2016 Tacoma Dyno Torque HP Crve

Can someone drop this bad boy on a Dyno??? I wanna see the curve!!!!

 

Bump. We need to see this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Oh good...somebody replied.

 

The only way everyone is going to be happy with the out put of this motor is if they attach it to a generator with an electric drive motor.

Otherwise, the power curve is not the whole story and you can't expect it to look especially great , even compared to the 4.0 . Who cares ? It's about how quickly and accurately the transmission responds to get the performance you want. That's why some good motors with good numbers can really suck and fair motors can do the job.

 

The whole story of an engine's potential performance can be seen in a torque curve. As HP is extrapolated from this information: TQ*rpm/5252=HP

 

I can't stand the engine. It's so ugly

 

i herd its on the atkins diet

 

Put a little spray on it and see if it doubles the hp/tq:

http://www.compucarnitrous.com/inde...&id=58:hidden-systems&catid=34:kits&Itemid=66

 

Yes, but the truck's performance is tied to the relationship between the engine and the transmission. A Diesel engine is not a great performer, even with an abundance of torque, without a transmission that is up to the task. You hook up a diesel to an archaic three speed and it becomes un drivable in this day and age.

This truck could easily perform better then the 4.0 with a better transmission....
Even if some were dissatisfied with the power curve. We can make the mistake of extrapolating a trucks potential out of one relationship. It's the torque and HP at the wheels that is most important....and that has to run through a transmission first. Life is not as simple as one formular would have you believe.

 

Yes, I agree sort of(minus the HP at the wheels bit)(and yes, it is that simple at its core, as the transmission only transfers power not magnifies it, hence the name). My point was simply this: 2nd gen 4.0 makes max torque 266 ft.lb @ 4000 rpm while 3rd gen makes max TQ 265 ft. lb @ 4800 rpm. Same power, higher rpm range. Which is why I, like the OP would like to see the TQ curve plotted thru out the rev range. Then we can make an educated decision if this engine will perform similarly under load (primarily towing) utilizing the 6spd. auto as the 4.0l and the 5spd. auto.

And by the way, there is no such thing as HP. It's simply measured TQ over time, converted to a bs calculation of the amount work an animal can to in a min (typically used to sell cars and trucks). Noted this statement is broad and arguable however, it is proven you can measure TQ and Watts, but you always have to calculate HP.

 

Well, as a long time math person, I could say there is no such thing as torque, just horsepower solved for and measured over time in terms of Torque. Surprisingly, tractor motors are measured almost strictly in HP and not torque even though they are predominantly diesel. The reason is, it matters not what the operating range is, whether it be flat or not, the management sytem will run the mortor at a constant speed and drive the hydraulic motor and the maximum hp means maximum hydraulic pressure. The motor does need not have that great or flat power curve, it just has to be reliable and constant.

I look at a transmission differently. They are no longer just gears manipulated at the whim of the driver. They, along with the computer are part of a management system that delivers the required effort at the drive axle at the right time. For the same reason people don't like CVTs becasue the motor seems to run too high, the same applies to any computer control system that try's to make a truck both powerful and economical. It WILL appear to run at a higher rpm to get the required results.

In that respect, IMHO, you may just find the 3.5 is less then ideal but the truck will tow more and will accelerate faster, all the same time using 10% less fuel the rest of the time. I don't pretend to think through that the higher revving engine will use less fuel while working hard....they often don't as much as the lower displacement would have you believe. Who cares if it's running 400 rpm higher while doing it ? The rest of the time it IS more efficient with is more then 90% of the time in these "sport" trucks. They are really not long haul trucks.

 

^ This.

90% of the complaints on the motor of the 2016 have been related to it seeming to stay in higher RPM's, which makes sense for a 6 speed modern engine for multiple reasons.

That being said I'd still like to see a torque curve just to understand the limitations on the engine itself.

 

Not like higher revving trucks are going to blow earlier. If that were the case, you would see no old Civics running around. Those old Civics usually have a ton of miles on them. I am testing new Tacoma next week. I am coming from a gen 1 3.4 liter and have never driven a gen 2 so I will probably be easy to please.

 

Yup. When towing our 5.0 L Ford loves to bounce around in the hills between 2000-4000 rpm and it's a V8. Why? Because that's where the engine makes it's power efficiently and it was designed for that.

Yeah, I think powerwise it would be hard not to best the old 3.4 L. No offense to first gen drivers

 

Yes, that makes sense. But a more car like engine also has advantages when you consider how this truck will be used by most. On week ends, it will propably be used to haul light loads like 4 wheelers and trail bikes or trailer an aluminum fishing boat less then 2000 k, and then driven 75 mph to a destination with three party animal friends. During the week it will be a daily rush hour commuter, much like a Camry where a quite isolated inerior is appreciated along with the best economy you can expect from it's weekend use. It will need a motor that delivers higher hP then torque. It will be a vehicle that is also more fun to drive, carving around corners and easier on the buttocks on dirt roads.

 

For all the "tech" they added to this engine, I just don't see the performance/mpg.

Maybe it's my misunderstanding of truck/cars, but doesn't the IS350 have 306hp, 277lb-ft torque?

For the price of the truck, you're knocking on very nice Tundra dollars

 

Except Tacoma is a midsize truck and Tundra is full-size. Some people don't want a full size truck.

 

The 1794 interior to the Tacoma limited.....is like a Rolls Royce to a Honda Accord.

 

I have no problem with more car like engines. Two of the engines I like, the Ecoboost 3.5 L and 5.0 L Coyote, were designed with trucks in mind but were used in cars first.