So Toyota is wussing out on the Engine, dang it. 270HP but add gearing

My point is that car engines are made to spin up and make power high in the rev range. No good for trucks. If I want a Camaro engine, I'll buy a camaro. I don't want a Highlander, or it's engine. I will keep what I have, automotive industry going right where our government is going, down the tubes. All this technology, and we can't even get a powerful truck anymore. 1000 lb ft of torque in a 3/4 and 1 ton truck, what do we get in a Tacoma, ah, a nice little car engine.

 

If the horsepower and torque numbers are 270/245-270 then why develop an all new engine when you have the 4.0 that is in the 4Runner? My wife's 2010 has been a rock solid engine and gets around 22-23 mpg on the interstate.

 

How do you know that torque will be lower?? I am really trying to find out why people keep saying this . . . is it based on fact, educated/uneducated guesses, or assumption that half a liter less displacement automatically means less torque? Unless its fact, I dont understand how people are so sure of themselves.

 

My step-dad has one, damn thing blows the doors off of my Taco...seems plenty powerful to me. Though I tend to drive like an old man...some of guys seem like you want a drag car....

 

Honestly I came from a V8 ( gen 1 and gen 2 Tundras) to the 4 banger in the tacoma, and I can honestly say that I am happy with the performance, I can easily overtake people on the highway (dropping into 3rd going 65 puts the engine in its peak powerband, easily taking me to 80mph) and the thing is a torque monster in 4lo, you just have to get out of the american mindset that you need a billion horsepower to get to the grocery store, and that the licence you got out of a cracker jack box makes you qualified to drive a machine with 400+ horsepower.

 

People want a truck that is suited for a truck so it seems like they tuned it that way if in fact that is the official hp number. And now they complain. Wait till the truck comes out before you make a opinion on it. Right now it's all speculation.

 

BlueT much???

 

Exactly but then again it's the internet so it's gotta be right:

 

Wow, that's harsh.

 

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

 

Why is the assumption that a smaller engine gets better MPG? They don't because they have to work harder to do the same work.... Now I work for Honda and the Accord 4 gets the same city MPG as the Civic and drives much better... The 4runner gets the same MPG as most 3.5 and can tow like a V8.... So there is no reason other than cost not to refresh the 4.0, it would get the same or real close MPG and tow and haul much better... Because if you don't need a truck why get one???? Get a suv that gets much better MPG..... They are being cheap and they will replace all the V6 engines with this same engine.... I get it, I just thought they would put a better tune on the truck engines.....

 

There is no such thing as a "car" engine or "truck" engine. Sure, oversquared and squared can give more high end HP and are generally used in cars, and sure undersquared engines can give more low end torque, but there are other factors that affect the output beyond the bore and stroke.

Its very easy to take a block and configure it for a desired power band. The 1st gen 5VZ is an oversquare design meaning its not a "truck" engine (as you call it). It should be making gobs of RPM's and HP yet Toyota made it into one of the best truck engines of its time. The 1GTR is a square engine, not a "truck" engine yet it seems to be the engine of choice here, contradicting your (or is it BlueT's?) "truck" engine argument. If you want a "truck" engine, get the 2.7 undersquare engine.

If the new engine does in fact make 270 (almost 30HP less than its Lexus cousin), its because Toyota designed it for low end torque. Its not the 2GR-FE as BlueT keeps trolling as we already know it has D4S (ie, the 2FR-FXE which makes 295 with full time Atkinson cycle).

You need to stop listening to BlueT's crap smearing troll campaign.

Wrong. Smaller engines tend to have less internal friction due to stroke length. It takes X amount of energy to move an object from point A to point B, regardless of the engine. Smaller engines loose less energy from the previous mentioned characteristics.

Another factor is the proper gearing. You don't want to keep the RPM's at the lowest, you want to keep them at the proper RPM depending on your engine. Each engine has a "max efficient" RPM. If you have ever driven a Prius, the CVT works very hard to keep the engine running at 2000 RPMs at all time for the maximum combustion efficiency.

 

I would have loved to see Toyota stand out from the current crowd and offer the 4.6L V8 as an option. It wouldn't cost them much to make it fit...at least they could offer the only optional V8 in a mid size truck...WHY NOT???

 

CAFE requirements. Look them up. There isn't a way to fit a V8 in a midsized truck anymore without enlarging the dimensions.

 

Glad I bought my 15...

 

I wasn't aware of the CAFE requirements on mid-sized trucks. Im curious if the same regulations apply to mid-sized SUV's? Because I still believe you can get a Hemi V8 Grand Cherokee

 

By my understanding, the full new regulations don't come into force for a few years. So you will still see some smaller vehicles with large displacement engines and poor mpg until the regulations come into force.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Average_Fuel_Economy

The Tacoma is not heavy enough to meet the cutoff, and so it must play by the same rules as a car.

 

yup go read it

 

Yeah but you don't have outside temp gauge or compass and it just says Tacoma where the clock use to be.....

I'm quite sure the 16' will have all that and more