Typical gen cycle for toyota (mostly main bof vehicles)

here is a gee whiz info

toyota typical gen cycle (the dates listed are model years (MY) not production years (which usually start in august of the previous year)

1. 3-4 year is considered mid cycle refresh
2. normally gens last 7 MY (model years)

that all went out the window in the mid 2010's on the bof vehicles.

tundra went like 14 yrs between gens:

1G xk30/xk40 (internal model code)
2000-2006

2G xk50
2007-2021
2014 was consider the mid cycle refresh

3G xk70 (dont know why they skipped xk60)
2022-present


4runner went 15 yrs between gens

predecessor (toyota trekker)
n30
1981-1983

1G n60 (internal model code)
1984-1989

2G n120/n130
1990-1995

3G n180
1996-2002

4G n210
2003-2009

5G n280
2010-2024
mid cycle was 2014 (since they were expecting to switch to a new gen in 2018 but was put on hold)

6G n410
2025-???


tacoma

1G n140/n150/n160/n170/n190 (internal model code)
1995-2004

2G n220/n240/n250/n260/n270
2005-2015

3G n300
2016-2023

4G n400
2024-???

 

Moving forward, I think it's important to consider for the first time, EV laws will probably have a role in the gap between generations.

California's zero-emission rules will cut smog-causing pollution from light-duty vehicles by 25% by 2037.

The rules mandate 35% of the new cars sold be plug-in hybrid electric (PHEV), EVs or hydrogen fuel cell by 2026.

That proportion will rise to 68% by 2030 and 100% by 2035.

12 other states have adopted same rules CA created. UK has some updates to their EV regs as well.

But still being fought over at political level.

If all these laws come to fruition, it would make sense current gen would probably last 10 years and 7th gen would be EV.

 

There's a blurb here I think is on-topic and folks will find interesting:
https://www.theautopian.com/the-new...feel-as-special-anymore-but-i-still-want-one/

Also less related but a quote from the comment section I agree with.

 

Yep, basically they designed a one-size fits all platform, which means they had to engineer it for the largest/heaviest it would be used for, then fit all other vehicles (in the same class) to fit.

Saves massive amounts of design time, engineering, parts manufacturing, cataloging, etc. between all the new vehicles. Very smart.

 

Weird. They did the same thing with the Celica/Supra and Supra. The 2nd gen was the MA50, and the third gen was MA70, or JZA70 in some markets. I could assume it gad something to do with the Celica sharing a platform and then getting a new FWD chassis code, but that doesn't explain about the Tundra.

Edit: it looks like the Celica got the RA60 chassis code, while the same generation Supra was the MA50. So, that really doesn't help explain anything. I just thought it was interesting.

 

Supra MK2 was MA60, MA61, (81~86) and MA67 which was revisions on the MA61.

 

Crap, I stand corrected. Not sure why I thought it was the 50.

For being a fan since before they were really popular (pre Fast and Furious, lol), I'm surprised I didn't know that. Especially since the VIN code on mine was MA67. Duh.

Thanks for the clarification!

 

Np. The old numbers can be very confusing sometimes.

 

I don't think they're that confusing. I just had it wrong for whatever reason. I tried to remember chassis codes for all of the cars I liked. I still know a handful, but now I'm going to need to double check before I post them.

 

1. N410 is not an actual Toyota chassis code, it's some fake Wikipedia BS. Only thing known about the Gen 6, is its development code "930B".
2. "XK60" wasn't skipped, it was the previous generation Sequoia from 2007 to 2022. They split up te truck & SUV codes after the first gen.
3. The start dates don't fully reflect production/intro, so gotta add a year before that.

Toyota typically had a 7 year cycle for SUVs, but extended it up to 9 when necessary. Different plans were put in place as you mentioned, after dismal early 5th gen sales proved the point for powerful naysayers ("kill off the 4Runner" execs) its heyday was over and it deserved to not be renewed after an extended 8 year run through 2017.

In the nick of the time, sales picked up like a record and no amount of powerful dissuading made a difference. If the Sequoia had a future beyond 2015, obviously so did the 4Runner. Cleverest way was to make them share everything inside-out with the equivalent pickups, like the Hilux and Fortuner. The Sequoia didn't get an IRS for that very reason and lot less than hoped for. 4Runner got lucky, because a lot of buyers had strong expectations for traditional features.

If not for the chicken tax, Tacoma would probably be imported from Japan (maybe not Tahara due to capacity). Doesn't seem like Toyota will be investing in new US factories for ICEs, so no truck production will come back unless there's a huge decrease in volume output.

I find this excerpt in red from Autopian to be bull. I can tell that the Toyota spokesman was obviously misquoted and taken out of context with misinformation about the outgoing Tacoma.

If someone (Autopian) is going to interview a subject (Toyota spokesperson) and report on a topic that very subject was involved in (4Runner/TNGA-F), doesn't make sense to muddle any of that subject's own context with your own limited and opinionated (outsider) viewpoint. Then try to misleadingly make it seem like that's from the source's lips.

The previous gen Tacoma was introduced in September 2015, not 2016 and had slightly over an 8 year run through December 2023. Very lazy detail to miss, as Toyota deliberately tracks that month by month and 7 vs 8 years still makes a huge difference in their decision making. It's not that hard to get right, if you're comparing the Gen 3 at 8 years against Gen 1 being 9 1/2 years and Gen 2, 11 years.

Additionally, TNGA-F has been in development since probably 2013 for the LC300 and 2015 for the Tundra, so I don't even understand how that's "a few years ago" per this low attention span journalist. To me a "few years ago" is under 4 years or 1-3 years and anything half a decade or more (over 4 years) is a "couple" or "several" years.

Toyota took an eternity to introduce new body on frame models, in which obviously none of these new models should be assumed to have been developed over a short period of time. All of those major decisions were made about a decade ago.

Also, although the 5th gen 4Runner was only introduced in 2009, it still had essentially the same platform as the 4th gen introduced in 2002. Ditto for the equivalent Prado (120) and GX. 2nd gen Taco was a variation of that Prado 120 basis. From 2002 to 2024 is more like 22 years on that platform, not even 15ish like the bigger trucks. Autopian can't compare them in terms of longevity nor assume that 4th & 5th gen had different platforms.

The XK50 Tundra, Land Cruiser 200, J200 Lexus LX 570 and XK60 Sequoia got fully new platforms in 2007 (ran through 2021-22), unlike the midsize redesigns which followed in late 2009 in LC 150 Prado, Gen 5 4R, and J150 GX reusing the same basis (from 2002) moderately updated. Old fullsize "platforms" from 1998-99 were replaced in '07.

Yet this Autopian author misses some of the most simple, basic facts.

This little piece right here by this "elsewhere" forum commenter is some unfounded BS and a crude assessment, considering what GM did in the early 2000s is hardly comparable to what TNGA-F is today.

Toyota has manufactured and sold these 3 SUVs (together) for the past 22 years, alongside the Tacoma as the sole pickup equivalent on the old midsize body on frame basis (Taco since 2004). Now it's magically an issue to complain about, since they'll all being sold at the same time in USA?

Some people can be so forgetful, if not oblivious to what's happening beyond their neck of the woods. It's not as if the Prado didn't exist all this time, it just wasn't sold here. Some countries even got both 4Runner and Prado, above the smaller Fortuner. American Locomotive has an absurd take, even if I don't agree with Toyota selling the 250 as-is in North America. Doesn't mean it's tantamount to what GM was doing back in the day and opening up TNGA-F to half assed engineering. Modular architectures are much more viable in today's world with huge advancements in platform engineering compared to 30-40 years ago.

They didn't "skip" XK60, that's just solely the 2nd gen Sequoia to the XK50 Tundra. They're staggered as odd numbered for Tundra and even numbered for Sequoia. Current is XK70 for Tundra only and XK80 for Sequoia.

 

Thanks for the correction. But, I was just quoting another post. And, I already corrected the other error in my post.

 

I know lol, I just realized that too.

 

Haha!

That does explain it, though. I used to think I had a good grasp on Toyota's chassis codes, but this thread made me realize that I didn't. They're generally pretty simple, though, once you get the basic pattern figured out.

 

thanks for the corrections

 

remember folks, someone is always more knowledgable than you, they just dont always speak up (post)

: