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

Who's BlueT? Must be some idiot I blocked already.

 

I've never felt like BlueT was being outright obnoxious and not contributing to the discussion, just don't know why he is here if he hates the gen 3 so much.

 

Thanks.

 

AFAIK The popularity of interference engines lead to more engines using chains.

I always though the main reason to use a chain or belt was noise considerations with older chains. Belts were quieter, but with modern chains the noise is pretty negligible.

A belt still has mass. What I think BlueT was trying to get at was that a timing belt has less mass and therefore, at higher operating RPMS, won't bite as hard into the guides. The problem is though that while this is true, it is only because the chain is harder that the guides, and any sprockets the chain connects, that the chain bites. The belt is softer than pulleys, so at high speeds if the belt may gain to much momentum and begin to leave the pulleys. If this happens the results are far more catastrophic than the results of a chain eating a guide.

I prefer chain over belt.

 

Please see thread title.

 

You are right I am sorry.

 

lol.

 

It's all in good fun.

 

YES, the memes are all in good fun, and that is an unspoken understanding....

 

1. I prefer chain since in the grand scheme of things, chains typically outlast belts with proper maintenance of the engine.
2. you have to replace belts a lot more often than chains (if at all)
3. if a belt breaks, usually the engine goes boom (piston hitting valve's) where as a chain they don't come in contact
4. a lot of Toyota engines are moving back to chain since people bitch about having to replace a belt after 60k miles while a chain can go 100-250k plus before it starts to stretch and retard timing.

 

If it's for towing a gooseneck yes, it's the tool for the job. However if capable to you means camping, offroad, maneuverability, QDR, and resale then the Tacoma may be for you. It is for me!

Yes I am not stating that it does not, I in fact am a proponent of decreasing drag even on trucks, except no one makes aerocaps so I can't do much

The point I am making: A truck 2000 lbs lighter SHOULD get better mileage. To be lighter does not assume worse aerodynamics, there is no reason to have unequal drag and that's why aerodynamics don't apply to what I'm saying, because they are a constant. Weight is the variable. In fact small trucks should be even more aerodynamic due to frontal area.

So if you shortened the wheel base and track width of a full size drivetrain and put a midsize truck body on it... Theoretically should it not get better mileage than they do now even with smaller engines?

Refer to previous response

 

So, getting some other torque figs on some allocation sheets. RPMS and output different. Taken from this thread: https://www.tacomaworld.com/threads/allocation-orders.380911/

 

248!!!!! 2.4.8.!!!!




What a girl motor.

 

Almost Exactly, I actually had never seen Timing belt with guides... Belt would not need them .
Otherwise, chain does bite into the guides, depending how you driven your engine your guides maybe gone or still good after 100K miles General on low rev engine, there is nothing to do with chain for at least 250k miles.
Belt, regardless how is driven it has to be replaced. Because rubber will deteriorate after some period of time. VW has Kevlar lined Timing belts (supposedly unbreakable) But they still need to be replaced at 100K intervals.
Belt will never jump a pulley unless it stretches beyond the tensioners, and those just like for drive belt have a lot of room built in so belt will brake before it jumps.
Its nice that Toyota puts chains, just I dont think chain on high rev engine is great idea, I would not buy one for sure. Belts are pain when it comes to maintenance on the end, if your engine is interference engine if either snaps, engine goes kaput.

 

No worries we will soon have Toyota apologists explaining why 248 lb-ft is even better than 261 or Colorado's 369.....
3......2.......1...... Go...

 

All those motorcycles with 10k+ rpm rev limits and their timing belts....

 

I think Toyota is just trolling us now. I bet we don't have the real figures at all.

 

Toyota doesn't use timing belts on any engines in any application anymore. They're all chains, mainly due to interference. There were only a couple of engines they used a belt on that were interference designs (such as the 3MZ-FE).

This includes all of their performance engines introduced after about 1999 (2ZZ-GE - Celica GT-S, Corolla XRS, Matrix XRS; 2UR-GSE - Lexus IS F, Lexus RC F; 1LR-GUE - Lexus LFA, etc. are all timing chains).

Haven't really seen too many issues with them wearing through timing covers or wearing out guides like the old 22R's did, etc., but I suppose it could happen. Toyota's engines back in the 1970's/80's also used plastic guides like they do these days.

Jeff

 

and...

LOL. I'm not saying there is some reason why belts don't work at all. I'm just saying that some of the advantages of belts have been over come with better chains. I prefer the chains because they work in almost all automotive applications just fine and require less maintenance. I've never had to pull the timing cover and I don't really feel like ever doing it if I can avoid it. Personally, on a bike motor, I wouldn't mind the belt because:

A) The engine is exposed so the noise is more noticeable.
B) The belt is easier to replace because the motor is exposed.
C) As things get smaller, like in a smaller engine, belts would be a better fit than a chain.