OMG, is this thing ugly. What did they do take styling Q's from the Subaru b9 tribeca in the front??????

OMG, this thing ugly. What did they do take styling Q's from the Subaru b9 tribeca in the front??????

Toyota rolls out another ugly hybrid... At least its always easy to spot out the fuel efficient cars, ugliest things on the road.

If Toyota would just take a small diesel engine and drop it into a Tacoma; I'd be at the nearest dealership tomorrow.
I think it would be better to take that one small step forward rather than this giant leap.

I actually don't mind it. But hybrids are expensive and arguably not as good as diesel in terms of fuel economy.

Why can't we get auto manufacturers to get us Diesels here in the U.S. Look at Europe, 40 to 60 MPG is common, even 80 MPG on highway is available. Stop getting fancy with Hybrids and give us value Diesels.

Americans in large are not going to drive a sub-compact that wont get out of it's own way diesel car. They would be deathtraps in the US and incite road rage everywhere.

Oddly enough, environmentalists are the reason we don't have deisels here (Ironic huh...). In the United States, diesels are held to the same emissions standards as gasoline engines. In Europe, lawmakers and environmentalists are much more lenient. Europe values economy (and thus lower global warming C02 gas emissions), while the US values it's air quality above all else.

This "truck" is derived from Toyota's new abhorrent styling direction. With a C-pillar that huge, and the tiny windows, I'm not sure this would even be drivable in traffic.

Good thing this is a concept and Toyota still has time to trash this whole design and start over...

Ugly

RX-7 Guy - have you even driven a current diesel vehicle? The new diesel engines are more than capable of "getting out of their own way" and get great mileage. Get out of the 80's mindset and open your mind a little. I would much rather have a new diesel vehicle than a fugly hybrid anyday.

From many recent posts, I've gathered that RX-7 Guy is slightly retarded.

Anyways, In the global scope of things, diesel might seem like the way to go, but it's a bit more complicated. While it's more efficient to use diesel, it's less efficient to produce it. You ultimately get less diesel than gasoline fromt the same barrel of oil. This doesn't help reduce our dependency on oil, only our need to fill up as often. which would be a good thing for consumers, but a far worse scenario for oil companies(many of which are partly owned by members of the government).

The styling looks like a vague attempt at the Honda truck and Subaru Tribeca mentioned earlier.

We want Diesel now. Not some fancy, inefficient ugly truck like these. Diesels now a days are clean, quite and efficient.

Like most bloggers here, I will be in line to buy a new Sequoia, or Tacoma or Tundra or siena or LandCruiser should it come with diesel engine. They already have diesel Lancruisers in Australia/Asia/Europe. So why can they not have it here? Honda will produce Accord next year with approved 50 states emmision laws. Toyota has more resourses to have a diesel engine that is 50 state approved.

Come on Toyota! Put more money to your Hino motors to produce these diesels.

It looks like a stretched out Isuzu V-Cross to me. Maybe a futuristic Subaru Brat.

On a personal note:
I don't see the point of calling this a truck. I'm sure there are some people that it will suit, and that's great, but it's not a truck. If you wouldn't dream of letting a front-end loader dump a pile of gravel in the bed, please don't call it a truck. I'm not bashing it's size either. The same thing goes for the Avalanch, Hummer SUT, and an assortment of others. Put the roof back on, or come up with a more appropriate name. Half-top. Truckette. Exposed grocery hauler. Trucks are supposed to be about getting work done. This thing is just about appealing to a new demographic.

Jason:

Why don't you try and ground that comment? My comments are factual and quite accurate.

Actually knowing a little about cars and economics makes me a little retarded, nice. They don't build them because there is very weak market for them in the US. Otherwise they would be producing them (diesel's) over here.

Jason:

Why don't you try and ground that comment? My comments are factual and quite accurate. You comment is in fact not accurate barrel for barrel you can produce more diesel than gasoline. Diesel also produces more energy per gallon. It does take more filtration in the refining process make it burn clean.

Jason:

Why don't you try and ground that comment? My comments are factual and quite accurate.

Actually knowing a little about cars and economics makes me a little retarded, nice. They don't build them because there is very weak market for them in the US. Otherwise they would be producing them (diesel's) over here.

Jason:

Why don't you try and ground that comment? My comments are factual and quite accurate. You comment is in fact not accurate barrel for barrel you can produce more diesel than gasoline. Diesel also produces more energy per gallon. It does take more filtration in the refining process to make it burn clean. It can also be offset with organic oils.

"They don't build them because there is very weak market for them in the US."

There's a weak market for them because (this is off the top of my head, so there may be a company I'm missing) when it comes to passenger cars (not trucks or suv's), VW and Mercedes are the only companies offering diesels in the US. The only diesel I know of that Mercedes sells has a base price of around $55-60k. VW on the other hand just turns a lot of people off for many reasons (my big gripe with them is that if I want to select the options I want, they'll force me to buy half a dozen things I DON'T want). However, the TDI's that VW does ship to the US sell out pretty quickly. Also, many other companies are going to start offering diesels in the next year or two in the US. If there was no market, would they offer them?

Long term, diesel is much more viable. Why? Biodiesel is infinitely renewable and can be produced from a huge variety of sources, unlike ethanol.

Cars in the US have crap mpg for a few reasons. The biggest is that Americans are all deluded into thinking they need an M1 Abrams to drive to the grocery store. Another is that they want the same model car to bloat up every couple years and grow 6 inches longer, wider, and taller (which then adds useless weight). The one that irritates me the most though is that we have companies who manufacture airbags lying and telling people that they're going to die if they don't keep having more and more airbags in their cars....then they persuade the government to pass laws requiring this crap. You could easily cut a few hundred pounds of weight by removing the 8 airbags in a new Mercedes and gain a few mpg. I'm sure someone will go on about how "we need airbags" - no, we don't. They're only good under certain conditions - and those conditions aren't very common. Also, I have nothing against airbags being an OPTION so that the paranoid people can have the illusion of being safer - it's just dumb to force people to have a few hundred pounds of useless crap weighing their car down.

"Americans are all deluded into thinking they need an M1 Abrams to drive to the grocery store..."

I'm so sick of comments like this. I don't know which grocery store _you're_ going to, but the ones I go to are mostly populated by what I would consider mid-sized cars. It's a shame you had to pollute your legitimate comments with extremist nonsense like that.

Umm, how many actual econo cars do you see on the road in America now? How many are for sale?

Lets see: I drive an 04 Corolla, which is slightly larger than the 96 Cavalier it replaced. But by most standards in the world these were both mid sized cars. A real compact would be an 88 Dodge Omni, 80's Civic, or A1 series VW Golf. You'd be looking at a base weight of around 2000 pounds or less. That's a compact. And no, most Americans are not willing to drive what they precieve as small, underpowered, and unsafe cars.

Of course, I'd take a car like that any day. If Renault brought the Clio 197 to America I'd be at the dealer right now. And that's a good example. The Clio comes in like 6 versions (3 hot, 3 econo). And each one has a zillion options. I mean A/C is actuallty optional. Stability control optional. Anything besides radio, optional.

There's a reason there is a 77 VW Bug being rebuilt in my garage. Thanks to ODB2 and the hundred of useless laws I can't buy a car that I can actually modify or tinker on myself. Way to go big government.

And airbags, stability control, side impact crash beams, crumple zones, ect..,ect.. are all pretty much worthless if the factory OEM tires are complete shiz. (EX: MY 04 COROLLA.) You know alot of those people that all this safety equipment saves, well it probably shouldn't have.

@RX-7 Guy

I dunno, you did post the same thing twice, and repeat the same sentence twice in both posts... seems like a st-st-stutter.. maybe more proof your mental handicap. Anyways, for this comment:

"Why don't you try and ground that comment? My comments are factual and quite accurate. You comment is in fact not accurate barrel for barrel you can produce more diesel than gasoline. "

Read this:

http://genomicsgtl.energy.gov/biofuels/transportation.shtml#gallons

Notice how the link is a .gov site. Which means it's a bit more reputable than a .com site. However, I didn't get my knowledge of oil production from that site. I interned at the EPA headquarters in Cincinnati for 3 months. I'm not judging you based on this comment thread, by the way. I'm judging your intellect on the numerous past posts I've read where you blatantly throw your opinion around.

Who would buy this???
Please just give us a Tacoma Diesel like that available in the Hilux.

My two cents. Why diesels haven't been offered in large quantities in the States is because of our governmental policies lumping emissions standards to gasoline counterparts and many consumers still remember earlier attempts by US car companies to provide diesels in the 80's ( remember the horrid GM 350 diesel ).

Cheap Car Lover stated :
Oddly enough, environmentalists are the reason we don't have deisels here (Ironic huh...). In the United States, diesels are held to the same emissions standards as gasoline engines. In Europe, lawmakers and environmentalists are much more lenient. Europe values economy (and thus lower global warming C02 gas emissions), while the US values it's air quality above all else.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly right, sometimes our environmental policies are our own worst enemy.

Remy stated: Long term, diesel is much more viable. Why? Biodiesel is infinitely renewable and can be produced from a huge variety of sources, unlike ethanol.

Cars in the US have crap mpg for a few reasons. The biggest is that Americans are all deluded into thinking they need an M1 Abrams to drive to the grocery store. Another is that they want the same model car to bloat up every couple years and grow 6 inches longer, wider, and taller (which then adds useless weight). The one that irritates me the most though is that we have companies who manufacture airbags lying and telling people that they're going to die if they don't keep having more and more airbags in their cars....then they persuade the government to pass laws requiring this crap. ..
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree completely. Bigger is not necessarily better. All car companies build vehicles with crash worthiness in mind. Continuous improvements in safety cages and accident avoidance (ABS, ESP, etc) have limited the severity of injuries in many accidents. However, the obsession with weighing down vehicles with "safety devices" has hampered automakers in maintaining fuel efficient vehicles. ( and why a late 80's (<2000lbs CRX gets the same if not better real world mileage than a <2800lbs Prius). Weight is the enemy of every automaker. It directly affects efficiency, performance and handling.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This segways into my next point. Hybrids work really well when a car is idling , by shutting the IC engine down and running on electric power alone. However, the hardware (battery packs/ electric motors et al) add weight to the vehicle and add to the complexity of servicing the vehicle. Not to mention, the replacement cost of this hardware. Diesels are a proven technology that can be converted into biodiesel for true independence from oil. The advantage of diesel to the consumer, is that the engine will usually last longer than an IC conterpart, has gobs of torque, and on average 20-30% more efficient than a equivalent gas engine. It is truly a shame, that the US is finally starting to see the potential of diesel/biodiesel.

"by what I would consider mid-sized cars."

That's the problem - so many cars are ridiculously huge that one that's just "huge" (not RIDICULOUSLY huge) seems "mid-sized". There is no reason for the average "mid-sized" car today to weigh over 3,500 pounds (several weigh almost 4,000 pounds). There is even less reason for the remodeled version of a car to be six inches longer and 4 inches wider than the last one.

I have a 95 Accord. The new Civic is as large or larger by every dimension. That means, in ten years the Civic has moved from a sub-compact to mid-size. The new Accord is a large car now. The Fit now is the sub-compact (B car). Personally, I would rather have a car the same dimensions as my 95 Accord than the new Accord.

It really just depends on what kind of car you like.. Personally I drove a 1972 superbeetle for most of my life.. (yes i realize it isn't emissions friendly).. I bought a 1972 olds 98 with a 455 bb in it for a song.. Personally since I only drive around 10 miles a day I was perfectly content with it.. Why did I like it you ask? I loved the power of a v8 but truthfully I didn't like the 98 more then my superbeetle.. I dunno what it is about a vw bug.. I've just always really enjoyed them.. I would buy a diseal if i could afford it.. But for now I settled for a versa that supposedly suppposed to get 30 in the city and 36 on the highway but yet to see above 23.. My 30 year old vw gets 24 to 27 so i drive it more often then the versa..

The style will compete with the Honda Ridgeway but it would be more practical being a hybrid.

"But for now I settled for a versa that supposedly suppposed to get 30 in the city and 36 on the highway but yet to see above 23"

What kind of transmission do you have and how hard do you drive it?

I have a manual and after gas prices jumped I stopped shifting at 5,500 and now I shift between 2,500 and 3,000. My mpg per tank went from 32 to 36. I like getting places fast, but I like having money in my pocket more.

ok it's kinda ugly from outside but who the F*** cares because you spend most of the time inside the car... when are we gonna see such progressive interior designs in a production vehicle? I'm sick of conservative, baby-steps-forward interiors....

"ok it's kinda ugly from outside but who the F*** cares because you spend most of the time inside the car"

Yea, but the other 300-something million people in the country have to see it from the ugly outside.

To all those who seem to have noticed our cars are getting bigger while technically maintaining their class size: you are right. This is something I do not understand, why are midsize cars today as large as midsizes from ten years ago? Some midsize cars are nearly as large as the "full-size" cars out there, the Taurus's interior room, for instance, is matched by the Fusion's, even though its in the same category as a new 500 (err new Taurus).

Some cars that are compact here are considered the smalls in other parts of the world, and some midsizes approach large vehicles. And I hate it that some people brag that some $30,000 American car is as large as a 7 series or S-Class: those are luxury saloons meant for executives, its outright ghastly that a normal person actually thinks he needs that space and gas consumption.

Rod: I do not know what world you live in, the Northeast maybe?, but in the rest of America Wal-Mart parking lots are filled with full-size SUVs that are driven by housewives and men who were born with only one testicle.

And as to the A-BAT: as ugly as the Dodge Kahuna or Maxx concept. OR what was that little FWD concept a few years ago with the Hemi engine to take on the Ridgeline? Same thing.

Looks like a bad cross between a Honda truck and an Isuzu Vehicross.

The Toyota Brat here is missing a few important marketable skills, like style, functionality; you know, the little stuff. However, after the Ranger is dead, there will be a completely unserved compact truck market. All the "compact" trucks today are significantly larger than the S-10 and the soon to be dead Ranger, let alone the original Mitsubishi Mighty Max, the Isuzu P'UP truck or the creatively named Toyota "Truck" (nee Hilux). A two-passenger pickup with a 5 foot bed and 4 wheel drive is exactly what some people need (think Beverly-Hills pool service company), and can no longer buy. Someone out there must have one on a drawing board. Maybe Mini or Smart will have one...

Remember folks this is about a Toyota Truck not about Americans versus Europeans. Americans are not Europeans and Europeans are not Japanese and Japanese are not Chinese, ad nauseum. Europe needs are different from American needs. It is not relevant to fuss about the growing size of the American vehicles. Like it or not, most Americans want cars large enough that 4 can sit in them and not bump elbows...and this means 4 six foot people. For 3 years I drove a new style Acura RL...the thing was 4200 pounds and a wonder ful car by any definition. 29MPG on the highway and 19-21 in town, AWD. I now have a 2008 Toyo Camry, it's smaller, lighter and has a 4 cylinder versus the RL 290 horse 6 cylinder and gets only 27 on the highway but 24 city. You'd think the car would break 30 easily but it doesn't. As a non-relevant comment, let gas move up to $7 per gallon and we will see some more fuel efficient cars. What does it cost in Europe and most of the rest of the world. WE have the lowest fuel costs of nearly any country around.

I see my old 1979 CJ-7, buried deep down inside that machine.

Remy LeGay ----> STFU

"Remy LeGay ----> STFU"

Wow, wonderful argument. I must say, your intelligent argument that's proof of the perfection of the American education system has put me in my place. How could facts and logic stand up so such brilliant ideas?

Help! I cant stop obsessing about the USA! Arghhh!

Getting back to the topic on hand. Like the Ridgeline, This so-called truck is useless for what a truck is supposed to be. You can't tow, pull, or haul with a unibody. It is just too weak. The first time you bring home a load of plywood from Home Depot or hitch up a Jet Ski trailer you will have bent the frame. There is a reason you do not see unibody Ambulances, Fire trucks and Tow trucks. They can't take the weight of what they are supposed to carry.

Body on frame is a lot stronger. and if the frame gets bent, it is a hell of a lot cheaper and easier to fix.

I luv the new look, especially combined with the functionality and styling making it a very useful vehicle... but I like trucks and high mileage...
Looks like something I would consider, but I have to see one for myself to be sure!!! :)

WTH!

One of the ugliest vehicle ever conceived to date! Clearly one conceived from a sci-fi nightmare!

Looks like a cross-eyed platypus from the dino era....

@Mark:

I respectfully disagree with your post. The Honda Ridgeline is unibody but with boxed frame elements. It can tow about 4000lbs, has adequate cargo capacity, and gets reasonable fuel economy. Honda has raced successfully a Ridgeline in the Baja 1000. Now, this is a light duty truck compared to a true body on frame full size truck, but is more than enough for surburban duties. The styling is polarizing but applaud Honda for a different take on the traditional pickup.

Also, Mark:

The Mercedes GL Class is unibody but pulls up to 8800 pounds. I'm guessing you are neither an engineer nor physics major, but even without those and merely having roomed with an automotive design major (minor in engineering) back in college, I can confirm that unibody can be just as strong as body on frame, and body on frame can be weaker than unibody, even if we are using the same materials. Its about how the car is actually set up, not about the type.

That is easily one of the ugliest vehicles I have ever had the displeasure of laying eyes upon.

"That is easily one of the ugliest vehicles I have ever had the displeasure of laying eyes upon."

I agree, but it's still a thousand times better looking than the new Impreza / WRX / STi.

4000 lbs isn't towing that much for a truck, so it's a good thing for Honda fans that your wrong and it's really 5,000 (with towing package). And the Ridgeline has a hybrid frame which has unibody with full length "integrated closed box frame".

The GL tows 7500lbs max per MB, and it (as well as the ML) has a similar hybrid design with body-length rails as part of its unibody construction. It's also not an open bed vehicle, which substantially reduces the structural integrity [hence the obnoxious c-pillar wings on the A-Bat, Ridgeline, (Suburban-based) Avalanche (though this is body on frame), Chevy El Camino (though this was body on frame), Subaru Brat, Ford Ranchero... you get the idea.]

The Ridgeline gets 15 & 20 (2008 numbers) that's exactly the same as the 5.3L V8 (2WD, 14&19 in 4WD) in GM trucks. That's with 1.8 fewer liters and one extra gear. The Tacoma & Colorado get 17 & 22 with 4WD.

Whew, I must have roomed with a computer science major back in college, since I'm able to look up facts rather than spout out whatever I think is true.

The visibility on this crossover looks dismal. The blind spot at the C pillar must be huge. It also seems that the beltline is even with the bottom of the headrest, meaning the window line would be up around the driver's chin. Makes for sporty looks, but dangerous driving.

How about some different news torqure report? Jeez, this is getting old already.

This is not a truck. It never will be a truck. It is an ugly ass SUV with missing rear window. Oh, and maybe a diesel hybrid would be a better idea, best of both worlds.

I suppose this doesn't mean much coming from someone that drives an F350 to work every day and still gets better fuel economy than the yuppie retards driving their full size SUVs....

That and I can still haul gravel, plough snow or pull 17K+ pounds. Like I said, when this POS can do that give me a call and I will change my tune.

@Travous

/agree

It wasn't designed for beauty but utility and economy. It will wipe out what sales the Ford Ranger has for mpg economy.

It wasn't designed for beauty but utility and economy. It will wipe out what sales the Ford Ranger has for mpg economy.