The point is, a Tacoma will go anywhere you want, just don't do serious rock crawling. Which most people on here don't do.
I would say a Tacoma is a lot more capable than a Maverick. At that point might as well compare everything to a prius for most people. The point is, a Tacoma will go anywhere you want, just don't do serious rock crawling. Which most people on here don't do.
i cant wait to start seeing old gladiators with a rando weapon mounted in the bed in some middle east news report ?I was thinking, I’m pretty certain I could hit the bumper of my JTR with a baseball bat and the bat would be worse for it. Looking at the new taco I’m guessing the bat wins.
Back in the day the Toyota was a top choice for technicals, but I’d say the gladiator would be easier to mount an AA gun on than the new taco.
Agreed, and I especially appreciate this:I actually think the 8.4 is perfect, the on in the Taco is overkill. Again that is just my opinion, but it looks like it was an afterthought. I like how flush and integrated the 8.4 looks in my Gladdy.
I still use the dials and buttons and knobs for most things - and when it was time to adjust things in the Grand Cherokees my wife had - I was like - ok, where's the buttons? I hated having to choose a menu to get to temperature settings.Agreed, I'm broadly not a fan of screens in vehicles, the gladiator system is well done though. I appreciate that Jeep has hardened the system a bit in case it gets caught in a drizzle, it helps with dust too which I guess is part of not having a cd slot.
That's what I've been trying to say here for months if not longer, ever time someone gripes about something not doing off road, or Jeep doing something that wasn't strictly for off-roading.I find it insteresting that the big argument for the Gladiator over the Tacoma is the former's ability to rock crawl. That's such a small subset of a subset. Most people will barely run these vehicles on dirt. And so call "overlanders" and "offroaders" rarely ever truly rock crawl.
I should have considered that recalling my father in law has Parkinson's and these things are a real challenge for him. It's a good case for physical controls. In the Army I learned to do a lit of things by feel and memory for working in the dark should night vision fail or be inaccessible.I still use the dials and buttons and knobs for most things - and when it was time to adjust things in the Grand Cherokees my wife had - I was like - ok, where's the buttons? I hated having to choose a menu to get to temperature settings.
For things where a screen is needed - I need the larger screen in part due to age (essential tremor in right hand) and vision problems that haven't gotten better with age. So bigger is better. My laptop is among the larger screens available at the time. Still the same thing otherwise - so the screen size isn't always about tech although Jeep people seem to equate a larger screen to more tech. No, it's an easier target and easier to see! Some day you, too, will get old and your eyes will be less than perfect and arthritis will take a toll, and you'll no longer be able to be a brain surgeon due to hand tremors.
Try touching a touch screen "button" or "icon" in the case of Parkinson's, essential tremors or similar things - often I get a "double-tap" which means I have to start all over again. Don't get that with tactile feel buttons or knobs.I should have considered that recalling my father in law has Parkinson's and these things are a real challenge for him. It's a good case for physical controls. In the Army I learned to do a lit of things by feel and memory for working in the dark should night vision fail or be inaccessible.
Touch screens could use a reference point. Touch typing for example, you have two reference keys and from there you fingers can find all of the others. It could be an interesting use case for haptic feedback.