Why did they not use the 4.0 Dual VVT-i V6?

Why not use a more efficient engine? I got 18MPG on my 4.0s I am getting 21.5 using this truck driving the same way. like a limo with a glass of wine on the dash. No hurry to get anywhere this truck cannot deliver if needed.

A Heavy foot won't get much better Fuel economy than the Gen 2

 

There is never a surplus of any part at Toyota, ever. Powertrain parts coming off my line are in vehicles within two-three days and that includes shipping.

The new GR engine is going to be much like the VQ Nissan, develop it to go into all vehicles that require a V6. Economies of scale. Spread the development cost over multiple vehicle lines and you save a metric asston of money.

 

""

 

It wasn't the RPMs that caused the poor fuel economy, it was the drag/speed combination. Drag increases by the square of the speed. By the trailer tires they should have been going no more than 65mph, but as most people just hook up a trailer and go like normal, they covered the real world test. But they always discount drag. The Ike Guantlet is a better idea how the weight affects the tow spectrum, but every motor will be revving towards its top end (while towing) to try to keep speed going up to the Eisenhower/Johnson tunnels.

Every engine (including diesels) take a hit while towing. The question is, will the 3.5 take the same or bigger hit than the 4.0 while towing vs. will the 3.5 provide better day to day mpg over the 4.0? Toyota didn't say Taco owners don't tow, but that that isn't the top use item for them (and looking all across TW, they are correct). It will tow fine on the occasion that you need it, but it will do better everyday you don't. If regular towing is your thing, neither the 3.5 nor 4.0 are the proper choice.

 

I always find Tacoma's to have a speed cap at 65mph, where if you go over this speed MPG drops like a rock.

It is to bad, because many places have speed limits of 65+. A local section of road here is 70, and even doing 70 gets you honked at in the slow lane.

It's to bad when they added the extra gear and new engine they didn't optimize the truck for 70mph which I think is a more realistic common freeway speed now adays.

 

First off, I am not a "hater" of the new generaton of Tacoma. I've test driven one that a buddy bought recently. It's a nice step up in refinement. Not mind blowing, or wanting me to take on another payment over my current paid off 2007, but a nice increase in creature comforts. The power of the 3.5 was good but not mind blowing - the 4.0 Single VVT-i is still a stout engine, just not as efficient on paper to the new 3.5 V6. I feel my 4.0 running Amsoil synthetic oil and supreme gas will perform equally as well unloaded and towing in performance, perhaps not as much so in efficiency (maybe 1-2 MPG?).

Part of my interest in asking the question was Toyota historically has a history of creating drive trains that were compatible to be competitive in multiple segments of trucks/suv's and cars/car based suv's to save on R & D costs. The 3.0 3vze V6 was used in the Toyota Pickup & 4runner, and later the 3.4 in the 1st gen Tacoma and 3rd gen 4runner. The original 4.0 1GR was used in the '03+ 4th gen 4runner and '05+ plus 2nd Gen Tacoma. If you look a the 4.7 liter i-Force that came out in 99, it was found in the Lexus LX 470, Landcruiser 100 series, Lexus GX 470, Tundra, Sequoia, and eventually the 4runner. Now Toyota seems to be separating the Tacoma and 4runner even though they are built on the same modified Landcruiser Prado platforms creating more R & D costs, and complexity in my opinion. Fuelly is an excellent resource to get input form a myriad of users of various vehicles and engines as far as real world fuel economy is concerned and I am perplexed.

The TFL comparison should be noted as it compares a 2016 Tundra Crewmax 4x4 V8 (5.7 liter i-Force, 381 HP, 401 TQ, Dual VVT-i) which has the same engine technology essentially as the 4.0 Dual VVT-i V6 in the 4runner and it has been in the Tundra since 2007 to a 2016 Tacoma Double Cab 4x4 3.5 V6 Short Box 6 speed auto. They towed an identical 5600 pound trailer through a 100 mile test loop and the Tundra got 7.96 MPG, the Tacoma 8.4 MPG.

Here is the Tacoma test: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uS3PZpkSkdA
Here is the Tundra test: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_k5FI3dSyLA

Note the Tundra got 0.45 MPG less than the Tacoma yet the Tundra/trailer combo weighed 1400 pounds more.

EDIT - didn't see this to at the end but when they post the 7.96 number there is actually a note saying (pause the video at 12:50 min mark to see) they error the calculation and it was actually 8.15 MPG, so the Tundra only got 0.25 MPG less yet weighed 1400 pounds more.

 

my guess is that toyoda will shoot for the huge dually class 1-ton market with a split option tundra, and are trying to push a divide between the two mid/small size pickup for economy vs. the huge 1 ton dually diesel. so expect a a diesel 1 ton tundra

 

but I bet ya my paycheck a midsize diesel wont be here, because they get set in there ways that a diesel just wont sell when gas is at 1.60

 

But what are the differences in axle ratio, temp, humidity? What is the actual final drive ratio?

I would be interested to see an unloaded loop of both. I bet at this point the Tacoma would pretty decently beat the Tundra.

Here again, the Tundra has towing as a higher priority than Tacoma.

Now run a 4Runner through both loops. Remember 4Runner is now 6 years old. Don't be shocked if it takes the Taco's drive train in the next year or so.

 

I understand your point about variables but a 1400 pound difference plus the wider fascia mean something too.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say the Tundra has towing as a higher priority than the Tacoma? Does that mean the Tundra has bigger displacement to tow, is geared to get better MPG when towing? what?

Sure the Tacoma will get better MPG unloaded but it appears based on this test which as fairly comparable external variables that the Tundra's engine is more efficient under load. OR perhaps the Tacoma had to work harder at higher RPM's to move the same load? Not sure however what to say.

 

Ironically my '08 Outback 3.0R got its best mileage ever going 80 in northern Maine.

Tacoma does fantastically at 60-65, I saw almost 24 once doing that. Try going 70+ and I get 15-16.

 

My 2016 gets around 26 to 28 mpg at 60 mph. I'm getting 19.5 with all driving conditions combined and 21 if you take out the off roading we have been doing where we get 10 mpg.

I love my truck. The 3.5 is perfect on every way. Even the transmission seems to be learning the way I want it to shift

 

Let's see if I can clarify what I'm saying...

While underway on a flat surface, weight is of little difference. You could take the Tundra up towards max tow and it should be close to the same. Drag is the enemy, total frontal area, which in these two videos is the same as the trailer is larger than both trucks.

The Tundra is a half ton truck. Toyota markets it toward towing and carrying load vs. the Tacoma that they market towards off road and play. Towing is a higher priority to the design of the Tundra.

Who knows all the variables, they don't publish big factors like wind, temp and humidity. But yes, the Tundra is more efficient at towing, it's part of its design portfolio.

The differences between the 4.0 and the 3.5 would be much narrower in tow, and likely wider unladen. Would be interesting to see an apples to apples comparison of both.

 

I thought both tundra and Tacoma were classed as 1/2 ton? I don't think there is much to compare between 4.0 and the 2gr-fks, they make comparably figures. but still there are comparisons, like a full floating rear axle on tundras a diesel option, 20,000 pound tow option etc

 

the US market has options that** full-sizers consider standard for full time heavy duty industrial/private farm use, which Toyota is missing out on---I guess what im saying is they cant compete with the F-350 crowd--full stop

 

for instance, Halliburton oil field "only" buys heavy duty fords, and they beat the crap out of them

 

Unfortunately they never say what the computer calculated and compared it to what they calculated. I was wondering how accurate the on board computer is.

 

My girlfriends prius gets its best mileage at 80. I usually average a bit over 50 mpg at that speed. Below that it usually is 48-50.