New Engine / Tranny combo sucks

According to your"specs" he was well within the capabilities of the truck he went on to say the trip back was at 55-60 mph.....most people should not tow at over 65 with a trailer but lots still do...I can with the the tires I have on mine but only do so if on one particular toll road that loops around Austin..................This info off an RV forum...
You can drive faster than 65 MPH but in order to do that, you need to increase your cold inflation by about 10 psi (without exceeding the maximum PSI stamped on the tire) for every 10 mph over 65 that you are going, as well as decrease your load carrying capacity by 10%.

So, for example, a Carlisle ST225/75RR15 Load range E (10 ply) tire, has a load carrying capacity of 2830 lbs at the tire’s maximum 80 psi. But you will have a decreased load carrying capacity of 2,547 lbs to drive at 75 mph.

 

Remember when government regulations (i.e. emissions) drove carmakers from high compression powerful V8s to the sluggish V8s of the late 70's, 80's, into the 90's? Emissions regulations have gotten stricter since then, yet vehicle manufacturers have been upping the power ever since. The 4 and 6 cylinder engines in vehicles nowadays are putting out more HP & TQ than the high end V8's of the 80's, and the air is much cleaner to boot. It takes time, but the industry will catch up.

 

A Ford F-150 with the 3.5L Ecoboost engine...420 lb-ft @ 2,500 rpm (stock, close to 550 lb-ft with a simple $600 ECU tune). Plus, this V6 maintains 90% of that torque from 1,700 rpm to 5,000 rpm. I'd have to say that is a little better, no? I'm pretty sure those numbers destroy the Tundra's V8 when it comes to towing too.

 

...I hope you are right the Ford EB was a step in the right direction,but no other manufacturer seems to be going that way.I would love to see Toyota step up to the plate and challenge what Ford has done.

 

Hell, Ford's 2.7L V6 for that matter too...375 lb-ft @ 3,000 rpm stock and around 450 lb-ft with one of those $600 ECU tunes.

 

I believe the next years will be 470 stock .. need to look that up.....I keep thinking c'mon Toyota....and yes the Tundra is lagging way behind that

 

I really don't think Toyota is interested in investing that much R&D into their trucks. Just look at how much effort they put into modernizing the GEN3 Tacoma. As I mentioned before, it seems like Toyota's plan is to ride out the Tacoma's reputation and focus on other markets.

 

Probably right they play it pretty conservative.In my opinion the big changes in their trucks were when they put the 4.0 in the Tacoma and the 5.7 in the Tundra,both were exceptional in their day but time has moved on technology has changed but Toyota hasnt moved that much.Regarding the Tundra,Toyota is still living in 2007...

 

Given the size of the Tacoma and its intended uses, I think Toyota should have invested in a reliable turbo four cylinder gasoline engine. I'm a fan of diesels but Toyota seems utterly unwilling to try.

My hunch is that the 3.5L does little for fuel economy as compared to the 4.0L if married to the same 6 speed transmissions. As such, the 3.5L feels like a waste of time and development cash to me.

 

They have stepped up in a big way, there this big truck they sell with huge engine i think they call...Tundra?

I can categorically call that B/S because after owning two 4R with 4.0, one with the exact one that's in the 2nd Gen Taco, I can have compared them and it's in knowing where the power band is and using it. In other words, learn how to use it.

Another case of B/S and slander. Read the specs, learn to use it, and compare side by side like the experts do, but your credibility is -0.

Hope that helps
Cheers!

 

Break in isn't going to reveal big changes in power. Most of everything is there before break in. It is hard to pay attention to details when you are oogling over a new truck though.

Not everyone cares to hear it rev up and I don't really want to rev it up just to get it to speed up 5mph. Plenty of 6 bangers make more power in lower rpms. I've said it before and I'll say it again.... my 2002 Chevrolet S-10 with the 4.3L V6 had 80hp less, but it had much more low in the rpm band. That's where I drive most of the time, that's where I want the power. If I wanted something that made power at 3000+ rpms, I'd not have gotten a pickup truck.

 

..I would love to see that...I believe they have have diesels in trucks overseas,but I am sure the Washington nannies are making it cost prohibitive to bring them here.

 

11 mpg on that power wagon!

 

..I agree they have stepped or had stepped up with this,having owned 2, I would love to see them step up....has had the same motor specs since 2007....

 

To be fair, those GM numbers are for the diesel. The gas burners are 7.5 sec.

 

Me too, if they would only offer better gas mileage its a great truck

 

I think with Toyota themselves is that they have their reputation and customers. So to them they probably believe that they don't have to do much In the change the way ford did. For the longest time Toyota vehicles were dull and boring. And it took them a long time to realize they needed change. They depend on the name Toyota to sell and not performance.

 

Yep that for sure is a purpose built truck....and MPG isnt its intent......

 

But still GM & Ford do offer better mileage. If they were to offer top reliability, they would give Toyota an incentive to improve.
I will say this much for GM & Ford, they will last, but dam those constant repairs, I can't stand the downtime. It's like working with windows Vs Mac. no comparison.

Cheers!

 

I've owned quite a few GM products and they have been pretty reliable for me. I swapped to the Taco because I liked the fit and finish and better resale than the midsized gm twins.

As far as mileage, I stuck heavier tires on, removed the air dam and still manage to get 20mpg mixed driving. I really think most of the mileage complaints are due to the way it's being driven. It does take a beating at 70mph and faster.

I will say, GM has been much more conservative on mileage numbers. I think my 2002 Z28 was rated 26mpg on the highway and you could easily get 30.... Heck it got 28 cruising at 80mph!