6th gen 4runner is 4th gen Tacoma SUV

Seen plenty of million mile turbo diesels.

 

So, is that a no?

 

Thanks, I was just looking at that chart in another tab.

 

Well if the turbo fails you replace it. Toyota uses variable geometry turbos to increase longevity. They've worked well.

 

I guess it's a no from you as well.

 

So is 3 motors a year "reliable" by the context we're talking about?

8 races?

Either way I think the point has been made.

 

Saab 900 Aeros are famously “million mile capable” turbo cars.

 

Maybe someone could find long term cost of ownership data for NA vs T of the same model vehicles? Only thing I see is 5 year cost data and it shows them being just about identical.

 

How many million mile gas turbo engines have you seen?

Because unless I'm missing something, that's what we're talking about. A diesel motor is already built to higher specs (than a gas motor) that promote longevity.

But to the Turbo Diesel. You can't be suggesting a million mile turbo Diesel (with original turbo) is the norm. Turbo failure on diesel motors is very common.

Now... I guess we can turn the conversation to how reliable a Kenworth, Cat, or Peterbuilt is. Which is even further off topic... but even they have turbo failures.

 

This million mile discussion is nonsense, anyway. There are exceptionally few people driving hundreds of miles per day, every day.

I have 25 years on my truck and am almost at 300k. Are there 300k turbo vehicles out there? Yeah. A lot of them. That’s FAR more than the life cycle of most vehicles.

 

You said "million mile turbo motor".

Turbo gas motors tend to be built sturdier than their NA counterparts (forged internals, better cooling, etc). Worst case the turbo blows... so you replace it, assuming it didn't take anything else with it. Not a super difficult job for most engines. I see lots of super high mileage Volvo's on the stock block, turbo, head gasket. Also have seen higher mileage B58 cars on the stock turbo as well. Plenty of super high mileage EA888 cars like the Golf GTI and R. I could keep going. Of course you'll see shitty turbo engines that ruin their overall reputation (see: N63, ecotech 1.4, hyundai 1.6, subaru EJ) but these are by no means the norm. Problem childs get more attention than well behaved ones.

This is completely disregarding the fact that million mile NA engines are incredibly INCREDIBLY rare and a hard standard to hold anything to (even other NA engines). Even the late model 1GR-FE that TW posters cream their jeans over tend to have issues way before then.

 

Just maintain it per the maintenance guide and get an extended warranty if you're worried. Geeze

 

Yes the point that that F1 engines are not turbo 4 cylinders and they are not rebuilt after every race has been made....

 

Look... I think you are trying to paint this as I am saying turbos aren't reliable. I'm not. I specified in the first post this is going off of that they are simply LESS reliable. I've since elaborated that they have more things to consider that the average driver is either not aware of, or simply wont do. (Which adds to them coming across as less reliable).

When I say a TURBO MOTOR is less reliable. I mean the ENTIRE MOTOR INCLUDING THE TURBO. Because a failed turbo is a drivability issue regardless if the engine it's self is perfectly fine. So to try and make the argument that the turbo motor excluding the turbo it's self is some how just as reliable as a naturally aspirated motor is mental gymnastics. The turbo is part of the powertrain of the vehicle, if the turbo is subject to added maintenance, and will be at an added chance of needing replacement than the naturally aspirated alternative. The turbo powertrain is LESS reliable. This isn't really that complicated.

Yes, there are vehicles on the road that have unbelievably reliable turbos. I never said there weren't. But they are an exception, not the rule.


A million mile NA motor is not as rare as one may think. Especially in the world of Toyota. 22R and 5VZFE come to mind off the top of my head. Hell, I'm at a half million miles on my 5VZFE and I take it on the hardest trails and through the toughest deserts in California on a regular basis without even a thought about the motor. As long as it's leaking from the valve covers I know it has oil in it.

 

So, still no data on any modern turbo motors of the past decade or so?

 

My 9.5:1 compression motor is under far more stress and has far more moving parts than a 8:1 350 Chevrolet, but mine is more reliable.

HOW IS IT POSSIBLE?

 

I guess your answer is still a no as well.


The problem though is, you're going to want something from somewhere like Car and Driver, or Motor Trend, or somewhere like that. Because you don't have the understanding that those publications make a majority of profits off of add revenue from the exact manufactures they pretend to review. They say all the fancy stuff that the manufactures want them to and forget to tell the rest of the story.

But, Consumer Reports does show a few things.
https://www.consumerreports.org/car...es-with-turbo-engine-reliability-a7134755828/
https://www.consumerreports.org/cro...on-t-deliver-on-fuel-economy-claims/index.htm

Consumer Reports actually shows some Turbo engines to be more reliable than their NA counterparts (one of the Honda engines is an example) but more often than not the Turbo is less reliable than the NA equivalent.

Here's where you simply just question the validity of Consumer Reports, in general... because that is all you are waiting for is for me to post a link so you can dismiss it by saying it's flawed.

You are adding more heat, more pressure, more parts, more places for air or oil to leak, you're adding a different load on the transmission, you are adding a suggested warm up/cool down period, you are adding the necessity for not bogging the motor, and you are adding the necessity for a more consistent and costly maintenance regimen (that the typical consumer just doesn't typically follow). It's not rocket science that there are more potentials for failure.

 

I already told you that there are million mile Saab Aeros.

I don’t want c+d or motor trend, and never said I did. But thanks for putting up that strawman that you can defeat. I want data, not commentary. And you have none.

the 11.8:1 compression 3.5L Tacoma DOHC V6 has more heat, pressure, moving parts and two injection systems…but it’s more reliable than a Chevy 305. Why is that?

 

Because everyone is drag racing Tacomas and 4Runners

 

Are they saying it’s too hard to bleed the clutch in Japan? What else would they need to do differently?

They built manual transmission Prados at that factory last year.

It’s a BS argument, this is such a non-issue for a factory like this to implement. They would never build it incomplete and have it finished at destination for something like this. What a crazy notion.

Toyota thinks most of the people who would buy a 4Runner M/T will either buy a 4Runner A/T or a Tacoma M/T, and the rest who won’t are a smaller demographic than what it would be worth testing, implementing, and supporting a manual transmission option.

They may or may not be wrong, but the theories that it’s due to supply chain or manufacturing difficulties just don’t hold up. Not when you already produce the transmission in that region, another product with the same powertrain combination for another vehicle, and were previously producing manual transmission vehicles at the same factory.

It’s a program/marketing/overall cost decision about what the 4Runner is and who’s buying it.

The good news is, with it sharing so much more with the Tacoma than it ever has, a manual swap for the 6th gen is pretty possible.

I’m still planning on building a manual 5th gen, but if I wait long enough, maybe it’ll be a 6th gen instead. Probably not though, I’m more of a GX550 guy myself.

Jeff