OK, the 3.5 should be a good engine

Both our current engine and the Colorado engine makes the same 266 +/- torque at 4000 RPM. The Colorado engine makes 305 HP @ 6800 RPM, while ours does 236 HP @ 5200 RPM. If the torque curve is similar, that means the Colorado engine only makes more HP because it can rev higher. How often is anyone going to be above 5200 RPM for any length of time? Racing maybe? Towing at those RPM can't be good for the engine.

 

What I worry about with these short-stroke car engines being put in truck is long-term reliability. Will an engine that constantly has to rev high to achieve a certain torque level wear out prematurely?

 

That was all I was getting at, that you over simplified things. Oh, and that 1 amp more draw on a similar Tacoma isn't going to consume much gas at all.

BlueT, if it holds together, you will be very satisfied with the power in a Titan XD .

 

The science talk isn't boring, the condescending back and
forth bs does grow tiring after a page or 2.

unsubbed!

 

I had too simplify, No lab at hand.

Plus wife tells me to stay away from her car. Only allowed access when fixing things.
Not allowed to make any experiments.
She met me in school and she knows my experiments have sometimes unpredictable results.

Exactly, Its the same size as Tundra why not give better engine and better frame.

 

I kinda wish they would go back to making mini-trucks....

Toyota's have always had higher revving engines in their trucks. With the exception of the 3.0 V6 (which was really only bad heads) their engines are legendary for long term reliability. With my first Toyota a '85 4Runner with the 22RE, it took me some getting used coming from big block American V8's...thought I was going to kill it, since the 22RE seems the happiest around 3500 RPM. That engine got me to 225K miles before I sold it. Heck, we had three engines in one of our F250's before it hit 120K miles...

 

Do the EcoBoost engines rev high? Or can they rev low with all the extra air being forced into the pistons?

 

This is where manufacturers like Toyota and Chevrolet differ, and this is why I put money into anything powered by a Toyota motor.

Toyota is generally known to make engines with good power and torque characteristics which also loves to rev. It loves the higher rpm even though that'd induce wear. Show me a Chevy engine that's designed to rev to at least 8-9k rpm, which might be few and far between. Toyota, like Honda, had made quite a few if not plenty of high revving engines (a racing block 20-valve 4A-GE can bounce off the 11k rev limiter all day) with more decent torque down low compared to Honda, and we're strictly talking about NA so no FI included into the equation yet.

Chevy is known for their pushrod v-engines, where good torque is made down low but doesn't rev very high. Honda stereotypically makes high revving engine with not much torque down low. IMO Toyota seems to generally make engines with good compromises of both low end torque and high end power, while being very bulletproof (statistically speaking of course).

I believe the 3.5L downsizing is the right move by Toyota, but that's just my opinion.

 

Ecoboost gets peak Torque at something like 2500 rpm. It pulls harder than any other gas engine I have ever drove. Go test drive one. The power down low will blow your mind. Ford is ahead of everyone by several years on the engine technology side. Back in the mid 2000's when Ford restructured they made a commitment to lead the trend with the F150 so no one could catch them. Between the Ecoboost in 2010, the aluminum body in 2015, and good knows what else in the future everyone else is struggling to keep up technology wise.

It makes me want to see the Ranger back .

That all being said the 3.5 L won't be anything like a boosted gas engine.

 

It's not quite an apple-to-apple comparison since the Colorado engine utilizes direct injection, which does help increase net torque being produced, despite of slightly less engine capacity.

If you use the dual VVT-i engine (shamefully not offered on the Tacoma), that makes around peak 260hp and 270lbft at slightly lower rpm. With 91 octane, those figures should be bumped up to around 290hp and 290 lbft since timing can be advanced more with dual VVT-i.

And that's before direct injection. It's true though there's "no replacement for displacement" as far as torque output at lower rpm is concerned. But if an engine is also designed to rev and work at higher rpm ranges, that "ample or lack of torque" feeling is really down to the gear ratios and final drive ratio.

 

There is. It's called a 3.5 L Ecoboost, which has a better Torque curve than any comparable V8 with similar peak numbers.

The old displacement saying is from an age when motors were just made bigger to make power, since that was simple. With modern injection and boost, it's time to move on.

I'm sure Toyota could of built a little V6, around 2.5 L displacement, with tiny turbos and made better power than the Chevy at low RPM's.

 

Toyota was just ahead of their time...

 

You are so wrong. Peak numbers, yes all the injection and turbo and supercharger and variable timing boost numbers when air flow is high. You need to wake up to the fact that a low RPM displacement is the only way to make more power. Idle to 2,500 RPM, where we all spend 90% of our time.

 

Yes and no, highly depends on the parts/components they use, in terms of the design parameters, what kind of load rating, life expectancy, safety factors, etc.

But yeah it depends on the application too, because you COULD tow a trailer with a midsize sedan, but that'd put unnecessary stress onto the components that are not designed for such a purpose.

But ICE technology has come a long way. The 1.8L 4-banger from the current Corolla as an example makes more peak power than the 2.2L 4-banger in the Camry back in the 90's. Less peak torque of course (with that 0.4L shortcoming), but it's relevant in a relative sense.

 

Is this the same 3.5 in the new Lexus gs350 and others? Those make 306hp in those cars

 

You're correct.

I was strictly talking about only NA. But yes when FI is introduced, that IS the replacement for displacement. Technically, it's just adding volumetric displacement without physically adding volume.

Turbo is great, although a less powerful NA engine does have upsides in weight, cost, maintenance, reliability, and simplicity.

Please don't make me choose either NA or FI, because I like them both and they both have advantages and disadvantages, and they are cool in different ways.

 

I don't think so. The engine in the IS and GS is called 2GR-FSE, which is also 3.5L.

This 3.5L 7GR should be the same engine as the one going into the upcoming RX350, which was hinted to be around 300hp.

 

Thanks

 

Does Toyota typically use the same internals for an engine across different applications? Being a former GM fan, I would see something like the LS1 come with different cams, injectors, etc depending on the vehicle it was in.

 

Why spill the hate you dont have to buy one, there are other manufactures to choose from or stick with your current one. Your hating on it as if Toyota is forcing you into this 3rd gen.