1. Welcome to Tacoma World!

    You are currently viewing as a guest! To get full-access, you need to register for a FREE account.

    As a registered member, you’ll be able to:
    • Participate in all Tacoma discussion topics
    • Communicate privately with other Tacoma owners from around the world
    • Post your own photos in our Members Gallery
    • Access all special features of the site

A redesigned 2.7 4 cylinder, an option?

Discussion in '2nd Gen. Tacomas (2005-2015)' started by Scott K, Oct 31, 2009.

  1. Oct 31, 2009 at 12:17 PM
    #1
    Scott K

    Scott K [OP] Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2009
    Member:
    #23391
    Messages:
    107
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    Scott
    Coquitlam, BC, Canada
    Amsoil Synthetic ASL 5w30 Oil, Amsoil ATL Fuel Efficient ATF, Amsoil Severe Gear 75w90 in front/rear diffs & transfer case.
    So HOPEFULLY whether it's a full redesign, or an engine upgrade, Toyota will bump up power & fuel efficiency of the 2nd gen (or 3rd gen?) Tacoma's engines.

    Toyota seems to really limit the application of the 4 cylinder 2.7 liter 2TR engine to just access cabs and regular cabs, even though there is only a 200 pound difference between the Access Cab 4x4 and the Double Cab 4x4's. If any of you have driven 1990-95 4runners, and 1989-95 Pickups with the 3vze V6, which weigh around the same as the current Tacoma offerings (the 4runner slightly more but close enough) you will know that the 2TR, if ever offered in a Double cab 4x4 would still perform better than these previous generation trucks. I know for a fact, because I just sold my 93 4x4 Xtracab Pickup with the 3vze V6, and I have test driven an '09 Tacoma 4x4 Access cab with the 2.7 and the 2.7 performed better, and gets significantly better mileage to boot.

    But what my point is, is how Toyota, who campaigns themselves as this green car company, doesn't offer, or promote the 4 cylinder as much as they could. Yes, I understand that if the current 2.7 was offered in the Double Cab 4x4 that there would be hardly any sales as it wouldn't be the most powerful beast. But what I am getting at is Toyota has the technology to make the current 2.7 perform better if they put their minds to it. I think if they added the technologies to this engine found in the new 4.0 Dual VVT-i, or the new 4.6, or the 5.7, it would probably be pushing about 175-180 HP, and 185-190 foot pounds of torque. Not HUGE HP, but perhaps these ratings would be just enough, to make a 4x4 TAcoma Double Cab Short & Long Box a more viable option for some when you consider how good of mileage it gets. Enough to make it more driveable around town, and offer a little bit more towing grunt, but not make you have to pay the mileage penalty the V6 offers. Also, if they offered it with one more tranny gear, for example a 6 speed manual and the 5 speed auto, this would help promote it as well.

    So I ask the question, for those of you who objectively test drove the 4, and the 6, and got the 6 - if the 4 had a bit more power, would that have made your decision tougher? Would you consider the 4 if it had more power and perhaps one more transmission gear?
     
  2. Oct 31, 2009 at 12:22 PM
    #2
    Vultite

    Vultite Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2009
    Member:
    #25072
    Messages:
    36
    Gender:
    Male
    FL
    Vehicle:
    94' Ranger
    Well I'm in the market for a Taco myself, the 4 banger isn't bad on power, but the V6's MPG's isn't good enough for me. Personally, if they offered a 4 cycl diesel, I'd be all over it like a fat kid on cake.

    EDIT: Not official, but I've heard the diesel puts out 194hp, 317 torque, and gets around 28-30mpg....that's what I'm talking about..supposedly in 2010, Toyota is offering the diesel as an option, but we'll see...
     
  3. Oct 31, 2009 at 12:26 PM
    #3
    GTVAPSAMTIK

    GTVAPSAMTIK Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2009
    Member:
    #23563
    Messages:
    220
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    SOHAIL
    Fort Carson, CO
    Vehicle:
    2010 TRD OFF-ROAD 4X4 Automatic
    EXTANG Tuff WeatherTech Liners Toyota Bed Mat Coverkind Seat Covers
    When I picked up my 2010 4x4 TRD OFF ROAD. I test drove both 4cyl and 6cyl. There is noticable difference in performance between two. Since I can care less about gas and prices. I picked up 6Cyl since it offers way better performance then 4cyl. If Toyota offered Tacoma in v8, Ill still go for bigger engine.
     
  4. Oct 31, 2009 at 12:27 PM
    #4
    mcgiiver

    mcgiiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2008
    Member:
    #9329
    Messages:
    168
    Gender:
    Male
    Princeton, NJ
    Vehicle:
    2009 Access cab 4x4, 4 cyl, stick
    Aftermarket Driving Lights, Hidden Hitch, Removed rear headrests, Side protective moldings, vacuum gauge, Scan Gauge, Leer cap.
    I can't say objectively what thye differenc ebetween the 4 and the 6 are, but I am really disappointed in the lack of power in my '09 Access 2.7 ,manual, 4 x 4. My 1997 with a 2.4 in 2wd had noticely more driveable power. That being said I did not want to sacrifice mileage by getting a v6.
     
  5. Oct 31, 2009 at 12:33 PM
    #5
    gavonder

    gavonder She's Kickass!

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2007
    Member:
    #3825
    Messages:
    390
    Gender:
    Male
    Bethel, Ct
    Vehicle:
    08 TRD Sport Access Cab
    Sunroof, Leer Cap w/ Thule rack, Factory Running Boards, Fog Light Mod, Hood Struts, Scangauge, w/homemade mirror mount, AC/Defrost mod, Rear Spring TSB, TRD Center Caps
    For me, the 4 didn't get enough mpg to merit the loss of power that the 6 has. For the difference, I prefer the torque & hp of the 6 over the 4. If it had a more power and torque, AND got at least 30mpg I would have bought it.

    GA
     
  6. Oct 31, 2009 at 12:47 PM
    #6
    supralight

    supralight Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2009
    Member:
    #21479
    Messages:
    674
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    Dan
    Earth
    Vehicle:
    2013 4Runner limited
    30 mpg for this 1600kg piece of steel that has the aerodynamics of a big cube? You are dreaming.
     
  7. Oct 31, 2009 at 12:49 PM
    #7
    silverback

    silverback Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2009
    Member:
    #24802
    Messages:
    445
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    Jason
    central CA
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prerunner SR5
    painted door handles, bilstein 5100's front and back, K&N air filter. Precision power component speakers and Kenwood deck.
    You must be getting that special Iraq gas price being in the army, or their paying you guys way to much to not care about the gas prices. :D
     
  8. Oct 31, 2009 at 12:58 PM
    #8
    DanGer

    DanGer Avatar approved by 98tacomav6

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Member:
    #7155
    Messages:
    5,494
    Gender:
    Male
    Northern Virginia & Blacksburg
    Vehicle:
    07 Base 4Cyl 4x4 Manual
    White Head Light mod, White shorty antennae, Doug Thorley Long Tube headers, AFE Drop in air filter, Secondary Air Filter Removed,
    I would have still gotten the 4. I wanted the 4 for offroading and daily driver capability. The power is has is more than sufficient for me, and the lack of weight has gotten me through more then a few offroad spots where the extra weight would have gotten me sucked up in mud.
     
  9. Oct 31, 2009 at 1:33 PM
    #9
    Scott K

    Scott K [OP] Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2009
    Member:
    #23391
    Messages:
    107
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    Scott
    Coquitlam, BC, Canada
    Amsoil Synthetic ASL 5w30 Oil, Amsoil ATL Fuel Efficient ATF, Amsoil Severe Gear 75w90 in front/rear diffs & transfer case.
    Interestingly enough, I just read a thread in the 4 cyl forum where someone dyno'd a 2.7 in their Tacoma and they had 141 HP and 157 TQ @ the rear wheels, which is excellent considering I know my old 3vze 3.0 V6 in my 93 would dyno around 120-ish HP and maybe 140-150 TQ at the rear wheels according to several dyno's I saw posted at yotatech.

    I know the 3.4 5vz-fe V6 does around 155-ish on the dyno, so the current 2.7 ain't THAT bad. But if it had more HP and TQ I think it would be a more viable option, coupled with one more gear in each transmission - enough to make a 2.7 double cab 4x4 realistic potentially, if they ever chose to go that route.

    I believe the differnce is around 4 MPG currently if I'm not mistaken?
     
  10. Oct 31, 2009 at 1:38 PM
    #10
    DanGer

    DanGer Avatar approved by 98tacomav6

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Member:
    #7155
    Messages:
    5,494
    Gender:
    Male
    Northern Virginia & Blacksburg
    Vehicle:
    07 Base 4Cyl 4x4 Manual
    White Head Light mod, White shorty antennae, Doug Thorley Long Tube headers, AFE Drop in air filter, Secondary Air Filter Removed,

    First of all i doubt we will see a diesel ever, or at least for a very long time. The US emissions standards are whats standing between us and a perfect midsize truck. Unless they do some serious R&D which will be very costly and the end product will most likely steal sales from the tundras, I doubt we will ever see it. Once I pay mine off I might try and find a wrecked truck or something and swap a VW engine in
     
  11. Oct 31, 2009 at 1:40 PM
    #11
    Scott K

    Scott K [OP] Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2009
    Member:
    #23391
    Messages:
    107
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    Scott
    Coquitlam, BC, Canada
    Amsoil Synthetic ASL 5w30 Oil, Amsoil ATL Fuel Efficient ATF, Amsoil Severe Gear 75w90 in front/rear diffs & transfer case.
    I'm not the one talking Diesel - I'm talking about a 2.7 Liter Gas engine.
     
  12. Oct 31, 2009 at 1:47 PM
    #12
    DanGer

    DanGer Avatar approved by 98tacomav6

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Member:
    #7155
    Messages:
    5,494
    Gender:
    Male
    Northern Virginia & Blacksburg
    Vehicle:
    07 Base 4Cyl 4x4 Manual
    White Head Light mod, White shorty antennae, Doug Thorley Long Tube headers, AFE Drop in air filter, Secondary Air Filter Removed,
    I understand, but I dont think we will see much improvements. They may improve the engine and keep it in the same models, but I don't think the improved gas mileage will be very appealing to people looking to buy a double cab pick up. It seems the era of 4 banger trucks is dying, and anyone who wants a truck will most likely not have mpgs high on their priority list.

    However I do see merit in your argument. I am sure even with the exaisting engine and the right gears you could make an acceptable doublecab option.
     
  13. Nov 1, 2009 at 11:01 AM
    #13
    Yota1

    Yota1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Member:
    #17777
    Messages:
    291
    Gender:
    Male
    I opted for the 2.7 over the 4.0. But it had to be stick. Overall i am very happy with my choice, i do not tow, but will get a small utility trailer soon. I do very low miles per year as I have a company ride I take home. I don't race, and this truck scoots along pretty well. It is also cheaper, but not by a whole lot.

    now had I needed the extra hp and tq, i would have thought about it, but for what this truck is used for, this works for me.

    so far the mileage has been great, and i have had only 2 fill ups. it gets better on each tank.
     
To Top