New TNGA-F Platform For the 4Runner - What Do You Think?

Not interested. A few extra mpg's and some extra torque might be nice when you're under warranty but I'd be shocked if it had similar dependability when it's over 100k miles.

 

Especially if the engine bay looks like the dumped remains of a set of AT tires that were put through a mulcher.

OK, Ok, I’ll stop lol. But lord help me, I cant get the sight of of that goodyear Medusa out of my head!

 

Love the 22R/22R-E!

It's interesting that the new 300 series Land Cruiser in the Middle East gets the 1GR-FE (with locking differentials) as standard and the 3.5 V6 is a more expensive upgrade.





Is it possible that the Prado and 4Runner will keep the 1GR-FE as an option?





And what about the 70 series - the Heavy Duty Land Cruiser line? Will that get one of the new engines as well?

 

Looks like the 4.0 version is about 90K AED cheaper.

 

Shoot, you're right, I misread that. Interesting.

 

Good grief.....Just a few tooo many "better ideas" on that one.

 

Looking at that Bronco engine, it makes me wonder what the engineers were thinking. I am a computer engineer, and in the companies I worked for, our thought was that complexity rarely created a better solution. Simplicity done well usually makes a great solution. I cannot imagine what the labor cost would be for repairing an engine like that of the Bronco. So many parts intertwined.

One thing I love about my 5th gen 4R, it is easy to work on. Yes, I wish it had more torque and 8 speed tranny, but at the end of the day it does its job well and has never left me stranded. And I can do all the maintenance on it, with the exception of tearing down the engine or needing to replace the gears, or some other serious effort beyond my garage capabilities. Otherwise, I am pretty much able to handle it.

I will never have the perfect vehicle for the over-landing my wife and I do, but what I do have is a proven vehicle that is easy to maintain, easy to modify, and if taken care of will easily go 300k miles, which is way more than I will use in the remainder of my life. And it goes everywhere I need it to.

It is so easy to get consumed by bigger, better in the world of consumerism. I have learned to just enjoy what you have to its fullest, until I have to make a change. When I am forced to make a change, then I will start looking for what is the best option available. Until then, I just drive what I have and remain satisfied with what I purchased at that time - and yet here I am rendering my worthless opinion.

 

Before it gets out of hand, I have to issue a retraction. Apparently the internet lied and the above is not, in fact, a Bronco engine. My guess is that this is all part of a viscous smear campaign.


In an effort to make up for my mistake, and to keep others from being duped by pictures that suggest or imply some sort of false link to bronco engines, below are some pics of what most definitely are NOT Bronco engines:















Delicious, but not Bronco.


This is a real Bronco engine.

 

I would kill for that pickup.

 

Well I mean it's basically military grade.

 

I know you're goofing around but modern turbos haven't had to worry about heat soaking or "turbo timers" for a long time now. Water-cooled CHRAs use a passive means of cooling called thermal siphoning. Water boil-off (steam) goes uphill and pulls water in behind it, which cycles until the exhaust housing has cooled sufficiently.



I like turbo engines (currently building one for fun) but agree that they add complexity and failure points. I know that Toyota beats on their engines in testing, probably more than almost any other manufacturer (though this still did result in that turd of a minivan engine in the 3G Tacoma). I really do like the simplicity and reliability of my 5th gen though. Plus it's paid off, so it would be a tough sell for me to want to upgrade.

It is interesting to see Toyota returning to a 2.4L turbo truck engine again though- nearly 40 years later.

 

I was impressed when Toyota introduced the 3.5 in the 2016+ Tacomas for the simple reason that they addressed the issue with coking on intake valves in direct injection engines. Almost all other manufacturers at the time had direct injection engines too, but they did not address this issue, and those owners are paying for that now with expensive cleaning procedures.

I think that Toyota is well aware that their reputation is mostly seated in reliability of their vehicles. The turbo four will, in my opinion, be a very reliable engine.

All that said, I am a huge fan of simplicity, and don’t plan to get another 4R until the engine is proven over at least a few years.

 

4.0 doesn't really need any more HP, it really just needs more torque at a low RPM. Torque is what you feel on the street and off-road.

232K miles on my 07 turbo Volvo. Haven't had to do any additional maintenance due to the turbo, and I've never "let the turbos cool down" before shutting the car off. No cracked turbo yet. And this on 87 octane.

 

I recently drove a 1993 80 series Land Cruiser around for 2 weeks in San Diego. I don't know what series the 93 4.5L is, but I actually really liked it. Certainly wasn't fast, but had plenty of torque. It also seemed a lot smoother than the 4.0 and did well on hills, even with 33" tires. It drove much better than one would expect with only 212 HP in such a large vehicle.

 

I think it would be the 1FZ or 1MZ, but I'm not certain. I agree, though. I drove one of those once, and enjoyed it.

 

The problem with Toyota gas engines is they're incredibly inefficient. Durable, definitely, but, horribly inefficient - especially those straight six engines. Yeesh. My FJ60 was good for 9-12mpg. Even the old AMC straight six was good for 15-17mpg.

 

I think my '85 Supra was good for about 20-22 MPG. Probably could have done a little better if I didn't constantly beat the piss out of it.

 

Don’t lie, you know it wasn’t a Supra, you had a rusty Corolla.

 

The reason Australia gets such great engines in the 79 series is their government is the only western country with no fuel efficiency requirements, the ones they "have" are voluntary. They didn't regulate it in a desperate attempt to save the last remnants of their dying domestic auto industry (spoiler: it died anyway). If clean air takes a back seat to engine longevity, Australia (for now) is the place for you. But I think the Albanese govt is currently writing some up later this year.

The TNGA-F platform looks like all the other frames. It's fully boxed and made of metal. My opinion will depend on how rust resistant it is. I'm sure the vehicle it will base will still be too large for my liking. I'm not a fan of the one size fits all approach for vehicles, the K platform might of worked for Chrysler, but I wouldn't say those vehicles were the best.

How come we get all cagey about turbos on gas engines when Toyota has been putting them on diesel 4runners for decades? I want to be optimistic, after all the 3rz is one of the greatest engines of all time and people will install turbos on them by choice. As long as we have a robust community the challenges will be overcome.

 

What makes the TNGA-F platform unusual is that it can be lengthened or shortened, narrowed or widened and can be made stiffer or more flexible depending on the application. And apparently it can also accept rear leaf or coil springs. For the North American market Toyota will be replacing four distinct platforms (Tundra/Sequoia, 4Runner/Lexus GX, Tacoma and the Land Cruiser 200/Lexus 570/600) with one single platform that is adjustable to meet any wheelbase length or track width.

See paragraphs four and five in this article:

https://www.motortrend.com/news/next-generation-toyota-tacoma-4runner-tundra-tnga-f-platform/

 

Lol! Nope. My Dad and my brother had Corollas, though. My ex had a late 80's Chevy Nova for awhile, which was a rebadged Corolla.

I had a lot of cool Toyotas in my 20's. But, they were also old and shitty by the time I got them.

 

What model uses leaf springs?

 

Lower end Tacomas will be using leaf springs.

 

Oh, gotcha. I wonder why they would even bother with that. Seems like it would be more efficient to just put the same rear suspension on everything. Maybe different shocks or springs for different trims.

 

That was my thought too. Variation costs money.

Maybe they really wanted to differentiate the trim lines, or perhaps the leaf spring models have a higher cargo capacity?

 

That sounds like a possibility. Maybe it will make sense once we see all the trims and specs in print.

 

Ditto!

 

That's basically what I read in an article, something about the leaf springs having a greater towing capacity and perhaps increased cargo. But I wonder why the Tundra doesn't have them on some models - or does it? I think the Dodge Ram trucks use coil springs for the 1500 series and then leaf springs in the heavy duty 2500 series.

 

Maybe Toyota had a warehouse of leaf springs to use up….lol.
The newer Ram 2500 has coils, if you want leafs you need to opt for the 3500.

 

I could certainly see it being related to towing/payload. But, it seems like coil springs should be more than sufficient for the amount of payload the Tacoma will be rated for.

Lol! This is another possibility.