Rear Leg room?

[JLD94]

Doing the right thing and researching first. Too many buy on impulse followed by regret.

No worry about research.....that's what I've been doing for a while now.

Sponsored

 

[TacoTanium]

Just saw a video, released today I believe, of a 5'10" man sitting in rear seat of TH. Might have had about 1.5" from knees to seat back, but he also claimed he could've moved the front seat forward another 1-2" for optimal seating position while driving, this expanding that much more in the rear.

What I have found is that most persons like to drive with a heavy lean in the seat, especially taller persons. This in itself reduces most of that rear seat legroom. I'm not saying we need to sit straight up, but be mindful of how u sit vs what may be considered best practice or ergonomics.

If rear legroom is a major concern, stepping up in vehicle size would be the more practical approach. Don't concentrate on ur wants, suit ur needs first. These midsized trucks are definitely not meant to be full family haulers either. A truck was designed first and foremost as a work vehicle. Only in the last 25+ yrs has it evolved into accommodating family and for the use of traveling.

Just food for thought.

That is one solution is to go full size, but I think it's a bad and poor decision making. Going full size just for leg room and paying an extra 15-30k is dumb. They made full size because hauling something heavy is needed (..........or idiots to feel dominate on the road). Most full size owners don't haul heavy things or don't even use the big bed at all. For those that don't need to, there is mid & small.

I sat in the back seat (but didn't turned my legs to the front) of the 2nd gen taco that I test drove, I sat in the back seat of a maverick and a ford escape. I do have a sense that I'm in a slightly bigger room in the taco but felt more cramped. I felt more comfortable in the less roomier maverick and escape because of the balance between leg and upper room. If I were to go on a road trip I'd rather be in the back seat of a maverick or escape than a tacoma.

Just because there's a full size available doesn't mean the mid is made to be cramped, or smaller need to be more cramped in one area. I have nothing heavy to haul other than mtb's and wheel chair so I don't want to waste on a full size, but I have to deal with a cramp mid size? They made a mid to be cramped so people have to get a full size? That just sounds dumb. If you can make leg room to grow 2-4" that satisfy >20% of the market why not? The wheel base have to be longer and that hurts the off-road performance? You must be doing extreme off roading to make 2-4" a difference, plus extreme off roading need to go slow anyways, there's a short bed version. Plus 2-4" of longer wheel base can give you extra advantage over some obstacles.

My point is I don't want to pay for soemthing I don't use. I'm sure more taco fans will appeciate extra leg room.

 

[JLD94]

That is one solution is to go full size, but I think it's a bad and poor decision making. Going full size just for leg room and paying an extra 15-30k is dumb. They made full size because hauling something heavy is needed (..........or idiots to feel dominate on the road). Most full size owners don't haul heavy things or don't even use the big bed at all. For those that don't need to, there is mid & small.

I sat in the back seat (but didn't turned my legs to the front) of the 2nd gen taco that I test drove, I sat in the back seat of a maverick and a ford escape. I do have a sense that I'm in a slightly bigger room in the taco but felt more cramped. I felt more comfortable in the less roomier maverick and escape because of the balance between leg and upper room. If I were to go on a road trip I'd rather be in the back seat of a maverick or escape than a tacoma.

Just because there's a full size available doesn't mean the mid is made to be cramped, or smaller need to be more cramped in one area. I have nothing heavy to haul other than mtb's and wheel chair so I don't want to waste on a full size, but I have to deal with a cramp mid size? They made a mid to be cramped so people have to get a full size? That just sounds dumb. If you can make leg room to grow 2-4" that satisfy >20% of the market why not? The wheel base have to be longer and that hurts the off-road performance? You must be doing extreme off roading to make 2-4" a difference, plus extreme off roading need to go slow anyways, there's a short bed version. Plus 2-4" of longer wheel base can give you extra advantage over some obstacles.

My point is I don't want to pay for soemthing I don't use. I'm sure more taco fans will appeciate extra leg room.

Yeah, I don't buy the whole they can't make the midsize with more legroom. I honestly think it's more about protecting the full size sales..

Specs on paper show the Maverick and Tacoma are close in size with some advantages going to the Maverick, and width advantage going to the Tacoma.

 

[JLD94]

Just saw this video....

 

[TacoTanium]

Just saw this video....

But....it's a new truck and new houses now have bigger and longer garages. Even some old houses have bigger garage than some new house. That's not a good excuse IMO, it will fit but just cramp. It just make the backseat more worthless than useful.

I finally saw a few taco videos and I do like the new features (not really new, just new to taco's and toyota. I think the pneumatic seat thing is a great ideal but its a waste, it's made for high speed off-roading but not extreme/slow and few do hi-speeds) but still the backseat just make it feel like it's worthless/waste.

 

[Drew]

But....it's a new truck and new houses now have bigger and longer garages. Even some old houses have bigger garage than some new house.

I think most people replace vehicles more often than garages, and there are other benefits to shorter and narrower vehicles. If people need something larger, there are full-size pickups. Hopefully, Toyota will release the Stout, so there is also the option to go smaller in a Toyota pickup. The Maverick and the Santa Cruz are out there, but more options would be good.

What would be nice, but is unrealistic, would be a third cab size. More options would cover more use cases, but also increase costs.

 

[TacoTanium]

I think most people replace vehicles more often than garages, and there are other benefits to shorter and narrower vehicles. If people need something larger, there are full-size pickups. Hopefully, Toyota will release the Stout, so there is also the option to go smaller in a Toyota pickup. The Maverick and the Santa Cruz are out there, but more options would be good.

What would be nice, but is unrealistic, would be a third cab size. More options would cover more use cases, but also increase costs.

It's funny how people say go full size for more leg room when you can just go a size smaller like the Maverick, a more balanced room. After decades in the business I wonder why it's not integrated to the mid size, it's not possible.

 

[Drew]

It's funny how people say go full size for more leg room when you can just go a size smaller like the Maverick, a more balanced room. After decades in the business I wonder why it's not integrated to the mid size, it's not possible.

I mean, it would be nice if they designed it better, but you seemed to be indicating a willingness for the Tacoma to get bigger, given the mention of larger garages. I just think there should absolutely be mid-size, full-size, and compact pickups (and other vehicle classes). If the choice is between increasing the size of the Tacoma or not, I say don't grow it. It's plenty big.

I do think they could design the seats better, as well as potentially shrinking the size of the hood, since the engine should be smaller than the old V6. I just think increasing overall vehicle size puts it into the neighborhood of full-size vehicles and definitely don't want that.

 

[TacoTanium]

I mean, it would be nice if they designed it better, but you seemed to be indicating a willingness for the Tacoma to get bigger, given the mention of larger garages. I just think there should absolutely be mid-size, full-size, and compact pickups (and other vehicle classes). If the choice is between increasing the size of the Tacoma or not, I say don't grow it. It's plenty big.

I do think they could design the seats better, as well as potentially shrinking the size of the hood, since the engine should be smaller than the old V6. I just think increasing overall vehicle size puts it into the neighborhood of full-size vehicles and definitely don't want that.

You sir is correct, I've been wanting a taco since I test drove the 2nd gen with a big disappointment. Poor performance and no backseat (with a backseat) is my only two reasons I can't let my bank account go for it. I even measured my garage and accepted it will fit but a little cramp. I can get used to the ugly looks of the new 4th gen but the backseat with no backseat is still there.

Is there a reason why the leg/shoulder/room cannot be proportional to their overall sizes? Instead a small size pick up with a better leg room than the mid size.

 

[Drew]

Is there a reason why the leg/shoulder/room cannot be proportional to their overall sizes? Instead a small size pick up with a better leg room than the mid size.

Some of it is the Tacoma being body-on-frame and the Maverick being unibody, some is probably more material to strengthen it, and some is the styling. When you want to make sure things are big, chunky, and aggressive, it cuts into the space a bit. I would also guess that the design requirements were very different. The Maverick is a pickup that is supposed to appeal to the person who basically wants a car with a bed instead of a trunk, while the Tacoma is a pickup for someone who wants a capable pickup, but not a full-size. I also suspect that much more cabin space would risk cannibalizing some Tundra sales.

It does seem weird, though. They extended cab no longer even has back seats, so I would think you'd have usable back seats in the crew cab. The people who just want to use the back for storage won't want the crew cab if the storage is better in the extended cab.

 

[TacoTanium]

Some of it is the Tacoma being body-on-frame and the Maverick being unibody, some is probably more material to strengthen it, and some is the styling. When you want to make sure things are big, chunky, and aggressive, it cuts into the space a bit. I would also guess that the design requirements were very different. The Maverick is a pickup that is supposed to appeal to the person who basically wants a car with a bed instead of a trunk, while the Tacoma is a pickup for someone who wants a capable pickup, but not a full-size. I also suspect that much more cabin space would risk cannibalizing some Tundra sales.

It does seem weird, though. They extended cab no longer even has back seats, so I would think you'd have usable back seats in the crew cab. The people who just want to use the back for storage won't want the crew cab if the storage is better in the extended cab.

That's what I want, the taco is not it yet. Speaking of pick up there are complaints with taco owners having trouble towing with just 3-5k lbs, when their spec is higher. Not capable, even though it's a different topic here.

Tundra sales were never good anyways, why not optimize the best selling unit, you'd get more $ in a long haul.

 

[Drew]

That's what I want, the taco is not it yet. Speaking of pick up there are complaints with taco owners having trouble towing with just 3-5k lbs, when their spec is higher. Not capable, even though it's a different topic here.

That's fair. I definitely would not deal with a Tacoma of the outgoing generation. Not capable enough, not efficient enough, and I think both of those problems could have been solved with a better transmission.

 

[JLD94]

I think most people replace vehicles more often than garages, and there are other benefits to shorter and narrower vehicles. If people need something larger, there are full-size pickups. Hopefully, Toyota will release the Stout, so there is also the option to go smaller in a Toyota pickup. The Maverick and the Santa Cruz are out there, but more options would be good.

What would be nice, but is unrealistic, would be a third cab size. More options would cover more use cases, but also increase costs.

The Maverick, and I would venture to say the Santa Cruz (only sat in it once) seem to have more room inside than the Tacoma... Tacoma might be slightly wider

 

[JLD94]

It's funny how people say go full size for more leg room when you can just go a size smaller like the Maverick, a more balanced room. After decades in the business I wonder why it's not integrated to the mid size, it's not possible.

I don't get this either.... how can they not figure this out.... if the Maverick can do it, why can't these others. I was pleasantly surprised to find that the 24 Ranger seemed better than the outgoing model

 

[LordEnzo]

How big is the bed in the maveric/Santa Cruz? All the ones I seen don't look like they can haul 4x8 sheets effectively. Looks to me like that's how they got their legroom. And yet I don't see that part mentioned enough. Someone, please prove me wrong...

Sponsored