Is the 4 Cyl. more reliable?

Ha. I read the same piece back then; I'm a Jalop through and through. When the time came, I still special ordered my 2TR-FE SR 5-speed (the true Jalopnik spec).



IMO Andrew has the wrong take here, but to be fair this was pre-release of the 3rd gen and just looking at specs on paper... it does make the 2TR look a little long in the tooth, and in reality it probably is, but that was more pro than con for me in a DD truck I want to keep a while.

I also test drove a 2GR and a 2TR truck before I ordered mine. While the 4-cyl is certainly not overpowered, I wouldn't say it's underpowered with the gearing of the 5-speed. Unfortunately, that seems to be the cookie cutter perspective from a lot of guys on here with the surburbia-spec grocery-getters who've never even driven the 3G 2.7... But they also think their 2GRs are underpowered...



I've got nothing against the 2GR, it just wasn't worth the extra $7k it would have cost for an AC M/T 4x4 V6 compared to my AC M/T 4x4 I4. And since then, there's been a lot of melodrama surrounding the 2GR Taco, not so much the 2TR. I can't say I regret a thing, TBH.

 

I love my 2.7 and its 15 years old!!!!

 

I saw that article before I bought the 4 cylinder SR5. It was the first thing that popped up in the google search.

Then I saw the seemingly unending litany of complaints on the 6 cylinder engine. Then I reviewed the specs on my 2001 Ranger 6 banger engine. Once I compared the two it became clear that, for my needs, the 4 cylinder Tacoma was the comparable choice. I was just looking for a replacement for the Ranger so for me the choice was clear.

The MPG rating is accurate in regards to my real world driving experience so far. Power is "on demand" and, like my wife says I finally have a pick up with real pick up LOL.

Just go out and test drive until your heart is content. One thing I can say is that the 4 banger Taco's don't seem to last long on the lots near me. Perhaps Toyota doesn't crank out as many per year, or they sell quickly.

 

Depends if you buy it new or used.. a used 4cyl will almost always be more reliable than the used v6.. as the maintenance on the 4cy is less.. The timing chain vs the belt.. also the 4cyl models tend to have a lot less electronic crap to break, and they are also a lot easier to work on, since you have all that open space under the hood.. I would think new for new, and both taken care of by the same anal retentive enthusiast will result in similar outcome for reliability and longevity.. but if you buy a used v6 i would opt for something with the stick, and lower than 80K miles to make sure you you get the timing belt and water pump done at the right time.. otherwise the 4cyl is the choice i would go with.. I have a 4cyl, and outside of highway runs, i really have no need for the additional fuel costs, (I don't care what the book says, i am getting 26mpg highway AC/4x4/4cyl/manual) maintenance costs, or the additional purchase price.. Besides my truck will never see a dealership or any other service station for any other maintenance, as i do it all myself, so the 4cyl is just easier to work on..

 

My fleet truck is a 2.7 and my personal is a 4.0L. No issues with either. 2.7L has 150K and is idled 6 hours a day every day when it's hot out for the AC. 4.0 has been babied so of course no issues. I'm sure reliability is the same but the stress on the 2.7L is more so maybe that results in quicker wear?

 

How so?

 

Im judging by the amount of downshifting the truck does to get up to speed, the average RPMs, and the average throttle required to accelerate/ go up a hill. The 2.7L requires more throttle, higher rpms, and downshifts far more often than my 4.0L. Both trucks are auto, mine is a 15 and the fleet is a 13 and both are driven in the same county on the same roads by the same person. I figured that if you have a higher % load (i.e. stress) on the engine all the time it will wear faster

 

Oh yes I agree, definitely will be more shifts, more throttle, more pressure and more demands on the 2.7 vs the 4.0, all other things being equal. While there is no argument that the 2.7 is overbuilt, nobody can say the 2.7 is any tougher than the 4.0. But the 2.7 is definitely engineered to handle lots of abuse.

 

I think it's trivially easy to make a case that the 2.7 is far tougher than the 4.0...

4.0 is a cast aluminum open deck block:



2.7 is a cast iron closed deck:


The 2.7 is ridiculously overbuilt. Not to say the 4.0 is weak by any stretch of the imagination, but materials wise that little 4 banger is built far in excess of its operating parameters.

 

This video by Scotty Kilmer explains many of the reasons I decided on the 2.7L vs 4.0L.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGrtbd9cdEU

 

Good video.

If the inline 4 is time tested, less expensive, smaller, and uses fewer parts, then one can assume that it's more reliable, in general, than a 6 cylinder. I haven't run across any data on that, though. Specifically, I'd like to know if the 2.7L lasts longer, gets more mileage, and costs less to maintain than the 4.0. I believe the reason it's so difficult to find actual facts about the reliability of cars and trucks is because manufacturers don't want you to know. They probably make a lot more money from the sale of bigger engines.

 

I seem to remember a post from a guy who worked service at a dealership. I seem to remember he said they rarely saw 2.7s come in for any serious issues.

 

Haha I watched Scotty's video earlier as well and gotta say most of what he says lines up with my experiences with my Tacomas and 4Runners. Have had two 98 2.4L 4cy Tacomas, and one 95 3.4L V6. Also have two 2000 V6 4Runners and have done most of my repairs on them myself. Unfortunately haven't had a 2.7 engine which is more common on these boards I think. My experiences are only with the automatic versions of these engines as well haha since these are more for work then play.

Both 2.4L trucks always vibrate a lot more then my V6's which often feels eerily quiet and vibration-less even with their bigger engine in comparison. Honestly both engines are pretty darn reliable so I can't say either is better then the other, but I will say the 2.4L engines I've had to deal with more emission related issues (EGR components), and random engine noises while the 3.4 I had to deal with more things like belts, hoses, and fuel pump wearing out faster and actually being left stranded because of it. Yet to be stranded by my 4cy, but I've driven the v6's more as well and for far more heavy towing. That said the power of the v6 really makes up for things wearing faster.

In terms of actually working on the engines I far prefer working on the simpler 4cy as things are generally more accessible and often times the same job is cheaper in parts cost and easier to do on the 4cy then the v6. That is, if you exclude certain things like the fuel filter and 5lugs rotors.

MPG wise and actual driving the V6 wins out all day when I need to tow something or just want push the engine harder. 4cy is great if I only have light loads as once I try to tow something of decent size it kills the mpg and has me bottoming out the gas pedal all the time defeating the propose of the gas savings of the 4cy. Also the 4cy isn't that great at speeding/accelerating on the highway as well haha, but is certainly capable. Once again I just find myself having to floor the 4cy more then the v6 which I rarely need to.

Hope to one day get me 2.7 liter to see how it compares to the 2.4/3.4, since I imagine it may be a good middle ground. That said I tend to like the 2.4 more and am very happy with it. Its actually fun working on the 2.4 engine, while the 3.4 always feels like actual work to me.

*for context, I work as a dealer at conventions driving anywhere from 2-15hours (sometimes more) at a time with trailers ranging from 2000-5000lb every weekend.

 

Have had both the 2.7 and 4.0 in 2nd gens.

Want back in a 4 banger.

 

Good write up on your thoughts with owning both and I agree after owning both too. I owned a Nissan King cab 4x4 V6 and now a 2.7L. The V6 was more fun to drive, but I don't miss the extra maintenance and for my needs the 2.7L is fine. I have loaded over 1000 lbs of gravel and cast iron pipes in my bed and the 2.7L handled it like a champ.

 

The 3.5l is chain driven, I'm almost positive the 4.0 is chain too, I think the 3.4l was the last belt driven timing v6 in the tacos

 

I dont get how the 2.7 liter get worse MPGs than the 4.0 in my experience, interesting that Im not the only one. More evidence that the 2.7 is beating itself up to accelerate/ maintain speed. Fuelly evidence: http://www.fuelly.com/car/toyota/tacoma/2012/aweyah/720066 and http://www.fuelly.com/car/toyota/tacoma/2015/aweyah/413244

My 4.0 is lifted and has larger tires on it, a heavy camper shell, and an anti-aerodynamic front bumper, and heavy skid plates/ sliders/ bumpers.

My fleet 2.7 is bone stock with original sized KO2s

 

Didn't you say your fleet truck 2TR is idled for several hours a day? That's going to eat into fuel economy in a major way.

 

Yeah but 0.35 GPH times 4ish hours a day is only 1.5 gallons a day, at best they get the same mileage.

 

And this is the heart of the matter "I4 tougher than V6." (Thank you Early B). I'm sure the manufacturers have a database on repairs, warranty work, recalls, etc. for many of their products, and you're probably right that they don't want some of that information too easily available.

Pictures and arguments do not equal proof. Yes the I4 is overbuilt but often must work harder. The V6 is not so overbuilt but easily produces more power. So, which is more reliable? Which will last longer? Without hard evidence or real proof of some kind, we could talk about this forever.

I'm very happy with my 2006 2.7L and it really does seem like it will run forever... we will see