The Blurry Future of the Mid-Size Truck Segment?

The 2nd ugliest vehicle GM has produced.

 

That 4.7 was only making 280 hp in its prime. Would u be able to feel a difference of 45 HP with added weight? Seems like FI would be more logical, cost effective, better mileage and out perform the 4.7 IMHO.

 

They aren't man... I had an '03 and the Tundra was quite a bit larger, both bed capacity and room in the cab.
The Tundra Double-Cab added still more room to the bed and cab by making the walls taller... and overall the truck's height was increased so even with a topper the bed held more. The Tundra Double-Cab was the same front end and dash as the Sequoia... it was about two inches taller.

See this quote from Bobbb posted a few days ago....

That's 32.5 sq/ft of bed area compared to 26.6 in the Tacoma.
Even with the bed sides being over an inch shorter, the Tundra's 45.2 cubic feet STILL beat the new Tacoma's 43.4 (not factoring in the wheelwells on either, Tacoma would lose more ground if I did but I don't have all 3 measurements for the wheel wells, but Tacoma wheel wells are just over 7" wide and Tundra was just under 6" wide).

Interior?

Tundra SR5 Access Cab 4WD
Standard Seating 5
Optional Seating 6
Front Headroom (in.) 40.30
Rear Headroom (in.) 37.00
Front Legroom (in.) 41.50
Rear Legroom (in.) 29.60
Front Shoulder Room (in.) 62.40
Rear Shoulder Room (in.) 63.20
Front Hip Room (in.) 59.30
Rear Hip Room (in.) 56.60


Tacoma Access Cab V6 4X4
Standard Seating 4
Optional Seating N/A
Front Headroom (in.) 40.00
Rear Headroom (in.) 35.20
Front Legroom (in.) 41.70
Rear Legroom (in.) 28.20
Front Shoulder Room (in.) 57.70
Rear Shoulder Room (in.) 57.70
Front Hip Room (in.) 53.60
Rear Hip Room (in.) 53.60


5" wider inside, more rear seat leg room, more hip and shoulder room, 5-6 passenger compared to 4....

The Tundra was significantly bigger in ALL dimensions other than bed wall height and front leg room.
And the headroom/legroom numbers are deceiving. The Tundra had a higher seating position than the Tacoma. Your butt was a good 2" higher than in the Tacoma, so even though the headroom numbers are comparable at 40.3, the cab was actually taller and your legs were in a more natural "chair" position rather than the more stretched out passenger car position.

 

That little 4.7 was a DOHC Lexus screamer. It loved high RPM and delivered a solid 16-18mpg.
Hang a trailer on it and you'd feel it, even a simple 3-rail dirtbike trailer... bit I never had any complaints.

280hp... that's 1hp per cubic inch. Back in the 60s and 70s, that was a GOAL for hotrodders. My '67 Chevelle had a 283 (4.7) and only made 195hp.
The 5.7 in my '95 Suburban only made 200hp.
And in '67 they measured at the crank... today they measure at the rear wheels.

 

That is the redesign? It's a freaking minivan, I would rather own a ridgeline...



They should have stuck with this ^

And looking at chevys website, all the cars seem to have that kind of front end

 

As is the 4.0 right 236 HP ~244 CI? I'm asking with the weight difference with thoae 2 extra cylinders if u would notice the gains, since they say the fronty's power is about that but unnoticed since it weighs more than the Taco. I'm just sayin a turbo set up is gonna weigh less than 100lbs and deliver around 100 added HP safely with minimal invasion. A SC WILL WEIGH even less and can add a good deal as well.

 

Also, I read on a 355nation that the new Colorado will be a diesel made from the duramax. Maybe Toyota will put out something the combat this and finally give you dezil flappers something to do your business to

 

The engine's "personality" is all about the bore and stroke.

The 302 from the '69 Z28 used a crank with a 3" stroke from the 265/283 and the 4" bore from the 327. High RPM screamer, better racing performance than the longer stroke 327.
327 block with another quarter inch on the stroke and you got the classic 350 (5.7).

Like I said... my '03 was a screamer. I never found it lacking for power under any circumstances... and the Tundra was about 300 pounds heavier than a V6 Tacoma... not a huge difference in weight between the 4.0 and 4.7 given the Tundra was a larger overall truck.
Also remember that the 4.7 had a timing belt with plastic front covers. The 4.0 is chain driven with aluminum front covers.

What's the smaller Tundra V8 available now? 4.6 with 310hp?
I'd likely put that one in a Tacoma body rather than the 4.7.
4.7 had a belt, and it's an interference engine.

But stuffing either V8 into the Tacoma is going to be tight. The engine compartment is quite a bit smaller, hood is not nearly as long.

 

Sema put a 5.7 in one so it would doable. I am pretty impressed by the 4.6 number but still not even over the trd SC with 2.8 pulley, and as u mentioned no space issue. I don't think Ur arguing with me just saying thing in a different way from a different point of view and different dialect. Anyway, at the end of the day we drive the best midsized truck in this hemisphere.

 

I'm just a little shy on SC technology. For one thing, you need to stick with premium fuel, while a normally aspirated engine will run on regular.
But it's another belt, more electronic controls... in short, a lot more to break down.

Great for performance, but for a commuter/DD, I'm more comfortable with more cubic inches.

 

Pretty sound logic. And i suppose mpg is gonna go down with any FI because Ur gonna boost from time to time (or more) atleast to the point that The price of premium will offset the difference.

 

Good looking truck, square it up in the front and Americans would buy it.

 

I would buy it.

2.2L XL Double Cab 4x4, 6MT in white with a 6' bed please.