Talk:Toyota Hilux/Archive 1

Move to Toyota Hilux
There has never been a hyphen in the name - well at least in the past 25 years or so. Please consult any example of the pickup truck or any official toyota website for proof --Zilog Jones 09:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Hilux vs. Tacoma
The 1995 secion says, "The Tacoma difers framewise from the Hilux, although both appear similar from the outside."

If it is diffrent framewise, then it is a diffrent vehicle. Mexico sells both vehicles, so shouldn't there be a diffrent article for the Tacoma?--Simonpeter52 21:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Correct This Article
I agree with the previous comments. Even though the Hilux played an important role in the evolution of Toyota's pickup truck line, a clear distinction should be drawn between the Hilux, the North American Pickup, and the Tacoma. These are three distinct vehicles with a common lineage. Is anyone else interested in making this proposed correction? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BillD234 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

Merge redirect from Toyota Truck
As part of clearing backlogged maintenance I noticed there had been an outstanding merge proposal for Toyota Truck to this article from Jan/06. I have completed the merge by placing a redirect to this article. Anyone can view the source article for reference purposes. Alan.ca 12:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to know...
WHY exactly is the Toyota Hilux, and indeed Japanese engineering in general, so indestructible and reliable? I'm guessing simplicity of design (ironic, considering the truck's called hi-lux), but after much googling I still couldn't find a better, more in-depth answer. Is there something special about the chassis, engine, etc? I'm hoping someone here could tell me...thanks!

In the early days of Toyota (1935-1966) Japan had awful roads. Mostly mud tracks and not many highways. So Toyota built it's vehicles with a very strong chassis and suspension designed to go over big bumps. Because of this, the Land Cruiser, Stout and a few other utility vehicles were quite successful in places like South America, Africa, the Middle East and Australia (all places with rough country roads). The Land Cruiser also did quite well in North America even when Toyota's passenger cars had trouble selling (their cars were not good at highway speeds). As Japan's highways grew better, the passenger cars got softer suspension (but still good quality). But they were smart enough to keep the utility vehicles strong to handle rough travel. Plus Toyota have always emphasised quality. They have a special test track with lots of bumps and hills and every new utility vehicle is thoroughly tested on this track. They also get reports from spare parts departments and dealer service departments about which parts break the most and then they redesign those parts. Each part is over engineered so that it will last much longer than the normal lifetime of the vehicle. Stepho-wrs 01:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Toyota Wolverine
Wasn't the Wolverine also an aftermarket kit for making the 78'ish Hilux a 4x4? Dayj 18:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

How do you pronounce it?
HILL-ux or HIGH-lux? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.247.47.69 (talk) 20:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC) It's HIGH-lux. ;) Ryou-kun16 (talk) 18:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

In Australia we pronounce it as High-Lux. Other countries may differ. Stepho-wrs (talk) 05:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Toybota
I thought that the Toybota ended up as the same fate the red Hilux did during the fire? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryou-kun16 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Generations
I have added international info for the first generation. It is very hard to continue this for further generations because the existing divisions are according to yearly changes to the American model that don't necessarily apply to non American models. I would like to change the divisions to be by generation (e.g. "First Generation" for RN1#, "Second Generation" for RN2#). Changes for a particular market (eg US, Japan, Australia) can then be in the text under that heading. Stepho-wrs (talk) 07:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Transmission?
I own a 1990 Toyota Pickup (Hilux, whatever you want to call it) and I noticed that in the article, it says that this model was built with either a 4 speed automatic, or a 5 speed manual. Well, this one I own has a manual transmission, but it's only a 4 speed. I thought this was a bit odd, since no other year model seems to have a 4 speed manual transmission like mine does. Was this only a feature for the 1990 year model? 12.145.12.7 (talk) 02:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit bug
The link to "Edit" sections in this article has a bug as in some places, it just has the edit shown multiple times next to each other. My browser is Firefox 3. Is this a problem with this page, or Firefox (unlikely I'd say)? Whatever it is, can someone fix it please? Deamon138 (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems that the various Edit links have migrated from their usual place to a single group. They do this on my FireFox 3.0 but not my (rarely used) IE 6.  Only happens when there are lots of infoboxes on the side. I suspect it's a bug with FF's rendering. Stepho-wrs (talk) 05:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

US focus
The whole article seems primarily about Toyota pickup trucks in the US, which given the global use of the model is inappropriate. Some info about Hiluxes in Africa would be particularly welcome, as they seem ubiquitous there, often with a machine gun mounted on the back. --80.176.142.11 (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Feel free to add more international info (as long as it is verifiable). Stepho-wrs (talk) 10:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

hilux goes to north pole
http://eu.static.finalgear.com/site/images/Top.Gear.Polar.Special.2007.BBC-HD.1080p.H.264.AC3.2.0.s2.png

its worth a mention

Poorly Phrased
This page and all of the documentation sounds like it was put together by people who didnt speak english as a native language, people living on an island *nudge* *nudge*

Topgear Linkage
Because people need to see the infamous test in all it's glory.

The HiLux Is not a tacoma
The HiLux is totally different truck and never will be a tacoma. They were never sold in north america except in Canada for several years during the late 70's to late 80's. rthe name was never retired as theys till make them all over the world except in north america though.

It is a box framed, japan designed truck, they were never imported here b/c they said that the truck couldnt meet crash saftey ratings (which is not the truth-it cost more to import them that it was worth).

It isnt a tacoma, and none of the other pick ups from the 70's to early 90's are tacomas either, the tacoma debuted in 1995.5 and is a complete redesign of the truck and shares very little parts with anything previous.

Whoever wrote this article needs to do more research...

Technical
Part of this article should include a section on how Hilux's have been used as fighting vehicles called "Technicals" in Africa and elsewhere. That after all is their predominant use in most of the third world.

Tacoma...
The Hilux is in no way a Tacoma, if they differ frame and body wise how could they be called the same vehicle? This article needs some serious edits before to bring it up to Wikipedia's standards.

Assembly plants
Where in Japan were 1985-94 trucks assembled?

User:pam1855 22:06, 8 November 2008

2nd Generation Automatic
The article states that the third generation was the first time the automatic transmission was available on the Hilux. This is possibly incorrect as I once owned a 1973 model that had an automatic, and as far as I'm aware, it was original equipment. When I bought it (in around 1987), I was told that it had been a very uncommon option though, along with bucket seats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluedragon1971 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't have American data but I do have data for the rest of the world. Japan had a 3 speed, floor shift automatic from Sept 1972 in the RN22. South Africa got the same from April 1974 to to July 1978 in the 2nd gen RA22-HD. I don't have 3rd gen Japanese data (N30/40) but the next (non American, non Japanese) automatic was in Australia from 1983 onwards (4th gen, N55/56/57). My data stops in 1984 but up until then the rest got manual transmissions.  Stepho  (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that info. Well, unless mine was somehow an imported Japanese model (which I doubt since it was lefthand drive), then they did offer the 3 speed automatic in the US as well, at least on a limited basis. I really wish I still had some record of the VIN number since that would probably give us positive information about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluedragon1971 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Use as a "technical"
This article might be of significance if anyone wants to expand on the topic. Cheers, --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 09:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ravi Somaiya, 14 October 2010, Guerrilla Trucks: Why Rebel Groups Love the Toyota Hilux, Newsweek

Getting Rid of Tacoma Stuff
This article is about the Toyota Hilux. The Tacoma and Hilux are not the same thing. They are different models with different frames, suspensions, steering, bodies, and other components. They share few parts. They are both sold side by side by Mexican Toyota dealerships. It's a misconception that they Tacoma is simply the US name for the Hilux. I'm editing the article so that it does not continue to perpetuate this misconception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcwilshire (talk • contribs) 03:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Chinooks were made and sold from 73 - 78, not from 1977
Toyota Chinook section is not correct. Chinook pop-tops and the fixed top Omega were made from 1973 through 1978 and distributed through Toyota dealers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.63.10 (talk) 00:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the correction. Do you have a reference that supports this? Thanks.  Stepho   (talk) 00:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

22RE
I have edited the bit about the 4th generation, EFI model. I own a 1984 with EFI, and a few parts places (e.x. rock auto) have confirmed there was for sure an EFI model in 1984. This option may or may not be restricted to the SR5 though. -sliverstorm


 * Thanks for the update. I know the US spec RA65 Celica had the 22R-E in Aug 1982. Beware that we used calendar years, not model years. By 1984 do you mean calendar year 1984 (ie introduced in mid 1984) or model year 1984 (ie introduced in mid 1983) ? Cheers. Stepho-wrs (talk) 12:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

__________________________________________________________________________________

Note: 1975-1978 used 20R engine. I am quite well-versed with 1970s model era Toyota pick-ups. Several other errors. More research needed to re-write info but I don't have that time.Obbop (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Welcome aboard. Please feel free to edit the article as you have time - no rush. Or you can just put some facts here and somebody (probably me) will put them into the article properly. Please be aware that we use internationally understood calendar years instead of US specific model years. Also be aware that non N.American models may have different options to the N.American models. I've rearranged the article a little to make the American/global difference more obvious. I've also fixed the engine size list in the infobox. Cheers.  Stepho   (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The Honda outboard issue
Here is an excerpt from the Toyota_Hilux section

Honda are one of the biggest makers of outboard motors in the world and therefore this isn't really ironic. If it were ironic, there would still be no place to say this in an encyclopaedia. It is a journalistic and opinionated thing to say.

I suggest editing the word "ironic" out of this section of the article. (Rab random, 8 Feb 2011)


 * The quality of the Honda motor was never in question. The irony is that Toyota and Honda are normally competitors in the car market. So the modified Toyota vehicle was a success partly due to an engine from its competitor.  Stepho   (talk) 14:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Predecessors
I would like to remove the entire 'Predecessors' section. The Hilux is definitely not related to the full size G1 truck. And the relationshop with the SB and Stout is also very tenuous, the Hilux not being directly related to either, nor was the Hilux the successor to either.  Stepho  (talk) 08:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The Stout is definitely of a different class altogether, but might deserve a passing mention since the Hilux was of similar size to the first Stouts. The SB fits well, but the picture of the larger SG doesn't really belong - although they look a bit similar. G1 section should go entirely.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 16:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Or maybe the little SB should go too. It seems to have begat the RK, which then begat the Stout line.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅ Done. I erased the entire section. Feel free to add a little bit of info on the Stout - rembering that in most markets outside of N.America, the Stout and Hilux were sold side-by-side into the 1980s.  Stepho   (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Top Gear - destroying the indestructable
We seem to bouncing between two views of the "indestructable" Hilux. "However, Clarkson could not get the Hilux started - which led his co-hosts to believe that Clarkson had finally destroyed the "indestructible"."

vs "Clarkson had finally destroyed the "indestructible" after he could not get the Hilux started."

Top Gear is well known for staging the result they want. Also, "When Clarkson turned the engine over, it produced a puffing and hissing sound as though the injectors or the heater plugs had been removed." Which implies that plugs (spark/glow?) had been removed. Now to say that it was a rigged demonstration would be original research, but to say that it was actually destroyed and unrunable is also unproven and hence, also original research. It is also unusual to operate a vehicle inside a studio where the exhaust fumes would be breathed by the audience. Better to leave it as an open question - as suits the nature of the show.

As a point of etiquette, marking it as vandalism implies that I am actively trying to make the page worse and is a slur on my character. I will let my history on this and many other pages stand as my witness.  Stepho  talk 23:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No reply in 2 days, so I'll revert it back to the original text.  Stepho  talk 01:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Monsterpose43 has reverted me again - and once again he has left no comment on this page, nor has he explained his reasoning. So I'll restore it again if there is no comment in the next 24 hours. Sigh, such a waste of time :)  Stepho  talk 12:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, sir, for one I say many things on top gear are staged such as the presenters constant deaths, and if you can video tape a hilux flipped upside in a lake, and then start it with little or no mechanical alterations, You've proved your, but for now, it stays the way it is, plus the studio has cars running in it all the time, and i often see doors that are open during car operation, Take Care, toodles, whatever you'd say Monsterpose43 (talk) 15:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply.
 * This still has the appearance of a staged stunt. True, flooding the engine with water is not good for it but they have had episodes where a mechanic has revived submersed cars using simple hand tools (if I remember rightly, one of them was the same Hilux covered by the tide and then revived the next day). I also find it extremely unlikely that they wouldn't have tested it beforehand - they probably knew whether it worked or not beforehand. There was also the puffing sound indicating that the cylinders were open to the atmosphere - typical sound of missing spark/glow plugs and hinting that the engine was deliberately disabled. I concede that they have run engines in the studio in other episodes. However these were engines in good condition and were probably fitted with a tube taking the exhaust to outside the studio. In the case of the Hilux, the engine was in bad condition and was likely to backfire. Backfires tend to blow off or split such tubes on the exhaust, presenting exhaust fumes to the studio audience in an enclosed space - a very bad risk and usually unacceptable to most insurance companies. Now, none of this is a guarantee that it was staged but it does raise enough questions.
 * Possibly we can come to a compromise. Instead of an outright statement that Clarkson killed it, perhaps we could say the presenters claimed he had killed it.  Stepho  talk 23:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, there are many logical explanations but if it was staged then the presenters were obviously just playing along so them "claiming" it might work but if people knew it was staged then it would have no impact on its reputation so there would be no point putting it there on that section — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monsterpose43 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm open to other ways of saying it. It's just the outright proclamation of the destruction as though it was a fact that I'm worried about. Or possibly it could be pared back to simply say that Clarkson tried to start the engine but failed.  Stepho  talk 10:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Well I saw on the show (season 3, episode 5) that it did start and run, although I didn't hear the engine running when they brought in inside the studio. Granted I watched a free version (http://www.streetfire.net/video/top-gear-season-3-episode-6-full-episode_part-1_187349.htm and http://www.streetfire.net/video/top-gear-season-3-episode-6-full-episode_part-1_187349.htm) so it may have been edited but it did start and run after the building had been demolished under it. Same after it had been submerged in the English Channel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.156.202 (talk) 20:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * 173.49.156.202 deleted the above paragraph on 25 March 2012. Changing comments is frowned upon because it makes it hard to follow the dialogue. I restored it but put a line through it on the assumption that 173.49.156.202 no longer wants it to be considered.  Stepho  talk 23:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

toyota u haul dually
Ok so is there enough citation to include reference to at least the u haul models and the fact that toyota made a "dually" version that is the platform of certain motor home, well from my reaseach there were 10 WT models, or dual rear tyre. Whysmee (talk) 06:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I took the liberty to reformat the list of duallies as a table - hope you don't mind me modifying your post.
 * The various codes are:

T1 - rear deck with single side fold-down (but not applicable for IV/IV6) ATM - automatic MTM - manual 4FC - 4 speed auto floor change 4HC - 4 speed auto column change 4F - 4 speed manual floor change 5F - 5 speed manual floor change RCB - regular cab

HVY - heavy HLF - 1/2 ton 3QT - 3/4 ton 10T - 1.0 ton ST - single tyre WT - double tyre CND - Canada IV/IV6 - incomplete vehicle (typically no rear body) JPP - made in Toyota factory (not NUMMI)


 * The N85/N95 microfiche has "U-HAUL" marked next to all of the "WT" entries but not in the N55/N75 microfiche. The N85 is marked as "long" wheelbase. The N75 and N95 are marked as "super long" wheelbase. There was no special wheelbase marking for the N55. Gearboxes marked as blank use the gearbox from the line above. Note the presence of "T" in model code, which doesn't appear on any other Hilux from these two generations.  Stepho  talk 00:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Forgot to mention, some earlier discussion on Hilux duallies was done at User_talk:Mr.choppers.  Stepho  talk 00:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Merge Hilux SportRider
A new article Hilux SportRider has been created as a stub. I believe it should be merged back into the general Hilux article and handled in the same way as the other variations such as the Hilux Tiger. The new article can be changed to a redirect so that readers are sent to the correct section in the main Hilux article.  Stepho  talk 23:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Why remove "ute" from introduction?
Not all Australians understand what a pickup truck is... what is referred to as a pickup truck elsewhere in the world is referred to as a ute in Australia. The term 'pickup truck' is not universally understood in Australia and as such I added 'ute' to the introduction to clarify that misunderstanding. I was under the impression that Wikipedia is international not American-centric? --124.179.215.119 (talk) 02:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC) I thought I was being educational not colloquial, anyway moving on... --124.179.215.119 (talk) 05:00, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sigh, I can't win. I normally get blamed for being anti-American but I'm actually anti-(American everything). I.e. I don't mind things being American but I don't want everything American.
 * I would say that most of us Australians do know what a pickup truck is. And for those that don't know, they can click on the link and it will explain it to them. Whereas the term 'ute' is particularly Australian and will not mean much to the rest of the world. There's also some debate on whether a ute includes vehicles with separate cargo bodies (like the Hilux) or only vehicles with integrated cargo bodies (like the classic Holden and Falcon utes from the 1970s). In short: too colloquial, not needed and contentious.  Stepho  talk 06:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter whether a ute has a separate cargo tray or an integrated cargo tray, most Australians, if not all, would consider both types a 'ute'! Also, the companies that sell both of those cargo tray types in Australia, advertise and sell them as a 'ute'!


 * You can see how controversial the term is at Talk:Coupé utility and Talk:Pickup truck. A lot of people assume 'ute' is a simple term but it's actually ambiguous and means different things to different people.  Stepho  talk 08:41, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Hilux vs. HiLux
HiLux is officially spelled with a capital L. This should be changed through the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.128.130 (talk) 09:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Manual of Style/Trademarks states otherwise: "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, regardless of the preference of trademark owners."  Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Merge from 'Gyurza patrol vehicle'.
Regarding the proposed merge from Gyurza patrol vehicle:


 * Strong oppose. That article has only a single reference, which is from the social media site LiveJournal - see WP:USERGENERATED. Anybody could have made that information up. The photos in that single reference look to me like they have been photoshopped - or they are of spotlessly clean vehicles. Without some solid proof, this looks like a hoax to me.  Stepho  talk 11:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I have undone the merge because it fails WP:RELIABLESOURCES.  Stepho  talk 08:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm kind of curious about this:, this, and this.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  11:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Toyota hilux transmission case drive chain query.
Will a Toyota hilux 1999 model transmission case drive chain fit a Toyota hilux 2006 model? thank you.

203.123.110.27 (talk) 08:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 30 March 2014

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Jgera5 (talk) 19:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Toyota Hilux → Toyota HiLux – The "L" in "lux" should be capiltalised, to be consistent with Toyota HiAce, Toyota LiteAce (which covers TownAce and MasterAce Surf as well) and Toyota MiniAce. This is inline with other product names with a capital letter inserted after the first letter, like iPad and MacBook. Although Toyota uses different formats, the format of 'HiLux is used by Toyota, see. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The link you provided proves nothing since the whole name is in caps. You also conveniently failed to note that Toyota's South African and British sites style it with a lowercase "l." Hot Stop talk-contribs 19:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Not true, it contains 8 instances of "HiLux" versus 3 of "HILUX". As I said Toyota is not consistent in their approach, but this renaming proposal is intended to get the page name inline with other Toyota models. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. I'm not fond of weird stylistic naming by companies and Toyota is not entirely consistent with it, but 'HiLux' does seem to be the most commonly used form by Toyota and matches other Toyota model names such as HiAce and TownAce.  Stepho  talk 23:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME A quick Google news search and I couldn't find one exmple that employed the camelcase version of the name (see:[). Now I only searched the first 10 pages but I think the point is clear the camelcase version is not widely employed, at least not yet.--[[User:Labattblueboy|Labattblueboy]] (talk)


 * Oppose – one word: books. Dicklyon (talk) 05:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Third party sources tend not to use it because it is a widely perpetuated error. Even Toyota themselves are inconsistent. The original names were Hi-Lux, Hi-Ace, Toyo-Ace, etc (per 1970s brochures worldwide). The hyphens were later removed to make HiLux, HiAce, etc but the distinction of separate words does need to be maintained by capitalising the first letter of the second syllable. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

2TR-FE power figures for 8th gen
Nathanferdinand@undefined, we have a number of different sources of power figures for the 2TR-FE. Going from 119 kW to 166 kW is quite a fantastic jump, even with various improvements. Going from 119 kW down to 116 kW is more likely and the small drop is probably explained by more stringent emission controls. Likewise, the small drop from 244 Nm to 240 Nm is probably due to more stringent emissions controls. Since both caradvice.com articles are speculative, the one that more closely aligns with the existing engine is preferable and the one that jumps up 33% without adding a turbo is unlikely to be true.  Stepho  talk 06:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * At Toyota TR engine it says 119 kW at 5200 rpm and 244 Nm at 3800 rpm.
 * At http://www.caradvice.com.au/351523/2016-toyota-hilux-interior-and-exterior-leaked/ it says 166 kW.
 * At http://www.caradvice.com.au/349644/2016-toyota-hilux-engine-details-leaked-ute-to-debut-autonomous-emergency-braking/ it says 116 kw (no rpm given) and 240 Nm at 3800 rpm.


 * One possible explanation of the 166 figure is that it is a simple typo - 116 kW became 166 kW by a doubling of the 6 instead of the 1.
 * I restored the 116 kW figure in the article based on the above. I also restored the 240 Nm figure (given in 3rd ref above).
 * An anon IP added in transmission entries for the 2TR-FE. Both caradvice refs gave very specific figures for diesel engin/trans combos but only guessed at the 2TR-FE transmission, so I have removed these guesses. We're already well into WP:CRYSTALBALL territory without making guesses.  Stepho  talk 01:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Better rear view
Hi all (including & ), i was looking through a suitable example for the rear view for this section. I have dug through some good examples, so i'm going to get you all to choose which one would be the best replacements. As said to me on Facebook, he said to me that "...images can be subjective... ...facts are not..." So moving forward and to prevent conflict, I'm bringing up a discussion for everyone to have a look and pick. Please choose.

Out of these two, which would be the better replacement. Vauxford, I know we have had this discussion, but to be fair and unbiased, I'm going to get other users to have their input :). Please do not revert until other users have their input, because it would not be fair on any others, and I do not want to start an edit war. If anyone has a good example, feel free to build onto the discussion as it would be nice to have as many images as possible for all to see. -- Eurovision Nim (talk to me)(see my edits) 04:41, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Both the images you want us to compare are, in my opinion, second rate, but neither is a complete disaster.  Faint praise, and illustrating some of the familiar issues with you two.   In my opinion.   Stood a bit too close.   Angles not quite right.   Backgrounds messy.   White car challenges which I think the English picture handles better, either because the photographer has adjusted his settings (and/or his filter, but I don't think so) more carefully or because the light was not so strong.   Or maybe a bit of both.  Indeed.   I do not understand why you are so obsessed with uploading so many pictures of the backs of cars and utes.   But if we did, then we would, in this case, need to concentrating on finding people - not just you two people - willing to produce better ones rather than arguing the toss between a couple of rather similar mediocre ones.
 * I am slightly surprised this image (I'll put it on the right) doesn't feature on the HiLux page.  It is not without issues, but on a cursory inspection, and set in an admittedly "underwhelming field" (no guys, not the field with the grass on it), it is a significantly more impressive "infobox candidate" than the relevant ones that someone - presumably you - has inserted over the past couple of years.
 * I apologise - if needed - for mentioning the two of you in the same section.  What you have in common is a powerful urge to swamp wikipedia with your own not particularly distinguished photographs.   And, frankly, you have some of the same - in my (sometimes humble ...) opinion - blindspots when it comes to image quality.   But I appreciate that you no longer wish to be regarded as a twosome.  And I also appreciate - though again it's only one person's opinions -  than between you, the quality of your uploads is better than it was when you embarked on your rampagings!
 * Keep up the good bits.  Regards Charles01 (talk) 08:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


 * , its hard to achieve a shot like this. Because normally on streets it can be difficult. The silver one looks 'washed out' with the sun and it doesn't give a full colour representive. Just in case Vauxford decides to throw a 'tantrum' I replaced his image back :) -- Eurovision Nim (talk to me)(see my edits) 09:00, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I've used this image for the top infobox, feel free to replace Vauxford's. Thats gonna be bewteen you and him, I'm not getting involved -- Eurovision Nim (talk to me)(see my edits) 09:38, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Your logic of why you deem my pictures "second rate" is reasonable and I'm surprised a image your showing isn't on the Infobox yet. If you expect us to produce these kind of pictures on a weekly basis then prepare to be disappointed. What chance I would encounter cars in this situation? (i.e the angle, the location, the background) and if I do, I would upload around 4 or less pictures a month and with these new cars, facelifts are coming out almost every other month, you don't have much time before having to move on to look for the next new thing, it just inconvenient. You have to balance quality over quantity which I like to think I'm doing a good job of that.


 * I think I have a reason to be concern of your edits, with your uninspired works and suspiciously close dates of the same model like the HiLux and MG ZS as well as many other things you like to lazily copy off me. There inspiration and there simply plagiarising off someone else work and trying becoming "that person", so I advise you to reduce the playground-grade comments. --Vauxford (talk) 11:04, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Not really Vauxford, in relation to the MG ZS, I took that picture of the car before you, you never really used the image, so i had to replace all the images. Today you just decided that okay you were going to replace it when you had that opporunity but missed it. No plagiarizing is a different concept, I can get inspired by anyone, I can copy off anyone I wish. I think your just trying to have a greed over me, as opposed to letting me have a chance to showcase my images. Thats why I'm now just going to have discussion points. Also note that if an image is QI, then I do not tamper with it, unless there is a similar image that is rated QI. I'm sure by now you should know that I don't take inspiration from you, I actually take inspiration from User:OSX as he was the one who trained me in achieving the best images possible, he was a nice person and we worked together in achieving the best shots. If he reverted, I didn't care, as I knew he wants to follow guidelines, so I was alright with it. You on the other hand sway away from guidelines unless its official. Whats next? delete all your old images? In fact, the Audi Q7 image you upload is of concern. Why are you so intent on replacing the image if you know its oversharpened. -- Eurovision Nim (talk to me)(see my edits) 11:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Also, work it like this. It doesn't really matter if the image is the best. If yours is better, then you can replace, if mine is better, I can replace and if another author's image is better, then we use theirs. Its not like its gonna take ages, however it would be nice if we can have the best image possible. You're arrogant, you aren't actually doing that. You aren't really doing that. I'm pretty careful of what I picture and upload. I don't upload everything, I upload some things. I upload what I want, you upload what you want and anyone upload what they want and then they can decide what they want. Geez images can be subjective nowadays, compared to the old days :)) Also its recommended that the vehicle is as clean as possible when replacing. It doesn't have to comply with WP:CARPIX however if its cleaner, sharper or better then it can be replaced -- Eurovision Nim (talk to me)(see my edits) 11:21, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Better to have a front 3/4 view in an infobox instead of a rear view.  Stepho  talk 11:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

You both are getting out of control. A recent example is the Alfa Romeo Giulia (952) page. U1Quattro (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Model codes
Morton Thiokol@undefined, for a long time we have used a shortened form of model codes on WP. This is so we can say things like "the N20" instead of tediously long things like "the RN20-JR/RN20-KR/RN20L-KR/RN25-JR/RN25-KR/RN25L-KR/RN27-KD/RN22-JD/RN22-KD/RN22-HD/RN20L-KR/RN22L-MD" (yes, I copied this from a Toyota manual - of which I have collected many for over 20 years). Even when we get a little more specific we say "N20/22" for the standard (short) body and "N25/27" for the long body variants instead of list all the possible model codes. It's not too obvious for the N20 series but in the later generations there are multiple engine families used. Eg, the N80/90/100/110 use all sorts of combinations of body styles and Y/R/VZ/L engines. It gets real tedious to list them all by their full model codes when the majority of them are the same length - even though the engine or grade or gearbox is different. Just being able to say the short form instead of list every model makes life so much easier and loses no information. Even Toyota often talk about generations like the Corolla E30 to cover entire groups.

Concerning the length: The RN22-HD is a short body Hilux with an 18R engine. The H part means it is automatic, so that doesn't make it 5 mm longer than any other N20/22 Hilux. The D part means Deluxe grade, which also doesn't make it any longer. So there is nothing about RN22-HD that makes it any different to any other N20/22 Hilux.

Concerning reverting. If the rest of the world seems against you then there is either something you need to teach the world or something the world needs to teach you. Either way, discussing it on the talk page is the better way. The guide WP:BRD discusses this.  Stepho  talk 13:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * 1. False dichotomy. We are not limited to either "N20/22" or "RN20-JR/RN20-KR/RN20L-KR/RN25-JR/RN25-KR/RN25L-KR/RN27-KD/RN22-JD/RN22-KD/RN22-HD/RN20L-KR/RN22L-MD." For example, Toyota consolidates like this: "RN20-JR,KR, HD."  And it is disingenuous to mischaracterize my edit as being equivalent to "RN20-JR/RN20-KR/RN20L-KR/RN25-JR/RN25-KR/RN25L-KR/RN27-KD/RN22-JD/RN22-KD/RN22-HD/RN20L-KR/RN22L-MD."
 * 2. Glad you have collected Toyota manuals for many years. So have I. But bringing it up is irrelevant.
 * 3. Re: length- I am quoting Toyota specs and they list the length as being +5mm, side by side next to the other, slightly shorter wheelbase. You are arguing that Toyota is wrong. Sorry, you are not the authority on Toyota's product; Toyota is.
 * 4. You are also wrong about what "HD" means in this case, as well as wrong that "there is nothing about RN22-HD that makes it any different to any other N20/22 Hilux." Toyota specifies and explains the differences, and there are several (including vehicle height). And they call it the "Highway Model."
 * 5. "If the rest of the world seems against you then there is either something you need to teach the world or something the world needs to teach you." The rest of the world isn't against me.  I am quoting Toyota and you and one or two other individuals are telling me Toyota is wrong. That is not the whole world against me and Toyota. That is you two or three, asserting incorrect data and imagining you speak for "the rest of the world," which you do not.
 * If discussing it on the Talk page is the better way then you should be speaking to the main person who keeps reverting the true and accurate Toyota data I am editing.
 * 6. Finally, it does no good whatsoever to revert (read: Delete) data that is not found anywhere else on the page, such as RN22, RN23, etc. One person who deleted my edit - maybe it was you - wrote to me in the notes section of an edit that an RN22 is this-and-such. Readers have no way to learn this when that very information is deleted from the entry. Thus it serves no purpose and does harm users by taking away information. This is against Policies and Guidelines.
 * A good example of this is that one particular automatic transmission and engine combo only was available in one model code of Hilux. Nothing like "RN20-JR/RN20-KR/RN20L-KR/RN25-JR/RN25-KR/RN25L-KR/RN27-KD/RN22-JD/RN22-KD/RN22-HD/RN20L-KR/RN22L-MD."  Just one model code. But you or the other malicious editor reverted my addition of that one model code. Again, that serves no GOOD purpose and gives no useful information to readers that they otherwise could glean from the page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morton Thiokol (talk • contribs) 13:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * With regard to your comment of "I am quoting Toyota and you and one or two other individuals are telling me Toyota is wrong. That is not the whole world against me and Toyota. That is you two or three, asserting incorrect data and imagining you speak for "the rest of the world," which you do not." - I am not speaking for the entire world, I am speaking for Wikipedia, which says "Don't edit war - even when you think you are right." You are attempting to reinsert material after it has been removed.  It doesn't matter whether the material is correct or not, only that it has been challenged and been re-added prior to discussion.  This puts you in breach of policy regardless of intent, and thus you are in the wrong.  It's good that you are now discussing the topic, and if it turns out you are correct - you'll get your way.  But until then, just chill and talk it out.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * 1. It's meant to illustrate that forcing us to use complete model codes will wind up forcing us to list them like that in the long term.
 * 2. I was showing that I didn't come down in the last shower. Good to know that you also have a collection.
 * 3. Can you show your sources for length - showing where the RN22-HD differs from the other short body models. It's quite possible our original short body measurement is wrong and that your measurement should be shown for all the short body models, not just the RN22-HD (ie it probably covers all N20/22 models).
 * 4. I've been decoding Toyota model codes for 20 years and have cross checked them against hundreds of models. I'm very confident H means automatic and D means Deluxe. However, they may have sold that in your country (which?) as a package called Highway Model. Here is an extract from the Toyota ID manual (1984) http://members.iinet.com.au/~stepho/hilux/HiluxCodes.jpg Notice that H only appears for auto. Also notice that D only appears for Deluxe. This pattern also matches for the other pre 1977 models such as Corolla, Celica, Corona, etc. Trim and engine choices don't affect the length of the vehicle.
 * 5 Apologies, I should have clarified that it is the WP world that is disagreeing with you (or at least no-one is supporting your point), not the entire population of Earth. Regardless, it illustrates that there is a conflict and talking is more likely to teach both of us.
 * 6 When there is conflict we always return to the status quo and then discuss on the talk page. In the vast majority of cases the original version is correct, so it is the safer bet to leave the article in that state. After discussion we should have a consensus for which way the article should go. See WP:BRD.
 * If RN20-JR,-KR,RN20L-KR covers the entire range of options for the RN20 then why not shorten it to N20? It conveys the same info in the context of the article. Even Toyota often abbreviate it in their parts manuals as similar to "RN20-*" or "RN22-* (except-HD)" rather than make a huge list. Luckily the 20 series only has a few options but in later years in developed a lot more. Similar for other Toyota vehicles. Which is why we opt for the short form whenever we can. It's not just about one generation of one vehicle - it's about a consistent scheme which covers all generations of all Toyota vehicles. You can see this across the other Toyota articles on WP. There's a big picture here.
 * Calling your fellow editors malicious is not likely to convince them to see your way. I don't see you as malicious - merely mistaken. I don't mind if you see me in the same way. I've been wrong at times in the past and probably will be again. That's why we discuss things and bring forth our references and reasoning.  Stepho  talk 23:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * One other thing Morton - please assume good faith, comments such as "...you or the other malicious editor reverted my addition..." are of no help to the discussion. You can say exactly the same thing without the need for "malicious".  Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Photos
your recent changes are not in accordance with Wikipedia photo guidelines. You clearly are biased because those photos were taken by your favourite photographers. U1 quattro  TALK''  16:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)


 * What photo guidelines is that? Is it the redundant CARPIX guideline which isn't a actual policy to follow. I never imply this was a used car dealership I'm just saying people are not that bother with the minor rust. If the vehicle is damaged i.e window smashed, missing wing mirror etc then that would be a different story. --Vauxford (talk) 17:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Minor rust? The vehicle clearly has major rust spots and is dusty. Your reason is not adequate at all and its clearly you who is being redundant for no reason. U1 quattro   TALK''  17:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)


 * As for the other vehicle, I don't see why it should be put as the main infobox image while there are clearly better photos around. Yet you decide to be defensive and revert the edits for no reason. U1 quattro   TALK''  17:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I want to see what others think of U1Quattro's new proposal with replacing the following images. The ones originally on there I think was fine and wasn't causing any problem. U1Quattro decided to replace them because they were "damaged", they were quite dusty and rusted I admit but with a quick edit fix, I say it made them look less of what U1Quattro stated. Keep in mind replacing them would mean there isn't any pictures of the single cab ones, reducing variety represented on the article. I want other users to decide if we should keep the existing pictures in the article or replace them with U1Quattro's.

Note: The new version of the existing photos might not show on thumbnail so view them as full resolution. --Vauxford (talk) 01:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Then again, I would state that I found the photos of a clean Hilux contradicting with your early claim that finding one is difficult. There are indeed better photos of single cab Hilux out there rather than just double cab ones. Plus a double cab Hilux is present in AN120 generation infobox image instead of a single one so the reason of your warring is not clear. U1 quattro   TALK''  01:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Sometimes you blurt out things without thinking, I guess that one of the factors why this got hand out of hand so badly. --Vauxford (talk) 01:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Speak for your self about blurting out things, your lack of understanding in your recent comments and taking matters to administrator attention are probably the most childish things I have ever seen in my time here. U1 quattro  TALK''  04:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I thought it was the right thing to do otherwise it would get both of us blocked, there nothing childish then doing that. Getting personal over the editor isn't going to help. --Vauxford (talk) 09:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * only you are getting personal and your previous statement is a definitive proof of that. What was solvable through a talk page discussion was made complex by you so yeah, I'd call that childish. U1 quattro  TALK''  13:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment: I have put other photos involving a clean single cab Hilux therefore contradicting with Vauxford's claim of such photos being non existent so people can choose from a wide range. U1 quattro  TALK''  04:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment: I find the edit war (and some of the commentary) a bit difficult to decipher, so I'm only looking at the pictures above. (Note: At the time of this comment, only four images were present at the top of this section. --Sable232 (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)) It's also worth considering how the image looks as a thumbnail versus how it looks at full size. As to the former, I'd select Vauxford's images in both instances on account of the better backgrounds and angles; the dirtiness of the trucks isn't very apparent at thumbnail size. The latter could go either way, but the reader is going to see the thumbnail first (and I suspect many will only see that, and not look at the full-size image). --Sable232 (talk) 02:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Where the 1988-91 model is concerned: the truck in Vauxford's image does have blemishes on the wheels and grime overall, but in this case I don't consider it particularly obtrusive. In the other image, the truck appears to be modified, and the background is much more distracting. If someone attempted to "grade" the quality they'd be pretty close; both are far from ideal but I'd pick the white regular-cab myself.
 * The sixth-generation model: Quality aside, images should not be duplicated. In this case, while Vauxford's white truck is again grimy and appears to be missing its hubcaps, neither problem is that severe in my opinion. The other image is of a nicer truck but again has a more distracting background, and is also angled giving the appearance of the truck going downhill (maybe it is).

Comment: I'm not going to comment on whose photos are better. I reckon we've got a problem with the rules/conventiontions/policies whatsoever. „Good, complete, clean, and original condition“ may work for some very expensive cars, but the reality is that regular vehicles are things we use outside, and they wear. I would expect a 25-year-old Hilux to have some rust, and in my opinion, it is fine if the vehicles shown in this article are in good condition (Condition B). Factory-new (Condition A) vehicles would be great, but I doubt that this is possible (for very obvious reasons). In general, I would appreciate seeing photos that were taken with a proper focal length. It's quite visible that in some of the above photos, the photographer stood too close to the vehicle in the shot. This is not very ideal for the viewing angle. The next thing is the aperture. The ideal aperture with a proper focal length should be something like this: 10<f·A&minus;1<20. For instance, focal length = 70 mm and aperture = 4 → 17·4&minus;1=17.5. If this number is <10, the background is going to be "too sharp", and this is something I can see on almost all of the above photos. Proper illumination and no reflections is difficult to achieve, and it requires some playing around with the camera's metering. Cloudy days are ideal for taking car photos. And there are some obvious things to keep in mind, such as avoiding too many things in the shot not related to the subject, etc. If we've got some proper photos, then we can talk about dusty and rusted vehicles. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 08:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment: There clearly are better photos of the subject matter than those which Vauxford is sticking to. U1 quattro  TALK''  13:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The one you provided are either full of distraction or are modified, they are either covered in snow, using modified chassis or contains high amount of image noise. Sable (I might be wrong) seem to have the same logic as I have with this situation but until others come and have their say, the pictures are staying. --Vauxford (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I have seen both good and not so good quality photos taken by Vauxford in this article. Generalisations aren't really that helpful; the sixth-gen infobox photo is one of the not so good ones. Quality-wise, the fifth generation infobox photo is decent. Which photos are those that you'd like to have replaced with better ones? --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 16:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't see any missing hubcaps on the sixth gen. Most trucks don't have little hubcaps at the back. --Vauxford (talk) 17:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The ones I added later in this discussion. U1 quattro  TALK''  17:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Again, as I stated above they are either covered in snow, using modified chassis or contains high amount of image noise and filters. I don't like any of them. --Vauxford (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * They aren't using any modified chassis. Those are the utility version of the Hilux and they come with the factory with an exposed rear part of the chassis. You obviously don't know about the Hilux and this is confirmed by this statement of yours. Plus it's not about you. Let the others choose. U1 quattro  TALK''  01:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


 * U1Quattro, your own behavior has been less than impeccable here, so I suggest you limit further discussion to the images in question and stop making negative remarks about other editors.
 * And please don't intersperse your comments in between ones that are already there (i.e. like this. It makes it needlessly difficult to follow the discussion, especially when you added more images at the top that weren't there originally. You should have added them at the end of the discussion so someone reading it for the first time can follow it chronologically. In fact, adding your images to Vauxford's original post is effectively refactoring his comment to change its meaning, which is not acceptable. --Sable232 (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

It was Vauxford who decided to make negative remarks first but I get that, so I won't make any remarks about anyone. Since there were more images of a single cab Hilux around, I added them there with the tag of my user name so the readers could understand. U1 quattro  TALK''  06:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Picture discussion pt 2
Now I want simply consensus from people whether we should keep the image that has been there for a while or the one that U1Qauttro have been trying to replace with for the second time now.

U1Quattro as usual, have been using questionable tactics to get his own ways. One example, is threatening to report me for "misconduct" and reply with the following message when I asked him about the replacement as well as the chances that he will flood the discussion with different other images to overthrow someone evaluation. Thoughts?



--Vauxford (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

You have also been trying to get things your own way, so don't try to act innocent because you will be exposed by compelling evidence of your profusion. U1 quattro  TALK''  00:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * You mean the complete bogus ones that you posted just because I remove section of my user page for being redundant for my personal taste? Maybe someday you will finally get off your high horse and not be so condescending and aggressive to people. --Vauxford (talk) 00:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Oh no. You try to get your desired edits on a page, start an edit war and then seek a concensous. That's not how things work here. You also were in a violation of the code of conduct at this site when you had stated that you have no hope for "justice" here so while I've not been innocent, you have not been too. So stop acting like that. Let the people decide. U1 quattro   TALK''  00:35, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * And you stated that "I won't be happy" that was enough to annoy me and get on my nerves. You also assumed that a concensous was reached when it wasn't. So naturally, a reply like that was coming for asking about the replacement in the way you did. U1 quattro   TALK''  00:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I was upset and distress at the time (mostly from your baseless accusation you have of me) so I might've exaggerated what I said. --Vauxford (talk) 00:39, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Accusation? You were the one doing that when you said that I was manipulating other editors when I was seeking another concensous which is perfectly legal in the case of disagreement. U1 quattro  TALK''  00:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

It would be better if you keep this as a discussion instead of making this a place of argument. U1 quattro  TALK''  00:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Both of you, please, stop using article talk pages to air your grievances against each other. This is not the place for that discussion. Vauxford, I recommended to you previously to not mention (nor allude to) other editors when starting a discussion like this. Your initial post here is very bad form - please don't do that. In article talk space, comment on content, not contributors.The second image has a nicer truck, the first image has a nicer angle. We've finally reached a situation where, in my opinion, both images are of near-equal quality. Since the condition of the vehicle isn't particularly apparent at thumbnail size, between the angle and the fact that the second truck has a camper shell I'd give the nod to the first one. --Sable232 (talk) 01:14, 7 May 2019 (UTC)