Are these turbos easy to replace.

But if nut said the 2.4 was bulletproof it wouldnt be mentioned. Buddy is just looking for an echo chamber and isnt finding it.

 

Supposedly, about 50% of the parts in the Tacoma 2.4t are different from the NX, according to a Toyota engineer interview. For fun, I asked ChatGPT about the turbos:

 

Buddy had an Ecoboost 3.5. He replaced his turbos at 200K just to be safe, he said. He towed with it a lot and didn't want to risk it after that many miles. But they worked fine even at 200K on the Ferd.

 

What's your basis or data for thinking the turbochargers might not even last the basic warranty? This is not the 1980s and even then Toyota's pickups with the turbo lasted a long time. They are in lots of vehicles now and lasting long.

Our company fleet has had turbocharged vehicles lasting well towards 300,000 miles and very much conventional ____ in Stellantis, GM and Fords have not always lasted as well.

 

Had the post been about turbos adding another layer of maintenance or complexity to the drivetrain or forced induction adding more stress to the engine I would agree. I don't think the complexity or stress will ever be noticed by most owners.

 

Who makes the Turbo on the 2.4t Tacoma? I don't recall anyone saying it was BorgWarner. Could be but the source.

 

If they weren't from the big three what were they? Couldn't all be Toyotas with a turbo.

 

My wife has a '21 NX. My father-in-law has a '99 NX that's getting up in miles. I can vouch - no turbo issues. I *think* but can't vouch that the NX models my fam drives use essentially the same engine as our Tacos. The Lexuses are great cars. Zero mechanical issues. There's no epidemic of turbo issues reported in the NX forums I follow, no turbo chatter in any Lexus forum.

There's a weird Tacoma forum obsession, here and elsewhere, with the gen 4 turbo. Sure, turbos in the old days were a problem. 'Old days' meaning 30-40 years ago. I once had a Saab that blew it's first turbo at 25k miles - and blew again at 55k and 75k. The solution after that was to replace the shitty Saab OEM turbo with a bolt-on Mitsubishi turbo that lasted until I sold the car 100k later. For all I know it's still running. But that was SAAB, which literally used f'ing plywood in parts of it's mid-1990s cars. Plywood! But that is not Toyota, which I think everyone here would agree produces a quality vehicle, despite the hiccups that every manufacturer deals with. I never think about the turbo in my truck and have every belief that it's going to run great for the next decade. And, if by some weird happenstance my Toyota turbo does blow sometime after that first decade, I'm confident in the availability of the OEM part and the ease of the bolt-on repair. No way it's a $3k repair. I can't see spending the next 10 years worrying about a potential non-problem. Gonna enjoy my truck.

 

The turbo doesn’t add complexity vs a DOHC v6.

and complexity is not an analogue for reliability. Engines today are FAR more complex than they were 40 years ago…and FAR more reliable.

 

The fleet small rig turbos have been Ford Escapes, and some full-sized Ford light truck/van. Hybrid Jeep was turbo both POS and sold early (luckily LOL?) via the acquisition.

My main point is modern turbocharged engines are just not a broadly don't last or have reliability situation.

 

I know this forum says Chevy / For Junk... However, I see these trucks every single day from my customers. Many of these Fords have the Eco-boost have turbos and they are absolutely fine. Many trucks with way over 100k and many carpenters do not baby their truck, they are another tool.

EDIT - these Tacomas will be fine for many many trouble free miles

 

The turbo 4 would certainly not be a deterrent to me buying one if and when the time comes. The lack of a hybrid longbed? Now thats a problem.

 

I think it's an in house design and built. Wondering if there's a design similarity to their Hino commercial truck line.

 

It's an extra component. True the engine operation may not be as complex simply because there's a turbo and a non turbo engine can have more complex management systems. The addition of any forced induction system to a normally aspirated engine adds a layer of complexity that was not there before the FI. How can anyone say that isn't true?

 

Losing two cylinders, 8 valves, two cams, 4 injectors, etc really lowers the complexity vs one simple turbo

 

Nah, that is just Ford being Ford. They could screw up a solid lump of iron and still blame it on their customers.

If you build the engine to handle a turbo from the ground up in the beginning and do it properly, there really shouldn't be that many issues from the turbo alone. Now cheaping out on hoses, connections, leads, insulation and china sourced bearings will getcha.

 

I've heard BorgWarner was on some Fords specifically the 3.5 I can't recall what the 2.7 has. I believe you are correct as I've heard Toyita designed and produced the turbo. There probably is some similarities to what's on a Hino, just out of familiarity with Toyota's truck design.

 

I've been seeing the new Frontiers as the mosquito and other typically Tacoma 2.7 truck replacements.

 

Let's also mention a stronger bottom end; 5 mains vs 4.