Tacoma TRD Pro vs. Colorado ZR2
These off-road mid-size pickups are capable in the dirt, but heavy on the pocketbook
Driving’s Derek McNaughton and Costa Mouzouris each spent a week testing two trucks. One is a diesel four-cylinder with an automatic gearbox, the other is a gasoline-fuelled V-6 with a six-speed manual. Both wear meaty tires, have suspension kits and offer ground clearance good enough for the great off roads. Which means both Toyota’s Tacoma TRD Pro and Chevrolet’s Colorado ZR2 are equally capable of climbing rocks or picking their way along a slippery forest trail. But which one to choose? Which one of these medium-size trucks is superior when the going gets real? Which one deserves the honour of being named Driving’s middleweight champion of Canada?
DM: $58,000 for the Colorado ZR2?! Maybe I’m missing something here, Costa, but nearly $60,000 for a medium-sized truck with off-road chops is a big premium over most any 4x4 crew cab half-ton. The Colorado is also $6,000 more expensive than the historically more reliable and higher resale Toyota. That puts the ZR2 at a disadvantage before the contest starts. Heck, pony up another $8,000 and you’ve bought a Ford Raptor. The Toyota TRD Pro Tacoma is pricey, too, costing $52,000 before tax, which is also crazy given that a full-sized Toyota Tundra 4x4 CrewMax SR5 costs thousands less. Maybe I’m missing the point, but the price tag on both these trucks makes their raison d’être less compelling and gimmicky, right out of the gate.
CM: Well, you are paying an additional $4,100 for the 2.8-litre Duramax diesel option; when equipped with the 3.6-L, 308-horsepower V-6, the Colorado ZR2 starts at $46,110 before shipping and dealer fees ($47,600 before taxes). That’s competitive with others in its category. No other vehicle matches the Tacoma in resale value; it is good to know if you’re the original buyer of a Tacoma, you won’t be getting hit as hard when it’s time to sell.
DM: Price and resale aside, don’t even get me started about the placement of the spare tire in the Colorado in the middle of the box, effectively rendering the box useless. I guess that’s ideal if competing in the Baja 1000, but this option is about as silly as it gets. Twice I needed the box and both times the spare was in the way. The tire also limits rear visibility, especially when built up with snow. The roll bar also blocks visibility from the high-mounted brake and box lights, and the LED lights on the bar didn’t work. We all love offroad components, but the Colorado’s were intrusive and frustrating.
CM: Derek, when it comes to offroad-kitted 4x4s like the TRD and ZR2, it’s all about appearance; no one really takes them off road. The spare in the bed makes it look like you’re on your way to a desert rally, even though you’re on the morning commute to the cubicle. You can save $740 by leaving the spare under the truck, though if you’re a serious explorer, you’ll be losing some ground clearance. I, too, found its placement highly impractical, but you have to opt in to get it.
DM: That’s the thing: If people aren’t taking them off road, they need their truck to be useful on a daily basis. And save the $740 to boot! The Tacoma’s spare is properly tucked away and yet it can still boulder over most barriers while keeping the bed functional, though I’m not a big fan of the Tacoma’s composite gate, which can be slippery. I also wish there were longer bed options for carrying a sled or ATV; both trucks are limited to short beds.
CM: Interestingly, you can get the Colorado with a crew cab and a sixfoot bed, but not in ZR2 trim. This kind of confirms to me that either of these trucks are more novelty items than practical workhorses. These are adult-sized Tonka trucks; if you really want practicality, there are other, less expensive trims to choose from. However, if you are a real off-roader, both of these perform exceptionally well in rough stuff, though I have a preference for the ZR2, with its excellent Multimatic suspension.
DM: For sure, the ZR2 rode way better, thanks to those amazing Multimatic shocks, and it was much quieter than the TRD Taco. The gold aluminum housings of those shocks, with two spool valves for greater compression, still work for daily use and look cool, too. The Bilsteins on the Taco felt too firm. But don’t “real off-roaders” buy cheaper base trucks and then equip them with high-quality off-road aftermarket parts? I’m still not sold on either of these.
CM: Interesting point. I’ve always liked the Tacoma, but after spending a week in the Colorado and then stepping into the Toyota, the latter felt … dated. The driving position was bolt-upright, the steering wheel was too far away, the controls seemed less contemporary, and the ride felt choppy in comparison. And the touch screen was way too sensitive, so every time I went for the volume knob I’d inadvertently brush the screen and change some setting.
DM: The touch screen’s sensitivity can be adjusted in the controls (I also found the volume knob too small for my fingers), but you’re exactly right about the seating and ride. The Taco rides poorly compared with the ZR2. And the seating position in the Tacoma truly sucks, with no ability to raise the seat. I didn’t mind the six-speed manual, but the clutch sure stank any time it was getting worked.
CM: Man, the interior reeked of fishy clutch for days! But it went away and I had no issues. I love the way the Taco shifts — short throws and positive feel — but why is the shift knob so big? My glove size is XL but when I went for that knob, they felt like elf hands. Unfortunately, the only way to get a manual box in a Tacoma is in the TRD Pro, or in the base four-cylinder 4x4 model; there are no other possibilities for a V-6 with a manual box. From what I can see, a manual is no longer available in the Colorado, regardless of the trim level.
DM: And didn’t you find the power in the Tacoma, even at 265 poundfeet, better than the 369 lb-ft in the ZR2?
CM: I found there was no comparison between the two. The Tacoma got up and went as soon as you got the revs up a bit, while the Colorado felt sluggish and underpowered. That’s the trade-off for good fuel economy, I guess. I saw 10.4 L/100 km in the Colorado and 15.7 in the Tacoma.
DM: The diesel undoubtedly brings better fuel economy and the ZR2’s long-term average was 11.8. Compared with the 15.9 tank averages I got in the Tacoma, that’s significant. But don’t forget that means coughing up the extra four grand for the diesel to shave those four points. With that kind of upfront premium and no noticeable advantage in power I don’t see strong value in this diesel, and I love diesel.
CM: At the price these trucks go for I wouldn’t be too much of a stickler for fuel economy. I wouldn’t go for the diesel in the ZR2 and would rather take the 300-plus horses of the V-6. Yet overall, as much as I liked the Tacoma, I liked the Colorado even more. Because I actually use my truck like a truck, I wouldn’t choose the toylike ZR2. I’d go for the well equipped Z71 with the 3.6-L V6 and save a few bucks.
DM: Indeed, both of these trucks suffer from a one-dimensional purpose. That they come with extraordinary price tags for such single-mindedness makes them less desirable than their less-expensive siblings, which can be easily retrofitted for off-road use. If I had to live with just one, I’d probably take the Tacoma. The Colorado drove me crazy with its body design and front bumper that continuously left the whole truck and door handles dirty. But the ZR2 was meant to play in the dirt, so I guess that’s part of its appeal.
CM: Interestingly, I found the Colorado more attractive than the Tacoma; it was burlier and more aggressive. Agreed on the front bumper, which is cut away to provide a steeper approach angle when off roading. Of course, this again confirms that unless you really want to waddle in mud or go rock crawling in the wilderness, there are more practical and less expensive choices from each automaker. But it sure is cool they both make such extraordinarily focused adult playthings.