2.7 Taco at altitude

Yeah... i remember that thread.

 

My '97 2.7 MT 4WD (sig pic) was adequate in CO and UT. Minimum altitude in all of its travels in those states was 5300ft. 5th gear was useless on I-70 between Glenwood Springs and St George UT, just didn't have the power to maintain speed. Hummed along pretty good in 4th though, did fine in 3rd climbing Vail and Ike. Would grind along pretty good in 4lo offroad hillclimbing at 10k+ft.

When I bought the 2012 in Englewood at 5300ft I originally bought a 2.7l 4WD AC MT, noticed the extra weight immediately on the test drive. Bought it anyway (great price), kept it two days and 83 miles.

I really wanted to like the 2.7 but we were planning on a shell and a 3200lb travel trailer and realized the 2.7l wouldn't make the grades. Took it back to the dealer for a 4.0l 4WD AC MT. Since then I moved on to the 4.7l's and auto trans for towing at altitude. Any NA engine will lose power at altitude so I just kept upgrading displacement.

 

I told the truth there and got the
(you have insufficient privileges to post here) memorandum

 

Probably has already been said, but if you ask the question then you already have your answer: get the V6. Those that know enough to ask it are likely to have their expectations disappointed by the 2.7; those that don't know to ask it will likely be happy to have whatever truck they have.

 

4 banger's fine if you're okay with a Softopper instead of a fiberglass truck cap.

 

I’m actually ok with my fiberglass cap and RTT, but the one time I tried towing a 5x8 moving trailer up into the mountains (loaded with stuff for my wedding) it dogged way down, not going to make a habit of that.

 

Oh I’m quite certain the 3.5 will beat the HP & torque of the 2.7 at those rpm’s, my point was you have to compare apples to apples. Can’t just take the HP & Torque at different rpms for comparison was my point. Having said that what’s up with the wimpy torque and HP of the 3.5 stock tune at 2500 rpm in the dyno chart in the link you posted? Something doesn’t seem right there, the 2.7 second gen torque at 2500 rpm exceeds that handily from the dyno chart I’ve seen for it. I don’t believe that chart for the stock tune in the low end. No way a “tune” would fix that like the chart shows.

 

I'm sure the v6 will last just as long haahaa im just being a hater

 

IMO, i think the 2.7 engine has enough power, the problem is the shift points in the transmission in drive. You can get better response by shifting in S mode, and you can also use ECT (tow mode) for better response.

 

2GR-FKS switches to Atkinson cycle under low load. The strange part of the dyno recording is probably the end of Atkinson cycle (around 3250 RPM). So anything before that is low due to Atkinson cycle. If I am remembering correctly, there are ways to prevent the engine from switching to AC, as I have seen dynos for it that look normal. But I cant find them now and finding a decent dyno curve for 3.5 is so difficult for some reason. There is one given in link below, in that case HP looks okay, but torque curve is a mess (it might be because they used an auto truck for dyno).

https://www.offroadxtreme.com/features/car-features/2016-toyota-tacoma-trd-off-road-review/

Note that this dyno starts reading from ~3k RPM. So the dyno probably has higher resistance and puts more load on the engine (so tires can only start spinning the dyno after 3k RPM). This would prevent the ECU from switching to Atkinson cycle.

 

That is why i really enjoy my premium SFOB tune. Its full otto cycle, it drives like a completely different animal and mpgs are the same. Go figure. Thank you Mr. OV tune!
Overall it drives better and actually the engine starts quicker, which i found very interesting.

IMHO this simulated atkinson cycle is garbge. Does not save you any fuel, yet you loose torque at low rpms. The constant switching between otto and atkinson puts extra stress on the engine IMO.

The simulated atminson works better with a hybrid, since it gets help from electric motor at low rpm, but not on a regular ICE vehicle.

 

That or i just really don't care to look them up to prove a point i don't really care much about. I just don't take a car engine personal lol

 

essentially a Govt mandate

over time models must show an improvement in the EPA shed

8-10 auto trans arent for performance

they are representaive of the quest to get better if NOT reasonable MPG

small wonder Volkswagen cheated

 

the 6 is just funner, plain and simple,the 4 is probably the "smart" choice if you're more of an ant than a grasshopper, but life's too short to be responsible about torque.

 

V6 with the tune is a beast, a lot of fun.

 

2.7 5MT but with 5.29's

 

What's your top speed with 5.29's? What size tire do you have?

 

Running 265/75/16 Patagonia MT's which run a tad larger. They're just shy of 32'', I've only had up to 80ish around 3400rpm or so. (I think, ive only done that once passing someone being an ass in the passing lane and im still breaking them in) and mines a 5 speed though, so take all that with a grain of salt