4 Cyl?

Go back through the older pages until you find threads by "Moe2o4" about cruise control or intermittent wiper mods. These will have detailed instructions with pictures and part numbers to accomplish the upgrades. Looks to be a simple task. As I recall, the cruise control switch is $67 (a steal), as the cruise control great! Let us know how it turns out and send a thanks out to Moe as he is a great pioneer beating a path forward for the "economically minded."

 

Thanks man, i always appreciate all the compliments!!!

 

A 4cyl stick shift will always hold its value, it's cheap to begin with it proven and reliable. A child could maintain it. A 2.7 is a big 4banger it's got plenty of power, but it's a truck engine. Designed for work, you have to understand that from the go. The us isn't the biggest supporter of these tiny engine, but the demand is out there. Even a totaled 4cyl 5 speed with a fvcken up title, some African will buy it at the auction, send it to Jabipp and they'll run it for 300,000 more miles!

 

+1

 

I totally get the gas perspective but that didn't do it for me it was either buy a truck that has a Bulletproof motor that has been proven or buy a brand new v6 that just came out and after seeing all the problems with them I'm glad I went with the 4!!!!

 

I've got the 4 cylinder and it's a gutless wonder but still really fun to drive.

 

There are differences that are related to the quality of labor and suppliers. This was particularly a problem with older Tacoma's being assembled at NUMMI with Dana frames. NUMMI, as you will recall, was the GM plant in california. Dana did a bad job on rust proofing the frames, and as a result, lost their shirts, and now there is a recall on 2005-2008 Tacoma.

Another very serious supplier problem is with the CLUTCHES used in 4-cyl Tacoma. If you are lucky, you get an AISIN (Toyota), if you are unlucky, you get a LUK (german, made in mexico) which starts slipping at around 10k miles.

 

The key there, is of course, the word "think".
Also note that #1 is caused by #2.

The comparison is against something that is actually beneficial though. The problem in America, is that there seems to be a (large) subset of the population that believes the former to be an adequate substitute for the latter.

It isn't.

I will use marketing as an example.
Big truck with a big V8 is like putting up a highway billboard that says "Call ###-###-####... Hung like a horse."
Actually BEING hung like a horse is like (sorry for the unfortunate term...) viral marketing.

The term "viral marketing" describes how knowledge of something spreads by word of mouth.
The problem with the highway billboard, is that the TRUTH spreads virally when it doesn't match reality.

 

Sorry for your loss.
What was the motive for switching? Cab size?

 

Yep. If I could hit the reset button, I'd go back to a AC 2.7l 5-speed. The TRD Sport just isn't $8K more truck, IMO. I also find that the 13 extra inches of wheelbase make for a truck that makes it harder to get around in the woods, and didn't care for the 6 speed in the V6.

 

Your message is lost in your confusing wording.

 

Making a more rust resistant frame is not magic. Any competent frame maker can do it......if it's specified. The new frames are of hardened steel. Hardened steel is more rust resistant. Had Toyota wanted to make a similar change years ago, they could have. Rust prevention is a concern for car makers only up to the mandated requirements that all car makers have to abide by. There is little a frame maker can do for long term rust protection if it is not specified. It's up to the car maker to specify the requirements and then check the part for meeting them.

As far as the parts you stated, I am sure that is true. But it is not always. There is/was a subcontractor near us that I had a snow plowing contract for, who built engine parts for a variety of makes including Nissan and Ford among others. They were making engine parts for the two different manufacturers whose part measures were identical but they had different specs as far as burnishing the surfaces which resulted in better cooling of the engine part. The Nissan part require the xtra labor, the Ford part specified not. When the company offered Ford the better part for the same money to save retooling costs during manufacturing, Ford not only refused, but told the company that if they did supply the superior part, they would take their business elsewhere on the next order. Parts are ordered by spec, price and shipping convenience and often, two companies differ only by price and shipping convenience, not the ability to make a superior part.

 

Reading all the 4 cylinder bashing on these forums makes me laugh... Cheap and reliable is more than enough for some of us... Kind of like when I bought my dirtbike (Yamaha TTR230 - 4 stroke) when all my buddies bought high-powered 2 stroke race bikes and busted my chops because mine was slow. The biggest difference to me was that mine started everytime and never broke down while theirs required constant maintenance and needed pushed back to the trucks on more than a few occasions... Same thing with my preference to fish from a kayak rather than a boat. My boat-owning buddies laugh sometimes but mine doesn't cost me a dime to maintain and I never miss half the fishing season with mine in the shop... I've just got nothing to prove and hate spending unnecessary time and money on crap I don't need... pretty simple really

 

I got a 2016 4 cylinder access cab. I can't race a mule with it. Hell, with the bigger wheels and tires it will barely go 65 on the freeway. It's going to be really reliable and get me from point A to B for many years to come.

 

Point A to B is all we are really buying in the end. Based on the history of this truck it is reasonable to expect that a 4 cyl will do that job longer than the 6. Although both are damn good in the longevity department as long as you don't live in the salt belt.

 

i just messaged the guy that made yours to see if he can make me a stormtrooper edition SR decal

something like this

 

Sweet man!!!

 

The fours are excellent motors compared to other car maker's fours. But, if a Toyota four and a Toyota 4.0 six are used exactly the same way, smart money is on the six. In today's cars, it's much harder to abuse motors with the computer mnitoring everything. In general, if a Toyota six fails before the four in the same number of miles, it has been asked to work much harder by a accelerating faster, cruising faster, towing more and carrying more cargo. So, if you tow your utility trailer on weekends 3 miles to the dump while a friend's six is towing a 5 K uhaul cross country at 70 mph all the time, you may have a case.

 

Working harder typically is NOT what kills a well designed engine. The weakness of the 4.0 is in the area of added complexity, and one of those added complexities is in the area of lubrication. I've seen suggestion that at least some of the earlier 1GR-FE engines suffered poor lubrication to the driver's side head area, causing complete self destruction. While I haven't heard about engines dying in this manner in quite a long time, it at least illustrates the point.

 

Some of the worse motors made have been fours. Added complexity causing an inferior engine just isn't the case with Toyota motors. We are talking about a motor that has changed little in 11 years. The motor is in he same family as the 3.5. You can expect greater reliability using a six at the upper limit rating of the four. A contractor towing the rated 3500 daily, would expect less trouble with the six.

"Working harder is not what kills a well designed engine. " That is an absolutely false statement.
Nearly all mechanical devices have shorter life expectancies working harder and given the same maintenance.