Where did the 3.5l Atkinson originate from?

From a commuter car

 

Why would you have to set the timing? Lol unless you're removing the timing chain there is no need to ever touch the timing of a modern engine.

 

Valve timing or spark timing? They're 2 different things. Every engine has to have valve timing set.

I'm not well versed in the spark timing of newer Toyotaengines, but I would assume there is still a set place you have to initially set the crankshaft so the ECU can adjust the timing for various conditions.

 

I was originally thinking about valve timing...but I don't pretend to be a mechanic. I was also thinking further down the road when these Taco's get older, since I plan on keeping mine forever.

 

Setting the timing chain is slightly difficult if you don't have the factory marks on the chain and access to good literature. The older 2GR's you had to tilt your head at a specific angle to look at the marks in relation to the cam shaft housing.

Also you need to ensure the cam shaft sprockets are "locked" and you need to simulate oil pressure to the cam shaft with compressed air.

The 2GR's when transversed were really reliable, the worst problem they had was timing cover leaks, but we haven't seen more than a handful leak on this new D4S generation.

I always joke with my co-workers that I have the "minivan engine" I really wish they kept the name 1GR

 

Here now... Let me adjust that for you . . .

 

I am Neegan. Neegan is me.

 

My mom has a 2008 Rav4 with 150K miles on the 2GR-FE, the wifey drives an IS350 with 100K on the 2GR-FSE - both of these engines have been bulletproof (knock on wood) with us having to replace just the starter thus far (side note: which is somewhat of a pain because it's under the intake manifold, of all places, on the IS) I have just hit 40K on my 2016 taco with no engine issues (again knock on wood) driving it in all imaginable conditions and always having a load of a few hundred pounds in the bed - rack, tent, bedslide, tools...

 

The engines in the Tacos are just an evolution of the same architecture they've been using since the 4.0L came out.

 

Let me start by saying that the drivetrain on this truck, so far, is disappointing. But, I think that's mostly due to the pairing of this engine to the transmission they chose (combined with poor programming).

The engine itself seems plenty powerful and can tow more than the older model. It revs higher but not by much. You guys are acting like it needs 2k more rpm to get going.

If this thing was paired with a transmission that didn't suck I think everyone would be pumped about the engine.

 

I have to disagree With everyone complaining about the transmission and motor combination... power is there if you need it, just push the pedal some more and it will go right on down the road. If you drive it light footed... unlike other cars, it will hold very low rpm and allow you to drive economically without focusing on it. I drive the same roads everyday and go out to town every weekend. Never lead foot it, and it gets a fuel fill up on the same rotation that my 2017 Toyota Camry 2.5l did. That's extremely impressive considering the tacomas tank isn't that much larger... I see at least a happy 25mpg average from the Tacoma and smile at our power trains for that reason. Trd exhaust, trd intake flow accelerator... air dam removed with larger a/t tires and fn 5 star wheels. I wonder more importantly how reliable our transmission will be now that I know the motors are gonna be pretty solid from there past history.

 

I agree. I think it is adequate for a mid size pick up and I am glad Toyota used this combination for power and economy. The power is there if you need it, this thing is by no means a slug...If reliability proves true, there is no reason to complain.

 

well, no reason for you guys to complain, that is. for many of us, especially the MT operators around here, the motor's driveability is what's off. it's not a matter of if it will go down the road, but a lack of driver feel and access to power when you need it, which translates toa lack of driver engagement and confidence.

for MT drivers engagement and confidence are the big things that make it worth so much money and effort to get one of these trucks. weird and inaccessible performance in many or most conditions is not a positive thing, and there's some of the complaints from the MT guys anyways. AT guys have other issues, God bless them.

 

100k is pretty easy for most engines these days, its when you reach the 200k and beyond mark the real test begins.

 

800 rpm difference is a bit. Still you really need the torque and power graphed to compare because the problem is low rpm operation. Part of the problems may very well just be in the programming. Maybe even in gas pedal to throttle plate operation.

 

I agree, pretty much any modern engine is going to make it too 100k easy these days if cared for. I don't doubt our 3.5 will last forever.

Whether it has enough power I don't know. Something is definitely screwy with the engine/trans/programing. 0-40 mph is ridiculous. I shouldn't have to stomp the peddle to the floor and make the engine scream to get up to 40 in a decent amount of time. I drive any other vehicle and I'm at 40 before I even have a chance to check the speedometer. And living in the city, I live under 40 most of the time. Every other vehicle does it effortlessly and this truck feels like I'm towing a trailer.

I don't think it's the engine itself. Things just aren't working together correctly. The inconsistency of it all tells me that. I could get in my truck and take off no problem. About 2 minutes after driving it tires out.

 

Try driving it with the traction control off with ECT on. and reply to your post and let me know how it drive under 40.

 

I'll give the traction control a try to experiment, that is not something I'd would do regularly. I've used ECT several times and it's not a pleasant drive, too touchy and jerky.

There is no reason the powertrain on a modern truck should not be smooth as silk. If Ford can do it so can Toyota.

 

Atkinson cycle, as I understand it, was usually used in hybrid vehicles since acceleration was being aided by an electric motor and the sluggishness was less of an impact. Here, more so, which is an unusual decision IMO.