2016 gear ratios. AT awesome, MT now with double overdrive.

3.5 Mt isn't flat

 

So you expect Toyota to design a truck based on how people might modify it?

 

Wow, bit high strung aren't you? Crazy thought, if you plan on adding big tires, lifting, bumpers, etc... don't get a 2.7L. The 2.7L was plenty good enough for everything I needed in my Tacoma 4X4. It was unaltered.

 

I get what your saying my 3.7 1 St gen is a turtle, but the turtle is still going long past the jackrabbits, that are dead or in the shop!

 

Question.... Which transmission is better of the two? The auto or the manual?

 

You are *really* stretching.
First off, I'm not entirely sure HOW you are going to manage to get 4 adults and 2 dogs into an ACCESS CAB....
Second, adding 1400 pounds will by no means make you into a "road hazard". Somehow big rigs, dump trucks, city buses, etc. all manage to operate safely with a vastly lower power to weight ratio (read as: can't accelerate anywhere near as fast as a Tacoma with frankenengine from an 80's Corolla).
Third, the final drive ratio has basically zero impact on your ability to accelerate. I've never seen anybody accelerate onto an onramp in 1st or 5th gear. So a little bit higher, means you hold second gear a touch longer, which gets you up to a slightly higher speed at 2-3 shift point, and 3rd still drives you the rest of the way.

Hmm, actually... 3.9 vs 4.1 ratio. That's 5.13% higher gear ratio, which means that your maximum possible speed in any particular gear is up by 5.13 percent. With 4.1 gear ratio, you could ride 2nd gear to 90 kph. This gear change bumps that up by just shy of 5 kph before you have to shift. 95 kph, 59.5 mph. So from where I'm sitting, you are probably actually getting to highway speed slightly *faster*.

One of the following is definitely true, probably multiple;
1) Your degree of exaggeration is unbelievable and dishonest,
2) You haven't ever actually driven one and are making this up to prove a point,
3) You have found a time vortex and are racing against nuclear powered semi's from the future,
4) You are VERY "not good" at driving a manual transmission, shifting very prematurely, and failing to downshift when appropriate (or ever),
5) There is something very seriously wrong with yours, like two dead cylinders.

Also speaking from first hand experience, 8 bags of cement, 16 sheets of drywall, wife and kids, and a 2500 pound boat on a trailer. STILL outruns a semi, up hills, down hills, whatever. And adds *no* degree of "hazard". Do you even know how to merge onto a highway?

 

Assuming that you are looking at the 4-cyl... that is actually a pretty decent looking AT, given the ratios. The older 4-speed AT's were pretty... horrible. Not that I would personally want an AT, but this one at least has the appearance of competence.

After adjusting the ratios on the MT by the final ratio (3.9/4.3), the MT ratios look like this in "4.3 rear diff equivalence";
1) 3.58
2) 1.86
3) 1.31
4) 0.91
5) 0.73

To compare close by, the following is the new 6-speed AT:
1) 3.6
2) 2.09
3) 1.49
4) 1
5) 0.69
6) 0.58

You can see that 1st gear is basically identical. The MT then spaces the remaining gears out to end at a relatively LOW ratio of 0.73 -- even the AT's 5th gear is higher than that, but it adds in a very nice high 6th for efficient highway cruising with light loads.

The older 4-speed AT had this horrible set of ratios;
1) 2.804
2) 1.531
3) 1
4) 0.705

And converted to 4.3 axle:
1) 2.67
2) 1.46
3) 0.95
4) 0.67

So what you are seeing there, is a really nasty high 1st gear. 4th isn't terrible, but the spacing between gears is enough to kill you.

So in summary: all of the arguments that could be made against the 4-speed automatic are no longer valid. In terms of available gear ratios, the new 6-speed automatic is actually *better* than the 5-speed MT. It really offers very nice overdrive ratios.

If you are into wrenching and like maintaining your own transmission/clutch, there is still an argument available to support the MT. Also, if you just *like* it better.

 

@tgear.shead here you go an write this nice summary up for the question I had, and only to my idiocy didn't mention which is the better of the two Manual or Auto for the 3.5L v6. I'm really set on the TRD Sport AC MT, (wish they made the TRD OR AC MT). Your going to have to really convince me to give up that Manual and the auto being that much better... I just love driving manuals

 

Acceleration on paper is the similar. The 1 2 3 gearing is shorter on the MT which can translate to faster acceleration if you can shift as quickly as the AT. I don't think you'll notice the difference though. 0-60 times aren't going to impress anyone, but they'll get you on the highway no problem.

On the top end I think the fuel economy difference is going to be a wash in real world applications. The EPA numbers for city driving seems okay. But their concept of highway driving is very different from mine. I consider highway to mean cruise control at 60+, or at least a constant speed. Their version of highway is weaving in and out of traffic and regularly on the brakes and speeding up. All while still below 60mph. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTP-75#Highway_driving

On paper the auto runs at lower RPMs at highway speeds but I don't think that's going to make a noticeable difference. Highway cruising at a fixed speed needs some fixed amount of horse power to overcome the various sources of drag. In many engines the amount of fuel required to generate that horse power is actually pretty constant across a range of RPMs. Meaning that it takes 1 unit of fuel to generate 1 hp, somewhat independent of the RPM. As long as you're in the sweet spot that is typically 2000-3000 rpms it only varies by a few percent from the absolute max efficiency point. I haven't seen any brake specific fuel consumption maps for an atkinson/otto engine. Since it is basically a variable displacement engine I suspect the range of high fuel economy is very broad.

We'll see how it all shakes out when they get on the road. Im looking forward to it.

 

Excellent, I was just going to hunt for this link/data. With all that repetitive acceleration/deceleration and little to no constant low/moderate load in the test, I am now much less surprised the VVT-iW Atkinson switch didn't return eye-watering results.

I am also very curious to see some real world MPG, especially for long distance commuters with patient feet.

 

Ah, that does make a bit of a difference

Ok, same adjustment from 6-cyl MT to "AT equivalence" based on the diff ratio;

MT/AT
3.60/3.60
1.83/2.09
1.20/1.49
0.91/1.00
0.77/0.69
0.64/0.58

So, you're starting off at the same ratio, but the AT is ending higher than the MT.
The difference is 10%. So if the MT is cruising on the highway at 2500 RPM with an AT right beside it, the AT is spinning 2250. Its a bit of a difference, but not enormous. In the older 6MT vs 5AT, the difference was 16%, so beside that 2500 RPM, the AT would be turning 2108 rpm. The fuel consumption difference was reportedly fairly significant on those, but different engine, so not so easy to compare.

I would be incapable of providing you with justification to pick the 6AT over the 6MT, especially if you prefer MT.

 

Thanks, Bob.

 

I know the 5 lug is dead but Is the base AC 4x2 four cylinder with manual trans no longer available either? I only see it with auto trans.

Currently very happy I got the 14 reg cab base 4x2 5 speed, added tires and gears, lsd and some lift. Near perfect as I guess I'll get with the new Tacoma. Under 20k and still getting 23 mpg.

 

Just bought my 2016 DCSB TRD Sport 4x4 6M and took a photo of the door jam. It's got an axle code of B06A. If I'm not mistaken that means that it's an 8 inch gear with a 3.91 ratio. This is different then some of the info out there right now saying all MT V6 models have a 4.3 ratio. Anyone shed some light on this?

 

It wouldn't be the first time Toyota labeled the jamb differently from the actual gearing. Rollout will reveal the true answer. Or you could do some napkin math at highway speed...

 

In regards to the 3:90 A and 4:30 MT rearend gears. Given the fact quite a few gen III automatic owners are at odds with the 6spd, any experts have insight into replacing the 3:90s for the 4:30s?
I would rather have a granny gear than an overdrive that I rarely get to use...unless I'm cruising 75+.

Guess I should have asked if they rearends from the auto and manual are the same size.

 

Will a 2016 AM front carrier fit on a 2006 AM diff?

 

Maybe the reason for getting rid of the the 5 lugger and single cabs was just not enough market.

 

I know nothing can be done now but the 6spd manual reverse could be taller... it shoots off way too fast imho and has no power. Gonna be hell backing up with a loaded trailer on anything but flat roads.