6th gen Speculation Thread

Nobody is denying that they're being tested already. But, why wouldn't they just make it look like a current vehicle rather than sneaking around at night?

 

Oh I am certain of the year (and more specifically the survey took place around early summer). That video cover photo, just imagine all chrome stripped off, some kind of matte-black finish on the exterior, the kind of wheels/rims that screamed "I am a spare!" They did everything to dumb-down the looks but you could tell at one glance that this was something 'different' at the time. I immediately knew the moment I got into the drivers seat that it was a Ford...can't ignore that oval depression on the steering wheel where a Ford logo would be (Chevy's a rectangle and GMC more like a square)...those engineers thought they could slip that detail by on me.

So, this survey group that I participated in was probably the last one where Ford was looking to finish marketing validation on the production model. Their engineers asked a ton of 'user experience' type questions after test drives, looking for feedback on such things as drivability, comfort. etc. When it was asked of me "do you have any other comments or questions...", they found out real quick that maybe we shouldn't use this guys testimony (they were video recording the interview). I gave em a laundry list of issues I found with that one test drive.

 

I think people would be less resistant in going to a turbo 4 set up if the 22 Tundra roll out was smoother. The truth is, at this time we still don't know if the Turbo 6 and Hybrid Tundras will eventually match the reliability of the 21 and older ones.

 

Testing in old bodies? Not a given. Those would be just mules, not fully integrated prototype vehicles, which mirror the production model. It doesn't really work like that long term, but it does in the short term. In this case, probably not even because of TNGAF.

In early testing stages, it's fine to use experimental mules to test new technologies, methods, or individual components. As well as mechanical mules, based on the production platform, dimensions, & basic specs, but not for everything.

A fully functional prototype vehicle must be reflective of the final article eventually and in Toyota's case, it's far more likely, they already built mules and it's not based on the 5th Gen. But another TNGA-F off the shelf vehicle.

What I might say here is, the only mules wearing the current generations sheet metal would probably be early experimental mules, if they were built even at all. For mechanical mules? I doubt they used anything non-TNGA off the shelf.

The new Tacoma had mechanical prototype mules in 2021, wearing a hodgepodge of modified Tundra sheet metal, instead of 3rd gen body panels, because of TNGAF.



Toyota might've used almost any kind of TNGAF mule for the 4Runner, but I bet you wouldn't see them at all here. Toyota doesn't test those type of vehicles in the United States. The only test the final design in prototype forn, unless the vehicle is significantly engineered and tested here like the Camry, Tacoma, and Tundra,

The guy who commented on the insider seeing the new 4Runner back in March 2021, his insider probably was seeing them that early because they were supposed to enter production in August 2022 originally and not over 2 years later. They probably need to refresh the new design since it's that old now.

From what I even remember, I don't think we should see reveal anytime soon. Looking back on the reveals of the 5th, 4th, and 3rd generations, Toyota always waits until the last minute to reveal. Like literally after production even starts at Tahara.

For the 4th gen, there were no spy shots in 2001-02, although I think the first Gen 4s were built in early/mid-2001 for testing.

5th Gen, they had it dialed down in '07 and secret testing in '08, but no spy shots until this one in July of 2009.

It was revealed two months later on September 24th, AFTER production began on August 28, 2009. Sales began in late November.

Toyota also literally revealed the 4th gen September 23, 2002, about 2-3 weeks before it went on sale on October 10 or 15, 2002 [1] [2]. Here's this old thread right here on Edmunds, hyped about the '03 drip feed. We might be in the same situation as 2002 or 2009.

What a nice read just like your last reply! I love hearing old stuff like this.

I find it pretty silly when they do stuff like that to mask a vehicle. I think it would be pretty obvious to 1989-you it was a Ford, considering it looked identical to the 1989 Ranger refresh which came out the previous fall.



In fact, isn't that when the 1990 4Runner entered showrooms? I read an old newspaper from early 1989 which said the new 4-door 4Runners were going to be released in late May early June of '89 as 1990 models. Unlike JDM, American spec 4Runners began production in April 1989. JDM Hilux Surfs entered production in August 1989.

For the next gen, it was flipped around. JDM released first in September 1995, USA in Feb 1996. Ditto for Gen 4 in '02.

I honestly never saw anything special in the '91 Explorer compared to the 1990 4Runner, that made it so special and revolutionary. Jeep Cherokee XJ was really the one that got it all started in '83, only IMO. They made such a big deal about the Explorer, which was little different than the superior 4Runner.

 

Yeah, that certainly didn't help. And, it didn't help that Toyota decided to bury the part where you need to remove the cab to replace it.

I think it's reasonable to expect a turbocharged motor to have more issues than a N/A motor. It's only natural given the additional failure points.

I hope Toyota can eventually prove the naysayers wrong with the new engine. But, I'm sure there will be bugs to work out, at the very least.

 

I really wish Toyota could leave one NA motor in their lineup for the traditionalist car buyers, but I understand that they can't avoid the wrath of the EPA and the current administration in pushing ever more stringent emissions and CAFE standards.

 

Agreed. I'm all in favor of better power and fuel economy, but I'm not a fan of the government forcing manufacturers to limit our options.

 

The gov requirement is emissions, not engine type or fuel economy.

More than one way to skin a cat: https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a42662418/honda-35-v-6-engine-dohc/

Honda is taking a different approach with a redesigned v6. Toyota could do the same, but they've decided not to.

 

I thought CAFE was a factor as well.

Also, before this turns into another pissing contest about which government regulations we're bitching about specifically, I referenced power and fuel economy bcause the sixth Gen. 4runner is going to have better power and fuel economy.

Toyota tried a redesigned V6 (2GR-FKS) already, and it sucked. I say bring on the turbos!

 

Toyota sold over 100k of 4runners last year, every one of those counts against them in the CAFE calculation. If you believe fuel economy was not a factor in Tacos and 4Runners going to 4 cylinder turbos, I have some beach front property in Nepal that I would like to sell you.

 

Indeed, if the 4 cylinder turbos turn out to be at least as reliable as the 1GR-FE, I'm all for it.

 

Seems like the Canadian government has said the new Taco gets 25 MPG. Unclear if hybrid or non-hybrid though... I assume hybrid? If non-hybrid, that's impressive; because that means the hybrid will probably get like 26-27 MPG... this is starting to look real good for the 6th gen 4R.

https://www.thedrive.com/news/2024-toyota-tacoma-4x4-gets-up-to-25-mpg-in-official-testing

 

As a VW fanboy, I know some guys with 4-cyl turbos have gotten above 200k miles with these VW engines. My 2002 Audi TT was still running strong at 180k miles, but did have to replace regular parts as a part of maintenance like spark plugs, water pump, timing belt, etc. My current 2016 GTI with the 3rd gen EA888 is at 98k and running as strong as when it was new.

Point is, Toyota will not fuck around with reliability. If VW 4-cyl turbos with questionable reliability can do 200k miles with proper maintenance, I am more than positive this Toyota 4-cyl turbo will be as reliable as other N/A Toyota engines. However, as we've seen with the new Tundra, this turbo transition will have a few snags but always happens with first gen automotive things.

 

200k is a very low bar for Toyota engines. Last person I know that wore out a Toyota engine before selling was a Lexus ES300 that died at 360k and she forgot to change oil, a lot.

I understand it is an ask for a turbo motor to be comparable to arguable one of the most reliable motor toyota ever made aside from the 22R, nevertheless here we are, talking about the successor to the 1GR.

 

Fair enough, but let's be real, most original owners won't keep any Toyota anywhere near 200k miles. Most people get bored or just wanna upgrade to the latest and greatest. Except me tho, last N/A V6 of its kind, I'm keeping both my 4R and GTI until they fall apart.

 

Actually, VW went to timing chain for the 3rd gen EA888! I'm just waiting for 100k miles to do the intake valve cleaning (since it's GDI), timing chain, tensioner, water pump, manual transmission fluid, new brake fluid, maybe new motor mounts... maybe a new clutch!

 

No front locker needed.

It will have A-trac

 

The competition with two lockers also have A-Trac equivalents.

 

I installed a steel bumper today. A steel bumper from Toyota will never happen, but a modular design that will not require cutting and chopping will do wonders for Toyota customers.

 

I wonder how much of that translates to “real life”. Turbo vehicles are generally driven a little more spirited by their drivers causing any gains from smaller engine nullified. IIRC new tundra isn’t a huge improvement over old one, mpg wise.

 

It seems Toyota has a number of advanced ICE engines in the works, why do you say they "decided not to"?

https://evrepairmag.com/freezing-ic...mbustion-engines-in-the-ev-age-says-chairman/

https://energycentral.com/c/ec/toyota-develops-internal-combustion-engine-runs-ammonia

https://argun-kazakhstan.com/tpost/43muky80m1-toyota-develops-advanced-internal-combus

 

But the competition has shit reliability. Esp the Broncos, I've snooped around forums and FB groups... some have had their ecoboost engines replaced

 

... Because they are replacing the V6 in multiple models with turbo 4s, instead of a new v6.

What you shared is interesting, but is in a much different time scale than the current turbo 4 or Honda's v6 rollout (if they even prove viable and make it to market).

So maybe I can clarify that I'm speaking in the immediate timeframe.

 

I've honestly just started ignoring that guy. In other threads he goes on and on about how great ATrac is, and how springing for the locker model is a waste pf money, so he's obviously just arguing to argue.

 

I recall he posted a video of a guy with supposedly three points why Atrac is all you need, where the three points consisted of
1: it works
2: Atrac is reserved for top tier off road models
3: it works.

I don't think he gave a follow up after I wondered if it is so reserved for top end models, why it is that the SR5s have them while OR and Pros have them plus lockers.

 

Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but having a front locker is good only if you're not turning, yes? Rear locker makes sense, since they don't turn (steer). Center locker makes sense to distro power 50/50. Front locker makes sense, but only if you're going in a relatively straight line?

 

front locker can be useful when turning if one of your front wheels is off the ground or has no traction.

Center lock is only used on full time 4WD systems and not needed on ORP or Pros.

 

A good news for 6th gen buyers. Test that you might be desperately waiting for. The new disconnected Tacoma on the RTI ramp. Understandably it fell short a good 100 points compared to the Gladiator. But I think it will lead the class, beating the Colorado and the Ranger.

https://youtu.be/g4oymoFNhnM?si=Str9o2EujGSERYBb

 

^It's interesting to note the 4th gen Tacoma with front sway bar disconnected is a few points short of the stock 3rd gen Tacoma with a normal front sway bar. Either the front wheel rate is stiffer or the new front suspension geometry has less travel than before. The latter would be bad news for the 6th gen 4Runner / LC 250. As Edmunds had shown in his video, the front shock motion ratio is reduced (wheels move less per inch of shock travel).

 

This may very well be my first and last post who knows. I’ve had my RAV4 for about three years and late in 2022 started angling for something electric and bigger (3 rows). About that time I came across the Rivian R1S. While waiting on my turn to configure my R1S, I started looking into the 6th Gen 4Runner release date. I like to research and know ALL the ins & outs of any car I purchase. Looking for such insider info led me to posts by Carmaker1 & then eventually this site. I’ve been watching this thread for months (maybe going on a year?). Anyway, I was surfing the Rivian forum the other day and found the picture below.

TL;DR Someone thought it was an R1S test mule, but I thought the taillights looked like the new Land Cruiser and one could make the argue for the new Tacoma taillights as well. I could be totally off here but wanted to see what you all thought! @nimby & @TexasFunRunner you both have WAY more experience in this area so I would love to hear your thoughts.