4th Gen Tacoma (2024+)

Where is the 17 MPG figure coming from?

 

Ah, I could have sworn the displacement of the G3 Tundra engine was reported as 3.5 liters.

 

True.

 

Never said you can't rock crawl with the current location. Just trying to point out they could have made some simple changes to the truck and had more travel and better specs in some areas. I know that they know they can sorta do whatever they want so long as they slap a toyota or tacoma badge on it and everyone will buy it.

I was just hoping they were going to make one model that reached for the stars so to speak.

 

They are using the MPG rating for the new GX...

 

I highly doubt the 4th Gen Tacoma is going to get worse fuel mileage than the 3rd gen. (I get 19-23 all day long everyday with mine)

 

It's going to be a 2.4t mated to an 8spd auto in a heavy truck with a Rwd layout. 2.3t Ranger gets like 20 mpg with a 10spd, don't have a good average on the new GMs yet, and I think the 2.4t Highlander is probably getting 20mpg real world.

Toyota is going to have to pull some magic to get acceptable EPA numbers.

I don't care about fuel numbers, but regulators do.

 

So at worst it stays pretty much the same...RWD configuration now with v6 is 19/24 21 combined. With 4 cyl its 20/23 21 combined. I don't think your going to see 15/18....Unless Toyota wants the Tacoma to be the only newly release truck in their lineup that does not improve fuel mileage....

 

Tundra with 3.4TT gets 19 combined and the new GX gets 17 combined with a detuned 3.4TT. There about the same weight and aero. Could the full time 4wd make that much of a difference?

 

Toyota could claim any number they want and pay the fine latter. We will definitely get to see some mpg threads once people start driving 4th gens. If a Fwd Highlander is getting getting 22/29, yeah it's heavy. I can't see the new Tacoma getting an average of much more than 18/22 4wd non hybrid, and the heavier trucks with a hybrid will probably fair worse.

Let's say the 6g 4R gets the same iForceMax 2.4t those numbers will be much lower as the 4R will pick up weight.

 

The 4 runner doesn't have to pick up much, its already at 16/19 17 combined.

 

People keep saying lower emissions.

 

Are you really getting lower emissions if you are still getting the same gas mileage as a non turbo engine? You’re burning the same amount of fuel to get from point A to point B. It just seems dumb to make all these complex little engines with twin turbos and electric motors if you aren’t getting any better mileage than you would with a simple NA V6 or small V8. It’s a bunch of BS. If we’re really concerned about emissions than just make them fully electric.

 

No. I'm just looking for some physical evidence it exists. A render and a list of stuff with asterisk's beside it hasn't quite shown much of anything definitive.


I'm sort of familiar with what the 3rd gen OR has, I want to know what the 4th gen has.

 

Hell if I know. I’m just regurgitating what I’ve seen stated here.

There will probably be a 1mpg improvement over the 3rd gen. Nobody even measures emissions around here anymore.

 

Can't comment on other manufacturers but for Toyota, yes. Toyota adjusts fuel enrichment based on a calculated catalytic temperature to maintain emissions efficiency. For example, the AFR is more rich on a cold start to get the cats up to temp faster. Then there are maps within the ECU that directly relate to fuel adjustment based on that calculated catalytic temperature. Maintaining a specific catalytic temperature ensures the cats are doing a better job at removing carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrous oxides.

 

You’re equating mpg = less emissions which is true but not the only variable in terms of emissions. The dynamic force engines create less emissions because they are more thermally efficient than the previous gen engines and the combustion process is sped up by design decreasing emission levels. Two cars can burn the same amount of fuel but one of them will create more emissions if the combustion process isn’t optimized. The upside of chasing these regulations is all the dynamic force engines create much better torque than their predecessors even before the turbo. This vid explains it very well. They are chasing new regulation standards which are very real metrics they have to meet. I would rather manufacturers chase more stringent emissions requirements than the gov forcing mass EV adoption on the market before the tech and infrastructure is ready.

https://youtu.be/wwLxxZm_LRQ

 

With the 8 speed transmission, smaller more efficient turbo engine and similar weight as the third gen it would probably have minor gains in mpg. The tundra is rated 20/24. A much lighter Tacoma would get slightly better numbers. Probably 21 city, 26 hwy. even though it would be minor those numbers would make a difference for drivers like me that average close to 25k miles a year.

 

Amazing. Sounds like we’re saving the world a minute piece at a time. How much more energy is used to make an engine with a turbo and a hybrid system/battery vs what they are saving on emissions? That’s enough for now. I have to get back to getting the kids 2 stroke dirt bike running and then mow the lawn with my gas mower.

 

Probably not that much more energy is used because economies of scale tend to be pretty efficient. So you’re saying no progress should be made at all if it isn’t substantial enough. That all or nothing approach doesn’t work in the real world. Reducing harmful emissions even a small percentage still makes a difference when we talk about the scale of how many vehicles there are on the road. Reducing air pollution is a net benefit for everybody. Look at Southern California’s smog problems before they started creating more strict emissions regulations. I would rather breath less harmful pollutants in but that’s just me. I’ll get back to riding my 4 stroke which has way less problems than my POS 2 stroke. No time wasted mixing gas and hardly have to touch the thing until it’s time to do a top end. I love how technology advances.