Mike "Wuzzy121". Rest in peace, brother

Go Back   Tacoma World Forums > Tacoma Garage > 4 Cylinder

Notices

Help me decide, 2.7 i4 AT 4x4 or 4.0 AT V6 RWD

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-03-2011, 06:16 PM   #21
Senior Member
jking3002 is on a distinguished road
 
jking3002's Avatar
Army: USAG Fort Knox
Name: Jonathan
Joined: May 2010, #37187
Location: Kentucky
Gender: Male
Posts: 198
jking3002's Tacoma Gallery
Here is an MPG comparison taken from Toyota.com of the following trucks-

4.0 V6 PreRunner Access Cab AT- 17/21
2.7 I4 4x4 Access Cab AT- 18/21
2.7 I4 4x4 Access Cab MT- 18/20
As you can see, basically no difference.

I remember seeing the 0-60 times on all the Toyota models in some kind of PDF file fact sheet on this site. Wish I could find it again. Anyway, the 4.0 blows the 2.7 with either tranny out of the water, and the 2.7 manual was like 2 full seconds or more, faster than the 2.7 auto if I remember right. I was thinking about trading my 5-speed reg cab 4x4 for the auto version, but once I saw that, there was no way I was going to do it. The 5 speed barely has enough power IMO.

Do you need 4x4? If so, get a 2.7 if its all you can afford (not hating, I have a reg cab 4x4 because it's all I could afford). I would REALLY encourage you to get the manual if you do go with the 2.7 for the power reasons though.

Do you not need 4x4? If so, and especially if you need to tow, get the V6. I've honestly been looking to trade my 4x4 regular cab for a V6 access cab PreRunner. The 09s and newer PreRunners can handle snow and light offroading just fine in my opinion.

Want more honest answers, and not just someone supporting THEIR truck, PM me.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2011, 06:39 PM   #22
Senior Member
maxpower29 is one of the sharper tools in the shedmaxpower29 is one of the sharper tools in the shedmaxpower29 is one of the sharper tools in the shedmaxpower29 is one of the sharper tools in the shedmaxpower29 is one of the sharper tools in the shedmaxpower29 is one of the sharper tools in the shedmaxpower29 is one of the sharper tools in the shedmaxpower29 is one of the sharper tools in the shedmaxpower29 is one of the sharper tools in the shedmaxpower29 is one of the sharper tools in the shedmaxpower29 is one of the sharper tools in the shed
 
maxpower29's Avatar
Name: Jordan
Joined: Mar 2011, #52525
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,366
maxpower29's Tacoma Gallery
2.7 4x4 MANUAL FTW
Just had this massive debate for 2 months and picked mine and love it. Would I rather the V6? Fuck yes, but for the price? No sir
Im getting 23-24 mpg also with a new engine. Once my AFE filter comes in and it breaks in I should be 25-26 easy
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2011, 09:17 PM   #23
Senior Member
EatMyTacomaDust has a brilliant futureEatMyTacomaDust has a brilliant futureEatMyTacomaDust has a brilliant futureEatMyTacomaDust has a brilliant futureEatMyTacomaDust has a brilliant futureEatMyTacomaDust has a brilliant futureEatMyTacomaDust has a brilliant futureEatMyTacomaDust has a brilliant futureEatMyTacomaDust has a brilliant futureEatMyTacomaDust has a brilliant futureEatMyTacomaDust has a brilliant future
 
EatMyTacomaDust's Avatar
Name: Johnny
Joined: Apr 2011, #55366
Location: Washington State
Gender: Male
Posts: 454
EatMyTacomaDust's Tacoma Gallery
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxpower29 View Post
2.7 4x4 MANUAL FTW
Just had this massive debate for 2 months and picked mine and love it. Would I rather the V6? Fuck yes, but for the price? No sir
Im getting 23-24 mpg also with a new engine. Once my AFE filter comes in and it breaks in I should be 25-26 easy
^ My sentiments exactly. . .
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2011, 09:19 PM   #24
Senior Member
jblair is on a distinguished road
 
jblair's Avatar
Joined: Mar 2011, #53770
Location: Colorado
Gender: Male
Posts: 137
jblair's Tacoma Gallery
Dude, MT is definitely worth learning if not just for the mpg gain, fun, and better offroad and speed capabilities. 2.7 4x4 ftw
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2011, 06:44 AM   #25
Senior Member
jking3002 is on a distinguished road
 
jking3002's Avatar
Army: USAG Fort Knox
Name: Jonathan
Joined: May 2010, #37187
Location: Kentucky
Gender: Male
Posts: 198
jking3002's Tacoma Gallery
DHK, I was a little surprised the MPGs were all so close, but just because the Canadian website has different numbers, the Toyota USA website must be lying to us all? lolol.

My guess is that the two countries just use different testing procedures, and as a result got different...results. Actual mileage will vary by each driver. I get 18.5 city and 22 or so highway with my 2.7. I'm very happy with it.

DHK, no offense, but I don't care to debate it with you. Myself and the OP are American's, so to me, it makes sense to use the American estimates. You are from Canada, you can use their estimates.

Anyway, good luck OP!
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2011, 10:16 AM   #26
Member
911-3.2 is on a distinguished road
 
911-3.2's Avatar
Joined: Dec 2008, #11724
Location: CT
Gender: Male
Posts: 45
911-3.2's Tacoma Gallery
It's strange how the mpg rating for the 4 cylinder changed for 2011. Earlier years were 17/22 for the manual. I find my truck has no issue meeting those numbers.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2011, 10:41 AM   #27
Science!
AndrewFalk is one of the sharper tools in the shedAndrewFalk is one of the sharper tools in the shedAndrewFalk is one of the sharper tools in the shedAndrewFalk is one of the sharper tools in the shedAndrewFalk is one of the sharper tools in the shedAndrewFalk is one of the sharper tools in the shedAndrewFalk is one of the sharper tools in the shedAndrewFalk is one of the sharper tools in the shedAndrewFalk is one of the sharper tools in the shedAndrewFalk is one of the sharper tools in the shedAndrewFalk is one of the sharper tools in the shed
 
AndrewFalk's Avatar
Joined: May 2010, #36740
Location: The North East
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,071
AndrewFalk's Tacoma Gallery
I have no problem exceeding the EPA standards for my truck.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2011, 11:47 AM   #28
Senior Member
ecoterragaia is one of the sharper tools in the shedecoterragaia is one of the sharper tools in the shedecoterragaia is one of the sharper tools in the shedecoterragaia is one of the sharper tools in the shedecoterragaia is one of the sharper tools in the shedecoterragaia is one of the sharper tools in the shedecoterragaia is one of the sharper tools in the shedecoterragaia is one of the sharper tools in the shedecoterragaia is one of the sharper tools in the shedecoterragaia is one of the sharper tools in the shedecoterragaia is one of the sharper tools in the shed
 
ecoterragaia's Avatar
Joined: Jan 2011, #49786
Location: Bumpass, VA
Gender: Male
Posts: 347
ecoterragaia's Tacoma Gallery
Quote:
Originally Posted by dhk View Post
Its the same truck in both places, fuel consumption is different. American numbers are just plain WRONG. Stating that 6 and 4 cyl fuel consumption is about the same is just plain WRONG -- there is a 20-25% difference!

You yourself get 22 highway... the US website says 20. How can you EXCEED the spec? Does not compute!
Care to explain which parts are wrong?

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/mpg/fet...023-appx-a.pdf

EPA's methodology is to use statistical analyses to "even out" the plethora of variables that influence real world fuel economy. This is mainly to protect the uninformed consumer from making a vehicle purchase partly based on fuel economy, only to find out that the claims were far from real-world observations. It also helps to protect manufacturers from lawsuits over what some would claim is false advertising.

You're saying that Canada's projections are correct and US projections are wrong. Both, in fact, are correct, but the observed difference is reflective of the intent in producing those numbers. EPA doesn't just come up with methods on a whim. They collect large amounts of data, spend countless hours on research, have complex QA procedures in place, and most importantly, they rely heavily on input from the very entities they're regulating, including vehicle manufacturers. I'm sure that the Canadian authorities responsible for regulating posted fuel economy figures have comparable provisions in place also, but they're focus may be totally different and therefore have different methods and variables.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2011, 12:50 PM   #29
Senior Member
maxpower29 is one of the sharper tools in the shedmaxpower29 is one of the sharper tools in the shedmaxpower29 is one of the sharper tools in the shedmaxpower29 is one of the sharper tools in the shedmaxpower29 is one of the sharper tools in the shedmaxpower29 is one of the sharper tools in the shedmaxpower29 is one of the sharper tools in the shedmaxpower29 is one of the sharper tools in the shedmaxpower29 is one of the sharper tools in the shedmaxpower29 is one of the sharper tools in the shedmaxpower29 is one of the sharper tools in the shed
 
maxpower29's Avatar
Name: Jordan
Joined: Mar 2011, #52525
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,366
maxpower29's Tacoma Gallery
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecoterragaia View Post
Care to explain which parts are wrong?

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/mpg/fet...023-appx-a.pdf

EPA's methodology is to use statistical analyses to "even out" the plethora of variables that influence real world fuel economy. This is mainly to protect the uninformed consumer from making a vehicle purchase partly based on fuel economy, only to find out that the claims were far from real-world observations. It also helps to protect manufacturers from lawsuits over what some would claim is false advertising.

You're saying that Canada's projections are correct and US projections are wrong. Both, in fact, are correct, but the observed difference is reflective of the intent in producing those numbers. EPA doesn't just come up with methods on a whim. They collect large amounts of data, spend countless hours on research, have complex QA procedures in place, and most importantly, they rely heavily on input from the very entities they're regulating, including vehicle manufacturers. I'm sure that the Canadian authorities responsible for regulating posted fuel economy figures have comparable provisions in place also, but they're focus may be totally different and therefore have different methods and variables.
They are not accurate because it simply doesnt tell you what truck it is. Access cab? Reg cab? Double cab? All are hundreds of lbs more/less then one another and would get different number. Thats how I know they are wrong, also because they base it on the gas some people use which others dont (ethanol in it). I have had about 1000kms on my new Tacoma and have no problem getting consistent 24+ mpg if that helps
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2011, 01:17 PM   #31
Member
Kevlar1267 is just really niceKevlar1267 is just really niceKevlar1267 is just really niceKevlar1267 is just really niceKevlar1267 is just really nice
 
Kevlar1267's Avatar
Name: Kevin
Joined: Apr 2010, #35962
Location: Minneapolis
Gender: Male
Posts: 94
Kevlar1267's Tacoma Gallery
I have owned 2 2.7 L with auto's. A 1997 and a 2002. Both got good mileage and I just didnt like shifting all the time. I drive a FL70 Freightliner with a 6 speed all day and want something auto. I like the 2.7 for being buleltproof. I never had any problem with either truck with the motor. As for speed I have a motorcycle if I want to go fast. Speically with gas going up I like the 2.7L. But then again I got a new truck with a 4.0 V6 and love the power and I have been getting pretty good mileage with it so far and it's not that muc off from the 2.7L . I was getting about 17-19 in the city and got over 21 on the highway.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2011, 05:56 PM   #32
Senior Member
frog13 is on a distinguished road
Joined: Jan 2011, #49990
Location: cincinnati ohio
Gender: Male
Posts: 140
frog13's Tacoma Gallery
Quote:
Originally Posted by dhk View Post
Well, the jeep 3.7 is 210 hp, the tacoma 2.7 is 159, so you're looking at a difference of 51 hp. Having said that, the tacoma 2.7 hauls ass. Watch out, it REALLY wants to go TOO FAST.


Tacoma 4.0 is 25 hp more than the jeep 3.7.


IGNORE spec. I just did a drive from Toronto, CANADA, to Washington DC and back. Average MPG was 23. The Canadian spec shows much lower fuel consumption than the American spec at 32 miles per IMPERIAL gallon (26+ miles per US gallon), which I expect to achieve. I still have under 5000 **kilometers** on mine, so its still loosening up and improvements are yet to be made. The rumor is that its like a switch gets flipped at 20000 km.


Rest assured that the mpg *WILL* be better than the American spec. A *LOT* better. Of course, that doesn't include driving like a madman -- set the cruise not too far over the limit, say 5-7 mph over, and you'll get good numbers.

Also... expect the 2.7 with AT to really feel GUTLESS. In my opinion, you don't want a 2.7 with an AT -- it should be MT only. They didn't always offer the 2.7 4x4 with an AT, it used to be MT only, and there was a good reason for this -- it just performs much better. With the AT, you're at a serious disadvantage in terms of gear ratios. The first gear overall drive ratio is 11.50:1. With the MT, first gear drive ratio is 16.20:1, so you get way more torque down when you need it the most. The overdrive ratio is a little better on the AT at 2.89:1 vs MT at 3.32:1 (MT spec 31 mpg, AT spec 32 mpg, IMPERIAL). MT also has THREE ratios in between first and OD, which is a major advantage.

Ratios break down like this:
Axle ratio: 4.1:1 (both AT and MT).

AT:
1) 2.804:1
2) 1.531:1
3) 1:1
4) 0.705:1

MT:
1) 3.954:1
2) 2.062:1
3) 1.436:1
4) 1:1
5) 0.805:1

Final ratio in each gear is, of course, the axle ratio multiplied by the transmission ratio.

You will note that MT 3rd is lower than AT 2nd... 3rd on a manual is your PASSING/HAUL ASS gear... so the MT gives you a slightly better passing ratio as well as a way better starting ratio.

2nd gear on an MT is your "oops, too big of a load" ratio, and you can see it is a higher ratio than AT 1st, so it is a good balance between torque and getting honked at while climbing hills, which you would if stuck in first on an AT.
Yea,.....the AT pulls less RPM's than the MT on the highway,so,guess what...better mileage with the AT.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2011, 06:06 PM   #33
Senior Member
frog13 is on a distinguished road
Joined: Jan 2011, #49990
Location: cincinnati ohio
Gender: Male
Posts: 140
frog13's Tacoma Gallery
Quote:
Originally Posted by dhk View Post
Its the same truck in both places, fuel consumption is different. American numbers are just plain WRONG. Stating that 6 and 4 cyl fuel consumption is about the same is just plain WRONG -- there is a 20-25% difference!

You yourself get 22 highway... the US website says 20. How can you EXCEED the spec? Does not compute!

Same truck...hmmm,I wonder if Canada has strict non-sense EPA regs as the US has...they are not the same.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2011, 06:18 PM   #34
Science!
AndrewFalk is one of the sharper tools in the shedAndrewFalk is one of the sharper tools in the shedAndrewFalk is one of the sharper tools in the shedAndrewFalk is one of the sharper tools in the shedAndrewFalk is one of the sharper tools in the shedAndrewFalk is one of the sharper tools in the shedAndrewFalk is one of the sharper tools in the shedAndrewFalk is one of the sharper tools in the shedAndrewFalk is one of the sharper tools in the shedAndrewFalk is one of the sharper tools in the shedAndrewFalk is one of the sharper tools in the shed
 
AndrewFalk's Avatar
Joined: May 2010, #36740
Location: The North East
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,071
AndrewFalk's Tacoma Gallery
Quote:
Originally Posted by frog13 View Post
Yea,.....the AT pulls less RPM's than the MT on the highway,so,guess what...better mileage with the AT.
There's more to it than that. Show me anyone on here with an AT that averages better than 26.4 MPG, or has driven over 500 miles on a tank, or has achieved 30-31 MPG on FULL tanks. (All things I have done with my MT.)
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2011, 03:25 AM   #35
Member
ScottyDaug is on a distinguished road
Joined: Apr 2011, #55432
Gender: Male
Posts: 32
ScottyDaug's Tacoma Gallery
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmWise1 View Post
Correct me if I'm wrong guys, not an automotive expert, but isn't it easier to get better MPG out of a manual than automatic, if driven correctly?

Yes.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I4, V6, V8, or diesel? blackpearl11 2nd Gen. Tacomas 76 11-29-2011 05:28 PM
about to buy, V6 or I4??? chazms 2nd Gen. Tacomas 35 10-09-2011 11:44 PM
I4 vs V6 which is tougher/more dependable roycameron 2nd Gen. Tacomas 87 05-05-2011 06:12 PM
I4 or V6? YotaDude01 1st Gen. Tacomas 69 06-11-2010 03:42 PM
I4 vs V6 jeff1304 1st Gen. Tacomas 8 11-04-2009 01:30 PM


Copyright © 2014 Tacoma Forum. Tacoma World is not owned by, or affiliated with Toyota Motor Corporation.