Tacoma “commercial grade” engine standards

4 bangers just don't work here in the rockies. I bet they never tested them on Red Cone or Hagerman Pass. If you do Vail Pass, I bet $$$ that hybrid will have to kick in to make up for the 4 banger engine @ high elevation. That turbo is gonna eat some gas up here trying to climb these passes @ 12,000+

 

Good point. Hopefully they have some sort of fail-safe engineered in.

That's understandable. I just don't think it's a big concern. I've had pretty good luck with Toyota electronics, generally.

 

Then Mercedes gave the W140 a power-adjustable interior rear view mirror that's linked to the memory seat settings...

 

in another video he talks about fuel efficiency and lower emissions. so its probably mostly lower emissions.

edit: I forgot, he talks a lot about better driveability. The 4 cylinder reaches peak torque in very low RPM and had a better power band than the 3rd gen. The 10 speed keeps you in better power bands. The engine has the same HP but more torque so should 4x4 a little better having more TQ as a lower RPM.

What I'm pretty excited about is that hybrids really help at lower speeds and breaking. I think/hope that 4x4 MPG will be dramatically increased with the hybrid and there will be no reason to carry extra gas.

 

in another video he states a couple interesting things.....

The lead Tacoma engineer says when describing the TRD Pro exhaust noise @ 14:00 "...we're also using electronic sound enhancement to help especially inside of the cabin to make this thing sound every bit as well as we could."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIGHFMahM6w

Speakers. They use speakers???????? fake exhaust sounds. WTF...so expect that perhaps in the 4runner TRD pro

He said ground clearance is up on the Pro over 11 inches so expect that on 4runners.

He hits on under body corrosion resistance and said they improved on that - so thats really darn good.

The front tires are pushed forward to accommodate bigger tires and had to make more room on the body mount side so expect larger tires to be easier. IMO the bumper is made, likewise, to accommodate larger tires. However this makes the turning radius slightly worse. Would improve handling when towing and i think stability in general for normal driving.

The bumper from the pro can be bolted onto any trim, so probably get interoperability on stuff like that on the 4runner.

Also look how terrible the lower end screen looks. This right here is unforgivable. Hopefully they wont do something so stupid with the 4runner



Theres a lot of aluminum to make parts lighter; the tail gate, but also the suspension, so should have that on the 4runner

This is a very interesting video on the sway bar disconnect which again we should get. this guy points out a lot of cool stuff. good video. he talks about better shocks we should get and other stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4oymoFNhnM

 

This guy Turbos. Thanks for jumping in and spreading knowledge.

The first turbo chargers were built to counteract the power loss airplanes experienced with altitude. To BE BETTER, have more power at higher altitudes. As were all the first ones.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbocharger

The 1905 patent by Alfred Büchi, a Swiss engineer working at Sulzer is often considered the birth of the turbocharger.[7][8][9] This patent was for a compound radial engine with an exhaust-driven axial flow turbine and compressor mounted on a common shaft.[10][11] The first prototype was finished in 1915 with the aim of overcoming the power loss experienced by aircraft engines due to the decreased density of air at high altitudes.[12][13] However, the prototype was not reliable and did not reach production.[12] Another early patent for turbochargers was applied for in 1916 by French steam turbine inventor Auguste Rateau, for their intended use on the Renault engines used by French fighter planes.[10][14] Separately, testing in 1917 by the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) and Sanford Alexander Moss showed that a turbocharger could enable an engine to avoid any power loss (compared with the power produced at sea level) at an altitude of up to 4,250 m (13,944 ft) above sea level.[10] The testing was conducted at Pikes Peak in the United States using the Liberty L-12 aircraft engine.[14]

 

If they make the rear hatch aluminum on the 6th gen, it'll solve the rust issue plaguing earlier gens brought on by the roll-down window.

 

Especially the idiotic tablet-glued-to-dash look. Why is it so hard to integrate it into the dash?

 

My guess is that they intentionally make it look bad so people spend more money on the better one.

 

Maybe they're intentionally styling it after the ruggedized GPS tablets used in trophy trucks, etc.

 

You are spot on about the W140.

The W140 is considered the ultimate S class by many automotive writers, but the truth is its reputation when it was still in production was heavily tainted by the complexity related problems, its street cred is only saved by its heavy duty parts and chassis that made it far superior to the W220. Anything, and I mean anything, breaking on that thing and I hope the owner is a Mercedes tech, or has deep pockets.

My inlaws had a 98 S500 and while it was truly a predator with the footwork of a 40 year old Mike Tyson on the highway, the repair bills were insane. A cooling system leak costed them 6k in the early 2010s. Light bulbs were really hard to get to for the elderly owners, and many maintenance items were deferred due to the cost. I told them to buy a Lexus LS400 but noooooooooo....German cars only for them...

The W126 though along with the W116 are the real deal, i would not hesitate to buy one today with 200k miles on it as long as it has been maintained regularly.

 

I had later years SL500, mechanically essentially the same car as S500, and repair costs were "reasonable" (for Mercedes). Mercedes V8 M113 engine was really reliable, provided good power and decent on gas. I really liked the car and regret selling it. $6K repair bills is a case of a shady dealership taking advantage of well-off people that can pay it. It has nothing to do with the car itself.

Now, later years Mercedes really took a dive in quality due to added complexity. Things like ABC hydraulic suspension and so on could easily cost you $5K+ in parts to just get the car drivable, but that was not the case for 80s to 90s Mercedes.

 

Fake engine sounds through the speakers is so depressing and sad. I didn’t catch this before. Hopefully they limit this “feature” to the pro only, so all Tacoma (possibly 4runner) owners aren’t forced to live a lie.

Aluminum can corrode and perforate just like steel, except the corrosion color is white. And given all the hardware inside a roll down hatch window that will probably need to be steel, there’s real potential for galvanic corrosion. So if they use aluminum, it might not be worth it to toyota to bother with engineering a new roll down system. Roll down windows might be gone regardless of material used for the hatch though .

 

^Aluminum in automotive applications is effectively resistant to corrosion, case in point being the aluminum crash bar on 2005-2023 Tacomas.

Higher-strength 2000-series and 7000-series aluminum used in aerospace is more susceptible to corrosion, but you can be assured Toyota's accountants will commit harakiri before allowing those to be used on 4Runners.

 

^In B4 Lexus LX AHC

 

75% of Americans are either overweight or obese. That's a statistic from several years ago so I bet it's higher now. This guy should have been wearing a massive suit for this video or a king-size bed sheet.

 

Also sitting atop a rascal.

 

Don't forget that, with Toyota's "citizen of the world" approach, there is a huge taxation/registration hit in Europe for engine displacement. If they want to sell successfully there with improved performance then this "everything needs a turbo" is their key to success. Look at the immediate gobble on the Continent for a damn Land Cruiser with a turboed 4 banger. Their garages are even smaller so they might have to included a wand and shrinking spell with each vehicle.

The better mileage myth is exactly that...you have to drive it in limping granny mode to get close to their posted claims. Long downhill runs and tailwinds help as well.

 

To that first point, it takes fuel to make power. The EPA cycle will return better numbers than the outgoing V6 but in the real world, it will probably be about 1mpg difference (and I have to wonder if simply swapping the 5 speed for the 8 speed would have done the same). That said, the turbo-4 will produce more torque at low rpm and that's a win.

For point #3, yeah, the Tacoma seating position was terrible, the 4runner is way better already.

 

+1000

A lot of fear about turbos stems to folks experience with 80s turbos when they had to run super low base compression ratios and rich tunes to stop engines from grenading under boost, leading to horrible turbo lag. And of course poor reliabily if you didn’t baby the thing with a long cooldown.

Today’s turbos are nothing like that. Automobile magazine did a big article a few years back on all the engineering changes. With ECU controlled ignition and fuel maps and per cylinder knock sensors they can now turbo engines with high base compression ratios… combine that with variable displacement turbos and computer controlled waste gates and lag is reduced to the point it’s barely noticable. The same electronics give them even better ability to compensate for altitude changes. And the use of much better materials, lubrication and computer monitored cooldown cycles has addressed a lot of the reliability issues.


I drove a coworkers new Integra last year. Didn’t even realize it was turbo at first, just pulls hard from about 2k all the way to redline. Nothing like the sudden kick we used to get in my college buddies 04 WRX years ago or the on/off switch that 80s Porsche turbos where.

Realy there is zero reason NOT to turbo now that they have fixed most of the shortcomings. Getting more power from less displacement allows a big reduction in weight/volume of the engine space allowing the engineer to either make the vehicle lighter (for better fuel efficiency) or use the freed up space to either pack more power in than was reasonable with NA or add weight elsewhere, beefier frame, bigger suspension, more luxury features, whatever with less ride penalty.

 

And they will most like coat or anodize it.
Remember the corrosion mechanism in aluminum is a little different. Unlike rust, when aluminum corrodes at a certain point the surface layer seals the metal and prevents the corrosion from proceeding deeper. That’s what anodizing is in fact- a deliberate, intentional corrosion layer to seal the surface.

 

While I agree that individual results are going to vary based on driving style, to say that it's a myth is false. Check out the numbers on the new Tundra and Sequoia on Fuelly.com if you need proof.

 

That is my opinion obviously and It's based on and backed up by Fuelly for the truck I just moved on from. F150 Ecoboost whose advertised mileage was purported to reach 21MPG highway. Tried every trick, tweak and tune in the book, changed habits, best quality gas, ethanol/no ethanol, dropped all the unneeded weight (including my own) and on rare occasions could sniff at the lofty heights for 13's and 14's shown here. The 15's and up had to go to aluminum bodies to gain <2MPG on average. My NA 2001 Chevy 1500 with a V8 got 17 all day and would hit 19 on long trip averages. Turbo shmurbo.

 

I thought we were talking about Toyota.

If you compare the last 3 years of the 5.7 Tundras to the first 3 years of the turbo 6, they've improved by an average of about 20%.



The Sequoia looks to have improved by about 15%.

 

I saw the new Taco towing on TFL. The new lil 4 banger did better than the old screaming V6

 

Yes, there's been an improvement, but the point is these heavy vehicles with smaller turbo engines aren't hitting their rated fuel economy.

Technically they'll get much better mileage if you stay out of the boost, but that's hard to do for most people. Especially coming from a truck that gets the same mpg driving aggressively as driving like a grandma.

 

I thought the point was that the improved fuel economy is not a myth, as someone else stated.

One doesn't need to "stay out of the boost" to experience improved fuel economy. These turbos are tuned provide boost at low RPM's.

And, the current 4Runner's fuel economy is heavily impacted by driving style. I don't know what vehicle exists where it isn't.

 

I agree that turbos are a net plus but I believe they have higher highs and lower lows. (I read something about towing MPG having a lower floor in the EcoBoosts but that may have just been anecdata so take that with a grain of salt)

Note that the Sequoia is hybrid only, but I would guess that’s mostly going to prop up city driving a little.

For some more Fuelly data that doesn’t necessarily prove anything, the last gen Sorento came in a NA I4, turbo 4 and NA V6 for a couple years.

The base I4 is around 23-24 MPG average.
The turbo 4 is around 21-22 MPG.
The V6 is around 20.

Ignoring the reliability of these since both NA and turbo I4’s are trash and the V6 isn’t spotless, the turbo 4 and V6 have been considered comparable (hp vs tq) but the turbo is definitely ahead by somewhere 15-20% in fuel efficiency. (but sample sizes do vary)

 

My 2012 F150 EB (which I replaced with my 4R) got 16.5 in the winter and around 19.5mpg in the summer in hilly sw PA.

Part of the reason I sold it (other than the blown out rockers) was it had 120k on it and was a ticking time bomb from the turbos.

 

It's a summary of Tacoma customer complaints...the Tacoma powertrain has a reputation for gear hunting. The 4Runner does not have this problem.